Week 7: FA Modifications and Extensions

***What do the authors suggest are potential explanations for some of the correspondence failures? Why?*** Bloom et al. (2011)

-A lack of correspondence between results of the trial-based and standard functional analyses could be attributed to inadequate sampling. -Limited exposure to EOs during 2-min trials -Limited exposure to relevant consequences, which were delivered only once per trial.

What are some potential benefits of conducting a trial-based FA instead of a standard FA? Bloom et al. (2011)

-Each trial can be conducted briefly, thereby minimizing disruptions to classroom routine. -It is possible that fewer than 20 trials could be conducted, reducing duration accordingly but perhaps at the expense of precision.

Describe how the test and control conditions of the synthesized functional analysis were arranged. You should be able to describe the A-B-C's of the procedure given an example (e.g., control and test condition for attention/tangible) for bob Hanley et al. (2014)

-Problem bx was evoked by an adult's interruption and redirection of his play w/iPad or interruption and correction of his math work -Control: free access to ipad and math problems throughout sessions, tutor was present and made comments on his work but did not correct, redirect, or interrupt him -Test: tutor or parent interrupted, or redirected Bob's ipad play or interrupted or corrected his math problems. occurrences of problem bx, interruptions stopped and allowed bob 30s to play w/ipad or work on math --Ipad was not available in session for math and vice versa

Describe how the test and control conditions of the synthesized functional analysis were arranged. You should be able to describe the A-B-C's of the procedure given an example (e.g., control and test condition for attention/tangible) for Dale Hanley et al. (2014)

-Problem bx was evoked by an adult's interruption of activities that were initiated by dale or when his requests were denied -Control: Uninterrupted access to activities of his choosing, no demands were made and tutor honored all reasonable requests( requests that could be granted in the space) -Test: tutor interrupted the ongoing activity and instructed him to complete hw -3-step prompting procedure hierarchy was used to promote compliance w/ hw-related instruction, praise was delivered contingent on compliance w/hw -Removal of demands and re access to activity and the tutor complying to w/ Reasonable requests were contingent on problem bx

Describe how the test and control conditions of the synthesized functional analysis were arranged. You should be able to describe the A-B-C's of the procedure given an example (e.g., control and test condition for attention/tangible) For gail Hanley et al. (2014)

-Synthesized tangible and attention: --Control: Both tangible items and adult attention was available throughout session, and no instructions were provided --Test: tangible items and attention was removed at the beginning of the session, returned contingent on problem behavior for 30s. -Isolated synthesized tangible and attention: --Control: same as above --Test for attention: gail was allowed to access a variety of preferred toys, but at the beginning of the session the parent or tutor would remove attention by turning away and working on another task, attention was returned for 30s immediately following problem bx --Test for isolation of tangibles: Gail was placed at a table away from tangible items but tutor or parent was at the table with her and provided attention, gail was allowed to leave the table and play with toys for 30s contingent on problem behavior (the parent or tutor remained at the table and did not interact with her while she played)

***What two important ways does the IISCA differ from a traditional FA?*** Fisher et al. (2016)

-a traditional FA exposes the individual to a control condition and one or more test conditions in which the effects of individual reinforcement contingencies are evaluated one at a time to identify the specific contingency or contingencies that maintain problem behavior. By contrast, the IISCA combines multiple EOs, SDs, and consequences from multiple contingencies into a single test condition, but does not isolate any specific operant function -traditional FA assumes that individual contingencies produce primarily independent effects on problem behavior. By contrast, the IISCA assumes simultaneous (or interactive) control of behavior by multiple contingencies

Summarize the results in regards to the correspondence on behavioral function between the traditional FA and IISCA. Fisher et al. (2016)

Comparisons of the results of the traditional FA and IISCA revealed no evidence of interaction effects between the individual contingencies when we combined those contingencies during the IISCA. That is, the synthesized contingencies of the IISCA did not produce more robust reinforcement effects than the relevant individual contingencies of the traditional FA. ( I think this is what she is asking for...) (page 610, last paragraph)

List and describe the segments of a trial (e.g., duration, stimuli available or restricted, consequences for problem behavior). Bloom et al. (2011)

Each segment was 2 minutes in duration. During the first segment (control), the putative EO was absent (i.e., the reinforcer was freely available), and problem behavior produced no consequences. During the second segment (test), the EO was present (reinforcer restricted), and problem behavior produced a specified consequence. The third segment (control) was a repetition of the first segment.

***Be able to interpret and describe the data patterns shown in Figure 1. - just know the title of each panel (i.e., interactive, independent, etc)*** Fisher et al. (2016)

Figure 1 Top panel: -Hypothetical data where the results are consistent with the assumption of traditional FA (independent contingencies show an effect, interactive/IISCA shows no additional effect) -Second panel: Hypothetical data consistent with the assumption of IISCA. No evidence of independent effect -Third panel: hypothetical data where the problem bx is sensitive to both individual and synthesized contingencies (independent and interactive). In particular for escape and tangibles for the independent(traditional FA) and then escape to tangibles for the interactive (IISCA) -Fourth panel: Hypothetical data that shows problem bx is incentive to both independent and interactive contingencies.

Describe the general procedure for the demand assessment. How did the results of the demand assessment inform the functional analysis? Call et al. (2009)

For the demand assessment, the participant was seated at a table and the therapist says "[name], it's time to do some work." A trial was a single instance of a task, and three-step least to most intrusive prompting (verbal instruction, model, physical guidance) was used to get the tasks completed. Compliance resulted in mild praise and another trial of the demand. If targeted problem behavior occurred, material was removed and the session ended (latency is however long the session was until the behavior). If no problem behavior occurred, the latency was the duration of the session. Each session was only one demand. 10 sessions total. Demands were ranked in order of mean latency. Demands with the shortest and longest latencies were included in the functional assessment.

***Describe how the test and control conditions of the synthesized functional analysis were arranged. You should be able to describe the A-B-C's of the procedure given an example (e.g., control and test condition for attention/tangible)*** Hanley et al. (2014)

Synthesized functional analysis: Control: putative reircers were available throughout the session Test: putative reinforcers were removed every 30s and were only returned contingent on problem bx. Only difference between the test and control conditions was the suspected reinforcement contingency.

Why did the researchers conduct the trial-based functional analysis prior to the standard functional analysis? Bloom et al. (2011)

The trial-based functional analysis was conducted prior to the standard functional analysis because it would eliminate prior exposure to session contingencies in a standard analysis, which may have biased results in favor of the trial-based analysis. Also, the trial-based analysis consisted of far fewer exposures to session contingencies, thus minimizing concerns about carryover effects from the trial-based to the standard analysis (Pg. 21, left column, first paragraph).