Using trial-based functional analysis to design effective interventions for students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.

Abstract

Functional behavior assessments and function-based interventions are effective methods for addressing the challenging behaviors of children; however, traditional functional analysis has limitations that impact usability in applied settings. Trial-based functional analysis addresses concerns relating to the length of time, level of expertise required, and the contrived nature of functional analyses conducted in analogue settings. The current study expanded on previous research by assessing the function of challenging behaviors for 3 early childhood education students with autism spectrum disorder through trial-based functional analyses within an educational setting. The study also evaluated the outcomes of corresponding individualized function-based interventions for the students, all of which resulted in decreases in problem behaviors and increases in classroom engagement. Implications for practice include the feasibility of using trial-based functional analysis to inform intervention design within applied settings. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Ecological Validity of Research Studies on Function-Based Interventions in Schools for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…Evaluation of ecological validity. In three of the studies reviewed, the authors evaluated several aspects related to the ecological validity of the behavioral assessments (Flynn & Lo, 2016;Larkin et al, 2016;Sasso et al, 1992). They used instruments to assess the overall acceptability of the assessment rather than targeting ecological validity alone.…”

“…Table 4 displays the aspects and instruments used to evaluate the ecological validity of assessments. Overall acceptability scores were reported in two studies (Flynn & Lo, 2016;Sasso et al, 1992) and in one study the authors made statements about the overall acceptability of the assessments without reporting any data (Larkin et al, 2016). systematic review did not provide any information on teacher demographic or descriptive data, such as age, grade, gender, race, years of experience, or highest degree of qualification and, thus, we cannot provide a description of the characteristics of the teachers involved in the implementation of the interventions or the influence of their characteristics on the selection and use of EBPs.…”

“…Continued use of the intervention in the future was evaluated for five of the 225 FBIs (2.2%) and was rated at a 4.3 (on a 5-point Likert scale) and at 6.8 (on a 7-point Likert scale). In two studies, no scores were reported for the items related to ecological validity (Larkin et al, 2016;Pennington et al, 2012).…”

Trial-Based Functional Analysis Informs Treatment for Vocal Scripting

“…To date, most trial-based FA research has focused on socially maintained challenging behavior (e.g., Austin et al, 2015;Larkin, Hawkins, & Collins, 2016). We are aware of only three studies (Bloom et al, 2011(Bloom et al, , 2013LaRue et al, 2010) in which a participant's challenging behavior was hypothesized to be maintained by automatic reinforcement in a trial-based FA.…”

The evidence‐based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism report: Concerns and critiques

“…For example, a search conducted using PsychINFO and the key term “Functional Analysis” yielded at least 12 articles that meet the inclusion criteria of the NCAEP report that were not included (i.e., Bowman, Hardesty, & Mendres‐Smith, 2013; Call, Zangrillo, Delfs, & Findley, 2013; Fisher, Greer, Romani, Zangrillo, & Owen, 2016; Flynn & Lo, 2016; Lambert, Finley, & Caruthers, 2017; Lang et al., 2013; Larkin, Hawkins, & Collins, 2016; Lepper, Devine, & Petursdottir, 2017; Querim et al., 2013; Roscoe, Schlichenmeyer, & Dube, 2015; Saini, Greer, & Fisher, 2015; Santiago, Hanley, Moore, & Jin, 2016). Conducting the same search for the key terms “response cost,” “response interruption and redirection,” “reprimand,” and “matrix training” yields 15 other articles that meet the inclusion criteria of the NCAEP, but were not included (i.e., Axe & Sainato, 2010; Cook, Rapp, Gomes, Frazer, & Lindblad, 2014; Curiel, Sainato, & Goldstein, 2016; Dickman, Bright, Montgomery, & Miguel, 2012; Giles, Peter, Pence, & Gibson, 2012; Kohler & Malott, 2014; Langone, Luiselli, & Hamill, 2013; Nolan & Filter, 2012; Pauwels, Ahearn, & Cohen, 2015; Saini et al., 2016; Shawler & Miguel, 2015; Shillingsburg, Lomas, & Bradley, 2012; Watkins & Rapp, 2014; Wells, Collier, & Sheehey, 2016; Wilson, Wine, & Fitterer, 2017).…”