Limitations Analysis: A Surprisingly Common Reason for the Failure to Generalize

One of the most common complaints of applied behavior analysis is that while the behavior changes are successful, they often fail to generalize across people, places, settings, examples, or situations. Now, there are many possible reasons for the failure to generalize, and I won’t be covering them all here. Today I just want to cover one that is surprisingly common: The behavior change was not mastered under practical conditions.

After a behavior change has been completed, there are two important questions to ask. These questions were adapted for children with autism and other developmental disabilities from this audio recording from Eli Goldratt, which has nothing to do with autism, special education, or behavior analysis. You never know where good ideas will come from.

What does the adult have to do for the child (or help the child do) that they would not have to help a typically developing child of the same age do with regard to this behavior?
What does the adult have to avoid doing with this child with regard to this behavior that they would not have to avoid with a typically developing child of the same age?

Collectively, I call the answers to those questions the limitations. The limitations are, in my view, the most common reason for failure to generalize otherwise mastered skills.

For example, when skills that are mastered in discrete trial teaching, they often do not generalize. Why? When you observe the RBT (Registered Behavior Technician) you find things like:

The RBT makes sure that they have the child’s attention before each trial.
The RBT provides enthusiastic praise after each trial.
The RBT provides a tangible reward (e.g., access to the iPad after every 10 trials.)

Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with those types of procedures to establish a behavior. But don’t expect them to occur spontaneously without a lot more work to make the skills practical so that they will be naturally reinforced under real-world conditions.

In a similar manner, the same thing happens with behavior reduction programs. The problem behavior might be at zero, but it doesn’t generalize to novel people or situations. Why? You will often find things like:

The parent always offers choices before presenting any demands.
The RBT reminds the student of the contingencies before each class at school.
The expectations of the activity are reduced for the student.

Again, nothing necessarily wrong with these types of procedures to reduce a significant problem behavior. Just don’t expect to get generality to novel situations unless you do a lot more work to teach the alternative behaviors that will meet a natural contingency.

Once you get the hang of this idea and start looking for limitations, you will see them everywhere. One of the keys to good programming is overcoming all the important limitations to get skills to the point where they are likely to occur under natural situations.

Behavior analytic services should only be delivered in the context of a professional relationship. Nothing written in this blog should be considered advice for any specific individual. The purpose of the blog is to share my experience, not to provide treatment. Please get advice from a professional before making changes to behavior analytic services being delivered. Nothing in this blog including comments or correspondence should be considered an agreement for Dr. Barry D. Morgenstern to provide services or establish a professional relationship outside of a formal agreement to do so. I attempt to write this blog in “plain English” and avoid technical jargon whenever possible. But all statements are meant to be consistent with behavior analytic literature, practice, and the professional code of ethics. If, for whatever reason, you think I’ve failed in the endeavor, let me know and I’ll consider your comments and make revisions, if appropriate. Feedback is always appreciated as I’m always trying to Poogi.