1
An Approach to Evaluating the Interaction Between Academic Performance Issues and Problem
Behavior Displayed by School-Aged Children
Definitions and References
Kelly M. Schieltz, PhD, BCBA-D, LBA
Licensed Psychologist
October 21, 2014
Procedures
Functional Analysis (FA or BFA)


“An analysis of the purposes (functions) of problem behavior, wherein antecedents and
consequences representing those in the person’s natural routines are arranged within an
experimental design so that their separate effects on problem behavior can be observed
and measured; typically consists of four conditions: three test conditions—contingent
attention, contingent escape, and alone—and a control condition in which problem
behavior is expected to be low because reinforcement is freely available and no demands
are placed on the person.” (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007)
“An analysis in terms of behavioral functions (effects of responses); alternatively, an
analysis in terms of functional relations (e.g., the production of pupillary constriction by
light might be discussed as a pupillary reflex, but a functional analysis deals with it as a
transition from one point to another on a continuous mathematical function relating
pupillary diameter to light intensity).” (Catania, 1998)
References
 Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994).
Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27,
197-209. (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 320, 1982).
 Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Northup, J., Cigrand, K., & Asmus,
J. (1992). Brief functional assessment techniques to evaluate aberrant behavior in an
outpatient setting: A summary of 79 cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,
713-721.
 Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem
behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147-185.
Brief Experimental Analysis of Academic Behavior (BEA)
Reference
 Daly, E. J., III, Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting
a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26,
554-574.
2
Concurrent Operants (Choice) Assessment (CO)

“Involves two or more schedules of reinforcement (e.g., FR, VR, FI, VI) that are
simultaneously available. Each alternative is associated with a separate schedule or
reinforcement and the organism is free to distribute behavior to the schedules.” (Pierce &
Cheney, 2008)
Reference

Harding, J. W., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Cooper, L. J., Asmus, J., Mlela, K., &
Muller, J. (1999). An analysis of choice making in the assessment of young children with
severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 63-82.
Preference Assessment (PA)

“When several schedules of reinforcement are available concurrently, one alternative
may be chosen more frequently than others. When this occurs, we say that the organism
shows a preference for that alternative.” (Pierce & Cheney, 2008)
References


Fisher, W. W., & Mazur, J. E. (1997). Basic and applied research on choice responding.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 387-410.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I.
(1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with
severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498.
Concepts
Positive Reinforcement


“Occurs when a behavior is followed immediately by the presentation of a stimulus that
increases the future frequency of the behavior in similar conditions.” (Cooper, Heron, &
Heward, 2007)
“The response-produced presentation of positive reinforcers (or the increase or
maintenance of responding resulting from this operation). Reinforcers are stimuli (e.g.,
food); reinforcement is an operation (e.g., presentation of food given a response) or
process. The operation reinforces responses, not organisms; organisms are sometimes
said to be rewarded, but this term often implies effects of stimuli other than reinforcing
effects. Earlier in its history, reinforcement was also applied to presentation of the US in
respondent conditioning, but that usage is now unusual. A stimulus is a positive
reinforcer if its presentation increases responding that produces it.” (Catania, 1998)
3
Negative Reinforcement


“A stimulus whose termination (or reduction in intensity) functions as reinforcement.”
(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007)
“The response-produced termination of negative reinforcers (or the increase or
maintenance of responding resulting from this operation). Reinforcers are stimuli (e.g.,
food); reinforcement is an operation (e.g., presentation of food given a response) or
process. The operation reinforces responses, not organisms; organisms are sometimes
said to be rewarded, but this term often implies effects of stimuli other than reinforcing
effects. Earlier in its history, reinforcement was also applied to presentation of the US in
respondent conditioning, but that usage is now unusual. A stimulus is a negative
reinforcer if its removal increases responding that terminates or postpones it.” (Catania,
1998)
Motivating Operations (MOs)

“An environmental variable that (a) alters (increases or decreases) the reinforcing or
punishing effectiveness of some stimulus, object, or event; and (b) alters (increases or
decreases) the current frequency of all behavior that has been reinforced or punished by
that stimulus, object, or event.” (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007)
References








Gewirtz, J. L., & Baer, D. M. (1958a). Deprivation and satiation of social reinforcers as
drive conditions. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 57, 165-172.
Gewirtz, J. L., & Baer, D. M. (1958b). The effect of brief social deprivation on behaviors
for a social reinforcer. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 56, 49-56.
Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and
terms to describe them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
36, 407-414.
Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of
stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149-155.
Michael, J. (1983). Evocative and repertoire-altering effects of an environmental event.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 2, 19-21.
Michael, J. (1988). Establishing operations and the mand. The Analysis of Verbal
Behavior, 6, 3-9.
Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 191-206.
Michael, J. (2000). Implications and refinements of the establishing operation concept.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 401-410.
Abolishing Operations (AOs)

“A motivating operation that decreases the reinforcing effectiveness of a stimulus, object,
or event. For example, the reinforcing effectiveness of food is abolished as a result of
food ingestion.” (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007)
4
Establishing Operations (EOs)


“A motivating operation that establishes (increases) the effectiveness of some stimulus,
object, or event as a reinforcer. For example, food deprivation establishes food as an
effective reinforcer.” (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007)
“Formally, an establishing operation is defined as any change in the environment that
alters the effectiveness of some stimulus or event as reinforcement and simultaneously
alters the momentary frequency of the behavior that has been followed by that
reinforcement. Thus, an establishing operation has two major effects: it increases the
momentary effectiveness of reinforcers supporting operant behavior; and it increases the
momentary probability of operants that have produced such reinforcement. For example,
the most common establishing operation is deprivation for primary reinforcement. This
procedure has two effects. First, food becomes an effective reinforcer for any operant that
produces it. Second, behavior that has previously resulted in getting food becomes more
likely.” (Pierce & Cheney, 2008)
Behavioral Economic Theory


“The use if economic concepts (price, substitute commodity, etc.) and principles (e.g.,
marginal utility) to predict, control, and analyze the behavior of organisms in choice
situations.” (Pierce & Cheney, 2008)
“Behavioral economics…provides a bridge between prospect theory and the study of
steady-state operant behavior.” (Francisco, Madden, & Borrero, 2009)
References




Green, L., & Freed, D. E. (1993). The substitutability of reinforcers. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 141-158.
Hursh, S. R., Madden, G. J., Spiga, R., DeLeon, I. G., & Francisco, M. T. (2013). The
translational utility of behavioral economics: The experimental analysis of consumption
and choice. In G. J. Madden, W. V. Dube, T. D. Hackenberg, G. P. Hanley, & K. A.
Lattal (Eds.), APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis: Volume 2, Translating Principles
into Practice (pp. 191-224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Francisco, M. T., Madden, G. J., & Borrero, J. (2009). Behavioral economics: Principles,
procedures, and utility for applied behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst Today, 10,
277-294.
Madden, G. J., Bickel, W. K., & Jacobs, E. A. (2000). Three predictions of the economic
concept of unit price: In a choice context. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior, 73, 45-64.
5
Complements


“Reinforcers are consumed at a constant ratio (e.g., one tortilla chip to 5 grams
guacamole, one left shoe to one right shoe). A complementary relation between
reinforcers is demonstrated if the price of one reinforcer increases (e.g., the price of
guacamole doubles) and consumption of both reinforcers (chips and guacamole)
decreases, despite no increase in the price of chips. Such a decrease reveals the tendency
of the two commodities to be consumed in a constant ratio.” (Hursh, Madden, Spiga,
DeLeon, & Francisco, 2013)
“Two reinforcers that are classified as complements are those that are typically purchased
and consumed together. For example, food and water, toothbrushes and toothpaste, and
left and right shoes tend to be purchased and “consumed” together. Importantly, if
consumption of one reinforcer (e.g., potato chips) declines when its price is increased,
then consumption of a complement (e.g., chip dip) will also decline even though the latter
has not been subject to a price increase.” (Francisco, Madden, & Borrero, 2009)
Substitutes

“A substitute reinforcer, as the name implies, is one that is functionally similar and is
readily traded for the other reinforcer. Common examples of substitutes include nickels
and dimes, staples and paper clips, etc. When the price of one reinforcer increases, its
consumption will decrease more if a substitute is available.” (Francisco, Madden, &
Borrero, 2009)
Extinction


“The discontinuing of a reinforcement of a previously reinforced behavior (i.e., responses
no longer produce reinforcement); the primary effect is a decrease in the frequency of the
behavior until it reaches a prereinforced level or ultimately ceases to occur.” (Cooper,
Heron, & Heward, 2007)
“In operant behavior, discontinuing the reinforcement of responding (or the reduction in
responding that it produces). In negative reinforcement (escape and avoidance),
extinction has often referred to the discontinuation of aversive stimuli, although the term
applies more appropriately to discontinuing the consequences of responding, so that
aversive stimuli occur but responses no longer prevent them.” (Catania, 1998)
Other References Cited



Catania, A. C. (1998). Learning (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pierce, W. D. & Cheney, C. D. (2008). Behavior analysis and learning (4th ed.). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.