A Comparison of Analysis Methods to Estimate Contingency Strength

Blair P. Lloyd

Johanna L. Staubitz

Jon T. Tapp

Abstract

To date, several data analysis methods have been used to estimate contingency strength, yet few studies have compared these methods directly. To compare the relative precision and sensitivity of four analysis methods (i.e., exhaustive event‐based, nonexhaustive event‐based, concurrent interval, concurrent+lag interval), we applied all methods to a simulated data set in which several response‐dependent and response‐independent schedules of reinforcement were programmed. We evaluated the degree to which contingency strength estimates produced from each method (a) corresponded with expected values for response‐dependent schedules and (b) showed sensitivity to parametric manipulations of response‐independent reinforcement. Results indicated both event‐based methods produced contingency strength estimates that aligned with expected values for response‐dependent schedules, but differed in sensitivity to response‐independent reinforcement. The precision of interval‐based methods varied by analysis method (concurrent vs. concurrent+lag) and schedule type (continuous vs. partial), and showed similar sensitivities to response‐independent reinforcement. Recommendations and considerations for measuring contingencies are identified.

Read the Paper

Access this paper via Wiley.

Reference

Lloyd, B. P., Staubitz, J. L., & Tapp, J. T. (2018). A comparison of analysis methods to estimate contingency strength. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51(3), 738-753.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.463