Populations and Problems Evaluated with Functional Assessment

Abstract

B.F. Skinner (1953) first emphasized that a scientific analysis of behavior requires an understanding of the cause–effect relationship between behavior and the environmental conditions that are associated with its occurrence. Skinner termed the understanding of this cause–effect relationship “a functional analysis of behavior.” As methods for examining these relationships have expanded, the analyses of behavioral contingencies have come to be known more generally as functional assessment. The terms functional assessment and functional analysis are frequently used interchangeably; however, it is useful to distinguish between these two terms, as they often connote different meanings. Functional assessment typically is conceptualized as a broad category of procedures used to assess the function of behavior. These include indirect methods and direct methods (Miltenberger, 1999). Indirect methods assess the function of behavior without requiring any direct observation or experimental manipulation of the behavior, such as structured interviews (O’Neill, Horner, Sprague, Storey, & Newton, 1997) and questionnaires/checklists (Paclawskyj, Matson, Rush, Smalls, & Vollmer, 2000; Singh, Donatelli, Best, & Williams, 1993). Direct methods of functional assessment are procedures that utilize direct observation or experimental manipulation for assessing the function of behavior (Miltenberger, 1999). Included in direct observational methods are assessment techniques that result in correlational outcomes, such as gathering Antecedent–Behavior–Consequence (A–B–C) data (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968) and structured descriptive assessments (Anderson & Long, 2002), but also include experimental methods that result in the demonstration of cause–effect relationships (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994). The term functional analysis often is used to refer to more direct and experimental assessment procedures. The selection of procedures often is dependent on a number of factors, including the individual being assessed, the behavior of interest, resources available for assessment, context of the assessment, and the cost–benefit analysis of conducting the assessment (Johnston & O'Neill, 2001; Scott, Anderson, Mancil, & Alter, 2009). Vollmer, Marcus, Ringdahl, and Roane (1995) have provided practical guidance on making decisions about and progressing through functional assessment procedures, suggesting that practitioners begin with more brief assessment procedures and proceed to more time-consuming, costly extended assessments as needed.