ABA Fundamentals

Further Translational Evaluations of Efficacy and Preference for Isolated and Synthesized Contingency Procedures

Auten et al. (2025) · Behavioral Interventions 2025
★ The Verdict

Isolated and synthesized DRA both cut problem behavior, so let the child pick—either way it works.

✓ Read this if BCBAs writing DRA plans after a functional analysis in clinic or school settings.
✗ Skip if Practitioners using only extinction or NCR without DRA.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Auten et al. (2025) compared two ways to build a DRA plan after a functional analysis. One plan used an isolated contingency. The other used a synthesized contingency. They tested both plans with the same children in an alternating-treatments design.

The team tracked problem behavior and appropriate communication during each plan. After each session they asked the child which plan felt better. The goal was to see if one plan worked faster and which one the child liked.

02

What they found

Both the isolated and the synthesized DRA cut problem behavior and boosted communication. The gains looked the same across the two plans.

The twist: each child liked one plan more than the other. The preference was not predictable from the FA results. You have to ask the kid.

03

How this fits with other research

Nevin et al. (2016) showed that lean signaled DRA keeps relapse low after treatment ends. Auten’s work adds that either isolated or synthesized DRA can be that lean signaled plan, so you can pick the one the child prefers without risking more relapse.

Jackson et al. (2026) later showed that fading the therapy context back in cuts renewal in half. Their DRA plans grew from the same translational line Auten started, showing the field is moving from ‘which plan works’ to ‘how do we make it stick.’

Dowdy et al. (2020) took DRA without extinction into a public pool and still saw big drops in problem behavior. That real-world success backs Auten’s lab finding: DRA is robust across settings, so letting the child choose the contingency style is not a luxury—it’s doable in the community.

04

Why it matters

You no longer need to agonize over isolated versus synthesized DRA. Both work. Run a brief comparison, let the client vote with their feet, and move on. The child gets a voice, you get the same behavior drop, and future relapse is still covered by lean signaled delivery. Next time you write a behavior plan, add a 5-minute preference check between the two DRA setups—then honor the winner.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Run one session of each DRA style, ask the client which feels better, and run with that plan.

02At a glance

Intervention
functional analysis
Design
single case other
Sample size
4
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

ABSTRACTThe current study was a replication and extension of previous research using a translational evaluation of the traditional isolated FA and SCA. Four participants experienced differential reinforcement for alternative behavior (DRA) based on FA and SCA results, and a concurrent‐chains arrangement was used to evaluate preference for the DRA conditions. Results showed that the isolated FA only identified the trained function. Across participants, DRA resulted in similar decreases in the surrogate destructive behavior across synthesized and isolated conditions and increases in the alternative response. Preferences for synthesized and isolated conditions differed across participants.

Behavioral Interventions, 2025 · doi:10.1002/bin.2076