Behavior Analysis in Practice

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 417–423 | Cite as

Rapid Assessment of Attention Types for the Treatment of Attention-Maintained Problem Behavior

  • Craig W. StrohmeierEmail author
  • Carolyn Crysdale
  • Suni Schwandtner
Brief Practice


In the current study, we expanded previously described attention assessment procedures (e.g., Piazza et al., 1999) to create a rapid assessment of attention types (RAAT) suitable for clinical and educational settings. The RAAT was developed to identify a form of attention most likely to reinforce functionally equivalent alternatives to problem behavior. We describe the procedures for conducting a RAAT, as well as the results of a treatment evaluation that included two attention types from the RAAT, programmed to increase prosocial alternative behaviors.


Functional analysis Attention assessment Problem behavior Replacement behavior 



The authors would like to thank Dr. Justin Boyd for generating an early version of the schematic (Fig. 1).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fisher, W. W., Ninness, H. A., Piazza, C. C., & Owen-DeSchryver, J. S. (1996). On the reinforcing effects of the content of verbal attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(2), 235–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (2006). Some determinants of changes in preference over time. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(2), 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Thompson, R. H. (2001). Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment with functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(1), 17–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kodak, T., Northup, J., & Kelley, M. E. (2007). An evaluation of the types of attention that maintain problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(1), 167–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Contrucci, S. A., Delia, M. D., Adelinis, J. D., & Goh, H. L. (1999). An evaluation of the properties of attention as reinforcement for destructive and appropriate behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(4), 437–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Roane, H. S., Fisher, W. W., Sgro, G. M., Falcomata, T. S., & Pabico, R. R. (2004). An alternative method of thinning reinforcer delivery during differential reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37(2), 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Roane, H. S., Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., & Marcus, B. A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(4), 605–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Craig W. Strohmeier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carolyn Crysdale
    • 1
    • 2
  • Suni Schwandtner
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Behavioral Psychology, Neurobehavioral Unit Outpatient ClinicKennedy Krieger InstituteColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Little Leaves Behavioral ServicesSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations