The Use of Isolated and Synthesized Latency Functional Analyses in the Assessment and Treatment of Clothing Removal Exhibited by a Child with Autism

Abstract

The case of a 9-year-old male with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who presented with problem behavior in the form of high-frequency clothing removal is reported. Descriptive data indicated the behavior occurred when tasks were presented and commonly delayed task demands and resulted in staff attention. Two latency functional analyses with isolated and synthesized contingencies were completed to clarify the operant function of the behavior. Initial results of the synthesized analysis indicated clothing removal was sensitive to attention and escape. However, a subsequent functional analysis with isolated contingencies indicated that the behavior was maintained only by attention. A function-based intervention package consisting of attention extinction, response blocking, and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) effectively reduced the frequency of clothing removal to near-zero levels. Results of the intervention were partially generalized to a new therapist. The use of latency functional analyses as a means to rapidly examine isolated and synthesized contingencies maintaining problem behavior is discussed as well as the effects of the treatment package on the behavior of clothing removal.

Latency measurement in functional analysis and treatment of behaviors targeted for reduction

“…In four studies, researchers used additional strategies to clarify functions including a pairwise assessment (Briggs et al., 2019), reversal and pairwise assessments (Neidert et al., 2013), and consecutive alone sessions followed by a second multi‐element analysis (Simmons et al., 2019). Five studies each used a pairwise design to assess hypothesized functions for a single participant (e.g., Brown, 2021). Researchers also used distributed trial arrangements (Standish et al., 2021) and response allocation approaches (Traub & Vollmer, 2019).…”

“…Elopement is commonly discussed as an example of a behavior that functionally terminates the session for which latency is a valuable measure, and this corpus of studies included nine cases that addressed elopement behavior (e.g., Davis et al., 2013; Jessel et al., 2018; Kamlowsky et al., 2021). Interestingly, this review also included a number of cases where researchers measured other behaviors that functionally terminate a session including food‐stealing (e.g., Lambert et al., 2019), door‐closing (Neil & Jones, 2016), clothing removal (Brown, 2021), and repetitive arranging behavior (Chok & Harper, 2016). In addition to assessing behaviors that functionally terminate a session, this review includes several cases where researchers used LFFAs to address behaviors that may be dangerous to evoke at high rates such as aggression (e.g., Caruthers et al., 2015), property destruction (e.g., Hansen et al., 2019), disruption (e.g., Falcomata et al., 2016), and SIB (e.g., Haq et al., 2018).…”

“…In this review, there were five studies (Harper & Luiselli, 2019; Lambert, Lopano, et al., 2017; Simmons et al., 2019; Standish et al., 2021) where natural environment implementers conducted FAs and implemented all or some of the treatment sessions (c.f., the treatment evaluation sessions for one out of the 5 participants in Standish et al., 2021). Natural environment implementers implemented all or some of the treatment sessions in an additional five studies (Brown, 2021; Chok & Harper, 2016; Dovgan et al., 2020; Neil & Jones, 2016; Noel & Rubow, 2018). Individuals are referred for assessment and treatment of challenging behavior because it is occurring in the natural environment at a level that is not sustainable in that context; thus, an important part of the treatment evaluation process is transferring control of the intervention implementation over to natural environment implementers.…”