Generalized target behavior reductions and maintenance of effects following an augmented competing stimulus assessment sequence
Adding a quick functional-analysis subtype step to your CSA can give stronger, more durable stereotypy cuts, but expect mixed success.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team added a twist to the classic competing-stimulus assessment (CSA). First they ran a short functional analysis to subtype the stereotypy. Then they picked competing items that matched each subtype. They called the two-step process the augmented CSA, or A-CSA.
Three children with autism and hand stereotypy took part. The researchers tested whether the A-CSA would (a) pick better items and (b) cut stereotypy in new settings two weeks later.
What they found
The A-CSA worked for two kids. Their stereotypy dropped in the playroom and stayed low later. For the third child, the items picked by A-CSA did no better than random toys.
In other words, adding subtyping helped some of the time, but not every time. Maintenance data were only collected for the two responders.
How this fits with other research
Haddock et al. (2020) reviewed 40 CSAs and showed the plain version usually predicts what will calm problem behavior. Breeman et al. now show that slipping in a quick functional analysis can boost that hit rate, at least for stereotypy.
Tiger et al. (2021) also tinkered with the CSA. They added prompting plus response blocking and got solid drops in automatically maintained behavior. Breeman’s group tried a different tweak—subtyping—but both studies say the same thing: small upgrades to the CSA can pay off.
Wanchisen et al. (1989) proved that letting kids pick sensory-matched items wipes out maladaptive behavior. Breeman’s team used a similar idea: match the competing item to the sensory subtype. The 1989 paper did it with preschool choice; the 2025 paper does it with a mini functional analysis.
Why it matters
If you run CSAs in your practice, try the A-CSA sequence when stereotypy is stubborn. Run a 10-minute functional analysis first, then pick items that fit the sensory function. Track the behavior in new rooms to see if the drop sticks. When it works, you save hours of guesswork; when it doesn’t, you know in one session and can pivot to other treatments.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 5-minute functional analysis before your next CSA and pick sensory-matched items; graph stereotypy in a new room next week.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Competing stimulus assessments are one technology that aids in the development of treatment for automatically reinforced behavior. However, competing stimulus assessments do not always yield robust results. Stereotypic behaviors of different subtypes may require procedural modifications to successfully identify competing stimuli. The current investigation included functional analyses to determine whether participant responding aligned with proposed subtypes for such behaviors. Next, we implemented augmented competing‐stimulus‐assessment (A‐CSA) procedures across target and generalization stimuli to determine whether (a) responding across either subtype was more likely to require intensive modifications and (b) the A‐CSA procedures promoted generalized target behavior reduction within stimulus classes. Lastly, a treatment evaluation was conducted to determine the durability of these findings and the generalization of the reduced target behavior to other settings. The general applicability of the subtyping model remains unclear, but two participants demonstrated maintenance of competition effects.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2025 · doi:10.1002/jaba.70021