Instruction in Functional Assessment, 2014a
Instruction in Functional Assessment, 2014a
Instruction in Functional Assessment, 2014a
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Instruction</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Functional</strong> <strong>Assessment</strong> Chapter 6<br />
The Case of “You Already Said That!”<br />
From Rehfeldt and Chambers (2003). <strong>Functional</strong> analysis and treatment of verbal perseverations<br />
displayed by an adult with autism. JABA, 36, 259-261.<br />
Client Description & Background: “V<strong>in</strong>ce was a 23-year old man who had been<br />
diagnosed with autism and mild mental retardation. He also experienced seizures that<br />
were controlled medication” (Rehfeldt & Chambers, 2003, p. 259). Medications that V<strong>in</strong>ce<br />
took <strong>in</strong>cluded Phenyto<strong>in</strong>, Sertral<strong>in</strong>e, Bisoprolol, and Trazedone. V<strong>in</strong>ce attended a sheltered<br />
workshop on a daily basis and this is where the majority of his problem behavior was exhibited.<br />
When <strong>in</strong>teract<strong>in</strong>g with others, his conversation <strong>in</strong>cluded perseveration on specific<br />
topics.<br />
Perseverative speech was def<strong>in</strong>ed as V<strong>in</strong>ce’s repeated comments. One occurrence of<br />
an utterance was dist<strong>in</strong>guished from another of the same if there was no speech for at<br />
least 3 s. Common perseverative topics <strong>in</strong>cluded talk about sirens, alarms, dentist or doctor<br />
appo<strong>in</strong>tments.<br />
Procedure: A functional analysis was conducted us<strong>in</strong>g a multielement research design<br />
with the follow<strong>in</strong>g conditions last<strong>in</strong>g 10 m<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong> duration.<br />
Attention condition: Follow<strong>in</strong>g verbal perseverations 10 s of attention immediately<br />
was given by the therapist. This attention <strong>in</strong>cluded both acknowledgment statements (e.g.,<br />
“You sure do like those sirens, don’t you?”) and mild reprimands (e.g., “Don’t talk about<br />
sirens. There are none here.”).<br />
Demand condition: A work task such as fil<strong>in</strong>g or sort<strong>in</strong>g paper was given to V<strong>in</strong>ce.<br />
Follow<strong>in</strong>g verbal perseveration, the task was immediately removed by the therapist for 30 s<br />
who looked away and did not <strong>in</strong>teract with V<strong>in</strong>ce. If an <strong>in</strong>correct or no response occurred<br />
then the <strong>in</strong>struction was represented and the therapist modeled the correct behavior. If an<br />
<strong>in</strong>correct or no response occurred to the level 1, then a level 2 prompt or physical assistance<br />
was provided for him to complete the correct response.<br />
Alone condition: V<strong>in</strong>ce was <strong>in</strong> room alone. The therapist stood outside the door to<br />
observe and collect data on V<strong>in</strong>ce’s behavior.<br />
Tangible condition: Immediately follow<strong>in</strong>g verbal preservation V<strong>in</strong>ce was provided<br />
with 30 s of access to preferred activities (writ<strong>in</strong>g about sirens, fire drills, etc.).<br />
106