Validating social reinforcer classes for low‐severity challenging behavior identified by sensitivity tests
A five-minute sensitivity test spots social functions of mild problem behavior as well as a full FA, but double-check tangible results.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with 10 young autistic learners who showed mild problem behavior.
They ran two kinds of tests. One was the short new “sensitivity test.” The other was the longer classic functional analysis.
Then they checked if both tests pointed to the same social reinforcer class—attention, escape, or tangible.
What they found
The quick sensitivity test matched the full FA most of the time for social functions.
It did not line up as well when the child wanted access to items or activities.
How this fits with other research
Tonnsen et al. (2016) and Nevill et al. (2019) already showed that teachers and parents can run interview-informed FAs at home or school and still cut severe behavior. Melanson et al. (2025) now says you can go even faster—use sensitivity tests—when the behavior is mild.
Jolliffe et al. (1999) warned that classic FAs can give shaky results across weeks. The new brief tool keeps the same accuracy for social pay-offs, so it may dodge that old reliability problem.
Thomas et al. (2021) added happiness data to FAs. Melanson keeps the focus tight on reinforcer class, trading extra data for speed.
Why it matters
You can start treatment sooner. Run a five-minute sensitivity test during the first visit. If it flags attention or escape, you can trust it and move to intervention. If it points to tangible, run a quick tangible-only FA to be sure. This saves you and the family time while still keeping the power of a true functional assessment.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Try a sensitivity test first; if social function shows, jump straight to FCT, but probe tangible items separately before writing the plan.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Behavior analysts typically assess and treat challenging behavior after it occurs regularly and at high severity. Although effective, this reactive approach is quite costly and resource intensive. A growing literature supports an alternative preventive approach; the first step involves conducting sensitivity tests to screen the topographies and functions of low-severity behavior evoked by establishing operations commonly included in challenging behavior research (e.g., Fahmie et al., 2020). Despite the potential value of sensitivity tests, their correspondence with functional analyses has yet to be established. This study measured the correspondence between social reinforcer classes nominated by sensitivity tests and social reinforcer classes verified by traditional functional analysis outcomes of the same behaviors. Participants included 10 young autistic learners who were reported to exhibit low-severity challenging behavior. Data showed generally high correspondence between both assessment outcomes for challenging behavior but not for appropriate requests.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2025 · doi:10.1002/jaba.2925