Interobserver agreement: A preliminary investigation into how much is enough?

Interobserver agreement (IOA) is important for research and practice, and supports the consistency of behavioral data (Kahng et al., 2011). Although general parameters for how much IOA is needed have been suggested (Bailey & Burch, 2018), it is unknown if the total number of sessions with IOA might impact the IOA coefficient. In this study, IOA was reanalyzed using functional analysis data at various cutoffs. Obtained IOA from these analyses was then compared to the original IOA. Overall, results suggested that, at least when using highly trained observers in a structured clinical setting, there were no significant differences in IOA across cutoffs. However, IOA was sensitive to overall rate of responding in the functional analysis. These data are encouraging, particularly for practitioners, because they provide preliminary support that the amount of sessions with IOA may not be as important as the consistency of the data.

Initial outcomes of an augmented competing stimulus assessment.

Competing stimulus assessments (CSAs) are designed to identify stimuli that, when made freely available, reduce problem behavior. Although CSAs have demonstrated utility, identifying competing stimuli can be difficult for some individuals. The current study describes outcomes from an augmented CSA (A-CSA) for 6 consecutively encountered cases with treatment-resistant subtypes of automatically maintained problem behavior. When test stimuli were made freely available, only between 0 and 1 effective competing stimuli were identified for each case. Prompting and response blocking were temporarily employed in succession to promote engagement with stimuli and disrupt problem behavior. When those procedures were withdrawn and stimuli made freely available, the number of effective competing stimuli increased in all 6 cases. Findings suggest that procedures designed to promote engagement and disrupt problem behavior may allow the A-CSA to be a platform not only for identifying competing stimuli, but also for actively establishing competing stimuli.

Rules and Statements of Reinforcer Loss in Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior.

Providing a rule regarding consequences for behavior can increase the efficacy of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) procedures in the treatment of severe problem behavior (Watts, Wilder, Gregory, Leon, and Ditzian, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 680-684, 2013). The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend the literature on DRO procedures by evaluating the efficacy of rules and statements of reinforcer loss (SRL) in the treatment of severe problem behavior. Conditions included baseline, no rule DRO, rule DRO, and rule DRO with SRL. For 2 of 3 participants, neither the no rule DRO nor the rule DRO condition reduced problem behavior. The rule DRO with SRL condition produced a substantial decrease in problem behavior for all participants, suggesting that a consequent rule enhances the efficacy of DRO. The current study extends the literature on DRO procedures by providing data on nontargeted ("other") behavior. An increase in other behavior was observed for 2 participants.

Injury characteristics across functional classes of self-injurious behavior.

Self-injurious behavior (SIB) is inherently problematic because it can lead to injuries, including those that are quite severe and may result in loss of function or permanent disfigurement. The current study replicated and extended Rooker et al. (2018) by classifying the physical characteristics of injuries across groups of individuals with automatically maintained SIB (ASIB Subtypes 2 and 3) and socially maintained SIB. Individuals with Subtype 2 ASIB had the most frequent and severe injuries. Further, an inverse relation was found between the level of differentiation in the functional analysis and the number of injuries across groups. Studying the response products of SIB (the injuries) documents the risks associated with SIB, justifies the need for research and the intensive intervention, and advances knowledge of SIB. Additional research is needed to replicate these findings, and determine the variables that produce different characteristics of injury secondary to SIB.

The Development, Reliability, and Validity of the Social Impact of Repetitive Behavior Scale in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Introduction: Current measures of restrictive and repetitive behavior (RRB) in people with autism focus on severity and intensity and, to some degree, the global interference of the behavior. In this study we developed the Social Impact of Repetitive Behavior Scale (SIRBS) to capture several different contexts in which repetitive behavior is likely to occur and interfere. Methods: SIRBS items were selected through reviewing the RRB literature, participant chart reviews, and consensus among authors, followed by an initial piloting and further refinement of the tool. Caregivers completed the SIRBS a total of 400 times. Results: Subscales showed high internal consistency and good test-retest reliability, moderate concurrent validity, and average to excellent inter-rater reliability. Conclusion: The SIRBS is a psychometrically reliable and valid measure of the social impact of repetitive behavior with children with autism. Additional research is needed to independently validate it and conduct an initial exploratory factor analysis of subscales.