Latency‐based functional analysis in schools: Correspondence and differences across environments

Abstract

Functional analyses were conducted for problem behavior of three girls with intellectual and developmental disabilities.Analyses conducted under analog conditions measured rate and latency. Latency-based functional analyses were conducted in a classroom setting in multielement and reversal designs. Correspondence was identified between the standard functional analysis and the two latency analyses for one participant. Partial correspondence was found with the other two participants. These results are discussed in light of research on adaptions for functional analysis in classroom settings. KEYWORDS functional analysis, intellectual and developmental disabilities, latency analysis, school settings

Latency measurement in functional analysis and treatment of behaviors targeted for reduction

“…Specifically, Badgett and Falcomata (2015) The * denotes studies where only some cases (participants) met the inclusion criteria to be included in this review. of one LFFA and one other FA type was observed for three participants, and no correspondence was observed across all three FA types (standard FA, multi-element LFFA, reversal LFFA) for one participant (Hansen et al, 2019). In the fifth case, disparate outcomes were observed for one out of the 10 participants in Thomason-Sassi et al (2011).…”

“…The results of Hansen et al (2019) highlight a particularly interesting point of discussion related to this point. Hansen et al (2019) evaluated correspondence across assessment types (standard session-based FA using a rate-based measure, LFFA using a multi-element design, and LFFA using a reversal design) for only one out of three participants.…”

“…Although researchers have demonstrated that session‐ and rate‐based FAs are an effective strategy for identifying behavior functions, there are some limitations to this approach. First, characteristics of specific behaviors or setting constraints may make it dangerous or difficult to evoke and measure repeated instances of the target behavior (e.g., severe aggression in an under‐resourced setting; Hansen et al., 2019). In these contexts, a time‐bound session‐based approach may not be feasible.…”

“…Researchers have also demonstrated that response latency, or measuring the time from the onset of a stimulus to the first response, can be a reasonable substitute for measures of response repetition such as rate, duration, or percentage of intervals (Thomason‐Sassi et al., 2011). This finding has led to the use of latency to the first instance of target behavior as a valuable measure in functional analysis across a variety of FA designs and arrangements (e.g., Hansen et al., 2019; Jessel et al., 2018; Thomason‐Sassi et al., 2011) and there are some advantages to using a latency‐focused approach. First, measuring latency to the first instance of target behavior allows researchers to terminate sessions contingent on challenging behavior, thus reducing the overall number of instances of problem behavior the individual engages in throughout the assessment.…”

Reliability and validity of using structured visual‐inspection criteria to interpret latency‐based functional analysis outcomes

“…Latency‐based FAs have been used to assess a variety of challenging behavior including problem behavior (e.g., Briggs et al, 2019; Hamilton et al, 2020; Thomason‐Sassi et al, 2011), food stealing (e.g., Lambert et al, 2019), transition‐related problem behavior (e.g., Harper & Luiselli, 2019), repetitive behavior (e.g., Chok & Harper, 2016; Neil & Jones, 2016), and elopement (e.g., Davis et al, 2013; Lambert, Finley, & Caruthers, 2017; Neidert et al, 2013; Traub & Vollmer, 2019). Further, latency‐based FAs have been used across a variety of settings including clinics (e.g., Briggs et al, 2019; Thomason‐Sassi et al, 2011), schools (e.g., Hansen et al, 2019; Lambert, Lopano, et al, 2017), hospital inpatient units (e.g., Lambert, Staubitz, et al, 2017), residential settings (e.g., Harper & Luiselli, 2019), and home environments (e.g., Chok & Harper, 2016; Neil & Jones, 2016). Given that latency‐based FAs represent an emerging practice that offers a potentially more feasible and safer alternative to the standard rate‐based FA, there is a need for SVI criteria that are suitable for this format.…”