FREE Procedures and Intervention Questions and Answers Flashcards

A client with a history of severe self-injurious behavior (SIB) maintained by escape has been on extinction for six weeks with significant reduction. Three weeks into a new school placement, the SIB re-emerges at near-baseline rates without any change in the extinction protocol. Which phenomenon best explains this, and what is the most appropriate immediate clinical response?

Answer: Spontaneous recovery; continue the extinction protocol without modification while monitoring for an extinction burst

Spontaneous recovery is the re-emergence of a previously extinguished behavior after a period of time or a context change — classic signs include the behavior appearing suddenly in a novel environment without reinforcement having occurred. The correct response is to continue extinction without modification, as the behavior will extinguish again more rapidly than during the initial intervention (it follows the same extinction curve but faster). Reinstating reinforcement (A) would reverse progress. Behavioral contrast (C) refers to a rate change in one setting due to schedule changes in another, not re-emergence. Reassessing function (D) may be warranted eventually but is not the immediate response to a textbook spontaneous recovery episode.

An ABAT is implementing Functional Communication Training (FCT) paired with extinction for problem behavior maintained by access to tangibles. The client successfully acquires the FCT response (handing a picture card). Six weeks later, the team wants to thin the reinforcement schedule for the FCT response. What is the PRIMARY risk if reinforcement thinning is initiated too rapidly, and how should it be mitigated?

Answer: The FCT response will undergo extinction, causing resurgence of the problem behavior; thin the schedule gradually using a fixed-ratio schedule progression before moving to variable schedules

When the FCT response is thinned too rapidly, the FCT response itself may undergo extinction-like conditions, which is the primary mechanism that produces resurgence of the original problem behavior. This is the key clinical risk documented in the FCT literature (e.g., Fuhrman et al., Greer et al.). Mitigation involves gradual schedule thinning — typically progressing from CRF through fixed schedules before moving to variable schedules — so the FCT response remains robust. Option B conflates prompt dependency with schedule thinning. Option C misapplies EO logic; the EO for the tangible is not changed by thinning the FCT schedule. Option D describes a separate procedure (NCR) that would not address the core risk.

A practitioner is teaching a 12-step hair-brushing chain to an adult client with significant intellectual disability. Step 7 requires the client to avoid applying pressure near a recent surgical site — if performed incorrectly it poses genuine injury risk. Which chaining procedure is most appropriate, and why?

Answer: Forward chaining with a built-in physical prompt at Step 7 during early acquisition, then prompt fading as criterion is met on surrounding steps

When a chain contains a critical safety-sensitive step, forward chaining with a pre-planned prompt for that specific step is the most defensible approach. This ensures the learner always encounters the safety step in the correct sequence context AND that staff control response topography at that step via physical guidance (highest prompt level) until independent performance is demonstrated on surrounding steps and criterion-based fading begins. Total task chaining (A) would expose the client to the injury-risk step across every trial from day one without a structured safety control built in. Backward chaining (B) delays exposure to early steps and does not address the safety concern. Leap-ahead backward chaining (D) is sometimes used to skip mastered steps — not unmastered safety-critical ones — and skipping Step 7 entirely creates a gap in the behavioral chain.

During a Functional Analysis (FA), a client's SIB rate in the Alone condition is 2.1 responses/minute, in the Attention condition is 0.3 responses/minute, in the Demand condition is 0.2 responses/minute, and in the Tangible condition is 0.4 responses/minute. A control (play) condition shows 0.1 responses/minute. How should these results be interpreted, and what does this pattern most likely indicate?

Answer: Automatic reinforcement, because the Alone condition produced the highest rate with minimal social mediation

In a standard FA, elevated rates specifically in the Alone condition — with social conditions remaining near or at control levels — is the hallmark pattern for automatic (sensory) reinforcement. The behavior is maintained by the sensory consequences of the behavior itself, not social consequences. The Alone condition rate (2.1/min) is dramatically higher than all social conditions and the control. Option B is incorrect because the pattern is not undifferentiated — it is clearly differentiated, just toward automatic reinforcement. Option C is wrong because the social conditions are not elevated relative to each other in a meaningful way. Option D confuses directionality; attention (0.3) is higher than control (0.1) slightly, but the dominant elevation is in Alone, making automatic the parsimonious interpretation.

A practitioner is using a multiple schedule to thin reinforcement during treatment of problem behavior. The 'Sched' component (SD present) signals FR-1 reinforcement for appropriate behavior; the 'Ext' component (SΔ present) signals extinction. The client is currently showing minimal problem behavior in both components. The team wants to increase the duration of the Ext component to eventually approximate natural reinforcement densities. What is the most critical variable to monitor as Ext component duration is increased?

Answer: Whether problem behavior rate during the Ext component approaches but does not exceed the Sched component rate, indicating behavioral contrast

The primary clinical risk when extending the Ext component of a multiple schedule is behavioral contrast — an increase in problem behavior rate in the Ext component as a result of the relative difference in reinforcement density between components. The critical monitoring variable is whether problem behavior in Ext begins to rise (and potentially exceed Sched levels), which signals that the schedule difference has become too abrupt. Stimulus discriminability (A) is important foundationally but is not the primary concern during thinning — it was already established. Extinction integrity (B) is always important but is a procedural fidelity check, not the primary outcome variable during this phase. Learned helplessness (C) is not an ABA technical term and is not the relevant construct here.

A behavior analyst is training an ABAT to use least-to-most (LTM) prompting for a new skill. The ABAT asks: 'Wouldn't most-to-least (MTL) be better since it prevents errors from the start?' Under which specific condition would MTL prompting be clearly CONTRAINDICATED compared to LTM, despite the error-prevention advantage?

Answer: When the learner has a history of prompt dependency on physical guidance, because beginning with the most intrusive prompt may strengthen dependence on that level

The specific clinical contraindication for MTL prompting is a history of prompt dependency on physical guidance (or whatever the most intrusive prompt level is). Beginning training at the most intrusive prompt level — which is the defining feature of MTL — would reinforce the very dependency that already impairs independent responding. LTM is preferred in these cases because it begins with the least intrusive prompt and escalates only as needed, reducing the likelihood of strengthening or maintaining prompt dependency. Option A is actually a reason FOR MTL (error prevention for safety skills), making it a contraindication for LTM, not MTL. Option C describes a condition that favors LTM but is not a contraindication for MTL per se. Option D is false — LTM typically requires more trials, not fewer, since prompts escalate trial-by-trial as errors occur.