ANTECEDENT VERSUS CONSEQUENT EVENTS AS … · ANTECEDENT VERSUS CONSEQUENT EVENTS AS PREDICTORS OF...

ANTECEDENT VERSUS CONSEQUENT EVENTS AS PREDICTORS OFPROBLEM BEHAVIOR

ERIN M. CAMP, BRIAN A. IWATA, AND JENNIFER L. HAMMOND

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

AND

SARAH E. BLOOM

UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY

Comparisons of results from descriptive and functional analyses of problem behavior generallyhave shown poor correspondence. Most descriptive analyses have focused on relations betweenconsequent events and behavior, and it has been noted that attention is a common consequencefor problem behavior even though it may not be a functional reinforcer. Because attention maybe prescribed simply as a means of stopping serious problem behavior, it is possible that naturallyoccurring antecedent events (establishing operations) might be better predictors of problembehavior than consequences. We conducted descriptive and functional analyses of the problembehaviors of 7 participants. Conditional probabilities based on combined antecedent andconsequent events showed correspondence with the functional analysis data for 4 of the 7participants, but antecedent events were no better than consequent events in identifying thefunction of problem behavior.

DESCRIPTORS: descriptive analysis, functional analysis, problem behavior

_______________________________________________________________________________

Functional analysis methodology involves theassessment of problem behavior under condi-tions in which antecedent and consequentevents are experimentally manipulated (Iwata,Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994). This approach to assessment has beenuseful in identifying contingencies of reinforce-ment that maintain problem behavior and hasbeen replicated in hundreds of studies (seeHanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003, for a review).In addition to providing information about thedeterminants of behavior, results of a functionalanalysis facilitate the development of interven-tions that decrease problem behavior through

individualized programs of extinction or differ-ential reinforcement.

Another approach to assessment, the descrip-tive analysis, involves uncontrolled observationsof behavior under more naturalistic conditions(Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968). Althoughdesigned primarily for the purpose of gatheringdata on structural characteristics of behaviorand the context in which it occurs, thedescriptive analysis has been used occasionallyto make inferences about the contingencies thatmaintain behavior and to design interventionprocedures (Ellingson, Miltenberger, & Long,1999; Kern, Hilt, & Gresham, 2004; Lalli,Browder, Mace, & Brown, 1993; Repp, Felce,& Barton, 1988).

A number of studies have compared out-comes obtained from functional and descriptiveanalyses to determine whether the reinforcersfor problem behavior can be readily identifiedthrough naturalistic observation (Anderson &Long, 2001; Hall, 2005; Lerman & Iwata,1993; Mace & Lalli, 1991; Sasso et al., 1992;St. Peter et al., 2005; Thompson & Iwata,

This research was supported in part by grants from theFlorida Agency for Persons with Disabilities and theAlachua ARC. We thank Carrie Dempsey, Jennifer Fritz,Pamela Neidert, and Griffin Rooker for their assistance inconducting the study and Keith Berg and TimothyVollmer for their helpful comments on a previous versionof the manuscript.

Address correspondence to Brian Iwata, PsychologyDepartment, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida32611 (e-mail: [email protected]).

doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-469

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2009, 42, 469–483 NUMBER 2 (SUMMER 2009)

469

2007). Results of these comparisons generallyhave shown poor correspondence. For example,Mace and Lalli conducted both descriptive andfunctional analyses of the bizarre speech exhib-ited by an adult with mental retardation. Resultsof the descriptive analysis showed that bizarrespeech was correlated with both the absence ofattention and the presentation of task demandspreceding the behavior, as well as with thedelivery of attention and removal of taskdemands following the behavior. These datasuggested that problem behavior was mainte-nance by both social positive and social negativereinforcement. Results of the functional analysis,however, indicated that bizarre speech wasmaintained only by social positive reinforcement,and subsequent interventions based on the use ofpositive reinforcement effectively decreased bi-zarre speech. Lerman and Iwata extended thefindings of Mace and Lalli by comparing resultsfrom descriptive and functional analyses of theself-injurious behavior (SIB) exhibited by 6adults with mental retardation and observedcorrespondence in only 1 of the 6 cases.

Results of other studies indicate that conse-quences for problem behavior commonlyobserved in descriptive analyses may not serveas reinforcers. Thompson and Iwata (2001)conducted descriptive analyses for 27 adultswith developmental disabilities and found thatthe most frequently observed consequence forproblem behavior was attention from staff. In afollow-up study, Thompson and Iwata (2007)examined data from functional analyses for asubset (12) of these participants and found thatresults of the original descriptive analysesmatched those of the functional analyses foronly 3 of 12 participants. Most notably, resultsof the descriptive analyses suggested mainte-nance by attention for 8 of 12 participants;however, the subsequent functional analysesconfirmed that only 2 participants’ problembehavior was maintained by attention.

St. Peter et al. (2005) took a different approachin conducting their comparative analysis. They

used functional analyses to identify 3 studentswhose problem behavior was not maintained byattention. They then conducted descriptiveanalyses of the students’ problem behavior inthe classroom and found that, for all 3 students,the occurrence of problem behavior was highlycorrelated with attention, even though attentionhad been ruled out as the functional reinforcer.

Several factors might account for the lack ofcorrespondence between results of descriptiveand functional analyses. First, maintenance ofproblem behavior in the natural environmentby intermittent reinforcement may result in alow correlation between the occurrence ofbehavior and the delivery of a reinforcer. Forexample, the probability that escape from taskdemands follows problem may never exceed.2 ifescape is delivered on a variable-ratio 5 scheduleand may be even lower if escape is delivered ona thin interval schedule.

Second, results of a descriptive analysis maynot show high correlations between problembehavior and potential reinforcers if the prob-lem behavior occurs at high rates or in bursts,such that consequences usually follow anepisode of responding or a series of responsesrather than each response. For example, Mar-ion, Touchette, and Sandman (2003) examineddescriptive analysis data for 45 participants whoengaged in SIB and found that the event mosthighly correlated with SIB was SIB itself ratherthan any other environmental event.

Third, it is possible that certain events arehighly probable as consequences for problembehavior regardless of the function of theproblem behavior. Severe problem behaviorssuch as aggression or SIB often may produceattention simply as a safety precaution (to keepindividuals from harming themselves or others),which may result in a spuriously high correla-tion between problem behavior and attention,as suggested by the Thompson and Iwata(2001) and the St. Peter et al. (2005) data.

Although reinforcing consequences are themost important determinants of problem

470 ERIN M. CAMP et al.

behavior, limitations such as those noted abovemay make it difficult to identify those conse-quences under naturalistic conditions. Thisraises the question of whether naturally occur-ring antecedent events more accurately predictthe function of problem behavior becauseantecedent events may not be as readilyinfluenced by other variables. For example,identification of escape as the reinforcer forproblem behavior in a descriptive analysis maybe difficult if caregivers provide escape follow-ing only some occurrences of problem behavior(i.e., intermittent reinforcement). However, itseems likely that most occurrences of escape-maintained problem behavior would be preced-ed by the presentation of a demand. Withrespect to spurious correlations such as thatbetween problem behavior and the delivery ofattention, the antecedent event that oftenoccasions attention-maintained problem behav-ior (the absence of attention) also may beprogrammed to some extent. However, it seemsthat antecedents are more likely to be pro-grammed according to a schedule of dailyactivities, irrespective of problem behavior,rather than as specific responses to problembehavior.

The purpose of the current study was todetermine whether antecedent events are betterpredictors of the function of problem behaviorthan are consequent events by comparing theresults of descriptive analyses of both antecedentand consequent events to those of traditionalfunctional analyses.

METHOD

Participants and Setting

The participants were 7 individuals withdevelopmental disabilities who were reported toengage in severe problem behavior. Their agesranged from 16 to 54 years (see Table 1 fordemographic information). All participants at-tended either a special education school or anadult vocational program. Descriptive analysisobservations were conducted in the participants’assigned classrooms or work areas. Functionalanalysis sessions were conducted in therapyrooms at the school or vocational program.

Descriptive Analysis

Procedure. Observations were conducted usingmethods similar to those described by Thompsonand Iwata (2001). Trained observers usedhandheld computers to record the occurrence ofproblem behavior and environmental eventsduring continuous 10-s intervals. At least four15-min observations were conducted for eachparticipant; however, the number of observationswas extended until at least 10 intervals of problembehavior were observed. Observations wereconducted across the day during instruction orindependent work time, lunchtime, recess, and soon. Before beginning an observation, observersinformed the staff that they would be watchingthe participant and asked the staff to act as theytypically would. No other instructions were givento the staff, and no attempts were made toprogram specific events.

Table 1

Demographic Information

Participant Target behavior Age (years) Diagnosis

Tara SIB (skin picking) 28 Moderate mental retardation, Prader-Willi syndromeJerry SIB (hand biting and mouthing) 19 Profound mental retardation, speech-language impaired, seizure

disorderKevin Property destruction 54 Profound mental retardation, visually impaired, seizure disorderTravis Property destruction 21 Profound mental retardation, Angelman syndrome, speech-language

impairedWyatt Property destruction 16 Educable mentally handicapped, Down syndrome, Kleinfelter

syndromeAnna SIB (self-choking) 19 Autism, speech-language impairedBobby SIB (face slapping) 37 Mild mental retardation, cerebral palsy, spastic hemiplegia, epilepsy

ANTECEDENT EVENTS 471

Operational definitions. Problem behaviorsincluded SIB (self-choking, hand biting andmouthing, and skin picking) and propertydestruction (breaking objects, throwing objects,banging on or turning over furniture) and weredefined individually for each participant. Dataalso were collected on several environmentalevents, including the presentation of demands,the availability of attention or materials, and thepresence of staff. Demand was recordedwhenever a teacher or staff presented aninstruction (e.g., ‘‘put on your shoes’’) or workmaterials (e.g., handed shoes to participant) orphysically guided the participant to engage in atask (e.g., put shoes on the participant’s feet).Demand termination was defined as thecessation of a demand for at least one interval(10 s) following its initial presentation, regard-less of the action that preceded it (e.g., problembehavior, compliance, or the end of a scheduledwork period). Attention was recorded when thestaff initiated a verbal or physical interactionwith the participant without presenting aninstruction (e.g., engaged in conversation orgave a hug). The absence of attention was definedas any interval during which staff were presentbut not providing attention. Access to tangibleitems was recorded during any interval in whichthe participant had access to food or leisureitems (e.g., staff provided a magazine or snack).The absence of tangible items was defined as anyinterval during which food or leisure items werenot available. The presence of staff was recordedduring any interval in which at least one staffperson had an unobstructed view of theparticipant (e.g., the staff were able to observethe participant); this event was scored todifferentiate between intervals during whichthe participant was alone (e.g., out of view ofstaff) and intervals during which staff werepresent but not delivering any attention. Anevent was scored at the time it occurred (datawere time-stamped by the computer) and at thebeginning of each subsequent interval if itcontinued to occur. For example, if tangible

items were delivered at Second 23, it wasrecorded at that second and at the beginning ofeach subsequent 10-s interval as long as thetangible items were still available.

Interobserver agreement. A second observerindependently collected data during a mean of40% (range, 20% to 78%) of descriptiveanalysis sessions. Interobserver agreement wasassessed by comparing each interval of theobservers’ records, dividing the number ofagreement intervals by the total number ofintervals, and converting this ratio to apercentage. Mean interobserver agreementacross participants was 97% (range, 92% to100%) for problem behavior and 93% (range,90% to 94%) for environmental events in thedescriptive analysis.

Data analysis. Following the observations,probabilities were calculated to identify corre-lations between the occurrence of problembehavior and other environmental events. First,conditional probabilities of antecedent orconsequent events given problem behavior werecalculated to determine the relation betweenproblem behavior and those events. An eventwas considered an antecedent if it occurredprior to but in the same 10-s interval asproblem behavior or in the immediatelypreceding interval. The conditional probabilityof an antecedent event given problem behaviorwas calculated by dividing the number ofintervals during which a specific antecedentevent preceded problem behavior by the totalnumber of intervals with problem behavior. Forexample, if problem behavior occurred in fiveintervals, and no attention was available prior toproblem behavior on two occasions, theconditional probability of the absence ofattention as an antecedent to problem behaviorwould be .4.

The conditional probabilities of consequentevents were calculated in the same manner. Anevent was considered a consequent event if itoccurred in the same interval as problembehavior or in the immediately following


interval. The conditional probability of aconsequent event given problem behavior wascalculated by dividing the number of intervalsduring which a specific consequent eventfollowed problem behavior by the total numberof intervals with problem behavior. For exam-ple, if problem behavior occurred in fiveintervals and was followed by attention threetimes, the conditional probability of attentionas a consequence would be .6.

These conditional probabilities were comparedto the overall (unconditional) probabilities of theevents. The unconditional probability of an eventwas the proportion of intervals during which theevent occurred regardless of the occurrence ofproblem behavior and was calculated by dividingthe number of intervals during which the eventoccurred by the total number of observationintervals. For example, a .2 unconditionalprobability of attention would indicate thatattention was provided during 20% of theintervals. If the conditional probability ofproblem behavior that occurred with a specificantecedent or consequent event was greater thanthe unconditional probability of that event, thespecific event might be considered a predictor ofthe problem behavior. According to the previousexamples, if the conditional probability of theabsence of attention as an antecedent to problembehavior was .4, the conditional probability ofattention as a consequence for problem behaviorwas .6, and the unconditional probability ofattention irrespective of problem behavior was .2,the analysis of both antecedent and consequentevents (as well as the combination) suggests thatproblem behavior may be maintained by socialpositive reinforcement.

Functional Analysis

Procedure. The functional analysis was con-ducted using procedures similar to thosedescribed by Iwata et al. (1982/1994). Sessionswere 10 min in duration, and conditions werepresented in a multielement design. Trainedobservers used handheld computers to recordthe frequency of problem behaviors (identical to

those observed in the descriptive analysis), anddata were summarized as either responses perminute or percentage of intervals during whichresponding occurred. Data also were collectedon therapist delivery of antecedent and conse-quent events (see below).

During the attention condition, the therapistand the participant were seated in a room (theparticipant had access to moderately preferredleisure items). The therapist pretended to read amagazine and ignored the participant. Contin-gent on any occurrence of a problem behavior,the therapist delivered brief verbal and physicalattention (e.g., ‘‘you’re going to hurt yourself’’).During the demand condition, the therapistused a three-step prompting sequence (verbalprompt, model, and physical guidance) toinstruct the participant to complete academicor vocational tasks. Contingent on any occur-rence of a problem behavior, the therapistremoved the work materials and gave theparticipant a 30-s break. Prior to starting asession in the tangible condition, the therapistgave the participant 2-min access to a highlypreferred leisure item. When the session began,the therapist removed the item. Contingent onany occurrence of a problem behavior, thetherapist provided the participant with 30-saccess to the item. During the alone condition,the participant sat alone in an empty roomequipped with a one-way window. No pro-grammed consequences were delivered follow-ing the occurrence of problem behavior. Anignore condition was conducted instead of analone condition for some participants because aone-way window was not available. The ignorecondition was identical to the alone conditionexcept that a therapist was in the room. Duringthe play (control) condition, the therapistprovided the participant with noncontingentattention and access to preferred items and didnot issue demands. No programmed conse-quences were provided for problem behavior.Functional analysis sessions were repeated untildifferential responding was observed in one or


more conditions, relative to the control condi-tion, or until responding was observed at similarrates across all conditions and persisted duringrepeated alone or ignore sessions.

Interobserver agreement. A second observerindependently observed a mean of 30% (range,24% to 50%) of functional analysis sessions.Observers’ records were divided into 10-sintervals and were compared on an interval-by-interval basis. Interobserver agreement wascalculated by dividing the smaller number ofresponses by the larger number of responsesrecorded in each interval, summing thesequotients, dividing this number by the totalnumber of intervals, and converting this ratio toa percentage. The mean agreement for func-tional analysis sessions was 97% (range, 91% to100%) for problem behavior and 95% (range,92% to 98%) for therapist behavior.

Comparison of Descriptive andFunctional Analyses

A team of 12 behavior analysts (2 PhDs and 10doctoral students) examined the data obtainedfrom both the descriptive and functional analyses.Each participant’s descriptive and functionalanalysis data were graphed separately so that onlyone type of analysis could be examined at a time,and all identifying information was removedfrom the graphs. The members of the teamviewed each graph, discussed pertinent features ofthe data, and reached a consensus about thefunction shown in a functional analysis orsuggested in a descriptive analysis. When descrip-tive analysis data were presented, the team wasasked to render an opinion based on (a)antecedent events only, (b) consequent eventsonly, and (c) combined antecedent and conse-quent events. In examining conditional andunconditional probabilities in the descriptiveanalysis data, the emphasis was not strictly onhigh conditional probabilities but rather on theproportional differences between conditional andunconditional probabilities. When functionalanalysis data were presented, the team was askedto identify differential rates of responding in one

condition relative to the control condition orundifferentiated responding across conditionsand persistent responding during repeated aloneconditions. The conclusions reached by the groupof behavior analysts are those reported below.

RESULTS

Figure 1 shows data for participants whosefunctional analyses indicated that their problembehavior was maintained by social reinforce-ment. Each pair of graphs shows the probabil-ities for antecedent and consequent events fromthe descriptive analysis (left) and the frequencyor percentage of intervals of problem behavioracross functional analysis conditions (right).Tara’s descriptive analysis of antecedent eventsshowed that the conditional probability of theabsence of tangible items given problembehavior was higher than the unconditionalprobability of no tangible items; however, theunconditional probability was so high that theproportional difference between the conditionaland unconditional probabilities of no tangibleitems was relatively small. Other antecedentevents occurred equally often prior to andindependent of problem behavior, as indicatedby the low conditional probabilities for theseother antecedent events compared to theirunconditional probabilities. That is, problembehavior was correlated with each antecedentevent at a level similar to the overall occurrenceof those events, which suggested that problembehavior occurred across all of the events,including when she was alone. These resultsfor antecedent events suggested that problembehavior may have been maintained by auto-matic reinforcement. Descriptive data on con-sequent events showed that the conditionalprobability of attention given Tara’s problembehavior was somewhat higher than the uncon-ditional probability of attention. In otherwords, Tara was more likely to get attention(and usually only attention) following problembehavior than at other times. These datasuggested that problem behavior was main-


Figure 1. Results of descriptive analyses of antecedent and consequent events (left) and functional analyses (right) forTara, Jerry, Kevin, and Travis.


tained by positive reinforcement in the form ofattention. When the two sets of descriptive datawere considered together, the antecedent anal-ysis suggested automatic reinforcement and theconsequent analysis suggested social reinforce-ment; thus, the combined descriptive analysisresults were inconclusive.

Results of Tara’s functional analysis showedthat she engaged in high rates of problembehavior in the attention condition relative tothe other test conditions and the play condition,indicating that her SIB was maintained byattention. Thus, correspondence was observedbetween results of the consequent descriptiveanalysis and the functional analysis (both indi-cated that Tara’s problem behavior was main-tained by attention) but not between results of theantecedent descriptive analysis or the combineddescriptive analysis and the functional analysis.

Results of Jerry’s descriptive analysis ofantecedent events yielded a high conditionalprobability for the absence of attention givenproblem behavior relative to the unconditionalprobability of no attention. In addition, but to alesser degree, the conditional probability of theabsence of tangible items given problembehavior was greater than the unconditionalprobability of no tangible items. These resultssuggested that Jerry’s problem behavior mayhave been maintained by social positive rein-forcement in the form of attention, tangibleitems, or both. Results of Jerry’s descriptiveanalysis of consequent events showed that socialconsequences typically did not follow problembehavior, suggesting that his problem behaviormay have been maintained by automatic ratherthan social reinforcement. In the combineddescriptive analysis, the fact that problembehavior often occurred in the absence ofattention and tangible items (antecedent events)seemed less significant because these eventsrarely were delivered as consequences (i.e.,attention was never delivered). Thus, hisproblem behavior appeared to have beenmaintained by automatic reinforcement.

During Jerry’s functional analysis, problembehavior occurred almost exclusively in thedemand condition, indicating that it wasmaintained by social negative reinforcement(escape from demands). These results were instark contrast to those of his descriptive analysisbecause both the presentation and removal ofdemands were rarely observed during hisdescriptive analysis.

Kevin’s descriptive analysis of antecedentevents showed that the conditional probabilitiesof both the presence of demands and absence oftangible items given problem behavior weremuch higher than the unconditional probabil-ities of those events, suggesting that his problembehavior may have been maintained by socialnegative reinforcement (escape from demands),social positive reinforcement (tangible items), orboth. His descriptive analysis of consequentevents showed that the conditional probabilityof demand termination given problem behaviorwas much higher than the unconditionalprobability of demand termination. The con-ditional probability of access to tangible itemsgiven problem behavior also was high but not ashigh as the unconditional probability of accessto tangible items, indicating that tangible itemswere available frequently regardless of theoccurrence of problem behavior. Data fromthe consequent event analysis thus suggestedthat Kevin’s problem behavior may have beenmaintained by social negative reinforcement.The combined descriptive analysis showed thatproblem behavior was much more likely whendemands were presented and that problembehavior often was followed by the terminationof those demands, suggesting that his problembehavior may have been maintained by socialnegative reinforcement.

Results of Kevin’s functional analysis indi-cated that his problem behavior occurredexclusively in the demand condition. Theseresults were consistent with those of hisconsequent descriptive analysis and his com-bined descriptive analysis and were partially


consistent with those of his analysis of anteced-ent events (which suggested that social positivereinforcement also may have maintained hisproblem behavior).

Travis’s descriptive analysis contained onlynine intervals of problem behavior instead of 10because he graduated from school before thedescriptive analysis could be completed. Never-theless, his data were included because it isunlikely that the addition of one more instanceof problem behavior would have changed theoutcome. The analysis of antecedent eventsshowed a 1.0 conditional probability of theabsence of attention given problem behavior,whereas no other antecedent event was corre-lated with problem behavior. These resultssuggested that Travis’s problem behavior wasmaintained by social positive reinforcement(attention). His analysis of consequent eventsshowed a 1.0 probability for the delivery oftangible items given problem behavior (no otherconsequent event was observed), suggesting thatTravis’s problem behavior was maintained bysocial positive reinforcement (access to tangibleitems). Even though the conditional probabil-ities obtained in Travis’s antecedent andconsequent descriptive analyses were 1.0, thecombined analysis was inconclusive. The influ-ence of attention suggested in the antecedentanalysis was not supported in the consequentanalysis (attention was never delivered as aconsequence for problem behavior), and theinfluence of tangible items in the consequentanalysis was not supported in the antecedentanalysis (problem behavior never occurred inthe absence of tangible items). Thus, results ofthe combined descriptive analysis were incon-clusive and did not suggest a function for hisproblem behavior.

Results of Travis’s functional analysis showedthat his problem behavior occurred at very highrates in the demand condition but never in anyother condition, indicating that his problembehavior was maintained by social negativereinforcement. These results did not correspond

with any outcome of his descriptive analysis,which showed that, although demands some-times were delivered, problem behavior neveroccurred in their presence.

Figure 2 shows data for participants whosefunctional analyses indicated that their problembehavior was maintained by automatic rein-forcement. Wyatt’s descriptive analysis ofantecedent events shows that the conditionalprobability of each antecedent event givenproblem behavior was less than or approxi-mately equal to the unconditional probability ofeach antecedent, indicating no strong correla-tion between antecedent events and problembehavior. Although the conditional probabilityof consequent attention given problem behaviorwas low, it was four times greater than theunconditional probability of attention (i.e.,Wyatt received attention much more oftenfollowing problem behavior than he didotherwise), and attention was the only conse-quence observed. When the two sets ofdescriptive data were considered together, thehigh conditional probability of consequentattention was negated by the relatively lowconditional probability of the absence ofattention as an antecedent event. Thus, theresults of the antecedent descriptive analysis andthe combined (antecedent and consequent)descriptive analysis suggested that Wyatt’sproblem behavior may have been maintainedby automatic reinforcement, based on theabsence of high conditional probabilities forsocial events given problem behavior. Bycontrast, results of his descriptive analysis ofconsequent events suggested that problembehavior may have been maintained by socialpositive reinforcement (attention).

Results of Wyatt’s functional analysis showedhigh levels of problem behavior only in theignore condition, indicating that it was main-tained by automatic reinforcement. According-ly, correspondence was observed between resultsof the functional analysis and the antecedentdescriptive analysis and between results of the


functional analysis and the combined descrip-tive analysis, but not between results of thefunctional analysis and the consequent descrip-tive analysis.

Results of Anna’s descriptive analysis ofantecedent events were similar to Wyatt’s, inthat the conditional probability of each ante-cedent event was less than or approximatelyequal to its unconditional probability, indicat-

ing no strong correlation between antecedentevents and problem behavior. Anna’s descriptiveanalysis of consequent events showed that theconditional probability of access to tangibleitems was larger than the unconditional prob-ability of access to tangible items. Although theconditional probability of attention givenproblem behavior was slightly higher than theunconditional probability of attention, both

Figure 2. Results of descriptive analyses of antecedent and consequent events (left) and functional analyses (right) forWyatt, Anna, and Bobby.


probabilities were low. The combined descrip-tive analysis showed that, although the condi-tional probability of consequent tangible itemswas larger than the unconditional probability, theconditional probability of the antecedent absenceof tangible items was less than the unconditionalprobability of no tangible items, leaving no strongcorrelation between problem behavior and anysocial event. The results of the antecedentdescriptive analysis and the combined descriptiveanalysis suggested that Anna’s problem behaviormay have been maintained by automatic rein-forcement because no correlations with socialevents were observed, whereas results of herdescriptive analysis of consequent events suggest-ed that problem behavior may have beenmaintained by access to tangible items.

Results of Anna’s functional analysis indicat-ed that her problem behavior occurred at higherrates in all test conditions relative to the controlcondition, and it persisted during repeatedalone sessions. These results indicated that herproblem behavior was maintained by automaticreinforcement. Thus, results of the antecedentdescriptive analysis and the combined descrip-tive analysis both corresponded to results of thefunctional analysis because they each indicatedmaintenance by automatic reinforcement,whereas results of the consequent descriptiveanalysis did not correspond to those of thefunctional analysis because the consequentdescriptive analysis suggested maintenance byaccess to tangible items.

Results of Bobby’s descriptive analysis ofantecedent events showed that conditionalprobabilities for the antecedent absence of bothattention and tangible items given problembehavior were larger than the unconditionalprobabilities for those events. These antecedentdata suggested that his problem behavior mayhave been maintained by social positive rein-forcement (access to attention, tangible items,or both). Results of his descriptive analysis ofconsequent events showed that the delivery oftangible items was the only event observed to

occur following problem behavior; however,tangible items were rarely delivered followingproblem behavior and were delivered moreoften in the absence of problem behavior. Thus,the descriptive data on consequent eventssuggested that Bobby’s problem behavior mayhave been maintained by automatic reinforce-ment. The combined descriptive analysisshowed that, although antecedent events (theabsence of attention and tangible items) werecorrelated with problem behavior, these eventswere not delivered as consequences, suggestingthat problem behavior was maintained byautomatic reinforcement.

Bobby’s functional analysis data showed thathis problem behavior occurred inconsistentlyacross conditions but was maintained duringrepeated alone sessions in the absence of anysocial contingencies, indicating that his problembehavior was maintained by automatic rein-forcement. Thus, results of his consequentdescriptive analysis and combined descriptiveanalysis both corresponded to those of hisfunctional analysis, but results of his antecedentdescriptive analysis did not correspond becauseit suggested behavioral maintenance by access toattention or tangible items.

Table 2 summarizes the results for each ofthe assessments for all participants. The de-scriptive analysis of antecedent events corre-sponded to the functional analysis for 2 of 7participants (28.5%), the consequent eventanalysis corresponded to the functional analysisfor 3 of 7 participants (42.8%), and thecombined antecedent and consequent descrip-tive analysis corresponded to the functionalanalyses for 2 participants (28.5%). It isinteresting to note that, with the exception ofone case of partial correspondence (Kevin),results of the descriptive analyses of antecedentevents never showed complete correspondencewith results of the analyses of consequentevents.

To determine whether any specific features ofthe descriptive analysis data influenced conclu-


sions about the functions of problem behaviorwhen the team of behavior analysts evaluatedeach graph, we calculated a ratio for each dataset by dividing the conditional probability ofeach event by its unconditional probability.These ratios, shown in Table 3, indicateproportional differences between the condition-al and unconditional probabilities of each event.For example, the data for Wyatt showed thatthe conditional probability of consequentattention given problem behavior was .26 andthat the unconditional probability of attentionwas .06. The proportional change was 4.33,indicating that the probability of receivingattention following problem behavior wasroughly four times larger than the overallprobability of receiving attention.

Retrospective review of the behavior analysts’decisions based on proportional differencesbetween conditional and unconditional proba-bilities showed that the team agreed about asuggested function for problem behavior onlywhen (a) the conditional probability of an eventwas higher than .2 and (b) the proportionalchange between the conditional and uncondi-tional probabilities was 1.23 or greater. That is,the behavior analysts concluded that thedescriptive analysis showed a relation betweenan event and problem behavior if the event wascorrelated with problem behavior at least 20%of the time and the likelihood of the eventoccurring with problem behavior was at least123% greater than the likelihood of the eventindependent of problem behavior. It appearedthat both criteria must have been met to reach a

consensus that the data suggested a relation.Anna’s data, for example, showed that theabsence of attention (antecedent event) met thefirst criterion (.88 . .2) but not the second(1.02 , 1.23), whereas the delivery of attention(consequent event) met the second criterion(2.00 . 1.23) but not the first (.06 , .2).

One other interesting feature of the decisionsrendered by the group of behavior analysts is thecase of automatic reinforcement or inconclusivedecisions about combined descriptive analyses.Because the antecedent and consequent descrip-tive analyses never fully corresponded for anyparticipant, it was often the case that oneanalysis suggested automatic reinforcementwhereas the other analysis suggested socialreinforcement. When the antecedent descriptiveanalysis suggested automatic reinforcement andthe consequent descriptive analysis suggestedsocial reinforcement (for Anna, Tara, andWyatt), the team of behavior analysts concludedthat the combined analyses were inconclusive.However, when the antecedent descriptiveanalysis suggested social reinforcement and theconsequent descriptive analysis suggested auto-matic reinforcement, the team indicated thatthe combined analyses suggested automaticreinforcement.

DISCUSSION

Results of this study were consistent withthose of previous research (Lerman & Iwata,1993; Mace & Lalli, 1991; St. Peter et al.,2005; Thompson & Iwata, 2007) in which

Table 2

Comparison of Descriptive and Functional Analyses

Participant

Descriptive analysis

Functional analysisAntecedents only Consequents only Combined antecedents and consequents

Tara Automatic Attention Inconclusive AttentionJerry Attention and tangible Automatic Automatic EscapeKevin Escape and tangible Escape Escape EscapeTravis Attention Tangible Inconclusive EscapeWyatt Automatic Attention Inconclusive AutomaticAnna Automatic Tangible Inconclusive AutomaticBobby Attention and tangible Automatic Automatic Automatic


outcomes obtained from descriptive analyses ofproblem behavior generally did not match thoseobtained from functional analyses. The presentstudy differed from previous studies in that thepotential relations between antecedent eventsand problem behavior and between consequentevents and problem behavior were examinedboth separately and together. Comparison ofoverall outcomes obtained from the descriptiveand functional analyses yielded results similar tothose reported previously, and the analysis ofantecedent events was not superior to theanalysis of consequent events in identifyingthe function of problem behavior.

Although our results indicated that descrip-tive analyses were not useful for identifying thefunction of problem behavior, some interestingfindings are worth noting. First, three of the

four matches between results of the combineddescriptive analyses and the functional analyseswere obtained for problem behavior maintainedby automatic reinforcement, the same functionaccounting for the only match (one of six)reported by Lerman and Iwata (1993). Becausebehavior maintained by automatic reinforce-ment is not related functionally to any socialconsequences, it occurs in the absence ofprogrammed contingencies in a functionalanalysis and independent of observed conse-quences in a descriptive analysis. Thus, afinding of no correlation between problembehavior and any events in a descriptive analysismight be considered highly suggestive of anautomatic reinforcement function. In fact, themost straightforward way to identify theabsence of such a correlation would be simply

Table 3

Conditional and Unconditional Probabilities (CP, UP), Ratios, and Group Consensus Results for the

Descriptive Analyses

Participant

Antecedent events Consequent events

No attention Demand No tangible Alone Attention Escape Tangible

TaraCP .15 .11 .98 .34 .55 0 .02UP .24 .24 .90 .35 .41 .12 .10

CP:UP 0.63 0.46 1.09 0.97 1.34a 0 0.20Jerry

CP .90 0 .50 .10 0 0 .20UP .43 .02 .40 .56 .01 .01 .59

CP:UP 2.09a 0 1.25a 0.18 0 0 0.34Kevin

CP 0 .36 .36 .64 0 .18 .64UP .18 .04 .21 .79 .03 .01 .79

CP:UP 0 9.00a 1.71a 0.81 0 18.00a 0.81Travis

CP 1 0 0 0 0 0 1UP .80 .15 .60 .09 .11 .06 .40

CP:UP 1.25a 0 0 0 0 0 2.50a

WyattCP .53 .20 1 .13 .26 0 0UP .69 .14 1 .25 .06 .11 0

CP:UP 0.77 1.43 1 0.52 4.33a 0 0Anna

CP .88 .08 .57 .06 .06 0 .37UP .86 .24 .74 .11 .03 .07 .26

CP:UP 1.02 0.33 0.77 0.55 2.00 0 1.42a

BobbyCP .69 0 .91 .30 0 0 .09UP .38 .01 .74 .61 .03 .01 .25

CP:UP 1.82a 0 1.23a 0.49 0 0 0.36

a Group consensus based on visual inspection of actual data.


to observe problem behavior under naturalisticconditions that most closely resemble the alonecondition of a functional analysis.

A second interesting feature of the results wasseen in the descriptive data for Travis and Jerry,whose problem behavior was maintained bysocial negative reinforcement. Although bothparticipants showed very clear patterns ofresponding during their functional analyses, inwhich problem behavior occurred almost exclu-sively in the demand conditions, there was noevidence in their descriptive analyses that prob-lem behavior was correlated with the presentationof demands. It is unclear why so few demandswere presented to these participants, but onepossibility is that Travis’s and Jerry’s teachersrefrained from asking them to work as a means ofpreventing problem behavior. Carr, Taylor, andRobinson (1991) observed that teachers were lesslikely to deliver instructions to students whoengaged in problem behavior relative to studentswho did not engage in problem behavior. Becausethe function of the students’ problem behaviorwas unknown in that study, the same resultsmight have been observed had problem behaviorbeen maintained by attention (in which caseteachers simply provided less attention, includinginstructions, as an antecedent event) or by escape(in which case teachers specifically avoided givinginstructions). For this reason, information aboutthe functional characteristics of problem behaviormay help to clarify unusual patterns of interactionbetween teachers or parents and those whoengage in problem behavior.

A third finding, and one not consistent withresults of previous studies (e.g., St. Peter et al.,2005; Thompson & Iwata, 2001), was thatattention was not the consequent event mostlikely to follow problem behavior. Results of thedescriptive analysis suggested an attentionfunction for only 2 of the 7 participants, Wyattand Tara. Their problem behavior was no moredangerous than that of other participants, so thegeneral finding that severe problem behavioroften produces attention did not appear to

characterize the social environment for mostparticipants in this study.

In summary, results of this study indicatedthat outcomes of descriptive analyses do nottypically identify the source of reinforcementfor problem behavior, regardless of whether thedescriptive data emphasize the potential role ofantecedent or consequent events. Aside fromproviding information about the frequency ofproblem behavior and the general context inwhich it occurs, the benefits of conducting adescriptive analysis as part of the assessment-treatment process should be examined moreclosely. For example, one obvious benefit wouldbe to initially identify environment–behaviorcorrelations for further experimental analysis, assuggested originally by Bijou et al. (1968). Atwo-stage, descriptive-experimental analysis ofthis type may be helpful when little is knownabout potential causal relations. However, giventhat many problem behaviors are maintained bycontingencies that are easily accommodated inmost functional analyses, it is unclear whetherresults of a descriptive analysis actually facilitatethe implementation of a functional analysis.

A second possible use of the descriptive analysiswould be to identify response–response relationsthat may be indicative of a response class. Forexample, it has been observed that other (precur-sor) behaviors sometimes precede the occurrenceof problem behavior and may share the samefunction as problem behavior (Richman, Wacker,Asmus, Casey, & Andelman, 1999; Smith &Churchill, 2002). The relation between precursorand problem behaviors may be subtle and isunlikely to be detected through casual observationif the environment is responsive only to severeforms of problem behavior. In other words,parents and teachers may simply miss the fact thatproblem behavior follows precursors because theyare concerned only about (and provide conse-quences only for) severe problem behavior. If so, adescriptive analysis may help to determine whichof any number of potential precursors arepredictive of the occurrence of problem behavior.


Finally, because the descriptive analysis isflexible and can provide information about awide range of environment–behavior sequences,it seems uniquely suited as a measure oftreatment integrity. That is, once programmedtherapeutic (antecedent and consequent) eventshave been specified, a descriptive analysis wouldbe the most precise method of determining theextent to which these events consistently occur.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. M., & Long, E. S. (2002). Use of astructured descriptive assessment methodology toidentify variables affecting problem behavior. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 137–154.

Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). Amethod to integrate descriptive and experimental fieldstudies at the level of data and empirical concepts.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175–191.

Carr, E. G., Taylor, J. C., & Robinson, S. (1991). Theeffects of severe behavior problems in children on theteaching behavior of adults. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 24, 523–535.

Ellingson, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., & Long, E. S.(1999). A survey of the use of functional assessmentprocedures in agencies serving individuals withdevelopmental disabilities. Behavioral Interventions,14, 187–198.

Hall, S. S. (2005). Comparing descriptive, experimentaland informant-based assessments of problem behav-iors. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26,514–526.

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.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E.,& Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functionalanalysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 27, 197–209 (Reprinted from Analysis andIntervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20,1982)

Kern, L., Hilt, A. M., & Gresham, F. (2004). Anevaluation of the functional behavioral assessmentprocess used with students with or at risk foremotional and behavioral disorders. Education andTreatment of Children, 27, 440–452.

Lalli, J. S., Browder, D. M., Mace, F. C., & Brown, D. K.(1993). Teacher use of descriptive analysis data toimplement interventions to decrease students’ prob-lem behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,26, 227–238.

Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1993). Descriptive andexperimental analyses of variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 26, 293–320.

Mace, F. C., & Lalli, J. S. (1991). Linking descriptive andexperimental analyses in the treatment of bizarrespeech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24,553–562.

Marion, S. D., Touchette, P. E., & Sandman, C. A.(2003). Sequential analysis reveals a unique structurefor self-injurious behavior. American Journal onMental Retardation, 108, 301–313.

Repp, A. C., Felce, D., & Barton, L. E. (1988). Basing thetreatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviorson hypotheses of their causes. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 21, 281–289.

Richman, D. M., Wacker, D. P., Asmus, J. M., Casey, S.D., & Andelman, M. (1999). Further analysis ofproblem behavior in response class hierarchies.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 269–283.

Sasso, G. M., Reimers, T. M., Cooper, L. J., Wacker, D.,Berg, W., Steege, M., et al. (1992). Use of descriptiveand experimental analyses to identify the functionalproperties of aberrant behavior in school settings.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 809–822.

Smith, R. G., & Churchill, R. M. (2002). Identification ofenvironmental determinants of behavior disordersthrough functional analysis of precursor behaviors.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 125–135.

St. Peter, C. C., Vollmer, T. R., Bourret, J. C., Borrero, C.S. W., Sloman, K. N., & Rapp, J. T. (2005). On therole of attention in naturally occurring matchingrelations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38,429–443.

Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2001). A descriptiveanalysis of social consequences following problembehavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34,169–178.

Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2007). A comparisonof outcomes from descriptive and functional analysesof problem behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 40, 333–338.

Received January 24, 2008Final acceptance March 4, 2008Action Editor, Timothy Vollmer


ANTECEDENT VERSUS CONSEQUENT EVENTS AS … · ANTECEDENT VERSUS CONSEQUENT EVENTS AS PREDICTORS OF...

Documents

Transcript of ANTECEDENT VERSUS CONSEQUENT EVENTS AS … · ANTECEDENT VERSUS CONSEQUENT EVENTS AS PREDICTORS OF...