Integration of experimental functional analysis procedural advancements: Progressing from brief to extended experimental analyses

Abstract

Despite the utility of experimental functional analysis methodology, not all applications produce differentiated results. Factors such as interaction effects or methodological inefficiencies may compromise the likelihood of obtaining differentiated outcomes. Various studies have addressed methods to improve the efficiency of experimental functional analysis methodology (e.g., analysis of within-session responding). In the current study, we describe an updated model for progressing from brief to extended experimental analyses. The model incorporates several procedural refinements developed over the past 20+ years of experimental functional analysis research and additional conditions to confirm or annul findings. We present data for 20 participants who were referred for assessment and treatment of a variety of behavior problems (e.g., stereotypy, aggression, self-injury). We generally terminated the analyses when response patterns were consistent with established best-practice functional analysis methodology. Results showed conclusive interpretations were obtained for 100% of participants.

Applications of the matching law to observe shifts in problem behavior: A proof‐of‐concept study

“…One final limitation includes the brevity of our FAs, specifically for Ezra and Oscar. Although there has been a movement toward efficiency in FA methodology (Henry et al, 2021;Querim et al, 2013), there is evidence that conducting as few as two sessions per condition yields a high percentage of false positives for functions (Bartlett et al, 2011). Therefore, future research should consider conducting more sessions to minimize the likelihood of identifying false positive outcomes.…”

An evaluation of a caregiver-implemented stimulus avoidance assessment and corresponding treatment package.

“…Clinicians conducted a minimum of three consecutive 5-min monitored-ignore sessions to screen for automatically-maintained destructive behavior at the start of the assessment (Henry et al, 2021; Querim et al, 2013). An FA of target destructive behavior was then conducted for each participant as part of standard clinical procedures.…”

Further evaluation of functional analysis screening methods in early autism intervention

“…More recently, Henry et al (2021) extended the progression of assessments as outlined by Vollmer et al (1995) by adding the screening for automatic reinforcement proposed by Querim et al (2013) as the first step. Henry et al also included several test condition modifications from prior studies (e.g., inclusion of discriminative stimuli; Conners et al, 2000; equal reinforcement intervals; Fisher et al, 1996) with the stated purpose of increasing the likelihood of obtaining differentiated outcomes (see Schlichenmeyer et al, 2013 for a summary).…”

“…The purpose of the current study was to evaluate a variant of the studies by Querim et al (2013) and Henry et al (2021) for the assessment of problem behavior in young children with ASD in a clinic setting. We began our assessment with a no‐interaction screening and followed it with a series of test and control conditions based on the results of the screening.…”

“…Similar to Henry et al (2021), we incorporated findings from prior FA research to improve the efficiency of our FA. We included divided attention (i.e., two or more assessors spoke to each other but not the participant) in both the no‐interaction and attention condition to increase the likelihood that attention‐maintained problem behavior would be evoked (see Fahmie et al, 2013 for rationale).…”