Preliminary investigation of two functional assessment methods for people with dementia: Effectiveness and acceptability

Abstract

Many functional assessment procedures have been developed and validated for use with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. However, there is a paucity of research exploring the utility and social acceptability of functional assessment methods for people with dementia. We conducted direct observations in the natural environment to produce data for conditional probability analyses and an experimental functional analysis of the behavior of two women with dementia. We found that the conditional probability analysis yielded similar conclusions about function as the data from the experimental functional analysis for both participants. Importantly, staff rated the direct observations as more socially acceptable. We also report barriers to conducting both methods in older adult settings that warrant further exploration, including the use of the assessments with people with dementia and intact vocal verbal repertoires.

Functional analysis of problem behavior: A 40‐year review

“…A setting other than those listed in Table 2 was identified in 17 studies. Some examples of other settings included an adult day center for medical and social services (Trahan et al, 2014), a home that specialized in supporting adults with dementia (Sharp et al, 2021), a brain injury rehabilitation day program (Strohmeier et al, 2015), and a local pediatric clinic (Wacker et al, 2013). Overall, combined results show that the most common settings for functional analyses are the school (33.2%), followed by outpatient clinic (28.8%), inpatient hospital unit (27.1%), home (13.4%), institution (10.5%), vocational program (3.4%), and other (2.2%).…”

“…A setting other than those listed in Table 2 was identified in studies. Some examples of other settings included an adult day center for medical and social services (Trahan et al, 2014), a home that specialized in supporting adults with dementia (Sharp et al, 2021), a brain injury rehabilitation day program (Strohmeier et al, 2015), and a local pediatric clinic (Wacker et al, 2013). Overall, combined results show 1 9 6 1 -1 9 6 5 1 9 6 6 -1 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 -1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 -1 9 8 0 1 9 8 1 -1 9 8 5 1 9 8 6 -1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 -1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 -2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 -2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 -2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 -2 0 0 and increasing from that reported by Hanley et al (4.3%).…”