A

Project GATORSS: A comparison of perceived functions in naturalistic observations and functions identified via functional analysis

Elizabeth L.W. McKenney, Jennifer A. Sellers, Jennifer M. Asmus, Maureen A. Conroy, Brian A. Boyd, Glenn M. Sloman

University of Florida

Shannon - Inappropriate Behavior

0

0. 1

0. 2

0. 3

0. 4

0. 5

0. 6

0. 7

0. 8

0. 9

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21

Session Number

Attention

E scape

T angible

Fr ee P lay

Ignor e

Shane -Withdrawn Behavior

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 3 6 8 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Session Number

Rat

e pe

r m

inut

e

Attention

Escape

Tangible

Free Play

Ignore

Tang R

Colin - Inappropriate Behavior

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Session number

Rat

e p

er m

inu

te Tangible

Attention

Escape

Free Play

Ignore

Project ObjectivesFunctional Analysis Data

Implications for Future Research

Participants

Losardo & Notari-Syverson, 2001

Alan’s Snapshot

Descriptive Assessment

•To assess socially problematic behaviors of young children (18 months to 5 years of age) diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder using descriptive and experimental methodology•To identify possible functions of young children’s problematic social behaviors•To conduct assessment and provide intervention in the natural environment where social difficulties occur (e.g., classroom, home childcare center).•To develop interventions to increase appropriate social behaviors and decrease inappropriate or problematic social behaviors•To examine the consistency of descriptive and experimental findings

•Colin, Shane, Shannon, and Jenny•Age at assessment: 3 – 6 years old•Placement: Self-contained classroom for students with developmental disabilities, inclusive after-school program, inclusive preschool, regular education classroom•Diagnoses: 3 Pervasive Developmental Disorder–NOS, 1 Asperger’s•Diagnostic Tools: ADI-R, CARS, GARS, Developmental Profile - II

•Descriptive data was collected over approximately five hours for each participant and analyzed using the MOOSES program (Tapp, 2004)•A perceived function was identified for each instance of target child social behavior•Data analysis revealed the following functions of social behavior:

Shane - Inappropriate Behavior

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 3 6 8 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Session Number

Rat

e p

er m

inu

te Attention

Escape

Tangible

Free Play

Ignore

Tang R

Shannon - Withdrawn Behavior

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

Session Number

Rat

e pe

r m

inut

e Tangible

Attention

Free play

Escape

Colin - Withdrawn Behavior

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 13 15 16 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Session Number

Rat

e p

er m

inu

te

Tangible

Attention

Escape

Free Play

Ignore

Jenny - Inappropriate Behavior

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Session Number

Rat

e pe

r Min

ute

Tangible

Attention

Escape

Free Play

Ignore

Escape Social

Interaction

Obtain/ Maintai

n Access

to Tangibl

e

Obtain Peer

Attention

Obtain Adult

Attention

Obtain Tangible/ Escape Social

Interaction

Escape to Stereotyp

yNo outcome

Colin 5% 27% 9% 16% 5% 0% 33%

Shane 20% 29% 31% 9% 4% 7% 0%

Shannon 12% 46% 20% 2% 8% 0% 12%

Jenny 11% 45% 28% 2% 7% 0% 6%

Comparison of Outcomes and Functions

DO Perceived Outcome – All

Social Behaviors

FA Identified Function –

Inappropriate and Withdrawn

Behavior

Match?

Colin Obtain/maintain access to tangible

Escape No

Shane Obtain Peer Attention, Obtain/maintain

access to tangible

Tangible, Escape, possible automatic

reinforcement

Partial (one out of four functions)

Shannon Obtain/maintain access to tangible

Obtain/maintain access to tangible

Yes

Jenny Obtain/maintain access to tangible

Obtain/maintain access to tangible,

undifferentiated

Partial (one out of two functions)

•Inter-observer Agreement on perceived outcomes = 68%; range 0 – 100%

Average IOA = 94%, range 70-100%

Average 10A = 97%, range 88-100%

Average IOA = 99%, range 60-100%

* Concurrent operant FA of withdrawn behavior currently ongoing

Average IOA = 98%, range 78-100%

• Further research is needed to examine the degree to which descriptive observation and functional analysis of social behavior agree

• Future analyses should directly compare the perceived outcomes and identified functions of both positive and negative/withdrawn social behaviors.

• Direct observation data partitioned into positive and negative behaviors

• Additional functional analyses examining the functions of positive social behaviors

• Future data analysis in naturalistic settings should attempt to control for the various potential contextual influences on social behavior in order to make a more direct comparison to an experimental setting (i.e., teacher attention, materials available, peer group size, play structure)

• An examination of contextual variables affecting functional analysis results should also be conducted (i.e. group size and play format)For more information, please visit the Project GATORSS

website: http://www.coe.ufl.edu/centers/Autism/gatorss/

Jenny - Withdrawn Behavior

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

Session Number

Rat

e p

er M

inu

te Tangible

Attention

Escape

Free Play