Formative applications of ongoing visual inspection for trial‐based functional analysis: A proof of concept

Abstract

Trial-based functional analysis (TBFA) possesses many strategic advantages which make it an ideal candidate for adoption in applied settings. Notwithstanding, some aspects of the analysis remain underdeveloped, including structured guidelines for interacting with obtained data reliably in formative and summative ways. The purpose of this study was to adapt existing ongoing visual-inspection (OVI) criteria to match the idiosyncrasies of TBFA and then to assess their practical utility in applied settings. Thus, we first drafted OVI criteria appropriate for trial-based FA (i.e., TB-OVI). Then, we trained 5 caregivers to conduct TBFAs of their children's challenging behavior and to react to their data as they obtained it, using the TB-OVI criteria as their guide. Finally, we validated interpretations of TBFA outcomes based on TB-OVI criteria through effective intervention. Across 5 participants and 7 opportunities, function-based interventions successfully eliminated challenging behavior.

Reliability and validity of using structured visual‐inspection criteria to interpret latency‐based functional analysis outcomes

“…Saini et al (2018) developed and validated ongoing visual inspection (OVI) procedures for rate-based FAs to provide behavior analysts with structured criteria for decision-making during active assessment periods based on function identification. Adapting OVI for latency-based FAs would serve as a "proof of concept" demonstration for interpreting outcomes in a proactive (or ongoing) manner toward case conceptualization and could guide practitioners toward conducting more efficient assessments (see Standish et al, 2021, for an adaptation to trial-based FAs). This would be especially ideal for latency-based FAs because these FA methods might be used for safety reasons when target behavior is severe or dangerous such that repeated emission of the behavior is undesirable (Thomason-Sassi et al, 2011).…”

“…Of particular importance, these researchers revisited the SVI criteria established by Roane et al (2013) and adapted strategies for identifying demonstrations of effect appropriate for rate-based analysis with substitutes appropriate for trial-based analysis. Results of this study demonstrated that SVI criteria previously established to interpret rate-based FA outcomes (Hagopian et al, 1997;Roane et al, 2013) could be modified to accurately interpret alternative FA formats (i.e., trial-based FAs;Standish et al, 2021).…”

“…Standish et al (2021) recently adapted SVI methods to match the idiosyncrasies of trial‐based FAs. Specifically, these researchers trained five caregivers to conduct trial‐based FAs and react to the data in an ongoing manner using the SVI criteria as their guide.…”

“…First, we adapted the SVI criteria described by Roane et al (2013) for interpreting latency‐based FA outcomes. Although Standish et al (2021) incorporated the use of latencies in their application of SVI criteria to trial‐based FAs (i.e., displaying latencies in addition to occurrence/nonoccurrence), these criteria do not easily extend to typical latency‐based FAs. The authors determined an effect (i.e., support for a given function) only if behavior occurred in the test component and failed to occur in the adjoining control component of the given trial.…”

“…However, rate-based (i.e., repeated occurrences of behavior within a session) SVI methods do not translate directly to trial-or latency-based (i.e., a single occurrence of behavior within a trial or session) FA interpretation, given certain procedural characteristics that are unique to these approaches. Standish et al (2021) recently adapted SVI methods to match the idiosyncrasies of trialbased FAs. Specifically, these researchers trained five caregivers to conduct trial-based FAs and react to the data in an ongoing manner using the SVI criteria as their guide.…”