|
| Advances in School-Based Assessment of Child Behavior |
| Sunday, May 30, 2010 |
| 1:30 PM–2:50 PM |
| Texas Ballroom Salon D (Grand Hyatt) |
| Area: EDC/CSE; Domain: Applied Behavior Analysis |
| Chair: Claire St. Peter Pipkin (West Virginia University) |
| CE Instructor: Dave Pyles, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: Functional behavior assessment (FBA) is required by law for any individual whose behavior interferes with his or her learning, or the learning of others. Yet, best practices for conducting an FBA in school contexts are continually evolving. The papers in this symposium address the delivery of reinforcers in naturalistic school contexts, and how examinations of those reinforcers can assist not only in determining the function of the behavior, but also in improving student performance. |
| |
| A Comparison of Brief Functional Analyses With and Without Consequences |
| JASON T. CAVIN (Marcus Autism Center), Nathan A. Call (Marcus Autism Center), Caitlin V. Herzinger (Marcus Autism Center), Amanda Zangrillo (University of Southern Maine) |
| Abstract: Two of the many permutations of functional analysis methodology are the A-B-C model, in which potential motivating operations (MOs) are presented and problem behavior results in delivery of an associated consequence, and the A-B model, in which the same MOs are presented but no consequences are delivered. Research has shown that the failure to include consequences in the A-B model can produce differing results from those of the A-B-C model, perhaps because the failure to include consequences may extinguish problem behavior (Potoczak, Carr, & Michael, 2007; Worsdell, Iwata, Conners, Kahng, & Thompson, 2000). However, brief functional analyses (BFAs) that utilize the A-B model may be less affected by extinction because they typically include fewer and shorter sessions. In the current study, two BFAs that utilized either the A-B or A-B-C model were conducted with each of five participants. Results of the two BFAs were compared as to the function identified for problem behavior. Results matched with respect to the test conditions in which problem behavior was observed. In addition, greater levels of differentiation between test and control conditions were observed in the BFA-AB for two out of five participants. |
| |
| Using a Routines Analysis to Guide Functional Assessment |
| AARON BARNES (University of Oregon), Cynthia M. Anderson (University of Oregon), Justin Boyd (University of Oregon) |
| Abstract: School-based personnel without an extensive background in behavior analysis continue to struggle to implement a functional assessment with integrity and to thus identify functional relations accurately. This seems to be especially the case with direct methods of functional assessment; in fact many people simply skip this step, relying solely on an interview (or their best guess) to derive behavioral function. In this study we evaluated the utility of a pre-functional assessment routines analysis to guide the conduct of a structural analysis. Specifically, a routines analysis was used to identify specific functional routines in which the putative discriminative stimulus/establishing operation most often occurred. With three students, an alternating treatments design was used to compare outcomes across observations conducted during functional routines with putative antecedent variables manipulated systematically. Next, interventions based on the assessment were conducted. Results suggest that the routines analysis might be a useful for determining when to conduct direct observations as part of a functional assessment. |
| |
| An Initial Evaluation of a Secondary Intervention for Students With Escape-Maintained Problem Behavior |
| JUSTIN BOYD (University of Oregon), Cynthia M. Anderson (University of Oregon), Jessica Turtura (University of Oregon) |
| Abstract: School-based personnel without an extensive background in behavior analysis continue to struggle to implement a functional assessment with integrity and to thus identify functional relations accurately. This seems to be especially the case with direct methods of functional assessment; in fact many people simply skip this step, relying solely on an interview (or their best guess) to derive behavioral function. In this study we evaluated the utility of a pre-functional assessment routines analysis to guide the conduct of a structural analysis. Specifically, a routines analysis was used to identify specific functional routines in which the putative discriminative stimulus/establishing operation most often occurred. With three students, an alternating treatments design was used to compare outcomes across observations conducted during functional routines with putative antecedent variables manipulated systematically. Next, interventions based on the assessment were conducted. Results suggest that the routines analysis might be a useful for determining when to conduct direct observations as part of a functional assessment. |
| |
| Allocation of Teacher Attention and Effects on Student Behavior |
| SACHA PENCE (West Virginia University), Claire St. Peter Pipkin (West Virginia University) |
| Abstract: Research has demonstrated that teacher attention is a common consequence to instances of behavior in the natural environment, but the probability of different types of attention remains an underresearched area. The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency of and conditional probabilities of types of teacher attention (acknowledgement, praise, redirection, reprimands, and nonacademic) following appropriate and inappropriate student behavior, and to determine the effects of changes in allocation on student behavior. Participants included teachers who taught in public schools and had students who engaged in challenging behavior. The use of different types of attention varied during baseline across teachers. Following feedback teachers increased their use of praise contingent on appropriate behavior. |
|
| |