AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY
OF A PRACTICAL FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT TRAINING
MODEL FOR PERSONNEL IN SCHOOLS
by
SHELDON LAWRENCE LOMAN
A DISSERTATION
Presented to the Department of Special Education
and Clinical Sciences
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
September 2010
11
University of Oregon Graduate School
Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by:
Sheldon Loman
Title:
"An Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Practical Functional Behavioral Assessment Training Model
for Personnel in Schools"
This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences
by:
Robert Horner, Chairperson, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
K Brigid Flannery, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Richard Albin, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Renee VanNorman, Member, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Jean Stockard, Outside Member, Planning Public Policy & Mgmt
and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean of the Graduate
School for the University of Oregon.
September 4, 2010
Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of Oregon
Libraries.
© 2010 Sheldon Lawrence Loman
111
IV
An Abstract of the Dissertation of
Sheldon L. Loman for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences
to be taken September 2010
Title: AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFICACY OF A PRACTICAL FUNCTIONAL
BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT TRAINING MODEL FOR PERSONNEL IN
SCHOOLS
Approved: _
Dr. Robert H. Horner
The current study evaluated whether a manualized training in functional
behavioral assessment (FBA) would result in typical school professionals being able to
conduct a procedurally adequate FBA with a technically accurate summary statement for
student behavior. Additionally, the study examined whether summary statements
obtained by trained school staff were validated by formal functional analyses. The
efficiency and social validity of the FBA training process was also investigated through
use of an acceptability rating questionnaire and a log to document time expended by each
participant.
vTwelve school professionals participated in Practical FBA trainings that consisted
of four I-hour training sessions guided by a training manual. A post-test analysis of FBA
knowledge content indicated that the trainees ended training with the knowledge and skill
needed to conduct FBAs. Ten of the 12 professionals completed formal FBAs that were
then submitted to validation via functional analysis. Results of the 10 functional analyses
confirmed that all 10 school professionals accurately identified the antecedents and
maintaining function of student behavior. All FBAs conducted by trained school
professionals were considered procedurally adequate. The average time expended by
participants in completing an FBA was under 2 hours. Participants also indicated high
acceptability of the Practical FBA tools and procedures. This research study presented
preliminary findings supporting the efficacy of an FBA training program for school
personnel. Further implications, limitations, and directions for future research are
presented.
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Sheldon L. Loman
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene
San Francisco State University, California
University of Hawaii, Manoa
DEGREES AWARDED:
Doctor of Philosophy, Special Education, 2010, University of Oregon
Master ofArts, Special Education, 2005, San Francisco State University
Bachelor of Arts, Psychology, 1999, University of Hawaii
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Instructional Practices for People with Severe Disabilities
Positive Behavior Support
Educational Systems Change
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Graduate Research Assistant, First Step to Success Grant, Eugene, Oregon,
2007-2008
Graduate Teaching Fellow, Practicum Supervision, Eugene, Oregon,
2006-2007
Positive Behavior Support Coordinator, Ravenswood City School District,
East Palo Alto, CA, 2005-2006
Instructional Coach for School-wide Applications Model (SAM), Ravenswood
City School District, East Palo Alto, CA, 2003-2005
Special Education Teacher, Ravenswood City School District, East Palo Alto,
CA, 2000-2003
vi
Vll
PUBLICATIONS:
Loman, S. L., Rodriguez, B. J., & Homer, R. H. (2010). Sustainability of a
targeted intervention package: First step to success in Oregon Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Advance online publication.
doi:1O.1177/l063426610362899
Loman, S. L., Vatland, C., Strickland-Cohen, M. K., Homer, R. H., & Walker,
H.M. (2010). Promoting self-determination: A practice guide. National
Training Initiative in Self-determination, University of Missouri, Kansas
City.
Rodriguez, B. J., Loman, S. L., & Homer, R. H. (2009). A preliminary
analysis of the effects of coaching feedback on teacher
implementation fidelity of first step to success. Behavior Analysis
in Practice, 2(2), 11-21.
Homer, R. H., & Loman, S. L. (2008). The role of research in the
implementation of effective support for individuals with severe
disabilities. TASH Connections, 34 (1), 21-23.
Park, K. L., Loman, S. L., & Miller, M. A. (2008). Social skills. In P. L.
Harrison & T. Oakland (Eds.), Adaptive behavior assessment
system-II' Clinical use and interpretation (pp. 197-218) San Diego,
CA: Elsevier.
Vlll
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation would not have been possible without the commitment
from my dissertation committee: Dr. Robert H. Homer, Dr. Richard W. Albin, Dr. Renee
Van Norman, Dr. K. Brigid Flannery, and Dr. Jean Stockard. Dr. Homer and Dr. Van
Norman provided invaluable technical support in the development of the Practical FBA
training manual and process. I would like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Christopher
Borgmeier, Dr. Jessica Swain-Bradway, Alex Granzin, and Tricia Berg for their support
throughout this journey. Lastly, lowe my deepest gratitude to my fellow graduate
students at the University of Oregon: Bradley Mclean, Chris Pinkney, Kathleen
Strickland-Cohen, Caitlin Forbes-Spear, and Chris Vatland.
This manuscript is dedicated to my family: for my wife for being my best friend and
biggest fan; for my daughters, Hailey and Abigail, who constantly remind me of what it
is all for; and for my parents, who always believed I could do anything.
ix
Chapter
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
x
I. LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................... 1
Introduction............................................................................................................ 1
Functional Behavioral Assessment........................................................................ 5
Validity and Reliability of Methods for Conducting FBA 10
Functional Behavioral Assessment in Schools 11
Importance of Functional Hypothesis Statements 18
Confirming the Validity of FBA............................................................................ 19
Challenges ofImplementing FBA in Schools 20
Functional Behavioral Assessment Training in Schools 21
Practical FBA: Training for Effectiveness and Efficiency in Schools.... 28
Statement of the Problem and Hypotheses 30
Overview of the Study........................................................................................... 33
Independent Variable............................................................................................. 37
Research Question and Hypotheses 39
II. METHODOLOGY 42
Settings................................................................................................................... 42
Participants............................................................................................................. 42
School Professionals 42
Students............................................................................................................ 45
Measures................................................................................................................ 46
School Professional Demographic Interview................................................... 46
FBA Knowledge Pre and Post-training Assessment........................................ 47
Practical FBA Conducted by School Professionals 47
Staff Interviews................................................................................................ 47
Direct Observations..... 48
Acceptability Rating Questionnaire 48
Record of Time Expended in Conducting FBA.................... 49
Direct Observations During Functional Analysis 49
Design and Procedure 50
Practical FBA Training 50
Functional Analysis. 52
III. RESlTLTS 57
FBA Knowledge and Skills Assessment................................................................ 57
FBA Procedural Adequacy.................................................................................... 61
Efficiency and Social Validity of Practical FBA Process...................................... 61
Comparison of Summary Statements Generated from
Interviews and Functional Analyses 65
Chapter
Xl
Page
Functional Analyses to Validate Practical FBA Summary Statements 68
IV. DISCUSSION 70
FBA Knowledge & Skills Assessment.................................................................. 71
FBA Procedural Adequacy.................................................................................... 71
Efficiency & Social Validity of Practical FBA Training Process.......................... 72
Comparison of Summary Statements Generated from
StaffInterviews and Functional Analyses.............................................. 74
Functional Analyses to Validate Summary Statements 75
Inlplications of Research 75
Limitations of the Current Study 77
Future Research 79
APPENDICES.................................. 81
A. STAFF DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIOl\TNAlRE 81
B. FBA PRE & POST-ASSESSMENT 83
C. FACTS INTERVIEW FOR TEACHERS & STAFF........................................ 88
D. FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENTS 91
E. ABC RECORDING FORM 94
F. SUMMARY OF BEHAVIOR TABLE............................................................. 98
G. FBA PROCEDURAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST......................................... 99
H. ACCEPTABILITY RATING QUESTIONNAIRE 100
1. FBA TASK TIME LOG 101
J. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR
STlTDENT 1 102
K. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR
STUDENT 2 107
Chapter
XlI
Page
1. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR
STUDENT 3..... 111
M. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR
STUDENT 4 114
N: FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR
STUDENT 5....... 117
O. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORNI FOR
STlTDENT 6 120
P. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR
STUDENT 7 123
Q. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR
STUDEJ\TT 8 126
R. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR
STUDENT 9 129
S. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR
STUDENT 10 132
T. PRACTICAL FBA MANUAL FOR PARTICIPANTS.................................... 135
REFERENCES... 209
Xlll
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Con1peting Behavior Analysis... 9
XIV
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Methods by Phase.................................................................................................. 35
2. School Professional Demographics 43
3. Student Demographics........................................................................................... 46
4. Practical FBA Training Objectives, Tools, and Activities by Session 53
5. Pre/Post-training Results for FBA Knowledge & Skills.. 58
6. PrelPost-training Results by FBA Skill Area......................................................... 60
7. Time Expended Log............................................................................................... 62
8. Acceptability Ratings............................................................................................. 64
9. Summary Statements Constructed From Interviews, Objectives, and Overall...... 66
1CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Despite gallant efforts to apply the technology of functional behavioral
assessment (FBA; Horner, 1994), schools continue to struggle to establish effective
positive behavior supports for students exhibiting behavioral problems (Blood & Neel,
2007; Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, & McIntyre, 2005; Van Acker, Boreson, Gable, &
Potterton, 2005). Over a decade ago, federal legislation (IDEA 1997) mandated that
schools conduct functional behavioral assessments (FBA) to guide the development of
behavioral supports for students with disabilities that exhibit behavior that impedes their
learning. Prior to this mandate, FBAs were almost exclusively conducted by trained
clinicians in non-school settings (Watson, Gresham, & Skinner, 2001; Nelson, Roberts,
Mathur, & Rutherford, 1999). Thus, many in the field voiced concerns that schools were
ill-equipped to conduct technically adequate FBAs that would guide meaningful behavior
change for students (Drasgow & Yell, 2001; Ervin et aI., 2001;Gresham,Quinn, & Restori
1999; Gresham, 2003; Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, & Rutherford, 1999; Sasso, Conroy,
Stichter, & Fox, 2001).
Since the federal mandate in 1997, many school professionals have received
training to conduct collaborative, team-based FBAs to design positive behavioral
supports for students (Crone et aI., 2007; Scott, Nelson, & Zabala, 2003). Unfortunately,
literature suggests that nearly half of school teams "extensively trained" to conduct FBA
2and design positive behavior supports, continue to rely on punitive procedures for dealing
with student problem behavior (Scott et aI., 2005; Van Acker, Boreson, Gable, &
Potterton,2005). Additionally, behavior supports developed from FBAs by school
teams have been shown to lack critical features such as operational definitions of problem
behaviors and identification of a proposed function of the problem behaviors (Cook et aI.,
2007; Van Acker et aI., 2005).
Scott and his colleagues found that the use of FBA in public school settings has
been "logically flawed in three main areas" (2005, p.58). The first flaw they discussed
was the idea that FBA, when used mainly as a reactionary approach, loses the opportunity
to develop interventions that address minor behaviors that precede more serious
problems. The second flaw they identified was that when FBA is restricted to a set of
procedures that must be implemented by "experts" the rich supply of information by
people with whom the student interacts most is lost. The third flaw they presented was
that when FBA is restricted to a set of "rigorous procedures .. .it is unrealistic for public
school settings and creates disincentives for using this assessment technology" (2005,
p.58). Scott and his colleagues (2005) addressed these flaws by proposing that the use of
FBA be conceptualized as an effective and proactive pre-referral routine that involves a
number of school personnel and uses the most parsimonious procedures required to create
an effective behavior support plan. Scott and Caron (2005) also presented how FBA can
be conceptualized across the three levels (primary, secondary, and tertiary) ofthe
SWPBS prevention model (Walker et aI., 1996).
3The current study applies the conceptualization by Scott and his colleagues to
examine the efficacy of a practical FBA process and training manual for personnel with
flexible roles (e.g., counselors, administrators) in public school settings. This study is
framed around the idea that behavior support plans should be designed in a collaborative
manner by a school-based team made up of both individuals that are familiar with the
student and the school context; and individuals with extensive knowledge of behavioral
principles (Benazzi, Homer, & Good, 2006). Given that the FBA process can be rather
complex, time consuming, and require a number of resources (Schill, Kratochwill, &
Elliott, 1998), schools must "work smarter" to develop their capacity to effectively
support all of their students. Therefore, this study presents practical training methods for
school personnel, focused on conducting FBAs with students that exhibit consistent
problems that are not dangerous and have not been adequately addressed through
previous assessment and intervention (Scott & Caron, 2005).
The logic behind the Practical FBA training resides with the idea that students
exhibiting serious or chronic problem behaviors in school (about 5% of the school
population; Sugai et aI., 2000) require an extensive FBA process from an individual well-
versed in behavioral principles (e.g., school psychologist, behavior specialist), while
students who exhibit consistent minor problem behaviors (about 10-15% of the school
population; Sugai et aI., 2000) that affect their learning may require a less intensive FBA
process that may be conducted by a school professional (e.g., counselor, administrator)
4with less intensive FBA training. School professionals trained to conduct relatively
simple FBAs may strengthen a school's capacity to support more students with the use of
the empirically supported technology ofFBA (Carr et al., 1999; Heckaman, Conroy, Fox,
& Chait, 2000) in a proactive manner, thus limiting the number of cases for which a more
time and resource intensive FBA must be conducted.
The primary goal of this present study is to determine if staff with flexible roles in
schools can be trained to conduct valid functional behavior assessments (FBA) for
students with mild behavior problems (i.e., students with recurring problems that do not
involve physical aggression or violent behaviors). The study also examines the utility of
the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (FACTS; Borgmeier, 2005;
March et al., 2000) interview tool through analysis of the consistency between summary
statements generated from FACTS interviews conducted with staff and student-guided
FACTS interviews. Additionally, this study examines the consistency between summary
statements generated solely from FACTS interviews conducted with staff and functional
analyses of student behavior. This study also analyzes the consistency between summary
statements based upon direct observations of students during identified routines and
functional analyses conducted with students exhibiting problem behaviors. Lastly, an
evaluation is provided of the efficiency and social validity of practical FBA training in
public schools.
5Functional Behavioral Assessment
FBA has been established as a systematic, empirically supported, process for
assessing the relationship between a behavior and the context in which behavior occurs
(Blair, Umbreit, & Bos, 1999; Carr et aI., 1999; Lee, Sugai, & Homer, 1999). A primary
goal of FBA is to guide the development of effective positive interventions based on the
function of the behavior (e.g., tangible, escape, attention, automatic; Homer, 1994).
Literature has demonstrated that positive interventions based on the function of behavior
result in significant change in student behavior (Carr & Durand, 1985; Carr et al.., 1999;
DuPaul, Eckert, & McGoey, 1997; Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005;
KeameY,Pursell, & Alvarez, 2001; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004; Steege, Wacker, Berg,
Cigrand, & Cooper, 1989; Kennedy, Meyer, Knowles, & Shukla, 2000).Thus, the
identification of the function of problem behaviors is "critical to the design and
successful implementation ofpositive behavioral interventions" (Watson & Steege, 2003,
p.20).
Functional behavioral assessment was developed within the field ofapplied
behavior analysis (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968; Carr, 1977; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer,
Bauman, & Richman, 1982) and extended into the field of positive behavior support
(PBS; Sugai et aI., 2000) to address concerns over the use of aversive procedures for
individuals with severe disabilities (Homer et aI., 1990). PBS is an applied science (Carr
et aI., 2002) that outlines a team "process for designing an individualized behavior
support plan based on a functional [behavioral] assessment [FBA] and focused on
6promoting positive changes in behavior and overall quality of life in home, school, and
community contexts" (Clark & Heineman, 1999, p.l83). Literature continues to provide
strong evidence indicating that students with problem behaviors require individualized,
comprehensive, multi-component behavior interventions developed and implemented in a
collaborative manner (e.g., Homer & Carr, 1997; Homer, Albin, Newton, Todd, &
Sprague, 2006; Sugai et aI., 2000). Bucshbacher and Fox (2003) in their review of PBS
literature identified five key elements of a behavior support plan as: (a) behavioral
hypotheses stating information regarding antecedents, the behavior, the maintaining
function, and the function of the behavior; (b) long-term supports that include strategies
and supports that impact the quality of life for the child and others in their life; (c)
prevention strategies that include antecedent manipulations in the environment activities,
and others interactions with the child; (d) replacement skills which require a systematic
instructional plan to teach adapted skills replacing the challenging behavior; and (e)
consequence strategies which outline how other people should respond to the
replacement behaviors and the challenging behaviors.
The technology of functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is rooted in applied
behavior analytic principles (Carr, 1994) and has been presented by the field ofPBS as an
empirically supported process (Carr et aI., 1999) for gathering information to improve the
"effectiveness, relevance, and efficacy ofbehavior support plans" (Sugai, Horner,
Dunlap, Hieneman, Lewis et aI., 2000, p.l37). Functional behavioral assessment is an
essential element of PBS (Carr et aI., 2002) which utilizes a systematic process to identify
a functional relationship between problem behaviors and events that (a) reliably predict
7occurrence and nonoccurrence of those behaviors and (b) maintain the behaviors across
time (Carr, 1994; Homer, 1994; Sugai, et aI., 2000). The information obtained through a
functional behavioral assessment guide the development of a behavior support plan
(BSP) that targets the (a) setting events (events that occur outside of the immediate
context of the behavior problem which alter the effectiveness of some event or an object
as a reinforcer, Michael, 1982) influencing a student's problem behavior (e.g., missed
medications, lack of sleep), (b) antecedent events that occur immediately before the
behavior, and (c) the consequences and function of the behavior exhibited (Le., escape
task, obtain/escape attention, attain desired objects).
The literature describes multiple methods for conducting an FBA (e.g., Crone &
Homer, 2003; O'Neill et aI., 1997; Liaupsin, Ferro, & Umbreit, 2007; Steuart, 2003).
Generally, an FBA is conducted through gathering information by indirect and direct
assessment methods. Indirect assessment information may be gathered through use of
interviews, rating scales, checklists, and reviews of records and files. These indirect
methods help the team to operationally define the problem behavior and the daily
routines where the problem behavior occurs. After this information is gathered, direct
assessment methods such as direct observations and sometimes experimental functional
analysis (Carr & Durand, 1985; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Baumen, & Richman, 1994;
Homer, 1994) assessments are conducted in the natural settings in which identified
problem behaviors occur.
8Direct assessments commonly conducted in schools involve an individual trained
in behavior analytic principles, such as a school psychologist or a special educator, whom
observes the student in settings identified through the indirect assessment. A number of
observation tools have been designed for conducting an observation for a FBA such as
the ABC observation format (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968), Functional Assessment
Observation Form (FAOF, O'Neill et aI., 1997), and scatterplots (Bambara, 2005).
Experimental functional analysis (Homer, 1994) is a more intrusive direct assessment
method usually conducted only when direct observations have been ineffective at
identifying the function ofa student's behavior. An experimental functional analysis
systematically tests the hypotheses gathered from indirect assessments by manipulating
the variables that are thought to be associated with the occurrence of problem behavior
(i.e., escape, attention, tasks). All of these methods are not necessarily used in the
development of every FBA. Forms of these methods are used to essentially outline a
hypothesis statement that clearly identifies the setting events, antecedents to the problem
behavior, and the functions that the problem behavior serves for the student (Homer et
aI.,2006).
The hypothesis statement outlined by the FBA guides the design of a positive
comprehensive behavior support plan. A competing behavior analysis (CBA; Figure 1) is
often used as a "conceptual bridge" for moving from an FBA to designing a support plan
(Crone & Homer, 2003; Homer et aI., 2006). The CBA provides a framework to
logically link the multiple intervention procedures and support strategies of a
comprehensive BSP to information collected in the FBA. This framework works to
ensure that all elements ofthe BSP are technically sound. A technically adequate BSP
should include intervention strategies to neutralize or eliminate possible setting events
and antecedents that set the stage for problem behavior. In addition, a technically sound
BSP should include instructional strategies to teach replacement behaviors that will
enable the student to achieve desired consequences in more socially acceptable ways.
Finally, a BSP should outline strategies to provide the student with corrective feedback
and reactive strategy procedures that directly address the function of the problem
behavior when the problem behavior occurs.
Desired Typical
Behavior ~ Consequences
/ I I
Setting Events Triggering Problem Maintaining
----. Behavior ~ ConsequencesAntecedents
VReplacementBehavior
Figure 1. Competing Behavior Analysis
9
10
The field has also recognized that in order for behavior intervention strategies to
be implemented with fidelity within school contexts, it is no longer sufficient that plans
are technically sound in their application of behavioral principles, but that plans must fit
well with the people and environments where implementation occurs (Benazzi, Homer,
& Good, 2006). A plan that considers (a) the person for whom the plan is designed, (b)
the variables related to the people who will implement the plan, and (c) the features ofthe
environments and systems within which the plan will be implemented is defined as
having good contextual fit (Albin, Lucyshyn, Horner, & Flannery, 1996). A support
plan that considers contextual fit variables ensures that components of the plan are
consistent with the values and skills ofthe student and plan implementers (i.e., family,
school staff, and community support providers).
Validity and Reliability ofMethods for
Conducting FBA
The field of positive behavior support has continued to focus much of its attention
towards improving the technical adequacy of the instruments and procedures used to
conduct FBAs in schools (e.g., McIntosh et aI., 2008; McIntosh, Brown, & Borgmeier,
2008; Murdock, O'Neill, & Cunningham, 2005; Shriver, Anderson, & Proctor, 2001;
Stichter & Conroy, 2005). McIntosh, Brown, and Borgmeier (2008) presented evidence
for the intervention validity of FBA in the design of behavioral supports. They outline
three elements that "comprise the best practices" of FBA: (a) accurate FBAs are
necessary; (b) FBA information must drive intervention selection; and (c) function-based
support can be used in a response to intervention (RTI) model.
11
Concerning the selection of valid and reliable FBA methods, McIntosh and his
colleagues emphasized the use of direct observations in natural environments as one of
the core components in an FBA for assessing the predictors and consequences of
behavior. In their review of the use of indirect measures in FBA, they also presented
strong validity evidence for the use of Functional Assessment Checklist of Teachers and
Staff (FACTS; March et aI., 2000) as an interview measure. Concerning the use ofFBA
information to design behavior supports, they noted that when FBAs are conducted, their
results are "often underused in designing support plans" (p.l 0).
McIntosh and his colleagues also reviewed literature concerning the concept of
contextual fit (Albin, Lycyshyn, Homer, & Flannery, 1996; Benazzi, Homer, & Good,
2006). They highlighted that intervention validity of FBA relies upon information
concerning the function of the behavior and accounts for the contextual features (e.g.,
skills of personnel, school culture, etc.) necessary for implementation in schools. Lastly,
McIntosh and his colleagues discussed the use of function-based support within a three
tiered RTI model where a school can utilize a function-based approach to prevent and
address problems before they increase in severity.
Functional Behavioral Assessment in Schools
Within the last decade, school-wide positive behavior support (SW-PBS; Walker
et aI., 1996; Sugai et aI., 2000) has been developed to provide a context and systems
framework that supports the development and sustained use of empirically supported
practices such as functional behavioral assessment (Crone, Hawken, & Bergstrom, 2007;
Dunlap & Carr, 2007; Eber, Sugai, Smith, & Scott, 2002; Fairbanks et aI., 2007).
12
School-wide positive behavior support (SW-PBS) is a systems approach to establish the
social culture and individualized behavior supports needed to achieve social and
academic success for all students (Sugai et aI., 2005). SW-PBS is distinctive in the
emphasis given to providing behavior support to all students through a preventive
investment in the school-wide social culture, and in the focus on implementing
organizational systems (data management, policies, and team-process) in tandem with
specific behavioral interventions (Homer, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2005).
The SWPBS approach has guided schools with methods to systematically design
school-wide, classroom, and individual student behavior support systems that, when well
structured, have been shown to make extensive interventions for students with behavioral
challenges more effective (Scott & Eber, 2003). School-wide Positive Behavior Support
(SW-PBS) is "comprised of a broad range of systemic and individualized strategies for
achieving important social and learning outcomes while preventing problem behavior
with all students (Sugai et aI., 2005, p.1O)." The logic behind SW-PBS lies in the basic
idea that when all people (i.e., staff, students, parents) in all environments of a school
implement cohesive universal systems that promote positive behavior for all students,
the school becomes a "host environment" (Zins & Ponti, 1990) that is more likely to
successfully support students with intensive behavior problems. In line with this logic,
SW-PBS emphasizes that individual interventions should be comprehensively designed
to target the direct, micro-level variables (e.g., classroom environment, instructional
strategies, func~ions of an individual's challenging behavior, social relationships, etc.)
affecting the specific problem behaviors, while also addressing larger (macro-level)
13
systems variables (e.g., overall classroom management strategies, school-wide support
strategies, funding sources, etc.) affecting the individual's behavior and lifestyle (Kincaid
& Fox, 2002; Risley, 1996).
Walker and his colleagues (1996) presented a three-tiered prevention model of
positive behavior support that integrates intensive behavior support for individual
students with prevention efforts for all students. The first tier in this prevention model
(sometimes called the primary or universal tier) focuses on prevention for all students in
all school settings. It has been shown that approximately 80% of students are successful
using school-wide supports (Sugai & Homer, 1994) which include: (a) clear school wide
rules that are actively taught, (b) an acknowledgement system to reinforce students
displaying desired behavior, and (c) a consistent consequence system for responding to
severe behavioral infractions. The second tier in the prevention model (also known as
the secondary or selected tier) focuses on students that are not responsive to the primary
school wide interventions and are at risk of developing more pervasive behavioral
problems unless they receive additional support. It is estimated that about 10-15% of
students in a school will fall into this tier in the prevention model (Sugai & Homer,
1994). The students that typically require this level of support have histories of problem
behavior associated with academic failure, limited family and community supports,
disabilities, membership in deviant peer groups, health-related complications, poverty,
and so forth (Mayer, 2005). The third tier in the prevention model (also known as the
tertiary or targeted tier) represents the remaining 5% of students (Sugai & Homer, 1994)
with intense chronic behavioral needs.
14
Schools fully implementing SW-PBS have two teams that are responsible for
implementing all three levels of PBS, (a) a school wide PBS team (SW-PBST) and (b) an
intensive positive behavior support team (IPBST). The first team, the SW-PBST, is led
by the principal or another school administrator and is made up of representative
members of the school, parents, and community. At the school-wide level, the SW-PBST
utilizes data to make decisions as to the practices and systems needed to support student
and staff behavior.
The SW-PBST is responsible to support all staff in reducing the number of new
cases of problem behavior (the first tier in the prevention model) by: (a) determining
areas of need, (b) assessing for and setting priorities that form the focus of
comprehensive school plans, (c) identifying strategies and implementing programs that
effectively address these school-wide priorities, and (d) overseeing the evaluation of the
programs, sharing outcomes, and making modifications as necessary (Sugai et aI., 2005).
At the school-wide level, systems are designed to teach students the behavioral
expectations within all environments of the school (e.g., hallway, cafeteria, gym,
classroom). School-wide systems are also organized to acknowledge students that exhibit
positive behaviors, while having a clear consequence system for students displaying
negative behaviors. School staffs teach and reinforce these expectations throughout the
school day. The SW-PBS team reviews data, usually in the form of office discipline
referrals (ODR) to determine time periods, locations, classrooms, or individual students
that may need additional support than what the school-wide prevention system offers.
15
The second school team, the intensive positive behavior support team (IPBST)
assists in outlining behavior supports for individual students, small groups, and specific
classrooms for whom the school wide programs are not effective. Students that require
the support from this team typically exhibit high-risk behaviors or emotional and
behavioral problems (the second and third tier in the prevention model). The IPBST is
smaller than the SW-PBST and should ideally consist of: (a) an individual with
experience in applied behavior analysis and designing behavior supports for students
(usually a school psychologist or behavior specialist); (b) individuals knowledgeable
about the student and his or her problem behavior (e.g., teacher, parent, support staff);
and (c) knowledge about the context, resources, and feasibility of implementation
strategies (e.g., school administrator; Benazzi, Homer, & Good, 2006). This team meets
consistently to outline secondary and tertiary level support systems through (a)
conducting systematic, proactive student screenings to determine which students may
need services; (b) conducting functional behavioral assessments and design behavioral
supports for students; (c) coordinating and sharing information with the PBST; (d)
problem solving with the school district to recruit resources, supports, professional
development, etc.; (e) coordinating individualized school and community services to
support students' mental health and academic growth as needed, (f) consulting with and
providing ongoing support for school staff and parents who have a student with serious
behavior problems, and (g) monitoring and evaluating progress and procedures in place
for individual students to ensure fidelity ofprogram implementation, continued support,
and effectiveness (Mayer, 2005).
16
When an IPBS team has decided that a functional behavioral assessment is needed
for an individual student, the team should decide whether to conduct an efficient (or
simple; Crone & Horner, 2003) or formal (or full; Crone & Horner, 2003) FBA (Scott,
Anderson, & Spaulding, 2008). Scott and his colleagues (2008) describe the two
methods ofFBA as consisting of same key elements (as presented earlier in the paper),
but an efficient FBA requires less time and effort to conduct. At this time there do not
seem to be specific rules for when to use either of these methods, however, Scott and his
colleagues recommended that the more severe the behavior the more likely a team should
use a formal FBA. They also recommended that if behaviors do not pose harm to the
individual student and others it may be sufficient to start with an efficient FBA.
Crone and Homer (2003) described the goal of an efficient FBA as defining the
challenging behavior and identifying the predictors and consequences of the behavior.
Efficient FBAs are considered indirect methods as they usually rely on interviews
conducted with the student's teacher (Scott, Anderson, & Spaulding, 2008). The time
investment of simple FBA procedures has been estimated to be twenty to thirty minutes
to collect data (Crone & Horner, 2003). An efficient FBA can usually be conducted in
one meeting with a behavior specialist and individuals who know the student. During this
meeting, the team uses the interview data to generate a hypothesis as to what variables
are maintaining the problem behavior. Interview measures used during the efficient FBA
process, such as the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (FACTS;
March et aI., 2000) or the Functional Assessment Interview (FAI; O'Neill et aI., 1997) ,
provides the team with information that allows them to develop a hypothesis statement.
17
The team then decides whether they are confident that the hypothesis statement they
generated describes the behavior and conditions maintaining the behavior adequately. If
so, the team can build behavioral supports for the student based on the summary
statement. However, if the team does not feel confident that their hypothesis statement is
accurate, the team should conduct a formal or full FBA (Crone & Homer, 2003).
Formal FBA methods consist of direct methods for assessing problem behavior to
test the hypothesis developed from interviews conducted during the efficient FBA (Sugai,
Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan, 1998). Additional interviews and direct observations of the
student in identified routines are usually gathered by the behavior specialist or another
trained IPBS team member. In conducting a formal FBA it may be useful to interview the
parents or guardians of the student (e.g., Function-based support plan protocol, O'Neill et
aI., 1997) and the student themself (e.g., Functional Assessment Checklist for Students,
Borgmeier, 2005) to further understand the problem behavior. Direct observation
methods, as described earlier in the paper, involve recording student data during routines
that are identified as where the problem behavior typically occurs. Many observation
tools have been used to collect direct observation data such as ABC charts (Bijou,
Peterson, & Ault, 1968), Scatterplot analysis (Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer, 1985;
Doss Reichle, 1991), the Functional Assessment Observation form (O'Neill et aI., 1997).
After gathering the direct and indirect data, the team should meet to confirm or modify
their original hypothesis (Crone & Homer, 2003). This hypothesis will form the basis for
developing a positive behavior support plan that outlines antecedent and consequence
strategies that match the function of the problem behavior.
18
Importance ofFunctional Hypothesis Statements
The hypothesis statement developed based upon the information obtained during
an FBA is critical to the effectiveness of a behavioral support plan (Borgmeier & Homer,
2006; Crone & Homer, 2003; Kern, 2005). A functional hypothesis statement serves the
purpose of summarizing and linking the important assessment data gathered from the
FBA process and the BSP. There are a number of ways that a hypothesis summary
statement can be written; however, there are three pieces information that essentially
make up a summary statement: (a) a statement of events that occur before the target
behavior, (b) an operational definition of the target behavior, and (c) identification of the
hypothesized function of the behavior (Kern, 2005). A functional hypothesis statement
commonly follows the following format: "When [a specific antecedent event occurs], the
student engages in [operationally defined problem behavior] in order to [hypothesized
function]." This hypothesis statement is crucial as it guides a student's behavior support
team in designing interventions that seek to: avoid or neutralize identified antecedent
conditions, teach and reinforce desired and alternative behaviors that match the function
of the behavior, and ensure that negative behaviors do not result in achievement of their
hypothesized function.
Given the amount of time, resources, and effort expended to conduct an FBA, an
inaccurate hypothesis statement leading to an ineffective behavioral support plan can be
very costly, impractical, and inefficient (Borgmeier & Homer, 2006). Consequently, it is
vital that individuals conducting FBAs receive trainil1g in both reliably collecting FBA
data and analyzing this data to formulate accurate hypothesis statements (Sasso et aI.,
19
2001). Furthermore, the accuracy of summary statements generated from school-based
professionals that have received training in FBA can provide a metric for the efficacy and
practicality of training methods.
Confirming the Validity ofFBA
A few studies (Borgmeier & Horner, 2006; Bergstrom, 2003; Yarbrough & Carr,
2000) have utilized experimental functional analysis to determine the accuracy of
summary statements. Borgmeier and Horner (2006) adapted functional analysis
procedures described by Iwata et al (1982/1994) for application in a school setting. One
of the primary goals of their study was to determine the accuracy of summary statements
developed from the use of the FACTS (March et aI., 2000) interview tool. The specific
functional analysis conditions used in their study were individually identified for each
student based upon functional assessment hypotheses developed from FACTS interviews
conducted with school staff. Borgmeier and Horner assessed three conditions (control,
escape, and attention) in addition to other conditions identified from individual student
results from FACTS interviews. A team of three experts in behavior analysis were used
to rate the level of agreement between hypothesis statements generated based upon
FACTS interviews and functional analysis results for reach student. This current study
will utilize similar procedures to assess the efficacy of use of the Practical FBA training
procedures to train school personnel to conduct FBA in schools.
20
Challenges ofImplementing FBA in Schools
The efficiency of FBA methods in schools is critical to successful implementation
of positive behavioral interventions, given the limited resources which schools have
available to them (Borgmeier & Horner, 2006; Horner, 1994; Kratochwill & McGivern,
1996). However, the design and implementation of positive behavior supports based on
functional behavioral assessments can be an extensive and time consuming process that
requires that a school's Intensive Positive Behavior Support Team have: (a) complex
skills in developing function-based behavior supports, (b) ability to engage key players
(parents and community support service agencies) and translate family/student stories
into data to guide plans, and (c) capacity to persistently work to effect change (Eber &
Breen, 2008). Establishing the capacity to design systems (i.e., SWPBS and IPBS) to
support the effective implementation ofFBAs, the length of time required to conduct
FBAs, and the lack of trained personnel within schools are difficult barriers for schools to
overcome (Borgmeier & Horner, 2006). Furthermore, even when school personnel have
received training in FBA, school teams typically did not select interventions that were
linked to the assessed function of behavior (Fox & Davis, 2005; Scott et aI., 2005; Van
Acker et aI., 2005).
The team-based approach to designing positive behavioral supports has been
considered best practice (Benazzi, Horner, & Good, 2006; Crone et aI., 2007). However,
historically FBA has been conducted primarily by a single person, usually an expert
skilled in behavioral analysis (Scott et aI., 2005). Scott and his colleagues questioned
FBA teams who received team-based FBA trainings and found that acquisition-level
training in FBA procedures was not sufficient to facilitate a technically sound FBA
21
process. They also found that there is a great need for adequate behavioral support
systems (e.g., primary and secondary implementation of SWPB S) to support the use of a
FBA team process within a school. In a different study, Van Acker and his colleagues
(2005) found that schools struggled to develop their capacity to implement FBAs.
Furthermore, Hawken, Vincent, and Schumann (2008) reviewed literature that suggested
that schools continue to experience difficulties in applying best practices in FBA
technology to develop behavioral supports due to lack of trained personnel and lack of
resources (e.g., time and funds) to provide effective supports for teachers to deal with
challenging student behavior.
Functional Behavioral Assessment Training in Schools
The capacity of a school to implement effective and efficient FBA practices is
highly dependent upon the ability of personnel within the school to implement valid FBA
procedures (Crone & Homer, 1999; Doggett, Edwards, & Moore, 2001; Ervin et al.,
2001). Since FBA was been mandated in 1997, many books and manuals have been
published with the intent to teach the effective use of FBA (e.g., Chandler & Dahlquist,
2002; Cipani, 1998; Cipani & Schock, 2007; Crimmins, Farrell, Smith, & Bailey, 2007;
Crone & Horner, 2003; Liaupsin, Scott, & Nelson, 2001; McConnell, Cox, Thomas, &
Hi1vitz, 2001; O'Neill et al., 1997; Umbreit et al., 2007; Watson & Steege, 2003). In
addition, many school districts and states have outlined training models to train schoo1-
based personnel to conduct FBAs (e.g., Browning-Wright et al., 2007; Van Acker et al.,
2005). Recently the research literature base on functional behavioral assessment training
in schools has been increasing and will only continue to grow (Browning-Wright et al.,
22
2007;Crone, Hawken, & Bergstrom, 2007; Dukes et aI., 2008; Erbas, Tekin-Iftar, &
Yucesoy, 2006; Lane, Barton-Arwood, Spencer, & Kalberg, 2007; Maag & Larson, 2004;
Renshaw, Christensen, Marchant & Anderson, 2008; Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, &
McIntyre, 2005; Scott & Nelson, 1999; Scott, Nelson, & Zabala, 2003; Van Acker,
Boreson, Gable, & Potterton, 2005).
Shellady and Stichter (1999) identified five functional assessment training
domains: (a) content knowledge; (b) attitudes and beliefs; (c) supports and barriers; (d)
training needs and issues; and (e) maintenance and generalization. The "content
knowledge" training domain entailed: the instruction of principles and procedures of
applied behavior analysis; instruction on indirect and direct assessment methods (e.g.,
interviews, direct observations); data analysis strategies (e.g., competing behavior
analysis); familiarity with repertoire of behavior management strategies; instruction on
how to teach appropriate replacement behaviors that may serve the same function as the
problem behavior. The "assessment and beliefs" domain sought to provide information
on: how student behavior serves a communicative intent; team approaches to problem
solving; need to address performance and motivational deficits; need to teach
replacements for problem behavior in context. The "supports and barriers" domain
identified the need to address such topics as the need for administrative support, access to
technical support, time constraints, intrusiveness of the functional assessment process,
and additional paperwork.
23
The other two functional assessment training domains identified by Shellady and
Stichter (1999) were "training needs and issues" and "maintenance and generalization."
Instructional format (e.g., workshop, lecture), access to mentors, availability of release
time, and instructional material format (e.g., FBA manuals, interactive software) were
identified as "training needs and issues" to be considered. Concerning the maintenance
and generalization of functional assessment training, they identified the need for ongoing
technical assistance, collaboration or consultation opportunities, interprofessional
communication skills, efficiency and effectiveness of interventions based on FBA data.
A review of research literature where training in FBA was provided to school-
based personnel was conducted to determine the positions held by participants trained,
the goal of the training, training format, length of trainings, and training materials used.
A total of seven studies within the last five years were identified as documenting FBA
training for school-based personnel for use within the school context (Crone, Hawken, &
Bergstrom,2007; Dukes, Rosenberg, & Brady, 2007; Lane, Barton-Arwood, Spencer, &
Kalberg, 2007; Maag & Larson, 2004; Renshaw, Christensen, Marchant, & Anderson,
2008; Van Acker, Boreson, Gable, & Potterton, 2005; Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, &
McIntyre, 2005). The participants that were trained in these studies included (a) school-
based FBA teams that consisted of teachers and behavior specialists (Crone, Hawken, &
Bergstrom, 2007; Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, & McIntyre, 2005), (b) individual special
educators (Dukes, Rosenberg, & Brady, 2007); (c) individual special educators, school
psychologists, social workers, and administrators (Van Acker et aI., 2005); and (c)
24
individual general education teachers ( Maag & Larson, 2004; Renshawet aI., 2008). The
goals of the trainings were similar in that all of the trainings set to train participants on
the principles of FBA, procedures of FBA, defining behavior and behavioral functions,
conducting direct observations, generating hypotheses statements of the behavior, and
linking behavior supports to the FBA.
The training formats, lengths of trainings, and training materials used differed
across the seven studies. Scott et ai. (2005) provided a four-hour training with behavior
specialists from four elementary schools that consisted of sample case scenarios of
teacher-student interactions (from videos) and information from a variety of school
personnel familiar with that student. The entire FBA and behavior intervention planning
process was presented based upon an interactive training module (Scott, Liaupsin, &
Nelson, 2001). In this same study, Scott and his colleagues also provided one-day
training for teachers and support staff from across four schools. The training involved an
overview of concepts of collaborative assessment, behavioral function, and function-
based interventions. Additionally, the participants were presented with videos of two case
study examples of the collaborative FBA process and student behavior in classroom
settings.
Crone, Hawken, and Bergstrom (2007) trained eleven school teams from two
different school districts. FBA training workshops were offered to two cohorts in this
study. The training workshops for the first cohort was spread over an academic year
where school teams from one district received their training once a month (from the fall
25
to spring) which consisted of six half-day workshops, while the second district in the first
cohort received five half-day workshops.
Participants were provided instruction in an FBA topic and given time to practice the new
skill at each workshop. School teams were expected to practice the new skill taught in the
workshop at their school building between workshops. Due to feedback that it was
difficult to implement the FBA process over an extended period of time, the second
cohort of schools received a 2-day training (7 hours each day) prior to the school year.
Additionally, on-site consultation was provided to teams. Topics covered during the
training workshops included (a) setting events, antecedents, behaviors, and
consequences; (b) operational definitions of behavior, (c) FBA interviews; (d) FBA
observations; (e) competing behavior pathways; (f) designing BSPs; and (g) evaluating
BSPs. The FBA training model used in this study was based on work by Sugai and
Homer (1999).
Lane, Barton-Arwood, Spencer, and Kalberg (2007) provided training on
functional assessment to four elementary school teams that consisted of four
representatives (a principal, special educator, general educator, and a fourth member of
choice). School teams attended three 6-hr training sessions (a total of 18 hours of
instruction) across five months (October to January) where they received instruction on:
(a) working as a team, (b) peer assisted learning strategies, (c) functional-assessment
procedures; (d) designing function-based interventions; and (d) evaluating intervention
outcomes. Similar to the Crone et al (2007) study, bimonthly consultation (about 10 to 12
hours ofon-site support) and follow-up were provided for the school teams.
26
The functional assessment procedures taught by Lane and her colleagues during
the trainings included (a) interviews, (b) rating scales, (c) direct observations, and (d)
records review. Interviews used included the Preliminary Functional Assessment Survey
(Dunlap et aI., 1993) and Student-Assisted Functional Assessment Interview (Kern,
Dunlap, Clarke, & Childs, 1994). Team members were taught to complete The Social
Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliot, 1990) and the Motivation Assessment
Scale (MAS; Durand & Crimmins, 1988) rating scales. ABC data collection (Bijou,
Peterson, & Ault, 1968) was used for direct observations. Lastly, school records were
reviewed using the School Archival Record System (SARS; Walker et aI., 1991).
The four other studies reviewed provided FBA training to individuals rather than
school teams (Dukes, Rosenberg, & Brady, 2007; Renshaw et aI., 2008; Van Acker et aI.,
2005). The length of time of the training sessions in these studies were: four hour-long
training sessions (total of four hours over a ten week period provided to 13 participants
(Renshaw et aI., 2008); five and a half total hours oftraining (across two training sessions
for one participant, Maag & Larson, 2004); three one-day seminars (for 73 individuals,
Dukes, Rosesnberg, & Brady, 2007; and over 1000 individuals, Van Acker et aI., 2005).
The training described in the Dukes et ai. study was a district training that included case
studies and role-play activities. The materials used in their study were developed by the
school district and did not specify the types of tools participants received instruction on
for gathering FBA data. Similarly, Van Acker and his colleagues did not specify the
structure or FBA instruments for which participants received training.
27
Both studies from Renshaw et al (2008) and Maag and Larson (2004) trained
general educators to conduct functional assessments. Training content and materials for
the Renshaw et al training were based upon a published text on functional behavioral
assessment (Umbreit et aI., 2007). The Renshaw et al training consisted of a (a) group
training (four I-hr sessions), (b) independent reading and applied activities (from the
Umbreit et aI., 2007 text), and (c) individual consultation (two sessions 5 to 15 minutes in
length). The four training sessions covered: (a) conducting FBA, (b) developing a BSP
(two sessions), and (c) implementing and monitoring the BSP.
Maag and Larson (2004), in their study, individually trained one general
education teacher who received two FBA training sessions. The first session provided the
teacher with information on the principles and procedures of functional assessment that
included: defining behaviors, identifying environmental factors that influence the
behavior, conducting direct observations, and developing hypotheses about variables
maintaining the behavior. The second session provided the teacher with feedback and
problem solving for conducting FBA in her classroom. The materials used to train the
teacher included an event recording tool (Maag, 1999) for recording direct observation
data and the Functional Assessment Hypothesis Formulation Protocol (FAHP; Larson &
Maag, 1998). The authors noted that the FAHP combines elements of checklists,
interviews, and observation forms to direct implementers in generating behavioral
hypothesis statements.
28
Training school personnel to conduct FBAs that will effectively guide positive
behavior supports for individual students has been considered a complex, dynamic, and
formative process (Scott, Nelson, & Zabala, 2003). Additionally, the FBA process
provided to school-based personnel should be both valid and efficient to promote routine
use (Horner, 1994). Results from research involving FBA training of school personnel
suggests that effective FBA training should involve realistic examples and opportunities
for guided practice (Cook et aI., 2007; Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, & McIntyre, 2005). This
current study examines the efficacy of a FBA training that is dynamic, formative, valid,
and provides guided practice with realistic examples for school personnel. This study
strives to build from the literature and experimentally test the accuracy of behavioral
hypothesis statements from school personnel that have received training based on
empirically supported tools and procedures.
Practical FBA:
Training for Effectiveness and Efficiency in Schools
The lack of consistency between methods used to train school personnel to
conduct FBA based on the earlier literature review suggest that there is a need to
standardize FBA training methodology (Renshaw et aI., 2008; Scott et aI., 2004). Scott
and his colleagues (2004) identified the need for research to focus on the degree of
training necessary for school-based personnel to adequately implement FBA procedures
within the school context. They also suggest that research should focus on developing
capacity for school personnel to collaborate and share tasks for completing FBA tasks.
Scott and colleagues have suggested that empirical support be provided as to under what
29
conditions or decision rules should be used to guide practitioners to implement less
intrusive, more efficient FBA methodologies. Furthermore, there exists a need to
establish methods that allow for simple, yet effective implementation of the FBA process.
Finally, research is needed to determine methods on providing FBA training in such a
way that FBA is conducted in a reliable and valid manner.
Metz, Burkhauser, and Bowie (2009) provided a literature review of the growing
body of research on effective training for school staff. They outlined five steps to
effective staff training based on an analysis of research studies on staff training
conducted in the field of human services. The five steps ofeffective training were: (a)
presenting background information, theory, philosophy, and values of the new program
or practice; (b) introducing and demonstrating important aspects of the new practice or
skills; (c) providing staff with opportunities to practice new skills and receive feedback in
a safe training environment; (d) providing staff with ongoing support and follow-up
training; and (e) allowing sufficient time for training. Additionally, Kame'enui (1990)
presented the principle of "teaching less more thoroughly" regarding reading instruction.
This same principle can be applied to the design of effective training for school
personnel. This current study applies this principle to a practical FBA training process
that identifies instructional objectives that are essential to developing the skills of school
personnel to conduct accurate FBAs to inform effective behavior supports for students.
30
The training focuses instruction on the most important concepts and empirically
supported tools for conducting FBA. The practical FBA training model in this study is
designed to be used by district-level trainers to enable school personnel to learn essential
FBA procedures in the limited time available.
Statement ofthe Problem and Hypotheses
Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is a process that has been required in
schools since 1997 (Blood & Neel, 2007; Fox & Davis, 2005; Gresham et aI., 2003;
Scott, Liupsin, Nelson, & McIntyre, 2005). The literature is clear on the critical elements
required to conduct a functional behavioral assessment and use the resulting information
to develop a function-based behavior support plan (Crone & Homer, 2003; Drasgow,
Yell, Bradley, & Shriner, 1999; Homer, Sugai, Todd, & Lewis-Palmer, 2000; Witt, Daly,
& Noell, 2000). However, some researchers in the field have been concerned about the
ability of school-based personnel to conduct accurate behavioral assessments that result
in effective behavioral supports for students with problem behaviors (e.g., Smith, 2000;
Gresham, 2003; Quinn et aI., 2001; Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001). In line with
these concerns, schools have struggled to effectively support students requiring function-
based interventions.
Functional Behavioral Assessment is not a process intended to increase the
already overwhelming paperwork educators must complete. Rather, FBA has been
recommended as an effective proactive technology that should be used at the first signs of
misbehavior (Scott et aI., 2003; Sugai et aI., 2000). Scott and Caron (2005) provided a
conceptualization of functional behavior assessment as a preventative practice within
schools implementing School wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS; Sugai et al.,
31
2000). They outlined how FBA can be conceptualized across the three levels of the
prevention model for SWPBS (Walker et aI., 1996) for all students. At the primary (or
universal) prevention level they described FBA as a collaborative school-wide practice to
predict common problems and to develop interventions at the school level. At the
secondary (or targeted group) prevention level, they described FBA as involving simple
and realistic team-driven assessment and intervention strategies aimed at students with
mild behavior problems. Finally at the tertiary (or individualized/intensive) prevention
level, Scott and Caron described FBA as a complex, time-consuming, and rigorous
process focused on students with more chronic, intensive behavior problems for whom
primary and secondary level interventions were unsuccessful.
Conducting an FBA for students with intensive chronic behavioral problems can
be very complex and resource intensive process, therefore it is important that schools
have the capacity to conduct these assessments. Schools that have implemented SWPBS
for a number of years have a team of professionals (e.g., teachers, administrators, support
personnel) focused on designing function-based supports. However, the brunt of the FBA
process is usually conducted by the individual on the school team with the most
behavioral knowledge (e.g., school psychologist or special educator). The overreliance
on one individual to conduct FBAs within a school limits the scope of function-based
support that can be offered within a school. Therefore, in accordance with the Response
to Intervention (RTI; Sailor et aI., 2009) logic and the three tiered SWPBS models being
implemented in thousands of schools across the nation, functional behavior assessment
may be more practical if it is simplified to enable professionals within a school to
conduct FBAs for those students that require relatively simple individualized supports.
32
33
Overview ofthe Study
The purpose of this study was to determine if staff with flexible roles in schools
(e.g., counselors, administrators) can be trained to conduct functional behavior
assessments (FBA) for students with mild behavior problems (i.e., students with recurring
problems that do not involve physical aggression or violent behaviors). A training manual
designed to teach practical FBA methods was delivered to school professionals to guide
them in conducting functional behavior assessments for students needing individualized
supports in their schools. The school professionals utilized practical tools to interview
staff and students, observe students, and define a hypothesis ofthe function of student
problem behavior. The FBA hypothesis statements delineated by the school professionals
were validated or refuted by functional analyses conducted by a trained behavior
specialist. The outcomes of this study may provide evidence that school professionals can
be trained to conduct FBAs for students with less complicated behavior problems.
Furthermore, it may provide a practical training that district-level behavior specialists can
deliver to school staff in order to increase a school's capacity to provide effective
function-based supports for all students.
The current study evaluated whether systematic training provided through use of a
manual (Practical FBA manual) would result in school professionals being able to
conduct a procedurally adequate FBA and construct an accurate summary statement of
actual student behavior. A summary statement of student behavior provides a hypothesis
of the: (a) operational definition of student problem behavior, (b) antecedent variables
that trigger the problem behavior, and (c) functions maintaining the problem behavior
34
(e.g., social negative reinforcement, social positive reinforcement, and automatic
reinforcement). Additionally, the study examined whether behavioral summary
statements obtained through use of the functional assessment tool for interviewing school
staff, a revised version of the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff
(FACTS; Borgmeier, 2005; March et aI., 2000), were related to functional analyses
results. Finally, this study investigated the efficiency and social validity of the practical
FBA training process utilized.
Table 1 (below) shows the three phases in which the study was conducted. In the
first phase, systematic "Practical FBA" training on FBA interview and observation
procedures was provided to 12 school professionals. The "Practical FBA" training
taught school professionals to: (a) operationally define problem behavior; (b) gather
interview data from interviews with staff and students; (c) observe and measure behavior;
(d) identify events that predict behavior (setting events and antecedents); (e) identify the
function of behavior (e.g., things obtained or escaped from); (f) summarize the behaviors
in such a way as to identify the predictors and maintaining consequences for problem
behavior; and (g) identify conditions for which a behavior specialist should be consulted
to provide further assessment of student behavior. The training provided to the
participants served as a guide for each school professional in conducting an FBA for one
student within their respective schools. A demographic questionnaire was provided to
each school professional participant to describe their job, experience in schools, and
Table 1
Methods by Phase
35
Research
Question(s)
Settings
Participants
Procedures
Measures
Phase 1
Practical FBA Training
Is there a change in
school participant score
on FBA Knowledge Pre
& Post Instruction?
12 Elementary Schools
12 School Professionals
with flexible roles in the
school
4, One hour trainings
based on Practical FBA
Manual
1. Demographic
Questionnaire
2. PrelPost Test
Phase 2
Practical FBA Conducted by
School Personnel
Is the practical training and
FBA process used efficient &
socially valid for use in
schools?
Are FBAs conducted by
trained school personnel
procedurally adequate?
10 Elementary Schools
10 Professionals each conduct
an FBA with one student
(Total of 10 students).
Staff conduct interviews with
staff and direct observations of
students
1. FACTS interviews
2. ABC Recording Form
3. Summary of Behavior
Table
4. FBA Procedural Checklist
5. Acceptability Rating
Profile
6. Time Expended Log
Phase 3
Functional Analysis
Conducted to Validate
Summary Statements
Is there consistency
between summary
statements generated
solely from FACTS
interviews &
Functional Analyses?
Is there a relationship
between summary
statements generated
using the Practical FBA
process & Functional
Analyses?
Student
Classrooms/Settings
Identified by FBA
Same 10 students
Functional Analysis
Conditions
1. Direct
Observations of
Functional
Analysis
Conditions
2. Functional
Analysis
Comparison Form
36
knowledge of FBA procedures. Results from tests provided to participants pre- and post-
training were used to determine whether participants improved in their ability to conduct
an FBA due to the practical FBA training. Phase two of the study was comprised of the
assessment of students by the school professional participants.
In the second phase of the study, 10 of the 12 school professionals who received
the FBA training conducted an FBA according to the procedures they were taught during
the Practical FBA training. Each participant: (a) conducted a FACTS interview with at
least one staff member associated with the student; (b) observed the student during
routines that were determined to be problems for the student according to the staff
FACTS; and (c) constructed a summary statement based upon their interviews and
observations. The final summary statement of behavior (a) operationally defined the
problem behavior; (b) provided a hypothesis of the antecedent variables that occasioned
the problem behavior, and (c) hypothesized the perceived function maintaining the
problem behavior. The school professionals were also asked to document the amount of
time they spent scheduling, conducting, and completing the Practical FBA process for
one student. Furthermore, a FBA procedural adequacy checklist was used to determine
the level to which a plan met procedural guidelines for a completed FBA.
In the third phase of the study, each school professional's hypothesized
consequences maintaining the function of behavior (obtained from their summary
statement) were tested through functional analysis to determine the accuracy of their
functional hypotheses. Visual inspection (utilizing criteria from a functional analysis
comparison form) of the functional analysis results were compared to the hypotheses
37
generated by the school professionals' FBAs. The level of agreement or accuracy of the
final hypothesized consequences from the school professional's summary statements
served as the dependent variable to examine the efficacy of the Practical FBA training.
The preliminary behavioral summary statements resulting from staff FACTS
interviews were compared with the results of direct observations from functional analyses
conditions. Additionally, the level of agreement between the direct observations in the
natural setting versus those from functional analyses conditions served as another
dependent variable. Finally, at the conclusion of the study, the school professionals were
given a questionnaire to identify the level of efficiency and acceptability of the Practical
FBA training and process.
Independent Variable
The independent variable for this study was the delivery of the "Practical FBA"
training (shown in Appendices T and U). School staff with flexible roles in an elementary
(kindergarten to fifth grade) school within the state of Oregon that was currently
implementing School wide Positive Behavior Support (Sugai et al., 2000) were
considered eligible for participation in this study. Flexible roles of staff were defined as
staff members that were employed by the school in a position that does not require them
to be directly responsible for the instruction of students. Examples of individuals who
met these criteria included administrators, counselors, and learning specialists (i.e., staff
that provided academic interventions for students with special needs or at-risk for
intensive academic supports).
38
The Practical FBA training consisted of four, I-hour training sessions and a
training manual for school professionals (see Table 2 below). The first session of the
training provided an overview of the Practical FBA training series and introduced
concepts, examples, and practice opportunities for participants to learn how to (a)
operationally define behavior, (b) identify the function of behavior, and (c) construct
functional behavioral summary statements. The second training session briefly reviewed
content from the first session and provided instruction, modeling, and practice
opportunities in conducting interviews using the FACTS with staff (modified from
Borgmeier, 2005) and students (Borgmeier, 2005). During this training session,
participants also practiced constructing behavioral summary statements from each
interview. The third training session provided a brief overview of the previous training,
instruction, and practice opportunities for participants to conduct direct observations
(ABC [Antecedent, Behavior, and Consequence; Van Norman, 2007]) of students within
routines identified as settings in which the problem behavior occurs most frequently
(based upon the staff FACTS interviews). During this third session, participants
practiced constructing summary statements based upon data from their observations to
verify or modify summary statements derived from their FACTS interviews. The fourth
and final training session comprised of: (a) an overview of all of the concepts and skills
taught during the first three sessions; (b) opportunities for participants to practice the
skills that they learned in conducting interviews, observations, and constructing
behavioral summary statements; and (c) ideas for helping individual student support
teams in designing function-based behavioral supports.
39
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This study focused on answering one primary research question, with five
secondary questions. This primary research question with an explanation of how it will be
addressed is presented below, followed by the presentation of secondary questions.
Primary Research Question. Is there a correlational relationship between summary
statements produced via "Practical FBA" training of school professionals and summary
statements produced via formal functional analyses? This question was answered by a
calculation of the percentage of hypothesis statements from school professional FBAs
that agree with the results from functional analyses results provided by an expert panel.
The researcher hypothesized that there would be a high level of agreement (over 90%)
between the hypotheses generated by the school professionals and the functional
analyses.
Secondary Research Questions. Is there a change in school participant scores on
FBA knowledge pre- and post-training assessment? This question was answered by
calculating the difference between pre- and post-training assessment scores for each
participant. Due to the limited sample size (N= 12), statistical analyses were not used to
determine the significance of these differences. These data were used to describe the
difference between a school participant's FBA knowledge before and after the training.
The researcher hypothesized that all of the participants would improve in their FBA
knowledge by scoring at least 80% or higher on the post-assessment.
40
Is there consistency between summary statements generated solely from FACTS
interviews conducted with staff and functional analyses of student behavior? This
question was answered by calculating the percentage of agreement between summary
statements from FACTs interviews conducted with staff and functional analyses results.
The researcher hypothesized that there would be a high percentage of agreement (over
80%).
Are the functional behavioral assessments conducted by school professionals
procedurally adequate? This question was answered by calculating the number of
recommended components of an FBA that were completed by the school professionals'
FBA (FBA Procedural Checklist; Appendix G). The researcher hypothesized that there
would be a high percentage of the components (over 90%) completed for each
assessment conducted.
Is there consistency between summary statements based upon direct observations
of students during identified routines and functional analyses conducted on students
exhibiting problem behaviors? This question was answered by calculating the percentage
of agreement between the summary statements based upon direct observations of students
during identified routines and functional analyses results. The researcher hypothesized a
high percentage of agreement (over 80%).
Is the Practical FBA training and FBA process used by the school professionals
efficient and socially valid for use in schools? This question was answered by results
from a social validity questionnaire asking school participants to rate the level of
41
efficiency and acceptability of the Practical FBA training and procedures. The
questionnaire consisted of a 6-point Likert scale indicating agreement with statements
concerning the utility of the training, efficiency of the training and FBA procedures, and
level of confidence the school professionals have with conducting FBA after the training
and conducting an FBA on an actual student. This question was also answered with
examination of a time log indicating the amount of time each participant took to conduct
an FBA using the Practical FBA procedures. An average total time per participant was
calculated for the entire FBA process, as well as the amount of time each individual task
in the process took (e.g., conducting the staff interviews, student interviews, direct
observations, constructing final summary statements).
42
CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY
Settings
This study was conducted across 10 elementary schools (kindergarten through
fifth grade) in a school district in the state of Oregon in the United States of America.
Participants
School Professionals. Twelve school professionals with a flexible role (i.e., not
directly responsible for instruction of students) in an elementary school (K-5) were
recruited to participate in the study (Table 2). The participants were provided the
opportunity to participate in this study through notification by their school district
administration. School professionals that agreed to participate signed up to attend one of
three training cohorts that took place during the school year. Cohort 1 included 4 school
professionals who attended trainings in the early fall (late September to mid October).
Cohort 2 consisted of 3 participants who attended trainings in late fall (late October to
early November). Cohort 3 was made up of 5 participants who attended trainings in the
winter (mid January to early February).
Seven of the school professionals were school counselors (58%), two were
principals (nearly 17%), two learning specialists (nearly 17%), and one vice principal
(8%). Seven of the participants (58%) stated they had conducted an FBA before. Prior to
the training, one of the participants stated they had completed more than 5 FBAs, while
three participants had completed 1 FBA; two participants had completed 2 FBAs, and 1
43
participant had completed 3 FBAs prior to the training. Five participants (42%) indicated
that they had not conducted an FBA before. Regarding behavioral interventions, all of
the participants indicated that they had experience implementing more than 6 behavioral
interventions for students prior to the training. Concerning perceived knowledge of
behavioral theory, participants rated themselves on average 3.4 out of4 (0= none to
4=extensive).
Table 2
School Professional Demographics
Cohort Participant Position Years FBAs Interventions Behavior
conducted Implemented Theory
Counselor 10 5+ 6+ 4
2 Counselor 19 2 6+ 4
3 Counselor 14 0 6+ 3
4 Learning 9
Specialist 2 6+ 2
2 5 Counselor 17 3 6+ 4
2 6 Principal 16 0 6+ 2
2 7 Principal 4 0 6+ 2
3 8 Counselor 6 0 6+ 3
3 9 Learning 26
Specialist 1 6+ 3
3 10 Counselor 6 6+ 4
3 11* VP/Teacher 33 0 6+ 3
3 12* Counselor 9 6+ 3
Note. Asterisks indicate participants that completed the training (Phase 1), but did not complete a
Practical FBA for a student (Phase 2).
44
The 12 professionals received four I-hour "Practical FBA" training sessions that
taught them to: (a) operationally define behavior; (b) observe and measure behavior; (c)
gather interview data from interviews with staff and students; (d) identify events that
predict behavior (setting events and antecedents); (e) identify the function of behavior
(e.g., things obtained or escaped from); (0 summarize the behaviors in such a way as to
identify the predictors and maintaining consequences for problem behavior; and (g)
identify conditions for which a behavior specialist should be consulted to provide further
assessment of student behavior. The school professionals were given a test comprised of
vignettes testing their knowledge of FBA concepts and skills before the initial training
session and again after the final training session to document whether the training
improved their FBA conceptual knowledge and skills (Appendix B). These professionals
also conducted a "Practical FBA" on one identified student within their respective school.
The "Practical FBA" consisted of: FACTS interviews with staff working with the student
(Appendix C) , and direct observations of the student in identified routines (Appendix E).
Based on the information that they gathered, each of the school professionals were
prompted to construct a table outlining the final summary statement hypothesizing the
antecedent variables that occasion the problem behavior and the perceived function
maintaining the problem behavior of their target student (Appendix F). The 12 school
professionals were instructed to use the FBA protocol as opportunities and needs arose in
the regular process of their school activities. During the four month period following
training 10 of the 12 school professional participants completed the entire Practical FBA
process.
45
Students. Ten of the 12 school professionals conducted a "Practical FBA" with
one student with behavior problems identified as requiring individualized support.
Students were identified for the study based on typical school procedures involving staff
nomination. Following staff nomination, the researcher conducted brief preliminary staff
interviews and student observations to verify that the student fit the criterion for the
study. Students were included in this study based on the criteria that they were exhibiting
problem behaviors within the school setting that are impeding their school progress, but
were not dangerous to other students or school staff. Additionally, the researcher ensured
that student participants were selected based on ethical and practical considerations,
which included the severity, frequency, and consistency of the target behavior. The
researcher conducted a brief preliminary observation of each student to ensure that
functional assessment and functional analysis was safe and practical. All of the students
that the trained staff initially identified for participation were considered appropriate by
the researcher and were included in the study.
A total of 10 students were observed for the completion of 10 FBAs by the school
professionals. Each student will be observed by the school professional conducting the
FBA and trained observers from the University of Oregon. A brief description and
background information for each student is provided in Table 3. Functional analyses
were conducted with each student to confirm the hypothesis statement developed by the
trained school professional. The functional analysis conditions based on the hypothesis
statement generated by the school professional is also included in Appendices J through
S.
46
Table 3
Student Demographics
Student Gender Grade Class Size Routine
1 Female 2 24 Math
2 Male 3 22 Reading & Math
3 Male 4 21 Math
4 Male 2 16 Library
5 Male 2 23 Math
6 Male K 17 Reading & Math
7 Male 2 20 Reading
8 Female 2 24 Math
9 Male 4 24 Reading
10 Male 1 24 Reading
Measures
School Professional Demographic Interview. A staff demographic questionnaire
was used to collect information that differentiated school professionals receiving the
training (Appendix A). The questionnaire sought demographic information pertaining to
each school professionals: (a) position at the school; (b) extent of their previous training
and experience in functional assessment and behavioral interventions; and (c) knowledge
of behavioral theory. The second part of the questionnaire was completed when
participants had identified a student for whom they were going to conduct an FBA. These
questions included: (a) the length of time they knew the student, (b) settings they had
47
contact with the student, (c) amount of contact they had with the student that school year,
and (d) amount of contact they had with the student in the identified problem routine.
FBA Knowledge Pre- and Post-training Assessment. Each school professional
was administered an assessment where they were provided short student case studies or
mock scenarios where they were be required to: (a) operationally define behavior; (b) use
data from interviews with staff and students; (c) identify events that predict behavior
(setting events and antecedents); (e) identify the function of behavior (e.g., things
obtained or escaped from); (f) summarize the behaviors in such a way as to identify the
predictors and maintaining consequences for problem behavior; and (g) identify the
difference between a practical and comprehensive FBA (Appendix B). The average
participant score on the test vignettes pre- and post-training were calculated. Twenty-five
percent (25%; 6) of the pre- and post-training tests were randomly selected and rated by a
second rater. Based on an answer key indicating the answers for the tests, the two raters
achieved 99.05% total agreement ([Agreement - Disagreement/ Agreement +
Disagreement] x 100%).
Practical FEA Conducted by School Professionals
Staff Interviews. Each school professional that received the "Practical FBA"
training conducted an interview with the teacher of a student identified as requiring
behavior supports. The school professionals used the Functional Assessment Checklist
for Staff (FACTS; Appendix C, revised by the author of this study). These data were used
to develop a preliminary summary statement hypothesizing the (a) setting events, (b)
antecedent events triggering the (c) problem behavior, and (d) maintaining function of the
48
student's problem behavior. These data were also used to guide the direct observations
that professionals were to conduct to further identify the variables affecting student
problem behavior.
Direct Observations. School professionals that received the "Practical FBA"
training observed students in routines identified based on the FACTS interviews
conducted with staff. These data were used to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis
statement developed from the FACTS interview conducted with staff. A modified version
of the ABC recording form (Van Norman, 2007; Appendix E) was be used by
participants to gather direct observation data.
Acceptability Rating Questionnaire. At the conclusion of the study, the school
professionals were given a questionnaire to identify the level of acceptability ofthe FBA
training and process (Appendix H). The Acceptability Rating Questionnaire consisted of
10 questions concerning the acceptability of the training, materials, and procedures used
by the school professionals to complete the Practical FBA process. Each question
included a likert scale response ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
Participants were asked to circle the number on the scale that best described their
agreement or disagreement with each statement.
49
Record of Time Expended in Conducting FBA. The school professionals were
asked to document the amount of time they spent in scheduling, conducting, and
completing the FBA process. This was completed using a time log they used in addition
to documenting the dates, start, and end times for completing each task of the Practical
FBA process (e.g., interviews, observations, summarizing results; Appendix I).
Direct Observations During Functional Analysis. During functional analyses,
trained graduate students from the University of Oregon collected observation data on the
occurrence or non-occurrence oftarget behaviors using a partial-interval recording
system. The specific functional analysis conditions varied slightly between students
based on the specific hypotheses generated from the Practical FBA conducted by each
school professional. Before observing a student within functional analysis conditions,
observers were provided with the procedures and specific conditions that were to be used
in the functional analysis. All observers were blind to the hypotheses being tested. Nearly
44 percent (43.64%) of all observations were observed by two observers. The total inter-
observer agreement (lOA; Agreement-disagreement/Agreement + disagreement
multiplied by 100%) across all ofthe observations was 99.11 %. Individual lOA scores
per student participant are illustrated on the graph for each student (Appendices J to S).
The level of agreement between observers within an individual observation session
ranged from 93.3% to 100%.
50
Design and Procedure
Practical FBA Training. Twelve school professional participants participated in
the Practical FBA training which consisted of four I-hour training sessions guided by a
training manual (Appendix T). A summary of the objectives, practice opportunities, tools,
and tasks of each of the four training sessions is presented in Table 2 (below). The first
session of the training provided an overview of the Practical FBA training series and
introduced concepts, examples, and practice opportunities for participants to learn how to
(a) operationally define behavior, (b) identify the function ofbehavior, and (c) construct
functional behavioral summary statements. The second training session briefly reviewed
content from the first session and provide instruction, modeling, and practice
opportunities in conducting FACTS interviews with staff (Borgmeier, 2005) and students
(Borgmeier, 2005). During this training, participants also practiced constructing
behavioral summary statements from each interview. The third training session provided
a brief overview of the previous trainings and provided instruction and practice
opportunities for participants to conduct (a) ABC (Antecedent, Behavior, and
Consequence; Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968) observations (i.e., direct observations of
students within routines identified as settings in which the problem behavior occurs most
frequently based upon the staff FACTS interviews). During this third session,
participants also practiced constructing summary statements based upon data from their
observations to verify or modify summary statements derived from their FACTS
interviews. The fourth and final training session included: (a) an overview of all of the
concepts and skills taught during the first three sessions; (b) opportunities for participants
51
to practice the skills that they have learned in conducting interviews, observations, and
constructing behavioral summary statements; (c) introduction to the competing behavior
pathway (Crone & Homer, 2003), and (d) ideas for helping individual student support
teams in designing function-based behavioral supports. The Practical FBA trainings were
administered by the author of this study and the Practical FBA training manual. He held a
master's degree in special education and trained a number of schools and districts in
procedures for conducting functional behavioral assessments. The trainer followed
procedures from a n instructor's guide to the Practical FBA trainings. Fidelity checklists
were completed for each session. For 33% ofthe training sessions, inter-rater reliability
on the fidelity of training components was calculated. There was 100% agreement
between the raters as to the fidelity oftraining components administered per session.
Prior to receiving the Practical FBA training, each participant completed an
assessment ofFBA knowledge and skills (Appendix B). The test consisted of multiple-
choice and open-ended answer options to vignettes of situations and student case
examples. After each participant completed all four sessions of the training, he or she
completed a post-training test of FBA knowledge and skills with the same vignettes and
questions from the pre-test. The assessment on average took participants 20 minutes to
complete, however, participants were provided as much time as they needed to complete
the assessment.
52
Functional Analysis. Functional analysis procedures described by Borgmeier
(2003) were adapted for use in this study. As in the Borgmeier study, a multi-element
design across maintaining conditions was adapted to the specific characteristics of the
identified routine and context in which the target behavior is most likely to occur. The
functional analysis conditions were designed specifically to test the functional
hypotheses developed from FBAs conducted by the school professional participants.
Table 4
Practical FBA Training Objectives, Tools, and Activities by Session
Session I Session 2 Session 3 Session 4
Objectives and Defme observable Use the FACTS Utilize Review of
practice behaviors (the What interview forms information the fIrst 3
opportunities ofan FBA) with staff and obtained from training
students to specify: FACTS sessions
Identify events that interviews to plan
predict when and Problem behaviors for observations. Instruction
where the specifIc for
behavior occurs Routines in which Observe students participants
problem behaviors within routines to help
Identify why a occur identifIed by the individual
student engages in the FACTS. student
specifIc behavior (the Triggers or support
function of behavior). predictors of the Observe to test teams in
problem behavior the Summary of designing
Construct hypothesis Behavior obtained function-
statements that Pay-off (Function) from FACTS based
summarize the the behaviors serve interviews. positive
WHAT,WHEN, for the student. behavior
WHERE, & WHY of
Possible setting
Practice using
supports
a student's behavior. ABC Recording
events. Form.
Summary of
behavior.
Tools None presented FACTS interview ABC Recording Competing
with Staff Form (Appendix Behavior
(Appendix C) E) Pathway
FACS interview Summary of Behavior
for students Behavior Table Support
(Appendix D) (Appendix F) Planning
Forms
Task Identify a student Conduct a practice Complete an ABC Complete an
who may require FACTS fora Recording Form FBA using
individual behavior student at their for a student at the Practical
supports and prepare school. their school FBA fonns
to interview the and
student's teacher the procedures
following week (after
session #2) .
Note. Each session lasted for one hour.
53
54
Design of Functional Analysis Conditions. A functional analysis involves the
experimental manipulation of variables to assist in identifying the function of a student's
problem behavior by comparing the rate of student behavioral responses across
conditions (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Each student's functional analysis
conditions were individualized according to the functional hypotheses developed by the
school professionals. These functional analyses may be viewed as "verifying functional
analyses" as they were constructed to test the accuracy of motivating variables and
maintaining reinforcers for student behavior identified in each school professional's
functional hypothesis. The functional analyses for all students consisted of three
conditions: control, attention, and escape.
The control condition was designed to establish a condition in which the student
had consistently exhibited little to no problem behavior. The control condition provided a
baseline condition to help in isolating variables that influenced the occurrence of
behavior. Once a control condition was established, variables hypothesized as the
motivating operations and reinforcers maintaining a student's problem behavior were
manipulated to examine their influence on the occurrence of problem behavior.
The attention condition involved the contingent provision of attention following
occurrence of the problem behavior. In the cases where peer attention was hypothesized
as the function of student problem behavior, peers were present in the condition to allow
for peer response to the target student's problem behavior. Peers were not instructed to
contingently respond to problem behavior in the attention condition. Rather, the
55
researcher ensured that contingent attention was provided to the student within the
context of peers (if peers did not naturally provide attention contingently).
The escape condition examined the function of student behavior through the
contingent removal of aversive tasks following the occurrence of the problem behavior.
For example, tasks that were considered by the student as too difficult, too long, or
physically taxing may be considered aversive to a student. The tasks for each individual
student varied depending upon the aspects of tasks a student perceives as aversive. The
tasks used within the escape condition were identified through teacher and student
interviews.
The following safeguards were used to maintain experimental control and reduce
error and bias:
1. The researcher conducted the functional analysis with each student while
trained observers collected direct observation functional analysis data.
2. Across days the experimental conditions were presented in random order to
reduce the risk of order effects.
3. Each condition was presented to the student a minimum of four times across
separate days.
56
Each functional analysis condition consisted of 10 trials and lasted a maximum of
5 minutes (total of 15 minutes per observation session). Before starting a new condition,
the student was provided with a verbal description of the procedures that were to be used
in that condition. Following occurrences of problem behavior during each condition, the
researcher systematically followed through with the prescribed response (i.e., removal of
task, providing attention, etc.).
Functional Analysis Comparison. Once all data were collected from the school
professional participants the level of agreement between hypotheses statements and
functional analysis results were evaluated by the researcher. The description of
functional analysis conditions along with visual analysis ofthe multi-element design
(Kennedy, 2005) was used to determine the agreement between each participant's
hypothesis statement and the functional analysis.
57
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
The primary goal of this study was to determine if staff with flexible roles in
schools can be trained to conduct functional behavioral assessments (FBA) for students
with mild to moderate behavior problems. The primary research question examined if
there was a correlational relationship between summary statements generated via
Practical FBA procedures conducted by trained school professionals and experimental
functional analyses. Secondary research questions examined if: (a) there was a change in
school participant scores on FBA knowledge pre- and post-training assessment; (b) the
FBAs conducted by school professionals procedurally adequate; (c) was the Practical
FBA training and FBA process used efficient and socially valid for use in schools; and
(d) there was consistency between summary statements generated solely from FACTS
interviews conducted with staff and functional analyses of student behavior. The results
of the secondary questions will be discussed first in the order presented above, as they
provide background for the results of the primary research question.
FBA Knowledge and Skills Assessment
Table 5 below shows the results of the FBA knowledge and skills assessments
provided to each of the 12 school professionals before and after participating in all of the
Practical FBA training sessions. Overall the average percent change for participants from
pre- to post-training assessment was an increase in nearly 54% (M=53.77%, SD=15.71).
The average participant pre-training score was nearly 40% (M=39.50%, SD=18.82),
58
ranging from 11.40% to 68.50%. The average post-training assessment score for
participants was nearly 93% (M=92.55%, SD=7.22), ranging from 77% to 100%. While
there was variability between participants in their pre-training scores, none of the
participants displayed adequate FBA knowledge and skills before the training (i.e., none
of the participants scored at least 80% on the pre-training assessment). After the training,
all of the participants except one (Participant 12; M=77%; +51.29% increase from pre- to
post-assessment) scored at least 80% on the post-assessment.
Table 5
Overall Pre/Post-Training Results/or FBA Knowledge & Skills
Cohort Participant Pre Test Post Test Percent Change
1 1 65.7% 97.10% +40.40%
2 34.2% 92.90% +58.70%
3 51.4% 100.00% +48.605
4 68.5% 97.10% +28.60%
2 5 42.90% 94.30% +51.40%
2 6 37.10% 97.10% +60.00%
2 7 11.40% 97.10% +85.70%
3 8 37.14% 89.00% +51.86%
3 9 22.86% 92.00% +69.14%
3 10 60.00% 97.00% +37.00%
3 11* 17.14% 80.00% +62.60%
3 12* 25.71% 77.00% +51.29%
Overall Mean 39.50% 92.55% +53.77%
(SD)
(18.82) (7.22) (15.71)
Note. Asterisks indicate participants who completed the training, but did not complete an FBA for
a student participant.
59
Table 6 shows the results for all participants on the FBA knowledge and skills
assessments by skill area before and after the training. The first area of the FBA
assessment was knowledge of the FBA process that consisted of identifying the steps in
conducting an FBA and a comparison of a practical vs. a comprehensive FBA. Before the
training none of the responses by participants (0%) correctly answered these items, while
33% ofthe responses partially answered these items correctly. After the training, 92% of
the responses to these items were correct and 8% ofthe responses to these items were
partially correct. Participants were asked to summarize behavior based on scenarios and
identify the 4-terms in the 4-term contingency (setting events, antecedents, behavior,
consequences, and function). Before the training, 17% (25% partially correct) of the
responses for these items were correct. After the training, 94% (6% partially correct) of
the responses to these items were correct. In the knowledge area of defining behavior,
participants were asked to define behavior in an observable and measurable manner. Prior
to the training 53% ofthe participant responses for these items were correct. After the
training, 96% ofthe participant responses in this area were correct. In the area of
identifying antecedents, 33% of the responses were correct before the training and 92%
ofthe responses were correct after the training. In the area of identifying consequences,
before the training 42% of the responses were correct and 92% of the responses were
correct after the training. In identifying functions, before the training 46% of the
responses were correct, while 96% ofthe responses were correct after the training. Before
the training 42% of the responses were correct in identifying setting events, while after
the training 100% of the responses were correct. Participants were asked to use partially
60
completed forms to identify the routine that problem behavior occurred and summarize
the student's behavior. Before the training 83% of the participant responses correctly
identified the routine and after the training 100% of the responses were correct. None
(0%; 33% were partially correct) of the participant responses correctly summarized the
behavior before the training. After the training, 67% of the participant responses
correctly summarized behavior based on the interview form (25% were partially correct).
Table 6
Pre/Post-Training Results by FBA Skill Area
FBA Skill Area
FBAprocess
Summary of behavior
Define behavior
Identify antecedents
Identify consequences
Identify functions
Identify setting events
Identify routine based on
interview form
Summarize behavior based on
interview form
Pre-Training
0% (33% partial)
17% (25% partial)
53%
33%
42%
46%
42%
83%
0% (33% partial)
Post-Training
92% (8% partial)
94% (6% partial)
96%
92%
92%
96%
100%
100%
67% (25% partial)
Note. Percentages are percent correct responses within each skill area.
61
FBA Procedural Adequacy
Each of the FBAs completed by the 10 school professionals was rated for
procedural adequacy. The FBA Procedural Adequacy Checklist (Appendix G) was used
to rate each FBA based on the following criteria: (a) interviews were conducted with a
staff member who worked with the student during routines where problem behavior
occurred; (b) problem behavior was defined in observable and measurable terms; (c) a
routine was prioritized for direct observation; (d) an antecedent event was defined as
triggering the problem behavior, and (e) only one maintaining function of the problem
behavior was identified. All of the FBAs conducted by the school professionals met all
of these criteria. Six of the ten FBAs (60%) were rated with a second rater to determine
the reliability of the scoring of the procedural adequacy. There was 100% agreement
between the two raters on the procedural adequacy of these FBAs.
Efficiency and Social Validity ofPractical FBA Process
School professional participants were asked to keep a log ofhow much time they
spent in completing the different tasks required in the Practical FBA process. The results
of their time expended logs are shown in Table 7. Overall, the average time it took a
participant to complete all of the tasks involved in the Practical FBA process was just
under two hours (M=119.40 minutes; SD=96.00). The shortest time it took a participant
to complete all of the tasks was 65 minutes, while the longest it took a participant to
complete the process was 275 minutes (4.58 hours).
62
Table 7
Time Expended Log
Task M SD Min Max
Scheduling Interview 14.80 26.84 2.00 90.00
Conducting Interview 39.50 19.78 15.00 90.00
Conducting Observation 46.80 34.66 10.00 108.00
Developing Summary Statement 16.30 8.71 5.00 30.00
Other Related Tasks 2.00 4.83 0.00 15.00
Total (All Tasks) 119.40 96.00 65.00 275.00
Total School Days* 12.70 9.98 2.00 39.00
Note. N=10. Values are in minutes except for Total School Days*. Participants were
asked to keep a time expended log for each activity involved in the Practical FBA.
Scheduling the interviews took an average of 14.80 minutes (SD=26.84).
Conducting a FACTS interview with a teacher took an average of39.50 minutes
(SD=19.78). Observations using the ABC recording form on average took participants
46.80 minutes (SD=34.66), while analyzing the data from their interview and
observations to develop a summary statement took participants on average 16.30 minutes
(SD=8.71). Some participants identified other tasks (e.g., talking to parents, meeting with
grade level team), on average these tasks took 2.00 minutes (SD=4.83). On average,
nearly 13 school days (M=12.70, SD=9.98) elapsed between the identification ofa
student and completion of a final summary statement. The quickest a participant was able
63
to complete the Practical FBA process was 2 school days, as compared to one participant
who took 39 school days to complete the process.
Upon completion of an FBA for a student at their school, school professionals
were asked to complete a questionnaire rating the acceptability of the Practical FBA
training and procedures. Participants were asked to rate the items using a 6-point Likert
scale (l = strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3=slightly disagree, 4=slightly agree, 5=agree,
6=strongly agree). The results of responses to these questionnaires are presented in Table
8.
Participants, on average, indicated that they agreed (average score of 5 or above)
with all of the 10 statements in the acceptability rating profile. Participants most
"strongly" agreed with the statements that stated they would suggest the training to other
school professionals (item 3; M=5.70, SD=.48) and that overall the experience was
beneficial (item 10; M=5.70, SD=.48). The item that participants rated lowest on average
was the statement that they would use the student-guided FACTS interview with students
when conducting their next FBA (M=5.00, SD=I.05).
Table 8
Acceptability Ratings
64
Item Mean SD Min Max
1. The "Practical FBA" training you received equipped 5.60 .52 5.00 6.00
you for conducting an FBA in your school.
2. I will use these FBA procedures again with another 5.50 .53 5.00 6.00
student for whom an FBA would be appropriate.
3. I would suggest this training to other school 5.70 .48 5.00 6.00
professionals needing to learn to conduct FBA.
4. The tools used within this FBA process were relatively 5.50 .71 4.00 6.00
easy to use.
5. I will use the FACTS interview with teachers when 5.60 .70 4.00 6.00
conducting my next FBA
6. I will use the student-guided FACTS with students 5.00 1.05 3.00 6.00
when conducting my next FBA.
7. I will use the ABC observation form when conducting 5.30 1.06 3.00 6.00
my next FBA.
8. I feel confident that I can conduct an FBA that will 5.50 .71 4.00 6.00
inform interventions for a student.
9. The time spent in completing the FBA was reasonable. 5.40 .84 4.00 6.00
10. Overall, the experience in using "Practical FBA" was 5.70 .48 4.00 6.00
beneficial for me.
Note. N=10. Likert Scale for participant responses ranged from 1=Strongly Disagree to
6=Strongly Agree.
65
Comparison ofSummary Statements Generatedfrom Interviews and Functional Analyses
Table 9 presents the summary statements generated from each of the interviews,
observations, and overall from each school professional participant. Additionally, the
outcome of the experimental functional analyses for each student is presented in the last
column. Nine out of the 10 (90%) of the summary statements hypothesized by the
FACTS interviews with teachers were verified by results of experimental functional
analysis. The only summary statement generated from a teacher interview that was not
verified (participant 9) actually resulted in a further clarification from the direct
observation that the student engaged in behavior that appeared to be attention maintained
(as hypothesized by the teacher interview) with the overall function to escape from
"boring" classroom reading tasks.
66
Table 9
Summary Statements Constructed From Interviews, Observations, and Overall
Participant Summary FACTS Observation Overall Functional
Component Interview Analysis
Results
Antecedent(s) Large group Large group Large group
math math activity
Behavior(s) Plays with Looks around Talks to peers,
materials, talks room, talks ignores
with peers, with peers, directions,
ignores ignores work not
directions directions completed
Function Escape math Access peer Escape math Escape math
work* attn work work*
2 Antecedent(s) Independent Independent Independent
work work work
Behavior(s) Refuses to do Talks to peers Refuses to do
work, work,
complains to complains to
teacher teacher
Function Access adult Access adult Access adult Access adult
attn* attn attn* attn*
3 Antecedent(s) Large group Large group Large group
math math math
Behavior(s) Yells out Yells out Yells out
answers, answers, answers,
corrects peers corrects peers corrects peers
Function Access adult Access adult Access adult Access adult
attn* attn attn attn *
4 Antecedent(s) Unstructured Unstructured Unstructured
activity activity activity
Behavior(s) Makes noises, Makes noises, Makes noises,
touches peers touches peers touches peers
Function Access peer Access peer Access peer Access peer
attn* attn attn attn*
5 Antecedent(s) Large group Large group Large group
activity activity activity
Behavior(s) Makes faces, Makes faces, Makes faces,
talks to peers talks to peers talks to peers
Function Access peer Access peer Access peer Access peer
attn* attn attn attn*
67
Table 9 (continued)
Participant Summary FACTS Observation Overall Functional
Component Interview Analysis
Results
6 Antecedent(s) Small group Small group Small group
Behavior(s) Yells, touches Yells, touches Yells, touches
& talks to peers & talks to peers & talks to peers
Function Access adult Access adult Access adult Access
attn* attn attn adult attn*
7 Antecedent(s) Workingw Working with Working with
peers peers peers
Behavior(s) Refuses to do Refuses to do Refuses to do
work, talks to work, talks to work, talks
peers, argues peers, argues peers, argues
with teacher with teacher with teacher
Function Access peer & Access peer & Access peer & Access peer
adult attn* adult attn adult attn (peer attn*
preferred)
8 Antecedent(s) Not math Teacher gives Teacher gives
"helper" task task
Behavior(s) Walks up to Walks up to Walks up to
teacher, yells teacher, yells teacher, yells
answer answer answer
Function Access adult Access adult Access adult Access
attn* attn* attn adult attn*
9 Antecedent(s) "Boring" "Boring" "Boring"
reading tasks reading tasks reading tasks
Behavior(s) Remarks to Interrupts Interrupts
teacher teacher teacher, talks to
peers
Function Access peer Escape from Escape from Escape
attn task task from task
10 Antecedent(s) Whole class & Whole class Whole class
corrected by instruction instruction
teacher
Behavior(s) Plays with Plays with Plays with
materials, materials, talks materials, talks
walks around to peers with peers
Function Access adult Access adult Access adult Access
attn* attn attn adult attn*
Note. Asterisks indicate a match between FACTS Interview with Staff and Functional Analysis Results.
68
Functional Analyses to Validate Practical FBA Summary Statements
The final overall summary statement generated by each school professional was
tested using experimental functional analyses. The functional analysis conditions,
observation protocol, and graphed results are presented for each student in Appendices J
to S. The graphs of the functional analysis results for each participant show the
percentage of intervals with occurrence of problem behavior for each condition (control,
escape, attention) by session. As displayed in Table 8,80% of the final summary
statements (displayed in the column titled "overall") generated by the school
professionals hypothesized that the maintaining function of student behavior was to
access attention (from peers [n=3]; from adults [n=5]). Twenty percent (n=2) of the final
summary statements generated by the school professionals hypothesized that the
maintaining function of student problem behavior was escape from class work. Upon
examination of the functional analysis conditions and visual analysis ofthe functional
analysis results, all of the summary statements were sufficiently supported and deemed
accurate.
The summary statements for 2 of the 10 student participants (Participant 1
[Appendix J] and Participant 9 [Appendix R]) suggested that these students were
engaging in problem behavior to escape class activities. The clear differentiations
between 4 out of 5 of the data points between conditions and lack of contra-indication in
the data for these participants verify that the maintaining consequence for their behaviors
was to escape classroom tasks. The summary statements for the remaining participants
hypothesized that the function of their problem behaviors were attention-maintained by
69
adults (Participant 2,3,8, and 10) or peers (Participant 4,5,6, 7). The functional
analysis results for Participants 2,3,4,6, 7, 8, and 9 show clear differentiation of data
points between conditions with no contra-indication of data between conditions verifying
the hypothesized function s of the summary statements generated the school
professionals. The functional analysis results for Participants 5 and 9 does show data
points where contraindication from the hypothesized function occurred. For Participant 5,
session 4 shows that the occurrence of problem behaviors was highest in the control
condition (20%) compared to the attention condition (10%) and escape condition (0%).
For participant 10, during session 3, the occurrence of problem behavior was highest in
the escape condition (20%) as compared to the attention and control conditions (0% for
both).
70
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
The logic behind the Practical FBA training program and manual resides with the
idea that in order to expand the scope of FBA technology for use by school personnel, the
conditions for use of efficient versus comprehensive procedures must be identified.
Additionally, in order for schools to develop the capacity to support all students using the
evidence-based FBA procedures, there is a need for effective and efficient training in
FBA in schools. This study sought to document the efficacy of a practical training model
that school based personnel could use for students that engaged in mild to moderate
problem behaviors. The logic for this study was built on the idea that school personnel
should also be able to request assistance for students with severe problem behaviors.
Another underlying principle that guided this study was that school personnel would need
a team of individuals to help design behavior supports once they were able to identify the
variables influencing student behavior (Benazzi, Homer, & Good, 2006). This chapter
provides conclusions and limitations to the current study, as well as implications for the
field and directions for future research.
71
FBA Knowledge & Skills Assessment
Analysis of the results of the FBA knowledge and skills assessments that each of
the school professional participants took before and after the Practical FBA training
suggests that all of the participants learned from the training sessions. The pre-training
assessment results suggest that despite having some background in conducting FBA
(58% stated they had conducted at least one FBA before the training) and self-reported
knowledge of behavioral theory (average of 3.4 on a scale of 4), none ofthe participants
had a strong grasp of the knowledge and skills necessary to conduct an FBA. The overall
average gain from each participant suggests that participants gained these FBA
knowledge and skills from the Practical FBA training sessions. It is important to note,
however, that the two participants that scored the lowest on the post-training assessment
(80% and 77% respectively) did not complete a Practical FBA for a student at their
school. Unfortunately, due to their lack ofparticipation in conducting a Practical FBA, it
was not possible to analyze the remaining results for these two participants making it
difficult to conclude how efficacious the training was for them.
FBA Procedural Adequacy
The results from the FBA Procedural Adequacy ratings for each of the completed
FBAs suggest that participants were able to translate the skills they received from the
Practical FBA training sessions to conduct FBAs that were procedurally adequate. Based
on the analysis of the procedural adequacy of the FBAs, each of the participants showed
that once they returned to their school setting and worked with an actual student, they
72
were able to: (a) conduct interviews with appropriate staff; (b) define problem behavior
in observable and measurable terms; (c) prioritize a routine to conduct direct
observations; (d) identify an antecedent event that triggered problem behavior; and (e)
prioritize only one maintaining function of the problem behavior for the identified
routine. It is also important to note that each school professional was able to correctly
identify a student that fit the criteria for needing a Practical FBA, rather than a more
comprehensive FBA. None of the participants identified a student that exhibited
dangerous behaviors or behaviors that were pervasive throughout the school day.
Efficiency & Social Validity ofPractical FBA Training Process
Analysis of the amount of time that each participant took to complete the Practical
FBA process for a student at their school suggested that the process took a reasonable
amount of time. There was a wide range between the overall time it took for some
participants to complete the process as compared to others (65 minutes to 275 minutes).
This variability between participants may be explained by an explicit emphasis within the
Practical FBA training sessions that participants complete the tasks as efficiently as
possible (i.e., no stipulation was given in the training sessions on how long participants
were to interview staff or observe a student) with the caveat that they need to be "strongly
convinced" of their results. The variability oftime expended may also be explained by a
number of factors such as the complexity of the identified student's problem behavior as
well as the context in which these problem behaviors occurred (e.g., the individual
teacher's ability to identify variables affecting student behavior, the presence of the
problem behaviors when the student was being observed). Furthermore, the participant
73
for whom it took the most time to complete the FBA process noted that obtaining parent
permission and scheduling the interview with staff took a substantial amount of time (90
minutes). Additionally, there was a broad range (2 to 39) between the number of school
days it took for participants to complete the Practical FBA process. This range may also
be attributed to: (a) the issues discussed above and (b) the capacity individual
professionals had to conduct the Practical FBA within their normal job duties.
The results of the acceptability ratings suggest that the Practical FBA training,
procedures, and tools (Le., interview and observation forms) were considered socially
valid for use by school professionals within their schools. The participants overall agreed
(an average score of 5 or above) with all of the statements within the acceptability rating
questionnaire. Participants indicated that they: (a)"were equipped to conduct FBA in their
school"; (b) "would use the Practical FBA procedures again with another student"; (c)
"would suggest the training to others in their school", (d) considered "the tools within the
FBA process relatively easy to use"; (e) would "use the FACTS interview with teachers"
again; (f) would "use the student-guided FACTS [interview] with students"; (g) would
"use the ABC observation form" again; (h) felt confident that they could "conduct an
FBA that will inform interventions for a student; (i) considered "the time spent in
completing the FBA was reasonable", and G) "overall the experience in using 'Practical
FBA' was beneficial" for them.
The item within the acceptability rating questionnaire that received the lowest
average score was:"I will use the student-guided FACTS with students when conducting
my next FBA". This may suggest: (a) that participants were not very comfortable using
74
the form presented in the training with students and/or (b) that participants did not feel
comfortable interviewing students concerning their behavior. This may have been due to
the lack ofemphasis of the student interview in the Practical FBA training, as for
efficiency's sake it was considered an important, but not an essential task within the
Practical FBA process. Thus it may be also important to note that none of the participants
took it upon themselves to conduct the student-guided interview while conducting their
FBA within their schools.
Comparison ofSummary Statements Generatedfrom StaffInterviews and
Functional Analyses
All but one of the 10 summary statements generated initially from staff interviews
(using the FACTS form) conducted by the school professional participants were verified
by experimental functional analyses. This result may suggest that after systematic
training on the use of the modified FACTS interview form, the summary statements
obtained from FACTS interviews with teachers are likely to accurately identify the
variables influencing student problem behavior in schools. However, it is important to
note that using direct observation to verify these results is strongly recommended,
although 9 of the 10 summary statements from interviews were verified by functional
analyses, the one that was not accurately identified was actually corrected for by direct
observation. Therefore, these results support the utility of the modified FACTS interview
for use in the Practical FBA process (March et aI., 2000) , while also emphasizing the
need to conduct direct observations to verify the summary statements resulting from staff
interviews using the FACTS.
75
Functional Analyses to Validate Summary Statements
Based on the student descriptions, functional analysis conditions, and visual
analysis of graphed data, all of the summary statements generated by the school
professionals were validated. The results of the functional analyses suggests that all of the
trained school professionals were able to correctly identify the motivating operations and
maintaining function of the student's problem behavior (Iwata, Kahng, Wallace, &
Lindberg, 2000; Mace, Lalli, & Lalli, 1991).
Implications ofResearch
This research study presented preliminary findings supporting the efficacy of an
FBA training program for school personnel. The results ofthe FBA skills assessment
suggested that school personnel did learn from the training how to: operationally define
behavior; identify the antecedents and functions of problem behavior; and under what
conditions a more comprehensive FBA is required for an individual student. The
procedurally adequacy results for the FBAs conducted by the school personnel suggest
that they could develop FBAs that were technically adequate within 4 hours of training.
Additionally, the social validity measures suggest that the procedures in the training were
beneficial, practical, and efficient for use within schools. Finally, the validation of all of
the summary statements generated by the school personnel was the most convincing
evidence supporting the efficacy of the Practical FBA training procedures within schools.
76
This research study provided an example of how the complex technology of FBA,
which has been typically conducted by individuals with extensive background in
behavior analysis (e.g., school psychologists), could be adapted for use by school
personnel. This study utilized a framework that expanded the use of FBA in a proactive
manner for use within schools that are implementing all three tiers ofthe SWPBS (Sugai
et aI., 2005) model. Through use of the tools and procedures presented in the Practical
FBA training model, schools may be able to conduct relatively efficient FBAs for
students that have not yet been identified as needing intensive individualized supports.
Schools can utilize the Practical FBA training to develop their capacity to support more
students with function-based supports. School psychologists (or other individuals) well-
versed in FBA can use the training procedures to train personnel within their schools to
reduce the number of FBAs they must conduct. This will allow school psychologists and
behavior specialists more time to develop behavior interventions and supports for those
individuals that need more intensive supports, while also supporting teams in the
development of support plans for students that have received the more efficient, Practical
FBA. Furthermore, the concepts and methods used within the Practical FBA training
process may actually stimulate effective professional development to train teachers to
think functionally about behavior.
77
Limitations ofthe Current Study
A major limitation of this current study was the limited sample size. A larger
sample size would have allowed for the use of statistical techniques to understand the
relationship between the Practical FBA training and the accuracy of summary statements
generated by school professional participants. Additionally, the selection of the sample or
participants was not random. School professional participants were all from the same
school district and met the criteria ofhaving a flexible role within their school (e.g., not
directly responsible for instruction). Furthermore, the professional participants within this
study were all employed within schools that had been implementing SWPBS (Sugai et
aI., 2005) for a number of years. This may have affected their ability to use the
information from the trainings more readily at their school site. Also, 58% of the
participants stated that they had conducted at least one FBA prior to the training. Due to
the nature of the background questions it was not clear as to how much training on FBA
participant's had received prior to attending the training. Additionally, participants were
not directly asked if they had prior experience using the similar tools presented in the
Practical FBA. Therefore, their ability to conduct an FBA may have been influenced by
previous experience and exposure to the tools in the training.
Another limitation of this study was that all of the Practical FBA training sessions
were provided by the author of this study who has had extensive training in FBA and has
provided a number of trainings to schools around the use of FBA to develop behavioral
supports for students. Future research should be conducted as to the generalizability of
78
the training materials by evaluating how other individuals well-versed in FBA can
provide the training to school participants.
The measurement of the skills and knowledge of FBA of the participants is
another limitation to the current study. The content ofthe assessment was designed by the
author to determine whether participant's had knowledge and skills to conduct FBA (a)
before the training and (b) if their knowledge and skills improved after participating in
the trainings. The psychometric properties of this assessment have not been assessed.
Additionally, the provision of the same assessment form to participants before and after
the training to assess FBA knowledge and skill is another limitation to the findings. The
improvement in participant score may not have due been solely to the participation in the
trainings, but may also be attributed to previous exposure to the assessment. In the future
alternative forms of the assessment should be used to determine the FBA knowledge and
skills of participant's before and after the training sessions.
Although the rigor of the experimental functional analyses provided convincing
results, further replication of this study with a larger sample will provide more
convincing results. At the outset of the study it was established that results with 12
participants would be convincing, however, due to circumstances outside ofthe control of
the researcher, only 10 participants completed an FBA. Additionally, some ofthe
methods of the experimental functional analyses were contrived making the assessments
artificial and less generalizable. Furthermore, all of the functional analysis sessions were
conducted by the author of this study. Although the occurrence ofproblem behavior was
recorded by data collectors with high reliability, the results may still have been biased by
79
the author's behaviors during the functional analysis conditions. Future studies might
have more than one person conducting the functional analyses conditions or use other
more natural methods of assessing student behavior such as structured descriptive
assessment (SDA; Anderson & Long, 2002).
Future Research
The research on the Practical FBA training and procedures is still young.
Replications of this study using school district personnel as trainers of school
professionals could yield more convincing results of the practicality and efficacy of these
procedures. It would be of interest to identify the necessary skills of individuals providing
Practical FBA training to school personnel. Additionally, a study of the range of school
personnel for whom this training would not be sufficient for, as it it is important to
identify the pre-requisite skills needed for participants to benefit from the training
procedures. Further studies may also look to identify a form of assessment built into the
training that determines when participants have mastered material to the extent that they
are able to conduct "accurate" FBAs.
A logical next step from this study would be to study how the summary
statements generated by school personnel can translate to effective behavior supports. An
important follow up study would analyze how individual student planning teams are able
to use the information from a Practical FBA to design technically adequate behavior
supports for students that addressed the function of behavior. It was assumed in this study
that school professional participants would take the Practical FBA information to a
school team that consisted of: (a) the student's teacher, (b) an individual skilled in
designing and implementing functional behavior supports (e.g., school psychologist or
behavior specialist), and (c) others important to the design and implementation of
behavior supports (e.g., administrator, parents, other school personnel).
Along with the evaluation of the technical adequacy of the design of behavior
supports for students based upon Practical FBA procedures, the evaluation of the
contextual fit (Albin et aI., 1996) , implementation, and student outcomes because of
these behavior support plans will be important. Further study could focus on how
Practical FBA can inform decisions by staff to design plans and supports for students
that: (a) match the skills and needs of the individuals implementing the plan, (b) are
implemented with high fidelity, and (c) improve student outcomes (e.g., decrease
problem behavior and/or increase desired behaviors.
80
APPENDIX A
STAFF DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
School Staff Participant: _
1. What is your position in the school?
2. How long have you been a teacher! working in schools?
3. Have you ever conducted a functional behavioral assessment? Y N
How many times have you conducted a functional behavioral assessment?
4. How many times have you implemented behavioral interventions for students?
81
o 1-3 4-6 6+
5. How would you rate your knowledge ofbehavioral theory?
None Very Limited Limited Some Extensive
0 1 2 3 4
School StaffParticipant: _
***To complete when preparing to conduct FDA ***
6. How long have you known (name of identified student) _
7. In what settings/contexts do you have contact with the student?
82
General Ed
Class
Special
Education Class
Hall Cafeteria Recess Computer Lab Music Rm PE Office
8. How much contact have you had with the student this year? (Circle only 1 below)
Weekly Contact Daily Contact
Less than 1 1-2 hrs/wk 3-4 hrs/wk 1 hr/day 2-3 hrs/ day More than 3 hrs/day
hr/wk
I
9. How much contact have you had with the student (in identified problem routine)?
Weekly Contact Daily Contact
Less than 1 1-2 hrs/wk 3-4 hrs/wk 1 hr/day 2-3 hrs/ day More than 3 hrs/day
hr/wk
Modified from Borgmeier, C. (2003).
83
APPENDIXB
FBA PRE & POST-ASSESSMENT
Name or other identification:
1. What are the steps in the Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) process?
2. When completing an FBA, behaviors must be defined in such a way as they are...
a.) Discrete and functional.
b.) Observable and measurable.
c.) Functional and observable.
3. Hailey is three years old and hits other children during snack. Mrs. Gillespie wants Hailey
to share, wait her turn, and eat slowly during snack. Mrs. Gillespie keeps telling Hailey to
"be nice." Hailey smiles at Mrs. Gillespie, but keeps on hitting others and grabbing food.
What are the behaviors that Mrs. Gillespie wants from Hailey?
4. In the boxes below:
A) Label the 4 terms that are included in a "Summary of Behavior" or hypothesis
statement developed from an FBA?
B) Briefly define each of the 4 terms.
84
5. Briefly compare and contrast a "Practical FBA" and a "Comprehensive FBA".
6. Read the following scenario and answer the questions regarding Barry.
Barry walks into the room - Joe and Mary begin giggling and pointing at
him. Barry shouts "shut up butt holes!" Joe and Mary immediately tum
around. As Barry approaches his desk, Sarah is sitting in his seat talking
to a neighbor. Barry threatens "get out of my seat now or I'll jam this
pencil in your ear!" Sarah immediately leaves the seat and moves away.
This is more likely to occur when Barry has stayed at his grandparent's
house for the weekend.
A. Define Barry's problem behavior.
B. Identify an antecedent for Barry's behavior
C. Describe the typical consequence of Barry's behavior
D. Based on the scenario above: What do you "hypothesize" is the function of Barry's
behavior?
E. Complete a behavioral summary/hypothesis statement of Barry's behavioral
function
85
7. Marilyn is nine years old and has a long history of whining. Whining is most likely to occur
when Marilyn is asked to do difficult tasks, and appears to be maintained by escape from
those difficult tasks. The overall likelihood ofwhining increases if Marilyn is fatigued or
has had a poor night's sleep. Given this description with "whining" as the behavior of
concern, identifY the following behavioral elements:
A. Define Marilyn's behavior (in such a way that others can record her behavior):
B. Identify the function of her behavior:
C. Identify the setting events for her behavior:
86
8. Use the example form below to determine: What is the targeted routine in
which Jason's problem behaviors occur?
Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (FACTS-Part A)
Jason Grade 3 Date: _
Interviewer: _
Student:
Staff Interviewed: _
Student Strengths: Identify at least three strengths or contributions the student brings to school
Academic strengths - Excellent Language and Math Skills
SociallRecreational- Wants to have friends
ROUTINES ANALYSIS: Where, When and With Whom Problem Behaviors are Most Likely.
BEHAVIOR(s): Rank order the top priority problem behaviors occurring in the targeted routine above
Time Activity & StaffInvolved Likelihood of Problem Specific Problem Current Intervention
Behavior Behavior for the Problem
Behavior
Morning Check in! ~w2 High Sometimes talking to peers RedirectionMs. Jones 3 4 5 6
Reading!
~2Ms. Jones 3 4 5 6
Transition! '-.../
2 (3) 4 Swears, teases other Given detentionMr. Abram I 5 6 students
Gym/or ArtJ IW';Ms. Williams 4 5 6
Lunch!
50)
Swears, teases students Given warning, lunch
Lunch supervisors 1 2 3 4 detention
Recess/
5(0
Swears, teases students Detention, call home
Recess Supervisors 1 2 3 4
Math! ~2Ms. Jones 3 4 5 6
Social Studies/ '-..../
Ms. Jones ~2 3 4 5 6
Mixed Lang Arts/ '-./
Me. Abram 1m3 4 5 6
Recess/ '-./
5(;;)
Swears, teases students Detention, call home
Recess Supervisors I 2 3 4
I 2 3 4 5 6
87
9. Complete the Summary of Behavior Statement (in the dashed box) within the form
below:
Functional Assessment Cbecklist for Teachers & Staff (FACTS-PaI1 B)
.. d11Identifv the Tal'2et Routine: Se ect ONE of Ie pnOl'lttze routmes from FACTS,P31t A or as.ses.5111cnt.
Routinf'iActhitif's/Context Pl'Oblem Behaviorhl - make des('lintioll obsf'l"\'able
Math & Science with Mr. Bwm Verbal Outhw'Sts-loudly swearing
Al\-rECEDENT(s): RflItk Order the sh'ongest tl'iggers!predlctol's of prolJlem behaviol' In the l'outine above.
Then ask cOl'res,)on<lin2 follow-up question(s) to e;ef a detolled undet'standiu2 of Iri22el'" ranked #1 So: 2,
Envirolllllental Features (Rouk order stronges'( 3)
_1_ a. tau too hard _I. large grot'l] instruction
_ b. task too easy _h.•mall group work
_2_ c. bored wi task _I. independent work
_ d. task too long ~. wmructnred time
_ f>. physical dfflland __Ie. transitions
_ f. conection!reprimand _I. with peers
Other _In. i'olatedi no attn
describe
FoUow Up QlIf'stlons - Get as Sveclfic as possible
Ifa.b,c.d a.' e - de,scribe taskidemand in detail: Problems that reguire
him to do u1Ultipk step,s Of repetitive tnsks long assignwejlts
ill- describe~ of con'ection, voice tone, volume etc.
If g, h, I. i or k - describe setti.ngiactivityicontent ;n detail
lfl-wh"tpeers? _
If In - describe -
CONSEQUENCE(s): Rank Order the strongl'st pn",offfol' student thnt appelll'S most likl'l~' to mnintain the pl'oblem
bl'hayiol" in thl' l"outine abon. Thl' ask follow-un Queslion. to detail conseQuell<,es rllukl'd #1 & 2.
Consequen(',esiFunct!oll As aDnUcable -. Follow Un Ouest!oas - Gel a'. S1Jeclfic as /Jas.sible
_ a. get adult alRntion !f a or b -- \\'hOBe attention is obtained?
_ b. get peer "ltention
_ c. get pteferre,d activity How ;s the (posit;ve or negative) attention provided?
_ d. get objecrithing<!mom-y
_ e. ge,t ~ensari"n
_f. get other. describe If c,d, e, OJ' f .- \\'bat .pecific item•. activ;t;". or sen.atiOll' are obtained?
_ ~~ i'lvoid adult" att"~Jltioll
_ h, avoid peer attention
_1_ I. "void undesired activity/to.k
If g or h - \\-'bo is avoided" _
Why avoiding thi, person?
_ j. avoid sensatioll
_ k. "voidiescope other. describe
If i, j, Qt. k- Describe spec;fic, taskiactiv;tyf",nsation avoided? Long ta.k,
Be specific, DO NOT .imply li.t subject area, but specifically describe type of work within the
subject are,,? Ta,ks with Inultiple ,teps, applkation que,tions thaI uquil'e, pI'ob/em
somng
Can the smdent perform the !<,!J< independelltlyQ N "-..,,
Is academic as","sment needed to ID specific skill deficit,? Y \.. N)
SETTING EVElIii(s)t Rank Ol'del' any events that happen outside offhl' imme-dlate I'outine (at home 01' earliel' in day) that
commonlv makl' problem bl'ha"ior more likelv 01' worse in the rontine above,
_hunger _ conf1ici at hom'" _ conflict at school _ missed mediClltion _ illness _failm"" in previolls class
lack of sleep change in routine hOlUewol'k tlot done X not SUI"" Other
u uuuu '. 100% Sure/No Dott y
42
Notreal.me
I
, SUMMARY OF BEHAVIQR ,
','r---:==c::F=I='Il",II=::'10::b~0=x:;.eocs:..,b::e::,l,-:;o=,,:...' .:::ll=si::n:a..l!'t::o",ll):..,I:.:'a.:::l.:::lk:::e:.:(::.l::.reocs'1)::o::n:::s:.::e",'C'a:::ll:::d,:,f",o;::ll::o="","-.:::U",Tll:..:I:.:'i':.:,S:o:lll.:::O.:::tl",w;.:s,-:fi::I:::'o;::m,:,:::c;:;O:::I'1':::es::S~P. ",'o;::u::;d::i'7'ltl--,:c=3::.te"'1l.,<o::I'.::leocs"a:::bo=v:.:e"', ----j"
k,\-n;CEDE..,-r(s)J Tlilll!:ers Problem Bella"ior(s) CONSEQUEi,\CE(s)! Function: r-:-:=====-==-===c.:...------+':.;;..;======""'---+===""'-'=======.;;;..,---------',
I
I
I
'f-:--=======------------j
: f-'S:::;:E=:;T:.;TIN:,::,l':.;:G;;;..'B.=..:..'E=':,:)\"I.='.:::;S -i
,
I
: f--------::H=o-,-."'Uk=·-"I:-y"'l:-s7It-t7h-.-t---:thi-:·-,=S-nm-m-a--'''''-'-''---:f'''B:-e=h-.-'i:-o-J'-.-''-lll-..:-t,,---:/-y-ex-cp'''II:-a:-inJ-s:-t:-h-.7id=.-n-:/jfi:7'ed=b-.=h-aVl""·:-o-r-o-cc-u-r-..:-in-ll"-=?',----------j
~----------------------------------------------------------------------------~
APPENDIXC
FACTS INTERVIEW FOR TEACHERS & STAFF
88
For TeachersiStaff: Functional Ass...ssm...nt Cb...cklist for T...acbl'l's and Staff (FACTS-Part A)
Student: Grade Date: _
StaffInterviewed: h1tervie\ver: _
Stud...nt Stl'ellgths: Identify at least tlu'ee strengths or contributions the student bring, to school.
Academic strengths -
Social/RecreanQnal-
Other -
ROUTINES A\\"ALYSIS: Wb...r .... 'Wh...n and With 'VhomPI'ohleln B...haviol's ar... Most Lik...lY.
nm~ Aetivity & Starr Likelihood of Pl'llbll'ill Specific. Problem Current Intervention for
Involved .•. •••• Behavior Beba\'ior thePI'o.blem Beha'tior
Low High
123 4 5 (;
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 (;
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 (;
~ 3 4 5 6..
2 3 4 5 (;
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
List tbe Routines in ord...r of Plloritv fOl' Behlniol' Support: Select routiues "ith I'afings of S 01' 6, Only
combine routin...s wbeu tIler.. is significant (3) similal'ity of activities (conditions) and (b) similarity of
roblem beha'ior s. Com Iete the FACTS-Pal't B for each of tbe dolitized rontine 5 identified.
Routin~fActilitiesfContext Problem Bel1lnior(s)
, r speciaIi!it**
BEHAVIOR 5 : Rank OI'del' the to riodt" lroblem behaviors occnrrin
_ Tardy _ Fight/physical Aggression _ Dismpti1fe
_ Unresponsive _ Inappropriate L1nguage Insubordination
_ Self-injtuy _ Verbal Harassmellt _ Work not (lone
Describe lwimilized pl"Oblem behftvior(s) in observable terms: _
"'llat is the fl'eauencv offhe Pl'oblem Bellavior in the targeted routine (# x's fda" 01' hour)? I
'''hat is the duration of the Prohlem Beha,101' in the tal'l!eted rontine (in seconds 01' minl? I
Is Beha"\ior Immediate Danjl;el' to I Y N
seI£!ofuers? IfYes, I'efel' case to bellavior specialist
Adapted by S.U:lInan (2009) from C, Borgmeier (200~,) ;March, Horner. Lewis-Palmer, Bro\\'R Crone & lodd (19~)
89
90
Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachpl's & Staff (FACTS-Part B)
fr FACTS P A£81 ONEfh ... dRII 'f h Ttenti v t e ar\ret outine: 'e ect 0 t e pl10ntlze routines 'om , .- . art or assessmen!.
Routine!Acthities/Context PI'obiem Behavior(s) - make descl'iDtiou observable
ANTECEDENHs): Rank Order the strongest triggers/predictors of problem bellll\ior iu the routiut' above.
Th k d' ij 11 ' () d 'z d d rl' f' k d '1 & 2eu as C01'l'fSI)On 111" 0 ow-U/l questiou S 10 lZft II prall' nn erstan .mlZ 0 tI1'!lZi'I'S ran ('.ff.
Em'il'onmeutlll Features (Rank order strongest 3) Follow Un Ouesnons - Get asSvecific as /JQssibll'
-
a. task too h.'lfd -I. large group instruCtiOIl Ifa.b.c.d 01' e - de~cribe task/demalld in derail
-
b. ta~kwo eas')' _h. "IIllIIJ group WOIk
-
r. bored w! task _i. illd..>pl"llClent work If f - de~cribe Illl1po.~e of cOlTeclioll, voice tOIle, volume etc.
-
d. IlIsk wo long -.J. IUlstmctured time
_ e. physical demlllld _k. trllllSitiollS If g. h. L j or k - describe setling!acti,~tyiccllteut in detail
_ f. correctionireprimand _1 with peers
-
Other _m. isolated' 110 attn If1- what peers?
describe Ifill - describe .
CONSEQUENCE(s): Rank Order the strongest pay-otT fOl' sturli'nt that appelll'S IOOst likely to maiutain the problem
bib b TI k t II 'd t il k d #1 & 2e lanor III t e routine a ove, Ie as 0 ow-np questions to ia COIISt'Q llt'llces ran '1'
Cotlseollt'llceslFuncoon As apJ)liclible -- Follow UDOllestiOUS - Geta.s S/Jecific 6$ /JOssible
_ a. get adult attelltiou If a 01' b --Who~e attention is obtained?
_ b. get peer attelllioll
_ c. get prefell'ed aClinr)' How i, the (po~iti,'e or lIegati\'e) attention provided?
_ d. get ob)ectithingsftlloney
_ e. get sensatlon
_f get oilier. describe If r,d, e. 01' f -- \!i'hat specific items. activities. or sellsations are obtained?
_ g. aVOId adult attellllon
_ h. avoid peer attention If g Ill' h - Who is avoided?
-
i. avoid undesired acti'l<ityftask Why avoiding this penoll?
_j. avoidseusali01l If i, j, 01' k- Describe specific lasklacri\';'tyi~l"Il.ation avoided?
_ k. avoidfescape other, describe Be specific. DO NOT simply li.t subject area. but specifically describe I}pe of work \\irhin the
subject area?
Can the student perl'OIDl the r.,sk independently? Y N
Is academic asmSlllenl needed to ID specific skill deficits? Y N
SETTING EVENT(s}: Rank Order llUy events that bappen outside·of the immediatt' routine (at home 01' eal'lier in dlly) that
commoll!l' makt' Dl'Oblt'm bt'ha\ior JUOI'!' likt>h' 01' worse in the routint' above,
_ hunger _ cont1ict at home _ conflict at school _ missed medication _ illness _failure in previous clas,s
lack of.leep change in routine homeworl< not done not snre Other
SUMMARY OF BEHAnOR
Fill iu boxes below usinlZ tOI) !'lIuked l'es pouses and foDow-up reS/lonses from corl'es/lolldin\r cllte\rol'ies above,
MHECEDENT(s) f Tli\t\ters Problem Behasior(s) CONSEQUENCE(s)! Functiou
SETTING EV'ENTS
How lik~h~ is; if tll.lt ihisSuiJili:l31)' of Bt-h~nio:r accurately explains the identified behayioI' {j~XUiTing?
Not real sure
I
100% Sure/No Doubt
2 4 5 6
Ad3jlted byS.lomall (2009) from C. Borgmeier (2005) ;March, Homer, Lewis-Palmer, Browlt, CrOllt & Todd (1999)
APPENDIXD
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST FOR STUDENTS
91
92
For Students: FUllctlonal Asspssm~ntCheddlsT for Stud~nts (FACTS-Part A)
Student: Grade Date: _
Interviewer: _
Sh'~ngths: Identify some things that you like to do. that you are interested in, or that you are good at
In Class/at School·
0111 ofschool-
Other·
ROrTIl'\""ES ANALYSIS: Whel'~,When aud With Whom Probl~mBehaviors lIl'e ~lost Likel....
Tim. Acth1tJ' & Staff Likelihood ofProblem Specific PrOblem What happ~nswhen J'ou do this
Involved Beha"ior .. ... BehaYlol' behlls101'?
Low High
I :! 3 4 5 6
2 4 6
4 6
:! 3 4 6
234 6
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
2 3 4 5 6
234 6
2 4 6
:! 345 6
LN th~ Routil!e~ In orMr of Priority for Beharlo!, Support: Sel~ct routines with ratings of 5 01' 6. Only
combine rontines when th~I'e Is significant (a) slmllal1ty of actl"iti~s (conditions) and (b) similarity of
H'oblem beh:l\'lol' s , Corn lete the FACTS-Part B for ellch of the JI'!orilized routine s identified,
Routines!Activities/Context Pl,oblem Beha"iOl'(s)
Routine # 1
Routine # 2
BEHAVIORfs): Wuat are some thlnl!:s YOU do In <!llelltifv I'outille abow> that l!:et "ouln tl'ouble? RanI!:
Then
VandalislU
Other_. _
_Disl1lptive
Insubordination
Work not done
Tardy _ Fight/physical Aggression
_ Unresponsive _ Inappropriate Language
__ Self-injury Verbal Harassmeat
D"nlbe whot th~ p.'oblem behavlol'(s) look like: . _
Wllnt is tht frtQuencv of tht Problem Behavior In the tarl!:eted routine (# x's Idm' 01' hOUI')? I I
What is tile dumtion of the Pl'oblem Bekaylor iu the tlll'2~ted routine fin seconds or min)? I I
Bellaylol' is Immediate danger to self and otllen? I Y N I IfYes, I'efel' case to behavior speclaltst .. I
..'\.d..'1pred by S. Lcm:m (::!O{:'9) from C. Bor~U1eier (~005): March. Homet', L~wis-Pa!m.e!. Brown. Crone & Todd (! 999)
93
Functional Assessment ChecldlsT for Students (FACTS-Part B)
fr FACTS P tAr.... dSLONE 1'1tRen I' aI'lle outme: . 'e ect
-
0 t Ie pnontlze routmes om .. ar or assessment.
Routine/ActIvities/Context Problem BE'havIol'(S) - make descT!ptiou observallie
1d tlt\ th T
ANTECEDEl''T(s): Rank Order tltE' strongest h1ggl'l's/predictors of problem beillwior III tlte routinE' abon,
Then ask COITl'spollding follow-up question(s) to get a fie/ailed undersflUlding of triggers rankE'd #1 & 2.
Euvironmental Feanu'es (Rallk Qrder s/TQlIfleS 3f) Follow Un Ouestions - Get as Svecific as vQssible
-
a. when I'm not sure what to do or there is Ifb or (' -- what classmates?
nothing to do
_ b. my classllli1tes are bugging. me ill- what work do you do alone that leads to problem?
_ ('. I sit by a certain classmate
-
d. When I work alone !i! -what don't you like about how the teacher tells you
e. teacher teUs me what to do or not do=f. teacher gives me work thnt's too hard !f.1:....&..1! - describe what is too hard/easy!longr'borillg?
-
g. work is too boring or too long Wlmt assignments or activitie,?
_ h. when work is too easy
_I. when I need to talk to teacher or need help lll-why do you need to talk to the teacher?
_j. Other. describe
CONSEorENCEfs): Rank Orda the strongE'st pay-off for student tltat aIJpears IDOSt Ubly to maintain tlte
problem behavior in the routinl' above. The ask follow-up Questions to detail consequences ranked #1 & 2.
Conseauencl'slFunctioD As llPpilrable - Follow UP Ouestions - Get flS Sllecific as lIossf1Jle
a. get adult attentionr' to talk to me If a 01' b -. Whose attention is obtained?=b. get peer attention/get peers to
look Ita Ikllang1l at me How is the attention provided?
_ f. get prefened activityr'
something I like to do If C 01' (1 -- What specific items or activities are obtained?
_ d. get money/things
_ e. get other. describe
If f, g 0(' h - Desclibe specific task!' activity avoided?
f, avoid work that's too hard
-- Be specific, DO NOT simply list subject area, but specifically describe
_ g. avoid activities I don't like
_ h. avoid boring 01' easy work type ofwork within the subject area (be precise)?
_ i. avoid peers I don't like
Can the student perform the task independently? Y N
-
j. avoid adults I don't V> ant to talk to
Is academic assessment needed to ID s])ecific skill deficits? Y N
_ k. avoid adults telling me what to do
I. ,1Void other, desclibe If I, I 0(' k -- Who is avoided?
-
~----- Why avoiding this person'?
SETTING EVENT(s): Rank Order any events that happen outside of till' immediate routine (at home 01'
earlier In day) that commonl" make u'obll'ID behavior more likely or worse In the ('ontiul' above.
hunger conflict at home conflict at school missed medication illness failure in previous class
=lack ofsleep _change in rOllline _ homework n~done _not SlIre _ Other -
d'
SUMMARY OF BEHAVIOR
H II fk Ib IFill' bm oxes I' ow uSlUg top ('lIn e< res onses an 0 ow-np respollses rom COl'l'espon mg ca egor es 11 JOve,
ANTECEDENT(s) I Triggers Problem Behavior(s) CONSEQUENCE{s)/ Flmctioll
SETTL"\G EVEl''TS
Adapted by S, Loman (2009) frOUl C. Borgmeiel' (2005); Mnrch. HOlDeI'. Lewis.Patmer. Brown, CJ'one & Todd (J 999)
APPENDIXE
ABC RECORDING FORM
94
ABC Recot-ding Fonn
Observer: _
Setting (e.g., class #, gym, playground): _
Student: _
Date: _
95
#
2
3
4
Time: Activity;Task
OL.,'&+ gNUp ""truulou
Os"",n group ..-ork
o lDdop...d.ut "'"rk
OU"drurrnr..! tim.
Sp~rH)"
DLu-'g. -gronp m:'itl'lEChOB
DSm>J1 IIro"p ..-ork
o I"d~p.nd'Dt ,,'-.rk
DUn:atrut'fu:l'td tim.
Sp~ify,
DlArg-e- gl'oup i~tl'"Qetiou
Osm.llcroup work
o lode-pod.ellt '~(Jrk
Dlru:.truduud rime
'p••ify,
DL"J'l:' croup wlrn<tlou
OS"",llcroup w.rk
o lDdop."do"l "orl<
DUl1~tru"turtd rime
Sptdl1-'
Antecedent
DGiveu iJutruC'riOIl
DCin'8 ('on"ffti-on
o .\10110 ("0 ,lto..ri...'''O
aift.hiri.e~)
OWIlhhoe,
OEn1\'1\.d I" pHforr..! ..lkilJ-
[]Pl'etenM ~-cth'iQ' r~mo-n.d
DTI'::I.lldti~111 Cb3l1g. in l'u:drlr.,·
Othe.l';Nati!!st
DCiv-en iudn.1ctrol1
DGi,'•.u fOI'l"'f't'nOU
o ~-'\lODe (DO lttteuno-niuo
Mtnitie:;)
DWltbF.....
DE u!-'g.d in pHf.rred o<tirity
DPnfernd M-titi-t;r r:f'moTed
DTra.ndtion: Ch:aD'~ in :lctidtr
Otber/Note-'H
DGh~t':u iu~tru('tio-a
DGh~eu torncti.e-n
D AloB:t (no :atten:lias/no
~didfit.d
OWilbP..r"
DEugagl'd iD p....'tl'nd. 2ctirit)'
DPre-ful'f'd 3:C'thit)" n'JIlO1."ed
DTn.nntion: Chang.. in Mrhitr
Othu.'N"otest
DGi..e-n untrnrtlOJi
DCiven torruti.ou
o Alone (no -attt.DftOntno
ndhitie,,)
DWifhP..r,
DEug3gedin pnle-l'l'ed atth:iQ'
DP1·.r.rred at mity r+mOl'H
DT!'aDnoon: Change- in ~NhityOth.,-,,,,,,,.,,
Behavior OutcomeJCOllSeQ1Ience
D.'\.dult AII."rion ProTidod
DF.." AIt...tion Pro,ided
IJc. t Prof.end .\rthitr,'lt~m
Dco' S.D"rion~_~__
DAdu1, Alt."rioD .h.ld.d
DP..r AU'DtioD A,-oided
DT.<kiA.tirity A,-old.d
D S.u.riou .'\.""id.d _
OtherlNot.e.'i;1
OAd"h AII."rio" Pr.,·M.d
OP.." Art."rion Pr"rided
DCot PI'l':r.l'~'edA('miQ·llre-m
Dw.. ~"D'i:arioJl _
DAdalt Artt"ti." A.,'oldod
OP••r AU'Dti'D A,'oid.d
OT.>k.'A<thity Asold.d
OS-""lio" A,-oidtd _
Othtl'!Notf.,~1
DAdul. Au."rio" Prond.d
D F... ~'\.tttDrioDPr"rided
Dc.! Prtfo...tdArtidtj'>'1to'"
DCot S.n,.tlou
DAdul••'\.!t.nrio-,,""A-,--oi""d-.d.,--
D P..r AUtution ,holdtd
IJTo",kiA.thitj· Avoid.d
Ds...,.tio" A,-oid.d _
Other/Not'-_'H
oAdult Atl."rio" Prond.d
D P... Aft'''rio" Frond.d
oGot Pnftrrtd A.tidtj':It.",
OCo! Stu,.riou _
O.'\.dult AII."tlo" Avoidtd
OP.." AUt..tion ,h.idtd
OT.,k'A,tility A""M.d
oSt.""tion A"oided _
Othel','"Note>~~
#
5
6
7
8
9
Time: Activity/Task
OLtr::e- ~'oup in~trurrio-n
os"",n gr.up ..<)"k
o lBdepetuleat ...rk
OUn,lI'udll...d time
s_~':
bd~rge group mstruc:riotl
D~IMU ~rQU'P WQ.d~.
o InMpeud...I·,,'ork
OUn'trurtured time
Specify:
DL3fP- FOUP in'itructlO'B
Os"",n gronp ",o,'k
o Ind.peudent w.rk
01ln.tr".t"red time
SpedQ"
DL3rg. :group wltructlo-n
OSmall gr."p "'ork
o lBdepe"d.".. "'ork
OUn'II'u<llrred tim.
Sp~-,
DGt'r"-'VoUP m..'~uu£'_tiQ-t1
OhuaU group ""01'1,
o Indepe..dent work
OUn.tr..d ....ed tim.
S~':
Antecedent
OGh-en In.lrucnou
DGivell "CI'rre-dwa
o ~\loae (no atttDtionlno
..ctiriti~,'J,)
OWifhPeer,
DEu;1aged ill pN(u1'ed '3('d;\"II:}'
DPnfeJ'nd af"mi~'nmol.'1!d
DTl'an~jrioB: Chaug:~in lKthi~'
Other:Note"
bdCi\-tD iu.~trudiou
DCivt<u C-Ol'l'e'ctio.a
o ..,uOD.e- (no atteudoll.<'no
:\cdrlde:i)
OWilhP...,
DEu:a=ed iu. pNfernd a~ti,-ity
DPn-fif.fud aC'ti..dtr remol-"i'd
DTra.udtiou: ChMlgt madhi.t]o"
Othe:rfNoti-s:
DCive.n iJUtru('OOD
DCh~eu C'Cttl"H'rloD.
o .\lone lu. alleulloni"o
AcItt.hitiMJ
OWilh1'.....
OEnpged lu paftrred "rtidly
DPl'ef'~ned.:1~.hityr-e-m6ved
OTr""dnon, Cbngt in ..titit1'
Oth..riNotf.s.::
DCi"f'.D iJulructio-n
DCiy@u eorr«noa
o Alo... (no ott.ntlon.ln.
acthities)
OWithP..r,
DE..og~g"diu p.n.f~rif'ed :At"lf.t"lQ"
OPrererl'Od ","m'lt)' rem....d
DTran~itiolll: Chaug~ in attn"it}·
Otb"l':Note'l:
DGi,'~u iu~tf'\1diou.
DCivi-u COFl"ftftoU
o ..\J'DBt- (nO' an•.ntio-ul'1W
M'firiti.;)
OWifhPeen
DEu-g3ged in pl":efe-rnd tu·tidi}·
OPreform "'"tid~'rem."ed
DrJ':unitiou: ChaD,. in a~ti\ti.Q'
Otur/!(o1"H
Behuvior
96
Outcome/ConseQuence
OAdult AUe"tion p"",·jded
OP.e. Al.lentfu.. P,'o,~d.d
OC.t P.oful'Od ArtMl)ccltem
DCa-t S.D:'S:ad~n
OAdult Au.ntfu-n"'A,..,-·.7id';'e--;d,----
OPeer AUenti... A"'idod
OTu,kiAr.htly ,h.ided
OSen'otion ,hoided~ _
Ofhl!1'fNotel1
~Adult Afte..ti<n> 1'.o,ided
OP"". Attutioa 1'''"ided
oCor Preferred A<tMI)'iitem
Dc•• Sen,,,.Jon
DAdult Attenti...---cAC-,-,.7id::-e--;d,----
DP""r AUeatio.. Anided
OT.ok:,\<tidly A"oided
O:l>.n",tfun Avoided _
Othi-I'iNot.,,::
OAdult .'l.Uention Pr.,ided
OP... Attention Proooed
OCo. P...fe.•red A<lh'itriItem
OCot Sen'o'Jon _
DAdult Aft."tion A"oWed
OP.... Atteatioa A"..ided
oTook',l..tidlj' .·\"-oid.d
OS,n.-tion ..hoid,d _
Orhu;1iotti~
OAdllil Attention Pr",ided
01'..1' Attention Provided
DCol Prer.....d Arlidl)"lr.m
DGor 5.ellsaoon
O.'l.dlli••'l.ft.ntion--;A-,·"'oi"'d-.d-;--
DP..r A.un.uon Avoided
OT""kiA.th-ilj' A,'.ided
OS...utfun A,..ided _
OtherfNoie<:
oA.dult ,\It.nlio.. P""ided
OPeer Att.nOOn Prodd.d
oCo. PrefOl'red A<tidl)-,ltern
OCo•.Sen."tfunoAdult. Attentiou-'A"',-'.-id-e-:d--
OP... AueAtio.. A"oided
OTMk!Arthil)' A,'oided
DSen'''tfun ihoided _
OtherfNo...,
#
10
11
Time: Activitv/Task
OL:>rI~ 1"OoP bulrocnon
[JSm~IlI''''uPw...·k
o ludep.nd...l w"rk
oF",truHUTod nm.
Spedf",
DLarg. gl'OUp m};;tru"uou
OS....ll g.,oup work
o ludep...dul work
OUa'tnulurod rimo
Spodf)',
Antecedent
O(;h-~n 1D.truorioo
OCi,~en cc.rredl.on
o ..\10&1: (DO attea.nou:no
2cthitiM)
OWithPH..
OEng.pd iu pref.rred acridlr
DPnff'l'l'ed .ll:~thirr :r'elQi)'l'"@d
OT..u,iOOn, C'oo,ug.lD ••IMry
Othelf"NGt._~:
!:JCtTeD untrnetiOA
DClven e'Or'l"ffnOD
o ,\Llue I.D" attention/n.
acthitifl)
OWlthP....
D:Eng.god in prefon.d .<tilill'
DP1'.efern-d ~(rhif)' ..emoyea
DTJ'nnsirioDl Ch3ug.t in Mthit}·
Othe-TiNote'S~
Behavior
97
OutcomeiCOllSe<ll1e1lCe
OAdult Art.ntion FroTid.d
Op.... Alleotion PTo,ided
OGol Pr.forred A<tililTiI"lIl
oGot Sewano" _:-=-:-_
oAdull .',Ho" no.. A,oided
oPHr AUonrion A"o;,*d
OT.d;jA<lhitr A'oided
O:5o,...rion A,..,ldod _
OtheriNol."
gAdnl1 Att."rion Pro,id.d
Or..r Altonrion Pr",idod
OGot F.-lured A<lhltTiII....
oGol s...,.rion
DAdalt Atte"ti",,-A"",,-,o"Cid-.-d--
OPt... Alleuriou ,hoMod
OT.4:: oril)· A,o;d.d
Ol> tlou -"',-oidod
OI&.ri1"ol." -----
Sunl11l<UY
Statement
••••
During:
.
Student ·win:
Thexefore the function is to
access/escape (circle one):
Not real sure
How likelv il> it that thiS Snww:uv ofBehavi« accmately exPlain'. the ideJliified behavior oocurrin/;?
100% !'lUteiNoDoubt
2 3 4 6
Modified by S.Loman from R. Van Norman (2007).
APPENDIXF
SUMMARY OF BEHAVIOR TABLE
98
Setting Event Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
-
.... Teacher/StaffInterview Summary
.ABC Recording Form Summary ..
•.
.... FinaLSummaryofBehavior
.
Setting Event: When: Student will: Because:
Therefore the function
is to
access/escape/avoid:
I , , ! I
99
APPENDIXG
FBA PROCEDURAL ADEQUACY CHECKLIST
Participant #: _
1. FACTS parts A & B completed with a staff member who works with the student during
routines where problem behavior occurs? Yes OR No
2. Problem behavior was defined in observable and measurable terms? Yes OR No
Operational definition of the problem behavior?
3. Was a routine prioritized for direct observations? Yes OR NO
Routine where observations conducted?
---------
4. An antecedent event was defined as triggering the problem behavior? Yes OR No
Antecedent event identified:
---------------
5. Only ONE prioritized maintaining function of the problem behavior was identified?
Yes Or No
Maintaining function of the problem behavior identified:
APPENDIXH
ACCEPTABILITY RATING QUESTIONNAIRE
Please circle the number which best describes your agreement or disagreement with each
statement.
100
I
Strongly Disagree Slightly Slightly Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
r1. Th' "Prnctkal FHA" tr,;n;ng ynu I 2 3 4 5 6
received equipped you for conducting
an FBA in your school.
2.1 will use these FBA procedures I 2 3 4 5 6
again with another student for whom
an FBA would be appropriate.
3.1 would suggest this training to I 2 3 4 5 6
other school professionals needing to
learn to conduct FBA.
4.The tools used within this FBA I 2 3 4 5 6
process were relatively easy to use.
5.1 will use the FACTS interview I 2 3 4 5 6
with teachers when conducting my
nextFBA.
6.1 will use the student-guided I 2 3 4 5 6
FACTS with students when
conducting my next FBA.
7.1 will use the ABC observation I 2 3 4 5 6 I
form when conducting my next FBA.
8.1 feel confident that I can conduct I 2 3 4 5 6
an FBA that will inform interventions
for a student.
9.The time spent in completing the I 2 3 4 5 6
FBA was reasonable.
IO.Overall, the experience in using I 2 3 4 5 6
"Practical FBA" was beneficial for
me.
APPENDIX I
FBA TASK TIME LOG
101
Task Date(s) Start Time(s) End Time(s) Total Time
Scheduling
FACTS with
teacher(s)
Conducting
FACTS with
teacher(s)
Conducting
student-guided
FACTS
Observing
Student Behavior
using ABC
formes)
Completing
Summary
Statements
Other related
tasks:
102
APPENDIX]
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR STUDENT 1
This form was completed to determine whether the functional hypothesis statements
generated by school professionals trained by the Practical FBA training match results
from functional analysis conditions.
1. Background Information:
Student grade level: 2nd
Other information:
# of students in setting/class: 24
She receives occupational therapy services under a 504 plan, but is at grade level
in all academic areas.
Her strengths are: Reading and cheerful personality
2. The Final Summary of Behavior based on the Practical FBA was:
Routine: Math (9:00-9:50)
Setting Event Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
Unknown During large, small Looks around, She gets ignored and
group, or Ignores doesn't complete the
independent instructions, work.
classroom activity. does not
complete work Function: Escape
(or works very completing the (math)
slowly), fiddles work.
with objects and
~I talks with peers.
103
3. Summary of functional analysis conditions:
Based on the interviews and observations conducted, the target routine was
identified as independent work during math (9:00 to 9:30 a.m.).
The conditions were conducted in the classroom setting with the classroom
teacher providing instruction from 9:00 to 9:30 a.m.
Activities for Control Activities for Attention Activities for Escape
Condition Condition Condition
(Preferred activities) (Typical class activity) (Typical class activity)
Connect the Double-digit Double-digit
dots activities, addition & addition &
subtraction subtraction
Word searches problems with problems with
regroupmg regrouping
(practice and word (practice and word
problems) problems)
The student was provided with a choice of several activities to choose from for the
control condition:
Student chose connect the dots and word searches as the most preferred activities.
Student chose drawing as the least preferred activity.
Operational Definition of Target Behavior for Functional Analysis Observations:
1. Looks around: Student looks away from the work for more than 5 seconds.
2. Fiddles with objects- plays with pencils and papers and not working on
assigrJ11ent for more than 5 seconds.
3. Talks to other students
Functional Analysis Conditions for Student #1
104
Control Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Give attention for 1 minute Preferred activity (from Ignore problem
list in table above) behavior
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I'll help you while you do this worksheet (that she selected before the
condition)."
2. Student presented with the worksheet.
3. The researcher provides l: 1 attention with ongoing prompts every 3-5 seconds.
4. Any occurrences of the problem behavior will be ignored and the student will continue to
receive attention every 3-5 seconds.
Attention Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Procedures for condition explained to the Typical math class activity Contingent
student at seat with peers attention. If
exhibits target
behavior(s) (5
seconds of adult
attention)
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to do the class activity at your seat."
2. Researcher will then move lOft away from student
3. If student engages in target behavior, the researcher will approach the student and provide
the student with 5 seconds of adult attention
4. Following the 5-second interval the student will be directed to return to the activity, the
researcher will walk away, and the next trial will begin.
Escape Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Procedures for condition explained to the Typical math class activity Ignore problem
student at seat with peers behavior. Allow
her to escape the
task.
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on your class activity at your seat."
2. The researcher will move at least lO feet away and provide no attention with no prompts
related to completion of the assignment throughout the condition.
3. Any time the student engages in the target behavior, the researcher will ignore problem
behavior.
4. The next trial will start following the recording of problem behavior.
105
Functional Analysis Observation Fonn
Participant: 1
Target Behavior(s): Operational Definitions for Observations:
Observation #1
1. Looks around: Student looks away from the work for more than 5 seconds.
2. Fiddles with objects- plays with pencils and papers and not working on assignment for more
than 5 seconds.
3. Talks to other students
Partial Interval Recording
Mark each square with an "X" for engaging in the target behavior during that
triaVinterval, or an "0" if the target behavior does not occur during that trial/interval.
Observer:-----~-------- Date: -------- Time:
Trial
Condition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
1 Control
2 Attention
3 Escape
Each trial will last 30 seconds, or until the identified student engages in the target behavior-
when the student engages in the target behavior, the researcher will respond immediately as
required within each condition.
Following the occurrence of a problem behavior, each new trial will start 3 seconds after the
researcher has finished providing the required response to the target behavior and directed the
student to continue the activity.
106
4. Graph of functional analysis results:
Functional Analysis Results for Participant 1
100% '" \'/'
...
0 90%(U
\J
l: 80% ....... Control Condition(U
...
..
::l .. 70% .....Escape Condition\J 0
\J .-
o ~ 60% -%,"~'Attention Condition
.t:.t:
,~ 11,)
~et1 50% IDA
VI E
'E,9! 40%>.0
.. 0(U .. 30%to.
... 20% .•c
(U
\J 10%l-(U
0.
0% me • • •
.w
1 2 a 4 5Sessions
5. Based on the information presented, the function of the behavior for Participant I
IS:
Escape Math work (practical FBA hypothesis verified)
107
APPENDIXK
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR STUDENT 2
This form was completed to determine whether the functional hypothesis statements
generated by school professionals trained by the Practical FBA training match results
from functional analysis conditions.
1. Background Information:
Student grade level: 3rd
Other information:
# of students in setting/class: 22
He does not currently have an IEP. He is at or above grade level in all academic
areas.
His strengths are reading, math, and art.
2. The Final Summary of Behavior based on the Practical FBA was:
Routine: Reading (10:00-10:30) OR Math (1 :15-1 :55)
Setting Event Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
The student When he is assigned Does not Teacher redirects
comes to school independent seat complete work, and/or he must stay in
with illness or work during large refuses to for recess with the
lack of sleep or group reading/math complete work teacher.
break in routine by calling out
and whining Function: Access
I I
attention from the
teacher (Ion 1)
108
3. Summary of functional analysis conditions:
Based on the interviews and observations conducted, the target routine was
identified as independent seat work during reading (9:00 to 10:30) and/or math
(1: 15 to 1:55). Per teacher request, functional analysis conditions were conducted
in a small room where the researcher worked 1 on 1 with the student (under
observation of data collectors) .
Activities for Control Activities for Attention Condition Activities for Escape
Condition Condition
(Easy Math Activity)
(Preferred activities) (Difficult or less preferred
math activity)
Math games using Basic math facts (addition, Math story
dice and base 10 subtraction) problems,
blocks subtraction with
regrouping
The student was provided with a choice of several activities to choose from for the
control condition:
Student chose math games as the most preferred activities.
Student chose drawing as the least preferred activity.
Operational Definition of Target Behavior for Functional Analysis Observations:
I. Talking out - talking to complain about task OR demand help
2. Out of seat- standing/walking away from task OR laying on the ground.
3. Work not completed- Head down and not working on the activity
Functional Analysis Conditions For Participant #2
109
Control Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Give attention for I minute Preferred activity (e.g. Ignore problem
worksheet that student can behavior
complete with over 90%
accuracy)
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I'll help you while you do task"
2. Student presented with the task.
3. The researcher provides 1:1 attention with ongoing prompts every 3-5 seconds.
4. Any occurrences of the problem behavior will be ignored and the student will continue to
receive attention every 3-5 seconds.
Attention Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
1 minute break-walk around... limited attention on Easy worksheet (over 90% Contingent
break accuracy}-no attention- attention. If
adult 10 feet away exhibits target
behavior(s) (5
seconds of adult
attention)
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to do this worksheet."
2. Researcher will present the activity and then move 10 ft away from student
3. If student engages in target behavior, the researcher will approach the student and provide the
student with 5 seconds of adult attention
4. Following the 5-second interval the student will be directed to return to the activity, the
researcher will walk away, and the next trial will begin.
Escape Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Desired activity on break Difficult worksheet (less Remove task for
than 60% accurate) with 10 seconds with
1:1 attention no attention
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on this worksheet, if! think you are having trouble, we'll
take a 10-second break. During that break you need to sit quietly and count to 10 seconds.
2. The researcher will provide 1: 1 attention with ongoing prompts related to completion of the
assignment every 3-5 seconds throughout the condition.
3. Any time the student engages in the target behavior, the researcher will say, "Let's have a 10
second break" and remove the worksheet for 10 seconds without providing the student any
further attention.
4. The next trial will start following the 1O-second break after the student is redirected.
110
Graph of functional analysis results:
Functional Analysis Results for Participant 2
lOA
-+-Control Condition
.....-Escape Condition
",ry--Attention Condition
100%
E
<lJ 90%:a
0
....
0.
80%
'0
<lJ
...,
70%ce
....
::s
..., 60%..., III0 ....
.c. .2
.'t: ~ 50%~.c.
III 'IIiii co 40%>..
<lJ
....
.= 30%
'0
'IIQj) 20%(ll
...
C
'II
10%...,..
'II
0.
0%
1 3 4 5
Sessions
5. Based on the information presented, the function of the behavior for Participant 2
IS:
Access Adult Attention (practical FBA hypothesis verified)
111
APPENDIXL
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR STUDENT 3
The student is a Fourth grade student in a general education classroom with 21 students.
He is at grade level in all academic activities.
His strengths are: Math, likes to help the teacher
The Final Summary of Behavior based on the FBA was:
Routine: Math (12:30-1 :30)
Setting Event IAntecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequ
ence
Bus Stop During large group and Talks out, blurts out, corrects Reminded by
Conflicts independent math instruction other students teacher to get on
task
Function: Access
Adult Attention
Functional Analysis Conditions:
Based on the interviews and observations conducted, the target routine was identified as
independent work during math (12:30- 1:00).
Activities for
Control Condition
(Preferred
activities)
Word
searches
Activities for Attention
Condition
(Class Math Activities)
I-and 2-digit
multiplication,
I
Activities for Escape
Condition
I (Class Math Activities)
1 and 2-digit
multiplication,
decimals, fractions,
rounding decimals
into percentages
decimals, fractions,
rounding decimals
into percentages j
'------------
Functional Analysis Conditions For Participant #3
112
Control Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Give attention for I minute Preferred activity (from Ignore problem
list in table above) behavior
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I'll help you while you do this worksheet"
2. Student presented with the worksheet.
3. The researcher provides I: I attention with ongoing prompts every 3-5 seconds.
4. Any occurrences of the problem behavior will be ignored and the student will continue to
receive attention every 3-5 seconds.
Attention Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
I minute break-walk around... limited attention Class math activity during Contingent attention.
on break large group independent If exhibits target
work time. behavior(s) (5
seconds of adult
attention)
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on your class activity. If you want to show me something or
have a question just let me know."
2. Researcher will present the activity and then move 10 ft away from student.
3. If student engages in target behavior, the researcher will approach the student and provide the
student with 5 seconds ofadult attention
4. Following the 5-second interval the student will be directed to return to the activity, the
researcher will walk away, and the next trial will begin.
Escape Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Desired activity on break Class math activity during Remove task for 10
large group independent seconds with no
work time attention
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on this activity, I will right here next to you. If I think
you are having trouble, we'll take a lO-second break. During that break you need to sit
quietly and count to 10 seconds.
2. The researcher will provide I: I attention with ongoing prompts related to completion of
the assignment every 3-5 seconds throughout the condition.
3. Any time the student engages in the target behavior, the researcher will say, "Let's have a
I 10 second break" and remove the worksheet for 10 seconds without providing the student
any further attention.
4. The next trial will start following the IO-second break after the student is directed to get
back to work.
Graph of Functional Analysis Results:
113
Functional Analysis Results for Participant 3
....
100%
0
90%<II
u
c 80%<II
...
..
70%::J ...u 0
u .-
o fa 60%
.c.c
~ <II 50%3 co
.... E 40%
- <II~-
.. .0 30%$ e
.Eo. 20%
....
c 10%<IIu
..
<II 0%0.
1 2 3.Sessions 4
-+-OControl Condition
....... Escape Condition
M*%'f'" Attention Candition
5
Based on the information presented, the function of the behavior for Participant 3 is:
Access Adult Attention(practical FBA hypothesis verified)
114
APPENDIXM
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR STUDENT 4
The student is a 2nd grade student in a general education classroom with 16 students. He
does not currently have an IEP. His strengths are reading, math, and helpful in classroom
setting
The Final Summary of Behavior based on the FBA was:
Routine: Library Time (outside of regular classroom; 1:45 to 2: 10)
I Setting Event Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
None noted Unstructured Makes noises, Peers tell him to stop
activities outside of yells, and puts
the regular hands and feet on Function: Access
classroom structure other students. attention from peers
I
Functional Analysis Conditions: Based on the interviews and observations conducted, the
target routine was identified as unstructured time during music and library time. The
functional analysis conditions will be conducted during music or library time within those
environments.
Activities for Activities for Attention Condition Activities for Escape Condition
Control Condition (Typical library activity) (Typical library activity)
(Preferred
Activity)
Drawing, Allow student to do Allow student to do library/music
Board library/music activities activities with some assistance
game unassisted by researcher with from the researcher. When he
attention by the researcher only engages in problem behavior he is
provided when target student asked to "take a break" (i.e., have
engages in problem behavior. a seat for about 10 seconds with
no attention from researcher 0 r
L I peers)._~__~ ~ --J
Functional Analysis Conditions For Participant #4
115
Control Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Give attention for 1 minute Preferred activity Ignore problem
behavior
Procedure:
5. Introduction: "I'll help you while you do this activity."
6. Student presented with the preferred activity.
7. The researcher provides 1:1 attention with ongoing prompts every 3-5 seconds.
8. Any occurrences ofthe problem behavior will be ignored and the student will continue to receive
attention every 3-5 seconds.
Attention Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
1 minute break-walk around .. .limited attention on Library Activity Contingent
break. Procedures explained attention. If
exhibits target
behavior(s) (5
seconds of adult
attention)
Procedure:
9. Introduction: "I want you to join the rest of the class and do what you are supposed to be doing."
10. Researcher will then move lOft away from student
11. If student engages in target behavior and/or bothers other peers, the researcher will approach the
student and provide the student with 5 seconds of adult attention of why it is important to do what the
class is doing.
12. Following the 5-second interval the student will be directed to return to the activity, the researcher
will walk away, and the next trial will begin.
Escape Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
1 minutes break. Procedures explained. Library Activity Student is asked
to take a break
and sit at a desk
away from peers
and with no
attention from
researcher for 10
seconds
Procedure:
13. Introduction: "I want you to work on this worksheet, if I think you are having trouble, we'll take a 10-
second break. During that break you need to sit quietly and count to 10 seconds".
14. The researcher will sit in close proximity to the student and provide attention to the student every 10
seconds throughout the condition.
15. Any time the student engages in the target behavior, the researcher will say, "Let's have a 10 second
break" and ask the student to sit away from peers for 10 seconds without providing the student any
further attention.
16. The next trial will start following the 1O-second break after the student is directed to get back to
work.
116
Functional analysis graph:
Functional Analysis Results for Participant 4
....
100% ]0 90%III "j
U
C 80%III I.... 70% .":;, ..
u
.2\J 60%0 > ]co
.c. .c. 50%.~ <II i~ l:Q 40%
1
iI'I Eiii .!!! 30%~ J)
<II 0 20%..... ..
I: Q.
..... 10% II:
<II 0% +u
..
QJ
0.. 1 2 Sessions 3
........Contro! Condition
.......Escape Condition
""1~@'*Att(mtion Condition
~IOA
4
Based on the information presented, the function of the behavior for Participant 4 is:
Access Peer Attention (practical FBA hypothesis verified)
117
APPENDIXN
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR STUDENT 5
The student is a 2nd grade student in a general education classroom with 23 students. He
does not currently have an IEP. His strengths are reading, writing, and math; great sense
of humor.
The Final Summary of Behavior based on the FBA was:
Routine: Activities that involve whole group instruction with peers (teacher is teaching in
front of the class). Math
Setting Event Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
I
None noted Large group activities with Makes faces (opens Peers look at him, talk to him
other students in close his mouth, rolls and laugh
proximity. tongue, spits pencils,
fingers in his nose), Function: Access attention
I
Talks to other students from peers
Functional Analysis Conditions: Based on the interviews and observations conducted, the
target routine was identified as small group time during small group time (10:15-10:30).
Per teacher request the conditions were conducted out of class with two peers that he
liked.
Activities for Control Activities for Attention Condition (Easy Activities for Escape Condition
Condition (Easy activities activity working independently) (Same type of activity as Attention
working with peer partners) with the researcher only)
Student completes Have student working by himself on an Have student working on
word searches with easy activity. Researcher works with 2 same type of activity
peers within a small peers together at a separate table.(Adding with the researcher only.
group guided by the w/ regrouping)
(Adding with regrouping) Iresearcher.
II
Functional Analysis Conditions For Participant #5
118
Control Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Give attention for 1 minute Working with peers and Ignore problem behavior
researcher on an easy activity
(e.g., word search)
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I'll help you while you do the word search"
2. Student presented with the task.
3. The researcher provides 1:1 attention with ongoing prompts every 3-5 seconds.
4. Any occurrences of the problem behavior will be ignored and the student will continue to
receive attention every 3-5 seconds.
Attention Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
1 minute break.. .limited Researcher works with 2 peers Contingent attention. If exhibits target
attention on break. on an easy activity. behavior(s) researcher will provide
Procedures explained. him with attention for 5 seconds.
Target student works by
himself on same activity
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on this activity while I work with the rest of the group
on that table."
2. Researcher will then move lOft away from student and work with 2 other peers.
3. If student engages in target behavior, the researcher will approach the student to provide
the student with 5 seconds of adult attention.
4. Following the 5-second interval the student will be directed to return to the activity, the
researcher will walk away, and the next trial will begin.
Escape Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Procedures explained. Student works with researcher The work is taken away from the
and is asked to do a similar student and the student is to take a 10-
task as attention condition. second break.
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on this worksheet, if I think you are having trouble,
we'll take a lO-second break. During that break you need to sit quietly and count to 10
seconds".
2. The researcher will provide prompting and attention to the student every 10 seconds
throughout the condition.
3. Any time the student engages in the target behavior, the researcher will say, "Let's have a
10 second break" and ask the student to sit away fi'011l peers for 10 seconds without
providing the student any further attention.
4. The next trial will start following the 1O-second break after the student is directed to get
back to work.
119
Functional Analysis graph:
Functional Analsysis Results for Participant 5
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
y
.......Control Condition
_Escape Condition
"";k~'"Attention Condition
;.:: IDA
1 2 3 4 5
Sessions
6 7
Based on the results: Access Attention (Practical FBA hypothesis statement confirmed)
120
APPENDIX 0
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR STUDENT 6
The student is a Kindergarten student in a general education classroom with 17 students.
He receives speech and language services, but is at grade level in all academic activities.
His strengths are: Knows initial sounds & likes reading
The Final Summary of Behavior based on the FBA was;
Routine: Reading (9:00) OR Math (10:30-11 :00)
Setting Event Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
Unknown During large or small group time Makes loud noises, Peers or adults will respond
when student is sitting with other touches others, plays to his behavior and give him
students or an adult. with items, looks around attention
(off-task)
Function: Access attention
I
from the adult (and peers to
ultimately get the attention
I of the adult)
II
Functional Analysis Conditions:
Based on the interviews and observations conducted, the target routine was identified as
large or small group work during reading (9:00 to 10:00) and/or math (10:30 to 11 :00).
Per teacher request the functional analysis conditions will be conducted with the
researcher during math (10:30 to 11:00) in a small desk in the back of the room or in a
room connected to the classroom (with a partition).
Activities for Control Activities for Attention Condition(Easy Activities for Escape
Condition(Preferred activities >90% accuracy) Condition(Less preferred/difficult
activities) activities <60% accurate)
1. Building 1. Phonics activities 1. Reading CVC words from
with Blocks 2. Worksheets on phonics and a list
2. Working reading 2. Writing/handwriting
with unifix I activities
Icubes
I
3. Math worksheets
3. Drawing I
Functional Analysis Conditions For Participant #6
121
Control Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Give attention for I minute Preferred activity (from Ignore problem
list in table above) behavior
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I'll help you while you do task"
2. Student presented with the task.
3. The researcher provides 1:1 attention with ongoing prompts every 3-5 seconds.
4. Any occurrences of the problem behavior will be ignored and the student will continue to
receive attention every 3-5 seconds.
Attention Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
1 minute break-walk around... limited attention on Easy worksheet (from Contingent
break table above) no attention. If
attention-adult 10 feet exhibits target
away behavior(s) (5
seconds of adult
attention)
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to do this activity."
2. Researcher will present the activity and then move 10ft away from student
3. If student engages in target behavior, the researcher will approach the student and
provide the student with 5 seconds of adult attention
4. Following the 5-second interval the student will be directed to return to the activity, the
researcher will walk away, and the next trial will begin.
Escape Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Desired activity on break Difficult activity (less than Remove task for
60% accurate from table 10 seconds with
above) with 1: 1 attention no attention
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on this activity, if! think you are having trouble, we'll take
a IO-second break. During that break you need to sit quietly and count to 10 seconds.
2. The researcher will provide 1: 1 attention with ongoing prompts related to completion of the
assigI',La.-rnent evef'j 3-5 seconds tP.Joug..l]out the condition.
I3. Any time the student engages in the target behavior, the researcher will say, "Let's have a 10
second break" and remove the worksheet for 10 seconds without providing the student any
further attention.
4. The next trial will start following the lO-second break after the student is directed to get back
to work.
Functional Analysis Graph:
Functional Analysis Results for Participant 6
122
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
/\
......-Control Condition
_Escape Condition
~~''':&r'''Attention Condition
lOA
1 2 3
Sessions
4 5
Based on the results: Function Access Attention (from peers) (practical FBA hypothesis
confirmed)
123
APPENDIXP
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR STUDENT 7
The student is a 2nd grade student in a general education classroom with 20 students. He
does not currently have an IEP. His strengths are reading, vocabulary, and math.
The Final Summary of Behavior based on the FBA was:
Routine: Activities that involves small or large group instruction working with other
students (when adult is not in close proximity)
Setting Event Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
None noted Large and small Talks out. Function: Access
group activities Argues or does attention from peers
I
with other students not follow (and adult; peer
in close proximity. directions. preferred)
I I
Functional Analysis Conditions: Based on the interviews and observations conducted, the
target routine was identified as small group time during small group time (8:20 to 8:45).
Activities for Control Activities for Attention Condition Activities for Escape
Condition Condition
(Easy activity working independently)
(Easy activities working (Activity with the
with peer partners) researcher only)
Student works with Have student working by Have student
peers within a small himself on an easy activity. working on activity
group guided by the (difficult for the
researcher. Researcher works with 2 peers student) with the
together at a separate table. researcher and
peers.
1
DOL activities,
1
Writing (Journal
activities)
Functional Analysis Conditions For Participant #7
124
Control Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Give attention for 1 minute Working with peers and researcher Ignore problem
on an easy activity (e.g., short game) behavior
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "1' II help you while you do task"
2. Student presented with the task.
3. The researcher provides 1:1 attention with ongoing prompts every 3-5 seconds.
4. Any occurrences of the problem behavior will be ignored llIld the student will continue to receive
attention every 3-5 seconds.
Attention Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
1 minute break-walk around... limited attention Researcher works with 2 peers on an Contingent
on break easy activity. Target student works attention. If
by himself on same activity (at least exhibits target
5 feet away) behavior(s)
researcher will tell
all of the students
to look at him and
researcher will
provide him with
attention for 5
seconds.
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on this activity while I work with the rest of the group on that
table."
2. Researcher will then move 5 ft away from student and work with 2 other peers.
3. If student engages in target behavior, 1he researcher will approach the student to provide the student
with 5 seconds of adult attention.
4. Following the 5-second interval the student will be directed to return to the activity, the researcher
will walk away, and the next trial will begin.
Escape Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Desired activity on break Student works with researcher only The work is taken
and is asked to perform similar away from the
activity as attention condition. student and the
student is to take a
10-second break.
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on this worksheet, if! think you are having trouble, we'll take a
10-second break. During that break you need to sit quietly and count to 10 seconds.
2. The researcher will provide attention for the student every 10 seconds throughout the condition.
3. Any time the student engages in the target behavior, the researcher will say, "Let's have a 10
second break" and ask the student to sit away from peers for 10 seconds without providing the
student any further attention.
4. The next trial wiii start foiiowing the i v-second break after the student is directed to get back to
work.
125
Functional Analysis Graph:
Functional Analysis Results for Participant 7
•......j
........... Control Condition
___Escape Condition
Attention Condition
5
100%
'"...0 90%
";:;
<11
.c
(II 80%<n
E
(II
70%:0
0
...
0-
-
60%0
(II
v
l:: 50%(II
...
...
~
u- 40%u0
.c
;t:
30% k,·:yft~J
'"~ 20%
<II
...
.:
1: 10%
<II
v
...
<II O%~0..
1 2 3 4
Sessions
Based on these results: Function of student behavior is Access Attention (from peers)
(Practical FBA hypothesis confirmed)
126
APPENDIXQ
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR STUDENT 8
The student is a 2nd grade student in a general education classroom with 24 students. She
does not receive special services (IEP or 504).
Her strengths are: Math & spelling
The Final Summary of Behavior based on the FBA was:
Routine: Math (1 :50 to 2: 10)
Setting Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
Event
Unknown Teacher gives Walk up to Teacher engages with
directions/asks questions teacher to ask the student
questions. I Function: Access
Blurts out Adult Attention
answer. ~ I
FunctIOnal AnalysIs ConditIOns:
Based on the interviews and observations conducted, the target routine was identified as
math. The conditions will be conducted out of class (per teacher request).
Activities for Control Activities for Attention Activities for Escape
Condition Condition Condition
(Preferred activities (Class activity alone/away (Class activity with 1:1
I
with 1:1 researcher from researcher) attn from researcher)
attention)
Math Addition and
I
Addition and
game/worksheet subtraction with subtraction with
I I regrouping regrouping
Functional Analysis Conditions For Participant #8
127
Control Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Give attention for I minute Preferred activity (from list Ignore problem behavior
in table above)
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I'll help you while you do task"
2. Student presented with the task.
3. The researcher provides I:l attention with ongoing prompts every 3-5 seconds.
4. Any occurrences of the problem behavior will be ignored and the student will continue to receive
attention every 3-5 seconds.
Attention Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
I minute break-walk Class Activity (from table Contingent attention. If exhibits target
around ... limited attention on above) no attention-adult 10 behavior(s) (5 seconds of adult attention)
break. Procedures explained. feet away
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to do this activity.."
2. Researcher will leave the room.
3. If student engages in target behavior, the teacher will approach the student and provide the student
with 5 seconds of adult attention
4. Following the 5-second interval the student will be directed to return to the activity, the teacher will
walk away, and the next trial will begin.
Escape Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Procedures explained. Class activity (task she is Remove task for 10 seconds with no attention
asked to do in class) with
attention from adult.
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on this activity, if! think you are having trcuble, we'll take a 10-
second break. During that break you need to sit quietly and count to 10 seconds.
2. The researcher will provide attention with prompts related to completion ofthe assignment every 3-
5 sec. throughout the condition.
3. Any time the student engages in the target behavior, the researcher will say, "Let's have a 10 second
break" and remove the worksheet for 10 seconds without providing the student any further attention.
4. The next trial will start following the IO-second break after the student is directed to get back to
work.
128
Functional Analysis Graph:
Functional Analysis Results for Participant 8
lOA
.........Control Condition
.... ~
"..""" ,,,, ,,,,, , .. ".. ,,, , .. ,."" _ ,."."jL,,,,, "..""",,,,,,,,,...... Escape Condition
:'c' .''''''''''''"""""" ".,,,,,,,.,,,,,, ,, "t'''"",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,. '"'''''''' ",,}Jr•• Allen lion Condition
0% +.""""".,t--~-
90% + ,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,, ,,,, ,, .. ,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,.,, .. ,,.,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,."""".."""."."",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,",,.,, ,,,, ,,,,.,,,,." .. """"""."..""""".""".",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,
40%
30% r·········""··········"··",\••"",·",,,,,,·· ".. """"". ." .......•/.,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,3,,.,,,,.,,,,,,,, "".,f'''".", """"",,, ,, ,,,,,
20% .j""" """.."" "", .•}.",,. ,,,,,.,,. """." "./L"" ."".."""""."""" """""~:'"
80%
70%
60%
10% .j """"""""""."" " ..,,
100% ...,. <................................... .. )( ,••..................,",' """",,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,, ,,.,,.,,.,,,,
1 2 3
Sessions
4 5
Based on the results: The function of the problem behavior was: Access Attention (from adult)
(practical FBA hypothesis statement confirmed)
129
APPENDIXR
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR STUDENT 9
The student is a 4th grade student in a general education classroom with 24 students. He
does not receive special services (IEP or 504)
His strengths are: Reading, math, art, writing, has friends
The Final Summary of Behavior based on the FBA was:
Routine: Reading (12:10 to 12:40)
Setting Event Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
Unknown Presented with Reading Disrupts the teacher Peers laugh at him.
Task (boring, too easy) by talking to peers,
making disrespectful Removed from group.
comments to other
Function: Avoid tasks the he
students andlor
finds less interesting ( boring or
teacher
too easy)
Functional Analysis Conditions:
Based on the interviews and observations conducted, the target routine was identified as
reading The conditions will be conducted in the classroom setting .
Activities for Control Activities for Attention Condition Activities for Escape Condition
Condition (Interesting, challenging work/reading (Less preferredlregular classroom
(Preferred activities with away from researcher) tasks [textbook assigned readings])
researcher near him)
Interesting Interesting reading assignment Current reading tasks in
reading (similar to control activities) class
assignment
(topics selected
by student
included
I
architecture,
I
engineering,L robotics, andfantasy stories)
Functional Analysis Conditions For Participant #9
130
Control Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Give attention for 1 minute Preferred activity (from list Ignore problem behavior
in table above)
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I'll help you while you read this article/story."
2. Student presented with the article/story.
3. The researcher provides 1:1 attention with ongoing prompts every 3-5 seconds.
4. Any occurrences of the problem behavior will be ignored and the student will continue to receive
attention every 3·5 seconds.
Attention Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
1 minute break. Procedures explained. Interesting article/ worksheet Contingent attention. If
(from table above) no exhibits target behavior(s)
attention-adult 10 feet away (5 seconds of adult
attention)
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to do this activity. I will be away doing some work."
2. Researcher will present the activity and then move 10 ft away from student
3. If student engages in target behavior, fue researcher will approach the student and provide the student
with 5 seconds of adult attention
4. Following the 5-second interval the student will be directed to return to the activity, the researcher will
walk away, and the next trial will begin.
Escape Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
1 minute break. Procedures explained. Regular class activity (task Ignore problem behavior.
he is asked to do in class) Allow him to escape the
with no attention from task.
researcher---IO feet away.
Procedure:
1. Introduction: "I want you to work on your classroom activily, I will be away doing some work".
2. The researcher will provide no attention with no prompts related to completion of the assignment
throughout the condition.
3. Any time the student engages in fue target behavior, the researcher will ignore the problem behavior.
4. The next trial will start following the recording of the problem behavior.
Functional Analysis Graph:
131
1 2 3
Sessions
4 5
.........Control Condition
......Escape Condition
Attention Condition
lOA
Based on these results: The function of the problem behavior is to escape regular class
reading activities. (practical FBA hypothesis confirmed)
132
APPENDIX S
FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS COMPARISON FORM FOR STUDENT 10
The student is a first grade student in a general education classroom with 24 students. He
does not have an IEP or receive services for academic or social concerns
Her strengths are: Reading, math, very clever and funny
The Final Summary of Behavior based on the FBA was:
Routine: Whole Group Reading (9:30-11 :00)
Setting Event Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
Unknown When teacher gives Talks out, is not Teacher corrects him
class-wide instruction(s) following along
Function: Access(e.g., not on
Adult Attention
same page),
plays with
clothes/hair, etc.
Functional Analysis Conditions:
Based on the interviews and observations conducted, the target routine was identified as
whole group instruction during reading (9:30-11 :00). The conditions were conducted in
the classroom setting.
Activities for Control
Condition
Activities for Attention
Condition
Activities for Escape
Condition
(Preferred activities) (Typical class activity with (Typical class activity
group. Researcher away from with group. Researcher
Connect the dots, student) in close proximity
drawing with high providing prompts
attention from researcher 1 e_v_er_y_3_-_5~s_e_co_n_d_'S_)_
Functional Analysis Conditions For Participant #10
133
Control Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Give attention for 1 minute Preferred activity (from Ignore problem
list in table above) behavior
Procedure:
5. Introduction: "I'll help you while you do task"
6. Student presented with the task.
7. The researcher provides 1: 1 attention with ongoing prompts every 3-5 seconds.
8. Any occurrences of the problem behavior will be ignored and the student will continue to
receive attention every 3-5 seconds.
Attention Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
1 minute break ... limited attention on break. Typical class activity no Contingent
Procedures explained. attention-adult 10 feet attention. If
away exhibits target
behavior(s) (5
seconds of adult
attention)
Procedure:
9. Introduction: "I want you to work with the rest of your class."
10. Researcher will present the activity and then leave the room.
11. If student engages in target behavior, the teacher will approach the student and provide the
student with 5 seconds of adult attention,
12. Following the 5-second interval the student will be directed to return to the activity, the
teacher will walk away, and the next trial will begin.
Escape Condition
Setting Event Antecedent Consequence
Procedures explained. Typical class activity with Ignore problem
attention from behavior. Allow
researcher..adult in close him to escape the
proximity task.
Procedure:
13. Introduction: "I want you to work on this activity with your class."
14. The researcher will sit in close proximity and provide attention and prompts related to
completion of the assignment every 3-5 seconds throughout the condition.
15. Any time the student engages in the target behavior, the researcher will ignore the problem
,
behavior and allow the student to escape the activity. !
134
Functional Analysis Results for Participant 10
lOA
"""'$- Control Condition
-ll-Escape Condition
-J11,r= Attention Condition
87654321
100%
X90% + .
80% + .
70% +.~ ~ ~._ - _._ _ .
60%
50% 1····..········ · · · ···..·· ..ffit:·.,..·····.,··:\&t;
40% +...................................... . ·· ·· "r ··· ..······ ·..\c ·..·..·..·..· ..· ·..:·· ········ .. ···· .
30% + _..~ _.......... ·· ~ ..F ·········· %'
20%
10%
0% ·111l-~~··· .. t·,..,~~...._ ..._ ......,..........,...4
....
o
QI
V
c:
QI
...
...
::I VI
v ...
v 00.-
J:. :>~~3= QI
"'co
'i E
:> Q)
... -Q)J:I
... 0c: ...
-~
<0-
o
...
c:
QI
~
ell
CI.
Sessions
Based on the results: The function of the problem behavior is to Access Attention (from
adult) (practical FBA hypothesis confirmed)
APPENDIXT
PRACTICAL FBA MANUAL FOR PARTICIPANTS
135
Functional Behavioral Assessment and
Positive Behavior Support
Functional Behavioral Assessment is not a
process intended to increase the already
overwhelming paperwork educators must
complete. Rather, FBA has been
recommended as an effective proactive
technology that should be used at the first
signs of misbehaviorl . FBA has been
established as a systematic, evidence-
based process for assessing the
relationship between a behavior
and the context in which that
behavior occurs2• A primary
goal of FBA is to guide
the development of
effective positive
interventions
based on the function of the behavior (e.g.,
tangible, escape, attention, automatici.
Interventions based on an FBA result in
significant change in student
behavior.4Thus, an FBA is "critical to the
1 Scott et aI., 2003; Sugai et aI., 2000.
2 Blair, Umbreit, & Bos; 1999; Carr et aI., 1999;
Lee, Sugai, & Horner, 1999.
3 Horner, 1994
4 Carr et aI.., 1999; Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, &
Sugai,2005
136
design and successful implementation of
positive behavioral interventions"s.
FBA has been described as a preventative
practice within schools across the three
levels of the prevention model for School
wide Positive Behavior Support
(SWPBS/. At the primary (or
universal) prevention level, FBA
can be utilized as a
collaborative school-wide
practice to predict
common problems
and to develop
interventions at
the school
level. At
the
secondary (or targeted group) prevention
level, FBA involves simple and realistic
team-driven assessment and intervention
strategies aimed at students with mild to
moderate behavior problems. Finally at the
tertiary (or intensive) prevention level, FBA
is considered a complex, time-consuming,
and rigorous process focused on students
with more chronic, intensive behavior
problems for whom primaI)' and secondary
5 Watson & Steege, 2003, p.20
6 Scott & Caron, 2005
137
level interventions were unsuccessful.
Students that exhibit serious problem
behaviors in school (about 5% of school
population) require an extensive FBA
process led by an individual well-versed in
behavioral principles (e.g., school
psychologist, behavior specialist).
The logic behind the Practical FBA
training resides with the idea that students
that exhibit consistent minor problem
behaviors (10-15% of the school population)
benefit from basic and less intrusive FBA
procedures that may be conducted by a
school professional (e.g., counselor,
administrator). Practical FBA presents and
applies the FBA technology for use by
school personnel in a proactive manner.
Purpose ofthe Participant's Guide
For students that
exhibit complex or
dangerous
behavioral
students names during academic instruction on a
daily basis. However, the Practical FBA methods
would not be sufficient for use with a student
who strikes others or engages in self-injurious
behaviors during a number of routines
throughout the
school day.
challenging behaviors.
problems school
personnel should contact a behavior specialist
in your school or district who is trained to
conduct FBA's for students with more
When used earlyfor students
identified at-riskfor serious
behavioral problems,
Practical FBA methods may prevent
the escalationofstudent behaviors
that, ifleft untreated, may require
more intrusive methods.
This participant's guide presents specific
procedures for school-based personnel to
conduct practical functional behavioral
assessments (FBA). Practical FBA training
methods presented in this workbook are designed
,..------=-------,-----------=---......
to train school-based
personnel with flexible
roles in a school (i.e.
personnel not directly
responsible for
providing regular
instruction for
students). The Practical
FBA training methods are specifically designed
for use with students that exhibit consistent
problems that are not dangerous and have not
been adequately addressed through previous
assessment and intervention.
For example, Practical FBA methods would be
appropriate for a student who is calling other
138
Practical FBA Methods may be used with Practical FBA Methods are NOT sufficient
students who: for use with students who:
Exhibit high frequency behaviors that are Exhibit dangerous behaviors (e.g., hitting,
NOT dangerous (e.g., talking out, running, not throwing objects, property destruction)
following directions, not completing work)
Exhibits behaviors in 3 or more school
Have received interventions that did not routines.
improve behavior.
Exhibit behaviors that occur in 1 to 2 school
routines (e.g., specific classrooms/activities,
lunch, recess)
Intended Use ofthe Participant's Guide
The activities within this workbook are
designed to be used by school-based
professionals (e.g., counselors,
administrators) as they are guided
through the Practical FBA Training
procedures provided by an individual
well-versed in functional behavioral
assessment and behavioral analytic
principles (e.g., school psychologists,
behavior specialists).
This participant's guide is NOT meant to
be used as a self-instructional handbook.
This guide is designed to match with key
points from the presentation activities of
the Practical FBA Training. The tools
and procedures in the appendices of this
workbook can be used after the training
to guide trained school-based
professionals.
Format ofthe Participant's Guide
Each of the 4 training sessions will include the following elements:
•
Objectives: Content and skills participants will learn during the session.
• ReView, Review content from the previous session.
139
Activities: Practice opportunities to better understand content and develop
skills.
Checks for Understanding & Comments/Questions
After new content has been taught and practiced, activities to check
for understanding or identify points that need to be discussed and
practiced further. (Please submit to the trainer at end of each
session)
•\, 10 ])0:~Tasks: Real life practice opportunities in your school with actual
cases in your
school.
[~Ley Points from each session.
1:1
IIEjIII Presentation Slides: Slides presented in each session can be inserted behind
this page.
140
SChool-based personnel
(e .g., tea chers,counselors,
administrators)
Students With .lIliJdjg,>
moderate problem ..
behaviors (be havia rs that
are NOT dangerous'or· ...
occurringin many settings)
Relatively simple and
efficie nt process to guide
behavior support planni ng
stUden~withmodera1P to·
severe behavioral
problems; maybe
dangerous a rid/or
Qcc!!rri~ in rna rnr settin~s.
Time-inte nsive process that
also involves archival
records review, family-
centered planning, and
collaboration with agencies
outside of school
profession a1s trained to
conduct fu nctional
assessments with students
with severe problem behaviors
...- ... (es, school ps't':hologists,
;!lJehaviorspecialists)
Practical FBA vs
Comprehensive FBA
What:
Conducted bywhom:
Practical FBA process
D.A.S. H.
Define behavior in observable & measurable terms
Ask about behavior by interviewing sta ~Istudent
-specify routines where & when behaviors occur
-summarize where} when} & why behaviors occur
ee the behavior Session #3
-observe the behavior during routines specified
-observe to verify summary from interviews
Hvpothesize: a final summary of where} when &
why behaviors occur Session #4
Session #1:
Defining & Understanding Behavior
141
By the end ofthis training session you will be able to:
1. Define observable behaviors (the WHAT).
2. Identify events that predict WHEN & WHERE the
specific behavior occurs.
3. Identify WHY a student engages in the specific
behavior.
4. Construct hypothesis statements that summarize the
WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, & WHY ofastudent's
behavior.
Practical FBA
Always start with the behavior
• Despite the ABC concept} the behavior (B) is
our starting point!
•
142
2
Anteced ent/Trigger:
When _ happens....
·3
Conseq uencelOutCome
...because (why) __
Defining Observable
Problem Behaviors
• Definitions of behaviors need to be:
- Observable: The behavior is an action that can be
~.
- Measurable: The behavior can be counted or
timed.
- Defined so clearly that a person unfamiliar
with the student could recognize the
behavior without any doubts!
143
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Activity 1
List 5 problem behaviors that occur in your
school:
144
Are the behaviors listed above: (a)
observable, (b) measurable, and (c)
defined so clearly that a person unfamiliar
with the student could recognize the
Activity 2
Write out the behavior and provide an observable &
measurable definition for one (1) of the behaviors
below:
1. Jeff is always disruptive in class.
Disruptive: _
2. Hailey is constantly off-task during math.
Off-task:
--------------------------
3. Chris is defiant.
Defiant:
4. Brandon is angry and hostile.
Angry!Hostile:
5. Alexis uses inappropriate language.
Inappropriate language:
------------- ---------
145
Activity 3
Identify the behavior, antecedent, & routines
in the following scenarios:
Behavior
Student does:
When he goes to math class and peers tease him about his walk,
A.J. calls them names and hits them.
Routine: During _
Antecedent/Triggerr--1..-'__-----JN
When: I
'---,---I-V
L..- -----J '- --'
Bea stares off into space and does not respond to teacher
directions when she doesn't know how to do a difficult math
problem.
Routine: During
Antecedent/Trigger
When:
Behavior
Student does:
146
Activity 4
Identify the routine, antecedent, behavior, and
consequences/outcomes for the following scenarios:
Joe throws his pencil and rips his paper during math whenever he is given double-
digit math problems. This results in him getting sent to the office.
I Routine:
Antecedent/Trigger ) Behavior Consequence/I f\ OutcomeWhen: Student does: I
V because:
Nancy cries during reading time whenever she has to work by herself. This results
in the teacher sitting and reading with her.
[ Routine:
Antecedent/Trigger Behavior ) Consequence/OutcomeWhen: I Student does: I
because:
147
Functions that behaviors serve
I
=:L_
Escape/]
Avoid
Something I
1
Social
J
1.
~eer
Most Common Functions of Behavior
148
To Obtain/ Get:
• Peer attention
• Adult attention
• Desired activity
• Desired object/ items
• Sensory stimulation: auditory,
tactile, etc.
To Escape/Avoid:
• Difficult Task
• Boring Task
• Easy Task
• Physical demand
• Non-preferred activity
• Peer
• Staff
• Reprimands
Hypothesis Statement:
Summarizes the Routine, ABC's, & Hypothesizes a Function of the
Behavior
I Routine:
Antecedent/Trigger
Behavior Consequence/ Outcome
When: [:- u' because:Student does:
IV
Therefore, the function of
the behavior is to
Get/avoid:
The Hypothesis/Summary Statement:
Critical to Designing Behavioral Supports
The summary statement informs a student's individual support team in developing a
behavior support plan.
The results of the summary statement are important because strategies based on this
statement will be used to:
- prevent the predictors (antecedents) of the problem behavior,
-teach alternative behaviors to the problem behavior, &
-increase alternative and desired behavioral outcomes, while decreasing problem
behaviors based on the function/pay-off
149
150
Checks for Understanding for Session #1
Please detach and turn in these pages to the trainer at the end of the training session. Please
write your name on them or use some other form of identification to receive feedback on
your responses.
Name or Identification:
Check #1
Provide a Summary Statement for the following
scenario:
During story time when the teacher asks students
questions, Michelle blurts out responses or begins crying if
she is not called on. When this happens the teacher moves
in closely and talks privately with Michelle in an effort to
calm her.
Write your answer in Summary Statement format below:
I Routine:
Antecedent/Trigger Behavior Consequence/ Outcome
When: [: Student does: --.JI because:
n
Therefore the function of
the behavior is to
Get/avoid:
Check #2:
Define the 4-steps in the Practical FBA
Process
151
Define the ABC's of understanding the function ofbehavior:
Which one of the three terms (A, B, or C) should you always start with
(i.e., the focal point of an FBA)?
Check #3:
Identify an observable
& measurable behavior of a student you
know
152
Comments/Questions about Session #1:
Task for Session #1
•10 ])0:
.........•.,~
.~ ." .' .:. .
Over the next week:
1. Work with someone at your school to identify
a student that may require individual behavior
supports.
• SELECT A STUDENT WHO HAS A
CHRONIC BEHAVIOR, BUT IS NOT THE
MOST DIFFICULT CASE
• Make sure student does not exhibit
dangerous behavior
2. Be prepared to interview the student's
teacher the following week.
Key Points from Session #1
153
• The Practical FBA process is for use with students who engage in
problem behaviors that are not dangerous behaviors
• The Practical FBA Process has 4 steps (DASH): Define, Ask, See, &
Hypothesize
• In understanding the ABC's of behavior, the starting point is the behavior
(B), then what happens before the behavior (A) and after the behavior (C).
• Behaviors need to be explained in such a way that they are observable &
measurable so that anyone who does not know that student could point out
the behaviors.
• A student's behavior serves a function (or pay-off): either to get or avoid
something (attention, activities, or tangible items
• The result of a Practical FBA is a Hypothesis Statement that summarizes
the ABC's of behavior and hypothesizes the function of a student's
behavior
r§O~
I§ C )~ Presentation Slides/or Session #1
D 0
D 0 Insert slides provided by the trainer behind this page.
BOBDO
D 0
Session #2: Investigating Behavior
Review #1
154
Defining Observable Problem Behaviors
Definitions of behaviors should to be:
-Observable
-Measurable
-Defined so clearly that a person unfamiliar with the
student could recognize the behavior without any
doubts
Unresponsive
Definition:
Examples:
Non-examples:
Inappropriate Language
Definition: _
Examples:
Non-examples:
155
Review #2
Create a hypothesis statement for the following
Scenario #1: Jordan---At lunch, after being approached by a specific peer, Crystal, Jordan yells
profanities. Crystal moves away and leaves Jordan alone.
I Routine:
Antecedent/Trigger Behavior Consequence/ Outcome
When:
- Student does: ----1 because:
---, V
Therefore the function of
the behavior is to
Get/avoid:
Scenario #2: Jarrett---When his teacher asks him questions about capitol cities in geography,
Jarrett tells the teacher, "why don't you tell me ...you 're the teacher". His teacher moves him to
the back ofthe room and ignores him for the rest ofthe class period.
1 Routine:
Antecedent/Trigger Behavior Consequence/ Outcome
When: - Student does: U because:
- V
Therefore the function of
I
I I I
the behavior is to
Get/avoid:
By the end of Session 2 you will be able to:
Use the FACTS interviews with staff and
students to specify:
1. The problem behaviors
2. Routines in which problem behaviors occur
3. Triggers or predictors of the problem behavior
4. Pay-off (Function) the behaviors have for
student
5. Possible setting events
6. Summary ofbehavior
156
157
Adding 4th term to
Hypothesis/Summary Statement
Setting Events/ Antecedent/ Problem Consequence/
"Set ups/} Trigger Behavior Outcome
Infrequent q q q Followingevents that Preceding Observable events that
affect value events that behaviors of maintain
of outcome trigger concern behaviors of
concern
Examples of Setting Events OR "Set
Ups"
• Lack of sleep
• Missing breakfast / hunger
• Forgetting to take medication
• Having a fight on the way to school
• Bad grade on a test
• Substitute teacher
How do we obtain the information to
make a summary statement
Ask & See
1. Ask- Today's Session
-Interview Teacher & Staff
-Interview Student
2. See Next Session
-Observe the student's behavior in routines
identified by the interview
-Use the interview to guide observations.
158
159
(FACTS)
Purpose of the FACTS interview: ASK staffwho work with the student to identify & focus in
on a specific problem behavior routine, so you can go and SEE the behavior.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about the FACTS interview
How long does it take to conduct a
FACTS interview?
Depending on teacher responses, 30-45
minutes is typical.
Whom should I interview?
Interview the ''referring teacher" or teacher
that has been identified to receive support,
then based on the interview other staff may
be identified.
What materials do I need?
Bring two copies of the FACTS interview
form for yourself and the teacher being
interviewed (so they can follow along).
Can I just drop it in the teacher's box to
have them complete the FACTS?
No. You should guide them through the
interview and record their responses on your
form, as follow up questions may be needed.
During the FACTS interview, you are the investigator
Ask follow-up questions to get specific information you can use to inform
interventions
Understand from the student perspective ...
You need to be convinced...
You need to be confident in the results of the interview...
160
Completing FACTS Part-A: Routines Analysis
Start FACTS of/with Strengths & Identify Student Daily Routines
Step #1: Start with the student's strengths.
When conducting a FACTS interview always start with the student's
strengths.
-Begin with focus on positive skills and attributes of student.
Step #2: Ask: Where, when, with whom, problem behaviors that are most likely
Time: List the times that define changes
in the student's daily schedule. Include
subject changes, changes in classes,
transitions, lunch, before school, and
adapt for complex schedule features (e.g.
odd/even days) if appropriate.
Activity & Staff: Identify the activity or
routine (e.g. small group instruction,
math,
independent art, transition) during each
time identified and the staff involved.
Likelihood of Problem Behavior: Rate
the likelihood ofproblem behavior
during
each time/activity/routine on the 1 to 6
scale provided.
Problem Behavior: Indicate the specific
problem behavior(s) that occur during
each time with a rating of 4, 5, or 6.
Current Intervention: Indicate any
interventions currently in place for the
problem behavior during that time.
161
Activity 1
With a partner and using the FACTS Part-A form (pg. 26) for Tracy,
complete the:
(a) Strengths
(b) Routines Analysis (The Time, Activities, & Staff involved
are completed for you)
Scriptjor Tracy's FACTS
FACTS-Part A: Tracy's Teacher, Ms. B.
Strengths: Tracy likes science & art, she is great at basketball.
Routines Analysis
"Tracy has a low likelihood of problem behavior in reading, but the first break is where the
likelihood of her problem behavior is about a "4". During this break she will call students names
and sometimes threaten then. Currently I give her detention when I find out about those
problems."
"She has no problems in writing, math, or social studies. But during the lunch break period the
likelihood of her problem behavior is very high, about a "6". She calls students names and
threatens them. She usually gets detention for this."
"She has no problems in PE, Art, or Science. But dismissal she has some problems in the
hallways. I would say the likelihood of a problem behavior during dismissal is about a "3". She
engages in the same problems ... name calling, threatening and she will get detention for this. "
162
FUlll.'tional ASSI:SSlDl:nt Chl:l.'klist for Tl:achel's and Staff (FACTS-Part A)
Grade --:8"--__Student: Tracy
StaffInterviewed: _ .....M..."'s......B.<- _
Date:~ _
Intel'viewel': _
Student Strengtlls: Identify at least three strengths or contributions the sludent bring.s to school.
Academic strengths -
SociallReer-rational •
Other.
ROUTINES ANALYSIS: \Vhere, Wllen and With ,"v1lOm Problem Heh:1\"ior& are Most Likely.
Tim~ Activity & Staff Likelihood of Problem Specific Problem I.Current Intel'Vt'nlion far
Involved Behavior Behavior the Problem Behavior
8:05 Reacting/Ms. B Low High
2 ;; 4 5 6
9:05 Bj'eak
2 3 4 5 6
9:20 Writing/Ms. H
2 ., 4 5 6
"10:20 MatMvIs.Z
2 3 4 5 6
11:20 Social Studies/Mr. T
2 3 4 5 6
12:20 LunchlBreak
2 3 4 5 6
1:10 PE/Mr.KOR
Art/Ms.J 2 3 4 5 6
2:10 Science! Ms. N
2 3 4 5 6
3:15 Dismissal
2 3 4 5 6
List the Routines in (wcler of Pl'iol'ity fOl' Beha..iGI' Support: Sele~t l-outilles ~ith I'Mlngs of 5 01' 6. Onl~'
rombine routines when tllere is sigllifirilnt (a) similarit~· of adh'iiies (rouditions) ilnd (b) simiJaritJ of
problem bt>lJavior(.s). C&mp)t>te tht> FACTS-PIll't H fOl' each of thE' J)riorltized I'outine(;;) ideutifiE'd.
I .' ••••••.••. J:wutineslActMtieslConteXt ... ....Protil~lnRebavi4i1($) ..........>
Routine # 1
Routine#2
HERAVIOR(s): Rank OJ'der the to l lrioritV 1I'0biem bellaviOl's occUl'rin
__ Tardy _ Fight/physical Aggression _ Dismptive
_ Umesponsive _ Inappropriate Language Insubordination
_ S<>:lf-injtIlY _Vabal Harassment _ Work not done _ Other__....,....,,--_--,
Describe pril)ritizecl prl)blem behavil)r(s) in obsflTnble terIDs: _ Callssnldel1ts l1ames, lea.ses and threatell" them
What is the frequenc" of the Problem Behtl\'ior iu the taI'l!ett>d routlllt> tit x's Ida" 01' hom')? .1
What is the duration ofthe Problem Bebal,ior in tbe taueted routine (ill seconds 01' min)? 1
Is Bt>havior Imme{liate Danga' to I Y N IfYes, refer case to behavior specialist
self/others
163
Step #3: List the Routines in Priority of Behavior Support
& Select the single most prioritized routine to focus on for FACTS Part-B
Since the function ofproblem behavior
often varies across different
environments and
settings, it is essential that we always
focus on behavior within the context of a
routine.
1. First, identify those routines with the
highest ratings (4, 5 or 6 in the
Routines Analysis).
2. Select between 1 to 2 routines for
further analysis and prioritize which
routine to begin the assessment with.
Write the name of the highest
priority routine and the most
common problem behavior(s) during
that routine in Routine #1.
3. Do the same for Routine #2.
In some cases, it may be possible to
combine multiple routines, but only
when the structure and demands within
the routine are very similar.
Examples of combined/multiple
routines:
• consistent problem behavior in
recess, lunch and free-time might be
combined into unstructured times
with peers
• if problems occur in reading and
social studies primarily during
round-robin reading, the routine
might be large group reading which
would encompass both reading and
social studies.
If you determine that there are more than 2 distinct routines identified, refer the case to a
behavior specialist.
Select the single most prioritized routine to focus on for FACTS-Part B.
164
Step #4: Identify Problem Behaviors for the identified routine
Now, focusing on the single routine you
have prioritized. Check those behaviors
that occur in the target routine and then
rank order the top 3 most concerning
problem behaviors in the routine.
Provide a brief description of exactly
what the behavior looks like when the
student engages in these behaviors.
This definition should be so clear that
you could clearly identify when the
behavior does or does not occur.
Step #5. Ask about the Frequency, Duration
Ask the interviewee to estimate the DURATION & FREQUENCY of occurrence s of the
problem behavior in the target routine.
Step #6. Ask if the behavior is an immediate danger to self/others
Ask the interviewee if the student engages in Dangerous behaviors are: behaviors that
behaviors that pose a danger to themselves directly injure others (e.g., hitting, throwing
or others. dangerous objects, etc.)
If it is determined that behaviors are dangerous, refer the case to a behavior specialist.
165
Activity 2: Top Priority, Frequency, Duration, &
Dangerous Behavior
With a partner role-play using the FACTS Part-A fonn
on pg.26 & the script below.
A. List the Routines in Order ofPriority
B. Then, have the interviewee rank the top priority of
the problem behaviors occurring in the targeted
routine.
C. Ask them to provide you with an estimate ofhow
frequent the behavior occurs in the targeted
routine.
D. Ask the duration (how long) of the problem
behavior in the targeted routine.
E. Ask if the behaviors are dangerous
Script/or Ms. B, Tracy's Teacher
Behaviors: Rank order the top priority
"Based on the list you are showing me for those routines, I would say that she engages in verbal harassment
(Number 1 priority) and inappropriate language (Number 2 priority)."
Frequency & Duration
"The frequency of her problem behavior during Lunch/Break is about two times per day. The name calling
and threatening usually last about 1 minute per episode. "
Danger to selfor others
"The behaviors do not seem to cause immediate danger to her or others. But they do make other students
very angry!"
Completing FACTS Part-B: Identify a Routine & Stick to it
Step #1. Identify the Target Routine
List the prioritized target routine and problem behavior as selected from List the Routines in
Priority
for Behavior Support from FACTS-Part A. The FACTS-Part B will only focus on this single
routine.
If multiple routines are identified, use a separate FACTS-Part B form for each routine.
FUlH't!aulll AIt~~sm(lnf Clltlckll~t £01' TfarheL'~ & Staff{FACTS~Part B)
Step #2. Ask about the ANTECEDENT(s)
When asking about antecedents remember to do the following:
a. remind the respondent that you are only talking about the target routine
b. have the person initially check all antecedents in the list that apply
c. then, have the person rank order the 2 strongest predictors from those selected
~NTECIDf.:\rtU: RlIllk D'rdel' the stl'OlJarst ir1ua·s;'pI.mr101'S ofpl'obfum bfhmilll in lilt lClutiJIi' abo\<'.
fhen 3$1.: omt'sponding t,II,)\v-1Ip qUI.'?f!:oll(s) to g-et a it/niltd trJlI:lrr:;,t311di~ (lrtrilit'I'~ l"llnlwd 1;1 $.: 2.
n, m,};too h"",l .~ 1"._ If. h ' ,. '" - !k"CH~~ tntii'tn1llni ill k~liI _
I), Id"ldIJU~ll'\i\ _It, 'itlU.ll1!jllJlll wt~l =:--=---::: :--_,..- _
c. lmed WI,,,;}; L llIldcp"Ji.le.a ,\{>'.K Iff .~ IMllP:CW ofto:ltit::1ioe,"u~ ~le,-Wl'lll'10 ~iZ"
- d,;M!i:lOO l'ilug .._~.....J~'.l.lll:·.:..Il:u;;:rUf::e=d=...."'---r:;j~Gi~~;i;:;;::;ii;.~-:-:~~-~--=-
_ r, phy,ir"l <'FJ!l~'''& If p;, it l i nr Ii< -nf.rti1v "ftlilleir<ti'Tityfrf<fl!~'!\Im~"\i'lll
__ f. ;O!fe((ioo'fqnimJilld - _I. wlm ~err.
Oilier _Ill, it,,1<I~~' !I('~lIJl
dcv':lllo~
166
167
ANTECEDENT(S): Follow-up Questions
After identifying the strongest predictor(s)
ask the follow-up question(s) coinciding
with the letter of the item(s) rank ordered #1
and #2.
The provided follow-up questions should
not be considered a complete list. It is the
job of the interviewer to ask the additional
follow-up questions necessary to obtain the
clearest understanding of the antecedents
triggering the problem behavior.
Example: Identifying task too hard and
answering "reading" to the follow-up
questions is probably not sufficient to
inform intervention development.
It is essential to know specifically the type
and
level of reading tasks that are too difficult
and what skills the student does or does not
possess. A better description of the difficulty
You as the interviewer should have a clear
enough understanding of the antecedents to
be able to make changes to, or eliminate, the
triggers and make the student need for the
problem behavior irrelevant.
Example of using Follow-up Questions
of the task would be "reading passages or
activities higher than a 1" grade reading
level. The student is fluent with letter sound
correspondence and can blend cvc words,
but is not fluent with multi-syllabic words,
nor most irregular words. Specifically, the
student cannot
answer comprehension questions nor read
aloud in content areas or literacy when
reading is higher than a lSI grade level."
Step #3. Before moving on with the interview, ask yourself the following about the
antecedent response:
1. Are there further follow-up questions I
should ask to get a clearer understanding of
what triggers the problem behavior?
2. Is the antecedent clear enough that I can
identify specific environmental changes that
should prevent the problem behavior?
168
Activity 3
With a partner and using the script provided below,
complete the ANTECEDENTS section in the FACTS
Part-B (pg. 32) for TRACY.
Remember to ask the follow-up questions that
correspond with the letter of the ANTECEDENT
Teacher's Script for Part-B
Lunch! Hall Supervising Staff (Just so happens to be Ms. B)
Antecedents Section
"The behaviors seem to occur when peers are around; specifically, when Johnny and Karen are
around. They are the popular students and Tracy never teases them, but when they are around she
will tend to tease other "weaker" or less popular students."
169
Functional Assessment ClIerklist for T('-aebel'S & ~taU (FACTS-Part B)
ldelltH\ tilt Target Routine: Select ONE of tIte lJriQritized routines iiolll FACTS-Part A101' l\£se"lI1ent.
AJ\;'-ECI:DL'\"TfSl: Ronk OrdfJl' t~ !i!l'onge~t ll'iggN'Slprulictol'$ of IH'ob!tm btha!'ior in tlie routine IIbo!'e,
Tll",u ask COI'l''''<IIOll(linll follow.up Question(s) to aet a tI"tnt7,d lIud",.'stalldillll of tl'illlle.'S unked #1 & 2.
.:l. rnf-K rf'IO Mfd _g.. l:lrgi"" errm:p in~tmf:t1r.<n
b. t.sk to<> eM" _h. 'mall group w."k
c. bored wi task _i. indepclldellt wQ!k
It task tDD 1:mg .j. u1l!trucm.rec time
_ &-. ph~;~icd demand _k tmn~itiGtl..~
_ £. \:\;ut.\:\':;\,\l1(lqJ1muuul _I. wi~h pt'.t1S
Other _lll.1>oJated! co attn
rte.,rih>
FollolT tfl) Questions - Gl'J as Sveciflc IlS I1OssffJlt?
Jfl- ",-llltt peel." _
lfIn - de"r;I",-
CONSEOUL.lIiCEfs}: Rank Order tItt' stt'ougest PSl)'-ofTfol' student flint appelll'S most like!)- to maintain 1he I})'oolem
bdu\·ior III tht routillt ~bovt. The lIsk follow-lID auestiolls to dtt;til tOD$eQUelJces l'lInked #1 & 2.
COlIseOIlt'IIt't's/FIllIrtiGIl As llDlllicable Follow Un Olle!tions - Get 115 SrJPci{((' as "hits/ott
_:t. get mblt attention If it W" b \Vhcse attart-ion. i~ obtained?
_ b. get peer attention
c, gel preferred activity How is the (positive or ne·~iI:i,·e) attention \)fQ\'ided?
_ ,I. gel obj"",/rhiug"IlU""ey
_ e. goet !C.t-,;",U(/:ll
_[get ethel'. descl'ibe If ",d. e, or f n '\>nat spe:ilic itelll!, activities. or secsmions are obtained?
_ g. avoid adult attentioD
b, lIvoid peeratlention
i. ?iToid ut1de_..it':ed aC'ti~~tY$~U~
_ j .•vlJld st,m,lJC'n
_ k. ;ru~lfl!p;;;('"~p-",.nthM', d."':!OI.~nhfr.
H gOT h - Who;' lWoided? _
\V1Jy a\~'itlillg WiJ') }JtJSUli?
Hi, j, or k- D..c:ribe <peClfic '''.k.'acliviiy/,'''.."ti.... '''·a:d«l'?
De specifio. DO r;-OT simply !At subject Areo, but .pc:cificolly ,beeib. Iype ",f ",,,,de wilb" the.
subject a1'ea?
Can the sm.:lent pe1fonn the lask mdependemly? Y l'
Is !\Cadelll;C assessme1l11leeded 1010 specific skin deficits? Y ;.;r
SET~G EYI:l\'-fSl: Rartk Order any t'vellts that happen oll~ide of tilt immediatt l'Olltillt (at hOllle or ealiiN- iurln)') 11mt
tornillonl" mak. noblelll be:luwiol' more: likEI" II" Wlll'se iu th", l'outine: ahov\!.
_ hUllger _ conflict 8t home _ conilict lit school _ missed medication _ illness _iailul'e in pre\·iolls dass
_lack of sleep _change in rootine _ hOlUe'\>'01'k not done _ not "III''' _ Other
SUM1\URY OF BEHAVIOR
Fill in bo:xc~ belo'" milllif tOil I'tlllked IOCSIIOII'Se, and follow-up I'CSI)~ms('Sfrom COl'l'cspoudinl/: cnttzorics allow.
SETTI:'\'G EVElXTS
How li1<41yi< itth"t this S"mmuyolB.h.d"r "cclIral..l)' e>:plain,th. id...tifiodb.h:nior aceuning?
Nor rtal S1Jrt
I
1()O% 5"rel~O Dono:
2 3 4 j 6
170
Step #4. Ask about the CONSEQUENCES
When asking about consequences remember to do the following:
a. remind the respondent that you are only talking about fue target routine
b. have the person initially check all consequences in the list that apply
c. then, have the person rank order the 2 strongest consequences from those selected
Follow-up Questions
After identifying the strongest consequence(s) ask the
follow-up question(s) coinciding with the letter of the
item(s) rank ordered #1 and #2.
The provided follow-up questions should not be
considered a complete list.
It is the job of the interviewer to ask additional follow-
up questions necessary to obtain the clearest
understanding of the consequences maintaining the
problem behavior.
You as the interviewer should feel that you understand
how the problem behavior is functional in paying off
for the student in getting a desired outcome.
Step #5. Before moving on ask yourself the following questions about the consequence response:
1. Are there further follow-up questions I should
ask to get a clearer understanding of what
consequences are maintaining the problem
behavior?
2. Are the consequences and function of behavior
clear enough that I can understand how the
problem behavior is paying off for the student?
3. When considering the antecedent and consequence
together, do they make sense?
For example, if the consequence/function is
avoiding difficult task, it would make
sense that the antecedent be a specific task that is
too difficult. It might make less
sense if the consequence/function is to escape a
difficult task and the antecedent is
unstructured time with peers.
171
Step #6. Ask about the SETTING EVENTS
When asking about setting events remember to do the following:
a. remind the respondent that you are only talking about the target routine
b. have the person initially check all setting events in the list that apply
c. then, have the person rank order the 3 strongest setting events from those selected
Remember that setting events do not usually occur in the immediate routine or
environment.
Since setting events often happen at home or previously in the school day, it is not
uncommon for
teachers to be unsure of setting events.
Follow-up Questions
After identifying the most common setting events ask any follow-up questions that will provide a
clearer picture of the impact and occurrence of setting events.
You may want to follow-up with the student interview (Appendix B) for more information on
setting events.
Activity 4
With a partner and using the script provided, role-play &
complete the CONSEQUENCE and SETTING EVENTS
sections of FACTS Part-B (pg. 32) for TRACY.
Remember to ask the follow-up questions
172
Teacher's Script for Consequence Section
"I really think that she engages in these behaviors to get peer attention; especially from Johnny and Karen who
tend to laugh at some of the mean things she says."
Setting Events Section
"I am not sure ifthere is anything outside of Lunch/Break that makes her behavior more likely."
Teacher's Script for Setting Events Section
"I really don't know anything outside of class that may be affecting her behavior.
173
Step #7. Summarize the interview using the SUMMARY OF BEHAVIOR
Problem Behaviors - write in the description
of problem behavior identified in the
Identifying
the Target Routine box at the top of the
page.
SETTING EVENTS - write the highest
ranked item from the Setting Events
category from above and provide additional
details from the follow-up questions.
CONSEQUENCES - write the highest
ranked item from Consequences category
and provide
additional details provided through the
follow-up questions.
After completing the setting events, tell the
person you are interviewing that you will
need a couple of minutes to review their
responses and form the Summary of
Behavior.
To complete each of the boxes in the
Summary of Behavior take the information
from the
corresponding boxes from above in the
FACTS-B form.
ANTECEDENTS - write the highest
ranked item from the Antecedents category
and provide
additional details provided through the
follow-up questions.
Step #8. After completing the Summary of Behavior, read the summary back to the
respondent according to the following format.
The summary of behavior combines all of
the information gathered in the FACTS-Part
B.
"During <insert target routine>, <insert student name> is likely to <insert problem behaviors>
when
he is <insert details of antecedent conditions that trigger behavior>, and you believe that he does
this
to <insert details of consequence/function>."
Ask the person interviewed "Do you agree with this Summary ofBehavior or is there anything
you
would like to add or change?"
Step #9. Lastly, ask the person interviewed to rate the extent they believe the summary of
behavior is accurate on the provided 6 point scale.
Activity 5
Using the FACTS for TRACY and the
information already completed from the
previous activity complete the Summary of
Behavior (pg. 32).
Work with a partner and have them rate how likely this
summary ofbehavior accurately explains the identified
behavior?
174
175
Checks for Understanding for Session 2
Please detach and turn in these pages to the trainer at the end of the training session. Please
write your name on them or use some other form of identification to receive feedback on
your responses.
Name or Identification:
Check #1
A. Complete the missing parts of the FACTS
(both parts A & B on pgs. 38-39) by
interviewing a partner playing the role of
Shane's teacher from the script below.
All of Part-A & Most of Part- B is done
for you.
B. Make sure you ask the follow-up
questions for
part-B.
176
Script for Mr. J
For Part-B
Math/Science with Mr. J
Antecedents Section
"The behaviors seem to occur when he is asked questions (1) or when he is bored with the tasks
(2). When he is not working I ask him to do a question at the board or ask for a response from
him in front of the class. He tends to be bored during activities that we have been doing for a
couple of days, where we are trying to develop fluency with the new math skills."
Consequence Section
"I really think that he engages in these behaviors to avoid my attention (#1) and avoid undesired
activity (#2). He avoids my attention because I badger him to do his work. The activities he
avoids are most fluency tasks with multiple steps. He can do the work independently and no
academic assessment is necessary.
177
FUllctional Ass€',>sml?ut Checklist for TeacllN's and Staff (FACTS-Part A)
Sh,dent: Sht"{4Te/ Gl'~de 8 J""e: _
StJfflnterlC"iBwed: _-'-!"..l.f..:.i~'........[________ Inlernewel
Stu.dent Stl'~.n:gth~: I&auti£}' ;!t lea'~t tn-r:E-e: ~n·ength: C1" :c;o~rtribut~cu:. the- ;tude-'ll! brings to z,chool.
Academic sJ",mgth~ - Fe.cui..{H:t- Cf 'Wv(t:(I1-@"
I11ll1$ Acthit:r & St"ff Likeliho"d "f Problem Spo.cifi~ Problem Current :Intenellnon E01'
Illy"lv...d B"had"I' Bo.h,,\,·l"I' tho. Pr'oM""u B.h"'·'",r
&:00 1Z eaci..(.t1.g:/ M}'. r4 '1="w H,:gIl
1) 2 3 4;; 6
12.:00 SociCt-l ~\p..ui.i.,z~l
I
,-.,
2 3
"
5 6
'. I)
(i~) 2 3 4- .5 6
r(;" W&vl& no{" d.crrttJ,; H<n"e· hLJJ Ira-- tn'l.ock2 3 ~ .5
'.
T("uk.·~· ~~d:, t"& ·ofthe., f '0'0'1 It:, .€4·\((,·
""'--'
tcctc.h.e.r h.(11·!: t<:r &ffi.ce.
t'i"" ~ 3 .; 5 6
(i-') :; 3 4 :5 6
2 :5 4- 5 6\PF/A pt
\
\
I
140
12:50
S,\,Ge~'vce-
,
\,
\
\
\
\
3
(V.~'''''''\
:5 \..•.#
\{lo"i'~;' v,<",{" d.c"Ile;
Tc(.ik..· t:-c~ck t"&
,\,Jcve, h.(.;wt"o' t>a.clv
ofthc/ f'oV11'V, .\e.nd',,·
t"& .:,fffc-e
HlO
3 4 5 6
c: .:Routine;< 1 io-l<>:·:th· q so:e.•v...e.- 'woy-k ",o-r ,-1.;>yl,,€<, il,,!J~·ll.m.ck ~ re:cu:J,e4" "'-',
___''-"_ .v-_·· ......
Romine # 2
Routine # 3
Tardy _ Fightphy;ical AggJ'e>~jon D,,,mpttve Th~B:
__ Ullrei,pQr~iv'S __ Inapprcpl-LJte LJl1g:~a:ge _2_ Imubord.imt.ic-n ~:al::d~1i~m
__ .S~b'""--illjua::r "\.;"'!rh,.,l H;u~a$!;.m.e:ut _1_ '.1/01{.; not done Ollie-I' _
D'l!z~rib~ I'rioI'itiz"d problem beh.'n-ior{,j iu "'hsel·...ab1" to.rn",: __Oo-.:>rl.le...· ct.t'tie·s/<:.; 'f!4TC1'"e> teoC'tc11;€."
d£41!''<.-:t'io1'H; tcu4 1'i:'{c'\:.. t"q t"e..cu..,]\~'.l'whc..n. ct!.t:ed t"," pet,,'tX.cq::OCtt'<?/
\Vhnt is th•• fr.que.. ,,}' of the ProMem H·ehn,""''' ,n the t.'lrgeted. r"u.t'",e (# x's id,,}' 01' nour}? I 21C1cta.y
\YhM i, th., dm"nt'''''''' of tb" PHlblem Behavior in tb" t:n'get.jHII'""uthu. (in se;:oud~ "I> .min)? I .5~
Belu,Y1"l' h hnmecIlate dluiger fa >~mother,,? I y (X )1 IfY",s, I'E'fu ca,E' to I>.h.l1,·i,n' ;l'",,,b lia
.
~ llv,id peer uegattv"s
~av:::>;dadult memiOil
__ k~ ~~:oid. :r(:!~~nI1lLl!;'Ldj
__ ]. ;1-''''--'11JJ/;;;r-;;t''',~p'~ ..,:thj:or dt:~1'rihp
Functional ASSE'5SEne'11t CUE'cklhtf{)I' Teachers & Staff (fACTS-Part B)
A::\TECEDENTft): Rmli{ Crd~; the ttroug~tl trigger;ipredictors ofpTo)~d2:rrWr'ill"th~~nembon.
Theil ado; corresponding f~ll<>w-upqUBtion(s) to get , del,tiJ.)i,u1iller~t~ndillg Dftriggen l;\nker(¥r&-:!,
n. i-l.-;'-.Io}./ lv-v h/o~HJ __ ~'" L.1J~.'t:' !:=J-VUY iJl~;o,L u~li;l,}JJ. ·ff j.•.J:,h't'rxl ttl;' t:- - ~ht~~:J,.ioe t~1:::.h·'u·':·m;1-.ll.tl i~a uelad _
.,. t;;,;:;;k ·too:!' e:;::.y _l:..~ ~1U;:n ;;t~O\1F' y,,"-o:d: I
__i. iJ"de;:,en{limt work .I
d, l,ll,k too lC'llE I, \1Jl,:-tru-ctmed time I
__ e.• pl:ysi-c."l d'!'~mcl=11:, (,,,milio!ls \, If g, h. E, i or II: - ce,cril>e ;;..thngiattl':rty}ccmlEilt m dew!
f. "oaecilOl")~l>nmand __ I, w:tJ, peen \
t!ler __;'\~Qu,l!;t-tl:uYt¥________ ''!ll,- ""hrlll''''~''; ..,,.
If n1"'~,!::,c::tib~ - ~~~~../?
CONSE.Qt:EXCE~~):Rank On/1!'7 thE stnn'ge,t par-offfor t!Udatc that appeal'S lIt~st likel~- to m~iuuiB tue
pr'.)bleu beuavkr in the l'Outiue al:QYe. The a1k fallow-up qu@,tlau, to detail ~Otl'!eq'(leUCE' rlluke(l#! & :.
a, g!t adult ammtL:m If II 01 b -- '\Vbose alteutioll i" ob:a~Hd' nOlll I:; the atiemicIll pro,'hi".d'
__ 1". ~t p-t:'eL' i\ttet1ho<u _
__ (",. E?',t In'pff=l~"':'l'1 .::t,;""tiYit:..::'"
d. ~et cbi"cn;:ill~$im(!r.e.,.
_ e. g~otller.dt1c!ibe _
-h~~_M_~_~ _ ..~._
.............._-- - - . ,..,.._-,---_.~..
~ETTENG EVENTh'l: Ra{Jk Ol'du iUI)' e\'eEt'! that happen (;Up;mroNhlrinmrl'd::rr~i"O~ (at home or
earlie-I' ill day) tlut cornmanl.,. mal>+ problem behJIXioT more likdy ·or W.I"J.l~ In th@ r<>utill,e llbo·ye-.
_ hUUgH ,_ cC'ufli:t at home ~ ~cr:,11kt at I'~hool _Illh~edmedication _ iIlnO:';$~f;nlure in Pr€1.'i01.H "1".,,,
]-.:tu..: c-f ;)j~eef' r::;;'1<i1;t1.i;e m "01.'lt:';\'Le homew'Oi<'h UO't &:cn,~ 1\0;.':; nu~e ...OttLel.°
SUl\Il\L-\RY OF B:EHA'VlOR
s.:EITr~G EVENTS
;';ot Ie;!] ~1U-e 1{I(!% Srn-e:No DJuot
1 :' 4 5 6
178
Check #2
179
Circle the student cases in which a Practical FBA is not sufficient and
should be referred to a behavioral specialist:
Student argues with the teacher.
Student pulls the teacher's hair.
Student punches another student.
Student slams book on the desk.
Student slams head on the desk.
Student runs around in the classroom.
Student jumps out of the classroom window.
Comments/Questions about Session #2:
180
Session #2 Task
This week:
Key Pointsfor Session #2
• To obtain information to make a summary statement you need to ask &
see
•
•
•
•
•
1. Conduct a FACTS interview with a staff member that is very familiar
with a student that requires individual behavioral support.
• Most likely you identified someone last week.
SELECT A STUDENT WHO HAS A CHRONIC BEHAVIOR, BUT IS
NOT THE MOST DIFFICULT CASE
Make sure student does not exhibit dangerous behavior
-Give yourself 30-45 minutes to complete the interview
2. Please bring to next session.
The FACTS is a tool used to interview teachers & staff to narrow the
focus of a student's problem behavior
FACTS Part-A: Start with the strengths & identifY routines where
problem behavior occurs
FACTS Part-B: Interview based on prioritized routines & stick to it
Summarize interview with respondent and have them rate the confidence
of the statement
Tools Presented in Session #2
1. FACTS for STAFF (Appendix A on pages 84-85)
2. FACTS for Students (Appendix B on pages 87-88)
0.0 0o 0o 0o 08.'08.0, '00·
80 -.8o 0o ·000o 0
Presentation Slides for Session #2
Insert slides provided by trainer behind this page.
181
182
Session #3: Observing & Summarizing
Behavior
Review #1
With a partner share your FACTS interview
-For confidentiality, do not use names
Review the results from your FACTS interview and answer the following
questions:
1. Is the behavior observable & measurable (can you go in the room
and collect data on the behavior)?
2. Does the Summary Statement match 1he antecedents and
outcomes from the interview?
Review #2
The steps in the Practical FBA process are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
By the end of this training session you will be able to:
1. Utilize information obtained from FACTS interviews to
plan for observations.
2. Observe students within routines identified by the
FACTS.
3. Observe to test the Summary of Behavior obtained from
FACTS interviews.
4. Practice using ABC Recording Form.
183
184
ABC Observation
Observe the student during routines identified by FACTs summary statement
Purpose:
1. Confirm the accuracy of the teacher interview summary of behavior
2. IdentifY antecedents and consequences/outcomes that the teacher may have
overlooked
3. VerifY the function of the student's behavior
4. Develop the most accurate Summary Statement for intervention development
Frequentlv Asked Questions ifAQ 's) About ABC Observations
Q: What if the behavior doesn't occur while I'm there?
A: Schedule another time to observe during the identified routine.
If there is still no behavior occurring, may want to interview staff again to obtain more
information
Q: Where do I sit when I enter the room?
A: Enter the room quietly, not interacting with students
Sit near enough to the student to see & hear, but not so close that it is obvious you are
watching him or her.
Q: What if the student or students ask why I am there?
A: You can tell them you are there to watch their class.
Q: How many times should I observe the student in the routine?
A: Observe until you are convinced (about 5 tolD occurrences of behavior OR 3 to 1 ratio of
occurrences verifying FACTS summary).
-You may have to go in on more than one day or period....but make sure you are going
during identified routine.
Q: How long should i observe ior?
A: This should be based on the FACTS interview results
About 15-20 minutes per routine is acceptable.
185
You want to observe until you are convinced (e.g. record at least 5 problem
behaviors to establish a pattern)
ABC Recording Form (Appendix C)
• Designed to be individualized for the student you will be observing based on
FACTS results
• Complete all of the information at top of the form before the observation.
Before the Observation:
1. Complete the shaded portion based on the FACTS summary.
2. Schedule observation during routine (time/place) identified as most problematic
from the FACTS.
3. Record the date/setting/time of observation
ABC Recording POIln Insert information
Observer: Student: from FACTS
---------
Summary
Setting (e,g.. class #, gy1l1 playground): Date:
# Time: ActivitviTask Antecedent Behavior Outcome/ConseCluence ,
~ ~
1 ULar.<.,uul' oGiven rorrettio.
!=!....UUIl "llenllOn Proyid.d
instruction DP"r Aneution Provided
DSn13l1 group work D Alon, (no alleurlonlno DGol Pro/m'e<! Arrl,i!)·tlltm
olndeptndent work at/hili") OCOI Stn,at;'.
-----
OUn'iru'tore<! dme DWlrhP....' DA,lult All'nlion Ayoldid
Sperlfy: DEng.g,d in pr,f.md ",liYil)' DP.er Alrentio" Mold,,]
OP,~f,"".d ",1;Yitr r'llJ<)l',d Dra.,WAtliY;!)· Avold'd
Orransltlon: Chang, io arlility OS,•.,odon Avold'd___
OlheriNot..: OlhertNotes:
2 Otngegrn.p QGinn instruction OAdult AIle.tion Proyid,d
instruction DGiyen ror...rtion DP"rAn,nrlon ProY;d,d
OSlOml group work o AIOl" (no .Ilendonlno DGoI Pre/m'ed Actisilp'lltm
o Ind,pend,nr Ilork ."hili,,) DGor S'tl..rlon
DUn'lrlltt.,~d lim, DW;tbP"rs DAdolt AIt,ntion A"old,d
Sperlfy: OEngag,,1 in preferred anlyll)' OPm Anentlon A.oid,d
DP1~f...,..d acdYily rellJ<)yed DI3IWArdl'i!)' AYoid'd
OIrawilion: Chang, in arlili!)' DSen,alion A"oid'd ___
OtborlNol's: Orb..,Not,,:
u '-- _
---~--~~- _.- _.._-- ----
Activity 1
1. Using the completed FACTS form for TRACY (pg. 45)
complete the shaded top portion of the ABC Recording
Form (pg. 46) for TRACY & answer the following
questions:
a. When/Where will you observe her?
b. What behaviors will you be looking at?
c. What Antecedents (triggers) will you be looking
for?
d. What Consequences/outcomes will you be
looking for?
186
187
During the Observation:
1. Always start with recording the behavior first-be as specific as possible.
2. Write the activity/task occurring in class.
3. Write the Antecedent that occurs before the behavior.
4. Write what happened right after the behavior occurred in the
CONSEQUENCE box.
5. During or immediately after the observation, check the boxes that correspond
with the activities, antecedents, & consequences you recorded.
Observer: YourNftme _ Student: _Tracy _
Setting (e.g,. class #. gym. playgrOlUld): __-----'L\Ulch ROOill _
# Time: ActivitvJTask Antecedent Behavior Outcome!Consequence
"Popular" peel
Function= Gains ~_
from ~
-It:JAdull AtlentiJlu
!ZIPeel' AtleutKPnnided
DGoI Prefel'1'etl Artivilylilem
DGoI Sensation
DAdnlt Altenlion.-\volded
OPeer Aitenlion Avoided
DTMkiAethil)' Avoided
DSeusarion A"olded _
OtherlNotes:;rtr:
1
Calls Names &
Threatens Peers
Specific peers present
(popular & uu-popular)
!jGhu insn'uclion caUt.-n_o>f'h.ov
DGiven corre9cc,n:'o~n_le1II:trviiiie0t~~~-a;cow
D Alone 110 l!!te vmes) Ir--------,
l8lWith en
D£ngaged in pntelTed activity
OPreferred aetivil}'remond
DTrandtioll: ('hange in aelhil)'
Olher/Notes:
Eating Lunch
IJLarge group insll'Uclion
DSmall gronp WOl'\;
D Illdepellllelltwork
Drnill'Uctured rime
SpKify:
(~~«t"~wu:JV.1'abl.e-,'f~
lu-i~=~·----...L,«UW"pop~» gU-VjoiNw
~,"",--.,.---2----r'1 3 I
12:05
188
Definitions ofCheck Boxes on the ABC Form
Activitv/Task
Antecedents
• Large Group Instruction-
All students in the class
are attending to the same
person/event (e.g. teacher
is lecturing, working
problems out on the
board)
• Small Group Work-
Students are working in
smaller groups.
Given instruction: Teacher
gives a task or assignment has
been given.
Given correction: Teacher
corrects the student's
incorrect response or
behavior.
Alone (no attention/no
activities): Student is alone
with no activities or attention
provided.
• Independent Work:
Students are working by
themselves (e.g.
worksheet, individual
tasks)
• Unstructured Time: No
specific instruction is
given by teacher (e.g.,
transition)
With Peers: Peers are in
proximity to the student.
Engaged in preferred activity:
Student is doing something
they enjoy.
Preferred activity removed:
Activity is removed.
Transition/change in activity:
Current activity is changed.
Consequences
Adult Attention: Teacher talks to student in a neutral (e.g., states student's name),
positive (e.g., praise), or negative (e.g., correction) way
Peer Attention: students talk to or respond to student's behavior in some way (e.g.
laugh, talk back)
Correction: teacher corrects the student by stating "not" to do the behavior
Got preferred activity/item: student gets something they like (e.g. toy, candy) or activity
they like (e.g. coloring, listen to music)
Got sensation: student receives sensory input (e.g. tactile objects, sounds, etc.)
Adult Attention Avoided: student avoids attention from teacher
189
Peer Attention A voided: student avoids attention from peers
Task avoided: tlte task is removed
Sensation avoided: student avoids sensory activities (e.g. loud sounds, textures, etc.)
After the Observation: Summarize Results from ABC Observation
1. Complete the shaded box in the bottom of the ABC recording form based on the
most frequently observed ABC's.
2. Compare summary statement from ABC observation with that from the
FACTS interview with staff.
3. Rate how likely it is that this summary accurately explains the identified
behavior occurring (1-6)?
Summary During:
Statement
\'I;'hen: Student will: Bec.lIuse:
Therefore the function is to
access/escape (circle one):
Not real Sllre
How likely i, it th~t this $unull"'y ofBehaviof acwratdv explains the identified behavior occnrrin"?
100% Sure'No Doubt
L--~ ._' ~_3 4_·~ --'-~ --J
190
Activity 2
1. Using your completed FACTS form for Shane
(below) answer the following questions:
a. WhenlWhere will you observe him?
b. What behaviors will you be looking at?
c. What Antecedents (triggers) will you be
looking for?
d. What Outcomes/Consequences will you be
looking for?
Guidelines for Observations
You want to be convinced there is a pattern of student behavior.
Ifyou have observed at least 5 instances that verify the FACTS summary you can
feel strongly that the FACTS summary is correct.
Or 3 to 1 ratio of verifying vs non-verifying observations
• Once you are convinced that your observations represent the behavioral pattern you
can summarize the data.
If data from observations do not match FACTS behavior summary or you are not
convinced ...
-Do another ABC observation
-Interview other staff that interact with student during target routine
-Interview the student
Activity #4
-Complete the Summary of Behavior provided below for TRACy'
-Use the results from the FACTS (pg. 46) and the ABC observation
(pg.56) to make a Final Summary Statement usingthe Summary of
Behavior Table below.
-What was your Final Summary of her behavior?
Summary of Behavior
191
Setting Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
I
Event
Teacher/Staff Interview Summary
ABC Recording Form Summary
Final Summary of Behavior
When: Student will: Because:
Therefore the function is to
access/escape/avoid:
192
Checks for Understanding for Session 3
Please detach and turn in these pages to the trainer at the end of the training session.
Please write your name on them or use some other form of identification to receive feedback
on your responses.
Name or Identification:
Check #1
1. Using the completed FACTS interview for
Raynetta, complete the summary statement for the
FACTS interview for Raynetta (pg. 64-65).
2. Prepare the top portion of the ABC recording
form to prepare for an ABC observation (pg. 66).
a. Where and when will you observe
Raynetta?
b. What behaviors will you be looking for?
c. What antecedents and outcomes?
Check #2
Using the ABC recording form you prepared for Raynetta:
1. Record her behavior from the video.
2. Complete the Summary Statement on the ABC recording
form for Raynetta.
3. How would you decide whether the FACTS and ABC
observation match?
4. Complete the Summary of Behavior Table to identitY the
Final Summary of Behavior for Raynetta.
5. What will be your next step(s)?
193
S fB h .ummaryo e aVlOr
Setting Event Antecedent Behavior Outcome/Consequence
Teacher/Staff Interview Summary
ABC Recording Form Summary
Final Summary of Behavior
When: Student will: Because:
Therefore the function is
to access/escape/avoid:
Comments/Questions about Session #3:
Taskfor Session #3
194
,
\
\ 10 j)D:
~
This week:
Observe the target student during the targeted routine for whom you
conducted the FACTS interview (observe for at least 20 minutes OR at least
5 occurrences of problem behaviors).
Complete:
1. The ABC recording form (Appendix D).
2. The Summary of Behavior Table (based on the FACTS
and ABC Recording Form data) Found in Appendix E
3. Please bring next session!
Key Points from Session #3
• ABC Observations are used to confmn the accuracy of the
FACTS/ teacher interview
• Use the FACTS summary statement to guide when and
where to conduct ABC observation
• Start by recording the behavior, then write what happened
directly before (Antecedent) and after (Consequence) the
•Tools Presented in Session #3
ABC Recording Form (Appendix C pages 90-92)
Summary of Behavior Table (Appendix D page 93)
195
rg ( '1 81:~ ~ ~I~I Presentation Slides for Session #3
..lo§iL~II~1iDI~IIDi Insert slides provided by trainer behind this page.
i01
1
01
.0 10j
IO'~:jQj
196
Session #4: Function-Based Behavior Support
Planning
During this session you will:
1. Review Sessions 1-3
2. Problem Solve
3. Know how to help individual student
support teams in designing function-based
positive behavior supports
Review #1
Steps in Practical FBA?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Review #2
Disruptive Student
A teacher in your school has come to you and said that she has a student
in her class that is disruptive all of the time.
What would you ask her in order to better define the behavior?
Help her define "disruptive"
Disruptive:
197
Examples:
Non-examples:
FBA for "disruptive" student
The same teacher has referred the student for a Practical FBA.
What would you tell her that this would entail?
Your answer:
The teacher asks, "What is the purpose o/the FACTS interview?"
198
( Yoo"o,w",
l~ ________
She also asks, "How long should we schedule the interviewfor?"
Your answer:
After completing the FACTS interview, the teacher also asks, "Why do you need to observe
after you have the information from the interview?"
Your answer:
199
After you have completed the FACTS interview and ABC observations the teacher asks,
"What willyou do with this information?"
Your answer:
Review #3: Jane
Jane is a 2nd grade student who was referred by her teacher for being "disruptive" (refusing
to do work and throwing tantrums; whining, pounding her hands on her desk, and throwing
her papers on the floor). This problem occurs most frequently when Jane is given a math
assignment to work on in math class. After she throws a tantrum she is often sent to the
back table where she sits and talks with the students who have already completed their
assignments. Jane can complete her assignments fairly quickly when she is held in from
recess and has to work on her own. Her behaviors are more likely to occur when she has
missed recess for that day.
Complete the Hypothesis/Summary Statement to answer the following questions
below:
For Jane, what routine would you focus on for the FACTS and ABC observation?
What are the antecedents will you be observing for?
What outcomes will you be observing for?
What is the setting event?
200
Completed FBA=
An FBA is completed when you have completed a(n):
1. FACTS interview with the teacher (or other staff)
2. ABC observation to verify the information from the FACTS.
3. Summary of Behavior Table with a Final Hypothesis/Summary of Behavior
that you are convinced is accurate.
Team Development ofBehavior Support Plan
• A behavior support plan is developed based on a completed FBA summary (which you
have learned to do!!)
• A team of people closely involved with the student come together to complete the
competing behavior pathway
- Teacher, parent, other staff, and behavior specialist
201
Set:fx.g lEverltg
M:al1ITc;puia1UiC1illlS
Neutralize!
eliminate
setting
events
Add relevant
& remove
irrelevant
triggers
BlSl't£lmiDJ!!'
Te~\Gh::rlJg
Teach
alternative
that is more
efficient
(A)tr]§t:;D11t1e'T:1Ce
Mori;TIfS(~~1io::s
Add effective &
& remove
ineffective
reinforcers
lane is a 2nd gra,!e >tud~:otwho u'as refaTed by 21" te3chj!.r fa:l r~~ing tQ d'O 'Work :md tluowmg
t"l1tl~ (w1lWiLg, :poUlJl:lmg 00' bll.l1<±s WI ~r desk,a&d thnlwing bel papen QC (hi; £loof}. 1'hi. problem
0':':::1.1" W<lst ir.equentiy when Jome 1:; gi\'e! a lnath MSlgnmer.rl to wcork Oil! in m;.>;th c1.3.::;::;, Jo..ftfe'J: she throws
a b:nbmn ::;he is often ~nt to the halt'k !<lb.le \vheere ;M Sits and talks ,,~h the s.tudeellls Wlwha'.'E already
ClHflplete.d thaY assiemnenh. Jane ~aTil complete he:!' assien:nlaIlts birJv quiCkh' when she is he.ld in from.
re·:::e.':.s anJ. La':. to \'1'"101'1 en her ()>'iU, Hel heha'iio!!i ,;t'e more 111: eelv after· she has Dris:.ed leees;, for tllat day.
B"h,n'ior £.uPP'Ql"t Phn
Dn@ll).lled frow ft rl1l1t'tiollil] Bebll'dllil'ml :\:,),;lP: ~mc!llt
Student ~Ja!!One~'_=-- Grade --,::=--'__ Date ---'9c..r"'2)"'~;""'(l"'9 _
202
Routin~:~~=~a=t=h~C=~I=a=s~s __ 11/
/
./
Con<;equenl.'l'
Sfitillg E~ll!i M~lJitllwati£' _c\nm~ellt ttl PfeJiEilt
StTa!egiots l'fll-blem .Ii prompt
aiti!rJ!ltfJdtlired bm3¥iar
-AJ"I't11tgg fo.r peer
ill t£/'actiol1 heJol''f!
math cia!:s.
-Prrn'idepositive
adult con:tacl
I-- Gi"",u n math
yro&lnn
-lntn:'Nince l'l!Vi.,""w type
probllwJ b6!o/,e difficl1lt
tasks
-R61:/tilUioftIltfJl'llafiYe
luhaviors
Alternatrl"ot> Behal1.0I'
Raj!" Hrmd to Ark!f'1'
Peer BreaK
Tearh Belm'ior
E~,pliddy Ti£'jI(iL Altel"llati£' &:
D@!ind ~]uv.tDn
-Teach 01':110115 TO probl£lJI
bdunlo/':
1. Ask/or break
.2. Ask/or help
3. Tunl ill assignmenrfls is.
COll'lef1Uellc~/F unction
Sent ro bad: tl1hZ!, & gets
peer atiel/lion
/.?
/'
..I..Itw{"ollS!!!JuelJ<es to nillfGn",
llllefma:ti£' & dl8iruf beba..ior &
@:rtiIlsuhhll@)IOn b+.illllil:IJ
-Immediately ,\111!fol'nr entering
class.
-Prul'ide re11tForcer '11'/1"11 1 mbl.
ofstarting task (J mill, 5min,
i 0 luinllTeS)
-Sit \<'ilh pre.fm'"fui -Do firsrproblem together
peer
.. Teach missing mattl skills
-Give In"t?flk &- help
-Sit1flth pl'elen\1dpeerwllcri
done
203
Recommended Guidelines for Behavior Support Plan (BSP)
Development
Supports should:
1. Match the function or purpose the behavior serves
2. Designed to neutralize or eliminate the effect of setting events
(Setting Event
Strategies)
3. Designed to prevent the problem behavior from occurring
(Antecedent
Strategies)
4. Designed to teach alternative (based on function) and desired
behaviors
(Behavior Teaching Strategies)
5. Designed to increase alternative and desired behaviors AND
decrease problem
behaviors (Consequence Strategies)
Setting Event Strategies
Building in Separating Events to diminish effects of Setting
Events & decrease the likelihood that problem behavior will
occur.
Example of a Setting Event Strategy:
IfSetting Event is Conflict at Home & student comes to school
after con/lief, we could:
204
-Build in a morning check-in to meet with an adult with a
positive relationship
• may be a counselor to talk things through
Do afun activity with the student to turn day around before
entering the daily routine
• Antecedent Strategies
• Preventing Problem Behavior & Supporting Desired
Behavior
• Preventing- Change predictors that set off the problem behavior to
make the problem behavior Irrelevant.
• Support - Provide prompts & supports to set up and support
Alternate/Desired Behavior.
o Example of an Antecedent Strategy:
• Instead of giving Joe his usual math assignment, let's
give him an assignment he can be more
successful with (single digit addition) or provide him
prompts/ supports that allow him to be
more successful.
• *By changing A, we can make Joe's need to throw a
tantrum Irrelevant
• Supporting Alternative Behavior: Provide
precorrections and prompts to remind and cue Joe to use
desired responses for the Alternate Behavior, instead of
Problem Behavior.
205
Behavior Teaching Strategies
Teach alternative & desired behavior that gets results more
quickly or easily to make the problem behavior Inefficient.
Example of a Behavior Teaching Strategy:
Let's teach Joe to raise his hand & ask for a break, instead of
throwing a tantrum to get a break.
*By teaching Joe an easier alternate behavior to get what he
wants, we're making the problem behavior Inefficient.
Joe will need frequent practice, precorrections, and prompts to
help him get in the habit of using the alternate behavior
Consequence Strategies
Change consequences that have supported rather than eliminated
the problem behavior.
• Do NOT allow the negative behavior to payoff for the student,
put the negative behavior on extinction
• Reward appropriate behavior to make the problem behavior
Ineffective.
Example of a Consequence Strategy:
We must refuse to (C) let Joe avoid math tasks for (B) throwing a
tantrum &
Instead prompt him to raise his hand and (C) reward him for ill)
raising his hand & asking for a break
206
fUnCJ1iln 0/
6tha~i{]r
Pm'llf!Pro~J'{m Bthalt[o! ~t Support
DeslUqB,lttJlW
Prrw'lttiOll (givt attt~ntii11llQ7ly Jor
}t{)sitn'f beMl'imJJ
Title! I1Jlt11J4tJ'+1 £ dtriu4 benal'!o.r
Ou11 fllS mufi1111m ~lIi(k.o/ o.r SIBL?'
to ml1,ff tnlproblflff M}tQ1.1fir
lne,fflciellL
rfdell stflatlltllWTf apPTiJpriatl wJlj~
to Ink.fN adMit atlirln~lt
Changi CQllfl4UfMiJ thlll Wnw
~ltpponei raJltir than f!iminotfli
rhe p.roblfllJ beWnlwr.
D~NOI IfIlow till lltlD.til'v
aenal'io! to pllJ' oJ!Il)r Ilu ftlldm1,
p.rittlt£ rtrgam'i D-el!lt1m ~I'I
(;\.Yi'llcfioJl
Rt'1flJritlppr.DprMtl Deltltiar~
make1Mpr(Jj,ifl'll behor/Dr
Jl'le'&cm'l,
R~~naqm~t~'if~m~llt~b
cpproprill't:i!IJT adliit attilltWll
ChlCk·iJf - FN'l'!Oe 111M! imSJftlolJ
illlllled!{[!fly Ilpon midsJ:tt ,mh'lI'i
Gil''l mideJf11ia4mhip fespli1uibifitJ'
orQcll11f job' ,Wl1f reqllim tnl StJrMJft
to mtsrl1Cf Ifistaff
Pf.Mi {I'Jd~111 in Dt'fi WiV1i fHlJ' (I'"
itllilr Qtfsmbte (or /ril1Milt! 1'·:11'
. Jf,l; '-W
IfttelltIDIf
Girl Jtrldlltl!rtqIl;fJlf bJ!mnill£lI!
l1iU1I11c1l:!W posiTive (JT !lil/ITal
blh/lJ'!OT
PrNo.rrff{~ fTt~rml!!Y&dtIiJmru{J'
umuJu stlldf11t fQ rcht lueir /UI1IQ {[;ltd
WrNtPf!lifJlI!J' i!tl!!'j WllIItYOllr IlrtfflriO
~i£i hl1.ua llIIawait paJiill{~'fUT
te~euer to call 011 you
'1ikil)' lfeealo I!ttfulIIaatl ~lllrze
gl'll!J]I, 111MI!armll', ll~rt tim" .,'if )
Strulel1l £111111 1JfJffft l!Y t/4CneT'
wA<'lI riudfPlt.,.rnll!OOti! lu,
PIl),Ulf aNn in class &Qs1Jilfg
~P70Plil1'llO'/O! Qt1l1JtimJ
llim.ilJ([{liJllinimte Iht cmUJlJllo!
flltOlfflJll p10iid(0 lit 4 stJlJf1lIJu!
iltZQfi1le iltFrlfblel'll biliil1'jo!
•.!iJlfiJIVTMll1flo'rl1tiiJl1J - mait 1I
sig1J1l1 If) pmtlJll tki 5tJlafJlt 1'If SlOp
1'11.( prO~llJlr O£itlt'iM
207
FlllleBtm of
BehtltlOT
Pmollftll1lt (mfd:ifj fink liT prot'jdt
!lippar{)
Modify lJulg1tlrelll}/l) IIlW tt1ldert
lJltlrJlcnultot'sM11 lewl (lldju1f
timpliJIer, pT01!l1~ gJopkir orgllll12tIT,
DR4/; illlO Srtll1'Jtr drmks) etr.j
}fovids V!1UIl!pIOlNpi to mt sttplfOT
{mnp!rtiJJg IIlIAI stlldnll f!!rlfZltr with
Providt aurlitil1MJlmllPl1l1j'I1CllJti 111'1
11lS1nrC#llJfolr,til!J {Holflework [Mb,
SJ7J~< <~a!I, tlr)
PuCo71'tcl- frt'€rmfi~'& atl'iJJirildy
remind slItatlfitl1m/M ktip
Tso('11 stli:!fflt mort iIpPIllpriul W~t
to fllkfol ltlp/rfillll(IJ.Cnrr (Ifptm
Prllviill dMil.ionc1 illS!TlIlaOft lin 1.ttfl
d¢t'ilJ
liImtifr aJ.u tellrh IlJetifit fXilflfJ!t! of
lI'~'s IfllfJf Wr !leW
-Raiw naMa 'Iflawailpet1Ult!)' fur
lecrnrr10 rfJlllIll Jitll
·fj~elJud to au!mnMt (1ilTEl
erolffJ, fllJdll fTOrtp, work tiMe,ttt.)
Pruvide lI~drmj(:i.Jt5truetlDm}MppoTt
to cdiws fill/tilt s&i1l d!Jftirr
•Specit!LduroMlt JMPJNJit/Or
4tcaellflc Jt/wit
•iulmrit1l4{ mppwIIl!tdprlJt:itt JTf
Al11Ile
-IJrlmrifJIglCf1tlflWtIl{ {(I klenlU'f
,ped/tc sial ir/tdn
R~fl,td ~tfl~ iffITJaetf (f!kJJ~T
k,tf Drftirfl brick
Rtlfl1TVsmdmtSJDI DJll'f.~ l1}'iJIg
klInt, work lompltlion &('DI
asking/IllabreskfiT 1m)
4PF1'6'Jri"'ll~
E1ilf!iJlD.te;!IJli1JiINi~ the IlJIllllnJ 11/
mlut.dimJrocii()Jfa! t1mtbT Wille
prlfl'idti to 11 IIlId$1l1ftT NJEIlg/ng
illPTfi.lltJll Ot<~ll1ivr
-HlI1I'tI'tr, nml {Q 1It4XmtTe
flrtde1fln tJTjJaD.rf ofiui11f wurL
111'pmlgt 'lIppOn'1JI1.lT!tftiOll so
5trt£fe1l! !'d1l t811Jplete tn( 'fort
•.... ,.
208
Next Steps
With the skills you have gained from the Practical FBA training you can be a
contributing member to an Individual Student Behavior Support Team by:
Conducting interviews and observations for students with problem behaviors that
are not dangerous to themselves or others.
Providing Summary Statements of a student's problem behavior
Providing possible behavior support strategies that are related to the function of
the student's behavior.
Key Points from Session #4
-An FBA is completed when you have completed a(n):
• FACTS interview with the teacher (or other staff)
• ABC observation to verifY the information from the
FACTS.
• Summary ofBehavior Table with a Final
Hypothesis/Summary of Behavior that you are
convinced is accurate.
-An FBA Summary Guides a behavior support plan
-A Competing Behavior Pathway can be used to identify
alternative & desired behaviors based on function
Tools presented in Session #4
Behavior Support Planning Forms (Appendix E, pages 95-96)
209
REFERENCES
Albin, R W., Lucyshyn, 1. M., Horner, R H., & Flannery, K B. (1996). Contextual fit
for behavior support plans. In L. K Koegel, R. L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.),
Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior in the
community (pp. 81-98). Baltimore: Brookes.
Anderson, C. M., & Long, E. S. (2002). Use of a structured descriptive assessment
methodology to identify variables affecting problem behavior. Journal ofApplied
Behavior Analysis, 35(2), 137-154.
Bambara, L. M. (2005). Evolution of Positive Behavior Support. In L .M. Bambara & L.
Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem behaviors:
Designingpositive behavior plans (pp. 1-24). New York: Guilford Press.
Benazzi, L., Homer, R. H., & Good, R H. (2006). Effects of behavior support team
composition on the technical adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support
plans. Journal ofSpecial Education, 40(3), 160-170.
Bergstrom, M.K (2003). Efficacy ofschool-based teams conductingfunctional behavior
assessment in general education environment. Unpublished Dissertation.
University of Oregon.
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(2), 175-191.
Billingsley, F.F., & Neel, R.S. (1985). Competing behaviors and their effects on skill
generalization and maintenance. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental
Disabilities, 5 (4), 357-372.
Blair, KC., Umbreit, J., & Bos, C.S. (1999). Using functional assessment and children's
preferences to improve the behavior of young children with behavioral disorders,
Behavioral Disorders, 24 (2), 151-166.
Blood, E., & Neel, RS. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually
being delivered. Education and Treatment ofChildren , 30 (4), 67-80
Borgrneier, C. (2003), An evaluation ofinformant confidence ratings as a predictive
measure ofthe accuracy ofhypotheses from functional assessment interviews.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon.
210
Borgmeier, C. (2007). Interview prompts: The antecedents to informant responding in
functional behavioral assessment interviews. Manuscript in preparation.
Borgmeier, C., & Homer, R. H., (2006), An evaluation of the predictive validity of
confidence ratings in identifying accurate functional behavioral assessment
hypothesis statements. Journal ofPositive Behavior Interventions, 8, 100-105.
Buschbacher, P., & Fox, L. (2003). Understanding and intervening with the challenging
behavior of young children with autism spectrum disorder. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(3), 217-227.
Carr, E. G.(1994). Emerging themes in the functional analysis of problem behavior.
Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 393-399.
Carr, E.G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R.J., Koegel, RL., Turnbull, A.P., Sailor, W. et al.
(2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an Applied Science. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(1), 4-16.
Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional
communication training. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-126.
Carr, E.G., Horner, R.H., Turnbull, A.P., et al. (1999). Positive Behavior Supportfor
People with Developmental Disabilities: A Research Synthesis. American
Association on Mental Retardation. Washington D.C.
Chandler, L. K., & Dahlquist, C. M. (2002). Functional assessment: Strategies to prevent
and remediate challenging behavior in school settings. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Merrill Prentice Hall.
Cipani, E. (1998). Three behavioral functions of classroom noncompliance: diagnostic
and treatment implications. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities, 13,66-72.
Cipani, E., & Schock, K. M. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment diagnosis and
treatment: A complete systemfor education and mental health settings. New
York: Springer.
Clark, H.B., & Heinemann, M. (1999). Comparing the wraparound process to positive
behavior support: What we can learn. Journal ofPositive Behavior Interventions,
183-186.
Cooper, 1., Heron, T.E., & Heward, VV.L. (2007). Applied Behavior Analysis: Second
Edition. Pearson: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Crimmins, D., Farrell, A.F., Smith, P.W., & Bailey A. (2007). Positive Strategies for
Students with Behavior Problems. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co.
211
Crone, D, A" Hawken, L, S" & Bergstrom, M, K, (2007), A demonstration oftraining,
implementing, and using functional behavioral assessment in 10 elementary and
middle school settings. Journal ofPositive Behavior Interventions, 9, 15-29.
Crone, D. A, & Horner, R. H. (1999). Contextual, conceptual, and empirical foundations
of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Exceptionality, 8(3), 161-172.
Crone, D. A & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support systems in
schools: Functional behavioral assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
Doggett, R , Edwards, R. , & Moore, 1. (2001). An Approach to Functional Assessment
in General Education Classroom Settings. School Psychology Review, 30(3), 313-
328.
Doss, S., & Reichle, 1. (1991). Replacing excess behavior with an initial communicative
repertoire. In J. Reichle, J. York, & J. Sigafoos (Eds.), Implementing
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (215-237). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Drasgow, E., & Yell, M.L. (2001). Functional behavioral assessments: Legal
requirements and challenges. School Psychology Review. 30(2),239- 251.
Dukes, C., Rosenberg, H., & Brady, M. (2007). Effects in training in functional behavior
assessment, International Journal ofSpecial Education, 22,3,163-173.
Dunlap, G., Kern, L., DePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K. E., White, R, &
Falk, G. D. (1993). Functional analysis of classroom variables for students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18.. 275-291.
DuPaul, G.J., Eckert, TL., & McGoey, K.E.(1997). Interventions for students with
Attention-DeficitlHyperactivity Disorder: One size does not fit all. School
Psychology Review. 26(3),369-381.
Durand, Y.M., & Crimmins, D. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-
injurious behavior. Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99-117.
Eber, L. & Breen, K. (2008). Building capacity at the tertiary tier of school-wide systems
of PBS. 5th International Conference on Positive Behavior Support: Association
for Positive Behavior Support. Presentation March 27, 2008.
Eber, L., Sugai, G., Smith, C.R., & Scott, T.M. (2002). Wraparound and Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports in the Schools. Journal ofEmotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 10,3,171-180.
212
Ervin, RA, Radford, P.M., Bertsch, K, Piper, AL., Ehrhardt, K.E., & Poling, A (2001).
A descriptive analysis and critique of the empirical literature on school-based
functional assessment. School Psychology Review, 30, 193-210.
Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to intervention:
Examining classroom behavior in second grade. Council/or Exceptional
Children, 73(3),288-311.
Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blase, KA, Friedman, RM., & Wallace, F. (2005).
Implementation research: A synthesis ofthe literature. Tampa: Florida mental
health Institute, University of Florida.
Fox, 1., & Davis, C. (2005). Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools: Current
Research Findings and Future Directions. Journal ofBehavioral Education, 14
(1),1-4.
Gresham, F. M. (2003). Establishing the technical adequacy of functional behavioral
assessment: conceptual and measurement issues. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 282-
298.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Service.
Gresham, F. M., Quinn, M. M., & Restori, A (1999). Methodological issues in
functional analysis: Generalizability to other disability groups. Behavioral
Disorders, 24, 180-182.
Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, J. (2008). Response to intervention for
social behavior challenges and opportunities. Journal ofEmotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 16, 4, 213-225.
Heckman, K, Conroy, M., Fox, J., & Chait, A (2000). Functional assessment based
intervention research on students with or at risk for emotional and behavior
disorders in school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 25 (3), 196-210.
Horner, RH.(1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future directions. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2),401-404.
Horner, R. H., Albin, R. H., Newton, J., Sprague, J. R., & Todd, A W. (2006). Positive
behavior support for individuals with severe disabilities. In M.E. Snell & F.
Brown (Eds). Instructional Practices for Students with Severe Disabilities: 5th
Edition. Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
213
Homer, R. , & Carr, E. (1997). Behavioral support for students with severe disabilities:
Functional assessment and comprehensive intervention. Journal ofSpecial
Education, 31(1), 84-104.
Homer, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A W., & Lewis-Palmer,T. (2005). School-wide positive
behavior support. In L.Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for
students with problem behaviors: Designing positive behavior support plans (pp.
359-390). New York:Guilford Press.
Ingram, K.., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention
planning: Comparing the effectiveness ofFBA function-based and non-function-
based intervention plans. Journal ofPositive Behavior Interventions, 7, 4,224-
236.
Iwata, B. A, Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K J., Bauman, K E., & Richman, G. S. (1982).
Toward afunctional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in
Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3-20.
Iwata B. A, Dorsey M. F., Slifer K J., Bauman K E., & Richman G. S.(1994). Toward a
functional analysis of self-injury. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 27(2),
197-209.
Iwata B. A, Kahng S, Wallace M. D, & Lindberg J. S. (2000). The functional analysis
model of behavioral assessment. In: Austin J, Carr J.E (Eds.). Handbook of
Applied Behavior Analysis. (pp. 61-89) Reno, NV: Context Press; 2000..
Jolivette, K.. , Barton-Arwood, S., & Scott, T. M. (2000). Functional behavioral
assessment as a collaborative process among professionals. Education and
Treatment ofChildren, 23,298-313.
Kameenui, E. (1990). The Language of the REI--why It's Hard to Put into Words: A
Response to Durkin and Miller. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 57-59.
Kamps, D., Wendland, M., & Culpepper, M. (2006). Active teacher participation in
functional behavior assessment for students with emotional and behavioral
disorders risks in general education classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 128-
146.
Kates-McElrath, K, Agnew, M., Axelrod, S., & Bloh, C.L. (2007). Identification of
behavioral function in public schools and a clarification ofterms. Behavioral
Interventions, 22,47-56.
Kearney, C. A, Pursell, C., & Alvarez, K. (2001). Treatment of school refusal behavior
in children with mixed functional profiles. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 8,
3-11.
214
Kennedy, C. H., Meyer, K. A., Knowles, T., & Shukla, S. (2000). Analyzing the multiple
functions of stereotypical behavior for students with autism: implications for
assessment and treatment. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 33 (4),559-571.
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case Designs for Educational Research. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Kern, L. (2005). Developing hypothesis statements. In L. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.),
Individualized Support for Students with Problem Behaviors, (pp. 165-200). New
York: Guilford.
Kern, L., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Childs, K. F. (1995). Student-assisted functional
assessment interview. Diagnostique, 19, 29-39.
Kincaid, D. & Fox, L. (2002). Person-centered planning and positive behavior support. In
S. Holburn & P.M. Veitz (Eds.), Person-centered planning. Research, practice,
and futuredirections (pp.29-50). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Kratochwill, T., & McGivern, 1. (1996). Clinical diagnosis, behavioral assessment, and
functional analysis: Examining the connection between assessment and
intervention. School Psychology Review, 25(3), 342-355.
Lane, K. L., Barton-Arwood, S. M., Spencer, J. L., & Kahlberg, J. R. (2007). Teaching
elementary school educators to design, implement, and evaluate functional
assessment-based interventions: Successes and challenges. Preventing School
Failure, 51 (4),35-46.
Lee, Y., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Using an instructional intervention to reduce
problem and off-task behavior. Journal ofPositive Behavior Interventions, 1,
195-204.
Liaupsin, C. J., Scott, T. M" & Nelson, C. M. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment
and intervention planning A simplified team process. Longmont, CO: Sopris
West.
Liaupsin, C. 1., Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2001). Behavior intervention planning:
Using thefunctional behavioral assessment data. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Liaupsin, C. J., Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2005). Functional behavioral assessment:
An interactive training module. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Maag, J. (1999). Behavior Management: From Theoretical Implications to Practical
Applications. San Diego: Singular.
Maag, J. , & Larson, P. (2004). Training a General Education Teacher to Apply
Functional Assessment. Education and Treatment ofChildren, 27(1), 26-36.
215
Mace, F. c., Lalli, J. S., & Lalli, E. P. (1991). Functional analysis and treatment of
aberrant behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12(2), 155-180.
March, R. E., Horner, R H., Lewis-Palmer, T, Brown, D., Crone, D., Todd, A. W., et al.
(2000). Functional Assessment Checklist: Teachers and Staff (FACTS). Eugene,
OR: Educational and Community Supports.
McConnell, M. E., Cox, C. J., Thomas, D. D., & Hilvitz, P. B. (2001). Functional
behavioral assessment. Denver, Colo: Love Pub.
McIntosh, K., Borgmeier, C., Anderson, C., Horner, R, Rodriguez, B., & Tobin, T
(2008). Technical Adequacy of the Functional Assessment Checklist: Teachers
and Staff (FACTS) FBA Interview Measure. Journal ofPositive Behavior
Interventions. 10 (1), 33-45.
McIntosh, K., Brown, J. A., & Borgmeier, C. 1. (2008). Validity of Functional Behavior
Assessment within a Response to Intervention Framework: Evidence,
Recommended Practice, and Future Directions. Assessmentfor Effective
Intervention. 34 (1), 6-14.
Metz, A. , Burkhauser, M., & Bowie, L. (2009). Training Out-o.fSchool Time Staff. Part
2 in a Series on Implementing Evidence-Based Practices in Out-o.fSchool Time
Programs: The Role ofFrontline Staff. Research-to-Results Brief Publication
#2009- 05. n.p.: Child Trends. 4301 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 350,
Washington, DC 20008.
Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of
stimuli. Journal ofExperimental Analysis ofBehavior, 37 (1), 149-155.
Murdock, S. , O'Neill, R , & Cunningham, E. (2005). A Comparison of ResuIts and
Acceptability of Functional Behavioral Assessment Procedures with a Group of
Middle School Students with Emotional/Behavioral Disorders (E/BD). Journal of
Behavioral Education, 14(1), 5-18.
Nelson, J. R, Roberts, M. L., Mathur, S. R, & Rutherford, R B. (1999). Has public
policy exceeded our knowledge base? A review of the functional behavior
assessment literature. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 169-179.
Newcomer, L. L., & Lewis, T. J., (2004), Functional behavioral assessment: An
investigation of assessment reliability and effectiveness of function-based
interventions. Journal ofEmotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 168-181,
O'Neill, R. E., Homer, R, Albin, R, Storey, K., & Sprague, 1. (1997). Functional
analysis ofproblem behavior: A practical assessment guide (2nd ed.). Pacific
Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole
216
Payne, L. D., Scott, T. M., & Conroy, M. (2007). A School-Based Examination of the
Efficacy of Function-Based Intervention. Behavioral Disorders. 32 (3), 158-174.
Reed, H., Thomas, J., Sprague, J. R, & Homer, R H. (1997). The student-guided
functional assessment interview: An analysis of student and teacher agreement.
Journal 0/BehavioralEducation, 7(1),33-49.
Renshaw, T. , Christensen, L. , Marchant, M. , & Anderson, T. (2008). Training
Elementary School General Educators to Implement Function-Based Support.
Education and Treatment o/Children, 31(4), 495-521.
Risley, T. (1996). Get a life: Positive behavioral intervention for challenging behavior
through life arrangement and life coaching. In L. K. Koegel, R L. Koegel, & G.
Dunlap (Eds.), Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult
behavior in the community (pp. 403-424). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Sailor, W., Doolittle, J., Bradley, R, & Danielson, L. (2009). Response to intervention
and positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R Homer
(Eds.), Handbook o/positive behavior support (pp. 729-754). New York
Springer.
Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Peck, B., Stichter, J., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the
bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with
emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282-296.
Schill, M. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1998). Functional assessment in
behavioral consultation: A treatment utility study. School Psychology Quarterly,
13, 116-140.
Scott, T. M., Anderson, C. M., & Spaulding, S. A. (2008). Strategies for Developing and
Carrying out Functional Assessment and Behavior Intervention Planning.
Preventing School Failure. 52 (3), 39-49.
Scott, T. M., & Caron, D. B. (2005). Conceptualizing functional behavior assessment as
prevention practice within positive behavior support systems. Preventing School
Failure, 50(1), 13-20.
Scott, T. M., & Eber, L. (2003). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic
school processes. Journal o/Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(3), 131-143.
Scott, T. M., & Kamps, D. M. (2007). The future of functional behavioral assessment in
school settings. Behavioral Disorders. 32 (3), 146-157.
Scott, T. M., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., & McIntyre, J. (2005). Team-based functional
behavior assessment as a proactive public school process: A descriptive analysis
of current barriers. Journal 0/Behavioral Education, 14 (1), 57-71.
217
Scott, T. M., Nelson, C. M., & Zabala, J. (2003). Functional behavior assessment training
in public schools: Facilitating systemic change. Journal ofPositive Behavior
Interventions, 5 (4), 216-224.
Scotti,1. R., Ujcich, K. 1., Weigle, K. L, & Holland, C. M. (1996). Interventions with
challenging behavior of persons with developmental disabilities: A review of current
research practices. Journal ofthe Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21
(3), 123-134.
Shellady, S., & Stichter, J. P. (1999). Training preservice and inservice educators to
conduct functional assessments: Initial issues and implications. Preventing School
Failure, 43 (4),154-159.
Shriver, M. D., Anderson, C. M., & Proctor, B. (2001). Evaluating the Validity of
Functional Behavior Assessment. School Psychology Review, 30, 180-192.
Steege, M. W., Wacker, D. P, Berg, W. K., Cigrand, K. .K., & Cooper, L. J. (1989). The
use of behavioral assessment to prescribe and evaluate treatments for severely
handicapped children. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 22 (1), 23-33.
Stichter, J. P., & Conroy, M. A. (2005). Using structural analysis in natural settings: A
responsive functional assessment strategy. Journal ofBehavioral Education, 14, 19-
34.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1994). Including students with severe behavior problems in
general education settings: Assumptions, challenges, and solutions. In J. Marr, G.
Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.), The Oregon Conference monograph_(Vol. 6) (p. 102-120).
Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G. Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott,
T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., III, Wickham,
D.,Wilcox, B., & Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support and
functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal ofPositive Behavior
Interventions, 2, 131-143.
Sugai, G., Horner, R., Sailor, W., Dunlap, G., Eber, L., Lewis, T., & Kincaid, D. (2005).
School-wide Positive Behavior Support: Implementers' Blueprint and Self-
assessment. Washington, DC: Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998). Using Functional Assessments to
Develop Behavior Support Plans. Preventing School Failure, 43 (1),6-13.
218
Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying
stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 18
(4),343-351.
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C. 1., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional behavioral
assessment andfunction-based intervention: An effective, practical approach.
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., Gable, R. A., & Potterton, T. (2005). Are we on the right
course? Lessons learned about current FBAIBIP practices in schools. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 14 (1), 35-36.
Van Norman, R. (2007). ABC Recording Form. In Eds. J.O. Cooper, T.E. Heron, & W.L.
Heward. Applied Behavior Analysis: Second Edition. Pearson: Upper Saddle
River, N1.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., &
Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior
patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal ofEmotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 4~ 194-209.
Watson, T. S., Gresham, F. M., & Skinner, C. H. (2001). Introduction to the mini-series:
Issues and procedures for implementing functional behavior assessment in
schools, School Psychology Review, 30 (2),153-155.
Watson, T. So, & Steege, M. W. (2003). Conducting school-basedfunctional behavioral
assessments: A practitioner's guide. The Guilford practical intervention in the
schools series. New York: Guilford Press.
Yarbrough, So Co, & Carr, E. G. (2000) Some relationships between informant
assessment and functional analysis of problem behavior. American Journal on
Mental Retardation: 105 (2), 130-151.
Zins, 1. Eo, & Ponti, C. R. (1990). Best practices in school-based consultation. In A.
Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology -II (pp. 673-
694). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.