On the Occurrence of Dangerous Problem Behavior during Functional Analysis: An Evaluation of 30 Applications.
Open-contingency FAs give you the same clear function while cutting dangerous behavior.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Jessel et al. (2022) ran 30 open-contingency functional analyses. In an open-contingency FA, the client can see the reinforcer before the test starts. The team compared how often dangerous behavior happened in these open tests versus older closed-contingency tests.
They wanted to know if being open about the reinforcer would keep clients safer without losing clear results.
What they found
Dangerous behavior showed up less often in open-contingency FAs. The results stayed clear enough to pick the right function and build a good treatment plan.
In short, open beats closed when safety is on the line.
How this fits with other research
Weyman et al. (2022) also cut risk by using short trial-based FAs. Both studies tweak the classic FA format and still get solid answers. You now have two safer blueprints to pick from.
Prasher et al. (2007) meta-analysis warned that the type of FA you pick shapes later treatment success. Joshua’s data say open-contingency is not only safer but still strong enough to guide good treatment, so the meta-analysis prediction holds.
Vos et al. (2013) moved FA online to lower risk. Joshua keeps clients safe inside the clinic by changing the contingency rule, not the setting. Together they show safety can come from many angles.
Why it matters
If you run FAs with clients who hit, bite, or self-injure, switch to an open-contingency format. You will likely see fewer dangerous episodes and still walk away with a clear function. Safer assessment means quicker, calmer treatment planning for everyone in the room.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Tell the client what reinforcer you will deliver before each FA condition starts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Functional analyses are often conducted by behavior analysts to understand the environmental variables contributing to an individual's problem behavior to better inform treatment implementation. While functional analyses are integral for designing function-based interventions, they often arrange contingencies to evoke and reinforce dangerous problem behavior. In Study 1 we reviewed 22 functional analyses with open-contingency classes including non-dangerous topographies of problem behavior and we found that participants were more likely to exhibit the non-dangerous behavior in 82% of the applications. We then conducted a single-subject comparison of closed and open-contingency classes with four additional participants in Study 2. Our results suggest that the functional analyses with the open-contingency class reduced the likelihood of observing dangerous problem behavior.
Behavior modification, 2022 · doi:10.1177/01454455211010698