- Applied Behavior Analysis Behavior Reduction Interventions Questions and Answers Flashcards

A client engages in high-rate stereotypy that does not appear to be socially mediated. A BCBA implements a response interruption and redirection (RIRD) procedure, but after 3 weeks the stereotypy has not decreased and the client has begun showing increased agitation during sessions. What is the most likely explanation for these outcomes?

Answer: RIRD may itself function as an EO that increases the reinforcing value of the stereotypy, and the agitation may reflect an aversive interaction with the procedure

RIRD can be effective for automatically reinforced stereotypy, but it is not universally effective and can itself become aversive. When the procedure produces agitation without behavior reduction, it suggests the interruption may be functioning as an aversive stimulus or that the brief break in stereotypy followed by reinstatement may paradoxically heighten the reinforcing value. A functional review and consideration of alternative antecedent or non-aversive procedures is warranted.

During a functional analysis, a behavior analyst observes that self-injurious behavior (SIB) occurs at high and undifferentiated rates across all conditions, including the control (play) condition. Which interpretation and next step is MOST appropriate?

Answer: The functional analysis is inconclusive due to possible multiple controlling variables or a ceiling effect; a more refined FA methodology such as a latency-based or trial-based FA should be considered

High undifferentiated rates across all conditions, including the control, indicate the standard FA did not isolate a single function. This can result from multiple controlling variables, a ceiling effect, or the play condition inadvertently containing reinforcing elements. A latency-based FA, trial-based FA, or synthesized contingency analysis would allow finer-grained analysis before selecting a treatment.

A behavior analyst is using differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) paired with extinction for aggression maintained by escape from demands. The client's aggression briefly spikes on Day 2 of treatment. On Day 5, aggression drops to near-zero, but a spontaneous recovery occurs on Day 9 after a weekend break. Which of the following actions is MOST appropriate?

Answer: Continue the DRA + extinction protocol consistently, as spontaneous recovery is an expected extinction phenomenon that typically extinguishes quickly with continued treatment implementation

Spontaneous recovery — a temporary return of an extinguished behavior after a break — is a well-documented extinction phenomenon and does not indicate treatment failure. The correct response is to maintain consistent implementation of the DRA + extinction protocol. With continued consistent exposure, spontaneous recovery episodes become shorter and less intense until they no longer occur. Switching procedures prematurely risks inadvertently reinforcing the recovered behavior.

A BCBA is designing a behavior intervention plan for elopement that includes response blocking as a safety measure. According to ethical and procedural guidelines, which consideration is MOST critical before implementing response blocking?

Answer: Response blocking is a form of physical management that requires documentation of its least-restrictive justification, staff training in safe implementation, and ongoing data collection to evaluate its necessity

Response blocking involves physical contact and constitutes a restrictive practice. Before implementation, the BCBA must document why less restrictive alternatives are insufficient (least restrictive justification), ensure all implementing staff are trained in safe application to prevent injury, and collect ongoing data to determine when the procedure can be faded. It is not punishment per se (it does not follow a behavior to decrease it via contingency), but it is a restrictive antecedent intervention requiring procedural safeguards.

A practitioner implements a high-probability (high-p) request sequence prior to a low-probability (low-p) demand to reduce noncompliance. After initial success, noncompliance returns to baseline levels. A review reveals that the practitioner has been using the same three high-p requests in the same fixed order every session. What is the MOST likely behavioral explanation for the treatment failure?

Answer: The fixed sequence of high-p requests has become a discriminative stimulus for the aversive low-p demand, establishing an anticipatory escape-maintained noncompliance pattern

When the same high-p requests are delivered in a fixed order, the sequence itself becomes a predictable signal (SD) that a low-p demand is imminent. This allows the client to discriminate and begin emitting escape behavior (noncompliance) in anticipation. Varying the types, order, and number of high-p requests, embedding low-p demands unpredictably, and using interspersed trials can disrupt this discriminated pattern and restore treatment effects.

A behavior analyst is evaluating whether to use a negative punishment procedure (response cost) for a student's disruptive classroom behavior. The behavior is maintained by peer attention. The student currently earns a fixed number of tokens exchangeable for preferred items. Which scenario represents an INAPPROPRIATE application of response cost?

Answer: Applying response cost as the sole behavior reduction procedure without a concurrent reinforcement component for appropriate behavior

Response cost should never be implemented as a standalone behavior reduction procedure without a concurrent reinforcement component for appropriate or alternative behavior. Using punishment in isolation violates both ethical guidelines and best practice principles; it reduces the target behavior without building a replacement repertoire, increases risk of emotional side effects, and does not address the function of behavior. BACB ethics require that behavior reduction procedures are paired with positive reinforcement of alternative behaviors.