Introduction

Welcome back to the Behaviorist Book Club! In this bonus episode, we explore Morris et al.’s (2023) case study on multiply controlled problem behavior. This episode builds on the isolated versus synthesized FA debate and focuses on clinical implications for functional communication training (FCT).

1. Background: Isolated vs. Synthesized Functional Analyses

Over the past decade, debate has grown between multi-element (isolated) FA and interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA). While isolated FA tests putative reinforcers separately (attention, escape, tangible), IISCA combines contingencies based on interviews and observations. Both approaches work, but clinically, we need efficient assessments that inform treatment.

2. What Is Multiply Controlled Behavior?

Multiply controlled behavior occurs when a single response class is maintained by more than one reinforcer in isolation. Unlike synthesized reinforcement (combined EOs needed), multiply controlled responses are reinforced by each EO independently. FA data for multiply controlled behavior show high rates in two or more isolated conditions.

3. Why This Matters

If all FA conditions produce high rates, suspect multiply controlled behavior or medical variables. Isolated FA can detect multiple independent functions, while IISCA cannot distinguish between synthesized and multiple functions.

4. Morris et al. (2023) Case Study Overview

• Article: “Multiple Isolated Functions of Problematic Behavior: A Case Study”
• Journal: Behavior Analysis in Practice (2023)
• Purpose: Use an isolated FA to identify multiple functions and implement separate FCT interventions for each.

5. Participant and Setting

15-year-old male with Angelman syndrome, history of self-injury and aggression, no functional communication skills. Sessions occurred in a regional behavioral clinic.

6. Functional Analysis

Brief isolated FA with 5-min sessions across attention, tangible, escape, and play conditions. Results:

• High behavior rates in tangible and escape conditions.
• Near-zero rates in attention and play conditions.

Interpretation: Multiply controlled by escape and tangible access.

7. Intervention: Two Isolated FCT Conditions

Two separate FCT interventions targeted escape and tangible reinforcement independently. Key steps:

• EO arranged (remove toys for tangible, present demands for escape).
• Prompt and reinforce FCR (card exchange) with the correct reinforcer only.
• No cross-reinforcement between functions.

Outcome: Problem behavior decreased to near zero in both conditions; FCR rates increased significantly.

8. Clinical Implications

When to Use Isolated vs. Synthesized FCT

• Multiply controlled: Teach separate FCRs for each EO.
• Synthesized: Use one FCR for combined reinforcers when EOs co-occur frequently.

Decision factors: client ability to discriminate, caregiver resources, EO co-occurrence, and sustainability.

9. Key Takeaways

1. Multiply controlled behavior is common and detectable with isolated FA.
2. Synthesized FA cannot distinguish multiple isolated functions.
3. Separate FCT interventions can effectively reduce challenging behavior without over-reinforcing.
4. Tailor approach to client, caregivers, and context.

10. Recommended Reading

• Iwata et al. (1994) – Isolated FA methodology.
• Hanley et al. (2014) – Synthesized FA approach.
• Fisher et al. (2015) – Comparing synthesized vs. isolated analyses.
• Morris et al. (2023) – Full case study.

11. Community & Next Steps

Join our ABA Café Facebook Group to discuss articles and share resources. Subscribe to the Behaviorist Book Club podcast for upcoming discussions on decision models for function-based interventions.