Comparisons of standardized and interview‐informed synthesized reinforcement contingencies relative to functional analysis. Issue 1 (7th July 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Greer, Brian D.; Mitteer, Daniel R.; Briggs, Adam M.; Fisher, Wayne W.; Sodawasser, Andrew J.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied behavior analysis. Volume 53:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 82
• Page End: 101
• Publication Date: 2019-07-07
• Subjects: false negative -- false positive -- functional analysis -- independent effects -- synthesized contingency analysis; Psychology, Applied -- Periodicals; Social Behavior -- Periodicals; 150
• DOI: 10.1002/jaba.601
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-8855

Abstract

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.