Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) has a long history as a behavioral treatment. The term has usually been defined in a manner that suggests one form of behavior (usually some appropriate alternative) is reinforced, while another form of behavior (usually problem behavior) is placed on extinction. In this paper, we will suggest that DRA should not require extinction, either procedurally or by definition. Ideally, problem behavior would be placed on extinction when possible; however, when problem behavior is not or cannot be placed on extinction, the procedure used is still DRA. Thus, we propose the following definition: Providing greater reinforcement, along at least one dimension, contingent on the occurrence of one form or type of behavior, while minimizing reinforcement for another form or type of behavior.

Functional analyses and treatments of self-injurious behavior and aggression have shown that such behavior is often operant. In this paper, we will revisit evidence that a subset of selfinjurious and aggressive biting may be controlled primarily by antecedent events and may have phylogenetic origins. We propose that there is a research gap of more than four decades, if one considers the wealth of basic research on biting that occurred prior to 1977. To our knowledge, that body of basic research was never fully translated or directly applied within behavior analysis. It is known that organisms (including humans) sometimes bite in the presence of aversive events (broadly defined as the presentation of aversive stimuli or the removal of reinforcers). Thus, the variables controlling biting in the context of behavioral assessment and treatment require further analysis.

Token economies are one of the most commonly used behavior‐analytic interventions. Despite literature supporting the use of tokens as tools for behavior change, little is known about the efficacy of tokens compared to that of the items for which they are exchanged. Results of previous research comparing the reinforcing efficacy of tokens and primary reinforcers have shown that both produce similar effects on responding. However, published findings have been confounded given the inclusion of primary reinforcers in the token‐reinforcer test conditions. In this study, we established novel tokens as reinforcers. We then conducted a conditioned‐reinforcer assessment using a tandem control to ensure that the tokens functioned as reinforcers. We used progressive‐ratio schedules to compare the reinforcing efficacy of the tokens to high‐ and low‐preference edibles that were also used as backup reinforcers. For both participants, we found that high‐preference primary reinforcers maintained higher response frequencies than did tokens.

Behavioral skills training (BST) is a well‐established procedure used to train individuals how to perform a variety of complex skills. Previous research has used BST to train parents, teachers, and clinicians how to conduct a variety of clinical procedures, including functional analysis of problem behavior. Although this procedure has been demonstrated to be very effective, it can be time consuming and resource intensive. In the present study, 13 behavior analysts were trained to conduct functional analyses of problem behavior. All participants were employees of a multistate early intervention clinic. This staff training was conducted fully remotely, and trainers acted as child role‐play partners. Participants experienced baseline, an instruction/discussion component, a post‐instruction probe, group BST, and a post‐BST probe. For 5 participants, in‐situ probes were also conducted. All participants achieved mastery and in‐situ errors were low.