Listen below to the new episode of JABA in one take. This is the series where we break down a paper from JABA so that you, the research-focused practitioner can keep up with current research literature.

This episode covers a discussion and commentary article by Tiger and Effertz in which they provide a framework for the evaluation of different assessment tools. Specifically, they focus on the comparison between the synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA/PFA) and the isolated contingency analysis (FA). By providing us certain tools to evaluate each assessment, they come to the conclusion that perhaps, in its current state, the IISCA is not an assessment that has an increased utility, relative to the functional analysis.

Listen down below, and respond/tweet me with your opinions! Remember to always form your own, educated opinions on these topics, and to always read (and listen) broadly!

Article read:

Tiger, J. H., & Effertz, H. M. (2021). On the validity of data produced by isolated and synthesized contingencies during the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(3), 853-876. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.792

How to join the conversation:

Subscribe and respond to this email newsletter!

Join my twitter page, @behavioristBC and tweet me your thoughts!

Additional Readings on this Topic

Fisher, W. W., Greer, B. D., Romani, P. W., Zangrillo, A. N., & Owen, T. M. (2016). Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(3), 596-616. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.314.

Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., & Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful improvements in problem behavior of children with autism via synthesized analyses and treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(1), 16-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.106

Get on the email list at behavioristbookclub.substack.com