Functional Behavioral Assessment Learning Objectives
Functional Behavioral Assessment Learning Objectives SPSY8015002: Functional Beh Assess
Popular in Functional Behavioral Assessment
Popular in Education
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
verified elite notetaker
This 12 page Class Notes was uploaded by Summer Mingo on Wednesday September 21, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to SPSY8015002: Functional Beh Assess at University of Cincinnati taught by Dacia McCoy in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 6 views. For similar materials see Functional Behavioral Assessment in Education at University of Cincinnati.
Reviews for Functional Behavioral Assessment Learning Objectives
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/21/16
Module 1, Chapter 24 Cooper; Watson 5&7, Cipani Ch 1 Functional Behavioral Assessment 1. a) Define each and discuss the differences between simple (indirect) FBA, full (descriptive) FBA, and functional analysis. Describe the common outcome that is expected of with each (similar); use of assessment methods (differences) 1. Gather information via indirect and descriptive assessment 2. Interpret information form those assessments and formulate hypotheses about the purpose of the problem Bx 3. Test hypotheses using FA 4. Develop intervention options based on the function of problem Bx indirect FBA (Only the interview and examination of records; the same term is used in both Cooper and Steege and Watson); •Primarily involves indirect assessment methods •Review of records •Structured behavioral interview(s) –Identify presenting problems (frequencies) –Identify problem situations –Identify antecedents and consequences in problem and non-problem situations --Explore behavioral deficits •Product: functional hypotheses on why behaviors (undesirable and desirable) occur or do not occur Descriptive FBA (this includes structured functional interviews and direct observation) •Includes all methods in simple FBA •Then utilizes direct assessment (Observation) to verify initial hypotheses from indirect methods –We will review on particular observation form –Others in a later course •Product: functional hypotheses on why behaviors (undesirable and desirable) occur or do not occur •Note: the product is the same as for indirect; but additional data is used FBA; functional analysis (includes a structured functional interview and usually direct observation before conducting the FA). •Direct observation of problem behaviors under direct manipulation of different possible consequences, and comparison of the effects on problem behaviors •Construction of FA occurs after functional interview (or equivalent) and identification of likely functions •Can be done out of context (analog) or within problem settings (in vivo) •Can be a ‘full/classical’ or brief FA •Can be done by teachers or setting staff •Most accurate FBA procedure but may take special skills or support •Product: functional hypotheses on why behaviors (undesirable and desirable) occur or do not occur b) For both descriptive functional assessment and functional analysis, what is the essential purpose of any assessment activity (observation or experimental manipulation) following a structured functional interview (like the FACTS). Descriptive FBA (this includes structured functional interviews and direct observation) •Product: functional hypotheses on why behaviors (undesirable and desirable) occur or do not occur •Note: the product is the same as for indirect; but additional data is used FBA; functional analysis (includes a structured functional interview and usually direct observation before conducting the FA). •Product: functional hypotheses on why behaviors (undesirable and desirable) occur or do not occur All FBA’s have the following purpose: •Identify the reasons for undesirable behavior within the problem context •Hypotheses about the functions of problem behaviors •Use the hypotheses, and understanding of context, to design an appropriate intervention –One likely to work –Utilize understanding of behavior principles –Context of empirically based interventions •Competing Behavior Model provides the beginning point for this 2) Define a functional hypothesis from the standpoint of ABA and explain why it is necessary prior to designing an effective behavior plan. •Functional assessment involves, within the conceptual framework of behavior analysis, a structured process of collecting and analyzing information that produces one or more (accurate) functional hypothesis about why problem behavior is occurring •Functional hypotheses are used to differentially create interventions that are clearly linked to the reasons for problem behavior Once again, a functional hypothesis takes our information and puts it into a model which helps us create interventions that are linked to the functions/reasons. We have functional assessment that produces functional hypotheses that are linked to functional interventions-all within the same conceptual system of behavior analysis FACTS (structured interview) 3) Discuss what the FACTS is, how it relates to all forms of functional assessment (simple, descriptive, and functional analysis) and how it produces a functional hypothesis. The FACTS is an assessment used to understand and identify problem behavior as related to settings and environment and uses the data to create functional hypotheses about these behaviors for intervention. FACTS relates to al forms of functional assessment in the following ways: Simple: It includes structured behavioral interview(s) –Identify presenting problems (frequencies) –Identify problem situations –Identify antecedents and consequences in problem and non-problem situations --Explore behavioral deficits •Product: functional hypotheses on why behaviors (undesirable and desirable) occur or do not occur Descriptive: It utilizes indirect FBA for direct assessment (Observation) to verify initial hypotheses from indirect methods •Product: functional hypotheses on why behaviors (undesirable and desirable) occur or do not occur •Note: the product is the same as for indirect; but additional data is used Functional Analysis: includes a structured functional interview and usually direct observation before conducting the FA). •Direct observation of problem behaviors under direct manipulation of different possible consequences, and comparison of the effects on problem behaviors •Construction of FA occurs after functional interview (or equivalent) and identification of likely functions •Product: functional hypotheses on why behaviors (undesirable and desirable) occur or do not occur 4) Describe the sequence of completing a FACTS, including; a) basic description of the sections for initial problem definitions (STEP 3); looks at the various forms of problem behaviors and their basic topography b) defining the sequence of daily activities and the probability of problem behaviors occurring during any setting/period (STEP 4); get an idea of the patterns of behaviors that happen throughout the day, frequency, and the activities associated with them c) selection of routines for analysis (STEP 5; the more specific analysis of problem episodes (STEP 7), go into more detail about the topography of the behaviors in each identified routine (frequency, duration, intensity and planned consequences triggers (STEP 8), helps to identify antecedents to the behaviors. This will be used to construct a hypothesis and an observation form to observe the behavior in context possible motivating operations (STEP 9), are there things that happen that make the behavior more likely to occur? and consequences (STEP 10). What happens directly after the behavior? Are certain things obtained or avoided? 5) Clearly identify and discuss the four categories in the Competing Behavior Model [MO, triggers, behaviors, consequences] (also the summary figure for the FACTS) as both a functional summary of assessment data, and the basic structure for a functional hypothesis. The competing behavior model helps to provide a link between functional assessment information and developing a positive behavioral support plan. This model is based on the logic that many different behaviors, some more appropriate than others, may serve the same function (i.e., produce the same reinforcing event). When a positive alternative behavior (i.e., a replacement skill) provides the same type of consequence that problem behaviors produce, the likelihood that a person will use the alternative behavior increases. This is especially true if the positive alternative is easier, or somehow more efficient, than problem behaviors. The problem behaviors are replaced by alternatives that successfully compete. 6) You have often read in Cooper (and Steege and Watson) of the four components of operant behavior (MO, S , behavior, reinforcer). Explain how the FACTS allows an indirect understanding of these variables for problem episodes and the creation of the functional hypothesis (ses) that help guide subsequent assessment or intervention planning. The FACTS allows an indirect understanding of these variables for problem episodes based off a structured interview that covers all of these variables with a teacher/involved person. The outcome of the interview is then used to create a functional hypothesis that is then used in an observation form to verify if the hypothesis was correct or even used for a direct intervention. 7) From the article by McIntosh et al (FACTS review) provide a clear conclusion for each of the following: a. What do the data suggest regarding test-retest reliability of the FACTS (be sure and describe what test-retest reliability is). -test-retest reliability: Do the interviews given at different times generate the same hypothesis statement(s) -The results showed strong test-retest reliability levels for antecedent, functions, and total statements and moderate levels for setting events. b. Compare the data on interrater reliability to test-retest reliability for the FACTS and briefly explain why the latter is better than the former. Interrater reliability was determined by comparing agreement on maintaining consequence across all informants. Results showed moderate agreement among 5-8 informants in varied settings, ranging from .50 to .88. Interrater reliability in this article is better than test-retest because multiple people were observing the same behaviors over time and varied settings.. c. According to the authors, explain how the FACTS show content validity related to the empirical literature relating a functional relationship between the environment and behavior? -Content validity refers to the extent to which the measure reflects empirical literature on functional relations. -FACTS generates a behavioral hypothesis statement, identifying operational definition of problem behavior and environmental events that evoke it, maintain it, and momentarily change the value of consequences. -Additionally, routines analysis of FACTS is a unique feature that is designed to produce more accurate information about the context of the problem behavior. -The routines analysis was designed to analyze the environmental variables when routines and problem behavior are stipulated. d. Describe the degree to which hypotheses generated by direct observation correspond with hypotheses generated by the FACTS. -From a total of 21 participants for whom authors provided both FACTS interview and direct observation results, 19 were confirmed (90%). -The authors reported direct observations in three ways: 1. confirmation – direct observation results indicated one clear maintaining consequence that was identical to the consequence generated by the FACTS 2. disconfirmation - direct observation results indicated one clear maintaining consequence that was not identical to the consequence generated by the FACTS 3. multiple consequences - direct observation results indicated multiple maintaining consequences e. Finally, describe how the hypotheses generated by the FACTS correspond with hypotheses generated by a functional analysis. -Functional relations depicted by the functional analysis (as determined by the raters) were compared to the results obtained from the FACTS. -Agreement was either full agreement, partial agreement, or FACTS indicated multiple functions, or no agreement ***Full agreement was obtained for 9 of 17 cases (53%), partial for 4 cases (24%) and no agreement for 4 cases (24%). 8. Briefly summarize the agreement between functional interviews with students who have behavior problems and their teachers. Because of the lack of empirical data to support indirect FBAs (functional interviews) validity or interrater agreement, indirect methods of FBA are not recommended as the principal means of identifying the functions of behaviors. These scales can provide information useful for forming initial hypotheses, which can later be tested. FAO 1. Describe how to, from a blank form, construct a FAO. 2. If given a FAO, describe data in terms of: a) overall frequency; b) rate differences across different activity periods; c) conditional probabilities of types of consequences given the occurrence of a problem episode; d) probability of any particular consequences given the presence of an antecedent category. Module 4 Learning Objectives Functional Assessment Continued By the end of this week, you should be able to: 1. Summarize the reasons provided by Ellis and Magee regarding the necessity for modifying the classic method for FA (like that described by Iwata et al (1994) in their seminal article on using FA for self-injurious behavior). - once a procedure has been experimentally developed, its value and applicability should be assessed under practical/natural conditions - lack of experimental control in the classroom setting, the presence of uncontrolled sources of reinforcement for aberrant behavior, and the possible resistance of school personnel to the remediation process may necessitate modifications to the analog conditions described by Iwata -additional problems with the functional behavior analysis approach —lack of generalizability in other settings or situations -labor intensity involved in establishing such generalizability via multiple FAs conducted for individual students -co-occurring behavioral determinants of problem behavior -restricting participant characteristics -artificiality of many of the settings in which FAs have been conducted ****By modifying the specifics of various FA conditions or adding new conditions, each of these issues could be directly addressed. -The goal of modifying the standard methods is to increase the confidence that results will generalize outside the analysis setting -some problematic behavior present challenges that may be unique to school settings, highly idiosyncratic, and difficult to reproduce unless FA conditions are modified. Because these modifications test the roles of antecedent and consequent events tailored to the student, they may provide more practical, applicable options when designing the subsequent behavior management intervention. 2. Based on the Ellis and Magee review article, summarize the changes from the classic FA method in schools, including a description and how they still allow creation of a functional hypotheses, that relate to the following dimensions: a. changes to experimental design (the classic approach uses a multielement design); - Berg et al. (2000) hypothesized that the sequence of FA conditions could have a substantial impact on outcomes—specifically, skewing the effect of attention as a reinforcer. These authors modified the order of condition presentation to examine sequence effects. - Carr et al. (1997) conducted FAs using the Iwata et al. (1982/1994) protocol, except that the alone and play conditions were omitted - observations suggested the problem behavior was socially motivated -only the attention and demand conditions were run -Authors specifically state that a reversal design, rather than multielement, was used to allow comparison between these two conditions. b. changes to antecedent components of the FA; - varying difficulty level of instructions in demand conditions, - - adding tasks to conditions other than the demand condition o modifying the FA so that all conditions included academic tasks, demonstrated both behavioral topographies (disruptive and on task) were members of the same response class and, were, therefore, remediated using a single contingency reversal. -easier tasks were included in the attention condition to decrease the probability of escape-maintained responses - Sasso et al. (1992) modified their attention condition to include a self- help task and their tangible condition to include individual class work. These two conditions were modified to include tasks so that the teacher could conduct the experimental analysis during the ongoing classroom routine - - -encompassing idiosyncratic objects or events in various FA conditions - occurrence of multiple topographies of a target behavior maintained by different reinforcers may misrepresent FA outcomes. To test this possibility, authors conducted an aggregate analysis [multiple topographies assessed simulta- neously] of aberrant behavior, which indicated that both stereotypy and self-injury were maintained by sensory reinforcement. However, subsequent separate analyses of self-injury and stereotypy indicated these targets were a function of two different variables: escape maintained self- injury, whereas sensory reinforcement accounted for stereotypy. - - -conducting sessions under differing physiological conditions o sinus infections could affect the presence or absence of hand mouthing; when infection was present it was noted that mouthing occurred 21% more than when the child was healthy o drugs can also affect the saliency of the EO of maintaining the behavior - -antecedent conditions hypothesized to motivate escape behavior other than demands. o –social attn can be a reinforcer for target behavior or escape could be maintained by social attn - b. changes to consequential components of the FA -Teacher attn/adding tangible condition or peer condition -giving juice & attn if SIB is shown, SIB increased sig -taking away and providing a preferred item in the attn/play/demand condition altered the results and showed aggressive behavior was maintained by access to preferred items -Peer Attn: FAs that included a peer attention condition for comparison with a teacher (adult) attention condition have demonstrated that (i) peer attention is a distinctive form of social positive reinforcement, which (ii) would not have been identified as a maintaining variable if the standard FA format had been used. FA conditions that have been modified to include nonstandard consequence delivery are not limited to peer attention, but may also include tangible access contingent on occurrence of the behavior of interest. - peer and teacher attention may not be functionally equivalent [and] that peer attention can function as a unique form of positive reinforcement -Escape from demands -asked to complete task sheets in demand condition AND told he would go to time out unless he remained seated 3. Summarize the risks of modifying a ‘successful’ procedure like FA because of setting demands? - Moving beyond tightly controlled laboratory settings into more chaotic natural environments exposes the research to the greater possibility of encountering uncontrolled/confounding variables in those settings. Relatedly, describe the ultimate criteria for judging the utility of FA. - The goal of all is an accurate functional hypotheses and an effective functional intervention NOTE, I did not upload my answers for the next two questions as they relate to our homework 4. For each of the articles read concerning actual FA: a. Write the hypotheses (may be more than one) yielded from the FA in a sentence format b. Place the function(s) of the problem behaviors into the functional classification system described by Cipani and Schock, and describe your justification for the placement. c. Describe, using basic behavioral principles, how the interventions derived from the FA ‘match’ the functions of the misbehavior (how the interventions themselves may be said to be functional. 5. Given an article describing a FA, or a description of a problem and FA data and subsequent intervention, be able to provide an analysis as described in objective 4. 6. Describe, using basic behavior principles, why the results from a ‘classic’ analogue FA may not generalize to a natural setting, and what possible impact this may have on interventions planned from an analogue FA. interventions based on FAs conducted in experimental settings under highly controlled analog conditions may be effective only to the extent that those analog conditions match the subject’s natural environment. - lack of experimental control in the classroom setting, the presence of uncontrolled sources of reinforcement for aberrant behavior, and the possible resistance of school personnel to the remediation process may necessitate modifications to the analog conditions - without modification school personnel may view functional analysis methodology as complex, time- consuming or contrived, and thus reject the FA out of hand. -By modifying the specifics of various FA conditions or adding new conditions, each of these issues could be directly addressed. - specific topographies of problem behavior may occur exclusively in particular environments. - interventions based on FAs conducted in those settings may be more effective in controlling the problem behavior in those settings - systematic alteration of the analysis conditions may be needed ‘if initial assessment data are unclear, consistency of implementation has been verified, and conditions have been attempted using the reversal design - Existing procedures that focus on a four-part taxonomy of variables that maintain problem behaviors (attention, tangible, escape, automatic) may require modification to improve the precision with which we identify the variables controlling problem behaviors in a specific context. Module 2, Cipani & Schock (Chapter 3) 1. Describe the four basic categories of Cipani and Schock’s functional diagnostic categories, including the specific subcategories for each (by the end of the quarter you will have to do more than this). Be able to describe one example that is representative of each subcategory. Explain why a functional diagnostic system is more useful than a descriptive one when it comes to differential interventions based on functional aspects of presenting problems. 1.0 Direct Access: + Reinforcement •1.1 sensory stimuli (automatic reinforcement) –No social consequences apparent –Withdrawal of social consequences has no effect due to being maintained by the sensory stimuli not social attention –Attenuation of sensory effects reduces –‘Premacking’ access increases preceding EX: Rocking back and forth and flapping produces a kinesthetic result that automatically creates its own built in reinforcer. •1.2 to tangible reinforcers (often through discrete chain which may confuse the issue) –Discriminating tangible (Pica) vs. attention (attention resulting from Pica) –Activities are considered tangibles EX: Food scavenging – food ingestion, eating discarded cigarette butts 2.0 Socially mediated Access: + Reinforcement •2.1. to attention (adults/staff) –Discriminating attention from tangible when there is interaction chain leading to tangible –Example (text, table 3.14 vs. 3.17 [pinching because it’s the only time the individual would get adult attention and a correction], and p. 99, stealing out of necessity vs. attention resulting from stealing) •2.2 to attention (peer) -Ex: Class Clown •2.3 to tangible reinforcers (including activities) -problem behaviors that function to access desired tangible items, objects, events, or activities under conditions where the client needs such are strengthened. –See above –Ex: Elopement (running naked!) due to Access to soda to return back to the home and put her clothes on when she isn’t allowed to even have soda on her restricted diet plan. 3.0 Direct Escape: - Reinforcement/Avoidance Paradigm) •3.1. From (unpleasant) social situations –What type of MO would these be? –General aversiveness of interaction vs. specific interactions -Ex: Escapes facility to avoid non-preferred chores and staying at home while others are on community outing for earning all their community outing points •3.2. From tasks (lengthy) –Why differentiate between tasks? -manipulating the difficulty of the tasks is not the answer; some form of altering the task length is one component of a functional behavior analytic strategy. –Type of MO? –Reinforcement for task engagement and completion? -Ex: Wacky Contingencies – get more work for completing work quickly and accurately instead of earning more recess time or desirable reinforcement •3.3. From tasks (difficult) –Skills issues for all tasks -Much PASSIVE off task behavior is direct escape from task engagement -students who are faced with difficult material will often engage in behaviors that are socially mediated. The more disruptive, the more likely the student will get removed from the instructional setting. EX: Content level mismatch creates the conditions for escape or avoidance. The child engages in behaviors that avoid attending to the instruction or task, such as daydreaming, reading comic books, etc. •3.4. From stimuli (aversive) –What kind of MO would these stimuli be? –Smells, noise, lights, physical irritation EX: Child head banging to relieve tooth pain not for social/adult attn 4.0 Socially Mediated Escape: - Reinforcement •Why differentiate SM vs. Direct? -SMA problem behaviors remove or postpone aversive events. As opposed to DE behavior in that the client’s behavior does not directly terminate the aversive event. Rather, the negative reinforcers. •4.1. (unpleasant) social situations –Remember escape to attention -EX: A man spins with his arms out when he sees staff or Dr approaching him in a facility. The faculty avoid him as to not be hit by his outstretched arms •4.2. (relatively) lengthy tasks/chores –Functional significance of identifying why things are aversive? -An FBA will always require that someone’s motivation to behave in a certain fashion be understood from a scientific measurement of variables in the environment. Second, this explanation does not lead one to understood how off- task and disruptive behaviors are functional. -EX: Teenager quietly protested doing a list of chores and then going to breakfast. It was determined she had a personality disorder and was lazy. After breaking up the chores into one-step actions, she was able to complete the chores successfully. •4.3. From tasks (difficult) EX: Student hits own face, teacher stops instruction to hold students hands from hitting face, INSTRUCTION stops. •4.4. From stimuli (aversive) EX: Client rips clothes off to terminate an aversive stimulus. Staff blocks the client, client urinates in his pants, and is cleaned up with new clothes. The behavior of soiling ones clothes becomes functional. Being diagnosed within a topographical system does not lead to differentiated treatment as is the case with the functional diagnostic system where the identified function, not the topography, of the behavior in the particular problem setting leads directly to specific interventions. “Diagnosis”, or the placement into a particular category in the Cipani and Schock functional diagnostic system, is based on the function of the behavior in the particular problem setting. Characteristics of Function Based Classification systems Diagnosis of behavior problem characteristics, not child characteristics Prescriptive differential treatment derived from a differential diagnosis Assessment data collected to provide information on contact variables, not just rate of behavior Assessment phase concludes with diagnosis phase, in which a function-based category is selected Functional Behavioral Analysis Full Classical Functional Analysis (FA) / Analogue and in-vivo FA Module 3, Chapt 24. 1. Basic parameters of functional analysis Key components: observation of behavior under well-defined test versus control conditions. -Test condition contains the variable (usually combination of antecedent and consequent events) whose influence is being evaluated -identify known sources of reinforcement to maintain problem behavior (see “a” below) -variations of test conditions have included divided-attn, access to tangible items, and social avoidance -After functional interviews (maybe observations) different conditions are selected and manipulated to better understand function of misbehavior -Can occur in room (analogue) or under natural conditions -In all conditions misbehavior is consequated in different ways -Sessions or comparison periods are relatively brief -Continue sessions until interpretable results -Essentially an experimentally-focused reinforcer assessment guided by interviews and other initial assessments -Utilizes an internally valid experimental design from which to draw conclusions -Multielement -ABAB -Other within series a. Describe and discuss the 4 typical/classic conditions (alone, control/play, attention, escape) and a condition for possible tangible reinforcement used during an analogue functional analysis, including a clear rationale for their use and for what function each might ‘test’. Alone- MO: Low level of environmental stimulation (ie therapist, task materials, and play materials are absent. -Consequence: Problem behavior is ignored or neutrally redirected TESTING: •1.1 sensory stimuli (automatic reinforcement) •1.2 to tangible reinforcers (PICA, eating discarded cig butts) Control/Play- MO: Preferred activities continuously available, social attn provided, no demands are placed on client -Consequence: Problem behavior is ignored or neutrally redirected Attention-MO: attn is diverted or withheld from the person -Consequence: attn in the form of mild reprimands or soothing statements (don’t do that. Youll hurt someone) TESTING: •2.1. to attention (adults/staff) •2.2 to attention (peer) •2.3 to tangible reinforcers (including activities) –Discriminating attention from tangible Escape- MO: Task demands are delivered continuously using a three-step procedure (you need to ____, model ______, provide hand over hand assistance to ________) -Consequence: break from the task provided by removing task materials and stopping prompts to complete the task TESTING: DE 3.0 or SMA 4.0 •3.1. From (unpleasant) social situations •3.2. From tasks (lengthy) •3.3. From tasks (difficult) •3.4. From stimuli (aversive) •4.1. (unpleasant) social situations •4.2. (relatively) lengthy tasks/chores •4.3. From tasks (difficult) •4.4. From stimuli (aversive) Tangible –MO: have desirable activities/objects available -Consequence: only give access if misbehave ***A condition for possible tangible reinforcement during analogue FA is Social Sr+ and reflects the fact that investigators typically included a tangible condition in a FA based on preliminary info that it was likely a function. -results show that inclusion of a tangible condition may lead to a false-positive outcome I which behavior not maintained by tangible reinforcement is sensitive to it, especially if the tangible is highly preferred. -1/2 the tangible cases contributed to multiple control because they did not involve maintenance by attn. b. Explain the concept of multiple control, and describe FA patterns that would indicate this. From the literature, describe the frequency of such outcomes and implications for intervention. Multiple control: problem behavior maintained by more than one source of reinforcement. -Identified as such when results of an FA show consistently higher levels of responding in two or more test conditions relative to the control condition. -higher response rates must be observed n two test conditions relative to the control , yielding three combinations -higher responding in test conditions for social Sr+ and social Sr-, higher responding in test conditions for Sr- and automatic reinforcement -high rates in two social Sr+ conditions (attn and tangible) are not considered multiple control because both involve delivery of Sr+ c. List and describe the variables that need to be addressed in planning a functional analysis. Environmental variables Arrangement of variables rather than the setting in which the assessment occurs Three test conditions including MO and possible reinforcement Control Condition 2. If given a brief description of a functional analysis and a graph of the results, be able to state a hypotheses about the function(s) of the target behaviors when the results indicate: social/positive reinforcement; social/negative reinforcement (escape); mixed or unclear results; automatic reinforcement; multiple functions of the same behavior; multiple functions of different behaviors. 3. If given a description of a problem behavior, context, and descriptive assessment data, construct a possible set of ‘test’ conditions that might be used to conduct a functional analysis. 4. Describe what is needed, including any ‘pre-assessment’ data, to conduct a functional behavior analysis, including functional interviews, persons, and materials involved in the analysis procedures, and persons and materials used in direct observation. •Pre-assessment giving idea about possible or likely functions •Materials from natural environment (classroom for example) associated with problem •One or more ‘therapists/teachers’ •Scripts about interaction with student •One or more outside observers. 5. Describe each of the variations for FA described by Iwata and Dozier, including the pros, cons, and reasons for using for each variation 6. Describe and contrast each of the practical constraints/limiting factors on conducting a FA (Iwata and Dozier). Describe and discuss how each constraint may be addressed in planning a FA. -Constraints on time available for assessment -Brief Functional analysis was developed for these situations -consists of single exposure to 5-min rest and control conditions, replication of key test condition if time permits, followed by a treatment probe, all of which can be done in a 90 min time period -risk posed by severe problem behavior -analysis of precursors might be helpful in reducing risk -latency to the first response also may be sensitive to the effects of contingencies -inability to exert tight control over environmental conditions -setting per se is not a limiting factor of the FA as long as confounding influences can be minimized for brief periods of time. -EX: Therapists “coached” parents to implement assessment conditions with their children, and procedures were implemented without any loss of precision.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'