Functional Behavior Assessment

This article presents an overview of functional behavior assessment, an assessment approach that must be used by an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team/committee to determine the intervention method and how it should be used when individuals with disabilities exhibit inappropriate behaviors. A working definition of functional behavior assessment based on literature review is included. In order to successfully implement functional behavior assessment, students, families, teachers, and administrators need specific training and support systems. The literature provides a comprehensive discussion of the approach and advocates for proper training in order to use functional behavior assessment.

Keywords Antecedent; Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA); Behaviorists; Consequence; Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA); Functional Analysis; Functional Behavior Assessment; Inclusion; Internal Reinforcers; Negative Reinforcers; Observation; Operant Conditioning; Positive Reinforcers; Skinner, B. F.

Special Education > Functional Behavior Assessment

Overview

Behavior problems in schools have occurred since the inception of formal education. Teachers have used a variety of methods, such as removing the student from the classroom, ignoring the behavior, or assigning detention, to control or extinguish inappropriate behaviors. However, individuals who exhibit consistent or severe behavior problems require some type of behavior intervention.

Obenchain & Taylor (2005) state that behavior intervention finds its roots in the field of psychology, most notably in B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning theory. Operant conditioning proposes that changes in behavior are a result of a response to events occurring within the environment (Owen, Froman, & Moscow, 1981). In the field of special education, many teacher training programs emphasize and advocate for teachers to use Skinner's operant conditioning theory to manage behavior (Obenchain & Taylor, 2005). However, regular education teachers often do not receive behavior intervention training in their teacher preparation programs (Obenchain & Taylor, 2005; Watson, Gresham, & Skinner, 2001).

Federal laws have mandated the need for functional behavior assessment. In 2002, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was reauthorized by President Bush and is now known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The tenets of No Child Left Behind are changing educational practices across the nation. In particular, changes are being made in how future teachers in both regular and special education are being trained to provide scientifically based educational services including behavior management strategies.

Therefore teachers, regular and special, and related service personnel (i.e., school psychologists, speech-language pathologists, etc.) can no longer manage inappropriate behaviors by ignoring, suppressing, or punishing the individual. Through NCLB and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 school personnel must investigate why an inappropriate behavior occurs and what triggers the behavior (Gresham, Watson, Steuart, & Skinner, 2001; Hendrickson & Gable, 1999; Pindiprolu, Lignugaris/Kraft, Rule, Peterson, & Slocum, 2005; Watson, Gresham, & Skinner, 2001).

Move to Functional Behavior Assessment

Public policy, public laws, and societal views have continued to change and/or expand viewpoints in relation to the education of all children. In the United States, educational policy and practice is significantly influenced by advocacy efforts, medical advancements and technology that saves young infants, as well as the increase in the cultural diversity (i.e., language, religion, socioeconomics, etc.) of students educated in public schools.

As a result, public schools have experienced tremendous growth in special education populations despite the lack of adequate funding needed to implement the increasing legal rights of all students. In terms of special education, free appropriate public education (FAPE) has led to more students receiving educational services in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This is often referred to as inclusion. Inclusion is often defined as educating the individual with disabilities in the regular classroom and in extracurricular activities with peers who are non-disabled. As a result, teachers in regular classrooms, without training in special education, are being asked to teach individuals with problem behaviors (Obenchain & Taylor, 2005; Watson, Gresham, & Skinner, 2001). Prior to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA 1997), many of students with inappropriate behaviors were denied access to the LRE, suspended, or expelled from school (Hendrickson, & Gable, 1999).

Need for Evaluation

Every individual who is in need of special education services under IDEA 2004 must have undergone a multidisciplinary evaluation to determine if an educational disability exists and its impact on the educational process. Furthermore, an individual must be evaluated in all areas of concern. Often, individuals in special education exhibit difficult behavior(s), that can be variable, and are often linked to frustration, lack of communication, or rebellion against the task.

For example, a child who is mentally challenged might have learned that to request a cookie he or she can engage in head banging until given a cookie. Thus, to gain an object of desire the individual has learned an inappropriate and socially unacceptable behavior for requesting an object versus learning to request an object by using communication to express his or her desires. The failure to identify the cause of the behavior may lead to inappropriate and unnecessarily restrictive procedures such as restraints or seclusion to control the behavior. Without a functional behavior assessment, educators may not understand the true function of the head banging, leading to an inappropriate intervention. The goal of functional behavior assessment is to identify the unacceptable behavior and replace it, if possible, with a socially acceptable behavior.

In the above example, the school may have decided to "protect" the individual by restraining his or her hands. However, IDEA of 1997 and its reauthorization in 2004 established that functional behavior assessments (FBA) are required. Additionally, individuals with disabilities who demonstrate aggressive and/or inappropriate behaviors which could lead to expulsion or suspension from school must have a functional behavior assessment conducted (Gresham, Watson, Steuart, & Skinner, 2001; Hendrickson & Gable, 1999).

Developing the Functional Behavior Assessment Plan

The IEP team must meet and develop a positive behavioral support plan. Additionally, the IEP team must develop a functional behavior assessment plan within ten days of disciplinary action by school personnel (Gresham, Watson, Steuart, & Skinner, 2001; IDEA, 1997; IDEA, 2004). According to federal law, the purpose of the functional behavior assessment plan is to review, revise, or develop a behavior intervention plan to address the identified behaviors. However, the federal government has left the implementation and program development to the states and local educational agencies (Gresham, Watson, Steuart, & Skinner, 2001; Hendrickson & Gable, 1999; Watson, Gresham, & Skinner, 2001).

IDEA 2004 established the requirement for functional behavior assessments in addressing inappropriate or aggressive behaviors in individuals with disabilities. School personnel must determine the function of a behavior and design intervention strategies to reduce and replace the inappropriate behavior with a more appropriate behavior that serves the same function of the inappropriate behavior (Hendrickson & Gable, 1999; Watson, Gresham, & Skinner, 2001).

Functional Behavior Assessment Defined

A functional behavior assessment is a complex process for determining the cause or function of a behavior prior to developing an intervention plan (Hendrickson & Gable, 1999; Scott, McIntyre, Liaupsin, et al, 1995; Starin, n.d.). Thus the intervention must be based on or related to the cause of the behavior (Starin, n.d.). It is important to understand that making one observation or administering one test does not complete functional behavior assessment. The assessment process requires the use of many strategies such as record reviews, interviews, and live observations (Gresham, Watson, Steuart, & Skinner, 2001).

In 1995, Umbreit (as cited in Pindiprolu, Lignugaris/Kraft, Rule, Peterson, & Slocum, 2005) defined functional behavior assessment as "descriptive and experimental methods to determine whether problem behavior is positively reinforced via attention and/or tangibles-or sensory stimulation or negatively reinforced via escape from either task demands or aversive sensory stimulation" (p. 80).

Gresham, Watson, Steuart, & Skinner (2001) defined functional behavior assessment "as a collection of methods for gathering information about antecedents, behaviors, and consequences in order to determine the reason (function) of behavior" (p.157). In other words, determining the function of the behavior allows one to design and implement intervention strategies to reduce or replace the problem behaviors.

Gresham, et al. further state that behavior functions "typically fall into five categories:

• Social attention/communication (positive social reinforcement);

• Access to tangibles or preferred activities (material or activity reinforcement);

• Escape, delay, reduction, or avoidance of aversive tasks or activities (negative reinforcement);

• Escape or avoidance of other individuals (negative social reinforcement); and

• Internal stimulation (automatic or sensory reinforcement)" (p. 157).

Thus, the focus of functional behavior assessment is to determine or identify individual and environmental factors associated with the problem behavior(s) in terms of when it occurs or not (Gresham, Watson, Steuart, & Skinner, 2001). In other words, the purpose of functional behavior assessment is to understand why the behavior is occurring.

Functional Behavior Assessment Methods

Prior to developing an intervention plan, a functional behavior assessment is conducted to determine the cause or function of behavior(s) within an environment (Hendrickson & Gable,1999; Scott, McIntyre, Liaupsin, et al., 1995). Again, the intervention must be based on or related to the cause of the behavior (Hendrickson & Gable,1999; Scott, McIntyre, Liaupsin, et al., 1995; Starin, n.d).

Engaging in active problem solving is the key to conducting a meaningful functional behavior assessment. Through the use of active problem solving, one can better understand the function of the problem behavior, as the assessment does not focus on the type of problem behavior but on the cause or underlying function of the behavior.

A variety of techniques and methods (e.g., rating scales, interviews, direct and methodical observation of the person's behavior, and observing changes in behavior as the environment is manipulated) are used in functional behavior assessment to identify why a behavior is occurring and the types of strategies that can be used in intervention (Gresham, Watson, Steuart, & Skinner, 2001; Pindiprolu, Lignugaris/Kraft, Rule, Peterson, & Slocum, 2005). In individuals with disabilities, problem behavior(s) assessment should be integrated into the development or revisions of the Individualized Education Plan (IEP).

As interviewing and rating scales are often subjective, reliability is often poor. Thus, these types of evaluative instruments should only be used as a guideline to begin the systematic and direct observation of the child's behavior. The over reliance on these types of instruments is highly discouraged and they are not considered to accurately portray functional behavior assessment. Also, these types of instruments are not considered to be psychometrically sound and as such would not be considered reliable in a court of law.

Proper Observation Techniques

Observation that is well planned, organized, systematic and conducted in an individual's natural environment is considered an acceptable and reliable method. In this type of observation, data is collected about the events that occur in the environment prior to the behavior and the events that happen immediately after the behavior.

The primary question to be answered in planning for an observation is, what is the function of the behavior(s)? After the hypothesis has been formed, then the observer determines the setting(s) in which the behavior(s) occurs. For example, the setting(s) can be social (e.g. interactions), physiological (e.g. medications), or environmental (e.g. to much stimuli). Next, the observer looks for antecedent(s), which are actions that trigger or precede the inappropriate behavior(s). Antecedent(s) are indications that behavior(s) may occur and may be related to the physical setting, materials, time of day or social situations. Criticism, withdrawal of attention, and the presence or absence of people or materials in the environment are commonly occurring antecedents. It is important to realize that a difference between the setting and the antecedent exists. The differentiation between the two is that the setting increases the likelihood that an antecedent will trigger problem behavior.

Observation may lead to the identification that behaviors occur along a continuum from less to more intense. For example, a student may close his or her eyes to bright sunlight in the classroom, then pull at the blinds in the classroom, and finally begin to poke at his or her eyes. If inappropriate behavior(s) occur along a continuum, then the identification of the continuum will assist in intervening earlier to stop the behavior from escalating.

Consequences & Reinforcers

In most instances, an inappropriate behavior is exhibited or increased to avoid or obtain something. When an individual demonstrates an avoidance or escape behavior, a consequence usually occurs. A consequence is the action that immediately follows an inappropriate or appropriate behavior. Individuals are often offered reinforcers (e.g. toys, praise, negative or positive attention) for their actions. Reinforcers can be either positive or negative. A positive reinforcer will strengthen the behavior that produced it or the consequence. On the other hand a negative reinforcer will strengthen the behavior by allowing the individual to escape or avoid the event, item, or activity.

Even when determining the setting, antecedent, behavior, and consequence, the observer may not be able to clearly identify the function of the behavior. In these circumstances, the behavior may be due to internal sensory feedback that is considered to be an internal reinforcer. As with any reinforcer, an internal reinforcer can be positive or negative. This type of reinforcer is thought to occur when the inappropriate behavior occurs across multiple settings, situations, and environments.

Another method of conducting functional behavior assessment is to manipulate the environment and observe changes in behavior. Many behaviorists refer to this environmental manipulation as functional analysis. The primary difference between functional behavior assessment and functional behavior analysis is that functional behavioral analysis directly manipulates behaviors using experimental methods in controlled environments to assess the effects of functions on behaviors (Gresham, Watson, Steuart, & Skinner, 2001).

The Basics of Functional Behavioral Assessment

The following information is summary information and does not serve as a detailed outline of a functional behavioral assessment. However, the information will provide concise information for the reader to gain a basic understanding of the functional behavioral assessment process. Individuals should not use any of the steps without proper training in functional behavior assessment.

Basic steps in completing a functional behavior assessment include:

• Describing the specific problem behavior with a clear and measurable definition;

• Identifying the events, times and situations that predict when the problem behavior will occur or will not occur;

• Identifying the consequences that maintain the problem behavior;

• Creating a hypotheses of the motivating function of behavior; and,

• Collecting direct observational data about the hypotheses.

The goal of functional behavior assessment is to describe the behavior within the environment and to identify the factors that predict the behavior. Describing and identifying these factors can guide the IEP team/committee to develop an appropriate intervention plan. Taking the time to describe and identify the factors causing or contributing to the inappropriate behavior allows the identification of teaching and environmental strategies that will assist in making the problem behavior inappropriate, unproductive, and unsuccessful.

It is important to realize that the underlying theme in conducting a functional behavioral assessment does not lend itself to a recipe type of assessment approach. Thus, for each individual undergoing a functional behavior assessment the components or steps may vary. For instance, a problem behavior such as talking out loud in class may require specific information about medication(s) the individual is taking. In another case, the individual may inappropriately interact with peers and the need exists for identifying social interaction skills.

As the behavior becomes more severe, more time and energy will be required. For example, Casey is a twelve-year-old female with autism who asked her teacher if she could work on the computer (her favorite activity) as she completed her work early. The teacher denied the request and Casey began to become aggressive by yelling, throwing things on the floor, and hitting peers. The behavior escalated until she disrupted the learning of all students in her class. The teacher requested a functional behavior assessment to determine the functions of Casey's behavior. After conducting interviews, direct observations, and record reviews, the functional behavior assessment found that by creating a visual schedule of activities Casey could do when finishing work early eliminates the inappropriate behaviors. This example demonstrates a mild problem behavior that can be easily identified. However, the level of complexity needed in functional behavior assessment varies with the level of the problem behavior.

Personnel Involved

In functional behavior assessment, a team approach is preferred. Anyone (i.e., parents, caregivers, teachers, psychologists, speech-language pathologists, and any other stakeholder) who comes in contact with the individual can assist in identifying the function of a behavior and then changing behavior.

To perform systematic observations, the observers need to be trained in such techniques. The lack of appropriate training could lead to misinterpretation of information as well as allowing the individual to possibly injure him or her self or inadvertently increase the inappropriate behavior.

Viewpoints

Just as there are advocates for conducting functional behavior assessment, there are those who oppose it. Opponents of functional behavior assessment often cite the misuse of the behavioral tools in identifying inappropriate behavior. Without proper training, an individual could misuse reinforcement techniques as a form of punishment. Another example of inappropriate use of a functional behavior assessment would be to use techniques which dehumanize an individual by using aversive actions such as restraints, seclusion, physical or mental abuse, or withholding social interaction, to change the behavior.

Functional behavior assessment is a dynamic process that requires direct participation on the part of the observer, who is not fully engaged in functional behavior assessment if only interview and rating scales are used.

Functional behavior assessment is a time intensive process. However, the time spent understanding the function of the behavior allows one to effectively design an intervention program that will be successful for the individual. Thus, individuals who require functional behavior assessment should not have to waste time in interventions that do not work effectively.

Conclusion

Problem behaviors have existed in schools since the advent on the classroom. This paper provides a limited historical perspective on the movement toward functional behavioral assessment as well as in introduction to the definition, methods and training needed to conduct this type of assessment. The information provided in this paper does not represent a comprehensive summary of the approach that is available in literature nor does it provide the proper training needed to use functional behavior assessment.

Terms & Concepts

Antecedent: An antecedent in terms of functional behavior assessment is defined as the event or activity that immediately precedes a problem behavior.

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA): ABA is process of observing and modifying behavior by manipulating the environment.

Behaviorists: Individuals who subscribe to a school of psychology that explains observable human behavior as a response to stimuli in the environment.

Consequence: In operant conditioning, a consequence is the stimulus that follows a response.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA): First enacted by President L. B. Johnson, the ESEA was the initial and major wide-ranging federal education law that provided funds for public schools. It has been reenacted every five years since its conception and has changed its name with each reauthorization.

Hypotheses: A hypotheses is specific statement of prediction of an outcome using scientific methods.

Inclusion: Inclusion is a philosophy that proposes to include versus exclude individuals with disabilities. Proponents of inclusion suggest that research indicates that children with disabilities perform better when included in regular education activities with non-disabled peers.

Internal Reinforcer: Internal reinforcer is a originating from within a person and often linked to sensory stimulation. It is a reinforcer that is thought to occur when the inappropriate behavior occurs across multiple settings, situations, and environments

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004: P.L. 94-142 has undergone reauthorizations by Congress and is currently referred to as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004). This federal law continues to mandate special education and related services to individuals with disabilities age birth to 21 years. The key components of IDEA are unbiased assessment, Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), Individualized Education Plan (IEP), and the least restrictive environment (LRE).

Individualized Education Plan (IEP): The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is an individualized program for persons, three to 21 years of age, which must be developed by a team for the individual identified as having a disability. The IEP must have key components that communicate the needs of the individual and the services necessary for the individual to participate in the educational environment.

Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): The least restrictive environment is commonly defined as educating individuals with disabilities with their peers to the maximum extent possible in the regular classroom or extracurricular environment.

Negative Reinforcer: Negative reinforcement is linked to operant conditioning. When negative reinforcement is used there is an increase in the likelihood of a behavior when the consequence is the removal of an aversive stimulus.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): NCLB is the current revision of the ESEA.

Operant Conditioning Theory: Developed by B.F. Skinner, operant conditioning is commonly defined as a response to a stimulus that reinforces.

Positive Reinforcer: Positive reinforcer is provided to increase a behavior by adding something tangible for the learner. For example, a child is learning to say the word "more" each time the child says more then he or she is provided with a piece of candy.

Reinforcer: A reinforcer is a rewarding event that can be positive or negative that increases or maintains the strength of a response.

Restraint: A restraint can be self-imposed by the individual (self-restraint), physical, or medical. The primary purpose is to inhibit the movement or action of an individual.

Seclusion: Seclusion means to place an individual alone in a room or keeping a person in an area in which they cannot leave. In some instances, this term can also be used synonymously with time-out.

Bibliography

Durán, L. K., Bloom, S. E., & Samaha, A. L. (2013). Adaptations to a functional behavior assessment with a spanish-speaking preschooler: A data-based case study. Education & Treatment Of Children (West Virginia University Press), 36, 73-95. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84010328&site=ehost-live

Gresham, F., Watson, T., Steuart, S., & Skinner, C. (2001). Functional behavioral assessment: Principles, procedures, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 30 , 156-173. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4883778&site=ehost-live

Hendrickson, J. & Gable, R. (1999). Behavioral problems in schools: Ways to encourage functional behavior assessment (FBA) of discipline-evoking behavior of students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBD). Education and Treatment of Children, 22 , 280-291 Retrieved August 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2574517&site=ehost-live

Moreno, G., Wong-Lo, M., & Bullock, L. M. (2014). assisting students from diverse backgrounds with challenging behaviors: Incorporating a culturally attuned functional behavioral assessment in prereferral services. Preventing School Failure, 58, 58-68. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92942708&site=ehost-live

Owen, S., Froman, R. & Moscow, H. (1981). Educational psychology: An introduction. (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Pindiprolu, S., Lignugaris/Kraft, B. Rule, S., Peterson, S. & Slocum, T. (2005). Scoring rubric for assessing students' performance on functional behavior assessment cases. Teacher Education & Special Education, 28 , 79-91. Retrieved August 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=17715098&site=ehost-live

Scott, T., McIntyre, J., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C., Conroy, M., Payne, L. & Carr, E. (1995).

An examination of the relation between functional behavior assessment and selected intervention strategies with school-based teams. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7,205-215. Retrieved August 22, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=18658082&site=ehost-live

Starin, S. (2007). Functional behavioral assessments: What, why, when, where, and who? Retrieved August 24, 2007, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/discipl.fab.starin.htm

Watson, T., Gresham, F., & Skinner, C. (2001). Introduction to the mini-series: Issues and procedures for implementing functional behavior assessments in schools. School Psychology Review, 30 , 153-156. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=4883776&site=ehost-live

Zirkel, P. A. (2011). State special education laws for functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plans. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 262-278. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=65870678&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Albin, R. W., O'Brien, M., & Horner, R. H. (1995). Analysis of an escalating sequence of problem behaviors: A case study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 16, 133-147. Asmus, J. M. Vollmer, T. R., & Borrero, J. C, (2002). Functional behavioral assessment: A school based model. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 67-90.

Carr, E. G. (1994). Emerging themes in the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27 , 393-399.

Chance, P. (1998). First course in applied behavior analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Dunlap, G., Newton, J. S., Fox, L., Benito, N., & Vaughn, B. (2001). Family involvement in functional assessment and positive behavior support. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 6 , 215-221.

Foxx, R. (1996). Twenty years of applied behavior analysis in treating the most severe problem behavior: Lessons learned. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 225-235.

Maurice, C. (1996). Behavioral intervention for young children with autism. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed Books.

Peck Peterson, S. (2002). Introduction to special issue: Functional behavior assessment in natural settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 25 , 1-4.

Rogers, E. (1998). Functional assessment in the home. Preventing School Failure, 43 , 31-33. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1531177&site=ehost-live

Shores, R. E., & Wehby, J. H. (1999). Analyzing the classroom social behavior or students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 7, 194-199.

Skinner, B.F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Steege, M. W., Davin, T., & Hathaway, M. (2001). Reliability and accuracy of a performance-based behavioral recording procedure. The School Psychology Review, 30 , 252-261.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998). Using functional assessments to develop behavior support plans. Preventing School Failure, 43 , 6-14. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=1531173&site=ehost-live

Vollmer, T. R., Marcus, B., Ringdahl, J., & Roane, H., (1995). Progressing from brief assessments to extended experimental analyses in the evaluation of aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28 , 561-576.