Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA): Novel Interpretations and Future Directions

Coffey and team read 17 IISCA papers and wrote a narrative review. They asked: does the interview-informed version give us a faster, still-solid path to a functional analysis?

The authors looked at how each study built the IISCA, what it found, and how treatment went after.

Across the 17 studies the IISCA kept showing clear reinforcers for problem behavior. Treatments that followed kept working.

The review calls the method both efficient and reliable for busy clinics.

Jessel et al. (2018) give the strongest cheer: 25 outpatients dropped problem behavior by 90% or more after an IISCA-led plan. That case series sits inside this review.

Greer et al. (2020) seems to disagree. They found skipping the interview and using a fixed synthesized test worked just as well. The review still keeps the interview step because most included studies used it.

Fisher et al. (2016) is the warning flag. Traditional FA found functions for 4 of 5 kids; IISCA found none. The 2020 review keeps this paper on the table but notes the method keeps evolving.

You now have a shortcut review you can hand to a supervisor who wants evidence before leaving the standard FA. Expect to hear two questions: will it miss the real function, and will it create new problems? Coffey et al. answer the first with a cautious yes-it-works, while neighbor papers tell you to watch for false negatives and iatrogenic spikes. Use IISCA when time, safety, or resources squeeze you, but pair it with brief probes of the classic conditions if the data look muddy.