Evaluation of a preliminary method to examine antecedent and consequent contributions to noncompliance

Majdalany et al. (2017) tested a three-step check for noncompliance. First they asked if the child can do the task. Next they ran a mini functional analysis. Last they built a treatment that matched what they found.

They worked with two kids who often ignored instructions. The whole process took only a few sessions.

One child simply lacked the skill. Teaching the skill fixed the problem. The other child had the skill but escaped hard tasks. A quick contingency swap—easy tasks first, praise after—boosted compliance.

Burack et al. (2004) looked only at antecedents like attention or task difficulty. Majdalany adds a skill probe and a full FA, so you learn why the child says no before you treat.

Rojahn et al. (1994) also used brief phases to pick treatment parts. The 2017 paper keeps that speed but targets compliance only.

Perez et al. (2015) run a four-phase FA for any problem behavior. Majdalany trims the same idea to three phases and focuses on noncompliance.

Next time a client ignores you, run the 60-second skill probe first. If the child can’t do the task, teach it. If the child can do it, run a 10-minute FA to see if escape, attention, or something else is paying off. Match your treatment to that result. You skip weeks of guesswork and avoid picking the wrong package.