Association for Behavior Analysis International

Multi-element behaviour support (MEBS) represents a constructional approach to positive behaviour support that is grounded in a nonlinear behaviour analytic framework (e.g., LaVigna et al., 2022). The MEBS approach to behaviour support is comprehensive in nature. MEBS nonlinear contingency analysis is essential to providing conceptually systematic, analytical, and technological services that champion the participants across all environments. Applied behaviour analysis (ABA) and behaviour support have been challenged in recent years with questions regarding compassionate care and participant-affirming practice. MEBS answers these questions and upholds participant rights. A key distinction within MEBS strategies is the difference between situational and future effects. Situational effects should be prioritised to maintain safety and meet participants’ needs when reacting to behaviours of concern. Yet many behaviour intervention plans and reactive strategies fail to see the situational immediacy of a strategy. Instead, plans may focus on the future effects or how a strategy could impact the future likelihood of a behaviour. This symposium presents a series of papers illustrating the impact of MEBS and situational effects on ABA and behaviour support across international community settings. Papers describe dependent and independent variables within MEBS plans and the meaningful implications of MEBS for the participants within their communities.

Audience members should have an understanding of applied behaviour analysis that includes differences between proactive and reactive strategies, aversive and nonaversive strategies, restrictive practices, and functional reinforcement contingencies.

The multi-element behaviour support (MEBS; LaVigna & Willis, 2005) framework includes proactive and reactive procedures within its behaviour support plan to achieve quality-of-life outcomes for its participants. MEBS highlights using non-aversive and least-restrictive procedures within its programming to reduce the frequency and severity of behaviours. In addition, previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of rapid and safe situational management programming, such as empathic listening and function-based strategic capitulation, in reducing the episodic severity (a measure of magnitude or intensity) of behaviours of concern and minimising the need for restrictive interventions (e.g., Dowdy & Tincani, 2020; LaVigna et al., 2022). Consistent with the findings, the current study applied the MEBS framework to a culturally and linguistically diverse young participant with autism and intellectual disability. The intervention package improved the participant’s engagement across activities, increased treatment satisfaction, reduced behaviours of concern, and eliminated the restrictive practice. The impact of the intervention package using situational effects and implications within rights-focused behaviour support services will be discussed.

Delivery of the functional reinforcer is used consistently within functional analyses to immediately stop any occurrence and escalation of behaviours of concern. The situational effects of this contingent functional reinforcement have a long-standing foundation in functional assessment literature (e.g., Iwata et al., 1982/1994; Sigafoos et al., 1995; Hanley et al., 2003; Warner et al., 2020). However, a gap exists between widespread use of functional reinforcement as an assessment procedure to use as an intervention procedure. Only a few behaviour analytic researchers have evaluated the use of functional reinforcement to decrease the frequency of behaviours of concern (e.g., Dowdy & Tincani, 2020; Slocum & Vollmer, 2015). Use of functional reinforcement, contingent on occurrence of behaviours of concern, may immediately stop behavioural escalation and improve safety in the moment. The current paper presents a replication-extension of Slocum and Vollmer (2015). The paper evaluates situational effects of functional reinforcement as a reactive strategy to decrease frequency and episodic severity of task refusal. Results from three young participants reveal differentiated responding across intervention conditions with functional reinforcement (i.e., escape) contingent on refusal or in combination with positive reinforcement for cooperation. Implications of the use of functional reinforcement on situational effects will be discussed.