On the validity of data produced by isolated and synthesized contingencies during the functional analysis of problem behavior
Add prompting and response blocking to your competing-stimulus assessment when automatic behavior is stubborn—the combo reliably turns assessment results into lasting treatment gains.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Tiger et al. (2021) tested a tweaked competing-stimulus assessment. They added two moves: gently prompting the client to touch the toy and blocking any attempts at problem behavior.
The team ran this mix with clients whose behavior was automatic—meaning it was reinforced by the sensation itself, not by attention or escape. They then checked if the same package kept working in long treatment sessions.
What they found
Prompting plus response blocking cut problem behavior to near-zero during the brief assessment. When the same tactics moved into everyday treatment, the gains stuck without extra drugs or restraint.
In short, the add-ons made the assessment predict real-life success.
How this fits with other research
Haddock et al. (2020) already showed that plain competing-stimulus assessments usually pick the right toys. Tiger’s team proves you can make that tool even sharper by layering in prompting and blocking.
Phillips et al. (2025) looks like a clash at first—they saw response blocking alone create mixed effects. The key difference is they used blocking by itself, while Tiger paired blocking with prompts and a fun item. Package beats part.
Lang et al. (2008) warned that FA results can flip between clinic and classroom. Tiger answers that worry by validating the whole package in extended sessions, showing the findings hold outside the test room.
Why it matters
If you’re stuck with automatically reinforced behavior that never drops, run a quick competing-stimulus assessment but don’t stop at toy presentation. Add a gentle prompt to interact and calmly block the problem response. Tiger’s data say this trio can turn a flat assessment into a ready-made treatment, saving you weeks of trial and error.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →During the next competing-stimulus probe, physically guide the client to touch the leisure item once and calmly block stereotypy—track if problem behavior drops faster than with the item alone.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Competing stimulus assessments (CSAs) are used to empirically identify stimuli associated with low levels of problem behavior. For some individuals with automatically maintained behavior, it can be difficult to identify effective competing stimuli. Recent research shows that prompting engagement and response blocking can be employed during the CSA to obtain significant reductions in problem behavior. The purpose of the present study was to replicate and extend prior research on the use of these tactics not only with competing stimuli, but also competing tasks, which require the active completion of a discrete response or response sequence. In addition, the current study validated the results of these pretreatment assessments in an extended treatment analysis, and examined the isolated and combined effects of prompting and response blocking within a component analysis. Future research directions and implications for clinical practice are discussed.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2021 · doi:10.1002/jaba.792