8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 189
Using Functional Behavior Assessment in General Education Settings: Making a Case for Effectiveness and Efficiency Terrance M. Scott University of Florida Anne Bucalos Bellarmine University Carl Liaupsin University of Arizona C. Michael Nelson, Kristine Jolivette, and Lise DeShea University of Kentucky ABSTRACT: Under the 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, schools have a legal obligation to conduct functional behavior assessments (FBAs) when developing intervention plans for students with disabilities whose behaviors lead their individualized education program teams to consider a change in educational placement, including suspension and expulsion. However, FBA also holds significant promise as a procedure to be used proactively with students with behavioral challenges who are educated in part, or wholly, in general education classrooms. Unfortunately, current conceptualizations of FBA as a methodologically rigorous procedure pose significant and possibly insurmountable barriers to proactive implementation in general education settings. The authors analyze these barriers through a targeted review of the literature, an examination of how the characteristics of general education settings promote the use of less demanding FBA methodologies, and a consideration of situations in which certain FBA procedures generally are contraindicated. Finally, they advocate an active research agenda that is responsive to the particular challenges of public school settings and FBA students with and at risk for mild disabilities.
Functional behavior assessment (FBA) is a process of assessing the purpose or “function” of a student’s behavior in relation to its context (i.e., surrounding environment), so that appropriate interventions can be designed to meet the unique needs of individual students (Iwata et al., 2000; Jolivette, Scott, & Nelson, 2000). This assessment process facilitates the development of individualized behavior support plans for students with challenging behaviors (O’Neill et al., 1997; Scott & Nelson, 1999b; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan, 1998). Traditionally, FBA has been presented and practiced as a prescribed formalized procedure involving multiple direct observations of student behavior, quantitative analysis of behavioral patterns, and valid hypothesis testing
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
prior to intervention (e.g., Liaupsin, Scott, & Nelson, 2000; O’Neill et al., 1997). Critical reviews examining empirical support for the use of FBA with students with or at risk for emotional or behavioral disorders (E/BD) have been the subject of other welldocumented discussions appearing in this journal (e.g., Fox, Conroy, & Heckaman, 1998; Gable, 1996; Gresham, Quinn, & Restori, 1999; Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, & Rutherford, 1999; Sasso, Conroy, Peck, Stichter, & Fox, 2001; Scott & Nelson, 1999a). The general theme of these reviews has been that (a) the research base supporting the use of traditional FBA procedures for students with mild disabilities is not sufficient to direct practice, (b) existing studies focus mainly on researcherFebruary 2004 / 189
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 190
directed FBA practices, and (c) little or no research comparing or validating FBA methodologies exists. Despite disagreements regarding the procedures that constitute FBA and the acknowledgment of a lack of evidence to support practice recommendations, recent studies demonstrate the validity of function-based interventions (Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, in press; Newcomer & Lewis, in press). Sasso and his colleagues (2001) noted that “from both a conceptual and a theoretical standpoint, systemic analyses of the function of behavior should be considered best practice for children with behavior and learning problems” (p. 283) and went on to suggest the development of a research agenda focused on establishing the empirical validity of FBA instruments and procedures. While we agree that empirical validity should be established, we contend that if FBA is to be used proactively within school settings, any method, regardless of its empirical merit, is only as valid as the probability that school-based personnel will use it in a reliable and effective manner. To create a more efficient and therefore realistic process, we propose that research efforts focus on procedures that offer a balance between empirical and social validation—that is, between what can be empirically validated and what school personnel are willing and able to undertake. In this article, we examine the issue of effectiveness within the context of what is realistic or efficient for school-based personnel. First, we provide a general discussion of effectiveness and efficiency in relation to training, followed by a review of the research on FBA in public school settings. Next, we examine impediments to school-wide implementation of traditional FBA, primarily focusing on the contrast between effectiveness and efficiency. Finally, we offer recommendations for a research agenda that addresses questions surrounding the issues we have identified.
Efficiency in School Settings In the school context, efficiency refers to the ease with which school personnel can implement the FBA process within the scope of their typical school duties and time limitations. With regard to the issue of application by general education personnel in public school settings, the issue of efficiency is critical. In the general education context, assessment-based 190 / February 2004
early interventions may prove to be best practice with regard to preventing students who exhibit problem behavior from subsequently being identified as eligible for special education (Vollmer & Northup, 1996; Walker et al., 1996). The obvious implication of such a position is that FBA must be undertaken in general education environments by general education teachers and associated personnel (e.g., teachers counselors, assistants). To make this work, the process must be efficient. That is, schools must adopt the FBA process in a manner that ensures that it is equally realistic and shared across general and special educators (Jolivette, Barton-Arwood, & Scott, 2001; Scott & Nelson, 1999b). Such a systemic move in a proactive direction will be a major shift for many schools (Elmore, 1996); interventions addressing student problem behavior typically have consisted of simply reacting to such behavior with negative and punitive consequences (Colvin, Sugai, & Kameenui, 1993). While school-wide prevention practices have reduced the need for exclusionary disciplinary measures, including suspension and expulsion (Lewis, Sugai, & Colvin, 1998; Sailor et al., 2000; Skiba & Peterson, 2000), such practices have not been institutionalized and thus do not affect the average general education settings where the vast majority of challenging behaviors occur (Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, & Rutherford, 1999; Sasso et al., 2001).
Training: Unanswered Questions Although some have questioned the efficiency of traditional FBA procedures in nonclinical settings (e.g., Applegate, Matson, & Cherry, 1999), we share the concerns of others (e.g., Durand & Crimmins, 1988; Scott & Nelson, 1999a; Spreat & Connelly, 1996) who question the feasibility of adequately training school personnel in FBA procedures up to the level where they can conduct valid and useful assessments as part of their typical responsibilities. Although successful demonstrations of efficient entry-level training do appear in the literature (e.g., Iwata et al., 2000; Moore et al., 2002), such reports focus on individuals and settings that differ from typical public school conditions. We do not doubt the ability to train school-based personnel to understand and demonstrate traditional FBA procedures. We do, however, believe that such physical conditions as class size and time constraints on the
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 191
availability of staff to do in-depth assessments will affect adoption across school personnel and generalization back to everyday practice. There continues to be little evidence that many general education personnel can or are willing to adequately implement FBA procedures as part of their daily routine. Although we are careful not to suggest the abandonment of traditional FBA methodology in schools, we believe that the circumstances suggest two options: 1. Develop more efficient and effective ways of delivering staff training for implementing traditional FBA methodologies in public school settings. 2. Develop and validate more efficient “userfriendly” methodologies as alternatives to more rigorous traditional procedures. Iwata and colleagues (2000) characterized such procedures as “objective measures of ongoing behavior taken under multiple test and control conditions, in which antecedents and consequent events are clearly prescribed and are arranged in such a way as to identify functional relations between environment and behavior” (p. 181). While we fully support empirical rigor, we simply question whether such is possible outside clinical settings— namely, in the public schools.
Training and Efficiency in Public Schools Even within the schools there is a range of settings and expectations that affects the use of functional assessment procedures. Students are placed in alternative and more restrictive settings when it has been determined that their needs cannot be addressed adequately in the general education setting. Thus, what might be appropriate for a specialized setting may not necessarily be appropriate school wide. For example, Sasso and colleagues (2001) persuasively argued that “the adequacy of various functional assessment procedures must not be determined solely by the student’s response to an intervention” (p. 290). We agree that concern about the skills of school personnel is not a reason to abandon experimental or functional analysis practices, including analog assessment. In fact, we are in general agreement with the argument that validation within the assessment process is
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
preferable to validation at the intervention level. Still, we maintain that such decisions must be applied in accordance with supporting empirical evidence of application and the contextual reality of the situation. To be certain, analog assessments can be a used as a valid method of experimental functional analysis for students in public school settings (Conroy, Fox, Crain, Jenkins, & Belcher, 1996; Hendrickson, Gable, Novak, & Peck 1996). However, whether this can be accomplished by general education teachers in the scope of their normal duties, and without assistance from researchers, is an empirical question that has not been answered. From the standpoint of efficiency, we believe that the relationship between empirical rigor and practical application is, to some extent, inverse. The rigorous procedural rules advocated by some likely would reduce the willingness of general educators to adopt FBA procedures as a tool for students with problem behaviors. In general, the more rigorous the procedure, the less likely it is that it will be adopted by those who do not have a philosophical background and history of training in its application. We suggest that the failure to institutionalize FBA as a proactive procedure is, in part, due to the lack of fit between the rigorous requirements of traditional FBA procedures and the structure of general education environments—again, begging the question of effectiveness versus efficiency. Support for this observation may be found in the limited research that has been conducted on FBA in public school settings, which we review next.
Review of Recent Functional Behavior Assessment Research Previous literature reviews have focused on the applicability of FBA techniques originally designed for students with severe developmental disabilities in clinical, rather than school, settings (Blakeslee, Sugai, & Gruba, 1994; Nelson, Roberts, et al., 1999). Fewer studies have targeted students with or at risk for E/BD (Lewis & Sugai, 1996; Fox, Conroy, & Heckaman, 1998; Heckaman, Conroy, Fox, & Chait, 2000; Sasso et al., 2001). Topically, previous studies and literature reviews have focused on trends in the design and application of FBA-based interventions (Heckaman et al., 2000); external validity and cost benefits of February 2004 / 191
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 192
FBA (Nelson et al., 1999); and participant characteristics, FBA procedures, instruments employed, and the reliability and validity of those instruments and procedures (Fox et al., 1998; Gable, 1996). Given the limited research base evaluating the use of functional assessment procedures with students with or at risk for E/BD in school settings (especially secondary settings), this literature review focuses on studies published from 1995 to the present that were conducted in general education settings in public schools and involved students with mild disabilities, an E/BD diagnosis, or with no special education or psychiatric identification. Of specific interest in this review are the procedures used to conduct FBAs, how they were implemented and by whom, and the conditions (if any) under which specific procedures were recommended.
FBA Research in General Education Settings For this review of the literature, thorough computer searches were conducted using the following databases: PsychInfo (Ebscohost), Exceptional Child Education Resources, ProQuest, and First Search. Both “functional assessment” and “functional behavior assessment” were designated as keywords in these searches. More than 600 studies and articles were generated, and bibliographies of relevant documents were scanned for additional references. Finally, a hand search of those references was completed, as well as recent (i.e., within the last 3 years) journals deemed appropriate: Diagnostique, Exceptionality, Exceptional Children, Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, Journal of Special Education, Remedial and Special Education, Education and Treatment of Children, Behavioral Disorders, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Preventing School Failure, and School Psychology Quarterly. Of the several hundred articles located, only 12 studies met the criteria we established for inclusion in the literature review: (a) the study was conducted in a school setting; (2) student participants were between the ages of 5 and 21 years, with a diagnosis of E/BD or at risk for E/BD or mild disabilities (i.e., attention deficit with or without hyperactivity, learning disability, mild mental retardation or cognitive delay), or simply a student exhibiting problem behavior; (c) the study was conducted between 1995 and 192 / February 2004
2000; and (d) the study reported the procedures that were used in conducting FBA.
Characteristics A total of 26 students were assessed in 12 separate studies. They ranged in age from 5 to 14 years. A variety of labels was applied to the participants, including (a) at risk for E/BD; (b) E/BD; (c) seriously emotionally disturbed; (d) oppositional defiant disorder; (e) mild disabilities such as mild mental retardation, learning disabilities, and ADHD; and (f) no diagnostic or special education label, but the student was identified as demonstrating problem behavior. Settings were school based, including general education classrooms, special education classrooms, a school for students with learning and behavioral disorders (Meyer, 1999), and a clinic-based summer school program (Jones, Drew, & Weber, 2000). Identified problem behaviors varied across the studies and included (a) being off task, failing to complete tasks, and avoiding tasks; (b) inappropriate vocalizations and talking out; (c) being out of seat and running away; (d) crying, shouting, and whining; (e) noncompliance to directives; and (f) aggression, spitting, tantrums, and property destruction. The studies were reviewed to determine the procedures used in conducting the FBA, whether hypothesis development and intervention followed assessment, and special conditions under which procedures were recommended. Table 1 summarizes this information.
Functional Assessment Procedures A variety of alternatives to traditional FBA methodologies were used. All studies used a combination of assessment procedures, primarily direct observation and structured interviews (Clarke et al., 1995; Dunlap, FosterJohnson, Clarke, Kern, & Childs, 1995; Ervin, DuPaul, Kern, & Friman, 1998; Umbreit, 1995b), record reviews (Lee, Sugai, & Horner, 1999), teacher reports (Grandy & Peck, 1997; Kamps et al., 1995), standardized instruments (Ervin et al., 1998), and curriculum-based assessment (Lee et al., 1999; Umbreit, 1995a). All reviewed studies included hypothesis development and intervention as part of the assessment except Broussard and Northup (1997), Meyer (1999), and Jones and colleagues (2000). These three studies conducted analog probes, as did Umbreit (1995a, 1995b). Regardless of the type of intervention
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 193
TABLE 1 Functional Assessment-Based Procedures/Interventions in School-Based Settings Author (Date)
Subjects
Procedures
Implementer
Setting
Hypotheses
Clarke et al. (1995)
5 to 11 yrs old SED, (1) ADHD
DO, SI, I
Researcher, teacher
Elementary self-contained classroom
Yes
Dunlap, FosterJohnson, Clarke, Kern, & Childs (1995)
9 yrs old SED, ODD
DO, SI, I
Researcher, teacher
General education classroom
Yes
Kamps et al. (1995)
4 to 6 yrs old at risk for SED
DO, teacher reports
Researcher, teacher
General kindergarten classroom
Yes
Umbreit (1995)
8 yrs old SED
DO, I, A, CBA
Researcher, teacher
General education classroom
Yes
Umbreit (1996)
5 yrs old MR
DO, SI, I, A
Researcher, teacher
General education classroom
Yes
Broussard & Northrup (1997)
7 to 9 yrs old ADHD, not labeled
DO, A
Researcher
General education classroom
No
Grandy & Peck (1997)
6 yrs old not labeled
DO, teacher reports
Researcher, teacher
General 1st grade and art classrooms
Yes
Ervin, DuPaul, Kern, & Friman (1998)
13 & 14 yrs old ADHD, ODD
DO, I, standardized instruction
Researcher, teacher
General education classroom at Boys Town
Yes
Blair, Umbreit, & Bos, (1999)
60–63 mos at risk for SED
DO, I
Researcher, teacher
Preschool classroom
Yes
Lee, Sugai, & Horner (1999)
9 yrs old E/BD/ADHD
DO, I, CBA, record review
Researcher
Special education classroom
Yes
Meyer (1999)
Grades 1, 3 LD, EBD
DO, A Yes
Researcher
Special LD/BD classroom
No
Jones, Drew, & Weber (1999)
8 yrs old ADHD
DO, A
Researcher, teacher
Summer academic classroom
No
Note: A = analog probes; ADHD = attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; BD = behavioral disorder; CBA = curriculum based assessment; DO = direct observation; E/BD = emotional or behavioral disorder; I = interview; LD = learning disability; MR = mental retardation; ODD = oppositional defiant disorder; RA = rating scale; SE = serious emotional disturbance; SI = student interview.
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
February 2004 / 193
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 194
(antecedent, consequence, or skill-based), all of the reviewed studies demonstrated positive results, defined as reducing problem behavior and/or increasing appropriate behavior, with the exception of the Kamps and colleagues (1995) study, which reported partially successful results due to inconsistent intervention implementation. None of the studies appeared to be using procedures as an outgrowth of a more comprehensive school-wide system; however, such a determination is difficult to make within the context of an individual study. Just as Nelson and colleagues (1999) reported in their review, FBA procedures in the studies we reviewed predominantly were researcher directed, using trained observers and interviewers from university staff and student populations even when implementing less rigorous methodologies. However, the authors of several studies acknowledged the need to train classroom teachers and use them to conduct assessments and/or interventions (Clarke et al., 1995; Dunlap et al., 1995; Ervin et al., 1998; Jones et al., 2000; Kamps et al., 1995; Umbreit, 1995a, 1995b). Several studies intentionally involved both general and special education teachers in all phases of FBA as part of an ongoing effort to make FBA a more collaborative school-wide process (Clarke et al., 1995; Dunlap et al., 1995; Ervin et al., 1998; Kamps et al., 1995; Umbreit, 1995a, 1995b), although results of these efforts were not reported.
Special Considerations Very few of the studies reviewed discussed conditions under which specific procedures might be recommended. Ervin and colleagues (1998) used the Student Assisted Functional Assessment Interview (Kern, Dunlap, Clarke, & Childs, 1995) with adolescent male participants in an effort to include their perspectives and perceptions. Umbreit (1995b) promoted the use of curriculum-based assessment over analog probes and insisted that general education teachers conduct hypothesis testing during ongoing instructional activities. However, such decisions are idiosyncratic in that they lack a systematic implementation according to specific decision rules and appear guided more by researcher design or favor than by response to specific conditions. 194 / February 2004
Conclusions from Review of the Literature There continues to be an insufficient empirical database on FBA for students in nonclinical settings who exhibit a range of problem behaviors to establish a basis for making methodologically sound recommendations about best practice in conducting FBA. This is particularly true in reference to the absence of published studies in general education settings and involving adolescents, both middle and high school students. Unquestionably, FBA must become an integral part of an overall systemic approach to academic and behavioral management that is proactive in nature and implemented with young children, so that minor problem behaviors are addressed before they develop into severe challenges (Sailor et al., 2000). In addition, the range of methodologies and lack of recommended practice suggest that general education still has not adopted a model of FBA. As Scott, Meers, and Nelson (2000) found, there is little consensus among practitioners and researchers regarding the necessary and sufficient procedures for performing FBA. This lack of consensus has serious implications for training preservice teachers and practitioners in terms of procedures used and the type and degree of competency necessary to conduct an FBA (Stichter, Shellady, Sealander, & Eigenberger, 2000). Horner (1994) summarized the issue, observing that “the major difficulty comes from trying to identify a procedure that both delivers very precise, usable, valid information about the problem behavior, yet does so with minimal time, effort, and expectations about the skills of the implementors” (p. 402). Finally, problems and challenges continue to emerge with regard to implementing FBA in schools. General education teachers, who are responsible for large numbers of students, are not managing this process without help from researchers. Our review of the literature indicates that while 9 of the 12 identified studies involved teachers in implementing the FBA process, none used the teacher as the main implementer without assistance from the researcher. Schill, Kratochwill, and Elliott (1998) determined that the amount of time required to complete a traditional FBA and behavior support planning process ranged from 9.7 to 23 consultant hours. As part of an ongoing trend toward looking for more effi-
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 195
cient FBA methodologies, interviews, checklists, questionnaires, and other less rigorous and more indirect assessment methodologies have been described in the literature, although typically as additions rather than alternatives to direct observations (e.g., Applegate et al., 1999; Lewis, Scott, & Sugai, 1995; Spreat & Connelly, 1996). Rating scales, interviews, teacher reports, and curriculum-based assessment were represented in the 12 identified studies, but always as an addition to more formal methodologies and always with the assistance of a researcher. More traditional procedures, including direct observations, were used in all 12 studies, and analog assessments were applied in 5 of 12. Again, however, in every case researchers assisted in the implementation of these procedures.
Can Teachers in General Education Settings Conduct FBA Without Researchers? While current law has brought the practice of FBA to nonidentified students and students with mild disabilities in general education settings, our literature review suggests that there is little in the way of empirical evidence to support any specific FBA methodologies in these settings. If FBA is to be used in general education settings as part of a teacher’s normal routine, the nature of the general education student population and setting must be taken into account. These present some unique challenges to traditional FBA conceptualizations. Public school classrooms are distinguished from exclusionary settings by the nature of student needs in the classroom and the degree to which those students are regularly exposed to a variety of other pupils across instructional and social contexts and conditions. The following features of general education classroom settings further distinguish them from exclusionary settings and illuminate problems inherent in the training and use of traditional FBA methods.
Teacher Time and Student Numbers Teacher-to-student ratios in general public school classrooms typically are much higher than those in exclusionary settings. In a study of class size, the National Center for Education Statistics (1997) determined that the average class size in U.S. schools was 24.1 in elemen-
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
tary schools and 23.6 in secondary schools, and the number did not tend to vary across the income levels of students served. Although more affluent schools or those with special funding for smaller class sizes may have substantially lower teacher–student ratios, exclusionary settings often have ratios of more than 1 adult for every 4 or 5 students. As a result, general education teachers typically have less time to conduct individualized assessments or instruction, and students eligible for individualized programming often are referred to specialists for assessment, support, and instruction.
Teacher Training Traditionally, behavior assessment has been the domain of the specialist (i.e., special education teacher, counselor, school psychologist) rather than the classroom teacher (Vollmer & Northup, 1996). In fact, it is unlikely that the vast majority of general education classroom teachers are familiar with FBA, let alone fluent in the process; few report confidence in their ability to work with students with special needs in the absence of trained specialists (Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb, & Wishner, 1994). Furthermore, previously mentioned time constraints and reliance on specialists make it unlikely that general education teachers will be willing or able to gain sufficient fluency with FBA practices when they encounter students who exhibit problem behaviors in the classroom (Scott & Nelson, 1999a). Under such circumstances, teachers likely will fall back on the methods requiring the least amount of new information and skills. As we explained earlier, two aspects of FBA—direct observations and hypothesis testing—require training and rigor that will tax persons who lack both time and a fundamental understanding of function. Some experts in the field suggest that the process of functional assessment is simply too complex for implementation by a wide range of school personnel (Gable, 1996; Gable, Hendrickson, & Smith, 1999). In support of this contention, it may be noted that the ability to conduct FBAs has, at present, been demonstrated only by highly trained researchers. In a review of 97 research articles in which functional assessment procedures were used to treat individuals who exhibited behavior problems, Nelson, Roberts, and colleagues (1999) found that in all studies, researchers conducted the assessments. In February 2004 / 195
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 196
other words, current research literature does not support the argument that school-based personnel are capable of conducting effective functional assessments.
Efficiency Considerations While efficient teachers may create time for external observers to conduct classroom observations or share assessment duties with other personnel, for typical students with even regularly occurring problem behaviors this may be an extremely inefficient strategy. An analysis of conditional probability demonstrates the inefficient and unrealistic nature of relying solely on direct observations for all but relatively high-frequency behaviors or when prolonged observation periods are feasible. Assuming that a behavior happens one time each day for a duration of 1 minute, the probability of observing that behavior during a 15minute observation is 3.6%; it climbs to only 14% if the observation period is extended to an hour. To have just a 50% chance of observing such a behavior just once requires 3.5 hours of observation time. Two conclusions can be drawn from this analysis. First, because direct observations will be conducted only when it is feasible to do so, observations of brief duration that result in low probabilities of observing targeted behavior are inefficient, wasteful of resources, and provide a disincentive for staff to make the effort. Second, observations of longer duration require more staff time, which also is a disincentive for conducting them despite the greater likelihood of obtaining useful information. Failures to observe the target behavior during scheduled observations also might be a disincentive for continuing assessment. Clearly, the presence of disincentives does not affect the merit of FBA procedures when correctly implemented. However, disincentives do affect the likelihood that school personnel will correctly implement or even attempt such procedures. Thus it is worth exploring the conditions under which direct observation procedures are not likely to produce valid or usable information without sufficient time and fidelity of implementation. We believe these conditions to be the most deserving of research efforts directed at staff training and the validity of various FBA strategies. 196 / February 2004
Considering the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Direct Observations Underlying our discussion of FBA are the issues of efficiency and effectiveness in gathering the information necessary to create successful interventions. Because inefficiency provides disincentive for use, for an FBA procedure to be effective it must also be efficient. We submit that strategies that are not realistic, despite their validity, will be ignored or inadequately applied. The following discussion addresses conditions under which direct observation strategies seem likely to be inefficient in school settings. Although the law calls for an FBA under circumstances in which students with disabilities bring weapons or drugs to school, direct observations and traditional FBA procedures will not be possible when the student involved cannot be observed in the school setting. When a student is suspended, removed to an alternative setting, or otherwise taken out of the school, direct observations of the behavior and its corresponding antecedent and consequent events prior to returning the student to school are impossible. In other cases, students who are directly observed engage in only positive behavior as a purposeful reaction to being observed. Under circumstances where problem behaviors cannot be observed in their natural surroundings, alternative techniques—including input from a variety of sources via questionnaires, checklists, interviews, and other indirect methods—are likely to be more productive than traditional methods. The planning and implementation of direct observation procedures can be made more efficient by scheduling observations for times and locations in which problem behaviors have been observed most frequently in the past. However, there are cases in which antecedents of problem behavior are unknown or occur inconsistently. Specific antecedents may predict some behaviors, but for some students, a critical number of such antecedents must occur to trigger the behavior. For example, peers may repeatedly harass a student for some time without the student’s reacting negatively, but when the number of harassments reaches a critical threshold, a behavioral response (e.g., physical aggression, bringing a weapon to school) occurs.
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 197
Like antecedents, the consequences that control behavior also can be inconsistent. They may appear after some but not all behaviors. Under such conditions it likely will be difficult to determine whether the behavior and consequence are functionally related. For example, a student may make noises in the classroom on several occasions, which the teacher ignores, but then he or she finally tires of hearing the disruptions and provides attention. In both cases, direct observations of insufficient duration could result in the conclusion that no relationship exists. When long-term observations are not feasible, questionnaire or interview assessments might be a more efficient method of gathering information for the FBA. We have the evidence to suggest that, in all cases, direct observations are a valid way of gathering data that can be used to analyze behavioral function when personnel are able and willing to conduct the observations properly (National Institutes of Health, 1989; Iwata et al., 1994). At the same time, we have little or no evidence that alternative methods such as interview, questionnaire, or rating scales protocols can be valid stand-alone methods of behavior analysis. Thus we suggest that, at this point, neither traditional nor indirect methods of FBA can be recommended as best practice for mild behavior problems in general education settings. In the next section, we provide suggestions for future research that might guide recommendations for FBA procedures in public school settings.
Future Research: Mixing Training and Methodology As increasing numbers of behaviorally diverse students are educated in general education settings, the need to conduct FBAs in mainstream classrooms will increase. However, our review of the literature suggests that there is little empirical evidence to support the valid and realistic use of FBA in general education settings. The general education environment presents numerous challenges to the successful implementation of traditional, direct, and rigorous FBA methodologies that have been prescribed by law. This fact has created an incentive to move toward other, less stringent methodologies that, while seemingly realistic, have little or no empirical support. Clearly, there are times, places, and conditions under which more rigorous methodologies will be
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
impractical and ineffective, indicating the application of less technically demanding methods. Likewise, there will always be a group of students for whom the simpler and less time-consuming methods simply do not provide the information necessary for the development of an effective intervention plan. Research must focus on both the efficacy of FBA training for school personnel and validating a range of methodological strategies for conducting FBA across a variety of settings and conditions.
FBA Training for School Personnel and School Systems Research must focus on the degree of training necessary for school-based personnel to adequately implement the necessary FBA procedures within the context of their everyday roles in the school. Research in public schools must focus on the ability of the teacher to implement such procedures by removing the researcher as the leader of, and perhaps even as an active participant in, the implementation process. Furthermore, we need to better study and answer questions regarding how school staff can collaborate to share the tasks associated with more rigorous FBA methodologies. While a comprehensive training component is needed to promote competence among all school personnel involved with FBA, accomplishing this is complicated by differences in the amount of information and support needed by various practitioners (Conroy, Clark, Gable, & Fox, 1999). For instance, school principals may require only a general understanding of the FBA process, while special education teachers will need higher levels of support and training. Preservice teachers should encounter information about FBA in the content of university courses. However, the best way for them to develop skills in FBA may be within a specific practicum-based course that includes definite FBA performance criteria (Conroy, Clark, Fox, & Gable, 2000). Comprehensive training and consultation models such as East Tennessee State University’s “Make a Difference” project (Vaughn, Hales, Bush, & Fox, 1998) and Iowa’s school improvement initiative “Success4” (Hendrickson & Gable, 1999) are two examples of systems change initiatives that incorporate FBA as a natural component of proactive behavioral planning. Finally, person-centered planning February 2004 / 197
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 198
has been used successfully within a system of positive behavior support to facilitate the participation of general educators in the FBA process (Kennedy et al., 2001). To meet the need for large-scale professional development of FBA and behavior intervention plans, Webbased programs such as the Online Academy (www.onlineacademy.org) at the University of Kansas (Sailor et al., 2000), interactive CDROM training modules (Liaupsin et al., 2000; Scott, Liaupsin, & Nelson, 2001), and published training manuals (e.g., Nelson, Roberts, & Smith, 1999; O’Neill et al., 1997; Positive Behavior Support Project, 1999; Witt, Daly, & Noell, 2000) provide research-based strategies to facilitate best practice in FBA and positive behavioral support (see Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan-Burke, 1999–2000). These creative options offer schools and school districts more flexibility in training practitioners. Such models are deserving of closer scrutiny with regard to how skills associated with functional assessment may be acquired and assessment tasks shared in general education settings.
Validation of Alternative and Indirect FBA Methodologies
ods, with a range of personnel, and under a range of conditions should be information about the conditions under which one method is preferred over another. FBA will be most effective under all possible conditions when clear rules lead practitioners to implement the least intrusive, least costly, least time-consuming, and, therefore, most efficient methodology possible for the circumstances present in each case. For example, when a large number of school personnel have repeatedly observed a student’s misbehavior, it is more likely that structured interviews and collaborative team discussions will be more efficient than scheduling direct observations into the future. Likewise, when a student has a long history of intense behavior that has been resistant to repeated behavioral interventions, it is likely that more formalized observations and analyses will be necessary to understand the function of the behavior and develop an effective plan. Thus, we believe that, although the most time-consuming, complex, and formalized FBA procedures are necessary under specific conditions, there also will be circumstances under which such methods are contraindicated in deference to efficiency. However, until we have the information necessary to determine which methods should be implemented under specific circumstances, FBA will remain an unwieldy and unsupported practice in general education settings. In response, research must focus on the systematic analysis of the relative validity of specific direct and indirect procedures under a variety of settings, schoolbased implementers, and circumstances.
Clearly, alternative methodologies are necessary when planning to implement FBA in the general education setting, whether as an additional source of information or as the primary means of assessment. Research must focus more directly on the use of these alternative methodologies with specific students, in a variety of school settings, and by a range of school personnel. Preliminary results from the few studies that exist suggest that these less rigorous methodologies do have promise (see earlier discussion). Questionnaire, checklist, rating scale, teacher report, curriculum-based assessment, and interview strategies all have the potential to make FBA a more efficient process for public schools. However, without a clear focus and empirical evidence, these methods continue to be a mix of trial and error that leave students playing the role of guinea pig in an uncontrolled and unmonitored experiment.
Conclusion
Decision Rules for Using Direct Versus Indirect Assessment Strategies
References
Finally, the result of an empirical database on the relative effectiveness of a range of meth-
Applegate, H., Matson, J. L., & Cherry, K. E. (1999). An evaluation of functional variables affecting severe problem behaviors in adults with mental
198 / February 2004
We support federal and state policies that strongly encourage public schools to implement function-based intervention procedures, which have demonstrated their worth in carefully controlled studies. However, we contend that we must consider both the empirical validity of the method and the feasibility of the process for persons working in public school settings.
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 199
retardation by using the Questions about Behavioral Function Scale (QBAF). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 229–237. Blair, K. C., Umbreit, J., & Bos, C. S. (1999). Using functional assessment and children’s preferences to improve the behavior of young children with behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 151–166. Blakeslee, T., Sugai, G., & Gruba, J. (1994). A review of functional assessment use in data-based intervention studies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 397–413. Broussard, C., & Northrup, J. (1997). The use of functional analysis of developing peer interventions of disruptive classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 65–76. Carr, E. G. (1994). Emerging themes in the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 393–399. Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., Foster-Johnson, L., Childs, K., Wilson, D., White, R., et al. (1995). Improving the conduct of students with behavior disorders by incorporating student interests into curricular activities. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 221–237. Colvin, G., Sugai, G., & Kameenui, E. (1993). Reconceptualizing behavior management and school-wide discipline in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361–381. Conroy, M. A., Clark, D., Fox, J. J., & Gable, R. A. (2000). Building competence in FBA: Are we headed in the right directions? Preventing School Failure, 44, 169–174. Conroy, M. A., Clark, D., Gable, R. A., & Fox, J. J. (1999). Building competence in the use of functional behavior assessment. Preventing School Failure, 43, 140–144. Conroy, M., Fox, J., Crain, L., Jenkins, A., & Belcher, K. (1996). Evaluating the social and ecological validity of analog assessment procedures for challenging behaviors in young children. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 233–256. Dunlap, G., Foster-Johnson, L., Clarke, S., Kern, L., & Childs, K. E. (1995). Modifying activities to produce functional outcomes: Effects on the problem behaviors of students with disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 248–258. 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. Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, C. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99–117. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1–26. Ervin, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., Kern, L., & Friman, P. C. (1998). Classroom-based functional and adjunctive assessments: Proactive approaches
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
to intervention selection for adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 65–78. Fox, J., Conroy, M., & Heckaman, K. (1998). Research issues in functional assessment of the challenging behaviors of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 26–33. Fox, J., Vaughn, K., Dhales, C., Bush, M., Byons, M., Orso, M., & Smith, S. (1998). Translating the IEP into practice: Ensuring positive outcomes for students with emotional and behavioral disorders in the area of conduct and social skills. In L. M. Bullock & R. A. Gable (Eds.), Implementing the 1997 IDEA: New challenges and opportunities for serving students with emotional/ behavioral disorders (pp. 29–41). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. Gable, R. A. (1996). A critical analysis of functional assessment: Issues for researchers and practitioners. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 36–40. Gable, R. A., Hendrickson, J. M., & Smith, C. (1999). Changing discipline policies and practices: Finding a place for functional behavior assessment in schools. Preventing School Failure, 43, 167–170. Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B. W., & Wishner, J. (1994). Special education in urban America: It’s not justifiable for many. Journal of Special Education, 27, 453–465. Grandy, S. E., & Peck, S. M. (1997). The use of functional assessment and self-management with a first grader. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 19, 29–43. Gresham, F. M., Quinn, M. M., & Restori, A. (1999). Methodological issues in functional analysis: Generalizability to other disability groups. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 180–182. Heckaman, K., Conroy, M., Fox, J., & Chait, A. (2000). Functional assessment-based intervention research on students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 196–210. Hendrickson, J. M., & Gable, R. A. (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. Hendrickson, J. M., Gable, R. A., Novak, C., & Peck, S. (1996). Functional assessment as a strategy assessment for teaching academics. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 257–271. Horner, R. H. (1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future directions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 401–404. Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (in press). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA indicated and contra-indicated intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions.
February 2004 / 199
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 200
Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Dorsey, B. F., Zarcone, J. R., Vollmer, T. R., Smith, R. G., et al. (1994). The function of self-injurious behavior: An experimental-epidemiological analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 215–240. Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S. W., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., et al. (2000). Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 181–194. Jolivette, K., Barton-Arwood, S., & Scott, T. M. (2001). Functional behavior assessment as a collaborative process among professionals. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 298–313. Jolivette, K., Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2000). The link between functional behavior assessments (FBAs) and behavioral intervention plans (BIPs). ERIC Digest, E592, EDO-00-1. Jones, K. M., Drew, H. A., & Weber, N. L. (2000). Noncontingent peer attention as treatment for disruptive classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 343–346. Kamps, D. M., Ellis, C., Mancina, C., Wyble, J., Greene, L., & Harvey, D. (1995). Case studies using functional analysis for young children with behavior risks. Education and Treatment of Children, 18, 243–260. Kennedy, C. H., Long, T., Jolivette, K., Cox, J., Tang, J., & Thompson, T. (2001). Facilitating general education participation for students with behavior problems by linking positive behavior supports and person-centered planning. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 161–171. Kern, L., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Childs, K. E. (1995). Student-assisted functional assessment interview. Diagnostique, 19, 29–39. Lee, Y., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Using an instructional intervention to reduce problem and off-task behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 195–204. Lewis, T. J., Scott, T. M., & Sugai, G. M. (1995). The Problem Behavior Questionnaire: A teacher based instrument to develop functional hypotheses of problem behavior in general education classrooms. Diagnostique, 19, 103–115. Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1996). Functional assessment of problem behavior: A pilot investigation of the comparative and interactive effects of teacher and peers’ social attention on students in general education settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 1–19. Lewis, T. J., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1998) Reducing problem behavior through a school-wide system of effective behavioral support: Investigation of a school-wide social skills training program and contextual interventions. School Psychology Review, 27, 446–459. Liaupsin, C. J., Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2000). Functional behavioral assessment: An interactive training manual (2nd ed.) [CD-ROM]. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
200 / February 2004
Meyer, K. A. (1999). Functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior exhibited by elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 229–232. Moore, J. W., Edwards, R. P., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Riley, J., DuBard, M., & McGeorge, A. (2002). Teacher acquisition of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 73–77. National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). The condition of education. Available: http://nces. ed.gov/pubs/ce/c9739a01.html National Institutes of Health. (1989). NIH consensus development conference on the treatment of destructive behaviors in persons with developmental disabilities. Bethesda, MD: Author. Nelson, J. R., Roberts, M. L., Mathur, S. R., & Rutherford, R. B. (1999). Has public policy exceeded our knowledge base? A review of the functional behavior assessment literature. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 169–179. Nelson, J. R., Roberts, M. L., & Smith, D. (1999). Conducting functional behavioral assessments: A practical guide. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Newcomer, L., & Lewis, T. J. (in press). Functional behavioral assessment: An investigation of assessment reliability and effectiveness of function-based interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, D., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook (2nd ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Positive Behavior Support Project. (1999, November). Facilitator’s guide: Positive behavioral support. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Education. Sailor, W., Smith, C., Freeman, R., Britten, J., McCart, A., Scott, T. M., et al. (2000). Preparing personnel to implement functional behavior assessment (FBA). Exceptionality, 8, 217–230. Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Peck Stichter, J., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282–296. 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., Liaupsin, C. J., & Nelson, C. M. (2001). Behavior intervention planning: Using the functional assessment data. [CD-ROM]. Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Scott, T. M., Meers, D. T., & Nelson, C. M. (2000). Toward a consensus of functional behavior 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. (1999a). Functional behavior assessment: Implications for training
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 201
and staff development. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 219–222. Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1999b). Using functional behavior assessment to develop effective intervention plans: Practical classroom applications. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 242–251. Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional Children, 66, 335–346. Spreat, S., & Connelly, L. (1996). Reliability analysis of the Motivation Assessment Scale. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 100, 528–532. Stichter, J. P., Shellady, S., Sealander, K. A., & Eigenberger, M. E. (2000). Teaching what we do know: Preservice training and functional behavior assessment. Preventing School Failure, 44, 142–147. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., et al. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support and functional assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 131–143. Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998). Using functional assessments to develop behavior support plans. Preventing School Failure, 43, 6–13. Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan-Burke, S. (1999–2000). Overview of the functional behavior assessment process. Exceptionality, 8, 149–160. Umbreit, J. (1995a). 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. Umbreit, J. (1995b). Functional analysis of disruptive behavior in an inclusive classroom. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 18–29. Vaughn, K., Hales, C., Bush, M., & Fox, J. (1998). East Tennessee State University’s “Make a Difference” project: Using a team-based consultative model to conduct functional behavior assessments. Preventing School Failure, 43, 24–30. Vollmer, T. R., & Northup, J. (1996). Some implications of functional analysis for school psychology. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 76–92.
Behavioral Disorders, 29(2), 189–201
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., et al. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193–256. Witt, J. C., Daly, E. M., & Noell, G. H. (2000). Functional assessments: A step-by-step guide to solving academic and behavior problems. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
AUTHORS’ NOTE: Development of this article was supported, in part, by the OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, which is supported by a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs, with additional funding from the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, U.S. Department of Education (No. H326S980003). Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Education, and such endorsement should not be inferred. AUTHORS: TERRANCE M. SCOTT, Associate Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Florida, Gainesville. ANNE BUCALOS, Undergraduate Chair, Department of Special Education, Bellarmine University, Bellarmine, Kentucky. CARL LIAUPSIN, Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, and School Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson. C. MICHAEL NELSON, Professor Emeritus, KRISTINE JOLIVETTE, Assistant Professor, and LISE DeSHEA, Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington. E-mail:
[email protected]
February 2004 / 201
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 202
THE MINI LIBRARY SERIES: Meeting the Diverse Needs of Children and Youth with E/BD: Evidence-Based Programs and Practices Edited by Lyndal M. Bullock, Robert A. Gable, & Kristine J. Melloy • Critical Issues Facing Youths with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders During Transition to Adulthood Mary E. Morningstar and Debra Benitez Stock No. D5584 • Differentiating Curriculum and Instruction on Behalf of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Within General Education Settings Carol Ann Davis, Kathleen L. Lane, Kevin Sutherland, Philip L. Gunter, R. Kenton Denny, Phillip Pickens, and Joseph Wehby Stock No. D5581 • Educating Juveniles with Disabilities in Correctional Settings Joseph Calvin Gagnon and Matthew J. Mayer Stock No. D5586 • Establishing Exemplary Personnel Preparation Programs for Teachers of Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: Partnerships with Schools, Parents, and Community Agencies Alec F. Peck, Sandy Keenan, Douglas Cheney, and Richard S. Neel Stock No. D5582 • Inclusive Education for Children and Youths with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: Enduring Challenges and Emerging Practices Beverley H. Johns and Eleanor C. Guetzloe, Editors Stock No. D5583 • Prevention and Early Intervention for Young Children at Risk for Emotional or Behavioral Disorders Maureen A. Conroy, Editor Stock No. 5585 • Serving Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Festus E. Obiakor, Stephen Enwefa, Cheryl Utley, Sunday O. Obi, Nomsa Gwalla-Ogisi, and Regina Enwefa Stock No. D5580 For the most current price information or to order: Call 1-800-CEC-READ (232-7323) or FAX 703-264-1637 Council for Exceptional Children 1110 North Glebe Road Arlington, VA 22201-5704
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 203
8Scott.qxd
4/7/04
2:46 PM
Page 204
