Assessment of Challenging
Behavior: Beyond the Basic
Functional Analysis
Frances A. Perrin, Ph.D., BCBA-D
Christina M. Vorndran, Ph.D., BCBA-D
Learning objectives
Attendees 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
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
Functional analysis conditions
• Positive reinforcement
• Attention
• Tangible
• Negative reinforcement
• Escape
• Automatic reinforcement
• Alone/No interaction
• Control
4
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
Clarifying inconsistent results
• Research literature reports 5% inconclusive
results with FA
• Methodological modifications
• Antecedent variables
• Consequence variables
• Other
6
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
Manipulating Antecedents
8
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
Demand assessment
Smith, 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
Demand assessment
Roscoe, 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
Example of a need for
additional assessment
12
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29
Ag
g,
Dis
, S
IB p
er
Min
ute
Session
Alone
Social Attention
Toy Play
Demand
Tangible
Type of task
13
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Ag
g,
Dis
, S
IB p
er
Min
ute
Session
Academics
Vocational
Toy Play
Verbal prompts vs no prompts
14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
Ag
gre
ssio
n
Per
Min
ute
Session
Demand
Tangible No prompts
Prompts
Attention assessment
Roantree & 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
Roantree & Kennedy (2006)
16
17
Example of a need for
additional assessment
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
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
Ag
gre
ss
ion
+ D
isru
pti
on
pe
r m
inu
te
Session
Attention
Toy Play
Demand
Tangible
Divided attention
18
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Ag
gre
ss
ion
/Dis
rup
tio
n p
er
Min
ute
Session
Divided
Control
Removal of tangible from view
19
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
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
Dis
rup
tio
ns
pe
r m
inu
te
Session
Tangible items out of room
Tangible
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
Call et al. (2005)
21
Conners et al. (2000)
22
Consistent therapists
23
0
1
2
3
4
5
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
Ag
gre
ss
ion
pe
r m
inu
te
Session
Attention
Toy play
Demand
Alone
Consistent therapists in
demand and attention
Trigger word “No”
24
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Ag
g,
Dis
, S
IB,
an
d S
cre
am
pe
r M
inu
te
Session
"No" Condition
Toy Play
Manipulating Consequences
25
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
Kodak, Northup, & Kelley (2007)
27
Quality of attention
28
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Mo
uth
ing
pe
r m
inu
te
Session
Enthusiastic Attention
Brief Reprimand
Toy Play
Reed, Pace & Luiselli (2009)
29
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
Other variations
31
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 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
Is it automatic?
34
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Nu
mb
er
of
Pe
rse
ve
rati
on
s
Session
Control
Attention
Tangible
Alone
Escape
Multi-element Extended Alone
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
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
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
Trial-based method
Bloom, 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
Bloom et al. (2011)
39
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.
Conclusions
40
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
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
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
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