Instruction in Functional Assessment, 2014a

Instruction in Functional Assessment Chapter 6
A Case in the Classroom
From: Moore, J. W., & Edwards, R. P. (2003). An analysis of aversive stimuli in classroom
demand contexts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 339-348.
Client Description & Background: “Edgar was a 9-year-old boy who attended a general
education fourth-grade classroom with 17 other students. Edgar had been referred
for yelling in class. When he attended school in a different state the previous year, Edgar
received a special education ruling of severely emotionally disturbed. Edgar’s academic and
cognitive abilities fell in the average range of academic functioning, and he received 100%
of his academic instruction in a general education classroom” (Moore & Edwards, 2003, p.
340).
“Edgar’s teacher was in her 6th year of teaching. She held a BS degree and an MA
degree in elementary education” (Moore & Edwards, 2003, p. 340).
“Yelling was defined as vocal utterances above a normal tone of voice” (Moore & Edwards,
2003, p. 340).
“Task demands were defined as verbal instructions and written academic work delivered
by the teacher” (Moore & Edwards, 2003, p. 340).
Procedure: Functional analysis was conducted using a multielement research design
with the following conditions which were 10 min in duration.
Demand condition:
The teacher presented learning trials to the student every 30 s throughout the
session. All demans were presented in worksheet form. A sequential vocal, gestural,
and physical (i.e., hand-over-hand) prompting hierarchy was employed to present
demand trials. Hand-over-hand prompting included placing the pencil in the student’s
hand and positioning the pencil lead on the worksheet. The teacher delivered praise
if the student complied with the verbal or gestural prompt, continued the prompting
sequence if the student did not comply, and terminated the trial (by removing the
worksheet and moving to the other side of the room) if the student engaged in the
target problem behavior at any time during the trial. (Moore & Edwards, 2003, p. 341)
Attention condition:
The student was given access to several nonpreferred leisure activities throughout
the session. The teacher ignored the child except to deliver attention in the form of
a statement of disapproval or concern (e.g., “Stop that; you are disrupting the class”)
and brief physical contact (e.g., a pat on the back or touching the arm) following each
occurrence of the target problem behavior. All other appropriate and inappropriate
behaviors were ignored. (Moore & Edwards, 2003, p. 341)
104