Effects of Functional Analysis Information on Ratings of Intervention Effectiveness and Acceptability

Abstract

Variables affecting ratings of intervention acceptability and effectiveness have been widely studied. In the literature, several variables have produced reliable results, such as type of intervention and severity of problem behavior. One variable that remains uninvestigated is the effect of providing functional analysis information on ratings of interventions. We analyzed the ratings of 55 teachers for both the effectiveness and acceptability of a range of interventions. We also evaluated the impact on those ratings of providing three levels of functional information about the targeted problem behavior: (a) structural (descriptive) information, (b) information describing an escape function (negative reinforcement), and (c) information describing an attention function (positive reinforcement). Sample demographics are reported, along with scores on an evaluation of knowledge of behavioral principles and causes of problem behavior. The teachers differentially rated brief interruption and differential reinforcement according to the functional information provided in the case vignettes. Severity of the problem behavior did not influence ratings. The implications of the findings are discussed in terms of teacher training and support for intervention efforts that include functional assessment strategies.

Construing Misbehavior

“…Perhaps achieving an understanding of the functionality of misbehavior also allows the teacher to see how seemingly unproductive or disruptive behavior actually supports the student's conscious or unconscious motives. PBS initiatives must be instrumental in providing a foundation of focused training for the development of FBA techniques (Weigle & Scotti, 2000), and we assert that this is particularly important for low PTE teachers.…”

Self-injurious behaviour, non-interventionism and practitioners’ needs

“…Practitioners’ behaviour analytic skills are woefully inadequate to meet the challenge of SIB (Emerson and Emerson, 1987; Emerson and Kiernan, 1997; Kiernan, 1993; Morgan and Hastings, 1998; Spreat and Connelly, 1996; Weigle, 1995, 1997). This comes as no surprise since most programmes either in residential centres or in schools provide little or no training on behavioural interventions, while in general access to specialist training in behaviour analysis is usually limited (Emerson, 1995; Forrest et al, 1995; Kiernan, 1993; Weigle, 1997).…”

“…The identification of the function of the behaviour is not an issue of high concern (Berryman et al, 1994; Oliver et al, 1996), but the subsequent link to a suitable intervention is (Weigle, 1995, 1997; Ntinas et al, 2007).…”

Assessment of preference for behavioral treatment versus baseline conditions

“…This information can be used to design treatments in which reinforcers previously maintaining problem behavior can be used to reinforce alternative behavior. Although behavioral treatments based on functional analysis outcomes may be effective in reducing the occurrence of problem behavior (Mace, Lalli, & Pinter-Lalli, 1991) and these treatments are generally found to be acceptable for parents and teachers (Umbreit, 1995;Wacker, Berg, Harding, Derby, Asmus, & Healy, 1998;Weigle & Scotti, 2000), it may be important to determine whether individuals would prefer to participate in a specific treatment. It is not known whether individuals with developmental disabilities, if given the choice, would spend more time in environments where appropriate behavior was reinforced (i.e., treatment) or more time in environments where problem behavior is reinforced (i.e., baseline).…”