Abstract
The use of functional behavior assessment (FBA) to guide the development of behavior intervention plans continues to increase since they were first mandated in IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq, 1997). A variety of indirect and direct instruments have been developed to facilitate this process. Although many researchers believe that a full functional analysis is necessary to identify the function of a behavior, more rapid and efficient FBA procedures are more commonly used. This investigation examined the correspondence between indirect and direct FBA procedures. Specifically, the results of three descriptive assessments and a functional analysis for four young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders were compared. Separation of all descriptive and experimental results was maintained and the assessment order was counterbalanced. Results of the descriptive assessments had low consistency with each other, and the results of two indirect FBA assessments (the Functional Assessment Interview and Motivation Assessment Scale) had low agreement with the results of functional analyses. On the other hand, the direct assessment procedure (ABC assessment) agreed with the results of functional analyses for all participants. These results support the use of direct observations and indicate that indirect measures should be used with caution as stand-alone assessments of the function of challenging behaviors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. (2000). Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: Research Center for Children, Youth & Families, University of Vermont.
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: Research Center for Children, Youth & Families, University of Vermont.
Arndorfer, R. E., Miltenberger, R. G., Woster, S. H., Rortvedt, A. K., & Gaffaney, T. (1994). Home-based descriptive and experimental analysis of problem behaviors in children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14, 64–88.
Association for Positive Behavior Support (n.d.) Retrieved October, 2006 from http://www.pbis.org/main.htm.
Barton-Arwood, S. M., Wehby, J. H., Gunter, P. L., & Lane, K. (2003). Functional behavior rating scales: Interrater reliability with students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 386–400.
Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., Ault, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175–191.
Blair, K. C., Umbreit, J., & Bos, C. S. (1999). Using functional assessment and children’s preferences to improve the behavior of young children with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 151–166.
Calloway, C. J., & Simpson, R. L. (1998). Decisions regarding functions of behavior: Scientific versus informal analysis. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 167–176.
Chandler, L. K., Dahlquist, C. M., Repp, A. C., & Feltz, C. (1999). The effects of team-based functional assessment on the behavior of students in classroom settings. Exceptional Children, 66, 101–129.
Conroy, M. A., Fox, J. J., Bucklin, A., & Good, W. (1996). An analysis of the reliability and stability of the motivation assessment scale in assessing the challenging behaviors of persons with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, 243–250.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cunningham, E., & O’Neill, R. E. (2000). A comparison of results of functional assessment and analysis methods with young children with autism. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 406–414.
Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99–117.
Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1992). The motivation assessment scale (MAS) administration guide. Topeka, KS: Monaco.
Ellingson, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., Stricker, J., Galensky, T. L., & Garlinghouse, M. (2000). Functional assessment and intervention for challenging behaviors in the classroom by general classroom teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 85–98.
Floyd, R. G., Phaneuf, R. L., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2005). Measurement properties of indirect assessment methods for functional behavioral assessment: A review of research. School Psychology Review, 34, 58–73.
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq. (1997).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004, 11 Stat. 37 U.S.C. Section 1401 (2004).
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209. (Reprinted from analysis and intervention in developmental disabilities, 2, 3–30).
Johnston, S. S., & O’Neill R. E. (2001). Searching for effectiveness and efficiency in conducting functional assessments: A review and proposed process for teachers and other practitioners. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 205–215.
Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1993). Descriptive and experimental analyses of variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 293–319.
Murdock, S. G., O’Neill, R. E., & Cunningham, E. (2005). A comparison of functional behavioral assessment procedures with a group of middle school students with emotional/ behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 5–18.
Newcomer, L. L., & Lewis, T. J. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment: An investigation of assessment reliability and effectiveness of function-based interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 168–181.
O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole.
Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Stichter, J., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282–296.
Sasso, G. M., Reimers, T. M., Cooper, L. J., Wacker, D., Berg, W., Steege, M., Kelly, L., & Allaire, A. (1992). Use of descriptive and experimental analysis to identify the functional properties of aberrant behavior in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 809–821.
Schill, M. T., Kratochowill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1998). Functional assessment in behavioral consultation: A treatment utility study. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 116–140.
Scott, T. M., Bucalos, A., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., & Deshea, L. (2004). Using functional behavior assessment in general education settings: Making a case for effectiveness and efficiency. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 300–323.
Shores, R. E., Wehby, J. H., & Jack, S. L. (1999). Analyzing behavior disorders in classrooms. In A. C. Repp & Horner, R. H. (Eds.), Functional analysis of problem behavior: From effective assessment to effective support (pp. 219–237). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Sprague, J. R. (1999). Functional assessment-based behavior support planning: Research to practice to research. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 253–257.
Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 343–351.
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J. B., Liaupsin, C. J., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based intervention. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gatti, S. (2001). Descriptive assessment method to reduce overall disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. School Psychology Review, 30, 548–567.
Webster-Stratton, C. (1997). Early intervention for families of preschool children with conduct problems. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention (pp. 429–454). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Yarbrough, S. C., & Carr, E. G. (2000). Some relationships between informant assessment and functional analysis of problem behavior. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 105, 130–151.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
The following is a description of each FA session.
Free Play
The free play condition was used as a control for the other four conditions. During free play, the participant had access to preferred toys, neutral activities and the teacher provided positive attention in a continuous, non-contingent rate, approximately 5 times per minute per free play session. No instructional demands were placed on the participant.
Tangible
During the tangible condition, the participant was presented with the preferred item, which was previously determined by pre-assessment interview. The item was removed after a set interval of 20 s. The teacher maintained a distance of three to six feet from the participant. Upon demonstration of a disruptive behavior, the teacher presented the participant with the tangible reinforcement with the statement “Now it’s your turn with the toy.” After 30 s, the tangible item was removed again with the statement “Now it’s my turn with the toy.” Demonstration of the behavior resulted in the item being returned. No other demands were placed on the child. All other behaviors that did not meet the response definition criteria were ignored and the teacher provided non-contingent attention statements to the participant on a fixed 30-s interval.
Attention
In the attention condition, the teacher maintained a distance of three to six feet from the participant and pretended to be occupied with paperwork. When the participant engaged in the disruptive behavior, the teacher approached the participant, placed a hand on the child’s back and gave a verbal reprimand that represents what might typically happen during demonstrations of this challenging behavior (e.g.”Stop doing that. You shouldn’t do that because it is against the rules. You are not following directions when you do that.”) Participant children had access to the neutral activity and no other demands were placed on them. When the behavior was not occurring, the teacher did not engage in social attention.
Escape
In the escape condition, the participants were assigned a predetermined task that was determined by the teacher to be challenging, but within their intellectual ability (i.e., copying his name 10 times). Verbal instructions and modeling of the task were provided at the beginning of the session. When the participant engaged in the target behavior, the task was removed for 30 s and the teacher said, “Time to take a break.” Following a 30-s break, the task and demand was presented again. The neutral activity was not available. The teacher provided non-contingent attention statements to the participant on a fixed 30-s interval.
Ignore
During the ignore condition, the participant was directed to stay in the assigned area. The preferred tangible item and neutral activity materials were accessible but no direct interaction with the teacher occurred and no demands were place on the participant child.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alter, P.J., Conroy, M.A., Mancil, G.R. et al. A Comparison of Functional Behavior Assessment Methodologies with Young Children: Descriptive Methods and Functional Analysis. J Behav Educ 17, 200–219 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-008-9064-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-008-9064-3