Functional Analysis of Behavior Disorders
Assumptions:
Behavior problems are learned performances
Adaptive and maladaptive behaviors are learned in the same manner
Purpose of a functional analysis: To identify the maintaining variable (source of reinforcement) for a behavior
Learned Functions of Behavior Disorders
Positive Reinforcement
Social (attention, access to materials)
Automatic (sensory stimulation)
Negative Reinforcement
Social (escape from demands)
Automatic (pain attenuation)
Methods for Conducting Assessment
Indirect Assessment
Descriptive Analysis
Functional Analysis
Indirect (Anecdotal) Approaches to Assessment
Characteristics: Attempts to gather information about behavior through means other than direct observation
Examples: Interviews, checklists, rating scales
Major strength: Simplicity
Major weakness: Subjectivity (questionable reliability and validity)
Descriptive (Naturalistic) Analysis
Characteristics: Direct observation of behavior (and its antecedents and consequences) under naturalistic conditions
Examples: Narrative recording, observation schedules
Major strength: Provides objective, quantitative data
Major weakness: Identifies only correlational relationships
`Sneeze “Bless you”
Functional (Experimental) Analysis
Characteristics: Identification of functional relations through manipulation of suspected controlling variables
Example: Sr versus no Sr for target R behavior
Condition A (test): Sneeze “Bless you” (Sr+?)
Condition B (control): Sneeze No response (EXT)
Major strength:Identifies functional relationships between environment and behavior
Major weakness: Complexity
Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman (1994/1982)
Self-Injurious Behavior (SIB)
Definition: “Behavior that produces injury to the individual’s own body”
Prevalence: 10-15% among severe and profound MR and autism
Methods for prevention: Restraint and sedation
General focus: To demonstrate an experimental approach to behavioral assessment
Specific aim: To identify contingencies that maintain SIB
Procedures
Participants: 9 Ss (1F, 8M), all MR, varied SIB
DV:
SIB (defined individually)
Measured as % 10-s intervals
Reliability: Interval agreement for 35% of sessions
Protection from risk:
Medical exam (exclusion if high risk)
Criterion for risk established by physician
Session terminated if criterion met
Post-session exams by RN
Weekly case review
Experimental design: Multielement
Functional Analysis Protocol
ConditionEOSDConsequenceContingency
AttentionNo attentionTh1, S1 AttentionSr+ (attn)
DemandDemands Th2, S2 EscapeSr- (escape)
AloneNo stimulation S3 N/AAutomatic Sr?
PlayN/ATh3, S4 “NCR”Control
Results
General response patterns:
All Ss: Low levels of SIB in the Play condition
Ss 4,6,7,9: SIB highest in Alone condition (Automatic Sr)
Ss 1,3: SIB highest in Demand condition (Social Sr-)
Ss 5: SIB highest in Attention condition (Social Sr+)
Ss 2,8: Undifferentiated responding (Automatic Sr)
Typical Response Patterns
Major contribution: Development of a methodology for identifying the learned functions of behavior disorders
Limitations:
No treatment data; clinical utility unknown
Conditions may not reflect naturalistic contingencies
Extensions:
Use as basis for treatment development
Application with other behavior disorders
Reinforcement-Based Approaches to Behavior Reduction
Eliminate the behavior’s establishing operation (deprivation or aversive stimulation)
Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR)
Eliminate the behavior’s maintaining contingency
Extinction (EXT)
Replace the behavior with an alternative response
Differential reinforcement (DRA)