Evaluation of an indirect assessment for identifying tasks for functional analysis
Use the NRRS to quickly pick highly aversive tasks for the FA demand condition, but leave the open-ended lines blank.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team tested a short rating scale called the NRRS. Teachers and aides used it to guess which school tasks a child with autism hates most.
Later the same child went through a short demand test. The researchers compared the guesses to real escape behavior.
What they found
The checklist ratings matched the demand test. Adults agreed on which tasks were highly aversive.
Open-ended examples on the form were not reliable. Stick to the fixed categories when you use it.
How this fits with other research
Anonymous (2021) also checked if an autism tool gives true scores. Both papers show that quick rating steps can be trusted if you pick the right items.
Ortega (1978) gives math rules for single-case designs. Wiggins et al. (2020) used those same single-case rules to compare ratings with real data.
Lawer et al. (2009) taught people to graph single-case data. You can use their Excel steps to chart NRRS scores and demand test results side by side.
Why it matters
You can save time in the FA prep meeting. Give two staff the NRRS, circle the top two hated tasks, and drop them straight into the demand condition. Skip the open lines and you still get solid data.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Hand two aides the NRRS, average their category ratings, and place the top two tasks in your next FA demand session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Although a demand analysis is helpful for identifying potential establishing operations for the functional analysis (FA) demand condition, it may not always be practical due to time constraints. A potential alternative is the Negative Reinforcement Rating Scale (NRRS), an indirect assessment tool that may serve as a time efficient alternative to a demand analysis. The experimenter assessed the reliability and validity of the NRRS for 5 individuals with autism spectrum disorder who exhibited problem behavior. Multiple types of interrater reliability were assessed across 2 informants, and NRRS outcomes were compared to a subsequent demand analysis and FA to assess its validity. Reliability was high (M = 84%) for NRRS numerical ratings of categories but low (M = 32.9%) for specific examples provided. NRRS-identified highly aversive tasks yielded better correspondence with demand analysis outcomes than did NRRS-identified less aversive tasks.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2020 · doi:10.1002/jaba.656