JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2019, 52, 422–438 NUMBER 2 (SPRING)

Response latency as a measure of behavior in the assessment of

elopement
MICHELE R. TRAUB AND TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

Elopement is a common form of problem behavior but is relatively underrepresented in the

functional analysis literature. One barrier to assessing elopement experimentally is the need to
retrieve the subject following an instance of elopement. This retrieval confounds programmed
session contingencies when the goal is to obtain repeated measurement of free-operant behavior.
The current study evaluated latency to elopement as an alternative to free-operant measurement.
We first compared response latency to allocation in 5-min sessions and then measured latency
alone in a trial-based format. The identified reinforcers matched across both data analysis modal-
ities in the session-based assessments, and the trial-based functional analysis showed a significant
time savings in identifying the function of behavior over a session-based assessment. Results
indicated that elopement serves idiosyncratic social functions in young children with intellectual
and developmental disabilities, and that a latency-based assessment saves time while yielding
equally clear results.
Key words: elopement, functional analysis, latency

Elopement is commonly defined as leaving a
designated area without supervision or permis-
sion (Jacobson, 1982), and is a common behav-
ioral problem among individuals with
intellectual and developmental disabilities
(IDD). Recent reports indicate that 50% or
more of children with autism have eloped a sig-
nificant distance or for an extended period of
time (Anderson et al., 2012; Jang, Dixon, Tar-
box, & Granpeesheh, 2011), and about 33%
of adults with autism have eloped from residen-
tial or day treatment care (Matson & Rivet,
2008). Elopement, and specifically the
increased risk for accident and injury while
unsupervised, has been cited as a contributing
This research was completed in partial fulfillment of
the first author’s requirements for the doctoral degree in
Psychology at the University of Florida. Special thanks to
Brian Iwata, Darragh Devine, and Jennifer Elder for their
input on this manuscript, and to Catherine Simms and
Kara Wunderlich for their contributions to the early stages
of the research.
Address correspondence to: Michele R. Traub, Depart-
ment of Community Psychology, Counseling, and Family
Therapy, St. Cloud State University, 720 4th Avenue South,
St. Cloud, MN 56301 (Email: mtraub@stcloudstate.edu)
doi: 10.1002/jaba.541
© 2019 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
422
factor to higher death rates among individuals
with autism than in the overall population
(Mouridsen, Bronnum-Hansen, Rich, & Isager,
2008; Shavelle, Strauss, & Pickett, 2001).
Despite the prevalence and risks of elope-
ment among individuals with IDD, few studies
involving functional analysis (FA), treatment,
or systems management of this behavior have
been published. In a review of elopement, Lang
et al. (2009) identified only 10 peer-reviewed
studies published in behavior-analytic journals,
only five of which were experimentally con-
trolled. Furthermore, 6 of the 10 studies had
only one participant, and only one had more
than three participants, thus limiting the num-
ber of total published assessments. One reason
for this lack of publication may be the practical
difficulties of conducting FAs of elopement.
A typical FA, based upon the procedures
described by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman,
and Richman (1982/1994), involves delivering
social consequences such as attention or escape
from demands contingent upon the occurrence
of a problem behavior during individual test
sessions, and withholding those same
 RESPONSE LATENCY IN ELOPEMENT
consequences during other test sessions. For
instance, in a test for escape from academic
demands as a reinforcer for self-injury, a thera-
pist would deliver academic demands and
remove those demands following the occur-
rence of self-injury. Attention to the problem
behavior is specifically withheld during these
sessions to avoid confounding task removal and
attention delivery. At the end of the reinforce-
ment interval, the therapist would then rein-
state demands until the next instance of self-
injury. However, in the case of elopement, if
the participant eloped from the experimental
area to initiate an escape interval, the therapist
would have to retrieve the participant to return
him or her to the experimental area in order to
resume the analysis. Retrieval requires the deliv-
ery of physical interaction, which would con-
found the delivery of escape with attention,
making the results of the assessment difficult to
interpret when trying to identify an isolated
reinforcement contingency.
Piazza et al. (1997) partially addressed these
concerns with the “standard” model of FA with
three individuals who engaged in frequent
elopement. These experimenters conducted
assessment sessions in two adjoining session
rooms. The participant experienced a relevant
evocative event in one room (e.g., demand pre-
sentation) and accessed a putative reinforcer
(e.g., demand termination) contingent upon
eloping to the other room. To eliminate the
confounds of retrieval, the therapist noncontin-
gently “retrieved” participants on a fixed time
schedule in both rooms. That is, every 40 s the
experimenters guided the participant to sit in a
chair in the initial room. A multielement com-
parison of tests for positive and negative social
reinforcement resulted in differentiated out-
comes with one participant, and subsequent
pairwise (single test–control) comparisons
yielded differentiated outcomes for the other
two participants. Although promising, this
assessment model was limited in a few regards.
First, the multielement assessment only yielded
423
differentiated results for one participant; addi-
tional analyses were required for two other par-
ticipants. Second, although this assessment
programmed noncontingent “retrieval” across
all experimental conditions, it was impossible
to retrieve the participant following an instance
of elopement without providing attention con-
tingent on, and directly related to, the target
behavior. The authors also noted that not
retrieving the individual presented a barrier to
assessment; specifically, only one opportunity
to observe elopement would be present in each
session.
Lehardy, Lerman, Evans, O’Connor, and
LeSage (2013) described an alternative FA of
elopement that addressed concerns raised by
Piazza et al. (1997). Specifically, this assessment
model was conducted in a single room sepa-
rated in half by tape across the floor. The thera-
pist presented the establishing operation (EO)
on one side of the room and delivered the rein-
forcer when the participant eloped by crossing
to the other side of the room. Rather than
retrieve the participant, the therapist simply
presented the EO on the side of the room
where the participant was at the end of a rein-
forcement interval (i.e., relocating contingencies
instead of retrieving the participant). The
results of this assessment corresponded to those
of assessments conducted across two rooms
(similar to the procedures used by Piazza et al.,
1997), and resulted in effective function-based
interventions in each of four applications. This
model would be more replicable in settings
without a second therapy room, and was
reported as easier to implement without requir-
ing timed retrieval intervals.
One promising advance in FA methodology
that may further inform the development of
elopement assessments involves the measure-
ment of response latency (a measure of time
from some event until the first instance of a
behavior) as a primary dependent measure in
lieu of response rate. For problem behaviors
that cannot occur in repeated bursts
424 MICHELE R. TRAUB and TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER
(e.g., vomiting) or that require a therapist to
reset for the next opportunity to occur
(e.g., disrobing), latency measurement may pro-
vide a practical alternative to response rate. In a
retrospective analysis of existing FA data,
Thomason-Sassi, Iwata, Neidert, and Roscoe
(2011) found that latency and response rate
indicated the same behavioral function in
33 out of 38 cases. These authors then con-
ducted FAs with 10 new subjects, initially ter-
minating sessions after the first instance of
problem behavior (a latency analysis) and then
following with 10-min sessions in which the
problem behavior was occasioned repeatedly
(a response-repetition or standard analysis).
The results of the latency-based analysis corre-
sponded with those of the standard analysis in
9 of 10 instances, while occasioning fewer
instances of problem behavior.
Neidert, Iwata, Dempsey, and Thomason-
Sassi (2013) were the first to conduct latency-
based FAs of elopement with two students with
profound intellectual disabilities. In this assess-
ment, evocative events were presented to the
participant in an empty classroom. The student
eloped by exiting the doorway of his classroom,
and the assessment included tests for attention,
tangibles, and escape from demands, alternated
with a control session in a multielement design.
The results of these analyses were undifferen-
tiated across both participants but were clear
after the authors compared conditions in a
reversal design or a pairwise design. The pro-
grammed contingencies in this study may have
been confounded by the consequences the par-
ticipants experienced when leaving the room
(e.g., peer attention), and still required partici-
pant retrieval by the experimenters. Davis et al.
(2013) also conducted a trial-based FA of
elopement with an 8-year-old boy. As in Nei-
dert et al., uncontrolled reinforcers in the post-
elopement environment may have confounded
assessment results. Thus, the utility of latency-
based FAs in the assessment and treatment of
elopement has not yet been established.
The purpose of the current study was two-
fold. Thomason-Sassi et al. (2011) compared
latency-based analysis to a standard repeated-
measures analysis in published data sets, none
of which included elopement as a target behav-
ior. Therefore, we first evaluated latency-based
measures of elopement by assessing their corre-
spondence with more traditional continuous
measures of behavior, in this case allocation to
opposing contingencies. Second, we evaluated
the utility of latency measures in lieu of
repeated occasioning of problem behavior dur-
ing FAs of elopement. Unlike the analyses con-
ducted by Davis et al. (2013) and Neidert et al.
(2013), we informed our assessment environ-
ment by the strategies offered by Piazza et al.
(1997) and Lehardy et al. (2013). Specifically,
we conducted our assessment in two physically
separated areas (either two joined rooms or a
single room with a divider). Elopement
occurred when a participant traveled from one
area of the room to the other, thus allowing us
to maintain control over the contingencies
delivered for elopement. Further, rather than
adopt multielement experimental designs, we
incorporated test–control comparisons of each
potential reinforcer.
METHOD
Subjects, Setting, and Materials
Nine children participated in the study,
ranging in age from 3 years, 2 months to
6 years, 2 months. All participants had a diag-
nosis of IDD and were referred to the study by
parents or teachers due to concerns about
elopement. Sessions took place at the partici-
pants’ school or clinic, and the specific arrange-
ment of the room depended on the available
space at the facility. For Kieran, Tanya, Mikey,
Ivan, Jasper, and Violet, sessions were con-
ducted in a 2.1 × 2.7-m therapy room adjoin-
ing an empty classroom. The therapy room
contained a single door leading to the class-
room and a window for viewing. A camping
 RESPONSE LATENCY IN ELOPEMENT
tent measuring 2.4 × 2.4 × 1.5 m was placed
immediately outside the therapy room to
approximate the two-room setting of Piazza
et al. (1997). The tent had two opposing zip-
pered entrances, one of which was left perma-
nently open with flaps pulled back and was
placed in the open doorway of the room. The
zippered entrance on the opposite side of the
tent was kept closed during sessions, but the
zipper was freely accessible to the participants
and therapists. The tent had a fabric roof and
sides with clear plastic or mesh windows. Dur-
ing experimental sessions, data collectors and
observers stood along the three sides of the tent
not adjacent to the room to prevent partici-
pants from eloping beyond the confines of the
tent, though this rarely occurred. For Ned and
Ace, sessions were conducted in two 2.4 ×
3.6-m rooms that were joined by a 0.6-m-wide
doorway. There was a single door in one of the
rooms that exited to the hallway; this door was
kept closed during sessions. Both rooms were
empty of all furniture and contained only the
materials needed for sessions (i.e., toys during
tangible sessions). For Liam, sessions were con-
ducted in a single 3 × 6-m room with two win-
dows, two doors that were kept closed during
sessions, and a partial-wall divider. The divider
split the room into equal 3 × 3-m halves with
a 0.6-m-wide opening in the divider to create a
doorway. The divider was the only furniture
present in the room.
Data collection took place using handheld
computers or smart phones, and some sessions
were videotaped using a handheld video camera
to facilitate data collection, procedural integrity
checks, and interobserver agreement (IOA).
Additional materials specific to session types
were present as needed and are described
below.
Experimental Design
Similar to Lehardy et al. (2013), we divided
our assessment space into two areas, which we
425
will refer to as location A and location B. One
of those areas was associated with the free avail-
ability of a social reinforcer (noncontingent
reinforcement, or NCR, condition); the other
area was associated with extinction (EXT) or
the nonavailability of that reinforcer. Test ses-
sions were those in which the participant began
the session in the EXT area (which was
designed to establish the value of the putative
reinforcer) and could gain access to reinforce-
ment by eloping into the NCR area. Control
sessions were those in which the participant
began in the NCR area; eloping to the extinc-
tion area would result in the termination of
reinforcement. Test and control sessions were
alternated in a multielement design, and we
sequentially evaluated attention, tangible, and
escape from demands across all participants
(the order of exposure was counterbalanced
across participants). We also included a tangible
condition without attention for Violet when we
suspected that therapist attention was oversha-
dowing any functional value of tangibles, and
we included an escape-to-tangible condition—
similar to the escape-to-attention condition
described by Mueller, Sterling-Turner, and
Moore (2005)—with Jasper when the individ-
ual tangible and escape assessments showed
weak functional control over his elopement.
The role of the therapist (i.e., which location
any particular therapist was associated with)
and the location of NCR and EXT areas were
randomized across sessions.
Attention test. In the EXT area, the therapist
withheld attention from the participant. In the
NCR area, a second therapist provided contin-
uous attention in the form of general com-
ments, reciprocal conversation, light physical
contact (e.g., bounces, tickles), or some combi-
nation. The specific form of attention provided
to each participant was based on caregiver
report and observation. No leisure items were
present in either area.
Tangible test. Prior to each session, the par-
ticipant was brought to the toy closet and asked
426 MICHELE R. TRAUB and TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER
to choose a toy to play with. The therapist in
the NCR area provided continuous access to
the selected toy as well as social interaction.
The therapist in the EXT area provided contin-
uous attention but no access to the selected
toy. We delivered attention in both areas to
prevent confounding tangible delivery with
attention, and we varied the therapists used in
each location to minimize the effect of a pre-
ferred (or nonpreferred) therapist in any one
session. If the subject attempted to carry a toy
from the NCR area to the EXT area, the thera-
pist from the EXT area removed the toy with-
out comment and returned it to the NCR area.
Tangible test with no attention (Violet only).
These sessions were identical to the tangible
sessions described above, with the exception
that no attention was provided by therapists in
either area. Because attention was found to be a
potent reinforcer for Violet, we suspected that
the attention available in both locations during
the tangible assessment was overshadowing any
possible preference for tangible items; thus, we
removed the attention in both locations to
examine her preference for toys in the absence
of a more potent reinforcer, namely, attention.
Escape test. In the EXT area, the therapist
presented continuous demands using a gradu-
ated, three-step (verbal-model-physical)
prompting sequence. That is, the therapist
delivered an initial verbal demand
(e.g., “Touch your nose”). If the participant
did not respond within 3 s of the initial verbal
demand, the therapist modeled the response
while repeating the demand (e.g., “Touch your
nose, like this”). If the participant did not
respond within 3 s of the model prompt, the
therapist physically prompted compliance with
the demand. In the NCR area, the therapist
did not deliver demands, nor otherwise interact
with the participant. No toys or tangible items
were available in either location.
We chose demands for each participant
based on two criteria. First, the child had to be
capable of exhibiting the instructed behavior
independently, which was determined by obser-
vation and teacher reports. Second, demands
could not involve any items. Thus, all demands
targeted verbal and motor skills, such as “touch
your nose” or “give me a high-five.”
Escape-to-tangibles test (Jasper only). In the
EXT area, the therapist delivered demands
identical to the escape conditions described
above. In the NCR area, the therapist provided
continuous attention and interactive play with
the toys. The attention delivered by the NCR
therapist was matched in magnitude and voice
tone to the demand therapist in an attempt to
equate the value of the attention in both envi-
ronments. All other session aspects were identi-
cal to escape sessions.
Automatic test (Liam only). For test sessions,
both locations constituted an EXT environ-
ment; no toys were available and both thera-
pists ignored Liam.
For control sessions, both locations consti-
tuted an NCR environment in which a similar
toy was freely available and therapists provided
continuous attention. Elopement from one
location to the other resulted in access to the
identical contingency (implemented by the
other therapist).
Procedure and Response Measurement
Session-based assessment. Kieran, Tanya,
Mikey, Ivan, Jasper, and Violet participated in
session-based assessments. In this assessment,
all sessions were 5 min and could include mul-
tiple instances of elopement. Prior to the first
session of the day, participants received 15-s
exposure to the contingencies in both locations,
after which they were brought to the starting
location for the session. The participant could
move freely between the two locations for the
duration of each session; therapists delivered or
withheld reinforcement according to where the
participant was located.
Two primary dependent measures were
scored for session-based assessments. Allocation
 RESPONSE LATENCY IN ELOPEMENT
by location (A vs. B) was scored using continu-
ous duration measures. A change in allocation
was scored at the moment any part of the par-
ticipant’s foot crossed the threshold (a natural
break in flooring visible to participants, thera-
pists, and data collectors), regardless of how
much of the participant’s body actually crossed
into the other area. No participant ever
remained on the threshold; each instance of
crossing from one area to the other involved
complete movement of the body across the
threshold. We then translated these data as
being on the “test” area or “control” area based
upon the arranged contingencies in each ses-
sion. We also scored elopement, which we
defined as the moment in which the data col-
lector scored a change of allocation (i.e., the
moment the participant crossed from location
A to location B or the reverse.) These data were
then reported as a latency in seconds from the
start of the session to the first instance of
elopement.
Decisions regarding stability and function
were made using visual analysis of the latency
data alone. When a determination was made
for a pairwise comparison, either because
responding in test and control conditions was
sufficiently differentiated to show a func-
tional relation, or because responding was
undifferentiated enough to indicate the lack
of a functional relation, the condition was
terminated and a new pairwise comparison
began.
Each comparison was interpreted as either
demonstrating a reinforcement effect according
to both the allocation measure (consistently ele-
vated response allocation to the NCR area rela-
tive to the EXT area) and the latency measure
(consistently shorter latencies in test relative to
control conditions), or not demonstrating a
reinforcement effect. We considered the mea-
sures to “match” when both allocation and
latency identified a reinforcement effect within
an assessment or both identified no reinforce-
ment effect within the same assessment. We
427
considered measures to “not match” when only
one measure identified a reinforcement effect
within an assessment.
Trial-based assessment. Ned, Ace, and Liam
participated in trial-based assessments. As in
the session-based assessments, participants
received 15-s exposure to the contingencies in
both locations prior to the first session each
day, and were then brought to the starting loca-
tion for the first session. Unlike the session-
based assessments, though, only one instance of
elopement could occur in the trial-based assess-
ment. After an instance of elopement, partici-
pants remained in the new area for 15 s and
sessions were then terminated. Contingencies
were then rearranged across the two locations,
the participant was brought to the new starting
location, and a new trial began. Scoring during
sessions was identical to that of the session-
based assessment; however, only data on the
latency to elopement were reported and
analyzed.
Interobserver Agreement
A second, independent observer scored
responding on an average of 44% of sessions
(range, 26% to 54% across participants).
Interobserver agreement was then calculated
for allocation (session-based only) and latency
(both session- and trial-based) measures.
Allocation IOA was calculated by determin-
ing the percentage of the session scored in
the test condition by each observer, dividing
the smaller value by the larger value, and
converting the quotient into a percentage.
Allocation IOA was 95.9% (range, 93.2% to
97.5%) for all participants. Latency IOA was
calculated by comparing both observers’ time
stamps of the first elopement of the session,
dividing the shorter measure by the longer
measure, and converting the quotient into a
percentage agreement. Mean IOA for latency
was 96.5% (range, 90.5% to 98.3%) across
participants.
428 MICHELE R. TRAUB and TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER

RESULTS break location (during the escape assessment)

Figure 1 shows Kieran’s data. Kieran’s
latency to elopement during attention sessions
was variable across both test and control condi-
tions, whereas in both escape and tangible ses-
sions he eloped quickly in the test condition
and, after some variability in initial sessions,
rarely eloped at all in control sessions. His allo-
cation data reflected a similar pattern, with
consistent allocation of session time to the
and the toy location (during the tangible assess-
ment). As no similar pattern of allocation was
observed in the attention assessment, we con-
cluded that the two assessment modalities
matched in all three cases and that Kieran’s
elopement was maintained by escape from tasks
and access to tangibles.
Figure 2 shows Tanya’s data. Tanya’s latency
to elopement and session allocation was vari-
able throughout all phases of the assessment;

Figure 1. Results of Kieran’s assessment. Latency to elopement is in the left column, and percent of session allocated
to each location is in the right column. Data points above the dotted line represent sessions in which no elopement
occurred.
 RESPONSE LATENCY IN ELOPEMENT
Figure 2. Results of Tanya’s assessment.
however, some differentiation was seen toward
the end of her tangible and in her escape assess-
ments, with consistently low latencies to elope-
ment during test sessions and overall higher
latencies during control sessions. Her allocation
of session time also showed a preference for the
toy and the break, respectively, suggesting that
her elopement was maintained by escape from
tasks and access to tangibles.
Mikey’s data are shown in Figure 3. No dif-
ferentiation in latency was seen between test
429
and control sessions in Mikey’s escape (middle
panel) or attention (bottom panel) assessments.
These results were confirmed by his allocation
data, which showed no consistent allocation of
session time to either location. In Mikey’s tan-
gible assessment, however, some differentiation
was seen in the final 12 sessions, with variable
latencies to elopement in test sessions but no
elopement in control sessions. This suggested
that access to tangibles may have been a weak
or partial reinforcer for Mikey’s elopement, at
430 MICHELE R. TRAUB and TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER
Figure 3. Results of Mikey’s assessment.
least to the extent that having access to a tangi-
ble item prevented elopement. A similar weak
differentiation was seen in his allocation data.
Figure 4 shows Ivan’s data. In Ivan’s escape
assessment he eloped quickly in all test sessions,
whereas latency to elopement was more variable
in control sessions. This indicated that escape
from tasks was a reinforcer for Ivan’s
elopement, which was borne out by his consis-
tent allocation of session time to the break loca-
tion. His tangible assessment (bottom panel of
Figure 2) was even more clearly differentiated,
whereas no differentiation was seen in his
attention assessment. We concluded that all
latency and allocation results matched for Ivan
and that his elopement was maintained
 RESPONSE LATENCY IN ELOPEMENT
Figure 4. Results of Ivan’s assessment.
primarily by access to tangibles and secondarily
by escape from tasks.
Jasper’s data are shown in Figure 5. Laten-
cies to elopement during escape sessions (top
panel) were initially differentiated, but latency
to elopement decreased in later control ses-
sions; this was consistent with Jasper’s alloca-
tion to the demand and break locations, which
initially favored the break but became less
431
differentiated as the assessment continued. His
tangible assessment (third panel) also showed
some differentiation, though he did not elope
at all during two tangible test sessions (5 &
15), and his allocation was variable despite
favoring the toy location. Based on these
results, we tested a hypothesis that Jasper’s
elopement was reinforced by escape from
demands only when that escape also produced
432 MICHELE R. TRAUB and TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER

Escape
100
300 Jasper
80
200
60

40
100 Test
Control 20 Demand
0 Break
0
5 10 15 20
5 10 15 20

Attention
100
Latency to Elopement (s)

300

Percent of Session
80

200 60

40
100 Test
20 EXT
Control
0 NCR
0

5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20

Tangible 100
300
80
Test
200 Control 60
No Toy
40 Toy
100
20

0 0

5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20

Escape to Tangible
100
300
80

200 60

40
100
Test 20 Demand
Control Toy
0 0

5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
Sessions Sessions

Figure 5. Results of Jasper’s assessment.

access to a more preferred (i.e., tangible- elopement was indeed reinforced by escaping
enriched) environment. Clear differentiation demands and accessing tangibles.
was seen in both latency to elopement and ses- Figure 6 shows Violet’s data. Clear differen-
sion allocation during the final escape-to- tiation was seen in Violet’s attention assessment
tangibles condition, suggesting that Jasper’s (middle panel), with low latencies to elopement
 RESPONSE LATENCY IN ELOPEMENT
Figure 6. Results of Violet’s assessment.
in all test sessions and high latencies (when
elopement occurred) in control sessions. Vio-
let’s escape assessment showed lower latencies
to elopement in control sessions, further sug-
gesting that attention was a reinforcer for Vio-
let (as attention was only available in the
demand location). A possible tangible function
was also seen when tangibles were tested in
the absence of attention; however, the
433
concurrent availability of attention and tangi-
bles overshadowed any clear pattern of
responding for tangible access. We therefore
concluded that Violet’s elopement was rein-
forced by access to attention.
Figure 7 shows results from the trial-based
assessments for Ned, Ace, and Liam. Ned (left
column) eloped with similar latencies across
test and control sessions of the escape
434 MICHELE R. TRAUB and TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER

Ned - Escape Ace - Attention Liam - Tangible

Latency to Elopement (s)

300 300 300

200 Test 200 200

Control
100 100 100

0 0 0

5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15

Attention
Escape Attention
300 300 300

200 200 200

100 100 100

0 0 0

5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15
Sessions
Tangible Escape
300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0

5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15
Sessions
Automatic
300

200

100

0
5 10 15
Sessions

Figure 7. Results of trial-based functional analyses for Ned (left), Ace (center), and Liam (right). Data points above
the dotted line represent sessions in which no elopement occurred.

assessment (suggesting escape was not a rein- tangible assessment (suggesting sensitivity to
forcer), and with shorter latencies in the test tangible reinforcement). For Liam (right col-
condition than the control condition of the umn), we included tests for tangibles, attention,
attention assessment (suggesting attention was escape, and automatic reinforcement. Liam dis-
a reinforcer). For Ace (middle column), we played short and undifferentiated latencies to
included separate assessments for attention, elopement across test and control sessions of all
escape, and tangible items. His elopement conditions. Based on this lack of differentia-
latencies were undifferentiated during attention tion, we tentatively concluded that Liam’s
and escape analyses, but differentiated in the elopement was automatically reinforced.
 RESPONSE LATENCY IN ELOPEMENT 435

DISCUSSION Third, the latency-based assessment identi-

We evaluated latency measures as a primary fied sources of reinforcement that corresponded
dependent variable during the FA of elopement with measures of response allocation (see
conducted with nine children with IDD. We Table 1). Traditional psychometricians refer to
first compared latency measures to a more tra- this correspondence as an indicator of conver-
ditional measure of reinforcer strength (alloca- gent validity (i.e., the extent to which a novel
tion). We then conducted three additional FAs assessment corresponds with a more established
in a trial-based format. We were able to iden- assessment; Haynes, 2001).
tify a probable source of reinforcement for each Fourth, the assessment differentiated
participant’s elopement using latency measures between multiple sources of reinforcement,
and without needing to retrieve the participant referred to as discriminative validity (Haynes,
for safety or repeated responding. We were also 2001). That is, if every assessment indicated
able to evaluate the validity of using latency to that elopement was maintained by tangible
responding as a measure of the function of reinforcement, it would be unclear if tangible
behavior, in this case elopement. items were a universal reinforcer for elopement
There are several important considerations in (in which case assessment would be unneces-
evaluating the utility of latency meaures when sary) or if the assessment was incapable of
functionally analyzing elopement. First is the detecting other sources of reinforcement. Our
extent to which a new assessment is capable of assessment identified sensitivity to different
accurately identifying sources of reinforcement, sources of reinforcement across participants
referred to as the sensitivity of the assessment (tangibles for Kieran, Ivan, Tanya, and Mikey;
(Altman & Bland, 1994). That is, if participants escape for Kieran, Ivan, and Tanya; attention
rarely eloped during test conditions or eloped for Violet; and escape to tangibles for Jasper).
inconsistently across all test and control compar- Said another way, this assessment was capable
isons, then the evaluator would have difficulty of showing sensitivity to different reinforcers
identifying reinforcement effects and the assess- across participants.
ment would have limited utility. However, our The final evaluation of the utility of an
results indicated that the latency-based evalua- assessment procedure is the extent to which it
tion identified one or more specific sources of differentially predicts effective treatment,
reinforcement for eight of the nine participants referred to as outcome validity or treatment
and thus was sensitive to reinforcement. utility (Hayes, Nelson, & Jarrett, 1987;
A second important consideration is the
extent to which the assessment is capable of Table 1
ruling out sources of reinforcement, referred to Functions of Elopement Based on Latency and
as the specificity of the assessment (Altman & Allocation Data
Bland, 1994). If every test condition yielded
the same reinforcement effect, then the assess- Function based on Function based on
Name latency allocation
ment would have decreased value. One goal of
Kieran Tangibles & Escape Tangibles & Escape
an FA is to identify those reinforcement rela- Tanya Escape & Tangibles Escape & Tangibles
tions that must be addressed through behav- Mikey Tangibles Tangibles
ioral intervention. In our current data set, Ivan Tangibles & Escape Tangibles & Escape
Jasper Escape to tangibles Escape to tangibles
latency-based assessments demonstrated speci- Violet Attention Attention
ficity by showing insensitivity to one or more Ned Attention ---
Ace Tangible ---
sources of reinforcement for each participant. Liam Automatic ---
436 MICHELE R. TRAUB and TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER
Haynes, 2001). Future research should evaluate
outcome validity of latency-based FAs in a
manner similar to Iwata, Pace, Cowdery, and
Miltenberger (1994b), who showed the differ-
ential efficacy of treatments designed from anal-
ysis results.
Our analysis procedures were similar to those
described by Piazza et al. (1997) and Lehardy
et al. (2013), which included occasioning
elopement in a confined space to eliminate the
confounding interactions associated with partic-
ipant retrieval. Piazza et al. arranged for elope-
ment to occur between two adjoining therapy
rooms, whereas Lehardy et al. arranged for
elopement to occur across a visible room
divider (i.e., tape on the floor). In our study,
we arranged for elopement to occur between
two locations separated by a firm, physical
divider (i.e., the tent, walls, or room divider).
Our procedures also differed in that we had
two therapists conducting each session.
Although this increases the staff and physical
resources necessary to complete this assessment,
we believe these changes may increase partici-
pants’ discrimination of the relevant contingen-
cies arranged in each location. Future research
is needed to directly compare these procedures
to single-therapist procedures, to determine if
the benefits offset the added cost to complete
the assessment.
Our procedures also differed from Lehardy
et al. (2013) in that we did not alter the con-
tingencies associated with each location during
a session, allowing for the observation of behav-
ior in the presence of both a putative EO
(in the EXT condition) and a putative abolish-
ing operation (AO) (in the NCR condition).
While the model described by Lehardy et al.
(2013) allowed for repeated measures of elope-
ment in a session, the data obtained were lim-
ited to an analysis of evocative events, as the
reversal of locations upon elopement
(i.e., moving the putative EO along with the
participant) did not allow for the direct mea-
surement of differential responding to a distinct
environment (as the new physical environment
adopted the contingencies of the original one as
soon as elopement occurred). In the current
study, the consequence of elopement was access
to a functionally distinct set of events, allowing
for the direct comparison of behavior under
both evocative and abolishing conditions.
It is worth noting that five of the nine par-
ticipants’ assessments indicated that elopement
was reinforced by access to tangible items. This
result is similar to that of Lehardy et al. (2013),
who reported that three of four participants’
elopement was reinforced by access to tangible
items. Several authors have raised concern
regarding the inclusion of tangible conditions
in functional analyses (Rooker, Iwata, Harper,
Fahmie, & Camp, 2011; Shirley, Iwata, &
Kahng, 1999), warning that the contingent
delivery of high-preference food or leisure items
may yield novel problem behavior–reinforcer
relations during the FA, producing false-
positive results. Descriptive studies of aggres-
sion, self-injury, and property destruction indi-
cate that tangible items are rarely delivered
when these problem behaviors are exhibited by
adults in a residential institution or by children
in preschool classrooms (McKerchar &
Thompson, 2004; Thompson & Iwata, 2001),
and large scale FAs of problem behavior indi-
cate that maintenance by tangible reinforce-
ment is relatively uncommon relative to other
social and sensory reinforcers (Iwata et al.,
1994). Thus, it is possible that the frequent
identification of tangible items as a reinforcer
for elopement is a false positive, but it may also
suggest that access to tangibles is a more com-
mon consequence for elopement than for other
forms of problem behavior. Elopement may
more commonly produce access to tangibles in
that the locations to which individuals elope
may involve access to leisure items or food
(e.g., eloping to a playground, kitchen, or play-
room). Further, when children elope from
home into an open space (e.g., by a busy
street), caregivers may attempt to lure them
 RESPONSE LATENCY IN ELOPEMENT
back to safety with preferred materials. This
claim is admittedly speculative; additional
descriptive research on the frequency of parent-
and teacher-delivered consequences for elope-
ment is needed.
These potential sources of tangible reinforce-
ment raise a point related to how we typically
categorize social and nonsocial reinforcement.
The tangible condition in FAs is typically con-
sidered a test for socially mediated positive rein-
forcement. That is, an adult provides access to
an edible or leisure item following each
instance of a target behavior. In our current
evaluation, the delivery of toys (tangibles) was
not mediated by another person; therapists
were present in both locations but access to the
reinforcers was a function of presence in the
environment, not delivery by the therapist). As
such, the tangible item may be described as an
automatic positive reinforcer. However, in situ-
ations in which a child leaves her home, and
the parent provides access to a tangible to lure
her home, then this same reinforcer would be
considered a social positive reinforcer. The dis-
tinction between the mediation of these rein-
forcers may be important to understanding the
natural consequences of elopement and the
assessment conditions that must be arranged to
capture the contingencies operating in the nat-
ural environment. Further, the design of these
procedures should be influenced by parent
report. If parents suggest that an individual
often leaves the house to access playground
equipment, then the relevant tangible condition
should be incorporated into the assessment
rather than conducting a preference assessment
to identify a high-preference item. The latter
seems likely to risk shaping new problem
behavior in the manner suggested by Rooker
et al. (2011). However, should parents identify
that they will attempt to lure or tempt children
to come home by offering preferred materials,
than including items identified by a preference
assessment or the items used by the parents
might be appropriate.
437
Elopement remains one of the most danger-
ous, life-threatening forms of problem behavior
exhibited by individuals with IDD, regardless
of age. The most common management strate-
gies for this behavior are antecedent environ-
mental manipulations including door alarms,
coded or keyed door locks, closed-circuit cam-
era monitoring, and other safeguards to prevent
elopement (e.g., Moore, Algase, Powell-Cope,
Applegarth, & Beattie, 2009), with some pro-
fessionals using sedative medication to reduce
overall activity levels (e.g., Solomon & Lawlor,
2013). There is an opportunity for functional
assessment-based intervention to make a signifi-
cant impact by reducing the restrictiveness of
these environments and teaching alternative
functional skills.
REFERENCES
Altman, D. G., & Bland, J. M. (1994). Diagnostic tests
1: Sensitivity and specificity. British Medical Journal,
308, 1552.
Anderson, C., Law, J. K., Daniels, A., Rice, C.,
Mandell, D. S., Hagopian, L., & Law, P. A. (2012).
Occurrence and family impact of elopement in chil-
dren with autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics, 130,
870-877. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0762
Davis, T. N., Durand, S., Bankhead, J., Strickland, E.,
Blenden, K., Dacus, S.,. . . Machalicek, W. (2013).
Brief report: Latency functional analysis of elope-
ment. Behavioral Interventions, 28, 251-259. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bin.1363
Hayes, S. C., Nelson, R. O., & Jarrett, R. B. (1987). The
treatment utility of assessment: A functional approach
to evaluating assessment quality. American
Psychologist, 42, 963-974. https://doi.org/10.1037//
0003-066x.42.11.963
Haynes, S. N. (2001). Clinical applications of analogue
behavioral observation: Dimensions of psychometric
evaluation. Psychological Assessment, 13, 73-85.
https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.13.1.73
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J.,
Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994a). Toward
a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 27, 197-209. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1994.27-197 (Reprinted from Analysis
and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities,
2, 3-20, 1982.)
Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Cowdery, G. E., &
Miltenberger, R. G. (1994b). What makes extinction
work: An analysis of procedural form and function.
438 MICHELE R. TRAUB and TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 131-144.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-131
Jacobson, J. W. (1982). Problem behavior and psychiatric
impairment within a developmentally delayed popu-
lation I: Behavior frequency. Applied Research in Men-
tal Retardation, 3, 121-139. https://doi.org/10.
1016/0270-3092(82)90002-9
Jang, J., Dixon, D. R., Tarbox, J., & Granpeesheh, D.
(2011). Symptom severity and challenging behavior
in children with ASD. Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders, 5, 1028-1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rasd.2010.11.008
Lang, R., Rispoli, M., Machalicek, W., White, P. J.,
Kang, S., Pierce, N.,. . . Lancioni, G. (2009). Treat-
ment of elopement in individuals with developmental
disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Develop-
mental Disabilities, 30, 670-681. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ridd.2008.11.003
Lehardy, R. K., Lerman, D. C., Evans, L. M.,
O’Connor, A., & LeSage, D. L. (2013). A simplified
methodology for identifying the function of elope-
ment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 256-
270. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.22
Matson, J. L., & Rivet, T. T. (2008). Characteristics of
challenging behaviours in adults with autistic disorder,
PDD-NOS, and intellectual disability. Journal of Intel-
lectual and Developmental Disability, 33, 323-329.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250802492600
McKerchar, P. M., & Thompson, R. H. (2004). A
descriptive analysis of potential reinforcement contin-
gencies in the preschool classroom. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 37, 431-444. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.2004.37-431
Moore, D. H., Algase, D. L., Powell-Cope, G.,
Applegarth, S., & Beattie, E. B. A. (2009). A frame-
work for managing wandering and preventing elope-
ment. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and
Other Dementias, 24, 208-219. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1533317509332625
Mouridsen, S. E., Bronnum-Hansen, H., Rich, B., &
Isager, T. (2008). Mortality and causes of death in
autism spectrum disorders: An update. Autism, 12, 403-
414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361308091653
Mueller, M. M., Sterling-Turner, H., & Moore, J. W.
(2005). Towards developing a classroom-based func-
tional analysis condition to assess escape-to-attention
as a variable maintaining problem behavior. School
Psychology Review, 34, 425-431.
Neidert, P. L., Iwata, B. A., Dempsey, C. M., &
Thomason-Sassi, J. L. (2013). Latency of response
during the functional analysis of elopement. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 312-316. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.11
Piazza, C. C., Hanley, G. P., Bowman, L. G., Ruyter.
J. M., Lindauer, S. E., & Saiontz, D. M. (1997).
Functional analysis and treatment of elopement. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 653-672. https://
doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-653
Rooker, G. W., Iwata, B. A., Harper, J. M.,
Fahmie, T. A., & Camp, E. M. (2011). False-positive
tangible outcomes of functional analyses. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 737-745. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-737
Shavelle, R. M., Strauss, D. J., & Pickett, J. (2001).
Causes of death in autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 31, 569-576. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1013247011483
Shirley, M. J., Iwata, B. A., & Kahng, S. (1999). False-
positive maintenance of self-injurious behavior by
access to tangible reinforcers. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 32, 201-204. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1999.32-201
Solomon, O., & Lawlor, M. C. (2013). “And I look
down and he is gone”: Narrating autism, elopement,
and wandering in Los Angeles. Social Science &
Medicine, 94, 106-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
socscimed.2013.06.034
Thomason-Sassi, J. L., Iwata, B. A., Neidert, P. L., &
Roscoe, E. M. (2011). Response latency as an index
of response strength during functional analyses of
problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 44, 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
2011.44-51
Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2001). A descriptive
analysis of social consequences following problem
behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34,
169-178. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-169
Received January 5, 2017
Final acceptance May 8, 2018
Action Editor, Jeffrey Tiger