COMPARISONS OF SYNTHESIZED AND INDIVIDUALREINFORCEMENT CONTI.docx

COMPARISONS OF SYNTHESIZED AND INDIVIDUAL
REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCIES DURING
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS
WAYNE W. FISHER, BRIAN D. GREER, PATRICK W.
ROMANI,
AMANDA N. ZANGRILLO, AND TODD M. OWEN
UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER’S
MUNROE-MEYER INSTITUTE
Researchers typically modify individual functional analysis
(FA) conditions after results are
inconclusive (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Hanley, Jin,
Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014)
introduced a marked departure from this practice, using an
interview-informed synthesized
contingency analysis (IISCA). In the test condition, they
delivered multiple contingencies simul-
taneously (e.g., attention and escape) after each occurrence of
problem behavior; in the control
condition, they delivered those same reinforcers
noncontingently and continuously. In the cur-
rent investigation, we compared the results of the IISCA with a
more traditional FA in which
we evaluated each putative reinforcer individually. Four of 5
participants displayed destructive
behavior that was sensitive to the individual contingencies
evaluated in the traditional FA. By
contrast, none of the participants showed a response pattern
consistent with the assumption of

the IISCA. We discuss the implications of these findings on the
development of accurate and
efficient functional analyses.
Key words: assessment of problem behavior, false-positive
outcome, functional analysis, inde-
pendent effects, interaction effects
The development of functional analysis
(FA) represents one of the most important
advancements in the treatment of severe prob-
lem behavior (Beavers, Iwata, & Lerman,
2013), an event in the history of behavior anal-
ysis that has been described as landmark
(Betz & Fisher, 2011). Identification of the
antecedents that evoke and the consequences
that reinforce problem behavior via an FA
enables effective behavioral intervention. It does
so because an FA provides information on
(a) how to discontinue the contingency
between problem behavior and its reinforcer
(i.e., extinction) and (b) how to deliver that
reinforcer contingent on an appropriate
response or on a time-based schedule (Fisher &
Bouxsein, 2011; Vollmer & Athens, 2011;
Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, & Maza-
leski, 1993).
The FA method developed by Iwata, Dorsey,
Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994) has
been the most widely used, researched, and
cited form of functional analysis (Beavers et al.,
2013; Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). This
method involves a control condition and a
series of test conditions based on the hypothe-

sized operant functions of self-injurious
behavior (SIB) described by Carr (1977):
(a) social-positive reinforcement (e.g., attention),
(b) social-negative reinforcement (e.g., escape
from nonpreferred activities), or (c) automatic
reinforcement (e.g., sensory stimulation).
Each FA test condition in the Iwata
et al. (1982/1994) method has three functional
components: a unique discriminative stimulus
(SD), a specific establishing operation (EO),
and a putative reinforcing consequence (Betz &
Grants 5R01HD079113-02 and 1R01HD083214-01
from the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development provided partial support for this research.
Patrick Romani is now at The University of Colorado
School of Medicine and Children’s Hospital Colorado.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Amanda N. Zangrillo, Center for Autism
Spectrum Disorders, 985450 Nebraska Medical Center,
Omaha, Nebraska 68198 (e-mail: [email protected]
unmc.edu).
doi: 10.1002/jaba.314
JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2016, 49,
596–616 NUMBER 3 (FALL)
596
Fisher, 2011). Iwata et al. included a unique
SD in each test condition to decrease the likeli-

hood that the reinforcement effects from one
test condition carried over and affected levels of
the target response in other test conditions (i.e.,
multiple-treatment interference). They included
the EO for the putative reinforcer in each test
condition to evoke the target response and to
increase the likelihood that it contacted the
reinforcing consequence. Finally, the Iwata
et al. method included a specific reinforcing
consequence, typically delivered on a dense
(fixed-ratio 1) schedule.
Hanley et al. (2003) and Beavers
et al. (2013) described several procedural varia-
tions of the Iwata et al. (1982/1994) FA
method. In some cases, researchers have altered
this method based on indirect assessments,
direct assessments, or both (Betz & Fisher,
2011; Hanley et al., 2003). Indirect assess-
ments are ones in which there is no direct
observation of the target behavior; instead,
informants who have observed the individual’s
target behavior answer questions about behav-
ioral function via interviews or rating scales
(e.g., Hanley, 2012; Roscoe, Schlichenmeyer, &
Dube, 2015). Indirect assessments, when used
alone, tend to have poor reliability and validity
for identifying the functions of problem behav-
ior (Kelley, LaRue, Roane, & Gadaire, 2011;
Rooker, DeLeon, Borrero, Frank-Crawford, &
Roscoe, 2015). By contrast, a direct assessment
involves observation and measurement of the
target behavior and the antecedents and conse-
quences that precede and follow it in the natu-
ral environment (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault,
1968; Roscoe et al., 2015; Thompson & Iwata,

2001, 2007). Direct assessments tend to be
highly reliable, and they often find significant
correlations between problem behavior and cer-
tain putative reinforcers (e.g., attention, escape;
Thompson & Iwata, 2001). However, direct
assessments typically produce unacceptably
high levels of false-positive outcomes (e.g., they
inaccurately identify attention as a reinforcer
for problem behavior when attention is only
temporally associated with the response;
Thompson & Iwata, 2001, 2007). Neverthe-
less, indirect and direct assessments have been
successfully used to modify FA test and control
conditions after an initial FA produced incon-
clusive results (e.g., Bowman, Fisher, Thomp-
son, & Piazza, 1997; Fisher, Adelinis,
Thompson, Worsdell, & Zarcone, 1998; Ros-
coe et al., 2015; Tiger, Hanley, & Bes-
sette, 2006).
Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014)
described a marked departure from prior FA
methods in which they used a structured but
open-ended interview (see the appendix of
Hanley, 2012) in combination with brief,
informal observations to develop an efficient
FA that included a single test condition and a
single control condition, henceforth referred to
as an interview-informed synthesized contin-
gency analysis (IISCA). The IISCA differs from
a traditional FA (i.e., one based on Iwata et al.,
1982/1994) in at least two important ways.
First, a traditional FA exposes the individual to
a control condition and one or more test condi-
tions in which the effects of individual rein-

forcement contingencies are evaluated one at a
time to identify the specific contingency or
contingencies that maintain problem behavior.
By contrast, the IISCA combines multiple
EOs, SDs, and consequences from multiple
contingencies into a single test condition, but
does not isolate any specific operant function.
Second, Iwata et al. (1982/1994) derived the
original test conditions of a traditional FA from
empirical research that showed that individual
reinforcement contingencies often maintained
problem behavior (e.g., Berkson & Mason,
1963; Carr, Newsom, & Binkoff, 1976;
Lovaas, Freitag, Gold, & Kassorla, 1965).
Therefore, a traditional FA generally starts with
the evaluation of individual but general contin-
gencies (positive, negative, and automatic rein-
forcement) and proceeds to the assessment of
more idiosyncratic (or combined) contingencies
597SYNTHESIZED AND INDIVIDUAL CONTINGENCIES
only when the individual’s problem behavior
proves to be insensitive to those general
contingencies.
By contrast, the IISCA uses the results of a
structured interview and informal observations
to generate a single test condition that typically
includes multiple contingencies that may be
general (e.g., escape) or idiosyncratic (e.g., rein-
forcement of the individual’s mands contingent
on problem behavior). Thus, the traditional FA
assumes that individual contingencies produce

primarily independent effects on problem
behavior, and Iwata et al. (1982/1994)
designed the traditional FA to test for those
independent effects. By contrast, the IISCA
assumes simultaneous (or interactive) control of
behavior by multiple contingencies (Sidman,
1960/1988); however, Jessel, Hanley, and
Ghaemmaghami (in press) did not design the
IISCA to test for those interactive effects
(except with one participant, described below).
An interactive effect is one in which two or
more independent variables act simultaneously
to produce different effects on responding than
the effects produced by those variables individ-
ually. The primary method used for analyzing
interactive effects is for the experimenter to
compare a test condition that combines
(or synthesizes) the relevant independent vari-
ables with a set of control conditions that pres-
ent each of the relevant independent variables
in isolation (Barlow & Hersen, 1984; Sidman,
1960/1988). Thus, a direct within-subject
comparison of the IISCA and traditional FA
procedures provides a way to compare the
interaction-effects assumption of the IISCA
with the independent-effects assumption of the
traditional FA. Figure 1 shows four relevant
outcomes that might result from such a
comparison.
Figure 1 (top) shows hypothetical data that
are consistent with the assumption of the tradi-
tional FA regarding independent contingency
effects. The results of the traditional FA show
that the EO and contingency for tangible

positive reinforcement evoked and maintained
problem behavior, whereas the results of the
IISCA show no additional effect (i.e., no inter-
action effect) of synthesizing tangible positive
reinforcement with an escape contingency and
contingent attention. Figure 1 (second panel)
shows hypothetical data that are consistent with
the assumption of the IISCA that problem
behavior is primarily sensitive to simultaneous
(or interactive) control of problem behavior.
The results of the traditional FA show no evi-
dence of independent effects for any of the
individual contingencies (and their respective
EOs), whereas the results of the IISCA show
that the EOs and contingencies associated with
escape and attention interacted to maintain
problem behavior. Figure 1 (third panel)
depicts hypothetical data in which the results of
the traditional FA show that the contingencies
(and corresponding EOs) for tangible-positive
reinforcement and for escape-maintained prob-
lem behavior when implemented individually,
albeit at moderate rates. The results of the
IISCA show that the EOs and contingencies
associated with escape and those associated with
tangible items interacted to produce higher and
more consistent rates of problem behavior than
either contingency (and its respective EO) pro-
duced individually. That is, the synthesized test
condition of the IISCA produced more robust
effects than any of the individual contingencies
of the traditional FA. Overall, the hypothetical
data in Figure 1 (third panel) illustrate a situa-
tion in which an individual’s problem behavior
is sensitive to both individual and synthesized

contingencies (i.e., both independent and inter-
active effects). Finally, Figure 1 (fourth panel)
depicts hypothetical data in which an indivi-
dual’s problem behavior is insensitive to both
individual and synthesized contingencies.
A large body of research has shown that
problem behavior is often sensitive to the indi-
vidual contingencies that are implemented in
traditional FAs (see Beavers et al., 2013). In
addition, a growing body of research by Hanley
WAYNE W. FISHER et al.598
5 10 15 20 25 30
0
1
2
3
Tangible
Traditional FA IISCA
Escape to tangibles
and attention
Toy play EscapeAttention Independent
Effects

5 10 15 20 25 30
0
1
2
3
Interactive
Effects
Escape to attention
5 10 15 20 25 30
0
1
2
3
Independent and
Interactive Effects
Escape to tangibles
5 10 15 20 25 30
0
1

2
3
No Independent or
Interactive Effects
Escape to tangibles
and attention
SESSIONS
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
B
E
H
A
V
IO
R
P

E
R
M
IN
U
T
E
Figure 1. Hypothetical data patterns showing independent
effects (top panel), interactive effects (second panel),
independent and interactive effects (third panel), and no
independent or interactive effects (bottom panel).
and colleagues has shown that problem behav-
ior is often sensitive to one or more of the con-
tingencies implemented simultaneously in an
IISCA (Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, & Jessel, in
press; Hanley et al., 2014; Jessel et al., in
press). However, investigators have conducted
within-subject comparisons of individual and
synthesized contingencies with just one partici-
pant (Gail in Hanley et al., 2014, who showed
a response pattern similar to the hypothetical
results shown in the second panel of Figure 1).
Thus, this is the only published case for which
it is possible to compare the independent and
interactive effects of FA contingencies. There-
fore, in this study we conducted traditional FAs
(that analyzed individual contingencies) and

IISCAs (that analyzed synthesized contingen-
cies) with five consecutive participants to pro-
vide information on the extent to which these
participants showed problem behavior that was
(a) sensitive primarily to individual contingen-
cies, (b) sensitive primarily to the interactive
effects of synthesized contingencies, or
(c) sensitive to both individual and interactive
contingency effects.
METHOD
Subjects
Five children who had been referred to a
severe behavior disorders program at a
university-based clinic for the assessment and
treatment of severe problem behaviors partici-
pated. Participants attended the clinic 2 to
5 days per week for 3 to 6 hr per day.
Alan, a 3-year-old boy who had been diag-
nosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD),
engaged in aggression (hitting, pushing, kick-
ing) and SIB (head hitting). He communicated
using gestures and picture exchanges. Allie, a 5-
year-old girl who had been diagnosed with
ASD, engaged in SIB (body slamming to the
ground). She communicated using gestures and
card touches. Cameron, a 7-year-old boy who
had been diagnosed with ASD, engaged in SIB
(head banging) and aggression (scratching, bit-
ing). He communicated using gestures and pic-
ture exchanges. Sylvia, a 5-year-old girl who
had been diagnosed with oppositional defiant

disorder, displayed aggression (hitting, kicking,
biting) and property destruction (e.g., throwing
materials). She spoke in complete and complex
sentences. Tina, an 8-year-old girl who had
been diagnosed with oppositional defiant disor-
der, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,
combined type, and bipolar disorder, engaged
in aggression (hitting, kicking, biting), SIB
(hair pulling), and property destruction (throw-
ing task materials). She spoke in complete and
complex sentences.
Setting and Materials
We conducted the IISCAs and traditional
FAs in clinic therapy rooms ( 3 m by 3 m)
equipped with one-way observation panels. We
used padded treatment rooms for Alan’s,
Allie’s, and Cameron’s sessions due to the
health risks associated with their SIB. We fol-
lowed the safety precautions described by Betz
and Fisher (2011) to minimize any health risks
associated with the FAs.
Each therapy room contained a table, chairs,
and work or leisure items relevant to the condi-
tion. For the traditional FA, we included leisure
items in certain sessions (as specified below)
that we identified based on caregiver nomina-
tion and a paired-stimulus preference assess-
ment (Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, & Amari,
1996; Fisher et al., 1992). We included
demand materials that we identified based on
caregiver nomination for Allie, Cameron, and
Sylvia. For Alan and Tina, we used caregiver
and teacher nomination to identify a set of

instructions that we systematically assessed via a
demand-latency assessment (Call, Pabico, &
Lomas, 2009) and choice arrangement similar
to a paired-choice stimulus assessment. For
example, each task was presented in a choice
arrangement with every other task (e.g., a
choice between cleaning and math problems;
Fisher et al., 1992); selection resulted in the
use of graduated guidance to complete the task,
which resulted in a hierarchy of task prefer-
ences. We included tasks in the relevant tests
conditions (listed below) that produced the
shortest latencies to problem behavior and low-
est preference rankings relative to other tasks.
Similarly, we used the results of the open-
ended interview and structured observation ses-
sion (both described below) to construct the
IISCA conditions, including the materials and
demands (described below).
Measurement
Trained observers collected data on the fre-
quency of target responses using laptop compu-
ters with a specialized data-collection program
(DataPal). We used the computer program to
convert data collected during the IISCA and
traditional FA to a rate measure (responses per
minute). We graphed the data from the struc-
tured observations as a cumulative record. For
Alan, Cameron, Sylvia, and Tina, we defined

aggression as forceful contact of the patient’s
feet, legs, arms, or hands with the therapist’s
body from a distance of at least 15 cm and
contact between the participant’s teeth and any
portion of the therapist’s body or clothing. For
Sylvia and Tina, we defined property destruction
as hitting or kicking hard surfaces (e.g., walls)
from a distance of at least 15 cm with force,
knocking over desks, or throwing task materi-
als. For Tina, we defined SIB as holding her
hair with her hand and forcefully pulling her
hair away from her head. For Alan and
Cameron, we defined SIB as hitting his head
against a therapist’s body (Alan) or the ground
(Cameron) from a distance of at least 15 cm
with force. For Allie, we defined SIB as contact
between her back, stomach, or buttocks and
the floor from a distance of at least 15 cm.
We assessed interobserver agreement by hav-
ing a second observer simultaneously but
independently record data during at least 19%
of sessions for each participant. To calculate
exact-agreement interobserver agreement, we
partitioned sessions into successive 10-s inter-
vals and compared observer records in each
interval. If both observers recorded the same
number of responses for a specific target behav-
ior in an interval (including zero), we scored
that interval as an agreement for that behavior.
For each target behavior, we summed the num-
ber of agreements in a session and then divided
that number by the total number of intervals in
a session and converted the resulting quotient
to a percentage. Coefficients during the struc-

tured observation averaged 97% (range, 90%
to 100%) for Alan, 93% (range, 84% to
100%) for Allie, 93% (range, 71% to 100%)
for Cameron, 96% (range, 89% to 100%) for
Sylvia, and 91% (range, 74% to 100%) for
Tina. Coefficients during the IISCA and tradi-
tional FA averaged 98% (range, 87% to 100%)
for Alan, 99% (range, 70% to 100%) for Allie,
99% (range, 83% to 100%) for Cameron,
99% (range, 97% to 100%) for Sylvia, and
97% (range, 95% to 100%) for Tina.
Design
We used a multielement design to identify
the function of problem behavior during both
the IISCAs and traditional FAs. We used an
ABAB reversal design for Alan, Allie, and
Cameron and an AB design for Sylvia and Tina
to compare the results obtained with the IIS-
CAs and traditional FAs. We randomized and
counterbalanced the ordering of the IISCAs
and traditional FAs across participants. Finally,
we conducted the open-ended interview and
then the structured observation session shortly
before the IISCA and used the information
from those preassessments to design the IISCA
using procedures based on Hanley
et al. (2014). We did not use the results of
these preassessments to modify the traditional
FAs; instead, we used our typical intake

procedures that included a comprehensive evalu-
ation prior to placement (record review, behav-
ioral history, and behavioral observation) and
structured preference assessments to select the
materials used in the control, attention, and tan-
gible conditions. In addition, we informally
interviewed caregivers to select the materials
used and demands issued for the traditional
FA. We used similar, but not identical, materials
during the IISCA and traditional FA. Table 1
depicts the relevant stimuli included in each
condition of the IISCA and traditional
FA. Trained behavior therapists (ranging from
bachelor to postdoctoral level) collected all pre-
assessment information and implemented the
IISCA and traditional FA, with the exception of
Sylvia whose caregiver conducted portions of the
assessment under the close supervision of the
first two authors and the corresponding author.
Open-Ended Functional Assessment Interview
One therapist conducted the open-ended
functional assessment interview with the
patient’s caregiver using the procedures
described by Hanley et al. (2014). The inter-
view lasted approximately 25 min. Each
caregiver responded to 20 questions. Questions
targeted seven broad areas, including identifica-
tion of the operational definitions for the target
problem behavior, identification of the anteced-
ent conditions likely to evoke problem behav-
ior, and determination of the consequences
that typically followed problem behavior in the
natural environment. The therapist often asked

follow-up questions to clarify or gain more
information about caregiver responses to partic-
ular items.
Structured Observations
After the open-ended functional assessment
interview, the therapist conducted a structured
observation in one continuous session that
lasted about 25 min, using procedures outlined
in Hanley et al. (2014). To evaluate the effects
of various EOs for problem behavior related to
positive reinforcers, the therapist began the ses-
sion by providing free access to preferred toys
and attention and delivering no demands for
4 min; this served as the control condition for
the structured observation. Then, at approxi-
mately the 4-min mark, the therapist intro-
duced an EO for problem behavior by
Table 1
Demands and Materials Used in the IISCA and FA Conditions
Demands in IISCA
(test condition)
Demands in FA
(escape condition)
Tangible items in
IISCA (test condition)
Tangible items in FA
(tangible condition)
Alan Shape sorting, dressing and

undressing
High-preference: shape sorting;
low-preference: dressing and
undressing
Trucks, backpack,
iPad, squish toy,
Play-Doh
Trucks, backpack,
iPad
Allie Brushing hair, gross-motor
activities, receptive
identification
Brushing hair, gross-motor
activities, receptive
identification
iPad iPad
Cameron Cleaning, receptive
identification, dressing or
undressing
Cleaning, receptive identification,
building
iPad iPad
Sylvia Academic worksheets, cleaning,
folding laundry, picking up
toys

Academic worksheets, cleaning,
folding laundry, picking up
toys
iPad, Play-Doh,
journal
iPad, Play-Doh,
journal
Tina Cleaning, brushing hair Cleaning, brushing hair,
academic worksheets
Light-up ball, Play-
Doh, books
Light-up ball, Play-
Doh, books
Note. Half of the escape sessions of Alan’s FA included high-
preference demands, and the other half included low-
preference demands. Data from sessions with high-preference
demands are not presented but are available from the cor-
responding author.
restricting access to the positive reinforcer with
which the participant currently interacted. For
example, Cameron engaged in isolated play
with an iPad at the 4-min mark, and the thera-
pist removed the iPad but continued to talk to
Cameron without issuing any demands (i.e.,
the therapist introduced only the EO for tangi-

ble reinforcement because that is what the par-
ticipant consumed at the time mark). If the
participant engaged with multiple positive rein-
forcers at the prescribed time mark (i.e., play-
ing with toys and the therapist simultaneously),
the therapist removed both positive reinforcers
as the EO. The therapist delivered the
restricted reinforcer (e.g., the iPad) for about
20 s either contingent on problem behavior or
after 30 s, whichever came first. This process of
introducing the EO for a reinforcer after the
participant interacted with that reinforcer and
then returning it either contingent on problem
behavior or after 30 s elapsed continued for
about 4 min.
At approximately 8 min into the structured
observation session, the therapist again pro-
vided free access to preferred toys and attention
for another 4 min. At approximately 12 min
into the session, the therapist restricted the par-
ticipant’s access to toys, attention, or both
(as described above) and simultaneously issued
a series of nonpreferred demands reported to
evoke problem behavior during the open-ended
interview (i.e., a combined EO that included
both positive and negative reinforcement). For
example, for Cameron, the therapist removed
the iPad and issued demands that reportedly
evoked problem behavior. The therapist discon-
tinued demands and returned the positive rein-
forcer (e.g., attention, toys, or both) for about
20 s contingent on problem behavior or after
30 s elapsed, whichever came first. At the end
of the reinforcement interval, the therapist
again removed the positive reinforcer the par-

ticipant engaged with and simultaneously intro-
duced nonpreferred demands. This process of
the therapist simultaneously introducing the
EOs for escape and the positive reinforcer and
then terminating the demands and returning
the positive reinforcer either contingent on
problem behavior or after 30 s elapsed contin-
ued for about 4 min.
At about 16 min into the session, the thera-
pist again provided free access to preferred toys
and attention for another 4 min. At about
20 min into the session, the therapist and par-
ticipant briefly left the treatment room and
took a short walk while the observers removed
the toys from the room. When the therapist
and participant returned, the therapist issued a
series of nonpreferred demands reported to
evoke problem behavior during the open-ended
interview (i.e., the therapist presented only the
EO for negative reinforcement). The therapist
discontinued demands for about 20 s contin-
gent on problem behavior or after 30 s elapsed,
whichever came first. At the end of the rein-
forcement (i.e., escape) interval, the therapist
again introduced nonpreferred demands. This
process of the therapist introducing the EO for
escape and then terminating the demands con-
tingent on problem behavior or after 30 s
elapsed continued for about 4 min. For partici-
pants who displayed problem behavior during
the structured observation (Alan, Allie, and
Cameron), we examined the cumulative record
of responding to identify the individual EO or
combined EOs that evoked problem behavior.

Synthesized Analysis
Synthesized (test). We used the results of the
open-ended interview and structured observa-
tions to design the synthesized test condition for
each participant using procedures outlined by
Hanley et al. (2014). That is, to construct the
test condition, we combined each of the EOs
identified during the interview or the structured
observations into a single synthesized
EO. Contingent on problem behavior, we
removed those EOs by delivering the corre-
sponding reinforcers for 20 s. For example, for
Cameron, we withdrew the iPad and initiated
nonpreferred demands as the EO at the start of
the test session, and we terminated those
demands and returned the iPad for 20 s contin-
gent on problem behavior. Based on the inter-
view and structured observations, we combined
attention, tangible items, and demands into a
synthesized contingency for the test condition
for the other four participants. That is, we
restricted attention and tangible items and
initiated nonpreferred demands at the start of
the test session, and we terminated the demands
and provided access to attention and the tangi-
ble items contingent on problem behavior. Each
test and control session lasted 5 min.
Toy play (control). We used the results of the

tions to design the control condition for each
participant using procedures outlined by Han-
ley et al. (2014). That is, the therapist delivered
all of the putative reinforcers for problem
behavior identified during the interview or
structured observation throughout each control
condition. For all participants, the therapist
provided free access to tangible items, presented
no demands, and delivered attention (e.g.,
“Nice job playing!”) approximately every 20 s
throughout each control session. We added
attention to the control condition for Cameron
to approximate the rate of attention delivered
when the therapist provided instructions during
the synthesized test condition, despite the
results of his interview and structured observa-
tion, which both suggested that attention was
an unlikely reinforcer for his problem behavior.
Traditional FA
We conducted a traditional FA based on pro-
cedures described by Iwata et al. (1982/1994)
with modifications outlined by Fisher, Piazza,
and Chiang (1996) and Querim et al. (2013).
That is, we conducted a series of consecutive
ignore sessions to determine whether problem
behavior persisted in the absence of social
contingencies as a test for automatic reinforce-
ment (Querim et al.). For all participants, we
observed near-zero rates of problem behavior in
this ignore condition. Therefore, we omitted
these data from the figures (to simplify interpre-
tation). In addition, we equated the durations of

the EOs and reinforcement intervals across the
social-reinforcement test conditions (Fisher,
Piazza, & Chiang). We provide detailed descrip-
tions of each FA condition below.
Toy play. The therapist provided access to
highly preferred items and continuous access to
attention in the form of spoken and physical
attention. Preferred items remained freely avail-
able, and no demands were issued.
Attention. The therapist provided approxi-
mately 2 min of presession access to attention
and a low-preference item. The therapist
diverted attention towards activities such as
completing paperwork or reading a magazine.
Contingent on problem behavior, the therapist
provided access to attention in the form of ver-
bal reprimands for 20 s.
Tangible. The therapist provided approxi-
mately 2 min of presession access to the highly
preferred items, after which the therapist began
restricting access to the items. Contingent on
problem behavior, the therapist provided access
to the tangible item for 20 s.
Escape. The therapist instructed the partici-
pant to complete nonpreferred demands using
a three-step, progressive prompting procedure
(verbal, model, and physical guidance). The
therapist delivered praise contingent on compli-
ance with the verbal or modeled prompt. Con-
tingent on problem behavior, the therapist
provided a break (or escape) from the nonpre-
ferred demands for 20 s.

RESULTS
Open-Ended Interview and Structured
Observation
Alan’s caregivers reported during the inter-
view that he frequently displayed problem
behavior when they restricted his access to tan-
gible items (particularly an iPad) or when they
instructed him to complete nonpreferred
demands. In addition, the caregivers reported
that they frequently delivered attention follow-
ing problem behavior (e.g., talked to him in a
soothing voice, held and rocked him, or some
combination). Results of the structured obser-
vation session indicated that when Alan had
free access to attention and tangible items, he
consumed both reinforcers together during
each opportunity. In addition, when the thera-
pist restricted access to both attention and tan-
gible items simultaneously, Alan displayed
problem behavior during 75% of the occasions.
Also, when the therapist delivered instructions
in isolation, he displayed problem behavior
during 80% of occasions. However, when the
therapist combined all three EOs (i.e.,
restricted access to attention and tangible items
and introduced nonpreferred demands), he dis-
played problem behavior on just one occa-
sion (17%).

Allie’s caregivers reported during the inter-
view that she frequently displayed problem
behavior when they restricted her access to tan-
gible items or prompted her to make a change
in her routine, which usually involved the
introduction of nonpreferred demands. In addi-
tion, they reported that they provided attention
following problem behavior. Results of the
structured observation session indicated that
when Allie had free access to attention and tan-
gible items, she consumed both reinforcers each
time (100%). In addition, when the therapist
restricted access to both attention and tangible
items simultaneously, Allie displayed problem
behavior each time (100%). When the thera-
pist delivered instructions in isolation, she dis-
played problem behavior during 33% of
occasions, with problem behavior following
each of the final four instructions. Finally,
when the therapist combined all three EOs
(i.e., restricted access to attention and tangible
items and introduced nonpreferred demands),
she displayed problem behavior each
time (100%).
Cameron’s caregivers reported during the
interview that he frequently displayed problem
behavior when they restricted his access to tan-
gible items (e.g., iPad, TV) and when they
instructed him to complete nonpreferred tasks.
Results of the structured observation session
indicated that when Cameron had free access
to attention and tangible items, he exclusively
and continuously interacted with an iPad by

himself. In addition, when the therapist
restricted access to the iPad, Cameron immedi-
ately displayed problem behavior each time
(100%). When the therapist combined the
EOs for tangible reinforcement and escape by
restricting access to the iPad and delivering
nonpreferred demands, he displayed problem
behavior on 75% of occasions. However, when
the therapist introduced the EO for negative
reinforcement in isolation by introducing non-
preferred demands after the observers removed
the iPad from the room, he displayed no prob-
lem behavior (0%).
Sylvia’s caregivers reported during the inter-
behavior when they restricted her access to
attention (e.g., parent talking on the phone) or
tangible items (e.g., Legos) and when they
instructed her to complete nonpreferred tasks
(e.g., to pick up toys). Results of the structured
observation session indicated that when she had
free access to attention and tangible items, she
consistently consumed both. However, she did
not display problem behavior during any of the
EO manipulations during the structured
observation.
Tina’s caregivers reported during the inter-
behavior when they restricted her access to
attention (e.g., parent busy cooking dinner) or
tangible items (e.g., when her sister had one of
Tina’s preferred toys) and when they instructed
her to complete nonpreferred tasks (e.g., to
clean her room). Results of the structured

observation session indicated that when Tina
had free access to attention and tangible items,
she consistently consumed both. However, like
Sylvia, Tina did not display problem behavior
during any of the EO manipulations during the
structured observation.
IISCA and Traditional FA Results
Figure 2 shows the results of the IISCA and
traditional FA for Alan, Allie, and Cameron.
Initial results from the traditional FA for Alan
(first phase, top) clearly showed that negative
reinforcement (i.e., escape from nonpreferred
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
0
1
2
3
4
Multielement Pairwise
Traditional FA
Traditional FAIISCA IISCA

Alan
New
Tangible
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0
2
4
6
AllieToy play
Attention
Escape
Tangible
Traditional FA Traditional FAIISCA IISCA
Synthesized
10 20 30 40 50
0
1
2

3
4
Cameron
Traditional FA Traditional FAIISCA IISCA
SESSIONS
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
B
E
H
A
V
IO
R
P
E
R
M

IN
U
T
E
Figure 2. Responses per minute of problem behavior across
traditional functional analysis (FA) and the interview-
informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA) for Alan,
Allie, and Cameron. We replaced Alan’s initial tangible
items with an iPad beginning in Session 31.
demands) reinforced his problem behavior and
that attention, when delivered contingent on
problem behavior in isolation, did not. The ini-
tial results also suggested that tangible positive
reinforcement may have reinforced Alan’s prob-
lem behavior, but did so somewhat inconsist-
ently (i.e., rates in four of six tangible sessions
exceeded the zero rates of problem behavior
observed in the control condition). Therefore,
we conducted a pairwise analysis in the second
phase that included only the tangible and toy
play conditions, which produced equivocal
results regarding a potential tangible function
for problem behavior until we replaced the
existing tangible items with an iPad in Session
31 based on parent report that removal of the
iPad triggered problem behavior more consist-
ently than other toys.
Results of the initial IISCA conducted with

Alan (third phase, top) clearly showed that the
synthesized contingency of escape combined
with attention and tangible reinforcement pro-
duced higher rates of problem behavior than
the control condition, which produced no
problem behavior. During the fourth phase, we
reintroduced the multielement traditional FA,
which produced high and relatively stable rates
of problem behavior in both the escape and
tangible conditions and near-zero rates in the
toy play and attention conditions. Finally, in
the fifth phase, we reintroduced the IISCA and
replicated the findings of the third phase. Over-
all, Alan displayed problem behavior reinforced
by the individual contingencies of the tradi-
tional FA, with little to no evidence suggesting
that the synthesized contingencies of the IISCA
interacted to produce more robust reinforce-
ment effects than the traditional FA.
Figure 2 (middle) shows the results of the
IISCA and traditional FA for Allie. Results of
the initial IISCA (first phase, middle) showed
that the synthesized contingency of escape com-
bined with attention and tangible reinforcers
produced high and stable rates of problem
behavior. Allie also displayed high rates of
problem behavior in the first two toy play ses-
sions of this phase, but then the rates of prob-
lem behavior decreased to zero for the
remaining two toy play sessions. In the second
phase, results of the traditional FA clearly
demonstrated that tangible items reinforced
problem behavior and that attention and

escape, when implemented individually, did
not. During the third phase, we reintroduced
the IISCA, which produced high and relatively
stable rates of problem behavior in the test con-
dition and zero rates of problem behavior in the
control condition. In the fourth phase, we rein-
troduced the traditional FA and replicated the
findings of the second phase. Finally, Allie dis-
played low rates of problem behavior in half of
the escape sessions. Therefore, to rule in or rule
out an escape function more definitively, we
compared her levels of responding in the escape
condition with the toy play condition using the
structured, visual inspection criteria described
by Roane, Fisher, Kelley, Mevers, and Bouxsein
(2013). These results failed to reach the criteria
necessary for concluding that negative reinforce-
ment contributed to the maintenance of
problem behavior. Overall, Allie displayed prob-
lem behavior reinforced by the individual
contingencies of the traditional FA, without any
evidence suggesting that the synthesized contin-
gencies of the IISCA interacted to produce
more robust reinforcement effects than the indi-
vidual contingencies of the traditional FA.
Figure 2 (bottom) shows the results of the
traditional FA and IISCA for Cameron. As dis-
played in the first phase, during the traditional
FA, tangible items reinforced problem behav-
ior, but attention and escape did not. Results
of the initial IISCA (second phase, bottom)
showed that the synthesized contingency of
escape combined with tangible reinforcement
produced substantially higher rates of problem
behavior than the control condition, but some-

what lower rates during the first two test condi-
tion sessions relative to the tangible condition
of the traditional FA during the prior phase.
We closely replicated the results produced by
the traditional FA and IISCA in the third and
fourth phases, respectively, and we observed
approximately equal rates of problem behavior
in the tangible condition of the FA and the test
condition of the IISCA. Finally, Cameron dis-
played low to moderate rates of problem behav-
ior in 30% of the escape sessions. Therefore, to
rule in or rule out an escape function more
definitively, we compared his levels of respond-
ing in the escape condition with the toy play
condition using the structured visual inspection
criteria described by Roane et al. (2013). These
results failed to reach the criteria necessary for
concluding that negative reinforcement contrib-
uted to the maintenance of Cameron’s problem
behavior.
Overall, Cameron displayed problem behav-
ior reinforced by the individual contingencies
of the traditional FA, with little or no evidence
suggesting that the synthesized contingencies of
the IISCA interacted to produce an accentuated
reinforcement effect relative to the traditional
FA. In fact, when we observed differences (dur-
ing the first two IISCA test sessions), it
appeared that adding an escape contingency to
the tangible contingency may have temporarily

lessened the reinforcing effects of the tangible
contingency, a potential interaction effect that
would be in opposition to that predicted by the
assumption of the IISCA.
Figure 3 (top) shows the results obtained
during the IISCA and traditional FA conducted
with Sylvia. Sylvia displayed no problem
5 10 15 20
0
1
2
Sylvia
Caregiver Caregiver
Traditional FA
Therapist (Ther.) Therapist
IISCA
5 10 15 20 25 30
0
1
2
Tina

Caregiver
Toy play Escape
Tangible
Attention
Ther. Traditional FA
IISCA
Synthesized
SESSIONS
P
R
O
B
L
E
M
B
E
H
A
V
IO

R
P
E
R
M
IN
U
T
E
Figure 3. Responses per minute of problem behavior across the
interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis
(IISCA) and traditional functional analysis (FA) for Sylvia and
Tina.
behavior during either the IISCA or the tradi-
tional FA, regardless of whether a therapist or
her caregiver conducted the sessions.
Figure 3 (bottom) shows the results obtained
during the IISCA and traditional FA conducted
with Tina. During the first phase, a therapist
conducted the IISCA, and Tina displayed no
problem behavior. In the second phase, her
caregiver implemented the IISCA, and Tina
displayed high and stable rates of problem
behavior in the synthesized test condition and
near-zero rates of problem behavior in the con-

trol condition. During the third phase, a thera-
pist conducted the traditional FA, which
produced high and relatively stable rates of
responding in the tangible condition and zero
or near-zero rates of problem behavior in the
other test and control conditions, indicating
that tangible items reinforced problem behavior
and that attention and escape did not. Overall,
Tina displayed problem behavior reinforced by
the individual contingencies of the traditional
FA, without any evidence suggesting that the
synthesized contingencies of the IISCA inter-
acted to produce more robust reinforcement
effects than the traditional FA.
Table 2 shows a summary of the individual
and interactive functions of problem behavior
identified during the open-ended interview, the
structured observations, the IISCA, and the
traditional FA for all five participants. We used
the results of the IISCA and traditional FA as
the criterion variables to evaluate the validity of
the open-ended interview and structured obser-
vations. Stimuli listed in regular typeface in
Table 2 are ones that we confirmed to be func-
tionally relevant because the traditional FA
showed that the stimulus functioned as rein-
forcement for problem behavior. In addition,
we also would have confirmed a stimulus as
functionally relevant if the comparison of the
results of the IISCA and traditional FA revealed
an interaction effect involving that stimulus
(e.g., response patterns similar to the hypotheti-
cal data presented in Panel 2 or Panel 3 of
Figure 1). However, we did not observe such

interactive effects with any of the five partici-
pants. Stimuli listed in boldface type in Table 2
are ones that we determined to be functionally
irrelevant because they did not function as rein-
forcement for problem behavior either inde-
pendently or interactively. Finally, the stimulus
listed in italics is one that the structured obser-
vation failed to implicate that we later con-
firmed to be functionally relevant during the
traditional FA. Across the five participants, the
open-ended interview accurately implicated five
functions (36%) and inaccurately implicated
nine irrelevant functions (64%) compared to
the results of the traditional FA and IISCA.
Table 2
Comparative Results of the Open-Ended Interview, Structured
Observations, IISCA, and Traditional FA
Participant
Open-ended
interview Structured observation IISCA Traditional FA
Alan Attention, tangible,
escape
Attention, tangible,
escape
Differentiated, without individual or
interaction effects
Tangible, escape
Allie Attention, tangible,
escape

Attention, tangible,
escape
interaction effects
Tangible
Cameron Tangible, escape Tangible or tangible
and escape
interaction effects
Tangible
Sylvia Attention, tangible,
escape
No problem behavior
observed
No problem behavior observed No problem behavior
observed
Tina Attention, tangible,
escape
No problem behavior
observed
interaction effects
Tangible

Note. Functionally relevant stimuli identified during the open-
ended interview and structured observation are presented
in regular typeface, irrelevant stimuli are in boldface type, and
missed functions are in italics.
The structured observations accurately impli-
cated three functions (43%), inaccurately
implicated three irrelevant functions (43%),
and failed to implicate one relevant function
(i.e., the tangible function).
Thus, in summary, Alan’s synthesized con-
tingency included attention, tangible reinforce-
ment, and escape, but only tangible items and
escape reinforced his problem behavior; atten-
tion did not. Allie’s synthesized contingency
included attention, tangible reinforcement, and
escape, but only tangible items reinforced her
problem behavior; attention and escape did
not. Cameron’s synthesized contingency
included tangible reinforcement and escape,
but only tangible items reinforced his problem
behavior; escape did not. Sylvia’s synthesized
contingency included attention, tangible rein-
forcement, and escape, but none of these con-
sequences reinforced her problem behavior. It
is important to note that both the IISCA and
the traditional FA produced this same result
with Sylvia (no problem behavior in any FA
condition), as did the structured observation.
Tina’s synthesized contingency included atten-

tion, tangible reinforcement, and escape, but
only tangible items reinforced her problem
behavior; attention and escape did not. Finally,
the four participants with differentiated tradi-
tional FA and IISCA results (Alan, Allie,
Cameron, and Tina), all showed response pat-
terns similar to the hypothetical data in
Figure 1 (top), indicating that the functional
contingencies that reinforced their problem
behavior operated independently rather than
interactively, which is consistent with the
assumption of the traditional FA but not the
IISCA.
Comparisons of the levels of experimental con-
trol. Jessel, Hanley, and Ghaemmaghami
(2015) compared the results of 34 applications
of the IISCA by their research group with all
other types of FAs published in the extant liter-
ature using a rating scale that categorized ana-
lyses as showing strong, moderate, or weak
experimental control. They concluded that the
IISCA produced clearer outcomes and stronger
experimental control than all other FA meth-
ods, including traditional, brief, trial-based,
latency-based, and other FAs (Iwata et al.,
1982/1994; Kodak, Fisher, Paden, & Dickes,
2013; Neidert, Iwata, Dempsey, & Thomason-
Sassi, 2013; Northup et al., 1991). However,
Jessel et al.’s results are limited in that they did
not involve within-subject comparisons of the
IISCA with the other FA methods. To address
this limitation, we analyzed the strength of
experimental control of the IISCAs and tradi-
tional FAs with the current within-subject data

sets using the same scale as Jessel et al.
The first and second authors independently
reviewed each of the relevant test–control com-
parisons for both the IISCA (synthesized
vs. control) and the traditional FA (e.g., tangi-
ble vs. toy play) using the Jessel et al. (2015)
scale, and we agreed on all ratings (exact agree-
ment was 100%). We excluded Sylvia’s data
because she displayed no problem behavior
during either analysis. Results indicated that
the IISCAs and traditional FAs produced
(a) strong experimental control for 75% and
80% of comparisons, respectively; (b) moderate
experimental control for 0% and 20% of com-
parisons, respectively; and (c) weak experimen-
tal control for 25% and 0% of comparisons,
respectively. Thus, our results showed that both
methods typically produced strong experimen-
tal control. Our findings, derived from within-
subject comparisons of the two approaches, do
not support Jessel et al.’s assertion that the
IISCA produces stronger experimental control
than the traditional FA.
Function-based treatments. For Sylvia, who
displayed no problem behavior during any
observations or analyses, we provided training
to her parents in general behavior-management
strategies. We developed function-based treat-
ments for the four participants who displayed
problem behavior during the traditional FA
and IISCA. Given that the results indicated

that these four participants displayed problem
behavior reinforced by individual contingencies,
we developed functional communication train-
ing (FCT) interventions based on the individual
contingencies implicated by the traditional
FA. We compared the final three treatment data
points from the treatment analyses with the
baseline average for each participant and found
that FCT reduced problem behavior by an aver-
age of 98% (Alan’s tangible function = 100%
reduction; Alan’s escape function = 94% reduc-
tion; Allie’s tangible function = 97% reduction;
Cameron’s tangible function = 100% reduc-
tion; Tina’s tangible function = 100% reduc-
tion). These results provide further evidence
that individual (rather than interactive) contin-
gencies reinforced the problem behavior dis-
played by these four participants because
function-based treatments designed to address
individual contingencies proved to be highly
effective.
DISCUSSION
We compared the results of a traditional FA
with those of the IISCA with five consecutive
participants who had been referred for the
assessment and treatment of severe problem
behavior to test the assumptions associated with
each approach. Four of the five participants
showed a response pattern consistent with the
assumption of the traditional FA that the puta-
tive contingencies (and corresponding EOs) for
problem behavior primarily act independently

to reinforce problem behavior (e.g., the EOs
and contingencies for attention act independ-
ently of the EOs and contingencies for escape).
None of the five participants showed a response
pattern consistent with the assumption of the
IISCA that the putative contingencies (and cor-
responding EOs) for problem behavior prima-
rily act in combination (or interactively) to
reinforce problem behavior (e.g., the assump-
tion that the EOs and contingencies for tangi-
ble items interact with the EOs and
contingencies for escape to produce a differen-
tial effect). Finally, one of the five participants
displayed no problem behaviors during either
the traditional FA or the IISCA.
The traditional FA assessed putative rein-
forcement contingencies individually and
demonstrated that problem behavior was sensi-
tive to at least one of the individual contingen-
cies tested with four of the participants. Those
same four participants also showed differen-
tiated responding between the synthesized test
and control conditions of the IISCA. However,
comparisons of the results of the traditional FA
and IISCA revealed no evidence of interaction
effects between the individual contingencies
when we combined those contingencies during
the IISCA. That is, the synthesized contingen-
cies of the IISCA did not produce more robust
reinforcement effects than the relevant individ-
ual contingencies of the traditional FA. For
example, Cameron displayed equivalent levels
of problem behavior when this response pro-
duced only tangible reinforcement during the

traditional FA as when it produced the combi-
nation of tangible items and escape during the
IISCA. Thus, for this participant, the escape
contingency that we included in the synthe-
sized contingency of the IISCA appeared to be
irrelevant to the function of problem behavior
(i.e., the tangible item reinforced problem
behavior equally well with and without the
escape contingency). Comparisons between the
results of the traditional FA and IISCA showed
that the IISCA included functionally irrelevant
contingencies for all four participants for whom
we observed differentiated responding during
the traditional FA and IISCA.
The IISCA identified three operant functions
of problem behavior (attention, tangible, and
escape) for three of the participants, two oper-
ant functions of problem behavior (tangible
and escape) for one participant, and no operant
function for the remaining participant. Com-
parisons between the results from the tradi-
tional FA and IISCA confirmed the results of
the IISCA only for this participant. That is, the
two analyses agreed that this participant’s prob-
lem behavior was not sensitive to attention,
tangible items, or escape as reinforcement in a
clinic setting when we evaluated those contin-
gencies individually or as components of a
synthesized contingency. For the other four
participants, comparisons between the tradi-

tional FA and IISCA results showed that the
IISCA included one functionally irrelevant con-
tingency for two participants (Alan and
Cameron) and two functionally irrelevant con-
tingencies for the other two (Allie and Tina).
When we compared the results of compo-
nents used to develop the IISCA with the
results of the traditional FA and IISCA, the
open-ended interview implicated more func-
tionally irrelevant contingencies (64%) than
functionally relevant contingencies (36%). In
addition, the structured observation implicated
about the same percentage (30%) of function-
ally irrelevant contingencies as functional rele-
vant contingencies (30%), but it also missed
one functionally relevant contingency (i.e., the
tangible function for Tina).
Several researchers have examined the predic-
tive validity of indirect functional assessments
by comparing the results of these measures with
the findings of a traditional FA, and the results
have typically yielded unacceptably low levels
of agreement between the two approaches (e.g.,
Newton & Sturmey, 1991; Paclawskyj, Mat-
son, Rush, Smalls, & Vollmer, 2001; Zarcone,
Rodgers, Iwata, Rourke, & Dorsey, 1991). The
results of studies that have examined the pre-
dictive validity of direct assessments using tradi-
tional FAs as the criterion variable have
produced similarly disappointing results (e.g.,
Lerman & Iwata, 1993; Piazza et al., 2003;
St. Peter, Vollmer, Bourret, Borrero, & Slo-
man, 2005; Thompson & Iwata, 2007). The
IISCA represents a unique departure from these

prior studies in that it uses an open-ended
interview and informal observations to design
and individualize an efficient FA, an approach
that has proven to be useful for identifying idi-
osyncratic functions after a traditional FA pro-
duced inconclusive results (e.g., Bowman et al.,
1997; Roscoe et al., 2015). Thus, it seems rea-
sonable to examine whether behavior analysts
could use the results of indirect and direct
functional assessments on the front end, before
any experimental manipulations, to design
more individualized and accurate FAs. Unfortu-
nately, with the current participants, the IISCA
was no more accurate than other approaches
that rely heavily on the results of indirect and
direct assessments. That is, the individualized
IISCA that we developed from the indirect and
direct measures produced no appreciable
improvements in predictive validity over levels
of convergence with a traditional FA observed
in prior studies (e.g., Lerman & Iwata, 1993;
Paclawskyj et al., 2001; Thompson & Iwata,
2007; Zarcone et al., 1991). Similar to the
results of direct assessment methods, the open-
ended interview and structured observations
most often erroneously implicated contingent
attention as a reinforcer for problem behavior
(Thompson & Iwata, 2001, 2007).
Overall, we observed low levels of agreement
between the IISCA and the traditional FA,
regardless of whether we used the results of the
open-ended interview, the structured observa-
tions, or the overall IISCA. Moreover, we
attempted to find ways to use the results of the

tion to improve the levels of convergence with
the traditional FA without much success. For
example, we asked, “What if we only included
reinforcers in the synthesized contingency
implicated by both the open-ended interview
and the structured observation?” Analysis and
interpretation of the data in this manner did
not appreciably alter the levels of agreement
with the traditional FA.
One possible advantage of the IISCA over a
traditional FA is that the former may have
increased ecological validity because it uses the
open-ended interview to tie the contingencies
included in the synthesized contingency to ones
that are purported to operate in the natural
environment for each individual. However, the
current results provide little evidence for the
increased ecological validity of the IISCA. In
fact, in the current investigation, the open-
ended interview and structured observation had
only a slight differential effect on the reinfor-
cers that we included in the synthesized contin-
gency of the IISCA. For four of the
participants, we included attention, tangible
items, and escape, and for the remaining partic-
ipant (Cameron), we included tangible items
and escape. Thus, if we had not conducted the
interview and observation and simply tested a
synthesized contingency that involved all of the

typical putative reinforcers reported in the liter-
ature (attention, tangible items, and escape)
with all participants, we would have produced
highly similar results. If we had used this alter-
native contingency synthesis approach (i.e.,
combining attention, tangible items, and escape
into a single contingency with every partici-
pant), we would have included one additional
functionally irrelevant contingency (attention
for Cameron) relative to the IISCA and pro-
duced one less missed function (i.e., we would
have included the tangible function that was
missed by the structured observation conducted
with Tina). We also would have saved the
roughly 50 min per participant that the open-
ended interviews and structured observations
required.
Jessel et al. (in press) suggested that the
IISCA might have advantages over other forms
of FA in terms of safety (e.g., reduced exposure
to EOs). We found no differences between the
analyses regarding the safety of the participants
in the current investigation. None of the parti-
cipants experienced injuries, minor or other-
wise, during either analysis. Our results are in
general agreement with Kahng et al. (2015),
who found similar levels of injury from SIB
during traditional FAs as during other times of
the day outside the FA sessions.
We caution practitioners who wish to incor-
porate the IISCA into their clinical practice due
to its simplicity and efficiency, given the ques-
tions regarding its validity raised by the results
of the current investigation. Clearly, researchers

should collect additional data on the levels and
types of convergence and divergence between
the IISCA and the traditional FA with more
participants before drawing firm conclusions
regarding the validity of the IISCA. Neverthe-
less, we are concerned that clinicians may
derive a false sense of confidence from the
experimental analysis component of the IISCA
because it rapidly and consistently produces
clearly differentiated responding between the
synthesized test and control conditions. As
mentioned above, practitioners would likely
produce similarly rapid and consistent levels of
experimental differentiation simply by includ-
ing the three most common reinforcers for
problem behavior (attention, tangible, and
escape) in every synthesized contingency analy-
sis, but doing so will also produce inaccurate
information about which contingencies rein-
force problem behavior and which ones do not.
Inclusion of both functional and irrelevant
consequences in a synthesized contingency may
create potential problems. It ostensibly leads to
more complex and labor-intensive interventions
(e.g., delivery of multiple consequences when
just one is sufficient). Moreover, delivery of
escape either contingent on an alternative
response or on a time-based schedule when tan-
gible items (or attention) exclusively reinforce
problem behavior will necessarily result in less
academic instruction or work for the
individual.
We do not suggest that we found no value
in the open-ended interview or the structured

observation. We believe that open-ended inter-
views provide structure and greater technologi-
cal rigor than many previous studies that have
used indirect measures to develop idiosyncratic
FAs following inconclusive traditional FAs
(e.g., Bowman et al., 1997; Fisher, Lindauer,
Alterson, & Thompson, 1998). In addition, we
believe that we have described the structured
observation procedure that we used in the cur-
rent study in clear and operational terms that
will facilitate replication of the procedures by
future researchers, whereas most prior studies
have outlined less formal observation proce-
dures (e.g., Fisher, Adelinis, et al., 1998; Han-
ley et al., 2014). In fact, the structured
observations in the current study might repre-
sent a preliminary FA because we systematically
manipulated putative reinforcement contingen-
cies and measured their effects.
Prior research supports these types of indi-
rect and direct assessments for designing idio-
syncratic FAs following inconclusive traditional
FAs (e.g., Bowman et al., 1997). The current
findings raise doubts regarding whether behav-
ior analysts should use indirect and direct
assessments to develop synthesized test condi-
tions before they test general reinforcement
contingencies (e.g., positive, negative, and auto-
matic reinforcement) individually with a tradi-
tional FA. Future researchers should conduct

additional within-subject comparisons of the
IISCA and traditional FA with larger cohorts of
participants to provide a more definitive evalua-
tion of the strengths and limitations of the
IISCA.
REFERENCES
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experi-
mental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Pergamon.
Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013).
Thirty years of research on the functional analysis of
problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-
sis, 46, 1–21. doi: 10.1002/jaba.30
Berkson, G., & Mason, W. A. (1963). Stereotyped move-
ments of mental defectives: III. Situation effects.
American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 68, 409–412.
Betz, A. M., & Fisher, W. W. (2011). Functional analy-
sis: History and methods. In W. W. Fisher,
C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of
applied behavior analysis (pp. 206–225). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A
method to integrate descriptive and experimental field
studies at the level of data and empirical concepts.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175–191. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1968.1-175
Bowman, L. G., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., &
Piazza, C. C. (1997). On the relation of mands and
the function of destructive behavior. Journal of

Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 251–265. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1997.30-251
Call, N. A., Pabico, R. S., & Lomas, J. E. (2009). Use of
latency to problem behavior to evaluate demands for
inclusion in functional analyses. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 42, 723–728. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.2009.42-723
Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious
behavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 800–816. doi: 10.1037//0033-
2909.84.4.800
Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., & Binkoff, J. A. (1976).
Stimulus control of self-destructive behavior in a psy-
chotic child. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4,
139–153. doi: 10.1007/bf00916518
Fisher, W. W., Adelinis, J. D., Thompson, R. H.,
Worsdell, A. S., & Zarcone, J. R. (1998). Functional
analysis and treatment of destructive behavior main-
tained by termination of “don’t” (and symmetrical
“do”) requests. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
31, 339–356. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-339
Fisher, W. W., & Bouxsein, K. (2011). Developing
function-based reinforcement procedures for problem
behavior. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, &
H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior
analysis (pp. 335–347). New York, NY: Guilford.
Fisher, W. W., Lindauer, S. E., Alterson, C. J., &
Thompson, R. H. (1998). Assessment and treatment
of destructive behavior maintained by stereotypic
object manipulation. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 31, 513–527. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.1998.31-513
Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., &
Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with
systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer
identification. American Journal of Mental Retarda-
tion, 101, 15–25.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G.,
Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992).
A comparison of two approaches for identifying rein-
forcers for persons with severe and profound disabil-
ities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,
491–498. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491
Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., & Chiang, C. L. (1996).
Effects of equal and unequal reinforcer duration dur-
ing functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 29, 117–120. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.1996.29-117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jaba.30
http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.84.4.800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.84.4.800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00916518

Ghaemmaghami, M., Hanley, G. P., & Jessel, J.
(in press). Contingencies are necessary for promoting
delay tolerance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problem
behavior: Dispelling myths, overcoming implementa-
tion obstacles, and developing new lore. Behavior
Analysis in Practice, 5, 54–72.
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003).
Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185.
doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147
Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., &
Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful
improvements in problem behavior of children with
autism via synthesized analyses and treatments. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 16–36. doi:
10.1002/jaba.106
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J.,
Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a
functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied
jaba.1994.27-197 (Reprinted from Analysis and Inter-
vention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20, 1982)
Jessel, J., Hanley, G. P., & Ghaemmaghami, M. (2015).
Determining the efficiency of and control shown in dif-
ferent functional analysis formats. Manuscript submit-
ted for publication.

Jessel, J., Hanley, G. P., & Ghaemmaghami, M.
(in press). Interview-informed synthesized contin-
gency analyses: Thirty replications and reanalysis.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
Kahng, S., Hausman, N. L., Fisher, A. B.,
Donaldson, J. M., Cox, J. R., Lugo, M., &
Wiskow, K. M. (2015). The safety of functional ana-
lyses of self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied
jaba.168
Kelley, M. E., LaRue, R. H., Roane, H. S., &
Gadaire, D. M. (2011). Indirect behavioral assess-
ments: Interviews and rating scales. In W. W. Fisher,
C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of
applied behavior analysis (pp. 182–190). New York,
NY: Guilford.
Kodak, T., Fisher, W. W., Paden, A., & Dickes, N.
(2013). Evaluation of the utility of a discrete-trial
functional analysis in early intervention classrooms.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 301–306.
doi: 10.1002/jaba.2
Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1993). Descriptive and
experimental analyses of variables maintaining self-
injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 26, 293–319. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.1993.26-293
Lovaas, O. I., Freitag, G., Gold, V. J., & Kassorla, I. C.
(1965). Experimental studies in childhood schizo-
phrenia: Analysis of self-destructive behavior. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 2, 67–84. doi:

10.1016/0022-0965(65)90016-0
Neidert, P. L., Iwata, B. A., Dempsey, C. M., &
Thomason-Sassi, J. L. (2013). Latency of response
during the functional analysis of elopement. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 312–316. doi:
10.1002/jaba.11
Newton, J. T., & Sturmey, P. (1991). The Motivation
Assessment Scale: Inter-rater reliability and internal
consistency in a British sample. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 35, 472–474. doi: 10.1111/
j.1365-2788.1991.tb00429.x
Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M.,
Cigrand, K., Cook, J., & DeRaad, A. (1991). A brief
functional analysis of aggressive and alternative behav-
ior in an outclinic setting. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 24, 509–522. doi: 10.1901/
jaba.1991.24-509
Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S.,
Smalls, Y., & Vollmer, T. R. (2001). Assessment of
the convergent validity of the Questions About
Behavioral Function scale with analogue functional
analysis and the Motivation Assessment Scale. Journal
of Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 484–494. doi:
10.1046/j.1365-2788.2001.00364.x
Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Brown, K. A., Shore, B. A.,
Patel, M. R., Katz, R. M., … Blakely-Smith, A.
(2003). Functional analysis of inappropriate mealtime
behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36,
187–204. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-187
Querim, A. C., Iwata, B. A., Roscoe, E. M.,

Schlichenmeyer, K. J., Virués Ortega, J., &
Hurl, K. E. (2013). Functional analysis screening for
problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforce-
ment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46,
47–60. doi: 10.1002/jaba.26
Roane, H. S., Fisher, W. W., Kelley, M. E.,
Mevers, J. L., & Bouxsein, K. J. (2013). Using modi-
fied visual-inspection criteria to interpret functional
analysis outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-
sis, 46, 130–146. doi: 10.1002/jaba.13
Rooker, G. W., DeLeon, I. G., Borrero, C. S. W., Frank-
Crawford, M. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (2015). Reducing
ambiguity in the functional assessment of problem
behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 30, 1–35. doi:
10.1002/bin.1400
Roscoe, E. M., Schlichenmeyer, K. J., & Dube, W. V.
(2015). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A
systematic approach for identifying idiosyncratic vari-
ables. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48,
289–314. doi: 10.1002/jaba.201
Sidman, M. (1988). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating
experimental data in psychology. New York, NY: Basic
Books. (Original work published 1960)
St. Peter, C. C., Vollmer, T. R., Bourret, J. C.,
Borrero, C. S. W., & Sloman, K. N. (2005). On the
role of attention in naturally occurring matching rela-
tions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38,
429–443. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.172-04

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(65)90016-0
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.1991.tb00429.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.1991.tb00429.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2001.00364.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bin.1400
Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2001). A descriptive
analysis of social consequences following problem
behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34,
169–178. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-169
Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2007). A comparison
of outcomes from descriptive and functional analyses
of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 40, 333–338. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.56-06
Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bessette, K. K. (2006).
Incorporating descriptive assessment results into the

design of a functional analysis: A case example invol-
ving a preschooler’s hand mouthing. Education and
Treatment of Children, 29, 107–124.
Vollmer, T. R., & Athens, E. (2011). Developing
function-based extinction procedures for problem
behavior. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, &
H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior
analysis (pp. 317–334). New York, NY: Guilford.
Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R.,
Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). The role of
attention in the treatment of attention-maintained
self-injurious behavior: Noncontingent reinforcement
and differential reinforcement of other behavior. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 9–21. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1993.26-9
Zarcone, J. R., Rodgers, T. A., Iwata, B. A.,
Rourke, D. A., & Dorsey, M. F. (1991). Reliability
analysis of the Motivation Assessment Scale: A failure
to replicate. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
12, 349–360. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(91)90031-m
Received August 11, 2015
Final acceptance December 7, 2015
Action Editor, Dorothea Lerman
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(91)90031-m
COMPARISONS OF SYNTHESIZED AND INDIVIDUAL
REINFORCEMENT CONTINGENCIES DURING

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSISMETHODSubjectsSetting and
MaterialsMeasurementDesignOpen-Ended Functional
Assessment InterviewStructured ObservationsSynthesized
AnalysisSynthesized (test)Toy play (control)Traditional FAToy
playAttentionTangibleEscapeRESULTSOpen-Ended Interview
and Structured ObservationIISCA and Traditional FA
ResultsComparisons of the levels of experimental
controlFunction-based treatmentsDISCUSSIONREFERENCES
TECHNICAL AND TUTORIALS
Some Tools for Carrying Out a Proposed Process for
Supervising
Experience Hours for Aspiring Board Certified
Behavior Analysts®
Katie Lynn Garza1 & Heather M. McGee1 & Yannick A.
Schenk1
&
Rebecca R. Wiskirchen1
Published online: 14 April 2017
# Association for Behavior Analysis International 2017
Abstract While task clarification, goal setting, feedback, and
behavioral skills training (BST) are well-supported methods
for performance improvement, there is no standardized ap-
proach to supervising aspiring Board Certified Behavior
Analysts® (BCBAs®) that specifies how such practices
should be used within a comprehensive supervision system,
namely for supervising those who are still accruing experience
hours for the purpose of becoming board certified. This article
outlines a systematic approach to BCBA supervision and pro-

vides a set of tools that supervisors can use to ensure that they
are engaging in empirically based supervision practices.
Keywords BCBA supervision . Supervision process .
Supervisionmaterials
The Behavior Analyst Certification Board® (BACB®)
Supervisor Training Curriculum Outline specifies that
BCBAs trained in supervision techniques should be able to
describe the purpose and important features of supervision,
use behavioral skills training, including the use of effective
performance feedback to teach targeted skills, evaluate the
effectiveness of their supervision, and proactively engage in
professional development activities to improve supervisory
performance (BACB, 2012b). Each of these repertoires is es-
sential for providing adequate supervision. We believe that of
equal importance is a supervisor’s ability to conduct supervi-
sion within a process that accounts for the contingencies act-
ing upon his environment and the environment of his
supervisees. Insight from the work that has been done in or-
ganizational behavior management (OBM) can help us design
effective supervision systems.
Behavior analysts should be accustomed to using a
behavior-analytic technology to produce behavior change pro-
grams for clients. However, manymay not be as accustomed to
using the same technology to train and supervise individuals
seeking certification, especially those who have limited practi-
cal experience. Organizational behavior management is a sub-
field of applied behavior analysis that focuses specifically on
organizational problems (Bucklin, Alvero, Dickinson, Austin,
& Jackson, 2000). Because the same empirical approach that is
followed in clinically focused behavior analysis is used in or-
ganizational behavior management, much of the research find-

ings from the OBM literature can be used to aid in the devel-
opment of applied behavior analysis (ABA) practices, includ-
ing the supervision of others.
For example, it is clear that ensuring that consequences are
contingent on the target performance improves that particular
target performance. Komaki (1986) set out to, Bspecifically
identify and empirically determine what constitutes effective
supervisory behavior^ (p. 270). The author found that effec-
tive managers spent significantly more time monitoring per-
formance and used work sampling as a specific form of per-
formance monitoring more often than marginally effective
supervisors. Komaki also found that there was no difference
between the groups regarding the number of positive, nega-
tive, or neutral consequences between effective and marginal-
ly effective managers. In other words, Beffective managers
were no more likely than the marginal managers to provide
positive consequences, and they were no less likely to provide
negative consequences^ (pp. 275–6). The author concluded
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article
(doi:10.1007/s40617-017-0186-8) contains supplementary
material,
which is available to authorized users.
* Katie Lynn Garza
[email protected]
1 Department of Psychology, Western Michigan University,
1903 W.
Michigan Avenue, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5439, USA
Behav Analysis Practice (2018) 11:62–70
DOI 10.1007/s40617-017-0186-8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40617-017-0186-8

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s40617-017-
0186-8&domain=pdf
that because effective managers spent more time monitoring,
their consequences were more likely to be contingent on, rath-
er than independent of, employees’ performance.
Task clarification, goal setting, and feedback are common
practices that have been used in a variety of settings to im-
prove on-the-job performance. Tittelbach, DeAngelis,
Sturmey, and Alvero (2007) used a task clarification, goal
setting, and feedback intervention to improve punctuality,
greeting, and correct front-desk behavior of student advisors
in a university counseling center. Loewy and Bailey (2007)
used graphic feedback, goal setting, and manager praise to
improve customer service (i.e., greeting, eye contact, and
smiling) in two locations of a home improvement store. Gil
and Carter (2016) used graphic feedback, later combined with
goal setting and performance feedback to improve data col-
lection adherence of direct care staff in a large residential
treatment facility. It is reasonable to expect the application of
these practices to the supervision of aspiring BCBAs to result
in supervisees’ performance improvement in key behavior-
analytic skills.
In 2016, Behavior Analysis in Practice released a special
section on supervision. Prior to its publication, few articles
had been published on recommended practices for the super-
vision of aspiring BCBAs. The special section includes arti-
cles on ethical considerations in supervision (Sellers, Alai-
Rosales, & MacDonald, 2016), recommendations for
conducting group supervision (Valentino, LeBlanc, &
Sellers, 2016), recommendations for addressing barriers to
supervision (Sellers, LeBlanc, & Valentino, 2016), an exami-
nation of the relationship between supervision hours, supervi-

sor credentials, years of experience, and supervisor caseload
on ABA treatment outcomes (Dixon et al., 2016), and recom-
mended practice guidelines and approaches to supervision
(Sellers, Valentino, & LeBlanc, 2016; Hartley, Courtney,
Rosswurm, & LaMarca, 2016; Turner, Fischer, & Luiselli,
2016).
Interestingly, though the supervision model presented
by Turner et al. (2016) closely resembles the process that
will be presented in this paper, the two systems were
established by two separate groups in two separate loca-
tions. The current paper further enhances the literature
base on supervision by emphasizing that supervision is a
process with a beginning, middle, and end and by provid-
ing templates to assist supervisors in carrying out that
process.
Knowing the general flow of a supervisory relationship
from beginning to end helps supervisors to keep their docu-
mentation organized and plan for supervisees’ training and
assessment needs. This is especially important given that su-
pervision may often be a secondary job for BCBAs, resulting
in time constraints and competing job responsibilities (Garza,
Peterson, McGee, Jackson, & Malott, manuscript in
preparation).
In a survey to assess the needs of individuals supervising
experience hours for aspiring BCBAs, 18% of participants
indicated that lack of available information or materials was
a barrier to using assessment in supervision. Furthermore,
30% of participants indicated that time or competing contin-
gencies were a barrier to completing assessments in supervi-
sion. When asked to indicate barriers to the use of behavioral
skills training in supervision practices, 54% of participants
indicated that lack of time was a barrier, and 48% of partici-
pants indicated that there were too many skills to teach. The

majority of participants also indicated that additional materials
would be useful for teaching most items in sections I and II of
the BACB Task List (Garza et al., manuscript in preparation).
In response to these expressed needs, the purpose of this paper
is to present a concise process for supervising aspiring
BCBAs and to provide materials to assist supervisors in pro-
viding high-quality supervision. Supervision for BCBA expe-
rience hours can be conceptualized as a process that occurs in
five phases: establishing a supervisory relationship, skills as-
sessment, training, ongoing performance monitoring, and
ending the supervisory relationship. The steps involved in
each of these phases will be discussed below. Those phases
that are already discussed at length in the existing literature on
supervision will be covered in less detail than those for which
the existing literature does not address how to complete the
phase in the context of BCBA supervision. In addition, strat-
egies for ongoing professional development will be discussed.
Establishing a Supervisory Relationship
Individuals may receive supervision as part of a university
practicum, from a supervisor within the organization at which
he or she works, or from a BCBA who offers contracted su-
pervision services. Regardless of the arrangement of supervi-
sion, no experience hours can be accrued before both the su-
pervisor and supervisee sign a contract outlining the respon-
sibilities of each party. The BACB Experience Standards out-
line the specific items that must be included in the contract
(BACB, 2016), and the BACB® website offers several sam-
ple contracts to use as a template. We recommend using these
templates as a guide and modifying the contract to describe
the specific assessments and experience opportunities that the
supervisee can expect to encounter within the organization in
which experience hours will be accrued. We also recommend
using universities’ or other organizations’ legal or contract
departments as a resource for reviewing contracts for proper

legalese whenever such resources are available.
In our professional experience, we have heard supervisors
express concern that they could get locked into a supervisory
relationship with a supervisee who does not make adequate
progress or who engages in unprofessional behavior. In their
Experience Standards, the BACB specifies that contracts
Behav Analysis Practice (2018) 11:62–70 63
should, Bdelineate the consequences should the parties not
adhere to their responsibilities (including proper termination
of the relationship)^ (2016, p. 3). If there are circumstances
under which a supervisor would be unwilling to continue su-
pervising an individual, those circumstances should be clearly
outlined in the supervision contract in order to protect both
parties.
During an initial meeting, the supervisor should describe
the purpose of supervision as described in the BACB’s
Supervisor Training Curriculum Outline and go over the su-
pervision contract with the supervisee. We recommend read-
ing over the terms of the contract aloud during the meeting,
pausing after each section to allow for questions, and having
the supervisee sign his or her initials after each section of the
agreement. This protects both parties by ensuring that there is
a legitimate and understood agreement between the supervisor
and supervisee. Once both parties sign the contract, the super-
visory relationship has been officially established.
Sellers, Valentino, and LeBlanc (2016) provide excellent
rationale and guidelines for effective establishment of the su-
pervisor–supervisee relationship. We recommend reviewing
their practice guidelines for more detailed information on cre-

ating supervision contracts, setting clear expectations for the
supervisee, specifically setting expectations regarding feed-
back in the supervision process, and creating a Bcommitted
and positive^ supervisory relationship (p. 276). Turner et al.
(2016) also discuss strategies for establishing a supervisory
relationship that results in collaborative and ethical practices.
In a manner similar to Sellers et al. (2016), Turner et al. (2016)
emphasize the importance of setting clear performance expec-
tations and clearly defining the supervisory relationship.
Skills Assessment
After establishing the supervisory relationship, a supervisor
must determine which performances and corresponding Task
List (BACB, 2012a) items the supervisee currently possesses
and which will need to be developed over the course of super-
vision. This determination is made through a performance/
skills assessment. In assessment, the supervisor is either ob-
serving performance or reviewing products of performance
without providing prompts, coaching, or instructional feed-
back. These components of training and performancemanage-
ment could bias the results of the assessment. Assessment
should be done before beginning the training process because
it helps the supervisor pinpoint which skills the supervisee can
successfully practice independently. This allows the supervi-
sor to focus training efforts on skills the supervisee has not yet
mastered. In our discussion of assessment, we will first present
a method for supervisors to define the scope of their assess-
ment, followed by a method for conducting the assessment,
and, finally, a method for using the results of the assessment.
Job Model
Job models can take different forms and be called by different
names (e.g., role/responsibility matrix) but typically include
the accomplishments or performance responsibilities associat-

ed with the job. Additional information, such as tasks required
to complete the performance, measures of performance, goals
or standards for performance, inputs to performance, recipi-
ents of outputs of performance, and how feedback on perfor-
mance will be provided, are sometimes also included in the
job model (Gilbert, 1996; Rummler & Brache, 2012).
Because training (discussed in the next section) can be a
time-consuming process, we recommend conducting an anal-
ysis of the position supervisees will hold in the organization.
This analysis helps supervisors identify which skills the
supervisee will actually practice throughout the supervisory
relationship. If the organization cannot provide specific train-
ing on a particular skill, it is categorized as a low priority for
assessment and training. If the skill is practiced regularly with-
in the organization, it is a high priority for assessment and, if
needed, training. This is not to say that the skills not practiced
within the organization are not important to the field of behav-
ior analysis or would not be worthwhile for the supervisee to
learn. However, it is best to match the training setting to the
environment in which the performance will occur naturally
(Kazbour, McGee, Mooney, Masica, & Brinkerhoff, 2013;
Mager, 1997). If there are no natural practice opportunities
within the organization, it is best to leave the training to a site
in which those opportunities are available.
Job models can be conceptualized as a sort of task clarifi-
cation, which is a widely supported performance improve-
ment intervention in OBM (Cunningham & Austin, 2007;
Gravina, VanWagner, & Austin, 2008; Durgin, Mahoney,
Cox, Weetjens, & Poling, 2014; Slowiak, 2014). Job models
can be organized in different ways depending on their specific
utility within the organization. In the context of supervision
for aspiring BCBAs, it is appropriate to examine which Task
List (BACB, 2012a) items are practiced when a supervisee
engages in each given performance that is part of her position

within the organization.
Appendix 1 is an example of a job model for a behavior
consulting organization. On the top of the form, there is a
space to indicate the name of the position (e.g., graduate ther-
apist), the supervisor (e.g., KS), and the job purpose (e.g., to
provide clinical services to adults and children with develop-
mental disabilities and develop professional skills for provid-
ing effective and ethical treatment). Specifying the purpose of
the job helps establish the scope of the position and distin-
guish the position from others within the organization. This
decreases the likelihood of ambiguity as to whose responsibil-
ity it is to engage in a given responsibility. Job responsibilities
or performances are listed in the left column of the table, and
the corresponding BACB Task List items are listed in the right
64 Behav Analysis Practice (2018) 11:62–70
column. For example, a graduate therapist in the behavior
consulting organization might conduct a functional behavior
assessment, but they might not be responsible for conducting
discrete trial training.
We identified 11 different tasks from the Task List that
someone might engage in to complete a functional behavior
assessment: G-01 Breview records and available data at the
outset of the case,^ G-02 Bconsider biological/medical vari-
ables that may be affecting the client,^ G-03 Bconduct a pre-
liminary assessment of the client in order to identify the referral
problem,^ G-04 Bexplain behavioral concepts using nontech-
nical language,^ G-06 Bprovide behavior-analytic services in
collaboration with others who support and/or provide services
to one’s clients,^ G-07 Bpractice within one’s limits of profes-
sional competence in applied behavior analysis, and obtain

consultation, supervision, and training, or make referrals as
necessary,^ G-08 Bidentify and make environmental changes
that reduce the need for behavior analysis services,^ I-01
Bdefine behavior in observable and measurable terms,^ I-02
Bdefine environmental variables in observable and measurable
terms,^ I-03 Bdesign and implement individualized behavioral
assessment procedures,^ and I-07 Bdesign and conduct prefer-
ence assessments to identify putative reinforcers^ (BACB,
2012a, pp. 6, 7). Note that job performances could be more
narrowly defined if it is likely that supervisees within the or-
ganization will complete components of the larger perfor-
mance independently. For example, functional assessment in-
terview, descriptive assessment, and functional analysis can be
listed as separate performances on the job model if they are
likely to be practiced as discrete performances that involve the
use of unique sets of skills from the Task List.
Once all of the job responsibilities and corresponding Task
List items are identified for the job position, a list of all of the
Task List items that can be practiced while the supervisee is in
that position can be compiled. The Task List items for which
there are no natural practice opportunities can be better
assessed and trained in another position, perhaps in another
organization. While all of the skills on the Task List are rele-
vant to behavior analysis as a field, not all of the skills are
relevant to every job position. For example, in organizations
that do not provide group instruction to clients, there may be
few or no opportunities to use Direct Instruction (item F-03 on
the Task List). There also may not be an opportunity to use a
full range of experimental designs (Section I.B. on the Task
List) within many organizations. Although these skills are
valuable, eliminating them from a training program allows
the supervisor to focus on teaching the skills that are immedi-
ately relevant for the supervisee’s role in the organization.
This, in turn, eliminates some competition between training
supervisees and the supervisor’s other job responsibilities.

Once all of Task List items that can be practiced within a
supervisee’s job role have been identified, supervisors can
conduct a focused assessment to determine training needs.
Assessment of Skills
Assessing supervisees’ ability to perform the Task List items
identified as relevant to the supervisee’s job position can also
decrease the time supervisees spend on training. Assessment
helps determine which skills must be trained and which can be
practiced without training, thereby preventing unnecessary
training and premature independent practice. Furthermore,
initial assessment allows supervisors to obtain a baseline mea-
sure of their supervisees’ performance, which allows them to
evaluate their own supervisory effectiveness (Kazdin, 1982).
There are different methods to assess supervisees’ ability to
perform job responsibilities. We recommend the following
sequence of assessment: self-assessment, oral and written
quizzes, and validation of self-assessment through review of
permanent products and observation.
Turner et al. (2016) discuss the use of initial baseline as-
sessment, including the use of direct observation; use of infor-
mal assessment such as interviews, conversation, and portfo-
lio review; review of course syllabi; discussion of progress
with previous supervisors; and review of the Task List. Here,
we present multiple steps of baseline assessment and discuss a
tool that can be used to organize assessment data for ongoing
use in the supervision process.
Self-assessment involves having the supervisee rate her
skill level for each job responsibility and/or task list skill.
While behavior analysts might be hesitant to use self-
assessment methods in their supervision practices, asking a
supervisee to rate her ability to perform a skill has some ben-
efits. Sellers et al. (2016) recommend having supervisees self-

COMPARISONS OF SYNTHESIZED AND INDIVIDUALREINFORCEMENT CONTI.docx

COMPARISONS OF SYNTHESIZED AND INDIVIDUALREINFORCEMENT CONTI.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to COMPARISONS OF SYNTHESIZED AND INDIVIDUALREINFORCEMENT CONTI.docx

Similar to COMPARISONS OF SYNTHESIZED AND INDIVIDUALREINFORCEMENT CONTI.docx (20)

More from richardnorman90310

More from richardnorman90310 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

COMPARISONS OF SYNTHESIZED AND INDIVIDUALREINFORCEMENT CONTI.docx