ebook

THE GUILFORD PRESS

 Conducting School-Based
Functional Behavioral Assessments
 The Guilford Practical Intervention in the Schools Series
Kenneth W. Merrell, Founding Editor
T. Chris Riley-Tillman, Series Editor
www.guilford.com/practical

This series presents the most reader-friendly resources available in key areas of evidence-based practice in
school settings. Practitioners will find trustworthy guides on effective behavioral, mental health, and academic
interventions, and assessment and measurement approaches. Covering all aspects of planning, implementing,
and evaluating high-quality services for students, books in the series are carefully crafted for everyday utility.
Features include ready-to-use reproducibles, lay-flat binding to facilitate photocopying, appealing visual ele-
ments, and an oversized format. Recent titles have Web pages where purchasers can download and print the
reproducible materials.

Recent Volumes
Promoting Student Happiness: Positive Psychology Interventions in Schools
Shannon M. Suldo
Effective Math Interventions: A Guide to Improving Whole-Number Knowledge
Robin S. Codding, Robert J. Volpe, and Brian C. Poncy
Emotional and Behavioral Problems of Young Children, Second Edition:
Effective Interventions in the Preschool and Kindergarten Years
Melissa L. Holland, Jessica Malmberg, and Gretchen Gimpel Peacock
Group Interventions in Schools: A Guide for Practitioners
Jennifer P. Keperling, Wendy M. Reinke, Dana Marchese, and Nicholas Ialongo
Transforming Schools: A Problem-Solving Approach to School Change
Rachel Cohen Losoff and Kelly Broxterman
Evidence-Based Strategies for Effective Classroom Management
David M. Hulac and Amy M. Briesch
School-Based Observation: A Practical Guide to Assessing Student Behavior
Amy M. Briesch, Robert J. Volpe, and Randy G. Floyd
Helping Students Overcome Social Anxiety:
Skills for Academic and Social Success (SASS)
Carrie Masia Warner, Daniela Colognori, and Chelsea Lynch
Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents, Third Edition:
A Practical Guide to Assessment and Intervention
Peg Dawson and Richard Guare
Effective Universal Instruction:
An Action-Oriented Approach to Improving Tier 1
Kimberly Gibbons, Sarah Brown, and Bradley C. Niebling
Supporting Successful Interventions in Schools:
Tools to Plan, Evaluate, and Sustain Effective Implementation
Lisa M. Hagermoser Sanetti and Melissa A. Collier-Meek
High-Impact Assessment Reports for Children and Adolescents:
A Consumer-Responsive Approach
Robert Lichtenstein and Bruce Ecker
Conducting School-Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition:
A Practitioner’s Guide
Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt, Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson
Conducting School-Based
Functional Behavioral
Assessments
A Practitioner’s Guide
THIRD EDITION

MARK W. STEEGE
JAMIE L. PRATT
GARRY WICKERD
RICHARD GUARE
T. STEUART WATSON

Foreword by Frank M. Gresham

THE GUILFORD PRESS

New York  London
Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, Inc.
370 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1200, New York, NY 10001
www.guilford.com

All rights reserved

Except as noted, no part of this book may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming,
recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.

Printed in Canada

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

LIMITED DUPLICATION LICENSE

These materials are intended for use only by qualified professionals.

The publisher grants to individual purchasers of this book nonassignable permission to

reproduce all materials for which photocopying permission is specifically granted in a
footnote. This license is limited to you, the individual purchaser, for personal use or use
with students. This license does not grant the right to reproduce these materials for resale,
redistribution, electronic display, or any other purposes (including but not limited to books,
pamphlets, articles, video- or audiotapes, blogs, file-sharing sites, Internet or intranet sites,
and handouts or slides for lectures, workshops, or webinars, whether or not a fee is charged).
Permission to reproduce these materials for these and any other purposes must be obtained in
writing from the Permissions Department of Guilford Publications.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Steege, Mark W., author. | Pratt, Jamie L. (Jamie Laura), author. |
Wickerd, Garry, author. | Guare, Richard, author. | Watson, T. Steuart, author.
Title: Conducting school-based functional behavioral assessments : a practitioner’s guide /
Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt, Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, T. Steuart Watson.
Description: Third edition. | New York : The Guilford Press, [2019] | Series:
The Guilford practical intervention in the schools series | Includes bibliographical references
and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018031209 | ISBN 9781462538737 (pbk.)
Subjects: LCSH: Behavioral assessment of children—Handbooks, manuals, etc. | Problem
children—Behavior modification—Handbooks, manuals, etc. | School psychology—Handbooks,
manuals, etc.
Classification: LCC LB1124 .W38 2019 | DDC 370.15/28—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018031209
 To the children, families, and colleagues
who continuously inspire us to engage in clinical inquiry
to arrive at meaningful solutions
to school-based challenges
 About the Authors

Mark W. Steege, PhD, NCSP, BCBA-D, is Professor of Educational and School Psychol-
ogy at the University of Southern Maine. He has written numerous research articles, book
chapters, and books on functional behavioral assessment and response to intervention.
Dr. Steege’s primary research interests are the application of applied behavior analysis in
the assessment and treatment of interfering behaviors with persons with developmental dis-
abilities. He has served on the editorial boards of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
School Psychology Review, and Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools.

Jamie L. Pratt, PsyD, BCBA-D, is Assistant Professor and Chair of Educational and School
Psychology at the University of Southern Maine. She coauthored several articles and book
chapters on behavioral assessment and intervention and provides assessment, intervention,
and consultation services for school-age children with developmental, emotional, and behav-
ioral disorders. Dr. Pratt’s primary research interests are in extending behavior-­analytic
assessment and intervention methods to improve outcomes for children.

Garry Wickerd, PhD, NCSP, BCBA, is Assistant Professor of Educational and School Psy-
chology at the University of Southern Maine. He has coauthored several behavioral research
publications and serves on the editorial board of School Psychology Forum. Dr. Wickerd’s
primary research interests are behavioral measurement and assessment validity.

Richard Guare, PhD, BCBA, is Director of the Center for Learning and Attention Disorders
in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. His research and publications focus on the understanding
and treatment of learning and attention difficulties. Dr. Guare frequently consults to schools
and agencies. He is coauthor of bestselling books for general readers, including Smart but
Scattered, Smart but Scattered Teens, Smart but Scattered—and Stalled (with a focus on
emerging adults), and The Smart but Scattered Guide to Success (with a focus on adults).
vii
viii About the Authors

Dr. Guare is also coauthor of The Work-Smart Academic Planner, Revised Edition, and
books for professionals including Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents, Third Edi-
tion.

T. Steuart Watson, PhD, retired in 2011 from Miami University, where he was Professor
in the Department of Educational Psychology. He is a recipient of the Lightner Witmer
Award from Division 16 (School Psychology) of the American Psychological Association.
Dr. ­Watson is a former coeditor of the Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, and
he has written numerous articles, books, and book chapters on behavioral interventions,
functional assessment, and the application of behavioral principles in school settings. His
research has focused on evaluating the effects of external reinforcers on motivation, direct
behavioral consultation, improving the effectiveness and efficiency of behavioral interven-
tions, promoting treatment integrity, functional assessment methodologies, and investigat-
ing the effects of olfactory stimuli on learning.
 Foreword

Conducting School-Based Functional Behavioral Assessments: A Practitioner’s Guide,

Third Edition, is based on the idea that a good assessment is one that eventuates in posi-
tive intervention outcomes for children and youth in schools. The authors are creden-
tialed school psychologists and behavior analysts who successfully integrate both fields by
emphasizing a behavior-analytic problem-solving model that uses assessment data to drive
function-­based interventions. This newest edition reiterates this point throughout the 15
well-written, down-to-earth, and often humorous chapters. I have read countless treatises
on functional behavioral assessment (FBA)/functional analysis (names are withheld to pro-
tect the innocent!) and more often than not have come away with the question “Why don’t
these authors write in plain English so anyone can understand what they are trying to
say?” To this end, Mark Steege, Jamie Pratt, Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart
Watson have finally answered the call: This book is written in plain English in such a way
that both novices and experts in the area of FBA can understand and conduct an adequate
FBA. It will be highly relevant to graduate students and practitioners in the fields of applied
behavior analysis, school psychology, and special education.
I have always had an intense interest in using empirically based information and apply-
ing this information to solve real-world problems. As a data-based practitioner, I have always
been concerned about not only evaluating intervention outcomes but also understanding
the integrity of the processes used in reaching that outcome. In the end, if a desirable out-
come is not obtained, is it because the intervention just didn’t work or was it because there
were problems in the integrity of the procedures used to obtain that outcome? Perhaps the
strongest feature of this edition is its inclusion of instruments, forms, charts, and proce-
dures that have been battle tested in schools and found to be efficient and effective for both
guiding an accurate assessment process and driving meaningful intervention. Highlights
include assessment tools such as the Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview (BAPS-
I) form and the Incident-Based Functional Assessment Form (IBFAF), and the complemen-
tary Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results and Behavior-Analytic Prob-
lem Solving: Function-Focused Intervention planning forms that directly link assessment
results to interventions. The authors also include a revised Functional Behavioral Assess-
ix
x Foreword

ment Rating Scale (FuBARS) that may be used to guide, self-monitor, and evaluate the FBA
process. These tools, and many others, provide ample structure not only to practitioners
who may feel uncomfortable about conducting FBAs but also to more experienced prac-
titioners with sufficient flexibility to modify the tools to fit their needs for any given case.
The first three chapters of this book provide an introduction, overview of the history
and current status of FBA procedures, review of relevant ethical and professional standards,
and comprehensive discussion of the foundations of applied behavior analysis. For readers
familiar with these topics, this will be review material, but for readers who are unfamiliar
with them, this will be important contextual information. Chapters 4–6 then take read-
ers beyond traditional behavior-analytic conceptualizations by focusing on the influence of
executive skills, medical conditions, emotions, and thoughts on behavior. Collectively, these
chapters address the major conceptual issues in developing accurate FBA procedures, and
the authors use numerous examples to amplify their points.
Chapters 7–9 represent the heart of this book, namely, the three types of FBA pro-
cedures: indirect FBA, descriptive FBA, and experimental functional analysis. Contained
within these chapters are numerous examples highlighting how to conduct each type of
FBA. The authors repeatedly note that indirect and descriptive FBA procedures offer cor-
relational, not causal, information on the function of behavior. They also provide several
examples of how to conduct an experimental functional analysis within school settings to
document behavioral function. Chapters 10–12 extend FBA beyond these core procedures
by including strategies for identifying effective reinforcers and designing and evaluating
the effectiveness of function-based interventions (i.e., conducting treatment analyses as part
of the assessment process and “putting the RTI in FBA”). Rounding it all out, the authors
provide sample FBA reports (Chapter 13) and applied learning experiences that exemplify a
behavioral skills training model of professional development (Chapter 14).
The final chapter of the book provides guidelines for answering difficult FBA referral
questions and concludes with a summary of key ideas. In this final chapter and throughout
the book, the authors emphasize a mantra I have always lived by in practice: “Let the data
do the talking and you’ll never be wrong!” Steege, Pratt, Wickerd, Guare, and Watson’s FBA
book exemplifies this mantra perfectly.

Frank M. Gresham, PhD

Professor, Department of Psychology
Louisiana State University
 Preface

When the third edition of a book is published, potential readers may pose two critical ques-
tions: “Have the authors made significant changes?” and “Is it worth buying the new edi-
tion?” In anticipation of these questions, we assure you that the third edition of this book
represents a major overhaul of the previous edition. We updated content to reflect current
research, added new chapters to offer a more comprehensive approach to functional behav-
ioral assessment (FBA), and completely revised our FBA tools and report formats. These
revisions were driven both by advances within the research literature and by our profes-
sional growth as school psychologists and behavior analysts. Over the past several years,
while conducting FBAs with diverse students across a range of school settings, we have
refined and expanded our FBA approach to effectively understand and address the vari-
ables that contribute to academic, social, emotional, and behavioral challenges experienced
by students with intellectual disabilities, autism, and a wide range of emotional–­behavioral
disorders. The assessment procedures, recording forms, and other tools described in this
third edition are the products of clinical piloting within both general and special education
environments. In the third edition, we have also made a concerted effort to explain techni-
cal terms using vocabulary that is reasonably understandable and “down-to-earth,” and we
have interspersed humorous vignettes and case examples throughout the text to illustrate
complex concepts more effectively. In short, since the first edition (2003), we’ve come a long
way, baby! We hope that the third edition will be even more accessible, informative, and
useful than the previous editions.
So, what’s in this third edition?
Chapter 1 introduces the process and purpose of FBA, situates FBA within a prob-
lem-solving framework, and explores the philosophical assumptions of a functional assess-
ment approach. Concepts such as philosophical doubt, interactionism, behavioral empathy,
and behavioral compassion are introduced to set the stage for application of the behavior-­
analytic problem-solving (BAPS) model, which accounts for the broad range of individual
and environmental variables contributing to interfering behavior.
Chapter 2 highlights professional and ethical standards established by the National
Association of School Psychologists (NASP) and the Behavior Analyst Certification Board
xi
xii Preface

(BACB) that describe FBA as a professional responsibility for school psychologists and an
ethical imperative for behavior analysts. Evidence-based strategies for training profession-
als to conduct FBAs are described, and the Functional Behavioral Assessment Competency
Scale (FBACS) is provided as a self-assessment tool to inform and evaluate training efforts.
Chapter 3 reviews the conceptual foundations of FBA. Behavior-analytic principles
and concepts are presented with many practical case examples to ensure the content is both
technically accurate and accessible to school-based practitioners.
Chapter 4 examines the role of “private events” such as medical issues, emotions, and
thoughts in behavior. A compelling case is offered for the motivational effects of these vari-
ables, which are often considered “off limits” to behavior analysts.
Chapter 5 considers the contribution of executive skill delays to occurrences of inter-
fering behavior. Richard Guare, who has published extensively with Peg Dawson on this
topic, offers his professional expertise on this topic to encourage readers to expand the
range of variables assessed within a comprehensive FBA.
Chapter 6 introduces, discusses, and illustrates the BAPS model. The Behavior-­
Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results form is presented as an organizational tool
for synthesizing FBA results into a comprehensive case conceptualization. School-based
teams value this tool for facilitating an understanding of interfering behavior and guiding
comprehensive, function-based treatment planning.
Chapter 7 reviews indirect FBA procedures, including their strengths and limitations.
Considerations for conducting behavior-analytic interviews are explored in depth, and the
Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview (BAPS-I) form is provided to help practitio-
ners glean information about a comprehensive range of individual and environmental vari-
ables during the indirect FBA process.
Chapter 8 provides an overview of behavior-­recording procedures and descriptive
FBA methods. A variety of A-B-C recording procedures and extensions, such as the Inci-
dent-Based Functional Assessment Form (BFAF) and Interval Recording Procedure (IRP),
are reviewed and illustrated with case examples.
Chapter 9 discusses experimental FBA procedures, including the standard functional
analysis methodology. Emphasis is placed on modifications and applications of functional
analysis to address school-based referrals, and case examples are provided to illustrate the
procedures.
Chapter 10 focuses on identifying and assessing the effectiveness of reinforcers for
strengthening socially appropriate replacement behaviors. A wide range of preference
assessment methods are reviewed, and an example of a data-based assessment of reinforcer
effectiveness using single-case research methodologies is included.
Chapter 11 guides readers through the process of designing behavior intervention
plans on the basis of FBA results. Emphasis is placed on addressing the multiple, interacting
variables that contribute to interfering behavior in order to develop a comprehensive and
effective intervention plan, and the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Function-Focused
Intervention planning tool is provided and illustrated to assist teams with this process.
Chapter 12 is based on the notion that “the proof is in the pudding.” Two strategies
for evaluating the effectiveness of potential interventions—a case study design with one
intervention and an alternating treatments design with two or more interventions—are
described and illustrated. Treatment analyses are recommended as extensions of the FBA
 Preface xiii

process; rather than “recommend and hope,” practitioners are encouraged to “test and dem-
onstrate.”
Chapter 13 includes an FBA report template with examples. The recommended report
format has been well received by the school-based teams with whom it has been piloted.
Chapter 14 provides a series of applied learning experiences that we have used within
our graduate classes and when providing supervision to school psychology interns and grad-
uate students pursuing credentialing in behavior analysis. These activities may be completed
by readers who are receiving or providing training and supervision in the FBA process.
Chapter 15, the final chapter, offers a few “parting shots” and guidelines for address-
ing complex referrals when “best practices” seem infeasible. The chapter concludes with
thoughts on future directions and leaves readers with the mission to “assess new behaviors,
to explore new functions, to design new interventions, to change lives in meaningful ways,
and to go where no school psychologist or behavior analyst has gone before.”
Lastly, the Appendix includes the Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating Scale
(FuBARS), which serves as a tool for guiding and evaluating the quality of a comprehensive
problem-solving approach to FBA.
So, have fun and enjoy the book!
 Acknowledgments

To our colleagues at the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children: Thank you for allowing us
to share the resources developed in the context of providing clinical services to your stu-
dents. Your dedicated service to students with disabilities and your commitment to applied
behavior analysis continue to be an inspiration.
To Clelia Sigaud, a doctoral student in school psychology at the University of Southern
Maine: Thank you for your editorial assistance with this book. Your keen eye for detail and
thoughtful feedback have been tremendously valuable.
To Colin Guare, a recent graduate from the applied behavior analysis program at the
University of Southern Maine: Thank you for your contributions to an initial draft of Chap-
ter 5, “Executive Skills.” Your perspective on the influence of executive skill deficits on
student behavior is appreciated.

xiv
 Contents

1. Introduction to Functional Behavioral Assessment 1

A Functional Perspective 2
What Is FBA? 3
FBA Methods 4
Indirect Assessment 5
Descriptive Assessment 6
Experimental Analysis 7
Treatment Analysis 7
FBA and Philosophy 7
Philosophical Doubt 7
Empiricism 8
Interactionism 8
Behavioral Compassion 8
Behavioral Empathy 9
FBA and Problem Solving 9
Phase 1: Identification and Description of Interfering Behavior 9
Phase 2: Recording Current Levels of Interfering Behaviors 10
Phase 3: Identifying and Describing Antecedent, Consequence,
and Associated Variables 10
Phase 4: Conceptual Synthesis 10
Phase 5: Linking Assessment Data to Interventions 11
Phase 6: Implementation 11
Phase 7: Progress Monitoring 11
Summary 12

2. Professional Standards and Ethical Considerations 13

National Association of School Psychologists 13
Behavior Analyst Certification Board 14
Who Is Qualified to Conduct an FBA? 14
Behavioral Skills Training to Promote and Maintain FBA Competencies 16
Resources to Support and Evaluate Competencies in FBA 16
Functional Behavioral Assessment Competency Scale 17
Functional Behavioral Assessment Procedural Checklist 17
Summary 18

xv
xvi Contents

Form 2.1. Functional Behavioral Assessment Competency Scale (FBACS) 19

Form 2.2. Functional Behavioral Assessment Procedural Checklist (FBAPC) 24
Form 2.3. Functional Behavioral Assessment Informed Consent Form 25

3. Conceptual Foundations of Functional Behavioral Assessment 28

Functional Antecedents and Consequences 28
Consequence Variables 29
Positive Reinforcement 29
Negative Reinforcement 30
Individually Mediated, Socially Mediated, and Automatic Reinforcement 31
Antecedent Variables 33
Discriminative Stimuli 34
Motivating Operations 35
SDs and MOs 37
Antecedents and Consequences: A Summary 38
Additional Behavior‑Analytic Terms and Concepts 39
Response Classes (When It Rains . . . It Pours) 39
Response Class Hierarchies (First the Sky Darkens, Then There Is Thunder
and Lightning Followed by a Light Rain . . . Then It Pours) 39
The Matching Law 41
Summary 44

4. Behavior Analysis of Medical Conditions, Emotions, and Thoughts 46

Biological and Medical Influences on Behavior 46
How Exactly Do Biological and Medical Variables Affect Interfering Behaviors? 47
The Influence of Emotions on Behavior 48
How Exactly Do Emotions Affect Interfering Behaviors? 49
The Influence of Thoughts on Behavior 51
How Exactly Do Thoughts (Covert Verbal Behaviors) Affect Interfering Behaviors? 51
Summary 53

5. Executive Skills 54
Executive Skills: A Brief Introduction 54
Executive Skills Intervention 57
Intervention Example 1: Response Inhibition 57
Intervention Example 2: Flexibility 59
Summary 63
Form 5.1. Executive Skills Questionnaire for Parents/Teachers 64
Form 5.2. Executive Skills Questionnaire for Students 66
Form 5.3. Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Elementary Version—Teacher 70
Form 5.4. Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Middle/High School Version 72
Form 5.5. Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Elementary Version—Parents 76

6. The Behavior-­Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 79

Rationale for the BAPS Model 79
The Evolution of Conceptual Models 80
The Three‑Term Conceptual Model 80
The Four‑Term Conceptual Model 80
The Five‑Term Conceptual Model 81
The Eight‑Term Conceptual Model 81
Components of the BAPS Model 82
Interfering Behavior 83
Context 84
Personal Characteristics 85
 Contents xvii

Skill Delays/Deficits 87
Motivational Triggers (MOs) 88
Sources of Reinforcement (SDs) 89
Reinforcing Consequences 90
Parameters of Reinforcement 92
Summary 94
Using the Behavior‑Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results Recording Form 95
Step 1: Interfering Behavior 95
Step 2: Context 95
Step 3: Reinforcing Consequences 95
Step 4: Motivational Triggers (MOs) 96
Step 5: Sources of Reinforcement (SDs) 96
Step 6: Personal Characteristics 96
Step 7: Skill Delays/Deficits 96
Step 8: Parameters of Reinforcement 97
Case Examples of the BAPS Model 97
The Case of the Missing Snack 97
Additional Case Examples 100
Communicating FBA Results and Recommendations Using the BAPS Model 100
BAPS Revelations 103
Summary 104
Summary 104
Form 6.1. Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results 105

7. Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment 106

Indirect FBA 108
Considerations for Evaluators Conducting Indirect FBAs 108
Indirect FBA Procedures 108
Review of Records 109
Analysis of Rating Scale Results 109
Interviews 111
Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Interview 115
Behavioral Stream Interview 118
Summary 122
Form 7.1. Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview (BAPS-I) 124

8. Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 130

Defining Behavior 131
Recording Behavior 132
Frequency Recording 133
Duration Recording 134
Latency Recording 134
Interval Recording 135
Performance‑Based Behavior Recordings 138
Conducting Descriptive FBAs 139
Functional Behavioral Assessment Observation Form 139
Incident‑Based Functional Assessment Form 141
Conditional Probability Record 141
Interval Recording Procedure 144
Task Analysis Recording Procedure 146
Comparing and Contrasting Descriptive FBA Procedures 151
Summary 152
Case Example: Indirect and Descriptive FBA 153
Background Information 153
Critique of Previous Evaluations 153
xviii Contents

Presenting Referral Concerns 154

The Functional Behavioral Assessment Process 154
Recommendations 159
Case Outcomes 159
Form 8.1. Functional Behavioral Assessment Observation Form (FBAOF) 160
Form 8.2. Incident-Based Functional Assessment Form (IBFAF) 161
Form 8.3. Conditional Probability Record (CPR) 162
Form 8.4. Interval Recording Procedure (IRP) 163

9. Experimental Functional Behavioral Assessment 164

Extended Functional Analysis 166
Considerations 167
Case Example of Extended Functional Analysis 168
Brief Functional Analysis 170
Case Example of Brief Functional Analysis 171
Trial‑Based Functional Analysis 173
Case Example of Trial‑Based Functional Analysis 174
Synthesized Functional Analysis 175
Case Example of Synthesized Functional Analysis 176
Structural Analysis 176
Case Example of Structural Analysis 179
Summary 180
Form 9.1. Task Difficulty Antecedent Analysis Form 181

10. Preference Assessment and Experimental Analysis 182

of Reinforcer Effectiveness
Preference Assessment 183
Indirect Assessment of Potential Reinforcers 183
Descriptive Assessment of Potential Reinforcers 183
Preference Assessment Considerations 184
Experimental Analysis of Reinforcer Effectiveness 185
Case Example 185
Summary 188

11. Function-­Based Interventions 189

Antecedent Interventions 191
Linking FBA Results to Antecedent Interventions 191
Teaching and Reinforcement‑Based Interventions 194
Linking FBA Results to Teaching and Reinforcement‑Based Strategies 196
Consequence‑Based Strategies to Reduce Interfering Behavior 198
Linking FBA Results to Consequence‑Based Strategies to Reduce
Interfering Behavior 200
Behavior‑Analytic Problem Solving: Function‑Focused Intervention 200
Using the Behavior‑Analytic Problem Solving: Function‑Focused Intervention
Planning Tool 200
Case Example of Function‑Focused Planning 205
Summary 208
Form 11.1. Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Function-Focused Intervention 211
 Contents xix

12. Treatment Analysis 212

Treatment Effectiveness Assessment 214
Case Example of Treatment Effectiveness Assessment 215
Treatment Comparison Analysis 216
Case Examples of Treatment Comparison Analyses 216
Summary 219

13. Functional Behavioral Assessment Report Templates and Examples 220

The FBA Report Template 220
Identifying Information 220
Evaluation Dates 221
Reason for Referral 221
Purposes of the FBA 221
Description of Assessment Procedures 221
Relevant Background Information 221
Results: Identification and Description of Interfering Behaviors 221
Results: Documentation of Current Levels of Interfering Behaviors 222
Results: Graphic Display of Interfering Behaviors 222
Results: Behavior‑Analytic Interviews 222
Results: Behavior‑Analytic Observations 222
Results: Experimental Analyses 222
Synthesis of Results 222
Results: Behavior‑Analytic Treatment Assessments 223
Summary 223
Interpretive Session with Parent(s)/Guardian(s) 223
Recommendations for the Team’s Consideration 223
Summary 223
Form 13.1. Behavioral Assessment Report 246

14. Applied Learning Experiences 252

Applied Learning Experience 1: Identifying, Describing, and Recording Behavior 254
Identifying Behavior 254
Describing Behavior 254
Selecting a Behavior Recording Procedure 254
Using the Behavior Recording Procedure 254
Interpreting the Behavior Recording Procedure Data 254
Applied Learning Experience 2: Behavior Recording Practice 254
Applied Learning Experience 3: Interobserver Agreement (IOA) 255
Applied Learning Experience 4: Four‑Term Contingency 255
Applied Learning Experience 5: Four‑Term Contingency 256
Applied Learning Experience 6: Four‑Term Contingency 257
Applied Learning Experience 7: Behavior‑Analytic Interview (Role Play) 257
Applied Learning Experience 8: Behavior‑Analytic Interview (Actual Case) 258
Applied Learning Experience 9: Designing the Interval Recording Procedure (IRP) 258
Applied Learning Experience 10: Implementing the IRP 259
Applied Learning Experience 11: Behavior‑Analytic Observation 260
Applied Learning Experience 12: Designing Experimental Analyses 260
Applied Learning Experience 13: Conducting Experimental Analyses 261
Applied Learning Experience 14: Behavior‑Analytic Problem Solving (BAPS)
and Case Conceptualization 262
xx Contents

Applied Learning Experience 15: Identifying Reinforcers 262

Applied Learning Experience 16: Behavior‑Analytic Problem Solving (BAPS)
and Function‑Focused Intervention 263
Applied Learning Experience 17: Treatment Analysis (Treatment Effectiveness) 263
Applied Learning Experience 18: Treatment Analysis (Treatment Comparison) 264
Applied Learning Experience 19: Explaining Assessment Results
and Recommendations 264
Applied Learning Experience 20: Consultation, Training, and Supervision 265
Summary 266

15. It’s the Final Chapter 267

Case Examples of Pliable and Flexible FBAs 267
The Suspended Student 268
Several Target Behaviors 269
Uninformed Consent and Tardiness 269
The English Language Learner 270
It Takes a Village 270
Low‑Rate, High‑Intensity Behaviors and Variables That Are Unethical
to Manipulate 271
Peer‑Mediated Reinforcement 272
Parting Shots 273

Appendix. Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating Scale (FuBARS) 277

References 283

Index 291

Purchasers of this book can download and print copies of the reproducible forms
at www.guilford.com/steege-materials for personal use or use
with students (see copyright page for details.
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction to
Functional Behavioral Assessment

The external variables of which behavior is a function provide for what

may be called a causal or functional analysis. We undertake to predict
and control the behavior of the individual organism. This is our
“dependent variable”—the effect for which we are to find the cause.
Our “independent variable”—the causes of behavior—­are the external
conditions of which behavior is a function. Relationships between the
two—the “cause–­effect relationships” in behavior—­are the laws of
a science. A synthesis of these laws expressed in quantitative terms
yields a comprehensive picture of the organism as a behaving system.
—B. F. Skinner (1953, p. 35)

This statement by Skinner over 65 years ago captures the very essence of this book. Merely
describing and classifying behavior is insufficient. To effect positive outcomes for students,
we need to discover the variables that directly influence their behavior and then arrange
an environment that promotes desired behaviors. Although traditional psychological assess-
ments identify, describe, and classify (i.e., diagnose) the problems experienced by students,
they rarely explore the underlying “causes” of student behavior or inform practical solu-
tions. In contrast, functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) both describe behavior and
illuminate the functional, “cause–­effect” relations between behavior and the environment.
When we understand these relations—­the “why” or the “ function” of behavior—­we are
well positioned to design and implement effective and individualized interventions.
Remember, behavior does not occur “out of the blue” or in a vacuum. Rather, behavior
is the product of dynamic interactions among a complex array of variables that exist within
individuals and their social environments. Only by identifying the relationships between
the unique characteristics of individual students and the contextual variables that trigger
and reinforce their behavior can we truly begin to understand why they behave the way
they do. And, once we understand how these complex variables interact to evoke and main-
tain behavior, we can work strategically and collaboratively with students, teachers, and
their families to develop personalized interventions that lead to socially significant and
meaningful behavior change.
1
2 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

A FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Applied behavior-­analytic research demonstrating functional relationships between inter-

fering behavior and environmental antecedents and consequences began gaining momen-
tum in the 1960s, and a dramatic shift in the conceptualization of interfering behaviors
occurred in the early 1980s. In a groundbreaking and seminal study, Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer,
Bauman, and Richman (1982) presented an assessment methodology for identifying the
environmental antecedents and consequences that directly controlled (i.e., “caused”) the
severe interfering behaviors exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities. More-
over, they demonstrated that behaviors that appeared similar (e.g., self-­injurious head bang-
ing) could have entirely different causes.
Iwata and colleagues’ (1982) research was the genesis of a paradigm shift that gave
consideration to the environmental etiology of interfering behaviors as the basis for select-
ing treatment procedures (Mace & Roberts, 1993). This new approach was in stark contrast
to the status quo of that era, when treatment plans were typically developed on the basis
of (1) practitioner preference, (2) diagnostic classifications, (3) evidence for the effective-
ness of strategies applied to behaviors that looked similar, and/or (4) fads and unproven
theories. This paradigm shift stimulated a tremendous wave of empirical research showing
that interventions selected with regard to the functions of interfering behaviors were more
effective than interventions selected exclusively on the basis of the forms (i.e., topography)
of interfering behaviors. This means, for example, that the most effective interventions for
interfering behaviors maintained by “escape from tasks” would be very different than the
most effective interventions for interfering behaviors maintained by “access to attention.”
The following examples illustrate the distinction between form and function.

• Chris, a 7-year-old student diagnosed with an emotional disability, engages in shout-

ing, swearing, and throwing of materials when asked to complete science lab work-
sheets.
• Arlene, a 12-year-old student with a diagnosis of intellectual disability, displays high-­
pitched vocalizations and throws work materials when teachers work directly with
her peers in the classroom.
• Felix, a 14-year-old student with a diagnosis of autism, exhibits inappropriate verbal-
izations and throws objects in a variety of settings, at different times of the day, and
in the presence of varied peers and staff members.

The forms of interfering behaviors exhibited by Chris, Arlene, and Felix are very similar
(i.e., all three individuals engage in inappropriate vocal behaviors and throw objects/materi-
als), but the functions of the interfering behaviors are very different. FBA results indicated
that Chris’s interfering behaviors resulted in negative reinforcement (escape from and/or
avoidance of difficult tasks); Arlene’s interfering behaviors produced positive reinforcement
(access to staff attention); and Felix’s behaviors were maintained by automatic reinforcement
(sensory stimulation). Again, in each of these examples, the interfering behaviors were simi-
lar in form, but the triggers and reinforcing consequences were strikingly individualized.
Interventions based solely on the topography of behaviors are basically a crapshoot
and often require artificially potent reinforcement and intrusive punishment procedures
 Introduction to FBA 3

to compete with the unknown reinforcers maintaining interfering behaviors (Mace, 1994).
In contrast, interventions matched to the function of behavior typically result in effective
and efficient outcomes by (1) altering the motivation to engage in interfering behaviors, (2)
minimizing the reinforcement for interfering behaviors, and (3) arranging the delivery of
reinforcers for socially appropriate alternative behaviors. Consider how different interven-
tions based on function might look for Chris, Arlene, and Felix:

• An intervention package for Chris might involve minimizing task difficulty, escape
extinction (i.e., no longer stopping instruction when interfering behaviors occur),
providing robust reinforcement for task participation, and instructing him to request
assistance or a brief break.
• For Arlene, treatment might involve providing attention contingent upon the absence
of interfering behaviors for increasingly longer periods of time, attention extinction
(i.e., withholding social attention when interfering behaviors occur), delivering robust
social attention contingent on appropriate behaviors, and teaching a more appropri-
ate means of obtaining adult attention.
• For Felix, interventions might consist of providing noncontingent access to toys or
activities that produce sensory stimulation or teaching more functional behaviors
that produce sensory input. Preference or reinforcer assessments also might be
conducted to identify competing reinforcers that could be delivered contingent on
appropriate behaviors or the absence of interfering behaviors.

The World Is Not Flat and How Functional Analysis Rocked My World
In my early years as a school psychologist in Iowa, I (Steege) was struggling to develop effective inter-
ventions for students with disabilities to successfully address behaviors such as self-­injury, aggression,
tantrums, and property destruction, among others. In the mid-1980s, I attended the Association for
Behavior Analysis convention and met Brian Iwata. This was my first “close encounter” with functional
analysis. This introduction to an empirical analysis of behavior–­environment relationships to identify
child-­specific functions of behavior was mind-­blowing and completely changed the way I would conduct
psychological assessments and conceptualize cases forever. This was tantamount to humankind first
discovering that the world is not flat, finding out that the earth revolves around the sun, and watching
the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show (“Yeah, yeah, yeah”). Armed with this newfound technology and
fueled with support from my mentor, Dave Wacker, we conducted school-­based functional analyses
of self-­injurious behavior, matched treatments to functions of behavior, implemented function-­based
treatments with precision, and collected data to demonstrate that the interventions were effective (see
Steege, Wacker, Berg, Cigrand, & Cooper, 1989, published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis).
This kick-­started a career of teaching, research, clinical services, and supervision centered on func-
tional behavioral assessment—and I’ve never looked back.

WHAT IS FBA?

Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is the systematic and formal use of evaluation to
identify the functions of behavior. Simply put, it is a process for understanding the variables
that contribute to the occurrence of interfering behaviors. FBAs are conducted to answer
two basic questions:
4 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

1. Why does the student exhibit interfering behaviors?

2. What can we do to reduce interfering behaviors and increase appropriate behav-
iors?

When conducting FBAs, practitioners identify and describe the relationships between
the unique characteristics of students and the contextual variables that motivate and rein-
force their behavior. Using these assessment results, school-­based teams are able to work
in concert with students and their families to develop person-­centered interventions that
result in socially meaningful behavior change. In sum, FBAs describe the problem (inter-
fering behavior), identify the underlying causes (functions) of the interfering behavior, and
pinpoint function-­based strategies to promote desired behavior change.

Interfering Behavior
Throughout this book, we use the term interfering behavior, instead of problem behavior, challenging
behavior, inappropriate behavior, or dysfunctional behavior.

Interfering behaviors: Behaviors that are disruptive to the learning of the student or others; behaviors
that interfere with the student’s progress or performance of skills.

To understand the FBA process, it is important to keep in mind the behavior-­analytic

foundations from which it was derived. These foundational “big ideas” include the follow-
ing:

• Behaviors are learned and can be changed.

• No two individuals are the same, and each student’s learning history is unique. FBA
seeks to uncover the learning history that shaped each student’s current behaviors.
• Students who present with similar interfering behaviors (e.g., aggression, self-­biting,
and verbal refusal) may engage in these behaviors for very different reasons due to
their unique learning histories. Intervention is most effective when behavior support
plans directly address the student-­specific causes or functions of behavior.
• Interfering behaviors exhibited by a single student may serve different purposes
in different situations. Intervention is most effective when behavior support plans
directly address the multiple causes or functions of behavior.
• Information collected during the FBA process directly informs the design of indi-
vidually tailored, evidence-­based interventions that are matched to the functions of
interfering behaviors.

FBA METHODS

On a pragmatic level, the FBA process considers the goodness of fit among students and
their environments, which include current behavioral supports, the school curriculum,
instructional methodologies, social relationships, and a host of other variables. Accordingly,
school-­based practitioners need to gather information about a wide range of variables to
 Introduction to FBA 5

conduct a comprehensive FBA. Considerations include (1) the immediate classroom envi-
ronment; (2) the student’s academic, communication, social, and emotional strengths and
weaknesses; (3) motivational variables; (4) sources of reinforcement; and (5) reinforcement
contingencies. A combination of interviews, rating scales, curriculum-­based assessments,
direct observations, preference assessments, and/or experimental analyses therefore may
be needed to address referral questions and complete a comprehensive FBA (Steege &
Pratt, 2012). In the context of this book, we classify these diverse procedures into four basic
categories:

1. Indirect assessment
2. Descriptive assessment
3. Experimental analysis
4. Treatment analysis

Figure 1.1 illustrates the flow and purpose of each category of assessment when evalu-
ators approach the FBA process from a problem-­solving framework.

Indirect Assessment
Indirect assessment methods are characterized by the assessment of behavior using infor-
mation provided by teachers, parents, staff, and in some cases the referred student. Record
reviews and interviews are the primary indirect FBA procedures, and behavior-­analytic
interviews are particularly valuable for (1) identifying and defining interfering behaviors, (2)
selecting data-­recording procedures that are matched to the dimensions of the behaviors,
and (3) forming tentative hypotheses regarding the function(s) of behaviors. A word of cau-

Indirect FBA
(Inquiring)

Descriptive FBA
(Documenting)

Experimental FBA
(Hypothesis Testing and Verifying)

Treatment Analysis
(Test Driving and Demonstrating)

Intervention and Progress Monitoring

(Validating)

FIGURE 1.1. Categories of assessment procedures and the FBA process.

6 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

tion here: Due to their relative efficiency and cost-­effectiveness, conducting an FBA using
only indirect FBA procedures may be tempting. However, filling out a one-page form or
simply conducting brief informal interviews may not constitute a valid FBA. Indeed, such
practice often results in inaccurate results, faulty hypotheses, and ineffective interventions.
In Chapter 7, we review indirect FBA procedures that are designed to “tease out” potential
functions of behavior for further investigation.

Descriptive Assessment
Descriptive assessment methods involve direct observation and real-time recording of
interfering behaviors and associated antecedents and consequences (Thompson & Borrero,
2011). Observations are conducted in natural settings (e.g., classrooms, cafeteria, hallways,
gym, playground), and data-­recording procedures range from anecdotal (e.g., writing a nar-
rative description of behaviors and relevant variables) to highly systematic (e.g., document-
ing the occurrence of target behaviors and events during 6-second intervals). Typically, the
school-­based evaluator completes the descriptive FBA, but there are situations in which
direct observation by the evaluator is not possible. For example, when the target interfering
behavior occurs infrequently or unpredictably, it may be difficult to schedule an observa-
tion. In these situations, other school-­based staff may be able to assist with the process.
For example, Cipani and Schock (2011) described and illustrated an A-B-C (antecedent,
behavior, consequence) descriptive analysis method in which teachers, parents, or parapro-
fessionals observed and recorded relevant antecedents and consequences associated with
target interfering behaviors.
Descriptive FBA procedures have two major purposes. First, these procedures are
helpful for documenting the severity (e.g., frequency, duration, and intensity) of interfering
behaviors to confirm the need for intervention and establish a baseline for evaluating the
effects of subsequent interventions. Second, descriptive FBA procedures are valuable for
identifying the contextual variables associated with interfering behaviors. Another word of

Fake Functions
Sometimes an event immediately precedes or follows a behavior but actually has nothing to do with the
real function of the behavior. Consider the following example.
Watson and Steege (2003) reported on a case study of a young man (Chris) residing in a group
home who had a long history of aggression (i.e., pulling others’ hair). During an informal preference
assessment, Chris was asked to choose between a bran muffin and a piece of toast. The evaluator
explained in detail the differences between the muffin and the toast and then said, “I like toast and I
like bran muffins. They’re both wicked good. Is there one you like more? Pick one.” Chris then grabbed
the evaluator’s hair with both hands and held on tightly for about 4 minutes. During a debriefing of the
incident, the evaluator said, “Obviously he hates both toast and muffins.” A subsequent assessment
compared verbal prompts and nonverbal prompts and found that aggressive behaviors were more
likely to occur following verbal as opposed to nonverbal prompts. We then implemented the preference
assessment using nonverbal prompts, and aggressive behaviors did not occur. In short, Chris hated
excessive verbalizations, not toast and muffins. By the way, Chris definitely preferred bran muffins. So,
in this case, the toast and muffins were associated variables. The function of aggression was to escape
excessive verbal prompts.
 Introduction to FBA 7

caution here: Just as correlation does not mean causation, association does not mean func-
tion. In order to confirm hypotheses regarding functional relationships between interfer-
ing behaviors and contextual variables, a functional analysis is required. In Chapter 8, we
discuss and illustrate the use of a variety of descriptive assessments to identify associated
antecedents and consequences of interfering behavior.

Experimental Analysis
Experimental analysis refers to an assessment model in which environmental events are
systematically manipulated and examined within single-­case experimental designs (Betz
& Fisher, 2011). Using this approach, a functional relationship is confirmed when a change
in one variable (antecedents and/or consequences) reliably influences levels of interfering
behavior. In other words, these procedures involve an experimental analysis of the cause–­
effect relationships between interfering behaviors and specific, predetermined antecedents
and/or consequences. The basic methodology involves (1) systematically manipulating ante-
cedents (e.g., presenting academic tasks) and/or consequences (e.g., withdrawing academic
expectations and materials following interfering behavior), (2) recording occurrences of
interfering behaviors within each assessment session, and (3) comparing behavioral levels
and trends across assessment conditions. We discuss and illustrate experimental assessment
approaches such as functional analysis in Chapter 9.

Treatment Analysis
Although it is not typically considered part of the FBA process, we include treatment analy-
sis as an FBA method. Treatment analyses provide a data-based assessment of (1) the effec-
tiveness of a single intervention or (2) the relative effectiveness of two or more interven-
tions. These analyses involve the use of single-­case experimental designs to evaluate the
effectiveness of function-­based interventions that were recommended after the completion
of indirect assessments, descriptive assessments, and/or functional analyses. In Chapter 12,
we discuss and illustrate applications of treatment analysis within the FBA process.

FBA AND PHILOSOPHY

Yes, this book is designed as a practical guide for school-­based practitioners. Please bear
with us, though! We believe that the underlying philosophy and theoretical framework for
the FBA process are just as important as the methodological details. The philosophical ori-
entation that guides our implementation of FBA procedures is based on a commitment to
philosophical doubt, empiricism, interactionism, behavioral compassion, and behavioral
empathy. Read on!

Philosophical Doubt
Healthy skepticism promotes a scientific approach to understanding human behavior. When
conducting FBAs, we enter the assessment process with an open mind and test multiple
8 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

hypotheses to confirm functional relationships and disconfirm “fake” hypotheses. The fol-
lowing quotes from the Dalai Lama (2009) illustrate the concept of philosophical doubt,
which guides all behavior-­analytic inquiries:

• “It is with an objective mind endowed with curious skepticism that we engage in
careful analysis.”
• “When there is skepticism, constant inquiry takes place.”
• “One of the reasons science progresses is because it persistently inquires and per-
forms experiments on the basis of genuine objectivity.”
• “Careful analysis indicates that a rough or incomplete analysis is not adequate.”
• “Logic and epistemology texts emphasize the need for proving the truth of an asser-
tion based on sound reasoning rooted in direct observation.”
• “With a careful analysis, our conclusions are more stable and sound.”

Empiricism
We endorse a data-based problem-­solving model of practice that is rooted in the application
of evidence-­based assessments and interventions. From our perspective, data rules! Or, to
paraphrase from a popular movie, “Show me the data!”

Interactionism
Human behavior is the result of dynamic interactions among multiple variables that are
always in a state of “ebb and flow.” This is comparable to weather-­related variables (e.g.,
temperature, wind flow, humidity, dew point, wind speed, high- or low-­pressure systems,
and jet streams) that interact to produce weather conditions ranging from “calm with fair
skies” to the “perfect storm.” As you will learn in subsequent chapters, when we conduct
FBAs, we evaluate the relative influences of many variables that contribute to interfering
behavior. And when we develop function-­based interventions, we address each of these
contributing variables.

Behavioral Compassion
When we begin the FBA process we are mindful that behavior is learned. We are mindful
that parents, teachers, siblings, friends, community members, and others do not “conspire”
or plan for students to acquire interfering behaviors. Nor do students set out to learn inter-
fering behaviors and adopt them as enduring components of their behavioral repertoires.
Without explicitly expressing this idea, the following statements illustrate behavioral com-
passion:

• “Behavior is learned. Interfering behavior is not your fault.”

• “My job is to understand why these interfering behaviors occur and figure out what
we can do to help you eliminate these behaviors while learning useful and appropri-
ate behaviors to meet your needs.”
• “I care enough to (1) conduct comprehensive assessments to understand the nature
 Introduction to FBA 9

of the problem, (2) use assessment data to design individually ­tailored interventions,
(3) conduct ongoing assessments to monitor potential shifts in behavioral function,
(4) collect data to objectively determine the personal effectiveness of your treatment,
and (5) modify treatments that are no longer effective.”

Behavioral Empathy
When conducting an FBA, we find it useful to consider each student’s unique point of view.
We seek to understand how each student navigates his or her educational and social worlds,
and we figuratively:

• Crawl inside the student’s skin to see the world from the perspective of the student.
• Experience how the student, given his or her unique personal characteristics, inter-
acts with the environment.
• See how this dynamic interaction between personal characteristics and environmen-
tal events shapes interfering behaviors.

We then apply this perspective to help students learn alternative ways to get their needs
met.

FBA AND PROBLEM SOLVING

The National Association of School Psychologists’ (NASP) Model for Comprehensive and Inte-
grated School Psychological Services (2010a) and the Behavior Analysis Certification Board’s
(BACB) Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts (2014) both clearly
support a problem-­solving approach to practice. The following seven phases illustrate how a
problem-­solving model is central to FBA, and the Appendix includes the Functional Behav-
ioral Assessment Rating Scale (FuBARS), which supports adherence to this model.

Phase 1: Identification and Description of Interfering Behavior

The purposes of this initial phase are to (1) identify the behaviors that interfere with stu-
dents’ acquisition of skills or performance of appropriate behaviors (academic and social)
and (2) determine the need for assessment and intervention. This phase typically includes
interviews, record reviews, and direct observations. Most critically, the evaluator needs to
clearly and unambiguously describe each interfering behavior and arrive at an operational
definition. A behavior has been operationalized when all members of the school team agree
on the definition and are able to observe and accurately record the behavior (Steege & Wat-
son, 2009). In this phase, we consider the following questions:

• What are the specific behaviors that led to the referral?

• What do these behaviors look like?
• When do these behaviors typically occur (setting, time, activity, persons)?
• Which behavior(s) are the priority for intervention?
10 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

• Do the behaviors pose a safety risk for the student or others?

• Do the behaviors limit access to minimally restrictive environments?
• How do the behaviors interfere with adaptive, academic, and/or social–­emotional
functioning?
• What strategies have been implemented? And how effective have these interventions
been?

Phase 2: Recording Current Levels of Interfering Behaviors

During this phase, direct observation and recording of interfering behaviors is conducted
to estimate the present levels and severity of interfering behaviors. There are several proce-
dures that may be used to record behaviors (e.g., frequency, duration, intensity, latency, per-
manent product, performance-­based, partial interval, whole interval, and momentary time
sampling), and there is no one best procedure. Rather, the selection of behavior-­recording
procedures depends on the dimensions of the behavior (i.e., form, presentation) and the
available resources (i.e., time, applicability to the setting, skills of observers/recorders). The
resulting estimates of behavior ultimately serve as a benchmark (baseline) to be used as a
point of comparison when evaluating the effectiveness of subsequent function-­based inter-
ventions. Key questions at this phase include:

• To what degree does the behavior interfere with academic or social functioning?
• How often does the behavior occur?
• For how long does the behavior occur?
• What is the relative intensity of the behavior?

Phase 3: Identifying and Describing Antecedent, Consequence,

and Associated Variables
At this phase, the primary questions are:

• What are the events that trigger interfering behavior?

• What are the consequences that reinforce (strengthen) interfering behavior?
• What individual variables are associated with interfering behavior?

FBA procedures may involve any combination of indirect assessment, descriptive

assessment, and/or experimental analysis. The choice of procedures is determined by the
interfering behavior and the skills and experience of the evaluator. The goal is to gather
information about the individual variables, antecedent variables, and consequence variables
that contribute to occurrences of interfering behavior.

Phase 4: Conceptual Synthesis

At this phase, the evaluator pulls it all together by integrating assessment data to arrive at
hypotheses about the functions of behavior. Here the evaluator needs to consider the prin-
ciple of interactionism by examining the manner in which individual and environmental
 Introduction to FBA 11

variables interact to trigger and maintain interfering behaviors. The goal is to synthesize
assessment data, offer an explanation of the “causes” of interfering behavior, and develop a
comprehensive conceptualization of the problem that needs to be solved.

Phase 5: Linking Assessment Data to Interventions

The ultimate goal of the FBA is to identify potentially effective function-­based interven-
tions. For example, identification of functional antecedent variables informs the design of
proactive interventions that reduce the probability of the interfering behavior, and identi-
fication of functional consequence variables guides the development of intervention strate-
gies that avoid reinforcing the interfering behavior and provide sufficient reinforcement to
strengthen replacement behavior. It is also important to take into consideration the dynamic
relationships among antecedent, individual, and consequence variables. Therefore, behav-
ior support plans need to be sensitive to the interactive effects of these variables and provide
for the flexible delivery of intervention strategies. The key questions at this phase include:

• Which evidence-­based options are available to modify functional antecedents?

• Which evidence-­based options are available to modify functional consequences?
• Which replacement behaviors and skills need to be taught, and what evidence-­based
instructional and reinforcement procedures are available?
• Which intervention strategies are feasible, acceptable, and minimally intrusive?
• Which intervention strategies will result in opportunities for both naturally occur-
ring supports and reinforcement?

Phase 6: Implementation
We all agree that the key to the success of an intervention plan is committed and accurate
implementation. The best of plans implemented incorrectly, or perhaps not at all, is usually
ineffective and may even worsen the problem. Adherence to the components of the inter-
vention (treatment integrity) may be maximized by asking the following questions at this
phase:

• Do staff understand the components of the plan?

• Do staff understand how the components of the plan directly address the functions
of the behaviors?
• Do staff have confidence that the plan will be effective?
• Do staff have the resources to implement the plan?
• Are staff adequately trained to implement the components of the plan? (Note: We
recommend using a behavioral skills training model of support.)

Phase 7: Progress Monitoring

Both NASP and the BACB endorse a data-based decision-­making approach to practice. This
requires collecting and analyzing data to (1) determine the effectiveness of the intervention
and (2) serve as the basis for modifying or “tweaking” the intervention plan.
12 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

SUMMARY

The need for comprehensive, rigorous, and objective assessment of interfering behaviors
is obvious, and it is imperative, both ethically and legally, to conduct FBAs to inform the
design of interventions. There are a wide range of FBA methods available, and a common
question we hear from students, supervisees, practitioners, and workshop participants is,
“Is one FBA procedure better than others?” Well, there is no one best FBA procedure.
The optimal approach depends on a variety of factors, including (1) the characteristics of
the student being assessed, (2) the dimensions of interfering behaviors, (3) the setting and
available resources, (4) the knowledge and expertise in applied behavior analysis of those we
interview, (5) the degree of the evaluator’s familiarity with the student, and (6) the experi-
ence and competency of the evaluator, among others. To address the diverse referral ques-
tions that arise within school settings, evaluators need to be well trained and experienced
in a wide range of FBA procedures. It is naive to expect that we can assess all behavior
issues with a single “cookie-­cutter” approach (i.e., the standard assessment battery). Instead,
evaluators need a well-­stocked arsenal of assessment methods to conduct flexible, individu-
alized FBAs.
This book is intended to be a resource that provides school-­based practitioners with
conceptual models and applied procedures for assessing behaviors that interfere with stu-
dents’ academic, social, emotional, and adaptive functioning. All of the models and pro-
cedures presented in this book are designed to assist the practitioner in understanding
why students display particular behaviors in particular settings at particular times. Our
approach to FBA follows a problem-­solving process that flexibly employs an array of assess-
ment methodologies to understand the “whys” of behavior, inform the design of individual-
ized behavioral supports, and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions. Thus, we do not
equate FBA with one specific methodology. Rather, we view FBA as an amalgamation of
techniques that have a common purpose: identifying the variables that control a behavior
and using that knowledge to design individualized and effective interventions.
To reiterate, this book will not tell the evaluator which FBA procedures to use. Nor
will we provide a formulaic approach that can be applied to all FBAs. Conducting FBAs
is an investigative process, so think of yourself as a behavioral Sherlock Holmes. When the
“game is afoot” we need, of course, to be methodological, but also flexible in designing and
executing individually tailored assessments.

Putting the Fun in Functional Behavioral Assessment

Hey folks, one of my (Steege) mottos is “If it isn’t fun, it’s not worth doing.” Throughout this book we
have embedded vignettes and examples that are intended to be both educational and humorous. Of
course, when we take on the responsibility of conducting an FBA we are all business. After all, our
ultimate goals are to (1) understand and describe the variables that evoke, occasion, and reinforce
behavior; (2) use those data to design and implement function-­based and evidence-­based interventions;
and (3) collect data to document the effectiveness of interventions. We intersperse humor to engage the
reader and to provide intermittent reinforcement. So, have fun!
 CHAPTER 2

Professional Standards
and Ethical Considerations

A man without ethics is a wild beast loosed upon this world.

—A lbert Camus (1913–1960)

NASP and the BACB both endorse data-based decision making, which involves collecting
assessment data to (1) inform the development of individualized, evidence-­based interven-
tions and (2) evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for individual students. The profes-
sions of school psychology and behavior analysis also endorse the use of FBA to understand
and address the reasons why students engage in interfering behaviors.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

NASP’s Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services (NASP
Practice Model; 2010a) defines “excellence” in service across 10 domains of school psy-
chology practice. In conjunction with the Standards for Graduate Preparation of School
Psychologists (2010c), Standards for the Credentialing of School Psychologists (2010d), and
Principles for Professional Ethics (2010b), the NASP model delineates a comprehensive set
of principles that guide the training, credentialing, and professional services and behav-
iors of competent school psychologists. Two domains of practice within the NASP model
are particularly relevant for school psychologists who conduct FBAs: (1) data-based deci-
sion making and accountability and (2) interventions and mental health services to develop
social and life skills. Therefore, school psychologists are encouraged to consider the fol-
lowing descriptions of competent professional practices within these two practice domains
when conducting FBAs:

13
14 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

• School psychologists “use systematic decision making to consider the antecedents,

consequences, functions, and potential causes” of interfering behaviors (p. 5).
• School psychologists “systematically collect data from multiple sources” and “con-
sider ecological variables” to inform the selection of interventions (p. 4).
• School psychologists develop and implement behavior change interventions that
apply appropriate “ecological and behavioral approaches” such as positive reinforce-
ment and social skills training (p. 6).

NASP’s Principles for Professional Ethics (2010b) further establishes requirements for
school psychologists to obtain parental consent before conducting an FBA (Standard I.1.2)
and to develop interventions that are consistent with assessment results (Standard II.3.9).

BEHAVIOR ANALYST CERTIFICATION BOARD

The BACB’s Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts (2014)
includes 10 standards to guide the professional and ethical behavior of behavior analysts.
Standards 3.0 (Assessing Behavior) and 4.0 (Behavior Analysts and the Behavior-­Change
Program) delineate requirements for completing ethically sound FBAs and linking results
to conceptually sound function-­based interventions. These standards mandate that board-­
certified behavior analysts (BCBAs) conduct functional assessments (e.g., indirect, direct–­
descriptive, and/or experimental analysis) prior to recommending or designing behavior
intervention plans to reduce occurrences of interfering behaviors. Additionally, BCBAs must
secure written informed consent prior to conducting FBAs, consider the influence of medi-
cal variables during the FBA process, and present FBA results in an understandable format.
Relative to interventions, BCBAs are expected to use FBA results to design function-­based
interventions that are conceptually sound and individually tailored to address the unique
behaviors, environmental variables, and goals for each student.

NASP guidelines promote FBAs as best practice.

The BACB specifies that FBAs are an ethical imperative.

WHO IS QUALIFIED TO CONDUCT AN FBA?

As with any assessment, practitioners conducting FBAs maintain responsibility for ensuring
they have had the educational preparation and professional experience required to perform
the assessment competently. At a minimum, academic preparation should include course-
work on the following topics:
 Professional Standards and Ethical Considerations 15

• Learning theory (principles of respondent and operating conditioning).

• Behavior-­ recording procedures (e.g., frequency, duration, intensity, latency, and
interval-­recording methods).
• Single-­
case experimental designs (e.g., case study, alternating treatments, and
multiple-­baseline designs).
• Behavior-­analytic assessment procedures (indirect assessment, d ­ escriptive assess-
ment, and functional analysis).
• Behavioral interventions (function-­ based and evidence-­ based interventions for
strengthening replacement behaviors and reducing interfering behaviors).
• Behavioral consultation, training, and supervision methods (to ensure the integrity
of recommended interventions).
• Ethics (including ethical considerations for behavioral assessment and intervention).

Practitioners also must obtain supervised experience conducting FBAs. Supervision

may be provided during formal practica and internship experiences or arranged as a post-
degree training experience. Regardless of the arrangement, the supervision should support
the development of competencies for (1) observing and recording behavior, (2) utilizing var-
ied assessment methods to identify the function(s) of interfering behaviors, (3) interpreting
assessment results in terms of current learning theories, (4) summarizing assessment results
using language and examples that are reasonably understandable to consumers, (5) select-
ing and implementing function-­based and evidence-­based interventions, and (6) designing
procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.

Competency from an Ethical Perspective

PERSONAL COMPETENCY

Ethical standards for psychologists, school psychologists, and behavior analysts are consistent in
requiring practitioners to limit their clinical practice to areas of personal competency. These standards
apply both to assessment methods and populations. For example, a practitioner with competencies
in indirect and d­ escriptive FBA methods would need additional training and supervision to conduct
functional analyses. Similarly, a practitioner who received training and supervision in conducting FBAs
for preschoolers may need to seek additional supervision before conducting FBAs for secondary-­level
students. And a practitioner who received training and supervision in conducting FBAs for children with
developmental disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders) may require
additional supervision to conduct FBAs for students with emotional–­behavioral disorders.

SUPERVISOR COMPETENCIES

Ethical standards also specify that supervisors may only provide supervision of clinical practices and
with populations with whom they have demonstrated competency. This makes sense given that one
phase of robust supervision involves the supervisor modeling the clinical skills! The subsequent behav-
ioral skills training section of this chapter provides more information on competent supervision prac-
tices.
16 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

BEHAVIORAL SKILLS TRAINING

TO PROMOTE AND MAINTAIN FBA COMPETENCIES

Acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of skills needed for conducting FBAs should
be based on the evidence-­based behavioral skills training model, which is described in
the BACB’s Supervisor Training Curriculum Outline (2012). The behavioral skills training
model of supervision is required for supervisees seeking credentialing as a BCBA or BCBA-
D and, in our opinion, provides an excellent framework for training any practitioner. So we
encourage all supervisors to adopt the behavioral skills training model, and we encourage
all supervisees to insist upon receiving training in accordance with the behavioral skills
training model. To implement this model, supervisors should adopt the following practices
outlined by the BACB (2014):

• Provide a rationale for target skills to be trained.

• Provide written and vocal descriptions of the target skills.
• Demonstrate (model) the target skills.
• Arrange opportunities for practice (rehearsal) of the target skills.
• Offer constructive feedback and reinforcement for demonstration of the target skills.
• Repeat training steps until mastery of the target skills is achieved.
• Assess generalization of the target skills across multiple settings, with multiple stu-
dents.

Training Resources
Numerous studies have been published to outline effective procedures for training practitioners to
conduct FBAs. McCahill, Healy, Lydon, and Ramey (2014) conducted a systematic review of training
procedures for advancing broad FBA competencies and reported that modeling and feedback (com-
ponents of behavioral skills training!) were essential for effective training. The following articles also
provide excellent descriptions of procedures for training individuals to implement functional analysis
methodologies using key components of the behavioral skills training model:

Erbas, D., Trkin-Iftar, E., & Yucesoy, S. (2006). Teaching special education teachers how to conduct
functional analysis in natural settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(1),
28–36.
Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S. W., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., et al. (2000).
Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 33(2), 181–194.

RESOURCES TO SUPPORT
AND EVALUATE COMPETENCIES IN FBA

In this section, we offer two resources for assessing your own competencies in FBA and
ensuring the integrity of the FBA process. These resources may be used as “advanced orga-
nizers” to ensure that you cover all of the bases—­ethically, procedurally, and conceptually—­
 Professional Standards and Ethical Considerations 17

both prior to and during the FBA process. We also use these tools during supervision with
graduate students, interns, and professionals as they develop their FBA behavioral reper-
toires.

A Quick Note
The following resources include terminology and strategies that we cover in subsequent chapters. So,
hang tight! Give these resources a quick look now and then review them again after reading the rest
of the book.

Functional Behavioral Assessment

Competency Scale
The Functional Behavioral Assessment Competency Scale (FBACS; Form 2.1)* is a self-­
report measure of (1) adherence to ethical standards pertaining to FBAs, (2) conceptual
knowledge essential for conducting FBAs competently and ethically, and (3) experiences
related to implementing FBA procedures and interpreting and reporting FBA results. The
FBACS may be used in the following ways:

• As a pretest to document current levels of knowledge and skills and inform individu-
alized professional development plans;
• As a formative assessment to guide the development of competencies in FBA and the
implementation of an ethical and competent FBA process; and
• As a summative assessment to document gains in knowledge and skills related to
FBAs.

Ethical Standards
The FBACS incorporates the ethical standards mandated by the BACB. Relative to FBAs, the BACB
establishes more stringent standards than those required by NASP and the American Psychological
Association (APA). Regardless of professional affiliation and practice credentials, though, we support
adherence to BACB guidelines as the “industry standard” for conducting FBAs.

Functional Behavioral Assessment

Procedural Checklist
The Functional Behavioral Assessment Procedural Checklist (FBAPC; Form 2.2) is designed
to improve assessment integrity when conducting FBAs. While an airline pilot uses a proce-
dural checklist prior to taking flight, we recommend using the FBAPC before, during, and
after an FBA to make sure that you have “covered all the bases.”

* All forms appear at the ends of the respective chapters.

18 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

SUMMARY

Wow! Clearly, the prerequisite skills needed to conduct FBAs require robust training.
So attending a 1-day workshop or even taking a course on FBA falls short of professional
requirements for developing competencies in conducting FBAs. Although this book pro-
vides resources for conducting FBAs, it is critical that practitioners receive supervision
from experienced and competent professionals during the application phases of professional
development. To support your own professional development, we strongly encourage you to
obtain supervision using the behavioral skills training model and to utilize the FBACS to
monitor your acquisition of requisite skills and knowledge. At the end of this chapter, we
also offer a sample FBA consent document (Form 2.3) to assist you in meeting the ethical
responsibilities for obtaining meaningful informed consent for assessment.

We Get By with a Little Help from Our Friends

In our experience, adopting a team-based approach to conducting FBAs is both practical and effective.
A team of professionals may have a broader set of competencies than any single practitioner; therefore,
a team-based approach allows team members to combine their respective competencies to achieve
a comprehensive and conceptually systematic analysis of interfering behaviors. Additionally, in rural
locations like Maine, we have found that practitioners who develop a professional practice network are
able to draw on the skills and experiences of colleagues when confronted with a referral for evaluation
that is beyond their “comfort zone.” Seeking consultation or direct supervision or referring the case to
another practitioner is facilitated when you have a preestablished network of professional colleagues.
 FORM 2.1

Functional Behavioral Assessment Competency Scale (FBACS)

Name:
Date of Self-Assessment:

Part One: Ethical Responsibilities

Ethical Responsibilities Rating Rubric:
0= My behavior is inconsistent with this standard
1= My behavior is partially consistent with this standard
2= My behavior is consistent with this standard
NA = I have no experience conducting FBAs

Instructions: Using the Ethical Responsibilities Rating Rubric, self-evaluate your adherence to each
ethical standard.

Standard Rating Comments

3.0 Assessing Behavior

Evaluators use behavior-analytic assessment 0 1 2 NA

techniques based on current research

3.1 Behavior-Analytic Assessment

Evaluators conduct current assessments prior to 0 1 2 NA

making recommendations

Evaluators conduct FBAs prior to developing a 0 1 2 NA

behavior-reduction program

FBA procedures are determined by each 0 1 2 NA

student’s needs, consent, environmental
parameters, and other contextual variables

Evaluators collect and graphically display FBA 0 1 2 NA

data in a manner that allows for decisions and
recommendations about the development of
behavior plans

(continued)

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

19
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Competency Scale (FBACS) (page 2 of 5)

Standard Rating Comments

3.02 Medical Consultation

Evaluators seek medical consultation when 0 1 2 NA

there is a reasonable possibility that a referred
behavior is influenced by medical or biological
variables

3.03 Informed Consent

Prior to conducting an FBA, evaluators explain 0 1 2 NA

to guardians (and students, as appropriate) the
procedures, who will participate, and how the
resulting information will be used
Prior to conducting an FBA, evaluators explain 0 1 2 NA
to guardians (and students, as appropriate) the
risks and benefits of the assessment procedures

Prior to conducting an FBA, evaluators 0 1 2 NA

obtain written approval of the assessment
procedures from the guardians (and students, as
appropriate)
3.04 Explaining Assessment Results

Evaluators explain FBA results using language 0 1 2 NA

and graphic displays of data that are reasonably
understandable

Evaluators provide written reports describing 0 1 2 NA

the assessment procedures, the results, and
function-based recommendations

4.0 Behavior Change Recommendations

Behavior-change recommendations are 0 1 2 NA

conceptually consistent with behavior-analytic
principles

Evaluators use FBA results to identify individually 0 1 2 NA

tailored intervention recommendations that are
matched to the function(s) of each interfering
behavior
Standards are adapted from the BACB’s Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts (2014).

(continued)

20
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Competency Scale (FBACS) (page 3 of 5)

Part Two: Knowledge of Conceptual Foundations

Conceptual Knowledge Rating Rubric:
0 = I am unfamiliar with this principle/concept
1 = I can describe some of the components of this principle/concept
2 = I can define this principle/concept
3 = I can define this principle/concept and provide one to two clear examples
4 = I use this term in my daily vocabulary and can explain this principle/concept to laypersons

Instructions: Using the Knowledge Rating Rubric, self-evaluate your knowledge of each behavior-
analytic principle or concept.

Principles/Concepts Rating Comments

Interfering Behavior 0 1 2 3 4

Response Class 0 1 2 3 4

Response Class Hierarchy 0 1 2 3 4

Socially Mediated Positive Reinforcement 0 1 2 3 4

Socially Mediated Negative Reinforcement 0 1 2 3 4

Individually Mediated Positive Reinforcement 0 1 2 3 4

Individually Mediated Negative Reinforcement 0 1 2 3 4

Automatic Positive Reinforcement 0 1 2 3 4

Automatic Negative Reinforcement 0 1 2 3 4

Matching Law 0 1 2 3 4

Parameters of Reinforcement

• Schedule 0 1 2 3 4

• Quality 0 1 2 3 4

• Magnitude 0 1 2 3 4

• Timing 0 1 2 3 4

Discriminative Stimulus 0 1 2 3 4

Motivating Operation 0 1 2 3 4

(continued)

21
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Competency Scale (FBACS) (page 4 of 5)

Part Three: Knowledge and Experience in Conducting FBAs

Knowledge Rating Rubric:
0 = I am unfamiliar with this procedure
1 = I can describe some of the components of this procedure
2 = I can describe this procedure
3 = I can describe this procedure and provide one to two clear examples
4 = I can explain this procedure to laypersons

Experience Rating Rubric:

0 = I have no applied experience with this procedure
1 = I have received only didactic training on this procedure
2 = I have observed but not directly implemented this procedure
3 = I have implemented the procedure, received performance feedback, and been judged to be
   competent by a supervisor
4 = I have considerable experience implementing this procedure with a range of students,
   across multiple settings, and with multiple interfering behaviors

Instructions: Using the Knowledge and Experience Rating Rubrics, self-evaluate your knowledge of
and experience with each FBA procedure.

Procedures Knowledge Experience Comments

Assessment Methods

Semistructured Behavior-Analytic Interviews 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Behavioral Stream Interviews 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Anecdotal Observation 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

A-B-C Recording 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Incident-Based Functional Assessment 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Interval Recording Procedure 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Structural Analysis 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Extended Functional Analysis 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Brief Functional Analysis 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Trial-Based Functional Analysis 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Synthesized Functional Analysis 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Treatment Analysis 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Preference Assessment 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

Reinforcer Assessment 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4

(continued)

22
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Competency Scale (FBACS) (page 5 of 5)

Procedures Knowledge Experience Comments

Data Recording Procedures
Frequency Recording 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Duration Recording 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Latency Recording 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Intensity Recording 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Partial-Interval Recording 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Whole-Interval Recording 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Momentary Time Sampling 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Performance-Based Recording 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Permanent Product Recording 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Task Analysis Recording Procedure 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Experimental and Data Analysis Methods
Graphing Data 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Visual Inspection of Data 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Case Study Design (AB) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Reversal Design (ABAB) 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Alternating Treatments Design 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Multiple Baseline Design 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Interpreting and Reporting FBA Results
Identification and Description of Target 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Behavior(s)
Identification and Description of Contextual 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Variables, Personal Characteristics, and Skill
Deficits
Identification and Description of Environmental 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Antecedents: Discriminative Stimuli
Identification and Description of Environmental 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Antecedents: Motivating Operations
Identification and Description of Reinforcing 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Consequences
Identification and Description of Parameters of 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Reinforcement
Identification and Description of Evidence- 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Based and Function-Based Recommendations

23
 FORM 2.2

Functional Behavioral Assessment Procedural Checklist (FBAPC)

1. Informed Consent
   FBA procedures have been fully described to parents/guardians
   Written consent to conduct the FBA has been obtained from parents/guardians

2. Identification and Description of Interfering Behaviors and Levels of Occurrence

   Interfering behaviors are operationally defined in clear, unambiguous terms
   Data recording procedures are identified and described
   Present levels of occurrence of interfering behaviors are summarized

3. Identification and Description of Variables Associated with Interfering Behaviors

   Contexts associated with interfering behaviors are identified and described
   Personal characteristics associated with interfering behaviors are identified and described
   Medical, biological, and mental health concerns related to interfering behaviors are identified
and described
   Skill deficits/delays contributing to interfering behaviors are identified and described

4. Identification and Description of Functional Antecedent Variables

   Motivating operations that “trigger” interfering behaviors are identified and described
   Sources of reinforcement (discriminative stimuli) are identified and described

5. Identification and Description of Reinforcing Consequences

   Reinforcing consequences for interfering behaviors are identified and described
   Socially mediated, individually mediated, and automatic positive reinforcers for interfering
behaviors are considered
   Socially mediated, individually mediated, and automatic negative reinforcers for interfering
behaviors are considered
   Parameters of reinforcement (i.e., the schedule, quality, magnitude, and timing of functional
consequences) are identified and described
   Response effort to obtain reinforcement is identified and described

6. Functional Hypotheses
   Hypotheses about the function(s) of interfering behaviors are developed
   Hypothesis statements identify the antecedent and consequence variables that evoke and
maintain interfering behaviors

7. FBA Results and Recommendations

   FBA results are presented in a written report, using understandable language and graphics
   Intervention recommendations are evidence-based
   Intervention recommendations are function-based
   Intervention recommendations are individually tailored to account for unique characteristics of
the student and setting

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

24
 FORM 2.3

Functional Behavioral Assessment Informed Consent Form

WHAT IS A FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT?

A functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is conducted to answer two questions:

1. Why does the student have problem behaviors?
2. What strategies would decrease problem behaviors and increase appropriate behaviors?

In other words, the purposes of an FBA are to:

• Identify and describe the variables that contribute to behaviors that interfere with a student’s
learning, and
• Develop individually tailored interventions to address those behaviors.

In contrast to traditional assessments (e.g., intellectual and academic assessment) where standard
testing materials and scoring systems are used, FBAs are individualized to address the unique needs
and characteristics of the student. School-based FBAs may involve any combination of the following
assessment procedures:

• Indirect FBA Procedures

||Interviews with family members
||Interviews with school staff
||Interviews with the student
||Review of records, including previous evaluation reports and behavioral data

• Descriptive FBA Procedures

||Observation of the student in the school setting by the evaluator and/or school staff
||Recording of the student’s behavior across varied school settings by the evaluator and/or school
staff
||Recording of the events that occur before and after the student shows problem behaviors

• Functional Analysis Procedures

||Setting up and repeating scenarios that typically lead to problem behaviors in the school setting
to understand the effect of antecedents (triggers) and consequences on the student’s behavior
||Observation and recording of the student’s behavior during these assessment scenarios

• Treatment Analysis
||Briefly “test-driving” interventions to see if the strategies are effective in reducing problem
behavior and increasing appropriate behavior
• Assessment of Reinforcement
||Preference Assessment
„„Having the student sample a variety of items or activities that students often find rewarding
„„Asking the student to choose items or activities that are most preferred
||Reinforcer Assessment
„„Giving the student preferred items or activities after appropriate behaviors
„„Observing and recording appropriate behaviors to see if they increase when followed by
preferred items or activities
(continued)

Used with permission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

25
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Informed Consent Form (page 2 of 3)

• Medical Consultation
||Communicating with medical professionals (after obtaining a release to share information) if the
student’s behaviors seem to be related to medical issues

BENEFITS OF CONDUCTING A FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT

Interventions based on the results of the FBA are referred to as “function based.” Research shows
that:
• Problem behaviors may serve multiple purposes or “functions” for students. For example, problem
behaviors may produce access to attention, preferred items, or preferred activities; let the student
avoid difficult tasks or unpleasant situations; create pleasant sensory stimulation; or help the student
self-regulate.
• Behavioral interventions based on the “functions” of problem behaviors are more effective than
interventions based on team preference or professional judgment.
• FBAs lead to the development of individually tailored interventions that address the unique
characteristics of the student and the “functions” of his or her behaviors. These interventions may
lead to reductions in problem behaviors and increases in appropriate behaviors.

POTENTIAL RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CONDUCTING

A FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT

It is important to understand that FBAs are conducted because the student is showing problem
behaviors in the school setting. When conducting the FBA, one or more of the assessment procedures
(especially functional analysis methods) may “trigger” problem behaviors. However, the level and
intensity of problem behaviors during the FBA process is not expected to be significantly different from
what typically happens in the natural school setting. If problem behaviors escalate to the point that
significant harm to the student or others may occur, the assessment will be immediately terminated.

WHAT CAN I EXPECT AFTER THE FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT?

• FBA Report: A formal report describing the assessment procedures, results, and recommendations
will be provided to parents/guardians and other members of the school team.
• FBA Review Session: A private meeting with parents/guardians to review the report and discuss the
results and recommendations will be offered. Results and recommendations also will be reviewed
during a formal meeting with parents/guardians and members of the school team.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDERSTANDING

The FBA procedures to be used with my child were verbally explained to me. I understand the purpose
of the FBA and the assessment methods that will be used. I understand the risks and benefits of the
FBA process.

Parent/Guardian Signature

(continued)

26
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Informed Consent Form (page 3 of 3)

CONSENT

I give permission for completion of an FBA with my child. I understand that I will receive a written
report within     school days. I also understand that I will have an opportunity to meet with the
school team to review the FBA results and recommendations.

Student Name

Parent/Guardian Name

Parent/Guardian Signature and Date

School Psychologist/BCBA Signature and Date

27
 CHAPTER 3

Conceptual Foundations
of Functional Behavioral Assessment

Those who fall in love with practice without science are

like a sailor who sails a ship without a helm or compass,
and can never be certain whither he is going. . . .
—Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519)

Applied behavior analysis is the science of human behavior. FBA is the process of apply-
ing these scientific principles to assess human behavior and to develop interventions that
lead to socially meaningful behavioral outcomes. Before discussing FBA procedures, we
think it is essential to establish a common understanding of the basic terminology, prin-
ciples, and concepts of applied behavior analysis. Having said that, we are also assuming
that our readers have an understanding of the basic principles of learning. The goal of this
chapter is not to teach foundational principles and concepts related to positive and negative
reinforcement, positive and negative punishment, stimulus control, discriminative stimuli,
motivating operations, matching law, and so forth. Rather, the goal is to provide a review
or refresher of these principles and concepts. Our emphasis is on identifying the variables
that evoke, occasion, and reinforce interfering behaviors and then synthesizing the results
of FBAs to arrive at a conceptual understanding of student behavior. Later, we will refer to
this process as a conceptual synthesis.

FUNCTIONAL ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES

When conducting an FBA it is critical to differentiate between relevant and irrelevant stim-
uli that influence interfering behavior. In other words, it is important to distinguish between
stimuli that are associated with interfering behavior and those that are functionally related
to interfering behavior. When conducting an FBA, we are concerned with identifying and
describing the variables that (1) make interfering behavior more likely (functional anteced-
ents) and (2) strengthen and maintain behavior (functional consequences/reinforcers).

28
 Conceptual Foundations of FBA 29

Separating the Wheat from the Chaff

The purpose of FBA is to:
• Weed out associated and irrelevant variables, and
• Identify and describe the variables that are functionally related to the interfering behavior.
Many stimuli occur prior to occurrences of interfering behavior. Some of these stimuli are function-
ally related to the interfering behavior, while others are not. Imagine, for example, that a school psy-
chologist conducted an anecdotal observation of a student with a history of interfering behaviors (e.g.,
swearing and arguing). At the start of this observation, the school psychologist noticed that a classmate
began humming a tune immediately before the referred student engaged in interfering behaviors. Does
this mean that the classmate’s humming a tune is a functional antecedent that triggered the student’s
interfering behaviors? Perhaps, but not likely . . .
After conducting interviews, the school psychologist learned that just prior to the observation, the
classroom teacher had delivered the third verbal and gestural cue for the student to disengage from
socializing with a peer and begin the assignment. Subsequent observations further suggested that
repeated cues from the teacher typically preceded occurrences of interfering behavior. In this case, the
classmate’s humming was a neutral or irrelevant stimulus, and the redirection cues delivered by the
teacher were functional antecedents.

CONSEQUENCE VARIABLES

When teaching the conceptual foundations of FBA, we have found that reviewing the prin-
ciples of reinforcement and punishment facilitates an understanding of antecedent influ-
ences on behavior, so we begin with a review of behavioral consequences. Consequences
refer to the effects or outcomes of behavior. Functional consequences are the events that
occur after a behavior and alter the future likelihood of similar behaviors. Consequences
that follow and strengthen behaviors (i.e., increase the future frequency, duration, and/or
intensity of behaviors) are called reinforcers. The process by which behavior is strengthened
when it is followed by a consequence is called reinforcement. In contrast, consequences that
follow and weaken behaviors (i.e., decrease the future frequency, duration, and/or intensity
of behaviors) are called punishers. And the process by which a behavior is weakened when
it is followed by a consequence is called punishment. When conducting an FBA, we are pri-
marily interested in the reinforcing consequences that strengthen and maintain interfering
behaviors. Therefore, we focus our discussion of behavioral consequences on the two types
of reinforcing consequences: positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement.

Positive Reinforcement
Behaviors that produce desirable outcomes are likely to be repeated. When a behavior
results in access to preferred stimuli or events (e.g., social attention from a close friend, a
favorite food or activity, monetary rewards) and therefore becomes more likely to occur in
the future, we refer to the consequences as positive reinforcers and to the process as posi-
tive reinforcement. Humans, by their very nature, are social beings. Thus, attention from
others is often a powerful positive reinforcer for behavior. Let’s take a look at a familiar
example to illustrate the power of social attention as a positive reinforcer.
30 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Example of Positive Reinforcement (Social Attention)

Kent is a seventh-­grade student with average-­to-above-­average cognitive abilities. According
to his teachers, Kent’s daily classroom performance and grades do not reflect his true poten-
tial. In fact, they have reported that Kent’s classroom behavior is quite disruptive and annoy-
ing. When asked to describe what Kent does that is so annoying, his teachers explained that
he often makes wisecracks during independent seatwork periods. They also acknowledged
that his comments are rather funny and tend to evoke at least mild chuckles from classmates.
Direct observations of Kent’s behavior confirmed the teachers’ reports about his wisecrack-
ing behavior, the inherent humor in what he says, and—­perhaps most importantly—­the
response of his classmates: laughter or groans. In this example, the response from Kent’s
classmates (i.e., laughter or groans) positively reinforced his wisecrack remarks. Thus, his
wisecracking comments are likely to continue for as long as his peers respond in this manner.

Negative Reinforcement
Behaviors that successfully result in avoidance or termination of aversive circumstances
also tend to be repeated. Everyone considers some activities to be enjoyable and others to
be difficult, uncomfortable, or otherwise aversive. And we tend to shy away from items and
activities that are sufficiently unpleasant and have only minimal reinforcing value. Most
adults, for example, do not choose to engage in behaviors that they do not find fun in some
way unless the payoff is personally significant (consider exercising!). Negative reinforcement
occurs when an interfering behavior results in the postponement (avoidance) or termination
(escape) of an aversive circumstance. Below is an example of how negative reinforcement
may operate in the classroom.

Example of Negative Reinforcement (Escape from Task)

Creed is an 8-year-old who exhibits interfering behaviors such as throwing materials, yell-
ing at the teacher, climbing on desks, and running out of the classroom. His teacher, Ms.
Timmerman, observed that his outbursts seemingly occurred randomly throughout the
school day. She tried every trick in her disciplinary bag, from a “corner time-out” to keep-
ing him in the classroom during recess. As the number of incidents began to pile up, she
resorted to sending Creed to the principal’s office, where he was directed to sit in a chair
for 15–20 minutes. Ms. Timmerman, in a somewhat bewildered tone, noted that Creed’s
behavior had not gotten any better. After conducting an FBA, the school practitioner recog-
nized that Creed’s outbursts did indeed follow a pattern. In fact, almost all of his outbursts
occurred when writing was required to complete an assignment. Creed used a pencil to fill
in ovals on tests without incident, but each time he was required to produce actual written
work, regardless of the subject matter, an outburst occurred. Thus, the school practitioner
identified assignments that required writing as functional antecedents and escape from
tasks (e.g., being sent to time-out) as the functional consequence. Essentially, Creed had
learned through numerous interactions in the classroom that disruptive outbursts allowed
him to avoid or escape assignments that involved writing, and the teacher’s disciplinary
consequences negatively reinforced interfering behaviors.
 Conceptual Foundations of FBA 31

There’s More Than One Way to Treat a Function

In their comprehensive review of the behavior-­analytic research, Geiger, Carr, and LeBlanc (2010)
identified and described the following eight interventions to consider when developing function-­focused
interventions for interfering behaviors maintained by negative reinforcement in the form of escape from
“demands” or “instructional opportunities.”
1. Activity choice. Offer students the opportunity to choose the order in which assigned tasks are
completed.
2. Curricular and instructional revisions. Modify the task expectations or instructional procedures
to make assigned activities less aversive.
3. Demand fading. Remove all nonpreferred instructional opportunities (demands) and then
gradually reintroduce them while avoiding or minimizing negative reinforcement of interfering
behaviors.
4. Differential negative reinforcement of alternative behavior. Provide a brief period of “escape”
in the form of a break from work contingent on a desired replacement behavior (e.g., accurate
work completion).
5. Differential negative reinforcement of zero rates of responding. Provide a brief period of
“escape” in the form of a break from work when a specified period of time elapses without
occurrences of the interfering behavior.
6. Extinction. Do not permit escape from work contingent on interfering behavior; continue pre-
senting the task regardless of the interfering behavior.
7. Functional communication training. Teach and reinforce an appropriate communicative
response (e.g., requests for a break) and place the interfering behavior on extinction.
8. Noncontingent escape. Provide brief breaks from work on a time-based schedule, irrespective
of interfering behavior.

Check out Chapter 11 for additional function-­focused treatment strategies!

Individually Mediated, Socially Mediated,

and Automatic Reinforcement
Reinforcement may be individually mediated, socially mediated, or automatic. With indi-
vidually mediated reinforcement, the behavior produces the reinforcement directly and
independent of others. With socially mediated reinforcement, someone else delivers rein-
forcement following the behavior. And with automatic reinforcement, the behavior directly
and immediately produces a biological or sensory consequence. Consider the following
examples to illustrate the distinctions between each form of reinforcement.

Individually Mediated Reinforcement

• You are thirsty, so you walk to the kitchen and open the refrigerator. When you
retrieve a preferred icy-cold beverage, you experience individually mediated posi-
tive reinforcement. The behavior of opening the refrigerator and reaching for a bev-
erage produced direct access to a preferred item.
• You are in a casino operating a slot machine. The behavior of pulling the lever of the
“one-armed bandit” (or, nowadays, pushing a button on the slot machine) eventually
produces a payload of coins (or, nowadays, bells, whistles, and a paper receipt). The
behavior of operating the slot machine therefore resulted in individually mediated
positive reinforcement.
32 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

• You need to begin the laborious process of writing a psychological evaluation report
but decide to check your e-mail instead. In this case, checking your e-mail repre-
sents a set of behaviors that produce both individually mediated positive reinforce-
ment (access to valuable messages from others) and individually mediated negative
reinforcement (avoidance of report writing). The action of checking e-mail resulted
in these consequences directly, and you were all by yourself!

Socially Mediated Reinforcement

• A student solves a complicated math problem independently, and the teacher deliv-
ers enthusiastic verbal praise to increase the likelihood of independent work com-
pletion in the future. In this case, the teacher delivered socially mediated positive
reinforcement.
• A paraprofessional verbally directs a student with a diagnosis of social phobia to
leave the classroom setting and go to the “cool-down room” when she engages in
interfering behaviors. The student engages in interfering behaviors when expected to
participate in small-group learning activities, which she considers highly aversive. In
this case, the student’s interfering behaviors resulted in socially mediated negative
reinforcement.

Automatic Reinforcement
• A young girl slowly and gently twirls her hair when she is alone in her room. The
hair-­twirling behavior produces pleasant sensations (e.g., the feeling of the hair twist-
ing in her hands and the slight tugging at her scalp). In this example, hair-­twirling
behavior produced automatic positive reinforcement.
• A student engages in hand-­f lapping behavior that results in a pleasant form of visual
stimulation. In this example, hand-­flapping behavior produced automatic positive
reinforcement.
• You have several mosquito bites, and the intense itching is “driving you crazy.” When
you scratch those little lumps, it temporarily reduces the intensity of the itching. In
this case, scratching behavior produced automatic negative reinforcement.
• Another young girl twirls her hair when alone. In this case, however, hair twirling
occurs with a high level of intensity and results in the loss of hair (trichotilloma-
nia). When interviewed, she reports that she typically twirls her hair when she feels
tense and that the behavior makes her feel better. In this case, hair-­twirling behav-
ior resulted in automatic negative reinforcement by alleviating/reducing an aversive
internal state.

These examples illustrate three key ideas. First, both individually and socially medi-
ated reinforcement involve consequences that are directly observable, whereas automatic
reinforcement results in an unobservable (private) event or physiological sensation. Sec-
ond, individually mediated, socially mediated, and automatic reinforcement may be further
classified as positive or negative (see Table 3.1). When the behavior results in access to
preferred social interactions, items, activities, or sensory stimulation, we classify those con-
sequences as positive reinforcers. In contrast, when the behavior results in a delay, reduc-
 Conceptual Foundations of FBA 33

TABLE 3.1. Classification of Reinforcement Contingencies

Reinforcement Individually mediated Socially mediated Automatic
Positive (+) Individually mediated Socially mediated Automatic positive
positive reinforcement positive reinforcement reinforcement (sensory
(direct access) (socially mediated stimulation)
access)

Negative (–) Individually mediated Socially mediated Automatic negative

negative reinforcement negative reinforcement reinforcement (arousal
(direct avoidance or (socially mediated reduction)
escape) avoidance or escape)

tion, or termination of an aversive social interaction, nonpreferred activity, or painful and

unpleasant internal state, we classify those consequences as negative reinforcers. Third,
behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement produce pleasant sensory stimulation
(automatic positive reinforcement) or alleviate unpleasant internal experiences (automatic
negative reinforcement) without anyone or anything present. This point is critical for under-
standing the rationale for the “alone” condition in functional analyses; interfering behaviors
exhibited when a student is alone point to an automatic reinforcement function. Behaviors
such as stereotypy, self-­injury, and certain habits (e.g., thumb sucking, nail biting, hair pull-
ing, and binge eating) are those most likely to be maintained by automatic reinforcement.

Out of the Frying Pan . . . but into the Fun

In our experience conducting school-­based FBAs, we often find that students’ interfering behaviors are
maintained by negative reinforcement contingencies: escape from “demands” or, as we like to reframe
it, “avoidance or termination of instructional opportunities.” In many cases, these “escape-­maintained”
interfering behaviors also result in concurrent access to positive reinforcers such as preferred tangibles
(e.g., “calming” sensory toys), activities (e.g., opportunities to engage in stereotypy or listen to music),
and/or social interactions (e.g., one-on-one conversations with the teacher or a classmate).
Consider the case of an adolescent (ironically named “Myway”) who considers homework to be
onerous and, in his words, “a royal pain in the ass . . . homework stinks.” When his parents instruct him
to complete assigned homework, Myway typically displays verbal opposition and sometimes engages in
property destruction. In response to these behaviors, Myway’s parents reluctantly report that they often
“give in” by negotiating alternative times to complete the assigned homework. The scenario usually
ends with Myway getting “his way” by (1) avoiding the homework assignment and (2) engaging in alter-
native preferred activities such as watching television or playing video games. Thus, in this example,
Myway’s interfering behaviors are reinforced both by (1) socially mediated negative reinforcement and
(2) individually mediated positive reinforcement. What a powerful cocktail—­and one that needs to be
addressed using a multicomponent intervention that targets both reinforcing contingencies!

ANTECEDENT VARIABLES

Antecedents are stimuli that occur prior to a behavior and make the behavior more prob-
able. There are two types of antecedents that momentarily increase the likelihood of inter-
fering behaviors: discriminative stimuli and motivating operations.
34 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Discriminative Stimuli
Behaviors occur in the presence of specific stimuli. Eventually, the stimuli regularly associ-
ated with a behavior occurring and contacting reinforcement (we call this repeated associa-
tion a learning history) serve as cues and increase the probability that the behavior will be
performed (Kazdin, 2001). The stimuli that precede the occurrence of behavior and signal
that reinforcement following the behavior is likely to occur are called discriminative stimuli
(SDs). In other words, SDs signal the availability of reinforcement and thereby increase the
probability of behavior. We are more likely to engage in behavior when the likelihood of
reinforcement is maximized; the SD is “telling us” that reinforcement is present and avail-
able. Unlike in respondent conditioning, when a stimulus directly elicits a response, in oper-
ant conditioning, an SD sets the occasion for a subsequent response.
A behavior is said to be under stimulus control when responses emitted in the pres-
ence of a particular SD produce reinforcement more often than responses that occur in the
absence of the SD. Or, stated in a slightly different way, a behavior that occurs at a higher rate
in the presence of a given stimulus than it does in its absence is said to be under stimulus con-
trol (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). For example, we answer a phone when it rings, but
not when it is silent, and we stop the car at intersections when the traffic signal is red, but not
when it is green (Cooper et al., 2007). When a behavior is under stimulus control, it is highly
probable (but not automatic) that the behavior will occur given the presence of a specific SD.
Sometimes the SDs are objects, and sometimes they are people. Consider a student who
snatches food left out on the teacher’s desk. The food itself functions as an SD for “food-­
snatching behavior.” Alternatively, consider a student who exhibits goofy behaviors that
have been socially reinforced by eye contact and laughter from specific classmates. The
student is more likely to engage in those behaviors when those classmates are present than
when they are absent; therefore the classmates function as SDs.

The Source of Reinforcement

When we conduct an FBA, we conceptualize an SD as the source of reinforcement.
• When behaviors are reinforced by individually mediated reinforcement, specific items, loca-
tions, or situations that signal the availability of reinforcement operate as SDs.
• When behaviors are reinforced by socially mediated reinforcement, the individuals who histori-
cally have delivered reinforcement operate as SDs.

Examples of SDs for Interfering Behaviors

The following case examples illustrate the effects of SDs on interfering behaviors. Hint:
Words in bold and italics signal the SD.

• Sam is a sophomore in high school who has difficulty completing assignments at

home (e.g., reading assigned chapters, writing papers, completing math computation
assignments). Sam typically completes homework in her bedroom. Sam’s bedroom
does not include a desk or chair, but does have a TV. Several times a week, Sam goes
to her bedroom with the best intentions of studying. However, after a few minutes of
 Conceptual Foundations of FBA 35

studying, she turns on the TV and starts channel surfing. For Sam, the TV is an SD
for watching television. Removing the TV from her bedroom and adding a desk (an
SD for studying) may reduce the likelihood of watching TV and increase the likeli-
hood of studying.
• A paraprofessional typically responds to a student’s vocal outbursts by delivering
reprimands and reminding the student about the importance of using an “indoor
voice.” The vocal outbursts continue to occur at a high rate, which suggests that
social attention provided by the paraprofessional is reinforcing. These outbursts are
most likely to occur when the paraprofessional is within earshot.
• A parent and adolescent recently had an argument. Initially, the adolescent requested
to use her parent’s car. The parent said no. This exchange escalated, and the adoles-
cent started shouting and threatening to walk to her friend’s house (3 miles away).
The frustrated parent finally said, “Fine! Take the damn keys! But you better be
home by 11:00 P.M. sharp!” Subsequently, the adolescent started arguments when the
parent and the parent’s car were both present.
• An adolescent opens the refrigerator and spies 18 bottles of cold beer. He takes three
bottles, knowing that his parents will not notice a few missing from a full refrigerator.
• A child is on a pediatric inpatient unit recovering from orthopedic surgery. Twice per
day, an occupational therapist (OT) performs range-of-­motion stretching with the
child. The OT reports that the child “swears like a sailor” during therapy sessions.
The psychologist conducts a behavior-­analytic observation and confirms that swear-
ing behavior does indeed occur within therapy sessions. The psychologist also notices
a pattern. As the stretching intensifies, the child starts to complain about the pain.
When the OT breaks out in song (“just a little bit longer . . . just a little bit more . . . ”),
the student exhibits swearing behavior, and the OT immediately terminates the
stretching trial. The psychologist observes this pattern 12 times. In this case, the OT
is an SD signaling the availability of socially mediated negative reinforcement (i.e.,
escape from aversive therapy sessions . . . and perhaps from that falsetto singing).

Motivating Operations
Antecedents other than an SDs also influence the occurrence of behavior (Iwata, Smith, &
Michael, 2000). Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, and Poling (2003) used the overarching term
motivating operation (MO) to describe antecedent variables that momentarily alter the like-
lihood of behavior by changing the effectiveness (value) of consequences. MOs that evoke
interfering behaviors generally involve either (1) the deprivation of a preferred (reinforcing)
stimulus or (2) the presentation of a nonpreferred (aversive) stimulus. Deprivation of pre-
ferred social interactions, items, or activities tends to make students “want” those reinforc-
ers even more, and the presentation of aversive social interactions and nonpreferred tasks
tends to make students “want” to escape even more; accordingly, given these MOs, stu-
dents are more likely to engage in interfering behaviors maintained by those momentarily
valuable consequences. A single MO may influence multiple behaviors and consequences
simultaneously (Mace, Gritter, Johnson, Malley, & Steege, 2006), but, within the context of
an FBA, we are primarily concerned with identifying the MOs that “motivate” interfering
behaviors.
36 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Examples of MOs for Interfering Behaviors

The following case examples illustrate the effects of MOs on interfering behaviors. Hint:
Words in bold and italics signal the MO.

• Remember Kent? Kent engages in wisecracking behaviors reinforced by social atten-

tion from classmates. His teacher decides to intervene by separating him from pre-
ferred classmates. This intervention results in deprivation of preferred social inter-
actions, which functions as an MO by temporarily increasing (1) the value of social
attention as a reinforcer and (2) the probability of wisecracks and other forms of
behavior that produce social attention (socially mediated positive reinforcement).

Bojangles: Now That’s a Warning Stimulus!

During my (Steege) senior year of high school, I was enrolled in a history class with an outstanding
and inspiring teacher, Mr. Bojangles. His knowledge of history and numerous stories about his travels
around the world filled us with a sense of awe and opened our Midwestern minds to a vast array of
challenges and possibilities. He used to say, “Anything is possible, dream big.” I’ll always remember him
for his optimism and hope for the future. I’ll also always remember him for one particular habit that over
time became associated with the nastiest, smelliest, and foulest of odors that have ever exited a human
body. Although he never offered any sort of explanation or medical diagnosis, he often punctuated
class discussion with a penetrating release of gaseous fumes that would, well, gag a goat. But these
“gas attacks” were not without warning. In fact, he had another odd habit of jingling coins in his pants
pocket. Over time, we realized that the sound of jingling coins was soon followed by a choking concoc-
tion of deadly fumes. So here’s the deal. In his attempt to cover the sound of flatulence, he would jingle
the coins. But the jingle of coins only masked the sound of flatulence; it did not eliminate the offensive
odor that was sure to follow. We quickly learned to associate the sound of jingling coins with the forth-
coming odors. The jingling coins signaled a worsening aversive condition (a motivating operation). The
jingling of coins acted as an early defense warning system that served to increase the value of escape
from the classroom environment. Over time, students began to realize that the safest thing to do at
the earliest sound of the jingling of coins was to exit the classroom. So, Mr. Bojangles would be lead-
ing an inspiring class discussion, we’d see him reach into his right pocket (the first warning stimulus),
we’d heard the sound of jingling coins (the second warning stimulus), and then we’d immediately make
excuses to leave the classroom. The mass exodus was comparable to scenes from the movie Jaws when
panicked swimmers scrambled to the beach to escape shark-­infested waters.
While this is clearly an exaggerated example, it does illustrate the powerful influence of anteced-
ent variables. Now, let’s turn our attention to some more relevant examples. Consider the following
examples of warning stimuli MOs (highlighted in bold and italics).
• A student with a reading disability and performance anxiety engages in disruptive behavior
when prompted to read orally. The prompt is predictive of aversive events (e.g., making errors,
experiencing unpleasant physiological arousal), establishes escape as a valuable reinforcer, and
evokes escape-­maintained interfering behaviors.
• When the classroom teacher says, “OK, boys and girls, please get out your arithmetic books,”
Sandy often asks to go to the bathroom, her locker, the nurse’s office, and so forth. This prompt
is predictive of aversive events (i.e., dreaded arithmetic lessons), establishes escape as a valu-
able reinforcer, and evokes escape-­maintained interfering behaviors.
• A student is engaged in free play (e.g., coloring). He sees the teacher organizing instructional
materials and begins to make protest statements. The teacher’s behavior is predictive of wors-
ening (i.e., the end of coloring!), establishes avoidance as a valuable reinforcer, and evokes
avoidance behaviors.
 Conceptual Foundations of FBA 37

• Remember those mosquito bites and that “itchy feeling”? The itchy sensation is an
MO. It is an aversive stimulus that temporarily increases (1) the value of relief (i.e.,
terminating the itching) and (2) the probability of scratching behavior that produces
relief (automatic negative reinforcement).
• Al Gebra is a student with a history of academic delays in math computation. When
presented with a packet of math worksheets, he immediately engages in verbal oppo-
sition and property destruction. Per the predetermined behavior plan, the teacher
responds to these behaviors by directing Al Gebra to an isolation area where he is
directed to think about his behavior and consider more appropriate ways to respond
in the future. The math worksheets remain at his desk. The presentation of math
worksheets (an aversive stimulus) functions as an MO by temporarily increasing (1)
the value of task avoidance/termination and (2) the probability of interfering behav-
iors that result in task avoidance/termination (socially mediated negative reinforce-
ment).
• Sebat is a student who receives one-on-one instructional support from a highly effec-
tive and preferred teacher. When another student, Jowayne, asks for assistance, the
teacher diverts her attention from Sebat to help Jowayne. Sebat immediately exhib-
its self-­biting behaviors. The teacher turns to Sebat and says, “Please stop. I don’t like
it when you hurt yourself,” and Sebat stops. In this situation, the teacher diverting
her attention is predictive of deprivation of attention. This is an MO that temporarily
increases the value of teacher attention and evokes behaviors that historically have
produced teacher attention (socially mediated positive reinforcement).
• Otitis is a student with a history of ear infections who is very sensitive to loud noises.
The fire alarm is activated. Otitis immediately covers his ears with cupped hands
and bolts from the classroom into the school courtyard. The fire alarm is an aversive
stimulus (MO) that temporarily increases the value of escape and evokes escape-­
maintained behaviors (individually mediated negative reinforcement).

SDs and MOs

SDs and MOs share two important similarities: both (1) occur before behavior and (2)
momentarily increase the probability of behavior. However, SDs signal that reinforcement is
available and probable, whereas MOs alter the value of reinforcing consequences. The real-
world distinction may be stated as follows: MOs change how much people want something;
SDs change their chance of getting it (McGill, 1999).
MOs also directly influence SDs by increasing the effectiveness of SDs for occasioning
behavior. To understand this influence, consider Brady, an adolescent with autism who had
gained a considerable amount of weight over the past year. Due to health concerns, his team
decided to place him on a diet to promote weight loss at the rate of 2 pounds per month. In
addition to reducing his portions and providing him with low-fat meals, the team replaced
preferred edible reinforcers such as chocolate chips, raisins, and chocolate-­covered peanuts
with healthier alternatives such as carrots, celery, and radishes. After 2 months on this plan,
Brady had not lost any weight. In fact, he had gained 3 pounds. Even worse, Brady had a
new interfering behavior in his repertoire: food stealing (e.g., taking food from others, raid-
ing the refrigerator, and rummaging through the garbage).
38 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

I Need a Cup of Coffee

Imagine that you are on a road trip. You wake up early, decide to beat the rush-hour traffic, and hit the
road. You are driving through an unfamiliar city. You really like your morning coffee, and you really prefer
a certain brand of coffee (no gas-­station or fast-food coffee for you!). For fun, let’s say your preferred
brand is “Star-­Dunkin.” You have not had any coffee for 26 hours, and that’s basically a record for you.
So, what do we know so far?
• Coffee (particularly Star-­Dunkin coffee) functions as a reinforcer for you.
• You are seriously deprived of coffee (a motivating operation).
As you drive, you are on the lookout for a Star-­Dunkin shop. You know they are popular in this
region, so you are hypervigilant as you scour the passing malls and shopping centers where Star-­Dunkin
chains are typically located. So now, what else do we know?
• Star-­Dunkin shops are SDs that signal the availability of reinforcement.
In sum, the MO (deprivation of coffee) makes coffee more valuable, purchasing coffee more prob-
able, and Star-­Dunkin shops more salient.
Lo and behold, you spy a Star-­Dunkin shop! You pull over and purchase an 18-ounce mug of
steaming-­hot coffee. You get back into your car and continue on your trip. Within the next 5 minutes,
you see two more Star-­Dunkin shops. Do you pull over and get more coffee? Of course not. Your coffee
fix has been met. The MO has been abolished, temporarily. The effect of coffee satiation is threefold:
• The value of coffee is momentarily reduced.
• The behavior of purchasing coffee is now less likely.
• Star-­Dunkin shops as an SD are now irrelevant. In fact, you may drive past the next three shops
and barely notice them!
The moral of the story: You can’t always get what you need . . . but sometimes you can get what
you want—and it is exactly what you need at the moment.

Question: So, what’s going on here?

Answer: Brady is experiencing food deprivation, which increases the value of restricted
food items. Because of his increased motivation to obtain food, Brady is now highly obser-
vant of his environment and is constantly “on the lookout” for food. In fact, stimuli that had
never previously occasioned food-­seeking behavior are now functioning as “triggers” for
food stealing. For example, when Brady sees the refrigerator, the food pantry, peers’ lunch
boxes, cafeteria trays, and the trash container in the kitchen, he is likely to attempt food-­
stealing behaviors. Thus, in this example, the deprivation of food (an MO) increases:

• The value of food as a positive reinforcer;

• The probability of food-­stealing behavior; and
• The effectiveness of SDs in signaling the availability of food reinforcers and occasion-
ing food-­stealing behavior.

ANTECEDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES: A SUMMARY

MOs are stimuli or events that momentarily alter the value of consequences and the likeli-
hood of behaviors maintained by those valuable consequences. The primary MOs that trig-
ger interfering behaviors fall into two categories:
 Conceptual Foundations of FBA 39

1. Deprivation of reinforcers (e.g., social attention, edibles, tangibles, and activities).

2. Presentation of aversive stimuli (e.g., unwanted social interactions, difficult tasks,
and painful sensations).

SDs signal the availability of reinforcement and therefore set the occasion for behavior.
S s that trigger interfering behaviors may be conceptualized as sources of reinforcement,
D

which may include:

• Actual reinforcing items or locations that signal the availability of reinforcers.

• People correlated with the delivery of reinforcement.

Reinforcing consequences are stimuli or events that follow and strengthen behaviors.
Interfering behaviors may be maintained by one or more of the following forms of reinforce-
ment:

• Individually mediated positive reinforcement (direct access).

• Individually mediated negative reinforcement (direct avoidance/escape).
• Socially mediated positive reinforcement (socially provided access).
• Socially mediated negative reinforcement (socially provided avoidance/escape).
• Automatic positive reinforcement (sensory stimulation).
• Automatic negative reinforcement (arousal reduction).

ADDITIONAL BEHAVIOR‑ANALYTIC TERMS AND CONCEPTS

Response Classes (When It Rains . . . It Pours)
Sometimes behaviors with varying topographies have similar functional antecedents and
consequences. (This is just our cool way of saying that behaviors that look different may be
very alike in that they share the same antecedents and consequences.) In these cases, we say
that these behaviors are members of the same response class. For example, behaviors such
as hitting, kicking, slapping, and biting of others, while having different topographies, may
be occasioned by the same discriminative stimuli, evoked by the same motivating opera-
tions, and reinforced by the same consequences. Oftentimes, these behaviors occur as a
response set, which means that two or more of the behaviors in the response class occur
within the context of a single behavioral episode. When it rains, it pours.

Response Class Hierarchies (First the Sky Darkens, Then There Is

Thunder and Lightning Followed by a Light Rain . . . Then It Pours)
Sometimes, behaviors that are members of the same response class occur in a predictable
sequence or chain. Often, the initial response in the chain is a low-­intensity behavior that
causes minimal disruption. When this behavior does not result in reinforcement, the student
may escalate by exhibiting increasingly intense behaviors within the same response class.
And when these behaviors are not reinforced, the student may display even more intense
behavior, and so forth and so on, until a behavior results in the desired reinforcement. The
terminal behavior in the chain tends to be one of high intensity and robust disruption.
40 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

What the Func . . . tion?

This is a true story from many years ago concerning my (Steege) two sons, Matt and Dan.
I came home from working in my position as a pediatric psychologist at the University of Iowa
Hospital School inpatient unit, where we were conducting clinical research on the assessment and
treatment of self-­injury. When I walked into the house, I heard a loud slapping noise coming from the
living room. I entered the living room to find Matt slapping himself, first on his arm, then on his leg,
and then on his other arm. Of course, I did what any parent would do: I picked up the clipboard labeled
“Matt’s Bizarre Behaviors” and began to collect data using a 6-second partial interval procedure to
record occurrences of self-­slapping behavior. Just kidding! I simply asked, “Matt, what are you doing?”
He looked up and said, “Hey, Dad. I’m slapping myself.” I replied, “Hey, Matt. Why are you slapping
yourself?” His next response was rather shocking: “Mom told me to.”
I immediately picked up another clipboard labeled “Lisa’s Unorthodox Behavioral Recommenda-
tions” and recorded my anecdotal observations and the results of the semistructured interview with
Matt. Just kidding! Now, at this point it is probably important to note that Matt was about halfway
through a bout of chicken pox. Those pox were at the really itchy stage, and Matt had been scratching
at those pox to relieve the itchy feeling.
My wife, Lisa, who is now a special educator and a BCBA, recognized that the itchy feeling from
the pox was an MO that established the effectiveness of automatic negative reinforcement (arousal
reduction) and increased the probability of itch-­reducing behaviors (i.e., scratching). Simply telling
Matt, “Don’t scratch,” was only effective when she was present. So she decided to use differential
reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) by prompting Matt to slap the itchy pox as a replacement
for scratching behavior. The slap had the same effect as scratching (arousal reduction—­it reduced
the itchy feeling), but without the harmful side effects. Hence, Matt’s self-­slapping behavior. Problem
solved. Time to unwind.
Just when I get this all figured out, little Dan comes running into the room after a long nap. He
spied Matt on the couch and yelled, “Brubber! Look!” He then proceeded to vigorously slap his forehead
with the open palm of his right hand. Matt, being a loving and caring older brother, found this to be
hysterically funny and quickly said, “Dan, do it again.” And of course Dan did it again . . . and again . . .
and again.
I then did what any parent would do. I picked up the clipboard labeled “Dan’s Goofy Behaviors”
and began to record occurrences of self-­slapping behaviors. This time I’m not kidding. All right, just
kidding! Now, Dan was only 18 months old and had limited expressive communication skills. So asking
him what was going on was out of the question. Also, Dan did not have chicken pox (yet!). So why was
he slapping himself? His forehead didn’t itch. The slapping was not reducing an internal state of arousal.
To figure out the function of Dan’s behavior, identify the following and then read on for the answers.
• What was the reinforcing consequence?
• What was the MO?
• What was the SD?

So here’s the deal: I had two sons who engaged in responses that looked the same—self-­
slapping—­but for very different reasons. Each son’s behaviors were evoked, occasioned, and main-
tained by different circumstances. In other words, they displayed similar behaviors with completely dif-
ferent functions. Matt engaged in self-­slapping evoked by an itchy sensation and reinforced by a sense
of relief. Dan engaged in self-­slapping after a period of attention deprivation (MO), in the presence of his
brother (SD), to get his brother’s attention (socially mediated positive reinforcement).
The moral of the story: You can observe, record, and describe the form of a behavior, but to
understand the function, you must conduct a functional assessment to identify behavior–­environment
relations.
 Conceptual Foundations of FBA 41

Case Example: Response Class Hierarchies

Let’s consider the case of Michelle, a student with an intellectual disability who really likes
attention from her teachers. Michelle has a variety of behaviors in her repertoire for obtain-
ing teacher attention (a reinforcing consequence). She exhibits a wide range of socially
appropriate behaviors to access social attention. For example, depending on the situation,
she may ask for help, say hello, or complete an assignment to show her teacher. Very infre-
quently, Michelle also engages in interfering behaviors such as clearing her throat loudly,
yelling, “Hey, heyyy, heyyyy,” slapping the table, and picking at scabs on her hands. A com-
prehensive FBA indicated that these interfering behaviors all produced intermittent access
to social attention. In other words, these “attention-­seeking behaviors” formed a response
class.
Due to the unexpected absence of two paraprofessionals and the unavailability of
trained substitutes, the teacher-­ to-­
student ratio within Michelle’s classroom abruptly
shifted from 4:10 to 2:10. Michelle, who typically displays few, if any, interfering behaviors,
is receiving much less attention from the classroom teachers than usual. (This reduction of
attention functions as a motivating operation that increases the value of teacher attention as
a reinforcer.) Michelle initially displays an appropriate behavior to gain teacher attention:
politely asking for assistance. The teacher asks her to “wait her turn.” Michelle then gets
up from her desk, walks to the teacher, and politely asks for help again. The teacher asks
her to “wait just a minute more.” Several minutes pass without social interactions from the
teachers, and Michelle clears her throat three times and says, “I need help, please.” There
is still no response from her teacher. She then loudly yells, “Heyyy, heyyyy, heyyyyyyyy”
and slaps the table six times. The teacher looks at Michelle and sternly says, “Michelle, you
know better. Now behave.” Michelle pauses and stares, like a famished lioness studying her
prey, and then begins to pick at some scabs on her hand until they bleed. At this point, her
teacher runs over and says, “Michelle, don’t do that! You’re hurting yourself and making a
mess!” Finally . . . reinforcement! In our role as consultants, we see this sequence played out
many times across all types of classrooms and grade levels, by students with varied excep-
tionalities who display all types of interfering behaviors.

The Matching Law

The matching law (Herrnstein, 1961, 1970) predicts that individuals will allocate respond-
ing across concurrent response options in direct proportion to the rate of reinforcement
obtained for each response (i.e., relative rates of responding will match relative rates of
reinforcement). In other words, when presented with behavioral choices, individuals typi-
cally spend more time engaging in behaviors that produce relatively more reinforcement.
The matching law helps explain why students do what they do, and research shows that the
matching law effectively predicts relative rates of appropriate and interfering behaviors in
the classroom environment (Billington & DiTommaso, 2003; Martens, Halperin, Rummel,
& Kilpatrick, 1990; Martens & Houk, 1989; Shriver & Kramer, 1997).
To illustrate the concept of the matching law, consider Bonita, a 12-year-old student
with a behavioral disorder. Throughout her school day, Bonita faces a basic choice between
engaging in appropriate behavior and engaging in interfering behavior. This simple choice
situation is continuous, and she can choose to engage in either appropriate or interfering
42 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

behaviors at any given moment. Now, no matter how disruptive Bonita can be, she does
not display interfering behavior for 100% of the school day. According to the matching law,
the percentage of time that Bonita would be expected to engage in interfering behaviors is
based primarily on the rate of reinforcement she obtains. When rates of reinforcement for
appropriate behaviors are high and rates of reinforcement for interfering behaviors are low,
Bonita is likely to spend relatively more time engaged in appropriate behaviors. In contrast,
when rates of reinforcement for appropriate behaviors are low and rates of reinforcement
for interfering behaviors are high, Bonita is likely to spend relatively more time engaged
in interfering behaviors. Given that neither interfering behavior nor appropriate behav-
ior results in reinforcement 100% of the time, engaging in both behaviors maximizes the
amount of reinforcement she receives; therefore, sometimes Bonita may engage in appropri-
ate behaviors and then switch to interfering behaviors, or vice versa. Effective intervention
for Bonita, and indeed any student, thus requires maximizing the rate of reinforcement for
appropriate behaviors and minimizing the rate of reinforcement for interfering behaviors.
Of course, human behavior is not as simple as Bonita’s example implies, and multiple
variables influence choice making. For example, in addition to the rate of reinforcement,
the value of reinforcers and the response effort required to obtain reinforcement directly
affect choice behavior (Cooper et al., 2007; Hoch, McComas, Johnson, Faranda, & Guen-
ther, 2002; Mace & Roberts, 1993; Volkert, Lerman, & Vorndran, 2005). Reinforcement
varies from being weak to robust, and the following parameters of reinforcement determine
robustness:

• Schedule. The schedule of reinforcement roughly determines the rate of reinforce-

ment, and students typically choose to engage in behaviors that produce higher rates
of reinforcement.
• Magnitude. Magnitude refers to the quantity, duration, or intensity of the reinforcer.
For example, an entire piece of pie is a larger-­magnitude reinforcer than a single bite
of pie. Students typically choose to engage in behaviors that produce higher magni-
tudes of reinforcement.
• Quality. The quality of reinforcement reflects preference. For example, if a student’s
most preferred beverage is root beer, then root beer is a higher-­quality reinforcer
than water. Students typically choose to engage in behaviors that produce higher-­
quality reinforcers.
• Timing. Timing refers to the immediacy of reinforcement. For example, there is a
significant difference between earning a break now and earning a break in 2 hours.
Students typically choose to engage in behaviors that produce more immediate rein-
forcers.
• Response effort. Response effort refers to the physical or cognitive energy required
to perform a behavior. For example, the amount of effort required for a student with
a reading disability and below-grade-level math computation skills to read and solve
word problems (“It is February 1. Train A left the station in Boston traveling northeast
to Portland, Maine, at an average speed of 40 mph. Train B left the station in New
York traveling south to Miami at 90 mph. Which train do you want to be riding on?”)
may be far greater than the amount of effort required to say, “Nah. I’m not gonna do
it.” Students typically choose to engage in behaviors that produce reinforcement with
 Conceptual Foundations of FBA 43

the least amount of effort. So, if an interfering behavior requires minimal effort, and
the desired replacement behavior is extremely effortful, an intervention is unlikely
to be effective.

It is important to consider each of these factors during the FBA process, as they have
direct implications for designing effective treatment plans. To illustrate this point, let’s
revisit the case of Creed, the 8-year-old who exhibited interfering behaviors such as throw-
ing materials, yelling at the teacher, climbing on desks, and running out of the room when
presented with writing tasks. FBA results indicated the following:

• Writing assignments are difficult for Creed.

• Avoiding assignments that required writing was a valuable reinforcer.
• Interfering behavior always resulted in Creed being directed to the principal’s office.
• Episodes of disruptive behavior ranged in duration from 20 seconds to 3 minutes
before he was directed to the principal’s office.
• Creed typically stayed alone in the principal’s office without anything to do for
20–30 minutes before returning to the classroom.
• Creed was not required to complete missed writing assignments when he returned
to the classroom.

Table 3.2 illustrates the robustness or “power” of the reinforcing consequences for
Creed’s interfering behaviors. This analysis suggests that the socially mediated negative
reinforcement he receives for interfering behaviors is indeed powerful. In fact, if our goal
was to increase and maintain a particular behavior, the parameters of reinforcement out-
lined in the case of Creed would likely accomplish just that! By conceptualizing Creed’s
behaviors in terms of the matching law, it becomes clear that we need to design an inter-
vention that arranges very robust reinforcement for an appropriate replacement behavior
(e.g., academic engagement, work completion, requesting a break, or asking for assistance).
This may be accomplished by minimizing the value of reinforcement for interfering behav-
iors, while ensuring that the target replacement behavior is simple and produces consistent,
immediate, and high-­quality reinforcement.

TABLE 3.2. Parameters of Reinforcement Maintaining Creed’s Behavior

Schedule of reinforcement Dense: Fixed ratio 1 for each episode (i.e., each behavioral episode
is followed by reinforcement).

Magnitude of reinforcement High: 20–30 minutes of escape.

Quality of reinforcement Moderate: Escape from a highly aversive task, but no access to
highly preferred alternatives.

Timing of reinforcement Variable: 20-second to 3-minute delay prior to reinforcement.

Response effort Moderate: High physical effort, but less cognitive effort than
required for writing.
44 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

In sum, an understanding of the matching law and an analysis of the parameters of

reinforcement (both for target interfering and replacement behaviors) help us understand
why students make certain choices and tell us what we’re up against when we design inter-
ventions. Assessing the parameters of reinforcement allows us to answer the following ques-
tions:

• How robust is the reinforcing consequence that is maintaining the interfering behav-
ior?
• How robust is the reinforcing consequence that is intended to maintain the logical
replacement behavior?

For Creed, the most logical replacement behavior is the completion of writing assign-
ments. However, assessment of the parameters of reinforcement provided for completing
writing assignments showed the following: writing behavior resulted in intermittent rein-
forcement every 5–10 minutes (schedule), brief and relatively low-value reinforcement in
the form of one to two statements like “nice job” (quality and magnitude), and fairly delayed
reinforcement (timing). Additionally, the response effort for writing was high. The rein-
forcing contingencies for interfering behavior were far more powerful than the reinforcing
contingencies for writing, and Creed’s behavior is easily predicted by the matching law. No
wonder Creed did what he did!

Reinforcement of Creed’s Behaviors: Summary of Parameters

• Socially mediated negative reinforcement for interfering behaviors: POWERFUL
• Socially mediated positive reinforcement for writing behaviors: TEENY-WEENY

SUMMARY

Wow! Clearly the analysis of human behavior is not simple. Behavior is often the result of
a complex interaction of multiple variables. This interaction is not necessarily linear, and
behavior certainly is not static. Conducting an FBA requires consideration of all possible
controlling antecedent and consequence variables and careful analysis of the reinforcing
consequences for both interfering and appropriate behaviors. In the following chapters we
discuss a variety of methods that may be used to tease out the variables that influence and
maintain behavior.
To conclude this chapter, we offer resources for readers who are interested in learning
more about the conceptual foundations of FBA and behavior-­analytic interventions. There
are numerous sources we could suggest, and we apologize if we have neglected seminal
original works that would deepen your understanding of these principles and concepts. So,
here’s our “playlist.” Please add your own favorites.
 Conceptual Foundations of FBA 45

1. Steege and Watson (2009)

• Chapter 4: Everything You Always Wanted to Know about the Conceptual Foun-
dations of Functional Behavioral Assessments . . . but Were Afraid to Ask: Or,
Basic Principles of Functional Behavioral Assessment
2. Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2007)
• Chapter 1: Definition and Characteristics of Applied Behavior Analysis
• Chapter 2: Basic Concepts
• Chapter 16: Motivating Operations
• Chapter 17: Stimulus Control
• Chapter 24: Functional Behavioral Assessment
3. Fisher, Piazza, and Roane (2011)
• Chapter 7: Defining and Measuring Behavior
• Chapter 8: Single-­Case Experimental Designs
• Chapter 10: Functional and Structural Approaches to Behavioral Assessment of
Problem Behavior
• Chapter 11: Indirect Behavioral Assessments: Interviews and Rating Scales
• Chapter 12: Direct Observation
• Chapter 19: Developing Function-­Based Extinction Procedures
• Chapter 20: Developing Function-­Based Reinforcement Procedures
4. Mayer, Sulzer-­Azaroff, and Wallace (2019)
• Chapter 2: Designing Effective Strategies of Change: Essential Building Blocks
• Chapter 5: Reinforcment: Fueling Behavior Change
• Chapter 6: Increasing Behavior by Developing and Selecting Powerful Reinforc-
ers
• Chapter 10: Setting a Foundation for Positive Change: Identifying Participant’s
Functional Reinforcers
• Chapter 11: Rapidly Attaining Positive Change: Implementing Reinforcement
Effectively
• Chapter 22: Maintaining Behavior: Ratio and Related Schedules of Reinforce-
ment
• Chapter 23: Maintaining Behavior by Arranging Time-Based Schedules of Rein-
forcement
5. NASP (Best Practices in School Psychology, 2014)
• Chapter 18: Best Practices in Conducting Functional Behavioral Assessments
• Chapter 20: Best Practices in Can’t Do/Won’t Do Academic Assessment
• Chapter 27: Best Practices in Evaluating the Effectiveness of Interventions Using
Single-­Case Methods
 CHAPTER 4

Behavior Analysis of Medical

Conditions, Emotions, and Thoughts

Without deviation from the norm,

progress is not possible.
—Frank Z appa (1940–1993)

A comprehensive FBA involves analyzing the relationships between student behavior and
the environment. Environment, though, is a broad concept. Some aspects of the environ-
ment are readily observable. For example, we can directly observe social interactions, the
presentation or removal of academic tasks, the noise level in a classroom, and a variety of
other variables that function as both antecedents and consequences for interfering behavior.
The student’s internal environment is not directly observable, but just as important. In fact,
we believe that a complete conceptualization of student behavior requires consideration of
“private events” such as biological variables, emotions, and thoughts. This chapter provides
a framework for understanding the manner in which biological/medical variables, emotions,
and thoughts influence behavior.

BIOLOGICAL AND MEDICAL INFLUENCES ON BEHAVIOR

It is common to hear that it is important to “rule out” biological and medical variables when
conducting assessments and designing behavior support plans. On one level, this is an ethi-
cally responsible approach. When we conduct FBAs and discover that there are biological/
medical factors co-­occurring with interfering behaviors, we maintain a responsibility to
refer students for appropriate services. Consider, for example, a student who was referred
for an FBA of self-­injurious eye-­rubbing behavior. The evaluator recognized that medical
conditions such as allergies may lead to eye-­rubbing behavior and therefore referred the
student to a pediatrician. As a result of this referral, the student received a prescription
for allergy medication (an oral antihistamine), and the self-­injurious eye-­rubbing behaviors
abated soon thereafter without behavioral intervention.
46
 Behavior Analysis of Medical Conditions, Emotions, and Thoughts 47

The BACB’s Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts (2014)
requires that “behavior analysts recommend seeking medical consultation if there is any
reasonable possibility that a referred behavior is influenced by medical or biological vari-
ables” (Section 3.02). Instead of adopting a basic “rule-out” approach, though, we recom-
mend conducting FBAs that “rule in” biological and medical factors by analyzing how these
variables influence and contribute to interfering behaviors. If internal variables are part
of the problem, then they need to be part of the analysis, and strategies addressing these
variables need to be part of the solution.

How Exactly Do Biological and Medical Variables Affect

Interfering Behaviors?
Biological and medical variables may influence behaviors in two ways: (1) by increasing the
value of reinforcing consequences and evoking behaviors that produce those consequences
(an establishing operation) or (2) by decreasing the value of reinforcing consequences and
suppressing behaviors that produce those consequences (an abolishing operation). In other
words, biological and medical variables may function as motivating operations that alter
the value of reinforcers and temporarily increase or decrease the likelihood of interfering
behaviors (May & Kennedy, 2010).
O’Reilly (1997) demonstrated that health-­related discomfort may function as an estab-
lishing operation by conducting a functional analysis of self-­injury (i.e., back banging and
ear poking) with a 26-month-old girl diagnosed with Williams syndrome, intellectual dis-
ability, and intermittent otitis media. Assessment results indicated that self-­injury occurred
only during periods of otitis media and served an escape function. O’Reilly thus hypoth-
esized that otitis media served as an establishing operation, which increased (1) the value
of escape from loud noises and (2) the probability of escape-­maintained self-­injury. This
example clearly illustrates the importance of “ruling in” medical variables when conducting
an FBA. By “ruling in” the condition of otitis media, the assessment revealed patterns of
behavior that may signal the need for a medical referral and provided useful information
for designing a positive behavior support plan. For example, given knowledge of the rela-
tionship between self-­injury and otitis media, parents and teachers could teach the child to
request to leave locations that are too noisy and proactively reduce the child’s exposure to
loud environments during infection flare-ups.
Health-­related conditions like otitis media also may function as abolishing operations
by reducing the value of reinforcing consequences that typically maintain appropriate
behaviors. Consider Al, a 10-year-old student with developmental disabilities who loves to
play music. Al has a positive behavior support plan that arranges opportunities for him to
play the drums, a keyboard, or a guitar contingent on the completion of academic assign-
ments. Now, imagine that Al experiences a severe earache that makes the sound of musical
instruments rather aversive. The opportunity to play music may not function as an effective
reinforcer when he experiences an earache; therefore, the likelihood of academic work com-
pletion may temporarily decrease. This example helps make sense of a commonly observed
situation: When students are sick, hungry, sleep deprived, or otherwise experiencing physi-
cal discomfort, they are more likely to have a “bad day.” From a behavior-­analytic per-
spective, it is probable that physical discomfort temporarily decreases the effectiveness of
48 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

many typical reinforcers (e.g., swinging, playing catch, or listening to music) and therefore
decreases the likelihood of engaging in appropriate behaviors to access those reinforcers.
In sum, there is strong evidence to suggest that a wide range of biological and medical
factors may influence behavior by altering motivation. May and Kennedy (2010) summa-
rized empirical research suggesting that otitis media, allergies, sleep disturbances, consti-
pation, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and dysmenorrhea may contribute to occurrences
of interfering behavior in individuals with intellectual disability. In our experience, we also
have worked with students whose behavior has been influenced by medication side effects,
tooth pain, urinary tract infections, skin rashes, streptococcal infections, seizure activity,
joint pain, and a host of other conditions. Clearly, there is more to behavior than meets the
eye, and “ruling in” health factors during the FBA process is a must.

The Case of Barb

Nearly 30 years ago, Wacker and colleagues (1990) reported on the case of Barb, a 30-year-old
woman with untreated phenylketonuria (PKU). PKU is an inherited genetic disorder affecting the pro-
duction of the enzyme required to break down phenylalanine. Unless an individual with PKU adheres to
a specialized diet, levels of phenylalanine can build up to dangerous levels and cause severe neurologi-
cal damage. As a result of her condition, Barb presented with significant intellectual disability.
Barb engaged in high rates of stereotypic behaviors, including nearly continuous body rocking.
These “overactive” behaviors interfered with her participation in daily routines; therefore, she was
referred for assessment and treatment. After a functional analysis indicated that Barb’s behaviors were
maintained by automatic reinforcement, a functional communication training intervention was imple-
mented. Barb was taught to press a microswitch when she wanted to leave her chair and participate in
a competing recreational motor activity: using an exercise bike or rocking chair. The stereotypic rocking
behavior never occurred during reinforcement periods, and subsequent to her participation in the study,
the clinical team successfully extended her intervention program to include a dense schedule of func-
tional motoric activities such as vacuuming and wiping tables, which both converted the motivation to
move into meaningful activity.
In light of current knowledge about the motivational influence of biological variables, Barb’s case
may be reconceptualized as follows:
• MO: Overarousal due to PKU
• SD: Alone (i.e., absence of individuals to interrupt stereotypic rocking)
• Interfering behavior: Stereotypic rocking
• Reinforcing consequence: Automatic negative reinforcement/arousal reduction

THE INFLUENCE OF EMOTIONS ON BEHAVIOR

It does not help in the solution of a practical problem to be told that some feature of a man’s behavior
is due to frustration or anxiety; we also need to be told how the frustration or anxiety has been induced
and how it may be altered.
—B. F. Skinner (1953, p. 167)

OK, before we go down this road we want to offer some background information. B. F. Skin-
ner was considered a radical behaviorist. Many people erroneously think that the term radical
means that he endorsed extreme viewpoints. Instead, Skinner identified himself as a radical
 Behavior Analysis of Medical Conditions, Emotions, and Thoughts 49

behaviorist because he rejected the prevailing (and overly simplistic) philosophies of behav-
iorism and embraced the idea that private events such as emotions contribute to behavior.
In numerous publications, such as Science and Human Behavior (1953), Verbal Behav-
ior (1957), and About Behaviorism (1974), Skinner explored the role of private events (e.g.,
anger, anxiety, depression) within the analysis of behavior. Although Skinner offered tenta-
tive hypotheses about the influence of emotional variables on human behavior, he did not
fully articulate or experimentally demonstrate the manner in which private events interact
with external environmental variables to evoke and maintain behavior. Instead, he pre-
sented possibilities and challenged the field to engage in further inquiry.
So if the field of behavior analysis has acknowledged the influence of private events on
behavior for over 60 years, why has nearly every published article, chapter, and book on FBA
ignored the role of emotions in the analysis of variables that contribute to occurrences of
interfering behavior? A common explanation is that emotions cannot be directly observed,
objectively measured, or easily subjected to experimental analysis. We, however, question
the assumption that all variables that influence behavior need to be observed, measured,
and tested directly in the context of an FBA. As we just discussed, the behavior-­analytic
literature includes numerous examples of functional assessments that include health fac-
tors in the analysis of behavior. If the effects of unobservable biological and medical events
on behavior have been effectively assessed and taken into consideration when developing
individualized positive behavior support plans, then we contend that a conceptual analysis
of private emotional events also may improve the validity of the FBA process and the effec-
tiveness of subsequent interventions.

How Exactly Do Emotions Affect Interfering Behaviors?

When we “arouse an emotion,” we alter the probabilities of certain types of responses. Thus, when
we make a man angry we increase the probability of abusive, bitter or other aggressive behavior and
decrease the probability of generous or helpful behavior. The effect resembles that of a state of depriva-
tion or satiation or a condition of aversive stimulation.
—B. F. Skinner (1957, p. 215)

Wow! That sounds a lot like an MO! Emotions alter the value of reinforcing consequences
and the probability of behavior. What a radical concept (from 1957, no less). Is Skinner alone
in conceptualizing emotions as motivating operations? Not at all. Read on . . .

Emotional stimuli do not derive their evocative functions via differential access to stimuli (as do dis-
criminative stimuli); rather they fit nicely within the paradigm of MOs because they (a) momentarily
alter the effectiveness of certain forms of reinforcement, and (b) alter the frequency of conditioned and
unconditioned responses associated with those reinforcers.
—Richard G. Smith and Brian A. Iwata (1997, p. 349)

Smith and Iwata (1997) discussed the role of emotions as MOs, reviewed functional
assessment methodologies for understanding the relationship between MOs and interfering
behavior, and advocated for continued research on antecedent interventions. Most signifi-
50 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

cantly, they suggested that the identification of MOs for interfering behaviors during the
FBA process may inform the design of interventions that minimize the evocative effects of
MOs and therefore reduce the need for more restrictive extinction and punishment-­based
behavior reduction strategies. We support this idea wholeheartedly. If a student experiences
strong emotions that are evoking interfering behaviors, then we believe it is our responsibil-
ity to seek an understanding of the interactions between the student’s environment, internal
experience, and observable behavior so that we can develop an intervention plan that gets
at the root of the problem.

Compulsive buying is more likely to occur when the person experiences negative emotions such as ten-
sion, depressed feelings, anger, and loneliness. . . . In an automatic negative reinforcement framework,
the negative emotions function as an MO and the buying behavior is negatively reinforced by terminat-
ing or lessening the negative emotions.
—Raymond G. Miltenberger (2005, p. 4)

Miltenberger (2005) discussed the evocative effects of emotions relative to clinical

behaviors such as compulsive buying, trichotillomania (i.e., compulsive hair pulling), and
binge eating. He suggested that these clinically significant behaviors may be evoked by
negative emotions and maintained by automatic negative reinforcement in the form of tem-
porary escape (relief) from unpleasant internal experiences. For example, in the case of
binge eating, Miltenberger suggested that strong negative emotions establish the value of
terminating that aversive state and therefore evoke binge-­eating episodes that have histori-
cally provided a momentary sense of relief. In the presence of high-­calorie foods (SDs) and
negative emotions (MOs), binge eating becomes highly probable even though the long-term
consequences (e.g., weight gain) may be problematic.

Some mental illnesses may change the value of particular reinforcers. For example, a depressive phase
of bipolar disorder may be associated with an unwillingness to participate in educational activities,
establishing escape from the activities as a negative reinforcement. Similarly, a manic episode of bipolar
disorder may be associated with increased risk-­taking behaviors, establishing certain events as more
positively reinforcing than usual (e.g., promiscuity, excessive spending, drug taking).
—Michael E. May and Craig H. Kennedy (2010, p. 9)

May and Kennedy (2010) also examined the role of emotions from a clinical perspec-
tive. Specifically, they asserted that the emotional symptoms associated with mental illness
may function as MOs that evoke directly observable behavioral symptoms. This conceptu-
alization certainly holds relevance for understanding the interfering behaviors displayed by
students. Consider, for example, a student who is referred for an FBA due to school refusal
behaviors and presents with a history of anxiety. Although school refusal behavior may be
evoked by many different antecedents (e.g., anticipation of nonpreferred social interactions
and tasks at school) and maintained by a variety of social consequences (e.g., avoidance
of nonpreferred school events or access to preferred activities and attention at home), we
would be remiss not to “rule in” the possible influence of anxiety, which tends to establish
avoidance as a highly effective reinforcer. From our perspective, the aversive emotions we
label “anxiety” may be conceptualized as an MO that (1) increases the value of escape from
 Behavior Analysis of Medical Conditions, Emotions, and Thoughts 51

the aversive emotional experience and anxiety-­eliciting situations and (2) evokes behaviors
that historically have resulted in reductions in feelings of anxiety and escape from anxiety-­
eliciting situations (negative reinforcement).

Recommended Resource
Lewon and Hayes (2014) argue that emotions are most usefully conceptualized as MOs. They offer a
brief historical review of a behavior-­analytic conceptualization of emotions, describe the MO concept,
and provide an analysis of emotions as MOs. They also provide several examples from the literature
describing how emotions operate as MOs. Finally, they suggest several ways in which conceptualizing
emotions as products of MOs may have significant research implications.

In summary, the field of behavior analysis has long recognized the value-­altering and
behavior-­altering functions of emotions. If emotional variables contribute to occurrences of
interfering behavior, then it only makes sense to apply evidence-­based strategies to mini-
mize their effects. Yet, assessment must drive intervention, so we first need to consider
emotional variables during the FBA and case conceptualization process.

THE INFLUENCE OF THOUGHTS ON BEHAVIOR

OK, now that we’ve figured out the roles of biological/medical and emotional factors in
interfering behavior, let’s add one more variable: thoughts. We know that some of you are
cringing at the very notion of including thoughts in an analysis of behavior. To allay your
suspicions that we, a group of BCBAs, have been hijacked by mentalistic imposters, we
appeal once more to Skinner:

There is no point at which it is profitable to draw a line distinguishing thinking from acting on this con-
tinuum. So far as we know, the events at the covert end have no special properties, observe no special
laws, and can be credited with no special achievements
—B. F. Skinner (1957, p. 439)

If thinking is simply a covert form of verbal behavior, then we believe it can be subject
to the same kinds of analyses applied to any run-of-the-mill overt behavior. Read on to see
what we mean.

How Exactly Do Thoughts (Covert Verbal Behaviors)

Affect Interfering Behaviors?
Thoughts as Eliciting Stimuli
Thoughts (e.g., excessive worrying, recurrent thoughts about traumatic events, self-­
deprecating internal dialogue) may elicit emotions as a result of respondent conditioning.
Those of you trained in cognitive-­behavioral therapy models are probably familiar with this
conceptualization of a functional relationship between thoughts and feelings.
52 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Thoughts as Motivating Operations

In addition to eliciting emotional responses, specific thoughts may momentarily alter the
value of reinforcing consequences and the probability of behaviors maintained by those
consequences. Consider the following conceptualizations:

• Thoughts about presenting at an upcoming conference in front of a large crowd are

paired with the experience of anxiety. Worrying about the anticipated event functions as an
MO by increasing the value of terminating unpleasant ruminations and evoking interfer-
ing behaviors (e.g., nail biting, hair twirling, binge eating) that momentarily provide escape
from those worries (automatic negative reinforcement).

• A student, Addison, receives direct math instruction in a resource room. He has a

long history of math failure and sometimes engages in verbal opposition when presented
with math instruction and assignments. When he becomes disruptive, the special educa-
tion teacher verbally directs him to a “cool-down room.” Math instructional materials and
assignments function as an MO by signaling a worsening condition, establishing the value
of “escape from math,” and evoking disruptive behaviors that historically have “worked”
to help Addison escape from math. Less apparent, though, is the fact that Addison also
engages in negative self-talk during math instruction (“I suck at math,” “I’m going to fail
anyway, so what’s the point?”). These thoughts also function as an MO that establishes the
value of terminating his unpleasant internal state and evokes disruptive behaviors that allow
him to leave math and momentarily escape his own thoughts.

• A student, Tammy, is home alone and experiencing recurrent thoughts/images (MOs)

about a recent event. She inadvertently caught her boyfriend “making out” with a girl from
a rival high school, and now she can’t get this image and related thoughts of betrayal out of
her head. Without much thought, she reaches out, grabs a nearby pair of nail clippers, and
pinches the skin on her thigh repeatedly (self-­injurious behavior). This behavior results in a
diversion of thinking and a concomitant reduction of aversive feelings (automatic negative
reinforcement). Figure 4.1 illustrates the functional variables within this four-term contin-
gency.

Motivating Operations
Aversive emotional arousal (anger toward boyfriend)
Aversive thoughts (“I’ve been betrayed”)
Aversive visual images (reimagining the observed “betrayal”)

Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behavior Reinforcing Consequence

Nail clippers Self-injurious behavior: Pinching Automatic negative reinforcement:
skin on thigh with nail clippers Arousal reduction and diversion of
aversive thoughts/images

FIGURE 4.1. The case of Tammy illustrated.

 Behavior Analysis of Medical Conditions, Emotions, and Thoughts 53

SUMMARY

Behavior is complex. Biological/medical factors, emotions, and thoughts all function as MOs
that contribute to occurrences of interfering behaviors. Given that these variables may be
relevant to the reason for referral, we need to give them due consideration when conducting
FBAs and designing behavior intervention plans.

Resource: How Private Events Influence Observed Behavior

As we have discussed in this chapter, there is a growing recognition among behavior analysts that
private events such as emotions and thoughts contribute to occurrences of interfering behavior. There
also is growing recognition that a comprehensive, function-­focused treatment package for interfering
behavior must address all contributing variables, including those private events. Accordingly, we refer
you to the following article, which offers a sound explanation of the influence of private events on
behavior and summarizes behavior-­analytic strategies for addressing the emotions and thoughts that
contribute to interfering behavior:

Hoffmann, A. N., Contreras, B. P., Clay, C. J., & Twohig, M. P. (2016). Acceptance and commitment
therapy for individuals with disabilities: A behavior analytic strategy for addressing private events
in challenging behavior. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(1), 14–24.
 CHAPTER 5

Executive Skills

Cogito ergo sum. [I think, therefore I am.]

—René Descartes (1596–1650)

For school-­based evaluators, who are routinely confronted with a variety of interfering
behaviors, the value of an FBA model increases with knowledge of specific variables that
are known to impact behavior. This chapter introduces you to a key set of executive skills
that are an essential component of all human behavior.

EXECUTIVE SKILLS: A BRIEF INTRODUCTION

Executive skills are a set of high-level cognitive functions possessed by human beings that
allow us to accomplish goals and meet challenges across our entire lifespan. Beginning in
early infancy, throughout development and into adulthood, these skills play a central role
in our capacity for behavioral regulation. They play an essential role in helping us decide
which tasks and activities we will attend to and which ones we will decide to do (Hart
& Jacobs, 1993). These skills underlie our capacity to organize our behavior over time,
override immediate demands and desires in favor of longer-­term goals, and persist in task
completion. Executive skills enable us to monitor and evaluate our thoughts in order to work
more effectively and efficiently and manage our emotions under stressful conditions. Simply
stated, these skills are essential for the regulation of our behavior.
The National Scientific Council on the Developing Child at Harvard University (2011)
has likened these skills to an air traffic control center in a child’s brain. Researchers there
note that human beings are born with the neurological potential to develop these skills.
However, whether and how they’re developed depends on the experiences we have through
childhood, adolescence, and into young adulthood. The blueprint for these skills exists in the
biology of the brain at birth, but the environment in which we live and the experiences we
have throughout development continuously impact brain circuitry and shape the expression
54
 Executive Skills 55

of these skills and behavior. In terms of behavioral intervention, the essential fact to keep in
mind is that these skills can be strengthened through practice and experience. The consid-
eration of executive skills when conducting an FBA leads to (1) an operational description
of certain personal characteristics (traits) that contribute to interfering behaviors and (2) an
understanding of specific skills that may need to be taught to reduce interfering behaviors.
The executive skills that are most likely to have an impact on interfering behavior are
presented in Table 5.1, along with definitions, examples of how students demonstrate the
skills, and examples of typical referral concerns and/or personal characteristics that are
indicative of executive skill deficits. As indicated in the table, any of the executive skills
listed may contribute to interfering behavior if the skill represents a significant weakness
for the student. When executive skills are hypothesized to be a contributor to interfering
behavior, additional assessment may be warranted during the FBA process. At the end of
this chapter, we have provided copies of the Executive Skills Questionnaire (parent/teacher
and student versions; Forms 5.1 and 5.2), along with the Executive Skills Problem Check-

TABLE 5.1. Executive Skill Definitions and Examples

What is the Corresponding executive When the executive skill is a When the executive skill
problem? skill and definition strength is a weakness
Impulsive, Response inhibition: A young student can wait A student interrupts,
impatient The capacity to think appropriately for a short shouts out, grabs objects,
before acting. The ability period (e.g., responding in a insists on talking or
to resist the urge to act group, standing in line). An being first, and engages
allows time to evaluate older student can accept a in interfering behavior
situations and the teacher’s correction without (e.g., arguing, hitting,
outcomes of actions. an argument. bolting) when faced with
challenges.

Forgets easily, Working memory: A young student can hold A young student needs
can’t hold The ability to hold in mind and follow short, repeated, step-by-step
and mentally information in memory one- or two-step directions teacher directions. An
manipulate while performing (e.g., “get a red crayon,” older student forgets to
information, complex tasks. It “circle the numbers”). An write down assignments.
doesn’t learn incorporates the ability older student can remember
from mistakes to draw on past learning the expectations set by
or experience to apply to multiple teachers and uses
the situation at hand or an assignment book.
to project into the future.

Low frustration Emotional control: A young student can manage A student appears angry
tolerance, The ability to manage frustration and/or recover (“blows up” easily) or
“short fuse,” emotions to achieve from a disappointment in anxious. A young student
easily upset goals, complete tasks, a short time with minimal fixates on disappointment
or control and direct soothing. An older student and cries excessively. An
behavior. can manage the stress of a older student’s anxiety
competition or test and still causes physical distress
perform. and adversely impacts
performance.
(continued)
 56 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

TABLE 5.1. (continued)

What is the Corresponding executive When the executive skill is a When the executive skill
problem? skill and definition strength is a weakness
Distractible, Sustained attention: A young student completes A student is highly
unable to focus The capacity to keep a 5-minute classroom distractible, requires
unless task is paying attention to a chore with only occasional repeated return-to-task
interesting situation or task in spite redirection. An older prompts, takes frequent
of distractibility, fatigue, student can pay attention breaks, takes 2–3 hours
or boredom. to homework, with short to complete a 1-hour task,
breaks, for 1–2 hours. or doesn’t finish tasks.

Procrastinates, Task initiation: The A young student is able to A young student requires
dawdles ability to begin listen to directions and begin repeated prompts and
projects without undue a task promptly. An older direct help to start a
procrastination, in student does not wait until task. An older student
an efficient or timely the last minute to begin a procrastinates until the
fashion. project. last minute to begin a
project.

Can’t develop a Planning/prioritization: A young student can gather A young student needs
strategy or set The ability to create a materials to complete a task explicit, step-by-step
a direction to roadmap to reach a goal with few directions. An older guidance to get materials
move in or to complete a task. It student can formulate a plan needed to complete a
also involves being able to complete a research paper. task. An older student
to make decisions about needs adult help to create
what is important/not a plan and prioritize
important to focus on. steps for assignments.

Messy, loses Organization: The ability A young student can put toys A young student has to
things, to create and maintain in a designated place with a be guided through each
disorderly in systems to keep track of reminder. An older student step of cleanup. An older
thinking and information or materials. can organize and locate class student routinely loses
acting materials from a locker. belongings.

Inefficient, Time management: The A young student can Without ongoing help,
slow, often capacity to estimate complete a short job within the student cannot finish
late, lacks time how much time one has, a reasonable time set by an tasks on time and often
awareness how to allocate it, and adult. An older student can submits assignments late.
or sense of how to stay within time establish a schedule to meet
urgency with limits and deadlines. It task deadlines.
deadlines also involves a sense that
time is important.

Gives up easily Goal-directed A young student can A young student needs

when effort is persistence: The complete a task to get one-on-one help to finish
involved capacity to have a goal, to recess with minimal a task. An older student
follow through to the redirection. An older student is unable to meet stated
completion of the goal, can earn the grades needed grade goals.
and not be distracted by to maintain sports eligibility.
competing interests.
 Executive Skills 57

list (elementary and middle/high school versions for teachers and parents; Forms 5.3–5.5)
developed by Dawson and Guare (2018). The questionnaires and checklists can be com-
pleted by school staff, parents, and/or students themselves to provide an informal assess-
ment of executive skill strengths, weaknesses, and associated behaviors.

EXECUTIVE SKILLS INTERVENTION

In our executive skills model and in our clinical work, we use three intervention strate-
gies to address executive skill weaknesses: environmental modifications, skill instruction,
and motivational incentives. Environmental modifications involve changing those “trig-
gering” aspects of the social or instructional environment. Skill instruction is designed to
help students develop positive acceptable behaviors as substitutes for interfering behaviors,
and motivational incentives are used to strengthen (reinforce) these alternative behaviors.
A comprehensive FBA helps identify the triggers for interfering behavior, corresponding
executive skills to be taught, and effective ways to reinforce the skills. In the following sec-
tion, we present two case examples of interventions addressing executive skills for students
with weaknesses in response inhibition and flexibility, respectively.

Intervention Example 1: Response Inhibition

Description of Skill
The capacity to think before you act; the capacity to delay or inhibit responding based on
the ability to evaluate multiple factors.

Characteristics of Students with a Weakness in Response Inhibition

• Students who have trouble with response inhibition are impulsive, saying or doing things
without thinking, which often gets them into trouble with parents, teachers, or peers.
• Any situation that requires delayed gratification is difficult for them.
• Waiting is particularly difficult when students desire the outcomes (e.g., speaking first in
a situation, being at the front of the line, or getting a preferred object or outcome).
• These students want to be “first among equals.”

Environmental Modifications
Which situational modifications will best help these students delay or inhibit responding?

1. Increase external controls. In other words, limit or restrict access to settings or situ-
ations in which the student can get in trouble. For example, a student who becomes
overstimulated during recess or physical education classes and has trouble following
rules may need limits or restrictions on participating in certain activities until alterna-
tive skills can be taught and reinforced. Similarly, students who have trouble keeping
58 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

their hands to themselves during circle time may benefit from sitting next to the teacher,
a paraprofessional, or a peer who can act as a barrier and use nonverbal prompts (e.g., a
hand on the arm, a picture) to help them.
2. Increase supervision. When teachers or parents say, “I can’t let him/her out of my sight,”
this suggests they have modified the environment by making sure there is an adult pres-
ent at all times to reduce the likelihood that the student will do something impulsive or
dangerous. Students with impulse control problems, particularly when they are young,
often require more adult supervision in school settings. This is why the adult-to-­student
ratio is greater in preschools than in middle school. This is also why schools sometimes
assign individual aides to students. The physical presence of an adult in proximity to the
student with impulse control problems acts as a prompt or a surrogate executive skill to
help the student exercise control.
3. Establish specific impulse control rules. This may include posting and reviewing class
rules or stopping students before they encounter difficult situations to remind them to
exhibit self-­control—­for example, the teacher says, “What behavior are we working on?”
The student says, “Not hitting or running into people when I get frustrated.”

Teaching and Reinforcing the Skill

The focus of instruction is to teach the student competing skills to replace disinhibited
responses (e.g., teaching a student to raise her hand before speaking if she typically blurts
things out in class). Instruction and reinforcement follows these steps:

1. Explain to the student the skill being worked on and your understanding of the purpose
of the student’s disinhibited behavior—­for example, “I think you talk out because you’re
looking for recognition from me or your classmates. We’re going to work on raising your
hand before you speak.” When selecting the replacement skill (e.g., hand raising), make
sure the skill being taught meets the same need (i.e., peer or teacher recognition) as the
disinhibited response.
2. Have the student practice the skill using a contrived situation or a teaching example.
Practice the skill sufficiently, until the student is successful most of the time. You may
want to make a game of the process. For instance, if hand raising is the skill being
taught, then the practice could include keeping score of how many times the student
remembers to raise her hand before speaking and reinforcing these with social approval.
3. When the student is ready to practice the skill in the natural environment, prompt the
student to use the skill just prior to the situation in which it will be required. For exam-
ple, ask the student, “Do you remember what we’re working on?” If the student responds
accurately, then say, “Great job, show me how you’ll do it.” If the student is unsure how
to respond, prompt the correct response and a demonstration of the skill.
4. Immediately and consistently reinforce use of the skill (e.g., in the early stage of training,
if hand raising is the target skill, then call on the student right away whenever she raises
her hand and praise her for remembering to raise her hand).
5. Ignore the disinhibited response (e.g., don’t respond when she blurts something out).
 Executive Skills 59

6. Gradually fade the prompting and reinforcement (e.g., by not calling on her right away
every time she raises her hand). This may be even more effective if you tell the student
that this is what you are going to do—for example, “I’m not going to call on you every
time. I won’t forget you’re there, but I’m only going to call on you every fourth or fifth
time.”

Case Vignette
Circle time was a constant struggle for Kristin and her teacher, Mrs. Brock. In spite of rules
about turn taking and not interrupting, Kristin would blurt out information when someone
else was talking instead of raising her hand and waiting to be called on. Mrs. Brock decided
that providing some cues and a plan for Kristin could help. She first introduced a “talking
stick” to the class and indicated that only the person who had the stick could speak at that
moment. She also gave two chips to each student that they could “spend” by asking two
questions once the speaker indicated it was time for questions. At this point, the students
would raise their hands and the teacher would call on one. Recognizing Kristin’s diffi-
culty waiting, for the first week the teacher called on her first. If Kristin forgot and blurted
something out before the speaker was finished, she had to give up one of her chips. This,
along with initially sitting next to the teacher, was usually sufficient to help her remember.
However, on a few occasions Kristin (and a few other students) “spent” both chips before
the speaker was done and needed to leave the circle. Kristin found this system helpful, and
after the first week she was able to decide with her teacher how many students she felt she
could wait for before asking her questions.

Intervention Example 2: Flexibility

Description of Skill
The ability to revise plans in the face of obstacles, setbacks, new information, or mistakes; it
relates to an adaptability to changing conditions or unexpected outcomes.

Characteristics of Students with a Weakness in Flexibility

• Uncertainty or ambiguity (e.g., not knowing a schedule or an answer, unexpectedly losing
a game, or unscripted social interactions) produces significant stress.
• If the unexpected happens, it often triggers a fight (aggressive behavior) or flight (avoid-
ance/escape behavior) response.
• Inflexibility often goes hand in hand with reduced emotional control.
• Without an agenda from another person, students construct their own agendas, which
favor the outcomes they want.
• Since uncertainty produces stress, the agendas students construct are not seen as a pos-
sibility, a “may be,” but rather a certainty, a “will be.”
• If another person (e.g., parent, teacher, or peer) interferes with the agenda, an emotional
and behavioral “meltdown” can occur.
60 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Environmental Modifications
Which situational modifications will best help these students cope with uncertainty and
increase their flexibility over time?

1. Reduce the novelty of the situation. Advance notification, whenever possible, is the goal.
Classrooms with consistent schedules and routines are a good fit for these students, and
picture or written schedules can be personalized for and reviewed with the student.
When presenting schedules, try not to attach precise times to the activities unless nec-
essary (as with sports events and lessons), and use time ranges instead (e.g., reading will
start between 9:30 and 9:45 A.M.). Preteach for new tasks and arrange walk-­through
rehearsals for new activities to reduce novelty.
2. Prepare for the unexpected. Unexpected changes occur in school. Talk with the student
about the fact that changes or “surprises” can always come up despite plans and sched-
ules, and give examples (e.g., indoor recess on a rainy day, a teacher being absent, or
fire alarms). To address this, make a “Surprise!” card for the schedule and explain that
when a change is coming, you will show the card, say what the change is, and put it on
the schedule. Even when a change comes up that’s a surprise to everyone, you can pull
out the card and follow the same process. Spontaneous “teachable moments” are one
example of this.
3. Implement additional advance notification strategies. When possible, introduce the
change well before the event, giving the student time to adjust gradually rather than
quickly. Depending on his or her reaction to less pleasant change (e.g., crying, resisting,
complaining), talk about appropriate ways to protest (e.g., using a “complaint form”).
Reinforce successful responses to change. Keep in mind that reactivity to change
decreases with the amount of exposure that the student has to successfully negotiating
it. As long as the exposure is gradual and does not initially involve situations that are
frustrating or threatening, the student can become more flexible.
4. Modify the nature of tasks. Novel and unstructured tasks can be difficult for students
with weaknesses in flexibility. Tasks can be modified by (a) decreasing the speed, vol-
ume, or complexity of information presented and routinely checking with the student to
ensure understanding; (b) adapting open-ended tasks to make them more closed-­ended
(e.g., substituting expectations to make up sentences with vocabulary words with fill-in-
the-blank sentences); and/or (c) providing and reviewing explicit templates or rubrics to
follow when completing assignments.
5. Increase the level of support with tasks. This can be done by (a) offering frequent verbal
reassurance, (b) providing step-by-step assistance in working through difficult problems,
(c) using guided mastery and fading assistance as the student’s understanding and suc-
cess increase, (d) maintaining close contact with the student at transition times, or (e)
cuing the student to use self-­management strategies (see below).
6. Identify and prepare for situations that require flexibility. Open-ended social situations
(e.g., recess, lunch, and free time in PE classes) can be troublesome because unscripted
social interactions require flexible social communication skills. Having the student pre-
 Executive Skills 61

select activities (e.g., the use of particular equipment on the playground or games that
capitalize on the student’s skills and knowledge of rules) and peers with whom to interact
can avoid some of these issues. At the middle and high school levels, similar planning
may be needed prior to transitions between classes.

Teaching and Reinforcing the Skill

The focus of instruction is to teach the student competing skills to replace negative reac-
tions to unexpected change. Instruction and reinforcement follow these steps:

1. Explain to the student the skill being worked on and your understanding of the pur-
pose of the student’s inflexible behavior. For example, “I think you get upset because
you think one thing is going to happen and something different happens, like you are
expecting math and instead the teacher says it is reading time.” When selecting the
replacement skill (e.g., a self-talk strategy), make sure the skill being taught meets the
same need (i.e., decreases the distress) as the inflexible response.
2. Use role-play scenarios to practice the skill and then assign the student to practice the
skill in actual school situations. Provide prompts and high rates of reinforcement in the
early stages of skill teaching, and gradually fade support over time.
3. Teach and reinforce the use of self-talk scripts. Kenworthy and colleagues (2014) begin
by teaching students words and phrases to label relevant skills. For example, they intro-
duce the word flexible to the student and provide an explanation of the word’s meaning.
They follow this with a set of phrases that the student can use in relevant situations, such
as “I need to be flexible,” “Being flexible helps me get some of what I want,” “I can be
flexible, I’ve done it before” (Kenworthy et al., 2014, p. 26). They also use the key words
choice/no choice to help students manage frustrating situations. Associated self-­script
phrases include: “Is this a choice or no-­choice situation?”; “This is a no-choice situation
because . . . ”; “I don’t have any other choice so I must do this. I’ll take a deep breath and
then do it one step at a time. I’ve done this before, and I know I can do it again” (Ken-
worthy et al., 2014, p. 31).
4. Once students are able to recognize inflexibility in themselves, the next step is to teach
them self-­management strategies for managing their emotions and the situation. Teach-
ing self-­management strategies involves modeling, practice, feedback, reinforcement,
and generalization to real settings, with cues to prompt the student to use the strategy
until the skill is mastered. Strategies to support self-­management include:
• Giving students explicit plans or rules for managing specific situations that arise fre-
quently.
• Helping students identify “default” strategies they can fall back on (e.g., going to a
designated location when frustrated).
• Teaching students relaxation, thought-­stopping, or attention-­diversion strategies (e.g.,
using visual imagery).
• Teaching students the concept of an “error factor” to reduce absolutist thinking. For
instance, some students become very upset in sports situations when an umpire or
62 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

referee makes a call that they think is wrong. Preparing students in advance for this
by letting them know that those officiating games are “allowed” to make mistakes may
reduce unhappiness when perceived bad calls are made.
5. Gradually introduce changes into the day/schedule. Initially, introduce preferred activi-
ties (e.g., “Surprise, it’s time to play a game on the computer!”) with warnings and then,
as the child adjusts, without warnings. As the student gets used to this, move on to “neu-
tral” and then less preferred activities. Reinforce acceptance of change. “Inoculate” the
student by presenting change in small doses.

Case Vignettes
When lining up for recess and lunch, a third-grade boy insisted on being first in line and
often pushed his way to the front. We discussed that the class rule was that each student
in class took turns being line leader for the day and explained that the teacher decided
this based on alphabetical order of names. Thus, this was a no-­choice situation in which,
according to classroom rules, every student had an opportunity to be line leader. Each day
the teacher reviewed with him his position in the line-­leader queue. When he lined up as
directed, his teacher congratulated him for making a good choice. We also created a token
reinforcement system for him so that each day he took his correct position in line he earned
a token. When he had five tokens, he could choose a prize from the prize bin in the case
manager’s office. When the student pushed his way to the front, he had to sit and wait until
the class was leaving and then join the line at the end. Over a period of 2 weeks, the student
was able to make consistently good choices.

Jeff, age 10, was a creature of habit. He struggled with transitions and had difficulty
in the first few weeks of each new school year until he became familiar with the schedule
and his new teachers’ expectations. In fourth grade, he continued to struggle even after
2½ months. His teacher followed a schedule, but since work expectations could vary from
day to day, students had to be flexible about the start times for each subject. This was very
frustrating to Jeff. Each day when he came to school, he expected that his teacher would
do reading and language arts before recess and math right after recess. In addition, he
struggled with the open-ended nature of writing but looked forward to math because the
subject matter was clearly defined—­black and white. When writing spilled over into math
time, Jeff got very upset and sometimes refused to finish. To help Jeff with this, his teacher
gave him an explicit, step-by-step strategy for writing and worked with him on applying
this. She also checked in with him every morning. When the language arts material for the
day looked complex and might run into math time, they worked out an altered schedule that
would help him “reset” his expectations, and they practiced an “I need to be flexible” script.
The teacher also set clear criteria for Jeff’s completion of language arts work and gave him
the option of starting some math when it was done. She delivered praise for his effort to
use his writing strategies and self-talk scripts. Over time, she worked with Jeff on estimat-
ing how much time his work would take, emphasizing that an “estimate” is just that, and
continued to encourage him to use his “I need to be flexible” script to cope with changes in
work schedules.
 Executive Skills 63

SUMMARY

In the context of FBA, our goal is to understand the individual characteristics each student
brings to the table and the manner in which these individual variables interact with other
contextual variables to increase the probability of interfering behavior. Executive skills are
essential for students to navigate the school environment successfully. When executive skills
are weak, students are more likely to experience typical school situations as challenging
(or aversive) and to engage in behaviors that do not match teacher expectations. Identifica-
tion of executive skill deficits during the FBA process therefore facilitates a comprehensive
conceptualization of why students engage in interfering behaviors and informs the develop-
ment of behavior intervention plans that emphasize skill acquisition, rather than focusing
exclusively on the reduction of interfering behavior.

Additional Resources
In over 30 years of clinical practice, Drs. Peg Dawson and Richard Guare have worked with thousands
of children who struggle at home and in school. At the center of these struggles are weak executive
skills. To learn more about assessment and intervention for executive skills, check out these recent
books:

Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2016). The smart but scattered guide to success: How to use your brain’s
executive skills to keep up, stay calm, and get organized at work and at home. New York: Guilford
Press.
Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2018). Executive skills in children and adolescents: A practical guide to
assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Guare, R., Guare, C., & Dawson, P. (2019). Smart but scattered—­and stalled: 10 steps to help young
adults use their executive skills to set goals, make a plan, and successfully leave the nest. New
York: Guilford Press.

Also take the time to explore their website (www.smartbutscatteredkids.com) to learn more about
the resources available for improving executive skills in children and adolescents both at home and at
school.
 FORM 5.1

Executive Skills Questionnaire for Parents/Teachers

Big problem 1
Moderate problem 2
Mild problem 3
Slight problem 4
No problem 5
Item Score
1. Acts on impulse
2. Gets in trouble for talking too much in class
3. Says things without thinking
TOTAL SCORE:

4. Says, “I’ll do it later” and then forgets about it

5. Forgets homework assignments or forgets to bring home
needed materials
6. Loses or misplaces belongings such as coats, mittens, sports
equipment, etc.
TOTAL SCORE:
7. Gets annoyed when homework is too hard or confusing or takes
too long to finish
8. Has a short fuse; easily frustrated
9. Easily upset when things don’t go as planned
TOTAL SCORE:

10. Difficulty paying attention; easily distracted

11. Runs out of steam before finishing homework or other tasks
12. Problems sticking with schoolwork or chores until they are done
TOTAL SCORE:

13. Puts off homework or chores until the last minute

14. Difficulty setting aside fun activities in order to start homework
15. Needs many reminders to start chores
TOTAL SCORE:

16. Trouble planning for big assignments (knowing what to do first, second, etc.)
17. Difficulty setting priorities when has a lot of things to do
18. Becomes overwhelmed by long-term projects or big assignments
TOTAL SCORE:

(continued)
From Dawson and Guare (2018). Copyright © The Guilford Press. Reprinted by permission.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

64
 Executive Skills Questionnaire for Parents/Teachers (page 2 of 2)

Item Score
19. Backpack and notebooks are disorganized
20. Desk or workspace at home or school is a mess
21. Trouble keeping bedroom or locker tidy
TOTAL SCORE:

22. Has a hard time estimating how long it takes to do something

(such as homework)
23. Often doesn’t finish homework at night; rushes to get it done in school
before class
24. Slow getting ready for things (e.g., appointments, school,
changing classes)
TOTAL SCORE:

25. If the first solution to a problem doesn’t work, has trouble thinking
of a different one
26. Resists changes in plans or routines
27. Has problems with open-ended homework assignments (e.g., doesn’t
know what to write about when given a creative writing assignment)
TOTAL SCORE:

High School Students Only

28. Lacks effective study strategies
29. Doesn’t check work for mistakes even when the stakes are high
30. Doesn’t evaluate performance and change tactics in order to
increase success
TOTAL SCORE:

31. Can’t seem to save up money for a desired object; problems

delaying gratification
32. Doesn’t see the value in earning good grades to achieve
a long-term goal
33. Seems to live in the present
TOTAL SCORE:
KEY
Items Executive Skill Items Executive Skill
1–3 Response inhibition 4–6 Working memory
7–9 Emotional control 10–12 Sustained attention
13–15 Task initiation 16–18 Planning/prioritization
19–21 Organization 22–24 Time management
25–27 Flexibility 28–30 Metacognition
31–33 Goal-directed persistence

Child’s Executive Skills Strengths Child’s Executive Skills Weaknesses

65
 FORM 5.2

Executive Skills Questionnaire for Students

Directions: Read each item and decide how often it’s a problem for you. Then add up the three scores
in each set and write that number on the Total score line. Use the Key on page 69 to determine your
executive skills strengths (two to three highest scores) and weaknesses (two to three lowest scores).

1. I act on impulse.
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

2. I get in trouble for talking too much in class.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

3. I say things without thinking.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 1–3:       

4. I say “I’ll do it later” and then forget about it.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

5. I forget homework assignments or forget to bring home needed materials.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

6. I lose or misplace belongings such as coats, notebooks, sports equipment, etc.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 4–6:       

7. I get annoyed when homework is too hard or confusing or takes too long to finish.
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

8. I have a short fuse, am easily frustrated.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

9. I get upset easily when things don’t go as planned.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 7–9:       

(continued)

Reprinted from Dawson and Guare (2017). Copyright © 2017 The Guilford Press.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

66
 Executive Skills Questionnaire for Students (page 2 of 4)

10. I have difficulty paying attention, am easily distracted.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

11. I run out of steam before finishing my homework.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

12. I have problems sticking with chores until they are done.
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 10–12:       

13. I put off homework or chores until the last minute.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

14. It’s hard for me to put aside fun activities to start homework.
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

15. I need many reminders to start chores.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 13–15:       

16. I have trouble planning for big assignments (knowing what to do first,
second, etc.).
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

17. It’s hard for me to set priorities when I have a lot of things to do.
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

18. I become overwhelmed by long-term projects or big assignments.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 16–18:       

(continued)

67
 Executive Skills Questionnaire for Students (page 3 of 4)

19. My backpack and notebooks are disorganized.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

20. My desk or workspace at home is a mess.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

21. I have trouble keeping my room tidy.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 19–21:       

22. I have a hard time estimating how long it takes to do something

(such as homework).
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

23. I often don’t finish homework at night and rush to get it done in school
before class.
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

24. I’m slow getting ready for things (e.g., school or appointments).
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 22–24:       

25. If the first solution to a problem doesn’t work, I have trouble thinking
of a different one.
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

26. It’s hard for me to deal with changes in plans or routines.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

27. I have problems with open-ended homework assignments (e.g., knowing

what to write about for a creative writing assignment or coming up with topics
for a long-term project).
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 25–27:       

(continued)

68
 Executive Skills Questionnaire for Students (page 4 of 4)

28. I don’t have effective study strategies.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

29. I don’t check my work for mistakes even when the stakes are high.
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

30. I don’t evaluate my performance and change tactics to increase my success.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 28–30:       

31. I can’t seem to save up money for something I want.

Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

32. I don’t see the value in earning good grades to achieve a long-term goal.
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5

33. If something fun comes up when I should be studying, it’s hard for me
to make myself study.
Most of the time Frequently Sometimes Very rarely Never
1 2 3 4 5
Total score, items 31–33:       

KEY
Items Executive Skill Items Executive Skill
1–3 Response inhibition 4–6 Working memory
7–9 Emotional control 10–12 Sustained attention
13–15 Task initiation 16–18 Planning/prioritization
19–21 Organization 22–24 Time management
25–27 Flexibility 28–30 Metacognition
31–33 Goal-directed persistence

Your Executive Skills Strengths Your Executive Skills Weaknesses

69
 FORM 5.3

Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Elementary Version—Teacher

Directions:
1. Read each item and decide whether the student in question exhibits this problem to a significantly
greater degree than other children in the same grade level.
2. Look over all the items you checked and choose THREE that you think cause the greatest
problems. Place a star () next to those.

Response Inhibition
   Blurts out inappropriate comments
   In a teacher-directed activity, does not wait until the person talking finishes and he/she is
acknowledged by the teacher before offering a response
   Can’t wait turn in games
   Does not use acceptable language to handle conflict situations
   Does not remain at his/her seat or assigned area during seatwork time and classroom lessons
   Does not complete seatwork or assignments accurately

Working Memory
   Doesn’t write down all homework in assignment books or other designated location
   Doesn’t bring all necessary materials to and from school every day (e.g., homework, notebooks/
binders, permission slips, gym clothes, lunch money, coats/hats/mittens, etc.)
   Doesn’t hand in assignments on the dates they are due
   Doesn’t remember where to find all necessary materials to get through the school day and to
complete homework
   Doesn’t follow all instructions accurately for multistep tasks by using checklists or rubrics if
necessary

Emotional Control
   Leaves class or becomes visibly upset rather than asking for help when he/she doesn’t
understand an assignment
   Engages in verbal or physical aggression or unsafe behavior when playing with other students at
recess
   Doesn’t use coping strategies to recover when he/she begins to get upset (or angry, frustrated,
anxious)
   Anxiety interferes with test performance
   Anxiety interferes with classroom presentations
   Becomes very upset or responds with verbal or physical aggression when teased or taunted by
other students
(continued)

From Dawson and Guare (2018). Copyright © The Guilford Press. Reprinted by permission.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

70
 Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Elementary Version—Teacher (page 2 of 2)

Flexibility
   Becomes very upset when confronted with the unexpected (e.g., changes in plans or routines,
disappointment, being told “no”)
   Has difficulty managing transitions between activities or settings
   Is unable to come up with one or more alternative plans or solutions when the first strategy
doesn’t work (no Plan B)
   Is unable to complete open-ended tasks successfully according to the rubric assigned

Sustained Attention
   Doesn’t complete classwork and homework within the time allotted or within suggested time
frames
   Loses focus on class lessons (as demonstrated by not being able to answer questions related to
the content of the lesson or by not understanding assignments associated with the lesson)

Task Initiation
   Has difficulty starting class assignments within 3 minutes of the prompt to begin working
   Stretches out breaks and fails to return to work promptly with longer or less preferred work tasks

Planning/Prioritization
   Has difficulty setting priorities (in what order to do tasks, how much time to spend on any given
task)
   Doesn’t know what to focus on when studying for tests
   Writing does not follow a logical sequence; paragraphs don’t contain main ideas and supporting
details

Organization
   Does not place materials in a specified place in notebooks, backpacks, desks, and study areas
   Does not follow an organizational system with consistency (e.g., throwing out unnecessary
papers, not placing homework assignments in assigned spot, organizing papers for each subject
separately)
   Does not have a tidy study area

Time Management
   Does not complete assignments within the time allotted or by the due date
   Can’t adjust work speed to fit the time available

Goal-Directed Persistence
   Does not persist with effortful tasks
   Gives up in the face of an obstacle
   Has a “good-enough” mentality that gets in the way of producing quality work

Metacognition
   Cannot judge the quality of his/her own work
   Does not know how to improve work
   Has difficulty making inferences, drawing conclusions, grasping the main idea, reading between
the lines
   Fails to check work/proofread/use spell-check

71
 FORM 5.4

Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Middle/High School Version

Directions:
1. Check () problem areas that significantly interfere with effective studying.
2. Look over all the items you checked and choose THREE that you think cause the greatest
problems. Place a star () next to those.

Response Inhibition
   Rushing through work just to get it done
   Not having the patience to produce quality work
   Giving up on a homework assignment when I encounter an obstacle
   Having trouble doing homework when there are more fun things to do

Working Memory
   Writing assignment instructions without enough detail to understand later
   Forgetting to take home necessary materials or take materials to class
   Forgetting to hand in homework
   Forgetting long-term projects or upcoming tests
   Not paying attention to classroom instructions/task directions
   Trouble remembering multiple directions or multiple problem steps
   Losing materials
   Forgetting to complete assignments
   Forgetting to check agenda/assignment book
   Not recording when an assignment is due

Emotional Control
   Getting really irritated when a homework assignment is hard or confusing
   Finding it hard to get started on assignments because of perfectionism or fear of failure
   Freezing when taking tests and doing poorly despite studying long and hard
   Not seeing the point of an assignment and finding it hard to motivate myself to do it

Task Initiation
Procrastinating/avoiding tasks due to:
     not knowing how to get started
     believing the task will “take forever”
(continued)

From Dawson and Guare (2018). Copyright © The Guilford Press. Reprinted by permission.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

72
 Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Middle/High School Version (page 2 of 4)

     believing my performance won’t meet expectations

     seeing the task as tedious, boring, or irrelevant
   Finding other things to do rather than starting homework
   Difficulty getting back to work after breaks

Sustained Attention
   Taking frequent breaks when working
   Taking breaks that are too long
   Internally distracted—thoughts, states, moods, daydreams (please specify):

   Externally distracted—sights, sounds, technology such as phone, computer, TV, video games
(please specify):
   Rushing through work—sloppy/mistakes
   Not knowing limits (e.g., how long I can sustain attention) or when the best study time is
   Not recognizing when I’m off task

Planning/Prioritization
   Not making a study plan (may not know how)
   Can’t break down long-term projects into smaller tasks and timelines
   Having difficulty taking notes or studying for test because I can’t distinguish important from
nonimportant
   Not using or not knowing how to use agenda/assignment book
   Spending too much time on less important elements—can’t put the most important parts or
most important assignments first
   Planning unrealistically (e.g., fail to take into account obstacles to the plan)

Flexibility
   Struggling with assignments that require creativity or are open-ended
   Getting stuck on one solution or one way of looking at a problem
   Having trouble coming up with topics or ideas of things to write about
   Having difficulty coming up with “Plan B” if the first attempt didn’t work

Organization
   Not using an organizational system or knowing how to design one
   Not being able to find things in notebooks or backpacks
   Losing assignments or important papers
   Not having a neat study area
   Losing electronic data—forgetting where work is stored or what name it’s filed under
(continued)

73
 Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Middle/High School Version (page 3 of 4)

Time Management
Can’t estimate how long a task will take, due to:
     overestimating how long it will take to do a task (therefore never getting started)
     underestimating how long it will take to do a task (therefore running out of time)
   Chronically late (for school, tutoring, other appointments, and obligations)
   Difficulty juggling multiple assignments and responsibilities because I can’t judge time involved
   Overcommitted—juggling too many obligations (and I think I can pull it off!)
   Lacking a sense of time urgency (doesn’t appreciate that deadlines are important)
   Relying on deadline as activator or motivator

Goal-Directed Persistence
   Not having a long-term goal
   Having a long-term goal but lacking a realistic plan to achieve the goal
   Not seeing how daily actions impact goal attainment
   Not seeing studying as important and making minimal effort as a result
   Giving up in the face of an obstacle
   Having a “good-enough” mentality that gets in the way of producing quality work
   “Not on the radar”—seeing work as not relevant or not important enough to do

Metacognition
   Can’t accurately evaluate skills (e.g., expect to do well on tests in spite of poor past
performance; expect to go to a college or get a job without requisite skills or academic record)
   Can’t identify appropriate study strategies
   Can’t plan or organize a writing assignment
   Can memorize facts but missing the larger context (I do better on multiple-choice tests than
essay questions)
   Having a hard time understanding more abstract concepts (math as well as content-area
subjects)
   Having difficulty making inferences, drawing conclusions, grasping the main idea, reading
between the lines
   Failing to check work/proofread

Other

(continued)

74
 Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Middle/High School Version (page 4 of 4)

WHAT ARE MY TARGETS?

Executive skill Specific problem

What are some ways that I could use my executive skill strengths to help me be successful?

75
 FORM 5.5

Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Elementary Version—Parents

Directions:
1. Read each item and decide whether your child exhibits this problem to a significant degree such
that it interferes with daily life at home. Keep in mind that some of the items may not be age
appropriate for your child.
2. Look over all the items you checked and choose THREE that you think cause the greatest
problems. Place a star () next to those.

Response Inhibition
   Interrupts when others are talking
   Blurts out inappropriate comments
   Can’t wait turn in games or conversations
   Doesn’t use acceptable language to handle conflict situations
   Doesn’t consider consequences before acting
   Rushes through homework or chores without regard to quality of work

Working Memory
   Can’t remember short instructions even right after they’re given
   Does not bring all necessary materials to and from school every day (e.g., homework,
notebooks/binders, permission slips, gym clothes, lunch money, coats/hats/mittens)
   Has trouble keeping track of schedule when it changes from day to day
   Doesn’t remember things necessary for activities outside the home (e.g., sports equipment)
   Doesn’t remember to do chores, even when they follow a consistent schedule

Emotional Control
   Becomes easily upset over small things that would not bother others
   Engages in verbal or physical aggression when angry
   Fails to use coping strategies to recover when he/she begins to get upset (or angry, frustrated,
anxious)
   Overreacts when provoked by things people say or do to him/her
   Gets “revved up” in some situations (e.g., social gatherings) and has trouble calming down
   Has trouble dealing with disappointment, such as losing at a game or not getting what he/she
wants

(continued)

From Dawson and Guare (2018). Copyright © The Guilford Press. Reprinted by permission.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

76
 Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Elementary Version—Parents (page 2 of 3)

Flexibility
   Doesn’t use coping strategies to recover when he/she begins to get upset (or angry, frustrated,
anxious)
   Difficulty managing transitions between activities or settings
   Can’t do open-ended homework assignments (e.g., using each spelling word in a sentence or
doing a creative writing assignment)
   Unable to come up with one or more alternative plans or solutions when the first strategy
doesn’t work (no Plan B)
   Gets stuck or fixated on certain thoughts or ideas

Sustained Attention
   Doesn’t complete homework or chores within the time allotted or within suggested time frames
   Up and down during homework—difficulty sticking with it long enough to get it done
   Doesn’t listen when parents or other adults are talking to him/her
   Shifts quickly from one play activity to another
   Doesn’t stay focused when engaged in organized activities (e.g., sports)

Task Initiation
   Doesn’t perform daily routines at scheduled times unless prompted
   Leaves homework or chores until the last minute unless prompted by an adult
   Finds other things to do rather than chores, homework, daily routines
   Stretches out breaks and fails to return to work promptly with longer work tasks
   Dawdles when asked to do a chore, perform a boring daily routine, or switch from a preferred to
a nonpreferred activity.

Planning/Prioritization
   Has difficulty setting priorities (in what order to do tasks, how much time to spend on any given task)
   Can’t make a plan to accomplish a task (even when it’s something the child wants to do)
   Gets sidetracked when following a plan and doesn’t get back to it
   Doesn’t know what to focus on when studying for tests
   Can’t break down a task into individual steps (what to do first, second, etc.)

Organization
   Doesn’t hang up coats/put belongings away in designated place
   Doesn’t place materials in a specified place in notebooks, backpacks, desks, and study areas
   Doesn’t follow an organizational system with consistency (e.g., throwing out unnecessary
papers, placing homework assignments in assigned spot, organizing school papers)
   Doesn’t have a tidy study area to work in
   Bedroom and play spaces are a mess, and this doesn’t bother him/her
(continued)

77
 Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Elementary Version—Parents (page 3 of 3)

Time Management
   Does not arrive places on time (e.g., coming home from friend’s house at agreed-upon time)
   Can’t complete daily routines within time limits
   Does not complete assignments by the due date
   Can’t adjust work speed to fit the time available
   Can’t juggle multiple time demands (e.g., starting homework early on days when child has
evening Scout meetings)

Goal-Directed Persistence
   Does not persist with effortful tasks
   Gives up in the face of an obstacle
   Starts projects but doesn’t finish them (including preferred activities)
   Wants to quit rather than do the work to get better at something
   Has a “good-enough” mentality that gets in the way of producing quality work
   Can’t save up money to make a desired purchase

Metacognition
   Can’t judge the quality of his/her own work
   Does not know how to improve work
   Can’t solve everyday problems
   Has difficulty making inferences, drawing conclusions, grasping the main idea, reading between
the lines
   Can’t read or misinterprets the emotions or reactions of others
   Fails to check work/proofread

78
 CHAPTER 6

The Behavior-­Analytic
Problem‑Solving Model

School psychologists use a problem-­solving framework as the basis for

all professional activities.
—National Association of School Psychologists (2010a, p. 4)

School psychologists use systematic decision-­making to consider

the antecedents, consequences, functions, and potential causes of
behavioral difficulties that may impede learning or socialization.
—National Association of School Psychologists (2010a, pp. 5–6)

Although a functional analysis begins with relatively isolated relations,

an important part of its task is to show how its variables interact.
—B. F. Skinner (1953, p. 205)

In the second edition of Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments: A

Practitioner’s Guide (Steege & Watson, 2009), we described and illustrated the behavior-­
analytic problem-­solving (BAPS) model. Since publication of that book, recent research has
expanded our knowledge of behavioral assessment and case conceptualization. A revised
BAPS model is described and illustrated in this and subsequent chapters. This chapter
includes the rationale for the use of the BAPS model, a review of the underlying conceptual
foundations, descriptions of essential components of the model, and clinical examples that
illustrate the application of the model to address school-­based referrals.

RATIONALE FOR THE BAPS MODEL

Within the context of FBA, the BAPS model is used to synthesize assessment results and
guide the design of individually tailored, function-­based interventions. The BAPS model
provides an organizational framework for understanding the individual and environmental
variables that contribute to the occurrence of interfering behaviors. It facilitates the iden-
tification, description, and examination of the collective influences of multiple variables on
interfering behaviors. In short, the BAPS model leads to a conceptual analysis of the vari-
ables that occasion, evoke, strengthen, and maintain interfering behaviors.
79
80 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Rather than using the BAPS model as a “stand-alone” assessment process, we use it
following the completion of indirect, descriptive, and/or experimental analysis assessments
to organize and summarize the findings. Application of the BAPS model is part of our
hypothesis-­testing method of assessment in which (1) hypotheses are formed; (2) assessment
data are collected, analyzed, and synthesized; and (3) hypotheses are confirmed or discon-
firmed. If hypotheses are confirmed, then we design and implement function-­based inter-
ventions; if hypotheses are not confirmed, then we go back to the drawing board (“rinse and
repeat”). The BAPS model allows us to examine and refine hypotheses based on an analysis
of the interactive effects of the variables that “trigger” (i.e., evoke and occasion) and main-
tain (i.e., reinforce) interfering behaviors.

THE EVOLUTION OF CONCEPTUAL MODELS

Sound behavior-­analytic conceptual models and a robust body of literature describing the
variables that influence human behavior serve as the foundation for the BAPS model. The
following are examples of conceptual models that describe functional relations between
behavior, antecedent variables, and consequent events.

The Three‑Term Conceptual Model

Bijou, Peterson, and Ault (1968) were among the first researchers to assess systematically the
environmental variables that trigger and reinforce interfering behaviors. Their A-B-C (i.e.,
antecedent–­behavior–­consequence) method for understanding the function(s) of behavior
continues to be used by practitioners. Within this A-B-C model:

• Antecedents are stimuli that occur prior to behavior and influence its occurrence,
• Behavior includes the appropriate or interfering responses produced by the indi-
vidual, and
• Consequences are events that follow behavior and either increase or decrease its
future probability.

Only those stimuli that occur prior to behavior and directly influence its occurrence
are functional antecedents. Similarly, only those events that follow behavior and directly
influence its future occurrence are functional consequences.

The Four‑Term Conceptual Model

Goldfried and Sprafkin (1976) expanded the A-B-C model described by Bijou and colleagues
(1968) by including a fourth variable for consideration when assessing and conceptualiz-
ing the functions of interfering behaviors: organism variables. Their stimulus–­organism–­
response–­consequence (SORC) model highlighted the fact that antecedents, consequences,
and organism variables interact to influence behavior. Nelson and Hayes (1979) defined
organism variables as “individual differences produced by past learning and by physiology”
(p. 7). These include both temporally proximal and distal variables that influence the man-
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 81

ner in which individuals respond to their environments (e.g., a history of reading difficul-
ties, vision impairments, or fatigue).

The Five‑Term Conceptual Model

In the second edition of this text (Steege & Watson, 2009), we described a five-term con-
ceptual model that expanded on the A-B-C and SORC models by distinguishing between
motivational and discriminative antecedent influences on behavior. The model included the
following variables:

• Motivating operations
• Discriminative stimuli
• Individual (organism) variables
• Responses (i.e., interfering behaviors)
• Consequences

Unlike the linear A-B-C model, the five-term conceptual model considered the
dynamic interaction among variables that influenced behavior. MOs were conceptualized
as overarching “super variables” that make (1) discriminative stimuli more salient, (2) indi-
vidual (organism) variables more relevant, (3) interfering behaviors more probable, and (4)
reinforcing consequences more valuable.

The Eight‑Term Conceptual Model

We now offer an eight-term conceptual model that incorporates the essential components
of the A-B-C, SORC, and five-term conceptual models and adds the following variables:
context, skill deficits/delays, and parameters of reinforcement. This eight-term conceptual
framework is the foundation for the BAPS model. As we discuss this model, it will be help-
ful to refer to the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording form
(Form 6.1, page 105). At this point, consider the recording form as a “trail map” that guides
the input and integration of assessment data.

Structure of the Behavior‑Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results

Recording Form
The first thing we want you to take note of is the overall structure of the Behavior-­Analytic
Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording form. The form facilitates a synthesis of
assessment data and provides a “big-­picture view” of the variables that contribute to inter-
fering behavior. This view allows for a visual analysis of the interactive effects of anteced-
ents and consequences and serves as the foundation for a sound case conceptualization with
respect to interfering behavior. Notice the positioning of the box for interfering behavior
(about two-­thirds of the way down the page). This is your starting point (the “You Are Here”
on the trail map) for completing the form. All of the boxes above “Interfering Behavior(s)”
refer to variables that precede occurrences of interfering behavior and make it more prob-
able in the moment. All of the boxes below “Interfering Behavior(s)” describe variables that
82 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

follow occurrences of interfering behavior and serve to maintain and strengthen it. Later in
this chapter, we describe a step-by-step process for inputting all FBA assessment data into
the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording form. But before we
go there, please take a few minutes to read through the following descriptions and illustra-
tions of the components of the BAPS model.
Note: If you have previously used the BAPS recording form (Steege & Watson, 2009),
you will find this revised version to be more “user-­friendly.” Revisions to the form were
based on feedback from practitioners, parents, and others who found much of the vocabulary
in the original version to be too technical and off-­putting. For example, in the current revi-
sion, we collapsed two categories—­Unconditioned Motivating Operations and Conditioned
Motivating Operations—­into the single category of Motivational “Triggers.” Technically,
MOs do not trigger behavior; instead, MOs make reinforcing consequences more valuable
and interfering behaviors more probable. We decided to use the term trigger because it
helps consumers understand that these motivational stimuli and events are antecedents to
interfering behavior. Likewise, we redefined SDs as “sources of reinforcement” to capture
how these antecedent stimuli signal the availability of reinforcement.

COMPONENTS OF THE BAPS MODEL

The following sections describe and illustrate the components of the BAPS model, which is
comprised of the following variables:

1. Context
2. Personal characteristics
3. Skill delays/deficits
4. Motivational triggers (MOs)
5. Sources of reinforcement (SDs)
6. Interfering behavior
7. Reinforcing consequences
8. Parameters of reinforcement

We suggest that you reference a blank copy of the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solv-
ing: Assessment Results recording form (Form 6.1) while reading. Each of the boxes in the
recording form is a placeholder: a repository for the information gleaned from the FBA.
Yet, the BAPS model is also dynamic, and identification of one component of our eight-term
conceptualization of interfering behavior often influences and informs our understanding
of additional functional variables. For example, identification of deprivation of social atten-
tion as an MO informs the hypothesis that social attention is a reinforcing consequence for
interfering behavior. Likewise, the hypothesis that an interfering behavior is maintained
by negative reinforcement leads us to examine and identify functionally related MOs (i.e.,
antecedent events characterized by the presentation of aversive stimuli), and identification
of a relevant personal characteristic prompts examination of other associated variables such
as skill deficits and delays.
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 83

The following subsections include a definition for each component of the BAPS model,
followed by a description of the process for identifying the relevant variables, a rationale
for including the variables in the conceptualization of interfering behavior, and clinical
examples illustrating the relevant concepts.

Interfering Behavior
Definition
Interfering behaviors are behaviors that interfere with the student’s progress. These include
a variety of responses that are disruptive to the learning of the student and/or others.

Process
Identify and operationally define each response class of interfering behaviors.

Rationale
FBA seeks to understand why students engage in interfering behaviors so that effective
interventions can be developed. Therefore, identifying and defining the behaviors targeted
for assessment and intervention is an essential first step in the BAPS model.
When defining interfering behaviors, it is important to be specific. Operational defini-
tions provide team members with a common understanding of the “problem” and increase
the likelihood of accurate and reliable data collection. It also is important to consider the
concept of response classes. Multiple topographies of interfering behavior (e.g., hitting,
pinching, and kicking) may form a single response class, which means that each response in
the set may be controlled by the same functional antecedents and consequences. In these
situations, the conceptualization of the interfering behavior may be completed using a sin-
gle BAPS recording form. In other situations, different topographies of interfering behavior
(e.g., aggression, self-­injury, opposition, and tantrum) may be controlled by different ante-
cedents and consequences and/or associated with different contexts, personal characteris-
tics, and skill deficits. Accordingly, each interfering behavior may need to be analyzed using
multiple BAPS recording forms.

Example
Steve is a middle school student who exhibits inappropriate verbal behaviors, including
swearing at teachers and swearing at peers. Results of the FBA revealed that swearing at
teachers resulted in negative reinforcement (avoidance of and escape from tasks), whereas
swearing at peers resulted in positive reinforcement (social attention/reactions). Assessment
data also revealed that these behaviors occurred in different contexts, were associated with
different personal characteristics and skill deficits, and were evoked by different anteced-
ent events. In this case, synthesizing results for all inappropriate verbal behaviors was an
inappropriately global approach, and using separate BAPS recording forms to conceptual-
84 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

ize “swearing at teachers” and “swearing at peers” proved to be a more effective strategy.
Separate analyses were essential for designing different function-­based support plans.

Additional Considerations
All information you input into the BAPs recording form (e.g., context, personal charac-
teristics, delays/deficits) must be relevant to the identified interfering behavior. Inputting
irrelevant information compromises the integrity of the conceptual analysis. As you use this
form, it is critical to remember that identification of each class of interfering behaviors is
the starting point, and only FBA data directly relevant to each class of interfering behaviors
should be added to your conceptual map.

Context
Definition
Context refers to the setting or environment in which the interfering behavior occurs. Con-
text may include descriptions of the physical locations, social circumstances, or types of
activities associated with interfering behaviors.

Process
Specify the contexts in which interfering behavior is most probable. The normative behav-
iors expected within the context also may be identified.

Rationale
Interfering behaviors occur within a larger context, and behaviors that occur in different
contexts may have unique sets of controlling variables. Knowing the context of interfer-
ing behaviors allows us to anticipate the possibility of interfering behavior and understand
the normative behavioral expectations. Identifying the contexts associated with interfering
behavior provides information about when and where behavioral interventions need to be
implemented and informs the selection of target replacement behaviors and treatment strat-
egies (e.g., antecedent modifications).

Example 1
A high school student exhibited interfering behavior (i.e., acting “goofy” and making irrel-
evant comments) during language arts class. The interfering behavior was reinforced by
social attention from classmates (socially mediated positive reinforcement). In the context
of language arts class, students are expected to participate in group discussion, read orally,
read silently, attend to instruction, and attend to peers’ contributions. Therefore, interven-
tion during language arts class focused on increasing appropriate behavior (i.e., relevant
comments, sustained oral/silent reading, attention to task) and reducing interfering behav-
iors.
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 85

Example 2
A student displayed inappropriate social behavior with peers during unstructured class-
room situations. Reducing the number and duration of unstructured situations and provid-
ing planned activities during these situations reduced the opportunity for the student to
engage in interfering behaviors.

Personal Characteristics
Definition
Personal characteristics include the student’s individual traits, sensitivities, beliefs, and/
or values that contribute to interfering behavior. (Note: It is important to recognize that
personal characteristics do not cause interfering behavior; rather, they make it challenging
for the student to navigate and successfully participate in the context and increase the prob-
ability of interfering behaviors.)

Process
Describe the personal characteristics that contribute to interfering behavior. Consider fac-
tors such as the student’s characteristic patterns of feeling, thinking, and acting; cultural
background; and biological/medical conditions and diagnoses.

Rationale
Personal characteristics are the variables that students “bring to the table” as a result of
their unique biology and learning history. Identification of relevant personal characteristics
helps us pinpoint specific skill delays/deficits and understand why certain events operate as
MOs or reinforcing consequences for interfering behavior. For example, due to biology and
learning history, a student may be particularly sensitive to some environmental events (e.g.,
sudden loud noises, large crowds, or the behavior of peers), display characteristic behavioral
traits and patterns of thinking (e.g., rigidity, resistance to change, impulsivity, low frustra-
tion tolerance, and self-­deprecating or irrational thoughts), and/or adhere to specific values
(e.g., personal or cultural “codes”).

Example 1
Harold is a high school student diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who is
hypersensitive to abrupt, loud noises (e.g., the school bell and peer laughter or screaming).
FBA results indicated that auditory stimuli were antecedents to Harold’s engagement in
interfering behaviors such as repeatedly yelling “Stop!” Using the BAPS model to under-
stand Harold’s interfering behavior, we identified sensitivity to abrupt, loud noises as a
relevant personal characteristic.
Now, what about the abrupt loud noises? In Harold’s case, these variables operated as
MOs. That is, the presentation of auditory stimuli such as the school bell and sudden peer
86 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

laughter or screaming increased the value of negative reinforcement in the form of escape
from aversive stimuli.
And how was reinforcement in the form of escape delivered as a consequence for inter-
fering behavior? Well, the school bell rings for only a few seconds, and Harold had associ-
ated yelling “Stop!” with the cessation of the bell ringing. In other words, the school bell
stopped ringing shortly after he yelled. The two events were not causally related; the yelling
did not directly result in the termination of the bell ringing. Nonetheless, yelling behavior
was reinforced by the cessation of the bell. It was a form of “superstitious behavior.” On
the other hand, yelling in response to peer laughter and screaming was maintained by
socially mediated negative reinforcement. When Harold yelled “Stop!” his teacher typically
escorted him to a quiet adjacent classroom.
So how did this information inform intervention? Antecedent modification is a strat-
egy for reducing interfering behavior by altering or eliminating the relevant MOs. In this
case, it was not practical to alter or eliminate the school bell. Moreover, the laughter and
screaming of classmates was not predictable or controllable, and there were many naturally
occurring situations in which that behavior was perfectly acceptable (e.g., during basketball
games, school assemblies, and teen idol visits to the school). The team therefore decided
to implement a self-­management program. The school psychologist used prompting and
reinforcement strategies to teach Harold specific coping skills as a replacement for yelling.
He participated in daily role-play sessions to practice these skills in response to simulated
triggers (e.g., the school psychologist screaming like a peer). He also carried a written script
of the coping skills routine, self-­monitored and self-­reinforced engagement in coping skills,
and wore a wristwatch that beeped 1 minute before the school bell rang to prompt coping
skill practice. This intervention package resulted in an immediate reduction and eventual
elimination of Harold’s inappropriate yelling behavior.

Example 2
Jaymee is a fifth-grade student with delays in reading fluency and comprehension who
makes frequent errors (e.g., mispronunciations, word substitutions, and word omissions)
while reading orally. Jaymee was referred for an FBA of verbal and nonverbal oppositional–­
defiant behaviors that typically occurred during small-group reading instruction in a
resource classroom. The FBA included (1) behavior-­analytic interviews with Jaymee and
her special education teacher and (2) direct observations during small-group reading
instruction. The special education teacher reported that Jaymee was sensitive to correc-
tive feedback during reading and concerned about peer appraisal. When interviewed, Jay-
mee confirmed these observations and displayed self-­deprecating and irrational patterns of
thinking. For example, she commented: “Everyone thinks I’m stupid,” “My teachers think
I’m the dumbest kid in the class,” and “I completely suck at reading.” Given these personal
characteristics, interfering behaviors became probable in the context of small-group read-
ing instruction when Jaymee was expected to read aloud. In this case, both sensitivity to
corrective feedback and irrational beliefs were documented as relevant personal character-
istics on the BAPS recording form.
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 87

Skill Delays/Deficits
Definition
Skill delays and deficits refer to appropriate behaviors that are absent or limited and thereby
impair the student’s ability to cope effectively with personal characteristics and/or respond
successfully in specified contexts.

Process
Specify the communication, academic, executive, adaptive living, social, and/or self-­
management skills that, when absent or limited, contribute to interfering behavior.

Rationale
In our experience, the vast majority of interfering behaviors displayed by students are
directly related to skill delays or behavioral deficits. In fact, in most cases, we are able
to reframe interfering behaviors as behavioral deficits. For example, interfering behavior
maintained by negative reinforcement (escape from tasks) may be reframed as a deficit in
appropriate communication skills (e.g., requesting a break or asking for help). Similarly,
aggressive behavior between classmates may be reframed in terms of conflict resolution
skill deficits, and stereotypy maintained by automatic reinforcement (arousal induction/sen-
sory stimulation) may be reframed as a deficit in independent leisure skills. Each behavior
deficit thus links to a skill that may be taught and reinforced as a replacement for interfering
behavior. This is why identifying the contexts in which interfering behaviors occur helps the
team identify logical replacement behaviors. We ask two questions: (1) What are the norma-
tive behaviors and academic/social expectations within the relevant context? and (2) Does
the student have the requisite skills to engage in these normative and expected behaviors?
Then we advocate for the “fair-pair” model of intervention. That is, it is only “fair” to “pair”
an appropriate behavior to increase with each interfering behavior we plan to reduce.

Example 1
Odessa frequently exhibited disruptive behaviors (e.g., verbal opposition and property
destruction) when verbally directed to participate in cooperative learning activities. Odessa
has a strong preference for completing assignments individually and explained that she
likes to complete work “on my own terms, in my own sweet time, and with my own flair.”
She also has a history of arguing with classmates and engaging in disruptive behavior when
“she doesn’t get her own way.” The FBA resulted in identification of several behavioral
deficits, including inadequate conflict resolution, collaboration, and negotiation skills. The
school counselor and school psychologist collaborated in offering the Strong Kids program
(Merrell, Juskelis, Tran, & Buchanan, 2008) to address these behavioral deficits. Engaging
Odessa in the Strong Kids curriculum within a small group allowed for modeling, practice,
and reinforcement of prosocial replacement behaviors.
88 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Example 2
Consider the previous case of Jaymee. Deficits in reading accuracy, fluency, and com-
prehension skills clearly contributed to occurrences of interfering behavior. Additionally,
Jaymee’s irrational beliefs revealed deficits in the skill of disputing automatic thoughts and
using positive self-talk.

Executive Skills
Table 5.1 in Chapter 5 (pp. 55–56) links common referral concerns with specific executive skill weak-
nesses. We find this to be a useful guide as we reframe personal characteristics as skill delays/deficits
that can be directly targeted for intervention.

Motivational Triggers (MOs)

Definition
Motivating operations include antecedent stimuli and events that temporarily (1) alter the
effectiveness of reinforcing consequences and (2) increase the likelihood of interfering
behaviors maintained by those currently valuable consequences.

Process
Specify antecedent stimuli and conditions that evoke interfering behavior. Consider conditions
of deprivation (e.g., reduced or restricted access to preferred edibles, tangibles, activities, and
social interactions) and the presentation of aversive stimuli or events (e.g., pain, unpleasant
thoughts and emotions, challenging academic tasks, and undesirable social interactions).

Rationale
Interfering behaviors are often triggered by the deprivation of reinforcing stimuli or the
presentation of aversive stimuli. These motivational variables are in constant flux, which
explains why student behavior can be so variable! Identification of the MOs that evoke
interfering behavior is essential for developing antecedent-­based interventions that reduce
the probability of interfering behaviors by preventing conditions of deprivation and altering
the aversive aspects of the student’s environment.

Example 1
A student has a history of food-­stealing behavior. Deprivation of food temporarily (1) increases
the value of food as a reinforcer and (2) increases the probability of food-­seeking behavior.
When the student was placed on a low-­calorie diet (an MO), food became extremely valu-
able and he engaged in high rates of food-­stealing behavior. When the student was permit-
ted free access to high-­quality snacks, the motivation to access food and the likelihood of
food-­stealing behavior were reduced.
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 89

Example 2
A high school junior has a history of sleep apnea and chronic migraine headaches. Due to
sleep apnea, the student experiences sleep deprivation and painful stimulation caused by
migraine headaches (both of which operate as MOs). Both of these antecedent variables
increase the value of escaping from lecture-­type instructional sessions (negative reinforce-
ment) and increase the probability of off-task behaviors, such as doodling, laying her head
on the desk, and sleeping in class. Additionally, sleep deprivation and headache pain may
decrease the value of reinforcers that typically maintain on-task behavior (e.g., teacher
praise and earned access to break-time rewards).

Sources of Reinforcement (SDs)

Definition
Discriminative stimuli (SDs) are antecedent stimuli that are correlated with the availability
of reinforcement and set the occasion for behavior.

Process
Specify the SDs that signal the availability of reinforcement and therefore trigger interfering
behavior. Consider potential sources of reinforcement, including the presence of reinforcing
items and people correlated with the delivery of reinforcement for interfering behaviors.

Rationale
When we conduct an FBA, we conceptualize the SD as the source of reinforcement. When
interfering behaviors are maintained by individually mediated reinforcement, the items,
location, and situations that the student wants to access or avoid typically function as SDs. In
contrast, when behaviors are maintained by socially mediated reinforcement, the persons
delivering the reinforcement operate as SDs. Interfering behaviors are more likely to occur
when relevant SDs are present; therefore, identification of SDs informs antecedent interven-
tion strategies that involve removing or modifying these triggers.

Example 1 (Individually Mediated Reinforcement)

Steve is a senior in high school. As part of a transition plan to prepare him for employment at
a local apple orchard, Steve performs several school “jobs” including picking, sorting, clean-
ing, and bagging McIntosh apples. Steve was referred for an FBA to address compulsive
cell-phone checking that was interfering with his job performance. The job coach reported
that Steve frequently stops working, removes the phone from his pants pocket, and checks
for messages. On a day when Steve forgot his cell phone at home, Steve’s productivity was
75% greater than usual. In this example, the cell phone is an SD for compulsive cell-phone
checking behavior. The cell phone signals the availability of potential reinforcing messages,
and it was readily available in Steve’s pants pocket. Directing Steve to store the phone in a
90 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

locker that was accessible only during scheduled break times reduced work stoppages and
increased productivity.

Example 2 (Socially Mediated Reinforcement)

Jarry is a preschool student who displays disruptive behaviors during morning circle time
when students recite the days of the week, check the weather, and sing the alphabet. Some-
times Teacher A leads the group activity, and sometimes Teacher B leads the activity. Dur-
ing circle time observations, the evaluator noticed a pattern, namely that Jarry’s disruptive
behavior occurred more frequently and for longer durations when Teacher A led the activity
than when Teacher B led the activity. Additional observations revealed that Teacher A typi-
cally responded to disruptive behavior by asking Jarry to sit next to her and then providing
tactile supports (e.g., placing her hand on his leg or her arm on his shoulder). In contrast, when
Teacher B was directing the activity and Jarry engaged in disruptive behavior, she typically
praised other students for “good listening behaviors.” In short, Teacher A provided social
attention contingent on disruptive behaviors, whereas Teacher B ignored disruptive behav-
iors and differentially reinforced appropriate behaviors. In this example, Teacher A functions
as an SD, signaling the availability of socially mediated positive reinforcement and occasion-
ing disruptive behavior. Technically, Teacher B also serves as a type of discriminative stimu-
lus (an S-delta [SD]) that signals the unavailability of reinforcement for disruptive behavior.

“Who Ya Gonna Call?”

Do any of you remember a time in your life when you were “dead broke” or at least really strapped
for cash? I (Steege) do! As an undergraduate at Iowa State University, I mismanaged my finances and
found myself in need of a quick transfer of funds to cover a check I had written to help pay for a keg
of beer. (I was counting on my buddies to reimburse me for the deposit and costs, but they were slow
in paying up.) So, I called home and pled my case for a short-term loan. In my case, Parent A was an
SD signaling the availability of sympathy and a quick transfer of funds. Parent B was an SDP for social
disapproval and an SD signaling the unavailability of reinforcement. So, who ya gonna call? Parent A, of
course. Wheww . . . problem solved!
A couple of decades later I got “the call” from each of my kids. Cool, I’m an SD —signaling the
availability of reinforcements—so I got that going for me, which is nice.

Reinforcing Consequences
Definition
Reinforce means to strengthen, and reinforcement is the process of strengthening a behav-
ior. Reinforcing consequences are stimulus changes that occur subsequent to a response and
strengthen the future probability of similar responses. When interfering behaviors result in
access to preferred stimuli, we classify the consequence as positive reinforcement. When
interfering behaviors result in postponement or termination of aversive stimuli, we classify
the consequence as negative reinforcement. Reinforcing consequences may be delivered by
other people (socially mediated) or result directly from the behavior (individually mediated
and automatic).
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 91

Process
Identify the consequences that follow and reinforce (strengthen) interfering behavior. Clas-
sify the consequences as positive (access) or negative (avoidance/escape), and determine
whether the consequences are individually mediated, socially mediated, or automatic.

Rationale
Differentiating the specific consequences that reinforce and maintain interfering behaviors
is critical to understanding why these behaviors occur. Moreover, knowledge of the func-
tional reinforcer(s) for interfering behaviors directly informs intervention: Once we identify
a relevant reinforcing consequence, we can withhold it contingent on interfering behavior
and provide it contingent on an appropriate replacement behavior.
Remember, reinforcing consequences strengthen the future probability of behavior.
When conducting an FBA, it is important to distinguish between the immediate effect of
a consequence and the future effect of a consequence. For example, a preschooler, Tiffany,
exhibited tantrum behaviors when a classmate, Russ, unexpectedly grabbed her favorite
color crayon during a free-time activity. When the teacher assistant intervened and returned
the crayon to Tiffany, she immediately stopped crying. From the teacher assistant’s perspec-
tive, returning the crayon “worked” because the tantrum behavior stopped. However, in the
future, Tiffany’s tantrum behavior increased markedly, especially when other children used
her preferred classroom materials. Tiffany subsequently was referred for an FBA because
of increased tantrum behaviors and “problems with sharing.” Obviously, from a behavior-­
analytic perspective, the return of the crayon (and other items) did work . . . it worked to
reinforce tantrum behaviors. Given this scenario, what types of strategies may be effective
in (1) reducing tantrum behaviors and (2) increasing sharing behaviors?

Example 1
When Erin gossiped about two particular peers at her school, her closest friends provided
increased quality attention (e.g., eye contact with widened eyes, enthusiastic reciprocal
social interactions, and invitations for sleepovers). Erin is now engaging in high rates of gos-
sip behaviors. In this case, the reinforcing consequence for gossiping was access to social
attention from peers (socially mediated positive reinforcement).

Example 2
Roxanna is a preschool student who prefers to play alone and often engages in severe tantrum
behavior when she is prompted to stop playing and join group activities. The team decided
to use a planned ignoring strategy (i.e., ignore Roxanna and engage the other children in
the activity) when Roxanna exhibited tantrum behaviors in response to prompts to join the
group. This strategy was based on the hypothesis (hope?) that Roxanna would grow tired of
playing alone, feel jealous about the attention provided to her classmates, and then (eventu-
ally) join the group. Now, whenever Roxanna is asked to participate in group activities, she
immediately engages in tantrum behavior. In this example, Roxanna’s tantrum behaviors
92 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

were reinforced by avoidance of group activities (negative reinforcement) and continued

access to solitary play (positive reinforcement). We call this the “double whammy.”

Example 3
Belynda is a 19-year-old student who displays high rates of pacing and hand wringing (i.e.,
she paces back and forth while simultaneously clutching and wringing her hands). This
behavior typically occurs when Belynda is not engaged in community living, daily living,
recreation-­leisure, self-help, or vocational tasks. Based on a comprehensive FBA, the school
psychologist determined that the behaviors appeared to be maintained by sensory conse-
quences (automatic reinforcement).

Parameters of Reinforcement
Definition
Parameters are the dimensions of reinforcement that influence its strengthening effects.
Key parameters of reinforcement include schedule, quality, magnitude, and immediacy.

Process
Identify or estimate the following parameters of reinforcement:

• Schedule: How frequently is reinforcement delivered contingent on the interfering

behavior?
• Quality: How valuable or preferred is the reinforcing consequence?
• Magnitude: How large is the reinforcer or period of access to the reinforcer?
• Timing: How immediate or delayed is the delivery of the reinforcing consequence?

Rationale
To compete with the reinforcing consequences maintaining interfering behaviors, we need
to understand what we are up against. Describing the schedule, quality, magnitude, and
timing of reinforcement provides the information we need to determine the robustness
of the reinforcing consequence (i.e., the strength of the behavior–­consequence relation-
ship). We can then use this information to arrange more robust reinforcing consequences for
replacement behaviors and effectively compete with the reinforcement that follows interfer-
ing behavior.

Examples (Schedules of Reinforcement)

Schedules of reinforcement describe how often and when interfering behaviors produce
reinforcement. The following are examples of schedules of reinforcement maintaining inter-
fering behavior.
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 93

• Every time a student engages in physical aggression, he is sent home for the day, and
he really likes going home! (continuous reinforcement).
• When a student calls out in class, she gets a check mark by her name on the board.
After three check marks (i.e., three call-outs), she is required to stay inside with the
teacher for recess. For the student, this is a good thing because she gets teased on the
playground and loves one-on-one time with her teacher (intermittent reinforcement;
fixed ratio 3).
• A student engages in inappropriate joke telling. On average, every third inappropri-
ate joke results in positive reinforcement in the form of peer laughter (intermittent
reinforcement, variable ratio 3).
• The classroom teacher wanders the room when students complete independent
seatwork. When a student is off-task and the teacher notices, the teacher engages
the student in conversation and offers assistance. After varying durations of off-task
behavior, the student accesses positive reinforcement in the form of teacher attention
(intermittent reinforcement, variable interval).

Examples (Quality of Reinforcement)

Reinforcement varies in terms of quality, and quality is individually determined. I love pea-
nut M&Ms (high quality). I like Dove dark chocolates (medium quality). And carob morsels,
the healthy alternative when making chocolate chip cookies, will do in a pinch (low quality).
The question here is: To what degree is the reinforcing consequence valued or preferred by
the student? For example:

• How valuable is social attention? Is the attention physical or verbal? Is the tone neu-
tral or enthusiastic? Is it from teachers or the cool kids?
• How valuable is escape from a task? Are tasks simply removed or does the student
get to take a break in a preferred location with preferred activities?
• How valuable is the edible, tangible, or activity reinforcer? Does the student get
access to coloring (low preference) or the iPad (high preference)? Does the student
get a stale cup of Folgers coffee or a piping hot caramel latte from Star-­Dunkin?

Keep in mind too that the quality of reinforcement is variable and impacted by fluctuating
MOs. For example, peanut M&Ms may be my favorite, but, after eating a double pounder of
peanut M&Ms, the thought of chocolate may be nauseating.

Examples (Magnitude of Reinforcement)

The magnitude of reinforcement refers to the amount of reinforcement. For example:

• 10–20 seconds of social attention

• 8–12 minutes of escape from classroom activities
• 5 minutes of access to the iPad
• 10 peanut M&Ms
94 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Examples (Timing of Reinforcement)

The timing of reinforcement refers to the amount of time that elapses between the behavior
and the reinforcing consequence. Timing may be immediate (e.g., 2–5 seconds after the behav-
ior) or delayed (e.g., 1 minute or 1 hour after the behavior). For example, positive reinforcement
in the form of individualized attention from the teacher may occur immediately after an occur-
rence of interfering behavior or at the end of the day during a conference to reflect on prior
occurrences of interfering behavior. Generally speaking, the more immediate the delivery of
the reinforcing consequence, the stronger the behavior–­reinforcer relationship.

Summary
The BAPS model facilitates a conceptualization of interfering behavior as a function of
dynamic interactions between multiple environmental variables. This eight-term concep-
tualization of behavior recognizes that assessment of the school context and the unique
characteristics and skills of each student sets the foundation for understanding the manner
in which antecedents and consequences directly occasion, evoke, and maintain interfering
behaviors. The following is a summary of the functional properties of the variables within
the BAPs model that contribute to interfering behaviors.

Context
• Context makes interfering behavior more predictable.
• Context makes personal characteristics more salient.
• Context makes skill delays/deficits more pronounced.

Personal Characteristics and Skill Delays/Deficits

• Individual variables make it more challenging for students to be successful within a
particular context.

Motivational Triggers (MOs)

• MOs make discriminative stimuli more relevant and effective.
• MOs make reinforcing consequences more valuable.
• MOs make interfering behavior more probable.

Sources of Reinforcement (SDs)

• SDs make interfering behavior more probable.

Reinforcing Consequences
• Reinforcing consequences strengthen interfering behaviors by increasing the future
frequency, duration, and/or intensity of behavior.

Parameters of Reinforcement
• Parameters of reinforcement impact the relative strength (robustness) of reinforcing
consequences.
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 95

USING THE BEHAVIOR‑ANALYTIC PROBLEM SOLVING:

ASSESSMENT RESULTS RECORDING FORM

We have designed the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording

form to assist with organizing and synthesizing FBA data in a meaningful way. (In the old
days, we sat in front of a desk that looked like the chart table of the Titanic as she was
foundering at sea and attempted to make sense of vast collections of data such as results
of adaptive behavior, curriculum-­based measures, and preference assessments; pages of
interview notes; raw and tabulated data from anecdotal and descriptive observations; and
graphs of brief or extended functional analyses. It was a mess. And our FBA reports were
long narratives that attempted to organize the results but put even the most avid behavior
analyst to sleep.) The Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording
form simplifies the interpretation of FBA results by offering a visual format to display the
interrelationships between contributing variables (context, personal characteristics, skill
delays/deficits), functional antecedents (MOs and SDs), reinforcing consequences, and inter-
fering behaviors.
The following is a guide for completing the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assess-
ment Results recording form. You will notice that we do not recommend completing the
form from top to bottom; rather, we recommend a step-by-step process that facilitates a
functional conceptualization. Remember, although we may use the BAPS model to guide
the FBA process, we use the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results
recording form following the completion of a comprehensive FBA.

Step 1: Interfering Behavior

Identifying and defining the interfering behavior is always the starting point, and the con-
ceptual map branches out from here. We suggest limiting your analysis to one interfering
behavior or a cluster of interfering behaviors that are members of the same response class.

Step 2: Context
Identifying the context next sets the stage for the analysis of associated and functional vari-
ables. The context helps us focus our attention on the skills needed for successful function-
ing (which guides us to relevant personal characteristics and skill delays/deficits) and the
people, interactions, items, activities, and so forth that may function as antecedents or con-
sequences for interfering behaviors.

Step 3: Reinforcing Consequences

Identifying the reinforcing consequences for interfering behavior provides clues about
functional antecedents (MOs and SDs). For example, when an interfering behavior results in
escape from academics, we know that we need to examine which aspects of the academic
task are aversive and thus make escape valuable. In some cases, you may find that a single
interfering behavior is reinforced by multiple reinforcing consequences (e.g., negative, posi-
tive, and automatic reinforcement).
96 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Step 4: Motivational Triggers (MOs)

Now that you have identified the reinforcing consequences, back up and identify the rel-
evant MOs. The key is to determine whether the interfering behavior is preceded by some
level of deprivation of (or restricted access to) preferred stimuli or events or by the presenta-
tion of aversive (or nonpreferred) stimuli or events—­or by both.

Step 5: Sources of Reinforcement (SDs)

After identifying the reinforcing consequences, you are well positioned to pinpoint the
sources of reinforcement. In many school-­based situations, reinforcing consequences are
delivered (mediated) by peers, teachers, or other school staff. In those cases, the person with
the history of reinforcing the interfering behavior is typically the functional SD. However,
when interfering behaviors result in direct access to reinforcement (individually mediated
or automatic reinforcement), we suggest focusing your attention on specific items, locations,
or situations that have been correlated with reinforcement.

Interfering Behavior, Context, Reinforcing Consequences,

MOs, and SDs
Joey is a 17-year-old who lives at home with his single mother and three younger siblings. Joey’s mother
reported that he never displays interfering behaviors when she is available to provide him with her undi-
vided attention. However, when she is busy (e.g., cooking dinner) and Joey is seated in his wheelchair in
the living room by himself, he often engages in loud vocalizations and hand-­biting behavior. When she
halts her task to check on Joey and see if he is okay, he typically quiets and stops biting his hand. She
explained that this pattern repeats itself several times each evening and that talking in a “soothing tone”
seems to work because it “settles Joey down.” In this example, we can identify the five components of
the BAPS model discussed thus far:
1. Interfering Behavior: Loud vocalizations and hand biting
2. Context: Sitting in a wheelchair alone in the living room
3. Reinforcing consequences: Parental attention (socially mediated positive reinforcement)
4. Motivational triggers (MOs): Diverted attention (deprivation of attention)
5. Sources of reinforcement (SDs): Joey’s mother

Step 6: Personal Characteristics

Now is the time to ask: Does the student evidence any remarkable individual differences or
tendencies that make it challenging for him or her to be successful in the relevant contexts?
The variables identified in this category often point us toward potential skill delays/deficits.
For example, patterns of rigid thinking (a personal characteristic) may reflect weaknesses in
behavioral flexibility (skill delay/deficit).

Step 7: Skill Delays/Deficits

The key here is to identify the particular skill delays and deficits associated with the inter-
fering behavior. Skill delays/deficits may be related MOs. For example, delays in writing
skills may be one of the reasons that a teacher’s instruction to “get back to work” is aversive
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 97

and evokes interfering behaviors. Many of the students with whom we work present with
numerous and pervasive behavior deficits, but you should list only the relevant ones.

More about Joey . . .

In the case of Joey, we also learned that he has diagnoses of intellectual disability and cerebral palsy,
gets restless when his needs are not addressed immediately, gets bored easily when not engaged in
specific activities, and generally has a hard time “being on his own, even for a short time” (personal
characteristics). In addition, Joey presents with specific delays in expressive language and indepen-
dent recreation-­leisure skills (skill deficits/delays). Collectively, these personal characteristics and skill
deficits help us make sense of the four-term contingency between MOs, SDs, interfering behaviors, and
reinforcing consequences.

Step 8: Parameters of Reinforcement

This can be a tough one. Most interfering behaviors are maintained by intermittent sched-
ules of reinforcement, and consequences tend to be variable in terms of quality, magnitude,
and timing. So unless you have really, really, really good and accurate data, you will only be
able to estimate these parameters. The goal here is to capture how robust the reinforcing
consequences are.

So, How Does This Apply to Joey’s Case?

With Joey, we summarized the parameters of reinforcement as follows:
• Schedule: Mom notices and responds to the behavior every 3–5 minutes (variable interval).
• Quality: High-value social interactions with Mom (soothing statements) that become even more
valuable with deprivation (“absence makes the heart grow fonder”).
• Magnitude: Variable duration ranging from 30 seconds to 5 minutes of social attention.
• Timing: Variable but relatively immediate attention following interfering behavior.

CASE EXAMPLES OF THE BAPS MODEL

Now let’s put the model into action! The following are case examples designed to illustrate
each component of the BAPS model.

The Case of the Missing Snack

Jeremy is a sixth-grade student who recently entered a middle school life skills program.
Jeremy has diagnoses of intellectual disability and Prader–­Willi syndrome. He also has
a history of aggressive behaviors that have been reinforced by access to food items. For
example, when his requests for food items are denied, he often engages in aggressive behav-
iors. Unfortunately, these incidents sometimes conclude with Jeremy gaining access to the
restricted food items.
During the previous school year, a preference assessment was conducted, and results
indicated strong preferences for various food items (e.g., salty snacks, candy bars, and baked
98 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

goods) and opportunities to swing (e.g., on the playground and in the occupational ther-
apy room). A token reinforcement program was then implemented. Jeremy earned social
reinforcement and tokens contingent on the nonoccurrence of aggressive behaviors during
15-minute intervals throughout the school day (differential reinforcement of other behav-
ior; DRO) and the occurrence of target appropriate behaviors (differential reinforcement
of alternative behavior; DRA). The tokens were exchanged for very small amounts of food
items, access to the outdoor swing, or access to the indoor swing. The caloric value of snack
items was restricted to very small amounts: approximately 150 calories per day. This inter-
vention package resulted in a marked decrease in aggressive behaviors and an increase in
appropriate behaviors, relative to baseline.
Over the summer, Jeremy participated in a recreation-­leisure program where staff did
not use the token reinforcement program. Jeremy was also evaluated at a regional medical
clinic, and the team suggested intervening to address his weight gains over the past 3 years.
Jeremy was subsequently placed on a restrictive diet (approximately 2,000 calories per day),
which eliminated his access to unhealthy snack items (e.g., salty snacks, candy bars, and
baked goods) and replaced them with healthy alternatives (e.g., celery chunks, cucumber
slices, and radish bits).
Jeremy began the fall term at the middle school. Based on reports from the summer
program staff, the middle school team decided to start the year without the token reinforce-
ment program. It is also important to note that the middle school did not have either an
outside swing or an indoor swing. No occurrences of aggressive behaviors were reported
during the initial weeks of school. However, during the middle of the fourth week of the fall
term, Jeremy engaged in aggressive behaviors toward a paraprofessional. It was reported
that the aggression occurred “out of the blue.” Aggressive behaviors then began to occur
more frequently: first two to three occurrences per week, then one to five occurrences per
day. Moreover, aggressive behaviors began to generalize across people (e.g., paraprofession-
als, teachers, peers, and community members), settings (e.g., transitions to and from the
school bus, transitions within the school hallways, and community outings), and times of
day (i.e., all school hours). The middle school team indicated that Jeremy was “getting out of
control” and “becoming increasingly assaultive.” He was referred for an FBA.
The FBA was conducted by Fred Garvey (the school psychologist) and Ima Believer
Jones (a predoctoral school psychology intern whose parents named all seven of their chil-
dren after songs performed by the Monkees). The FBA included (1) record reviews; (2)
review of previous behavioral interventions and data; (3) clinical interviews with parents,
school staff, and Jeremy; and (4) descriptive assessments. Several observations were con-
ducted during situations in which aggressive behaviors were likely to occur. The evaluators
were able to observe three behavioral incidents, and they recorded relevant antecedents
and consequences using the Incident-­Based Functional Assessment Form (IBFAF). For
each incident, they noted that Jeremy approached students or staff and attempted to either
grab or open and “search” their backpacks. During interviews, they also learned that, on
several occasions, Jeremy had taken backpacks from others and discovered high-­calorie
snack items. Although the team had attempted to restrict Jeremy’s access to backpacks, it
was impossible to eliminate backpacks from a middle school environment or within com-
munity settings. The results of the FBA are summarized on the Behavior-­Analytic Problem
Solving: Assessment Results recording form (Figure 6.1).
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 99

Personal Characteristics: Context: Skill Delays/Deficits:

Traits, sensitivities, beliefs, Probable contexts Communication, academic, executive, adaptive
and/or values contributing to in which interfering living, social, and/or self-management skill
interfering behavior behavior occurs delays/deficits contributing to interfering behavior

• Preference for high-calorie snack foods Transitions in hallway, • Functional communication skill delays
(e.g., salty snacks, candy bars, arrival to and dismissal • Self-management, self-control, and response
and baked goods) from school, inhibition weaknesses
• History of impulsivity community outings

Motivational “Triggers” (Motivating Operations):

Deprivation of physical or social wants and needs, which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior
Presentation of aversive biological/medical conditions, emotional states, thoughts, academic tasks, or social situations,
which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior

• Restricted diet (2,000 calories per day) increases the motivation for food
• Deprivation of preferred high-calorie snack foods increases the motivation for unhealthy snacks
• Restricted access to desired foods or locations where those foods may be obtained increases the motivation for access

Sources of Reinforcement (Discriminative Stimuli):

Persons, items, or locations that signal the availability of reinforcing consequences (i.e., source of reinforcement),
thereby occasioning interfering behavior

• Backpacks, lunchboxes, briefcases, and purses

• Students, staff, and community members with backpacks, lunchboxes, briefcases, or purses

Interfering Behavior(s):

• Foraging behaviors: Opening unattended backpacks, lunchboxes, briefcases, purses, etc., and searching for snack items
• Aggression: Hair pulling, pinching, slapping, and biting, directed toward peers, staff, and community members.

Reinforcing Consequence(s): Parameters of Reinforcement:

Consequence(s) that strengthen the future probability Describe the power (robustness) of reinforcing consequences
of the interfering behavior
Schedule: • Intermittent access, approximately one out of
every five attempts gains access to food
Access to preferred food items (individually mediated
Quality: • Access to highly preferred food items
positive reinforcement)
Magnitude: • Variable, ranging from a single bite of food to
an entire chocolate bar
Timing: • Immediate access to food items when attempts
are successful

FIGURE 6.1. Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording form for Jeremy.
Used with permission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.
100 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Additional Case Examples

In this section, we offer two additional case examples. For each case, the BAPS recording
form was completed following the completion of a comprehensive FBA. We will not walk you
through the details of the FBA process for these two cases, but we will highlight key details.
Figure 6.2 displays FBA results for Ricky, a student who displays loud vocalizations,
verbal protests, and property destruction. The results of a comprehensive FBA revealed
that these behaviors were reinforced by avoidance of the scheduled activity. Specifically, in
response to interfering behaviors, the teacher verbally directed Ricky to the “quiet room.”
Although this consequence was intended to function as a time-out from reinforcement to
punish interfering behaviors, the intervention actually arranged socially mediated nega-
tive reinforcement, which served to strengthen the interfering behaviors. In this case, note
that personal characteristics include rigidity, inflexibility, and resistance to change, and the
corresponding skill delay/deficit pertained to a critical executive skill: flexibility. Also note
that changes in task routines and schedules signaled a worsening condition (i.e., impending
aversive circumstances) for Ricky and therefore functioned as MOs.
So, in this case . . .

• Do you see how the relationships among individual variables, antecedents, and con-
sequences help us make sense of why Ricky exhibits interfering behavior?
• And, do you see how identifying these variables could lead to an effective multicom-
ponent function-­based intervention plan (e.g., eliminating the time-out procedure,
reinforcing task participation, teaching behavioral flexibility and strategies for cop-
ing with change, modifying the context to minimize changes in expectations and
routines)?

Figure 6.3 summarizes our final case, which involves a student, Maddie, who engages in
disruptive interfering behaviors such as swearing, making profane gestures, stomping her feet,
pushing furniture, and slamming doors. This is a complex case. Results of a comprehensive
FBA revealed that Maddie’s interfering behaviors are members of the same response class and
typically occur as a cluster. These behaviors are reinforced both by socially mediated negative
reinforcement (i.e., avoidance or cessation of difficult academic tasks) and automatic negative
reinforcement (i.e., reduction of anxiety and negative self-talk). Note that anxiety (described
by Maddie as “feeling tense, tied up in knots, and ready to explode”) occurs primarily within
the context of math instruction. Take a look at the contributing personal characteristics, skill
delays/deficits, motivational triggers, and sources of reinforcement. Can you see how the vari-
ables in this case collude to evoke and maintain Maddie’s interfering behavior?

COMMUNICATING FBA RESULTS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS USING THE BAPS MODEL

We recommend that you include the completed Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assess-
ment Results recording form as an appendix to your evaluation report. And when FBAs
address multiple interfering behaviors, we recommend including multiple recording forms
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 101

Personal Characteristics: Context: Skill Delays/Deficits:

Traits, sensitivities, beliefs, Probable contexts Communication, academic, executive, adaptive
and/or values contributing to in which interfering living, social, and/or self-management skill
interfering behavior behavior occurs delays/deficits contributing to interfering behavior

• Rigid thinking Situations that Weaknesses in flexibility (the ability to adapt to

• Resistant to change unexpectedly deviate changing conditions and revise plans in the face
from the regular or of obstacles, setbacks, new information, etc.)
expected routine

Motivational “Triggers” (Motivating Operations):

Deprivation of physical or social wants and needs, which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior
Presentation of aversive biological/medical conditions, emotional states, thoughts, academic tasks, or social situations,
which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior

Presentation of unexpected changes in tasks or schedules

Sources of Reinforcement (Discriminative Stimuli):

Persons, items, or locations that signal the availability of reinforcing consequences (i.e., source of reinforcement),
thereby occasioning interfering behavior

• Staff who have implemented the “time-out” procedure

• Availability of the “quiet room”

Interfering Behavior(s):

• Loud vocalizations (screaming)

• Vocal protest behavior (saying “no” or “I don’t want to ”)
• Property destruction (ripping up materials or overturning furniture)

Reinforcing Consequence(s): Parameters of Reinforcement:

Consequence(s) that strengthen the future probability Describe the power (robustness) of reinforcing consequences
of the interfering behavior
Schedule: • Continuous for property destruction (i.e., prop-
erty destruction always results in “time-out”)
Avoidance of the unexpected/changed task or activity
Quality: • High (avoidance and access to a break with
(socially mediated negative reinforcement)
staff support)
Magnitude: • Variable, time-out for 5–10 minutes

Timing: • Immediate redirection to time-out

FIGURE 6.2. Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording form for Ricky.
Used with permission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.
 102 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Personal Characteristics: Context: Skill Delays/Deficits:

Traits, sensitivities, beliefs, Probable contexts Communication, academic, executive, adaptive
and/or values contributing to in which interfering living, social, and/or self-management skill
interfering behavior behavior occurs delays/deficits contributing to interfering behavior

• Sensitive to corrective feedback Math instruction • Weaknesses in math skills

from teachers (algebra class) • Weaknesses in self-management/emotional
• Perfectionism regulation
• Quick to anger • Weaknesses in psychological flexibility

Motivational “Triggers” (Motivating Operations):

Deprivation of physical or social wants and needs, which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior
Presentation of aversive biological/medical conditions, emotional states, thoughts, academic tasks, or social situations,
which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior

• Presentation of challenging math instruction and corrective feedback increases the value of escape
• Aversive internal arousal (anxiety) increases the value of arousal reduction (feeling calm again)
• Irrational self-statements (e.g., “I can’t do anything right,” “I suck at math”) increase the value of escaping math and
“turning off” those thoughts

Sources of Reinforcement (Discriminative Stimuli):

Persons, items, or locations that signal the availability of reinforcing consequences (i.e., source of reinforcement),
thereby occasioning interfering behavior

• Teacher with a history of backing off and/or sending disruptive students out of the classroom
• Presence of doors and chairs to be shoved and slammed

Interfering Behavior(s):

Disruptive behaviors: Screaming, swearing, making profane gestures, stomping feet, shoving chairs, and slamming doors

Reinforcing Consequence(s): Parameters of Reinforcement:

Consequence(s) that strengthen the future probability Describe the power (robustness) of reinforcing consequences
of the interfering behavior
Schedule: • Intermittent social reinforcement, continuous
• Escape from challenging math expectations automatic reinforcement
(socially mediated negative reinforcement) Quality: • High-quality escape from math in the guidance
• Termination of corrective feedback counselor’s office
(socially mediated negative reinforcement) Magnitude: • Variable, ranging from 15–30 minutes out
• Reductions in arousal/anxiety levels of class
(automatic negative reinforcement) Timing: • Immediate
• Reductions in negative self-statements
(automatic negative reinforcement)

FIGURE 6.3. Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording form for Maddie.
Used with permission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.
 The Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Model 103

in the report. The BAPS recording form provides a concise synthesis of FBA results and
summarizes essential information in a visual format that facilitates the communication of
results to caregivers and school teams. It is our standard practice to meet with parents/
guardians to review and discuss evaluation reports prior to individual education program
(IEP) team meetings, and we use the BAPS recording forms to guide these discussions.
Finally, we find that a comprehensive review of the BAPS recording form is invaluable
when collaborating with teams to identify and design individualized, function-­based inter-
ventions. (Note: Chapter 11 provides additional information about using FBA data to drive
intervention planning and includes a complementary form—­Behavior-­Analytic Problem
Solving: Function-­Focused Intervention—­to support this process.) The following subsec-
tion on “revelations” provides examples of the type of feedback we receive when we present
FBA findings using the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording
form and thoroughly explain how each component in the BAPS model contributes to occur-
rences of interfering behavior.

BAPS Revelations
Reviewing the completed Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results record-
ing form in the context of collaborative problem-­solving meetings with members of school
teams (especially those trained in the conceptual foundations of the BAPS model) facili-
tates a comprehensive understanding of the variables that trigger and maintain interfering
behaviors. In our experience, when evaluators use the recording form as a visual aid to sup-
port these discussions, several revelations occur:

The “Aha” Moment

This is when team members report, “This makes sense. I get it now. Sally’s behavior is not
‘out of the blue.’ Her behavior is predictable and lawful.”

The Perfect Storm

Now team members offer the reflection “Holy cow! Given (1) the school context, (2) Kristi-
na’s personal characteristics, strengths, and weaknesses, (3) motivational triggers, (4) sources
of reinforcement, and (5) reinforcing contingencies, it’s no wonder she behaves that way!”

The Unfortunate Realization about the Ideal Environment for Shaping

Interfering Behavior
This is when a team member exclaims with awe and wonder, “This illustrates the perfect
setup for teaching: (1) establishing high motivation, (2) arranging multiple and varied stimu-
lus conditions for learning, (3) offering repeated opportunities to practice the behavior, and
(4) delivering robust reinforcement. OMG! We have inadvertently been teaching Johnny to
be disruptive! We need to change tactics . . . and quickly!”
104 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

The Student Perspective

The BAPS model helps us understand interfering behaviors from the student’s point of view.
Perhaps the student would say, “Duhhh. Of course I act this way. I’m the victim of an envi-
ronment that is engineered to shape disruptive behavior . . . it’s so unfair.”

The Time for Advocacy

In the end, we hope that team members say, “We need to drop the blame game. We’ve got to
quit blaming Peggy. Let’s quit talking about Peggy and her problems. Let’s get off the diag-
nosis merry-go-round . . . it has not helped us so far. Obviously these behaviors are not her
fault. She didn’t choose to act this way. The interfering behavior is the result of a dynamic
interaction between her unique characteristics and the environment that we created. We’re
all part of the problem, so we all need to be part of the solution. This BAPS model provides
our team with a basis for designing a Peggy-­centered function-­based treatment plan, so it’s
time we act on her behalf and advocate for a comprehensive multifaceted intervention. To
quote the learned advice of the sage and philosopher Bluto [portrayed by John Belushi in
the film Animal House] when faced with a time for decisive action: ‘Let’s just do it!’ ”

Summary
So yeah, “let’s just do it.” Armed with an understanding of the variables that evoke, occa-
sion, and reinforce interfering behaviors, we can work effectively with school teams to col-
laboratively design interventions. Most importantly, when we use the BAPS recording form
to review FBA results with members of the problem-­solving team, several things happen:

• People get it. They understand why a student engages in interfering behavior.
• Interventions become self-­evident. When team members understand the function of
interfering behaviors, appropriately matched interventions become obvious.
• Team members “buy in.” When team members understand why interfering behav-
iors occur and the underlying rationale for function-­based interventions, intervention
acceptability ratings soar and team members proceed with increased confidence in
the intervention plans.
• Team members follow through. When team members understand both why and how
to intervene effectively, they tend to do so with consistency and accuracy, which is
the key to achieving treatment integrity.

SUMMARY

So there you have it. Wow! We’ve covered a lot here. Make no mistake, the process of syn-
thesizing and interpreting data obtained from a comprehensive FBA can be arduous. But,
it is also an energizing and fulfilling endeavor. We hope that you find the BAPS recording
form to be a valuable tool as you uncover the mystery of student behavior. And remember,
have fun!
 FORM 6.1

Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results

Name: Date:

Personal Characteristics: Context: Skill Delays/Deficits:

Traits, sensitivities, beliefs, Probable contexts Communication, academic, executive, adaptive
and/or values contributing to in which interfering living, social, and/or self-management skill
interfering behavior behavior occurs delays/deficits contributing to interfering behavior

Motivational “Triggers” (Motivating Operations):

Deprivation of physical or social wants and needs, which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior
Presentation of aversive biological/medical conditions, emotional states, thoughts, academic tasks, or social situations,
which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior

Sources of Reinforcement (Discriminative Stimuli):

Persons, items, or locations that signal the availability of reinforcing consequences (i.e., source of reinforcement),
thereby occasioning interfering behavior

Interfering Behavior(s):

Reinforcing Consequence(s): Parameters of Reinforcement:

Consequence(s) that strengthen the future probability Describe the power (robustness) of reinforcing consequences
of the interfering behavior
Schedule:

Quality:

Magnitude:

Timing:

Used with permission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

105
 CHAPTER 7

Indirect Functional
Behavioral Assessment

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains,

no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
—Sherlock Holmes (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)

Conducting an FBA is a complex task that involves consideration of a wide range of vari-
ables. Before initiating an FBA, it is important to recognize that it is both a sequential
and simultaneous process. It is a sequential process because we tend to assess behavior
by marching through a logical series of hypothesis-­testing investigative procedures. It is a
simultaneous process because we are continuously considering a host of variables that may
be contributing to the occurrence of interfering behaviors.
Consider the visual image depicted in Figure 7.1. Here, as the school practitioner
begins the FBA process, she is trying to remember each of the variables and practices
that must be considered when conducting a comprehensive FBA. She is finding this to be
a daunting task that requires a tremendous amount of focus and organization. We’ve been
there. In fact, in the old days, we often initiated an assessment armed with only a clipboard,
graph paper, a pencil, and our own ingenuity. We invariably neglected to ask specific ques-
tions and overlooked potential contributing variables. You’ve probably done that too. For
example, 30 minutes after the initial interview with the classroom teacher, while driving to
a student assistance team (SAT) meeting at another school, you think, “Oh no! I forgot to ask
about Jerry’s skill deficits!” and “It sounds like Jerry’s disruptive behaviors are motivated by
teacher attention, but wait . . . I forgot to ask how other students in the class respond when
he engages in disruptive behavior.” Then, 45 seconds later, after you regain your composure
from nearly running a red light because you were not concentrating on your driving, you
reflect, “Holy cow! What about the difficulty of the tasks? Perhaps disruptive behavior is
motivated by escape/avoidance of specific tasks due to an underlying specific learning dis-
ability?”
106
 Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment 107

Para
ing m
ivat Rein eters o
force f
Mot ations men
r t
Ope

M
at
La chin
w g

FIGURE 7.1. All things considered . . . in the professional life of a school-­based evaluator.

In our experience, FBAs are more efficient and accurate when evaluators adopt a
problem-­solving process and adhere to a game plan that includes (1) a conceptual frame-
work rooted in the principles of applied behavior analysis and (2) the necessary tools to
conduct the assessment. In Chapter 6, we provided you with the necessary conceptual
framework: the BAPS model. Throughout the FBA process, from the initial record reviews
and interviews to the final treatment analyses, it is important to continuously assess and
reassess interfering behaviors against the backdrop of the BAPS model. You need to keep
an open mind, consider the full range of variables that influence behavior, and engage in
hypothesis testing to “rule in” and “rule out” the relevant contributing factors. In Chapters
7–9, we review a variety of assessment procedures to address the second key aspect of the
game plan: having adequate resources, or tools, to conduct the FBA. Every student and
situation is different; therefore evaluators need a wide variety of tools at their disposal to
get the job done efficiently and effectively. FBA is not a one-size-fits-all process. You need
to carefully consider the referral question and all available tools or assessment procedures
before developing a game plan that will lead to a valid FBA. A comprehensive FBA does not
108 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

require application of all available assessment tools; however, a comprehensive FBA always
includes some level of indirect behavioral assessment. In the remainder of this chapter, we
describe and illustrate several indirect FBA procedures.

INDIRECT FBA

Indirect assessment is so named because information regarding antecedents, consequences,

and other critical variables is gathered indirectly via record reviews, rating scales, inter-
views, and the like. The data gleaned from these measures are generally not as reliable
as those obtained from more direct procedures and hence are considered to offer useful
adjunct information. Indirect assessments are typically the first procedures used in an FBA
because they help evaluators begin developing hypotheses about the function(s) of interfer-
ing behavior and inform the design of meaningful descriptive and/or experimental assess-
ments. We have found that the indirect FBA procedures described in this chapter are use-
ful for (1) identifying and describing interfering behaviors; (2) identifying and describing
antecedent, individual, and consequence variables that may influence the occurrence of
interfering behaviors; and (3) generating testable hypotheses regarding the function(s) of
interfering behaviors. Essentially, the indirect FBA is the first stage of the assessment pro-
cess, and the resulting data guide subsequent hypothesis-­testing methods.

Considerations for Evaluators Conducting Indirect FBAs

The entire FBA process is a hypothesis-­testing approach. It is an investigative process that
involves gathering data, identifying potential relationships between environmental variables
and interfering behavior, collecting more data, analyzing the influences of environmental
variables on interfering behavior, and confirming or disconfirming hypotheses. Remember,
hypotheses are not etched in stone. Many times they are more like drawings in the sand—
with the next wave of data washing them away. We must always keep in mind that indirect
FBA procedures gather information from indirect sources, and we need to exercise critical
thinking skills when interpreting these data. Because records, rating scales, and interviews
rely on the reports of others, it is possible that practitioners may arrive at inaccurate con-
clusions unless they approach interpretation with healthy skepticism. We believe that it is
crucial to consider all existing data, rating scale results, and student/teacher/parent per-
spectives, while practicing philosophical doubt, as you formulate your hypotheses.

INDIRECT FBA PROCEDURES

During the indirect phase of an FBA, we recommend using the following procedures:

• Review of records
• Analysis of rating scale results
• Behavior-­Analytic Problem-­Solving Interview (BAPS-I)
• Behavioral Stream Interview (BSI)
 Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment 109

In the subsequent sections of this chapter, we review each of these indirect assessment
procedures, discuss considerations for their use, and offer tools and resources to support
application.

Review of Records
To improve efficiency, it is extremely important to conduct a thorough record review in
the early stages of the FBA process. Cumulative educational records contain valuable
background information about students’ personal characteristics, skill strengths and weak-
nesses, behavioral presentation, and history of services. Table 7.1 summarizes the type of
information we look for during record reviews and offers a rationale for considering each
type of information within the context of an FBA.

Analysis of Rating Scale Results

Although traditional psychological rating scales provide no indication of the function(s) of
interfering behaviors, information from these tests may suggest underlying personal char-
acteristics and/or skill deficits that contribute to the occurrence of interfering behaviors. As
part of the diagnostic process, school psychologists often ask students, teachers, and care-
givers to complete behavior rating scales to determine whether a student exhibits clinical
levels of symptoms associated with particular syndromes or disorders. School psychologists
also may administer adaptive, social skill, or executive skill rating scales to gather informa-
tion about students’ unique strengths and weaknesses. As we discussed in Chapter 6, infor-
mation about personal traits and adaptive, social, or emotional skill deficits can facilitate
an understanding of why some situations are particularly challenging and likely to evoke
interfering behavior. Rating scales serve as a valuable source of information about these
associated individual variables. Take, for example, a student whose rating scale data indicate
that he has clinical levels of anxiety, specifically social anxiety. In the context of an FBA of
class refusal behavior, an evaluator may hypothesize that the autonomic arousal and worries
about social judgment typically associated with social anxiety may serve as motivational
triggers that make avoiding classes with social interaction more likely.
Practitioners conducting FBAs also may use a special type of rating scale, one whose
sole aim is to assess the function(s) of interfering behaviors. Unlike typical psychological
symptom-­based rating scales, function-­focused rating scales ask informants to rate the extent
to which an identified interfering behavior occurs under certain conditions. For example,
an item on a function-­focused rating scale may ask whether the interfering behavior occurs
when a difficult task is presented. If an informant indicates “yes” to this and similar items,
it suggests that the function of the behavior may be escape/avoidance. Several function-­
focused rating scales have been developed since the 1980s (Cooper et al., 2007). Widely used
scales include the Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST; Iwata & DeLeon, 1996); the
Questions About Behavioral Function checklist (QABF; Matson & Vollmer, 1995); and the
Motivational Assessment Scale (MAS; Durand & Crimmins, 1988). Although these tools are
efficient and convenient, it is important to remember that the reliability and validity of the
data may be questionable (see the box below). Therefore, we recommend considering the use
of these tools only as preliminary assessments to develop hypotheses for direct evaluation.
 110 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

TABLE 7.1. Record Review Guidelines

Information
category What to look for? Relevance to FBA?
Social Social stressors such as changes in Social stressors may point to possible MOs
history address and school placements, foster for interfering behavior.
home or residential placements, parental
separations and marriages, or death of
family members or friends.

Medical Developmental delays; vision, hearing, or Medical conditions may suggest relevant
history motor impairments; current medications; personal characteristics, skill delays/deficits,
and other medical issues (e.g., long-term and possible MOs for interfering behavior.
illness, head trauma, enuresis)

Attendance Patterns and total number of absences Frequent absences may indicate the
history presence of skill deficits associated with
lack of instruction and patterns of absences
may provide clues about possible MOs for
interfering behavior.

Disciplinary Topographies of interfering behavior, Disciplinary records may chart the

history times and locations associated with progression of interfering behavior, provide
interfering behaviors, disciplinary clues about potential antecedents and
actions imposed, and trends in the consequences for interfering behavior,
frequency or intensity of interfering and offer information about effective and
behavior ineffective disciplinary strategies.

Academic Historical and current scores on state- Test scores and performance data highlight
history mandated standardized assessments, academic skill delays/deficits and which
standard- or competency-based grades content areas or academic tasks may be
particularly challenging (possible MOs for
interfering behavior).

Previous Data from prior FBA, Evaluation reports provide information

evaluation psychoeducational, academic, speech about relevant personal characteristics and
reports and language, occupational therapy, and skill delays/deficits, and FBA reports reveal
other evaluations historical antecedents and consequences for
interfering behavior and potential changes in
function over time.

Previous Progress monitoring data from academic, Progress monitoring data identify
intervention social–emotional, or behavioral interventions that have been successful and
reports interventions unsuccessful. (If successful, why are they not
currently being used? If unsuccessful, why
are they continuing to be used?)

IEP Services, supports and accommodations; IEP documents reveal skill deficits and the
instructional goals and objectives, degree to which interfering behaviors are
instructional methods and monitoring being addressed and monitored within the
systems, progress data, etc. school setting.
 Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment 111

Not So FAST!
A word of caution about the FAST and other functional assessment rating scales. Evaluators may
naively believe that if they hand out enough of these rating scales, they can confidently determine the
function of an interfering behavior. While these rating scales are a very efficient method of identifying
behavioral functions, there is no such thing as the 4-minute FBA.
Iwata, DeLeon, and Roscoe (2013) examined the validity of the FAST and found that it accurately
classified the function of interfering behavior only 63% of the time. At his ubiquitous functional analysis
trainings, Iwata dissuades practitioners from relying on the FAST. His recommendation is to move to
direct functional assessment of behaviors as FAST as possible.

Interviews
The most important part of the indirect FBA process involves interviewing individuals who
have observed the interfering behavior. Through systematic interviews, practitioners can
gain valuable descriptions of interfering behaviors and associated contexts, personal charac-
teristics, skill delays/deficits, antecedents, and consequences. In turn, descriptions of these
variables allow practitioners to develop hypotheses about behavioral function(s) for subse-
quent verification.

Potential Errors
Before we launch into a description of interview procedures, we think it is important to
review the potential pitfalls you may encounter. There is no doubt that a skillfully con-
ducted interview can shed light on behavioral function; however, this information must be

Fake Function
As a member of the SAT, a school psychologist was asked to conduct an FBA and develop a behavior
support plan for Jerry, an adolescent with ASD who engaged in aggressive behaviors (e.g., hair pulling,
hitting, and biting others). When the school psychologist asked school staff to offer an example of the
aggressive behavior, a paraprofessional described an incident that began when she asked Jerry to fold
some towels. The paraprofessional explained that she introduced the expectation by saying, “Jerry, it is
time to fold towels. These are towels you have already washed and dried. I am sure that you can fold
these towels. You have folded towels before. Do you want help, or can you do these all by yourself?” She
reported that Jerry then immediately jumped out of his chair, lunged toward her, grabbed her hair, and
wrestled her to the floor. This resulted in a physical restraint that lasted 44 minutes. The paraprofessional
stated that the reason Jerry engaged in aggressive behavior was his clear and obvious dislike of folding
towels. Some practitioners may conclude at this point that they understand the function of the behavior
because (1) they have a firsthand description of the sequence of events that led to the physical restraint,
(2) it is a reasonable hypothesis that Jerry reacted in such an aggressive manner because he obviously
dislikes folding towels, and/or (3) they are being pressured to design a behavior plan quickly due to the
dangerous nature of the aggressive behavior. The school psychologist made this very conclusion.
Although, on the surface it seemed that the expectation to fold towels caused Jerry to become
aggressive, the school psychologist made an error of association. After several intervention attempts
focused on reducing the difficulty and nature of the towel-­folding task, Jerry continued to display
aggression. Further assessment revealed that it was not towel folding but vocal cues that triggered
Jerry’s aggression. The school psychologist in this situation learned from experience that just because
something like towel folding is associated with a behavior, it does not mean it is a cause of the behavior.
112 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

carefully scrutinized during the FBA process to avoid faulty conclusions. There are many
errors that may arise from interview data. Consider the scenario in the box on page 111.
The error of association committed by the school psychologist in the previous example
is only one type of error that may occur during an indirect FBA interview. Other types of
errors include:

• Recency error of perception

• Primacy error of perception
• Error of exaggeration
• Error of generalization

The recency error of perception occurs when interviewees attribute the cause of an
interfering behavior to the variables present during the most recent occurrence. This error
is illustrated by the teacher in the following example:

RECENCY ERROR EXAMPLE

Phil is a fourth-­grade student in a regular education class. He was referred for an FBA
because of frequent disruptive outbursts that sometimes included swearing and minor prop-
erty damage. During an FBA interview, the classroom teacher indicated that Phil’s out-
bursts were the result of an abrupt transition from a relatively unstructured, highly physical
activity (e.g., recess or gym class) to the classroom. She reported that the most recent behav-
ioral incident had occurred within 15 minutes after gym class and that most of his outbursts
had occurred after gym or recess. To be certain, the school psychologist conducted addi-
tional assessments to examine the teacher’s hypothesis and identify other potential triggers
for Phil’s outbursts. The school psychologist conducted several direct observations of Phil in
his classroom, both immediately after recess and gym and at other randomly selected times.
The data revealed two findings that were significant for understanding Phil’s outbursts: (1)
his outbursts occurred after recess or gym only occasionally and (2) more than 65% of his
outbursts occurred immediately after his teacher provided critical feedback about the qual-
ity or the quantity of his academic work.

The primacy error of perception occurs when the cause of an interfering behavior is
attributed to variables that were present the very first time the interviewee observed it.
Like the recency error of perception, the primary error of perception may lead to mislead-
ing conclusions about the function(s) of interfering behaviors. The following example illus-
trates this potential error:

PRIMACY ERROR EXAMPLE

Sheryl is an eighth-­grade student receiving special education services. She was diagnosed
with specific learning disabilities in math and reading, and presents with significant deficits
in social skills. She often threatens her classmates with physical harm, although she has
not yet reached the point of physical aggression. When a member of the SAT interviewed
one of Sheryl’s teachers, the teacher expressed certainty about the reason for her verbal
 Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment 113

aggression: teasing from classmates regarding her academic performance. To support her
hypothesis, the teacher recalled the first time she directly witnessed Sheryl threatening a
classmate, which was about 10 weeks prior to the interview. The student had teased Sheryl
about her inability to read a selected paragraph, and Sheryl responded by threatening to
“beat her up” if she did not stop teasing her. The teacher concluded by saying that, although
she did not always hear Sheryl’s interactions with peers, she was convinced that teasing was
the reason for Sheryl’s verbally aggressive behavior. In this example, the teacher’s descrip-
tion of an incident 10 weeks prior may have been accurate, but it may or may not have been
representative of the events that were continuing to trigger verbal aggression. Sometimes
the apparent triggers for the initial occurrence of an interfering behavior (teasing, in this
case) stand out so much in memory that informants assume similar events continue to func-
tion as triggers. However, without conducting a comprehensive FBA, it is impossible to
draw firm conclusions about the function(s) of behavior.

The error of exaggeration occurs when interviewees overstate the frequency, dura-
tion, and/or intensity of behavior. Red flags for this error include words and phrases such
as always, never, constantly, the worst ever, and completely out of control. Consider the
following example:

ERROR OF EXAGGERATION EXAMPLE

Floyd is a student who receives special education services under the category of emotional
disturbance (ED). He was referred for an evaluation because he displays oppositional–­
defiant behaviors (e.g., verbally refusing to complete academic assignments, throwing books,
and ripping up assignments) in both general education and resource classrooms. During an
FBA interview, one of Floyd’s teachers stated, “He always misbehaves when I ask him to
do his work.” When asked to elaborate, the teacher said, “Every time I ask him to complete
an assignment, he throws one of his tantrums.” The school psychologist conducted three
observations within each of the classroom settings and found that there was not a perfect
correspondence between directions to complete assignments and interfering behaviors. In
fact, further investigation revealed that the conditional probability of oppositional–­defiant
behavior given an instruction to complete an assignment was only 30%. Although there may
be times when a behavior always follows an antecedent, it is our experience that words and
phrases such as always and every time signal the need for further investigation.

The error of generalization occurs when interviewees or evaluators assume the same
functional hypotheses apply across students or behaviors. The error of generalization across
students is evidenced when team members assert that the variables contributing to the
interfering behaviors exhibited by one student are the same variables contributing to similar
interfering behaviors exhibited by another student. For example:

ERROR OF GENERALIZATION ACROSS STUDENTS EXAMPLE

A recent FBA suggested that Jimmy engages in swearing behavior to gain attention from
peers. When Carter begins swearing, the school team assumes that his behaviors also func-
114 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

tion to gain access to peer attention. In this case, the similarity of interfering behaviors
across students led team members to believe that the function of swearing was the same for
both students. However, it is entirely plausible for swearing to be reinforced by peer atten-
tion for one student and by escape from difficult assignments for another student. Without
conducting a separate FBA of swearing with Carter, it is not possible to draw conclusions
about the functions of his behavior.

The error of generalization across behaviors is evidenced when team members assume
that the functional antecedents and consequences for one interfering behavior influence the
occurrence of all interfering behaviors. Consider the case of Erin:

ERROR OF GENERALIZATION ACROSS BEHAVIORS EXAMPLE

Erin is a student who displays multiple interfering behaviors, including aggression, prop-
erty destruction, swearing, and hand biting. Indirect FBA (interview) results suggested
that Erin’s interfering behaviors are reinforced by escape from difficult tasks. Subsequent
function-­based interventions were successful in treating aggression and property destruc-
tion, but levels of swearing and hand biting behaviors increased over time. The evaluator
therefore revisits the assessment process and conducts a descriptive FBA. The resulting
data suggest that swearing and hand biting are maintained by social attention from teach-
ers, not escape. In this case, FBA interviews led to an error of generalization; the inter-
viewees assumed that all topographies of Erin’s behavior were related to the same environ-
mental variables, and the evaluator did not gather data using multiple methods to ensure
convergence of evidence.

Interview Guidelines
The most effective FBA interviews are not formulaic. Using a standard interview form with
the exact same set of structured interview questions for every assessment is not recom-
mended. Instead, it is recommended that evaluators employ flexible interview procedures
that fit the needs of each unique assessment situation.
When conducting FBAs, we recommend using a combination of semistructured and
unstructured interview procedures. For example, an initial interview may be conducted
with a teacher or paraprofessional using a comprehensive semistructured interview tool
such as the BAPS-I (Form 7.1) to guide the conversation. Semistructured interview tools like
the BAPS-I include a comprehensive range of predetermined questions and recommended
prompts, but questions may be added or omitted as appropriate. Subsequent interviews
with the same informant, others familiar with the referred student, and/or happenstance
witnesses may be relatively unstructured to gather detailed information about specific
behavioral incidents. The BSI, for example, takes the form of a stream of unstructured ques-
tions and answers. The BSI focuses on identifying and describing four central components
of the BAPS model—­context, MOs, SDs, and reinforcing consequences—­associated with
a specific occurrence of interfering behavior. Information from the BSI may be captured
using a narrative “flow chart” and then mapped onto the Incident-­Based Functional Assess-
ment Form (IBFAF; see Figures 7.2 and 7.3 for examples).
 Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment 115

Behavior‑Analytic Problem‑Solving Interview

The BAPS-I (Form 7.1) should be conducted with individuals most familiar with the student
and the circumstances of his or her interfering behavior. The purpose of this semistruc-
tured interview is to identify and describe the variables that contribute to occurrences of
interfering behavior. The interview process results in the identification and description of
an interfering behavior as well as hypotheses pertaining to behavioral function. For FBAs
addressing multiple interfering behaviors, we recommend a separate interview (and forms)
for each behavior.
The BAPS-I begins with questions about the student’s unique strengths. Opening the
conversation in this manner facilitates the establishment of rapport with the interviewee.
We think of it as a “warm-up” strategy to establish momentum with information sharing.
Initial discussions about the student’s strengths also provide valuable information about
the student’s preferences and current repertoire of skills—­both of which are essential con-
siderations when developing teaching and reinforcement-­based strategies for inclusion in a
comprehensive behavior intervention plan.
The next portion of the BAPS-I cues the interviewer to identify and define the inter-
fering behavior. Although parents, teachers, and other school staff are usually quite good
at identifying behaviors that are problematic, they often experience considerable difficulty
describing interfering behavior in concrete terms. For example, a teacher may describe a
student’s behavior as “noncompliant,” which is a label that means different things to differ-
ent people. The job of the interviewer is to engage with the interviewee to construct a defi-
nition for “noncompliant” that can be immediately recognized by anyone who observes the
behavior. When interviewees have difficulty describing an interfering behavior, we some-
times ask them to “act out” or model it. This provides us with a visual image of the interfer-
ing behavior, which assists with the development of a written description. A word of caution
is needed here. We want to emphasize that we do not always ask interviewees to act out the
behavior in question. There are times when you most certainly would not want to request
a demonstration. Why, you ask? Well, some behaviors may be dangerous to self or others
(e.g., aggression, property damage, ruminative vomiting) or inappropriate to model (e.g.,
sexual behaviors). The key here is to arrive at a clear understanding of the target interfering
behavior to ensure that the interviewer and interviewee are speaking a common language.
The subsequent sections of the BAPS-I focus on identifying individual and environmental
variables that seem to influence the target interfering behavior. If the evaluator proceeds

Defining Interfering Behaviors

Before proceeding with descriptive FBA procedures, it also is essential to define interfering behaviors in
such a way that two observers would agree on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the behavior after
reviewing a written definition. As we discuss in Chapter 8, it is usually helpful to conduct an anecdotal
observation of the referred student before formalizing the operational definition for the interfering behav-
ior and designing matched data collection procedures. For example, after conducting an observation an
evaluator may refine the interview-­generated description of “hitting peers” into the operational definition
of “striking a peer with an open palm from a distance of at least 3 inches.” This process of refining
behavioral definitions is a normal part of the sequential and simultaneous process mentioned at the
beginning of the chapter.
116 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

with interview questions before solidifying a specific and objective description of the target
behavior, then interviewees may offer responses that are irrelevant (e.g., describing ante-
cedents and consequences associated with a different interfering behavior), which leads to
inaccurate hypotheses.
The remainder of the BAPS-I is formatted to help interviewers collect critical (relevant)
information about the individual and environmental variables directly associated with the
target interfering behavior. This point is critical. Referred students often present with mul-
tiple skill deficits and experience behavioral challenges in multiple situations. The goal of
the FBA interview is to hone in on the variables most relevant to understanding the target
interfering behavior. Accordingly, interviewers must be prepared to (1) frame questions in
reference to the target interfering behavior (e.g., “Given an occurrence of physical aggres-
sion directed toward a peer, how do school staff respond?” or “Given a writing assignment
that typically triggers noncompliance, what skill deficits may be contributing?”) and (2)
address “drift” by redirecting interviewees to focus on one target interfering behavior at a
time.
The BAPS-I form includes open-ended questions designed to elicit information from
interviewees about each of the variables included in the BAPS model. These questions facil-
itate the collection of comprehensive information in a logical sequence. Depending on how
interviewees respond, though, interviewers may need to jump around the form to record
information. You will notice that the form is organized into separate sections pertaining to
the interfering behavior, the context, MOs, SDs, reinforcing consequences and parameters
of reinforcement, personal characteristics, and relevant skill delays/deficits. Each section
includes recommended questions in bold font to stimulate initial discussion. Below these
starter questions are supplemental prompts (questions and/or considerations printed in ital-
ics) for interviewers. These supplemental prompts are included to help interviewers probe
for additional information, as needed, to gather comprehensive data about each variable.
Finally, each section includes a table for recording information provided by interviewees.
When completing the interview and recording results, it is important to keep in mind a few
key points:

1. It is not necessary for interviewers to ask every question. For example, if early
responses to interview questions indicate that the target interfering behavior occurs exclu-
sively in the context of recess and unstructured social activities, then it is not necessary (or
logical!) for the interviewer to probe for information about the types of academic tasks that
are challenging for the student.

2. Prompts are included to help interviewers formulate relevant individualized ques-

tions. Some prompts include optional questions that may be asked to elicit specific infor-
mation. For example, in the section on reinforcing consequences, this prompt is included:
What do peers say and do when the interfering behavior occurs? Other prompts are more
general. For example, in the section on motivational triggers for the interfering behavior,
this prompt is included: Consider deprivation of sleep, food, or other basic needs; divided/
diverted attention; and restricted access to reinforcers. In this example, interviewers who
suspect that specific MOs may be contributing to interfering behaviors should formulate
 Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment 117

appropriate questions (e.g., Do you notice the interfering behavior more often when the
student comes to school after a poor night of sleep? or How does the student respond when
the teacher turns his attention to paperwork or talks with other students in the classroom?).
Given that the variables influencing student behavior tend to be idiosyncratic, interviewers
need to be flexible and prepared to frame relevant, individually tailored questions to probe
for additional information as needed.

3. Tables provide a structure for recording interview data; however, it is not neces-
sary to complete every cell in every table. You will notice that the tables for recording
information about MOs, SDs, and reinforcing consequences include check-boxes (). When
interviewees offer information indicative of a particular type of MO, SD, or reinforcer, you
can simply check the relevant box and then input a description. Although you may check
multiple boxes (e.g., an interfering behavior may result both in access to social attention and
escape from tasks/demands), it is highly unlikely that you would check all boxes. In fact, if
you find yourself checking all boxes all the time, then you are probably (a) not isolating the
most relevant variables or (b) attempting to gather information about interfering behaviors
that are members of different response classes in a single interview.

4. The BAPS-I is an interview form, not a rating scale. The form is designed to guide
the evaluator in conducting an FBA interview, and it should not simply be given to teachers,
parents, or others to fill out on their own.

Remember, the goal of the BAPS-I is to gain a comprehensive understanding of the

interfering behavior by “teasing out” the contributing individual and environmental vari-
ables. Use it to give your interview structure, but use it flexibly by tailoring questions to the
specific referral question and situation!

Interviewing Skills
Conducting an effective FBA interview requires foundational behavior-­analytic knowledge, familiarity
with specific interview tools, and a well-­developed repertoire of clinical interviewing skills. It is beyond
the scope of this chapter to review the foundations of clinical interviewing, so we encourage you to
check out the NASP best practices resource and the classic behavior-­analytic study on this topic listed
below.

Iwata, B. A., Wong, S. E., Riordan, M. M., Dorsey, M. F., & Lau, M. M. (1982). Assessment and train-
ing of clinical interviewing skills: Analog analysis and field replication. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 15, 191–203.
Mazza, J. J. (2014). Best practices in clinical interviewing parents, teachers, and students. In P. L.
Harrison & T. A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Data-based and collaborative
decision making (pp. 317–330). Washington DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

A BAPS Model Refresher

The BAPS-I is directly aligned with the BAPS model presented in Chapter 6, and a solid
grasp of this conceptual model is essential for conducting a valid interview. To prime the
118 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

interview process, we offer the following condensed version of the essential components of
the BAPS model.

• Context refers to the physical setting, social circumstances, or types of activities in

which interfering behavior occurs. Examples: circle time, toileting routines, the caf-
eteria, independent seatwork.
• Personal characteristics include traits, sensitivities, beliefs, and/or values that con-
tribute to interfering behavior. Examples: impulsivity, short attention span, sensitive
to loud noises, sensitive to peer evaluation, polarized thinking, low frustration toler-
ance, disorganized, rigid/inflexible.
• Skill delays/deficits include weaknesses in communication, academic, executive,
adaptive living, social, and/or self-­management skills. Examples: delays or deficits in
reading fluency, functional communication skills, conflict resolution skills, response
inhibition, flexible thinking, time management, goal-­directed persistence.
• Motivational triggers (MOs) include antecedent stimuli and events that (1) momen-
tarily alter the effectiveness of reinforcing consequences and (2) evoke interfer-
ing behaviors. Examples: deprivation of food or sleep, divided/diverted attention,
restricted access to preferred items/activities, presentation of difficult tasks, physical
pain, unpleasant thoughts and emotions.
• Sources of reinforcement (SDs) refer to antecedent stimuli (e.g., persons, items, or
locations) that signal the availability of reinforcing consequences and occasion inter-
fering behavior. Examples: teacher with a history of removing work expectations con-
tingent on interfering behavior, classmates who provide attention for social antics,
close proximity of a preferred object.
• Interfering behavior refers to the specific responses that interfere with a student’s
progress. Examples: physical aggression (hair pulling, slapping, and biting), vocal
opposition (saying no or vocally refusing to complete a task), off-task behavior (manip-
ulating objects unrelated to the task, gazing out the window, etc.).
• Reinforcing consequences are the events that follow and strengthen interfering
behaviors. Reinforcing consequences may be classified as (1) positive (access) or
negative (avoidance/escape) and (2) socially mediated (delivered by others), individu-
ally mediated (directly obtained), or automatic (sensory). Examples: access to peer
attention, access to preferred items, escape from tasks, sensory stimulation, arousal
reduction.
• Parameters of reinforcement are the dimensions of reinforcement (schedule, quality,
magnitude, and timing) that influence its strengthening effects (robustness). Exam-
ples: accessing highly preferred toys (quality) for 1–5 minutes (magnitude), imme-
diately following aggression toward peers (timing) approximately 25% of the time
(schedule).

Behavioral Stream Interview

A less structured type of interview, the BSI, prompts interviewees to describe one or more
specific behavioral incidents. It is designed to elicit detailed information about the many
 Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment 119

interacting antecedent and consequence variables that influence the occurrence of inter-
fering behavior. Remember, these variables are not stagnant. The ongoing flow of behavior
and related stimuli are comparable to a river—­sometimes a stream that gently meanders
through a meadow, and at other times a raging torrent rushing through the mountainous
canyons. The BSI helps to identify the dynamic interactions between these variables by
determining the sequence of events that unfold during a behavioral incident. Whereas typi-
cal A-B-C descriptions are like photographs that capture a single event at one moment in
time, BSI-­generated descriptions of behavior are like videos that capture an entire sequence
of events unfolding in real time.

Example of a BSI
In this case example, the school psychologist has worked with Robert, a fourth-­grade
student, for a number of years. The school psychologist is very familiar with Robert’s
personal characteristics, skill delays/deficits, and school programming and decides to
conduct a BSI with the program administrator and a staff member (Jeff) to gather more
specific information about the variables influencing Robert’s aggressive behaviors. The
following interview transcript begins after the school psychologist explains the process
of the BSI.

Psychologist: I understand that Robert has been showing a marked increase in aggressive
behaviors over the past week. Could you briefly describe those behaviors?
Administrator: Sure . . . he has exhibited several occurrences of severe aggression.
Psychologist: Could you give me an example? What did the aggression look like?
Administrator: Well . . . he pushes other people forcefully and strikes them like this . . .
(Makes a fist and demonstrates the action of striking another person with his fist and
forearm.)
Psychologist: OK. So, he pushes and strikes others using his fist and forearm. Have you
seen any other forms of aggression?
Administrator: No . . . that’s pretty much it.
Jeff: I agree . . . that sums it up.
Psychologist. All right. Then I’d like to review two to three recent examples of Robert’s
aggressive behavior. Let’s start with the most recent incident of aggressive behavior.
Tell me what happened.
Administrator: Well, it happened out of the blue. Robert was having a really great day and
just before lunch . . . 11:15 A.M. . . . he hit Jeff on the back. The incident resulted in a
48-minute physical restraint.
Psychologist: Let’s back up . . . What was going on before the incident of aggression? What
was Robert doing and who was around right before the aggressive incident?
Jeff: Robert and I were outside playing pass with a football . . . he really likes to throw the
football around. Another staff person, Sandy, came outside and yelled, “It’s time for
120 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

lunch.” I told Robert that we needed to go inside and wash our hands before lunch . . .
then he hit me.
Psychologist: Did anything else happen before he hit you? Think back . . . after you prompted
Robert to go inside to wash his hands before lunch, did anything else happen?
Jeff: Yes, now that I think of it . . . yeah . . . I told Robert that we needed to stop playing pass
with the football, and he threw the ball over the playground fence. I put my arm on his
shoulder and said, “We’ll have to get the ball after lunch. Come on now . . . it’s time for
lunch. We need to go in and wash our hands.” That’s right when he hit me.
Psychologist: Would you describe how he hit you?
Jeff: He screamed “AHHHHH,” clenched his fist, and then used a chopping motion to hit
me two or three times on my arms and chest. It wasn’t very hard, but it met the criteria
for aggressive behavior.
Psychologist: What did you do next?
Jeff: I followed the behavioral support protocol and delivered a verbal reprimand . . . “Rob-
ert, no hitting!” That’s when he hit me again . . . three or four more times. The hits were
much harder, so I called for support. He kept trying to hit me, but Sandy and Jorge
came in less than a minute. We used a protective emergency restraint, and it took 48
minutes for Robert to calm down.

In this example, it is clear that the behavioral incident involved a stream of events with
interacting antecedents and consequences. The BSI allowed the psychologist to capture
and understand the flow of events. It also exposed the fact that the consequence for one
response functioned as the antecedent for the subsequent response, and so on. The descrip-
tions generated during the BSI captured the complexity of an actual incident. And by giv-
ing full consideration to the evolution and interaction of variables during several behav-
ioral incidents, the psychologist is much less likely to arrive at faulty hypotheses about the
function(s) of Robert’s aggressive behavior.

BSI Recording
To summarize information gathered during a BSI, it is helpful to map out the information
using the format shown in Figure 7.2. Essentially, the interviewer and interviewee recon-
struct a complete record of each behavioral incident using a series of boxes and arrows to
show how actions led to reactions throughout the incident. The process does not require
the interviewer to label variables as antecedents or consequences. Instead, the focus is on
describing the sequence of events as the behavioral incident unfolds. It really is a matter of
recording from a “he said/he did” or “she said/she did” perspective.
The sample behavioral stream record in Figure 7.2 summarizes a behavioral incident
involving an elementary student, Seth, who displays a set of behaviors referred to as “tan-
trum behavior.” For this student, tantrum behavior was defined as a response set including
two or more of the following: verbal opposition, swearing, throwing or damaging materials,
and physically pushing others. The events captured in the BSI record unfolded during a
general education math class when independent math assignments were presented.
 Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment 121

FIGURE 7.2. BSI recording.

BSI Interpretation
After completing a BSI and generating a behavior stream record, evaluators may interpret
the data using the IBFAF (Form 8.2 on page 161), which is described in detail in Chapter 8.
Figure 7.3 shows the translation of data from the behavior stream record for Seth’s tantrum
behavior (Figure 7.2) into a conceptual map of hypothesized functional relations between
MOs, SDs, reinforcing consequences, and tantrum behavior. The BSI clearly illustrated
the topography and hierarchical sequence of Seth’s interfering behaviors, which became
increasingly intense over the course of the incident. The BSI also offered a clear descrip-
tion of the consequences for Seth’s tantrum behavior. By engaging in these behaviors, Seth
avoided completing the assignment and ultimately escaped from the entire aversive situa-
122 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Context
•• General education math class
•• 20 students and one teacher present
•• Independent seatwork

↓
Motivating Operations
•• Presentation of difficult math assignment
•• Repeated vocal prompts to engage in math assignment

↓
Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behaviors Reinforcing Consequences
Teacher with history of Tantrums: Escape from math assignments
using time-out procedures •• Verbal opposition and repeated teacher prompts
in response to interfering •• Swearing (socially mediated negative
behaviors •• Throwing/damaging items reinforcement)
•• Pushing others

FIGURE 7.3. IBFAF results for Seth.

tion (i.e., the assignment and the teacher prompts). Finally, the functional antecedents (MOs
and SDs) were surmised on the basis of information about the events that preceded and fol-
lowed the tantrum behaviors.

CAUTION!!!
Conducting a BSI facilitates the development of a hypothesis about the antecedents and reinforcing
consequences associated with one occurrence of interfering behavior. However, it is important not to
rely on data from a single behavioral incident to draw conclusions about the function(s) of an interfer-
ing behavior. Serious mistakes can occur when hypotheses are generated on the basis of inadequate
data.
For example, after using the BSI to gather information about a recent tantrum exhibited by Seth,
the evaluator hypothesized that repeated verbal cues from the teacher may evoke tantrums. However,
after directly observing and recording data during multiple tantrum episodes, the evaluator discovered
that other types of repeated verbal cues (e.g., to get out materials, line up for lunch, and eat a snack)
did not evoke tantrums. Instead, tantrums occurred most consistently when repeated verbal cues were
delivered along with math assignments. Without conducting descriptive FBA procedures, the evaluator
simply could not determine whether repeated verbal cues, math assignments, neither variable, or both
variables served as functional MOs for tantrum behavior.

SUMMARY

Indirect FBA is an efficient, but often insufficient, method for assessing the function(s) of
interfering behavior. Reviewing school records, administering rating scales, and conducting
interviews provides important information about antecedent, individual, and consequence
variables associated with interfering behavior. A strength is that these methods enable eval-
uators to gather information about a wide range of variables, both current and historical,
that may contribute to interfering behaviors; the scope of assessment is not limited exclu-
 Indirect Functional Behavioral Assessment 123

sively to what can be observed in the moment. The weakness is that indirect FBA relies on
the reports and recollections of others, which are notoriously unreliable.
The indirect FBA procedures described in this chapter provide a flexible means to
gather and summarize comprehensive information about students and the variables influ-
encing their behavior. In some situations, indirect FBA procedures are in and of themselves
sufficient for assessing and understanding behavioral function. For example, in intensive
applied behavior-­analytic educational settings, the availability of highly trained teachers to
interview and reliable existing data from routine data collection and observation may render
an indirect FBA sufficient for the purposes of reevaluation. In other situations, an indirect
FBA may be the only immediate, feasible option. For example, a school psychologist who is
requested to conduct an FBA of aggressive behaviors before a suspended student is permit-
ted to return to school may not have an opportunity to conduct direct observations. In these
cases, practitioners may decide to conduct a comprehensive indirect FBA, as described in
this chapter, and use results that are clear and consistent to design function-­based interven-
tions. If the intervention is implemented and proves to be successful, then the assessment
process may be considered validated. If, however, indirect FBA results are ambiguous and
inconsistent or interventions are ineffective, then additional descriptive assessments and/
or experimental analyses are essential. The next two chapters focus on these additional
procedures.
 FORM 7.1

Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview (BAPS-I)

Student’s Name: DOB:
School: Date:
Evaluator:

The purpose of this semistructured interview is to identify and describe (1) student-specific interfering
behavior(s) and (2) the individual and environmental variables that contribute to, evoke, occasion, and
maintain interfering behavior(s). The interview is based on the eight-term behavior-analytic problem-
solving model (Chapter 6). Each section of this form includes questions and prompts to guide the
interviewer in gathering relevant information from caregivers, teachers, or others familiar with the
student.

IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE PERSONAL STRENGTHS

1. What are [the student’s] most significant strengths?

a. Prompt: Identify communication, academic, executive, adaptive living, social, and/or self-
management skills in the student’s current repertoire.

Personal Strength Description

(continued)

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

124
 Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview (BAPS-I) (page 2 of 6)

IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE THE INTERFERING BEHAVIOR

Note: After identifying the interfering behavior, focus all interview questions on this target. Conduct
separate interviews, using separate forms, for each target response class.

1. What behavior interferes most with [the student’s] day-to-day functioning? What behavior is
most concerning or problematic?
a. Prompt: Identify the behavior(s) that led to the referral.
b. Prompt: If multiple behaviors, prioritize one target at a time for assessment.
2. Describe the interfering behavior. What does it look like?
a. Prompt: Ask for specific examples or demonstrations.
3. How does an “episode” of the interfering behavior typically unfold? Are there early signs or
predictable sequences of behavior during an episode?
a. Prompt: If applicable, identify the response class hierarchy.

Interfering Behavior Definition and Examples

Response Class Hierarchy Examples

IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE THE CONTEXT

Note: Focus on the context relevant to occurrences of the target interfering behavior.

1. When is the interfering behavior most likely to occur? Are there particular locations, settings, or
activities when the interfering behavior is most probable?
a. Prompt: Identify specific physical locations, social circumstances, or types of activities that are
challenging for the student.
2. What behaviors are expected of students in that context?

Description of Context Description of Expected Behaviors

(continued)

125
 Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview (BAPS-I) (page 3 of 6)

IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE MOTIVATIONAL “TRIGGERS” (MOs)

Note: Focus on the MOs relevant to occurrences of the target interfering behavior.

1. What seems to trigger the interfering behavior? What could I do right now to make the
interfering behavior happen?
a. Prompt: Identify relevant conditions of deprivation or restricted access. Consider deprivation
of sleep, food, or other basic needs; divided/diverted attention; and restricted access to
reinforcers.
b. Prompt: Identify aversive stimuli/events that evoke interfering behavior. Consider physical pain
and discomfort, unpleasant social interactions, nonpreferred task demands, and unpleasant
thoughts and emotions.

Potential MO Description

††Deprivation of physical wants/needs

††Divided or diverted attention

††Restricted/denied access to reinforcers

††Physical pain/discomfort

††Unpleasant thoughts/emotions

††Nonpreferred tasks/activities

††Aversive social situations

IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE SOURCES OF REINFORCEMENT (SDs)

Note: Focus on the SDs relevant to occurrences of the target interfering behavior.

1. Who is typically present when the interfering behavior occurs? Is the interfering behavior more
or less likely to occur when certain people are present?
a. Prompt: Does the interfering behavior occur more often in the presence of specific peers,
teachers, or other school staff? If so, whom?
2. Are there specific items or places that seem to “trigger” the interfering behavior?
a. Prompt: Does the interfering behavior occur reliably when certain objects are present or in
specific physical locations/settings?

Potential SD Description

††Persons

††Items/Locations

(continued)

126
 Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview (BAPS-I) (page 4 of 6)

IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE REINFORCING CONSEQUENCES AND PARAMETERS

OF REINFORCEMENT

Note: Focus on the consequences relevant to occurrences of the target interfering behavior.

Assess for Socially Mediated Reinforcement

1. How do you and others typically respond to the interfering behavior?
2. What seems to work to distract or deescalate [the student] when the interfering behavior
occurs?
a. Prompt: Consider access to peer and adult attention (visual, vocal, and physical). What do
adults say and do when the interfering behavior occurs? What do peers say and do when the
interfering behavior occurs?
b. Prompt: Consider access to edibles, tangibles, and activities. Does the student ever get access
to things or activities he/she wants by engaging in the interfering behavior?
c. Prompt: Consider avoidance or escape from aversive tasks/activities/situations. Does the
interfering behavior allow the student to get out of task expectations? Is the interfering behavior
followed by changes in task expectations (e.g., modifications or alternative tasks)? Does the
interfering behavior lead to the student’s removal from the setting? Do people “back off” when
the interfering behavior occurs?

Potential Socially Mediated Reinforcing

Consequence Description

††Access to social attention

††Access to edibles, tangibles, activities

††Escape from tasks/activities

††Escape from other aversive situations

Assess for Individually Mediated Reinforcement

1. Does [the student] ever gain access to desired items, activities, or locations by engaging in the
interfering behavior?
a. Prompt: Determine if the interfering behavior results in direct access to preferred edibles,
tangibles, activities, or locations without help or mediation from others.
2. Does [the student] ever escape from items, activities, or locations he/she does not like by
engaging in the interfering behavior?
a. Prompt: Determine if the interfering behavior results in direct escape from aversive edibles,
tangibles, activities, or locations without help or mediation from others.

Potential Individually Mediated

Reinforcing Consequence Description

††Access to edibles, tangibles, activities,

or locations

††Escape from activities, locations, or

other aversive stimuli
(continued)

127
 Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview (BAPS-I) (page 5 of 6)

Assess for Automatic Reinforcement

1. Does the interfering behavior ever occur when [the student] is alone?
2. Does the interfering behavior appear to result in sensory consequences that [the student] enjoys?
a. Prompt: Assess for “self-stimulating” functions: visual, auditory, olfactory, or tactile. Does
the interfering behavior occur more frequently when [the student] is “bored” or not directly
engaged with people and preferred items/activities?
3. Does the interfering behavior seem to provide a “release” or sense of relief for [the student]?
a. Prompt: Assess for arousal reduction. Does the interfering behavior typically occur when [the
student] is tense, anxious, frustrated, or angry? Does the interfering behavior occur when [the
student] is in pain?

Potential Automatic Reinforcing

Consequence Description

††Sensory stimulation

††Arousal reduction

Assess for Parameters of Reinforcement

Note: List each identified reinforcing consequence in the table below and describe the associated
parameters of reinforcement to estimate the strength/robustness of consequences relevant to the
interfering behavior.

1. Tell me more about situations when the interfering behavior results in [reinforcing consequence].
What exactly does that look like?
a. Prompt: Estimate schedule. How often does the interfering behavior “work”?
b. Prompt: Estimate quality. How valuable is the reinforcing consequence for [the student]?
c. Prompt: Estimate magnitude. How long does [the student] get the reinforcing consequence?
How much of the reinforcing consequence does [the student] get?
d. Prompt: Estimate timing. Is the consequence immediate or delayed?

Possible Reinforcing Consequence Parameters: Schedule, Quality, Magnitude, Timing

IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS

Note: Focus on personal characteristics relevant to occurrences of the target interfering behavior.

1. What personal characteristics make it difficult for [the student] to be successful in [the specific
context(s) associated with interfering behaviors]?
a. Prompt: Identify relevant patterns of feeling or thinking.
b. Prompt: Identify relevant biological/medical conditions.
(continued)

128
 Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview (BAPS-I) (page 6 of 6)

c. Prompt: Identify relevant diagnoses.

d. Prompt: Identify relevant cultural factors.

Traits

Sensitivities

Beliefs

Values

Other

IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE SKILL DELAYS/DEFICITS

Note: Focus on the delays/deficits relevant to occurrences of the target interfering behavior.

1. What skills does [the student] need to learn to be more successful in [specific context
associated with interfering behavior]?
a. Prompt: Consider communication, academic, executive, adaptive living, social, and self-
management skills.
2. Are there particular skill deficits that contribute to the interfering behavior?
a. Prompt: If the identified deficit was a strength, would the interfering behavior be less likely to
occur?

Communication Skills

Academic Skills

Executive Skills

Adaptive Living Skills

Social Skills

Self-Management Skills

ADDITIONAL RELEVANT INFORMATION

129
 CHAPTER 8

Descriptive Functional
Behavioral Assessment

Behavior is a difficult subject matter, not because it is inaccessible,

but because it is extremely complex. Since it is a process, rather than
a thing, it cannot be held still for observation. It is changing, fluid,
evanescent, and for this reason it makes great technical demands
upon the ingenuity and energy of the scientist. But there is nothing
essentially insoluble about the problems which arise from this fact.
—B. F. Skinner (1953, p. 15)

Descriptive FBA procedures are powerful tools in the school-­based FBA process. These
procedures involve directly observing and recording occurrences of behavior and related
environmental variables in the natural setting. They provide a glimpse into how behavioral
incidents unfold in real time in natural settings such as classrooms, hallways, playgrounds,
and cafeterias. Accordingly, descriptive FBA procedures avoid the pitfalls of relying exclu-
sively on indirect reports and help us achieve the following assessment objectives:

• Refine operational definitions for the referral concerns.

• Establish baseline levels of interfering behaviors.
• Develop hypotheses about the functional relationships between interfering behav-
iors, antecedent variables, and consequences.
• Quantify the parameters of reinforcement in the natural environment.
• Inform the design of experimental analyses and positive behavior support plans.

Although descriptive FBA procedures can be messy given the complexity of natural
environments, we have found that they are indispensable because they help us identify
naturally occurring (and often highly idiosyncratic!) relationships between behavior and the
environment. For example, consider the case example involving Sonia, who was referred
for evaluation of the following interfering behaviors: covering her ears, screaming, and
face slapping (self-­injury). When interviewed, Sonia’s teachers insisted that she engaged
in these behaviors to escape from hygiene tasks (e.g., tooth brushing and face washing).

130
 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 131

If the evaluator had accepted these reports at face value, she may have (1) recommended
an intervention that focused on modifying hygiene tasks or (2) designed an experimental
analysis to examine the relation between the presentation of hygiene tasks and interfering
behavior under highly controlled conditions. Neither approach, though, would have been
particularly fruitful. When conducting a direct observation of Sonia brushing her teeth and
washing her face in the natural setting, the evaluator immediately detected a loud humming
noise coming from the ventilation system. The evaluator knew that Sonia demonstrated
auditory sensitivities and asked the teacher to try introducing hygiene task expectations in a
different bathroom. As it turned out, Sonia readily complied with expectations and showed
no occurrences of interfering behavior when asked to brush her teeth and wash her face in
a different bathroom. A simple change in location did the trick, and the descriptive FBA
process was indispensable for solving the problem!
The remainder of this chapter provides you with foundational knowledge and a practi-
cal set of tools for conducting effective descriptive FBAs. First, we walk you through the
process of defining behavior in observable and measurable terms. Then we discuss data
­recording procedures and considerations for selecting procedures based on the dimensions
of the target behavior and the resources available to the observer. Finally, we conclude the
chapter with a review of common descriptive assessment procedures and accompanying
assessment tools.

            You can observe a lot by just watching.

—Yogi Berra (1925–2015)                
.

DEFINING BEHAVIOR

As noted in previous chapters, the initial step in the FBA process involves defining the
behaviors that led to the referral for evaluation. During the indirect FBA process (par-
ticularly during the FBA interviews), we develop working definitions for target behaviors.
Direct observation of target behaviors, though, typically leads to more refined operational
definitions. Operational definitions describe target behaviors clearly and objectively to
facilitate consistent and accurate measurement. The validity of FBA results depends, at
least in part, on defining target behaviors precisely.
To understand the importance of strong operational definitions, consider the following
case. A classroom teacher refers a student for evaluation due to concerns about “frequent
aggressive behavior.” In response to this referral, the school psychologist conducts a series
of classroom observations, with the intent to record each occurrence of aggressive behav-
ior. After 2 hours of observation, the school psychologist has recorded zero occurrences of
aggressive behavior! When the school psychologist meets with the classroom teacher to
review the observation data, the teacher is baffled. Only further discussion revealed that
they were not speaking a common language. Although both had observed the student swear-
ing and directing derogatory remarks toward peers, the teacher categorized the student’s
behaviors as “aggressive,” whereas the school psychologist labeled them as “inappropriate
132 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

TABLE 8.1. Examples of Operational Definitions

Descriptive label Sample operational definition
Off-task In the context of independent seatwork, includes wandering around the
behavior classroom, humming or singing, and/or talking to peers
Does not include asking a work-related question to the teacher, answering a
teacher-initiated question, or leaving the assigned seat with teacher permission

Tantrum An episode comprised of at least two of the following target behaviors:

behavior •• Crying: Vocalizations accompanied by tears
•• Screaming: Vocalizations above normal conversational volume
•• Flopping: Dropping to the floor

Disruptive Destroying property, swiping or throwing materials, climbing on furniture, or

behavior attempting any of these actions.
Includes ripping, breaking, and throwing objects; drawing on walls, furniture,
or other property; kicking walls or other property; and climbing on desks and
bookshelves.
Does not include appropriately throwing or kicking objects during game
play, drawing on approved surfaces, or climbing on stools to reach approved
classroom materials.

verbalizations.” They subsequently discuss examples and nonexamples of the behavior that
led to referral, develop a proper operational definition for the behavior, and mutually decide
to relabel the behavior as “verbal aggression directed toward classmates.” Yes, the outcome
is positive; yet the path to get there was highly inefficient.
In short, behaviors need to be defined in a way that is understandable to all members
of the team. To pass the adequacy test, an operational definition of behavior also needs
to be objective, clear, and complete (Kazdin, 2001). To be objective, the behavior should
be defined in terms of observable features that do not require inferences about intention,
internal states, traits, and so forth. To be clear, the definition should be so unambiguous
that two individuals can read it, paraphrase it, and then agree upon the occurrence and
nonoccurrence of the behavior. Lastly, to be complete, the definition must delineate all
observable forms of the behavior and provide relevant examples/nonexamples. Table 8.1
provides several examples of operational definitions, which are much more objective, clear,
and complete than the descriptive labels.

RECORDING BEHAVIOR

There are several methods for recording direct observation data, and no one procedure is
inherently better than another. The selection of a measurement procedure should be driven
by each of the following:
 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 133

1. The topography and measurable dimensions (frequency, duration, latency) of

behavior. The measurement procedure should be selected with due consideration
of the observable features of the target behavior. For example, if behavior occurs
very rapidly and often, it may be difficult to count each occurrence accurately and
an estimate of frequency may be preferable.
2. The reason for referral/goals of intervention. The measurement procedure should
capture the dimension of behavior that is problematic and will be targeted for
change. For example, if the primary concern is how long it takes a student to comply
with instructions, then latency may be an appropriate measure.
3. Pragmatic considerations. Time, resources, and the skill of the observer must be
taken into account. If the “ideal” data r­ ecording procedure is not feasible, then the
resulting data will not be reliable, accurate, or valid!

We generally recommend beginning the descriptive FBA process with an informal

anecdotal observation. In other words, we recommend starting by observing the student
in relevant contexts and taking narrative notes for the purposes of (1) refining operational
definitions for target behaviors and (2) making determinations about the most appropriate
data ­recording procedures to use during subsequent observations. The subsections below
include descriptions and examples of more formal data ­recording procedures commonly
used by evaluators (or teachers and staff) when conducting direct observations for an FBA.
These procedures also may be used to record behavior during treatment to evaluate the
effectiveness of the resulting behavior intervention plan.

Frequency Recording
Frequency recording involves observing and recording the number of times a behavior
occurs within a specified period of time. The obtained data are expressed in terms of rate:
number of occurrences/unit of time (minutes, seconds, days). This recording procedure is
most appropriate when the target behavior is discrete (i.e., has a clear beginning and end),
occurs at a relatively low rate, and extends for relatively constant durations of time. It tends
to be less accurate when the onset and offset of the target behavior are difficult to dis-
criminate, when the target behavior occurs at a very high rate, or when the target behavior
occurs for variable durations of time. For example, it may be difficult to determine when
stereotypic behaviors start and end; it may be inaccurate to count occurrences of self-­hitting
that occur too rapidly to keep track; and it may be inadequate to record the frequency of
tantrums, when episodes may be as brief as 10 seconds or as long as an hour in duration.
Frequency ­recording procedures also are inappropriate for recording occurrences of behav-
ior that are “opportunity bound.” For example, the frequency of “compliance with instruc-
tions” is inappropriate because the opportunities for the student to demonstrate compliance
are dependent on the teacher’s rate of instruction delivery.
Figure 8.1 illustrates a sample frequency recording procedure and data collection form.
In this example, verbal aggression was measured using a frequency ­recording procedure,
and data were collected each day by a paraprofessional assigned to work one on one with
the referred student during specific school periods.
134 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Target Behavior: Verbal Aggression

Operational Definition:
Includes comments directed toward peers or teachers that involve swearing, insults (e.g., “You’re ugly,” “You’re
stupid”), or threats (e.g., “I’m going to pound you”).
Does not include swearing not directed at others, self-directed insults (e.g., “I’m such an idiot”), or gestures
without accompanying statements.
Procedure: Record start and stop time for observation session. Record a tally mark for each occurrence during
observation. Tally discrete occurrence when statements are separated by 10 seconds. Convert tallies into rates
by dividing the number of occurrences by the interval of time (in hours).
Date of Observation:
Start of End of Length of Observation Rate
Observation Observation Tally (hours) (Tally/Length of Observation)
8:00 A.M. 9:30 A.M. //// //// // 1.5 hours 8 occurrences per hour

11:00 A.M. 12:00 P.M. //// 1 hour 4 occurrences per hour

1:30 P.M. 2:45 A.M. //// //// 1.25 hours 8 occurrences per hour

FIGURE 8.1. Example of a frequency recording procedure.

Duration Recording
Duration ­recording procedures involve observing and recording the time that elapses
between the start and end of a behavioral episode. Data are typically collected using a stop-
watch and then expressed as a percentage of time or average duration. Duration r­ ecording
procedures are most appropriate for measuring behavioral episodes that vary widely in
duration (e.g., tantrums) and should be considered when changes in the duration of behavior
(e.g., increased time on task) are the goal of intervention.
Figure 8.2 illustrates the use of a duration ­recording procedure. In this example, each
tantrum episode exhibited by a preschool student was recorded using both frequency and
duration r­ ecording procedures. A paraprofessional used a timer to record the duration of
each tantrum and then calculated the rate of tantrums, cumulative duration of tantrums,
average duration of tantrums, and percentage of time the student engaged in tantrums dur-
ing each school day. So, why record duration when frequency recording is much simpler?
Simply put, frequency data do not tell the full story for a behavior like tantrums. Just con-
sider the difference between a student who exhibits five tantrums that last 10–30 seconds
each and a student who exhibits five tantrums that last 15–30 minutes each! Reporting both
frequency and duration data provides a much clearer picture of the severity of tantrum
behavior.

Latency Recording
Latency r­ ecording procedures involve measuring the time that elapses between the presen-
tation of an antecedent stimulus (e.g., an instruction) and the onset of a target behavior. The
data are typically reported in terms of the average latency per occurrence. In the context of
a functional analysis (see Chapter 9), latency ­recording procedures are sometimes used to
document the duration of time that passes between the onset of a motivating operation (e.g.,
presentation of a task demand or removal of a preferred object) and the onset of interfering
 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 135

Target Behavior: Tantrums

Operational Definition: A response set including two or more of the following behaviors: screaming, crying,
and/or flopping to the floor.
Procedure: Record duration of the observation session. Count a discrete episode when tantrums are separated
by 30 seconds. Use a stopwatch to record the amount of time from onset to offset of the tantrum.
Length of School Day: 6 hours (360 minutes)
Episode Count Episode Duration
1 3.5 minutes

2 8.75 minutes

3 12 minutes

4 4.5 minutes

5 16.5 minutes

Frequency: 5 episodes/6 hours = 0.833 episodes per hour

Cumulative Duration: 3.5 + 8.75 + 12 + 4.5 + 16.5 = 45.25 minutes

Average Duration: 45.25 minutes/5 episodes = 9.05 minutes per episode

Percent Duration: 45.25 minutes/360 school day minutes = 12.6% of day

FIGURE 8.2. Example of a duration recording procedure.

behavior. Latency recording procedures also are useful for progress monitoring when the
goal of intervention is to alter the amount of time it takes for a student to engage in a par-
ticular behavior after an instruction is given. For example, if a student responds too quickly
when questions are presented during class discussions or responds too slowly when given an
instruction to initiate an assignment, latency recording procedures may provide meaningful
baseline and progress monitoring data.

Interval Recording
Interval r­ ecording procedures involve observing and recording the occurrence and nonoc-
currence of behaviors at predetermined intervals of time, ranging from a few seconds to
hours. Results of the observations are reported in terms of the percentage of intervals dur-
ing which target behaviors were observed. These percentages provide estimates of rate and
duration; however, the longer the interval of time, the less accurate the estimate.
There are three types of interval recording procedures:

• Whole-­interval recording involves recording the occurrence of behavior when it is

observed to occur during the entire interval.
• Partial-­interval recording involves recording the occurrence of behavior when it is
observed to occur during any portion of the interval.
• Momentary time sampling involves recording the occurrence of behavior when it is
observed at the end of an interval.
136 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

TABLE 8.2. Interval Recording Procedures

If . . . Then choose . . . Additional considerations . . .
Continuous or increased levels of the Whole-interval Tends to underestimate duration
behavior are desired (e.g., on-task behavior) recording of the target behavior

The behavior occurs frequently or rapidly Partial-interval Tends to overestimate duration

and is targeted for reduction (e.g., hand recording of the target behavior
hitting or hand flapping)

Continuous observation of the behavior is Momentary May not capture behaviors that
not practical or feasible time sampling occur very infrequently

Each of these procedures is associated with unique advantages and disadvantages, so Table
8.2 offers some direction for selecting the most appropriate procedure.
Figure 8.3 displays a 6-second whole-­interval recording procedure that was used to
measure the on-task behavior of a student who was referred for an FBA due to concerns
about inattentive and off-task behaviors. The school psychologist collected data during mul-
tiple observations across a variety of academic contexts; however, for the purposes of illus-
tration, the figure shows only the data collected during the first 5 minutes of one observa-
tion. In this case example, the school psychologist initially tried using a partial-­interval
recording procedure but quickly discovered that it overestimated on-task behavior. With
that procedure, even a split second of on-task behavior during a 6-second interval had to
be recorded as a positive occurrence! The school psychologist then decided to use a whole-­
interval recording procedure, which required the student to exhibit continuous on-task

Target Behavior: On-Task Behavior

Operational Definition: Visual, motoric, and/or vocal attention to task as evidenced by directing eye gaze
toward the teacher or assignment, remaining seated in the assigned area, actively completing the assigned
task, and/or speaking only about task-related topics.
Procedure: Set app on phone to vibrate every 6 seconds. Observe the student continuously during each
6-second interval. Record a “+” in the corresponding interval box if on-task behavior occurs for the entire
interval. Record a “–” in the corresponding interval box if on-task behavior does not occur continuously for the
entire interval.
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
1 minute + – + – – + + – – +
2 minutes + + – + + – – + + +
3 minutes + – + + + – – – + +
4 minutes – – – + – + + + + –
5 minutes + + + + + + + – – –
Percent Occurrence = (30 occurrences/50 total intervals) × 100 = 60% occurrence of on-task behavior

FIGURE 8.3. Example of a whole-­interval recording procedure.

 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 137

behavior for an entire 6-second interval to document a positive occurrence. Any interrup-
tion in on-task behavior, no matter how brief, was recorded as a nonoccurrence. For exam-
ple, if the student looked away from the assignment, commented to a peer, or tossed a pencil
in the air during a 6-second interval, then the observer documented the nonoccurrence of
on-task behavior. Given that the goal of the FBA was to develop positive behavioral support
strategies to increase sustained on-task behavior, the whole-­interval recording procedure
proved to be a more appropriate measure of behavior.
Consider a different example illustrating the use of a partial-­interval recording proce-
dure. A school psychologist receives a referral to conduct an FBA for a student with develop-
mental disabilities who exhibits multiple self-­injurious behaviors: hand biting, face slapping,
and head banging. The school psychologist considers grouping these forms of self-­injury into
a single target behavior; however, FBA interviews suggest that these varied topographies
of self-­injury do not comprise a single response class and may serve different functions.
Accordingly, as part of the descriptive FBA, the psychologist decides to record all three tar-
get behaviors across a variety of school and home environments to estimate baseline levels
of occurrence. Given multiple target behaviors that are brief in duration (1–2 seconds) and
tend to occur rapidly, the school psychologist determines that a 6-second partial-­interval
recording procedure is most appropriate. For ease of recording and to increase the accu-
racy of data collection, the school psychologist develops a data ­recording sheet that includes
codes for each target behavior within each 6-second interval. Each time a target behavior
occurs during any portion of an interval, the school psychologist circles the corresponding
code. Figure 8.4 shows a completed partial-­interval recording sheet for a 5-minute observa-
tion during table time instruction at school.

Target Behaviors: Self-Injury

Operational Definitions and Codes:
A. Self-Injurious Hand Biting: Any contact between the student’s teeth and hand
B. Self-Injurious Face Slapping: Audible contact between the student’s open palm and any portion of the face
C. Self-Injurious Head Banging: Contact between the student’s head and any object from a distance of at least
6 inches
Procedure: Set app on phone to vibrate every 6 seconds. Observe the student continuously during each
6-second interval. Mark the letter code corresponding to the target behavior in each 6-second interval during
which the behavior occurred (even if only for a split second).
6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60
1 A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
2 A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
3 A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
4 A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
5 A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C
Target Behavior Number of Intervals Percent Occurrence
(A) Hand Biting 20 40%
(B) Face Slapping 14 28%
(C) Head Banging 4 8%
Total Self-Injury 27 54%

FIGURE 8.4. Example of a partial-­interval recording procedure.

138 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Performance‑Based Behavior Recordings

Performance-­based recording procedures involve directly observing and rating levels of
behavior according to an anchored scale at regular intervals of time. This procedure yields
estimates of the rate, duration, and/or intensity of target behaviors, and it may be used to
record multiple target behaviors while simultaneously providing direct instructional/behav-
ioral supports to the student. Steege, Davin, and Hathaway (2001) demonstrated the reli-
ability and validity of this procedure; however, it is important to recognize that obtaining
meaningful data requires:

1. Operationally defining target behaviors;

2. Establishing rating scales with observable and measurable anchors;
3. Providing adequate training for observers prior to data collection; and
4. Conducting routine reliability and validity checks on the data.

Figure 8.5 illustrates the use of a performance-­based recording procedure to estimate

levels of both appropriate behaviors and interfering behaviors exhibited by a student with
developmental disabilities receiving one-on-one support in a functional life skills program.
The performance-­based recording procedure was used to estimate the relative occurrence
of both active participation and stereotypy. At the end of each 15-minute interval, the para-
professional working with the student recorded the following data: setting, specific activity,
active participation rating, stereotypy rating, and his or her initials. The resulting data show
that both behaviors varied across times of day, settings, activities, and staff.

Target Behaviors
•• Active Participation (AP): Visual, vocal, and motoric on-task responding; active engagement in the assigned
activity.
•• Stereotypy (S): Waving hands in face, rocking repetitively, and/or repeatedly spinning objects.
Recording Procedure
•• 0 = No AP or S
•• 1 = 1″ to 2′ 59″ of AP or S
•• 2 = 3′ to 5′ 59″ of AP or S
•• 3 = 6′ to 8′ 59″ of AP or S
•• 4 = 9′ to 11′ 59″ of AP or S
•• 5 = 12′ to 15′ of AP or S
Active Staff
Time Setting Activity Participation Stereotypy Initials
8:00–8:15 A.M. Hallway, classroom Transition from bus, hang coat 4 1 MWS

8:15–8:30 A.M. Classroom Morning circle 2 2 JLP

8:30–8:45 A.M. Classroom Morning circle 1 3 JLP

8:45–9:00 A.M. Classroom Reading group 1 4 JLP

9:00–9:15 A.M. Classroom Reading group 2 3 JLP

9:15–9:30 A.M. Cafeteria Snack 5 0 MWS

FIGURE 8.5. Example of a performance-­based behavior recording procedure.

 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 139

CONDUCTING DESCRIPTIVE FBAs

As mentioned previously, descriptive FBA procedures involve the direct observation of

behavior and environmental events in natural contexts. Often the evaluator conducts the
observations; however, there are circumstances when this is impractical. For example, there
may be times when the presence of the evaluator influences the behavior of the target stu-
dent so significantly that observation sessions do not yield representative samples of typical
behavior. At other times, the target behaviors occur at such a low rate that the probability of
capturing occurrences during scheduled observation sessions may be slim to none. Under
circumstances like these, it may be helpful to train and involve teachers, paraprofessionals,
or others in collecting descriptive FBA data.
Most descriptive FBA procedures involve some variation of the scatterplot assessment
developed by Touchette, MacDonald, and Langer (1985) to identify temporal patterns of
behavior and/or the A-B-C recording procedure developed by Bijou and colleagues (1968)
to capture the basic three-term contingency within natural contexts. The general descrip-
tive FBA process involves observing and documenting occurrences of target behaviors and
associated environmental events, but procedural variations are almost limitless. For exam-
ple:

• Sometimes evaluators document the continuous, natural stream of events that unfold
during an observation session, and sometimes evaluators record data only when tar-
get behaviors are observed.
• Sometimes evaluators record data in a narrative form; sometimes evaluators record
data using checklists; and sometimes evaluators use frequency, interval recording,
and other direct measurement procedures to record quantitative data.
• Sometimes evaluators record only the time of day or events observed immediately
before and after occurrences of target behavior; and sometimes evaluators expand
their data collection to include additional information about context, staff members
present, changes in behavior subsequent to the delivery of a consequence, and so
forth.

In the subsequent sections of this chapter, we describe several variations of descrip-

tive FBA procedures, illustrate applications using case examples, and provide sample data
recording forms. We do not attempt to provide an exhaustive review of scatterplot and
A-B-C recording procedures and their variations; rather, we highlight a few approaches that
we have found valuable for conducting FBAs in applied settings.

Functional Behavioral Assessment Observation Form

The Functional Behavioral Assessment Observation Form (FBAOF; Form 8.1) enables the
recording of interfering behaviors and associated environmental variables in narrative form.
Each time a behavioral incident occurs, the observer uses the FBAOF to record information
about the setting, antecedents, behaviors, consequences, and behavioral outcomes. When
completing this form, the observer should consider the following questions:
140 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

• Date/Time. What was the date and time of the behavioral incident?
||Note: Observers may also document how long the incident lasted.

• Context. Where did the behavioral incident occur? In what activities was the student
participating? Who was interacting with the student?
• Antecedent. What specific events seemed to trigger the behavioral incident? What
social, instructional, or other events occurred immediately prior to the behavioral
incident?
• Behavior. What did the student do? What topographies of interfering behaviors were
observed?
||Note: Observers may also document measurable dimensions of the interfering

behaviors, such as frequency, duration, latency, or intensity.

• Consequence. What happened immediately after the interfering behaviors occurred?
How did staff and/or peers respond? Did the student access or escape anything?
• Effect. How did the observed consequence impact the student? Did the consequence
result in changes in the rate, duration, intensity, or form of the interfering behaviors?
• Staff. Who observed the behavioral incident and recorded the data?
||Note: When the evaluator serves as the observer, this column may be used to doc-

ument the staff member working with the student during the behavioral incident.

When using the FBAOF, it is important to differentiate between the context and the
antecedent. The context is the general setting in which the behavior occurred, whereas
the antecedent is a specific precipitating event (Note: Remember, antecedents include
both MOs and SDs. This distinction is omitted on the FBAOF to simplify data collec-
tion.) It is also important to recognize that the antecedent may not be easily detected.
Sometimes, the triggers for behavioral incidents are internal variables (e.g., physical pain,
negative thoughts), rather than directly observable environmental events. In these cases,
the phrase “not observed” may be recorded. Lastly, it is important to document both
observable consequences and the effects of those consequences on the interfering behav-
ior. When a particular consequence consistently results in an immediate termination of
interfering behaviors, there is a good chance that the observed consequence actually
functions as a reinforcer!
Figure 8.6 illustrates the use of the FBAOF to assess the function of oppositional behav-
iors exhibited by George, a student with a learning disability. First, we defined oppositional
behaviors as yelling, swearing, arguing, and verbally refusing to complete assigned work.
Then, we asked a paraprofessional to use the FBAOF each time George displayed opposi-
tional behaviors during a 2-week span. Review of the completed data sheets revealed that
George typically engaged in oppositional behaviors within the context of academic tasks
(e.g., math instruction and writing assignments) when he was provided with direct instruc-
tional or task-­orienting prompts. In response to these oppositional behaviors, the parapro-
fessional who delivered the prompts often responded by walking away. George then typi-
cally stopped engaging in interfering behaviors. In other words, in the context of academics,
instructional and task-­orienting prompts appeared to function as antecedents that evoked
oppositional behaviors maintained by escape from these prompts. These findings led to the
hypothesis that George’s oppositional behaviors were maintained by negative reinforcement
in the form of escape from instructional and task-­orienting prompts.
 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 141

Student name: George Oppose

Date/Time Context Antecedent Behavior Consequence Effect Staff

3/29 Math class I asked George Verbal refusal I ignored George George calmed AG
9:50 A.M. Independent to complete the and arguing and walked down
worksheets worksheet away

3/29 Math class I offered George Verbal refusal I ignored George George calmed AG
10:02 A.M. Independent instructional and arguing and walked down
worksheets support away

3/30 Math class I offered to help He refused and I redirected George swore AG
9:55 A.M. Small group George argued with me George back at me, shouted,
to his desk to and argued
finish his work
3/30 Math class I redirected George He swore, I ignored George George calmed AG
9:56 A.M. Small group to complete argued, and and walked down in about 2
his work (task shouted at me away minutes
orientation prompt)

FIGURE 8.6. Functional Behavioral Assessment Observation Form for George.

Incident‑Based Functional Assessment Form

The Incident-­ Based Functional Assessment Form (IBFAF; Form 8.2) enables a more
advanced analysis of the variables that contribute to occurrences of interfering behavior.
To use the IBFAF, evaluators must have a solid grasp of the principles of applied behav-
ior analysis (see Chapter 3), and we recommend that only evaluators with advanced train-
ing in applied behavior analysis use this form to structure data collection. The method of
assessment requires evaluators to be present in the natural environment (e.g., the classroom)
at times when the interfering behavior is probable in order to observe and document the
dynamics present during actual behavioral incidents. The form then prompts evaluators to
document (in narrative form) directly observed target behaviors and hypothesized motivat-
ing operations, discriminative stimuli, and reinforcing consequences. This process yields
functional hypotheses with strong ecological validity, and we consider it a form of concep-
tual analysis. Figure 8.7 displays several completed forms. When conducting FBAs, we
sometimes include these completed figures to provide illustrative examples of the four-term
contingency relevant to the referral concern.

Conditional Probability Record

The Conditional Probability Record (CPR; Form 8.3) is another form that allows the
observer to record the antecedents and consequences associated with interfering behaviors.
Whereas the FBAOF and IBFAF are intended to capture specific behavioral incidents, the
CPR is designed for continuous use during scheduled observation sessions. This approach
therefore allows for the analysis of the likelihood (probability) of interfering behavior given
a particular antecedent and the likelihood (probability) of a particular consequence follow-
ing a behavior. Form 8.3 uses 15-second recording intervals, but smaller intervals of time
(e.g., 6 seconds or 10 seconds) also may be used. Similarly, the form may be adapted to
142 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Example 1. Grabbing an item that belonged to a peer during a transition

Context

Transition from classroom to bathroom,

passing by a peer watching a video

Motivating Operations

Deprivation of preferred item/activity (video)

Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behaviors Reinforcing Consequences

iPad streaming a video Grabbing iPad from peer Individually mediated positive
reinforcement: Direct access to
a preferred item/activity

Example 2. Flopping and kicking during a discrete trial teaching session

Context

Discrete trial teaching session

Motivating Operations

Presentation of a direct instruction, teaching materials, and verbal prompts

Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behaviors Reinforcing Consequences

Teacher with history of Flopping to floor Socially mediated negative

discontinuing/pausing Kicking teacher reinforcement: Escape from
instruction following interfering direct instruction
behaviors

Example 3. Whining and crying during an incidental teaching session

Context

Incidental teaching session: Play

Motivating Operations

Restricted/delayed access to a preferred item

(i.e., verbal request for a marble toy was not immediately reinforced)

Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behaviors Reinforcing Consequences

Paraprofessional with history Whining Socially mediated positive

of providing requested items Crying reinforcement: Access to
quickly in response to whining preferred item (marble toy)
and crying

FIGURE 8.7. Examples of completed Incident-Based Functional Assessment Forms.

 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 143

capture antecedents and consequences in nonacademic settings. For example, an observer

could choose to document a wider range of antecedent variables (e.g., presentation of tasks,
divided/diverted attention, and restricted access to preferred items/activities) and associ-
ated consequence variables (e.g., removal of tasks, delivery of attention, and access to pre-
ferred items/activities).
Figure 8.8 presents a 5-minute excerpt from a completed CPR. These data show that
Mitch was observed lying and/or rolling on the floor during 60% of intervals. Furthermore,
lying and/or rolling on the floor resulted in verbal reprimands during 41% of intervals and

Student Mitch Miles

Date of observation 3-17-18 Observer Steuart Watson
Setting Regular Classroom Time of day 1:15–1:30
Behavior 1 Lying and/or rolling on floor Behavior 2 Not Applicable

Antecedents Target Behaviors Consequences

Academic Task Teacher Behavior 1 Behavior 2 Teacher Peers Academic

0:15 R WS W — — W Wk Working
0:30 R WS W — — W Wk Working
0:45 R WS W — — W Wk Working
1:00 R WS Desk — — Desk Wk Working
1:15 R WS Desk √ — Desk L Work stopped
1:30 R WS Desk √ — Desk L&R Work stopped
1:45 R WS Desk √ — VR Wk Work stopped
2:00 R WS Desk √ — VR Look Work stopped
2:15 R WS PP √ — PG Wk Work stopped
2:30 R WS PP √ — PG Wk Work restarted
2:45 R WS PP — — PP Wk Working
3:00 R WS PP — — PP Wk Working
3:15 R WS W — — W Wk Working
3:30 R WS W √ — W R Work stopped
3:45 R WS W √ — VR Look Work stopped
4:00 R WS PP √ — VR Wk Work stopped
4:15 R WS PP √ — VR Look Work stopped
4:30 R WS PP √ — PG Wk Work stopped
4:45 R WS PP √ — PG Wk Work stopped
5:00 R WS PP — — PG Wk Work restarted

Any of the categories may be coded according to the observer’s preferences or the data that currently exist but must remain
consistent across observations. Indicate coding scheme here for each of the categories.

Codes:
Academic: R = Reading Teacher: W = walking around the classroom; PP = physical proximity to target student; VR =
verbal reprimand; PG = physical guidance to target student; Desk = sitting at desk
Task: WS = Worksheets Peers: Wk = working on task; L = laughing at target student; Look = looking at target student;
R = reporting behavior of target student to teacher

FIGURE 8.8. Example of a completed CPR.

144 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

physical guidance back to the seat during 33% of intervals. This means that Mitch’s interfer-
ing behavior resulted in some form of teacher attention during 74% of intervals. In contrast,
the teacher maintained physical proximity with Mitch during only 33% of the intervals in
which he was working on the assigned task, and on-task behavior never resulted in verbal
or physical attention from the teacher. Accordingly, the probability of teacher attention was
significantly higher when Mitch engaged in interfering behaviors than when he completed
assigned tasks. This supports the hypothesis that Mitch’s behavior of lying and/or rolling
on the floor may be maintained by positive reinforcement in the form of teacher attention.
Additional hypotheses, though, also are plausible. For example, peer attention in the form of
looking (25% of intervals) or laughing (16% of intervals) sometimes followed occurrences of
lying and/or rolling on the floor. A negative reinforcement hypothesis (escape from task) also
is possible because work was temporarily terminated by lying and/or rolling on the floor.
And what about the antecedents? Given that the task expectations remained consistent
throughout the brief observation period, it seems that analysis of antecedent influences on
Mitch’s behavior may not be particularly helpful. Or is it? If you examine the CPR carefully,
you will notice that the onset of interfering behaviors correlated with the teacher sitting
down at the desk after walking around the classroom. This may or may not be a meaningful
finding, but it does suggest a possible antecedent variable for further investigation. In sum,
this case example illustrates both the benefits and drawbacks of the CPR method:

• The method is useful for identifying naturally occurring (and sometimes idiosyn-
cratic) relationships between behavior and the environment that can be tested (and
either verified or disconfirmed) through further analysis.
• However, it yields only correlational data, and the complexity of the natural environ-
ment makes it difficult (and messy) to isolate relevant variables.

Interval Recording Procedure

The Interval Recording Procedure (IRP) data sheet (Form 8.4) is another tool to support the
continuous observation and recording of interfering behaviors and associated contextual
variables. The IRP is designed to be completed across the entire school day at prespecified
intervals of time, usually every 5, 10, or 15 minutes. We think of it as an extended scatterplot
assessment that facilitates the identification of temporal patterns of behavior and enables:

• Identification of the contexts associated with occurrences of appropriate and inter-

fering behaviors,
• Documentation of levels of appropriate and interfering behaviors,
• Analysis of co-­relationships among behaviors, and
• Analysis of relationships between student behavior and assigned staff.

The IRP may be used during the descriptive FBA process to assess baseline levels of
appropriate and interfering behaviors and guide the development of preliminary hypothe-
ses about the relationships between target behaviors and contextual variables. The IRP also
is extremely valuable for objectively monitoring the effects of intervention over time. The
special education programs for which we provide clinical consultation services incorporate
 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 145

the IRP as a primary tool for monitoring students’ progress toward individualized educa-
tion program (IEP) and individualized treatment plan (ITP) goals. Staff working within
these programs use the IRP on a daily basis; therefore, analysis of completed IRP sheets
constitutes a routine practice within the FBA process. For those of you conducting FBAs for
students who do not have adequate extant data available for analysis, we encourage you to
consider designing and implementing the IRP for at least a few weeks to document present
levels of target behaviors, identify contexts for direct observation, and develop hypotheses
for further investigation. The multistep process described below will help you get started
using the IRP.

1. Design the IRP.

• Identify target behaviors, both appropriate and interfering.
• Operationally define each target behavior.
• Select and describe measurement procedures (e.g., frequency, duration, and/or
performance-­based) for each target behavior.
• Select measurement intervals (we typically use 15-minute intervals).
• Identify the number of intervals per school day (e.g., 8:00 A.M.–3:00 P.M. = 28
intervals).
• Identify additional data needed (we typically include columns corresponding to
each interval to record the activities in which the student was expected to engage
and to document the paraprofessional assigned to support the student).
• Create the form.
2. Train staff.
• Review the labels and definitions for each target behavior.
• Review the data recording procedures for each target behavior.
• Arrange role-play scenarios for staff to practice using the IRP.
• Arrange supervised practice opportunities for staff to use the IRP with the target
student in the natural setting; simultaneously collect data and provide feedback
on accuracy (i.e., assess interobserver agreement).
• Remember that the data obtained using the IRP are only useful when staff collect
data accurately!
3. Implement the IRP.
• Ask staff to collect data while providing direct services to the target student.
• Intermittently monitor staff use of the IRP by collecting interobserver agree-
ment (i.e., simultaneously and independently recording data and then comparing
results).
• Intermittently assess staff’s perceptions of the IRP.
||Note: We find that staff are likely to use the IRP consistently when they con-

sider it to be both effective and efficient. The IRP is effective when it accu-
rately measures the occurrence of target behaviors. The IRP is efficient when
it does not interfere with intervention.
4. Analyze the data.
• Analyze relationships between antecedents and target behaviors by reviewing
individual data sheets and looking for patterns related to times of day, specific
activities, and/or specific staff.
146 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

• Analyze interrelationships among target behaviors by reviewing individual data

sheets and searching for patterns both within and across intervals.
• Analyze trends by graphing daily behavior data over extended periods of time
(days, weeks, or months) and using visual analysis to identify changes in the levels
or variability of target behaviors.
• Remember that completing the IRP without analyzing the data is like . . .
||Going to a bookstore and purchasing a compelling book, but never reading it.
||Building a sailboat, but never taking it to sea.
||Training for a marathon, but never running the race.
||Making an elaborate dinner, but not joining your friends and family for the

feast.

You get the idea. Obviously, we consider the analysis of data to be a critical and often
rewarding part of the process!
To illustrate this process, consider the case of a student with ASD who received one-
on-one support from a paraprofessional within a middle school life skills program. The
student’s IEP included goals for (1) increasing active participation and rates of social inter-
action and (2) reducing occurrences of interfering behaviors. Given inadequate progress
toward these goals, the student was referred for an FBA. After conducting an indirect FBA
and anecdotal observation, the school psychologist decided that she needed more precise
information about present levels of target behaviors and a better sense of the contexts asso-
ciated with relative success and difficulty. Accordingly, the school psychologist decided to
implement the IRP as part of her assessment process. She began by developing operational
definitions and measurement procedures for each target behavior (see Figure 8.9). Next,
she trained the student’s paraprofessional to use the IRP and requested that he collect data
all day, every day, for 2 weeks. Figure 8.10 depicts one completed IRP data sheet. Although
analysis of data from the entire 2-week period yields the most valuable information, you can
see that even a single data sheet shows useful information. For example:

• Levels of active participation varied across the school day,

• High levels of active participation were associated with low levels of interfering
behavior,
• Low levels of active participation were associated with high levels of interfering
behavior,
• Interfering behaviors occurred most often during circle time, reading, and spelling,
and
• Social interactions were initiated more frequently with staff than with peers.

Task Analysis Recording Procedure

The Task Analysis Recording Procedure (TARP) combines a task-­analyzed instructional
procedure with a method for collecting data on both skill acquisition and interfering
behaviors. We include this simply as an example of the creativity you can apply to the FBA
process! Descriptive FBA tools should not be prescribed and standardized; instead, they
 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 147

Active Participation (AP): visual, verbal, motor on-task responding, engaged in the task activity

Recording Procedure: Performance-Based

0 = No AP
1 = 1″ to 2′ 59″ of AP
2 = 3′ to 5′ 59″ of AP
3 = 6′ to 8′ 59″ of AP
4 = 9′ to 11′ 59″ of AP
5 = 12′ to 15′ of AP

Verbal Opposition (Verb. Opp.): one or more of verbal refusal to: (a) participate in tasks/activities, (b)
follow teacher directions, and (c) follow school rules

Recording Procedure: frequency of occurrence (record as discrete episodes when occurrences

of verbal opposition are separated by 15″ of no verbal opposition)

Nonverbal Opposition (Nonverb. Opp.): one or more of lying on the floor, sitting in chair avoiding
eye contact, walking away from staff when asked to (a) participate in tasks/activities, (b) follow
directions, and (c) follow school rules. Note: A response latency of 30″ is typical, and nonverbal
opposition is only recorded after 30″ of nonresponding to teacher/staff directions.

Recording Procedure: Duration (record the length of time of the occurrence of Nonverb. Opp.)

Property Destruction (Prop. Dest.): tearing, throwing, and/or damaging own or others’ property.

Recording Procedure: Frequency of occurrence (record as discrete episodes when occurrences

of property destruction are separated by 15″ of no occurrence of property destruction).

Verbal Agression (Verb. Agg.): verbal threats (e.g., “I’m going to hit you”).

Recording Procedure: frequency of occurrence (record as discrete events when occurrences of

verbal aggression are separated by 15″ of no verbal aggression).

Physical Aggression (Phys. Agg.): physical acts involving hitting, kicking, grabbing of others; spitting
on others. These behaviors typically occur as a response set and are recorded as episodes.

Recording Procedure: frequency and intensity of episodes

1 = mild (any single behavior or set of behaviors lasting less than 10 seconds)
2 = moderate (any single behavior or set of behaviors lasting less than 1 minute)
3 = severe (any single behavior or set of behaviors lasting more than 1 minute)

Initiating Social Interactions (ISI): verbal interactions directed toward teachers or classmates (e.g.,
initiating “Good morning,” requesting help, conversations)

Recording Procedure: frequency and person (i.e., staff or classmate)

S = occurrence of initiating social interaction with teacher/staff
C = occurrence of initiating social interaction with classmate

FIGURE 8.9. Examples of Interval Recording Procedure definitions and measurement procedures.
 Target Behaviors AP Verbal Opp. Nonverb. Opp. Prop. Dest. Verb. Agg. Phys. Agg. ISI
Recording Procedures 0–5 frequency duration frequency frequency intensity 1, 2, 3 frequency
Time Setting and/or Activity Staff
8:30–8:45 Arrival routine 5 0 0 0 0 0 s,s MWS
8:45–9:00 Breakfast 5 0 0 0 0 0 s,c M WS
9:00–9:15 Breakfast 5 0 0 0 0 0 s M WS
9:15–9:30 Small group—circle 3 ||| 3′ 30″ 0 0 0 s MWS
9:30–9:45 Small group—circle 2 |||| 4′ 20″ | | 1 0 MWS
9:45–10:00 Reading (DTT)* 1 || 30″ | |||| 2 0 MWS
10:00–10:15 Reading (DTT) 0 || 14′ 30″ 0 0 0 0 MWS
10:15–10:30 Break—snack 5 0 0 0 0 0 s MWS
10:30–10:45 Break—ind. play 5 0 0 0 0 0 s,c,s MWS
10:45–11:00 Math—DTT worksheets 3 | 0 | 0 1 0 MWS
11:00–11:15 Math—group 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 MWS
11:15–11:30 Math—group 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 MWS
11:30–11:45 Lunch—prep. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 MWS
11:45–12:00 Lunch 5 0 0 0 0 0 s,c TD
12:00–12:15 Brush teeth 5 0 0 0 0 0 s,s TD

148
12:15–12:30 Recess 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 TD
12:30–12:45 Music 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 TD
12:45–1:00 Music 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 TD
1:00–1:15 Spelling worksheets 1 ||| 2′ 40″ || |||| 2 0 TD
1:15–1:30 Spelling worksheets 0 || 12′ 00″ | | 1 0 TD
1:30–1:45 Break—ind. play 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 TD
1:45–2:00 Small group—coop play 2 || 0 | | 0 0 TD
2:00–2:15 Small group—coop play 1 0 0 0 0 2 s,c TD
2:15–2:30 Reading (DTT) 3 | 30″ 0 0 0 s,s TD
2:30–2:45 Reading (DTT) 0 ||| 15′ 0″ 0 0 3 s TD
2:45–3:00 Prep. go home 5 0 0 0 0 0 s,s,s TD
Add each column 86 25 51′ 30″ 7 11 # 1′ s = 3 s = 2.77/hour
Convert to percent or rate 86/130 66% 3.8/hour 1.08/hour 1.70/hour # 2′ s = 4 c = 0.61/hour
# 3′ s = 1

*DTT: discrete trial teaching sessions

FIGURE 8.10. Example of a completed Interval Recording Procedure Data Sheet.

 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 149

Research: Task Analysis Recording Procedure

Brown, R. (2017). The reliability and validity of the Task Analysis Recording Procedure (TARP). Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Maine.

This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the Task Analysis Recording Procedure (TARP).
The results showed a robust correspondence between recordings of physical stereotypy conducted by
teachers using the TARP and secondary observers utilizing a 6-second momentary time sampling pro-
cedure. This study demonstrated that the TARP procedure is an acceptable means of recording physi-
cal stereotypy in applied settings. Moreover, these results demonstrated a teacher-­friendly method of
recording both the acquisition of skills and the decrease of interfering stereotypy within the context of
functional life skills programming.

should be selected and/or designed to answer specific referral questions. The TARP is an
example of a tool created to facilitate functional skill instruction, monitor skill acquisition,
and measure occurrences of interfering behavior within the context of instructional pro-
gramming (Steege, Mace, Perry, & Longenecker, 2007). We often use it during the FBA
process when questions surface about the relationship between instructional methods and
student behavior. By analyzing TARP data, we have discovered situations in which students
exhibited interfering behaviors in response to errors or specific types of prompts (e.g., ver-
bal prompts). The key is to search for patterns of interfering behavior both within and across
completed data forms.
Using the TARP involves the following steps:

1. Develop the task analysis. A task analysis involves breaking a complex skill (e.g.,
making a bed, taking a shower, making a snack, shopping) into its component parts.
2. Define the instructional procedures. This step involves identifying the procedures
that will be used to teach the component behaviors of the task.
3. Identify and describe interfering behaviors. This step involves selecting the spe-
cific interfering behaviors to record during instruction. Interviews and direct obser-
vation procedures are usually used to identify and define the relevant interfering
behaviors.
4. Design the recording form. This step involves developing a data recording form (see
Figure 8.11 for an example) that includes:
• The steps of the task analysis.
• A column for recording correct/independent performance of behaviors.
• A column for recording effective and ineffective instructional prompts.
• A column for recording interfering behaviors.
5. Train staff. This step involves training staff to implement the instructional proce-
dures and collect accurate data after the student completes each task analysis step.
We generally recommend using a behavioral skills training model (surprise, sur-
prise . . . ).
6. Implement the TARP. Implementing the TARP requires monitoring for treatment
integrity and data collection accuracy. Intermittent retraining of staff is sometimes
needed.
 150 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Name Missy Eater Date 9/25/18

Target skill Washing face with washcloth Teacher O.C. Dee

Instructional prompts
Independence = Ineffective prompt Interfering behaviors
Steps of TA (+ or –) ( ) = Effective prompt ( ) = Occurrence
1. Enter bathroom + TP PP G M SV NSV ST SIB VOPP
2. Turn on light TP PP (G) M SV NSV (ST) SIB VOPP
3. Walk to sink TP PP (G) M SV NSV (ST) SIB VOPP
4. Turn on cold water TP (PP) G M SV NSV (ST) SIB (VOPP)
5. Turn on hot water (TP) PP G M SV NSV ST (SIB) (VOPP)
6. Adjust water
(TP) PP G M SV NSV ST (SIB) (VOPP)
temperature
7. Pick up washcloth TP PP G M (SV) NSV (ST) SIB VOPP
8. Wet washcloth TP PP G M (SV) NSV ST SIB VOPP
9. Wring out +
TP PP G M SV NSV ST SIB VOPP
washcloth
10. Turn off hot water TP PP G M (SV) NSV ST SIB VOPP
11. Turn off cold water TP PP G M (SV) NSV ST SIB VOPP
12. Wash mouth TP PP (G) M SV NSV ST SIB (VOPP)
13. Wash chin TP PP G (M) SV NSV ST SIB (VOPP)
14. Wash cheek TP PP (G) M SV NSV ST SIB VOPP
15. Wash other cheek TP PP G (M) SV NSV ST (SIB) VOPP
16. Wash forehead TP PP G M (SV) NSV ST SIB (VOPP)
17. Open hamper + TP PP G M SV NSV ST SIB VOPP
18. Place washcloth +
TP PP G M SV NSV ST SIB VOPP
in hamper
19. Close hamper + TP PP G M SV NSV ST SIB VOPP
20. Turn off light TP PP G M (SV) NSV (ST) SIB VOPP
Number of steps 5/20 5 3 6
Percentage of steps 25 % ST:  25%
Independence SIB:  15%
VOPP: 30%
TP: Total physical ST: Stereotypy
PP: Partial physical SIB: Self-­
injurious
G: Gesture VOPP: Verbal opposition
M: Model
SV: Specific verbal
NSV: Nonspecific verbal

FIGURE 8.11. Example of a completed TARP Recording Form.

 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 151

7. Analyze the data. This is an incredibly important step! Analyzing data involves
reviewing both raw data sheets and graphs depicting independence and interfering
behaviors. When analyzing TARP data, we specifically look for relationships among:
• Specific steps and types of effective instructional prompts.
• Specific steps and types of ineffective instructional prompts.
• Specific steps and interfering behaviors.
• Specific instructional prompts and interfering behaviors.

COMPARING AND CONTRASTING

DESCRIPTIVE FBA PROCEDURES

As previously indicated, all descriptive FBA procedures involve direct observation and
recording of behavior and associated environmental events within natural settings. No vari-
ables are manipulated; the evaluator simply observes and documents naturally occurring
behavior–­environment relations. The process may be as simple as taking narrative notes to
document the “behavioral stream” or as complex as using interval ­recording procedures to
record occurrences of operationally defined behaviors and environmental events and cal-
culate conditional probabilities. Regardless of the complexity of the procedure, though, it
is important to recognize that descriptive FBA methods yield only correlational data. This
means that data obtained via the descriptive FBA process may generate possible hypotheses
about the functions of interfering behaviors, but these hypotheses cannot be confirmed
without a subsequent experimental analysis during which antecedents and/or consequences
are systematically manipulated to examine the effects on behavior.
It also is important to recognize that each descriptive procedure is associated with
specific advantages and disadvantages. For example:

• The FBAOF is efficient, relatively easy to use, and yields rich contextual informa-
tion. Data are recorded only when interfering behaviors occur, school employees (with
some training) can easily support data collection, and the narrative data provide a meaning-
ful picture of interfering behaviors and related events. There are drawbacks, though. For
example, the events observed to occur before and after interfering behaviors may not be the
relevant functional variables, and the procedure yields no information about the measur-
able dimensions of interfering behaviors or the contexts that support appropriate behaviors.

• The IBFAF also is efficient in that the observer only needs to record data when
behavioral incidents occur. Compared to the FBAOF, the IBFAF also facilitates a more pre-
cise conceptual analysis of interfering behaviors by distinguishing between discriminative
and motivational variables. This benefit, though, comes with a drawback; observers must
possess advanced knowledge of applied behavior analysis in order to use this tool effectively.
And, like the FBAOF, the IBFAF does not allow quantification of present levels of interfer-
ing behavior or analysis of the environmental events that support appropriate behaviors.

• The CPR yields the most precise measurements of behavior and facilitates quantita-
tive analyses of the likelihood that (1) interfering behaviors occur subsequent to specific
152 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

antecedents and (2) specific reinforcing consequences occur subsequent to the occurrence
of interfering behaviors. This precision, though, comes at a cost: Observers must be com-
petent in the use of interval recording procedures and free to devote the entire observation
period to data collection. Multitasking while completing the CPR is simply not an option!
Given the intensity of resources needed to complete the CPR, it also is only reasonable to
collect relatively brief samples of data.

• Like the CPR, the IRP also allows precise measurement of target behavior, facilitates
a variety of behavior–­behavior and behavior–­environment analyses, and requires extensive
training for accurate implementation. Unlike the CPR, though, the IRP is appropriate for
continuous documentation of behaviors across the entire school day by direct service staff.
It is more labor intensive than a method like the FBAOF, but also yields a comprehensive
snapshot of student behavior within and across school days. The primary drawback is that
the form does not enable documentation of specific antecedents and consequences that pre-
cede and follow occurrences of interfering behavior; rather, the data suggest more general
relationships between interfering behaviors and certain contexts.

• Lastly, the TARP yields very specific information about the relationship between
interfering behaviors and instructional procedures/prompts. This procedure does not assess
interfering behavior across all school-­related contexts or generate data on the consequences
associated with interfering behavior; rather, this procedure provides an example of strate-
gies to collect data to answer very specific referral questions.

So, is one descriptive FBA procedure better than another? Which form and method
should you use? In many cases, we recommend combining two or more procedures! Blend-
ing the results from multiple assessment tools tends to yield rich data that enhance our
understanding of the variables that influence both appropriate and interfering behaviors.

SUMMARY

Remember the old adage “If your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks like a
nail”? Well, it certainly applies to the FBA process! The tools we apply during the FBA pro-
cess shape our conceptualization of the referral problem and the positive behavior support
strategies we recommend. If you have only one tool in your FBA repertoire, you are unlikely
to identify the idiosyncratic variables that contribute to students’ interfering behaviors or to
generate effective and individualized interventions.
No single data recording procedure is appropriate for every referral concern. When a
recording procedure is well matched to the target behavior and the skills/resources of the
observer, reliable and accurate measurement is the likely result. When a recording proce-
dure is poorly matched to the target behavior or skills/resources of the observer, meaning-
less or misleading data are the likely result. Evaluators need to be selective about the data
recording procedures they select to measure levels of target behaviors.
Similarly, no single descriptive FBA procedure is appropriate for every referral. Com-
prehensive FBAs that utilize a blend of procedures typically lead to the most valid functional
 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 153

hypotheses and effective interventions. Evaluators should design procedures to answer spe-
cific referral questions, while giving balanced attention to pragmatic considerations such as
time and available resources.
Following is a case example to illustrate the blended application of several indirect and
descriptive FBA procedures. This case example is not intended to provide an example of
an FBA report (we offer those examples in Chapter 13); rather, it is intended to show the
integration of multiple procedures into an individualized assessment that sheds light on one
student’s behavior.

CASE EXAMPLE: INDIRECT AND DESCRIPTIVE FBA

Background Information
Dawn was a 9-year-old third-­grader enrolled in a self-­contained program for students
with emotional disabilities. Three psychological evaluations had been conducted in the
past 4 years at the recommendation of Dawn’s multidisciplinary team. Reasons for referral
included concerns with academic, social–­emotional, adaptive, and behavioral functioning.
The previous psychological evaluations, which were conducted by three different school
psychologists, included anecdotal observations and results from the following:

• Cognitive assessment (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition)

• Adaptive assessment (Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition)
• Behavior assessment (Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition)
• Personality assessment (Thematic Apperception Test)

Academic testing, speech/language evaluations, occupational therapy evaluations, and

psychiatric evaluations also had been completed during this 4-year window. Based on these
evaluations, the following diagnoses were offered:

• ASD
• Oppositional defiant disorder
• Obsessive–­compulsive disorder
• Generalized anxiety disorder
• Language disorder

Critique of Previous Evaluations

The previous psychological evaluations could be described as “traditional.” They summa-
rized results from a variety of norm-­referenced assessment tools routinely utilized by school
psychologists and therefore provided information about Dawn’s level of functioning relative
to similarly aged peers. Although the evaluation reports effectively documented that Dawn
was a student with a “disability” who exhibited behaviors that interfered with her learning,
they offered minimal information to guide the development of individualized interventions.
In fact, review of Dawn’s IEP revealed almost no connection between the psychological
evaluation reports and her special educational goals and services.
154 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Presenting Referral Concerns

Dawn’s IEP team had convened meetings to review her progress on 10 occasions over the
past 3 school years. Review of meeting minutes revealed significant concerns with interfer-
ing behaviors, including screaming and aggression. Team members described her scream-
ing behavior as “attention seeking” and “self-­stimulating,” and her aggressive behaviors as
“impulsive.” At the end of the last school year, the team recommended the use of a “time-
out” procedure to address screaming behavior and concluded that she should be sent home
for engaging in aggressive behavior toward peers. They also recommended the use of sen-
sory integration techniques as a way of decreasing screaming and aggressive behaviors.
Although the team did not order the collection of specific data on these interfering behav-
iors, they did order documentation of the number of times Dawn needed to be placed in
time-out or sent home.
In mid-­November of the current school year, another IEP team meeting was held.
The team referred to Dawn’s behavior as “out of control” and reported that interfering
behaviors were becoming increasingly frequent and severe. Review of data showed that
Dawn had been sent to the time-out area 24 times and sent home 12 times since the start
of the year. The subsequent discussion focused on how to respond when Dawn screamed
or became aggressive. A variety of interventions were proposed, including a sensory diet,
a token economy, and the continued use of time-out. The team also discussed the option
of an out-of-­district placement to address Dawn’s “severe behavioral and social–­emotional
needs.” Dawn’s parents objected to the proposal for an out-of-­district placement and asked
the school team to develop alternative interventions.
At this point, the IEP team needed help. Dawn’s interfering behaviors were escalat-
ing, the interventions currently in place were ineffective, and an out-of-­district residential
placement was not an acceptable option. Dawn therefore was referred to a district psycholo-
gist with expertise in functional behavior assessment.
Prior to initiating the FBA, the psychologist met with Dawn’s family. During the meet-
ing, Dawn’s parents made several astute observations and asked some very good questions.
For example, they observed, “Dawn has been evaluated by school psychologists three times
already. She’s been diagnosed to death. Do we really need another evaluation?” They also
asked, “What do you plan to do that is different from what the other folks did?” and “How
will your evaluation help us to help Dawn?” Read on to see how the psychologist used the
FBA process to address these questions and concerns!

The Functional Behavioral Assessment Process

Step 1: Indirect FBA
The initial phase of the FBA involved conducting interviews with Dawn’s special education
classroom teacher, paraprofessional support staff, and parents. These interviews were con-
ducted using the BAPS-I and BSI (see Chapter 7) to:

1. Identify the behaviors that interfered with Dawn’s functioning,

2. Describe interfering behaviors in objective and measurable terms,
3. Identify possible antecedents or “triggers” for interfering behaviors,
 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 155

4. Identify individual variables and skill deficits relevant to occurrences of interfering

behaviors, and
5. Identify typical consequences for interfering behaviors.

RATIONALE

FBA interviews were considered important for the following reasons:

1. The psychologist wanted to gain a clear picture of Dawn’s interfering behaviors and
the resources available in the classroom in order to design appropriately matched
data r­ ecording procedures.
2. The psychologist wanted to identify the contexts associated with Dawn’s interfering
behaviors in order to schedule meaningful direct observations.
3. The psychologist wanted to develop initial hypotheses about relevant antecedents
and consequences in order to develop an appropriate descriptive assessment plan.
4. The psychologist wanted to change the interviewees’ perceptions of Dawn’s behav-
ior by emphasizing the fact that behavior often is situation specific. The psycholo-
gist’s goal was to shift the focus from Dawn being an “interfering child” and to
encourage the team to view her behavior as the result of the complex interaction
between individual and environmental variables.

RESULTS

Identification and Description of Interfering Behaviors. Interfering behaviors of con-

cern included screaming and aggression. Screaming was defined as yelling statements or
emitting screeching sounds (e.g., “EEEEEEEHHHHH”). Aggression was defined as hit-
ting, kicking, biting, scratching, or gouging of others.

Antecedent Variables. It was reported that Dawn often screamed during academic
tasks, particularly when she made errors, received corrective feedback, and/or was physi-
cally prompted. The reported trigger for aggression was physical contact initiated by others.

Individual Variables. Relevant individual variables included severe expressive lan-

guage and social skills delays, sensitivity to touch, and difficulty accepting corrective feed-
back. It also was reported that Dawn often appeared anxious when she received feedback
from teachers or faced novel situations.

Consequence Variables. It was reported that screaming typically resulted in the ces-
sation of instructional tasks and instructional feedback. Aggression typically resulted in the
cessation of social interactions, including physical contact.

Behavioral Stream. Interviews suggested that Dawn’s interfering behaviors were part
of a response class hierarchy that began with screaming and escalated to include aggression
when others initiated physical contact. During the BSI, school staff described the following
sequence of events.
156 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

• Context: Dawn was in the self-­contained classroom. The expectation was to com-
plete an academic assignment, and Dawn was off task.
• Antecedent: The teacher used gestures and verbal prompts to redirect Dawn to task.
• Behavior: Dawn engaged in screaming behavior.
• Consequence: The teacher used gestures and verbal prompts to redirect Dawn to
task.

The consequence for screaming (gestural and verbal prompts to return to task) then
served as an antecedent for subsequent occurrences of screaming.

• Antecedent: The teacher used gestures and verbal prompts to redirect Dawn to task.
• Behavior: Dawn engaged in screaming behavior.
• Consequence: The teacher directed Dawn to the time-out area (in accordance with
her behavior plan) because Dawn’s screaming behavior was disruptive to other stu-
dents.

The time-out procedure was initiated with a verbal prompt that served as the anteced-
ent for additional screaming.

• Antecedent. The teacher stated, “Dawn, your screaming is bothering the other stu-
dents. You need to go to time-out.”
• Behavior: Dawn engaged in screaming behavior. She did not stand up from her chair
to walk to the time-out area.
• Consequence: The teacher restated, “You need to go to time-out” and placed her
hand on Dawn’s shoulder to physically prompt her to transition.

The physical prompt consequence then served as an antecedent for additional interfer-
ing behaviors.

• Antecedent: The teacher restated, “You need to go to time-out” and placed her hand
on Dawn’s shoulder to physically prompt her to transition.
• Behavior: Dawn engaged in screaming and aggression. She pushed, hit, and kicked
the teacher.
• Consequence: The teacher backed away and stopped delivering verbal and physical
prompts.

This consequence then functioned as the antecedent to Dawn’s behavior at the end of
the incident.

• Antecedent: The teacher backed away and stopped delivering verbal and physical
prompts.
• Behavior: Dawn stopped screaming and engaging in aggression. She picked up a
book and opened it to a section featuring the presidents of the United States.
• Consequence: The teacher monitored Dawn but did not interact with her.
 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 157

In this behavioral stream example, screaming and aggression occurred sequentially

and seemed to be maintained by negative reinforcement (escape). Screaming behavior
was evoked by instructional/corrective feedback, and aggression was evoked by physical
prompts. Both resulted in the termination of aversive social interactions.

REMAINING QUESTIONS

The FBA interviews left some questions unanswered with respect to aggressive behaviors.
For example:

• Is physical contact with Dawn always a predictor of aggression? In other words,

would any physical contact, regardless of the context, result in aggression?
• Does aggression only occur when physical contact is provided after an occurrence of
screaming behavior?
• Does Dawn exhibit aggression when physical contact is provided when she is engaged
in preferred activities?

The psychologist posed these remaining questions to Dawn’s school team. The team
stated that aggression occurred only in response to physical prompting in the context of an
episode of screaming.

Step 2: Descriptive FBA

After the interviews, descriptive FBA procedures were conducted to (1) estimate the cur-
rent levels of occurrence of target behaviors and (2) further assess the influence of environ-
mental events on Dawn’s behavior.

BEHAVIORAL STREAM OBSERVATION AND RECORDING: RATIONALE AND RESULTS

The psychologist scheduled observations of Dawn in the contexts that interviewees reported
to be associated with a high probability of interfering behavior. During these observa-
tions, the psychologist maintained a narrative record of the sequential flow of antecedents,
behaviors, and consequences during behavioral incidents. The following are examples of the
resulting data:

Example 1: Screaming. Dawn was sitting at her desk completing a writing assignment
→ The paraprofessional approached Dawn and offered instructional support (i.e., correc-
tive feedback regarding her writing sample) → Dawn screamed loudly (“EEEEHHHH!!!”)
→ The paraprofessional quickly walked away → Dawn stopped screaming and returned to
the writing task.

Example 2: Screaming. Dawn was completing a reading assignment with teacher assis-
tance → The teacher corrected her word substitution error → Dawn screamed (“EEHH!”)
→ The teacher provided a mild verbal reprimand (“No screaming, please”) and pointed to
158 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

the assignment → Dawn screamed louder and longer (“EEEEHHHH!!!) → The teacher
discontinued instruction and offered to help another student → Dawn stopped screaming
and opened a book to pages with pictures of Abraham Lincoln (a highly preferred activity).
These examples support the hypothesis that screaming behavior is evoked by correc-
tive feedback and maintained by the termination of that feedback. Both examples also sug-
gested another hypothesis (one that was also identified in the interview process): Screaming
behavior may produce positive reinforcement in the form of access to preferred items (e.g.,
a book with pictures of Abraham Lincoln).

FBAOF: RATIONALE AND RESULTS

Given that the psychologist was not able to witness occurrences of aggression during sched-
uled observation sessions and questions still remained about the reinforcing consequences
for Dawn’s behaviors, continued assessment was needed. The psychologist decided to train
school staff to collect data using the FBAOF and then reviewed the results after obtaining
data across 5 school days. Analysis involved reviewing the number of times that interfering
behaviors occurred and the variables that were associated with each occurrence of inter-
fering behavior. This analysis showed that screaming occurred 68 times and aggression
occurred four times. Analysis also revealed the following:

• 94% of screaming incidents occurred within the context of academics, and 6% of

screaming incidents occurred in nonacademic contexts such as lunch and recess.
• 72% of screaming incidents followed the delivery of corrective instructional feed-
back.
• 97% of screaming incidents were followed by the discontinuation of teacher interac-
tions or academic tasks/demands.
• 100% of aggressive incidents occurred within the context of academic programming
when Dawn was physically prompted to time-out because of screaming behavior.
• 100% of aggressive incidents were followed by the discontinuation of verbal and
physical prompts and academic expectations.

Step 3: Conceptual Synthesis

Indirect and descriptive FBA procedures were used to formulate the following hypotheses
about the functions of Dawn’s interfering behaviors.

• Hypothesis 1: Screaming behavior is primarily evoked by corrective instructional

feedback and maintained by negative reinforcement in the form of escape from aca-
demic instruction and teacher interaction.
• Hypothesis 2: Screaming behavior is secondarily maintained by positive reinforce-
ment in the form of access to preferred activities.
• Hypothesis 3: Aggressive behavior is evoked by physical prompts following occur-
rences of screaming and maintained by negative reinforcement in the form of the
termination of teacher prompting.
 Descriptive Functional Behavioral Assessment 159

Recommendations
Based on the results of the FBA, the psychologist offered the following recommendations:

1. Avoid using physical prompts to redirect Dawn to task or alternate locations when
she is escalated.
2. Teach Dawn to use self-­editing and self-­monitoring strategies when completing aca-
demic tasks to (1) decrease the need for corrective instructional feedback and (2)
increase accuracy in work completion.
3. Utilize functional communication training to teach and reinforce an appropriate
form of communication as a replacement for screaming. Consideration may be given
to teaching her to request a break from instruction or from talking with the teacher.
4. Use differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) procedures to reduce occur-
rence of screaming. Consider, for example, delivering tokens for the nonoccurrence
of screaming at prespecified intervals of time and then allowing the tokens to be
exchanged for access to preferred activities (e.g., viewing books about presidents of
the United States for several minutes).
5. Arrange for direct behavioral consultation to support the design, implementa-
tion, and monitoring of the effectiveness of a positive behavioral support plan that
includes the recommendations above.

Case Outcomes
A function-­based positive behavior support plan was developed and implemented with
consultation from the psychologist who conducted the FBA, and the interventions were a
smashing success. Implementation of the function-­based interventions resulted in marked
reductions in screaming and aggressive behaviors. Aggressive behaviors were eliminated;
screaming behaviors were reduced to an average of three occurrences per month; levels
of academic engagement increased; and all discussion about an out-of-­district placement
ceased.
 FORM 8.1

Functional Behavioral Assessment Observation Form (FBAOF)

Student’s name:

Date/Time Context Antecedent Behavior Consequence Effect Staff

Used with permission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

160
 FORM 8.2

Incident-Based Functional Assessment Form (IBFAF)

Context

Motivating Operations

Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behaviors Reinforcing Consequences

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

161
 FORM 8.3

Conditional Probability Record (CPR)

Student
Date of observation Observer
Setting Time of day
Behavior 1 Behavior 2

Antecedents Target Behaviors Consequences

Academic Task Teacher Behavior 1 Behavior 2 Teacher Peers Academic

0:15
0:30
0:45
1:00
1:15
1:30
1:45
2:00
2:15
2:30
2:45
3:00
3:15
3:30
3:45
4:00
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:00

Any of the categories may be coded according to the observer’s preferences or the data that currently exist but must remain
consistent across observations. Indicate coding scheme here for each of the categories.

Codes:
Academic: Teacher :
Task: Peers:

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

162
 FORM 8.4

Interval Recording Procedure (IRP)

Date Name

Target Behaviors
Recording Procedures
Time Setting and/or Activity Staff

163
Add each column
Convert to percent or rate

Used with permission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt, Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright
© 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchasers
can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).
 CHAPTER 9

Experimental Functional
Behavioral Assessment

Proving the validity of a functional relation by an actual demonstration of

the effect of one variable upon another is the heart of experimental science.
—B. F. Skinner (1953, p. 227)

A functional relation exists when a cause–­effect relationship between variables has been
demonstrated experimentally. Specifically, within the field of applied behavior analysis, a
functional relation is demonstrated when changes in antecedents or consequences (inde-
pendent variables) reliably produce changes in behavior (dependent variable). During the
FBA process, experimental analyses may be conducted to test and confirm hypotheses
about functional (cause–­effect) relations between environmental variables and interfering
behavior.
Indirect and descriptive FBA procedures are extremely helpful for identifying ante-
cedents and reinforcing consequences associated with interfering behaviors; however, the
data obtained via these methods lead only to plausible hypotheses about the functions of
interfering behaviors. When we conduct indirect and descriptive FBAs using multiple valid
methods, we are likely to identify the relevant variables influencing student behavior, but
we cannot assert that we have proven the accuracy of our hypotheses. The purpose of an
experimental analysis is to confirm that the hypothesized relationships between environ-
mental events and interfering behaviors are in fact causal, rather than correlational. Accord-
ingly, experimental analysis is considered the gold standard FBA method, and results from
experimental analyses yield the best available proof for the validity of hypotheses about the
functions of interfering behaviors (Shriver, Anderson, & Proctor, 2001).
Experimental analyses involve:

• Identifying and defining interfering behaviors,

• Designing matched behavior recording procedures,

164
 Experimental Functional Behavioral Assessment 165

• Systematically manipulating antecedents and/or consequences during controlled

observational sessions, and
• Obtaining repeated, direct measures of interfering behaviors.

The assessment process typically requires (1) one or more “therapists” who interact
with the student and (2) one or more “evaluators” who observe and record occurrences of
interfering behavior. The therapist runs a series of assessment trials or sessions, which are
similar to structured role-play scenarios, while the evaluator guides the process and collects
data. The student participating in the assessment experiences both “test conditions” (i.e.,
sessions when the antecedents and/or consequences hypothesized to evoke and maintain
interfering behavior are presented) and “control conditions” (i.e., sessions when the ante-
cedents for interfering behaviors are absent and/or no consequences for interfering behavior
are delivered). Test and control scenarios are presented multiple times in an alternating
fashion to allow determinations about which environmental variables consistently result in
the highest levels of interfering behaviors.

Experimental Logic
In our experience, many school-­based evaluators may not have the resources or training to conduct
experimental analyses. However, we believe it is essential that all evaluators develop a solid under-
standing of the logic of experimental analysis. Why? Understanding the logic of experimental analysis
methods facilitates development and mastery of behavior-­analytic critical thinking skills that are invalu-
able when conducting and interpreting the results of indirect and descriptive FBAs. Understanding
functional relationships between independent and dependent variables, the importance of experimental
control, and single-­case research designs (e.g., multielement designs) helps you think like an experi-
mental analyst. You’ve got to learn to separate the “wheat from the chaff,” to discriminate between
relevant and irrelevant variables, and to avoid both false-­positive and false-­negative determinations. In
short, the logic of experimental analysis generalizes to all other FBA methodologies.

In the following sections we describe several types of experimental analyses. We con-

sider both functional and structural analyses, explore procedural modifications that facili-
tate applications of experimental analysis across diverse settings and populations, and pro-
vide several case examples to illustrate the use of experimental methods within the FBA
process.

Don’t Just Take Our Word for It . . .

To learn more about experimental analysis directly from the researcher who conducted the seminal
study outlining the methodologies of functional analysis—­Dr. Brian Iwata—check out this amazing
training resource offered by the Autism Center of Excellence at Western Michigan University: http://
wmich.edu/autism/functional-­analysis.
Dr. Brian Iwata received his PhD in psychology from Florida State University . . . but he also
earned an honorary Doctor of Psychology in School Psychology degree from our very own University of
Southern Maine. True story!
166 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

EXTENDED FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

What is commonly referred to now as the “extended functional analysis” was first developed
by Iwata and colleagues (1982/1994) to evaluate the functions of self-­injurious behavior
in individuals with developmental disabilities. Although others had previously examined
the effects of environmental variables on behavior, Iwata and his colleagues were the first
to provide a comprehensive experimental methodology for practitioners. Their publication
stimulated decades of research demonstrating the application of functional analysis meth-
odologies to identify behavioral function across a wide variety of behavioral topographies,
populations, and settings.
In the original extended functional analyses, four conditions were arranged to exam-
ine the effects of environmental variables on self-­injurious behavior: social disapproval,
academic demand, alone, and unstructured play (Iwata et al., 1982/1994). The procedure
involved presenting motivating operations (MOs) likely to evoke self-­injurious behavior and
then delivering reinforcing consequences likely to maintain self-­injurious behavior. During
the social disapproval condition, the participant was ignored (MO) and brief social attention
in the form of a reprimand (reinforcer) was delivered in response to self-­injurious behav-
ior. During the academic demand session, the participant was given an academic task to
complete (MO), and a brief period of escape (reinforcer) was provided contingent on self-­
injurious behavior. During the alone condition, the participant was left alone in a barren
room (MO) and only sensory consequences (reinforcers) were available for self-­injurious
behavior. Lastly, the unstructured play condition served as the control condition. The par-
ticipant was given free access to tangibles and social attention; no demands were placed;
and no consequences were programmed for self-­injurious behavior. Each experimental ses-
sion lasted 15 minutes, and multiple sessions for each condition were conducted over sev-
eral days until trends in the data emerged. These trends were interpreted as evidence for
specific functional hypotheses. For example:

• When self-­injurious behavior occurred at high rates in the social disapproval condi-
tion relative to other conditions, results confirmed the hypotheses that the behavior
was evoked by low attention and maintained by positive reinforcement;
• When self-­injurious behavior occurred at high rates in the academic demand condi-
tion relative to other conditions, results confirmed the hypothesis that the behavior
was evoked by academic demands and maintained by negative reinforcement; and
• When self-­injurious behavior occurred at high rates in the alone condition relative to
other conditions, results confirmed the hypothesis that the behavior was evoked by
low stimulation and maintained by automatic reinforcement.

Iwata and colleagues’ (1982/1994) functional analysis methodology has been modified
over the years to examine additional questions about behavioral function. For example,
some researchers and practitioners (e.g., Day, Rea, Schussler, Larsen, & Johnson, 1988)
have added a tangible condition to the analysis to test the hypothesis that interfering behav-
iors are maintained by positive reinforcement in the form of access to tangibles. During
this condition, therapists typically take away a preferred item (MO) and then grant brief
access to that item (reinforcer) contingent on interfering behavior. Others have changed the
 Experimental Functional Behavioral Assessment 167

alone condition to an ignore condition, which involves the therapist remaining physically
present in the area but not interacting with the participant. And others have modified the
procedures for testing hypotheses about interfering behaviors maintained by attention. For
example, rather than delivering reprimands contingent on interfering behaviors, therapists
sometimes deliver brief periods of reassuring touch and comments. Functional analysis pro-
cedures can even be modified to examine the effects of varied forms of social attention on
interfering behavior in order to evaluate the types of social interaction that are most rein-
forcing (e.g., Fisher, Ninness, Piazza, & Owen-­DeSchryver, 1996)! Regardless of the modi-
fications, though, the extended functional analysis generally includes the environmental
manipulations presented in Table 9.1 to test the most common functional hypotheses.

Considerations
Although the extended functional analysis is considered by many to be the gold standard
for FBAs, it is not always feasible, appropriate, or necessary in applied settings. First, it may
not be feasible for school-­based practitioners to conduct numerous 15-minute sessions. In
these situations, brief functional analyses or trial-based functional analyses (described in
a subsequent section) may be considered to increase the efficiency of assessment. Second,
when referred students exhibit high-­intensity interfering behaviors that pose a significant
danger to themselves or others, extended functional analyses may not be appropriate within
the school setting. Functional analysis methods involve evoking interfering behaviors, and,
frankly, there are some behaviors that we never want to trigger. In these situations, indirect
and descriptive FBA procedures may be more appropriate. Alternatively, strategies such

TABLE 9.1. Extended Functional Analysis Conditions

Condition MO Consequence Hypothesis
Attention Therapist withdraws/ Therapist interacts with Positive reinforcement:
diverts attention. student contingent on Access to attention.
interfering behavior.

Demand Therapist presents Therapist discontinues Negative reinforcement:

instructional demands. instruction and removes Escape from task.
work materials contingent
on interfering behavior.

Tangible Therapist restricts access Therapist permits access to a Positive reinforcement:

to a preferred item. preferred item contingent on Access to tangibles.
interfering behavior

Alone Alone; low environmental NA Automatic reinforcement:

stimulation. Sensory stimulation.

Play Therapist delivers Therapist provides no NA (control condition).

noncontingent attention, response to interfering
free access to preferred behavior.
items, and no demands.
168 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

as conducting a functional analysis of precursor behaviors/early warning signs (e.g., Smith

& Churchill, 2002) may be considered. A similar question about the appropriateness of an
extended functional analysis arises when potential reinforcing consequences are unethical
(or just impractical) to deliver. For this situation, indirect, descriptive, and/or structural
analysis methods (discussed later in this chapter) may be preferable. Lastly, extended func-
tional analyses may not be necessary when indirect and descriptive FBA procedures yield
a relatively unambiguous hypothesis about the function of a referred students’ interfering
behavior. When assessment data converge to suggest a clear hypothesis about behavioral
function, interventions may be selected, implemented, and monitored without conducting
an experimental analysis. In these situations, the implementation of an intervention serves
as the experimental test to confirm the accuracy of FBA hypotheses, and functional analy-
ses may be warranted only when the interventions are ineffective.

Experimental Analysis and Informed Consent

Evaluators have an ethical responsibility for obtaining informed consent from parents/guardians prior
to conducting an FBA. When conducting an experimental analysis, the informed consent process may
include a verbal explanation of procedures, role-play demonstrations, and discussion of potential risks.
In our experience, a thorough description of experimental analysis procedures may take 30–60 min-
utes, depending on the complexity of the referral question and procedures. It is essential for the
evaluator to provide both written and oral descriptions of the procedures and demonstrate assessment
scenarios in a manner that is reasonably understandable to parents/guardians.

Case Example of Extended Functional Analysis

Brian, an 8-year-old with ASD, was referred for an FBA due to noncompliant and destruc-
tive behavior.
During an FBA interview, the special education teacher reported that Brian has a
hard time transitioning back to academic work after earned breaks. During these breaks,
Brian often uses the iPad, plays with “sensory” toys, swings, or listens to music. The special
education teacher did not think that any academic tasks were less preferred than others
and noted that interfering behaviors occur across the entire school day regardless of the
activities planned after break. The special education teacher also suggested that Brian does
like interacting with many of the classroom support staff and that he sometimes seems to be
engaging in noncompliant behavior to get their attention. When noncompliance escalates to
destructive behavior, staff typically tell him to “take space” in the quiet room. Brian then
typically follows the instruction to go to the quiet room. The special education teacher fur-
ther clarified that staff leave the academic materials at Brian’s desk to prevent triggering
further interfering behaviors and then move on to another lesson when he returns to the
classroom.
Direct observations using A-B-C recording forms suggested that a variety of conse-
quences followed noncompliant and destructive behavior. Sometimes staff responded by
asking Brian what was wrong and reminding him about school expectations. Sometimes
Brian gained continued access to his break activities. Sometimes Brian escaped work for
 Experimental Functional Behavioral Assessment 169

extended periods of time by going to the quiet room. And sometimes there were no clear
consequences.
Given that the functions of Brian’s behavior remained unclear after indirect and descrip-
tive FBA procedures were completed, a functional analysis was conducted. The following
conditions were informed by the indirect and descriptive FBA results and implemented to
isolate the relevant antecedent and consequence influences on his destructive behaviors:

• Free play: The therapist interacted continuously with Brian while he was given free
access to preferred items and activities. No demands were placed, and the therapist did not
change her behavior in response to Brian’s destructive behavior. The goal was to set up a
control condition during which no MOs relevant to Brian’s interfering behavior were pres-
ent.

• Attention: After interacting with Brian for 30 seconds, the therapist started sessions
by abruptly saying, “I have some work to do, please go play over there” and then turned
her attention to grading assignments. Brian was given access to moderately preferred tan-
gibles during this time because staff reported never leaving him in the classroom without
something to do. When Brian displayed destructive behavior, the therapist immediately
interacted with him for 10–15 seconds (e.g. “Hey buddy, what’s wrong? Please don’t do that;
you remember the school rules”). Then the therapist diverted her attention again by return-
ing to grading. This continued for the entire length of the session to test the hypothesis that
Brian’s destructive behaviors were evoked by diverted attention and reinforced by access to
attention. The condition also was set up to determine if and for how long access to tangibles
competed with attention.

• Tangibles: After allowing Brian 1 minute of access to a preferred item (i.e., the iPad
that Brian often chose during earned breaks), the therapist started the session by telling
Brian, “It’s my turn” while removing the iPad. Each time destructive behaviors occurred,
the therapist said “OK, you can have this back” and allowed Brian to play with the iPad
for 30 seconds before taking it away again. When the iPad was not available, Brian was
permitted to play with less preferred items such as puzzles. The goal of this condition was
to test the hypothesis that Brian’s destructive behaviors were evoked by restricted access to
tangibles and maintained by access to those items.

• Demand: The therapist presented Brian with typical reading and math tasks. Verbal
prompts to continue working were delivered every 5 seconds. Contingent on destructive
behavior, the therapist said, “Never mind, let’s take a break” and removed the task materi-
als and all forms of interaction for 30 seconds. The therapist then reintroduced instruction.
This sequence of events continued for the duration of each session to test the hypothesis that
Brian’s destructive behaviors were evoked by academic demands and maintained by escape.

• Alone: This condition was omitted from the functional analysis because all previous
FBA data suggested that Brian’s behaviors were maintained by socially mediated conse-
quences.
 170 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Each assessment session lasted 10 minutes, and 5 sessions per condition were con-
ducted. Data were collected using a 6-second partial-­interval recording system to determine
the percentage of assessment intervals associated with destructive behaviors. Destructive
behaviors were defined as pounding on objects, walls, or furniture; throwing objects; and/
or ripping papers.
Results from Brian’s functional analysis are displayed in Figure 9.1 and Table 9.2.
Based on these data, it was determined (with confidence!) that Brian engaged in destruc-
tive behaviors to escape from academic tasks (socially mediated negative reinforcement).
Brian’s team was then able to work collaboratively to develop an appropriate function-­based
positive behavior support plan.

A Deeper Look
In Brian’s functional analysis graph (Figure 9.1), note the ascending trend within the demand condition.
These data show a gradual increase in destructive behavior during the assessment process. When the
experimental analysis demonstrates a “strengthening” of the interfering behavior, evaluators should
consider discontinuing the experimental analysis. If results are clear, then there is no need to continue
reinforcing an interfering behavior!

BRIEF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

In contrast to the extended functional analysis model that tests a wide range of functional
hypotheses, the brief functional analysis model arranges for abbreviated session durations,
numbers of sessions, and/or conditions (e.g., Derby et al., 1992; Northup et al., 1991). The
approach is both prescriptive and contingency driven. It is prescriptive because the condi-

40
Percentage of Intervals with Destructive

Free Play
35
Attention
30
Tangible
25 Demand
Behavior

20

15

10

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Session

FIGURE 9.1. Functional analysis graph for Brian.

 Experimental Functional Behavioral Assessment 171

TABLE 9.2. Average Levels of Destructive Behavior

per Functional Analysis Condition
Free Play Attention Tangible Demand
0.4% 1.2% 1.6% 26.0%

tions included in the analysis are selected for each individual case on the basis of indirect
and/or descriptive FBA data. In other words, just one or two test conditions may be alter-
nated with a control condition to confirm hypotheses generated earlier in the FBA process.
It is contingency driven in that students’ responses to initial assessment conditions inform
real-time modifications to the assessment plan.
The brief functional analysis model offers two primary advantages: efficiency and flex-
ibility. We tend to apply this model within school settings after we have conducted indirect
and descriptive assessments (e.g., interviews and classroom observations). Based on hypoth-
eses drawn from these assessment data, we select and design the conditions for inclusion
in the experimental analysis. Typically, we include only two to three assessment condi-
tions (e.g., play vs. attention vs. escape) and make decisions about whether longer duration
or repeated sessions are needed on the basis of the data. The process requires approxi-
mately 120–150 minutes of total assessment time (much less than is typically required for an
extended functional analysis); hence, we use the term brief. It is a tailor-­made, hypothesis-­
testing approach to assessment!

Case Example of Brief Functional Analysis

Velma is an 11-year-old in fourth grade. She had been retained in kindergarten for social
reasons and in first grade due to inadequate academic progress. At the age of 9 years, she
was diagnosed as a student with an emotional/behavioral disorder, and an IEP was devel-
oped. At the time of referral, she was receiving approximately 1.5 hours of specially designed
instruction in a resource room and spending the remainder of her day in the general educa-
tion classroom. The current FBA was requested to address the following behaviors: verbally
refusing to do work, swearing, throwing materials, and threatening her teacher and peers.
The first phase of the FBA consisted of indirect assessment methods to (1) describe
interfering behaviors, (2) develop hypotheses about the antecedents and consequences asso-
ciated with interfering behaviors, and (3) identify specific contexts/times of day during which
interfering behaviors were most likely to occur. A review of academic records, including the
results of both norm-­referenced and curriculum-­based assessments, indicated that Velma
was performing at grade level in all content areas. A review of office disciplinary referrals
indicated a history of refusing academic work and using inappropriate language that began
in kindergarten. Interviews with Velma’s teacher suggested that these behaviors continued
to be problematic during math and writing instruction, but rarely occurred during reading
periods. Consequences for Velma’s interfering behaviors included being sent to an in-room
time-out for extended periods of time (15–90 minutes), being sent to the principal’s office
for conferencing, being sent home for the remainder of the day, and being sent to the posi-
tive action classroom (1–5 days). Based on this information alone, it would be reasonable to
172 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

hypothesize that the function of Velma’s interfering behavior is escape from academic task
demands. However, her teacher insisted that Velma was engaging in interfering behaviors
to gain social attention.
Direct observations were subsequently conducted during math, writing, and reading
periods to gain a better understanding of the antecedents and reinforcing consequences
associated with Velma’s interfering behaviors. The evaluator selected these contexts on the
basis of information gleaned during the FBA interview. Specifically, the evaluator con-
ducted observations in contexts during which the likelihood of interfering behaviors was
high (to increase the probability of actually observing the behaviors) and in contexts during
which the likelihood of interfering behaviors was low (to provide a comparison).
During the initial classroom observation, the evaluator observed a behavioral incident
and documented the following sequence of events:

Teacher presents a math assignment → Velma scowls and folds her arms → Teacher verbally
prompts Velma to start the assignment → Velma says, “I don’t feel like working on math today”
→ Teacher does not respond and moves away to help other students → Velma continues to sit
at her desk without starting the assignment → Teacher returns to Velma and warns her that she
will be sent to time-out if she does not start her work → Velma throws the math assignment
on the floor and yells profanities at the teacher → Teacher tells Velma to calm down → Velma
threatens to hit the teacher if she does not move away → Teacher tells Velma she must go to
the “quiet chair” in the back of the room to calm down (a procedure that was recommended
on her IEP) → Velma walks to the “quiet chair” and sits quietly for 10 minutes → Teacher asks
Velma to return to her seat and presents the next scheduled assignment (reading) → Velma
completes the reading assignment with no occurrences of interfering behavior.

Although Velma’s interfering behaviors sometimes were followed by social interactions

with the teacher (attention) during this observation, the evaluator hypothesized that escape
from nonpreferred tasks was the functional reinforcer. To confirm the hypothesis that
Velma’s behaviors were evoked by the presentation of nonpreferred tasks and reinforced
by escape and to effectively tease apart the effects of attention versus escape on Velma’s
behavior, a brief functional analysis was conducted. The evaluator used a 6-second interval
recording procedure to measure the occurrence of both appropriate and interfering behav-
iors under three different conditions. Each assessment session lasted 5 minutes, and two
sessions were conducted for each of the following conditions:

• PAT: A preferred academic task was presented (reading assignment), and the thera-
pist provided no response to interfering behaviors.
• NPAT-E: A nonpreferred academic task (writing assignment) was presented, and the
therapist provided brief escape, without any social interaction, contingent on inter-
fering behaviors.
• NPAT-SA: A nonpreferred academic task (writing assignment) was presented, and
the therapist provided brief social attention, without removing the academic task
expectations, contingent on interfering behaviors.

Results of the brief functional analysis (see Figure 9.2) showed that interfering behavior
did not occur in the context of preferred academic tasks (PAT). The presentation of non-
preferred academic tasks evoked interfering behaviors, but notably higher levels of inter-
 Experimental Functional Behavioral Assessment 173

100
90
80
Percentage of Intervals 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

PAT NPAT-E NPAT-SA PAT NPAT-E NPAT-SA

Appropriate Behavior Interfering Behavior

FIGURE 9.2. Brief functional analysis graph for Velma.

fering behavior occurred in the condition that arranged escape as a reinforcer (NPAT-E)
relative to the condition that arranged attention as a reinforcer (NPAT-SA). These results
confirmed the negative reinforcement hypothesis: In the context of nonpreferred academic
tasks, Velma engages in interfering behaviors to escape. This was a very important finding
because, as mentioned previously, the teacher was adamant that Velma was engaging in
interfering behaviors to access attention. With an assessment procedure that required only
1 hour to complete, that’s a lot of bang for the buck!

TRIAL‑BASED FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

The trial-based functional analysis applies the same logic as traditional functional analysis,
but the methodology is particularly well suited for implementation in applied settings, like
schools (Bloom, Iwata, Fritz, Roscoe, & Carreau, 2011). Unlike extended and brief func-
tional analyses, which involve resource-­heavy interval recording procedures, trial-based
functional analyses simply require evaluators to document the occurrence or nonoccur-
rence of an interfering behavior within the context of predetermined assessment trials.
Attention, demand, tangible, alone/ignore, and control conditions are typically arranged;
however, the relevant MO is typically presented in the context of natural environments and
each assessment session (trial) ends when (1) the interfering behavior occurs and encounters
reinforcement or (2) a prespecified duration of time elapses without the occurrence of the
interfering behavior. For example, to conduct a demand trial, the therapist would present
the student with an academic task and deliver frequent prompts to engage. If the student
engages in the target interfering behavior, then the therapist would say something like “OK,
we don’t have to do work now,” remove the task, end the trial, and document a “yes” to
indicate an occurrence of interfering behavior. If the student does not engage in the target
174 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

behavior after 2 minutes, then the teacher would end the trial and document a “no” to indi-
cate the nonoccurrence of interfering behavior. The therapist would repeat multiple trials
for each test condition (e.g., attention, tangible, demand, and/or ignore), typically alternating
with control conditions (pleasant interactions and no demands), over the course of one or
more days. The percentage of trials with interfering behaviors would then be calculated for
each condition and displayed using a bar graph.

Case Example of Trial‑Based Functional Analysis

Holly, a first-grade student, has been referred for an FBA of aggression and property
destruction. She spends 100% of the school day in the general education setting, and her
behaviors have been creating a significant disruption to the learning environment. FBA
interviews conducted with Holly’s teacher and parents suggested that her interfering behav-
iors may be maintained by access to attention. After reviewing records and conducting
direct observations, though, it seemed that interfering behaviors occurred primarily in the
context of instruction. To more effectively determine whether Holly’s interfering behaviors
were maintained by access to attention or escape from demands, the evaluator decided to
conduct a trial-based functional analysis. This method was chosen because trials could be
conducted in the classroom, using the teacher as the therapist, without significantly dis-
rupting Holly’s school day.
For the trial-based functional analysis, the evaluator arranged two conditions: demand
and attention. For each condition, the teacher presented a 2-minute control trial followed
by a 2-minute test trial. The procedure involved the following:

• Demand
||Control trials: The teacher observed Holly for 2 minutes when no work expecta-

tions were present.

||Test trials: The teacher presented Holly with an academic task and delivered

prompts to “keep working” every 20 seconds. Contingent on interfering behavior,

the teacher discontinued the instructional prompts, said “let’s break,” removed the
assignment, and ended the trial. If no interfering behaviors occurred, the teacher
ended the trial after 2 minutes.
• Attention
||Control trials: The teacher engaged with Holly in preferred conversation for 2

minutes during classroom “downtime.”

||Test trials: The teacher turned away from Holly. Contingent on interfering behav-

ior, the teacher delivered 15 seconds of attention and then ended the trial. If no
interfering behaviors occurred, the teacher ended the trial after 2 minutes.

Results from Holly’s trial-based functional analysis are depicted in Figure 9.3. The
bars represent the percentage of trials in which interfering behavior occurred. Interfer-
ing behaviors occurred during 90% of the attention test trials, which involved establishing
motivation by withdrawing attention and then reinforcing interfering behaviors with con-
tingent attention. In contrast, interfering behaviors occurred during only 10% of the con-
trol and demand trials. Based on these results, the evaluator confidently hypothesized that
Holly engaged in aggressive and destructive behavior to gain access to teacher attention.
 Experimental Functional Behavioral Assessment 175

100
90
80
70

Percentage of Trials with

Interfering Behavior
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Attention Demand

Control Test

FIGURE 9.3. Trial-based functional analysis graph for Holly.

SYNTHESIZED FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

Recently, increased attention has been given to improving the efficiency and safety of
experimental analyses in applied settings, and Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014)
proposed a methodology termed the “synthesized functional analysis” with these goals in
mind. Traditional functional analyses strive to isolate the variables that contribute to inter-
fering behaviors. However, in typical classrooms and other natural settings, multiple conse-
quences may simultaneously serve to maintain interfering behavior. For example, through
FBA interviews, a school practitioner may discover that a student typically exhibits disrup-
tive behaviors that result in both escape from nonpreferred assignments and access to pre-
ferred activities (e.g., a break to listen to calming music). Using the synthesized functional
analysis methodology, the practitioner would arrange a single experimental test condition
that presents (1) both controlling motivation operations (i.e., restricted access to music and
presentation of nonpreferred assignments) and (2) both putative reinforcers (i.e., access to
music and escape from nonpreferred assignments). Elevated levels of interfering behavior
in the “synthesized” test condition relative to a control condition would yield experimental

Synthesized Functional Analysis Resources

We recommend the following resources for accessing additional information and conducting efficient
and safe functional analyses:

Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problem behavior: Dispelling myths, overcoming imple-
mentation obstacles, and developing new lore. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5, 54–72.
Hanley, G. P. (2018). Practical functional assessment: Understanding problem behavior prior to its
treatment. Retrieved from www.practicalfunctionalassessment.com.
Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., & Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful improve-
ments in problem behavior of children with autism via synthesized analyses and treatments. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 16–36.
176 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

evidence to support a socially valid functional hypothesis, while reducing the time needed
for assessment. Within this model, the evaluator also may identify the target response class
hierarchy and then reinforce (and record occurrences of) a low-­intensity response during
the functional analysis. By reinforcing a low-­intensity member of the response class (e.g.,
pushing materials away), potentially dangerous high-­intensity behaviors (e.g., severe aggres-
sion and self-­injury) become less likely.

Case Example of Synthesized Functional Analysis

Consider the case of Harold, a 13-year-old receiving educational services in a self-­contained
program for students with emotional–­behavioral disorders. While conducting direct class-
room observations, the school psychologist noticed that Harold spent a great deal of time
using his cell phone (texting and surfing the Internet) during small-group instruction. The
school psychologist observed several incidents during small-group instruction when a para-
professional prompted Harold to refocus on his work and “stow the phone.” Each time this
occurred, Harold responded with vocal opposition (e.g., “No way, man. This is MY phone!”),
and the paraprofessional stepped away. During a subsequent interview, the classroom teacher
explained that the paraprofessional probably backed away due to a recent incident “that got
really out of control.” Apparently, the paraprofessional previously attempted to take the phone
from Harold, and this action resulted in an aggressive confrontation that necessitated physical
restraint. The school psychologist hypothesized that Harold’s vocal opposition and disrup-
tive behaviors were maintained by a combination of escape from nonpreferred instructional
activities and access to a preferred tangible (the cell phone). To test this hypothesis the school
psychologist decided to conduct a brief synthesized functional analysis with two conditions:

• Demand plus tangible: After allowing Harold brief access to his cell phone, the
teacher prompted him to turn it in and then presented Harold with a typical class-
room assignment. Contingent on vocal opposition, the teacher said, “Let’s just take a
break” and then removed the assignment and returned the cell phone for 30 seconds.
• Control: The teacher permitted Harold to use his cell phone, placed no demands,
and intermittently delivered neutral or positive statements.

Three 10-minute sessions were conducted for each condition, and Figure 9.4 displays
the results. These data clearly demonstrate that Harold engaged in elevated levels of vocal
opposition maintained by escape from nonpreferred tasks and access to a preferred activity.
Given that vocal opposition and aggression were identified to be members of the same
response class hierarchy, the school psychologist also concluded that aggression was main-
tained by a combination of negative and positive reinforcement.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS

Whereas the functional analysis procedures discussed thus far directly assess the relation-
ship between interfering behaviors and reinforcing consequences, structural analysis pro-
cedures directly test the relationship between antecedent variables and interfering behav-
iors. Structural analysis involves systematically manipulating antecedent variables and
 Experimental Functional Behavioral Assessment 177

80

Percentage of Intervals with Vocal Opposition

70

60

50

40 Control
30 Demand + Tangible

20

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Session

FIGURE 9.4. Synthesized functional analysis graph for Harold.

documenting the subsequent effects on behavior (e.g., Carr & Durand, 1985; Wacker, Berg,
Harding, & Cooper-­Brown, 2011). The method is comparable to functional analysis in that
assessments of interfering behavior are conducted within controlled analogues (Wacker et
al., 2011). However, unlike functional analyses, structural analyses do not arrange the con-
tingent delivery of reinforcing consequences; instead, the structural analysis methodology
specifically tests hypotheses about the antecedent variables that trigger the occurrence of
interfering behaviors (O’Neill & Jones, 1997). Given that (1) the FBA process is intended to
drive intervention and (2) proactive, antecedent-­based interventions are an essential compo-
nent of a comprehensive positive behavior support plan, we believe that focused analysis of
antecedent influences on interfering behavior is, simply put, good practice!
In the school environment, academic demands are a common trigger for interfering
behaviors, so we often utilize structural analysis methods to understand which aspects of
demands contribute most to the “problem.” For example, structural analysis can be useful
for determining whether the level of difficulty, content of instruction, instructional proce-
dures (e.g., verbal vs. gesture vs. physical prompting), and/or other factors directly influence
levels of interfering behavior. Answers to these questions then guide decision making about
whether antecedent interventions should focus on modifying task difficulty, the types of
tasks presented, and/or methods of instructional delivery.
The Task Difficulty Antecedent Analysis Form (Form 9.1) is a particularly helpful
tool when indirect and descriptive FBA data suggest that the presentation of challenging
academic tasks triggers interfering behavior. The top portion of the form prompts you to
describe the setting in which the analysis occurs, the target behavior(s), and the task. It
is important to describe all relevant features of the setting and the task so that specific
variables can be further analyzed as needed. It is also important to mention that this type
of analysis may need to be conducted for multiple subjects (e.g., reading and math) and/or
types of task (e.g., silent and oral reading or math facts and word problems).
Before conducting a task difficulty structural analysis, you must coordinate with the
referred student’s teacher to identify tasks that are easy (greater than 90% accuracy), medium
(70–80% accuracy), or difficult (less than 70% accuracy). Difficulty classifications may be
178 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

determined by examining work samples and/or administering curriculum-­based measure-

ment (CBM) probes. Next, you should ask the teacher to present 5- to 10-minute tasks at each
level of difficulty to the student. Ideally, the order of the tasks should be counterbalanced,
but a more practical approach involves randomly selecting which level of task will be pre-
sented each time. As soon as the teacher presents the task, you should begin 10-second inter-
val recording to document the occurrence (X) or nonoccurrence (O) of interfering behavior
during each interval. Repeat this procedure for tasks at each level of difficulty, and, if time
permits, repeat the entire procedure on different days to establish consistent results.
An example of a completed Task Difficulty Antecedent Analysis Form is presented in
Figure 9.5. These data indicate that Jason was disruptive during 13% (4/30) of intervals while
reading easy passages, 30% (9/30) of intervals while reading medium-­level passages, and
57% (17/30) of intervals while reading difficult passages. If similar findings were obtained by
repeating this procedure with Jason across multiple days, it would be reasonable to hypoth-
esize that difficult tasks function as antecedent triggers for Jason’s disruptive behavior. Inter-
vention, then, could involve presenting easier reading tasks while simultaneously remedi-

Student’s name Jason Adams School/grade Titusville/2nd

Setting Reading Class Date September 19, 2018
Observer Steuart Watson Time 8:30–9:00
Target behavior During reading class, Jason has been disruptive by calling other students names, running
in the classroom, and refusing to do his work.

Task description Based on CBM probes, easy, medium, and difficult reading passages from his reading
material have been identified. During independent reading time, Jason’s teacher will present him with a
medium passage followed by an easy and a difficult passage. Each passage will be presented for 5 minutes.

10-SECOND INTERVALS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Easy o o o o o o o x x o o o o o o x o o o o
(90%)
Medium o o o x x o o o o o x o o x x x o o o o
(70–80%)
Difficult o x x x o o x o x x o o x x o o x o o x
(<70%)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Easy o o o o o o x o o o
(90%)
Medium x o o o x x o o o o
(70–80%)
Difficult x x x o o o x x x x
(<70%)

FIGURE 9.5. Completed Task Difficulty Antecedent Analysis Form for Jason.
 Experimental Functional Behavioral Assessment 179

ating reading skill delays. Presenting relatively easier tasks would create opportunities to
reinforce active participation (incompatible with disruption), and the difficulty of tasks could
be increased gradually as reading skills improve and active engagement is strengthened.

Case Example of Structural Analysis

Paul is a student with developmental disabilities and a language-­based learning disability who
receives one-on-one specially designed instruction. His IEP team requested an FBA of off-task,
hitting, and tantrum behaviors. During an FBA interview, the teacher noted that Paul’s behav-
ior was variable and dependent upon the type of task he was expected to complete. The teacher
also suggested that Paul’s language difficulties likely contributed to occurrences of interfering
behavior. Accordingly, the school psychologist decided to conduct a structural analysis to mea-
sure levels of occurrence of interfering behaviors and active engagement across varied instruc-
tional and noninstructional situations. The goal of the structural analysis was to determine if
high levels of interfering behaviors and low levels of active engagement were more probable in
response to the presentation of instruction and/or specific types of instructional demands.
To conduct the structural analysis, the school psychologist worked with Paul’s teacher
to set up several assessment scenarios within the natural classroom environment. The
school psychologist asked the teacher not to deliver any consequences for interfering behav-
ior during the assessment, and she used a 6-second partial-­interval recording procedure to
estimate levels of behavior associated with each of the following conditions:

• Free time: The teacher gave Paul 10 minutes of free time. During this time, no
instructional expectations were placed on Paul. He was permitted to engage in typi-
cal leisure activities (e.g., listening to music and looking at picture books), and the
teacher casually interacted with him every 30 seconds.
• Visual–­motor instructional tasks: The teacher presented Paul with typical visual–­
motor activities (e.g., puzzles, matching tasks, and art projects) for 10 minutes and
continued instruction without interruption when interfering behaviors occurred.
• Language-­ based instructional tasks: The teacher presented Paul with typical
language-­based activities (e.g., expressive labeling) for 10 minutes and continued
instruction without interruption when interfering behaviors occurred.

Each condition was presented multiple times, and the data were aggregated across
conditions to facilitate comparisons. Results from the structural analysis are presented in
Figure 9.6. These data show that Paul exhibited relatively high levels of active engage-
ment when presented with visual–­motor tasks. In contrast, he displayed elevated levels of
off-task, hitting, and tantrum behaviors when presented with language-­based instructional
tasks. These data suggest a functional relationship between the presentation of language-­
based tasks and the occurrence of interfering behaviors. A plausible hypothesis, then, is that
Paul’s interfering behaviors are maintained by negative reinforcement in the form of escape
from language-­based academic demands. Although additional analyses may be needed to
confirm the hypothesis about the functional consequences for Paul’s interfering behavior,
these structural analysis data provide a much cleaner picture of the evocative effects of
language-­based tasks on Paul’s behavior than the school psychologist could have obtained
using less controlled descriptive assessment procedures.
180 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

80

70

Percentage of Intervals
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Free Time Visual–Motor Task Language-Based Task

Academic Engagement Off-Task Hitting Tantrum

FIGURE 9.6. Structural analysis graph for Paul.

SUMMARY

Where do we go from here? Thus far, we have described a variety of indirect, descrip-
tive, and experimental procedures for assessing the functions of interfering behaviors. To
conduct a valid FBA, no single assessment procedure is sufficient and not all assessment
procedures are necessary. FBA is a creative, problem-­solving process, and assessment plans
should be as individualized and varied as the students and types of referrals we receive.
At times, indirect and descriptive FBA procedures will yield adequate converging data to
generate hypotheses about the functions of a student’s behavior and guide behavior inter-
vention planning. At other times, these “correlational” data are simply too messy too untan-
gle. This is when experimental procedures are invaluable. By systematically manipulating
antecedents and/or consequences and then observing and recording the effects on levels of
interfering behavior, you can filter out the messiness and isolate the variables that directly
evoke and maintain interfering behaviors. If you understand experimental logic and acquire
appropriate training in experimental analysis procedures, then you will be equipped with
the knowledge and skills needed to answer some of the most challenging questions about
why students do what they do. Just remember that conducting valid experimental analyses
using procedures that are safe, efficient, practical, and socially acceptable requires specific
knowledge and skills that can be attained only through supervised experience!

Teaser
In this and previous chapters, our focus has been on figuring out why interfering behavior occurs. In
the next chapters, we focus on experimentally identifying reinforcers (i.e., reinforcer assessment) and
evaluating the effectiveness of function-­based interventions (i.e., a treatment analysis). And what’s
really cool is that we recommend conducting these analyses within the context of a comprehensive
FBA (i.e., within the 45-day window from informed consent to IEP team meeting). Now that’s what we
call problem solving!
 FORM 9.1

Task Difficulty Antecedent Analysis Form

Student’s name School/grade
Setting Date
Observer Time
Target behavior

Task description

10-SECOND INTERVALS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Easy
(90%)
Medium
(70–80%)
Difficult
(<70%)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Easy
(90%)
Medium
(70–80%)
Difficult
(<70%)

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

181
 CHAPTER 10

Preference Assessment
and Experimental Analysis
of Reinforcer Effectiveness

The only way to tell whether a given event is reinforcing to a

given organism under given conditions is to make a direct test.
—B. F. Skinner (1953, p. 73)

The FBA process seeks to understand the variables that contribute to occurrences of inter-
fering behaviors in order to inform the design of function-­based interventions. Thus, iden-
tifying the reinforcing consequences that strengthen interfering behavior is an essential
outcome of FBA. For example, when FBA results indicate that an interfering behavior is
maintained by social attention (socially mediated positive reinforcement), the team may
recommend withholding attention following occurrences of interfering behavior (i.e., atten-
tion extinction). Likewise, when assessment data suggest that an interfering behavior is
maintained by escape from academic tasks (socially mediated negative reinforcement), the
team may recommend that teaching staff continue to deliver academic expectations in spite
of the interfering behavior (i.e., escape extinction). In sum, identification of the reinforcing
consequences maintaining interfering behavior is essential for designing interventions that
minimize or eliminate reinforcement for those behaviors.
Our goal, though, is not simply to reduce occurrences of interfering behavior by dis-
rupting the response–­reinforcer contingencies. We are in the business of teaching! Compre-
hensive treatment plans that are likely to effect durable behavior change include procedures
for teaching and reinforcing appropriate replacement behaviors. One strategy for strength-
ening replacement behaviors involves withholding the functional reinforcer for interfering
behaviors and, instead, delivering that reinforcer contingent on appropriate behaviors. For
example, Steege and colleagues (1990) used functional analysis methodologies to determine
that the self-­injurious behaviors exhibited by two children with developmental disabilities
were reinforced by negative reinforcement in the form of escape from demands. The subse-
quent behavioral intervention package consisted of (1) extinction (i.e., self-­injury no longer

182
 Preference Assessment and Experimental Analysis of Reinforcer Effectiveness 183

produced escape), (2) negative reinforcement for an incompatible functional communication

response (i.e., permitting a brief break from task contingent on pressing a microswitch to
request a “break”), and (3) negative reinforcement for appropriate task participation (i.e.,
permitting a brief break from task contingent on participation). This intervention package
resulted in a marked decrease in self-­injury and concomitant increases in manding (request-
ing) and task participation.
The consequences maintaining interfering behavior, though, may not be the most
appropriate or effective reinforcers for strengthening appropriate replacement behaviors.
Therefore, we have found that conducting preference and reinforcer assessments within the
context of a comprehensive FBA results in development of behavioral support plans with
maximally effective (robust) reinforcement procedures. This model involves conducting (1)
traditional FBA procedures to identify the reinforcing consequences maintaining interfer-
ing behavior, (2) preference assessments to identify potential reinforcers, and (3) reinforcer
assessments to determine the effectiveness of potential reinforcers for strengthening target
replacement behaviors. For example, Steege and colleagues (1989) combined the results of
functional analyses of interfering behavior with a direct reinforcer assessment to develop
comprehensive interventions that effectively eliminated self-­injurious behaviors exhibited
by two children with developmental disabilities.

PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

Research suggests that preference is a reasonable predictor of reinforcer effectiveness

(Piazza, Roane, & Karsten, 2011). A variety of preference assessment procedures have been
developed to identify potential reinforcers, and these procedures vary widely in terms of
formality and structure. Like FBA procedures, preference assessment methodologies may
be classified as indirect or descriptive.

Indirect Assessment of Potential Reinforcers

Indirect assessments of potential reinforcers involve gathering information about preferred
items and activities from students and/or significant others (e.g., caregivers and school staff)
via interviews, surveys, and/or questionnaires (Piazza et al., 2011). These assessment proce-
dures range from informal and unstructured (e.g., asking students what they like) to formal
and structured (e.g., asking students to complete a Likert-­scale questionnaire to rank their
preferences for various classroom rewards). One commonly used indirect assessment tool is
the Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities (RAISD; Fisher, Piazza,
Bowman, & Amari, 1996), which utilizes a structured interview format to generate detailed
information about items and activities that may function as effective reinforcers.

Descriptive Assessment of Potential Reinforcers

Descriptive preference assessment methods range from (1) observing students in the natu-
ral environment and documenting their engagement with various items and activities to (2)
184 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

systematically presenting students with opportunities to choose various items and activities
and documenting their choices (i.e., preferences). Table 10.1 describes several descriptive
preference assessment methods reviewed by Piazza and colleagues (2011).

Preference Assessment Considerations

Indirect and descriptive preference assessments are relatively efficient and practical meth-
ods for identifying putative reinforcers. The qualifier here is important: putative reinforcers
are stimuli that appear to be preferred and are thus hypothesized to be reinforcing. In order
to define a stimulus as a positive reinforcer, it is necessary to demonstrate that contingent
presentation of the stimulus increases the future probability of the preceding response. In
other words, preferred stimuli may not consistently function as reinforcers to strengthen
target replacement behaviors, and direct experimental analyses are necessary to confirm
that a preferred stimulus operates as a reinforcer. For example, a parent may report that her
child enjoys cheese puffs, and the child may consistently select cheese puffs when presented

TABLE 10.1. Descriptive Preference Assessment Methods

Method Procedure Reference
Single-stimulus •• Repeatedly present students with potentially Pace, Ivancic,
preference reinforcing items, one at a time Edwards, Iwata,
assessment •• Record approach behavior (e.g., touching, & Page (1985)
consuming, or manipulating items)
•• Classify items approached 80% of the time as
preferred

Paired-choice •• Repeatedly present students with pairs of potentially Fisher et al.

preference reinforcing items and the instruction to “pick one” (1992)
assessment •• Record choices
•• Rank-order preferences based on the number of
times each item was selected

Multiple-stimulus •• Present students with an array of potentially DeLeon & Iwata

without replacement reinforcing items and the instruction to “pick one” (1996)
assessment •• Remove the selected item before presenting the next
opportunity to make a choice
•• Record the order of selection
•• Rank-order preferences based on the order of
selection over multiple sessions

Free operant •• Allow students free access to multiple potentially Roane, Vollmer,
preference reinforcing items Ringdahl, &
assessment •• Record engagement with each item using interval or Marcus (1998)
duration recording procedures
•• Rank-order preferences based on level of
engagement
 Preference Assessment and Experimental Analysis of Reinforcer Effectiveness 185

with choices in the context of a descriptive preference assessment. However, demonstrating

the effectiveness of cheese puffs as a reinforcer for accurate academic responding would
require (1) delivering cheese puffs to the child following accurate academic responses and
(2) documenting increases in rates of accurate academic responding as a result of the cheese
puff reinforcement procedure.

A Preference Assessment Resource

To extend your learning on evidence-­based preference assessment methods, we highly recommend vis-
iting the Vanderbilt Kennedy Center on evidence-­based instructional practices for children with autism
and other disabilities: http://vkc.mc.vanderbilt.edu/ebip/preference-­assessments.
The website offers step-by-step procedural guides, demonstration videos, and data collection
forms to facilitate implementation of five types of preference assessments.

EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF REINFORCER EFFECTIVENESS

Just as functional analyses are required to verify hypotheses about the functions of interfer-
ing behaviors, experimental reinforcer assessments are required to verify hypotheses about
the behavior-­strengthening effects of preferred stimuli. In other words, to determine if a
preferred stimulus operates as a reinforcer, an empirical demonstration is essential. When
in doubt, test it out!

Case Example
Rationale
Two students, Lisa and Lori, were referred for evaluation by the school psychologist (Steege).
The team requested an assessment to identify effective reinforcers to support the students’
educational programming.

Setting
The evaluation was conducted in the students’ special education classroom within a public
elementary school.

Participants
Lisa (8 years old) and Lori (7 years old) both were diagnosed with cerebral palsy and intel-
lectual disability (severe). Both students were nonverbal and had limited upper-body range
of motion, which significantly impaired reaching and pointing skills. They could sit upright
independently for up to 30 minutes when positioned in their wheelchairs. However, unless
prompted or actively engaged in activities with school staff, both students typically laid
their heads on the lap trays that were attached to the arms of their wheelchairs.
186 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Materials
A CD player and recording (Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers), a battery-­operated mechani-
cal toy (Wonder Woman action figure), and a mercury switch were utilized for the evaluation.

Response Definition and Measurement

Head-up responding was defined as sitting upright in the wheelchair without upper-body
physical support or physical prompting from school staff. Head-up responding was mea-
sured directly with a timer that was attached to a mercury switch. The mercury switch
was affixed to the hair on top of each student’s head using a barrette. When the student sat
upright, the mercury switch activated the timer; when the student laid her head on the lap
tray, the mercury switch turned off the timer.

Baseline
Head-up responding was measured during three consecutive 15-minute sessions. Lisa and
Lori were positioned in their wheelchairs without physical support or physical prompting
from school staff.

Putative Reinforcers
Interviews with the classroom teacher and parents resulted in the identification of two pre-
ferred stimuli: auditory (music) and visual (battery-­operated mechanical toy).

Experimental Analysis of Putative Reinforcers

Following baseline, the relative reinforcing effectiveness of the auditory stimulus (music)
and visual stimulus (mechanical toy) was compared using an alternating treatments single-­
case experimental design. Each experimental condition was identical to the baseline condi-
tion with one exception: head-up responding activated either the auditory or visual stimu-
lus. Specifically, head-up responding activated (1) the CD player (music) during the auditory
stimulus condition and (2) the mechanical toy during the visual stimulus condition.

Results
Results for Lisa are depicted in Figure 10.1. These data clearly demonstrate that access to
music (auditory stimulus condition) produced markedly higher rates of head-up responding
relative to the baseline and visual stimulus conditions. The visual stimulus condition was
associated with inconsistent and low rates of head-up responding.
Results for Lori are depicted in Figure 10.2. These data clearly demonstrate mark-
edly higher rates of head-up responding in the auditory (music) and visual (mechanical toy)
stimulus conditions relative to the baseline condition. The alternating treatments analysis
also showed that access to the mechanical toy (visual stimulus condition) produced higher
levels of head-up responding than access to music (auditory stimulus condition).
 Preference Assessment and Experimental Analysis of Reinforcer Effectiveness 187

15

Cumulative Minutes of Head-Up Responding

14
13
12
11
10
9
8 Baseline
7 Visual Reinforcer
6 Auditory Reinforcer
5
4
3
2
1
0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Session

FIGURE 10.1. Reinforcer assessment results for Lisa.

Generality and Social Validity

To determine if the effective reinforcer identified for each student would strengthen appro-
priate behaviors other than head-up responding, a second behavior (selected from each
student’s IEP) was targeted for increase. For Lisa, the auditory (music) reinforcer was
successfully used to increase toileting skills (i.e., urinating activated a moisture-­sensitive
microswitch that activated the CD player). For Lori, the visual stimulus (mechanical toy)
was successfully used to increase letter and color discrimination skills.

15
Cumulative Minutes of Head-Up Responding

14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2 Baseline
1 Visual Reinforcer
0 Auditory Reinforcer

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Session

FIGURE 10.2. Reinforcer assessment results for Lori.

188 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Discussion
Indirect preference assessments (i.e., interviews with caregivers) led to the identification
of two putative reinforcers for Lisa and Lori. For Lisa, only one of these preferred stimuli
functioned as a reinforcer. For Lori, both stimuli functioned as reinforcers, but one stimu-
lus was consistently more effective than the other for strengthening behavior. These results
demonstrate the importance of conducting experimental analyses to determine the extent to
which preferred stimuli operate as effective reinforcers for socially meaningful behaviors.

SUMMARY

Reinforcement-­based interventions are integral components of behavior intervention plans;

therefore, comprehensive FBAs should include procedures for identifying effective rein-
forcers. A variety of indirect and descriptive preference assessment procedures have been
developed to facilitate the identification of stimuli that are likely to function as reinforcers.
However, the only way to determine whether a preferred stimulus will effectively reinforce
target behaviors is to conduct an empirical test. By conducting experimental analyses of
reinforcer effectiveness, we obtain empirical data to support our treatment recommenda-
tions and gain increased confidence that our interventions will yield desirable outcomes.
 CHAPTER 11

Function-­Based Interventions

Education is the establishing of behavior which will be of advantage

to the individual and to others at some future time.
—B. F. Skinner (1953, p. 402)

Within a problem-­solving framework, practitioners apply FBA procedures to (1) identify

behaviors that interfere with students’ functioning; (2) quantify present levels of interfering
behaviors; (3) identify the interacting variables that contribute to occurrences of interfer-
ing behaviors; and (4) select, implement, and monitor interventions that weaken interfering
behaviors and strengthen appropriate replacement behaviors (Steege & Pratt, 2012). Indi-
rect, descriptive, and/or experimental FBA results thus drive intervention planning and
implementation efforts. The synthesis of data using the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solv-
ing: Assessment Results recording form (Chapter 6) provides a “diagnosis” of the problem,
but the ultimate goal of the problem-­solving assessment process is to arrive at a solution.
Would you be satisfied if you took your vehicle to a mechanic, received a diagnostic report
that a head gasket was blown, and then had to drive off with a “Good luck!” and no repair?
Or, what if you went to the hospital with severe abdominal pain, participated in a series of
physical examinations, received a diagnosis of appendicitis, and then left with no treatment
and only a few reassuring words from the doctor: “Yes, indeed, you have a problem. Your
appendix is seriously infected. The pain will only get worse, and the appendix likely will
burst and spread bacteria throughout your body. Tough luck!” You get the idea. Diagnosing
a behavioral problem without offering a solution is far from best practice.
Conducting FBAs to identify the function(s) of interfering behaviors guides school-­
based teams toward solutions for referred problems. Research consistently shows that inter-
ventions informed by FBA results and matched to behavioral function are more effective

189
190 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

The Need for a Pliant* Game Plan

When we begin the FBA process, we usually start with the question, “What are we up against?” In
other words, “What array of interacting variables serve to evoke, occasion, and reinforce interfering
behaviors?” Assessment results then inform our development of a game plan. Our game plan is a set
of tactics and strategies aimed both at neutralizing the variables controlling interfering behavior and
strengthening the variables controlling appropriate behavior. Sometimes, though, we need to be flexible
and adjust our game plan based on changing conditions.
Consider a football analogy. Prior to the game, the offensive coordinator identified a series of plays
designed to expose and take advantage of the defensive alignments of the other team.
The team is in the huddle . . . a play is called in . . . the quarterback lines up behind the center . . .
he observes the defensive alignment presented by the opponents . . . realizes that the called play
feeds right into the strengths of the defense and is going to be a complete failure . . . being a flexible
and pliable quarterback, he “reads” the defensive alignment . . . he identifies a weakness . . . he calls
an audible . . . the team executes the play . . . and you know the rest of the story (another amazing
comeback by the Patriots!).
So, yes, we may have a game plan for a function-­based (function-­focused) behavior support
plan—but the plan needs to be flexible to take into account the dynamic relationships among variables
that contribute to interfering behavior.
*Pliant: Flexible and suitable for many uses.

than interventions developed arbitrarily (e.g., Campbell, 2003; Heyvaert, Maes, Van den
Noortgate, Kuppens, & Onghena, 2012; Heyvaert, Saenen, Campbell, Maes, & Onghena,
2014; Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988), and the behavior-­analytic literature is replete with
demonstrations of the effectiveness of individually tailored, function-­based interventions
for addressing interfering behaviors. These empirically supported interventions generally
fall into three categories:

• Antecedent interventions to reduce the likelihood of interfering behaviors,

• Teaching and reinforcement strategies to strengthen replacement behaviors, and
• Consequence-­based strategies to reduce occurrences of interfering behaviors.

In this chapter, we provide a brief review of evidence-­based, function-­based interven-

tion strategies and offer a model for translating the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving:
Assessment Results form into a comprehensive and highly individualized behavior interven-
tion plan.

From FBA to Behavior Support Plan

The Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, funded by the
U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, offers a wealth of resources to
schools seeking to implement a multi-tiered approach to promoting social, emotional, and behavioral
outcomes for all learners. In this chapter, we present one model for linking FBA results to behavior
intervention plans. We also highly recommend browsing the technical assistance center (www.pbis.org)
to learn about alternative models for developing function-­based behavior support plans using a team-
based approach.
 Function-­Based Interventions 191

ANTECEDENT INTERVENTIONS

Function-­based antecedent interventions include a wide array of proactive strategies to pre-

vent the occurrence of interfering behaviors by targeting the SDs and MOs. Consider, for
example, a student who engages in bolting behavior to escape from the loud environment of
the cafeteria. The student’s bolting behavior is occasioned by the sight of a nearby exit (SD),
evoked by aversive auditory stimulation (MO), and maintained by individually mediated
negative reinforcement. Function-­based antecedent interventions therefore may include
assigning the student to sit at a table located far from the exit with her back to the door (SD
modification) and providing her with a set of headphones to block the aversive noise (MO
manipulation). Table 11.1 on the next page provides descriptions and examples of select
evidence-­based, function-­based antecedent interventions.

Linking FBA Results to Antecedent Interventions

Completion of the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording form
leads to the identification of three variables that may be targeted using antecedent interven-
tions: context, motivational triggers, and sources of reinforcement.

Context
Identification of the context in which interfering behaviors occur helps the team modify the
setting and/or make accommodations to minimize the likelihood of interfering behaviors.
General strategies to consider include the following:

• Modify the setting to reduce the presence of stimuli that are aversive to the stu-
dent. Examples: Cover fluorescent lights with fabric to reduce unpleasant flickering,
install carpeting to dampen the noise in the classroom, position school staff in hall-
ways to reduce the likelihood of bullying/teasing from peers.
• Modify the student’s participation in settings that are associated with interfering
behaviors. Examples: Minimize transitions and “downtime,” adjust the relative
amount of time spent in small-group versus large-group instruction, switch to an
adaptive physical education class.

Motivational Triggers (MOs)

Identification of the motivational triggers for interfering behavior helps the team identify
strategies to reduce (abolish) the value of the maintaining reinforcer and thereby reduce
the momentary likelihood of interfering behavior. Remember, motivational triggers typi-
cally fall into two categories: the deprivation of reinforcers or the presentation of aversive
stimulation. Therefore, antecedent interventions to reduce motivational triggers typically
(1) prevent students from experiencing deprivation or (2) make the environment less aver-
sive. General strategies to consider include the following:
 192 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

TABLE 11.1. Selecting Function-Based Antecedent Interventions

Intervention Description Research Examples
Antecedent interventions for interfering behaviors maintained by positive reinforcement
Noncontingent Provide free access to edible, Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, and
reinforcement tangible, activity, social, or sensory Mazaleski (1993) delivered attention to
(NCR) reinforcers at regularly scheduled participants at least once every 5 minutes,
intervals of time (independent regardless of their behavior, to reduce
of student behavior) to prevent attention-maintained self-injury.
“deprivation” and reduce the
Hagopian, Crockett, Van Stone, DeLeon,
motivation to engage in interfering
and Bowman (2000) provided participants
behaviors maintained by access to
with brief access to reinforcing items
those reinforcers.
every 30 seconds to 7 minutes to reduce
aggression maintained by access to
tangibles.

Stimulus control Modify the environment to remove Maglieri, DeLeon, Rodriguez-Catter,

signals that indicate the availability and Sevin (2000) placed stickers on
of reinforcers for interfering behavior food containers to help the participant
and/or introduce signals that indicate discriminate between permitted and
the unavailability of reinforcers for prohibited food items and reduce
interfering behavior. occurrences of covert food stealing.

Antecedent interventions for interfering behaviors maintained by negative reinforcement

Noncontingent Provide brief breaks at regularly Vollmer, Marcus, Ringdahl, and Roane
escape (NCE) scheduled intervals of time (1995) offered participants brief,
(independent of student behavior) scheduled breaks from instruction to
to reduce the motivation to engage reduce escape-maintained self-injury.
in escape-maintained interfering
behaviors.

Stimulus pairing Pair teachers with positive Kelly, Axe, Allen, and Maguire (2015)
reinforcement to establish the value conducted 2- to 4-minute pairing sessions
of social interaction as a reinforcer (i.e., instructors provided high-quality
and reduce the motivation to escape attention and engaged students in
from instructional sessions with the preferred activities) prior to implementing
teacher. discrete trial instructional sessions to
reduce escape-maintained interfering
behaviors.

Stimulus fading Gradually expose students to stimuli Pace, Iwata, Cowdery, Andree, and
(e.g., tasks) that evoke interfering McIntyre (1993) eliminated and then
behaviors to reduce the likelihood of gradually and systematically reintroduced
those behaviors. instructions, while implementing escape
extinction, to reduce participants’ levels of
escape-maintained self-injury.

(continued)
 Function-­Based Interventions 193

TABLE 11.1. (continued)

Intervention Description Research Examples
High-probability Present a series of simple instructions Lee, Lylo, Vostal, and Hua (2012)
request sequence/ with which compliance is likely prior presented students with a sequence of
task interspersal to presenting an instruction that three high-preference math problems
typically evokes escape-maintained prior to presenting low-preference math
behavior (e.g., “Give me a high five!”; problems to reduce latency to comply with
“Make a silly face”; “Touch your toes”; academic task expectations.
“Line up for the bathroom”).
Intersperse tasks that evoke escape-
maintained behavior with less
challenging/more preferred tasks.

Instructional/task Modify the pace of instruction, task McComas, Hoch, Paone, and El-Roy
modification difficulty, type of prompts, error (2000) used FBA data to identify which
correction procedures, and/or other aspects of academic instruction evoked
aversive aspects of the instructional interfering behaviors for three students
environment to reduce the motivation and then modified those variables (i.e.,
to engage in escape-maintained by offering instructional supports like
interfering behaviors. calculators, offering choices for task
sequencing, and providing nonrepeated
tasks) to reduce escape-maintained
destructive behavior.

• Use noncontingent reinforcement to reduce the student’s motivation to engage in

interfering behaviors. Examples: Circulate around the classroom and engage with
the student at least once every 5 minutes, schedule opportunities for peer interaction
every 15 minutes during academic instruction, offer breaks from difficult academic
assignments every 10 minutes.
• Enrich the environment and modify the aversive aspects of the educational and
social environment that trigger interfering behaviors. Examples: Eliminate the use
of physical prompting that is aversive to the student, utilize errorless teaching strate-
gies to eliminate the need for corrective feedback that evokes interfering behavior,
utilize incidental teaching procedures in lieu of discrete trial instruction that is aver-
sive to the student, present instruction in the format of a game, assign a peer buddy
to a student who dreads sitting alone at lunch.

Sources of Reinforcement (SDs)

Identification of the persons, items, or locations that signal the availability of reinforcing
consequences for interfering behaviors helps the team (1) minimize the signals that occasion
interfering behaviors and (2) maximize the signals that occasion appropriate replacement
behaviors. General strategies to consider include the following:
194 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

• Utilize a combination of stimulus pairing and extinction to establish a “new learn-

ing history” with individuals who historically provided reinforcement for interfering
behaviors. Example: A teacher who functions as an SD for escape-­maintained behav-
ior (1) increases his delivery of positive reinforcers and (2) stops permitting escape
following interfering behavior.
• Modify the environment to remove or minimize the presence of items that signal the
availability of reinforcement. Examples: Change classroom seating arrangements to
move a student away from peers who function as SDs for attention-­maintained behav-
ior, move restricted items (e.g., iPads) out of sight and reach.
• Introduce visual cues that signal the availability of reinforcement for appropriate
replacement behaviors. Examples: Utilize a token board and/or visual schedule to
show expected behaviors and the availability of preferred items/activities.

TEACHING AND REINFORCEMENT‑BASED INTERVENTIONS

Although antecedent interventions are highly effective for preventing occurrences of inter-
fering behavior, antecedent modifications yield only temporary effects. For example, provid-
ing continuous social attention is likely to reduce occurrences of interfering behaviors main-
tained by access to teacher attention; however, there inevitably will be times when teachers
need to divert their attention to other tasks or engage with other students. To achieve lasting
behavior change, it is essential to teach students skills for coping with motivational trig-
gers and alternative strategies to get their needs and wants met. For example, the student
who engages in interfering behaviors to gain access to teacher attention may benefit from
developing the skills to tolerate increasing durations of diverted/divided teacher attention, a
stronger repertoire of independent academic and leisure skills, and more appropriate ways
to recruit attention (e.g., hand raising, asking the teacher to look at completed work). Ulti-
mately, teaching and reinforcing functional skills and appropriate replacement behaviors
should be the primary focus of every behavior intervention plan.
Effective, function-­based interventions that focus on strengthening appropriate behav-
iors generally involve:

• Delivering direct, evidence-­based instruction in relevant communication, academic,

executive, adaptive living, social, and/or self-­management skills, and
• Providing robust reinforcement for target skills/replacement behaviors that effec-
tively competes with the reinforcement m ­ aintaining interfering behaviors.

Functional communication training (FCT) is an evidence-­based intervention that illus-

trates a method for blending both of these strategies into a single treatment package. To
implement FCT, practitioners (1) identify a communication response that produces the same
reinforcing consequences maintaining the student’s interfering behavior, (2) utilize effective
instructional techniques and prompting strategies to teach the student to produce the target
communication response, and (3) reinforce target communication responses by honoring
the student’s requests (Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008; Wacker et al., 1990). Depending on
the function of the interfering behavior, a student may be taught to request access to atten-
 Function-­Based Interventions 195

tion (e.g., “Excuse me”; “Come play with me”; “Can we talk?”; “Look what I did!”), access to
specific items/activities (e.g., “I want music, please”; “Can I have 1 more minute?”), escape
from tasks/situations (e.g., “I need a break”; “I want to leave”), or removal of aversive stimuli
(e.g., “Quiet, please”; “I don’t want that”). Although FCT is most appropriate when com-
munication skill deficits contribute to occurrences of interfering behaviors, the basic con-
ceptual framework—­identifying, teaching, and reinforcing socially appropriate behaviors to
replace interfering behaviors—­is applicable to the treatment of most interfering behaviors.
For example, an adolescent who engages in self-­cutting to provide relief from unpleasant
thoughts and emotions (automatic negative reinforcement) may benefit from an interven-
tion that involves teaching and reinforcing alternative self-­management strategies such as
deep breathing and progressive muscle relaxation. Or, a middle school student who exhibits
high levels of off-task behavior may benefit from an intervention that involves teaching self-­
monitoring skills and reinforcing on-task behavior.

Everything You Need to Know about FCT

To expand your understanding of FCT, we highly recommend the following book. It offers an outstanding
blend of theory, applied research, methods, and examples.

Reichle, J., & Wacker, D. P. (2017). Functional communication training for problem behavior. New
York: Guilford Press.

These practical guides and training resources also may be helpful:

Griffin, W., & AFIRM Team. (2017). Functional communication training. Chapel Hill: National Pro­
fessional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder, FPG Child Development Center,
University of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://afirm.fpg.unc.edu/functional-­communication-­
training.
Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bruzek, J. (2008). Functional communication training: A review and practi-
cal guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 16–23.

Lastly, check out some of our own research*:

DeRosa, N. M., Fisher, W. W., & Steege, M. W. (2015). An evaluation of time in establishing operation
on the effectiveness of functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
48, 115–130.
Shamlian, K. D., Fisher, W. W., Steege, M. W., Cavanaugh, B. M., Samour, K., & Querim, A. C. (2016).
Evaluation of multiple schedules with naturally occurring and therapist-­arranged discriminative
stimuli following functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49,
228–250.
Steege, M., Wacker, D., Cigrand, K., Berg, W., Novak, C., Reimers, T., et al. (1990). Use of negative
reinforcement in the treatment of self-­injurious behavior in children with severe multiple disabili-
ties. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 459–467.
Wacker, D., Steege, M., Northup, J., Sasso, G., Berg, W., Reimers, T., et al. (1990). A component
analysis of functional communication training across three topographies of severe behavior prob-
lems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(4), 417–429.
*OK, we admit it . . . blatant self-­promotion—­but we’re proud of our research. If you conduct a comprehensive

review, then you will discover many studies demonstrating creative and innovative applications of FCT across
diverse populations and settings.
196 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Linking FBA Results to Teaching

and Reinforcement‑Based Strategies
Completion of the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording form
leads to the identification of multiple variables that may be targeted using teaching and
reinforcement-­based strategies. Most relevant are the data obtained about skill delays/defi-
cits and the reinforcing consequences maintaining interfering behavior.

Skill Delays/Deficits
As we discussed in Chapter 6, most interfering behaviors are directly related to weaknesses
in communication, academic, executive, adaptive living, social, and/or self-­management
skills. Identification of relevant skill delays/deficits therefore helps the team identify target
skills that may be strengthened to increase the likelihood of appropriate behaviors relative
to the likelihood of interfering behaviors. Target skills and instructional methods are as
unique and varied as the students we serve, so we offer the following only as illustrative
examples of strategies to consider:

• Conduct FCT to strengthen socially appropriate communication responses that are

functionally equivalent to the interfering behavior (e.g., Carr & Durand, 1985).
• Provide direct instruction in reading, writing, and/or mathematics skills (Stockard,
Wood, Coughlin, & Rasplica Khoury, 2018).
• Implement an evidence-­ based social-­emotional skills curriculum such as Skill-
streaming (McGinnis, 2011a, 2011b) or Strong Kids (Carrizales-­Engelmann, Feuer-
born, Gueldner, & Tran, 2016).
• Utilize modeling, rehearsal, and reinforcement strategies to teach specific social,
executive, or self-­management skills (e.g., Peters & Thompson, 2015).
• Use task analyses, prompting, chaining, and reinforcement procedures to teach
adaptive living skills (e.g., Stokes, Cameron, Dorsey, & Fleming, 2004).

Reinforcing Consequences
Identification of the reinforcing consequences maintaining interfering behaviors helps the
team develop effective reinforcement programs to strengthen appropriate replacement
behaviors. When we determine the reinforcing consequence(s) maintaining interfering
behavior, we have, in effect, identified potential reinforcers for strengthening appropriate
behavior. For example, if FBA results indicate that an interfering behavior is reinforced by
access to social attention (socially mediated positive reinforcement), then it may be effective

Resources: Social–­Emotional Learning

Check out Merrell’s Strong Kids. These manualized programs use a cognitive-­behavioral approach to
teach social and emotional skills that promote resilience and mitigate risk in children and adolescents.
See the following websites:
• https://strongkidsresources.com
• http://strongkids.uoregon.edu/research.html
 Function-­Based Interventions 197

Self-­Management 101
B. F. Skinner was an extraordinarily productive individual, in large part because of his engagement in
self-­management (Epstein, 1997). Self-­management refers to the personal application of behavior-­
analytic strategies to produce behavior change. Self-­management may be used break bad habits and
acquire new ones, accomplish difficult tasks, and achieve personal goals (Cooper et al., 2007). Critical
components of self-­management interventions include:
• Antecedent modification: Self-­modification of SDs or MOs to increase the probability of desired
behavior and reduce the probability of interfering behavior.
• Self-­monitoring: Self-­observation and behavior recording.
• Self-­administered consequences: Self-­application of consequences that are analogous to posi-
tive and negative reinforcement and positive and negative punishment.

to design an intervention in which social attention is provided contingent on appropriate

behavior. Remember the matching law? The matching law predicts that minimizing social
attention following interfering behavior, while providing robust social reinforcement for
appropriate behavior, will shift responding to favor the appropriate behavior.
Reinforcement-­based strategies include the following:

• Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) involves delivering func-

tional reinforcers for any socially appropriate replacement behavior while withhold-
ing (or at least minimizing) reinforcement for the interfering behavior. Example:
Reinforce hand raising with social attention to replace calling-­out behavior main-
tained by social attention.
• Differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) involves delivering func-
tional reinforcers for a replacement behavior that is physically incompatible with the
interfering behavior while withholding (or at least minimizing) reinforcement for the
interfering behavior. Example: Prompt and reinforce two-handed nose blowing using
a tissue as a replacement for nose-picking behavior.
• Differential reinforcement of communication behavior (DRC) involves delivering
functional reinforcers for a socially appropriate communication response while with-
holding (or at least minimizing) reinforcement for the interfering behavior. Example:
Reinforce requests for a “break” as a replacement for vocal opposition maintained by
escape from tasks.
• Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) involves delivering functional
reinforcers contingent on the absence of the interfering behavior. Example: Deliver
social praise for the absence of attention-­maintained screaming behavior at regularly
scheduled intervals of time.
• Contingency contracting involves developing behavioral contracts that specify
replacement behavior expectations and associated reinforcing consequences (e.g.,
Miller & Kelley, 1994). Example: Develop and implement a behavioral contract that
describes requirements for work completion in order to earn breaks.
• Token reinforcement plans involve delivering tokens, exchangeable for functional
reinforcers, contingent on the occurrence of a target replacement behavior and/or
the nonoccurrence of interfering behavior. Example: Using a token board, deliver
one token for every third math problem completed, and allow the student to take a
break after earning 10 tokens.
198 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

To design a maximally effective reinforcement program, it is helpful to remember that

both interfering behaviors and replacement behaviors are influenced by the same variables:
MOs, SDs, and reinforcing consequences. Therefore, we encourage you to consider the fol-
lowing questions and strategies to increase the likelihood that your reinforcement proce-
dures will be effective:

• Questions: Are the reinforcers for replacement behaviors valuable in the moment? Is
motivation for the reinforcer strong?
||Strategies: Conduct frequent preference assessments, control access to and vary

the available reinforcers to prevent satiation, and give students “free samples” to
establish motivation.
• Questions: Are relevant SDs present to signal the availability of reinforcement for
replacement behaviors? Does the student know what to do to get what he or she
wants?
||Strategies: Use visual and verbal cues to prompt replacement behaviors and

remind students about available reinforcers.

• Questions: Are reinforcers for replacement behaviors delivered consistently and
immediately? Are the reinforcers of sufficient quality and magnitude given the
response effort required? Is the reinforcement plan adequately robust?
||Strategies: Analyze the parameters of reinforcement maintaining interfering behav-

iors and design reinforcement for the replacement behaviors to “compete” in terms
of schedule, quality, magnitude, and delay. The goal is to ensure that replacement
behaviors are more efficient and effective than the interfering behaviors!

CONSEQUENCE‑BASED STRATEGIES
TO REDUCE INTERFERING BEHAVIOR

Relative to reinforcing consequences, FBA results most obviously tell us what not to do.
Remember, reinforcing consequences are the outcomes that follow occurrences of inter-
fering behavior and strengthen its future probability. When our goal is to weaken the
future probability of interfering behaviors, it certainly makes sense to stop reinforcing
them! Extinction is the technical term for the procedure of withholding reinforcement of a
response, and it results in a gradual reduction in responding. When interfering behaviors no
longer “work,” they gradually fade away.

SOMETIMES THINGS GET WORSE BEFORE THEY GET BETTER . . .

Extinction is a powerful tool for reducing occurrences of interfering behavior. As with any powerful tool,
though, caution must be taken to use extinction safely and effectively. Side effects, such as an extinc-
tion burst and aggressive/emotional behavior, may occur (Lerman, Iwata, & Wallace, 1999). The term
extinction burst refers to temporary increases in the frequency, duration, intensity, and/or variability
of behavior when reinforcement is discontinued. Imagine, for example, that parents no longer give in
to their child’s demands when tantrums occur. The initial outcome of this change in parenting tactics
may be increased rates of longer, and definitely more dramatic, tantrums. Although this “burst” will not
sustain if the parents hold their ground, the parents certainly need be prepared to weather the storm.
 Function-­Based Interventions 199

A REAL-LIFE CAUTIONARY TALE . . .

In the late 1970s, I (Steege) was a houseparent in a group home serving children with developmen-
tal disabilities. Kent, age 17, had very limited communication and independent leisure skills. He also
engaged in inappropriate kissing behavior that we hypothesized was reinforced by social attention
(socially mediated positive reinforcement). That is, Kent would sneak up on people (even folks he did
not know) and plant sloppy kisses on their faces, which needless to say produced quite a reaction! After
attending a 1-day workshop on “behavior management” in which planned ignoring was enthusiastically
discussed, my wife, Lisa, and I decided to ignore Kent each time he displayed this kissing behavior.
One evening we were hanging in the family room watching a movie on TV. Kent snuck up from behind
and kissed me on the cheek. I stoically offered no response. I was a rock. I froze all facial features
and held my body rigid for 30 seconds. A few minutes later, Kent kissed me again. And I continued
to use my “I am a statue” planned ignoring strategy. This pattern repeated itself several more times
over the next 5 minutes, and then Kent unleashed a full-­fledged “shock and awe” wave of unrelent-
ing kissing. The kisses were steadily increasing in duration and intensity. Moreover, the time between
kisses (a more fancy term would be “interresponse time”) was diminishing to only a few seconds. I
did not know what to do. Now at this point I need to admit that I am a counter. Yes, I like to count
things . . . I’ve got this thing for data . . . and when the kissing behavior had reached a frequency of
85 that evening, I was starting to get a bit frustrated. After another barrage of kissing, I looked at Lisa
and pleaded for help. With an expression of heartfelt sympathy and compassion, she leaned over and
empathically whispered, “You’re screwed.” So, when the kissing behavior surpassed 104, I jumped up
from the couch, looked Kent squarely in the eyes, and yelled “Stop! That’s it! No more kissing.” With
a mocking smile and a definite air of accomplishment, Kent sat on the couch and relaxed into a state
of triumphant victory.

NOW, THAT’S A RESPONSE BURST!

So what went wrong with my intervention for Kent’s kissing behavior? Several things, of course. My
movie-­watching behavior led to a temporary deprivation of social interaction for Kent (an MO increas-
ing the value of attention and the probability of kissing behavior as a way to obtain it). Kent’s deficits
in independent leisure and communication skills meant that (1) he was bored and (2) he did not really
know any better way to get my attention. I also made the mistake of ignoring Kent, rather than Kent’s
kissing behavior. This is a subtle, but critical, point. By ignoring Kent entirely, I increased his motivation
for obtaining attention of any form.
So what should I have done? Several things, of course. I should have recognized that Kent was
bored, engaged him in a functional activity, and reinforced his participation. I should have conducted a
reinforcer assessment to identify effective and powerful reinforcers for participation that would compete
with the social attention he received following kissing behavior. I should have provided noncontingent
reinforcement by offering social feedback intermittently while he participated in a functional activity.
And, if kissing still occurred, I should have briefly ignored this behavior and then immediately redirected
Kent to the activity so that I could provide social reinforcement for participation. I also should have used
FCT strategies to teach appropriate communication behavior as a replacement for inappropriate kiss-
ing. I’m sure there’s even more I could have done, but I think it gives a clear picture of why a powerful
behavior change strategy—­extinction—­worked against me.

THE MORAL OF THE STORY

Before proceeding with the use of extinction, make sure that you:
• Can safely withstand and tolerate an extinction burst, and
• Implement antecedent interventions and reinforcement-­ based procedures concurrent with
extinction to reduce the probability of undesirable side effects and increase the likelihood of
enduring behavior change.
200 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Linking FBA Results to Consequence‑Based Strategies

to Reduce Interfering Behavior
Identification of the function of interfering behavior helps teams develop appropriately
matched extinction procedures or strategies that minimize the reinforcement for interfer-
ing behavior relative to the reinforcement for appropriate replacement behavior. The key
is to withhold or minimize the functional reinforcing consequence that maintains occur-
rences of interfering behavior. Table 11.2 summarizes function-­based variations of extinc-
tion (Iwata, Pace, Cowdery, & Miltenberger, 1994).

An Alternative to Extinction
Sometimes extinction in its “pure” form cannot be implemented. For example, if a student engages in
severe physical aggression to escape from nonpreferred academic tasks, it may not be safe or feasible for
school staff to implement escape extinction by continuing to deliver instructions when aggression occurs.
In these situations, we recommend applying the matching law by minimizing reinforcement for interfering
behavior relative to reinforcement for appropriate replacement behavior. The basic strategy is to:
• Minimize the rate, quality, magnitude, and immediacy of reinforcement for the interfering
behavior, and
• Maximize the rate, quality, magnitude, and immediacy of reinforcement for the replacement
behavior.
For the student who engages in escape-­maintained aggression, this strategy could involve:
• Returning to the initial task as soon as feasible, expecting completion of the initial task before
moving forward in the activity schedule, and withholding access to preferred items/activities/
social interactions during the escape period; and
• Reinforcing a low-­effort communication response (e.g., touching a break card) with consistent,
immediate access to a break.

BEHAVIOR‑ANALYTIC PROBLEM SOLVING:

FUNCTION‑FOCUSED INTERVENTION

In Chapter 6, we presented the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results

recording form to synthesize FBA data and facilitate an understanding of the variables that
influence interfering behavior. By completing this form, an evaluator is effectively “diag-
nosing” the problem and delineating the multiple variables that need to be addressed to
arrive at a solution to the problem. At this point, we offer an additional tool—the Behavior-­
Analytic Problem Solving: Function-­Focused Intervention planning form—to translate the
analysis of the interfering behavior into an individually tailored behavior intervention plan.
This planning tool is displayed in Form 11.1 on page 211.

Using the Behavior‑Analytic Problem Solving:

Function‑Focused Intervention Planning Tool
You will notice that the format of the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Function-­Focused
Intervention planning tool generally mirrors the format of the Behavior-­Analytic Problem
 Function-­Based Interventions 201

TABLE 11.2. Function-Based Extinction Procedures

Reinforcing
consequence for Function-based
interfering behavior extinction procedure Clinical example Research example
Access to social Withhold social Adam emits silly noises to Fisher, DeLeon,
attention attention following get a reaction (a reprimand) Rodriguez-Catter, and
the interfering from his teacher, so the Keeney (2004) ignored
behavior. teacher stops responding occurrences of attention-
to silly behavior with maintained destructive
reprimands. behavior.

Access to tangibles/ Withhold access to Julia engages in Rispoli, Camargo,

activities tangibles/activities tantrums to get access Machalicek, Lang, and
following the to preferred toys, so Sigafooset (2014) withheld
interfering behavior. her paraprofessional access to preferred
discontinues the practice activities and routines
of giving toys to “calm her (e.g., lining up trains and
down” when she tantrums. repeatedly completing the
same puzzle) contingent
on interfering behaviors
maintained by access to
those routines.

Escape from tasks Do not terminate Mary engages in screaming Iwata, Pace, Kalsher,
the task following to escape task demands, Cowdery, and Cataldo
interfering behavior. so the teacher continues (1990) continued
delivering instruction using presenting tasks and
a least-to-most prompting used physical guidance
hierarchy when screaming to ensure task completion
occurs. contingent on escape-
maintained self-injury.

Escape from social Do not terminate Phil yells “Go away” when Harper, Iwata, and Camp
interactions social interactions teachers attempt to engage (2013) remained in close
following interfering him in conversation, so proximity and continued
behavior. teachers continue engaging to deliver prompts
with him when he yells. contingent on occurrences
of aggression maintained
by escape from social
interactions.

Automatic Block or mask Delia engages in skin Roscoe, Iwata, and Goh
reinforcement the sensory picking (on the arms) (1998) used gloves and/
consequences for maintained by automatic or protective sleeves to
interfering behavior. reinforcement, so her attenuate the sensory
parents send her to school consequences maintaining
wearing a long-sleeved self-injurious behaviors.
body suit that blocks the
sensory consequence.
202 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Solving: Assessment Results recording form. This tool is intended to be completed in col-
laboration with the student’s school-­based team, after reviewing FBA assessment results,
to generate strategies for addressing each of the individual and environmental variables
that contribute to the interfering behavior. In the following subsections of this chapter,
we review each component of the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Function-­Focused
Intervention planning form and provide examples of relevant intervention strategies. (Note:
The examples are for illustrative purposes only and do not reflect the comprehensive range
of evidence-­based intervention options that may be considered.)

Context
PROCESS

Given information about the contexts in which interfering behavior is most probable, iden-
tify strategies for modifying those contexts and/or the student’s participation in those con-
texts.

EXAMPLE

FBA results indicated that Mabel’s interfering behaviors were most probable during unstruc-
tured “downtime” in the classroom. To address this context variable, the team proposed (1)
reducing the number and duration of unstructured periods of time and (2) providing Mabel
with a menu of activity options from which to select during unstructured periods of time.

Personal Characteristics
PROCESS

Given information about personal characteristics that contribute to interfering behavior,

identify relevant strategies to address those characteristics.

EXAMPLE

FBA results indicated that Alberto, a student with ASD, maintains poor dental hygiene
and likely has untreated cavities. It was hypothesized that tooth pain evoked self-­injurious
behavior maintained by automatic negative reinforcement. The team therefore referred
Alberto to a pediatric dentist with experience serving children with ASD and added an
IEP goal to increase “compliance with dental hygiene routines” using desensitization and
reinforcement strategies.

Skill Delays/Deficits
PROCESS

Given information about skill delays/deficits that contribute to interfering behavior, identify
evidence-­based instructional strategies to mitigate weaknesses.
 Function-­Based Interventions 203

EXAMPLE

FBA results indicated that Tasha exhibited significant deficits in reading fluency, which
helped the team understand why she engaged in escape-­maintained behaviors in the con-
text of her regular education literacy class. The team then decided to refer Tasha to the
.

school’s reading specialist for intensive, individualized reading fluency intervention.

Motivational Triggers (MOs)

PROCESS

Given information about the motivational triggers for interfering behavior, identify strate-
gies to weaken (abolish) that motivation.

EXAMPLE

FBA results indicated that Mason’s argumentative behaviors were evoked by the presenta-
tion of academic tasks that required extensive writing (by hand). To reduce the aversive
nature of academic tasks that required writing and reduce the likelihood of argumentative
behaviors, the team provided Mason with access to a scribe and/or laptop as appropriate.

Sources of Reinforcement (SDs)

PROCESS

Given information about the stimuli that signal the availability of reinforcement for interfer-
ing behaviors, identify strategies to eliminate or modify these signals.

EXAMPLE

For Sandy, FBA results suggested that an open door to the principal’s office signaled the
availability of reinforcement (both social attention from the principal and access to her
candy bowl) and occasioned bolting behavior during transitions from the classroom to the
restroom. The team decided to ask Sandy’s one-on-one support staff to call the office and
request that they close the door to the principal’s office prior to each transition.

Behavior
PROCESS

Identify the target interfering behavior and a logical, socially appropriate replacement
behavior.

EXAMPLE

Jethro often bolted from the classroom to sit in the school lobby and watch visitors enter and
exit the building. Jethro communicated primarily using the Picture Exchange Communica-
204 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

tion System (PECS); therefore, the team decided to teach him to request access to the school
lobby by exchanging a picture symbol.

Reinforcing Consequences
PROCESS

Given information about the reinforcing consequences maintaining interfering behavior,

identify strategies for (1) minimizing reinforcement of the interfering behavior and (2) maxi-
mizing reinforcement of the appropriate replacement behavior.

EXAMPLE

FBA results indicated that Barbara emitted loud, oppositional vocalizations (e.g., screech-
ing, saying no, and swearing) to terminate intensive “table-time” instructional sessions. The
team decided to place interfering behavior on extinction by continuing to present instruc-
tional prompts every 15 seconds when oppositional vocalizations occurred. Additionally,
the team decided to teach Barbara to request a break from instructional sessions. Initially,
to make break requests more probable than oppositional vocalizations, the team selected
a low-­effort communication response (touching a break card) and immediately reinforced
every communication response with a 2-minute break on the beanbag. They also agreed to
monitor Barbara’s behavioral data on a daily basis to determine when it was appropriate to
fade the intervention by increasing the academic work expectations prior to honoring break
requests.

Don’t Fall into the Trap!

When school-­based teams are tasked with identifying solutions for behavioral “problems,” it is easy to
fall prey to the trap of focusing on reactive interventions by asking questions like “What should we do
when the interfering behavior occurs?” and “How should we respond?” Reactive interventions include
strategies that are implemented after an interfering behavior occurs to reduce the probability of recur-
rence. From our perspective, the reduction or elimination of interfering behaviors is necessary, but
hardly sufficient.
By conducting a comprehensive FBA and conceptualizing interfering behavior as the result of the
confluence of individual, antecedent, and consequence variables, it becomes clear that effective prob-
lem solving also requires asking these questions: “What should we do before an interfering behavior
occurs to prevent its occurrence?” and “What replacement behaviors should we teach and reinforce to
make interfering behavior less likely?”
Interventions that address only one variable that contributes to interfering behavior are incomplete
and unlikely to yield socially significant outcomes. Developing a behavior intervention plan that focuses
exclusively on antecedent, teaching, and/or reinforcement-­based procedures leaves teams without guid-
ance on how to respond effectively (by maintaining safety and minimizing reinforcement) when interfer-
ing behaviors occur. And developing a behavior intervention plan that focuses exclusively on reactive
procedures teaches a student what not to do, without teaching what to do. (Just imagine telling a
student not to make mistakes when performing subtraction problems without teaching the student how
to perform subtraction operations correctly!)
Maximally effective behavior intervention plans emphasize both (1) the acquisition and strengthen-
ing of socially appropriate skills and (2) the reduction of interfering behavior by addressing the compre-
hensive range of individual, antecedent, and consequence variables that contribute to the “problem.”
 Function-­Based Interventions 205

Perhaps You’re Wondering . . .

So, what about punishment? Punishment refers to events that follow occurrences of interfering behavior
and reduce the probability of its recurrence. Common punishment procedures used in schools include:
• Delivering reprimands/social disapproval (e.g., when a student hits, saying, “No thank you”).
• Positive practice (e.g., when a student runs in the hallway, requiring her to practice walking
appropriately in the hallway five times).
• Restitution (e.g., when a student scribbles graffiti on a desk, requiring her to clean all the desks
in the classroom).
• Time-out (e.g., when a student gets into an argument with a peer during a game of kickball,
requiring him to “take the bench” for 5 minutes).
• Response cost (e.g., when a student engages in disrespectful behavior toward a teacher, she
loses 5 minutes of recess).
Punishment procedures can be very effective and tend to promote rapid reductions in interfering
behavior. However, punishment procedures are also highly susceptible to overuse and misuse. Overuse
occurs because punishment often seems to work in the moment. For example, reprimands often imme-
diately interrupt the interfering behavior. Remember, though, consequences affect future behavior. If
a reprimand results in the immediate cessation of interfering behavior but yields no reductive effect
on interfering behavior in the future, then the reprimand did not function as a punisher! Misuse occurs
when school staff simply assume that a particular event will be an effective punisher for interfering
behavior. Loss of recess privileges seems pretty aversive, right? It seems logical to assume that a stu-
dent would be less likely to repeat a behavior that resulted in the loss of recess privileges . . . but that
is a dangerous assumption. What if a student absolutely dreads recess? What if the student repeatedly
experiences teasing at recess? For that student, recess may be an unpleasant part of the day that the
student is highly motivated to avoid. Taking away that student’s recess privileges contingent on interfer-
ing behavior may actually function as negative reinforcement, allowing the student to avoid aversive
social circumstances and thereby increasing the future probability of interfering behavior. For another
example of the misuse of punishment, see the box “A Word or Two about Time-Out.”
Given the potential benefits and risks of punishment, we advise school-­based practitioners to
follow the standards established by the BACB’s (2014) Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for
Behavior Analysts (Section 4.08), which require behavior analysts to:
• Recommend and implement reinforcement-­based procedures rather than punishment when-
ever possible;
• Use punishment only in conjunction with reinforcement-­based procedures to strengthen alter-
native behaviors; and
• Utilize punishment responsibly by (1) effectively training and supervising staff to implement
the procedures, (2) closely monitoring the effectiveness of the procedures, (3) modifying pro-
cedures that are ineffective, and (4) fading the use of the procedures as quickly as possible.

Case Example of Function‑Focused Planning

Figures 11.1 and 11.2 show completed versions of the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving:
Assessment Results recording form and the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Function-­
Focused Intervention planning tool, respectively, to illustrate the approach of translating
FBA data into an individually tailored, function-­focused behavior intervention plan. Fig-
ure 11.1 summarizes the results of an FBA conducted with Mitch, a 16-year-old who had
received multiple disciplinary referrals for oppositional and disruptive behaviors. Figure
11.2 presents the intervention recommendations that were generated by Mitch and his
school-­based team after a comprehensive review of the FBA results.
 206 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Personal Characteristics: Context: Skill Delays/Deficits:

Traits, sensitivities, beliefs, Probable contexts Communication, academic, executive, adaptive
and/or values contributing to in which interfering living, social, and/or self-management skill
interfering behavior behavior occurs delays/deficits contributing to interfering behavior

• History of social anxiety General education • Emotional regulation skill deficits

• Sensitivity to negative peer evaluation classes that require • Below-average academic performance in all
• Belief that males cannot show high levels of oral content areas
weakness participation

Motivational “Triggers” (Motivating Operations):

Deprivation of physical or social wants and needs, which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior
Presentation of aversive biological/medical conditions, emotional states, thoughts, academic tasks, or social situations,
which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior

• Direct instructions to respond orally to questions and/or participate in class discussions increase the value of escape
from the classroom and trigger interfering behaviors
• Unpleasant physiological arousal and worries about negative peer evaluation increase the value of arousal reduction
and trigger interfering behaviors

Sources of Reinforcement (Discriminative Stimuli):

Persons, items, or locations that signal the availability of reinforcing consequences (i.e., source of reinforcement),
thereby occasioning interfering behavior

• Classroom teacher with a history of sending students to the principal’s office for disruptive behavior
• Sight/proximity of the exit door in the classroom

Interfering Behavior(s):

• Vocal opposition: Vocally refusing to comply with a teacher directive by saying no, arguing, and/or swearing
• Leaving the area: Exiting the classroom without explicit teacher permission

Reinforcing Consequence(s): Parameters of Reinforcement:

Consequence(s) that strengthen the future probability Describe the power (robustness) of reinforcing consequences
of the interfering behavior
• Teacher sends student to the principal’s office after
Schedule:
• Escape from the classroom and associated expectations 30 seconds to 1 minute of intense swearing, and student
 Socially mediated negative reinforcement when directed escapes the classroom for about 15 minutes in a
Quality:
by the teacher to the principal’s office location where no peers are present to judge him
 Individually mediated negative reinforcement when • Student experiences immediate relief from negative
Magnitude:
independently leaving the area thoughts and emotions
• Arousal reduction Timing:
 Automatic negative reinforcement

FIGURE 11.1. Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results for Mitch. Used with per-
mission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.
 Function-­Based Interventions 207

Personal Characteristics: Context: Skill Delays/Deficits:

Identify strategies to address traits, Identify strategies for modifying Identify strategies to mitigate communication,
sensitivities, beliefs, and/or values contexts and/or participation in academic, executive, adaptive living, social,
contributing to interfering behavior contexts in which interfering and/or self-management skill delays/deficits
behavior occurs contributing to interfering behavior

Referral to school psychologist Present option for participating • Deliver specially designed instruction to address
for cognitive-behavioral therapy in core instruction in the academic skill deficits
to address social anxiety and high school resource classroom • Teach emotional regulation skills such as thought
related thoughts/emotions stopping/reframing, deep breathing, and muscle
relaxation

Motivational “Triggers” (Motivating Operations):

Identify strategies to weaken (abolish) motivation for interfering behaviors by preventing conditions of deprivation
and/or altering the environment to make motivational “triggers” less aversive

• Avoid directly and publicly prompting Mitch to participate orally; instead, collaborate with Mitch to identify an
unobtrusive gestural cue for teachers to deliver to prompt participation
• Provide options for alternative, nonvocal participation in class
• Schedule regular opportunities to take a break from class to engage in self-management strategies
(e.g., walk to the water fountain and back while practicing deep breathing)

Sources of Reinforcement (Discriminative Stimuli):

Identify strategies to modify or eliminate persons, items, and/or locations that signal the availability
of reinforcing consequences for interfering behaviors

• Pair teachers with positive reinforcement, while discontinuing the practice of sending Mitch to the principal’s
office for disruptive behavior
• Assign a seat away from the classroom exit

Interfering Behavior(s): Replacement Behavior(s):

Identify the behavior(s) that interfere Identify logical, socially appropriate
with functioning replacement behavior(s)

• Vocal opposition • Active class participation

• Leaving the area • Appropriate requests for a break/permission to leave
the classroom

Reinforcing Consequence(s): Reinforcing Consequence(s):

Identify strategies for minimizing reinforcement Identify strategies for maximizing reinforcement
of the interfering behavior of the replacement behavior

• Discontinue the practice of sending Mitch to the principal’s • Develop and implement a behavioral contract with Mitch to
office following interfering behavior establish goals for active class participation (including
reasonable nonvocal ways to participate) and reinforcement
options for meeting those goals
• Consistently and immediately honor all appropriate requests
to take a break or leave the classroom, and allow 5 minutes
per break
 Gradually fade over time

FIGURE 11.2. Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Function-­Focused Intervention planning tool

for Mitch. Used with permission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.
208 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

A Word or Two about Time-Out

(Or . . . Time to Set the Time-Out Record Straight)
Time-out is one of the most overused and misunderstood reactive procedures for addressing interfering
behaviors. Technically speaking, the term is “time-out from reinforcement.” Time-out from reinforce-
ment is a punishment procedure designed to reduce occurrences of interfering behavior. The procedure
involves removing a student’s access to positive reinforcers for brief periods of time, contingent on
occurrences of interfering behavior. This may be accomplished by briefly removing the student’s access
to preferred items, activities, and/or social interactions (inclusionary time-out) or by briefly removing the
student from a reinforcing environment (exclusionary time-out).
When implemented correctly and consistently, time-out from reinforcement is effective for reduc-
ing and eliminating interfering behaviors. However, when a student engages in interfering behavior
maintained by negative reinforcement (i.e., avoidance or escape from nonpreferred environments, activ-
ities, or social interactions), the use of time-out procedures is likely to strengthen (not weaken) occur-
rences of interfering behavior. In other words, depending on the function(s) of a student’s interfering
behavior, the use of time-out procedures may be contraindicated.
You may ask, “How can that be? Time-out is a form of punishment. How can punishment reinforce
behavior?” In behavior analysis, there’s an old saying that goes something like this: Time-out from rein-
forcement is effective only to the degree that the time-in environment is reinforcing. When the time-in
environment (e.g., the classroom setting) is not reinforcing and somewhat aversive, the use of time-out
is equivalent to providing escape from a non­preferred situation (Aah . . . relief!). In this situation, the
time-out procedures intended to punish interfering behavior may actually reinforce interfering behavior.
When we encounter misapplications of time-out like this, we generally use another old saying from the
behavior analysis archives that goes something like this: “Stop using time-out!”

SUMMARY

Years ago, Dan Reschly made a statement that went something like this: The only good
assessment is the one that results in effective intervention. This premise has been a driving
force throughout our professional careers. From our perspective, FBAs that result only in a
conceptualization of the “problem” are inadequate. Effective FBAs lead to the selection and
implementation of comprehensive, individually tailored behavior intervention plans that
include empirically validated strategies for (1) reducing occurrences of interfering behavior
and (2) increasing socially appropriate behavior.
In this chapter, we did not attempt to provide a comprehensive review of evidence-­
based behavioral intervention strategies. The broad topic of behavioral interventions is far
beyond the scope of a single chapter! Instead, our goal was to illustrate a conceptually
sound approach to developing comprehensive behavior intervention plans that are “func-
tion focused” and informed by FBA results. By developing intervention plans that explicitly
address each individual, antecedent, and consequence variable that contributes to occur-
rences of interfering behavior, you will be far more successful in achieving socially signifi-
cant outcomes for your students.
In conclusion, we advocate using only interventions that are both function based and
evidence based, and we leave you with a final reflection on our responsibility as interven-
tionists . . .
 Function-­Based Interventions 209

Trick or Treatment
Throughout this book we have emphasized that evaluators have a professional and ethical responsibility
to obtain informed consent prior to conducting an FBA. We also assert that practitioners have an equal
responsibility to obtain informed consent prior to implementing interventions.
In our years of providing school psychology services, we have found that our professional col-
leagues sometimes disregard science and insist on recommending and implementing interventions that
lack empirical evidence. We believe that school teams have a responsibility to be honest and transpar-
ent about the evidence base for recommended interventions and thoroughly explain the likelihood that
recommended interventions will yield positive outcomes for referred students. Following are (somewhat
tongue-­in-cheek) examples of the conversations practitioners may have with caregivers before imple-
menting interventions.

EVIDENCE-­BASED INTERVENTION

“Good morning. We have completed a comprehensive FBA, and based on the results of this assess-
ment, we recommend a strategy called functional communication training (FCT) to increase Michelle’s
communication skills and decrease occurrences of interfering behaviors. Hundreds of research studies
have demonstrated the effectiveness of FCT for similar students. Furthermore, during our FBA, we
conducted a brief treatment analysis to ‘test-drive’ this strategy with Michelle. We taught her to request
breaks or assistance from her teacher, honored these requests by giving her a 5-minute break or assis-
tance with the assigned task, and stopped providing breaks and assistance when she engaged in self-­
injurious behaviors. Results of this treatment analysis showed a significant reduction in self-­injury and
increases in on-task behavior when we taught Michelle an alternative way to communicate her needs.
We are confident that this will be an effective intervention, and we intend to (1) train her teachers to
follow the plan accurately and (2) collect progress-­monitoring data to ensure that she is responding
positively. Do you have any questions?”

NON-­EVIDENCE-­BASED INTERVENTION

“Good morning. I have not conducted an FBA. Based on my years of clinical experience with students
like Michelle, I recommend that we use dill pickle therapy (DPT)* to increase on-task behavior and
reduce self-­injurious behavior. Although there is no research evidence to support this approach, I am
really hoping that it will be helpful. I have not tried it out with Michelle, but I have seen it work with
other students and believe it will be beneficial. I must point out that there are evidence-­based strate-
gies we could try, and there is a possibility that DPT will make things worse for Michelle. Rest assured,
though, I will check in with Michelle regularly and give you my clinical opinion on how she is doing. I
hope you will trust my clinical insights and professional opinion. Do you have any questions?”

So, if Michelle was your child, would you go with FCT or DPT (the “trick” of the trade)?

From our perspective, the examples above illustrate the difference between ethically responsible
and reckless treatment.
• Ethically responsible treatment: Interventions are evidence based and function based, and
progress-­monitoring data are collected to ensure they are effective for the individual student.
• Reckless treatment: Interventions are developed and evaluated on the basis of (1) poorly
designed and executed research, (2) unproven theories, (3) supposition, (4) biased anecdotal
observations, (5) personal opinion, or (6) subjective testimonials.
*Although we used DPT as a humorous example, we have participated in far too many team meetings where practitioners have enthusiastically
and confidently recommended interventions that have not been empirically validated.
210 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

SOLUTIONS

1. Many resources exist to help you determine if a given intervention is evidence based. Share these
resources to prevent “trick treatments” from continuing to be perpetrated against vulnerable parents
and students.
• The National Standards Project (2015; www.nationalautismcenter.org/national-­standards-­
project) offers objective reviews of treatment research by an expert panel. Interventions are
rated as established (solid research support), promising (mixed or emerging research support),
unestablished (no solid research support), or harmful.
• The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC; https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/FWW) is a resource main-
tained by the Institute of Education Sciences (a branch of the U.S. Department of Education). It
offers reviews of existing research to inform decision making about evidence-­based practices in
schools.
2. When interventions with inadequate empirical support are recommended, remember our motto:
When in doubt . . . test it out! We advocate for conducting a quick treatment analysis to determine
whether a particular intervention will be effective for a particular student (see Chapter 12).
 FORM 11.1

Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:

Function-Focused Intervention
Name: Date:

Personal Characteristics: Context: Skill Delays/Deficits:

Identify strategies to address traits, Identify strategies for modifying Identify strategies to mitigate communication,
sensitivities, beliefs, and/or values contexts and/or participation in academic, executive, adaptive living, social,
contributing to interfering behavior contexts in which interfering and/or self-management skill delays/deficits
behavior occurs contributing to interfering behavior

Motivational “Triggers” (Motivating Operations):

Identify strategies to weaken (abolish) motivation for interfering behaviors by preventing conditions of deprivation
and/or altering the environment to make motivational “triggers” less aversive

Sources of Reinforcement (Discriminative Stimuli):

Identify strategies to modify or eliminate persons, items, and/or locations that signal the availability
of reinforcing consequences for interfering behaviors

Interfering Behavior(s): Replacement Behavior(s):

Identify the behavior(s) that interfere Identify logical, socially appropriate
with functioning replacement behavior(s)

Reinforcing Consequence(s): Reinforcing Consequence(s):

Identify strategies for minimizing reinforcement Identify strategies for maximizing reinforcement
of the interfering behavior of the replacement behavior

Used with permission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

211
 CHAPTER 12

Treatment Analysis

When we do not know, we guess. Science does not eliminate

guessing, but by narrowing the field of alternative courses of
action it helps us guess more effectively.
—B. F. Skinner (1953, p. 436)

Throughout this book, we have emphasized that we conduct FBAs both to identify the
variables that evoke and reinforce interfering behavior and to guide the development of
function-­based interventions. After collecting data using indirect, descriptive, and/or exper-
imental FBA procedures, we synthesize the assessment results using the BAPS form to cre-
ate a conceptual map of the complex interplay between students, their behavior, and their
environments. Equipped with this information, we are then prepared to link assessment
results to recommendations for evidence-­based and function-­based treatment options that
have a high probability of success. But how do we choose among so many potential treat-
ments? Well, we advocate for adding another component to the FBA process: a treatment
analysis.
Treatment analysis involves applying experimental methodologies to directly evaluate
the effectiveness of potential interventions for individual students. By adding a treatment
analysis to the FBA process we “walk the walk,” rather than simply “talk the talk.” In other
words, rather than simply saying, “This intervention has strong research support and will
likely benefit the student,” a treatment analysis allows us to say, “We have tested this inter-
vention with the student, and it effectively reduced occurrences of interfering behavior and
strengthened appropriate replacement behaviors.”
Several researchers have validated the application of brief experimental methodologies
to select effective interventions. For example, Daly, Martens, Hamler, Dool, and ­Eckert
(1999) conducted brief experimental analyses to evaluate the relative effects of varied
instructional procedures on students’ oral reading fluency before making treatment recom-
mendations, and Martens, Eckert, Bradley, and Ardoin (1999) conducted brief experimen-
tal analyses to select interventions for strengthening compliance for preschool students.

212
 Treatment Analysis 213

Brown-­Chidsey and Steege (2010) also illustrated a method of “test-­driving” interventions

within a response-­to-­intervention model of service delivery, and Pratt (2010) demonstrated
the benefits of extending the traditional FBA process to include a “test-­driving” treatment
analysis. In Pratt’s study, an FBA process involving interviews and brief functional analy-
ses led to hypotheses that two students’ interfering behaviors were maintained by nega-
tive reinforcement in the form of escape; however, subsequent treatment analyses showed
that FBA-­informed, function-­based interventions (i.e., FCT to request “breaks” and non-
contingent reinforcement in the form of breaks) led to positive outcomes for only one of
two student-­participants. The treatment analysis phase of the FBA therefore revealed the
need to explore intervention alternatives for one of the student-­participants. The implication
of this finding is significant; if the FBA process simply ended with recommendations for
function-­based treatments (as most FBA processes do!), significant resources may have been
invested in training staff to implement an ineffective intervention, and the student’s access
to an effective intervention may have been delayed.
In short, treatment analysis involves “test-­driving” interventions using experimental
methodologies, and we believe that direct assessment of students’ responsiveness to poten-
tial interventions is an invaluable (and efficient!) extension of the traditional FBA process.
Two primary approaches to treatment analysis—treatment effectiveness and treatment com-
parison methods—­are discussed and illustrated in the subsequent sections of this chapter.

Putting the RTI in FBA

Our recommendation for including a response-­to-­intervention (RTI) analysis within the FBA process is
driven by ethical and professional standards established by NASP and the BACB. Read on to see where
we’re coming from!

NASP Principles for Professional Ethics (2010d)

Principle II.2. Accepting Responsibility for Actions
School psychologists accept responsibility for their professional work, monitor the effectiveness of their
services, and work to correct ineffective recommendations.
Standard II.2.2. School psychologists actively monitor the impact of their recommendations and
intervention plans. They revise a recommendation, or modify or terminate an intervention plan,
when data indicate the desired outcomes are not being attained (pp. 6–7).

NASP Model for Comprehensive and Integrated School Psychological Services (2010a)
Data-Based Decision Making and Accountability
As part of a systematic and comprehensive process of effective decision making and problem solving
that permeates all aspects of service delivery, school psychologists demonstrate skills needed for psy-
chological and educational assessment, data collection strategies, and technology resources and apply
results to design, implement, and evaluate response to services and programs. Examples of profes-
sional practices associated with data-based decision making and accountability include the following:
• School psychologists use a problem-­solving framework as the basis for all professional activi-
ties.
• School psychologists collect and use assessment data to understand students’ problems and to
select and implement evidence-­based instructional and mental health services.
• School psychologists use valid and reliable assessment techniques to assess progress toward
214 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

academic and behavioral goals, to measure responses to interventions, and to revise interven-
tions as necessary.
• School psychologists assist with design and implementation of assessment procedures to
determine the degree to which recommended interventions have been implemented (i.e., treat-
ment fidelity).
• School psychologists use systematic and valid data collection procedures for evaluating the
effectiveness and/or need for modification of school-­based interventions and programs (p. 4).

BACB Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts (2014)
2.09. Treatment/Intervention Efficacy
a) Clients have a right to effective treatment (i.e., based on the research literature and adapted to the
individual client). Behavior analysts always have the obligation to advocate for and educate the cli-
ent about scientifically supported, most-­effective treatment procedures. Effective treatment proce-
dures have been validated as having both long-term and short-term benefits to clients and society.
b) Behavior analysts have the responsibility to advocate for the appropriate amount and level of service
provision and oversight required to meet the defined behavior-­change program goals.
c) In those instances where more than one scientifically supported treatment has been established,
additional factors may be considered in selecting interventions, including, but not limited to, effi-
ciency and cost effectiveness, risks and side effects of the interventions, client preference, and
practitioner experience and training.
d) Behavior analysts review and appraise any treatment effects of which they are aware that might
impact the goals of the behavior-­change program, and their possible impact on the behavior-­change
program, to the extent possible (pp. 8–9).

TAKE-HOME POINTS

• Both school psychologists and behavior analysts maintain a professional and ethical responsibility
to (a) recommend evidence-­based interventions informed by individualized assessment data and (b)
evaluate the effectiveness of recommended interventions for individual students.
• As professionals with expertise in behavior-­analytic problem solving, we believe it is our responsibility
not only to evaluate the effectiveness of our interventions, but also to objectively evaluate the effec-
tiveness of alternative interventions proposed by members of the school-­based team. To this end, we
advocate adopting a nonjudgmental, collaborative, and solution-­focused problem-­solving approach
that emphasizes the ultimate shared goal of providing effective services to students.

TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT

The treatment analysis approach that we like to call a treatment effectiveness assessment
involves directly evaluating the effectiveness of a specific intervention (or intervention
package) for a specific individual using an A-B single-­case experimental design. In other
words, this approach involves measuring and recording levels of target interfering and
replacement behaviors both before and after an intervention is introduced. Graphic dis-
plays of data are then inspected to determine if the intervention resulted in changes in
levels of target behaviors in the desired directions. A treatment effectiveness assessment is
essentially a quick and easy comparison between levels of target behaviors at baseline and
during treatment, and it directly and empirically answers the question: Is this intervention
effective for this student?
 Treatment Analysis 215

Case Example of Treatment Effectiveness Assessment

FBA results suggested that the off-task behavior exhibited by a student was maintained by
automatic positive reinforcement. The school psychologist was interested in recommending
a self-­management procedure to increase on-task behavior and thereby decrease off-task
behavior. Before including this recommendation in the FBA report, though, the school psy-
chologist decided to conduct a brief treatment effectiveness assessment.
To conduct this analysis, the school psychologist used a 6-second whole-­interval record-
ing procedure to measure levels of on-task behavior during 10-minute observation sessions
in the classroom. Baseline data were collected until consistent (stable) results emerged
(three sessions). Then the school psychologist taught the student a self-­management proce-
dure and prompted the student to practice the strategy during 10-minute treatment sessions
in the classroom. By the third treatment session, the student was consistently demonstrating
on-task behavior during more than 80% of the observation intervals. These results, shown in
Figure 12.1, suggest that the self-­management procedure was indeed effective for increas-
ing the student’s level of on-task behavior. The graph was included in the final FBA report
to support the school psychologist’s recommendation to implement a self-­management pro-
cedure, and the strength of the supporting evidence led the student’s team to embrace the
suggestion with enthusiasm!
Yes, this added time to the FBA process. Consider the complete picture, though. The
school psychologist conducted interviews and anecdotal observations (2 hours), a brief func-
tional analysis (2 hours), and a treatment effectiveness assessment (3 hours): a total of 7 hours
of direct assessment. Hmmm . . . how much time does it take to complete a traditional psy-
choeducational battery of diagnostic tests? How often are evaluation report recommenda-
tions viewed by teams as impractical or unlikely to be effective? And would you rather offer

100
Percentage of Intervals with On-Task Behavior

Baseline Intervention
90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Session

FIGURE 12.1. Treatment effectiveness assessment graph.

216 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

a prediction about the potential effectiveness of an intervention or provide a demonstration

of the effectiveness of an intervention?

TREATMENT COMPARISON ANALYSIS

Treatment comparison analyses involve examining the relative effectiveness of two or more
interventions for a specific individual using an alternating-­treatments single-­case experi-
mental design. In other words, this approach involves measuring and recording levels of
target behaviors under varied treatment conditions to answer the question: Which inter-
vention is most effective for this student? We have found this to be a particularly useful
approach when we are unsure about which function-­based intervention to recommend or
when team members disagree on the most appropriate intervention strategy.

Case Examples of Treatment Comparison Analyses

Example 1
FBA results suggested that a student engaged in yelling behavior when presented with dis-
crete trial instruction in order to escape from the task demands and error correction proce-
dures. Based on this functional hypothesis, the evaluator identified three potentially effec-
tive interventions: FCT (FCT-­Escape), choice of tasks (choice), and errorless instruction
(errorless). To aid decision making about which intervention to implement, the evaluator
conducted a treatment comparison analysis. First, the evaluator collected baseline data on
yelling and on-task behavior using 10-second interval recording procedures. These baseline
data were collected during 10-minute discrete trial sessions conducted “as usual.” Then the
evaluator collected data across a series of 10-minute treatment sessions. After training staff
to conduct discrete trial sessions while implementing the procedures for FCT, choice, and
errorless instruction interventions, the evaluator randomly selected one set of procedures
for implementation during each treatment session. Results from the treatment comparison
analysis (Figure 12.2) show that the errorless teaching procedure was the most effective
intervention for reducing levels of yelling and increasing levels of on-task behavior. Accord-
ingly, the evaluator included these data in the final FBA report and supported subsequent
treatment implementation.

Example 2
A school psychologist conducted an FBA of self-­injurious behavior and hypothesized that
the referred student engaged in this interfering behavior to escape and avoid academic
instruction (negative reinforcement). The school psychologist reviewed FBA results with the
student’s treatment team and facilitated a problem-­solving discussion to generate treatment
recommendations. The school psychologist proposed implementing an ABA intervention
package utilizing the high-­probability request sequence and differential reinforcement of
on-task behavior. Another member of the team, though, proposed a sensory integration pro-
cedure: using a weighted vest for 30 minutes before each instructional session. The school
 Treatment Analysis 217

psychologist voiced concerns about inadequate evidence for the use of weighted vests, but
the other team member remained convinced about the effectiveness of the approach and
reported that it has worked for many similar students. To resolve the disagreement and
identify the most effective intervention for the referred student, the school psychologist
decided to conduct a treatment comparison analysis. Results from the analysis (Figure 12.3)
provided convincing evidence for the effectiveness of the ABA intervention relative to base-
line and relative to treatment using the weighted vest; accordingly, the team agreed to
proceed with the ABA approach.

100 YELLING
Baseline Intervention
90
Percentage of Intervals with Yelling

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Session
Baseline FCT-Escape Choice Errorless

ON-TASK BEHAVIOR
100
Percentage of Intervals with On-Task Behavior

Baseline Intervention
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Session
Baseline FCT-Escape Choice Errorless

FIGURE 12.2. Treatment comparison analysis graphs: Yelling and on-task behavior.
 218 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

SELF-INJURY
100
Baseline Intervention
90
Percentage of Intervals with Self-Injury

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Session
Baseline ABA Sensory

ON-TASK BEHAVIOR
Percentage of Intervals with On-Task Behavior

100
Baseline Intervention
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Session
Baseline ABA Sensory

FIGURE 12.3. Treatment comparison analysis graphs: Self-­injury and on-task behavior.
 Treatment Analysis 219

SUMMARY

Treatment analysis is a method for “test-­driving” interventions to increase the likelihood

that FBA recommendations will lead to positive outcomes for a referred student. If an inter-
vention is not effective within the context of brief, controlled experimental sessions, then it
is very unlikely to be effective in the generalized school setting. Conversely, if an interven-
tion recommendation is validated by the results of a treatment analysis, then the probability
of effecting positive change for the student in the generalized school setting is high.
We know what many of you are thinking, though: “Holy mackerel! Is this approach
really practical in a school setting? I barely have time to conduct a traditional FBA, write
the report, and review the results with the IEP team! How could I possibly find the time to
conduct a treatment analysis?” Well, the answer, my friend, is blowing in the data . . . the
answer is blowing in the data (our apologies, Mr. Bob Dylan).
Most FBA methods are relatively efficient. We estimate that a comprehensive FBA
involving interviews, observations, and a brief functional analysis takes about 5–6 hours. In
our experience, a treatment analysis requires an additional 2–3 hours of assessment time.
This additional time requirement is not outside the norm for conducting a comprehensive
psychological evaluation. Moreover, this proactive investment of time may yield tremen-
dous long-term savings. Writing up treatment protocols and training staff to implement
procedures requires time and money: both scarce resources within school settings! We con-
sider it far more efficient and responsible to confirm the effectiveness of our recommended
interventions before allocating scarce resources to implementation and potentially delaying
students’ access to the effective interventions to which they are entitled. And, of course,
seeing is believing. Team members are more likely to buy in and follow through with an
intervention that has been demonstrated to be both feasible and effective!
 CHAPTER 13

Functional Behavioral Assessment

Report Templates and Examples

The chief virtue that language can have is clearness,

and nothing detracts from it so much as the use of
unfamiliar words.
—Hippocrates (c. 460–370 B.C.E.)

Evaluators have an ethical and legal obligation to document their FBA procedures and
outcomes. Yet, all too often, we hear complaints that evaluation reports are written in a lan-
guage that appears more like Greek than English. To facilitate a genuine understanding of
the variables that contribute to interfering behavior and set the stage for effective problem
solving, it is critical to present FBA results in a way that is intelligible to parents, teachers,
administrators, and other professionals. In our experience, the most accessible (and useful!)
FBA reports blend narrative explanations with graphs, tables, and other diagrams. Our
recommended report format provides a structure for organizing both narrative and visual
explanations of FBA procedures and results in a way that readers without advanced training
in education, psychology, or behavior analysis can understand.

THE FBA REPORT TEMPLATE

Form 13.1 presents a recommended report template that includes prompts in italics to offer
guidance on relevant information to incorporate in your report.* Additional guidelines for
completing each section of the report are offered below.

Identifying Information
Insert demographic information about the student, including name, date of birth, age,
grade, and school placement.
*A Word version of Form 13.1 is also available to purchasers of this book (see the box at the end of the table of con-
tents). This format will enable you to delete the prompts and fill in as much information as necessary.

220
 FBA Report Templates and Examples 221

Evaluation Dates
In addition to documenting the dates on which assessment procedures were completed
and the report was written, we recommend documenting the involvement of caregivers/
guardians in the process. Accordingly, this box prompts you to include the dates on which
informed consent was obtained and the written report was reviewed with the caregivers/
guardians.

Reason for Referral

At a minimum, insert the name of the student and source of the referral. You also may
expand on the specific interfering behaviors that led to the referral.

Purposes of the FBA

This section includes a suggested explanation of the purpose and conceptual foundations of
the FBA.

Description of Assessment Procedures

In this section, list and briefly describe all indirect, descriptive, and experimental assess-
ment procedures conducted, and identify who completed each procedure. For most FBAs,
procedures will minimally include record reviews, behavior-­ analytic interviews, and
behavior-­analytic observations. Experimental analyses, preference/reinforcer assessments,
and treatment analyses also are recommended. The key is to explain the rationale and meth-
ods for each procedure in a concise and understandable manner. For guidance on explain-
ing procedures, refer to the relevant chapters in this book: Chapter 7 (indirect assessment),
Chapter 8 (descriptive assessment), Chapter 9 (experimental analysis), Chapter 10 (prefer-
ence/reinforcer assessment), and Chapter 12 (treatment analysis).

Relevant Background Information

In this section, we recommend highlighting relevant information obtained during the indi-
rect FBA process. We typically summarize information about the student’s social, medical,
and educational history gleaned from record reviews and interviews. Remember to include
only information directly relevant to understanding the interfering behaviors that led to
referral.

Results: Identification and Description

of Interfering Behaviors
Insert operational definitions for interfering behaviors. Remember, operational definitions
are stated in clear, objective, and measurable terms. Identifying and describing interfering
behaviors at this stage of the report provides readers with a common understanding of the
“problem” to be solved.
222 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Results: Documentation of Current Levels of Interfering Behaviors

In this section, provide descriptive statistics (e.g., mean and range) to summarize cur-
rent levels of interfering behaviors and explain the behavior recording procedures used.
This helps readers understand the significance of the “problem” and establishes a baseline
against which the effectiveness of subsequent interventions can be evaluated.

Results: Graphic Display of Interfering Behaviors

In addition to descriptive statistics, we recommend using graphs to present current levels
of interfering behaviors. Graphs help readers visualize the variability in levels of interfering
behavior.

Results: Behavior‑Analytic Interviews

In this section, briefly summarize key information gathered during interviews. Include
information about the context, personal characteristics, skill delays/deficits, motivational
triggers, sources of reinforcement, and reinforcing consequences directly relevant to under-
standing target interfering behaviors. Remember that data gathered via indirect assess-
ments like interviews must be interpreted cautiously; indirect assessment is a process of
inquiry. Therefore, we recommend communicating the tentative nature of interview results
and emphasizing the use of descriptive and/or experimental procedures for clarification and
verification. We also recommend explaining that key results from interviews are reflected
in the attached Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results recording form.

Results: Behavior‑Analytic Observations

List each descriptive assessment procedure used (e.g., the IRP, IBFAF, and descriptive pref-
erence assessment). For each procedure, provide a brief rationale and explanation of results.
Include supplementary figures and graphs as appendices.

Results: Experimental Analyses

List each experimental assessment procedure used (e.g., functional analysis, structural anal-
ysis, and reinforcer analysis). For each procedure, provide a brief rationale and explanation
of results. Include supplementary figures and graphs as appendices. If experimental analy-
ses were not conducted, simply delete this box.

Synthesis of Results
This section provides an opportunity to synthesize results from indirect, descriptive, and/
or experimental FBA procedures and offer a comprehensive conceptualization of the
interfering behavior. Provide a brief narrative summary of FBA results by describing the
influence of context, personal characteristics, skill delays/deficits, MOs, SDs, reinforcing
consequences, and parameters of reinforcement on the interfering behavior. Include the
Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results form as an appendix.
 FBA Report Templates and Examples 223

Results: Behavior‑Analytic Treatment Assessments

This section is used to present information about the referred student’s “response to inter-
vention.” If applicable, list and describe treatment and/or reinforcer analyses that were con-
ducted. Provide a brief rationale and explanation of the results, and include supplementary
figures and graphs as appendices.

Summary
We recommend including a final summary with hypothesis statements about the function(s)
of target interfering behaviors. Hypothesis statements generally take this form: “In the con-
text of [insert context], when [insert motivational triggers], the student engages in [insert
interfering behaviors], to [avoid/escape/access . . . ]. This section also provides an opportu-
nity to (1) summarize individual variables that contribute to the occurrence of interfering
behavior and (2) highlight strategies determined to be effective for reducing occurrences of
interfering behavior and/or strengthening appropriate replacement behaviors.

Interpretive Session with Parent(s)/Guardian(s)

We have an ethical responsibility to review FBA results and recommendations with the stu-
dent’s caregivers. Therefore, we include a section in the report to identify when FBA results
were reviewed with the caregivers, who was present, and what was discussed.

Recommendations for the Team’s Consideration

The FBA report concludes with recommendations for evidence-­based and function-­based
interventions. We typically include recommendations for (1) antecedent interventions to
prevent occurrences of interfering behavior, (2) teaching and reinforcement-­based strate-
gies to strengthen socially appropriate behaviors, and (3) responsive strategies to minimize
reinforcement for interfering behaviors. However, we also emphasize that these are rec-
ommendations for consideration by the team, and we generally engage team members in
a collaborative problem-­solving process to translate FBA report recommendations into a
comprehensive, individually tailored, function-­focused behavior support plan.

SUMMARY

FBAs are not standardized. Assessment procedures are selected on the basis of the referral
question and shaped by the questions that arise during the FBA process. Accordingly, the
content of each FBA report will vary significantly. Our goal is to provide you with a flex-
ible template for documenting FBA results and recommendations in a written format that
is accessible to parents, teachers, and other professionals. This chapter concludes with two
sample FBA reports (Figures 13.1 and 13.2) to illustrate the use of this template. Please just
remember: There is no single best FBA report format!
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Report

Identifying Information

Student: Dylan Young

Date of Birth: 2/9/2006 Age: 11 years, 2 months Grade: 4
Home School/District: Fairchild Elementary School, Fairchild Public Schools

Evaluation Dates

Date of Informed Consent: 4/10/2017

Evaluation Dates: 4/10, 4/18, 4/20, 4/24, and 4/26/2017
Report Date: 5/1/2017
Date Report Provided and Reviewed with Parent(s)/Guardian(s): 5/3/2017

Reason for Referral

Dylan was referred for a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) of interfering behaviors* by his
IEP team at Fairchild Public Schools. The IEP team reported primary concerns with aggressive
behaviors, which have recently increased in frequency, duration, and intensity.

*Interfering behaviors: Behaviors that are disruptive to the learning of the student or others; behaviors that interfere with
the student’s progress or performance of skills.

Purposes of the Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

The FBA was conducted to answer two basic questions:

1. Why does Dylan engage in interfering behaviors?

2. What can we do to reduce interfering behaviors and increase appropriate behaviors?

Foundations of Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

1. Human behavior (both appropriate and interfering) is learned and can be changed.
2. No two individuals are the same. Each student’s learning history is unique.
3. Students with very similar interfering behaviors may have very different learning histories.
This means that their behaviors may have very different causes (i.e., functions). Treatment is
most effective when behavior support plans directly address the causes (i.e., functions) of
behavior.

FBA identifies and describes the relevant aspects of the student’s unique learning history. FBAs
investigate the following factors that contribute to interfering behavior: (a) context, (b) personal
characteristics, (c) skill delays/deficits, (d) motivational triggers, (e) sources of reinforcement of
interfering behavior, and (f) history of reinforcement of interfering behavior.

Information collected during the FBA is used to design individually tailored and evidence-based
interventions that directly address the variables that contribute to interfering behavior.

FIGURE 13.1. Functional Behavioral Assessment Report for Dylan Young.

224
 Description of Assessment Procedures
Record Review
A review of Dylan’s cumulative educational records was completed by Dr. Keith, the school
psychologist, to gather background information about Dylan’s strengths, needs, and history of
services.

Behavior-Analytic Interviews
The Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview was conducted by Dr. Keith with Mr. Wild,
Dylan’s special education teacher, serving as the informant. This interview was completed to (a)
identify and describe the interfering behavior that led to referral and (b) identify and describe the
variables that contribute to occurrences of interfering behavior.

Behavioral Stream Interviews were conducted with two paraprofessionals, Mrs. Sanstrong and Mr.
Labeouf, who work in Dylan’s special education classroom. These interviews involved discussions of
specific behavioral incidents and focused on identifying the events that occurred prior to and
following interfering behavior.

Behavior-Analytic Observations in the Learning Environment

The Interval Recording Procedure (IRP) was used by Dylan’s school staff to document “real-time”
occurrences of interfering behavior and associated variables every 15 minutes throughout the entire
school day. The IRP included a definition and measurement procedure for Dylan’s interfering
behavior. School staff used the IRP to measure current levels of interfering behavior and to
document the following associated variables: (a) when (i.e., time of day), (b) where (i.e., setting), (c)
what (i.e., tasks/activities), and (d) who (i.e., staff person present).

Incident-Based Functional Assessment forms were completed by Dr. Keith to document specific
interfering behaviors and relevant contributing variables observed during behavioral incidents. During
naturally occurring situations across the school day, Dr. Keith observed and recorded interfering
behaviors, relevant events that occurred prior to the interfering behavior (antecedents), and relevant
events that occurred after the interfering behavior (consequences).

Preference Assessments were conducted by Dr. Keith. Preference assessments consisted of (a)
interviews with school staff and Dylan and (b) observations of Dylan interacting with a variety of
leisure items and activities. High-preference items and activities were documented to identify
potential reinforcers (rewards) for inclusion in Dylan’s behavior support plan.

Behavior-Analytic Treatment Assessments

A Treatment Analysis was conducted by Dr. Keith to determine the relative effectiveness of two
proposed interventions for reducing interfering behavior (aggression). The treatment analysis
involved “test-driving” two proposed interventions during direct academic instruction to determine
which strategy was most effective for Dylan.

Relevant Background Information

Dylan is a fourth-grade student at Fairchild Elementary School. He lives with his parents (Erick and
Ginger) and older brother (Jack) in Fairchild, Maine.

Dylan’s IEP specifies that he is a student with an emotional/behavioral disorder. He is enrolled in

a self-contained special education classroom and receives a full range of academic and social skills
instruction from educational staff and a school psychologist.

A psychological evaluation completed in January 2017 included results from the Behavior
Assessment System for Children and Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Scores suggested that

FIGURE 13.1. (continued)

225
Dylan displays clinically significant problems with hyperactivity, aggression, social skills, and
functional communication compared to other children his age.

Results: Identification and Description of Interfering Behavior(s)

Behavior Definition
Aggression Pushing staff or peers away, striking staff or peers hard with
fist or palm

Results: Documentation of Current Levels of Interfering Behavior*

Occurrence
Behavior Measurement Procedure April 2017
Aggression Document the occurrence or Daily Average: Aggression
nonoccurrence of aggression occurred, on average, during 35%
during each 15-minute interval of intervals per school day
throughout the entire school day
Monthly Range: Aggression
occurred during 5–64% of intervals
per school day during the month of
April
*Data obtained from daily data collection using the IRP.

Results: Graphic Display of Interfering Behaviors

Percent of Intervals

Results: Behavior-Analytic Interviews

Interviews conducted with Dylan’s special education teacher suggested that the following variables
may contribute to occurrences of aggression:

Context: Aggression occurs across multiple school contexts and is most likely during nonpreferred
academic activities (e.g., direct instruction) and transitions away from highly preferred activities.

FIGURE 13.1. (continued)

226
Personal Characteristics and Skill Delays/Deficits: Dylan enjoys interacting with staff, but he is
also “impulsive” and has difficulty waiting for things he wants. He presents with delays in academic
and functional communication skills (e.g., making appropriate requests), which make instructional
contexts challenging. He also tends to be “rigid” and has trouble regulating his behavior when he
encounters disappointments or challenges.

Motivational Triggers and Sources of Reinforcement: Aggression appears to be triggered by the

presentation of difficult academic tasks and situations when Dylan does not get immediate access to
the people, items, or activities that he wants. When the people or things he wants are within
sight/reach, aggression is most likely to occur.

Reinforcing Consequences: Staff responses to aggression are variable. Staff try to minimize
attention for interfering behavior and keep their expectations consistent; however, for safety reasons
they sometimes need to back down.

Key interview findings are included in the synthesis of FBA results (see below) and were used to
guide the design of observation and treatment assessments.

Results: Behavior-Analytic Observations

Observations of Interfering Behavior

Appendix A shows the results from observations completed using the Incident-Based Functional
Assessment Form. These examples illustrate the relationships among Dylan’s interfering behavior
and relevant antecedents (events that occur before aggression) and reinforcing consequences
(events that directly follow aggression).

The first three observations suggested that aggression was triggered by situations in which Dylan’s
access to preferred items, activities, or social interactions was restricted. For example, aggression
was observed to occur when preferred food items were not available, instructions to transition away
from a preferred activity were delivered, and teacher attention was not available. In each of these
situations, Dylan’s aggressive behavior resulted in access to what he wanted.

The fourth observation suggested that the presentation of a math assignment triggered aggression.
This incident was followed by a break from instruction until Dylan deescalated.

It also is important to note that there were many situations in which interfering behaviors did not
occur. For example, Dylan was observed participating in interactive class assignments, “morning
meeting,” and preferred break/snack activities with no or very minimal occurrences of interfering
behaviors.

Observations of Preference

Preference assessments indicated that Dylan shows a preference for the following: social
interactions with staff, outdoor play activities, breakfast foods (e.g., fiber bars, yogurt, applesauce,
cereal), videos, books, and board games. These items and activities may be effective rewards
(reinforcers) for appropriate behavior.

Synthesis of Results
Appendix B shows the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results form. This is a
synthesis of results from behavior-analytic interviews and observations and illustrates the dynamic
interaction among variables that contribute to Dylan’s interfering behavior.

FIGURE 13.1. (continued)

227
Moving from the top to bottom of the BAPS results form, incidents of aggression are most likely to
occur in situations when Dylan (a) transitions away from preferred activities, (b) lacks access to
preferred food items, activities, or social attention, or (c) receives direct instruction. Dylan’s personal
characteristics of impulsivity, inflexibility, and “needing to have it now” may contribute to aggression
by making those situations particularly difficult. Delays/deficits in communication (making requests)
and in academic and executive skills (e.g., response inhibition, flexibility, and emotional control) also
may contribute to aggression. These skills are critical for successfully navigating the school situations
in which Dylan is most likely to engage in aggression. Specific motivational triggers that make
aggression more likely to occur in the moment include restricted access to/deprivation of preferred
items, activities, and social attention as well as the presentation of difficult academic work (e.g.,
math). The presence of staff members who historically have provided reinforcement for aggression
and cues that signal the availability of preferred items or activities also make aggression more
probable in the moment. Finally, the events that follow occurrences of aggression and increase the
likelihood of its future occurrence (i.e., reinforcing consequences) vary. When Dylan’s access to
preferred items, activities, or social interactions is restricted or limited (deprivation), aggression
sometimes “works” by gaining Dylan access to those preferred events. When Dylan is expected to
complete difficult academic work during direct instruction, aggression sometimes “works” to escape
the task. These reinforcing consequences are relatively immediate and high quality.

Results: Behavior-Analytic Treatment Assessments

Appendix C shows the results from the treatment analysis. In consultation with Dylan’s parents and
school staff, direct academic instruction was chosen as the most socially important context for
beginning treatment. Therefore, the treatment analysis was conducted to determine which of two
evidence-based treatments would be most effective for reducing aggression reinforced by escape
from academic instruction. The treatments tested included:
• Functional Communication Training (FCT): Teaching Dylan to request breaks from instruction
as a replacement for aggression and permitting breaks only following appropriate requests.
• Scheduled Breaks: Scheduling brief (2-minute) breaks every 10 minutes during instruction to
reduce the motivation to engage in aggression to escape.

The results presented in the treatment analysis graph indicate that both treatments resulted in
decreases in aggression. However, FCT was more effective than scheduled breaks for reducing
aggression.

Summary
FBA results led to the following “hypotheses” about the functions or causes of Dylan’s aggressive
behavior:

• Across multiple school contexts, when access to preferred items, activities, or forms of social
attention is restricted, Dylan engages in aggressive behaviors to gain access to those items,
activities, or forms of social attention (positive reinforcement).
• In the context of academic instruction, when presented with challenging or nonpreferred
tasks, Dylan engages in aggressive behaviors to escape from task expectations (negative
reinforcement).

Teaching Dylan appropriate ways to request preferred items/activities and breaks from nonpreferred
tasks may be an effective strategy to replace aggression with a socially appropriate behavior.
Remediating academic and executive skill deficits (e.g., weaknesses in response inhibition, flexibility,
and emotional control) also may help Dylan respond more effectively in situations currently
associated with high levels of aggression.

FIGURE 13.1. (continued)

228
 Interpretive Session with Parent(s)/Guardian(s)
On May 3, Dr. Keith met with Erick and Ginger, Dylan’s parents, to review the results of the FBA.
Assessment procedures and outcomes were discussed and function-based behavior support
recommendations were reviewed.

Recommendations for the Team’s Consideration

1. A collaborative problem-solving process involving team members in the design of an individually
tailored Behavior Support Plan is recommended. The use of the Behavior-Analytic Problem
Solving: Function-Focused Intervention form is recommended as a tool to develop function-
based strategies based on Dylan’s individualized FBA results.

2. It is recommended that Dylan’s Behavior Support Plan include strategies for

addressing/minimizing those variables that contribute to aggression and strategies for increasing
appropriate replacement behaviors. Comprehensive Behavior Support Plans include (a) proactive
strategies to minimize the likelihood of interfering behaviors, (b) teaching and reinforcement-
based procedures to remediate skill deficits and strengthen appropriate behaviors, and (c)
responsive strategies to ensure safety while minimizing reinforcement of interfering behaviors.
Given Dylan’s FBA results, specific Behavior Support Plan strategies for consideration include the
following:
a. Schedule regular opportunities for Dylan to access preferred items, activities, and social
attention to prevent “deprivation” and the motivation to engage in aggression.
b. Use FCT to increase appropriate requesting skills as a replacement for aggression. In
addition to teaching and reinforcing requests for breaks, it may be beneficial to teach and
reinforce requests for preferred items, activities, and attention. This strategy is likely to
support reductions in aggression and increases in socially appropriate behavior.
c. Implement specific programming to teach Dylan the self-management skills needed to
tolerate waiting or accepting no when preferred items, activities, and persons are not
immediately available.
d. When aggression occurs, withhold the relevant reinforcing consequences (i.e., access to
preferred items/activities/attention or escape from task) and, instead, prompt an
appropriate communication response or self-management skill.

3. Ongoing behavioral consultation by a professional with experience and training in applied

behavior analysis is recommended to support the design, implementation, and evaluation of an
individually tailored Behavior Support Plan. Use of a behavioral skills training model of
consultation also is recommended to increase the likelihood that interventions will be
implemented accurately.

Mark W. Keith, PhD

Psychologist

Name

Board Certified Behavior Analyst—Doctoral

Nationally Certified School Psychologist

Credentials

FIGURE 13.1. (continued)

229
 APPENDIX A. BEHAVIOR-ANALYTIC OBSERVATIONS USING THE INCIDENT-BASED
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM

The following analyses are based on direct observations, conducted by Dr. Keith, of behavioral
incidents within the natural learning environment. Each analysis illustrates the complex array of
variables that trigger and maintain interfering behaviors.

Example 1. Aggression reinforced by access to tangibles (positive reinforcement)

Context
Lunch: Nonpreferred food served

↓
Motivating Operations
Unavailability/deprivation of preferred food items and “unrequited mands”
(i.e., requests for preferred foods not immediately granted)

↓
Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behavior Reinforcing Consequence
Peers with preferred food items Aggression Positive Reinforcement: Access
who previously have given Dylan (toward peers) to preferred food items following
what he wants following aggression aggression

Example 2. Aggression reinforced by access to activities (positive reinforcement)

Context
Reading with a staff member
(preferred activity)

↓
Motivating Operations
Withdrawing/ending a preferred activity (i.e., interactive reading)

↓
Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behavior Reinforcing Consequence
Preferred reading materials and Aggression Positive Reinforcement: Access
staff who have previously provided (toward staff) to preferred activities following
access to preferred activities aggression
following aggression

FIGURE 13.1. (continued)

230
 Example 3. Aggression reinforced by access to social attention (positive reinforcement)

Context
Silent reading time

↓
Motivating Operations
Low/diverted attention; staff nearby, but not interacting directly
with Dylan

↓
Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behavior Reinforcing Consequence
Staff person who previously Aggression Positive Reinforcement: Access
provided social attention following (toward staff) to teacher attention and social
aggressive behaviors interaction following aggression

Example 4. Aggression reinforced by escape from instruction (negative reinforcement)

Context
Classroom: Math instruction

↓
Motivating Operations
Presentation of a challenging and nonpreferred academic task
(math word problems)

↓
Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behavior Reinforcing Consequence
Staff person who previously Aggression Negative Reinforcement: Escape
stopped instruction following (toward staff) from challenging/nonpreferred tasks
aggressive behaviors

FIGURE 13.1. (continued)

231
 APPENDIX B. BEHAVIOR-ANALYTIC PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL: ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Personal Characteristics: Context: Skill Delays/Deficits:

Traits, sensitivities, beliefs, Probable contexts Communication, academic, executive, adaptive
and/or values contributing to in which interfering living, social, and/or self-management skill
interfering behavior behavior occurs delays/deficits contributing to interfering behavior

• Impulsive • Direct academic Delays in functional communication (requesting),

• Rigid/inflexible instruction academic, and executive skills (e.g., response
• “When he wants something, • Transitions from preferred inhibition, flexibility, and emotional control)
he wants it now” activities
• Any context where
preferred items/activities/
attention are restricted

Motivational “Triggers” (Motivating Operations):

Deprivation of physical or social wants and needs, which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior
Presentation of aversive biological/medical conditions, emotional states, thoughts, academic tasks, or social situations,
which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior

• Expectations to end/transition away from preferred activities

• Unrequited mands (i.e., requests for items, activities, or persons are not honored immediately)
• Presentation of difficult or nonpreferred tasks

Sources of Reinforcement (Discriminative Stimuli):

Persons, items, or locations that signal the availability of reinforcing consequences (i.e., source of reinforcement),
thereby occasioning interfering behavior

• Availability of preferred/reinforcing items, activities, or persons

• Persons who are associated with reinforcement (i.e., have a history of providing positive or negative reinforcement)

Interfering Behavior(s):

Aggression
• Pushing staff or peers away
• Striking staff or peers hard with fist or palm

Reinforcing Consequence(s): Parameters of Reinforcement:

Consequence(s) that strengthen the future probability Describe the power (robustness) of reinforcing consequences
of the interfering behavior
Aggression intermittently results in immediate, high-quality
• Positive Reinforcement: Access to preferred items, activities, reinforcing consequences for variable durations of time
or social attention (i.e., 30 seconds to 5 minutes of access to attention/activities
• Negative Reinforcement: Escape from nonpreferred or and 5- to 10-minute breaks)
difficult tasks

FIGURE 13.1. (continued)

232
 APPENDIX C. TREATMENT ANALYSIS GRAPH

Percentage of Aggression

FIGURE 13.1. (continued)

233
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Report

Identifying Information

Student: Deanna Skinner

Date of Birth: 2/3/2010 Age: 7 years, 7 months Grade: 2
Home School/District: Salmon Elementary School, Sebago Lake School District

Evaluation Dates

Date of Informed Consent: 9/20/2017

Evaluation Dates: 9/29, 10/15, 10/24, 11/3, and 11/6/2017
Report Date: 11/1/2017
Date Report Provided and Reviewed with Parent(s)/Guardian(s): 11/2/2017

Reason for Referral

Deanna was referred for a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) of interfering behaviors* by
the assessment team at Sebago Lake School District. The assessment team reported concerns with
property destruction.
*Interfering behaviors: Behaviors that are disruptive to the learning of the student or others; behaviors that interfere with
the student’s progress or performance of skills.

Purposes of the Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

The FBA was conducted to answer two basic questions:

1. Why does Deanna engage in interfering behaviors?

2. What can we do to reduce interfering behaviors and increase appropriate behaviors?

Foundations of Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

1. Human behavior (both appropriate and interfering) is learned and can be changed.
2. No two individuals are the same. Each student’s learning history is unique.
3. Students with very similar interfering behaviors may have very different learning histories.
This means that their behaviors may have very different causes (i.e., functions). Treatment is
most effective when behavior support plans directly address the causes (i.e., functions) of
behavior.

FBA identifies and describes the relevant aspects of the student’s unique learning history. FBAs
investigate the following factors that contribute to interfering behavior: (a) context, (b) personal
characteristics, (c) skill delays/deficits, (d) motivational triggers, (e) sources of reinforcement of
interfering behavior, and (f) history of reinforcement of interfering behavior.

Information collected during the FBA is used to design individually tailored and evidence-based
interventions that directly address the variables that contribute to interfering behavior.

FIGURE 13.2. Functional Behavioral Assessment Report for Deanna Skinner.

234
 Description of Assessment Procedures
Record Review
A review of Deanna’s cumulative educational records was completed by Dr. Riley, the school
psychologist, to gather background information about Deanna’s strengths, needs, and history of
services.

Behavior-Analytic Interviews
Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interviews were conducted by Dr. Riley with Ms. Valdez, the
special education teacher, and Mr. Kleen, Deanna’s one-on-one aide, serving as informants. These
interviews were completed to (a) identify and describe the interfering behavior (property destruction)
that led to referral and (b) identify and describe the variables that contribute to occurrences of
interfering behavior.

Behavior-Analytic Observations in the Learning Environment

Duration Recording procedures were completed by Mr. Kleen to measure current levels of
interfering behavior displayed by Deanna. Mr. Kleen used a timer to measure the amount of time
each episode of property destruction lasted. At the end of each school day, he reported the total time
and percentage of the day that Deanna engaged in property destruction.

Incident-Based Functional Assessment forms were completed by Dr. Riley to document relevant
variables observed during incidents of property destruction. During naturally occurring situations
across the school day, Dr. Riley observed and recorded episodes of property destruction, relevant
events that occurred prior to property destruction (antecedents), and relevant events that occurred
after property destruction (consequences).

Preference Assessments were conducted by Dr. Riley. Preference assessments consisted of (a)
observing and recording the amount of time Deanna spent participating in various activities during
“free time” and (b) presenting Deanna with a choice among various play items and edibles and rank-
ordering her choices. Assessments were designed to identify highly preferred activities, play items,
and edibles that might be effective reinforcers (rewards) for appropriate behaviors.

Experimental Analyses
A Functional Analysis was conducted by Dr. Riley to clarify the results of behavior-analytic
interviews and observations. During the functional analysis, structured assessment sessions were set
up to simulate a variety of natural situations. These assessment sessions included the following
conditions:
• Free Play: Dr. Riley interacted continuously with Deanna while she played with preferred toys.
Dr. Riley provided no response to property destruction.
• Escape: Dr. Riley presented Deanna with typical academic and functional tasks and used
least-to-most prompting procedures (verbal-gestural-physical) as described in her current
IEP. Whenever property destruction occurred, Dr. Riley removed academic materials and
paused instruction for 30 seconds.
• Attention: Dr. Riley completed paperwork while Deanna participated in a moderately preferred
activity (i.e., playing with Play-Doh). Dr. Riley did not interact with Deanna unless property
destruction occurred. Whenever property destruction occurred, Dr. Riley looked up from her
paperwork and corrected Deanna’s behavior by saying, “Deanna, please stop. Remember to
keep safe hands and a safe body.”
• Alone: Deanna stayed in the quiet room where she typically takes breaks when
“overstimulated.” The quiet room was empty except for a beanbag and some posters
illustrating coping skill strategies. Dr. Riley remained outside the door to keep eyes on
Deanna but did not interact with her or provide any response to property destruction.

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

235
Each assessment session lasted 10 minutes, and two sessions of each condition (free play, escape,
attention, and alone) were conducted. A school psychology intern, Bethany Lerner, was present
during the assessment to observe and record occurrences of property destruction. Ms. Lerner used a
6-second partial-interval recording procedure to record property destruction (i.e., every 6 seconds,
she documented whether or not property destruction occurred). The goal was to determine which
events evoke (trigger) and reinforce (strengthen) Deanna’s interfering behavior.

A Structural Analysis also was conducted by Dr. Riley to determine whether specific types of
instructional prompts influenced the likelihood of property destruction. This analysis involved
presenting Deanna with functional life skill tasks (from her IEP) for 10-minute sessions and recording
the percentage of time she engaged in property destruction under two conditions: (a) instruction
using only gestural and physical prompts and (b) instruction using gestural and physical prompts
combined with verbal cues.

Behavior-Analytic Treatment Assessments

A Reinforcer Assessment was conducted by Dr. Riley to determine if the two most highly preferred
items identified during the preference assessment would be effective reinforcers (i.e., strengthen
appropriate behaviors). The reinforcer assessment consisted of asking Deanna to count objects for 1
minute (an IEP goal). An initial baseline phase (three 1-minute sessions) was carried out to
determine how many items she counted when receiving only praise (after every second item
counted). During the assessment phase (eight 1-minute sessions), Dr. Riley presented praise and a
preferred edible after every second item Deanna counted. The type of edible presented was
alternated each session.

A Treatment Analysis was conducted by Dr. Riley to “test-drive” a proposed intervention based on
FBA results. This analysis involved implementing a function-based intervention to determine whether
it was effective in reducing levels of property destruction.

Relevant Background Information

Deanna lives with her parents (Fred and Wilma Skinner) and two younger siblings on Sebago Lake
Island.

Deanna is identified as a student with autism and has received special education services since
kindergarten. She participates in the life skills program at Salmon Elementary School with supported
inclusion in the general education classroom for approximately 50% of the day. She receives the
following special education and related services: (a) specially designed instruction, (b) direct social
skills instruction and behavioral consultation from the school psychologist, (c) direct speech and
language services, and (d) occupational therapy consultation. She also receives one-on-one support
from a paraprofessional at all times. Deanna’s IEP indicates that she performs at the prekindergarten
level in all academic areas, communicates using a combination of speech (one- to three-word
phrases) and the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS), and requires assistance to
perform self-care tasks (e.g., toileting and hygiene routines).

A psychological evaluation was conducted by Dr. Riley, the school psychologist, in April 2017. Dr.
Riley reported that “compared to other children her age, Deanna evidences clinically significant
externalizing behaviors (e.g., hyperactivity and destructive behavior), significant delays across all
adaptive domains (e.g., communication, social, self-care, and fine and gross motor), and
characteristics of autism spectrum disorder (e.g., poor eye contact, impaired social relationships,
stereotypy, and restricted interests).” Dr. Riley also reported that Deanna has been diagnosed with
seizure disorder and experiences sleep difficulties.

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

236
During an IEP meeting on September 12, 2017, team members expressed concerns about recent
increases in Deanna’s destructive behaviors, which interfere with her availability for instruction and
participation in the general education setting.

Results: Identification and Description of Interfering Behavior(s)

Behavior Definition

Property Destruction Throwing items, swiping materials off tables, and/or ripping
classroom materials

Results: Documentation of Current Levels of Interfering Behavior*

Occurrence
Behavior Measurement Procedure September/October 2017
Property Destruction Duration Recording: Use a timer Daily Average: 51 total minutes per
to record the amount of time school day (14% of school day)
each episode of property
destruction lasts Daily Range: 10–175 minutes per
school day (3 to 48% of school
day)
*Data obtained from daily data collection using duration recording.

Results: Graphic Display of Interfering Behaviors

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

237
 Results: Behavior-Analytic Interviews
Interviews conducted with Deanna’s special education teacher and one-on-one aide provided the
following information about variables that may contribute to occurrences of property destruction:

Context: Property destruction occurs across multiple school settings (e.g., the special education
classroom, general education classroom, and quiet room), particularly during one-on-one academic
and functional life skill instruction.

Personal Characteristics and Skill Delays/Deficits: Deanna is “reactive” to verbal cues to perform
tasks. Her sleep is sometimes disrupted by seizure activity. She displays weaknesses in
communication, academic, and self-care skills.

Motivational Triggers and Sources of Reinforcement: The presentation of difficult academic and
functional living activities (e.g., number/letter identification, receptive and expressive language tasks,
sorting, handwashing, and toileting) seems to trigger property destruction. However, Deanna’s
behavior also is reported to be “unpredictable” and sometimes occurs without a clear trigger.

Reinforcing Consequences: Staff respond to property destruction by reminding Deanna about “safe
hands” and a “safe body.” They wait for her to calm and then resume the ongoing activity. If she does
not calm within 5–15 minutes, they instruct her to take a break in the “quiet room” to deescalate.

Key interview findings are included in the “Synthesis of Results” section of this report and were used
to guide the development of subsequent assessment procedures.

Results: Behavior-Analytic Observations

Observations of Interfering Behavior
Appendix A shows the results from observations completed using the Incident-Based Functional
Assessment form. These examples illustrate the relationships among Deanna’s interfering behavior
and relevant antecedents (events that occur before property destruction) and reinforcing
consequences (events that directly follow property destruction).

Two incidents of property destruction were observed. Both episodes occurred in the context of
academic or functional life skills instruction delivered by the one-on-one aide and were preceded by
the aide’s use of verbal and physical prompting to complete a task. Property destruction resulted in a
temporary pause in instruction and subsequent assistance with the task.

Observations of Preference
Preference Assessments indicated activity preferences for running, looking at pictures of puppies,
and watching videos of puppies. Two edibles (fish crackers and grape juice) also appeared to be
highly preferred.

Results: Experimental Analyses

Appendix B shows the results of the Functional Analysis, which compared levels of property
destruction across four different conditions: alone, free play, escape, and attention (see Descriptions
of Assessment Procedures). The graph shows that levels of property destruction were notably
elevated in situations when Deanna was presented with typical instructional tasks and occurrences of
property destruction resulted in a brief pause in instruction. These results indicate that Deanna’s
interfering behavior is triggered (evoked) by the presentation of instructional demands and reinforced
by escape (negative reinforcement).

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

238
Appendix C shows the results of the Structural Analysis, which compared levels of property
destruction during self-care instruction (i.e., toileting and handwashing) delivered in two different
ways: (a) using only gestural and physical prompts and (b) using gestural and physical prompts
combined with verbal prompts. The graph shows that levels of property destruction were notably
higher when instruction was delivered with verbal prompts. These results suggest that
difficult/nonpreferred tasks are more likely to trigger (evoke) interfering behavior when verbal
prompting procedures are used.

Synthesis of Results

Appendix D shows the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results form. This is a
synthesis of results from behavior-analytic interviews, observations, and experimental analyses and
illustrates the dynamic interaction of variables that contribute to Deanna’s interfering behavior.

Moving from the top to bottom of the BAPS results form, property destruction is most likely to occur
during one-on-one academic instruction and self-care routines. Deanna’s sleep difficulties
(associated with seizure disorder), sensitivity to verbal cues, and global skill delays (e.g., functional
communication, receptive language, academic, and self-care skills) may contribute to interfering
behavior by making academic instructional sessions and self-care routines particularly aversive.
Motivational triggers that make property destruction likely to occur in the moment include the
presentation of difficult academic tasks and expectations to perform difficult self-care routines. When
Deanna is sleep deprived and verbal cues are delivered, escape from the task is especially valuable
and interfering behaviors that result in escape are more likely. The presence of staff members who
historically have reinforced property destruction serves as a signal that property destruction will result
in escape; therefore, the presence of staff members also makes property destruction more likely in
the moment. Finally, the events that follow occurrences of property destruction and increase the
likelihood of its future occurrence (i.e., reinforcing consequences) vary. Sometimes instruction is
paused until Deanna deescalates; sometimes staff provide full assistance with the task; and
sometimes the initial expectation is removed and replaced with an alternative (easier) task. All of
these events enable Deanna to escape from difficult tasks and nonpreferred forms of instructional
prompting. These reinforcing consequences are relatively immediate and sometimes extend for long
durations of time (e.g., a 30-minute break in the quiet room).

Results: Behavior-Analytic Treatment Assessments

Appendix E shows the results from the Reinforcer Assessment. This assessment examined the
effectiveness of Deanna’s two most highly preferred edibles (fish crackers and grape juice), relative
to praise alone, as reinforcers for academic responding. The graph shows that allowing Deanna to
earn fish crackers for academic responding (counting) increased performance relative to using praise
only or praise plus grape juice. These results suggest that fish crackers may be used effectively to
strengthen (reinforce) appropriate behaviors.

Appendix F shows the results of the Treatment Analysis. The effectiveness of a multicomponent
intervention, based on FBA results, was tested during a series of 10-minute instructional sessions.
Baseline levels of property destruction were established during the functional analysis (escape
condition). Treatment conditions involved presenting the same academic and functional tasks during
the functional analysis. However, instead of using least-to-most prompting procedures (verbal-
gestural-physical) and permitting a 30-second break following property destruction, the following
multicomponent intervention was implemented:

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

239
 • Antecedent Strategy: Verbal prompts were eliminated; only gestural and physical prompts
were delivered.
• Reinforcement-Based Strategy: A token board was introduced. Deanna earned tokens for
accurate responding. When she earned five tokens, she was permitted to take a 1-minute
break with a snack.
• Responsive Strategy: Staff blocked attempts at property destruction, gestured toward the
token board, and continued delivering instructional prompts.

Results displayed in the treatment analysis graph show that the function-based, multicomponent
intervention was effective for reducing levels of property destruction.

Summary

FBA results led to the following “hypothesis” about the function or cause of Deanna’s property
destruction:

• In the context of one-on-one academic instruction and self-care routines, when presented
with challenging tasks and verbal prompts, Deanna engages in property destruction to
escape from instruction and task expectations (negative reinforcement).

A function-based intervention package that involves (a) antecedent strategies to minimize verbal
prompting, (b) reinforcement strategies to increase appropriate task engagement, and (c) responsive
strategies to minimize reinforcement of property destruction is likely to be effective for reducing
occurrences of interfering behavior and strengthening appropriate replacement behaviors. Directly
addressing communication, academic, and self-care skill delays also may help Deanna respond
more effectively to the school situations that are currently challenging for her.

Interpretive Session with Parent(s)/Guardian(s)

On November 2, Dr. Riley met with Fred and Wilma, Deanna’s parents, to review FBA results and
recommended function-based intervention strategies.

Recommendations for the Team’s Consideration

1. A collaborative problem-solving process involving team members in the design of an individually
tailored Behavior Support Plan is recommended. The use of the Behavior-Analytic Problem
Solving: Function-Focused Intervention form is recommended as a tool to develop function-
based strategies based on Deanna’s individualized FBA results.

2. It is recommended that Deanna’s Behavior Support Plan include strategies for

addressing/minimizing those variables that contribute to property destruction and strategies for
increasing appropriate replacement behaviors. Comprehensive Behavior Support Plans include
(a) proactive strategies to minimize the likelihood of interfering behaviors, (b) teaching and
reinforcement-based procedures to remediate skill deficits and strengthen appropriate behaviors,
and (c) responsive strategies to ensure safety while minimizing reinforcement of interfering
behaviors. Given Deanna’s FBA results, specific Behavior Support Plan strategies for
consideration include the following:

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

240
 a. Minimize verbal prompting to reduce the motivation to escape from instruction.
b. Ensure tasks are presented at Deanna’s instructional level to reduce the motivation to
escape from instruction.
c. Intersperse difficult tasks with previously mastered tasks during instructional sessions.
d. Introduce a home–school communication log that parents can use to communicate with
school staff about Deanna’s sleep. Proactively modify task expectations (e.g., quantity
and difficulty) on school days following sleep-disrupting seizure activity.
e. Utilize “differential reinforcement” to maximize reinforcement for appropriate behaviors
and minimize reinforcement for property destruction. Specifically, use a token board and
allow Deanna to earn breaks and/or access to preferred items (e.g., fish crackers) for
active engagement in academic and functional living activities.
f. Implement FCT by teaching Deanna to request breaks or assistance with tasks
appropriately by exchanging a picture/symbol.
g. Block attempts at property destruction. To the extent possible, withhold the relevant
reinforcing consequence (i.e., a break from or assistance with the task) when property
destruction occurs. Instead, gesture toward the token board to remind Deanna how to
“earn” a break and/or prompt an appropriate communication response.

3. Ongoing behavioral consultation by a professional with experience and training in applied

behavior analysis is recommended to support the design, implementation, and evaluation of an
individually tailored Behavior Support Plan. Use of a behavioral skills training model of
consultation also is recommended to increase the likelihood that interventions will be
implemented accurately.

Patricia Riley, PhD

Psychologist

Name

Board Certified Behavior Analyst—Doctoral

Nationally Certified School Psychologist

Credentials

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

241
 APPENDIX A. BEHAVIOR-ANALYTIC OBSERVATIONS USING THE INCIDENT-BASED
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT FORM

The following analyses are based on direct observations, conducted by Dr. Riley, of behavioral
incidents within the natural learning environment. Each analysis illustrates the complex array of
variables that trigger and maintain interfering behaviors.

Example 1. Property destruction reinforced by negative reinforcement (escape)

Context
Morning instructional session (one-on-
one “table time”)

↓
Motivating Operations
Presentation of a difficult expressive language task (labeling actions)

↓
Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behavior Reinforcing Consequence
One-on-one aide with history of Property Destruction Negative Reinforcement: Escape
pausing instruction during episodes from task (i.e., a 2-minute pause in
of property destruction instruction followed by resumption
of instruction with easier, previously
mastered labeling tasks)

Example 2. Property destruction reinforced by negative reinforcement (escape)

Context
Special education classroom bathroom
for self-care instruction

↓
Motivating Operations
Presentation of a verbal and gestural prompt to “pull up pants”
after toileting

↓
Discriminative Stimuli Interfering Behavior Reinforcing Consequence
One-on-one aide with history of Property Destruction Negative Reinforcement: Escape
pausing instruction during episodes from task (i.e., 1-minute pause in
of property destruction instructional prompts followed by
full physical assistance)

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

242
APPENDIX B. FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS GRAPH

APPENDIX C. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS GRAPH

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

243
 APPENDIX D. BEHAVIOR-ANALYTIC PROBLEM-SOLVING MODEL: ASSESSMENT RESULTS

Personal Characteristics: Context: Skill Delays/Deficits:

Traits, sensitivities, beliefs, Probable contexts Communication, academic, executive, adaptive
and/or values contributing to in which interfering living, social, and/or self-management skill
interfering behavior behavior occurs delays/deficits contributing to interfering behavior

• Sensitive to verbal prompting • One-on-one academic • Delays in functional communication, receptive

• Seizure disorder with associated instructional sessions language, academic, and self-care skills
sleep disturbances • Self-care/functional life
skill routines

Motivational “Triggers” (Motivating Operations):

Deprivation of physical or social wants and needs, which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior
Presentation of aversive biological/medical conditions, emotional states, thoughts, academic tasks, or social situations,
which increases the value of reinforcers and the probability of interfering behavior

• Sleep deprivation following seizures

• Presentation of difficult academic or life skills tasks (particularly using verbal prompting procedures)

Sources of Reinforcement (Discriminative Stimuli):

Persons, items, or locations that signal the availability of reinforcing consequences (i.e., source of reinforcement),
thereby occasioning interfering behavior

• Persons who are associated with reinforcement (e.g., have a history of providing negative reinforcement)
• The presence of materials that can be thrown, swiped, or ripped

Interfering Behavior(s):

Property Destruction
• Throwing items, swiping materials off tables, ripping classroom materials

Reinforcing Consequence(s): Parameters of Reinforcement:

Consequence(s) that strengthen the future probability Describe the power (robustness) of reinforcing consequences
of the interfering behavior
• Property destruction intermittently results in escape
• Negative Reinforcement: Escape from tasks/instruction • Escape is relatively immediate, varied in quality
including (a) breaks from instruction/instructional prompting (paused instruction or breaks on beanbag), and varied
and/or (b) reductions in task expectations (e.g., task in duration (30 seconds to 30 minutes)
assistance or alternative tasks)

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

244
APPENDIX E. REINFORCER ASSESSMENT GRAPH

APPENDIX F. TREATMENT ANALYSIS GRAPH

FIGURE 13.2. (continued)

245
 FORM 13.1

Behavioral Assessment Report

Identifying Information

Student:
Date of Birth: Age: Grade:
Home School/District:

Evaluation Dates

Date of Informed Consent:

Evaluation Dates:
Report Date:
Date Report Provided and Reviewed with Parent(s)/Guardian(s):

Reason for Referral

Insert student name was referred for a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) of interfering
behaviors* by Name of referring party
Insert individualized details about the referral concern/question.

*Interfering behaviors: Behaviors that are disruptive to the learning of the student or others; behaviors that interfere with
the student’s progress or performance of skills.

Purposes of the Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

The FBA was conducted to answer two basic questions:
1. Why does Insert student name engage in interfering behaviors?
2. What can we do to reduce interfering behaviors and increase appropriate behaviors?

Foundations of Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA)

1. Human behavior (both appropriate and interfering) is learned and can be changed.
2. No two individuals are the same. Each student’s learning history is unique.
3. Students with very similar interfering behaviors may have very different learning histories.
This means that their behaviors may have very different causes (i.e., functions). Treatment is
most effective when behavior support plans directly address the causes (i.e., functions) of
behavior.

(continued)
Used with permission from the Margaret Murphy Centers for Children.

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

246
 Behavioral Assessment Report (page 2 of 6)
FBA identifies and describes the relevant aspects of the student’s unique learning history. FBAs
investigate the following factors that contribute to interfering behavior: (a) context, (b) personal
characteristics, (c) skill delays/deficits, (d) motivational triggers, (e) sources of reinforcement of
interfering behavior, and (f) history of reinforcement of interfering behavior.

Information collected during the FBA is used to design individually tailored and evidence-based
interventions that directly address the variables that contribute to interfering behavior.

Description of Assessment Procedures

List and briefly describe all assessment procedures, including record reviews, behavior-analytic
interviews, descriptive assessments, experimental analyses, preference/reinforcer assessments,
and/or treatment analysis.

Relevant Background Information

Summarize background information directly relevant to understanding the interfering behavior,
gleaned from record reviews, interviews, and/or other indirect sources.

Results: Identification and Description of Interfering Behavior(s)

Behavior Definition
Insert behavior label Insert operational definition of the behavior

(continued)

247
 Behavioral Assessment Report (page 3 of 6)

Results: Documentation of Current Levels of Interfering Behavior*

Occurrence
Behavior Measurement Procedure [Insert dates of data collection]
Insert behavior label Describe the behavior recording Summarize levels of occurrence in
procedure terms of averages, ranges, etc.

*Data obtained from (Insert information about the source of the data).

Results: Graphic Display of Interfering Behaviors

Insert a graphic display of current levels of interfering behavior.

Results: Behavior-Analytic Interviews

Briefly summarize relevant information gathered during interviews. Consider including a visual
diagram to illustrate “behavioral streams.”

(continued)

248
 Behavioral Assessment Report (page 4 of 6)

Results: Behavior-Analytic Observations

List each descriptive FBA procedure used, along with a brief rationale and explanation of the results.
Include supplementary figures and graphs as appendices.

Results: Experimental Analyses

If applicable, list and describe each experimental FBA procedure used, along with a brief rationale
and explanation of the results. Include supplementary figures and graphs as appendices.

Synthesis of Results
Provide a brief narrative summary of FBA results by describing the influence of context, personal
characteristics, skill delays/deficits, MOs, SDs, reinforcing consequences, and parameters of
reinforcement on the interfering behavior. Include the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:
Assessment Results form as an Appendix.

(continued)

249
 Behavioral Assessment Report (page 5 of 6)

Results: Behavior-Analytic Treatment Assessments

If applicable, list and describe each treatment or reinforcer analysis conducted, along with a brief
rationale and explanation of the results. Include supplementary figures and graphs as appendices.

Summary
Conclude with a functional hypothesis statement(s) to summarize (a) the context in which interfering
behaviors occur and (b) the variables that evoke and reinforce interfering behaviors. Summarize
additional variables that contribute to occurrences of the interfering behavior, and explain the
strategies determined to be effective for reducing occurrences of the interfering behavior.

Interpretive Session with Parent(s)/Guardian(s)

Identify when FBA results were reviewed with the parent(s)/guardian(s), who was present, and what
was discussed.

(continued)

250
 Behavioral Assessment Report (page 6 of 6)

Recommendations for the Team’s Consideration

1. A collaborative problem-solving process involving team members in the design of an individually
tailored Behavior Support Plan is recommended. The use of the Behavior-Analytic Problem
Solving: Function-Focused Intervention form is recommended as a tool to develop function-
based strategies based on [student]’s individualized FBA results.

2. It is recommended that [student]’s Behavior Support Plan include strategies for

addressing/minimizing those variables that contribute to [interfering behavior] and strategies for
increasing appropriate replacement behaviors. Comprehensive Behavior Support Plans include
(a) proactive strategies to minimize the likelihood of interfering behaviors, (b) teaching and
reinforcement-based procedures to remediate skill deficits and strengthen appropriate behaviors,
and (c) responsive strategies to ensure safety while minimizing reinforcement of interfering
behaviors. Given [student]’s FBA results, specific Behavior Support Plan strategies for
consideration include the following:
a. Use . . .
b. Implement . . .

3. Ongoing behavioral consultation by a professional with experience and training in applied

behavior analysis is recommended to support the design, implementation, and evaluation of an
individually tailored Behavior Support Plan. Use of a behavioral skills training model of
consultation also is recommended to increase the likelihood that interventions will be
implemented accurately.

Name

Credentials

Insert additional pages for appendices that display results in figures, tables, and/or graphs.

251
 CHAPTER 14

Applied Learning Experiences

An ounce of practice is worth more

than tons of preaching.
—Mahatma Gandhi (1869–1948)

Throughout this book, we have emphasized the responsibility of school-­based evaluators

to practice within the scope of their professional competencies. To conduct comprehensive
FBAs ethically and effectively, school-­based evaluators must acquire (1) knowledge about
behavior-­analytic principles, assessment procedures, and interventions and (2) skills in con-
ducting assessment procedures, interpreting and communicating assessment results (both
orally and in writing), and designing and implementing function-­focused interventions. As
discussed in Chapter 2, we advocate for the use of the behavioral skills training model to
promote competencies in FBA. Application of this training model requires the following
steps (BACB, 2014):

• Provide a rationale for target skills to be trained.

• Provide written and verbal descriptions of the target skills.
• Demonstrate (model) the target skills.
• Arrange opportunities for practice (rehearsal) of the target skills.
• Offer constructive feedback and reinforcement for demonstration of the target skills.
• Repeat training steps until mastery of the target skills is achieved.
• Assess generalization of the target skills across multiple settings, with multiple stu-
dents.

Therefore, effective training in FBA requires a blend of didactic instruction, exposure

to the relevant literature (e.g., research articles and book chapters), and in vivo training
experiences. These experiences should include opportunities to (1) observe experienced
practitioners conducting FBAs and (2) practice conducting FBAs while receiving direct
performance feedback. We also strongly recommend that the supervised training include
opportunities for the supervisee to train others in conducting FBAs.

252
 Applied Learning Experiences 253

Ethical Guidelines: Competency of Supervisors

It is important to note that ethical standards for school psychologists and behavior analysts specify that
supervisors must limit their supervision to practices in which they are personally competent. So, if a
supervisor is not competent to conduct a particular FBA procedure or behavioral intervention, then he
or she should not attempt to supervise others in that practice.

When teaching graduate-­level courses on FBA, coaching practicum and internship stu-
dents in school psychology, and supervising BCBA trainees, we have found that it is ben-
eficial to provide a variety of applied learning experiences. This chapter includes a sample
of applied learning experiences that we regularly use within our academic and applied
settings. We typically arrange these applied learning experiences for students and super-
visees during didactic instruction and the early stages of in vivo training. (Note: The dis-
cussion of each applied learning experience includes a thorough description of the training
activity, but completion of the training activity sometimes requires that the learner create
supplemental materials. Also, learners usually need repeated opportunities to practice each
applied learning experience before gaining mastery in the target skill.)

Professional Development:
Train and Hope versus Behavioral Skills Training
As professionals with multiple professional credentials (e.g., licensed psychologist, nationally certified
school psychologist, board-­certified behavior analyst—­doctoral), we understand the responsibility to
participate in ongoing professional development. Over the years, we collectively have attended hun-
dreds of conferences and trainings, including poster sessions, paper presentations, symposiums, mini-­
skills workshops, half-day workshops, and 1- and 2-day trainings. We’ve also been on the other side
and delivered these trainings. If you are a credentialed professional, you too have experienced your fair
share of professional development trainings.
So let’s get real now. Although we have attended trainings that “rocked our worlds” and resulted
in real behavior change, we also have attended (and probably delivered) trainings that resulted in a
certificate of attendance . . . and not much else. Upon reflection, some of the trainings we have deliv-
ered (and attended) have been a form of “consciousness raising” or used the “train-and-hope” model
in which didactic training is provided with the hope that participants will transfer their new knowledge
into everyday practice. Bummer . . . but often true.
We believe that a behavioral skills training model of professional development is more effective.
Within this model, didactic instruction is viewed only as the initial step in training and subsequent
behavioral coaching is essential for skill development. It is a process of shaping professional skills, and
it makes great sense.
• If you wanted to learn to play golf, would a 1-day workshop reviewing the terminology and rules
of golf and showing videos of others playing golf really prepare you for your first round?
• Let’s say you are planning to purchase a 38-foot sailboat and embark on a 1-year sail from
Maine to the British Virgin Islands and back (or maybe you just stay in the islands). Would a
2-day training focusing on the theory of sailing and presenting videos of others sailing give you
the skills to go to sea—and come back?
• What if, 5 minutes before you receive general anesthesia, your surgeon informs you that she is
really pumped about doing your triple bypass because she just went to a 1-day workshop on
cardiac surgery. Would you feel assured by her exclamation that “the training inspired my pas-
sion for surgery and forever changed my life . . . it was so cool!”?
254 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

• Or imagine that you attend your first Clapton concert and feel inspired enough by the 3-hour
show to take up the guitar. You buy a vintage Fender Stratocaster and a Fender 57 custom pro
amp with the plan of being the next “Slowhand.” After a few weeks of self-­instructed practice
you realize that “my fingers are really sore . . . and I got a long way to go.” And your family and
neighbors applaud when you stop practicing—­not because they are cheering you on, but out
of relief that you stopped.
You get the idea: The development of professional skills requires lots of practice and guidance
from an experienced mentor, teacher, or supervisor. Acquiring the skills necessary to conduct an FBA
within a comprehensive behavior-­analytic problem-­solving framework (i.e., conducting the assessment,
designing interventions, providing training and consultation to support intervention implementation,
and evaluating treatment effectiveness) is a shaping process. So, have fun . . . and practice, practice,
practice.

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 1:

IDENTIFYING, DESCRIBING, AND RECORDING BEHAVIOR
Identifying Behavior
• Identify a behavior that interferes with a student’s acquisition of socially meaningful aca-
demic, social, functional living, vocational, and/or recreation-­leisure skills.

Describing Behavior
• Describe (operationally define) the behavior in clear, objective, and measureable terms.

Selecting a Behavior Recording Procedure

• Identify and describe a recording procedure that is matched to the dimensions of the
behavior.

Using the Behavior Recording Procedure

• Develop a sample behavior-­recording data sheet and include sample data.

Interpreting the Behavior Recording Procedure Data

• Provide a brief summary and interpretation of the sample data.

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 2:

BEHAVIOR RECORDING PRACTICE

• Identify an interfering behavior.

• Identify and design a data recording procedure that is matched to the dimensions of the
behavior.
 Applied Learning Experiences 255

• After gaining permission, use the data recording procedure to observe and record a stu-
dent’s behavior.
• Conduct a minimum of two observations (10–30 minutes each).
• Summarize and interpret the data.
• Reflect on the observation and behavior recording experience and consider if and how
the data recording procedure may need to be modified to improve the reliability and
validity of measurement.

Note: We recommend repeating this activity to ensure practice with a comprehensive

range of data recording procedures, including frequency, duration, latency, whole-­interval,
partial-­interval, momentary time sampling, and performance-­based recording procedures.

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 3:

INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT (IOA)

• Identify a behavior r­ ecording partner.

• Review the data recording procedure you designed and used during Applied Learning
Experience 2 with your observation partner.
• Conduct a role-play exercise with your observation partner to ensure your partner is
skilled in using the data recording procedure.
• After gaining permission, arrange for you and your observation partner to use the data
­recording procedure to simultaneously and independently observe and record a student’s
behavior.
• Summarize and interpret the data.
• Compare your data and your observation partner’s data by calculating IOA:

Number of Agreements between Observers

× 100 =   %
Total Number of Agreements + Disagreements

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 4:

FOUR‑TERM CONTINGENCY

• Identify an interfering behavior maintained by socially mediated reinforcement.

• Identify the reinforcing consequence (i.e., the socially mediated consequence that
strengthens and increases the future frequency, duration, and/or intensity of behavior).
• Identify a related motivating operation (MO), an antecedent that momentarily alters the
value of the reinforcer.
• Identify a related discriminative stimulus (SD), an antecedent that signals the availability
of the reinforcer.
256 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

• Repeat the exercise to generate two examples of the four-term contingency: one example
of socially mediated positive reinforcement and one example of socially mediated nega-
tive reinforcement.

Motivating Discriminative Interfering Reinforcing

Operation (MO) Stimulus (SD) Behavior Consequence

Example 1

Example 2

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 5:

FOUR‑TERM CONTINGENCY

• Identify an interfering behavior maintained by individually mediated reinforcement.

• Identify the reinforcing consequence (i.e., the individually mediated consequence that
strengthens and increases the future frequency, duration, and/or intensity of behavior).
• Identify a related MO (an antecedent that momentarily alters the value of the reinforcer).
• Identify a related SD (an antecedent that signals the availability of the reinforcer).
• Repeat the exercise to generate two examples of the four-term contingency: one example
of individually mediated positive reinforcement and one example of individually medi-
ated negative reinforcement.

Motivating Discriminative Interfering Reinforcing

Operation (MO) Stimulus (SD) Behavior Consequence

Example 1

Example 2
 Applied Learning Experiences 257

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 6:

FOUR‑TERM CONTINGENCY

• Identify an interfering behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement.

• Identify the reinforcing consequence (i.e., the automatic consequence that strengthens
and increases the future frequency, duration, and/or intensity of the behavior).
• Identify a related MO (an antecedent that momentarily alters the value of the reinforcer).
• Identify a related SD (an antecedent that signals the availability of the reinforcer).
• Repeat the exercise to generate two examples of the four-term contingency: one example
of automatic positive reinforcement and one example of automatic negative reinforce-
ment.

Motivating Discriminative Interfering Reinforcing

Operation (MO) Stimulus (SD) Behavior Consequence

Example 1

Example 2

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 7:

BEHAVIOR‑ANALYTIC INTERVIEW (ROLE PLAY)

• Review the Behavior-­ Analytic Problem-­

Solving Interview (BAPS-I) and Behavioral
Stream Interview (BSI) forms and procedures (Chapter 7).
• Discuss potential errors (e.g., errors of association, primacy, recency, exaggeration, and
generalization) that may occur when conducting interviews.
• Review the range of variables that contribute to interfering behaviors (i.e., context,
personal characteristics, skill delays/deficits, MOs, SDs, reinforcing consequences, and
parameters of reinforcement).
• Identify a referral concern and conduct a (BAPS-I) and BSI with a role-play partner.

Note: During early phases of supervisee skill acquisition, we recommend completing

role plays under the direct supervision of an experienced practitioner who can provide
guided feedback to increase the integrity of the interview process.
258 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

• Review the results of the interview process.

• Reflect on and consider the accuracy and validity of the information obtained during the
interview.

Note: We recommend repeating role-play interviews for multiple referral concerns to

practice gathering information about behaviors evoked and maintained by different ante-
cedents and consequences.

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 8:

BEHAVIOR‑ANALYTIC INTERVIEW (ACTUAL CASE)

• Review the BAPS-I and BSI forms and procedures (Chapter 7).
• Discuss potential errors (e.g., errors of association, primacy, recency, exaggeration, and
generalization) that may occur when conducting interviews.
• Review the range of variables that contribute to interfering behaviors (i.e., context,
personal characteristics, skill delays/deficits, MOs, SDs, reinforcing consequences, and
parameters of reinforcement).
• After obtaining permission and identifying a referral concern, conduct a BAPS-I and BSI
with a parent or teacher.

Note: During early phases of supervisee skill acquisition, we recommend completing

actual interviews under the direct supervision of an experienced practitioner who can pro-
vide guided feedback to increase the integrity of the interview process.

• Review the results of the interview process.

• Reflect on and consider the accuracy and validity of the information obtained during the
interview.

Note: We recommend repeating interviews for multiple referral concerns to practice

gathering information about behaviors evoked and maintained by different antecedents and
consequences.

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 9:

DESIGNING THE INTERVAL RECORDING PROCEDURE (IRP)

• The IRP is a modified scatterplot that is used to record levels of occurrence of interfering
behavior in real time throughout the school day.
• Review an explanation, description, and example of the IRP (Chapter 8).
• Identify and describe (operationally define) three to four interfering behaviors.
• Identify and describe data ­recording procedures matched to the dimensions of each
 Applied Learning Experiences 259

interfering behavior (i.e., create a single document listing each behavior and the corre-
sponding data recording procedure).
• Determine the duration of intervals (e.g., 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 minutes).
• Design an IRP data recording form (see example below).

Time Context Behavior 1 Behavior 2 Behavior 3

8:30

8:45

9:00

Total

Rate

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 10: IMPLEMENTING THE IRP

• Use a behavioral skills training model to train staff to implement the IRP within a school/
program setting:
||Provide a rationale for the use of the IRP.
||Provide written definitions of interfering behaviors, data recording procedures, and
methods for summarizing behavior data.
||Provide a verbal explanation of the interfering behaviors, data recording procedures,

and methods for summarizing behavior data.

||Demonstrate (model) data recording procedures and methods for summarizing behav-

ior data.
||Arrange opportunities for staff (supervisees) to practice using the IRP.
||Provide positive and corrective feedback to staff on their use of the IRP.
||Repeat the previous steps until staff use the IRP accurately.
||Assess application and generalization of staff’s skills in using the IRP to record mul-

tiple interfering behaviors for multiple students.

• Assess measurement reliability and the effectiveness of your training by (a) simultane-
ously and independently observing and recording a student’s behavior while a staff mem-
ber uses the IRP, (b) independently summarizing the results, and (c) calculating IOA:

Number of Agreements between Observers

× 100 =   %
Total Number of Agreements + Disagreements
260 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 11:

BEHAVIOR‑ANALYTIC OBSERVATION

• Identify and describe an interfering behavior.

• Review the complex variables that contribute to interfering behaviors (i.e., context, MOs,
SDs, and reinforcing consequences).
• After obtaining informed consent, conduct an anecdotal observation and use the Incident-­
Based Functional Assessment Form (IBFAF) to document relevant antecedents and con-
sequences associated with an occurrence of interfering behavior (Chapter 8).

Note: During early phases of supervisee skill acquisition, we recommend that these
behavior-­analytic observations be conducted under the direct supervision of an experienced
practitioner who can provide guided feedback to increase the behavior-­analytic integrity of
the observation process.

• Review the results of the observation and the completed IBFAF.

• Reflect on and consider the accuracy and validity of the information obtained during the
observation.

Note: We recommend that this process be repeated across multiple behavioral inci-
dents to practice collecting data on multiple antecedents, interfering behaviors, and conse-
quences.

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 12:

DESIGNING EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSES

• Identify and describe an interfering behavior.

• Consider the complex variables that contribute to interfering behaviors.
||Hint: Behavior-­analytic interviews and behavior-­analytic observations are conducted
to identify specific antecedent and consequence variables associated with interfering
behavior. Use a hypothesis-­testing approach to “test” the functional relationship among
specific antecedents, behaviors, and consequences.
• Design protocols for conducting the following types of experimental analyses: extended
functional analysis, brief functional analysis, trial-based functional analysis, synthesized
functional analysis, and structural analysis.
||Describe procedures for each test and control condition.
||Describe procedures for recording occurrences of interfering behavior.
• Graph hypothesized results for each type of experimental analysis.
• Interpret and summarize the hypothesized results for each type of experimental analysis
using the four-term contingency model:
 Applied Learning Experiences 261

Motivating Operation Discriminative Reinforcing

(MO) Stimulus (SD) Interfering Behavior Consequence

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 13:

CONDUCTING EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSES

• Identify and describe an interfering behavior.

• Consider the complex variables that contribute to interfering behaviors.
||Hint: Behavior-­analytic interviews and behavior-­analytic observations are conducted
to identify specific antecedent and consequence variables associated with interfering
behavior. Use a hypothesis-­testing approach to “test” the functional relationship among
specific antecedents, behaviors, and consequences.
• Design a protocol for conducting the experimental analysis.
||Describe procedures for each test and control condition.
||Describe procedures for recording occurrences of interfering behavior.

• Obtain informed consent and conduct the experimental analysis.

Note: During the early phases of supervisee skill acquisition, experimental analyses
must be conducted under the direct supervision of an experienced practitioner, who can
provide guided feedback to increase the behavior-­analytic integrity of the assessment pro-
cess.

• Graph results of the experimental analysis.

• Interpret and summarize experimental analysis results using the four-term contingency
model:

Motivating Operation Discriminative Reinforcing

(MO) Stimulus (SD) Interfering Behavior Consequence
262 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Note: We recommend that this process be repeated across multiple students with var-
ied interfering behaviors using a variety of experimental analysis methodologies, including
extended functional analysis, brief functional analysis, trial-based functional analysis, syn-
thesized functional analysis, and/or structural analysis.

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 14: BEHAVIOR‑ANALYTIC

PROBLEM SOLVING (BAPS) AND CASE CONCEPTUALIZATION

• Synthesize results of behavior-­analytic interviews, behavior-­analytic observations, and/or

experimental analyses using the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results
recording form (Chapter 6):
• For each interfering behavior, identify and describe the following:
||Context
||Personal characteristics
||Skilldelays/deficits
||Motivational triggers (MOs)
||Sources of reinforcement (SDs)
||Reinforcing consequences
||Parameters of reinforcement

• Review and discuss with supervisor the relative influence of each of the variables on
interfering behavior.

Note: We recommend repeating the case conceptualization process for multiple stu-
dents and multiple interfering behaviors.

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 15:

IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS

• Design a procedure for identifying reinforcers using indirect, descriptive, and experimen-
tal methods (e.g., a preference assessment interview, a descriptive forced-­choice preference
assessment, and an experimental analysis of reinforcer effectiveness; see Chapter 10).
||Hint: Indirect preference assessments inform the selection of items/activities for inclusion
during descriptive preference assessments, and experimental methods are used to demon-
strate that highly preferred items/activities function as effective reinforcers for behavior.
• Write protocols and create data collection forms for each assessment.
• Obtain informed consent and conduct the assessments.
• Summarize and/or graph results of the assessments.
• Interpret and summarize the results of the assessments.

Note: We recommend that this process be repeated across multiple students using var-
ied assessment procedures.
 Applied Learning Experiences 263

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 16:

BEHAVIOR‑ANALYTIC PROBLEM SOLVING (BAPS)
AND FUNCTION‑FOCUSED INTERVENTION

• Link FBA results to treatment recommendations using the Behavior-­Analytic Problem

Solving: Function-­Focused Intervention planning tool (Chapter 11).
• Identify potential function-­based and evidence-­based strategies to:
||Modify the context or participation in the context associated with interfering behavior.
||Address personal characteristics contributing to interfering behavior.
||Address skill delays/deficits contributing to interfering behavior.
||Weaken (abolish) motivation to engage in interfering behavior.
||Modify or eliminate SDs for interfering behavior.
||Teach and reinforce logical replacement behaviors.
||Minimize reinforcing consequences following interfering behavior.

• Review and discuss with supervisor how each intervention strategy is grounded in empir-
ical evidence and directly addresses the functions of interfering behavior.

Note: We recommend repeating the intervention planning process for multiple stu-
dents and multiple interfering behaviors.

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 17:

TREATMENT ANALYSIS (TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS)

• Review the results of a completed FBA.

• Review the recommended function-­based interventions.
• Select one of the interventions.
• Design a protocol for “test driving” the intervention and evaluating treatment effective-
ness.
||Selectan A-B design, at a minimum.
||Describe procedures for recording interfering behavior.
||Describe procedures for recording appropriate behavior (optional).
||Describe procedures for implementing the intervention.

• Obtain informed consent and conduct the treatment analysis.

• Implement the intervention within analogue or tightly controlled applied circumstances.
• Graph the results of the treatment analysis.
• Interpret and summarize the results of the treatment analysis.

Note: We recommend that this process be repeated across multiple students with mul-
tiple treatments.
264 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 18:

TREATMENT ANALYSIS (TREATMENT COMPARISON)

• Review the results of a completed FBA.

• Review the recommended function-­based interventions.
• Select two to three function-­based interventions.
• Design a protocol for comparing the relative effectiveness of the interventions using an
alternating treatments design.
||Describe procedures for recording interfering behavior.
||Describe procedures for recording appropriate behavior (optional).
||Describe procedures for implementing each intervention.

• Obtain informed consent and conduct the treatment analysis.

• Implement the intervention within analogue or tightly controlled applied circumstances.
• Graph the results of the treatment analysis.
• Interpret and summarize the results of the treatment analysis.

Note: We recommend that this process be repeated across multiple students, particu-
larly for cases in which competing interventions have been recommended (e.g., comparing
the relative effectiveness of an evidence-­based and function-­based intervention to an alter-
native strategy recommended by another practitioner).

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 19: EXPLAINING

ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• Synthesize results of behavior-­analytic interviews, behavior-­analytic observations, and/or

experimental analyses using the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results
recording form (Chapter 6).
• Begin with a role-play scenario. Provide the “parent/guardian” or “IEP Team members”
with a copy of the completed FBA report (including a copy of a completed BAPS: Assess-
ment Results recording form) and explain the following:
||Purpose of the FBA
||FBA procedures
||Results
||Recommendations

• For each interfering behavior, identify and describe the influence of the following vari-
ables:
||Context
||Personal characteristics
||Skill delays/deficits
||Motivational triggers (MOs)
||Sources of reinforcement (SDs)
 Applied Learning Experiences 265

||Reinforcing consequences
||Parameters of reinforcement
• After reviewing recommendations (including results of reinforcer assessments and treat-
ment analyses, if applicable), explain implementation plans, including strategies for:
||Training staff to implement the intervention
||Monitoring treatment integrity
||Collecting progress-­monitoring data
||Reviewing progress-­monitoring data to modify interventions as needed

Note: We recommend completing these training activities under the direct supervision
of an experienced practitioner who can provide guided feedback to increase the integrity of
the FBA review process. We also recommend practicing multiple role-play scenarios before
practicing with actual cases.

APPLIED LEARNING EXPERIENCE 20:

CONSULTATION, TRAINING, AND SUPERVISION

• Use a behavioral skills training model to support others in implementing function-­based

interventions.
• Self-­monitor your attention to the following variables that increase the likelihood that
others will implement function-­based interventions consistently and accurately:
||Quality training: Did you use a behavioral skills training model to teach others to
implement the intervention?
||Treatment acceptability: Did you design interventions using a collaborative problem-­

solving approach to ensure interventionists have “buy-in”?

||Treatment applicability: Did you design interventions using a collaborative problem-­

solving approach to ensure the intervention is practical and doable?

||Treatment integrity: Did you provide written guidelines and a procedural checklist to

facilitate implementation of the intervention?

Procedure Yes/No/Partially Comments

Quality Training

Treatment Acceptability

Treatment Applicability

Treatment Integrity
266 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

SUMMARY

Behavior is complex. FBA is complex. Developing competency in conducting FBA proce-

dures, interpreting and communicating FBA data, translating FBA results into comprehen-
sive intervention recommendations, and training others to implement interventions with
integrity to effect socially significant outcomes for students is . . . yes, complex. And in our
experience, to get really good at this process, it takes tons of practice. The applied learning
activities outlined in this chapter do not address the comprehensive range of skills needed
to conduct ethical and effective FBAs, but we hope they get you started on the path toward
creating individualized training plans to meet your own or your supervisees’ professional
development needs.
 CHAPTER 15

It’s the Final Chapter

You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.

—A braham Lincoln (1809–1865)

Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those

who prepare for it today.
—Malcolm X (1925–1965)

We’ve come a long way, baby. Throughout this book we’ve discussed FBA from a variety
of angles: historical, philosophical, ethical, conceptual, technical, hypothetical, empirical,
practical, and comical. We hope that you have a new or renewed appreciation and under-
standing of what it means to take on the responsibility of conducting an FBA. We hope
we have provided you with tools and resources to improve your professional skills. We
also hope that this book is useful in supporting the professional development of colleagues,
graduate students, interns, and supervisees. And we hope you’ve had some fun along the
way. Following are some of our final thoughts and a few “parting shots.”
One way? . . . No way! When it comes to FBA, there really is no one way. Unlike
traditional norm-­referenced assessments that are highly manualized and structured, FBA
involves a dynamic hypothesis-­testing process whereby each new piece of information
drives the next step in the assessment. FBA is problem solving. We need to begin the FBA
process with philosophical doubt, an open mind about potential outcomes, and an assort-
ment of assessment methods. And as we move forward, we need to pick and choose from
among the assessment methods that best fit the demands of the case. So please, do not yield
to the temptation of rigidly using a predetermined set of assessment methods. In the words
of Del Griffith (portrayed by John Candy) from the 1987 film Planes, Trains and Automo-
biles, “Go with the flow . . . like a twig on the shoulders of a mighty stream.”

CASE EXAMPLES OF PLIABLE AND FLEXIBLE FBAs

Throughout this book, we have provided “best-­practices” case examples. You undoubtedly
will encounter cases where the FBA process is fairly straightforward. You also will encoun-
267
268 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

Steege Uses “Depends” a Lot

Apparently I (Steege) have a reputation for using “depends” a lot. The truth of the matter is that most of
my life I have been “in continent.” Although I have taken a few trips abroad and spend as much time as
I can sailing the ocean blue, the vast majority of my life has been within the continental United States.
Having clarified that point I must admit that, yes, I do use “depends” a lot. For example:
• When I teach research courses, my students often ask, “What is the best research design?” and
I say, “It depends on the research question.”
• When discussing data collection methods with students and practitioners, I am often asked,
“What is the best behavior r­ ecording procedure?” and I answer, “It depends on the dimensions
of the behavior.”
• When reviewing a clinical case and considering FBA methodologies to use, I am often asked,
“What’s the best FBA procedure? Which functional analysis method is the best?” and I answer,
“That depends on the referral question, the target behaviors, ethical considerations, resources,
et cetera . . . it really depends on many factors.”
• And when asked, “What is the best treatment for (a specific behavior)?” I reply, “Once again it
depends. Of course it depends on the function(s) of the behavior and it depends on the results
of a solid treatment analysis.”
Comprehensive and valid FBAs require a great degree of pliability and flexibility in design and execu-
tion.

ter situations where you find yourself adrift in a massive fog bank, struggling to navigate
your course of assessments and subsequent interventions. Following are examples of chal-
lenging scenarios we have faced and abbreviated workable solutions that illustrate pliability
and flexibility in the FBA process.

The Suspended Student

Referral
Steve was a junior in high school who had been suspended for making verbal threats
directed to classmates, teachers, and administrators. The team requested that an FBA be
conducted prior to Steve returning to the high school.

Solution
• The school psychologist met with team members to discuss the purposes of an FBA and
the limitations of conducting an assessment when a student is not participating in the
school setting.
• The school psychologist explained the differences between an FBA and a risk assessment.
She clarified that the FBA would focus on previous behaviors and would not address
questions about future behaviors or risk factors. The team then agreed to obtain consent
for a risk assessment to be conducted by another school psychologist.
• Given that it was not possible to observe Steve in the school setting, the school psycholo-
gist obtained informed consent only for clinical interviews (student, teacher, administra-
tor, and parent).
 It’s the Final Chapter 269

• The FBA focused on identifying and describing interfering behaviors and resulted in
a case conceptualization utilizing the Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment
Results recording form.
• The school psychologist received parental consent to consult with the individual complet-
ing the risk assessment, and she based her recommendations for school-­based interven-
tions on the results of both assessments.

Several Target Behaviors

Referral
Margarette was a third-grade student diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and
intellectual disability. During an IEP meeting, the team identified four target behaviors
that negatively impacted Margarette’s educational performance and made a referral for the
completion of an FBA by the school’s BCBA.

Solution
• The BCBA determined that it would be most efficient and effective to identify priorities
for assessment and intervention.
• After consulting with the team, the BCBA identified self-­injury and physical aggression
as priority concerns. The other interfering behaviors, stereotypy and noncompliance,
were identified as less immediate concerns.
• The team agreed to a two-phase assessment plan as follows:
||Phase 1: Obtain informed consent to conduct an FBA of self-­injury and physical aggres-

sion. Design a function-­based intervention and conduct a treatment analysis.

||Phase 2: Obtain informed consent to conduct an FBA of stereotypy and noncompli-
ance. Design a function-­based intervention and conduct a treatment analysis.

Uninformed Consent and Tardiness

Referral
Findy’s IEP team convened to discuss concerns about her behavioral presentation, and the
school psychologist was not invited to the meeting. The team determined that an FBA
of disruptive behavior was needed, and the parents signed a consent form with the FBA
box checked off. Approximately 15 school days lapsed before the school psychologist was
informed of the referral. The 45-day clock from referral to IEP team meeting was ticking,
and the school psychologist faced two dilemmas: (1) the absence of informed consent and (2)
a short time frame to complete a comprehensive FBA.

Solution
• The school psychologist proposed conducting a two-phase FBA if needed. He explained
to IEP team members that, given the allowable time frame, the initial (preliminary) FBA
270 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

would include clinical interviews and behavior-­analytic observations to determine cur-

rent levels of disruptive behavior, document variables that may be contributing to occur-
rences of disruptive behavior, and offer preliminary treatment recommendations.
• The school psychologist met with Findy’s parents, explained FBA assessment procedures,
discussed the benefits and risks of conducting an FBA, and secured informed consent.
• Following completion of the preliminary FBA, the school psychologist participated in an
IEP team meeting to review the results and recommendations with the team. He also
recommended conducting a follow-­up FBA with a structural analysis, assessment of rein-
forcers, and treatment analysis.
• The school psychologist met with building administrators, and they agreed to ensure he
was invited to future referral IEP meetings.

The English Language Learner

Referral
A 7-year-old student with physical disabilities and probable developmental delays was
referred for an FBA of self-­injurious behavior. His family had recently moved to Portland,
Maine, after spending the previous 18 months in a refugee camp. They were staying with
relatives, and all family members had limited English proficiency.

Solution
• The school psychologist who received the referral secured the services of an interpreter
to assist with obtaining informed consent and conducting all phases of the FBA process.
• The school psychologist began the FBA process by conducting clinical interviews with
family members (with the interpreter, of course). To better understand the student’s pre-
sentation in context, the school psychologist asked family members to explain how his
development and behavior compared to other children in the family.
• The school psychologist also conducted descriptive assessments. Given that significantly
higher rates of self-­injurious behaviors were reported in the home relative to the school
setting, the school psychologist completed IBFAFs across both settings.
• After completing indirect and descriptive FBA procedures, the school psychologist used a
conjoint behavioral consultation model to involve family members, school staff, the com-
munity case manager, and the in-home BCBA in the process of designing, implementing,
and evaluating the effectiveness of interventions across school and home settings.

It Takes a Village
Referral
A secondary student with a long history of severe disruptive behaviors was referred for eval-
uation. Previous FBAs (indirect and descriptive) had been conducted and function-­based
interventions had been implemented; however, the behaviors persisted. After repeated
 It’s the Final Chapter 271

severe behavioral incidents that required emergency physical restraint and seclusion proce-
dures, a disability rights advocate was asked to investigate. The advocate met with the team
and requested that the school conduct an FBA that included both functional analysis and
treatment analysis procedures. Neither the school psychologist nor the BCBA at the school
had experience conducting these assessments.

Solution
• The first step was for the team to recognize they were in over their heads and seek sup-
port. “Help! I need somebody.”
• The school district agreed to contract with an outside BCBA with extensive experience
conducting functional analyses and treatment analyses.
• The outside contractor spent time in the student’s school to get the lay of the land and
size up the situation. She then conducted clinical interviews and observed the student in
natural settings to gather information needed to design a synthesized functional analysis
and treatment analysis.
• The contracted BCBA utilized behavioral skills training, including several role-play sce-
narios, to train the district’s school psychologist and BCBA to implement the functional
analysis and treatment analysis protocols.
• The FBA resulted in the identification of an effective intervention package that markedly
reduced severe disruptive behaviors while also increasing appropriate behaviors. The
district’s school psychologist and BCBA acknowledged that they get by with a little help
from their colleagues (apologies to Ringo Starr!).

Low‑Rate, High‑Intensity Behaviors and Variables

That Are Unethical to Manipulate
Referral
A high school student with a diagnosis of specific learning disability (reading fluency and
comprehension) was referred for an FBA due to concerns about vocal opposition (loudly
refusing to sit at the table, join group activities, etc.), swearing, and property destruction
(shoving desks and throwing books). During an initial FBA interview, the special education
teacher described the behavioral incident that led to referral. She explained that a signifi-
cant disruptive outburst occurred when she asked the student to join her for specialized
instruction. She explained that she was surprised by the incident because the student’s
behaviors were completely “out of character” and noted that the student appeared to be
intoxicated that day. The special education teacher hypothesized that use of alcohol may
have been a contributing factor in the student’s recent behavioral incident.

Solution
The school psychologist decided not to conduct descriptive assessments (interfering behav-
iors occurred very infrequently and were unlikely to be observed) or an experimental analy-
272 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

sis (it would be unethical to experimentally examine the effects of alcohol consumption on
interfering behaviors). Instead, she decided to conduct the FBA using the following meth-
ods:

• The Behavioral Stream Interview and Behavior-­Analytic Problem-­Solving Interview—to

gather information about individual and environmental variables associated with inter-
fering behavior
• Behavioral rating scales and executive skills assessments—­To gather information from
the student, teacher, and parents about relevant personal characteristics and skill deficits
• The Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results form—to arrive at a case
conceptualization

Peer‑Mediated Reinforcement
Referral
Jaymee is a fifth-grade student who frequently makes wisecracks in class. For example, the
teacher says, “Let me be perfectly frank here” and Jaymee quips, “Hellloooo, Frank.” Her
classmates moan, groan, titter, chortle, chuckle, and/or burst out laughing. Then Jaymee
turns to them with a Cheshire Cat grin and nods to the appreciative crowd while men-
tally preparing for her acceptance speech at the Academy Awards. In short, she really digs
socially mediated positive reinforcement (peer attention).

Solution
In this case, the special education consultant (who has completed comprehensive training
in FBA) decided not to conduct an experimental analysis because it would be impractical to
test the hypothesis that peer attention served to reinforce wisecrack behaviors. Instead, the
special education consultant conducted an FBA that included the following:

• Behavior-­analytic interviews—­to gather information about individual and environmental

variables associated with interfering behavior
• Interval Recording Procedure (IRP)—to estimate current levels of occurrence of inter-
fering behaviors and gain information about the contexts in which interfering behaviors
occur
• Incident-­Based Functional Assessment Form (IBFAF)—to document specific functional
antecedents and consequences for interfering behavior in natural contexts
• Behavior-­Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results—­to synthesize assessment data
and arrive at a case conceptualization
 It’s the Final Chapter 273

Do We Really Need to Conduct an FBA?

Consider the case of Danny, a 12th-grade student with a long history of disruptive and self-­injurious
behaviors. FBAs were conducted when Danny was in third, sixth, and ninth grade. Individualized behav-
ior support plans have been developed and implemented over the years, but with limited success. Dur-
ing a discussion about strategies for addressing recent increases in Danny’s self-­injurious behaviors, one
team member recommended an FBA. Another team member responded, “Do we really need another
FBA? Maybe we should just double-down on reinforcement for appropriate behavior (DRA/DRI) and
ignore self-­injury?” Several members of the team agreed; we did not.
Why would we insist on another FBA?

• Consider the matching law. For DRI and DRA strategies to effectively compete with the reinforce-
ment maintaining self-­injury, we need to ensure that the programmed reinforcement for the replacement
behavior is more robust. Do we really know that programmed DRA/DRI “reinforcers” will strengthen
behaviors? Have we identified a reinforcer that is more valuable than the reinforcer for self-­injury? Have
we selected replacement behaviors that require less effort than self-­injury?
• Consider the potential side effects of planned ignoring. Without knowledge of the function of
self-­injury, we cannot develop an effective extinction procedure. If self-­injury is attention-­maintained,
then ignoring may be an appropriate strategy. But, what if the team cannot safely wait out a potential
response burst? And what if the self-­injury is maintained by socially mediated negative reinforcement?
The withdrawal of attention (thus the withdrawal of any form of instruction) contingent on self-­injury
would actually strengthen (reinforce) self-­injury. Do we want to take that chance—­to potentially make
things worse?

Persistent behaviors are most likely triggered by several antecedents and reinforced by indis-
criminable reinforcement contingencies. This combination makes behavior very resistant to interven-
tion. Without a comprehensive FBA, we are unlikely to isolate the functional variables that need to
be addressed directly to effect change. A comprehensive FBA is essential for developing an effective,
personalized, Danny-­specific intervention. Let’s do it!

PARTING SHOTS

The following “snapshots” summarize many of the key elements of this book.

Ethically responsible assessment and treatment. We have an ethical responsibility to

conduct assessments that are based on current research and to recommend inter-
ventions that are function based, evidence based, and effective.
Behavioral compassion and empathy. Interfering behaviors are caused by a complex
interaction of individual and environmental variables. In this sense, students are
victims of their circumstances. Behavioral compassion and empathy prevent the
“blame game” and keep us focused on the real issue: solving the problem.
Evidence-­based interventions. We need to rely on treatments that are evidence based.
And we need to dissuade colleagues from recommending treatments that are based
on bad science, pseudoscience, nonscience, and nonsense.
When in doubt, test it out. Whether you are trying to determine the functions of inter-
fering behavior, identify powerful reinforcers for appropriate behavior, evaluate the
274 Conducting School‑Based Functional Behavioral Assessments

effectiveness of an intervention, or decide between treatment A, B and C, test it

out—­conduct an experimental analysis. Let the data do the talking, baby.
Hypothesis testing. As you conduct FBAs, go forth emboldened with confidence in
your procedures but remain humble and rooted in philosophical doubt. Be wary of
evaluator bias. Expect false positives (fake functions). Watch out for false negatives
(throwing the baby out with the bathwater). Trust your data (when navigating in the
fog, trust your instruments). Be open to admitting you were wrong—and, if you are,
then go back to the drawing board and restart the FBA process.
Effective treatment versus behavior monitoring. Assessments that merely confirm
or describe interfering behaviors really are just examples of behavior monitoring.
Behavior monitoring is a form of “watchful waiting.” In contrast, comprehensive
FBAs both identify and validate effective treatments. Students have the right to
effective treatment, and comprehensive FBAs make that right a reality.
Advocacy. Many of the students we encounter in our professional travels have limited
expressive communication and self-­advocacy skills. The behavior-­analytic problem-­
solving process yields data that gives voice to the voiceless. The data tell their story.
Socially meaningful change. The ultimate goal of an FBA is to guide the team to an
effective treatment that leads to socially meaningful behavior change. In short,
make a real difference!
The foundation for a therapeutic alliance. We posit that the results of an FBA guide
interventions that ultimately change the relationships between students and school
staff. When students learn to trust that school staff truly understand the functions of
their behaviors and are committed to implementing individually tailored function-
based interventions, a therapeutic alliance emerges. In short, a therapeutic alliance
is a relationship in which students trust that school staff will consistently and reli-
ably support their well-being by:
minimizing the motivating operations, discriminative stimuli, and reinforcing conse-
quences that control interfering behavior and
maximizing the motivating operations, discriminative stimuli, and reinforcing conse-
quences that promote socially meaningful replacement behavior.
Generality of FBA. The behavior-­analytic framework has been applied to facilitate
the conceptualization of a wide range of clinical concerns (e.g., attention-­deficit/
hyperactivity disorder, tic disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, compul-
sive disorders, eating disorders, and substance use disorders), and research teams
are developing functional assessment methodologies to identify the environmental
variables that impact these clinical problems for the purposes of informing indi-
vidualized and effective interventions (Sturmey, 2007). Although school-­based FBA
methodologies may not yet be advanced enough to address the complexity of these
clinical referral questions, we remain optimistic that the behavior-­analytic concep-
tualization of human behavior holds the potential for effecting socially meaningful
change for diverse populations with wide-­ranging needs. From our perspective, the
 It’s the Final Chapter 275

application of a behavior-­analytic problem-­solving model within schools is limited

only by our lack of creativity and imagination. We have the resources to unravel the
mystery of human behavior and to promote socially meaningful behavior change.
So, in the profound words of Bluto (portrayed by John Belushi) from the classic film
Animal House, “LET’S DO IT!!!!!”

FBA . . . the final frontier. Your mission is to assess new behaviors, to explore new
functions, to design new interventions, to change lives in meaningful ways, and to go
where no school psychologist or behavior analyst has gone before.
 APPENDIX

Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating Scale (FuBARS)

Description: The FuBARS task analyzes the behavior-analytic problem-solving (BAPS) model by listing
the tasks associated with each phase of a seven-step problem-solving process. The FuBARS serves
both as (1) a formative tool to guide the comprehensive FBA process and (2) a summative tool to
evaluate the quality of the behavior-analytic assessment–intervention continuum.

PHASE 1: IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF INTERFERING BEHAVIOR

Informed Consent

0 1 2

Parent/guardian consent not Parent/guardian consent Parent/guardian consent

obtained obtained; specific assessment obtained; specific assessment
procedures and risks/benefits procedures and risks/benefits
not identified and described identified and described in
understandable format

Identification and Description of Interfering Behavior(s)

0 1 2

General area of concern Target/priority interfering Target/priority interfering

identified, but target/priority behavior(s) identified, but behavior(s) identified and
interfering behavior(s) not described in nonbehavioral described in clear and
identified terms measurable terms

PHASE 2: RECORDING CURRENT LEVELS OF INTERFERING BEHAVIORS

Identification and Description of Behavior Recording Procedures

0 1 2 3

Behavior recording Behavior recording Behavior recording Behavior recording

procedures not procedures identified, procedures identified procedures identified,
identified but not described and described described, and
matched to the
dimensions of the
interfering behavior(s)

(continued)

From Conducting School-­Based Functional Behavioral Assessments, Third Edition, by Mark W. Steege, Jamie L. Pratt,
Garry Wickerd, Richard Guare, and T. Steuart Watson. Copyright © 2019 The Guilford Press. Permission to photocopy this
material is granted to purchasers of this book for personal use or use with students (see copyright page for details). Purchas-
ers can download additional copies of this material (see the box at the end of the table of contents).

277
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating Scale (FuBARS) (page 2 of 6)

Current Levels of Occurrence (CLO) of Interfering Behavior(s)

0 1 2 3

CLO not reported CLO estimated CLO reported, but CLO reported
based on limited data and based on
(e.g., one observation) representative sample
of data (i.e., multiple
observations)

PHASE 3: IDENTIFYING AND DESCRIBING ANTECEDENT, CONSEQUENCE,

AND ASSOCIATED VARIABLES
Identification and Description of Context

0 1

Contexts in which interfering behavior occurs not Contexts in which interfering behavior occurs
identified identified and described

Identification and Description of Personal Characteristics

0 1

Personal characteristics contributing to Personal characteristics contributing to

interfering behavior not identified interfering behavior identified and described

Identification and Description of Skill Delays/Deficits

0 1

Skill delays/deficits contributing to interfering Skill delays/deficits contributing to interfering

behavior not identified behavior identified and described

Identification and Description of Motivational Triggers (Motivating Operations): Deprivation

0 1

Deprivation of/restricted access to wants and Deprivation of/restricted access to wants and
needs that increase the value of reinforcing needs that increase the value of reinforcing
consequences not assessed consequences assessed, identified, and
described (as applicable)

(continued)

278
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating Scale (FuBARS) (page 3 of 6)

Identification and Description of Motivational Triggers (Motivating Operations): Presentation

0 1

Presentation of personally aversive stimuli that Presentation of personally aversive stimuli that
increase the value of reinforcing consequences increase the value of reinforcing consequences
not assessed assessed, identified, and described (as
applicable)

Identification and Description of Sources of Reinforcement (Discriminative Stimuli)

0 1

Discriminative stimuli that signal availability of Discriminative stimuli that signal availability of
reinforcement not identified reinforcement identified and described

Identification and Description of Reinforcing Consequence(s)

0 1 2

Consequence variables that Consequence variables that Consequence variables that

reinforce the occurrence reinforce the occurrence of reinforce the occurrence of
of interfering behavior not interfering behavior identified interfering behavior identified
identified and described

Identification and Description of Parameters of Reinforcement

0 1

Schedule, quality, magnitude, and timing of Schedule, quality, magnitude, and timing of
reinforcement not considered reinforcement considered, estimated, and
described

PHASE 4: CONCEPTUAL SYNTHESIS

Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Assessment Results Form

0 1 2

Form not completed Form partially completed Form completed with all
relevant assessment data
reported and correctly
categorized

(continued)

279
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating Scale (FuBARS) (page 4 of 6)

Hypothesis Statement(s)

0 1 2

Hypothesis statement not Hypothesis statement Hypothesis statement

formulated formulated, but written in formulated using accurate
ambiguous, nonbehavioral behavior-analytic terms (e.g.,
terms socially mediated negative
reinforcement, automatic
negative reinforcement)

Completion of Written Report

0 1 2

Comprehensive written report Comprehensive written report Comprehensive written report

of FBA procedures, results, of FBA procedures, results, and of FBA procedures, results, and
and recommendations not recommendations completed, recommendations completed
completed but not reviewed with team and reviewed with team

Quality of Written Report

0 1

Written report uses highly technical language Written report includes language
not understandable and graphic displays of data that are
reasonably understandable

PHASE 5: LINKING ASSESSMENT DATA TO INTERVENTIONS

Function-Based Intervention

0 1 2

BAPS: Function-Focused BAPS: Function-Focused BAPS: Function-Focused

Intervention form not used to Intervention form used by Intervention form used by
inform selection of interventions evaluator to inform selection evaluator in collaboration
of interventions that partially with the multidisciplinary
address relevant individual, team to inform selection of
antecedent, and consequence comprehensive interventions
variables that address all relevant
individual, antecedent, and
consequence variables

(continued)

280
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating Scale (FuBARS) (page 5 of 6)

Evidence-Based Intervention

0 1 2

Intervention strategies selected Intervention strategies selected Intervention strategies selected

on the basis of theory or on the basis of limited empirical on the basis of strong empirical
personal preference evidence evidence

Consideration of Generalization Strategies

0 1

Strategies promoting generalization of Strategies promoting generalization of

replacement behavior not identified and replacement behavior identified and described
described

PHASE 6: IMPLEMENTATION
Behavior Skills Training

0 1 2

Training on implementation of Training on implementation of Training on implementation of

interventions not delivered interventions delivered using interventions delivered using
only initial components of the the complete behavioral skills
behavioral skills training model training model

Intervention Acceptability

0 1 2

Intervention acceptability not Intervention acceptability Intervention acceptability

assessed assessed informally evaluated using structured
interviews or rating scales

Reliability of Data: Interobserver Agreement

0 1 2

Interobserver agreement not Interobserver agreement Interobserver agreement

assessed assessed, but data insufficient assessed sufficiently and
to demonstrate reliability reliability of data verified
of data (e.g., only 1–2
independent observations or
agreement less than 80%)

(continued)

281
 Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating Scale (FuBARS) (page 6 of 6)

Treatment Integrity/Intervention Adherence

0 1 2

Treatment integrity not Treatment integrity assessed Treatment integrity assessed

assessed indirectly (e.g., interventionist directly (e.g., direct observation
self-report using procedural of adherence to procedural
checklists) and/or data show checklists) and high adherence
poor adherence achieved

PHASE 7: PROGRESS MONITORING

Single-Case Experimental Design

0 1 2 3

No progress- Progress monitoring Progress monitoring Progress monitoring

monitoring systems implemented with no implemented using implemented using
implemented baseline data case study (A-B) case study (A-B)
design with unstable design with stable
baseline data and/or baseline data and
insufficient data sufficient data to
determine efficacy

Data Analysis/Graphing of Data

0 1

Progress-monitoring data not graphed Progress-monitoring data graphed accurately

Data-Based Decision Making

0 1 2 3

Progress-monitoring Progress-monitoring Progress-monitoring Progress-monitoring

data not reviewed; data reviewed data reviewed data reviewed regularly
modifications to periodically to inform periodically and and informal interviews
intervention based only modifications to informal interviews and direct observations
on informal interviews intervention conducted to inform conducted to inform
modifications to modifications to
intervention intervention

282
 References

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2012). Supervisor training curriculum outline. Retrieved
from www.bacb.com/wp-­content/uploads/2017/09/supervisor_curriculum.pdf.
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2014). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior
analysts. Retrieved from www.bacb.com/ethics/ethics-­code.
Betz, A. M., & Fisher W. W. (2011). Functional analysis: History and methods. In W. W. Fisher, C.
C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 206–228). New
York: Guilford Press.
Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experi-
mental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 1, 175–191.
Billington, E., & DiTommaso, N. M. (2003). Demonstrations and applications of the matching law in
education. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 91–104.
Bloom, S. E., Iwata, B. A., Fritz, J. N., Roscoe, E. M., & Carreau, A. B. (2011). Classroom application
of a trial-based functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 19–31.
Brown, R. (2017). The reliability and validity of the Task Analysis Recording Procedure (TARP).
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Maine.
Brown-­Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2010). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for
effective practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Campbell, J. M. (2003). Efficacy of behavioral interventions for reducing problem behavior in per-
sons with autism: A quantitative synthesis of single-­subject research. Research in Developmen-
tal Disabilities, 24, 120–138.
Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communica-
tion training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111–126.
Carrizales-­Engelmann, D., Feuerborn, L. L., Gueldner, B. A., & Tran, O. K. (2016). Merrell’s Strong
Kids: A social and emotional learning curriculum (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University. (2011). Building the brain’s “air traffic con-
trol” system: How early experiences shape the development of executive function (Working
Paper No. 11). Retrieved from www.developingchild.harvard.edu.
283
284 References

Cipani, E., & Schock, K. M. (2011). Functional behavioral assessment, diagnosis, and treatment
(2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Dalai Lama. (2009). The art of happiness: A handbook for living. New York: Penguin.
Daly, E. J., Martens, B. K., Hamler, K. R., Dool, E. J., & Eckert, T. L. (1999). A brief experimental
analysis for identifying instructional components needed to improve oral reading fluency. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 83–94.
Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2016). The smart but scattered guide to success: How to use your brain’s
executive skills to keep up, stay calm, and get organized at work and at home. New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Dawson, P., & Guare, R. (2018). Executive skills in children and adolescents: A practical guide to
assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Day, R. M., Rea, J. A., Schussler, N. G., Larsen, S. E., & Johnson, W. L. (1988). A functionally based
approach to the treatment of self-­injurious behavior. Behavior Modification, 12, 565–589.
DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-­stimulus presentation format for as-
sessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.
Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Northup, J., Cigrand, K., et al. (1992). Brief func-
tional assessment techniques to evaluate aberrant behavior in an outpatient setting: A summary
of 79 cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 713–721.
DeRosa, N. M., Fisher, W. W., & Steege, M. W. (2015). An evaluation of time in establishing opera-
tion on the effectiveness of functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 48, 115–130.
Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-­injurious be-
havior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99–117.
Epstein, R. (1997). Skinner as self-­manager. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 545–568.
Erbas, D., Trkin-Iftar, E., & Yucesoy, S. (2006). Teaching special education teachers how to conduct
functional analysis in natural settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,
41, 28–36.
Fisher, W. W., DeLeon, I. G., Rodriguez-­Catter, V., & Keeney, K. M. (2004). Enhancing the effects
of extinction on attention-­maintained behavior through noncontingent delivery of attention or
stimuli identified via a competing stimulus assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
37, 171–184.
Fisher, W. W., Ninness, H. A., Piazza, C. C., & Owen-­DeSchryver, J. S. (1996). On the reinforcing
effects of the content of verbal attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 235–238.
Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a
systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental
Retardation, 101, 15–25.
Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A
comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound
disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.
Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., & Roane, H. S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of applied behavior analysis.
New York: Guilford Press.
Geiger, K. B., Carr, J. E., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2010). Function-­based treatments for escape-­maintained
problem behavior: A treatment-­selection model for practicing behavior analysts. Behavior Anal-
ysis in Practice, 3, 22–32.
Goldfried, M. R., & Sprafkin, J. N. (1976). Behavioral personality assessment. In J. T. Spence, R. C.
Carson, & J. W. Thibaut (Eds.), Behavioral approaches to therapy (pp. 295–321). Morristown,
NJ: General Learning Press.
 References 285

Griffin, W., & AFIRM Team. (2017). Functional communication training. Chapel Hill: National
Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorder, FPG Child Development
Center, University of North Carolina. Retrieved from http://afirm.fpg.unc.edu/functional-­
communication-­training.
Guare, R., Guare, C., & Dawson, P. (2019). Smart but scattered—­and stalled: 10 steps to help young
adults use their executive skills to set goals, make a plan, and successfully leave the nest. New
York: Guilford Press.
Hagopian, L. P., Crockett, J. L., van Stone, M., DeLeon, I. G., & Bowman, L. G. (2000). Effects
of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior and stimulus engagement: The role of
satiation, extinction, and alternative reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33,
433–449.
Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problem behavior: Dispelling myths, overcoming
implementation obstacles, and developing new lore. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5, 54–72.
Hanley, G. P. (2018). Practical functional assessment: Understanding problem behavior prior to its
treatment. Retrieved from www.practicalfunctionalassessment.com.
Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., & Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful improve-
ments in problem behavior of children with autism via synthesized analyses and treatments.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 16–36.
Harper, J. M., Iwata, B. A., & Camp, E. M. (2013). Assessment and treatment of social avoidance.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 147–160.
Hart, T., & Jacobs, H. E. (1993). Rehabilitation and management of behavioral disturbances follow-
ing frontal lobe injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 8, 1–12.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of a response as a function of frequency of
reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267–272.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13,
243–266.
Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., Van den Noortgate, W., Kuppens, S., & Onghena, P. (2012). A multilevel
meta-­analysis of single-­case and small-n research on interventions for reducing challenging
behavior in persons with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33,
766–780.
Hoch, H., McComas, J. J., Johnson, L., Faranda, N., & Guenther, S. L. (2002). The effects of mag-
nitude and quality of reinforcement on choice responding during play activities. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 171–181.
Hoffmann, A. N., Contreras, B. P., Clay, C. J., & Twohig, M. P. (2016). Acceptance and commitment
therapy for individuals with disabilities: A behavior analytic strategy for addressing private
events in challenging behavior. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 14–24.
Iwata, B. A., & DeLeon, I. G. (1996). Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST). Gainesville: Flor-
ida Center on Self-Injury, University of Florida.
Iwata, B. A., DeLeon, I. G., & Roscoe, E. M. (2013). Reliability and validity of the functional analysis
screening tool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 271–284.
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a func-
tional analysis of self-­injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20
[Reprinted in Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209 (1994)].
Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Cowdery, G. E., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1994). What makes extinction
work: An analysis of procedural form and function. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27,
131–144.
Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Kalsher, M. J., Cowdery, G. E., & Cataldo, M. F. (1990). Experimental
analysis and extinction of self-­injurious escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
23, 11–27.
286 References

Iwata, B. A., Smith, R. G., & Michael, J. (2000). Current research on the influence of establishing
operations on behavior in applied settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 411–418.
Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S. W., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., et al. (2000).
Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 33, 181–194.
Iwata, B. A., Wong, S. E., Riordan, M. M., Dorsey, M. F., & Lau, M. M. (1982). Assessment and
training of clinical interviewing skills: Analog analysis and field replication. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 15, 191–203.
Kazdin, A. E. (2001). Behavior modification in applied settings (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/
Thomson Learning.
Kelly, A. N., Axe, J. B., Allen, R. F., & Maguire, R. W. (2015). Effects of presession pairing on the
challenging behavior and academic responding of children with autism. Behavioral Interven-
tions, 30, 135–156.
Kenworthy, L., Anthony, L. G., Alexander, K. C., Werner, M. A., Cannon, L., & Greenman, L. (2014).
Solving executive function challenges. Baltimore: Brookes.
Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to de-
scribe them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 407–414.
Lee, D. L., Lylo, B., Vostal, B., & Hua, Y. (2012). The effects of high-­preference problems on the
completion of nonpreferred mathematics problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45,
223–228.
Lerman, D. C., Iwata, B. A., & Wallace, M. D. (1999). Side effects of extinction: Prevalence of burst-
ing and aggression during the treatment of self-­injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 32, 1–8.
Lewon, M., & Hayes, L. J. (2014). Toward an analysis of emotions as products of motivating opera-
tions. Psychological Record, 64, 813–825.
Mace, F. C. (1994). The significance and future of functional analysis methodologies. Journal of Ap-
plied Behavior Analysis, 2, 385–392.
Mace, F. C., Gritter, A. K., Johnson, P. E., Malley, J. L., & Steege, M. W. (2006). Contingent rein-
forcement in context. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 7, 115–120.
Mace, F. C., & Roberts, M. L. (1993). Developing effective interventions: Empirical and conceptual
considerations. In J. Reichle & D. P. Wacker (Eds.), Communicative alternatives to challenging
behavior: Integrating functional assessment and intervention strategies (pp. 113–133). Balti-
more: Brookes.
Maglieri, K. A., DeLeon, I. G., Rodriguez-­Catter, V., & Sevin, B. M. (2000). Treatment of covert food
stealing in an individual with Prader–­Willi Syndrome. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
33, 615–618.
Martens, B. K., Eckert, T. L., Bradley, T. A., & Ardoin, S. P. (1999). Identifying effective treatments
from a brief experimental analysis: Using single-­case design elements to aid decision making.
School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 163–181.
Martens, B. K., Halperin, S., Rummel, J. E., & Kilpatrick, D. (1990). Matching theory applied to
contingent teacher attention. Behavioral Assessment, 12, 139–155.
Martens, B. K., & Houk, J. L. (1989). The application of Herrnstein’s law of effect to disruptive and
on-task behavior of a retarded adolescent girl. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behav-
ior, 51, 17–27.
Matson, J. L., & Vollmer, T. R. (1995). User’s guide: Questions about Behavioral Function (QABF).
Baton Rouge, LA: Scientific.
May, M. E., & Kennedy, C. H. (2010). Health and problem behavior among people with intellectual
disabilities. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3, 4–12.
 References 287

Mayer, G. R., Sulzer-­Azaroff, B., & Wallace, M. (2019). Behavior analysis for lasting change (4th
ed.). Cornwall-­on-­Hudson, NY: Sloan.
Mazza, J. J. (2014). Best practices in clinical interviewing parents, teachers, and students. In P. L.
Harrison & T. A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Data-based and col-
laborative decision making (pp. 317–330). Washington, DC: National Association of School
Psychologists.
McCahill, J., Healy, O., Lydon, S., & Ramey, D. (2014). Training educational staff in functional be-
havioral assessment: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities,
26, 479–505.
McComas, J., Hoch, H., Paone, D., & El-Roy, D. (2000). Escape behavior during academic tasks:
A preliminary analysis of idiosyncratic establishing operations. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 33, 479–493.
McGill, P. (1999). Establishing operations: Implications for the assessment, treatment, and preven-
tion of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 393–418.
McGinnis, E. (2011a). Skillstreaming the adolescent: A guide for teaching prosocial skills (3rd ed.).
Champaign, IL: Research Press.
McGinnis, E. (2011b). Skillstreaming the elementary school child: A guide for teaching prosocial
(3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Merrell, K. W., Juskelis, M. P., Tran, O. K., & Buchanan, R. (2008). Social and emotional learning in
the classroom: Evaluation of strong kids and strong teens on students’ social–­emotional knowl-
edge and symptoms. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24, 209–224.
Miller, D. L., & Kelley, M. L. (1994). The use of goal setting and contingency contracting for improv-
ing children’s homework performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 73–84.
Miltenberger, R. G. (2005). The role of automatic negative reinforcement in clinical problems. Inter-
national Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 1, 1–11.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2010a). Model for comprehensive and integrated school
psychological services. Retrieved from www.nasponline.org/standards-­and-­certification/nasp-­
practice-­model.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2010b). Principles for professional ethics. Retrieved
from www.nasponline.org/standards-­and-­certification/nasp-­standards-­revision.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2010c). Standards for graduate preparation of
school psychologists. Retrieved from www.nasponline.org/standards-­and-­certification/nasp-­
standards-­revision.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2010d). Standards for the credentialing of school psy-
chologists. Retrieved from www.nasponline.org/standards-­and-­certification/nasp-­standards-­
revision.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2014). Best practices in school psychology. Bethesda,
MD: Author.
Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). The nature of behavioral assessment: A commentary. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 491–500.
Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Cigrand, K., Cook, J., et al. (1991). A brief functional
analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an outclinic setting. Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis, 24, 509–522.
O’Neill, M., & Jones, R. S. (1997). Sensory-­perceptual abnormalities in autism: A case for more re-
search? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 283–293.
O’Reilly, M. F. (1997). Functional analysis of episodic self-­injury correlated with recurrent otitis
media. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 165–167.
Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimu-
288 References

lus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255.
Pace, G. M., Iwata, B. A., Cowdery, G. E., Andree, P. J., & McIntyre, T. (1993). Stimulus (instruc-
tional) fading during extinction of self-­injurious escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 26, 205–212.
Peters. L. C., & Thompson, R. H. (2015). Teaching children with autism to respond to conversation
partners’ interest. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 544–562.
Piazza, C. C., Roane, H. S., & Karsten, A. (2011). Identifying and enhancing the effectiveness of
positive reinforcement. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, & Roane, H. S. (Eds.), Handbook of ap-
plied behavior analysis (pp. 151–164). New York: Guilford Press.
Pratt, J. L. (2010). Extending the functional behavioral assessment process: A methodology for test-­
driving interventions with varied choice dimensions to reduce escape-­maintained behaviors
displayed by youth with emotional and behavioral disorders. Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Southern Maine.
Reichle, J., & Wacker, D. P. (2017). Functional communication training for problem behavior. New
York: Guilford Press.
Repp, A. C., Felce, D., & Barton, L. E. (1988). Basing the treatment of stereotypic and self-­injurious
behaviors on hypotheses of their causes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 281–289.
Rispoli, M., Camargo, S., Machalicek, W., Lang, R., & Sigafoos, J. (2014). Functional communica-
tion training in the treatment of problem behavior maintained by access to rituals. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 580–593.
Roane, H. S., Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., & Marcus, B. A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus
preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 605–620.
Roscoe, E. M., Iwata, B. A., & Goh, H. L. (1998). A comparison of noncontingent reinforcement
and sensory extinction as treatments for self-­injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 31, 635–646.
Shamlian, K. D., Fisher, W. W., Steege, M. W., Cavanaugh, B. M., Samour, K., & Querim, A. C.
(2016). Evaluation of multiple schedules with naturally occurring and therapist-­arranged dis-
criminative stimuli following functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 49, 228–250.
Shriver, M. D., Anderson, C. M., & Proctor, B. (2001). Evaluating the validity of functional behavior
assessment. School Psychology Review, 30, 180–192.
Shriver, M. D., & Kramer, J. J. (1997). Application of the generalized matching law for description of
student behavior in the classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 131–149.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-­Century-­Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1974). About Behaviorism. New York: Knopf.
Smith, R. G., & Churchill, R. M. (2002). Identification of environmental determinants of behav-
ior disorders through functional analysis of precursor behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 35, 125–136.
Smith, R. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1997). Antecedent influences on behavior disorders. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 30, 343–375.
Steege, M. W., Davin, T., & Hathaway, M. (2001). Reliability and accuracy of a performance-­based
behavioral recording procedure. School Psychology Review, 30, 252–261.
Steege, M. W., Mace, F. C., Perry, L., & Longenecker, H. (2007). Applied behavior analysis: Beyond
discrete trial teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 91–99.
Steege, M. W., & Pratt, J. L. (2012). Functional behavioral assessment: The cornerstone of effective
 References 289

problem solving. In R. Brown-­Chidsey & K. Andren (Eds.), Assessment for intervention: A

problem-­solving approach (2nd ed., pp. 125–143). New York: Guilford Press.
Steege, M. W., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Cigrand, K. K., & Cooper, L. J. (1989). The use of be-
havioral assessment to prescribe and evaluate treatments for severely handicapped children.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 23–33.
Steege, M. W., Wacker, D. P., Cigrand, K. C., Berg, W. K., Novak, C. G., Reimers, T. M., et al. (1990).
Use of negative reinforcement in the treatment of self-­injurious behavior. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 23, 459–467.
Steege, M. W., Wacker, D. P., & McMahon, C. M. (1987). Evaluation of the effectiveness and ef-
ficiency of two stimulus prompt strategies with severely handicapped students. Journal of Ap-
plied Behavior Analysis, 20, 293–299.
Steege, M. W., & Watson, T. S. (2009). Conducting school-­based functional behavioral assessments:
A practitioner’s guide (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The effectiveness of direct
instruction curricula: A meta-­analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational
Research, 88(4), 479–507.
Stokes, J. V., Cameron, M. J., Dorsey, M. F., & Fleming, E. (2004). Task analysis, correspondence
training, and general case instruction for teaching personal hygiene skills. Behavioral Interven-
tions, 19, 121–135.
Sturmey, P. (Ed.). (2007). Functional analysis in clinical treatment. New York: Academic Press.
Thompson, R. H., & Borrero, J. C. (2011). Direct observation. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, & H. S.
Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 191–205). New York: Guilford Press.
Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bruzek, J. (2008). Functional communication training: A review and
practical guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 16–23.
Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus
control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 343–351.
Volkert, V. M., Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. (2005). The effects of reinforcement magnitude on
functional analysis outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 147–162.
Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). The role of atten-
tion in the treatment of attention-­maintained self-­injurious behavior: Noncontingent reinforce-
ment and differential reinforcement of other behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
26, 9–21.
Vollmer, T. R., Marcus, B. A., Ringdahl, J. E., & Roane, H. S. (1995). Progressing from brief assess-
ments to extended experimental analyses in the evaluation of aberrant behavior. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 561–576.
Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Harding, J. W., & Cooper-­Brown, L. J. (2011). Functional and structural
approaches to behavioral assessment. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.),
Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 165–181). New York: Guilford Press.
Wacker, D. P., Steege, M. W., Northup, J., Sasso, G., Berg, W., Reimers, T., et al. (1990). A component
analysis of functional communication training across three topographies of severe behavior
problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 417–429.
Watson, T. S., & Steege, M. W. (2003). Conducting school-­based functional behavioral assessments:
A practitioner’s guide. New York: Guilford Press.
 Index

Note. Page numbers in italic indicate a figure or a table.

A-B-C model, 80 Assessment

A-B-C recording procedure, 139 descriptive assessment, 5, 6–7
Abolishing operations, 47 experimental analysis, 5, 7
Antecedent–behavior–consequence (A-B-C) FBA training in explaining assessment
model, 80 results and recommendations, 264–265
Antecedent interventions, 191–194 hypothesis-testing method of, 80
Antecedents indirect assessment, 5–6, 108
A-B-C model and, 80 linking data to interventions, 11
functional antecedents, 28–29 resources to evaluate FBA competencies,
Antecedent variables, 33, 34–39, 44 16–17
Applied learning experiences treatment analysis, 5, 7
behavior-analytic interviews, 257–258 See also specific types of assessment
behavior-analytic observation, 260 Automatic reinforcement, 31, 32–33, 39, 256
behavior-analytic problem solving and case
conceptualization, 262
behavior-analytic problem solving and B
function-focused intervention, 263
behavior recording practice, 254–255 BACB. See Behavior Analyst Certification
consultation, training, and supervision, 265 Board
designing and conducting experimental BAPS-I. See Behavior-Analytic Problem-
analyses, 260–262 Solving Interview
explaining assessment results and BAPS model. See Behavior-analytic problem-
recommendations, 264–265 solving model
four-term contingency, 255–256 Behavior
identifying, describing, and recording in the A-B-C model, 80
behavior, 254 biological/medical influences on, 46–48
identifying reinforcers, 262 defining operationally, 131–132
interobserver agreement, 255 FBA training to identify, describe, and
interval recording procedure, 258–259 record, 254–255
treatment analysis, 263–264 forms and functions, 2–3
291
292 Index

Behavior (cont.) Behavior-analytic problem-solving (BAPS) model

influence of emotions on, 48–51 Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving
influence of thoughts on, 51–52 Interview and, 117–118
recording. See Recording behavior components
response classes, 39, 41 context, 84–85, 118
See also Interfering behaviors illustrative example, 96, 97
Behavioral coaching, 253 interfering behavior, 83–84, 118
Behavioral compassion, 8–9 motivating triggers, 88–89, 118
Behavioral empathy, 9 overview, 82–83
Behavioral rating scales, 109 parameters of reinforcement, 92–94, 118
Behavioral skills training, 16, 252–254. See personal characteristics, 85–86, 118
also Applied learning experiences reinforcing consequences, 90–92, 118
Behavioral Stream Interview (BSI), 108, 114, skill delays/deficits, 87–88, 118
118–122, 256–257 sources of reinforcement, 89–90, 118
Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB), summary, 94
9, 14, 16, 17 conceptual models underlying, 80–82
Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: FBA training in, 262, 263
Assessment Results Recording Form overview, 117–118
blank form, 105 rationale for, 79–80, 107
case examples, 99, 101, 102 using to communicate FBA results and
function-based interventions as the goal of, recommendations, 100, 103–104
190 Behavior Assessment Report template
guide to using, 95–97 blank form, 246–251
linking results to antecedent interventions, first example report, 224–233
192, 194–195 guidelines for completing, 220–223
linking results to teaching and second example report, 234–245
reinforcement-based interventions, summary, 223
197–199 Behavior intervention plans
structure of, 81–82 function-based. See Function-based
using in FBA training for behavior-analytic interventions
problem solving, 262, 263 linking functional behavioral assessment to,
using to communicate FBA results and 190
recommendations, 100, 103–104, 264– recommendations for maximally effective
265 plans, 204
Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Behavior recording. See Recording behavior
Function-Focused Intervention Biological/medical factors, 46–48
planning tool Brief functional analysis, 170–173
blank form, 211 BSI. See Behavioral Stream Interview
case example, 205–207
guide to using, 200, 202–205
Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving Interview C
(BAPS-I)
applied learning experience with Conditional Probability Record (CPR), 141,
behavior-analytic interviews, 143–144, 151–152, 162
256–257 Consequences
blank form, 124–129 A-B-C model and, 80
conducting, 115–118 consequence-based strategies to reduce
indirect FBA and, 108, 114 interfering behaviors, 198–200, 201
 Index 293

defined, 29 Direct observation, 132–138, 260

motivating operations and, 35–37, 38–39 Discriminative stimuli (SDs)
reinforcing consequences. See Reinforcing BAPS model and, 89–90, 94
consequences concept and examples of, 34–35, 40
Consequence variables, 29–33, 38–39, 44 defined, 89
Consultation, 265 FBA training in four-term contingency,
Context 255–257
in the BAPS model, 84–85, 94, 118 interrelationship with motivating operations,
in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: 37–38
Assessment Results Recording Form, 95 as sources of reinforcement, 34, 39
in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: See also Sources of reinforcement
Function-Focused Intervention form, Duration recording, 134
202
defined, 84
targeting in antecedent interventions, 191 E
Contingency contracting, 197
Covert verbal behaviors. See Thoughts Eight-term behavior-analytic conceptual
CPR. See Conditional Probability Record model, 81–82
Emotions, 48–51, 53
Empiricism, 8
D English language learners, 270
Environmental modifications
Descriptive assessment to aid flexibility, 60–61
in functional behavioral assessment, 5, 6–7 to aid response inhibition, 57–58
of potential reinforcers, 183–184, 188 Errors, potential errors with interviews,
Descriptive functional behavioral assessment 111–114
defining behavior operationally, 131–132 Escape from task, 30, 31, 33
overview, 130–131 Establishing operations, 47
procedures Ethics
comparing and contrasting, 151–152 ethical standards, 13, 14, 15, 213–214
Conditional Probability Record, 141, supervisor competency, 253
143–144, 162 See also Informed consent
Functional Behavioral Assessment Executive skills
Observation Form, 139–141, 160 interventions for, 57–62
Incident-Based Functional Assessment introduction, 54–57
Form, 141, 142, 161 skill delays/deficits and, 88
Interval Recording Procedure, 144–146, summary and resources, 63
147–148, 163 Executive Skills Problem Checklist,
overview, 139 Elementary Version—Parents, 76–78
Task Analysis Recording Procedure, 146, Executive Skills Problem Checklist,
149–151 Elementary Version—Teacher,
recording behavior, 132–138 70–71
summary, 152–153 Executive Skills Problem Checklist, Middle-
Differential reinforcement High School Version, 72–75
of alternative behavior (DRA), 197 Executive Skills Questionnaire for Parents/
of communicative behavior (DRC), 197 Teachers, 64–65
of incompatible behavior (DRI), 40, 197 Executive Skills Questionnaire for Students,
of other behavior (DRO), 159, 197 66–69
294 Index

Experimental analysis FuBARS. See Functional Behavioral

FBA training in designing and conducting, Assessment Rating Scale
260–262 Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST),
in functional behavioral assessment, 5, 7 109, 111
of reinforcer effectiveness, 185–188 Functional antecedents, 28–29. See also
Experimental functional behavioral Antecedent variables
assessment Functional behavioral assessment (FBA)
brief functional analysis, 170–173 approach to a comprehensive FBA,
experimental logic and, 165 107–108
extended functional analysis, 166–170 BAPS model and, 79–80, 107. See also
informed consent, 168 Behavior-analytic problem-solving
overview, 164–165 model
structural analysis, 177–179 case examples of pliable and flexible FBAs,
summary, 180 267–273
synthesized functional analysis, 175–176 communicating results and
training resource, 165 recommendations, 100, 103–104
trial-based functional analysis, 173–175 competencies for, 14–18
Experimental logic, 165 conceptual foundations, 4
Extended functional analysis, 166–170 antecedent variables, 33–38
Extinction, 198–200, 201 consequence variables, 29–33
Extinction bursts, 198–199 functional antecedents and consequences,
28–29
introduction to, 28
F the matching law, 41–44
response classes, 39, 41
FAST. See Functional Analysis Screening Tool summary and resources, 44–45
FBA. See Functional behavioral assessment summary of antecedents and
FBA competencies consequences, 38–39
academic preparation, 14–15 factors in creating an optimal approach, 12
behavioral skills training to support, 16 focus and purpose of, 1, 3–4, 29
personal competency, 15 generality of, 274–275
resources to support and evaluate, 16–17 importance of function-based interventions,
summary, 18 189–190. See also Function-based
supervisor competencies, 15 interventions
See also Applied learning experiences importance of preference and reinforcer
FBACS. See Functional Behavioral Assessment assessments, 183, 188
Competency Scale linking to behavior intervention plans, 190
FBAOF. See Functional Behavioral Assessment methods
Observation Form descriptive assessment, 5, 6–7
FBAPC. See Functional Behavioral experimental analysis, 5, 7
Assessment Procedural Checklist indirect assessment, 5–6
Five-term behavior-analytic conceptual model, overview, 4–5
81 treatment analysis, 5, 7
Four-term behavior-analytic conceptual model, philosophical orientation, 7–9
80–81 problem solving and, 9–10, 189
Free operant preference assessment, 184 professional and ethical standards, 13–18,
Frequency recording, 133–134 213–214
 Index 295

report template. See Behavior Assessment I

Report template
response-to-intervention analysis and, IBFAF. See Incident-Based Functional
213–214 Assessment Form
summary of key elements, 273–274 Incident-Based Functional Assessment Form
team-based approach, 18 (IBFAF)
treatment analysis, 212–219 advantages and disadvantages, 151
Functional Behavioral Assessment blank form, 161
Competency Scale (FBACS), 17, 19–23 description and example of, 141, 142
Functional Behavioral Assessment Informed using with FBA training in behavior-analytic
Consent Form, 25–27 observation, 260
Functional Behavioral Assessment using with the Behavioral Stream Interview,
Observation Form (FBAOF), 139–141, 114, 122, 123
151, 160 Incompatible behavior, 197
Functional Behavioral Assessment Procedural Indirect assessment, 5–6, 108, 183, 188
Checklist (FBAPC), 17, 24 Indirect functional behavioral assessment
Functional Behavioral Assessment Rating concept and uses of, 108
Scale (FuBARS), 9, 277–282 considerations for evaluators conducting, 108
Functional communication training, 194–195 procedures
Functional consequences, 28–29. See also analysis of rating scale results, 109, 111
Consequence variables Behavioral Stream Interview, 118–122
Function-based extinction, 190–200, 201 Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving
Function-based interventions Interview, 115–118
antecedent interventions, 191–194 defining interfering behaviors, 115
Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: interviews, 111–114
Function-Focused Intervention overview, 108–109
planning tool, 200, 202–205, 211 review of records, 109, 110
consequence-based strategies to reduce summary of strengths and weaknesses,
interfering behaviors, 198–200, 201 122–123
FBA training in, 263 Individually mediated reinforcement, 31–33,
importance in functional behavioral 39, 89–90, 256
assessment, 189–190 Informed consent
linking assessment data to, 11 absence of, 269–270
need for a pliant game plan, 190 with experimental FBA, 168
punishment and time-outs, 205, 208 Functional Behavioral Assessment Informed
summary, 208 Consent Form, 25–27
teaching and reinforcement-based Instructional modification, 193
interventions, 194–198 Interactionism, 8, 10–11
“trick” treatments versus evidence-based Interfering behaviors
interventions, 209–210 approaches to defining, 115
Function-focused rating scales, 109, 111 in the BAPS model, 83–84, 96, 118
in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:
Assessment Results Recording Form, 95
H in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:
Function-Focused Intervention form,
High-probability request sequence, 193 203–204
Hypothesis-testing method of assessment, 80 behaviors with fake functions, 6
296 Index

Interfering behaviors (cont.) L

consequence-based strategies to reduce,
198–200, 201 Latency recording, 134–135
context and, 84–85
defined, 4, 83
discriminative stimuli and, 34–35 M
executive skills that may contribute to, 55–57
FBA training in four-term contingency, Magnitude of reinforcement, 93, 97
255–257 Matching law, 41–44
functional antecedents and consequences, Medical factors. See Biological/medical factors
28–29 Model for Comprehensive and Integrated
functional perspective, 2–3 School Psychological Services (NASP),
function-based interventions. See Function- 9, 13, 213–214
based interventions Momentary time sampling, 135–136
internal environment and, 46–53 MOs. See Motivating operations/triggers
matching law and, 41–44 Motivating operations/triggers (MOs)
motivating operations and, 35–37, 88–89 in the BAPS model, 88–89, 94, 96, 118
parameters of reinforcement and, 92–94 in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:
personal characteristics and, 85–86 Assessment Results Recording Form, 96
problem-solving approach to, 9–11 in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:
reinforcing consequences and, 90–92, 91 Function-Focused Intervention form,
skill delays/deficits and, 87–88 204
sources of reinforcement and, 89–90 categories of, 38–39
Internal environment concept and examples of, 35–37, 40
biological/medical influences on behavior, defined, 88
46–48 emotions as, 49–51
influence of emotions on behavior, 48–51 FBA training in four-term contingency,
influence of thoughts on behavior, 51–52 255–257
interfering behaviors and, 46 five-term behavior-analytic conceptual
summary and resource article, 53 model and, 81
Interobserver agreement, 255 functioning of biological and medical
Interval recording, 135–137 variables as, 47–48
Interval Recording Procedure (IRP) interrelationship with discriminative stimuli,
advantages and disadvantages, 152 37–38
blank form, 163 targeting in antecedent interventions, 191, 193
description and examples of, 144–146, 147–148 thoughts as, 52
FBA training in designing and Motivational Assessment Scale, 109
implementing, 258–259 Multiple-stimulus without replacement
Interviews assessment, 184
Behavioral Stream Interview, 108, 114, 118–
122, 257–258
guidelines, 114 N
indirect assessment and, 5
potential errors, 111–114 NASP. See National Association of School
resources on interviewing skills, 117 Psychologists
See also Behavior-Analytic Problem-Solving National Association of School Psychologists
Interview (NASP), 9, 13–14, 213–214
IRP. See Interval Recording Procedure National Standards Project, 209
 Index 297

Negative reinforcement, 30, 31–33, 39 Professional development, 253–254. See also

Noncontingent escape, 192 Applied learning experiences; FBA
Noncontingent reinforcement, 192 competencies
Professional practice networks, 18
Professional standards, 13–18, 213–214
O Progress monitoring, 11
Punishment, 29, 205, 208
Observation, 132–138, 260
Operational definitions, 131–132
Organism variables, 80–81 Q

QABF checklist. See Questions About

P Behavioral Function checklist
Quality of reinforcement, 93, 97
Paired-choice preference assessment, 184 Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF)
Parameters of reinforcement checklist, 109
in the BAPS model, 92–94, 97, 118
in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:
Assessment Results Recording Form, 97 R
defined, 92
overview and description of, 42–44 Radical behaviorism, 48–49
Partial-interval recording, 135–136, 137 Rating scales, analysis of results, 109, 111
Peer-mediated reinforcement, 272 Recency error of perception, 112
Performance-based behavior recordings, 138 Recording behavior
Personal characteristics duration recording, 134
in the BAPS model, 85–86, 94, 96, 118 FBA training in, 254–255
in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: frequency recording, 133–134
Assessment Results Recording Form, 96 interval recording, 135–137
in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: latency recording, 134–135
Function-Focused Intervention form, overview, 132–133
202 performance-based, 138
defined, 85 recording current levels of interfering
Personal competency, 15 behaviors, 10
Philosophy Record reviews, 5
functional behavioral assessment and, 7–9 Reinforcement
philosophical doubt, 7–8 automatic reinforcement, 31, 32–33, 39, 257
Positive reinforcement, 29–30, 31–33, 39 defined, 29
Potential reinforcers, preference assessment differential reinforcement, 197
and, 183–185 discriminative stimuli and, 34–35, 39
Preference assessment, 183–185, 188 FBA training in four-term contingency, 255–257
Primacy error of perception, 112–113 individually mediated reinforcement, 31–33,
Principles for Professional Ethics (NASP), 13, 39, 89–90, 256
14, 213 magnitude of, 93, 97
Private events. See Internal environment matching law and, 41–44
Problem solving, 9–10. See also Behavior- negative reinforcement, 30, 31–33, 39
analytic problem-solving model noncontingent reinforcement, 192
Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for parameters of, 42–44. See also Parameters of
Behavior Analysts (BACB), 9, 14, 47, 205 reinforcement
298 Index

peer-mediated reinforcement, 272 Self-management, 197

positive reinforcement, 29–30, 31–33, 39 Semistructured interviews, 114, 115–118
quality of, 93, 97 Single-stimulus preference assessment, 184
schedules of, 92–93, 97 Skill delays/deficits
socially mediated reinforcement, 31, 32–33, in the BAPS model, 87–88, 94, 118
39, 90, 255–256 in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:
sources of. See Sources of reinforcement Assessment Results Recording Form,
timing of, 94, 97 96–97
Reinforcement-based interventions, 194–198 in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:
Reinforcers Function-Focused Intervention form,
defined, 29 202–203
experimental analysis of reinforcer defined, 87
effectiveness, 185–188 targeting with teaching and reinforcement-
FBA training in identifying, 262 based interventions, 196
preference assessment and, 183–185 Social attention, 30
Reinforcing consequences Social–emotional learning, 196
in the BAPS model, 90–92, 94, 96, 118 Social environment, behavior and, 1
in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Socially mediated reinforcement, 31, 32–33,
Assessment Results Recording Form, 95 39, 90, 255–256
in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving: Sources of reinforcement (SDs)
Function-Focused Intervention form, in the BAPS model, 89–90, 94, 96, 118
204 in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:
consequence-based strategies to reduce Assessment Results Recording Form, 96
interfering behaviors, 198–200, 201 in the Behavior-Analytic Problem Solving:
defined, 39, 90 Function-Focused Intervention form,
FBA training in four-term contingency, 203
255–257 defined, 89
functional behavioral assessment and the targeting in antecedent interventions,
identification of, 182 193–194
illustrative example, 40 See also Discriminative stimuli
influence of emotions on, 49 Standards for Credentialing of School
influence of thoughts on, 52 Psychologists (NASP), 13
the matching law and, 43 Standards for Graduate Preparation of School
targeting with teaching and reinforcement- Psychologists (NASP), 13
based interventions, 196–198 Stimulus control, 34, 192
See also Motivating operations/triggers Stimulus fading, 192
Replacement behaviors, 182–183 Stimulus–organism–response–consequence
Response classes, 39, 41 model, 80–81
Response effort, 42–43 Stimulus pairing, 192
Response-to-intervention analysis, 213–214 Structural analysis, 177–179
Review of records, 109, 110 Supervision
behavioral skills training to support FBA
competencies, 16
S development of FBA competencies and, 15,
253
Scatterplot assessment, 139 FBA training in, 265
Schedules of reinforcement, 92–93, 97 Supervisor Training Curriculum Outline
SDs. See Discriminative stimuli (BACB), 16
 Index 299

Suspension, 268–269 Timing of reinforcement, 94, 97

Synthesized functional analysis, 175–176 Token reinforcement plans, 197
Training resources, 16. See also FBA
competencies; Professional standards
T Treatment analysis
FBA training in, 262–263
TARP. See Task Analysis Recording Procedure in functional behavioral assessment, 5, 7
Task Analysis Recording Procedure (TARP), overview and importance of, 212–213
146, 149–151, 152 summary and benefits of, 219
Task Difficulty Antecedent Analysis Form, treatment comparison analysis, 216–218
178, 178, 181 treatment effectiveness assessment, 214–216
Task interspersal, 193 Treatment comparison analysis, 216–218, 264
Task modification, 193 Treatment effectiveness assessment, 214–216,
Teaching-based interventions, 194–198 263
Team-based functional behavioral assessment, Trial-based functional analysis, 173–175
18
Technical Assistance Center on Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports, U
190
Thoughts Unstructured interviews, 114
influence on behavior, 51–52, 53
resource article, 53
Three-term behavior-analytic conceptual W
model, 80
Time-out from reinforcement, 208 Whole-interval recording, 135–137