1. FA symp. Co-discussant May, 2016
Of All Things, Why an IISCA?
Gregory P. Hanley. Ph.D., BCBA-D
FA symp. Co-discussant
May, 2016
Great talks, well presented.
I will now try to distill in 6 min what it has taken over 24 years for me to learn.
For more information, go to:

2. Agreement
We agree that problem behavior is a learned response under control of environmental contingencies.
We agree that an analysis should be part of the functional assessment process.
We agree that Harleys are better than Hondas.
We agree that Wayne is taller
and Joshua is better looking
Yes, there is some disagreement among those supposedly expert in conducting functional assessments of problem behavior.
But let’s at least start on our common ground.
We agree that problem behavior is a learned response under control of environmental contingencies.
We agree that an analysis should be part of the functional assessment process.
We agree that Harleys are better than Hondas.
We agree that Wayne is taller and Joshua Jessel is better looking

3. Disagreement
When confronted with SPB, Wayne et al. recommends conducting a functional analysis with these features:
Multiple test conditions
Kinda individualized test conditions
Isolated test contingencies
Toy-play control conditions
Reinforce dangerous behavior
*with conduct of more personalized analysis following failure of this more generic analysis
When confronted with SPB, my team recommends conducting an open-ended interview and then an informed analysis with these features:
Single-test condition
Individualized test conditions
Synthesized contingencies
Test-matched control
Reinforce precursors to and dangerous behavior I S C A
Our main disagreement is this. When confronted with SPB, Wayne et al. recommends conducting a functional analysis with these features. ***And when this fails, which is probably more than half of the time, Wayne recommends an interview- or observation-based test control analysis.
By contrast, when confronted with SPB, my team recommends conducting an open-ended interview and then an informed analysis with these features. We have come to call this sort of analysis an IISCA. Yes, people nowadays conduct interviews to identify topography, demand types, etc. but we use the interview to identify the reinforcing contingencies that are co-occurring around problem behavior and its precursors. And sometimes these contingencies do not fall easily into the generic categories of attention, escape, or tangible.

4. Disagreement
Wayne and many others believe that a standard functional analysis is a gold standard.
I think: Oh my.
Oh my science.
Our other disagreement is that while Wayne and many others believe that a standard functional analysis is a gold standard. I do not.
When I hear that gold standard phrase with respect to a standard analysis, I think: Oh my. Oh my science.
As though the standard analysis could not be wrong?
As though it could never implicate one contingency when others are operating?
As though interactions could never occur because this “gold” standard cannot capture them?
As though all other ways of understanding the variables controlling problem behavior are vaganotic currencies whose value is derived only from the gold standard?!
Oh my, oh my science.

5. Main assertion effective action.
When there are different outcomes between two analyses, the one that has been around longer does not necessarily trump the findings of the other.
The truth can be found in
effective action.
- Treatment effects
- Speed of process
- Acceptability/adoptability of practice
When there are different outcome between two analyses, the one that has been around longer does not necessarily trump the findings of the other.
Just because a standard analysis reveals control by only some of the contingencies from an IISCA, does not mean those other contingencies are irrelevant to the control of problem behavior. That is not enough evidence to say that. Especially given that we have a number of intervention and prevention studies showing the relevance of those other contingencies in treatment.
It is hard or perhaps impossible to prove something is irrelevant in science (you can rule in reinforcers easily enough, but ruling out, that is much harder).
When two different analysis types are both differentiated, the truth can be found by detecting which leads to more effective action. Jessica’ study showed that effective action was much more likely following an IISCA.

6. Why an IISCA? Because interactions exist.
1. Because interacting contingencies are prevalent and usually more powerful than isolated contingencies
We are seeing them now because we are looking for them
But they have been in the literature without a name since 1965 (e.g., Sailor et al.)
Slaton et al., under review, JABA
Interacting contingencies are prevalent and that is clear now that we are explicitly looking for them.
Just as it was a big mistake to think that control by tangibles was rare, it is currently a mistake to think multiple control is rare. It is also a mistake to think that reinforcers do not go well together.
Kids don’t escape to nothing. We escape from things to things.
Tv shows are more enjoyable when the alternative is chores
Postponing chores is more likely when there is something else to do like bingewatching Breaking Bad
The question is which is better: an isolated contingency or a synthesized contingency.
How many of you will go down to starbucks tomorrow and order flour, …… eggs, cinnamon, vanilla, vegetable oil? Or how many will go down and order a slice of their coffee cake. I will walk downstairs and spend 4.99 on the latter, but I won’t walk at all for the isolated components.
Do you care whether my behavior, which can be turned on and off with the coffee cake, is maintained by components a-f, a and f, a only (just the sugar, sugar). Of course you don’t. Why do we care about these same things with the kids with problem behavior? Because that is how we have been taught. Because we will see only what are language allows us to see (attention, escape). Because doing so seems more analytic and scientific. Because thinking differently is punished.
If you can be fast, safe, and effective with the coffee cake for your clients, why not just work with the coffee cake?*** Why spend the resources deconstructing the cake when it exists as a whole in their world. Why spend the resources deconstructing the cake only to find that when you do, you have taken something that was valuable, and now made it tasteless.

7. Why an IISCA? Because it works.
2. It is faster
25 min for analysis; 1-2 hours for FA process in 80% of cases
Jessel et al., in press, JABA
3. It yields strong control more often
It is safe for use in many more contexts (e.g., homes, classrooms)
It allows for practical, function-based Rx w/o Pun or Arb Sr
See Hanley et al., 2014; Santiago et al., 2015, Ghaemmaghami et al. in press, JABA
It allows for delay tolerance training to occur under challenging conditions (this promotes generality of treatment)
See Ghaemmaghami et al., in press, JABA
Why an IISCA? Because it works.

8. Why an IISCA? Because it works.
4. It is differentiated more often
See Slaton et al. (today) & Hagopian et al., 2013
5. It yields socially validated outcomes
See Hanley et al., 2014,: Santiago et al., 2015
As of yet, not seen with treatments from standard analyses
6. Because functional analysis has been around for over 50 years and even most BCBAs are not conducting them when confronted with severe problem behavior
Ellingson et al., 1999; Oliver et al., 2015; Roscoe et al., 2015
Why an IISCA? Because it works … and because thousands of practitioners need something that works for them.

9. Why an IISCA? Because it affords me the right knowledge.
Because there are always things you won’t know about the controlling variables for problem behavior
What are you willing to not know?
Know that you can turn off problem behavior in your analysis.
Because there are always things you won’t know about the controlling variables for problem behavior, no matter which or how any analyses you conduct.
The trick is knowing what is okay not to know.
I am okay not knowing whether I can show sensitivity to single contingencies.
I am not okay not knowing how to turn off problem behavior immediately (and then turn it on).
I am not okay unless we have treatment effects validated by caregivers.
Make these your gold standards.

10. For more information go to:
As research and practice in this area unfolds, you will be able to find it here.
Thank you.