ABA Inside Track – Episode 326: Difficulty During Transitions (Fall 2025 Listener Choice)

Date: November 12, 2025
Hosts: Robert Perry Crews, Diana Perry Cruz, Jackie McDonald
Main Theme:
A deep dive into the behavioral challenges associated with transitions—whether between activities, settings, or demands—commonly experienced by children and individuals with developmental disabilities. The episode highlights key peer-reviewed research, assessment methods, the ambiguous nature of “transitions,” intervention strategies, and case studies, while discussing why transitions so often trigger problem behavior.

Episode Overview

ABA Inside Track’s hosts discuss current research on difficulties during transitions, unpacking why these seemingly mundane moments (like moving from preferred to non-preferred activities, or between spaces) can evoke refusal, disruption, or aggression. The conversation is guided by three recent articles, each bringing a different lens to understanding and treating transition-related behaviors.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Do We Mean by "Transitions"?

• Variety in Definitions: Transitions may refer to a change in activity (e.g., from play to work) or a physical move from one location to another (e.g., classroom to playground)—or both. This ambiguity complicates both research and practice.

  “Sometimes a transition just refers to a switchover of activity, whereas sometimes a transition refers to physical movement from one space to another, potentially with active change in activity. And so I think that can make it really challenging.” (A, 04:47)

• Functional Complexity: Is the problem the act of moving itself, or what is coming next? Articles explore both possibilities and the overlap.

2. Article Summaries and Key Findings

Article 1: Waters, Lerman, Havanatz (2009) – Visual Schedules & DRO/Extinction

Purpose:
Test the effectiveness of visual schedules alone or in combination with extinction and differential reinforcement (DRO) for reducing transition-triggered problem behavior.

Participants:
Two 6-year-old boys, both with a history of transition difficulties across settings (school, home, daycare).

Findings:

• Visual Schedules Alone: Not empirically sufficient to reduce problem behavior in this context, matching previous research indicating "advanced notice" (e.g., two-minute warning) isn’t always effective.
• Extinction & DRO: Some reduction seen but not always ideal—DRO is not inherently function-based, raising ethical/practical questions.

  “DRO is actually a punishment procedure, so it’s not function based… I would teach a Functional communication response for both [functions].” (C, 15:35)

• Combined Intervention (Visual Schedule + DRO + Extinction): Showed the greatest reductions in aggression/disruption.
• Takeaway:
  • Visual schedules are helpful as cues for what’s next, especially for developing independence, but may not be enough when the transition itself is aversive.
  • Advanced notice and visual schedules “seem humane and nice,” but practitioners must not assume they're always effective.

Article 2: Paulsdottir et al. (2023) – Experimental Analysis of Task Refusal Across Transition Types

Purpose:
Examine whether transition escape is distinct from standard escape from task demand, and test interventions.

Participant:
Single case, 12-year-old girl with ADHD and developmental delay.

Key Methods & Insights:

• Preference Assessment: Determined “high,” “moderate,” and “low” preferred academic tasks.

• Demand vs. Transition Analysis: Task refusal wasn’t triggered by the “low preferred task” alone, but by a transition from high to low preferred (e.g., switching from a more liked to less liked academic task).

• Treatment: Brief, embedded “break” before the low-preferred task (e.g., 10-15 seconds) eliminated refusals.

• Interpretation:

  • Revealed that it’s not just “escape from demands,” but the abrupt switch (“rich to lean schedule”) that’s problematic.
  • The “predictability” and signaling of the less-preferred task exacerbates problem behavior; unpredictability (via breaks) may help.

  “If all [a schedule] is doing is cueing ‘Hey, by the way, guess what’s coming up? Something you hate,’ that might be hard…” (A, 18:39)

Article 3: Wilson et al. (2025) – Case Study: Moderating Transitions with a Middle (Moderately Preferred) Activity

Purpose:
Test if transitioning from a highly preferred to a low-preferred activity (iPad to bus) could be improved by inserting a moderately preferred activity (“stepping stones”) in between.

Participant:
12-year-old girl; problem: climbing furniture when transitioning to the bus (safety risk).

Method:

• Preference assessment: iPad (high), stepping stones/tickles (moderate).
• Trial-based FA: Varied escape conditions (including physical transitions).
• Control: iPad → Bus; Treatment: iPad → Stepping Stones → Bus.

Results:

• Control: High rates of furniture climbing during iPad→Bus transitions.
• Treatment: ZERO occurrences of climbing when “stepping stones” added as an intermediate step.
• Limitations:
  • The SD (“let’s go to the bus” vs. “let’s do stepping stones”) was different between conditions; uncertain if results were due to the activity or the SD change.
  • Mechanisms unclear; could involve emotional momentum, response effort, or simply breaking up aversiveness.

Quote:

“The most amazing graph is in this study... The control condition… high rates. The treatment… zero. Huge differentiation in this graph.” (B, 46:48)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the challenge of generalization in transition research:

  “I am a little surprised that there hasn’t been more, like, deep dives into some of the factors going on in more of a sort of, like, line of research… It felt a little disjointed.” (A, 23:30)

• On the limits of ‘universally good’ interventions:

  “Sometimes people just do things because they feel nice and sometimes they don’t matter… [Visual schedules] seem very humane, exactly right, yeah. But if all it’s doing is cueing, ‘Hey, by the way, something you hate is coming up,’ that might be hard.” (A & C, 07:26–08:23)

• On the humanness of transition avoidance:

  “I think that’s the human condition right there.” (B, 25:41)

• On expanding treatment creativity:

  “Maybe, Cody, you can tell us. Tell us what the mechanism is… Because some other things I would have loved to see was, like, what if you added more treatment options?” (A, 49:14)

Applied Takeaways & Practical Conclusions

• Thorough Assessment is Critical:

  • Determine if behavior is truly escape from a task (“I don’t want to do this”) or escape from the transition itself (“I don’t want to switch”).
  • Function-based interventions work best, but avoid rote reliance on extinction/DRO without teaching replacement responses.

• Don’t Overestimate Visual Schedules:

  • Helpful as cues and for predictability, but often insufficient for deeply aversive transitions or those already triggering refusal/aggression.

• Embedded Breaks and Step-Downs:

  • Inserting a brief “neutral” or “moderately preferred” activity between high- and low-preference tasks can significantly reduce problem behavior.
  • Even low-effort solutions (e.g., a 15-second “errand” between hard transitions) may work.

• Gentleness, Individuality, and Empathy:

  • “What you see as a minor transition may be a huge psychological hurdle for your client… Treating these situations with kindness, I guess.” (B, 53:08)
  • Gauge the experience from the learner’s perspective. Small process changes matter.

• Need for More Research:

  • Only five participants across all included studies; transition research is in its infancy.
  • Definition ambiguity persists (“What is a transition?”); more work needed on functional nuances.

Memorable Moments & Timestamps

• Defining Transitions & Setup: 03:24–04:47
  • "What is the topic…your victory lap?" (C, 02:24)
• Visual Schedules & their Limits: 06:15–09:21
• Transition Escape vs. Task Escape Conceptualized: 24:06–26:16
• Pigeon Studies as Analogy: 28:05–29:16
• Stepping Stone Case Study Results: 46:48–47:45
• Final Reflection on Empathy and Individual Experience: 53:08–54:53

Suggested Further Listening (Pairings)

• Episode 18: Transitions pt. 1 (“Moving from point A to point B”)
• Episode 249: Alternatives to Escape Extinction
• Episode 87: High P, Low P Instructional Sequences
• Episode 320: Why Jackie Hates DRO
• Episode 1013: Activity Schedules Book Club

Final Thoughts

While much remains to be explored, this episode offers a guidepost: Assess transitions rigorously and individually. Recognize the difference between task aversion and transition aversion, don’t rely solely on “nice-sounding” interventions, and when in doubt, insert a gentle ramp or neutral step—sometimes a stepping stone really is the bridge between “no way” and “okay.”

[Produced faithfully in the energetic, conversational, mildly irreverent tone characteristic of ABA Inside Track.]