Validating trial-based functional analyses in mainstream primary school classrooms

Abstract

There is growing evidence to support the use of trial-based functional analyses, particularly in classroom settings. However, there currently are no evaluations of this procedure with typically developing children. Furthermore, it is possible that refinements may be needed to adapt trial-based analyses to mainstream classrooms. This study was designed to expand the trial-based functional analysis literature by implementing the procedure in 2 mainstream primary school classrooms and validating the analysis through comparison of multiple treatment options, including some that were not indicated by the functional analysis. We also extended the procedure by including a peer-attention condition and obtaining data from teachers regarding the feasibility of the procedures. For all participants, functional analysis results helped to identify effective treatments. Furthermore, relative effects among treatments were accurately predicted by the functional analysis outcomes. Teachers reported that they understood the logic of functional analysis and found both analysis and treatment procedures to be easy and effective.

Use of synthesized analysis and informed treatment to promote school reintegration

“…Despite the limitations of the research, functional analysis and function‐based treatments can be performed in school settings. Austin, Groves, Reynish, and Francis () demonstrated that interventions informed by classroom‐based functional analyses lead to a greater reduction in problem behavior in three boys, when compared with interventions not informed by functional analyses. Although this well‐designed study was conducted in the natural environment, sessions were only 10 min in duration, and this does not represent comprehensive programming.…”

Achieving socially significant reductions in problem behavior following the interview‐informed synthesized contingency analysis: A summary of 25 outpatient applications

“…Therefore, the acceptability of the assessment process, treatments, or outcomes was not determined. Furthermore, multiple formats exist for conducting standard analyses prior to treatment, such as the brief (Northup et al, 1991), trial-based (Austin, Groves, Reynish, & Francis, 2015;Sigafoos & Saggers, 1995), or latency-based (Lambert et al, 2017;Thomason-Sassi, Iwata, Neidert, & Roscoe, 2011) formats. The treatment utility of these slight variations to the standard functional analysis format (Iwata et al1982(Iwata et al /1994) has yet to be evaluated in similar large-scale outcome studies.…”

Recent advances in applied research on DRO procedures

“…DRO arrangements may function differently depending on the relation of the reinforcer to the target response. Austin et al () conducted functional analyses with three test conditions (teacher attention, peer attention, escape from academic demands) for the inappropriate call‐outs of three typically developing boys. Two to three different DRO arrangements were used with each participant, comparing the functionally matched reinforcers from each test condition.…”

“…Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is a procedural arrangement in which reinforcement is scheduled following an interval during which a specified response does not occur (Catania, ). DRO has been used to reduce many kinds of undesirable behavior with a variety of populations, including self‐injurious behavior by individuals with intellectual disabilities (Kahng, Iwata, & Lewin, ) and disruptive classroom behavior of typically developing children (e.g., Austin, Groves, Reynish, & Francis, ). The widespread utility of DRO has resulted in the development of multiple modifications to the original procedures and translational research into the behavioral mechanisms that are responsible for its effectiveness.…”