Advertisement

Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 468–470 | Cite as

Correction to: Investigation of Functional Analysis Methodology in Adult Service Programs to Develop Efficient and Effective Treatment Approaches

  • Cynthia M. AndersonEmail author
  • Sarah A. Weddle
  • Margaret L. Walsh
  • Jaclyn Guglielmo
Correction
  • 133 Downloads

Correction to: Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-019-00118-w

The authors would like to correct three errors, none of which change the conclusions or interpretations presented. First, the text within the condition column label on Table 1 does not align with the corresponding description of the condition. The condition labels should be aligned with the description of the functional analysis conditions tested for each participant. Second, the symbol key for Fig. 1 was missing the labels which identify the condition being tested in the standard functional analysis. For both we neglected to detect the omissions and formatting errors that occurred when the final submission was converted to a proof. Third, Carlie’s problem behavior for session 1 occurred at 2.4 responses per minute, and not 2.7 responses per minute as Fig. 1 depicted in the original article. This was an unintentional error during data entry.
Table 1

Description of standard functional analysis (FA) and IISCA conditions for Carlie, Parker, and Whitney

Participant

Standard FA

IISCA

Condition

Description

Condition

Description

Carlie

Escape

EO: sorting colored socks

C: 20-s break

Escape to attention + tangible test

EO: removal of tablet, sorting colored socks, diverted attention

C: 30-s break from task, statement of concern, access to tablet for 30-s, redirections and statements of

Tangible

EO: tablet removed

C: 20-s access to tablet

 

Attention

EO: attention diverted

C: 20-s redirections and statements of concern

 

Control

Continuous attention and tablet, no demands

Control

Continuous attention and tablet, no demands

Parker

Escape

EO: fine motor demand with modeling clay (roll into forms)

C: 30-s break

Escape to attention test

EO: fine motor demand with modeling clay/stuffing envelopes & diverted attention

C: 30-s break with redirection and statement of concern

 

Attention

EO: diverted attention

C: 30-s redirection and statement of concern

 

Control

Continuous attention, preferred activity (shredding papers), no demands

Control

Continuous attention, preferred activity (shredding papers), no demands

Whitney

Escape

EO: fine motor task (inserting dominoes into a container with opening)

C: 20-s break

Escape to attention test

EO: fine motor task (inserting dominoes into container with opening) & diverted attention

C: 30-s break from task, redirection and statement of concern

Attention

EO: diverted Attention

C: 20-s redirections or statements of concern

 

Control

Continuous attention, preferred tangible (bean bag chair), no demands

Control

Continuous attention, preferred tangible (bean bag chair), no demands

EO establishing operation for problem behavior. C consequence provided contingent on problem behavior.

Fig. 1

Problem behavior per minute for standard FA and IISCA for Carlie, Parker, and Whitney

The original article has been corrected.

Notes

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.May InstituteRandolphUSA

Personalised recommendations