Pre-Treatment Assessments to Identify Treatment Components for an Adolescent with Subtype-3 Self-Injurious Behavior.

The team worked with one teen whose self-injury had no social pay-off.

They ran four quick tests: a functional analysis, a reinforcer test, a self-restraint test, and a competing-item test.

Each test lasted minutes, not hours, and told them what to keep, drop, or add.

The injury was driven only by internal sensation.

The teen already used arm wraps to self-restrain, but the wraps made the injury worse.

A mix of sensory toys, brief arm blocking, and teaching a safe squeeze cut both injury and need for mechanical restraints.

Kocher et al. (2015) first split automatic self-injury into three subtypes. Dawson labels the teen "subtype-3" and picks tools that match that profile.

LeSage et al. (1996) showed self-restraint can reward injury. Dawson repeats that test, then swaps the wraps for a safe squeeze, turning a problem into a skill.

Iwata et al. (1990) warned that pure sensory play rarely helps once you run an FA. Dawson keeps the toys but pairs them with blocking and DRA, showing sensory items work when wrapped in a full plan.

You can copy this four-test sprint in one afternoon. Let the data pick the parts: toss what feeds the injury, keep what competes with it, and turn self-restraint into a taught skill. The whole package took less equipment than a typical toy bag and cut both injury and restraints for this teen.