“AVERSIVE INTERVENTION MEANS AN INTERVENTION THAT IS INTENDED TO INDUCE PAIN OR DISCOMFORT TO A STUDENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELIMINATING OR REDUCING MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIORS.”
–8 NYCRR §§19.5(b) and 200.22(e)

There are three levels of aversive procedures, which vary in intensity and restrictiveness, ranging from less intrusive strategies to highly restrictive practices that are likely to cause significant discomfort or harm. Understanding these levels is important because they illustrate the potential risks and ethical concerns associated with aversive interventions.

LEVEL 1

  • The loss of a specific amount of positive reinforcement following the occurrence of an undesired behavior, which helps reduce the future likelihood of that behavior.

    —

    Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson. 

  • Removing a learner from a preferred activity and from receiving reinforcement while allowing them to remain in the same area and observe others.

    —

    Bagwell, A., Barnett, M., & Falcomata, T. S. (2022). Response cost and time-out from reinforcement. In J. Leaf, J. Cihon, J. Ferguson, & M. J. Weiss, (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Behavior Analysis Interventions for Autism: Integrating Research into Practice (pp. 479-496). Springer International Publishing.

LEVEL 2

  • A behavior-change strategy based on positive punishment in which, when a problem behavior occurs, the learner is required to perform effortful behavior that is directly or logically related to repairing the harm caused by the behavior. Specific types of overcorrection include positive practice overcorrection and restitutional overcorrection.

    —

    Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson. 

  • Removing a learner from a preferred activity and from receiving reinforcement while positioning them so they cannot observe others in the same area.

    —

    Bagwell, A., Barnett, M., & Falcomata, T. S. (2022). Response cost and time-out from reinforcement. In J. Leaf, J. Cihon, J. Ferguson, & M. J. Weiss, (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Behavior Analysis Interventions for Autism: Integrating Research into Practice (pp. 479-496). Springer International Publishing.

LEVEL 3

  • Physically holding or securing a person against their will when their behavior poses an immediate danger to themselves or others. Physical restraint uses hands-on holding to limit a person’s movement or access to their body, while mechanical restraint involves using a device, material, or equipment attached to or near the person’s body that they cannot easily remove, restricting movement or access.

    —

    California Department of Health Care Services. (n.d.). Seclusion and restrain definitions. https://www.dhcs.ca.gov/provgovpart/Pages/Seclusion-and-Restraint-Definitions.aspx

  • Removing a learner from a preferred or reinforcing area and placing them in a separate, typically bare area where there are no preferred activities or items.

    —

    Bagwell, A., Barnett, M., & Falcomata, T. S. (2022). Response cost and time-out from reinforcement. In J. Leaf, J. Cihon, J. Ferguson, & M. J. Weiss, (Eds.), Handbook of Applied Behavior Analysis Interventions for Autism: Integrating Research into Practice (pp. 479-496). Springer International Publishing.

  • The use of an electric device placed on a person, typically someone with an intellectual or developmental disability, to deliver a shock to their skin in an attempt to reduce or stop a challenging behavior.

    —

    Zarcone, J. R., Mullane, M. P., Langdon, P. E., & Brown, I. (2020). Contingent electric shock as a treatment for challenging behavior for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Support for the IASSIDD policy statement opposing its use. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 17(4), 291-296. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12342