The Indoor-Recess Spike: Motivating Operation or Discriminative Stimulus?
Marcus, 7, receives services in a self-contained classroom. His team reports that out-of-seat behavior (leaving his desk without permission) occurs 14-22 times per 45-minute morning block on days when the class has indoor recess, but 2-4 times on days with outdoor recess. The team has already drafted a plan: staff will deliver a token every 5 minutes Marcus remains seated, exchangeable for iPad time. The behavior analyst is asked to sign off before Monday. Records show no medical concerns; staff describe Marcus as "full of energy" and "unable to sit still." The principal wants the plan started immediately and notes that the team "already did the assessment."
1. Before endorsing the token plan, what must the analyst determine, and what is the strongest competing interpretation of the data pattern?
Read the worked answer
The indoor/outdoor recess correlation does not point to a skill deficit or an attention contingency. The most parsimonious reading is a motivating operation: restricted physical activity plausibly (a) increases the reinforcing value of movement and (b) evokes behavior that has produced movement in the past. Out-of-seat may be maintained by access to activity, or by escape from a low-activity demand context. Either way, the proposed token delivers a conditioned reinforcer whose backup (iPad) is unrelated to the suspected EO, and it asks Marcus to compete against a strong EO with an unrelated consequence.
Second problem: the schedule is time-based, not response-based. Delivering a token every 5 minutes Marcus remains seated is a DRO-like arrangement at best and does not specify what contingencies surround the target response.
Action: do not sign. Propose a brief functional assessment (record review, structured indirect measures, and structured observation with an activity manipulation) and, as a safe bridge for Monday, an antecedent modification (scheduled movement breaks) with baseline data collection. Approving a function-blind plan to meet an administrative deadline is not a clinical decision.
2. Design a manipulation that would distinguish an MO account from an SD account, and state predicted results for each.
Read the worked answer
Hold consequences and discriminative stimuli constant and manipulate activity level in a multielement or A-B-A-B design: (a) 10 minutes of vigorous activity before the block; (b) 10 minutes of sedentary activity before the block. Keep the token schedule, teacher presence, and demand identical.
- If MO: out-of-seat should differ substantially between conditions even though the three-term contingency is unchanged. Providing activity is an abolishing operation - it reduces the value of movement as a reinforcer and should suppress the behavior without any change to reinforcement contingencies. That is the strongest available evidence for an MO account.
- If SD: behavior should track the presence/absence of the teacher or task materials, not activity level.
One more discriminator: MO effects are typically behavior-class-wide. Look for correlated changes in other members of the same response class (fidgeting, requesting movement, standing) across conditions. SD effects are more specific to the response that has been differentially reinforced in that stimulus. If activity level changes a whole cluster of behaviors, the MO interpretation is favored.