|
| A Review of Additional Factors Influencing Assessment and Treatment of Challenging Behavior |
| Monday, May 26, 2025 |
| 3:00 PM–3:50 PM |
| Marriott Marquis, M4 Level, Independence D |
| Area: AUT/DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Lesley A. Shawler (Southern Illinois University) |
| Discussant: Benjamin R. Thomas (Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine) |
| CE Instructor: Lesley A. Shawler, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: Many variables related to the functional analysis (FA) have been largely investigated since its inception in 1982. However, less attention to certain variables such as the demographic characteristics of participants has occurred, despite a rich history of FA studies. Moreover, since its inception, the FA has demonstrated its utility by identifying idiosyncratic antecedent and consequence variables that contribute to the maintenance of challenging behavior. Once a function of behavior is identified, a variety of different function-based interventions can be selected. Differential reinforcement of behavior is often prescribed based on its focus on increasing alternative behaviors. Less attention has been given to one specific differential reinforcement procedure, differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI). The first paper reviews the FA literature from 2018-2023 by examining participant demographics and idiosyncratic variables reported in the literature. Preliminary findings show that few studies report on demographic variables and that about a quarter of studies reported identifying idiosyncratic variables within the FA test conditions. The second paper reviews the treatment literature specific to DRI. Unfortunately, the evaluation of DRI effectiveness was complicated by several common factors. Both papers will discuss the implications of their findings and areas for future research and directions. |
| Instruction Level: Intermediate |
| Keyword(s): challenging behavior, demographics, differential reinforcement, functional analysis |
| Target Audience: Knowledge of the Iwata functional analysis methodology Knowledge of differences among the differential reinforcement procedures Some knowledge of how to identify idiosyncratic variables within the Iwata functional analysis test conditions |
Learning Objectives: 1. Identify the prevalence and importance of including demographic variables within functional analyses
2. Describe the issues with evaluating the effectiveness of differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior procedures
3. Determine the role that idiosyncratic variables play within functional analysis and its implications for treatment |
| |
| Systematic Review of Demographics and Idiosyncratic Variables in Functional Analyses: Extending Melanson & Fahmie (2023) |
| LAURENT OROZCO-BARRIOS (Southern Illinois University), Sebastian Garcia-Zambrano (Mount St. Mary's University), Lesley A. Shawler (Southern Illinois University), Anna Cole (Purdue Global), Connor Eyre (Missouri State University), Maggie Ratcliff (Southern Illinois University Carbondale) |
| Abstract: Functional analysis (FA) provides the most accurate assessment for identifying the variables that influence the occurrence of challenging behavior. Despite several systematic reviews (e.g., Melanson & Fahmie, 2023; Schlichenmeyer et al., 2013), a knowledge gap remains regarding the relation between FA outcomes, demographic characteristics, and idiosyncratic variables. This pre-registered systematic review aims to address this gap by identifying the demographic characteristics of participants undergoing FA in peer-reviewed studies. Additionally, the study identified the type of and proportion of idiosyncratic variables related to the function of behavior across studies. Using a comprehensive procedure following PRISMA recommendations, the review ranged from May 2018 to May 2023, including 194 studies and the analysis of more than 600 FA. Preliminary findings show that less than 10% of participants had a report of basic demographics (e.g., race, ethnicity), highlighting the need for more inclusive data collection in FA research (e.g., Jones et. al 2020). Additionally, fewer than 20% of studies reported the identification of idiosyncratic variables in the attention, escape, automatic or tangible conditions. Future directions in the FA literature are proposed, aiming to assess the role of demographic and idiosyncratic variables in FA research with undifferentiated results, and enhance the inclusion of diverse communities. |
| |
| Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior: A Comprehensive Review |
| MELISA DENNIS (Rutgers University), Jenna Budge (Rutgers University), Debra Paone (Douglass Developmental Disabilities Center), Robert LaRue (Rutgers University), Tia Horn (Rutgers University) |
| Abstract: Differential reinforcement (DR) has been a cornerstone for interventions for challenging behavior for decades (Jessel & Ingvarsson, 2016). While DRO and DRA tend to be the most studied types of DR, differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) has received much less scrutiny in the literature. References to DRI can be found in many journal articles and foundational behavior analysis texts (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1986). However, studies evaluating the effectiveness in recent decades are sparse. The current review summarizes the existing DRI literature and highlights its importance. The review identified 16 studies of sufficient methodological quality (23 participants). Evaluation of the effectiveness of DRI was complicated by several factors, 1) DRI was often evaluated as a part of a larger package, 2) the incompatible responses targeted in the studies were often not “incompatible”, and 3) DRI procedures themselves often varied (e.g., the nature of the incompatible response requirement). When taken into account, the effectiveness of DRI varied widely. Specifically, DRI tends to be most effective when implemented in conjunction with interruption and when the incompatible response is truly incompatible with problem behavior. When applicable, the DRI should require the response to be present throughout the interval for maximal effectiveness. |
|
| |