BRIEF PRACTICESibling-Implemented Script Fading to Promote.docx

BRIEF PRACTICE
Sibling-Implemented Script Fading to Promote Play-Based
Statements
of Children with Autism
Jessica S. Akers1,2 & Thomas S. Higbee1
& Joy S. Pollard1,3
& Kassidy S. Reinert1
Published online: 25 May 2018
# Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018
Abstract
We trained three typically developing children to implement a
script-fading procedure with their younger siblings with autism.
The number of contextually appropriate statements made by the
children with autism increased once treatment was initiated.
Participants continued to emit higher levels of contextually
appropriate statements after the scripts were completely faded
and at a
4- or 11-week follow-up. The typically developing siblings were
able to implement the script-fading procedure with high levels
of fidelity.
Keywords Script fading . Autism . Sibling . Play . Language
One of the diagnostic criteria of autism spectrum disorder
(ASD) is deficit in the area of social communication (DSM-
5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Script fad-
ing is a procedure that has been shown to increase the number

of appropriate vocalizations emitted by children with ASD
(Krantz & McClannahan, 1993). Script fading consists of
the following steps: (a) first, children are taught to emit the
scripted phrase using a textual (e.g., typed) or auditory (e.g.,
recorder) script and (b) the script is systematically faded such
that the child with ASD continues to emit the scripted phrase
in the absence of the script. Once script fading is initiated,
children often emit untaught phrases in addition to those that
were directly taught. While script fading has been shown to be
effective, researchers or instructors have served as
implementers in the majority of studies (Akers, Pyle,
Higbee, Pyle, & Gerencser, 2016). One notable exception is
the implementation of script fading by parents (Reagon &
Higbee, 2009). The parents in this study developed three
scripted statements and systematically faded the scripted state-
ments based on their child’s performance during play sessions.
The scripted statements (e.g., “Look, the car is going!”) were
related to one toy set, and two other toy sets were used to
assess for generalization. Results showed that play initiations
increased with both the target and generalization toy sets.
The results reported by Reagon and Higbee (2009) are
promising; however, it may be important to identify if
these results could be replicated with a more age appro-
priate play partner. For many children with ASD, a com-
mon play partner might be a typically developing sibling.
Given the effectiveness of script-fading procedures with
parents delivering and fading scripts, we sought to sys-
tematically replicate these results with siblings serving as
play partners. We measured the effects of the script fading
procedure on the number of contextually appropriate
statements made by children with ASD.
Method

Participants and Setting
Three children with ASD, who had previously attended or
were currently attending a university-based behavioral
Implications for practice
•Young children with ASD often do not emit appropriate play
statements
while playing with toys.
• Script fading is an effective intervention for teaching children
with ASD
to emit play-based statements.
• Typically developing siblings can implement script fading
with fidelity.
* Jessica S. Akers
[email protected]
1 Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA
2 Present address: Baylor University, Waco, TX, USA
3 Present address: Behavior Change Institute, Oakland, CA,
USA
Behavior Analysis in Practice (2018) 11:395–399
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-0257-5
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s40617-018-
0257-5&domain=pdf
mailto:[email protected]
preschool, participated in the study along with a typically
developing sibling. We recruited participants who (a) could
emit at least three-word phrases, (b) had a generalized imita-
tion repertoire, (c) engaged in low levels of destructive behav-

ior, and (d) played with toys appropriately but rarely
commented during play. Sadie (5) participated with her sister
Melissa (14), Cameron (7) participated with his brother
Landon (10), and Hank (4) participated with his sister
Mandy (6). A parent of each participant served as a research
assistant for sessions. We conducted sessions in participants’
homes in an open area that was cleared of distracting items.
Materials
Each sibling dyad was assigned three toy sets to interact with
during sessions (see Table 1). These toy sets were purchased
by the researcher and access was restricted outside of sessions.
We designated one toy set to be used for the script fading
intervention (hereafter called the “target toy”) and used the
other two toy sets to assess generalization. The parents devel-
oped three 3–4-word scripts which were recorded onMini-Me
™ voice recorders. Siblings wore MotivAider timers to signal
30-s intervals.
Measurement
Parents transcribed all statements made by participants during
sessions, and the transcription was then reviewed by the re-
searcher to total the number of contextually appropriate state-
ments. Statements were not scored if they were (a) not con-
textually appropriate (e.g., “I need gas,” when playing with
the playground), (b) one-word statements, (c) immediate rep-
etitions of statements, (d) excessive repetitions of statements,
defined as using the same statement more than four times, (f)
stereotypic phrases, individually identified for each participant
(e.g., “good job”), or (g) completely unintelligible.
A second coder collected data for 33% of sessions to assess
interobserver agreement (IOA). The second coder transcribed

and recorded the number of comments via recorded video.
IOA was calculated by dividing the number of agreements
by the number of agreements plus disagreements and
converting the result to a percentage. An agreement was de-
fined as both coders (i.e., the first and fourth authors) record-
ing the same statement as contextually appropriate. Mean
agreement was 95% (range from 75 to 100%) for Sadie,
96% (range from 75 to 100%) for Cameron, and 97% (range
from 50 to 100%) for Hank. During the session with 50%
agreement, Hank only made two comments; therefore, one
disagreement leads to this low percentage.
We assessed treatment fidelity for 50% of sessions. We
assessed for the following components, whether the sibling
(a) oriented to the participant, (b) presented a script every
30 s, (c) responded to the participant’s initiations, (d) used
the prompting procedure (described below), (e) did not ask
questions or provide directions, and (f) only made comments
about his/her own behavior. Treatment fidelity was calculated
by dividing the number of correctly implemented components
by the total number of components and converting the result to
a percentage. Mean fidelity of implementation was 93%
(range from 87 to 100%) for Sadie, 93% (range from 82 to
100%) for Cameron, and 88% (range from 62 to 100%) for
Hank.
Experimental Procedures
An adapted alternating treatment design embedded within a
multiple baseline design across participants was used to assess
the effects of the script-fading procedure on the number of
comments emitted by the participants. Prior to the study, a
brief multiple-stimulus without replacement preference as-
sessment (Carr, Nicolson, & Higbee, 2000) was conducted
to identify the top three toy sets.

Pretraining We trained the siblings to implement the
script-fading procedure using Behavioral Skills Training
(BST). Parents served as the role-play partner and provided
Table 1 Session materials
Toy sets Scripted statements
Sadie Fisher-Price Little People® Playground (target) 1. Go
down slide
Fisher-Price Little People® Happy Sounds Home (GS1) 2. I
want swing
Fisher-Price Little People® Wheelies Airport (GS2) 3. Cross
the bridge
Cameron Fisher Price World of Little People® Emergency Fire
Station (target) 1. Go get the hose
Fisher-Price Little People® Playground (GS1) 2. To the rescue
Fisher-Price Little People® Wheelies Airport (GS2) 3. Let us
save them
Hank Hot Wheels® City Tow and Tune Car Shop Play Set
(target) 1. Fix the car
Play-Doh® Brick Mill and Grinding Gravel Yard (GS1) 2.
Down the hill
Vtech® Go! Go! Smart Wheels Airport Playset (GS2) 3. Pick up
car
Target target toy set, GS generalization toy set
396 Behav Analysis Practice (2018) 11:395–399

feedback to the sibling in conjunction with feedback pro-
vided by the researcher. We specifically trained the sib-
lings to (a) orient to the participant during play, (b) refrain
from asking questions or giving directions, (c) respond to
all of the participant’s verbalizations, and (d) to comment
on their own play actions. Siblings were instructed to pres-
ent an auditory script every 30 s and wait for participant to
emit the scripted phrase. If he or she did not repeat the
scripted phrase, the sibling first physically guided him or
her to press the voice recorder button. If this prompt was
ineffective, the sibling provided a verbal prompt (e.g.,
“say, here comes the car”). Training ended when the sib-
ling correctly implemented each component with their
parent with 95% or better accuracy. During pretraining,
the most common error was failing to respond to com-
ments made by the parent. The siblings met mastery after
one session that took approximately 30 min.
Baseline and Generalization Sessions We conducted three
3-min sessions per day (i.e., one for each toy set). Prior to each
session, the parent cleared the environment to remove possible
distractions and provided the sibling with the appropriate ma-
terials. The researcher video recorded sessions while the par-
ent simultaneously transcribed statements. The sibling began
sessions by saying, “let us play.” Throughout the sessions, the
siblings responded to all comments emitted by the child with
ASD, and there were no other programmed consequences for
commenting.
Script Fading The script-fading procedure was only imple-
mented with the target toy. These sessions followed the
same procedures as baseline and generalization sessions
with the exception of the presence of the scripts. The

sibling retained access of the recorders (i.e., scripts) and
every 30 s presented one of the three scripts by holding
the recorder in the participant’s line of vision and pro-
ceeding through the prompting steps when necessary.
We did not require play actions to match play statements
(e.g., the participant could say “cross the bridge” while
going down the slide); therefore, the sibling presented
scripts in a quasi-random order, unrelated to the child’s play
behavior. We initiated script fading once the child with ASD
independently followed the three scripts at 100% accuracy for
two consecutive sessions. We faded scripts one word at a time
from the end to the beginning with the final fading step being
complete removal of the script (i.e., including the recorder).
Follow-upWe assessed for maintenance 4 weeks after the
completion of training for Cameron and Hank. Sadie’s
follow-up sessions occurred 11 weeks after the comple-
tion of training due to an unforeseeable family incident.
These sessions followed baseline procedures and the
scripts were not present.
Results
Figure 1 displays the number of contextually appropriate
statements emitted by the three participants. The closed
data path denotes sessions for the target toy; this is the
only data path that includes scripted statements. The
large closed squares denote fading steps for the scripts.
Scripts were completely faded, including the removal of
the recorders, for all participants. Once we introduced
the script-fading procedures with the target toy, partici-
pants’ responding increased for the generalization toy
sets, as well as the target toy, indicating that commenting
behavior generalized across toy sets.
Sadie’s statements for the three toy sets greatly in-

creased from baseline (M = 6, target toy; M = 4.2, GS1;
and M = 4.4 GS2) to treatment (M = 17.77, target; M =
15.22, GS1; and M = 17.27, GS2). Scripts were
completely faded for Sadie in 17 sessions. We conducted
one booster session, denoted by the asterisk, before ses-
sion 46 because she was having a difficult time
responding appropriately to the scripts at the second fad-
ing level. During the booster session, Sadie was required
to accurately emit each scripted statement (without the
toy present) for five consecutive trials. After this booster
session, scripts were completely faded in seven sessions.
We conducted a follow-up session 11 weeks after the
final treatment session, and Sadie’s responding remained
at levels consistent with treatment even after this extend-
ed period of time.
Cameron’s statements for the three toy sets also in-
creased from baseline (M = 5.87, target toy; M = 7, GS1;
and M = 5.62, GS2) to treatment (M = 14.29, target; M =
15.16, GS1, and M = 13.87, GS2). We completely faded
the scripts for Cameron in 17 sessions. When playing
with the target toy set, Cameron emitted siren sound
effects (e.g., “weeeoooeee”) at a high rate, which ad-
versely effected his commenting. Therefore, at session
66 Landon began presenting scripts every 15 s instead
of every 30 s in order to interrupt these competing re-
sponses. After implementing this modification, Cameron
emitted more comments and continued to do so when the
scripts were completely faded. Cameron continued to
emit higher levels of contextually appropriate statements
during the 4-week follow-up session.
Hank’s statements also increased from baseline (M =
0.8, target toy; M = 0.9, GS1; and M = 0.4, GS2) to
treatment (M = 9.95, target; M = 6.17, GS1, and M =
8.26, GS2). We observed the most moderate treatment

effect for Hank; however, he also emitted the fewest
number of comments during baseline. We completely
faded scripts for Hank in 16 sessions. Hank continued
to emit higher levels of appropriate comments at the
4-week follow-up session.
Behav Analysis Practice (2018) 11:395–399 397
Discussion
The number of contextually appropriate statements increased
after the treatment was initiated for all three participants. It is
important to note that these increases in commenting were
observed in the absence of any artificial reinforcement.
Many social skill interventions include additional reinforcers,
which are necessary for behavior change. However, within
this intervention, we observed a change in behavior when
the only consequence that followed the emission of comments
was a verbal response from the sibling. We cannot state with
any certainty that the response functioned as a reinforcer, but it
is possible. Future researchers could directly assess whether
social responses function as reinforcers after implementing
script fading. We were able to completely fade the scripts for
participants without introducing any additional fading steps. It
is unlikely that this finding would be replicated across studies
as previous researchers have reported that complete fading
was not achieved (Akers et al., 2016). Future researchers
should consider investigating conditions which promote suc-
cessful fading.
This study extends the script-fading literature as it includes
naturalistic change agents (i.e., siblings) as the primary
implementer of the intervention and was conducted in the

natural environment (i.e., participants’ home). Siblings were
selected to implement this intervention because we deter-
mined that it was likely that they would serve as a play partner
for the child with ASD in the home environment. Despite the
young age of some of the siblings, all three implemented pro-
cedures with fidelity, for which we recorded data during 50%
of the sessions. Future researchers could assess whether typi-
cally developing peers could serve as implementers of the
script-fading procedure and to what extent this implementa-
tion would lead to a subsequent increase in commenting by
the child with ASD.
There are limitations of this study that are worth noting.
First, we did not specifically code for the complexity of the
statements. While the overall number of statements increased,
it is unknown whether there was an improvement in the qual-
ity of the comments. Future researchers could develop more
sensitive measures to identify the effects of script fading on
increasing comments with more advanced grammar and/or
content. In addition, coding statements as novel, delayed im-
itation, and variations of previously emitted statements may
provide useful information for future studies. Second, the ses-
sion duration was relatively short. We arbitrarily selected
0
5
10
15
20
25

30
Cameron
15-s script
presentation
Scripts
completely
faded
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sadie
Baseline Teaching Follow up
Target Toy
Generalization Toy 1

Generalization Toy 2
*
Scripts
completely faded
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
C
o
m
m
e
n
ts
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
5
10

15
20
25
30
Sessions
Hank
Scripts
completely
faded
Fig. 1 The results for Sadie (top),
Cameron (middle), and Hank
(bottom). The large closed
squares represent script-fading
steps. *booster session
398 Behav Analysis Practice (2018) 11:395–399
3-min sessions because we felt the short session length would
reduce the risk of participants’ losing motivation to play with
the toys. However, it is unknown whether participants’
responding would maintain during longer play sessions.
Future researchers may wish to investigate this further.
Third, the change in level between Cameron’s baseline and
initial treatment phase was less robust than for the other two
participants. Although the lack of an immediate effect is

concerning, the shift in level following the modification of
script presentation does provide a clear change from baseline
to treatment. Fourth, we did not require play statements to
match play actions (e.g., saying “down the ramp” while driv-
ing up). However, participants rarely, if ever, engaged in mis-
matched responses.While this did not become an issue for our
participants (likely because of our inclusion criteria), future
researchers could investigate procedures to increase corre-
spondence between play and language, as this may be a skill
deficit for many children with ASD.
A final limitation was our decision to train the siblings to
comment about their own behavior. This is a deviation from
the Reagon and Higbee study, and it is possible that the sib-
lings’ modeling appropriate comments had an effect on par-
ticipants’ commenting. Although siblings commented about
their own behavior across baseline and treatment, we did not
specifically hold the number of comments constant; therefore,
we cannot rule out the possibility that this alone led to an
increase in participants’ responding. We included this devia-
tion because we determined that due to the age of the siblings,
it was likely they would engage in some vocal verbal behavior
during play; therefore, we decided the best way to ensure they
refrained from asking questions or giving directions was to
teach them to comment about their own behavior. In addition,
we believed that training the siblings to refrain from speaking
unless they were responding to a participant comment would
have been a detriment to the social validity of the study as this
would not likely occur in the natural environment.
The results of this study further support the use of script
fading to increase play statements for children with ASD in
the home environment. In addition, this study demonstrates
the utility of incorporating siblings as play partners to promote
play-based commenting. These results again highlight the

generative effects of script-fading procedures in that all three
participants learned to initiate both scripted and unscripted
play statements as a result of being taught three scripted state-
ments with a single toy set.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no
conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in this study were in
accor-
dance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee
and with
the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its latter amendments or
comparable
ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from the
parents of
the children included in the study.
References
Akers, J. S., Pyle, N., Higbee, T. S., Pyle, D., & Gerencser, K.
R. (2016).
A synthesis of script fading effects with individuals with autism
spectrum disorder: A 20-year review. Review Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 3, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40489-015-0062-9.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and
statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American
Psychiatric Publishing.

Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation
of a brief
multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic
context.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(3), 353–357.
https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.200.33-353.
Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Teaching children
with
autism to initiate to peers: Effects of a script-fading procedure.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(1), 121–132.
https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-121.
Reagon, K. A., & Higbee, T. S. (2009). Parent-implemented
script fading
to promote play-based verbal initiations in children with autism.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 659–664. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-659.
Behav Analysis Practice (2018) 11:395–399 399
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-015-0062-9
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-015-0062-9
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.200.33-353
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-659Sibling-Implemented
Script Fading to Promote Play-Based Statements of Children
with AutismAbstractMethodParticipants and
SettingMaterialsMeasurementExperimental
ProceduresResultsDiscussionReferences

ANALYSIS OF PRECURSORS TO MULTIPLY CONTROLLED
PROBLEM
BEHAVIOR: A REPLICATION
MEGAN A. BORLASE, JASON C. VLADESCU, APRIL N.
KISAMORE,
SHARON A. REEVE, AND JAMIE L. FETZER
CALDWELL UNIVERSITY
We replicated Fritz, Iwata, Hammond, and Bloom (2013) by
evaluating the efficacy of an
experimental methodology to identify precursors to aggression
displayed by an adolescent with
autism spectrum disorder. Using their trial-based precursor
analysis, we identified seven precur-
sors to aggression. Next, we compared the outcomes of separate
precursor and aggression func-
tional analyses and showed that both precursors and aggression
were multiply controlled by the
same variables.
Key words: aggression, functional analysis, precursor behavior
Researchers have evaluated procedures aimed
at identifying precursors to problem behavior in
an attempt to address some of the limits of
functional analysis (FA) methodology (e.g.,
Borrero & Borrero, 2008; Dracobly & Smith,
2012; Fritz, Iwata, Hammond, & Bloom,
2013; Herscovitch, Roscoe, Libby, Bourret, &
Ahearn, 2009; Smith & Churchill, 2002). Pre-
cursors are behaviors (e.g., vocalizing negatively,
feet stomping, hand flapping) that reliably occur

prior to, and are functionally related to, target
problem behavior. Thus, conducting FAs of pre-
cursors rather than target behavior may require
fewer resources, be less dangerous for the con-
sumer and therapist, and be more acceptable in
certain environments (e.g., schools).
Some researchers have largely relied on care-
giver report and informal observations to initially
determine potential precursors (e.g., Borrero &
Borrero, 2008; Dracobly & Smith, 2012). These
methods may be problematic as they may result
in potential false positives or false negatives
(Dracobly & Smith, 2012; Fritz et al., 2013).
A false positive occurs when a procedure incor-
rectly identifies a behavior as a precursor, whereas
a false negative occurs when a procedure fails to
identify a behavior as a precursor. False positives
and false negatives are problematic if practitioners
treat behaviors that are not precursors or fail to
treat those that are, which in turn may have min-
imal impact on the problem behavior targeted.
In an attempt to address this potential limitation,
Fritz et al. (2013) developed and evaluated an
experimental method for identifying precursors.
The experimenters conducted a trial-based analy-
sis with conditions similar to an FA. During each
trial, observers collected data on potential precur-
sors and target behavior and then calculated
conditional probabilities to determine likely pre-
cursors (i.e., behaviors that were followed by the
target behavior and did not occur in the absence
of the target behavior). Next, the experimenters
conducted independent FAs of the identified pre-
cursors and target behaviors for each participant

and found the same function for seven of eight
participants, whose target behavior was main-
tained by a single function. However, for one
participant, the outcome was only a partial match
(i.e., the precursor FA showed a tangible func-
tion, whereas the target behavior FA showed
both a tangible and an escape function).
The outcomes of Fritz et al. (2013) suggest
that their trial-based analysis was a valid experi-
mental method for determining precursors to
target behavior maintained by a single function;
Address correspondence to Jason C. Vladescu, Depart-
ment of Applied Behavior Analysis, Caldwell University,
120 Bloomfield Avenue, Caldwell, NJ 07006.
Email: [email protected]
doi: 10.1002/jaba.398
JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2017, 50,
668–674 NUMBER 3 (SUMMER)
© 2017 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
668
however, it is less clear whether this method is
also effective for determining precursors to tar-
get behavior that is multiply controlled. There-
fore, the purpose of the current study was to
replicate the precursor analysis with an adoles-
cent with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who
engaged in aggression that was multiply
controlled.

METHOD
Participant and Setting
Brandon was a 13-year-old male diagnosed
with ASD whose target behavior was aggres-
sion. We conducted sessions in a room in a
center for individuals with ASD that contained
materials necessary for the session.
Precursor Analysis
We conducted a precursor analysis using
procedures similar to those described by Fritz
et al. (2013). We conducted three different test
trials (attention, demand, tangible) in which we
manipulated relevant antecedents and conse-
quences for aggression (i.e., hitting, pinching,
hair pulling, and biting others) in a similar
manner to an FA. After conducting the first
11 test trials, we observed aggression in
10 trials. Therefore, similar to Fritz et al., we
conducted an additional play trial to create an
approximately equal duration of trials with and
without aggression for which to do our ana-
lyses. Following the occurrence of aggression
during each attention, demand, and tangible
trial, the therapist delivered the trial-specific
consequence. Once aggression was not observed
for 30 s following the delivery of a consequence
or if aggression was not observed within 5 min
of the onset of a trial, the next trial started.
During attention trials, Brandon had access to
moderately preferred items while the therapist
engaged in an activity; however, if aggression

occurred, the therapist delivered attention.
During demand trials, the therapist used three-
step prompting to instruct Brandon to
complete a cleaning task; however, if aggression
occurred the therapist terminated instructions.
Prior to tangible trials, the therapist provided
Brandon access to high preference items for
30 s then removed the items. The removal of
the items initiated the tangible trial, and if
aggression occurred, the therapist returned the
items. During play trials, the therapist provided
Brandon noncontingent access to preferred
items and attention and did not present
demands.
We videotaped all precursor trials, which
were 5 min in duration (if no aggression
occurred) or shorter (if aggression occurred).
We used the videos to identify and define
potential precursors and to score the occurrence
or nonoccurrence of precursors across assess-
ment trials. We completed the following steps
to accomplish these tasks (similar to Fritz et al.,
2013): (a) two experimenters independently
viewed the videos and recorded potential pre-
cursors using a data sheet containing groups of
response topographies (e.g., vocalizations, loco-
motion); (b) the experimenters compared their
recordings and created definitions of each
potential precursor; and (c) the experimenters
independently viewed each video, recorded
whether or not each potential precursor
occurred during the trial, and compared their
recordings until 100% agreement was attained
for each potential precursor. If any discrepan-

cies occurred between experimenters, they
reviewed the video, modified the potential pre-
cursor definitions, and rescored the trial.
We calculated the following probabilities fol-
lowing the completion of the precursor analy-
sis: (a) the probability of the precursor given
the target [p(P|T)] by dividing the number of
trials with aggression and the precursor by the
number of trials with aggression, (b) the proba-
bility of the precursor given the absence of the
target [p(P| ~ T)] by dividing the number of
trials without aggression that contained the pre-
cursor by the number of trials without aggres-
sion, (c) the probability of aggression given the
669PRECURSORS AND MULTIPLE CONTROL
precursor [p(T|P)] by dividing the number of
trials with the precursor and aggression by the
number of trials with the precursor, and (d) the
probability of aggression given the absence of
the precursor [p(T| ~ P)] by dividing the num-
ber of trials without the precursor that con-
tained aggression by the number of trials
without the precursor. We also calculated the
unconditional probabilities of the precursor
behaviors [p(P)], by dividing the number trials
containing the precursor by the number of total
trials, and of the target behavior [p(T)], by
dividing the number of trials containing aggres-
sion by the number of total trials.
We selected precursors, if (a) the probability

of aggression given the precursor [p(T|P)]
was greater than the probability of aggression
given the absence of the precursor [ p(T| ~ P)]
and the unconditional probability of aggression
[p(T)], and (b) the probability of the precursor
given aggression [p(P|T)] was greater than the
probability of the precursor given the absence
of aggression [p(P| ~ T)] and the unconditional
probability of the precursor behaviors [p(P)]
(Fritz et al., 2013).
Functional Analysis
Following the precursor analysis, we con-
ducted independent FAs to confirm the func-
tional relation between the seven identified
precursors and aggression. Sessions lasted
10 min, and conditions were conducted in the
following order: attention, tangible, play, and
demand (Hammond, Iwata, Rooker, Fritz, &
Bloom, 2013) using procedures similar to
Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman
(1994). Brandon was seated at a table and the
therapist was positioned approximately
90–150 cm away from Brandon at the begin-
ning of all sessions. We conducted the precur-
sor FA first, during which condition-specific
consequences were provided contingent on the
occurrence of precursors and aggression was on
extinction. Next, we conducted the aggression
FA during which the condition-specific conse-
quences were provided contingent on the
occurrence of aggression and precursors were
on extinction. Materials, therapist interactions,
and condition-specific consequences were iden-

tical to those implemented during trials in the
precursor analysis.
During each FA, we collected data on the
frequency of aggression (as defined above in the
precursor analysis) and the frequency of the
seven precursor behaviors identified in the pre-
cursor analysis, which included standing up,
heavy breathing, approaching instructor, fold-
ing hands, knee hitting, rubbing face, and neg-
ative vocalizing. Operational definitions of all
precursors are available from the first author.
We calculated exact interval agreement per-
centages during 50% of FA sessions by compar-
ing the primary and secondary data collectors’
recorded frequencies of responses during 10-s
intervals during the FAs. Overall, mean IOA
scores were 97% (range, 90%–100%) and 95%
(range, 90%–100%) for the precursor and
aggression FAs, respectively.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of Brandon’s precursor analysis
are in Figure 1. Seven (denoted by the aster-
isks) of the 25 potential behaviors were identi-
fied as precursors based on the criteria
described above. Four of the precursors (knee
hitting, rubbing face, heavy breathing, and
folding hands) were perfectly correlated with
aggression [i.e., p(T|P) = 1.0] and never
occurred in trials in which aggression was not
observed [i.e., p(P| ~ T) = 0]. However, aggres-
sion still occurred in the absence of these four
precursors and the probability of these precur-

sors occurring given aggression was low. The
other three precursors (standing up, negative
vocalizing, and approaching instructor)
occurred less frequently [i.e., p(T|P) < 1.0] but
the relative conditional probabilities showed
MEGAN A. BORLASE et al.670
that these behaviors predicted the occurrence of
aggression.
Figure 2 depicts the results of precursor and
aggression FAs. We observed high rates of
precursors (left panel) and high rates of aggres-
sion (right panel) during the three test condi-
tions during precursor and aggression FAs,
respectively. This pattern of behavior suggests
that combined precursors and aggression were
multiply controlled by the same variables. In
addition, Brandon demonstrated reduced rates
of aggression during the precursor FA, which
replicates similar findings reported in previous
studies (e.g., Fritz et al., 2013).
Figure 1. The top panel depicts the conditional probability of
the target (T) given the presence [p(T|P)] and absence
[p(T| ~ P)] of potential precursors (P) and the unconditional
probability of the target [p(T)]. The bottom panel depicts
the conditional probability of potential precursors (P) given the
presence [p(P|T)] and absence [p(P| ~ T) of the target
and the unconditional probability of each precursor [p(P)]. The
asterisks denote behaviors identified as precursors.

We calculated the proportion of each precur-
sor during the precursor FA (Figure 3) which
yielded several interesting outcomes. First, similar
to Fritz et al. (2013), not all identified precursors
occurred during the precursor FA. Knee hits and
heavy breathing did not occur during the precur-
sor FA despite being perfectly correlated with
aggression in the precursor analysis. It is unclear
why this occurred, but several explanations are
possible. It is possible that these precursors were
associated with increased response effort or did
not have as recent a history of reinforcement rela-
tive to the other topographies of precursors.
Alternatively, it may be the case that the precur-
sor analysis resulted in some false positives.
Second, the most common precursors
observed were negative vocalizing, approaching
instructor, and standing up. Although these
responses were not perfectly correlated with
aggression in the precursor analysis, they
occurred most frequently during the precursor
FA. The inclusion of standing up and approach-
ing instructor as precursor behaviors may be
considered a limitation, as these responses may
have been part of a response chain to aggression.
If these were early responses in the chain, then,
if reinforced, they would likely increase levels of
aggression (Dracobly & Smith, 2012). However,
data from the precursor FA do not support this
interpretation, as reduced levels of aggression

were observed when precursors were reinforced.
There is currently no established technology
to distinguish precursors from links in a chain
to a target behavior (Hagopian, Paclawskyj, &
Kuhn, 2005). Future research is needed to
develop such a technology. Third, a different
precursor occurred most frequently in each test
condition (e.g., vocalizing negatively in the
demand condition). This pattern of responding
may suggest different topographies of precursors
Figure 2. This graph depicts the precursor (left panel) and
aggression (right panel) FAs. The top and bottom panels
display the rate of combined precursors and aggression,
respectively.
precede a multiply controlled target behavior
under different evocative situations. Future
research could further evaluate this possibility.
Several limitations are worth noting. The
current evaluation included only one partici-
pant, thus limiting external validity. Future
studies should replicate these findings with
additional participants. Another mitigating fac-
tor was the lack of an alone condition during
the FAs. The success of the treatment imple-
mented based on the results of the FAs (these
data are not included in the manuscript) sug-
gests that Brandon’s target behavior was
unlikely maintained by automatic reinforce-

ment; however, it is possible that some of the
precursor behaviors were. The inclusion of an
alone condition would have allowed an evalua-
tion of this possibility.
Although we attempted to ensure the oppor-
tunity to engage in all responses during the FAs
by seating Brandon at a table and positioning
the therapist a consistent distance away to
begin all sessions, some conditions required
therapist behavior that would necessarily
restrict Brandon’s ability to engage in some
responses. This limitation is exemplified by the
following situation: If the therapist used
physical guidance during the demand condi-
tion, Brandon would be unable to approach
the therapist. Despite these limitations, the cur-
rent evaluation provides support for an analysis
to identify precursors to a problem behavior.
REFERENCES
Borrero, C. S. W., & Borrero, J. C. (2008). Descriptive
and experimental analyses of potential precursors to
problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 41, 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
2008.41-83
Dracobly, J. D., & Smith, R. G. (2012). Progressing from
identification and functional analysis of precursor
behavior to treatment of self-injurious behavior. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 361–374.
Fritz, J. N., Iwata, B. A., Hammond, J. L., &

Bloom, S. E. (2013). Experimental analysis of precur-
sors to severe problem behavior. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 46, 101–129. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jaba.27
Hagopian, L. P., Paclawskyj, T. R., & Kuhn, S. C.
(2005). The use of conditional probability analysis to
identify a response chain leading to the occurrence of
eye poking. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26,
393–397.
Hammond, J. L., Iwata, B. A., Rooker, G. W.,
Fritz, J. N., & Bloom, S. E. (2013). Effects of fixed
versus random condition sequencing during
Figure 3. The bottom graph depicts the proportion of precursors
that were scored in the precursor FA. Knee hits
and heavy breathing were not observed in any precursor FA
condition.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.27
multielement functional analyses. Journal of Applied
1002/jaba.7
Herscovitch, B., Roscoe, E. M., Libby, M. E.,
Bourret, J. C., & Ahearn, W. H. (2009). A proce-
dure for identifying precursors to problem behavior.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 697–702.
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. E., Slifer, K. J.,
Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a
functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied
1901/jaba.1994.27-197
Smith, R. G., & Churchill, R. M. (2002). Identification
of environmental determinants of behavior disorders
through functional analysis of precursor behaviors.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 125–136.
Received September 27, 2015
Final acceptance October 2, 2016
Action Editor, Claudia Dozier
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-125 ANALYSIS OF
PRECURSORS TO MULTIPLY CONTROLLED PROBLEM
BEHAVIOR: A REPLICATIONMETHODParticipant and
SettingPrecursor AnalysisFunctional AnalysisRESULTS AND
DISCUSSIONReferences

BRIEF PRACTICESibling-Implemented Script Fading to Promote.docx

BRIEF PRACTICESibling-Implemented Script Fading to Promote.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to BRIEF PRACTICESibling-Implemented Script Fading to Promote.docx

Similar to BRIEF PRACTICESibling-Implemented Script Fading to Promote.docx (20)

More from bartholomeocoombs

More from bartholomeocoombs (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

BRIEF PRACTICESibling-Implemented Script Fading to Promote.docx