The Screening for Understanding: Initial Line of Inquiry was designed to be used in conjunction with the child study team planning process for dealing with continuous problem behaviors prior to conducting a formal functional behavioral assessment. To conduct the initial line of inquiry a one-page reproducible screening matrix was used during child study team meetings to identify variables that may be influencing a child’s behavior and to devise interventions that can be used to increase prosocial target behaviors.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
4.
JohnstonS. S.O’NeillR. E. (2001). Searching for effectiveness and efficiency in conducting functional assessments: A review and proposed process for teachers and other practitioners. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 205–214. doi:10.1177/10883576010160040210.1177/108835760101600402
5.
KauffmanJ. M.LandrumT. J. (2009). Characteristics of emotional and behavior disorders of children and youth (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
6.
KernL.HiltA.GreshamF. (2004). An evaluation of the functional behavioral assessment process used with students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 440–452.
LaneK. L.WeisenbachJ. L.PhillipsA.WehbyJ. H. (2007). Designing, implementing, and evaluating function-based interventions using a systematic, feasible approach. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 122–139.
9.
LarsonP. J.MaagJ. W. (1998). Applying functional assessment in general education classrooms: Issues and recommendations. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 338–349. doi:10.1177/07419325980190060410.1177/074193259801900604
10.
Lohrmann-O’RourkeS.KnosterT.LlewellynG. (1999). Screening for understanding: An initial line of inquiry for school based settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 35–42.
11.
McLarenE. M.NelsonC. M. (2009). Using functional behavioral assessment to develop behavior interventions for students in head start. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 11, 3–21. doi:10.1177/109830070831896010.1177/1098300708318960
12.
O’NeillR. E.HornerR. H.AlbinR. W.SpragueJ. R.StoreyK.NewtonJ. S. (1997). Functional assessment for problem behavior: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
13.
ReidR.NelsonR. (2002). The utility, acceptability, and practicality of functional behavioral assessment for students with high-incidence problem behaviors. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 15–23. doi:10.1177/0741932502023010.1177/074193250202300103
14.
SassoG.ConroyM.StichterJ.FoxJ. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282–295.
15.
ScottT. M.AlterP. J.McQuillanK. (2010). Functional behavior assessment in classroom settings: Scaling down to scale up. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 87–94. doi:10.1177/105345121037498610.1177/1053451210374986
16.
ScottT. M.BucalosA.LiaupsinC.NelsonC. M.JolivetteK.DeSheaL. (2004). Using functional behavioral assessment in general education settings: Making a case for effectiveness and efficiency. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 189–201.
17.
StichterJ. P.LewisT. J.JohnsonN.TrussellR. (2004). Toward a structural assessment: Analyzing the merits of an assessment tool for a student with E/BD. Assessment for Effective Interventions, 30, 25–40. doi:10.1177/07372477040300010310.1177/073724770403000103
18.
Van AckerR.BoresonL.GableR. A.PottertonT. (2005). Are we on the right course? Lesson learned about current FBA/BIP practices in schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 35–56. doi:10.1007/s10864-005-0960-510.1007/s10864-005-0960-5
19.
YellM. L. (2006). The law and special education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
