<%BANNER%>

Functional Behavioral Assessment: Basing Intervention on Function in School Settings

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110404_AAAAAC INGEST_TIME 2011-04-04T05:35:05Z PACKAGE UFE0013641_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6080 DFID F20110404_AAACWE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH payne_l_Page_022thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
fd299965fbb9e2b1d96e1c5df778f708
SHA-1
4c8ba9eb361f2a227a623eff44894224884b86d0
1051922 F20110404_AAACVQ payne_l_Page_076.jp2
e42b3933700a032a9f5217f89aea5835
5a76a679e48f5e97b35004a4a71a58d61f7ff34a
26807 F20110404_AAABSO payne_l_Page_034.QC.jpg
cca04b47648a0f9b1febfa3aa4fe2e59
27cca1409014a1166ed59d90102ab6a873d8726a
8423998 F20110404_AAABTC payne_l_Page_083.tif
ed355bec6e09cf7f251524568569f278
413194e93fd2ab498655577648cb81e9f4ced26d
5746 F20110404_AAACWF payne_l_Page_044thm.jpg
e97c2419f092de230ee7e49ef7dedcf6
2205efaf0e78562845f806f7ab84c27a71b9065b
1051964 F20110404_AAACVR payne_l_Page_078.jp2
805c3db27ae98532b59e84f300c1ab4f
17d9a8d5c8ae94fdd0cda3e33c1f525d6a5b4686
1051962 F20110404_AAABSP payne_l_Page_015.jp2
8dd7e4cfdfe130d3062fad170de77302
f695a13956e2d97846c90204f2178acb02516fbe
894942 F20110404_AAABTD payne_l_Page_067.jp2
294c1820f31c541866ce39aa4b463200
a092416e9123a16a3b087e1d90904a1c056e05bd
5894 F20110404_AAACWG payne_l_Page_052thm.jpg
2217235f5e0edc5ad592c08656a5dd4b
4a629dbf2f3208d7f861319074e393af6c2737a7
1051946 F20110404_AAACVS payne_l_Page_086.jp2
40a642ec1394385265bfb86fb5f6d949
b3549c0a9adce647eeeacc999b6aa85d9da6471f
1656 F20110404_AAABSQ payne_l_Page_073.txt
6979c2ef746778ab91925e2fe9dc3a17
6c82d1d7af334fee5b83ad02675e32b1d1ee3d09
26302 F20110404_AAABTE payne_l_Page_076.QC.jpg
2a98bf4c1da285a05000a32edb2f8c4d
6e1cb45c5637a3961e7a383e6aaa533da04e24f8
6127 F20110404_AAACWH payne_l_Page_056thm.jpg
df5e46339a0fe1909d3026eee01ff88f
84d08fdf91a61e6934af11883c22df423af5c138
1051981 F20110404_AAACVT payne_l_Page_087.jp2
18c29cb0acc4da0fcc37fabfbcbb0d26
06767b5caaa44851abf4c9911ef7712546a55f4c
1051982 F20110404_AAABSR payne_l_Page_036.jp2
a2d96c529d99639e0573428745b4dbd2
4227a124a0c09c2c3f59c3769674d8068a081f4d
65800 F20110404_AAABTF payne_l_Page_063.jpg
85501a4c1f90955b4206ae9a27a7fcc8
94250ed0c500376587b575c3874c7a4a5e1c52da
4486 F20110404_AAACWI payne_l_Page_064thm.jpg
5355e39096c4cc42e5632dffdef3559c
7f47298e66713a9cef800edbd088b828ba65923b
1051861 F20110404_AAACVU payne_l_Page_090.jp2
3b48e055091bf31f2476a1fcb16a2408
852ce9feaeb2068eded84c365cb4c98a69e4277d
19740 F20110404_AAABSS payne_l_Page_074.jpg
a40a8b146fb0b708fa3d72056ba98663
8b5bc0db4476ba348c8119c1f294bfca9b8d96ca
F20110404_AAABTG payne_l_Page_093.tif
315c4cd57e7e93b243bf16f21f8fd2d8
c034cb50e7d9d3d97b293bf3fd93f008ef794504
5877 F20110404_AAACWJ payne_l_Page_071thm.jpg
1fa7a9e57ce98b71fa70d8fc5edeea03
a5d607bd527488ef6f8c9f044bf685e746a2f15b
735977 F20110404_AAACVV payne_l_Page_100.jp2
8fe647920f77d264d035d821b07818ec
3a80755f0161d0fa8c24901a50ad709f9fafdc03
2213 F20110404_AAABST payne_l_Page_055.txt
1b5583f26c8e98795f746b4085c3a087
0246e1b0de6fb2dec7e9519b97fa1c4fb54de956
2030 F20110404_AAABTH payne_l_Page_046.txt
4f8021f1dbfb9105e03aa624960396ab
e97c796b03a9405cbe488ecec6ba4ce461c498a0
6145 F20110404_AAACWK payne_l_Page_076thm.jpg
a25397746458f6b0ed3045d4915f1c52
4d4d784b5364f9213536a8142834b7265396e7d9
772762 F20110404_AAACVW payne_l_Page_101.jp2
c9f29f9f09d24d209458fc095be51071
7ee9942280386478f35bbe6aa9e529b25cb365c3
13340 F20110404_AAABSU payne_l_Page_089.QC.jpg
6c1073e73891aefdde76f180badea09b
f0b28041e65f318ac3f59fe0414ed929a7a84f96
1890 F20110404_AAABTI payne_l_Page_039.txt
fc292e15dec870969f5437fa340ebe92
bbea5c18b148101f4d0bc7a1050b5cbe6a111626
6108 F20110404_AAACWL payne_l_Page_079thm.jpg
1c267cc9120afabf054ca3a1a0e51b0b
e71d094953f8a2064b31788e1d31000ff9bc1382
987309 F20110404_AAACVX payne_l_Page_102.jp2
e789c5061147f71588db5562b1156079
71ab4c8b01b0231226a39fa3f30e2b8ea6e3b725
27218 F20110404_AAABSV payne_l_Page_021.QC.jpg
ceabc8e9e5fe99c7057aa4e11e8a7b91
ecc8ffb6ed61e57a938fbcc1ed89468cc9845887
36267 F20110404_AAABTJ payne_l_Page_106.jpg
97497183cefaae95d5d767e9d1d411fb
bb0a13b96470ea3d2131b3b7d6f19d19dcdf0368
1225 F20110404_AAACWM payne_l_Page_084thm.jpg
779d0141854902a27c212a3137a42652
83dc26307aaee20a224dfe088cc152d7f98d1478
1051974 F20110404_AAACVY payne_l_Page_103.jp2
d50794af318334d330e9c3e527ae7b4a
a7986bdd862b3db6654ff7a3f673dfc2f1b7d936
2053 F20110404_AAABSW payne_l_Page_014.txt
d55e1cdae8859c883b92ce822655a582
c487cac21224d8f2bdddc1690dd5534b8d918e56
49910 F20110404_AAABTK payne_l_Page_040.pro
c768053464fa54105efe92049e90c1ed
57e75f24c1d377d20980e1cdf4e00cddeb2493f6
4800 F20110404_AAACWN payne_l_Page_094thm.jpg
eae8cc5665a431ab5cbe5ecfc2bfb769
0dd7eac78383c8e4d4f60584b204ec86f3a9b09b
1051930 F20110404_AAACVZ payne_l_Page_104.jp2
54eefd3c1e6af013614470843a9aa770
f40a38f8a5f509001c8e758c99f855af464aa7b0
F20110404_AAABSX payne_l_Page_005.tif
99d49e3bea9a9c79ee1da4541aa9e32e
82d8a92f195f913b4e041324242c6c1295e6b29e
1051986 F20110404_AAABTL payne_l_Page_026.jp2
9c1e0204972b2ad1f276478c5056df8e
6d6f919165ff7616a0358653a8e6a940cc655622
2241 F20110404_AAACWO payne_l_Page_108thm.jpg
8a4e8773a58fb51a54564745136693bf
77555ae80da716728cf526e5feda0d45b62e69fe
F20110404_AAABSY payne_l_Page_109.tif
c7fb1dd4af4fc1ef5fb9b8efde20a4c4
7d809fa804eee5bb3a3a9f7cf7c8b968c421a616
34299 F20110404_AAABUA payne_l_Page_029.jpg
e0763d4360b2e5cf1ee72cf2beb9b437
b0ccd21862a4f82c97d2c21e7548519d5c2cfdec
69765 F20110404_AAABTM payne_l_Page_009.jpg
9a54a9724739b73f430a41183f60391c
32e8d859f8c854711010be02aae3f477df4b5687
6621 F20110404_AAACWP payne_l_Page_113thm.jpg
e87841877746123796fe47c56055d7d9
cd91173fe5ae52e9cd44a304bac8fb56ae488b3c
1051977 F20110404_AAABSZ payne_l_Page_046.jp2
84b045d3d68ed384ed9dd74fc0cf68c4
1a7d0d64cc8fcec658dcc0814f8aa09f3d3c7526
6102 F20110404_AAABUB payne_l_Page_040thm.jpg
a85dc663b1a827f2e971109d24520dc0
cdefce886a57f9a6192713110501d50b97ce4709
3039 F20110404_AAABTN payne_l_Page_004thm.jpg
a7e175895334c9aa5ace59d85e35b049
34d6bbddc5fd23f482d78a269bbf07b7528c3a17
6561 F20110404_AAACWQ payne_l_Page_114thm.jpg
b39b1431d071c25978dfe4246685c785
b72a7972bd8b9d1cff7a4e23b57f21dc93f7b130
17304 F20110404_AAABUC payne_l_Page_060.QC.jpg
c73bbbf7015b2bd44263f73a0385dde8
ea2d1ea10acaf06208d6685d1f4c589b7bda5305
1966 F20110404_AAABTO payne_l_Page_096.txt
8b28cebee09409a5c7f60a28fb994a84
41fb3afbad9112d67b8a39a860a4baff6ed2af23
1486 F20110404_AAACWR payne_l_Page_116thm.jpg
825b1534aad6e8541e756c11e8d63e9c
a31d4e415235dffee5b63fc30f9787e32d8d8b2b
5586 F20110404_AAABUD payne_l_Page_043thm.jpg
34fb551733b1c91c2a3a315c823c42e1
08f5446f7fd49bc57f8858603bba0d8ec44cf59a
F20110404_AAABTP payne_l_Page_034.tif
43c0eddd42d9dc875c6cadc4f9bb456a
7719018db18865ecbe06d039a9189aefcfa8dab7
136695 F20110404_AAACWS UFE0013641_00001.mets FULL
1c57a2dd967b280106ad2c6ec561db23
7d3e43ba307402c42383fc35939e5ef75019df18
BROKEN_LINK
payne_l_Page_001.tif
17223 F20110404_AAABUE payne_l_Page_095.QC.jpg
1e27887fdfdc1b9f1f66620af78aa007
21732f07443e0f8353f454d9d3a0d1daa687df09
6300 F20110404_AAABTQ payne_l_Page_024thm.jpg
0a4e889073621bc74202a66c06a8c6ed
b07e8621aeca488fa6f1ea5122dc5ff164056659
F20110404_AAABUF payne_l_Page_011.tif
4986ee6a798c89155d8fcff28e11acf3
cb05d4ed7cb9d43e019c8313ba1b1085cc3a5915
24872 F20110404_AAABTR payne_l_Page_047.QC.jpg
8ff6318cd7b30002aa11f4201a95b590
90ff379940c62dccad5577f8d6c0bd75d371aa0f
2033 F20110404_AAACAA payne_l_Page_079.txt
f15fe40b4e6cdbd0a5a8ed2fabef175c
b9dc3dc810e7ab953cd55514568c85e5ab3c6c44
F20110404_AAABUG payne_l_Page_111.tif
4247b80bd84eeab0119621d239874b78
f480770550c615a6ae9c6dd2f94f1c018bc3417f
F20110404_AAABTS payne_l_Page_104.tif
84112d580aa8b31f94aee0550b398eea
e11de0455b6d1210ac9339c4b53cec83bece22c0
76887 F20110404_AAACAB payne_l_Page_071.jpg
d5eeec369daeec2642082e53f74ebe2e
fabc218e79cf517159ea088f99dc33a9120b8cf1
9411 F20110404_AAABUH payne_l_Page_006.pro
16c4e9fd956c747fd5755f8b6a458310
76eb715895212413f28f06dd5cb1cad13e4a663f
F20110404_AAABTT payne_l_Page_073.tif
79f1d38188f001541a3d59b5086409ea
0d9d64a8f2c2b577cfa4cf988e45189752549375
31061 F20110404_AAACAC payne_l_Page_060.pro
a1b455d2ffd1e6031705cf01ef831f16
9dbd6c78ddf8083460ea0b32db7f782213858c28
1964 F20110404_AAABUI payne_l_Page_051.txt
32e2f961f23174b2183f06fe245dad22
8c8c5f511d78dd1d1ff75c13ff66276d9e4b5ab3
26504 F20110404_AAABTU payne_l_Page_046.QC.jpg
bd8ff79f28e5fd6f03012c620ede5c30
ee8d55d9d148bbe462684b53f02711cc7cf13bbf
459 F20110404_AAACAD payne_l_Page_006.txt
2f81c09f03fec7d744362fc84ce48040
4a3e064d4065c0bd7cd0bdf655906e770ca7ce5a
F20110404_AAABUJ payne_l_Page_002.tif
9acf4a8189fd6d2474effcbfbbb120ee
f3bfb069899b639fcef277bd03ab32e3d33b6d2b
39214 F20110404_AAABTV payne_l_Page_065.pro
3e5c002ad56690086e264e5c14a8fe9b
4d1300cb734d664100b431e9fa699cde121f400a
22369 F20110404_AAACAE payne_l_Page_086.QC.jpg
0a2996da7f2699f997de6c8a42c4a709
cae13b6771b632070a4705b68f15df49c990cec8
50942 F20110404_AAABUK payne_l_Page_045.pro
e3a09a1b72f43cc3e983212a3c8145de
12643d6e894a5cfb78d812d2cd65d33b6602aee2
2001 F20110404_AAABTW payne_l_Page_045.txt
329eb8774d1f3e8b11c9324c43a715b7
402275f083584402ebe96c10dcac967f9549f5a7
4631 F20110404_AAACAF payne_l_Page_072thm.jpg
f39a6940d2bfb6d1361c1eae710d0d36
097a07972a11d0fb58ab73aa8870bc28a52868f8
46018 F20110404_AAABVA payne_l_Page_044.pro
fe35dc4f9c86bb4482c75b498c75ef69
89082c5020ba80039a6df7c6bf7cfc95dd86d623
84590 F20110404_AAABUL payne_l_Page_022.jpg
20ddee11dbe222ac939a8bc2fb124b23
8a1a8a7107524ff61af301ffd987047cf69576b8
2063 F20110404_AAABTX payne_l_Page_035.txt
dbeb8457d08177b15579ecd923b29f37
9b42c53db926b1eafa9467dff92318382386e6d2
51125 F20110404_AAACAG payne_l_Page_078.pro
1300805cd68e777e0fd39d516193b344
f2f2cc753008bbef10571ac70785f4e70abcf95e
52348 F20110404_AAABUM payne_l_Page_014.pro
f3797e8cb560bfc1f22af95cf5564596
0b935558a85f1a9da93d597ff65ec27145d4e0b8
F20110404_AAABTY payne_l_Page_047.tif
dc98fa7863831ce1f5a59134f77507c4
090302b5b40e81419024f482ef87ff6e396ab400
F20110404_AAACAH payne_l_Page_096.jp2
4a52548de14150c6eb53aa6d26c2feee
95281df22f36a8293ca083819e3fa4c7c1f8d012
27430 F20110404_AAABVB payne_l_Page_012.QC.jpg
13c0254eaa309a71f3885eebe93510d5
2fe7600ebd23c81b8d34976881fc40b3fa5e25e1
49240 F20110404_AAABUN payne_l_Page_066.jpg
b195f998a0bcfd92b6acfd856cc92cbf
2007470bb45844dcdfcd473784baea8c6cf336d5
10286 F20110404_AAABTZ payne_l_Page_029.QC.jpg
80a747f3602dce81e06fe3e180bb86dc
05e967f6ebf8e2d4447b33964128e144ad94abd1
25452 F20110404_AAACAI payne_l_Page_011.QC.jpg
87b76233381562c5bc0a6f515b5f56e2
8ffc4a56d38e7b9ebc259d8e451c9d648b81f06e
49877 F20110404_AAABVC payne_l_Page_023.pro
aa5aa29674da5c0669f7eaf304de4cc7
4634869b42ec5d2daec7f076634e53e5b010d235
1032546 F20110404_AAABUO payne_l_Page_071.jp2
8c48982f14177c0aa4de91b4012a0ce8
ba026feb3642f3a1eaee49ea07a3839ed6d05471
F20110404_AAACAJ payne_l_Page_071.tif
30ac1b4b13669e85cdea7d906636bace
17fe0237d70a84f3ea47ba1510a8409aae7eb51c
74808 F20110404_AAABVD payne_l_Page_098.jpg
1a0f3e6c2831b3adff606d065cfb7231
e74b0a79fd5e9d93daf5d36b9b92e15e08f7ec8c
F20110404_AAABUP payne_l_Page_088.tif
cdec06c6fa516bee7d5dbca5742dd2ce
86ce56e5c0d26cf694861413cf0af0a606d1f79e
6427 F20110404_AAACAK payne_l_Page_037thm.jpg
fab6728a939a8c26ba02c1f628340ad8
96155e1ac98570ec1b019b2521395f528522afe9
5948 F20110404_AAABVE payne_l_Page_033thm.jpg
4e5d7686f852076535761b9f00d47dd5
0131ec08340f88720fc962e849947f0ea2573a2f
2961 F20110404_AAABUQ payne_l_Page_029thm.jpg
86d7f855ee3fed6e1c100f0193466588
75f77c3342875c8be4fab871fda7678eae6eb4b7
70077 F20110404_AAABVF payne_l_Page_016.jpg
f139d1fc8c4e557d1a0002024a05040e
3af81df79c228fdc24d50d75f493df5a849af4d3
F20110404_AAABUR payne_l_Page_048.tif
a52ebf6991f43380bc96d324aec11dbf
96010414c6d5c9ebcf73ca5367eb523cd812e273
1383 F20110404_AAACBA payne_l_Page_030.txt
78e6b790fa6d72de7f893130e01ab228
54fdb6ea98e62fc2db903b54752347d27d0be5a8
44762 F20110404_AAACAL payne_l_Page_075.pro
4b8d3439386c12ea37c5e189f6c8a4b0
4632745f614bef4da6fc7fa59df6515821ba311d
3240 F20110404_AAABVG payne_l_Page_042thm.jpg
bf1d5fd45e85257c77224941997453aa
35cf69af3e4eb6d88bf1c3af38b7f86aa03b31c2
1051969 F20110404_AAABUS payne_l_Page_115.jp2
6e2dbd637c860a4134642e828d9e4da5
2dfabce83351ad8200fd043bfff6eb15a7920ba1
F20110404_AAACBB payne_l_Page_037.tif
06bfa8cf2b16f577eca2781ff1e2b355
5c5e0792f062923d21b2865bfb72dd9b4e67fae6
5958 F20110404_AAACAM payne_l_Page_058thm.jpg
436a0ba7a68ece00773e4f0b8e4806ec
18969b003711a4b4b876f72e9a1e8873e10e1c38
79336 F20110404_AAABVH payne_l_Page_047.jpg
b2217f644904f4b5410e049ed82a01d2
2998b53f9f1b07e913a43699274c4348d3d75572
83989 F20110404_AAABUT payne_l_Page_025.jpg
4b2905ed272b73460ba323570d955ea1
9514f5e174b92cb19b99d13ff3a9adfc209a2dfc
F20110404_AAACBC payne_l_Page_102thm.jpg
38f9a307bc60f6548c52f84a9d82be5a
3532e6eb07c884c885671559b459cba5ff8e4b86
928721 F20110404_AAACAN payne_l_Page_009.jp2
7006c1370419d3cc37675fa820652380
2ab54fadece0fad94c57b7656aba03712769f595
81568 F20110404_AAABVI payne_l_Page_036.jpg
3494d8c38b3035caf3161ce53b1261fe
f1acd958d843acbc716f67a9bd688ea404d13f44
805202 F20110404_AAABUU payne_l_Page_093.jp2
701a0b37b63ac67b768a83344444631b
6c1b15928c13c2c79613cfe27ab8ff9637de3526
1051949 F20110404_AAACBD payne_l_Page_022.jp2
73a3514ff521b7447c72089fb6debe91
bfe4facd600c23563bcb582163d403840460e9a1
22472 F20110404_AAACAO payne_l_Page_001.jpg
dcdb6f0fab0abdebd834c0863edb49d7
76614bfc292c80b7b986b444f6c514fcf47e7ec2
8522 F20110404_AAABVJ payne_l_Page_085.QC.jpg
cdca8d94b5b76958b12ad86aa67a4de0
b88c422122994f29314ec6dba6d21bb18bda2d7f
53099 F20110404_AAABUV payne_l_Page_072.jpg
b16a5a45bd6655484cb670be30b92be8
1d8d686b93ae910eb159f9719f293257ac52ab3d
26727 F20110404_AAACBE payne_l_Page_041.QC.jpg
1a4cac5d0aa27d3cb0163e222d1376d9
a434324e2c3596c5a3b0787fd6e6d3c596f74bf4
50004 F20110404_AAACAP payne_l_Page_089.jpg
150c4f864103e465262efdc0004f1f80
f56464145ad74d801d961592affa86b1acd6f68a
1051961 F20110404_AAABVK payne_l_Page_061.jp2
f56a08da41ef91e52d3d5f527ece9e49
e43453d195b0872fef898780e2ccb919778c1c4d
68429 F20110404_AAABUW payne_l_Page_004.jpg
8d96466d6fc86d53f23bc51e72e08090
e49d276f9f134e50b12408a9a3efd5dae358853d
2082 F20110404_AAACBF payne_l_Page_092.txt
6570727f6fc5a48ffac0ab5b866d97ff
e62930fcf2b92037eb4db6abc80bfec1fdf9079d
1718 F20110404_AAACAQ payne_l_Page_086.txt
5e1feeabea3a126d4b88649414bd8351
6d8644416ec0e169e5ed8b35a061b68710b5c702
31350 F20110404_AAABVL payne_l_Page_064.pro
1f0351a187ba71a5a31f59b4d931c796
440f5f004676f0e1879e61cecd233931edca5c84
83564 F20110404_AAABUX payne_l_Page_078.jpg
02013ff6fa27b8a1c37ad2c29783252c
985bd952e8e20a8214dc2bc67401b8628e973eb6
3365 F20110404_AAACBG payne_l_Page_008thm.jpg
2acc7964e5a1ea9d3dabc0793efb43f6
7ab09207515d7da68c0503ef7f99bf8b5c93834a
69817 F20110404_AAABWA payne_l_Page_091.jpg
d8266fe85117356e02704d66bbd129b4
24aa5e58cf6494e2fc175df51268183e34e3e074
6322 F20110404_AAACAR payne_l_Page_049thm.jpg
c13f394d04262d36a23ea4842860c230
6f1384d2e3e0dd51a1098ae8b362094aff36c45e
1051928 F20110404_AAABVM payne_l_Page_041.jp2
ed0259b8b93f74b8c306bdf061fa2070
317da0c996699d821160c79c4c081caf9d304fc3
1305 F20110404_AAABUY payne_l_Page_060.txt
ae95a841ae76e41cfd886293f4547924
d6d5604f451961f9500033b7c926f31e6f49460b
12998 F20110404_AAACBH payne_l_Page_003.QC.jpg
11cb0a75b9628f27fd457c78c0ac9b54
5afe6c15b19f5063392fd2208ee30cb1418bdc7e
26618 F20110404_AAABWB payne_l_Page_014.QC.jpg
2c139e92e1ecc50229360814a2a7a4f4
a93a9c93b84a7a668c9c855818051629c2e86285
48657 F20110404_AAACAS payne_l_Page_020.pro
9dfd4bc5ee05f558c7cd6e51c2a1acb8
09f1df927d00a11c18ed429bfcc3d4d7170fbd99
2827 F20110404_AAABVN payne_l_Page_090.txt
853a8da5bf5230570646f4ceec0a993e
d66db0b095e493ec330ba04d8aad6dd9d258a358
1051943 F20110404_AAABUZ payne_l_Page_082.jp2
9dbd0d7689872d143b525e1d3040aee6
41a3d8fcc409b79d89f387da0de70096e1860345
F20110404_AAACBI payne_l_Page_012.tif
05ff41abf1f38a7ed94f50b07842c0ca
e689a78c388d61a939141952402ac3d3d0ea11eb
17622 F20110404_AAACAT payne_l_Page_091.QC.jpg
9187637e655e86cee3b43c466d1c4781
2d2b87d0f45146566b237715201892cd5f1564c2
510 F20110404_AAABVO payne_l_Page_106.txt
2a606d961cf893318efb6ef22cd4df07
8aff0cb93583f45c67e1720d7ddcb9a66f4a08a6
1051912 F20110404_AAACBJ payne_l_Page_089.jp2
8f35611844c814f7f8ea0a88ef003e6b
b5d828a3a10a1b68b39577a47b7285cc5944f008
81294 F20110404_AAABWC payne_l_Page_015.jpg
b7728302613ec20d6d1e4a192d5c0024
d2eaef3f25a2b127c4bf69ced428d1ab6bd994af
1917 F20110404_AAACAU payne_l_Page_020.txt
23e04b77607332c0ad7c4a53b7ce656e
e07c9ba74de5758cc8bc8b34fed9751bd5fd6bbe
F20110404_AAABVP payne_l_Page_020.jp2
165d824d00b632d0800ccafd4365e1bd
53727d990ba54382cb344702ee4d08e15afa7adf
6110 F20110404_AAACBK payne_l_Page_010thm.jpg
429c2788a8d3bd78fd6da03d430d34ad
3a4f1b0b594f8ae2cb07883830cb8e54d1d5607b
1051950 F20110404_AAABWD payne_l_Page_039.jp2
de1549474e18c88bdd1aa3325863dcea
2d0a8bf69ad79942e6b6ea99d77fd4b8525310dc
4616 F20110404_AAACAV payne_l_Page_068thm.jpg
9c78e060b92ea2ad51736d84243a1ba4
bb2bc667bfe18caee8e3e72a70d78d1532a7277c
4278 F20110404_AAABVQ payne_l_Page_091thm.jpg
669ee6917abadf6b7c1de36740bb6d47
16ad9b1739d392f23d5b87258da3e00a6a8ad903
4729 F20110404_AAACBL payne_l_Page_062thm.jpg
b03eb249a7ea8b4f4d492473cf931e42
2d2c067e453fb4151c797dc7f10fc265f6cfe8ca
110084 F20110404_AAABWE payne_l_Page_111.jpg
a2e2552cccfa74fed5fe18c32c46ef41
72b6c287a323652d965cabe639314ca6eb9ac416
30409 F20110404_AAACAW payne_l_Page_062.pro
0eb7f52dfdfdf8c252c9bd69620854ba
22161e5b390f8b6040ce3e87b6df74e7fe4ca01e
2789 F20110404_AAABVR payne_l_Page_111.txt
bc471c135a51a59db45ed3631eb8f0a0
1aaefd299ec976084cef019bbbb4736550190c6d
1977 F20110404_AAACCA payne_l_Page_056.txt
e98e5227939af25a828a1b959a13ec17
abb76fafc23fd8759e2118d940e1c56eedc4205c
4499 F20110404_AAABWF payne_l_Page_084.QC.jpg
bbb481bf6ef212dae97eb8d8603e012b
b6350bae5aa471e17f48fddeeef9d12f9f7a085f
86455 F20110404_AAACAX payne_l_Page_041.jpg
f064876f898ec66beea9b793eb097fa9
c52908a0ee2d4bbba91021e8d2134a2bde301f4e
6082 F20110404_AAABVS payne_l_Page_039thm.jpg
62619648e491681b71d40f64b915304a
176e45b2a2ac5287f761d504563d4c8673ef4e86
107183 F20110404_AAACCB payne_l_Page_115.jpg
4221b9eb3c8f9a5fe3ed0c9dc98d5026
b9ba8ffeda669f57e1e578f2fdb7d01bcd545566
26895 F20110404_AAACBM payne_l_Page_049.QC.jpg
8b7de84174be2120bb22709a373c1ee9
33e1d3a3000ef876255ce0868dffa58f58506b38
F20110404_AAABWG payne_l_Page_079.tif
4926b5aa94ba5180e3aabaca9bd2937a
b1de3d7fbc2e4383c18929850864a30427dfd401
1135 F20110404_AAACAY payne_l_Page_008.txt
9d7f29eef1716060e7ea659d3b04943f
24125cd9d6068611c837e63c310087f17fe074e1
26824 F20110404_AAABVT payne_l_Page_103.QC.jpg
6fe31d181c7b9e5ad04251cf371d6ef4
cccf917a51638e11ea2cf6d2634641510a09d3ed
4352 F20110404_AAACCC payne_l_Page_095thm.jpg
117cbf72ac0158b34e0b9eaa169e7eff
fd77e9cfc2b27f2cb25a5dc8045f26f7f2617176
5217 F20110404_AAACBN payne_l_Page_088.QC.jpg
7d980045ed52fada2516fb65450f80a1
79ae81064b3428a0b9db42a8f3e30cd6d63bf455
638453 F20110404_AAABWH payne_l_Page_062.jp2
9232f435de567cd460341549cf96675d
3c5dad227e75b1ac581236f67d5da8c4edb45596
647215 F20110404_AAACAZ payne_l_Page_064.jp2
fb36509c7dc3031aa974cc7442d63816
c6d6a51cd4433d6ae528662f5190f9e32e24f4ba
10331 F20110404_AAABVU payne_l_Page_028.QC.jpg
ec734dcb417d22070d24b653588d41a9
9aeec51709421e27a6127dd6ef0ce1b37884d381
6207 F20110404_AAACCD payne_l_Page_019thm.jpg
87b9dc13ae10742e0f912f0a6f184a40
2c4ffbe89d0e47aa7ac2cdbd489c88a5c97ecca8
1887 F20110404_AAACBO payne_l_Page_091.txt
90e77edee857ecb868c8aff9a93ef7e3
4c9758cfd6f695d97811971c7ed74f539a767834
27020 F20110404_AAABWI payne_l_Page_048.QC.jpg
dfb1e80555caf5dbbbd3bc5e892bfe02
74abdd74743c8444499839ab21e10a29c2901793
27005 F20110404_AAABVV payne_l_Page_105.jpg
66f5677b0b84e44b993329d9dde34df4
447af1ea28ac2c80a8719fbdfae53dba6e2fb409
1051984 F20110404_AAACCE payne_l_Page_051.jp2
d96ba267f0c66230a92a02af8b8c9b35
9c1d01dae829225751d97fe56a843aa9df0c8cda
6676 F20110404_AAACBP payne_l_Page_093.QC.jpg
e2580722ee558adb495eb8169bc97345
cc23d0f5368b3748edfb7728e51099628e356548
F20110404_AAABWJ payne_l_Page_012.jp2
341be0a122821047189c233bf8c159ba
d8dfae8969c7c4e50c8ab95ac26fd8489b7efc0c
23184 F20110404_AAABVW payne_l_Page_007.jpg
619ddf5897ca3c68619a53b54c6f538a
211d936fea6938d87d50f3cc4465672e24648b21
14266 F20110404_AAACCF payne_l_Page_105.pro
0f7021aade6abd40bc39253b03648813
917ef36bb4c2c33e55a235a3909ef8d444999d76
787587 F20110404_AAACBQ payne_l_Page_099.jp2
3b6c3a44c5627c6c5851d27dc98abf39
15f39e823e4884eab92f1211f1dfd23f232dbd48
1611 F20110404_AAABWK payne_l_Page_088thm.jpg
c04343ab624fdae76f9fb019654550d3
72c505f880e5420313f0dba3350628e0653857ad
52326 F20110404_AAABVX payne_l_Page_049.pro
6b221f8b4d73f282b67dfead6bb2559a
0f1a6798441057c482b159e487d0578aaa0977f0
50536 F20110404_AAACCG payne_l_Page_079.pro
6082ff666ebab9315597f60d68bc05f3
05a0290b4eb8e1f9c580873fe1f94c399eda8ea6
3037 F20110404_AAABXA payne_l_Page_027thm.jpg
3fbe4ec9356ebc4cb6b94c2d2732b897
fee722e08c8d78354a79cdb0557c90119d7ce631
47725 F20110404_AAACBR payne_l_Page_039.pro
a64dd71d716c4a67e6d4e59f4a2f835b
a95295545e3d6f648639055d88f2b889b29151ba
248858 F20110404_AAABWL payne_l_Page_001.jp2
7019a8edf944ea5e6d38e14731f28e36
6cfdc43dfc92aab2791777e6f7edfe4ca62991ef
F20110404_AAACCH payne_l_Page_076.tif
bfb3fac8087e704f5a22e81347f751fe
05c18be0121833519cda8135e0d5f2362bdbdd0a
1051895 F20110404_AAABXB payne_l_Page_059.jp2
adf4a8d6fe51df5bc5e24a486ea75fa8
282d6ed71f416921c172ea73ea2849f8153f90d6
3712 F20110404_AAACBS payne_l_Page_089thm.jpg
796c8d7bf88448b38301508be91f5856
1556319ef3481f73d664ccbbc45fdad70c702e85
491321 F20110404_AAABWM payne_l_Page_027.jp2
1caa7d35ee3d85efff9b006e82e750b2
6847a576e511d9f02534c1cd27d810966cdce601
1051954 F20110404_AAABVY payne_l_Page_094.jp2
4c7771cc9da94dcce08341b8d1660048
23e2cb98e21dddd9516179193c3ec405af6c94bc
F20110404_AAACCI payne_l_Page_009.tif
1772dc832806ccd9e0223bf4ffc3cb97
e14eba6872cc18e15d5bc7c51ff2ff7c0069b4dd
17320 F20110404_AAABXC payne_l_Page_099.QC.jpg
bcc693c055dba4e21ec31a20841a9249
dabb6e44e773ef3957ac42a3e45721f477ea801e
3892 F20110404_AAACBT payne_l_Page_088.pro
d232920250f4d0d8adf6280857cf163c
53ab8ed50ce22618ea93467af6f5a6ddfbdc5cc4
52629 F20110404_AAABWN payne_l_Page_021.pro
158acacae653ed44bea297f6bb9b9e96
44be7890a2224a2db0359080cdefc38e6b809171
6574 F20110404_AAABVZ payne_l_Page_112thm.jpg
a723f164a00d50e18bf38ad7b4cf837f
4f823f812672af602c8be03bb8bac13c63d7ba19
112324 F20110404_AAACCJ payne_l_Page_104.jpg
5c32ff5c3d8b5c84fb5a46d8c8407dd5
7add868b5cae5c2ca7db4500413cac9a33d04f2f
F20110404_AAACBU payne_l_Page_056.tif
c84a791f76cb7098b597fa058a7918a3
8efe8fba32bc37274bb6cc1d4e18711aaac5a5d9
1418 F20110404_AAABWO payne_l_Page_064.txt
9ec354ae4da272ff3caa85142d56e98a
1e6845570ebed162d8ffd60459f2d69a55cdc967
77228 F20110404_AAACCK payne_l_Page_052.jpg
97a2551dd3855ef9d4a5565b68b9672c
56f1fa4b78f7eedc20dd2bc8a6047f4c90d67bda
49491 F20110404_AAABXD payne_l_Page_036.pro
8f2a02752482eeea4f19899d5c956f35
70290aa5569db66fb99947b6991ae7acedc52287
17040 F20110404_AAACBV payne_l_Page_070.QC.jpg
43ba98e4cb46a581f4fe8bca1700919d
3e7dad4393da1729eec8ef8755ff63ee0231bdd8
F20110404_AAABWP payne_l_Page_099.tif
7db3234aa1b2b0af0652b45c931bedff
a868c5963112f9b822dc57c410402cc81cb58518
1980 F20110404_AAACCL payne_l_Page_054.txt
cefdb8986f88ce0be9391467ca0660ad
ea1fc48216a868cf059fcdd7fed80bb7cfff98e8
42019 F20110404_AAABXE payne_l_Page_009.pro
12cad9a91ea8ef432ab433b7b6b294aa
a27440d6d591005b058724605190402f5c8f36a8
F20110404_AAACBW payne_l_Page_108.tif
4959366c8e91a2275dfb4ec25a905b9c
359f757169a403d60e3799fcd8c8ddf6df07ff00
2049 F20110404_AAABWQ payne_l_Page_102.txt
4066847f64e00b3be65bdca74435b0d7
e9e50756bed244bba3cffdff143afe64e1364985
6171 F20110404_AAACCM payne_l_Page_078thm.jpg
18ad472b1ee64374b0b03896d8433d1e
d63025970ef00b4be473c86cd3c72e0fc8cc7b8d
51428 F20110404_AAABXF payne_l_Page_034.pro
1d239497c6fccff15aefda4b114cef03
f9ba8153a28d0f0471c85f7f68474cd5b812d1ec
2751 F20110404_AAACBX payne_l_Page_031thm.jpg
64f0f50c39f0bd4ec91848469c2a81b0
bd24da21b13a3548f4e8e5bc92f67901056c333a
210191 F20110404_AAABWR payne_l_Page_074.jp2
176ed7edefb8dc8243e1503c2c27a38f
b320e271515ea6913474c936c33a7c86e32fda9c
F20110404_AAACDA payne_l_Page_020.tif
9285514e9c915650857c1983b512b36f
a9b54615fca0852688700344de5d1d8108ebe6e9
230 F20110404_AAABXG payne_l_Page_088.txt
2c115284aba2627c08b1db7f5bb4c226
a2c6ee01d3d0da5999faf4a71c1ff29ec8d67fd7
F20110404_AAACBY payne_l_Page_091.tif
ebef0bbe8162dba04b0aa6d379613795
20bd6a98886b33dce92876d4e4e09ee847ff1283
1051985 F20110404_AAABWS payne_l_Page_045.jp2
3e357c7c0994d5b4d4bf2310b68159b4
8cb54cc8a0a5fb4aa694ec9fb97156c2efdae8c2
1927 F20110404_AAACDB payne_l_Page_038.txt
3d4a173b5f816101300a3633c2e3af6d
93e213bee716e048fee977a7a0d08180dbf33a3c
5138 F20110404_AAACCN payne_l_Page_073thm.jpg
68ece26a3fe4b3c03e97fbcf14344e41
dd65314be4507b7d99b89233d63031b5b40c1d85
3860 F20110404_AAABXH payne_l_Page_092thm.jpg
350ccbcdf3fb236391af7407a6b3d7ee
121b6cad967e72b7415d6a6b08a33c507e10b241
F20110404_AAACBZ payne_l_Page_038.tif
495b647875a6cb93bb1f9a68b74879b8
52c77d1b7570b7b4126dd1347a183d8f0850c4ca
2067 F20110404_AAABWT payne_l_Page_037.txt
700737a0bdb44c18d0415ed7fae7b5fa
6fb4d03fdba32ea00953ba1eb71539209b99a6a8
F20110404_AAACDC payne_l_Page_082.tif
7646f2e03254f1b4eb9982ad702fb51b
c840971cc8b0f74623d3e1e53cf74121841cfc34
21740 F20110404_AAACCO payne_l_Page_109.jpg
d67bbf824be0d7c479fae0f0122b2ded
5883f74367fedf883e2bb73572c3cacb44c948cf
11971 F20110404_AAABXI payne_l_Page_027.QC.jpg
d0665f327311a6adb3765ae6e79239c2
0b8dea56f26703b934c360ea9eef567ce4d621e1
F20110404_AAABWU payne_l_Page_113.jp2
ecb53defd7a10d6076dfa7e50518839f
0c003fac35302ce4ae4daed19f149f7f5e039391
1051924 F20110404_AAACDD payne_l_Page_085.jp2
b8439154622d48e443ad02ad34d93861
9f7d8d209137e0c871aeaff4daea5e59ad901567
1024543 F20110404_AAACCP payne_l_Page_088.jp2
1f9fc42157fa1dd8f2f55403c1e2c610
139dd04c42a42736b98256f1acc9b643a6facb6e
6329 F20110404_AAABXJ payne_l_Page_032thm.jpg
da0045d72a31727d4e28cdf656cdac4a
168b19a56341ff1f1dd8838aebff9b5645e70b4f
10039 F20110404_AAABWV payne_l_Page_030.QC.jpg
cd849736f2fb9a033f425b1e44e38b4f
6f81069e6c7e8439e46b71b0feb4ac5e612185d9
1881 F20110404_AAACDE payne_l_Page_109thm.jpg
7bf329af23c22c0e4efd43e5ec9e6b31
e0f217753f274ac7d83b0b0d2b70ae39e950ac44
1051938 F20110404_AAACCQ payne_l_Page_038.jp2
b6f75172d1aea02b9d9ea11710ec8183
e19e03892889c019a06b71989cb82d3c93dc62b7
2012 F20110404_AAABXK payne_l_Page_048.txt
ee7c17ae51f1e094178e8d1b7b342a81
d157c8fc857a5b39712da4873e44bebd4a4de38e
12313 F20110404_AAABWW payne_l_Page_006.jpg
1ce985f28c0846a8856d0f71310d1c76
70be0ff460dcd3767fa28d51f0d0d62064a942d6
7770 F20110404_AAACDF payne_l_Page_074.QC.jpg
95c25d77dced017e304b87c59a923f07
f25b93c7e4d9bec17b793fdb184286a7b0e5339d
4589 F20110404_AAACCR payne_l_Page_098thm.jpg
f101a565cf4cb98dcde250b4387a2431
486d274fd27089e00f69824972647b08e7607966
2040 F20110404_AAABXL payne_l_Page_034.txt
903191d47fd1891cd2b3e3d4fde780e8
bf72ef2e7ac591fd5bc416a92de12d92af8b5e79
F20110404_AAABWX payne_l_Page_064.tif
eb9711870d69b541c0df2a6afc301a0e
c6241920cd81b87e908e4d1c6a5965b2bb2b90d0
F20110404_AAACDG payne_l_Page_085.tif
8e0611c5326346d9db4e2eb6a63093a7
b91fcf211b3954d90436f1c84666783cbb94af54
664101 F20110404_AAABYA payne_l_Page_072.jp2
bc339a473fc71bc0d97437522189f2f1
ed54a128cee1387c5d82f150b080f8a8732600ff
6027 F20110404_AAACCS payne_l_Page_036thm.jpg
be395fecff1f211ff5daf656d2fd95df
cfe7ed26803accb97f5816893fba2e2b8db958d2
421 F20110404_AAABXM payne_l_Page_074.txt
d59169f37de14f9ad9d0ee56f57bbc32
0344087a80bf2ca951fb2a674d1ba12b4f0409f6
68884 F20110404_AAABWY payne_l_Page_097.jpg
9d254d067d22f8f4717b891cf44da3e8
59f624bfdbd3aff6e5aca7ff359b284ebe0d4521
24344 F20110404_AAACDH payne_l_Page_050.QC.jpg
b112f9e6642c02ea5b478ff7996e7248
170aababb04629abb950e97f1bb5d0f2b1609e20
1051959 F20110404_AAABYB payne_l_Page_013.jp2
51957389bdd686a551cc9583f9ae7ff4
60b4e5eb0eee74cebddcd8ffa8346e404efa7d90
11262 F20110404_AAACCT payne_l_Page_005.QC.jpg
3e086aa029a533b17280cd34e734f01e
3c4d6a6da65bbbf584f596ceeb128885c9c896f3
3200 F20110404_AAABXN payne_l_Page_003thm.jpg
6a76d22b3d1295497e3ec409fef570df
98f857b25c78ebb922c0ea971f4f0859d909dcaf
28131 F20110404_AAABWZ payne_l_Page_026.QC.jpg
ef2dbc4c04ecfb28b8ffb3ff57885c6d
fd7f62fbb8c1bec0469743781402a9c7c85d053d
F20110404_AAACDI payne_l_Page_112.jp2
2b9ce3742cb1bf567d0dd42100ec8203
7aa63b1f6b327f42a01ac343f58e7979c923ccb5
29745 F20110404_AAABYC payne_l_Page_031.jpg
98224d8c994dbc3fcd707513ede01137
21bd44ef795402d3563a86fb3b03c7033cde5bf6
F20110404_AAACCU payne_l_Page_045.tif
a9e6f8fff171ca0aa2df338d830c9326
e1e6c1de845280795dc0c5a029aeac97c37055fd
F20110404_AAABXO payne_l_Page_092.tif
a997c9cc9d4c044c96121f5e410dc4a8
d7075f0ab3d959592f8b3d7ba3e994a467799e2e
41282 F20110404_AAACDJ payne_l_Page_016.pro
8fdab2a29575e1864b587d0a7a75f655
302590f66209bed896d2dd3e20717b70d22b689b
24226 F20110404_AAABYD payne_l_Page_039.QC.jpg
29c4bd87c9654a6f24801ed41958e870
bed24758920c162d8d093b5a94ab263d3869eaed
5683 F20110404_AAABXP payne_l_Page_110thm.jpg
4d1b57811570b38f565a88dd854014f6
45bce2a96792bc3beb9b6528c25ace87e4343ffa
9124 F20110404_AAACDK payne_l_Page_105.QC.jpg
92691bd6cb6bdb8e249fcaff77a17ffc
5993ecd5217bb51254ad2fb8dedbb5187c7e3c6c
1986 F20110404_AAACCV payne_l_Page_013.txt
4d30c81994a762a7ad33d339be62c3e4
ce38c2c134c650cafb4c904164d479e3885514f3
6179 F20110404_AAABXQ payne_l_Page_021thm.jpg
2445463bb455b8dcbb6dd8957588e0c4
0eebf2acf7577b52be1c8a318139d0302286f470
30396 F20110404_AAACDL payne_l_Page_030.pro
682bab9c52042004c9fd775cb9386be0
1441c5920068450676b3b07543e6f66a7d92a510
F20110404_AAABYE payne_l_Page_107.tif
f21e86971f3711225cb18ef9fe52465f
334d49f6f7dbfc41cb4a032059aeac10980748c9
1046671 F20110404_AAACCW payne_l_Page_052.jp2
af82f87f2e49efd5b539a20093bfb03d
071386e47751e4060b970ab81b7ee00e28b5d850
F20110404_AAABXR payne_l_Page_114.tif
12a2eedb65e1e001a19205ed00fabfa7
ed9c4937bab3303b7d8d9b3ceea4e67eea59658b
F20110404_AAACEA payne_l_Page_050.tif
cc0ebc90ca4c96fdc0a01cd734de66b0
4534efac325a8ae9a0f247042a06caadad413d21
26783 F20110404_AAACDM payne_l_Page_022.QC.jpg
a660da71ca710ea9e774d3b282d755ca
770dcfaa4a009f0d045bafa548c03d2e84524a3d
39244 F20110404_AAABYF payne_l_Page_063.pro
36046e6f78117bf0037f8d470de9a79a
6ad940b47e663c0b515749c0bb081f8204290072
F20110404_AAACCX payne_l_Page_075.tif
fbb0b83b9284d5c101c91c3221efbde8
084e6da2d85367f7cd1db506cb5b589e02f27b0c
F20110404_AAABXS payne_l_Page_067.tif
414accc7868529c063c5bfdcf6d0e507
175dede61604987831d873520a65a1b279d7786a
6223 F20110404_AAACEB payne_l_Page_054thm.jpg
580161fa3f46921fbb08b31cfb923e3c
312428e4106ed40addd5de76835a63c68f58ae9e
13442 F20110404_AAACDN payne_l_Page_017.jpg
878929e1909fde0df06ba12d26af4e18
20d61fab5a7783cfb6c0dff552556c48976fac78
F20110404_AAABYG payne_l_Page_042.tif
a629ffed6cf446c70d008a47470595f8
b828a6c73b363a5a6a5f52782b2c5f85464b6ff2
306 F20110404_AAACCY payne_l_Page_017.txt
241d94fc117a3e49e5fd6e747ce15b40
82273e7933082a977d4463159286d9c631837140
79445 F20110404_AAABXT payne_l_Page_103.pro
985c039656acc665f6a17669e9e7a210
fa3eb2886582a962515cf6f17a56c85263a0e9f5
21173 F20110404_AAACEC payne_l_Page_067.QC.jpg
b9e5fab8ba8dd8a162045af8ff5b54f3
ef3d3b947b20a4f70b4ce76d0f68d2a729669493
84428 F20110404_AAABYH payne_l_Page_059.jpg
ff98038c270d1ac4ea767d2f2ea243ca
1c3b01cfe0eb8b8b2caed5f23b68b10d1bdbecaf
F20110404_AAACCZ payne_l_Page_017.tif
581d3285d48ab5014ade9f01c12e05e0
fb32b716702af4edf572d372b2ae3c09e34a8e8e
2619 F20110404_AAABXU payne_l_Page_074thm.jpg
00a3ab5ad9aaf0a3350628f546b158d8
de1f3bcc2c61463311d1dbdee501c6a337e8c411
5561 F20110404_AAACED payne_l_Page_057thm.jpg
275579003b53d5ff12b04ae44360377c
8ec54ce2eed7d5898b171fd87ec9159c4446a285
1931 F20110404_AAACDO payne_l_Page_007thm.jpg
72c818250fb043ca9ea3fa7385acead4
b4b11cf675e15e5bbd4c38c16435fcf40a77bb63
50447 F20110404_AAABYI payne_l_Page_015.pro
9a131e45853f2494ccf045adf65006c3
ff5a7d01ee5d589ae103f93e1d9b2b1cb35c17a7
6887 F20110404_AAABXV payne_l_Page_115thm.jpg
9d90e247f7ca0c0ef3932615b88435ac
120830fd5d4537cad1e91c620ee10c896c7a9519
51286 F20110404_AAACEE payne_l_Page_019.pro
e95e90c4f6e550972512202bfd06edde
484dd7a9d49d4271b8784324e24359a9392effb9
8086 F20110404_AAACDP payne_l_Page_108.pro
aa4315d2f69385b7aa6ca86674a7935b
8602758c978815f7f65dc6704c13952f258a518d
2062 F20110404_AAABYJ payne_l_Page_099.txt
9998058b727324dca4c3cdac9013548a
0285df353881b7c16555573c26ca80365f7fd379
145534 F20110404_AAABXW payne_l_Page_017.jp2
1b456d9aa1909c366a9894913b735c02
9ef576f4549e3507ff2384005434ec1000960a63
558068 F20110404_AAACEF payne_l_Page_008.jp2
5d99183d74e4139afa0eb8ced2391f23
a835787677fd2a53688541b87b0138a36fb42dcd
F20110404_AAACDQ payne_l_Page_098.tif
a8e4ed357db2dd3ef04a807460d8c7be
1087f1ad3ee51ee34184d651531ef9778274ed11
5281 F20110404_AAABYK payne_l_Page_116.QC.jpg
df518882b2e96fd33bad6f2aff9d5d3f
47cdd12ad01457d2f7f5b038ad2d1f4172ced25c
2812 F20110404_AAABXX payne_l_Page_106thm.jpg
bf829d22c0bbd02fc0dd7de51af12711
09807c1759d6db95503b360db781f2be9ac1ca73
6277 F20110404_AAACEG payne_l_Page_084.pro
50bb8244b6ae9037eab1ca88bbee5874
2679f7849baebf25b952a31c3708896417edd654
81658 F20110404_AAABZA payne_l_Page_061.jpg
6b0fd544e794f7cf402246ab2d5a8366
ae9391dd770ec93751b5120aa6c48931c899000b
F20110404_AAACDR payne_l_Page_006.tif
4c0f7ef9dff634b9b4d79d69f02b2c64
066f120b1f7db7708825fdb3511312364df06515
24159 F20110404_AAABYL payne_l_Page_058.QC.jpg
3ed140a159ac161ce9dbbe645176eeea
c1922fd331754ace5576d6cb034f46ee6067204d
6226 F20110404_AAABXY payne_l_Page_013thm.jpg
81a0800c3a34375423ba44c81e18f0de
db73461b654f12c2c0d2877119ad4a47b5a1bc84
F20110404_AAACEH payne_l_Page_105.tif
904e40df6f16e39e7b14bd5964150a00
7ec5f4a4605ea05e9840626d432cfdc678f8c27d
F20110404_AAABZB payne_l_Page_010.tif
1dfa83f443fc606b2f10f95fc98b7efd
b8aec72a786bdb93851c3dfe4c4c5db7b2207501
6148 F20110404_AAACDS payne_l_Page_045thm.jpg
e28721be64cf36baadebdc0888d9da14
a83f935d436641a8060ba9d618f962a9c9a184ad
F20110404_AAABYM payne_l_Page_025.tif
02ff26966beb9567447f726e681264c2
598d6ecae27c0d2109447f86751d62e16ff20084
57245 F20110404_AAABXZ payne_l_Page_090.jpg
2f41a3475745eb392b45d9168ca3f14a
fd9dfae94ec5e5d9923827fb5fb5a47a7269d0c4
638744 F20110404_AAACEI payne_l_Page_029.jp2
33e438eae2c573c102e530a702760ff3
cb14a5c4fc485cc3e25cc9a5700272305aa0ef51
2057 F20110404_AAABZC payne_l_Page_080.txt
d0a00f3cbbb1a4e02701b28726673a46
f64ff99986658d8f43a3d439ca73c64bcd65060a
1051972 F20110404_AAACDT payne_l_Page_032.jp2
49d08fd7f454efb2eeaf9d316d15368a
4805d29503f354ae5a7736993f5eea94140f50ec
40076 F20110404_AAABYN payne_l_Page_067.pro
e9783a22de9d356cef7df9fb7c2bff76
158d2bc4e3ea9889f6609f7ea98fc01b7cc59ea4
33544 F20110404_AAACEJ payne_l_Page_068.pro
b7457390edaa3a7816d1d936e453bd66
feb1bca3b3dbb1ca11474d2314eb155b43cff18c
3064 F20110404_AAABZD payne_l_Page_028thm.jpg
51d684a96b8515c68555daafa6017e32
e5d5ce419da9200f52bc0e65b12a9a7bc983fd98
6138 F20110404_AAACDU payne_l_Page_015thm.jpg
1a94ed05fef24104f8d77dd91abcfcde
fa49026b2b6352e95a8e105aacf5904d086423af
12893 F20110404_AAABYO payne_l_Page_008.QC.jpg
1fc70e2bd71ad1073d04dc22d1d40a27
3275f0cffb57f972d25e10577c282ef8263fb2a5
F20110404_AAACEK payne_l_Page_007.tif
d54bb0b637d44eac6e5a59357df85be8
a71b2ac5e04dd42b02d1c48dd7774b571e2f6534
10960 F20110404_AAABZE payne_l_Page_106.QC.jpg
e39e883e2c8d36db04915b9e29bf9c85
30b9bf098edb1d129a88fd9c36111f4b446163f1
1265 F20110404_AAACDV payne_l_Page_089.txt
0ceeac5f4ec210330e8ddaa9e8f29f5b
738f6398c5058e1b6fd11820819d2e9725aace45
2628 F20110404_AAABYP payne_l_Page_112.txt
f91a9106d432aa8720f5620880142fea
462461a16dbcfa2f60359ebc856c8bde14bc0739
8191 F20110404_AAACEL payne_l_Page_108.QC.jpg
9ea6daa6ff960f5fab118af072a9382a
e96bf1b288278bb3fea59f2413d43252a385a47b
51238 F20110404_AAACDW payne_l_Page_032.pro
e2f6b824780f05ef47ef4d6aafc62bcf
621eea49892cd1eca3184f68861a3c50a06e2eb5
25739 F20110404_AAABYQ payne_l_Page_023.QC.jpg
152e233296b4685324c3f417c118e94b
35c567a8d7a33e6eadc6e9a13c79fbc4aceaf08f
19769 F20110404_AAACEM payne_l_Page_069.QC.jpg
04c84b252cb8991a8204bc22965dbeba
f368648c9ca6d0fca44f0339377b5f876561e77d
26716 F20110404_AAABZF payne_l_Page_019.QC.jpg
7ce157992a178508a1c4c6b887290773
128421471eca61457ea42acc682f07e8906d7d2e
44775 F20110404_AAACDX payne_l_Page_008.jpg
5af6a0f028ea952312ac976d47873b5d
0d2806eaaf64152b5dec5720ad9bcf6fe5cd8b2a
F20110404_AAABYR payne_l_Page_032.tif
4f146d5515921cde2261371a005af653
404fdc183b30e7d01ddd3ab836d66876ef9aff1e
35945 F20110404_AAACFA payne_l_Page_028.jpg
f8947cc5a49020c63059ff06e5e53ec0
a688d564bc540682ae54199a69f20a90d8bca1ff
1051951 F20110404_AAACEN payne_l_Page_079.jp2
2f3f7065d4d1eee8b993222a84111ea5
2f402735283b3f0d4d64d94ad1b97ccfc8eeaf0c
53064 F20110404_AAABZG payne_l_Page_041.pro
9ea1f95820324e1cda9e0bf3bb363ca7
ae631ed4fe53c4df29a82b026123fd991af3720b
28117 F20110404_AAACDY payne_l_Page_093.jpg
738b30b25107388dd1620b1e6cbd3865
222f5dbff1ded8b80b213be04dcb40a8db4b3529
1338 F20110404_AAABYS payne_l_Page_029.txt
ce08ccc32a577fd70a494f20b81b1870
cf68e8d4d88b95a0e3123970500fe7904522f8f7
F20110404_AAACFB payne_l_Page_040.txt
1c57b37f1576dd29a54ba65225d808cf
fc0f798d7d5a092dfab934e86f546bd16eda99f0
77734 F20110404_AAACEO payne_l_Page_058.jpg
ed80f9a8f2e3c6af477d895bade7c208
1190c41e02642ef620f4421357011a6c7b579069
1051975 F20110404_AAABZH payne_l_Page_054.jp2
5b2835613694d7e548a2b4fc3e2d5e31
578b301057078da02eee344452408758a0a53a30
1962 F20110404_AAACDZ payne_l_Page_095.txt
f7649cf829730549799162e08e7e5f7e
2f0c89ea903b9b10b545342bc58476b25e4307e7
87286 F20110404_AAABYT payne_l_Page_021.jpg
7141d6d2a32bd45205270169b602c237
44f7c7862bbf48de4a7b8690161dd94aaa37a66d
6065 F20110404_AAACFC payne_l_Page_080thm.jpg
fa4e63cd236ff11f4f3c4e5f877a717f
fa0f8f5cf3b4efd55973dd6c4acaa56f691480cf
F20110404_AAABZI payne_l_Page_059.tif
26c35db03c4f3741db0dcb18a7d04e44
dc0ff9ce70379ddc527d1f6d87e6cf42778105d0
544650 F20110404_AAABYU payne_l_Page_031.jp2
8b7e34518a0b0f96bc1acfe0d1c06f48
5ad4db65add34224d2c25bb026665e331adc2672
3025 F20110404_AAACFD payne_l_Page_103.txt
7e4ce81f341f426e3406700fcf7ca159
421e3ebae58df80ed7db666be020aebab8d8ead3
50477 F20110404_AAACEP payne_l_Page_013.pro
65a9feb2a89e1a4c701fa4aa2f1698db
627c7e28d055b3aa36070322cdb80cf1902a181e
1051957 F20110404_AAABZJ payne_l_Page_080.jp2
03728a809ec78eb2d8e3b1131773e486
73a48218f83a37b59994e181848a017601f2a5d1
24892 F20110404_AAABYV payne_l_Page_052.QC.jpg
6a7befc83d74a210e79a575faaff989f
a93db0939a163e52711e917ecd90e8b0567cec32
F20110404_AAACFE payne_l_Page_055.jp2
dd47e62d627a29228cd1b40ff8cd466f
8dd83d62888da403a64703ec421f08c2083c3947
833698 F20110404_AAACEQ payne_l_Page_069.jp2
325993ee83356576496a34398256dabd
4ed4af78cee563634fd85a2dd6deddcb6765d727
98604 F20110404_AAABZK payne_l_Page_103.jpg
3345a96cb71bd9733741ccdb598877e0
706bc7af2c11aec5cee689eb0df446e6774158f2
1251 F20110404_AAABYW payne_l_Page_002.pro
8f1984e0c2c4d500221103b8f6252b7c
f34b3998634c50f4e725d82df4a1b7adc8abaf23
84061 F20110404_AAACFF payne_l_Page_054.jpg
72020472143f7f644ce4eddad29dcb80
6ed0896e5fce11b4f91f48f5e742d8d39890c361
86423 F20110404_AAACER payne_l_Page_035.jpg
43dc560e5447bccdee1fae78dd85cf6f
dc34f2e48a2eb09e554dfc59827350f8eb58562f
761624 F20110404_AAABZL payne_l_Page_003.jp2
8986d79cc78609a55806d9434dfbf6d0
79cffc6e0956643fa3f113f9a7b47e80f505adcc
F20110404_AAABYX payne_l_Page_106.tif
0f3c206472b035c5a3020e763b7f468e
1d4b5ae86f8f0dcb0b64933ffa38488125c36306
17199 F20110404_AAACFG payne_l_Page_066.QC.jpg
53457f6c9ac43a37b8c2e04f4168a5ad
760eeb716ab9be2ea86c1c125af7566ad3c436a3
26114 F20110404_AAACES payne_l_Page_053.QC.jpg
6e0c857f5cf56e522768fa98241502f3
c76f9d2cf83005297a8af1a0f7eb2a3bc30addc7
F20110404_AAABZM payne_l_Page_021.tif
7d48a4717017441f48fe565009331139
6785fc43a2cc17e5551b908d3ab0cf17d62ab36a
81613 F20110404_AAABYY payne_l_Page_056.jpg
4d650eb9cade68dcfb311df2ce4a3ff0
e67a8637bb32d81216081277e61187316850a2f1
6409 F20110404_AAACFH payne_l_Page_087thm.jpg
a3c4b78360f579ccbb20454cb2f41b30
a370de7f4f5f6872abd49ee2a578b9586626f79d
83186 F20110404_AAACET payne_l_Page_013.jpg
a389783d832c744737b493676bc41531
6fc3b627751ecc79ad800ff79caaa502d26241d8
25055 F20110404_AAABZN payne_l_Page_031.pro
0a80e3b783d8f240647eef892ea4639a
8bae9e4aa1909c7fb47216372499cf6801972d30
3323 F20110404_AAABYZ payne_l_Page_003.txt
92cd0d4bca6a16485a92297aee6392a6
e1a0a061e002a9edd9bb26e85b108693a6d8a0a1
13128 F20110404_AAACFI payne_l_Page_084.jpg
b386c5e45a061dd31a432c69af1bf810
64961eb7ea5ba664fd46d44e056f1b76a747305a
F20110404_AAACEU payne_l_Page_116.tif
4c04fe5547d701b0d6fcbc2bf8c264fe
9c7fe4d41031e72d99f2ef11241183e341bf9d06
3110 F20110404_AAABZO payne_l_Page_097.txt
7af5b04bb05b836d26edd63124f87e12
263d9b5f03b1192507bbc38165fb020e39cbc2e6
F20110404_AAACFJ payne_l_Page_055.tif
3c2ffb3aa2df32d795fe5ee29de4d433
490844955ff222f36034eda50695911fa2821524
1220 F20110404_AAACEV payne_l_Page_017thm.jpg
149c8004ad9a2084d39caab1ec7e780e
45aea9285d3c1e8700bfce18506d66ba14d11c80
24377 F20110404_AAABZP payne_l_Page_018.QC.jpg
c807563f1187a7ecd1eff56c1ad7624e
223966fd4a1c5f69827ce46ab2d2544f981e5f28
79511 F20110404_AAACFK payne_l_Page_039.jpg
d7f416a3a3caa83d8b24d28504da36aa
877cae79e60f1f5a4c520f299be7c424c072ae02
6301 F20110404_AAACEW payne_l_Page_081thm.jpg
48762138fec9eb8746720faed3d59dfb
67ec6e9d1afb54ab78ad4c8362302300d875abfc
F20110404_AAABZQ payne_l_Page_011.jp2
a66311da0cf73f9e77a8bb169ee0deb6
ee3744fb554d13d18ca10beb6b623667ad207f48
F20110404_AAACFL payne_l_Page_089.tif
e7520e2e447606fcf1abc9cc3254c4a4
66d280300236db1a746d3877f804a37a7a4bfccb
F20110404_AAACEX payne_l_Page_047.jp2
08305fcfb77eb19bf00d8acf232d6811
b9cd50305030a2028808f568eabc114dc88fc032
26201 F20110404_AAABZR payne_l_Page_025.QC.jpg
8813aa46690a17f1d12cbefc3023efef
976c0d8cca66de061beba65d28800d9f31c9e5df
F20110404_AAACGA payne_l_Page_100.tif
b6ad270fdcf07ba0a56f9ac27a82f3be
4929ffabb56d1f7c08aaf4673862a0efa2b2d0fa
F20110404_AAACFM payne_l_Page_013.tif
20d19a2e4241353ecee86355b7e15b4c
e42972ad2a9bdac058196cb11bf6cd511c6f35d1
F20110404_AAACEY payne_l_Page_050thm.jpg
57223571fbc7e86e7cfa7db724593b1e
f6d982ff4689c68d752cfa6fe153aa0bba6b7212
81901 F20110404_AAABZS payne_l_Page_023.jpg
d0ef5188759ee229e778c3e4419fc599
1f3491e52377c88d69b3218906e9c212a1854e66
59460 F20110404_AAACGB payne_l_Page_094.pro
db412b426c2c625ce9a071d1617e2497
524903c680e636a7815fa8c49df91fd2a4153bb2
1706 F20110404_AAACFN payne_l_Page_100.txt
8467bd5f35373315ebf7bd34aad28c14
61d2ab9ff1127db6fc7378cd44b99925d40f98dc
20735 F20110404_AAACEZ payne_l_Page_063.QC.jpg
02c814505fd0f0c4ceb06f197e86e975
f54f0231bc6ef32accb716a1cd63f39338e5b323
70251 F20110404_AAABZT payne_l_Page_073.jpg
a01a2291954bba7bc758fd3a3ccab8f0
315ea1e326bdb5b8996f44976ead957bf0cdf7b4
1051856 F20110404_AAACGC payne_l_Page_092.jp2
dbffc0529737e92cfd3547c01036a670
b36996be617d2192b4bc9d527716ad0bd2480fe7
46752 F20110404_AAACFO payne_l_Page_052.pro
4351b37043d667bf01e8e92f9bbdee50
d4c257421b593629a91e237d4e323515b6c7fdd6
2423 F20110404_AAABZU payne_l_Page_105thm.jpg
3a641dcc61590ed8502a96985d9be917
43317c4dc3423cc31c3a25687be007e1149130f3
42664 F20110404_AAACGD payne_l_Page_042.jpg
feaf97e0df1d0bf5123d3cc3ffad2f39
7880072c165fdc2dbf108ff19350d2f12605e74c
140521 F20110404_AAACFP payne_l_Page_084.jp2
2aecb8ebae0d8191b4af235ab27a8507
cbaf65ff8b8e96e4b39d85cf71a594e613d986bc
84108 F20110404_AAABZV payne_l_Page_086.jpg
f2ecba8bbff7b3c282d7e1fb00743948
9e1b34c14b752e67ab0c36a7d7d167b1a38e8bde
6378 F20110404_AAACGE payne_l_Page_025thm.jpg
df2bc4de45d743d81ab571a0070fc10c
76b71b5fd9526ba5c8ec5283396dc717762dcc20
12980 F20110404_AAABZW payne_l_Page_004.QC.jpg
a50b62f9bcceec5ca1df88f1e8021db2
b0ee61701f0bd5464dbf1e0175d349ccd6fdede6
22862 F20110404_AAACGF payne_l_Page_057.QC.jpg
d147e8421e4ccb5a6e6e89a3bc3f90e5
5f9ba2dc5b709f26f5f42ea8c88c7edd4f781c3c
17321 F20110404_AAACFQ payne_l_Page_062.QC.jpg
2ce6311c30fa92ca23384c8c0298c49f
99005c605fd265b3c9b5f1935a9d5e20df6a3bec
29921 F20110404_AAABZX payne_l_Page_104.QC.jpg
4961ff418b49fc3dd1e91846f33e2cd5
a8708dba2f182b0c583c35792bfa92f356eae6c5
79220 F20110404_AAACGG payne_l_Page_082.jpg
4e50fdd11a776d51837c1b91d3b7fdd4
4b55cb5bfb91d151258722cf83345ee68f813596
F20110404_AAACFR payne_l_Page_069.tif
b44564556b9fe7769004393aa774c687
d1cd38698af0130930aca88661464b9846756bed
480015 F20110404_AAABZY payne_l_Page_005.jp2
734d3b2dc1ec2603ed242387e20b04da
ee76812407d8f77166e07b4e7590ce3d1dff023e
52708 F20110404_AAACGH payne_l_Page_060.jpg
6e915b38b9327f38e95e8520c782dc56
3e48868ce814fb059177adceb6287c2eb18cf1bc
F20110404_AAACFS payne_l_Page_095.tif
51364037b992f2dc34f71ef76fd0a2a9
dc35b1cc5bd719c3912322083177d34cf7304578
85375 F20110404_AAABZZ payne_l_Page_046.jpg
ec8daef91ee4fbbe83c3bc4896c2dbb5
4251a2fc5ce90c645cba6576662f94305fa50514
1033783 F20110404_AAACGI payne_l_Page_050.jp2
48e948332282cb37d262b372ce20175f
285328e108bbdf9314f3dcef13950f899ed426da
30212 F20110404_AAACFT payne_l_Page_072.pro
8109e38ec90c166f69d021aa204037dc
c672bcc074730f696c8e09931f2e86dd0fc6b485
46246 F20110404_AAACGJ payne_l_Page_050.pro
f86ff5c208db9ba60c731c40a18c9260
130c6c8168d41756119a53317c877bb1d015cf3b
F20110404_AAACFU payne_l_Page_068.tif
c13c4f5cac8d72d9ea67a40f7b704545
1ecd62e560aa31f9d8ebf68416497ed5eafce5ff
F20110404_AAACGK payne_l_Page_034.jp2
75d8c492e2ee87f834d8eda30f587d7f
534e566b334b581a61d0508ead3fc65f8f1cd6a9
F20110404_AAACFV payne_l_Page_065.tif
69dbb707183d00312e11a525f82a4ee9
e9c5141a6be85521f8a9610c6538d54fa056b709
1051941 F20110404_AAACGL payne_l_Page_048.jp2
0b0e363f03148f18356090abbf1a418e
03de0636e13383365de47b2840ea387ac6265c2d
38397 F20110404_AAACFW payne_l_Page_027.jpg
a6d226bf6bc589f4f804744f514ccc8b
109349a5763d79e4e9cc032976aca585e690cd6f
21611 F20110404_AAACHA payne_l_Page_027.pro
b063cd0f967574d2167f2fe306482239
223f814127532b5a5ec6238c7de33d7a80e1784f
6244 F20110404_AAACGM payne_l_Page_035thm.jpg
a998aee64c90e565420668baed161e83
331e81f0dbadf0094b0ecc2deae927bfbc7a248f
F20110404_AAACFX payne_l_Page_052.tif
c612d458ee639f79c5c0d737afe2cedb
a81ff831ce4c47b1e6d434aff2e5efbf9c1d232e
1025329 F20110404_AAACHB payne_l_Page_044.jp2
3f9a0233838165e554dd11c8d156988a
61d6030b5008a27f65356f3072100abb9728f864
74364 F20110404_AAACGN payne_l_Page_075.jpg
3f9c0189cf9e48598a725a6205ef07a6
7de3e867acb6b6acab78f6efff486332a6307531
F20110404_AAACFY payne_l_Page_033.tif
2595556d1c07753d6ca5613ca13e46d7
7c05d41ece5310c13368d01daa97bbf9f1852002
25625 F20110404_AAACHC payne_l_Page_077.QC.jpg
b723485069115dfd4eb6d9a8cbc40467
6f09121938f0ce6c5759b79b232f419b14a30d60
F20110404_AAACGO payne_l_Page_094.tif
53f2f7a881ead4800705b9dbc5d16f7f
686c2028dd7730b64ba49bb55ddb08177eda1daf
F20110404_AAACFZ payne_l_Page_110.tif
69860dc2699a1d943bfecbf98dbabdd8
4928bb9277905ca1d9588ef7ba52ecce5d440aae
6144 F20110404_AAACHD payne_l_Page_059thm.jpg
e30f916b284a91b1fc9cb1656a3fd58f
ba3c4394c3299243d18bff695034f0be13f7f2e6
1051983 F20110404_AAACGP payne_l_Page_010.jp2
1c8159dc1fddf7a53b920daa8aade79a
0f69a71674a1ddb99a035f12af5a9260d192a5ec
6123 F20110404_AAACHE payne_l_Page_034thm.jpg
588ebcdd260b4e8fdb2ab24bbe7327f4
08b107374849f68eba72dec4ae8947b536f2b67c
9998 F20110404_AAACGQ payne_l_Page_107.QC.jpg
a2f8c6f8760b15a2d0fdac373fd1e380
e6510f57da6a36e6d6187be1f7e9cbbd9db0e5e2
29539 F20110404_AAACHF payne_l_Page_002.jp2
82d66127fde90d23b6e023dff5b4657b
1daaf8d6a00edfc900429bf95fe3516869bfa855
25754 F20110404_AAACHG payne_l_Page_040.QC.jpg
b2cadacb6887fbeac42a8d7f2880f370
cef718b0ac2a502e52f1348ee30821ea3ff2ca86
25456 F20110404_AAACGR payne_l_Page_020.QC.jpg
5fa5af3e8f0c9cf3cdf90bf594c5ae95
b1c2d81e1df72ff44025fc6438910b7a7409f578
F20110404_AAACHH payne_l_Page_102.tif
c83696cd9563306e0ca3e80d94f147b5
2da59b462afa4991c78715467951a20fe51e2686
22438 F20110404_AAACGS payne_l_Page_075.QC.jpg
b1c29070e91dd110d7a70f40ec9b14ce
1f0c5343acf5732bb2751bc660de25a1fceb2d09
116 F20110404_AAACHI payne_l_Page_002.txt
a8290ca3e9613e3f95720f514fec7b13
d0fb7082b3f00b1686de7faa7100465d51fd857d
40868 F20110404_AAACGT payne_l_Page_092.pro
a180a4e9e589e61513f46f66fd2c3049
286342c168688ad02f084d0902936b9d04ab5f2a
1236 F20110404_AAACHJ payne_l_Page_005.txt
5caf206677dbaf2cd3b592f9d13beeef
6f6b55910fec3522ea7b95f719af2955e8088fbf
51560 F20110404_AAACGU payne_l_Page_046.pro
01aec91b1e7bef3b664f900bdd12bbff
9a0ff0a1717f3182c0cada7daa3e9a30c575df87
6591 F20110404_AAACHK payne_l_Page_017.pro
ef7c3b2d7a0ea03c55331612a5db3ea8
937ff86705d0f00721266d8cc02646a98c34f37f
60132 F20110404_AAACGV payne_l_Page_092.jpg
f57f7a9d6814e613f592b3fca549df4a
3bdfc24d9a1674a9a33c3cc268f9de4932c7924c
2291 F20110404_AAACHL payne_l_Page_049.txt
fb6b62456cc0cee9f5249d1f14cf32e5
251d59232ac684b08e7075165a00962698c13a0f
F20110404_AAACGW payne_l_Page_081.jp2
6bee1435310476630076612277e47bb4
1ffc2cee568929a944cf9c1425d1def7191a9d71
2140 F20110404_AAACHM payne_l_Page_026.txt
b662f22fbb1fab472cd31abb1bf0223c
6edc7b86cdefc55f6978b1aac80a757ef2cc1eec
201441 F20110404_AAACGX payne_l_Page_116.jp2
b7cd490a6066c133e75313245b668532
3e18a6dce2cd2375ca4c7fe324c416dcad44b0bb
1884 F20110404_AAACIA payne_l_Page_058.txt
656b09a0a2e62e503fe7d6a2d7ca4e7f
5d03b6ec06016b6054b1a3e7ba4ad7de41e23db5
52412 F20110404_AAACHN payne_l_Page_076.pro
ae0d1f65eb1788fc1a2bca651c93eff3
3a0b29abaa51b574b6a2dd9246d56549773d6fa8
F20110404_AAACGY payne_l_Page_039.tif
06a8d2f9ed515670efc5e985027532d5
a8c61f2c462ff647e017521b91cac4fd12bff575
F20110404_AAACIB payne_l_Page_080.tif
7bc05fc96cc38fe5f1e25f651673d3ba
589d7e0d0804f1739027d0558fa07af215a725be
1051978 F20110404_AAACHO payne_l_Page_024.jp2
8869f6f54fff70cce13e22a76f242f57
b77c53d896374e18e59580095fe0424f3a7d0a56
1553 F20110404_AAACGZ payne_l_Page_065.txt
e2a1032186788ceeb8ed12f869a30b7d
847043e4edb23c1e8a19d209111e66d9c868006c
83124 F20110404_AAACIC payne_l_Page_045.jpg
749305c16847061309c8e9f75a9ecfd0
31bbe39d961a9e8044e08f0cb4b28c4f39e57cc0
49390 F20110404_AAACHP payne_l_Page_061.pro
8da3d73e945517e7a85e62fdb990975f
39352dc81142620c0eb9716e3091336ab8b41ef5
4456 F20110404_AAACID payne_l_Page_004.txt
608e2a1f482bcc7c9e61acce3fa61c39
6b1f62441b35beee864443e04a7372de0bd68e81
3757 F20110404_AAACHQ payne_l_Page_006.QC.jpg
3039406e3fff4352ce5cdf350b9e39d1
0e01f8a741d98bdd0ad54347cca3e0e5c66076e3
F20110404_AAACIE payne_l_Page_051.tif
43bc2f10fa96681dbd965796b80ede0d
35e22810c81f907adbbce008023a2c21d7c9d861
4419 F20110404_AAACHR payne_l_Page_002.jpg
12dbb328d1c475425a60bfbbc2781171
e82a28bf82062171bdd7a9c4cd1a2eb13ea974ab
7181 F20110404_AAACIF payne_l_Page_104thm.jpg
2d5ba182b6f352b2c5c14c0e93b78441
fe3de78ecc927fe172313f6c2c5fa67b62754963
53168 F20110404_AAACIG payne_l_Page_110.pro
0b57bf2404669d13769870fe57873d9f
d0daf891abca2909dac6469a8c13f8d5121364f9
F20110404_AAACIH payne_l_Page_049.tif
52c82c41a93786d69f5cea63c18c997a
4e081811bd177611160fd49c9a73fc1607b0c9b5
80278 F20110404_AAACHS payne_l_Page_010.jpg
f3be8ee93610be5595337c16376ee3e0
3150c0ace2c7f196b4168627d2c70ab7f06e5b48
86007 F20110404_AAACII payne_l_Page_098.pro
a660d89d852a14d6568e13010af1209a
0989e7f988622d7bbfbc964c878b343329fd0334
26133 F20110404_AAACHT payne_l_Page_083.QC.jpg
750e4a2c04b4f95546833e1bd5cb19b8
9f04e943d7acd99d8da518190e2d03b2eab550f1
86452 F20110404_AAACIJ payne_l_Page_110.jpg
8d3634dbb824a9299dc0b583603bfa67
c0fbb3c11d08db776686017c2848400ca8df410d
1846 F20110404_AAACHU payne_l_Page_044.txt
047d40f62422e4cc79b3ed461a0b0228
2ddcf13309e187417af4b6402a40b2f2eef25424
9163 F20110404_AAACIK payne_l_Page_106.pro
c54cc02cf55e63d16193c60c85b4bed5
0331ef2a0d05862f7e792a4d3c76f2d6303ca7e1
1907 F20110404_AAACHV payne_l_Page_010.txt
2779fda5e11bdd295c162dff5d4a5502
7656234ff5201fe0083e9574608f61f03c092d33
F20110404_AAACIL payne_l_Page_056.jp2
c0a54ff68de7863851917a60298dea20
2d6927495ce4c2c5b21474a92949b8a128bb8174
6193 F20110404_AAACHW payne_l_Page_083thm.jpg
1685193403839460b1a4638ea61fb649
025430d45f78c423c434bb2a2a5f9d20e4c5a722
31822 F20110404_AAACJA payne_l_Page_028.pro
66b87903f64d11d32a79b6f76b508283
a919b0c6b5b92f59f0cbe09417ed74630b16dfee
87316 F20110404_AAACIM payne_l_Page_012.jpg
2a8cfb3ff680df46bb2cb71f41fa79ce
681ab7fda784c19620f45ab5ea67c0b7a7c53ec8
26589 F20110404_AAACHX payne_l_Page_037.QC.jpg
3f7286d333a336873d427c6cf7b7687d
b77593df8dd9787e1875ca41c9082d50eb13ba52
1051917 F20110404_AAACJB payne_l_Page_037.jp2
896870a6becf051e268af077d64067f4
bdb09ea81a95b9486a550b2bd795bede9fce41fc
14866 F20110404_AAACIN payne_l_Page_107.pro
3fcdb529d57b684d6a69209e5f61fb22
deaf8523b4ce7dba9c0c58087582740fa63360db
5733 F20110404_AAACHY payne_l_Page_018thm.jpg
04aec20a7300a2b03914fe2c1d12a320
6b1cf03dad68c7d743a4929f06399116be4f0507
3948 F20110404_AAACJC payne_l_Page_101thm.jpg
85ead879ec0ec3ad9c3a760621723116
b98925bc7dfe22e2e978663a9ca41fd43832d6fe
68349 F20110404_AAACIO payne_l_Page_111.pro
31df52785bde4cfe59bb6c56e9a89042
7dc05abc91ecd66ca5f3e8e5eb645f2c474dae53
F20110404_AAACHZ payne_l_Page_057.tif
847df97416b61f6f9dafa95fb956e784
8b0fc3fb9e2f590ac82f3465d2165ab9b4dafa26
F20110404_AAACJD payne_l_Page_112.tif
9cea91c4f531096f0cc8fb56663281f6
e74c9d8b0bccd061d8c08eee17dcf5a7b23f4227
72512 F20110404_AAACIP payne_l_Page_057.jpg
c1629c8dd400e719337f2dff2fa01a2f
884d8677fbc26d85fe568679dc8a86a4be7bf585
67715 F20110404_AAACJE payne_l_Page_067.jpg
6c6481e2dffe1e4969b899eb71ff6074
3f810adcf65308f801b106e0370b1d06d66cf642
52548 F20110404_AAACIQ payne_l_Page_059.pro
ab269f88fe89b0d635400eb00eec98db
b7119c471ef3b77df59c3c91fa72611543e420fa
4554 F20110404_AAACJF payne_l_Page_017.QC.jpg
c711c75182e7d4197e0c8676aeea9fab
4ec6e2f781788944b00ea4289c649ce28c37585a
70871 F20110404_AAACIR payne_l_Page_097.pro
b98e727bcad445def5f82bcc8850ac3c
c54fc6b3ea2c220d349fe0a2b214bd52727b7385
F20110404_AAACJG payne_l_Page_019.tif
b685cfc048c214b6293ab19858936829
c1483ca0940f819897653197d326538ebcd61cfd
388 F20110404_AAACIS payne_l_Page_116.txt
66d9ba87e3da150a466fd8b292341973
cbd1de62bd227f2849e4925171e473de4dd6a4ce
992411 F20110404_AAACJH payne_l_Page_075.jp2
06246efb24cf22068b8078098e8c3333
5f66288cacae407c94d2f25585e125b4aa91f53a
44081 F20110404_AAACJI payne_l_Page_099.pro
36c4275c1a2c5820bfe713f0a7edb4d8
dde68d76f6a1053cbf39e124ab6e8b00aeae5c4e
3325 F20110404_AAACIT payne_l_Page_096thm.jpg
22ad452b386051833b44c1f00ac0cdfa
8dc1a6b2d769f26cd03447a54db9c313da6492a9
85408 F20110404_AAACJJ payne_l_Page_076.jpg
028c9904e2dbd6ac9de33d6f18b94bed
f5850926b5e8cf701e6bd629bce6637d1858bca4
46541 F20110404_AAACIU payne_l_Page_043.pro
b1bb7df5ba9159a797bf4d3640f2f9be
4dd6793804787b3bfc1a806d52740ace072cc14c
5537 F20110404_AAACJK payne_l_Page_016thm.jpg
46cb6b2cf2611f1f0b3aaafb9cc1f31d
faabdc8d4d616295618e5520b83da3010e03e164
5942 F20110404_AAACIV payne_l_Page_082thm.jpg
ad8069fa1a3d57a4944427171de2332a
afc91606144b6ee48288a002d56a2dcbb85ac5ad
595010 F20110404_AAACJL payne_l_Page_106.jp2
2219720e5df9918cf803c1e3374b0203
6f3cddbfe7e6e0be04a6678a258fa61dddacfa31
859 F20110404_AAACIW payne_l_Page_027.txt
7023e655bdd4ddedeb33b2fde56789ff
c59b49a2d934ed25339ecfdfa14ef8ed19f90dae
65098 F20110404_AAACJM payne_l_Page_112.pro
345529959f7f2fb92a731e73c771fc4c
619e47235889cacc935955e0d84cf273ae83ceae
1037246 F20110404_AAACIX payne_l_Page_058.jp2
c5ed0a93520fbf77e2036b79bc8c3a85
72bc2f2a4185134152150bab312bc15a695e13ea
43091 F20110404_AAACKA payne_l_Page_096.pro
384db6337d9205f3a55c6a0a1644b275
1cc8abe5470de7d12cde0520c04683dc070390c3
25611 F20110404_AAACJN payne_l_Page_051.QC.jpg
1a2e8a5badc81a094a52c04ae79e5385
504b15a9345028ae490c9cd77b276bd25fccc12a
6584 F20110404_AAACIY payne_l_Page_026thm.jpg
f67e5d87b91009be9aee8ef6de4951f8
aec80614a6074034a2ec44014b622a3903d165f1
80394 F20110404_AAACKB payne_l_Page_055.jpg
68e728de6cb69c83e50da9f0b1405dad
a55009c85b2cdf76a3a541dce0343d853191ab95
15732 F20110404_AAACJO payne_l_Page_092.QC.jpg
de103d5b515da5596ef5c734193a564f
01913e420c38f07c0ac6b502ff46749a3989da42
F20110404_AAACIZ payne_l_Page_040.tif
14a56be634834da93d1d3fb29499268f
5001861b430c5603e45ac36ce36e9a97f68f6c8f
6408 F20110404_AAACKC payne_l_Page_046thm.jpg
ed8117d9ebda3b681708b97898ef815c
f89d4050ab73037a7312328ce5945439a7cedfb9
107041 F20110404_AAACJP payne_l_Page_004.pro
369ace220f0017b704b853eaf35bbf67
edab42d8eb56745336e65eccfbd061c4e04d016b
4944 F20110404_AAACKD payne_l_Page_065thm.jpg
eee63b8137015ce333a6e7a94e12f972
e7887850efc1eab9317aee6e12f4955ec12315f7
2080 F20110404_AAACJQ payne_l_Page_041.txt
198ee01ce8c945b4638f30605207fb50
db78ef551eec1909d0581dcc8851f2d49f9578a6
37433 F20110404_AAACKE payne_l_Page_101.pro
5817cf6b905be1b4dbe3ab4ed60d133c
28eafb320997e48b17a81c433c01a897f2d56585
2739 F20110404_AAACJR payne_l_Page_005thm.jpg
a858ce5303b720d784d14779e27e92f3
7ee8419bbaac6e0b7d3937a806059d182038108c
6631 F20110404_AAACKF payne_l_Page_111thm.jpg
152d4bb412130f4ce49aa2c86aa18337
f36f3af8b9a9a80160e2fdebcf948828ec9550ab
25240 F20110404_AAACJS payne_l_Page_061.QC.jpg
39bf9059b0ee6b136ff8c11cdc811ac8
fb805afa976b20779e82224e8d28cdc6d19dd0b7
8402 F20110404_AAACKG payne_l_Page_074.pro
032c8abe5588607c737c6ed36b1854c0
3b29493aa989b35e734db0e2f31bf3821c0161cf
25901 F20110404_AAACJT payne_l_Page_080.QC.jpg
5d0ca8c0c0eea17577504e8a686171cf
abd1985b2330a809f91fc7d0a6105bfe3c7b5800
26060 F20110404_AAACKH payne_l_Page_013.QC.jpg
f72ca10b4946fa6471a26925c08c109a
d8b4f07412605936ca8d73f3c971eddbe2964c8d
623922 F20110404_AAACKI payne_l_Page_070.jp2
3cf220a62032dd11be64d3758735dab6
f121fae1553489c7e2679545ba26bc09b11f76ef
84991 F20110404_AAACJU payne_l_Page_032.jpg
c69849d7b7e8986a54ae8c26591e673a
3fae2a8704a2a5094462d130acb0d0e2d88ecbec
66243 F20110404_AAACKJ payne_l_Page_113.pro
9e5bac376fb67432c110d1f90ed44668
0faef881d7018d2cd907c043e7310fa1640bd327
16956 F20110404_AAACJV payne_l_Page_101.QC.jpg
0005a65bf9b18790fe3ae090e211e429
88e457c57428fc722cacc6f9d3c95fc06ebbffc3
8425398 F20110404_AAACKK payne_l_Page_029.tif
d473ff55f37b4037413e6715a78e5be5
e1f7b4f9884c2c9e9a525c358342b0cb0cce14e7
1778 F20110404_AAACJW payne_l_Page_093thm.jpg
245f02aa6b02d790d349f40f465bab5a
4905aca34ed51b265ba9c726c9ddbcc5d8f3408e
F20110404_AAACKL payne_l_Page_081.tif
866e1315b60785933333be6dba3b1a3c
489198a4d9f0494fa42afc8fa27d9086f6eb5429
4863 F20110404_AAACJX payne_l_Page_070thm.jpg
54238dcce3632ace9112fab68963c149
696e3564d1a1f3ba0400417adebfe7f5809c0409
1051948 F20110404_AAACLA payne_l_Page_110.jp2
c19ecfc310a7bcc9a043db463370255a
95ff18a5dd6d2b5e5027dd5102bb6aff7c8b8be0
2054 F20110404_AAACKM payne_l_Page_083.txt
ce76b36c00fa215818392df4da9121fb
ef58d44d6e51c9531241716a4abe38cef754c74b
29181 F20110404_AAACJY payne_l_Page_113.QC.jpg
c6533ab2fa5a3e4f0bf9eb3d05c5fabe
5432ff653439aa8208ecb5045ee3fb004c5877e3
F20110404_AAACLB payne_l_Page_003.tif
2f73fd9dadce04c34bebd85270b37f94
689f1a124498f51ff941ce891a9b330ea2adcc9e
83434 F20110404_AAACKN payne_l_Page_081.jpg
a8ee63a4585d528ac0bfa98dc3f65a79
1a0e8e5efe7b05db8b343812a3c5c55268a65fb6
F20110404_AAACJZ payne_l_Page_103.tif
4c9e6470ae0a6706b67b510cd8fcaad8
739a10b57a8da79b3d9403d381867950456a43b9
F20110404_AAACLC payne_l_Page_046.tif
3d646c98be60d5f566fda977c4770237
7cca7ef66741a3bf1dea0fe6ab07b4d9c94272bc
65954 F20110404_AAACKO payne_l_Page_065.jpg
b0d0ca4cc908bab7363baa0a1d1197e8
e77e3d74d2a3870ba8558d039ce1ae376a148e7d
82806 F20110404_AAACLD payne_l_Page_053.jpg
6b216939f88b72ce4c8176004a4032ea
f7a0d93bfbb3098aa0468a0e7a6b38842e55feb5
21697 F20110404_AAACKP payne_l_Page_073.QC.jpg
2f04068c3c1b0c08e698f6ed1f3433ed
e789fa83af445addf2c0c24bb753abe30ae631c3
1171 F20110404_AAACLE payne_l_Page_031.txt
1e7900abfb6196b05b12be9c34b142fe
ab9b8104324b72723200c0be9fa881b776414661
1992 F20110404_AAACKQ payne_l_Page_025.txt
39f6ee7be033c586dec15aa20bf51957
499c088f608bfd45fb34ecdaf5014b984488668f
17561 F20110404_AAACLF payne_l_Page_116.jpg
8bc78b2d17e79a1d6bf029600205ab33
f72dc22de4fc082fabfaec9f72b567698538a2b5
24371 F20110404_AAACKR payne_l_Page_038.QC.jpg
9af3907b0861813cd73dc4d4079eb563
690bb1041c0e22a8e5bd45d45201bd56a30f7446
2708 F20110404_AAACLG payne_l_Page_114.txt
f1a9af805090b7495048cc77c6127772
2685428f26fe95a019623ccd5184a50010d128dc
39038 F20110404_AAACKS payne_l_Page_095.pro
802152fcfaa67289098ae751b03e9ab2
2290ddaabedf23d4cfafb8ceb5f7e0bf24a0d7ec
F20110404_AAACLH payne_l_Page_084.tif
c39a0ec9b32071bf18d327258cce2d9b
c43389807ba6ccc78f603d1d70359d80e21996c4
1051965 F20110404_AAACKT payne_l_Page_083.jp2
3ba292ca807619db39e38cfd7bd368ec
2a1dc20096d13773febcf3e7112e117178e909d3
F20110404_AAACLI payne_l_Page_097.tif
470c614f0931d42b1d5e9253a29692c9
a9ba169702b054236d5a270fb7316fc3c7d8e488
39729 F20110404_AAACKU payne_l_Page_091.pro
d138ffacedf79c113fd4b29ec970cdcc
7d01c80f27f870ed13457dbf19e5cef9c35cca8a
35480 F20110404_AAACLJ payne_l_Page_030.jpg
7c8c2a5c1eb95eace95fe573ac834be4
14c38baec818646e65a2599b4fd88f02ae9407c6
F20110404_AAACLK payne_l_Page_043.tif
94ee1764db51bfdceed812f64522e631
fa834980ec879c3d81036eb9f8122051c2399a2c
56650 F20110404_AAACKV payne_l_Page_090.pro
1058010d2b1d0a4e0ca24783bf59234e
593be469fd00dfd9632e7e326e6f8aeb6413ecf0
68079 F20110404_AAACLL payne_l_Page_115.pro
908416049145207dac3181480a39e35d
2d5b077deeb2a724561d6b3d70c6148cb1e28e6f
F20110404_AAACKW payne_l_Page_053thm.jpg
954126b47c148f4a7ef38c520f4dddfd
978fa6ed4dd6826333b6cd06655feaae107194da
948 F20110404_AAACMA payne_l_Page_042.txt
90c7417933ad5db5167a0af3148b043f
836de0cdc8777cca5cb4febb0255b3daa966d6ae
78559 F20110404_AAACLM payne_l_Page_018.jpg
a3156fb294a04741dd53c936cabf6da3
a181e440711df135967f157efb7ea6dfb696ab09
F20110404_AAACKX payne_l_Page_054.tif
be13e5b4a42e1a41459ffdf573ad0da7
7d3630c541fdd4d7aca67de5d12a54041c23efc3
16929 F20110404_AAACMB payne_l_Page_068.QC.jpg
52baa9f43057715695ae261f99b28cdd
974b1f375b0b3afd46dcc7471e020addb0435a05
F20110404_AAACLN payne_l_Page_001thm.jpg
0d56f759f9e21827efe1f1060b89882e
3152b5b4903797a7107467f31946819cb6195aba
6585 F20110404_AAACKY payne_l_Page_103thm.jpg
184227da8514e08f2654a9d8f92ba413
1193e95ee1738d5c207f370a6f552661d1513e03
6326 F20110404_AAACMC payne_l_Page_041thm.jpg
ddbb2eba94f5562477e169fd7d509e31
503193f30f79a4828a904480257e799c82510a9a
291 F20110404_AAACLO payne_l_Page_084.txt
58f69ab65bace95bae780b58fd7f998a
48197166fa1be39aab4b74b15401b2a42ec7b751
77540 F20110404_AAACKZ payne_l_Page_050.jpg
b327e757ad6939ccacaacd9eda77e713
9d07fc1b58e29d16281c3478c498601a6daf10a3
1051973 F20110404_AAACMD payne_l_Page_049.jp2
770d8769d85780dd4df55eb578f061a6
92e03e122271dd4de8af190362e34549e92e2012
1051945 F20110404_AAACLP payne_l_Page_033.jp2
cae194dc6520d1778ad33f1252dfb024
2e904f135c1143264ccb5c0565f9d5f60cf1c2e1
76298 F20110404_AAACME payne_l_Page_044.jpg
1581ff99a103eedd98c81bdccd9d6247
0ef33d0c1ff6a28e2451dd016dacf11c69992398
46613 F20110404_AAACLQ payne_l_Page_058.pro
0346fa18afc23458c4414160ed4429c8
feb5e0cd8f4b94cb7850fd92ab103a0faeb6f44c
77045 F20110404_AAACMF payne_l_Page_043.jpg
3b42059b86f95e1e6210e130d7240887
eacfb6f1cd09d6b1d6880911483c7501db2b828e
16465 F20110404_AAACLR payne_l_Page_100.QC.jpg
7e1a3508e736159a373896829116014c
cb937709f62cd1f6a846ff185f01b8d4768d411d
79711 F20110404_AAACMG payne_l_Page_003.pro
c30f2142e3cbe4264a75476d6d370cbd
1606cabae18b71f5eb078065ab735062a7a02425
14027 F20110404_AAACLS payne_l_Page_109.pro
5a1650743b1791ee8f2f6fd1a4c9e5ae
e8bb07167ca5179eaa75a981ff9d86032344e1c5
604199 F20110404_AAACMH payne_l_Page_066.jp2
4f6cd3c4336e635c072d49a78bfa2719
21593063fe8073d8a7902208a2e8ef9a12a6ca2d
4451 F20110404_AAACLT payne_l_Page_099thm.jpg
29d3371503d81e9adf9e8a607362c960
ecfb239bb00f2b20486faadc1d930b7b150fa8a7
F20110404_AAACMI payne_l_Page_062.tif
3711c74b2972a94fe27efdcd63d03ef4
a9055c1a2af7d53787208b4ab60be2798e28f24e
F20110404_AAACLU payne_l_Page_035.tif
fac9fe304391bbfcbec6469151e862e3
46bd5480fa88856b5791ea12b5c7fa971c083760
7874787 F20110404_AAACMJ payne_l.pdf
c96b387d76ae45e737770864a81d076c
8e2636ce4792cfb4d8d303087786f1865a1802ce
F20110404_AAACLV payne_l_Page_015.tif
77f52f9065aee2e6cc92a07cc85fec2a
f0d27d2eac2c4e206c1dedc8ecfb85e574449109
5358 F20110404_AAACMK payne_l_Page_075thm.jpg
cf8843841f39a8c5db19a8ad1a481795
84f1260634862b7e42191d750beb7415033f5945
F20110404_AAACML payne_l_Page_111.jp2
0454c7e5cc2fd50bfe12d5abfc2bc809
95812f1749af29408079d7886d64edd2f1767e5b
F20110404_AAACLW payne_l_Page_063.tif
4f8192f0e501f9490c675641d541e6f2
a1946a34f895c724f339f08420e2258d4ecbbca0
48519 F20110404_AAACMM payne_l_Page_082.pro
9a66b265d1891239b4eea6b85bfe8b15
eb0aef1940078ecaf78ffeacfccfb0d9d874a21a
1822 F20110404_AAACLX payne_l_Page_057.txt
5a53f2ebd145e4955624326129ab4cf9
46ea9f8e6eec68121ca51c8d9d6b6c98b565792a
37212 F20110404_AAACNA payne_l_Page_069.pro
6b055f8d3fff3ba13cf2fd280470af8a
09cbd29fc461aefd6af67cb6ee1cb66545b132d8
2750 F20110404_AAACMN payne_l_Page_107thm.jpg
f59a8b5c5ef85721f0862fc70a1b9ce3
78d58ab2d3657fb01ba5c0ebab4ff9775c368bd5
540193 F20110404_AAACLY payne_l_Page_042.jp2
5ea02d10ad60f4b46cb9de7a1d5cb78f
cc7a34bf310bfffcb59e51934e36d98aef0c155c
16936 F20110404_AAACNB payne_l_Page_064.QC.jpg
33b7031de5477c3b31aadf31a2b70a11
1c91b61fcd8b087a5b8db005130bda7836013415
F20110404_AAACMO payne_l_Page_033.QC.jpg
c5f4d0d62645ad1265b6470fc443d48f
62adeb0817c8be1fb1fb0db5bdd06430b63d0bbf
F20110404_AAACLZ payne_l_Page_055thm.jpg
b01d1861ddb930ab08d6c88a6d608f84
3c253601caa2af3db95d31837aa1db12d49a56f4
F20110404_AAACNC payne_l_Page_023.tif
0ff904560830d505136b9dd948b8c24b
a6a92c4d87c6d2f87a0537aad9d8ea64b57dca48
89121 F20110404_AAACMP payne_l_Page_104.pro
0e3138fd5f5565eaab474148f2b2b79b
a538265394109eefb8f1ba515c0076d23b75b907
1700 F20110404_AAACND payne_l_Page_016.txt
201f3f6867c76f018c8a9c58ec768162
435d97ab5cf1ab247c5898446a57ea78c6b16aff
1032201 F20110404_AAACNE payne_l_Page_043.jp2
b05113276df37271909e03945ba306a0
a39ec424b94a95be93b04648558ded1808e4ea95
50138 F20110404_AAACMQ payne_l_Page_070.jpg
63bc6ec7dbc2e1757a369c448f19d19f
2d3b9ba571405a504adc65ecef47f90189184d73
539 F20110404_AAACNF payne_l_Page_002thm.jpg
65071e37ff6d52ac812dd92ae463d1d7
be646c80f53eec670429709cb7950eb694c2db9a
49735 F20110404_AAACMR payne_l_Page_096.jpg
92f82a6ee3bc6131b6aba4d2fe2bfca1
d7eedc4cc362fb5d38b06a4fff9d12250dbd1623
49670 F20110404_AAACNG payne_l_Page_024.pro
6c9a7abff918a5a3441a801763220113
63577f41e1a7783b61ff6b9132e4a38b3a8c1121
2446 F20110404_AAACMS payne_l_Page_085thm.jpg
4e0b1de5d9e6accfa062b18c279fc517
564ce4005c4b0f34336ccb61fb5d60168920c6ac
1175 F20110404_AAACNH payne_l_Page_006thm.jpg
819dc81d38c91301ad99e481b1b0d834
5c06bf77a35775e8a62eed54cbe9b3b905f75d08
28689 F20110404_AAACMT payne_l_Page_115.QC.jpg
f14aefcc82ad2f775a1475769b4a7991
d8cde144b790a22f86128f9eafa293e4a014942a
25840 F20110404_AAACNI payne_l_Page_078.QC.jpg
b5159643a5a2d9e86b3a223eb8c0045c
1a4e0b518eb2336bf5f9b46e8b3315ed69b083bd
21956 F20110404_AAACMU payne_l_Page_088.jpg
908b85e9d1f6bd603ef38b27ed0d30c5
d7e53ee5c9205805633d9ffeb20c9e0b85ce43e4
F20110404_AAACNJ payne_l_Page_053.jp2
9539a698f7d2554ed8f8ffcc1d592a77
0ccbcffe61eaa7caf4daf648136cae65aa78c9f2
F20110404_AAACMV payne_l_Page_014.tif
09285cfaaa0f682f7497a0a226c61777
f9274bccdd78eea555dc0dc0c34fe1de5eeec266
46983 F20110404_AAACNK payne_l_Page_018.pro
612da3ae5a2f28f7d20558d2a96d236a
b5b9a7db0ebb7f2f840659b6feb02389a9bb9208
248453 F20110404_AAACMW payne_l_Page_109.jp2
4ac5cc45c6d382edd46becd04be0dea7
4bb9b63b8d14e54547b6fd5ddcc8f7c07d3d66a2
2014 F20110404_AAACNL payne_l_Page_015.txt
914af5ad0545c7de2f68f3071cf3bd2a
d4f6f65efb5157530d84aa7b72523f7eda953dba
2627 F20110404_AAACOA payne_l_Page_087.txt
698ab0224a8655ca120b174f36d55674
f58a377a5ed726b92558d4725ef0ca3eafcd2758
F20110404_AAACNM payne_l_Page_048thm.jpg
0afe2f36f02f37137be5e7cc0810ae4f
44295a5d353e82ff14f0ae5a689e8f0f09bc93d9
6228 F20110404_AAACMX payne_l_Page_023thm.jpg
1ce95bc38d29bdac71e4cb268029ba56
18720ffc1f5f8ccfcb8dae78b8a2ae70dc1c1366
6954 F20110404_AAACOB payne_l_Page_109.QC.jpg
de259985f7cd9f7b561c42ccaebdde1a
fc981c9920aef547d2dee5a650edcd405b416c9e
342624 F20110404_AAACNN payne_l_Page_107.jp2
4182e25200aaa8b2ddc81a9017bd2901
9f70f7bd134d0f0c9119b2ccbd4255803212bb9b
1051967 F20110404_AAACMY payne_l_Page_021.jp2
8fc709951fed5d8160ddb8c4a161be28
2902f6452bb896416ebb94d6c75808cf3e0a2fed
4619 F20110404_AAACOC payne_l_Page_060thm.jpg
aab59d9725417e0dd4b2cc6a89e30a4e
94c4900099f37c857778f93f31d539db7a0a2aa5
82420 F20110404_AAACNO payne_l_Page_040.jpg
2e88e9866e8026bbeba66fd944201eb2
cfc1a3a3c28827833f54feee89acdcca401de911
5293 F20110404_AAACMZ payne_l_Page_009thm.jpg
17fc847f21176159fa0d45f0fb2bec85
df97430439c76ac4c26dfa145c604c0f46394036
49979 F20110404_AAACOD payne_l_Page_051.pro
6be6b2362b16158e6aa17aa8cff8309b
2f06154b3b2a7072b091f6e5a4c084b7abcc95aa
84663 F20110404_AAACNP payne_l_Page_019.jpg
fd43538a2df3520abd848172d58324ff
caf85158e2e76b28a475a9fa350992bd5f516818
3412 F20110404_AAACOE payne_l_Page_090thm.jpg
c97cb6a8250a6fe20d878103607124c3
21d3e81e48cb55595b115f0bad820b1af5751465
1885 F20110404_AAACNQ payne_l_Page_052.txt
18beec63b637756cb63b660df08bf269
19494dbc9ff60d96ece7976787f7d677bfe3b332
1051812 F20110404_AAACOF payne_l_Page_095.jp2
224e6711aa43dbbff2b2e915ff2c9b5a
657d0cad15acd4bbe52a0b4ce21284da929a90a8
50132 F20110404_AAACNR payne_l_Page_053.pro
2f7d06fb1274c2830caa52891982cd5b
4639f95f0a5c2b9869ec51207396820fff12925d
872428 F20110404_AAACOG payne_l_Page_063.jp2
4ffaa591187c5fe10908c913d8587b76
54802747beb3534f368e63dbdfb21f510e11617d
2762 F20110404_AAACNS payne_l_Page_115.txt
e8edcca88b427d05b2bdb1142227c121
9899b3446c97f83808f42fe6403ec80fe418ea48
25065 F20110404_AAACOH payne_l_Page_007.pro
54549c3a9313f97472a03049bb2173cb
db5c46f9e1e1083e6df91fa206a5161e36c52f53
1565 F20110404_AAACNT payne_l_Page_063.txt
470c76c16496537392b223e93174044a
3364b3c4fe052f3fca897cb65fec5ae655a3e0ee
56199 F20110404_AAACOI payne_l_Page_099.jpg
ecfc8d0db69d8e91fd60b8c2b85a077d
3a86c5f09177a5ffa5fe8c9721df00d01dc02189
5916 F20110404_AAACNU payne_l_Page_038thm.jpg
689d3b0eaf79aa5952a7cccc526d3f3f
eea8e71a3b7bd44a762e1fbb26a70c277520e855
13656 F20110404_AAACOJ payne_l_Page_090.QC.jpg
60696a63db9022cf90b5da0797d375e3
d93621b4c18ca559842c87029abcfa73898d210e
6741 F20110404_AAACNV payne_l_Page_007.QC.jpg
bed694a804000396e9d7b7f60df3c8c7
c7a86e9bfe5c443a4b1f8bb53de07e371d99749b
85012 F20110404_AAACOK payne_l_Page_034.jpg
476f7aad6cdbf6b7870b2dd480360259
1d1efbb2d61f69967031f9d44e64b9d98f1a82b0
54557 F20110404_AAACNW payne_l_Page_026.pro
446c4e8e42522062331e0eaee3798d87
1b3a57537f6fc5c4c28627b9f1ad1554ffca3d80
24736 F20110404_AAACOL payne_l_Page_010.QC.jpg
e0c95329e9b18346b8b6a6904c2103d2
2310f32c1737c817354ac0722265d65d443d9a72
1940 F20110404_AAACNX payne_l_Page_061.txt
3044708e5a0abccab49897769e9dd141
92d88f6c1da22411ede8af7371861c45e0673e28
F20110404_AAACOM payne_l_Page_096.tif
b8377498efb55ce634286931f5ac69a3
b28175c0022d41714dce91cbb58ece3523346216
5991 F20110404_AAACPA payne_l_Page_061thm.jpg
4db74409ac2cb3bf035c84d709d010fd
4608724ded57c4f771170358663bc9e2986a5bd3
81397 F20110404_AAACON payne_l_Page_024.jpg
89f941035844e3937869bb947fef52e9
de581c960af201a43e024217275f6edb39b23860
282551 F20110404_AAACNY payne_l_Page_007.jp2
5b1704a130393ea2ba762c8767eac267
14cb239b24aec8262fbf2a926d92b295cb580488
F20110404_AAACPB payne_l_Page_022.tif
80e9639aa2992cf81e78eebfd749e09a
ba369558f5e759feff0631f0681fd2363af196c5
28295 F20110404_AAACOO payne_l_Page_114.QC.jpg
d2407939703b7064a4b15f6658840a19
9fa68a61a35b6f3e7c9cd37573fa7101b7277cc9
59230 F20110404_AAACNZ payne_l_Page_003.jpg
db9f46fa342b09990fb8b25ba4e85e8c
193bf5ebcc4e8056ce53ee0a21b2a7a8ca76d44b
29510 F20110404_AAACPC payne_l_Page_087.QC.jpg
973d7b5048c6bdd31c2405e39ab4e44f
026edd8349341f0221fe1d2c01fa741154b0f3fb
51455 F20110404_AAACOP payne_l_Page_077.pro
44a7b0cba737695562b9ebcbf72f2189
e70d0e69e7cebf36cb622f7465a7868f6e90db76
1902 F20110404_AAACPD payne_l_Page_043.txt
71b38bf2427a9b046c484a974bf6e878
d8ed1680adbe9d36fabda750762deff0ee7036c5
52722 F20110404_AAACOQ payne_l_Page_068.jpg
c902bb0638345f156119058c6e4c9f6b
7e1a7232f4c91053eb38e113cb548b5d08480006
6233 F20110404_AAACPE payne_l_Page_051thm.jpg
2ea803fe3b7f5b4bc88521df0ddce0d3
2e8598547f5719ecee5b43a9ef59095bbb1b43ba
5085 F20110404_AAACOR payne_l_Page_067thm.jpg
d767851cf9a1183d523396c24af15f1d
88f3036f2a017c8af8f1838cfb350150bda06628
62700 F20110404_AAACPF payne_l_Page_069.jpg
0725eb7cd3836286637418977f44ff21
ce387ec87975a8f7f5c428fe1d30f17c0cdbac08
F20110404_AAACOS payne_l_Page_113.tif
890264ba0879292d8d1ee144ce5c2f5d
8331883e766eb64c6d0bd2358ad00fc2535a2cc9
82335 F20110404_AAACPG payne_l_Page_080.jpg
59f056acbbe7b34757b88afde395813e
40e5efbfb1c6faa5c70a3d2276ce334105699f21
1051921 F20110404_AAACOT payne_l_Page_077.jp2
c7826ebf44368bd7b1bb608452b56078
91e6836d79d4b7005833d04d29397123bf1b37e5
1376 F20110404_AAACPH payne_l_Page_072.txt
0dccc6014908718fcac935d3c2405924
651fc7d6c3823a63cb06fe4bb073fac6b93b818c
F20110404_AAACOU payne_l_Page_018.tif
48dff18ae784abb812ba1f0053636288
10a38351ea42c58931268301f4d7425178086cd7
1951 F20110404_AAACPI payne_l_Page_036.txt
905fc9c3a7428642be959153c9820c62
57f6d1686c62baaef34cd454949b4d432ea1b7c0
4727 F20110404_AAACOV payne_l_Page_069thm.jpg
aef7f879e5bf682f00d454fe755931cd
33b82f830acc1bc664fd4b28b217deae857e4f41
F20110404_AAACPJ payne_l_Page_025.jp2
bb41a56f1902e5a45f1e2e5965c75f72
10e361dd11c7ae441db87b18b90990889cb6ac3b
4327 F20110404_AAACOW payne_l_Page_100thm.jpg
806f454d405718d4376b6d8071241dbc
b560de349f105c5d613d8af235d5dd074aacf42d
663704 F20110404_AAACPK payne_l_Page_030.jp2
830d6ed89d467ae634eafff12c0eca75
1d2608b990734be76b05eba12db926a8661954e9
4567 F20110404_AAACOX payne_l_Page_066thm.jpg
8a3b81d2cf35584163dfe1ce247dcebc
2d2604a0a788258adee80d51fa57f3b5d726e847
1768 F20110404_AAACPL payne_l_Page_009.txt
7b0efe47f3702ddc65334f097072c689
0943664698ba09685dd1f579665e2f495f979713
8732 F20110404_AAACOY payne_l_Page_031.QC.jpg
22f985e8970f6fbc6d06b5e40d05f9ce
3f13359edcfee8687be1651c36aa317fbb1449a8
F20110404_AAACQA payne_l_Page_053.tif
df19885083958fd681c9f684d5642d9c
973a59028e953a9afffff04ca21668de7def5c9b
21322 F20110404_AAACPM payne_l_Page_016.QC.jpg
f2914251e0f9257732eb78b1b9e812d6
3d517660cb1990b4f1947356ab32b1333a04a3b0
2056 F20110404_AAACQB payne_l_Page_059.txt
3133eb4722817baedc798551335d27d7
dbaac651bccbbf023ee91a377fd1d9fe02607ca4
F20110404_AAACPN payne_l_Page_036.tif
fc14c97a4c35175d68343b18c97fd2dc
9b49ead498f4e4aa58aca43555097e6770b11358
43475 F20110404_AAACOZ payne_l_Page_100.pro
960d5693090147cf32baa9a34dd73a2a
c388a78020860afb2c41e4c4579961e42b300088
76865 F20110404_AAACQC payne_l_Page_102.jpg
8b280347d7c8c045f78118954e66d3ce
38b0fdf9d15d3d2112757b97f702985d60f7f249
F20110404_AAACPO payne_l_Page_091.jp2
6b0988b30374d5dd6bbf22eb48db2f97
36f081df29cab3620c96fe7df537cafb798ae16b
F20110404_AAACQD payne_l_Page_070.tif
95b9a7615ec93416c466d72bae208a5f
be91ac47f8ec6e17c7b4f96a136a5714abb2f84c
1841 F20110404_AAACPP payne_l_Page_050.txt
f556ba01b2ad94e420106a744d02ab88
4837f2b5745a96e5170d02452ee99ad1071d4a6d
5972 F20110404_AAACQE payne_l_Page_047thm.jpg
864106c557f821f8fe2f2ebf94cdb2d3
a5cafdf451795cfe59b57a6aabab9b947ec2b11b
48380 F20110404_AAACPQ payne_l_Page_010.pro
3ca20e7551f5b7a0d5e21edfc3cf7cd4
fe2820cff2916241bf3c49eda59b7aaa20f735c6
17238 F20110404_AAACQF payne_l_Page_072.QC.jpg
9c606598d0c960730c55ce3c4795fc16
94327b845328ad63808a019fd522a600174fb408
F20110404_AAACPR payne_l_Page_008.tif
ded152ee05ad0963acf376e89e7f95f5
aa390a795f852f689ce1442b846da53398114feb
6759 F20110404_AAACQG payne_l_Page_001.QC.jpg
cee845f164ced276458ddb9f4498b09c
c12513be4656ac40ae492b747a433332138446fb
6501 F20110404_AAACPS payne_l_Page_014thm.jpg
3d78382ede7ec32a655d507ff74431aa
2a61ba28533a63b2ab05062ea48c1f41f2d10eac
84200 F20110404_AAACQH payne_l_Page_048.jpg
6b0cffcb33d1f8d141d198ad6ae7595d
c72ed8b74285cf36fda5d2c655db6306bb57be1a
4379 F20110404_AAACPT payne_l_Page_097thm.jpg
cff1b205473a65831f56d7f0a73b4729
d1bd03b6429c730a49c8f170fe6c96e4d1b6c210
F20110404_AAACQI payne_l_Page_072.tif
3c6419570251644a673b3a7558984a56
f9ad990782f1a61d15ae73881c4e2a41da3fa2a1
F20110404_AAACPU payne_l_Page_033.txt
e9621bd6bf2b2e8f56ed5959fa45d1bc
4f8e53aeba87fdfcd0ba43137ea9aedd467d8928
18890 F20110404_AAACQJ payne_l_Page_098.QC.jpg
cfed56f9a5f03069443ac60e3ab2a47a
09db8793fbec9b9fd789003f40f2f7b37db2e7d0
42235 F20110404_AAACPV payne_l_Page_086.pro
200e2f2e054e761500f70c4a1b33bd5b
acce356b781c33f8e0429af41d6b353f14e79149
26041 F20110404_AAACQK payne_l_Page_015.QC.jpg
3e8d8f468d339314a8c4c4331d782b6c
e59909f5c054c42c7de03540a976f8a8c1a547b6
F20110404_AAACPW payne_l_Page_018.txt
634fd8d634d816d7280e6e0a7e11c87d
4ac0dab652df2207b09092dd870446ac34a26cd5
25223 F20110404_AAACQL payne_l_Page_036.QC.jpg
0ed14f8ce19b1fcbc2b8062f3337a1dc
c20cb3fc84096e73ae8279491b626403a2f0f839
31139 F20110404_AAACPX payne_l_Page_005.pro
900963c3a85e254025ae486b046d0169
f90b55c9cc920675ba94d9d5f34c56317b0ba8e8
717 F20110404_AAACQM payne_l_Page_105.txt
3b3b37a00b0d23d3a067cd008c7f2414
f838e7b79ae9f0b028282ad7e7374d6248ddb949
74190 F20110404_AAACPY payne_l_Page_094.jpg
e3c32c65e57cc52433afc27d4a04cccf
9d62b98ba5737559b5d0f12e79ad3436f4f93b6b
F20110404_AAACRB payne_l_Page_004.tif
7c9f9ae6c7e9fbdabd7645392d875116
08dbb5dbcb0d2b1573c372f362d94ed5769ab186
4894 F20110404_AAACQN payne_l_Page_086thm.jpg
c34dfa1072c7cd3cca41497ba7d952e8
6c96bc063ee336dd2f4cc05efdaebd7b1f6c71af
87888 F20110404_AAACPZ payne_l_Page_026.jpg
447a9d7cfa7a638b0feeda6a5cf4fe18
8768c40364855f65e4f01796ac271542b939c4db
F20110404_AAACRC payne_l_Page_016.tif
0655f84d455eabcf3f90f19f0f02a33e
5b851343bd7ed470392ec141b941c94fde73e239
51056 F20110404_AAACQO payne_l_Page_048.pro
e35d813e2901cedde1296183647fae04
974db6f7b745ad387751d78e4b7a1d1f57ee84fa
F20110404_AAACRD payne_l_Page_024.tif
ba5b9afb8129fe0a85816a640b34e081
63da25817e5a19c05c1bb3049e25bbfdfb64fad6
50266 F20110404_AAACQP payne_l_Page_054.pro
0e758d72828f3c253d0abcdcc2431ad6
527758b76f8b40aeac53ddd8914ef33b2aec5ca7
F20110404_AAACRE payne_l_Page_026.tif
039cf4f5bf93e6955992768ab8810c2d
41ed1f70f27c67ecfa2b8633efa1e5348641f6d0
5004 F20110404_AAACQQ payne_l_Page_063thm.jpg
3adee7f176caa83d9ad2ab39d235ed0a
3f23ddc6fe9745f48fc5799469ccafeb228ea342
F20110404_AAACRF payne_l_Page_027.tif
3c950ea6116f748ac9c0159ff4ebbc7f
d949e31c07bfc4a3ad7c144b2c50ca25bf88fc1e
2023 F20110404_AAACQR payne_l_Page_081.txt
0dd9650f01d90cc1dde75994f0e54baf
9e0e319865f5fd956b4f3f50bb796a45c1961deb
F20110404_AAACRG payne_l_Page_030.tif
e1413cbe1ff2508dec9495264bf2b95d
c300bafc2879a6b44177e3ed804d2a0f44962063
F20110404_AAACQS payne_l_Page_098.jp2
c3865f1989a591bcf8f82bdefdb47514
c32b76e930b51d5cc220f5a02c7f9af71461f339
F20110404_AAACRH payne_l_Page_031.tif
d01fbe6d325dca2b275ca920c334e5c5
6905ad850a497b326fce6dac70a70614a002e06d
26699 F20110404_AAACQT payne_l_Page_059.QC.jpg
5ebdbe47de86a8aa790be1055db03ce5
98f42be467e151b521f989267deb9c087af1c347
F20110404_AAACRI payne_l_Page_044.tif
ffd5c5760aa4b5bbd2920da301981fa9
5a3d4a202c21c33515d3219ed110c3ac88c4d315
1956 F20110404_AAACQU payne_l_Page_024.txt
7b889090bf40fe27ccc755ffea125917
b6419885e9dc14bae69411bef6a1c913a8181b87
F20110404_AAACRJ payne_l_Page_058.tif
139bb95e345e94f798463d2442bc676d
aeafbde1f74d5d7e87e6c254ff042cb913bdbadc
1051971 F20110404_AAACQV payne_l_Page_019.jp2
8f6ac6c0ae57bfb9c79187084594e2cf
eddc273f8ef341d855a5b1e1e2a8fc00f25eddcb
F20110404_AAACRK payne_l_Page_060.tif
07454bac80ce0abb543dfeaf7163d51e
0d60919a03fe25165041e3128c6bcd4d5283f8ee
6456 F20110404_AAACQW payne_l_Page_077thm.jpg
18699f2af24dc73447e30c816188e5fe
00355f97406c414073a65f65962563b835887287
F20110404_AAACRL payne_l_Page_061.tif
11574b1e42d9191b73faf24ad95c3656
93cad73de68f694e10fa9f6ca8a1313a5e41cb86
25578 F20110404_AAACQX payne_l_Page_079.QC.jpg
ed8500f483b5f0b9cac5a7fb0c75e743
7cc367a76adb64dfce04df7a8cdf3dea265fe209
F20110404_AAACRM payne_l_Page_066.tif
d6ec6822f12af4cb2e5316601a5b317e
8aa7f71f2b659485c473e705fb52d2aa004199ce
186880 F20110404_AAACQY UFE0013641_00001.xml
4938ab3545340705de979fefcbf339d6
8ea83502d63cc56112c95425f08a9a2e5b6263b8
payne_l_Page_001.tif
1407 F20110404_AAACSA payne_l_Page_028.txt
ecbc7dd2a2a01ed8a707313fc258818b
ef5fc03bbff5c9d0a272878ba69c23847721f118
F20110404_AAACSB payne_l_Page_032.txt
e34d96f0a3619c82d66c284fd89d5c93
bcd503afd46b51b32a188e9f1c4bd646943b0513
F20110404_AAACRN payne_l_Page_074.tif
ab7cad6eb3a325d950852ce9e6fb0679
9f0f719aa25e21e06a155cdc867f1d2b6c4a8864
1868 F20110404_AAACSC payne_l_Page_047.txt
defd68321fef3a4b03d2623ba8b1831a
c2e3d47de455a2a9e034cd6979d6a653c5b12287
F20110404_AAACRO payne_l_Page_077.tif
3e76d1af85f2ee3492c209c51a4bf4ef
e71650a176ff9a5280842343cf0559323612c00f
1457 F20110404_AAACSD payne_l_Page_062.txt
930cd4a1c954233ca0874c4e64b5fa52
a7f8c2d487e40f57c87895ecdf16f67cf7681ebe
F20110404_AAACRP payne_l_Page_087.tif
75298e0ea092b197426ea9e3ef5b64bc
23c478cea18b4f49ff76757c194aeb5ea37a3aff
1168 F20110404_AAACSE payne_l_Page_066.txt
e8f9a684d2839e1bddfec961b1764f7a
fe46de32a07ba459a04aafb56310dfd9cfac746e
F20110404_AAACRQ payne_l_Page_090.tif
df9ce9236173df194c4179852f874ff0
da4fc7c1fe4f3a8c293f94215ae80b5054d07bac
1597 F20110404_AAACSF payne_l_Page_067.txt
f4cb5ef17cb0845dc25b9a21080ee896
0679c7b1d795ec93297983593a4d353a015ab6c0
F20110404_AAACRR payne_l_Page_101.tif
1df23764d199ea38dfac9ff91b3ba01a
d7fb9699ab3ce4afcbff134a2438f60ea06ad4d9
1682 F20110404_AAACSG payne_l_Page_068.txt
7aebb078492e053ae2880c5e03c396d8
20f72a0d9f0ebbb49033d8253f2e1d54d2f02511
F20110404_AAACRS payne_l_Page_115.tif
5e0b31b691d586c1a714189badc59778
463758a3932318ab5da91655e0706412335edc66
1476 F20110404_AAACSH payne_l_Page_069.txt
dfb00cd42c2d5a8328a9d5bde1c59abe
bbef7b5d7bbd83fa8da44fe364137eab6e94f723
460 F20110404_AAACRT payne_l_Page_001.txt
c4778c898e0a7087540978c53a2f8b48
6943ee961781f3baf734d8816298cd2269af491e
1464 F20110404_AAACSI payne_l_Page_070.txt
cd46c9008b71a2afc66f9206c146a23c
cbfd73c614684b5f223998e9f201587a43b6b30f
1075 F20110404_AAACRU payne_l_Page_007.txt
db35bafa2b23d8b062eb02c3c25a4b3c
1058bd99af8351466a4c707bef54bfcdab81c826
1828 F20110404_AAACSJ payne_l_Page_071.txt
34712ee11634a9a04a5fccc0680948f3
4f26562a8aa33a4b7494326c8e7c67bcede52e35
2107 F20110404_AAACRV payne_l_Page_012.txt
0a184bec04a352c6cc03a2f269e5da8d
8696de680cbee4273967fe85319d92acfa4a1230
2101 F20110404_AAACSK payne_l_Page_076.txt
03fd84b5f628f1a82d8923f338f0b1e2
769acc4ad96d8d94180fe1f63000b448a0316d14
2050 F20110404_AAACRW payne_l_Page_019.txt
7747ebea168c037aeab0a7523602a76a
1af5213acbef3844e67b8da8fd254fe575801783
2025 F20110404_AAACSL payne_l_Page_077.txt
5d41123faeee0d1648f571fdb0121e59
68043b7e4ebfe0dd7c9e57c3111a0e73299fd1b1
F20110404_AAACRX payne_l_Page_021.txt
3e79b7c419a1e99570a89f8d3c8d052c
e7ac54bf57bcbe3eabc830e218392bb7857beb70
47864 F20110404_AAACTA payne_l_Page_033.pro
ebd9b5086122d1955e63d45bb56af588
b2ded03ac2f69732af20c6cc27c06dae9de18204
920 F20110404_AAACSM payne_l_Page_085.txt
57fb469a7dc01857b908a0418dcb2a3b
83290fd9e0f2065e979da079e1178f516331a936
2035 F20110404_AAACRY payne_l_Page_022.txt
4c36081097d5f1e465fdd34ad810a78d
166fed15f9e544ad740c4cf94abaf906d02cab5f
51804 F20110404_AAACTB payne_l_Page_035.pro
2e36dca46400d5fa445823824fa3598a
05c102ca6bd413b66790931c64cade443356f798
2744 F20110404_AAACSN payne_l_Page_094.txt
a359bd142e41c14e760fcee4d135f4e1
dad8aa9d044c76ff295deaeca859a0a329413bd3
1970 F20110404_AAACRZ payne_l_Page_023.txt
e05df0d99203a1551b112e16c9d61f30
8b2074b8ca9eb4ba2e44e88f858cc25ba54cad07
52556 F20110404_AAACTC payne_l_Page_037.pro
f11e01a4c829ef5b4b0ac2c791dfc0ba
51a356fb1dae0f0ac03a1fea25ba8945cd42d84b
3685 F20110404_AAACSO payne_l_Page_098.txt
98ba97ed419b7e6b3fb0c3b6321d655b
46c49134b442b7b5770cbda202484371fbe922c7
23706 F20110404_AAACTD payne_l_Page_042.pro
acfeffe2e1b7f66384715fe41d179039
efa916f8ad3bd04f3e9ef66b51def2539ee4e40b
2186 F20110404_AAACSP payne_l_Page_101.txt
90de0bdc88929fd30da6d7d90638b198
7b548ad6ca27e9dbe1d0d33fa93e732c0522a179
47302 F20110404_AAACTE payne_l_Page_047.pro
dbbda292309af9b02549a7ae8515c109
279b314fc56e7abc02d1632a95c1357a46fdd334
3548 F20110404_AAACSQ payne_l_Page_104.txt
facbfcf8e47223225889359d88b5042d
9e8cc498665af3051405b3d29385b293d06993ab
49011 F20110404_AAACTF payne_l_Page_055.pro
5dd80d64c23ee4c9f0dafa72682a8840
b1f04f260e6395675c53e656e46cec076a3d69b1
801 F20110404_AAACSR payne_l_Page_107.txt
1fe13893fb30eebf9540f061db9a28c3
c4c8eb7f35b757e9a4af817b86a27ce2b2fba07a
50306 F20110404_AAACTG payne_l_Page_056.pro
c5ecee6d1662dc0a7b27bab2353b1b8b
c0c752c4dea0116ba5a33b2577a06602f50d013a
429 F20110404_AAACSS payne_l_Page_108.txt
c945daff31dc31a5adce85aa9039fd02
399351b9ba028446c29a288e6d5ac6eb0ee79ec9
44145 F20110404_AAACTH payne_l_Page_057.pro
9df2033959a14d65a7dc5495be786de2
deabeea9e23338bada943cc4b299a1c4c70159e5
793 F20110404_AAACST payne_l_Page_109.txt
6c38d373a247d9d7c69ac2ccbe945898
94a4e53b803db2140a58409ed9e6faaf770f1d51
27182 F20110404_AAACTI payne_l_Page_066.pro
d8c002626de672f6f0bb63fc61380e03
968b5110e84b9e9cbc58a3cfeed63bf48717a75e
2684 F20110404_AAACSU payne_l_Page_113.txt
9437d18886cf52211569c19736078034
e78424574a3b1a1153d668d3477ab5dac00198d9
29558 F20110404_AAACTJ payne_l_Page_070.pro
f9feadc0d3524b6bfd43e7d499ae65ae
7046b768b4be912787fbb0f303c725fd69a3f583
8466 F20110404_AAACSV payne_l_Page_001.pro
6695635a78dd8302b7b7879482167357
b3ecf6de1feba784ab062802d3a421826220c322
46278 F20110404_AAACTK payne_l_Page_071.pro
c7adafaf8516e8fe596c9d752ca3a9cb
4c3dcceb67f83b80a18945b4ff6e7d8b1b88099b
23577 F20110404_AAACSW payne_l_Page_008.pro
4cd3dcbde70a1e8c819aa74a01e7e401
c3e141a77bfdd579c4587ffb582b5f19ee927f2b
41766 F20110404_AAACTL payne_l_Page_073.pro
39f9313b644ca5366056f3a25cf7770e
82cde1260aee531e6e98ef0703db5d6d11cd5d1b
50619 F20110404_AAACSX payne_l_Page_011.pro
772a6a85cca0d15fbc61d4e7f9da97bd
6bf1de4c6bf1969bf393928688acf02412d2ad4c
50601 F20110404_AAACTM payne_l_Page_080.pro
a0d77ffc16a23a3790996578e0831ade
95b26bb722ffac78cf1953349d7c75f057ce366f
50622 F20110404_AAACSY payne_l_Page_025.pro
d11d7e82ef91e3b6a6f90ffc1d9c4422
6eae4722092a968d53dafbcd49f2c2b53b6d3193
27139 F20110404_AAACUA payne_l_Page_035.QC.jpg
cc4de7d72c874277467e3f903016e210
3cc9d855bc4294710635decb58e1da8b3bf3ba0d
50650 F20110404_AAACTN payne_l_Page_081.pro
ad2c791e8775bcb3bcd052d0982de1f2
fe2fe8c91182dcdaf712a7ee6d828ea119efd783
29358 F20110404_AAACSZ payne_l_Page_029.pro
1d6b07182514d84dec9bddf39e60581c
7b2221aa3b6843d0b8a4968103b0853e49c8073c
85947 F20110404_AAACUB payne_l_Page_037.jpg
6a15dc09226f861b53d810f5b0792e03
9dabf4be2b4972464eb75598d3d3230716bb1b20
51383 F20110404_AAACTO payne_l_Page_083.pro
6bae52e6f60a490b15e3abdda6f3369c
d3a493eae3774c061ed849dd70328edac6e1d0ed
80574 F20110404_AAACUC payne_l_Page_038.jpg
28daeedaff3a4e51c18f590f2b2b6d16
0dc3ef9ef8b556891c1b2879d534df5672c903ac
65380 F20110404_AAACTP payne_l_Page_087.pro
bf9cbec72376560df255b1e88fa53332
444604ffacbe70d5753cdfeaa5d118ddf8130623
23762 F20110404_AAACUD payne_l_Page_043.QC.jpg
3536831a9df1fa8f22867cc71526229f
d367d18aa87737479ca7f140b690a1c4e72e90db
30762 F20110404_AAACTQ payne_l_Page_089.pro
2903d610742af5e55412e898c5523e20
e9ca24747609554098a483147b2b532b9d37a3f6
26167 F20110404_AAACUE payne_l_Page_045.QC.jpg
f395908516f4d54acb79832c7ae7a47e
2fe4fa84998d85ec9e6c35d6a64d1eb049c23bc6
20383 F20110404_AAACTR payne_l_Page_093.pro
d1365e7b9715c135854191200155b44d
ef9c769f99b5e9f989e1668626d0f0e9a7b97860
83300 F20110404_AAACUF payne_l_Page_051.jpg
3175e82763e528b4276c4851e148ec8d
38c3164117b91051d129423e5a24ea1879c3e0d3
46467 F20110404_AAACTS payne_l_Page_102.pro
cda9d9e5b921cef614f2024b2aefe30e
e6d5a1d55d5ee4ff246d4f4f4a22531f6bb26598
26068 F20110404_AAACUG payne_l_Page_054.QC.jpg
56a9d358472ab2b3f25dcba5e060a61c
f2a58410a7200970b189130728c4dd9739b2c8fe
8483 F20110404_AAACTT payne_l_Page_116.pro
4df4a1741ecbaa4c0e7637a189a0ec05
50dd3f081779153cc4808bcc8e9298dbf23677b7
23459 F20110404_AAACUH payne_l_Page_055.QC.jpg
e5c55eb3299535eb96870a413ae0fca3
ef6f2d559b2488937114ac21c26d46d2b31ef646
1451 F20110404_AAACTU payne_l_Page_002.QC.jpg
5cb4666ace275edd2669a295bcf2ee22
241a6d5513470ab16d6cef6622b1a604847b700e
25791 F20110404_AAACUI payne_l_Page_056.QC.jpg
5d911c7d42789d67781226a8fcbc86b2
d593b8145d3c1a22c3b91d5164318c03faf9c3fd
38975 F20110404_AAACTV payne_l_Page_005.jpg
8ff37d4bfde5d355ac6403f11aad5941
2f582fb5748bf6953aef3ae3e81a3e4f72ad6233
51786 F20110404_AAACUJ payne_l_Page_062.jpg
74d039048cd8fec9d244ba5e8ce8116b
ddb672ea2dfe42d5eb34cdd8947b779698f555ec
83802 F20110404_AAACTW payne_l_Page_011.jpg
c10e67784837148863bd06c3fc13dcd9
9d703a298238f0bd369b7edbb116b9ac52b872be
20729 F20110404_AAACUK payne_l_Page_065.QC.jpg
7679c4b1afd2de78bded723839dc3342
737bac4a8f65266791b2b73931add517c22fe328
85992 F20110404_AAACTX payne_l_Page_014.jpg
cfac5531f47d189f3bb247a7d4e62786
9c96ed8958ddd8c517ccfa52d3587da45a3cae72
664730 F20110404_AAABRJ payne_l_Page_068.jp2
3fb32e984471ccfb34600d5ab2b2bf53
d70d907a840a866075fbc0f7bf639c35df8c7491
24088 F20110404_AAACUL payne_l_Page_071.QC.jpg
c23e40bb34859859333b2a61c4d16a08
4a1ad9650264f1ca9bd5c8044c34b785cb12f099
25132 F20110404_AAACTY payne_l_Page_024.QC.jpg
48221d0c39489e97f53ffbc0492b652b
f319bca590b662fe1767399e7e352ea9fad39969
106529 F20110404_AAACVA payne_l_Page_112.jpg
0253370aca547e477d4f2204d768bb4e
d5dbfeac2373c17c13b20ac833fbb4593339a027
66669 F20110404_AAABRK payne_l_Page_114.pro
dac4a08aaffb4d711b66c0deaeee2de7
585d2f04c5d2342f8105651e787bfd21499c43d3
83424 F20110404_AAACUM payne_l_Page_077.jpg
de122a8dfb38567552172b117c065603
56a0dbcc4abb044af51adb9cbd33f3a887efdbc2
26873 F20110404_AAACTZ payne_l_Page_032.QC.jpg
73f6f8d07ba4ce3dd8d09585c26f9bd0
3c3610705917bae2287f97d236e2c03779c63b26
28604 F20110404_AAACVB payne_l_Page_112.QC.jpg
02b45a5031b01480784160a1d907d029
85381973a5efbfef80fa51c75c43bc395c1be7a1
2161 F20110404_AAABRL payne_l_Page_110.txt
323dd2b821c33a987a421fac446b0f41
3f5b498a652fb63e11adff9add674dde27a509b4
83355 F20110404_AAACUN payne_l_Page_079.jpg
7803f9a08049c57ca4b824c1c5a1b096
645c96e13ab6ed3001f4aaca87db37b7286984ae
24311 F20110404_AAABSA payne_l_Page_108.jpg
2f8595bb4451faa3c6a0a613d29e3ff0
dd98941b5c41b078466d7b50b050de346880e993
108462 F20110404_AAACVC payne_l_Page_113.jpg
a4f29b4d57ca2f73c05182daa4a1e4ac
3b81bd0c32cf5104523e6bd29801d1d663f6e486
F20110404_AAABRM payne_l_Page_041.tif
9af94fa68057dca7f360cf71beac16c2
cac4c569c90be165fdc7e095f8790d8f39ab1615
26303 F20110404_AAACUO payne_l_Page_081.QC.jpg
8cb50616a5bff9a836125f08c022824a
0b8ca919b044ef89cbf19f81d8ffc01a2632d2be
80525 F20110404_AAABSB payne_l_Page_020.jpg
cdac96e00edf0f9e14542d1b09c8dd02
c2599e79543980d10e9b8c044bf0d8a6eba99b21
106573 F20110404_AAACVD payne_l_Page_114.jpg
46273123033885e15837f14980ecf571
560a1d14938cb29e702d238bb1fde976606fc1f9
23743 F20110404_AAABRN payne_l_Page_044.QC.jpg
a4a34fb58a86decf4173b09b392c8a7f
4c4c35a377b85a91390c9d15af097328d76f7ec1
24079 F20110404_AAACUP payne_l_Page_082.QC.jpg
c75e308342f3d2c9de21671ba7718dcc
ab322c5d8ccbe858f7a4ff40f7b4ec10e85b2a33
78818 F20110404_AAABSC payne_l_Page_033.jpg
3b9c7156021b0f384b2a63a5bd4115e3
48ad0c03d68f783ecce64918438528868c92a510
860912 F20110404_AAACVE payne_l_Page_004.jp2
afe96bd89923849ea30f1bcda2a53247
ac7564af176805618b26705ce31252832c630665
F20110404_AAABRO payne_l_Page_040.jp2
07d9b25491caaf95882dbac2b1011fde
c67fbccdbe6475ab5314fbd680e67a1b42f0f562
113898 F20110404_AAACUQ payne_l_Page_087.jpg
3381c22608c3b498d71b6b29f63457ba
d414df13c4105fb58d0f4c51921429f1d890ca0f
13343 F20110404_AAABSD payne_l_Page_042.QC.jpg
5b1ac7d9add329237e3a5756fa928ea3
ebfe36a346f6b0232ba6d20775787e44060c94b6
133929 F20110404_AAACVF payne_l_Page_006.jp2
b4fd00f684c79e4921f381c7e1e6b302
a6eed3a3029e362577d2a67156ceb32bfb43a237
1051902 F20110404_AAABRP payne_l_Page_097.jp2
af47f9fcf472e3f0733b8b8b2939b378
536c9a2d82382dd50551296cf5314544dc9d3794
18991 F20110404_AAACUR payne_l_Page_094.QC.jpg
0bbcbc71996a4227e7703cb1ac6d81ae
95f3d15195f9551e7ab965904cf955698fbfd076
1882 F20110404_AAABSE payne_l_Page_075.txt
d00702f4a9e7077aa13f13a2401f799c
0c4eecdb5f976b26648bce51b3641fd619da9578
1051923 F20110404_AAACVG payne_l_Page_014.jp2
b510c49a07830e218fdca403fc9090b4
75c88f2e29884ee4d2e2fbaff8bbf27acab421e9
F20110404_AAABRQ payne_l_Page_078.tif
b8894c925c90373a128907b07ec8792c
611c0a39f486b3fe6a6176b96a3a02ce5a566448
64790 F20110404_AAACUS payne_l_Page_095.jpg
c12e40cc29714adf56b25cdbe860f1d4
4b25ae66665f4fe1e4ebbe2e2434990d2a7396e3
57517 F20110404_AAABSF payne_l_Page_101.jpg
77cd3830e0600cd14d4c0946300105b2
74ee70c4e305f8bbd7114220bcb9a1741dd594d2
919735 F20110404_AAACVH payne_l_Page_016.jp2
69f35a3ad37b30f41a764cdf46b52d8d
109765bf465a2f8ff44053e8954dd24285a47c02
33300 F20110404_AAABRR payne_l_Page_085.jpg
646990980c34e6dec034c451d345f595
54c0a0c47ba3829c7b2e2c327b67b0b9fec8fc89
13609 F20110404_AAACUT payne_l_Page_096.QC.jpg
b3e47c08b7271f7a4d46978be522496d
5a5745ee6e598dd06d56b14a8d898cc308ea0851
F20110404_AAABSG payne_l_Page_114.jp2
62bb080016e49b6da7af6c506907d02b
d9386c6a463fdf00a6f7ec6179efa7e8da83c411
1046353 F20110404_AAACVI payne_l_Page_018.jp2
b5e21088c0e4c01600e10e4f5a93b67b
dc353d86c7e51b8abdb157976e077a6e7a6e3ca5
21180 F20110404_AAABRS payne_l_Page_009.QC.jpg
cbe82968f20d83e609fa2b911fc87216
f61c557344eb4d82222f4009437f71b9113480b6
17344 F20110404_AAACUU payne_l_Page_097.QC.jpg
a904319f8cda176d615f86e0bd275934
144a4ea89c836b16d909294dc023171d8abf2f03
F20110404_AAABSH payne_l_Page_086.tif
aa6dea2f1333e8aca8126c4ddace7437
22d9d53400b276a3de528f51519e790b5a0a77e4
1051911 F20110404_AAACVJ payne_l_Page_023.jp2
c98e6b0f983a04ac9cc6320181884250
0e950fa8c8440ae1cc22169ba9d3ea887d62b7ec
F20110404_AAABRT payne_l_Page_028.tif
06949b944be4efe9dff90271a6d942fb
2e73d37eb7d1e4abd8cd8a720c743f9e7163ee13
56545 F20110404_AAACUV payne_l_Page_100.jpg
c2cc2da2fdce91170ea91750d0add15e
fd7cc028c4669a8369f5aa61b408effc4dcff47a
48809 F20110404_AAABSI payne_l_Page_038.pro
9248e3869cddc1f78152f1b5535847fb
16fb562addf27409aa7654ef5a6161615bba6ac0
696432 F20110404_AAACVK payne_l_Page_028.jp2
093efc8c4a1111911aeaa2f731c8d53c
336da4ddb240ecf08510d0821af39cf1491e39a8
20863 F20110404_AAABRU payne_l_Page_085.pro
e5d74f10950f1109a258c419e1e0fe58
6acecc164e4166c5d2fddb30f6befbe1e3f5d271
24040 F20110404_AAACUW payne_l_Page_102.QC.jpg
65d70c1018de2996e3f0647d5ba93b60
0e43da2f08805dc52df2f4b607c9f5e2de4cc699
354760 F20110404_AAACWA payne_l_Page_105.jp2
c1adabbcc1d9047a3bacfe4f56889a98
162c42f05529f82c31376b3a59b65f09b4d0d008
1916 F20110404_AAABSJ payne_l_Page_082.txt
a3df57584623218c285a04445c2c2592
370ea6b22dce5f654c51d4a88d581bceccc8dc1f
1051916 F20110404_AAACVL payne_l_Page_035.jp2
d7bbd173ee3b8e206d3fe6905f8fff03
a554c99ab32e31f1ee78e8076f0ffd3191000290
1150 F20110404_AAABRV payne_l_Page_093.txt
b11772ddb156659fabf93d038d459c16
5c0013d3400b60e7e21d7bfabf703394b2657c0a
29302 F20110404_AAACUX payne_l_Page_107.jpg
41016e90fbad74fa25b945dfc1b53d7a
d1a0619bab2abb9826c6495d6558ab47653a661e
6231 F20110404_AAABSK payne_l_Page_012thm.jpg
d8471f7940baa5f89736a31ddbddc467
0e62a7f4fb5f7db50e0519ba9200e2c4a8a315e7
972688 F20110404_AAACVM payne_l_Page_057.jp2
62a05ba530ea97b4b4f5ce7bfce5e409
8e780b75fb8e04b01a161a923aadd524ec75e4f3
86892 F20110404_AAABRW payne_l_Page_049.jpg
9cb7f8aee795ef5704c40e6217ac6182
603b2ee4eea02445f06bbd2c9792d16ebc9d191a
23861 F20110404_AAACUY payne_l_Page_110.QC.jpg
a4ee30dbc16fa56b8daffae26822e745
a5c475e897e80e2e257f4cff59d128179f826772
268015 F20110404_AAACWB payne_l_Page_108.jp2
cc0c85496a2c6f51fd53ccdfba61db9f
cfe8bba38a095d8d1edd880f52f727c19fe509f4
2036 F20110404_AAABSL payne_l_Page_078.txt
3f7140b0bef4ee5c03c9a6ba015267c2
3af86765a34d5f38ca99acf6a14f41eedad4a2a8
642171 F20110404_AAACVN payne_l_Page_060.jp2
8f9fc612d3a16d7007612467eeec238c
7df85d78cad087e03d23460b2639993a1ba85b21
53255 F20110404_AAABRX payne_l_Page_064.jpg
505c52035a697faed73d1b9d9e84f23d
fc47ef2899546c3542ae7b74cf15e98113b09fce
28956 F20110404_AAACUZ payne_l_Page_111.QC.jpg
65d50371312c2679fe077d626d52ba7c
3171698d59eab43f30751bbb538d4cbecfa907d8
F20110404_AAACWC payne_l_Page_011thm.jpg
fa70ec2fde9957368348b41762a834d2
0b03d42d7b9984a81f9a590ffab4b2f2a93e4fd4
F20110404_AAABSM payne_l_Page_053.txt
4ea117bd22c54c3df0cf8a271dfe0cbe
7c943ac461522aaeb3c37972a228434aeed6339f
875032 F20110404_AAACVO payne_l_Page_065.jp2
9ed435ed0d0e963c97ecfe65e9b5b7f9
873b4f29fe80190db25dde09a59e48945dd276cb
2959 F20110404_AAABRY payne_l_Page_030thm.jpg
3883b865bfa3911cbfa450b9b3f63f2e
b7786f95b377a5151889831a4311cb1a64e94f7e
1993 F20110404_AAABTA payne_l_Page_011.txt
297789dbee4cc0c626515790767ce255
a5419c067458b1cf5a28c956deb9fc2695ff7834
6095 F20110404_AAACWD payne_l_Page_020thm.jpg
cee3352e160aa2b2807d24b0b4bd8595
387c15c894bc0be61c302c7f020f875fc1124019
932757 F20110404_AAACVP payne_l_Page_073.jp2
da86652bf59317a116751061ec6c0176
497bb526d53217d3ea3547aa171bf698ed21854d
83634 F20110404_AAABSN payne_l_Page_083.jpg
76469acd81904b200bd06f40052412ec
9d3bce7b5ce1dd4d43b3fc17d6fe73b35098b0fd
51038 F20110404_AAABRZ payne_l_Page_022.pro
7723855eb30644a8e1bd2a5d64df5371
2981b04c6c6288e3d7b3c0f615fc6297526c39ac
53014 F20110404_AAABTB payne_l_Page_012.pro
19b48d529e8491743146e0506f10b90a
15e9614abcfaa182c17314b49bf320d1ec1d54d0



PAGE 1

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVORIAL ASSESSMENT: BASING INTERVENTION ON FUNCTION IN SCHOOL SETTINGS By LINDA DONICA PAYNE A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Linda Donica Payne

PAGE 3

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vi LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Scope of Problem Behavior in the School....................................................................1 Functional Behavior Assessment..................................................................................4 Functional Analysis......................................................................................................7 Brief Functional Analysis.............................................................................................8 Analog Analyses....................................................................................................8 Naturalistic Analyses.............................................................................................8 Purpose of Study...........................................................................................................8 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................................................10 Clinical Settings..........................................................................................................11 Functional Behavioral Assessm ent Studies in the Clinic....................................11 Functional Analysis Studies in the Clinic...........................................................13 School Settings...........................................................................................................14 Functional Behavioral Asse ssment Studies in Schools.......................................14 Brief Functional Analysis in School Settings......................................................18 Analog Conditions......................................................................................................24 Hypothesis Derived Conditions..................................................................................26 Studies Specific to Function-Based Interventions......................................................27 3 METHOD...................................................................................................................35 Participants and Setting..............................................................................................36 Setting..................................................................................................................36 Participants..........................................................................................................36 Criteria..........................................................................................................36 Participant Descriptions...............................................................................37 Target Behaviors.................................................................................................39

PAGE 4

iv Replacement Behaviors.......................................................................................40 Process..........................................................................................................41 Functional Behavior Assessment........................................................................41 Brief Functional Analysis....................................................................................42 Direct Observations of Target Behavior..............................................................42 Interobserver Reliability......................................................................................43 Social Validity.....................................................................................................44 Experimental Procedures............................................................................................44 Intervention plans................................................................................................44 Experimental Design...........................................................................................47 Treatment Fidelity...............................................................................................48 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................49 Julie.......................................................................................................................... ...50 Phase One............................................................................................................50 FBA..............................................................................................................50 Brief FA........................................................................................................51 Phase Two...........................................................................................................52 Amy............................................................................................................................54 Phase One............................................................................................................54 FBA..............................................................................................................54 Brief FA........................................................................................................55 Phase Two...........................................................................................................56 Brian.......................................................................................................................... .58 Phase One............................................................................................................58 FBA..............................................................................................................58 Brief FA........................................................................................................59 Phase Two...........................................................................................................60 Barry.......................................................................................................................... .62 Phase One............................................................................................................62 FBA..............................................................................................................62 Brief FA........................................................................................................63 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................67 Preamble.....................................................................................................................67 Implications................................................................................................................68 Extension of the Literature.........................................................................................70 Limitations..................................................................................................................71 Generalization.............................................................................................................72 Design Limitations......................................................................................................72 Directions for Future Research...................................................................................73 Conclusions.................................................................................................................75

PAGE 5

v APPENDIX A IRB PERMISSION.....................................................................................................77 B PBS SCHOOL-WIDE EVAULATION TOOL (SET)...............................................82 C REQUEST ASSISTANCE FORM.............................................................................91 D FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST FOR TEACHERS AND STAFF (FACTS).....................................................................................................................93 E FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSE SSMENT OBSERVATION FORM............97 F BRIEF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS PA RTIAL INTERVAL DATA FORM..........98 G BRIEF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OPPO RTUNITIES TO RESPOND DATA FORM.........................................................................................................................99 H EXPERIMENT PARTIAL INTERVAL DATA FORM..........................................100 I EXPERIMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO RESPOND DATA FORM.......................101 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................102 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................108

PAGE 6

vi LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 Studies Using Brief Functional Analysis in Schools...............................................20 2 Subjects Target and Replacement Behaviors..........................................................41 3 Subjects Functions & Interventions........................................................................47

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 Brief FA Results for Julie.........................................................................................52 2 Results of Experimental Analysis for Julie..............................................................54 3 Brief FA Results for Amy........................................................................................56 4 Results of Experimental Analysis for Amy..............................................................58 5 Brief FA Results for Brian.......................................................................................60 6 Results of Experimental Analysis for Brian.............................................................62 7 Brief FA Results for Barry.......................................................................................64 8 Results of Experimental Analysis for Barry............................................................66

PAGE 8

viii Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy FUNCTIONAL BEHAVORIAL ASSESSMENT: BASING INTERVENTION ON FUNCTION IN SCHOOL SETTINGS By Linda Donica Payne August 2006 Chair: Terry Scott Cochair: James McLeskey Major Department: Special Education This study investigated the efficiency and efficacy of function indicated interventions compared to traditional interven tion that were not based on the function of challenging behaviors for four elementary sc hool students with mild disabilities using Functional Behavioral Assessment. Behavi oral interventions based on functional behavioral assessment were found to be more effective than alternative interventions across all four subjects. Impli cations, study limitations, and futu re research directions are discussed.

PAGE 9

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this first chapter is threef old. First, the scope of problem behavior in the school setting as it aff ects both students present and fu ture lives and the lives of those who work with them will be presen ted. Second, an assessment strategy based on determining the function of problem behavi or for the purpose of creating intervention plans that both discourage inappropriate behavior and encourage an appropriate replacement behavior will be outlined. Lastl y, questions of concern for this study are presented. Scope of Problem Behavior in the School Although most students maintain successful conduct in public sc hool settings, some develop problem behaviors that are deemed in appropriate and that jeopardize the quality of their education. While positive social in teraction with peers and teachers is problematic for some of these students, others simply have difficulty with basic school rules and procedures such as walking in line, raising their hand to receive assistance, or participating in class discussions. What ever the topography or nature might be, inappropriate behavior in schools often pres ents both a safety concern and a loss of learning time for both the student and his or he r peers in the environment. To be certain, these students require effective intervention if they are to successfully matriculate through the public school system. In schools today, teachers express frustrati on with traditional discipline strategies and believe that such strategies are not eff ective in managing inappropriate behaviors in

PAGE 10

2 school settings. In fact, a recent survey re ports that teachers rank managing classroom behavior as their foremost conc ern and feel that their prepar ation was inadequate (Miller, McKenna, & McKenna, 1998). Many teachers t oday believe they do not have the strategies they need to manage extreme cases of inappropriate behavior (Bender & Mathes, 1995). Although teachers report feeli ng some sense of inadequacy in planning lessons, teaching content, and utilizing appropriate instruct ional strategies, the same cannot be said for controlling student behavior and implementing a system of discipline, which appears to be a major obstacle to provi ding effective instruction (Miller, McKenna, & McKenna, 1998). The challenge of educating todays students involves teaching content in the midst of an information and technology explosion and with students who sometimes display alarmingly inappropriate behavior, disrupting the learning process for all students. For the teacher, the results of these behavior patterns are wasted instructional time and energy, which must be redirected away fr om content instruction because of those behaviors. Extreme cases of school violence are widely publicized in the media. In a recent survey, the National Center for In jury Prevention and Control (www.cdc.gov/ncipc ) reported the majority of violent incidents in schools to be homicides, involving the use of firearms. While the total numb er of incidents has decrease d over the last decade, the number of multiple victim events has increa sed, receiving expanded coverage from news sources. In 1998, the U.S. Secretary of E ducation issued a report compiled by an impressive task force of national experts ( Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools) which recommended that efforts be initiated to respond to cases of

PAGE 11

3 violence, but that the real solution lies in pr eventative efforts to build and maintain safe school climates. Classroom disruptions are much more pervas ive than isolated incidents of extreme violence, consuming huge amounts of instruc tional time and educator energy. It is understandable that teachers sometimes get ca ught up in the trap of reactive responding to problem student behavior and even enga ging in power struggles. These disruptions also distract other students, impeding the le arning process for both the student displaying the disruptive behavior and, of ten, innocent bystanders (other students in the class). Many times these problems can be predicted by time, location, and context, allowing teachers to proactively plan for prevention and, failing that, effective intervention. Whether the problem behavior is extrem ely disruptive or just mildly annoying, school outcomes, in both social and academic contexts, are bleak for students identified with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD). Th e U. S. Department of Education reported in 1998 that students with EBD had the highe st dropout rate of any defined group of students. Also, poor academic and social performances have been documented for students with EBD. In a longitudinal study, st udents with EBD started first grade at a higher academic level than students with learni ng disorders (LD) but by the end of fourth grade had fallen significantly behind (Ande rson, Kutash, & Duchnowski, 2001). Societal problems for students with EBD include employ ment difficulties, homelessness, criminal justice system involvement, and adult relationship problems (Anderson, Kutash, & Duchnowski, 2001). Students experiencing behavi or problems in schools are logically atrisk for eventual EBD identification and pot ential negative outcomes as well. The urgency of the need for effective interven tions, coupled with the difficulty teachers

PAGE 12

4 experience in dealing with students problematic behavior serves to highlight the need for effective methods of addressing problema tic student behavior in schools today. Historically, school discipline has been reactive, simply waiting for problems to occur and then applying punitive procedures (Colvin, Sugai, & Kameenui, 1993). This has left students to discover appropriat e ways of behaving th rough a trial-and-error process. However, because repeated failures do not constitute eff ective instruction, many students simply give up. Using wh at is known about the nature and context of behavior to intervene in school environments can lower the prevalence of antisocial behavior and support the promotion and maintenance of socially valid behaviors (Biglan, 1995). Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is an assessment strategy that informs effective intervention and is promising for use in school settings to facilitate the replacement of current punitive discipline methods that ha ve become common practice despite their ineffectiveness (Hendrickson, Ga ble, Conroy, Fox, & Smith, 1999). Functional Behavior Assessment While functional behavior intervention plan s discourage inappropriate behavior, the main focus is on teaching, encouraging, and reinforcing appropriate behavior. FBA is an element of Positive Behavior Supports (PBS), an approach involving the application of school-wide systems and interventions to achie ve socially valid ch anges in behavior (Sugai et al., 2000). Although PB S was initially developed as an option to aversive interventions with students with significant disabilities who engaged in extreme forms of self-injury and aggression, the application has been expanded to a widening range of students and their environments (Sugai et al., 2000). PBS can be defined as a behaviorally-based systems approach that li nks research-validated practices to teaching and learning environments (Suga i et al., 2000). Thus, it is pro active rather than reactive.

PAGE 13

5 The goal of PBS is to eliminate problem behaviors using a three-level system: the universal (school-wide) level for all students, the secondary (at-risk) level for students displaying some problem behavi ors, and the individual stud ent (for the most intense needs) level with students for whom unive rsal and targeted systems have been insufficient to facilitate success (Lewis & S ugai, 1999). At the sec ondary and individual student levels FBA is used for students with both mild and severe problem behaviors. The Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabiliti es Education Act (IDEA), 1997, maintains provisions that ad dress this issue in two ways. First, for students with an Individual Educational Plan (IEP), positive behavioral intervention strategies and supports must be included in instances wh ere behavior impedes the learning of the student or others (P. L. 105-17, Section 614). Second, if a student with such a plan is suspended from school and an FBA resulting in the implementation of a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) has not been conducted, an IEP meeting must be held to develop such a plan (P. L. 105-17, Section 615). T hus, FBA has been mandated for schools in these narrowly defined circumstances and, as a result, school pers onnel have broadened its use to include students cons idered at-risk for emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD), such as students who chroni cally demonstrate difficult a nd challenging behavior at school. FBA is a systematic method of gatheri ng information about behavior and its relationship with the environment in which it o ccurs. Its goal is to identify the function or purpose that behavior serves for the student under specific envir onmental conditions. A basic tenet of FBA is that when the function of a behavior is iden tified, an appropriate replacement behavior can be taught and interventions effect ively tailored to address the

PAGE 14

6 distinct needs of the individual in the context in whic h behavior occurs (Iwata et al., 2000; Jolivette, Scott, & Nelson, 2000; Sco tt & Nelson, 1999b). The nature and amount of information gathered in conducting FB A is dependent upon the severity of the students behavior problems. In its simplest form, data collection might involve indirect methods such as structured interviews, ch ecklists, or reviews of student records (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002; Crone & Horner, 2003; Kerr & Nelson, 2002). When problem behaviors are more complex or dangerous, data collection likely will include direct observation of student behavior in na tural settings (Crone & Horner, 2003; ONeill et al., 1997). From these data, the function of behavior is determined and interventions are developed that teach and encourage func tionally equivalent replacement behaviors. Based on well-established principles of be havior theory, FBA is predicated on the notion that behavior is elicited or signaled by environmental events or antecedents and is reinforced by environmental consequences (Alberto & Troutma n, 1999; Miltenberger, 2004; Skinner, 1953; Skinner, 1974). Thus, knowledge of antecedents and consequences enables the prediction of beha vior and its function, which in turn, logically suggests a means of prevention. Because the purpose of FBA is to determine the function of behavior and then to design appropriate interventions, the FBA is not complete until an effective intervention has been implemented. Th e function of behavior can be categorized into four possible groups: 1) sensory rein forcement, 2) escape/avoidance of an undesirable situation, 3) seeki ng attention, and 4) access to tangible(s) (Carr & Durand, 1985; Iwata et al., 1982; Sasso et al., 1992). Still, each of thes e can be further collapsed to create two broad categories: access to reinforcing stimuli or events and escape/avoidance of aversive stimuli or even ts. Resulting interventions then are focused

PAGE 15

7 on teaching appropriate behaviors that help the student to achieve the same functional outcome as the problem behavior. For exampl e, if the function of a students yelling behavior was determined to be access to teach er attention, then a f unctionally appropriate behavior plan for him would be to teach a more appropria te manner of accessing teacher attention, such as raising his hand and to th en be certain that teacher attention was available contingent upon hand raising. In the school setting, FBA is a tool that teachers can use to id entify the function of problem behavior (e.g., yelling in class to gain teacher attention) and design an intervention plan based on that function (Scott & Nelson, 1999b). Such plans involve student acquisition of prosocial replacement be haviors that serve the same function as the undesirable behavior (e.g., raising a hand to ge t the teachers attention). In addition, these plans generate strategies that create environments where desirable behaviors are more likely to occur, which could be as simple as verbally reinforcing the behavior of hand raising to gain teacher attention while si multaneously making yelling out for attention ineffective (Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001). Specific functional behavior assessment pr ocedures will be further de tailed in Chapters Two and Three. Functional Analysis Functional analysis, a component of FBA, is a term used to describe the direct, systematic manipulation of antecedent and/or consequence event(s) that are related functionally to problem behavior (Horner, 1994; Sugai, Horner, Sprague, 1999). While functional analyses can be extended, usually in clinical settings, they are usually briefer in school settings (Broussard & Northup, 1995). The purpose of a brief FA is to ascertain function or verify hypotheses of function that were developed as part of the FBA.

PAGE 16

8 Specific functional analysis procedures will be further detailed in Chapters Two and Three. Brief Functional Analysis Analog Analyses Analog assessment implies the creation of specific conditions during which variables are held constant, manipulate d, and systematically presented in a counterbalanced sequence (Stichter, 2001). For the purposes of this paper, analog assessments are presumed to take place outsi de the natural classroom routine (Dunlap et al., 1993). Naturalistic Analyses Naturalistic assessments are conducted within the context of the natural, classroom environment. Antecedent and/or consequence variables are still manipulated, for the purpose of identifying the function of a student s challenging behavi or (Dunlap et al., 1993). Purpose of Study While FBA has been developed and researched in clinical settings as an effective strategy to identify interventions that both manage inappropriate behavior and teach appropriate replacement behavior, it is not yet clear whether FBA will prove to be as effective a technology in school settings that typically involve mu ch less structure and much greater social complexity. One of the questions in need of expanded research is whether function-based interventions are in deed more efficacious than non-functionbased interventions in terms of short-term, long-term, and generalized effectiveness, when compared to typical school interv entions (Fox, Conroy, & Heckaman, 1998; Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001). The purpose of this study is to determine whether an

PAGE 17

9 intervention based on the verified function of a behavior in a public school classroom is more efficacious than the typical or traditi onal intervention that is implemented without regard to function for student s with challenging behaviors.

PAGE 18

10 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter first summarizes the res earch on FBA that has been conducted in clinical settings for students with severe cognitive and developmental disabilities. Next, the very limited research that has been c onducted on FBA in school settings is presented and discussed; and brief Functional Analysis (FA) in school settings will be reviewed. Finally, research specifically targeting th e efficacy of function-based interventions compared to typical, classroom manageme nt strategies is explored in depth. Although comprehensively researched in clin ical settings, FBA lacks an extensive research base in school settings (F ox, Conroy, & Heckaman, 1998; Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001), in part because school environments are complex and require more control of external variab les than is typically feasible Originally, applied behavior analysis researchers developed FBA to assist in creating interventions for persons with severe cognitive and/or developmental disabi lities in clinical settings. More recently, FBA has been reported and detailed in school settings for students with EBD or who exhibit seriously challenging behavior. Howeve r, school settings are very different from clinical settings, as they are less controlled and typically contain many more students. In addition, classrooms generally are made up of complex and sometimes subtle social structures. Currently, the evidence in regard to FBA that is known in classroom settings has largely been the result of researcher ra ther than teacher application (Scott, Bucalos, Liaupsin, Nelson, Jolivette, & DeShea, 2004). Ther efore, additional research is necessary to determine whether FBA in school settings can be as effective in developing successful

PAGE 19

11 intervention plans in these more comple x and subtle environments (Fox, Conroy, & Heckaman, 1998; Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fo x, 2001). The technical adequacy of FBA in school settings must be as carefully and meth odically explored as it has been in clinical settings. Technical adequacy in this case refers to the reliability and validity of FBA in providing information that is us eful in developing effective behavior intervention plans in typical public school classrooms (Gresham, 2003). Clinical Settings Functional Behavioral Assessm ent Studies in the Clinic Clinical environments allow for a great deal of control ov er variables when conducting FBA. Historically, FBA has involved the gatherin g of behavioral data by direct and/or indirect means, hypothesizing the function of behavior, and testing the hypothesis via the manipulation of those iden tified variables (Iwa ta, 1994). Once testing validates the hypothesis, interventions are developed based on the function of the behavior and the students i ndividual needs. These interven tions typically involve the manipulation of the environment to both decr ease the rate of problematic behavior and increase the rate of appropriate (i .e. replacement) behavior (Iwata, 1994). In an early study using function as a determ ining factor of behavior, Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman ( 1982) evaluated the existence of functional relationships between self-injurious behavior (SIB) a nd setting events. Nine study participants between18 months and 17 years of age had been diagnosed with developmental delays of varying degrees as well as mild to prof ound mental retardation. FBA and validated hypothesis testing was completed for eight of th e nine participants, e xposing them to four different experimental conditi ons: social disapproval, a cademic demand, unstructured play, and alone (no stimulus). For six of the eight subjects, functional analyses revealed

PAGE 20

12 higher levels of SIB linked to one speci fic experimental condition. This process demonstrated a methodology for manipulating th e environment to determine the effect of specific environmental conditions and beha vior, thereby identifying function and suggesting the resulting intervention to effec tively decrease the occurrence of SIB. By 1994, 152 single-subject analyses of SIB had b een published. The data from these studies indicate that FBA and functional analysis ha ve great utility not only in identifying the predictability and function of SIB, but also to guide selection of effective interventions (Iwata et al., 1994). Cooper et al. in 1992 extended functional analysis from outpatient to school settings. In this study, subjects were two males (8 and 9 years old) educated in a special education resource classroom w ho were identified as having mild to borderline MR, but placement in special education classrooms wa s due to behavioral problems. Different conditions in the classroom were observed, studied, and manipulated over time, then analyzed. Afterward, an FA was conducted, away from the class and peers, to corroborate. The two were compared and th ey corresponded, but the extended condition (lasting 6 months) yielded more in-depth in formation from which intervention packages were constructed. An early research effort that investig ated the effectiveness of function-based interventions across settings was conducte d by Repp and colleagues (Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988). The three subjects, two females and one male, were 6 and 7 years of age and had been diagnosed with severe retard ation. The setting was a special education classroom in a public school. FBAs, brief FAs, and testing of resulting interventions were implemented across two settings. The study design included an initial phase wherein

PAGE 21

13 FBA and FA were conducted, and a second phase involving the implementation of a function-based intervention in one setting and a non-function-base d intervention in a second setting. Finally, in a third phase they incorporated the implementation of the effective intervention (function-based) in bot h settings. Results indicate that basing an intervention on function of beha vior was effective across sett ings and provided favorable behavioral outcomes for these subjects. Through a broad research base, FBA has beco me a standardized process in clinical settings. Direct observation of behavior is measured and graphed and then, via visual inspection, data guide decisions as to what intervention will be chos en in accordance with the determined function. Further, Hagopi an, Fisher, Thompson, Owen-DeSchryver, Iwata, & Wacker (1997) developed a set of cr iteria for visual in spection to increase interrater agreement, contributing to the st andardization of FBA in clinical settings. Functional Analysis Studies in the Clinic Although the efficacy data for FBA in clini cal settings is exceptionally strong, the process itself can be extremely time-consum ing. A functional anal ysis often involves multiple sessions, which, although reasonable in the clinical environment, likely will not be reasonable in school settings, given the time and staffing constraints of that setting. In fact, of the 152 functional analysis studies, id entified by Iwata et al. (1999), as many as 66 sessions were conducted per analysis. Fe w researchers have acknowledged the burden that such a procedure might place on prof essionals in other settings but some have worked to determine whether less intensive procedures might achieve the same results. Northup and colleagues (1991) developed a m odified version of a lengthy analysis procedure used in clinical settings for outpatient evaluation of three individuals with severe mental retardation who demonstr ated aggressive behavior. Their study

PAGE 22

14 demonstrated that a relatively brief anal ysis lasting no more than 90 minutes could determine function as accurately as a le ngthier analysis. By 1992, brief functional analyses had been utilized successfully in 79 outpatient cases (Derby et al., 1992). Verifying the 1991 Northup study, Derby et al (1994), investigated the effects of extended versus brief functional analysis. These researchers established that brief functional analysis is a viable option for outpatient clinic se ttings (Wacker et al., 1994). Although these brief functional analyses were conducted with patients who demonstrated severe cognitive impairments, it has been sugge sted that this simp lified procedure could be adapted for children of average intell igence who demonstrate problematic behaviors (Cooper et al., 1990). Functional analysis in th is brief form has been adapted to school settings and for students who display problem atic behavior. This is important because roughly 50% of school disciplin e referrals are generated by 5% of the student population (Sugai et al., 1999). School Settings Functional Behavioral Asse ssment Studies in Schools In the past decade, researchers and educat ors have attempted to utilize FBAs in school settings, sometimes by simplifying th e process (Horner, 1994). This simplified process, adapted to a naturalistic setting such as a school, typically has consisted of three basic steps: (1) development of a functional hypothesi s through direct and/or indirect data gathering methods, (2) confir mation of that hypothesis by gathering formal baseline data, and (3) either the testing of the hypothesis by conducting a functional analysis (Repp, 1994) or development of an interventi on based upon the hypothesis and using the outcomes as validation (Horner, 1994; Sco tt et al., 2004). One example of FBA in a school setting involved students with autism a nd successfully used the teachers to both

PAGE 23

15 assess the behavior and implement intervention (Sasso et al., 1992) As is true of much of the research on FBA in school s, these students were seve rely disabled and did not participate in general educati on classrooms, but were being e ducated in special education settings, such as resource or self-contained classrooms. Reviews of the literature on the use of FB A in school settings report a scarcity of studies involving students with problem beha viors (Dunlap & Childs, 1996; Heckaman, Conroy, Fox, & Chait, 2000; Kern, Hilt, & Gresham, 2004; Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, & Rutherford, Jr., 1999; Scott et al., 2004). Each of these reviews has a unique focus and altogether report more than 100 separate st udies conducted over more than 20 years. Dunlap and Childs (1996) reviewed the literature from 1980 to 1993 for studies involving students with EBD a nd found only nine out of a total of 113 studies that reported utilizing FBA in their methodology. Mo st of these occurred in self-contained, special education classrooms and only one study took plac e partially in a regular education setting. The authors excluded studi es of academic performance, choosing to include only those studies focusing on behavi or problems. The subjects ranged in age from 6 to 14 years old and the most comm on type of intervention was social skill instruction. In their review of these nine studies, the authors f ound no observable trends in terms of accelerating or dece lerating use of FBA, type of subject, setting, or type of intervention. Nelson and colleagues (1999) reviewed st udies for students with EBD in school, clinic, and outpatient settings for evidence of external validity and cost benefits to usage of FBA. In all settings, they found 97 rese arch studies between the years of 1989 and 1997. The breakdown of studies by s ubjects disabilities and sett ings is further evidence

PAGE 24

16 of the paucity of research conducted in school settings with students having high incidence disabilities. Of 458 total subjects, only 53 were considered in the high incidence category of disabil ities and only 23% of the FB As were conducted in school settings. Only 3% of that total was conduc ted in regular educa tion classrooms; the remainder occurred in special education cl assrooms. The authors search for cost effectiveness or benefits of FBA in the research yielded no positive results. In looking at external validity, three thr eats were common themes across the 97 studies: 1) a majority of the participants had low in cidence disabilities, 2) most studies were conducted in clinical settings, and 3) a ll the FBAs were conducted by researchers. The authors conclusion was that FBAs in school settings for students with or at-risk for EBD needs further research in all areas. A literature review of studies that explor e the FBA process in school settings with students with or at risk for EBD was conduc ted by Kern and colleagues (Kern, Hilt, & Gresham, 2004). Twenty studies were found with a total of 43 pa rticipants who ranged in age from 4 to14 years of age and had exte rnalizing behaviors. The years under review were 1982-2003. Analysis revealed the most common methods of FBA were direct observation and interview. Also, the author s noted a total lack of FBA use with internalizing behaviors, extensive research er involvement with the implementation of FBA, and wide variability in assessment duration. Following up on this, Scott and colleagues (2004) conducted a targ eted review of studies between 1995 and 2000 that utilized FBA in school settings for students with or at-risk of EBD, finding only 12 published resear ch efforts fitting their criteria. After reviewing these studies, the authors concluded that the re search base on FBA in schools

PAGE 25

17 is inadequate, especially in general educa tion classrooms. Of th e 12 studies reviewed, only one was set in a general education classroom. Also, no single model of FBA emerged, as a wide range of FBA methodologi es were documented. This supports results reported by a recent survey of researchers and teachers of FBA that found a large variance in the ways that FBA is being implemented (Scott, Meers, & Nelson, 2000). Before these issues of implementation of FBA in general education settings can be resolved, the fundamental question of valid ity must be empirically demonstrated. Heckaman, Conroy, Fox, & Chait (2000) reviewed the litera ture closely associated with the question posed in this study, namel y, is a behavioral intervention based on the function of a behavior more efficacious than one not based on function? The authors reviewed the literature occurring between the years 1991 and 1999, finding 22 studies researching FBA in those nine years for students with or at-r isk of EBD. While the fact that this research base exists is encour aging, trends were not found in key areas; the methodologies used were inconsistent; assess ment instruments and procedures varied; various combinations of direct and/or indir ect measures were used; and no trends were uncovered as to when, how, or why specific interventions were employed. Thus, a single validated methodology for conducting FBA and developing interventions based on these assessments did not emerge. The authors concluded from this review th at research on FBA should focus on five areas. First, research should concentrate on generalization of beha vior change, both by the student and the teacher, especially in rega rd to the intervention developed from FBA. In other words, research must look at whether FBA can produce valid results across settings, behaviors, and student s. Second, research suggests th at the function of behavior

PAGE 26

18 may vary from setting to setting. Thus, it mu st be determined whether teachers will be able to apply FBA procedures with equal ea se and success across the variety of settings involved in the typical school. Third, research should focus on a close examination of the link between the function derived from the FB A and the recommended intervention. That is, what steps delineate the process involved in progressi ng from assessment to function to intervention? Fourth, FBA is a procedure that takes time and effort. The question is at what point is the decision made to m ove to more functional FBA processes and abandon more simple preventative strategi es? Lastly, it remains unclear whether interventions based on FBA are more effective than traditional school discipline approaches (e.g., systems that provide fo r consequences generically imposed upon student without regard to i ndividual circumstances). Logi cally, this final issue should take precedence over the first four. Until the e ffectiveness of interventions produced from FBA is established, questions regarding gene ralization, practicality, logistics, and timing are moot. Thus, this question sets the occas ion for this dissertation study, which will directly explore the treatment validity of FB A in general educati on classroom settings by researching the efficaciousness of functionderived interventions in school settings. Brief Functional Analysis in School Settings Brief functional analysis (FA) has been uti lized in school settings for students with both severe and mild disabilities and has b een shown to effectively identify the function of behavior, leading to successf ul intervention. It was used in this study to verify the hypothesized functions of behavior s generated by the indirect and direct FBA procedures. While functional assessment involves a set of procedures leading to the identification of the function of a behavior a nd from this, the selection of an intervention based on that function, functional analysis is a subcategory of the larger FA process and

PAGE 27

19 necessitates the direct and systematic manipul ation of variables t hought to contribute to problem behavior. Analog conditions are ofte n used to conduct such an analysis, and determine functional relationships between the behavior and the antecedents/consequences that control the behavior. Analog assessment involves creating specific conditions during which antecedents and consequences are held constant and specific variables suspected to directly aff ect the target behavior are systematically presented in a counterbalanced manner. Very low or high rates of a behavior can make it difficult to distinguish one analog conditi on from another (Stichter, 2001). Some researchers have used hypothesis-derived c onditions instead of analog conditions to facilitate the use of brief FA in school settings (see Table 1).

PAGE 28

20Table 1. Studies Using Brief F unctional Analysis in Schools Subjects FA Conditions Author(s) Year N Age yrs. Sex ID Setting Analog Hypothesis Results Boyajian, DuPaul, Handler, Eckert, & McGoey 2001 3 4-5 M ADHD Classroom, not incorporated into routine Brief FA + descriptive procedures = effective interventions Broussard & Northup 1995 3 6-9 yrs. M At-risk EBD Classroom, incorporated into routine Brief FA + descriptive procedures = effective interventions (analysis) Conroy, Fox, Crain, Jenkins, & Belcher 1996 4 5-12 yrs. M DD Classroom, not incorporated into routine Analog probes based on descriptive procedures = effective 50% Cooper, Wacker, Thrusby, Plagmann, Harding, Millard et al. 1992 2 8-9 yrs. M Mild & Borderline MR Both, nonembedded classroom & classroom, incorporated into routine Teacher FA in classroom setting compared favorably to analog assessments by experts Dunlap, Kern, de Perczel, Clarke, Wilson, Childs, et al. 1993 5 6-11 yrs. 4-M 1-F EBD, SED Classroom, incorporated into routine Brief FA+ descriptive procedures = effective interventions (teacher analysis)

PAGE 29

21Table 1. Continued. Subjects FA Conditions Author(s) Year N Age yrs. Sex ID Setting Analog Hypothesis Results Edwards, Magee, & Ellis 2002 1 10 yrs. M ADHA, SED Office near classroom Brief FA identified maintaining variable = effective intervention Ellis, & Magee 1999 3 6-10 yrs. M ADHA/bip olar, DD & mild autism Both, nonembedded classroom & classroom, incorporated into routine Brief FA based on analogs= Effective interventions Ervin, DuPaul, Kern, & Friman 1998 2 13-14 yrs. M ADHD, ODD Classroom, incorporated into routine Brief FA+ descriptive procedures = effective interventions (teacher analysis) Lalli, Browder, Mace, & Brown 1993 3 10-14 yrs. 2-M 1-F Severe & profound MR Classroom, incorporated into routine Brief FA+ descriptive procedures = effective interventions (teacher analysis) Magee & Ellis 2000 2 7-8 yrs. M ADHD, mod. MR & profound hearing loss Unused classroom, not incorporated into routine Brief FA identified maintaining variable = effective interventions

PAGE 30

22Table 1. Continued. Subjects FA Conditions Author(s) Year N Age yrs. Sex ID Setting Analog Hypothesis Results Meyer 1999 4 6-8 yrs. 3-M 1-F LD & BD Unused room, not incorporated into routine Brief FA identified maintaining variable = effective interventions Newcomer & Lewis 2005 3 9-11 yrs. 2-M 1-F OHI at-risk Classroom, incorporated into routine Brief FA+ descriptive procedures = effective interventions (teacher analysis) Noell, VanDerHeyden, Gatti, & Whitmarsh 2001 3 3-5 yrs. 2-M 1-F Language delay Both, nonembedded classroom & classroom, incorporated into routine Brief FA based on Analogs = Effective interventions Northup, Broussard, Jones, George, Vollmer, & Herring 1995 3 7-9 yrs. 2-M 1-F ADHD Both, nonembedded classroom & classroom, incorporated into routine Brief FA based on analogs = Effective interventions Northup, Wacker, Berg, Kelly, Sasso & DeRand 1994 5 5-11 yrs. 1-M 4-F Severe to profound MR Classroom, incorporated into routine Brief FA based on Analogs = Effective interventions (teacher analysis)

PAGE 31

23Table 1. Continued. Subjects FA Conditions Author(s) Year N Age yrs. Sex ID Setting Analog Hypothesis Results Repp, Felce, & Barton 1988 3 6-7 yrs. 1-M 2-F Severe MR Classroom, incorporated into routine Brief FA+ descriptive procedures = effective interventions (expert analysis with teacher implement) Sasso, Riemers, Cooper, Wacker, Berg, & Steege 1992 2 7-13 yrs 1-M 1-F Autism Both, nonembedded classroom & classroom, incorporated into routine Teacher FA in classroom setting compared favorably to analog assessments by experts Umbreit 1995 1 5 yrs M Mild MR Classroom, not incorporated into routine Brief FA+ descriptive procedures = effective interventions (teacher analysis) Umbreit 1995 1 8 yrs M ADHD Classroom, not incorporated into routine Brief FA+ descriptive procedures = effective interventions (teacher analysis)

PAGE 32

24 Brief functional analyses have been c onducted in school settings in a limited body of research. These studies fall into ca tegories of analog and hypothesis derived conditions. Following is a review of this li terature providing examples of both types. Analog Conditions Magee & Ellis (2000) included brief functi onal analysis in a study involving two elementary age students with severe disa bilities. The researchers employed 10-minute sessions to evaluate analog conditions of al one, attention, play, and demand conditions. These conditions were conducted at a school but not integrated into classroom activities. This study (Northup et al., 1994) evalua ted the possibility of school staff conducting functional analyses and resulting interventions in actua l classroom settings. Five subjects ranged in age from 5 to 11 y ears old in a self-contai ned special education classroom, each functioning in the severe to profound range of intellectual disability. After conducting an initial in-s ervice training, researchers provided on-site technical assistance to school personnel working in FBA teaming situations. Brief functional analyses were conducted in classrooms usi ng conditions lasting 10 minutes in duration. Conditions were created based on indirect FBA information, but analog conditions based on Iwata research were used, albeit only thos e deemed important from the indirect FBA information. Results suggest that trained school staff members could implement all procedures sufficiently when provided technical assistance. Additionally, brief functional analysis was found to be effective in identif ying the function of the target behaviors and deriving interventions that maintained the re placement behaviors during the 18 months of this study. Set in public schools, another study (Lalli, Browder, Mace, & Brown, 1993) used a behavioral consultation approach with three teachers of th ree students with severe to

PAGE 33

25 profound MR to conduct descriptive analyses and test interventions using a reversal design to provide individualized support a nd tweaking of the inte rvention. Brief FAs were conducted and incorporated into the students classroom activities by th eir teachers before interventions were implemented. The authors used DRA (differential reinforcement of alternative behavior) to prov ide the presumed reinforcer for appropriate behavior. In another study, the authors (Ervin, DuPaul, Kern, & Fr iman, 1998) state that as functional assessment moves from analog to applied settings, issues related to assessment, treatment integrity, and acceptabi lity are of increasi ng importance and may impede progress. Also, teachers may be more willing to manipulate antecedent events than consequences. The purpose of this study was to assess the application of functional assessment including brief functional analysis for adolescents with ADHD and related behavioral difficulties in school settings. The school setting in this study was Boys Town, with class size from 7 to 12 students and a token economy management system in place. This study examined antecedent manipula tions and found teachers less willing to manipulate consequences in a systematic manner. Teachers and staff performed FBAs and brief FAs with expert consultation. Results were positive for function-based interventions. Another study was designed to extend functi onal analysis procedures into regular education classrooms for students considered at -risk for more restrictive placement due to disruptive classroom behavior (Broussard & Northup, 1995). The three subjects were three males between the ages of 6 and 9 year s of age. Descriptive assessments yielded hypotheses, from which conditions were developed based on the occurrence or

PAGE 34

26 nonoccurrence of the consequence associated with each hypothesis. The conditions were incorporated into the natural classroom rou tine, but were conducted by the investigator, who was introduced to the class as an aide. Three conditions were us ed: teacher attention, peer attention, and escape from academic tasks. During contingent and noncontingent teacher attention conditions, the student received disapproving comments following the target behavior and, conversely, was pr ovided approving comments every 60 seconds, independent of students behavior. The peer attention conditions were conducted by providing access and no access to peers during academic tasks. The escape from academic tasks condition was conducted by varying the degree of difficulty of the tasks. Results indicated this use of brief FA brought about a decrea se in the target behaviors during the contingency reversal conditions. Th e authors were successful in incorporating brief FA into regular education classroom activities that resulted in a decrease of disruptive behavior. Hypothesis Derived Conditions Another study evaluated the applicability of FBA and functional analysis with students described as EBD who were serv ed in self-contained special education classrooms (Dunlap et al., 1993). All asse ssment procedures were developed and implemented within the students academic setting. Participants included four males, 10 or 11 years old in the 4th or 5th grade and one female, 6 ye ars old in Kindergarten. The authors broke the experiment into two phaseshypothesis development and hypothesis testing, with several hypothese s being generated and performe d per student. The brief FA was conducted by using a reversal design. Th at is, each hypothesis was broken down into two conditionsone in which the condition was associated with high levels of desirable behavior and the other in which the condi tion was associated with high levels of

PAGE 35

27 undesirable behavior. For example, a high level of specific praise was tested one day and a low level of specific praise was tested the next day, all the while keeping the classroom activity constant. Results indicated a lowering of undesirable behavior. An experimental analysis was conducted to provide a controlled way to confirm the hypothesis generated by the initi al indirect FBA methods in a study by Newcomer and Lewis (2004). It consisted of a descriptive, single-case, al ternating-treatment research design in which the order of introduction of treatments was randomized to control for sequential confounding or the possibility that the initial treatment phase could bias the results. Results for all three elementary age students indicated that function-based interventions were more effective than non-function-based interventions in causing a decrease in the problematic behaviors. The authors used a brief functional analysis to confirm the FBA generated hypothesi s of function for each student. Studies Specific to Function-Based Interventions Treatment validity can be defined as th e extent to which FBA generates data contributing to beneficial treatment outcomes. The assumption of treatment validity is that using FBA to match the intervention to th e behavioral function will result in the most effective treatment. The FBA literature in school settings has not established a strong empirical base for validity in terms of th e procedural components that are used to establish the operant function of behavior (Gresham, 2003). To date, only a few studies explore the efficacy of tying be havioral function either indi rectly or directly to the intervention for students with or at-risk of EBD in a public school setting. These few studies will be reviewed forthwith. Although FBA does not always involve th e functional analysis component in school settings (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002; Crone & Horner, 2003), Meyer (1999) was

PAGE 36

28 able to incorporate functional analyses in to a study involving antecedent events. At a school for children with LD and EBD, the princi pal referred four students of borderline to average range of intellectual ability in fi rst and third grade for behavior problems. Experimental FA sessions were conducted in an alog settings rather than the naturalistic setting of the classroom. Antecedent variable s of attention and task difficulty were manipulated to measure their effect on off-task behavior. Using a multielement design, the researcher found that assessment of ant ecedent variables has value for students with mild disabilities. However, the experiment was not conducted in a natural setting and thus, generalization to the classroom was impossi ble to infer. Still, using a single subject methodology, the question of whether function is linked to intervention for students with mild behavioral disabilities was answered in the affirmative. Schill, Kratochwill, and Elliot (1998) also investigated the question of whether a behavioral intervention is most effective wh en derived from function. They compared the utility of FBA to a standard behavior modi fication treatment package via a consultation model for preschool students in a Head Star t program. In this model, consultation was provided to Head Start teachers by school psyc hology graduate students to assist in the management of students who displayed the high est rates of inappropria te behavior in the classrooms. While this study found no signifi cant differences between the two groups in outcomes of treatment effects, social validit y, or cost, it is import ant to note that the majority of the consultants expressed a prefer ence for FBA, stating it to be more effective in producing the desired changes in client behavior and that it facilitated a more positive working relationship with consultees.

PAGE 37

29 The authors offered three compelling explan ations for this finding. First, the fact that functional analyses were not used in this model prior to the implementation of the intervention may have affected the results. Second, these st udents aged four and five years, qualify for the Head Start program by low socioeconomic status. The authors speculate that this population, by age and socioeconomic level, are most often reinforced by attention and thus, the beha vior modification program, usi ng strategies such as timeout, proved not to be very different from interventions that would be functionally indicated from an FBA. Third, treatment in tegrity may have been a factor in both conditions. In a consultation model in this se tting, teachers have the responsibility to implement the intervention, but may not fully understand it. Similarly, teachers may be unable to implement the treatment as descri bed by the consultant or communication between the two may be inaccurate. While this study did not reveal significant results, it did considerably extend the re search in the area of this dissertation study, by comparing the effectiveness of function-based assessm ents to interventions based on behavior modification and, while uncertain, some of the behavior modification treatments may have inadvertently been based on the functi on of the behavior. This dissertation study intends to measure the effect of function-based interventions versus non-function based interventions while carefully contro lling potentially conf ounding variables. Two studies used the FBA process to evalua te the effectiveness of school strategies based on the need for attention and the need to escape or avoid instructional tasks (Noell, VanDerHeyden, Gatti, & Whitmarsh, 2001; Taylor & Miller, 1997). Noell and colleagues (2001) focused their study on how teacher a ttention and escape from instructional demands affected the compliance of pre-schoo l students with speech and language delays

PAGE 38

30 by using three types of FBAindirect, descri ptive, and analytic. While indirect and descriptive methods of gather ing data yielded beneficial results, the in-class functional analysis had the most precise information. Th is was due, the authors felt, to the students being tested in the same setting in which th e behavior naturally occurs, but a downside to this strategy was that teache rs had to be trained to im plement the manipulation phases while managing the behavior of the rest of the class. Taylor and Miller (1997) used FBA to answer the question of why timeout, a typical classroom discipline strategy, works so me of the time, but at other times seems to increase undesirable behavior. Using analog assessment, the authors found timeout was effective only when the function of the student s behavior was to gain attention. If the students behavioral functi on was to escape or avoid a classroom demand or unpleasant situation, timeout served to increase the undesi rable behavior. Both studies confirm that knowledge of behavioral function can be used to select effective treatment strategies and that common school discipline strategies are ineffective when used for all students without regard to the f unction of their behavior. For FBA to be properly and systematically utilized in a typical school setting for students with behavioral problems, a fundament al question of validity must be directly addressed. Namely, is an intervention ba sed on the operant function of a targeted behavior more successful than a behavioral intervention that is not based on function? Several studies have demonstrated the valid ity of basing an intervention on the operant function of a behavior without comparing directly the effects of a function-based intervention to an intervention not based on the function of the in appropriate behavior.

PAGE 39

31 Some were presented earlier in this chapte r (see Brief Functional Analysis section). The remainder will now be discussed. One study (Ellingson, Miltenberger, Stri cker, Galensky, & Garlinghouse, 2000) used FBA, including descriptive and ABC obs ervation procedures, to create functionderived interventions and compared them to non-function-based interventions using a brief reversal design. Subjects, two males a nd one female, were between the ages of 12 and 19 years and had been diagnosed as ha ving severe to profound mental retardation. Teachers conducted the FBAs as well as the intervention implementation with expert assistance. The results reported were favorab le for the greater effectiveness of an intervention based on behavioral function when compared to an intervention not based on function. VanDerHeyden and colleagues (2001) eval uated a brief descriptive assessment conducted in a naturalistic setting for a group to identify naturally occurring, high frequency events that could serve as mainta ining consequences fo r disruptive behavior. This study was conducted in preschool and involved students with speech/language delays. Interventions derived from their brie f descriptive assessmen t were indicated and contra indicated by functiona l assessment. Results were positive for function-based whole group interventions suppressing disr uptive behavior. Finding function indicated interventions more effective than those not ba sed on the function of be haviors adds to the function related research base of FBA literature. Lewis and Sugai (1996) conducted a study th at investigated (a ) the efficacy of using more than one source of data to form a hypothesis, (b) the va lue of using FBA and brief FA techniques with students of average or above level of inte lligence but display

PAGE 40

32 low intensity, high frequency problem beha viors, and (c) asse ssed the effects of manipulating teacher & peer attention on th e occurrence of problem and appropriate behavior in general education settings. Results were positive for using FBA and brief FA procedures for students of average or above levels of intelligen ce who display problem behavior. Further, results indi cated that teacher and peer a ttention could be manipulated to cause a decrease in problem behavior in regular education settings. The results of this study also shed light on the importance of us ing FBA and brief FA techniques in natural contexts, as peer and teacher attention contribute to the function of behavior and students cannot be isolated from these when testing for function. The following two studies directly investig ated the effectiveness of function-based interventions as contrasted to typical, but non-function-based interventions in a school setting and, thus, most closely approximat e the research questions and methodology of this dissertation. Newcomer and Lewis (2004) compared the effects of functionbased interventions to non-function-based interventions for th ree elementary students with seriously challenging behaviors in regular educati on classrooms. These behaviors included aggression directed toward peers and t eachers as well as off-task conduct during academic periods. Descriptive functional assessments generated function driven hypotheses. Experimental analyses cons isting of manipulating antecedents and consequent variables confirmed the hypotheses using a single-case, alternating-treatment research design. The manipulations were deve loped for each student from their individual hypothesis and conducted in the existing regular education co ntext. Data was collected during direct observation probes using a 10-seco nd partial interval data collection system.

PAGE 41

33 When the behavioral function was established and verified through na turalistic functional analysis, the relative effectiveness of functi on-based interventions was compared to nonfunction-based interventions using a multiple baseline across participants. An example of one function-derived intervention based on an es cape from peers function was to teach the student a replacement skill to be used to appropriately avoid p eers and to precorrect when the student entered a setting likely to cause him to exhibit the undesirable behavior. For this student, the non-function-based in tervention was based on a typical classroom strategy of implementing an individual reinforcement system. Results for all three students indicated that func tion-based interventions were more effective than nonfunction-based interventions in causing a d ecrease in the problematic behaviors. However, this study is limited in two respects First, the functionbased intervention was always preceded by the non-function-based inte rvention and therefore did not control for order of treatment effects. Second, interventions often we re antecedent rather than consequence-based, meaning that they were not necessarily a true test of function. Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai (2005) al so measured the effect of basing intervention on function on problem behaviors in general education cl assrooms, but with two middle school students. The study was desi gned to compare the effects of a functionbased intervention to an intervention that wa s based on principles of behavior but not function. The authors controlled for order e ffects of treatment by counterbalancing the two treatments between the two subjects. The interventions were based on traditional FBAs, but did not verify the function thr ough a functional analysis instead verifying function through the use of an expert rating system. The authors compared the function and non-function derived interventions using a single-subject withdr awal design. Results

PAGE 42

34 concurred with Newcomer and Lewis (2004), also indicating function-based intervention to be more effective that non-function-based interventions in genera l education settings for students exhibiting chronica lly challenging behaviors. Ho wever, this study is limited by the lack of functional analyses to verify the behavioral hypotheses obtained from the descriptive assessments. This dissertation study seeks to extend the research of th e last two studies discussed by conducting FBAs that combine the functi onal analysis compone nt to validate the hypotheses with a counterbalanced design to c ontrol for treatment effects. Such a study provides a strong methodology for comparing tr eatment effects as well as information concerning the validity of this integral com ponent of FBA. Until this question of validity is addressed, the use of FBA in school se ttings is unproven by scientific measures.

PAGE 43

35 CHAPTER 3 METHOD This chapter describes the processes and st rategies that were used to conduct the study, which compares treatment effects of interventions, based on non-functionindicated intervention strategies to those that are functionindicated through the use of functional behavioral assessments (FBA), with function verified by brief functional analysis (FA). First, the participants and se tting are described and the criteria for the selection of participants ar e presented. Second, the dependant and independent variables are identified and described, including procedures for data collection from direct observation of the target behaviors and inte robserver agreement. Next, experimental procedures are presented in two phases. The first phase consists of two components, the first identifying specific problem behavior s and generating hypotheses regarding the possible functions of those problem behavi ors. The second component of phase one describes the brief functional analyses that were used to confirm the hypotheses via experimental manipulations. These procedures were conducted in orde r to verify function and thus identify both functiona lly logical and illogical trea tment strategies. The second phase compares student behavioral outc omes between the logical and illogical interventions. Within this discussion, th e specific research design is reported and described in detail. Finally, methods that insu re treatment fidelity and social validity are delineated. As a first step, Internal Review Bo ard (IRB) approval was sought prior to the commencement of this study and after delibera tion, the IRB ruled this experiment did not need their approval, as FBA; mandated by the 1997 Reauthorization of the Individuals

PAGE 44

36 with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and the part icipants recruited for this study had been identified as requiring this assessment (see A ppendix A). Further, all interventions are typical of classroom behavior management strategies in public school settings. Participants and Setting Setting This study took place in an elementary school in a small city in the Southeastern part of the United States. The school had eff ectively implemented school-wide systems of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) at the universal level (Lewis & Sugai, 1999) as assessed by an 80% overall fidelity score and 80% te aching score (i.e., 80% of PBS identified effective school-wide instru ction procedures were in place) on the School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) (see Appendix B). The SET is a research assessment and evaluation instrument used to measure fide lity of implementation of school-wide PBS systems over time. Critical elements measur ed include the defi ning and teaching of school-wide expectations, the creating of syst ems for reinforcing appropriate behaviors, responding to behavioral violations, and the monitoring and evaluation of progress (www.pbis.org/tools.htm ). All observation sessions for each subject occurred in a special education resource classroom during naturalistic conditions in which the target behaviors were most and least likely to happen. Participants Criteria Participants in this study were initiall y identified from disciplinary referral information at the school-wide level (Sugai et al., 1999). Although an indirect measure, office discipline referrals provide an index of student misbeh avior that extends across all adults that come into contact with an individual student in the school setting and therefore

PAGE 45

37 are reflective of that students inappropriate behavior (Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, 2000). Students falling at or above the 95th percentile in terms of number of office discipline referrals comprised the initial pool of possible pa rticipants. From this pool, teachers recommended student s for inclusion in the st udy based on prior special education testing. Chronically elevated ra tes of inappropriate behavior and prior identification as a child with special needs was used as a second level criterion for inclusion. Teachers of students identified at this level were contacted and questioned to verbally confirm that each students behavior impeded his or her own or their classmates learning progress, thus rendering them at-risk for academic or social failure. Finally, informal observations of the potential particip ants by the first author demonstrated that problem behavior did, indeed, corroborate th e teacher nomination. Students were selected from general education classrooms or special education resource classrooms in third, fourth, or fifth grade and had either been referred by their teacher for placement or were currently being served in sp ecial education. Gender and et hnicity were not determining factors for inclusion in this study. The first four students meeting the criteria, two boys and two girls, were selected as participates. Participant Descriptions Julie was an 11-year-old girl in third grade. Havi ng repeated first and third grades, she had been identified as having a learning disability (L D) in both Math and Reading. Consequently she spent most of he r instructional time in the school special education resource classroom for third, fourth, and fifth grades. Data gathered from office discipline referrals indicated Julie had high rates of noncompliant behavior, resulting in many in-school suspensions. This students problem behaviors had been addressed in

PAGE 46

38 several ways by the school. Universal PBS had provided consistent implementation and reinforcement of three positively stated school rules (respect self, respect others, and respect property). The student body as a whole, including th is student, had been taught the rules directly as well as informed of th e reinforcement procedures. Further, individual classroom routines, including behavioral expe ctations, had been demonstrated to all students in this classroom. An individual behavior plan had been created for this subject including strategies for reinforcing desired behavior. However, these behavior plans had not worked for this student, possibly because reinforcement was either insufficient in strength or the schedule was t oo lean to maintain behavior Reinforcers are most potent when delivered immediately following the beha vior being reinforced and must be of value to the person being re inforced (Skinner, 1953). Amy was a 10 year old girl and in the third grade for the second year. She had been identified as LD in Reading and spent onl y reading instructional time in the school special education resource cl assroom for third, fourth, a nd fifth grades, spending the remainder of her day in a regular educa tion third grade classr oom. Amys problem behaviors included noncompliance to teacher requests and refusal to complete academic tasks. She had also been involved in sc hool-wide application of PBS in the year preceding the study, had received classroom inst ruction on appropriate forms of behavior, and had an individualized behavior plan that provided weekly tangible reinforcement for appropriate classroom behavi or which had been implemented without success. Brian was a nine year old boy and in th e third grade. He could meet academic grade level expectations, but the high rate s of his off-task behavior precluded participation in regular educa tion classroom learning activiti es. He spent all day in the

PAGE 47

39 special education resource cl assroom for third, fourth, a nd fifth grades, except for physical education class and l unch. He, too, had been in a school involved in school-wide positive behavior supports and had worked unde r numerous behavior plans. Some of these behavior plans had worked for Bria n, but only for short periods of time. Barry was an 11 year old boy and in the fifth grade. He had been identified as having mild mental retardation (MR). He read at a first grade level and his math skills were at a second grade level. Data from Barrys office discip line referrals show that his problem behaviors included excessive verba lizations and off-task behavior. He had transferred to his current school during the year the study was implemented, but records indicate a history of problem behaviors a nd that his prior school employed school-wide positive behavior supports. Target Behaviors Target behaviors were identified by the Request for Assistance Form (Crone & Horner, 2003) (see Appendix C) and the Func tional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (FACTS) (Crone & Horner, 2003) (see Appendix D). These forms were completed jointly by the researcher and teach er for each participant in an interview format which was semi-structured and desi gned to identify 1) times that problem behavior are most and least li kely to occur, 2) antecedents that are associated with incidences of problem behavior 3) consequences that main tain occurrences of target behaviors, 4) setting events, su ch as transition periods or the behavior of peer s or teachers that have association with occasions of target behaviors, 5) response classes (i.e. related behaviors) that serve the same or simila r functions, and 6) specific intervention recommendations (Crone & Horner, 2003).

PAGE 48

40 Based on interview results, direct observati ons were used to verify times when and locations under which problematic behaviors were most and least likely to occur. The first author conducted these observations, monitoring students using an ABC Form (Crone & Horner, 2003) (see Appendix E). Th is method of data co llection identifies predictable chains of anteced ents, behaviors, and consequences in order to gain an understanding of the contex t and environment surroundi ng the target behavior. Julie and Amys target behaviors were de fined as being off-task as evidenced by talking to a specific peer inst ead of attending to academic tasks or teacher instruction. Julie was Amys specific peer and Amy was Julie s specific peer. Brians target behavior was operationally defined as any inappropria te response to teacher mands indicated by negative verbal or facial reaction followed by either compliance or noncompliance. Barrys target, off-task behavi or was operationally defined as 1) not working on task as evidenced by any off-task interaction with teacher or peers or doi ng nothing on task for more than 3 seconds, 2) staring away from the activity for more than 3 seconds, or 3) playing with non-materials or related mate rials but not in an intended manner (such pencil tapping or drawing). Replacement Behaviors The researcher and each students special education resource teacher operationally defined replacement behaviors for each student Julie and Amys replacement behavior was on-task during instructional and independe nt academic work periods and was defined as attending to academic task during specified periods without enga ging each with the other. Brians replacement behavior wa s compliance to teacher mands, which was operationally defined as complying to teacher requests with socially appropriate facial expression and body language. Barrys replace ment behavior was on-task, defined as

PAGE 49

41 working quietly on independent academic assi gnments. Table 2 gives further information on the setting, target behavior, and replacement behavior for each subject. Process Two phases were necessary to complete the identification process of finding the function of each participants target behavior. In phase one FBA was conducted for each participant, followed by a brief FA to c onfirm the hypothesized behavioral function. Table 2 Subjects Target and Replacement Behaviors Subject Setting Target Behavior Replacement Behavior Julie Independent academic activities & small group instructional periods Off-tasknot attending to academic tasks On-taskengaging in academic tasks Amy Independent academic activities & small group instructional periods Off-tasknot attending to academic tasks On-taskengaging in academic tasks Brian Instructional periods Noncompliance to teacher mands Compliance to teacher mands Barry Independent academic activity Off-task Excessive, loud verbalizations On-task Working quietly Functional Behavior Assessment An FBA was conducted on each student, dur ing which both direct and indirect methods of gathering data we re utilized (Chandler & Dahl quist, 2002; Crone & Horner, 2003; Kerr & Nelson, 2002). Indirect methods for gathering data included structured interviews with teachers, other school pers onnel, and parents, as well as a review of academic performance, attendance, discipline records, and medical history. Gathering direct data included observation of the student in natural se ttings, was as simple as an informal ABC (antecedent, behavior, and cons equence) evaluation, but also included an assessment and analysis of noted behaviors, predictors, perceived functions, and actual consequences (Crone & Horner, 2003; ONeil l et al., 1997). The outcome of these FBAs was a testable hypothesis of function of the target behavior for each student.

PAGE 50

42 Brief Functional Analysis After hypotheses were generated, brief functional analysis consisting of individualized conditions was executed for each study participant (Dunlap, et al., 1993). Julie, Amy, and Barrys responses were ma nually recorded usi ng 10-second partial interval recording proced ure and graphed for evalua tion (Kazdin, 1982). Brians responses were manually recorded using an opportunity to respond procedure, as his target behavior was dependent upon teacher initiation (Kazdin, 1982). The steps for completion of the brief FA included: 1) an operational definition of target behavior, 2) measurement of the behavior in a reliable manner, and 3) identification of structured classroom activities to best serve as functi onal analysis conditions. This process resulted in the verification of the hypothesized behavi oral function, which was either access or escape/avoidance in nature. Direct Observations of Target Behavior For all students, data on targeted behavi or was collected via direct observation. This data was used to identify the function of all target behaviors, as well as to compare the effectiveness of both function-indicated and non-function-indicated interventions in phase two of the study. ABC observation. Direct observations were co nducted by noting antecedents, behaviors, and consequences of students ac tions in typical classroom situations where problem behaviors were most and least likel y to occur and recorded on the ABC form (see Appendix E). Then ABC fo rms were analyzed to identify predictable characteristics of behavior. Partial interval recording. Occurrences of target behaviors were marked in 10second intervals using an author-created form (see Appendix F). Using this system,

PAGE 51

43 behavior was coded for any interval if it o ccurred at any time. The metric was calculated as percent of intervals in which behavior occurred by dividing number of positive intervals by the total number of intervals obs erved. The total duration of each observation session was 10 minutes. Julie, Amy, and Barry we re observed using this method of data collection. Opportunities to respond recording. Brians target behavior was dependent on teacher initiation, thus data was gathered fo r durations of 10 minutes using an authorcreated controlled presentation form that classified his responses by compliant, noncompliant, or compliant within five seconds but accompanied by an inappropriate verbal or facial response (see Appendix G). Each ti me that the teacher provided the initiation, data was coded as to whether he did or di d not engage in the replacement behavior. The metric was calculated as percent of opportuni ties in which the replacement behavior was used by dividing all positive instances of the replacement behavior by the total number of opportunities. Interobserver Reliability Although the first author co llected behavioral data during both parts of the experiment, a second observer independently co llected data at randomly specified times to corroborate the accuracy of the data fo r interobserver reliab ility (Kazdin, 1982). Interobserver agreement (IOA) was collected across 24% to 75% of all observation sessions and was scheduled at phase changes during the e xperiment (Kazdin, 1982). Prior to beginning the observation procedure, the primary researcher al ong with the students classroom teacher operationally defined be haviors, and the observer was thoroughly trained in recording the define d behavior according to the definitions of both interval recording and opportunities to respond prot ocol (Kazdin, 1982). Traditionally, agreement

PAGE 52

44 rate should be at or abov e 80%, which reflects stability in measurement (Kazdin, 1982), and 80% was the criteria used in this st udy. Agreement ranged from 82% to 100% during each period it was gathered. IOA is calculated by dividing total number of agreements by total agreements plus disagreements and multiplying the total by one hundred (Kazdin, 1982). Strict adherence to IOA procedures he lps to establish reliability measurement. Social Validity The social validity of this experiment was assessed at the end of the study. Teachers were asked to orally detail the accepta bility of the project in terms of time and ease of implementation in relation to its su ccess for designing behavioral improvement plans for students who struggle with inappr opriate classroom behavior. Responses were recorded in field notes by the researcher. Experimental Procedures In phase two of the experiment, an inte rvention based on the in dicated function as well as a contra-indicated intervention was generated for each student. Each intervention was a typical classroom strategy and either matc hed the function of the target behavior or was chosen as a contra-indicated interventi on because it did not match the targeted behavioral function. As th e interventions were implemented, observations were monitored continuously to measure success of intervention. The author created data gathering forms similar to the brief FA form for Julie, Amy, and Barry (see Appendix H) and Brian (see Appendix I). Intervention plans For each student, a behavior plan wa s created based upon the function of the targeted behavior. Replacement behaviors we re identified for each participant by the author and the participants teacher and incl uded appropriate social actions or on task

PAGE 53

45 behaviors (see Table 3). Two of the four s ubjects, chosen by a random process, were presented with a function-based interventi on, which was then withdrawn and followed by a typical but contra-indicat ed intervention. The other two subjects received the counterbalanced experimental condition, whic h began with the introduction of a typical but contra-indicated intervention, followed by an intervention implemented that is based on the function of the targeted behavior (See Table 3). During this entire process, data was being gathered and continuously graphed according to single-su bject design protocol to insure stability of data before commencing the treatment phases. These data are presented in Chapter Four. Functionally indicated interventions. The function of Julies target behavior was identified through the brief FA process as acce ss to a specific peer. The specific peer was Amy, whose function of target behavior was al so identified as access to a specific peer. Amys specific peer was Julie. These girls were best friends. As each of these participants target behavior, identified f unction, and subsequent interventions involved the other, all brief FA conditions and subse quent interventions, along with the ensuing direct observations, were c onducted conjointly. Julie and Amys functionally indicated intervention was to reinforce on-task behavi or by giving them break time to spend together, contingent upon their attending to th e teacher during instructional activities and academic tasks. This intervention was sele cted to encourage appropriate classroom behavior as was deemed func tionally indicated because function (access to peer) was provided contingent upon desired replacement behavior. Brians brief FA indicated that his targ et behavior was maintained by access to teacher attention. Brians functionally indi cated intervention was frequent verbal

PAGE 54

46 encouragement from his teacher and praise for appropriate behavior. This intervention was deemed functionally indicated because it allowed access to teacher attention at suitable times, contingent upon replacement behavior. The function of Barrys target behavior was identified by brief FA as escape from difficult academic tasks. His functionally indi cated intervention involved allowing him to escape contingent on completing tasks in the form of B Passes. Created by the author, these passes were printed on ma gnets that the teacher contro lled from the chalkboard and presented to Barry as he worked at academic tasks. Barry opted when to spend the earned passes, but had to possess two passes to spe nd one. This system encouraged both Barry and his teacher to continue the interven tion and was deemed functional because it allowed escape from task contingent upon replacement behavior Table 3 summarized functionally based interventi ons for each participant. Functionally contra-indicated interventions. Contra-indicated interventions are typical of classroom environments, yet ar e not functionally indi cated by the FBA and brief FA conducted for each student. Julie and Amys contra-i ndicated intervention involved verbal prompts and reprimands deliv ered by the teacher for off-task behavior. This is deemed functionally contra-indicat ed because teacher attention is different functionally from specific peer attention a nd an intervention based on the function of escape was not acceptable in their classroom environment. Brians contra-indicated intervention was functionally aligned to a DRO conditi on, which was extinction or planned ignoring by the teacher. This is deemed to be contra-indicated because replacement behavior was effectively put on extinction under these circumstances. Barrys contra-indicated intervention was a ligned with the function of attention, which

PAGE 55

47 was increased teacher attention in the form of verbal prompts and reprimands. This intervention was deemed contra-indicated because it did not allow the function of escaping task even when the replacement beha vior occurred. Interventions based on both the functionally indicated behavior as well as the non-functionally indicated behaviors are listed in Table 3. Table 3 Subjects Functions & Interventions Subject Function indicated by Brief FA Function-indicated Intervention Non-function-indicated Intervention Julie Access to a specific peers attention Allow access in the form of earned breaks Access to teacher attention (verbal prompts & reprimands) Amy Access to a specific peers attention Allow access in the form of earned breaks Access to teacher attention (verbal prompts & reprimands) Brian Access to teacher attention Teacher attention in the form of encouraging verbal comments Planned ignoring by teacher Barry Escape a difficult academic task Allow escape in the form of earned passes Increased teacher attention (verbal prompts & reprimands) Experimental Design This study was designed to assess the tr eatment validity of FBA by comparing the effectiveness of an intervention based on the function of a behavior as identified using FBA to an intervention based on principles of behavior modification but without consideration of function. A si ngle-case alternating treatment research design was used during the functional analysis component of this study to validate th e functional hypothesis generated by the FBA for each students targeted behaviors. Once th e function was satisfactorily established, an alternating treatments single-case design was used to compare the efficacy of the two treatments (Tawney & Gast, 1984). An alternat ing treatments design was chosen because

PAGE 56

48 problem behaviors exhibited by the subjects in this study generally did not occur at lowfrequency rates in the classroom. Further, several response oppor tunities existed for subjects to demonstrate the problem behavior, the interventions were expected to produce immediate effects on the problem behavior, a nd carryover effect we re not anticipated. Additionally, an alternating tr eatments design allows for the implementation, comparison, and evaluation of the intervention/treatm ent when baselines are unstable, and comparisons can be observed within a rela tively short period of time (Kazdin, 1982). The two treatments were counterbalanced, with two students receiving the function-based intervention first, followed by the non-func tion-based intervention, while the other two students received the same tw o types of treatments in reverse order (Tawney & Gast, 1984). Counterbalancing controlle d for order effect of the two types of treatments. Although the alternating treatments design avoi ds order effects, the threat of multiple treatment interference cannot be avoided. Therefore, the possib ility still exis ts that the effect of each treatment is influenced by its juxtaposition against the other so that the level of data for the target behaviors was diffe rent from what would have been obtained if each treatment could have been presented in isolation (Kazdin, 1982). Treatment Fidelity The fidelity of implementation of these experimental conditions was crucial to the integrity of this project. A task analysis pr oviding the teacher with the brief FA condition that was used during the different experime ntal phases to aid in consistency of implementation. Also, teachers were furnished wi th checklists that se rved as prompts to insure consistency during the treatment implementation process. Thus, treatment fidelity was constantly monitored duri ng the course of this study.

PAGE 57

49 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS The purpose of this chapter is to report the data gathered in the course of the study in both narrative and vi sual/graphic form. The narrative reporting data from experi mental procedures is presented by individual participants in two phases. The first phase reports data generated by the FBA and brief FA components of the study while the second phase reports data gathered during the comparison of functionally indicate d and non-indicated inte rventions that were developed based on functions identified in the first phase. Data are re ported as percentage in order to standardize and allow for more direct comparisons across individuals. For all data, analyses are made in consideration of trend, stability and variability, both within and across conditions (Tawney & Gast, 1984). Tr end direction (i.e., slope) and stability are reported using the freehand me thod (Bailey, 1984) that refers to trend lines as lines of progress. Each of the four study subject s is represented by two gra phs, one of brief FA data and the other of the data generated by th e experimental compar ison of interventions. Eight graphs of the data collect ed in this study are presented concurrent with the narrative description of results for each phase by st udent. For Julie, Amy, and Barry, data are reported as percent of intervals in which off task behavior was observed. Brians data is reports as the percentage of opportunities in which he positively complied with teacher requests. Therefore, high numbers on the graphs represent high rates of negative behavior for Julie, Amy, and Barry but represent high levels of positive behavior for Brian.

PAGE 58

50 The visual analysis of single subject data by graphing is advantageous for several reasons (Tawney & Gast, 1984). First, it is an effective method to evaluate data of individuals or small groups. Second, graphing en ables data to be collected and analyzed continuously, which allows the researcher th e opportunity to make informed decisions concerning the adjustment of interventions. Th irdly, graphing is tool that allows the researcher to focus on emerging data patterns allowing the promotion of individualized instruction. Further, graphing data permits the possible discovery of serendipitous findings. Lastly, the graph as visual representation of data provides the researcher a means of accurately interpreting data, as well as a standard format allowing others to reliably analyze the results. In this study, data are represented on a se mi-logarithmic ordinate scale. This scale is based on ratio, rather than ab solute interval values, allowing a more reliable focus on relative changes in data or beha vior patterns, especially when the research is focused on comparing high to low rates of behavior such as in this study (W hite & Haring, 1980). In addition, semilog has been shown to improve interrater agreement during visual analysis as well as more conservative rati ngs of significance (Bailey, 1984). Julie Phase One FBA Julies FBA was conducted using the Reque st for Assistance Form (Crone & Horner, 2003), the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (Crone & Horner, 2003), a records review of academ ic performance, attendance, discipline referrals, and medical history, and observations in natural settings using the ABC Form (Crone & Horner, 2003), including likely time s in which problem behaviors were most

PAGE 59

51 and least likely to occur. This process result ed in the identification of off-task behavior during periods of academic task activities or when the classroom teacher was providing instruction. Thus, Julie s target behavior was operati onally defined as off-task, as evidenced by talking or gesturing to a peer or looking away from academic tasks or her teacher for five or more seconds during class periods when attention to academic tasks or teacher was required. Brief FA As a result of the FBA, the hypothesized function of Julies target behavior was identified as access to attention from a speci fic peer, who was identified as Amy (also a subject of the study). These two girls were best friends who only saw one another during this special education resource classroom. In order to avoid confounding results from the two subjects, the brief FA was conducted conjointly for each subject. However, conditions were established to control variab les related directly to the hypothesis and results are reported separately. During the brief FA for Julie access to the specific peer, limited access to the specific peer, and a th ird condition that provided her access to a nonspecific peer were alternated while holding setting, activities, a nd teacher interaction constant. Data gathered across these c onditions confirmed th e validity of the hypothesized function as access to specific peer attention. Each instan ce of access to this specific peer was associated with moderate levels of off task behavior (mean = 24%) while conditions in which access to specific pe er was limited showed a low level of off task behavior (mean = 8%). To be certain th at function was access to this specific peer, a condition allowing access to non-specific peer wa s juxtaposed and revealed a level only slightly higher than limited access to specifi c peer (15%) still far below what was observed during access to specifi c peer conditions. This data shows a clear differentiation

PAGE 60

52 between the brief FA conditions and serves to verify the preliminary hypothesis of access to specific peer attention. Brief FA data for Julie are presented in Figure 1. Julie's Brief Functional Analysis1 10 100 123456Sessions Access to Specific Peer Access to Limited to Specific Peer Access to Specific Peer Access to Non-Specific Peer Access to Non-Specific Peer Access to Specific Peer Figure 1. Brief FA Results for Julie Phase Two In the experimental phase, two interven tions were identified, one indicated by function and the other not indicated by function, yet typical of classroom-based behavioral intervention in an average classroom. Julies functionally indicated intervention was the opportunity to earn brea k time to spend with her specific peer, contingent upon attending to academic ta sks and listening to the teacher during instructional times (i.e., on task behavior). The non-functionally indicated intervention involved access to teacher attention in the fo rm of verbal prompts and reprimands. Under these conditions the teacher simply prompted Julie back to work when she was off task

PAGE 61

53 but did not allow her the opportunity to acce ss her preferred peer. During baseline no special interventions were implemented and da ta closely mirrored levels collected during the access to specific peer condition in th e brief FA (mean = 21.67%), and with an increasing trend. In Julies case, the nonfunctionally indicate d intervention was implemented first and was associated with a continuation of the increasing trend of off task behavior (mean = 27.67%) that remain ed highly stable. Next, the functionally indicated intervention was introduced and was associated with an immediate drop in the level of off task behavior (mean = 12.75%) and a decreasing trend. This data showed some degree of variability but still is calculated in the st able range of 10%. When the non-functionally indicated in tervention was reintroduced, off task behavior again increased immediately to a new high level (m ean = 49.3%) and with a slightly increasing trend. The reintroduction of the functionally in dicated intervention wa s associated with a second immediate and even more pronounced decrease in off task behavior (mean = 1.6%) that hit 0% in the final trial. As a fina l step one week after all sessions had ended, a maintenance condition was introduced wherei n functionally indicated intervention was reintroduced to assess whether it would maintain This resulted in c ontinued low rates of off task behavior at 3%. These data dem onstrate a functional relationship between the functionally indicated interv ention and Julies behavior, and a lack of relationship between the non-functionally i ndicated intervention and off task behavior. Figure 2 presents a graphic display of the results of this experiment al analysis. In summary the functionally indicated interven tion consistently and repeat edly produced more positive results than did the non -indicated intervention.

PAGE 62

54 Julie's Experimental Data1 10 100 1234567891011121314151617Sessions Baseline Non-Function Indicated Function Indicated Non-Function Indicated Function Indicated Maint. Figure 2. Results of Experimental Analysis for Julie Amy Phase One FBA Amys FBA was conducted using the Reque st for Assistance Form (Crone & Horner, 2003), the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (Crone & Horner, 2003), a records review of academ ic performance, attendance, discipline referrals, and medical history, and observations in natural settings using the ABC Form (Crone & Horner, 2003), including likely time s problem behaviors were most and least likely to occur. This process resulted in th e identification of offtask behavior during periods of academic task activities or when the classroom teacher was providing instruction. Amys target behavior was operatio nally defined as off-task, as evidenced by talking or gesturing to a peer or looking away from academic tasks or her teacher for five

PAGE 63

55 or more seconds during class periods when a ttention to academic tasks or the teacher was required. Brief FA As a result of the FBA, the hypothesized function of Amys target behavior was identified as access to attention from a specifi c peer, who was identified as Julie (also a subject of the study). Conditions were establishe d to control variables related directly to the hypothesis. During the brief FA for Amy acce ss to the specific peer, limited access to the specific peer, and a thir d condition that provided her access to a non-specific peer were alternated while holding setting, activit ies, and teacher interaction constant. Data gathered during the conditions confirmed the validity of the hypothesized function as access to specific peer attention. Each inst ance of access to this specific peer was associated with moderate levels of off ta sk behavior (mean = 20%) while conditions in which access to specific peer was limited s howed a lower level of off task behavior (mean = 6%). To be certain that function was access to this specific peer, a condition allowing access to non-specific pe er was juxtaposed and reve aled a level only slightly higher than limited access to specific peer (8%) still below what was observed during access to specific peer conditions. This data shows a clear differentiation between the brief FA conditions and serves to verify th e preliminary hypothesis of access to specific peer attention. Brief FA data fo r Amy are presented in Figure 3.

PAGE 64

56 Amy's Brief Functional Analysis1 10 100 123456Sessions Access-Specific Peer AccessLimited for Specific Peer AccessNon-Specific Peer AccessSpecific Peer Access-Limited for Specific Peer AccessSpecific Peer Figure 3. Brief FA Results for Amy Phase Two In the experimental phase, two interven tions were identified, one indicated by function and the other not indicated by function, yet typical of classroom-based behavioral intervention in an average classroom. Amys functionally indicated intervention was the opportunity to earn brea k time to spend with her specific peer, contingent upon attending to academic ta sks and listening to the teacher during instructional times (i.e., on task). The non-f unctionally indicated in tervention involved teacher attention in the form of verbal pr ompts and reprimands. Under these conditions the teacher simply prompted Julie back to wo rk when she was off ta sk but did not allow the opportunity to access her preferred peer. During baseline no special interventions were implemented and data closely mirrored le vels collected during the access to specific

PAGE 65

57 peer condition in the brief FA (mean = 17.33%), and with an increasing trend. In Amys case, the functionally indicated intervention was implemented first and was associated a continuation of the increasing trend of off task behavior (mean = 20%) that remained highly stable. Next, the func tionally indicated interven tion was introduced and was associated with an immediate drop in the leve l of off task behavior (mean = 6.25%). This data was more volatile, warranting the collect ion of an additional data point to assure adequate stability. When the non-functionally indicated intervention was reintroduced, off task behavior again increased immediat ely to a new high level (mean = 41.6%). The reintroduction of the functiona lly indicated intervention was associated with a second immediate and even more pronounced decrease in off task behavior (mean = 1.6%). As a final step one week after all sessions had ended, a maintenance condition was introduced wherein functionally indicated intervention wa s reintroduced to assess whether it would maintain. This resulted in no observed instances of off task behavior during the final trial. These data demonstrate a functional relati onship between the functionally indicated intervention and Amys behavior. Figure 4 presents a graphic display of the results of this experimental analysis. In summary, the functi onally indicated intervention consistently and repeatedly produced more positive result s than did the non-i ndicated intervention.

PAGE 66

58 Amy's Experiment Data 1 10 100 1234567891011121314151617Sessions BaselineNon-Function Indicated Function Indicated Non-Function Indicated Function Indicated Maint. Figure 4. Results of Experimental Analysis for Amy Brian Phase One FBA The FBA was conducted for Brian using the Request for Assistance Form (Crone & Horner, 2003), the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (Crone & Horner, 2003), a records review of academ ic performance, attendance, discipline referrals, and medical history, and observations in natural settings using the ABC Form (Crone & Horner, 2003), including likely time s problem behaviors were most and least likely to occur. This process resulted in th e identification of a ta rget behavior of noncompliant behavior to teacher requests. This target behavior was ope rationally defined as inappropriate response to teacher mands, as evidenced by negative verbal or facial or

PAGE 67

59 gesture reaction followed by either complian ce or non-compliance. Brians teacher felt even compliance after a negative reacti on was not acceptable classroom behavior. Brief FA As a result of the FBA, the hypothesized function of Brians target behavior was identified as access to teacher attention. During the brief FA for Brian, teacher requests without providing attention to Brian were alte rnated with teacher re quests that included attention in the form of specific praise stat ements. Prior to implementation, efforts were made to control variables rela ted directly to the hypothesis (i .e., teacher attention), while variables such as setting, time of day, and activities were held constant. Data gathered across conditions confirmed the validity of th e hypothesized function as access to teacher attention. This data was calc ulated in terms of opportuni ties to respond in that each teacher request represented an opportunity and data was collected on whether Brian complied in a positive manner. Data showed that each instance of access to teacher attention was associated with moderate to high levels of positive compliance, ranging from 67% to 100% (mean = 84%), while condit ions in which access to teacher attention was limited showed a low level of positive compliance, ranging from 0% to 20% (mean = 11%). This data shows a clear differentiation between the brief FA conditions and serves to verify the preliminary hypothesis of access to teacher attention. Brief FA data for Brian are presented in Figure 5.

PAGE 68

60 Brian's Brief Functional Analysis0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1234Sessions Teacher Simply Requests Teacher Makes Specific Praise Statement Before Request T eacher Simply Requests Teacher Makes Specific Praise Statement Before Request Figure 5. Brief FA Results for Brian Phase Two In the experimental phase, Brians cl assroom teacher and the researcher collaboratively created two interventions. One was indicated by function, and the other was not indicated by function, yet was typical of classroom-based behavioral intervention in an average classroom. Brians functi onally indicated inte rvention involved the provision of appropriate teacher attention in the form of specific praise and encouraging comments, especially prior to making a reque st of Brian while instituting a policy of planned ignoring of non-compliant behavior (i.e., differential reinforcement of alternative or incompatible behavior). The non-functiona lly indicated intervention involved a token system for compliant responses to teacher requests that simply involved the teacher providing token reinforcement without atte ntion. During baseline for Brian, no teacher

PAGE 69

61 attention or tokens were provided and Brians complian ce was inconsistent between moderate and low rates of positive complian ce, ranging from 0% to 33% of opportunities (mean = 19.7%). In Brians case, the f unctionally indicated intervention was implemented first and was associated with an immediate increase in the level of positive compliance to 100% across all three tria ls. Next, the non-functionally indicated intervention was introduced and was associated with an immediate drop in the level of off task behavior (mean = 22.3%) and a decreasi ng trend. When the functionally indicated intervention was reintroduce d, positive compliance again rose to a high level (mean = 75%) with the final trial at 100%. A s econd reintroduction of the non-functionally indicated intervention was associated with an immediate drop in level to 0% across all three trials. To end the experiment on a positive note, the functionally indicated intervention reintroduced a fi nal time and was again associated with an immediate increase in positive compliance (mean = 89%). These data demonstrate a functional relationship between the functionally indicate d intervention and Brians behavior. Figure 6 presents a graphic display of the results of this experimental an alysis. In summary, the functionally indicated interven tion consistently and repeat edly produced more positive results than did the non -indicated interventions.

PAGE 70

62 Brian's Experimental Data1 10 100 123456789101112131415161718Session Baseline Non-Function Indicated Non-Function Indicated Function Indicated Function Indicated Function Indicated Figure 6. Results of Experimental Analysis for Brian Barry Phase One FBA Barrys FBA was conducted using the Request for Assistance Form (Crone & Horner, 2003), the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (Crone & Horner, 2003), a records review of academ ic performance, attendance, discipline referrals, and medical history, and observations in natural settings using the ABC Form (Crone & Horner, 2003), including likely time s problem behaviors were most and least likely to occur. This process resulted in the id entification of a target behavior of off-task during academic task. Barrys off-task behavior was operationally defined as not actively involved in an assigned task, as evidenced by in itiating interaction with teacher or peers,

PAGE 71

63 not working or staring away from task for three seconds or longer, or manipulating any objects in any way other than to work on the assigned task. Brief FA As a result of the FBA, the hypothesized function of Barrys target behavior was identified as escape from difficult tasks. The brief FA for Barry presented issues that necessitated it being different from what was done with the other th ree subjects. Because Barrys behavior was escape motivated, a true consequence manipulation would have had to create conditions under which he could a nd could not escape. Because these conditions were deemed both unethical for Barry and unacceptable to the teacher, antecedents were manipulated. While such a procedure might be more accurately described as a structural rather than functional analysis and technica lly cannot verify functi on, the function can be assumed from clear differences across c onditions. During this process for Barry, preferred and non-preferred ta sks were alternatively in troduced and removed while holding constant variables such as teacher attention, setting, and time of day. Data gathered across these conditions demonstrated th at Barry was far more likely to engage in negative behavior in the presence of an aversive, non-preferre d he condition. Under conditions where the preferred task was in place, Barrys level of off task behavior remained at a low level (mean = 7.5%), while when non-preferred task conditions were in place his level of off task behavior was significantly higher (mean = 33%). This data showed a clear differentiation between the c onditions and provides strong evidence in support of the hypothesized function of escape from difficult tasks. Brief FA data for Barry are presented in Figure 7.

PAGE 72

64 Barry's Brief Functional Analysis1 10 100 1234Sessions Non-preferred Preferred Non-preferredPreferred Figure 7. Brief FA Results for Barry Phase Two In the experimental phase, two interven tions were identified, one indicated by function and the other not indicated by function, yet typical of classroom-based behavioral intervention in an average classroom. Barrys functionally indicated intervention allowed escape contingent upon completing non-preferred task by allowing him to earn B Passes which were small ma gnets presented by the teacher. The teacher would present these tokens to the student, contingent upon on task behavior during nonpreferred tasks. When the student had more than one token in his possession he was allowed to use one to take a 5-10 mi nute break. The non-functionally indicated intervention involved teacher a ttention in the form of verbal prompts and reprimands contingent upon off task behavior. During baseline no special interventions were implemented and data closely mirrored levels collected during the acce ss to specific peer

PAGE 73

65 condition in the brief FA (mean = 46.6%), and wi th a slightly increasing trend. In Barrys case, the functionally indicated intervention was implemented first and was associated with an immediate decrease in off task be havior to a low level (mean = 3.3%) with a decreasing trend ending with 0% of intervals on task during the last trial. Next, the nonfunctionally indicated interven tion was introduced and was associated with a change in trend and very gradual change in level. This change was so gradual that six trials were conducted to be certain of the stability of the data. Overall data during this condition ranged from 3% to 53% (mean = 26.3%). When the functionally indicated intervention was reintroduced off task behavior again dropped immediately to a low level (mean = 1.6%) with a decreasing trend ending with 0% Reintroduction of the non-functionally indicated intervention again was associated with an immediate increase to a high level of off task behavior (mean = 43%) and an increas ing trend. In order to end the experiment on a positive note, the functi onally indicated intervention was again reintroduced and demonstrated an immediate decrease in off ta sk behavior (mean = .6%) with the last two trials at 0%. These data demonstrate a f unctional relationship between the functionally indicated intervention and Barrys behavior. Fi gure 8 presents a gr aphic display of the results of this experimental analysis. In su mmary, the functionally indicated intervention consistently and repeatedly produced more positive results than did the non-indicated intervention.

PAGE 74

66 Barry's Experimental Data1 10 100 123456789101112131415161718192021Sessions Baseline Function Indicated Non-FunctionIndicated Function Indicated Non-Function Indicated Function Indicated Figure 8. Results of Experimental Analysis for Barry

PAGE 75

67 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Chapter five provides a discussion of th e dissertation study investigating the effectiveness of function indi cated behavioral interventions when compared to typical school interventions that are not based of th e function of a behavior. First, a preamble offers an overview of the rationale and methods involved in the study. Second, implications of those finding are explored and put into the context of the research base related to the study. Third, limita tions of the study are presented. Fourth, directions for future research are discussed. Last, a conc lusion summarizes the st udy and its findings. Preamble Students who exhibit challeng ing behaviors in the school setting rob themselves and their fellow students of learning opportunities, simultaneously taxing school and teacher resources in terms of instructional time and ener gy. Educators are searching for strategies that are both effec tive and efficient to better ma nage classroom behavior and FBA has been deemed a promising behavioral assessment strategy. While developed for use with students with severe disabiliti es, FBA is now being extended to the school setting for students with mild disabilities. Although a large body of research has assessed the effectiveness of developing interventions ba sed on the function in clinical settings and with a population identified as severely disabled, less research has evaluated the effectiveness of FBA in school settings and for students with or at-risk of school failure. Even less research has been conducted on the efficacy of brief FAs as a component of FBA to verify the hypothesized function prio r to the development of intervention.

PAGE 76

68 The purpose of this dissertation study was to scientifically investigate the efficacy of interventions based on th e function of behavior as co mpared to typical classroom behavioral interventions that are not based on the identifi ed function of behavior. The study was conducted using single subject research methodologie s that measure the effect of intervention on behavior over time for each study participant. A lternating treatments designs were used in this study because th ey directly compare the effects of the interventions (functionally a nd non-functionally indicated) un der investigation. In this study, threats to internal validity by se quencing effect were controlled by counterbalancing the order of introducti on of function indicated and non-function indicated interventions for the four study partic ipants. That is, for two subjects (Brian and Barry), the function indicated intervention was introduced first, followed by the nonfunction indicated intervention, while for th e other two students (J ulie and Amy), the order was reversed so that th e non-function indicate d interventions were introduced first, followed by the function indicated interventions. Implications The FBA, brief FA, and experimental phase s of this study each provide information that both answers the questions posed at the beginning of this study and sets the occasion for an new set of questions and study to furt her develop the indicator s and implications of these processes. The remainder of this chapter further explores these implications. In terms of the FBA procedures used in this study, the fact that each students teacher was intimately involved with the deve lopment of all interventions and reported acceptance of the practices and procedures fo llowed during the course of this study is significant. The initial FBA was conducted by the researcher in coordination with the teacher using a semi-structured interview form (Crone & Horner, 2003) that is presented

PAGE 77

69 in Appendix D. In particular, these forms were useful in imparting information about the student and his/her problem be havior, defining contexts for observation and leading to the generation of hypotheses of function for each student. This process was simple, well prescribed by the forms, and was accomplis hed by the researcher and teacher in the absence of outside assistance. This is important because, across all students, hypotheses generated from this process were validated by the brief FA. This means that the FBA process detailed herein has demonstrated valid ity by correctly identifying function in four of four trials. The fact that such simplified FBA methods de monstrated clearly accurate identification of function has implications fo r the form of FBA in public school settings, as there currently exists no clear evidence of what teachers are able and willing to do in terms of FBA. A second level of implication can be dr awn from the brief FAs. In general, manipulations undertaken as part of the brief FA resulted in clearly differentiated data patters that occurred with st rong temporal contiguity and were replicated. This process proved to be time consuming and, often, difficult to develop. Especially in the case of escape motivated behaviors, functional analys is procedures may be both unethical and unwieldy. Perhaps it would make logical sens e to consider a brief FA in the case of access motivated behaviors and to use a structur al analysis in the case of escape function hypotheses. However, there is no literature to support such a decision rule at this point, only the logistical and ethical warrants of the typical public school setting. In the experimental phase, each student demonstrated clearly more positive results under conditions involving functionally indicated interventions regardless of which was introduced first. At the same time, interven tions that were not ba sed on function did not

PAGE 78

70 demonstrate effects that were significantly different from baseline. Thus, these data support the use of functionally indicated in terventions as more effective than nonindicated interventions even when those interventions are widely used and accepted. Function indicated interventions were found to be more effective in reducing problem behaviors. Extension of the Literature The two studies most influential in the development of this dissertation are Newcomer and Lewis (2004) and Ingram, LewisPalmer, and Sugai (2005). Both of these studies were novel in that they attempted to validate the role of function in the development of behavioral in terventions. Both produced resu lts that supported functionbased intervention but both had limitations in three key areas. First, Newcomer and Lewis did not counterbalance to control for or dering effects but Ingram et al. did. Second, Ingram et al. did not experi mentally validate functional hypo theses prior to intervention while Newcomer and Lewis did. Third, Newcomer and Lewis manipulated only antecedents for their interventions while I ngram et al. manipulated consequence-based interventions. Because each of these three issues is s een as key, the current study extended the research by assuring the count erbalancing, experimental validation of functional hypotheses, and consequence based interventions were us ed. The significance here is that, with this more stringent methodology, function-based intervention continued to be associated with more positive student outcomes than non-func tional interventions. One serendipitous finding in this study is re lated to the fact that two of the subjects target behaviors were maintained each by access to attention of one another. While complicated in terms of research, this situ ation likely is common in classrooms where children spend large amounts of time together and become conditioned reinforcers for

PAGE 79

71 each other. Of importance is the manner in whic h the brief FA was used to validate these functions simultaneously and how contingent access to specific peers was successfully used as intervention strategy for these students. Although a common problem in the school setting, this type of be havior has not previously been addressed in the literature. Upon reviewing the data from all students it became evident that non-indicated interventions not only were associated with higher levels of inappr opriate behavior but that these behaviors tended to increase over time. This held true both within the phase where increasing trends of problem beha vior were observed in all non-indicated conditions, but also across non-indicated conditions. Fo r each student, the second introduction of non-indicated in tervention was associated with a further deterioration of behavior than had been observed in the first introduction. If a contra-indicated intervention (reversal) had been implemented we might expect such an outcome, as the intervention would be hypothesized to reinfor ce problem behavior. However, the use of a simple non-indicated intervention would not predict accelerating negative behavior. Possibly this escalation is small extinction bus t that grows with each new removal of the reinforcer (e.g., attention or opportunity to escape). But the potential implication for teachers is important. Inconsistent applica tion of a function-based intervention even when not directly reinforcing problem behavior may tend to ha ve the effect of escalating problem behavior. This is another issue that warrants further study. Limitations When considering the outcomes reporte d in this study a number of limitations should be considered. While these limitati ons do not erase the significance of the outcomes, they do present concerns that ultim ately must mediate the scope of conclusions drawn as a result.

PAGE 80

72 Generalization As with any single subject design, generali zation to other studen ts by age, grade, gender, learning histories, disa bility, educational settings, behavior types, and setting cannot be inferred without systematic replication in light of these variables. For example, assessments did not occur across the full range of stimulus conditions, prohibiting the detection of multiple functions of the target behaviors, which may have resulted in only partial reductions. In additi on, the small number of subject s involved in this study does not warrant comprehensive statements regard ing effect. However, the purpose of this study was to add to the scant evidence base on FBA in public schools. More generalizable results will be dependent upon the continuing evolution and replication of this line of research. Design Limitations Single subject in general are limited by th e degree to which the data are clearly enough differentiated across phases in terms of level, trend, and stability. Fortunately, data in this study was associated with clea r temporal contiguity (change immediate at phase line) and replication. In addition, the complex envi ronment that is the school classroom creates an endless array of variable s that may or may not have any predictable effect on the students behavior. Although effort s were made to cont rol all variables in the environment, it is impossible to know whet her all relevant variables were actually controlled. While this lack of control lends it self to external validity by involving natural stimuli, it weakens internal validity and must be considered when analyzing the outcomes reported herein. Alternating treatments design s in particular provide the advantage of comparing treatments in an efficient manner. However, ordering effects and the inability to draw conclusions regarding the individua l components of a pack age intervention limit

PAGE 81

73 this design. In the current study these issu es were minimized by counterbalancing the order of intervention and using discrete intervention consequences rather than multiintervention packages. Directions for Future Research Robert Gable (1999) has summarized both the rationale and direction of FBA research in reinforcing that the use of FBA in school settings necessitates a hypothesisdriven approach using indirect (interviews, etc.) and dire ct (scatter plot, ABC, etc.) procedures to generate an informed hypothesi s of function. He makes the point that, in complex settings such as schools, much of what the research tells us about FBA may simply be inaccurate or incomplete. For ex ample, he points to analog analysis as a procedure that, while validated in the literatur e for clinical settings may not be realistic in the school. What other features of our existing knowledge of FBA warrant further thought, discussion, and research? The following issues that have arisen from the implementation and results of this study seem especially relevant and in need of our attention as future directi on for our scholarly efforts. It seems clear that function indicated inte rventions should be evaluated in terms of cost/benefit for effectiveness plus efficienc y. That is, we must determine the point at which FBA is warranted in order to prevent failure and the level of FBA that should be prescribed. To be sure, early intervention pr ovides a better prognosis for the future but how early and how much intervention are ques tions that remain unanswered as we simply cannot apply FBA to each and every student with the most mild of problems nor do we need to. Thus, there are some im portant questions primed for study. First, because FBA is complex and idios yncratic, requiring much effort and energy, future research must continue to examine ways to improve the efficiency of the process.

PAGE 82

74 One area of focus might be to determine whic h component pieces of FBA are essential to its successful implementation in school set tings. To repeat Gable s thought, are analog analyses necessary? In the current study br ief FAs were successfully used to validate hypotheses but it still seems relevant to as k, given that all initi al hypotheses were validated, whether the validation process is n ecessary at all. Thus, research needs to further examine when and how validation is be st implemented so as to create a set of decision rules for its application in the school setting. Similarly, research must strive to determ ine the point or conditions under which the simple FBA methods used in this study are like ly to be sufficient and when, if ever, more formalized and complex assessment procedures must be implemented. Whether this is an issue of the topography or intensity of the beha vior, the degree of failure for the student, or the number of previous assessment and interv entions trials is a question that must be studied. It would be helpful for school pe rsonnel if they could characterize a given students behavior and get a prescription fo r the intensity of assessment based on some score or set of criteria. Another issue involves the portability or generalization of function-based interventions. Because function is often very contextual and tied to specific settings or circumstances, will we find that the full range of FBA, FA, and intervention planning will need to occur for every contex t or condition in which the stud ent resides on a daily basis? If so, FBA quickly becomes too burdensome a task to be realistic for public schools. More likely, classes of environmental stimuli (antecedents and consequences) can be identified as part of the process, allowing more generalized interventions. However, such

PAGE 83

75 generalizability has not been demonstrated in the complex and subtle social environment of the typical school classroom. Perhaps the heart of all of the questions that remain unanswered for FBA is what processes and procedures will school personnel find simple and efficient enough to implement in the scope of their daily wo rk lives. As Scott and Nelson (1999a) have suggested, providing teachers w ith models of FBA that serv e to actually decrease the problem behaviors they so lament will be a major factor in persuading them to continue using this technology. However, when not realis tic in terms of time or effort, even the most effective interventions are unlikely to ma intain. Research must continue to focus on teacher application without assistance or advi sement from researchers or other experts. The current study, although involving the te acher in all phases, was directed and coordinated by the researcher and thus ca nnot be said to have demonstrated any practicality for teachers in terms of efficiency or effort. It is sti ll not clear whether the future of FBA will be ion the hands of classroom teachers, school psychologists, specialized teams, or relegated back to experts from outside the school. Conclusions This study set out to answer the question as to whether an intervention based on the verified function of behavior in a public school classroom is more effective than traditional classroom-based interventions that are not indicated by function. The results of this study, in consideration of the limitations inherent in such research, support functionbased interventions as being more effective in reducing problem behavior and increasing positive replacement behavior than are interv entions that, while common, are not based on function. As has been discussed, the us e of FBA, brief FA, and function-based intervention were found to be effective me thods of gathering information, validating

PAGE 84

76 function, and changing behavior. Whether th ese results will hol d up over time, across settings, and under less controlled contexts is yet to be determined and must make up the bulk of a research agenda for those who study FBA.

PAGE 85

77 APPENDIX A IRB PERMISSION

PAGE 86

78

PAGE 87

79

PAGE 88

80

PAGE 89

81

PAGE 90

82 APPENDIX B PBS SCHOOL-WIDE EVAULATION TOOL (SET)

PAGE 91

83

PAGE 92

84

PAGE 93

85

PAGE 94

86

PAGE 95

87

PAGE 96

88

PAGE 97

89

PAGE 98

90

PAGE 99

91 APPENDIX C REQUEST ASSISTANCE FORM

PAGE 100

92

PAGE 101

93 APPENDIX D FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST FOR TEACHERS AND STAFF (FACTS)

PAGE 102

94

PAGE 103

95

PAGE 104

96

PAGE 105

97 APPENDIX E FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT OBSERVATION FORM

PAGE 106

98 APPENDIX F BRIEF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS PARTIAL INTERVAL DATA FORM

PAGE 107

99 APPENDIX G BRIEF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OPPORT UNITIES TO RESPOND DATA FORM

PAGE 108

100 APPENDIX H EXPERIMENT PARTIAL INTERVAL DATA FORM

PAGE 109

101 APPENDIX I EXPERIMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO RESPOND DATA FORM

PAGE 110

102 LIST OF REFERENCES Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (1999). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall. Anderson, J. A., Kutash, K., & Duchnowski, A. J. (2001). A comparison of the academic progress of students with EBD and students with LD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9 (2) 106-115. Bailey, Jr., D. B. (1984). Effects of lines of progress and semilogarithmic charts on ratings of charted data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17 359-365. Bender, W. N., & Mathes, M. Y. (1995). Students with ADHD in the inclusive classroom: A hierarchical appr oach to strategy selection. Intervention In School and Clinic, 30, 226-234. Biglan, A. (1995). Translating what we know about the context of antisocial behavior into a lower prevalence of such behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 479-492. Boyajian, A. E., DuPaul, G. J., Handler, M. W., Eckert, T. L., & McGoey, K. E. (2001). The use of classroom-based brief functiona l analyses with preschoolers at-risk for attention deficit hype ractivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 30 (2), 278-293. Broussard, C. D. & Northup, J., (1995). An approach to functi onal assessment and analysis of disruptive behavior in regular education classrooms. School Psychology Quarterly, 10 (2), 151-164. Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reduc ing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-126. Chandler, L. K., & Da hlquist, C. M. (2002). Functional assessment: Strategies to prevent and remediate challenging behavior in school settings. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall. Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support system in schools: Functional beha vioral assessment. New York: The Guilford Press. Colvin, G., Sugai, G., & Kameenui, E. (1993) Reconceptualizing behavior management and school-wide discipline in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16 361-381.

PAGE 111

103 Conroy, M., Fox, J., Crain, L., Jenkins, A., & Be lcher, K. (1996). Evaluating the social and ecological of analog assessment pro cedures for challenging behaviors in young children. Education and Treatment of Children, 19 (3), 233-256. Cooper, L.J., Wacker, D.P., Thursby, D., Plag mann, L.A., Harding, J., Millard, T., et al. (1992). Analysis of the effects of task preferences, task demands, and adult attention on child behavior in outpatient and classroom settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 823-840. Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Peck, S., Sass o, G., DeRaad, A., Berg, W., et al. (1994). Functional analysis of separate t opographies of aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 267-278. Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Sasso, G., Steeg e, M., Northup, J., Cigrand, K., et al. (1992). Brief functional assessment techniques to evaluate aberrant behavior in an outpatient setting: A summary of 79 cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 713-721. Dunlap, G., & Childs, K. E. (1996). Interven tion research in emo tional and behavioral disorders: An analysis of studies from 1980-1993. Behavioral Disorders, 21 (2), 125-136. Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K. E., et al. (1993). Functional analysis of classroom vari ables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 275-291. Edwards, W. H., Magee, S. K., & Ellis, J. ( 2002). Identifying the effects of idiosyncratic variables on functional anal ysis outcomes: A case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 25 (3), 317-330. Ellingson, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., Strick er, J., Galensky, T. L., & Garlinghouse, M. (2000). Functional assessment and interv ention for challenging behaviors in the classroom by general classroom teachers. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 85-97. Ellis, J., & Magee, S. K. (1999). Determinati on of environmental correlates of disruptive classroom behavior: Integration of fu nctional analysis into public school assessment process. Education and Treatment of Children, 12 (3), 168-181. Ervin, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., Kern, L., & Friman, P. C. (1998). Classroom-based functional and adjunctive assessments: Proactive approaches to intervention selection for adolescents w ith attention deficit hyperac tivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 65-78. Fox, J., Conroy, M., & Heckaman, K. (1998). Res earch issues in func tional assessment of the challenging behaviors of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24 (1), 26-33.

PAGE 112

104 Gable, R.A. (1999). Functional as sessment in school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 24 (3), 246-248. Gresham, F. M. (2003). Establishing the te chnical adequacy of functional behavioral assessment: Conceptual and measurement challenges. Behavioral Disorders, 28 (3), 282-298. Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Owen-DeSchryver, J., Iwata, B. A., & Wacker, D. P. (1997). Toward the deve lopment of structured criteria for interpretation of functional analysis data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 313-326. Heckaman, K., Conroy, M., Fox, J., & Chait, A. (2000). Functional assessment-based intervention research on students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 25 (3), 196-210. Hendrickson, J. M., Gable, R. A., Conroy, M. A., Fox, J., & Smith, C. (1999). Behavioral problems in schools: Ways to encourage functional behavior assessment (FBA) of discipline-evoking behavior of students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBD). Education and Treatment of Children, 22 (3), 280-290. Horner, R. H. (1994). Functional assessmen t: Contributions and future directions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 401-404. Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA indi cated and contra-ind icated intervention plans. Journal of Positive Be havior Interventions, 7 (4), 224-236 Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3-20. Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Dorsey, B. F., Za rcone, J. R., Vollmer, T. R., Smith, R., et. al. (1994). The function of self-injurious be havior: An experimental-epidemiological analysis. Journal of Applied Be havior Analysis, 33, 181-194. Iwata, B. A. (1994). Functional analys is methodology: Some closing comments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 27, 413-418. Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S. W., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., Handley, G. P., Thompson, R. H., & Worsdell, S. S. (2000). Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 181-194. Jolivette, K., Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2000). The link between functional behavior assessments (F BAs) and behavioral intervention plans (BIPs). ERIC Digest, E592, EDO-00-1.

PAGE 113

105 Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press. Kern, L., Hilt, A.M., & Gresham, F. (2004). An evaluation of the functional behavioral assessment process used with students with or at risk for emo tional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 27 (4), 440-452. Kerr, M. M. & Nelson, C. M. (2002). Strategies for addressing behavior problems in the classroom. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall. Lalli, J. S., Browder, D. M., Mace, F. C., & Brown, D. K. (1993). Teacher use of descriptive analysis data to implement in terventions to decrea se students problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26 227-238. Lewis, T. & Sugai, G. (1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 3-24. Magee, S. K., & Ellis, J. (2000). Extincti on effects during the assessment of multiple problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33 (3), 313-316. Meyer, K. A. (1999). Functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior exhibited by elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 229-232. Miller, J. W., McKenna, M. C. & McKenna, B. A. (1998). A comparison of alternatively and traditionally prepared teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 49 (3), 165-176 Miltenberger, R. G. (2004). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Newcomer, L., & Lewis, T. J. (2004). Functi onal behavioral assessm ent: An investigation of assessment reliability and effectiveness of function-based interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12 (3), 168-181 Nelson, J. R., Roberts, M. L., Mathur, S. R ., & Rutherford, Jr., R. B. (1999). Has public policy exceeded our knowledge base: A re view of the functional behavioral assessment literature. Behavioral Disorders, 24 (2), 169-179. Noell, G. H., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Gatti, S. L., & Whitmarsh, E. L. (2001). Functional assessment of the effects of escape and attention on students compliance during instruction. School Psychology Quarterly, 16 (3), 253-269. Northup, J. Broussard, C., Jones, K., George T., Vollmer, T. R., & Herring, M. (1995). The differential effects of teacher and peer attention on the disruptive classroom behavior of three children with a dia gnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28 227-228.

PAGE 114

106 Northup, J., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Ke lly, L., Sasso, G., & DeRaad, A. (1994). The treatment of severe behavi or problems in school settings using a technical assistance model. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27 33-47. Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Cigrand, K., Cook, J., et al. (1991). A brief functional analysis of aggressive a nd alternative behavior in an outclinic setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 509-522. ONeill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment and program d evelopment for problem behavior: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks /Cole Publishing Co. Peck, J., Sasso, G. M., & Stambaugh, M. ( 1998). Functional analyses in the classroom: Gaining reliability without sacrificing validity. Preventing School Failure, 43 (1), 14-18. Repp, A. (1994). Comments on functional analysis procedures for school-based behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 409-411. Repp, A. C., Felce, D., & Barton, L. E. (1988). Basing the trea tment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors on hypotheses of their causes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21 281-289. 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 (4), 282-296. Sasso, G. M., Reimers, T. M., Cooper, L. J ., Wacker, D., Berg, W., Steege, M., et al. (1992). Use of descriptive and experimental analyses to identify the functional properties of aberrant beha vior in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 809-821. Schill, M. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Ellio tt, S. N. (1998). Functional assessment in behavioral consultation: A treatment utility study. School Psychology Quarterly, 13 (2), 116-140. Scott, T. M., Meers, D. T., & Nelson, C. M. (2000). Toward a consensus of functional behavioral assessment for students with mild disabilities in pub lic school contexts: A national survey. Education and Treatment of Children, 23 (3), 265-285. Scott, T. M. & Nelson, C. M. (1999a). Functi onal behavioral assessm ent: Implications for training and staff development. Behavioral Disorders, 24(3), 249-252. Scott, T. M. & Nelson, C. M. (1999b). Using functional behavioral assessment to develop effective intervention plans: Pr actical classroom applications. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1 (4), 242-251.

PAGE 115

107 Scott, T. M., Bucalos, A., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., & DeShea, L. (2004). Using functional behavior assessm ent in general e ducation settings: Making a case for effectiveness and efficiency. Behavioral Disorders, 29 (2), 189201) Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Stichter, J. P. (2001). Functional analysis: The use of analogues in applied settings. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 16 (4), 232-240. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hienem an, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., et al. (2000). Applying positive behavior support a nd functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Be havior Interventions, 2 (3), 131-143. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Sprague, J. R. (1999). Functional-assessment-based behavior support planning: Research to practice to research. Behavioral Disorders, 24 (3), 253-257. Sugai, G., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. (2000). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline re ferrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8 (2), 94101. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publis hing Company. Taylor, J. & Miller M. (1997). When timeout works some of th e time: The importance of treatment integrity and functional assessment. School Psychology Quarterly, 12 (1), 4-22. Umbreit, J. (1995). Functional assessment a nd intervention in a regular classroom setting for the disruptive behavior of a student with attention deficit h yperactivity disorder. Behavioral Disorders, 20 (4), 267-278. Umbreit, J. (1995). Functional analysis of disr uptive behavior in an inclusive classroom. Journal of Early Intervention, 20 (1), 18-29. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gatti, S. (2001). Descriptive assessment method to reduce overall disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. The School Psychology Review, 30 (4), 548-567. Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Cooper, L. J., Derby, M., Steege, M. W., Northup, J. et al. (1994). The impact of functional anal ysis methodology on outpatient clinic services. The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 405-407. Walker, H.M., & Sprague, J.R. (1999). Longitu dinal research and f unctional behavioral assessment issues. Behavioral Disorders, 24 (4), 335-337. White, O. R., & Haring, N. G. (1984). Exceptional teaching (2nd eds.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

PAGE 116

108 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH A biographical sketch is required of all ca ndidates. The biographical sketch should be in narrative form. It typically include s the educational bac kground of the candidate. You may replace this paragraph with your ow n text. The text uses the 08 Body Text style, which specifies double spacing.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013641/00001

Material Information

Title: Functional Behavioral Assessment: Basing Intervention on Function in School Settings
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013641:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0013641/00001

Material Information

Title: Functional Behavioral Assessment: Basing Intervention on Function in School Settings
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0013641:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












FUNCTIONAL BEHAVORIAL ASSESSMENT: BASING INTERVENTION
ON FUNCTION IN SCHOOL SETTINGS















By

LINDA DONICA PAYNE


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Linda Donica Payne
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

L IST O F T A B L E S ........ ...... .. .......... ................................... ................ .. vi

L IST O F F IG U R E S .... ...... ................................................ .. .. ..... .............. vii

A B S T R A C T .......................................... .................................................. v iii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

Scope of Problem Behavior in the School .......... ............................... .................
Functional B behavior A ssessm ent............................................ ........... ............... 4
F functional A naly sis ....................................................... 7
Brief Functional Analysis .......................................... .............. ...... .........8
A nalog A naly ses................................................................................. 8
N aturalistic A nalyses ............................................ ... .... .... .. ........ .. 8
P purpose of Study .................................................................. ............................ . 8

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................ .............. 10

C clinical Setting s ........................ ............ ... .. ... ............ .... ........ 11
Functional Behavioral Assessment Studies in the Clinic.............. .....................11
Functional Analysis Studies in the Clinic ................................. ............... 13
S ch o o l S ettin g s ................................................ .................................................... 14
Functional Behavioral Assessment Studies in Schools.................. ............14
Brief Functional Analysis in School Settings......................................................18
A nalog Conditions ........... ................... ......... ............. .... ........24
H ypothesis D erived Conditions ......................................................... ............... 26
Studies Specific to Function-Based Interventions.....................................................27

3 M E T H O D ............................................................................................................. 3 5

P participants and Setting ........................................... .................. ............... 36
S e ttin g .......................................................................................3 6
P articip an ts ................................................................3 6
Criteria................................... ......... 36
P articipant D descriptions ....................................................... 37
T arg et B eh av io rs ........................................................................................... 3 9









Replacem ent Behaviors .................................. ....... ...................... 40
Process ......... .......... ..........................41
Functional B behavior A ssessm ent ........................................ ...................... 41
B rief Functional A nalysis........................................................... ............... 42
Direct Observations of Target Behavior.......... ..............................42
Interobserver Reliability ............ .................... ............... 43
Social Validity ................ ......... ..................44
E xperim mental Procedures ......... ................. ..................................... ...................... 44
Intervention plan s ............................. .................... .. .. ....... .... ............44
E x p erim ental D esig n ........................................... ...........................................4 7
Treatm ent Fidelity ........................... ...... ... .. ...... ............ 48

4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................4 9

Ju lie .......... ................................................................ 5 0
P h a se O n e ................................................................5 0
FBA .............. ... .......................... ...............50
Brief FA ................................................................................... ....... ... ......... 51
P h a se T w o ...................................................................................................... 5 2
Amy .......................................54
P h a se O n e ................................................................5 4
F B A .............. .... ............. ................. ..................................................... 5 4
Brief FA ............................................................................ ......... ................... 55
P h a se T w o ...................................................................................................... 5 6
B r ia n ...................................................................................................................... 5 8
P h a se O n e ................................................................5 8
FBA .............. ... .......................... ...............58
Brief FA ............................................................................ ......... ................... 59
P h a se T w o ...................................................................................................... 6 0
B a rry .......... ...................................................................6 2
P h a se O n e ................................................................6 2
FBA .............. ... .......................... ...............62
Brief FA ............................................................................ ......... ................... 63

5 D IS C U S S IO N ................................................................................................6 7

P re a m b le ..............................................................................6 7
Im p licatio n s ...........................................................6 8
E xten sion of the L literature .................................................................................... 70
L im station s ..................................................................................................7 1
G e n e ra liz a tio n ........................................................................................................ 7 2
Design Limitations............................. ... .......... 72
Directions for Future Research ............... .......................... 73
C o n c lu sio n s............................................................................................................ 7 5






iv









APPENDIX

A IR B P E R M IS SIO N .......................................................................... .....................77

B PBS SCHOOL-WIDE EVAULATION TOOL (SET)......................... ............82

C REQUEST ASSISTANCE FORM .......................... ........................ ...... ......... 91

D FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST FOR TEACHERS AND STAFF
(F A C T S ) ........................................................................... 9 3

E FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT OBSERVATION FORM............97

F BRIEF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS PARTIAL INTERVAL DATA FORM ..........98

G BRIEF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OPPORTUNITIES TO RESPOND DATA
F O R M ................. ..................................... ...........................99

H EXPERIMENT PARTIAL INTERVAL DATA FORM ............... .....................100

I EXPERIMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO RESPOND DATA FORM................ 101

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ......... .. ............... ................. .............................................. 102

B IO G R A PH ICA L SK ETCH ......... ................. ...................................... .....................108
















LIST OF TABLES

Table p

1 Studies Using Brief Functional Analysis in Schools ................... ....... .........20

2 Subjects' Target and Replacement Behaviors............. .....................41

3 Subjects' Functions & Interventions .............................................. .................. 47
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure pge

1 B rief FA R results for Julie...................... .... .................. ................. ............... 52

2 Results of Experimental Analysis for Julie......... ...................................54

3 Brief FA R results for A m y ........................................... .............................. 56

4 Results of Experimental Analysis for Amy........... .................................58

5 B rief F A R results for B rian ......................................... .. ................. .....................60

6 Results of Experim ental Analysis for Brian ........................................ ................62

7 B rief F A R results for B arry .............................................................. ........ .......64

8 Results of Experimental Analysis for Barry ......................................................66















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVORIAL ASSESSMENT: BASING INTERVENTION
ON FUNCTION IN SCHOOL SETTINGS

By

Linda Donica Payne

August 2006

Chair: Terry Scott
Cochair: James McLeskey
Major Department: Special Education

This study investigated the efficiency and efficacy of function indicated

interventions compared to traditional intervention that were not based on the function of

challenging behaviors for four elementary school students with mild disabilities using

Functional Behavioral Assessment. Behavioral interventions based on functional

behavioral assessment were found to be more effective than alternative interventions

across all four subjects. Implications, study limitations, and future research directions are

discussed.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this first chapter is threefold. First, the scope of problem behavior

in the school setting as it affects both students' present and future lives and the lives of

those who work with them will be presented. Second, an assessment strategy based on

determining the function of problem behavior for the purpose of creating intervention

plans that both discourage inappropriate behavior and encourage an appropriate

replacement behavior will be outlined. Lastly, questions of concern for this study are

presented.

Scope of Problem Behavior in the School

Although most students maintain successful conduct in public school settings, some

develop problem behaviors that are deemed inappropriate and that jeopardize the quality

of their education. While positive social interaction with peers and teachers is

problematic for some of these students, others simply have difficulty with basic school

rules and procedures such as walking in line, raising their hand to receive assistance, or

participating in class discussions. Whatever the topography or nature might be,

inappropriate behavior in schools often presents both a safety concern and a loss of

learning time for both the student and his or her peers in the environment. To be certain,

these students require effective intervention if they are to successfully matriculate

through the public school system.

In schools today, teachers express frustration with traditional discipline strategies

and believe that such strategies are not effective in managing inappropriate behaviors in









school settings. In fact, a recent survey reports that teachers rank managing classroom

behavior as their foremost concern and feel that their preparation was inadequate (Miller,

McKenna, & McKenna, 1998). Many teachers today believe they do not have the

strategies they need to manage extreme cases of inappropriate behavior (Bender &

Mathes, 1995). Although teachers report feeling some sense of inadequacy in planning

lessons, teaching content, and utilizing appropriate instructional strategies, the same

cannot be said for controlling student behavior and implementing a system of discipline,

which appears to be a major obstacle to providing effective instruction (Miller, McKenna,

& McKenna, 1998).

The challenge of educating today's students involves teaching content in the midst

of an information and technology explosion and with students who sometimes display

alarmingly inappropriate behavior, disrupting the learning process for all students. For

the teacher, the results of these behavior patterns are wasted instructional time and

energy, which must be redirected away from content instruction because of those

behaviors.

Extreme cases of school violence are widely publicized in the media. In a recent

survey, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (www.cdc.gov/ncipc)

reported the majority of violent incidents in schools to be homicides, involving the use of

firearms. While the total number of incidents has decreased over the last decade, the

number of multiple victim events has increased, receiving expanded coverage from news

sources. In 1998, the U.S. Secretary of Education issued a report compiled by an

impressive task force of national experts (Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to

Safe Schools) which recommended that efforts be initiated to respond to cases of









violence, but that the real solution lies in preventative efforts to build and maintain safe

school climates.

Classroom disruptions are much more pervasive than isolated incidents of extreme

violence, consuming huge amounts of instructional time and educator energy. It is

understandable that teachers sometimes get caught up in the trap of reactive responding

to problem student behavior and even engaging in power struggles. These disruptions

also distract other students, impeding the learning process for both the student displaying

the disruptive behavior and, often, innocent bystanders (other students in the class). Many

times these problems can be predicted by time, location, and context, allowing teachers to

proactively plan for prevention and, failing that, effective intervention.

Whether the problem behavior is extremely disruptive or just mildly annoying,

school outcomes, in both social and academic contexts, are bleak for students identified

with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD). The U. S. Department of Education reported

in 1998 that students with EBD had the highest dropout rate of any defined group of

students. Also, poor academic and social performances have been documented for

students with EBD. In a longitudinal study, students with EBD started first grade at a

higher academic level than students with learning disorders (LD) but by the end of fourth

grade had fallen significantly behind (Anderson, Kutash, & Duchnowski, 2001). Societal

problems for students with EBD include employment difficulties, homelessness, criminal

justice system involvement, and adult relationship problems (Anderson, Kutash, &

Duchnowski, 2001). Students experiencing behavior problems in schools are logically at-

risk for eventual EBD identification and potential negative outcomes as well. The

urgency of the need for effective interventions, coupled with the difficulty teachers









experience in dealing with students' problematic behavior serves to highlight the need for

effective methods of addressing problematic student behavior in schools today.

Historically, school discipline has been reactive, simply waiting for problems to

occur and then applying punitive procedures (Colvin, Sugai, & Kameenui, 1993). This

has left students to discover appropriate ways of behaving through a trial-and-error

process. However, because repeated failures do not constitute effective instruction, many

students simply give up. Using what is known about the nature and context of behavior to

intervene in school environments can lower the prevalence of antisocial behavior and

support the promotion and maintenance of socially valid behaviors (Biglan, 1995).

Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is an assessment strategy that informs effective

intervention and is promising for use in school settings to facilitate the replacement of

current punitive discipline methods that have become common practice despite their

ineffectiveness (Hendrickson, Gable, Conroy, Fox, & Smith, 1999).

Functional Behavior Assessment

While functional behavior intervention plans discourage inappropriate behavior, the

main focus is on teaching, encouraging, and reinforcing appropriate behavior. FBA is an

element of Positive Behavior Supports (PBS), an approach involving the application of

school-wide systems and interventions to achieve socially valid changes in behavior

(Sugai et al., 2000). Although PBS was initially developed as an option to aversive

interventions with students with significant disabilities who engaged in extreme forms of

self-injury and aggression, the application has been expanded to a widening range of

students and their environments (Sugai et al., 2000). PBS can be defined as a

behaviorally-based systems approach that links research-validated practices to teaching

and learning environments (Sugai et al., 2000). Thus, it is proactive rather than reactive.









The goal of PBS is to eliminate problem behaviors using a three-level system: the

universal (school-wide) level for all students, the secondary (at-risk) level for students

displaying some problem behaviors, and the individual student (for the most intense

needs) level with students for whom universal and targeted systems have been

insufficient to facilitate success (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). At the secondary and individual

student levels FBA is used for students with both mild and severe problem behaviors.

The Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),

1997, maintains provisions that address this issue in two ways. First, for students with an

Individual Educational Plan (IEP), "positive behavioral intervention strategies and

supports" must be included in instances where behavior impedes the learning of the

student or others (P. L. 105-17, Section 614). Second, if a student with such a plan is

suspended from school and an FBA resulting in the implementation of a behavioral

intervention plan (BIP) has not been conducted, an IEP meeting must be held to develop

such a plan (P. L. 105-17, Section 615). Thus, FBA has been mandated for schools in

these narrowly defined circumstances and, as a result, school personnel have broadened

its use to include students considered at-risk for emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD),

such as students who chronically demonstrate difficult and challenging behavior at

school.

FBA is a systematic method of gathering information about behavior and its

relationship with the environment in which it occurs. Its goal is to identify the function or

purpose that behavior serves for the student under specific environmental conditions. A

basic tenet of FBA is that when the function of a behavior is identified, an appropriate

replacement behavior can be taught and interventions effectively tailored to address the









distinct needs of the individual in the context in which behavior occurs (Iwata et al.,

2000; Jolivette, Scott, & Nelson, 2000; Scott & Nelson, 1999b). The nature and amount

of information gathered in conducting FBA is dependent upon the severity of the

student's behavior problems. In its simplest form, data collection might involve indirect

methods such as structured interviews, checklists, or reviews of student records

(Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002; Crone & Horner, 2003; Kerr & Nelson, 2002). When

problem behaviors are more complex or dangerous, data collection likely will include

direct observation of student behavior in natural settings (Crone & Homer, 2003; O'Neill

et al., 1997). From these data, the function of behavior is determined and interventions

are developed that teach and encourage functionally equivalent replacement behaviors.

Based on well-established principles of behavior theory, FBA is predicated on the

notion that behavior is elicited or signaled by environmental events or antecedents and is

reinforced by environmental consequences (Alberto & Troutman, 1999; Miltenberger,

2004; Skinner, 1953; Skinner, 1974). Thus, knowledge of antecedents and consequences

enables the prediction of behavior and its function, which in turn, logically suggests a

means of prevention. Because the purpose of FBA is to determine the function of

behavior and then to design appropriate interventions, the FBA is not complete until an

effective intervention has been implemented. The function of behavior can be categorized

into four possible groups: 1) sensory reinforcement, 2) escape/avoidance of an

undesirable situation, 3) seeking attention, and 4) access to tangible(s) (Carr & Durand,

1985; Iwata et al., 1982; Sasso et al., 1992). Still, each of these can be further collapsed

to create two broad categories: access to reinforcing stimuli or events and

escape/avoidance of aversive stimuli or events. Resulting interventions then are focused









on teaching appropriate behaviors that help the student to achieve the same functional

outcome as the problem behavior. For example, if the function of a student's yelling

behavior was determined to be access to teacher attention, then a functionally appropriate

behavior plan for him would be to teach a more appropriate manner of accessing teacher

attention, such as raising his hand and to then be certain that teacher attention was

available contingent upon hand raising.

In the school setting, FBA is a tool that teachers can use to identify the function of

problem behavior (e.g., yelling in class to gain teacher attention) and design an

intervention plan based on that function (Scott & Nelson, 1999b). Such plans involve

student acquisition of prosocial replacement behaviors that serve the same function as the

undesirable behavior (e.g., raising a hand to get the teacher's attention). In addition, these

plans generate strategies that create environments where desirable behaviors are more

likely to occur, which could be as simple as verbally reinforcing the behavior of hand

raising to gain teacher attention while simultaneously making yelling out for attention

ineffective (Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001). Specific

functional behavior assessment procedures will be further detailed in Chapters Two and

Three.

Functional Analysis

Functional analysis, a component of FBA, is a term used to describe the direct,

systematic manipulation of antecedent and/or consequence events) that are related

functionally to problem behavior (Homer, 1994; Sugai, Horner, Sprague, 1999). While

functional analyses can be extended, usually in clinical settings, they are usually "briefer"

in school settings (Broussard & Northup, 1995). The purpose of a brief FA is to ascertain

function or verify hypotheses of function that were developed as part of the FBA.









Specific functional analysis procedures will be further detailed in Chapters Two and

Three.

Brief Functional Analysis

Analog Analyses

Analog assessment implies the creation of specific conditions during which

variables are held constant, manipulated, and systematically presented in a

counterbalanced sequence (Stichter, 2001). For the purposes of this paper, analog

assessments are presumed to take place outside the natural classroom routine (Dunlap et

al., 1993).

Naturalistic Analyses

Naturalistic assessments are conducted within the context of the natural, classroom

environment. Antecedent and/or consequence variables are still manipulated, for the

purpose of identifying the function of a student's challenging behavior (Dunlap et al.,

1993).

Purpose of Study

While FBA has been developed and researched in clinical settings as an effective

strategy to identify interventions that both manage inappropriate behavior and teach

appropriate replacement behavior, it is not yet clear whether FBA will prove to be as

effective a technology in school settings that typically involve much less structure and

much greater social complexity. One of the questions in need of expanded research is

whether function-based interventions are indeed more efficacious than non-function-

based interventions in terms of short-term, long-term, and generalized effectiveness,

when compared to typical school interventions (Fox, Conroy, & Heckaman, 1998; Sasso,

Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001). The purpose of this study is to determine whether an






9


intervention based on the verified function of a behavior in a public school classroom is

more efficacious than the typical or traditional intervention that is implemented without

regard to function for students with challenging behaviors.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter first summarizes the research on FBA that has been conducted in

clinical settings for students with severe cognitive and developmental disabilities. Next,

the very limited research that has been conducted on FBA in school settings is presented

and discussed; and brief Functional Analysis (FA) in school settings will be reviewed.

Finally, research specifically targeting the efficacy of function-based interventions

compared to typical, classroom management strategies is explored in depth.

Although comprehensively researched in clinical settings, FBA lacks an extensive

research base in school settings (Fox, Conroy, & Heckaman, 1998; Sasso, Conroy,

Stichter, & Fox, 2001), in part because school environments are complex and require

more control of external variables than is typically feasible. Originally, applied behavior

analysis researchers developed FBA to assist in creating interventions for persons with

severe cognitive and/or developmental disabilities in clinical settings. More recently,

FBA has been reported and detailed in school settings for students with EBD or who

exhibit seriously challenging behavior. However, school settings are very different from

clinical settings, as they are less controlled and typically contain many more students. In

addition, classrooms generally are made up of complex and sometimes subtle social

structures. Currently, the evidence in regard to FBA that is known in classroom settings

has largely been the result of researcher rather than teacher application (Scott, Bucalos,

Liaupsin, Nelson, Jolivette, & DeShea, 2004). Therefore, additional research is necessary

to determine whether FBA in school settings can be as effective in developing successful









intervention plans in these more complex and subtle environments (Fox, Conroy, &

Heckaman, 1998; Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001). The technical adequacy of FBA

in school settings must be as carefully and methodically explored as it has been in clinical

settings. Technical adequacy in this case refers to the reliability and validity of FBA in

providing information that is useful in developing effective behavior intervention plans in

typical public school classrooms (Gresham, 2003).

Clinical Settings

Functional Behavioral Assessment Studies in the Clinic

Clinical environments allow for a great deal of control over variables when

conducting FBA. Historically, FBA has involved the gathering of behavioral data by

direct and/or indirect means, hypothesizing the function of behavior, and testing the

hypothesis via the manipulation of those identified variables (Iwata, 1994). Once testing

validates the hypothesis, interventions are developed based on the function of the

behavior and the student's individual needs. These interventions typically involve the

manipulation of the environment to both decrease the rate of problematic behavior and

increase the rate of appropriate (i.e. replacement) behavior (Iwata, 1994).

In an early study using function as a determining factor of behavior, Iwata, Dorsey,

Slifer, Bauman, & Richman (1982) evaluated the existence of functional relationships

between self-injurious behavior (SIB) and setting events. Nine study participants

between 18 months and 17 years of age had been diagnosed with developmental delays of

varying degrees as well as mild to profound mental retardation. FBA and validated

hypothesis testing was completed for eight of the nine participants, exposing them to four

different experimental conditions: social disapproval, academic demand, unstructured

play, and alone (no stimulus). For six of the eight subjects, functional analyses revealed









higher levels of SIB linked to one specific experimental condition. This process

demonstrated a methodology for manipulating the environment to determine the effect of

specific environmental conditions and behavior, thereby identifying function and

suggesting the resulting intervention to effectively decrease the occurrence of SIB. By

1994, 152 single-subject analyses of SIB had been published. The data from these studies

indicate that FBA and functional analysis have great utility not only in identifying the

predictability and function of SIB, but also to guide selection of effective interventions

(Iwata et al., 1994).

Cooper et al. in 1992 extended functional analysis from outpatient to school

settings. In this study, subjects were two males (8 and 9 years old) educated in a special

education resource classroom who were identified as having mild to borderline MR, but

placement in special education classrooms was due to behavioral problems. Different

conditions in the classroom were observed, studied, and manipulated over time, then

analyzed. Afterward, an FA was conducted, away from the class and peers, to

corroborate. The two were compared and they corresponded, but the extended condition

(lasting 6 months) yielded more in-depth information from which intervention packages

were constructed.

An early research effort that investigated the effectiveness of function-based

interventions across settings was conducted by Repp and colleagues (Repp, Felce, &

Barton, 1988). The three subjects, two females and one male, were 6 and 7 years of age

and had been diagnosed with severe retardation. The setting was a special education

classroom in a public school. FBAs, brief FAs, and testing of resulting interventions were

implemented across two settings. The study design included an initial phase wherein









FBA and FA were conducted, and a second phase involving the implementation of a

function-based intervention in one setting and a non-function-based intervention in a

second setting. Finally, in a third phase they incorporated the implementation of the

effective intervention (function-based) in both settings. Results indicate that basing an

intervention on function of behavior was effective across settings and provided favorable

behavioral outcomes for these subjects.

Through a broad research base, FBA has become a standardized process in clinical

settings. Direct observation of behavior is measured and graphed and then, via visual

inspection, data guide decisions as to what intervention will be chosen in accordance with

the determined function. Further, Hagopian, Fisher, Thompson, Owen-DeSchryver,

Iwata, & Wacker (1997) developed a set of criteria for visual inspection to increase

interrater agreement, contributing to the standardization of FBA in clinical settings.

Functional Analysis Studies in the Clinic

Although the efficacy data for FBA in clinical settings is exceptionally strong, the

process itself can be extremely time-consuming. A functional analysis often involves

multiple sessions, which, although reasonable in the clinical environment, likely will not

be reasonable in school settings, given the time and staffing constraints of that setting. In

fact, of the 152 functional analysis studies, identified by Iwata et al. (1999), as many as

66 sessions were conducted per analysis. Few researchers have acknowledged the burden

that such a procedure might place on professionals in other settings but some have

worked to determine whether less intensive procedures might achieve the same results.

Northup and colleagues (1991) developed a modified version of a lengthy analysis

procedure used in clinical settings for outpatient evaluation of three individuals with

severe mental retardation who demonstrated aggressive behavior. Their study









demonstrated that a relatively brief analysis lasting no more than 90 minutes could

determine function as accurately as a lengthier analysis. By 1992, brief functional

analyses had been utilized successfully in 79 outpatient cases (Derby et al., 1992).

Verifying the 1991 Northup study, Derby et al. (1994), investigated the effects of

extended versus brief functional analysis. These researchers established that brief

functional analysis is a viable option for outpatient clinic settings (Wacker et al., 1994).

Although these brief functional analyses were conducted with patients who demonstrated

severe cognitive impairments, it has been suggested that this simplified procedure could

be adapted for children of average intelligence who demonstrate problematic behaviors

(Cooper et al., 1990). Functional analysis in this brief form has been adapted to school

settings and for students who display problematic behavior. This is important because

roughly 50% of school discipline referrals are generated by 5% of the student population

(Sugai et al., 1999).

School Settings

Functional Behavioral Assessment Studies in Schools

In the past decade, researchers and educators have attempted to utilize FBAs in

school settings, sometimes by simplifying the process (Horner, 1994). This simplified

process, adapted to a naturalistic setting such as a school, typically has consisted of three

basic steps: (1) development of a functional hypothesis through direct and/or indirect data

gathering methods, (2) confirmation of that hypothesis by gathering formal baseline data,

and (3) either the testing of the hypothesis by conducting a functional analysis (Repp,

1994) or development of an intervention based upon the hypothesis and using the

outcomes as validation (Horner, 1994; Scott et al., 2004). One example of FBA in a

school setting involved students with autism and successfully used the teachers to both









assess the behavior and implement intervention (Sasso et al., 1992). As is true of much of

the research on FBA in schools, these students were severely disabled and did not

participate in general education classrooms, but were being educated in special education

settings, such as resource or self-contained classrooms.

Reviews of the literature on the use of FBA in school settings report a scarcity of

studies involving students with problem behaviors (Dunlap & Childs, 1996; Heckaman,

Conroy, Fox, & Chait, 2000; Kern, Hilt, & Gresham, 2004; Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, &

Rutherford, Jr., 1999; Scott et al., 2004). Each of these reviews has a unique focus and

altogether report more than 100 separate studies conducted over more than 20 years.

Dunlap and Childs (1996) reviewed the literature from 1980 to 1993 for studies

involving students with EBD and found only nine out of a total of 113 studies that

reported utilizing FBA in their methodology. Most of these occurred in self-contained,

special education classrooms and only one study took place partially in a regular

education setting. The authors excluded studies of academic performance, choosing to

include only those studies focusing on behavior problems. The subjects ranged in age

from 6 to 14 years old and the most common type of intervention was social skill

instruction. In their review of these nine studies, the authors found no observable trends

in terms of accelerating or decelerating use of FBA, type of subject, setting, or type of

intervention.

Nelson and colleagues (1999) reviewed studies for students with EBD in school,

clinic, and outpatient settings for evidence of external validity and cost benefits to usage

of FBA. In all settings, they found 97 research studies between the years of 1989 and

1997. The breakdown of studies by subjects' disabilities and settings is further evidence









of the paucity of research conducted in school settings with students having high

incidence disabilities. Of 458 total subjects, only 53 were considered in the high

incidence category of disabilities and only 23% of the FBAs were conducted in school

settings. Only 3% of that total was conducted in regular education classrooms; the

remainder occurred in special education classrooms. The authors' search for cost

effectiveness or benefits of FBA in the research yielded no positive results. In looking at

external validity, three threats were common themes across the 97 studies: 1) a majority

of the participants had low incidence disabilities, 2) most studies were conducted in

clinical settings, and 3) all the FBAs were conducted by researchers. The authors'

conclusion was that FBAs in school settings for students with or at-risk for EBD needs

further research in all areas.

A literature review of studies that explore the FBA process in school settings with

students with or at risk for EBD was conducted by Kern and colleagues (Kern, Hilt, &

Gresham, 2004). Twenty studies were found with a total of 43 participants who ranged

in age from 4 tol4 years of age and had externalizing behaviors. The years under review

were 1982-2003. Analysis revealed the most common methods of FBA were direct

observation and interview. Also, the authors noted a total lack of FBA use with

internalizing behaviors, extensive researcher involvement with the implementation of

FBA, and wide variability in assessment duration.

Following up on this, Scott and colleagues (2004) conducted a targeted review of

studies between 1995 and 2000 that utilized FBA in school settings for students with or

at-risk of EBD, finding only 12 published research efforts fitting their criteria. After

reviewing these studies, the authors concluded that the research base on FBA in schools









is inadequate, especially in general education classrooms. Of the 12 studies reviewed,

only one was set in a general education classroom. Also, no single model of FBA

emerged, as a wide range of FBA methodologies were documented. This supports results

reported by a recent survey of researchers and teachers of FBA that found a large

variance in the ways that FBA is being implemented (Scott, Meers, & Nelson, 2000).

Before these issues of implementation of FBA in general education settings can be

resolved, the fundamental question of validity must be empirically demonstrated.

Heckaman, Conroy, Fox, & Chait (2000) reviewed the literature closely associated

with the question posed in this study, namely, is a behavioral intervention based on the

function of a behavior more efficacious than one not based on function? The authors

reviewed the literature occurring between the years 1991 and 1999, finding 22 studies

researching FBA in those nine years for students with or at-risk of EBD. While the fact

that this research base exists is encouraging, trends were not found in key areas; the

methodologies used were inconsistent; assessment instruments and procedures varied;

various combinations of direct and/or indirect measures were used; and no trends were

uncovered as to when, how, or why specific interventions were employed. Thus, a single

validated methodology for conducting FBA and developing interventions based on these

assessments did not emerge.

The authors concluded from this review that research on FBA should focus on five

areas. First, research should concentrate on generalization of behavior change, both by

the student and the teacher, especially in regard to the intervention developed from FBA.

In other words, research must look at whether FBA can produce valid results across

settings, behaviors, and students. Second, research suggests that the function of behavior









may vary from setting to setting. Thus, it must be determined whether teachers will be

able to apply FBA procedures with equal ease and success across the variety of settings

involved in the typical school. Third, research should focus on a close examination of the

link between the function derived from the FBA and the recommended intervention. That

is, what steps delineate the process involved in progressing from assessment to function

to intervention? Fourth, FBA is a procedure that takes time and effort. The question is -

at what point is the decision made to move to more functional FBA processes and

abandon more simple preventative strategies? Lastly, it remains unclear whether

interventions based on FBA are more effective than traditional school discipline

approaches (e.g., systems that provide for consequences generically imposed upon

student without regard to individual circumstances). Logically, this final issue should

take precedence over the first four. Until the effectiveness of interventions produced from

FBA is established, questions regarding generalization, practicality, logistics, and timing

are moot. Thus, this question sets the occasion for this dissertation study, which will

directly explore the treatment validity of FBA in general education classroom settings by

researching the efficaciousness of function-derived interventions in school settings.

Brief Functional Analysis in School Settings

Brief functional analysis (FA) has been utilized in school settings for students with

both severe and mild disabilities and has been shown to effectively identify the function

of behavior, leading to successful intervention. It was used in this study to verify the

hypothesized functions of behaviors generated by the indirect and direct FBA procedures.

While functional assessment involves a set of procedures leading to the

identification of the function of a behavior and from this, the selection of an intervention

based on that function, functional analysis is a subcategory of the larger FA process and









necessitates the direct and systematic manipulation of variables thought to contribute to

problem behavior. Analog conditions are often used to conduct such an analysis, and

determine functional relationships between the behavior and the

antecedents/consequences that control the behavior. Analog assessment involves creating

specific conditions during which antecedents and consequences are held constant and

specific variables suspected to directly affect the target behavior are systematically

presented in a counterbalanced manner. Very low or high rates of a behavior can make it

difficult to distinguish one analog condition from another (Stichter, 2001). Some

researchers have used hypothesis-derived conditions instead of analog conditions to

facilitate the use of brief FA in school settings (see Table 1).













Table 1. Studies Using Brief Functional Analysis in Schools


Setting


FA Conditions


Analog Hypothesis


Boyajian,
DuPaul,
Handler, Eckert,
& McGoey
Broussard &
Northup

Conroy, Fox,
Crain, Jenkins,
& Belcher
Cooper,
Wacker,
Thrusby,
Plagmann,
Harding,
Millard et al.
Dunlap, Kern,
de Perczel,
Clarke, Wilson,
Childs, et al.


2001 3 4-5 M ADHD


1995 3 6-9
yrs.

1996 4 5-12
yrs.

1992 2 8-9
yrs.





1993 5 6-11
yrs.


M At-risk
EBD

M DD


M Mild &
Borderline
MR


4-M
1-F


EBD, SED


Classroom, not
incorporated into
routine

Classroom,
incorporated into
routine
Classroom, not
incorporated into
routine
Both, non-
embedded
classroom &
classroom,
incorporated into
routine
Classroom,
incorporated into
routine


Brief FA + descriptive
procedures = effective
interventions

Brief FA + descriptive
procedures = effective
interventions (analysis)
Analog probes based on
descriptive procedures =
effective 50%
Teacher FA in classroom
setting compared favorably
to analog assessments by
experts


Brief FA+ descriptive
procedures = effective
interventions (teacher
analysis)


Author(s)


Subjects


Year


N Age
yrs.


Sex


Results













Table 1. Continued.


Setting


FA Conditions


Analog Hypothesis


Edwards,
Magee, & Ellis

Ellis, & Magee


Ervin, DuPaul,
Kern, & Friman


Lalli, Browder,
Mace, & Brown


Magee & Ellis


2002 1 10
yrs.

1999 3 6-10
yrs.


1998 2 13-14
yrs.


1993 3 10-14
yrs.


2000 2 7-8
yrs.


M ADHA,
SED


ADHA/bip
olar,
DD & mild
autism


ADHD,
ODD


2-M Severe &
1-F pro- found
MR

M ADHD,
mod. MR
& pro-
found hear-
ing loss


Office near
classroom


Brief FA identified
maintaining variable
effective intervention
Brief FA based on
analogs= Effective
interventions


Both, non-
embedded
classroom &
classroom,
incorporated into
routine

Classroom,
incorporated into
routine

Classroom,
incorpora-
ted into routine

Unused
classroom, not
incor- porated
into routine


Brief FA+ descriptive
procedures = effective
interventions (teacher
analysis)
Brief FA+ descriptive
procedures =
effective interventions
(teacher analysis)
Brief FA identified
maintaining variable =
effective interventions


Author(s)


Subjects


Year


N Age
yrs.


Sex


Results













Table 1. Continued.


Setting


FA Conditions


Analog Hypothesis


1999 4 6-8 3-M
yrs. 1-F


Newcomer &
Lewis


Noell,
VanDerHeyden,
Gatti, & Whit-
marsh


Northup,
Broussard,
Jones, George,
Vollmer, &
Herring

Northup,
Wacker, Berg,
Kelly, Sasso &
DeRand


2005 3 9-11
yrs.


2001 3 3-5
yrs.





1995 3 7-9
yrs.





1994 5 5-11
yrs.


LD & BD


2-M OHI
1-F at-risk


2-M Language
1-F delay





2-M ADHD
1-F





1-M Severe to
4-F profound
MR


Brief FA identified
maintaining variable =
effective interventions
Brief FA+ descriptive
procedures = effective
interventions (teacher
analysis)
Brief FA based on
Analogs = Effective
interventions


Unused room, not
incorporated into
routine
Classroom,
incorporated into
routine

Both, non-
embedded
classroom &
classroom,
incorporated into
routine
Both, non-
embedded
classroom &
classroom,
incorporated into
routine
Classroom,
incorporated into
routine


Brief FA based on
analogs = Effective
interventions


Brief FA based on
Analogs = Effective
interventions (teacher
analysis)


Author(s)


Subjects


Year


Meyer


N Age
yrs.


Sex


Results












Table 1. Continued.


Setting


FA Conditions


Analog Hypothesis


Repp, Felce, &
Barton



Sasso, Riemers,
Cooper,
Wacker, Berg,
& Steege


1988 3 6-7 1-M
yrs. 2-F


1992 2 7-13
yrs


1-M
1-F


Severe MR





Autism


Classroom,
incorporated into
routine


Both, non-
embedded
classroom &
classroom,
incorporated into
routine


Brief FA+ descriptive
procedures = effective
interventions (expert
analysis with teacher
implement)
Teacher FA in classroom
setting compared favorably
to analog assessments by
experts


1995 1 5 yrs M Mild MR Classroom, not
incor- porated
into routine


1995 1 8 yrs M ADHD


Brief FA+ descriptive
procedures = effective
interventions (teacher
analysis)
Brief FA+ descriptive
procedures = effective
interventions (teacher
analysis)


Classroom, not
incorporated into
routine


Author(s)


Subjects


Year


N Age
yrs.


Sex


Results


Umbreit



Umbreit









Brief functional analyses have been conducted in school settings in a limited body

of research. These studies fall into categories of analog and hypothesis derived

conditions. Following is a review of this literature providing examples of both types.

Analog Conditions

Magee & Ellis (2000) included brief functional analysis in a study involving two

elementary age students with severe disabilities. The researchers employed 10-minute

sessions to evaluate analog conditions of alone, attention, play, and demand conditions.

These conditions were conducted at a school but not integrated into classroom activities.

This study (Northup et al., 1994) evaluated the possibility of school staff

conducting functional analyses and resulting interventions in actual classroom settings.

Five subjects ranged in age from 5 to 11 years old in a self-contained special education

classroom, each functioning in the severe to profound range of intellectual disability.

After conducting an initial in-service training, researchers provided on-site technical

assistance to school personnel working in FBA teaming situations. Brief functional

analyses were conducted in classrooms using conditions lasting 10 minutes in duration.

Conditions were created based on indirect FBA information, but analog conditions based

on Iwata research were used, albeit only those deemed important from the indirect FBA

information. Results suggest that trained school staff members could implement all

procedures sufficiently when provided technical assistance. Additionally, brief functional

analysis was found to be effective in identifying the function of the target behaviors and

deriving interventions that maintained the replacement behaviors during the 18 months of

this study.

Set in public schools, another study (Lalli, Browder, Mace, & Brown, 1993) used a

behavioral consultation approach with three teachers of three students with severe to









profound MR to conduct descriptive analyses and test interventions using a reversal

design to provide individualized support and tweaking of the intervention. Brief FAs

were conducted and incorporated into the students' classroom activities by their teachers

before interventions were implemented. The authors used DRA (differential

reinforcement of alternative behavior) to provide the presumed reinforcer for appropriate

behavior.

In another study, the authors (Ervin, DuPaul, Kern, & Friman, 1998) state that as

functional assessment moves from analog to applied settings, issues related to

assessment, treatment integrity, and acceptability are of increasing importance and may

impede progress. Also, teachers may be more willing to manipulate antecedent events

than consequences. The purpose of this study was to assess the application of functional

assessment including brief functional analysis for adolescents with ADHD and related

behavioral difficulties in school settings. The school setting in this study was Boys Town,

with class size from 7 to 12 students and a token economy management system in place.

This study examined antecedent manipulations and found teachers less willing to

manipulate consequences in a systematic manner. Teachers and staff performed FBAs

and brief FAs with expert consultation. Results were positive for function-based

interventions.

Another study was designed to extend functional analysis procedures into regular

education classrooms for students considered at-risk for more restrictive placement due to

disruptive classroom behavior (Broussard & Northup, 1995). The three subjects were

three males between the ages of 6 and 9 years of age. Descriptive assessments yielded

hypotheses, from which conditions were developed based on the occurrence or









nonoccurrence of the consequence associated with each hypothesis. The conditions were

incorporated into the natural classroom routine, but were conducted by the investigator,

who was introduced to the class as an aide. Three conditions were used: teacher attention,

peer attention, and escape from academic tasks. During contingent and noncontingent

teacher attention conditions, the student received disapproving comments following the

target behavior and, conversely, was provided approving comments every 60 seconds,

independent of student's behavior. The peer attention conditions were conducted by

providing access and no access to peers during academic tasks. The escape from

academic tasks condition was conducted by varying the degree of difficulty of the tasks.

Results indicated this use of brief FA brought about a decrease in the target behaviors

during the contingency reversal conditions. The authors were successful in incorporating

brief FA into regular education classroom activities that resulted in a decrease of

disruptive behavior.

Hypothesis Derived Conditions

Another study evaluated the applicability of FBA and functional analysis with

students described as EBD who were served in self-contained special education

classrooms (Dunlap et al., 1993). All assessment procedures were developed and

implemented within the students' academic setting. Participants included four males, 10

or 11 years old in the 4th or 5th grade and one female, 6 years old in Kindergarten. The

authors broke the experiment into two phases-hypothesis development and hypothesis

testing, with several hypotheses being generated and performed per student. The brief FA

was conducted by using a reversal design. That is, each hypothesis was broken down into

two conditions-one in which the condition was associated with high levels of desirable

behavior and the other in which the condition was associated with high levels of









undesirable behavior. For example, a high level of specific praise was tested one day and

a low level of specific praise was tested the next day, all the while keeping the classroom

activity constant. Results indicated a lowering of undesirable behavior.

An experimental analysis was conducted to provide a controlled way to confirm the

hypothesis generated by the initial indirect FBA methods in a study by Newcomer and

Lewis (2004). It consisted of a descriptive, single-case, alternating-treatment research

design in which the order of introduction of treatments was randomized to control for

sequential confounding or the possibility that the initial treatment phase could bias the

results. Results for all three elementary age students indicated that function-based

interventions were more effective than non-function-based interventions in causing a

decrease in the problematic behaviors. The authors used a brief functional analysis to

confirm the FBA generated hypothesis of function for each student.

Studies Specific to Function-Based Interventions

Treatment validity can be defined as the extent to which FBA generates data

contributing to beneficial treatment outcomes. The assumption of treatment validity is

that using FBA to match the intervention to the behavioral function will result in the most

effective treatment. The FBA literature in school settings has not established a strong

empirical base for validity in terms of the procedural components that are used to

establish the operant function of behavior (Gresham, 2003). To date, only a few studies

explore the efficacy of tying behavioral function either indirectly or directly to the

intervention for students with or at-risk of EBD in a public school setting. These few

studies will be reviewed forthwith.

Although FBA does not always involve the functional analysis component in

school settings (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002; Crone & Horner, 2003), Meyer (1999) was









able to incorporate functional analyses into a study involving antecedent events. At a

school for children with LD and EBD, the principal referred four students of borderline to

average range of intellectual ability in first and third grade for behavior problems.

Experimental FA sessions were conducted in analog settings rather than the naturalistic

setting of the classroom. Antecedent variables of attention and task difficulty were

manipulated to measure their effect on off-task behavior. Using a multielement design,

the researcher found that assessment of antecedent variables has value for students with

mild disabilities. However, the experiment was not conducted in a natural setting and

thus, generalization to the classroom was impossible to infer. Still, using a single subject

methodology, the question of whether function is linked to intervention for students with

mild behavioral disabilities was answered in the affirmative.

Schill, Kratochwill, and Elliot (1998) also investigated the question of whether a

behavioral intervention is most effective when derived from function. They compared the

utility of FBA to a standard behavior modification treatment package via a consultation

model for preschool students in a Head Start program. In this model, consultation was

provided to Head Start teachers by school psychology graduate students to assist in the

management of students who displayed the highest rates of inappropriate behavior in the

classrooms. While this study found no significant differences between the two groups in

outcomes of treatment effects, social validity, or cost, it is important to note that the

majority of the consultants expressed a preference for FBA, stating it to be more effective

in producing the desired changes in client behavior and that it facilitated a more positive

working relationship with consultees.









The authors offered three compelling explanations for this finding. First, the fact

that functional analyses were not used in this model prior to the implementation of the

intervention may have affected the results. Second, these students aged four and five

years, qualify for the Head Start program by low socioeconomic status. The authors

speculate that this population, by age and socioeconomic level, are most often reinforced

by attention and thus, the behavior modification program, using strategies such as time-

out, proved not to be very different from interventions that would be functionally

indicated from an FBA. Third, treatment integrity may have been a factor in both

conditions. In a consultation model in this setting, teachers have the responsibility to

implement the intervention, but may not fully understand it. Similarly, teachers may be

unable to implement the treatment as described by the consultant or communication

between the two may be inaccurate. While this study did not reveal significant results, it

did considerably extend the research in the area of this dissertation study, by comparing

the effectiveness of function-based assessments to interventions based on behavior

modification and, while uncertain, some of the behavior modification treatments may

have inadvertently been based on the function of the behavior. This dissertation study

intends to measure the effect of function-based interventions versus non-function based

interventions while carefully controlling potentially confounding variables.

Two studies used the FBA process to evaluate the effectiveness of school strategies

based on the need for attention and the need to escape or avoid instructional tasks (Noell,

VanDerHeyden, Gatti, & Whitmarsh, 2001; Taylor & Miller, 1997). Noell and colleagues

(2001) focused their study on how teacher attention and escape from instructional

demands affected the compliance of pre-school students with speech and language delays









by using three types of FBA-indirect, descriptive, and analytic. While indirect and

descriptive methods of gathering data yielded beneficial results, the in-class functional

analysis had the most precise information. This was due, the authors felt, to the students

being tested in the same setting in which the behavior naturally occurs, but a downside to

this strategy was that teachers had to be trained to implement the manipulation phases

while managing the behavior of the rest of the class.

Taylor and Miller (1997) used FBA to answer the question of why timeout, a

typical classroom discipline strategy, works some of the time, but at other times seems to

increase undesirable behavior. Using analog assessment, the authors found timeout was

effective only when the function of the student's behavior was to gain attention. If the

student's behavioral function was to escape or avoid a classroom demand or unpleasant

situation, timeout served to increase the undesirable behavior. Both studies confirm that

knowledge of behavioral function can be used to select effective treatment strategies and

that common school discipline strategies are ineffective when used for all students

without regard to the function of their behavior.

For FBA to be properly and systematically utilized in a typical school setting for

students with behavioral problems, a fundamental question of validity must be directly

addressed. Namely, is an intervention based on the operant function of a targeted

behavior more successful than a behavioral intervention that is not based on function?

Several studies have demonstrated the validity of basing an intervention on the operant

function of a behavior without comparing directly the effects of a function-based

intervention to an intervention not based on the function of the inappropriate behavior.









Some were presented earlier in this chapter (see Brief Functional Analysis section). The

remainder will now be discussed.

One study (Ellingson, Miltenberger, Stricker, Galensky, & Garlinghouse, 2000)

used FBA, including descriptive and ABC observation procedures, to create function-

derived interventions and compared them to non-function-based interventions using a

brief reversal design. Subjects, two males and one female, were between the ages of 12

and 19 years and had been diagnosed as having severe to profound mental retardation.

Teachers conducted the FBAs as well as the intervention implementation with expert

assistance. The results reported were favorable for the greater effectiveness of an

intervention based on behavioral function when compared to an intervention not based on

function.

VanDerHeyden and colleagues (2001) evaluated a brief descriptive assessment

conducted in a naturalistic setting for a group to identify naturally occurring, high

frequency events that could serve as maintaining consequences for disruptive behavior.

This study was conducted in preschool and involved students with speech/language

delays. Interventions derived from their brief descriptive assessment were indicated and

contra indicated by functional assessment. Results were positive for function-based

whole group interventions suppressing disruptive behavior. Finding function indicated

interventions more effective than those not based on the function of behaviors adds to the

function related research base of FBA literature.

Lewis and Sugai (1996) conducted a study that investigated (a) the efficacy of

using more than one source of data to form a hypothesis, (b) the value of using FBA and

brief FA techniques with students of average or above level of intelligence but display









low intensity, high frequency problem behaviors, and (c) assessed the effects of

manipulating teacher & peer attention on the occurrence of problem and appropriate

behavior in general education settings. Results were positive for using FBA and brief FA

procedures for students of average or above levels of intelligence who display problem

behavior. Further, results indicated that teacher and peer attention could be manipulated

to cause a decrease in problem behavior in regular education settings. The results of this

study also shed light on the importance of using FBA and brief FA techniques in natural

contexts, as peer and teacher attention contribute to the function of behavior and students

cannot be isolated from these when testing for function.

The following two studies directly investigated the effectiveness of function-based

interventions as contrasted to typical, but non-function-based interventions in a school

setting and, thus, most closely approximate the research questions and methodology of

this dissertation.

Newcomer and Lewis (2004) compared the effects of function-based interventions

to non-function-based interventions for three elementary students with seriously

challenging behaviors in regular education classrooms. These behaviors included

aggression directed toward peers and teachers as well as off-task conduct during

academic periods. Descriptive functional assessments generated function driven

hypotheses. Experimental analyses consisting of manipulating antecedents and

consequent variables confirmed the hypotheses using a single-case, alternating-treatment

research design. The manipulations were developed for each student from their individual

hypothesis and conducted in the existing regular education context. Data was collected

during direct observation probes using a 10-second partial interval data collection system.









When the behavioral function was established and verified through naturalistic functional

analysis, the relative effectiveness of function-based interventions was compared to non-

function-based interventions using a multiple baseline across participants. An example of

one function-derived intervention based on an escape from peers' function was to teach

the student a replacement skill to be used to appropriately avoid peers and to precorrect

when the student entered a setting likely to cause him to exhibit the undesirable behavior.

For this student, the non-function-based intervention was based on a typical classroom

strategy of implementing an individual reinforcement system. Results for all three

students indicated that function-based interventions were more effective than non-

function-based interventions in causing a decrease in the problematic behaviors.

However, this study is limited in two respects. First, the function-based intervention was

always preceded by the non-function-based intervention and therefore did not control for

order of treatment effects. Second, interventions often were antecedent rather than

consequence-based, meaning that they were not necessarily a true test of function.

Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai (2005) also measured the effect of basing

intervention on function on problem behaviors in general education classrooms, but with

two middle school students. The study was designed to compare the effects of a function-

based intervention to an intervention that was based on principles of behavior but not

function. The authors controlled for order effects of treatment by counterbalancing the

two treatments between the two subjects. The interventions were based on traditional

FBAs, but did not verify the function through a functional analysis, instead verifying

function through the use of an expert rating system. The authors compared the function

and non-function derived interventions using a single-subject withdrawal design. Results









concurred with Newcomer and Lewis (2004), also indicating function-based intervention

to be more effective that non-function-based interventions in general education settings

for students exhibiting chronically challenging behaviors. However, this study is limited

by the lack of functional analyses to verify the behavioral hypotheses obtained from the

descriptive assessments.

This dissertation study seeks to extend the research of the last two studies discussed

by conducting FBAs that combine the functional analysis component to validate the

hypotheses with a counterbalanced design to control for treatment effects. Such a study

provides a strong methodology for comparing treatment effects as well as information

concerning the validity of this integral component of FBA. Until this question of validity

is addressed, the use of FBA in school settings is unproven by scientific measures.














CHAPTER 3
METHOD

This chapter describes the processes and strategies that were used to conduct the

study, which compares treatment effects of interventions, based on non-function-

indicated intervention strategies, to those that are function-indicated through the use of

functional behavioral assessments (FBA), with function verified by brief functional

analysis (FA). First, the participants and setting are described and the criteria for the

selection of participants are presented. Second, the dependant and independent variables

are identified and described, including procedures for data collection from direct

observation of the target behaviors and interobserver agreement. Next, experimental

procedures are presented in two phases. The first phase consists of two components, the

first identifying specific problem behaviors and generating hypotheses regarding the

possible functions of those problem behaviors. The second component of phase one

describes the brief functional analyses that were used to confirm the hypotheses via

experimental manipulations. These procedures were conducted in order to verify function

and thus identify both functionally logical and illogical treatment strategies. The second

phase compares student behavioral outcomes between the logical and illogical

interventions. Within this discussion, the specific research design is reported and

described in detail. Finally, methods that insure treatment fidelity and social validity are

delineated. As a first step, Internal Review Board (IRB) approval was sought prior to the

commencement of this study and after deliberation, the IRB ruled this experiment did not

need their approval, as FBA; mandated by the 1997 Reauthorization of the Individuals









with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and the participants recruited for this study had been

identified as requiring this assessment (see Appendix A). Further, all interventions are

typical of classroom behavior management strategies in public school settings.

Participants and Setting

Setting

This study took place in an elementary school in a small city in the Southeastern

part of the United States. The school had effectively implemented school-wide systems of

Positive Behavior Support (PBS) at the universal level (Lewis & Sugai, 1999) as assessed

by an 80% overall fidelity score and 80% teaching score (i.e., 80% of PBS identified

effective school-wide instruction procedures were in place) on the School-wide

Evaluation Tool (SET) (see Appendix B). The SET is a research assessment and

evaluation instrument used to measure fidelity of implementation of school-wide PBS

systems over time. Critical elements measured include the defining and teaching of

school-wide expectations, the creating of systems for reinforcing appropriate behaviors,

responding to behavioral violations, and the monitoring and evaluation of progress

(www.pbis.org/tools.htm). All observation sessions for each subject occurred in a special

education resource classroom during naturalistic conditions in which the target behaviors

were most and least likely to happen.

Participants

Criteria

Participants in this study were initially identified from disciplinary referral

information at the school-wide level (Sugai et al., 1999). Although an indirect measure,

office discipline referrals provide an index of student misbehavior that extends across all

adults that come into contact with an individual student in the school setting and therefore









are reflective of that student's inappropriate behavior (Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker,

2000). Students falling at or above the 95th percentile in terms of number of office

discipline referrals comprised the initial pool of possible participants. From this pool,

teachers recommended students for inclusion in the study based on prior special

education testing. Chronically elevated rates of inappropriate behavior and prior

identification as a child with special needs was used as a second level criterion for

inclusion.

Teachers of students identified at this level were contacted and questioned to

verbally confirm that each student's behavior impeded his or her own or their classmates'

learning progress, thus rendering them at-risk for academic or social failure. Finally,

informal observations of the potential participants by the first author demonstrated that

problem behavior did, indeed, corroborate the teacher nomination. Students were selected

from general education classrooms or special education resource classrooms in third,

fourth, or fifth grade and had either been referred by their teacher for placement or were

currently being served in special education. Gender and ethnicity were not determining

factors for inclusion in this study. The first four students meeting the criteria, two boys

and two girls, were selected as participates.

Participant Descriptions

"Julie" was an 11-year-old girl in third grade. Having repeated first and third

grades, she had been identified as having a learning disability (LD) in both Math and

Reading. Consequently she spent most of her instructional time in the school special

education resource classroom for third, fourth, and fifth grades. Data gathered from office

discipline referrals indicated Julie had high rates of noncompliant behavior, resulting in

many in-school suspensions. This student's problem behaviors had been addressed in









several ways by the school. Universal PBS had provided consistent implementation and

reinforcement of three positively stated school rules (respect self, respect others, and

respect property). The student body as a whole, including this student, had been taught

the rules directly as well as informed of the reinforcement procedures. Further, individual

classroom routines, including behavioral expectations, had been demonstrated to all

students in this classroom. An individual behavior plan had been created for this subject

including strategies for reinforcing desired behavior. However, these behavior plans had

not worked for this student, possibly because reinforcement was either insufficient in

strength or the schedule was too lean to maintain behavior. Reinforcers are most potent

when delivered immediately following the behavior being reinforced and must be of

value to the person being reinforced (Skinner, 1953).

"Amy" was a 10 year old girl and in the third grade for the second year. She had

been identified as LD in Reading and spent only reading instructional time in the school

special education resource classroom for third, fourth, and fifth grades, spending the

remainder of her day in a regular education third grade classroom. Amy's problem

behaviors included noncompliance to teacher requests and refusal to complete academic

tasks. She had also been involved in school-wide application of PBS in the year

preceding the study, had received classroom instruction on appropriate forms of behavior,

and had an individualized behavior plan that provided weekly tangible reinforcement for

appropriate classroom behavior which had been implemented without success.

"Brian" was a nine year old boy and in the third grade. He could meet academic

grade level expectations, but the high rates of his off-task behavior precluded

participation in regular education classroom learning activities. He spent all day in the









special education resource classroom for third, fourth, and fifth grades, except for

physical education class and lunch. He, too, had been in a school involved in school-wide

positive behavior supports and had worked under numerous behavior plans. Some of

these behavior plans had worked for Brian, but only for short periods of time.

"Barry" was an 11 year old boy and in the fifth grade. He had been identified as

having mild mental retardation (MR). He read at a first grade level and his math skills

were at a second grade level. Data from Barry's office discipline referrals show that his

problem behaviors included excessive verbalizations and off-task behavior. He had

transferred to his current school during the year the study was implemented, but records

indicate a history of problem behaviors and that his prior school employed school-wide

positive behavior supports.

Target Behaviors

Target behaviors were identified by the Request for Assistance Form (Crone &

Horner, 2003) (see Appendix C) and the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers

and Staff (FACTS) (Crone & Homer, 2003) (see Appendix D). These forms were

completed jointly by the researcher and teacher for each participant in an interview

format which was semi-structured and designed to identify 1) times that problem

behavior are most and least likely to occur, 2) antecedents that are associated with

incidences of problem behavior, 3) consequences that maintain occurrences of target

behaviors, 4) setting events, such as transition periods or the behavior of peers or teachers

that have association with occasions of target behaviors, 5) response classes (i.e. related

behaviors) that serve the same or similar functions, and 6) specific intervention

recommendations (Crone & Homer, 2003).









Based on interview results, direct observations were used to verify times when and

locations under which problematic behaviors were most and least likely to occur. The

first author conducted these observations, monitoring students using an ABC Form

(Crone & Homer, 2003) (see Appendix E). This method of data collection identifies

predictable chains of antecedents, behaviors, and consequences in order to gain an

understanding of the context and environment surrounding the target behavior.

Julie and Amy's target behaviors were defined as being off-task as evidenced by

talking to a specific peer instead of attending to academic tasks or teacher instruction.

Julie was Amy's specific peer and Amy was Julie's specific peer. Brian's target behavior

was operationally defined as any inappropriate response to teacher mands indicated by

negative verbal or facial reaction followed by either compliance or noncompliance.

Barry's target, off-task behavior was operationally defined as 1) not working on task as

evidenced by any off-task interaction with teacher or peers or doing nothing on task for

more than 3 seconds, 2) staring away from the activity for more than 3 seconds, or 3)

playing with non-materials or related materials but not in an intended manner (such

pencil tapping or drawing).

Replacement Behaviors

The researcher and each student's special education resource teacher operationally

defined replacement behaviors for each student. Julie and Amy's replacement behavior

was on-task during instructional and independent academic work periods and was defined

as attending to academic task during specified periods without engaging each with the

other. Brian's replacement behavior was compliance to teacher mands, which was

operationally defined as complying to teacher requests with socially appropriate facial

expression and body language. Barry's replacement behavior was on-task, defined as









working quietly on independent academic assignments. Table 2 gives further information

on the setting, target behavior, and replacement behavior for each subject.

Process

Two phases were necessary to complete the identification process of finding the

function of each participant's target behavior. In phase one, FBA was conducted for each

participant, followed by a brief FA to confirm the hypothesized behavioral function.

Table 2 Subjects' Target and Replacement Behaviors
Subject Setting Target Behavior Replacement Behavior
Julie Independent academic Off-task-not On-task-engaging in
activities & small group attending to academic tasks
instructional periods academic tasks
Amy Independent academic Off-task-not On-task-engaging in
activities & small group attending to academic tasks
instructional periods academic tasks
Brian Instructional periods Noncompliance to Compliance to teacher
teacher mands mands
Barry Independent academic Off-task On-task
activity Excessive, loud Working quietly
verbalizations

Functional Behavior Assessment

An FBA was conducted on each student, during which both direct and indirect

methods of gathering data were utilized (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002; Crone & Horner,

2003; Kerr & Nelson, 2002). Indirect methods for gathering data included structured

interviews with teachers, other school personnel, and parents, as well as a review of

academic performance, attendance, discipline records, and medical history. Gathering

direct data included observation of the student in natural settings, was as simple as an

informal ABC (antecedent, behavior, and consequence) evaluation, but also included an

assessment and analysis of noted behaviors, predictors, perceived functions, and actual

consequences (Crone & Horner, 2003; O'Neill et al., 1997). The outcome of these FBAs

was a testable hypothesis of function of the target behavior for each student.









Brief Functional Analysis

After hypotheses were generated, brief functional analysis consisting of

individualized conditions was executed for each study participant (Dunlap, et al., 1993).

Julie, Amy, and Barry's responses were manually recorded using 10-second partial

interval recording procedure and graphed for evaluation (Kazdin, 1982). Brian's

responses were manually recorded using an opportunity to respond procedure, as his

target behavior was dependent upon teacher initiation (Kazdin, 1982). The steps for

completion of the brief FA included: 1) an operational definition of target behavior, 2)

measurement of the behavior in a reliable manner, and 3) identification of structured

classroom activities to best serve as functional analysis conditions. This process resulted

in the verification of the hypothesized behavioral function, which was either access or

escape/avoidance in nature.

Direct Observations of Target Behavior

For all students, data on targeted behavior was collected via direct observation.

This data was used to identify the function of all target behaviors, as well as to compare

the effectiveness of both function-indicated and non-function-indicated interventions in

phase two of the study.

ABC observation. Direct observations were conducted by noting antecedents,

behaviors, and consequences of students' actions in typical classroom situations where

problem behaviors were most and least likely to occur and recorded on the ABC form

(see Appendix E). Then ABC forms were analyzed to identify predictable characteristics

of behavior.

Partial interval recording. Occurrences of target behaviors were marked in 10-

second intervals using an author-created form (see Appendix F). Using this system,









behavior was coded for any interval if it occurred at any time. The metric was calculated

as "percent of intervals in which behavior occurred" by dividing number of positive

intervals by the total number of intervals observed. The total duration of each observation

session was 10 minutes. Julie, Amy, and Barry were observed using this method of data

collection.

Opportunities to respond recording. Brian's target behavior was dependent on

teacher initiation, thus data was gathered for durations of 10 minutes using an author-

created controlled presentation form that classified his responses by compliant, non-

compliant, or compliant within five seconds but accompanied by an inappropriate verbal

or facial response (see Appendix G). Each time that the teacher provided the initiation,

data was coded as to whether he did or did not engage in the replacement behavior. The

metric was calculated as "percent of opportunities in which the replacement behavior was

used" by dividing all positive instances of the replacement behavior by the total number

of opportunities.

Interobserver Reliability

Although the first author collected behavioral data during both parts of the

experiment, a second observer independently collected data at randomly specified times

to corroborate the accuracy of the data for interobserver reliability (Kazdin, 1982).

Interobserver agreement (IOA) was collected across 24% to 75% of all observation

sessions and was scheduled at phase changes during the experiment (Kazdin, 1982). Prior

to beginning the observation procedure, the primary researcher along with the student's

classroom teacher operationally defined behaviors, and the observer was thoroughly

trained in recording the defined behavior according to the definitions of both interval

recording and opportunities to respond protocol (Kazdin, 1982). Traditionally, agreement









rate should be at or above 80%, which reflects stability in measurement (Kazdin, 1982),

and 80% was the criteria used in this study. Agreement ranged from 82% to 100% during

each period it was gathered. IOA is calculated by dividing total number of agreements by

total agreements plus disagreements and multiplying the total by one hundred (Kazdin,

1982). Strict adherence to IOA procedures helps to establish reliability measurement.

Social Validity

The social validity of this experiment was assessed at the end of the study.

Teachers were asked to orally detail the acceptability of the project in terms of time and

ease of implementation in relation to its success for designing behavioral improvement

plans for students who struggle with inappropriate classroom behavior. Responses were

recorded in field notes by the researcher.

Experimental Procedures

In phase two of the experiment, an intervention based on the indicated function as

well as a contra-indicated intervention was generated for each student. Each intervention

was a typical classroom strategy and either matched the function of the target behavior or

was chosen as a contra-indicated intervention because it did not match the targeted

behavioral function. As the interventions were implemented, observations were

monitored continuously to measure success of intervention. The author created data

gathering forms similar to the brief FA form for Julie, Amy, and Barry (see Appendix H)

and Brian (see Appendix I).

Intervention plans

For each student, a behavior plan was created based upon the function of the

targeted behavior. Replacement behaviors were identified for each participant by the

author and the participant's teacher and included appropriate social actions or on task









behaviors (see Table 3). Two of the four subjects, chosen by a random process, were

presented with a function-based intervention, which was then withdrawn and followed by

a typical but contra-indicated intervention. The other two subjects received the

counterbalanced experimental condition, which began with the introduction of a typical

but contra-indicated intervention, followed by an intervention implemented that is based

on the function of the targeted behavior (See Table 3). During this entire process, data

was being gathered and continuously graphed according to single-subject design protocol

to insure stability of data before commencing the treatment phases. These data are

presented in Chapter Four.

Functionally indicated interventions. The function of Julie's target behavior was

identified through the brief FA process as access to a specific peer. The specific peer was

Amy, whose function of target behavior was also identified as access to a specific peer.

Amy's specific peer was Julie. These girls were "best friends". As each of these

participants' target behavior, identified function, and subsequent interventions involved

the other, all brief FA conditions and subsequent interventions, along with the ensuing

direct observations, were conducted conjointly. Julie and Amy's functionally indicated

intervention was to reinforce on-task behavior by giving them break time to spend

together, contingent upon their attending to the teacher during instructional activities and

academic tasks. This intervention was selected to encourage appropriate classroom

behavior as was deemed functionally indicated because function (access to peer) was

provided contingent upon desired replacement behavior.

Brian's brief FA indicated that his target behavior was maintained by access to

teacher attention. Brian's functionally indicated intervention was frequent verbal









encouragement from his teacher and praise for appropriate behavior. This intervention

was deemed functionally indicated because it allowed access to teacher attention at

suitable times, contingent upon replacement behavior.

The function of Barry's target behavior was identified by brief FA as escape from

difficult academic tasks. His functionally indicated intervention involved allowing him to

escape contingent on completing tasks in the form of"B Passes". Created by the author,

these passes were printed on magnets that the teacher controlled from the chalkboard and

presented to Barry as he worked at academic tasks. Barry opted when to spend the earned

passes, but had to possess two passes to spend one. This system encouraged both Barry

and his teacher to continue the intervention and was deemed functional because it

allowed escape from task contingent upon replacement behavior. Table 3 summarized

functionally based interventions for each participant.

Functionally contra-indicated interventions. Contra-indicated interventions are

typical of classroom environments, yet are not functionally indicated by the FBA and

brief FA conducted for each student. Julie and Amy's contra-indicated intervention

involved verbal prompts and reprimands delivered by the teacher for off-task behavior.

This is deemed functionally contra-indicated because teacher attention is different

functionally from specific peer attention and an intervention based on the function of

escape was not acceptable in their classroom environment. Brian's contra-indicated

intervention was functionally aligned to a DRO condition, which was extinction or

planned ignoring by the teacher. This is deemed to be contra-indicated because

replacement behavior was effectively put on extinction under these circumstances.

Barry's contra-indicated intervention was aligned with the function of attention, which









was increased teacher attention in the form of verbal prompts and reprimands. This

intervention was deemed contra-indicated because it did not allow the function of

escaping task even when the replacement behavior occurred. Interventions based on both

the functionally indicated behavior as well as the non-functionally indicated behaviors

are listed in Table 3.

Table 3 Subjects' Functions & Interventions
Subject Function indicated Function-indicated Non-function-indicated
by Brief FA Intervention Intervention
Julie Access to a specific Allow access in the Access to teacher attention
peer's attention form of earned breaks (verbal prompts &
reprimands)
Amy Access to a specific Allow access in the Access to teacher attention
peer's attention form of earned breaks (verbal prompts &
reprimands)
Brian Access to teacher Teacher attention in the Planned ignoring by teacher
attention form of encouraging
verbal comments
Barry Escape a difficult Allow escape in the Increased teacher attention
academic task form of earned passes (verbal prompts &
reprimands)

Experimental Design

This study was designed to assess the treatment validity of FBA by comparing the

effectiveness of an intervention based on the function of a behavior as identified using

FBA to an intervention based on principles of behavior modification but without

consideration of function. A single-case alternating treatment research design was used

during the functional analysis

component of this study to validate the functional hypothesis generated by the FBA

for each student's targeted behaviors. Once the function was satisfactorily established, an

alternating treatments single-case design was used to compare the efficacy of the two

treatments (Tawney & Gast, 1984). An alternating treatments design was chosen because









problem behaviors exhibited by the subjects in this study generally did not occur at low-

frequency rates in the classroom. Further, several response opportunities existed for

subjects to demonstrate the problem behavior, the interventions were expected to produce

immediate effects on the problem behavior, and carryover effect were not anticipated.

Additionally, an alternating treatments design allows for the implementation, comparison,

and evaluation of the intervention/treatment when baselines are unstable, and

comparisons can be observed within a relatively short period of time (Kazdin, 1982). The

two treatments were counterbalanced, with two students receiving the function-based

intervention first, followed by the non-function-based intervention, while the other two

students received the same two types of treatments in reverse order (Tawney & Gast,

1984). Counterbalancing controlled for order effect of the two types of treatments.

Although the alternating treatments design avoids order effects, the threat of multiple

treatment interference cannot be avoided. Therefore, the possibility still exists that the

effect of each treatment is influenced by its juxtaposition against the other so that the

level of data for the target behaviors was different from what would have been obtained if

each treatment could have been presented in isolation (Kazdin, 1982).

Treatment Fidelity

The fidelity of implementation of these experimental conditions was crucial to the

integrity of this project. A task analysis providing the teacher with the brief FA condition

that was used during the different experimental phases to aid in consistency of

implementation. Also, teachers were furnished with checklists that served as prompts to

insure consistency during the treatment implementation process. Thus, treatment fidelity

was constantly monitored during the course of this study.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The purpose of this chapter is to report the data gathered in the course of the study

in both narrative and visual/graphic form.

The narrative reporting data from experimental procedures is presented by

individual participants in two phases. The first phase reports data generated by the FBA

and brief FA components of the study while the second phase reports data gathered

during the comparison of functionally indicated and non-indicated interventions that were

developed based on functions identified in the first phase. Data are reported as percentage

in order to standardize and allow for more direct comparisons across individuals. For all

data, analyses are made in consideration of trend, stability and variability, both within

and across conditions (Tawney & Gast, 1984). Trend direction (i.e., slope) and stability

are reported using the freehand method (Bailey, 1984) that refers to trend lines as lines of

progress.

Each of the four study subjects is represented by two graphs, one of brief FA data

and the other of the data generated by the experimental comparison of interventions.

Eight graphs of the data collected in this study are presented concurrent with the narrative

description of results for each phase by student. For Julie, Amy, and Barry, data are

reported as percent of intervals in which off task behavior was observed. Brian's data is

reports as the percentage of opportunities in which he positively complied with teacher

requests. Therefore, high numbers on the graphs represent high rates of negative behavior

for Julie, Amy, and Barry but represent high levels of positive behavior for Brian.









The visual analysis of single subject data by graphing is advantageous for several

reasons (Tawney & Gast, 1984). First, it is an effective method to evaluate data of

individuals or small groups. Second, graphing enables data to be collected and analyzed

continuously, which allows the researcher the opportunity to make informed decisions

concerning the adjustment of interventions. Thirdly, graphing is tool that allows the

researcher to focus on emerging data patterns, allowing the promotion of individualized

instruction. Further, graphing data permits the possible discovery of serendipitous

findings. Lastly, the graph as visual representation of data provides the researcher a

means of accurately interpreting data, as well as a standard format allowing others to

reliably analyze the results.

In this study, data are represented on a semi-logarithmic ordinate scale. This scale

is based on ratio, rather than absolute interval values, allowing a more reliable focus on

relative changes in data or behavior patterns, especially when the research is focused on

comparing high to low rates of behavior such as in this study (White & Haring, 1980). In

addition, semilog has been shown to improve interrater agreement during visual analysis

as well as more conservative ratings of significance (Bailey, 1984).

Julie

Phase One

FBA

Julie's FBA was conducted using the Request for Assistance Form (Crone &

Horner, 2003), the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (Crone &

Horner, 2003), a records review of academic performance, attendance, discipline

referrals, and medical history, and observations in natural settings using the ABC Form

(Crone & Homer, 2003), including likely times in which problem behaviors were most









and least likely to occur. This process resulted in the identification of off-task behavior

during periods of academic task activities or when the classroom teacher was providing

instruction. Thus, Julie's target behavior was operationally defined as off-task, as

evidenced by talking or gesturing to a peer or looking away from academic tasks or her

teacher for five or more seconds during class periods when attention to academic tasks or

teacher was required.

Brief FA

As a result of the FBA, the hypothesized function of Julie's target behavior was

identified as access to attention from a specific peer, who was identified as Amy (also a

subject of the study). These two girls were best friends who only saw one another during

this special education resource classroom. In order to avoid confounding results from the

two subjects, the brief FA was conducted conjointly for each subject. However,

conditions were established to control variables related directly to the hypothesis and

results are reported separately. During the brief FA for Julie access to the specific peer,

limited access to the specific peer, and a third condition that provided her access to a non-

specific peer were alternated while holding setting, activities, and teacher interaction

constant. Data gathered across these conditions confirmed the validity of the

hypothesized function as access to specific peer attention. Each instance of access to this

specific peer was associated with moderate levels of off task behavior (mean = 24%)

while conditions in which access to specific peer was limited showed a low level of off

task behavior (mean = 8%). To be certain that function was access to this specific peer, a

condition allowing access to non-specific peer was juxtaposed and revealed a level only

slightly higher than limited access to specific peer (15%) still far below what was

observed during access to specific peer conditions. This data shows a clear differentiation







52


between the brief FA conditions and serves to verify the preliminary hypothesis of access

to specific peer attention. Brief FA data for Julie are presented in Figure 1.


Access to
100 Specific Peer










10


Julie's Brief Functional Analysis

Access to Limited Access to Access to
to Specific Non-Specific Specific Peer
Peer PPeer


Sessions


Figure 1. Brief FA Results for Julie

Phase Two

In the experimental phase, two interventions were identified, one indicated by

function and the other not indicated by function, yet typical of classroom-based

behavioral intervention in an average classroom. Julie's functionally indicated

intervention was the opportunity to earn break time to spend with her specific peer,

contingent upon attending to academic tasks and listening to the teacher during

instructional times (i.e., on task behavior). The non-functionally indicated intervention

involved access to teacher attention in the form of verbal prompts and reprimands. Under

these conditions the teacher simply prompted Julie back to work when she was off task


Access to
Non-Specific
Peer


Access to
Specific Peer









but did not allow her the opportunity to access her preferred peer. During baseline no

special interventions were implemented and data closely mirrored levels collected during

the access to specific peer condition in the brief FA (mean = 21.67%), and with an

increasing trend. In Julie's case, the non-functionally indicated intervention was

implemented first and was associated with a continuation of the increasing trend of off

task behavior (mean = 27.67%) that remained highly stable. Next, the functionally

indicated intervention was introduced and was associated with an immediate drop in the

level of off task behavior (mean = 12.75%) and a decreasing trend. This data showed

some degree of variability but still is calculated in the stable range of 10%. When the

non-functionally indicated intervention was reintroduced, off task behavior again

increased immediately to a new high level (mean = 49.3%) and with a slightly increasing

trend. The reintroduction of the functionally indicated intervention was associated with a

second immediate and even more pronounced decrease in off task behavior (mean =

1.6%) that hit 0% in the final trial. As a final step one week after all sessions had ended, a

maintenance condition was introduced wherein functionally indicated intervention was

reintroduced to assess whether it would maintain. This resulted in continued low rates of

off task behavior at 3%. These data demonstrate a functional relationship between the

functionally indicated intervention and Julie's behavior, and a lack of relationship

between the non-functionally indicated intervention and off task behavior. Figure 2

presents a graphic display of the results of this experimental analysis. In summary the

functionally indicated intervention consistently and repeatedly produced more positive

results than did the non-indicated intervention.











Julie's Experimental Data
Baseline Non-Function Function Non-Function Function Ma
Baseline Maint.
100 Indicated Indicated Indicated Indicated









10









1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Sessions

Figure 2. Results of Experimental Analysis for Julie

Amy

Phase One

FBA

Amy's FBA was conducted using the Request for Assistance Form (Crone &

Horner, 2003), the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (Crone &

Horner, 2003), a records review of academic performance, attendance, discipline

referrals, and medical history, and observations in natural settings using the ABC Form

(Crone & Homer, 2003), including likely times problem behaviors were most and least

likely to occur. This process resulted in the identification of off-task behavior during

periods of academic task activities or when the classroom teacher was providing

instruction. Amy's target behavior was operationally defined as off-task, as evidenced by

talking or gesturing to a peer or looking away from academic tasks or her teacher for five









or more seconds during class periods when attention to academic tasks or the teacher was

required.

Brief FA

As a result of the FBA, the hypothesized function of Amy's target behavior was

identified as access to attention from a specific peer, who was identified as Julie (also a

subject of the study). Conditions were established to control variables related directly to

the hypothesis. During the brief FA for Amy access to the specific peer, limited access to

the specific peer, and a third condition that provided her access to a non-specific peer

were alternated while holding setting, activities, and teacher interaction constant. Data

gathered during the conditions confirmed the validity of the hypothesized function as

access to specific peer attention. Each instance of access to this specific peer was

associated with moderate levels of off task behavior (mean = 20%) while conditions in

which access to specific peer was limited showed a lower level of off task behavior

(mean = 6%). To be certain that function was access to this specific peer, a condition

allowing access to non-specific peer was juxtaposed and revealed a level only slightly

higher than limited access to specific peer (8%) still below what was observed during

access to specific peer conditions. This data shows a clear differentiation between the

brief FA conditions and serves to verify the preliminary hypothesis of access to specific

peer attention. Brief FA data for Amy are presented in Figure 3.











Amy's Brief Functional Analysis
Access- Access A ccess- Access-Limited
Access-Specific Limited for Non-Specific Specific for Specific Access-
Peer Specific Peer Peer Peer Peer Specific Peer
100










10 -
10











1 2 3 Sessions 4 5 6
Figure 3. Brief FA Results for Amy

Phase Two

In the experimental phase, two interventions were identified, one indicated by

function and the other not indicated by function, yet typical of classroom-based

behavioral intervention in an average classroom. Amy's functionally indicated

intervention was the opportunity to earn break time to spend with her specific peer,

contingent upon attending to academic tasks and listening to the teacher during

instructional times (i.e., on task). The non-functionally indicated intervention involved

teacher attention in the form of verbal prompts and reprimands. Under these conditions

the teacher simply prompted Julie back to work when she was off task but did not allow

the opportunity to access her preferred peer. During baseline no special interventions

were implemented and data closely mirrored levels collected during the access to specific









peer condition in the brief FA (mean = 17.33%), and with an increasing trend. In Amy's

case, the functionally indicated intervention was implemented first and was associated a

continuation of the increasing trend of off task behavior (mean = 20%) that remained

highly stable. Next, the functionally indicated intervention was introduced and was

associated with an immediate drop in the level of off task behavior (mean = 6.25%). This

data was more volatile, warranting the collection of an additional data point to assure

adequate stability. When the non-functionally indicated intervention was reintroduced,

off task behavior again increased immediately to a new high level (mean = 41.6%). The

reintroduction of the functionally indicated intervention was associated with a second

immediate and even more pronounced decrease in off task behavior (mean = 1.6%). As a

final step one week after all sessions had ended, a maintenance condition was introduced

wherein functionally indicated intervention was reintroduced to assess whether it would

maintain. This resulted in no observed instances of off task behavior during the final trial.

These data demonstrate a functional relationship between the functionally indicated

intervention and Amy's behavior. Figure 4 presents a graphic display of the results of this

experimental analysis. In summary, the functionally indicated intervention consistently

and repeatedly produced more positive results than did the non-indicated intervention.











Baseline Non-Function
I Indicated


Amy's Experiment Data
Function Non-Function
Indicated I Indicated


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sessions


16 17


Figure 4. Results of Experimental Analysis for Amy

Brian

Phase One

FBA

The FBA was conducted for Brian using the Request for Assistance Form (Crone &

Horner, 2003), the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (Crone &

Horner, 2003), a records review of academic performance, attendance, discipline

referrals, and medical history, and observations in natural settings using the ABC Form

(Crone & Homer, 2003), including likely times problem behaviors were most and least

likely to occur. This process resulted in the identification of a target behavior of non-

compliant behavior to teacher requests. This target behavior was operationally defined as

inappropriate response to teacher mands, as evidenced by negative verbal or facial or


100


Function
Indicated


Maint.


J


/r









gesture reaction followed by either compliance or non-compliance. Brian's teacher felt

even compliance after a negative reaction was not acceptable classroom behavior.

Brief FA

As a result of the FBA, the hypothesized function of Brian's target behavior was

identified as access to teacher attention. During the brief FA for Brian, teacher requests

without providing attention to Brian were alternated with teacher requests that included

attention in the form of specific praise statements. Prior to implementation, efforts were

made to control variables related directly to the hypothesis (i.e., teacher attention), while

variables such as setting, time of day, and activities were held constant. Data gathered

across conditions confirmed the validity of the hypothesized function as access to teacher

attention. This data was calculated in terms of opportunities to respond in that each

teacher request represented an opportunity and data was collected on whether Brian

complied in a positive manner. Data showed that each instance of access to teacher

attention was associated with moderate to high levels of positive compliance, ranging

from 67% to 100% (mean = 84%), while conditions in which access to teacher attention

was limited showed a low level of positive compliance, ranging from 0% to 20% (mean =

11%). This data shows a clear differentiation between the brief FA conditions and serves

to verify the preliminary hypothesis of access to teacher attention. Brief FA data for

Brian are presented in Figure 5.







60



Brian's Brief Functional Analysis


120 Teacher Simply Teacher Makes Teacher Simply Teacher Makes
Requests Specific Praise Requests Specific Praise
Statement Before Statement Before
Request Request
100



80



60



40



20



0
1 2 3 4
Sessions

Figure 5. Brief FA Results for Brian

Phase Two

In the experimental phase, Brian's classroom teacher and the researcher

collaboratively created two interventions. One was indicated by function, and the other

was not indicated by function, yet was typical of classroom-based behavioral intervention

in an average classroom. Brian's functionally indicated intervention involved the

provision of appropriate teacher attention in the form of specific praise and encouraging

comments, especially prior to making a request of Brian while instituting a policy of

planned ignoring of non-compliant behavior (i.e., differential reinforcement of alternative

or incompatible behavior). The non-functionally indicated intervention involved a token

system for compliant responses to teacher requests that simply involved the teacher

providing token reinforcement without attention. During baseline for Brian, no teacher









attention or tokens were provided and Brian's compliance was inconsistent between

moderate and low rates of positive compliance, ranging from 0% to 33% of opportunities

(mean = 19.7%). In Brian's case, the functionally indicated intervention was

implemented first and was associated with an immediate increase in the level of positive

compliance to 100% across all three trials. Next, the non-functionally indicated

intervention was introduced and was associated with an immediate drop in the level of off

task behavior (mean = 22.3%) and a decreasing trend. When the functionally indicated

intervention was reintroduced, positive compliance again rose to a high level (mean =

75%) with the final trial at 100%. A second reintroduction of the non-functionally

indicated intervention was associated with an immediate drop in level to 0% across all

three trials. To end the experiment on a positive note, the functionally indicated

intervention reintroduced a final time and was again associated with an immediate

increase in positive compliance (mean = 89%). These data demonstrate a functional

relationship between the functionally indicated intervention and Brian's behavior. Figure

6 presents a graphic display of the results of this experimental analysis. In summary, the

functionally indicated intervention consistently and repeatedly produced more positive

results than did the non-indicated interventions.


































1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Session

Figure 6. Results of Experimental Analysis for Brian

Barry

Phase One

FBA

Barry's FBA was conducted using the Request for Assistance Form (Crone &

Horner, 2003), the Functional Assessment Checklist for Teachers and Staff (Crone &

Horner, 2003), a records review of academic performance, attendance, discipline

referrals, and medical history, and observations in natural settings using the ABC Form

(Crone & Homer, 2003), including likely times problem behaviors were most and least

likely to occur. This process resulted in the identification of a target behavior of off-task

during academic task. Barry's off-task behavior was operationally defined as not actively

involved in an assigned task, as evidenced by initiating interaction with teacher or peers,


Brian's Experimental Data
Baseline Function Non-Function Function Non-Function
Indicated Indicated Indicated Indicated
100 V









10









1 4 -4


Function
Indicated
',,









not working or staring away from task for three seconds or longer, or manipulating any

objects in any way other than to work on the assigned task.

Brief FA

As a result of the FBA, the hypothesized function of Barry's target behavior was

identified as escape from difficult tasks. The brief FA for Barry presented issues that

necessitated it being different from what was done with the other three subjects. Because

Barry's behavior was escape motivated, a true consequence manipulation would have had

to create conditions under which he could and could not escape. Because these conditions

were deemed both unethical for Barry and unacceptable to the teacher, antecedents were

manipulated. While such a procedure might be more accurately described as a structural

rather than functional analysis and technically cannot verify function, the function can be

assumed from clear differences across conditions. During this process for Barry,

preferred and non-preferred tasks were alternatively introduced and removed while

holding constant variables such as teacher attention, setting, and time of day. Data

gathered across these conditions demonstrated that Barry was far more likely to engage in

negative behavior in the presence of an aversive, non-preferred he condition. Under

conditions where the preferred task was in place, Barry's level of off task behavior

remained at a low level (mean = 7.5%), while when non-preferred task conditions were in

place his level of off task behavior was significantly higher (mean = 33%). This data

showed a clear differentiation between the conditions and provides strong evidence in

support of the hypothesized function of escape from difficult tasks. Brief FA data for

Barry are presented in Figure 7.










Barry's Brief Functional Analysis
Non-preferred Preferred Non-preferred Preferred
100







10







10
1 2 3 4
Sessions

Figure 7. Brief FA Results for Barry

Phase Two

In the experimental phase, two interventions were identified, one indicated by

function and the other not indicated by function, yet typical of classroom-based

behavioral intervention in an average classroom. Barry's functionally indicated

intervention allowed escape contingent upon completing non-preferred task by allowing

him to earn "B Passes" which were small magnets presented by the teacher. The teacher

would present these tokens to the student, contingent upon on task behavior during non-

preferred tasks. When the student had more than one token in his possession he was

allowed to use one to take a 5-10 minute break. The non-functionally indicated

intervention involved teacher attention in the form of verbal prompts and reprimands

contingent upon off task behavior. During baseline no special interventions were

implemented and data closely mirrored levels collected during the access to specific peer









condition in the brief FA (mean = 46.6%), and with a slightly increasing trend. In Barry's

case, the functionally indicated intervention was implemented first and was associated

with an immediate decrease in off task behavior to a low level (mean = 3.3%) with a

decreasing trend ending with 0% of intervals on task during the last trial. Next, the non-

functionally indicated intervention was introduced and was associated with a change in

trend and very gradual change in level. This change was so gradual that six trials were

conducted to be certain of the stability of the data. Overall data during this condition

ranged from 3% to 53% (mean = 26.3%). When the functionally indicated intervention

was reintroduced off task behavior again dropped immediately to a low level (mean =

1.6%) with a decreasing trend ending with 0% Reintroduction of the non-functionally

indicated intervention again was associated with an immediate increase to a high level of

off task behavior (mean = 43%) and an increasing trend. In order to end the experiment

on a positive note, the functionally indicated intervention was again reintroduced and

demonstrated an immediate decrease in off task behavior (mean = .6%) with the last two

trials at 0%. These data demonstrate a functional relationship between the functionally

indicated intervention and Barry's behavior. Figure 8 presents a graphic display of the

results of this experimental analysis. In summary, the functionally indicated intervention

consistently and repeatedly produced more positive results than did the non-indicated

intervention.












Barry's Experimental Data
Non-Function Indicated


Function Non-Function Function
Indicated Indicated Indicated


Figure 8. Results of Experimental Analysis for Barry


Baseline


Function
Indicated


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Sessions


CC














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Chapter five provides a discussion of the dissertation study investigating the

effectiveness of function indicated behavioral interventions when compared to typical

school interventions that are not based of the function of a behavior. First, a preamble

offers an overview of the rationale and methods involved in the study. Second,

implications of those finding are explored and put into the context of the research base

related to the study. Third, limitations of the study are presented. Fourth, directions for

future research are discussed. Last, a conclusion summarizes the study and it's findings.

Preamble

Students who exhibit challenging behaviors in the school setting rob themselves

and their fellow students of learning opportunities, simultaneously taxing school and

teacher resources in terms of instructional time and energy. Educators are searching for

strategies that are both effective and efficient to better manage classroom behavior and

FBA has been deemed a promising behavioral assessment strategy. While developed for

use with students with severe disabilities, FBA is now being extended to the school

setting for students with mild disabilities. Although a large body of research has assessed

the effectiveness of developing interventions based on the function in clinical settings and

with a population identified as severely disabled, less research has evaluated the

effectiveness of FBA in school settings and for students with or at-risk of school failure.

Even less research has been conducted on the efficacy of brief FAs as a component of

FBA to verify the hypothesized function prior to the development of intervention.









The purpose of this dissertation study was to scientifically investigate the efficacy

of interventions based on the function of behavior as compared to typical classroom

behavioral interventions that are not based on the identified function of behavior. The

study was conducted using single subject research methodologies that measure the effect

of intervention on behavior over time for each study participant. Alternating treatments

designs were used in this study because they directly compare the effects of the

interventions (functionally and non-functionally indicated) under investigation. In this

study, threats to internal validity by sequencing effect were controlled by

counterbalancing the order of introduction of function indicated and non-function

indicated interventions for the four study participants. That is, for two subjects (Brian and

Barry), the function indicated intervention was introduced first, followed by the non-

function indicated intervention, while for the other two students (Julie and Amy), the

order was reversed so that the non-function indicated interventions were introduced first,

followed by the function indicated interventions.

Implications

The FBA, brief FA, and experimental phases of this study each provide information

that both answers the questions posed at the beginning of this study and sets the occasion

for an new set of questions and study to further develop the indicators and implications of

these processes. The remainder of this chapter further explores these implications.

In terms of the FBA procedures used in this study, the fact that each student's

teacher was intimately involved with the development of all interventions and reported

acceptance of the practices and procedures followed during the course of this study is

significant. The initial FBA was conducted by the researcher in coordination with the

teacher using a semi-structured interview form (Crone & Homer, 2003) that is presented









in Appendix D. In particular, these forms were useful in imparting information about the

student and his/her problem behavior, defining contexts for observation and leading to

the generation of hypotheses of function for each student. This process was simple, well

prescribed by the forms, and was accomplished by the researcher and teacher in the

absence of outside assistance. This is important because, across all students, hypotheses

generated from this process were validated by the brief FA. This means that the FBA

process detailed herein has demonstrated validity by correctly identifying function in four

of four trials. The fact that such simplified FBA methods demonstrated clearly accurate

identification of function has implications for the form of FBA in public school settings,

as there currently exists no clear evidence of what teachers are able and willing to do in

terms of FBA.

A second level of implication can be drawn from the brief FAs. In general,

manipulations undertaken as part of the brief FA resulted in clearly differentiated data

patters that occurred with strong temporal contiguity and were replicated. This process

proved to be time consuming and, often, difficult to develop. Especially in the case of

escape motivated behaviors, functional analysis procedures may be both unethical and

unwieldy. Perhaps it would make logical sense to consider a brief FA in the case of

access motivated behaviors and to use a structural analysis in the case of escape function

hypotheses. However, there is no literature to support such a decision rule at this point,

only the logistical and ethical warrants of the typical public school setting.

In the experimental phase, each student demonstrated clearly more positive results

under conditions involving functionally indicated interventions regardless of which was

introduced first. At the same time, interventions that were not based on function did not









demonstrate effects that were significantly different from baseline. Thus, these data

support the use of functionally indicated interventions as more effective than non-

indicated interventions even when those interventions are widely used and accepted.

Function indicated interventions were found to be more effective in reducing problem

behaviors.

Extension of the Literature

The two studies most influential in the development of this dissertation are

Newcomer and Lewis (2004) and Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, and Sugai (2005). Both of these

studies were novel in that they attempted to validate the role of function in the

development of behavioral interventions. Both produced results that supported function-

based intervention but both had limitations in three key areas. First, Newcomer and

Lewis did not counterbalance to control for ordering effects but Ingram et al. did. Second,

Ingram et al. did not experimentally validate functional hypotheses prior to intervention

while Newcomer and Lewis did. Third, Newcomer and Lewis manipulated only

antecedents for their interventions while Ingram et al. manipulated consequence-based

interventions. Because each of these three issues is seen as key, the current study

extended the research by assuring the counterbalancing, experimental validation of

functional hypotheses, and consequence based interventions were used. The significance

here is that, with this more stringent methodology, function-based intervention continued

to be associated with more positive student outcomes than non-functional interventions.

One serendipitous finding in this study is related to the fact that two of the subject's

target behaviors were maintained each by access to attention of one another. While

complicated in terms of research, this situation likely is common in classrooms where

children spend large amounts of time together and become conditioned reinforcers for









each other. Of importance is the manner in which the brief FA was used to validate these

functions simultaneously and how contingent access to specific peers was successfully

used as intervention strategy for these students. Although a common problem in the

school setting, this type of behavior has not previously been addressed in the literature.

Upon reviewing the data from all students it became evident that non-indicated

interventions not only were associated with higher levels of inappropriate behavior but

that these behaviors tended to increase over time. This held true both within the phase

where increasing trends of problem behavior were observed in all non-indicated

conditions, but also across non-indicated conditions. For each student, the second

introduction of non-indicated intervention was associated with a further deterioration of

behavior than had been observed in the first introduction. If a contra-indicated

intervention (reversal) had been implemented we might expect such an outcome, as the

intervention would be hypothesized to reinforce problem behavior. However, the use of a

simple non-indicated intervention would not predict accelerating negative behavior.

Possibly this escalation is small extinction bust that grows with each new removal of the

reinforcer (e.g., attention or opportunity to escape). But the potential implication for

teachers is important. Inconsistent application of a function-based intervention even

when not directly reinforcing problem behavior may tend to have the effect of escalating

problem behavior. This is another issue that warrants further study.

Limitations

When considering the outcomes reported in this study a number of limitations

should be considered. While these limitations do not erase the significance of the

outcomes, they do present concerns that ultimately must mediate the scope of conclusions

drawn as a result.









Generalization

As with any single subject design, generalization to other students by age, grade,

gender, learning histories, disability, educational settings, behavior types, and setting

cannot be inferred without systematic replication in light of these variables. For example,

assessments did not occur across the full range of stimulus conditions, prohibiting the

detection of multiple functions of the target behaviors, which may have resulted in only

partial reductions. In addition, the small number of subjects involved in this study does

not warrant comprehensive statements regarding effect. However, the purpose of this

study was to add to the scant evidence base on FBA in public schools. More

generalizable results will be dependent upon the continuing evolution and replication of

this line of research.

Design Limitations

Single subject in general are limited by the degree to which the data are clearly

enough differentiated across phases in terms of level, trend, and stability. Fortunately,

data in this study was associated with clear temporal contiguity (change immediate at

phase line) and replication. In addition, the complex environment that is the school

classroom creates an endless array of variables that may or may not have any predictable

effect on the student's behavior. Although efforts were made to control all variables in

the environment, it is impossible to know whether all relevant variables were actually

controlled. While this lack of control lends itself to external validity by involving natural

stimuli, it weakens internal validity and must be considered when analyzing the outcomes

reported herein. Alternating treatments designs in particular provide the advantage of

comparing treatments in an efficient manner. However, ordering effects and the inability

to draw conclusions regarding the individual components of a package intervention limit









this design. In the current study these issues were minimized by counterbalancing the

order of intervention and using discrete intervention consequences rather than multi-

intervention packages.

Directions for Future Research

Robert Gable (1999) has summarized both the rationale and direction of FBA

research in reinforcing that the use of FBA in school settings necessitates a hypothesis-

driven approach using indirect (interviews, etc.) and direct (scatter plot, ABC, etc.)

procedures to generate an informed hypothesis of function. He makes the point that, in

complex settings such as schools, much of what the research tells us about FBA may

simply be inaccurate or incomplete. For example, he points to analog analysis as a

procedure that, while validated in the literature for clinical settings, may not be realistic

in the school. What other features of our existing knowledge of FBA warrant further

thought, discussion, and research? The following issues that have arisen from the

implementation and results of this study seem especially relevant and in need of our

attention as future direction for our scholarly efforts.

It seems clear that function indicated interventions should be evaluated in terms of

cost/benefit for effectiveness plus efficiency. That is, we must determine the point at

which FBA is warranted in order to prevent failure and the level of FBA that should be

prescribed. To be sure, early intervention provides a better prognosis for the future but

how early and how much intervention are questions that remain unanswered as we simply

cannot apply FBA to each and every student with the most mild of problems nor do we

need to. Thus, there are some important questions primed for study.

First, because FBA is complex and idiosyncratic, requiring much effort and energy,

future research must continue to examine ways to improve the efficiency of the process.









One area of focus might be to determine which component pieces of FBA are essential to

its successful implementation in school settings. To repeat Gable's thought, are analog

analyses necessary? In the current study brief FAs were successfully used to validate

hypotheses but it still seems relevant to ask, given that all initial hypotheses were

validated, whether the validation process is necessary at all. Thus, research needs to

further examine when and how validation is best implemented so as to create a set of

decision rules for its application in the school setting.

Similarly, research must strive to determine the point or conditions under which the

simple FBA methods used in this study are likely to be sufficient and when, if ever, more

formalized and complex assessment procedures must be implemented. Whether this is an

issue of the topography or intensity of the behavior, the degree of failure for the student,

or the number of previous assessment and interventions trials is a question that must be

studied. It would be helpful for school personnel if they could characterize a given

student's behavior and get a prescription for the intensity of assessment based on some

score or set of criteria.

Another issue involves the portability or generalization of function-based

interventions. Because function is often very contextual and tied to specific settings or

circumstances, will we find that the full range of FBA, FA, and intervention planning will

need to occur for every context or condition in which the student resides on a daily basis?

If so, FBA quickly becomes too burdensome a task to be realistic for public schools.

More likely, classes of environmental stimuli (antecedents and consequences) can be

identified as part of the process, allowing more generalized interventions. However, such









generalizability has not been demonstrated in the complex and subtle social environment

of the typical school classroom.

Perhaps the heart of all of the questions that remain unanswered for FBA is what

processes and procedures will school personnel find simple and efficient enough to

implement in the scope of their daily work lives. As Scott and Nelson (1999a) have

suggested, providing teachers with models of FBA that serve to actually decrease the

problem behaviors they so lament will be a major factor in persuading them to continue

using this technology. However, when not realistic in terms of time or effort, even the

most effective interventions are unlikely to maintain. Research must continue to focus on

teacher application without assistance or advisement from researchers or other experts.

The current study, although involving the teacher in all phases, was directed and

coordinated by the researcher and thus cannot be said to have demonstrated any

practicality for teachers in terms of efficiency or effort. It is still not clear whether the

future of FBA will be ion the hands of classroom teachers, school psychologists,

specialized teams, or relegated back to experts from outside the school.

Conclusions

This study set out to answer the question as to whether an intervention based on the

verified function of behavior in a public school classroom is more effective than

traditional classroom-based interventions that are not indicated by function. The results of

this study, in consideration of the limitations inherent in such research, support function-

based interventions as being more effective in reducing problem behavior and increasing

positive replacement behavior than are interventions that, while common, are not based

on function. As has been discussed, the use of FBA, brief FA, and function-based

intervention were found to be effective methods of gathering information, validating






76


function, and changing behavior. Whether these results will hold up over time, across

settings, and under less controlled contexts is yet to be determined and must make up the

bulk of a research agenda for those who study FBA.


















APPENDIX A
IRB PERMISSION


Department of Special Education
College of Education


G315 Norman Hall
PO Box 117050
Gainesville, FL 32611-7050
Phone: (352) 392-701
Fax: (352) 392-2655


January 31,2005

University of Florida
Institutional Review Board

Dear IRB Chair,

I am submitting the proposed study, Functional Behavioral Assessment: Basing
Intervention on Function in School Settings, for an expedited review as it I believe it fits
the criteria for such a review.

This is the paper copy with signatures. I am concurrently submitting the same form
electronically.

Thank you,


Linda Lou D. Payne, Doctoral Candidate
Department of Special Education
P.O. Box 117050
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 392-0701 (office)
(352) 392-2655 (fax)
lindapay@ufl.edu


An EqlW Oppoarty Inmutian


UNIVERSITY OF

FLORIDA










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD

1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL:
Functional Behavioral Assessment: Basing Intervention on Function in School
Settings

2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS(s):
Linda Lou D. Payne, Doctoral Candidate
Department of Special Education
P.O. Box 117050
Gainesville, FL 32611
(352) 392-0701 (office)
(352) 392-2655 (fax)
lindapay@ufl.edu

3. SUPERVISOR (IF PI IS STUDENT):
Terrance M. Scott
Department of Special Education
PO Box 117050
Gainesville, FL 32611-7050
352-392-0701 x263 (office)
352-392-2655 (fax)
terryscott@coe.ufl.edu

4. DATES OF PROPOSED PROTOCOL:
From February 1,2005 to January 31, 2006

5. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL:
None

6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION:
The purpose of this study is to determine whether an intervention based on the
function of a behavior in a public school classroom is more efficacious than the
typical or traditional intervention that is implemented without regard to function
for students with challenging behavior in general education classrooms.

7. DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN NON-TECHNICAL
LANGUAGE:
Functional behavior assessment (FBA) is a procedure that is required by federal
law for students whose behaviors identify them as at-risk for special education
under the category of behaviorally disordered. We have been working at
Terwilliger Elementary School to help them implement effective programs for
students with and at-risk for behavior disorders and have been asked to continue
our involvement by helping them with their FBA process. Students already have











been identified by the school and legal consents for the implementation of FBA
have been undertaken.

This study will simply evaluate the outcomes of typical classroom behavioral
interventions that are approved by the school district for use with students
exhibiting problem behaviors and which are already in use in these classrooms
(e.g., brief time out, reprimand, planned ignoring, token economy response cost,
etc.). Using a single subject alternating treatment research design, these
interventions will be implemented and evaluated by direct observation using a 10-
second partial interval recording as to which are most effective given the
outcomes of the FBA. The intent is to validate specific interventions in relation to
the FBA.

8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK:
There are no risks associated with participation in this project. This project has the
potential benefit for participants in facilitating appropriate skills and behaviors in
the classroom. In addition, the project will benefit the teachers by providing them
intervention information, skills, and knowledge related to the effective use of the
legally required FBA process.

9. DESCRIBE HOW PARTICIPANTS) WILL BE RECRUITED, THE
NUMBER AND AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, AND PROPOSED
COMPENSATION (if any):
Participants in this study have already been identified from disciplinary referral
information at Terwilliger Elementary School in Alachua County. Because each
student has been identified as exhibiting challenging behaviors that interfere with
academic achievement, the school is legally obligated to perform an FBA and to
evaluate interventions. Our role is simply to assist in this process and to generate
an empirical evaluation of the outcomes. As part of federal law, participants must
have signed parent permission forms indicating consent for assessment and
evaluation of intervention. Currently, the school has identified four such students
who require FBA and have received parent consent.

10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS. INCLUDE A COPY
OF THE INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT (if applicable):
As part of federal law, participants must have signed parent permission forms
indicating consent-for assessment and evaluation of intervention. Because we
already have the school and teacher's consent to work at Terwilliger and because
federal law requires that the school garner parent consent, no informed consent is
necessary for our participation in this study.







80









Principal Investigator Signature



Supervisor's Signature

I approve this protbl foDubmis"o to the UFIRB:



?Dep thair/Center Directi bate,
















Institutional Review Board


98A Psychology Bldg.
PO Box 112250
Gainaevill, FL 32611-2250
Pbone: (352)392-0433
Fax: (352) 392.9234
E-nil: hrb2@nftedv
hTp'rbvafl.edu


February 16,2005


FROM:


Linda Lou D. Payne
PO Box 117050
Campus f

Ira S. Fischler, PhD, Chair45t
University of Florida Institutional Review Board 02


SUBJECT: UFIRB Protocol #2005-U-0194
Functional Behavioral Assessment: Basing Intervention on Function in School
Settings

FUNDING: None


Because this protocol involves research conducted in established or commonly accepted
educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (i) research on regular
and special education instructional strategies, or (ii) research on the effectiveness of or the
comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods, it is
exempt from further review by this Board in accordance with 45 CFR 46.101(b)( 1).

Should you need to revise this protocol, please contact this office for additional information.


IF/dl


Equ4l Oppraim AfABznumive Action Istinein


UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA


















APPENDIX B
PBS SCHOOL-WIDE EVAULATION TOOL (SET)


Systems-wide Evaluation Tool: School Wide
(SET-SW)

Overview

Purpose of the SET
The Systems-wide Evaluation Tool (SET) is designed to assess and evaluate the critical features of
school-wide effective behavior support across each academic school year. The SET results are used to:
1 assess features that are in place,
2. determine annual goals for school-wide effective behavior support,
3. evaluate on-going efforts toward school-wide behavior support,
4. design and revise procedures as needed, and
5. compare efforts toward school-wide effective behavior support from year to year.
Information necessary for this assessment tool is gathered through multiple sources including review of
permanent products, observations, and staff (minimum of 10) and student (minimum of 15) interviews or
surveys. There are multiple steps for gathering all of the necessary information. The first step is to identify
someone at the school as the contact person. This person will be asked to collect each of the available products
listed below and to identify a time for the SET data collector to preview the products and set up observations
and interview/survey opportunities. Once the process for collecting the necessary data is established,
reviewing the data and scoring the SET averages takes two to three hours.


Produett to Collet

.- Discipline handbook
2. School improvement plan goals
3. Annual Action Plan for meeting school wide behavior support goals
4. Social skills instructional materials/ implementation time line
5. Behavioral incident summaries or reports (e.g., office referrals,
suspensions, expulsions)
6. Office discipline referral forms)
7. Other related information

Using the SET Results

The results of SET will provide schools with a measure of the proportion of features that are 1) not targeted or
started, 2) in the planning phase, and 3) in the implementation/ maintenance phases of development toward a
systems approach to school wide effective behavior support. The SET is designed provide trend lines of
improvement and sustainability over time.








OSugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Horner, University of Oregon
1-"T ) 0. 2001







83



Systems-wide Evaluation Tool: School Wide
(SET-SW)
Implementation Guide
School Date:

*~ d- .....1t/is : .,'*. *^ ^

A. Identify school contact person & give overview of SET page with the list of products
needed
B_ Ask when they may be able to have the products gathered. Approximate date:
C. Get names, phone #'s, email address & record below.

Name Phone

Email

Products to Collect

I. Discipline handbook
2. School improvement plan goals
3. Annual Action Plan for school wide behavior support activities
4. Social skills instructional materials/ implementation time line
5. Behavioral incident summaries or reports (e.g., office referrals, suspensions,
expulsions)
6. Office discipline referral form(s)
7 Other related information



A. Confirm meeting date with the contact person for conducting an administrator interview,
taking a tour of the school while conducting student & staff interviews, & for reviewing the
products
Meeting date & time:


A. Conduct administrator interview
B. Tour school to conduct observations of posted school rules & randomly selected staff
(minimum of 10) and student (minimum of 15) interviews,
C. Review products score SET
*' .. -.:/, ., .. .

A. Summarize surveys & complete SET scoring.
B. Update school graph
C. Meet with team to review results

Meeting date & time:


Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Horner, University of Oregon
SET 2,0. 2001











Hints from other SET data collectors:
(we want to be welcomed back!)

Getting set up for SET:

Schedule, administrator questions, and consent forms

V Send out (fax) information to get things set up.
Send out a reminder a few days ahead of time. (people are anxious
about this the first time around AND you want them to be prepared so
that your time is used efficiently)

Getting interviews completed:

Schedule
/ as soon as you get there- find out recess times for different grade
levels.
/ be careful if there is an assembly- no one wants to talk to you then.

Access
/ ask if the principal can take you to the teachers lounge
(having the principal behind you is much better than walking into the
teacher's lounge alone- asking questions).

/ have the principal direct you to the team members- you may not run
across them walking down the halls.

J While asking staff- state the purpose of why you are gathering the
information (I'm gather info on ...)
V try to ask staff one at a time- not allowing a group of staff to answer.

Reviewing products:

/ it's nice if the principal can be "around" (available) if you have
questions on the permanent product stuff. lots of times the notebooks
are not organized well.
I take a look at the products and figure out if you have everything you
need so that you can ask for other things when the administrator is
with you

CormpletiLn the SET:

V check in with the administrator prior to leaving. Give a brief summary
of the good stuff going on and set the stage for sending a report in the
mail-







85






/ Send an email of thanks to the administrator with the instructions to
share with the staff.
Reporting SET results:
V Check with district to see how the results should be shared. Options
that have worked well thus far include:
Attend a meeting to share the SET results. Use the BBS Self-
assessment (SW) to juxtapose the SET results. The EBS survey is
the tool that the schools will use on-going to get this information.
The SET validates the survey result (.82 correlation between the
two tools)
Send a one-two page report, remind people of the purpose and uses
for SET (don't assume they remember this stuff) after completing
the SET
Give the results to the district team facilitators to share with the
team. Make sure that you model the summary of results with them
first, though.












SET Administrator Interview Questions

e 's talk about your discipline system
i. Do you collect and summarize office discipline referral information? Yes No If no, skip to #5,
2. What information do you use for collecting office disciplines referrals? (E 2)
a. What data are collected?
b. Who collects the data?
3. What do you do with the office discipline referral information? (E2)
a. Who looks at the data?
b. How often do you share it with other staff and who do you share it with?
4. What type of problems do you expect teachers to refer to the office rather than handling in the
classroom/ specific setting? (D2)

5- What is the procedure for handling extreme emergencies in the building
(i.e. stranger in building with a gun/ serious fight? (D4)

Let's talk about your school rules or motto
6. Do you have school rules or motto7 Yes No If no, skip to # 10
7. How many are there?
8. What are the rules/motto? (85)


9. What are they called? (B2, B4)

10. Do you acknowledge students for doing well socially in ways that you do academically? Yes No
Ifno, skip to # 12.
1 What are the social acknowledgements activities/ routines called (student of month, positive
referral, letter home, stickers, high 5's)? (C2, C3)

Do you have a team that addresses school wide discipline? If no skip to # 19
12. Has the team taught/reviewed the school wide program to staff this year? (B3) Yes No
13. Is your school wide team representative of your school staff? (F3) Yes No
14. Are you on the team? (F5) Yes No
15, How often does the team meet? (F6)
16. Do you attend team meetings consistently? (F5) Yes No
17. Who is your team/leader? (F4)
18. Does the team provide faculty updates on activities & data summaries? (E 3) Yes No
If yes, how often
19. Do you have an out-of-school liaison in the state or district to support you on positive behavior
support systems development? (G2) Yes No If yes, who?

20. What are your school improvement goals? (FI)
1. 2. 3. 4,

21. Does the school budget contain an allocated amount of money for building and maintaining school
wide behavioral support? (Gl) Yes No If yes, where does the money come from?

CSugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Honer, Universty 0 Oregon
SET2.0, 2001












In addition to the administrator interview questions there are questions for Behavior Support Team
members, staff and students. Interviews can be completed during the school tour. Randomly select students
and staff as you walk through the school. Use the interview scoring page to record student, staff, and team
member responses.

Staff Interview Questions
Interview a minimum of 10 staff

1. Is there a school wide team that addresses behavioral support in your building? (F2)

Are you on the team?

2. What are the (school rules, high 5s, 3 bee's)? (BS) (define what the acronym
means)

3. Have you taught the school rules/behavioral expectations this year? (B2)

4. Have you given out any since 7 (C3)
(rewards for appropriate behavior) (2 months ago)

5. What type of student problems do/would you refer to the office? (D2)

6. What is the procedure for dealing with a strangers serious fight in the building? (D4)



Team Member Interview Questions

1. Does your team use discipline data to make decisions? (E4)

2. Who is the team leader/facilitator? (F4)

3. Has your team taught/reviewed the school wide program with staff this year? (B3)


Student interview Questions
Interview a minimum of/5 students

1. What are the (school rules, high 5's, 3 bee's)? (B4) (define what the acronym means)

2. Have you received a reward for doing the right things since ? (C2)
(2 months ago)





OSugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Homer, Univesity of Oregon
SET 2.0, 200

















Intcryiew and heerviatmon Form
Stff inlerriw questions
Intrvimw a minismi n 1 lb staWt


Team member interview questlnsl


SLudl. d rvi-ew
qurstionN


Swhar ,mi L m .. Iw, V~ a I Jat t M La. r- a Yr ,rrTw, Iar ru" ,. meu- r~T iA~ A.n P r." _. .a"w es, r
-how tn "? fa iitr sE jafr xe Wh 0-0rAm or d jurshl A"- r. ia&r? Jf iqmnu i ata s**s .drr g r -M d 4-
iee ndW l Sie tr o p. r p rWsausm drnrsfwIda bddf yf I- on Sidrt n i pflrdi Recgd thCc Js.c.
kiowm 1wantr ________ tir la A fa ar P uppar purm iLn .n I? auia hsyras or uld ___
C rrs. lr tr Tmstos .mr? kno)
1 Y N N N Y N YN V N

Y N y N Y N Y N N Y N 2 N
Y N Y N yV Y N V? N yN 3 N

4 Y N 1Y N N Y N V N Y N 4 y N


Y N Y N N Y V N N Y N 5 Y N
6 Y Ni Y N N' V N Y N "1 N 6 y N






Ig y N Y N y N YN N y N 10 Y N
ilI N Y NF Y N Y N N Y N y
512 Y N y NY N N Y V N Y N2

113 Y N N Y N Y V y NWV H ]1 y N
-S4 N Y N N N y N y N 14 Y N

1iS y N N V 1 V N n IS Y N
S---- --- Y n Y I Y M


oual ro'l1


COugaLi Lcwis-Palmcr, Todd, & oniecr, Uniersity rforcon








89





Systems-wide Evaluation Tool: School Wide:
(SET-SW)
Scoring Guide


State:


Date: Pre
SET data collector:


Evaluation Question


C.

On-going
System for
Rewarding
Behavioral
Expectations


D. System for
Responding to
Behavioral
Violations


Data Source
(circle sources used)
P= product; I= interview;
O= observation


1. Is there documentation that staff has agreed to 5 or fewer Discipline handbook P
positively stated school rules/ behavioral expectations? Instructional materials
(0=no, 1= too many/negatively focused, 2 = yes) Other
Rules:


2. Are the agreed upon rules & expectations publicly posted Wall posters O
in 8 of 10 locations? (See interview & observation form for Other
selection of locations). (0= 0-4, 1= 5-7, 2= 8-10)
1. Is there a documented system for teaching behavioral Lesson plan books P
expectations to students on an annual basis? Instructional materials
( 0= no, I = states that teaching will occur, 2= yes) Other
2. Do 90% of the staff asked state that teaching of behavioral Interviews 1
expectations to students has occurred this year? Other
(0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2=90%-100%)
3. Do 90% of team members asked state that the school wide Interviews
program has been taught/reviewed with staff on an annual Other
basis? (0= 0-50%, 1=51-89%, 2=90%-100%)
4. Can at least 70% of 15 or more students state 67% of the Interviews I
school rules? (0= 0-50%, 1 = 51-69%, 2= 70-100%) Other
5. Can 90% or more of the staff asked list 67% of the school Interviews I
rules? (0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2=90%-100%) Other
1. Is there a documented system for rewarding student Instructional materials P
behavior? Lesson Plans; Interviews
(0= no, 1 = states to acknowledge, but not how, 2= yes) .Other
2. Do 50% or more students asked indicate they have Interviews I
received a reward (other than verbal praise) for expected Other
behaviors over the past two months? (0= 0-25%, 1= 26-49%,
2= 50-100%)


3. Do 90% ot statt asked indicate they have delivered a
reward (other than verbal praise) to students for expected
behavior over the past two months? (0= 0-50%, 1- 51-89%,
2= 90-100%)


1. is there a documented system for dealing with and
reporting specific behavioral violations? (0- no, 1= states to
document, but not how, and 2 = yes)


2. Do 90% of staff asked agree with administration on what
problems are office-managed and what problems are
classroom-man aged?
(0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2= 90-100%)


Interviews
Other


Discipline handbook
Instructional materials
Other


Interviews
Other


Score:
0-2


Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Homer, University of Oregon
SET 2,0, 2001


School:


District:


Post


i


-~--


Interviews
Other














3. Is the documented crisis plan for responding to extreme
dangerous situations posted in 6 of 7 locations?
(0- 0-3, 1-4-5, 2= 6-7)


4. Do 90% of staff asked agree with administration on the
procedure for handling extreme emergencies (stranger in
building with a weapon)?
(0= 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2 90-100%)


I. Does the discipline referral form list (a) student/grade, (b)
date. (c) time, (d) referring staff, (e) problem behavior, (f)
location, (g) persons involved, (h) probable motivation, & (i)
administrative decision?
(0=0-3 items, 1- 4-6 items, 2=7-9 items)


Walls
Other


Interviews
Other


Referral form
(circle items present on the
referral form)


2. Can the administrator clearly define a system for Interview
collecting & summarizing discipline referrals (computer Other
software, data entry time)? (0-no, 1= referrals are collected,
2= yes)
3. Does the administrator report that the team provides Interview
discipline data summary reports to the staff at least three Other
times/year?
(0- no, 1= 1-2 times/yr., 2= 3 or more timestyr) __


4. Do 90% of team members asked report that discipline data
is used for making decisions in designing, implementing, and
revising school wide effective behavior support efforts?
(0- 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2= 90-100%)
I. Does the school improvement plan list improving
behavior support systems as one of the top 3 school
improvement plan goals? (0= no, 1= 4' or higher, 2 = yes)


Interviews
Other


School Improvement Plan, P II
Interview
Other


2. Can 90% of staff asked report that there is a school wide Interviews I
team established to address behavior support systems in the Other
school? (0- 0-50%, 51-89%, 2= 90-100%)
3. Does the administrator report that team membership Interview I
includes representation of all staff? ( 0 no, 2= yes) Other
4. Can 90% of team members asked identify the team Interview I
leader? (0- 0-50%, 1= 51-89%, 2= 90-100%) Other
5. Is the administrator an active member of the school-wide Interview I
behavior support team? ( 0- no, 1- yes, but not consistently, Other
2 = yes)
6. Does the administrator report that team meetings occur at Interview I
least monthly? ( 0-no team meeting, l=less often than Other
monthly, 2= at least monthly)
7. Does the administrator report that the team reports Interview I
progress to the staff at least four times per year? Other
(0-no, I- less than 4 times per year, 2= yes)


8. Does the team have an action plan with specific goals that
is less than one year old? (0=no. 2=ves)


Annual Plan, calendar
Other


G. I. Does the school budget contain an allocated amount of Interview I
District-Level money for building and maintaining school-wide behavioral Other
Support support? (0= no, 2= yes)
2 Can the administrator identify an out-of-school liaison in Interviews I
the district or state? (0= no, 2-yes) Other


Summary Scores: A = /4

E= /8


B= /10

F= /16


CSugai, Lewis-Palmer, Todd, & Homer, University of Oregon
SET 20, 2001


E.

Monitoring &
Decision-
Making


F.

Management


C= /6


G= /4


D= /8

Mean = /7


I I F


















APPENDIX C
REQUEST ASSISTANCE FORM


Request for Assistance Form


Date

Student Name


Teacher/Team
1EP: Yes No (Circle)
Grade


Situations Problem Behaviors Most Common Result





What have you tried/used? How has it worked?





What is your behavioral goal/expectation for this student?

What have you tried to date to change the situations in which the problem behaviors) occur?
_ Modified assignments Changed seating Changed schedule of Other?
to match the assignments activities
'student's skills
Arranged tutoring to Changed curriculum Provided extra assistance
improve the student's
academic skills

What have you tried to date to teach expected behaviors?
_ Reminders about Clarified rules and Practiced the expected Other?
expected behavior when expected behavior for behaviors in class
problem behavior is the whole class
likely
Reward program for Oral agreement with Self-management
expected behavior the student program
Systematic feedback _Individual written Contract with student/
about behavior contract with the with parents
student

What consequences have you tried to date for the problem behavior?
Loss of privileges Note or phone call to Office referral Other?
the student's parents
STime-out Detention Reprimand
Referral to school Meeting with the Individual meeting with
counselor student's parents the student

(continued)
From Todd. Homer. Suoai. and Colvin (19991. COwninht 1qqq hv I awrnrw Frlhaum A -cnrjat" Oon.rid k., --










APPENDIX A. Request for Assistance Form (page 2 of 2)

WHEN ADDRESSING THIS PROBLEM, PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

1. When is the problem behaviors) most and least likely to occur?
On particular days of the week (e.g., Monday) or times of day (e.g., right after recess)?
During or after interactions with certain people (e.g., during small, cooperative group projects)?
During certain types of activity or tasks (e.g., during apparently difficult or boring work)?
In connection with particular features of the physical environment (e.g., noisy, crowded)?
Features of routine (e.g., when there are unexpected changes or when a preferred activity is
canceled)?
Medical or physical factors (e.g., apparent hunger or lack of sleep)?
Other influences?
2. What do you think the students) may gain from the problem behaviors?
Attention? What kind of attention? From whom?
Avoid an apparently difficult or boring activity?
Avoid teacher interaction?
Get control of a situation?
Avoid embarrassment in front of peers?

Summary of Behavior

Setting Events & Predictors Behaviors of Concern Maintaining Consequences


3. Are there appropriate behaviors that the student could use that would make the problem behavior
unnecessary?
4. Teacher support team decision
D Some suggestions regarding interventions to try.
Referral to a different team for assessment (speech hearing, academic):
o Formation of an action team to conduct a functional assessment and develop a plan of
support.
5. Date for follow-up