In the latest Inside JABA Series, Drs. Linda LeBlanc, Claire St. Peter, and Jeff Tiger join me to discuss a paper Jeff co-authored with Hannah Effertz titled, "On the validity of data produced by isolated and synthesized contingencies during the functional analysis of problem behavior," which you can find the latest issue of The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (click here to subscribe if you haven't already).
In this paper, Jeff and Hannah introduce the concepts of sensitivity, specificity, discriminant validity, and predictive validity and discuss why these are important. Then, they analyzed Isolated Contingency Analyses and Synthesized Functional Analysis through these lenses (note: the Isolated Contingency Analysis and Synthesized Contingency Analysis are perhaps better known as the Standard Functional Analysis, and the Interview Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis, respectively).
As you might imagine, we spent the episode discussing all aspects of this paper, including the authors' motivation to write it, what they learned, and what implications stem from their findings for students and practitioners.
Not a ton of links in this episode, but here are the ones we did discuss:
- The Simpson's Max Powers reference (the part of this clip that Jeff talked about is close to the end).
- A "Healthy Contingencies" Behavioral Intervention (St. Peter & Marsteller, 2017).
- Functional Assessment of Problem Behavior: Dispelling Myths, Overcoming Implementation Obstacles, and Developing New Lore (Hanley, 2012).
Also, here is the slide that Jeff discussed, in which he argues how successful isolated contingency analyses can rule out ineffective interventions:
And here is Table 1 from the paper which we also discussed at length:
As with other Inside JABA Series Podcasts, this is a commercial free episode. However, these Inside Series shows are available to purchase as BACB CEU's. There are discounts available for multiple-event purchases, as well as discounts available for those who join the BOP Patreon Group. Details for all of this can be found at behavioralobservations.com.
Lastly, I'd like to make two quick observations before we get to the episode. First, I think all four of us found this discussion to be, in Linda's words, "meandary." Given both the complexity and importance of this issue, I suppose that can be expected, but I do think we tie things up towards the end.
Second, speaking just for myself, in the spirit of transparency, I want to acknowledge the potential bias I hold in favor of the work of Greg Hanley and his colleagues. Greg has been an integral part of the show, having been on multiple times (and garnering the most downloads), and we've partnered together to disseminate his work in the form of CEUs. As such, if some of my "yeah, but" questions sounded like me playing the role of the IISCA's defense lawyer to you, perhaps you're right, despite my intent to examine this paper impartially.