Instruction in Functional Assessment, 2014a

Instruction in Functional Assessment Chapter 2
Present 10 min of alone condition
On day 2, repeat above with randomized order of conditions.
Repeat for 3 more days or more depending on the stability of the data
Data Analysis
At least five data points are collected for each condition so that trends, levels of the
problem behavior, and non-overlapping data points across conditions can be compared.
Graphed data are examined to identify differential levels of the individual’s behavior across
conditions. The data patterns are analyzed by examining stability, trends, overlapping data
points, and magnitude of effect observed for the test conditions compared to the control
(play/recreation) condition (Martin & Pear, 2011). If variability in the data pattern and/or
overlapping data patterns are observed, then additional sessions may need to be conducted
until stability and differentiation of the levels of behavior in each condition is reached to
allow an interpretation of the results (see Bourret & Pietras, 2013 for more).
Advantages and Disadvantages of FAn
Like the other FA methods, there can be advantages and disadvantages to using a
functional analysis approach. The major advantage of FAn is that it provides the most
accurate information about the function of the individual’s behavior (Floyd, Phaneuf, &
Wilcynski, 2005; Iwata et al., 2013). FAn is the only method that yields a “cause and effect”
interpretation of the findings. Since this approach uses an experimental method that involves
manipulating conditions (attention, alone, demand, or demand conditions) while
controlling or holding constant other potentially confounding factors (play condition), the
results from a FAn can be used to identify the specific factors maintaining the problem
behavior. In a comparison of indirect, observational, and FAn methods to identify the function
of the challenging behavior of seven children with autism, Tarbox et al. (2009) found
that indirect and FAn methods produced more conclusive findings for all seven children
than an observational method did. In contrast, Alter, Conroy, Mancil, and Haydon (2008)
found one-to-one correspondence between FA observational methods and FAn and less
correspondence with indirect FAn methods when identifying the function of challenging
behavior with four young males. Additionally, in Taylor and Romanczyk’s (1994) study, the
functions of students’ challenging behavior based on observations of teachers’ interaction
with their students in the classroom predicted experimentally verified functions of those
behaviors.
There are notable limitations to using a FAn. When the problem is multiply determined
or low rates of occurrence of the challenging behavior exist, then interpretation
of the results of a functional analysis may be difficult. Another disadvantage is that the
function of the challenging behavior may not always be readily identified using the standard
functional analysis conditions (i.e., attention, tangible, demand, control). In which
case, tailoring the conditions used in a functional analysis to the individual’s circumstances
may be necessary. Hapopian et al. (2013) describe how the maintaining variables for over
26