Positive
Behavioral Interventions & Supports Newsletter
Contents
Behavior Function:
Staying Close to What We Know
Functional Behavioral Assessment
Behavior
Function: Staying Close to What We Know
George
Sugai and Rob Horner
Since the
reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, attempts to implement function-based behavior
supports have increased. We view these efforts as important enhancements toward
improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of educational
programming for students with problem behaviors. However, we are becoming
increasingly concerned by the potential for misapplication and over-extension
of the function-based approach to behavior support programming. Thus, the
purpose of this brief commentary is to describe considerations in the identification
of behavior functions. This commentary describes potential misapplications in
the identification of behavioral functions and offers readings for a more
complete review of the issues and process.
Misapplications
and Summary of What We Know
Schools
should be commended for their efforts to adopt a function-based approach to
behavior support programming. This approach has a long history of theoretical
development, research validations, and practical applications. However, a
number of limitations exist and should be acknowledged to avoid the development
of misapplications.
Theoretical
Foundations Are Behavioral
The function-based approach to
behavior support programming is founded theoretically on a behavior analytic
tradition of teaching and learning. Early behavioral psychologists and
educators demonstrated that individual performance or behavior could be
explained by the influence of a variety of environmental factors. In general,
antecedent events trigger or occasion behavior, and consequence events affect
the probability that a behavior will occur (reinforcement) or not occur
(punishment). When describing the functions that maintain problem behavior (or
any behavior), hypothesis statements are narrowed to two primary behavioral
principles:
- Positive reinforcement is the condition in which a behavior has an
increased likelihood of occurring in the future if something (object or
event) is given or presented after the behavior occurs.
- Negative reinforcement is the condition in which a behavior has an
increased likelihood of occurring in the future if something (object or
event) is avoided, escaped, or removed after the behavior occurs.
The theoretical and empirical
supports for these two behavioral principles are extensive in range and depth.
Extensions of function-based behavior support to other theoretical approaches
and disciplines have not been demonstrated. For example, non-behavioral
functions such as, “control,” “authority,” “bullying,” “anger management,” and
“intimidation” are appearing as behavioral functions. These labels are
inappropriate because they (a) go beyond the behavioral foundations, (b) locate
the problem within the students, (c) lack empirical verification, (d) are not
observable and therefore measurable, and (e) focus responsibility for change on
the student. Of equal importance, these
labels are not useful in the active design of behavior support.
For example, a student who engages
in verbal threats and profanity may be viewed as having behaviors that are
maintained by “a need for control.” This may lead to intervention strategies to
address his need for control. Historically this approach to intervention
development has not been associated with reduction in problem behavior.
Describing behavior as maintained by a “need for control” is consistent with
colloquial ways of describing behavior, but not with a function-based logic. A
function-based approach would identify those consequences (events or objects
that the student either gained or escaped) when he used verbal threats and
profanity. In this example, the student is more likely to engage in problem
behaviors when a demand is presented, but he is unclear about what to do. He
finds these situations highly aversive, and his verbal behavior is associated
with rapid removal from the unpleasant context. In this way his verbal threats
and profanity are viewed as maintained by escape from a specific type of demand
context. The intervention designed to address this hypothesis is likely to be
much more targeted, instructive and effective.
The main reason for defining the function of problem behaviors is to
guide the design of effective and efficient behavior support. The more precise
and clearer the identification of the behavioral function, the more helpful for
development of support strategies.
Behavior
Expertise Is Needed
Understanding
problem behavior and developing and implementing behavior support plans based
on this understanding can appear deceptively simple and straightforward.
However, the reality is that function-based behavior support planning becomes
increasingly more intricate as the intensity and complexity of student problem
behavior increases, for example,
1.
Behaviors that are low frequency but high intensity (e.g.,
vandalism, fighting, running away).
2.
Behaviors that have multiple functions (e.g., profanity is
used in one situation for accessing attention and in another situation to avoid
attention).
3.
Large and multiple response classes of problem behaviors
(e.g., profanity, hitting, stealing, crying, and biting hand are used to access
peer attention).
4.
Behaviors that are “covert” and difficult to observe (e.g.,
drug/tobacco use, stealing, cheating, lying)
5.
Behaviors that are situation-specific (e.g., profanity is
observed when a particular teacher corrects the student, but not with other
teachers, or in other situations).
6.
Behaviors that have a long history (e.g., early antisocial
behaviors).
Because of this complexity, we
recommend that function-based behavior support planning should be conducted by
a team whose members know the student, have behavioral fluency and expertise,
follow a best-practice and evidence-based approach, and emphasize a
strength-based and person-centered approach to problem solving and plan
development. This team should rely on multiple forms of data (e.g., direct
observation, interview, archival review) that are collected from multiple
sources (e.g., student, family members, teachers) to maximize their ability to
agree upon a behavior function and to build a function-based behavior support
plan. In addition, data should be collected regularly and frequently to provide
maximum opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention plan
and to make modifications quickly.
The purpose
of this brief commentary was to remind practitioners, family members, staff
developers, administrators, etc. about what we know about function-based
behavior support programming. The basic message is that we must stay close to
what we know and avoid creating applications and practices that are not
supported by our behavior analytic, empirically-based, and applied knowledge
base. The following guide should be used as a self-assessment and reminder
about the important features of a function-based behavior support process.
Self-Assessment
Guide to Function-based Behavior Support Planning
|
In
Practice? |
Guideline
|
|
|
Yes |
No |
1. Define behavior
in observable/measurable terms |
|
Yes |
No |
2. Consider response
classes (behaviors with similar function) |
|
Yes |
No |
3. Base behavior
function on either positive or negative reinforcement |
|
Yes |
No |
4. Collect data
to confirm behavior function |
|
Yes |
No |
5. Consider
behavior function when selecting, teaching, and strengthening replacement
behaviors |
|
Yes |
No |
6. Consider
behavior function when developing features of behavior intervention plan |
|
Yes |
No |
7. Collect data
continuously to assess and improve impact of behavior intervention
plan |
|
Yes |
No |
8. Collect data
continuously to confirm accuracy and consistency of implementation of
behavior intervention plan |
|
Yes |
No |
9. Use team
to engage in function-based behavior support planning |
|
Yes |
No |
10. Establish behavioral
expertise and fluency within school |
|
Yes |
No |
11. Apply person-centered
approach (student & family) |
|
Yes |
No |
12. Develop comprehensive
behavior support plan that includes function-based behavior intervention
plan |
For more in-depth information about
behavior functions, function-based behavior support planning, and this
self-assessment guide, visit www.pbis.org and see the following selected
references:
Selected References
Blakeslee,
T., Sugai, G., & Gruba, J. (1994). A review of functional assessment use in
data-based intervention studies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4,
397-414.
Broussard, C.
& Northup, J. (1997). The use of functional analysis to develop peer
interventions for disruptive classroom behavior. School Psychology
Quarterly, 12(11), 65-76.
Carr, E.G.,
Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J. I., Kemp, D. C., & Smith, C. E.
(1994). Communication-based intervention
for problem behavior. A user's guide for producing positive change. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Chandler,
L. K., Dahlquist, C. M., Repp, A. C., & Feltz, C. (1999). The effects of team-based functional
assessment on the behavior of students in classroom settings. Exceptional Children, 66, 101-122.
Crone, D. A. & Horner, R. H. (1999-2000). Contextual, conceptual, and
empirical foundations of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Exceptionality,
8(3), 161-172.
Dunlap, G.,
Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision,
and severe behavior problems. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 387-397.
Dunlap, G.,
Newton, J. S., Fox, L., Benito, N., & Vaughn, B. (in press). Family
involvement in functional assessment and positive behavior support. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental
Disabilities.
Dunlap, G.,
White, R., Vera, A. G., Wilson, D., & Panacek, L. (1996). The effects of
multi-component, assessment-based curricular modifications on the classroom
behavior of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6,
481-500.
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 Interventions, 2, 85-97.
Ervin, R.
A., DuPaul, G. J., Kern, L., & Friman, P. A. (1998). Classroom-based functional and adjunctive
assessments: Proactive approaches to intervention selection for adolescents
with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 65-78.
Foster-Johnson,
L., & Dunlap, G. (1993). Using functional assessment to develop
effective, individualized interventions.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 25, 44-50.
Harrower,
J. K., Fox, L., Dunlap, G., & Kincaid, D. (1999-2000). Functional
assessment and comprehensive early intervention. Exceptionality, 8(3),
189-204.
Horner, R.
H. (1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future directions. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 401-404.
Horner, R.
H., Sugai, G. Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (1999-2000). Elements of
behavior support plans: A technical brief. Exceptionality, 8, 205-216.
Iwata, B.
A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S.
(1982). Toward a functional analysis of
self-injury. Analysis and
Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3-20.
Iwata, B.
A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S.
(1994). Toward a functional analysis of
self-injury. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 27, 197-209.
Kern, L.,
Childs, K. E., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Falk, G. D. (1994). Using assessment-based curricular
intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a student with emotional and
behavioral challenges. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 7-19.
Koegel, L.
K., Koegel, R. L., & Dunlap, G. (Eds.) (1996). Positive behavioral
support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Lee, Y.,
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1999). Effect of component skill instruction on
math performance and on-task, problem, and off-task behavior of students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Positive Behavioral
Interventions, 1, 195-204.
Lewis, T.
J., & Sugai, G. (1993). Teaching communicative alternatives to socially
withdrawn behavior: An investigation in
maintaining treatment effects. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3,
61-75.
Lewis, T.,
& Sugai, G. (1996). Descriptive and experimental analysis of teacher and
peer attention and the use of assessment-based intervention to improve the
pro-social behavior of a student in a general education setting. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 6, 7-24.
Lewis, T.
J., & Sugai, G. (1996). Functional assessment of problem behavior: A pilot
investigation of the comparative and interactive effects of teacher and peer
social attention on students in general education settings. School
Psychology Quarterly, 11, 1-19.
Nelson, J.
R., Roberts, M. L., Mathur, S. R.,
& Rutherford, R. B. , Jr. (1999). Has public policy exceeded our knowledge
base? A review of the functional behavioral assessment literature. Behavioral
Disorders, 24(2), 169-179.
Nelson, J.
R., Roberts, M. L.,& Smith, D.J.
(1998) Conducting functional behavioral assessments: A practical guide.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
O’Neill, R.
E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1997). Functional
analysis of problem behavior: A practical assessment guide (2nd
ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole.
Repp, A. C.
(1994). Comments on functional analysis
procedures for school-based behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 27, 409-411.
Repp, A.
C., & Horner, R. H. (Eds.)
(1999). Functional analysis
of problem behavior: >From effective assessment to effective support. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sailor, W.,
Freeman, R., Britten, J., McCart, A., Smith, C., Scott, T. M., & Nelson, M.
(1999-2000). Using information technology to prepare personnel to implement
functional behavioral assessment and positive behavioral support. Exceptionality,
8(3), 217-230.
Sasso, G.
M., Reimers, T. M., Cooper, L. J., Wacker, D., Berg, W., Steege, M., Kelly, L.,
& Allaire, A. (1992). Use of
descriptive and experimental analyses to identify the functional properties of
aberrant behavior in school settings. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 25, 809-821.
Schill, M.
T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1998). Functional assessment in behavioral consultation: A treatment
utility study. School Psychology
Quarterly, 13, 116-140.
Scott, T.
M., Meers, D. T., & Nelson, C. M. (2000). Toward a consensus of functional
behavioral assessment for students with mild disabilities in public schools: A
national survey. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 265-285.
Scott, T.
M., & Nelson, C. M. (1999). Functional behavioral assessment: Implications
for training and staff development. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 249-252.
Scott, T.
M., & Nelson, C. M. (1999). Using functional behavioral assessment to
develop effective intervention plans: Practical classroom applications. Journal
of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 242-251.
Sugai, G.,
& Horner, R. H. (1999-2000). Including the functional behavioral assessment
technology in schools (invited special issue). Exceptionality, 8,
145-148.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G.
Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W.,
Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., III, Wickham, D. Reuf, M., & Wilcox, B.
(2000). Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral
assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2,
131-143.
Sugai, G.,
Horner, R. H., & Sprague, J. (1999). Functional assessment-based behavior
support planning: Research-to-practice-to-research. Behavioral Disorders,
24, 223-227.
Sugai, G.,
Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998). Using functional assessments to
develop behavior support plans. Preventing School Failure, 43(1), 6-13.
Sugai, G.,
Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan-Burke, S. (1999-2000). Overview of the functional
behavioral assessment process. Exceptionality, 8, 149-160.
Todd, A.,
Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effects of self-monitoring and
self-recruited praise on problem behavior, academic engagement and work
completion in a typical classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 1, 66-76.
Todd, A.,
Horner, R., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1999). Individualizing school-wide
discipline for students with chronic problem behaviors: A team approach. Effective
School Practices, 17(4), 72-82.
Umbreit, J.
(1995). Functional assessment and
intervention in a regular classroom setting for the disruptive behavior of a
student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Behavioral Disorders,
20, 267-278.
Wacker, D.
P., Cooper, L. J., Peck, S. M., Derby, K. M., & Berg, W. K. (1999). Community-based functional assessment. in
A.C. Repp & R.H. Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis of problem behavior:
>From effective assessment to effective support (pp. 32-56). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth
Wilcox, B.
L., Turnbull III, H. R., & Turnbull, A. P. (1999–2000). Behavioral issues
and IDEA: Positive behavioral interventions and supports and the functional
behavioral assessment in the disciplinary context. Exceptionality, 8(3), 173–187.
University
of Oregon
Contact Dr. Sugai Contact Dr. Horner
Functional Behavioral Assessment in Schools
By Dr. Rob Horner
Exceptionality Vol 8(3)
1999-2000 is a special issue devoted to articles reviewing the role of
functional behavioral assessment in schools.
Seven articles discuss and review the role of functional behavioral
assessment for use by school personnel.
Functional behavioral assessment is defined, the key features and
challenges for schools are discussed, and the process for moving from assessment
to support plan design is outlined. Of
special note: (a) one article provides a checklist that families and/or
teachers could use to determine if a functional behavioral assessment has been
completed, (b) one article provides a readable summary of the legal issues that
link use of functional behavioral assessment and IDEA, (c) one article outlines
the role of functional behavioral assessment in early intervention programs,
(d) one article provides a checklist for building positive behavior support
plans based on functional behavioral assessments, and (e) one article reviews
current developments in the use of Information Technology to train personnel in
the key skills of functional behavioral assessment and positive behavior
support.
Key Components
Students who display
problem behavior require educational programs that are effective, efficient,
and relevant. Without an understanding of the factors that influence the
occurrence of problem behavior, such educational programs may be difficult to
develop. Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is a systematic process for
describing problem behavior, identifying environmental factors and setting
events that predict the problem behavior, and guiding the development of
effective and efficient behavior support plans. FBA is the foundation of positive
behavioral support and represents a preferred practice for all students,
especially students with problem behaviors.
FBA was originally developed as a methodology for designing behavioral support
plans for individuals with severe developmental disabilities who also exhibited
challenging behavior. However, over the last ten years, the FBA process has
been applied successfully to the development of behavioral support plans for
students with more typical cognitive characteristics (e.g., ADHD, emotional and
behavioral disorders, at-risk). The results of an FBA give caregivers the
capacity to design environments that "work" for people with
behavioral challenges. Interventions based on the concept of supporting
adaptive, desired, and appropriate behavior are a substantial improvement over
traditional interventions, which often were unplanned and based on punishment
to suppress the challenging behavior. Little attention was given to teaching
individuals more effective behaviors to communicate their needs.
Although FBA has a long history, recently many states have created laws or
regulations stipulating the need for a functional behavioral assessment before
permitting the development of significant behavioral interventions (e.g.,
Hughes Bill in California). The 1997 amendments to IDEA require that the FBA
process be used to help students with disabilities in public school settings
whose behaviors could lead to a change in school placement or whose challenging
behavior constitutes a pattern. The regulations pertaining to placement in an
alternative educational setting state as follows:
(k) Placement in Alternative Educational Setting.--
(1) Authority of school personnel.--
(A) School personnel under this section may order a change in the placement of
a child with a disability--
(i) to an appropriate interim alternative educational setting, another setting,
or suspension, for not more than 10 school days (to the extent such
alternatives would be applied to children without disabilities); and (ii) to an
appropriate interim alternative educational setting for the same amount of time
that a child without a disability would be subject to discipline, but for not
more than 45 days if--
(I) the child carries a weapon to school or to a school function under the
jurisdiction of a State or a local educational agency; or (II) the child
knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs or sells or solicits the sale of a
controlled substance while at school or a school function under the
jurisdiction of a State or local educational agency.
(B) Either before or not later than 10 days after taking a disciplinary action
described in subparagraph (A)--
(i) if the local educational agency did not conduct a functional behavioral
assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan for such child before
the behavior that resulted in the suspension described in subparagraph (A), the
agency shall convene an IEP meeting to develop an assessment plan to address
that behavior; or (ii) if the child already has a behavioral intervention plan,
the IEP Team shall review the plan and modify it, as necessary, to address the
behavior.
The law appears to imply the use of FBA as a reactive approach to dealing with
challenging behaviors that have led to serious school problems *.
However, FBA is not intended to be used solely as a reaction to chronic and
serious behaviors. FBA is most effective when used proactively, especially,
when students first display challenging behaviors. All FBA processes are
concerned with analyses of problem behaviors and the environmental events that
predict and maintain the student's problem behavior.
University
of Oregon
All content of this newsletter and the website are the property of the Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Support. Duplication without express written consent by authors is strictly prohibited. For any questions please contact: mailto:riffy@ku.edu