|
Functional Behavior Assessment for Behavior Analysts in Practice: From Current Practices to Best Practices |
Sunday, May 24, 2015 |
10:00 AM–10:50 AM |
213AB (CC) |
Area: PRA; Domain: Applied Research |
Chair: Leigh Pratt (University of the Pacific) |
CE Instructor: Henry S. Roane, Ph.D. |
Abstract: The term functional behavior assessment (FBA) refers to a range of strategies used to identify environmental variables that are functionally related to a behavior of interest. The FBA methods used in practice can vary considerably; however, the research literature suggests that the various assessment strategies are not all equally effective in terms of identifying functional relations. The extant literature has identified many procedures to assess and treat problem behavior, and a number of reviews have identified certain behavioral assessments and interventions as evidence-based practices (EBPs). Although functional (experimental) analyses are often considered the gold standard FBA method, they are not always used. One reason functional analyses might be underused is the perceived inefficiency of conducting such analyses. To date, the comparative efficiency and control of different functional analysis formats has not yet been determined. To address these various issues, the papers in this symposium will present data concerning (1) the current use of various FBA methods by behavior analysts in practice, (2) the current use of evidence-based practices, in terms of both assessment and intervention procedures, by behavior analysts in practice, and (3) the identification and empirical assessment of efficient functional analysis procedures. |
Keyword(s): evidence-based practice, functional analysis, functional assessment, problem behavior |
|
A Survey of Functional Behavior Assessment Methods Used by Behavior Analysts in Practice |
ANTHONY OLIVER (University of the Pacific), Leigh Pratt (University of the Pacific), Matthew P. Normand (University of the Pacific) |
Abstract: The term functional behavior assessment (FBA) refers to a range of strategies used to identify environmental variables that are functionally related to a behavior of interest. The FBA methods used in practice can vary considerably; however, the research literature suggests that the various assessment strategies are not all equally effective in terms of identifying functional relations. To get information about the FBA methods used by behavior analysts in practice, we sent a web-based survey to 12,431 behavior analysts certified by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board. Ultimately, 682 practitioner surveys were completed, with the results suggesting that most respondents regularly use FBA methods, especially descriptive assessments. Less than half of the respondents reported using functional analyses, although many considered descriptive assessments and functional analyses to be the most useful FBA methods. Still, most respondents reported using informant and descriptive assessments more frequently than functional analyses, and a majority of respondents indicated that they “Never” or “Almost Never” used functional analyses to determine the function of behavior. This might be cause for concern, given the research demonstrating the unreliability of informant FBA methods and the lack of correspondence between informant and descriptive assessments and the outcomes of functional analyses. |
|
Examination of Assessment and Treatment Practices Among Behavior Analysts in Residential Placements |
MICHAEL PATRICK MULLANE (Syracuse University), Henry S. Roane (State University of New York Upstate Medical University), Nicole DeRosa (State University of New York Upstate Medical University) |
Abstract: For many individuals with intellectual disabilities, severe problem behavior represents the most significant barrier to community integration. The extant literature has identified many procedures to assess and treat such problem behavior, and a number of reviews have certain behavioral interventions as evidence-based practices (EBPs). In the present study, we sought to determine the extent to which EBPs are employed among a sample of residential placements. The functional behavior assessments (FBAs) and behavior intervention plans (BIPs) were sampled for 20 adults with intellectual disabilities and problem behavior (e.g. self-injury, aggression) from six residential settings across three states. All FBAs and BIPs were reviewed to determine: (a) the procedures employed during the FBA process, (b) the extent to which treatment recommendations were based on the results of the FBA, (c) the type of data collection conducted for ongoing program evaluation, and (d) the types of treatment recommendations that were made. Regarding the latter category, we then examined the extent to which the treatment recommendations included those procedures that have been identified as EBPs. Results will be discussed in terms of the links between research and practice for developing BIPs in residential placements, as well as suggestions for future research. |
|
Defining and Improving the Efficiency of and Control in a Functional Analysis of Problem Behavior |
JOSHUA JESSEL (Western New England University), Gregory P. Hanley (Western New England University), Mahshid Ghaemmaghami (Western New England University) |
Abstract: The speed with which a functional analysis provides a convincing and controlled demonstration of the variables influencing problem behavior may be termed efficiency. Despite its important practical implications, the comparative efficiency and control of different functional analysis formats has not yet been determined. Through a combination of empirical analysis and literature review, we attempt to illustrate a most efficient process for conducting functional analyses of problem behavior. In Study 1, we described 16 applications of the interview-informed, synthesized-contingency analyses (process described by Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, & Hanratty, 2014), the first sessions of which were reanalyzed in Study 2 to determine the extent to which a functional analysis may require as little as 5 min. Via a review of all published functional analyses, the relative efficiency and control of the various formats was determined in Study 3. In addition, the procedural commitments to the Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994) were assessed and reconsidered in the context of the efficiency and control of an analysis. |
|
|