Evaluation of antecedent stimulus parameters for the treatment of escape-maintained aberrant behavior.
Find the precise task cue that sparks escape behavior and chop it into playful bites to slash problem responses.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran a functional analysis on three children who bolted or hit when asked to do tasks.
They tested which part of the instruction really sparked the trouble: the adult’s words, the table, or the worksheet.
After pinning down the trigger, they mixed short play breaks between easy tasks to see if escape behaviors dropped.
What they found
Task instructions alone were the big cue; the table and paper hardly mattered.
When teachers slipped quick play moments between directions, two kids almost stopped problem behavior.
One child needed extra rewards, showing the fix must match the single-case data, not a hunch.
How this fits with other research
Johnson et al. (2009) later added a stopwatch trick: rank demands by how fast problem behavior starts, then drop the quickest ones into your escape condition.
Fahmie et al. (2020) took the same antecedent hunt into preschool play groups, catching early escape signs before they turn into big tantrums.
Powell et al. (1968) ran the opposite move decades earlier—raising task difficulty after outbursts—and still cut tantrums, proving stimulus control works both ways.
Why it matters
You can copy this in one session. First, do a mini FA to spot the exact cue that makes your client want out. Second, break that cue into short bits and drop a 10-second game or joke between them. Third, graph the results; if little change shows, add a reinforcer like the study did. This keeps assessment and treatment glued together, saves hours of guesswork, and keeps hands and feet safe without using restraint or long breaks.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Test three task cues in 5-minute FA trials, pick the one that triggers the fastest escape, then run those tasks with 10-second play breaks between each instruction.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We evaluated a methodology for identifying the range of stimulus features of antecedent stimuli associated with aberrant behavior in demand contexts in natural settings. For each participant, an experimental analysis of antecedents (Phase 1) was conducted to confirm the hypothesis that task instructions occasioned increases in aberrant behavior. During Phase 2, specific stimulus features associated with the presentation of task instructions were assessed by evaluating the child's behavior across two distinct settings, therapists, and types of tasks in a sequential fashion. Aberrant behavior occurred immediately across settings and therapists, presumably because the presence of a discriminative stimulus for escape-maintained behavior (the delivery of a task instruction) occasioned aberrant behavior. However, aberrant behavior decreased initially across tasks, suggesting that familiarity with the task might be a variable. During Phase 3, an experimental (functional) analysis of consequences was conducted with 2 participants to verify that aberrant behavior was maintained by negative reinforcement. During Phase 4, a treatment package that interspersed play with task instructions was conducted to disrupt the ongoing occurrence of aberrant behavior. Immediate and durable treatment effects occurred for 2 of the 3 participants.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1999 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1999.32-495