Further analysis of subtypes of automatically reinforced SIB: A replication and quantitative analysis of published datasets

Abstract

Hagopian, Rooker, and Zarcone (2015) evaluated a model for subtyping automatically reinforced self-injurious behavior (SIB) based on its sensitivity to changes in functional analysis conditions and the presence of self-restraint. The current study tested the generality of the model by applying it to all datasets of automatically reinforced SIB published from 1982 to 2015. We identified 49 datasets that included sufficient data to permit subtyping. Similar to the original study, Subtype-1 SIB was generally amenable to treatment using reinforcement alone, whereas Subtype-2 SIB was not. Conclusions could not be drawn about Subtype-3 SIB due to the small number of datasets. Nevertheless, the findings support the generality of the model and suggest that sensitivity of SIB to disruption by alternative reinforcement is an important dimension of automatically reinforced SIB. Findings also suggest that automatically reinforced SIB should no longer be considered a single category and that additional research is needed to better understand and treat Subtype-2 SIB.

Keywords: automatic reinforcement; functional analysis; self-injurious behavior.

© 2016 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.

Figures

Figure 1

Percentage differentiation between play and the relevant test condition in the functional analysis for each individual by group for the replication study (top panel) and Hagopian et al., 2015 (bottom panel). Mean percentage for each group is indicated by the horizontal bold lines.

Figure 2

Number of applications and number of positive outcomes for each type of treatment component by subtype for the replication study (top panel) and Hagopian et al., 2015 (bottom panel). For this analysis, a positive outcome was defined as an 80% reduction from the initial baseline.

Figure 3

Relation between differentiation in the functional analysis and percentage reduction of SIB for each subtype with reinforcement during treatment for replication study (top panel) and Hagopian et al., 2015 (bottom panel). The trend line represents the linear relation between these two variables, which was statistically significant (top panel: Pearson r = 0.72, p < .0001; bottom panel: Pearson r = 0.61, p < .0001).