For behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement, a functional analysis is the gold standard for confirming the specific sensory consequences maintaining the behavior. This evidence-based step is ethically necessary before designing a potentially restrictive intervention, as it ensures the intervention is matched to the function. Jumping directly to an intervention (options 1, 2, or 3) without this confirmation is not best practice.

The BCaBA must adhere to the predetermined, objective mastery criterion outlined in the program. Changing the criterion post-hoc (option 1) invalidates the data-based decision-making process. The data show progress but have not yet met the criterion for mastery, so the program should continue. Introducing a new skill (option 0) or a different method (option 3) is premature.

This scenario describes a common issue with treatment integrity. The BCaBA’s role is to support the implementer. The best action is to collaborate with the parent to understand the specific challenges (e.g., timing, pacing, competing demands) and provide supportive coaching to improve fidelity. Blaming the parent (option 0), abandoning an evidence-based procedure (option 1), or significantly altering the reinforcement schedule (option 3) based on escape behavior would likely reinforce noncompliance and undermine the intervention.

An initial increase in problem behavior after implementing a reinforcement-based intervention can occur for several reasons. The BCaBA should systematically assess all common pitfalls: (1) The reinforcement for the new communication must be immediate and potent enough to compete with the problem behavior (option 0). (2) The team must ensure aggression is not being accidentally reinforced (option 1). (3) An extinction burst is a possible, temporary side effect when a previously reinforced behavior no longer works (option 2). A competent BCaBA would assess each of these areas.

Highly variable data in the intervention phase, especially compared to a stable baseline, indicate that the intervention’s effects are inconsistent and not yet demonstrable. It does not prove ineffectiveness (option 1), but it does signal that the BCaBA should not declare success. The next steps are to continue collecting data to see if a trend emerges and/or to analyze why variability is so high (e.g., treatment integrity issues, poorly defined procedures) to modify the intervention. There’s no indication the measurement system itself is faulty (option 3).

Scope of competence is built through training, supervised experience, and feedback. Option 1 describes applying a procedure (preference assessment) for which the BCaBA has received direct, supervised training to a appropriate, similar situation. Option 0 involves venturing into a highly specialized area (feeding disorders) with minimal preparation. Option 2 involves taking on a supervision responsibility for a dangerous behavior without demonstrated competence. Option 3 involves generalizing a procedure to vastly more complex and risky environments without specific training or planning.

The scenario describes a discrimination error. The client is responding to the general question ‘What color is this?’ (the SD) but not to the specific feature of the stimulus (the color of the card). The RBT presented two different colors in quick succession without ensuring the client’s response was under the control of the specific visual stimulus. This indicates a need for better discrimination training, potentially using errorless learning techniques or a more systematic fading of prompts. The other options do not accurately describe the primary error occurring.

Treatment integrity is paramount. The added reprimand constitutes a change to the planned intervention. More importantly, if the function of elopement is attention (a common function), the reprimand, though intended as a punisher, may actually serve as a reinforcing consequence (attention), thereby strengthening the future probability of elopement. The BCaBA must address the integrity violation and the potential functional impact, not resort to punitive measures against the staff (option 2). The ethicality of the original plan is a separate consideration (option 3).

A core principle of ABA is individualization. While a natural sequence (option 0) or a published one (option 1) can be a starting point, the BCaBA must tailor the task analysis to the specific learner. This might involve changing the order to teach reinforcing steps first, to cluster steps the learner can already do, or to order steps in a way that minimizes error and prompt dependency. The sequence is critically important for promoting fluency and independence (option 3 is false).

For behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement, a functional analysis is the gold standard for confirming the specific sensory consequences maintaining the behavior. This evidence-based step is ethically necessary before designing a potentially restrictive intervention, as it ensures the intervention is matched to the function. Jumping directly to an intervention (options 1, 2, or 3) without this confirmation is not best practice.0