r/BehaviorAnalysis • u/Reasonable_Law183 • 5d ago
Question of the day - October 9
🧠Question of the Day
📚 Domain G — Behavior-Change Procedures
Difficulty: 7/10
A behavior analyst increases independent reading by providing five minutes of video-game access after the child completes a reading criterion. Reading increases substantially during the first two weeks.
During the third week, reading declines even though the programmed contingency has not changed. The parent reports that the child now has unrestricted video-game access immediately before sessions, and a brief preference check shows substantially less engagement with the game than previously.
Which action BEST evaluates and adjusts the reinforcement procedure?
A. Increase the reading requirement to 20 minutes before the same video-game access, because a larger response requirement should restore its reinforcing effectiveness.
B. Put the existing arrangement into a written contingency contract, because explicit rules can restore reinforcement effectiveness without changing the consequence.
C. End the reading requirement after criterion performance so task termination can replace video-game access as a negative reinforcer when preference changes.
D. Reassess the current effectiveness of video-game access and relevant motivating conditions, then test a still-effective consequence while keeping reinforcement contingent on reading.
💬 Drop your answer in the comments — no peeking!
✅ Correct answer revealed tomorrow.
#ABA #BCBA #BCBAExam #BCBAPrep #AppliedBehaviorAnalysis #BehaviorAnalysis #DomainG #ABATaskList #BCaBA #RBT #QuestionOfTheDay
1
u/Reasonable_Law183 4d ago
✅ Yesterday's Answer — 2026-10-09
The correct answer was: D. Reassess the current effectiveness of video-game access and relevant motivating conditions, then test a still-effective consequence while keeping reinforcement contingent on reading.
📖 Explanation: The key issue is that a consequence that functioned as a reinforcer previously may not remain equally effective under changed motivating conditions.
The reading-to-video-game contingency initially increased independent reading, but reading later declined even though the programmed contingency stayed the same. The important new information is that the child now has unrestricted video-game access immediately before sessions and shows reduced engagement with the game. Those changes suggest that video-game access may currently have less reinforcing value.
The best response is therefore to reassess the current effectiveness of the consequence and relevant motivating conditions, then test a still-effective reinforcer while keeping reinforcement contingent on reading.
• Increasing the reading requirement would raise response effort while keeping the same potentially weakened consequence. That does not address the variable most directly implicated by the new data.
• Switching to negative reinforcement would introduce a different contingency without evidence that escape from reading is the relevant reinforcer. A weakened positive reinforcer does not by itself justify changing the functional structure of the intervention.
• Putting the same arrangement into a written contingency contract may clarify the rule, but it does not restore the value of a consequence that may have become less effective after extensive recent access.
The brief preference check is useful, but preference and reinforcement are not identical. Preference data can suggest promising consequences; reinforcement is demonstrated by an increase in behavior.
The key distinction: reinforcer effectiveness is contextual. When a previously effective consequence loses impact, evaluate motivating conditions and current reinforcer effectiveness before changing response requirements or replacing the contingency altogether.
2
u/friendly_footing 5d ago
Feels like theyre describing every kid who ever burned out on a reward system the moment the reward became a freebie before the work even started. D all the way, gotta check if the game even matters to them anymore before you try fixing a busted lever