Comparisons of standardized and interview‐informed synthesized reinforcement contingencies relative to functional analysis

Greer et al. (2020) compared two ways to run a synthesized-contingency functional analysis.

One way used the full interview-informed steps. The other skipped the interview and used a ready-made list of reinforcers.

They ran both versions with 12 participants who showed problem behavior.

The traditional FA found a clear function for 11 out of 12 people.

The two synthesized versions made almost the same mistakes.

That means the long interview and observation phase added no value.

Fisher et al. (2016) looked similar but got the opposite answer. Their traditional FA won and IISCA lost. The difference: Fisher tested only five people and required perfect matching. Greer used more people and allowed small errors, so both tools looked equal.

Coffey et al. (2020) reviewed 17 IISCA papers and praised the interview step. Greer’s data say you can skip it and still get the same result, so the praise may be over-stated.

Jessel et al. (2024) later dropped the interview too. Their trauma-informed IISCA went straight to the test and still matched the old version, backing up Greer’s shortcut.

If you need a quick FA, use the standardized synthesized version. You save the caregiver interview time without losing accuracy. Start with a brief checklist of common reinforcers, run the test, and move on to treatment.