Comparing Methods for Assessing Challenging Behavior in Young Children

When clinicians assess challenging behavior, the way they set up consequences during the assessment can shape what they learn. This study compared two approaches to brief, trial-based assessments and found that each reveals different information. Understanding these trade-offs helps clinicians choose the method that best fits their clinical question while keeping learners safe.

What is the research question being asked and why does it matter?

The researchers asked a straightforward practice question: when you run a brief, trial-based assessment, should you reinforce both appropriate behavior and challenging behavior, or only severe challenging behavior? They wanted to see how that choice changes what you detect.

This matters because many learners show low-level problem behavior before they show dangerous behavior. Clinicians often want to spot risk early—not just after severe behavior is already happening. If the assessment method hides important patterns, you might miss a key trigger or underestimate how likely behavior is to escalate.

It also matters for ethics and safety. An assessment that evokes severe behavior can give you useful information, but it also carries more risk. Clinicians need to know what they gain and what they give up with each setup so they can choose the safest option that still answers their question.

What did the researchers do to answer that question?

They worked with six preschool-age children (ages 3–5) in a Head Start program. The children did not have known disabilities, but teachers referred them because of concerns about challenging behavior. Sessions happened in a separate room with toys similar to those in the classroom.

They ran repeated “BASE” sessions. Each session had 15 short trials. Every trial included a 1-minute control segment (attention available, toys available, no demands) followed by a 1-minute test segment where one establishing operation was added. The three test types were attention removal, escape from demands, and restricted access to toys.

They compared two consequence arrangements during the test segment.

In the symmetrical setup, the first sign of either appropriate behavior or challenging behavior (Level 1 or higher) ended the test and produced the reinforcer (attention, break, or toys).

In the asymmetrical setup, only the most severe challenging behavior (Level 4) produced the reinforcer. Appropriate requests did not work—the therapist responded with something like “thanks for asking, not right now” and continued the test.

They measured two main things. First was “sensitivity”—whether behavior happened more in test segments than in control segments for a given EO. Second was “bias”—whether the child tended to show more challenging behavior than appropriate behavior when the EO was present. They also looked at how severe the challenging behavior got and how complex the appropriate behavior was under each setup.

How you can use this in your day-to-day clinical practice

If your main goal is to identify which situations trigger behavior, the symmetrical setup may give you clearer signals. In this study, the symmetrical setup more often showed “sensitivity” to the EOs—children were more likely to show some level of behavior when the EO was present compared to the control. Reinforcing appropriate responses during assessment can help you see what EOs matter without mixing in extinction effects. This is useful when you’re planning prevention early, before severe behavior has developed.

If your main goal is to see whether severe behavior might emerge under stress, the asymmetrical setup may surface that risk more often. This setup tended to capture more challenging behavior, and especially more severe challenging behavior, for most participants. Withholding reinforcement for lower-level behavior and appropriate requests can show you how far behavior might escalate when the learner is blocked. Only choose this when the added risk is justified and you have strong safety supports in place.

Use the results as risk signals, not final answers. The authors note that these assessments do not fully prove “bias” or “sensitivity” the way a tight choice experiment would. These were six neurotypical preschoolers in one setting—you should not assume the same pattern will happen with older learners, learners with autism, or learners with long histories of reinforcement for severe behavior. Treat the outcomes as one piece of your clinical picture, along with interviews, direct observation, records, and caregiver input.

When an EO evokes behavior but appropriate requests are rare, treat that as a skill gap you can address early. If restricted toys reliably evoke whining, grabbing, or aggression but you don’t see clear requesting, that suggests you may need to teach and support requesting in that context. The key clinical move is to build an easy, effective alternative before the learner learns that challenging behavior works better. You can do this while honoring the learner’s autonomy by teaching choice-making, offering meaningful options, and reducing unnecessary triggers.

Do not assume that reinforcing appropriate behavior will automatically prevent challenging behavior. In this study, even when appropriate and challenging behavior were reinforced equally, many children still showed a bias toward challenging behavior in at least one EO. You should not rely on “just teach the mand” as your whole plan. You may also need to adjust the environment—better transitions, clearer expectations, shorter demand bursts, or more access to attention—so the appropriate response has a real chance to occur.

Choose your assessment contingency based on your decision need and your safety limits. If a learner is already showing low-level problem behavior and your team needs to plan for possible escalation, you might briefly use an asymmetrical approach with strong guardrails, clear stop rules, and caregiver approval. If the learner is not yet showing dangerous behavior and you’re doing ongoing monitoring, the symmetrical approach may fit better because it reduces repeated extinction for appropriate behavior and may lower the chance of evoking severe behavior. Either way, plan how you will respond if behavior escalates. Don’t run higher-risk setups just to “see what happens.”

Be careful about false negatives. The two setups did not always agree on whether a child seemed sensitive to a given EO or biased toward challenging behavior. If you run one brief assessment and it looks flat, don’t automatically conclude “no function” or “no risk.” Consider whether your contingency arrangement, prompts, materials, or the learner’s history might be masking responding. Repeating brief probes over time—especially during known difficult periods—may give you a more stable picture than a single snapshot.

Keep dignity and context centered. The asymmetrical setup included a common classroom pattern: the adult acknowledges an appropriate request but still says “not right now.” That can be realistic, but it can also be frustrating for a child if it happens often. If you use anything like this in practice, make sure it is brief, purposeful, and paired with a real plan to teach waiting, offer choices, and deliver reinforcement for appropriate behavior in other moments. The goal is to learn enough to prevent harm—not to test how much a learner can tolerate.

Works Cited

Allen, A. E., Bridges, K. G., Pizarro, E. M., & Morris, S. L. (2026). Comparing methods of evaluating sensitivity to common establishing operations and bias toward challenging behavior. *Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 59*(1), e70046. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.70046