Functional analyses and treatment of precursor behavior

Functional analysis has been demonstrated to be an effective method to identify environmental variables that maintain problem behavior. However, there are cases when conducting functional analyses of severe problem behavior may be contraindicated. The current study applied functional analysis procedures to a class of behavior that preceded severe problem behavior (precursor behavior) and evaluated treatments based on the outcomes of the functional analyses of precursor behavior. Responding for all participants was differentiated during the functional analyses, and individualized treatments eliminated precursor behavior. These results suggest that functional analysis of precursor behavior may offer an alternative, indirect method to assess the operant function of severe problem behavior.     

Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment with functional communication training

We evaluated four methods for increasing the practicality of functional communication training (FCT) by decreasing the frequency of reinforcement for alternative behavior. Three participants whose problem behaviors were maintained by positive reinforcement were treated successfully with FCT in which reinforcement for alternative behavior was initially delivered on fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedules. One participant was then exposed to increasing delays to reinforcement under FR 1, a graduated fixed-interval (FI) schedule, and a graduated multiple-schedule arrangement in which signaled periods of reinforcement and extinction were alternated. Results showed that (a) increasing delays resulted in extinction of the alternative behavior, (b) the FI schedule produced undesirably high rates of the alternative behavior, and (c) the multiple schedule resulted in moderate and stable levels of the alternative behavior as the duration of the extinction component was increased. The other 2 participants were exposed to graduated mixed-schedule (unsignaled alternation between reinforcement and extinction components) and multiple-schedule (signaled alternation between reinforcement and extinction components) arrangements in which the durations of the reinforcement and extinction components were modified. Results obtained for these 2 participants indicated that the use of discriminative stimuli in the multiple schedule facilitated reinforcement schedule thinning. Upon completion of treatment, problem behavior remained low (or at zero), whereas alternative behavior was maintained as well as differentiated during a multiple-schedule arrangement consisting of a 4-min extinction period followed by a 1-min reinforcement period.     

Does teaching an omnibus mand preclude the development of specifying mands?

When problem behavior is controlled by a synthesized reinforcement contingency, a simple omnibus mand that yields access to all reinforcers simultaneously has been shown to effectively replace problem behavior. The question arises as to whether teaching an omnibus mand will preclude the acquisition of specifying mands for each of the combined reinforcers. In this study, after 3 students diagnosed with autism acquired an omnibus mand (“My way, please”) that yielded all identified reinforcers simultaneously, specifying mands (e.g., “All done,” “May I have my toys?” “Play with me”) were taught to yield each individual reinforcer (e.g., escape, tangibles, attention). Problem behavior was immediately eliminated for all children, and the omnibus mand was acquired quickly. Teaching an omnibus mand did not preclude acquisition of specifying mands for any learner and instead allowed for the acquisition of specifying mands once problem behavior had been effectively reduced.