Comparing methods of evaluating sensitivity to common establishing operations and bias toward challenging behavior
Use both equal and unequal BASE sessions to spot true sensitivity and worst-case behavior in one assessment.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Allen et al. (2026) tested two ways to run BASEs. BASEs check if a child notices when rewards for problem behavior go up or down.
They used an alternating-treatments design. One session gave equal points for problem behavior and good behavior. The next session gave more points for problem behavior. All kids were neurotypical.
What they found
When points were equal, kids quickly noticed the change in rewards. Their problem behavior rose and fell with the points. This showed clear sensitivity.
When points favored problem behavior, kids showed stronger outbursts. Bias toward the bad behavior showed up under both setups.
How this fits with other research
Tiger et al. (2021) also tweaked contingencies. They added prompting and response blocking during competing-stimulus tests. Both papers prove that small setup changes swing the results you see.
McLennan et al. (2008) saw the same pattern with math tasks. When one station got harder, kids flocked to the easy side. Allen et al. now show the same bias rule works for problem behavior.
Miranda et al. (2023) hunted bias inside MSWO preference tests. Their side-vs-center counts mirror Allen’s bias scores. Use either tool when you worry position, not value, is driving choices.
Why it matters
Run one BASE with equal points and one with lopsided points. The equal run tells you if the child feels the EO shift. The lopsided run shows you how bad the behavior can get. Do both and you leave the assessment with two red-flag numbers instead of one.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one symmetrical and one asymmetrical BASE condition to your next functional analysis and graph the bias score for each.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Recent research has demonstrated the utility of recording and reinforcing appropriate behavior during functional analyses. We compared two contingency arrangements across repeated bias and sensitivity evaluations (BASEs), one that equated the contingencies for appropriate and challenging behavior (i.e., symmetrical contingencies) and another that only provided reinforcement for challenging behavior (i.e., asymmetrical contingencies). Six neurotypical children were recruited, and behavior was recorded on a Neutral to Severe Behavior Scale. We evaluated sensitivity to different types of establishing operations (EOs) and response bias toward appropriate versus challenging behavior for each participant. Greater sensitivity to EOs was observed under symmetrical contingencies, but more instances of severe challenging behavior were captured by asymmetrical contingencies. Bias toward challenging behavior was evident in both contingency arrangements. Results suggest that BASEs implementing symmetrical and asymmetrical contingencies could help identify risk factors for challenging behavior and inform preventive strategies.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2026 · doi:10.1002/jaba.70046