BRIEF REPORT The effects of an escape extinction procedure using protective equipment on self‐injurious behavior Lisa Tereshko | Donn Sottolano Behavior Services, Area Cooperative Educational Services, North Haven, CT, USA Correspondence Lisa Tereshko, Area Cooperative Educational Services, 163 Concord Road, Chelmsford MA 01824, USA. Email: ltereshko@yahoo.com While escape extinction has shown to be successful in reducing escape maintained self‐injurious behavior, there is limited research on the use of escape extinction with protective equipment for escape maintained self‐injurious behavior. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of an escape extinction procedure paired with the application of protective equipment on the escape maintained self‐injurious behavior of an 8‐year‐old boy diagnosed with autism. Results suggested that escape extinction using protec- tive equipment for safety is an effective approach to decrease head hitting. Rates of self‐injurious behavior during an 18‐month follow‐ up were comparable to rates observed in the final intervention phase. 1 | INTRODUCTION It is not uncommon in individuals with developmental disabilities to engage in self‐injurious behavior (SIB; Geiger, Carr, & LeBlanc, 2010). SIB may be acquired and maintained through positive, negative, and automatic reinforcement. Decreasing the frequency and intensity of the SIB in these individuals is of critical importance due to the severity of the behavior and resulting social isolation. Not only does SIB present significant risks to the individual, it also presents challenges to those responsible for treating the behavior. One of the most critical challenges in treating SIB lies in the analysis of variables main- taining the behavior. Without knowing what the maintaining function is, one cannot implement an effective treat- ment plan. Conducting an experimental functional analysis of SIB, in the absence of protective equipment, is a challenge due to the risk of potential physical injury by allowing higher frequencies and intensities of SIB (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1994). With the risk of injury present, there is less time for assessment and a need for immediate treatment. However, one could argue that it is more dangerous to implement an arbitrary treatment without assessment than a treatment based on behavioral function after completing an assessment (Hanley, 2012). Le and Smith (2002) and Borrero, Vollmer, Wright, Lerman, and Kelley (2002) completed compar- ison studies of functional analyses with and without the use of protective equipment. The results of both studies * Lisa Tereshko, Behavior Services, Area Cooperative Educational Services; Donn Sottolano, Behavior Services, Area Cooperative Educational Services. Lisa Tereshko is now at Beacon ABA Services, Inc. and Donn Sottolano is now at Chicago School of Professional Psychology. We would like to thank Gregory Lefebvre and the staff in the Early Intensive Behavior Intervention Program at ACES Village School for their onsite support. Received: 7 December 2014 Revised: 29 August 2016 Accepted: 18 January 2017 DOI 10.1002/bin.1475 Behavioral Interventions. 2017;1–8. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bin 1