Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and efficiency of a training package to teach public school special educators to conduct functional analyses of challenging behavior. Six public school educators were divided into two cohorts of three and were taught two models of functional analysis of challenging behavior: traditional and trial-based functional analysis. The effect of the training package on functional analysis implementation was evaluated using multiple-baseline designs across participants for each functional analysis model. The sequence of functional analysis models taught was counterbalanced across cohorts. Following the training package, all participants reached 100 % implementation fidelity during role-plays and classroom sessions with students, and maintained high fidelity at follow-up role-play sessions. Data on training duration, trials to criterion, and social validity revealed that trial-based functional analysis training had a shorter duration and was rated as the more favorable functional analysis model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). Thirty years of research on the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 1–21. doi:10.1002/jaba.30.
Bechtel, N., McGee, H., Huitema, B., & Dickinson, A. (2015). The effects of the temporal placement of feedback on performance. Psychological Record, 65, 425–434. doi:10.1007/s40732-015-0117-4.
Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually being delivered. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 67–80. Retrieved from: http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net/.
Bloom, S. E., Lambert, J. M., Dayton, E., & Samaha, A. L. (2013). Teacher-conducted trial-based functional analyses as the basis for intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 208–218. doi:10.1002/jaba.21.
Catania, A. C. (2012). Learning and behavior. Learning (5th ed., pp. 1–11). New York: Sloan Publishing.
Chitiyo, M., & Wheeler, J. J. (2009). Challenges faced by school teachers in implementing positive behavior support in their school systems. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 58–63. doi:10.1177/0741932508315049.
Daly, E. J., Witt, J. C., Martens, B. K., & Dool, E. J. (1997). A model for conducting a functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554–574. Retrieved from: http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/.
Delfs, C. H., & Campbell, J. M. (2010). A quantitative synthesis of developmental disability research: The impact of functional assessment methodology on treatment effectiveness. Behavior Analyst Today, 11, 4–19. doi:10.1037/h0100685.
Ducharme, J. M., & Shector, C. (2011). Bridging the gap between clinical and classroom intervention: Keystone approaches for students with challenging behavior. School Psychology Review, 40, 257–274. Retrieved from: http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/.
Ellingson, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., Stricker, J., Galensky, T. L., & Garlinghouse, M. (2000). Functional assessment and intervention for challenging behaviors in the classroom by general classroom teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention, 2, 85–97. doi:10.1177/109830070000200202.
Erbas, D., Tekin-Iftar, E., & Yucesoy, S. (2006).Teaching special education teachers how to conduct functional analysis in natural settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 28–36. http://daddcec.org/Publications/ETADDJournal.aspx.
Gast, D. L. (Ed.). (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge Publishers.
Gresham, F. M., McIntyre, L. L., Olson-Tinker, H., Dolstra, L., McLaughlin, V., & Van, M. (2004). Relevance of functional behavioral assessment research for school-based interventions and positive behavioral support. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 19–37. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2003.04.003.
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185. doi:10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147.
Hassiotis, A., Robotham, D., Canagasabey, A., Romeo, R., Langridge, D., Blizard, R., & King, M. (2009). Randomized, single-blind controlled trial of a specialist behavior therapy team for challenging behavior in adults with intellectual disabilities. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 166, 1278–1285. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.08111747.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA). (2004). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/.
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Towards a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197 (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20, 1982).
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kunnavatana, S. S., Bloom, S. E., Samaha, A. L., & Dayton, E. (2013). Training teachers to conduct trial-based functional analyses. Behavior Modification, 37, 707–722.
Lloyd, B. P., Wehby, J. H., Weaver, E. S., Goldman, S. E., Harvey, M. N., & Sherlock, D. R. (2014). Implementation and validation of trial-based functional analysis in public elementary school settings. Journal of Behavior Education. doi:10.1007/s10864-014-9217-5.
Loman, S. L., & Horner, R. H. (2014). Examining the efficacy of a basic functional behavioral assessment training package for school personnel. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16, 18–30. doi:10.1177/1098300712470724.
Lydon, S., Healy, O., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lang, R. (2012). Variations in functional analysis methodology: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 24, 301–326. doi:10.1007/s10882-012-9267-3.
McCahill, J., Healy, O., Lydon, S., & Ramey, D. (2014). Training educational staff in functional behavioral assessment: A systematic review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 26, 479–505. doi:10.1007/s10882-014-9378-0.
Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., & Duhon, G. J. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34, 87–106.
Pence, S. T., Peter, C. C., & Giles, A. F. (2014). Teacher acquisition of functional analysis methods using pyramidal training. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23, 132–149. doi:10.1007/s10864-013-9182-4.
Reimers, T., Wacker, D., Cooper, L. J., & de Raad, A. O. (1992). Acceptability of behavioral treatments for children: Analog and naturalistic evaluations by parents. School Psychology Review, 21, 628–643. Retrieved from: http://www.nasponline.org/publications/spr/.
Rispoli, M., Burke, M., Hatton, H., Ninci, J., Zaini, S., & Rodriguez, L. (2015a). Training Head Start teachers to conduct trial-based functional analyses of challenging behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 17, 235–244. doi:10.1177/1098300715577428.
Rispoli, M., Ninci, J., Burke, M., Zaini, S., Hatton, H., & Sanchez, L. (2015b). Evaluating the accuracy of results for teacher implemented trial-based functional analyses. Behavior Modification, 39, 627–653. doi:10.1177/0145445515590456.
Scott, T. M., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., & Mclntyre, J. (2005). Team-based functional behavior assessment as a proactive public school process: A descriptive analysis of current barriers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 57–71. doi:10.1007/s10864-005-0961-4.
Sigafoos, J., & Saggers, E. (1995). A discrete-trial approach to the functional analysis of aggressive behaviour in two boys with autism. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20, 287–297.
Sprague, J. R., Flannery, B., O’Neill, R., & Baker, D. J. (1996). Effective behavioural consultation: Supporting the implementation of positive behaviour support plans for persons with severe challenging behaviours. Eugene: Specialised Training Program.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., & Ruef, M. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 131–143. doi:10.1177/109830070000200302.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998). Using functional assessments to develop behavior support plans. Preventing School Failure, 43, 6–13. doi:10.1080/10459889809603294.
Symons, F. J., McDonald, L. M., & Wehby, J. H. (1998). Functional assessment and teacher collected data. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 135–160. Retrieved from: http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net/.
Van Acker, R., Boreson, L., Gable, R. A., & Potterton, T. (2005). Are we on the right course? Lessons learned about current FBA/BIP practices in schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 35–56. doi:10.1007/s10864-005-0960-5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors report no conflict of interest with this study.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and/or national research committee and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Appendices
Appendix 1: Procedural Fidelity Checklists
Traditional Functional Analysis
Reviewer: ___ Educator: ___ Date: ___
Directions: In the “code” column mark a “+” if the behavior is observed and a “-” if the behavior is not observed
Attention | Code | Tangible | Code | Demand | Code | Play | Code | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Educator instructs the child to play with toys and then ignores | Educator presents the tangible item to the student for 10 s | Educator provides continuous instruction using a least-to-most prompt hierarchy (verbal, verbal + model, verbal + physical) | Educator directs the child toward preferred items/toys | ||||
2 | Educator turns away from child and ignores appropriate behavior of child | Educator removes the item from the student and places it out of reach but visible to the student | Educator delivers praise upon successful completion of a trial/task (does not matter what prompt level was necessary for task completion) | Educator responds to all appropriate social initiations of child | ||||
3 | Educator ignores inappropriate behavior other than the target behavior emitted by the child | Educator ignores appropriate behavior of child | Educator does not deliver any interactions/praise outside of the task conditions | Educator ignores target and all other inappropriate behavior | ||||
4 | Educator provides brief attention (express concern and brief physical contact) when the child emits the target behavior | Educator ignores inappropriate behavior other than the target behavior emitted by the child | Contingent upon target behavior the Educator removes the task and turns away for 10 s | Educator delivers attention approximately every 10 s | ||||
5 | Educator blocks any attempts to access the tangible item | Educator re-introduces the trial/task following 10 s if the child has ceased target behavior | Educator engages in parallel or cooperative play as appropriate | |||||
6 | Contingent upon target behavior the Educator gives the student access to the tangible item for 10 s and then removes | Educator ignores all other inappropriate and appropriate behavior during task instruction | ||||||
Percentage correct |
Trial-based Functional Analysis
Reviewer: ___ Educator: ___ Date: ___
Directions: In the “code” column mark a “+” if the behavior is observed and a “-” if the behavior is not observed
Attention | Code | Tangible | Code | Demand | Code | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control | Educator instructs the participant engage in independent work or leisure items. Educator does not engage in continuous demands | Educator sits near participant and provides unrestricted access to preferred item for 60 s | Educator tells the student “You can have a break” | |||
Educator provides participant with attention at least once every 5 s for a total of 60 s regardless of participant engagement in challenging behavior. Attention does not include demands | Educator does not provide attention if participant engages in challenging behavior | Educator turns away from child and does not provide attention for 60 s | ||||
No task materials or task demands are presented to child | ||||||
Test | Educator instructs the participant to engage in independent work or leisure items | Educator sits near participant and places preferred item in sight but out of participant’s reach (more than 2’). Participant access to item is blocked | Educator presents task demands once every 10 s using least-to-most prompting (verbal, verbal + model, and verbal + physical) | |||
Educator explains that he/she needs to complete some work and turns body away from participant | Educator tells participant, “You can have this later” | Educator delivers praise (commenting or compliment) upon successful completion of a trial/task (regardless of the prompt level necessary to complete the task) | ||||
Educator does not speak or look at participant for 60 s unless participant engages in target challenging behavior | Contingent upon challenging behavior, educator provides immediate access to preferred item for 60 s | Educator removes task demands and materials immediately if child engages in target challenging behavior | ||||
Contingent upon challenging behavior, educator turns toward participant and provides verbal attention and statements of concern | ||||||
Percentage correct |
Appendix 2: Performance Feedback Fidelity Form
Participant_____ Session_____
Reviewer_____ Date:_____
Please Circle: TFA or TBFA Check if second observer:
Directions: In the “code” column mark a “+” if the behavior is observed and a “-” if the behavior is not observed
Criteria | Training fidelity |
|---|---|
Researcher began the session by making a positive comment about the therapist’s implementation | |
If applicable, researcher discussed an example of incorrect implementation in a neutral voice | |
If applicable, researcher describes the correct implementation procedure | |
If applicable, researcher modeled the correct implementation procedure | |
If applicable, researcher asks therapist to verbally describe how they would correctly implement the procedure | |
If applicable, researcher provides praise contingent on the therapist’s correct verbal behavior | |
Researcher addressed all instances of incorrect implementation from the previous videotaped sessions | |
Total correct | |
Percentage correct |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rispoli, M., Neely, L., Healy, O. et al. Training Public School Special Educators to Implement Two Functional Analysis Models. J Behav Educ 25, 249–274 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-016-9247-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-016-9247-2