Priorityhigh
Target in 500-item bank12
Target in 1000-item bank24

Concept review facts

Use this block to decide whether the concept needs definition review, scenario practice, or missed-question repair.

Fact
What this concept means here

Build new behavior through successive approximations, linked response chains, and group contingencies when those arrangements fit the goal and context.

Fact
How it appears in questions

Choose shaping when the terminal response is absent.

Fact
Best next action

If this concept is weak, practice Behavior-Change Procedures scenarios and write one correction rule after each miss.

How this shows up in scenario questions

  1. 1Choose shaping when the terminal response is absent.
  2. 2Choose chaining for multi-step skills.
  3. 3Select appropriate group contingency type.

Common misconceptions

  • Requiring terminal behavior before reinforcement.
  • Using chaining for a single response.
  • Ignoring peer effects in group contingencies.

Distractor patterns

  • Extinguish all approximations.
  • Use total-task chaining without prerequisite skills.
  • Choose dependent group contingency without considering fairness.

Self-check before more practice

1
Can you define it without using the term itself?

If not, pause and rewrite the definition in plain language before answering more scenarios.

2
Can you spot the clue in a scenario stem?

Look for the data, timing, function, stakeholder, or ethical constraint that makes this concept relevant.

3
Can you reject the closest distractor?

A concept is not stable until you can explain why a plausible wrong answer is weaker.

Related terms

shapingchainingtask analysisgroup contingencies

Turn this concept into practice

Use this page as a weak-area checkpoint: practice related scenarios, then review missed answers and save a study plan from your results.

Related study guides

Related practice prompts

Practice more

More concepts in this domain

Editorial transparency

Machine quality gate

Published by Bifang Studio. Content is maintained by internal editors with automated structure, coverage, and consistency checks. No content has been externally reviewed by a named, credential-verifiable BCBA; these checks do not certify clinical quality or exam validity.