Competing stimulus assessments (CSAs) are designed to identify stimuli that reduce challenging behavior through competition with its maintaining reinforcers. Recently, Haddock and Hagopian (2020) found that over 92% of CSAs described in published studies identified at least one high-competition stimulus (i.e., a stimulus correlated with at least an 80% reduction in challenging behavior). The current study describes the outcomes of CSAs in a retrospective consecutive controlled case series study of 35 cases (individuals) admitted to an inpatient setting. Findings on the limited relation between the level of stimulus engagement and reductions in challenging behavior were replicated; however, the efficacy of CSAs was lower (only 47% of CSAs were successful in identifying one or more highcompetition stimuli). Discrepant findings across studies on the efficacy of CSAs are discussed in terms of differences in the sample participants and how outcomes are reported, which vary depending on the study's research questions.

Workshops using arts and board games are forms of non-pharmacological intervention widely employed in seniors with neurocognitive disorders. However, clear guidelines on how to conduct these workshops are missing. The objective of the Art and Game project (AGAP) was to draft recommendations on the structure and content of workshops for elderly people with neurocognitive disorders and healthy seniors, with a particular focus on remote/hybrid workshops, in which at least a part of the participants is connected remotely. Recommendations were gathered using a Delphi methodology. The expert panel (N = 18) included experts in the health, art and/or board games domains. They answered questions via two rounds of web-surveys, and then discussed the results in a plenary meeting. Some of the questions were also shared with the general public (N = 101). Both the experts and the general public suggested that organizing workshops in a hybrid format (some face-to-face sessions, some virtual session) is feasible and interesting for people with neurocognitive disorders. We reported guidelines on the overall structure of workshops, practical tips on how to organize remote workshops, and a SWOT analysis of the use of remote/hybrid workshops. The guidelines may be employed by clinicians to decide, based on their needs and constraints, what interventions and what kind of workshop format to employ, as well as by researcher to standardize procedures to assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments for people with neurocognitive disorders.

The overjustification hypothesis suggests that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic rewards are common in strengthening behavior in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities; we examined overjustification effects in this context. A literature search yielded 65 data sets permitting comparison of responding during an initial no-reinforcement phase to a subsequent no-reinforcement phase, separated by a reinforcement phase. We used effect sizes to compare response levels in these two no-reinforcement phases. Overall, the mean effect size did not differ from zero; levels in the second no-reinforcement phase were equally likely to be higher or lower than in the first. However, in contrast to the overjustification hypothesis, levels were higher in the second no-reinforcement phase when comparing the single no-reinforcement sessions immediately before and after reinforcement. Outcomes consistent with the overjustification hypothesis were somewhat more likely when the target behavior occurred at relatively higher levels prior to reinforcement.