Reducing Ambiguity in the Functional Assessment of Problem Behavior

Abstract

Severe problem behavior (e.g., self-injury and aggression) remains among the most serious challenges for the habilitation of persons with intellectual disabilities and is a significant obstacle to community integration. The current standard of behavior analytic treatment for problem behavior in this population consists of a functional assessment and treatment model. Within that model, the first step is to assess the behavior–environment relations that give rise to and maintain problem behavior, a functional behavioral assessment. Conventional methods of assessing behavioral function include indirect, descriptive, and experimental assessments of problem behavior. Clinical investigators have produced a rich literature demonstrating the relative effectiveness for each method, but in clinical practice, each can produce ambiguous or difficult-to-interpret outcomes that may impede treatment development. This paper outlines potential sources of variability in assessment outcomes and then reviews the evidence on strategies for avoiding ambiguous outcomes and/or clarifying initially ambiguous results. The end result for each assessment method is a set of best practice guidelines, given the available evidence, for conducting the initial assessment.

Self-injurious behaviour in people with intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder

“…Other developments in the operant literature are the refinement of methods of functional analysis, for example when identification of function is ambiguous [20] and the identification of patterns of responding for automatically reinforced self-injury that might indicate different causes [21*]. These studies extend the use of functional analysis.…”

Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis

“…Indirect assessments are ones in which there is no direct observation of the target behavior; instead, informants who have observed the individual's target behavior answer questions about behavioral function via interviews or rating scales (e.g., Hanley, ; Roscoe, Schlichenmeyer, & Dube, ). Indirect assessments, when used alone, tend to have poor reliability and validity for identifying the functions of problem behavior (Kelley, LaRue, Roane, & Gadaire, ; Rooker, DeLeon, Borrero, Frank‐Crawford, & Roscoe, ). By contrast, a direct assessment involves observation and measurement of the target behavior and the antecedents and consequences that precede and follow it in the natural environment (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, ; Roscoe et al, ; Thompson & Iwata, , ).…”

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

“…If the target behavior did not occur, sessions were terminated after 300 s. To improve the likelihood that we would receive differentiated results, we utilized the standard order of sessions for the multielement analyses (Hammond et al, ). In addition, we allowed problem behaviors to subside for 5 min prior to proceeding to subsequent conditions (Rooker et al, ). Conditions for each child were selected based on interviews with the parents.…”

“…Second, other methods such as trial‐based functional analyses may help discrimination and have been tested more because they fit the changing contexts of classrooms better than LFA because each test condition includes control conditions that precede and follow the test condition (Bloom, Iwata, Fritz, Roscoe, & Carreau, ). In response to concerns about poor discrimination, one possible method is to use reversal designs (Iwata & Dozier, ; Rooker, DeLeon, Borrero, Frank‐Crawford, & Roscoe, ; Vollmer, Iwata, Duncan, & Lerman, ). Another way to improve discrimination is to conduct sessions in a prescribed sequence (alone/ignore, attention, play, demand, and tangible; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, ; Hammond, Iwata, Rooker, Fritz, & Bloom, ).…”