A Comparison Between Interview Informed Synthesized Contingencies Analyses and Standard Functional Analysis in Stereotypic Behaviours

Abstract

The current study compared the standard functional analysis (SFA) and the interview informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA) to assess their effectiveness and efficiency in the assessment and treatment of stereotypic behaviour. Participants included two males with intellectual disability, displaying three different stereotypic behaviours between them. The IISCA was informed by implementation of the Open-Ended Functional Assessment Interview and the SFA was informed by the Question About Behavioural Function (QABF). Following the completion of the experimental assessments, interventions based upon the results of each assessment were compared using a reversal design for one man's stereotypy and a multiple baseline across behaviours with reversal design for the other man's two stereotypies. Additionally, data of stereotypic behaviour across time through all interventions, as well as problem and appropriate behaviours, were recorded to further investigate effectiveness of each treatment. Results from the QABF did not coincide fully with SFA for both participants, but the open-ended interview did inform IISCA appropriately for two of three behaviours. The QABF took less time on average (10 min) to implement, compared to the open-ended interview (30 min). Results for the experimental assessments suggested that the IISCA was able to differentiate more often than the SFA. On average, the IISCA took less time to implement (44 min) than the SFA (101 min), even when length of interviews were included. When implementing interventions, the IISCA-derived intervention was more successful than the SFA derived intervention across all behaviours. It is suggested that IISCA is an effective and efficient assessment tool for finding functions of stereotypic behaviours.