Advertisement

Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 386–396 | Cite as

Investigation of Functional Analysis Methodology in Adult Service Programs to Develop Efficient and Effective Treatment Approaches

  • Cynthia M. AndersonEmail author
  • Sarah A. Weddle
  • Margaret L. Walsh
  • Jaclyn Guglielmo
ORIGINAL PAPER

Abstract

Objectives

The best practice in treatment of severe problem behavior such as aggression or self-injury is to conduct a functional analysis to identify environmental variables evoking and maintaining problem behavior. This information is then used to develop an intervention. Functional analyses consist of at least one test condition and one control condition. In the test condition, a hypothesized reinforcer is delivered only contingent on problem behavior whereas in the control condition that contingency is absent. Typically, the test and corresponding control consist of a single antecedent variable (e.g., presentation of requests) and a single consequence (e.g., removal of requests); however, “synthesized” test conditions, in which multiple antecedent and consequent variables are presented simultaneously, may be used as well. The purpose of this study was to compare results of these two types of functional analyses.

Methods

We began by conducting each type of functional analysis with three adults with developmental disabilities. Next, we tested interventions based on results of the functional analyses to determine whether one method of analysis better predicted intervention.

Results

Although both assessments led to effective interventions, for two of three participants, the synthesized analysis resulted in a false-positive identification. In other words, for these participants, the synthesized analysis identified one or more environmental variables as linked to problem behavior, but this result was not substantiated in the treatment analysis.

Conclusions

Further investigation is needed to determine the cost-benefit of conducting standard versus synthesized functional analyses in adult service settings.

Keywords

Functional analysis methodology Problem behavior Adult Intervention 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like thank the clinicians who assisted with the study including Sean Regnier, Katherine Lora, Karin Page, Rachel Fox, Glenn Little, Jennifer Hayes, Amy Gorman, and Whitney Kleinert.

Author Contributions

CMA: designed the study, executed the study, assisted with data analysis, wrote the paper, and edited the paper in response to reviewers. SAW: executed the study, assisted with data analysis, and collaborated in the writing and editing the manuscript. MLW: executed the study and wrote part of the results. JG: executed the study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval to conduct this study was received from the May Center for Applied Research Institutional Review Board and the Massachusetts Department of Developmental Services Research Review Committee.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from the guardians of all participants included in the study.

References

  1. Anderson, C. M., & Long, E. S. (2002). Use of a structured descriptive assessment methodology to identify variables affecting problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 137–154.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-137.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. M., Rodriguez, B. J., & Campbell, A. (2015). Functional behavior assessment in schools: current status and future directions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24(3), 338–371.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9226-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badgett, N., & Falcomata, T. S. (2015). A comparison of methodologies of brief functional analysis. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 18(4), 224–233.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2013.792298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). Thirty years of research on the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloom, S. E., Iwata, B. A., Fritz, J. N., Roscoe, E. M., & Carreau, A. B. (2011). Classroom application of a trial-based functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 19–32.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Caruthers, C. E., Lambert, J. M., Chazin, K. M., Harbin, E. R., & Houchins-Juarez, N. J. (2015). Latency-based FA as baseline for subsequent treatment evaluation. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8(1), 48–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0046-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 519–533.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher, W. W., Greer, B. D., Romani, P. W., Zangrillo, A. N., & Owen, T. M. (2016). Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(3), 596–616.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.314.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Flynn, S. D., & Lo, Y.-y. (2016). Teacher implementation of trial-based functional analysis and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior for students with challenging behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25(1), 1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9231-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problem behavior: dispelling myths, overcoming implementation obstacles, and developing new lore. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(1), 54–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., & Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful improvements in problem behavior of children with autism via synthesized analyses and treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(1), 16–36.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Herman, C., Healy, O., & Lydon, S. (2018). An interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis to inform the treatment of challenging behavior in a young child with autism. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 21(3), 202–207.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17518423.2018.1437839.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982/1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197–209.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jessel, J., Hanley, G. P., & Ghaemmaghami, M. (2016a). Interview-informed synthesized contingency analyses: thirty replications and reanalysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(3), 576–595.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.316.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jessel, J., Ingvarsson, E. T., Metras, R., Kirk, H., & Whipple, R. (2016b). Achieving socially significant reductions in problem behavior following the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis: a summary of 25 outpatient applications. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51(1), 130–157.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Cigrand, K., Cook, J., & DeRaad, A. (1991). A brief functional analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an outclinic setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(3), 509–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rispoli, M. J., Davis, H. S., Goodwyn, F. D., & Camargo, S. (2012). The use of trial-based functional analysis in public school classrooms for two students with developmental disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(3), 180–189.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300712457420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rooker, G. W., DeLeon, I. G., Borrero, C. S. W., Frank-Crawford, M. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (2015). Reducing ambiguity in the functional assessment of problem behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 30(1), 1–35.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Slaton, J. D., & Hanley, G. P. (2018). Nature and scope of synthesis in functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 943–973.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Slaton, J. D., Hanley, G. P., & Raftery, K. J. (2017). Interview-informed functional analyses: a comparison of synthesized and isolated components. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(2), 252–277.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.384.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Strohmeier, C. W., Murphy, A., & O’Connor, J. L. (2016). Parent informed test-control functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior related to combined abolishing operations. Journal of Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 20(4), 247–252.  https://doi.org/10.3109/17518423.2015.1133723.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Thomason-Sassi, J. L., Iwata, B. A., Neidert, P. L., & Roscoe, E. M. (2011). Response latency as an index of response strength during functional analyses of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 51–67.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Zangrillo, A. N., Fisher, W. W., Greer, B. D., Owen, T. M., & Desouza, A. A. (2016). Treatment of escape-maintained challenging behavior using chained schedules. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 62(3), 147–156.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2016.1176308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
corrected publication 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.May InstituteRandolphUSA

Personalised recommendations