I

Interview-Informed Synthesized rapidly alternating between test and control ses-

Contingency Analysis (IISCA) sions in which the synthesized contingency is
present or absent, respectively. The IISCA is a
Adithyan Rajaraman and Gregory P. Hanley highly efficient, safe, and efficacious approach to
Western New England University, understanding the context in which PB occurs and
Springfield, MA, USA its likely reinforcement prior to its treatment
(Hanley et al. 2014; Jessel et al. 2016; Santiago
et al. 2016; Slaton et al. 2017).
Definition One of the features of the IISCA that distin-
guishes it from other FAs of PB is the use of an
The interview-informed synthesized contingency individualized, single test condition that relies on
analysis (IISCA; Hanley et al. 2014) is a type of a synthesized reinforcement contingency rather
functional analysis (FA) that alternates a single than multiple test conditions that attempt to isolate
test and a single control condition, both compre- the influence of common reinforcement contin-
hensively informed by an open-ended interview gencies. For instance, rather than assessing
with relevant caregivers. In general, functional whether PB is sensitive to attention, escape, or
analyses rely on direct observation of problem tangible reinforcement by evaluating each of these
behavior (PB) under various conditions in which common reinforcement contingencies in distinct
environmental events are systematically manipu- test conditions (e.g., Iwata et al. 1982/1994), an
lated to detect their influence on PB. FAs are IISCA would determine if PB is sensitive to all
commonly applied in research prior to treating three at the same time, if these events were
PBs primarily associated with autism and intellec- reported by caregivers to co-occur following
tual disabilities (e.g., self-injurious behavior PB. IISCAs also attempt to closely emulate the
[SIB], aggression, property destruction, disrup- specific manner in which reinforcers are
tive behavior; Beavers et al. 2013; Hanley et al. established and delivered in natural contexts. An
2003). FAs have been shown to positively mod- example of a synthesized contingency analysis
erate the effects of behavioral interventions that clearly reveals the effort to emulate the con-
(Campbell 2003). In an IISCA, all of the textual features of the reinforcement contingency
co-occurring environmental events reported by is evident in a school-based analysis described by
caregivers to evoke and maintain PB are synthe- Ghaemmaghami et al. (2015). Based on the
sized into a single reinforcement contingency. teacher’s report of how she attempted to manage
Whether this interview-informed, synthesized a 6-year-old boy’s attempts to aggress or destroy
contingency influences PB is determined by property while maintaining the safety of her
# Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2018
F.R. Volkmar (ed.), Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6435-8_102243-1
2 Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA)

classroom, these authors arranged for the boy’s reinforcement contingency involving the simulta-
PB to result in escape from group-instruction to neous removal of difficult academic tasks and
the opportunity to play with preferred toys while presentation of easier tasks with a child with men-
receiving undivided attention from the group’s tal retardation. After carefully describing general
teacher. In other words, rather than seek to under- categories of reinforcement that have been shown
stand the main (isolated) effects of several generic to influence PB such as attention, escape, and
reinforcement contingencies, the ecology under direct sensory consequences, Carr (1977) pro-
which PB is prevalent is more closely emulated vided a cogent argument that identifying environ-
by those conducting IISCAs, thereby allowing for mental factors influencing SIB and other PB
possible and more powerful interactions to be associated with developmental disabilities on a
revealed (see Slaton et al. 2017) and then lever- case by case basis may be a more fruitful pursuit
aged to develop contextually relevant social skills than only attempting to understand the underlying
that, due to their functional similarity, replace biology or psychopathology of these same PBs.
PB. In addition, rather than arrange putative rein- Following these recommendations, Iwata et al.
forcement for only dangerous behavior (Iwata (1982/1994) introduced a comprehensive model
et al. 1982/1994), IISCAs arrange reinforcement for analyzing SIB, one that is largely responsible
for the target dangerous behavior (e.g., SIB) as for the apparent shift towards reinforcement-
well as all other forms of PB (i.e., precursor based interventions for PB based on its function
responses; e.g., yelling and foot stomping) that and away from treatments relying on aversive
are reported to co-occur with the more dangerous procedures (Pelios et al. 1999).
forms of PB (Jessel et al. 2016). By opening the The procedures outlined by Iwata et al. (1982/
class of behavior topographies that may receive 1994) are often referred to as the standard analysis
reinforcement in the FA, analyses are safer to primarily because they occasioned hundreds of
conduct and successful outcomes are more subsequent demonstrations of PB sensitivity to
quickly achieved. Last, only one variable differs isolated environmental contingencies (Beavers
between the rapidly alternating test and control et al. 2013; Hanley et al. 2003). These replications
conditions of the IISCA: the presence or absence of single-subject analyses yielded useful baselines
of the synthesized reinforcement contingency. for developing an efficacious treatment technol-
Each distinguishing feature of the IISCA ogy (Kahng et al. 2002) and provided important
described above has precedent in the FA literature; information regarding what was possible with
however, the IISCA uniquely combines all of standard analyses (i.e., many different topogra-
them in the initial attempt to analyze PB. phies of PB were shown to be influenced by
attention, escape, tangibles, or direct sensory con-
sequences across many individuals with intellec-
Historical Background tual disabilities). Relying on a consecutive
controlled case-series design in order to minimize
Lovaas et al. (1965) published the first functional any potential selection or publication bias favor-
analysis of PB, in which they showed that rates of ing particular outcomes, Hagopian et al. (2013)
SIB exhibited by a child with schizophrenia more recently showed what was probable with a
increased when statements of concern followed standard FA. These authors reported that standard
instances of SIB, an initial example of control of FAs were unable to detect a behavioral function in
PB via social-positive reinforcement. Carr et al. 53% of applications (94 of 176). Hagopian et al.
(1976) provided evidence of the influence of showed that procedural modifications improved
social-negative reinforcement when they demon- the ability of the analysis to detect behavioral
strated that aggression and SIB could be evoked function from 47% to 87%. In a review of
by the presentation of demands and that the ter- published FAs, Schlichenmeyer et al. (2013) also
mination of demands could serve as reinforce- described many of the unique, case-specific,
ment. Sailor et al. (1968) demonstrated a incremental changes to the standard analysis
functional relation between PB and a synthesized model in the context of initial analysis failure.
Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) 3

Noting the prevalence of particular changes to the complete that task is one of the reinforcers for her
standard FA that often yielded detection of behav- biting. Were that to be the case, one might con-
ioral function, Hanley (2010, 2012) suggested that sider the father’s imposition of the demand to be
these same changes be incorporated into initial an EO (i.e., an event that momentarily enhances
analyses; the most important change being the the value of escape as a reinforcer) and the pres-
incorporation of qualitatively unique reinforce- ence of the father to be an SD (i.e., a stimulus that
ment contingencies designed from interviews signals an opportunity for the child to produce
and observation into the initial FA. Hanley et al. escape by biting). It would not be atypical for a
(2014) then provided an empirical demonstration father to assume that biting is a by-product of his
of the utility of these recommendations when they daughter’s autism, but the operant assumption and
described the socially validated resolution of the FA could reveal the simpler, more amenable con-
PB of three children diagnosed with autism whose trolling relation between the demands he imposes,
treatments were informed by analyses personal- her biting, and the contingent removal of those
ized from interviews. This type of analysis was demands. By interviewing caregivers who have
then termed an IISCA (Jessel et al. 2016). witnessed a great number of these PBs and the
conditions under which they have occurred, an
analyst can discover child-specific consequences
Rationale or Underlying Theory that may be serving as reinforcement for the PB,
as well as child-specific environmental events that
A fundamental assumption in applying FA meth- seem to evoke the PB. By emulating these ante-
odology is that PB is a learned or operant set of cedent and consequent events in an analysis, the
responses, ones that are maintained by their con- analyst may be able to demonstrate the influence
sequences. Certain events that are more likely to of these events on PB.
be experienced following PB than to be experi- Although there are hundreds of demonstrations
enced in the absence of PB can serve to increase of the influence of generic variables on PB (e.g.,
the future probability (i.e., reinforce) of attention, escape, tangibles; Beavers et al. 2013;
PB. Certain events that enhance the value of Hanley et al. 2003), caregiver descriptions of the
those consequences (referred to as establishing contexts in which PB occurs are often complex,
operations [EOs]) and that signal their availability suggesting the influence of qualitatively rich con-
(referred to as discriminative stimuli [SDs]) join tingencies unique to each individual (Bowman
in the controlling relation referred to as a contin- et al. 1997; see also Slaton et al. 2017). The
gency. In other words, no matter how extraordi- IISCA assumes and emulates this complexity,
nary PB may appear when exhibited by children and the interview is therefore a necessary starting
with autism and related disabilities (e.g., attempts point in the assessment process. The qualitatively
to bite, scratch, and punch others, or banging rich descriptions provided by caregivers inform
one’s head against hard objects), those responses the analysis so that each client experiences indi-
are assumed to be sensitive to their consequences. vidualized conditions that closely emulate the
The variability in the occurrence of those behav- typical context in which PB occurs.
iors is thus related to the events that momentarily Another assumption implicit in an IISCA is
establish or abolish the value of those conse- that controlling contingencies of PB are more
quences and to the environmental cues that do or likely to be composed of multiple contingencies
do not signal the opportunity for PB to generate operating simultaneously. There are multiple
those consequences. examples in the literature demonstrating the
For example, if a child with autism has a his- necessity of combining multiple contingencies to
tory of biting her father whenever he asks her to evoke (e.g., Dolezal and Kurtz 2010), reinforce
brush her hair, and that biting has reliably afforded (e.g., Call and Lomas-Mevers 2014), or maintain
her some respite from the hair brushing task, it (e.g., Mann and Mueller 2009) PB in FAs. These
may be the case that escape from the demand to analyses illustrated that a synthesis of variables
4 Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA)

may sometimes have a more powerful effect on reinforcement in the IISCA. By reinforcing the
behavior than its component parts. The holistic first emission of any member of the response
notion that whole contingencies have properties class with all possible reinforcers, escalation of
not present in their component parts and that PB in the analysis is thwarted. Inferences from
whole contingencies are not always reducible to open contingency classes and synthesized contin-
the study of the parts was evident in a participant gencies are considered reasonable tradeoffs for
from Hanley et al. (2014). The analysis revealed the lack of demonstration of control over each
that PB exclusively occurred under conditions in topography of PB or of the relevance of each
which caregiver attention and toys were synthe- component reinforcement contingency.
sized into a single reinforcement contingency.
When isolated, attention and toys had no influence
over PB (i.e., evidence of an interaction without Goals and Objectives
main effects of each contingency). Slaton et al.
(2017) provided additional demonstrations of this The specific goals of the IISCA are to
effect in which whole (synthesized) contingencies (a) demonstrate strong control of PB with a con-
controlled behavior, but the same contingencies, tingency that is composed of materials and inter-
when isolated, did not (see also Ghaemmaghami actions described as related to PB in the initial
et al. 2015). There are also cases in which the caregiver interview, (b) obtain a stable baseline of
suspected contingency for PB is inextricably syn- PB from which to evaluate the efficacy of a
thesized, meaning that the consequent event being function-based treatment, and (c) identify a moti-
tested cannot possibly be broken down into com- vating set of conditions in which to prompt and
ponent, isolated parts without fundamentally differentially reinforce important social skills with
changing the nature of the contingency (e.g., the same reinforcers that were shown to maintain
Bowman et al. 1997; Eluri et al. 2016). Partly PB. By controlling behavior with an ecologically
due to these analyses, suspected contingencies relevant contingency, treatment is likely to have a
are usually synthesized in IISCAs. good fit in the home, classroom, and community
Although the synthesis of variables in the contexts in which PB was occurring. By obtaining
IISCA precludes the ability to understand the a baseline, changes in the rate of PB can be quan-
extent to which each individual contingency influ- tified and connected to systematic changes in the
ences each PB topography in a single analysis, treatment. By identifying a properly motivating
those who implement the IISCA favor the safety, set of teaching conditions, functional communi-
speed, and consumer acceptability of the analysis cation, delay and denial toleration, and compli-
over the need to understand the individual contri- ance can be expressly taught to individuals for
butions of each contingency. Safety in IISCAs is whom typical social experiences have not yet
partly achieved due to the synthesized contin- yielded these skills (Hanley et al. 2014).
gency because when PB occurs in the analysis, it
is essentially terminated through the provision of
all possible reinforcers (Call and Lomas-Mevers Assessment Participants
2014). The IISCA also engenders safety by com-
bining all reported topographies of PB as well as There are roughly 78 published cases in which the
their reported precursors into one large class of IISCA procedures were applied and 77 of them
responses that will receive programmed reinforce- successfully demonstrated a behavioral function
ment. For instance, if caregivers report that the of PB (Fisher et al. 2016; Hanley et al. 2014;
most dangerous behaviors of SIB and aggression Jessel et al. 2016, in press; Slaton et al. 2017).
are to be analyzed and treated, but also indicate The cases included in these studies vary on:
that their child reliably stomps her feet and whines (a) participant characteristics (e.g., age, language
before engaging in the more dangerous responses, ability, diagnosis), (b) topographies of PB, and
all four of those responses will be eligible for (c) settings in which the IISCA was applied.
Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) 5

At present, IISCA participants range in age be provided contingent on PB in the test condition
from 1.5 to 30 years, with slightly more male and continuously in the control condition. Once
participants than female participants. The IISCA the interview is complete, the analyst designs the
has proven efficacious with participants who IISCA to emulate caregivers’ descriptions of
show no verbal communication, engage in highly events.
sophisticated speech, or display language profiles In the analysis, the analyst alternates between
in between (e.g., can sign but cannot talk or can conditions in a multielement design, in which
speak in one- or two-word utterances). The over- functional control over the suspected reinforce-
whelming majority of individuals for whom the ment contingency may be shown with the partic-
IISCA was successfully applied had an autism ipant serving as their own control. Caregivers are
diagnosis (88%), but many of the individuals present for the analysis, either as observers or
with autism had other co-morbid diagnoses implementers of the analysis. Feedback from the
(38%), and yet some other individuals were dif- caregiver as to whether the context and interac-
ferently diagnosed (e.g., attention deficit hyperac- tions in the IISCA emulated typical circumstances
tivity disorder). Additionally, the IISCA was is recruited. One 5- or 10-min experience of a
conducted for some children without any formal given condition constitutes a session. A common
diagnosis, but for whom PB was of major con- pattern of session alternation is: control, test, con-
cern. The participant profile for which there are no trol, test, test. The analysis often begins with the
data is typically developing adults. control condition. In the control condition, the
Although the IISCA has predominantly been client has noncontingent, continuous access to
used to assess some combination of aggression, all of the suspected reinforcers for PB (e.g., toys,
SIB, and disruptive behavior, other, more idiosyn- a tablet, adult availability and compliance, and the
cratic topographies have been successfully evalu- absence of demands). The analysis begins with
ated (e.g., elopement, flopping, inappropriate the control condition to verify that PB will not
sexualized touching). occur under the conditions designed to eliminate
The IISCA has been applied primarily in spe- all relevant establishing operations.
cialized day programs and outpatient clinics. To a The test session begins in the same way that the
lesser extent, it has been applied in homes, resi- preceding control session ended; the client has
dential programs, and public schools (Jessel et al. continuous access to all suspected reinforcers for
2016). Factors such as setting, type of PB, lan- PB. The analyst then presents the EO, which
guage ability, and diagnosis have yet to impede usually involves the simultaneous removal of
the ability of the IISCA to show PB’s sensitivity to any suspected positive reinforcers (e.g., toys,
environmental contingencies. attention, ability to engage in stereotypy) and
presentation of any putative aversive, but rou-
tinely experienced, events. Upon the first instance
Assessment Procedures of any PB or associated less dangerous behavior,
the analyst relents, removing any aversive stimuli
The IISCA begins with an open-ended, semi- (e.g., terminating demands), and delivering the
structured interview (Hanley 2012) with those suspected positive reinforcers, which essentially
who regularly deal with the client’s PB (i.e., rele- returns the client to the same conditions experi-
vant caregivers). Questions are asked regarding enced in the control condition, but for only 30 s to
(a) the types of PBs and associated less dangerous 1 min. The analyst then presents the EO again in
behaviors, (b) the events that usually evoke these the test session, and this process continues for a
behaviors, and (c) the events that reliably follow brief period, usually 5 min. Data on all PB types
the behaviors that lead to its abatement. The inter- are measured and graphically depicted (data are
viewer therefore attempts to identify potential typically plotted as a rate; i.e., PB per minute in
(a) target responses to be reinforced in the test each session). The analyst continues to rapidly
condition of the analysis, (b) situations to be pre- alternate sessions until a clear difference in level,
sented in the test condition, and (c) reinforcers to trend, and variability across test and control data
6 Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA)

paths is evident. A successful IISCA typically settings, using practical schedules of reinforce-
shows zero or near-zero levels of PB across con- ment; Hanley et al. 2014; Jessel et al. in press;
trol sessions, and consistently elevated, but stable, Santiago et al. 2016). In Slaton et al. (2017), cases
rates of PB across test conditions (Jessel et al. in which both types of analyses – standard FAs
2016). If this outcome is not achieved within and IISCAs – produced conclusive results were
45 min, then the IISCA is redesigned after subsequently evaluated via initial treatment
discussing the just witnessed behavior and addi- effects. The authors found that treatments based
tional interviewing. off the IISCA were always successful in eliminat-
ing PB and developing a more appropriate
replacement response for the learner, whereas
Efficacy Information treatments based off the standard FA were simi-
larly successful in only half the applications.
Of the 78 published IISCAs in the literature,
77 were differentiated. Only two authors reported
on how many iterations of the IISCA were neces- Outcome Measurement
sary to produce a differentiated outcome, making
it difficult to assess the extent to which IISCAs Five questions are considered when evaluating
yield differentiated (useful) results on the first outcomes of the IISCA: (1) Does it produce a
attempt. Jessel et al. (2016) reported that 73% of highly differentiated outcome (i.e., is strong con-
cases (22 of 30) were initially successful. Within a trol over PB shown in the IISCA)? (2) Is that
consecutive controlled case-series design, Slaton outcome produced safely and quickly? (3) Do
et al. (2017) reported that 100% of IISCAs (9 of 9) treatments designed from the IISCA yield effica-
were initially successful (these authors also cious outcomes (e.g., elimination of PB and
showed that standard analyses Iwata et al. (1982/ acquisition of relevant skills)? (4) Are these effi-
1994) were successful across only 44% [4 of 9] of cacious outcomes successfully transferred to rele-
cases when applied to the same participants). vant people, contexts, and time frames? (5) Do
Given that the IISCA process identifies unique treatments designed off the IISCA produce
contingencies through open-ended caregiver socially meaningful outcomes (i.e., is the amount
interviews, myriad types of synthesized contin- of behavior change satisfying to caregivers)?
gencies have been demonstrated to be function- The 99% success rate of the IISCA in the
ally related to PB. Many different combinations of literature suggests that it is highly likely to pro-
social-positive, social-negative, and automatic duce differentiated outcomes, providing robust
reinforcement have been evaluated in a synthe- evidence of the influence of personalized, synthe-
sized manner (e.g., escape from academic instruc- sized contingencies on PB. Success in an analysis
tion to toys and unrestricted access to stereotypy) can be measured in myriad ways, but differentia-
and the qualitative features of those contingencies tion across test and control conditions is the basic
vary across participants (i.e., that which clients requirement. Although it is possible that the
escape from and to is often unique). documented success rate at present reflects a pub-
Considering that the ultimate goal of any FA is lication bias for demonstrations of functional con-
to design interventions that eliminate PB in rele- trol over behavior, the 100% success rate of the
vant contexts with enduring, meaningful effects, IISCA reported in Slaton et al. (2017) – in which
the treatment literature in which the IISCA was the consecutive controlled case-series design was
employed deserves mention. The IISCA has pro- employed to explicitly address publication bias –
duced effective and socially meaningful outcomes speaks to its efficacy.
in 100% (30 of 30) of cases in which treatment Differentiated IISCA outcomes are achieved
was extended to relevant contexts and social val- rapidly. The mean duration of the 79 published
idation of the outcomes was sought (i.e., IISCAs was 30 min (mode is 25 min), suggesting
implemented by relevant caregivers, in relevant that the IISCA is a fast approach to analyzing PB.
Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) 7

The safety of IISCA procedures has yet to be caregivers or teachers under the supervision of a
quantified and measured, but the safety of an BCBA. FAs require a sound understanding of the
IISCA can be gleaned from the facts that principles of learning derived from the field of
(a) clients spend 30 or less minutes in the analysis, behavior analysis. They also require the skills to
(b) PB is usually zero or near-zero in the control naturally and systematically interact with a child
condition, and (c) the rate of PB in the test condi- or client in an attempt to emulate their ecology,
tion usually occurs around 2 per min, which con- repeatedly evoke and deescalate PB, and therefore
sidering the length of the reinforcement interval understand PB in a scientific sense. It is
(e.g., 30 s), conveys that only single instances recommended that an individual with little or no
of PB often occur when evocative situation training in applied behavior analysis not under-
is represented in test sessions. IISCA’s unique take this procedure or only do so with some spe-
commitment to the provision of all suspected cific training or supervision of a BCBA.
reinforcers immediately following a single occur-
rence of any suspected member of the response
class prevents escalation of PB once evoked. As See Also
opposed to reactive procedures like session termi-
nation criteria, these particular methods are the For a website containing videos and materials
means by which participants are safeguarded in relevant to the IISCA: www.practicalfunctionalas
an IISCA. sessment.com
Treatments explicitly designed to target the life
skills of functional communication, toleration,
and compliance with adult instruction have been References and Reading
highly efficacious in all cases when informed by
an IISCA (Ghaemmaghami et al. 2015, 2016; Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013).
Hanley et al. 2014; Jessel et al. in press; Santiago Thirty years of research on the functional analysis
of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
et al. 2016; Slaton et al. 2017). In addition, a few
Analysis, 46, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.30.
of those demonstrations extended their treatment Bowman, L. G., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., &
to be implemented by relevant caregivers under Piazza, C. C. (1997). On the relation of mands and the
relevant conditions (Hanley et al. 2014; Jessel function of destructive behavior. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 30, 251–265. https://doi.org/10.
et al. in press; Santiago et al. 2016). All cases in
1901/jaba.1997.30-251.
which social validation was sought following the Call, N. A., & Lomas Mevers, J. E. (2014). The relative
treatment development and extension process, it influence of motivating operations for positive and
was achieved. The IISCA and subsequent skill- negative reinforcement on problem behavior during
demands. Behavioral Interventions, 29, 4–20.
based treatment have been described as highly
Campbell, J. M. (2003). Efficacy of behavioral interven-
satisfactory processes with results that have tions for reducing problem behavior in persons with
improved the lives of the families for whom they autism: A quantitative synthesis of single-subject
were implemented. research. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24,
120–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(03)
00014-3.
Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious behav-
Qualifications of Treatment Providers ior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bul-
letin, 84, 800.
Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., & Binkoff, J. A. (1976).
The demonstrations of successful outcomes when
Stimulus control of self-destructive behavior in a psy-
using the IISCA in the literature have primarily chotic child. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4,
involved implementation by a board certified 139–153.
behavior analyst (BCBA ®; www.bacb.com); Dolezal, D. N., & Kurtz, P. F. (2010). Evaluation of
combined-antecedent variables on functional analysis
however, it is encouraging to note that many of
results and treatment of problem behavior in a school
the IISCAs conducted in Jessel et al. (2016) and setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43,
Slaton et al. (2017) were done so by relevant 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-309.
8 Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA)

Eluri, Z., Andrade, I., Trevino, N., & Mahmoud, E. (2016). Behavior Analysis, 49, 576–595. https://doi.org/10.
Assessment and treatment of problem behavior 1002/jaba.316.
maintained by mand compliance. Journal of Applied Jessel, J., Ingvarsson, E. T., Metras, R., Kirk, H., & Whip-
Behavior Analysis, 49, 383–387. https://doi.org/10. ple, R. (in press). Achieving socially significant reduc-
1002/jaba.296. tions in problem behavior following the interview-
Fisher, W. W., Greer, B. D., Romani, P. W., Zangrillo, informed synthesized contingency analysis:
A. N., & Owen, T. M. (2016). Comparisons of A summary of 25 outpatient applications. Journal of
synthesized- and individual-reinforcement contingen- Applied Behavior Analysis.
cies during functional analysis. Journal of Applied Kahng, S., Iwata, B. A., & Lewin, A. B. (2002). Behavioral
Behavior Analysis, 49, 596–616. https://doi.org/10. treatment of self-injury, 1964–2000. American Journal
1002/jaba.315. on Mental Retardation, 107, 212–221. https://doi.org/
Ghaemmaghami, M., Hanley, G. P., Jin, S., & 10.1352/08958017(2002)107<0212:BTOSIT.2.0.
Vanselow, N. R. (2015). Affirming control by multiple CO;2.
reinforcers via progressive treatment analysis. Behav- Lovaas, O. I., Freitag, G., Gold, V. J., & Kassorla, I. C.
ioral Interventions, 31, 70–86. (1965). Experimental studies in childhood schizophre-
Ghaemmaghami, M., Hanley, G. P., & Jessel, J. (2016). nia: Analysis of self-destructive behavior. Journal of
Contingencies promote delay tolerance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2, 67–84.
Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 548–575. https://doi. Mann, A. J., & Mueller, M. M. (2009). False positive
org/10.1002/jaba.333. functional analysis results as a contributor of treatment
Hagopian, L. P., Rooker, G. W., Jessel, J., & DeLeon, I. G. failure during functional communication training. Edu-
(2013). Initial functional analysis outcomes and modi- cation & Treatment of Children, 32, 121–149. https://
fications in pursuit of differentiation: A summary of doi.org/10.1353/etc.0.0044.
176 inpatient cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal- Pelios, L., Morren, J., Tesch, D., & Axelrod, S. (1999). The
ysis, 46, 88–100. impact of functional analysis methodology on treat-
Hanley, G. P. (2010). Prevention and treatment of severe ment choice for self-injurious and aggressive behavior.
problem behavior. In E. Mayvill & J. Mulick (Eds.), Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 185–195.
Behavioral foundations of effective autism treatment Sailor, W., Guess, D., Rutherford, G., & Baer, D. M.
(pp. 233–256). New York: Sloan. (1968). Control of tantrum behavior by operant tech-
Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problem niques during experimental verbal training. Journal of
behavior: Dispelling myths, overcoming implementa- Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 237–243. https://doi.org/
tion obstacles, and developing new lore. Behavior 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-237.
Analysis in Practice, 5, 54–72. Santiago, J. L., Hanley, G. P., Moore, K., & Jin, C. S.
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). (2016). The generality of interview-informed func-
Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. tional analyses: Systematic replications in school and
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185. home. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disor-
Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., & Hanratty, L. A. ders, 46, 797–811.
(2014). Producing meaningful improvements in prob- Schlichenmeyer, K. J., Roscoe, E. M., Rooker, G. W.,
lem behavior of children with autism via synthesized Wheeler, E. E., & Dube, W. V. (2013). Idiosyncratic
analyses and treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior variables that affect functional analysis outcomes:
Analysis, 47, 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.106. A review (2001–2010). Journal of Applied Behavior
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Analysis, 46, 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.12.
Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of Slaton, J. D., Hanley, G. P., & Raftery, K. J. (2017).
self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, Interview-informed functional analyses:
197–209. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197. A comparison of synthesized and isolated components.
Jessel, J., Hanley, G. P., & Ghaemmaghami, M. (2016). Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 252–277.
Interview-informed synthesized contingency analyses: https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.384.
Thirty replications and reanalysis. Journal of Applied