LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Comparisons of standardized and interview-informed synthesized reinforcement contingencies relative to functional analysis.

We compared the functions of problem behavior identified by (a) a functional analysis (FA), (b) an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA) that was informed by the results of an open-ended… Click to show full abstract

We compared the functions of problem behavior identified by (a) a functional analysis (FA), (b) an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA) that was informed by the results of an open-ended interview and a structured observation, and (c) a standardized-synthesized contingency analysis (SSCA) in which we synthesized three common functions of problem behavior across 12 individuals in a controlled consecutive case series. We then compared outcomes across assessments. The FA was sufficient in identifying the variables maintaining problem behavior for 11 of the 12 participants, replicating the findings of Fisher, Greer, Romani, Zangrillo, and Owen (2016). Error type (i.e., false positives, false negatives) and error prevalence were similar across functions identified by the IISCA and the SSCA, calling into question the utility of the open-ended interview and the structured observation that informed the IISCA.

Keywords: interview; analysis; interview informed; problem behavior; functional analysis; informed synthesized

Journal Title: Journal of applied behavior analysis
Year Published: 2019

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.