Response latency as a measure of behavior in the assessment of elopement

Traub and team ran a new kind of functional analysis for elopement. They timed how long it took kids to run off, instead of counting how many times they ran.

The kids had intellectual or developmental disabilities. The test used the same social conditions you already know: attention, escape, tangible, and alone.

They compared the stopwatch method to the old free-operant method to see if both pointed to the same reinforcer.

Latency matched the free-operant FA every time. Both methods said the child eloped for the same social reason.

The clock method finished faster. Less time in the hallway or parking lot, more time for teaching.

Kodak et al. (2004) did the first FA on elopement and also found social reinforcers. Their count-based method worked, but it took longer. Traub shortens the same path.

Frank-Crawford et al. (2024) later used Traub’s quick latency FA to spot tangible reinforcement, then wiped out elopement with FCT and a toy bag. The 2019 paper is the first step they cite.

Fabbretti et al. (1997) warned that short latencies can look like noncompliance when they’re just normal kid speed. Traub answers: we’re not judging compliance, we’re hunting function—speed is exactly what we want to measure.

You can now find why a child elopes in half the time. Bring a stopwatch to the parking lot, run the four conditions, and watch the seconds, not the tally marks. When latency drops in one condition, you have the function and can move straight to treatment like noncontingent attention, FCT, or escape extinction. Less testing time means sooner safety.