Untitled

DISCREPANCY IN FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS RESULTS ACROSS TWO SETTINGS: IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION DESIGN

Authors and Affiliations

  • Russell Lang and Mark O’Reilly - University of Texas at Austin

  • Giulio Lancioni - University of Bari

  • Mandy Rispoli, Wendy Machalicek, and Jeffrey M. Chan - University of Texas at Austin

  • Paul Langthorne - University of Kent

  • Jesse Franco - University of Texas at Austin

Overview of the Study

  • The functional analyses were evaluated in two distinct settings: playground and classroom.

  • Findings revealed that problem behaviors were influenced by different reinforcements depending on the setting:

    • Playground: Sensitive to adult attention.

    • Classroom: Sensitive to tangible items.

  • Attention- and tangible-based interventions were designed for each setting and compared based on effectiveness.

  • The attention-based intervention was found to be more effective in reducing problem behavior on the playground, whereas the tangible-based intervention was more effective in the classroom.

Importance of Functional Analysis

  • Functional analyses are crucial for understanding the variables influencing behavior across different environments.

  • It is common practice to apply results from one environment to intervention designs in another; however, this assumes uniform influence of variables.

  • Prior research (Lang et al., 2008) illustrated differing behavioral functions for two children in different environments:

    • One child's problem behavior was negatively reinforced in a therapy room by escape but positively reinforced by attention in a classroom.

Methodology

Participant

  • Carl: A 4-year-old boy diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

Problem Behavior

  • Types of behaviors:

    • Screaming (loud vocalizations)

    • Aggression towards adults (hitting, kicking, pinching).

  • Behaviors occurred simultaneously (e.g., screaming while attempting to hit).

Setting

  • Classroom:

    • Dimensions: 4 m x 9 m, with tables, chairs, toys, instructional materials.

    • Presence of 3-6 other children and 2-3 teachers.

  • Playground:

    • Dimensions: approximately 20 m x 25 m, equipped with playground structures (slides, swings, etc.).

    • Presence of 3-12 children and 1-5 teachers.

Measurement and Data Collection

  • Target behaviors were recorded using a 10-second partial-interval procedure and converted into percentages.

  • Interobserver agreement data were collected for 54% of sessions with a mean score of over 90%.

Functional Analysis Procedures

  • Sessions lasted 5 minutes and comprised four conditions:

    • Attention: Therapist displays passive behavior and provides 5 seconds of attention following problem behavior.

    • Escape: Task demands matched Carl's individual education plan with three-step prompting; demands ceased for 5 seconds following problem behavior.

    • Tangible: Toys are visible but out of reach; toys given for 10 seconds following problem behavior without eye contact or verbal response.

    • Play (Control): No educational tasks; unrestricted access to toys with verbal praise and contact every 30 seconds; problem behavior ignored.

  • Conditions were alternated in an ABAB design, assessing the influence of analysis setting (playground vs. classroom).

Intervention Evaluation

  • Two noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) interventions based on functional analysis results were evaluated:

    • Attention-Based Intervention (Playground):

    • Teacher provides verbal and physical praise every 30 seconds while ignoring problem behavior.

    • Tangible-Based Intervention (Classroom):

    • Toys presented for choice; access moved closer following problem behavior (potentially functioning as reinforcement).

    • Treatment duration: 30 minutes.

Results

Functional Analysis Findings

  • Playground Analysis: Problem behavior maintained by both adult attention and tangible items, more sensitive to attention.

  • Classroom Analysis: Again, problem behavior maintained by both adult attention and tangible items but more sensitive to tangible items.

Discussion

  • Problem behaviors might occur at high rates across settings, but factors controlling these behaviors can differ significantly.

  • Previous research also indicated that problem behaviors may be more susceptible to functional reinforcers presented by caregivers versus clinical staff.

  • Evaluation of intervention effectiveness showed:

    • The attention-based approach significantly reduced problem behavior in the playground environment.

    • The tangible-based approach more effectively reduced problem behavior in the classroom environment.

  • These findings question the effectiveness of conducting functional analyses in non-criterion settings and suggest they should be done in actual intervention settings when possible.

Future Research Directions

  • Investigating the generality of functional analysis results across settings and their impact on treatment efficacy.

  • Emphasizing the necessity of conducting functional analyses in criteria settings to enhance intervention design.

References

  • Comprehensive citations of the work referenced in the article, including foundational research and studies relevant to functional analyses and interventions.