Instruction in Functional Assessment, 2014a
Instruction in Functional Assessment, 2014a
Instruction in Functional Assessment, 2014a
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Instruction</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Functional</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Chapter 6<br />
A Case <strong>in</strong> the Classroom<br />
From: Moore, J. W., & Edwards, R. P. (2003). An analysis of aversive stimuli <strong>in</strong> classroom<br />
demand contexts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 339-348.<br />
Client Description & Background: “Edgar was a 9-year-old boy who attended a general<br />
education fourth-grade classroom with 17 other students. Edgar had been referred<br />
for yell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> class. When he attended school <strong>in</strong> a different state the previous year, Edgar<br />
received a special education rul<strong>in</strong>g of severely emotionally disturbed. Edgar’s academic and<br />
cognitive abilities fell <strong>in</strong> the average range of academic function<strong>in</strong>g, and he received 100%<br />
of his academic <strong>in</strong>struction <strong>in</strong> a general education classroom” (Moore & Edwards, 2003, p.<br />
340).<br />
“Edgar’s teacher was <strong>in</strong> her 6th year of teach<strong>in</strong>g. She held a BS degree and an MA<br />
degree <strong>in</strong> elementary education” (Moore & Edwards, 2003, p. 340).<br />
“Yell<strong>in</strong>g was def<strong>in</strong>ed as vocal utterances above a normal tone of voice” (Moore & Edwards,<br />
2003, p. 340).<br />
“Task demands were def<strong>in</strong>ed as verbal <strong>in</strong>structions and written academic work delivered<br />
by the teacher” (Moore & Edwards, 2003, p. 340).<br />
Procedure: <strong>Functional</strong> analysis was conducted us<strong>in</strong>g a multielement research design<br />
with the follow<strong>in</strong>g conditions which were 10 m<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> duration.<br />
Demand condition:<br />
The teacher presented learn<strong>in</strong>g trials to the student every 30 s throughout the<br />
session. All demans were presented <strong>in</strong> worksheet form. A sequential vocal, gestural,<br />
and physical (i.e., hand-over-hand) prompt<strong>in</strong>g hierarchy was employed to present<br />
demand trials. Hand-over-hand prompt<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>cluded plac<strong>in</strong>g the pencil <strong>in</strong> the student’s<br />
hand and position<strong>in</strong>g the pencil lead on the worksheet. The teacher delivered praise<br />
if the student complied with the verbal or gestural prompt, cont<strong>in</strong>ued the prompt<strong>in</strong>g<br />
sequence if the student did not comply, and term<strong>in</strong>ated the trial (by remov<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
worksheet and mov<strong>in</strong>g to the other side of the room) if the student engaged <strong>in</strong> the<br />
target problem behavior at any time dur<strong>in</strong>g the trial. (Moore & Edwards, 2003, p. 341)<br />
Attention condition:<br />
The student was given access to several nonpreferred leisure activities throughout<br />
the session. The teacher ignored the child except to deliver attention <strong>in</strong> the form of<br />
a statement of disapproval or concern (e.g., “Stop that; you are disrupt<strong>in</strong>g the class”)<br />
and brief physical contact (e.g., a pat on the back or touch<strong>in</strong>g the arm) follow<strong>in</strong>g each<br />
occurrence of the target problem behavior. All other appropriate and <strong>in</strong>appropriate<br />
behaviors were ignored. (Moore & Edwards, 2003, p. 341)<br />
104