- Applied Behavior Analysis Antecedent-Based Interventions Questions and Answers Flashcards

A student with autism repeatedly elopes from the classroom during large-group instruction. An FBA reveals the behavior is maintained by escape from auditory overstimulation. The BCBA implements a high-density schedule of preferred sensory breaks before large-group activities begin. This antecedent-based intervention is best classified as which type of establishing operation manipulation?

Answer: Abolishing operation that decreases the aversiveness of auditory stimulation

Providing preferred sensory breaks before the aversive activity functions as an abolishing operation (AO) — it reduces the aversive value of auditory overstimulation and thereby decreases the momentary reinforcing effectiveness of escape. This distinguishes the intervention from simply providing access to preferred items (which would be an EO for those items) or from attention-based MOs.

During a functional analysis, a therapist notices that a child's self-injurious behavior (SIB) occurs at near-zero rates across all conditions, including the alone condition, but spikes dramatically only in the tangible condition. The BCBA decides to implement noncontingent access to the tangible item on a fixed-time schedule as an antecedent intervention. A colleague argues the FA suggests the behavior is not tangible-maintained. What is the MOST accurate critique of this disagreement?

Answer: The colleague is correct; near-zero rates in the alone condition rule out automatic reinforcement, so tangible NCR is justified only if the tangible condition showed differentiation

A proper FA interpretation requires differentiation — elevated responding in the tangible condition relative to control. Near-zero rates in the alone condition rule out automatic reinforcement, and elevated rates in the tangible condition relative to play/attention would support tangible function. The colleague's critique has merit: the BCBA must confirm that the tangible condition is elevated compared to control before concluding tangible maintenance and implementing tangible NCR.

A practitioner implements a 'pre-session satiation' procedure by giving a child 10 minutes of free access to attention before each therapy session to reduce attention-maintained disruptive behavior. Three weeks into implementation, data show behavior has actually increased. Which of the following is the MOST likely behavioral explanation for this counterintuitive outcome?

Answer: The pre-session attention functioned as a discriminative stimulus signaling that attention would be available, thereby increasing motivation to access it during sessions

When pre-session satiation is delivered non-contingently before a session, the transition into the session (where attention delivery becomes conditional) can function as an SD signaling that the rich reinforcement schedule has ended. This can actually increase motivation to 'recapture' attention, particularly if the in-session attention density drops relative to the pre-session period. This highlights the SD properties of contextual cues and why satiation procedures must be paired with careful analysis of schedule changes.

A BCBA is consulting in a classroom where a student engages in task refusal during math, maintained by escape. The team proposes using interspersal training (embedding easy tasks among difficult ones) as an antecedent intervention. A second consultant argues for using a high-p request sequence instead. Which statement BEST distinguishes these two antecedent strategies?

Answer: Interspersal training alters the task difficulty ratio within an instructional sequence, while high-p sequences use behavioral momentum by preceding low-p requests with a series of high-probability requests

Interspersal training modifies the instructional arrangement by embedding easy (mastered) items throughout a difficult task sequence to reduce overall aversiveness and contact with failure. High-p request sequences rely on behavioral momentum theory — presenting several rapid-fire requests the student already complies with (high-probability behaviors) immediately before a low-probability (escape-motivated) request. Though both use easy items, their theoretical bases and procedural structures are distinct.

A BCBA is designing an antecedent intervention to reduce a client's aggression, which is maintained by access to preferred tangibles. She proposes implementing a 'stimulus control transfer' by pairing a communication card with aggression-producing antecedents, so the card acquires discriminative control over a functionally equivalent requesting response. A supervisor challenges this, stating this is a 'functional communication training' (FCT) protocol, NOT an antecedent-based intervention. Which is the most defensible position?

Answer: The supervisor is correct that FCT is primarily a differential reinforcement procedure, but antecedent manipulations are integral to FCT implementation and the two approaches are not mutually exclusive

FCT is fundamentally a differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) procedure, making it consequence-based at its core. However, FCT implementation routinely incorporates antecedent manipulations (e.g., engineering situations to evoke the mand, ensuring the SD for the alternative response is present). The BACB Ethics Code and behavior analytic literature recognize these as complementary layers, not mutually exclusive categories. A practitioner applying antecedent components within FCT is using a multi-component intervention, not a purely antecedent one.

A BCBA implements noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) on a fixed-time 2-minute schedule for a client whose self-stimulatory behavior is maintained by automatic reinforcement. After 4 weeks, the behavior has decreased by 60%. The BCBA wants to thin the NCR schedule while maintaining treatment gains. Which schedule-thinning approach is MOST consistent with the theoretical basis of NCR for automatically maintained behavior?

Answer: Thin the schedule gradually using a changing criterion design, monitoring that response rates remain suppressed before advancing to the next schedule value

For automatically maintained behavior, NCR works by reducing the EO (abolishing operation) for the behavior and preventing the MO from cycling up to levels that trigger self-stimulation. Schedule thinning must be systematic — a changing criterion design allows the practitioner to verify that each step of schedule reduction is tolerated before advancing, minimizing the risk of resurgence. Jumping to lean variable schedules risks allowing the MO to re-establish before the client has other behavioral supports in place. Response cost adds an aversive component inconsistent with a positive behavior support framework and is theoretically misaligned with AO-based intervention logic.