Functional Behavior Assessments for Challenging Behavior in Autism

Reference work entry


Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is a behavioral technology for identifying variables that control target behaviors. FBA has provided a major contribution to clinical intervention for persons with developmental disabilities who present with challenging behavior. It has improved the efficacy of behavioral intervention by ensuring function-based treatment and ongoing review of treatment outcomes. Persons with developmental disabilities are at high risk for the development of challenging behavior, and this in turn can lead to a myriad of additional problems including psychiatric disorder, social deficits, and reduced quality of life. Given the value of FBA in considerably improving the efficiency of clinical interventions for people with challenging behavior, it is imperative that such individuals receive behavioral treatments that are function based. This can only be achieved by increasing staff training in the many variations of FBA and ensuring that all persons with developmental disabilities who evince challenging behavior are entitled to such assessment.

This paper will outline each of the different methodologies of FBA in clinical and educational practice and will provide a comparison of the outcomes from each methodology. The importance of the technology at identifying controlling variables for challenging behavior and the effectiveness with producing substantive change in the lives of people with challenging behavior will be discussed.

Functional behavior assessment (FBA) is defined as a process of identifying the events in the environment that consistently precede and follow challenging behavior in persons with developmental disabilities. Total population studies carried out in Britain, the USA, and Scandinavia indicate that 10–15 % of people with developmental disabilities engage in one or more forms of challenging behavior (Emerson E, et al. Res Dev Disabil 22:67–75, 2001; Holden B, Gitleson JP. Res Dev Disabil 27:456–465, 2006; McClintock K, et al. J Intellect Disabil Res 47:405–416, 2003). Topographies of challenging behavior can range from self-injurious behavior, aggression, stereotyped behavior, and destructive/disruptive behavior. The topography of a given behavior may not adequately reflect the complexity of etiology and assessment (Matson JL, Nebel-Schwalm MS. Res Dev Disabil 28:341–352, 2007). The presence of challenging behavior can impact on an individual’s quality of life by impeding their access to a variety of everyday activities, socialization opportunities, and many other learning opportunities (Luiselli JK, et al. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 31:219–230, 2000). Given the prevalence of challenging behavior in individuals with autism (e.g., Fox RA, et al. Res Dev Disabil 28:119–129, 2007; Murphy O, et al. Res Autism Spect Dis 3:474–482, 2009), it is vital that an adequate means of behavioral assessment for challenging behaviors is available to clinicians and caregivers. Such behavioral assessment can positively affect the course of intervention that follows for vulnerable populations.

FBA can be divided into three areas: (a) indirect methods involving the use of interviews, rating scales, checklists, and questionnaires; (b) direct methods using observation or descriptive analysis, incorporating antecedent-behavior-consequence recording, and scatterplots; and (c) experimental methods more commonly known as functional analyses or analog assessment (Neilsen SL, McEvoy MA. J Early Intervent 26:115–131, 2004). FBA procedures have been hailed as the most exciting and sophisticated research literature in the field of applied behavior analysis (Halle JW, Spradlin JE. Identifying stimulus control of challenging behavior: extending the analysis. In: Reichle J, Wacker D, editors. Communicative alternatives to challenging behavior: integrating functional assessment and intervention strategies Baltimore: Paul Brookes; 1993. p. 83–109; Mace FC. J Appl Behav Anal 27:385–392, 1994). Much of the research published on FBA methodologies has focused on individuals with developmental disabilities who present with challenging behavior that can seriously limit or deny access to the use of ordinary community facilities and be a danger to oneself and others. Furthermore, FBA has a history of being implemented for cases of very challenging behavior often exhibited by persons with severe disabilities. The term “challenging behavior” is often used invariably by clinicians and researchers with terms such as “maladaptive behavior,” “behavior problems,” “problem behavior,” and “aberrant behavior” (McClintock K, et al. J Intellect Disabil Res 47:405–416, 2003).

The purpose of functional assessment is to provide a thorough investigation of the purpose of the problematic behavior prior to the design of behavioral intervention. Precise and careful analysis of the behavior through the use of questionnaires, interviews, rating scales, and direct observations can be combined to form hypotheses associated with the reasons why a particular behavior might be repeatedly emitted by an individual. According to Matson et al. (National Assoc Dual Diagn Newsl 5:19–21, 2002), “without an adequate assessment, treatment selection may be absent or inappropriate. Unfortunately, medications and psychological interventions are often initiated and then changed repeatedly due to a lack of diagnostic information. The assessment process should be separated into diagnosis, functional assessment, establishment of replacement behaviors, evaluation of treatment effects, and evaluation of treatment side-effects. This approach will increase the likelihood that an appropriate link is made between assessment and treatment, and assist with the monitoring of treatment effectiveness” (p. 19).

This review of functional behavior assessment in autism and developmental disabilities will outline each of the different methodologies under the headings of indirect methods and direct methods. A discussion of experimental functional assessment methods, as the recommended progression for using functional behavioral assessment methodologies in clinical and educational practice, will also be provided. Finally, a comparison of the outcomes of the different types of methodologies will be presented.


Functional Behavior Assessment Challenging Behavior Developmental Disabilities Behavioral Problems Experimental Functional Analysis (EFA) 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Allen D, Davies D. Challenging behavior and psychiatric disorder in intellectual disability. Curr Opin Psychiatr. 2007;20:450–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson CM, Long ES. Use of a structured descriptive assessment methodology to identify variables affecting problem behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2002;35:137–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arndorfer RE, Miltenberger RG. Home-based descriptive and experimental analysis of problem behaviors in children. Top Early Child Spec. 1994;14:0271–1214.Google Scholar
  4. Baer DM, Wolf MM, Risley TR. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 1968;1:91–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bijou SW, Peterson RF, Ault MH. A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. J Appl Behav Anal. 1968;1:175–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borrero CSW, Borrero JC. Descriptive and experimental analyses of potential precursors to problem behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2008;41:83–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Call NA, Pabico RS, Lomas JE. Use of latency to problem behavior to evaluate demands for inclusion in functional analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 2009;42:723–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr EG. The motivation of self-injurious behavior: a review of some hypotheses. Psychol Bull. 1977;84:800–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr EG, Durand VM. Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985;18:111–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carr EG, Ladd MV, Schulte CF. Validation of the context assessment inventory for problem behavior. J Pos Behav Int. 2008;10:91–104.Google Scholar
  11. Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6:284–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen IL. Criterion-related validity of the PDD behavior inventory. J Autism Dev Disord. 2003;33:47–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen IL, Schmidt-Lackner S, Romanczyk R, Sudhalter V. The PDD behavior inventory: a rating scale for assessing response to intervention in children with PDD. J Autism Dev Disord. 2003;33:31–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cone JD. Invited essay: issues in functional analysis in behavioral assessment. Behav Res Ther. 1997;35:259–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Conroy M, Fox J, Crain L, Jenkins A. Evaluating the social and ecological validity of analog assessment procedures for challenging behaviors in young children. Educ Treat Child. 1996;19:233–56.Google Scholar
  16. Crone DA, Horner RH. Building positive behavior support systems in schools: functional behavioral assessment. New York: Guilford; 2003.Google Scholar
  17. Delfs CH, Campbell JM. A quantitative synthesis of developmental disability research: the impact of functional assessment methodology on treatment effectiveness. Behav Anal Today. 2010;11:4–19.Google Scholar
  18. Desrochers MN, Hile MG, Williams-Moseley TL. Survey of functional assessment procedures used with individuals who display mental retardation and severe problem behaviours. Am J Ment Retard. 1997;101:535–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Didden R, Korzilius H, van Oorsouw W, Sturmey P. Behavioral treatment of challenging behaviors in individuals with mild mental retardation: meta-analysis of single-subject research. Am J Ment Retard. 2006;111:290–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Durand VM, Crimmins DB. The motivation assessment scale: an administration manual. Albany: State University of New York; 1988.Google Scholar
  21. Ellingson SA, Miltenberger RG, Long ES. A survey of the use of functional assessment procedures in agencies serving individuals with developmental disabilities. Behav Intervent. 1999;14:187–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellis J, Magee S. Modifications to basic functional analysis procedures in school settings: a selective review. Behav Intervent. 2004;19:205–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feldman MA, Griffiths D. Comprehensive assessment of severe behavior disorders. In: Singh NN, editor. Treatment of severe behavior problems: models and methods in developmental disabilities. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole; 1997. p. 23–48.Google Scholar
  24. Floyd RG, Phaneuf RL, Wilczynski SM. Measurement properties of indirect assessment methods for functional behavioral assessment: a review of research. Sch Psych Rev. 2005;34:58–73.Google Scholar
  25. Freeman KA, Anderson CM, Scotti JR. A structured descriptive methodology: increasing agreement between descriptive and experimental analyses. Educ Train Ment Ret. 2000;35(1):55–66.Google Scholar
  26. Gardner WI, Cole CL, Davidson DP, Karan OC. Reducing aggression in individuals with developmental disabilities: an expanded stimulus control, assessment, and intervention model. Educ Train Ment Ret. 1986;21:3–12.Google Scholar
  27. Gresham FM, Watson TS, Skinner CH. Functional behavioral assessment: principles, procedures, and future directions. Sch Psych Rev. 2001;30:156–72.Google Scholar
  28. Hall SS. Comparing descriptive, experimental, and informant-based assessments of problem behaviors. Res Dev Disabil. 2005;26:514–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hanley GP, Iwata BA, McCord BE. Functional analysis of problem behavior: a review. J Appl Behav Anal. 2003;36:147–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hellings JA, Nickel EJ, Weckbaugh M, McCarter K, Mosier M, Schroeder SR. The overt aggression scale for rating aggression in outpatient youth with autistic disorder: preliminary findings. J Neuropsych Clin N. 2005;17(1):29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hersen M. Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment: industrial and organisational assessment. New York: Wiley; 2004.Google Scholar
  32. Herzinger CV, Campbell JM. Comparing functional assessment methodologies: a quantative synthesis. J Autism Dev Disord. 2007;37:1430–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iwata BA, DeLeon IG. The functional analysis screening tool (FAST). Florida: University of Florida; 1995.Google Scholar
  34. Iwata BA, Dorsey MF, Slifer KJ, Bauman KE, Richman GR. Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994;27:197–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahng S, Iwata BA, Fischer SM, et al. Temporal distributions of problem behavior based on scatter plot analysis. J Appl Behav Anal. 1998;31:593–604.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kinch C, Lewis-Palmer T, Hagan-Burke S, Sugai G. A comparison of teacher and student functional behavior assessment interview information from low-risk and high-risk classrooms. Educ Treat Child. 2001;24(4):480–94.Google Scholar
  37. Lang R, O’Reilly M, Machalicek W, Lancioni G, Rispoli M, Chan JM. A preliminary comparison of functional analysis results when conducted in contrived versus natural settings. J Appl Behav Anal. 2008;41:441–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. LaRue RH, Lenard K, Weiss MJ, Bamond M, Palmieri M, Kelley ME. Comparison of traditional and trial-based methodologies for conducting functional analyses. Res Dev Disabil. 2010;31:480–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lerman DC, Iwata BA. Descriptive and experimental analysis of variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993;26:293–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lewis TJ, Scott TM, Sugai G. The problem behavior questionnaire: a teacher-based instrument to develop functional hypotheses of problem behavior in general education classrooms. Assess Eff Interv. 1994;19(2–3):103–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mace FC. The significance and future of functional analysis methodologies. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994;27:385–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mace FC, Lalli JS. Linking descriptive and experimental analyses in the treatment of bizarre speech. J Appl Behav Anal. 1991;24:553–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Manente CJ, Maraventano JC, LaRue RH, Delmolino L, Sloan D. Effective behavioral intervention for adults on the autism spectrum: best practices in functional assessment and treatment development. Behav Anal Today. 2010;11:36–48.Google Scholar
  44. March R, Horner R, Lewis-Palmer T, et al. Functional assessment checklist for teachers and students-part A & B (FACTS-A & B). Miami: The National Meeting of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps; 2000.Google Scholar
  45. Matson JL. The diagnostic assessment for the severely handicapped-II. Baton Rouge: Scientific Publishers; 1995.Google Scholar
  46. Matson JL. Assessment of dual diagnosis manual. Baton Rouge: Scientific Publishers; 1997.Google Scholar
  47. Matson JL. Handbook of assessment in persons with intellectual disability. London: Elsevier; 2007.Google Scholar
  48. Matson JL, Bamburg JW. Reliability of the assessment of dual diagnosis (ADD). Res Dev Disabil. 1998;19:89–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Matson JL, Barrett RP. Psychopathology in the mentally retarded. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1993.Google Scholar
  50. Matson JL, Nebel-Schwalm MS. Comorbid psychopathology with autism spectrum disorders in children: an overview. Res Dev Disabil. 2007;28:341–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Matson JL, Sevin JA. Theories of dual diagnosis in mental retardation. J Consult Clin Psych. 1994;62:6–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Matson JL, Vollmer T. Questions about behavioral function (QABF). Baton Rouge: Scientific Publishers; 1995.Google Scholar
  53. Matson JL, Baglio CS, Smiroldo BB, Hamilton M, Paclowskyj T. Characteristics of autism assessed by the diagnostic assessment for the severely handicapped-II (DASH-II). Res Dev Disabil. 1996;17:135–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Matson JL, Bamburg JW, Cherry KE, Paclawskyj TR. A validity study on the questions about behavioral function (QABF) scale: predicting treatment success for self-injury, aggression, and stereotypies. Res Dev Disabil. 1999;20:163–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Matson JL, Kuhn DE, Dixon DR, et al. The development and factor structure of the functional assessment for multiple causality (FACT). Res Dev Disabil. 2003;24:485–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McAtee M, Carr EG, Schulte CA. Contextual assessment inventory for problem behavior: initial development. J Posit Behav Interv. 2004;6:148–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McIntosh K, Borgmeier C, Anderson CM, Horner RH, Rodriquez BJ, Tobin TJ. Technical adequacy of the functional assessment checklist: teachers and staff (FACTS) FBA interview measures. J Posit Behav Interv. 2008;10:33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Miltenberger RG. Behavior modification: principles and procedures. Pacific Grove: Wadsworth; 2001.Google Scholar
  59. Najdowski AC, Wallace MD, Ellsworth CL, MacAleese AN, Cleveland JM. Functional analyses and treatment of precursor behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2008;41:97–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Neilsen SL, McEvoy MA. Functional behavioral assessment in early education settings. J Early Intervent. 2004;26:115–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nicholson J, Konstantinidi E, Furniss F. On some psychometric properties of the questions about behavioral function (QABF). Res Dev Disabil. 2006;27:337–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Northup J, Wacker D, Sasso G, et al. A brief functional analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an outclinic setting. J Appl Behav Anal. 1991;24:509–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. O’Neill RE, Horner RH, Albin RW, Storey K, Sprague JR. Functional analysis of problem behavior. A practical assessment guide. New York: Wiley; 1990.Google Scholar
  64. O’Neill RE, Horner RH, Albin RW, Sprague JR, Storey K, Newton JS. Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole; 1997.Google Scholar
  65. Paclawskyj TR, Matson JL, Rush KS, Smalls Y, Vollmer TR. Questions about behavior function (QABF): a behavioral checklist for functional assessment of aberrant behavior. Res Dev Disabil. 2000;21:223–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Paclawskyj TR, Matson JL, Rush KS, Smalls Y, Vollmer TR. Assessment of the convergent validity of the questions about behavioral function scale with analogue functional analysis and the motivation assessment scale. J Intellect Disabil. 2001;45:484–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Paclawskyj TR, Kurtz PF, O’Connor JT. Functional assessment of problem behaviors in adults with mental retardation. Behav Modif. 2004;28(5):649–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Perrin CJ, Perrin SH, Hill EA, DiNovi K. Brief functional analysis and treatment of development in preschoolers with autism. Behav Intervent. 2008;23:87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rojahn J, Tassé MJ, Sturmey P. The stereotyped behavior scale for adolescents and adults with mental retardation. Am J Ment Retard. 1997;102:137–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rojahn J, Matlock ST, Tassé MJ. The stereotyped behavior scale: psychometric properties and norms. Res Dev Disabil. 2000;21:437–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rojahn J, Matson JL, Lott D, Esbensen AJ, Smalls Y. The behavior problems inventory: an instrument for the assessment of self-injury, stereotyped behavior, and aggression/destruction in individuals with developmental disabilities. J Autism Dev Disord. 2001;31:577–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rojahn J, Schroeder SR, Hoch TA. Self-injurious behavior in intellectual disabilities. New York: Elsevier; 2008.Google Scholar
  73. Rutherford BR, Quinn MM, Mathur SR. Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders. New York: Guilford; 2004.Google Scholar
  74. Sasso GM, Reimers TM, Cooper LJ, et al. Use of descriptive and experimental analyses to identify the functional properties of aberrant behavior in school settings. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992;25:809–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shabani DB, Wilder DA, Flood WA. Reducing stereotypic behavior through discrimination training, differential reinforcement of other behavior, and self monitoring. Behav Intervent. 2001;16:279–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Shogren KA, Rojahn J. Convergent reliability and validity of the questions about behavioral function and the motivation assessment scale: a replication study. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2003;15:367–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sigafoos J, Saggers E. A discrete-trial approach to the functional analysis of aggressive behavior in two boys with autism. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 1995;20:287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Singh NN, Matson JL, Lancioni GE, et al. Questions about behavioral function in mental illness (QABF-MI): a behavior checklist for functional assessment of maladaptive behavior exhibited by individuals with mental illness. Behav Modif. 2006;30:739–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Skinner BF. Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan; 1953.Google Scholar
  80. Solnick MD, Ardoin SP. A quantitative review of functional analysis procedures in public school settings. Educ Treat Child. 2010;33:153–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stage SA, Cheney D, Walker B, LaRocque M. A preliminary discriminant and convergent validity study of the teacher functional behavioral assessment checklist. Sch Psych Rev. 2002;31:71–93.Google Scholar
  82. Sturmey P. Assessing the functions of aberrant behaviors: a review of psychometric instruments. J Autism Dev Disord. 1994;24:293–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sturmey P. Functional analysis checklist: inter-rater and test-retest reliability. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2001;14:141–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tarbox JT, Wilke AE, Najdowski AC, et al. Comparing indirect, descriptive, and experimental function assessments of challenging behavior in children with autism. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2009;21:493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Thompson RH, Iwata BA. A comparison of outcomes from descriptive and functional analyses of problem behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2007;40:333–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Touchette PE, MacDonald RF, Langer SN. A scatterplot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985;18:343–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Van Houten R, Rolider A. Applied behavior analysis. In: Matson JL, Mulick JA, editors. Handbook of mental retardation. 2nd ed. New York: Pergamon; 1991. p. 569–85.Google Scholar
  88. Whitaker S. The potential influence of frequency of challenging behavior on treatment: an analysis of the literature. Brit J Dev Disabil. 2000;46:83–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wieseler NA, Hanson RH, Chamberlain TP, Thompson T. Functional taxonomy of stereotypic and self-injurious behavior. Ment Retard. 1985;23:230–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Zager DB. Autism spectrum disorders: identification, education, treatment. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005.Google Scholar
  91. Zaja RH, Moore L, Van Ingen DJ, Rojahn J. Psychometric comparison of the functional assessment instruments QABF, FACT and FAST for self-injurious, stereotypic and aggressive/destructive behavior. J Appl Res Intellect Disabil. 2010;24:18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyNational University of Ireland - GalwayGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations