Assessment & Research

A brief method for conducting a negative-reinforcement assessment.

Zarcone et al. (1999) · Research in developmental disabilities 1999
★ The Verdict

A five-minute button-press test safely shows what kids work to escape, so you can build better treatment plans.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who assess escape functions in children with developmental delays.
✗ Skip if Practitioners working with adults or schedule-thinning protocols only.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

McConkey et al. (1999) built a five-minute lab test to spot what kids escape from. They worked with five children who had developmental delays. Each child got short tasks. The child could press a button to take a break. The team watched which tasks the child escaped most.

The test kept problem behavior low. That made it safe for clinical use.

02

What they found

Every child showed a clear escape pattern. One child hit the button most during math. Another hit it during fine-motor work. The quick test gave the same answer as longer past studies.

No child showed severe aggression or self-injury. The brief format worked without harm.

03

How this fits with other research

Ellingsen et al. (2014) later used the same idea with youth who have Tourette syndrome. Tics dropped when kids could escape the urge to tic. Both papers show escape keeps behavior alive.

Shahan et al. (2021) looks like a clash. They found destructive behavior surged when reinforcement was thinned. The difference is context. The 1999 study gave a tiny taste of escape. The 2021 study slowly took rich reinforcement away. Small, safe probes do not equal big schedule cuts.

English et al. (1995) came first. They proved differential negative reinforcement works. The 1999 paper just made the test faster.

04

Why it matters

You can run this probe before treatment starts. Five minutes tells you what tasks to use in escape extinction or differential reinforcement. You avoid long sessions that spark crisis. Try it next time you need to confirm the escape function without hurting the child.

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

Pick one hard task, give a break button, and count presses for five minutes to see if escape drives problem behavior.

02At a glance

Intervention
functional behavior assessment
Design
single case other
Sample size
5
Population
developmental delay
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

A brief negative-reinforcement assessment was conducted with developmentally disabled children with severe destructive behavior. Five children were trained to engage in a simple escape response (e.g., a hand clap). Then each child was presented with a variety of stimuli or tasks that ranged on a scale from preferred to nonpreferred, based on parent ranking. The participant received a brief break from the stimuli or task, contingent on each escape response. For one child, an avoidance contingency was also implemented in which he could engage in the response to avoid the presentation of stimuli. Results showed that for each child, several stimuli were identified that may serve as effective negative reinforcers. Results also indicated that the procedure did not elicit any negative side effects for four children and low rates of destructive behavior for the fifth child. For one child, the results of the negative-reinforcement assessment were used to develop an effective treatment for destructive behavior. Additional applications of the reinforcement assessment to treatment interventions is discussed, as well as limitations to the procedure.

Research in developmental disabilities, 1999 · doi:10.1016/s0891-4222(98)00036-5