Achieving socially significant reductions in problem behavior following the interview‐informed synthesized contingency analysis: A summary of 25 outpatient applications

Abstract

Jessel, Hanley, and Ghaemmaghami (2016) reported the results of 30 interview-informed, synthesized contingency analyses (IISCAs) and found the IISCAs to be an effective tool for identifying the functions of problem behavior across a variety of topographies, participants, and settings. Jessel et al. did not, however, include data on the effectiveness of the corresponding treatments. In the current study, we collected and summarized 25 additional applications, from analysis to treatment, in which the IISCA was applied in an outpatient clinic. The IISCA identified various social functions of problem behavior, which informed personalized treatments of functional communication training with contingency-based reinforcement thinning. A 90% or greater reduction in problem behavior was obtained for every participant by the end of the treatment evaluation. The assessment and treatment process was socially validated by caregivers who rated the procedures highly acceptable and helpful, and the improvement in their child's behavior highly satisfactory.

Assessing the generality and durability of interview‐informed functional analyses and treatment

“…Caregivers agreed that the target behaviors were important, the treatment was appropriate, and the effects acceptable. This study adds to the growing literature base (Hanley et al, 2014;Herman et al, 2018;Jessel et al, 2018;Santiago et al, 2016;Strand & Eldevik, 2017;Taylor et al, 2018) showing that socially meaningful reductions in problem behavior may be achieved when interviewinformed and synthesized reinforcers are used to strengthen the skills of communication, toleration, and contextually appropriate behavior. My child learned to accept being told "no" or "wait" from an adult.…”

“…Like Ghaemmaghami et al (), we taught specific FCRs for various activities as opposed to a an omnibus “My way” request (Hanley et al, ; Ghaemmaghami et al, ; Jessel et al, ). Unlike Ghaemmaghami et al (), we did not see persistence of problem behavior while we taught precise mands which may be because we taught mands for different toys whereas Ghaemmaghami et al () taught precise mands for different functional classes of reinforcement (i.e., escape, tangibles, and attention).…”

“…Single‐case replications are essential to the field of behavior analysis; however, large‐scale evaluations that report the results of all applications further extend the generality of assessment and treatment processes while conveying the probability a particular process will be effective (a consideration important to administrators responsible for supporting the adoption of assessment and treatment procedures). Jessel, Ingvarsson, Metras, Kirk, and Whipple () extended previous research by conducting a consecutive controlled case series evaluation of the assessment and treatment process with 25 outpatient cases. Jessel et al replicated the procedures described in Hanley et al () within a 2‐week, full‐day outpatient program and effectively reduced problem behavior by at least 90% across all 25 children and obtained high social validity ratings for the acceptability of the procedures and meaningfulness of the treatment outcomes.…”

“…Although the results of the assessment and treatment model employed by Hanley et al () are promising and there have been numerous replications of the assessment process and initial stages of treatment (e.g., Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, & Jessel, ; Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, Jessel, & Landa, ; Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, Jin, & Vanselow, ; Jessel et al, ; Slaton, Hanley, & Raftery, ), there are fewer replications of the entire assessment and treatment process with evaluations of the social validity of the outcomes (Herman et al, ; Jessel et al, ; Santiago et al, ; Strand & Eldevik, ; Taylor et al, ), and there are limited data on the maintenance of effects. In addition, only three replications were published by authors who did not train with Dr. Hanley at the Life Skills Clinic at Western New England University (Herman et al, ; Strand & Eldevik, ; Taylor et al, ).…”

“…The procedures were implemented with only individuals who were language-abled (similar to Strand & Eldevik, 2017); therefore, it is unknown whether these procedures will be effective in homes when teaching individuals without well-developed vocal-verbal behavior. The positive outcomes reported by Jessel et al (2018) and Ghaemmaghammi et al (2016) from outpatient clinic processes with learners of various language abilities suggest that these procedures would be effective, but more replications in the home with learners of different language abilities is needed. A second limitation was that although we worked in the children's homes and included parents at the end of the process, we did not evaluate whether the treatment effects generalized to community settings when implemented by parents.…”