Unit 9 Flashcards
Types of functional assessments
Indirect Assessment (Verbal Report) Descriptive Assessment (Naturalistic Observation) Functional Analysis (Experimental Manipulation)
Functional Relation
Change in an independent variable (IV) produces orderly and predictable change in a dependent variable (DV)
Basic Features of FA (functional assessment)
Direct Observation
Measurement of behavior under test and control conditions
Functional Analysis Methodology
To test a specific hypothesis about the controlling variables for problem behavior
Multiple Control
Multiple test conditions can be elevated relative to the control
Multielement Design
Rapidly alternate between conditions
Reversal Design
One condition ran at a time
Less common because of amount of time requried
Pairwise
Fairly common
More efficient then reversal
One test condition alternated with control
May assist in discriminability of conditions
Brief FA
5 minute FA
One session per condition (+ repeat of relevant test if possible)
Does do test intervention if contingency reversal
Standard FA
10 minute FA
Minimum of 3 sessions per condition
No test intervention
Trial-Based FA
Conducted in natural environment
Less disruption to the client’s routine
Requires fewer resources
Conners et al. (2000)
S^D present phanse = function for all subjects
S^D absent phase = differentiation disrupted for 4 of 8 subjects
-3/4 eventually showed differentiated responding
-1/4 required reinstatement of S^Ds
Moral: can’t predict in advance which subjects will need S^Ds, so you should always include S^Ds
Durand and Carr (1992)
A-B Functional Analysis Model Manipulate antecedents ONLY No consequences for PB Limitations: -Did not manipulate consequences so PB is on extinction
Wallace and Iwata (1999)
10 and 15 minute FAs = perfect correspondence
10 minute FAs are sufficient (most conservative approach)
5 min FAs are mostly good enough, but may be problem if:
-Your client doesn’t discriminate well
-EXT needs to occur in the play/alone
-EO needs awhile to come into effect
Worsdell et al. (2000)
All subjects needed the contingency to consistently engage in PB
AB FA does not include any contingencies for PB
Iwata et al. (1982/1994)
Implications:
- Importance of function over topography
- Evoking potentially dangerous behavior while protecting clients and therapists
Undifferentiated patterns
No clear separation between any condition and the control condition
Possible Causes:
-Difficulty in discrimination
-Relevant variables not tested
-Multiple control
-May be more likely for LOW rate behaviors
Bloom et al. (2011)
Trial-Based FA is not necessarily faster than a standard FA
- Less disruptive to classroom routines
- Requires fewer staff and less resources
Kuhn et al. (2009)
Showed what to do if you have unclear FA due to a potential idiosyncratic function
- Do descriptive assessment )DA)
- Design test and control conditions for your hypothesis
- An FA is more than just attention, demand, alone, and play
Bowman et al. (1997)
Provided another example of how to progress when your FA is inconclusive
- Sometimes reinforcers for PB change over time-these can be specified via mands
- A modified FA using a mand analysis may be most appropriate for verbal children who make unreasonable demands and engage in PB when those mands aren’t met
