When Tantrums Fall but Property Destruction Rises
A 10-year-old girl with intellectual disability attends a self-contained classroom. Her individualized behavior support plan targets tantrums maintained by escape from independent writing tasks. The plan includes a visual first-then board, a break card, modified assignments, and adult praise for requesting a break. After six weeks, tantrum frequency fell from 14 to 5 per week, but staff report a new pattern: she now tears worksheets and throws materials during writing, about 9 times per week. The teacher wants to add a response-cost system and remove break-card privileges because 'the break card is teaching her to avoid work.' Treatment-integrity checks show the break card is honored about 55% of the time, and modified assignments are delivered on 2 of 5 days. The behavior interventionist is asked to revise the plan. The classroom has one teacher and two paraprofessionals; the student receives 30 minutes of resource support daily.
1. Interpret the outcome data, including the new property destruction, and evaluate the teacher's conclusion that the break card is teaching avoidance.
Read the worked answer
The plan is not failing cleanly; the data show a possible response-class shift. Tantrums fell from 14 to 5 per week, but property destruction emerged at 9 per week during the same writing task. That pattern is consistent with the replacement behavior being reinforced too inconsistently to compete with escape-maintained behavior. The integrity data are decisive: the break card is honored only 55% of the time, and modified assignments occur on 2 of 5 days. When the establishing operation, difficult writing, is still present and the mand is unreliable, the student may contact escape through other behavior. The teacher's conclusion that the break card teaches avoidance does not follow from these data; the card is not being consistently honored. I would not add response cost before repairing integrity, because punishment may suppress behavior without teaching an alternative and may increase escalation.
2. What revisions and data decisions would you recommend?
Read the worked answer
Revision should begin with antecedent modification: prepare modified writing tasks daily rather than 2 of 5 days, and make the first task brief and high-probability. Staff should honor every break card during the teaching phase and reinforce mands with a brief break plus a return to work. Teach a second mand such as 'help' or 'finished,' and reinforce tolerance for brief delays. Use differential reinforcement for starting writing and for manding. Collect frequency of tantrums, property destruction, mands, and task completion. Set a decision rule: if integrity reaches 80% for two weeks and property destruction remains above baseline, conduct further functional assessment or adjust the replacement response. Safety responses should be minimal and non-punitive. The goal is to make the replacement behavior more efficient than property destruction, not to remove the student's only communication.
3. How would you respond to the teacher's request to remove break-card privileges and add response cost?
Read the worked answer
I would meet with the teacher away from the student, acknowledge the frustration, and review the graph and integrity data together. I would ask what makes honoring the break difficult, such as staff coverage, time, or fear of reinforcing avoidance. Then we would problem-solve barriers: schedule a 2-minute break, use a timer, identify a backup staff member, and clarify that a break is a teaching tool rather than a permanent escape. I would not agree to remove the break card while integrity is 55%, because the plan has not been fairly tested. If the teacher remains opposed, I would involve the principal and district behavior specialist, document the discussion and agreed revisions, and provide coaching with modeling and feedback. The conversation should focus on making the plan work, not on compliance.