Although typical functional analyses often produce clear outcomes, some studies have reported ambiguous results that cannot be interpreted. Such undifferentiated outcomes may occur if test conditions do not include relevant antecedent or consequent events. Clinicians then may try to modify the functional analysis conditions to include those events. Hanley, Iwata, and McCord (2003) reviewed the functional analysis literature through the year 2000 and described idiosyncratic variables included in modified functional analyses. The objective of the present review was to present a quantitative analysis of idiosyncratic antecedents and consequences in modified functional analyses during the past decade (2001 to 2010). We discuss the range of stimulus parameters tested and the assessment strategies used for informing the modified analysis conditions.

Substantial experimental evidence indicates that behavior reinforced on a denser schedule is more resistant to disruption than is behavior reinforced on a thinner schedule. The present experiment studied resistance to disruption in a natural educational environment. Responding during familiar activities was reinforced on a multiple variable-interval (VI) 7-s VI 30-s schedule for 6 participants with developmental disabilities. Resistance to disruption was measured by presenting a distracting item. Response rates in the disruption components were compared to within-session response rates in prior baseline components. Results were consistent with the predictions of behavioral momentum theory for 5 of 6 participants.

Restricted stimulus control refers to discrimination learning with atypical limitations in the range of controlling stimuli or stimulus features. In the study reported here, 4 normally capable individuals and 10 individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) performed two-sample delayed matching to sample. Sample-stimulus observing was recorded with an eye-tracking apparatus. High accuracy scores indicated stimulus control by both sample stimuli for the 4 nondisabled participants and 4 participants with ID, and eye tracking data showed reliable observing of all stimuli. Intermediate accuracy scores indicated restricted stimulus control for the remaining 6 participants. Their eye-tracking data showed that errors were related to failures to observe sample stimuli and relatively brief observing durations. Five of these participants were then given interventions designed to improve observing behavior. For 4 participants, the interventions resulted initially in elimination of observing failures, increased observing durations, and increased accuracy. For 2 of these participants, contingencies sufficient to maintain adequate observing were not always sufficient to maintain high accuracy; subsequent procedure modifications restored it, however. For the 5th participant, initial improvements in observing were not accompanied by improved accuracy, an apparent instance of observing without attending; accuracy improved only after an additional intervention that imposed contingencies on observing behavior. Thus, interventions that control observing behavior seem necessary but may not always be sufficient for the remediation of restricted stimulus control.