International Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders by Johnny L. Matson & Peter Sturmey

Author:Johnny L. Matson & Peter Sturmey
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer New York, New York, NY

Limitations of FA and Modifications

Although functional analyses provide an excellent test of the variables maintaining challenging behavior, there are several limitations that clinicians should take into consideration. One of the main disadvantages of conducting a functional analysis is that they require a substantial amount of time to conduct. For instance, Iwata et al.’s (1982/1994) functional analysis of self-injury required an average of 30 functional analysis conditions spread out over an average of 8 days, and each functional analysis condition took 15 min to complete. Another concern is that a functional analysis requires the intentional reinforcement of challenging behavior, which is problematic for two reasons. First, reinforcing challenging behavior, such as SIB or aggression, poses a risk for the client and potentially the therapist since directly reinforcing the behavior may produce a greater frequency or intensity of the behavior that may cause severe tissue damage to the participant. A second concern is that the behavior may develop new and/or multiple functions from exposure to the contingencies in the analog conditions (Shirley et al., 1999). For instance, a behavior initially maintained by escape might also function to obtain attention following exposure to the attention condition.

One way to reconcile some of the limitations of conducting a traditional functional analysis is to conduct a brief functional analysis. A brief functional analysis is a modified version of the standard functional analysis that generally consists of the same analog conditions as the extended functional analyses (Northup et al., 1991); however, the experimenter presents each condition only once, and the conditions are 10 rather than 15 min in duration. A common element of a brief functional analysis is to include a contingency reversal phase following the presentation of analog conditions (Derby et al., 1992; Northup et al., 1991; Tincani, Castrogiavanni, & Axelrod, 1999). In the contingency reversal phase, the client is exposed to the analog condition that produced the highest rate of challenging behavior; however, the experimenter places the client’s challenging behavior on extinction while reinforcing a more appropriate behavior. Although brief analyses generally include a single presentation of each condition and a contingency reversal phase, there have been several modifications that have included a replication of conditions (Luiselli et al., 2004; Tincani et al., 1999) and reversal designs (Sigafoos & Tucker, 2000).

The advantage of a brief functional analysis is that (a) the procedure only takes 90 min or less and (b) the contingency reversal phase allows for the assessment of a replacement behavior for the challenging behavior. Brief analyses, however, do not have the experimental rigor of extended functional analyses as brief functional analyses take place in a single day and typically do not contain replications of analog conditions. Furthermore, brief analyses may be too short in duration to capture behavior that occurs infrequently (Derby et al., 1992).

A functional analysis of precursor behavior – behavior that reliably precedes the target behavior – is another modification to the traditional functional analysis that is a viable option when it is too dangerous or unacceptable to reinforce the target

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.