Clinical applications of a brief experimental analysis for problem behavior: Analysis of treatment effects and durability
A quick five-condition BEA reliably chooses the NCR or DRO that keeps problem behavior down and compliance up, even after you thin the schedule.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran a five-condition brief experimental analysis on two boys with autism and ID. They compared NCR and DRO using either food or toys as the reinforcer.
Each condition lasted only a few minutes. The goal was to see which version kept problem behavior low and compliance high.
What they found
The BEA quickly picked the best NCR or DRO variant for each boy. When that winner was used for weeks, problem behavior stayed low and compliance stayed high, even after the schedule was thinned.
Both boys kept the gains without extra extinction procedures.
How this fits with other research
Baranek et al. (2011) first showed a BEA could pick the fastest sight-word method. Schmidt now proves the same logic works for problem behavior.
Briggs et al. (2019) found DRA without extinction cut escape behavior if you boost reinforcer size or quality. Schmidt’s BEA picked NCR or DRO that worked without any extinction, matching that low-restraint theme.
Petscher et al. (2008) saw DRA beat extinction in speed, but extinction gave higher academic engagement. Schmidt skips extinction entirely and still gets durable gains, so his BEA route may sidestep the collateral bumps Seligson flagged.
Why it matters
You can run a five-condition BEA in under an hour and walk away with the best NCR or DRO plan. No extra extinction, no lengthy functional analysis. Try it on Monday: run the mini-comparison, pick the top performer, and start the full intervention that same day.
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 BEA comparing NCR vs DRO with food and toys, then roll the winner out for the rest of the session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractThe brief experimental analysis (BEA) is an empirical method for comparing multiple academic interventions in a short amount of time and predicting intervention effects in subsequent extended evaluations. This study extended the BEA literature by evaluating its utility for identifying effective interventions for decreasing problem behavior and increasing compliance for two individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability who engaged in escape‐maintained problem behavior. Across individuals, four treatment arrangements were compared to a baseline‐control condition: noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) with food, NCR with toys, differential reinforcement of other behaviors (DRO) with food, and DRO with toys. Using an alternating treatment embedded within a withdrawal design, conditions from the BEA associated with the lowest rates of problem behavior and the highest rates of adaptive behavior (i.e., compliance) were further evaluated during schedule thinning. For both individuals, the two most effective interventions from the BEA maintained effects during extended application and schedule thinning. These findings extend the utility of the BEA to identify durable interventions for decreasing problem behavior and increasing adaptive behavior.
Behavioral Interventions, 2021 · doi:10.1002/bin.1767