University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Evaluating the effectiveness of interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis for survivors of traumatic brain injury

(USC Thesis Other)

Evaluating the effectiveness of interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis for survivors of traumatic brain injury

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
Copyright 2020 Lauren M. Servellon

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis for
Survivors of Traumatic Brain Injury

by

Lauren M. Servellon

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC DORNSIFE COLLEGE OF LETTERS, ARTS, AND SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

August 2020

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………… iii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 1
Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………... 3
Participants.………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Settings…………………………………………………………………………………… 5
Response Measure and Interobserver Agreement.……………………………………….. 5
Experimental Design.…………………………………………………………………….. 6
Procedures.……………………………………………………………………………….. 6
Open-Ended Interview.…………………………………………………………... 6
IISCA…………………………………………………………………………….. 7
FCT………………………………………………………………………………. 8
Caregiver Training and Generalization.………………………………………….. 8
Social Validity…………………………………………………………………… 9
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………10
Sam.……………………………………………………………………………………...10
Tom.…………………………………………………………………………………….. 11
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………. 12
References………………………………………………………………………………………. 15

iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Frequency of verbal aggression per session for Sam and Tom across baseline and
treatment conditions………………………………………………………………… 14

iv
ABSTRACT
Life after traumatic brain injury (TBI) can result in various new challenging behaviors
that influence not only the TBI survivor but their caregivers as well. This study used an
Interview Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) to identify the function of verbal
aggression of two adult males with TBI; evaluated an individualized treatment plan to replace the
identified verbal aggression with functional communication; and trained caregivers to support
the survivors use of functional communication in their daily lives. A multi-element design was
embedded within the baseline condition to compare the control and test conditions of the
functional analysis, and a multiple baseline design across participants was used to evaluate the
functional communication training for survivors. Results suggest the IISCA effectively identified
the function of the survivors’ behavior, and individualized function-based treatments were
effective in reducing verbal aggression. Simultaneously, the functional communication for both
survivors increased across settings with the researcher and caregivers.

1
Introduction
Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the leading causes of long-term disability in the
United States and was the cause of nearly 2.8 million emergency department visits,
hospitalizations, and deaths due to TBI in 2014 (Center for Disease Control and Prevention,
2019). It is estimated that 3.2 million to 5.3 million Americans are living with a TBI related
disability (Thurman et al., 1999; Zaloshnja et al., 2008), and it has been suggested that adults and
adolescents with TBI are twice as likely to die 3.5 years after discharge than persons of the same
age, race, and sex of the general population (Harrison et al., 2012). Furthermore, some subgroups
of Americans are disproportionately affected by TBI, such as military personal. According to the
Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC, 2020), 413,858 service members were
diagnosed with a TBI between 2000-2019.
Behavior analytic interventions have been effective within the TBI community to both re-
teach a variety of lost skills and reduce problematic behavior after injury (Heinicke & Carr,
2014). For example, Davis and Chittum (1994) successfully implemented an interdependent
group contingency to increase engagement in leisure activities for adults with TBI, while Tasky
et al. (2008) implemented antecedent interventions (e.g., choice) to increase on-task behavior in
adults with TBI. Similarly, Hartnedy et al. (2000) increased nutritional intake by systematically
decreasing environmental stimulation (e.g., noise, number of peers sitting at table). Arco et al.
(2004) demonstrated the effectiveness of decreasing behavior within the TBI community by
successfully reducing impulsive behavior in social settings through self-regulation. Additionally,
treatment packages have been implemented to reduce behaviors, such as combining rules,
tokens, and motivators to decrease disruptive behavior (Mottram & Berger-Gross, 2004), and

2
combining response blocking with guided compliance to decrease public masturbation (Dufrane
et al., 2008).
Differential reinforcement procedures have been proposed as an effective behavioral
intervention for decreasing challenging behaviors for individuals with TBI. In 2000, Yody et al.
implemented the combination of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) procedure
along with a token economy to reduce medication refusal, elopement, and physical and verbal
aggression for an adult male with a TBI. Heinicke et al. (2009) also used a token economy and
contingency specific rules, along with differential reinforcement to decrease latency to comply
with instructions of an adolescent girl with brain injury. Research by Hegel and Ferguson (2009)
demonstrated the effectiveness of DRO for reducing aggressive, disruptive behavior with a non-
vocal, non-ambulatory adult male who was 10 years post head injury.
Functional analysis (FA) has become the gold standard within applied behavior analysis
for identify the underlying cause (i.e. function) of problematic behavior and the contingencies
that maintain behavior, however, there is limited research using functional assessments within
the TBI community (Heinicke & Carr, 2014). The few studies that have implemented a FA in the
TBI population have shown it can be helpful for reducing a variety of behaviors, such as
perseverative verbal behavior (Quearry & Lundervold, 2016) and delusional statements (Travis
& Sturmey, 2010). In 2010, Dolezal and Kurtz further established the validity of using FA results
to individualize treatment by effectively reducing aggression, destruction, and disruption in an
adolescent male with a TBI.
Experimental functional analyses are often excluded from treatment plans due to
concerns over a lack of time, funding, resources, client and staff safety, or even caregiver buy-in.
However, research supports the use of combining contingencies in FAs to identify the function

3
of behavior at a potentially safer and faster rate (Ghaemmaghami et al., 2016; Jessel et al., 2016;
Santiago et al., 2016: Slanton et al., 2017). Research by Hanley and colleagues (2014) used an
Interview Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) to combine information gathered
by both indirect assessments (e.g., open-ended interviews) and descriptive assessments (e.g.,
direct observations) to determine the combined contingencies that are hypothesized to maintain
the problem behavior in natural settings. By implementing the IISCA, Hanley and colleagues
were able to reduce problem behavior for children with autism and teach appropriate, alternative
behavior to obtain the identified reinforcer. Overall, research on the IISCA has shown that it is
efficient, safe, and reliably provides useful results for treatment planning.
While the IISCA has been an effective assessment tool within the autism community,
there has been no previously published research, of which we are aware, on the use of the IISCA
within the TBI population. The purpose of this study is to extend research on the IISCA by
identifying the functions of verbal aggression in adults with TBI, evaluating an individualized
treatment plan to use functional communication to replace verbal aggression, and to train
caregivers to support survivors use of functional communication in their daily lives.
Methods
Participants
Participants, referred to from this point on as survivors, were recruited for this study via
flyers posted at Brain Rehabilitation and Injury Network (BRAIN), a non-profit recovery and
resource center for adults who have suffered a brain injury. Criteria for brain injury survivors to
participate in this study included (a) they sustained at least one mild to moderate traumatic brain
injury, (b) were at least 18 years old, (c) had the ability to follow instructions, (d) had a basic
manding repertoire (e.g. requesting via vocal speech, use of an electronic communication device,
use of printed word cards, or sign language) to communicate wants and needs, and (d) engage in

4
verbal aggression (e.g. yelling, screaming, cursing, verbal threats). Criteria for the caregiver
included (a) know the traumatic brain injury survivor who is participating in the study, (b) have
observed the survivor engage in verbal aggression, and (c) regularly interact with the survivor.
Participation in this study was free of charge to all survivors.
Two survivors met the criteria to participate in this study. Both survivors could follow
instructions and used vocal communication to express their wants and needs. Sam was 57 years
old and was 2 years post head injury, which he sustained as a result of a fall. His caregiver was
his wife, Helen. It was reported that Sam had outbursts of yelling and cursing when he was
frustrated. For example, when his wife told him “You can’t drive, you have a brain injury.” Sam
yelled back, “I’ve been driving since I was a (expletive) teenager.” It was reported that Sam
engaged in challenging behaviors multiple times per week with his wife and their three adult
children.
Tom was 38 years old and was 6 years post injury, which he sustained as a result of a
physical assault. His caregiver, Matt, was his respite worker. Tom reportedly engaged in defiant
behavior nearly every visit to the BRAIN facility which resulted in multiple bans from attending
various meetings and group sessions. For example, Tom began using a BRAIN computer for
personal use without permission and ignored requests from BRAIN staff to stop using the
computer. Additional requests to stop using the computer resulted in Tom continuing to use the
computer while engaging in negotiations (e.g., “I just need to check my Facebook really quick.”)
When additional staff confronted Tom and firmly told him “stop using the computer or we’ll
have to terminate all sessions for today and possibly the remainder of the week” Tom responded
by loudly cursing (e.g., “This is (expletive) (expletive).”

5
Setting and Materials
All sessions occurred in a therapy room at BRAIN’s facility. Session rooms were
equipped with a table/desk and multiple chairs. Additionally, survivor specific materials were
added as necessary (e.g. homework sheets, iPad). The primary researcher met with the survivor
and caregiver one to two times per week, depending on survivor and caregiver’s availability, and
each meeting lasted approximately one-hour in duration. Within each hour meeting, multiple 5-
or 10-minute sessions were conducted, with feedback provided following each treatment session.
Session duration for Sam was 10-minutes, and session duration for Tom was 5-minutes.
Response Measurement and Interobserver Agreement
Sessions were recorded on an iPad and trained observers collected data using pen and
paper. Observers were graduate students who demonstrated proficiency with data collection by
attaining at least 85% agreement criterion for three consecutive training sessions. Observers
collected frequency data for instances of verbal aggression and functional communication
responses (FCRs). Verbal aggression and FCRs were individualized to each survivor.
Additionally, each survivor was asked to label their own verbal aggression since each survivor’s
behavior had a unique topography, and the term verbal aggression is a blanket term which can
often carry a negative connotation. The verbal aggression for Sam included yelling, screaming,
and/or cursing at others louder than his typical speaking voice. Sam requested his behavior be
referred to as yelling. The verbal aggression for Tom included screaming, cursing, or verbal
threats (e.g., “I’m going to sue you”) directed at others, inappropriate sexual comments, or
persistent negotiations to obtain desires after being told to stop twice. Tom requested his verbal
aggression be referred to as noncompliance.

6
A second observer observed sessions from a video recording and collected data on 93%
of sessions for Sam, and 100% of sessions for Tom. Interobserver agreement was calculated by
dividing the number of sessions with exact agreement (both observers scored exactly the same
frequency for both target behaviors) by the total number of sessions in which both observers
scored data, and multiplied by 100, yielding a percentage of sessions with exact agreement. The
percentage of sessions with exact agreement was 88% and 95% of trials for Sam and Tom,
respectively.
Experimental Design
A multiple baseline design across participants was used to evaluate the effects of
functional communication training (FCT) for each survivor. A multi-element design was
embedded within the baseline condition for each survivor to compare the control and test
conditions of the FA. The sequence of conditions of the FA were predetermined by a coin flip,
with the rule that no condition could occur more than twice consecutively.
Procedures
Open-ended interview. An open-ended interview was individually administered to each
survivor and the caregiver. Each interview lasted approximated 30-45 minutes and included a
modified version of the Open-Ended Functional Assessment Interview developed by Gregory
Hanley (2009). Questions were asked about the survivor’s current communication abilities (e.g.,
“Describe your/his language abilities”), verbal aggression topography (e.g., “What does the
verbal aggression look like?”), the settings in which the problem behavior frequently occurs
(e.g., Does the verbal aggression reliably occur during any situation?”), and the response to
verbal aggression (e.g., “How do others/you react or respond to the verbal aggression?”). The
purpose of the interviews was to identify establishing operations (EOs) and discriminative

7
stimuli that reliably evoke or occasion verbal aggression, as well as consequences that likely
reinforce it in the survivor’s natural environment. Survivor responses were compared to
caregiver responses to determine any discrepancies between responses. No discrepancies
between responses occurred.
IISCA. The functional analysis (FA) was conducted to test hypothesized antecedent and
reinforcement contingencies surrounding behavior. Conditions of the FA were determined based
on the results of the open-ended interviews, specific to each survivor. The control condition
consisted of continuous access to the preferred reinforcer(s), while test conditions contained
relevant EOs reported to occasion verbal aggression. Conditions of the FA alternated between
control and test conditions.
Sam. Results of Sam’s open-ended interview suggested his yelling behavior occurred
when he was told he could not do an activity due to physical or cognitive limitations resulting
from his injury (e.g., driving a car, running his business). His yelling was reported to cease when
others (i.e., wife and children) told him “calm down”, the conversation topic was changed, or if
he walked away from the conversation. His control conditions included continuous access to
preferred conversations (e.g., discussing his children and grandchildren). In the test conditions
(IISCA), the researcher asked questions about non-preferred topics that were reported to frustrate
Sam (e.g., “Why can’t you go back to work?”). Any instances of verbal aggression resulted in
the immediate termination of the non-preferred topic, and transition to preferred topics for 30
seconds.
Tom. The results of Tom’s open-ended interview suggested that his behavior occurred
when others tried to “control” his behavior by telling him what to do. Additionally, Tom self-
reported he would “be defiant, yell, and cuss because it has a shock value.” The behavior was

8
reported to end when others yielded their protests, when others stopped requesting things of
Tom, or when others admitted Tom was right. During the control condition, Tom was given
continuous access to playing on his iPad. In the test condition (IISCA), Tom began with 30-
seconds of iPad time followed by the demand “Put your iPad away.” If Tom ignored request, the
demand was repeated, and his iPad screen was physically blocked by the researcher’s hand. If
Tom still ignored requests, the demand was said a third time and the researcher physically turned
off the iPad by pushing the lock screen. Any instances of verbal aggression resulted in the
researcher saying “I’m sorry, you’re right. Go ahead and play,” followed by 30-seconds of
uninterrupted access to the iPad.
FCT. The researcher reviewed the results of the FA with the survivor, and together, the
researcher and survivor created individualized FCRs that the survivor indicated they wanted to
use to access reinforcement and replace verbal aggression. Sam identified the phrases “I need a
break,” “I can’t think of the words,” and “I need help” as responses he felt comfortable using to
replace his yelling behavior. Tom identified that he would replace his noncompliant behavior by
asking “Can I have more time?” while maintaining eye contact with his communication partner.
The survivor practiced using these FCRs with the researcher during one-on-one sessions.
Errorless prompting was used initially, and prompts were faded as the survivor began to
independently produce FCRs. If no response occurred after 5-seconds, an FCR was prompted.
Any instances of verbal aggression were placed on extinction and an FCR was prompted. Once
the survivor independently produced their FCR without prompts and without the presence of
verbal aggression across 2 sessions, the phase was concluded.
Caregiver training and generalization. After the completion of FCT with the
researcher, caregivers were trained to implement the survivor’s behavior intervention plan,

9
specifically, to provide immediate reinforcement for all FCRs, and any instances of verbal
aggression no longer received reinforcement, but instead were followed by prompts to use FCR.
If the survivor did not use their FCR within 5-seconds, or the caregiver did not prompt the
survivor to use their FCR after verbal aggression, the researcher prompted the caregiver to
prompt the survivor. Once the survivor independently used their FCR with their caregiver, with
no instances of verbal aggression, across two consecutive sessions, the phase was considered
mastered. If at any point during the phase there was a consistent increase in behavior across 3
consecutive sessions, additional one-on-one training with the researcher was provided to the
survivor.
Once the survivor demonstrated mastery of FCR with their caregiver, the survivors and
caregivers were asked to identify any other scenarios in which verbal aggression impacted their
daily life. Sam and Helen identified consistent yelling when Sam completed his speech
homework (e.g., picture identification worksheets). Sam then practiced his FCRs with Helen
while completing his speech homework. Tom and Matt reported that his noncompliant behavior
frequently occurred during group meetings at the BRAIN facility. Tom was scheduled to practice
his FCRs during group classes, however due to COVID-19, all sessions and meetings at BRAIN
were suspended.
Social validity. Questionnaires were administered to survivors and caregivers to assess if
the IISCA and treatment process was acceptable and produced meaningful outcomes for all
parties involved. Questions targeted assessment acceptability, treatment procedure acceptability,
overall satisfaction with improvements in verbal aggression and satisfaction with overall
helpfulness of consultation.

10
Results
Figure 1 depicts the results for Sam and Tom, on the top and bottom panels, respectively.
Sam. The results of the interviews given to Sam and Helen suggested the hypothesized
function of Sam’s verbal aggression was maintained by escape. The results of the FA suggest
there was an elevation in Sam’s verbal aggression during his test condition (M = 1.3 occurrences
of verbal aggression), when access to escape was contingent upon his verbal aggression.
Alternatively, no occurrences of verbal aggression were observed during his control condition
sessions. There were also no occurrences of functional communication during the test or control
conditions of the FA. The results of the IISCA support the hypothesis that Sam’s verbal
aggression was maintained by escape.
During individualized treatment with the researcher, Sam was allowed to escape non-
preferred conversations topics contingent on appropriate functional communication bids to
escape. His functional communication increased in level and trend (M = 4), while his verbal
aggression decreased in level and trend (M = 0.5). During the caregiver training and
generalization phase, functional communication remained high (M = 8) and verbal aggression
remained at zero. During his initial generalization across stimuli (i.e., speech homework), there
was an increase in his functional communication (M = 15.4), however, there was also an increase
in the level and trend of his verbal aggression (M = 2). Additional functional communication
training sessions between Sam and the researcher were provided, and he continued to
successfully use his functional communication (M = 8.3) and his verbal aggression decreased to
zero occurrences. Finally, during the caregiver training and generalization phase, Sam exhibited
low levels of verbal aggression (M = 1) while maintaining high rates of his functional
communication (M = 3.7).

11
Sam and Helen were provided fill-in social validity questionnaires to assess the
assessment procedures (e.g., “Do you approve of the assessment procedures used to determine
the cause of verbal aggression?”), treatment procedures (e.g., “Do you approve of treatment
procedures used in this study?”), improvements is survivor communication (e.g., Do you feel the
survivor/you is/are better able to communicate his/your wants and needs instead of engaging in
verbal aggression?”), and improvements in quality of life (e.g., “Do you feel this study improved
your quality of life?”, “Do you feel this study improved the survivor’s quality of life?). Both Sam
and Helen replied “Yes” to each question and chose not to elaborate on their responses.
Tom. The results of Tom and Matt’s interview suggested Tom’s verbal aggression
occurred when he was granted escape from demands and access to tangible (e.g., iPad). During
the control condition of the FA, when no demands were placed and Tom had free access to
tangibles, no verbal aggression was observed. However, Tom’s verbal aggression was elevated
during the test condition (M = 2.75), in which both escape from demands and access to tangibles
were contingent upon Tom’s verbal aggression. There were zero occurrences of functional
communication during either the control or test conditions. The results of Tom’s FA suggest the
function of his verbal aggression was a combination of escape from demands and access to
tangible.
The individualized treatment package delivered to Tom included escape from demands
and access to tangibles contingent on appropriate socials bids. During functional communication
training sessions with the researcher, his functional communication increased in level and trend
(M = 4.6), while his overall verbal aggression decreased in level and trend (M = 0.3). During the
caregiver training and generalization phase, Tom demonstrated an overall increase in his level

12
and trend of functional communication (M = 5.2) and an overall decrease in verbal aggression
(M = 0.2).
Unfortunately, due to COVID-19, Tom was not given the opportunity to generalize his
functional communication to other settings, and both Tom and Matt did not complete the social
validity questionnaire.
Discussion
The results of the current study demonstrate that the IISCA was effective in producing
differentiated results, and therefore identifying the likely maintaining functions of problem
behavior for two adults with TBI. An evaluation of function-based treatments derived from the
results of the IISCA suggest they were effective in bringing about a decrease in verbal
aggression, while simultaneously increasing functional communication for both survivors. By
including caregivers in treatment and practicing skills across various stimuli, the results were
generalized to the survivor’s natural environment and everyday life. These results suggest the
IISCA is effective in the assessment and treatment of socially mediated problem behavior in
adults with TBI.
The results of the social validity questionnaire demonstrated that the assessment and
procedures were acceptable to all parties who were available to complete it and improved the
overall quality of life for survivor and caregiver. Additionally, anecdotal reports from Sam and
Helen suggested that Sam decreased his yelling behavior when at home and with his children
during the treatment phase, and they reported his yelling behavior remained low and he
continued to use his FCRs 3-months post end of treatment. Tom and Matt also anecdotally
reported that Tom was using his FCRs with his mother, who was unable to participate in research
sessions with Tom. By creating individualized treatment plans specific to each survivor’s

13
function of behavior, there was a decrease in their problem behavior and increase in functional
communication, which were anecdotally reported to help improve and maintain healthy
relationships with their caregivers and families.
While this study demonstrated the effective use of individualized function-based
treatment plans to improve problem behavior in TBI survivors, there were limitations to the
study, including the inability to measure treatment effects in settings outside of the BRAIN
facility. Another limitation of the study was the unforeseen impact COVID-19 had on data
collection and the inability to collect data on generalizing Tom’s functional communication
treatment to group settings. A final limitation is that an additional replication across a third
participant would make the experimental control demonstrated in the current study even
stronger. While a multiple baseline that demonstrates replication across two participants is
common in single case research, future research should consider replicating across three or more
participants.
Future research should continue to analyze the use of synthesized functional assessments
and individualized treatment packages across various populations, including various subgroups
of head injuries (e.g., sport-related head injuries, military-related head injuries, acquired brain
injuries). Additionally, research should be extended beyond the relatively controlled setting of
the BRAIN center and be measured within the survivor’s homes and with other members of their
community besides their primary caregivers (e.g., others living in their home, other therapist).
Future research should also attempt to introduce delay tolerance when fading in delays to
reinforcement for functional communication with TBI survivors.

14
Figure 1. Frequency of verbal aggression per session for Sam (top) and Tom (bottom) across
baseline and treatment conditions.

15
References
Arco, L., Cohen, L., & Geddes, K. (2004). Verbal self-regulation of impulsive behavior of
persons with frontal lobe brain injury. Behavior Therapy, 35, 605-619.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2019). Surveillance Report of Traumatic Brain
Injury-related Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths—United
States, 2014. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
Davis, P. K., & Chittum, R. (1994). A group-oriented contingency to increase leisure activities of
adults with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 553-554.
Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC). DoD Worldwide Numbers for TBI. (2020,
June 16). Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://dvbic.dcoe.mil/dod-worldwide-numbers-
tbi
Dolezal, D. N., & Kurtz, P. F. (2010). Evaluation of combined-antecedent variables on
functional analysis results and treatment of problem behavior in a school setting. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 309-314.
Dufrene, B. A., Watson, T. S., & Weaver, A. (2008). Response blocking with guided
compliance and reinforcement for a habilitative replacement behavior: effects on public
masturbation on on-task behavior. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 27:4, 73-84.
Ghaemmaghami, M., Hanley, G. P., Jin, S. C., & Vanselow, N. R. (2016). Affirming control by
multiple reinforcers via progressive treatment analysis. Behavioral Interventions, 31, 70-
86.

16
Hanley, G. P., Jin, S., Vanselow, N. R., & Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful
improvements in problem behavior of children with Autism via synthesized analyses and
treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47:1, 16-36.
Harrison-Felix C., Whiteneck G., DeVivo M., Hammond F. M., & Jha A. (2004). Mortality
following rehabilitation in the traumatic brain injury model systems of
care. NeuroRehabilitation, 19:45–54.
Hartnedy, S., & Mozzoni, M. P. (2000) Managing environmental stimulation during meal time:
Eating problems in children with traumatic brain injury. Behavioral Interventions, 15,
261-268.
Hegel, M. T., & Ferguson, R. J. (2009). Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO) to
reduce aggressive behavior following traumatic brain injury. Behavior Modifications, 94-
101.
Heinicke, M. R., Carr, J. E., & Mozzoni, M. P. (2009). Using differential reinforcement to
decrease academic response latencies of an adolescent with acquired brain injury. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 861-865.
Heinicke, M. R., & Carr, J. E. (2014). Applied behavior analysis in acquired brain injury
rehabilitation: A meta-analysis of single-case design intervention research. Behavioral
Interventions, 29, 77-105.
Jessel, J., Hanley, G. P., & Ghaemmaghami, M. (2016). Interview-Informed synthesized
contingency analyses: Thirty replications and reanalysis. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 49, 576-595.
Mottram, L., & Berger-Gross, P. (2004). An intervention to reduce disruptive behaviour in
children with brian injury. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 7:2, 133-143.

17
Quearry, A. G., & Lundervold, D. A. (2016). Functional analysis and intervention for
perseverative verbal behaviour of an older adult with traumatic brain injury. Brain
Injury, 30:10, 1276-1278.
Santiago, J. L., Hanley, G. P., Moore, K., & Jin, C. S. (2016) The generality of interview-
informed functional analyses: Systematic replication in school and home. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 797-811.
Slaton, J., Hanley, G. P., & Raftery, K. J. (2017). Interview-Informed analyses: A comparison of
synthesized and isolated components. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50:2, 252-
277.
Tasky, K. K., Rudrud, E. H., Schulze, K. A., & Rapp, J. T. (2008). Using choice to increase on-
task behavior in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 41, 261-265.
Thurman, D. J., Alverson, C., Dunn, K. A., Guerrero, J., & Sniezek, J. E. (1999). Traumatic
brain injury in the United States: A public health perspective. Journal of Head Trauma
Rehabilitation, 14:6, 602-615.
Travis, R., & Sturmey, P. Functional Analysis and Treatment of the Delusional Statements of a
Man with Multiple Disabilities: A Four-Year Follow-Up. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis. 2010; 43, 745-749.
Yody, B. B., Schaub, C., Conway, J., Peters, S., Strauss, D., & Helsinger, S. (2000) Applied
behavior management and acquired brain injury: Approaches and assessment. Journal of
Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 15:4, 1041-1060.

18
Zaloshnja, E., Miller, T., Langlois, J., & Selassie, A. (2008) Prevalence of long-term disability
from traumatic brain injury in the civilian population of the United States, 2005. Journal
of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 23;6, 394-400.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Training staff to implement the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA)

PDF

The use and perceptions of experimental analysis in assessing problem behavior of public education students: the interview - informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA)

PDF

Use of a clinical decision model to support the transition of services for individuals with autism spectrum disorder

PDF

Evaluating the effects of virtual reality and acceptance and commitment therapy on music performance anxiety

PDF

Behavioral coaching for athlete health behaviors

PDF

Let’s do something different: evaluation of lag schedules of reinforcement to increase flexibility and promote generalization in children with autism

PDF

The effects of acceptance and commitment therapy-based exercises on eating behaviors in a laboratory setting

PDF

Using acceptance and commitment training to enhance the effectiveness of behavioral skills training

PDF

Clinical decision analysis for effective supervision: a review of the supervisor-supervisee relationship

PDF

Gaps in adequate traumatic brain injury (concussion) assessment amongst college students

PDF

Effects of preferred physical activity on stereotypical behaviors in children with autism spectrum disorder: adapting from in-person to telehealth

PDF

The effects of dual coding theory on memory retention

PDF

Behavior analysis in medicine: a clinical decision model to support patient care

PDF

The effects of bilingual acceptance and commitment training (ACT) on exercise in bilingual international university students

PDF

Using Acceptance and Commitment Training and a virtual patient model for supporting families with children with autism spectrum disorder

PDF

What “works” and why it still isn't enough: sexual harassment training measures of effectiveness

PDF

Values and persistence

PDF

Equity and inclusion of veteran students with traumatic brain injury in higher education classrooms: a gap analysis

PDF

A preliminary evaluation of a telehealth approach to acceptance and commitment training (ACT) for enhancing behavioral parent training (BPT) for Chinese parents

PDF

Brain injuries and psychedelics: Transcript

Asset Metadata

Creator Servellon, Lauren Marie (author)

Core Title Evaluating the effectiveness of interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis for survivors of traumatic brain injury

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Applied Behavior Analysis

Publication Date 08/01/2020

Defense Date 06/22/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag caregiver training,functional analysis,functional communication,IISCA,individualized treatment,OAI-PMH Harvest,TBI,traumatic brain injury

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tarbox, Jonathan (committee chair), Cameron, Michael (committee member), Manis, Frank (committee member)

Creator Email laurenservellon@gmail.com,lolvera@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-353027

Unique identifier UC11665381

Identifier etd-ServellonL-8846.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-353027 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ServellonL-8846.pdf

Dmrecord 353027

Document Type Thesis

Rights Servellon, Lauren Marie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA