Functional Assessment of Challenging Behavior
- 24 Downloads
Purpose of Review
The purpose of this review is to evaluate recent research on functional assessment procedures to identify recent advances and best practices.
Indirect assessments are the most limited form of functional assessment, but their value increases when conducted by behavior analysts rather than caregivers. Direct assessments produce more valid outcomes than indirect assessments, but do not demonstrate a functional relationship between the environmental contingencies and the behavior. Functional analysis procedures are the most rigorous and valid approaches. Recent research has evaluated functional analysis variations, such as the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis, that are more efficient and flexible for use in a variety of settings.
The implementation of a functional assessment continues to be best practice for developing effective functional interventions for challenging behavior. Indirect assessments have value for informing direct assessments and functional analyses. Using indirect assessment findings to develop functional analysis procedures can increase their efficiency while maintaining the validity of the functional assessment process.
KeywordsFunctional analysis Functional assessment Indirect assessment Direct assessment
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.• Miltenberger RG, Bloom SE, Sanchez S, Valbuena DA. Functional assessment. In: Singh NN, editor. Handbook of evidence-based practices in intellectual and developmental disabilities. New York: Springer; 2016. A recent chapter summarizing research on functional assessment. Google Scholar
- 6.• Fryling MJ, Baires NA. The practical importance of the distinction between open and closed-ended indirect assessments. Behav Anal Pract. 2016;9:146–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0115-2Describes open-ended and closed-ended indirect functional assessment procedures and discusses strengths and limitations. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 7.O’Neill RE, Albin RW, Storey K, Horner RH, Sprague JR. Functional assessment and program development. Nelson Education: Canada; 2015.Google Scholar
- 12.Floyd RG, Phaneuf RL, Wilczynski SM. Measurement properties of indirect assessment methods for functional behavioral assessment: a review of research. Sch Psychol Rev. 2005;34:58–73.Google Scholar
- 15.• Fee A, Schieber E, Noble N, Valdovinos MG. Agreement between questions about behavior function, the motivation assessment scale, functional assessment interview, and brief functional analysis of children’s challenging behaviors. Behav Anal Res Pract. 2016;16:94. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000040Compared the outcomes of three popular indirect functional assessment instruments with the outcomes of brief functional analysis procedures. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.• Dracobly JD, Dozier CL, Briggs AM, Juanico JF. Reliability and validity of indirect assessment outcomes: experts versus caregivers. Learn Motiv. 2018;62:77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2017.02.007Evaluated the reliability and validity of the FAST, an open-ended and closed-ended indirect assessment instrument, when completed by caregivers or experts in behavior analysis. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.• Leon Y, Gregory MK, Flynn-Privett A, Ribeiro A. Descriptive assessment of inappropriate vocalizations emitted by persons diagnosed with dementia. Behav Interv. 2018;33:69–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1511Conducted a narrative and structured direct assessment of challenging behavior of older adults with dementia. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.• Castillo MI, Clark DR, Schaller EA, Donaldson JM, DeLeon IG, Kahng S. Descriptive assessment of problem behavior during transitions of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 2018;51:99–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.430Conducted a direct assessment to identify how the density of reinforcement before and after transitions was related to problem behavior during the transitions. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Freeman KA, Anderson CM, Scotti JR. A structured descriptive methodology: increasing agreement between descriptive and experimental analyses. Educ Train Ment Retard Dev Disabil. 2000;1:55–66.Google Scholar
- 29.Heyvaert M, Saenen L, Campbell JM, Maes B, Onghena P. Efficacy of behavioral interventions for reducing problem behavior in persons with autism: an updated quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35:2463–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.06.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.• Saini V, Fisher WW, Retzlaff BJ, Keevy M. Efficiency in functional analysis of problem behavior: a quantitative and qualitative review. J Appl Behav Anal. 2019;9999:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.583Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the efficiency (number of sessions and duration needed to determine function) of FA. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.•• Jessel J, Hanley GP, Ghaemmaghami M. Interview-informed synthesized contingency analyses: thirty replications and reanalysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 2016;49:576–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jabaThis is an important study showing the utility and efficiency of the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 42.•• Jessel J, Ingvarsson ET, Metras R, Kirk H, Whipple R. Achieving socially significant reductions in problem behavior following the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis: a summary of 25 outpatient applications. J Appl Behav Anal. 2018;51:130–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/jabaThis is an important study showing further evidence for the utility and efficiency of the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis with the addition of treatment data to demonstrate validity as well. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 52.•• Fisher WW, Greer BD, Romani PW, Zangrillo AN, Owen TM. Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 2016;49:596–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.314This study compared two forms of FA, the traditional functional analysis and interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 53.•• Slaton JD, Hanley GP, Raftery KJ. Interview-informed functional analyses: a comparison of synthesized and isolated components. J Appl Behav Anal. 2017;50(2):252–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.384This study compared two forms of FA, traditional FA and interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis, and evaluated interventions based on their outcomes. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 54.• Sanchez S, Miltenberger R, Kincaid D, Bloom S. What’s the function? Assessing correspondence between functional analysis procedures. 2018. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8558&context=etd. This study compared trial-based functional analysis and standard functional analysis and evaluated intervention based on the outcomes.