Assessment of Challenging

Behavior: Beyond the Basic

Functional Analysis

Frances A. Perrin, Ph.D., BCBA-D

Christina M. Vorndran, Ph.D., BCBA-D

Learning objectives

Attendees will be able to identify:

• how to use functional assessment data to

develop procedural variations to the

functional analysis conditions

• several procedural variations for clarifying the

results of an undifferentiated functional

analysis

• examples from the literature to support such

procedural variations

Functional analysis methodology

• Gold standard for identifying variables

maintaining challenging behavior

• General procedures established by Iwata et al.

(1982/1994)

• Systematic manipulation of antecedents and

consequences to test for existing functional

relationships

• Compare test conditions to control

3

Functional analysis conditions

• Positive reinforcement

• Attention

• Tangible

• Negative reinforcement

• Escape

• Automatic reinforcement

• Alone/No interaction

• Control

4

Functional analysis results

• Empirical demonstration of functional

relationships

• Sometimes results are not clear/complete

• idiosyncratic variables

• target behavior not observed

• results do not match hypothesis

• inconsistent/variable rates across all conditions -

misinterpreted as automatic

• function-based treatment ineffective

5

Clarifying inconsistent results

• Research literature reports 5% inconclusive

results with FA

• Methodological modifications

• Antecedent variables

• Consequence variables

• Other

6

Clarifying inconsistent results

• Use existing functional assessment data

• Collect additional data in natural environment

• Interviews

• Observations

• Select modification and make sure to establish

an appropriate control condition

7

Manipulating Antecedents

8

Manipulating antecedents

• Use results of FBA to inform variations

• Each condition can be modified

• Discriminative stimuli

• Motivating operations

• Additional assessments may be conducted prior

to conducting an FA or following an FA with

inconsistent results

9

Demand assessment

Smith, Iwata, Goh, & Shore (1995)

• Novelty – compared the reinforcing effects of

escape from familiar vs unfamiliar tasks

• Duration – 15 minute sessions; looked at within

session trends in challenging behavior

• Rate – compared high (30 trials) vs low (10 trials)

rate conditions

• Additional assessment helped to identify the specific

dimension of demand responsible for the escape

function for 89% of the participants

10

Demand assessment

Roscoe, Rooker, Pence, & Longworth (2009)

• Assessed 12 different tasks per participant

• Identified high-p and low-p demands

• Compared both types in a standard

multielement FA

• Differentially higher rates of challenging

behavior were observed in the low-p condition

for all participants

11

Example of a need for

additional assessment

12

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29

Ag

g,

Dis

, S

IB p

er

Min

ute

Session

Alone

Social Attention

Toy Play

Demand

Tangible

Type of task

13

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

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

Ag

g,

Dis

, S

IB p

er

Min

ute

Session

Academics

Vocational

Toy Play

Verbal prompts vs no prompts

14

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42

Ag

gre

ssio

n

Per

Min

ute

Session

Demand

Tangible No prompts

Prompts

Attention assessment

Roantree & Kennedy (2006)

• Evaluated whether attention functioned as an

EO or AO

• Compared results of multielement FAs

• EO test - 4 sessions (1 each condition) per day

preceded by 20 min of attention

• AO test – 4 sessions (1 each condition) per day

preceded by no attention

15

Roantree & Kennedy (2006)

16

17

Example of a need for

additional assessment

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Ag

gre

ss

ion

+ D

isru

pti

on

pe

r m

inu

te

Session

Attention

Toy Play

Demand

Tangible

Divided attention

18

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

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

Ag

gre

ss

ion

/Dis

rup

tio

n p

er

Min

ute

Session

Divided

Control

Removal of tangible from view

19

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Dis

rup

tio

ns

pe

r m

inu

te

Session

Tangible items out of room

Tangible

Other antecedent manipulations

• Combined MOs

• Call, Wacker, Ringdahl, & Boelter (2005)

• Specific or consistent Sds associated with each

condition (e.g., therapists, stimuli, colors)

• Conners et al. (2000)

• Idiosyncratic antecedents that evoke behavior

(e.g., trigger words)

20

Call et al. (2005)

21

Conners et al. (2000)

22

Consistent therapists

23

0

1

2

3

4

5

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55

Ag

gre

ss

ion

pe

r m

inu

te

Session

Attention

Toy play

Demand

Alone

Consistent therapists in

demand and attention

Trigger word “No”

24

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Ag

g,

Dis

, S

IB,

an

d S

cre

am

pe

r M

inu

te

Session

"No" Condition

Toy Play

Manipulating Consequences

25

Manipulating consequences

• Use results of FBA to inform variations

• Qualitative differences of the reinforcer

• Attention –(e.g., Kodak, Northup, & Kelley,

2007)

• Tangible – (e.g., Reed, Pace, & Luiselli,

2009)

• Escape – (Golanka et al., 2000)

26

Kodak, Northup, & Kelley (2007)

27

Quality of attention

28

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Mo

uth

ing

pe

r m

inu

te

Session

Enthusiastic Attention

Brief Reprimand

Toy Play

Reed, Pace & Luiselli (2009)

29

Golonka et al. (2000)

• Evaluated response allocation to two break

options for 2 individuals whose behavior was

known to be maintained by escape

• Break alone vs break with attention and enriched

environment

• Results indicated that the enriched break option

was associated with an increase in choice

making and compliance

• Implications for modifying a functional analysis

30

Other variations

31

Other variations

• Extended alone

• Antecedent (AB) only

• Hypothesis testing via pairwise

• Trial-based

32

Vollmer, Marcus, Ringdahl, &

Roane (1995) • Evaluated the effects of a methodology for

progressing from brief to extended FA to

clarify undifferentiated results

• Proposed extended alone condition as a

method for ruling out an automatic function

• If behavior persists automatic

• If behavior extinguishes likely socially maintained

33

Is it automatic?

34

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47

Nu

mb

er

of

Pe

rse

ve

rati

on

s

Session

Control

Attention

Tangible

Alone

Escape

Multi-element Extended Alone

Antecedent only (AB) method

• Procedures introduced by Carr & Durand

(1985)

• Systematically manipulate difficulty of demands

and levels of attention

• Between 1994-2000, approximately 20% of

studies reported in the literature used this

methodology to conduct a functional analysis

35

Limitations of AB method

• Programmed consequences for the

challenging behavior do not include

functional reinforcer

• Functional relationships are not demonstrated

• Cannot be used for automatic reinforcement

because no control condition

Pairwise design

• Test vs control conditions

• Based on results from indirect and other

direct assessment

• Conduct only the conditions necessary to

confirm the hypothesis – saves time

Trial-based method

Bloom, Iwata, Fritz, Roscoe, & Carreau (2011)

• Evaluated a trial-based approach to FA in a

classroom setting

• Trials consisted of three 2 min segments of

control – test – control

• If target behavior occurred within the 2 min

test condition, it was reinforced and trial was

ended

38

Bloom et al. (2011)

39

Results showed:

Correspondence of

function identified for 6 of 10

participants.

Partial correspondence for 1

of

the remaining 4 participants.

No correspondence for 3

participants.

Conclusions

40

Benefits of FA

• FA identifies functional relationships between the

antecedents, consequences, and target behavior

• Allows for the development of interventions that

target the maintaining variables

• As more specific reinforcement-based procedures

have been implemented based on results of FAs

• Decreased need for default treatments

• Decreased need for punishment procedures

A challenge of FA

• Inconsistent results

•Standard conditions are not be sufficient at

producing differentiated results for every individual

with challenging behavior

•Extensions of methodology allow for identification

of specific variables maintaining challenging behavior

Best practices

• Choosing the approach to the functional analysis

•Inconclusive results from standard methodology leads

to variations in conditions based on information

collected through direct observation

•In depth analysis of direct observation data prior to

FA leads to variations in conditions or pre-assessment

43

Conclusions

• Functional analysis methodology continues

to be the gold standard for identifying

variables maintaining challenging behavior

• Systematic manipulation of antecedents and

consequences to test for existing functional

relationships is necessary when initial results

are inconsistent

• There is still room for additional changes to

improve efficiency and generality

Questions?

For a copy of this presentation please email

Dr. Vorndran at

Christina.vorndran@bancroft.org