After watching the Functional Analysis of Problem Behavior video discuss the following: Importance of conducting a functional analysis. How function

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 1994, 27, 385-392 NUMBER 2 (SUMMER 1994)

THE SIGNIFICANCE AND FUTURE OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES

F. CHARI.ES MAcE

THE UNNERSI1Y OF PENNSYLVANIA

Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982) presented the first comprehensive and stan­ dardized methodology for identifying operant funaions of aberrant behavior. This essay discusses the significance functional analysis has had for applied behavior analysis. The methodology has lessened the field's reliance on default technologies and promoted analysis of environment-behavior interactions maintaining target responses as the basis for selecting treatments. It has also contributed to the integration of basic and applied research. Future directions for this research are suggested.

DESCRIPTORS: functional analysis, behavior modification, behavior analysis

The roots of functional analysis methodologies can be traced to the earliest years of applied be­ havior analysis (e.g., Ayllon & Michael, 1959; Bi­ jou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968). However, the article by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman ( 1982) (reprinted in this issue of JABA) built upon previous theoretical papers (e.g., Carr, 1977) and research methods (e.g., Bijou et al., 1968; Thomas, Becker, & Armstrong, 1968) to formulate the first comprehensive and standardized functional analysis methodology. This methodology, initially applied to the analysis of self-injurious behavior, was soon adapted to analyze environment-behavior inter­ actions that maintained a wide variety of behavior disorders, such as aggression (Mace, Page, Ivancic, & O'Brien, 1986; Wacker et al., 1990), destructive behaviors (Slifer, Ivancic, Parrish, Page, & Burgio, 1986), disordered speech (Mace & Lalli, 1991; Mace, Webb, Sharkey, Mattson, & Rosen, 1988; Mace & West, 1986), stereotypy (Durand & Carr, 1987; Mace, Browder, & Lin, 1987; Wacker et al., 1990), pica (Mace & Knight, 1986), and tan­ trums (Carr & Newsom, 1985).

Since being introduced to functional analysis as an intern at the Kennedy Institute in 1982, I have always considered the methodology to be one of the most significant developments in applied be­ havior analysis. My objectives in this essay are to

offer some perspectives on the importance of func-

Requests for reprints may be addressed to F. Charles Mace, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, 3405 Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.

tional analysis to applied behavioral science and technology development and to suggest some di­ rections for the future evolution and refinement of functional analysis methodologies.

The Significance of Functional Analysis

Beyond behavior modification: A return to behavior analysis. An assumption common to most applications of learning theory aimed at modifi­ cation of socially relevant human behavior is that both adaptive and aberrant behaviors are learned through a history of interactions between an indi­ vidual and the environment (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Bijou & Baer, 1961; Krasner & Ullmann, 1965; Skinner, 1953; Tharp & Wetzel, 1969). The vast majority of these interactions are believed to follow operant paradigms of positive and neg­ ative reinforcement. This history of reinforcement, in tum, influences how an individual responds to current environmental contingencies.

Before applied behavior analysts had a meth­ odology to identify the conditions maintaining ab­ errant behavior, the reinforcement histories that gave rise to current behavior-environment inter­ actions were largely ignored. Instead, existing rep­ ertoires were altered and new ones established by superimposing reinforcement contingencies, pun­ ishment contingencies, or both, onto the current environmental contingencies or unknown processes that maintained aberrant behavior. The approach was known generically as behavior modification. However, without the capacity to explicitly inter­ rupt the events maintaining aberrant behavior, be-

385

386 F. CHARLES MACE

havioral interventions relied on potent reinforcers and/or punishers that could override the conditions that supported problem behavior. Although effec­ tive in many cases, this strategy of overriding the maintaining conditions led to concerns about the field· s overreliance on the default technologies of contingent aversive stimulation and artificial posi­ tive reinforcement (Iwata, 1988; Johnston, 199 la, 1991b; Sherman, 1991).

Behavior modification has also come under fire for its approach to technology development and the treatment philosophies it has spawned (e.g., Dietz, 1978; Hayes, Rincover, & Solnick, 1980; Johnston, 1991a; Mace, 1994; Pierce & Epling, 1980). Technology is directly affected by the scope of research questions posed. Behavior modification research has generally limited itself to the following questions: "What procedures produce behavior change?" "What is the generality of these effects across subjects, behaviors, and settings?" "What are the long-term benefits of this procedure?'· ''What is the relative efficacy of various procedures in treat­ ing the same problem behavior?'· Although these questions certainly have merit, their focus is limited to technical application per se without concern for discovety of the variables that control behavior un­ der natural conditions (Morris, 1991). Thus, if a particular intervention fails to produce behavior change, it is unlikely to be subjected to the tests of generality, long-term benefits, and relative effi­ cacy. Moreover, treatment failures are seldom an­ alyzed to identify the conditions necessary and suf­ ficient for a given class of procedures to result in behavior change. (For example, under what con­ ditions will contingent praise positively reinforce social interaction and result in a concomitant re­ duction in aberrant behavior?)

This approach to technology development also influences the philosophies used to guide treatment selection. For example, in the field of developmen­ tal disabilities, treatments for aberrant behavior are frequently selected following a least-to-most intru­ sive intervention model. Treatments designated as less intrusive are used first and, if ineffective, are followed by interventions that are considered to be progressively more intrusive. Treatments are gen-

erally judged to be effective or ineffective, but are rarely fine-tuned to improve their efficacy. This tendency to abandon initially ineffective treatments may be due to the absence of a rationale for match­ ing a particular treatment to a given individual's behavior disorder (Iwata, Vollmer, Zarcone, &

Rodgers, 1993). A number of studies have now shown that the inefficacy of some nonintrusive treat­ ments may be due to the mismatch between operant function and treatment (Durand & Carr, 1987; Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988) or to a change in operant function over time (Lerman, Iwata, Smith, Zarcone, & Vollmer, 1994) rather than an indi­ cation of the need for more intrusive procedures.

The advent of functional analysis methodologies led to significant shifts in intervention development and treatment philosophy. Although identification of the operant function of an individual's aberrant behavior does not guarantee successful treatment via procedures matched to that function (Iwata, 1988, 1991), over a decade of research has in­ creased confidence in the effectiveness of this treat­ ment model and encouraged its widespread en­ dorsement (Axelrod, 1987; Iwata et al., 1993; Mace, Lalli, & Pinter-Lalli, 1991). For example, a panel convening a 1989 National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on the treatment of destructive behaviors associated with developmen­ tal disabilities recommended that treatment of se­ vere behavior disorders be based on the results of a pretreatment functional analysis (NIH, 1989).

Treatment matched to the operant function of aberrant behavior generally follows two interrelated strategies: (a) weakening the maintaining response­ reinforcer relationship, and (b) establishing or strengthening a response-reinforcer relationship for an adaptive response class that replaces the function of the aberrant one. However, both strategies can take numerous forms and can be tailored to indi­ vidual cases and circumstances. For example, three classes of procedures have been used to weaken response-reinforcer relationships: extinction, re­ sponse-independent reinforcement, and punish­ ment. In the case of extinction, there are numerous operations, both within and across maintaining functions, that can discontinue the reinforcement

387 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

contingency maintatrung aberrant behavior (see Iwata, Pace, Cowdery, & Miltenberger, 1994). For instance, extinction of attention-maintained behav­ ior may consist of planned ignoring (Repp et al., 1988) or time-out (Mace et al., 1986), whereas extinction of escape-maintained behavior may en­ tail continuation of instruction (Mace et al., 1987) or guided compliance (Iwata, Pace, Kalsher, Cow­ dery, & Cataldo, 1990).

The key point here is that numerous treatment options are available when treatment and operant function are matched. Because treatment compo­ nents are selected based on their likelihood to dis­ rupt maintaining contingencies or reinforce adap­ tive replacement behaviors, behavior analysts are encouraged to adjust parameters of reinforcement schedules and discriminative stimuli to achieve de­ sired treatment outcomes before pursuing a differ­ ent course of treatment altogether. The result is an analytic treatment model aimed at identification and manipulation of variables that control socially significant behavior under natural conditions.

Opportunities to apply advances in basic re­ search. Functional analysis methods may also con­ tribute to the integration of basic and applied re­ search by permitting applied behavior analysts to incorporate advances in basic research into the anal­ ysis and treatment of behavior disorders (Mace et al., 1991; Neef, Mace, Shea, & Shade, 1992). Knowing the operant function of aberrant behavior opens the door for applied researchers to concep­ tualize related environment-behavior interactions as basic operant processes. Research that isolates the variables influencing these processes may then prove to be relevant to applied work (see essays by Hayes & Hayes, 1993; Hineline & Wacker, 1993; Iwata & Michael, 1994; Nevin & Mace, in press; Shull & Fuqua, 1993).

Of the numerous areas of basic research with potential for application, three are especially rele­ vant to functional analysis work. Perhaps the most fundamental applied questions are, ''Why does a given behavior problem occur?" and "Why does the behavior persist in the face of treatment pro­ cedures that should be effective?'' Basic research on choice and conceptual analyses of establishing op-

erations are relevant to the first question, and basic studies on behavioral momentum or response strength apply to the second.

Like most behavior, aberrant responses can be conceptualized as choice (Myerson & Hale, 1984). The choice is between allocating responses to the aberrant response class or to one or more concur­ rently available response alternatives. Over three decades of research based on Herrnstein's matching law (Herrnstein, 1961, 1970) has demonstrated that patterns of response allocation across concur­ rent alternatives are orderly and are a function of relative reinforcer rates and amounts, reinforcer quality, reinforcer delay, and response force or effort (Davison & McCarthy, 1988). When the effects of relative reinforcer deprivation and satiation are also considered (Iwata et al., 1993; Michael, 1982, 1993), it becomes apparent that aberrant respond­ ing is controlled by several factors that may be targets for manipulation in a treatment protocol (Mace, Lalli, & Shea, 1992; Mace & Shea, 1991). For example, a functional analysis may show that a child's aggressive behavior is maintained by pa­ rental reprimands delivered on a variable-ratio (VR) 8 schedule. To discourage allocation of behavior to aggression, a treatment could be designed that ar­ ranged high-rate (continuous reinforcement) and high-quality parental attention (affectionate praise) for appropriate social interaction, while discontin­ uing the contingency between aggression and at­ tention (i.e., extinction). The intervention could be further strengthened by teaching appropriate social interaction following periods of low adult attention in order to increase the reinforcing value of parental attention (Vollmer & Iwata, 1991). The general treatment strategy illustrated in this example is to shift response-allocation patterns away from aber­ rant behavior and toward adaptive replacement re­ sponses through deliberate manipulation of estab­ lishing stimuli and the variables that affect choice.

However, even well-designed treatments may not rapidly reduce rates of aberrant behavior. Sev­ eral basic research studies have shown that despite extinction, satiation, alternative reinforcement, dis­ traction, and punishment, reinforced behavior per­ sists or has momentum over time (Cohen, Riley,

388 F. CHARLES MACE

& Weigle, 1993; Nevin, Mandel, & Atak, 1983; Nevin, Tota, Torquato, & Shull, 1990). A con­ sistent finding across species and environmental challenges to the respon~reinforcer relation is that behavior is more persistent under stimulus condi­ tions that are correlated with higher baseline rates of reinforcement. Of particular significance to ap­ plied work is the fact that this effect occurs re­ gardless of whether reinforcement is contingent on the target response, is delivered noncontingently, or is arranged for a concurrently available response (Nevin et al., 1990). This fundamental property of reinforced behavior seems to be relevant to the treatment of behavior disorders, especially when the maintaining reinforcer can be identified via functional analysis.

Several investigators have drawn upon Nevin's basic research on behavioral momentum to for­ mulate novel treatments for noncompliance. By arranging high-rate reinforcement for a class of re­ sponses called ''compliance'' immediately before issuing a request to perform a task with a low­ probability of compliance, clinicians were able to establish a "momentum" of compliant behavior that resisted the challenge of the low-probability requests (Davis, Brady, Williams, & Hamilton, 1992; Mace, Hock, et al., 1988; Singer, Singer, & Horner, 1987). However, when the persistence of a specific aberrant response, such as self-injury, is encountered during treatment, the traditional in­ tervention of extinction plus alternative reinforce­ ment may actually prove to be counterproductive if Nevin's findings with pigeons generalize to hu­ man behavior problems. That is, alternative rein­ forcement, when presented in a context correlated with the occurrence of self-injury, may actually in­ crease the persistence of self-injury, requiring longer to reach treatment goals, even though the rate of self-injury may be reduced by the intervention (Mace, 1994; Nevin & Mace, in press). If this occurs, different treatment sequences may be used to avoid correlating aberrant behavior with high­ rate alternative reinforcement. Of course, such hy­ potheses warrant rigorous examination by applied researchers before treatment practices are altered. However, the important message here is that func-

tional analysis permits investigation of research questions that could not be seriously considered only a decade ago.

Future Directions for Functional Analysis

Numerous functional analysis methodologies have been reported in the literature, each with its attendant strengths and limitations. Indirect meth­ ods, such as rating scales completed by a client's care provider (e.g., Motivational Assessment Scale; Durand & Crimmins, 1988), are convenient to administer and have the potential to assess the function of aberrant behavior in the natural envi­ ronment. The principal and significant limitation of ratings scales is that the findings are unreliable when compared to direct and detailed assessments of behavior (Zarcone, Rodgers, Iwata, Rourke, &

Dorsey, 1991). Descriptive methods use direct ob­ servations of client behavior and environmental events in natural settings to formulate data-based hypotheses about the operant function of aberrant behavior. Although descriptive analysis can provide information about the idiosyncratic reactions of care providers to problem behavior and provide esti­ mates of natural schedules of reinforcement, the data collection methods are difficult to standardize, and the resulting data are correlational by nature and, therefore, must be interpreted with consid­ erable caution (Lerman & Iwata, 1993; Mace &

Lalli, 1991). Finally, experimental methods isolate and control contingencies that may maintain an individual's aberrant behavior using standardized procedures that are analogues of naturally occurring situations. They provide a direct and reliable means of identifying functional relations. The major lim­ itations of experimental analyses are that they may overlook important variables that operate in the client's natural setting, and, hence, the results may not generalize outside the analogue conditions (Hal­ le & Spradlin, 1993; Lerman & Iwata, 1993; Mace & Shea, 1991).

Given the respective strengths and limitations of available functional analysis methods, in what di­ rection should the methodology evolve toward the goal of identifying the operant function of naturally

389 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

occurring aberrant behavior? I believe there are two answers to this question. First, the operant function of many cases of aberrant behavior can be accurately identified with existing methodologies. Moreover, several investigators have shown that brief and sim­ plified methods of functional analysis can be useful for selecting effective treatments. For example, Wacker and his colleagues (Cooper, Wacker, Sasso, Reimers, & Donn, 1990; Derby et al., 1992; Nor­ thup et al., 1991) have developed a 90-min as­ sessment for use in outpatient clinics based on Iwata et al.'s (1982) model. Clients are presented with different analogue conditions in 10-min sessions to assess whether their aberrant or appropriate behav­ ior is sensitive to one or more environmental con­ tingencies. Preliminary studies have reponed mod­ erate correspondence between results of brief functional assessments and extended experimental analyses (Rodgers, Zarcone, & Iwata, 1990). An­ other efficient approach to functional analysis and treatment of behavior disorders has been to imple­ ment multiple treatments matched to different pos­ sible functions of the aberrant target response (e.g., escape and attention). If the aberrant behavior is responsive to one but not the other treatments, it may be reasonable to infer the operant function of the behavior based on the differential effectiveness of the treatments (Repp et al., 1988; Lalli, Brow­ der, Mace, & Brown, 1993). Using either strategy, the acid test is the effectiveness of analysis-based treatments. If these efficient and abbreviated func­ tional assessments can lead to effective treatment, there may be little reason to conduct more extensive and comprehensive forms of functional analysis.

The second answer to the question of which direction functional analysis methodologies should evolve concerns strategies for use with individuals with difficult-to-treat behavior disorders. It may be reasonable to conclude that, if treatment based on the results of an abbreviated functional analysis proves to be ineffective, the analysis lacked internal or external validity. That is, an operant function was not identified by the assessment (internal va­ lidity), or the operant function detected in the as­ sessment did not hold in the individual's natural environment (external validity). In such circum-

stances, the behavior analyst has the option of con­ ducting an extended experimental analysis char­ acteristic of the Iwata et al. (1982) model or combining descriptive and experimental methods to design individualized assessment conditions (Mace & Lalli, 1991). With the latter approach, the nat­ urally occurring consequences for target behaviors and the schedules in which these consequences are arranged are incorporated into the design of ana­ logue experimental conditions. The goal is to in­ crease the external validity of the experimental anal­ ysis, thereby increasing confidence that the results will generalize outside the experimental setting. Al­ though the combination of descriptive and exper­ imental methods has cenain advantages, it can also be time consuming and complicated to execute-­ panicularly the data collection and data analysis portions of the descriptive analysis. Additional work is needed to standardize descriptive analysis meth­ ods and make them easier to use on a wide-scale basis. In any case, whether experimental methods are used alone or in combination with descriptive assessments, our greatest confidence should rest on the findings from the experimental analysis. This is especially true when descriptive and experimental findings correspond. However, when no naturalistic observations are available or when descriptive and experimental findings are discordant, conclusions about the operant function of a behavior problem under natural conditions are best tempered, at least until treatments based on the analysis prove to be effective.

I want to observe, in conclusion, that the func­ tional analysis of aberrant behavior has made tre­ mendous advances since and because of the Iwata et al. (1982) publication. It has revolutionized how behavior analysts conceptualize and treat behavior disorders. Perhaps more significantly, it has renewed the analytic spirit in applied behavioral psychology and has contributed to closer connections between the basic and applied analysis of behavior. Evo­ lution of functional analysis methodologies is in­ evitable and is to be encouraged. We can be con­ fident that the next decade will provide us with improved technologies to identify the operant func­ tion of a wide range of behavior disorders.

390 F. CHARLES MACE

REFERENCES

Axelrod, S. (1987). Functional and structural analyses of behavior: Approaches leading to reduced use of punish­ ment procedures. Research in Developmental Disabil­ ities, 8, 165-178.

Ayllon, T., & Michael, J. (1959). The psychiatric nurse as a behavioral engineer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2, 323-334.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.

Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1961). Child development: I. A systematic and empirical theory. New York: Ap­ pleton-Century-Crofts.

Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Jour­ nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175-191.

Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious be­ havior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bul­ letin, 84, 800-816.

Carr, E. G., & Newsom, C. (1985). Demand-related tan­ trums. Behavior Modification, 9, 403-426.

Cohen, S. L., Riley, D. S., & Weigle, P. A. (1993). Tests of behavior momentum in simple and multiple schedules with rats and pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 255-291.

Cooper, L. J ., Wacker, D. P., Sasso, G. M., Reimers, T. M., & Donn, L. K. (1990). Using parents as therapists to evaluate appropriate behavior of their children: Appli­ cation to a tertiary diagnostic clinic. journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 285-296.

Davis, C. A., Brady, M. P., Williams, R. E., & Hamilton, R. (1992). Effects of high-probability requests on the acquisition and generalization of responses to requests in young children with behavior disorders. journal of Ap­ plied Behavior Analysis, 25, 905-916.

Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Nor­ thup, J., Cigrand, K., & Asmus, J. (1992). Brieffunc­ tional assessment techniques to evaluate aberrant behav­ ior in an outpatient setting: A summary of 79 cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 713-721.

Dietz, S. M. ( 1978). Current status of applied behavior analysis. American Psychologist, 33, 805-814.

Durand, V. M., & Carr, E. G. (1987). Social influences on "self-stimulatory" behavior: Analysis and treatment application.journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 119-132.

Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99-117.

Halle,]. W., & Spradlin,]. E. (1993). Identifying stimulus control of challenging behavior. In J. Reichele & D. Wacker (Eds.), Communicative alternatives to chal­ lenging behavior (pp. 83-109). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Applied implications

of current}EAB research on derived relations and delayed reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 507-511.

Hayes, S. C., Rincover, A., & Solnick, J. V. (1980). The technical drift of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 275-285.

Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.

Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the Jaw of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243-266.

Hineline, P. N., & Wacker, D. P. (1993). JEAB, No­ vember '92: What's in it for the]ABA reader? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 269-274.

Iwata, B. A. ( 1988). The development and adoption of controversial default technologies. The Behavior Ana­ lyst, 11, 149-157.

Iwata, B. A. (1991). Applied behavior analysis as tech­ nological science.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 421-424.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M., Slifer, K., Bauman, K., & Richman, G. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabil­ ities, 2, 3-20.

Iwata, B. A., & Michael,]. L. (1994). Applied implications of theory and research on the nature of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 183-193.

Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Cowdery, G. E., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1994). What makes extinction work?: An anal­ ysis of procedural form and function.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 131-144.

Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Kalsher, M. J., Cowdery, G. E., & Cataldo, M. F. (1990). Experimental analysis and extinction of self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 11-27.

Iwata, B. A., Vollmer, T. R., Zarcone, J. R., & Rodgers, T. A. (1993). Treatment classification and selection based on behavioral function. In R. Van Houten & S. Axelrod (Eds.), Behavior analysis and treatment (pp. 101-12 5). New York: Plenum.

Johnston, J. M. (1991a). We need a new model of tech­ nology.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 425- 428.

Johnston,]. M. (1991b). What can behavior analysis learn from the aversives controversy? The Behavior Analyst, 14, 187-196.

Krasner, L., & Ullmann, L. P. ( 1965). Research in behavior modification. New York: Holt.

Lalli, J. S., Browder, D. M., Mace, F. C., & Brown, K. (1993). Teacher use of descriptive analysis data to im­ plement interventions to decrease students' maladaptive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 227-238.

Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1993). Descriptive and experimental analyses of variables maintaining self-in­ jurious behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 293-319.

Lerman, D. C., Iwata, B. A., Smith, R. G., Zarcone, J. R., & Vollmer, T. R. (1994). Transfer of behavioral func-

391 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

tion as a contributing factor in treatment relapse.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 357-370.

Mace, F. C. (1994). Basic research needed for stimulating the development of behavioral technologies. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 529-550.

Mace, F. C., Browder, D., &. Lin, Y. ( 1987). Analysis of demand conditions associated with stereotypy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 18, 25-31.

Mace, F. C., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West, B. J., Belfiore, P., Pinter, E., &. Brown, D. K. (1988). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 123-141.

Mace, F. C., &. Knight, D. (1986). Functional analysis and treatment of severe pica. Journ

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.