1. Analysis Rubric Independent variable is actively manipulated Baseline
At least 5 data points
Each phase has at least five data points.
Opportunity to assess three demonstrations of basic effect at three different points in time.

2. Design 1 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 EVALUATE DESIGN
Meets design standard
Meets with Reservation
Does not meet design std.
EVALUATE EVIDENCE
Strong
Moderate
No Evidence 1 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11

3. Instructions For each graph Read the introductory slide(s)
Determine if the design allows interpretation of experimental control.
Do NOT focus the extent to which the DATA support a functional relation, but on whether the DESIGN allows assessment of functional relation

4. Choice Analysis
Choosing among multiple alternatives has been shown to be an effective reinforcer for individuals with developmental disabilities (Fisher, Thompson, Piazza, Crosland, & Gotjen, 1997).
In the current investigation, access to choice was used to reduce destructive behaviors by implementing a full-session DRL contingency in which rates of problem behavior were required to be at or below a criterion level in order for the reinforcer (i.e., choosing an activity) to be delivered (Deitz & Repp 1973 ).
Dependent Variables: Combined inappropriate behaviors, including: aggression (hitting, biting, kicking, and pinching others), SIB (head slapping and head banging), and property destruction (throwing or tearing items).
Independent Variable: Activity selected by staff versus activity selected by participant.
Graph 1

5. 1 Graph 1 Participant’s Choice Staff Choice Participant’s Choice12 1 10 8 6
Combined Inappropriate Behavior per Minute 4 2 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Graph 1
Sessions

6. Queries 1 Meets 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 EVALUATE DESIGN
Meets design standard
Meets with Reservation
Does not meet design std.
EVALUATE EVIDENCE
Strong
Moderate
No Evidence 1
Meets 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11

7. Continuous Reinforcement versus Multiple Schedule with an Extinction (EXT) Component
The primary purpose of the current investigation was to replicate the findings of Hanley et al. (2001) by evaluating the efficacy of a multiple-schedule arrangement for maintaining low mand rates.
Dependent Variables:
Mand– a mand was defined as picking a card that had the words “attention please” written on it off the floor and placing it in the hand of the therapist (participant’s mother); the rate of mands during periods of reinforcement and EXT were recorded separately.
Graph 2

8. 2 Graph 2 Baseline (FR-1) Multiple Schedules (SR+/EXT) BL9 2 8 7 6 5 4
Mands per Minute 3 2 1 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Graph 2
30/30
30/270
30/30
30/45
30/68
30/102
30/68
30/102
30/153
30/153
30/153

9. Queries 1 Meets 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11 EVALUATE DESIGN
Meets design standard
Meets with Reservation
Does not meet design std.
EVALUATE EVIDENCE
Strong
Moderate
No Evidence 1
Meets 2 3 4a 4b 5 6 7 8a 8b 9 10 11

10. Graph 3 Effects of Direct Instruction on Self-Help Skills
Children diagnosed with progressive neuro-degenerative disorder typically lose skills rather than obtain new ones. Continuing acquisition of skills is important to such children, however, as it can impact postsecondary options. In particular, the acquisition of self-help skills is critical as they contribute to the possibilities for persons with severe DD to live in less restrictive community-based settings and to allow personal choice (Matson, Smalls, Hampff, Smiroldo, & Anderson, 1998; Arnold-Reid, Schloss, & Alper, 1997). Ultimately, this affects quality of life (Matson, Taras, Sevin, Love and Fridley, 1990). Instruction using a system of least-to-most prompts was introduced for two tasks in combination with delivery of positive verbal praise after each completed step in the task analysis and delivery of an edible reinforcer following completion of the entire task.
Dependent Variables: Completing all of the steps of a task analysis for:
making a sandwich
making a bed
Graph 3

11. What would it take to make this design experimental?BL
Instruction 3 20 40 60 80
100
What would it take to make this design experimental?
Are “probe” points convincing?
Sandwich
Percent Task Analysis Steps 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 20 40 60 80
100
Make a Bed 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31
Graph 3
Session

12. Graph 4 Functional Analysis of Self-Injury
Previous research has suggested self-injury may be maintained by escape from task demands.
In Graph 4a the impact of allowing self-injury to access escape from demands compared to a control condition in which no demands were made and self-injury was ignored.
In Graph 4b the impact of teaching a socially appropriate, functionally equivalent response to escaping task demands was assessed.
Topographies of SIB include, but are not limited to:
Hand to head hitting
Hand Biting
Fist to chin hitting
Graph 4

13. How would you improve this design?4A
Demand
Control
Demand 3
How would you improve this design? 2
Total SIB per minute 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Sessions
Graph 4a

14. Graph 4a Demand Control Demand Control 3 2 Total SIB per minute 1 1 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sessions
Graph 4a

15. Graph 4a Demand Control Demand Control 3 2 Total SIB per minute 1 1 21 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sessions
Graph 4a

16. 4B Graph 4b Baseline FCT Baseline FCT 6 5 4 Total SIB per minute 3 2 11 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Graph 4b
Sessions

17. Graph 5 Functional Analysis of Inappropriate Behavior
Individuals diagnosed with autism may engage in both “essential” behaviors (e.g., stereotypy, rituals) and “associated” problem behaviors (e.g., aggression and self-injurious behavior [SIB]).
Results of previous research suggest that characteristic behaviors of autism and other destructive behaviors may be maintained by the same function, different functions, or interrelated reinforcement contingencies.
In the current investigation, we identified the variables that maintained both “essential” and “associated” behaviors and evaluated the effects of function-based treatment when applied to each function.
We first conducted two separate functional analyses.
The purpose of the first analysis was to determine the maintaining variables of behaviors that are characteristic of a diagnosis of autism.
The purposes of the second analysis were to determine (1) the maintaining variables of other destructive behaviors and (2) whether the functions identified by the first and second analyses were maintained by the same function, different functions, or interrelated reinforcement contingencies.
Finally, we conducted function-based treatment analyses.
Dependent Variables:
Compulsive behavior: opening and shutting doors and turning lights on and off without permission, straightening/organizing objects, watching doors close, nose picking (i.e., placing any part of the finger into the nostril)
Aggression-hitting, kicking, slapping, grabbing, biting, grabbing
SIB: biting any part of the arm, hand, or leg
Graph 5

18. 5 5
Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under Tangible versus Toy Play conditions?
Tangible 4 3
Combined Inappropriate Behavior Per Minute
Ignore
Toy Play 2
Demand 1
Attention 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Graph 5a
Sessions

19. Why were the last A and B phases added?4
Walking
Baseline
NCR+Block
Walking
Baseline
NCR+Block
Walking
Baseline
NCR+Block 6
3.5
Design: ABABAB
Why were the last A and B phases added? 3
2.5
OCD Behaviors per Minute 2
1.5 1
0.5 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53
Sessions

20. Effects of Modeling (Treatment) on Correct Naming of Unfamiliar People
Children with autism exhibit significant deficits in social interaction (DSM-IV).
Research has indicated that modeling may enhance the acquisition of specific social skills (Charlop & Milstein, 1989; Gena, Krantz, McClannahan, & Poulson, 1996).
The identification of unfamiliar faces is an important prerequisite skill for social interaction.
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of therapist modeling for teaching the names of unfamiliar people to a 4-year old male diagnosed with autism.
Dependent Variable:
Data were collected on the percent of correct responses
Graph 6

21. BL
Modeling
Lollipop for R+ 7
100 80 60 40 20
Vivian
Lollipop for R+
100 80 60
Percentage of Correct Item Naming 40 20
Tammy
Lollipop for R+
100 80 60 40 20
Dr. Cathy 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Sessions

22. Functional Analysis of Aggression/ Manding
The purpose of the current investigation was to determine the environmental variable responsible for aggressive behavior when initial functional analysis yielded low levels of aggressive behavior across all conditions. Further, several treatment conditions were evaluated to determine an effective treatment.
Dependent Variables
Aggression- Biting, scratching, pinching, hitting, kicking, punching
Manding- Any appropriate request to interact with items or the therapist

23. 7
NCR+EXT
Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under NCR+EXT versus FCT Choice + EXT conditions? 7A 6 5 BL 4
Aggression per Minute 3 2
FCT choice + EXT 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Session
Graph 8a

24. 7
NCR+EXT
Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under NCR+EXT versus FCT Choice + EXT conditions? 6 5 BL 4
Aggression per Minute 3 2
FCT choice + EXT 1 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Graph 8a
Session

25. Is there a difference in Behavior Mands per min NCR+EXT versus
3.0 8B
2.5
2.0
FCT Choice + EXT
Is there a difference in Behavior Mands per min NCR+EXT versus
FCT Choice + EXT conditions?
Mands per Minute
1.5
Is there a difference in Mands per Min under Baseline versus
FCT Choice + EXT conditions?
1.0
NCR+EXT
0.5 BL 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Session

26. Graph 8 Effects of Response Interruption on Stereotypic Behavior
Stereotypic behaviors (e.g., twirling objects) are essential features of autism.
Caregivers often discourage or interrupt these problematic behaviors because they interfere with social and academic development.
Destructive behaviors (e.g., aggression) are often associated with autism, but are not essential features of the disorder.
Fisher et al. (1996) proposed an operant model of these essential and associated symptoms of autism in which (a) stereotypic behaviors are often maintained by automatic reinforcement; (b) caregivers regularly interrupt these responses, which produces deprivation from automatic reinforcement and can evoke more destructive responses (e.g., aggression); (c) caregivers may then stop interrupting the stereotypies, which may function as reinforcement for destructive behavior, and (d) analyzing the functions of both the essential (e.g., stereotypies) and associated (e.g., aggression) features of autism can lead to more effective treatments.
An initial functional analysis that included toy play, ignore, attention, demand, and tangible conditions indicated that destructive behaviors were reinforced by escape from demands, but descriptive data also suggested that interruption of stereotypic behavior also evoked destructive behavior, so the following analyses were conducted.
Graph 8

27. What would it take to allow analysis of experimental effect?
Interrupt
Control
FCT
Interrupt 9 8
A B C A 7
What would it take to allow analysis of experimental effect?
Note combination of Control, FCT into one phase given common data pattern 6 5
Combined Inappropriate per minute 4 3 2 1
Graph 9 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41
Sessions

28. Combined Inappropriate per minute
Interrupt
Control
Interrupt
FCT
FCT 8 7 6 5
Combined Inappropriate per minute 4 3 2 1 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65
Sessions

29. Graph 9 Effects of Time Out plus Competing Behavior Instruction
Children are generally expected to sit quietly (often with limited access to preferred stimuli) in waiting rooms (e.g., in a Doctor’s office or similar setting), but children with autism often display behaviors that are highly incompatible with the expectations of a waiting room, including hyperactivity, a short attention span, and stereotypic or compulsive behaviors (e.g., frequent activity changes, repetitive vocalizations and motor movements, rearranging furniture).
Dependent Variables:
Rate of out of seat behavior
Percentage of session with out of seat behavior
Experimental Design:
Treatment Analysis for out of seat behavior
Combination of multiple reversals design (ABCBC)
A: Ignore Baseline
B: Competing Items condition alone (Alternative behavior to waiting)
C: Competing Items plus Time out (TO)
Graph 9

30. 10 ABAB Graph 10 Baseline Competing Items (CI) CI + TO CI CI + TO 1.6
1.4
ABAB
1.2
1.0
0.8
Out of Seat Behavior per minute
0.6
0.4
0.2 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35
Graph 10
Session

31. Graph 10 Analysis of Non-Contingent Reinforcement plus Extinction
The purpose of this assessment was to increase in-seat behavior and compliance during schoolwork. Baseline conditions in which destructive behavior resulted in 30-sec of escape were compared to several treatment conditions. Treatment conditions consisted of NCR with and without extinction, and DRA with extinction for destructive behavior and reinforcement for compliance.
Dependent Variables:
Destructive behavior:
SIB: self-hitting/biting, body slamming, & headbanging
Aggression: hitting, kicking, pushing, grabbing, scratching, pinching others
Disruption: banging on surfaces (6 inches or more), throwing objects, property destruction, turning over furniture, elopement (moving furniture to get away)
Spitting: the release of secretions from the mouth with force, saliva play
  SOB: cursing, insulting statements/gestures
Tantrum: duration of crying and/or screaming (3sec delay)
Compliance: completion of demand before the physical prompt  
In seat: duration of appropriate sitting with buttocks in chair, feet not kicking instructor/chair/table, chair flat on floor
Graph 10

32. 11 Graph 11 100 NCR + EXT 80 60 Baseline
PERCENT OF APPROPRIATE IN- SEAT BEHAVIOR 40 20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Graph 11
SESSIONS

33. Queries 1 Meets 2 3 Does not meet 4a 4b 5 6 7 8a 8b FCT-NCR (meets)
EVALUATE DESIGN
Meets design standard
Meets with Reservation
Does not meet design std.
EVALUATE EVIDENCE
Strong
Moderate
No Evidence 1
Meets 2 3
Does not meet 4a 4b 5 6 7 8a 8b
FCT-NCR (meets)
FCT-BL (does not meet) 9 10 11