INTERVIEW-INFORMED SYNTHESIZED CONTINGENCY ANALYSES:THIRTY REPLICATIONS AND REANALYSIS

JOSHUA JESSELWESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY AND CHILD STUDY CENTER

AND

GREGORY P. HANLEY AND MAHSHID GHAEMMAGHAMI

WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY

The speed with which a functional analysis (FA) provides a convincing demonstration of thevariables that influence problem behavior may be termed efficiency. Multiple FA formats havebeen developed to improve analytic efficiency while the core components of the Iwata, Dorsey,Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994) procedures are maintained. We attempted to illus-trate an alternative efficient process for conducting FAs of problem behavior that relied onmodifying those core components. In Study 1, we describe 30 applications of the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, & Hanratty, 2014), whichrequired an average of 25 min of analysis. The first sessions of these analyses were reanalyzed inStudy 2 to determine if contingencies that controlled problem behavior could be identified inonly 3 to 5 min. This was the case in 80% of analyses.Key words: brief analysis, efficiency, experimental control, functional analysis, interview-

informed analysis, synthesized contingency analysis, within-session analysis

The term functional analysis (FA), in the fieldof behavior analysis, refers to an empirical dem-onstration of a functional (cause-and-effect)relation between behavior and specified envi-ronmental variables (Baer, Wolf, & Risley,1968). The most basic components of an FA ofproblem behavior are (a) a test condition inwhich the hypothesized reinforcer is providedcontingent on problem behavior, (b) a controlcondition in which the response–reinforcer

contingency is absent, and (c) the use of asingle-subject experimental design (Hanley,Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Reliable control ofproblem behavior via systematic manipulationof specific antecedents, consequences, or bothis the immediate goal of an FA, with the ulti-mate goal being the development of an effectiveand socially valid treatment for problembehavior.Differentiated results from an FA, in which

problem behavior is reliably observed to occurmore in test sessions than in control sessions,imply that adequate control of problem behav-ior has been demonstrated by a suspected con-tingency and that a function-based treatmentcan be developed with confidence. Results ofFA reviews by Hanley et al. (2003) andBeavers, Iwata, and Lerman (2013) show that94% of published FAs have yielded differen-tiated results. The speed with which control isdemonstrated is an important factor to con-sider. Conducting an FA of problem behaviorrequires time and resources, both of which are

This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of aPhD in Behavior Analysis from Western New EnglandUniversity by the first author. We thank Rachel Thomp-son, Jason Bourret, and Chata Dickson for their feedbackon earlier versions of this manuscript. We also thankNicholas Vanselow, Sandy Jin, Keira Moore, MaureenKelly, and Joana Santiago for contributing functionalanalysis data for additional analysis. This research was sup-ported in part by a grant from the Masonic Home andSchool of Texas.Address correspondence to Gregory P. Hanley, Western

New England University, 1215 Wilbraham Road, Spring-field, Massachusetts 01119 (e-mail: ghanley@wne.edu).doi: 10.1002/jaba.316

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2016, 49, 1–22 NUMBER 3 (FALL)

1

typically limited for practicing behavior ana-lysts. Furthermore, the longer it takes to iden-tify the determinants of problem behavior, thelonger treatment is delayed. Fewer FA sessionswould also presumably result in fewer chancesfor injury to occur to the child or the imple-menter of the FA. Thus, it is important to con-sider both the effectiveness of the analysis todemonstrate control by the suspected reinforce-ment contingency and the efficiency of theprocess.Multiple tactics aimed at achieving analytic

efficiency have been described and includereducing the number of sessions per condition(Derby et al., 1997; Kahng & Iwata, 1999;Northup et al., 1991), the number of minutesper session (Wallace & Iwata, 1999), the num-ber of trials per session (i.e., number of presen-tations of the putative establishing operations[EOs]; Bloom, Iwata, Fritz, Roscoe, &Carreau, 2011; Bloom, Lambert, Dayton, &Samaha, 2013; Sigafoos & Saggers, 1995), orchanging the measure from rate to latency, andby so doing, essentially reducing the number oftrials per session (Thomason-Sassi, Iwata, Nei-dert, & Roscoe, 2011). These tactics reducedthe time required to conduct a traditional FAas described by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman,and Richman (1982/1994) by 67% to 95%.The core procedural components of the

Iwata et al. (1982/1994) FA were maintainedin the efficiency-based formats noted above;these components are (a) multiple test condi-tions that assess sensitivity to social-positiveand social-negative reinforcement, (b) uniformprocedures across participants within each dis-tinct test condition to test for common contin-gencies, (c) the isolation of possible controllingcontingencies in distinct test conditions, and(d) comparison of the test contingencies to anomnibus control condition (referred to as theplay condition) that serves as a control for alltest conditions.Several studies have provided independent

support for modification of each of these

components to create differentiated analyses.Hanley, Iwata, and Thompson (2001) providedan example of a modification to the first com-ponent (multiple test conditions). Instead ofimplementing an analysis with multiple testconditions, staff members were interviewedbefore the analyses for each of the three partici-pants and the putative reinforcers were pre-sented contingent on problem behavior duringa single test condition. These single test–control analyses permitted the effective designand implementation of function-basedtreatments.DeLeon, Kahng, Rodriguez-Catter, Sveins-

dóttir, and Sadler (2003) retained multiple testconditions; however, they modified the uni-formity of the test conditions. Following infor-mal observations, these authors hypothesizedthat the participant’s aggression may have beenfunctioning to provide movement when he wasseated in his wheelchair. An additional test con-dition was then included in which the partici-pant’s wheelchair was moved contingent onaggression.The isolated test conditions component has

also been modified by simultaneously assessingtwo or more contingencies in a single test con-dition. For instance, Hagopian, Bruzek, Bow-man, and Jennett (2007) conducted what wastermed an interruption analysis on the problembehavior of two boys with intellectual disabil-ities. After 30 s of free access to preferred activ-ities during the test condition, the participantswere interrupted and prompted to exhibitbehavior that was incompatible with the cur-rent activity (e.g., if they were sitting they wereasked to stand). Problem behavior resulted inthe simultaneous delivery of positive and nega-tive reinforcement: the termination of promptsto engage in incompatible tasks and thereturned access to preferred activities. Althoughboth were tested in isolation during a previousfunctional analysis with procedures identical tothat described by Iwata et al. (1982/1994), dif-ferentiation was not observed until the

JOSHUA JESSEL et al.2

contingencies were synthesized in a subsequentanalysis.Control conditions other than play have

been included in FAs that appear to offer amore precise match between test and controlconditions. For example, the only differencebetween the control and test conditions in theanalyses in Hanley et al. (2001) was whetherthe putative reinforcer was provided contin-gently or noncontingently. More specifically,the reinforcer was provided contingent onproblem behavior in the test condition but wasprovided noncontingently during the controlcondition, and no other feature of the analyticcontext changed across conditions (i.e., theimplementer, type of toys, amount or qualityof attention, presence or absence of demands,etc., were the same across test and control ses-sions). Bowman, Fisher, Thompson, and Piazza(1997) also modified the play control in an FArelated to adult compliance with children’srequests. The implementer either compliedwith the participant’s requests for 30 s follow-ing problem behavior (test condition) or com-plied independent of problem behavior (controlcondition). Thus, the procedures of the twoconditions were identical, with the exception ofthe contingency.Modifications to each of the four analysis

components have allowed differentiated FAresults in the above studies as well as others(e.g., Adelinis & Hagopian, 1999; Broussard &Northup, 1997; Brown et al., 2000; Bucha-nan & Fisher, 2002; Derby et al., 1997; Fisher,Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Horner & Day,1991; Jones, Drew, & Weber, 2000; Kuhn,Hardesty, & Luczynski, 2009; Lalli, Casey, &Kates, 1995; Lambert, Bloom, & Irvin, 2012;Lerman & Iwata, 1993; Peck et al., 1996;Ringdahl, Winborn, Andelman, & Kitsukawa,2002; Wilder, Harris, Reagan, & Rasey, 2007;Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, &Kahng, 2000; Yarbrough & Carr, 2000). Themodifications were usually prescribed as addi-tions to the Iwata et al. (1982/1994)

procedures (e.g., DeLeon et al., 2003) or wereprogrammed following inconclusive results ofthose procedures (e.g., Bowman et al., 1997;Fisher, Adelinis, Thompson, Worsdell, & Zar-cone, 1998). In a review of the various compo-nents found in the more general functionalassessment process, Hanley (2012) suggestedthat these modifications to analyses be incorpo-rated into initial FAs. Hanley, Jin, Vanselow,and Hanratty (2014) followed with empiricalexamples in which these four procedural modi-fications were simultaneously incorporated intothe initial FAs of the problem behavior of threechildren with autism. Instead of multiple, uni-form, and isolated test conditions, the analysisfor each participant included only one indivi-dualized and synthesized test condition percontrol that matched the test condition withthe exception of the contingency (all putativereinforcers were provided continuously). Bydesigning each child’s analysis from theresults of open-ended interviews, individualizedanalyses were implemented with each childand were completed in an average of23 min. Although no formal title for the spe-cific FA format was given by Hanley et al., ithas since been referred to as an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis orIISCA (see www.practicalfunctionalassessment.org).The IISCA approach yielded control of

problem behavior quickly by reducing the over-all number of conditions and by incorporatingall idiosyncratic variables suspected of influen-cing problem behavior into the analysis. How-ever, this analysis format was implementedwith only three children; additional replicationsare needed to determine the utility of this for-mat. Our specific aims in the current paper areto describe additional outcomes from theIISCA approach introduced by Hanleyet al. (2014) and to determine the extent towhich the time required to conduct the IISCAcan be reduced while the experimental integrityof the FA is maintained.

3EFFICIENT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

STUDY 1: REPLICATIONS OF THE IISCA

MethodParticipants and settings. Parents or program

administrators reported that all participants reg-ularly engaged in severe problem behavior. Asingle analysis was implemented with 24 partici-pants. Two analyses were conducted with threeparticipants because there were two distinctcontexts associated with problem behavior.From this, 30 total analyses are reported. Char-acteristics of participants who experienced theIISCA are presented in Table 1. Participantsranged in age from 1.8 to 30 years old, with amedian age of 7 years. There were 24 malesand 3 females. Of the 26 participants, 21 hadbeen diagnosed with autism. Two participantshad been diagnosed with pervasive develop-mental disorder, two had no formal diagnosis,one had been diagnosed with attention deficithyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and anotherhad multiple diagnoses of ASD, ADHD, andgeneralized anxiety disorder (GAD). In addi-tion, participants’ language abilities were cate-gorized from record review and directobservations on a scale from 1 (nonverbal) to4 (full fluent sentences). The median languageability was short disfluent sentences; however,the entire language spectrum was representedin our sample.Table 1 (right) shows characteristics of the

analysis implementer. The implementers werecaregivers, trained tutors employed by the out-patient clinic, students enrolled in masters ordoctoral programs in behavior analysis, or apracticing behavior analyst with a doctorate.The majority of the FAs (24 of the 30) wereconducted by a board certified behavior analyst(BCBA), with all other implementers beingsupervised by BCBAs. In addition, in 22 ana-lyses, the implementer had direct experience asthe lead in creating, conducting, and analyzingresults of FAs. In the remaining eight analyses,the implementer had not previously con-ducted an FA.

Sessions lasted 3 to 15 min and were con-ducted at a university outpatient clinic for10 of the 30 analyses (Table 2). The outpatientsession rooms (3 m by 4 m) typically includeda table and two chairs. Seven analyses wereconducted in the participant’s home with atleast one caregiver present. Five analyses wereconducted in a classroom with other studentspresent in schools that provide specialized ser-vices for children with autism. Four analyseswere conducted in an outpatient clinic. Theclinic session room (3 m by 6 m) included asitting area for family members to observe ses-sions openly, a table and chairs for tabletopactivities or academics, and a play area with asoft mat. The analyses for Sam and Will wereconducted in their day-program habilitationarea with other clients present. Dan’s analysiswas conducted in a meeting room at his publicschool.Measurement and interobserver agreement.

Problem behavior included aggression (e.g., hit-ting, kicking, scratching, pinching), self-injury(e.g., head hitting with fist or open hand, headbanging on objects, arm or finger biting), dis-ruption (e.g., tearing, throwing, banging mate-rials), and loud vocalizations (e.g., yelling,screaming). Loud vocalizations were includedin the contingency class; however, they weretypically identified by the caregivers during theinterview as precursors to severe problembehavior. Rate of problem behavior was calcu-lated by dividing the total number of responseswithin each session by the session duration.The duration of the reinforcement interval wasalso measured and began after the implementerhad delivered all programmed reinforcers andended when all reinforcers had been removed.Data were also recorded on the duration ofeach session, number of sessions, and numberof times the procedures of the analysis had tobe modified before differentiated results wereobserved. It was noted whether the analysis wasprimary (i.e., no modifications), secondary (i.e.,an analysis with one modification), or tertiary

JOSHUA JESSEL et al.4

Table1

ParticipantandIm

plem

enterCharacteristics

Participant

Participantcharacteristics

Implem

entercharacteristics

Age

(years)

Gender

Diagnosis

Language

abilitya

Problem

behavior

Credentials

Firstanalysis

(yes

orno)

Alex(Context

1)5

MASD

4Aggression,

disrup

tion,

loud

vocalizations

BCBA

No

Alex(Context

2)5

MASD

4Aggression,

disrup

tion,

loud

vocalizations

BCBA

No

Jack

(Context

1)1.8

MASD

2Aggression,

disrup

tion

Motherb

Yes

Jack

(Context

2)1.8

MASD

2Aggression,

disrup

tion

BCBA

No

Kat(Context

1)11

FASD

4Aggression

BCBA

No

Kat(Context

2)11

FASD

4Aggression

BCBA

No

Kristy

4F

ASD

1Aggression,

SIB

Tutor

No

Zeke

13M

ASD

2Aggression,

loud

vocalizations,S

IBMaster’s

cand

idate

No

Dan

7M

None

4Aggression,

disrup

tion

BCBA

Yes

Roxy

6F

ASD

3Aggression,

disrup

tion,

SIB

Tutor

No

Allen

7M

ASD

1Aggression,

disrup

tion,

SIB

Tutor

No

Jim

3M

ASD

2Aggression,

disrup

tion,

loud

vocalizations,S

IBTutor

Yes

Sam

24M

ASD

2Aggression,

SIB

BCBA-D

No

Will

30M

ASD

1SIB

BCBA-D

No

Sid

9M

ASD

4Aggression,

disrup

tion

BCBA

No

Jeff

6M

ASD

,ADHD,G

AD

4Aggression,

disrup

tion,

loud

vocalizations,S

IBBCBA

No

Beck

17M

PDD-N

OS

3Aggression,

disrup

tion,

SIB

BCBA

No

Carson

14M

ASD

4Disruption,

loud

vocalizations

BCBA

No

Chris

11M

ASD

4Aggression,

disrup

tion,

loud

vocalizations

BCBA

Yes

Gary

2M

ASD

2Disruption,

loud

vocalizations

BCBA

Yes

Mike

5M

ASD

2Aggression,

disrup

tion,

loud

vocalizations,S

IBBCBA

Yes

Wayne

2M

ASD

2Disruption,

loud

vocalizations

BCBA

No

Earl

2M

None

4Lo

udvocalizations

BCBA

Yes

Jesse

12M

ASD

3Aggression,

loud

vocalizations,S

IBBCBA

No

Jian

4M

ADHD

4Aggression,

disrup

tion,

loud

vocalization

BCBA

No

Keo

2M

ASD

2Aggression,

disrup

tion,

loud

vocalizations,S

IBBCBA

No

Lee

17M

ASD

1Aggression,

disrup

tion,

loud

vocalizations,S

IBBCBA

No

Mitch

4M

ASD

4Aggression,

disrup

tion,

loud

vocalizations

BCBA

Yes

Paul

13M

ASD

3Aggression,

loud

vocalizations,S

IB,d

isrobing

BCBA

No

Steve

20M

PDD-N

OS

3Aggression,

disrup

tion,

SIB

BCBA

No

a 1=nonverbal;2=one-wordutterances;3

=shortdisfluent

sentences;4=fullfluency.

b Allanalyses

werecond

uctedor

supervised

byaBCBA.

5EFFICIENT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

Table2

SettingandProcedureCharacteristics

Participant

Settingcharacteristics

Procedurecharacteristics

Locatio

nAnalysis

iteratio

n

Session

duratio

n(in

minutes)

Totalanalysis

duratio

n(in

minutes)

Synthesizedcontingencytested

Alex(Context

1)University

outpatient

clinic

Tertiary

(2)

315

Escapefrom

teacher-directed

tochild-directedplay

with

dinosaurs

Alex(Context

t2)

University

outpatient

clinic

Prim

ary(1)

321

Escapefrom

teacher-directed

tochild-directeddraw

ingactivity

Jack

(Context

1)University

outpatient

clinic

Second

ary(1)

321

Accessto

socialinteractionandplay

timewith

mom

andpreferreditems

Jack

(Context

2)University

outpatient

clinic

Prim

ary(1)

318

Accessto

socialinteractionandplay

timewith

implem

enterandpreferreditems

Kat(Context

1)Hom

ePrim

ary(1)

525

Escapefrom

teacher-directed

tochild-directedconversatio

ntopics

Kat(Context

2)Hom

ePrim

ary(1)

525

Accessto

unstructured

play

with

iPad

Kristy

Outpatient

clinic

Prim

ary(1)

525

Escapefrom

gross-motor

instructions

topreferreditems

Zeke

Specialized

school

Prim

ary(1)

525

Escapefrom

academ

ictasksto

singingwith

implem

enterandaccessto

preferreditems

Dan

Publicschool

Prim

ary(1)

318

Escapefrom

writin

gtask

tosocialinteractionandplay

timewith

implem

enterand

preferreditems

Roxy

Outpatient

clinic

Prim

ary(1)

420

Escapefrom

socialinteractions

Allen

Outpatient

clinic

Prim

ary(1)

420

Escapefrom

adult-directed

activity

tochild-directedactivity

Jim

Outpatient

clinic

Prim

ary(1)

525

Escapefrom

physicalprom

ptingto

preferredactivities

Sam

Day

habilitation

Prim

ary(1)

315

Escapefrom

vocatio

naltaskto

self-stim

ulatorymaterials

Will

Day

habilitation

Prim

ary(1)

318

Accessto

daily

snacks

Sid

University

outpatient

clinic

Prim

ary(1)

525

Escapefrom

adult-directed

activity

tochild-directedactivity

andpreferred

conversatio

nJeff

University

outpatient

clinic

Prim

ary(1)

525

Escapefrom

teacher-directed

activity

tochild-directedactivity

with

high-quality

attentionfrom

mom

Beck

Specialized

school

Prim

ary(1)

525

Escapefrom

transitio

nsto

activities

andpreferredconversatio

nCarson

Hom

eSecond

ary(1)

1050

Escapefrom

life-skillstasksto

activities

Chris

Specialized

school

Prim

ary(1)

315

Escapefrom

academ

ictask

topreferredteacherwith

activities

Gary

University

outpatient

clinic

Prim

ary(1)

315

Escapefrom

academ

ictasksto

activities

with

adultattention

Mike

University

outpatient

clinic

Prim

ary(1)

315

Escapefrom

adult-directed

tochild-directedactivity

Wayne

University

outpatient

clinic

Second

ary(1)

315

Escapefrom

academ

ictasksto

activities

with

adultattention

Earl

Hom

ePrim

ary(1)

525

Escapefrom

gross-motor

tasksto

activities

with

mother’s

attention

Jesse

Hom

ePrim

ary(1)

525

Escapefrom

adult-directed

activity

tochild-directedactivity

Jian

University

outpatient

clinic

Second

ary(1)

315

Escapefrom

academ

ictasksto

child-directedactivity

andcompliancewith

requests

Keo

Hom

ePrim

ary(1)

318

Escapefrom

academ

ictasksto

activities

with

preferredteacher’s

attention

Lee

Specialized

school

Second

ary(5)

550

Escapefrom

gross-motor

tasksto

edibleitems,activities,and

adultattention

Mitch

Hom

eSecond

ary(1)

318

Escapefrom

academ

ictasksto

activities

Paul

Specialized

school

Prim

ary(1)

550

Escapefrom

independ

entacadem

ictasksanddividedteacherattentionto

activities

with

teacherattention

Steve

Specialized

school

Second

ary(3)

1575

Escapefrom

academ

ictasksto

activities

with

preferredconversatio

n

Note.Analysisiteratio

nrefersto

thenu

mberof

modificatio

nsthatwererequired

before

differentiatedresults

wereobtained.N

umbersin

parenthesesreferto

thenu

m-

berof

visitseach

analysisrequired.

JOSHUA JESSEL et al.6

(i.e., an analysis with an additionalmodification).Data were independently collected by stu-

dents in a doctoral or master’s program inbehavior analysis, undergraduate assistants in aresearch course in applied behavior analysis, orstaff at the habilitation centers or schools.Videos of sessions were recorded for half of the30 analyses and were used to determine inter-observer agreement. Interobserver agreementdata were collected live by a second data collec-tor for the other half of the analyses. Partialagreement coefficients were calculated for23 analyses by dividing each session into 10-sintervals (or 30-s intervals for Will and Sam).The smaller number of responses recorded wasdivided by the larger number on an interval-by-interval basis, then converted to a percentageand averaged across intervals. For seven of theanalyses, total agreement was calculated bydividing the smaller number of responsesrecorded in a session by the larger numberrecorded by each observer. Interobserver agree-ment data were collected for at least 29% ofthe sessions for all analyses (range, 29% to100%), and mean agreement across participantsranged from 81% to 100% (range of sessionagreement scores was 75% to 100%).

ProcedureOpen-ended interviews and observations. Every

functional analysis was preceded by an inter-view conducted by an implementer with a care-giver. The questions were open ended andidentical to those found in Hanley (2012).Questions were asked regarding the most prob-lematic topographies of problem behavior,other problem behaviors that tend to co-occuror precede dangerous problem behaviors, andthe possible antecedent and consequent eventsthat should be incorporated into an analysis.The interviews took 30 to 90 min to completeacross participants, with most interviews lasting40 min. Observations (10 to 20 min) were

then conducted during which implementersinformally interacted with the participants.More information on the interviews and inter-active observations can be found in Hanleyet al. (2014).Interview-informed synthesized contingency

analyses. All analyses were specific to each par-ticipant and were conducted after the interviewwith the caregivers. Each analysis included onetest (T) condition designed from the interviewand one control (C) condition designed fromthe test condition; these conditions were alter-nated in a multielement design. Sessions wereconducted in the format of CTCTT unlessadditional sessions were required to evaluatefurther the control by the suspected contin-gency. During the test condition, all putativereinforcers were simultaneously provided on acontinuous reinforcement schedule for a fixedduration following any instance of the problembehaviors of greatest concern or any otherproblem behaviors that were reported to pre-cede or co-occur with the more dangerousbehaviors. The reinforcement interval was 30 sfor the majority of the analyses. Kat (Context1) and Will were the two exceptions. Kat(Context 1) was provided with 5 to 15 s of pre-ferred conversation, whereas Will was givenindividual edible items after each instance ofproblem behavior. The participants were givennoncontingent and continuous access to thesame putative reinforcers in the control condi-tion. (Additional information regarding the spe-cific procedures for the FA for each participantis available in each of the primary articles listedin the Supporting Information or from the firstauthor.) In other words, EOs were arranged forall reinforcers simultaneously during the testcondition, and abolishing operations (AOs)were arranged for all reinforcers simultaneouslyduring the control condition. Additional pre-ferred items were not included in the controlcondition. The only difference between the testand control conditions was the presence orabsence of the contingent delivery of the

7EFFICIENT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

suspected reinforcers. In addition, general state-ments of concern (e.g., “don’t do that,” “youare hurting me”) were not provided during testconditions when attention was indicated bycaregiver assessments. Instead, the attentionwas specific to that which parents reported andmatched that of the attention provided in thecontrol condition. The assessment location, ses-sion duration, assessment duration, and specificcontingencies assessed for each analysis are pre-sented in Table 2. It is important to note thatalthough some participants may have experi-enced similar analyses when considering thegeneral classes of reinforcement (e.g., positivereinforcement in the form of implementerattention), the specific characteristics of thosecontingencies were unique to each individual(see Table 2).Of the 30 analyses, 16 included a synthesis

of different forms of positive reinforcement thatincluded context-specific praise and attentionduring a period in which leisure items wereavailable. Both negative and positive reinforce-ment contingencies were synthesized in 23 ofthe 30 analyses. In some cases, determinationof the main effects of either positive or negativereinforcement was not possible. For example,the putative reinforcer for Kat’s problem behav-ior during one context was escape from adult-directed to child-directed conversation topics.The EO involved the implementer conversingwith Kat on topics she did not prefer (e.g., ask-ing about the weather or how classes weregoing). The problem behavior would thereforeresult in both the removal of the implementer’sconversation topics (negative reinforcement)and access to child-directed conversations aboutanimals (positive reinforcement). In other ana-lyses in which suspected positive and negativereinforcement were synthesized, the maineffects of each reinforcing event could havebeen determined; however, the reinforcers werecombined because they were reported to co-occur. For example, teachers reported that Zekeengaged in problem behavior during academic

tasks and that they gave him their undividedattention and preferred toys to help him tocalm down. The contingency arranged duringthe test condition for Zeke therefore includedescape from academic demands to preferredactivities and interactions with theimplementer.In all other analyses in which positive and

negative reinforcement were synthesized, thereinforcer was specified by the participant. Forexample, similar to the analysis from Bowmanet al. (1997), Alex’s requests, which may havebeen for different negative reinforcers (e.g.,break, alone time) or positive reinforcers (e.g.,interactive or independent play), were honoredfor a period of time only after problembehavior.1

Results and DiscussionAll FAs are presented in Figure 1. Across all

analyses, high rates of problem behavior wereobserved during the test condition (M = 2.6responses per minute), and low rates wereobserved during the control condition(M = 0.1 responses per minute). In fact, withthe exception of Will, elevated rates of problembehavior were observed in the first test sessionfor all participants. Furthermore, in 22 analyses,problem behavior did not occur in any controlsession. Nineteen analyses required the mini-mum number of five sessions (three test andtwo control sessions) to demonstrate control ofproblem behavior by the contingency andtherefore to produce an adequate baseline for atreatment evaluation (i.e., stability across threetest sessions). Seven analyses required six ses-sions, two analyses required seven sessions, and

1Almost half of these data sets were culled from differ-ent treatment-oriented studies, conducted under thesupervision of the second author, that were in the processof being prepared or considered for publication at thetime of this writing. Information on the original publica-tions can be found in the Supporting Information. Theother 16 FAs were developed from assessments that wereconducted outside of formal research projects.

JOSHUA JESSEL et al.8

Pro

ble

m b

ehav

ior

per

min

ute

0

4

8

12 Will

TestControl

Wayne Allen Kat (Cxt 1)Sam

0

2

4

6 Jack (Cxt 1) Keo

Kristy Jim

Roxy

0

2

4

6 Alex (Cxt 2) Chris

Jeff Zeke Kat (Cxt 2)

0

1

2

3

4 Mike Mitch

Gary Jian Earl

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

Paul Dan

Alex (Cxt 1) Beck

Sid

2 6 10

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

Lee

2 4 6

Steve

1 3 5

Jesse

1 3 5

Carson

1 3 5

Jack (Cxt 2)

Sessions

Figure 1. Thirty replications of the IISCAs.

9EFFICIENT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

the remaining two analyses required 10 sessions.The mean duration required to conduct anIISCA was 25 min (range, 15 to 75 min).Table 2 lists the number of analysis itera-

tions that were required before differentiatedresults were observed. The majority of the ana-lyses required only the primary analysis con-ducted during a single visit with nomodifications (22 of 30). Seven required a sec-ondary analysis, and one required a tertiaryanalysis. As an example of modifications, theanalysis with Alex required two modificationswhen no problem behavior was observed dur-ing a primary analysis that included attentionand tangible items (primary iteration) andescape, attention, and tangible items (secondaryiteration). Differentiated results were notobserved until a synthesized contingencyincluded compliance to requests (tertiary itera-tion). Even with the inclusion of multiple itera-tions, the majority of the analyses (27 of 30)required only one 1-hr visit.For the final iteration, which was the first in

22 of 30 analyses, the IISCA resulted in imme-diate differentiation with almost exclusiveresponding in the test condition, which may berelated to several factors. First, the possibility ofcarryover effects across conditions was reducedbecause there were only two rapidly alternatingconditions (Iwata, Duncan, Zarcone, Lerman, &Shore, 1994; Vollmer, Marcus, Ringdahl, &Roane, 1995). A second factor was that contin-uous reinforcement was available during thecontrol condition and may have served as astrong AO for problem behavior. This is com-pared to other control conditions in which thereis a fixed-time delivery of reinforcers during theplay condition (either with or without a briefperiod in which behavior has to be absent),which may evoke problem behavior or mayinadvertently allow adventitious reinforcement(Vollmer, Ringdahl, Roane, & Marcus, 1997).Third, the current analyses incorporated all

of the implicated reinforcers in the control con-dition. If the reinforcers provided during the

control condition were identical to those deliv-ered contingent on problem behavior, therewould be no EO to evoke any behavior in theoperant class. However, if the reinforcers pro-vided during the control condition were unre-lated to those delivered contingent on problembehavior in the test condition, the process ofsatiation for the preferred items would inverselyaffect the motivation to exhibit problem behav-ior (DeLeon, Williams, Gregory, & Hagopian,2005). In other words, as the value of the lei-sure activities decreases with extended exposureduring the play condition, the value of themaintaining reinforcers may increase, whichwill concomitantly increase the probability ofproblem behavior in the control condition.Therefore, the stimuli in the control conditionof the FA should probably not be included tocompete with the reinforcers related to problembehavior (McCord & Neef, 2005) but, instead,should be identical to those reinforcers. Inclu-sion of stimuli intended to compete with thereinforcers raises questions as to variables thatcontrol differentiated responding apart fromthe suspected reinforcement contingency. Inessence, control during the IISCA was notobtained by suppressing problem behavior byany means. Instead, control was obtained byeliminating problem behavior through the samemeans with which it was strengthened. Imme-diate and sustained elimination of problembehavior during the control condition wasobserved in the current analyses, possiblybecause of the continuous availability of allputative reinforcers that controlled problembehavior.Fourth, all EOs related to different reinfor-

cers that were reported to co-occur werearranged in the test condition and abolished inthe control condition when the contingencieswere synthesized. If the contingencies wereseparated into isolated test conditions whenthere is in fact multiple control, some EOswould persist during the reinforcement inter-vals of the test conditions and may continue to

JOSHUA JESSEL et al.10

evoke problem behavior. Hagopian, Rooker,Jessel, and DeLeon (2013) reported 53% of theFAs from 176 inpatient analyses to be undiffer-entiated before any modifications. This, pairedwith the relatively high outcomes of multiplecontrol following all modifications (33.3%),suggests that synthesizing suspected contingen-cies into one condition may prevent initiallyundifferentiated outcomes. By contrast, synthe-sizing contingencies may increase the probabil-ity of false-positive outcomes in which somecontingencies included in the test conditionmay not directly influence problem behavior.Continued research into procedures for evaluat-ing the validity of the components of synthe-sized contingencies is warranted, as is researchon the clinical implications of including toomany or too few contingencies in analyses.The fifth factor that may be responsible for

the strong control exerted in the IISCAs wasthat the contingencies and materials includedin the analyses were the same as those describedby caregivers as evoking problem behavior andeliminating problem behavior after they hadbeen delivered. The current study provides evi-dence of the interview’s utility as a componentof a functional assessment process. Neverthe-less, eight of the 30 analyses required redesignbefore differentiated results were obtained.These results underscore the notion that theinterview simply allowed the discovery of possi-ble controlling variables, but that the analysis isnecessary to demonstrate the validity of thosepotential discoveries (Hanley, 2012). Futureresearch on how to conduct the open-endedinterviews and how to make decisions regardinganalysis design from interviews is warranted atthis time.By synthesizing all reported reinforcers into

one test condition, the IISCA appears to have(a) reduced the number of sessions required todemonstrate the function of problem behavior,(b) allowed sufficient control by the contin-gency in a single consultation or outpatientvisit, and possibly (c) increased the ecological

validity of the assessment, because only thoseEOs and reinforcers that were reported toevoke or terminate behavior, respectively, wereincluded in analyses. The shortest IISCA tookas little as 15 min to conduct, representing a96% decrease in the time required to conductthe shortest analysis in Iwata et al. (1982/1994). However, there is no obvious minimumduration required for an analysis. An assess-ment should last only as long as it takes todemonstrate a functional relation. Greater effi-ciency may be achieved by reconsidering theunit of analysis, which is typically a session-by-session comparison of mean rates. Perhapswithin-session analysis of rate of behavior in asingle test session while the reinforcer is presentor absent may be sufficient.

STUDY 2: WITHIN-SESSION ANALYSISOF INITIAL TEST SESSIONS

Roane, Lerman, Kelley, and Van Camp(1999) described the addition of secondarymeasures during analyses that allowed the isola-tion of problem behavior during the reinforcer-present intervals (RPI) and reinforcer-absentintervals (RAI) to help clarify the effects of con-tingencies on problem behavior when an FA isundifferentiated. According to these authors, ifa contingency exists between problem behaviorand a reinforcer, problem behavior should beeliminated when the reinforcer is presentbecause (a) there is no environmental changefollowing problem behavior during that inter-val, and (b) the presence of the reinforcerabolishes its value. By contrast, the probabilityof problem behavior should be high in theabsence of the reinforcer because (a) there is animmediate and consistent environmentalchange following problem behavior during thatinterval, and (b) the absence of the reinforcerestablishes its value and therefore increases theprobability that a problem behavior will occur.Roane et al. (1999) suggested that this

within-session analysis might help to elucidate

11EFFICIENT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

the controlling contingency. For two of theirthree participants who showed a sociallymediated function, responding occurred almostexclusively during the RAI in the first test ses-sion. Thus, Study 2 was conducted to deter-mine if within-session analysis of a single testsession may be useful as the primary means todetect the function of problem behavior for ourparticipants.

MethodParticipants and settings. Of the 30 analyses

from Study 1 in which all videotaped data wereavailable and for which the reinforcers were ofconsistent and extended duration, 10 wereincluded for further within-session analyses.For example, Kat’s (Context 1) and Will’s ana-lyses were excluded because the reinforcementintervals for attention and edible items, respec-tively, were short and variable.Interobserver agreement. Interobserver agree-

ment on reinforcement duration was includedbecause the duration of the RPI and RAI wasrequired to calculate individual rates of respond-ing during each session. This agreement was cal-culated as a duration-based, partial-agreementmeasure. The duration of each reinforcer deliv-ery recorded by the secondary observer withineach 10 s interval was compared to the durationrecorded by the primary observer. The smallerduration was divided by the larger durationand a mean percentage was calculated.Interobserver agreement data were collected

for at least 29% of sessions (range, 29% to40%), and mean agreement across participantsranged from 84% to 100% (range of sessionscores was 72% to 100%).Data analysis. A within-session analysis of

problem behavior in the first test session ofeach FA was conducted. Rate of problembehavior during the RAI was calculated bydividing the total number of responses thatoccurred during an interval in which the rein-forcer was absent by the duration of that

interval. The individual RAIs could vary anddepended on when the participant exhibitedproblem behavior, because the RAI terminatesafter a single instance of problem behavior. Therate of problem behavior during the RPI wascalculated by dividing the total number ofresponses that occurred during an interval inwhich the reinforcer was present by the totalnumber of seconds of that interval. The RPIwas not dependent on problem behavior andwas typically 30 s per interval.Within-session response patterns were also

represented in a cumulative record for every testsession conducted for selected analyses. Acumulative representation of the problembehavior across sessions provided a depiction ofthe learning that may occur during an FA aswell as the extent to which the putative contin-gency was controlling behavior. Sessions weredivided into 1-s bins, and the intervals in whichthe reinforcers were absent and present were dis-tinguished. Thus, it was possible to determinethe pace of responding during each test sessionas well as the precise interval in which problembehavior occurred. Furthermore, optimalresponding would yield a steady slope withresponse–pause patterns and short RAIs.

Results and DiscussionThe results of the within-session analysis of

the first test session from the IISCAs for all10 participants are presented in Figure 2. Over-all, higher rates of responding were observedduring the RAIs (M = 0.3 responses per sec-ond) in comparison to the RPIs (M = 0.01responses per second). Control by the rein-forcement contingency was evident in eight of10 analyses. In addition, problem behavior wasexclusively observed during the RAIs in four ofthose eight analyses.Patterns of problem behavior within the first

3- to 5-min test session of the analysis mirroredthe differentiated results obtained across thefive to seven sessions of the full IISCAs in eight

JOSHUA JESSEL et al.12

of 10 analyses. In addition, the differencesobserved across RAI and RPI were replicatedthree to 11 times, repeatedly demonstrating astrong functional relation within 3 to 5 min.

Figure 3 depicts cumulative respondingacross all test sessions for two participants. Datafor Alex and Dan were graphically depicted toshow the development of control by the

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

0

RAIs

RPIsKat (Cxt 1) Zeke

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

0

Alex (Cxt 1) Alex (Cxt 2)

Intervals

Pro

ble

m b

ehav

ior

per

sec

ond

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0

Sid Jeff

Dan

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

0

Dale

4 8 12 16 20 24

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0

Jack (Cxt 1)

4 8 12 16

Jack (Cxt 2)

Figure 2. Analyses of the first session from the full IISCA for 10 participants. RAI = reinforcer-absent intervals;RPI = reinforcer-present intervals.

13EFFICIENT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

0

10

20

30

Alex(Cxt 2)

Test 1

Dan

Test 1RAI RPI

0

10

20

30Test 2 Test 2

0

10

20

30Test 3 Test 3

50 100 150 200 250 300

0

10

20

30Test 4

50 100 150 200 250 300

Test 4

1-s bins

Cum

ula

tive

resp

ondin

g

Figure 3. Cumulative records of responding for Alex (Context 2; left) and Dan (right) during test conditions of theIISCAs. RAI = reinforcer-absent intervals; RPI = reinforcer-present intervals. The solid line represents the optimal slopeof responding.

JOSHUA JESSEL et al.14

contingency that sometimes occurs during anIISCA. Longer durations of RAIs with bursts ofproblem behavior both in and outside the RAIswere initially observed for Alex during the firsttest session. By the second test session, a dis-tinct response–pause pattern was observed withoverall shorter durations of RAIs. AlthoughAlex maximized reinforcement deliveries in thefirst session, his problem behavior became moreoptimal across sessions as the number of prob-lem behaviors per reinforcer delivery decreased.Strong control by the contingency was evidentin subsequent sessions. His within-session anal-ysis showed initially excessive problem behaviorcoming under control of the programmed con-tingency in the IISCA.By contrast, Dan contacted the programmed

reinforcement only once during the first testsession. With each successive session, problembehavior began to occur sooner during theRAI, increasing the total number of reinforcerdeliveries. By the fourth test session, problembehavior had come under control of the pro-grammed contingency.The levels of problem behavior changed in

different directions for Alex and Dan; however,they eventually converged along a similar paceand distribution. Both types of learning evidentin their data are beneficial during FAs of prob-lem behavior. For Alex, reducing response ratesminimizes risk by reducing the overall amountof problem behavior. For Dan, the eventualincrease in response rate allowed behavioralfunction to be determined and treatment to beinitiated.Learning during an FA has often been

framed as a limitation of the procedures sugges-tive of artifactual control of problem behavior(i.e., problem behavior is controlled by a con-tingency in the analysis that does not influenceproblem behavior outside the analysis; seeCooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007, p. 506).Our results suggest that learning in analysesmay be better construed as problem behaviorcoming under more precise and predictable

control of a reinforcement contingency. Thequick and strong control by the contingencyalso seemed to weaken any artifactual controlargument.Roane et al. (1999) included session-by-

session depictions of the rate of responding inthe presence and absence of reinforcement toclarify behavioral function. Similarly, Vollmer,Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, and Mazaleski (1993)included within-session depictions of problembehavior to elucidate functional relations whenoverall rates of problem behavior were undiffer-entiated across FA conditions. The currentstudy differed from previous research in thatwe suggest that an analysis of a single test ses-sion may take the place of analyses withrepeated sessions in some cases. This analysis,termed the single-test IISCA, would allow prac-titioners to complete an analysis in 3 to 5 min.In other words, the first session of aninterview-informed test session sometimesappeared to be capable of serving as anFA. The RAIs were analogous to the test ses-sions, and the RPIs were analogous to the con-trol sessions of a multielement analysis. Ofinterest is that the number of replications isoften higher with the single-test IISCA thanwith that of a multielement analysis and ispartly dependent on factors that are under theimplementers’ control, such as (a) the durationof the session, (b) the duration of the reinforcerinterval, and (c) the frequency with which theevoking stimuli are presented.Given the 80% success rate, the single-test

IISCA may be useful in many, but not all,cases. For some participants, a 5-min exposureto the arranged contingencies may not be suffi-cient to evoke problem behavior reliably. Forindividuals like Dan, multiple sessions may berequired before control by the contingency isevident. Although control may be achievedwith a single test session, whether or not onetest session would serve as a useful baseline fora treatment evaluation needs to be furtherassessed. Future research should be conducted

15EFFICIENT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

to determine the extent to which single-testIISCAs correspond with full IISCAs andwhether treatments develop properly after thesingle-test analyses. Others have consideredextending analyses when initial results wereundifferentiated (e.g., Kahng, Abt, & Schon-bachler, 2001; Tarbox, Wallace, Tarbox, Land-aburu, & Williams, 2004). The current resultssuggest that attention should also be directed toreducing analyses when initial results are clearlysupportive of a functional relation.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The influence that the analysis described byIwata et al. (1982/1994) has had on the treat-ment of problem behavior should be celebra-ted, as it was in the 2013 special issue of theJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis. This FAmethodology allowed a scientific demonstrationof control over problem behavior by reinforce-ment contingencies and has led to efficacioustreatments for multiple topographies of severeproblem behavior (e.g., Campbell, 2003; Hey-vaert, Maes, Van den Noortgate, Kuppens, &Onghena, 2012; Kahng, Iwata, & Lewin,2002). Before the advent of the Iwataet al. format, practitioners were more reliant onpowerful, arbitrarily selected punishers to sup-press problem behavior to manageable levels(Axelrod, 1987).There are, however, many convincing ways

to demonstrate causal relations and, similar toany other experimental procedures, there neednot be any immutable ones (Baer et al., 1968;Sidman, 1960). FA methods of greaterefficiency,such as the brief analysis, trial-basedanalysis, and latency-based analysis, haveevolved. Rather than shorten the number orduration of sessions, this study showed howmodifications to the core procedural compo-nents of Iwata et al. (1982/1994) yield efficientanalyses that are capable of exerting strong con-trol over problem behavior. With 30 replica-tions, Study 1 demonstrated that the IISCA

was an effective and efficient tool for identify-ing socially mediated variables that contributeto problem behavior across subjects, contexts,and contingencies. Like any functional analysis,the IISCA is not equipped to demonstrate con-trol by automatic reinforcement contingencies.When an interview suggests control by auto-matic reinforcement, arrangement of a series ofalone sessions is recommended (Querim et al.,2013); treatment is then implemented if prob-lem behavior persists despite the absence ofsocially mediated contingencies (see, e.g., Pot-ter, Hanley, Augustine, Clay, & Phelps, 2013).However, automatic reinforcement was neversuspected for participants in the current studybecause all interviews suggested sociallymediated contingencies.The utility of the IISCA was evaluated across

children and adults, with and without diag-noses, with and without age-appropriate lan-guage abilities, mild to severe forms of problembehavior, and in settings from public schoolclassrooms to outpatient clinics. The breadth ofvariation among the analyses demonstrated thegenerality of the IISCA across demographicsand contexts relevant to applied behavior ana-lysts. Nevertheless, continued application ofIISCAs with different topographies of problembehavior and in different contexts, especiallythose contexts in which the most severe formsof problem behavior are addressed (e.g., inpa-tient hospitals), is needed to understand thegenerality of this method.A limitation of the IISCA format may be the

inability to determine control of individualcontingencies when more than one is synthe-sized in the analysis (Fisher, Greer, Romani,Zangrillo, & Owen, 2016). Knowledge of theinfluence of isolated contingencies may satisfyan analytical curiosity but may be of little prac-tical value if problem behavior can be suffi-ciently treated in the context in which it occursby synthesizing the contingencies, as was evi-dent in Hanley et al. (2014) and more recentlyin Santiago, Hanley, Moore, and Jin (2016).

JOSHUA JESSEL et al.16

Future research should be directed towardsunderstanding the relative advantages and dis-advantages of isolating or synthesizing contin-gencies that are suspected of influencingproblem behavior in FAs as well as in treatmentanalyses. Furthermore, as more analyses thatinvolve synthesized contingencies are published,it will become more apparent that certain con-tingencies may serve as reinforcement onlywhen combined because they require the inter-action to affect problem behavior (e.g., Bow-man et al., 1997; Ghaemmaghami, Hanley,Jin, & Vanselow, in press; Hagopian et al.,2007; Hanley et al.; Santiago et al.). Therefore,attempts to confirm the relevance of compo-nents of synthesized contingencies will requiregoing beyond conducting an analysis of isolatedcontingencies.Study 2 examined response patterns within

the initial test session for 10 of the 30 IISCAs.These within-session analyses yielded differen-tiated responding in 80% of analyses in onefifth the time of the full IISCA while usuallyproviding three times the number of replica-tions as provided via session-by-session analysis.We suggest that time need not be consideredan obstacle to a scientific determination of thefunction of problem behavior before its treat-ment (cf. Applegate, Matson, & Cherry, 1999).Considering the collective results, it has

become increasingly difficult to support thecriticism that an FA places the client in danger-ous contexts that involve prolonged exposure toenvironmental events that pose the risk ofunacceptable rates of problem behavior relativeto those already experienced in day-to-day life(see Cooper et al., 2007, p. 506, for a list ofthese limitations). Because problem behaviorwas rarely observed during the control condi-tion or during the reinforcement interval, theprobability of problem behavior occurring dur-ing an IISCA was isolated to moments thatlasted only a few seconds. Second, one of thecore components of the IISCA was to reinforcemilder forms or precursors to the more severe

problem behavior in the class of behavior thatproduced reinforcement. The likelihood of theclient engaging in dangerous behavior thatthreatened his or her safety or the safety of theimplementer decreased when both precursorsand severe problem behavior were immediatelyreinforced on a continuous reinforcementschedule (Borrero & Borrero, 2008; Smith &Churchill, 2002). The result of the full orsingle-test IISCA yielded a very brief exposureto limited presentations of EOs that usuallyevoked mild forms of problem behavior at pre-dictable and momentary intervals with partici-pants who all presented with dangerous levels,forms, and intensities of problem behavior intheir everyday interactions outside the analyses.Consideration of response rate in and out-

side the reinforcement interval in test sessionsmay also be helpful for predicting the effects offunction-based treatments in addition to pro-moting efficient analyses. For example, afunction-based treatment that consists of differ-ential reinforcement (e.g., functional communi-cation training; Carr & Durand, 1985; Tiger,Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008) will not necessarilyeliminate problem behavior if problem behaviorcontinues unabated during the RPI. Punish-ment (Hagopian et al., 1998) or other arbitraryreinforcement procedures (Fisher, Piazza, Bow-man, Hagopian, & Langdon, 1994) will likelybe necessary when problem behavior persistsacross reinforcement intervals or during controlsessions. The humane goals made possible withfunction-based treatments will most likely berealized when functional assessment processescontinue until reinforcement intervals occurwithout problem behavior. If that is not thecase, additional interviews and observationsshould be used to design an analysis thatinvolves a better synthesized contingency.Although the overwhelming number of pub-

lished FAs have resulted in differentiated ana-lyses (Beavers et al., 2013; Hanley et al., 2003),the degree of differentiation or amount of con-trol yielded via different FA formats remains an

17EFFICIENT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

empirical question. Future research shouldcompare not only the efficiency of the differentFA formats but also the level of control overproblem behavior that is achieved with eachtype. It will be important to determine if strongcontrol over problem behavior can be obtainedquickly and safely in a specific format and ifthe extent of control demonstrated in FAs isindeed related to treatment outcomes.

REFERENCES

Adelinis, J. D., & Hagopian, L. P. (1999). The use ofsymmetrical “do” and “don’t” requests to interruptongoing activities. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 32, 519–523. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-519

Applegate, H., Matson, J. L., & Cherry, K. E. (1999). Anevaluation of functional variables affecting severeproblem behaviors in adults with mental retardationby using the Questions About Behavioral FunctionScale (QABF). Research in Developmental Disabilities,20, 229–237. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(99)00005-0

Axelrod, S. (1987). Functional and structural analyses ofbehavior: Approaches leading to reduced use of pun-ishment procedures? Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 8, 165–178. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(87)90001-1

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Somecurrent dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97. doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91

Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013).Thirty years of research on the functional analysis ofproblem behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 46, 1–21. doi: 10.1002/jaba.30

Bloom, S. E., Iwata, B. A., Fritz, J. N., Roscoe, E. M., &Carreau, A. B. (2011). Classroom application of atrial-based functional analysis. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 44, 19–31. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-19

Bloom, S. E., Lambert, J. M., Dayton, E., &Samaha, A. L. (2013). Teacher-conducted trial-basedfunctional analyses as the basis for intervention. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 208–218. doi:10.1002/jaba.21

Borrero, C. S. W., & Borrero, J. C. (2008). Descriptiveand experimental analyses of potential precursors toproblem behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 41, 83–96. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-83

Bowman, L. G., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., &Piazza, C. C. (1997). On the relation of mands andthe function of destructive behavior. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 251–265. doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-251

Broussard, C., & Northup, J. (1997). The use of func-tional analysis to develop peer interventions for dis-ruptive classroom behavior. School PsychologyQuarterly, 12, 65–76. doi: 10.1037/h0088948

Brown, K. A., Wacker, D. P., Derby, K. M., Peck, S. M.,Richman, D. M., Sasso, G. M., … Harding, J. W.(2000). Evaluating the effects of functional commu-nication training in the presence and absence ofestablishing operations. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 33, 53–71. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-53

Buchanan, J. A., & Fisher, J. E. (2002). Functional assess-ment and noncontingent reinforcement in the treat-ment of disruptive vocalization in elderly dementiapatients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35,99–103. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-99

Campbell, J. M. (2003). Efficacy of behavioral interven-tions for reducing problem behavior in persons withautism: A quantitative synthesis of single-subjectresearch. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24,120–138. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(03)00014-3

Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behaviorproblems through functional communication train-ing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18,111–126. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson.

DeLeon, I. G., Kahng, S., Rodriguez-Catter, V.,Sveinsdóttir, I., & Sadler, C. (2003). Assessment ofaberrant behavior maintained by wheelchair move-ment in a child with developmental disabilities.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24, 381–390.doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(03)00056-8

DeLeon, I. G., Williams, D., Gregory, M. K., &Hagopian, L. P. (2005). Unexamined potentialeffects of noncontingent delivery of reinforcers.European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 6, 57–69. doi:10.1080/15021149.2005.11434250

Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W., DeRaad, A.,Ulrich, S., Asmus, J., … Stoner, E. A. (1997). Thelong-term effects of functional communication train-ing in home settings. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 30, 507–531. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-507

Fisher, W. W., Adelinis, J. D., Thompson, R. H.,Worsdell, A. S., & Zarcone, J. R. (1998). Functionalanalysis and treatment of destructive behavior main-tained by termination of “don’t” (and symmetrical“do”) requests. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,31, 339–356. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-339

Fisher, W. W., Greer, B. D., Romani, P. W.,Zangrillo, A. N., & Owen, T. M. (2016). Compari-sons of synthesized- and individual-reinforcementcontingencies during functional analysis. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 49, 000–000.

JOSHUA JESSEL et al.18

Fisher, W. W., Kuhn, D. E., & Thompson, R. H.(1998). Establishing discriminative control ofresponding using functional and alternative reinfor-cers during functional communication training. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 543–560. doi:10.1901/jaba.1998.31-543

Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G.,Hagopian, L. P., & Langdon, N. A. (1994). Empiri-cally derived consequences: A data-based method forprescribing treatments for destructive behavior.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 133–149.doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(94)90018-3

Ghaemmaghami, M., Hanley, G. P., Jin, S. C., &Vanselow, N. R. (in press). Affirming control bymultiple reinforcers via progressive treatment analysis.Behavioral Interventions. doi: 10.1002/bin.1425

Hagopian, L. P., Bruzek, J. L., Bowman, L. G., &Jennett, H. K. (2007). Assessment and treatment ofproblem behavior occasioned by interruption of free-operant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,40, 89–103. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.63-05

Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., Sullivan, M. T.,Acquisto, J., & LeBlanc, L. A. (1998). Effectivenessof functional communication training with and with-out extinction and punishment: A summary of21 inpatient cases. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 31, 211–235. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-211

Hagopian, L. P., Rooker, G. W., Jessel, J., &DeLeon, I. G. (2013). Initial functional analysis out-comes and modifications in pursuit of differentiation:A summary of 176 inpatient cases. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 46, 88–100. doi: 10.1002/jaba.25

Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problembehavior: Dispelling myths, overcoming implementa-tion obstacles, and developing new lore. BehaviorAnalysis in Practice, 5, 54–72.

Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003).Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185.doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147

Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Thompson, R. H. (2001).Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatmentwith functional communication training. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 34, 17–38. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-17

Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., &Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningfulimprovements in problem behavior of children withautism via synthesized analyses and treatments. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 16–36. doi:10.1002/jaba.106

Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., Van den Noortgate, W.,Kuppens, S., & Onghena, P. (2012). A multilevelmeta-analysis of single-case and small-n research oninterventions for reducing challenging behavior inpersons with intellectual disabilities. Research in

Developmental Disabilities, 33, 766–780. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.10.010

Horner, R. H., & Day, H. M. (1991). The effects ofresponse efficiency on functionally equivalent com-peting behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,24, 719–732. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-719

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J.,Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward afunctional analysis of self-injury. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 27, 197–209. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197 (Reprinted from Analysis and Inter-vention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20, 1982)

Iwata, B. A., Duncan, B. A., Zarcone, J. R.,Lerman, D. C., & Shore, B. A. (1994). A sequential,test-control methodology for conducting functionalanalyses of self-injurious behavior. BehaviorModification, 18, 289–306. doi: 10.1177/01454455940183003

Jones, K. M., Drew, H. A., & Weber, N. L. (2000).Noncontingent peer attention as treatment for dis-ruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behav-ior Analysis, 33, 343–346. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-343

Kahng, S., Abt, K. A., & Schonbachler, H. E. (2001).Assessment and treatment of low-rate high-intensityproblem behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 34, 225–228. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-225

Kahng, S., & Iwata, B. A. (1999). Correspondencebetween outcomes of brief and extended functionalanalyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32,149–159. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-149

Kahng, S., Iwata, B. A., & Lewin, A. B. (2002). Behavioraltreatment of self-injury, 1964 to 2000. American Journalon Mental Retardation, 107, 212–221. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(2002)107<0212:BTOSIT>2.0.CO;2

Kuhn, D. E., Hardesty, S. L., & Luczynski, K. (2009).Further evaluation of antecedent social events duringfunctional analysis. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 42, 349–353. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-349

Lalli, J. S., Casey, S., & Kates, K. (1995). Reducingescape behavior and increasing task completion withfunctional communication training, extinction, andresponse chaining. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 28, 261–268. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-261

Lambert, J. M., Bloom, S. E., & Irvin, J. (2012). Trial-based functional analysis and functional communica-tion training in an early childhood setting. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 45, 579–584. doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-579

Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1993). Descriptive andexperimental analyses of variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 26, 293–319. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-293

19EFFICIENT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

McCord, B. E., & Neef, N. A. (2005). Leisure items ascontrols in the attention condition of functional ana-lyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38,417–426. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.116-04

Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M.,Cigrand, K., Cook, J., & DeRaad, A. (1991). A brieffunctional analysis of aggressive and alternative behav-ior in an outclinic setting. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 24, 509–522. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-509

Peck, S. M., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Cooper, L. J.,Brown, K. A., Richman, D., … Millard, T. (1996).Choice-making treatment of young children’s severebehavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,29, 263–290. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-263

Potter, J. N., Hanley, G. P., Augustine, M.,Clay, C. J., & Phelps, M. C. (2013). Treating stereo-typy in adolescents diagnosed with autism by refiningthe tactic of “using stereotypy as reinforcement.”Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 407–423.doi: 10.1002/jaba.52

Querim, A. C., Iwata, B. A., Roscoe, E. M.,Schlichenmeyer, K. J., Virués Ortega, J., &Hurl, K. E. (2013). Functional analysis screening forproblem behavior maintained by automatic reinforce-ment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46,47–60. doi: 10.1002/jaba.26

Ringdahl, J. E., Winborn, L. C., Andelman, M. S., &Kitsukawa, K. (2002). The effects of noncontingentlyavailable alternative stimuli on functional analysisoutcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35,407–410. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-407

Roane, H. S., Lerman, D. C., Kelley, M. E., & VanCamp, C. M. (1999). Within-session patterns ofresponding during functional analyses: The role ofestablishing operations in clarifying behavioral func-tion. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20,73–89. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(98)00033-X

Santiago, J. L., Hanley, G. P., Moore, K., & Jin, C. S.(2016). The generality of interview-informed func-tional analyses: Systematic replications in school andhome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,46, 797–811. doi: 10.1007/s10803-015-2617-0

Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research.New York, NY: Basic Books.

Sigafoos, J., & Saggers, E. (1995). A discrete-trialapproach to the functional analysis of aggressive beha-viour in two boys with autism. Australia andNew Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities,20, 287–297. doi: 10.1080/07263869500035621

Smith, R. G., & Churchill, R. M. (2002). Identificationof environmental determinants of behavior disordersthrough functional analysis of precursor behaviors.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 125–136.doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-125

Tarbox, J., Wallace, M. D., Tarbox, R. S. F.,Landaburu, H. J., & Williams, W. L. (2004). Func-tional analysis and treatment of low rate problem

behavior in individuals with developmental disabil-ities. Behavioral Interventions, 19, 187–204. doi:10.1002/bin.158

Thomason-Sassi, J. L., Iwata, B. A., Neidert, P. L., &Roscoe, E. M. (2011). Response latency as an indexof response strength during functional analyses ofproblem behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 44, 51–67. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-51

Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bruzek, J. (2008). Func-tional communication training: A review and practi-cal guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 16–23.

Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R.,Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). Within-session patterns of self-injury as indicators of behav-ioral function. Research in Developmental Disabilities,14, 479–492. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(93)90039-M

Vollmer, T. R., Marcus, B. A., Ringdahl, J. E., &Roane, H. S. (1995). Progressing from brief assess-ments to extended experimental analyses in the evalu-ation of aberrant behavior. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 28, 561–576. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-561

Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., Roane, H. S., &Marcus, B. A. (1997). Negative side effects of noncon-tingent reinforcement. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 30, 161–164. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-161

Wallace, M. D., & Iwata, B. A. (1999). Effects of sessionduration on functional analysis outcomes. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 32, 175–183. doi:10.1901/jaba.1999.32-175

Wilder, D. A., Harris, C., Reagan, R., & Rasey, A.(2007). Functional analysis and treatment of non-compliance by preschool children. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 40, 173–177. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.44-06

Worsdell, A. S., Iwata, B. A., Hanley, G. P.,Thompson, R. H., & Kahng, S. (2000). Effects ofcontinuous and intermittent reinforcement for prob-lem behavior during functional communication train-ing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33,167–179. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-167

Yarbrough, S. C., & Carr, E. G. (2000). Some relation-ships between informant assessment and functionalanalysis of problem behavior. American Journal onMental Retardation, 105, 130–151. doi: 10.1352/0895-8017(2000)105<0130:SRBIAA>2.0.CO;2

Received February 18, 2015Final acceptance December 10, 2015Action Editor, Jennifer Zarcone

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional Supporting Information may befound in the online version of this article at thepublisher’s website.

JOSHUA JESSEL et al.20