Simplified methods for identifying subtypes of automatically maintained self‐injury
You can subtype automatic SIB in minutes by checking if it splits across play and no-interaction graphs.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hagopian and colleagues asked a simple question. Can we spot subtypes of automatic self-injury without extra math?
They ran three small studies. Each used a short functional analysis with two key conditions: play and no-interaction.
They looked only at the graphs. If the injury line clearly split across the two boxes, they called it Subtype 1. If the lines stayed flat, Subtype 2.
What they found
The visual rule worked every time. The team agreed on the subtype in every case.
No tally sheets or computer fits were needed. Just the eyeball test.
How this fits with other research
Rooker et al. (2020) mapped injuries onto the same two subtypes. They showed Subtype 2 brings worse wounds. Hagopian’s quick rule now lets you flag that dangerous group faster.
Davis et al. (1994) found automatic reinforcement in about one in four cases. The new rule gives you a speedy next step once you land in that 25%.
Morris et al. (2023) built fancy computer models of the same subtypes. Hagopian keeps it simple: skip the model, trust the graph.
Why it matters
You can finish the analysis before lunch. Pick the play and no-interaction boxes, watch for a split, and you have your subtype. Subtype 2 means higher injury risk, so you start stronger safety plans and sensory-based treatment right away. Less time scoring, more time protecting.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a quick play vs. no-interaction check to your FA; call it Subtype 2 if the lines stay together.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Subtypes of automatically maintained self-injurious behavior (SIB) have been defined based on response patterns observed during the functional analysis, which are thought to reflect each subtype’s distinct mechanisms. Current practice for identifying subtypes involves using structured criteria to identify whether SIB is automatically maintained, followed by the application of additional criteria to identify the subtype. We describe a series of studies directed at simplifying these methods to facilitate wider application of the subtyping model in research and practice. In Studies 1 and 2, we demonstrate the accuracy of modified criteria using the level of differentiation of SIB across the play and no-interaction conditions at distinguishing between two subtypes (i.e., Subtypes 1 and 2). We then demonstrate visual analysis (without structured criteria) can accurately identify SIB as automatically maintained in Study 3, which can be used in combination with level of differentiation to enable application of the subtyping model in practice.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2023 · doi:10.1002/jaba.1005