Assessment of Challenging          Behavior: Beyond the Basic          Functional Analysis          Frances A. Perrin, Ph....
Learning objectivesAttendees will be able to identify:• how to use functional assessment data to   develop procedural vari...
Functional analysis methodology• Gold standard for identifying variables  maintaining challenging behavior• General proced...
Functional analysis conditions• Positive reinforcement   •   Attention   •   Tangible• Negative reinforcement   •   Escape...
Functional analysis results• Empirical demonstration of functional  relationships• Sometimes results are not clear/complet...
Clarifying inconsistent results• Research literature reports 5% inconclusive  results with FA• Methodological modification...
Clarifying inconsistent results• Use existing functional assessment data• Collect additional data in natural environment  ...
Manipulating Antecedents8
Manipulating antecedents• Use results of FBA to inform variations• Each condition can be modified   •   Discriminative sti...
Demand assessmentSmith, Iwata, Goh, & Shore (1995)  • Novelty – compared the reinforcing effects of     escape from famili...
Demand assessmentRoscoe, Rooker, Pence, & Longworth (2009)• Assessed 12 different tasks per participant• Identified high-p...
Example of a need for                    additional assessment                            5                           4.5A...
Type of task                            3                                                    AcademicsAgg, Dis, SIB per Mi...
Verbal prompts vs no prompts                        22                        20                        18                ...
Attention assessmentRoantree & Kennedy (2006)• Evaluated whether attention functioned as an  EO or AO• Compared results of...
Roantree & Kennedy (2006)  16
Example of a need for                      additional assessment                                     12Aggression + Disrup...
Divided attention                                   1.6                                   1.4Aggression/Disruption per Min...
Removal of tangible from view                         4.0                                                                 ...
Other antecedent manipulations• Combined MOs   • Call, Wacker, Ringdahl, & Boelter (2005)• Specific or consistent Sds asso...
Call et al. (2005)  21
Conners et al. (2000)  22
Consistent therapists                        5                                                   Consistent therapists in ...
Trigger word “No”                                        2                                       1.8Agg, Dis, SIB, and Scr...
Manipulating Consequences25
Manipulating consequences• Use results of FBA to inform variations• Qualitative differences of the reinforcer  • Attention...
Kodak, Northup, & Kelley (2007)  27
Quality of attention                       3                      2.5Mouthing per minute                       2          ...
Reed, Pace & Luiselli (2009)  29
Golonka et al. (2000)• Evaluated response allocation to two break  options for 2 individuals whose behavior was  known to ...
Other variations31
Other variations•   Extended alone•   Antecedent (AB) only•   Hypothesis testing via pairwise•   Trial-based    32
Vollmer, Marcus, Ringdahl, &Roane (1995)• Evaluated the effects of a methodology for  progressing from brief to extended F...
Is it automatic?                           7                                                      Multi-element           ...
Antecedent only (AB) method• Procedures introduced by Carr & Durand  (1985)• Systematically manipulate difficulty of deman...
Limitations of AB method• Programmed consequences for the  challenging behavior do not include  functional reinforcer  • F...
Pairwise design• Test vs control conditions• Based on results from indirect and other  direct assessment• Conduct only the...
Trial-based methodBloom, Iwata, Fritz, Roscoe, & Carreau (2011)• Evaluated a trial-based approach to FA in a   classroom s...
Bloom et al. (2011)                      Results showed:                      Correspondence of                      funct...
Conclusions40
Benefits of FA• FA identifies functional relationships between the  antecedents, consequences, and target behavior• Allows...
A challenge of FA• Inconsistent results  •Standard conditions are not be sufficient at  producing differentiated results f...
Best practices• Choosing the approach to the functional analysis  •Inconclusive results from standard methodology leads  t...
Conclusions• Functional analysis methodology continues  to be the gold standard for identifying  variables maintaining cha...
Questions?For a copy of this presentation please emailDr. Vorndran atChristina.vorndran@bancroft.org
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Bancroft | Assessment of Challenging Behavior: Beyond the Basic Functional Analysis at Autism NJ

2,369 views
2,249 views

Published on

Presented by Christina Vorndran, Ph.D., BCBA-D and Frances Perrin, Ph.D., BCBA-D, Bancroft
This workshop presents an in-depth description of the most common variations to the standard functional analysis methodology. Attendees should have familiarity with the principles of applied behavior analysis and basic functional analysis procedures.

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,369
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,563
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bancroft | Assessment of Challenging Behavior: Beyond the Basic Functional Analysis at Autism NJ

  1. 1. Assessment of Challenging Behavior: Beyond the Basic Functional Analysis Frances A. Perrin, Ph.D., BCBA-D Christina M. Vorndran, Ph.D., BCBA-D© 2012 | Bancroft All rights reserved.
  2. 2. Learning objectivesAttendees will be able to identify:• how to use functional assessment data to develop procedural variations to the functional analysis conditions• several procedural variations for clarifying the results of an undifferentiated functional analysis• examples from the literature to support such procedural variations
  3. 3. Functional analysis methodology• Gold standard for identifying variables maintaining challenging behavior• General procedures established by Iwata et al. (1982/1994)• Systematic manipulation of antecedents and consequences to test for existing functional relationships• Compare test conditions to control 3
  4. 4. Functional analysis conditions• Positive reinforcement • Attention • Tangible• Negative reinforcement • Escape• Automatic reinforcement • Alone/No interaction• Control 4
  5. 5. Functional analysis results• Empirical demonstration of functional relationships• Sometimes results are not clear/complete • idiosyncratic variables • target behavior not observed • results do not match hypothesis • inconsistent/variable rates across all conditions - misinterpreted as automatic • function-based treatment ineffective 5
  6. 6. Clarifying inconsistent results• Research literature reports 5% inconclusive results with FA• Methodological modifications • Antecedent variables • Consequence variables • Other 6
  7. 7. Clarifying inconsistent results• Use existing functional assessment data• Collect additional data in natural environment • Interviews • Observations• Select modification and make sure to establish an appropriate control condition 7
  8. 8. Manipulating Antecedents8
  9. 9. Manipulating antecedents• Use results of FBA to inform variations• Each condition can be modified • Discriminative stimuli • Motivating operations• Additional assessments may be conducted prior to conducting an FA or following an FA with inconsistent results 9
  10. 10. Demand assessmentSmith, Iwata, Goh, & Shore (1995) • Novelty – compared the reinforcing effects of escape from familiar vs unfamiliar tasks • Duration – 15 minute sessions; looked at within session trends in challenging behavior • Rate – compared high (30 trials) vs low (10 trials) rate conditions• Additional assessment helped to identify the specific dimension of demand responsible for the escape function for 89% of the participants 10
  11. 11. Demand assessmentRoscoe, Rooker, Pence, & Longworth (2009)• Assessed 12 different tasks per participant• Identified high-p and low-p demands• Compared both types in a standard multielement FA• Differentially higher rates of challenging behavior were observed in the low-p condition for all participants 11
  12. 12. Example of a need for additional assessment 5 4.5Agg, Dis, SIB per Minute 4 3.5 Alone 3 Social Attention Toy Play 2.5 Demand 2 Tangible 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 Session 12
  13. 13. Type of task 3 AcademicsAgg, Dis, SIB per Minute 2.5 2 1.5 Vocational 1 0.5 Toy Play 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Session 13
  14. 14. Verbal prompts vs no prompts 22 20 18 16Aggression Per Minute 14 Prompts 12 10 8 Demand 6 4 Tangible No prompts 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 Session 14
  15. 15. Attention assessmentRoantree & Kennedy (2006)• Evaluated whether attention functioned as an EO or AO• Compared results of multielement FAs• EO test - 4 sessions (1 each condition) per day preceded by 20 min of attention• AO test – 4 sessions (1 each condition) per day preceded by no attention 15
  16. 16. Roantree & Kennedy (2006) 16
  17. 17. Example of a need for additional assessment 12Aggression + Disruption per minute 10 8 Attention Toy Play 6 Demand Tangible 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Session 17
  18. 18. Divided attention 1.6 1.4Aggression/Disruption per Minute 1.2 1 Divided 0.8 0.6 0.4 Control 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Session 18
  19. 19. Removal of tangible from view 4.0 Tangible items out of room 3.5 3.0Disruptions per minute 2.5 Tangible 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Session 19
  20. 20. Other antecedent manipulations• Combined MOs • Call, Wacker, Ringdahl, & Boelter (2005)• Specific or consistent Sds associated with each condition (e.g., therapists, stimuli, colors) • Conners et al. (2000)• Idiosyncratic antecedents that evoke behavior (e.g., trigger words) 20
  21. 21. Call et al. (2005) 21
  22. 22. Conners et al. (2000) 22
  23. 23. Consistent therapists 5 Consistent therapists in demand and attention 4Aggression per minute 3 Attention Toy play Demand 2 Alone 1 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 Session 23
  24. 24. Trigger word “No” 2 1.8Agg, Dis, SIB, and Scream per Minute 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 "No" Condition 0.8 0.6 0.4 Toy Play 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Session 24
  25. 25. Manipulating Consequences25
  26. 26. Manipulating consequences• Use results of FBA to inform variations• Qualitative differences of the reinforcer • Attention –(e.g., Kodak, Northup, & Kelley, 2007) • Tangible – (e.g., Reed, Pace, & Luiselli, 2009) • Escape – (Golanka et al., 2000) 26
  27. 27. Kodak, Northup, & Kelley (2007) 27
  28. 28. Quality of attention 3 2.5Mouthing per minute 2 Brief Reprimand Enthusiastic Attention 1.5 1 0.5 Toy Play 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Session 28
  29. 29. Reed, Pace & Luiselli (2009) 29
  30. 30. Golonka et al. (2000)• Evaluated response allocation to two break options for 2 individuals whose behavior was known to be maintained by escape • Break alone vs break with attention and enriched environment• Results indicated that the enriched break option was associated with an increase in choice making and compliance• Implications for modifying a functional analysis 30
  31. 31. Other variations31
  32. 32. Other variations• Extended alone• Antecedent (AB) only• Hypothesis testing via pairwise• Trial-based 32
  33. 33. Vollmer, Marcus, Ringdahl, &Roane (1995)• Evaluated the effects of a methodology for progressing from brief to extended FA to clarify undifferentiated results• Proposed extended alone condition as a method for ruling out an automatic function • If behavior persists automatic • If behavior extinguishes likely socially maintained 33
  34. 34. Is it automatic? 7 Multi-element Extended Alone 6Number of Perseverations 5 Control 4 Attention Tangible 3 Alone Escape 2 1 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 Session 34
  35. 35. Antecedent only (AB) method• Procedures introduced by Carr & Durand (1985)• Systematically manipulate difficulty of demands and levels of attention• Between 1994-2000, approximately 20% of studies reported in the literature used this methodology to conduct a functional analysis 35
  36. 36. Limitations of AB method• Programmed consequences for the challenging behavior do not include functional reinforcer • Functional relationships are not demonstrated• Cannot be used for automatic reinforcement because no control condition
  37. 37. Pairwise design• Test vs control conditions• Based on results from indirect and other direct assessment• Conduct only the conditions necessary to confirm the hypothesis – saves time
  38. 38. Trial-based methodBloom, Iwata, Fritz, Roscoe, & Carreau (2011)• Evaluated a trial-based approach to FA in a classroom setting• Trials consisted of three 2 min segments of control – test – control• If target behavior occurred within the 2 min test condition, it was reinforced and trial was ended 38
  39. 39. Bloom et al. (2011) Results showed: Correspondence of function identified for 6 of 10 participants. Partial correspondence for 1 of the remaining 4 participants. No correspondence for 3 participants. 39
  40. 40. Conclusions40
  41. 41. Benefits of FA• FA identifies functional relationships between the antecedents, consequences, and target behavior• Allows for the development of interventions that target the maintaining variables• As more specific reinforcement-based procedures have been implemented based on results of FAs • Decreased need for default treatments • Decreased need for punishment procedures
  42. 42. A challenge of FA• Inconsistent results •Standard conditions are not be sufficient at producing differentiated results for every individual with challenging behavior •Extensions of methodology allow for identification of specific variables maintaining challenging behavior
  43. 43. Best practices• Choosing the approach to the functional analysis •Inconclusive results from standard methodology leads to variations in conditions based on information collected through direct observation •In depth analysis of direct observation data prior to FA leads to variations in conditions or pre-assessment 43
  44. 44. Conclusions• Functional analysis methodology continues to be the gold standard for identifying variables maintaining challenging behavior• Systematic manipulation of antecedents and consequences to test for existing functional relationships is necessary when initial results are inconsistent• There is still room for additional changes to improve efficiency and generality
  45. 45. Questions?For a copy of this presentation please emailDr. Vorndran atChristina.vorndran@bancroft.org

×