Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis
Traditional FA caught four of five functions that the faster IISCA missed, so double-check synthesized results before treatment.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Fisher and colleagues ran two kinds of functional analysis on the same five kids. One used the classic single-reinforcer test conditions. The other used the newer IISCA, which blends reinforcers into one quick condition.
Each child got both formats so the team could see which one spotted the real reason for the problem behavior.
What they found
The old-school FA found a clear function for four of the five kids. The IISCA found zero. The synthesized-contingency method missed every function that the traditional method caught.
How this fits with other research
Doughty et al. (2010) also compared FA formats. They saw that trial-based FA matched traditional FA in four of five cases. Their result looks like the opposite of Fisher’s, but the methods differ: H shortened time while Fisher bundled reinforcers.
Rahaman et al. (2024) pooled accuracy data and warned that bundled formats can lose sensitivity. Fisher’s data now give a live example of that warning.
Jessel et al. (2020) showed that FA parts still vary widely across labs. Fisher’s finding is one more push to keep testing each variant before we settle on a favorite.
Why it matters
If you like the speed of the IISCA, run a brief follow-up with single-reinforcer checks before you write the behavior plan. One extra session can save weeks of treatment built on the wrong function.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a quick single-reinforcer test condition to any IISCA that shows no clear function.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Researchers typically modify individual functional analysis (FA) conditions after results are inconclusive (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014) introduced a marked departure from this practice, using an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA). In the test condition, they delivered multiple contingencies simultaneously (e.g., attention and escape) after each occurrence of problem behavior; in the control condition, they delivered those same reinforcers noncontingently and continuously. In the current investigation, we compared the results of IISCA with a more traditional FA in which we evaluated each putative reinforcer individually. Four of 5 participants displayed destructive behavior that was sensitive to the individual contingencies evaluated in the traditional FA. By contrast, none of the participants showed a response pattern consistent with the assumption of the IISCA. We discuss the implications of these findings on the development of accurate and efficient functional analyses.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2016 · doi:10.1002/jaba.314