4 Everything You Always Wanted to Know about the Conceptual Foundations of Functional Behavioral Assessments … but Were Afraid to Ask Or, Basic Principles of Functional Behavioral Assessment The external variables of which behavior is a function provide for what may be called a causal or functional analysis. We undertake to predict and control the behavior of the individual organism. This is our “dependent variable”—the effect for which we are to find the cause. Our “independent variable”—the causes of behavior—are the external conditions of which behavior is a function. Relationships between the two—the “cause-effect relationships” in behavior—are the laws of a science. A synthesis of these laws expressed in quantitative terms yields a comprehensive picture of the organism as a behaving system. —B. F. SKINNER (1953, p. 35) ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES At its most basic level, FBA is a rather simple concept. The purposes of all activities within the FBA domain are to determine under what conditions a behavior is most likely to occur (antecedents) and what happens in the environment as a result of that behavior and maintains that behavior (consequences). When an evaluator is conducting an FBA, it is critical that he or she differentiate among antecedents and consequences that are associated with interfering behavior and those variables that are functionally related to interfering behavior (see the accompanying box). Essentially, a functional relationship is a cause-effect relationship. Put another way, events can be viewed as being either molar or molecular in nature. A “molar event” refers to associated relationships, while “molecular events” refer to those that are functionally related to interfering behavior. Casual, anecdotal observations tend to yield information regarding molar variables. Perhaps the best example of a molar event is the widely held notion that odd behavior occurs more frequently during a full moon. That is, although there may be an association between some behaviors and the lunar cycle, the moon is not causing odd behavior. A more systematic analysis of behavior typically uncovers the molecular variables that trigger and/or reinforce behavior. Consider the case of a student who frequently engages in disruptive behavior when the teacher provides verbal instruction. At a molar level, we might say that verbal instructions serve as an antecedent to disruptive behavior. Further assessment showed that it was the length of verbal instructions that triggered disruptive behavior and not verbal instructions per se. This is an important distinction because of the direct implications for intervention. If the school staff merely altered the content of the verbal instruction without altering its length, there would likely be a minimal effect on the disruptive behavior. As it turned out, the staff reduced verbal instructions to one- to three-word cues, which eliminated disruptive behavior and prompted the student to participate in instructional programming. Identifying these molecular influences on behavior requires considerable knowledge, time, expertise, a degree of experience with FBA, and skill in observing behavior. An antecedent is any event or stimulus that occurs before a behavior occurs. For any behavior there may be one or numerous antecedents. The dual purpose of an FBA is first to identify these antecedents and then to determine which are directly related to triggering the target behavior. A consequence is any event or stimulus that occurs after a behavior. Again, there may be many things that happen after a behavior. The purposes of an FBA are to identify what actually happens after the target behavior and then determine which one or combination of these events are maintaining (i.e., reinforcing) that behavior. Before discussing methodology or FBA procedures, we think it is essential that the same basic terminology be understood and used by everyone who is conducting and talking about FBAs. You will have noticed by now that we use italics to highlight words that we think are especially important. Words or concepts of even greater import get their own box with a more in-depth description. Therefore, the first section of this chapter describes some of these vital principles of FBA. As the book progresses, however, we hope to introduce more complex topics and procedures associated with FBAs. Consider the case of a student who was referred for disruptive behavior during math class. During the initial anecdotal observation, the student was observed to display verbal opposition (e.g., verbally refusing to complete assignments) and property destruction (e.g., tearing up worksheets and books) when he was directed by the classroom teacher to complete math worksheets. Following the occurrence of these interfering behaviors, the teacher provided a verbal reprimand and then asked the student to leave the classroom. Subsequent interviews with the teacher and the student and additional observations during math class revealed that interfering behaviors were not predictable. For example, when presented with math worksheets and verbal directions, the student did not always exhibit verbal opposition and property destruction. In fact, the range of student responses following the initial directives from the teacher to complete math worksheets were inconsistent. Sometimes the student: • Completed the math worksheets with no verbal opposition or property destruction. • Completed portions of the worksheets, and then displayed verbal opposition. • Completed portions of the worksheets, and then displayed verbal opposition andproperty destruction. • Displayed verbal opposition, but following verbal reprimands and verbal redirection prompts from the teacher, complied and completed the worksheets. • Displayed verbal opposition, but following verbal reprimands and verbal redirection prompts from the teacher, engaged in additional verbal opposition and then property destruction. • Exhibited property destruction and no occurrences of verbal opposition. In addition, further analysis revealed that the worksheets varied in terms of: • Length (i.e., number of problems to solve). • Complexity (i.e., computation vs. story problems). • Skill level (i.e., mastery, instructional, frustration). To complicate matters, the classroom teacher provided varying degrees of feedback to the student. Sometimes the teacher: • Provided verbal praise when the student initiated the worksheets. • Did not provide any feedback, regardless of the student’s behavior. • Delivered a verbal reprimand and asked the student to leave the classroom when the student exhibited interfering behaviors. • Delivered a verbal reprimand, but did not ask the student to leave the room. • Provided verbal praise when the student initiated the worksheets, but when subsequent interfering behavior occurred, she delivered a varying combination of verbal reprimands, verbal redirection, and directions for the student to leave the classroom. Interviews with the student revealed a number of variables that influenced his behaviors. On some days: • He arrived at school with a headache, had difficulty concentrating, and “would rather just be left alone.” • The math worksheets followed the completion of other difficult assignments and “that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.” • He arrived at school in a “good mood and didn’t mind doing the work.” • He arrived at school after having an argument with his parents and was “pissed off at the world.” • He smoked marijuana before coming to school, had the “munchies,” was very sleepy, and “just felt like chilling.” Identification and analysis of the variables that contribute to the occurrence of interfering behaviors requires the consideration of an array of interacting variables. Remember the case of Mackenzie … the sting of the wasp (the stimulus) caused her to flinch and run away (the response). With Mackenzie, the stimulus predictably produced the response (a cause-effect relationship) and we say that the stimulus elicited the response. However, for the vast majority of the behaviors addressed in an FBA, this simple cause-effect relationship does not exist and interfering behaviors do not predictably occur when a specific stimulus is presented.Moreover, reinforcing consequences are not always delivered consistently. When conducting an FBA, it is critical that we examine and understand the relative contributions of a host of variables that influence occurrences of interfering behavior. In the following sections, we begin to discuss models for assessing and analyzing the amalgam that constitutes human behavior. ANTECEDENTS OF BEHAVIOR Antecedents are stimuli that occur prior to a behavior and that influence its occurrence. There are two types of learned antecedents that increase the probability of interfering behavior (1) discriminative stimuli and (2) motivating operations. Discriminative Stimuli Behaviors occur in the presence of specific stimuli. Eventually, the stimuli regularly associated with a behavior (we call this repeated association a “learning history”) serve as cues and increase the probability that the behavior will be performed (Kazdin, 2001). These stimuli that precede the occurrence of behavior and signal that reinforcement following the behavior is likely to occur are called discriminative stimuli (SDs). Unlike respondent conditioning, in which a stimulus elicits a response in operant conditioning the SD sets the occasion for a subsequent response, or increases the probability of a behavior. As one typical example, Sam is a sophomore in high school who has difficulty completing assignments at home (e.g., reading assigned chapters, writing papers, doing math computation assignments). Sam typically completes homework in her bedroom. Sam’s bedroom does not include a desk or chair, but does have a TV. Several times a week, Sam goes to her bedroom with the best intentions of studying. In fact, she carries in her school books, paper, pens and pencils, and study guides (all of these items may be SDs for studying). However, after a few minutes she turns on the TV, “channel surfs,” and spends much more time watching TV than studying. With Sam, the TV is an SD for watching television. Removing the TV from her bedroom and adding a desk (an SD for studying) resulted in decreased TV watching and increased studying behaviors. A behavior that occurs more frequently in the presence of one stimulus condition than it does in others is called a discriminated operant. A behavior is said to be under stimulus controlwhen responses emitted in the presence of the stimulus produce reinforcement more often than responses that occur in the absence of the stimulus. Or, stated in a slightly different way, a behavior that occurs at a higher rate in the presence of a given stimulus than it does in its absence is said to be under stimulus control (Cooper et al., 2007). For example, we answer a phone when it rings, but not when it is silent; when driving, we stop the car more often at an intersection in the presence of a red traffic light or a stop sign than in their absence (Cooper et al., 2007). When a behavior is under stimulus control, it is highly probable (but not automatic) that given a particular stimulus, a specific response will occur. Motivating Antecedents of Behavior Antecedents other than SDs can influence the occurrence of behavior (Iwata, Smith, & Michael, 2000). Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, and Poling (2003) used the term motivating operation (MO) as the overarching term to describe those antecedent variables that influence behavior change by momentarily altering the effectiveness of reinforcing consequences. Essentially, MOs influence behavior change in numerous ways. A stimulus, object, or event may have: • • Value-Altering Effects Increases the reinforcing effectiveness (or value) of a stimulus, object, or event (i.e., an establishing operation). Decreases the reinforcing effectiveness (or value) of a consequence (i.e., abolishing operation). Behavior-Altering Effects • Increases the frequency of behavior that has been reinforced by a stimulus, object, or event (i.e., an evocative effect). • Decreases the frequency of behavior that has been reinforced by a stimulus, object, or event (i.e., an abative effect). MOs are both unlearned (i.e., unconditioned) and learned (i.e., conditioned). Table 4.1 lists examples of several unconditioned MOs and both their reinforcerestablishing effect and their corresponding evocative effect. Table 4.2 lists examples of several unconditioned MOs and both their reinforcer-abolishing effect and their corresponding abative effect. Table 4.3 provides examples of conditioned MOs, the reinforcer-establishing effect, and the evocative effect that the MO has on the occurrence of interfering behaviors. Table 4.4provides examples of conditioned MOs, the reinforcer-abolishing effect, and the abative effect on interfering behaviors. MOs are momentary and a single MO may affect multiple behaviors and consequences simultaneously (Mace, Gritter, Johnson, Malley, & Steege, 2006). For example, Mace et al. (2006) offer an illustration in which an individual who really enjoys cooking accidentally touches a hot pan. In this example, upon touching the hot pan, the effectiveness of cooking as a positive reinforcer is temporarily abolished, while at the same time the effectiveness of dropping the hot pan and obtaining ice as a negative reinforcer is temporarily established.Behaviors related to these consequences either decrease (the chef stops cooking) or increase (she drops the pan and opens the freezer and grabs some ice) accordingly. TABLE 4.1. Unconditioned Motivating Operations: Reinforcer-Establishing Effects Unconditioned Reinforcer-establishing motivating operation effect Evocative effect on interfering behaviors Food deprivation Increases the Increases the frequency of behaviors that have effectiveness of food as a previously been reinforced with food (e.g., positive reinforcer. taking foods from others that are not on the student’s approved diet). Fluid deprivation Increases the Increases the frequency of behaviors that have effectiveness of fuids as a previously been reinforced with fuids (e.g., positive reinforcer. tantrum to obtain a drink). Activity deprivation Increases the Increases the frequency of behaviors that have effectiveness of an previously been reinforced by participation in activity as a positive or the activity (e.g., self- injury reinforced by negative reinforcer. sensory input). Increase in physically Increases the Increases the frequency of behaviors that have irritating/ painful effectiveness of a previously been reinforced with reduction of stimulus reduction in pain as a irritation/pain (e.g., scratching an itch until it negative reinforcer. bleeds). Sleep deprivation Increases the Increases the frequency of behaviors that have effectiveness of sleep as a previously been reinforced with being able to positive reinforcer. sleep (e.g., laying down in class and taking a nap). Note. Based on Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2007). HOW MOTIVATING OPERATIONS INFLUENCE DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI Not only do MOs increase the value of the reinforcing consequence, they also increase the effectiveness of SDs in occasioning behavior. For example, consider the case of a student who exhibits swearing behavior that has been reinforced by social attention from parents, teachers, siblings and classmates. This behavior usually produces a response from others (e.g., verbal reprimands, facial grimaces, moans, groans, laughter). The IEP team decided to put this behavior on extinction (i.e., provide no reaction when the behavior occurs). This deprivation of attention temporarily increases the value of attention as a reinforcer (an establishing effect). Not only does that increase the probability of “attention-seeking” interfering behaviors (an evocative effect), this deprivation also increased the likelihood that the student would engage in interfering behaviors in the presence of parents, teachers, siblings and classmates. Thus, within the classroom setting, when the classroom teacher ignores swearing behavior, the value of reactions from classmates has temporarily increased and the effectiveness of classmates as discriminative stimuli to occasion swearing behavior has increased. TABLE 4.2. Unconditioned Motivating Operations: Reinforcer-Abolishing Effects Unconditioned motivating operation Reinforcer- abolishing effect Abative effect on interfering behaviors Food ingestion Decreases the Decreases the frequency of behaviors that have effectiveness of food as previously been reinforced with food (e.g., verbal a positive reinforcer. threats of aggression to obtain a snack from a classmate). Fluid ingestion Decreases the Decreases the frequency of behaviors that have effectiveness of fuids as previously been reinforced with fuids (e.g., a positive reinforcer. student bolting from desk to obtain teacher’s coffee). Participation activity in Decreases the effectiveness of an activity as a positive or negative reinforcer. Decreases the frequency of behaviors that have previously been reinforced through participation in the activity(e.g., physical stereotypy reinforced by arousal reduction). Decrease in Decreases the physically irritating/ effectiveness of escape/ painful stimulus avoidance as a negative reinforcer. Decreases the frequency of behaviors that have previously been reinforced with reduction of irritation/pain (e.g., aggression that is followed by removal from a loud and aversive classroom). Suffcient sleep Decreases the Decreases the frequency of behaviors that have effectiveness of sleep as previously been reinforced with being able to a positive reinforcer. sleep (e.g., disruptive behavior that has been followed by opportunities to lay on the foor, cover up with a blanket, and sleep). Note. Based on Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2007). Likewise, consider the case of Bud, an adolescent with autism who resides in a group home. Bud has gained a considerable amount of weight over the past 18 months. Due to health concerns, the IEP team decided to put him on a restrictive diet designed to help Bud to lose one-half pound per week. In addition to reducing his portions and switching him to a low-fat diet, the team changed Bud’s reinforcement program from edible reinforcers such as chocolate chips, raisins, and chocolate-covered peanuts to a reinforcer menu that included carrots, celery, and radishes. The team reported that Bud, after being on the diet for 2 months, had not lost any weight. In fact, he had gained 3 pounds. Moreover, Bud had increasingly been exhibiting food-stealing behaviors (e.g., taking food from others, raiding the refrigerator, rummaging through the garbage). TABLE 4.3. Examples of Conditioned Motivating Operations: Reinforcer-Establishing Effects Conditioned Reinforcermotivating operation establishing effect Evocative effect on interfering behaviors Deprivation of social Increases the attention effectiveness of social attention as a positive reinforcer. Increases the frequency of behaviors that have previously been reinforced with social attention (e.g., inappropriate social comments in class that are followed by peer attention). Diffcult tasks Increases the effectiveness of escape/ avoidance as a negative reinforcer. Increases the frequency of behaviors that have previously been reinforced with avoiding or terminating diffcult tasks (e.g., verbal opposition and swearing that results in the cessation of tasks). Aversive Increases the (nonpreferred) social effectiveness of interactions escape/ avoidance as a negative reinforcer. Increases the frequency of behaviors that have previously been reinforced with avoiding or terminating nonreinforcing social interactions (e.g., looking away to avoid eye contact; not returning a phone call). Deprivation of a Increases the Increases the frequency of behaviors that have reinforcing tangible effectiveness of a previously been reinforced with access to a (e.g., token, money) tangible as a reinforcer. tangible (e.g., stealing money). Deprivation of a Increases the reinforcing activity effectiveness of participation in the activity as a reinforcer. Increases the frequency of behaviors that have previously been reinforced with participation in the activity (e.g., bullying to get into a game; bolting to playground). Question: So, what’s going on here? Answer: Bud is in a state of food deprivation and the value of food items has increased. Because of his increased motivation to obtain food, Bud is now much more observant of his environment and is constantly “on the lookout” for food. In fact, stimulus items that had never previously occasioned food-stealing behavior were now serving as “triggers.” For example, when Bud sees the refrigerator, the food pantry, staff member’s backpacks, dining plates of housemates, the trash container in the kitchen, and the garbage cans in the garage, he is much more likely to engage in food-stealing behaviors. Thus, in this example, the deprivation of food increases: • The effectiveness of discriminative stimuli (refrigerator, backpack, etc.) in occasioning foraging/food-stealing behaviors. • The value of food as a reinforcer. • The probability of foraging/food-stealing behaviors. TABLE 4.4. Examples of Conditioned Motivating Operations: Reinforcer-Abolishing Effects Conditioned operation motivating Reinforcer-abolishing effect Noncontingent attention Reduction demands Abative effect on interfering behaviors social Decreases the Decreases the frequency of behaviors that effectiveness of social have previously been reinforced with social attention as a reinforcer. attention (e.g., decreases aggression directed at classmates that was followed by teacher attention). of task Decreases the Decreases the frequency of behaviors that effectiveness of have previously been reinforced with escape/avoidance as a avoidance of or escape from task demands negative reinforcer. (e.g., decreases aggression and self- injury that were followed by the cessation of tasks). Reduction of aversive Decreases the Decreases the frequency of behaviors that components/features of effectiveness of have previously been reinforced with social interactions escape/avoidance as a avoidance of or escape from social negative reinforcer. interactions (e.g., decreases screaming at peers that was followed by unwanted social feedback). Increased access reinforcing tangibles to Decreases the Decreases the frequency of behaviors that effectiveness of have previously been reinforced with access tangibles as a positive to reinforcing tangibles (e.g., decreases reinforcer. verbal threats and aggression that were followed by access to magazines and catalogs). Increased access reinforcing activities to Decreases the Decreases the frequency of behaviors that effectiveness of have previously been reinforced with activities as a positive opportunities to participate in activities (e.g., reinforcer. decreases pushing a classmate off of the swing that was followed by getting on the swing and swinging for 10 minutes). Reduction of aversive Decreases the Decreases the frequency of behaviors that components/features of effectiveness of have previously been reinforced with activities escape/avoidance as a avoidance of or escape from nonpreferred negative reinforcer. activities (e.g., decreases tantrum behaviors that previously had resulted in the avoidance of haircuts). FUNCTIONAL ANTECEDENTS VERSUS NEUTRAL STIMULI Remember, a wide array of stimuli occur prior to occurrences of interfering behavior. Some of these stimuli are functionally related to the interfering behavior while others are not. For example, during the first few moments of an anecdotal observation of a student with a history of disruptive behaviors (e.g., swearing, arguing), the school psychologist noticed that immediately prior to the onset of disruptive behaviors, a classmate began humming the tune to a disco song. Does this mean that the classmate’s humming is a functional antecedent that triggered the interfering behaviors? Perhaps, but not likely. Read On Based on interviews with the teacher and the student and the subsequent observations, it was determined that just prior to the school psychologist entering the classroom and the humming of the disco song, the classroom teacher had delivered the third verbal and gestural cue for the student to disengage from socializing with a peer and to begin an assignment. In this case, the humming was a neutral stimulus and the redirection cues offered by the teacher were the functional antecedent. As you might guess, distinguishing neutral from functional cues may at times be difficult and perplexing and at other times quite obvious. One of the purposes of a thorough FBA is making such a distinction. The implications for intervention planning should be apparent. STIMULUS DELTA: THE OTHER DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULUS Δ Stimulus delta (S ) is a stimulus in the presence of which a given behavior has not produced reinforcement in the past (Cooper et al., 2007). Suppose you are driving on a turnpike and are approaching the toll booth in which there are six lanes. Three lanes are lighted (indicating that they are open) and the other three are not (indicating that they are closed). Each of the lighted lanes is an SD that signals the availability of reinforcement (i.e., continued passage), whereas the dark Δ lanes are an S signaling “the end of the line.” Likewise, suppose you are very thirsty and are “dying” for a soda. You walk by a series of soda (“pop” for those from the Midwest) machines and find that one is lighted and that the others are all dark. The lit machine is an SD signaling that Δ soda is available, while the other machines are an S signaling that soda is not available. Δ Δ In order for a stimulus to function as an SD, an S must also be available. The S not only signals a condition of the unavailability of reinforcement, but also denotes a condition that provides a lesser quality of reinforcement than the SD condition (Michael, 1993). For example: Pain is an unconditioned motivating operation (UMO). It is not an SD because in Δ order for a stimulus to function as an SD, an S condition must be observable where the unavailability of reinforcement is a possibility. Specifically, if the onset of pain in a toothache were an SD that led to “pain-relieving behavior” (e.g. rubbing one’s jaw, taking aspirin), there Δ Δ would need to be an S condition to contrast with the SD condition. There is no S condition because it would require that negative reinforcement (pain relief) be available when there is not pain. Therefore, it is illogical to assume that a condition exists where the cessation of pain is differentially available in the absence of pain. Therefore, we would conclude that the painful stimulus is a UMO, not an SD. An MO does not require this two-factor test. Rather an MO is a “stand-alone” stimulus that evokes behavior. DISCRIMINATIVE STIMULI AND MOTIVATING OPERATIONS SDs and MOs share three important similarities: • Both events occur before the behavior of interest. • Both are operant (learned) responses. • Both events have evocative functions (i.e., they both produce, or occasion, behavior). An SD controls the occurrence of behavior because that stimulus has been differentially reinforced (i.e., the reinforcing consequence has been available in the presence of the stimulus and unavailable in its absence). An SD constitutes a high probability that the relevant consequence will follow the response. While the SD signals the availability of the reinforcing consequence, an MO alters the value of the reinforcing consequence. The real-world distinction may be stated as: MOs change how much people want something; SDs change their chance of getting it (McGill, 1999). For example, the ringing of the phone is an SD for answering the phone. When the phone rings and you answer it, there is a high probability that someone will talk to you. Suppose you have a headache and are trying to take a nap and the phone rings. The headache functions as a UMO that increases your motivation to cover your head tightly with a pillow until the ringing of the phone stops. Now suppose that your headache is gone and it is late at night and you have not heard from your teenage son since early evening. To complicate matters, it is starting to snow and this will be his first attempt at driving in inclement weather. You call his cell phone, but he does not pick up. You place your own cell phone on your lap and anxiously await his return call. The lack of contact with your son is an MO that increases your motivation to pick up the phone the moment it rings. Thus, in these examples the behaviors you exhibit when a phone rings are altered because of antecedent stimuli. The stimulus change may occasion responses (stimulus control) or evoke responses (MOs) (Thompson & Iwata, 2005). ALTERED STATES Altered states are specific antecedent events that are either chemically induced or cognitively induced changes within the individual that increase the value of a stimulus/event as a positive reinforcer or a negative reinforcer. For example, a student who smokes marijuana is experiencing an altered state that affects her motivation (e.g., increases the value of munchies as a reinforcer, increases the value of sleep as a reinforcer, increases the value of escape from class as a reinforcer). Likewise, a student who experiences cognitively mediated test anxiety is experiencing an altered state that affects his motivation (e.g., increases the value of escape from multiple-choice exams). Also, a student with cognitively mediated depression and who has difficulty concentrating on assignments is experiencing an altered state that affects his motivation to engage in interfering behaviors (e.g., increases the value of social reinforcement from preferred peers, increases the value of avoiding challenging reading assignments). We assert that these types of altered states are antecedent events that influence the occurrence of interfering behavior. Caution: It may be tempting to attribute the causes of interfering behavior only to these altered states and to incorrectly conclude that “there’s nothing we can do about this.” Altered states interact with environmental antecedents and consequences to induce interfering behavior. Therefore, variables such as anxiety and depression do not cause interfering behavior. Also, events in the environment may heighten or moderate internal states. Interventions addressing interfering behavior need to address the interactive impacts of these altered states. THE THREE AMIGOS There are three types of conditioned MOs, all of which were motivationally neutral prior to their repeated pairing with another MO or reinforcing/punishing consequences (Cooper et al., 2007). The three types of conditioned MOs are classified as: • Surrograte conditioned MO (CMO-S): a stimulus that has been paired within another MO. • Reflexive conditioned MO (CMO-R): a stimulus that has systematically preceded some form of worsening or improvement. • Transitive conditioned MO (CMO-T): a stimulus that alters the value of another stimulus). For additional reading on MOs, see the following: • Carbone, Morgenstern, Zecchin-Tirri, and Kolberg (2007). • Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2007). • Langthorne, McGill, and O’Reilly (2007). • Mace, Gritter, Johnson, Malley, and Steege (2006). • Michael (1993). • Michael (2000). • Ray and Watson (2001). REINFORCING CONSEQUENCES OF BEHAVIOR Consequences are those events that follow behavior and either increase or decrease the behavior. Consequences that follow and strengthen a behavior (i.e., increase in frequency, duration, and/or intensity) are called reinforcers. The process by which a behavior is strengthened when it is followed by a stimulus/event is called reinforcement. In contrast, consequences that follow and weaken behavior (i.e., decrease in frequency, duration, and/or intensity) are called punishers. And the process by which a behavior is weakened when it is followed by a stimulus/event is called punishment. FUNCTIONAL CONSEQUENCES VERSUS NEUTRAL CONSEQUENCES Remember, a wide array of stimuli occur following the occurrences of interfering behavior. Some of these stimuli are functionally related to the interfering behavior, while others are not. For example, during the first few moments of an anecdotal observation of a student with a history of disruptive behaviors (e.g., swearing, arguing) during a sustained silent reading session the school psychologist noticed that immediately following the occurrence of these behaviors several classmates laughed, snickered, and/or guffawed. As the classmates’ laughter was fading, the classroom teacher directed the student to put down his book and to report to the guidance office. An educational assistant next escorted the student from the classroom. In this case, it might be tempting to conclude that social attention from peers (positive reinforcement) and termination of an academic task (negative reinforcement) are maintaining disruptive behaviors. However, based on interviews with the student and the classroom teacher, it was discovered that the student considered the laughter from peers to be aversive (“They’re always making fun of me. I hate those snob bastards and just want to get away from those assholes”) and reading was a highly preferred activity. Moreover, disruptive behavior occurred immediately after a classmate handed the student a piece of paper with a lewd drawing in which the student was depicted as half-person and half-animal. This was found to be a consistent pattern that occurred during multiple stimulus conditions (e.g., most notably during cooperative learning activities). In this case, the functional consequence was escape from peers (negative reinforcement). The termination of reading was a neutral consequence. There are three forms of reinforcement: 1. Positive reinforcement 2. Negative reinforcement 3. Automatic reinforcement Each of these categories includes a number of subcategories. Before looking at the various possibilities within each, however, let’s discuss them in a very broad sense. The first set, social attention and access to activities and tangibles, is referred to as positive reinforcement.Humans, by their very nature, are social beings. Thus, attention from others is often a powerful positive reinforcer for behavior. Let’s take a look at two examples whose circumstances are probably familiar to most readers to illustrate the power of social attention as a positive reinforcer: Kent is a seventh grader of average-to-above average ability. His daily classroom performance and test grades do not reflect his true potential, according to his teachers. In fact, they often report that Kent is quite annoying in the classroom. When asked to describe what he does that is so annoying, his teachers uniformly report that he makes numerous wisecracks each day in response to lecture material or class discussions. His teachers feel that he spends more time thinking about what he is going to say than in listening to either the lecture or doing his work. On a side note, they do report that his comments are often quite funny and evoke at least mild chuckles from classmates. Direct observations of Kent’s behavior confirm the teacher’s reports of his wisecracking behavior, the inherent humor in what he says, and—perhaps most importantly—the response of his classmates: laughter or groans. In this example, the response from his classmates (i.e., laughter or groans) is positively reinforcing Kent’s wisecrack remarks. Thus, his wisecracking has increased in frequency and is likely to continue for as long as his peers respond in this manner. Let’s now look at the other example: Teresa is a 5-year-old who had moved from her mother’s home to live with her grandmother. Many adults around Teresa considered the move to be quite traumatic, as her mother was being investigated for child neglect and endangerment and her grandmother lived over a thousand miles away. Shortly after the move, Teresa began kindergarten. During the first few days, Teresa cried when she entered the classroom. The teacher, Ms. Rob, who was a very competent, loving, nurturing teacher, took extra care to make sure that Teresa felt safe in her new environment by greeting her with a hug in the morning and a hug whenever she cried. This was a strategy this particular teacher had successfully used on new kindergarteners for more than 20 years. In addition, Ms. Rob often paired Teresa with a sympathetic classmate when she noticed Teresa becoming tearful during a class activity or at a media center. In this particular case, however, Teresa’s crying did not abate within a couple of days. In fact, her crying became worse in terms of intensity (louder) and duration (longer crying periods). To the teacher’s dismay, Teresa’s behavior even took a turn for the worse: she began to behave in an aggressive manner toward the teacher and her classmates. When she exhibited aggressive behavior, Ms. Rob removed her from the classroom to the assistant principal’s office, where the assistant principal talked to her to discover what she was so “angry about” or “afraid of.” In this example, social attention from the teacher and peers, and possibly from the assistant principal, seems to be the function maintaining Teresa’s crying. What is not clear at this point is whether it is the teacher’s attention, the peer’s attention, the assistant principal’s attention, or any combination that are functional for Teresa’s crying. The second function, escape or avoidance of unpleasant events or painful stimulation, is called negative reinforcement. Humans find some activities fun and enjoyable and other activities boring, painful, too difficult, or otherwise aversive in some way. Activities that are sufficiently unpleasant without having any, or minimal, reinforcing value are those that we tend to shy away from. Most adults, for instance, do not engage in behaviors that they do not find fun in some way (perhaps one of the best examples is exercising). Below is an example of how negative reinforcement operates in the classroom: Creed is an 8-year-old male who exhibited disruptive behavior (e.g., throwing materials, yelling at the teacher, climbing on desks, running out of the room) throughout the day. His teacher, Ms. Timmerman, had not noticed a pattern to his behavior and noted that his outbursts seemingly occurred at random times. She tried every trick in her disciplinary bag from a “corner time-out” to keeping him in the classroom during recess. As the number of incidents began to pile up during the day, she resorted to sending Creed to the principal’s office where corporal punishment had been administered on multiple occasions. Ms. Timmerman, in a somewhat bewildered tone, offered the observation that Creed’s behavior had not gotten any better. After conducting some FBA using a time-based scatterplot and the A-B-C recording form, the school practitioner noticed that Creed’s outbursts did indeed have a pattern. In fact, almost all of his outbursts occurred when writing was part of the assignment. He used a pencil to fill in ovals on his spelling tests without incident, but any time he was required to actually produce written work, regardless of the subject matter, an outburst occurred. Thus, the antecedent was identified (i.e., assignments that required writing), as was the consequences (i.e., all of the consequences implemented by the teacher resulted in his either completely avoiding or escaping the assignment). As a result, Creed learned through numerous interactions in the classroom that anytime an assignment was given that involved writing, a disruptive outburst allowed him to either escape or avoid that assignment. Thus, his outbursts were being negatively reinforced. In addition, his grades were suffering in some subjects because he was not producing the required written work. One component of the third function, automatic reinforcement, is typically regarded as behavior that, when performed, results in some type of physiological sensation. One example of this is a young girl who twirls her hair because the sensations produced by having the hair in her hands and by the feeling in her scalp is positively reinforcing. Thus, this type of automatic reinforcement is called automatic positive reinforcement. Conversely, there are some behaviors that, when performed, result in the lessening of painful or aversive physiological stimulation. For instance, scratching an area on your arm that itches reduces the “amount” of itch. Thus, scratching has been automatically negatively reinforced because that behavior (i.e., scratching) resulted in the person reducing an itching sensation. In both examples, the behaviors were not socially mediated behaviors; they did not require the presence of anyone else to be either positively or negatively reinforced. This point is critical for understanding the experimental conditions associated with an extended functional analysis because an “alone” condition is often included to determine if the student will perform the behavior without anyone or anything present. Performance of the behavior while alone points to the possibility of an automatic reinforcement component. It is also important to note that the types of behaviors that are most likely to be maintained by some type of automatic reinforcement are self-injurious behaviors (SIBs), stereotypies, and certain habits (e.g., thumb sucking, nail biting, hair pulling/twirling). The foregoing discussion addressed those behaviors that have social or sensory consequences. But what about behaviors that do not appear to be related to these functions and appear to be related to “private events” such as thoughts and feelings? For example, consider the case of an adolescent who exhibits bullying behavior within the school setting. As part of an FBA for bullying behavior, team members report that these behaviors are motivated by power and control. Issues of power and control suggest cognitively mediated events. From our perspective, placing the emphasis on cognitively mediated events is a molar level of analysis. As stated earlier, a molecularlevel analysis involves identifying how these variables serve to directly reinforce bullying behavior. A molecular analysis would involve asking questions such as the following: • How might power and control impact this student’s opportunity to receive attention from others? • How might these behaviors impact this student’s ability to obtain tangibles? • How might these behaviors impact this student’s ability to avoid social and/or academic situations? How might these behaviors result in the student’s increased perception of selfesteem? Assessing the bullying behaviors from this angle allows a more precise delineation of the observable variables that are serving to maintain bullying. Consider the case of Steve, an 11-year-old male who bullies his male peers in the hallway during class changes. He typically bullies them by bumping into them, calling them names, and using verbal threats. The interdisciplinary team to which he was referred conducted interviews with Steve and his victims and concluded, prematurely and incorrectly, that the primary function of his bullying behavior was to gain power for himself and control over his peers. A closer look yielded a remarkably different picture. Careful observations indicated that a small circle of friends provided both immediate and delayed positive reinforcement for Steve’s bullying by laughing at him (immediate social reinforcement) and by talking at length about his bullying several hours after the event (delayed social reinforcement). In addition, the observations indicated that the victims exhibited behavior that Steve reported in an interview to be reinforcing (e.g., looking scared, moving away from him, avoiding him in the hallway). Steve also reported that he “liked” the reputation of being a “tough guy” and was especially pleased when he overheard someone say that about him. Thus, the molecular analysis indicated a much clearer picture than the molar analysis of why Steve was engaging in bullying behavior. In this case, the molecular analysis resulted in a deeper understanding of the critical issues that reinforced bullying behavior and consequently identified the specific variables to be addressed in interventions. • CONCEPTUAL MODELS Three-Term Contingency: The ABCs of FBA In 1968 Bijiou et al. were among the first researchers to examine the contextual variables that trigger and reinforce interfering behaviors. Their A-B-C (i.e., antecedentbehavior-consequence) method for understanding the function(s) of behavior continues to be used by practitioners. Within this A-B-C model, antecedents are stimuli that occur prior to a behavior and that influence its occurrence. Behavior refers to the response of the individual (i.e., functional or interfering behavior). Consequences are those events that follow behavior and either increase or decrease the behavior. Only those stimuli that occur prior to the behavior that influence its occurrence are functional antecedents. Also, only those events that follow behavior that influence its occurrence are functional consequences. The following table illustrates the three-term contingency: Antecedent Behavior Consequence A cell phone rings. The student answers the Voice of classmate on the line. phone. A teacher instructs students to The student begins the Teacher provides verbal praise. begin an assignment. assignment. A parent verbally directs a child to The child complies and Parent provides verbal praise clean her bedroom. picks up her toys. and a hug. A student is on a low- calorie diet During lunch, the student The student eats the food items. imposed by caregivers. takes food from classmates. A teacher instructs all students to One student engages in Classmate laughs, smiles, and read silently from their book. “goofy” joking behavior nods. directed at classmate. A student arrives at school with a The student engages in The student is directed to the headache and attending to class disruptive behavior. offce (quiet area) and then to the discussion heightens the pain. school nurse (aspirin). Teacher directs student to Student screams, throws Teacher offers the student a complete a series of steps within a the toothbrush, and slap self “break” and directs the student tooth-brushing behavior chain. on the leg. to a preferred activity. Note. Based on Kazdin (2001). The S-O-R-C Model Goldfried and Sprafkin (1976) and later Nelson and Hayes (1981) expanded the A-B-C model by including organism (or individual) variables within the analysis of behavior. They supported the concept of interactionism, wherein behavior is best viewed as a function of both immediate environmental and organism variables (Nelson & Hayes, 1981). They described a model in which the response (i.e., the interfering behavior) was viewed as the result of an interaction among the following variables: 1. Stimuli (e.g., noise, classroom setting, presentation of math worksheets, etc.). 2. Organism (e.g., those individual differences the student brings to the current environmental situation such as past learning, genetic factors, medical issues, physiological states, etc.) and 3. Consequence (e.g., environmental events that occur following a response that influence its frequency). The following table illustrates the S-O-R-C model: Limitations of the A-B-C and S-O-R-C Models Both the A-B-C and the S-O-R-C models tend to be used in a linear fashion (i.e., first the antecedent, then the behavior, then the consequence; first the stimulus, then consideration of individual variables, then the behavior, then the consequence, respectively). Critical shortcomings of these models are (1) the lack of consideration of the influences of motivating operations on both discriminative stimuli and reinforcing consequences and (2) such a linear analysis underestimates the dynamic, transient, and metamorphic nature of human behavior. We propose the following model: The S-M-I-R-C Model The S-M-I-R-C model includes the following components: • S: stimulus/discriminative stimulus • M: motivating operations • I: individual (organism) variables • R: response • C: consequence Unlike the consideration of behavior using a linear model (i.e., A-B-C or S-O-R-C models), the S-M-I-R-C model considers the dynamic interaction among antecedent (SDs and MOs), individual variables, and reinforcing consequences. The following figure illustrates the dynamic nature of these interactions: Within the S-M-I-R-C model, interfering behavior is considered to be a complex interaction involving all or some of the five components. Consider the case of Will, a student with a diagnosis of mild mental retardation with a history of self-injury (e.g., slapping self on the face/ear with an open hand). A comprehensive FBA revealed that self-injury resulted from a dynamic interaction of the following variables: M (Motivating Operations) • Unconditioned M. aversive auditory stimuli in the environment motivated selfinjury by increasing the value of subsequent removal from the classroom (e.g., when a particular classmate exhibited loud screaming behaviors, Will often exhibited faceslapping behaviors and was directed to a small, quiet room across the hallway that contained several highly preferred toys). • Conditioned M. difficult tasks motivated self-injury by increasing the value of “escape” from the tasks (e.g., when a teacher presented a complex, labor-intensive, and low-reward fine motor prevocational task, Will exhibited self-injury that typically resulted in the termination of the task demands). DANGER … DANGER WILL ROBINSON: THE WARNING STIMULUS The CMO-R is an environmental event that ultimately increases the value of conditioned negative reinforcement and therefore evokes any behavior that has lead to a reduction in the current aversive condition (Carbone et al., 2007). In the case of Will, the difficult task serves as a “warning stimulus” and establishes its removal as a reinforcer. Thus, when the classroom teacher presents the task, Will typically engages in interfering behavior. S (Discriminative Stimuli) • In this example, there are two discriminative stimuli (i.e., stimuli that signal the availability of reinforcement): (1) the classmate who screams and (2) the teacher who presents challenging tasks. The very presence of the student who exhibits screaming behavior signals the availability of both negative reinforcement (i.e., removal from the aversive screaming) and positive reinforcement (i.e., access to preferred toys). The presence of the teacher signals the availability of avoidance of and escape from difficult tasks. I (Individual Variables) • There are two types of individual variables that may contribute to the occurrence of interfering behaviors: (1) individual mediating and (2) individual skill deficits. 1. Mediating variables: personal characteristics, sensitivities, and/or internal states that when combined with various antecedent events increase the probability of interfering behavior. Will is very sensitive to sudden loud noises. For example, when the school bell rings, a classmate slides a chair across the floor, or a classmate screams loudly, Will almost always engages in self-injury. 2. Individual behavior deficits: delays or impairments in communication, academic, social, personal living, or community living skills that contribute to the occurrence of interfering behaviors. For example, Will evidences an orthopedic impairment. Tasks that require fine motor skills are very difficult for Will. Presenting tasks that require fine motor skills increases the probability of interfering behaviors. Moreover, Will has a severe articulation disorder and significant expressive language delays. He does not have the expressive language skills to request a change of tasks, a modification of tasks, assistance, or breaks during work sessions. These expressive communication delays contribute to the occurrences of interfering behaviors. R (Response) • Self-injury (i.e., face/ear-slapping behavior with an open hand). C (Consequences) • Positive, negative, and/or automatic reinforcement following the occurrence of interfering behaviors. For example, negative reinforcement (i.e., avoidance of or escape from aversive stimuli and difficult tasks) and positive reinforcement (i.e., access to a quiet room with preferred toys). It is also possible that SIB was reinforced by a second type of negative reinforcement (i.e., ear slapping buffered the aversive auditory stimuli). ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONCEPTS Response Class (When It Rains, It Pours) Sometimes behaviors of varying topographies have similar functional antecedents and consequences. (This is just our cool way of saying that behaviors that look different may be very alike in that they share the same antecedents and consequences) In these cases, we say that these behaviors are members of the same response class. For example, behaviors such as hitting, kicking, slapping, and biting of others, while of different topographies, may be influenced by the same factors, occasioned by the same stimulus conditions (i.e., discriminative stimuli), and followed by the same reinforcing consequences. Often times, these behaviors occur as a response set (i.e., two or more of the behaviors of the response class occur within the context of a single behavioral episode) … when it rains it pours. Response Class Hierarchies (First the Sky Darkens, Then There Is Thunder, Then Lightning, Followed by Light Rain, Then It Pours) Sometimes, behaviors that are members of the same response class occur as part of a predictable behavior chain. Often, the initial response in the chain is a low-intensity behavior that is of minimal disruption. When this behavior does not result in reinforcement, the student may then escalate her behavior by exhibiting increasingly intense behaviors within the same response class. And when this behavior is not reinforced, she next displays a more intense behavior, and so forth and so on until a behavior results in desired reinforcement. This terminal behavior tends to be one of high intensity and robust disruption. A Real-Life Example of Response Class and Response Class Hierarchies Let’s review the case of Michelle, a student with mild mental retardation who really likes attention from her teachers. Michelle has a variety of behaviors in her repertoire for obtaining teacher attention (a reinforcing consequence). For example, depending on the situation, she may exhibit a wide range of socially appropriate behaviors that are reinforced by social attention (e.g., asking for help, greeting her teacher, completing an assignment and bringing it to her teacher). She infrequently displays interfering behaviors (e.g., loud throat clearing, stating “Hey, Heyyy, Heyyyy,” table slapping, and picking at scabs on her hands). These behaviors have been determined through a comprehensive FBA to be reinforced by intermittent social attention. These “attentionseeking behaviors” are members of the same response class. Due to an unexpected absence of two educational assistants and the unavailability of trained substitutes, the teacher-to-student ratio within the classroom has abruptly shifted from 4:10 to 2:10. Michelle, who typically displays few, if any, interfering behaviors, is receiving much less attention from the classroom teachers than which she is accustomed. (Special Note: This reduction of attention is a conditioned motivating operation that increases the value of teacher attention as a reinforcer.) On this particular school day, Michelle first displays appropriate behaviors to gain teacher attention (e.g., politely asking for assistance). She is told to wait her turn. She next gets up from her desk, walks to the teacher, and politely asks for help. She is told that she needs to “ … wait just a minute more.” Several minutes go by and Michelle has experienced no social interactions with teachers. Michelle then clears her throat three times and says, “I need help, please.” Still no response from her teacher. She then loudly yells “Heyyy, Heyyyy, Heyyyyyyyy” and slaps the table six times. The teacher looks at Michelle and sternly says, “Michelle, you know better … now behave.” Michelle pauses and stares, like a famished lioness studying her prey, and then begins to pick at some scabs on her hand until they bleed. At this point, her teacher runs over and says, “Michelle, don’t do that … you’re hurting yourself and making a mess.” In our role as consultants, we see this sequence played out many times across all types of classrooms, grade levels, and exceptionalities with all types of interfering behaviors. Matching Law The matching law (Herrnstein, 1961, 1970) states that the rate of responding typically is proportional to the rate of reinforcement available among choices. That is, when given a choice among various options, we typically opt for the option that is associated with the greatest amount of reinforcement. To illustrate the concept of the matching law using a very simple example, consider Bonita, a 12-year-old student diagnosed with a behavior disorder who spends most of her day in a regular education classroom. Over the course of her day, she has the choice between engaging in (1) appropriate, academically engaged behavior or (2) interfering behavior. This simple choice situation is ongoing as many hundreds of opportunities are presented to Bonita each day. Now, no matter how disruptive Bonita can be, she does not display interfering behavior 100% of the school day. The percentage of time that Bonita could be expected (predicted) to engage in both appropriate and interfering behaviors, according to the matching law, is based primarily on the rate of reinforcement associated with these behaviors. Because neither interfering behavior nor appropriate behavior results in reinforcement 100% of the time, Bonita must engage in both behaviors to maximize the amount of reinforcement she receives. Therefore, sometimes she will engage in appropriate social and academic behaviors and switch to interfering behaviors, or vice versa. It is very important to remember that the goal of Bonita, and indeed any student, is to maximize the rate of reinforcement he or she receives for his or her responding. The matching law has been shown to explain and predict rates of both interfering and appropriate behavior in the classroom (Billington & DiTommaso, 2003; Martens, Halperin, Rummel, & Kilpatrick, 1990; Martens & Houk, 1989; Shriver & Kramer, 1997). Although rate of reinforcement is a primary variable in influencing which option a student will choose among two or more concurrently available choices, there are other variables that directly impact choice behavior in the matching law (Cooper et al, 2007; Hoch, McComas, Johnson, Faranda, & Guenther, 2002; Mace & Roberts, 2003; Volkert, Lerman, & Vorndran, 2005): • Quality of reinforcement (i.e., the degree with which the stimulus is preferred; e.g., a cola drink vs. water) • Magnitude (i.e., the number, duration, or intensity of reinforcement; e.g., getting an entire piece of pie vs. a tiny bite of pie) • Timing of reinforcement (i.e., immediate or delayed access to reinforcement; e.g., getting a break now vs. getting one 2 hours later) • Response effort (i.e., the amount of effort required to exhibit the behavior; e.g., carrying an empty box to the dumpster vs. carrying a box loaded with paper to the dumpster) It is important to consider each of these factors, including the rate of reinforcement, during the analysis of interfering behavior as they have direct implications for designing effective treatment plans. Consider the case of Rachel, a student with reading delays who rarely completes homework assignments across all subject areas. In an effort to increase Rachel’s homework completion, both her English and math teachers develop separate intervention plans. Ms. Contingent, the English teacher, sets up a plan that gradually increases the length of assignments and consistently provides Rachel with (1) verbal praise and (2) five tokens each morning that Rachel brings to class completed homework assignments. Tokens may later be exchanged for reinforcing activities within the classroom. Ms. Guided, the math teacher, makes an effort to praise Rachel at the end of each week for her completion of homework assignments. However, Ms. Guided sometimes forgets to deliver verbal praise to Rachel. It is not surprising that over time Rachel consistently completes reading homework and fails to complete her math assignments. The following table illustrates the use of the matching law to analyze Rachel’s behaviors: SUMMARY Wow! Clearly the analysis of human behavior is not simplistic. Rather, behavior is often the result of a complex interaction of multiple variables. This interaction is not necessarily a linear process and behavior certainly is not static. Conducting an FBA requires the consideration and assessment of each of the potentially controlling variables. In the following chapters we discuss several methods that may be used to tease out the variables that influence and maintain human behavi 5 Key Elements of Functional Behavioral Assessment What is a scientist after all? It is a curious man looking through a keyhole, the keyhole of nature, trying to know what’s going on. —JACQUES COUSTEAU As you probably have gathered from reading the previous chapters, FBA is both (1) a theoretical framework for understanding human behavior and (2) a set of assessment procedures. From a best practices perspective, an FBA involves the use of a multimethod, multisource, and multisetting assessment process (Knoff, 2002; Steege & Watson, 2008). Within this model, information is gathered using several assessment procedures (e.g., interviews, observations), across informants (e.g., teachers, parents, students), and in various environments (e.g., classrooms, home, school, and community) to plan the most effective interventions. Unlike traditional standardized assessment, which is very static, FBA is a dynamic process in which both sequential and simultaneous activities occur throughout the assessment. It is sequential in the sense that most FBAs involve using a set of preestablished methods and procedures. It is simultaneous in that the examiner often moves back and forth between procedures based on the information gathered at a particular point in time. FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT: INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENT RESULTING IN INDIVIDUALIZED FUNCTION-BASED INTERVENTIONS Conceptual models describing the use of FBA procedures have often relied on a multistage model of assessment. For example, Steege and Northup (1998) described a sequential three-stage process involving (1) interviews and record review, (2) direct observations, and, finally, (3) functional analysis of behavior. In practice, however, the use of FBA procedures is not so linear. Rather, FBA is a dynamic process in which the evaluator uses a blend of assessment procedures with the results of one assessment often directing and informing subsequent assessment procedures. For example, the initial interview may lead to anecdotal observations within the classroom setting, which then leads to additional interviews, then to more observations, then to a brief functional analysis, followed by additional interviews, and so on. Conducting an FBA is an investigative process that is driven by the information obtained as opposed to any prescribed assessment protocol. Thus, the FBA is conducted on a case-by-case basis and is individualized to address the unique presenting behaviors and contributory variables specific to the individual. The results of the FBA are then used to design individually tailored function-based behavioral support plans. DECISION TREES Before discussing the basic elements involved in conducting an FBA, we think it is important to understand the deductive process that best embodies school-based FBA. We have included “decision trees” (see Figures 5.1 and 5.2) that we use in our understanding of human behavior, but also for expanding and describing the process and results of the FBA to parents and school personnel. KEY ELEMENTS FBA involves a range of assessment strategies that are used to identify the motivating operations (MOs), antecedents, individual variables, and consequences that set the occasion for problem behaviors and maintain them. It is also a process of gathering information that can be used to maximize the effectiveness and efficacy of behavior support plans. O’Neill et al. (1997) specified that an FBA is complete when: • The interfering behavior is defined operationally. • The interfering behavior can be predicted to occur. • The function of the interfering behavior is defined. Although all three of these are indeed essential for an FBA, we maintain that there are additional activities that comprise a complete FBA: • Identifying and describing of motivating operations. • • • • • Identifying and describing of antecedent variables. Identifying and describing of individual variables. Identifying and describing of consequence variables. Recording the occurrence of interfering behaviors. Matching recommended interventions to the results of the FBA, which constitute the basis of a positive behavior support plan. FIGURE 5.1. Motivating antecedents of behavior. FIGURE 5.2. Reinforcing consequences of behavior. Relatedly, we assert that the general components of a comprehensive FBA are: • Identifying behaviors that interfere with a student’s acquisition or display of skills. • Describing interfering behaviors in objective, concrete terms. • Measuring the magnitude of interfering behaviors. • Identifying the antecedent, individual, and consequence variables that contribute to the occurrence of interfering behaviors. • Developing hypotheses regarding the function(s) of interfering behaviors. • Identifying function-based interventions to address interfering behaviors. Although conceptualizing and conducting an FBA and implementing positive behavioral supports may at first seem like a daunting task, there are a number of considerations that, if observed, will make the process operate more smoothly. Table 5.1 should serve both as a guide and as a reminder as you work your way through the FBA/PBS process. Although many activities and procedures may be considered to be an FBA, there are three categories of FBA into which all procedures fall: • Indirect FBA. • Direct descriptive FBA. • Functional behavioral analysis. Each of these categories is described in detail in the following paragraphs. Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment Indirect methods involve a variety of procedures including: • Review of records. • Behavior rating scales. • Adaptive behavior scales. • Interviews. • Social skill assessments. • Assessment of academic skills. • Semistructured interviews. The primary purposes of indirect FBAs are to: • Identify the behaviors that interfere with the students’ academic or social development. • Describe interfering behaviors in clear, unambiguous terms. • Identify environmental variables that appear to trigger interfering behavior. • Identify environmental variables that occur after an interfering behavior has occurred and that appear to serve to reinforce the behavior. • Identify possible individual differences that may contribute to the occurrence of interfering behavior. • Identify possible replacement behaviors. • Identify possible interventions. TABLE 5.1. What to Be Thinking about as You Complete the FBA Process • Identify those behaviors that interfere with the person’s acquisition or performance of skills/ behaviors. • Identify and describe the behaviors in concrete terms. • Use a hypothesis-testing approach. In the early stages of the FBA process any and all ideas, suggestions, and explanations should be considered tentative and must be verified through further assessment. • Use a multimethod, multisetting, multisource assessment model: indirect FBA procedures, direct descriptive FBA procedures, and functional analysis procedures. • When directly recording behaviors, make sure that the recording procedure is matched to the dimensions of the behavior and that adequate resources are available to record accurately. • Consider the full range of potential functions of behavior: positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement, automatic reinforcement. • Note that a single behavior may have multiple functions. • Use the S-M-I-R-C model to identify and describe all relevant setting variables, antecedent variables, individual (organism) variables (including skill deficits), and consequence variables. • Note that a setting variable is the immediate environment in which the interfering behavior occurs, while an antecedent variable is the specific event within the environment that triggers the interfering behavior. • Consider the possible effects of UMOs and CMOs in motivating behavior. • Consider the effects of SDs in occasioning behavior. • Note that an identified consequence may be delivered consistently or intermittently. • Provide examples that clearly illustrate the behavioral principles involved. • Attempt to identify those situations in which problem behavior does not occur. • Consider the results of adaptive behavior and social-emotional and academic assessments. • Consider modifying triggering environmental antecedents to reduce the probability of occurrence of the interfering behavior. • Link assessment to intervention: Remember, the ultimate utility of the FBA process is directly related to the design and ultimate effectiveness of individually tailored intervention strategies. Always be thinking about possible interventions. • Consider the logical replacement behavior(s) for each interfering behavior and to what degree the replacement behavior is incompatible with the interfering behavior, is within the student’s repertoire of skills, is useful and practical for the student, and results in similar and comparable levels of reinforcement in the natural environment. • Consider modifying environmental consequences that are reinforcing interfering behavior. • Identify reactive procedures, the procedures to use if interfering behavior does occur. Review of Records Many students with whom school practitioners come into contact have mountainous cumulative folders. Unfortunately, much of the information contained in these folders is either irrelevant for FBA or the relevant information is buried among the scree. Therefore, it is wise to be selective and purposeful about the type of information that one is attempting to cull from such folders. You may find the book School Archival Records Search (SARS; Walker, Block-Pedego, Todis, Severson, & Pedego, 1991) a useful guide to systematically collecting and synthesizing information found in a student’s cumulative folder. See Chapter 7 for a more in-depth discussion of what to look for during a record review. Behavior Rating Scales There are a multitude of parent, teacher, and student self-report versions of behavior rating scales available. Although most of these won’t be particularly useful for identifying function, they can help to identify behaviors of concern and perhaps identify functionally equivalent behaviors (see the accompanying box). FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT BEHAVIORS These are behaviors that look different on the surface but have the same function. For example, a boy may call out in class, walk around the room, bother his neighbors, and quietly make rude remarks to the girls because of the attention those behaviors gain him. Even though they are very different behaviors, they all serve the same function. Identifying functionally equivalent behaviors is especially important in the FBA process because intervening with one behavior may have positive effects on all the other behaviors, thus precluding the need for designing separate interventions for each of the behaviors. The trick is to identify the one behavior that, when reduced or eliminated, will result in the reduction of functionally equivalent inappropriate behaviors. Adaptive Behavior Scales, Academic Assessments, and Social Skills Assessments You may be asking, “Why adaptive behavior, academic, and social skills assessments? I thought these were part of a traditional standardized assessment. Don’t these deal primarily with personal living, social, communication, leisure, vocational, community living, and self-help skills?” Precisely!! Many problem behaviors are directly related to specific skill deficits. By assessing these skill domains, one may identify critical variables related to interfering behavior. For example, some problem behaviors are often directly related to communication skill delays. In such cases, teaching functionally equivalent communication skills eliminates the targeted problem behaviors. Moreover, in schools, problem behavior is often motivated by avoidance of or termination of academic assignments or tasks. Modifying academic tasks often results in an increase in active participation within academic situations and a decrease or elimination of problem behavior. Teaching prosocial behaviors is often a critical component of a positive behavioral intervention. Finally, social skills deficits are often directly related to the occurrence of interfering behaviors. In short, assessment of adaptive behavior, academic skills, and social skills is often an essential component of the comprehensive FBA process. Interviews One of the most frequently used types of indirect FBA methods involves either clinical or semistructured interviewing. Every school practitioner is probably familiar with conducting some type of clinical interview with teachers, parents, and/or the referred student but may be less familiar with semistructured interviews associated with ascertaining function. Sattler’s (2001) book is an excellent resource that includes three chapters covering issues related to (1) clinical assessment interview techniques; (2) interviewing children, parents, teachers, and families; (3) reliability and validity of interview procedures; (4) self-evaluation of interviewing; and (5) advantages and disadvantages of different interview techniques. Interviews can be valuable sources of information during the FBA process. Several available semistructured interviews have been demonstrated to be quite useful in helping to identify salient antecedents and consequences. Two of the most promising semistructured interviews are the Functional Assessment Interview Form (FAIF) provided in O’Neill et al. (1997) and the Functional Assessment Informant Record—Teacher (FAIR-T) provided in Edwards (2002) (see also Figure 7.10). As with other forms of assessment, it is important to conduct reliable and accurate behavioral interviews. A couple of the main advantages of semistructured interviews are that they are designed to decrease subjective responding by interviewees and to increase accuracy of secondhand information. In subsequent sections of this book, we have included examples of semistructured interview forms that we have found to be effective when conducting FBAs. Direct Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment Direct descriptive FBA provides data on the occurrence of the behavior within the context of the natural environment in which it occurs (e.g., classroom, home, cafeteria, media center) and also on the environmental events that surround it (McComas & Mace, 2000). This procedure involves all of the following: • Generating an operational definition of the behavior. • Determining an appropriate behavior-recording procedure. • Observing and recording the behavior. • Observing and recording the associated antecedent and consequent variables. One of the primary advantages of direct observation of target behaviors and related conditions/events within the natural environment is that school practitioners and educational teams can use the data to construct applied interventions that are clearly indicated by the observational data (cf. Skinner, Rhymer, & McDaniel, 2000). There are a variety of direct descriptive FBA methods. The selection of the most appropriate method typically depends on several factors including the topography of the behavior and the skills and/or resources of those who are conducting the assessment. Each method of assessment is conducted by observing and recording behavior as it occurs in the natural environment. At the most basic level, direct descriptive FBA involves identifying and describing the behavior, designing appropriate behavior-recording procedures, and observing and recording the behavior and associated antecedent and consequent variables. Note: These procedures are particularly useful for assessing low-incidence behaviors, behaviors difficult to observe due to unpredictable occurrence, and those behaviors that are dangerous to the individual or others. There are four basic ways of conducting a direct descriptive FBA: 1. Anecdotal record keeping (e.g., McComas & Mace, 2000). 2. Antecedent-behavior-consequence (A-B-C) assessments (Bijou et al., 1968; O’Neill et al., 1997). 3. Scatterplot assessments (Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer, 1985). 4. Descriptive assessments (Lalli, Browder, Mace, & Brown, 1993; Mace & Lalli, 1991). In the following subsections, we provide brief descriptions of each of these procedures. Anecdotal Record Keeping Anecdotal record keeping involves observing the individual within natural settings and writing down specific behaviors and relevant associated variables. This type of recording tends to be narrative in nature and can be quite informative if followed up with an interview and/or with an analysis of the information using a behavioral stream procedure or an A-B-C procedure. A-B-C Assessment Examples of standard and extended A-B-C assessments are shown in Figure 5.3. With the extended version, the evaluator observes and records the interfering behavior and related variables (i.e., date, time of day, variables occurring prior to the interfering behavior, the interfering behavior itself, variables that occurred following the interfering behavior, and the resulting change in the frequency, duration, or intensity of the interfering behavior). Scatterplot Assessments The most basic type of scatterplot assessment involves recording the time of day at which problem behavior occurred across several days. With this type of assessment, visual inspection of the data sheets allows one to identify possible associations between the interfering behavior, the time of day, and related tasks and/or activities. By correlating the target behavior with the time of day, tasks, activities, staff, and other variables, one is able to identify those variables associated with the occurrence of interfering behavior and to form hypotheses regarding the possible cause-effect relationships. Descriptive Assessments Descriptive assessments involve the real-time recording of variables that trigger interfering behavior, the interfering behavior, and consequent variables. Descriptive FBA is conducted by directly observing the referred student within natural settings. By recording the target behavior and related antecedent and consequence variables, one can compute conditional probabilities of behavior in relationship to these variables. For example, if a student calls out in the middle of the teacher’s lecture 20 times during an observation session and the teacher verbally reprimands the student following 15 of those instances, the probability that the student’s calling-out behavior will result in some form of teacher attention is .75. Conversely, if the student raised her hand to speak 10 times and was only acknowledged once by the teacher, her probability of gaining teacher attention for a more appropriate behavior is only .10. Relative to the interfering behavior, the student is engaging in a behavior that is very effective for her, at least in terms of gaining teacher attention. FIGURE 5.3. Examples of A-B-C and extended A-B-C assessment procedures. These probabilities, like the information derived from other methods of direct observation, are used to generate hypotheses about what appears to trigger and reinforce interfering behavior. The primary purpose of direct FBA procedures is to identify those variables that are associated with the target behavior(s). Although valuable in identifying these relationships, information gathered without systematically isolating and manipulating environmental variables is only suggestive of functional relationships (McComas & Mace, 2000). TREATMENT VALIDITY OF FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT It is important to note that ultimately the utility of FBA is the degree with which the results of assessment are used to design effective interventions. The “treatment validity” of FBA refers to whether the assessment results contribute to effective intervention. In other words, even if an FBA may have yielded reliable and accurate assessment results, if the data do not contribute to the development of effective interventions then the assessment method is not considered useful (Shriver, Anderson, & Proctor, 2001). This is an extremely important point. FBAs should be conducted not only to understand and predict behavior but to lead to the development of effective interventions. FBAs that result in the writing of a comprehensive report that, after being shared with team members, is simply filed away do not meet the standard of treatment validity. The ultimate value of the FBA is subsequent interventions that result in meaningful and lasting behavior change. Clearly, many factors influence the efficacy of interventions (e.g., resources, treatment integrity, trained staff) as well as inaccurate FBAs. It is critical, then, that in addition to conducting sound assessments, practitioners need to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions that were based on the assessment results. Only by formally evaluating interventions can we demonstrate the treatment validity of the assessment results. SUMMARY It is probably safe to say that many school practitioners subscribe to the empirical rigors of behavioral assessments that include a functional behavioral analysis. The implementation of these procedures within school settings, however, is an arduous process that is impractical (and perhaps unnecessary) in many circumstances. Moreover, although functional behavior analyses may be highly accurate at the time of assessment, their temporal stability may be in question due to the tendency of behavioral function to change across time, situations, and people. In addition, whereas indirect FBAs are practical and efficient, they often yield inaccurate findings. The same can be said of direct descriptive FBA procedures. What is a practitioner to do? A NOTE ABOUT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF INTERVENTIONS Another model of functional analysis involves the systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions. When we formally evaluate the degree with which an intervention causes a change in behavior(s), a functional relationship between the intervention and the resulting behavior change is demonstrated. A functional relationship is established when (1) the target behavior changes when an intervention is implemented while all other variables are held constant and (2) the process is repeated one or more times and the behavior changes each time (Miltenberger, 1997). The best practices approach to the evaluation of interventions involves the use of single-case experimental design methodologies. Using single-case experimental designs, we can demonstrate that the intervention was responsible for the observed behavior change and rule out the influence of extraneous variables (confounding or irrelevant variables). Steege, Brown-Chidsey, and Mace (2002) describe single-case experimental design methodology and the best practices approach of evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. The Solution: Within this book, we endorse an FBA model that is procedurally rigorous and practical for implementation by school psychologists and related professionals. We propose a hypothesis-testing approach that incorporates a combination of interviews and direct observation procedures that are used at a minimum to: • Identify and describe interfering behaviors. • Document the relative occurrence of interfering behaviors. • Identify variables associated with the occurrence of interfering behaviors. • Identify hypotheses regarding the function of these behaviors. • Identify function-based interventions. • Design and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. It is important to recognize that in most cases comprehensive indirect FBA and direct descriptive FBA procedures will yield accurate data that are useful in designing and evaluating socially valid and effective positive behavioral support interventions. In some cases, however, practitioners may find that these procedures are insufficient. In such cases, practitioners may need to reevaluate the accuracy of their assessments and conduct more in-depth assessments (e.g., extended or brief functional behavioral analyses; see Chapter 9). It is our expectation that this volume will be useful for addressing a wide range of target behaviors and referral questions faced by practitioners within school settings. A FINAL ELEMENT: THE FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT RATING SCALE Our experience has shown that the methodologies described in this book have been applicable for assessing a wide range of populations (e.g., students with autism, mental retardation, attentional deficits, behavioral disabilities, and specific learning disabilities, as well as typically developing students) and behaviors (e.g., aggression, self-injury, oppositional-defiant behavior, tantrums, disruption, and habits), in a variety of settings (e.g., special education classrooms, regular education classrooms, private homes, clinics, hospitals, inpatient facilities, and group homes). It is also our experience that many factors contribute to the accuracy of the FBA and the effectiveness of subsequent interventions (e.g., knowledge and experience of teachers, school resources, and administrative supports). Although you may not be able to control all of these variables, you are in a position to conduct a best practices FBA. You also have a professional responsibility and an ethical obligation to conduct an FBA that is technically sound and sufficiently comprehensive to result in an understanding of the variables that contribute to the occurrence of problem behavior and that lead to interventions that result in socially meaningful behavior change. To assist you with conducting meaningful and best practices FBAs, we have designed the Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating Scale (FuBARS) to measure the quality of FBAs (see Figure 5.4). The FuBARS may be used: • As a formative assessment guide when conducting an FBA. • As a summative assessment tool to evaluate the completed FBA. We have also provided an alternative checklist (see Figure 5.5) that we have used to guide and self-monitor the FBA process. FIGURE 5.4. Blank Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating Scale (FuBARS). Reprinted with permission from John F. Murphy Homes, Inc. From Mark W. Steege and T. Steuart Watson (2009). Copyright by The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this figure is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use only (see copyright page for details). FIGURE 5.5. Functional Behavioral Assessment Checklist. From Mark W. Steege and T. Steuart Watson (2009). Copyright by The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this figure is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use only (see copyright page for details). 6 Observing and Recording Behavior Behavior is a difficult subject matter, not because it is inaccessible, but because it is extremely complex. Since it is a process, rather than a thing, it cannot be held still for observation. It is changing, fluid, evanescent, and for this reason it makes great technical demands upon the ingenuity and energy of the scientist. But there is nothing essentially insoluble about the problems which arise from this fact. —B. F. SKINNER (1953, p. 15) Conducting a complete FBA is a process that involves several interrelated stages. This process is usually initiated by a referral for assessment and intervention and begins by defining and recording behaviors. DEFINING AND RECORDING BEHAVIOR As we have noted in other chapters, the initial step in conducting an FBA involves identifying and describing target behaviors. In most cases, this involves a two-stage process of interviews and direct observations for the purpose of clarifying and describing target behaviors. This is a critical step because the accuracy of the FBA is dependent upon precise definitions of behaviors. When behaviors are precisely defined, we say that they have been “operationally” defined or defined in “concrete, observable terms.” Consider the case in which a classroom teacher referred a student with concerns regarding what was labeled as “aggressive behavior.” Based solely on this information, the school psychologist conducted an observation within the classroom setting. The school psychologist used a frequency-recording procedure to measure the occurrences of aggressive behavior. After 45 minutes of careful observations, she had recorded no occurrences of aggressive behavior. She did note, however, that the student on several occasions had engaged in a behavior that she labeled “inappropriate verbal behaviors directed toward classmates.” Following the observation session, the school psychologist and the classroom teacher met and reviewed the observation results. The classroom teacher was amazed when the school psychologist reported that she had not observed any occurrences of “aggressive behavior.”Only after several minutes of discussion did they realize that they had not been talking a common language. Although both had indeed been observing the same behaviors (e.g., swearing at classmates, derogatory remarks directed to classmates), the teacher labeled them “aggressive” while the school psychologist labeled them “inappropriate verbalizations.” Based on their discussion of the characteristics of the behaviors exhibited by the student and by reviewing several examples of the behaviors, they mutually decided to change the description of these verbalizations from “aggressive behavior” to “verbal aggression directed toward classmates.” In short, behaviors need to be described in a way that is understandable to all members of the team. Behavioral definitions need to be unambiguous and concise. Specifically, this means that behaviors should be described in such a way that after reviewing a written description of a target behavior, two observers should be able to observe a student and agree that the target behavior has or has not occurred. As a general rule, a description of behavior should meet three criteria (Kazdin, 2001): • Objectivity • Clarity • Completeness To be objective, the description of behavior should refer to observable features and not to internal characteristics, traits, intentions, meanings, and so on. To be clear, the definition should be so unambiguous that it can be accurately repeated and paraphrased by others. To be complete, the definition must delineate the observable characteristics of the behavior. We recommend a two-stage process for defining behaviors: (1) interviews and (2) observations. STAGE 1: THE INTERVIEW The interview should be conducted with persons very familiar with the student referred for evaluation. At this point in the FBA process, the interview should focus on identifying observable behavior-relevant characteristics displayed by the referred student.For example, in the previous case of aggressive behavior, the school practitioner would ask the teacher to clearly describe the observable characteristics that constitute aggressive behavior. Specific questions such as the following could be asked during a semistructured interview: SCHOOL PRACTITIONER: You have indicated that Bob frequently displays aggressive behaviors in the classroom. What do you mean by the word “aggressive”? CLASSROOM TEACHER: Well, he is often mean-spirited. He is aggressive with his classmates. SCHOOL PRACTITIONER: You said that he is mean-spirited and aggressive. Could you give me an example of these behaviors? CLASSROOM TEACHER: Yes. He says nasty things to classmates as if to provoke them. SCHOOL PRACTITIONER: Give me some examples of the nasty things he says to classmates. CLASSROOM TEACHER: Sure. Just yesterday during a group discussion in social studies class, one of the other students, Cindy, asked a question. Bob called Cindy “a stupid moron.” When I asked him to apologize for his comment, he responded, “Cindy, I’m so sorry that you’re such a stupid moron.” SCHOOL PRACTITIONER: In this example, the aggressive behavior exhibited by Bob is a form of verbal aggression. Does Bob display any other forms of aggressive behavior. For example, is he physically aggressive with others (e.g., hits, kicks, pushes, or scratches)? CLASSROOM TEACHER: Oh, no. He’s never been assaultive. Bob’s aggressive behavior only involves verbal aggression. SCHOOL PRACTITIONER: Let’s further define what is meant by verbal aggression. Verbal aggression includes statements such as “stupid moron.” What other things does Bob do that are verbally aggressive? CLASSROOM TEACHER: Well, he might also swear at another student or refer to someone in a derogatory way such as “You loser,” “You jerk,” “What an idiot,” “Screw you, asshole.” SCHOOL PRACTITIONER: OK. Aggressive verbal behavior also includes derogatory and inappropriate verbal comments directed to classmates. CLASSROOM TEACHER: Yes. And toward teachers as well. For example, yesterday in class I had a little difficulty setting up my PowerPoint presentation. He called me a “technologically challenged idiot.” SCHOOL PRACTITIONER: Ouch! So verbal aggression may also be directed at teachers. How about other school staff? CLASSROOM TEACHER: Yes, he does it to other staff, including Ms. Adams. She’s the principal, you know. SCHOOL PRACTITIONER: The first step of the FBA process involves clarifying and describing the target behaviors. With Bob, we have identified verbal aggression as the behavior of concern. Let’s consider these possible definitions of verbal aggression: Verbal aggression directed to classmates (VBC): Bob directing derogatory comments (e.g., “You idiot”) and/or inappropriate language (e.g., swearing) to classmates. Verbal aggression directed to staff (VBS): Bob directing derogatory comments (e.g., “You idiot”) and/or inappropriate language (e.g., swearing) to school staff. Are these clear and unambiguous definitions? CLASSROOM TEACHER: Yes. I think we’ve nailed it. This is very clear. SCHOOL PRACTITIONER: Great! What I am planning to do next is to conduct a classroom observation. I will use these definitions to record occurrences of VBC and VBS behaviors. Are there days, times of day, or class sessions that you recommend I conduct the observations where the behaviors are most likely to occur? In this example, both the school practitioner and the teacher are clear about what constitutes aggressive behavior. Making sure that the behavior is operationally defined prior to conducting the first observation will probably save the school practitioner time and a bit of frustration. In addition, something else was gleaned from the above interview that has particular relevance for the FBA. Want to take a guess as to what it is? For the answer, see the accompanying box. To assist both school practitioners and teachers in this first stage of the FBA process, we have included a representative listing of some of the most common referral problems and examples of their corresponding “operational” definitions; see the accompanying table. This is by no means a comprehensive list. Rather, it is a set of exemplars to serve as a prompt for writing clear behavioral definitions. The words that are underlined in the “Referral problem” column are “red-flag” words that should immediately be clarified. Referral problem Sample operational defnition Carter is off task Jeremy shows disrespecttoward teachers When given a written assignment to complete at his desk, Carter looks out the window, walks around the class, or walks over to the free- reading center. When given a direction or command, Jeremy tells his teachers to his shut up, stop telling him what to do, and get off his back. He then refuses to do the work by putting his head down on his desk or leaving the classroom. Wilson has an attitudeproblem When spoken to by an adult, Wilson frowns and turns away and does not do what has been asked or directed. Nyetha very sad and depressed is During times when she is working or playing alone, Nyetha often cries quietly. Craig has a learning Craig is able to complete 1 × 1 multiplication problems with 20– disability in math calculations 30% accuracy. During the interview, the teacher noted that the verbally aggressive behavior occurs toward both peers and adults in the school environment. That piece of information is especially relevant for FBA because, although the same types of behaviors are occurring, they may have very different functions. For instance, the function of verbal aggression toward classmates may be to attract attention from peers, whereas verbal aggression toward adults may be maintained by escape/avoidance from academic instruction. Given that the functions may be different, the resulting interventions will likely look different as well. In addition to the implications for treatment, realizing that the verbally aggressive behavior may have different functions across targets also allows one to understand that successfully treating verbally aggressive behavior toward peers may not result in reductions in verbally aggressive behavior toward adults. STAGE 2: THE DIRECT OBSERVATION Following the interview, the next step in the FBA process typically involves a direct observation of the referred student. Direct observation of behavior is the core of behavioral assessment and is one of the most commonly used behavioral assessment techniques for addressing student’s behaviors (C. H. Skinner, Dittmer, & Howell, 2000). Generally, we recommend that the initial observation take place within naturally occurring settings and circumstances (e.g., with a student in her class while she is engaged in naturally occurring tasks/activities). At the most basic level, the direct observation involves no more tha...
Purchase answer to see full attachment