Functional Analysis for Problem Behavior

Overview of the Study

• The study compares positive and negative reinforcement for treating escape-maintained behavior.
• Functional (escape) and nonfunctional (edible) reinforcers were compared in treating escape-maintained problem behavior for 5 subjects.
• The first treatment involved compliance, resulting in a break from instructions (negative reinforcement).
• The second treatment involved compliance, resulting in a small edible item (positive reinforcement).
• Escape extinction was not included in either treatment.
• Positive reinforcement was effective for treating escape-maintained problem behavior for all 5 subjects.
• Negative reinforcement was ineffective for 3 of the 5 subjects.
• The study explores implications and future directions for using positive reinforcers in treating escape behavior.
• Keywords include autism, compliance, differential reinforcement, and escape behavior.

Background and Significance

• Functional analysis methodology has increased using function-based treatments over arbitrarily selected ones.
• Functional analysis provides information for developing treatments that weaken the relationship between problem behavior and maintaining consequences.
• Functional analysis also strengthens the relationship between appropriate behavior and the same consequences.
• Function-based treatments have been developed for both socially reinforced behavior and automatically reinforced behavior. These treatments often use the reinforcer that maintained problem behavior in the past.
• Escape-maintained problem behavior is frequently addressed with noncontingent escape (NCE), differential reinforcement (DR), or escape extinction (EE).
• EE is often used with other procedures, but has limitations like requiring physical guidance, which may be undesirable, dangerous, or impossible.
• Researchers have sought alternative interventions not requiring physical interaction.
• A unique aspect of escape-maintained behavior treatment is the potential for an inherent competing alternative behavior (compliance).
• Previous studies show contingent positive reinforcers for compliance and noncontingent positive reinforcers can decrease problem behavior while increasing compliance.

Prior Research

• Lalli and Casey (1996) observed that problem behavior was impacted by various factors, such as introducing a task and removing enjoyable activities for a young boy with developmental delays.
• Delivering praise, toys, breaks, and social interaction upon compliance was most effective.
• This suggests that reinforcing compliance might shift response allocation despite continued availability of escaping.
• A line of research began to evaluate conditions under which compliance reinforcement might address negatively reinforced problem behavior while maintaining the contingency for problem behavior.
• Piazza et al. (1997) compared the effects of positive and negative reinforcement with and without extinction on escape-maintained behavior
• A break contingent on compliance increased compliance and decreased problem behavior for only one participant without extinction.
• Adding positive reinforcement contingent on compliance resulted in a more immediate suppression of problem behavior for two participants.
• Extinction for problem behavior was necessary to produce high levels of compliance and low levels of problem behavior for one participant.
• Piazza et al. demonstrated that adding a tangible item during escape was more effective than escape alone when extinction was not present.
• Positive reinforcers without escape may be effective at reducing problem behavior.
• Lalli et al. (1999) and Carter (2010) directly compared contingent positive and negative reinforcement by teaching compliance with edible items or breaks.
• Problem behavior resulted in escape throughout both evaluations.
• Positive reinforcement across subjects was more effective at reducing problem behavior and increasing compliance with task demands than negative reinforcement.
• Demands every 30 seconds rather than continuously might have affected results.
• The least-to-most prompting hierarchy with 10s interprompt intervals might have compromised data interpretation because prompt strategies included breaks.
• Breaks in instructions might have reduced motivation to access breaks and decreased escape behavior.
• Controlling intertrial intervals by minimizing breaks is needed.
• Lalli et al. and Carter (2020) primarily used reversal designs.

Further Considerations

• Negative reinforcement contingencies might be effective for treating problem behavior only when the positive reinforcement condition preceded the negative reinforcement condition.
• Using positive reinforcement to treat escape-maintained problem behavior has potential benefits.
• Delivering positive reinforcers may be less disruptive and that teachers or practitioners might prefer delivering edible items or tokens rather than breaks.
• Positive reinforcers would influence the establishing operation for escape during aversive stimulation and that escape behavior might be less likely to occur.
• Demonstrated efficacy of positive reinforcement to treat escape-maintained problem behavior without extinction holds great promise for application.
• Additional research is warranted that directly compares positive and negative reinforcement while controlling discussed variables.

Current Study Aims

• The current study seeks to extend previous research, comparing positive and negative reinforcement in the absence of EE while treating problem behavior maintained by escape from demands.

Methodological Details

• The study involved subjects referred to the Behavior Analysis Research Clinic or who attended a local school for individuals with disabilities.
• The first identified five participants whose functional analyses indicated problem behavior maintained by escape participated.
• The subjects included four boys and one girl ranging in age from 4 to 8 years old.
• Experimenters conducted sessions in small rooms with one-way observation panels.
• Milo's sessions occurred in a blocked-off area of a larger room to address vocal stereotypy.
• During the sessions the room only contained edible items or instructional materials to be used.

Response Definitions & Interobserver Agreement

• Clear definitions for problem behavior are presented in Table 1, including aggression, vocal protests, hair pulling, etc.
• All blocked attempts at harmful behavior were scored as problem behavior.
• Compliance was scored if the subject engaged in the topographically correct response after a vocal or model-plus-vocal prompt.
• Interobserver agreement was scored using a proportional agreement method where the smaller number of observed instances was divided by the larger number.
• 100% agreement was scored if both observers recorded no behavior.
• Agreement data were collected across 26% to 58% of sessions, averaging 94% to 97% across subjects.

Functional Analysis

• Functional analysis (prior to treatment) involved 5-min sessions based on Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994).
• Not all subjects experienced all conditions determined by anecdotal evidence.
• The sessions were multi-element (sessions conducted for each group were displayed in a graph).
• The no-interaction condition involved the subject and experimenter in the session room with no materials, where the experimenter did not engage with the subject.
• During the attention condition, the experimenter sat with materials and the subject had access to a tangible item.
• If problem behavior occurred the experimenter gave a brief attention reprimand.
• During tangible sessions, experimenter began the session by saying “I have some work to do; play with your toy”.
• Contingent on problem behavior, experimenter provided access to items for 20 to 30 seconds.
• Edible items were used for Braiden and Milo, while a leisure item was given for Ali.
• During play sessions (control), experimenters provided continuous access to a tangible item and attention, with no demands or consequences.
• Appropriate instructions for demand conditions were identified by parent/teacher reports or direct observation, where the experimenter delivered instructions continuously.
• A three-step prompt procedure was used beginning with vocal prompt, then vocal and model, then physical guidance. Praise given after correct responses.
• Incorrect responses within 3s produced progression through prompting hierarchy, where experimenters issued instructions immediately after physical prompt.
• If problem behavior occurred at any point the experimenter provided 30s of escape.

Treatment Comparison

• Treatment comparison data were collected using visual-inspection.
• The experiment group involved four or more analysists who examined the data to determine behavioral function.
• Subject eligible involved negative reinforcement by means of ecape participating in the treatment comparison group.
• Two treatments were compared using a reversal design embedded within a multielement design.
• The 5-min sessions included a distinct group of prompts to help with discrimination.
• Demands included functional analysis condition for all subjects
• Baseline phase, we incorporated a 3-second intertrial interval (ITI) between instructions to control for delivery time in the positive reinforcement condition.
• Edible items, not leisure items because consumption of edibles did not compete.

Findings

• Positive reinforcement resulted in decreased problem behavior and increased compliance for all subjects
• The data from the first test subjects provided a stronger case for positive reinforcement, while tests on the second test group suggested it took longer for positive reinforcement to have the same effect
• Across 5 test subjects the rate of problem behavior was 2.4 in baseline, 0.5 in the positive reinforcement group, and 1.3 in the negative reinforcement group, meaning treatment resulted in 79% reduction vs 48 %
• 11% compliance in beginning baseline, 54.8% with positive reinforcement, and only 22.8% with negative
• Positive treatment reduced likelihood of destructive behavior

Discussion

• Positive reinforcement decreased problem behavior for all subjects in the form of getting edibles.
• Only Stephen and Nicholas had a decrease in problem behavior when getting negative reinforcement relative to their baseline.
• Compliance increased for all test subjects with the positive strategy
• All but two (Stephen and Braiden) increased their compliance moderately, but Nicholas, Milo and Ali had a large increase for level of compliance compared to their first testing
• Ultimately positive reinforcement had a significant effect on most if not all test subjects

Limitations

• Multielement design results in carryover effects during treatment, resulting in more carryover effects during treatment, but clear differentiation across the conditions
• EE extinction implementations are difficult due to negative side effects which are often not feasible
• Test subjects received more instructions due to the nature of the reinforcement strategy, but increased chances for learning
• Subjects with both tangible and escape functions had better results during positive treatment
• Shorter and longer sessions, and no testing for generalization

Explore functional analysis-based treatments for problem behavior, focusing on methods beyond escape extinction. Understand the role of positive reinforcement and compliance measurement. Learn the importance of function-based treatments.