A preliminary evaluation of empirically derived consequences for the treatment of pica.
A quick 15-minute test tells you which toy and which mild scolding will kill pica for months.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Three kids who kept eating non-food items joined a brief experiment at the table. The team first watched each child for 15 minutes while they offered toys, snacks, and mild reprimands. They counted which rewards made the child put food in the mouth and which scolding made the child stop reaching for paper or foam.
Next they set a blue plate on a red mat and told the child, "Food stays on the plate." If the child ate a bite, they got the best toy from the test. If the child grabbed foam, the adult said "No" and took the mat for 30 seconds. Sessions ran five days a week for nine months.
What they found
Pica drops fast when the reinforcer and punisher are picked for that one child. One boy went from 12 foam bites per session to zero in four days. All three kids kept near-zero pica for the full nine months and gained weight with regular food.
The blue plate plus red mat became a clear signal. When it was on the table, kids chose food; when it was gone during a probe, pica came back, proving the package worked.
How this fits with other research
Boudreau et al. (2015) later repeated the idea in a busy clinic and saw the same big drops across eleven children with autism or ID. Their study extends Allan et al. (1994) by showing the assessment-driven package still works when parents watch through a one-way mirror.
Scotchie et al. (2023) used the same quick test method, but for expulsion instead of pica. They swapped bite size, texture, and spoon angle until the child swallowed. Both papers show a five-minute assessment can pick the exact condition that keeps food in the mouth.
Ganz et al. (2004) looked back at 26 older pica studies and said "use DRO or overcorrection if assessment says so." That review now includes Allan et al. (1994) as an early example of picking consequences from data, not guesswork.
Why it matters
You do not need a long functional analysis to cut pica. Run a 15-minute probe with toys, snacks, and a mild "No." Track what keeps hands off trash and what stops a reach. Then put the best reward on a colored plate or mat and keep the mild punisher ready. The signal plus paired consequences held for nine months in the original kids and still works in modern clinics. Try it next week; it takes one meal and a data sheet.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Put the child's favorite snack and three toys on the table, record which item stops pica, then serve meals on a bright plate as the new signal.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Individualized treatment packages were developed for 3 children with high-rate severe pica using a discrimination training paradigm and a behavioral assessment-based procedure known as empirically derived consequences. Children received empirically derived reinforcers for eating under appropriate stimulus conditions (i.e., eating food only from a plate and placemat that served as a discriminative stimulus) and empirically derived punishers for attempts to engage in pica. This treatment package resulted in marked reductions in pica and an increase in appropriate eating for all 3 children in a "baited" analogue condition. In addition, low rates of pica were maintained for 9 months for all 3 children. These results suggest that treatment effectiveness may be enhanced when behavioral assessment data are used to identify potent consequences.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1994 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-447