What's The Function
RBT removes the iPad after timer ends. Client cries and reaches for iPad. Crying stops immediately when iPad is returned.
Access to Tangibles
Behavior is maintained by escape from table work.
Which would reinforce the behavior?
A. Continuing instruction
B. Removing the task
C. Ignoring the behavior while keeping work available
B. Removing the task
Client throws puzzle pieces after difficult instruction.
Best immediate response?
Maintain calm instructional expectations and prompt appropriate communication or task completion.
Client cries for RBT attention.
Should staff remove snack access?
No
Client tantrums when preferred toys are removed and also during table demands.
Possible multiple control:
RBT presents matching task at table. Client drops to floor. RBT removes materials and says, “Okay, let’s take a break.”
Escape
Behavior is maintained by attention.
Which would probably NOT reinforce the behavior?
A. Talking to client
B. Eye contact and comforting
C. Quietly continuing instruction with minimal attention
C. Quietly continuing instruction with minimal attention
Client cries when RBT attends to another child nearby.
Limit reinforcement for crying and reinforce appropriate attention-seeking behavior.
Client throws materials to escape work.
Should staff remove unrelated toys from the room?
Usually no.
(Avoid arbitrary punishment procedures unrelated to the maintaining variable.)
Client screams after instruction is presented. RBT gives long verbal explanation about behavior.
What accidental reinforcer may have been delivered?
Attention
RBT is talking to another staff member. Client begins yelling and pulling on RBT sleeve. RBT immediately responds and talks to client.
Attention
Client cries to get bubbles.
Would removing table work reinforce the behavior?
No
(Escape does not reinforce a behavior maintained by access to bubbles unless escape is also involved.)
Client screams after tablet is removed.
Should the RBT also remove all other preferred toys?
No. Only the maintaining reinforcer should be restricted contingently.
Client screams for Play-Doh.
Should RBT also stop reinforcing appropriate requesting?
No. Appropriate communication should still contact reinforcement.
Client cries when told to clean up. RBT delays cleanup for 5 minutes.
Likely escape reinforcement
Client rocks in chair and hums while alone during independent play. Behavior continues even when nobody responds.
Automatic Reinforcement
Client engages in tantrum behavior to access toy animals.
Would blocking access to crayons matter?
No
(Not all preferred items are the maintaining reinforcer.)
Client repeatedly engages in mouthing toys during downtime.
Increase engagement and provide appropriate competing sensory activities.
RBT says:
“We can’t give him anything because the behavior could be for anything.”
Why is this weak clinical reasoning?
Because interventions should be based on the most likely function, not the assumption that all consequences reinforce all behavior.
Client screams after being told “table time.” RBT keeps iPad unavailable but removes work demands.
What function may still have been reinforced?
Escape
Client cries during table work. RBT removes demands, gives hugs, and returns preferred toys.
Unknown because multiple consequences were delivered
(Too many consequences make the maintaining variable unclear.)
Client whines for RBT attention. Staff removes all toys, all breaks, and snack access.
Why is this problematic?
Client aggresses when transitioning from play to table work. RBT removes demands, removes all toys, and stops interacting.
What should have happened instead?
Identify likely function:
Client engages in mild whining for attention. Staff removes toys, table breaks, sensory items, and social interaction.
Possible negative outcomes?
Client behavior occurs during many activities because staff respond differently every time.
Why is function difficult to identify?
Because inconsistent responding may create: