Abstract
The trial-based functional analysis (FA) is a useful alternative to the traditional FA in contexts in which it is challenging to establish environmental control for extended periods of time. Previous researchers have demonstrated that others can be trained to conduct trial-based FAs with high procedural fidelity by providing a didactic presentation, small group instruction, and then a performance evaluation. However, one barrier to replicating this training sequence is that didactic presentations are not standardized and presentations can vary considerably across different groups of trainers or researchers. We designed an automated didactic presentation with video models embedded throughout for trainers and researchers to use when training others to conduct trial-based FAs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of this presentation on participant fidelity to trial-based FA procedures. Results demonstrate improved fidelity following the presentation. However, the presentation alone was insufficient to establish consistently high levels of fidelity across all conditions for all participants. Thus, additional training components are required when teaching others to conduct trial-based FAs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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. doi:10.1002/jaba.30.
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(19–31), 2011. doi:10.1901/jaba.44-19.
Bloom, S. E., Lambert, J. M., Dayton, E., & Samaha, A. L. (2013). Teacher-conducted trial-based functional analyses as the basis for intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 208–218. doi:10.1002/jaba.21.
Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2013). Effects of a professional development package to prepare special education paraprofessionals to implement evidence-based practice. Journal of Special Education,. doi:10.1177/0022466913501882.
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. doi:10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147.
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, 197–209. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197.
Iwata, B. A., & Dozier, C. L. (2008). Clinical application of functional analysis methodology. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 3–9.
Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., et al. (2000). Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 181–194. doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-181.
Kodak, T., Fisher, W. W., Paden, A., & Dickes, N. (2013). Evaluation of the utility of a discrete-trial functional analysis in early intervention classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 301–306. doi:10.1002/jaba.2.
Kunnavatana, S. S., Bloom, S. E., Samaha, A. L., & Dayton, E. (2013a). Training teachers to conduct trial-based functional analyses. Behavior Modification, 37, 707–722. doi:10.1177/0145445513490950.
Kunnavatana, S. S., Bloom, S. E., Samaha, A. L., Lignugaris-Kraft, B., Dayton, E., & Harris, S. K. (2013b). Using a modified pyramidal training model to teach special educators to conduct trial-based functional analyses. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 36, 267–285. doi:10.1177/0888406413500152.
Lambert, J. M., Bloom, S. E., Clay, C. J., Kunnavatana, S. S., & Collins, S. D. (2014). Training residential staff and supervisors to conduct traditional functional analyses. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 1757–1765. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2014.02.014.
Lambert, J. M., Bloom, S. E., & Irvin, J. (2012). Trial-based functional analysis and functional communication training in an early childhood setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 579–584. doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-579.
Lambert, J. M., Bloom, S. E., Kunnavatana, S. S., Collins, S., & Clay, C. (2013). Training residential staff to conduct trial-based functional analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 293–300. doi:10.1002/jaba.17.
LaRue, R. H., Lenard, K., Weiss, M., Bamond, M., Palmieri, M., & Kelley, M. E. (2010). Comparison of traditional and trial-based methodologies for conducting functional analyses. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 480–487. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2009.10.020.
Lloyd, B. P., Wehby, J. H., Goldman, S. E., Weaver, E. S., Harvey, M. N., & Sherlock, D. R. (under review). Trial-based functional analyses implemented by paraprofessionals in classroom settings.
Mace, F. C. (1994). The significance and future of functional analysis methodologies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 385–392. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-385.
Moore, J. W., Edwards, R. P., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Riley, J., DuBard, M., & McGeorge, A. (2002). Teacher acquisition of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 73–77. doi:10.1901/jaba.2002.35-73.
Moore, J. W., & Fisher, W. W. (2007). The effects of videotape modeling on staff acquisition of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 197–202. doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.24-06.
Pence, S. T., Roscoe, E. M., Bourret, J. C., & Ahearn, W. H. (2009). Relative contributions of three descriptive methods: Implications for behavioral assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 425–446. doi:10.1901/jaba.2009.42-425.
Phillips, K. J., & Mudford, O. C. (2008). Functional analysis skills training for residential caregivers. Behavioral Interventions, 23, 1–12. doi:10.1002/bin.252.
Rispoli, M., Ninci, J., Neely, L., & Zaini, S. (2014). A systematic literature review of trial-based functional analysis of challenging behavior. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 26, 271–282. doi:10.1007/s10882-013-9363-z.
Sigafoos, J., & Saggers, E. (1995). A discrete-trial approach to the functional analysis of aggressive behaviour in two boys with autism. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 20, 287–297. doi:10.1080/07263869500035621.
Wallace, M. D., Doney, J. K., Mintz-Resudek, C. M., & Tarbox, R. S. F. (2004). Training Educators to implement functional analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 89–92. doi:10.1901/jaba.2004.37-89.
Acknowledgments
We thank Sarah Bloom for the insight she provided during the conceptualization of this project. All training materials are available upon request.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Trial-based FA
Conduct trials throughout day embedded in ongoing activities. For example, attention trials can be conducted during play periods, and demand trials can be conducted during work periods. Make sure that a reliability observer is present for at least 30 % of all trials (and at least three trials of each type). Use the trial-based FA data sheet. Stop after 10 completed trials (not including failed trials). Only use ignore trials for behaviors other than aggression. Only use tangible trials if a tangible function is suspected. Otherwise, just use the attention and escape trials. Use a timer/watch/clock to keep track of the length of the trials.
Ignore Trials
Both 2-min segments are “test” segments. Observe whether or not the problem behavior occurs during each segment. Problem behavior does NOT end that segment. Do not start the second segment until the first segment clocks out at 2 min. Do not provide ANY consequences for problem behavior. Ignore all problem behavior. No eye contact! This is the only type of trial that will always take all 4 min.
Attention Trials
The first 2-min segment is the “control” segment, and the second 2-min segment is the “test” segment. Sit with the child and give them at least one of the moderately preferred toys from the preference assessment. Give them continuous attention (vocal and occasional physical if appropriate) for the entire 2-min segment. If problem behavior occurs, stop and turn away. Problem behavior ends that segment (i.e., you do not have to wait the whole 2 min to start the second segment). Start the second segment by saying “I have some work to do” to the child and turn away from the child but stay close (arm’s length) to the child. Ignore all of the child’s requests. If the child engages in the problem behavior, turn and face the child and deliver attention (vocal and physical) for about 10–30 s. For example, touch the child’s arm and say, “hey, why are you doing that?” or “you shouldn’t do that.” Problem behavior ends that segment (i.e., you do not have to wait the whole 2 min to end the trial and go back to other activities).
Escape Trials
The first 2-min segment is the “control” segment, and the second 2-min segment is the “test” segment. Sit with the child but turn away from the child for the entire 2-min segment. The child should not have any toys or materials (unless they need them to engage in the problem behavior). If the child makes a bid for your attention, briefly respond. Problem behavior ends that segment (i.e., you do not have to wait the whole 2 min to start the second segment). Start the second segment by saying “it’s time to work” and deliver prompts to complete academic tasks or other tasks that have resulted in problem behavior in the past. Start with a vocal prompt. If the child does not comply within 5 s, deliver a model and vocal prompt. If the child does not comply within 5 s, physically guide the child to complete the task. Continue to deliver prompts for the entire 2-min segment. If problem behavior occurs, stop and turn away. You may say, “ok, you don’t have to.” Problem behavior ends that segment (i.e., you do not have to wait the whole 2 min to end the trial and go back to other activities, but make sure that they have at least a 30 s break before you ask them to do anything else). Remember, this is assessment, not teaching, so do not provide reinforcers for getting something right.
Tangible Trials
The first 2-min segment is the “control” segment, and the second 2-min segment is the “test” segment. Sit with the child and give them 1–2 highly preferred toys from the MSWO. If the child talks to you or interacts with you, respond in kind. Comment on the toy or the environment at least once every 30 s but do not issue any demands or ask any questions. For example, do not say, “don’t you like playing with that toy” because that is asking them to respond. Say instead, “It looks like you are having fun playing with that toy” or “I’m happy that today is Wednesday.” Problem behavior ends that segment (i.e., you do not have to wait the whole 2 min to start the second segment). Start the second segment by saying, “all done” or “my turn” and physically take the toy(s) away from the child. Continue to respond to the child if they talk to you or interact with you and make sure you continue to comment on the environment at least once every 30 s. If the child engages in problem behavior, give the toy(s) back to the child. Problem behavior ends that segment (i.e., you do not have to wait the whole 2 min to end the trial and go back to other activities, but make sure they get to play with the toy(s) for at least 30 more seconds).
Appendix 3
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lambert, J.M., Lloyd, B.P., Staubitz, J.L. et al. Effect of an Automated Training Presentation on Pre-service Behavior Analysts’ Implementation of Trial-based Functional Analysis. J Behav Educ 23, 344–367 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9197-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-014-9197-5