Your text discusses the role of Functional Behavior Assessment in preventing and intervening with behaviors. Give an example from your experience on how FBA can help inform your inte

https://doi.org/10.1177/1074295617716113

Beyond Behavior 2017, Vol. 26(3) 101 –104 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2017 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1074295617716113 journals.sagepub.com/home/bbx

Article

In 1997, the renewal of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (Individuals With Disability Education Act Amendments of 1997 [IDEA], 1997) first included func- tional behavior assessment (FBA) as part of a legal proce- dure for students with or suspected of an emotional or behavioral disability. While the field of special education largely saw the inclusion of FBA as a positive step, a pre- cise definition of what actions or processes constitute a legal FBA has never been adequately addressed in the law (e.g., Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001; Scott & Kamps, 2007). Furthermore, conditions under which an FBA is to be implemented are similarly vague and in some respects even counter to the logic of behavioral function. The pur- pose of this special issue of Beyond Behavior is to consider the simple logic underpinning both FBA and its resulting behavior intervention plan (BIP).

At its core, FBA is a process of assessment to determine whether there is a relationship between a person’s behavior and the environment and, if so, to describe the nature of that relationship. While behavior involves the observable actions taken by a target individual, the environment involves absolutely everything else. The number of win- dows in the room, the color of the walls, the subject matter, the location, what peers and adults are and are not present, what attention is available, what tasks are confronted, and a virtually endless array of other objects, actions, events, and conditions make up the environment. The purpose of the

FBA is to use observations of behavior in the natural envi- ronment to determine how that environment predicts and maintains behavior. That is, what environmental conditions tend to occur predictably before the target behavior and what changes are apparent in the environment following behavior?

An FBA becomes complex when an individual’s behav- ior appears to have no observable relationship with the environment, and this can be the case for one of two rea- sons. First, an individual’s behavior can be the result of internal processes (i.e., mental health issues). Although such cases are rare, there are examples of students whose behavior occurs with no predictable relationship to the environment. In fact, school personnel may lament that a student’s behaviors are solely the result of parents with their own mental health difficulties. Still, there are logical rea- sons for implementing FBA with such students. That is, even students with underlying mental health issues operate in a predictable manner within the environment and an FBA will be useful in identifying the conditions under which dif- ficulties occur. Also, because mental health issues are

716113 BBXXXX10.1177/1074295617716113Beyond BehaviorScott and Cooper research-article2017

1University of Louisville, KY, USA

Corresponding Author: Terrance M. Scott, University of Louisville, 106 Education Bldg., Louisville, KY 40292, USA. Email: [email protected]

Functional Behavior Assessment and Function-Based Intervention Planning: Considering the Simple Logic of the Process

Terrance M. Scott, PhD1 and Justin T. Cooper, EdD1

Abstract While functional behavior assessment (FBA) has been a part of special education law and embedded in Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) since 1997, a precise definition of what actions or processes constitute a legal FBA has never been adequately addressed in the law. This article provides an overview of the underlying logic of FBA leading to effective function-based intervention. When focusing on a simplification of the logic behind FBA, there are three big ideas that serve as a foundation for considering the intersection of effectiveness and practicality: function matters, FBA requires repeated observations of behavior, and the only purpose of an FBA is to develop an effective intervention. These big ideas are discussed, leading to a conclusion as to how logic and simplicity must share priority in the process.

Keywords functional, behavioral, assessment, behavior, vocational

102 Beyond Behavior 26(3)

characterized as being more within the mind of the student, evidence of the lack of predictable consequences is useful in diagnosing mental disorders. For example, students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)—a recog- nized mental disorder—may lack impulse control and engage in a variety of impulsive misbehaviors. However, even students with ADHD act purposefully on their envi- ronment. That is, they continue to predictably engage in behaviors that are predictable even if the consequences are not consistent. But for students with more severe mental health issues such as schizophrenia or dissociative disor- ders, environmental antecedents may prove to be as diffi- cult to predict as consequences are among those with lesser disorders. Still, these conditions are relatively rare and can only be diagnosed by first demonstrating a lack of function with the environment.

The second example of students whose behavior appears to be unrelated to environment is far more likely and involves environmental complexities that are simply too difficult to observe, isolate, or measure. This is especially true for high functioning individuals in sophisticated social environments and with those environmental events that are separated from behavior by periods of time that make con- nections difficult to discern, or what are known as setting events. For example, setting events come into play with stu- dents whose misbehaviors are more likely when they miss the bus, after a peer conflict, or on days with alternative schedules. While behaviors are still predictable and func- tional, discerning function is much more complicated in these environments. Note that those events are not anteced- ents to misbehavior—they just make misbehavior more likely in response to normal antecedents. Importantly, just because we are unable to identify a functional relationship between a behavior and the environment does not mean that one does not exist. Often, it simply means that we have not yet sufficiently considered all possibilities.

A Simple Logic

When focusing on a simplification of the logic behind FBA, there are three big ideas that serve as a foundation for con- sidering the intersection of effectiveness and practicality.

Function Matters

As a simple logic, behavior can function to access or to escape/avoid environmental variables (e.g., attention, tan- gible items, stimulation). Effective consequences for mis- behavior should be based on the function rather than the topography of behavior (Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004; Payne, Scott, & Conroy, 2007). That is, while the consequences for a single misbe- havior can be part of school policy, repetitive problems require consequences that eliminate function. For example,

while the typical consequence for disrupting class may be a detention, for students that wish to leave class or enjoy hanging out with friends in detention, this will be a counter- productive consequence because it continues to serve as a function for the student. Rather, consequences for repetitive behaviors should be selected to provide a functional response for both appropriate and inappropriate occur- rences. If the students desires a break or wishes to access peer attention, we must teach and reinforce more appropri- ate behaviors to achieve these outcomes while not allowing misbehavior to achieve these results.

To provide functional consequences, we must first understand function. In general, function describes the pur- pose of a behavior—a reason why the student engages in a given behavior or what is in it for him or her. Furthermore, function describes an observable change in the environment following a problem behavior—something accessed or avoided as a result of student behavior. All operant behav- iors are maintained by consequences as individuals strive to control the environment or to maintain power of conse- quences. In this sense, the terms power and control are not helpful descriptions as they simply restate the concept rather than the identification of function (Iovanonne, Anderson, & Scott, 2013). The question is not whether a behavior functions to control the environment, it is how and in what way the behavior controls the environment. If that control manifests in peers leaving a student alone, then the power is in escaping peer attention. Simply saying that a behavior functions to gain control is a circular logic.

FBA Requires Repeated Observations of Behavior

An effective FBA takes into account how a behavior is related to the environment—requiring a complex analysis of when, where, and under what conditions a behavior occurs and its purpose. In this sense, the FBA process should not be viewed as a simple snapshot of student behav- ior. It is, in fact, more like putting a puzzle together by tak- ing into account various pieces of information and observational data to ultimately develop a hypothesis about the function of a student’s behavior. To effectively deter- mine the function of a student’s behavior, there should be repeated observations of the behavior over time and, if appropriate, across settings and conditions. If the goal is to understand the relationship between a behavior and the environment in which that behavior occurs, it is important to find a pattern to the behavior. To find a pattern, a mini- mum of three examples of the behavior should be observed (Umbreit, Ferro, Liaupsin, & Lane, 2007).

When a student exhibits a particularly intense behavior, the first reaction may be to conduct an FBA to try to deter- mine why the behavior is occurring. However, there is no logic to doing an FBA on a student who has exhibited an

Scott and Cooper 103

isolated problem behavior—even if that behavior was intense. If the behavior has not been observed multiple times, it is impossible to develop a valid hypothesis of func- tion. Thus, the idea of conducting an FBA for single occur- rences of even grievous offenses like bringing a gun to school, possessing drugs, or physical violence does not make sense. In such situations, schools are stuck with post hoc interviews as the only option. While such indirect meth- ods can provide valid information regarding function, in the case of weapons or drugs, there are likely to be too few instances to identify patterns. In such cases, schools must look at larger patterns of behavior—which may or may not have any relevance to the behaviors warranting the FBA.

In addition to the concept of repeated observations of behavior, it also is important that those observations occur in the environments in which the behavior naturally occurs. Keep in mind, the natural environment where a particular behavior occurs can be dynamic and changing. Most envi- ronments in schools are complex environments with multi- ple antecedents and consequences present when the target behavior is present. The FBA process should provide a clear picture of the relationship between the behavior and the environment, and to do that, observations must account for setting events and the complete environment as it changes over time. Repeated observations of behavior in its natural environment help to ensure that a comprehensive picture of the target behavior and its relationship to that environment can be derived.

The Only Purpose of an FBA Is to Develop an Effective Intervention Plan

While the general completion of an FBA describes the rela- tionship between a student’s behavior and the environment in which that behavior occurs, the overriding purpose of the FBA process is to develop an effective intervention plan to change the behavior. Just as one would expect assessment of reading or math skills to result in instructional changes, assessment of student behavior using the FBA process should result in instructional change on the part of the teacher. Conducting an FBA would be relatively meaning- less if it did not inform instruction or change the instruc- tional behavior of the teacher. In fact, a function-based intervention plan is like a lesson plan in that both include a focus on teaching a behavior or skill while creating an instructional environment in which success is highly likely. The FBA process differs from traditional academic assess- ment in that the FBA does not provide a score or index. Instead, the FBA identifies what appropriate behaviors can be taught to most effectively replace problem behavior by matching the function, and what may be altered in the envi- ronment to make that replacement behavior more likely to occur and maintain. Thus, we begin intervention by teaching functional replacement behaviors (Filter & Horner, 2009).

In addition to information about potential replacement behaviors, the FBA also provides rich detail in relation to a variety of both antecedent and consequence-based interven- tions that may be effective in helping the student to exhibit the replacement behavior and help it to maintain over time. Antecedent-based interventions, such as environmental manipulations, providing choice, and prompting, are natu- ral for teachers to use and also effective (Conroy & Stichter, 2003; Park & Scott, 2009). These are based on the anteced- ent portion of the FBA and help to set the occasion for replacement behaviors to occur. Consequence-based inter- ventions, such as positive reinforcement and differential reinforcement, then, remain necessary to make the behavior maintain over time (Umbreit et al., 2007). The FBA pro- vides the necessary information for teachers to develop and implement function-based intervention plans that promote the demonstration of appropriate behavior in educational settings.

This Special Issue

While completion of an FBA can be a complex, labor intensive, and time-consuming process, the basic logic should lead to a simplified view of how an FBA is most effectively and efficiently implemented. Importantly, the BIP must include both antecedent and consequence manip- ulations. Working backward, the desired outcome is a suc- cessful intervention, intervention requires both teaching of a replacement behavior and manipulation of antecedent/ consequence events—both of which require planning— and FBA identifies the components around which such plans are built. Of course the hallmark of function-based intervention is in the matching of intervention to the iden- tified predictor variables gleaned from the FBA. Identification of these variables is best done through mul- tiple direct observations conducted with consideration of what has been observed in the past. Throughout this pro- cess, there is a basic underlying logic upon which imple- menters should rely to keep the FBA both as simple and as valid as possible.

The articles presented in this issue provide a more in- depth consideration of these issues. First, Iovanonne, Anderson, and Scott discuss the importance of considering events that are separated from behavior by time, the setting events we mentioned earlier. They provide an overview of how setting events can be accounted for as part of a simple analysis of the environment. Second, Borgmeier and Loman describe FBA in terms of function-based thinking. They provide examples and supports for assisting teachers with a greatly simplified process for considering function as a part of a daily routine. Next, Park and Pinkleman discuss how information regarding predictable antecedents can be used to create effective and practical function-based interven- tions in the classroom. As a next logical step, Liaupsin and

104 Beyond Behavior 26(3)

Cooper provide examples of how the FBA can lead to instructional decision-making in terms of creating lesson plans for teaching functional replacement behavior and then Ennis, Jolivette, and Swoszowski discuss special consider- ations for use in alternative educational settings. These articles are followed by a review of an available online module for tutoring and supporting FBA.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Conroy, M. A., & Stichter, J. P. (2003). The application of antecedents in the functional assessment process: Existing research, issues, and recommendations. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 15–25.

Filter, K. J., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Function-based academic interventions for problem behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(1), 1–19.

Individuals With Disability Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA). (1997). Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ thomas.php

Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA indicated and contra-indicated intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 224–236.

Iovanonne, R., Anderson, C., & Scott, T. M. (2013). Power and control: Useful functions or explanatory fictions? Beyond Behavior, 22(2), 1–4.

Newcomer, L. L., & Lewis, T. J. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment: An investigation of assessment reliability and effectiveness of function-based interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12, 168–181.

Park, K. L., & Scott, T. M. (2009). Antecedent-based interven- tions for young children at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 34, 196–211.

Payne, L. D., Scott, T. M., & Conroy, M. (2007). A school-based examination of the efficacy of function-based intervention. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 158–173.

Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Stichter, J. P., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of func- tional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282–296.

Scott, T. M., & Kamps, D. (2007). The future of functional behav- ior assessment in public schools: Balancing necessity and suf- ficiency. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 146–157.

Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based interventions: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Copyright of Beyond Behavior is the property of Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.