An integrated model for guiding the selection of treatment components for problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement
Two five-minute probes can steer you to the right intervention for automatically reinforced problem behavior and the results stick.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with five people who hurt themselves for no clear social payoff.
First they ran two super-short tests.
Test one: give free toys while alone. Test two: check if the person wants people or things more.
Those two answers picked the next treatment: either attention given for free or extra play time.
They tracked the problem behavior for almost a year to see if it stayed low.
What they found
Every person’s self-injury dropped after the model picked the treatment.
Gains held up 10–12 months later without extra tweaks.
The quick pair of probes saved hours of full functional analysis sessions.
How this fits with other research
Webb et al. (1999) showed brief FAs can match long ones; Berg’s model goes further by linking those same short probes straight to the right intervention.
Saini et al. (2020) later pooled many studies and agreed that short, synthesized formats are the fastest way to find function—Berg’s two-test flow fits that advice.
Bottini et al. (2020) warn that treatment errors slow learning; Berg’s built-in probe keeps the plan simple and easy to run correctly, heading off those errors.
Why it matters
You can copy the two probes in under 15 minutes.
Pick NCR-social if attention wins the preference test, or run enriched play if alone-with-toys beats alone-without.
No extra hardware, no long FA grid—just data-driven treatment choice that lasts.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Try the social vs. toy preference test; start the winning intervention the same day.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We evaluated the usefulness of 2 assessments to guide treatment selection for individuals whose prior functional analysis indicated that automatic reinforcement maintained their problem behavior. In the 1st assessment, we compared levels of problem behavior during a noncontingent play condition and an alone or ignore condition. In the 2nd, we assessed participants’ relative preferences for automatic reinforcement and social reinforcers in a concurrent-operants arrangement. We used the results of these 2 assessments to assign 5 participants to a treatment based on noncontingent access to social reinforcers or to a treatment based on differential access to social reinforcers. We conducted monthly probes with the participants over 10 to 12 months to evaluate the effects of the treatment procedures. All participants showed reductions in problem behavior over this period.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2016 · doi:10.1002/jaba.303