On the Standardization of the Functional Analysis

Functional analysis: what have we learned in 85 years?

Purpose

Even though the term "functional analysis" (FA) is prevalent in the current behavioral literature, the concept and process have roots in the early days of basic research in behavior analysis. Furthermore, the methodology developed in the field of FA has been one of the most significant advances in research on challenging behaviors over the past four decades. The current article reviews the history of the term "functional analysis" and research related to experimental FA. The aim is to summarize what the field of behavior analysis has learned about this powerful methodology.

Views

FA is considered a gold standard of functional assessment. However, several arguments about limitations relating to methodological issues in FA and its ecological validity have been put forward. Some of these shortcomings include constraints on the time available for assessment, the risk posed by severe problem behavior, and the inability to exert tight control over environmental conditions.

Conclusions

The literature on the subject clearly shows that refinements have been aimed not only at improving some of the methodological characteristics of FA but also at adapting the strategy for real-world application. Practical functional assessment (known as interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis [IISCA]) is a contemporary approach to assessing and treating problem behavior. Recent research on IISCA offers empirical support for the practical functional assessment and skill-based treatment model, confirming that it can obtain sustainable and socially meaningful reductions in problem behavior. Nevertheless, more research is needed to address procedural variations in, and the utility and social validity of, IISCA.

Contingent Electric Skin Shock: An Empirical or Ideological Issue?

Intractable self-injury, aggressive, and other destructive behaviors are real human conditions. Contingent electric skin shock (CESS) is a technology, based on behavior-analytic principles, used to ameliorate such behaviors. However, CESS has always been extraordinarily controversial. The Association for Behavior Analysis (ABAI), commissioned an independent Task Force to examine the issue. After a comprehensive review, the Task Force suggested the treatment should be available for use in select cases through a largely accurate report. Yet, ABAI adopted a position indicating CESS is never appropriate. On the issue of CESS, we are extremely concerned behavior analysis departed from the fundamental epistemology of positivism and is misleading nascent behavior analysts and consumers of behavioral technology. Destructive behaviors are extremely difficult to treat. In our commentary, we outline clarifications regarding aspects of the Task Force Report, proliferation of falsehoods by leaders in our field, and limitations to the standard of care in behavior analysis. We recommend using science to answer important questions instead of propagating false information at the expense of current and future clients with treatment refractory behaviors.

Functional analysis of problem behavior: A 40-year review

Extensive reviews of functional analysis literature were conducted 10 (Beavers et al., 2013) and 20 (Hanley et al., 2003) years ago; we expanded this review to capture the vast and innovative functional analysis research that has occurred over the past decade. Our review produced 1,333 functional analysis outcomes from 326 studies on the functional analysis of problem behavior between June 2012 and May 2022. Some characteristics of functional analysis studies were similar across the current and previous two reviews (e.g., child participants, developmental disability diagnosis, use of line graphs depicting session means, differentiated response outcomes). Other characteristics deviated from the previous two reviews (e.g., increase in autistic representation, outpatient settings, use of supplementary assessments, the inclusion of tangible conditions, and multiple function outcomes; decrease in session durations). We update previously reported participant and methodological characteristics, summarize outcomes, comment on recent trends, and propose future directions in the functional analysis literature.

Cultural responsiveness in applied behavior analysis: Research and practice

The new Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts requires that certificants engage in training related to culturally responsive service delivery (BACB, 2020). There is limited work in the area of culturally responsive evidence-based practice within our field. Therefore, it is incumbent on researchers and practitioners to identify best practices for working with diverse populations. Hence, the purpose of this paper is three-fold: a) to review research within and outside the field of ABA related to culturally responsive assessment and treatment and provide practice recommendations, b) to examine the extent to which current practices in behavior assessment and treatment align with aspects of culturally responsive practices, and c) to inspire research in the areas of behavior assessment and treatment to identify best practices with regard to culturally responsive behavior analytic practices. The content of this paper is grounded in the framework described by Beaulieu and Jimenez-Gomez (2022).

On the Occurrence of Dangerous Problem Behavior during Functional Analysis: An Evaluation of 30 Applications

Functional analyses are often conducted by behavior analysts to understand the environmental variables contributing to an individual's problem behavior to better inform treatment implementation. While functional analyses are integral for designing function-based interventions, they often arrange contingencies to evoke and reinforce dangerous problem behavior. In Study 1 we reviewed 22 functional analyses with open-contingency classes including non-dangerous topographies of problem behavior and we found that participants were more likely to exhibit the non-dangerous behavior in 82% of the applications. We then conducted a single-subject comparison of closed and open-contingency classes with four additional participants in Study 2. Our results suggest that the functional analyses with the open-contingency class reduced the likelihood of observing dangerous problem behavior.

A Predictive Multimodal Framework to Alert Caregivers of Problem Behaviors for Children with ASD (PreMAC)

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) impacts 1 in 54 children in the US. Two-thirds of children with ASD display problem behavior. If a caregiver can predict that a child is likely to engage in problem behavior, they may be able to take action to minimize that risk. Although experts in Applied Behavior Analysis can offer caregivers recognition and remediation strategies, there are limitations to the extent to which human prediction of problem behavior is possible without the assistance of technology. In this paper, we propose a machine learning-based predictive framework, PreMAC, that uses multimodal signals from precursors of problem behaviors to alert caregivers of impending problem behavior for children with ASD. A multimodal data capture platform, M2P3, was designed to collect multimodal training data for PreMAC. The development of PreMAC integrated a rapid functional analysis, the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA), for collection of training data. A feasibility study with seven 4 to 15-year-old children with ASD was conducted to investigate the tolerability and feasibility of the M2P3 platform and the accuracy of PreMAC. Results indicate that the M2P3 platform was well tolerated by the children and PreMAC could predict precursors of problem behaviors with high prediction accuracies.