Comparison of Functional Assessment

Comparison of Functional AssessmentMethods Targeting Aggressive andStereotypic Behaviour in a Child withAutismJenelle McDonald, Dennis W. Moore and Angelika AndersonKrongold Centre, Faculty of Education, Monash University

There has been considerable research addressing functional assessment proce-dures, but little direct comparison of the practical utility of different methodsof assessment. The aim of this study was to examine three different methods ofconducting functional assessments of problem behaviours of a child with autism.Data obtained through indirect, direct and experimental functional assessmentmethods in both a classroom and playground setting were compared. Althoughresults from both the indirect and direct observation methods gave some indi-cation of the possible function of the target behaviour, the functional analysisprovided conclusive results that the behaviour was maintained by access to pre-ferred activities/tangibles. A brief trial of an intervention based on these resultswas effective in reducing problem behaviour and increasing desired behaviour.

� Keywords: functional behaviour analysis, functional behaviour assessment,autism, autism intervention

Stereotypic and repetitive behaviours (SRBs) and aggressive behaviours are commonwith children with autism and often present as problematic due to their social inap-propriateness, and the challenges they present to teachers, family and others dealingdirectly with the child (Patterson, Smith, & Jelen, 2010). SRBs have also been shownto affect children’s learning and interfere with adaptive social interactions (Pattersonet al.). Children with autism present with a variety of SRBs, some having limitedand repetitive play repertoires while others present with behaviours including handflapping, body rocking, repeating words and phrases, following fixed routines and/orwalking on tiptoes (O’Reilly et al., 2010; Spreckley & Boyd, 2009). Further, interrup-tion of stereotypic and repetitive behaviours through, for example, teacher redirection,may result in other challenging behaviours such as aggression or self injury (O’Reillyet al., 2010; Sigafoos, Green, Payne, O’Reilly, & Lancioni, 2009).

Many researchers have worked at developing effective early interventions for teach-ing children with autism and for addressing challenging behaviours (Koegel, Koegel,Hurley, & Frea, 1992; Shukla-Meta, Miller, & Callahan, 2009). Researchers havedemonstrated the relative effectiveness of function-based interventions comparedto other methods of intervention (Filter & Horner, 2009; Hanley, 2010; Herzinger &

Address for correspondence: Jenelle McDonald, Krongold Centre, Faculty of Education, MonashUniversity, Melbourne VIC 3800, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

52 The Australian Educational and Developmental PsychologistVolume 29 | Issue 1 | 2012 | pp. 52–65 | c© Australian Psychological Society Ltd 2012 |doi 10.1017/edp.2012.9

Methods Targeting Aggressive and Stereotypic Behaviour in a Child with Autism

Campbell, 2007; Thompson & Iwata, 2007). Current educational and psychologicalstandards of practice dictate determination of the function of challenging behavioursprior to treatment and for interventions to be based on the function or purpose thebehaviour serves an individual (Tarbox et al., 2009).

Functional behaviour assessment (FBA) is intended to help identify the environ-mental conditions under which challenging behaviour occurs (Horner & Carr, 1997)and the source of reinforcement for this behaviour (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003;Tarbox et al. 2009). Different approaches have been taken to the functional assessmentprocess, these approaches varying on (a) time/effort/cost, (b) richness of informationgained, and (c) ability to differentiate between correlational and functional associa-tions between behaviour and observed antecedents/consequences. Researchers differin their views regarding the utility of both indirect and direct, but nonexperimentalfunctional assessment procedures and the feasibility of undertaking in situ functionalanalyses (Alter, Conroy, Mancil, & Haydon, 2008; Fox, 1998; Sasso, Conroy, PeckStichter, & Fox, 2001).

From a practical point of view it could be argued that the most cost- and time-efficient methods (indirect and direct functional assessment procedures) should beused. However, some research evidence suggests that these do not yield adequate resultsand experimental FA are required (Alter et al., 2008). In practice, it has been reportedthat there is an over-reliance on indirect FBA methods by behaviour specialists inschools in Australia (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2010) as well as overseas (Blood & Neel,2007). A possible reason for this is the time, cost and skill requirements for FA. It istherefore important to identify feasible alternative procedures that do not require alarge amount of therapist time, and that can be conducted in natural environmentsby individuals with little additional training. Two promising developments in thisregard are technological advances for remote observations (Behavior Imaging), andthe development of brief functional analysis procedures.

Behavior Capture is a video-based capture-and-access system for recording, an-notating and communicating behaviour-imaging data collected in natural settings.The system consists of a laptop computer, a web-cam, a remote control, and specifi-cally designed software. With a button pressed on the wireless hand-held remote, thesystem is activated and records (captures) video footage of the target behaviour,including up to 8 minutes before and after the button press. In this way bothantecedent and consequent events of the target behaviour can be captured. Therecorded images can then be uploaded to the secure-storage website, Behavior Con-nect (http://www.behaviorimaging.com/html/connect.htm) and shared with specifiedindividuals for analysis/annotation. Behavior Capture, in conjunction with BehaviorImaging, has thus provided a feasible means for conducting ABC observations bycapturing the triggers and consequences of behaviours via video technology (Reischl& Oberleitner, 2009), thereby potentially overcoming some of the challenges to directobservation identified above. The system has been trialled in classrooms overseas withpromising results (Behavior Imaging Solutions: Technology for Behavioural Health,2007).

Advances in functional analysis procedures include the development of method-ologies that are brief and that can be conducted in natural environments (Iwata &Worsdell, 2005; Northup et al., 1991) and by individuals without special training inthe procedure (for a comprehensive review see Hanley et al, 2003). One of these isthe discrete trial method developed by Sigafoos and Saggers (1995). It involves the

The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist 53

Jenelle McDonald, Dennis W. Moore, and Angelika Anderson

presentation of a trial condition (attention, task, or tangible) for up to 60 seconds, fol-lowed immediately by a 60-second control condition where the function being testedis freely accessible and no demands are made. The trial condition is terminated assoon as the individual exhibits the target behaviour, and the control condition beginsat this point. For example, in the attention condition the examiner is positioned closeto the person but then withdraws attention. As soon as the individual exhibits anyof the target behaviours the examiner delivers attention, and moves straight into thecontrol condition, that is, attention is delivered freely for 60 seconds. If the targetbehaviour does not occur in the trial condition this condition is maintained for60 seconds, after which it is followed by the control condition.

Sigafoos and Saggers (1995) got the teacher to carry out four trials of each conditioninterspersed throughout the school day, whenever it fitted into the natural routine(e.g., testing for tangibles at snack time). In all, they conducted 20 trials of eachcondition over the course of a week. Their results showed that this method clearlyidentified the functions of the target behaviour for each of their two participants.

This discrete trial method has several distinct advantages: it can be carried out inthe setting where the behaviour typically occurs, may involve the people who normallywork with the participants (in this instance a teacher), and each target behaviour isonly elicited briefly (a single occurrence) in each trial. Although Sigafoos and Saggers(1995) conducted their FA over the course of a week, as each trial only lasted amaximum of 2 minutes the total FA process in this study took no more than 40minutes. They also suggested that fewer trials over a shorter time span could be used.

The purpose of this current study was to explore the utility and feasibility of threenovel procedures designed to help understand the function of classroom behaviours:indirect functional assessment interviews, direct functional assessment observationsutilising current IT technologies (Behavior Imaging, and Flip video), and a discretetrial functional analysis based on the procedure developed by Sigafoos and Saggers(1995). We anticipated that, with guidance, teachers would be able to carry out theFBA procedures during their regular classroom routines and that imaging technologieswould facilitate the direct FBA process. It was predicted that the results obtained fromindirect FBA and direct FBA would differ from the results of the FA.

MethodPrior to commencement, this study was approved by the university’s ethics committeeand by the Victorian Government Department of Education and Early ChildhoodDevelopment Ethics Committee. Informed consent was obtained from the partici-pant’s school principal and teacher. Consent was also obtained from the participant’sparents on the participant’s behalf.

PARTICIPANTThe participant, pseudonym Tom, was a 5-year-old boy previously diagnosed withautism. According to school records Tom presented as severely autistic, having atotal score of 42 on the Child Autism Rating Scale (CARS; Schopler, Reichler, &Rochen Renner, 1988). Scores on this instrument range from 15–60, with a scoreabove 30 indicative of a person being autistic, and above 37, severely autistic. Tom wasreferred with a history of problem behaviour including aggressive outbursts in boththe classroom and playground.

54 The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist


SETTINGThe study was conducted in a special development school, both in the classroomand in the outdoors playground. The classroom was staffed by two teachers and theclass was made up of four students, all of whom had an autism spectrum disorder. Inthe playground the children had access to climbing equipment, bikes and a sandpit.Playtime was supervised by four teachers.

MATERIALSIndirect assessment. A functional behavioural assessment interview based on the Func-tional Analysis Interview Form (FAI; O’Neill et al., 1997) was used to conduct theinitial interview with Tom’s classroom teacher. The FAI consists of nine sections whichinclude items to describe the behaviours, define ecological events (setting events) thatpredict or set up the problem behaviours, identify specific immediate antecedentevents that predict when the behaviours are likely and not likely to occur, and identifyconsequences or outcomes of the problem behaviours that may be maintaining them.

Direct assessment. Data depicting Antecedent—Behaviour—Consequence (A-B-C)associations (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968) were collected by means of BehaviorImaging technology (Reischl & Oberleitner, 2009) and Flip video technology. TheBehavior Imaging system consisted of a laptop with Behavior Capture software, awebcam and remote control button. Flip video technology consisted of a small handheld video camera that is capable of recording for 2 hours.

Experimental functional analysis (FA). Observational data were collected for the FAusing Flip video technology.

DEPENDENT MEASURESThe dependent measures were (a) aggressive outbursts, both verbal and physical, and(b) stereotypy, defined as follows.

Verbal aggression. Verbal outbursts were defined as yelling, calling out, loud bursts ofecholalic speech, and screaming at inappropriate times.

Physical aggression. Physical outbursts consisted of pushing, hitting, kicking, andgrabbing others within the classroom and in the playground.

Stereotypic behaviours. Stereotypic behaviours in the classroom included staring intothe distance, oral stimulation (which consisted of chewing on a rubber tube) and lyingon the ground. Stereotypic behaviours in the playground included aimless wandering,running between the school wall and a tree, and standing motionless and staring.

In addition to the target behaviours the following behaviours were also monitored:

Engaged behaviours. Engaged behaviours in the classroom included activities such aspasting, colouring, and playing with toys or figurines. Outside, engaged behaviourincluded activities such as riding a bike, hopping on a rocker or being on the climbingequipment.

Other behaviours. Other behaviours of interest in the classroom included time spentsitting at the table having morning tea and/or sitting ‘in the circle’ for activity time.



Other behaviour during playtime included complying with teacher directives, andwalking around the garden beds.

DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURESPrior to any formal observations, the first author was present in the classroom andthe playground at various times over 4 days. Informal observations were undertakenin part to provide the opportunity for Tom, his teachers, and the other children tobecome familiar with the observer to limit possible reactivity effects. In the formalobservation process throughout the various procedures, including data obtained byBehavior Imaging and Flip video technology, aggressive outbursts were measuredvia event recording, and all other behaviours were measured by recording the totalduration of the occurrence of each behaviour in each 15-minute continuous Flipvideo-sample analysed.

The Behavior Imaging system was operated by the classroom teacher and yielded35 short (on average 2-min.) videos, that were uploaded to a secure website (Be-havior Connect) for analysis. The Flip video camera was operated by the first authorand yielded seven 15-minute clips of continuous recordings of both classroom andplayground activities, as well as video images of the experimental FA.

INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT (IOA)Interobserver agreement data were collected during 37% of all sessions distributedevenly across all observational processes. Interobserver agreement for the FBA datawas calculated using an interval-by-interval procedure with a second, trained, observerindependently viewing the recorded sessions and comparing these results with thoseof the primary observer. Total interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing thenumber of intervals of agreement within each session by the number of intervals ofagreement plus disagreement, multiplied by 100 (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).The mean total IOA for the FBA was 89.6% (range, 85% to 100%).

Observer reliability for the FA data was also assessed by comparing on an interval byinterval basis the observation sheets completed independently by the two observers.An agreement on the occurrence of the problem behaviour was scored if both observersagreed on the presence or absence of problem behaviour. A disagreement was scoredif there was a discrepancy. There were no instances of disagreements on the presenceor absence of aggressive or stereotypic behaviour giving an IOA of 100% for the FA.

PROCEDUREIndirect assessment. The first author interviewed Tom’s classroom teacher using theFAI to obtain as much information about him and his behaviour as possible. Theinterview took approximately 1 hour to complete.

Direct assessment 1. The Behavior Imaging system was set up in the classroom andthe teacher was taught how to use it. The teacher was instructed to activate thesystem every time an incident of the target behaviour as defined during the indirectassessment occurred in the classroom, by pressing the remote button. The teacherhad only identified aggressive behaviour as a problem, and therefore only targetedaggressive behaviour for video capture.



Direct assessment 2. Extended and uninterrupted video data were collected by the firstauthor in the classroom and in the playground during morning play and lunch timeusing the Flip video camera.

Experimental assessment (FA). A functional analysis was conducted to identify thevariables that maintained Tom’s aggressive behaviour. The discrete trial functionalanalysis methodology was as described by Sigafoos and Saggers (1995). Over 2 daysTom was exposed to four assessment conditions: (a) attention, (b) demand, (c) accessto preferred activities/tangibles, and (d) play, with three trials under each condition.Each trial took approximately 2 minutes (60 s each for the trial and control conditions)and trials were distributed randomly throughout the day.

Brief intervention trial. As a variation of the Hoff, Ervin, and Friman (2005) pro-cedure, after the fifth play time session of the direct assessment in the playground(continuous recording; see above) a trial intervention which involved directing Tomto a specific activity was instigated to observe the possible impact of this on theprobability of his stereotypic behaviour.

ResultsRESULTS OF THE FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS INTERVIEWIn the FAI the teacher reported that Tom engaged in aggressive behaviours daily andthe teacher believed this to be problematic and disrupting throughout the school day.Generally these behaviours were reported to occur both within the classroom andplayground when Tom was approached or asked by the teacher to do a task, or whenhe was withdrawn from an activity. The teacher said Tom would ‘scream at you andif in reach try to kick or hit you’ if a desired activity was interrupted. The teacherwas unable to identify the consequences or outcomes of the problem behaviours indifferent situations. Tom’s favourite items were reported to be the computer, softanimals, and figurines, and preferred activities included going on outings to the parkor for a walk.

RESULTS OF FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOUR ASSESSMENT IN THE CLASSROOMUSING BEHAVIOR IMAGING AND FLIP VIDEO TECHNOLOGYThirty-five sessions were recorded by Behavior Capture; however, only 10 sessionsshowing instances of aggressive behaviour were deemed suitable for analysis as theothers did not include instances of any problem behaviour (aggressive or stereotypicbehaviour). Figure 1 shows the results of the ABC analysis. In the 10 analysed videos,teacher instruction and unoccupied/low attention each preceded aggressive behaviourin four instances, and being denied access to an activity was an antecedent to aggressivebehaviour on two occasions. Regarding the consequences to the aggressive behaviour,these data indicate that on eight occasions the behaviour was followed by some formof teacher attention, while two videos suggested possible escape from demands.

Figure 2 depicts the observed antecedents and consequences of seven instances ofaggressive behaviour in the classroom observed across the accumulated Flip videorecordings. Most (five of seven) incidents of aggression occurred after the teacherissued a demand/request to Tom. Each incidence of aggression resulted in attentionfrom the teacher.



FIGURE 1Results of ABC analysis of Classroom Aggressive Behaviour using data generated by BehaviorCapture based observation.

RESULTS OF PLAYGROUND ABC OBSERVATIONS OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOURUSING FLIP VIDEO TECHNOLOGYFigure 3 depicts the observed antecedents and consequences of aggressive behaviourobserved across the accumulated Flip video recordings in the playground. Teacher in-struction (reprimands or desists) preceded six incidences of aggression and resulted inTom gaining simultaneously both teacher attention (in the form of a verbal reprimandor being taken by the hand and moved to sit elsewhere in playground) and escape fromthe current (non) activity or situation. The other 23 instances of aggressive behaviourwere triggered by Tom being interrupted from his activity by another child runningin front of him. These resulted in teacher attention in the form of a desist and someform of redirection to another activity.

RESULTS OF UNINTERRUPTED CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS USING FLIP VIDEOTECHNOLOGYFigure 4 depicts the rates of the participant’s stereotypic, engaged and other behaviouras observed using the Flip camera in the classroom. Through the analysis of these15 min uninterrupted videos, high rates of stereotypic behaviour were observed inthe first three sessions (M = 92.9%; range, 82.5% to 100%). Low rate aggression wasobserved in Sessions 1 and 3 coinciding with the higher levels of stereotypy. Session 1,during which there was individual teacher instruction, showed two occurrences ofaggression in the form of verbal outbursts. Session 3, during which Tom’s stereotypywas interrupted by another child, showed five occurrences of physical outbursts.Analysis of the videos revealed a decrease in the rate of stereotypic behaviour to15.6 % in Session 4. This coincided with the teacher directing Tom to complete apasting task and was also associated with an increase in engaged behaviour rate to47.2% and an increase in ‘other’, appropriate free play activity (Session 4 = 37%).



FIGURE 2ABC analysis of Classroom Aggressive Behaviour, data generated by Flip video technology.

FIGURE 3ABC analysis results of Flip video data obtained in the playground.



FIGURE 4Classroom behaviour rate per 15 minute session.

Session 5, during which the speech therapist was working one-on-one with Tom,showed a further increase in engaged behaviour to 89.5% and a decrease in stereotypicbehaviour to 10.1%. Activities during this session with the speech therapist includeduse of Boardmaker visual cards to teach verbal responses to a visual cue.

RESULTS OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS IN THE CLASSROOMFigure 5 shows the number of trials in which aggressive behaviours occurred ineach condition of the functional analysis. Zero aggression rates were observed underboth attention and escape from task demands conditions. The only occurrence of

-1

0

1

2

3

Teacher a�en�on Escape from easy task

Access to preferred ac�vity/

items/tangibles

Play condi�on

num

ber o

f tria

ls w

ith a

ggre

ssio

n

trial control

FIGURE 5Number of trials with aggressive behaviour during the trial and control conditions across each ofthe four conditions.



0

20

40

60

80

100 pe

rcen

tage

of �

me

spen

t on

beha

viou

rs Stereotypic

behaviour

Engaged behaviour

Other

FIGURE 6Playground behaviour rate per 15-minute sessions.

aggressive behaviour was in the access to preferred activity/tangible condition. Tomshowed incidents of aggressive behaviour in each trial under this condition.

These results indicate that Tom’s outbursts of low rate aggression were maintainedby positive reinforcement in the form of access to preferred activities or items.

RESULTS OF UNINTERRUPTED PLAYGROUND OBSERVATIONS USING FLIPVIDEO TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING A BRIEF INTERVENTION TRIALFigure 6 represents the frequency of the participant’s observed stereotypic, engagedand other behaviour in the playground. Analysis of the uninterrupted videos revealsthat levels of stereotypic behaviour decreased as levels of engaged behaviour increased.Sessions 1 to 5 indicate that Tom exhibited high levels of stereotypic behaviour (M =64%; range 43.8% to 85.8%) and low levels of engaged behaviour (M = 19.2%;range 5.4% to 37.3%). Low rates of aggression were observed in the first five ses-sions, with Session 1 showing the highest occurrence with 14 incidents, decreasing to2 incidents in Session 5 and no occurrences in Sessions 6 and 7. Sessions 6 and 7revealed an increase in engaged behaviour (84.2% and 85.3% respectively), whichcoincided with the researcher trialling a simple intervention (redirecting Tom; askinghim if he wanted to ride a bike) at which point he ran straight to it, hopped onand spent the remainder of the session engaged in bike riding. Associated with thisincreased engagement, observed levels of stereotypic behaviour decreased to 9 and7% respectively in Sessions 6 and 7.

DiscussionINDIRECT ASSESSMENT INADEQUATEThis study extends the research describing the variety of methods used to determine thefunction of problem behaviour in school settings. The aim of the study was to explorethe utility and feasibility of indirect, direct and experimental functional behaviour



assessment processes intended to inform an effective function-based intervention.Novel technology, Behavior Capture, was trialled to collect observation data in theclassroom, and the effectiveness of a discrete trial FA was explored.

The results obtained from indirect FBA partially confirmed our prediction thatthis method of data collection would yield a different result to those of a descriptiveassessment and FA. The results obtained by the indirect FBA were inconclusive,but suggested that the function of the aggressive behaviour was primarily to gainteacher attention. One drawback with the indirect assessment was that the teacheronly identified aggression as problematic. Given that this information was used toinform the data-collection procedures that followed, this had implications for thenext analyses.

The results from the direct assessment in the classroom using Behavior Captureconcurred with those from the indirect assessment in that they indicated that prob-lem behaviour (aggression) was maintained by adult attention. The direct FBA viaBehaviour Capture only analysed aggressive behaviour. This was not only a result ofthe limitations of our indirect assessment process, but illustrates a potential limitationof the Behaviour Imaging technology more generally when it is used by parents orteachers. It relies on the correct identification of problem behaviour as well as reliablecapture of instances of these behaviours. A further limitation of this technology in thepresent study was that technical considerations precluded its use for data collectionin the playground.

A Flip video camera was used to obtain continuous video data of the child’sbehaviour in two settings: the classroom and the outdoor playground. These datawere then analysed in the same way as was the Behavior Capture data. The results ofclassroom data concurred with the Behavior Capture results, suggesting that aggressivebehaviour was maintained by adult attention. This differed from the playground data,however, which suggested that Tom’s aggressive behaviour in the playground wasmaintained by both teacher attention and escape.

During the data collection via Flip camera it became apparent that Tom engaged inhigh levels of stereotypic behaviour. Therefore the Flip video data were also analysedusing a more open-ended procedure (Hanley, 2010), and using a time-sampling pro-cedure to record the duration of stereotypic behaviour, engaged behaviour, and otherbehaviour. This analysis revealed high levels of stereotypic behaviour when the partic-ipant was unoccupied, both in the classroom and in the playground. When Tom wasengaged in stimulating activities the stereotypic behaviour reduced dramatically. Thiswas observed naturally on two occasions in the classroom when the teacher/speechtherapist engaged Tom in an activity.

Extended uninterrupted observations also showed that acts of aggression wererelatively rare and tended to occur when Tom was interrupted from his stereotypicbehaviours. This led to a tentative hypothesis that escape from understimulation(boredom) was the function of this problem behaviour. The continuous data gatheredvia the Flip video technology yielded valuable in-depth data when analysed usingopen-ended procedures, without a priori categorisation of behaviours. This way thehigh levels of stereotypic behaviour, and their relationship with the acts of aggressionwas noticed.

Results from the indirect and direct FBA methods were inconclusive, suggest-ing that perhaps attention was maintaining the behaviour. However, as has beennoted previously (Hanley, 2010), direct but nonexperimental functional assessment



procedures can at best reveal temporal relationships between behaviour and an-tecedents and consequences associated with it, and teacher attention in particular,being highly likely in situations of possible danger to the child or others, may well bemasking the actual function of a behaviour if that is escape from an aversive situation(Alter et al, 2008; St Peter et al., 2005; Thompson & Iwata, 2007; Umbreit, Ferro,Laiupsin, & Lane, 2007).

In contrast, the discrete trial FA conducted in the classroom provided unequivocalevidence that Tom’s aggressive behaviour in the classroom was being maintainedby access to activities/tangibles. This concurred with the results of the open-endedanalysis of the Flip video data. This finding was confirmed in a brief interventiontrial (Hoff et al., 2005) in the playground that showed that Tom’s levels of stereotypicbehaviour decreased when he was engaged in a stimulating activity, and that a lack ofengagement (boredom) was a precursor to problem behaviour.

The results from the present study confirm that a FA is required to clearly identifythe function of problem behaviour. In addition, as previously concluded (Sigafoos& Saggers, 1995), our findings suggest that the discrete trial approach to functionalanalysis is a successful and efficient method of collecting data in a short period oftime. The discrete trial approach requires a minimal period of time and effort for itsapplication in the classroom, can be conducted easily by teaching staff, and would bea viable alternative to direct FBA.

The study has a number of limitations. The findings have limited generalisability asthere was only one participant in one classroom. Systematic replication is warranted.Another limitation is that other than the brief intervention trial no intervention wasimplemented as the school year came to an end. Ideally an intervention based on thefindings and on a decision-making model (Umbreit et al., 2007) should have beenimplemented and experimentally tested. Our data suggest that improvement of the en-vironment (instructing teachers to direct the student to adaptive and developmentallyappropriate activities when he was unengaged) and teaching the child replacementbehaviour (either to ask a teacher ‘What can I do?’ or to choose and engage in playactivities independently) are two possible elements of such an intervention.

ConclusionsThis study showed that FBA can be carried out in a school environment with minimaldisruption to regular classroom activities. It illustrated that indirect and direct FBA areof limited utility, regardless of the technology used, especially if closed data collectionand analysis methods are used. On the other hand, the open analysis of continuousvideo recordings yielded rich data that were useful in problem analysis and hypothesisdevelopment. Finally, the discrete trial functional analysis was easy to implement inthe classroom, and it did not require much time or disruption to the classroom.

AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported in part by a grant from the Faculty of Education, MonashUniversity. The authors wish to acknowledge the Department of Education and EarlyChildhood Development (DEECD) for permission to conduct this research project.The opinions expressed herein do not reflect the views of the DEECD. We would alsolike to thank the school, the teachers, and most of all, the child, for their participation,their time, and for welcoming us into their spaces.



ReferencesAlter, P. J., Conroy, M. A., Mancil, G. R., & Haydon, T. (2008). A comparison of functional behaviour

assessment methodologies with young children: Descriptive methods and functional analysis. Journalof Behavioral Education, 17, 200–219.

Behaviour Imaging Solutions: Technology for Behavioural Health. (2007). Technical monograph — B.I.Capture in the Classroom. Retrieved from http://www.behaviorimaging.com

Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental fieldstudies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175–191.

Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually being delivered.Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 67–80.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education.

Filter, K. J., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Function-based academic interventions for problem behavior.Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 1–19.

Fox, J. (1998). Research Issues in functional assessment of the challenging behaviors of students withemotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24(1), 26–33.

Hanley, G. P. (2010). Prevention and treatment of severe problem behavior. In E. Mayville & J. Muklick(Eds.), Behavioral Foundations of Effective Autism Treatment. Cornwall-on-Hudson: Sloan Publishing.

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.

Herzinger, C. V., & Campbell, J. M. (2007). Comparing functional assessment methodologies: A quanti-tative synthesis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1430–1445.

Hoff, K. E., Ervin, R. A., & Friman, P. C. (2005). Refining functional behavioral assessment: Analyzingthe separate and combined effects of hypothesized controlling variables during ongoing classroomroutines. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 45–57.

Horner, R. H., & Carr, E. G. (1997). Behavioral support for students with severe disabilities: Functionalassessment and comprehensive intervention. [Comment/Reply]. The Journal of Special Education,31(1), 84–109. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002246699703100108

Iwata, B. A., & Worsdell, A. S. (2005). Implications of functional analysis methodology for the design ofintervention programs. Exceptionality, 13(1), 25.

Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Hurley, C., & Frea, W. D. (1992). Improving social skills and disruptive behaviorin children with autism through self-management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 341–353.

Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., & Steege, M., Cigrand, K., Cook, J., & DeRaad, A. (1991). A brieffunctional analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an outclinic setting. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 24(3), 509.

O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functionalassessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.

O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2010). The use of Functional Behavioural Assessment for students withchallenging behaviours: Current patterns and experience of Australian practitioners. Australian Journalof Educational & Developmental Psychology, 10, 65–82.

O’Reilly, M., Rispoli, M., Davis, T., Machalichek, W., Lang, R., Sigafoos, J., . . . Didden, R. (2010).Functional analysis of challenging behavior in children with autism spectrum disorders: A summaryof 10 cases. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 1–10.

Patterson, S. Y., Smith, V., & Jelen, M. (2010). Behavioural intervention practices for stereotypic andrepetitive behavior in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. DevelopmentalMedicine and Child Neurology, 52, 318–327.

Reischl, U., & Oberleitner, R. (2009). Development of a telemedicine platform for the management ofchildren with autism. Zeitschrift fur Nachwuchswissenschaftler–German Journal for Young Researchers,1(1). Retrieved from http://www.behaviorimaging.com/miscFiles/ZfN-2009-1-3.pdf



Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Peck Stichter, J., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The mis-application of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. BehavioralDisorders, 26(4), 282–296.

Shukla-Meta, S., Miller, T., & Callahan, K. J. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of video instruction onsocial skills training for children with autism spectrum disorders: A review of the literature. Focus onAutism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 24–36.

Sigafoos, J., Green, V. A., Payne, D., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2009). A classroom-based antecedentintervention reduces obsessive-repetitive behavior in an adolescent with autism. Clinical Case Studies,8(1), 3–13. doi: 10.1177/1534650108327475

Sigafoos, J., & Saggers, E. (1995). A discrete-trial approach to functional analysis of aggressive behaviourin two boys with autism. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20, 287–297.

Spreckley, M., & Boyd, R. (2009). Efficacy of applied behavioural intervention I preschool children withautism for improving cognitive, language and adaptive behaviour: A Systematic review. Journal ofPediatrics, 154, 338–344.

St Peter, C. C., Vollmer, T. R., Bourret, J. C., Borrero, C. S. W., Sloman, K. N., & Rapp, J. T. (2005). Onthe role of attention in naturally occurring matching relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,38(4), 429–433. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.172-04

Tarbox, J., Wilke, A. E., Najdowski, A. C., Findel-Pyles, R. S., Balasanyan, S., Caveney, A. C., . . . Tia,B. (2009). Comparing indirect, descriptive, and experimental functional assessments of challengingbehavior in children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 21, 493–514.

Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2007). A comparison of outcomes from descriptive and functional analy-ses of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(2), 333. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.56-06

Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Laiupsin, C., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional behavioural assessment and function-based interventions: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice–Hall.


Documents

Comparison of Functional Assessment