- Applied Behavior Analysis Behavior Reduction Interventions Questions and Answers Flashcards

A client with ASD engages in severe self-injurious behavior (SIB) maintained by automatic reinforcement. The treatment team has implemented a competing stimulus assessment and identified preferred items that suppress SIB by 85%. However, the BCBA notes that SIB still occurs when the preferred items are not available. Which intervention best addresses the long-term durability concern?

Answer: Thin the schedule of preferred item access while teaching a functionally equivalent alternative that accesses similar sensory input

Thinning access to competing stimuli while simultaneously teaching a functionally equivalent response (FER) that provides similar sensory input addresses both the immediate suppression and long-term maintenance. Continuous provision (A) is impractical and doesn't build independence. Re-running a functional analysis (B) is redundant if the maintaining variable is already established. NCR alone (D) does not address skill building and becomes unsustainable as schedules thin.

During a behavior intervention plan review, a BCBA discovers that a Registered Behavior Technician (RBT) has been delivering response cost contingently following every instance of aggression, but has also been inadvertently delivering it following instances of loud vocalizations not targeted in the BIP. What is the MOST immediate ethical and clinical concern?

Answer: The RBT is implementing an unapproved punishment procedure that may suppress an untargeted behavior without consent

Applying a punisher (response cost) to an untargeted behavior without caregiver/guardian consent and without a formal behavior plan violates both ethical standards (BACB Ethics Code 2.0) and the client's rights. The untargeted behavior may be communicative or clinically significant. Response cost is not categorically contraindicated for aggression (B is false). Adding the behavior to the BIP (D) could only happen after proper assessment and consent, not as an immediate fix.

A behavior analyst is evaluating the use of a differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) procedure for escape-maintained problem behavior. The alternative behavior selected is a vocal 'break' request. After 6 weeks, the problem behavior is not decreasing and the alternative behavior is not increasing. A review of data shows break requests are being honored 40% of the time because staff state the client 'uses them too much.' What is the MOST likely explanation for treatment failure?

Answer: The reinforcement schedule for the alternative behavior has become too lean, undermining the functional equivalence of the replacement behavior

When staff honor break requests only 40% of the time, they have inadvertently thinned the reinforcement schedule before the alternative behavior is strong enough — and they are no longer providing a functionally equivalent replacement. This destroys the core mechanism of DRA. The problem is not effort (A), as vocal requests are low-effort. DRA is a well-supported intervention for escape-maintained behavior (C is false). While extinction can accelerate DRA, its absence doesn't explain this specific data pattern (D).

A BCBA is designing a behavior reduction program for automatically reinforced repetitive motor stereotypy that is not dangerous but significantly interferes with learning. The least restrictive effective option has been determined after a hierarchy review. Which of the following sequences correctly orders these procedures from LEAST to MOST restrictive?

Answer: Competing stimulus assessment → NCR on a dense schedule → RIRD → Response blocking with planned ignoring

The correct least-to-most restrictive order for automatically reinforced stereotypy is: (1) Competing stimulus assessment to identify items that naturally suppress the behavior without intervention; (2) NCR to enrich the environment and reduce motivation; (3) RIRD which involves active staff interruption; and (4) Response blocking which involves physical contact. Option A places RIRD before NCR, skipping less restrictive steps. Option C introduces extinction (which is difficult for automatic reinforcement) and overcorrection (highly restrictive) out of order. Option D mixes response cost (punishment) in too early.

A client's functional behavior assessment (FBA) indicates that property destruction is maintained by both tangible reinforcement (access to preferred items) and social positive reinforcement (attention). The behavior analyst designs a DRA+extinction package. Six weeks in, property destruction decreases 70% during tangible conditions but remains at baseline during attention conditions. What is the MOST parsimonious explanation and appropriate clinical response?

Answer: Extinction has not been consistently implemented for the attention function; verify and tighten procedural integrity for that maintaining contingency

When a multi-function BIP shows differential responding by condition, the most parsimonious explanation is inconsistent implementation of one of the extinction components — specifically, that caregivers may still be delivering attention following property destruction in the social condition. Verifying procedural integrity data for the attention extinction component is the correct first step. Behavioral contrast (A) would show an increase above baseline in one condition, not maintenance. A single alternative behavior CAN address multiple functions if designed appropriately (C is overstated). A 70% reduction in only one of two conditions is not clinically sufficient when the behavior persists at baseline in the other (D).

A BCBA is asked to consult on a case where an adult client in a group home exhibits high-rate verbal aggression maintained by attention from peers and staff. The current BIP uses extinction (planned ignoring) as the sole procedure. Staff report that during extinction bursts, the verbal aggression escalates to physical aggression not previously observed, which staff then respond to by removing the client from the group. What does this data pattern MOST indicate about the current intervention plan?

Answer: Physical aggression is being negatively reinforced by removal from the group, creating a new behavior maintained by escape that was inadvertently shaped by the extinction protocol

This is a classic example of response variation during an extinction burst leading to the inadvertent shaping of a new, more severe behavior with a different function. When staff remove the client in response to physical aggression, they are providing negative reinforcement (escape from the group setting), establishing a new escape-maintained behavior. The BIP failed to anticipate response variation or establish crisis protocols that don't provide reinforcement. While extinction bursts with variation are expected (A), the clinician is responsible for anticipating this and building safeguards — the data pattern here shows a new function emerging, not just a burst. Options C and D do not address the core issue of the new reinforcement contingency.