ERIC EJ899111: Influence of Assessment Setting on the Results of Functional Analyses of Problem Behavior

2010·0.09 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2010, 43, 565–567 NUMBER3 (FALL2010)
INFLUENCE OF ASSESSMENT SETTING ON THE RESULTS
OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSES OF PROBLEM BEHAVIOR
RUSSELL LANG
UNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIA,SANTABARBARA
JEFF SIGAFOOS
VICTORIAUNIVERSITYOFWELLINGTON,NEWZEALAND
GIULIO LANCIONI
UNIVERSITYOFBARI,ITALY
ROBERT DIDDEN
RADBOUDUNIVERSITYNIJMEGEN,THENETHERLANDS
AND
MANDY RISPOLI
TEXASA&MUNIVERSITY
Analogue functional analyses are widely used to identify the operant function of problem
behaviorinindividualswithdevelopmentaldisabilities.Becauseproblembehavioroftenoccurs
across multiple settings (e.g., homes, schools, outpatient clinics), it is important to determine
whethertheresultsoffunctionalanalysesvaryacrosssettings.Thisbriefreviewcovers3recent
studiesthatexaminedtheinfluenceofdifferentsettingsontheresultsoffunctionalanalysesand
identifies directions for future research.
Keywords: autism, assessment, developmental disability, functional analysis, setting
_______________________________________________________________________________
Analogue functional analyses are designed to (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003), and the
identify functional relations between problem person who implements the assessment (Ring-
behavior and reinforcement contingencies dahl&Sellers,2000)haveallbeenidentifiedas
through systematic environmental manipula- variables that can influence the results of the
tions (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Rich- assessment. Given this evidence, it is plausible
man, 1982/1994). Several idiosyncratic and that the setting in which the functional analysis
contextual variables have been shown to is conducted might also influence results.
influence the results of analog functional Functional analyses to identify the operant
analyses (Carr, Yarbrough, & Langdon, 1997). function of problem behavior have been
For example, presession attention (McComas, conducted in a variety of settings, ranging from
Thompson, & Johnson, 2003; O’Reilly, clinical settings (e.g., hospitals, outpatient
Edrishina,&Sigafoos,2007),thecharacteristics clinics, unoccupied rooms in schools) to
of task demands (Smith, Iwata, Goh, & Shore, relatively natural contexts (e.g., bedrooms in
1995), the order of assessment conditions children’s homes and classrooms with other
children present). It is not uncommon for the
AddresscorrespondencetoRussellLang,whoisnowat resultsofafunctionalanalysisconductedinone
the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Texas settingtobeusedtodesignanintervention that
StateUniversity,601UniversityDrive,SanMarcos,Texas
is implemented in another setting (Hanley et
78666(e-mail: [email protected]).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-565 al.,2003).Whenthisisdone,itisassumedthat
565
566 RUSSELL LANG et al.
the variables that influence behavior in the the whether the discrepancy in the results across
functional analysis setting are the same as those settings was important in the design of an
that control the behavior in the intervention intervention by comparing an attention-based
setting. intervention and a tangible-based intervention
Thepurposeofthisbriefreviewistodescribe in both settings. Results of the comparison
three recent studies (i.e., Lang et al., 2008, validated the assessment results (i.e., the
2009, 2010) in which this assumption was attention-based intervention was more effective
tested by examining the influence of setting on on the playground and the tangible-based
functional analysis results and subsequent intervention was more effective in the class-
function-based interventions. Based on this room) and demonstrated the importance of
brief review, we offer practical suggestions for considering potential variations in the function
practitioners who implement functional analy- of problem behavior across settings in the
ses and elucidate directions for future research. design of function-based interventions.
Lang et al. (2008) conducted functional In the thirdstudy (Lang et al., 2010),a child
analyses using a procedure similar to that of with Asperger syndrome was assessed in two
Iwata et al. (1982/1994) with two school-aged different rooms (i.e., resource room and
girls with autism who engaged in problem classroom).Functionalanalysisresultsindicated
behavior. In the Lang et al. study, both children that elopement was maintained by access to
participatedinfunctionalanalysesintwosettings attention in the resource room and by access to
(atherapyroomandaclassroom).Toisolatethe tangible items in the classroom. Two interven-
potential influence of setting, other variables tions (an attention-based intervention and a
knowntoaffecttheresults offunctional analyses tangible-based intervention) were then com-
were held constant (i.e., the sequence of pared in an alternating treatments design in
conditions, materials, task demands, and thera- both settings. The attention-based intervention
pist). For both children, escape from task was more effective in the resource room, and
demands and attention from the therapist were the tangible-based intervention was more effec-
identifiedas maintainingconsequencesforprob- tive in the classroom. As in the 2009 study,
lem behavior in both settings. However, for the results of this comparison again validated the
second child, levels of problem behavior were findings of the functional analyses and demon-
higher in the escape condition in the therapy strated the importance of conducting the
room than in the classroom. functional analyses in the setting in which the
Lang et al. (2009) replicated the procedures intervention will be implemented.
of Lang et al. (2008) with a child with autism Overall, these three studies suggest that at
who engaged in aggression. Lang et al. (2009) least two patterns of results are possible when
conducted functional analyses in the child’s functionalanalysesarecomparedacrosssettings.
classroom and on the school playground. The The first pattern is one in which the functional
playground assessment results indicated that analyses identify the same behavioral function
problem behavior was maintained by adult or functions. In this pattern, the same conclu-
attention as reinforcement, whereas the class- sion and subsequent treatment decisions would
room assessment results indicated that problem be made regardless of the assessment setting.
behavior was maintained by access to toys. ThiswasthecaseforParticipant1inLangetal.
These results suggested that the controlling (2008). The second pattern is one in which the
variablesforproblembehaviormaydifferacross results of the functional analyses differ across
settings. Lang et al. (2009) then validated the settings; this was the case in Lang et al. (2009,
results of the functional analyses and evaluated 2010).Itisthissecondpatternthatisimportant
BRIEF REVIEW 567
topractitionersbecauseitmayleadtothedesign REFERENCES
of an ineffective function-based intervention.
Carr,E.G.,Yarbrough,S.C.,&Langdon,N.A.(1997).
Specifically, if a functional analysis is conducted Effects of idiosyncratic stimulus variables on func-
in one setting and the results of that analysis are tional analysis outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis,30,673–686.
usedtodesignaninterventionthatisimplement-
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003).
ed across settings, the intervention may fail in
Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review.
settings in which the maintaining consequences Journal ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 36,147–185.
aredifferentfromthoseoftheassessmentsetting. Iwata,B.A.,Dorsey,M.F.,Slifer,K.J.,Bauman,K.E.,
& Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional
For example, a functional analysis conducted at
analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior
schoolmayresultinthedesignofanintervention
Analysis, 27, 197–209. (Reprinted from Analysis and
that is effective at school but is ineffective in the Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20,
home. It is perhaps not uncommon for imple- 1982)
Lang, R., Davis, T., O’Reilly, M. F., Machalicek, W.,
mentation fidelity to be questioned following
Rispoli, M. J., Sigafoos, J., et al. (2010). Functional
such intervention failures. The results of these analysisandtreatmentofelopementacrosstwoschool
studies suggest that, in addition to implementa- settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43,
113–118.
tion fidelity, practitioners should also consider
Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., Rispoli, M.,
the possibility of ungeneralizable functional
Machalicek, W., Chan, J. M., et al. (2009).
analysis results. Discrepancy in functional analysis results across two
The results of these studies raise several appliedsettings:Implicationsforinterventiondesign.
Journal ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 42, 393–397.
questions that warrant future research. First, it
Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Machalicek, W., Lancioni, G.,
is not always practical to implement functional
Rispoli, M., & Chan, J. M. (2008). A preliminary
assessments in every setting in which problem comparison of functional analysis results when
behavior occurs. Therefore, future research conducted in contrived versus naturalistic settings.
Journal ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 41, 441–445.
should determine what factors contribute to the
McComas, J. J., Thompson, A., & Johnson, L. (2003).
development of setting-specific functions, with The effects of presession attention on problem
the aim of creating a procedure for identifying behavior maintained by different reinforcers. Journal
of AppliedBehaviorAnalysis,36,297–307.
when functional reinforcers will differ across
O’Reilly,M.F.,Edrishina,C.,&Sigafoos,J.(2007).The
settings. Second, conducting functional analyses
effects of presession attention on subsequent atten-
in classrooms, onplaygrounds,andother similar tion-extinction and alone conditions. Journal of
settings often requires extensive planning to Applied BehaviorAnalysis,40,731–735.
Ringdahl, J. E., & Sellers, J. A. (2000). The effects of
control possible confounding variables inherent
different adults as therapists during functional
in such settings (i.e., other students may deliver
analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33,
attention when attention is not a programmed 247–250.
consequence for problem behavior). To the Smith, R. G., Iwata, B. A., Goh, H., & Shore, B. A.
(1995). Analysis of establishing operations for self-
extent that the procedural integrity of these
injury maintained by escape. Journal of Applied
assessments is compromised, functional analyses Behavior Analysis,28,515–535.
may yield inaccurate results. Therefore, future
researchshouldalsofocus on identifying adapta-
Received February 17,2010
tionstofunctionalanalysesthatcontrolpotential
Final acceptanceMay 4,2010
confounding variables in applied settings. Action Editor,Cathleen C.Piazza