Behavior Reduction Interventions Flashcards

A practitioner is using differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) to reduce a client's self-injurious behavior. After several weeks, the SIB rate drops significantly but a new topography of self-injury emerges that was not present before. This phenomenon is best described as:

Answer: Response generalization

Response generalization occurs when an intervention targeting one response produces changes in other, functionally similar responses. In this case, the DRO reduced the original SIB topography, but because the same reinforcement contingency maintains multiple response forms, a new SIB topography emerged to contact reinforcement. This is distinct from symptom substitution (a psychoanalytic concept not used in ABA) and behavioral contrast (a change in response rate in an untreated context).

When implementing a progressive ratio schedule to assess reinforcer efficacy prior to selecting a behavioral reduction package, the key metric the practitioner is measuring is the:

Answer: Break point — the ratio at which the organism ceases responding

The break point is the defining measure of a progressive ratio assessment — it is the ratio requirement at which the subject stops responding (i.e., the last completed ratio before a defined pause criterion is met). A higher break point indicates greater reinforcer efficacy. This information informs selection of potent reinforcers for DRO, DRI, or other differential reinforcement procedures used in behavior reduction.

A BCBA supervisor reviews data showing that a response-cost procedure effectively reduced problem behavior during structured therapy sessions but the behavior has increased substantially at home and in the community. The MOST likely explanation consistent with ABA principles is:

Answer: The home and community settings have not been brought under discriminative control for appropriate behavior

When a behavior reduction procedure produces suppression in one setting but not others, this typically indicates that discriminative stimuli (SDs) signaling the contingency are not present in the generalization settings — the environments have not been brought under the same discriminative control. The problem behavior is maintained in home/community because those settings still signal reinforcement availability. The correct remediation is programming for generalization by thinning SDs across settings, not simply assuming punisher generalization.

A practitioner is deciding between extinction and noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) as primary behavior reduction strategies for escape-maintained aggression. A critical clinical advantage of NCR over extinction in this scenario is:

Answer: NCR avoids the extinction burst and emotional responding that often accompany extinction of escape behavior

For escape-maintained behavior, extinction requires the practitioner to physically prevent escape (escape extinction), which can provoke an extinction burst — an intense increase in aggression that poses safety risks. NCR delivers noncontingent access to escape (breaks) on a time-based schedule, thereby abolishing the establishing operation (EO) for escape. This reduces the motivating conditions for aggression without triggering the burst or the difficult-to-manage escalation typical of escape extinction.

When using a fixed-momentary DRO schedule to reduce stereotypy, the practitioner delivers reinforcement only if the target behavior is absent at the precise moment the interval ends. Compared to whole-interval DRO, momentary DRO is most likely to:

Answer: Inadvertently reinforce pauses in stereotypy rather than sustained absence of the behavior

Momentary DRO only requires the target behavior to be absent at the single moment the timer expires; it does not require the behavior to be absent throughout the entire interval. This means the client can engage in high rates of stereotypy during most of the interval and still receive reinforcement if the behavior happens to pause at the check point. This is a critical limitation: momentary DRO may inadvertently reinforce brief pauses rather than durable suppression, making it less effective for behaviors with high baseline rates than whole-interval DRO.

A practitioner is evaluating whether to use punishment as part of a behavior reduction plan for dangerous self-injurious behavior that has not responded to multiple reinforcement-based procedures. According to the ethical framework described in the BACB Ethics Code, which of the following conditions is MOST critical before implementing a punishment-based procedure?

Answer: Informed consent must be obtained and reinforcement-based alternatives must have been attempted and documented as insufficient

The BACB Ethics Code requires practitioners to use the least restrictive effective procedure. Before implementing punishment, practitioners must document that reinforcement-based strategies have been tried and found insufficient, and they must obtain informed consent from the client and/or guardian. There is no mandated minimum duration (e.g., six months) specified in the code, nor a legal threshold requirement built into the ethical standard itself. The code prioritizes the harm-benefit analysis, documentation of failed alternatives, and consent — not a specific procedural protocol from the literature.