FREE Procedures and Intervention Questions and Answers Flashcards

A behavior analyst implements an escape extinction procedure for a client whose self-injurious behavior (SIB) is maintained by escape from demands. During the first week, SIB increases by 300% and the client begins exhibiting novel aggressive behaviors not previously in their repertoire. Which of the following is the MOST accurate interpretation of this clinical presentation?

Answer: The increase in SIB and emergence of aggression are consistent with an extinction burst and behavioral resurgence, which are expected phenomena that do not necessarily indicate treatment failure

An extinction burst typically includes increases in frequency, intensity, or duration of the target behavior, as well as the emergence of novel behaviors (behavioral resurgence or variability) that were not previously observed. This is a documented and expected side effect of extinction procedures. While clinicians must weigh risk, these phenomena alone do not indicate treatment failure or require discontinuation. A risk-benefit analysis and crisis plan should be in place prior to implementing extinction for SIB.

A BCBA is designing a functional communication training (FCT) program for a client whose problem behavior is on an extinction schedule. After the mand is established, the team wants to thin the reinforcement schedule to promote generalization. Which thinning approach carries the GREATEST risk of resurgence of problem behavior?

Answer: Transitioning directly from a CRF (continuous reinforcement) mand schedule to a variable-ratio schedule

Abrupt transitions from CRF (continuous reinforcement) to a leaner schedule — especially a variable-ratio schedule — substantially increase the risk of resurgence of the problem behavior because the communicative response suddenly produces much less reinforcement. Multiple schedules with discriminative stimuli (option C) are actually a recommended approach for thinning FCT schedules with controlled extinction periods. Gradual ratio increases (option A) are the safest method. Lag schedules (option D) address variability, not thinning.

During a free operant preference assessment, a clinician observes that a client consistently approaches and briefly contacts Item A (average 4 seconds per engagement) more frequently than Item B (average 47 seconds per engagement), but total time engaged with Item B exceeds Item A. Which item should be ranked as the higher-preference stimulus and why?

Answer: Item B, because sustained engagement duration per approach (47s vs. 4s) reflects stronger motivational value and better predicts reinforcer potency

In free operant preference assessments, duration of engagement per contact (time per approach) is a more valid indicator of preference and reinforcer potency than raw approach frequency or total time. A client who briefly contacts an item repeatedly may be sampling rather than genuinely preferring it, while sustained engagement per contact (47 seconds for Item B) indicates stronger motivational value. Research by Roane et al. (1998) supports duration per contact as a key metric in free operant assessments.

A behavior analyst is implementing noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) using a fixed-time (FT) schedule to reduce escape-maintained problem behavior. The problem behavior continues to occur at high rates even after two weeks of implementation. Functional analysis data confirm the escape function. Which scenario BEST explains the lack of treatment effect?

Answer: The FT schedule may be delivering breaks at intervals longer than the typical latency to problem behavior, leaving the motivating operation (MO) for escape insufficiently satiated between breaks

NCR for escape-maintained behavior works by delivering the maintaining reinforcer (breaks/escape) on a time-based schedule to abolish the motivating operation (MO) before problem behavior occurs. If the FT interval exceeds the typical latency to problem behavior, the MO for escape rebuilds before the next scheduled break, meaning the client is still experiencing the aversive demand context long enough to emit problem behavior. The solution is to identify the pre-treatment inter-response time (IRT) and set the initial FT schedule below that value to ensure the MO is satiated before behavior can occur.

A behavior analyst is conducting a functional analysis (FA) using a multielement design. The results show elevated responding in both the attention and alone conditions, with near-zero rates in the tangible and escape conditions. The play (control) condition also shows near-zero rates. Which interpretation is MOST defensible?

Answer: The behavior is multiply controlled by attention and automatic reinforcement, requiring a multicomponent intervention targeting both functions

When both the attention and alone conditions show elevated responding with low rates in the play control, the standard interpretation is that the behavior serves multiple functions: social-positive (attention) and automatic reinforcement. Elevated alone-condition rates indicate the behavior produces sensory consequences independent of social mediation. The play condition serves as the control baseline — near-zero rates there confirm that attention and alone conditions are producing the differentiated effect. This pattern is well-documented and calls for a multicomponent treatment addressing both functions.

A BCBA is using a high-probability (high-p) request sequence before low-probability (low-p) requests to reduce escape-maintained refusal behavior. After initial success, the client begins refusing the high-p requests as well, rendering the sequence ineffective. Which behavioral mechanism MOST likely accounts for this generalization of refusal to formerly preferred tasks?

Answer: Contrast effects, where the pairing of high-p tasks with the aversive low-p task has conditioned the high-p tasks as aversive stimuli through respondent conditioning

When high-p requests lose their effectiveness due to proximity to low-p requests, this is best explained by respondent (Pavlovian) conditioning — specifically, the pairing of the high-p tasks (initially neutral or preferred) with the aversive low-p demands results in the high-p tasks acquiring conditioned aversive properties via stimulus-stimulus pairing. This is a documented limitation of the high-p sequence and is sometimes called 'instructional control erosion.' The intervention may need to be modified by increasing reinforcer quality for compliance, separating high-p and low-p contexts, or using FCT to address the escape function more directly.