Behavior Reduction Interventions Flashcards

A client engages in severe self-injurious behavior (SIB) maintained by automatic negative reinforcement. The BCBA decides to implement a non-contingent reinforcement (NCR) procedure. Which of the following best explains why NCR may be LESS effective for automatically maintained SIB compared to socially maintained SIB?

Answer: NCR disrupts the contingency between behavior and reinforcement, but automatic reinforcement is inherently non-contingent and self-generated

NCR works by delivering reinforcement on a time-based schedule independent of behavior, thereby abolishing the motivating operation and disrupting the contingency. For socially maintained behavior, the practitioner controls the reinforcer. For automatically maintained SIB, the body produces the reinforcing stimulation through the behavior itself — so NCR with an externally delivered stimulus may not adequately compete with or substitute for the self-generated sensory consequence, reducing its efficacy.

During extinction for escape-maintained aggression, a practitioner notices a dramatic increase in the intensity and duration of aggressive episodes. Two weeks into treatment, aggression drops below baseline. At week five, aggression spikes again for two days before returning to near-zero levels. What behavioral phenomenon best describes the week-five spike?

Answer: Spontaneous recovery

Spontaneous recovery refers to the temporary reappearance of an extinguished behavior after a period of time has passed without exposure to the extinction contingency (e.g., over a weekend). It is distinct from resurgence, which occurs when a previously reinforced behavior re-emerges when a more recently reinforced alternative behavior is placed on extinction. The week-five pattern — a brief spike after near-zero responding — matches the temporal signature of spontaneous recovery.

A BCBA is implementing differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) for a client whose problem behavior is maintained by attention. The client has not yet acquired the alternative communicative response. Which procedural modification is MOST critical to prevent inadvertent reinforcement of the target behavior during early DRA implementation?

Answer: Ensuring the magnitude and immediacy of reinforcement for the alternative response exceeds that historically provided for the problem behavior

For DRA to effectively compete with a well-established problem behavior, the alternative behavior must contact reinforcement that is more immediate, of greater magnitude, and delivered on a richer schedule than the reinforcement that previously maintained the problem behavior. If the alternative response produces weaker or delayed reinforcement, the problem behavior retains a competitive advantage. This is especially critical early in training before the alternative response is fluent.

A practitioner is using response interruption and redirection (RIRD) to reduce vocal stereotypy. The client begins engaging in the vocal stereotypy, and the practitioner issues a series of demands (unrelated to the stereotypy) until the client complies. Which ethical and procedural concern is MOST directly associated with this intervention when the stereotypy is automatically reinforced?

Answer: RIRD may function as positive punishment because demands are aversive, raising least-restrictive-alternative concerns

RIRD involves presenting demands contingent on the stereotypy, which interrupts the automatic reinforcement and requires the client to engage in alternative behaviors. Because the demands are typically mildly aversive (they require effort and interrupt the preferred activity), the procedure may function as positive punishment — adding something aversive contingent on behavior. Practitioners must weigh this against least-restrictive-alternative principles and ensure the procedure is socially valid, humane, and backed by a functional assessment.

A behavior technician implements a token economy in which problem behavior results in response cost (token removal). The supervisor reviews data and finds that problem behavior initially decreased but has recently returned to near-baseline rates. The client's preference assessment still shows tokens are highly preferred. Which explanation is MOST consistent with behavioral theory?

Answer: The response cost contingency has been applied too inconsistently, weakening the punishing effect through intermittent reinforcement of problem behavior

When punishment procedures are applied inconsistently — meaning the problem behavior sometimes results in response cost and sometimes does not — the behavior effectively contacts an intermittent punishment schedule. Just as intermittent reinforcement produces persistence, intermittent punishment tends to produce persistence of the punished behavior and can even strengthen it relative to continuous punishment. Consistent application is essential for response cost to maintain its suppressive effect.

A BCBA is designing a behavior intervention plan for property destruction maintained by tangible reinforcement. She considers using a combination of extinction plus DRO. The DRO interval is set at 5 minutes based on the client's average inter-response time (IRT). After two weeks, data show near-zero responding. She resets the interval back to 5 minutes after a week-long break. Which measurement decision represents a critical error in this scenario?

Answer: Failing to re-baseline the IRT after the week-long break before resetting the DRO interval, because IRT may have changed

DRO intervals should be calibrated to the client's current IRT. After a break (e.g., a week away from the intervention), the client's behavior may have partially recovered, meaning the IRT has shortened. Resetting to the original 5-minute interval without re-assessing the current IRT risks setting an interval that is too long relative to the client's post-break response rate, resulting in frequent non-reinforcement and possible treatment failure. Best practice is to re-measure IRT and reset the interval accordingly after any significant interruption.