Brief Functional Assessment Techniques to Evaluate Aberrant Behavior in an Outpatient Setting: A Summary of 79 Cases

Abstract

Previous investigators have analyzed the maintaining conditions for aberrant behaviors using brief functional assessment procedures. These assessment procedures have been used in one of our outpatient clinics, the Self-Injurious and Aggressive Behavior Service. This study presents a descriptive summary of the results from 79 cases during a 3-year period. The outcomes of the brief assessment were evaluated across three variables: (a) referring topography, (b) control over behavior as evaluated through brief multielement designs, and (c) the identified maintaining conditions for aberrant behavior. The limitations and future utility of brief functional assessments for identifying distinct maintaining contingencies are discussed.

Establishing Operations: Implications for the Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention of Problem Behavior

“…Iwata, Pace, Dorsey, et al (1994) found that 23% of a series of 152 cases of self-injurious behavior were maintained by attention. Similarly, in a series of 79 cases of self-injurious or aggressive behavior, attention was hypothesized as the maintaining condition in 24% (Derby et al, 1992). It has been suggested (e.g., Durand & Crimmins, 1988b;McGill, 1993) that problem behavior maintained by attention is more likely to occur in environments characterized by low levels of social contact.…”

“…Epidemiological studies suggest escape to be the most common reinforcer for problem behavior, representing 35% of cases of self-injurious behavior (Iwata, Pace, Dorsey, et al, 1994) and 48% of cases of self-injurious or aggressive behavior (Derby et al, 1992). Many authors (e.g., Smith & Iwata, 1997) have now pointed out that demands probably function as EOs (rather than S D s) evoking escape-maintained problem behavior.…”

“…Epidemiological studies found automatic reinforcement in 26% of cases of self-injurious behavior (Iwata, Pace, Dorsey, et al, 1994) and 34% of cases of self-injurious or aggressive behavior (Derby et al, 1992). Although it is often difficult to identify the specific reinforcers involved (Iwata, Vollmer, Zarcone, & Rodgers, 1993), some kind of specific (e.g., oral stimulation: Piazza et al, 1998) or general (Iwata, Pace, Dorsey, et al, 1994) sensory stimulation has typically been reported.…”

The Impact of Functional Analysis Methodology on Treatment Choice for Self‐injurious and Aggressive Behavior

“…Studies conducting experimental manipulations, similar to the Iwata et al (1982 study, and studies with at least two comparison conditions, as described by Derby et al (1992), were recorded under the category of reinforcement-or punishment-based procedures with a functional analysis. Studies using assessment procedures such as interviews, informal observations, rating scales, or scatter plots, as well as studies that did not conduct an experimental manipulation during assessment, were recorded under the category of reinforcement-or punishment-based procedures without a functional analysis.…”

Alterations to Functional Analysis Methodology to Clarify the Functions of Low Rate, High Intensity Problem Behavior

“…One such condition is when the individual emits a low rate of problem behavior either in the naturalistic context or in the functional analysis. For example, Derby et al (1992) examined the results of 79 functional analyses. They failed to identify a behavioral function in 29 of those cases because the target behavior rarely occurred.…”