Presented by Christina Vorndran, Ph.D., BCBA-D and Frances Perrin, Ph.D., BCBA-D, Bancroft This workshop presents an in-depth description of the most common variations to the standard functional analysis methodology. Attendees should have familiarity with the principles of applied behavior analysis and basic functional analysis procedures.

1. Assessment of Challenging
Behavior: Beyond the Basic
Functional Analysis
Frances A. Perrin, Ph.D., BCBA-D
Christina M. Vorndran, Ph.D., BCBA-D
© 2012 | Bancroft All rights reserved.

2. 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

3. 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

4. Functional analysis conditions
• Positive reinforcement
• Attention
• Tangible
• Negative reinforcement
• Escape
• Automatic reinforcement
• Alone/No interaction
• Control
4

5. 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

6. Clarifying inconsistent results
• Research literature reports 5% inconclusive
results with FA
• Methodological modifications
• Antecedent variables
• Consequence variables
• Other
6

7. 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

8. Manipulating Antecedents
8

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. Example of a need for
additional assessment
5
4.5
Agg, Dis, SIB per Minute
4
3.5
Alone
3 Social Attention
Toy Play
2.5
Demand
2 Tangible
1.5
1
0.5
0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Session
12

13. Type of task
3
Academics
Agg, Dis, SIB per Minute
2.5
2
1.5
Vocational
1
0.5
Toy Play
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Session
13

14. Verbal prompts vs no prompts
22
20
18
16
Aggression Per Minute
14
Prompts
12
10
8 Demand
6
4 Tangible
No prompts
2
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Session
14

15. 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

16. Roantree & Kennedy (2006)
16

17. Example of a need for
additional assessment
12
Aggression + Disruption per minute
10
8
Attention
Toy Play
6
Demand
Tangible
4
2
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 28
Session
17

18. Divided attention
1.6
1.4
Aggression/Disruption per Minute
1.2
1
Divided
0.8
0.6
0.4
Control
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Session
18

19. Removal of tangible from view
4.0
Tangible items out of room
3.5
3.0
Disruptions per minute
2.5
Tangible
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
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
Session
19

20. 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

21. Call et al. (2005)
21

22. Conners et al. (2000)
22

23. Consistent therapists
5 Consistent therapists in
demand and attention
4
Aggression per minute
3
Attention
Toy play
Demand
2
Alone
1
0
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
Session
23

24. Trigger word “No”
2
1.8
Agg, Dis, SIB, and Scream per Minute
1.6
1.4
1.2
1 "No" Condition
0.8
0.6
0.4
Toy Play
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Session
24

25. Manipulating Consequences
25

26. 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

27. Kodak, Northup, & Kelley (2007)
27

28. Quality of attention
3
2.5
Mouthing per minute
2 Brief Reprimand
Enthusiastic Attention
1.5
1
0.5
Toy Play
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Session
28

29. Reed, Pace & Luiselli (2009)
29

30. 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

31. Other variations
31

32. Other variations
• Extended alone
• Antecedent (AB) only
• Hypothesis testing via pairwise
• Trial-based
32

33. 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

34. Is it automatic?
7
Multi-element Extended Alone
6
Number of Perseverations
5
Control
4
Attention
Tangible
3 Alone
Escape
2
1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Session
34

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. Bloom et al. (2011)
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.
39

40. Conclusions
40

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. Questions?
For a copy of this presentation please email
Dr. Vorndran at
Christina.vorndran@bancroft.org