Journal of applied behavior analysis最新文献

To maximize its influence, applied behavior analysis must both create solutions and shape public policy to implement those solutions at scale. From the perspective of data-driven decision making, it is illogical to talk about seeking public policy influence without consulting evidence showing when influence has been achieved. One relevant form of evidence is the attention that behavioral solutions receive in published discussions about policy issues, and here I show how much of this attention has been earned by articles published in Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. I also propose using the same kind of data to support finer grained analyses focusing on specific behavior problems, specific types of interventions, and the research programs of individual investigators. Although this is far from a complete account of the influence of applied behavior analysis on policy, it is better to have data than none if the goal is to transform the quest for influence on policy from a matter of speculation and casual discussion into an evidence-based practice.

Renewal is a relapse phenomenon that refers to the recurrence of a previously reduced behavior following a change in stimulus conditions. Muething et al. (2022) examined the phenomenology of renewal among individuals with automatically maintained challenging behavior treated at an outpatient clinic. We replicated their findings by retrospectively examining renewal across various topographies of automatically maintained behavior treated at an inpatient hospital, and we extended their work by also examining differences across subtypes of automatically maintained self-injurious behavior. The prevalence of renewal was comparable to that observed by Muething et al., supporting the notion that automatically maintained challenging behavior is susceptible to relapse phenomena. Furthermore, renewal was twice as likely to occur for individuals with Subtype 2 versus Subtype 1 self-injurious behavior, providing additional evidence of behavioral differentiation between subtypes. Our findings suggest that even after apparent stability in treatment, practitioners should remain vigilant for the recurrence of automatically maintained behavior during generalization.

Procedural extinction is sometimes associated with a temporary increase in responding known as an extinction burst. Extinction bursts present unique challenges in the context of treating behavior targeted for reduction. The present study updates the prevalence of extinction bursts using a clinical sample (N = 108) receiving treatment for targeted behavior. The prevalence of extinction bursts in our sample (24%) was consistent with that in prior literature. The extinction-burst magnitude decreased across sessions after extinction was contacted during treatment, but this sample did not demonstrate decreased persistence or magnitude of extinction bursts across successive transitions from baseline to treatment. We also examined the prevalence and magnitude of extinction bursts based on the function and topography of targeted behavior and treatment components and found no consistent relation among these variables. These findings should lead clinicians to prepare for transient extinction bursts when implementing extinction-based treatment for challenging behavior.

Behavioral readiness can take the form of communication and self-control skills during challenging situations that are correlated with the development of problem behavior. A skill-based approach can teach behavioral readiness using procedures that involve synthesized reinforcement, probabilistic reinforcement, and contingency-based delays; however, this approach is commonly used to address severe behavior under specific situations. There is limited research evaluating a skill-based approach to teaching behavioral readiness and addressing emerging problem behavior. Also, it is unclear whether teaching effects under specific situations transfer across other, functionally distinct, situations. We evaluated the generality of a skill-based approach by teaching skills systematically across primary challenging situations involving the interruption of play, presentation of instructions, and removal of reinforcers. Teaching increased communication and self-control skills, and most skills transferred to secondary challenging situations (treatment extension probes) and caregiver-implemented sessions. We discuss challenging situations that required teaching, the generality of teaching, and procedural considerations.

This study evaluated the extent to which a conjugate reinforcement schedule (CONJ) involving a contingency between pedaling a stationary bike and viewing a preferred movie could serve as a translational preparation for the analysis of automatically reinforced behavior. In part, researchers examined whether providing participants with either an accurate or an inaccurate rule about the extinction (EXT) component of a multiple schedule (MULT) contributed to the development of control by the MULT (CONJ EXT) schedule. Results show schedule control emerged for four of five participants who received the accurate rule and none of the five participants who received the inaccurate rule. In addition, participants who received accurate rules typically increased pedaling during CONJ components that followed two consecutive EXT components, suggesting that they experienced deprivation for audio and visual stimulation generated by pedaling. These preliminary findings suggest that researchers could use this translational preparation to identify matched interventions for some automatically reinforced behavior.

The literature offers few recommendations for sequencing exposure to treatment conditions with individuals with multiply maintained destructive behavior. Identifying relative preference for the functional reinforcers maintaining destructive behavior may be one means of guiding that decision. The present study presents a preliminary attempt at developing a robust relative preference and reinforcer assessment for individuals with multiply maintained destructive behavior. Guided and free-choice trials were implemented in which participants chose between two multiple-schedule arrangements, each of which programmed signaled periods of isolated reinforcer availability and unavailability. Consistent participant choice and responding during free-choice trials was then used to thin the corresponding schedule of reinforcement. The results demonstrated a strong preference for one of the two functional reinforcers for all four participants, yet preferences differed across participants and were not well predicted by responding in prior analyses.

On October 7, 2023, the behavior analysis community lost one of its giants. Dr. Brian Iwata passed peacefully in his home surrounded by family. The world became a lesser place, but what it lost had been prepaid many times over by his immense and lasting influence.

The final few weeks of Brian's life were filled with planning, visiting, organizing, and reminiscing. Brian was as intellectually clear as ever, but his ability to speak was reduced and slower. Over those weeks, many of his family members and former students came to visit. He scheduled and spent time with individual local visitors. On one weekend, about 20 of his former students all came to the house and mingled while taking turns sharing time with Brian. To all, he shared thoughts and emotional memories. He shared manuscripts, graphs, and other items. For example, on one visit he asked Tim to prepare a eulogy and he shared the original type-written manuscript and reviews of Toward a Functional Analysis of Self-Injury. Through tears, Tim agreed to prepare a eulogy, and he clutched the folder of the manuscript tightly.

Following his passing, a large group of students, family, friends, and colleagues gathered at his house on October 26, 2023, to grieve together and to celebrate Brian's life on the day before his funeral. Among those attending were his mentor Jon Bailey, long-time colleague Marc Branch, students from as far back as the 1970s (e.g., Terry Page and Mary Riordan), and many others. The funeral was held on the next day, October 27. Subsequent gatherings took place at a postfuneral reception hosted by Brian's family and a gathering of former graduate students and colleagues at a local establishment that evening. Our love and admiration for Brian was readily revealed in our collective unwillingness to separate at this landmark point in our lives.

Others in this issue of JABA will remark upon Brian's achievements and the profound influence of his work. Our intention is to convey the personal Brian Iwata, a glimpse into what Brian meant to those in his biological and academic families as his student, colleague, and child.

When I first met Brian in July 1982, he had just been elected to the Editorship of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA). I was a new predoctoral intern in the Department of Behavioral Psychology at the John F. Kennedy Institute, now the Kennedy Krieger Institute. My first rotation was in the behavioral inpatient unit at the hospital that Brian directly supervised. The inpatient unit served children with developmental disabilities who had severe behavior disorders such as self-injurious behavior (SIB) and physical aggression. In addition to preparing to assume the JABA editorship and direction of the inpatient unit, Brian was focused on executing a large grant that he had received from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In this tribute to Brian, I would like to offer my perspectives on how Brian's work transformed applied behavior analysis (ABA) and how Brian's leadership at JABA radically changed the journal for the better.

The topic of Brian's NIH grant was the functional assessment of SIB. I know that Brian was influenced significantly by Ted Carr's theoretical paper on the motivation of SIB (Carr, 1977) and Carr's subsequent experimental demonstration that physical aggression could be a function of escape from demands (Carr et al., 1976). Brian's pilot data for the grant consisted of applications of his unique functional analysis methodology that allowed testing of multiple possible functions of SIB in the same assessment. This pilot work was the basis for Brian's seminal and field-transforming article “Toward a Functional Analysis of Self-Injury” (Iwata et al., 1982/1994). This article changed the field of ABA, became the dominant approach to assessment and treatment of behavior disorders across a variety of populations and settings, significantly influenced practices in clinical psychology and special education in general, and became the publication standard for scientific research and grant awards (Mace, 1994). Importantly, as is the tradition in science, numerous variants in functional analysis methodologies evolved to meet specific needs and Brian participated in this process.

How could one paper have such a profound influence? Although this is a question without a definitive answer, a closer look at the context in which Iwata et al. (1982/1994) was published suggests a few answers. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a growing and widespread dissatisfaction with behavior modification. Behavior modification was criticized as being too simplistic, too reliant on default technologies (e.g., various forms of punishment and contrived positive reinforcers), and vulnerable to significant side effects (e.g., Deitz, 1978; Hayes et al., 1980; Iwata, 1988). From my perspective, among the most significant influences of Brian's paper was that it changed the fundamental question that ABA could

Seubert, C, Fryling, MJ, Wallace, MD, Jiminez, AR, Meier, AE. Antecedent interventions for pediatric feeding problems. J Appl Behav Anal. 2014; 47: 449–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.117 .

The fourth author's name was incorrectly listed as Agustin R. Jiminez. It should have been Agustin R. Jimenez.

We apologize for this error.

My life changed in the fall of 1970. A few days before the beginning of class, I was in my new office on the 3rd floor of the Florida State University (FSU) Psychology Building, busy unpacking books and trying to get settled in when there was a knock at the partially opened door. A young man in his early 20s pushed the door open and said, “Hi, I'm Brian Iwata. I'm your new student.” I replied, “Welcome, Brian. It's nice to meet you.” Brian followed with, “And what do you do?” Unaware that I was getting a graduate student because the selection process occurred the previous spring while I was still at the University of Kansas (KU), this came as quite a surprise.

Jumping ahead a little, I would have to say that this was the most fortunate thing that could possibly have happened to me. Someone on the admissions committee did me a giant favor that would make an enormous difference in my career. Sadly, I never learned who that was. But, back to the story.

I explained that I was a new assistant professor and that my specialty was behavior analysis, applied behavior analysis to be more specific. We chatted a bit about Brain's trip to Tallahassee from Baltimore. He told me he was newly married and this was a big adventure for him and his wife, Peg, as they had not been to Florida before. I believed that our initial meeting went well the second that Brian gestured to my partly filled bookcase and said, “Do you have anything that I can read? I'd like to learn about this field of yours.” I pulled out my heavily marked-up copy of Science and Human Behavior (Skinner, 1953) and Case Studies in Behavior Modification (Ullman & Krasner, 1965) and gave these to him as good introductions to behaviorism. I explained that these books included important examples of how applied behavior analysis could be used to change behavior. I concluded with pointing to the latest issue of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) sitting on my desk as I said, “And this is going to be the primary journal for our new field. Mont Wolf is the editor. I studied under him.”