ABA 2: Functional Analysis
•
•
Old system – try out Tx and then explain what
happened
New system – assess function  prescribe Tx
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
•
FA models
–
AB – shows functional relation between EO and
behavior; less compelling as reinforcers are not
varied; usually done in extinction
•
•
–
Behavior occurs because perhaps in extinction or accidental
reinforcement
Task stimuli may signal availability of attention, thus,
results may be hard to differentiate
ABC - more compelling, as putative reinforcer is
varied.
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
–
Why AB models?
•
ABC may strengthen new classes, but this seems rare (but
see some studies with tangibles)
–
–
–
•
–
Also these reinforcers are often already delivered in the
environment for problem behavior.
Important to gather descriptive evidence of possible relations
between behavior and tangibles.
Moreover, creating new operants may help alert caregivers
that this could happen in new environments.
AB assessments can be quick and easy
Best practice? ABC analyses
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
•
Criteria for inclusion of review:
–
–
–
–
–
Separate FA, not just in Tx
Problem behavior – behavioral excess that someone
complains about
Direct observation and measurement of problem
behavior (no ratings, questionnaires, etc)
At least 2 conditions in which a variable was
manipulated. Studies that relied just on descriptive
analysis were excluded.
AB model and ABC model
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
•
Kinds of elements noted:
–
–
–
Brief assessment - <= 2 observations;
Full > 2 observations
Several elements noted:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Antecedent variables
Consequences delivered
Data display
Design
Session durations
Kind of FA
Topographies
Population and setting
Functions
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
•
Results:
–
–
–
–
–
Population –kids with disabilities
– No FA with adults without disabilities
Setting –inpatient facilities, then schools, other
Topographies –SIB (64%) agg (40%) then disruption
Models: AB and ABC (87%)
Condition types •
•
•
Most involved assessments of attention and escape
Some have tangibles
60% examined self stim (but are indirect)
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
–
Control conditions –
•
•
–
–
Full FA used no demands, toys, and free attention. EO s are
eliminated.
Brief FA – test condition serves as control for another test
(no demands in attention, and no attention in demands) –
problem is that it is hard to see self stim or multiply
controlled
Session duration: 5-15 minutes
Assessment duration (# of conditions) – most done
until stability obtained
• But Northrup looked at a brief FA in 90 min outpatient eval
with 1 or 2 sessions some studies did this model
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
–
Experimental design –
•
•
•
Multi-element, ABAB in studies looking at a single
variable. – good if rapidly alternating conditions produce
interactions among conditions
W/D and Reversal
Pairwise – each test condition is alternated with a control
condition in a multi-element - used to minimize the
interaction among conditions
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
–
Antecedent events:
•
Most common - variations of social-positive – Consider
alone, attention, play
–
•
No attention vs divided attention
Variations of social-negative – many studies have just
examined demand as a single condition
–
–
Only one examined novelty, duration of instruction, and rate
of presentation when behavior produced escape from tasks
Need more studies that identify important variables in task
escape
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
–
Consequent events
•
Type/quality – Attention is often reprimands with touch
–
•
•
•
•
•
Tone of the reprimand can be important (Drama!)
Access to tangibles
Escape from tasks
A study showed that access to self restraint strengthened
SIB
Schedule – FR 1 in most; some had intermittent:
Duration – Attention for 5-10s, tangibles for 30s, and escape
for 30 s
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
–
Reinforcer duration issue:
•
No reinforcer time subtracted
–
–
•
10 in 5 minutes for attention (6 sec) = 2/min
6 in 5 minutes for escape (30 sec) = 1.2/min
Reinforcer time subtracted:
–
–
Attention = 10 in 4 minutes = 2.5/min
Escape = 5 in 2 minutes = 2.5/min
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
•
Outcomes of analyses
–
–
–
Escape maintained in 34%, attention maintained in
25%, 10 % tangible, automatic – 10%
Most aggression was escape; stereotypies were
automatic reinf
In general, though, function can’t be predicted by
topography
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
•
Recommendations/Best Practice
–
–
–
–
Limit response topographies in the analysis
ABC model instead of AB
Use control/test pairs unless time is limited
Include natural stimuli when possible – but ensure
integrity
– Take advantage of EO s in assessment
– Alone  Attention
– Control  Tangible??
– Include stimuli to signal conditions
– Brief sessions (e.g., 10 minutes) if sufficient rates
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
•
Recommendations/Best Practice
–
–
–
–
Test for automatic reinforcement
Test for functional relations between tangibles and
behavior only if descriptive suggests it
Start with brief and simple, and then to more complex
Use descriptive as adjunct to do more complex analyses
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
•
Undifferentiated results
–
–
–
Look for odd variables
Use natural stimuli in natural environment
Minimize topographies; graph them separately
ABA 2: Functional Analysis
•
Undifferentiated results
–
Increase # of observations