Using Functional Behavior Assessment in General Education Settings: Making a Case for Effectiveness and Efficiency

Abstract

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 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.

Perceived Barriers and Enablers to Implementing Individualized Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports in School Settings

“…Because it is both function based and team based, IPBIS requires a more complex array of skills and a different mindset about how to approach problem behaviors than traditional behavior management practices (Bambara & Kern, 2005). In addition to conducting functional behavior assessments that school personnel may find time consuming and arduous (Scott et al, 2004), school practitioners must guard against traditionally held beliefs and practices when faced with behavioral challenges. Perhaps chief among them is the view that challenging behaviors are attributable to internal student characteristics (e.g., disability, medical problems) or external factors (e.g., history, home environment) that are beyond school practitioners' control (Lambrechts, Petry, & Maes, 2008;Westling, 2010).…”

Behavioral Management for Children and Adolescents: Assessing the Evidence

“…Researchers have noted that most studies evaluating the effectiveness of tertiary-level school-based interventions have included students with significant disabilities in selfcontained classrooms, which limits the generalizability of the evidence to general education students in typical classroom settings (37,41). Researchers also noted that studies in this body of literature generally have small samples, lack RCTs, use single-subject or within-group research designs, do not always use standardized behavioral management protocols, and are limited in their ability to report whether school personnel were implementing the interventions with fidelity (37,(41)(42)(43).…”

“…Researchers also noted that studies in this body of literature generally have small samples, lack RCTs, use single-subject or within-group research designs, do not always use standardized behavioral management protocols, and are limited in their ability to report whether school personnel were implementing the interventions with fidelity (37,(41)(42)(43). However, in this review we included three studies of tertiary-level school-based interventions using RCTs (35)(36)(37).…”

Functional Analysis With Typically Developing Children: Best Practice or Too Early to Tell?: In Response to Hanley (2012)

“…Experimental analyses are reported but are by no means the norm. School-based research using functional assessment seems to follow the approach advocated by some researchers (e.g., Anderson & Scott, 2009;Matson, 2012;O'Neill, Horner, Albin, Storey, & Sprague, 1997;Scott, Bucalos, Liaupsin, Nelson, Jolivette, & DeShea, 2004) and referred to by Hanley as the "least restrictive hierarchical approach." Indirect assessment is conducted first followed by descriptive observations (ABC observations, structural analysis) and, in some case, a functional analysis.…”