TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
1
A Systematic Review of Training Educational Staff in Functional Behavioral Assessment
John McCahill1
Olive Healy2
Sinéad Lydon2
Devon Ramey3
1
National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Trinity College Dublin
3
Texas State University
2
Corresponding Author: Olive Healy, School of Psychology, Trinity College Dublin, College
Green, Dublin 2, Ireland. Tel: 00353 1 896 1175, Fax: 00353 1 671 2006, olive.healy@tcd.ie
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
2
Abstract
Interventions for challenging behavior are more likely to be effective when based on the
results of a functional behavioral assessment. Research to date, suggests that staff members in
educational settings may not have the requisite levels of expertise or support to implement
behavioral assessment procedures and design corresponding behavior support plans. The
current review sought to examine the nature and effectiveness of Functional Behavioral
Assessment (FBA) training described in the literature. Twenty- five studies were examined in
relation to type of FBA method used, training procedure, behavioral function and intervention
outcome. Training was provided in indirect, observational and experimental functional
assessment procedures. Video modeling, lectures, feedback and written protocols were some
commonly used training procedures. Interventions derived from results of these assessments
were used in twelve studies to treat problem behavior. Social validity and treatment integrity
across all studies are reported. The implications of these findings for research and practice are
discussed along with directions for future research.
Keywords: functional behavioral assessment; functional analysis; staff training;
teacher training; challenging behavior
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
3
Training Educational Staff in the Use of Functional Behavioral Assessment: A
Systematic Review
Challenging behavior can have multiple negative effects by impeding learning and skill
acquisition in individuals emitting the behavior, disrupting the environment for other
students, and may result in injury to oneself or others (Division of Early Childhood, 2007;
Emerson, 2001). Challenging behavior has also been found to have detrimental effects on
teachers. Hastings and Bham (2003) found that burnout and stress levels were higher among
teachers dealing with behavioral problems. These negative effects may be more pronounced
in schools staffed by individuals unfamiliar with the technology and strategies of Applied
Behavior Analysis. Student expulsion or suspension has been found to be more common in
settings where teachers report high levels of stress and challenging behavior in their
classrooms, and who lack knowledge of behavioral intervention, or the support of behavioral
experts (Gilliam & Shahar, 2006). Further, research suggests that perceived self-efficacy may
be higher among teachers working in schools in which positive behavior support is widely
utilized (Kelm & McIntosh, 2012).
The consideration of operant theory and Applied Behavior Analysis in the treatment of
challenging behavior in the classroom yields benefits for both students and teachers. Operant
theory attempts to explain challenging or problem behavior in terms of observable
environmental events. Identifying the stimuli and settings that evoke problem behavior, and
the variables responsible for its maintenance, enables a practitioner to alter the environment
and to teach functionally equivalent appropriate behaviors which should render the target
behaivor no longer necessary. The events supporting problem behavior can be identified
through informant methods (Durand & Crimmins, 1988), direct observation (Bijou, Petersen
& Ault, 1968) or experimental environmental manipulation typically referred to as functional
analysis (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman & Richman, 1994). These procedures taken together
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
4
are known as Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA; Healy & Brett, 2014). While
functional analysis is typically considered the “gold standard” (Delfs & Campbell, 2010, p. 5)
for ascribing function and subsequently developing function-based interventions, a recent
review of the utility of FBA procedures indicated that treatment efficacy did not differ
according to the FBA methodology used (Delfs & Campbell, 2010; Healy, Brett & Leader,
2013). However, the importance of utilizing some form of FBA is evident; research has
consistently demonstrated that behavioral interventions derived from prior functional
assessment or analysis are more effective than non function-based interventions (e.g.,
Campbell, 2003; Devlin, Healy & Leader, 2009; Devlin, Healy, Leader & Hughes, 2011;
Didden, Korzilius, Van Oorsouw, & Sturmey, 2006; Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005).
Behavior analysts have successfully applied FBA procedures in controlled conditions
since their development (Hanley, Iwata & McCord, 2003). However, transitioning their use
to educational and clinical settings has taken place relatively recently (Hanley et al., 2003).
This is partly because of the training and expertise required to conduct these procedures
(Iwata et al., 2000; Scott, McIntyre, Liaupsin, Nelson, Conroy & Payne, 2005). In recent
years, there has been an increased focus on improving the applicability and dissemination of
these procedures. The implementation of FBA by individuals other than behavior analysts is
desirable for many reasons. Reducing the “artificiality” of experimental functional analysis
techniques is considered a key aim; research has demonstrated that inaccurate functional
analysis results may be less frequent when the experimental conditions are implemented by
persons familiar with the individual exhibiting the challenging behavior, possibly due to the
more naturalistic conditions involved (Huete & Kurtz, 2010; Martens, Parks, Clark, & Call,
2012). Added to this, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) requires
the application of FBA for children who are at risk of expulsion due to unmanageable
behavioral problems (Yell & Shriner, 1998). This law aims to bring school policies into line
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
5
with best practice in behavioral treatment.
However, research has shown, that teachers and other educational staff are typically
inadequately prepared and often lack the skills necessary to conduct effective FBAs with
challenging behavior that they encounter (e.g., Couvillon, Bullock, & Gable, 2009;
Mortenson, Rush, Webster, & Beck, 2008; Pindiprolu, Peterson, & Berglof, 2007; Van
Acker, Boreson, Gable, & Potterton, 2005). Conroy and colleagues (1999) noted that some
practitioners have implemented FBA without adequate training, often resulting in subjective
definitions of target behaviors, aversive procedures used by default, and a frequent failure to
use FBA data in interventions (see also Van Acker et al., 2005). Mortenson et al. (2008)
assessed the ability of 88 teachers to identify the behavioral function of challenging behaviors
described in three vignettes. The results indicated that participants struggled to correctly
identify the function of the specific behaviors and to propose appropriate behavioral
interventions. Such findings highlight the need for staff training in FBA methodologies in
educational settings. However, obstacles to such training programs have also been identified;
some have questioned whether teachers can efficiently conduct FBA procedures while still
attending to their regular classroom tasks (Scott, Bucalos, Liaupsin, Nelson, Jolivette &
DeShea, 2004). Teachers’ ability to implement the functional analysis conditions with
integrity (Scott et al., 2004) and to accurately assess multiply controlled behaviors (Witt,
VanDerHeyden, & Gilbertson, 2004) has also been called into question.
Such findings have led scholars in the field of FBA to call for an increased focus on
staff training in functional analysis and assessment methodologies in order to promote the
utilization of such procedures as well as subsequent implementation of function-based
behavioral interventions for challenging behavior (Iwata & Dozier, 2008; Pindiprolu et al.,
2007; Van Acker et al., 2005). Previous research has demonstrated that college students (e.g.,
Iwata et al., 2000; Trahan & Worsdell, 2011), parents (e.g., Feldman & Werner, 2002;
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
6
Najdowski et al., 2008), and residential care workers (e.g., Lambert, Bloom, Kunnavatana,
Collins, & Clay, 2013; Phillips & Mudford, 2008) can be trained to effectively utilize
functional assessment or analysis techniques.
According to Van Acker et. al. (2005) an adequate FBA and intervention plan require
clearly defined behaviors, multiple sources of information on the behavior and generation of
functional hypotheses that lead to the development of Behavior Intervention Plans. Currently,
many variations of FBA training exist including: training manuals (Cipani & Schock, 2012);
instructional videos (LaVigna & Willis, 2005) and in-school consultation (Renshaw,
Christensen, Marchant & Anderson, 2008). Training may comprise instruction in indirect
assessment, observational assessments, experimental functional analysis or any combination
of the three. Regardless of the training method used, educators must be trained in functional
behavioral assessment procedures which are acceptable to them, feasible within their
organizational context and usable with a high degree of procedural integrity (McKenney,
Waldron & Conroy, 2013). Treatment integrity and social validity are therefore important
dependent variables in many training programs (McKenney et al., 2013).
To date there remains a lack of consensus on which FBA methodologies should
be taught to educational and clinical staff. Some have suggested that informant (indirect) and
descriptive (direct observation) methods are sufficient sources of functional assessment data.
Such methods involve for example, interviews, behavior rating scales, recording antecedent
and consequent environmental variables as well as temporal events. Others contend that
functional analysis provides the most accurate assessment of behavioral function, because it
facilitates a demonstration of a causal relationship between social consequences and
challenging behavior (Hanley, et al., 2003; Iwata & Dozier, 2008). Regardless of method
employed, effective training in FBA can be demanding in relation to time and resources
(Scott et al., 2005).
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
7
The current review sought to critically examine the extant literature on training in FBA
training in general educational or clinical settings. Specifically, we aimed to evaluate studies
which reported training in the utilization of functional assessment methodologies among
educational or clinical staff, to assess the efficiency of staff implementation of FBA methods,
to evaluate the effectiveness of reported training procedures, and to determine the social
validity of the assessments and interventions described.
Method
Search Procedures
Comprehensive literature searches were conducted using the following electronic
databases: EBSCO Academic Search Complete, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, ERIC, and
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Systematic searches were carried out by
inputting the keywords “training”, “staff”, and “teacher” in combination with the following
keywords: applied behavior analysis, functional behavior* assessment, functional assessment,
functional analysis, positive behavior support. Searches were limited by year of publication,
excluding papers published prior to 1999; in order reflect the most recent trends in research.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Studies were selected for inclusion in this review if they met the following criteria: a)
the implementation and description of training in functional assessment or functional analysis
procedures for school staff; b) participating trainees had no prior experience using functional
assessment or analysis procedures; c) student participants were all of school age (<18 years
old); d) use of a single subject design; e) implementation of the assessment procedures in
natural (educational/clinical) settings by trainees; and f) publication in an English language,
peer-reviewed journal. Studies that employed behavioral consultation models, in which
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
8
researchers collaborated with teachers on a FBA but did not allow the trainee to perform the
procedures independently, were excluded from this review.
Results
Twenty-five studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Table 1 provides
information on the sample sizes, settings, and participant characteristics across these studies.
Participant Characteristics
Studies reviewed reported a total of 78 school staff as trainees. Trainees included
teachers (n=53); special education teachers (n=14); classroom staff (n=3); psychology
graduates (n=3); classroom assistants (n=3); paraprofessionals (n=2); school principal (n=1);
assistant teacher (n=1); reading intervention provider (n=1) and one classroom aide (n=1).
Trainee experience in education was reported in 16 studies and ranged from 0-36
years (m=6.40 years). Educational levels were not reported for all trainees but the majority
had at least, a BA in a field relevant to education, and had all appropriate licensing. Only four
of the trainees had yet to complete their course of education and ten were working on or had
completed a Master’s degree in their field. Some trainees had attended seminars on
challenging behavior or were involved in an ABA Master’s programme. None of the trainees
had any prior experience of Functional Assessment or Behavior Support Planning (see Table
1).
A total of 112 participants received a functional assessment across the 25 studies
reviewed. Ages ranged from three to 15 years (M=7.42 years). Participants presented with a
range of diagnoses. Two children were diagnosed with Emotional and Behavioral Disorder
(EBD), five with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), ten children had unspecified
developmental disabilities, one participant was diagnosed with Down Syndrome and one with
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
9
learning disability. Three participants were each reported with diagnoses of Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Intellectual Disability and Angelman’s Syndrome. Forty
eight typically developing children were reported across studies reviewed and 24 participants
were included without a description of their diagnosis (see Table 1).
-----------------------------------------Insert Table 1 about here
------------------------------------------Table 2 reports targeted behaviors, type of functional assessment or functional
analysis employed, experimental design, baseline assessments, training methods and
duration, post-training assessments, treatment integrity and social validity. Disruption was the
most commonly assessed behavior reported in ten studies. This was followed by aggression,
reported in nine studies, SIB in five studies and inappropriate vocalizations/crying/
screaming/verbal outbursts reported in four studies. Each of the following behaviors was
reported in two studies: off task, tantrums, arbitrary non-challenging behaviors, inappropriate
touching, throwing, out of seat, property damage and non-compliance. Each of the following
behaviors was reported by one study: non completion of work, stereotypy, inappropriate
attention seeking, and mouthing (see Table 2).
Trainee Conducted Functional Assessments and Functional Analyses
Multiple variations of functional behavioral assessment methodologies were used in
the studies reviewed. Instruction in the implementation of indirect, direct assessments and
experimental analyses of behavior was provided to trainees across studies. Of the 25 studies
reviewed, four trained school staff in some variation of indirect and direct functional
behavioral assessment including: Function Based Support (FBS; Renshaw, Christensen,
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
10
Marchant & Anderson, 2008); the Functional Assessment Hypothesis Formulation Protocol
(Maag & Larson, 2008); standard functional behavioral assessment (FBA; Lane, BartonArwood, Spencer & Kalberg, 2007) and a “truncated FBA” (Packenham, Shute & Reid
(2004). These studies generally involved using the Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence
(ABC) assessment and a protocol that allowed the trainee to develop functional hypotheses
about problem behavior. The trainee subsequently used these hypotheses to generate a
function-based Behavior Support Plan (BSP). The remaining studies (n=21) utilized a
variation of analogue functional analysis (Iwata et al., 2000) to train school staff in behavioral
assessment. Analogue functional analysis involved the systematic manipulation of controlled
environmental variables considered representative of those occurring within the natural
environment. None of the studies reviewed involved training staff in all three (indirect, direct
and experimental) levels of FBA (see Table 2).
Among studies which trained participants in functional analysis methodologies, Brief
Functional Analysis (BFA) was the most popular method used. Twelve studies used some
variation of the BFA procedure with session duration across these studies ranging from 5-10
minutes. Five studies reported staff training in Trial Based Functional Analysis (TBFA) with
analogue functional analysis employed in four studies. One study (Rispoli et al., 2013)
compared the results of a trial-based to analogue functional analysis.
-----------------------------------------Insert Table 2 about here
------------------------------------------Baseline Assessments
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
11
All studies reported that none of the trainees had any experience relevant to
behavioral assessment or intervention prior to onset of training. Twelve studies did not
implement baseline measures of trainee knowledge or skill in behavioral assessment (see
Table 2). Three studies asked trainees to attempt to implement functional analysis conditions
with participants after reading a written protocol and a role-play of FA conditions as a
baseline measure (McKenney et al. 2013; Pence, St. Peter & Giles, 2013; Ward –Horner &
Sturmey, 2012). Simulated baselines for these studies returned variable results across
participants and conditions. Low to moderate procedural fidelity was reported during baseline
conditions and until training commenced.
Kunnavatana, Bloom, Samaha and Dayton, (2013) asked trainees to implement FA
conditions on non-challenging responses as a baseline test. The authors used the percentage
of correct interactions, according to FA protocol, per condition as the dependent variable.
Results at baseline were variable across all conditions for the participants. A further baseline
measure included participants’ attempts to graph and analyze hypothetical trial-based
functional analysis data. Wallace, Doney, Mintz-Resudek and Tarbox (2004) also examined
baseline percentage correct interactions during a Brief Functional Analysis protocol.
Participants reviewed the method section of the Iwata et al., (1994) study prior to
conducting the test sessions. During the simulated assessments, none of the three
participants scored above 50% correct.
Three studies (Bessette & Wills, 2007; Christensen et al., 2012; Renshaw et al., 2008)
administered a written test before intervention. Average scores at baseline were 45%, 43%
and 61% respectively. Moore and Fisher (2007) administered both a written test and a probe
FA as a baseline condition. The written test ensured all participants had knowledge of the
procedures before implementing conditions with participants. Scores on written tests
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
12
averaged 95% but this was not reflected in the low scores on the FA probe conditions using
naturalistic baselines.
Two studies (Christensen, Renshaw, Calderella & Young, 2012; Renshaw, et al.,
2008) reported using the FBS Knowledge Test as their baseline measure. This is a 30 item
multiple-choice quiz adapted from Umbreit et al. (2007) and contains direct and applied
questions on principles and procedures of behavior assessment.
Where baseline measures were reported, performance was significantly below the
mastery criterion. For example, mean probe performance across trainees for Erbas et al.
(2006) was 5.01% at baseline and Wallace et al. (2004) found that no participant scored
above 50% in any condition prior to training. Ward-Horner and Sturmey (2012) also found
that no participant in their study scored over 22% during baseline conditions.
Method and Duration of Training
Fifteen studies reported training duration ranging from ten minutes (Schumate &
Wills, 2010) to 12 weeks (Renshaw et al., 2008). Studies reported in hours lasted a mean
duration of 7.81 hours and those reported in weeks lasted a mean of 6.19 weeks (see Table 2).
There was some evidence to suggest that studies reporting longer training duration resulted in
outcomes reporting greater detail on behavioral function, hypothesis testing and behavior
support evaluation (Christensen et al., 2012; Maag & Larson, 2008; Renshaw et al., 2008).
Studies reporting shorter training duration were primarily used with functional
analysis procedures (e.g., Moore, Edwards et al., 2002) or truncated FBA (Packenham &
Schute, 2004). Schumate and Wills (2010) reported the shortest training duration with their
participants learning to implement a Brief Functional Analysis protocol following a 10
minute training session. Duration of training did not affect treatment integrity or intervention
success across studies (see Table 3).
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
13
Studies utilized the following combination of training methods across individual and
group instructional sessions: written protocols (e.g., Bessette & Wills, 2007 ; Doggett et al.,
2001; Lambert et al., 2012; Moore et al., 2002; Radstakke et al., 2013; Schumate & Wills,
2010); personal reading (e.g., Christensen et al., 2008; Renshaw et al., 2008); instructor
feedback (e.g., Kunnavatana et al., 2013; Lambert et al., 2012; Moore et al., 2002; Pence et
al., 2013; Poole et al., 2012; Rispoli et al., 2013; Watson et al., 1999) ; role-play (e.g.,
Kunnavatana et al., 2013; Lambert et al., 2012; McKenney et al., 2013; Pence et al., 2013;
Rispoli et al., 2013; Schumate & Wills, 2010; Skinner et al., 2009; Wallace et al., 2004) ;
modeling, video modeling and in-vivo coaching (e.g., Moore et al., 2002; Moore & Fisher,
2007; Rispoli et al., 2013; Schumate & Wills, 2010; see Table 2).
The schedule of training across the majority of studies involved the presentation of
written protocols, followed by group or individual instruction on the rationale for FBA,
practice in writing operational definitions and information on the content of FA conditions.
Following lectures/workshops, modeling (video/ in vivo) and/ or role-play were delivered
(Bessette & Wills, 2007; Erbas et al, 2006; Lambert et al., 2012; Moore & Edwards et al.,
2002; Skinner et al., 2009; Wallace et al., 2004.) Some studies (e.g., Watson et al., 1999)
attempted implementation at this point or used role-play (Moore & Edwards et al., 2002;
Wallace et al., 2004) to simulate FA conditions.
Feedback and error correction to increase implementation accuracy were frequently
used following initial training sessions. Feedback took the form of video review (Erbas et al.
(2006); direct feedback following implementation (Wallace et al., 2004); feedback during
practice sessions employing functional analysis conditions (Bessette et al., 2006; Pence et al.,
2013; Watson et al., 1999) and video tele-conferencing (O’Reilly et al., 2010). Feedback,
during or following implementation of FBA procedures, was effective at increasing
proficiency to mastery levels, where modeling or rehearsal was shown to have less success
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
14
(Moore et al., 2007; Ward-Horner and Sturmey, 2012). When procedural integrity was below
mastery levels, Pence et al. (2013) also used feedback to correct errors during classroom
implementation. For the majority of studies reviewed the researcher carried out direct
observations before the trainee conducted an experimental analysis to verify hypotheses.
Some idiosyncrasies were present across studies. Schumate and Wills (2010) used
color coded written protocols as a prompt for the trainee during Brief FA conditions and used
a rapid training procedure (10 minutes) involving role-play before the trainee conducted the
FA conditions. Moore and Fisher (2007) compared the relative efficacy of complete and
partial video modeling. Participants were exposed to partial video modeling or complete
video modeling counterbalanced across conditions and participants. Complete video
modeling was effective in teaching FA conditions to mastery in all but one case, in which
feedback was used to correct errors.
Renshaw et al. (2010) conducted a twelve-week training program in FBA procedures,
behavior support preparation, monitoring and implementation. Training in the use of the
Functional Assessment Hypotheses Formulation Protocol (based on Maag & Larson, 2008)
was conducted in two phases of individualized instruction. Phase I delivered lectures on
rationale and procedures of FBA and hypothesis generation. Phase II involved a review
which dealt with difficulties in data collection and correct definitions of antecedents and
consequences.
Ward-Horner and Sturmey (2012) conducted a component analysis of Behavioral
Skills training. The component analysis was in accordance with outcomes of Moore et al
(2002; 2007) and Machalicek et al. (2010). Feedback and modeling were the most effective
components of training, while instruction and rehearsal were partially effective. This finding
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
15
is consistent with those of other studies in the review, in which written protocols and roleplay alone, did not result in trainees reaching mastery (Erbas et al., 2006).
Pence, St. Peter and Giles (2013) used pyramidal training in which trainees “passed
on” skills to a second set of learners. Pyramidal training allows skills to permeate through an
organization or group of professionals while maintaining good procedural integrity (Kuhn et
al., 2003). Pence et al. (2013) used didactic instruction, role-plays and feedback to impart
training in functional analysis to an initial group of educators. Having learned both in
implementation and skills teaching, the initial group trained a second group of school staff.
The same techniques of role-play, feedback and instruction were effective in “passing on”
functional analysis competencies to a second generation of trainees.
Post Training Assessments, Treatment Integrity and Social Validity
Twenty four studies evaluated training according to the outcomes of trainee conducted
FBA procedures. The outcomes of these procedures included the behavioral function
identified and the function-based intervention that followed. These data are summarized in
Table 2. Written tests were used by four studies (Bessette & Wills, 2007; Erbas et al., 2006;
Renshaw et al., 2008; Skinner et al., 2009). The percentage of correct responses on FA
conditions was an outcome measure for 11 studies (see Table 3). A verbal quiz was used by
Moore et al. (2002) and evaluations of BSPs produced by trainees were used by Renshaw et
al. (2008).
Treatment integrity was reported for 23 studies across FA conditions and/or
intervention phases and ranged from 83% - 100% (m= 94.75%; treatment integrity means
were available for 23 studies, see Table 2).
Social validity was reported for eight of the twelve studies that evaluated outcomes
(see Table 2). In all cases procedures were rated as: “favorable”; “highly favorable”;
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
16
“acceptable” or “highly acceptable”. Erbas et al. (2006) reported “positive changes in
viewpoints” from participants. Other trainees stated that the FBA skills would be useful
during the school year (McKenney, et al., 2013) and useful with additional students
(Schumate & Wills, 2010). The only negative opinion expressed was reported by Packenham
et al. (2004) whereby the trainee found the procedures “a little intrusive”.
Interventions Based on Trainee Conducted FBAs
Table 3 describes behavioral function, treatment types and outcomes for studies that
reported such data. Twelve studies involved intervening on CB after ascertaining behavioral
function. Of these, six studies utilized functional analysis data and six involved nonexperimental data e.g., ABC observations (see Table 3).
-----------------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here
-----------------------------------------Attention was the most commonly identified function of targeted CB. Ten
participants’ behaviors were maintained by attention from teachers or peers. Behaviors
maintained by attention were treated using: Functional Communication Training, (FCT;
Christensen, Renshaw et al., 2008; Lambert et al., 2012); contingent teacher praise (Maag &
Larson, 2008); altered reinforcement schedules and social skills training (Christensen et al.,
2008); choice of seat, praise and extinction (Renshaw et al., 2008) and DRO and DRA
(Schumate & Wills, 2010). Maag and Larson (2008) and Schumate and Wills (2010) reported
reductions in problem behavior to zero or near zero levels. Renshaw et al. (2008) reported
modest reductions in problem behavior and gains in on task behavior as a collateral result of
intervention.
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
17
Multiply controlled CBs were the second most prevalent. Multiply controlled
behaviors were displayed by six participants (Bessette & Wills; 2007; Lambert et al., 2012;
Renshaw et al., 2008; Skinner et al., 2009). Combinations of attention and escape maintained
behavior targets were shown for all but one of these participants (Lane et al., 2007). This
participant showed behaviors maintained by both social positive reinforcement, in the form of
attention, and automatic reinforcement. Multiply controlled behaviors were also treated
successfully in the studies reviewed. Treatment packages included interventions such as:
praise, token exchange and FCT, (Renshaw et al., 2008); fixed time attention and extinction
(Skinner et al., 2009) and FCT and extinction (Bessette & Wills, 2010). Skinner et al. (2009)
reduced problem behavior from a mean rate of 3.58/min at baseline to 0.6/min at
maintenance. Bessette and Wills (2010) reduced inappropriate vocalizations from a mean of
40% of intervals to 3.9% and aggression from 7.8% to 1.3%. Collateral gains in on-task
behaviors were also reported despite not being targeted for intervention. Renshaw et al.
(2008) reported modest decreases in problem behavior .Christensen et al. (2008) used noncontingent attention and a token economy to reduce behaviors controlled by escape and
attention. Lane et al. (2007) treated multiply controlled behavior with a combination of social
skills training and a token economy. Lambert et al. (2012) reported that two of their
participants’ problem behaviors were susceptible to multiple sources of reinforcement but
selected the most differentiated function for intervention.
Escape was the third most prevalent behavioral function, (n= 5; Lambert et al., 2012;
Radstakke et al., 2013; Watson et al., 1999). Escape maintained behaviors were treated using:
FCT and extinction (Lambert, Bloom & Ervin, 2012); FCT alone (Radstakke, et al., 2013)
and DRA and escape extinction (Watson, et al., 1999). These intervention packages were
highly successful in reducing problem behavior. Lambert et al. (2012) reported decreases in
problem behavior to zero levels and increases in alternative behaviors for two participants.
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
18
Radstakke et al. (2013) reported large and medium effect sizes for three participants with the
using FCT in the reduction of problem behaviors. The researchers also noted a decrease in
known precursor behaviors across participants. Watson et al. (1999) used a DRA intervention
to decrease SIB from a mean rate of 16 instances per minute to zero within four sessions and
demonstrated generalization across settings.
Discussion
The current review examined the methods and effects of training staff in natural
educational settings to apply FBA and experimental functional analysis procedures.
Intervention outcomes were also examined where reported. Among the key aims of the
present review were to assess whether onsite training addressed issues raised by Scott, Meers,
and Nelson (2000), Scott et al., (2004) and Witt et al., (2004). These concerns were centred
on the ability of educators to learn procedures to the required skill level, their level of
independence from consultants and researchers, and the effectiveness and efficiency of the
assessment procedures in the educational setting. A further issue was the need to reconcile
the demands of empiricism and pragmatism. As such, procedures needed to deliver a high
level of procedural integrity while limiting disincentives to the future use of functional
assessment by the trainees.
A wide variety of trainees took part in the studies reported. People with a range of
experience levels and various competencies within the school system were able to master the
skills in functional behavioral assessment to a high standard. This indicates that such skills
can be effectively taught to staff members regardless of training levels or prior experience of
applied behavior analysis. Trainees included teachers, classroom aides and school principals,
among others suggesting that the methods are within the compass of many members of the
education service. Although relatively small numbers of participants are reported across
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
19
studies, the outcomes demonstrate that it may be possible to broaden the utility of behavioral
assessment in natural settings.
Participants across studies generally presented with relatively mild symptoms of
challenging behavior, such as yelling, disruption or off task (e.g., Kodak et al., 2010;
McKenney et al., 2013; Moore et al., 2002; Renshaw et al., 2008). More severe behaviors,
such as SIB were reported less often (e.g., Machalicek et al., 2010; Moore et al., 2007;
Wallace et al., 2004; Watson et al., 1999). The studies reviewed did not indicate whether
teachers or staff dealing with more severe problem behavior can be trained with equal
effectiveness. No studies examined low rate or episodic challenging behaviors. The focus on
less severe problem behavior may reflect “real world” settings whereby teachers encounter
less severe or dangerous challenging behavior.
In terms of effectiveness, the outcomes of training packages were relatively similar.
Treatment integrity across the review was 93.8%. While not all studies proceeded to
intervention, trainees who performed interventions were successful in reducing problem
behaviors to near zero levels in many cases (Maag & Larson, 2008; Schumate & Wills, 2010,
Watson et al, 1999). However, Moore et al., (2007) and Ward-Horner and Sturmey (2012)
found that some aspects of training were more effective than others. In both these studies
lectures and written protocols were found insufficient to achieve mastery, while modeling
and feedback were more effective components. Several studies (e.g., Bessette et al., 2007;
Erbas et al., 2006; Lambert et al., 2012; Machalicek et al., 2010; Moore et al., 2002; Wallace
et al., 2004; Watson et al., 1999) found that at least one trainee required performance
feedback to reach mastery criteria. Although the training procedure outlined by Schumate and
Wills (2010) lasted only ten minutes, the use of modeling and color-coded written protocols
may have contributed to the accuracy of the implementation of functional analysis. This
suggests that future research could prioritize feedback and modeling over lectures and
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
20
workshops, especially when time is limited.
No study taught participants to conduct all three levels of functional behavioral
assessment. Although the protocols used were successful, it was not demonstrated that
teachers could conduct informant, observational and experimental functional behavior
analysis methods and develop a behavior support plan based on those findings. Studies that
implemented experimental functional analysis conditions (e.g. Doggett et al., 2001) first used
a functional assessment to generate functional hypotheses for problem behavior. However,
these functional assessments were conducted by the researchers and not the trainees. Future
research should incorporate hypothesis generation into staff training in experimental
functional analysis to a greater degree. Training in observational and experimental functional
assessment techniques was mutually exclusive. This means there is a gap in the current
research body because trainees were not provided with skills to develop functional
hypotheses through observation and test them with a functional analysis.
The majority of studies reviewed did not report follow-up data to assess maintenance of
skills in behavioral assessment with trainees. Periodic retraining may be necessary and
research should aim to find an optimal means of refreshing educators’ knowledge and skills
in functional behavioral assessment. Target behaviors for reduction may initially increase in
intensity (extinction burst) or may reappear after being absent for a time (spontaneous
recovery). Future research should examine protocols to prepare trainees to respond
appropriately to these phenomena.
Few studies assessed generalization of skills in functional assessment to new behaviors,
behavioral functions and students. Christensen et al., (2008) trained one teacher who assessed
three different students at staggered stages of the training, demonstrating a level of
generalization. Poole et al., (2012) examined generalization following training whereby a
teacher was required to assess behavioral function across a whole class, while Packenham et
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
21
al., (2004) and Schumate and Wills (2010) examined the effects of training across small
groups of children. Most other studies, however, trained only individual student-teacher
dyads, without testing the trainee’s skills with additional students, behaviors or settings.
A further compounding limitation is that only 12 of 25 studies trained staff members to
conduct an intervention linked to their behavioral assessment. Where interventions were
applied, the trainees selected functionally equivalent interventions based on the results of
their functional assessment or experimental functional analysis. They subsequently
implemented these interventions and recorded data on outcomes. All studies that attempted
intervention reported moderate to good success. Despite reports of high performance on
measures of treatment integrity with functional analysis procedures, more than half of the
studies reviewed did not report teacher led intervention on participant problem behavior.
Limitations on measures of training effectiveness with regard to behavior reduction may
impact a teacher’s preparedness for new situations or students and could conceivably reduce
the acceptability of behavioral interventions for such trainees.
Only three studies (Packenham et al., 2004; Poole et al., 2012; Skinner et al., 2009)
reported maintenance probes where intervention was implemented. While the gains made
during intervention were maintained at follow-up, information was not available to draw any
conclusions about maintenance of skills taught in the natural environment. Future research
should examine maintenance of intervention gains.
Other methodological issues included a lack of baseline measures for trainee skills prior
to training across several studies. Those studies that did report baseline data demonstrated
low levels of knowledge and procedural integrity prior to training. However for research
purposes a low skill level at outset should not be taken for granted, especially as some
trainees had a certain level of exposure to behavioral methods. A further issue includes the
limited numbers of probes examining outcomes of training in natural settings.
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
22
Future Directions
There is currently little consensus on what FBA procedures are necessary and sufficient
for classroom use on a regular basis. There is also little data on the maintenance of FBA and
behavioral interventions in the long term within schools. Scott and colleagues (2004)
recommend that researchers demonstrate the ability of general education teachers to perform
experimental functional analyses as part of their regular duties. The studies reported here
have shown that school staff can perform several variants of the procedure, including newer
protocols such as the trial-based and brief functional analyses. Future research should focus
on long-term maintenance of skills and relative efficiency across the various modes of
functional analysis. Research should also focus on generalization across students, behavioral
functions and topographies and the type of refresher training needed to maintain high fidelity.
The use of behavioral methods in school or clinical settings, may generate a tension
between pragmatism and empirical rigor. What is most suitable to the end user is not always
the most desirable from the point of view of efficacy. Scott et al., (2004) point out that the
balance between efficiency and efficacy is a major determinant of a procedure’s validity
within a setting. Efficiency in specific training models could also be aided by a parametric
analysis of the time required to train staff effectively. Training time in the studies reviewed
ranged widely (from 10 minutes to 12 weeks). Future research in the area should aim to
determine optimal training times in order to maximize time available for intervention
(Schumate & Wills, 2010). A parametric analysis of training duration in the FBA and
intervention process could contribute to a rapid training model suitable for widespread use in
school and clinical settings.
McKenney and colleagues (2013) argue that it may not be necessary to use
experimental functional analysis if other methods produce reliable and useful data, which
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
23
may guide intervention (see also Healy et al., 2013). Studies that reported training in
experimental functional analyses demonstrated that trainees were able to perform various
experimental functional analyses with high integrity. Trial-based functional analysis offers a
strong compromise between effectiveness and efficiency in the classroom and has several
advantages over analogue functional analysis. This type of functional analysis is able to
operate under natural EO’s present in the classroom, has shown at least 60% concordance
with analogue functional analysis, takes less time to implement and is terminated with fewer
incidences of challenging behavior (Lydon, Healy, O’Reilly & Lang, 2012). Given these
advantages and its demonstrated efficiency in the natural setting, trial-based functional
analysis could make up a large part of future research on functional assessment training
within educational and clinical settings.
Scott et al. (2004) raised concerns about treatment integrity while conducting FBA in
natural settings. The studies reported here found that educators may be trained to conduct
functional assessment, including experimental analysis, with high treatment integrity and a
subset of studies demonstrated implementation of effective, function-based interventions.
These findings suggest a high degree of utility within natural settings. However, although
positive outcomes of FBA training programs were widely reported, there remain some
limitations to the current body of research. Future research should focus on developing
standardized models of training in assessment and intervention, incorporating all levels of
behavior assessment and support.
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
24
References
*Bessette, K. K., & Wills, H. P. (2007). An example of an elementary school
paraprofessional- implemented functional analysis and intervention. Behavioral
Disorders, 32, 192-210.
Bijou S. W, Peterson R. F, Ault M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and
experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis. 1, 175–191.
*Bloom, S. E., Lambert, J. M., Dayton, E., & Samaha, A. L. (2013). Teacher conducted trial
based functional analysis as the basis for intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 46 (1), 208-218
Campbell, J. M. (2003). Efficacy of behavioral interventions for reducing problem behavior
in persons with autism: a quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 24, 120-138.
Couvillon, M. A., Bullock, L. M., & Gable, R. A. (2009). Tracking behavior assessment
methodology and support strategies: a national survey of how schools utilize functional
behavioral assessments and behavior intervention plans. Emotional and Behavioral
Difficulties, 14, 215-228.
*Christensen, L., Renshaw, T. L., Caldarella, P., & Young, J. R. (2012). Training a General
Educator to Use Function-Based Support for Students at Risk for Behavior Disorders.
Education, 133(2), 313-335.
Cipani, E., & Schock, K. M. (2011). Functional behavioral assessment, diagnosis, and
treatment: A complete system for education and mental health settings. Springer
Publishing Company.
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
25
Conroy, M., Clark, D., Gable, R., & Fox, J. (1999). Building competence in the use of
functional behavioral assessment. Preventing School Failure, 43(4), 140-147.
Delfs, C. H., & Campbell, J. M. (2010). A quantitative synthesis of developmental disability
research: The impact of functional assessment methodology on treatment
effectiveness. Behavior Analyst Today, 11, 4-19.
Devlin, S., Healy, O., Leader, G. & Hughes, B.M. (2011) Comparison of behavioral
intervention and sensory-integration therapy in the treatment of challenging
behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10, 1303-20.
Devlin, S., Leader, G., & Healy, O. (2009). Comparison of behavioral intervention and
sensory-integration therapy in the treatment of self-injurious behavior. Research in
Autism Spectrum Disorders 3, 223-231.
Didden, R., Korzilius, H., van Oorsouw, W., & Sturmey, P. (2006). Behavioral treatment of
CBs in individuals with mild mental retardation: Meta-analysis of single-subject
research. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 111, 290-298.
Division for Early Childhood. (2007). Division for Early Childhood (DEC) concept paper on
the identification of and intervention with CB. Retrieved from http://www.decsped.org/
*Doggett, R. A., Edwards, R. P., Moore, J. W., Tingstrom, D. H., & Wilczynski, S. M.
(2001). An approach to functional assessment in general education classroom settings.
School Psychology Review, 30, 313–328.
Durand, M.V., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious
behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99-117.
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
26
Emerson, E. (2001). CB: Analysis and intervention in people with severe intellectual
disabilities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
*Erbas, D., Tekin-Iftar, E., & Yucesoy, S. (2006). Teaching special education teachers how
to conduct functional analysis in natural settings. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 41, 28-36.
Feldman, M. A., & Werner, S. E. (2002). Collateral effects of behavioral parent training on
families of children with developmental disabilities and behavior disorders. Behavioral
Interventions, 17, 75-83.
Gilliam, W. S., & Shahar, G. (2006). Preschool and child care expulsion and suspension:
Rates and predictors in one state. Infants & Young Children, 19, 228-245.
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem
behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185.
Hastings, R. P., & Bham, M. S. (2003). The relationship between student behavior patterns
and teacher burnout. School Psychology International, 24, 115–127.
Healy, O. & Brett, D. (2014). Functional assessment of problem behavior in Autism
Spectrum Disorder, pp 2881-2901. In Vinood B. Patel, Victor R. Preedy & Colin R.
Martin (Eds.), The Comprehensive Guide to Autism. Springer.
Healy, O., Brett, D., & Leader, G., A comparison of experimental functional analysis and the
Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) in the assessment of challenging
behavior of individuals with autism, Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, (1),
2013, p66 - 81
Huete, J. M., & Kurtz, P. F. (2010). Therapist effects on functional analysis outcomes with
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
27
young children. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 804-810.
Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-Based Intervention Planning
Comparing the Effectiveness of FBA Function-Based and Non-Function-Based
Intervention Plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 224-236.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (2004). Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/
Iwata B.A, Dorsey M.F, Slifer K.J, Bauman K.E, Richman G.S. (1994). Toward a functional
analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209.
Iwata, B. A., & Dozier, C. L. (2008). Clinical application of functional analysis methodology.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 3-9.
Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., ... &
Worsdell, A. S. (2000). Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis
methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 181-194.
Kelm, J. L., & McIntosh, K. (2012). Effects of school‐wide positive behavior support on
teacher self‐efficacy. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 137-147.
*Kodak, T., Fisher, W. W., Paden, A., & Dickes, N. (2013). Evaluation of the utility of a
discrete‐trial functional analysis in early intervention classrooms. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 46, 1-21.
Kuhn, S. A. C., Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M. (2003). Pyramidal training for families of
children with problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 77–88.
*Kunnavatana, S. S., Bloom, S. E., Samaha, A. L., & Dayton, E. (2013). Training Teachers to
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
28
Conduct Trial-Based Functional Analyses. Behavior Modification. 37, 707-722.
*Lambert, J. M., Bloom, S. E., & Irvin, J. (2012). Trial based functional analysis and
treatment in an
early childhood setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45,
579-584.
Lambert, J. M., Bloom, S. E., Kunnavatana, S. S., Collins, S. D., & Clay, C. J. (2013).
Training residential staff to conduct trial‐based functional analyses. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 296-300.
*Lane, K. L., Barton-Arwood, S. M., Spencer, J. L., & Kalberg, J. R. (2007). Teaching
elementary school educators to design, implement, and evaluate functional assessmentbased interventions: Successes and challenges. Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth, 51(4), 35-46.
LaVigna, G. W., and Willis, T. J. (2005). A Positive Behavioural Support Model for
Breaking the Barriers to Social and Community Inclusion. Learning Disability Review
Positive Behaviour Support, 10(2), 16-23.
Lydon, S., Healy, O., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lang, R. (2012). Variations in functional analysis
methodology: a systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities,
24, 301-326.
*Maag, J. W., & Larson, P. J. (2004). Training a general education teacher to apply
functional assessment. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 26-36.
*Machalicek, W., O'Reilly, M. F., Rispoli, M., Davis, T., Lang, R., Franco, J. H., & Chan, J.
M. (2010). Training teachers to assess the challenging behaviors of students with
autism using video teleconferencing. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disability, 45, 203-215.
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
29
*McKenney, E. L., Waldron, N., & Conroy, M. (2013). The Effects of Training and
Performance Feedback During Behavioral Consultation on General Education Middle
School Teachers' Integrity to Functional Analysis Procedures. Journal of Educational
and Psychological Consultation, 23(1), 63-85.
*Moore, J. W., Edwards, R. P., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Riley, J., DuBard, M., & McGeorge,
A. (2002).Teacher acquisition of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 35, 73–77.
*Moore, J. W., & Fisher, W. W. (2007). The effects of videotape modeling on staff
acquisition of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
40, 197-202.
Mortenson, B. P., Rush, K. S., Webster, J., & Beck, T. (2008). Early career teachers accuracy
in predicting behavioral functioning: A pilot study of teacher skills. International
Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4, 311-318.
Najdowski, A. C., Wallace, M. D., Penrod, B., Tarbox, J., Reagon, K., & Higbee, T. S.
(2008). Caregiver‐conducted experimental functional analyses of inappropriate
mealtime behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 459-465.
*Packenham, M., Shute, R., & Reid, R. (2004). Truncated Functional Behavioral Assessment
Procedure For Children With Disruptive Classroom Behaviors. Education and
Treatment of Children, 27(1), 9-25.
Martens, B.K., Parks, N. A., Clark, S. B., & Call, N. A. (2012). Differential responding
across therapists in a functional analysis: A case study. Behavioral Interventions, 27,
236-243.
*Pence, S. T., Peter, C. C. S., & Giles, A. F. (2013). Teacher Acquisition of Functional
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
30
Analysis Methods Using Pyramidal Training. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1-18.
Phillips, K. J., & Mudford, O. C. (2008). Functional analysis skills training for residential
caregivers. Behavioral Interventions, 23, 1-12.
Pindiprolu, S. S., Peterson, S. M., & Bergloff, H. (2007). School personnel's professional
development needs and skill level with functional behavior assessments in ten
midwestern states in the United States: Analysis and issues. The Journal of the
International Association of Special Education, 8, 31-42.
*Poole, V. Y., Dufrene, B. A., Sterling, H. E., Tingstrom, D. H., & Hardy, C. M. (2012).
Classwide functional analysis and treatment of preschoolers’ disruptive behavior.
Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28(2), 155-174.
*Radstaake, M., Didden, R., Lang, R., O’Reilly, M., Sigafoos, J., Lancioni, G. E., & Curfs, L.
M. (2013). Functional analysis and functional communication training in the classroom
for three children with Angelman Syndrome. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 25(1), 49-63.
*Renshaw, T.L., Christensen, L., Marchant, M., Anderson, T. (2008). Training elementary
school general educators to implement function-based support. Education and
Treatment of Children, 31, 495-521.
*Rispoli, M. J., Davis, H. S., Goodwyn, F. D., & Camargo, S. (2013). The Use of Trial-Based
Functional Analysis in Public School Classrooms for Two Students With
Developmental Disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15(3), 180-189.
*Schumate, E. D. & Wills, H.P. (2010). Classroom-Based Functional Analysis and
Intervention for Disruptive and Off-Task Behaviors. Education and Treatment of
Children 33, 23-48.
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
31
Scott, T. M., Bucalos, A., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., & DeShea, L. (2004).
Using Functional Behavior Assessment in General Education Settings: Making a Case
for Effectiveness and Efficiency. Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189-201.
Scott, T. M., McIntyre, J., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., Conroy, M., & Payne, L. (2005). An
examination of the relation between functional behavior assessment and selected
intervention strategies with school-based teams. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 7, 205-215.
Scott, T. M., Meers, D. T., & Nelson, C. M. (2000). Toward a consensus of functional
behavior
assessment for students with mild disabilities in public schools: A national
survey. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 265–285.
Scott, T. M., Nelson, C. M., & Zabala, J. (2003). Functional behavior assessment training in
public schools facilitating systemic change. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions,
5, 216-224.
*Skinner, J.N., Veerkamp, M.B., Kamps, D.M. & Andra, P.R. (2009). Teacher and peer
participation in functional analysis and interventions for a first grade student with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Education and Treatment of Children, 32,
243-266.
Trahan, M. A., & Worsdell, A. S. (2011). Effectiveness of an instructional DVD in training
college students to implement functional analyses. Behavioral Interventions, 26, 85102.
Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., Gable, R., & Potterton, T. (2005). Are we on the right course?
Lessons learned about current FBA/BIP practices in schools. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 14(1), 35-56.
TRAINING IN FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
32
*Wallace, M. D., Doney, J. K., Mintz-Resudek, C. M., & Tarbox, R. S. (2004). Training
educators to implement functional analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37,
89-92.
*Ward‐Horner, J., & Sturmey, P. (2012). Component analysis of behavior skills training in
functional analysis. Behavioral Interventions, 27(2), 75-92.
*Watson, T. S., Ray, K. P., Sterling, H. E., & Logan, P. (1999). Teacher-implemented
functional analysis and treatment: A method for linking assessment to intervention.
School Psychology Review, 28, 292-302.
Witt, J. C., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Gilbertson, D. (2004). Troubleshooting behavioral
interventions: A systematic process for finding and eliminating problems. School
Psychology Review, 33, 363–383.
Yell, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (1998). The Discipline of students with disabilities:
Requirements of the IDEA amendments of 1997. Education and Treatment of Children,
21, 246–257.
* indicates studies included in the review
Table 1
Demographic and clinical characteristics for students and trainees.
Student
Study
Settings
n
Trainee
Diagnoses
Age range
Position
n
Experience/
Qualifications
Bessette, Wills &
Howard (2007)
Elementary school
1
EBD
8
Paraprofessional
1
7 years
Bloom et.al. (2013)
Public preschool,
University ASD
Preschool
3
Developmental Delay; Autistic
Disorder; Autistic Disorder
4-5
Teacher
3
In training, working
towards teacher
certification
Christensen et al. (2008)
Title 1 Elementary
School
3
Neurotypically developing. At
risk due to disruptive and off
task behaviours
4th grade
Teacher
1
Bachelor’s degree
elementary education.
Doggett et al. (2001)
Elementary school
2
None reported
6 -7
Teachers
2
1 year, BA degree. 4
years, Master’s.
Erbas et al. (2006)
Special Education
6
Developmental Disabilities
Not reported
Teachers
6
3 - 14 years
Kodak et al. 2013
University based EI
center, elementary
school classroom
5
Autism
4 -9
Classroom staff
(Therapists)
3
BA Psychology,
undergraduate trainee
Kunnavatana et al. 2013
Secondary special
education, elementary
special education.
5
Not reported
Not reported
Teachers
4
1 -13 years experience.
All had special ed.
licensing & BA or M. Ed
Lambert, Bloom & Irvin
(2012)
Special ed. preschool
3
Developmental Disabilities
3-4
Teacher
1
MA. Special Ed.,
Student
Study
Lane et al. (2007)
Settings
Elementary schools
n
2
Diagnoses
Study 1: ADHD
Trainee
Age range
Position
n
Experience/
Qualifications
6-7
Principal, special
educator, general
educator
8
Not reported
Study 2: ADHD & OCD
Maag & Larson (2008)
Elementary school
2
EBD; Learning Disability
5th grade
Teacher
1
15 years
Machalicek et al. (2010)
Developmental
Disorder & ASD
Special School
6
Autism for 5 P’s; 1 with
“autistic like tendencies,” &
expressive language delays
5-9
Teacher
6
4-10 years; Bachelor’s
degree in special ed.
McKenney et al. (2013)
Middle School
3
Not reported
6th -8th grade
Teacher
3
1-24 years
Moore and Edwards
(2002)
Elementary school
3
Learning Disability; No
diagnosis; no diagnosis
“appeared developmentally
normal”
5th grade
Teachers
3
“Very limited
experience”
Moore & Fisher (2007)
Behaviour Disorder
Treatment Facility
3
Not reported
Not reported
BA Psych Graduates
3
BA Psych, 1 MSc. ABA
student
Packenham et al. (2004)
Elementary School
2
No formal diagnoses; One
suspected learning disability.
Other participant typically
developing
8-9
Teacher
1
8 years elementary level.
Pence, St. Peter & Giles,
(2013)
Not reported
6
Not reported
Not reported
Trainers: Special ed.
teachers
6
1-25 years. Enrolled in
ABA course, not yet
certified, no FBA
experience prior to
training
Student
Study
Settings
n
Diagnoses
Pence, St. Peter & Giles,
(2013)
Training occurred in
local library and
FBA’s in teachers’
classes (3 elementary,
2 middle, 1 high
school)
6
Not reported
Poole et al. (2012)
Head Start Classroom
34
Renshaw et al. (2008)
Elementary school
Radstaake, et al. 2013
Trainee
Age range
Experience/
Qualifications
Position
n
Not reported
Trainees: Special ed.
teachers
6
1-16 years, special
education teachers
enrolled in ABA
training. Trained during
a course in behavioural
assessment, no FBA
experience
Typically developing
3-5
Teacher, assistant
teacher
2
3 years college, 4 years
work experience; 2 years
education, 1 year
experience
4
Typically developing
1st - 5th grade
Teachers
4
0 - 15 years
Specialized daycare
centre
3
All P’s had severe intellectual
disability, Angelman
Syndrome
6-15
Teachers
3
Not reported
Rispoli et al. (2013)
Public School
2
Autism; Down’s Syndrome &
intellectual disability.
5-15
Teacher,
Paraprofessional
2
15 yrs., working on
M.Ed.; 5 yrs., working
on MSc. Counseling
Schumate & Wills (2010)
Elementary school
3
None
7–8
Reading Intervention
Provider
1
3 years; not qualified.
Skinner et al. (2009)
Elementary school
1
ADHD
1st grade
Teacher
1
36 years
Wallace et al. (2004)
ABA Workshop
1
Not reported
Not reported
Special Ed. Teacher
& General Educator
1
General and special
education certified
Student
Study
Settings
n
Diagnoses
Trainee
Age range
Position
n
Experience/
Qualifications
Ward-Horner & Sturmey
(2012)
School
2
Autistic disorder
9-10
Teacher assistants
3
High school degree;
bachelor’s degree &
enrolled in Masters in
Special Education
Watson et al. (1999)
Special Education
1
Intellectual disability,
dwarfism, hypoplastic thorax
syndrome, nystagmus,
polydactly, psychomotor
retardation
10
Special Ed. Teacher,
Classroom aide,
replacement teacher
3
6 years; 2 years; 0 years.
Table 2
Summary of Functional Assessment and Functional Analysis Training Procedures. FBA (Functional Behavioral Assessment), BFA (Brief Functional
Analysis), TBFA (Trial Based Functional Analysis), AB (Baseline-Intervention),CB (challenging behavior), SIB (self-injurious behavior), BCBA®
(Board Certified behavior Analyst), FCT (functional communication training), BSP (Behavior Support Plan).
Study
Bessette &
Wills (2007)
Problem
Behavior
FA Method
Experimental
Design
AB
Baseline
Skill
Assessment
Disruption,
aggression,
property
damage
Brief Functional
Analysis
20 item quiz
Bloom et al.
2013
Aggression,
property
destruction,
tantrums,
mouthing
Trial Based
Functional
Analysis
Multiple
Baseline
Across
Participants.
ABAB during
intervention
None taken
Christensen et
al. 2008
Disruption,
Function Based
Support (FBS)
Study 1:
Multiple
Baseline
across
behaviors
FBS
Knowledge
Test
Training
Duration
Not
reported
Training Methods
Written protocols, in vivo
coaching. One training unit per
condition
BFA outcome
45-90 min
Presentation, review of
procedures & data collection
methods. Coaching during FA
Approx.
10 weeks
Group work, independent
reading, applied activities,
individual consultation
Out of seat,
inappropriate
attention
seeking
Brief Functional
Analysis
Multi Element
Design
Social
validity
None taken,
no previous
teacher
experience
Not
reported
Review of descriptive
assessment, discussion, model
conditions, written protocol
Treatment
Integrity
Rated
Acceptable
96.6%
TBFA Outcome
& Intervention
results
Not
recorded
96%
FBS Knowledge
Test, completion
of applied
activities
High social
validity as
rated by
teacher and
students
Study 1:
90%
Knowledge
Quiz re-test
Teacher
developed BSP
Studies 2 & 3:
ABAB
Doggett et al.
(2001)
Post Training
Assessments
BFA outcome
Study 2:
94%
Study 3:
100%
Rated
Acceptable
96%
Study
Problem
Behavior
FA Method
Experimental
Design
Erbas et al.
(2006)
Non
compliance,
throwing
objects,
screaming, out
of seat,
tantrums
Brief Functional
Analysis
Multiple Probe
across
Participants
Percentage
correct
interactions
per BFA
condition
Not
reported
Kodak et al.
(2013)
Inappropriate
vocalisations,
hand to body
contact,
aggression,
Trial Based
Functional
Analysis
Multi element
design
No formal
baseline
Kunnavatana et
al. (2013)
Not reported,
arbitrary
behavior used
in some cases
e.g., foot
tapping
Trial Based
Functional
Analysis
Multiple
baseline across
participants
Lambert,
Bloom & Ervin
(2012)
Aggression and
tantrums
Trial Based
Functional
Analysis
Multiple
Baseline
across
Participants
Baseline
Skill
Assessment
Training
Duration
Post Training
Assessments
Social
validity
Phase I: Group instruction,
video model, Phase II:
individual training, video
review
Quiz after Phase
1. Re-test of
BFA
Implementation
accuracy
Positive
changes in
viewpoints
89.9%
Not
reported
Protocol review, Q&A session,
brief supervised practice of
procedures
TBFA outcome
Not
reported
97.5%, only
available for
one
participant
Accuracy
graphing &
analyzing
hypothetical
data, TBFA
trials on
arbitrary
behaviors
Presentati
on &
group
work: 1
hr. 20 min
Presentation on principles and
functions of behavior, fitting
TBFA trials into class
activities, data collection/
analysis. Group practice,
Q&A. Role plays, feedback &
error correction.
In situ TBFA of
student
behavior,
accuracy of
graphing and
analyzing data
Not
reported
86%
None taken,
teacher had
limited
knowledge of
ABA
1 hour
Written protocols, role play
and feedback
Probed correct
implementation
of BFA
conditions
(Percentage
correct
interactions per
condition)
Not
reported
92%
Follow up
at 1-3
months
Training Methods
Treatment
Integrity
Study
Lane et al.
(2007)
Problem
Behavior
Study 1:
disruption
FA Method
Functional
Assessment
Study 2:
inappropriate
touching
Experimental
Design
Study 1:
ABAB
Baseline
Skill
Assessment
Training
Duration
Training Methods
Not reported
18 hours
instruction
Group instruction, on site
follow up
Post Training
Assessments
FBA and
intervention
outcome
10-12
hours on
site
support
Study 2:
multiple
baseline across
settings
Social
validity
Rated
acceptable
and useful
by student
& teacher
Treatment
Integrity
Study 1:
100%
Study 2:
83-100%
Varied
across
settings
Maag & Larson
(2008)
Disruption
Functional
Assessment
Hypotheses
Formulation
Protocol
(FAHFP)
Multiple
Baseline
across
Participants
None, no
previous
teacher
experience
5.5 hours
Two sessions of 1:1 training in
FAHFP
FAHFP
Outcome
Rated
Favorable
P1 83%
P2 92.5%
Machalicek et
al. (2010)
Aggression,
crying,
screaming, SIB,
stereotypy
Brief Functional
Analysis
Multiple
Baseline
across
participants
Percentage
correct
interactions
per FA
condition
75
minutes
(60-95
min
range)
Performance feedback
delivered through video teleconferencing
Percentage
correct
interactions per
FA condition
Procedures
rated
highly
Teachers:
97%
Frequent, low
intensity
disruptive
behavior
Analogue
Functional
Analysis
Non
concurrent
multiple
baseline across
participants
Read FA
protocol &
performed
mock FA
with
researchers
Not
reported
Presentation on FA, quizzes,
operational definition of CB &
replacement behavior,
development of peer attention
condition, role play
Integrity of FA
implementation
Rated
Acceptabl;
Skills
described
as useful
during
school year
McKenney et
al. (2013)
Supervisor:
98%
Reported as
outcome
variable
across FA
conditions.
High for all
participants
Study
Moore et al.
(2002)
Problem
Behavior
Yelling
FA Method
Brief Functional
Analysis
Play condition
excluded
Experimental
Design
Baseline
Skill
Assessment
Training
Duration
Multiple
Baseline
across
Participants
None, no
previous
teacher
experience
1 day
Training Methods
Post Training
Assessments
Phase I: Group instruction,
written protocols Phase II:
Rehearsal, Modelling &
Feedback
Verbal questions
after each phase.
Social
validity
Treatment
Integrity
Not
reported
95%
94%
Percentage
correct
interactions per
BFA condition
Moore &
Fisher (2007)
SIB
Brief Functional
Analysis
Multiple
Baseline
across
Participants
Written test.
Percentage
correct
interactions
per BFA
condition
Not
reported
Lecture training, complete
video modelling, partial video
modelling
Percentage
correct
interactions per
FA condition
Not
reported
Packenham et
al. (2004)
Disruption, off
task and non
completion of
work
“Truncated
FBA” interview,
function
identification
hypothesis
formation,
intervention
planning
Multiple
baseline across
participants
None
reported, no
previous
teacher
experience
Approx. 2
hours per
student
(4h total)
Prompt sheets provided
guidelines to aid FBA process
Treatment
outcome
Positive
responses,
also
reported as
a “little
intrusive”
Study
Pence, St. Peter
& Giles (2013)
Poole et al.
(2012)
Radstakke et al.
(2013)
Problem
Behavior
Not reported
Disruptive
behavior
Aggression,
SIB, throwing
materials,
precursor
behaviors
FA Method
Analogue
Functional
Analysis
Brief Functional
Analysis
Brief Functional
Analysis
Experimental
Design
Baseline
Skill
Assessment
Multiple
baseline across
participants
Attempted to
role play
conditions
given
materials and
written
protocol
ABAB &
Multielement
design
FA:
multielement
design
FCT: ABAB
design
None taken
None
Training
Duration
Not
reported
Training Methods
Not
reported
Social
validity
Treatment
Integrity
Pyramidal training. Trainees
learned FA skills from
BCBA®s and then taught
skills to new learners.
Trainers: workshop 9 months
before experiment. Didactic
instruction, role-play,
feedback. Coaching and
feedback provided during
classroom FA. Refresher
before expt. Began. Practiced
feedback & coaching skills
40 min
Post Training
Assessments
No specific
mastery criteria
Not
reported
Not reported
Trainees: modeling, trainee
attempted condition. Feedback
& role-play as error correction.
Generalized to classroom
implementation
Percentage steps
correct per
condition
Not
reported
Reported as
outcome
variable in
study, high
across all
conditions.
Modeling, prompting,
rehearsal, performance
feedback (based on Moore et
al., 2002)
Percentage steps
correct per
condition
“Strong
satisfaction
with
procedure”
Room 1:
95.1%
Meeting, written protocols and
verbal coaching. Researcher
present during FA sessions
FA/ FCT
outcomes
Not
reported
Not reported
Room 2:
95.1%
Study
Renshaw et al.
(2008)
Problem
Behavior
Disruption, off
task
FA Method
Experimental
Design
Baseline
Skill
Assessment
Training
Duration
Function Based
support (FBS).
(Assessment,
BSP design &
implementation
Multiple
Baseline
across
Behaviors
(training units)
FBS
Knowledge
Test (derived
from Umbreit
et al. (2007)
12 weeks
Training Methods
Group lectures,
Personal reading, 1:1
consultation
Post Training
Assessments
FBS Knowledge
test after each
training unit
Social
validity
Treatment
Integrity
Rated
Highly
Favorable
100%
FA outcome
BSP Quality
Rispoli et al.
(2013)
Aggression,
screaming,
pushing etc.
Verbal
outbursts: “No”
“Stop it”
Trial Based
Functional
Analysis &
Analogue
Functional
Analysis
Comparison of
FA & TBFA
outcomes
Not reported
Not
reported
Modelling, role play,
corrective feedback
Fidelity of
condition
implementation
Not
reported
100%
Schumate &
Wills (2010)
Disruption, Off
task
Brief Functional
Analysis
Multiple
Baseline
across
Participants
None taken,
no previous
teacher
experience
10 mins
Lecture training, modelling
and role-play. Colour coded
written protocol
BFA outcome
Rated
Favorable
95%
ABC
None
required
Approx.
45 mins
Two sessions of discussion
and role play
25 item test after
each session
Rated
Highly
Favorable
92.5%
Play condition
excluded
Skinner et al.
(2009)
Disruption and
aggression
Brief Functional
Analysis
FA outcome
Study
Wallace et al.
(2004)
Problem
Behavior
Head hitting
(moderate
rates)
FA Method
Brief Functional
Analysis
Experimental
Design
Multiple
Baseline
across
Participants
Baseline
Skill
Assessment
Percentage
correct
interactions
per BFA
condition
Training
Duration
3 hours
Training Methods
Demonstration of FA
conditions. Role-play of FA
conditions. Feedback from
researchers
Post Training
Assessments
Percentage
correct
interactions per
BFA condition
Social
validity
Treatment
Integrity
Not
reported
100%
Participant
s preferred
the more
effective
methods of
teaching
FA
conditions
99% (95%100%)
Not
reported
94%
Generalisation
probes for one
participant
Ward-Horner &
Sturmey (2012)
Challenging
responses:
Aggression:
hitting &
kicking.
Analogue
functional
analysis
Alternating
treatments
design
combined with
ABC and
ABCD designs
Written
instructions,
quiz, attempt
to perform
mock FA
Not
reported
Nonchallenging
responses:
Chin tapping,
hand tapping,
spitting
Watson et al.
(1999)
SIB
Component analysis: P’s
assigned to learn each FA
condition through video
modeling, rehearsal or
feedback. Counterbalanced
across participants and
conditions
Subsequent conditions taught
using 2 of above methods. Any
condition below criterion
trained using all 3 methods
Brief Functional
Analysis
AB
None taken,
teacher had
limited
knowledge of
ABA
20 days
Model of BFA with client,
Teacher attempted FA with
feedback
Percentage
correct
interactions per
FA condition
Effectiveness of
given
component
reported
BFA outcome
Table 3
Summary of interventions derived from trainee conducted Functional Assessments and Functional Analyses. FA (functional assessment), CB
(challenging behavior), FCT (functional communication training), PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System), SIB (self-injurious behavior),
DRO/DRA (differential reinforcement of other/alternative behavior.
Study
Problem
Behavior
Trainee
conducted
Functional
Assessment
Trainee
conducted
FA
Behavioral Function
Interventions Implemented
Outcome of Intervention
Bessette &
Wills
(2007)
Disruption,
aggression,
property
damage
No
Yes
Multiply controlled:
attention & escape
FCT & Extinction
Decreased CB and increased on task
behavior
Christensen
et al. (2008)
Study 1:
disruption
Yes
No
Attention from peers and
teacher
Social skills teaching, FCT for hand
raising, altered reinforcement
schedules
Decrease in disruptive behavior post
intervention
Study 2: off
task
Yes
No
Escape from academic
tasks
Token economy. Tokens exchanged
for extra recess time
Increase in on task behavior for student,
improved with greater fidelity to procedures
Study 3: off
task
Yes
No
Attention from teacher and
escape from task demands
Non-contingent teacher attention,
token economy. Tokens exchanged
for extra recess time
Decrease in problem behavior maintained
and reinforcement schedule reduced
Aggression
and tantrums
Not
reported
Yes
P1: attention, escape,
tangible
FCT & extinction
Increase in appropriate behavior and
reductions in CB for two clients.
Inconclusive outcomes for third client
Lambert,
Bloom &
Ervin
(2012)
P2: escape
P3: attention
Study
Lane et al.
(2007)
Problem
Behavior
Study 1:
interruptions
Trainee
conducted
Functional
Assessment
Yes
Trainee
conducted
FA
No
Disruption
Renshaw et
al. (2008)
Disruption, off
task
Study 1: teacher attention
& escape
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Outcome of Intervention
Study 1: Decrease in interruptions, no
consistent pattern of hand raising
(replacement behavior) post intervention
Study 2: social skills teaching,
token economy for appropriate
requests
Study 2: decrease in touching in special and
general classrooms, increases in requests did
not generalize to the general ed. classroom
P1: peer attention
P1: choice of seat
Decreased CB to zero
P2: teacher attention
P2: contingent teacher praise
P1, P3, P4: attention
P1: choice of seat, praise, extinction
P2: praise, token exchange
P3 praise, token exchange, get out
of centre card
P4 praise, token exchange
Modest reductions in CB. Collateral gains in
non target appropriate behaviors
FCT using PECS or object
exchange
Amy: Large effect of FCT, (d=-4.5)
Bob: Medium effect of FCT, (d=-0.6)
Cody: Medium effect of FCT, (d=-0.5)
P2: attention & escape
Radstakke
et al. (2013)
Interventions Implemented
Study 1: Self monitoring, curricular
changes, hand raising as
replacement behavior
Study 2: attention, sensory
stimulation
Study 2:
Maag &
Larson
(2008)
Behavioral Function
Aggression,
SIB, throwing
objects.
Precursors:
pushing
materials,
touching
person/ food
No
Amy: escape from task
Bob: tangibles
Cody: escape from task
Schumate
& Wills
(2010)
Disruption,
Off task
No
Yes
Attention for all
participants
DRO & DRA
CB to near zero
Skinner et
al. (2009)
Disruption and
aggression
No
Yes
Multiply controlled:
Attention & escape
Fixed time attention & extinction
Decreasing trend in CB
Decreases in precursor behavior also shown
for majority of topographies
Study
Watson et
al. (1999)
Problem
Behavior
SIB
Trainee
conducted
Functional
Assessment
No
Trainee
conducted
FA
Yes
Behavioral Function
Escape
Interventions Implemented
Escape extinction & DRA
Outcome of Intervention
Generalized reductions to near zero across 3
staff