Previous research has shown that providing choices may result in an increase in appropriate behavior and a decrease in inappropriate behavior; however, the process by which choice results in a behavior change is unknown. In the current study, we replicated and extended previous research by determining the prevalence of preference for choice in a large number of children and evaluating whether a history of differential outcomes associated with choice and no choice resulted in changes in preference for those conditions. Results from Study 1 showed that the majority of participants preferred choice contexts when child choice and experimenter choice resulted in identical outcomes. In Study 2, participants' preferences were altered when child choice and experimenter choice resulted in differential outcomes, but a history with differential outcomes did not produce a reliable and durable effect on selections.

Response variability is sensitive to antecedent and consequent manipulations. Researchers have investigated inducement, direct production through reinforcement, and stimulus control of response variability. Recently, researchers have shown that lag reinforcement schedules reliably increase variability but may also produce higher-order stereotypy. There has been limited investigation of appropriate variability levels and alternation between repetition and variation. In a three-part study, we evaluated levels of variability across a group of children, the effects of various procedures on producing response variability and novelty, and the use of schedule-correlated stimuli for producing rapid alternation between repetition and variation. In Study 1, there was a nearly bimodal distribution of children emitting either low or high variability. In Study 2, for most children, fixed lag 4 and variable lag 4 schedules produced the highest levels of variability and novelty. In Study 3, responding was brought under control of schedule-correlated stimuli, allowing for rapid alternation between repetition and variation.

Clinicians often conduct indirect assessments (IAs; e.g., Durand & Crimmins, 1988; Iwata, DeLeon, & Roscoe, 2013; Matson & Vollmer, 1995) such as questionnaires and interviews with caregivers to gain information about the variables influencing problem behavior. However, researchers have found poor reliability and validity of IAs with respect to determining functional variables. There are numerous variables that might influence the efficacy of IAs as an assessment tool, one of which is the skill set of the person completing the IA. For example, it may be possible to increase the validity and reliability of IAs by having individuals with certain skill sets such as a background in behavior analysis and FBA ("experts") complete them. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the reliability (i.e., agreement with respect to function and specific IA questions) and validity (i.e., agreement between the outcome of IAs and a functional analysis) of IAs completed by caregivers and "experts" for each of eight children who emitted problem behavior. We found that experts were more likely than caregivers to agree on IA outcomes with respect to (a) overall interrater agreement, (b) item-by-item agreement, and (c) the highest-rated function(s) of problem behavior. Experts were also more likely to correctly identify the function(s), based on comparisons of the results of the IAs and FAs. In addition, caregivers were more likely to (a) disagree on hypothesized functions and (b) identify multiple incorrect functions. The use of experts for completing IAs could have significant impact on their utility and provide a novel method for more rapidly completing the FBA process and developing a function-based treatment.

No abstract

No abstract