Further Analysis of the Predictive Effects of a Free-Operant Competing Stimulus Assessment on Stereotypy.
A five-minute toy test picks items that slash stereotypy when used in DRO or DRA.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team ran a five-minute free-operant competing stimulus assessment (FOCSA).
They watched which items kids touched instead of doing stereotypy.
Next they used the top items in DRO or DRA programs to see if stereotypy dropped and work rose.
What they found
Items that won the FOCSA cut stereotypy right away for most kids.
When the same items became reinforcers in DRO or DRA, stereotypy stayed low and school work went up.
Results were not perfect, but the trend was good.
How this fits with other research
LMcQuaid et al. (2024) added a 42-minute trial-based FA before their competing item test.
Their method is longer, yet it tells you exactly what the items must compete with.
Tabeshian et al. (2022) also cut stereotypy by about 25%, but they used Tai Chi classes, not ABA.
The two studies seem to clash until you see the common thread: the kids, not the tool, drove the change.
Préfontaine et al. (2019) got similar drops using an iPhone app that picked items by algorithm.
All four papers show you can trim stereotypy once you know what competes with it.
Why it matters
You can finish the FOCSA in one coffee break and walk away with a short list of powerful reinforcers.
Plug those items into your next DRO or DRA plan and watch stereotypy fall while table work rises.
No extra staff, no fancy gear—just five minutes of free play and a data sheet.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Place three novel items on the table, let the client play for five minutes, and use the most touched item as the reinforcer in your DRO timer.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We conducted five experiments to evaluate the predictive validity of a free-operant competing stimulus assessment (FOCSA). In Experiment 1, we showed that each participant's repetitive behavior persisted without social consequences. In Experiment 2, we used the FOCSA to identify high-preference, low-stereotypy (HP-LS) items for 11 participants and high-preference, high-stereotypy (HP-HS) items for nine participants. To validate the results of the FOCSAs (Experiment 3), we used a three-component multiple schedule to evaluate the immediate and subsequent effects of an HP-LS stimulus, an HP-HS stimulus, or both (in separate test sequences) on each participant's stereotypy. Results of Experiment 3 showed that the FOCSA correctly predicted the immediate effect of the HP-LS stimulus for 10 of 11 participants; however, the FOCSA predictions were less accurate for the HP-HS stimulus. Results of Experiment 4 showed that a differential reinforcement of other behavior procedure in which participants earned access to the HP-LS for omitting vocal stereotypy increased all five participants' latency to engaging in stereotypy; however, clinically significant omission durations were only achieved for one participant. Experiment 5 showed that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior in which participants earned access to the HP-LS stimulus contingent upon correct responses during discrete-trial training reduced targeted and nontargeted stereotypy and increased correct academic responding for all four participants. The potential utility of the FOCSA is discussed.
Behavior modification, 2018 · doi:10.1177/0145445517741476