Initial outcomes of an augmented competing stimulus assessment

The team ran a regular competing-stimulus assessment (CSA) on six clients. All had hard-to-treat problem behavior that ran on automatic reinforcement.

After the first CSA round, most items failed to compete. The researchers then added two moves: gentle prompting to touch the item and brief response blocking if the client tried the old problem behavior. They ran the CSA again with these tweaks.

Every single client ended up with more items that truly competed. Items that had flopped the first time now cut problem behavior when the client could hold or play with them.

Prompting plus blocking turned weak toys, music, or sensory bottles into useful tools. The whole test stayed under 30 minutes.

Smith et al. (2010) also used quick assessments to let non-verbal post-coma patients pick preferred stimuli. Both papers show you can reveal useful stimuli in minutes if you give the right response path.

O'Reilly et al. (2008) took the opposite road: they gave a 5-minute free taste of the reinforcer that usually drives problem behavior. That brief access acted like an abolishing operation and later cut problem behavior during play. Hagopian et al. (2020) instead add competing items; F et al. add pre-exposure. The two tactics differ but share the same goal — weaken the pull of automatic reinforcement before the main session starts.

Austin et al. (2015) warn that even good extinction can fail if the client returns to the old reinforcing context. Hagopian’s method helps you build a pocket of strong competing stimuli, a practical shield against that renewal effect.

If your CSA often ends with "nothing works," try one fast re-test with light prompting and response blocking. You may leave the room with three or four items that actually compete. Slip those items into the treatment plan, the teaching session, or the parent’s goody bag. It takes no extra equipment and can save weeks of guesswork.