Functional assessment and functional analysis are processes that have been applied successfully in work with people who have developmental disabilities, but they have been used rarely with students who experience emotional or behavioral disorders. In the present study, five students in elementary school programs for severe emotional disturbance participated in a comprehensive functional assessment process designed to yield a useful understanding of their desirable and undesirable behaviors. Interviews, record reviews, and direct classroom observations led to the development of individualized hypotheses regarding relationships between classroom events and the occurrence of target behaviors. Subsequently, direct manipulations (i.e., functional analyses) were conducted to test each of the hypotheses in the context of regularly-occurring classroom activities. These analyses demonstrate important influences that certain classroom variables can exert over individual student's behavior. The process and results are discussed with regard to the need for improved methods for understanding student responding, and the benefits that functional assessment can offer programs of educational and behavioral support.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaileyJ. S., & BostowD. E. (1979). Research methods in applied behavior analysis.Tallahassee, FL: Copy Grafix.
2.
BaileyJ. S., & PylesD. A. M. (1989). Behavioral diagnostics. In CipaniE. (Ed.), The treatment of severe behavior problems (pp. 85–106). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
3.
BijouS. W., PetersonR. F., & AultM. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175–191.
4.
CarrE. G., & DurandV. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111–126.
5.
CarrE. G., RobinsonS., & PalumboL. W. (1990). The wrong issue: Aversive versus nonaversive treatment. The right issue: Functional versus nonfunctional treatment. In ReppA. C., & SinghN. N. (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 362–379). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
6.
CooperL. J., WackerD. P., ThursbyD., PlagmannL. A., HardingJ., MillardT., & DerbyM. (1992). Analysis of the effects of task preferences, task demands, and adult attention on child behavior in outpatient and classroom settings.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 823–840.
7.
DunlapG., & KernL. (in press). Assessment and intervention for children within the instructional curriculum. In ReichleJ., & WackerD. (Eds.), Communicative approaches to the management of challenging behavior problems.Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
8.
DunlapG., Kern-DunlapL., ClarkeS., & RobbinsF. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior problems.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 387–397.
9.
DurandV. M., & CrimminsD. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior.Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99–117.
10.
DyerK. (1987). The competition of autistic stereotyped behavior with usual and specially assessed reinforcers.Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 607–626.
11.
DyerK., DunlapG., & WinterlingV. (1990). The effects of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of students with developmental disabilities.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 515–524.
12.
HornerR. H., DunlapG., KoegelR. L, CarrE. G., SailorW., AndersonJ., AlbinR. W., & O'NeillR. E. (1990). Toward a technology of “nonaversive” behavioral support.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 125–132.
13.
IwataB. A., DorseyM. F., SliferK. J., BaumanK. E., & RichmanG. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury.Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20.
14.
IwataB. A., VollmerT. R., & ZarconeJ. H. (1990). The experimental (functional) analysis of behavior disorders: Methodology, applications, and limitations. In ReppA. C., & SinghN. N. (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 301–330). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
15.
KazdinA. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings.New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
KernL., ChildsK. E., DunlapG., ClarkeS., & FalkG. D. (1993). Using assessment-based curricular intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a student with emotional and behavioral challenges. Manuscript submitted for publication.
17.
KnitzerJ., SteinbergZ., & FleischB. (1990). At the schoolhouse door: An examination of programs and policies for children with behavioral and emotional problems.New York: Bank Street College of Education.
18.
LalliJ. S., BrowderD. M., MaceC. F., & BrownD. K. (in press). Teacher use of descriptive analysis data to implement interventions to decrease students' problem behaviors.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
19.
LennoxD. B., & MiltenbergerR. G. (1989). Conducting a functional assessment of problem behavior in applied settings.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 304–311.
20.
Mace,R C., & LalliJ. S. (1991). Linking descriptive and experimental analyses in the treatment of bizarre speech.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 553–562.
21.
Mace,R C., YankanichM. A., & WestB. J. (1989). Toward a methodology of experimental analysis and treatment of aberrant classroom behaviors.Special Services in the Schools, 4, 71–88.
22.
O'NeillR. E., HornerR. H., AlbinR. W., StoreyK., & SpragueJ. R. (1990). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A practical assessment guide.Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing.
23.
ReppA. C., FelceD., & BartonL. E. (1988). Basing the treatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors on hypotheses of their causes.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 281–289.
24.
TouchetteP. E., MacDonaldR. F., & LangerS. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 343–351.
