<%BANNER%>

Comparative Analysis of Functional Assessment Methodologies and Functional Analysis for Young Children with or at Risk f...


PAGE 1

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WITH OR AT RISK FOR EMOTI ONAL OR BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS By PETER JAY ALTER JR. 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 Peter Jay Alter Jr.

PAGE 3

With love to Erin and Betsy.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am extremely grateful to all for the he lp and support that I received throughout this program. It has been fulfilling, challenging and enriching. Most of all, I need to thank my wife, Erin. I can truly say that without he r I would not have gotte n to experience this, and I am eternally grateful.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Overview....................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................8 Significance of the Study..............................................................................................8 Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................9 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...........................................................................................10 Prevalence and Impact of Young Child ren with Challenging Behaviors...................10 Defining Functional Behavior Assessment................................................................12 Theoretical Framework and Histor ical Perspective Supporting FBA........................17 Review of the Current Literature................................................................................21 Method to Select Reviewed Studies...........................................................................22 Results of the L iterature Review................................................................................26 Descriptive Assessment Methodologies.....................................................................27 Participant and Setting Characteristics................................................................28 Implementer Characteristics................................................................................33 Components of the Descriptive Approach..........................................................33 Functions Identified.............................................................................................37 Interventions Implemented..................................................................................39 Summary..............................................................................................................41 Descriptive Assessments and Functional a nd Structural Analyses within FBAs.......42 Participant and Setting Characteristics................................................................45 Implementer Characteristics................................................................................47 Components of the Descriptive Approach and Analog Conditions....................48 Functions Identified.............................................................................................50 Interventions Implemented..................................................................................52

PAGE 6

vi Summary..............................................................................................................54 Direct Evaluation of De scriptive Methodologies.......................................................56 Comprehensive Summary of Research Literature......................................................80 Research Questions.....................................................................................................84 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................85 Participants.................................................................................................................85 Settings....................................................................................................................... 89 Materials.....................................................................................................................9 0 Measurement Procedures............................................................................................92 Dependent Measures...........................................................................................92 Independent Variables.........................................................................................92 Data Collection Procedures.................................................................................95 Interobserver Agreement.....................................................................................97 Experimental Procedures............................................................................................99 Recruitment and Training....................................................................................99 Phase I--Pre-experimental Assessments............................................................100 Phase II--Descriptive Assessments....................................................................101 Phase III--Functional Analysis..........................................................................101 Social Validity..........................................................................................................105 Procedural Integrity..................................................................................................105 Design and Data Analysis.........................................................................................106 Design................................................................................................................106 Data Analysis.....................................................................................................106 4 RESULTS.................................................................................................................110 Individual Child Participant Results.........................................................................111 Ramon................................................................................................................112 Anthony.............................................................................................................113 Jimmy................................................................................................................114 Greg...................................................................................................................116 Comparison of Outcomes of Descriptive Assessments............................................118 Social Validity Questionna ire and Interview Results...............................................121 Social Validity Questionnaire............................................................................121 Social Validity Interview...................................................................................123 Summary...................................................................................................................124 5 DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................126 Limitations................................................................................................................128 Interpretations of Results..........................................................................................135 Comparison of Descriptive Assessments..........................................................135 Comparison of Descriptive Assessm ents with Functional Analyses................138 Social Validity...................................................................................................142 Future Research........................................................................................................143

PAGE 7

vii Implications for Practice...........................................................................................147 Summary...................................................................................................................150 APPENDIX A APPROVED IRB FORMS AND PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT FORMS.....................................................................................................................152 B FLOW CHART OF TEACHER AND CHILD PARTICIPANT RECRUITING PROCESS.................................................................................................................162 C STUDENT PARTICIPANT CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST (CBCL) SCORES...................................................................................................................163 D INSTRUMENTS......................................................................................................164 E SOCIAL VALIDITY MEASURES.........................................................................165 F TEACHER TRAINING OUTLINE.........................................................................169 G FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES.........................................................173 H FINAL SCORING SUMMARY CHART................................................................178 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................179 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................189

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Descriptive Methods for Young Children................................................................29 2-2 Descriptive Methods and Functi onal Analysis for Young Children........................44 2-3 Direct Evaluations of Descriptive Assessments.......................................................59 3-1 Child Participant Information...................................................................................88 3-2 Teacher Participant Information...............................................................................88 3-3 Summary of Assessments and Their Settings For Each Phase................................90 3-4 Summary of Child Particip ants’ Preferred Items, Neutral Activities and Difficult Tasks.........................................................................................................................9 1 4-1 Summary of the Functions of Ch allenging Behaviors Across Assessment Methods..................................................................................................................112 4-2 Summary of Agreements Between Descriptive Assessments Compared With Each Other and with a Functional Analysis...........................................................119 4-3 Results of the Social Validity Questionnaire.........................................................121

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Challenging Behaviors per Minute During Functional Analysis for Ramon.........113 4-2 Challenging Behaviors per Minute During Functional Analysis for Anthony......114 4-3 Challenging Behaviors per Minute During Functional Analysis for Jimmy.........116 4-4 Challenging Behaviors per Minute During Functional Analysis for Greg............117

PAGE 10

x 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 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WITH OR AT RISK FOR EMOTI ONAL OR BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS By Peter Jay Alter Jr. August 2006 Chair: Vivian I. Correa Cochair: Maureen A. Conroy Major Department: Special Education The prevalence of functional behavior asse ssments (FBAs) in schools continues to increase as a result of federal mandates a nd widespread school policy reform. As the use of FBAs in schools increases, it is necessary to improve their current condition by evaluating the concurrent and construct valid ity of the process components. Failure to establish FBA as a process with valid outcomes will adversely impact students who demonstrate challenging behaviors b ecause a method for designing effective interventions will either be unus ed or the interventions that result from the process will be ineffective. There are a large number of de scriptive methodologies that can be used within the FBA process. However, the out comes of many of these methodologies have not been compared with each other or vali dated through functional analysis. Thus, there is a continuing need to empirically co mpare and validate the outcomes of these descriptive assessment methods The two purposes of this investigation were: (1) to

PAGE 11

xi compare the results of three commercially produced descriptive assessments with each other to determine concurrent validity, a nd (2) to compare the descriptive assessment results with the results of a functional analysis to determine construct validity. Descriptive assessments including one checkli st, an interview, and a direct observation were completed for four young children (ages 46) with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Teachers and researcher s then completed functional analyses within the classroom setting of the same participan ts. Results of the assessments were kept independent from each other until completion. Teachers also completed a social validity questionnaire and interview. This study indi cated that descriptive assessment results had low consistency with each other, 8/24 (33%) agreements between assessments, and that the outcomes of two of the three descrip tive assessments (i.e., the interview and checklist) also had low agreement with the functional analyses with 3/8 (38%) agreements. However, the direct observati ons agreed with the functional analyses conclusions for all 4/4 (100%) of the part icipants. These results do not support the concurrent validity of the three descriptive assessments or the cons truct validity of the checklist or the interview, but do support the construct valid ity of direct observations.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a brief overview of the literature and presents the need to examine the validity of various assessments in the functional behavior assessment (FBA) process. This brief overview outlines the us e of FBA with preschool-aged children who demonstrate challenging behavior and also highlights articles that have directly evaluated the results of these various assessments. The ar ticles that have dire ctly evaluated various assessments compare the reported results of th e descriptive assessments to each other and to results of functional analyses. The literat ure provides a synthesis of the evolution of the FBA process, the need for distinct comparisons of the various assessments and a rationale for the current study. In addition, th e contributions this study makes to improve the effectiveness of the FBA methodology, in both research and pract ice, are identified. Finally, this chapter presents the specific res earch questions that we re addressed in this study. Overview As the utilization of functional behavior assessments (FBAs) increases, it is incumbent on researchers to improve FB As’ current practices by evaluating the effectiveness and the efficiency of this proc ess. The increasing prevalence of FBAs is a direct result of two interrelat ed factors. The first reason for more widespread application of FBAs is the increased number of childre n who are engaging in challenging behaviors (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002). The number of young child ren exhibiting challenging behaviors is rising. Many of these childr en may ultimately meet the criteria for

PAGE 13

2 emotional/behavioral disorder s (Fox, Dunlap, & Powell, 2002). According to WebsterStratton (2000), 7% to 25% of preschool-aged children currently meet criteria that place them at risk for future development of oppos itional defiant disorder or a conduct disorder. For example, Kaiser, Kai, Hancock and Fost er (2002) tested 332 th ree-year old children enrolled in Head Start and found that 39% of boys and 22% of girls demonstrated behavioral deficits that placed them in th e clinical range for both internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors on the Ch ild Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1992). FBAs are one strategy that can be used to address children’ s needs; however, many of the FBA procedures used are problematic (Johnston & O’Neill, 2001). Increased effectiveness of FBAs are needed to appr opriately meet the increasing needs of young children with challenging behaviors. Second, the reauthorization of the Indi viduals with Disabi lities Education Amendments (IDEA, 2004) has mandated the us e of functional behavior assessments for all students who have been suspended for ove r ten days, who demonstrate behaviors that warrant consideration of a change in educat ional placement, or disciplinary measures such as placement in a more restrictive se tting (i.e., an interim a lternative educational setting) or expulsion. As a result, school dist ricts now view the comp letion of an FBA as the first step in any signifi cant intervention. This IDEA mandate has also impacted early childhood personnel working with young children ages 3 to 6 served under Section 619 of Part B of the act. The prevalence of FBAs in early childhood settings has been stimulated both by IDEA legislation (Nie lsen & McEvoy, 2004) and recognition that the process of FBA represents an importa nt methodology in addressing challenging behaviors demonstrated by young child ren (Fox, Dunlap & Powell, 2002).

PAGE 14

3 Functional behavioral assessment is a pro cess in which information is gathered regarding a specific behavior or set of behaviors in orde r to determine whether that behavior has any predictable relationship with the environm ent (O’Neill et al., 1997). Relationships exist when these environmen tal factors both predict the behavior and explain why it is maintained. Identification of these relationships increases understanding of why a particular behavior o ccurs or how behavior is rein forced and maintained by the specific environmental consequences (i.e., f unctions) they elicit. The FBA must identify the environmental factors surrounding challengi ng behaviors. Once environmental factors are identified and understood thr ough an effective FBA, indi vidualized interventions may be designed to replace undesirable behavior with appropriate alternatives that efficiently obtain the same functions of th e challenging behavior. For example, if a child engages in challenging behaviors to receive teacher attention, an intervention is designed that gives the child increased access to teacher atten tion by demonstrating desired behaviors and decreased access to teacher at tention for challenging behaviors. In most educational settings, information for FBAs is gathered us ing a combination of bot h indirect and direct descriptive assessment measures (Johnston & O’Neill, 2001). Indirect measures are those that do not require direct obser vation of the student. Indirect measures include interviews with parents, teachers, and children via the us e of questionnaires, rating scales and record reviews. In contrast, direct measures typi cally consist of sca tter plots (Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer, 1985) and observation worksheets that reflec t a running narrative of antecedents, behaviors and consequences (ABCs) (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968) that are recorded as they are obs erved in natural settings.

PAGE 15

4 An alternative method for gathering info rmation to determine the function of a challenging behavior is a f unctional analysis (Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2000). Functional analysis refers to the use of analog conditions, manipulating specific environmental conditions that follow challengi ng behaviors, to systematically identify consequences as they relate to the functi on of a behavior (Sugai, Horner, & Sprague, 1999). Following the manipulation of each of these conditions, the consequence that produces the highest level of behavior is identified as the function. The difference between the former two descri ptive methods (direct and indi rect) and the third method of functional analysis is that the descriptive methods generate correlational results while a functional analysis identifies causal relations hips between behavior and the maintaining consequences (Lerman & Iwata, 1993). No combination of these three methods has been accepted as the standard protocol either by re search literature or federal mandates (Scott et al., 2004). A literature review of the research of the use of FBAs with young children demonstrating challenging behaviors revealed three distinct groupings : (a) studies that only employed indirect and di rect descriptive methodologies to determine hypothetical functions; (b) studies that combined descriptive methodol ogies with functional analysis methodologies to determine functions; and (c) st udies that directly compared the results of different assessments with each other and/or a functional analysis. Although some FBA methodologies have been available fo r use by teachers for over 20 years (Ervin, Ehrhardt & Poling, 2001), FBA me thods are still in a fledglin g state of development. Studies that only used desc riptive assessment methods in the FBA process remain the most prevalent for young children demons trating challenging behavior. By using only

PAGE 16

5 descriptive assessments, and not using functional analysis, th e function identified in this body of research remains hypothetical. Interv entions based on the hypothetical functions that are not experimentally ma nipulated (i.e., a reversal desi gn) only provide correlational support (Kazdin, 1982). Additionally, in studies that only used descriptive assessments, many of the interventions implemented within th e studies were either not directly related to the hypothetical function or included additional interventions that muddled whether or not the hypothetical function id entification was accurate. Fo r example, Grandy and Peck (1997) hypothesized that the function of the challenging behavior was teacher attention. However, rather than creating an interv ention that limited teacher attention for challenging behavior and increased teacher at tention for desired behaviors, researchers implemented a token economy that led to cla ssroom privileges and that indirectly led to teacher attention. This lack of a direct c onnection between the determined function and the intervention implemented calls into ques tion the accuracy of the determined function. It is impossible to determine if teacher attent ion was reinforcing the desired behavior or if it was another element of the token economy. As illustrated through this example, the body of literature using descriptive assessments gives minimal support to the accuracy or consistency of the various descriptive assessments. Studies that employ both descriptive assessments and functional analysis methodologies also have certain shortcom ings. First, researcher influence was pronounced in these studies th at included the time cons uming, technically complex functional analysis process. In many of th e studies reviewed, a team of researchers worked with very few participants (i.e., Doggett, Edwards, Tingstrom & Wilcznski, 2001; Harding et al., 1999; Romaniuk et al., 2002). Another salient difference between

PAGE 17

6 the descriptive methods in the studies that used both descriptive assessments and functional analysis and the sample that only us ed descriptive methods is that this sample was more parsimonious in the use of descri ptive assessments. When functional analysis was also incorporated into the study’s protoc ol, descriptive assessments were only used to the extent that they could guide the functional or structur al analysis procedures. These studies used the descriptive assessment results to identify times and situations to conduct analog probes during the times or activitie s that teachers identified as the most problematic. For example, in both their studies Broussard an d Northup (1995, 1997) only used direct observations of the participan t and a brief interview with the teacher to determine what would make the analog condi tions most representa tive of the natural environment. This makes it very difficult to determine what parts of the process are producing accurate and/ or cons istent results. Therefore, th e effectiveness and efficiency of various FBA method ologies are unknown. There were eight studies that directly evaluated different aspects of the functional behavior assessment process. This group of st udies that attempted to compare the results of different descriptive assessments with each other and with functional analysis procedures had several prominent characterist ics. Overall, there was agreement between the different descriptive assessments result s. There was also agreement between the descriptive assessment results and the functiona l analysis results. However there are three reasons why these results should be interp reted with caution. Firs t, the descriptive assessment results informed one another and were not independent from each other as they were conducted, making direct comparis on of separate results impossible. For example, in Ellingson, Miltenberger, St ricker, Galensky and Garlinghouse (2000),

PAGE 18

7 Murdock, O’Neill and Cunningham (2005) and Ne wcomer and Lewis (2004), the results of the indirect assessment dir ectly shaped and guided the direct descriptive observations thereby compromising their claims of i ndependent consistency across assessment methods. This makes direct comparison impo ssible as the results of one assessment influence the results of another. The second in terrelated factor with this assimilation of assessment methods is that by not being pres ented in different orders, the order of administration was not counterbalanced. As a result, the aforementioned three studies and Yarbrough and Carr (1997) presented their desc riptive assessments in the same order, making it impossible to control for an order eff ect. In other words, there is a possibility that a participating teacher’s previous respons es to an assessment would shape responses to subsequent assessments. The third salient factor is the use of the descriptive assessment results to guide the functional analysis procedures. Within this body of literature, only Cunningham and O’Neill (2000), and Sasso et al. (1992) conduc ted functional analysis procedures with five analog conditions: free play (control), tangible, escape, attention, and alone. Other studies only tested analog conditions that matched the results of the descriptive assessments. This difference is subtle yet critical. By only eval uating those hypothetical functions determined by the descriptive assessmen t, it is possible to confirm the results as a function but not the function (because different f unctions were not compared). Additionally, two studies, Murdock, et al., (2005) and Ellingson et al. (2000), did not use any experimental procedures to confirm the functions; this means that their results may show consistency across descriptive measures but that does not confirm the accuracy of the function identified.

PAGE 19

8 In conclusion, all three bodies of FBA lite rature indicate that there is a need to evaluate the effectiveness of current assessment procedures By keeping the different assessment results separate from each othe r and from the functional analysis, it was possible to evaluate each instrument’s resu lts independently. This extends current FBA research that has attempted to evaluate the accuracy of different assessment methodologies. Statement of the Problem No single procedure or combination of procedures for functional behavior assessment has emerged as the most suitabl e for use with young ch ildren demonstrating challenging behaviors. Minimal empirical studies have eval uated the effectiveness and usefulness of various approaches. “Several au thors have noted that research directly comparing the results of different approaches such as interviews a nd direct observations is sparse” (Johnston & O’Neill, 2001, p. 206). Failure to establish FBA as a meaningful process with valid outcomes will adversel y impact countless children who demonstrate challenging behaviors. Absent a highly effective method fo r determining function and designing effective interventions, appropria te plans will either go unused or the interventions that result from the process wi ll be ineffective. Teachers need to be equipped with strategies that determine the function of a challengi ng behavior reliably and accurately for the FBA process to be effect ive and useful. If the process is ineffective and does not decrease challeng ing behaviors, then the FBA process will become another bureaucratic chore that will not positivel y impact children (Scott et al., 2004). Significance of the Study This fundamental need to meet the de mand for effective FBAs that can be implemented by teachers in a meaningful way l eads to an important area of research: to

PAGE 20

9 conduct a series of indirect and direct desc riptive assessments a nd compare the outcomes of these assessments to each other and to the outcomes of a functional analysis methodology. This study extends and builds on the current literatu re that directly evaluated the results of different descriptiv e assessments. However, unlike these studies, the functional analysis in this study was independent of the descriptive assessment results, thus allowing an unbiased comp arison of descriptive and experimental methodologies. The results of the various direct and indirect descrip tive assessments were recorded independently and sepa ration of the results was maintained until the end of the study. Additionally, the desc riptive assessments’ orde r of administration was counterbalanced across participan ts to maintain independence as well. The results of this research are an empirically validated step to wards evaluating descriptive assessments that can be used both in continuing FBA research and in applied public school and early childhood settings. Purpose of the Study The specific questions this research study addressed were the following: 1. How do the functions of target behavior s identified through various descriptive functional assessments compare with f unctions identified through a functional analysis for young children’s challenging behavior? 2. How do the functions of target behavior s identified through various descriptive functional assessments compare to each other?

PAGE 21

10 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on the use of functional behavior assessment (FBA) that address ch allenging behaviors in applied settings demonstrated by young children. This review focuses on the processes that comprise FBAs, in order to determine the most effec tive methodologies. First, the significance of completing FBAs will be traced in the context of an increase in the rate and severity of challenging behaviors demons trated by young children. Second, this chapter will define functional behavior assessment, and outline the current components that comprise FBA. Third, the theoretical underpinnings will be outlined as they relate to its current application especially with young children. Fourth, specific as pects of this application will be examined through a targeted review of the empirical literature. This literature will be divided into three sections: (1) studies th at used only descriptive assessments in the FBA process (2) studies that used both de scriptive assessments and experimental analyses; and (3) studies that directly exam ined and compared the results of different descriptive assessment methodol ogies. Finally, a general di scussion will address the shortcomings of current empirical literature and outline directions for future research. Prevalence and Impact of Young Children with Challenging Behaviors The prevalence of young children exhibiting challenging behavi ors is increasing (Fox, Dunlap, & Powell, 2002), and children ar e at risk for future development of behavioral disorders (Webster-Stratt on, 1997). The young children under consideration are defined as children under 8 years of age, in accordance with the age limit specified by

PAGE 22

11 the Division of Early Childhood of the Counc il for Exceptional Children. Researchers have documented various prev alence rates across a numbe r of different behavior disorders. For example, 7% to 25% of pres chool-age children curren tly meet the criteria for a diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Diso rder (ODD) as defined by the Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV-TR (DSM IV-TR) (W ebster-Stratton, 2000). The DSM defines Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) as “a re current pattern of negativistic, defiant, disobedient, and hostile behavior toward auth ority figures that persists for at least 6 months.” Additionally, Kaiser, Kai, Hancock, and Foster (2002) tested 332 three-year old children enrolled in Head Start and found that 39% of boys and 22% of girls scored in the clinical range for both internalizing and extern alizing problem behavior s. As the rate of challenging behaviors demonstr ated by young children continues to increase, the need to manage and modify behavior in early childhood settings also increases. The inability to remediate these challenging behaviors w ill affect young children both now and in the future. Behaviors such as tantrums, aggressi on, and chronic non-compliance exhibited by young children may have immediate and prolonged effects on academic achievement and appropriate socialization (Shonkoff & Phil lips, 2000). The immediate effects of challenging behaviors for preschool-aged ch ildren are academic under-achievement and poorly developed social skills (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002; Webs ter-Stratton, 1997). The long-term effects of unaddressed challenging behaviors are an in crease in both rate and severity over time (Reid & Patterson, 1991). Early behavior problems have also been linked with more severe problems such as substance abuse, unemployment, criminal behavior, and diagnosis of a psychiatri c disorder (Reid and Patterson, 1991).

PAGE 23

12 Chandler and Dahlquist (2002) state that difficult behavior s are often rooted in the functions that they served at young ages, such as hitting a peer to a ttain a tangible object (e.g., a toy), and these behaviors may also incr ease in frequency, duration, and intensity as the child gets older. Ascertaining the func tion of a challenging behavior is the key to developing an effective intervention to ex tinguish it (Cooper & Harding, 1993; Iwata et al., 1982/1994; Gresham, 2003; O’Neill et al., 1997; Sasso et al., 2001) and may prevent its undesirable immediate and long-term consequences. Defining Functional Behavior Assessment The use of functional behavior assessments (FBAs) in school settings represents an important process in the effort to address increasingly prevalent pr oblems with behavior in children. Using functional behavior assessment and functionally derived interventions, as opposed to interventions that are unrelated to the function of the behavior, is supported by research and considered “best practice” in the field (Arndorfer & Miltenberger, 1993; Gresham, 2003; Iwata et al., 1982/1994; National Institute of Health, 1989; O’Neill et al., 1997; Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988; Sasso et al ., 2001). Functional behavior assessment was designed to identify variab les to manipulate through appl ied interventions to reduce challenging behaviors that interf ere with or prohibit learning, and increase pro-social and adaptive behaviors that can lead to greater academic and social success (O’Neill et al., 1997). In schools, the use of FBA represents a paradigm shift for educators that traditionally applied a standard system of c onsequences for all infractions (i.e., time out, a phone call to parents, a loss of privilege s, suspension, expulsion). In early childhood settings, FBAs represent a valuable tool to help early childhood prof essionals address the behaviors that surpass usua l challenging behaviors dem onstrated by young children (Fox,

PAGE 24

13 Dunlap, & Powell, 2002). With FBA, educator s can design interventions that match the function of a challenging behavi or in children. The function of a behavior refers to the purpose or outcome of the challenging behavior for the child (Scott et al., 2004). In other words, a function refers to the desired cons equence that motivates a challenging behavior, and function-based interventions refer to environmental manipulations that allow a student to achieve the desi red goal through other means (i .e., appropriate replacement behaviors). For example, if the function, or purpose, of a student exhibiting a challenging behavior is to receive teacher attentio n, then a challenging behavior could be extinguished by giving the student access to teacher attention by exhibiting appropriate behaviors and not providing addi tional teacher attention for the challenging behavior. Functional behavior assessment, as defined fo r this literature review, is a process in which information is gathered regarding a specif ic behavior or set of behaviors in order to determine whether that behavior has any pr edictable relationship with the environment (O’Neill et al., 1997). The environment is comprised of all factors preceding (antecedents) and events fo llowing (consequences) the beha vior. A relationship exists when these environmental fact ors predict the occurrence of the behavior and explain why the behavior is maintained. This assessment helps to understand why behavior occurs, or how behavior is reinforced and maintained by the specific environmental consequences (i.e., functions) they elicit. This assessment al so identifies the environmental factors that precede a challenging behavior and make the ch allenging behavior more or less likely to occur. The purpose of an FBA is to unders tand environmental fact ors that surround the behavior so that individua lized interventions may be de signed to replace undesirable

PAGE 25

14 behavior with appropriate alternatives th at efficiently match the functions of the challenging behavior. Because current empirical studies have applied the term functional behavior assessment broadly, the definition of FBA for this literature review requires further specification. As noted, functions typically refer to environmental consequences that follow a challenging behavior. The experimental evaluation of functi ons of behavior is referred to as ‘functional analysis’ within the literature. However antecedents, (also referred to as setting events or establis hing operations) that precede and increase the likelihood of challenging behaviors, also play an important role in functional behavior assessment (Conroy & Stichter, 2003). Within th e literature, experime ntal evaluation of antecedents is referred to as a ‘structural an alysis,’ but may also simply be included as another aspect of an FBA. For the purposes of this literature review, studies that evaluate both the antecedents and consequences of behavior will be included as part of an FBA. There are essentially three ways to generate functions of a cha llenging behavior: (1) indirect descriptive measures that establish hypothetical functions of a challenging behavior, (2) direct descriptive measures that establish hypothetical functions and (3) experimental analysis of an e nvironment that can determine the actual function of a challenging behavior. However, for the purposes of this literature review direct and indirect measures will be combined and si mply referred to as descriptive assessment measures in the three sections of literature that are reviewed (S turmey, 1994). Indirect measures are those that do not require di rect observation of the student and the challenging behavior. Typically, indirect measures include interviews with parents, teachers, (and the student if appropriate), questionnaires, rating scales and reviews of

PAGE 26

15 school records. A number of commercially produced comprehensive interviews exist (see O’Neill et al., 1997 for an example). In addition, commercially produced behavior checklists, such as the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) (Durand & Crimmins, 1992) are designed for determining the hypothetical function of a behavior. The total number of indirect assessments of this t ype is difficult to determine. A ccording to a literature review conducted by Floyd, Phaneuf and Wilczynski (2005) there are 19 commercially produced indirect assessments; however, this does not include those in direct assessments that are created by individual school systems or early childhood centers. Furthe r, as Floyd et al., (2005) point out most of these other instrument s have minimal research into their efficacy and validity; only O’Neill’s interview and the MAS met their criteria for inclusion in a literature review of indirect descriptive assessment methods. In contrast, direct measures require th e direct observation of the child and the challenging behaviors. Direct descriptive asse ssments typically consist of scatter plots (Touchette, et al., 1985), and observation work sheets that reflect an tecedents, behaviors and consequences (ABCs) (Bijou, et al., 1968) that ar e recorded in real time as they are observed. While some school districts and early childhood centers may adopt commercially produced FBA measures, they also may have created their own direct and indirect methods of gathering data to identify these functions. This means that there are a large number of descriptive methodologies that can be used within the FBA process. Finally, the third type of procedure is an experimental approach, also referred to as functional and structural analysis. Functiona l analysis refers to the use of analogs, manipulating specific environmental conditions that follow challenging behaviors, to systematically identify consequences as they relate to the function of a behavior (Sugai,

PAGE 27

16 Horner, & Sprague, 1999). For example, to determine the function of the behavior, analog situations representing possible conseq uences are manipulated (i.e., attention, tangible, escape, and control conditions). Fo llowing the manipulation of each of these, the consequence that produces the highest level of behavior is identified as the function. For example, to determine the function of a challenging behavior, each analog condition is conducted, contingently providing the ta rgeted consequence following the occurrence of the behavior. For example, in the a ttention condition, the c onsequence of adult attention would be provided c ontingently every time the target behavior is demonstrated while all other possible antecedents and conse quences are controlled to account for any variance. If the consequence of adult attention results in an increased rate of the behavior, as compared with other consequences admini stered in the same controlled environment, then it can be concluded that the function of this challenging behavior is adult attention. Structural analysis involves a similar process; however, rather than systematically manipulating the consequences that follow a be havior, a structural analysis manipulates the antecedents that precede the behavior to identify variables that set the occasion or serve an evocative effect. All three of these assessment procedures ha ve drawbacks. Indirect assessments rely on the subjective judgments of a third part y, and direct observati ons can be context specific and inefficient in capturing the o ccurrence of a challenging behavior and its antecedents and consequences (Floyd et al., 200 5). Direct observations can be inefficient because the probability of actually observing th e challenging behavior may be relatively low, necessitating long and/or frequent obser vation periods (Scott et al., 2004). In this sense, the measures are inefficient because they may demand a considerable amount of

PAGE 28

17 time from the practitioner but do not insure m eaningful results. Func tional and structural analysis have been identified as too time consuming, and technically complex for practitioners to conduct, and may lack ex ternal validity due to the high degree of experimental control (i.e., the highly cont rolled conditions in wh ich it is conducted) (Arndorfer & Miltenberger, 1993; Ellingson, et al., 2000). Regardless of the methodology, identifying and evaluating relationships between environmental antecedents and consequences and challenging behavior improves the opportunities to enable all stud ents to meet academic and behavioral goals (Hanley, Iwata & McCord, 2003). As antecedents and conseque nces that are related to challenging behavior are identified, envi ronments can be modified to reduce the occurrence of challenging behavior. This may be done by re ducing the antecedents that increase the occurrence of the challenging behavior, givi ng students access to de sired reinforcement through adaptive behaviors and/or limiting access to reinforcement for challenging behaviors. Creating effective in terventions that re duce or eliminate challenging behavior at a young age can decrease the possibility that they will increase in frequency, duration and intensity as the child gets older. The theoretical framework for designing interventions according to function is rooted in the Behaviorist approach to human psychology. This theoretical framework and an historical perspectiv e supporting FBA are described in the next section. Theoretical Framework and Histo rical Perspective Supporting FBA The theoretical framework for functional behavior assessment methodology can be traced back to the work of early behavior ists such as J.B. Watson and, so-called neobehaviorists such as B.F. Ski nner (1953). In fact, the term function as it is used in this context, is often cred ited to Skinner’s book Science and Human Behavior (1953). Skinner

PAGE 29

18 (1953) states, “The external va riables of which behavior is a function provide for what may be called a causal or functional analysis.” (p. 35). The subsequent work in the field of applied behavior analysis, codified by the creation of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA), expanded this theoretical fram ework to work with humans in applied settings. Within this framework, researchers address behaviors by examining the environmental variables that maintain them, and operate on the assumption that functional relations not only exist, but also can be iden tified and manipulated. Early seminal work in JABA included an articl e by Bijou, Peterson and Ault (1968) that described a method to integrate descriptive a nd experimental data within field studies. Additionally, Sailor, Guess, and Rutherfo rd (1968) conducted early work identifying “functions” of behavior and re ported that for a 9 year ol d who engaged in frequent tantrums, the problem behavior “seemed to pr oduce the effect of terminating contact with other individuals who usually were making some demand of her” (p. 238). While establishing the function of a behavior can be traced back to the work of early behaviorists, the emergence of a specific proc ess for determining the behavioral functions is related to two more recent seminal events; the creation of a functional analysis methodology and the legal mandate of FBA in th e Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997; 2004). First, Iwata et al. (1982/1994) devel oped a methodology that used various environmental conditions, referred to as analog probes, in a clinical setting to identify a relationship between the environment and the function of self-injurious behavior. These analog probes included the following conditi ons: adult attention, escape from a task, an

PAGE 30

19 alone condition and free play (Iwata et al., 1982/1994). The direct, systematic manipulation of environmental factors in a highly controlled environment in order to evaluate the function of a challe nging behavior, in this case self-injurious behaviors, was termed ‘functional analysis.’ This procedur e led to highly specific, highly effective intervention plans that incorporated the f unction of the challengi ng behavior and thus, decreased these behaviors. As the importanc e of finding the functi on of a challenging behavior became apparent, the methodol ogies broadened beyond experimental manipulation into more desc riptive assessments. Following this groundbreaking research, a more formalized functional behavior asse ssment process emerged from the clinic setting and was implemented in more natu ral settings, such as the classroom. The second critical event, th e reauthorization of the Indi viduals with Disabilities Education Amendments (1997), provided the impetus to extend the methodology by making the use of functional behavior asse ssments (FBAs) mandatory for all students whose behavior warrants consideration fo r a change in educational placement or disciplinary measures such as extended suspension or expulsion. Although IDEA (1997) provided the impetus to expand the met hodology of FBA, it did not specify what procedures should be used by individual s in schools when implementing an FBA resulting in varying forms of FBAs from state to state, district to district and even school to school. Despite its continua lly increasing prevalence in both educational systems and research settings, the effectiveness of FBA is still hampered by muddled definitions, an unspecified protocol and com ponents that have not been empirically validated for use with various populations in numerous sett ings (Ervin, Ehrhardt, & Poling, 2001; Gresham, et. al, 2004; Scott et al., 2004; Sugai, et al., 1999).

PAGE 31

20 While IDEA mandates have specific impli cations for public schools, the legislation has also continued to stimulate interest in the FBA process as it impacts early childhood settings such as child care centers (Neils en & McEvoy, 2004). This prevalence has a clear relationship to the federal mandates regardi ng positive behavior support and the need for evidence-based practices for all ages (s ee Conroy, Dunlap, Clark, & Alter, 2005 for a review). As outlined by Arndorfer and Milt enberger (1993), there are specific implications for FBA in early childhood settings. These implications include examination of the utility of functional assessment methods in early childhood settings, especially including the use of various different descri ptive assessments (i.e. indirect and direct assessments) and the viability of functiona l analysis procedures in early childhood settings. Thus, there is a need for examination of these specific components, as the role of FBA in early childhood settings continues to be prevalent in research and practice. No single procedure or combin ation of procedures has emerged as the most suitable for application with young children demonstrati ng challenging behaviors. In concert with this shortcoming, minimal empirical studie s have evaluated the effectiveness and usefulness of these various approaches. “Several authors have noted that research directly comparing the results of different approaches such as interviews a nd direct observations is sparse” (Johnston & O’Neill, 2001, p, 206). Failure to establish FBA as a meaningful process with valid outcomes will adversel y impact countless students who demonstrate challenging behaviors, because a highly effective method for designing effective interventions will either be unus ed or the interventions that result from the process will be ineffective.

PAGE 32

21 The application of various functional behavior assessment procedures in educational settings has outpaced current res earch. There is minimal research validating the effectiveness of different functional beha vior assessment processes currently used for children with emotional and behavioral di sorders (Sasso, Conroy, Stichter & Fox, 2001). “Given the different options available for conducting a functional assessment, the question regarding which approach practitione rs ought to use to assess problem behavior is paramount” (Yarbrough & Carr, 2000, p, 133). The rising prevalence of young children’s challenging behavior in early childhood settings increases this urgency. Thus, educators need to be equipped with strategies that determine the function of a challenging behavior reliably and accurately for the FBA process to effective and useful. Review of the Current Literature Current research in the use of FBAs, incl uding functional and structural analyses, with young children indicates th at although there is consider able application of these methodologies, the use of FBAs with young children with EBD in applied or natural (e.g., classrooms, home) settings is still in its fledgling state. The first section of this review examines the use of both direct and indirect descriptive FBA assessment methodologies in natural settings (i.e., such as childcare centers, public school classrooms, and homes). The rationale for revi ewing this group of empirical studies is that they can provide insight into the effectiveness of FBAs that are conducted without any type of systematic environmental mani pulation. The second section examines FBAs that used both types of desc riptive assessments and experi mental analysis for FBAs. Examining this literature will pr ovide a clearer picture as to what place, if any, functional analysis will hold in natural se ttings and what the ramificatio ns of not using experimental analysis may be. The third section examines st udies that specifically compared the results

PAGE 33

22 of descriptive assessment methodologies with each other and with the results of a functional analysis. This purpose of this sec tion of the literature review is to examine what research has been conducted thus far comparing, evaluating a nd possibly validating different components of the FBA process. Method to Select Reviewed Studies This literature search was completed in th ree steps. First, th e author conducted a computer search of EbscoHost including Academic Search Premier, PsychINFO, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Coll ection, and the Professional Development Collection databases), ERIC, and First Sear ch. The following keyword combinations were used: functional, assessment, assessment-based, analysis, behavior, experimental, school, preschool and young children Second, articles were cro ss-referenced that were identified in the computerized search to de termine if research articles had been omitted. Third, the author consulted with researchers who have written extensively in this area to accumulate any other articles that may ha ve been omitted in th e first two steps. To compare ‘descriptive assessments’ (d irect and indirect) to ‘experimental analysis,’ it is necessary to differentiate the two terms. As previously described, descriptive assessment represents the use of methodologi es including: direct observation, rating scales, interviews, and hypothesis development using antecedent behavior consequence (ABC) analysis (Bijou et al., 1968). Experimental analys is (i.e., structural analysis and functional analysis) uses an alog probes to purposefully manipulate a variable within the environment and then develops hypotheses based on these controlled, manipulated environments. One important dis tinction between these two terms is that descriptive assessment met hodologies identify only a hypothetical function; whereas,

PAGE 34

23 functional analyses are able to identify a causal relationship (i .e., function) through experimental analyses (Lerman & Iwata, 1993). However, certain character istics of these research articles made separating descriptive methodologies from f unctional analysis a complex task in several ways. First, all descriptive studies include d hypothesis testing, the addition or removal of a specific stimulus in the environment. This type of environmental manipulation is similar to a traditional FA. However, two features differentiated hypothesis testing and functional analysis: (1) the type of experimental contro l and (2) the number of functions tested in these controlled settings. Control of the envi ronment is the distingui shing characteristic separating descriptive analysis from functi onal analysis (Sasso et al., 1992). For example, if researchers manipulated the environment to keep every other factor (curriculum, schedule) the same and only sy stematically changed the analogs, this was termed a functional analysis. Additionally, if a study tested multiple functions in this controlled environment then it was termed a functional analysis. For example, if a study systematically tested tangible items, adult attention and an alone condition, this was considered a functional analysis. However, if a study only performed a test of one hypothetical function based on th e interviews or direct obs ervations, this was still considered a validation of the findings from the descriptive assessment (Hanley, et al., 2003). Another characteristic that made disti nguishing descriptive methodologies from experimental analysis difficult is the absen ce of clearly standardi zed terminology in the research studies. In certai n studies, the actual methodology is obfuscated by an imprecise use of terms. For example, Kamps et al. (1995) referred to their research as a “functional

PAGE 35

24 analysis.” However, because of minimal e nvironmental control, the methodology used in this study is more accurately judged to be a descriptive analysis, according to Sasso et al.’s (1992) definition. To counteract the use of imprecise terminology within the literature, the criterion for categorization was se t that if individuals (researchers, teachers, parents) manipulated the environment to test multiple different functions in any way, in order to confirm a hypothetical function, then it was deemed an experi mental analysis. There are two final caveats regarding this differentiation. The fi rst issue concerned studies that implemented interventions-even if interventions were implemented explicitly to confirm hypothesized functions. Regardless, these studies were still judged to fall under the ‘solely descriptive’ section of the liter ature review. The rationale for this decision is that while in terventions may confirm a functional relationship, they do not necessarily confirm the functional relationship, unlike a tr aditional functional analysis. Other functional relationships may exist that would not be tested simply by implementing interventions guided by descri ptive assessment results. For example, a descriptive assessment suggests that desire for a tangible object may be the function of the behavior and an intervention is implemented that provi des increased time playing with the toy for desired behaviors and decreased time playing with the toy for challenging behaviors. Although this may be an effective way to reduce challenging behaviors, it does not indicate that this is either the only func tion or the primary function of the challenging behavior. The function may actually be the atte ntion the student gets when playing with a toy, thereby making the real function, atten tion. As an aside, the efficacy of using interventions to confirm or disprove functional relationships will be discussed within the first section of this literature review, studies using solely descriptive assessment studies.

PAGE 36

25 The second caveat was the issue of investig ating antecedent-based assessments, at times referred to as structural analysis, and antecedent-base d interventions. The rationale for including these studies within this review is based on the use of antecedents within classrooms and other natural settings. It has been noted that antecedent events play an important role in natural setti ngs because less predictable pa tterns of behavior occur in these environments, less control over antecedents occurs, and schedules of reinforcement may not be consistently applied (Conroy & St ichter, 2003). Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that teachers completing the FBA process will not limit the process in the widespread application of FBAs, solely to consequence-based assessment and intervention. Thus, studies that addressed antecedents are included in this review. Additional criteria to determine which re search studies would be included were also determined. First, only studies that occurred in homes, community-based childcare, and early childhood public school classrooms were used. Because this review is focused on the use of FBA in real-world settings, its use in highly controlled clinical settings was not applicable. As a result, a number of articles were excluded due to this potential lack of external validity. Second, for the first two sections, research studies directed solely toward populations with low-incidence disabi lities, such as autism, or moderate and severe mental retardation were eliminated, as was research geared toward highly specific behaviors that are not typi cal of most young children who demonstrate challenging behavior, e.g. hair-twirling, ey e-poking, breath-holding, were e liminated. Therefore, as long as at least one participant within the study had been classified as at risk for or having a high-incidence disability, the study was include d within this review. Only the results of the children with high incidence disabilities we re discussed in the fi rst two sections of

PAGE 37

26 this review. Criterion was established to fo cus on the application of FBA with a broadbased population – that is, young children with or at risk for emotional/behavioral disorders. However, for the final section of th e literature review that consisted of studies that directly compared and evaluated the re sults of different desc riptive methodologies, this criterion was expanded due to the dearth in this area of research. For the final section, results of students who were older or had mo re severe disabilities were also reported. Third, in order to focus on FBAs with young children, each study was to include at least one participant 8 years of age or younger. Fourth, only re search published in a peerreviewed journal after 1994 was included. Because this methodology has been revised and refined extensively over the past ten years, articles pre-dating 1994 would not be applicable to current applications. These criteria were again e xpanded for the final section due to the limited numb er of studies in this area. Results of the Literature Review Thirty-two studies were found that met the criteria for inclusion in this review. Fourteen studies used descriptive methods onl y to identify the hypothetical function of a challenging behavior, ten studies used both descriptive methods and functional analysis to identify the function of a ch allenging behavior, and eight st udies directly compared the results of descriptive assessments with functional analysis resu lts. In the first two sections of this review, (1) solely descriptive a ssessments (indirect and direct), and (2) experimental analysis and descriptive co mbined, were evaluated by looking at: (a) participant and setting characteristics, (b) im plementer characteristics, (c) components of the descriptive approach or analog conditions (d) antecedents and functions identified, and (e) interventions implemented. In the fi nal section, each of the eight studies is presented individually. These studies are discussed in te rms of the aforementioned

PAGE 38

27 characteristics, but their findings and imp lications are also summarized. Patterns of agreement or disagreement are also pres ented as well as methodological limitations. These eight studies are presente d in chronological order. The st udies in this final section are presented in greater depth, because th eir rationales and methodologies provided the foundation for the current study. Descriptive Assessment Methodologies This section of the paper will address the research f ound on the use of descriptive assessments in the formulation of FBAs in natural settings. Descriptive assessment methodologies, both direct and indirect, are pr ocedures that evaluate the function of a challenging behavior but do not systematically manipulate the environment. Therefore, there is no experimental validation of th e potential antecedents and consequences identified. In regard to FBAs with young children, descriptive assessments including interviews, checklists and direct observations (ABC recordings) are far more prevalent than the more technically complex, time consuming experimental analyses (i.e., functional analysis and struct ural analyses) (Arndorfer & Miltenberger, 1993; Reid & Nelson, 2002; Scott et al., 2004). While descriptive assessments are le ss time consuming and less technically rigorous, the main drawbacks are that they can only generate hypothetical functions of behavior. Additionally, descriptive assessments often rely on the judgments of third party informants. This can be especially problema tic as questionnaires and interviews were subject to the teachers’ memories and biases of behavior in diffe rent settings (Shores, Wehby & Jack, 1999). Thus the value of th ese assessment methodologies hinges on the informants’ accuracy of recall. Despite their current prevalence in educational settings, there still remains a shortage of literature in regard to studies that used only the

PAGE 39

28 descriptive assessment methodolog ies. A surprising outcome of this review is that although IDEA (1997) produced a flurry of posit ion papers (Sasso, et al., 2001), it did not appear to produce an accompanying flurry of empirical research that met the criteria for this literature review. In f act, there are six studies on or before 1997 and eight studies after 1997. A total of fourteen studies met th e inclusion criteria (see Table 2-1 for a summary of information regarding each study). The following sections will highlight the findings of this group of studi es and discuss methodological and practical limitations of the research. Participant and Setting Characteristics In terms of participant charac teristics, there were a tota l of 274 participants in the solely descriptive studies, however, 210 pa rticipants were from a single study (see Chandler, Dahlquist, Repp, and Feltz, 1999). Because information about ethnicity and socio-economic level was omitted from most of the studies, particularly those with large numbers of participants, this level of detail is not discussed in the review. Omitting the Chandler et al. (1999) study that did not report gender, in the smaller studies that reported participant gender, only 9 girls (between the ages of 3-6 years old) out of the remaining 64 participants (14%) were evaluated in all of the studies. This is not surprising since typically boys demonstrate external challengi ng behaviors at a much higher rate at the preschool age than girls do (Webster-Stratton, 1997).

PAGE 40

29 Table 2-1. Descriptive Methods for Young Children Authors/ Year of Publication Participant Characteristics (number, gender, age in years, label) Setting characteristics Implementer Characteristics Descriptive Methods Functions Identified Interventions Implemented Dunlap, dePerczel, Clarke, Wilson, Wright, White, & Gomez (1994)* 3 males, 5-11 yrs**, EBD and ADHD, selfcontained classrooms Researchers DO, HD, I Not stated, Lack of choice (implied) Use of choice in curriculum recommended Storey, et al., (1994) 1 male, 6 yrs, no label, reg. ed. Classroom Researchers & Teacher I, DO Attention, tangibles Increased specific reinforcement using a reinforcement system Clarke, Dunlap, Foster-Johnson, Childs, Wilson, White & Vera (1995)* 3 males, 5-11 yrs**, EBD and ADHD, selfcontained classroom or separate work room Researchers & Teachers I, RR, DO, HD Lack of interest in assignments Incorporation of student interests Kamps, Elllis, Mancina, Wyble, Greene, & Harvey (1995) 8 males, 2 females, 3-5 yrs, at risk for EBD, reg. ed. Classroom or Head Start classroom Teachersprovided with training workshops, Researchers monitor and assist DO, HD, TR Adult attention, tangibles Increased supervision, reinforcement for prosocial behavior, reduced attention for inappropriate behavior Grandy & Peck (1997) 1 male, 6 yrs, no label, gen. ed. Classroom Researchers and teacher DO, HD, SA,TR Teacher attention Token economy (led to teacher attention Umbreit & Blair (1997)* 1 male, 4 yrs, at risk for EBD, childcare center Researchers & Teacher DO,HD,I, SA Preference, choice Pair preferred activity with non-preferred Schill, Kratochowill, & Elliott (1998) 19 students, 12 male, 7 female ages 4-5 yrs, no label, Head Start classroom Researchers & Teachers DO, HD, I, CL Skill deficit, attention tangible DRO, Time out, Modeling Symons, McDonald & Wehby (1998)* 12 students, all male, 6 yrs, labeled EBD, selfcontained classrooms Researchers guided teachers through all FBA assessments SP, HD, SA Teacher attention, Varied with antecedents Revised schedules, modified assignments, restructured access to attention

PAGE 41

30 Table 2-1. Continued Authors/ Year of Publication Participant Characteristics (number, gender, age, label) Setting characteristics Implementer Characteristics Descriptive Methods Functions Identified Interventions Implemented Blair, Umbreit, Bos (1999)* 4 students, 3 male, 1 female 5 yrs, at risk for EBD, childcare center Researcher and teachers DO, HD, I Attention, choice, preferred task Integrate choice and preference into curriculum Chandler, Dahlquist, Repp, & Feltz (1999) 210 students, 3-6 yrs, 3 types of classrooms special needs (assorted disabilities), at risk, early childhood Teachersprovided with training workshops, Researchers monitor and assist DO, HD Not stated Varied for classroom/ child Kennedy, Long, Jolivette, Cox, Tang & Thompson (2001) 3 students, 6, 6 and 8 yrs, 2 male, 1 female, 1 identified EBD, 2 ‘at risk’, self-contained and gen. ed classrooms Researchers and teachers I, DO, HD Teacher attention, Escape, Topographically specificfunctions varied across contexts Differential attention, selfmonitoring, Eliminate certain consequences (school suspension) Roberts, Marshall, Nelson & Albers (2001) 3 students, 1-1st grade, 2-4th grade**, all males, no identified disability, general ed. classroom Researchers and teachers I, DO, Diagnostic academic task Escape motivated Used curriculum based assessments to modify antecedents VanDerHeyden Witt & Gatti (2001) 14 students, ages 2-4 yrs, 2 classrooms, speech delay, autism, hypothyroidism Researchers and teachers I, DO, HD, Teacher attention (primary) escape, tangible, peer attention (secondary) Differential reinforcement of alternative behaviors (DRA) Packenham, Shute & Reid (2004) 2 students, 1 male, 1 female, 8 & 9 yrs**, no identified disability Teacher trained and completed assessments I, HD through DO (ABC) Teacher attention, escape (only options) Task modifications specific directions, card to access teacher atttention Note DO=direct observation; CL=checklist; I=interview; HD=hypothesis development; RR=record review; SA=structural analysis; SP= scatterplot; TR=teacher reports; DR O=differential reinforcement of other behaviors indicates a structural or an tecedent based assessment used ** indicates only students in age range included

PAGE 42

31 In regard to participants’ di sabilities, the publication date s of these studies and their methodologies are suggestive of a type of e volutionary process that occurs with FBA research, namely the progression of research w ith more severe, low-incidence disabilities (autism, profound mental retardation) to part icipants with less severe, high-incidence disabilities (EBD, mild mental retardation). Related to participants’ disabilities is the issue of what types of behaviors were being demonstrated and addressed through functional behavior assessment. Behaviors such as noise making, talking out, property destruction, excessive off-task behavior a nd non-compliance represen ted the majority of the behaviors that were addressed in this sa mple of studies. The settings in which these studies took place are also a hi ghly relevant area of consid eration in regard to the widespread application of the FBA process. Th e studies in this sample used descriptive assessments in self-contained special educat ion classrooms (39%), Head Start classrooms (11%), general education cl assrooms (39%) or childcare center rooms (11%). Four studies included different type s of classrooms in the same study and Clarke et al., (1995) also reported using a teacher workroom for part of the assessment process. The first notable aspect of the literature in regard to practical applications of FBA in the classrooms is the total number of par ticipants used in this sample of studies. Omitting the Chandler et al. (1999) study, studies averaged about 6 participants per study, in terms of all participants (not only the ones that met th e inclusion criteria for this literature review). However, Chandler et al (1999) identified the importance of training teachers as the creators and implementers of the FBAs. Through a series of workshops, teachers were given the requisite knowledge to generate effective FBAs for entire classes.

PAGE 43

32 The emphasis on training for class-wide impl ementation is indicative of the importance of implementer characteristics, as discussed in the next section. The second notable aspect about this sample of studies is in regard to gender. The minimal representation of female participants is very likely an unavoidable aspect of this type of research. The omission of girls fr om all but the larges t descriptive methods studies severely limits the generalizability of the results of the FBA process to this population. However, this proportio n of males to females may be representative of the population schools and early childhood centers identify as necessitating an FBA. The third practical consideration that is a strong point in regard to this sample of FBA studies is the issue of setting. FBAs that are set in highly controlled settings such as clinics threaten the applicability of this process. This is noted in this sample as all of the studies were conducted in natu ral settings. Even the use of separate rooms other than participants’ classrooms threatens the external validity of the FBA pr ocess, as it exists today. The consequence of this ar tificial setting is that the ge neralizability of these studies remains questionable. Because of their countle ss responsibilities fo r an entire classroom of students, it is unlikely that teachers will be able to spend the necessary time required to conduct one-on-one descriptive assessments of students in separate classrooms. Furthermore, unless the student’s behavior is automatically reinforced, it is likely to be mediated in some way by social settings. Therefore, conducting assessments away from the typical classroom or early childhood cente r milieu may create ar tificial variables not typically found in the classroom settings. An additional consideration beyond the FBA setting is the consideration of who actu ally conducted and implemented the FBA.

PAGE 44

33 Implementer Characteristics Because educators will ultimately be res ponsible for generating effective FBAs, it is important to note who is gene rating the FBAs in research studies (Scott et al., 2004). In all of the studies in this section of the liter ature review, an effort was made to include general and special education teachers in the creation and implementation of the FBA (see Kamps et al., 1995; VanDerHeyden, Witt & Gatti, 2001). However, in 13 out of 14 (93%) of the studies, a number of highly tr ained researchers and trained graduate and undergraduate students worked with a small, select group of students (or an individual student) and the teachers’ role appeared to be very limited. It is important to insure that this process will generalize to the personnel in early childhood centers and schools so that the process can be implemented after research ers leave. Furthermore, this may be the opposite of what is currently occurring in a ty pical classroom, which is a small number of teachers with minimal training are responsib le for creating a large number of FBAs. While investigating who is completing FBAs is an important consideration, how the functions of the behavior are determined is the central issue in this literature review. Components of the Descriptive Approach In regard to the varying components of the descriptiv e approach, all fourteen studies used some combination of descri ptive methods to determine a hypothetical function of a challenging behavior. The de scriptive approach may include informant assessments such as interviews with the teacher s, teaching assistants and/or the parents, a review of permanent records, and behavior ch ecklists. In this sample of articles: 71% (n=10) used some type of interview, 7% (n=1) used a behavior checklist, 100% (n=14) used direct observation, 7% (n=1) used a sc atter plot and 7% (n=1 ) explicitly mentioned performing a records revi ew. All fourteen of the articles also engaged in some type of

PAGE 45

34 hypothesis development in which the research ers and teachers collaborated to generate hypothetical functions for challenging behavior. It should also be noted that studies that evaluated antecedents of the challenging beha vior used essentially the same methods of interviewing, behavior checkli sts, and direct observation fo r extracting information about the antecedents that precede challenging behaviors. While underused in this sample, there are tw o advantages to the use of checklists. First, unlike an interview that is open to interpretation by the i ndividual reviewing the answers, a hypothetical function is explicitly arrived at through the checklist scoring process. Second, behavior check lists are highly efficient a nd can be completed quickly without extra work. However, they do not have the advantage of direct observation of the child and all information in a behavior checklis t is filtered through a third party informant (Shores, et al., 1999). Direct observation is another descriptive approach. One of the primary methods of this descriptive approach is the use of an A-B-C procedure, in which the observer carefully records the antecedent, behavior, and consequence to es tablish a pattern of supporting environmental stimuli (Bijou et al., 1968) that either precede or follow the challenging behavior. Direct observation and/or generating an ABC (antecedentbehavior-consequence) hypothesi s was used in all fourteen studies. The importance of direct observation is two-fold. First, it prov ides basic information that can guide other descriptive and analog methodol ogies. Second, it provides the requisite baseline data to determine if subsequent inte rventions are effective. Besides the ABC analysis, a nother direct observation tool that has been widely used in research to systematically observe the antecedents and consequences of

PAGE 46

35 challenging behavior is the Functional Assessment Observation Form (FAOF) (O’Neill et al., 1997). Although more technically complex then the ABC hypothesis sheet, the FAOF allows for the observation of chains and sequences of multiple behaviors and their antecedents and consequences. Identifying ch ains of behaviors can give insight into whether the challenging behaviors often occur in a hierarchy going fr om low-intensity to high-intensity (Chandler & Da hlquist, 2002). For example, a student begins poking his neighbor to avoid participating in ‘Circle Time.’ The teacher verbally prompts the student to stop bothering his neighbor. The student ignores the redi rection and begins stomping the floor with his feet. When the teacher asks the student to get up, the student responds by screaming at the teacher and flippi ng over a nearby chair. Without careful identification of the target be havior, such as ‘participating in group activities,’ the focus may be placed solely on the high intensity beha vior, when in fact the initial behavior, avoiding ‘Circle Time,’ is a more likely target for intervention strate gies. In such cases, interventions can be designed that address the initial chal lenging behavior early in the chain before high intensity beha vior occurs. In addition, the identification of behavioral chains provides evidence that is useful in analyzing environmental events that may precipitate all challe nging behaviors. One important methodological consideration noted in Kennedy et al. (2001) and Gr andy and Peck (1997) is that these direct observations should occur across settings and at differe nt times of the day. The value of this consideration is that it provides important contextual information regarding the function of the behavior and reinforces the fact that behavior and it s functions are often contextually specific.

PAGE 47

36 A teacher interview is another prevalent indirect descriptive method. The use of a semi-structured or unstructured interview with a teacher provided important insight into the possible functions of a behavior for a numbe r of studies that used only a descriptive methodology (e.g. Grandy & Peck, 1997; Kamp s et al., 1995). The most common interview used was the Functional Assessment Interview (FAI). The Functional Assessment Interview (O’Neill et al., 1997) is a multi-step interview form designed to identify antecedents of the challenging beha vior and establish the function of a child’s challenging behavior. This is a comprehensive interview that has some empirical testing (Kinch, Lewis-Palmer, Hagan-Burke, Sugai, 2001) and is described by Gresham, Watson and Skinner (2001) as “the most comprehensiv e, up-to-date treatment of this topic” (p. 162). Some different methods of assessment such as a careful review of records (Clarke et al., 1995) and the use of a scatter plot (Symons, McDonald & Wehby, 1998) go relatively unexplored in regard to research studies. In Pack enham, Shute and Reid (2004), one interesting point in regard to the use of formal descriptive assessments was that the teacher who participated in the study said “I already do all of this (formal descriptive assessments), I just never formalized it” (p.23). In light of this consideration, the need for less formal descriptive assessments and more effective ways to access teacher knowledge could be an important step in future re search. Additionally, continuing to monitor teachers’ perceptions of the FBA process is also an important aspect of current and future research. In this sample of studies, 6 out of 14 (43%) studie s administered some type of treatment acceptability questionnaire following the study. Finding assessments that

PAGE 48

37 teachers are willing to implement is as importa nt as finding assessments that accurately identify the functions of challenging behavior. Functions Identified Accurately reporting descriptive statistic s regarding the determined function for these studies was not feasible for two reasons. First, in the largest study, Chandler et al. (1999), the function of the challenging behavior for the 210 participants was not reported. Second, other studies did not directly report fu nctions of behaviors. For example, some studies reported possible func tions by calculating conditiona l probabilities between the target behavior and the consequences (i.e ., Kennedy et al., 2001) or other outcomes as primary and secondary functions (i.e., Van Der Heyden et al., 2001). Therefore, only the most general observations can be made about patterns in this sa mple of literature regarding the three functions of behavior. This is unfortunate as evaluating base rates of behavioral functions across di fferent populations may be an important area of future research (Gresham, 2003). The functions of a target behavior that cau se the behavior to increase in frequency are typically classified into three types. Fi rst, external positive reinforcement includes attention from teacher or peers or tangible rewards (Lalli & Goh, 1993). In this sample, this was the predominate function of chal lenging behaviorlargel y teacher attention, followed by peer attention and tangible items. Second, external negative reinforcement includes escape or avoidance of an unpleasant or undesirable stimulus, such as a difficult academic task. A third type of reinforcement is automatic reinforcement, in which the reinforcement is hypothesized to be internal and biologic in nature. This type of reinforcement often explains self-injurious or stereotypic behavi or (Mace & Roberts, 1993) and was not a function of behavior for any of the participants in this sample of the

PAGE 49

38 literature. The environmental relationships surrounding a challenging behavior can be further classified in terms of whether the variable precedes the behavior, which is an antecedent, or a reinforcer that follows the behavior, which is a consequence or a function of the behavior. Choice or lack of choice was the predominate antecedent that was manipulated in the five studies that evaluated antecedents in this sample. With the exception of the predominance of teacher attention as the function of the behavior, there was no distingu ishable pattern of the fourt een studies investigated in terms of positive versus negative reinforcement or antecedent versus consequence. The studies varied in terms of their particip ants. However, some general practical and methodological observations can be made. On e notable methodological problem in the research was in regard to the functions de termined within this group of studies. These studies often generated, or at least reported, functions that were very general. For example, Schill, Kratochwill and Elliott (1998 ) describe the function of five of their participants as “attention from adults and/or peers.” (p.128). This lack of specificity is problematic for a number of r easons. First, the lack of specificity makes it difficult to determine the appropriateness of the interven tion. In other words, simply saying that attention was the function of the challenging behavior leaves the reader to wonder if access to any type of attention would amelio rate the challenging behavior or does the student require a specific interv ention? To this point, the Sc hill et al. (1998) study did not find a statistically significant differen ce between the effects of function-based interventions and non-function based interventi ons. Typically, the greater the amount of specificity in all areas of applied behavior an alysis, the more effec tively behavior can be measured and modified. Determining the f unction of a behavior should lead to the

PAGE 50

39 identification of an intervention to implement If a consequence of a challenging behavior were positive reinforcement through increased adult atten tion, then an effective intervention would most likely be decreasi ng attention for challenging behaviors and increasing attention for adaptive or pro-so cial behaviors. Ultimately, the goal of accurately establishing the functi on of a behavior is to implem ent effective interventions. Interventions Implemented All of the studies recommended inte rventions and 93% (n=13) actually implemented the interventions. Descriptive methods within these studies generated similar (but participant-specific) interventi ons and all of the inte rventions reported at least initial success at stopping the challengi ng behaviors to some degree. Examples of the interventions were increas ing teacher supervision (Kamps et al, 1995), increasing reinforcement for different behaviors (Schil l, et al., 1998; VanDerHeyden, et al., 2001), and embedding preferred activ ities into existing curriculu m (Blair, Umbreit, & Bos, 1999). A more notable aspect of these studies was the follow-up that occurred some time later. Packenham et al. (2004) reported a c ontinued reduction of the challenging behavior five weeks later due to suggestion made as a result of the functional behavior assessment. This finding is surprising, considering Reid (2000) questions whether or not teachers will persist with interventions that are gene rated by functional assessment over time. One criticism of specific articles reviewed was a lack of direct congruence between the identified function and the intervention implemented. For example, the intervention of increasing attenti on to desired behaviors and decr easing attention to challenging behaviors, (e.g. Kennedy et al. 2001; Storey, et al., 1994), while effective, did little to highlight the need for an individual FBA unl ess this intervention directly matches the antecedents and consequences identified through the FBA process surrounding the

PAGE 51

40 individual target child. A different version of the same criticism was the use of multiple interventions that may or may not address th e same function, but are implemented at the same time making it impossible to determin e what intervention was actually addressing the identified function. This lack of distinct functi on-based interventions is also seen with the insertion of a mediating intervention between the desired beha vior and the reinforcement that addressed the function of the behavior. For example, Grandy and Peck (1997) determined that the function of a challenging behavior was teache r attention. However, rather then implement an intervention that directly linked teacher attention with desired behaviors, the researchers established a token economy, whic h targeted obtaining a tangible item, but indirectly led to increased teacher attention. This lack of direct connection between the determined function and intervention implemente d calls into question the accuracy of the determined function or the potency of reinfo rcers that do not nece ssarily match function (e.g. tokens). It is impossible to determine if teacher attention was reinforcing the desired behavior or if it was another element of the token economy. Finally, the use of interventions to confirm hypothesized functions is not methodologically problematic. However, what are problematic are the conclusions that authors of these studies draw from the use of these interventions. For example, by using a reversal design in the impl ementation of a function-based intervention, Kamps et al. (1995) failed to differentiate between a func tional relationship that was established and proven effective and the actua l functional relationship that exists for a student’s challenging behavior. In other words, just because an inte rvention worked does not mean it addressed the primary function of the chal lenging behavior, it simply means that this

PAGE 52

41 intervention is powerful enough to be effectiv e even if it does not directly address the actual function of the challengi ng behavior. While this is a su btle distinction, it points to one of the cornerstones of app lied behavior analysis which is the need for precision in language and in all aspects of empirical st udies, or as Baer, Wolf and Risley (1968) described it, the technological dimension of empirical studies. Summary Descriptive assessment methods represent the vast majority of the assessments being used in FBAs. The wide range of desc riptive assessments being used singularly or in varying combinations for the preschoolers in this review also indicate that no one assessment method or combination of assessment methods has emerged as the preeminent process for young children with or at risk for EBD. There are two additional conclusions that can be drawn fr om a review of these studies. First and foremost, the issue of methods for accurately determining the function of challenging behavior remains unr esolved. There are two major obstacles to resolving the question of what will be the most effective protocol of descriptive assessments for FBAs. First, there is the continued combining of diffe rent assessment result s in a single study. In other words, studies continue to use inte rviews, checklists and direct observations without separating what pro cedures are giving consistent information with other assessments. The second obstacle is the fact that descriptive asse ssments can only yield hypothetical functions and there is no way to confirm the accuracy of any method without providing some type of environmental manipulati on. In order to determine what is best in the widespread application of FBA, it is ne cessary to determine what components are the most accurate when compared with these e nvironmental manipulations (i.e., a functional analysis).

PAGE 53

42 Second after the most accurate ways to determine function in widespread applications are determined, research s hould address the issue of function-based interventions. This must be done after the process to accurately determine function has been empirically tested, because function-ba sed interventions are unattainable without accurately determining the function first. This current research sample indicates that there is a gap between the research that has been done to accurately identify the function of a challenging behavior and the research that investigates the use of function-based interventions. Future research needs to concentrate on the implementation of recommended interventions and the rationales th at they are based on. It is imperative that researchers delineate between individualiz ed function-based interventions and the recommendation of improved classroom management skills. Researchers and practitioners must recognize th at even if a methodology is highly accurate at determining the function of a challenging behavior, but doe s not lead to highly effective interventions, than the methodology is essentially useless. This leads to the next secti on of this literature review that includes empirical studies that combined descriptive assessments with functional analysis. Descriptive Assessments and Functional and Structural Analyses within FBAs The use of experimental analysis has been widely documented over the past twenty years. While analog assessment is a freque nt design in studies in many behavioral journals, particularly the prestigious Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis it has not crossed the research to practice gap in th e widespread application of FBA in public schools (McKerchar & Thompson, 2004; Sasso et al ., 2001). Explanations for this lack of widespread application vary, but clearly the technical comp lexities and the additional time and staffing demands that are required to complete these procedures are difficult to

PAGE 54

43 overcome. Furthermore, aspects of functiona l analysis may seem counterintuitive to many practitioners, especially when conducti ng functional analysis that manipulate the environment in an effort to elicit, as opposed to prohibit, certain behaviors. Thus, there continues to be a limited amount of research in the use of functional analysis in classroom settings (Ervin et al., 2001). Illustrating this point, the research base did not tran slate to a large number of studies within this literature review. A lthough many studies have used functional or structural analyses with young children, the two criteria that eliminated the majority of the studies were the use of these analyses in natural settings and th eir use with children with high incidence disabilities. Functional analysis, particularly, continues to be used largely in clinical settings and with mo re individuals with severe developmental disabilities. In three of the studies that are reviewed, res earchers included participants with high-incidence and low in cidence disabilities (Ellis & Magee, 1999; Harding et al., 1999; Romaniuk et al., 2002); only the high-incide nce participants are discussed in this review. Ten studies met the criteria for inclus ion in this section of the literature review (see Table 2-2 for a summary of informa tion regarding each study). The following sections will outline the findings and discu ss methodological and practical limitations of the research.

PAGE 55

44 Table 2-2. Descriptive Methods and Functional Analysis for Young Children Authors/ Year of Publication Participant Characteristics (number, gender, age, label) Setting characteristics Implementer Characteristics Descriptive Methods and Functional Analysis Antecedent Functions Identified Interventions Implemented Broussard & Northrup, (1995) 3 males, 6-9 yrs, at risk for ADHD or EBD, empty classroom and primary classroom Teachers & researchers DO, HD, BFA, 3 analog settings based on descriptive analysis Teacher attention, peer attention, escape academic task Contingency reversal – No extended intervention implemented Umbreit (1996) 1 male, 5 yrs, mild MR, daycare center Teachers & researchers (only training & data collection) HD, I, DO, BFA-4 conditions Escape difficult tasks Modified curriculum, Social skills training Broussard & Northrup (1997) 4 males, 6-9 yrs, ADHD or at risk for EBD or ADHD, primary classroom Teachers & Researchers DO, HD, and BFA Peer attention Token economy, DRO Ellis & Magee (1999) 3 males, 6-10 yrs, mild autism, PDD, EBD, ADHD, separate classroom and primary classroom Researchers (separate room FAs) and teachers (in class FAs) DO, HD, FA-4 conditions (incl. peer attn., competition for teacher attn.) Peer and adult attention, escape from demands Token economy, Social skills training, task modification Harding, Wacker, Cooper, Asmus, JensenKovalan, & Grisolano (1999)* 3 males, 4 yrs., ADD, sight and hearing, at risk for EBD, primary classroom Teachers & researchers DO, SA, BFA4 analog conditions Specific v. general directions, social attention, reprimands More specific directions, increased attention for prosocial behavior Blair, Umbreit & Eck (2000) 1 male, 4 yrs., at risk for EBD, primary classroom Teachers & researchers DO, I, HD, FA5 conditions Attain tangibles Social Skills training, No other interventions Boyajian, Dupaul, Handler, Eckert, & McGoey (2001) 3 males, 4-5 yrs., at risk for ADHD, primary classroom Researchers and teachers DO, I, BFA4 conditions Attention, Tangible, Escape Contingency reversal over longer period of time (11-18 days) Doggett, Edwards, Moore, Tingstrom & Wilcski(2001) 2 males, 6 & 7 yrs. old, no identified disability, primary classroom Teachers (teachers implemented BFAs) & researchers DO, I, BFAs-2 conditions Teacher attention, peer attention No interventions

PAGE 56

45 Table 2-2. Continued Authors/ Year of Publication Participant Characteristics (number, gender, age, label) Setting characteristics Implementer Characteristics Descriptive Methods and Functional Analysis Antecedent Functions Identified Interventions Implemented Romaniuk, Miltenberger, Conyers, Jenner, Jergens & Ringenberger (2002) 7 participants, 5-10 yrs, identified for problem behaviors also some participants Mosaic Down syndrome or mental retardation, separate classroom, Researchers and therapists I, Preliminary FA, BFAs-4 conditons Choice, No Choice, Attention, Escape No interventions Stichter, Sasso & Jolivette (2004)* 1 male, 7 yrs., EBD, primary spec. ed. and gen. ed. classrooms Researchers, Teachers provide descriptive information DO, BSA3 structural variables Low social demands, high structure Integrate antecedents that decrease challenging behavior into school day Note. DO=direct observation; CL=checklist; I=interview; HD=hypothesis development; FA=functional analysis; BFA=brief functional analysis; RR=records review; SA=structural an alysis; DRO=differential reinforcement of other behaviors indicates a structural analysis Participant and Setting Characteristics The total number of participants for all te n of the studies was 28 participants or an average of 2.8 participants pe r study with a range of 1-7 part icipants. Only three of the participants in all ten of the studies were female 11% (n=3). Furthermore, while all studies included at least one participan t who met the criteria of a high-incidence disability, three of the studies included participants with low-incidence disabilities. For example, in Ellis and Magee (1999) 1 partic ipant had Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), but the other 2 participan ts were labeled with mild autism and pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). In Romaniuk et al. (2002) 3 of the 7 participants were diagnosed with Down syndr ome or mental retardation. In Harding, et al. (1999) 1 participant had sight and hearing disabilitie s and 1 was identified with developmental disabilities. This indicates that functional analysis may have a wider range

PAGE 57

46 of applicability with individua ls with high-incidence disabili ties than the research base reflects. In regard to practical limitations of this literature, the limited number of participants within these research studies is the first indication of the impracticality in making functional analysis an integral part of early childhood settings. The study with the most participants, Romaniuk et al., (2002) (n=7), is one of the most recent studies in this literature review. While this may suggest the possibility of widespread use of functional analysis within the classroom, there is very little other empirical research. Typically, functional analysis is time intensive and is completed on one individual child at a time. One possible explanation is that a low particip ant size is maintained as researchers place more emphasis on honing the methodology, ex ercising environmental control, or initiating novel interventions than addressing the need for widespread application. Another possibility is that f unctional analysis is only approp riate for students needing the most intensive assessments and interventions. It should be noted th at studies ten years ago (e.g., Broussard & Northup, 1995) acknow ledged the need for widespread application to more students in naturalized settings, although they continued to use very small sample sizes. The second observation in regard to particip ants and settings is that the use of analogs in primary classrooms during regul ar classroom activities indicates some modification from the controlled, structured nature of analogs to more natural, less restrictive settings. One study that clearly m odeled this assimilation is the Ellis and Magee (1999) study that conducted environmen tal manipulations both in the classroom and in a separate environment.

PAGE 58

47 Implementer Characteristics The roles of researchers and teachers t ook many forms within this sample of studies. In six (60%) of the studies, the part icipants’ teachers or other school personnel were trained and conducted the analog conditions of the functional an alysis. For three of the studies (30%), the researcher conducted the analog conditions. For the Ellis and Magee (1999) study, the researcher conducted th e analogs in the separate room and the teacher conducted them in the classroom. While researcher influence was also obs erved as a limitation for ‘descriptive assessment only’ studies, it was even more pronounced in functional and structural analysis trials. Between training teac hers and/or conducting analog conditions, researcher influence was even more evident in these studies than the studies in the previous section. This is not surprising due to the highly t echnical demands of these types of analysis. However, this is important becau se the greater the influence researchers have on the design and implementation, the more di fficult it will be to generalize the findings to teachers as implementers and determine ex ternal validity. Some studies included in the third section of this literature review have created protocols that teach teachers how to implement a functional analysis. Such cr eative methodologies and their effectiveness may be an important part of futu re research (Sasso et al., 1993). In fact, the three studies that used res earchers to implement the analog conditions introduced considerable bias considering the number of diffe rences that a researcher conducting the analog conditions may have versus the teacher conducting analog conditions. For example, they did not eval uate whether adult attention from a novel person (the researcher) is more or less power ful than adult attention from a teacher. This ignores all of the idiosyncratic and qualitat ive variables that ma y be influencing the

PAGE 59

48 occurrence for the behavior (i.e., tone of voice, appearance, person preference and so forth) that are introduced with researchers conducting the analogs. Fi nally, the issue of external validity is brought into question. Since these st udies were not designed to address long-term widespread application, it is not necessarily a criticism of these specific studies but rather a shor tcoming of the research base as a whole. The studies that used researchers to conduct the analogs were actually focused on a specific disability, such as ADHD (Boyajian et al, 2001) or the e ffects of antecedents as an environmental manipulation (Stichter, Sasso & Jolivette, 2004) and were not directed toward examining the implementation of FBA in school settings Rather these studies were geared to investigate other aspects of st ructural and functional analysis and their applicability with individuals with a specific disability or the overall va lue of the use of antecedent manipulations. The next consideration is how the actual analog pro cedure took place and what components comprised its protocol. Components of the Descriptive Approach and Analog Conditions The preliminary descriptive components were similar to the sample of studies that only used descriptive methodologies. All of th e studies (100%) used direct observations and some type of hypothesis development. Five of the studies (50%) also used a structured interview with the teacher and/ or other individuals who have contact with the participants. The only salient difference between the descriptive methods in this sample of studies and the sample of studies that only used descriptive methods is that this sample of studies was more parsimonious in its use of descriptive assessmen ts. In evaluating the descriptive assessments listed in these 10 studies, it appeared th at the descriptive assessments were only selected and used to th e extent that they c ould guide the functional or structural analysis procedures. These studies used the descriptive assessment results to

PAGE 60

49 identify times and situations to conduct an alog probes during the times or activities that teachers identified as the most problematic. For example, both Broussard and Northup (1995, 1997) only used direct observations of th e participant and a brief interview with the teacher to determine what analog conditions to conduct. In studies using functional analysis, the fi ve ‘traditional’ analog conditions were as varied as the participants with whom they were being implemented. The studies often included variations of the fo llowing conditions (1) alone or ignoring, (2) a ttention, (3) tangible reward, (4) escape or avoidance of a task and (5) free play. These are the classic conditions established by Iwata (1982/1994) and other researchers using functional analysis. Besides using two different setti ngs, classroom and separate room, Ellis and Magee (1998) described another notable variation of their analog conditions. Two alternative analog settings were implemented: (1) peer attention with the use of a confederate peer attending the target beha vior and (2) peer competition for teacher attention. These two contrive d analogs represent another step toward integrating functional analysis into more natural sett ings and provide a more accurate means of assessment using functional analysis. The results indicated that peer attention did play a role in the function of one pa rticipant’s target behavior. Romaniuk et al. (2002) provi ded another addition to the classic analogs by the testing choice or ‘control’ as a precursor of challenging behavior; this manipulation is considered a structural analys is. To test control, this st udy offered the participant the option to choose the activity in one condition and did not allow them to choose the activity in another cond ition. Not being able to choose th e activity was the setting event or antecedent of the participant’s challengi ng behaviors. The examination of choice or

PAGE 61

50 ‘control’ as a possible pre is similar to the Blair, Umbreit and Bos (1999), a study reviewed in the ‘descriptive methods only’ section of this literature review. The methodology of all of the functional an alyses studies differed from those that were originally conceived of in Iwata et al. (1982/1994); becau se they took far less time, used descriptive methods to precede the analog settings, and were subject to more of the situations that occur in natural settings. Thus while the roots of functional analysis can be traced back to Iwata et al. (1982/1994), the process has cl early evolved. This evolution also includes the use of structural analyses manipulating antecedents in much the same way that a functional analysis manipulates c onsequences. This process was used with two studies, Harding et al. ( 1999) and Stichter et al. (2004) In Harding et al. (1999), variables such as general dir ections versus specific direc tions and group activity versus independent activity were manipulated. For Sticht er et al. (2004), variables such as noise, structure, and levels of socialization were manipulated. Whether investigating antecedents or consequences, the important issue in these studies is determining the environmental factors that are related to the challenging beha vior so that the functions may be accurately identified. Functions Identified As noted in Broussard and Northup (1995), the most prevalent functions typically identified, in general, are teacher atten tion, peer attention, and escape from academic demands. An overview of this sample of studies confirms this assertion and, similar to the sample of studies that used descriptive asse ssments only, it is impossible to descriptively summarize the most prevalent functions using de scriptive statistics. However, it can be observed that no other pattern of identified functions emerge d. In other words, there was not a clear difference in the number of partic ipants whose function was either positively

PAGE 62

51 reinforced (i.e., attention or tangible) or nega tive reinforced (i.e., escape). Furthermore, the explanation for why it is so difficult to make summative statements is a notable strength of this sample of studies. Namel y, the high degree of specificity of function makes summative statements across participants difficult. A difference between this group of studies and the ‘descr iptive methods only’ studies is that the functions that functional analysis determines are more spec ifically and precisely defined. Proponents of functional analysis view the lack of speci ficity with descriptive assessments as problematic. They assert that as functions are more gene rally defined, the intervention becomes more idiosyncratic and less effective (Sasso et al., 1992). Ha rding et al. (1999) noted that in their comparison of the two methodologies, the descriptive methodology produced results that were “difficult to in terpret” (p. 329) and “brief experimental analyses were needed to clar ify functional relations” (p.330). They did note that this was a result of not being able to observe the target behavior during descriptive analysis. Another direction of the research within th is sample of studies is the combining of structural analysis and f unctional analysis. As Romaniuk et al. (2002) points out, combinations of antecedents and establis hed functions have not been extensively investigated through research methods. In this study, the antecedent of choice or control over tasks had different effects determined by whether the function of the challenging behavior was attention or escape. This st udy indicated that choice could serve as a powerful antecedent when the function of a ch allenging behavior was escape. Harding et al. (1999) used a similar design of measuri ng both antecedents and consequences. The next logical step after the accu rate identification of the functions of challenging behavior

PAGE 63

52 is the implementation of effective interventi ons that use the information gathered through these methods. Interventions Implemented Multiple types of interventions were used with these studies. Functional analysis methodology creates a complex issue when eval uating the interventions used with these studies. Within the ten articles reviewed, fo llowing the functional and structural analysis, an environmental manipulation was conducted that resulted in re ducing the challenging behavior using a contingency reversal. There were also a variety of other interventions that occurred following the functional analysis Five studies (50%) reported reducing the occurrence of challenging behavi ors during the intervention phase also referred to as the contingency reversal phase. However, the other 5 studies used other interventions including differential reinforcement of othe r behaviors (DRO), and implementing token economies. It should be noted that Boya jian et al. (2001) reported a continued reduction of the challenging behavior six months later due to implementing c ontingency reversal elements into the milieu; thus, the contingency reversal became the intervention that was implemented over time. Contingency reversal involves establishing an environment that increases the rate of challenging behavi or and implementing a phase of the opposite condition. For example, because a challengi ng behavior increases during a ‘no choice, high academic demand’ condition, the reversal contingency would be ‘participant choice and low academic demand.’ While this reversal accomplished the desired result, it may not be a situation that is appropriate across situations in the typical preschool environment. The reason this situation may not be appropriate to generalize to typical preschool environments is that at some point it is necessary to give children tasks that are

PAGE 64

53 not preferred and to as k children to participate in activ ities that are not preferred. It should also be noted that even if an ant ecedent based intervention is implemented that decreases the probability of the challenging behavior, one will still have to implement an intervention that directly addresses the occu rrence of the challenging behavior at some point. The fact that a reversal c ontingency may not be appropr iate for implementation in an early childhood environment illustrates a practi cal limitation in studies with this type of design. As Blair, Umbreit and Eck (2000) indicate, the reversal of the problematic contingency was not feasible in preschool se ttings, because it is not always possible to put children in the situations that will reduce challenging behavior s (i.e., always making sure there were a positive ratio of available toys to peers). In the natural setting of a preschool classroom, there will be times when there are not enough toys for everyone, or when access to a preferred toy may not be possi ble because another child is playing with it. Further, insuring that this does not ev er happen to the student does not allow the participant to gain appropriate adaptive or so cial skills. It may be more appropriate to increase the amount of social skill instruction that prec edes a functional behavior assessment to alleviate its use and then to ha ve specific interventions in place that address the challenging behavior s after they occur. A notable aspect of these studies was the fo llow-up that occurred some time later. Harding et al. (1999), Boya jian et al. (2001), and Ellis and Magee (1999) reported continued decreases in challeng ing behaviors for the participants as they followed up to six months later. The durability of these pres cribed interventions is encouraging. As FBA research continues, more and more examples of effective interventions will be devised

PAGE 65

54 and illustrated, allowing practitioners to ma ke direct connections between the identified function and the intervention that is implemented. Summary The use of functional and stru ctural analysis with young chil dren with or at risk for EBD remains an important area of future rese arch. Clearly, the resear ch is still in the process of evolving from its setting in clinics with individuals with severe disabilities to settings with children in classrooms with m ild disabilities. However, it is difficult to determine what role the methodical manipula tion of the environment will play in the widespread application of functional anal ysis methodology in FBAs. Thus far, this methodology has not become a part of the pr otocol in the formulation of FBAs in schools. The concept of teachers deliberatel y manipulating the environment and tracking the increase or decrease of cha llenging behavior may never be feasible. In this sample of studies, functional analysis was used as one more method, albeit typically the most decisive and trustworthy method, to triangu late assessment methods and accurately determine the function of challenging behavior. There are three salient points that can be drawn from this sample of the literature. First, similar to the first set of studies, no study with functional analysis procedures could be conducted with large numbers of children in the same setting, thus there continues to be small sample sizes and lit tle replication has occurred. Researcher involvement and highly specifi c but varied methodologies make it difficult to foresee what role functional analysis will play in school and early chil dhood settings based on this sample of literature. The issue of data collection is also an important consideration. In all of these studies, functional analys is was a multi-person job and, while it was encouraging to see teachers taking an active role in conducting the analogs, it was still

PAGE 66

55 necessary to have trained observers count and re cord the occurrences of the behavior. It is impossible to know whether early childhood centers and schools will be able to dedicate the appropriate amount of personnel for training and data collection th at is necessary to both conduct the analog conditions but also to record the occurrences of behaviors. To the second point, if the interventions are not feasible or lack social validity, this dedication of time, personnel, and resources to functional analysis may not even be desirable. Second, in each of these studies, func tional analysis procedures depended on descriptive assessments and discerning the re sults from the different descriptive methods and the functional analysis were impossibl e. This leads to the question ‘Was the functional analysis, as part of an FBA prot ocol, necessary if descriptive assessments arrived at the same function?’ Additionally, a core principl e of functional analysis is environmental control (Sasso et al., 2001) and functional analysis is only as effective as the amount of control that can be obtained. Th e difficulty is that classrooms by nature are free operant environments, especially comp ared with clinics (Scott et al. 2004) and establishing necessary environm ental control may be difficult for educators with limited time and resources. For this reason, functional analysis may not be appropriate as one more component of a FBA protocol. It is importa nt for future research to continue to use more classroom settings and to increase the am ount of teacher influence to evaluate the role of functional analysis in classroom protocols. Third, while functional analysis can devel op more specific functions that lead to more effective interventions (Harding et al., 1999), they can also l ead to interventions that are not practical or a ppropriate for implementation in the natural setting (Blair,

PAGE 67

56 Umbreit & Eck, 2000). In consideration of thes e points, the ultimate role of functional analysis may be as an effective method to evaluate the accuracy of less obtrusive descriptive methodologies, however it is difficult to see its widespread adoption as a component of a standard FBA protocol. Unlike the studies reviewed in this section that combined functional analysis and descriptiv e methodologies as a pr otocol to determine function, the next section will separately ev aluate different descriptive methodologies using functional analysis as the stan dard to determine their accuracy. Direct Evaluation of Descriptive Methodologies A search for articles that directly ev aluated different desc riptive methodologies indicates a dearth of research in this area. Only eight studies were identified that evaluated the reliability of different de scriptive methodologies when comparing the results with each other, such as compari ng the results of a di rect observation and a teacher interview. Furthermore, only six out of these eight evaluated the validity of these descriptive methodologies by co mparing them to a functiona l analysis. Murdock, et al., (2005) and Ellingson et al. (2000) only co mpared different types of descriptive assessments with each other. This paucity in the research is particularly evident with children who are diagnosed or at risk for EBD (Gresham, 2003; Gresham et al. 2004; Fox, Conroy, Heckaman, 1998; Sasso et al., 2001). Due to the limited research in this area, it was necessary to e xpand the exclusion criteria be yond young children with EBD to include all ability and age levels of childre n. In fact, all but one of the studies included participants with more severe developmenta l disabilities and the age range was expanded to even include young adults, some of whom we re evaluated in residential and vocational settings. Additionally, the criterion regarding the age of the research was also expanded from ten years to 15 years.

PAGE 68

57 Finally, unlike the previous two bodies of literature, the interventions were not evaluated within this section of the study, because the focus of this review is to determine how accurately functions are identified via various descriptive methodologies. Evaluating function-based interventions will be an important area of future research but that area is premature until the methods for accurately iden tifying functions have been evaluated. Further, the rationale for omitting this aspect of the research study was to provide greater focus on the methodologies used to evaluate the assessments rather than evaluating the resulting interventions; therefore, the focus of this section is to examine the portion of the study that attempted to determine a primar y function of the ch allenging behavior. Function-based interventions will be an im portant area of future research; however, research methods must first empirically determine whether the assessment methods can accurately arrive at the functi on of the challenging behavior. All other criteria that were established for this review of the literature were maintained. One important criterion that was maintained between this body of research and the other two areas of research was limitin g the specific target behaviors to exclude research geared toward highly specific be haviors that are not typical of most young children who demonstrate challe nging behavior (e.g. self-inj urious behavior, stereotypy, hair-twirling, eye-poking, br eath-holding) were eliminate d. Therefore, studies that compared descriptive assessments with func tional analyses for bi zarre speech (Mace & Lalli, 1991) stereotypy (Crawford, Brockel, Sc hauss, & Miltenberger, 1992; Paclawskyj, Matson, Rush, Smalls & Vollmer, 2001) or self-i njurious behavior (Belfiore, Browder & Lin, 1993; Lerman & Iwata, 1993; Paclawskyj et al., 2001) for the majority of the participants were excluded.

PAGE 69

58 Because the different assessment methods we re evaluated separately and, in some cases, compared with the results of a functiona l analysis, these eight studies are unlike the other studies that used desc riptive assessments and func tional analysis in the FBA process. The studies in the previous two sections simply used various descriptive assessment methods and assimilated the result s to develop a hypothetical function and/or guide a functional analysis. The studies that evaluated the different descriptive assessment methods listed the results of each method separately and reported agreement or disagreement between the methods. Because these studies more closely resemble the study being proposed, these eight studies will be presented in a st udy-by-study basis, in reverse chronological order, presenting the most recent st udy first (see Table 2-3 for a summary of information regard ing each of these studies). In Murdock, et al., (2005), ei ght junior high school student s (7 classified as EBD, 1 classified as LD) were evaluated using thr ee descriptive assessment methods. The three methods were a teacher team interview, a student interview and classroom observations. No functional analysis procedures were used. First, a team of teachers who worked with an individual student was assembled and the fi rst author used a quest ionnaire to guide the interview process regarding specific challe nging behaviors and the environmental factors that surrounded the behaviors. The responses were condensed into summary statements that included the challenging behaviors, a nd both antecedents and hypothetical functions.

PAGE 70

59Table 2-3. Direct Evaluations of Descriptive Assessments Studies Participants: Age, Gender, Disability Setting Who completed the FBA? What descriptive assessments were used? Agreement between descriptive assessments How was the functional analysis completed? Agreement between FA and descriptive assessments Murdock, O’Neill & Cunningham (2005) -8 junior high school age males -7 classified EBD -1 classified LD General ed and resource classrooms -Teacher Team completed questionnaire -Student questionnaire -Researchers and paraprofessional conducted direct observations Teacher FAI, Student-FAI and FAOF 9/ 14 (64%) agreement on all three 13/ 14 (93%) agreement between teacher FAI and FAOF N/A N/A Newcomer & Lewis (2004) -9 years, Male, OHI -11 years, Male, at-risk -11 years, Female, at risk General education classrooms Researchers administered FAI and PBQ to teachers and students. Researchers completed direct observations and FAs FAI (S-FAI), PBQ, Scatterplot, ABC Assessments were consistent except for PBQ results with 2/3 participants Based on descriptive assessments, each participant placed in one indicated and one control condition Agreement between descriptive assessments and functional analysis for 2/3 participants Cunningham & O’Neill (2000) -3 years, Male, Autism -5 years, Male, Autism -5 years Male, Autism Self-contained classrooms Researchers administered descriptive assessments to teacher and classroom assistant. Teacher completed the FAO. Researchers completed FAs. MAS, FAI, FAO, Informal question Good consistency across methods and participants. Used rank orders for hypothetical functions Each participant placed in 5 analog conditions in a separate school multi-purpose room Rank order indicates good agreement of primary function between descriptive assessments and FA for 2/3 participants

PAGE 71

60Table 2-3. Continued Studies Participants: Age, Gender, Disability Setting Who completed the FBA? What descriptive assessments were used? Agreement between descriptive assessments How was the functional analysis completed? Agreement between FA and descriptive assessments Ellingson, Miltenberger et al. (2000) -19 years, Female, Severe M.R. -18 years, Male, Angelman’s syndrome & profound M.R. -12 years Male, Severe M.R. Self-contained classrooms Researchers administered questionnaire to teachers and teachers completed questionnaire independently. Conducted direct observations Questionnaire, Interview, and ABC Questionnaires and interviews consistent with each other. Results from ABC were not consistent with questionnaire results N/A N/A Yarbrough & Carr (2000) -18.33 years Male, Autism & Profound M.R. -11.5 years. Female, Autism & Profound M.R. -12.4 years, Female DeLange Syndrome & Moderate M.R. Self-contatined classrooms, vocational and community placements Researchers administered adapted FAI to teachers and classroom assistants and conducted functional analysis FAI followed by a Likert scale rating the resulting hypothesized functions. FAI also generated high and low likelihood antecedents N/A Based on FAI information high and low likelihood antecedents manipulated in natural settings and one hypothesized function is implemented across antecedents Agreement between FAI and FAs consistent for high likelihood but not for low likelihood antecedents

PAGE 72

61Table 2-3. Continued Studies Participants: Age, Gender, Disability Setting Who completed the FBA? What descriptive assessments were used? Agreement between descriptive assessments How was the functional analysis completed? Agreement between FA and descriptive assessments Calloway & Simpson (1998) -3 years, Male, Developmental delays 4 years, Male, Speech & Cognitive delays -4 years, Male, Speech & Language, Chronic misbehavior Self-contained classrooms Researchers conducted FAs and administered descriptive assessment to teacher and paraeducators Informal ranking process of 4 possible functions of misbehavior, N/A Based on preliminary assessments each participant placed in 1-3 analog conditions. Analysis occurred in small work room or isolated classroom Minimal agreement between informal assessment and FA. Only one paraeducator for one participant agreed with the FA results for primary functions Arndorfer, Miltenberger, Woster, Rortvedt, & Gaffeney (1994) -3 years, Female, Speech delays -13 years, Male, Down syndrome -5 years, Male, Autism & Mild MR -2 years, Male, FAS -5 years, Male, Bipolar disorder Participants’ homes -Researchers administered MAS and FAI to parents. Researchers completed A-B-C direct observation assessments. Researchers directed parents in FA conditions MAS, FAI, ABC -MAS consistent with FAI for 2/5* -FAI and A-B-C consistent 5/5. MAS and A-B-C consistent 2/5 Each participant was placed in two analog conditions either escape or attention** Consistent agreement between ABC, FAI and FA. Inconsistent agreement for MAS and FA.

PAGE 73

62Table 2-3. Continued Studies Participants: Age, Gender, Disability Setting Who completed the FBA? What descriptive assessments were used? Agreement between descriptive assessments How was the functional analysis completed? Agreement between FA and descriptive assessments Sasso et al. (1992) -7.5 years, Female, Autism -13 years, Male, Autism Self-contained classrooms Teachers completed all aspects of FBA ABC direct observation N/A Researcher conducted formal FA. Each teacher conducted 5 analog conditions in classroom Consistent agreement between ABC results and FAs *For the other 3 participants, the second function on the MAS was the same as the primary function for the FAI. **One participant was placed in an interrupted play versus no n-interrupted play condition.

PAGE 74

63 The team scored the accuracy of the stat ements on a four-point Likert scale and then ranked the summary statements from leas t to most problematic for the student in the classroom. This final step of scoring summary statements for accuracy was developed in another study included in this review, Yarbrough and Carr (2000). Second, the first author conducted the same interview process with each individual st udent. Third, the first author and a paraprofessional conducted direct classroom observations using the Functional Assessment Observation Form (FAO F). Using the results from the teacher team interview as a guide, students were obs erved for 20-30 minutes, 1-3 times per week for three weeks.This resulted in a total range of 5-15 hours of direct observation. Interobserver agreement was conducted for 19% of the sessions and averag ed 80% agreement. Participating teachers also completed a soci al validity scale to assess the three-step process. There were four possible hypotheti cal functions (attenti on, escape, tangible and self-stimulation) that the three assessment methods could identify. However, tangible and self-stimulation were almost never id entified in teacher and student summary statements. Results of the study indicated agreement of a hypothesi zed function for all three methods 9/14 (64%) of the time when eith er escape or attention was identified. When there was not agreement across all thre e methods, the teacher team interview and the direct observations still agreed four out of the other five times. Escape from a task or activity was the most prevalent function identified. There are four conclusions that can be drawn from this study. First, these investigators achieved a moderate level of agreement across descriptive assessments. Second, although there was agreem ent across the results of different assessment methods (including a measure of confidence from par ticipating teachers and students), the validity

PAGE 75

64 of the results remains unconfirmed because no experimental procedure occurred. Thus, the results are correlational in nature. Without an experi mentally rigorous functional analysis, the consistency across instruments doe s not necessarily indicate validity of the function. In other words, all of the descrip tive assessment may agree with each other that the function is attention, but this may not actua lly be the function. This is especially true if the same individual is completing all of the descriptive assessments. Third, the nature of the participants limited the possible hypotheti cal functions that could be determined. It is unlikely that in this setti ng junior high school ag ed students with disabilities such as LD and EBD would engage in self-stimulation or have acquiring tangibles as the function of their behavior. In other words, this sa mple of students was unlikely to engage in stereotypy and also unlikely to argue over toys (although other ta ngibles could cause challenging behavior). By limiting possible f unctions to attention and escape, this increased the possibility for agreement acr oss measures. Fourth, the findings of the descriptive assessments were not kept separate in this study, the direct observations were informed by the teacher team interviews “the behaviors listed on the observation form came directly from those listed on the teacher interview form.” (p.10). This makes the level of agreement between the teacher in terviews and the direct observations less compelling. In Newcomer and Lewis (2004), three elemen tary-aged students (one classified as Other Health Impaired, two not classified with any specific disability) were first evaluated using five descriptive assessme nt methods followed by a brief functional analysis was conducted. The five assessment me thods were a teacher interview, a student interview, a teacher checklist, a scatter pl ot, and classroom observations. The functional

PAGE 76

65 analysis procedures presented a limited numbe r of conditions (atten tion v. no attention, preferred v. non-preferred peer groups, easy ta sk v. hard task). These conditions were guided by the descriptive assessment results a nd while the article refers to all three experimental procedures as functional analys es, the manipulations of peer group and task difficulty is more aptly described as a struct ural analysis, because it is a manipulation of antecedents rather than consequences. The five descriptive assessments were presented in the same order for all participants. First, the teachers were inte rviewed using an adapted version of the Functional Assessment Interview (O’Neill et al., 1997). After a hypothesis regarding function was formulated using the interview re sults, teachers were asked to complete the checklist, the Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ), and a scatter plot for a minimum of five days. It should be noted that unlik e the other assessment methods used in this study, the scatter plot does not lead to a hypot hetical function, it is a direct observational tool that identifies patterns between occurrences of the behavior and times of day and/ or activities (Touchette, et al., 1985). Targeted students were then interviewed using the student version of the FAI. Finally, the student was observed using the Antecedent Behavior Consequence (A-B-C) sheet. Th e observation periods were determined by results from the other descriptive asse ssments. The amount of time and number of observations for this descriptive assessmen t were not reported. These descriptive assessment results were assimilated to iden tify a primary hypothetical function that was tested through expe rimental analysis. The experimental analysis was constr ucted using a singlecase, alternating treatment design. The analyses occurred in natural classroom settings during both

PAGE 77

66 academic and low structure tasks and targeted individually identified challenging behaviors. Each child was exposed to 10-minute analog probes featuring the hypothesized function condition, ac cording to the descriptive assessments and a control or contra-indicated conditi on. There was a range of 13-22 sessions over 27 days. The results of the experimental an alysis showed clear differentia tion of rates of challenging behavior across conditions for 2 of the 3 pa rticipants, supporting the summative results of the descriptive assessments for these 2 partic ipants. There was only slight differentiation between the conditions for the third particip ant offering limited suppor t to the result of the descriptive assessment. The results of the descriptive assessment s were also compared with each other. Newcomer and Lewis state that all of the descriptive assessments were consistent with two exceptions. For one student, the teacher interview and the checklist indicated attention was the primary function, but al l of the other assessments including the experimental analysis indi cated that escape was the pr imary function. Similarly, for another participant, the checklist identified attention as the primary function when all other assessments supported escap e as the primary function. It is notable that neither of these 2 participants was the same individua l that had limited support from the functional analysis. Therefore, all 3 pa rticipants had some type of assessment result that was inconsistent with other assessment results. There are three conclusions th at can be drawn regarding th is research study. First, although there is some evidence to support th e reliability and valid ity of descriptive assessments, in that they had fairly cons istent results that were supported by an experimental procedure, the f unction of behavior in this ca se does appear contextually

PAGE 78

67 relative and somewhat fluid. Second, the use of descriptive assessm ents as a ‘package’ with a specific order and one assessment informing the next one does not allow for scrutiny of the individual assessments and doe s make the results vulnerable to an order effect. Third, by limiting the functional anal ysis conditions to those suggested by the descriptive assessments, no other functions were experimentally tested. This means that if additional function of the beha vior exists, but was not indi cated by the majority of the descriptive assessments, then it was not evaluated experimentally. In Cunningham and O’Neill (2000), three pr eschool aged children with autism were evaluated using four descriptive a ssessments and an experimental functional analysis. The four descriptive assessments were: an informal question to the teacher and classroom assistant (e.g. “Why do you think Dan bites?”), a teacher interview (the Functional Assessment Interview), a behavi or checklist (the Motivation Assessment Scale), and descriptive observa tions (the Functional Assessm ent Observation Form). The functional analysis was then conducted repl icating the procedure outlined in Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman and Richman (1994/1982) presenting 5 analog conditions: demand (escape), attention, tangible, alone and free play. The procedure for this study consisted of conducting the indirect descriptive assessments (the informal question, the interv iew, and the behavior checklist) with both the teacher and the classroom a ssistant after class hours. These were conducted separately for each teacher/classroom assistant dyad to de termine if the two adults present in the classroom had similar perceptions of the challenging behavior and its antecedents and consequences. The MAS scores were then co mbined to give an average score for the primary function. The primary classroom teacher then completed the direct observations

PAGE 79

68 for two hours a day for 4-5 days, resulting in a total of 10-12 hours of direct observation for each participating student. Inter-observ er agreement was conducted for 20% of these sessions and ranged from 80%-100% agreemen t. The design for the experimental functional analysis was a single subject, multi-element design with 15-minute sessions being conducted in separate rooms that were made available to the researchers, e.g. a multi-purpose room adjacent to the gymnasium. The results for the various different descriptive assessments were presented as a rank ordering of hypothetical functions of the target behavior. For the descriptive assessments, there was perfect agreement for the informal question and the interview for all dyads of teachers and assistants. The othe r assessments also had fairly good agreement in which all the assessments varied only so mewhat, for example, the MAS listed escape as the primary function and tangible as seconda ry and the FAI listed tangible as primary and escape as secondary. For the functional anal ysis, 2 of the 3 participants had little differentiation between tangible and escape. Howe ver, this mixed result actually confirms the descriptive results that had similar mi xed primary functions across the different assessments. There are three conclusions regarding this research study. First, soliciting information from both the teacher and the classroom assistant determined that the two adults present in the room had similar per ceptions regarding behavi oral functions (i.e., inter-rater reliab ility). Second, the use of ranking the functions for each student and each assessment allowed for students whose challeng ing behavior may have dual functions but could have complex results. Subsequently comp lex interventions that may be difficult to implement in classrooms are the end product. Th ird, one aspect of the functional analysis

PAGE 80

69 that may make its results less compelling wa s the low rate of challenging behavior demonstrated across all analog conditions. But because the greatest rate for the students, means of 10%, 10% and 9%, was consistent with the descriptive assessment results, the functional analysis appears accurate. In Yarbrough and Carr (2000) 3 participan ts between the ages of 11 and 18 years old were evaluated. Two particip ants were classified autistic and the third participant was diagnosed with DeLange syndrome. There was only one descriptive assessment used. An adapted version of a Functiona l Assessment Interview was us ed with two professionals who had had up to two weeks of contact with the participating student. This descriptive assessment was followed by a brief functional analysis. The brief functional analysis manipulated both antecedents and consequen ces that had been identified by the descriptive assessment results. The FAI was adapted in three ways. First, after information had been gathered using the standard FAI questions, summary statements were generated for each participant that outlined setting events, ante cedents and consequences. Each professional who was interviewed then verified each st atement for accuracy and rated each summary statement on a 7-point Likert scale for likelihood of the situation occurring. Next, the second professional would then evaluate a nd agree or disagree with these hypothesized summary statements. Lastly, these same steps would be taken with the roles of the two professionals reversed. If statements were generated that the s econd professional could not confirm witnessing, then a third professiona l, such as another classroom assistant, would be asked to confirm the statemen t and its likelihood rating. Following this

PAGE 81

70 descriptive assessment proce ss, a brief functional analysis was conducted using the results. In the functional analysis, a reversal design was used in which the different hypothesized situations were compared with control conditions that regulated the presence of the hypothesized contributory vari ables. The 3 participan ts were placed in seven situations while one or two different hypothetical functions were tested in each condition. For example, the first participant wa s placed in a situation in which he had to clean a table. The hypothetical function was that his challenging beha vior of self-injury was maintained by escaping difficult tasks. A control condition consisted of assigning the participant to a task he found easier, obj ect identification. The frequency of the challenging behavior in these two conditions was then compared. Each participant was placed in two or three high and low-likeli hood situations with one or two hypothetical functions of the challenging behavior being tested for each participant. When the information gathered through th e descriptive assessments was tested using an experimental functional analysis, a cl ear pattern emerged. In those situations that had a high-likelihood of eliciting problem behaviors, the inform ants accurately identified the surrounding environmental variables. For the situations that had a low likelihood of eliciting challenging behaviors, the functional analysis did not validate the informants’ hypotheses of the antecedents a nd the functions of the challe nging behaviors. The authors offer four interrelated factors that may explain this pattern: (1) infrequent opportunities to observe the low-likelihood situations; (2) stim ulus complexity; (3) pe rceived strength of reinforcement; (4) the role of setting events These factors should be interpreted with caution, as they are not experime ntally validated. In terms of evaluating the efficacy and

PAGE 82

71 efficiency of the descriptive assessment method (i.e., the FAI adaptation), it can be concluded that this method is effective for identifying the function for certain frequent behavior problems, but limited in detecti ng more subtle variables in low-likelihood situations. Unfortunately, the authors did not conduct a treatment acceptability measure, so it cannot be determined if this benefit is worth the time and energy investment for the participating professionals. In Ellingson, et al., (2000) 3 participants, aged 19, 18 and 12, were evaluated using two different descriptive assessments. No e xperimental functional analysis procedures were used. The participants were all classified as either se verely or profoundly mentally retarded and one participant was also diagnos ed with Angelman’s syndrome. All of the assessments occurred in special education classrooms in public schools. A second phase of this study investigated f unction-based interventions, but th is phase of the research is outside the scope of th is literature review. The two descriptive assessments were each used in two different ways. The first descriptive assessment was an interview that was presented as both an interview with the first author asking follow-up questions and as a questionnaire that the teacher completed independently. The second descriptive assessmen t was a direct assessment that used the Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) worksheet. These worksheets were simultaneously completed by both teachers a nd experts trained in Applied Behavior Analysis. The assessments were always presented in the same order: (1) the teacher completed the questionnaire independently, (2) the teacher was interviewed using the same questions as the questionnaire by the fi rst author except follo w-up questions were also asked, (3) using the information provide d by the interviews a nd questionnaires an

PAGE 83

72 ABC checklist was formulated and direct obs ervations with the ABC instrument were conducted at the same time by both the classr oom teacher and a trained expert. Two other trained behavior analysts conducted relia bility checks on the hypothetical function determined for the interview and the questionnaire. The results of the descriptive assessme nts were determined by the authors’ evaluations of the interview/questionnaire and the ABC checklist results. All of the hypothetical functions were determined to be either attention or escape. For one participant, all of the different methods of assessment, including the second rater who supplied reliability data, agreed that th e function of the challenging behavior was attention. For the second participant there was agreement th at the function of the behavior was attention for all of the assessments excep t for the second rater of the questionnaire. For the third participant there was agreement from the indirect assessments; the interview and questionnaire agreed that the function of the problem beha vior was both attention and escape. All of the direct obser vation results determined that the function of the problem behavior was attention. There are three conclusions regarding this research. First, the agreement between the questionnaire, the interview and the di rect observations are encouraging but in consideration for the amount of influen ce the questionnaire a nd interview had over structuring the direct observation, the agreem ent is less compelling. The construction of an ABC checklist using indirect assessments requires further testing, especially against a less structured ABC observation sheet and functional analysis. Second, the agreement between the questionnaire and the interview is a step toward making the process more efficient, (i.e., it only requires one person ra ther than two people); however, this result

PAGE 84

73 may be idiosyncratic to the skills of the interviewer. Some interviewers may elicit valuable information through follow-up que stions that a ques tionnaire completed independently could never draw out. Third, it is unclear wh ether the possible functions were in some way limited to the choices of attention or escape, or if this was simply a characteristic of these three specific participants. In Calloway and Simpson (1998), three pres chool aged children were evaluated using two descriptive assessments, an experi mental analysis and an informal question posed to teachers and para-educators. The re sult of the descriptive assessment and the experimental analysis were then compared with the responses to the informal question. The 3 participants were male, ages 4, 4 and 3 and three were in an inclusive community early childhood special education classroom Two participants were in the same classroom and one was in a different classroom; all assessments took place in the classroom setting. Two children had speech a nd language and cognitive delays and one participant was diagnosed with developmental delays and su spected autism. All three had been referred to this study for repeated demonstration of various problem behaviors. The procedure for this study occurred in th ree phases. The first phase consisted of descriptive classroom observations and co mpletion of the MAS. The researchers interpreted this information and generate d a hypothetical functi on. Manipulating through analog conditions tested this hypothesized f unction. A reversal design was used with a contra-indicated activity to compare behavioral fre quencies. These reversals took place every two or five minutes for either one 10 or 20 minute session. The second phase involved implementing an intervention direc tly related to this function. This was implemented not only to reduce the problem be haviors for the individual child, but also

PAGE 85

74 to provide further validation of the functi on of the behavior as determined by the descriptive assessment a nd functional analysis. In the third phase of the study, three classroom professi onals, either the teacher and/or the classroom para-educat ors, were asked to identify a hypothetical function of the problem behavior. They had no knowledge of the results of the formal analyses. The classroom professionals were asked to identify the behavi oral function using a ranking system of 1-4 for these choi ces: (a) avoidance, (b) attention, (c) se lf-expression, and (d) power/control. According to the formal analyses, on e student’s function was confirmed as attention, the second student’ s function was escape and th e third student’s results indicated that the problem behavior was maintained by multiple functions: attention, power/control and escape. The results of the ra nking system indicated that the classroom professional agreed with each other six out of nine opportunities (66%) in identifying the primary function. However when comparing the fo rmal and informal analysis results, the classroom professionals only agreed with th e formal analysis one out of nine times (11%). There are three salient aspects about this research study. First, the use of ‘selfexpression’ and ‘power/control’ as possible functions is divergent from most current literature regarding functions of problem behavior. Self -expression was the function chosen five out of nine times by the teach ers and paraprofessionals, and it was not confirmed by any of the formal analyses. Fu rther, the functions of self-expression and power/control are not even options on the MA S; therefore, a direct comparison between the interview and the MAS for some particip ants was not possible. Second, agreement

PAGE 86

75 between the analog conditions a nd the descriptive assessments is difficult to determine since the analogs directly a pplied the results of the descriptive assessments, making it impossible to separately evaluate them. Third, in regard to the results of the informal analysis, this point to a la rger consideration, namely th at consistency does not equal accuracy. The professionals were consistent with each other 66% of the time, but they were only accurate in the sense that they ag reed with the functional analysis 11% of the time. In Arndorfer, Miltenberger, Woster, Ro rvedt and Gaffeney (1994), five children ages 2 to 13 years old were evaluated usi ng three descriptive a ssessments and a brief experimental analysis. Unlike the other studies included in this section of the literature review, all of the assessments occurred in the participants’ homes. Parents served as the source of information for the indirect assessmen ts and also conducted direct assessments. The 5 participants had been diagnosed with different disabilities including: (1) Down syndrome, (2) fetal alcohol syndrome, (3) autism and mild ment al retardation, (4) developmental speech and cognitive delays and (5) bipolar disorder. All of the participants were referred to this study due to repeated demonstrations of problem behaviors. There were two phases of this research study. The first phase consisted of the parents completing the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) two times with one to two week delays between administrations. Repeated administrations were done to evaluate reliability over time. Before the MAS was scored, the first author conducted the FAI with the parents and the first and second authors independently reviewed the responses and generated hypothetical functions. The MAS was then scored to also determine a

PAGE 87

76 hypothetical function. Then, a third researcher and the parents of the participant, who were unaware of the indirect assessment results, conducted three to five 30-60 minute direct observations using the FAOF. The pa rents received a brief training session on conducting a direct observation using the FAOF A scatter-plot assessment determined specific times target behaviors were likely to occur and this guided the times the direct observations were conducted. Inter-observer agreement was conducted for 33% of all direct descriptive assessments. Using the results of direct obs ervations, hypothetical functions of the problem be havior were formulated. The second phase consisted of experime ntally manipulating antecedents and consequences that had been identified th rough the descriptive a ssessments. A reversal design consisting of high-likelihood anteceden ts and consequences and low-likelihood antecedents and consequences was conducted. For example, a participant whose descriptive assessments indicated that attent ion was the primary function of her behavior had a session where her mother looked at, talked to, or touc hed her at least twice every minute and all problem behaviors were ignore d. In the next condition, the mother looked at, talked to, or touched the participant’s si blings at least twice every minute but gave contingent attention based on the particip ant exhibiting problem behaviors. These conditions were presented in 15-30 minute sessions on the same day for three of the children and over two to three days for the ot her two children. Only one session of each phase was conducted for each child in an effort to make the experimental analysis as brief, and socially valid, as possible. The result of the descriptive agreem ent indicated agreement 16 out of 20 opportunities (four descriptive asse ssment results for 5 participants). For three out of the

PAGE 88

77 four disagreements, the MAS was the instru ment with divergent results. Additionally, agreement between the two administrations of the MAS indicated agreement for individual questions ranging from 56% to 75% (M=64%). The experimental analysis supported the results of the interview and th e direct observations for all five of the participants (100%). There was differentiation in the frequency of the problem behaviors throughout the reversal of the conditions. There are three conclusions re garding this research study. First, this study bolsters the use of the FAI and the direct observations to generate accurate hypothetical functions of behavior, but draws the valid ity of the results of the MA S into question. Second, while the experimental analysis does offer support for the descriptive assessments, because it only tested one function, it is not possible to know if other functions of the behavior exist without testing multiple functions. Third, by only conducting sessions of each condition on one day for 3 of the 5 partic ipants, there are contextual f actors, and setting events that may not be accounted for and may impact the function of the problem behavior. It seems possible that this study may have sacrificed a degree of accuracy in an effort to increase efficiency and social validity of the experimental process. In Sasso et al. (1992), 2 participants, ages 7 and 13 years old, were evaluated using a conventional functional anal ysis, a direct observation de scriptive assessment and a teacher conducted functional analysis. Both par ticipants were classified as autistic and the descriptive assessment and teacher conducted functional analysis occurred in selfcontained special education cl assrooms. The conventional f unctional analysis occurred outside the classroom setting. The direct observation assessment was the ABC worksheet. However, it was completed duri ng specific activities that are similar to the conditions of

PAGE 89

78 the functional analysis conditions (i.e., pres entation of a difficult task). The functional analyses consisted of a multi-element desi gn based on Iwata et al (1982/1994) featuring four conditions: alone, escape, attention, a nd free play and also including a tangible condition. There were three phases of this study. Fi rst, researchers cond ucted a conventional functional analysis. Second, the first teach er was trained to complete an ABC observation. Then, the teacher conducted four 15-minute observations of the student. The environment was varied for the observations and included solitary play, a high demand, low teacher attention condition and a low de mand and high teacher attention condition. After the direct descriptive observations we re completed, a brief functional analysis within the classroom was conducted. The clas sroom teacher modified the environment to test the five analog conditions The same procedure occurred for the second participantthe only difference was that the first teacher, ra ther then the researcher, taught the second teacher to conduct the descriptive assessment and the classroom based functional analysis. The results of this study indicated that in all three methods of assessment, escape and tangible were the f unctions of the problem behavi or for one participant and escape was the function of the problem behavior for the other particip ant. Thus, there was 100% agreement for both participants. There are three conclusions th at can be drawn from this research study. First, this research article demonstrates flexibility in the functional analysis process, in that the same procedures can be app lied across different settings and produce similar results. Second, this study suggests that functional analysis procedures may have broader applicability for classroom teachers. This r uns counter to the concept that functional

PAGE 90

79 analysis procedures are too co mplex to have broad-based ap peal. Third, this idea that teachers can effectively train teachers sugge sts of the possibility of a much broader training model. There are two conclusions that can be dr awn from a summative evaluation of these eight studies that directly compared descrip tive assessments with ea ch other and/or some type of functional analysis. First, no desc riptive assessment met hod has emerged as the preeminent method to accurately determine a hypothetical function. It appears that for indirect assessments, teacher in terviews, both formal and informal, play an important role in identifying potential functions in seven out of eight of these studies. Their overall accuracy is further suggesti on of the conclusion drawn ear lier that research should continue to focus on the knowledge teachers al ready have about their students’ behaviors and effectively and efficien tly hone methodologies to acce ss this knowledge. For direct descriptive assessments, ABC assessment sheets completed by both teachers and researchers do reveal accurate antecedents and functions. Ho wever, this conclusion is tainted by the second conc lusion about the overall state of this research. Namely, that all of the methods, descriptive and experimental were not conducted independently of each other with a high degree of control. This second conclusion, that the assimilati on of results for all of the methodologies muddled the final results, is pervasive throughou t all eight of the studies. This is true both for the descriptive assessm ents and for the link between the descriptive assessments and the functional analyses. Th e end result is that no conc lusions can be drawn about what single descriptive methodology is the most accurate. This occurred for a variety of reasons. First, some studies used a ranking system between raters that allowed for

PAGE 91

80 multiple functions to be enumerated within the results. The second and most influential reason is that the descriptive assessments were used to guide the functional analysis. By not maintaining separation of the descriptiv e assessments from the functional analysis, the functional analysis can only verify or refute the hypothetical function that the descriptive assessments rev eal. Conducted independently, functional analysis can establish the function of the challenging behavior (Iwata et al., 1982/1994). In future research, these results could then be take n back and compared with the independent descriptive assessments to determine whic h ones accurately arrive d at the function. In summary, the overall lack of comparat ive studies that evaluated descriptive assessments suggests that descriptive methods have not been validated by research. If descriptive assessments, such as rating scales, interviews, and hypothesis development using antecedent, behavior, consequence (ABC) analysis (Bijou, et al., 1968) indicate an inability to accurately determine the function of a young ch ild’s disruptive behavior, then their use is ill-advised. However, if descrip tive methods adequately arrive at the same function as experimental analysis, then th e use of these simpler, less time-consuming methods has been supported. Regardless of the outcome of the project, it is incumbent upon researchers to prepare school and early childhood center personne l with the best, experimentally validated procedures. Comprehensive Summary of Research Literature “Whether FBA can be effectively and e fficiently accomplished outside a research setting remains to be seen”(Reid & Nels on, 2002, p.23). As Reid and Nelson suggest, the use of FBA as a durable, highly effective strategy in widespre ad applications in applied settings remains to be seen. A review of 32 studies that used FBA, predominately with young children with high incidence disabiliti es in natural setti ngs, indicates three

PAGE 92

81 conclusions that can be drawn from the current st ate of the research. Firs t, in regard to the participants and settings, th e use of functional behavior assessment is still clearly evolving in terms of its use with large numb ers of young students with mild disabilities in classroom settings. Second, interventions ge nerated by FBA, while effective in the studies in this sample, remain idiosyncrati c and, at times, the relationship between the derived function and the function-based inte rvention could be described as tenuous at best. The third and the most important factor is that in terms of the FBA process the individual components that would make up a universal FBA protocol have not been established as valid and reliable for the wi despread application of functional behavior assessment. The first conclusion in regard to the research in this literature review concerns the participants and settings of FBA. Two considerations regard ing the practical limitations of all of these studies are the types of disabilities that are being addressed and their use of large numbers of students. A third ancillary cons ideration is the type of behaviors that are being addressed within the FBA literature. Wh at may be attributed to IDEA (1997) was this use of FBAs for children with disabiliti es other than developmental disabilities. In 1999, Nelson, Roberts, Mathur and Rutherford estimated that 80%-90% of functional assessment research had been conducted with children with devel opmental disabilities. The trend, however, to apply it to students with other disabilities or no disability at all is proliferating according to this sample of studi es. This is encouraging and indicates that FBA is a highly flexible process with multiple levels of applications. Combined with the problem of determining the ability to generate large numbers of FBAs, the problem of researcher influence is an important consider ation. The question of

PAGE 93

82 ‘how well do these studies indicate what will occur in generalized application after the study?’ remains. This threat to external va lidity points to an im portant area of future research. There is a need for further resear ch in this area that uses longitudinal methodology providing initial teac her training on the use of descriptive assessments, a series of temporally determined probes to evaluate implementation fidelity, and a final measure of effectiveness. Studies using a de sign such as this will allow researchers to minimize the impact that they are having on teacher implementation of the FBA process. This is a problematic shortcoming of the res earch that has not been answered to date. A third point regarding this fi rst conclusion is in regard to what types of behaviors research has addressed with FBA me thodology. Studies clearly addressed a predominance of externalizing behaviors. While this is not surprising, as teachers are more likely to identify externalizing behavi ors as problematic, it does point to another shortcoming in literature thus far. This is the question ‘can FBA procedures effectively address problematic internalizing behaviors?’ Internalizing behaviors, social withdrawal, isolation, and flat affect can be as problem atic for students as externalizing behaviors (Chandler & Dahlquist 2002). However, current resear ch has not addressed whether these behaviors can be effectively addre ssed through functional behavior assessment. The second conclusion is in regard to function-based interventions. While some interventions led to highly specific interventions directly related to the function of the challenging behavior, other interv entions were only indirectly related to th e function or were not related at all. Researchers and teachers implemented a number of effective interventions, manipulating both antecedents and consequences to reduce challenging behaviors; however, one pract ical and methodological limitation is evident from this

PAGE 94

83 sample of literature. In regard to methodology, even studies that were directly linked to the intervention received far less emphasis than the process that arrive d at the function of the behavior. Empirical research has not pr oduced a ‘menu’ of validated interventions that directly match functions. However, the overall lack of emphasi s on interventions is surprising as the ultimate goal of FBAs is th e formulation of effective intervention and essentially FBA methodology will be judged on its effectiveness. In regard to practical limitations, a limitation that this sample of studies did not address is the question of teachers being able to sustain prescribed, function-based interventions for a number of students over time. This will be an important area of future research as widespread application of function-based in terventions continues to broa den into different types of classrooms and different popul ations of students. The third and most important conclusion regarding this li terature is the lack of validity and reliability studies that directly evaluate the components that make up the FBA process. The reason this conclusion is th e most important is that before widespread application for many children in applied setti ngs with a variety of behaviors can occur, the process must be honed so that it is not only reliable and valid, but also accessible to minimally trained school personnel and highly efficient. Similarly, although effective function-based interventions are paramount to the process, it will be impossible to derive those without reliable and valid components. Un fortunately, even in the third section of this literature review, a section that was co mprised of studies that directly evaluated descriptive assessments, useful evaluation of the components did not occur. There was still a lack of separation of the findings be tween the individual descriptive assessments and the descriptive assessments and the functiona l analysis that was often used to validate

PAGE 95

84 the hypothetical functions. As a result in th ese research studies, it was very difficult to determine what components were most effective. This leads to an important area of resear ch namely, conducting a series of indirect and direct descriptive assessments and comparing the outcomes of these assessments to the outcomes of a functional analysis methodol ogy. However, to rectify limitations in the existing research, independence of the descri ptive assessment results and the functional analysis results is important to determine if the descriptive instruments are able to obtain valid functions independent of the functiona l analyses. Additionally, the results of the various direct and indirect de scriptive assessments would need to be kept separate and counterbalanced across participan ts to maintain control for carry over and order effects. These assessments should occur in natural se ttings with considera tion of total time of procedures and necessary levels of traini ng with the goal of maximizing efficiency without sacrificing va lidity. While this lite rature review has in dicated a number of problems with the widespread application of FB A in natural settings, it is vital that the methodologies be evaluated before issues of implementation, teacher training, and effective interventions are addressed. The re sults of this research are an empirically validated step towards establishing a universal protocol that can be applied consistently both in continuing FBA resear ch and in applied settings. Research Questions The following questions were addressed in this study: 1. How do the functions of target behavior s identified through various descriptive functional assessments compare to each other? 2. How do the functions of target behavior s identified through various descriptive functional assessments compare with f unctions identified through a functional analysis for young children’s challenging behavior?

PAGE 96

85 CHAPTER 3 METHODS This chapter outlines the methodology used to conduct this study. The goals of this study were to compare the functions determin ed by three descriptive assessments with each other and with the functions determ ined by functional analyses (FA) for young children who demonstrate challenging behavior s. Teachers perceptions of the process and its results were also evaluated. This chapter presents the following information: (a) participants, (b) settings, (c) materials, (d ) measurement procedures including dependent measures, the independent variables, data collection and type of data recording, and interobserver agreement. This chapter then outlines the experimental procedures including recruitment and training, preexperimental assessments, descriptive assessments, and functional analysis. Finally, the methods of measuring social validity, procedural integrity, and the design and data analysis are presented. Participants Four teacher-child dyads participated in this study. In accordance with the policies set forth by the University of Florida In stitutional Review Board, the principal investigator obtained informed consent from the participating teachers and caregivers of participating children (see Appendix A for a pproved IRB forms and participant informed consent forms). All participating teachers a nd the child participants parents received a $25 dollar gift card. Child participants were f our children who met th e following criteria. Children were between the ages of 3 and 6 years old.

PAGE 97

86 They were currently enrolled in a Day Ca re Center, Pre-kinder garten, Kindergarten, or First Grade class (general education or special education) in North Central Florida. They had been identified through teache r nominations, in that teachers have reported that these children are having ch allenging behaviors that are interfering with their learning and this behavior warrants an FBA. They had a Total Problem Score of no less then 60 on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF 1.5-5 or 6-18 y ears old) (Achenbach, 1992). They had consistent attenda nce at school, defined as 80% attendance or 4 out of 5 days a week, documented through school records. Teacher reports indicated average cognitive functioning. Teacher participants were four indivi duals who met the following criteria: They taught children ages 3-6 years old. They had at least one child in the cl assroom who met the criteria above. They held at least an Associate of Arts degree, They served as the child participant’s primary teacher for at least one month. The flow chart of the teacher and child pa rticipant recruiting process is outlined in Appendix B. The following is a brief descri ption of all four participant dyads. Ramon Ramon is a 4-year old Hispanic male. His primary teacher, Rose, is a Hispanic female. She has thirty years of e xperience in early chil dhood care settings; she has had 7 months of contact with the partic ipating child, and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree. His teacher reported average cogniti ve functioning. The teacher report form of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF 1.5-5) (Achenbach, 1992) indicated that Ramon has a total score on the Total Problem scale of 110 (>97 percentile) with subscores in the clinically significant ra nge for emotionally reactive behavior, anxious/depressed, withdrawn, at tention problems and aggr essive behavior. Ramon’s challenging behaviors were disruptive vocali zations defined as raising his voice above

PAGE 98

87 the classroom volume level, asking more than three questions in a 10-second interval or using profanity or “bathroom talk.” Anthony Anthony is a 5-year old African-A merican male. His teacher reported that Anthony has average cognitive functio ning. His primary teacher, Terry, is a white female. She has 4 years of experience in early childhood care se ttings, has known the participating child for 6 months and has co mpleted her Associate of Arts degree. The teacher report form of the Child Behavi or Checklist (CBCL-TRF 1.5-5) (Achenbach, 1992) indicated that Anthony has a total scor e on the Total Problem Scale of 88 (>97 percentile) with sub-scores in the clinical ly significant range for emotionally reactive behavior, sleep problems, and aggressive behavior. Anthony’s ch allenging behaviors were crying, yelling “Mom” or “Mama”, rolling around on the ground, raising his voice above the classroom volume level and leaving his assigned area (defined as being more than 6 feet away from his assigned area). Jimmy Jimmy is a 5-year old African-Am erican male. His teacher reported average cognitive functioning. His primary t eacher, Amy, is a white female. She has 25 years of experience in an ear ly childhood care setting, has known the participant for 7 months and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree. The teacher report form of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF 1.5-5 year s old) (Achenbach, 1992) indicated that Jimmy has a total score on the Total Problem S cale of 61 (87 percentile) with sub-scores in the borderline range for aggressive behavior. Jimmy’s challenging behaviors were disruption defined as verbal defiance screaming, teasing, sa ying ‘No’, crying or whining. Greg Greg is a 6-year old African-Ameri can male. Teacher reports indicated average cognitive functioning. His primary teach er, Alison, is a Hispanic female. She has

PAGE 99

88 1 year of experience in the classroom; sh e has had 7 months of contact with the participating child and has a Bachelor of Arts degree. The teacher report form of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF 6-18) (A chenbach, 1992) indicated that Greg has a total score on the Total Probl em Scale of 95 (>98 percentil e) with sub-scores in the borderline range for social problems and rule-b reaking behavior and in the clinical range for thought problems and aggressive behavi or. Greg’s challenging behaviors were disruptive noises defined as tapping his penc il, whistling and raising his voice above the classroom volume level. Child and teacher in formation are summarized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. All CBCL sub-scores are reported in Appendix C. Table 3-1. Child Participant Information Child Participant Age Race Gender CBCL-TRF Total Score Ramon 4.9 Hispanic Male 110 (97th percentile) Anthony 5.0 African-American Male 88 (>97th percentile) Jimmy 5.5 African-American Male 61 (87th percentile) Greg 6.4 African-American Male 95 (>98th percentile) Table 3-2. Teacher Participant Information Teacher Participant Child participant Years of Experience Race Months of Contact with Child Current Level of Education Rose Ramon 30 years Hispanic 7 months Bachelor of Arts Terry Anthony 4 years White 6 months Associate of Arts Amy Jimmy 25 years White 7 months Bachelor of Arts Alison Greg 1 year Hispanic 7 months Bachelor of Arts

PAGE 100

89 Settings The settings for all of the assessment methods were the primary classrooms; a primary classroom setting was defined as the room in which the child participant spends the majority of his school day. For the firs t 3 participants listed (Ramon, Jimmy and Anthony), the setting was the 4 and 5-year-old classroom of a unive rsity-sponsored early childhood care center. The fourth participant’ s (Greg) primary setting was at a public elementary school multi-grade, self-containe d, special education classroom. The preexperimental assessments and teacher training occurred in the primary classroom with the teacher during non-student contact times, (i .e., planning periods, nap times or after dismissal). The indirect descriptive met hods (interview and checklists were also conducted in the primary classroom of the individual child during non-student contact times, (i.e., planning periods, or naps). The direct descriptive observations occu rred during different classroom activities with the majority of the observations in th e child participant’s pr imary classroom setting. For the three participants in the early childhood center, th e activities were primarily Centers Time and Free Play. For the student in Kindergarten participant (Greg), the activity was mainly independent work time. However, observations also occurred on the playground for all 4 participants and in the cafeteria for Greg. The functional analyses also occurred in the primary classroom setting. For the functional analysis, an area within the primary classroom was designated where othe r children were not located, e.g. an area in the corner of the room. Ta ble 3-3 lists summaries of th e phases, the assessments and the settings in which they took place.

PAGE 101

90 Table 3-3. Summary of Assessments and Their Settings For Each Phase Phases Assessments Settings (1) Pre-experimental Assessments Pre-experimental assessment interview, Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF) Primary classroom during non-student contact times Indirect Descriptive Assessments: Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS), and Functional Assessment Interview (FAI) Primary classroom during non-student contact times (2) Descriptive Assessments (Indirect Descriptive Methods & Direct Descriptive Observations Direct Descriptive Observation: Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) Analysis Primary classroom, playground, and cafeteria (for Greg) (3)Functional Analyses Functional Anal ysis Conditions Primary classroom where other children were not located Materials During the pre-experimental assessmen t phase, the Child Behavior ChecklistTeacher Reporting Form (CBCL-TRF 1.5-5 y ears old or 6-18 years old) (Achenbach, 1992) was used as a preliminary screening a ssessment to evaluate the prevalence of challenging behaviors. Additionally, a pre-expe rimental assessment interview sheet was created to access information that provided information needed for the descriptive assessments and the functional analysis pha ses (the interview guide is included in Appendix DInstruments). In the functional analysis phase, additional materials were required. The tangible condition required a toy or an obj ect that is preferential to th e participant. This toy was individually determined by asking the primar y teacher “What is (the child’s) favorite thing to play with?” duri ng the pre-experimental assessment phase. Ramon’s teacher identified Play-Doh as his pr eferred item for the tangible condition. Anthony’s teacher identified Spider-Man action figures as hi s preferred item. Jimmy ’s teacher identified Legos as his preferred item. Greg ’s teacher identified a miniat ure football as his preferred

PAGE 102

91 item for the tangible condition. Additionally, materials were necessary for the task in the escape condition. The task was defined as a task that can be completed with approximately a 30 % success rate. A handwriting task (writing his name 10 times in a row) was used for the escape condition in the functional analysis fo r all 4 participants. This was determined by listing sample activit ies and asking the teacher to select an activity during the pre-experime ntal assessment phase. For the attention, free play and ignore conditions, a neutral activity, neither preferred nor non-preferred, was necessary. The primary teacher chose this from a list of examples of activities discussed during the pre-experimental assessment phase. All four teachers identified coloring with crayons in a coloring book as a neutral activity. Table 3-4 provides a summary of all materials necessary for functiona l analysis conditions. Table 3-4. Summary of Child Participants’ Preferred Items, Neutral Activities and Difficult Tasks Child Participant Preferred Item Neutral Activity Difficult Task Ramon Play-Doh Coloring with crayons in a coloring book Printing name 10 times in a row Jimmy Spider-Man Action Figures Coloring with crayons in a coloring book Printing name 10 times in a row Anthony Legos Coloring with crayons in a coloring book Printing name 10 times in a row Greg Miniature Football Coloring with crayons in a coloring book Printing name 10 times in a row Additional materials that were required for data collection in the functional analysis phase are: (a) digital stopwatc h to monitor the duration of the descriptive observation and functional analysis sessions, (b) a three-ring notebook that co ntained a laminated sign of

PAGE 103

92 each of the scripted verbal prompts and (c) a Panasonic video camcorder to record each session of the functional analyses. Measurement Procedures Dependent Measures The dependent measures were challenging be haviors that were defined individually for each participant. Similar to previous rese arch that has directly evaluated descriptive assessment methods, a number of different behaviors were colla psed under the label challenging behavior (Arndorfe r et al., 1994; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004; Sasso et al., 1992). Occurrences of any of the behaviors we re then treated as an occurrence of the challenging behavior and count ed together. The same individual dependent measures were evaluated across all assessment met hods. Ramon’s challenging behaviors were disruptive vocalizations defined as raising his voice above the classroom volume level, asking more than three questions in a 10-sec ond interval or using profanity or “bathroom talk.” Anthony’s challenging behaviors were crying, yelling “Mom” or “Mama,” rolling around on the ground, raising his voice above the classroom volume level and leaving his assigned area (defined as being more than 6 feet away from his assigned area). Jimmy’s challenging behaviors were di sruption defined as verbal defiance screaming, teasing, saying ‘No,’ crying or whining. Greg’s chal lenging behaviors were disruptive noises defined as tapping his pencil, whistling, a nd raising his voice above the classroom volume level. Each of these behaviors that was considered a ch allenging behavior was assessed using a frequency count. Independent Variables The independent variables in this study we re the different methods of assessing the function of behavior. Three different functi onal assessments instruments were used for

PAGE 104

93 the descriptive assessment procedure: the Functional Assessment Interview (FAI) (O’Neill et al., 1997, the Motiv ation Assessment Scale (MAS) (Durand & Crimmins, 1992), and an Antecedent Behavior Conseque nce worksheet (ABC) (Bijou, et al., 1968) (see Appendix D for copies of all instrument s not protected under copyright). A fourth indirect descriptive assessment, the Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ) (Lewis, Scott & Sugai, 1994) was originally included as another 15-item Likert scale questionnaire used for determining the function of a ch allenging behavior. However, once data collection and analysis was completed, it becam e apparent that a comparison between the PBQ and the other descriptive assessments was not logical. The PBQ does not offer the same options for the hypothetical function of a challenging beha vior as the other descriptive assessments do because it lacks tangible and sensory as possible functions and only includes attention, escape and setting ev ents. This discordant scoring taxonomy made direct comparisons with the other me thods of assessment impossible; therefore, although the PBQ was administered to all partic ipants, the results ar e not compared with the other descriptive assessments or presented in Chapter 4. The Functional Assessment Inte rview (FAI) (O’Neill et al., 1997) is a multi-step structured interview form designed to iden tify the function of a child’s challenging behavior; and Gresham, Watson, and Skinne r (2001) describes it as “the most comprehensive, up-to-date treatment of this topic” (p. 162). It takes approximately 45 to 90 minutes to complete, and it is divided in to 11 sections. The fi rst section obtains descriptions of the behavi ors asking about the topogr aphy, frequency, duration and intensity. The first section also asks for predictable sequences or “chains” of behaviors. The second section elicits information about ecological events (set ting events) that may

PAGE 105

94 predict the occurrence of the behaviors; this includes medical issues and a description of the daily schedule that indicates enjoyable and problematic activities. The third section of the interview asks about specific antecedents that immediately preced e the occurrence of the behaviors including times of day, people, activities, etc. The f ourth section of the interview identifies the outcomes or consequenc es that may be maintaining the behaviors (i.e., the function of the behavior). This sec tion includes questions a bout the behavior, the particular situation, what the individual gets and what the individual avoids as a result of the behavior. The fifth section asks the interv iewee to rate the overa ll efficiency of the problem behavior on a 5-point Li kert scale (1= low efficiency and 5= high efficiency) in terms of effort expended, frequency of reward as a result of the behavior and the time delay between the behavior and the rewar d. The sixth section of the FAI asks for alternative (replacement) behaviors that may already be in the part icipant’s repertoire. The seventh section inquires about communication ab ilities of the individual. The eighth section obtains ancillary information regard ing things one should do and should avoid when working with the individual. The ninth section asks for various items and activities that the participant enjoys or finds reinforc ing. The tenth section elicits information about past interventions that have been attempted and their results. The eleventh section has the interviewer develop su mmary st atements regarding distal setting events, immediate antecedents, the problem behavior and the maintaining consequence. The checklist employed was the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) (Durand & Crimmins, 1992). The MAS was designed for determining the hypothetical function of problem behaviors and is a frequently used checklist. “The MAS has been the most extensively evaluated psychometric instrume nt developed for functional assessment”

PAGE 106

95 (Sturmey, 1994, p.295). However, the studies of the MAS have revealed mixed results in regard to reliability and cont ent validity (Floyd et al., 2005). This instrument uses a 6point Likert scale with 16 items and asks the rater to evaluate the frequency of a specific behavior in various situa tions (0= Never, 1=Almost Never, 5= Almost Always, 6=Always). The direct observation method was the Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence (ABC) Analysis. The Antecedent Behavior Consequence (ABC) analysis is based on the procedure described by Bijou et al. (1968). In the ABC analysis, a running record of observed events is created. For example, if th e teacher asked the chil d participant to put away the toys, and the child participant yelled at the teacher and the teacher allowed the child to play with the toys for 5 more minutes, this would be coded as a request (antecedent), yelling (behavior) and tangibl e (consequence) (Newcomer & Lewis, 2004; Sasso et al., 1992). This process has been used in numerous studies (for a review, see Heckaman et al., 2000; Lane, Umbreit, Beeb e-Frankenberger, 1999; Scott et al, 2004). Data Collection Procedures After the recruitment of participants wa s completed, the principal investigator conducted individual pre-experi mental assessment interviews with each of the teacher participants. Following the pre-experimental assessment phase, a research assistant (Research Assistant 1) conducte d the FAI, the MAS and the PB Q. All research assistants were second and third year doc toral students with at least 2 years of previous experience as classroom teachers or school counselors; thei r training for this study is detailed in the recruitment and training section of experime ntal procedures. The indirect descriptive assessments were counterbalanced to control for an order effect. Research Assistant 1 completed the FAI with the primary teacher by asking each question and writing down all of the responses the teacher gave on the FA I interview form. Following completion of the

PAGE 107

96 FAI, the same research assistant dete rmined a hypothetical function based on the teacher’s responses to the interview by writing down one of the four options of possible functions (attention, tangible, escape, or sens ory). The same research assistant also had the teacher complete the MAS and the PBQ. The research assistant did not read these items out loud to the teacher, but if the teach er had a question about any of the items then the research assistant clar ified the terminology of the questionnaire. Because the questionnaires could be completed before the FA I (due to counterbalancing), the research assistant did not tally or revi ew the questionnaire responses. This insured that the results of one instrument did not influence his judgment of hypothetical function based on the FAI. Regardless of the order in which they were presented, Research Assistant 1 always scored the FAI immediately after its comp letion due to its more subjective scoring method, and the MAS and PBQ were scored by th e principal investigat or after all other assessments were completed. A second research assistant, Research Assistant 2, conducted the ABC direct observation descriptive assessments for each pa rticipant for eight 15-minute intervals. In this process, the observer recorded the occu rrence of the challenging behavior (B), the antecedent (A) events that precede the beha vior and the events that followed the behavior, the consequences(C ). A running record of AB C direct observations was conducted by recording each occurrence of the identified problem behavior, its antecedents and its consequences. ABC r ecording occurred across each 15-minute assessment condition. The research assistant then chose a hypothetical function of the challenging behavior, from the four possible functions, base d on the observations he had done.

PAGE 108

97 The participating teachers conducted the functional analysis conditions with assistance from the principal i nvestigator. All sessions were videotaped. The primary investigator then reviewed the definition of the challenging behavior for the individual child and viewed each videotaped session. Th e rate of the challenging behavior per minute was calculated for each condition by watching the videotape, and using a paper and pencil, making a tally for each occurren ce of the challenging behavior for each condition. After all other assessments were complete, the teacher completed the social validity questionnaire and then was interviewed by th e principal investigat or using the social validity interview sheet. The principal investigator transc ribed the verbal responses of the teacher during the interview. The teacher completed the questionnaire without knowledge of the results of the descriptive assessment and functional analysis and then answered the first nine questions of the in terview before reviewing the re sults. This questionnaire and interview sheet can be found in Appendix E. Interobserver Agreement Interobserver agreement (IOA) was conducted for both the ABC direct observations and the functional analyses. For the direct observations (ABC), two trained observers watched 12/32 (38%), or 3 out of 8 of the same 15-minute intervals for all 4 participants. Both observers maintained a frequency count of occurrences of the challenging behavior. Agreement for occurren ce of behaviors was computed by dividing the smaller total occurrences of behavior by th e larger total occurren ces of behavior and multiplying by 100 (Sasso, et. al, 1992). For th e 4 participants, interobserver agreement ranged form 60%-100% with an average of 93%. For Ramon, agreement between the two observers ranged from 90%-100% with an average of 97%. For Anthony, agreement

PAGE 109

98 between the two observers ranged from 83%100% with an average of 94%. For Jimmy, agreement between the two observers ranged from 60%-100% with an average of 87%. For Greg interobserver agreement was 100%. Additionally, both observers were asked to separately formulate a hypothetical function of the challenging behavior based on their observations. They agreed on the hypothetical function of the behavior 3/4 (75%) times, the disagreement of hypotheti cal function was for Anthony in which the primary observer (Research Assistant 2) concl uded tangible was the primary function, and the reliability observer (Research Assistant 3) concluded attention was the primary function. Research Assistant 2 based the hypothe tical function on eight 15-mi nute observation sessions and Research Assistant 3 based the hypothetical function on three of the same 15-minute observations. For each participant, the two observers wrote down a hypothetical function after their last observation session and placed them in sealed envelopes. The principal investigator calculated the number of agreemen ts and disagreements after all of the other assessments were completed. For the functional analysis, the agreement percentages were computed on a sessionby-session basis for an average of 37% of the sessions using the following formuladividing the smaller total occu rrences of behavior by the la rger total occurrences of behavior and multiplying by 100 (Sasso et al., 1992). For Ramon, interobserver agreement was calculated for 8/21 (38%) cond itions. The interobserver agreement ranged from 75%-100% with an average of 95%. For Anthony, interobserver agreement was calculated for 8/19 (42%) condi tions. Interobserver agreem ent ranged from 80%-100% with an average of 98%. For Jimmy, inter observer agreement was calculated for 13/42 (31%) conditions. The inter observer agreement ranged from 66%-100% with an average

PAGE 110

99 of 97%. For Greg, interobser ver agreement was calculated for 7/18 (38%) sessions. The interobserver agreement ranged from 80%-100% with an average of 97%. Experimental Procedures Recruitment and Training Child participants were identified through teacher nominations. Teachers completed the age appropriate version of CBCL-TRF (complete sub-scale results are listed in Appendix C) on the child to determ ine eligibility for inclusion. Teachers also participated in an individual one-hour work shop to establish a baseline of requisite knowledge about FBA. Prior to training, all t eacher and parent consents were completed. All training sessions for particip ating teachers, research assi stants, and the IOA collector occurred prior to implementing any of the assessments. Participating teachers Each participating teacher took part in an individual onehour training session to revi ew principles of functional behavior assessment and functional analysis (See Appendix F for outline of teacher training session). This training session included watching a video of a sample f unctional analysis that was created by the principal investigator and a discussion with the principa l investigator of staffing adjustments that were necessary when the te acher was involved with functional analysis implementation. Research Assistants Research Assistant 1’s training on indirect descriptive assessments consisted of reviewing challe nging behaviors, revi ewing the order of presentation for the indirect assessments and reviewing protocol inst ructions and scoring that accompanied each of the commercially di stributed descriptive a ssessments. Research Assistants 2 and 3’s training consisted of reviewing the method for completing the ABC worksheet and reviewing operational defini tions of challenging behaviors. Practice

PAGE 111

100 sessions were also held for Research Assistan ts 2 and 3, in which they viewed three 15minute sessions of preliminary videotapes of the child participants until they reached 80% agreement in the completi on of the ABC worksheets. IOA data collector The IOA data collector is a cer tified special education teacher with five years of experience working with children with emotional and behavioral disorders. The IOA data collector’s traini ng consisted of a review of each of the conditions of the FA session and a discussion of each participant’s operationally defined challenging behavior. The principal investig ator and the IOA data collector viewed videotaped sessions of the func tional analyses until they re ached 80% agreement for three consecutive sessions. Phase I--Pre-experimental Assessments After participants (i.e., children and teachers) had been identified, the following preliminary procedures were completed. Thes e preliminary procedures included: (1) a review of cumulative school records to obtain demographic information, (2) establishing an operational definition of the challenging be havior for each of the child participants, and (3) establishing a pr eferential toy for the tangible FA condition, a difficult task for the escape condition, and a neut ral activity for free play, atte ntion and ignore. The target behavior or challenging behavi or, as defined previously, we re the behaviors that the teacher identified as the most frequently o ccurring, problematic behaviors of the child with the exception of Jimmy. For Jimmy, the first behavior identified was aggression toward peers. However, ethics would prohibi t providing contingent reinforcement for the demonstration of aggression toward peers, such as in the functional analysis. Therefore, continued discussion with the teacher led to identification of other behaviors that were suggested to lead to aggre ssion including verbal defian ce, screaming, teasing, saying

PAGE 112

101 ‘No’, crying or whining. These behaviors were combined to become the operational definition of challenging behavior for Jimmy. To establish neutral and difficult activities, the principal investigator listed possible choi ces of activities and pr esented samples of a variety of worksheets that might be cons idered aversive to young children (i.e., a handwriting worksheet with the name listed 10 times, letter identification, multiple digit adding and subtracting). Phase II--Descriptive Assessments In this phase the identified primary teacher filled out the Motivation Assessment Scale, the Problem Behavior Questionnaire, and was interviewed using the Functional Assessment Interview by Research Assistant 1. Indirect assessments for each participant were conducted in a single 2-hour block. With in 2 weeks of the i ndirect assessments, Research Assistant 2 conducted eight, fifteen-m inute direct observati ons to complete the ABC observation form. All observations occu rred within the classroom, playground and cafeteria using the spec ifications previously outlined. The order of the indirect descriptive assessments were counterbalanced to cont rol for an order eff ect and the direct observations occurred before the functional analysis for Ramon and Jimmy and after the functional analysis for Anthony and Greg to co ntrol for any potential effect the functional analysis may have had on the occurrence of th e challenging behaviors in natural settings. Phase III--Functional Analysis In the next phase, the principal investigat or and the participating teacher completed the functional analysis (FA), without any know ledge of the results of the de scriptive assessments. The functional analysis occu rred in the primary classroom and the participant teacher acted as the therapist delivering the appropriate consequences. The principal investigator monitored the time in tervals, and provided prompts for the delivery

PAGE 113

102 of the appropriate consequence for each dem onstration of the challenging behavior. For the prompts, the principal investigator used laminated cards with the teacher’s scripted verbal responses printed on them. Five conditions for the functional analysis phase of this proj ect were used: (1) tangible, (2) attention, (3) escape/ avoidance, (4) ignore, and (5) free play. There was a 1 to 2-minute break between each condition and the order of the conditions was randomly selected to control for order effects. For each condition, the principal investigator held up the laminated card with the verbal prompt for the teacher to say either upon every demonstration of the challenging behavior and/or every thirty seconds when noncontingent attention statements were requi red (i.e., escape and tangible). Before the attention condition of each se ssion, the principal investigator modeled the delivery of the attention condition statement (i.e., placing a ha nd on the child’s back); and the principal investigator modeled appear ing busy with paperwork during the attention condition. Before the tangible condition, the principa l investigator modeled presenting and effectively removing the tangible item. For all sessions the principal investigator offered correctives between conditions when necessa ry and modeled the ot her non-contingent attention statements. See Appendix G for a description of the functional analysis procedures. With the exception of Jimmy’s FA, if othe r children in the cl assroom entered the FA setting, they were directed away by th e principal investigator. For Jimmy, it was necessary to include a peer confederate in the FA sessions as the first FA conducted without a peer confederate did not replicat e natural classroom conditions. The teacher indicated that other peers preci pitated his challenging behavi ors and that he was unlikely

PAGE 114

103 to engage in his target cha llenging behaviors (verbal defi ance, yelling, teasing, saying “No,” whining, crying) without a peer pres ent. For the other 3 participants, the participating teacher and the child were the on ly individuals included in the FA sessions. The FA in the current study was not hypot hesis driven but instead functioned independently of the descrip tive assessments, as conducted by Iwata et al., (1982/1994). All conditions were videotaped and data we re collected as previously described. The following is a description of each FA session. Free Play The free play condition was used as a control for the other four conditions. During free play, the participan t had access to preferred toys, neutral activities and the teacher provided positive at tention in a continuous, non-contingent rate, approximately 5 times per minute per free pl ay session. No instructional demands were placed on the participant and demonstrations of challenging behavior were ignored. Tangible During the tangible condition, the participant was presented with the preferred item. The item was removed after a set interval of 20 seconds. The teacher maintained a distance of three to six feet from the particip ant. Upon demonstration of a challenging behavior, the teacher presen ted the participant with the tangible reinforcement with the statement “Now it’s your turn with the toy.” After 30 seconds, the tangible item was removed again with the st atement “Now it’s my turn with the toy.” Demonstration of the behavior resulted in the item being returned. No other demands were placed on the child. All other behaviors that did not meet the response definition criteria were ignored, and the teacher provided non-contingent attention statements to the participant on a fixed 30-second interval (as prompted by the principal investigator).

PAGE 115

104 Attention In the attention condition, the teacher maintained a distance of 3-6 feet from the participant and pretended to be o ccupied with paperwork. When the participant engaged in the disruptive behavior, the teacher approached the partic ipant, placed a hand on the child’s back and gave a verbal reprim and that represents what might typically happen during demonstrations of this challe nging behavior (i.e., “Stop doing that. You shouldn’t do that because it is against the rules. You are not following directions when you do that”). Participant children had access to the neutral activity and no other demands were placed on them. When the behavior was not occurring, the teacher did not engage in social attention. Escape In the escape condition, the participan ts were assigned a predetermined task that was determined by the teacher to be challenging, but within their intellectual ability (i.e., copying their own name 10 times). Verbal instructions and modeling of the task were provided at the be ginning of the session. When th e participant engaged in the challenging behavior, the task was removed for 30 seconds and the teacher said, “Time to take a break.” Following a 30-second brea k, the task and demand was presented again. The neutral activity was not available. The teacher provi ded non-contingent attention statements to the participant on a fixed 30-second interval. Ignore During the ignore condition, the particip ant was directed to stay in the assigned area. The preferred tangible item and neutral activity materials were accessible but no direct interaction w ith the teacher occurred and no demands were place on the participant child. All demonstrations of the challenging behavior were ignored. All five conditions were presented for a minimum of three sessions. However, after the third session, the principal investigator a nd a researcher with extensive experience in

PAGE 116

105 single subject design reviewed all data and only conditions that c ontinued to elicit challenging behavior and a cont rol condition (either Free Play or Ignore) continued to be tested until stability in all the data occu rred (Northup et al., 1991). This was done to obtain at least a three-point trend and to minimize the intrusiven ess of conducting the functional analyses in natural settings. Social Validity Upon completion of all descri ptive assessments and the f unctional analysis phases, the teachers completed a 9-item Likert-type ra ting scale to evaluate the acceptability of each of the assessment procedures and to de termine how helpful and/or disruptive the assessments were to their classroom milieu. They were also given an opportunity to answer 14 open-ended questions regarding this procedure and the re sults of the various assessments in an interview with the principal investigator. The results were presented after the questionnaire a nd the first nine questions of th e social validity interview had been completed, as outlined in the data co llection procedures of this chapter. Procedural Integrity Procedural integrity data was collected for 21% of the FA conditions. Each FA condition had specific elements that were m onitored. Procedural integrity was based on the teacher providing the appropriate conse quence upon demonstration of the behavior for the escape, tangible and attention conditi ons. Procedural integrity was calculated by dividing the number of occurr ences of the challenging beha vior without the appropriate consequence/total occurrences of the challenging behavior X 100. Procedural integrity also monitored that continuous non-contingent attention was delivered for free play and that all challenging behavior was ignored for free play and ignore. For these conditions, ignore was evaluated by calculating the total number of challenging behaviors

PAGE 117

106 demonstrated that did not receive a conti ngency/ total number of behaviors X 100. Free play was monitored to insure that the partic ipant child had unrestri cted access to desired toys and continuous non-contingent adult a ttention at a minimum of one attention statement every 10 seconds. If it was dete rmined upon reviewing the videotape that access was not given, then this condition was conducted again. The procedural integrity for Ramon was evaluated for 5/24 (21%) conditions. The range of the procedural inte grity calculations was from 84%-100% with an average of 90.6%. The procedural integrity for Anthony was evaluated for 4/19 (21%) conditions. The range of procedural inte grity calculations was from 80%-100% with an average of 95%. The procedural integrity for Jimmy wa s 9/42 (21%) conditions. The range was from 75%-100% with an average of 97%. The proced ural integrity for Greg was evaluated for 4/18 (22%) conditions. The range was from 80%-100% with an average of 95%. Design and Data Analysis Design A multi-element design was used to evaluate the relative differences across functional analysis conditions. No experime ntal design occurred for the descriptive assessments because the outcomes were not experimental. Data Analysis This study was separated into three phases: preliminary assessments, descriptive assessment methods and functional analyses. For the descriptive assessments, data analysis for two of the inst ruments produced permanent products. For the checklist, the MAS, has a simple scoring rubric in whic h the highest numbered score indicates the primary function of the problem behavior. The principal investigator scored this instrument after all other assessments had been completed for the child participant.

PAGE 118

107 Scoring this instrument consis ted of tallying the responses to the different items and then assigning a hypothetical function ba sed on the highest score. Because the FAI and the ABC direct obs ervation sheet are both more subjective measures, both require some interpretation on the part of the scorer. Immediately after completing the Functional Assessment Interv iew, the research assistant (Research Assistant 1) who administered the indi rect descriptive assessments assigned a hypothetical function based on the responses to the interview questions. The ABC was scored by both research assi stants (2 & 3) who assigne d a primary function to the challenging behavior upon completion of the number of 15-minute intervals observed. It should be noted that all results for every desc riptive assessment were kept separate from every other instruments’ result s and were also kept separate from the functional analysis in order to avoid influencing any other proc edures. For the descriptive assessments, all results were sealed in envel opes and were not discussed w ith other person nel involved with the research. The results were compared by the principal investigator after the final functional analysis session for each partic ipant had been completed. Since different individuals were collecting the assessment data, the results from each instrument remained separate from the others. For the functional analysis procedures, th e principal investigator used a frequency count that was translated into rate per mi nute, for each analog condition to evaluate the relative differences between conditions. The highest rate within a specific analog condition was used to determine the function of the behavior (i.e. if the behavior occurs most frequently during the atte ntion condition, then the functi on of the behavior would be identified as attention). All data was gra phically displayed and visually inspected for

PAGE 119

108 magnitude, trend, and stability to determine what analog condition elicited the highest rate of challenging behaviors and therefore represented the function of that behavior. Data was visually inspected using the criteria outlined in Hagopian et al., (1997) and also evaluated using criteria outlined in Tawney and Gast (1984). Each graph was evaluated for the highest number of data points across all sessions over all other conditions. Each data path was additionally evaluated for st ability across all sessions, percentage of overlapping data points between conditions and any discernible trend in the rate of the behavior. After all descriptive assessments and the functional analysis were individually evaluated to determine their results (i.e. wh at is the primary function according to the FAI, MAS, and ABC), the results for each pa rticipant were assimilated, using a form developed by the principal investigator. For comparing descriptive assessments, agreement results were calculated by creating ratios of agreements over the total possible agreements for the two other instruments for each participant (Agreements/2). This method of calculation of data is simila r to the methodology used by Murdock et al., (2005). The total number of agreements fo r each descriptive instrument was then calculated across four participants (Agreemen ts/Number of Other Instruments x Number of Participants). Thus, there were 8 po ssible comparisons (2 x 4). For the total agreements of the descriptive assessments with the functional analysis, the ratio was calculated for each descriptive assessment acro ss the four participants (Agreements / 4) and a total number of agreements for all descriptive assessment was calculated [Agreements / Participants x Number of Desc riptive Assessments (4 x 3)]. Because each assessment only determined a primary func tion, a final summary was completed noting

PAGE 120

109 agreement and disagreement between descriptive assessments and agreement and disagreement with the functional analysis Then a summative statement regarding the agreement between assessments and with the functional analysis was developed. The final scoring sheet can be found in Appendix H. The results of the social validity questionnaire were ca lculated by averaging the four teachers’ responses per item. For the social validity interview, the principal investigator transcribed the responses and these transcri ptions were evaluated for commonalities, agreement with questionnaire responses and salient points regarding process components and their results.

PAGE 121

110 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter presents the results of th e current study. The purposes of this study were to compare the findings from three desc riptive methods for determining the function of behavior with each other and to compare the findings across methods, with the results of a functional analysis. Also, teacher percep tions of the usefulness of the process and procedures were evaluated. Research questi ons were addressed through three specific examinations. First, the functions of young ch ildren’s challenging be havior as identified through various descriptive functional a ssessments (e.g. the Motivation Assessment Scale, the Functional Assessment Interview and an Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence direct observation) were compared to assess co ncurrent validity across instruments. This examination evaluates the c onsistency of functions iden tified through commonly used descriptive assessments. Sec ond, outcomes of these same methods were compared with functions verified through expe rimental functional analyses. This examination determines the accuracy or construct validity of descri ptive methods. Third, social validity of the descriptive assessment and th e functional analysis procedures and outcomes were evaluated to determine how palatable t eachers found the various methods, how likely they were to use each in the future, and what impact they believed the results might have on future intervention strategies. Individual results are first presented for each participant child. Then, results comparing outcomes across descriptive me thods are delineated. Next, results of

PAGE 122

111 comparisons between descriptive methods and functional analysis are presented. Finally, the results from the social validity ques tionnaires and intervie ws are presented. As noted in chapter three, one deviati on from the original planned procedures occurred. Originally, the Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ) (Lew is, Scott & Sugai, 1994) was administered for each participant, along with the other assessments mentioned above. However, due to an incompatible sc oring taxonomy, the results of this indirect assessment were not comparable with thes e assessments or the functional analyses. Therefore, these results will not be presente d in the results sec tion. The rationale for excluding this assessment was made post hoc. Th is decision was based on the instrument lacking two options for the function of a ch allenging behavior: tangible and sensory. Thus, it was impossible to determine if disagreements between the PBQ and other descriptive assessments, or func tional analyses results, were a result of these two options not being available or were a result of genuine disagreement across methodologies. Individual Child Participant Results In this section, results from the three descriptive assessments and the functional analysis are presented for each child partic ipant. Table 4-1 presents summative data regarding the results of all of the descriptive assessments and the functional analysis for each participant. The functional analysis column is presented in bold face as those results represent the function of the behavior as identified th rough experimental analyses as opposed to the hypothetical functions determin ed by the descriptive assessments. For the purposes of this study, the specific identified functions are presente d to illustrate the agreements and disagreements between the different assessment methodologies. Because the identified function is idiosyncratic to the participant being assessed, the actual function identified is incidental to evaluati ng the agreements versus disagreements.

PAGE 123

112 Table 4-1. Summary of the Functions of Challenging Behaviors Across Assessment Methods Participant MAS FAI ABC FA Ramon Tangible Tangible Attention Attention Anthony Tangible Escape Tangible Tangible Jimmy Tangible Attention Tangible Tangible Greg Sensory Attention Attention Attention Ramon Ramon’s challenging behaviors were disrup tive vocalizations defined as raising his voice above the classroom volume level, asking more than three questions in a 10-second interval or using profanity or “bathroom ta lk.” The MAS and the FAI indicated that the primary function was tangible. The ABC iden tified attention as the function of the challenging behavior. As seen in Figure 4-1, in Ramon’s functional analysis, in comparison to the other conditions, the attenti on condition elicited the highest rate of the challenging behavior ( M = 2.6 responses per minute with a range of 1.8 3.2 responses per minute). The other functional analysis cond itions elicited the cha llenging behavior at substantially lower rates, tangible ( M = 1.73), followed by escape ( M = 0.6), free play ( M = 0.3), and ignore ( M = 0.2). Although overlap between the tangible and attention conditions occurred for 50% of the se ssions (Tawney & Gast, 1984), the tangible condition demonstrated a deceler ating trend across sessions 4-6. Based on visual analysis of the magnitude of the differences between conditions and the trends of the data, these results suggest that Ramon’s challenging be havior is maintained by attention. This outcome only agrees with the ABC direct observation.

PAGE 124

113 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 123456 Sessions Attention Tangible Escape Free Play Alone Figure 4-1. Challenging Behaviors per Minute During Functional Analysis for Ramon. Anthony Anthony’s challenging behavior was disr uption defined as crying, yelling “Mom” or “Mama”, rolling around on the ground, rais ing his voice above the classroom volume level and leaving his assigned area (defined as being more than 6 feet away from his assigned area). For Anthony, the MAS and the ABC indicated that the primary function was tangible. The FAI concluded that the pr imary function of the challenging behavior was escape. For Anthony, the tangible condition elicited the highest rate of behavior ( M = 1.0 response per minute across all sessions). Th e other conditions elicited challenging behaviors at lower rates, attention ( M = 0.3), followed by escape ( M = 0.1), free play ( M =0.0) and ignore ( M = 0.0). See Figure 4-2 for Anthony’ s functional analysis graph. There was no overlap in the data between ta ngible and the other c onditions. These results

PAGE 125

114 suggest that Anthony’s challenging behavior is maintained by access to tangible items. This outcome for the functional analysis agreed with the MAS and the ABC. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1234 Sessions Attention Tangible Escape Free Play Alone Figure 4-2. Challenging Behaviors per Minu te During Functional Analysis for Anthony. Jimmy Jimmy’s challenging behavior was disr uption defined as verbal defiance, screaming, teasing, saying ‘No’, crying or wh ining. The MAS and the ABC indicated that tangible was the primary function. The FAI conc luded that attention was the function of the challenging behavior. The methodology of the functional analysis for Jimmy varied from the other participants. Tw o functional analyses (no peer confederate present v. peer confederate present) were conducted for Ji mmy. In the first FA, the conditions were identical to the other participants (i.e., no peer confederate was present). However, after conducting four sessions with al l five conditions, the rate of the challenging behavior was

PAGE 126

115 low: attention ( M = 0.15), tangible ( M = 0.10), escape ( M = 0.05), free play and ignore ( M = 0.00) and no apparent consistent differences between the conditions occurred. After these four sessions, all conditions le veled off to zero. After discussi ng the results of the initial FA with the teacher and observing Jimmy in the classroom, the researcher determined that the challenging behavior was likely to occur only in conditions where a peer was present. This discussion of the results w ith the teacher before completion of all assessments was atypical of the protocol us ed for all other participants. For other participants, results were only discussed af ter completion of all of the assessments. However, due to the rate of zero behavior s across all conditions, it was necessary to modify the protocol for Jimmy. Therefore, a second FA that included a peer confederate was conducted to assist in re plicating conditions that were naturally occurring in the classroom. The teacher selected the peer confederate based on observed patterns of behavior in the classroom and parental consent was attained for the peer to participate. As seen in Figure 4-3, during the second FA, the tangible condition had the highest mean rate of challenging behavior ( M = 0.34 responses per minute with a range of 0.2 0.8 responses per minute) and an accelerati ng 3-point data path for sessions 9 to 11. Three of the other conditions elicited respons es at considerably lo wer rates: attention ( M = 0.10) ignore ( M = 0.0) and free play (M= 0.0). One impor tant consideration is that the rates of behavior were lower for all conditions for this participant compared with the other three participants. The escape conditi on elicited the challenging behavior at a similar rate as tangible ( M = 0.31) and had 57% overlapping data points with the tangible condition. The escape condition initially demonstr ated a high rate of behavior, however beginning at session 8, the behavi or began a decelerating trend that leveled off to zero in

PAGE 127

116 the last three sessions. This suggests that Ji mmy’s challenging behavior is maintained by access to tangible objects. This function agr ees with the outcomes of the MAS and the ABC. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1234567891011 Sessions Attention Tangible Escape Free Play Alone N o Peer ConfederatePeer Conferderate Figure 4-3. Challenging Behaviors per Minu te During Functional Analysis for Jimmy. Greg Greg’s challenging behaviors were disruptiv e noises defined as tapping his pencil, whistling, and raising his voi ce above the classroom volume level. For Greg, the MAS indicated that the primary function of challe nging behavior was sensory. The FAI and the ABC concluded the challenging behavior was ma intained by attention. For the functional analysis, the attention condition elicited the highest rate of cha llenging behaviors ( M = 1.5 responses per minute with a range of 1.0 1.8 responses per minute) and an accelerating 3-point data path across sessi ons 1 to 3. The next highest average rates of challenging behaviors per minute were tangible ( M = 1.2), ignore ( M = 0.3), escape ( M = 0.2), and free

PAGE 128

117 play ( M = 0.03). The tangible condition had 66% of overlapping data points with attention. Although the tangible condition elic ited the highest rate of challenging behavior for the first session, the data path demonstrated a decelerating trend for the next two sessions. Based on visual analysis of the magnitude of the differences between conditions and the trends of the data, atten tion was concluded to be the function of the challenging behavior. This outcome agrees with the FAI and ABC. See Figure 4-4 for Greg’s functional analysis graph. 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 1234 Sessions Attention Tangible Escape Free Play Ignore Figure 4-4. Challenging Behaviors per Minu te During Functional Analysis for Greg.

PAGE 129

118 Comparison of Outcomes of Descriptive Assessments Agreements between descriptive assessmen ts were based solely on the primary function that was determined by each descrip tive assessment. For the MAS, the primary function was determined using the scoring ru bric in which the highest numbered (and ranked) score indicates the primary function of the challenging behavi or. For the FAI, the research assistant who administered the indirect descriptive assessments assigned one of four hypothetical functions (i.e., tangible, escape, attention, sensory) based on the responses to the interv iew questions. For the ABC, anothe r research assistant assigned a primary function from one of the four possi ble functions upon completion of the eight 15minute observation intervals. Table 4-2 presents data regarding th e total number of agreements for each descriptive assessment as it is compared with the other two descriptive assessments and with the functional analysis results. The agreement ratio for comparing descriptive assessments with each other was calculat ed by determining the total number of agreements over the total possible agreem ents with the two other instruments (Agreements / 2) (Murdock et al., 2005). Agreement for each descriptive assessment with the functional analysis is notated with an asterisk for each individual participant’s descriptive assessment. The total number of agreements with other descriptive assessments was then calculated across all four participants (A greements/Number of Other Instruments x Number of Participants). Thus, there are eight possible comparisons (Agreements/2 x 4) for calculating the total agreements. For the total agreements of the descriptive assessments with the functional analysis, the ratio is calculated for each descriptive assessment across the f our participants (Agreements/4).

PAGE 130

119 Table 4-2. Summary of Agreements Between Descriptive Assessments Compared With Each Other and with a Functional Analysis Participants MAS FAI ABC Ramon 1/2 (50%) 1/2 (50%) 0/2 (0%)* Anthony 1/2 (50%)* 0/2 (0%) 1/2 (50%)* Jimmy 1/2 (50%)* 0/2 (50%) 1/2 (50%)* Greg 0/2 (0%) 1/2 (50%)* 1/2 (50%)* Total Agreements with Other Descriptive Assessments 3/8 (38%) 2/8(25%) 3/8 (38%) Total Agreements with Functional Analysis 2/4 (50%) 1/4 (25%) 4/4 (100%) *indicates agreement with function as determined by the functional analysis In general, the total consistency between the three descriptive assessments was low. When comparing across descriptive assessments the MAS findings were consistent with the ABC for total agreements of 3/8 (38%) a nd slightly greater than the FAI, 2/8 (25%) for total agreements. Across all participants the MAS agreed with the FAI only once and the MAS agreed with the ABC twice. Th e ABC agreed with the FAI only once. Calculating the number of agreements ove r the opportunities fo r agreement for all descriptive assessments [Other descriptive assessments x All descriptive assessments x Total number of participants) ( 2x3x4)] indicates that they agr eed with one another in 8/24 (33%) of all cases. For all 4 participants, a majority of descriptive assessments indicated the same hypothetical functions. In other words, of the three descri ptive assessments, for each participant, two of the assessments had the same resu lts. For example, for Jimmy, both the MAS and the ABC agreed that the hypothetical function of the challenging behavior was tangible. For 3 of the 4 part icipants, the hypothetical function that was

PAGE 131

120 determined by more than one instrument wa s confirmed by the functional analysis. Data evaluating the results of each descriptive a ssessment in comparison to the results of functional analysis are presen ted in the following section. The results of the three descriptive assessm ents were compared with the results of functional analyses conducted for all 4 pa rticipants. The MAS’s hypothesized function agreed with the FA results for 2/4 (50%) of the participants. The FAI’s hypothesized functions agreed with the FA results for 1/4 (25%) of th e participants. Unlike the other descriptive assessments, the A BC’s hypothesized functions agreed with the FA results for 4/4 (100%) of the participants. That is, for all 4 participants, both the ABC and FA were in agreement as to th e function of behavior. The overall agreement between the desc riptive assessments and the functional analysis was 7/12 (58%). This was calculat ed as the number of agreements/number of participants x total number of descriptive a ssessments (Agreements/4 x 3). However, the number of agreements was not evenly distri buted across descriptive assessments because the direct descriptive observations (ABC) ag reed with the FA conclusions for all 4/4 (100%) of the participants. T hus, the indirect descriptiv e assessments were only in agreement with the functional analysis in only 3/8 (38%) of cas es. Other important considerations were how pala table teachers found the vari ous methods, how likely they were to use each in the future, and what imp act they believed the results might have on future intervention strategies. This was evalua ted using a social validity questionnaire and interview.

PAGE 132

121 Social Validity Questionnaire and Interview Results Social Validity Questionnaire The social validity questionnaire was cr eated by the principal investigator and was comprised of eight questions on a 5-point Likert-type scale that was completed by each teacher participant after the results of al l descriptive assessments and the FA were determined. However, these results were not presented to the teachers until after they had completed the questionnaire and answered th e first nine questions of the structured interview. For the questionnaire’s scale, 1 represented Not at All (helpful, useful, disruptive…) and 5 represented Ver y (helpful, useful, disruptive…). Items 1 through 6 asked how time consuming helpful or disr uptive various assessments were, and items seven and eight asked about future participa tion in this type of study and value of the overall process. It should be noted that this questionnaire is multi-directional, in that for some items a higher score represents positive perceptions of the process and for some items a higher score represents negative per ceptions of the process. For items #2, 3, 4, 7, & 8, a higher score represented a positive perception of this process and for items one, five, and six a higher score represents a nega tive perception of this process. Table 4-3 presents each item, the responses from all four teachers, and the aver age score for all of the teachers. Table 4-3. Results of the Soci al Validity Questionnaire Item Ms. Rose Ms. Terry Ms. Amy Ms. Alexis Mean Score (1) How time consuming were the checklists and interviews? 2.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 (2) How helpful was the training on Functional Behavior Assessment 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 (3) How helpful was the Functional Assessment Interview? 5.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.3

PAGE 133

122 Table 4-3. Continued Item Ms. Rose Ms. Terry Ms. Amy Ms. Alexis Mean Score (4) How helpful was the Motivation Assessment Scale? 4.0 4.0 3.0 5.0 4.0 (5) How disruptive was the direct observation descriptive assessment (ABC)? 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.5 (6) How disruptive was the functional analysis? 1.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.8 (7) Would you be willing to let another of your students participate in this study? 5.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 3.8 (8) How valuable was it to determine the function of the problem behavior? 5.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 4.5 The teachers rated the descriptive assessments as moderately low in terms of being time consuming ( M = 2.8) with a range of 2-3. For the ABC direct observation, the teachers felt that having the research assistan t observe natural clas sroom occurrences was not disruptive ( M = 1.5) with a range of 1-3. The functional analysis procedures were considered more disruptive ( M = 2.8) with a range of 1-4. Items 2,3,4 and 5 asked how helpful the training and various descriptiv e assessments were. The teachers rated the hour-long training session on functional behavior assessment and functional analysis, as helpful to very helpful ( M = 4.5) with a range of 4-5. The FAI was considered slightly more helpful ( M = 4.3) than the MAS ( M = 4.0). In response to whether they would be willing to participate in this study agai n, the teachers’ responses were mixed ( M = 3.8) with a range of 2-5. According to the questi onnaire, teachers did beli eve it was valuable to determine the function of the challenging behavior, ( M = 4.5), with a range of 3-5.

PAGE 134

123 Social Validity Interview The social validity interview was created by the principal investigator and asked each participating teacher 14 ope n-ended questions regarding th eir experiences with this research project. The results of the descriptive assessment and the functional analysis were presented after the questi onnaire and the first 9 questions of the 14-question social validity interview had been co mpleted. According to intervie w responses, three out of the four teachers had previously conducted some type of FBA before. Amy, Jimmy’s teacher, had never before completed an FBA. The teachers’ defined the term function as ‘what the student gets out of doing it (the behavior)’, or ‘what factors in the environment cause the behavior.’ The teachers all responded that th ey liked all of the assessment methodologies. However, Terry, Anthony’s teacher, noted that the FAI had a number of questions that “didn’t seem to fit (this child) at all,” and that it was a little lengt hy. All of the teachers believed that the ABC was the best method of capturing the function of the behavior. Amy stated that the importance of the ABC was that “someone who is not involved” was observing the student because teachers who are within the situation “become immune” to a lot of the behaviors. All of the teachers’ respons es to the questions about th e use of functional analysis indicated that they believed the particip ating child had “gotten bored” with doing the same conditions repeatedly or that the ch ild had “figured it out” and was deliberately manipulating the conditions. Rose, Ramon’s teacher, noted that the best part of the FA was the use of the video camera because ot hers “saw him in actionthe videotape captured everything he did.” Before reviewing the results, the teachers were asked what they believed to be the function of the challenging behavior. All four teachers stated that they believed there

PAGE 135

124 were multiple functions and two teachers stat ed that the function could be constantly changing. For example, Terry, Anthony’s teac her, stated, “There are many functions. Sometimes it’s attention, sometimes he want s to get out of doing things…” When the teachers examined the results of the different assessments, all of them agreed with the results of the different assessments even wh en different assessments concluded different functions of the behavior. The teachers explai ned these differences by attributing them to the different contexts. For example, Terry sp ecifically identified that these different outcomes represented how the function of the behavior was fluid and often determined by a variety of environmental factors. She di scussed that in Circle Time, a large group passive activity, the function of his behavior is escape, but on the playground or during Centers Time, getting access to tangibles is the function of his behavior. All of the teachers stated that they would consider the function of the challenging behavior in the future but only Ms. Alison, Greg’s teacher, id entified a specific strategy that she could use with this information about the function of his behavior, “I’m going to use a timer to control his access to attention….” Summary Results of the study indicated the desc riptive assessments had relatively low consistency with each other 8/24 (33%) agreem ent, and that the indirect descriptive assessments (the FAI, and the MAS) also ha d low agreement with the functional analysis with 3/8 (38%) agreements. However, the di rect descriptive obser vations (ABC) agreed with the FA conclusions for all 4/4 (100%) of th e participants. Results of the social validity measures indicated that teachers fe lt all methods of assessment, including the functional analyses, were helpful, minimally disruptive, and that these results would impact their behavioral interventions. Ho wever, they identified the ABC direct

PAGE 136

125 observation as the least disruptive, most valuab le way to obtain information regarding the functions of challenging behaviors.

PAGE 137

126 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The use of functional behavior assessme nts (FBAs) continues to increase as a result of increasing numbers of children engaging in problem behaviors (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002), and a need to develop eff ective assessments and interventions that reduce these problem behaviors and increase adaptive behaviors. Unfortunately, the extensive use of FBAs in pr actice has outpaced its research base (Sasso et al., 2001). Failure to identify the most effective co mponents of the FBA process with valid outcomes will have adverse effects on childre n and educators, because ineffective FBAs may lead to interventions that will not decr ease challenging behavior or increase adaptive behaviors. There are a number of indirect and direct descriptive methodologies that can be used within the FBA process. However, limited research exists that compares the outcomes of these instruments with each ot her or validates th em through functional analysis procedures. Thus, there is a continui ng need to empirically compare and validate the outcomes of these descri ptive assessment methods. In this study, the outcomes of a seri es of indirect and direct descriptive assessments were compared with each other and compared with the outcomes of a functional analysis in order to answer two research questions First, how do the hypothetical functions of target behavior s identified through various descriptive functional assessments compare to each ot her for young children’s challenging behavior? Second, how do the hypothetical functions of ta rget behaviors identified through various descriptive functional assessments compare with functi ons identified th rough a functional

PAGE 138

127 analysis? Additionally, teachers’ beliefs about the process and the results were evaluated through social validity measures. Unlike prev ious research, (a) the functional analyses were conducted independent of the descri ptive assessment resu lts, (b) they were completed within the classroom setting, and (c) the teacher, with assistance from the researcher, served as the therapist for implementing the five functional analysis conditions. All assessments we re counterbalanced, and th e results of the various assessments were kept separate from each other until completion. Teachers also completed a social validity questionnaire and interview. The results indicated that the descrip tive assessments had low consistency with each other, with 8/24 (33 %) agreements. When comp aring across descriptive assessments, the MAS findings were consistent with the ABC for total agreements of 3/8 (38%) and greater than the FAI outcomes, 2/8 (25%), for total agreements. The MAS agreed with the FAI only once and the ABC twice across all partic ipants. Additionally, the ABC agreed with the FAI once. When the descriptive assessments were compared to the outcomes of the functional analyses, the fi ndings varied according to instruments. The indirect descriptive assessme nts (FAI, and MAS) had low agreement with the outcome of the functional analyses with 3/8 (38%) agr eements. However, the direct descriptive observations (ABC) agreed with the functional analyses conclusions for all 4/4 (100%) of the participants. Results of the social validity measures indicated th at teachers felt all methods of assessment, incl uding the functional analyses were helpful, minimally disruptive, and these results would imp act their behavior al interventions. Limitations of this study ar e presented in the first sect ion of this chapter. Then, interpretations of results are pr esented and compared with othe r studies that have directly

PAGE 139

128 evaluated descriptive assessment methods. Ne xt, extensions of this study and future research directions are discussed. Finally, th e implications of this study’s findings in regard to current practices in schools are presented. Limitations Although results of this study extend the literature regarding the reliability and validity of descriptive assessmen ts and functional analyses in the FBA process, there are notable limitations to this st udy. First, the limited sample si ze of 4 participants impacts the generality of these findings and replicatio ns of this study are necessary to improve the external validity. By only having 4 particip ants in this study, the ability to draw conclusions about these results in widesp read applications is severely limited. Unfortunately, this is a limitation that is prevalent among previous research studies within the literature that have conducted direct evaluati ons of different functional behavior assessment components. For the eight studies in the direct evaluation section of the literature review, the m ean number of participants is relatively the same in comparison to this study and only 3 participan ts each were evaluated in six of the eight studies. It is possible that the time-consumi ng, technically intensive nature of functional analysis makes using larger numbers of par ticipants difficult. For example, the one study that used 8 participants (i.e., Murdock et al., 2005) did not conduct functional analyses. Therefore, to extend these findings, this study mu st be replicated using more participants in the same setting and more participants of different ages and characteristics in different classroom settings. Second, the context in terms of settings (e.g. the playground) and situations (e.g., free play) for the occurrence of the behavior was variable across descriptive assessment instruments and may be a plausible explanation for the variability of the outcomes of the

PAGE 140

129 instruments (Floyd, et al., 2005; Shriver, Anderson & Proctor, 2001). The teachers alluded to this in their op en-ended responses during the so cial validity interview when they said that different assessments were just measuring the function in different contexts. As Repp and Munk (1999), expl ain, by extending instruments beyond their “domain of interest,” (p.154) the instrument itself cannot be accurately assessed. In other words, if the function of the challenging be havior is assessed duri ng Circle Time, then that is the function of the behavior during Circle Time. The design of this study was not sensitive to the impact of different cont exts, but rather compared agreement or disagreement of function across contexts. Ques tionnaires and intervie ws were subject to the teachers’ memories and biases of behavior in different settings (Shores, et al., 1999). Additionally, direct descriptive observations captured short intervals across multiple settings. Finally, the functional analysis onl y measured independent (or in the case of Jimmy, one peer present), structured or se mi-structured activities. The difference in settings and situations is especially impor tant in considering the functional analysis outcomes, as this process is regarded in re search as the ‘gold st andard’ and the only way to determine the actual rather than th e hypothetical function (Lerman & Iwata, 1993). Third, related to the previous limitation are specific limitations of internal and external validity for the func tional analysis procedures. A lthough the functional analyses were conducted in situ, certain conditions could not be replicated in analogue assessments. For example, for Anthony’s teac her, specifically identified a large group, passive setting (e.g. Circle Time) that se rved as the specific antecedent to escapemaintained behavior. Unfortunately, this setti ng and activity could not be evaluated in the more individualized functional analysis settin gs because of practical limitations and

PAGE 141

130 threats to internal control that incorporat ing greater numbers of other children would entail. Similarly, in some cases, specific ta rget behaviors, identified by the teacher as problematic could also not be evaluated in the FA for legal and ethical reasons. Amy, Jimmy’s teacher, originally identified aggres sion toward peers as his most frequently occurring, most problematic behavior. Howe ver, contingently reinforcing aggression toward a peer was not possible for ethical reasons and it was nece ssary to find other challenging behaviors that may be precurs ors to aggression. This may provide an explanation for Jimmy’s extended functional an alysis, overall low rates of behavior and variability across descriptive instruments. One plausible explanation is that functiona l analysis as it was originally conceived may not be the ‘gold standard’ in natural sett ings with children at risk for EBD. This difference is feasible considering Iwata et al.’s (1982/1994) origin al description of functional analysis as a procedur e that is being used in highly controlled clinical settings to counteract the debilitating effects of self-injurious be havior and used in lieu of punishment in the form of aversive stimul ation. Sprague and Horn er (1999) detail the need to develop and refine methodologies to determine the functions of high intensity behaviors beyond clinical settings. They sugge st developing more sensitive systems of measurement (i.e., sequential analysis) and a ddressing lower intensit y behaviors that are part of the same response class. This may allow researchers to gather knowledge about the functions of high intensity behaviors without eliciting and/or reinforcing the dangerous behaviors. Evaluating the functional analyses data within this study al so indicates that limitations existed with the internal validity of these functional analyses. For three of the

PAGE 142

131 four participants, Ramon, Jimmy and Greg, th ere was overlap with a number of the data points including the condition that was conclu ded to be the function of the challenging behavior. This variab ility makes the functional analys es conclusions less persuasive. Gathering more data could have counteracted the variability for these three participants and made the functional analyses results more ro bust. This lack of a clear and stable trend in the data may be related to conducting th e functional analyses in the classroom and having the teachers play a primary role in conducting the functional analyses. Conducting additional functional analysis sessions and gathering more data was difficult due to logistical constraints. Finally, although the functional analyses we re conducted in natural settings with the teacher implementing the conditions, these conditions were still contrived and subject to researcher influence. In order to ma intain procedural integrity, the principal investigator guided the teacher through a ll conditions using prompts and cues. The principal investigator then code d the data and visually analyz ed the data to determine the function of the challenging behavior based on it This pronounced researcher influence is similar to the studies discussed in the second section of the literatur e review in chapter two. As the teachers also stated in the social validity interview, in some cases, the children appeared to habitu ate to the conditions and may have been active in manipulating the contingencies. For exampl e, after Ramon had received contingent attention for his challenging behavior several times in the attention condition, he would engage in a challenging behavi or, and repeat the teachers ve rbal prompt in unison with her (i.e., “Stop doing that…”) or at other times during the functional analysis conditions. While the data in this study do not reflect if the participants were deliberately

PAGE 143

132 manipulating the contingencies, it is a worthwhile consider ation, as functional analyses with populations other than developmental di sabilities is still not supported by a robust research base (Ervin et al ., 2001; Gresham, 2003: Sasso et al., 2001). Thus, researcher influence, high demand of time and personnel, and contrived settings continue to be problematic in assessing the implementation of functional analyses in natural settings (see Ervin et al., 2001 for a review). Fourth, although the strength of the design of this study wa s to use different people to conduct different parts of the assessment; th is may have contribute d to the variability in the data. Using different respondents a nd data collectors (res earch assistants and teachers) was necessary to both maintain separation of the findings between the instruments and explore the efficacy of teacher-implemented functional analysis. However, the use of these different people also poses the possibility of introducing variability into the conclusions for the vari ous assessments especi ally in the case of interviews. As different individuals complete the assessments, the differences may be a result of the person completing the assessmen t, as opposed to the assessment itself. An ancillary consideration is th e use of trained graduate students, in conducting the ABCs and concluding hypothetical functions based on the FAI responses. This also limits the external validity when considering the appl ication of FBA in early childhood settings. It is feasible that educators w ith less expertise and training are typically responsible for completing and interpreting these descriptiv e assessments; thus, the findings may differ based on level of experience (Conroy, Clark, Gable & Fox, 1999; Shellady & Stichter, 1999). It is also feasible that educators ma y have more expertise than the research assistants. The personnel completing the FBAs (i.e., behavior s upport team, classroom

PAGE 144

133 teachers, behavior specialists, school counselors) is idiosyncratic to different educational settings and thus far little empirical research has been conducted on the effects of these staffing decisions (Scott, McInty re, Liaupsin, Nelson & Conroy, 2004). Fifth, evaluating only the primary function according to these assessments does not provide information regarding other aspects of the functional assessment process that may influence function, such as antecedent or setting events. For example, the FAI also gives information on specific antecedents or setting events, like medical or communication problems that may contribute to the occurrence of ch allenging behavior. Similarly, the MAS provides a rank order of hypot hetical functions that may be valuable; thus, indicating that behaviors may be maintained by multiple functions. By only focusing on a single, primary function determ ined by each assessment, the overall value of the assessment method is underestimated. Although this is a limitation, there were two reasons for focusing only on the primary func tion determined by each assessment. First, for clarity these other functions were disregarded in order to calculate agreements or disagreements between assessment methods. This is unlike previous research identified (Calloway & Simpson, 1998; Cunningham & O’ Neill, 2000; Murdock et al., 2005) that used either a rank order or matched pr imary and secondary functions. Second, in response to calls for a more efficient, e ffective FBA methodology that translates to efficient and effective behavioral intervention plans in educational settings, addressing multiple functions in a multi-component behavi or intervention plan may not be feasible. Evaluating multiple functions within a behavior intervention plan for multiple children may be unrealistic (Johnston & O’Neill, 2001; Sasso et al., 2001; Scott et al., 2004).

PAGE 145

134 Sixth, another limitation that may have contributed to the variability in the data are the broad definitions of the target behavior s for each participant. Specifically, these behaviors, defined under the term ‘challengi ng behaviors,’ addresse d a wide range of actions across multiple topographies. Although these broad definitions are similar to those used in other studies (Murdock, et al., 2005; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004; Sasso, et al., 1992), this does suggest a w eakness within the overall rese arch literature. By defining behaviors more narrowly, the individual func tions of specific challenging behaviors may be determined more accurately. The dr awback to narrowly defining challenging behaviors is the possibility of low rates of occurrence of the behavior making the determination of the function more difficult. Seventh, in regard to the social validity measures, the lack of anonymity for teachers completing the questionnaire and interview may have impacted their answers. Within this methodology, teachers completed the questionnaire and interview in a faceto-face meeting with the principal investigat or. Because teachers may have felt pressure to answer questions in a specific way (i.e. sa ying that the functional analysis procedures were not invasive), their respons es may not be representative of their actual perceptions. In the future, these questionnaires and interv iew sheets could be completed and returned anonymously, and this may give teachers gr eater comfort in discussing their true perceptions of the FBA process. Eighth, because no intervention phase was initiated within this study, it is impossible to determine if any of the result s would translate to effective function-based interventions for the students. Because the end goal of all FBA methodologies is to develop effective function-based interventions, th is study only represents an initial step in

PAGE 146

135 FBA research. Future research must focu s on the impact of conducting accurate FBAs and then using them in effective function-based interventions. It is vi tal that functions can be accurately identified, but these results then must be translated to viable function-based interventions that can be implemented in wi despread applications in natural settings. Interpretations of Results Comparison of Descriptive Assessments One interesting outcome of the current st udy is that the overall low levels of agreement between descriptive assessments disagree with other studies that have conducted comparisons between descriptiv e assessments (Arndorfer et al., 1994; Cunningham & O’Neill, 2000; Ellingson et al., 2000; Murdock et al., 2005; Newcomer and Lewis, 2004). For example, Murdock et al. (2005) reported a higher level of agreements across all three descriptive assessment met hods and a higher level of agreement between teacher in terviews and direct observa tions. The current study only reported agreement between the FAI and the ABC for 1/4 (25%) participants. However, this discrepancy may be a result of compar ing different instruments across studies. Two studies (Cunningham & O’Neill, 2000; Mur dock et al., 2005) used the Functional Assessment Observation Form (FAOF) (O’N eill et al., 1997) as opposed to the ABC form for direct descriptive observations. Other studies used questionnaires created explicitly for that study or simply asked t eachers to name what they believed was the function of the target behavior (Cunningha m & O’Neill, 2000; Ellingson et al., 2000). There are two other studies that used the Motivation Assessment Scale and then compared the results with other descriptiv e assessments. Compared with this study’s results of 3/8 (38%) agreements, Cunningham and O’Neill (2000) used the MAS and agreed with other descriptive assessments for 8/9 (88%) opportunities. Arndorfer et al.

PAGE 147

136 (1994) also used the MAS and had 4/10 (40% ) agreements. Arndorfer et al., (1994) does point out that elevations on se veral subscales made the MAS difficult to interpret and that it was the secondary functions identified by the MAS that ha d high levels of agreement with other descriptive assessmen ts. However, while these results are divergent from this study, this study is similar to st udies that tested the reliabil ity of the MAS using a testretest format (Conroy, Fox, Bucklin & G ood, 1996; Sigafoos, Kerr & Roberts, 1994; Zarcone et al., 1991) or compared reliab ility with other instruments and analog assessment with individuals demonstrating self-injurious or st ereotypic behaviors (Crawford et al., 1992; Paclaw skyj et al., 2001). One possibl e explanation for the lower levels of agreement with this study may be related to the amount of independence between assessments that is maintained by having different personnel conducting the assessments and keeping the results of the assessment separate from each other. In evaluating the aforementioned studies, the greater the separation of completing the assessments, the lower the agreement between measures. Four other studies compared the FAI’s re sults with other descriptive assessments (Arndorfer et al., 1994; Cunningham & O’Neill 2000; Murdock et al., 2005; Newcomer and Lewis, 2004). All four studies had higher le vels of agreement when compared to this study. No studies to date have evaluated the te st-retest reliability or stability of the FAI (Floyd et al., 2005) although one study compar ed teacher and student FAI responses and found a high level of agreement between teac her and student responders (Reed, Thomas, Sprague & Horner, 1997). One consideration regarding the lower level of agreement on the FAI is the role of respons e bias for the interviews, and the fact that the responder may be answering with only partial or incomplete knowledge (i.e., only considering specific

PAGE 148

137 antecedents or unaware of antecedents that are shaping behavioral functions) (Gresham, et al., 2001). For example, for Anthony, whos e FAI indicated escape as the maintaining consequence, the majority of the teacher responses centered on occurrences of the challenging behavior during Circle Time, a large group, passive activity. According to the transcript, the teacher did not discuss occurrences of the behavior across other contexts. This shortcoming of indirect asse ssments has been comprehensively discussed in the literature (Gresham, 2003; Johnst on & O’Neill, 2001; Johnston & Pennypacker, 1993; Sasso, Peck, & Garrison-Harrell, 1998). An other consideration is that the way the data is summarized does not lend itself to summarizing a function a nd that the structure of the summary of information is prohibiti ve to concluding a primary function. This suggests that restructuring the interview form to be more direct in concluding a primary function may be a way to access this information more conclusively. Five other studies used direct observati ons and compared them to other indirect descriptive assessments (Ar ndorfer et al., 1994; Cunningham & O’Neill, 2000; Ellingson et al., 2000; Murdock et al., 2005; Newcomer a nd Lewis, 2004). All five studies reported higher levels of agreement with the direct a nd indirect descriptive observations. Again, a possible explanation for higher rates of agreement across desc riptive measures in other studies is the same lack of independence between assessment procedures and results making a confluence of results more feasib le. For example, for Newcomer and Lewis (2004) and Murdock et al. (2005) the first author conducted th e teacher interview and the direct observations generating hypothetical func tions based on each of these assessments. This makes it possible that the results of the first assessment informed the results of the second assessment. Additionally, in studies that used the FAOF (Cunningham & O’Neill,

PAGE 149

138 2000; Murdock et al., 2005), by virtue of the FAOF procedure, the variables considered in the FAOF are directly informed by re sponses from the FAI. In the FAOF, O’Neill indicates in two items “… Lists behaviors to be monitored” and “… List any additional possible functions of behavior, if necessary, in the Perceived Functions section” (O’Neill et al., 1997, p. 40). For studies th at used the FAOF, all of this information is gathered from the FAI that was previously conducted. These results could reflect the inconsistent findings across commonly used descriptive as sessments in this study. The next section compares these same outcomes with functions verified through e xperimental functional analyses. This examination helped to dete rmine the accuracy or construct validity of descriptive assessment methods. Comparison of Descriptive Assess ments with Functional Analyses The overall agreement between the desc riptive assessments and the functional analysis was 7/12 (56%) agreements, but ther e was a clear difference between the number of agreements for direct and indirect assessments. The direct descriptive observations (ABC) agreed with the functional analysis conclusions for all 4/4 (100%) of the participants and the indirect descriptive a ssessments were only in agreement 3/8 (38%) times. This finding means that the two most pr evalent indirect descriptive assessments in research studies, the MAS and the FAI (F loyd et al., 2005), onl y agreed with the functional analysis results, 2/4 (50%) times and 1/4 (25%) times respectively. This low level of agreement for the indirect assessmen ts may be an important factor in guiding future research and practice and supports Sc ott et al.’s (2004) stat ement that “we have little or no evidence that altern ative methods such as interv iew, questionnaire or rating scales protocols can be va lid stand-alone methods of behavior analysis” (p.197).

PAGE 150

139 A comparison of levels of agreement betw een indirect descrip tive assessments and functional analyses indicates that the indirect descriptive assessments were lower in this study than in previous res earch that has compared de scriptive assessments with functional analysis results (Arndorfe r et al., 1994; Cunningham & O’Neill, 2000; Newcomer and Lewis, 2004; Yarbrough & Carr, 2000). However, Calloway and Simpson (1998) had similarly low levels of agreement when they compared teacher interviews to functional analysis procedures. Again, this disparity between the aforementioned studies and this study may primarily be due to the use of the descriptive assessment results in previous research to guide the functional analysis conditions. In these studies, the conditions in the functional analysis were in some way informed by all descriptive assessments, often serving as confirmation, as opposed to independe ntly arriving at the function of the challenging behavior. For example, in Newcomer and Lewis (2004) hypothesis statements regarding antecedents fo r the challenging behavior were developed using descriptive assessments, then the expe rimental analysis cons isted of a reversal design, with and without the hypothesized an tecedents. Higher ra tes of challenging behavior in the antecedent condition conf irmed the descriptive assessments. Other possibilities for the low level of agreement be tween indirect descriptive assessments and the functional analyses relate to issues di scussed in the limitations section, that is, teachers’ memories and biases of behavior in different settings (Shores, et al., 1999) and the limited knowledge regarding the effects of conducting functional analyses in natural settings with children with high incide nce disabilities (Ervin et al. 2001). The high level of agreement for the direct observations and the functional analysis is similar to the other studies that compar ed naturalistic dire ct observations with

PAGE 151

140 functional analyses (Arndorfer et al., 1994; Ellingson et al ., 2000; Murdock et al., 2005; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004 Sasso et al., 1992). Ho wever, the higher level of agreement in this study is more compelling considering the independence of assessments that was maintained between the ABC assessment and the functional analysis. For example, in Sasso et al. (1992) the direct observation assessment (ABC worksheet) was completed during specific activities that were similar to the conditions of the functional analysis conditions (i.e., presentation of a difficult ta sk). Thus, the ABC was designed to mimic functional analysis conditions making an i ndependent agreement be tween their results less compelling (Lerman & Iwata, 1993). The high level of agreement between the ABC and the FA for this study may be related to the overall higher levels of obser ved target behaviors and consequences that were concluded to be the function of the ta rget behavior. A review of the ABC direct observations indicates that for all 4 participants, the target behavior occurred between 1025 times, and the consequence of the behavior that was concluded to be the hypothetical function occurred an average of 14.8 times across the eight 15-minute observation periods. This high rate of observed behavior is related to the type of high frequency challenging behaviors that were addressed concurrently fo r each child (e.g. yelling, asking three questions in a 10-second interv al, leaving the assigned area). Addressing these types of behaviors may not be applicable for all children and certainly not for the low frequency, high intensity behaviors that often require an FBA according to federal mandates (Gresham, 2003). As Scott et al. ( 2004) point out, a behavi or that happens one time for a 1-minute interval per day requires 3.5 hours of observation time to have a 50% chance of observing the behavior. Thus, increa sing the efficiency and effectiveness of

PAGE 152

141 direct observation is an important considerati on for future research. To this end, a scatter plot could be used in conjunction with other direct descriptive asse ssments to make them more effective (Symons, et al., 1998). There are two final considerations in rega rd to the overall cont ribution this study’s results make to the research literature. The firs t consideration is the issue of the age of the participants. The use of FBA with young children, 8 years and younger, continues to garner researchers’ attention as demonstrated in the first two sections of the literature review. However, only two studies in th e third section (Calloway & Simpson, 1998; Cunningham & O’Neill, 2000) specifically focused on young children in their investigations. An evaluation of these three studies does not indicate that the methodology of FBAs with young children func tions any differently than the other studies in this direct evalua tion section. However, comparis ons across studies are difficult due to very different descriptive methodologies The results of this study add to this body of literature, but certainly more focus on FBA methodologies with young children in varying settings (i.e., preschool ve rsus kindergarten) is necessary. The second consideration in re gard to these results is th e issue of efficiency in conducting FBAs and the use of different met hodologies in light of this consideration. The results of this study s uggest that more efficient me thodologies may not lead to accurate results in terms of eith er concurrent or construct validity. Rather, in this study a negative relationship appears to exist between ef ficiency and valid resultsthe greater the efficiency (i.e., the MAS and FAI) the less valid the results. This consideration is elaborated further in the implications for practice section. Another important and related consideration is the social va lidity of this study. The social validity results measured the

PAGE 153

142 overall acceptability of the FBA process and its components, and the perceived value of their outcomes and are discu ssed in the next section. Social Validity Social validity of FBA processes an d outcomes remains an under-investigated aspect of the research literature (Ervin et al. 2001; Floyd et al ., 2005; Gresham, 2003). The social validity interview and questionnaire results in this study in dicated that teachers understood the principles of f unctional behavior assessment and found the training to be helpful. The measures also determined that the teachers found the de scriptive assessments helpful and minimally invasive. These social va lidity results are similar to those found in the studies that conducted dire ct evaluations (Murdock et al., 2005; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004; Sasso et al., 1992). The respondents indicated th at the functional analysis was more invasive and too contrived to be worthwhile. The ABC dire ct observations cond ucted by an outside observer (i.e., research assistan t) were judged to be the most valuable and acceptable way of determining the function of challenging behaviors. However, the sentiment expressed most frequently was that, in regard to these students’ problematic behaviors, the respondents were willing to take extensive m easures to reduce the behaviors. One final aspect that is worth noting is that Alison, th e only participant teacher in a public school with multiple grades, had corresponding scores to the teachers in the universitysponsored setting. This finding is encourag ing because unlike a university sponsored early childcare facility, equivale nt social validity scores and interview responses suggest that these procedures could be used in more widespread ap plications in public schools. An area of future research will be to evaluate what effect withdrawing researcher influence, thereby putting the onus of assessment and implementation on school

PAGE 154

143 personnel, would have on perceptions of the FBA process and outcomes. There are a number of other important areas of future re search that can extend the findings of this study to continue to improve FBA processes and outcomes. Future Research Clearly, this study is only a beginning. Future research base d on comparisons of descriptive assessments with each other and with a functional analysis is necessary. Additionally, continuing to hone the methodology of functional analysis in more natural settings with increased teacher participati on will be another important extension of the existing research base. There are four areas of future research that could extend the results of this study and conti nue to evaluate the effectiven ess and efficiency of the FBA process in its widespread application within school settings. The four areas that will be discussed in this section are: (a) replicati ng this study to increase the total number of participants across sites and then systema tically manipulating ot her variables, (b) evaluating the characteristics of the direct descriptive observations (ABC), (c) linking results of different methodologi es to function-based interven tions, (d) refining functional analysis methodology by reducing researcher in fluence and measuring the effects of the process over time. As mentioned in the limitations section, a replication of this study is important to increase internal and external validity. Th e replication would add child and teacher participants making the results more robust. Because this study drew 75% of its sample from an early childhood center and 25% from a public school, it will be important to extend this study both within other early ch ildhood centers and in public schools. The replication could also use diffe rent types of schools, grade le vels, and classroom types to conduct the indirect and direct descriptive assessments and functional analyses. Also by

PAGE 155

144 having different individuals complete th e direct observations (i.e. teachers, paraprofessionals) this modifi cation could help determine if the high level of agreement between the ABC and the functional analyses was a result of this specific instrumentation’s value or the result of an experienced, graduate-level trained researcher accurately identifying behavior functions. Th ese observations could be compared with the functional analyses and the level of agr eement could be compared with the current study. There are other variables that could be manipulated after c onducting replications across sites that add participants and contro l for the impact of specific personnel. The replication could also use more public school settings with more school staff involvement to determine the influence of conducting resear ch outside a university sponsored setting. This includes continuing examination of staffi ng responsibilities and teacher training. As indicated in Scott et al., (2004b) additional research into the role of collaborative teams is necessary as their value in producing reliable and valid FB As has not been established. The next step in replicating this study would be to systematically modify what descriptive assessments could be incorporated into the de scriptive assessment phase of the study including asking teachers what they be lieve the function is in more systematic ways (Calloway & Simpson, 1998; Cunningha m & O’Neill, 2001; Yarbrough & Carr, 2000) or other descriptive assessments that ma y be in use in school settings. A scatter plot may be an important tool to use in fu ture research. A scatter plot is a direct observational tool that tracks the occurrence of behaviors according to times of day and/ or activities (Touchette, MacDonald, & Lange r, 1985). While it doe s not arrive at a hypothetical function, and therefor e was inappropriate for use in this study, it could be used in conjunction with other descriptive assessments to make them more effective

PAGE 156

145 (Symons, McDonald & Wehby, 1998). This future research would be a way to build on the apparent value of direct observation methodologies that th is study’s results indicate. Additionally, measuring the effects of levels of training in FBA methodology will be an important area of future research (Cone, 1997; Ervin et al., 2001). In consideration of evaluating different descriptive assessments, although the MAS and the FAI represent th e most widely used indirect desc riptive assessments (Floyd et al., 2005), educational settings may still employ a wide range of commercial instruments. This necessitates continuous empirical comparisons and validation as these instruments may have varying degrees of accuracy. This is relevant in consideration of the indirect descriptive assessment, the Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ) that was ultimately excluded from these comparisons. While the discordant scoring taxonomy (i.e., no tangible or sensory options as possible functions) made one-to-one comparisons impossible for this study, specific practical co nsiderations also exis t. Individuals using the PBQ would be unable to assess if access to tangible items or sensory reinforcement served as the function of th e problem behavior. Both of these conditions have been empirically validated as possible functions of children’s challenging behavior (Carr, 1977; Iwata et al., 1990; Repp & Munk, 1999). The next extension of this study is th e continued examination of the direct observation instrument (ABC). Building on its high level of agreement with the functional analyses in this study, future resear ch could focus on what attributes make this method effective and what modifications can be done to make it more efficient. The research assistant conducted eight 15-minute observations se ssions, for a total of two hours. Future research should determine what the effect of systematically reducing the

PAGE 157

146 total amount of time of th e observations has on the accu racy of the assessment procedures. This is important because in th e widespread application of FBA, assessment methods have to be as efficient as possibl e (Scott et al., 2004). Another extension of future research could examine the impact of lower rates of behavior and consequences on the overall accuracy of the assessment met hod. Finally, future research should further explore what other factors impact the high le vel of agreement between direct descriptive observations and the functional analysis outcomes including usi ng different direct observation instruments (i.e., the Functi onal Analysis Observation Form) (FAOF) (O’Neill et al., 1997). Another extension of this research would be to examine the link between these assessment results and function-based interventi ons. Future research should examine how well these results translate into practical inte rventions in school se ttings. This research should monitor what effects focusing on pr imary functions have on reducing overall challenging behavior. It will also help determin e if the different assessment results could translate to different interventions across cont exts. In other words, if the FAI indicated that in specific settings (i.e., Circle Time ), challenging behavior is escape-maintained, could a different intervention be implemented in that setting as opposed to other settings where behavior is maintained by attention? This future area of research could focus on a decision-making system, (i.e., a flow chart or decision-making tree) that evaluates the comprehensive results of the assessment and li nks these results with empirically tested components of behavior intervention plans. Th ese interventions coul d then be evaluated for overall effectiveness, durability and social validity.

PAGE 158

147 Because functional analysis represents the “gold standard” for determining the function of challenging behavior it is vital to continue to make this procedure more amenable to school personnel in natural settin gs (Sasso et al., 2001). Although this study conducted functional analyses in natural sett ings with teachers acting as therapists, procedural integrity necessitated pronounced re searcher influence. Future research should focus on increasing the number of setti ngs that these assessments occur in, documentation of specific antecedents and setting events, and a greater degree of experimental control of settings and ant ecedents while measuring their impact on the consistency of assessments by different instru ments. Additionally, future research should focus on the process of training teachers to cond uct functional analyses in natural settings with students with high incidence disabilities or at risk for the development of behavioral disorders. Researchers should also monitor pr ocedural integrity, bu t not directly conduct the conditions. Measures of social validity should be used to monitor teachers’ perceptions of the process. Finally, probes could be used to evaluate the durability of this methodology within school settings and analys es of rates of challenging behavior and desired behaviors could determine the overall effect of functional analyses in school settings. Implications for Practice There are a number of impli cations of the result of th is study in terms of the application of FBA in schools and early chil dhood centers. First, as mentioned in the limitations section, because th ese assessment measures produce more information than just a primary function (e.g. setting events, secondary functions, and so forth), their practical applications exte nd beyond primary functions for schools. The main goal of school personnel using FBA methodology s hould be to produce a comprehensive

PAGE 159

148 behavior intervention plan (BIP), thus, ot her information from these assessments is relevant. However, this study indicates that if educators were to use multiple methods to evaluate function, these multiple methods coul d produce conflicting results. This could have a variety of effects. For example, educators could discard the results of one assessment over another. School personnel could attempt to formulate more complex intervention plans based on multiple functions across different contexts. Finally, school personnel could discard the lack of consistency across measures as indicative of a lack of validity and discount the w hole process entirely as being nothing more than a meaningless, bureaucratic chore. In this inst ance, it is reasonable to assume that schools may choose to use the most efficient a ssessment methods, (i.e., questionnaires and interview forms), in order to satisfy legal or school policy reform mandates (Sasso et al., 2001; Scott et al., 2004). Base d on the current study, the e nd result of this possible implication is more conflicting results becau se the more efficient methods, namely the questionnaire and interview, were more in consistent than the more time-intensive methods, namely the direct descriptive observations. Considering this possible implication in terms of the comparisons with the functional analysis results indicates lower levels of accurately determined functi ons; thus continuing th e potential cycle of FBA worthlessness. This is regrettable as co rrectly matching behavior al interventions to behavioral function is still viewed as the most promisi ng method for decreasing undesired behaviors (Iwata et al., 1 982/1994; Gresham, 2003; O’Neil l et al., 1997; Sasso et al., 2001) The results of the comparisons between descriptive assessment outcomes and the functional analysis indicate that their use of indirect descriptive assessments to determine

PAGE 160

149 the primary function of challenging behavior may be imprudent. Because the indirect descriptive assessments were only accurate 5/12 (42%) of the time, educators would be more likely to determine the incorrect functi on than the correct function when using any single indirect desc riptive assessment. However, this study also underscores the importance of direct descriptive obser vations. Because the ABC had 4/4 (100%) agreements with the functional analysis results, consistently integrating direct descriptive assessments into FBA protocols appe ars to be a recommended practice. In regard to the use of functional analys is in natural setti ngs, this study further demonstrated the difficulty of balancing st rong internal validity, the hallmark of functional analysis (Sasso et al., 1992), and strong external validity, the generalizability of this methodology in applied settings. In this study, strong internal validity required continuous researcher involveme nt throughout the functional analysis process. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that these procedures could be effectively implemented in applied settings without researcher support or more exte nsive teacher training. However, this study did extend the existing FA literature by conducting the functional anal ysis in the classroom settings (unlike the majority of previous studies that conducted functional analyses in separate rooms away from the cl assroom). Of the eight studies that directly compared descriptive assessments with functional analysis, only Sasso et al. (1992) used the classroom setting to conduc t the functional analyses. Finally, there are three suggestions for indi viduals who are faced with continuing to produce FBAs, but want to increase the validity of the process. First, using direct observation methods, particular ly ABC forms for high inci dence behaviors may be a valuable way to increase the validity of the assessment. These ABC forms may be

PAGE 161

150 supplemented with the use of other direct observation methodologies (i.e., scatter plots). Second, educators should use caution with indire ct measures and use them in conjunction with these direct observation methods to eval uate antecedents and other possibly relevant information. Third, the use of functional anal ysis, or other experimental analysis, in widespread application does not appear advisable based on existing research. The limitations, technical demand and cost-benefit ratio do not support widespread use of this methodology at this time. Summary This study extends the continued investig ation of reliability and validity of the descriptive components of th e FBA process. By maintaining separation between the descriptive components, counter balancing their order, and conducting functional analyses within the classroom setting, the purpose of this inves tigation was to individually compare the results of three commonly used descriptive assessment methods with each other to determine reliability and with a functional analysis to determine construct validity. Descriptive assessmen ts including one checklist, a direct observation and an interview were completed for four young children. Teachers and researchers then completed functional analyses within the cla ssroom setting of the same participants. All results of the assessments were kept separa te from each other until completion. Teachers also completed a social validity questionnaire and interview. This study indicated that descriptive a ssessments had low consistency with each other, 12/36 (33%) agreements, and that the interview and checklist also had low agreement with the functional analyses with 3/8 (38%) agreements. However, the direct descriptive observations agreed with the functional analys es conclusions for all 4/4 (100%) of the participants. Results from social validity measures indicated that teachers

PAGE 162

151 felt methods of assessment were helpful, mini mally disruptive, and results would impact their behavioral interventi ons. The results va lidate direct desc riptive observation assessment methods and extend the literature by examining the use of functional analyses conducted within natural settings.

PAGE 163

152 APPENDIX A APPROVED IRB FORMS AND PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT FORMS University of Florida Institutional Review Board 1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL: Improving Functional Behavior Assessments: Comparing Descriptive Methodologies w ith Functional Analysis 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(s): Peter Alter, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Special Education, P.O. Box 117050, G-315 Norman Hall, Gainesville, Florida 326117050, 392-0701 3. SUPERVISOR (IF PI IS STUDENT): Maureen Conroy, Associate Professor Department of Special Education, P.O. Box 117050, G-315 Norman Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7050, 392-0701, mconroy@coe.ufl.edu 4. DATES OF PROPOSED PROTOCOL: From 12/01/05 to 12/01/06 5. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL: Unfunded 6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION: The purpose of this investigation is to examin ethe Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) process by comparing four commonly used descriptiv e assessment results with each other to determine consistency and with a functional an alysis to determine construct validity. 7. DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY IN NON-TECHNICAL LANGUAGE Each participating teacher will nomi nate a child in his/her classroom who is exhibiting problem behavior s that interfere with their ability to learn. Descriptive assessments: Problem Behavior Questionnaire, Motivation Assessment Scale, Functional Assessment Interview and an Antecedent, Be havior, Consequence direct observation sheet (see attached examples) will be comple ted for four young children (ages 3-6) by the researcher with information supplied by the primary teacher as part of a functional behavior assessment. Researchers will then complete functional analyses of the same participants. The results of these two types of assessments will be compared to determine the validity of descriptive assessment methods. The children will be incl uded if they meet the following criteria: Children are between the ages of 3 and 6 years old. They are currently enrolled in a Day Ca re Center, Pre-kinderg arten, Kindergarten, or First Grade class (general education or special education) in north-central Florida.

PAGE 164

153 They have been identifie d through teacher nominations in that teachers have reported that these children are having probl em behaviors that ar e interfering with their learning and this problem warrants an FBA. A Total Problem Score of no less then 60 on the Child Behavior Checklist Teacher Reporting Form (CBCL-TRF) (Achenbach, 1992) Students will not be classified mentally retarded as determined by a cumulative file review. Consistent attendance at school, defined as 80% attendance or 4 out of 5 days, must be documented either thr ough school or teacher records. Recruitment of child and teacher participants will occur by approaching schools that are already participating in a Positive Be havior Support (PBS) program, which describes functional behavior assessment as a cornerstone to its program. The initial contact will be made to the principal or childcare director of the PBS school. Principals or childcare directors will be asked to recommend teachers who teach children with problem behaviors that necessitate a functional be havior assessment. Teachers will then be approached to participate in this research study. After teach ers sign teacher participation consent forms, they will make initial contact with parents/ caregivers about participating in this research study. If parent s/ caregivers would like to have their child to participate, then the teacher will contact the researcher. The researcher will then contact the parent and gain the necessary consent for th e child’s particip ation in the study. After recruitment of four teacher and stude nt participant dyads has been completed, there are three phases of this investigation. In the first pha se, pre-assessment procedures will be conducted. Participating teachers will be asked to attend a one-hour training session that will include explanations of ope rational definitions of problem behavior, functions of behavior, Functional Behavior Assessment, functional analysis and the descriptive assessment instruments that will be used. The teacher will be asked to identify and operationally define the most fre quently occurring, problematic behavior demonstrated by the child, identify times or activ ities this behavior is likely to occur, and to identify a preferred classroom toy for the tangible condi tion of the functional analysis and a task that can be completed with an 85% success rate for the es cape condition of the functional analysis. Additionally, the invest igator will conduct a review of pertinent school records to determine consistent at tendance and average cognitive ability. The second phase of the procedure will cons ist of the completion of the descriptive assessments. The teacher will be asked to fill out the Problem Behavior Questionnaire, the Motivation Assessment Scale. A trained gr aduate assistant will interview teachers using the Functional Assessment Interview. Th e principal investigator will then conduct eight fifteen-minute direct observations of the student, during those times when problem behaviors are most likely to occur, in or der to complete the Antecedent-BehaviorConsequence instrument. In the third phase the principal investigator will conduct a functional analysis for each participating child. In this phase, we will manipulate five specific types of situations that may be maintaining the problem behavior in the classroom environment (1) attention (2) esca pe (3) tangible (4) alone (5) free play (control). During phase three, data will be collected using a real time, continuous recording system that calculates the frequenc y and duration of the problem behavior and the condition in which that behavior occurred and translates this data into rate of behavior per session. The condition in which the problem behavior occurs most frequently will be

PAGE 165

154 determined to be the primary function of the problem behavior. For both the direct descriptive observations and the functional analysis, obser vations will occur in the classroom during naturally occurring activities and the researchers will not identify to the class the target child included in the obser vation. Once all of the phases have been completed the different assessments will be compared for agreement or disagreement, and findings will be used for the princi pal investigator’s doctoral dissertation. 8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AN D ANTICIPATED RISK: The goal of this study is to improve the efficacy of the Functional Behavior Assessment process by evaluating frequently used descriptive assessments for consistency and validity. There are no anticipated risks. Teachers will be instru cted to address problem behaviors through typical classroom intervention procedures. In the unlikely event that any type of the assessment procedures is judged to be elic iting excessive occurre nces of the problem behavior then the session will be terminated and teachers will be asked to respond to the target child’s problem behaviors usi ng their typical classroom practices. 9. DESCRIBE HOW PARTICIPANT (S) WILL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER AND AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, A ND PROPOSED COMPENSATION (if any): Four teacher participants will be appro ached by the principal investigator via the school principal and will be given an explan ation of the investigation. The teachers will then be asked to nominate students whose pr oblem behavior is interfering with their learning. After the student participants have b een identified, the participants’ family will first be approached through th e teacher, if the parents/ caregiver is interested in participating, then the teacher will contact the principal investigator and the principal investigator will then meet w ith the parents/ caregiver to describe the study and obtain consent for participation A total number of 4 students will be sele cted and the ages of the participants will range from 3-6 years old. A $25 dollar gift card will be provided for all teacher and student particip ants who complete the project. 10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS. INCLUDE A COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT (if applicable). See Attached. Please use attachments sparingly. __________________________ Principal Investigator's Signature _________________________ Supervisor's Signature I approve this protocol for submission to the UFIRB:

PAGE 166

155 ____________________________ Dept. Chair/Center Director Date

PAGE 167

156 University of Florida Department of Sp ecial Education P.O. Box 117050/G-315 Norman Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611-7050 Caregiver/ Parent Form Consent Form for Improving Functional Behavior Assessments: Comparing Descriptive Assessment Methodologies with Func tional Analysis for Young Children The research study described below is being co nducted by University of Florida graduate students/staff under the supervision of Dr. Ma ureen Conroy (Associate Professor, Special Education Department). The purpose of this st udy is to evaluate different descriptive assessments that are frequently used in the completion of a Functional Behavior Assessment by comparing the resu lts of the different assessm ents with each other and with a functional analysis. Your child’s teacher has indicated that you may be interested in having your child participate in this study. If you agree to have your child participate in the study, all three phases described below will be conducted in your child’s typical classroom settings, which for your child may be the childcare cent er, preschool, or clas sroom during typical activities (recess, lunch, free time, center time) Your child’s typical routine will not be disrupted and your child will not be removed from their classroom at any time during the study. The research study will be implemente d according to phases (as described below). Phase 1: The first phase consists of pr e-assessment procedures. We will review your child’s cumulative school record to obt ain additional demographic information for research. We will conduct an interview with your child’s teacher/ early childcare provider to determine what behavior is most problem atic and is interfering with your child’s learning. In addition, we will ask your child’s teacher what toys and activities your child prefers and what toys/activities/ or material s are difficult for your child. By identifying these materials, we can best assess your child’s behavior. Phase 2: The second phase consists of an inte rview, a direct observa tion process, and the completion or two behavior checklists w ith your child’s teacher or early childhood provider. We will conduct the interview and behavior checklists during times when the children are not in th e room, i.e., planning times, and directly observe your child in natural settings during typical activities. The interview and behavior checklists with the childcare provider/teacher will take approximately two hours and we will observe your child for approximately two hours. Your chil d will not be removed from the natural setting nor will his/her schedule be changed. Phase 3: The third phase involves an assessmen t technique called functional analysis. We will create five specific types of situations that may be maintaining your child’s behavior in the classroom environment (1) attention (2 ) escape (3) tangible (4 ) alone (5) free play. This will help us to determine the possibl e reason for your child’s behavior. In rare

PAGE 168

157 occasions, conducting functional analyses ma y increase your child’s behavior. Although this is highly unlikely, if your child’s beha vior or another child’s behavior becomes threatening or violent at anytime during th is assessment period, we will terminate the session immediately and the teacher will be asked to follow typical intervention procedures for that setting. We will also ask the teacher or early chil dhood provider to complete acceptability rating forms after all phases of assessment in order to give his/her opinion on how he/she viewed the use of these procedures. We will be videotaping the sessions in the third phase in your child’s classroom setting. This will be done to record the behaviors that occur during our sessions. These videotapes will be shown only under our direct ion to persons collecting and scoring the data, to you or the teacher or early childhood prov ider if), to students or other research at the University of Florida, and at professiona l presentations outside of the University for research or training purposes only. Dr. Conroy will strictly monitor the confidentiality of these videotapes. However, you should be aw are that the showing of these videotapes might result in others being able to re cognize your child/child’s teacher or early childhood provider. In addition, data on your ch ild’s participation will be used for training or as part of a publication, but your child’s name will not be used for data publication or presentation and records will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. As required by the Alachua County School Board, the final res earch report will be submitted to the Board for review (e.g., conferen ce abstract or research publication) and your child’s name will not be used. Each phase of the study will take approximate ly 2 weeks. Observations will take place approximately 2 to 3 days per week for approximately one hour each time. We will be providing some preliminary recommendations at the conclusion of the final phase of assessment. Participation or nonparticipation in this study will not affect your child’s placement in any educational programs. You and your child ha ve the right to wit hdraw consent at any time without consequence. There are no known risks for participati on in this study; however, your child may continue to demonstrate some of his/her existing challenging behaviors during the assessment phases of the study. These behavior s may be the same behaviors that your child has been demonstrating in the natural setting and the childcare provider/teacher may implement typical natural setting procedures if the behaviors occur. Possible benefits of participation include identific ation of current reasons fo r your child’s inappropriate behavior, improvement in your child’s social behavior, and your child’s teacher or early childhood provider. A one-time compensation in the form of a $25 gift card will be awarded to you upon completion of the study. For your information, if your child is injured during assessment or treatment and the investigator is at fault, the University of Florida Board of Trus tees, and the State of

PAGE 169

158 Florida shall be liable only as provided by law. Appropriate compensation for injury may be sought by contacting the Insurance Coordi nator at 107 Tigert Hall, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, Tel: (352) 392-1325. Questions or concerns about research participant’s rights may be directed to the University of Florida Institutional Review Board, Box 112250, the University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, Tel: (352) 392-0433. ************************************************************************ I have read the procedures described above for this project. I have re ceived a copy of this statement and I agree to allow my child to pa rticipate. I am free to ask questions or to express any concerns that I ha ve about the project. I am fr ee to withdraw consent at any time, and this will have no effect on other se rvices provided to my child. I understand that my child’s teacher or early childhood provider will sign a separate form. ___________________________________ ______________________________ Signature 2nd Caregiver/Witness ___________________________________ ______________________________ Date Date ___________________________________ Relationship to Participant I give consent for my child, ___________________________________ to be videotaped during sessions to serve as a re cord of his/her responses and fo r the purposes stated in this consent. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Signature 2nd Caregiver/Witness ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Date Date ___________________________________ Relationship to Participant ************************************************************************ Questions about this research project may be directed to: Dr. Maureen Conroy, (352) 392-0701 ext. 245.

PAGE 170

159 University of Florida Department of Sp ecial Education P.O. Box 117050/G-315 Norman Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611-7050 Teacher/ Early Childhood Care Provider Form Consent Form for Improving Functional Be havior Assessments: Comparing Descriptive Assessment Methodologies with Func tional Analysis for Young Children The research study listed below is being c onducted by University of Florida graduate students/staff under the supervision of Dr. Ma ureen Conroy (Associate Professor, Special Education Department). The purpose of this st udy is to evaluate different descriptive assessments that are frequently used in the completion of a Functional Behavior Assessment by comparing the resu lts of the different assessm ents with each other and with a functional analysis. This child’s parent will also need to provide consent for this child to participate in this research project. If you agree to participat e with this child in this projec t, all three phases described below will be conducted in your classroom (e.g., childcare center or preschool classroom) during typical activities (recess, lunch, fr ee time, center time) without removing or disrupting this child from his/her typical routine. Phase 1: The first phase consists of pre-as sessment procedures. We will ask you to attend a one-hour one-on-one training session to review basic principles of this study and complete a Child Behavior Checklist in regard to this student. We will review this child’s cumulative school record to obtain additional information for research (specifically—IEP or IFSP, cognitive assessment, medical, beha vior, and attendance information). We will schedule and conduct a intervie w with you, at your convenience, to determine what behavior is most problematic in interfering with learni ng, to determine when problem behaviors are most likely to occur, to es tablish a preferential toy for the tangible condition of the third phase, and determine an a ppropriate task for the escape condition of the third phase. Phase 2: The second phase consists of an inte rview, a direct observa tion process, and the completion or two behavior checklists w ith you. We will conduct the interview and behavior checklists during times that are convenient to you wh en the students are not in the room, i.e., planning times and directly observe your child in natural settings during typical activities. The interview and behavior checklists with you will take approximately two hours and we will observe the child for a pproximately two hours. The child will not be removed from the natural setting nor will his/her schedule be changed. Phase 3: The third phase involves an assessmen t technique called functional analysis. We will create five specific types of situations that may be maintaining the problem behavior in the classroom environment (1) attention (2 ) escape (3) tangible (4) alone (5) free play (control). This will be done in your classroom at times that you identify as problematic. This will help us to determine the possi ble reason for the child’s behavior. Although

PAGE 171

160 highly unlikely, if the child’s behavior or a nother child’s behavior becomes threatening or violent at anytime during this assess ment period, we will terminate the session immediately and you will be asked to follow t ypical intervention proce dures for that child and setting. These sessions will be videotap ed in order to determine when problem behaviors occur most frequently. Finally, we will also ask you to complete an acceptability rating form after all phases of assessment in order to give your opinion on how you viewed the use of these procedures in your classroom settings. We will be videotaping the sessions in the th ird phase in the classroom. This will be done to record the behaviors that occur during our sessions Th ese videotapes will be shown only under our direction to persons collecting an d scoring the data, to you or the parents if requested (e.g., as a training tape for treatment), to student s or other research at the University of Florida, and at professional presentations outside of the University for research or training purposes only. Dr. Conroy will strictly monitor the confidentiality of these videotapes. However, you should be aw are that the showing of these videotapes might result in others being ab le to recognize you. In additi on, data on the ta rget child’s participation will be used for training or as part of a publication, but the name will not be used for data publication or presentation and records will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. As required by th e Alachua County School Board, the final research report will be submitted to the Board for review (e.g., conference abstract or research publication) and your child’s name will not be used. Each phase of the study will take approximate ly 2 weeks. Observations will take place approximately 2 to 3 days per week for approximately one hour each time. Participation or nonparticipation in this study wi ll not affect the child ’s placement in any educational programs. You have the right to withdraw consent at any time without consequence. There are no known risks for pa rticipation in this study; how ever, the target child may continue to demonstrate some of his/her existing challenging during the assessment phases of the study. These behaviors may be th e same behaviors that the child has been demonstrating in the classroom and you shoul d implement typical procedures if the behaviors occur. Possible benefits of part icipation include identification of current reasons for the child’s inappropriate behavi or, and you will receive behavioral assessment and intervention training individualiz ed for the target child’s needs. Results of this study will be shared with you and at the end of the study. No information will be shared with anyone other than you and the parent unless you authorize this to occur. However, if the parent requests inform ation on the child’s progress in the project, this information will be provided wit hout additional consent from you. You cannot otherwise request the release of other data on this child without additional permission from the parent.

PAGE 172

161 For your information, if you are injured during as sessment and the investigator is at fault, the University of Florida Board of Trustees, and the State of Florid a shall be liable only as provided by law. Appropriate compensation for injury may be sought by contacting the Insurance Coordinator at 107 Tigert Hall, Un iversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, Tel: (352) 392-1325. Questions or concerns abou t this research participant’s rights may be directed to the University of Flor ida Institutional Revi ew Board, Box 112250, the University of Florida, Gain esville, FL 32611, Tel: (352) 392-0433. ************************************************************************ I have read the procedures described above for this project. I have re ceived a copy of this statement and I agree to particip ate in this project. I am free to ask questions or to express any concerns that I have about the project. I am free to wit hdraw consent at any time, and this will have no effect on other services pr ovided to this child. I understand that the child’s parent has signed a separate consent form. __________________________________ _____________________________________ Signature 2nd Early Childhood Provider/Witness __________________________________ ____________________________________ Date Date __________________________________ Relationship to Participant I understand that his child’s parent has given consent for __________________________ to be videotaped during sessions and to serve as a record of his/he r responses and for the purposes stated in this consent. I unders tand that established school guidelines for obtaining video consent for the classroom will be followed. __________________________________ __________________________________ Signature 2nd Early Childhood Provider/Witness __________________________________ __________________________________ Date Date __________________________________ Relationship to Participant ************************************************************************ Questions about this research project may be directed to: Dr. Maureen Conroy, (352) 392-0701 ext. 245.

PAGE 173

162 APPENDIX B FLOW CHART OF TEACHER AND CHILD PARTICIPANT RECRUITING PROCESS IF NO IF NO IF NO SCHOOL OR EARLY CHILDCARE CENTER RESEARCHER CONTACTS PARENTS FOR CONSENT FOR PARTICIPATION TEACHER CONTACTS RESEARCHER TO CONTACT PARENTS TEACHERS CONTACT PARENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH STUDY RESEARCHER CONTACTS PRINCIPAL/ CHILDCARE DIRECTOR TO RECOMMEND TEACHERS RESEARCHER CONTACTS TEACHER TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH STUDY CHILD PARTICIPANT SCREENING PROCESS TEACHER TRAINING

PAGE 174

163 APPENDIX C STUDENT PARTICIPANT CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST (CBCL) SCORES Student Total Scores and Pe rcentile for CBCL (1.5-5) Participants Emotionally Reactive Anxious/ Depressed Somatic Complaints WithdrawnSleep Problems Attention Problems Aggressive Behavior Ramon 15 >97 percentile 13 >97 percentile 3 79 percentile 7 >97 percentile 4 73 percentile 7 >97 percentile 32 >97 percentile Anthony 10 >97 percentile 7 95 percentile 1 <50 percentile 5 96 percentile 9 >97 percentile 5 89 percentile 33 >97 percentile Jimmy 4 90 percentile 2 62 percentile 0 <50 percentile 2 <50 percentile 0 >50 percentile 3 58 percentile 26 96 percentile Student Scores for CBCL (6-18) Participant Anxious/ Depressed Withdrawn Depressed Somatic Complaints Social Problems Thought Problems Attention Problems RuleBreaking Behavior Aggressive Behavior Greg 4 76 percentile 4 90 percentile 2 89 percentile 7 97 percentile 7 >97 percentile 31 93 percentile 6 95 percentile 32 >97 percentile

PAGE 175

164 APPENDIX D INSTRUMENTS Pre-experimental Assessment Checklist 1) Target behavior operationally defined ________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ 2) Preferred toy _________________________________________________________________ 3) Task that can be completed 30% of the time __________________________________________________________________ 4) Record Review Completed ________ 5) CBCL Score________________ 6) Times or Activities Problem Behavior Is Likely To Occur __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________

PAGE 176

165 APPENDIX E SOCIAL VALIDITY MEASURES Social Validity Questionnaire Teacher: _________________________________ Date: ________________________________ School/ Center: __________________________________ Age level of child: 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years (Circle one) Please complete the items below by circ ling the number under the question that best fits how you feel about th e assessment techniques conducted. How time-consuming were the checklists and interview? Not at all Very 1 2 3 4 5 How helpful was the training on F unctional Behavior Assessment? Not at all Very 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 177

166 166 How helpful was the Functional Assessment Interview? Not at all Very 1 2 3 4 5 How helpful was the Motivation Assessment Scale? Not at all Very 1 2 3 4 5 How disruptive was the direct observation descriptive assessment (ABC)? Not at all Very 1 2 3 4 5 How disruptive was the functional analysis? Not at all Very 1 2 3 4 5 Would you be willing to let another of your students pa rticipate in this study? Not at all Very 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 178

167 167 How valuable was it to determine the function of the problem behavior? Not at all Very 1 2 3 4 5 Any additional comments: Social Validity Interview 1. HAVE YOU EVER COMPLETED A FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT BEFORE? 2. HOW WOULD YOU DEFINE F UNCTION (OF A BEHAVIOR)? 3. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE PROBLEM BEHAVIOR QUESTIONNAIRE? WHAT WOULD YO U HAVE CHANGED ABOUT IT? 4. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE MO TIVATION ASSESSMENT SCALE? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE CHANGED ABOUT IT? 5. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT INTERVIEW? WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE CHANGED ABOUT IT? 6. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE CO MPLETED DIRECT OBSERVATION WORKSHEETS? WERE THEY ACCU RATE OR INACCURATE? WHY? 7. WHAT DID YOU THINK OF TH E FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS?

PAGE 179

168 168 8. WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THE FUNC TION OF (THE PARTICIPANT CHILD) THE BEHAVIOR IS? REVIEW RESULTS 9. DO YOU AGREE WITH THE RE SULTS OF THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS? 10. DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU ALREADY KNEW THIS INFORMATION? IF SO HOW DID YOU USE TH E INFORMATION? 11. CONSIDERING (1) THE AMOUNT OF TIME EACH ASSESSMENT TOOK, (2) THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT EACH ASSESSMENT REQUIRED AND (3) THE FUNCTION EACH ASSESSMENT CO NCLUDEDWHAT ASSESSMENT METHOD DO YOU BELIEVE IS THE BEST? WHY? 12. WILL THIS INFORMATION CHA NGE HOW YOU STRUCTURE YOUR BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM? HOW? 13. WILL YOU USE INFORMATION REGARDING FUNCTION TO CHANGE INTERVENTION STRATEGIES? HOW? 14. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YO U WOULD LIKE TO ADD?

PAGE 180

169 APPENDIX F TEACHER TRAINING OUTLINE What is a problem behavior? In not so many words a problem behavior is a behavior that is a problem. It may be a problem either for the indi vidual demonstrating the behavi or or for the people around the individual, in this case the teacher and/ or the other students. Problem behavior might include any of the following results: cause phys ical or emotional harm to the child or another person cause damage to property di srupt classroom learning either for the individual or others Common problem behaviors incl ude but are not limited to: 1. Disruptionincluding yelling, talking out of turn, crying, and noise making 2. Off-taskrefusing to complete work or participate in activities 3. Noncompliancerefusing to follow di rection, intentionally slow responses, ignoring adult directives What is an operational definition? Operational definitions of problem be haviors must have three components: 1. precisethe behaviors must described be so that different people can read a description of the behavior and interp ret it the same way (the Stranger Test) 2. positiveThe Dead Man’s Testif a d ead man can do the behavior that is being described then it does not pass the Dead Man’s test

PAGE 181

170 170 3. distinct(have a clear beginning and e nding) so that the behavior can be counted (Kaplan, 1995) What is the function of a behavior? 1. The nature of the consequence that reinfor ces a target behavior is considered that behavior’s function In other words, if the reinforc ing consequence of a behavior is gaining attention from the teacher, then the function of the behavior is teacher attention. 2. Researchers typically view function in te rms of one of three classes: positive reinforcement either through a tangible objec t or attention; negative reinforcement through escaping or avoiding an unpleasant s ituation; or intrinsic reinforcement wherein the behavior is hypot hesized to stimulate an in trinsic event (Alberto & Troutman, 2003). 3. For practitioners, the function is “a statement explaini ng why the student engages in this behavior.” 4. The difference between these two interpreta tions is subtle but critical. Function refers to the “purpose” of the behavior or how it helps the students to meet his or her needs, in terms of one of the three supporting consequences. 5. While when a practitioner answers the que stion ‘why does the student engage in this behavior?’ there are a host of responses. For exampl e, in a practitioner might identify ‘unmet basic needshungry, tired’ as a function of behavior, however this explanation provides a reason why but not a f unction. If the statement is correct then the function might be to access sleep or food, or to escape activities that compete with

PAGE 182

171 171 a search for food or sleep. The function of a behavior is often defined as ‘why the behavior occurs’ What is a Functional Behavior Assessment? 1. .The FBA is a process in which informa tion is gathered regarding a specific behavior or set of behaviors in order to determine whether that behavior has any predictable relationship with the en vironment (O’Neill et al., 1997). 2. The environment is comprised of all factors that came before (antecedents) and after (consequences) the behavior. 3. A relationship exists when these en vironmental factors both predict the behavior and explain why it is maintaine d. Identification of these relationships helps us to understand why behavior occu rs, or how behavior is reinforced and maintained by the specific environmenta l consequences (i.e., functions) they elicit. 4. The purpose of an FBA is to understa nd behavior so th at individualized interventions may be designed to replace undesirable behavior with appropriate alternatives that efficiently obtain th e functions of the problem behavior. What is a functional analysis? A functional analysis is a procedure used to evaluate possible functions of a behavior by manipulating what occurs after the problem behavior takes place. This is different then the other assessments that schools often use, be cause we are actively changing the environment to test what cons equences support this behavior. For this research study, we have five possible conse quences that will be used to determine the function of the problem behavior (1) attenti on (2) escape (3) tangible object (4) alone (5)

PAGE 183

172 172 free play. We will systematically apply each of these conditions after the behavior takes place and the condition that causes the behavior to occur most frequently is the function of the behavior. We will be doing this during regular classroom times but try not to disrupt the classroom environment. I can s upply you with additional resources if this procedure is still confusing. Watch FA Example Video What are the PBQ, MAS, FAI and ABC? The Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ ) and the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) are behavior checklists that we are going to ask you to fill out. They are fairly briefthe PBQ has 15 questions and the MAS ha s16 questions. Both checklists ask you to circle a number between 0-6. These assessments will be scored to determine a hypothetical function of the behavior. Here is what these forms actually look like (show forms). The Functional Assessment Interview (FAI) is an interview that takes anywhere between 45-90 minutes. It has 11 sections and asks a variety of questions about behaviors and environmental factors before and after the behaviors. The Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) direct observation sheet provides a method to directly observe behavior in natu ral environments. A graduate assistant will simply watch the target child and record what happened before and after the target behavior. Again, we will be doing this duri ng regular classroom times but try not to disrupt the classroom environment.

PAGE 184

173 APPENDIX G FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES Preliminary Steps Prior to each FA session the follo wing procedures will occur: Before going to the school/ daycare site the principal investigator will test the video camera and review FA conditions and procedures Review operational definiti on of target behavior Review order of conditions (the order of conditions are counterbalanced and will varythe task analysis shoul d be adjusted accordingly) Review specific procedure for each condition Obtain materials for all conditions: free play, attention, escap e and tangible condition. Arrange room so that the area for the f unctional analysis is defined. It is not completely separate, but peer and target child movement and access can be controlled and/ or restricted. Set up video camera in unobtrusive location to capture as much of this area as possible Teacher and principal investigator review audible cue for non-contingent attention and end of session.

PAGE 185

174 174 Review non-contingent attentionthe teacher will make statements directed toward participant child (not praise or redirection) “I see you’re using th e red crayon.” “You’re wearing a blue shirt, today.” Set up free play condition with neutral activity e.g. coloring in a coloring book. Free play condition Target child and peers ar e moved to defined area. Stopwatch and video camera are turned on Teacher says “You can play with whatev er you want. I’ll tell you when to stop.” Teacher is in defined area 3-6 feet from child and offers non-contingent attention. Occurrences of the problem behavior will be ignored. If the target child attempts to access more attention or leave assi gned area they will be gently redirected back to the activities. After five minutes have elapsed, the video camera is turned off and the teacher will take a 2 minute break: o Review next condition procedure (attention) o Clean up and set neutral activity o Put magazine or catalog in area for teacher to “look bus y” during attention condition Attention condition Target child and peers are in defined area Stopwatch and video camera are turned on Teacher says “You can ______(neutral activity, e.g. color in the coloring book). I’ll tell you when to stop.”

PAGE 186

175 175 Non-contingent attention is not provided. Teacher looks busy reading magazine 3-6 feet away. Attention is provided contingent on the de monstration of the problem behavior. At that time the teacher says “Stop doing that You shouldn’t do that because it is against the rules. You are not followi ng directions when you do that.” These verbal statements are paired with the teacher coming close to the student and putting a hand on their back. This same response is repeated upon each demonstration of the problem behavior After five minutes have elapsed the video camera is turned off and the teacher will take a 2 minute break: o Review next condition procedure (tangible) o Clean up o Put tangible item in a place where it is readily accessible Tangible condition Target child and peers are in defined area Stopwatch and video camera are turned on Teacher says “You can play with (prefe rred item). I’ll tell you when to stop.” Teacher is in defined area 3-6 feet from child. Principal investigator signals teacher ever y thirty seconds to offer non-contingent attention. The tangible item or activity is provided initially for thirty seconds and then presented upon demonstration of the problem behavior. The teacher says “ You can play with _____for little while.” After thir ty seconds, the item is removed. This same response is repeated upon each demonstration of the problem behavior

PAGE 187

176 176 Principal investigator signals teacher ever y thirty seconds to offer non-contingent attention. Teacher is in defi ned area 3-6 feet from child. After five minutes have elapsed the video camera is turned off and the teacher will take a 2 minute break: o Review next condition procedure (escape) o Clean up put difficult task in place Escape condition Target child and peers are in defined area Stopwatch and video camera are turned on Teacher says “I would like you to work on _______. I know it may be difficult but I want you to try your best. If you n eed a break, I will give you a break“ Principal investigator signals teacher ever y thirty seconds to offer non-contingent attention. Teacher is in defi ned area 3-6 feet from child. Upon demonstration of the problem behavior, the teacher will say “ Time to take a break.” At this point, the ta sk will be removed for thirty seconds and then returned. This same response is repeated upon each demonstration of the problem behavior After five minutes have elapsed the video camera is turned off and the teacher will take a 2 minute break: o Review next condition procedure (alone) o Clean up and remove activity Alone condition Target child is in defined area (no peer access) Stopwatch and video camera are turned on

PAGE 188

177 177 Teacher does not offer any directions and does not stay in the area Preferred item and neutral activity are available. Problem behavior is ignored. It may be necessary to shorten th is session (Peck, Sasso, & Stambaugh, 1998) Post Session Steps Classroom is returned to typical set-up Brief interview with teacher for ge neral feedback on FA procedures Monitor target child for increases in probl em behavior as a result of FA conditions

PAGE 189

178 APPENDIX H FINAL SCORING SUMMARY CHART Ramon Instrument Function identified Agreement with Other Descriptive Assessments Agreement with Functional Analysis MAS Tangible FAI No FAI Tangible MAS No ABC Attention None Yes FA Attention ABC Anthony Instrument Function identified Agreement with Other Descriptive Assessments Agreement with Functional Analysis MAS Tangible ABC Yes FAI Escape None No ABC Tangible MAS Yes FA Tangible MAS, ABC Jimmy Instrument Function identified Agreement with Other Descriptive Assessments Agreement with Functional Analysis MAS Tangible ABC Yes FAI Attention None No ABC Tangible MAS Yes FA Tangible MAS, ABC Greg Instrument Function identified Agreement with Other Descriptive Assessments Agreement with Functional Analysis MAS Sensory None No FAI Attention ABC Yes ABC Attention FAI Yes FA Attention FAI, ABC

PAGE 190

179 LIST OF REFERENCES Achenbach, T.M. (1992). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/1.5-5, 6-12 and 1992 Profile Burlington, VT: University of Ve rmont Department of Psychiatry. Arndorfer, R.E., & Miltenberger, R.G. (1993). Functional assessment and the treatment of challenging behavior: A review w ith implications for early childhood. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 13 82-105. Arndorfer, R.E., Miltenberger, R.G., Wost er, S.H., Rortvedt, A.K., & Gaffaney, T. (1994). Home-based descriptive and experi mental analysis of problem behaviors in children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14 64-88. Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. ( 1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,1 91-97. Belfiore, P.J., Browder, D.M. & Lin, C.H. (1993). Using descriptive and experimental analyses in the treatment of self-injurious behavior. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Devel opmental Disabilities, 28 57-65. Bijou, S.W., Peterson, R.F., Ault, M.H. (1968) A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the leve l of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1 175-191. Blair, K.S., Umbreit, J., & Bos, C.S., (1999) Using functional assessment and children’s preferences to improve the behavior of young children with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24 151-166. Blair, K.S., Umbreit, J. & Eck, S. (2000). Analysis of multiple variables related to a young child’s aggressive behavior. Journal of Positive Be havior Interventions, 2 33-39. Boyajian, A.E., DuPaul, G.J., Handler, M.W., Eckert, T.L. & McGoey, K.E. (2001). The use of classroom-based brief functional analysis with preschoolers at-risk for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. School Psychology Review, 30 278294. Broussard, C.D., & Northrup, J. (1995). An approach to functional assessment and analysis of disruptive behavior in regular education classrooms. School Psychology Quarterly, 10 151-164.

PAGE 191

180 Broussard, C. D., & Northrup, J. (1997). The use of functiona l analysis to develop peer interventions of disruptiv e classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 12 65-76. Calloway, C.J., & Simpson, R.L. (1998). Deci sions regarding func tions of behavior: Scientific versus informal analysis. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities, 13 167-176. Carr, E.G. (1977). The motivation of self-i njurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 84 800-816. Chandler, L.K., & Dahlquist, C.M. (2002). Functional assessment: St rategies to prevent and remediate challenging behavior in school settings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Chandler, L.K., Dahlquist, C.M., Repp, A.C., & Feltz, C. (1999). The effects of teambased functional assessment on the behavior of students in classroom settings. Exceptional Children, 66 101-129. Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., Foster-Johnson, L., Ch ilds, K. E., Wilson, D., White, R., & Vera, A. (1995). Improving the conduct of stude nts with behavioral disorders by incorporating student interests into curricular activities. Behavioral Disorders, 20 221-237. Cone, J.D. (1997). Invited essay: Issues in f unctional analysis in behavioral assessment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35 259-275. Conroy, M.A., Clark, D., Gable, R.A., & Fox, J. J. (1999). Building competence in the use of functional behavior assessment. Preventing School Failure,43 (4), 140-144. Conroy, M.A., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S. & Alter, P.J. (2005) A descri ptive analysis of positive behavioral intervention research with young children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25 157-166. Conroy, M.A., Fox, J.J., Bucklin, A., & Good, W. (1996). An analysis of the reliability and stability of the Motiva tion Assessment Scale in assessing the challenging behaviors of persons with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Devel opmental Disabilities, 31 243-250. Conroy, M.A., Fox, J.J., Crain, L., Jenkins, A. & Belcher, K. (1996). Evaluating the social and ecological validity of analog assessment procedures for challenging behavior in young children. Education and Treatment of Children, 19 233-256.. Conroy, M.A., & Stichter, J.P. (2003). The a pplication of anteceden ts in the functional assessment process. The Journal of Special Education, 37 15-26.

PAGE 192

181 Cooper, L.J., & Harding, J. (1993). Exte nding functional analysis procedures to outpatient and classroom settings for children with mild disabilities. In J. Reichle & D.P. Wacker (Eds.), Communication alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating functiona l assessment and intervention strategies (pp.41-63). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Crawford, J., Brockel, B., Schauss, S., & Miltenberger, R.G. (1992). A comparison of methods for the functional assessm ent of stereotypic behavior. Journal of the Assosciation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17 77-86. Cunningham, E., & O’Neill, R.E. (2000). A comparison of results of functional assessment and analysis methods with young children with autism. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35 406-414. Doggett, R.A., Edwards, R.P., Moore, J.W., Tingstrom, D.H., & Wilczinski, S.M. (2001). An approach to functional assessment in general education settings. The School Psychology Review, 30 313-328. Dunlap, G., dePerczel, M.,Clarke, S., W ilson, D.,Wright, S., White, R.,& Gomez, A. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for studen ts with emotional or behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27 505-518. Dunlap, G., & Kern, L. (1993). Assessment and intervention for children within the instructional curriculum. In J. Reichle & D.P. Wacker (Eds.), Communication alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating functional assessment and intervention strategies (pp. 177-204). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F.R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24 387-397. Durand, V.M., & Crimmins, D.B. (1992). The Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) administration guide. Topeka, KS: Monaco. Ellingson, S.A., Miltenberger, R.G., Stricker, 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 Behavior Interventions, 2 85-98. Ellis, J., & Magee, S.K. (1999). Determinati on of environmental correlates of disruptive classroom behavior: Integration of func tional analysis into the public school assessment process. Education and Treatment of Children, 22 291-317. Ervin, R.A. Ehrhardt, K.E., & Poling, A. ( 2001). Functional assessment: Old wine in new bottles. School Psychology Review, 30 173-179.

PAGE 193

182 Ervin, R.A., Radford, P.M., Bertsch, K., Pipe r, A.L., Ehrhardt, K.E. & Poling, A. (2001). A descriptive analysis and critique of the empirical literature on school-based functional assessment. School Psychology Review, 30 193-211. Floyd, R.G., Phaneuf, R.L., & Wilczynski, S.M. (2005). Measurement properties of indirect assessment methods for functiona l behavioral assessment: A review of research. School Psychology Review, 34 58-73. Fox, J.J., Conroy, M.A., & Heckaman, K. (1998). Research issues in functional assessment of the challenging behavior s of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24 26-33. Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Powell, D. (2002). Young children with challenging behavior: Issues and considerations for behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4 (4), 208-217. Grandy, S.E., & Peck, S.M. (1997). The use of functional assessment and selfmanagement with a first-grader. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 19 (2), 2943. Gresham, F.M., Watson, S.T., Skinner, C.H. (2001). Functional Behavioral Assessment: Principles, Procedures, and Future Directions. School Psychology Review, 30 156-173. Gresham, F.M. (2003). Establishing the te chnical adequacy of functional behavior assessment: Conceptual and measurement challenges. Behavioral Disorders, 28 282-298. Gresham, F.M., McIntyre, L.L. Olson-Tinker, H., Dolstra, L. McLaughlin, V., Van, M. (2004). Relevance of functional behavioral assessment research for school-based interventions and positiv e behavioral support. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25 19-37. Hagopian, L.P., Fisher, W.W., Thompson, R.H. Owen-DeSchryver, J., Iwata, B.A., & Wacker, D.P. (1997). Toward the devel opment of structured criteria for interpretation of functional analysis data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30 313-326. Hanley, G.P., Iwata, B.A., & McCord, B.E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36 147-185. Harding, J., Wacker, D.P., Cooper, L.J., As mus, J., Jensen-Kovalan, P., & Grisolano, L.A., (1999). Combining descriptive and experimental analyses of young children with behavior problems in preschool settings. Behavior Modification, 23 316333.

PAGE 194

183 Heckaman, K., Conroy, M.A., Fox, J. & Ch ait, A. (2000). Functional assessment intervention research on students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in school settings. Behavioral Disorders, 25 196-210. Individuals with Disabilities Educa tion Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. 1415 (1997). Individuals with Disabiliti es Education Act Amendments of 2004, 11 Stat. 37 U.S.C. Section 1401 (2004). Iwata, B.A., Dorsey, M.F., Slifer, K.J., Ba uman, K.E., & Richman, G.S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Interven tion in Developmental Disabilities 2 3-30. Iwata, B.A., Pace, G., Kalsher, M., Cowd ery, G., & Cataldo, M. (1990). Experimental analysis and extinction of se lf-injurious escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23 11-27. Johnston, S.S., & O’Neill R.E. (2001). Search ing for effectiveness and efficiency in conducting functional assessments: A revi ew and proposed process for teachers and other practitioners. Focus on Autism & Other Developmental Disabilities,16, 205-215. Johnston, J., & Pennypacker, H. (1993). Strategies and tactics of behavioral research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research desi gns: methods for clinical and applied settings. New York : Oxford University Press. Kaiser, A.P., Kai, X., Hancock, T.B., & Fost er, M.E. (2002). Teacher reported behavior problems and language delays in boys a nd girls enrolled in Head Start. Behavioral Disorders 28 23-29. Kamps, D.M., Elllis, C., Mancina, C., Wybl e, J., Greene, L., & Harvey, D. (1995). Case studies using functional analysis for young children with behavior risks. Education and the Treatment of Children, 18 243-260. Kennedy, C.H., Long, T., Jolivette, K., Cox, J., Tang, J.C. Thompson, T. (2001). Facilitating general e ducation participation for stude nts with behavior problems by linking positive behavior supports and person-centered planning. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 9 161-172. Kinch, C., Lewis-Palmer, T., Hagan-Burke, S., & Sugai, G. (2001). A comparison of teacher and student functional beha vior assessment interview information from low-risk and high-risk classrooms. Education & Treatment of Children, 24 480-495.

PAGE 195

184 Lalli, J.S., & Goh, H.L. (1993). Naturalistic ob servations in community settings. In J. Reichle & D.P. Wacker (Eds.), Communication alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating fu nctional assessment and in tervention strategies (pp.1140). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Lane, K.L., Umbreit, J., & Beebe-Frankenbe rger, M.E. (1999). Functional assessment research on students with or at ri sk for EBD: 1990 to the present. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 1(2), 101-111. Lerman, D.C. & Iwata, B.A. (1993). Descriptiv e and experimental an alyses of variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26 293-319. Lewis, T.J., Scott, T.M., & Sugai, G. ( 1994). The problem behavi or questionnaire: A teacher-based instrument to develop functional hypothesis of problem behavior in general education classrooms. Diagnostique, 19 (2-3), 103-115. Lewis, T.J., & Sugai, G. (1996). Descriptive and experimental analysis of teacher and peer attention and the use of assessment-based interven tion to improve pro-social behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6 (1), 7-24. Mace, F.C., & Lalli, J.S. (1991). Linking de scriptive and experimental analyses in the treatment of bizarre speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24 553-562. Mace, F.C., & Roberts, M.L. (1993). Fact ors affecting select ion of behavioral interventions. In J. Reichle & D.P. Wacker (Eds.), Communication alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating fu nctional assessment and intervention strategies (pp.113-134). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. McKerchar, P.M., & Thompson, R.H. (2004) A descriptive anal ysis of potential reinforcement contingencies in the preschool classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37 431-444. Murdock, S.G., O’Neill, R.E., & Cunningham, E. (2005). A comparison of functional behavioral assessment procedures with a group of middle school students with emotional/ behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14 5-18. National Institute of Health. (1989). NIH consensus on the treatment of destructive behaviors in persons with developmenta l disabilities. Bethesda, MD: Author. Neilsen, S.L., & McEvoy, M.A. (2004). F unctional behavior assessment in early education settings. Journal of Early Intervention, 26 115-131.

PAGE 196

185 Nelson, J.R., Roberts, M.L., Mathur, S.R.& Rutherford, R.B. (1999). Has public policy exceeded our knowledge base? A review of the functional behavior assessment literature. Behavioral Disorders, 24 169-179. Newcomer, L.L., & Lewis, T.J. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment: An investigation of assessment reliability and effectiveness of function-based interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 12 168-181. O’Neill, 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 Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/ Cole. Packenham, M., Shute, R. & Reid, R. (2004). A truncated functional behavioral assessment procedure for children with disruptive classroom behaviors. Education and Treatment of Children, 27 9-25. Paclawskyj, T.R., Matson, J.L., Rush, K.S., Smalls, Y., & Vollmer, T.R. (2001). Assessment of the converg ent validity of the Ques tions About Behavioral Function scale with analogue functional an alysis and the Motivation Assessment Scale. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45 484-494. Reed, H., Thomas, E., Sprague, J., & Horner R. (1997). The student-guided functional assessment interview: An analysis of student and teacher agreement. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7 33-49. Reid, R. (2000). Functional behavior assessme nt for children with behavior disorders. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Reid, R. & Nelson, J.R. (2002) The utility, a cceptability and practic ality of functional behavioral assessment for students with high-incidence problem behaviors. Remedial & Special Education, 23 15-24. Reid, J.B., & Patterson, G.R. (1991). Ea rly prevention and inte rvention with conduct problems: A social interaction model for th e integration of research and practice. In G. Stoner, M.R. Shinn, & H.M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp.715-739). Silver Springs MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Repp, A.C., Felce, D. & Barton, L.E. (1988). Basing the treatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors on hypotheses of their causes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21 281-289. Repp, A.C., & Munk, D.D. (1999). Threats to inte rnal validity and exte rnal validity of three functional assessment procedures. In A.C. Repp & Horner, R.H. (Eds.), Functional analysis of problem behavior: From effective asse ssment to effective support (pp. 147-167). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

PAGE 197

186 Roberts, M.L., Marshall, J., Nelson, J.R ., Albers, C.A. (2001). Curriculum-based assessment procedures embedded within functional behavioral assessments: Identifying escape-motivated behaviors in a general education classroom. School Psychology Review, 30 264-278. Romaniuk, C., Miltenberger, R.G., Conyers, C ., Jenner, N., Jergens, M., Ringenberg, C. (2002). The influence of activity choice on problem behaviors maintained by escape versus attention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35 349-362. Sailor, J. Guess, J. & Rutherford, J. (1968) Functional explanation of tantrum behavior of a nine-year old girl. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1 230-240. Sasso, G.M., Conroy, M.A., Stichter, J. & Fox, J.J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of func tional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 26 282-296. Sasso, G.M., Peck, J., Garrison-Harrell, L. (1998). Social inter action setting events: Experimental analysis of contextual variables. Behavioral Disorders, 24 34-43. Sasso, G.M., Reimers, T.M., Cooper, L.J., W acker, D., Berg, W., Steege, M., Kelly, L., & Allaire, A. (1992). Use of descriptive a nd experimental analysis to identify the functional properties of aberrant behavior in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25 809-821. Schill, M.T., Kratochowill, T.R., & Elliott, S.N. (1998). Functional assessment in behavioral consultation: A treatment utility study. School Psychology Quarterly, 13 116-140. Scott, T.M., Bucalos, A., Liaupsin, Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., Deshea, L. (2004). Using functional behavior assessment in genera l education settings: Making a case for effectiveness and efficiency. Behavioral Disorders, 29 300-323. Scott, T.M., McIntyre, J., Liaupsin, C ., Nelson, C.M., & Conroy, M.A. (2004). An examination of functional behavioral assessment in public school settings: Collaborative teams, experts and methodology. Behavioral Disorders, 29 384395. Shellady, S., & Stichter, J.P. (1999). Traini ng preservice and inservice educators to conduct functional assessments: Initial issues and implications. Preventing School Failure, 43 (4), 154-159. Shonkoff, J.P. & Phillips, D.A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

PAGE 198

187 Shores, R.E., Wehby, J.H., & Jack, S.L. ( 1999). Analyzing behavior disorders in classrooms. In A.C. Repp & Horner, R.H. (Eds.), Functional analysis of problem behavior: From effective a ssessment to effective support (pp. 219-237). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Shriver, M.D., Anderson, C.M., & Proctor, B. (2001). Evaluating the validity of functional behavior assessment. School Psychology Review, 30 180-193. Sigafoos, J., Kerr, M., Roberts, D. (1994). Interrater reliability of the Motivation Assessment Scale: Failure to rep licate with aggressive behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15 333-342. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and Human Behavior New York: Free Press. Sprague, J.R. & Horner, R.H. (1999). Low fr equency high intensity problem behavior: Toward an applied technology of functiona l assessment and intervention. In A.C. Repp & Horner, R.H. (Eds.), Functional analysis of problem behavior: From effective assessment to effective support (pp. 98-116). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Stichter, J.P., Sasso G., Jolivette, K. (2004). Structural analysis and intervention in a school setting: Effects on problem behavior for a student with an emotional/behavioral disorder. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 166-178. Storey, K., Lawry, J.R., Ashworth, R., Danko, C.D., & Strain, P.S. (1994). Functional analysis and intervention for disruptiv e behaviors of a kindergarten student. Journal of Educational Research 87, 361-370. Sturmey, P. (1994). Assessing the functions of aberrant behaviors: A review of psychometric instruments. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24 293-304. Sugai, G., Horner, R.H. & Sprague, J.R. ( 1999). Functional assessment-based behavior support planning: Research to practice to research. Behavioral Disorders, 24 253-257. Symons, F.J., McDonald, L.M., Wehby, J.M. (1998). Functional a ssessment and teacher collected data. Education and Treatment of Children, 21 135-160. Tawney, J.W., & Gast, D.L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus: Merrill. Touchette, P.E., MacDonald, R.F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18 343-351.

PAGE 199

188 Umbreit, J. (1996). Functional analysis of disr uptive behavior in an in clusive classroom. Journal of Early Intervention, 20 18-29. Umbreit, J., & Blair, K.S. (1997). Using stru ctural analysis to f acilitate treatment of aggression and noncomplisnce in a young child at-risk for behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 22 75-86. VanDerHeyden, A.M., Witt, J.C., & Gatti, S. (2001). Descriptive assessment method to reduce overall disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. School Psychology Review, 30 548-567. Webster-Stratton, C. (1997). Early interven tion for families of preschool children with conduct problems. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention. (pp.429-454). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. Webster-Stratton, C. (2000). Oppositional-de fiant and conduct disord ered children. In M. Hersen & R.T. Ammerman (Eds.). Advanced abnormal child psychology (2nd ed.) pp. 387-412. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers. Yarbrough, S.C., & Carr, E.G. (2000). Some re lationships between informant assessment and functional analysis of problem behavior. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 105 130-151. Zarcone, J.R., Rodgers, T.A., Iwata, B. A., Rourke, D., & Dorsey, M.F. (1991). Reliability analysis of the Motivation A ssessment Scale: A failure to replicate. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12 349-360.

PAGE 200

189 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH My professional goal to make a differ ence in children’s lives has remained unchanged since I began working with child ren in 1994. I initially entered the field through an internship while pursuing my b achelor’s degree in psychology at Furman. I worked as a residential counselor for children with emotional and behavioral disorders at the Marshall Pickens Children’s Program in Greenville, South Carolina. I gained practical experience in cognitive behavioris m and worked under skilled professionals who taught me invaluable skills for working with children. I gained a tremendous respect for the field and knew working with children would be a lifelong goal. I use skills and knowledge from this first work experience often. It was also this experience that developed my interest in teaching at a university. In 1997, I began teaching children with seve re emotional disturbance in an inner city elementary school in Jacksonville, Florida. This was my first j ob as a public educator as I was hired without a degree in edu cation. I began teaching under an emergency temporary certificate with the agreement that I would begin my ma ster’s in education immediately. Although typical of a first teach ing job, this experience teaching in the inner city made me aware of the state of public education and has been the source for inspiration and practice for teaching many unive rsity-level courses. During that initial year, being a teacher and a student offered a uni que perspective. I saw the impact a single teacher could have on a group of students, and I experienced the impact education professors could have on a group of teachers. As I moved back and forth from one role to

PAGE 201

190 another, I began to recognize the importance and relevance of research in education. I had the opportunity to apply what I learned to how I taught. I sa w a real connection between the training of teachers and th e immediate benefit of that training to students. I enjoy teaching all ages, and I am continually excited to translate evidence-ba sed practices into a learning environment that is structured, individualized, and, most of all, fun. My passion for learning and love for the classroom led me to the Ph.D. program at the University of Florida where I coul d realize my goal in becoming an education professor at a university. During this experien ce of pursuing my doctorate, my skills have been both sharpened and broadened. Teaching co urses and supervising teacher interns at the University of Florida has allowed me to put theory into practice. I have enjoyed incorporating my higher educat ion knowledge with my practi cal classroom experience to improve tomorrow’s classrooms. My abilities to analyze and synthesize research and apply new strategies for the classroom have been valuable assets. I am pragmatic and empathetic towards teachers’ goals for themselves and their students. Additionally, my research activities have allowed me to gain experience in writing grants, presenting at national conferences, collecting and translating data collection, exploring multicultural aspects of learning, collaborating with othe r professionals and working closely with families of young children. Education is my passion


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 E20101220_AAAAAQ INGEST_TIME 2010-12-20T10:06:30Z PACKAGE UFE0015410_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 4948 DFID F20101220_AAATKG ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH alter_p_Page_124thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
ccff026af70008c5fb7c9a95c51923a7
SHA-1
55272272142acc2dee7c4a21ad3ba0c10da5d9a2
5990 F20101220_AAATJS alter_p_Page_114thm.jpg
7885a10a9bb9deb1c8441d3f60285f81
2321753eae8bcaf2a7dc418de686b093304a072e
90439 F20101220_AAASHE alter_p_Page_096.jp2
de406fe0102a876180a2a06eed19429d
fc3fb6b0b314cf55a14c1fd5054dc0217f1a8f94
109251 F20101220_AAASGQ alter_p_Page_081.jp2
f73d66f481da8d26b68ad92384512c04
a941a81e314e691644b52f4dd6c4d8136cb2dc25
25774 F20101220_AAATKH alter_p_Page_014.QC.jpg
22f1f453d51c79202e7f163035f48d4d
6224daa2ddb932bb2c34be95de9205b1c81e1185
5158 F20101220_AAATJT alter_p_Page_096thm.jpg
3f44172c1b71e01af49908bd73aaa044
312926e318b070fdd0f3051587c18bff37b7de56
110330 F20101220_AAASHF alter_p_Page_097.jp2
8fc28e18ff84c93ba86154b01655d968
f019b869d27466ed85bb08c32c08350dfff91d1e
108943 F20101220_AAASGR alter_p_Page_082.jp2
85752852036da2f7c2ba91dbdc939867
800bce943f692afced043c6faf5ded343935f914
23974 F20101220_AAATKI alter_p_Page_190.QC.jpg
ebc92fba525f14509b44ec65669b6a07
1b66600ea3a781a2016fd60779c6eeef2e8b14b7
1038 F20101220_AAATJU alter_p_Page_003.QC.jpg
6744841a6ddc8daeb8d8b3a0354a82cc
574f92d427d826b930a89549780dcdd334d26888
107863 F20101220_AAASHG alter_p_Page_098.jp2
756f0199205d5150a4442299df3b219a
b0ce6713fb0df2672c53b11d9e9c9b18b72a753f
107793 F20101220_AAASGS alter_p_Page_083.jp2
20705bf88fac97910c407de991fbbf33
0228c8891af6aad9181c26eb2f1ab02121bf9655
5843 F20101220_AAATKJ alter_p_Page_130thm.jpg
84eea3a83d53590166e4c5a084ea409e
bafbae7991b6754418ecbb251df20ab11a41c5ff
6205 F20101220_AAATJV alter_p_Page_122thm.jpg
04990ca78f4f41202aae4da670f33b4e
83aa6f92c7c67a38fae62afb8ba97573fceb393b
895586 F20101220_AAASHH alter_p_Page_099.jp2
bbd6cc17f1a4d8f0e77832147af51aa7
9dd9ae00e957daafe9020ef299336bf2529d13c4
110432 F20101220_AAASGT alter_p_Page_084.jp2
977f754b62858b30b684aeeff6d34e4f
39cc80e4a011653faa1833c8214a54f7c1fefe30
2214 F20101220_AAATKK alter_p_Page_188thm.jpg
fb6fed288e4ce65985369d2c43626551
c0870ff8bfafce2dff52e4d165332d18658eff94
6204 F20101220_AAATJW alter_p_Page_037thm.jpg
f9dc0e5997105ae5432b6012bb1bf083
1a775e9ab2f179b767fc26139e1ca79ed135fd68
99820 F20101220_AAASHI alter_p_Page_100.jp2
0311c90bbaee26d199f19206e8b84d3e
770433fe86f2d2fcffb3acc4d12e87684abc530c
103260 F20101220_AAASGU alter_p_Page_085.jp2
bf0c0ebedad5eea0d3da43fd790b6a59
6bc4ab6e3fcb25ed0ad7f25bc8840daf69b8da53
6105 F20101220_AAATKL alter_p_Page_103thm.jpg
602af88eb792dd7dc0f3251467edb061
dba618cb31ff534724b17543157abf8bcdd92880
30101 F20101220_AAATJX alter_p_Page_167.QC.jpg
60fe352f835a8dc7c1edb21327d83943
a46a57213af359d4f04f775515cfaf5f12b20420
1051900 F20101220_AAASHJ alter_p_Page_101.jp2
0bb451584f4926c2bf1c0672a4555176
b63bcfaf23e2120fa4e4c468b15b03d00acb4393
105050 F20101220_AAASGV alter_p_Page_086.jp2
bd3bb38047cc1aba9253578f385444b3
0348372b8e4e13e26ff4bf0268dc8245bc301cb2
26364 F20101220_AAATLA alter_p_Page_149.QC.jpg
c26974d8599e8cb174a972e66e4e310e
bfffad57d907c0f75799efc45d4dc56e31132d27
6401 F20101220_AAATKM alter_p_Page_194thm.jpg
0c5539e40ac308c8a690c71286c22b85
b4d4cd34d168a4eab10c96daab3817c80a0504ce
25438 F20101220_AAATJY alter_p_Page_141.QC.jpg
f0b9e5e183f15e36565edf1ff12dbf0d
87a7fd21974baef4a00315c0d9b62bf1fa3f3716
1031003 F20101220_AAASHK alter_p_Page_102.jp2
df1f6292b3631c53cde35f35313be865
30fbf9085c29eda0bfe2ba75119558be8d9cc2b2
111877 F20101220_AAASGW alter_p_Page_088.jp2
ad70aeae46dcfe7e620e804f1ebdfc4e
8aa3eba758c682be6204ecf6944a7c6f7f32b1cc
6327 F20101220_AAATLB alter_p_Page_067thm.jpg
9ee0589d0cf2e1c78964d4facbe1967b
d26f1bfe6e7af5ca68d406baff3af57216731a5a
6423 F20101220_AAATKN alter_p_Page_013thm.jpg
19540acd02e24c5fba75e60d9dd1e2d2
76eb7d8e6643f721cff110f62924063f8c3e3da4
104370 F20101220_AAASHL alter_p_Page_103.jp2
976b284ddcea38973d5134be73dcbc7f
456f442a91bdb896033dd224403609a109b3d4ce
6067 F20101220_AAATLC alter_p_Page_052thm.jpg
0242df6c430cb70e7118909e24d287d3
3c26abe30dd22273cfb7ccde3ddf2a804939e2b7
1399 F20101220_AAATKO alter_p_Page_002.QC.jpg
7d38c1999b77fe9d46ebe319501288cd
c8e29404c89b03027e825e032ee3ef12e96d5cc6
4090 F20101220_AAATJZ alter_p_Page_128thm.jpg
8a3cfc47fe14debad7cc10f1cdbbc756
79ffef65a86e4a4a9dbb29332cc54055adc36bf9
112753 F20101220_AAASHM alter_p_Page_104.jp2
b88c5153e521b417223def90ab8cda83
7452d18fc68879d651dd8eff8a404527beaeab19
107302 F20101220_AAASGX alter_p_Page_089.jp2
1c7849702b21932526e89ba2803b53aa
cb72fee6c94f717b149ce2a59f94d1e66eb94c64
109348 F20101220_AAASIA alter_p_Page_118.jp2
88ac48f01c78231f5093d225bae74f07
4b00f8130107d3557d5b6985400b1a9e4c82778f
23688 F20101220_AAATLD alter_p_Page_056.QC.jpg
2e742fbcdbd92a31805cccfac4efd675
51c72c69ee91cb8accabdc41c2f4dafdfe9260d0
6129 F20101220_AAATKP alter_p_Page_129thm.jpg
0bd35205d11fdd9f1b3e5ef4e9960c71
5c9a32023aafd7a4ce7a969c011ef53e409b5968
114041 F20101220_AAASHN alter_p_Page_105.jp2
9e3c6d94bc6d90b771154e9bfff396b0
6d5f00ca5f64eaf415b8cf3cec2c856615ae7e66
108089 F20101220_AAASGY alter_p_Page_090.jp2
e5f805bf7a212b1895a62d049b7d707d
f4250633c2468f7151ba670f5d3211fc935983c2
109854 F20101220_AAASIB alter_p_Page_119.jp2
028373695891b3a9b9452f5bd09e8fc1
bbf129d2062266257825c00f1c6f1ac591d45baf
27882 F20101220_AAATLE alter_p_Page_059.QC.jpg
b5a03cc33f10e8eeddda81a1fa196d84
80be2ddf3ff84593964fc845bde2bd53a15d926c
25923 F20101220_AAATKQ alter_p_Page_152.QC.jpg
1fc2c10c7da4a61b7aa50af24afc7451
b3daed9f1652aa6b6a1d802d8b8af487118af92c
115905 F20101220_AAASHO alter_p_Page_106.jp2
dd7cf076a64f5a27f7702c2b6a830060
9a66f1e2363f1461c7aec8d337c1011208cce12e
114275 F20101220_AAASGZ alter_p_Page_091.jp2
ae0dc0098d3ce49ac9684d35bb5c4b39
02038c814e2fe88453e9d455b392ad252f920f32
42208 F20101220_AAASIC alter_p_Page_120.jp2
6d038f22a239dd03ce5f1141b36aeba1
38ae9b7e967641d558889d180cfe4de192386b42
25234 F20101220_AAATLF alter_p_Page_052.QC.jpg
fe944ea7b5d0833bb73bb19e0a5499d7
ff5b763096303b3dc13793c77989f3a9a1efdda3
27558 F20101220_AAATKR alter_p_Page_032.QC.jpg
796dbeda91572bf361ef83aed80e6514
41e21db27f17f720fc79ba86c65c3e4fe5c4120f
93570 F20101220_AAASID alter_p_Page_121.jp2
ee1bcc1ff8ddf4cdfcf8f989f2767bc1
1c51ac929dab8ef346074fbc97cc4e3c85e4049c
105811 F20101220_AAASHP alter_p_Page_107.jp2
cb5e17cf818eaa7414289e1971c24a07
91356dc547b87319a2d3a01ae302652d2d7ffe68
9936 F20101220_AAATLG alter_p_Page_072.QC.jpg
f7fe4888d8f7313b3d99322ac2578819
34906a8421942965aa152cb2405ecd9808054b08
27198 F20101220_AAATKS alter_p_Page_053.QC.jpg
fcffe128b79eb05931e170188875d53d
b1ef47fd7586185f1b9e0c8e863abb6e670c902a
115869 F20101220_AAASIE alter_p_Page_122.jp2
e65c88aaefaef345b5a6629dc7ca100c
6d0e470de020ead7eeab3c80c88a3168acaf87f1
109460 F20101220_AAASHQ alter_p_Page_108.jp2
b54cae5528748c1178ec4183b6d5d7ec
f923bb0f58a2e27a17d230555be281b4d016bfe7
5685 F20101220_AAATLH alter_p_Page_200thm.jpg
3f0a84ee245b011e9052bbdb827e91ef
fc3156e2af0edd2ccfc22ab53b96750424c85d85
6209 F20101220_AAATKT alter_p_Page_145thm.jpg
c8da36f087ae737bf8705f419feaf1dc
6101de70fefacb81f81d786bd5f9b25e1490b3e2
949546 F20101220_AAASIF alter_p_Page_123.jp2
6394262d68a2540f84e3cf501a494a63
54c317bcc19f3f30e69e15abe0bab51581bcc71c
114642 F20101220_AAASHR alter_p_Page_109.jp2
e05f1c3195b52c13b7b3aa5aa8eee7b7
24f7141f2ccce20891f6a610447c8ccbfbef093c
35545 F20101220_AAATLI alter_p_Page_164.QC.jpg
f858fdf1adb431aa65d8417caa93986f
8b7bb09d2e494d9615da22f665deb49fee6ade31
6319 F20101220_AAATKU alter_p_Page_060thm.jpg
d52095b9279ea5cd4f8657d472687001
c6890740a8e3b2694c072f778a8047394c859f3f
70883 F20101220_AAASIG alter_p_Page_124.jp2
19cbd154530a778c91f42bcc071893b5
2c6d1ae389f15f4c8e5b3df25d3b64742bb558a5
106830 F20101220_AAASHS alter_p_Page_110.jp2
e27aeff5ed74318d7510fbef948dec4e
a1764238daa2c299eb75afab771c4335b801e2d7
6261 F20101220_AAATLJ alter_p_Page_074thm.jpg
4cf5d5f7565654f2b7a3f5b6c2a41d7d
98941193f96295e4f939eeb0dbc0d11dffc49857
8971 F20101220_AAATKV alter_p_Page_176.QC.jpg
feeb50bd7bbbc3caaedfe6bd6bb14720
ae2d2dc64c580784b9f6e6a83a51bfe735cba43e
64403 F20101220_AAASIH alter_p_Page_125.jp2
26cb9c4fa410df5467e429c0cebbb4ab
f4c1037e1fb41d8e628645b1bde461404093a296
112161 F20101220_AAASHT alter_p_Page_111.jp2
5ceba94263e01b648c6c9ca3ef19d855
fce288e0f1014c72ec505bdfbafe260f1d0ac738
23077 F20101220_AAATLK alter_p_Page_137.QC.jpg
b1fb8d1921add6b18679a455f8791e5e
e20fdc363426673d1b8c658c8494cda0eca6abcc
27040 F20101220_AAATKW alter_p_Page_163.QC.jpg
90f1c430cc289ea96e43da5102c459ae
9248b0d79117eb9363fd6a04c88285de37bb1468
113551 F20101220_AAASII alter_p_Page_126.jp2
6ad42ce1e5bb4d6f239c397c2b91ca21
969bb492ee93698a33a17871cfb370e8f2654999
110171 F20101220_AAASHU alter_p_Page_112.jp2
6e66511be7f44bc10a617f6c675e86b3
4b5e72ac4bb8a51dd881530cfaea599378797429
26559 F20101220_AAATLL alter_p_Page_150.QC.jpg
d7ae226e2d678c325fe5c5daf732b626
ec2123072b09065019d68b4d62d146c52b210b1e
5849 F20101220_AAATKX alter_p_Page_057thm.jpg
abb0ac0ae18cb2cc7f99db78cfef4080
6c8b7a125f734c4954f5ba21c3863728554d97c3
73331 F20101220_AAASIJ alter_p_Page_127.jp2
d4921e0f86cea2dbff8eb4b131831201
26272ab7b8ad27b1c3ab72260e9ae8a13655bad8
107377 F20101220_AAASHV alter_p_Page_113.jp2
d5de316a2d5ea75bf9c104c7d0d91778
dbe413a81e5527016a984cea22fec0176b8dd6db
550 F20101220_AAATMA alter_p_Page_002thm.jpg
57e8cabfca12bf65f99de0726b3eb200
e98837311762af32ab4c12199fc86574fa82d90d
23195 F20101220_AAATLM alter_p_Page_131.QC.jpg
421c44e0486322ab82ac1df4f57bc1fc
18200d61cf2f5325e83cdb61284f76cf25b0a68a
26552 F20101220_AAATKY alter_p_Page_134.QC.jpg
7de1f705a25166aef0c64df21288436f
c2347bd9d118858c97a3a8b6be0f42ad711ba804
54230 F20101220_AAASIK alter_p_Page_128.jp2
318cfb53dea03aae6cc95249492f3f80
bc76e7fdb808941f24cd728faca6c47b7b17cd49
104827 F20101220_AAASHW alter_p_Page_114.jp2
6690256517621f0feb517e271fa2ec88
386743b006b461501f3de4c163abcaa2836d2c00
6033 F20101220_AAATMB alter_p_Page_085thm.jpg
1fd322c2f31f15ee090abb4be0614e86
07978bbcaa939a0c697cdece0d82d1d4a6f5f8e3
25280 F20101220_AAATLN alter_p_Page_019.QC.jpg
8a32995632641a482d241256380d08fb
a8134213a59b310dc36f8e94ffd7fbf68eb140e4
20517 F20101220_AAATKZ alter_p_Page_181.QC.jpg
ad4034b31139b8bccc5c779b6eed8f5c
efc0a4234f30439e48704e2708c9d0b8a935a7f2
107789 F20101220_AAASIL alter_p_Page_129.jp2
785640fc6c6635a8072ada4b3b9ecf1c
0414a18b5c536f49b5b60357a0c57e0e91f0baaf
108881 F20101220_AAASHX alter_p_Page_115.jp2
4719496fdfe53d8e2b4dbe4ddb2f6efe
194acaa093414595b60331dfff1c24074727934d
23732 F20101220_AAATMC alter_p_Page_130.QC.jpg
b04eac6042609f2af6e2e8ad66b7213f
8931c1a330debc2133d35449ff16a36040d9daf8
6181 F20101220_AAATLO alter_p_Page_050thm.jpg
757e3a4f2eecdebcb3b888c5b31eeca7
14247f6fe01ea0def9a8314de29f03a4f25a7952
108854 F20101220_AAASJA alter_p_Page_144.jp2
056b5698b789ab838ac40d0cb78e84e4
8bd6aba980810338c187b02707cfaf9881dee791
1031635 F20101220_AAASIM alter_p_Page_130.jp2
2e04ae19b37dbba234f45e37a9505ba5
9c431d452a81fa4badeeef0ac9cbf153f133420e
25688 F20101220_AAATMD alter_p_Page_119.QC.jpg
11f16835addecfc962370edb1584c1aa
eb03ebe06f62e5666429a6b2f139f3cc8be22e52
6325 F20101220_AAATLP alter_p_Page_135thm.jpg
65feb7ed44585daf7c033fa775635ce1
18795441c83cacbb39fdde7b5561f1d4a3db6e36
108187 F20101220_AAASJB alter_p_Page_145.jp2
d940313552f2c4e957f9fba8e0cf6272
72655a1e404fced4e66f7217ced34acde833c812
97058 F20101220_AAASIN alter_p_Page_131.jp2
1b6bd397ec05f8664424c4d1296dee72
a27e6b5668b0fe8ccebdccb20828a8fd4c768b0f
108927 F20101220_AAASHY alter_p_Page_116.jp2
c60c4f8321c0dbab1e8c3fc8c7543c2e
15897e667b279d0ca80fd5f99f2b41aefb3ab36d
849 F20101220_AAATME alter_p_Page_136thm.jpg
109813372730b1c3172a6c7efb9aefbf
6f62dd8bcfaed8498e00576b523596501ef27117
6456 F20101220_AAATLQ alter_p_Page_191thm.jpg
36f5b91eab00b9c0a46e5791fbb60a15
7dca6b783c55f1e01f16f0ecf623698f122bbeaf
112232 F20101220_AAASJC alter_p_Page_146.jp2
a3501bfbba3f2221cee8fb4becda5b5f
c2658e263416298d4f68cde1dd09ea9caed8d078
1044400 F20101220_AAASIO alter_p_Page_132.jp2
21c7ec40258f913017585c6dbb29f38b
b1b35044bddd8e8f2764422ed7e48a58db985156
105033 F20101220_AAASHZ alter_p_Page_117.jp2
895d21bd75afa7b33bca91037f1dfb23
ab9aa82204e6800acc0826db1db3e657cbee94b4
6662 F20101220_AAATMF alter_p_Page_192thm.jpg
cf08151e7408461b688be60343c3f3ca
bef77378ab005ab3fd275e4f33274b096225c79e
4986 F20101220_AAATLR alter_p_Page_185thm.jpg
0787a9a78fd22ee86e913b8dfccabb0d
4badcab1bebd62a0cd50ef5d1aa4e1e7800c7ee3
113379 F20101220_AAASJD alter_p_Page_147.jp2
0f515f387165d3b9920c1e27f669a815
dc246ab68df5296645e4c662be690fe2a2d65fca
924335 F20101220_AAASIP alter_p_Page_133.jp2
b858128000570fa57101610930ab6c80
aa25212c4b55a09d637317eab76d051410b6b81d
5369 F20101220_AAATMG alter_p_Page_186thm.jpg
792168b90f8a6fdb40825000beb2bf2d
7d74f400c4cc198435e3e9cfaf0189b68a8d8487
20500 F20101220_AAATLS alter_p_Page_006.QC.jpg
da66ba5ff12684b8324a135e012ec1da
6eaa565ce333dc3f911f119f02601d8f48f85211
114771 F20101220_AAASJE alter_p_Page_148.jp2
88004d3aebfdb0a9d0ee76ad984fa555
27c4d2be35c3f87e3e7b58df57b24fd09106526e
109054 F20101220_AAASIQ alter_p_Page_134.jp2
0ce320da2737d1709296e6f41f5de328
9995aaf054ac2491f584eec3e49a71bd2e3ad210
6220 F20101220_AAATMH alter_p_Page_195thm.jpg
048392c29a16bc05790bccda2785465d
18dd94c78ba321f98bfe39d852ff9315f941f1bc
6212 F20101220_AAATLT alter_p_Page_023thm.jpg
bf227dbd6e5dab4ecfdf8b0c9b39daaa
3bb55dfb3b4c8b278d4315f02922483e91b76b25
109696 F20101220_AAASJF alter_p_Page_149.jp2
e8f1e9302b7d5add819df55bb825f053
db46447d2797d3a5f40f127ca90b10c8fe93e3e7
111467 F20101220_AAASIR alter_p_Page_135.jp2
901e37ceeb1d61d316feaf0e8faa2ba7
cd6ec1f893630a5da8bc5f8b10eb2eeecf245fa6
26819 F20101220_AAATMI alter_p_Page_154.QC.jpg
c20177ef6a66648f1eb7b2fd437d0763
6c4af0a499b70dbd452002beedea0f990667ffe7
24678 F20101220_AAATLU alter_p_Page_034.QC.jpg
bca802be659b99cb6749632f65c2351e
cb6eead2f612bbefca90bf3d45e70fcb6a7c70a7
113665 F20101220_AAASJG alter_p_Page_150.jp2
9b3097d00a2ed25405b1d66af70af316
3bc5736e7af8540c4beed87a1f464aa865f3bedf
11183 F20101220_AAASIS alter_p_Page_136.jp2
589860a6b371b11d3addb82181255487
918637930e1600443e352d97ebaac2538ee90fb0
27584 F20101220_AAATMJ alter_p_Page_037.QC.jpg
aef485e7ac16407fd99d20d0606db0cc
9df9314dd276c1909c9f63226647ee25c1833786
6207 F20101220_AAATLV alter_p_Page_017thm.jpg
71f3491c43beefed38932e08372da6b4
d3599f20f1c874cceaa46742d9e8ff87b7f954eb
112474 F20101220_AAASJH alter_p_Page_151.jp2
48ea5bb4ed582a793ad7d08476c5c69c
698fefe54c6af41058b712ddc881d70b8945ec4f
98370 F20101220_AAASIT alter_p_Page_137.jp2
3ef27cb5a705ba4aecd89ada885deb3d
af939e7400dfe987be8882281cb661be56687fde
5176 F20101220_AAATMK alter_p_Page_127thm.jpg
3091ca955a46fb454905cbb3e37650ec
a649d3f8f634407ac6f0e821c29577ec9093480f
5846 F20101220_AAATLW alter_p_Page_190thm.jpg
960da09c2daaa2f29248fa326ea73ab9
8ed0f45b91bfce83e371c7715c0b12e0ca0a96cc
109411 F20101220_AAASJI alter_p_Page_152.jp2
1edf110b7e6ccfa4e2b2184d38006106
882a4a7761e03eee104803c67e35c852ff378be6
111165 F20101220_AAASIU alter_p_Page_138.jp2
e6088b0ff9640e7ac7e3f31fed7b6219
75cb2d08101adce22c38ba11e3f82dc2ff5d8405
6300 F20101220_AAATML alter_p_Page_098thm.jpg
d51143654d2475ea6b5dbfd74592823b
cf2a1411c1c946779d40c3a5b3a4fafd02f309f1
1609 F20101220_AAATLX alter_p_Page_166.QC.jpg
bf4f50ab8db0062cbb4dec1d86798076
19fc9f10e7719f87cf2e186c72174f2a8138c806
110443 F20101220_AAASJJ alter_p_Page_153.jp2
5f0ef328c2349d12b69100f9dbd94363
95adc5a5493ffbbe33451510cd0f5e7604b36470
109338 F20101220_AAASIV alter_p_Page_139.jp2
dd37855c2107e98e2eb42aa8821556b7
5692232ca0dca9b53c97d185f10fb1c9656301bf
6139 F20101220_AAATNA alter_p_Page_029thm.jpg
abf17d462b82c4fe8217ba096f013029
e8df3834a0d0f458a4e333547c2c91bfd8743b9f
6055 F20101220_AAATMM alter_p_Page_043thm.jpg
391e972e946b29b5422d985f170e0079
551401f334e2ae13af4173fd1488bde0410ed81d
25387 F20101220_AAATLY alter_p_Page_046.QC.jpg
273461b5ce359e0589f898a6558c2754
0907fc6d6f8b48e5ff62a912a0b057537e4424c7
110421 F20101220_AAASJK alter_p_Page_154.jp2
8bf42b39b7c07f9918b6ec35d78efd3f
9ddde61152cc637def0944475509b358dbab9c21
113107 F20101220_AAASIW alter_p_Page_140.jp2
626a11665acb79067481002886b286ed
f5a1cc7ea237880d874f7e55c8f54215b834fdc5
6317 F20101220_AAATNB alter_p_Page_051thm.jpg
e284c9fd4249a1c9e35e64f8ed0fbc63
a8dae74b0964a6c0446e7ae3ff2cba7fb38ab2b6
6302 F20101220_AAATMN alter_p_Page_118thm.jpg
013ea5063eb2b49f1207d3afd5f32110
ff96a3d5d40ba0f42f0f6e727995050b1fbbd1f4
5490 F20101220_AAATLZ alter_p_Page_123thm.jpg
89be0161ed5802f3950031671275680f
16a69f325c191335542079f885f78cf6651a323f
113588 F20101220_AAASJL alter_p_Page_155.jp2
4d24d1995295759cce0ce1568e6f8bed
7c6e8a58646b54be47a78042742cacdb036f46dd
107884 F20101220_AAASIX alter_p_Page_141.jp2
1b9dc348d776a4be24edfb50ed98cac9
82136432bb3364c913d9be20b5f261f5b12421e2
6346 F20101220_AAATNC alter_p_Page_150thm.jpg
beedc9b4d89010b681c8a05fff695c3d
c69563373632e8a8a9a32fd958a071a10e8550e8
6093 F20101220_AAATMO alter_p_Page_062thm.jpg
a4520cfbdeab819cbdea7bc407b4e0b1
f292942289cd03111732d7390909553c6d2e7da5
110369 F20101220_AAASJM alter_p_Page_156.jp2
f8bf3d5273152db0f51b85a1fc456aa3
109c5cc8c33323c2a0fc1e6c2b711cb201b0137b
109259 F20101220_AAASIY alter_p_Page_142.jp2
84b0363b511d8cc4b00405c0c3f1dbe8
5ed5c5343274e5a3a04054e7c3a298d5686f375b
160797 F20101220_AAASKA alter_p_Page_170.jp2
89cf6a43f5a07d90f4317110dddb7621
f6cafe3f90c078c1c38678571f2ff41d58a994d9
22684 F20101220_AAATND alter_p_Page_123.QC.jpg
fd3ef5e2e51a34df990d342b3a4e093c
c3235f847e1bbf89e357f330b6a9932a4fddc448
20074 F20101220_AAATMP alter_p_Page_041.QC.jpg
49fcc78a720d92d5b4b4fe33812bcb3d
5b4302baebfa2ebc19b252c82a27a02826ca98c2
103884 F20101220_AAASJN alter_p_Page_157.jp2
7538a49347d3b8917027069100e45dc7
ecce172263a9e721c79e06a329e158a601cdd109
161971 F20101220_AAASKB alter_p_Page_171.jp2
f934300f6e42a44475ace23757030cde
931495d0245f8aa07db0c23b152ee38f3a88127d
5371 F20101220_AAATNE alter_p_Page_004.QC.jpg
c2278b47abbe6f7f40b96b0638991250
8c3102c52e2ed873361d6b0406ab94d141fefcaf
26001 F20101220_AAATMQ alter_p_Page_013.QC.jpg
06363013aa687a0d9b53a040acbbea5d
cb772d57ebcad640a013e4af9d6410e437038667
110181 F20101220_AAASJO alter_p_Page_158.jp2
c6d197902af098c736616c509fe2f530
a086d70009c29c3dc11753bdfed239cd5ff37d82
111595 F20101220_AAASIZ alter_p_Page_143.jp2
1b25d978f23b16f66d854017f3f3ceca
4ea440115cec0adb06923654d98c016d0c7b3a99
98456 F20101220_AAASKC alter_p_Page_172.jp2
78fec999ee0f58746941af4bed619cbb
70a43cba5388553fa63dda45579f66e82bbc2268
25567 F20101220_AAATNF alter_p_Page_097.QC.jpg
318a1f0d9a2da2bdd5aab7119329a7a6
cf4097a8437e4d6a937d389d80ed4a5c60e5e17c
28091 F20101220_AAATMR alter_p_Page_106.QC.jpg
15af42707e91024e2e906913e000aa06
3b43bfebd28de23b1f20a44e905ff3a78e2a9059
108843 F20101220_AAASJP alter_p_Page_159.jp2
a81fef66b484f5fd6da5e0c05870b7a8
2d37d42c6d9844cf6aa9b10632199ba7dadd2b5a
563168 F20101220_AAASKD alter_p_Page_173.jp2
331837992392975e0b1da87f33f7ebdb
bc1fd6f7cc7a58da544e349f615f8ad835bd05f6
7396 F20101220_AAATNG alter_p_Page_164thm.jpg
840e4126885393bc478ed00364069280
fd189d8e7bc139724426b335e5defcc38685194b
6400 F20101220_AAATMS alter_p_Page_036thm.jpg
745920e715caa43f8fc1b9490c3ef2d1
12f113389f97bb164e485589c0ea5ffb9cfb4076
111643 F20101220_AAASJQ alter_p_Page_160.jp2
f0f485c0c96f29095142e3d7ea0b27a9
53799191fcf705b2ec606ff4a287bb7be17fec64
61535 F20101220_AAASKE alter_p_Page_174.jp2
ce953a24af19c2ac8845832f64a080ef
a2593b8c21061f6d906b25ee9a609b218d8b481d
20515 F20101220_AAATNH alter_p_Page_040.QC.jpg
df0aaa62c5a1f31058f0429879a84e63
64a34cc11b6accb015f883e8b389cc9c688be16b
6278 F20101220_AAATMT alter_p_Page_064thm.jpg
b812fbb976103c459c6e1225342cb7e6
07db2110a1af7c66c79c839deb7a62ca965a8632
110351 F20101220_AAASJR alter_p_Page_161.jp2
4564ddb160d12c8a97b12671f9aaa20d
6f920e737de1dacb5b2ce3753dbc44dac3b8c5ae
22561 F20101220_AAASKF alter_p_Page_175.jp2
d48c94042a9348e5cc49639698427435
503020b0fdd30117470ec4be6476d3a248ad7292
5993 F20101220_AAATNI alter_p_Page_063thm.jpg
c8ec062a0bc7d6d1eee3b7526bc2fd22
b7e393244bb223fa86342326ce2eadc8b763c0e5
25961 F20101220_AAATMU alter_p_Page_193.QC.jpg
b74f934a4b67c3890583dd821deb59b9
f5eb1493e378bb459c7323e4d2ad65433e5dab71
20737 F20101220_AAASJS alter_p_Page_162.jp2
31781f686b2d59766cc4b6389ff36388
b148097dab982a1a8880a9eb852be9ebf15e5006
33816 F20101220_AAASKG alter_p_Page_176.jp2
1179b4532d5f8a0ab297544ef3234844
b7d332a92f389d5fc5034e380314439eb1e3d7e9
5502 F20101220_AAATNJ alter_p_Page_182thm.jpg
fdaf783c0fbb02dfd57c607bb964f661
9c5cef56b5586acde5e039843a334adb3d2e3c21
2997 F20101220_AAATMV alter_p_Page_136.QC.jpg
074d301fc0718723f147baf03143ea91
13c61d46a844fde8f4e723258daad72ef0ef2047
122497 F20101220_AAASJT alter_p_Page_163.jp2
e5197ccce72b543c9e83e173627f57d3
4e922a5d89debe384a028063c1d150582b8f55e2
31444 F20101220_AAASKH alter_p_Page_177.jp2
1d8987ffb9a2b55446eed73abc71cc75
f5c8e98b75443ac1759902f970dd4b2556a9c284
26370 F20101220_AAATNK alter_p_Page_065.QC.jpg
4bb3ec4538197484e4d193abe9a8ec86
ac0515e87907a22e3a83fe3cfb5ab514caa5266c
26509 F20101220_AAATMW alter_p_Page_139.QC.jpg
b2ed4049584b3287d9d78c6b88d3798f
806cf69174a5c3a02888dfde0185e37ab0fcfaaa
195196 F20101220_AAASJU alter_p_Page_164.jp2
a71868aae858fb994c6e5310366ed680
1b47b7fd5f0ce105b3bbf05f5e5c640e229461e0
54193 F20101220_AAASKI alter_p_Page_178.jp2
c16be4763bb0ee51fcddfea44c50a244
5a95198c42425ceb4f2115c8476e87af32dac17b
19551 F20101220_AAATNL alter_p_Page_054.QC.jpg
71a0b10891ff5cf4cfa9e48ecf792fde
e908eccd9b02f0eaaf5cd1e92ea1b01263c1930b
6326 F20101220_AAATMX alter_p_Page_075thm.jpg
77b406459484e8e0bb1ae9977567ef41
9c723bbaed7848b7382d1f83f36cc2e814eb0379
133154 F20101220_AAASJV alter_p_Page_165.jp2
777aac2f80068a6f2e5691e1a1a32edf
30cc8ad9471ddd8db6646cd3e61b35071fe56ba4
54222 F20101220_AAASKJ alter_p_Page_179.jp2
67356908fc96c8e5564f329d04bf32c7
27ea0dd43bf23fb15376c9ea5fb638e8321f6a2f
26221 F20101220_AAATOA alter_p_Page_161.QC.jpg
0ae6fd625e2fd6fcf12e6925195bade9
9d70855ac4934508bcb0ae07d0b7f6d19a540df5
25198 F20101220_AAATNM alter_p_Page_145.QC.jpg
d0e45b2d2691c82f6ede148d1aff9c1a
c9c14de5787a2b496aa7ba51846d05d0e70cf427
5372 F20101220_AAATMY alter_p_Page_181thm.jpg
bafb6804c6435da532e8779af1c199b6
3153e8bec969ec51ea04edb5e3f0255c70b81d74
5928 F20101220_AAASJW alter_p_Page_166.jp2
aa10a6f6778b6a3aa73c586ae10246ea
45fdb94202a2043253ee580e026005df12dd67aa
72342 F20101220_AAASKK alter_p_Page_180.jp2
046b582db95795cb1f60b07a6d903bce
9992263337cd2159356c452eddeefab9147ce6c2
20460 F20101220_AAATOB alter_p_Page_010.QC.jpg
15ee692ffc9299954ecd47398ad1a2d2
4488f47312a1ead2c8905dc58a4cbe1561fa1473
18475 F20101220_AAATNN alter_p_Page_127.QC.jpg
7f838a9bd84592d1176a75b3a1cee141
6756ddf44163dcfbddd32be03dc8601029101ecd
26082 F20101220_AAATMZ alter_p_Page_088.QC.jpg
8b2492c1c75e7ff5f388c80e4a005d3e
8b2570ffbb15b3aeb128dfeae34c1885c159db24
156434 F20101220_AAASJX alter_p_Page_167.jp2
c0bc70c7dc42f7537b376063fd45d2de
69ab4f73e24fabfc9000086e9387d9997c374752
86638 F20101220_AAASKL alter_p_Page_181.jp2
a009c79d5cd4c743cc4f7fb610bc8d92
8830f2f265d7cb1cd5c14072610f7a794c7f6961
23449 F20101220_AAATOC alter_p_Page_200.QC.jpg
c7721120b3fad61289a2ede9b5682c69
a0510ea9487e15cb2e4c3ba24093b4f33d61ff1b
5985 F20101220_AAATNO alter_p_Page_086thm.jpg
2a2f8b0c5a4c53655ca300a8e5d16d0d
10632cd98d2d7339e3d2c28fc2fae8806eeac62d
164150 F20101220_AAASJY alter_p_Page_168.jp2
dc146b77bb83374f95626ffeeb9bef52
c68ee7d76546766de60d88e092ee3a7ad7e566a8
141801 F20101220_AAASLA alter_p_Page_196.jp2
7a9a2f80b747d6dfa329ca891d9e48d7
8b6c70c3e7b271d2ac1d5c842077da541fbe9b78
91955 F20101220_AAASKM alter_p_Page_182.jp2
bf657d48510f5f2aec00ac476e1ef23d
eb48413d083eee32265c8ba1cd162bbcf18b278e
26415 F20101220_AAATOD alter_p_Page_197.QC.jpg
c5e3f57b4923c0cc5e1bbb29e98883a2
68cc4550950889ce1b61fd88cea41ea75f1ff2b9
25485 F20101220_AAATNP alter_p_Page_159.QC.jpg
be7a9d355deeeedb8190af25fda31089
f2eb396733d50e5ffac616f809896418702be329
83997 F20101220_AAASJZ alter_p_Page_169.jp2
ffda32348d418db8c3efe4d38e75339c
6bc830f3e29ecb80f3da6fd5416cf2189d652a63
132126 F20101220_AAASLB alter_p_Page_197.jp2
016d374b27a567e0626c237b6eec26f1
a81711c5133b1961cbfa94489f3a41f0e25e301f
86500 F20101220_AAASKN alter_p_Page_183.jp2
0ee2a99da45c4ed82f0a98130768967a
b06130c1c9c345e0cb19a4a1122796c6a99660f2
4644 F20101220_AAATOE alter_p_Page_180thm.jpg
a52524d0cce9d56d70f454fae2cc61a5
bcfe8b23a72b799122095d99d15759312f3ac03e
22497 F20101220_AAATNQ alter_p_Page_182.QC.jpg
0ed481000cc663abe27804f19708f6c2
35fc1ea83e659552dc442af0137fa35199ff9ef6
1051984 F20101220_AAASLC alter_p_Page_198.jp2
86eb2aba0be8a872ed836933279f1427
076150c14b3871043e111acdd1f0c72137b13d03
60521 F20101220_AAASKO alter_p_Page_184.jp2
37d371f895c9faf29135594f64174025
54ddc640a4fe1f7604358246d5249748a51a02cf
5139 F20101220_AAATOF alter_p_Page_183thm.jpg
3001a6457d599485e64e0a08ab05a805
eabc644d9f5501d5cbcb8489734cb646538b37cb
26297 F20101220_AAATNR alter_p_Page_048.QC.jpg
ea54352f4dffd41499038b8e4fe12bb5
7cf53c646e7c0e65b00cfe856f6cfb75468d84d0
80415 F20101220_AAASLD alter_p_Page_199.jp2
850564afd752f4737033be0d349bc60f
d729b437fac04f045ee972703136826badf12c84
74259 F20101220_AAASKP alter_p_Page_185.jp2
3cc4f4fd0b5cdec46e3c57035713100f
b592e850cff23e7ce2468e22d59b1c02bfc850f1
5334 F20101220_AAATOG alter_p_Page_069thm.jpg
3ecbb3a2578aa74249710f7f2321d9ca
f8d53d65762abd9e76ad6645fee2cf6f8f3f36a0
6356 F20101220_AAATNS alter_p_Page_088thm.jpg
fe4a17eba731d022f44e3706a5d0a131
0ba67399802895162ff88f573eda9d5160ed0320
97535 F20101220_AAASLE alter_p_Page_200.jp2
7fd291dae2d924499224e8f485ce1128
316e23fa1d81c7d830cda724fb739cf6c8994030
82458 F20101220_AAASKQ alter_p_Page_186.jp2
26666bdaf022441b099b0f8f49f81aa2
2374e58a32029f1171d69f468ab551d5661eea85
6219 F20101220_AAATOH alter_p_Page_028thm.jpg
e0e110f6dcd0918762bd4693dfbec713
16161850f609067249fc761ee68d6c2c3635e6b7
20917 F20101220_AAATNT alter_p_Page_201.QC.jpg
dc8899f4aba75167decee4e59dc5bd16
6ddf73c793b9e2797ccbb260f5a13200b0eaf9b5
88935 F20101220_AAASLF alter_p_Page_201.jp2
2183c1b93a9d5ae138e42c36756fc6cf
01034ddc91a49fc1e283acbc456f8d2f2661c254
75451 F20101220_AAASKR alter_p_Page_187.jp2
539d8d04fe3beca3dbc17963ccbf4b07
dcaa7210b95c7d890a97738d6f2ece289e1cf7aa
6305 F20101220_AAATOI alter_p_Page_084thm.jpg
993d4d6ad9b27b542f8534e877d4d0ac
64db9be88eee21dca565870e343ac305467a46a8
3468 F20101220_AAATNU alter_p_Page_008thm.jpg
9822d3f18ca549027e20c76eb20f09fe
aa76b4d11b8bd68720079061887d657e764c4a0d
1053954 F20101220_AAASLG alter_p_Page_002.tif
f04494ae15baba1134e696396c7b1f88
74da757b54981075c382da878967fa75f45009cd
30019 F20101220_AAASKS alter_p_Page_188.jp2
db5ff6573b418b7fd620621ae650cd75
c0bda891a31d4e0b445a84a5e39e5ecf21d4c56d
27275 F20101220_AAATOJ alter_p_Page_044.QC.jpg
6b9f3bb48c74a81c76b46efd6dec9dd6
b31f7c7c3809a46917dc75a2c02e3ddedc22daa9
555 F20101220_AAATNV alter_p_Page_166thm.jpg
7431d1b7333129b17041c8681d5a764a
5762e52cacbee21a5a216b9854572cbd51f21866
F20101220_AAASLH alter_p_Page_003.tif
2d3693f6c7492161297676089270178c
5bc82fea7aa4fcca495fe355ecbebf9e70420c1a
62758 F20101220_AAASKT alter_p_Page_189.jp2
e0c73c075e3a0d0cd31efea48e2e2856
4fb958a8b35b9c41fa991361ac200eaadc5f476c
22154 F20101220_AAATOK alter_p_Page_121.QC.jpg
30610394a70d58147c7569c2e2b924c9
ae8e76318f8d8872a325a384573a487ad555182e
1442 F20101220_AAATNW alter_p_Page_162thm.jpg
d517dd3bd74c7197f8e9ee897396e991
c9c8810db1819acb8aba9d69b92624e7e6c18190
25271604 F20101220_AAASLI alter_p_Page_005.tif
8b081f7361e4db66bad9f37b62947418
7c581d351501eb3fa8b7bb5a08c5bb9d6dc2d248
116194 F20101220_AAASKU alter_p_Page_190.jp2
763e62dcee49f4c4d34484644d10c5b6
679119ded9772ed0a033a632da28975a31932d9b
26203 F20101220_AAATOL alter_p_Page_074.QC.jpg
2e59e59bb8a8b5d7c8ad20243522b8df
5fd48ed0db70057e26963c799e4d2b0e288edb43
25876 F20101220_AAATNX alter_p_Page_084.QC.jpg
b991017e6f61c95ad469506070d6e757
f9ce2592990944e5b29a723ceec1e2ebb2b85437
F20101220_AAASLJ alter_p_Page_006.tif
e82fe71527c36fd03b4f3fc1d177808f
6d96e473811fa5dfaa1daf562a691e80981c6c8a
133762 F20101220_AAASKV alter_p_Page_191.jp2
5657aa1825806c5f51f6be31ae3e014e
aa41a20467da1d2ccf75313ed0e57d417d8c2f78
6183 F20101220_AAATPA alter_p_Page_038thm.jpg
6b13e6b5f1cbb5e1a24d81045dfefa4a
f6d580875b166b2520b4245f249f182e9241d159
11535 F20101220_AAATOM alter_p_Page_070.QC.jpg
1b6a2d8ebaa4cad951477199434db63e
fecbca0c9303f45de48a633f5c082cf88d1be736
6127 F20101220_AAATNY alter_p_Page_047thm.jpg
63ddea65a282221bb55e97c7fb6f11ac
b725d7c4c7ed029d7262b4519dd002e6dab027d0
F20101220_AAASLK alter_p_Page_007.tif
ba31ebc1124f842382d6518b83ffecad
fc0422c1a47d37e3aed9ee40fcf039f65de6062d
140484 F20101220_AAASKW alter_p_Page_192.jp2
e78f702e7ac76ebd468716b327f52633
380648ce4f32a93b1dd53ad95e5f7852ae1dbab5
20447 F20101220_AAATPB alter_p_Page_020.QC.jpg
ff410d140933cc01c19fe9ba3f53c774
36336a527e4f2282dbc12d4f82d68ea7455560ed
26956 F20101220_AAATON alter_p_Page_105.QC.jpg
f17195d182feb187bdade13539d99663
2a3f76dd483b08013635c092e68190834f110efe
5960 F20101220_AAATNZ alter_p_Page_082thm.jpg
68fdc896ebc4ab4e978be44ba7632b37
3dae75ce45cbfcd04ac6036d3fdc5092cad3650f
F20101220_AAASLL alter_p_Page_008.tif
6ab4155048d76170e68c60ee0ac80525
f672c8e2a9e5724281d6536c6950d99523752b71
127328 F20101220_AAASKX alter_p_Page_193.jp2
6a6c3b55f9e75bf2a3c61cecf544ccc1
e755fba2e04bc7fe4211aa2c40fcc237dd55f620
6142 F20101220_AAATPC alter_p_Page_116thm.jpg
aab0d2ea4ad0cbd1144d9985c62c533b
8bee246631b79da530368bb0ce9f7247840fde84
6375 F20101220_AAATOO alter_p_Page_027thm.jpg
7da50216f65c51baa26e8171428d0015
af6d6fac458a6e74509373f7183f50dfad83b33c
F20101220_AAASMA alter_p_Page_024.tif
2294dab71fa03dfc417f7f17f252fec2
b31df2f60be85b7b198c436d33829087d11ad59a
F20101220_AAASLM alter_p_Page_009.tif
4b376637b39f5d65e7eef56205852f6f
d821d6220e5a122c77389827f8cd320e68f4e068
126981 F20101220_AAASKY alter_p_Page_194.jp2
6e58066a530ce5f5d94109525a4520ad
e34b1628cf8f0be9e7aa49d6d19e20b8e93b5950
5252 F20101220_AAATPD alter_p_Page_121thm.jpg
9628a8a56551cbeb7aeefd6ae5f5a22d
a0278acc58f93ce9c653ee6f8f4fb7e0e783ab32
6065 F20101220_AAATOP alter_p_Page_110thm.jpg
31f366fdb3e9ecdba236cb1f092ff9e1
8da9f3c8e6cfab1631d9b24ae0c100b016d0f0af
F20101220_AAASMB alter_p_Page_025.tif
0c8236c8002c128f3de1734aaa2b0624
1a72cc80e9e0c7126a97262314f727ee6d372694
F20101220_AAASLN alter_p_Page_010.tif
092f952fe85199fd87e86c972e819ee1
795f41a2751471f24d7159cebc1bc74c7caaaf19
128472 F20101220_AAASKZ alter_p_Page_195.jp2
7525a2216f0fcd161795335041a4cf97
5b53a216772f1cc5fb23862f17e403ceb6b00862
24892 F20101220_AAATPE alter_p_Page_066.QC.jpg
3f00bd7136286fc1275e86b3d841c853
333eb9c39be1e987d859162816bc230a5abaab0b
5999 F20101220_AAATOQ alter_p_Page_080thm.jpg
8024e87d2fa15603df120d3d648d95b1
0b7c067dc49bb466f607375349c58e8699f2aea7
F20101220_AAASMC alter_p_Page_026.tif
64251420e81aff45a6487b147bf23c2e
a1b54c3aa891241600779c4e221f186d37c7c708
F20101220_AAASLO alter_p_Page_011.tif
7235f508ea96121d6648d543e9caf103
026d4b0a2b1c86233268c85a4a7998181bca9625
10106 F20101220_AAATPF alter_p_Page_120.QC.jpg
2dc70883d49f6f087e88a0ec360265e5
65b98d1b2c575956b8ed9bbc816497dfb95f9a41
25340 F20101220_AAATOR alter_p_Page_116.QC.jpg
0be8ac3c1feec745bd49fd306c91cb51
1aafe35bd4c4fb2c1f7e1871a5c158470edb984e
F20101220_AAASMD alter_p_Page_027.tif
c0d8308241a25cb73a1fbd0a686cec25
b26b79131f65942362922bcb97ab6e1d736c31ad
F20101220_AAASLP alter_p_Page_012.tif
812bb0b5a96ef023b0d7f589f36ce8a7
2ea27c5ab97db00258e7b4c9263b9ef29218b317
4565 F20101220_AAATPG alter_p_Page_189thm.jpg
c58fb09d6e18c8ef01b7059017a2bd7d
c749e508cf90e35269383c67418aaed771cd899f
F20101220_AAATOS alter_p_Page_032thm.jpg
989f72e6163564b501e53eb7626042d1
bd63014a7b947a9f93580359c7fbfd4ce65d3ba7
F20101220_AAASME alter_p_Page_028.tif
a628be56159f98bbcc556618028ab3a0
1b7f9c30a69e1807ec420b88efb6d25232459221
F20101220_AAASLQ alter_p_Page_013.tif
2b9afff08cc7e0af0810f3fdc6bf9833
7640aeb586f18a55f17482d97471b97704502e94
6144 F20101220_AAATPH alter_p_Page_042thm.jpg
66608ca7b19cc76ab9c40c4ebca6541d
6b96286d6de532c49ff55617ba08a611db03f993
23642 F20101220_AAATOT alter_p_Page_021.QC.jpg
6820417c7bb074244173772a7d926e5b
1b44d34260c11b077fa3753d9592d6d0d83eeea2
F20101220_AAASMF alter_p_Page_029.tif
58b8f4023f3cc496e8fd32770ebd79b0
4d31a5f7908facaf84f595978a7bf1c51bc91bfc
F20101220_AAASLR alter_p_Page_014.tif
fa22f45c13cb9f707d696fb7aa90d8dc
aab7de9a3719e634e3a8cbce4be20079ace8a45d
5971 F20101220_AAATPI alter_p_Page_107thm.jpg
d646c581fee7a92a22fdff975a1fe220
8b22332372cc4ac16606d50d63b40f805bf4a89f
6155 F20101220_AAATOU alter_p_Page_018thm.jpg
7bce31bb2df6931c8a9376ce14e80ceb
0653616476727a965416497dfe40a1932af2c3d0
F20101220_AAASMG alter_p_Page_030.tif
ab6b3219d1a2a6a48ccd703132de4174
30bdce6b94046d79a32bf0ddfc2bd8db309a0196
F20101220_AAASLS alter_p_Page_015.tif
e51fd81bb5eb06f6711755dc60314a12
28f8dbd32d8b61612fdf98bc1fbbed932641b842
28123 F20101220_AAATPJ alter_p_Page_196.QC.jpg
fe56e415fe5139b68c6f5d00d4f8c2d7
d531217cff71a9cbbc090dd10b20f0830d065dee
5557 F20101220_AAATOV alter_p_Page_041thm.jpg
a4c45073ac8156b7a77841df3b3dbd16
319c688c7e3e52b1bb42cbe5d39503b56f5de65d
F20101220_AAASMH alter_p_Page_031.tif
668dbc73a6e2dde520073c7f048e3455
c10d266aaa987e0456e5082c516f9d881d53f772
F20101220_AAASLT alter_p_Page_017.tif
5158439e98ead8e843ef4b6e7cbb264b
25080a02f781ab6cb3fe8c2abf79cbbc82faa84f
4950 F20101220_AAATPK alter_p_Page_010thm.jpg
d60ac029e03f3f6b221d13ded39c3884
31ffa149adfc522006685a86edcc1f92574a58c5
25288 F20101220_AAATOW alter_p_Page_095.QC.jpg
0ab0fe17a835e426a46f1a93026348b7
01ef845659e34a58e509a2129521f37ef4acadde
F20101220_AAASMI alter_p_Page_032.tif
9b326fa347c0d3fe057a0983c3ee984c
8becb3e6f102975418251d06fbf729141e38cf92
F20101220_AAASLU alter_p_Page_018.tif
54d0db83461191fd528207de356d5f95
18d3319995378591bd83bf30a27f3d8481ea1442
26488 F20101220_AAATPL alter_p_Page_109.QC.jpg
faf0b553e52523159fe243536fc17f4f
a52967419c206287d588d67d1fb82182df6fb28b
6477 F20101220_AAATOX alter_p_Page_115thm.jpg
c86f936e35470a8d8979a805491f7442
0c882422339f0afe3ef7004cd0ce254ec2a838be
F20101220_AAASMJ alter_p_Page_033.tif
c1f26ddf53220458494ab00392e70eb2
e6ca3c6a51fc4fba65ebc4d14a92831b4f1cef69
F20101220_AAASLV alter_p_Page_019.tif
70917be73f7003691e2f7272db1057f3
53fcd7588bdcb9bc1876b39fbc0c5e8ce327c390
6180 F20101220_AAATQA alter_p_Page_081thm.jpg
f46659e7731704fbb0230bcd50d02f9d
85e931a4534c1de00b3454e208daee89aa3f99b0
1748 F20101220_AAATPM alter_p_Page_073thm.jpg
08706abbf587e54020b9b0323a7a41ea
19cf3e283519d39ff278e0694bca6dcdcd8fec7c
25837 F20101220_AAATOY alter_p_Page_160.QC.jpg
83b04c220df95ac2a1af440568abf00d
92f746b8d6048c50f0b4f0fbec5d92022bfa60f0
F20101220_AAASMK alter_p_Page_034.tif
e44ffce5ab4805839a229c692222fda0
3e4ad4297da1da7512706240c7daf380941f9bb5
F20101220_AAASLW alter_p_Page_020.tif
2f4093aa15db71c87fa0e4aef4ad1e41
192b783590daad878b6ecafbc878bbbcf8fd7ee7
14436 F20101220_AAATQB alter_p_Page_184.QC.jpg
a9ac3b614c699c54d43c823bc4df6f95
fd6fd398d5806c657ff180c0bae8bdd55da7e1d8
F20101220_AAATPN alter_p_Page_079thm.jpg
e01affa0723eb8d72dca45efe16ecd25
cd7a014c30ac9817bc6ef09a8d4c288fe818aea3
26522 F20101220_AAATOZ alter_p_Page_153.QC.jpg
50ea38383f1e1d41740d9c4908524025
d2958d0bc9f31e1a965dabe1deae633fec57703a
F20101220_AAASML alter_p_Page_035.tif
16420102995f09e4ac86f70c8826cccb
b100c9928fa5559228395967dea57a21fce30d87
F20101220_AAASLX alter_p_Page_021.tif
cf3a8c967c9afc9f274a90924a76f5de
d92d18d3fa8f6bae6a5e5fc0c03c286a1f310730
24682 F20101220_AAATQC alter_p_Page_157.QC.jpg
20a88c2d17e188234ffaeb88a0efdc2c
3334a524f59578cad46d627f14add7a8eff6693b
23401 F20101220_AAATPO alter_p_Page_100.QC.jpg
5706516ee61f4463d9ceacbc77807a2f
b0724f4986b9c22a8e7ba88ec5f81a9cfff1d0ed
F20101220_AAASLY alter_p_Page_022.tif
3afdc90b2340093564eecfb4dbe16245
0fc962594fac359f469ee5dfbe182757ae654b8f
F20101220_AAASNA alter_p_Page_050.tif
6e47f46f8bc674f6a34faf599d0e7188
5d85af761991a1470414fdd3671ff0aee7d440ff
F20101220_AAASMM alter_p_Page_036.tif
62cd268c7a716a286ca6c96bb31aa4cd
77c1f5066c3bcfd13e8cd2c54e99ed563f55a1b9
F20101220_AAATQD alter_p_Page_102thm.jpg
13ddeb67bd7c0784a00e8e643eef01fd
d24bddd08d66a733d6575ed3cc6856933042a7b9
5565 F20101220_AAATPP alter_p_Page_100thm.jpg
2aef2b0f74225c9716acd618ce6743ed
39811fd054f8902dae520fb128d78bfee627e774
F20101220_AAASLZ alter_p_Page_023.tif
9b80c0842c9f4ab8174e0a6aa2c9f353
dec87d71ff2916f4b6c2f224e60403805ec24af6
F20101220_AAASNB alter_p_Page_051.tif
23fec787dd5a9d399a1f198ba4981a28
b9f545e94717a9d8a1abf8ee610065ffff9e3c31
F20101220_AAASMN alter_p_Page_037.tif
cda95966bbae7666955cd6401ca6787b
e1732196f4013abe3b30525b0a2ab4e1c6ed41fb
6264 F20101220_AAATQE alter_p_Page_065thm.jpg
0fd8c8d95f3227f1f06351cea0469437
d3c02573dfdf78f7b28268a3be6f850bfe4f4801
4677 F20101220_AAATPQ alter_p_Page_125thm.jpg
8abd79d51b8e0b63f61e7ec25539ff13
f967d0f4485fde244c13942ddd1757550f5a41f8
F20101220_AAASNC alter_p_Page_052.tif
ed8f0ef9656464e72282d5f15cffceab
d53817f4dce65c1da596ea6dcf0a93a248a48421
F20101220_AAASMO alter_p_Page_038.tif
41a45738f34194a8fc93976af62c3362
cdb21f0c79ce58c65c212806d6dc23fb5bdc9b42
8064 F20101220_AAATQF alter_p_Page_001.QC.jpg
bd67899628241e33e11291df266327cc
266631f14018b821726626d5150784bc84f5aa33
19231 F20101220_AAATPR alter_p_Page_011.QC.jpg
36090501f909a5de7eae1cd031ff75b1
5fcd1c2fc17d3eac4baaab4067b86726fbf7a5f4
F20101220_AAASND alter_p_Page_053.tif
6c18dc4d03f1bf174c7d21efaea4ef9f
afbb4f7c45002ba4c8904184eb51ca0b46e9e2ac
F20101220_AAASMP alter_p_Page_039.tif
00c005c8bebc8426c25cdbec92c1e873
7a7d5f223db9981a379c9625727a2fdcf54b4b14
4128 F20101220_AAATQG alter_p_Page_173thm.jpg
a0121e7a07ce67010312d1e9317d097e
85cbc94c16c3540403e872addd6c2e6763c0a56b
25896 F20101220_AAATPS alter_p_Page_078.QC.jpg
c618530ef39abd7889e0bae9b18723be
914eebf1b0fd118f2b357ec827ae2c4cb2d9ad0d
F20101220_AAASNE alter_p_Page_054.tif
ab3bccd6b38f02aafd7b351ab2c8d72c
2c9618b39dd4b77d45b87207c4127ecec5a24d99
8423998 F20101220_AAASMQ alter_p_Page_040.tif
2bca4d2dc4d79c5c276412c5e7feae5c
b6fb4042b7a243f894526ce2de591cb81e0c1be2
5902 F20101220_AAATQH alter_p_Page_095thm.jpg
73414d8f788bd16b2347890c66cab982
a98f0542220784b6902f6c13f4e36495dae223e9
14749 F20101220_AAATPT alter_p_Page_128.QC.jpg
89bbcb58936f52058ba3384ede8e3ffb
9a2155b9817763ab124184c245f4d6dff924ba4e
F20101220_AAASNF alter_p_Page_055.tif
404c24b15a4179db5397d563ad3cba57
933033f0266246d10b601a86a111ae1fcc530fd0
F20101220_AAASMR alter_p_Page_041.tif
a8cc28b9cfd9306c58ea474282be5655
82445679cc5114b5749cd570326dabe9eb19480e
5895 F20101220_AAATQI alter_p_Page_040thm.jpg
e609e2ac7196248ba3fce5060d222980
8f921ab0a6b4f81e49189b04d2d566718a67b9bd
6060 F20101220_AAATPU alter_p_Page_077thm.jpg
0a44255411f862b180545aa751eda4da
4e351f2c3ce2ba20f91404f567d9894d20723eae
F20101220_AAASNG alter_p_Page_056.tif
14e3b6eb3c3a0189f9202b08c827b2f5
30c76aa103faad5b280f3f3c72fcd157b91f4660
F20101220_AAASMS alter_p_Page_042.tif
fc52b3b3d6f12e878f4c9ef260edbb24
a00de5aad614ef8e71f6677af44a07edc719febb
4606 F20101220_AAATQJ alter_p_Page_020thm.jpg
bc653616b89704487ed5aa60d13dd0db
a2e65c5da0daf8edc6c250da40a60967b104d9c5
4538 F20101220_AAATPV alter_p_Page_169thm.jpg
c9ca784af94e51cecacef3326340e085
c36ccd9b10984f02dfc4d2367fd2190d8173cd09
F20101220_AAASNH alter_p_Page_057.tif
5eafea9102ab4fc266c3354321dcaa45
c5ba9ce20b53c35429ce0dca76c5dd11796366c3
F20101220_AAASMT alter_p_Page_043.tif
ba7eca0a6779aec317ff943275880598
6db34409f81963cf0ac7ad26854d468a3bddbdd3
13580 F20101220_AAATQK alter_p_Page_008.QC.jpg
023a76140cf9284a95718556d9e91a91
45335b4923e36951bc11311a3771a32526f31b95
21709 F20101220_AAATPW alter_p_Page_096.QC.jpg
0d28d535b4363cead03779e13a4536fb
0b2a63ebf934d5a731b4bf1166288013717661b7
F20101220_AAASNI alter_p_Page_058.tif
d69e299c971ffc21a4cd59d3907b7bf4
f4a60a29f77cb45774437424c17be0be91b51011
F20101220_AAASMU alter_p_Page_044.tif
fe928ea67b4614a801d55aef58dc6fd7
b9377d73959a68c5b6da19adbf9d653481ca1d67
26303 F20101220_AAATRA alter_p_Page_022.QC.jpg
e2fb70ede1d7f78de5936d6e520c0fa9
5e7c9c14ebb5c088f70505182743aea37e122001
297922 F20101220_AAATQL UFE0015410_00001.xml FULL
ad4fa4377767ac649659374464375479
080029c0a04b406646a498e9d216f34e371d1442
BROKEN_LINK
alter_p_Page_001.tif
25763 F20101220_AAATPX alter_p_Page_092.QC.jpg
ccc2cc160589c8a2e3d4edc767919ecf
e33644865e4369b02f3790b12282d59400289b4c
F20101220_AAASNJ alter_p_Page_059.tif
f68ec3290bb8f877e98460462cc0d472
bfea995317ada73fa5ac35be5e63c1a31255c232
F20101220_AAASMV alter_p_Page_045.tif
c8c074999a5ed17d29b73eb4a6c453fb
6d72a1796db72b8d32952e7713e02ca62c19c558
1542 F20101220_AAATQM alter_p_Page_004thm.jpg
be920d5923db12151da9ab5a62bf88ed
923384057cb616b556264e45346474055da03b49
5982 F20101220_AAATPY alter_p_Page_014thm.jpg
0f57dc4faebb577cf2749cf9452d8fcd
42d2f6823b1f3f047790069beb85b222d736a0c4
F20101220_AAASNK alter_p_Page_060.tif
dd5848d512bf62b4fa9baa851b621514
5d4c69b2e202cf46c81f8ddc8dba911b3954c302
F20101220_AAASMW alter_p_Page_046.tif
00b9734b1d2b09e0f8590a9cfce9b295
ef844b4a5f6386893d3fe843e453d6f5594f9e53
6188 F20101220_AAATRB alter_p_Page_022thm.jpg
b098acbb315f24b824ed5c3fcc49efb4
7658d43ee9199fc535abe2589328175c374111ab
18524 F20101220_AAATQN alter_p_Page_005.QC.jpg
5d7a2e07bd772fdba719730713347a9b
773767deec1f8f3d31455983f20234506b1123e0
25428 F20101220_AAATPZ alter_p_Page_081.QC.jpg
fd259dae21df7f9283f5075d84f2cd1b
5cb618328073b9eda7ffd3101c0aca2052933f7d
F20101220_AAASNL alter_p_Page_061.tif
2a41d777be7b3fe0e7b3ddbd4f599da6
f25f2623dbe7feb965ad6ac35d3453a82e1f722f
F20101220_AAASMX alter_p_Page_047.tif
61a4d5cd54884f2e860e1bd584044555
2d81101adc045f9f4a5a96762d542d1c4ccf0158
27212 F20101220_AAATRC alter_p_Page_023.QC.jpg
3ecd928df06c460120a8fffedee16540
86036f4f5384026ed074cceeddc26d16365eedd7
4301 F20101220_AAATQO alter_p_Page_005thm.jpg
d3566d2a16183e2833b0e5a9f9b8b93b
c5609766abb5673a73742178557de200d8d46107
F20101220_AAASOA alter_p_Page_076.tif
ac1fb90876d0abd0b2d83d7d59ab5b15
e264f0c321e27c67ab0fc48992c21498a3b04687
F20101220_AAASNM alter_p_Page_062.tif
0d80fea68dde4e1d53c67b557026d90c
f4ddd997487b799012649c3e08057db5cba4e3b9
F20101220_AAASMY alter_p_Page_048.tif
448e7149bb8cc7dc4d1988b0ce99ff13
df9b01edd3a53b3fa7ef4b95723bd11e52a60a3b
25980 F20101220_AAATRD alter_p_Page_024.QC.jpg
815dd604f8639876d00ab6bb6c6f6fa6
85e7b05f73d31c2d69242718114317c59d0d729e
13445 F20101220_AAATQP alter_p_Page_007.QC.jpg
0f0f25de63f68a099f4d090a53422206
a6160326d27d308958da863ca84c9c1c2b163ffa
F20101220_AAASOB alter_p_Page_077.tif
638bce14aefe8c335af28961dfe7ba55
f85dd0b82511667f1f4a35362f993e1e2f4f4deb
F20101220_AAASNN alter_p_Page_063.tif
37668bd27a0688da2ed64c98cc24420e
761cc4a117740fcd6e701256cf444ebcd249e5f9
F20101220_AAASMZ alter_p_Page_049.tif
659645827d96227d6060261177d3f046
ed6feabdb7cc2a722f8b23c1559cbb47a68ea6e1
6149 F20101220_AAATRE alter_p_Page_024thm.jpg
1ea27831a66c0e6fccc2c4d55b55f71d
ccaff1a35500d3ac73011423e5bf3d972530ddcf
3346 F20101220_AAATQQ alter_p_Page_007thm.jpg
9ea2563d19603739cc400de044299a46
3f7d5ec9f113cf1943a816625e4f7847bc834d3a
F20101220_AAASOC alter_p_Page_078.tif
7c540032d2b8230b8dfca345b5629703
cad41d928f1b1c83e7589ce72b77366d67edfbd3
F20101220_AAASNO alter_p_Page_064.tif
63eb43ed822063a0da6a560e80ba6165
0067363eeb21d95c7ff0a7d6fb8f16313c8dfee7
25117 F20101220_AAATRF alter_p_Page_025.QC.jpg
8beb8708df81292463bde9d81cf70350
be7fe23a23a8636ca630696e931610700f4c7320
1885 F20101220_AAATQR alter_p_Page_009thm.jpg
c7e1e845ad50e676c4540badd91131bf
09d4fb7c8802fc9340921826bed17ddd0b3a1c49
F20101220_AAASOD alter_p_Page_079.tif
3f0c32d3b5e52a2879141cbbc27b9577
fc592f28d2b7f60fa90050975b72b6d4a6149c87
F20101220_AAASNP alter_p_Page_065.tif
6457f44cf7b75a67cf54163f0cdc0379
06961a9deb1b410853f74715237131489a99e549
6074 F20101220_AAATRG alter_p_Page_025thm.jpg
9e88fd6af49d32f5e496653944686d86
3e1469e18768bd944e9ac7469e89c4a49f48bd64
4546 F20101220_AAATQS alter_p_Page_011thm.jpg
f7414b3592c46174eb959cde4206bebd
38a77227a74ffd028cf58b85ec85f91f6e32482d
F20101220_AAASOE alter_p_Page_080.tif
28198d550cdf9951bedeca0bdedfbc67
e00cacc8a0ca81af02210416db16aa6634c17959
F20101220_AAASNQ alter_p_Page_066.tif
18dcd1cd2000e2390aacec102b03bc0d
7738cae73d9f04322610d8d75ecf885b0fa0d97d
6436 F20101220_AAATRH alter_p_Page_026thm.jpg
840d9f1ceba82873a17fdca320acc4bb
47ec35c5cebc6cd0365857cdd5d9c8e310d5ad86
21862 F20101220_AAATQT alter_p_Page_012.QC.jpg
207aeb293b189cfb2dbf8b76d133863c
98bbcc7bbee60aeb638e74ef2b2f7f89a9eb0b29
F20101220_AAASOF alter_p_Page_081.tif
02db39e9557e393473e5677308d40395
7156e1e7287ef8fa48e756ea2692522e1f573684
F20101220_AAASNR alter_p_Page_067.tif
febb5019eb2810cfb26f24c297066072
75f36f501f3ec7cedfc50d52facaf5689cff0342
24646 F20101220_AAATRI alter_p_Page_029.QC.jpg
4719b538a03bb12357f84d46a4e56cc2
df5109b76342df5091abd08195f8ffa6e95a804e
5325 F20101220_AAATQU alter_p_Page_012thm.jpg
a7a6b792247507e2c6cbfa1e4feb0a40
f0232a5823d114c07c14052acc64f3e1d870bcbf
F20101220_AAASOG alter_p_Page_082.tif
630a72ef17c80745b0e4c7c7a497beea
24f6947b25b5aed740f9a9898b5e35624e42d825
F20101220_AAASNS alter_p_Page_068.tif
752fd32f692f554df6ede1151d624c07
1f2288f9abb284088870a8a5fefd8fee8a3dd1d5
6213 F20101220_AAATRJ alter_p_Page_030thm.jpg
febfc482ba2012452078d5ef673cf1eb
69880d9b06cac0daf2c33c7aa970506d39fee5dc
25899 F20101220_AAATQV alter_p_Page_015.QC.jpg
f54669841c43b66c2cc4648c93e25be9
abd212a02ede6faaa6d592a9324281d8f55a9fed
F20101220_AAASOH alter_p_Page_083.tif
19dca0b3166f9d4c7dbbfa19bd661f67
428fcae01c0f0549cb34c794c80587f595afc89e
F20101220_AAASNT alter_p_Page_069.tif
13b6c2da57f4e06e14c19f7250056089
6a633c1f68194a3143d4ea988f1f1d7f6ce10d12
25132 F20101220_AAATRK alter_p_Page_031.QC.jpg
21955840487953f72b3d63c76d30029d
9104094f062e9107d329d17393cdb7ee964de5ea
6124 F20101220_AAATQW alter_p_Page_015thm.jpg
fb71e1050e665db8cad578b36206ef46
1959ff1bc42e96540dd20af3e151ef974793cc9f
F20101220_AAASOI alter_p_Page_085.tif
9c06580f2e7e267e978baf0c5e9ec767
c50b41d7e1a77abedd68750c50285322881ab226
8425398 F20101220_AAASNU alter_p_Page_070.tif
f3af2f88ee37529f0d9a18e0a3faa4a2
49a5db53a78656b5067e9a78a3380d501fb2b1dc
4818 F20101220_AAATSA alter_p_Page_054thm.jpg
aca17dfb4c99f16744c37d341960d313
0372f05ef32a10aa43fabe2df0e382466a0a5df0
5930 F20101220_AAATRL alter_p_Page_031thm.jpg
bde6d949b31e3cb3ec23c69d016cd60a
86892851e00e36476331324dc1603f3598b3c1fb
6363 F20101220_AAATQX alter_p_Page_016thm.jpg
d75b39a74a4c9ccc86f8b644f7ad9ac8
88fe88748beaaae4aa14e7c16d419c5cb0fd2cae
F20101220_AAASOJ alter_p_Page_086.tif
0a54b9b130428f48d5e273bd9731d340
196e30b29d641261f12b9521e508b0a036507f50
F20101220_AAASNV alter_p_Page_071.tif
5c59faacb674f84e7cc5e5819179d3d2
c6fa939e2e4f9a8511a97d5917450f534bdb373f
22617 F20101220_AAATSB alter_p_Page_055.QC.jpg
3c2f8cebf17fddfc140e044b55e4c947
853192b50378357dc12a5fa196ce5afb94b3c3e5
25512 F20101220_AAATRM alter_p_Page_033.QC.jpg
665c56a213041e3350bee08387883752
c811166ddd9f7b87cbecce12a3de865c1f81102c
26135 F20101220_AAATQY alter_p_Page_017.QC.jpg
05a7ee11baf8f724e2e43571fb374ee5
5b65d7dbd3adfe5258d8c81cc1890aff8ad43d66
F20101220_AAASOK alter_p_Page_087.tif
941283d530bb94517edd16150863819e
94ee431f85d4394074aa67f59aec7d128bc0591f
F20101220_AAASNW alter_p_Page_072.tif
171b7cefb6af7bdb6f25d59718b1e430
c6b0add1e32de267c018b257608acd247d4d78e5
26818 F20101220_AAATRN alter_p_Page_035.QC.jpg
ac86d60142af81748ef60227b689bbbd
3f1ecd2d17d9bfe41a0da7b718bbd40ea56fc13a
25143 F20101220_AAATQZ alter_p_Page_018.QC.jpg
3d320f569fa8bcd8c550a006704400de
bbda84deed3919b0991fed65117bb547b90e24c3
F20101220_AAASOL alter_p_Page_088.tif
26a2bc2764ef7267984a8922905d0470
4b1c41087773cd34d9abab354ad89369587de94b
F20101220_AAASNX alter_p_Page_073.tif
65ecefccefe2f61bc0cec8c191a89107
5244a779738289f75239d7e33c7799c07b5cb31c
6333 F20101220_AAATSC alter_p_Page_055thm.jpg
50332787d789ec0c2c41ee81cfcce2c9
ece3b33a469d8792c806867a7512a2cce6e01646
6384 F20101220_AAATRO alter_p_Page_035thm.jpg
ea47ba35469eb57d1be98f6900065dfa
fdf8cad41ae17c3b0303bcba1b49f67261986811
F20101220_AAASOM alter_p_Page_089.tif
a99cfe88c865bc6d6c5b423f84e5fb29
0159da9d6ade45d668a8cc84b082e753ed3ddf19
F20101220_AAASNY alter_p_Page_074.tif
44ee14c2c5dafbcad428524ab0c6d297
4ff9b77d683097f67e793d6f853f6f1cb0a142a5
F20101220_AAASPA alter_p_Page_103.tif
22cbc4b3d2e112cac8609f0b135768b0
0307c99327f990a9216abbf9905f418b1c37deca
23819 F20101220_AAATSD alter_p_Page_057.QC.jpg
f099bccce51c02f947b49a862925f3d8
e02a75fd585283781e8441c062639d66aecb0adc
26877 F20101220_AAATRP alter_p_Page_036.QC.jpg
602c14fcd9d540551f4ca9a03f1cbc36
353e991a36dd01dfe60ca124da67edfb5424af0e
F20101220_AAASON alter_p_Page_090.tif
6b8aa16c0242931ea312e65debc3739e
fc62a6aa2ea59c424cadaf0e35401e250eabe624
F20101220_AAASNZ alter_p_Page_075.tif
98db79c98304aa44840b29d9a720cddf
7aa2c1719baf9425f5712aa2df98f7867ea25231
F20101220_AAASPB alter_p_Page_104.tif
47cb7179d1757db1f39f5c49ff11d0da
55932d48fcbd6370d1c4f3e36cfc42654ff5183c
26059 F20101220_AAATSE alter_p_Page_058.QC.jpg
02daa515a304f8a3621601e890f24c02
add12797cd84d3d2918baf2e416c0291bfa7acd4
21614 F20101220_AAATRQ alter_p_Page_039.QC.jpg
4b0d9a691c4f72943ae873f4d7d5e872
c77de6f38a8b55573f53b19ab1507bae4e6cdd3f
F20101220_AAASOO alter_p_Page_091.tif
6e98ae35e9b682a93837105ee158f77b
7cdff0b82a1c2bd52ad9d8b8f41d989ee7fc78ad
F20101220_AAASPC alter_p_Page_105.tif
8c686b0af884131c335913a114d7f26a
bf13b05b67936673968955cb0777066a4a45a288
25933 F20101220_AAATSF alter_p_Page_060.QC.jpg
21a50616781e09215cc4e19b08b09063
4d27d469ace812839bb8a4d325554b549a27b396
5073 F20101220_AAATRR alter_p_Page_039thm.jpg
85da4308556c8d193c3a1d8ddb44e185
c82308d53277ee64335e3f0cbfd7f1fd5d7e1e78
F20101220_AAASOP alter_p_Page_092.tif
4e4b217c02813b07508e6b2b94aee8d1
772b9984d8ff4c6128fc3798e660b726f36ac0bd
F20101220_AAASPD alter_p_Page_106.tif
a8a022f49844920eaaf488021b889b56
95d3edf0d896350f0439d82165a676fa73bb2e16
27095 F20101220_AAATSG alter_p_Page_061.QC.jpg
064baceafbf67fd39b560d157161690b
3ecf948499870b9feec7ce48f1ef9439dab47e5e
25608 F20101220_AAATRS alter_p_Page_042.QC.jpg
4d03445e6add8f1942566db487808dcd
dc5a7fbd9725f0ee1a97f9ecc21c7f906425752d
F20101220_AAASOQ alter_p_Page_093.tif
1f7d748f6eebfebc2d4d35b458aedad4
976dd1d66e58dc44084c7c3ae53277661c79e4dd
F20101220_AAASPE alter_p_Page_107.tif
e2bd44fea41df56222904fdc0f49445a
e745bb5ee94af61c1404810fef44eb70f770716b
25630 F20101220_AAATSH alter_p_Page_062.QC.jpg
c9dfc9e392fe6752309bb37500490e53
5e6cc6eae3102e05c76dc410f4bda1099e199753
25353 F20101220_AAATRT alter_p_Page_043.QC.jpg
bf94afef285fc0dfb18e88cfa93ab0d0
12b8c4a1327e008a83dc12481a66737e1ef90142
F20101220_AAASOR alter_p_Page_094.tif
d888bf1111a4c8a804395302e3ea6c86
5f76de5e6c6d7073eedf9b235a15edc928025c5e
F20101220_AAASPF alter_p_Page_108.tif
8cccdf593a0979262f49373d93aad1c1
295451e01dcddc0062830ad0715a97820d15d873
26201 F20101220_AAATSI alter_p_Page_063.QC.jpg
893ee5ee9f185a4a7b13a27d3092970f
8c7304297e89ca8b439d582618ab4b96fc2fe863
6343 F20101220_AAATRU alter_p_Page_044thm.jpg
81805dffa4c04730c23181f5e1aeea7d
daa5550c89db67e7ca57f7b0311a2a25c2ac02db
F20101220_AAASOS alter_p_Page_095.tif
5b3e4b40f54746c16bdf0f977518b1b7
885d8fa56071fa39a45b7bc1e800fdcd178f2b45
F20101220_AAASPG alter_p_Page_109.tif
ff52befb72090a857775935c53391ce7
2fb6d1f631b6d5f318a6752e6d72b71f45d36c93
25282 F20101220_AAATSJ alter_p_Page_064.QC.jpg
a85d60642d80289bc3d2c4fa1f0c8245
807c5b53cc4c2ee2fb23ca6b3fd9d7d132b66891
25260 F20101220_AAATRV alter_p_Page_045.QC.jpg
eaf8272587891648336169920f60bf5f
43197f437e3249dd06d11ea8acac5a134f44f91e
F20101220_AAASOT alter_p_Page_096.tif
8f805152ffa88f7f00ac85ddd78ecd86
cb01f17c0b80d21f6b2ee4b005edf958f2781464
F20101220_AAASPH alter_p_Page_110.tif
d436730e08f53a5c148299d319a83d6f
d0a3b74ddc14c17c1bb6f4372ee4a53c05ccf09c
6026 F20101220_AAATSK alter_p_Page_066thm.jpg
7f05ef2beaa99d187fc25c1688949b40
bc749d2cde4726e1987ba2919d1787c824d0c5e4
6097 F20101220_AAATRW alter_p_Page_045thm.jpg
d39ee396bd38b09e1596f6959428ded5
698f5d3c1e81719d1ef34afb235b4cddb611f582
F20101220_AAASOU alter_p_Page_097.tif
e70c9ba5e5334074ac39702398374777
fe0ec8fe19b2fbe61dc39c89578d06f157aed909
F20101220_AAASPI alter_p_Page_111.tif
3e6909975a00bcda363426408704a09f
2226e72995c222e33cc3771b91ed5243d812fd62
25380 F20101220_AAATTA alter_p_Page_089.QC.jpg
0d5d4060ca3957058ac0d7e9d1f5e199
90798ab5004866cc330846a31b8c91ef66da543b
3225 F20101220_AAATSL alter_p_Page_070thm.jpg
2b6256c2694ee2d7eb0f4704e601d62b
7ce857d7d60d85b165245b2107379eca01dd2179
6022 F20101220_AAATRX alter_p_Page_046thm.jpg
2892133871705c12351112e05529438f
21db38bb9ce45fcfce9ccb4011ecf4135099daaa
F20101220_AAASOV alter_p_Page_098.tif
0d3aef62eb4fed16f801660f5936120c
ad5f2e04bb54c6f6a4e89da236c0566c1305fd50
F20101220_AAASPJ alter_p_Page_112.tif
306d74dc711bbd69e09d4b2a1e23213a
778d9a71b17b9a81231c89b6c458d5fe7fcd90c1
6288 F20101220_AAATTB alter_p_Page_089thm.jpg
3f56b6eff4ff57f963cced1bca81bc7f
1bb8ab4faab4340d6bf585d3ec7bf3925b68144f
9228 F20101220_AAATSM alter_p_Page_071.QC.jpg
64e09ea53d9cc39fd1f49ec32ecc935b
4bd783a5984523f37ff1e44bc3f573892846f314
26534 F20101220_AAATRY alter_p_Page_049.QC.jpg
89735ca2fb99bb871baaa61e959fa83d
7e88ce52931d0d228419f09d589ecc73d0baafd9
F20101220_AAASOW alter_p_Page_099.tif
0c7dfbe28321b5f04a2cba68a3d9d9b0
b5e059c9b66a4befd748da45e05ad3e7abb21fff
F20101220_AAASPK alter_p_Page_113.tif
01369387c00a7138465a02d3d59b762a
54e1fdd67173a544bb789c2d933bce61ef14ce3d
6313 F20101220_AAATTC alter_p_Page_090thm.jpg
094dc949feb1e2c48a109822e39fe63d
3d7ab4874dff40d6cd4834d6991f796d02440b28
2935 F20101220_AAATSN alter_p_Page_072thm.jpg
10d1cc016686cc33c624db31e4146efc
711237c084d1259095f88d1af2519ddfad3cee0e
27087 F20101220_AAATRZ alter_p_Page_050.QC.jpg
93807015c5b1b5f54659af5492e055b0
f41de5d8fe8ef1b4b59a7d85c2d3b98a47ff23f3
F20101220_AAASOX alter_p_Page_100.tif
d36d88aab35103f5cfd8e31212638991
9baf89f036f6a51d42257b5721f29418a741d3a3
F20101220_AAASQA alter_p_Page_129.tif
ed239e9da8bbfadb05e33c2e510f705d
9759dd7d334a99d9949a44fe29c60f233396f1fc
F20101220_AAASPL alter_p_Page_114.tif
12b26d0493e2dabcf84268e9c26a3760
a5beed299c633b508a1cbbf8d83f0ce1354e27ae
5547 F20101220_AAATSO alter_p_Page_073.QC.jpg
18e3da7c5f020abe8965cef67fd308a9
fa53ae8255281b3e30f09aa278b8b1e533e4df71
F20101220_AAASOY alter_p_Page_101.tif
b32de28fdf6a2eaaf0e13a4e6202d747
2acf8b59f8a9074e59ff82989c667577a2c55ebc
F20101220_AAASPM alter_p_Page_115.tif
b4c6342dd29bf18c7dc028825e012365
922a0d4fc46589654e3e9ae39b445de71478a9d8
27156 F20101220_AAATTD alter_p_Page_091.QC.jpg
109137c816eb592df5a782a5817eff8f
25500e10b6d45c64ee9cd11e9a33753ec086bbbf
26080 F20101220_AAATSP alter_p_Page_075.QC.jpg
5837b0781f9ca12d7228a5b9733ee81e
c46d9efbd2e4b0871f559905ba359cf8a35841aa
F20101220_AAASOZ alter_p_Page_102.tif
cdb7809d4b9a7e0719789b5db48b0e34
0489d677ec5d859d991f814c7aa9ab79bba9bfb8
F20101220_AAASQB alter_p_Page_130.tif
0a9bfe97f8a844efc6f2b068b420fc68
f60c7ff7084a115fa0f5662a290e1ce195d9ac8c
F20101220_AAASPN alter_p_Page_116.tif
3304961ee535f990983ef8193adaffc5
7dfa88612090007c9ffe6c10edd8f2b7d7e6ca97
6341 F20101220_AAATTE alter_p_Page_091thm.jpg
10b83380664eff8fddf76a0d4b5c36ed
dfb0bf06cede5120543db7025e576a74bab4336a
25040 F20101220_AAATSQ alter_p_Page_076.QC.jpg
eb39ecdb873b14d3165aa3f5b2d9170b
399d7f6d78ac1d7321ddb5277298527d0da2d762
F20101220_AAASQC alter_p_Page_131.tif
121b3b432b968145f7df9cf96b32d294
cb92648ade64ee0bb1bed1b7f742f6da018aa5e5
F20101220_AAASPO alter_p_Page_117.tif
be0fc79061df36420ccbaae83af25caa
9b3008544e784d97d32e091125c938258056d079
26705 F20101220_AAATTF alter_p_Page_093.QC.jpg
9cc854daca17d00022eb0b841aeddfb7
627418b2adba3040cd9c0717dfa5253a31e059b6
5989 F20101220_AAATSR alter_p_Page_076thm.jpg
35098c6a5905350a79b8e47a3ba4b30e
ffdc87c92586ccec687a0dc262dc68e6122f5cbf
F20101220_AAASQD alter_p_Page_132.tif
6fb49be4dc61bdbb8b31abf36f21319b
28bac9f38f62187d1b410190dc6be4ea86d86cca
F20101220_AAASPP alter_p_Page_118.tif
93b7b35080924e72e690f7506dd7064c
27f4e78734adf5ef55263c3e8386fd174d7fa569
26161 F20101220_AAATTG alter_p_Page_094.QC.jpg
2fd03ee1dd7c7532752ca0c95593a801
3e864ce47f942c44c218107bc276aac7aa07b42e
25243 F20101220_AAATSS alter_p_Page_077.QC.jpg
06630a5cbde2f2b28f324f73222f7242
16489a75318beeb1770c21582bc243163151c073
F20101220_AAASQE alter_p_Page_133.tif
82b10787ff7ed3fc510458463b18dba8
8f0ca70d0ae8d3dec813849307eacaf78dbc16e0
F20101220_AAASPQ alter_p_Page_119.tif
8241e3625d35ee2daf7911364bebab03
18cf9aea31b8b71fcbe5700fa9a424904abe6ad9
6441 F20101220_AAATTH alter_p_Page_094thm.jpg
5f2975de2ebffca42f5d7f84ec300070
9c38f4335c101e9194e9f324b9109921f96017d2
6269 F20101220_AAATST alter_p_Page_078thm.jpg
c7e53dd43ebb6c183e0e5f2c0febd709
f83d7a766a772b4b5b024eccf8f8dac35291d8e5
F20101220_AAASQF alter_p_Page_134.tif
38a994b4e1297a9290c192f07eff458e
0b3982a84859106e38f692dd461ed97ce6523b86
F20101220_AAASPR alter_p_Page_120.tif
1421cfe30f97cff4e9ffccbc24ad7b14
8e02b7ef4debda81ce40d6ec9b8d6ca0a8ff13fc
22348 F20101220_AAATTI alter_p_Page_099.QC.jpg
2c4605b6d5ced82c3c517fcca5788b2f
52928fe4e7193be2c0c22ab05e60120c678cb834
25369 F20101220_AAATSU alter_p_Page_079.QC.jpg
481ee7c02fe748295bbe47fa8b40f35b
36a9c68bf04588b942976dd99a307b95af52deab
F20101220_AAASQG alter_p_Page_135.tif
9073ff5bb192257c97e626efe640b5e8
48e4cd00deca51fa9a32d948337cd3194891427d
F20101220_AAASPS alter_p_Page_121.tif
87056079cb284b0692d152e531136e52
016e7ce6514802d89dd73971cb42b3c2e7f65c69
5776 F20101220_AAATTJ alter_p_Page_099thm.jpg
efcfdab691049693e1ed135ade76d209
c942fa4be2b40cee5cdd7890636ad9a519b18d4d
24246 F20101220_AAATSV alter_p_Page_080.QC.jpg
b1dc5898ebbef8cdbe62c82de4efd22c
b0b914672cd5e99e5b7dba321d975bd6be789a94
F20101220_AAASQH alter_p_Page_136.tif
2dbebceedbf9af3340f67f6059c663fe
03759fc93d9862369f1e01a48c1720bffffe3198
F20101220_AAASPT alter_p_Page_122.tif
8bc8b5d4327fd280dbfdd1bb4a9ae5ce
7056cad3382087cdc56d4e0c3951c8e13076215c
25547 F20101220_AAATTK alter_p_Page_101.QC.jpg
f5aefdb6be387778d69f3807259e00f0
1ef896eac3828e468d2aea91804f4ee05202db90
25480 F20101220_AAATSW alter_p_Page_082.QC.jpg
34ecc148f80e48aa6fe4b5318ec6e71f
bc5409b72ff1d3cdaf38500f64707b1f33878435
F20101220_AAASQI alter_p_Page_137.tif
9482dddd76c35979a8b1ea4a0e5c06e6
e04d32208bb8d5a2719e1bb54ea66d129eee10e0
F20101220_AAASPU alter_p_Page_123.tif
7578d684d3e2a8e32f73b1d33d2810d4
92cc68543335bbc422eecbc6495d45a16ff5e913
F20101220_AAATUA alter_p_Page_119thm.jpg
ffe99834b381465f22a6174722b7d939
03beaf2759231b020d34a64ee832eb04a6adc1cc
23854 F20101220_AAATTL alter_p_Page_102.QC.jpg
420f6bcddf2d5cae0a3c59c42b390b12
48cdb321c7b83565d81a264a07c14b0cdaa408bc
24722 F20101220_AAATSX alter_p_Page_086.QC.jpg
b9a513976510137194a62455fee8d273
a5b4c2bd7b5627294a58c6ff54c3739e66952725
F20101220_AAASQJ alter_p_Page_138.tif
9d6336e6f7514342099c1b7a758bfa8d
a2418759296b534f8a3a67f7ebf6761d8e5afd08
F20101220_AAASPV alter_p_Page_124.tif
95d54d41a8b102fb50bfd060496c5f34
d2f4ca5ce520b363a86ebd98e53f34699b04d729
27329 F20101220_AAATUB alter_p_Page_122.QC.jpg
e0a4636eda702d805dcd1795fb3f16f0
f9c0fd63d2ef9b55d91ac34ed0cf6693e032ae34
26381 F20101220_AAATTM alter_p_Page_104.QC.jpg
4643d40f7c275a3fe19707e9d13b349b
6b2cab5d3acabda970aa42f6c6b84b47c6d65990
25875 F20101220_AAATSY alter_p_Page_087.QC.jpg
1523b1a17d59a196a41de4f839debd42
0087d2a88ce33316578034af368a6492858a7c29
F20101220_AAASQK alter_p_Page_139.tif
eb8afc6e0652dabebb62ece699f342c1
ed09cfdbbb6ab53105e456b37d55077e767cbe0e
F20101220_AAASPW alter_p_Page_125.tif
316c122764275e8a742a298e57f35776
2bb5f82143f1230758254a8e3b2168c57ed28c44
26924 F20101220_AAATUC alter_p_Page_126.QC.jpg
3fb106f44122be093b3c85e3bcfbb749
5c0ced964014dc98ba34541c592419106e9897b5
6334 F20101220_AAATTN alter_p_Page_104thm.jpg
58521837e937ee62e4841ae3285a5573
0f84dfe53437a60da550adffc38a7eda722eb7fc
6079 F20101220_AAATSZ alter_p_Page_087thm.jpg
4eed8ce13794852b77b25d23b9f80e26
116c7e503e0bc5776bb16fc077af8af860e2169f
F20101220_AAASRA alter_p_Page_155.tif
858859a325b0cb1caf20a629691b1579
c3f18a474ebaf2db288f4136cfa9a75dbffa76c1
F20101220_AAASQL alter_p_Page_140.tif
b0b4b24c3b33a7663d2175417a08d2be
08df631e2b26226161ceb123684504ba1169a79b
F20101220_AAASPX alter_p_Page_126.tif
8d941749de765a89a50f0107279636c5
ecadf29150775facf118d31b414a0b17873b2d7d
6406 F20101220_AAATUD alter_p_Page_126thm.jpg
8e4a12a563a1cc0d853ba8cbefbf6e19
d9e8b54838e14843e6c093ce75c13c8a750fb5e9
6391 F20101220_AAATTO alter_p_Page_105thm.jpg
ad25508dfa5939f5e88312b572a82c1e
14d80a178d20ee655e3981cb5b308f07ca222c2b
F20101220_AAASRB alter_p_Page_156.tif
dabf4d35f67cc76974c778d9ce6d55e4
360e9308870daf9bf07a32ddae8baa2e9d1d9d1b
F20101220_AAASQM alter_p_Page_141.tif
5bbcd6fd203968324e6cfff5979bec40
2b65f9b5fb651958aa47dbc9d405db6fb47a684e
F20101220_AAASPY alter_p_Page_127.tif
a576dc23b5d9ac873d5861fab48cf2ad
7d92a35b58a68ad68122136768d2e7ac0b22cfd6
6338 F20101220_AAATTP alter_p_Page_106thm.jpg
3b2ec906abcfac877a13ef79762040e3
1e1b44914ee9c703b1941397621dfd10f04b39b1
F20101220_AAASQN alter_p_Page_142.tif
8d1a99c3ebe6e11d043c09604abfb24f
8ac7dcf34e0571035f3e5f2e74627cbec420d614
F20101220_AAASPZ alter_p_Page_128.tif
10e1e5d728991171d7cd3697bb52adc5
7fd64caee83fde7b1fd8b4d6da335c97286d3b11
24835 F20101220_AAATUE alter_p_Page_129.QC.jpg
9aa1f18ba86fae2d50fdd86b5925f14c
45038ad93ff912e2b2cf9b548daf3b8061172ede
25761 F20101220_AAATTQ alter_p_Page_108.QC.jpg
2962552db47417be2ca08ff23a27507c
a643a2ebb73b55c837fe5cc5e2aec79b4e5b7a37
F20101220_AAASRC alter_p_Page_157.tif
f15543f6b356b2a94deb41f65400de33
499a2da5ed02dd835a7e1a4c29b7b4d864b56680
F20101220_AAASQO alter_p_Page_143.tif
652290f9dc43bcd3e7d2498f3153a727
fb5afb91777d806b73050360faf82e47a8ab653e
5610 F20101220_AAATUF alter_p_Page_131thm.jpg
81f6d3597cad6f025e2c52ca421416bf
a17bf22db62a7ff3072fd2c77f1e790430820c3d
6012 F20101220_AAATTR alter_p_Page_108thm.jpg
bc9db3b7028f5a50b76097cf82b2cc58
5158873a58b8f68a21362e78667512d3e262c365
F20101220_AAASRD alter_p_Page_158.tif
18f761fd95cdd25e45bbdc9d638b864b
3c89e6e5510fff89dbb670020c3c0efbeee515b8
F20101220_AAASQP alter_p_Page_144.tif
e05cb18ff9d7a009bc0391b777a471c1
eb64ce584b88764e67f6d6cf97d74fa88c60f5a1
24508 F20101220_AAATUG alter_p_Page_132.QC.jpg
beea029e690dbd10748bd99c27648507
d10d19c3c10bdf53cd526e4ebe665bd53aca8706
25559 F20101220_AAATTS alter_p_Page_110.QC.jpg
c6259a649c089b6852f40c1e2e391fbb
3780d6614887d4c60d8ea75f2abc7bda291a2f0e
F20101220_AAASRE alter_p_Page_159.tif
42d7ac5e45c45d655570ab7f414ee736
31cd477e46d1eb204077335bb3b3e8a5e5151dde
F20101220_AAASQQ alter_p_Page_145.tif
d7655d4372674eab22707da810d1e5a7
b7b5907b033a3e1f096a1ff08666b4fbad8cb4fe
6031 F20101220_AAATUH alter_p_Page_132thm.jpg
b3c00273e0c2b5a4a2facef1c813c1c0
096ad516d1147d0b778f88f6e11e5d50ffe2df55
26068 F20101220_AAATTT alter_p_Page_112.QC.jpg
2f52b29aa25802248322f573e5033ac1
6b207fb2edbcafa58b79ee16f2a6ee783e33a49d
F20101220_AAASRF alter_p_Page_160.tif
f50d8966fab67629f570356d0cd2e042
32ffa46d5a56b756ef6b6abfdaf97bdc56b18ec2
F20101220_AAASQR alter_p_Page_146.tif
9f15548ef2c153b176ffb8b771ad1869
79716ff9fdc1b239e309a28c19fedfaf9a38558d
22021 F20101220_AAATUI alter_p_Page_133.QC.jpg
88f0ff324a9477b299a2a207d248619c
1a662ffca7c68a3e213490cf0f76ebbb175287b8
F20101220_AAATTU alter_p_Page_112thm.jpg
1291391a08c9a14deba062e673dcaa53
5b4b827c4e7a3c2ed3c75fb16e8cdf224b920b0d
F20101220_AAASRG alter_p_Page_161.tif
fa113204eeb87f16540f2f69fdd9a411
8afbdad9bac90d303eb9b4feaf605ed44d63b616
F20101220_AAASQS alter_p_Page_147.tif
e67d4b420243686d37c2dc3e75ffc0ad
39a71aaf5cc97edb7ad07d3525834546195f912f
5499 F20101220_AAATUJ alter_p_Page_133thm.jpg
de422b7a6225d90508f17fd844c755d1
4f9f69b58c3d87b5b5ef19a40e03492a13d5fc43
25566 F20101220_AAATTV alter_p_Page_113.QC.jpg
fec8445981db827a18baf55fdd8fee5d
91968510b5dc856d50e0aa0907e568293f86d628
F20101220_AAASRH alter_p_Page_162.tif
061f1cafd230ff5a5b0e01e86ffe78a9
7fcd89b9a690fa58746fb3b31d586f0d008186d0
F20101220_AAASQT alter_p_Page_148.tif
5a070b99ced443f7c954518452a5432e
d108102d654fe95857203d9f1bfc03331c7f99df
6409 F20101220_AAATUK alter_p_Page_134thm.jpg
c897fceb3126f30ac041110a7355da57
69bd7abe3f0bbdf7911192e21d3ff39e3c309db3
24813 F20101220_AAATTW alter_p_Page_114.QC.jpg
077ae22b76fd52a7fa3995b02f75d601
ae272e505caf3ec3f53f5225c6f263da2f082b30
F20101220_AAASRI alter_p_Page_163.tif
ab8211ca6e42a140efbfbc17650d8243
e8c8c203ce6b8eee6f3c01dd8003cd0e5d9c110c
F20101220_AAASQU alter_p_Page_149.tif
2241fb7bb282eb80c62dfa722a7f6171
7e04d567c6d69c44275e12fc962baae32d2d2d11
6315 F20101220_AAATVA alter_p_Page_149thm.jpg
b9b96d4c679838153ae86b9f952740f7
b01c63449e727f600c07464941a22cf94dd0736f
26503 F20101220_AAATUL alter_p_Page_135.QC.jpg
45eba5f06d0638e8bc9e1d8cfdbe4b86
c0ef04acb0c2b41c62b5c58ee508dad210fadf2c
26233 F20101220_AAATTX alter_p_Page_115.QC.jpg
24abd77d6ad67258fd583aa72cb41adc
580f323ebf059f2199da04b1be605c9166bff221
F20101220_AAASQV alter_p_Page_150.tif
c4ee9b533cda8e2c4dd0642c5215e22f
ab7d0d7108178d7ee82fb1ac947ebaa72379d044
F20101220_AAASRJ alter_p_Page_164.tif
7c2052acb5de03900ac9757dcfd9772c
ee27f7e2d23d3bb954d2074b9dbe1308f9c2566d
6407 F20101220_AAATVB alter_p_Page_151thm.jpg
6a13f50da82ba347e02efc123d507a41
7d1229899da098966536b876b04616c68b4fef9e
5482 F20101220_AAATUM alter_p_Page_137thm.jpg
2f32ad6b3e2f549c7e8ad3a1a4fe593c
2a3fcc9b6c5dfb9ec219f3db618376ff932a3e7a
24099 F20101220_AAATTY alter_p_Page_117.QC.jpg
7facb5943d89a19f7020afd04f8d1770
6d67dfebdd21664c5a11faccf62aac65c66414a7
F20101220_AAASQW alter_p_Page_151.tif
cc3b7c6af339bb7136f1d9025f4014c6
87e9218d1edc5f33140c31a82f94aa5a9f127be1
F20101220_AAASRK alter_p_Page_165.tif
0269918166dba7c68780620522aa9deb
b6483c3d6ab053e23b45d7e4255ddade9247faf9
6320 F20101220_AAATVC alter_p_Page_154thm.jpg
e4bb9f8e44e119c8706178b3a5d3f068
5442990529a3bc19d28f9a21345d8d89d6802cc8
26141 F20101220_AAATUN alter_p_Page_138.QC.jpg
afe951d14c04bf85306b79a245af9a69
962652666345d5678b272b6127fe27bb4adfefba
5789 F20101220_AAATTZ alter_p_Page_117thm.jpg
6bce5b48fa5dee4686dc6fbb09b73e8e
8342f6b0a4cf4284f8a2f967d687f331d51e2b5b
F20101220_AAASQX alter_p_Page_152.tif
2689dfaadaecd86006a540c5531fb93e
8d3d8f17b7ed1b9cde08d262e8aa13191c9abd18
F20101220_AAASSA alter_p_Page_182.tif
19b3c3044c1c103eb3afac07e09b1ec2
4d69e084ff432f546e8799e960c51395d6d5da67
F20101220_AAASRL alter_p_Page_166.tif
eb9cc4b5fc72f0297b49367a881e022d
8a0782a1d23ae46d0f5968fc934a38768a4c1710
26617 F20101220_AAATVD alter_p_Page_155.QC.jpg
27aec0b80254fcfa3ec7334315850267
cb210407aee66274fb8b16aca189239433a8e33a
F20101220_AAATUO alter_p_Page_138thm.jpg
bb90ffafd20d0aa6e7a9f82b5dc6759d
656b02ab9bc285feadb44403adf2f23ee06625a7
F20101220_AAASQY alter_p_Page_153.tif
7ea1d28112c59d729d31aeabb49022f4
77cc805afe0c14971bfd1c1c659bc974a2e5b3d6
F20101220_AAASSB alter_p_Page_183.tif
8fbd96318bdd3909abd64c0cf9db05b3
f96fceee3c5058065f4800f51c89d3a4615387a5
F20101220_AAASRM alter_p_Page_167.tif
b3aa7f884c78c357d39df0293d8c3bc3
dcf77201839606efe2d4569ff6df904f55a0745c
6361 F20101220_AAATVE alter_p_Page_155thm.jpg
0af69eb80c3398c31f977d0ec30db2bb
b9da48fc3c9086df9481a3cb596ffc5c48c76c19
6039 F20101220_AAATUP alter_p_Page_139thm.jpg
4d40f9ad056ea5890f4af0cad60c128d
4de5e0d239e00cc62bef85ee8bc1203e1136e29a
F20101220_AAASQZ alter_p_Page_154.tif
d40bd1cf5c215c2bced11c5e5ba0e2c6
c3423d5ccccda5245921f29ba64e9c1dc53878df
F20101220_AAASSC alter_p_Page_185.tif
442f3f680ff20ab40838ec96ed892c26
f709cc76034569fec2bade3c38f30eb0e44a2098
F20101220_AAASRN alter_p_Page_168.tif
b42769a194367adcdb37c883ff2504e7
f7d1bde8173b8a7880f42378409f71130528352e
26766 F20101220_AAATUQ alter_p_Page_140.QC.jpg
0e795f304e19fc79e55216a0dcb30190
01c4cc5f4fd6e6a4b97350b99537abe1b62c1277
F20101220_AAASRO alter_p_Page_169.tif
cb23a3fc4b7bd3a3c319a9d04c57f780
d7d241d03fcf15961738e5df540e998cb506f2e0
26215 F20101220_AAATVF alter_p_Page_156.QC.jpg
e3f588f333f93bd942219777453949c5
29bd8cd22dd5854b159c685de34edcbdd97bc3c5
6352 F20101220_AAATUR alter_p_Page_140thm.jpg
d3abe4651e996019bc15ab61ec15ed92
ae3b7ac0523d579644c73efccb136c05766a0bf8
F20101220_AAASSD alter_p_Page_186.tif
f85c5836c582cc7ac91ff01d5c43d156
38d67107b790b386044dca30a717d3e6e64f7ed9
F20101220_AAASRP alter_p_Page_170.tif
43769d3b2ec3f7591b5239cc70c74ce2
e1672191b95d896a542d8d1feb83e634c24c9169
6307 F20101220_AAATVG alter_p_Page_156thm.jpg
b1b4c32764909866f0107703dca9866a
14698c7057d8ab986707df28e90c87f6dfc89c9b
6098 F20101220_AAATUS alter_p_Page_141thm.jpg
1481b23700f71839b94b270414fea26a
c023c22176727ca946d29d9ce863d13cd4040205
F20101220_AAASSE alter_p_Page_187.tif
737936988f0d14abf6514418d2c1eaf2
a4f261f41b0ed47f7b63c53c23cd0e9f179a6c87
F20101220_AAASRQ alter_p_Page_171.tif
3d0ef88458ef4b31f82f9d13a491f51f
cbf6a7db2a76fc6db72d9525d2b7708cba418d71
5909 F20101220_AAATVH alter_p_Page_157thm.jpg
a5c8fb5e5c7eceebf8260f0a40fea92d
e315cf1781704fcfcd580cb8821d815b50e60239
26274 F20101220_AAATUT alter_p_Page_142.QC.jpg
006d3d640a96a98168b217b66e18dcda
5dea2539bbfb82448639e846b6ae192fe979d24a
F20101220_AAASSF alter_p_Page_188.tif
827d42dd033d2e288031f5fe46a6ed38
6f618bc7c4b37b85ba4c67ec84f7e7a4ebbd3917
F20101220_AAASRR alter_p_Page_172.tif
ddd75352703fe8a9caddc61a966ee224
dc8052d62231f89420d30d2268e93cfe3162cd64
6094 F20101220_AAATVI alter_p_Page_159thm.jpg
904fc65230f28e12f64a035392bbc69f
746ef64372875afc3629eac5ebf23f24e2add00f
6223 F20101220_AAATUU alter_p_Page_143thm.jpg
83e87f171567574aabd07fa59d4d42c9
0f0b19e10ac94597e2c30fd669fd358362c36fa9
F20101220_AAASSG alter_p_Page_189.tif
e71ec63e714dca9a5e21865d70044458
a6d93e414da182bb2434630d3caa9b0df1f2c5d5
F20101220_AAASRS alter_p_Page_173.tif
f585863cb20a652ce8ffc2f67d97abbd
d9362fdcae962fdd715591424ae8bd844c0d32e3
6233 F20101220_AAATVJ alter_p_Page_160thm.jpg
fd5f70bc402ba90c0866531db1a2ebd0
4df6cdd2ff7a7f729bd925bb463189f5ed061753
25469 F20101220_AAATUV alter_p_Page_144.QC.jpg
f8816235fcdd5eb28ce7465264875aa4
0240b995906387e1d50fd0fff706ec61dd5faa32
F20101220_AAASSH alter_p_Page_190.tif
702cd3e51589eae1ff6f8d29fbd79b83
687e4355f3a79b0aee180632ccc0c4d220c532a1
F20101220_AAASRT alter_p_Page_174.tif
8465befda21ba3b99fb17fafce961473
29f594560cfe2e160da09cb34d5065b43af0028f
5933 F20101220_AAATVK alter_p_Page_161thm.jpg
8ab19e64a19596ec7032ac054046dc1e
0df736408eac9445622a3ccf3bda3a24a816bb9c
6184 F20101220_AAATUW alter_p_Page_144thm.jpg
370db4b67e9e52cfe6cc94b90ba2bf92
c882df6007288f69245a71b751c4c87edc101018
F20101220_AAASSI alter_p_Page_191.tif
31d23d3e4c1268c52cae5e943a1b54f8
ce4a281f57014679e786764ee74bfe5b3d7d2d3d
F20101220_AAASRU alter_p_Page_175.tif
1ffb2ab47adf0f0c05a2f96a100ade8d
2ab09002936c1fffed5800170b08e6018c3aaa75
2727 F20101220_AAATWA alter_p_Page_177thm.jpg
26a86747718c17ea4bcd1c511d71dbc6
b9e2c7f53139da0f8b6261d570aff947cc247292
5162 F20101220_AAATVL alter_p_Page_162.QC.jpg
fadedc1fd1b4ce7024afabd64ec2fa36
67d49f3ffdd085d6ef8e8846cf4c119be03ca0bb
26635 F20101220_AAATUX alter_p_Page_146.QC.jpg
4e485de44156257eef8a6bded94af78b
6312262f129426d8c0ff55a378d8b964e9f450cd
F20101220_AAASSJ alter_p_Page_192.tif
b7b3dd02b5bf11cafea28995fbf2fe5c
360616c934bc9d4c130f1314d6eb5b931227bd1e
F20101220_AAASRV alter_p_Page_176.tif
3ebca8845d74388323964467eb6eb2d8
fde23e92548f60f5777cb7abb244f7f2f3091f98
4113 F20101220_AAATWB alter_p_Page_178thm.jpg
d031f8d2a719dea5cba174d8054d9c0c
2d9b3d4de79156ff8541816a8b32596d4d42dbb4
6117 F20101220_AAATVM alter_p_Page_163thm.jpg
c869bbb7ce347b51d83f161fb49fee1a
4fa57b0e7451f13c73b181e47459cc6e92b28aa7
6446 F20101220_AAATUY alter_p_Page_147thm.jpg
8b1ba53840b3f9894407bc9365eb7456
6a8dd9ed2f6f2a622f925f814aed19c29a43ec64
F20101220_AAASSK alter_p_Page_193.tif
29a32a082ab5ad9528df396575034c46
39346bd9b640836afd7fe39a8ae7b4d277de49ec
F20101220_AAASRW alter_p_Page_177.tif
905273d29187c6914c51155c41c4603c
83edd4d5c658c24a03347f29892a9e87c8f868be
16084 F20101220_AAATWC alter_p_Page_179.QC.jpg
550610411297aa65562b6bec8ac14aee
98d75f6bd1019bedd5586ee590a3f66665d5c0a3
5934 F20101220_AAATVN alter_p_Page_165thm.jpg
5560b46f193ab65fffb1a6eeb1a884f3
7e22759c4d7862e7de794a625797493b4e15d0df
26939 F20101220_AAATUZ alter_p_Page_148.QC.jpg
fdcefb1327693f12e600030e5671d16f
06c3672cb7e7b77d796ea10274a6170b46930063
11139 F20101220_AAASTA alter_p_Page_009.pro
8c0da455c581dcf0366816e46f312493
d4cb5511e663dc6b05dcf5804d3e78826e14e32f
F20101220_AAASSL alter_p_Page_194.tif
4ab5e40b40055e052cad51cda2d2040f
cc8edee5cd1ef216ea291b856f87a9c154b34753
F20101220_AAASRX alter_p_Page_178.tif
7ff24d76d0b0e57b88397e9f2da7ff90
7a1610b89130afc38ddd1b9f3bad5d5ff7da7515
4146 F20101220_AAATWD alter_p_Page_179thm.jpg
44144bfbcdeaad245f6cc476019e4b2e
2cee6e7e0b9ae34c8d51f3d769145ce1d7614a6b
6544 F20101220_AAATVO alter_p_Page_167thm.jpg
5b0cb483746c49bd310e4f00478a9edb
841a40eac31fedbddd876ba09fb8a82d2bae673c
39154 F20101220_AAASTB alter_p_Page_010.pro
ed5b941210b0e06fde17983845485adc
92607d6eb021e87836dfdb234cfc76730f0a0d6d
F20101220_AAASSM alter_p_Page_195.tif
456d0e0c9da430ea5c920e388a1d5772
e1ec699823aba581ad9f4717bdf36ba297a6ee0e
F20101220_AAASRY alter_p_Page_180.tif
45752858bc6b2830f3ba4070874ff1a3
363b7e22b7c0fda0bb27530e4f0bbf90ca0c630c
18096 F20101220_AAATWE alter_p_Page_180.QC.jpg
6afd4c415b0c68f9d5cbaf2780955289
b63ea0d91f9c3eae3cf0ca249cb10cf045ec4b36
30754 F20101220_AAATVP alter_p_Page_168.QC.jpg
fa95c3c4098bf6c7a0005859f9cbda8b
9ac410954328af5b90d8b1683cac29c4e775b1bb
36079 F20101220_AAASTC alter_p_Page_011.pro
7944809956bc4a4e5a57f1230c27a458
c1cc2de68e28fc6aee9bf2a18800bdc338e2a155
F20101220_AAASSN alter_p_Page_196.tif
c5286ff3f1c37f9a9102e04dc6320046
c45bff0e5093c249224f37b6f65850843c9daa9b
F20101220_AAASRZ alter_p_Page_181.tif
4e76215ad887db19ae4a991f6b3d2a86
c5b58363d3fe39a7fbb29ee236a0f4a0716a27ae
21183 F20101220_AAATWF alter_p_Page_183.QC.jpg
85d51d29efd96cb4f2fef7668701e311
c44cb0962c89ad5c1c568e3baf51815ecb030963
6829 F20101220_AAATVQ alter_p_Page_168thm.jpg
56dbda52a1bf95f06ca7a7630f4d1d70
dbf5ab56fc498800ea1c4f6d2a6a36e1d7bc2c8c
42890 F20101220_AAASTD alter_p_Page_012.pro
233421495b45443d98f515daf6132488
5cd7b4ecb452bb70633fae165d7f9493009f84ef
F20101220_AAASSO alter_p_Page_197.tif
e125610bbf64b42ccdc77137a43b5ea5
337c34f6727318617da7edc904dfe19fc9dfd852
30517 F20101220_AAATVR alter_p_Page_170.QC.jpg
f270684afe8c60ea3fba67a975c4c4b4
3e58d2fda2f47ded7a1e8e4fa0665a13d1bdc1f8
F20101220_AAASSP alter_p_Page_198.tif
53f41beea129ed4ff0c04b72904781f9
38ed03a29395710c74f5377244979d6f749146e2
4068 F20101220_AAATWG alter_p_Page_184thm.jpg
16aa7c64f8121277d6eacae4102b4284
30442f934189c6975e73c8f93a8a588dbacd002f
6732 F20101220_AAATVS alter_p_Page_170thm.jpg
66e4d486fe38fc197a9a37b988b955ae
dcd8da234b330dc04a3a59423d1935e15174698e
50282 F20101220_AAASTE alter_p_Page_013.pro
9bacd19f8c33873f6d5695bd886692da
0354b87a3c27954b97473cbdc96d852fa7dfffba
F20101220_AAASSQ alter_p_Page_199.tif
253b81dae3c8ee2fb8dfebd3e9ab8463
361e6a3f1bc80ac649f4eeeefae97b289e3ad6e3
18291 F20101220_AAATWH alter_p_Page_185.QC.jpg
253af116c1e622e8da29dfc004a4a889
98f2b7853311fb45ab94a47fecb09c6345e1dadb
20545 F20101220_AAATVT alter_p_Page_172.QC.jpg
62219ac537f9013931f600177ad95887
064e85b35d40cbae5ff49c65677dc6036dfd8a12
50460 F20101220_AAASTF alter_p_Page_014.pro
bb7e47ec23ed6d6df01633aba0355a90
52775170389926a91065965c37ab0d18c8af1152
F20101220_AAASSR alter_p_Page_200.tif
9f41587a3c4b13ba971a9250278e6978
521971f6f47452d42306e0046d4c13ff92626392
20782 F20101220_AAATWI alter_p_Page_186.QC.jpg
b6f82670f0f0fc5d7462e3f1909045cd
37567d94fbdbd73c91240eccf08ab2eee5dbe490
4994 F20101220_AAATVU alter_p_Page_172thm.jpg
2d1049940f7a71fa3ed718a1f373bd7c
83933887c17f9af4e3d108f45fd0c923838be157
50511 F20101220_AAASTG alter_p_Page_015.pro
8861a1844eeb53625441eb22b5e028cd
bdcfa951d815ad425688c0c848533c138d1a2b7e
F20101220_AAASSS alter_p_Page_201.tif
14fb6272612965cf9126e112a9036fae
755c687b0ce9c367f74eeb0a059bad09826e94b2
18611 F20101220_AAATWJ alter_p_Page_187.QC.jpg
56431bcd3d8416f48c00cde0d75314b9
e03a966bb4e18d0758f9706987eeca5c7f5f7870
15840 F20101220_AAATVV alter_p_Page_173.QC.jpg
f863dc5177a297ad44a098226dc3079b
cec1729b3366247229e7b59655b2a0a08d3935fd
52278 F20101220_AAASTH alter_p_Page_016.pro
1a782963adc6bdb7bbc8d290b9c7424d
420b6853cea656ea2fb4704d9e381a8b55240328
10279 F20101220_AAASST alter_p_Page_001.pro
cd3c4df280626be128255f352feb9a42
29caf6ef9809d02f3c49cb99c38a5d1eab77f831
7769 F20101220_AAATWK alter_p_Page_188.QC.jpg
e53deb4c354840f4855e6fea0bcb60fd
f0182620a3c8f50bf42f356836e6b4827dbe54e5
16360 F20101220_AAATVW alter_p_Page_174.QC.jpg
b5ed8271d75c0e96d12b5427bd46d7a8
61772e49ab83c0ec3b7847a63b4ce8b320db5c0a
51620 F20101220_AAASTI alter_p_Page_017.pro
d36e9cc3acfa1fb92fa33ade5ec17aa9
fc7c6418a0b2988617f2bbcf9b7f806ba28864bb
1277 F20101220_AAASSU alter_p_Page_002.pro
ffce85c11b989a84e869819b7fc52261
af0d727952d9f8d5a9df40298b075bad71e997ce
17959 F20101220_AAATWL alter_p_Page_189.QC.jpg
459fd7dc7d96b7ca51a89893a396cc4c
0cdc2e97be3cd847c205d4bb47cb7ab331acd114
4181 F20101220_AAATVX alter_p_Page_174thm.jpg
3defefed66b7ad3be464fff8256ce568
267d0adb035ade055cc086ad66e48ac5180f879a
49991 F20101220_AAASTJ alter_p_Page_018.pro
aea9d0646020b1000ead50e40804a2b6
b54d8bfca535e95a1329b3b0419e3b45712b0bd6
1013 F20101220_AAASSV alter_p_Page_003.pro
6dde0dc2087844e343b80f956a380967
75e3ff5a1c18634a35de4350f4d55f272a6b10de
27027 F20101220_AAATWM alter_p_Page_191.QC.jpg
2080a326e8e91e0df3b49973b0a88014
d22a0c9b99d4f61fdd2ccc937fbd3d9ec47da59f
2243 F20101220_AAATVY alter_p_Page_175thm.jpg
dd5c81b9f0fd36f91ecad020b076f8aa
ba39de02c0e7ad49a4e9017bfc9468d321fc3392
48981 F20101220_AAASTK alter_p_Page_019.pro
2f2aa577bad8367228c729237f07400d
220b7451ec911dd58726499606d4ea6572d43d49
72898 F20101220_AAASSW alter_p_Page_005.pro
9182348d016e8d2059ec23b715a3c09d
c7a393c9fb24cc804dce8d64d458fa0b156687e8
6273 F20101220_AAATWN alter_p_Page_193thm.jpg
a24c3aaa5c02d3077c7da7b61a60121d
9e117b2d0ea09b93d46f22fe9e6d1c0b94b4d5ee
8250 F20101220_AAATVZ alter_p_Page_177.QC.jpg
e4eb0ced892da76dd647e0e3571e0586
96c280539368f8a40926e618f568ab598156c879
39159 F20101220_AAASTL alter_p_Page_020.pro
dc9aefbabe5797e116d8fd7893b2a8d7
18c94e37518f37ae70ad40ae4f2e408d535b366e
91691 F20101220_AAASSX alter_p_Page_006.pro
102d03e462912d12a06ccd936444f98d
731a869623cfa69cfe8e484b9f6c0fd9a4aaf11c
54044 F20101220_AAASUA alter_p_Page_035.pro
3787757cd9cd136a1c8e3560e24856f4
7cf13a6800e871ff39fbedcbca7e7695439062f5
25553 F20101220_AAATWO alter_p_Page_195.QC.jpg
6893e4e973b3ccc68c4bef71c924928e
a541273c6ebc740b851428420c2679d425504119
46252 F20101220_AAASTM alter_p_Page_021.pro
32fa9268626c415945d221dac269d346
5817f84cc4b94896da9fe619fa18b194b754b952
35955 F20101220_AAASSY alter_p_Page_007.pro
1f71f30a5ce7722e79406a2ce2040b7a
63a87c1992590b2803ccfad5b2772b166d7ab332
53638 F20101220_AAASUB alter_p_Page_036.pro
168eeb4d7e3a5e86b39c60d822014717
26ffbd0658448a05b944956831a142f87ab071b2
6587 F20101220_AAATWP alter_p_Page_196thm.jpg
971beeb6e27b014bf0522a7d661ac843
275a79974a40f610a100801ca0768db75704b8cd
50013 F20101220_AAASTN alter_p_Page_022.pro
1f06857e72a62a16b3d0d8fa719b5910
33270fa6a94fb2737f2ec85d772473fdb8a8826a
33839 F20101220_AAASSZ alter_p_Page_008.pro
592249d05fe6abb8e044b8f5e2ddc11f
c6186a6cb1f1aaabcfa1d2d8739a89c0e53ed994
53958 F20101220_AAASUC alter_p_Page_037.pro
1c3d5a0caaaceb397c0f82504543efdd
383877056d262385fbaa2502c5709c79049e34ff
6474 F20101220_AAATWQ alter_p_Page_197thm.jpg
2331c7c03c56426e62fbbfe699343fbe
e98a5f94db44f44f708a21d16f6d35e09aef4648
52587 F20101220_AAASTO alter_p_Page_023.pro
ddf085b30f99d1701dee0b13f94a196c
705d7fb0a8de7d1c073e54347d2a886b1f156da2
50840 F20101220_AAASUD alter_p_Page_038.pro
9e834e1985501819b02fd4124bed5e16
57ae81b9eeeba3151a27ced9e7e19563dfc13c2d
26357 F20101220_AAATWR alter_p_Page_198.QC.jpg
d33c54f379263266354e0b8be5a051f8
f283ee694ca3d01c7df6e97443434f3dc4faebac
50912 F20101220_AAASTP alter_p_Page_024.pro
ec83a6754e15423f3b5ed96262138214
bceaf19e19f9a145ed54876de8d19dddee905027
40154 F20101220_AAASUE alter_p_Page_039.pro
f36245384c74d2e2fb386db1a6fddab5
7c07a647d8db5dc468d8b3a3edd671246acec8d6
16408 F20101220_AAATWS alter_p_Page_199.QC.jpg
dac08ba9a1726a25f44a84d4ec6c309a
ec43c95372a902f9614a5688d927f1934c7055e3
51073 F20101220_AAASTQ alter_p_Page_025.pro
f725713c14810f366f6647e0e59a9fb3
1a8de2b9d3db5345f67cf6c41f7ed1f55374c3cd
3991 F20101220_AAATWT alter_p_Page_199thm.jpg
dc56133c1ffd053cdf1067acfd7b4497
27d83ff946b584d868bb669d27a46ad724beb90c
66983 F20101220_AAATAA alter_p_Page_196.pro
dc2e19c5c0902930153e3a11d11d4dbc
e2618372ff3e504b77fe4ea6320ce63b4ae3f731
52588 F20101220_AAASTR alter_p_Page_026.pro
1f88ad478d2c111c211723604e6d7602
6c57d9ff8321e305a031e66bcb6be99daf1e319f
60814 F20101220_AAASUF alter_p_Page_040.pro
635dfd7e6e3be8bed4596957e260409c
0211f137a2ba5f08243b277d55e0b097ea4ca6cf
5003 F20101220_AAATWU alter_p_Page_201thm.jpg
dc1872126fb2567bb7796844f8e3378a
2406360cb6710b5ab3bb2452130afa6e031086b6
62412 F20101220_AAATAB alter_p_Page_197.pro
2aaeca3f898bb8da49c99a97f1b930c0
8822833f6761c0f967a14888ea63ec8cf02cdd7a
51973 F20101220_AAASTS alter_p_Page_027.pro
81f0da488d22f2f50e9aed064c1dbcb8
9bdc6249955cf267764d89e55741dc06f383001f
62192 F20101220_AAASUG alter_p_Page_041.pro
eed0ea35610290c80739b841061a7f72
00caa708e663675d9e9293e12d978247233faac7
58718 F20101220_AAATAC alter_p_Page_198.pro
d145c87265191270077523d33a7478d9
750eda8fb807b3961821fc77696188f99255fee1
51922 F20101220_AAASTT alter_p_Page_028.pro
f37c1291ca5854cb0a2d5c4609813859
24a200df3e4243629ff1d1c135727167e92dc77a
50713 F20101220_AAASUH alter_p_Page_042.pro
0417168c01bf1c414056fde9ee66a39c
530566a5df13a50761d4c78dfd9cee5318ca6468
36137 F20101220_AAATAD alter_p_Page_199.pro
725b61bd744de54c5e66f6039016bb05
a56fffcdce3c4cbf4a66160b2fa32cf25271c088
48307 F20101220_AAASTU alter_p_Page_029.pro
ffe2ebb59a4954c4e46734c1b91adcb8
be1afdec4682efa3673a0b5fa980e92aeed446ca
50673 F20101220_AAASUI alter_p_Page_043.pro
7a1cba345aae049704bfacf61f9e758a
4e12991681f3b077984f1bc4a5adc0fb2c342bb6
45422 F20101220_AAATAE alter_p_Page_200.pro
ef5f6214fb90ac70f3a7c4d4fcaf8385
7ff2a5dbe31959f5c66b380f237a501c77818e83
50727 F20101220_AAASTV alter_p_Page_030.pro
2aa337474d1e0d5b828cad22dcbc05b9
70f3766bd8e3f3ebcdcd308a7e36e9f72be5cb4e
52663 F20101220_AAASUJ alter_p_Page_044.pro
f8d30910f693e4899bee5b6635967994
c4ce48c51cc26a152b5e23491116dbb43fce5227
40165 F20101220_AAATAF alter_p_Page_201.pro
77610d46419aac8f2f22dc18e3520d77
69fe02ec9928472b09ab7cba5b9af52cff57777d
48663 F20101220_AAASTW alter_p_Page_031.pro
7eac9fe9c887cae8dc507b74144c3966
be256b27b33968e78e8b660a0536eed4719069fc
49372 F20101220_AAASUK alter_p_Page_045.pro
74c0bf286110faed7125f7ae090674e7
ad7447865382fb3c7f200d6d9d3e72d23d377d01
534 F20101220_AAATAG alter_p_Page_001.txt
85fe90aac1d57eaf73c41f70d4ca7d14
9f233ca0fa02b49b7378e7747d3e1c9106923c4f
53674 F20101220_AAASTX alter_p_Page_032.pro
f1b7164ec6e6719c3158ccd2a7ad4b9e
4473bf2b4731b3d0037559484a891b6171b23087
52870 F20101220_AAASVA alter_p_Page_061.pro
3648c5a3dbed233e2b8fa0040eac24ea
3fbec9a81671b56d50499d02dbbbfc444a27d5c4
49044 F20101220_AAASUL alter_p_Page_046.pro
fe0eaa4bea250da1b9a7816c34925e65
0827845f6dde26e7537bdfd0b1062c591bd5d72c
103 F20101220_AAATAH alter_p_Page_002.txt
cfe8727f0bcb9ef121fb98c21298e60e
a473834aa51af9155dc239d42f0d5994b234c2c5
49262 F20101220_AAASTY alter_p_Page_033.pro
78f3142e237bc5f02c8f65ece0b7adca
72608653c863daf63476dbafe4ebc3905a1c4e7f
50641 F20101220_AAASVB alter_p_Page_062.pro
5da507ce452ee86acaaf99734b9bd341
8c26ec3f1ef43c5d694631a8ace8443e69be0f90
48298 F20101220_AAASUM alter_p_Page_047.pro
f3bf7f4e047e98dd1d7f4018c19a3bdb
94420c1fe21c5580ff1e42923fc913f77551edf5
93 F20101220_AAATAI alter_p_Page_003.txt
379d5e17b791fbb1b3d65c2b3cad35ef
a21fe240748373a2aed455ee668443e56c1d7da8
49917 F20101220_AAASTZ alter_p_Page_034.pro
42a3fefda4b647ab3776386171a2b8ee
05eac43ab5c7927cce43cc0d88f94e82ba99ec6f
50110 F20101220_AAASVC alter_p_Page_063.pro
01b9c504a7656e2172bffc27049dc418
03df545de4472fbf109b79a5e805eaa7c84042b2
51725 F20101220_AAASUN alter_p_Page_048.pro
0d80453fce135c397a0bfc1c93e4273a
c3d83b2c3f44a892cc70edc3ba208396a1401381
389 F20101220_AAATAJ alter_p_Page_004.txt
4ab184dedc27c7978c4a7e86c8986e52
e7700a2f16f0b1c59f074be734abb1f98fda8fd0
50648 F20101220_AAASVD alter_p_Page_064.pro
201b5ace76a8dabdd4050ef76f9fbbb3
e3a7e686bc652e2b1c5265b5a4738b39522535a4
52757 F20101220_AAASUO alter_p_Page_049.pro
414ae6d21f6ac7c947b133d68d66c2db
a6f005b5a60f0fbeaa05ce167f1ec656f43d4f4a
3063 F20101220_AAATAK alter_p_Page_005.txt
a828806fa1d1d113ad7a1c07512eec78
9d33ff9d6690ff52f7f32e3d468a10e2dcfcc14f
51471 F20101220_AAASVE alter_p_Page_065.pro
e2a09aae136c3c230c690e710f234c6a
f3106dbdc7b34ec3ca76c128d334242c5d2b0afc
53561 F20101220_AAASUP alter_p_Page_050.pro
cd69d6c80e6af14b405733b22addfa3c
6d86de823243d61178712dab63ee38cdeda5cc2f
3765 F20101220_AAATAL alter_p_Page_006.txt
ea6753676142f393ede9244558069fd4
fa06a66b56310bd5eb63e7958420526c4d4f89dc
50367 F20101220_AAASVF alter_p_Page_066.pro
e0381e5c47c3a1ba6714501c590f9d38
a6319f48fd72e35829062d6e92b3b06a6fc46591
51204 F20101220_AAASUQ alter_p_Page_051.pro
956221489632bc856d72dc84284d9393
bfa99004cba2829da550a0589952c32203dbc699
1901 F20101220_AAATBA alter_p_Page_021.txt
e1512ea0982d45146b983e86d3432683
233415108ff07cccdecccc92a331151cd306a34c
1376 F20101220_AAATAM alter_p_Page_007.txt
9b9111b52b3bf636f1b61adb438b94ac
877501e66881fa63554ed6543ac2ff6bdfd9409c
50070 F20101220_AAASUR alter_p_Page_052.pro
d844532efd1f17f8e4fa041a5675e878
8dcc67565e39e1083aee67c910c71347dfce6adb
1964 F20101220_AAATBB alter_p_Page_022.txt
a501057ebb906c4b09bbbe2f89cddde1
34319dab327c61f7256fec81f99137fa37455adb
1393 F20101220_AAATAN alter_p_Page_008.txt
ddac79963871dca433e2bc209a6e48e4
085977c90af61cc9707211014ca2c2d43651af58
52425 F20101220_AAASVG alter_p_Page_067.pro
bdd714486c80d8e8a3aef5d1e4929a37
b02608281fab7234839d9e5c94015d7cb5fa6637
52655 F20101220_AAASUS alter_p_Page_053.pro
9088d49e9293332ef95930b8587d4605
0dfb7abcf5bc8d9a25db14dd589a187aafe46ffc
2091 F20101220_AAATBC alter_p_Page_023.txt
21ece4cc1e52e81eb8e8919e9b292dcf
4221b4d3a4ab77f94c4788eecb12d24e6cfcab4f
493 F20101220_AAATAO alter_p_Page_009.txt
4fefafa0647dd48e2e857f0d0e8b9032
589b6f72444e3ef46820a5b1dab2fafd0c868228
50836 F20101220_AAASVH alter_p_Page_068.pro
d7df069dfa1265c9dbd37e1bd0385def
9a356b80592a69e86dde82e564ec163944482ee9
38215 F20101220_AAASUT alter_p_Page_054.pro
b9ab95e0763c989163476f3df87dbe78
51e6a1166414d27d3763341571c712514a537179
2002 F20101220_AAATBD alter_p_Page_024.txt
380c4ea587d8b5bba8f7df1a0067a57b
eac1b5ff122241fef6f6f14e5c2f4b358bb88aad
1714 F20101220_AAATAP alter_p_Page_010.txt
6444b7ecf9f475b83de02e647cb5efa8
4f57ca1274ecd966fa198f724596f15363a0c11a
42624 F20101220_AAASVI alter_p_Page_069.pro
59af47f927c7d1d757342773b56b17b0
56a048c5ef0e310e9b247ea2ca1300244d879f4b
65660 F20101220_AAASUU alter_p_Page_055.pro
62ecfe61a898eae2bc664dc7f9e9a89e
a56e90a127341bb9154edb5a086d8486952c39b8
2010 F20101220_AAATBE alter_p_Page_025.txt
a904a2764d21bf291d73d4447900df49
e0f2d37ae653080312bd5e2494a2151435c7cbe3
53796 F20101220_AAASVJ alter_p_Page_070.pro
86e82b810ccecfaf1bbe59fce5f68faa
53a53cf3ae5d880c75b7310c23120901aa3e6c8c
61358 F20101220_AAASUV alter_p_Page_056.pro
bbbc5c03f288ba5d8efc14a752abad6e
1174f2f74554e03fe224ec49a5bb5de4e092edd6
2068 F20101220_AAATBF alter_p_Page_026.txt
b1658ce910b2013bf9dd7259c194ecc6
e7729618c9a0d5413d45be2823500b0d88984adb
1430 F20101220_AAATAQ alter_p_Page_011.txt
6c20742282e3ced577c4af85908c469b
75ae8806c064bc34174158da0fdd01a7adcba932
42956 F20101220_AAASVK alter_p_Page_071.pro
831c2d78215784f530b164ccf2b5dcfc
048caa4d32f134e0b4238d7b2067142b23f7fda1
47522 F20101220_AAASUW alter_p_Page_057.pro
ca2f3293d9883505d04609d5a0398536
2f96ce8ce942ee0eaf1997941ef48bc1df1517a9
2038 F20101220_AAATBG alter_p_Page_027.txt
b13f55c9e325aa185275a5ecbf497a75
2f97e8e31542c2d3cdd08ec86be3d206acdecce7
1806 F20101220_AAATAR alter_p_Page_012.txt
db711f4d8e8c251d6517468703b9fce0
34d858634cca24b3ff9295479fee7c9e3c7373ca
51862 F20101220_AAASWA alter_p_Page_088.pro
d829a1c32ef714fe0ab3ae155214e1ac
41ccb40f819c536985c56cff79118990559f100f
45861 F20101220_AAASVL alter_p_Page_072.pro
1198adcefbee65a5cd1fcbc798fa92d2
05657bac6f343a7715b4bd854e63a0f7b7b21002
51785 F20101220_AAASUX alter_p_Page_058.pro
e2061f0671a0aa14025984177aa6c4b3
58651f5ad181d7fae53cd336223ce0236cb41fc0
2048 F20101220_AAATBH alter_p_Page_028.txt
6bad2fb99ae43260829575fc087e8833
c35e16ff8716588e7d024278036e32d223f511a7
1976 F20101220_AAATAS alter_p_Page_013.txt
7e14744cf377d01ed313d385e2276ab3
7e7aa5bab83343b5b198ecce6dea25c2d718a9c8
49875 F20101220_AAASWB alter_p_Page_089.pro
0f029ea9e9ecfe07c66f87f23ddc919e
33ce3a5c08e9bae9aaaf972cbc9aff4bbaa6ef26
26737 F20101220_AAASVM alter_p_Page_073.pro
122c8cc1f77f5b7c50f394d5342955d3
27faf5d9f7bccb642903e943ee0af39413ae89ad
54186 F20101220_AAASUY alter_p_Page_059.pro
43a70f7ac17fe633b7f2053e327fe494
a4f6903d7618a240175c463a65420f5a274c5957
1904 F20101220_AAATBI alter_p_Page_029.txt
a746dc528cec364a11b3cbf6a46803f6
ec103b7b98370a5f94ad0243d390a757eacb04c7
1987 F20101220_AAATAT alter_p_Page_014.txt
6bb571ee71a7a88560015d16dfb7d253
b48764f5cc3910650069dc540d7ab9a404088ce5
50094 F20101220_AAASWC alter_p_Page_090.pro
c088996cfa07b036f38392a0202fae49
e7fdd5d6a3ef1a5a6803f98f7507fbfae97573cd
51823 F20101220_AAASVN alter_p_Page_074.pro
32d5c609e4fb144ce3cacbff421e7e75
54985ba465c270e0765f9c9e5ef52624e0cb4b9e
51478 F20101220_AAASUZ alter_p_Page_060.pro
fede998335586efca9abb6efd5192d85
a39f2f3376c3d1f9e4e21f2d37889af4f5f1078d
1993 F20101220_AAATBJ alter_p_Page_030.txt
34cd35fbe5708cda17b31926c75b8c8c
22dab263039f7ed86664a329fcad3d3f48f27fb5
1995 F20101220_AAATAU alter_p_Page_015.txt
201c53979b7c2f607ba436675526b1bc
f8b9d5a30469c325ef81bf63fd80f978aacbd5b6
52825 F20101220_AAASWD alter_p_Page_091.pro
29f1aac749ae7a52035f38cf56432fab
a841c092d4e700bed07717e30a62b717ece20db9
51585 F20101220_AAASVO alter_p_Page_075.pro
b3f2e1c66b569c913e2a9698e75f00fa
3c96f1b883a14fbb976026d9134763cd13d1c3cb
1927 F20101220_AAATBK alter_p_Page_031.txt
00da0acac2dd77386ed4c4ae97a19a35
036f88366a2180ae6ca1b452c8897d0378a6f0c6
2051 F20101220_AAATAV alter_p_Page_016.txt
fcf35fad19cc40d350d6635234cf9d5f
bba505a9bbbe1453bb87f5b4bca0f827af9c8eb2
51410 F20101220_AAASWE alter_p_Page_092.pro
bd6b9caf85170adb4b77b1e997dba734
3ba91237b738b4122b767d19636221d0a8e423bc
49758 F20101220_AAASVP alter_p_Page_076.pro
9d8710e2045220fe3fe8cf4fe4a3e7f2
94fd2725b4f521508fe3847dc81e379ec6376a5d
2130 F20101220_AAATBL alter_p_Page_032.txt
51bc42088471042f6e2445e9dc995f78
63c97775db33d15125ad1174ee56e7018550412d
2026 F20101220_AAATAW alter_p_Page_017.txt
361d95871abb256e834a44137a116398
8a0c519b181aac9fcb2a207ba48fe137cc720408
52736 F20101220_AAASWF alter_p_Page_093.pro
71fa66bee09360e50be89f26c31c9275
5ea5720a4e49b565757ae31d284467f56478bd4f
50081 F20101220_AAASVQ alter_p_Page_077.pro
b2a569342f4602bbc96baf5e61d4bf15
843e622e313bb3ed9922d46e40a8f4a196d98b1d
1907 F20101220_AAATCA alter_p_Page_047.txt
7beb5d185a0236578a4d256d6b7df1c4
a794faefb8993013d1edf21729b8117f9c022909
1966 F20101220_AAATBM alter_p_Page_033.txt
4f4bd2408dfd4efa6e20e376547b1c27
5ae273038fcd6e52b5ca652a4378e53721424054
1967 F20101220_AAATAX alter_p_Page_018.txt
a5a4f79a666e1cc10c5f16d0543f8369
3c491aabe600c0ec48e8acb03b651bb4c069b743
53177 F20101220_AAASWG alter_p_Page_094.pro
4deb1d7279c399f963814056aa314728
b1edf0aff5f794c1a637b7302cc739a7d5a96782
50991 F20101220_AAASVR alter_p_Page_078.pro
8918b0aa57697f1acdf7ccd23c3d6d07
0ac3ed3ff57767cd294f9216597fa0c44517d974
2031 F20101220_AAATCB alter_p_Page_048.txt
eb7244dddec3559bd43bb2b6143be703
f7aff627ffb101a45cca1e262766dbd952c7e7b1
1965 F20101220_AAATBN alter_p_Page_034.txt
77c30eba5ac3d1e8eb7e696a48cd4ec7
9d279a0bd9a8730c7c420a82f3c8419447f67ae2
1997 F20101220_AAATAY alter_p_Page_019.txt
4fa241549bcc50c7f667b425dd2c5eae
0594de0f4881845294c525e3846f323d5539969a
47144 F20101220_AAASVS alter_p_Page_080.pro
884ee39191368c4ce72b7700ecc10dc1
2291a4d1d6b9ded845519cc6157dbba06eecb2cc
2069 F20101220_AAATCC alter_p_Page_049.txt
b60ffde7d7f480b8fe91e05c80d1ed19
cab5ca2f039051fe139277eac1f319be8d9ee2b5
2117 F20101220_AAATBO alter_p_Page_035.txt
c2a1c98635be37de1e83f8b3b66e30c2
248f78bf0daf39fec48b80b4b4c9d2fd8c686eb0
1612 F20101220_AAATAZ alter_p_Page_020.txt
91f7ead987cfde73f39fe74c0c6ee1db
3d5e142f8d9a2a369583b80a9931cec7901c4962
51215 F20101220_AAASVT alter_p_Page_081.pro
897d99ecab2e7ebc31ab1ba173e2ba73
ee0ff4c3a59466ba5d80dddb84861f069a06da8a
F20101220_AAASWH alter_p_Page_095.pro
62ad15126045d3d53339ae36ff39007f
914e9496ab66f0e47e1bbec95c6ec4cf8f87b704
2102 F20101220_AAATCD alter_p_Page_050.txt
474f9f4cf5c609b9c0ee577812a4f557
a141403507ae51fbce678d25a7cb2729d16fcc98
2107 F20101220_AAATBP alter_p_Page_036.txt
b1b2e58cbd3fabc4f3df4925c52b6c90
b3eeb97930d4e10339f549e28d8069b6bb165d53
50218 F20101220_AAASVU alter_p_Page_082.pro
ffbf85322f589aeae345186e1d97a450
b6c3e8b997613e2dc24d900a172e46f854197442
40842 F20101220_AAASWI alter_p_Page_096.pro
a590d7a12ca06e156afecdd6cc1a4bc1
b5ec8823748eab4b3da4308f185a80ab14d53631
2012 F20101220_AAATCE alter_p_Page_051.txt
ce067a6f7e02aa2c72c540a88d2c8a7f
9abbe0a6e933afc701ff2599ee9e71bd22da247f
2143 F20101220_AAATBQ alter_p_Page_037.txt
e07abce5039cdab0fed8fcceb4fc129f
b295057e9dfc95dbce274c88cb70997d36e2155e
50414 F20101220_AAASVV alter_p_Page_083.pro
00d5efb9d76166b0cbe3ea81512a61f7
afdcbe59463eefdf8c9bc71e058e6e26a5dd2f55
52457 F20101220_AAASWJ alter_p_Page_097.pro
1d5dc15e6241bda838f75801e7108f91
e2f46a35997f3d98e9c75d28ccb28c72e61887ce
1973 F20101220_AAATCF alter_p_Page_052.txt
3d86fc77737421feda8933004097224b
dd953dbfc916670097a6268fa5bd01de814460c6
F20101220_AAASVW alter_p_Page_084.pro
0a8c2bef318cd233d427b7ce01bec0e5
1e0a87e2351f897210dd46ceab3e9957e9caf3d2
49296 F20101220_AAASWK alter_p_Page_098.pro
3a0087e70d10a95febecc51c691ba19c
a577599d741572415d09609e5cd622dd4bcc41c5
2070 F20101220_AAATCG alter_p_Page_053.txt
c3913deca1bd6c34d0e3d72b2f4bb0ce
bd6cc35f31510c83686ac08f70c9b5bc4e328539
2020 F20101220_AAATBR alter_p_Page_038.txt
0de41989b18f1f48f910ea644909b3e8
214eee2923a57722e11e347f1fcf22b0de7ce45f
47455 F20101220_AAASVX alter_p_Page_085.pro
5ae539c8f39cd20b9ddaed48223f0575
902681b8ddc36c31575b0570e8346c5b49666ee7
50625 F20101220_AAASXA alter_p_Page_115.pro
122787518e0f7d400690502bc0658201
2a5f77ccae65faad51bbd5e4dab060a115ed4529
40680 F20101220_AAASWL alter_p_Page_099.pro
6c6bd54c7ceef9674a5015744d4ee486
414e8fdcff5310401022a2b4e2e02cd80e5b4b53
1523 F20101220_AAATCH alter_p_Page_054.txt
4821e6c7e2942b0306a531eb0ea9116e
d9d5a0284e6a4930701ad7a2e3aa005498d0a54a
1600 F20101220_AAATBS alter_p_Page_039.txt
db744053020f605684d2b127d5480998
5ff52f295ac2299f89476423c35ac7d1a9c88324
48335 F20101220_AAASVY alter_p_Page_086.pro
32159b83765a599c158f2a170a39063c
afbd37961dd891ab7901d9bd7830e8c851128c97
50362 F20101220_AAASXB alter_p_Page_116.pro
ad546e0b88b3eca8e023ccc308c9c080
4bef18a9dc5745964264226ab5cf5ac9f8b38049
46113 F20101220_AAASWM alter_p_Page_100.pro
628a9b11a369c423fa8f93f79a3f5221
5e09ff408a09c65a3a9690ccda666e301ff4c677
2948 F20101220_AAATCI alter_p_Page_055.txt
07aee61a95c7636e68bf16ac3d7aa59b
e7b3f9a84c5bf2efc9d23a7c405a67b7091668fe
3094 F20101220_AAATBT alter_p_Page_040.txt
b5315eca1eba85818b5a3dce3c182693
4af9720f17cdba40277a8e4d40073540ae62d745
50029 F20101220_AAASVZ alter_p_Page_087.pro
d9865b53a9ccf351d831130c86d0fa91
fc50c6a5d0b7a61d06e9c5a4ecfe4c1c4f348935
46761 F20101220_AAASXC alter_p_Page_117.pro
16bee74c0e78bc625f9fc01c009912bc
0096af895be10a768b2a6ce9e264a80faa037ce3
52533 F20101220_AAASWN alter_p_Page_101.pro
fa40775536a1fcb138341c018441a894
b3834b7d6bff8606ffcb0a5ad1a43bcf068ff10d
2715 F20101220_AAATCJ alter_p_Page_056.txt
254abe421a1a56327199a726217de628
ddb80808a824ff14e8abf0d0b49534966d03a23d
3357 F20101220_AAATBU alter_p_Page_041.txt
0d0f8187c67368770214de0485a840b7
3df2541031e38acbd708c95a3d3410b384c1ffef
50854 F20101220_AAASXD alter_p_Page_118.pro
207eebb8c5c10498db23c8c4748cab43
294930ccbb01858d1191a91e6047c7d077ecdf04
48221 F20101220_AAASWO alter_p_Page_102.pro
62a9dbaf42c374f836e87f28d1a42a12
83a66aaa56763892516a7edc107009a4c7a2ced9
1876 F20101220_AAATCK alter_p_Page_057.txt
679ab9660a396baf71326d863813a8a4
4c3e8200cabce213175e5ebd66e94e41bd72ba79
2000 F20101220_AAATBV alter_p_Page_042.txt
03ce5d2ec7ad5e9e3be9d07a55d2ffb4
938005278a67f3bcdacd775894f7863fb2094674
50334 F20101220_AAASXE alter_p_Page_119.pro
28102470cfd5df726cb465309ee31166
9192cc249dac145e594f5c920d8cf2167a904f56
46751 F20101220_AAASWP alter_p_Page_103.pro
6c7a7c7fc06b77428a896d10e5330ebb
507b752d5341e9ab3024dec3cfd55377c08b2fe2
2040 F20101220_AAATCL alter_p_Page_058.txt
04f5ed534300520ae27743515f4ee94a
38583303a48c319466679b2034bcde07a8088daf
1999 F20101220_AAATBW alter_p_Page_043.txt
7c5b5198815537f56d121dd21a234f8c
d9583e9365d72a4938fd7b7345fe1b969e8fad84
17565 F20101220_AAASXF alter_p_Page_120.pro
26c922d679caf2764d675120389bcaca
dfa37913fa06003eb999dc86fbfbec60965304ea
51492 F20101220_AAASWQ alter_p_Page_104.pro
3200a202030eb7a3ba97146aa8aa6f9d
e690c421bdded201cc8fbac8038de7f8d2f84ac4
2039 F20101220_AAATDA alter_p_Page_074.txt
c9f0a14b7689a57a8f0865f3d06a8d85
7f2fdbbe4eb46720ebf754fd821be5d36b4283bb
2119 F20101220_AAATCM alter_p_Page_059.txt
3c3ae6f077ed79ef242e4c96813f49d7
b8b4cd68e12eaefcbb0d65ef54619ee3f85a590a
F20101220_AAATBX alter_p_Page_044.txt
4fe3189f179f8cd859c22a9da097fc32
05a54545f7541bc148b6750dd10c396394dfc113
42383 F20101220_AAASXG alter_p_Page_121.pro
307e4ef4d7df086d5da2bee53d673b03
e2c7856cf616b473a97c55b64d850cce0f744212
53101 F20101220_AAASWR alter_p_Page_105.pro
25c0c4cdd47836adebbc08b344d28e31
57009f4fbf4ff30babda0683430ebd24e5c6b4bb
2024 F20101220_AAATDB alter_p_Page_075.txt
309b396353dfef7589979931e77d3411
aa77bf096cd9e75b83837d5f550836c758b9db8e
2025 F20101220_AAATCN alter_p_Page_060.txt
811e39b54d9e018f0f6199845bfff941
cebd34aca7a7d8397945f8827945b172371d4b51
1954 F20101220_AAATBY alter_p_Page_045.txt
2079f9bc6460c024bbe08bb98f626f30
493f08c96b62d07fcfeecee864aa4ab6d0aeae60
53908 F20101220_AAASXH alter_p_Page_122.pro
9cc8bb7179efeeeffd7fe9f298dc3958
5497bb8daa159bc8dfb5755ac5d8217dc39afefc
53761 F20101220_AAASWS alter_p_Page_106.pro
2b32bad654fcfe056914826da7aca359
3355fb081ff553dfdc79e1eb3acdcd1029f343a8
F20101220_AAATDC alter_p_Page_076.txt
412219705fc0145a435124ad8e26f839
3dbc9fe6c218e5fbc19aa2036419935140affc4b
2074 F20101220_AAATCO alter_p_Page_061.txt
b9f288d975c9d8a59c519e68048f2cb3
06686bf8aa378f95010f0ad505656d0ce906a79f
1929 F20101220_AAATBZ alter_p_Page_046.txt
2a4597c7f892369fee58203e0905961c
602ff3e0f2be494a4b66383a29d03f516ab2e8e2
49967 F20101220_AAASWT alter_p_Page_108.pro
a519df9d3203f14581c5681068c5e5de
7d7efac0d6e5b5ae1f9d2e925ba71cb98fc6f7eb
80809 F20101220_AAASAA alter_p_Page_107.jpg
900642f8e9f8987aa58caa7dc569560e
14b1eb4a7e1d1f391b7622832292ece83361a6c9
1972 F20101220_AAATDD alter_p_Page_077.txt
47f29b5e1bbd7f7c261fd179005a765d
e14f454b673f14a0f115bd8928a08aa63f93dcb5
1991 F20101220_AAATCP alter_p_Page_062.txt
bd67c3e52ffc311a1baa2f32f91ac19f
6b1756671b3a31c8ce4b3dcd836745772b4b78a9
42907 F20101220_AAASXI alter_p_Page_123.pro
006de2f9f5d1b3bef4618869bbd3f7b9
6252201e1c612869610047a08666bf8d827edd02
50704 F20101220_AAASWU alter_p_Page_109.pro
ce4dd1a91a6cfd889ab5cc70824b04f4
0f3b0b5af01a2179a6dcf48066f6d36e45f74081
83422 F20101220_AAASAB alter_p_Page_108.jpg
6802b3a1e874b3fca7120b8f38b57037
68bb50c96c96f6002816427f17096216d7e6c135
2007 F20101220_AAATDE alter_p_Page_078.txt
87f5dbbfd5add1487013a25ea85c9f71
e2504351a41f91ea3c92bb66dd5cd3feb45d0aae
1969 F20101220_AAATCQ alter_p_Page_063.txt
f5eebdeddf08920935cfea35b32e0492
07e87e6da2d6b345999e9cf24c6ec5f694ff25a6
29483 F20101220_AAASXJ alter_p_Page_124.pro
37b122522ce8ae3afb2d303e9e66f39e
bd4c6cbf3aed6431f8be63ce1541a20f446893d9
48393 F20101220_AAASWV alter_p_Page_110.pro
68763c3f44fad24cef689b6c6eaacd20
33d130a72524c05a0cfbea5a380c3cee24d75a5b
86323 F20101220_AAASAC alter_p_Page_109.jpg
6d104e6a89040875c0b6890bf19fb1e6
088351062fda588ea2173de4d5e1c68de307e4c6
1979 F20101220_AAATDF alter_p_Page_079.txt
6d892b7d56d6bb41f9bb9fce1b3b484b
f417323126c72a4f57799c4e89090cd7f442ec2b
F20101220_AAATCR alter_p_Page_064.txt
7bd1a985b67e20e33a68b4a6991a2b94
9e92d25372eac9209d5441f5d2eeca3fbfdeea45
28652 F20101220_AAASXK alter_p_Page_125.pro
bf8d82eab42880d3ed81dee050e7638f
edeef09f2a9844daeb5c8b8b3e52e2cbbb8a9452
51933 F20101220_AAASWW alter_p_Page_111.pro
3c4ab707366ad0004a74a0f6ca824f4d
c01cd90536c863676535f3d02048de5c7a1695cd
80515 F20101220_AAASAD alter_p_Page_110.jpg
1927395c11ceeb0051ae78c51462bdf9
069740d702ea7841c0fa028a9d296da5c0488866
1863 F20101220_AAATDG alter_p_Page_080.txt
9ebe841ff3e96f27650930978455211d
3a0635fbdbd053cd4da5e0bed96aabef0ca46304
51907 F20101220_AAASYA alter_p_Page_143.pro
8089a0177d8242fae6ef6568c117e454
7f6429842f0231442017030d156a267a46bde353
53382 F20101220_AAASXL alter_p_Page_126.pro
3cf43598973a35097ea13dce8a04abf5
aef8bedb4103997e4fb45cef1d6cdc44f61457ae
51172 F20101220_AAASWX alter_p_Page_112.pro
a5bfc0574f40744da21106e84f133093
f1ce36a9bb309e9652529d88b0d43e25badeb2fd
86957 F20101220_AAASAE alter_p_Page_111.jpg
65ab2913f56ef737ce6c0d58e4510796
9aba2fdf02b8375c559bb5a106cc809c892378c3
2014 F20101220_AAATDH alter_p_Page_081.txt
b85473409d72e57b0cf7f868c9a9b5e5
2bafb23613717ebff9436cf9c35af2e0ae916de8
2021 F20101220_AAATCS alter_p_Page_065.txt
1b43f1572e61316118c5f8b4635b056d
72ea63e6d8f7569cc7ac1105f0b5d8170210aa1a
50091 F20101220_AAASYB alter_p_Page_144.pro
ea4df0097e68ea8b12986b1935feae2c
45e45b6580b8e6f5268b298ce9b864c30084fdda
32691 F20101220_AAASXM alter_p_Page_127.pro
12066c6d185f62bb3e3fb4516b311c0a
1a2acd83490c98652325a4fd03f834e527e8ec9d
49627 F20101220_AAASWY alter_p_Page_113.pro
4f693f9040b8baf31c75c17e96edcb0c
aefea2530211969bccad07531104e5f80cac85ef
83231 F20101220_AAASAF alter_p_Page_112.jpg
1a0914d6c5ba7bf6d85de8963558e0d5
c6a51b009784b87e731c557513fdce61c706d997
1977 F20101220_AAATDI alter_p_Page_082.txt
18564361612af620df0a976827c265d4
5a3174619e4e19f8e8de2d6fc83fcd66efb65e7c
1985 F20101220_AAATCT alter_p_Page_066.txt
043ffc710b8309401ba8a45e1c6950b4
82c6b1e7e8cb6db78db52e514adef4763da031cc
48624 F20101220_AAARVA alter_p_Page_107.pro
759a1ec0b4ad3ea99e4e94b98aa80b31
a2823b9aeb5a4b98646eeab06adf85df561ec2dc
50914 F20101220_AAASYC alter_p_Page_146.pro
15d715a239364509d69b8c083284be45
f2a71c7cd156faff91fa0fe27a2ec2a1b688132d
21574 F20101220_AAASXN alter_p_Page_128.pro
d432cd557f5de72ef50d6f15171e66e9
32d8927816ca0db3912583c5c75c3ecbada0a6c9
48814 F20101220_AAASWZ alter_p_Page_114.pro
c9fbf4db104a4e46b418abfe22a5c81e
78d2ce580b6a17d90f97c924eccf48abd26b6980
81750 F20101220_AAASAG alter_p_Page_113.jpg
3c58b0c2882c573a3b95b24dc4ebbc07
9992230e17dbb849b6550da1a949c115b6a1bffe
1984 F20101220_AAATDJ alter_p_Page_083.txt
63996149fdf747b0cd09447b57b7831b
b4bfaa5da04ea31a1e1ec122301a141df239849d
2075 F20101220_AAATCU alter_p_Page_067.txt
126403f3442f69d2cc7886a81092f040
d7b03d249884b2122978a7b3c3659c44b71131ad
25679 F20101220_AAARVB alter_p_Page_143.QC.jpg
96751f21319531eb75680975e73cbbb2
d92c1d76ffdccc16cc0e956296e6e3099bf981d3
52022 F20101220_AAASYD alter_p_Page_147.pro
34a290117d4bfb5a4f68c9085a82f302
83bf89ab92d166ff2fba21ac399bc38a25d8a805
49028 F20101220_AAASXO alter_p_Page_129.pro
998f21aa844c5055b47a58d13fba69b5
3735379fd0a4f9a8bde21bdde78df8a49517a6ae
81080 F20101220_AAASAH alter_p_Page_114.jpg
3d9967f4211edc0c77047922e76bbb2f
c7836e527a85e8ad58a16ea097ab80441d651915
F20101220_AAATDK alter_p_Page_084.txt
52dd9c718a17521b2ce084d53286b2aa
a087d7143450a06e1ca1c0f4bb616e751e6912e0
2006 F20101220_AAATCV alter_p_Page_068.txt
667164a53b737d12d3b229658cb709d3
4c9baaa182ddfbaad68193157291aaf3d7299c52
50289 F20101220_AAARVC alter_p_Page_079.pro
6b725ffad7fafd468493257d67da73a1
f6c9b5c7ce855bc43c3db40855536a26532975b0
52597 F20101220_AAASYE alter_p_Page_148.pro
899acae2ddcbef5ead8c82c6aa92f1f6
fb9dca433a50a661fa69b6d79509ac75c06a794e
47385 F20101220_AAASXP alter_p_Page_130.pro
c96575756b93ea8aa79c978a732f7304
d7a907850c11ad6c0490e998643d864229befcc0
83053 F20101220_AAASAI alter_p_Page_115.jpg
cd8cd9ddb39fa29226a5a761a5a77b08
cef2e37069b77686dce7b6bb3dcb9755821cd37b
1877 F20101220_AAATDL alter_p_Page_085.txt
9b31929affae79ad6eb2282360bd5752
63230abf2118f454782d35d673bf04a15b01a38e
1701 F20101220_AAATCW alter_p_Page_069.txt
2ec89aaf6accc3abc39fbc7b7dc2850e
e14343aee5af9d3448670c3cfad79db26fb8541b
F20101220_AAARVD alter_p_Page_184.tif
c1e3c5e76223f15d35bb499f9edf3140
e5963d510f9edab485bcc526b29749fad922d84a
50732 F20101220_AAASYF alter_p_Page_149.pro
ca763039951ac0dd325c408a20cdaf4c
76a3167b394322136bda564060fb557ab3ac4dc6
F20101220_AAARUO alter_p_Page_118.QC.jpg
f6bbccc9dff5b35512dc5af0001f44fa
970adc38af4f7480167a28ef76a3e3f7832093d3
44012 F20101220_AAASXQ alter_p_Page_131.pro
cacaec44115b8d3c50104b9904ba48cf
ad6144e83a1944425965e44c5f9410897ba22d09
82464 F20101220_AAASAJ alter_p_Page_116.jpg
dbebbed56848838597fd7f1f26377cc8
b1736a0712828dcba443ed577f5ada0dfc6f9357
2327 F20101220_AAATEA alter_p_Page_102.txt
967dca2200359c01bfc08d35956f0a1e
88bd271556d001748e2b3ee56112f8882335ceaa
1905 F20101220_AAATDM alter_p_Page_086.txt
8d5bb0ae1ebc3af83c604fdb48bd6b02
e9d30b6f0289a704cf01e229d6a6c6c361cfb86d
2471 F20101220_AAATCX alter_p_Page_070.txt
9e59f8835520d4d6b7e2c1a7ab2f4361
c909eac338dbc309bbf41ea8a99955a65b336cb8
5590 F20101220_AAARVE alter_p_Page_021thm.jpg
8bf95d9002c5a55d90b473dbeae50715
65ae82ca950980dd312c21afe128cdb807a47f97
52012 F20101220_AAASYG alter_p_Page_150.pro
a063618bb1fda899bcd9608d83d5f3d6
73f9257ab1f6547dd1afc690bd11ce2e8201d233
50321 F20101220_AAARUP alter_p_Page_145.pro
5016c4cff47d8f9d71cd46bf9775f003
ec90068e73456eda327b09dc1914b60889a88d33
49184 F20101220_AAASXR alter_p_Page_132.pro
3b6968285a89fc8b20bff50b2d2492b3
0281a001ce1b56d84b62cb8855103018b0dd0761
78097 F20101220_AAASAK alter_p_Page_117.jpg
f901fb3e59b4a9e9ac2cb00a2aa24697
ba8b5968e955bbd8e7dc28dc31227eac038e6b27
1880 F20101220_AAATEB alter_p_Page_103.txt
7b278b1b65bc0e1ad4762ba998ad393a
ee4ddffb349bc7fabe3f00031afa2477b3e1b25f
1974 F20101220_AAATDN alter_p_Page_087.txt
2ed0e6be76d8dcb263ed8942e291f9c6
08f5137bb62a8dd01ad983181bae187502a19391
2023 F20101220_AAATCY alter_p_Page_071.txt
d1a8d1127e26a267b947ef73797fb427
5d1fd1fea58e3f3f3cd580d4ae8e7e3149f00b41
26058 F20101220_AAARVF alter_p_Page_030.QC.jpg
cf12d32eb3f6cd1d1ad564738ca2a0e3
3f53fa0a8bdc2d64e01debe43054e4d3eb7f79e2
51814 F20101220_AAASYH alter_p_Page_151.pro
ef378c020051bb590790b4ba9224d2ea
060f8883b2cc7cc9ae9f18cd0aa318018249982d
1737 F20101220_AAARUQ alter_p_Page_096.txt
39741130e7c64cd7fc1a2e2b11657707
72364580d37b691ade1921e2a6344aa28e53ee5f
43810 F20101220_AAASXS alter_p_Page_133.pro
3eb484e9c7c37496285fc495c171f563
2ae2cec7425153925ff9f6adcf4ad324bb805c17
82832 F20101220_AAASAL alter_p_Page_118.jpg
6516fe66a7f4c91d8eff674393cf9ca5
59763778a893c3b1e59f967f9b08e2c98e732685
F20101220_AAATEC alter_p_Page_104.txt
32ec814d6b64a57ab5b445027635faba
18e5a5f2a0d5c2d9396abcf30ab094401d116932
F20101220_AAATDO alter_p_Page_088.txt
b2b1bdfcada5b3c0ed97d6b5c99d3d46
858fdb1eceb17a9b6ce0dea083df2cf1c0c0d4c5
2085 F20101220_AAATCZ alter_p_Page_072.txt
6813bb13b597f71313824722196d2bcc
d00980da94b9193cebb2c87a46f119f8b9bbee06
8483 F20101220_AAARVG alter_p_Page_004.pro
8f2a536734660a8c2a9f55e73725da1d
c662d8ade2b7579a5c83490eaf5c216f60ecfc4f
51811 F20101220_AAASYI alter_p_Page_152.pro
872e535322f8bd17095113eda8dadd53
168d12a31bbeb28c778c2f900c26122123443b01
F20101220_AAARUR alter_p_Page_084.tif
e4d5e32502533e043c6af57d6ab32bb3
3cc31b34486ddf4c154976c662ba4a88aa80f310
52063 F20101220_AAASXT alter_p_Page_135.pro
e4c514f8de2853e47d13e54082194523
1ab99d189527d95199e856e1adf6ed458f1fbddb
84777 F20101220_AAASBA alter_p_Page_134.jpg
9e28c019c142ad097c3bd824930c5ee3
c30c26dfbdb49cd3c2b3a8a65487b5df0c41d7d1
82608 F20101220_AAASAM alter_p_Page_119.jpg
6454d1a291c545f5473bb66b9ba88f54
8a3bdb2efd64d03832ae407dae674492b5c5b31b
2084 F20101220_AAATED alter_p_Page_105.txt
be74c7b4a84ac2cba9b1e4a20b37c8ea
5c3de17fbd175956ae200bc8c75bc4d0220cf8f1
F20101220_AAATDP alter_p_Page_089.txt
b4e4bf1f219d55136cf515e168132b5f
7df5e2c009b0428e652953138c758b7eb96daa8e
87042 F20101220_AAARUS alter_p_Page_126.jpg
798a632d0e7590ebb134a950ec46cc41
e94d998b15c0577ad00baedeba00311b83bfb223
3686 F20101220_AAASXU alter_p_Page_136.pro
221de36737d78f91102b123e459cd394
90f4c4945a90df74a986cb235f96e49f4b5fede4
84678 F20101220_AAASBB alter_p_Page_135.jpg
d6ec63f339058289489fa3c544a08911
b5a81dc977ea1faa54688ad3227cd20d6bf68c7f
31763 F20101220_AAASAN alter_p_Page_120.jpg
0307108f417db6f09f86c99f5b3dd4f1
4d4ff562733a21994d05e7a811167e3ad1437240
2103 F20101220_AAATEE alter_p_Page_106.txt
e1e0179b1cb2369e0ae6b71417b93961
7231b53d704c5044d540df40de68eaecc2a94fdc
F20101220_AAATDQ alter_p_Page_090.txt
1c22633a1f9f8beecf9c4d78a5e49692
46cf8a51484cc2b40dd731e8e1d3cad1c27733cc
83717 F20101220_AAARVH alter_p_Page_142.jpg
163e8a21244b5318b93e8233b884783f
8789eafe6724280d0a4ee07a772f383e8374f040
51086 F20101220_AAASYJ alter_p_Page_153.pro
219ae2d953e19885a548e1175bdf0986
74a7fa6882ba2a782f7ca7f0eb69a6d72f683081
F20101220_AAARUT alter_p_Page_179.tif
c54ebcb2a31b2fc4ddf5177c10ef6b84
2d3c206d5070e678146d170fe4ab9ef57876cffd
50920 F20101220_AAASXV alter_p_Page_138.pro
9403840fab3599c35ac431576e5233e4
54042d28fffe1d961be36be11d4b8e4c093e92ea
8405 F20101220_AAASBC alter_p_Page_136.jpg
78cbadb918bc0de1e30f308b121c07b8
49691bf0a6a42a592921f16494cd60424d74af02
71681 F20101220_AAASAO alter_p_Page_121.jpg
927abe8195f77eece1c79081575f5801
799cf9bcf9b6ad7fbc924fcf53af14f4b08e4fde
1916 F20101220_AAATEF alter_p_Page_107.txt
4621b79c7a5f44cda4d84b8f43430466
04ff918d15af578960dbfb5cc736ec844bcc47c4
2092 F20101220_AAATDR alter_p_Page_091.txt
977f318718ca9484535c6f7fa4adfd25
c11610001f3ab6421210cdd9e2fd4d3f1066b6e3
1743 F20101220_AAARVI alter_p_Page_099.txt
bacde402089563989d209f76d7c6fe03
133169e70f804c7faf1755b33b3bf30b925492e0
51465 F20101220_AAASYK alter_p_Page_154.pro
7329542ccb2de15e78a9a46da9cad6a7
1d8f56da4c6f2602346cf1cc6208aa56870113ac
27236 F20101220_AAARUU alter_p_Page_028.QC.jpg
3656c1344b176958493fe28f96fc7805
67591805c58cf845fce8d9cae77d2bb707218fca
51574 F20101220_AAASXW alter_p_Page_139.pro
4b279278740ea0efc9ae7c37fb078c0e
88e59f2f76a32e9ed7d7b09a757d82ed31a942c4
75259 F20101220_AAASBD alter_p_Page_137.jpg
bd7a4b05cbc7ad8f6fb9db7788c2ca19
b3fe6d97561e9696ffc8128ae6006e20985dd8ec
87635 F20101220_AAASAP alter_p_Page_122.jpg
ad0f72353666ef7676e698cb0ccae40f
962946d0b165256a860eb7187c24c0f7aacb6de1
1970 F20101220_AAATEG alter_p_Page_108.txt
045614a86b2c0d079629ee6bd59e84aa
42c497fc6601a9ee171748919cb3d30b350e164a
F20101220_AAATDS alter_p_Page_092.txt
66d85eb8199f227cda8353d1f28a0fe2
3cb2ae3fbf4a42d777340a9c6887faa29abf3ffa
81259 F20101220_AAASZA alter_p_Page_170.pro
3bcef6e24a8647a5d94d1d97ad4508f9
57b7b3c8915a5613dd6c73db8a53fd0d5a2cad5b
F20101220_AAARVJ alter_p_Page_113.txt
30dc3a30034b89d00a628fe7025bff50
e4ce126b5bbcdfed548260880b706e47980a3940
52950 F20101220_AAASYL alter_p_Page_155.pro
524cadf53b9b6a5d0df2294d19068f48
ee0a252dc57db68c89f8de3e2f380883c514422c
108766 F20101220_AAARUV alter_p_Page_087.jp2
db24e6cf999664b1335791477d997a75
6f4757115444272d0fbc700fd9d02ac0eebd142a
53131 F20101220_AAASXX alter_p_Page_140.pro
3804ec5be4d115334c469955c4d38b96
810efff030c14eeffcbf875eb046fdd1ceecc092
83893 F20101220_AAASBE alter_p_Page_138.jpg
64e907ef5b8eadd58e7e87bb7484d640
369c7c84424cbf718e3f49becad1c16c7ad3226e
71624 F20101220_AAASAQ alter_p_Page_123.jpg
88c7e8b9bd39bf55a2668aeaeee017c3
90c64950f85d7945d60780ca61842a29c4eb0e58
F20101220_AAATEH alter_p_Page_109.txt
70d59a98e96eb5067b319c39701db920
b92a13dde2236e18db35aec2de94d5c0f44ff591
82338 F20101220_AAASZB alter_p_Page_171.pro
893cc0c11d4524bb290c46fa973cab02
34e0920016436278934768537a7c6c5608540cc7
6141 F20101220_AAARVK alter_p_Page_033thm.jpg
1c32f0d0a13f48e7edb2e9ecf95e249b
4a2a763d486fedc94100d66644bc07633af8dbbe
50796 F20101220_AAASYM alter_p_Page_156.pro
4708c8f456eed146647ea69e13f5766b
565cac0d3b832b4e0b82b876eb88cc4e7f61588a
F20101220_AAARUW alter_p_Page_016.tif
3b3c24675ab4716611c17b21a6f07156
5ca12f8d4887aa8b378b133d6ed54683c673e585
49866 F20101220_AAASXY alter_p_Page_141.pro
ebab4f937dd0da759413f46b499a0e1f
48abe4c8dff29b23107606c9300ea5ce873e22e9
83446 F20101220_AAASBF alter_p_Page_139.jpg
88398d088ad6073cb21424ebac7be255
b0c8b0a73fa5ec69c71646ee85188bf440421088
1941 F20101220_AAATEI alter_p_Page_110.txt
2a20348e7f45a87fb4bd30158323120f
a8c7b2d2f0890269cdfffd5dd402053cd1808104
F20101220_AAATDT alter_p_Page_093.txt
1e47396fdd157aeb2f0392f7988d6a10
7843a23f06b988f6633e0d418414271391c3b4ba
42977 F20101220_AAASZC alter_p_Page_172.pro
b9b29a672359ef37e454f3de7518ef29
cffe3e72099a3ff101a0bd9657b9a48262867654
44907 F20101220_AAARVL alter_p_Page_137.pro
c6f20afde2818788375524d66f8b6103
1faff114396f9ca550f5fc5f7b87a8860d9afcb7
48342 F20101220_AAASYN alter_p_Page_157.pro
bb0504fb404b6f515f61e92b6da8d506
ea9b49489e8e8b711baae907c623f3be0eb4151a
6057 F20101220_AAARUX alter_p_Page_097thm.jpg
69b3bfe68e531f27934d8f66dd396979
3771d4876e2292e916e03d6ab0bd3fc2955b301c
51532 F20101220_AAASXZ alter_p_Page_142.pro
cd46aa63e6320f276acbef5e04d28b7f
2d7e1404d41447f63a13a1338c1adc82f43ea2f6
86243 F20101220_AAASBG alter_p_Page_140.jpg
4f4bd25cac7ab52d1a610b7dfbb761ff
14dd0c213416aca5da770f450c056ca796b03423
4257 F20101220_AAARWA alter_p_Page_002.jpg
c4968aea5ac80a5bd6f07e5476279b86
6c8d93cd199a9f41611258145361ab63e51ccc4a
56884 F20101220_AAASAR alter_p_Page_124.jpg
5f27ffc11e2578f7388dd269227d673d
56796cd2d4d13d2a9ea341958c7a218205010d9b
F20101220_AAATEJ alter_p_Page_111.txt
ab9be773a6d6386b1c155dcb317d5a1a
2ee8e297654a46dcf17790fe33ba84a48502fac3
F20101220_AAATDU alter_p_Page_094.txt
cba924ad080e02d6e0fe241acfd786c2
d80c2f958ae484b1c1d7a38988da371e046cf686
13785 F20101220_AAASZD alter_p_Page_173.pro
3ada4e5f7b6d0e17d77db68670e50c95
3b59bc2298273adcf55dda11e25a1b693131eb35
22169 F20101220_AAARVM alter_p_Page_069.QC.jpg
a71125b18e8c0f24fde20b5aba306c55
8bc4065660aab12d2e6f797bcfeda7c46534e034
51300 F20101220_AAASYO alter_p_Page_158.pro
e6279fcfd521646950e6ba39c6d51416
ade5a5c63d286ba631b1adfdfac9db4a9476c48a
F20101220_AAARUY alter_p_Page_004.tif
d3c4cdd93a273edc14aee83fa94535e7
e7e85b5e851805ec7e6a52491c77da3d4885618f
81921 F20101220_AAASBH alter_p_Page_141.jpg
3edbbedb310dab94fa74944178909921
266309435788ba0e3ca7afb27061498a664ba4b1
3739 F20101220_AAARWB alter_p_Page_003.jpg
b06378202d55f1a2d2276ffcedf11ef9
9bb52ffde0f72d343ad0eed011fd275a0632338d
52015 F20101220_AAASAS alter_p_Page_125.jpg
2c77d1ba265b9673726426dc69dec19b
7490d1cbdfc5324bc035d80868d5e191f6f9d643
2013 F20101220_AAATEK alter_p_Page_112.txt
9b6a35c1e0a2a9b582d38dfde2e9bbf5
bfc6d01882ede038452b856353ff68e9271c25dc
F20101220_AAATDV alter_p_Page_095.txt
8af13d9bb3a36fff5cd3e9765ee6aef0
80487a30402131f891fe6efaf322135970dc2411
32699 F20101220_AAASZE alter_p_Page_174.pro
38ea02619ae1de2097eab7874e18d347
fce2a2de91b1982c2035946cf61abfedf5d3061b
1887 F20101220_AAARVN alter_p_Page_073.txt
a971fd531398a8ea45f1c4351c06b19b
ca2ba779c5e6cb3e11fdfd845e93f1a247b8545a
50613 F20101220_AAASYP alter_p_Page_159.pro
42f6ebc1766688925a04e07c3280bdfa
99f1d3f595bf14185b4906a252d1612e0a9640b4
6414 F20101220_AAARUZ alter_p_Page_198thm.jpg
607d865eea15540b2702b62fa9a5af24
8e148e0c56644d730661c04e650f66360de03116
84340 F20101220_AAASBI alter_p_Page_143.jpg
c665c19a37141e5b50d00072c493d9b5
a53d5d6d8444d849835feae2ea15d2b0268bcdbf
17663 F20101220_AAARWC alter_p_Page_004.jpg
02002896bb644b4802bf0d8677d5ef85
a9659da2b3b7a1d2248228e1d45446fd15f87d78
58466 F20101220_AAASAT alter_p_Page_127.jpg
6f46a8aed6b956d4a30c83738a77e7f6
d6dd9a852d2e361fc556f822889c327ed45af582
F20101220_AAATEL alter_p_Page_114.txt
e0e007822b92aa0d7235935400d7a56a
c9c1f4bc1d124c84bcadfb22384b7c5377791aba
2125 F20101220_AAATDW alter_p_Page_097.txt
a06737d01cf88df8b45cf89aac049a1e
c4a7c81f84891a1429b09338fa190e322563ac36
7330 F20101220_AAASZF alter_p_Page_175.pro
c80a5b4062b0de8987f29eba97964778
38b5f68fa4dbe2866a58217d9dc9acf5d2708618
26520 F20101220_AAARVO alter_p_Page_158.QC.jpg
957f22f71886ef5d7763c0c1c481aefc
e676ac887b52ab339e38ea3cb5de2fcd308a2d93
51568 F20101220_AAASYQ alter_p_Page_160.pro
ab6aefacb0877c8d7c6cd2fdb9152fd6
f58dc11314d32460b614c62f0c831e14045a5a27
83487 F20101220_AAASBJ alter_p_Page_144.jpg
d179a05cbda0b08bb69140bc77f1f748
a8b0793aa55fc27b59a39fa215e2e466f7f5b742
83055 F20101220_AAARWD alter_p_Page_005.jpg
f586ac4b6543a8b6cc7877ca0ee91c83
8ddf461ebe96b5d666bc770426182eb762679e29
42395 F20101220_AAASAU alter_p_Page_128.jpg
101e82e49569904704be2eacef1df4d0
80765f12c62186b6cb51db29c883120b09b2a56c
1949 F20101220_AAATFA alter_p_Page_129.txt
40d1d8ad6702ac8572613e9e5426d0a6
3390037f4b6b270cf5ec7cc31a816ce64df33f49
2005 F20101220_AAATEM alter_p_Page_115.txt
682b5035d4801d226ee8838571906375
fde069089c11cb7f2109a500e96a3f0e38a88c06
1948 F20101220_AAATDX alter_p_Page_098.txt
2a4768d2d1a7ba0760370be6768c3788
2c4818921fd6dd46fc0ac768049d5e2ac77eed68
15658 F20101220_AAASZG alter_p_Page_176.pro
63d29efe49f773bbf6975520e4d169e0
a85718fcab677d08efc7544f6ab61572eb5318cf
93694 F20101220_AAARVP alter_p_Page_012.jp2
82abc8a70b2cd5f78b5a938c2ccfe3a3
1be1564ca21f856b05b0727bf3a747dd61a5a5a9
50708 F20101220_AAASYR alter_p_Page_161.pro
a50223cf6c08fe19c65d1f1ba2747986
3657dfce0dbb673010f4207760ee67a46e2c2cf8
81991 F20101220_AAASBK alter_p_Page_145.jpg
bfde0bf9b4dcbf8eec5828eaf92f28cd
b311b83be9515f108cf518b4cf4b6e97cfe9c807
101840 F20101220_AAARWE alter_p_Page_006.jpg
926fe5bdec4c6a92e8dbe48b933c5721
037607cf47913f048138094412ac8edd44d8e924
81653 F20101220_AAASAV alter_p_Page_129.jpg
0fc6136266249f2f05430bb69069a74a
a59d7bbc3bd4977c7514ea36b5898557fe9fad91
1988 F20101220_AAATFB alter_p_Page_130.txt
873ff0bb4d928ea13430b03a6d072b16
41eba63400f8238ec8fa5d37cd719798ecdd4ddb
F20101220_AAATEN alter_p_Page_116.txt
06bc71a0f6dd33018844dccfe1e31a8f
857c510e53cd4696ab740b5d62eb650e2d9f78d6
1865 F20101220_AAATDY alter_p_Page_100.txt
eb8c8f5634a43c53141ae7e600ab59f3
97d67a8bdde96247bd17974a7a13d7fb1aba3a4b
13311 F20101220_AAASZH alter_p_Page_177.pro
2e4c1c334d77c0865a044bdd70ce3fee
a22faa3b57d3ce6e99561a256a21b25605c9d9c9
6420 F20101220_AAARVQ alter_p_Page_059thm.jpg
35e7a07887ac338e9c100ee83b67fb33
47d30c3156599d57c74146b68a17478b60962547
8110 F20101220_AAASYS alter_p_Page_162.pro
b7e354e90d42eb0f7356a9d9cb2f8ced
c0c21becdbd89dab55b019262aec60a886b9dde7
85363 F20101220_AAASBL alter_p_Page_146.jpg
697701718fccbe2785a9ddf9a31ad4f8
5406a82485b47074556641cb1c767fe8c3c4d0e9
51015 F20101220_AAARWF alter_p_Page_007.jpg
7ef57a0b47f7687be503886bbb1a6def
9689ac24cc756d1136e9abe9ff9cc361b23a2bf1
78281 F20101220_AAASAW alter_p_Page_130.jpg
5e357cdf4aaefaa7fd09bffbb2954d10
1808a59a0873fd92fdda1634efa6c1c0a0db584f
1753 F20101220_AAATFC alter_p_Page_131.txt
d66089c1febb17dee4d38ad971b689c0
e852c22788dd0e549d048d9ad867835e65afd310
1878 F20101220_AAATEO alter_p_Page_117.txt
463e29c5f7e942e19e32399caaebfd17
2efb2fc62e7378cd6875296b73a49c8a88d2b952
2402 F20101220_AAATDZ alter_p_Page_101.txt
6ce9d619c7fd2400de1947906cf5282e
31ac900366dd6a032fec58c3f1b165c288572d75
20506 F20101220_AAASZI alter_p_Page_178.pro
4ebd3ab8efafe1c788da15b22f1a2f67
18e0003c510f7583af10ca07189c604e7f29579b
25246 F20101220_AAARVR alter_p_Page_083.QC.jpg
66bc0b1548b26c5b826837417259eb7b
e13bc02e2617b9e54279b4d99bff659fa16359e2
56943 F20101220_AAASYT alter_p_Page_163.pro
5a21d946c078a829f79503719bbdda9a
7a7ee4532435344582ac880ab0cab807b5a21624
82862 F20101220_AAASCA alter_p_Page_161.jpg
55d627434b4a718bfff5d1a9a44fecb3
e42319b4d80e08b1636271f59ab5788bfdb0ff36
86593 F20101220_AAASBM alter_p_Page_147.jpg
6b275f4d98c1735efe46e772a83fc547
33d453a3597830f0505708a9c43681f1a89d282e
48771 F20101220_AAARWG alter_p_Page_008.jpg
4a8a9301e32c5d36f5bbad9f6de44837
e235c2f03572b6c42710bbbd51376e032a33710d
74421 F20101220_AAASAX alter_p_Page_131.jpg
5f42fc66c961f02da9b4fedfcdc248b7
f0eaea07c9d113a3ec7e9145b64dba118f87ecec
F20101220_AAATFD alter_p_Page_132.txt
32efdc8cb1219b5b94413048794cd98d
0667fca87fc2b1abb1c91b35705eafcb832e308b
2001 F20101220_AAATEP alter_p_Page_118.txt
217a5458d68b2d5b13ad35e30d797d0f
773bcdfbb15bf3366e507165d62591ce288c4bb0
18555 F20101220_AAASZJ alter_p_Page_179.pro
67eb7b1c901c71635725fecadd5854cc
e8962a35685b3b12b16fcd0d39904873a34fa855
100788 F20101220_AAASYU alter_p_Page_164.pro
a9223e7444ed8c39e09228a0d81005c5
f0f3b1af4df85c5377249663a110aee1bbc3a1b6
83624 F20101220_AAARVS alter_p_Page_014.jpg
551428cae358a99fdb6c6f423a0415ff
8357f3d5d2779eb87c68f49338a23d5719b8fea4
15868 F20101220_AAASCB alter_p_Page_162.jpg
2fa8686a73745cbfaee732c2dca668c7
40685db45f8b66fa2f71235cd148e839262ee5e8
86979 F20101220_AAASBN alter_p_Page_148.jpg
2823e60acb7951f8dd138c063195114b
c3d466d25393c4db03f70b75eb06c3cc9ff7c9dc
23906 F20101220_AAARWH alter_p_Page_009.jpg
7243cfd7a485cc90d5be6f8b89ea307c
8862b13034e3beb62162164c521154994bde1080
78887 F20101220_AAASAY alter_p_Page_132.jpg
68cee2112cb8db9001ad9b08d2fde415
9cf4a2426e7ee6f4a7539bc9038ad89cb705adcc
F20101220_AAATFE alter_p_Page_133.txt
f0997e065d4dc984543c9a899e4b5b77
ce975ede1230f3bb612e0db494fd966e329450ba
F20101220_AAATEQ alter_p_Page_119.txt
f3809ca8bb63cdbfa7fbd44614dd6cb7
87803d9c9c75d127d5a8c80d00b4d40e255d9efb
63863 F20101220_AAASYV alter_p_Page_165.pro
0fcb7fc98eb86362335da58aba3f5374
9d3d10a6830e83b6501b7b791789815f410058af
51013 F20101220_AAARVT alter_p_Page_134.pro
646b12051fb75684818f0190d1ebb110
5fda0619c29f3657acbde4dd96fda51e73611f14
100927 F20101220_AAASCC alter_p_Page_163.jpg
ee240a6aa7147ec2ec4fce09ffd15fbe
013f5dc5ddbc5e4a36f030778bd7ed9584018456
85425 F20101220_AAASBO alter_p_Page_149.jpg
dc6e7535532af39dc890d5a6f5c74009
d1e8e55ca7ea67b6b83be7d845a5454b0403a3f5
71958 F20101220_AAASAZ alter_p_Page_133.jpg
e73edaf791c1abe2a6aae8b8451f226f
cab9fb7e1a6718fa99d562adc437271eeaad4226
2018 F20101220_AAATFF alter_p_Page_134.txt
e6cc9361b3e3fa951a3b2002a98cfe0b
aab53912014dd8939bb6aaee1f2723ebd7fd002b
707 F20101220_AAATER alter_p_Page_120.txt
cb7c8d9e135675af2decf93407f47bc1
0a0c03134a35aa910f74c9cd1d15481d5d733a23
32846 F20101220_AAASZK alter_p_Page_180.pro
f12fbbf384d7101a5871785385786d93
b6730efc206bf6e5ad7e7ae3c703de2a022237f2
1227 F20101220_AAASYW alter_p_Page_166.pro
484410c11714a7d175091294720d409a
c5f1b639c456adcd2ceb3034034dda6ff1bae0b4
151802 F20101220_AAASCD alter_p_Page_164.jpg
6d75d9b8c2765787d8566347afe1c0c2
585bfba11a8b9e3f1f48ec8884dfa5e6a10eaed1
85791 F20101220_AAASBP alter_p_Page_150.jpg
0dedc0816eeb3951c6f742b4176509b1
b25393e063ef53b028d6b8ec219feec353c43b0d
70278 F20101220_AAARWI alter_p_Page_010.jpg
a2a519bd705de83d1816a8b8bd1ebcab
7b70589b99dff3afb2b5406247fc920d7758a4f1
6461 F20101220_AAARVU alter_p_Page_148thm.jpg
ed563ea1ea9cde9b1f5be00a767fcd32
69af6b81b24d20ed7a91b2a8e3a709b56bfc4508
2078 F20101220_AAATFG alter_p_Page_135.txt
ff2b6cc5bcca556e96f320aacd1291cb
abb0f3b4e7675637e0f069490f3f22ad1cc64a04
1759 F20101220_AAATES alter_p_Page_121.txt
d0736e203947f149dc1a59587f604381
b69e4287c097423ccc029838aa18a0e598285f5d
40306 F20101220_AAASZL alter_p_Page_181.pro
3fd93f225a570fb452e054a716654796
bf28f9b9d0185ce21dcc7229779072c0eb46723f
79259 F20101220_AAASYX alter_p_Page_167.pro
69ecfd9459871675e0599ce4972fb5a8
9cd174decdd4b60287978db35a85185ba99e7db6
103274 F20101220_AAASCE alter_p_Page_165.jpg
d87685552f360a4a56a10ef2b37ed493
d729444376ed3feca216cad174dfa3e9110de100
85719 F20101220_AAASBQ alter_p_Page_151.jpg
4fbab7e4e07c66cc81771025c42fa438
5a5a93394891eea7c545a1a12537343b0e78150f
60822 F20101220_AAARWJ alter_p_Page_011.jpg
d311c4c1947721c88dd06a69476c0535
4c05c920c4ca4b23383c7f57ca9e4824b8ca77c1
16065 F20101220_AAARVV alter_p_Page_125.QC.jpg
8e65eadc3bf82e572616b4f68e84c556
185be78d770ee4c033ac6aa1d309e36f56cdfa92
190 F20101220_AAATFH alter_p_Page_136.txt
240c43bcf3b4b42680457bf84061da69
3ef38c8fc5d6173b74a3f81a3e8c5ba43a812f61
2139 F20101220_AAATET alter_p_Page_122.txt
2d46be6ee9f8f222a9b14a4bd03f788f
76dd653494abbdd6c8d9b32f01794f66cd750c00
42294 F20101220_AAASZM alter_p_Page_182.pro
f03348040a151980ac2d62402d8875b1
ec3235974540ef63f438b76ff261f1f63dbb2c28
83414 F20101220_AAASYY alter_p_Page_168.pro
a934b174a639c2259baf984bb3c5dc2c
ed592b7caf2d6f819eb7b7f04b9f085abafc4694
4718 F20101220_AAASCF alter_p_Page_166.jpg
e1b85245f9894e456b9966d5bf8be51e
f6f054d20ec31303503726197e8931e42d0f8e6c
83557 F20101220_AAASBR alter_p_Page_152.jpg
e0a6841ad241a86b0550196a38d808bf
0e042d86381783c5a4a3631327616c6181ed1573
71990 F20101220_AAARWK alter_p_Page_012.jpg
110823431c8942922ab89372e5c0b6cd
5c8d8a871c9723c3633885f21026fd9e18873778
230071 F20101220_AAARVW UFE0015410_00001.mets
354cb842f1562ab67dd55eb1905f3fa2
67bbf119f8d650152f88dcf5f4d5878a1122e476
alter_p_Page_001.tif
1846 F20101220_AAATFI alter_p_Page_137.txt
34dff4c50fbe50f1b26174e22baec060
a8a69ad04485062d4effdfb40113f226a982f05c
38596 F20101220_AAASZN alter_p_Page_183.pro
a69ccb252169422969b47548296bc27f
376418372eac9c59ffaeabaf4c1417c9dd457536
36028 F20101220_AAASYZ alter_p_Page_169.pro
fa621df018fb5bb50a50f41a442a1253
d0775543661d5b6624294dc150d7cd148610f3d4
121306 F20101220_AAASCG alter_p_Page_167.jpg
c7a35f6059784815e1634f261d7814ea
e22f52e2973195f2a924429f636825ad1410400c
80659 F20101220_AAARXA alter_p_Page_029.jpg
a0fe1d008b502fc46bcf0a2ef94f771d
0c5972f48742eda89dc350924df83c435df5fa1e
84734 F20101220_AAARWL alter_p_Page_013.jpg
68258fa51d5dac06504911e2419cde74
8f1db8685e0d104f70fda6148b38343f1e424d27
F20101220_AAATFJ alter_p_Page_138.txt
8da79866ff8503cb96883e7f08bda937
35bf7b8c84c04fcf4a5a0c2403c7dee8890f52a8
1817 F20101220_AAATEU alter_p_Page_123.txt
027e11f61a32d7cc98d11f2d63309d33
1858c87c4b2989254116d48e061c472a021a34ac
25975 F20101220_AAASZO alter_p_Page_184.pro
09acedffe3bf8a7481aaf81e456ea410
9d67ce0d62b272384bd99ffe1eaba2be568f01a5
126077 F20101220_AAASCH alter_p_Page_168.jpg
e9074a9623ee346926c16ff089813d8b
e1702354160f55307ac04bc7f776cbe98d016aa2
84838 F20101220_AAARXB alter_p_Page_030.jpg
703063349dc839b1d934dd345be7cfd9
97e03cd469acf0e13c65ff3fcd3c0ba06bee3282
85067 F20101220_AAASBS alter_p_Page_153.jpg
af1f82408771f031b5d712b3c84bbc34
6d82beb32d7bd7a611e04767c699337102d647e2
84014 F20101220_AAARWM alter_p_Page_015.jpg
f2b64ddda8fa1a4351ae39e94cf3f080
ef11f7dcf3b579bcbd2c8ff86d53838c43947ae3
2067 F20101220_AAATFK alter_p_Page_139.txt
3a7fa0fbe6b65b43a887ca177072d14b
a6582efdae03e5951f65612e2cbac80152f8faca
1583 F20101220_AAATEV alter_p_Page_124.txt
9bf16952a7eef131856d671d98030fd3
70b1efac99ac61d4d46e513e49687d709bcb2fbb
33817 F20101220_AAASZP alter_p_Page_185.pro
26dfa0e0e1b8ba8d55c6520b9602d953
62ca3662117bfbca7cd2d0daf5568fa7bd0ba882
66318 F20101220_AAASCI alter_p_Page_169.jpg
f0a0890fe94e6a979d563d7954071e4f
07adb37906762215556ec569ad225e4333ce8d7b
81144 F20101220_AAARXC alter_p_Page_031.jpg
88f3dd9d91b737aa860951bff1c30b06
1e8cabf1d8aa32e7f795da2998476b7e36f7a7ff
83430 F20101220_AAASBT alter_p_Page_154.jpg
79a4556b3d6e7663a8603078491f5218
deb96617978903c860f74d9bfa96a782d1159801
85176 F20101220_AAARWN alter_p_Page_016.jpg
3fa8a1193e95473e9e1c778074bf0f9b
30206bfecf7bfb523ef5262f95f0588bbc077f6d
28519 F20101220_AAARVZ alter_p_Page_001.jpg
d507ef5e9cefe6e97a7f19b0e444c8f5
c697ab2b8a999808bb51b1ed31bcd59b0d8cf338
2083 F20101220_AAATFL alter_p_Page_140.txt
a1e1d637d8902675356fb6326321b165
71cdb597d1ffd4d0ce8d54f6ce4a188013b3e675
1244 F20101220_AAATEW alter_p_Page_125.txt
a551763e7b17cdb2107756d101db7d6f
56172ee6548901184d740de3f1b9685b43abf81e
37867 F20101220_AAASZQ alter_p_Page_186.pro
7c8b9e9d14d14148c5a93fd9c9bdbc20
8251949782d23c39862703833bfa20d6afdaeec0
125292 F20101220_AAASCJ alter_p_Page_170.jpg
d641ed0270c7a409d060030b00295a80
de5f558be1102eaa2d9d239f96f0e3adbc27beb1
88880 F20101220_AAARXD alter_p_Page_032.jpg
e82d85a773aa7e980448757e7dd3b692
3b1308bb99c1abdd5b52771161b56ecb219f56f3
86835 F20101220_AAASBU alter_p_Page_155.jpg
8ed869961a00723ef511977d6f338b59
4502b32eaa625380bd818089bf0e48c3cbb07ca8
84528 F20101220_AAARWO alter_p_Page_017.jpg
1c66145c71d9208288917e29dbd379e5
ce5e504d62656f4c30d1dcbe1bff290fbd6e9ef4
2076 F20101220_AAATGA alter_p_Page_155.txt
06cc025e9357674b97b840ebfd8b978f
1d8d997df142088a5aed67f01e7bc99bbdb23ec3
F20101220_AAATFM alter_p_Page_141.txt
a37b55be595cd97829aa8a0e37493902
fffd3f8d7cfe815a4e99cd16b9952e98e2974a7c
F20101220_AAATEX alter_p_Page_126.txt
f62a13b1482efdb84c68394e68923fe0
7e48f766309d7bbd1d3543e3d8ba2d9d881b35ff
34263 F20101220_AAASZR alter_p_Page_187.pro
a1b2e68746555f9949a4bff7ace0e0f6
2655ca48af9b828903699dd778a3f43a7c3d8e12
127735 F20101220_AAASCK alter_p_Page_171.jpg
9ce05798cdc21141eb91529350b88059
60149d710b0a15dcd66df857aed46014d4b812d5
81877 F20101220_AAARXE alter_p_Page_033.jpg
6d05284f5c22ee592cf49ff41cd915f7
05c4b330fecf8147e8017d7cbc2306ecd414c149
83990 F20101220_AAASBV alter_p_Page_156.jpg
0f46fd94b9c21680e3e0e7e3d91092ca
c13429508a87350b81ff1781ac271035df64c3f8
82196 F20101220_AAARWP alter_p_Page_018.jpg
0e039c59942c8eaeeee21018561b09f2
a5108e9bea4877d0d9a3225fc348ec958b85ff0c
F20101220_AAATGB alter_p_Page_156.txt
6f7404ed81abb780e597b81ff2f39dff
b91e6639c9e103148da0003ce4e226f589fa1ef8
F20101220_AAATFN alter_p_Page_142.txt
1faefe2011ee52b90708527e057d727e
ed134cedff6dcfba725b987b45119b258f8624b6
1722 F20101220_AAATEY alter_p_Page_127.txt
627dede7b21c3daf490e8d29efbd688a
a31529469c5fdb8a2302f04a1c8d98643e55193f
12108 F20101220_AAASZS alter_p_Page_188.pro
9453daf3245b3d10a8a3b99666fbf9b7
4e88c36b8bfcd69198dad2501fc8d2f6b23f37ca
79307 F20101220_AAASCL alter_p_Page_172.jpg
d470ed21036c6b95e257bf12717927c0
b03c89aa7b3ebe4f278de4cd19768a60e6cf3217
80649 F20101220_AAARXF alter_p_Page_034.jpg
6bc43c1ef72b312dd1e43070128969d0
f6a0a09ea02d5f0f65bf6ef8c941d8b15b2069e6
80113 F20101220_AAASBW alter_p_Page_157.jpg
d6865611750c4fdc5cf0cb94e3247c3d
2e35076198f463fd64627302ae30b9be3ae5893f
79830 F20101220_AAARWQ alter_p_Page_019.jpg
527c4b39ec9f27bb19cdcacac058fb42
25608a658ad31a8d64708ef2360ad55fe41d4b99
1906 F20101220_AAATGC alter_p_Page_157.txt
6f6d41ca8cc7aa3f246858ffee6c0523
d8aa2a945e413e583da3e1cc62f39c33e7048eec
2036 F20101220_AAATFO alter_p_Page_143.txt
0810a2d6f67b9a5becdcf588a32d7d77
290853d7b44cd3d71e4b1dc46d90541cd39edbb8
1280 F20101220_AAATEZ alter_p_Page_128.txt
4888de7cfdc0fc128b60da73e02d5283
4fefa422bfe8cf27419c526fe478f60959da1dc0
33280 F20101220_AAASZT alter_p_Page_189.pro
3d28f45d5023b812a4f933303f5c07f4
a1282e57ecdde8779e92d9278637aa0ea83817ff
50605 F20101220_AAASCM alter_p_Page_173.jpg
21689d3781251b8644e5e9d9f99478c5
adfeaadecfd5b9dace1897f24d5164d6aabf99af
87177 F20101220_AAARXG alter_p_Page_035.jpg
387d9092ccc570968eeb2ac890edc1a6
14ee2ecbf6305dd8ad3427b9b1919d8385bd183d
83304 F20101220_AAASBX alter_p_Page_158.jpg
3c91a1b7b125b44db48a1266a806aae3
834b77b319c46967f9583099703142f2b136d5f2
67237 F20101220_AAARWR alter_p_Page_020.jpg
126d4f61d0db2b022d22882defc77cab
79194713d7ab700142ec2c8c486f46a8ab3c8246
57670 F20101220_AAASDA alter_p_Page_187.jpg
068d8e2a88aef2daf5c3a5418576aa16
59bd28585d31a88eda86ece6bfa5ac793e3bfede
2047 F20101220_AAATGD alter_p_Page_158.txt
f6a0a86786159fa514efd879b76c9b5c
0ece6e37a2d65c84809867184e4eb2369907bb83
F20101220_AAATFP alter_p_Page_144.txt
c06793e71cfa1089adfab50f746116cc
7ea2776747246e2324e2839b5d6ba2c24ef156cb
54079 F20101220_AAASZU alter_p_Page_190.pro
95bcb3e9570699d7c01a594c44e07e63
135b910d7f16e5f8a57658b1fec81dacd0a3e5a1
52359 F20101220_AAASCN alter_p_Page_174.jpg
655eba9fb2fba5e5e958da2ea6860360
c21d7acce5176567ee7d5068bdf842b03e775d8f
86941 F20101220_AAARXH alter_p_Page_036.jpg
91a5155cbf97e3b293443a8a48377d92
335d0b99d9448253fde24e5497ca197ff48378de
82558 F20101220_AAASBY alter_p_Page_159.jpg
3de94982d2de906ffca8613d24ac0273
d6391097f584aa80ab66dde1b2966955483f8e83
77777 F20101220_AAARWS alter_p_Page_021.jpg
d90040207d7f26f3a052c0ae04ba84dd
28aa78352003943f318fe77384565cf334a978f3
22283 F20101220_AAASDB alter_p_Page_188.jpg
64f72739e8fa5ebe5e1f04495318540e
2312c4351154ff1a0f229b2b95e7e6f44e971fa4
F20101220_AAATGE alter_p_Page_159.txt
6ef1a905255e777ac61a3e5117fa0716
c4aecf9cc1e7d846f88655305ff1d5f8cdc9fc59
F20101220_AAATFQ alter_p_Page_145.txt
76d51648c265ff2521d08d651969c046
babd16a394f2fd0c512d043ea831417b0b703f54
62648 F20101220_AAASZV alter_p_Page_191.pro
8609578b9aefd4bdbf3ea40cfc3825f6
a6b61bc10ca3ba761eee2967d24a1c5bd8e4d016
20405 F20101220_AAASCO alter_p_Page_175.jpg
04c1910c5dbdb490dec9bf261064b358
334c207c09a8d1bb4b24b8852beaffc00b368477
87620 F20101220_AAARXI alter_p_Page_037.jpg
571107e95d4001e18bbea47024da214c
7cc2f6142f93cd8055abfdaba784a2397b8e8acc
83926 F20101220_AAASBZ alter_p_Page_160.jpg
5fcfca3358110c24b23c38fff2459c03
dad13934216ded401aa39c370183d57acde24138
85202 F20101220_AAARWT alter_p_Page_022.jpg
01fbecaee2ce43bb3ea2aaad07b21a2a
e728a4b712000e2f5cde20a07c41f9c851d5509f
59609 F20101220_AAASDC alter_p_Page_189.jpg
53d319c77842a2a0f45738d0e0669997
6de04bdeca627dba4cbbb2371fa7f56e9a753343
F20101220_AAATGF alter_p_Page_160.txt
249bdc3dddfebaea0a19d05d6a485ac6
c2f952fca018ed924182c493e8f3c6724c6787af
2033 F20101220_AAATFR alter_p_Page_146.txt
cca0e9d7fe24026d36ebd79b0fbf135b
da2efdf2b25163f5348ab271e8f5e876f5e9affb
65897 F20101220_AAASZW alter_p_Page_192.pro
de844e52bde98e874d3ce5b7c021e33a
84afbf681fcd8cbe878056f470b4ab9ad35cf067
26958 F20101220_AAASCP alter_p_Page_176.jpg
12ec21281e5c0cec8bc2ff596f5a3e98
9a7ed8b08a2b35b936092971c50d221d8023aed1
85345 F20101220_AAARWU alter_p_Page_023.jpg
a9a58460e986a7a6241ef9c7b30d83c5
067fd813d321d71f10b690a0e52b133df057031c
87022 F20101220_AAASDD alter_p_Page_190.jpg
e3a67155f33c02989b6e08bc6b60c88f
c72f034bf0678379c4a3a534955166f5ce6f1e75
2032 F20101220_AAATGG alter_p_Page_161.txt
d7a65bec296b9434d349c58d3a8b0864
5204eff6074f795923f6eb09f9ffaeed04bec011
F20101220_AAATFS alter_p_Page_147.txt
bb951e4bdf60c9b93ce0c8233bd59d2b
ee03e92fe57447894c98daa6bf082eff0350fb97
59753 F20101220_AAASZX alter_p_Page_193.pro
d8b7b5df54e119995eefd8cf58259929
aeda35aa66c87b904963f02462821f712e717bd4
23708 F20101220_AAASCQ alter_p_Page_177.jpg
8c0b85927f01a7bc1c4e450a1a9c6f7a
19dfe8207f622f10cfcd35825b0fc7fad85d2699
83245 F20101220_AAARXJ alter_p_Page_038.jpg
a3bce3d634ab826252a9338d87e3aee6
16041d184ef4674524e8584bac40dfaeb1913564
84722 F20101220_AAARWV alter_p_Page_024.jpg
4e4fce4fc96a3c1bfd619ce3ff003712
c513e20cb9a596fa17fb26637c28c9e2c9804c17
99579 F20101220_AAASDE alter_p_Page_191.jpg
e12f08e28afc5fed1a3fe67c6dbfa377
f085e1293bb8d3955e7d98135f2122062383fa4a
365 F20101220_AAATGH alter_p_Page_162.txt
77e0ee37585f093c5e5c580b9acb16fb
8b67db5f082d221b2f9621131a89248848892013
2063 F20101220_AAATFT alter_p_Page_148.txt
ab3f2319b97708336f84b02e6f3b74e6
8f25ddd1da236fceddd8f27f5632562975abdc47
59704 F20101220_AAASZY alter_p_Page_194.pro
02d159a04ff9e4ca8c02d7e50772b4fc
2f38d7f1c95af3340e994f3ed5acf89f4bd1d15a
48364 F20101220_AAASCR alter_p_Page_178.jpg
21a68d4c9262d83866c5d55626c8a14f
bb95c1f3355c8db3bdadd5133974733f1bc193f9
67887 F20101220_AAARXK alter_p_Page_039.jpg
0242c17f2992610e2a77a3cbb0e48515
a58b6b452c901d08bf0da39b543935bef441ea7f
82749 F20101220_AAARWW alter_p_Page_025.jpg
a01158ae77789cc7efa035b659b458bc
19b2299ed9ab2b94fef362a385477c1f0a45d4a9
107964 F20101220_AAASDF alter_p_Page_192.jpg
ab4a90a35a9c84004ec857901d44d390
092951d455af76680b4e68e23d626bac42083612
2252 F20101220_AAATGI alter_p_Page_163.txt
5e81f6f700120cd46f46ec5cd45a110a
3b26d228d5f0892573c9ec3852a61afd9d47cd9d
1992 F20101220_AAATFU alter_p_Page_149.txt
4f865938c633ca061801535e94514423
c2e6f1880edc485c6ff8356c75bbe1a13d03f98c
60479 F20101220_AAASZZ alter_p_Page_195.pro
b925b4b1b5799d9f7222708d51d81cbb
9dbca21b392b67db300f157663a90f5d0c34d39e
75353 F20101220_AAARXL alter_p_Page_040.jpg
729c0c0aa82ca7793310a405a0a56883
90b37eda52bb00d6e6644d92c24f345394118f70
86060 F20101220_AAARWX alter_p_Page_026.jpg
3834e7bfe023c61e711afea178fc58ab
58632e0528bae4880b6b6df60ac5e7ecc3dabe60
95408 F20101220_AAASDG alter_p_Page_193.jpg
3034d59bfb333ce2d23544916fb84d74
453df8c266b0351ce548fa07cac559a55c77d63a
84641 F20101220_AAARYA alter_p_Page_055.jpg
1165d2bbb6a78e15d5642183c0fb0c22
1f09eba5478203fe35f156c966f11e64da4a9cef
49410 F20101220_AAASCS alter_p_Page_179.jpg
0a729c41431655556f21f0e668b21842
1af9cd97ed57565ad5a5c049c2aac6b0bf0d000a
3913 F20101220_AAATGJ alter_p_Page_164.txt
1aa7f9a0816d20304555904f434c9e60
b74caea2b2b50bae225634d28d77adda3721da09
76625 F20101220_AAARXM alter_p_Page_041.jpg
4a41ec00e94b4832bae5aed1b2aa1a0a
7474f727b950db1deed2992068102780d7eb28d9
85100 F20101220_AAARWY alter_p_Page_027.jpg
6f855bb7bb90ebdfcd018e7fef7bc744
aa5224c67e227c6ba60afb8d7625631acfe43c47
100044 F20101220_AAASDH alter_p_Page_194.jpg
6c6699ea6164003cb3ecbed4ff2ed36b
bc0c80366d94f43d11945f0440efdc80d71960ba
83889 F20101220_AAARYB alter_p_Page_056.jpg
2d24cbceed3dbb7dc7459f150ef798d4
bc19fae91d7e7b89755498dc2c59a0478518b647
2493 F20101220_AAATGK alter_p_Page_165.txt
2edbc8c4555192e37a4e181405b34a18
5d16ec3338f04016e11fc20ff1b826eb63117129
F20101220_AAATFV alter_p_Page_150.txt
3bcf5226f4de97d3f186ba2c899ed41e
369a599ff8aaf0d2dcb88928bd7f31371169946f
83772 F20101220_AAARXN alter_p_Page_042.jpg
8188972cc8d088687a6a6df05a0b76f9
4f3f0d2301524edc6a542fc33704bc3246b2eaaa
87112 F20101220_AAARWZ alter_p_Page_028.jpg
86d2a2194a1fa52d060e1493093b1c54
31fc968b35383725886d8de51e1ee9b59b6e88b8
98853 F20101220_AAASDI alter_p_Page_195.jpg
9d648587d95050c2ad051908e9830a13
1ae84e25d99d48de74147397be234f935671b999
78662 F20101220_AAARYC alter_p_Page_057.jpg
c6d887b6acda76447bc263124d825836
c06459e9e79ef580205425e91df64e5985c3c50a
57366 F20101220_AAASCT alter_p_Page_180.jpg
778c2bffd4cd927a8153e8b4f39d59b4
e1b8e51fd53f8fe98cf7727caa01dc8a30977a43
F20101220_AAATGL alter_p_Page_166.txt
4d5b25a186a0bb69915fb872c1bd94f3
a276f32fa278e5bc2ab0502f4fedb601e8ae49c4
F20101220_AAATFW alter_p_Page_151.txt
7542514a423921849f7a5fab3d5610a1
1a575146aeeb087e8098f9b8c750c6c0e040e6ee
F20101220_AAARXO alter_p_Page_043.jpg
fb2e01e89cbc09e3b5a0691c62688503
6bdb24a1c9298e7626d1445dc3424c5b57f3fd60
105407 F20101220_AAASDJ alter_p_Page_196.jpg
629ff8a9899a452c928e09bfcbe405f7
b28c07bf055420cabb3da0cafced6498f271edab
84372 F20101220_AAARYD alter_p_Page_058.jpg
4f3b496a458d2b9247a8413a4c2fc5bd
1107438f8864ca66f4906aa79982101335b538a9
67936 F20101220_AAASCU alter_p_Page_181.jpg
fa3cabfdc8d0be95e12374d9d5b1b079
c9ab203881a28a87e28e60d3d7766122660d6426
1602 F20101220_AAATHA alter_p_Page_181.txt
bfc5ad4bcaf5be346d4145b289b05005
a9b69b138f757572a5653b4510bd0a2c4c554f3b
3173 F20101220_AAATGM alter_p_Page_167.txt
bd0bb3cdfda0d8958d3da44f68df59c3
060cf71e3a0e430a11cfb05d88e44d0254e6e2ef
2037 F20101220_AAATFX alter_p_Page_152.txt
89fd401e6c3db3f64a17d11447286344
d7bf5095cbed717c59f2f7767924b4567213a223
86488 F20101220_AAARXP alter_p_Page_044.jpg
0c2357d66cec9087b11dc0288f84ee5f
0ddfd66d10a2c076ba4d29681bda1188c1f51a90
96700 F20101220_AAASDK alter_p_Page_197.jpg
2b727ca508399942eeb6f618bbe3ce48
8d88bdcd3383a69e071bfb1104bc42ed13c4313c
87971 F20101220_AAARYE alter_p_Page_059.jpg
84dc15764462721c1dedbf1e9c20cc14
22901df7afd89a1db2ef1e708d3c6c0121fb5484
69968 F20101220_AAASCV alter_p_Page_182.jpg
568b13d7bdeba614eb08a34ca9233e18
8a88e48224f70223c1d8c0297c8e21a93d43af3e
1803 F20101220_AAATHB alter_p_Page_182.txt
8c16d7d459f3f1e59ced55ea9dcb91cb
8835ebf954437e5cc167463d43e14e66364142bc
3200 F20101220_AAATGN alter_p_Page_168.txt
620d49ceee853dc17ced2005b3a54066
c87add45f43cd09ac1741de7e5044e7ae6f37c24
2008 F20101220_AAATFY alter_p_Page_153.txt
944f6287b80ad9871ae02e1030e2397c
5499f9f61930d8f0e1058a388883dfdf0126fdf3
81621 F20101220_AAARXQ alter_p_Page_045.jpg
b5d289acf78bf70baa6abadfbed0ae38
c2ad28cd4441f45148ab606e80636edc863163e4
96764 F20101220_AAASDL alter_p_Page_198.jpg
3e668d886678c9c1c04021ecbfa5ca48
d9a1ed7f363b0bf48592dae1e07d136047cf74d3
83767 F20101220_AAARYF alter_p_Page_060.jpg
51b3ec5ebe5e2ec0d62cd408f6b1d921
e1efbf213fdd2f3326cdf5d5b78a1521402b00c4
67387 F20101220_AAASCW alter_p_Page_183.jpg
85d46ee175ef09e317ebb37784dd8a78
4ff9aa3cdd736517ca4c4290508d536c70fd4f98
1539 F20101220_AAATHC alter_p_Page_183.txt
ff13cb5abb37da21e9da026e651c34cc
c5b998497392d84572d073415e2be7be09eaa266
1474 F20101220_AAATGO alter_p_Page_169.txt
2497fd141177afd16c37267bd8682f3a
82a36198ae105ff10ebf18519ce33dc4c62bf572
2056 F20101220_AAATFZ alter_p_Page_154.txt
550a049594aa6aeee0eeddba150ec718
ecac35857f713bf2ce91f4fcc2efc02af5c3a72f
81595 F20101220_AAARXR alter_p_Page_046.jpg
9f07801edc758f4bffc9baf3eba5491c
84913640e2078b5fdc894c6ccbbe73a3d9230b99
110917 F20101220_AAASEA alter_p_Page_013.jp2
db0102e6645fcf6b33ecb0dfb1bd4a1d
94c794ffcfe6d79781542bcd8187ac0f361d0e30
59802 F20101220_AAASDM alter_p_Page_199.jpg
11718ee1dd35df2c0d748762b16e6337
b428b38c851d00a66e396314c528bf041d6ff3b8
85137 F20101220_AAARYG alter_p_Page_061.jpg
4d2bc325f44293a389297e88d6b60284
22bdd48dffdfdc865707f486161a4e9faec912c6
45115 F20101220_AAASCX alter_p_Page_184.jpg
9a86ec9fb10ca7db155acc459b090732
f8423cca56e5933a7a07399f8267167dc45fb6ef
1139 F20101220_AAATHD alter_p_Page_184.txt
9b126b1a0c6ff689441eeddae2913bce
0028a9480cad38af10f2860c26827e04d2147c71
3256 F20101220_AAATGP alter_p_Page_170.txt
e591f5ab6943d2e66092528614a9f9eb
4deffb3ba024e493bd1e0a86114020760cb8ddc3
80683 F20101220_AAARXS alter_p_Page_047.jpg
87b710639d81338676e63e991be688ea
903022e589ce76bee6b95f5e97534f50b13ca767
109684 F20101220_AAASEB alter_p_Page_014.jp2
3249d857a33f8bd5d1b57f659291490d
cd139042674da07307b972790d6a9e87a9b08451
75988 F20101220_AAASDN alter_p_Page_200.jpg
7cb521c092a200197b55cab7a9923fe7
50d1537df22f65c53f4eb038732238f723952d76
83538 F20101220_AAARYH alter_p_Page_062.jpg
074e01ba259a7e4caa777d3e82264ab9
41b558a94d20421821a53ab28d25808db1d2d232
56836 F20101220_AAASCY alter_p_Page_185.jpg
6864b1e02fe472914ac40dd67bda781a
c659835da03ec35455d79a6245ef070b029b4b18
1465 F20101220_AAATHE alter_p_Page_185.txt
4c625145f066f3b5bff5a14c7119a358
585a038f97b5a490a24ea8b3917907432ea2b366
3166 F20101220_AAATGQ alter_p_Page_171.txt
d8952d5a3691b20cc543879607352983
7bebbadacb1b82a247250ced0e04a7e1afd4d932
83795 F20101220_AAARXT alter_p_Page_048.jpg
40395a2664a33e8fca262ad660d90496
83b8a30b8184f8349204bbdfe0116c6e7970cc17
110378 F20101220_AAASEC alter_p_Page_015.jp2
8ad5d1391f721558863930b3688be5c9
912279c8be3d883461ca1f101243a00ca937d195
67630 F20101220_AAASDO alter_p_Page_201.jpg
e19ae0f09120edaa020249983d147046
e18471b0f67de83fa25e1d4f826c41090ca6bd4f
82717 F20101220_AAARYI alter_p_Page_063.jpg
e4e701a32ffaa71f6a259edc05f85340
821dcb2375ba7abfc6afb927bdafc871a3a8eef4
63224 F20101220_AAASCZ alter_p_Page_186.jpg
7641b128fdc55b1ff52ea00025ecf8d5
7c8b0a19821a8f4afd04135d009f6cf0d588a5a7
1567 F20101220_AAATHF alter_p_Page_186.txt
35e4bdcb3ef0932c636b1c6877246714
c3b68cf53fa94418b7e74366b4e786c7ffb27017
1681 F20101220_AAATGR alter_p_Page_172.txt
8b22f466a5bb3c6396c567def96bdac7
d68d6da970e7431d9512f05d70ae4e4355bf1ca4
85663 F20101220_AAARXU alter_p_Page_049.jpg
d6baefa93f3779e471fb9706600099df
b9f10224e23467d0a11e2513997bfcbae3acd79f
112392 F20101220_AAASED alter_p_Page_016.jp2
603df193271c65f1eb166a54d9c3e57a
7c5e058d21f7f781e2f57e5f6b08381d09ffbf9d
30141 F20101220_AAASDP alter_p_Page_001.jp2
c6db4794228505a7d7d39a0112488451
6e82f552ebcf90b60ab06e35b6c46a5a9fc18bca
81948 F20101220_AAARYJ alter_p_Page_064.jpg
aad8a976969353642354c8a4c01b9c52
88fcbe65c2b157bcddc74ee3942487814e25115f
1473 F20101220_AAATHG alter_p_Page_187.txt
00d7187d7e2adbbfcd4d40c50d960302
6b948ffc67aef736bb717891dfebbc7a2f0d6188
1044 F20101220_AAATGS alter_p_Page_173.txt
ffb4da847c936f30a0588f4aa8429eab
45021840b3c42092a15b92881f18e17d99723585
86981 F20101220_AAARXV alter_p_Page_050.jpg
e54eab16158e19f8213b8e63aafd96a5
f59890cb60caaa1dad15d761490a25e17126ec61
111912 F20101220_AAASEE alter_p_Page_017.jp2
de9f01728b38b1d1eebc2244226ea4b8
1bfbd388b49b72a0cfe779b390842e90cdda9ced
F20101220_AAASDQ alter_p_Page_002.jp2
dfb8f153b4ff1fcce409e0bfcc37d66f
b9cc13ea346b46950133ca94dc3d425720b038a9
527 F20101220_AAATHH alter_p_Page_188.txt
2ab894b81e9bce47056ae03b0b6d8850
d9c29c5a9172bbbe0e1208b393103b7b212ac923
1864 F20101220_AAATGT alter_p_Page_174.txt
b873acc855bdd244d2f65c7f2de70f13
88b58e2abcb97d94d796240469f8bdc462b14fdb
83348 F20101220_AAARXW alter_p_Page_051.jpg
a976f70b480e6f570050b61b6dc302e7
33545cf1f79c7503067ea66ebbfdc1d8dfdeb81b
108305 F20101220_AAASEF alter_p_Page_018.jp2
6a92debb3df004a84fa9af7906f6f048
1411b85f8987064a296dfa49468facf8815befe8
4945 F20101220_AAASDR alter_p_Page_003.jp2
6a745ac7296395eaad1dfa0a4cc3aa2f
adfa67f81ba2bb190d21d6287fb81c48a83db84f
83786 F20101220_AAARYK alter_p_Page_065.jpg
131f52e3731175c15cff6918fdce5e1a
8e0ad761f3c708c5e86f732a5226dd42ea01c7d1
1888 F20101220_AAATHI alter_p_Page_189.txt
bf5f515c7e6acd85cfb34cab7c206be1
faaee3f476797ef70b3af9d560022567ef338716
422 F20101220_AAATGU alter_p_Page_175.txt
4ab25bc6e6229f056fe862a29db61d8e
989340958501e50632aac817480e90e46736c8e1
81511 F20101220_AAARXX alter_p_Page_052.jpg
4ae8237614468b689a58dcc1a8528438
ea918d425eadf21b53b596ba326132f3ab1301a2
106733 F20101220_AAASEG alter_p_Page_019.jp2
385ab58a8bf03e57af9cf6b83087f52c
a25a4e3672335b12946a0b4d760a770fa46a1f8f
83502 F20101220_AAARZA alter_p_Page_081.jpg
7716bf4ca4f90941aeee024dde85e4d2
eb522496dfacba41b55d183134b6697bd13d4ea8
21027 F20101220_AAASDS alter_p_Page_004.jp2
f9ccd2d5a389f3768fefa39dfe3a1c0e
38647a36dff8f1a0c52ff2c0d16604418b8d918e
81556 F20101220_AAARYL alter_p_Page_066.jpg
ebb86f939ac00bbd8d90c5bf3aaf263f
e9da17ce888ddfff9b486309e6fc542b3ebf95e3
2234 F20101220_AAATHJ alter_p_Page_190.txt
b6acdc1c1540f19a101d2c0bd050751d
4a07282c8e07e23997974f396ade6275fa6ac7ba
890 F20101220_AAATGV alter_p_Page_176.txt
bc4f3212967dd604941f89f0af614e93
f7fcbaedd4ce526cc1059461cca62a105c8f4bdc
86678 F20101220_AAARXY alter_p_Page_053.jpg
6b762eec103bb3fc18f056f1011dcc49
791b3d5e1913e08fca2adef25ca320db830e2c96
86808 F20101220_AAASEH alter_p_Page_020.jp2
08fb1ef69a9207c8c913eb47c28bd28e
034d9d5821293c620f09b46a01d65d6a8a2450f0
82355 F20101220_AAARZB alter_p_Page_082.jpg
e4bd4d9f96bc30eaa89ffa767e88fdc0
8feed558108cc1b34b97d5b9df3a931d9d2226d2
1051986 F20101220_AAASDT alter_p_Page_005.jp2
b933d6ca43b01ea5fdb105871bbf3fda
36a067116eb742c08faae7a5fbf6ad5c684c5f78
85949 F20101220_AAARYM alter_p_Page_067.jpg
7a65db3b57f1a04a2226ad8908446c8a
fc7b53cbfbd44e19f7c6e05e66e894195ca5cf3f
2578 F20101220_AAATHK alter_p_Page_191.txt
5b050ea4e0ff5d51a4424efb0bb4ee12
c4c5ca3667671180c2650d06342fa479ec800905
63879 F20101220_AAARXZ alter_p_Page_054.jpg
cd5d1afa7ef88d0e42c4b54ab579e3b3
104f7267597979b0b4872b417699f4887b4c9d6e
99646 F20101220_AAASEI alter_p_Page_021.jp2
6e2e95fa953dfd4b1c57c87757b6b26f
3ecd8be9400009a22ef7a1b25afd6140b25521d3
81652 F20101220_AAARZC alter_p_Page_083.jpg
09434125ffb7e0bf7d874a8287ef8561
24f903398b582b9b65232aaebce03698906f9f20
84002 F20101220_AAARYN alter_p_Page_068.jpg
0252cc76360446275f5aa557b0eb228b
8b04fe8b712e5de15be68f0cccd1cf53be10ac8e
2714 F20101220_AAATHL alter_p_Page_192.txt
40be04e0be971d64dd1450db0aa32072
cb81c52e5a3be379c0a7fac4175a5696d39b4579
659 F20101220_AAATGW alter_p_Page_177.txt
8fa0769fb43744cffdaa89d8ae773e3e
f22acf843a7451780042355c8e8eb16bb0fc6147
111176 F20101220_AAASEJ alter_p_Page_022.jp2
f7b5ffc77a5529e8bbf7ae0fe2071d8f
34eb9dd608f256214234dd9f6dc067526fce6f60
84241 F20101220_AAARZD alter_p_Page_084.jpg
03ebe31df7bb58d470d1c8c824098fbb
4af8f61ee58b5fe903c8648a80c6f4ef2589b88e
1051898 F20101220_AAASDU alter_p_Page_006.jp2
81d283f92ccbab1f3a0d9e1cab4215ce
f740b7380317d9d01a8f576cba28d871ceb78143
71597 F20101220_AAARYO alter_p_Page_069.jpg
c4674c3e45c8d93c5ad8be1aa4b3af31
f07a287f4a75ff3b4dc9ee461fa4743cdfb763d4
F20101220_AAATIA alter_p_Page_165.QC.jpg
4dc3809aa3bf41de78c11d44579d07fa
77bcdf5bca3e64428d9916282127169576a65837
2477 F20101220_AAATHM alter_p_Page_193.txt
c516d25559f2fdeaf010c0883501001f
07264cb5de3ea34e9409489ec512c92c5bcff86b
886 F20101220_AAATGX alter_p_Page_178.txt
7c04f884a27e2f4b65488984ab7a6f67
c8e7ec5431bf7b59e4404b6d014aad17a8a71269
113118 F20101220_AAASEK alter_p_Page_023.jp2
bdd4a7f60afd76b54b930795c7606ff2
c2dccdf3a6433977177f7eb55eed71cd2e797404
78415 F20101220_AAARZE alter_p_Page_085.jpg
a81ad4375fd62a5f70d24d1239055d88
777c1ab767ea486fc2db457ceadca2add046b836
1051982 F20101220_AAASDV alter_p_Page_007.jp2
4b253a74dabfee388b6d44070ffdb3a4
ceee55840bb0a8ca4d2208221830fae096f50623
40528 F20101220_AAARYP alter_p_Page_070.jpg
19abc3a79783a37286841c74ac735024
c94ca4115ddd72945c518a13a4ae40d62b49b292
5966 F20101220_AAATIB alter_p_Page_034thm.jpg
2cbc5029dc2b99cb7bf34c42d5188fa0
b36f604494113c22c4eb9d10e285e2e6e7984ca8
2461 F20101220_AAATHN alter_p_Page_194.txt
056967556f19c12e9b402fc99cb0fbec
47ecafcca64554cd0aeb88de1e7418d442f24c88
756 F20101220_AAATGY alter_p_Page_179.txt
f426a912e18af753e42045770f13de50
e1d9f2815d27121498c8cf03034179d8ddb1a269
109665 F20101220_AAASEL alter_p_Page_024.jp2
023329d8e3f8485e73ee5cb80b307fc6
7d2cec3c0acb2cd41ddb1b589bb6f8ebef4ad4ed
79434 F20101220_AAARZF alter_p_Page_086.jpg
f0d01ad9a466ce01a49f0e7b823edba1
7001fe26ef31495961208188096f2728f22b070f
1051973 F20101220_AAASDW alter_p_Page_008.jp2
426fd0d54b16d89bb91e29686d565264
1c257dc56c9ff32f376ebad081a31c4e9fb2c828
34417 F20101220_AAARYQ alter_p_Page_071.jpg
29a61f908ff87b54e1d815cf8709f924
aa1135abca8312b43cfa5d3c6df8608990eb326a
6331 F20101220_AAATIC alter_p_Page_061thm.jpg
ad0b83246e21e002d017458933c40cae
0deaf4c02890e339666f206bc346b005ce6fb7b6
F20101220_AAATHO alter_p_Page_195.txt
6829d7ec896907b87fe454aaed79813e
09ed975ab11957954025b8454a6809c9e5c8435f
F20101220_AAATGZ alter_p_Page_180.txt
61517a53a2aa3985edd9275fa51410b0
6dea3a19202502c49dd9f4800958aeed745003f5
109388 F20101220_AAASEM alter_p_Page_025.jp2
c7d78e971aa33f2a54041285efa10ebd
0798b760b1363bb4a3bb2e6cffdf1bc2d447f9a8
82048 F20101220_AAARZG alter_p_Page_087.jpg
39025b947a441df9e03eec507853f4f7
c430b6f68f65891dc0423b12923157046e37bb65
495397 F20101220_AAASDX alter_p_Page_009.jp2
c14441969d98875c329474637a2fb251
9e238021a2be11b9429cf4733b70f7bdf68e7e7c
36256 F20101220_AAARYR alter_p_Page_072.jpg
47dd77a1c2e0dcf16605bcb2bf973fd4
b6c16851b2dfaf35b87e1414bdb28fa46b1e6f0a
88043 F20101220_AAASFA alter_p_Page_039.jp2
f3642cd4d6726920a568eb06761ad9b7
bf6a78d6ada5d18b76b4d77dbbb40ad562eca3d3
2582 F20101220_AAATID alter_p_Page_120thm.jpg
3f494aea5c6d9b50aae6d9a78ed8c6bd
244d8dd9f3b477c8c7b708de2a4d16dd8cc9bba6
2756 F20101220_AAATHP alter_p_Page_196.txt
f24960d1032bc200bf7991a8ea71191c
b19681d662478009f59e3dd8a1fa222db9912386
113193 F20101220_AAASEN alter_p_Page_026.jp2
3df31368165d493ade7ba1457abac92c
3d1f8f67cf0dd45c2c7b23a2a5459c8e04084b15
84834 F20101220_AAARZH alter_p_Page_088.jpg
68391d44f9b1e9a98fff0b6020ce19b7
fc7e839500f1792fb03d56456b86d9083484889c
87146 F20101220_AAASDY alter_p_Page_010.jp2
5d312b68d26fe904cd7cafd9d7e31da4
956d50d3bc819d6a0b937e1196bc343be292221c
20375 F20101220_AAARYS alter_p_Page_073.jpg
7ea4360fe1c209f0db2e05ceb22e2f4c
c6701da9e0fb4fc3bf5321f8d3e01db1eb894644
1041779 F20101220_AAASFB alter_p_Page_040.jp2
9fddddc638ca964d08ffe34ebeaf648d
fec49e2e7d92da803bc15bf1d4b597d83969edfa
25750 F20101220_AAATIE alter_p_Page_068.QC.jpg
d5a48e9ac01514ba565a23957924c5c2
6e27d94b3c2ce503152da38aed337a591572076e
2577 F20101220_AAATHQ alter_p_Page_197.txt
fc231e1deff959666976b99d34816ef0
b092cd0c2f0f211469b3cb343751287e918bf817
112356 F20101220_AAASEO alter_p_Page_027.jp2
500d96a41bbe82e65910f8b4413e3595
59056ba927685c2f074bb0a71e13d9831ec87872
80021 F20101220_AAARZI alter_p_Page_089.jpg
b778235a40f2af68b655209928973c90
6f7fcf5d4d672b9143e9d1bc7a7e87f8e2a0e6cb
80576 F20101220_AAASDZ alter_p_Page_011.jp2
05a9f1b36e5bb9db67d923385fdc8589
f09b13f3aafbba2604af5e9af8f65b771fffbc57
84662 F20101220_AAARYT alter_p_Page_074.jpg
f7797357b0b5ec41513ada23fa702768
5254ffc3e9e0a18f9cf258ad2cdc3f558fa465a4
107663 F20101220_AAASFC alter_p_Page_041.jp2
91b30078e5aacefa4d3ef14645ab4fe2
659349308e5848301368d2a19e3b6308fe3c02de
6137 F20101220_AAATIF alter_p_Page_048thm.jpg
ca471dd600eeb4770bb26d43a0892c55
c91d1a701ee825f15e1e573bcd436ac4198dab9c
2433 F20101220_AAATHR alter_p_Page_198.txt
6897bce8e2b065394d428c5137582a83
e4516a7410598e3a675faa3523875b7dd581ca40
113066 F20101220_AAASEP alter_p_Page_028.jp2
46f70d0c0550fbaf737d1ee2a023e096
0e3f9e45eb831558fc405b141c76f850e0cd38bd
81690 F20101220_AAARZJ alter_p_Page_090.jpg
b72a67dbce11953042ae5372062401d7
76df3de32c195cf198ef3da39cdfa8ed28b3a29e
83384 F20101220_AAARYU alter_p_Page_075.jpg
3cbe381b87a29434b4b8c0b4277daa11
754dd935f80265ae3b3f1dfc0d0a7d5a39fb38e7
109961 F20101220_AAASFD alter_p_Page_042.jp2
f746e4ecb15d5a89b59c1be19a9fc49f
afcc830ed49f712b94390af38a5848fafa104eca
25880 F20101220_AAATIG alter_p_Page_051.QC.jpg
f864439e01d11b8045a335a10d6395fa
2dabf81bd1f7456219119c901af8dc30b3345230
1507 F20101220_AAATHS alter_p_Page_199.txt
da42c91e5eedfa0a15622e872fc80399
dbfb1796b4881c9f41def9d607a55792f292572b
105185 F20101220_AAASEQ alter_p_Page_029.jp2
a032b4b90ab8d51e88b7a2bd4671389d
a8c2b0bda4387efa7ffadab919be2007a8ce8578
86756 F20101220_AAARZK alter_p_Page_091.jpg
f1df6b74fe3a58fa73aa12ad0fbbd0ff
56fab4ff50983331fcac22f58840205fb01dcc5f
81069 F20101220_AAARYV alter_p_Page_076.jpg
919eb2717efe1c5da89eb4b810c05908
65d2bd9644705a2c12b54ea03674fc9258743bd3
107439 F20101220_AAASFE alter_p_Page_043.jp2
ed92af7d422c059ba7448dc2b0262388
601532197fbf32740e4fb20f4544e90bd10ad2bd
6388 F20101220_AAATIH alter_p_Page_049thm.jpg
28d41900822b13250a9d21d0d4710a60
4a61acd3be9339e2098ee4b340474952f7125611
1823 F20101220_AAATHT alter_p_Page_200.txt
04bfa3922f0c02054fcd01fb1e4cef45
b2857dd54245ce52df7535ee2cf05ccbc792d908
110274 F20101220_AAASER alter_p_Page_030.jp2
b650650322e3b872c83ab2bfd6dcdc71
a8d2edef3cb296030a29a60fb8976181bcf43151
80849 F20101220_AAARYW alter_p_Page_077.jpg
f0ac77a2f252705a94bed3d0c7428322
9962d21873cc72bb6d266236859d800d5c02537e
112922 F20101220_AAASFF alter_p_Page_044.jp2
dbb93cead3625b85b791d66226db56d3
a13b939e79020767d3155b8c979ad1a07b9ffa55
6339 F20101220_AAATII alter_p_Page_109thm.jpg
475240a770eb0984788f0d30fd3879aa
917460aa934bec574fcef6c9e329aad09e9e144a
1599 F20101220_AAATHU alter_p_Page_201.txt
e09183d2d17f09a42a933e149fa1c03a
6f0b55cae583f4dee1b1a56036739695e85455cc
106422 F20101220_AAASES alter_p_Page_031.jp2
c7097198c5c84342a1d7e178029aef41
5d5490e761c9f65333e953d990e56142c0bdd312
83850 F20101220_AAARZL alter_p_Page_092.jpg
c88d3b282cca901c42b991969dbbbd2f
e4fb1211e629483a67274eca75494c3738afc59d
83888 F20101220_AAARYX alter_p_Page_078.jpg
b1679ec5103c7a8871e581430f0ad430
85be116dc93d5b9ab0dfa6c3bf10490d65733aa3
107520 F20101220_AAASFG alter_p_Page_045.jp2
6695d92e982821365510545e9f419a18
46efd58e646a7dfca3700e6c7f526daa1f37b058
26929 F20101220_AAATIJ alter_p_Page_151.QC.jpg
22ec8557d82cbb18c58d07a86c1f7802
238e35ea0f5c5335ff7bdb09cbc065d24628b279
F20101220_AAATHV alter_p_Page_001thm.jpg
5e2bda9360b056f87f91036861a875a8
d704fccaf709aa4a162b9b06d19a65e8d1cd581a
114742 F20101220_AAASET alter_p_Page_032.jp2
d25ff58d940487389a2a80001b7a4495
59fc5d49fae561e59ed06b680ea4ce9aa2fc6470
86100 F20101220_AAARZM alter_p_Page_093.jpg
00a9c2b15f6569b0641d435322c628ed
3f9a74741faa9ffd38b1b439bfd88cc81fbbb82b
82487 F20101220_AAARYY alter_p_Page_079.jpg
c9683efe98154fd846ff53bc7513eb6a
cb2a4581a9ec4dbe53659b8cbebea2e8f5423b17
105989 F20101220_AAASFH alter_p_Page_046.jp2
ab9601be44d882bd441695ee9d9b1899
124af69b697fd65c5a8d98ae01f0d6e64dec8762
24699 F20101220_AAATIK alter_p_Page_103.QC.jpg
25fa46f5d01d6d482b5c225bcd4194ea
c33ad5cfb2b262373d326684bf5e250a00b392f8
496234 F20101220_AAATHW alter_p.pdf
a02eaabb316cf5c5f00dd3280d6aba2f
d9a55f1dd32bec63992c1a27ad44feb30bb5fb2a
109492 F20101220_AAASEU alter_p_Page_033.jp2
721d9460572998747ff1615be274e354
1160b77f0934aefc9bb4e51e1f356551615915d3
85314 F20101220_AAARZN alter_p_Page_094.jpg
8aa7f8ab512db1fe6e9393445115eca7
f0a9ed5826f7aba8243488102df816fd315fe2a8
78699 F20101220_AAARYZ alter_p_Page_080.jpg
67b411486afe1c9a3073d1a668648196
3e9843d4b923f53ea1d7d469609aea19bf2e2320
105106 F20101220_AAASFI alter_p_Page_047.jp2
7a65bd1e073cedb42fe65027251e90b3
66dd357a1abcb2bb6386a8fba1763f13483adb8a
25537 F20101220_AAATIL alter_p_Page_090.QC.jpg
097828fe6ed3cf8c354f7570c0562dea
833add7330743afad0697a3fd945464ad6a7530d
84136 F20101220_AAARZO alter_p_Page_095.jpg
3692171a93cf768545515d3f19d17f56
511e292676fe042972d6ab6e97e6d148e64d3517
110644 F20101220_AAASFJ alter_p_Page_048.jp2
0b661aaff6cd638c928c766ddf9a348d
de2eda6ba1ea41a83a4745336385b62073357078
6756 F20101220_AAATJA alter_p_Page_175.QC.jpg
c609e29a6590016f4306097cb5e4fa6f
e3a1da3088fcb22d5e4270380b06e6559c5fee06
433 F20101220_AAATIM alter_p_Page_003thm.jpg
b4a7c7d6e33c2a9dd784db6461afc3c2
37ef553fc661fc90e0e1091c23ef35e4b2a4d8ad
6227 F20101220_AAATHX alter_p_Page_068thm.jpg
d16f6046b00b393fde5016ae9ee68324
824beef389ab2615ff0ede5f22f825bb18972fbe
106797 F20101220_AAASEV alter_p_Page_034.jp2
12b4a480274d100ec102d4c25d2a34cd
f0cfdf4cd226b6b828d4773be7044923dfea258f
69215 F20101220_AAARZP alter_p_Page_096.jpg
7f87f71e034f164bb1ac2f45fad0f8db
349aa392bf765fbf347d4c57676bbff6feaf1c74
111847 F20101220_AAASFK alter_p_Page_049.jp2
01a5eac6ec9c2c8fc7299352802ec240
5fdf90419eec4616b813c6d56f0d8d8c5471e9c6
6063 F20101220_AAATJB alter_p_Page_058thm.jpg
30b0faa952083b3ea003236667f6a668
fb3461cd821a54811947e2702540160537d6e305
6381 F20101220_AAATIN alter_p_Page_142thm.jpg
86aeeee0506378ce4048f83bcff5ebbb
f9784dbcb3883771993871c91e1c6ef16a75ee3e
2728 F20101220_AAATHY alter_p_Page_071thm.jpg
7cbe39d9ede658d669e9d80e4041061d
8c201de079c9574d9a195fb97625639e8d90d3fa
114079 F20101220_AAASEW alter_p_Page_035.jp2
9a52adf97e3e9ca0fb36aa409572aae7
de4b25fbd992c61e6e46498067f479e6db851b4d
84191 F20101220_AAARZQ alter_p_Page_097.jpg
c9bdd86f8789840c0a2707cf4ea191e8
e2a6216e2a778b5ee266ac0ce6c52a44a7058677
114769 F20101220_AAASFL alter_p_Page_050.jp2
de2b27a218d9bb77592a0d4d50038232
b2d5d0b17fe6078f3a8f9a925e39131654d6eced
25944 F20101220_AAATJC alter_p_Page_038.QC.jpg
2b8ac4047efd82bd670c59ff19275122
602a02ef0c33bf0420fcce8b03b4a6154cfd16d7
31224 F20101220_AAATIO alter_p_Page_171.QC.jpg
f817d81c6a2537d93aab2ec30cabd02b
1c7190a4f314fb7c10d7ae14445278ae98acf716
26533 F20101220_AAATHZ alter_p_Page_016.QC.jpg
2c0fd9f812a7055173ccfbb03c980fc3
e13e7306940ac4211295bc69f7d9c964db080e1c
114296 F20101220_AAASEX alter_p_Page_036.jp2
986d3198a1c73e1a074bc658b25226b5
a13f6ae09347c9923a9f0c3a74f988a6216ef949
81897 F20101220_AAARZR alter_p_Page_098.jpg
d7acd97e9d1097f62053d1a1dedc19b0
b2c0ff31c0bde790cfe9e2dc285d2ecfe950e333
108423 F20101220_AAASGA alter_p_Page_065.jp2
91ebdc52bf9c0c66baeacde92052954e
2b2cb6a0e3d65cfc9be0b4949a7a611c4219a5df
108891 F20101220_AAASFM alter_p_Page_051.jp2
e01f6fc336191a7f000b83330ee363b2
03eedafd7a161378a9880247d377a229bbca21ba
26098 F20101220_AAATJD alter_p_Page_027.QC.jpg
235d82a3d9bf096eae16f41cd743aa48
8a89a9951bc34fb5e15dcfadba98f6acfdb0c9a6
24116 F20101220_AAATIP alter_p_Page_085.QC.jpg
897aa368294f8eff75e8adfc09d8c2d0
170ae2a1ad227b0bc69efb2a7d0e604c2598cad8
113917 F20101220_AAASEY alter_p_Page_037.jp2
6120d0e7c9599fc3d5a1296fb68415ef
5d4a26f85b7657049abb7a9ef2d2e9589773c32c
71834 F20101220_AAARZS alter_p_Page_099.jpg
3315391d1f68504336f2fabc533d09dc
a524240a5cbdfe5fe5137aca76b664361b06d089
106895 F20101220_AAASGB alter_p_Page_066.jp2
55d66eacb41e4da2090617a366ec7f26
e0fcb7e54b05a239200c66b2aa70ba9449e6587b
108489 F20101220_AAASFN alter_p_Page_052.jp2
8382a0a2f705f3310433e751b4a75603
a7337ccb2753aced9f01b1aa4d6182b61d9ceeec
6362 F20101220_AAATJE alter_p_Page_152thm.jpg
d1944fc2ecd81a592394108f1b22c52a
9f322404aa42f407e0831831fdfda5d7c30ed4d7
25182 F20101220_AAATIQ alter_p_Page_107.QC.jpg
a573183fb9697fe8bc25d5afe3da9837
c4fd2f861355362092419756b8729a81e7d764f9
110542 F20101220_AAASEZ alter_p_Page_038.jp2
7d33597bdc2896707ab1a8e328037f3f
ef6d01b2a56cbb85e82553f9ea9429fe00ed202e
75930 F20101220_AAARZT alter_p_Page_100.jpg
7a487dd45b8a2eec1dec26ca9a61378b
fe54d279e3a6c8017d6c01f7b3c2bb409d48717f
113252 F20101220_AAASGC alter_p_Page_067.jp2
b614079375f749d932cd71bf8afc9a00
56fdef78f7b33a0a740e23a7edc9b8a7fe760613
113533 F20101220_AAASFO alter_p_Page_053.jp2
63123ad880e9524429e61bcea0098219
1bc764f919d3fb048240a8cd72404188d2274008
18663 F20101220_AAATJF alter_p_Page_124.QC.jpg
cc0cb134aa84108a2fa6b46ab54c4fd7
f18c56ab10bfa6d87d40b78de9b5643c2a76c8fc
27695 F20101220_AAATIR alter_p_Page_192.QC.jpg
6324c7f7d8b9ef5d4498dfee5ca1e673
ca9bcd0d481b428f214499c81eb66041c9cb0d54
86873 F20101220_AAARZU alter_p_Page_101.jpg
6bc0d2cdf9209d5eb5fa30d0059ec2a2
719b88ad36415fcf3867433b2750d0152176ba9f
109741 F20101220_AAASGD alter_p_Page_068.jp2
4285922480cc131a51cc2b14af2030ac
7e36b2ae470f51c18cfeb0dfd71c2f05029ec47b
82678 F20101220_AAASFP alter_p_Page_054.jp2
b29f9132bfe25c85cc57d3d1166715f7
72ebbeca35f44b7212c9b22fa6959a22f53e8350
F20101220_AAATJG alter_p_Page_093thm.jpg
6fe27355aa986c33a1d4ca6bd4d0dc8a
c806af7b1788242486851fed4fde34441da9e489
6190 F20101220_AAATIS alter_p_Page_083thm.jpg
36bd28f2050d44a0c7b8e6543f73c292
8d3e8c36036abea77abe12ce1e1f370994028265
79617 F20101220_AAARZV alter_p_Page_102.jpg
030c0c928e99261a956fe97512914468
1cd2e65c7bf334288500cd0812bd7885382ca5ae
94965 F20101220_AAASGE alter_p_Page_069.jp2
d8834aaf4a7bbc459aefc001d86afe2c
51e6fce651ccbe033c648ce5f5c4b248783d3230
1051985 F20101220_AAASFQ alter_p_Page_055.jp2
337451cc4a042c4ef63e054def2b2770
09743cd553cbf7e511593b8a14afeba7f052d4d5
15833 F20101220_AAATJH alter_p_Page_178.QC.jpg
a8bd3dfc593ceaf08ca1c731edfd49df
4fc075dea3e62d7ac1d791216f1f8e74fd2b5101
25946 F20101220_AAATIT alter_p_Page_098.QC.jpg
093f54ba67b3c98580aa3045a4f7c51d
13641dad4a59355d19b3a8e4fed30d126fb5f404
79417 F20101220_AAARZW alter_p_Page_103.jpg
2b76aff8627c59363e19d1c64cbfc5f9
300bcbee381e7a757189363e9bd30b391769a814
928289 F20101220_AAASGF alter_p_Page_070.jp2
2e31c8e7bc437e15875969c6999148ff
449179efe9f3a71a64bb0041d71bb2ebec9491c8
1051975 F20101220_AAASFR alter_p_Page_056.jp2
9fd703a18201dd9681b9ae3699b12ff9
d3e2eab56aa62cc29e2fe9970030eaa0259204ae
F20101220_AAATJI alter_p_Page_146thm.jpg
bf7e7392665b85bcb228f8c39201367d
5766c15fe20726470f22e377eb2cf23635844e01
6328 F20101220_AAATIU alter_p_Page_113thm.jpg
60d1595ad07dc896f5e250cd0ce2217d
4f5a629255da7e22c9d700d1eb311cb6dbfd2944
85692 F20101220_AAARZX alter_p_Page_104.jpg
6611a3d4139ae2459381a5e55c99ea22
abb99ff21e609b2688611388ea08f573cb4797bc
743908 F20101220_AAASGG alter_p_Page_071.jp2
ae720fbe6dc17eca398bebc4e33eee59
bb22ab36ca06be04ce6a67d20369fcad8a0ea92e
101831 F20101220_AAASFS alter_p_Page_057.jp2
fe76d83adaaf88e0018fb7652dbe2886
ddbb1b0ae8d025822415ec0b61b0419d667f3215
F20101220_AAATJJ alter_p_Page_056thm.jpg
279a5d4c6136581ca338415808fe73ff
26d78d2d4f82b7547a4f38fc0438f909f9229a61
6193 F20101220_AAATIV alter_p_Page_158thm.jpg
b4d756e3a9984fa09fdb3327058063d9
29d64cb0c0dfdb51d99f28054fde40922fe8d533
87056 F20101220_AAARZY alter_p_Page_105.jpg
f85bfeba7d849b576cef1bbbbb3890d8
61ee9a8df12ebaffe5cac371889529073b7101f0
797516 F20101220_AAASGH alter_p_Page_072.jp2
2b86e1e691bfed0ae75329ca2280e34b
ba55e6ce9a21d00a03f7f4e530a65bb210781388
110524 F20101220_AAASFT alter_p_Page_058.jp2
f771cc4f03957205c6b5b6b753d0d779
d00c39bddac20200179d67f154451faadfe75b7b
6192 F20101220_AAATJK alter_p_Page_101thm.jpg
46f95ef02b63573614fb40dc2b94373a
78642d3e1e54009494345df98a32dcb692a0bdd1
6263 F20101220_AAATIW alter_p_Page_153thm.jpg
539a60c784387fcd1460b796a2c7a3e3
1dfbc889dd2f9aad6defcedd27df80557f7d6d9e
88682 F20101220_AAARZZ alter_p_Page_106.jpg
3abcd5fbdcd8e36bf334dc3987ccd33c
02a190f598fab252ac8bd7836eaa4efec9ebc70b
408523 F20101220_AAASGI alter_p_Page_073.jp2
54755123e6a66deecdafdd1b6324485b
e4ec3d0e8405292f451c52f509ccb4b5ea79b291
116371 F20101220_AAASFU alter_p_Page_059.jp2
70ec1cde5f39650dde0cda2794b23941
dd632aff69c345d9a9d6c2cee13a0cf832991a5d
6931 F20101220_AAATJL alter_p_Page_171thm.jpg
76329795576fcb80f7a8932aca538a6d
5fdfdb793068773567816ff3d88ece6bfa7d1d8f
27456 F20101220_AAATIX alter_p_Page_067.QC.jpg
4d852383ba228527073c503ee262d917
06635a2f84b2980e0f8e4683693aac5982ce4293
112401 F20101220_AAASGJ alter_p_Page_074.jp2
3f9482a3663e3ee6de383b054c26f777
aeacb5b2e9ab6dc42a164aa95bf5c5bd74fd6dd5
110519 F20101220_AAASFV alter_p_Page_060.jp2
00125f920f78b09a6b0eb173725c85b4
832cf3d2a5adbef6891f9761497cf9813c4e25f7
17367 F20101220_AAATKA alter_p_Page_169.QC.jpg
2db23dabf84fd062c89242be615b422a
d7e49c2df61acea255d9f90357974bf34a512515
4975 F20101220_AAATJM alter_p_Page_187thm.jpg
8d4a7c9eaef095a3d3a88ad45856cff7
ba1b01bf14562265563305ab754bdf6d0c27ad12
110262 F20101220_AAASGK alter_p_Page_075.jp2
7248a72379ca34db83d9d9203c6193b5
c0518dcf0e4a52181e42467d178374463445fc1b
26856 F20101220_AAATKB alter_p_Page_147.QC.jpg
38eeab4392377b4af5564f6c72587fe2
81161e02f3f497798742e3fa0be51e57b01ce778
6345 F20101220_AAATJN alter_p_Page_111thm.jpg
201a6387c3a9b0a301a30414b2dc5e58
9ead0135e7a74f2fa6396fd69dedc7d7fc802517
2548 F20101220_AAATIY alter_p_Page_176thm.jpg
0b772691fdb8029ed2feff8db2be8659
7b78be5f3ec9fc0065e5c5615ce9443565d184f0
107248 F20101220_AAASGL alter_p_Page_076.jp2
e3fa21d725bbb4cec88e26cdaeffc5f4
3e51eb1d61a4ef77958104723504863b216c63dc
112103 F20101220_AAASFW alter_p_Page_061.jp2
9b1c124fee589538ebf225b83e9a3d25
7cf84c8e15c679f30c946c5967157b596ec3f621
5978 F20101220_AAATKC alter_p_Page_019thm.jpg
cb271eb764722a6b0ed9b9d4220a7e5a
c039d2657dbd11b76ad798e1011241ff9bb2bde9
7213 F20101220_AAATJO alter_p_Page_009.QC.jpg
490979b28b5b0bc339f111a4a8d62a23
39b14393ef5c9a6d0cc3eae89baf8007f2970dc3
F20101220_AAATIZ alter_p_Page_006thm.jpg
31ef525f898ce349e000f827a6ff4f0b
b00f0d855ca4c02f3604cb1f498e11a070aa2e6f
109021 F20101220_AAASHA alter_p_Page_092.jp2
2188c2f6543b0a1f3585b11b4b880958
82590cf52f4d4a9cc89e1100bf7be9179eabfbff
107261 F20101220_AAASGM alter_p_Page_077.jp2
8121c013093ef4c0b0041679da513c31
45e3114340d9722ca24b5ac4a731ccfa2d5f20c7
109116 F20101220_AAASFX alter_p_Page_062.jp2
5c8ba3d1679ce03e913651e0734044d6
40b568a6e649082bd2fd127b23bcbe5c76602cf7
24539 F20101220_AAATKD alter_p_Page_047.QC.jpg
a9a797d4412ae7fc9102afc1a3d3e25d
14126222167c08eb1b23ec9d1902210a6a922dd9
26855 F20101220_AAATJP alter_p_Page_111.QC.jpg
35ff1c5e53413f976c3720c923d64090
1c19e004a4857504beb7577d985cce1c3c7acbf8
112840 F20101220_AAASHB alter_p_Page_093.jp2
2b42d4dfbf7def6e25438bb54be0baed
c55906853ef66f14c993e16a41473b34b1ffc7df
111477 F20101220_AAASGN alter_p_Page_078.jp2
5334acd2306784937ae6b0509bec2797
da1e428e7b503584540778cf360aac64ef35a1e5
108699 F20101220_AAASFY alter_p_Page_063.jp2
5b66b4762c1a75595784eabfeb0679dc
7206890fcf7c193adb66c0fc055e0d15206213db
6387 F20101220_AAATKE alter_p_Page_053thm.jpg
8f272e781b448de58f65a51dedaa47bf
00ee6975198d29f855df1d4e6e6b94823de6c9ef
26150 F20101220_AAATJQ alter_p_Page_194.QC.jpg
846ff6aa3dabfca066b62ffd015cef06
f5530c21612f431eb603cd8520475320b0eed0d2
111890 F20101220_AAASHC alter_p_Page_094.jp2
e51aeb75325f5ddbac528429d5c53c76
7ac2502f3e13b74f979219cd10361878eb545d99
109019 F20101220_AAASGO alter_p_Page_079.jp2
21446e2ed62d5594ac8ae338f84f338d
79fc53c29da3d9d04426cc7607b02f07edd60de6
107469 F20101220_AAASFZ alter_p_Page_064.jp2
6bf005e380fd7b55cf284146d51cd392
cc7e8770cf247b79a4cde4945187cbc902c3872a
6405 F20101220_AAATKF alter_p_Page_092thm.jpg
9ff5c395af220c1f1a7799cd781de8be
fb35a6418354f8c16828bd52dbb6144f9130f720
26495 F20101220_AAATJR alter_p_Page_026.QC.jpg
477f357c69284cc2ac8893a709deb98c
845aff3e5d5e1d30c496a7e2fae8497f2912c8b9
109789 F20101220_AAASHD alter_p_Page_095.jp2
c973ef6a3d178ed9b69c36835e74b2a0
83004d9e0a29195d51600e4c184ad43c6bec749a
104070 F20101220_AAASGP alter_p_Page_080.jp2
53b1825f64d381e286c51bc97ade0f97
e401165b2316a38111ecadc12432456e13a26320


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 E20110410_AAAAAQ INGEST_TIME 2011-04-10T07:18:07Z PACKAGE UFE0015410_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1977 DFID F20110410_AAANFI ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH alter_p_Page_082.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
18564361612af620df0a976827c265d4
SHA-1
5a3174619e4e19f8e8de2d6fc83fcd66efb65e7c
2075 F20110410_AAANEU alter_p_Page_067.txt
126403f3442f69d2cc7886a81092f040
d7b03d249884b2122978a7b3c3659c44b71131ad
48624 F20110410_AAALXA alter_p_Page_107.pro
759a1ec0b4ad3ea99e4e94b98aa80b31
a2823b9aeb5a4b98646eeab06adf85df561ec2dc
71834 F20110410_AAAMBS alter_p_Page_099.jpg
3315391d1f68504336f2fabc533d09dc
a524240a5cbdfe5fe5137aca76b664361b06d089
49028 F20110410_AAAMZO alter_p_Page_129.pro
998f21aa844c5055b47a58d13fba69b5
3735379fd0a4f9a8bde21bdde78df8a49517a6ae
48814 F20110410_AAAMYZ alter_p_Page_114.pro
c9fbf4db104a4e46b418abfe22a5c81e
78d2ce580b6a17d90f97c924eccf48abd26b6980
81750 F20110410_AAAMCG alter_p_Page_113.jpg
3c58b0c2882c573a3b95b24dc4ebbc07
9992230e17dbb849b6550da1a949c115b6a1bffe
1984 F20110410_AAANFJ alter_p_Page_083.txt
63996149fdf747b0cd09447b57b7831b
b4bfaa5da04ea31a1e1ec122301a141df239849d
2006 F20110410_AAANEV alter_p_Page_068.txt
667164a53b737d12d3b229658cb709d3
4c9baaa182ddfbaad68193157291aaf3d7299c52
25679 F20110410_AAALXB alter_p_Page_143.QC.jpg
96751f21319531eb75680975e73cbbb2
d92c1d76ffdccc16cc0e956296e6e3099bf981d3
75930 F20110410_AAAMBT alter_p_Page_100.jpg
7a487dd45b8a2eec1dec26ca9a61378b
fe54d279e3a6c8017d6c01f7b3c2bb409d48717f
47385 F20110410_AAAMZP alter_p_Page_130.pro
c96575756b93ea8aa79c978a732f7304
d7a907850c11ad6c0490e998643d864229befcc0
81080 F20110410_AAAMCH alter_p_Page_114.jpg
3d9967f4211edc0c77047922e76bbb2f
c7836e527a85e8ad58a16ea097ab80441d651915
2007 F20110410_AAANFK alter_p_Page_084.txt
52dd9c718a17521b2ce084d53286b2aa
a087d7143450a06e1ca1c0f4bb616e751e6912e0
1701 F20110410_AAANEW alter_p_Page_069.txt
2ec89aaf6accc3abc39fbc7b7dc2850e
e14343aee5af9d3448670c3cfad79db26fb8541b
50289 F20110410_AAALXC alter_p_Page_079.pro
6b725ffad7fafd468493257d67da73a1
f6c9b5c7ce855bc43c3db40855536a26532975b0
86873 F20110410_AAAMBU alter_p_Page_101.jpg
6bc0d2cdf9209d5eb5fa30d0059ec2a2
719b88ad36415fcf3867433b2750d0152176ba9f
25512 F20110410_AAALWO alter_p_Page_118.QC.jpg
f6bbccc9dff5b35512dc5af0001f44fa
970adc38af4f7480167a28ef76a3e3f7832093d3
44012 F20110410_AAAMZQ alter_p_Page_131.pro
cacaec44115b8d3c50104b9904ba48cf
ad6144e83a1944425965e44c5f9410897ba22d09
83053 F20110410_AAAMCI alter_p_Page_115.jpg
cd8cd9ddb39fa29226a5a761a5a77b08
cef2e37069b77686dce7b6bb3dcb9755821cd37b
2327 F20110410_AAANGA alter_p_Page_102.txt
967dca2200359c01bfc08d35956f0a1e
88bd271556d001748e2b3ee56112f8882335ceaa
1877 F20110410_AAANFL alter_p_Page_085.txt
9b31929affae79ad6eb2282360bd5752
63230abf2118f454782d35d673bf04a15b01a38e
2471 F20110410_AAANEX alter_p_Page_070.txt
9e59f8835520d4d6b7e2c1a7ab2f4361
c909eac338dbc309bbf41ea8a99955a65b336cb8
1053954 F20110410_AAALXD alter_p_Page_184.tif
c1e3c5e76223f15d35bb499f9edf3140
e5963d510f9edab485bcc526b29749fad922d84a
79617 F20110410_AAAMBV alter_p_Page_102.jpg
030c0c928e99261a956fe97512914468
1cd2e65c7bf334288500cd0812bd7885382ca5ae
50321 F20110410_AAALWP alter_p_Page_145.pro
5016c4cff47d8f9d71cd46bf9775f003
ec90068e73456eda327b09dc1914b60889a88d33
49184 F20110410_AAAMZR alter_p_Page_132.pro
3b6968285a89fc8b20bff50b2d2492b3
0281a001ce1b56d84b62cb8855103018b0dd0761
82464 F20110410_AAAMCJ alter_p_Page_116.jpg
dbebbed56848838597fd7f1f26377cc8
b1736a0712828dcba443ed577f5ada0dfc6f9357
1905 F20110410_AAANFM alter_p_Page_086.txt
8d5bb0ae1ebc3af83c604fdb48bd6b02
e9d30b6f0289a704cf01e229d6a6c6c361cfb86d
2023 F20110410_AAANEY alter_p_Page_071.txt
d1a8d1127e26a267b947ef73797fb427
5d1fd1fea58e3f3f3cd580d4ae8e7e3149f00b41
5590 F20110410_AAALXE alter_p_Page_021thm.jpg
8bf95d9002c5a55d90b473dbeae50715
65ae82ca950980dd312c21afe128cdb807a47f97
79417 F20110410_AAAMBW alter_p_Page_103.jpg
2b76aff8627c59363e19d1c64cbfc5f9
300bcbee381e7a757189363e9bd30b391769a814
1737 F20110410_AAALWQ alter_p_Page_096.txt
39741130e7c64cd7fc1a2e2b11657707
72364580d37b691ade1921e2a6344aa28e53ee5f
43810 F20110410_AAAMZS alter_p_Page_133.pro
3eb484e9c7c37496285fc495c171f563
2ae2cec7425153925ff9f6adcf4ad324bb805c17
78097 F20110410_AAAMCK alter_p_Page_117.jpg
f901fb3e59b4a9e9ac2cb00a2aa24697
ba8b5968e955bbd8e7dc28dc31227eac038e6b27
1880 F20110410_AAANGB alter_p_Page_103.txt
7b278b1b65bc0e1ad4762ba998ad393a
ee4ddffb349bc7fabe3f00031afa2477b3e1b25f
1974 F20110410_AAANFN alter_p_Page_087.txt
2ed0e6be76d8dcb263ed8942e291f9c6
08f5137bb62a8dd01ad983181bae187502a19391
2085 F20110410_AAANEZ alter_p_Page_072.txt
6813bb13b597f71313824722196d2bcc
d00980da94b9193cebb2c87a46f119f8b9bbee06
26058 F20110410_AAALXF alter_p_Page_030.QC.jpg
cf12d32eb3f6cd1d1ad564738ca2a0e3
3f53fa0a8bdc2d64e01debe43054e4d3eb7f79e2
85692 F20110410_AAAMBX alter_p_Page_104.jpg
6611a3d4139ae2459381a5e55c99ea22
abb99ff21e609b2688611388ea08f573cb4797bc
F20110410_AAALWR alter_p_Page_084.tif
e4d5e32502533e043c6af57d6ab32bb3
3cc31b34486ddf4c154976c662ba4a88aa80f310
52063 F20110410_AAAMZT alter_p_Page_135.pro
e4c514f8de2853e47d13e54082194523
1ab99d189527d95199e856e1adf6ed458f1fbddb
82832 F20110410_AAAMCL alter_p_Page_118.jpg
6516fe66a7f4c91d8eff674393cf9ca5
59763778a893c3b1e59f967f9b08e2c98e732685
2020 F20110410_AAANGC alter_p_Page_104.txt
32ec814d6b64a57ab5b445027635faba
18e5a5f2a0d5c2d9396abcf30ab094401d116932
2040 F20110410_AAANFO alter_p_Page_088.txt
b2b1bdfcada5b3c0ed97d6b5c99d3d46
858fdb1eceb17a9b6ce0dea083df2cf1c0c0d4c5
8483 F20110410_AAALXG alter_p_Page_004.pro
8f2a536734660a8c2a9f55e73725da1d
c662d8ade2b7579a5c83490eaf5c216f60ecfc4f
87056 F20110410_AAAMBY alter_p_Page_105.jpg
f85bfeba7d849b576cef1bbbbb3890d8
61ee9a8df12ebaffe5cac371889529073b7101f0
87042 F20110410_AAALWS alter_p_Page_126.jpg
798a632d0e7590ebb134a950ec46cc41
e94d998b15c0577ad00baedeba00311b83bfb223
3686 F20110410_AAAMZU alter_p_Page_136.pro
221de36737d78f91102b123e459cd394
90f4c4945a90df74a986cb235f96e49f4b5fede4
84777 F20110410_AAAMDA alter_p_Page_134.jpg
9e28c019c142ad097c3bd824930c5ee3
c30c26dfbdb49cd3c2b3a8a65487b5df0c41d7d1
82608 F20110410_AAAMCM alter_p_Page_119.jpg
6454d1a291c545f5473bb66b9ba88f54
8a3bdb2efd64d03832ae407dae674492b5c5b31b
2084 F20110410_AAANGD alter_p_Page_105.txt
be74c7b4a84ac2cba9b1e4a20b37c8ea
5c3de17fbd175956ae200bc8c75bc4d0220cf8f1
1964 F20110410_AAANFP alter_p_Page_089.txt
b4e4bf1f219d55136cf515e168132b5f
7df5e2c009b0428e652953138c758b7eb96daa8e
83717 F20110410_AAALXH alter_p_Page_142.jpg
163e8a21244b5318b93e8233b884783f
8789eafe6724280d0a4ee07a772f383e8374f040
88682 F20110410_AAAMBZ alter_p_Page_106.jpg
3abcd5fbdcd8e36bf334dc3987ccd33c
02a190f598fab252ac8bd7836eaa4efec9ebc70b
84678 F20110410_AAAMDB alter_p_Page_135.jpg
d6ec63f339058289489fa3c544a08911
b5a81dc977ea1faa54688ad3227cd20d6bf68c7f
31763 F20110410_AAAMCN alter_p_Page_120.jpg
0307108f417db6f09f86c99f5b3dd4f1
4d4ff562733a21994d05e7a811167e3ad1437240
2103 F20110410_AAANGE alter_p_Page_106.txt
e1e0179b1cb2369e0ae6b71417b93961
7231b53d704c5044d540df40de68eaecc2a94fdc
1972 F20110410_AAANFQ alter_p_Page_090.txt
1c22633a1f9f8beecf9c4d78a5e49692
46cf8a51484cc2b40dd731e8e1d3cad1c27733cc
1743 F20110410_AAALXI alter_p_Page_099.txt
bacde402089563989d209f76d7c6fe03
133169e70f804c7faf1755b33b3bf30b925492e0
F20110410_AAALWT alter_p_Page_179.tif
c54ebcb2a31b2fc4ddf5177c10ef6b84
2d3c206d5070e678146d170fe4ab9ef57876cffd
50920 F20110410_AAAMZV alter_p_Page_138.pro
9403840fab3599c35ac431576e5233e4
54042d28fffe1d961be36be11d4b8e4c093e92ea
8405 F20110410_AAAMDC alter_p_Page_136.jpg
78cbadb918bc0de1e30f308b121c07b8
49691bf0a6a42a592921f16494cd60424d74af02
71681 F20110410_AAAMCO alter_p_Page_121.jpg
927abe8195f77eece1c79081575f5801
799cf9bcf9b6ad7fbc924fcf53af14f4b08e4fde
1916 F20110410_AAANGF alter_p_Page_107.txt
4621b79c7a5f44cda4d84b8f43430466
04ff918d15af578960dbfb5cc736ec844bcc47c4
2092 F20110410_AAANFR alter_p_Page_091.txt
977f318718ca9484535c6f7fa4adfd25
c11610001f3ab6421210cdd9e2fd4d3f1066b6e3
1954 F20110410_AAALXJ alter_p_Page_113.txt
30dc3a30034b89d00a628fe7025bff50
e4ce126b5bbcdfed548260880b706e47980a3940
27236 F20110410_AAALWU alter_p_Page_028.QC.jpg
3656c1344b176958493fe28f96fc7805
67591805c58cf845fce8d9cae77d2bb707218fca
51574 F20110410_AAAMZW alter_p_Page_139.pro
4b279278740ea0efc9ae7c37fb078c0e
88e59f2f76a32e9ed7d7b09a757d82ed31a942c4
75259 F20110410_AAAMDD alter_p_Page_137.jpg
bd7a4b05cbc7ad8f6fb9db7788c2ca19
b3fe6d97561e9696ffc8128ae6006e20985dd8ec
87635 F20110410_AAAMCP alter_p_Page_122.jpg
ad0f72353666ef7676e698cb0ccae40f
962946d0b165256a860eb7187c24c0f7aacb6de1
1970 F20110410_AAANGG alter_p_Page_108.txt
045614a86b2c0d079629ee6bd59e84aa
42c497fc6601a9ee171748919cb3d30b350e164a
2024 F20110410_AAANFS alter_p_Page_092.txt
66d85eb8199f227cda8353d1f28a0fe2
3cb2ae3fbf4a42d777340a9c6887faa29abf3ffa
6141 F20110410_AAALXK alter_p_Page_033thm.jpg
1c32f0d0a13f48e7edb2e9ecf95e249b
4a2a763d486fedc94100d66644bc07633af8dbbe
108766 F20110410_AAALWV alter_p_Page_087.jp2
db24e6cf999664b1335791477d997a75
6f4757115444272d0fbc700fd9d02ac0eebd142a
53131 F20110410_AAAMZX alter_p_Page_140.pro
3804ec5be4d115334c469955c4d38b96
810efff030c14eeffcbf875eb046fdd1ceecc092
83893 F20110410_AAAMDE alter_p_Page_138.jpg
64e907ef5b8eadd58e7e87bb7484d640
369c7c84424cbf718e3f49becad1c16c7ad3226e
71624 F20110410_AAAMCQ alter_p_Page_123.jpg
88c7e8b9bd39bf55a2668aeaeee017c3
90c64950f85d7945d60780ca61842a29c4eb0e58
1991 F20110410_AAANGH alter_p_Page_109.txt
70d59a98e96eb5067b319c39701db920
b92a13dde2236e18db35aec2de94d5c0f44ff591
2074 F20110410_AAANFT alter_p_Page_093.txt
1e47396fdd157aeb2f0392f7988d6a10
7843a23f06b988f6633e0d418414271391c3b4ba
44907 F20110410_AAALXL alter_p_Page_137.pro
c6f20afde2818788375524d66f8b6103
1faff114396f9ca550f5fc5f7b87a8860d9afcb7
F20110410_AAALWW alter_p_Page_016.tif
3b3c24675ab4716611c17b21a6f07156
5ca12f8d4887aa8b378b133d6ed54683c673e585
49866 F20110410_AAAMZY alter_p_Page_141.pro
ebab4f937dd0da759413f46b499a0e1f
48abe4c8dff29b23107606c9300ea5ce873e22e9
83446 F20110410_AAAMDF alter_p_Page_139.jpg
88398d088ad6073cb21424ebac7be255
b0c8b0a73fa5ec69c71646ee85188bf440421088
56884 F20110410_AAAMCR alter_p_Page_124.jpg
5f27ffc11e2578f7388dd269227d673d
56796cd2d4d13d2a9ea341958c7a218205010d9b
1941 F20110410_AAANGI alter_p_Page_110.txt
2a20348e7f45a87fb4bd30158323120f
a8c7b2d2f0890269cdfffd5dd402053cd1808104
F20110410_AAANFU alter_p_Page_094.txt
cba924ad080e02d6e0fe241acfd786c2
d80c2f958ae484b1c1d7a38988da371e046cf686
22169 F20110410_AAALXM alter_p_Page_069.QC.jpg
a71125b18e8c0f24fde20b5aba306c55
8bc4065660aab12d2e6f797bcfeda7c46534e034
6057 F20110410_AAALWX alter_p_Page_097thm.jpg
69b3bfe68e531f27934d8f66dd396979
3771d4876e2292e916e03d6ab0bd3fc2955b301c
51532 F20110410_AAAMZZ alter_p_Page_142.pro
cd46aa63e6320f276acbef5e04d28b7f
2d7e1404d41447f63a13a1338c1adc82f43ea2f6
86243 F20110410_AAAMDG alter_p_Page_140.jpg
4f4bd25cac7ab52d1a610b7dfbb761ff
14dd0c213416aca5da770f450c056ca796b03423
4257 F20110410_AAALYA alter_p_Page_002.jpg
c4968aea5ac80a5bd6f07e5476279b86
6c8d93cd199a9f41611258145361ab63e51ccc4a
52015 F20110410_AAAMCS alter_p_Page_125.jpg
2c77d1ba265b9673726426dc69dec19b
7490d1cbdfc5324bc035d80868d5e191f6f9d643
2039 F20110410_AAANGJ alter_p_Page_111.txt
ab9be773a6d6386b1c155dcb317d5a1a
2ee8e297654a46dcf17790fe33ba84a48502fac3
F20110410_AAANFV alter_p_Page_095.txt
8af13d9bb3a36fff5cd3e9765ee6aef0
80487a30402131f891fe6efaf322135970dc2411
1887 F20110410_AAALXN alter_p_Page_073.txt
a971fd531398a8ea45f1c4351c06b19b
ca2ba779c5e6cb3e11fdfd845e93f1a247b8545a
F20110410_AAALWY alter_p_Page_004.tif
d3c4cdd93a273edc14aee83fa94535e7
e7e85b5e851805ec7e6a52491c77da3d4885618f
81921 F20110410_AAAMDH alter_p_Page_141.jpg
3edbbedb310dab94fa74944178909921
266309435788ba0e3ca7afb27061498a664ba4b1
3739 F20110410_AAALYB alter_p_Page_003.jpg
b06378202d55f1a2d2276ffcedf11ef9
9bb52ffde0f72d343ad0eed011fd275a0632338d
58466 F20110410_AAAMCT alter_p_Page_127.jpg
6f46a8aed6b956d4a30c83738a77e7f6
d6dd9a852d2e361fc556f822889c327ed45af582
2013 F20110410_AAANGK alter_p_Page_112.txt
9b6a35c1e0a2a9b582d38dfde2e9bbf5
bfc6d01882ede038452b856353ff68e9271c25dc
2125 F20110410_AAANFW alter_p_Page_097.txt
a06737d01cf88df8b45cf89aac049a1e
c4a7c81f84891a1429b09338fa190e322563ac36
26520 F20110410_AAALXO alter_p_Page_158.QC.jpg
957f22f71886ef5d7763c0c1c481aefc
e676ac887b52ab339e38ea3cb5de2fcd308a2d93
6414 F20110410_AAALWZ alter_p_Page_198thm.jpg
607d865eea15540b2702b62fa9a5af24
8e148e0c56644d730661c04e650f66360de03116
84340 F20110410_AAAMDI alter_p_Page_143.jpg
c665c19a37141e5b50d00072c493d9b5
a53d5d6d8444d849835feae2ea15d2b0268bcdbf
17663 F20110410_AAALYC alter_p_Page_004.jpg
02002896bb644b4802bf0d8677d5ef85
a9659da2b3b7a1d2248228e1d45446fd15f87d78
42395 F20110410_AAAMCU alter_p_Page_128.jpg
101e82e49569904704be2eacef1df4d0
80765f12c62186b6cb51db29c883120b09b2a56c
1949 F20110410_AAANHA alter_p_Page_129.txt
40d1d8ad6702ac8572613e9e5426d0a6
3390037f4b6b270cf5ec7cc31a816ce64df33f49
1927 F20110410_AAANGL alter_p_Page_114.txt
e0e007822b92aa0d7235935400d7a56a
c9c1f4bc1d124c84bcadfb22384b7c5377791aba
1948 F20110410_AAANFX alter_p_Page_098.txt
2a4768d2d1a7ba0760370be6768c3788
2c4818921fd6dd46fc0ac768049d5e2ac77eed68
93694 F20110410_AAALXP alter_p_Page_012.jp2
82abc8a70b2cd5f78b5a938c2ccfe3a3
1be1564ca21f856b05b0727bf3a747dd61a5a5a9
83487 F20110410_AAAMDJ alter_p_Page_144.jpg
d179a05cbda0b08bb69140bc77f1f748
a8b0793aa55fc27b59a39fa215e2e466f7f5b742
83055 F20110410_AAALYD alter_p_Page_005.jpg
f586ac4b6543a8b6cc7877ca0ee91c83
8ddf461ebe96b5d666bc770426182eb762679e29
81653 F20110410_AAAMCV alter_p_Page_129.jpg
0fc6136266249f2f05430bb69069a74a
a59d7bbc3bd4977c7514ea36b5898557fe9fad91
1988 F20110410_AAANHB alter_p_Page_130.txt
873ff0bb4d928ea13430b03a6d072b16
41eba63400f8238ec8fa5d37cd719798ecdd4ddb
2005 F20110410_AAANGM alter_p_Page_115.txt
682b5035d4801d226ee8838571906375
fde069089c11cb7f2109a500e96a3f0e38a88c06
1865 F20110410_AAANFY alter_p_Page_100.txt
eb8c8f5634a43c53141ae7e600ab59f3
97d67a8bdde96247bd17974a7a13d7fb1aba3a4b
6420 F20110410_AAALXQ alter_p_Page_059thm.jpg
35e7a07887ac338e9c100ee83b67fb33
47d30c3156599d57c74146b68a17478b60962547
81991 F20110410_AAAMDK alter_p_Page_145.jpg
bfde0bf9b4dcbf8eec5828eaf92f28cd
b311b83be9515f108cf518b4cf4b6e97cfe9c807
101840 F20110410_AAALYE alter_p_Page_006.jpg
926fe5bdec4c6a92e8dbe48b933c5721
037607cf47913f048138094412ac8edd44d8e924
78281 F20110410_AAAMCW alter_p_Page_130.jpg
5e357cdf4aaefaa7fd09bffbb2954d10
1808a59a0873fd92fdda1634efa6c1c0a0db584f
2048 F20110410_AAANGN alter_p_Page_116.txt
06bc71a0f6dd33018844dccfe1e31a8f
857c510e53cd4696ab740b5d62eb650e2d9f78d6
2402 F20110410_AAANFZ alter_p_Page_101.txt
6ce9d619c7fd2400de1947906cf5282e
31ac900366dd6a032fec58c3f1b165c288572d75
25246 F20110410_AAALXR alter_p_Page_083.QC.jpg
66bc0b1548b26c5b826837417259eb7b
e13bc02e2617b9e54279b4d99bff659fa16359e2
85363 F20110410_AAAMDL alter_p_Page_146.jpg
697701718fccbe2785a9ddf9a31ad4f8
5406a82485b47074556641cb1c767fe8c3c4d0e9
51015 F20110410_AAALYF alter_p_Page_007.jpg
7ef57a0b47f7687be503886bbb1a6def
9689ac24cc756d1136e9abe9ff9cc361b23a2bf1
74421 F20110410_AAAMCX alter_p_Page_131.jpg
5f42fc66c961f02da9b4fedfcdc248b7
f0eaea07c9d113a3ec7e9145b64dba118f87ecec
1753 F20110410_AAANHC alter_p_Page_131.txt
d66089c1febb17dee4d38ad971b689c0
e852c22788dd0e549d048d9ad867835e65afd310
1878 F20110410_AAANGO alter_p_Page_117.txt
463e29c5f7e942e19e32399caaebfd17
2efb2fc62e7378cd6875296b73a49c8a88d2b952
83624 F20110410_AAALXS alter_p_Page_014.jpg
551428cae358a99fdb6c6f423a0415ff
8357f3d5d2779eb87c68f49338a23d5719b8fea4
82862 F20110410_AAAMEA alter_p_Page_161.jpg
55d627434b4a718bfff5d1a9a44fecb3
e42319b4d80e08b1636271f59ab5788bfdb0ff36
86593 F20110410_AAAMDM alter_p_Page_147.jpg
6b275f4d98c1735efe46e772a83fc547
33d453a3597830f0505708a9c43681f1a89d282e
48771 F20110410_AAALYG alter_p_Page_008.jpg
4a8a9301e32c5d36f5bbad9f6de44837
e235c2f03572b6c42710bbbd51376e032a33710d
78887 F20110410_AAAMCY alter_p_Page_132.jpg
68cee2112cb8db9001ad9b08d2fde415
9cf4a2426e7ee6f4a7539bc9038ad89cb705adcc
2069 F20110410_AAANHD alter_p_Page_132.txt
32efdc8cb1219b5b94413048794cd98d
0667fca87fc2b1abb1c91b35705eafcb832e308b
2001 F20110410_AAANGP alter_p_Page_118.txt
217a5458d68b2d5b13ad35e30d797d0f
773bcdfbb15bf3366e507165d62591ce288c4bb0
51013 F20110410_AAALXT alter_p_Page_134.pro
646b12051fb75684818f0190d1ebb110
5fda0619c29f3657acbde4dd96fda51e73611f14
15868 F20110410_AAAMEB alter_p_Page_162.jpg
2fa8686a73745cbfaee732c2dca668c7
40685db45f8b66fa2f71235cd148e839262ee5e8
86979 F20110410_AAAMDN alter_p_Page_148.jpg
2823e60acb7951f8dd138c063195114b
c3d466d25393c4db03f70b75eb06c3cc9ff7c9dc
23906 F20110410_AAALYH alter_p_Page_009.jpg
7243cfd7a485cc90d5be6f8b89ea307c
8862b13034e3beb62162164c521154994bde1080
71958 F20110410_AAAMCZ alter_p_Page_133.jpg
e73edaf791c1abe2a6aae8b8451f226f
cab9fb7e1a6718fa99d562adc437271eeaad4226
1876 F20110410_AAANHE alter_p_Page_133.txt
f0997e065d4dc984543c9a899e4b5b77
ce975ede1230f3bb612e0db494fd966e329450ba
1976 F20110410_AAANGQ alter_p_Page_119.txt
f3809ca8bb63cdbfa7fbd44614dd6cb7
87803d9c9c75d127d5a8c80d00b4d40e255d9efb
100927 F20110410_AAAMEC alter_p_Page_163.jpg
ee240a6aa7147ec2ec4fce09ffd15fbe
013f5dc5ddbc5e4a36f030778bd7ed9584018456
85425 F20110410_AAAMDO alter_p_Page_149.jpg
dc6e7535532af39dc890d5a6f5c74009
d1e8e55ca7ea67b6b83be7d845a5454b0403a3f5
70278 F20110410_AAALYI alter_p_Page_010.jpg
a2a519bd705de83d1816a8b8bd1ebcab
7b70589b99dff3afb2b5406247fc920d7758a4f1
2018 F20110410_AAANHF alter_p_Page_134.txt
e6cc9361b3e3fa951a3b2002a98cfe0b
aab53912014dd8939bb6aaee1f2723ebd7fd002b
707 F20110410_AAANGR alter_p_Page_120.txt
cb7c8d9e135675af2decf93407f47bc1
0a0c03134a35aa910f74c9cd1d15481d5d733a23
6461 F20110410_AAALXU alter_p_Page_148thm.jpg
ed563ea1ea9cde9b1f5be00a767fcd32
69af6b81b24d20ed7a91b2a8e3a709b56bfc4508
151802 F20110410_AAAMED alter_p_Page_164.jpg
6d75d9b8c2765787d8566347afe1c0c2
585bfba11a8b9e3f1f48ec8884dfa5e6a10eaed1
85791 F20110410_AAAMDP alter_p_Page_150.jpg
0dedc0816eeb3951c6f742b4176509b1
b25393e063ef53b028d6b8ec219feec353c43b0d
60822 F20110410_AAALYJ alter_p_Page_011.jpg
d311c4c1947721c88dd06a69476c0535
4c05c920c4ca4b23383c7f57ca9e4824b8ca77c1
2078 F20110410_AAANHG alter_p_Page_135.txt
ff2b6cc5bcca556e96f320aacd1291cb
abb0f3b4e7675637e0f069490f3f22ad1cc64a04
1759 F20110410_AAANGS alter_p_Page_121.txt
d0736e203947f149dc1a59587f604381
b69e4287c097423ccc029838aa18a0e598285f5d
16065 F20110410_AAALXV alter_p_Page_125.QC.jpg
8e65eadc3bf82e572616b4f68e84c556
185be78d770ee4c033ac6aa1d309e36f56cdfa92
103274 F20110410_AAAMEE alter_p_Page_165.jpg
d87685552f360a4a56a10ef2b37ed493
d729444376ed3feca216cad174dfa3e9110de100
85719 F20110410_AAAMDQ alter_p_Page_151.jpg
4fbab7e4e07c66cc81771025c42fa438
5a5a93394891eea7c545a1a12537343b0e78150f
71990 F20110410_AAALYK alter_p_Page_012.jpg
110823431c8942922ab89372e5c0b6cd
5c8d8a871c9723c3633885f21026fd9e18873778
190 F20110410_AAANHH alter_p_Page_136.txt
240c43bcf3b4b42680457bf84061da69
3ef38c8fc5d6173b74a3f81a3e8c5ba43a812f61
2139 F20110410_AAANGT alter_p_Page_122.txt
2d46be6ee9f8f222a9b14a4bd03f788f
76dd653494abbdd6c8d9b32f01794f66cd750c00
230071 F20110410_AAALXW UFE0015410_00001.mets FULL
354cb842f1562ab67dd55eb1905f3fa2
67bbf119f8d650152f88dcf5f4d5878a1122e476
BROKEN_LINK
alter_p_Page_001.tif
4718 F20110410_AAAMEF alter_p_Page_166.jpg
e1b85245f9894e456b9966d5bf8be51e
f6f054d20ec31303503726197e8931e42d0f8e6c
83557 F20110410_AAAMDR alter_p_Page_152.jpg
e0a6841ad241a86b0550196a38d808bf
0e042d86381783c5a4a3631327616c6181ed1573
84734 F20110410_AAALYL alter_p_Page_013.jpg
68258fa51d5dac06504911e2419cde74
8f1db8685e0d104f70fda6148b38343f1e424d27
1846 F20110410_AAANHI alter_p_Page_137.txt
34dff4c50fbe50f1b26174e22baec060
a8a69ad04485062d4effdfb40113f226a982f05c
1817 F20110410_AAANGU alter_p_Page_123.txt
027e11f61a32d7cc98d11f2d63309d33
1858c87c4b2989254116d48e061c472a021a34ac
121306 F20110410_AAAMEG alter_p_Page_167.jpg
c7a35f6059784815e1634f261d7814ea
e22f52e2973195f2a924429f636825ad1410400c
80659 F20110410_AAALZA alter_p_Page_029.jpg
a0fe1d008b502fc46bcf0a2ef94f771d
0c5972f48742eda89dc350924df83c435df5fa1e
85067 F20110410_AAAMDS alter_p_Page_153.jpg
af1f82408771f031b5d712b3c84bbc34
6d82beb32d7bd7a611e04767c699337102d647e2
84014 F20110410_AAALYM alter_p_Page_015.jpg
f2b64ddda8fa1a4351ae39e94cf3f080
ef11f7dcf3b579bcbd2c8ff86d53838c43947ae3
F20110410_AAANHJ alter_p_Page_138.txt
8da79866ff8503cb96883e7f08bda937
35bf7b8c84c04fcf4a5a0c2403c7dee8890f52a8
1583 F20110410_AAANGV alter_p_Page_124.txt
9bf16952a7eef131856d671d98030fd3
70b1efac99ac61d4d46e513e49687d709bcb2fbb
126077 F20110410_AAAMEH alter_p_Page_168.jpg
e9074a9623ee346926c16ff089813d8b
e1702354160f55307ac04bc7f776cbe98d016aa2
84838 F20110410_AAALZB alter_p_Page_030.jpg
703063349dc839b1d934dd345be7cfd9
97e03cd469acf0e13c65ff3fcd3c0ba06bee3282
83430 F20110410_AAAMDT alter_p_Page_154.jpg
79a4556b3d6e7663a8603078491f5218
deb96617978903c860f74d9bfa96a782d1159801
85176 F20110410_AAALYN alter_p_Page_016.jpg
3fa8a1193e95473e9e1c778074bf0f9b
30206bfecf7bfb523ef5262f95f0588bbc077f6d
2067 F20110410_AAANHK alter_p_Page_139.txt
3a7fa0fbe6b65b43a887ca177072d14b
a6582efdae03e5951f65612e2cbac80152f8faca
1244 F20110410_AAANGW alter_p_Page_125.txt
a551763e7b17cdb2107756d101db7d6f
56172ee6548901184d740de3f1b9685b43abf81e
66318 F20110410_AAAMEI alter_p_Page_169.jpg
f0a0890fe94e6a979d563d7954071e4f
07adb37906762215556ec569ad225e4333ce8d7b
81144 F20110410_AAALZC alter_p_Page_031.jpg
88f3dd9d91b737aa860951bff1c30b06
1e8cabf1d8aa32e7f795da2998476b7e36f7a7ff
86835 F20110410_AAAMDU alter_p_Page_155.jpg
8ed869961a00723ef511977d6f338b59
4502b32eaa625380bd818089bf0e48c3cbb07ca8
84528 F20110410_AAALYO alter_p_Page_017.jpg
1c66145c71d9208288917e29dbd379e5
ce5e504d62656f4c30d1dcbe1bff290fbd6e9ef4
28519 F20110410_AAALXZ alter_p_Page_001.jpg
d507ef5e9cefe6e97a7f19b0e444c8f5
c697ab2b8a999808bb51b1ed31bcd59b0d8cf338
2076 F20110410_AAANIA alter_p_Page_155.txt
06cc025e9357674b97b840ebfd8b978f
1d8d997df142088a5aed67f01e7bc99bbdb23ec3
2083 F20110410_AAANHL alter_p_Page_140.txt
a1e1d637d8902675356fb6326321b165
71cdb597d1ffd4d0ce8d54f6ce4a188013b3e675
F20110410_AAANGX alter_p_Page_126.txt
f62a13b1482efdb84c68394e68923fe0
7e48f766309d7bbd1d3543e3d8ba2d9d881b35ff
125292 F20110410_AAAMEJ alter_p_Page_170.jpg
d641ed0270c7a409d060030b00295a80
de5f558be1102eaa2d9d239f96f0e3adbc27beb1
88880 F20110410_AAALZD alter_p_Page_032.jpg
e82d85a773aa7e980448757e7dd3b692
3b1308bb99c1abdd5b52771161b56ecb219f56f3
83990 F20110410_AAAMDV alter_p_Page_156.jpg
0f46fd94b9c21680e3e0e7e3d91092ca
c13429508a87350b81ff1781ac271035df64c3f8
82196 F20110410_AAALYP alter_p_Page_018.jpg
0e039c59942c8eaeeee21018561b09f2
a5108e9bea4877d0d9a3225fc348ec958b85ff0c
2000 F20110410_AAANIB alter_p_Page_156.txt
6f7404ed81abb780e597b81ff2f39dff
b91e6639c9e103148da0003ce4e226f589fa1ef8
1969 F20110410_AAANHM alter_p_Page_141.txt
a37b55be595cd97829aa8a0e37493902
fffd3f8d7cfe815a4e99cd16b9952e98e2974a7c
1722 F20110410_AAANGY alter_p_Page_127.txt
627dede7b21c3daf490e8d29efbd688a
a31529469c5fdb8a2302f04a1c8d98643e55193f
127735 F20110410_AAAMEK alter_p_Page_171.jpg
9ce05798cdc21141eb91529350b88059
60149d710b0a15dcd66df857aed46014d4b812d5
81877 F20110410_AAALZE alter_p_Page_033.jpg
6d05284f5c22ee592cf49ff41cd915f7
05c4b330fecf8147e8017d7cbc2306ecd414c149
80113 F20110410_AAAMDW alter_p_Page_157.jpg
d6865611750c4fdc5cf0cb94e3247c3d
2e35076198f463fd64627302ae30b9be3ae5893f
79830 F20110410_AAALYQ alter_p_Page_019.jpg
527c4b39ec9f27bb19cdcacac058fb42
25608a658ad31a8d64708ef2360ad55fe41d4b99
1906 F20110410_AAANIC alter_p_Page_157.txt
6f6d41ca8cc7aa3f246858ffee6c0523
d8aa2a945e413e583da3e1cc62f39c33e7048eec
2021 F20110410_AAANHN alter_p_Page_142.txt
1faefe2011ee52b90708527e057d727e
ed134cedff6dcfba725b987b45119b258f8624b6
1280 F20110410_AAANGZ alter_p_Page_128.txt
4888de7cfdc0fc128b60da73e02d5283
4fefa422bfe8cf27419c526fe478f60959da1dc0
79307 F20110410_AAAMEL alter_p_Page_172.jpg
d470ed21036c6b95e257bf12717927c0
b03c89aa7b3ebe4f278de4cd19768a60e6cf3217
80649 F20110410_AAALZF alter_p_Page_034.jpg
6bc43c1ef72b312dd1e43070128969d0
f6a0a09ea02d5f0f65bf6ef8c941d8b15b2069e6
83304 F20110410_AAAMDX alter_p_Page_158.jpg
3c91a1b7b125b44db48a1266a806aae3
834b77b319c46967f9583099703142f2b136d5f2
67237 F20110410_AAALYR alter_p_Page_020.jpg
126d4f61d0db2b022d22882defc77cab
79194713d7ab700142ec2c8c486f46a8ab3c8246
57670 F20110410_AAAMFA alter_p_Page_187.jpg
068d8e2a88aef2daf5c3a5418576aa16
59bd28585d31a88eda86ece6bfa5ac793e3bfede
2036 F20110410_AAANHO alter_p_Page_143.txt
0810a2d6f67b9a5becdcf588a32d7d77
290853d7b44cd3d71e4b1dc46d90541cd39edbb8
50605 F20110410_AAAMEM alter_p_Page_173.jpg
21689d3781251b8644e5e9d9f99478c5
adfeaadecfd5b9dace1897f24d5164d6aabf99af
87177 F20110410_AAALZG alter_p_Page_035.jpg
387d9092ccc570968eeb2ac890edc1a6
14ee2ecbf6305dd8ad3427b9b1919d8385bd183d
82558 F20110410_AAAMDY alter_p_Page_159.jpg
3de94982d2de906ffca8613d24ac0273
d6391097f584aa80ab66dde1b2966955483f8e83
77777 F20110410_AAALYS alter_p_Page_021.jpg
d90040207d7f26f3a052c0ae04ba84dd
28aa78352003943f318fe77384565cf334a978f3
2047 F20110410_AAANID alter_p_Page_158.txt
f6a0a86786159fa514efd879b76c9b5c
0ece6e37a2d65c84809867184e4eb2369907bb83
F20110410_AAANHP alter_p_Page_144.txt
c06793e71cfa1089adfab50f746116cc
7ea2776747246e2324e2839b5d6ba2c24ef156cb
52359 F20110410_AAAMEN alter_p_Page_174.jpg
655eba9fb2fba5e5e958da2ea6860360
c21d7acce5176567ee7d5068bdf842b03e775d8f
86941 F20110410_AAALZH alter_p_Page_036.jpg
91a5155cbf97e3b293443a8a48377d92
335d0b99d9448253fde24e5497ca197ff48378de
83926 F20110410_AAAMDZ alter_p_Page_160.jpg
5fcfca3358110c24b23c38fff2459c03
dad13934216ded401aa39c370183d57acde24138
85202 F20110410_AAALYT alter_p_Page_022.jpg
01fbecaee2ce43bb3ea2aaad07b21a2a
e728a4b712000e2f5cde20a07c41f9c851d5509f
22283 F20110410_AAAMFB alter_p_Page_188.jpg
64f72739e8fa5ebe5e1f04495318540e
2312c4351154ff1a0f229b2b95e7e6f44e971fa4
1993 F20110410_AAANIE alter_p_Page_159.txt
6ef1a905255e777ac61a3e5117fa0716
c4aecf9cc1e7d846f88655305ff1d5f8cdc9fc59
1987 F20110410_AAANHQ alter_p_Page_145.txt
76d51648c265ff2521d08d651969c046
babd16a394f2fd0c512d043ea831417b0b703f54
20405 F20110410_AAAMEO alter_p_Page_175.jpg
04c1910c5dbdb490dec9bf261064b358
334c207c09a8d1bb4b24b8852beaffc00b368477
87620 F20110410_AAALZI alter_p_Page_037.jpg
571107e95d4001e18bbea47024da214c
7cc2f6142f93cd8055abfdaba784a2397b8e8acc
85345 F20110410_AAALYU alter_p_Page_023.jpg
a9a58460e986a7a6241ef9c7b30d83c5
067fd813d321d71f10b690a0e52b133df057031c
59609 F20110410_AAAMFC alter_p_Page_189.jpg
53d319c77842a2a0f45738d0e0669997
6de04bdeca627dba4cbbb2371fa7f56e9a753343
2031 F20110410_AAANIF alter_p_Page_160.txt
249bdc3dddfebaea0a19d05d6a485ac6
c2f952fca018ed924182c493e8f3c6724c6787af
2033 F20110410_AAANHR alter_p_Page_146.txt
cca0e9d7fe24026d36ebd79b0fbf135b
da2efdf2b25163f5348ab271e8f5e876f5e9affb
26958 F20110410_AAAMEP alter_p_Page_176.jpg
12ec21281e5c0cec8bc2ff596f5a3e98
9a7ed8b08a2b35b936092971c50d221d8023aed1
83245 F20110410_AAALZJ alter_p_Page_038.jpg
a3bce3d634ab826252a9338d87e3aee6
16041d184ef4674524e8584bac40dfaeb1913564
87022 F20110410_AAAMFD alter_p_Page_190.jpg
e3a67155f33c02989b6e08bc6b60c88f
c72f034bf0678379c4a3a534955166f5ce6f1e75
2032 F20110410_AAANIG alter_p_Page_161.txt
d7a65bec296b9434d349c58d3a8b0864
5204eff6074f795923f6eb09f9ffaeed04bec011
F20110410_AAANHS alter_p_Page_147.txt
bb951e4bdf60c9b93ce0c8233bd59d2b
ee03e92fe57447894c98daa6bf082eff0350fb97
23708 F20110410_AAAMEQ alter_p_Page_177.jpg
8c0b85927f01a7bc1c4e450a1a9c6f7a
19dfe8207f622f10cfcd35825b0fc7fad85d2699
67887 F20110410_AAALZK alter_p_Page_039.jpg
0242c17f2992610e2a77a3cbb0e48515
a58b6b452c901d08bf0da39b543935bef441ea7f
84722 F20110410_AAALYV alter_p_Page_024.jpg
4e4fce4fc96a3c1bfd619ce3ff003712
c513e20cb9a596fa17fb26637c28c9e2c9804c17
99579 F20110410_AAAMFE alter_p_Page_191.jpg
e12f08e28afc5fed1a3fe67c6dbfa377
f085e1293bb8d3955e7d98135f2122062383fa4a
365 F20110410_AAANIH alter_p_Page_162.txt
77e0ee37585f093c5e5c580b9acb16fb
8b67db5f082d221b2f9621131a89248848892013
2063 F20110410_AAANHT alter_p_Page_148.txt
ab3f2319b97708336f84b02e6f3b74e6
8f25ddd1da236fceddd8f27f5632562975abdc47
48364 F20110410_AAAMER alter_p_Page_178.jpg
21a68d4c9262d83866c5d55626c8a14f
bb95c1f3355c8db3bdadd5133974733f1bc193f9
75353 F20110410_AAALZL alter_p_Page_040.jpg
729c0c0aa82ca7793310a405a0a56883
90b37eda52bb00d6e6644d92c24f345394118f70
82749 F20110410_AAALYW alter_p_Page_025.jpg
a01158ae77789cc7efa035b659b458bc
19b2299ed9ab2b94fef362a385477c1f0a45d4a9
107964 F20110410_AAAMFF alter_p_Page_192.jpg
ab4a90a35a9c84004ec857901d44d390
092951d455af76680b4e68e23d626bac42083612
2252 F20110410_AAANII alter_p_Page_163.txt
5e81f6f700120cd46f46ec5cd45a110a
3b26d228d5f0892573c9ec3852a61afd9d47cd9d
1992 F20110410_AAANHU alter_p_Page_149.txt
4f865938c633ca061801535e94514423
c2e6f1880edc485c6ff8356c75bbe1a13d03f98c
49410 F20110410_AAAMES alter_p_Page_179.jpg
0a729c41431655556f21f0e668b21842
1af9cd97ed57565ad5a5c049c2aac6b0bf0d000a
76625 F20110410_AAALZM alter_p_Page_041.jpg
4a41ec00e94b4832bae5aed1b2aa1a0a
7474f727b950db1deed2992068102780d7eb28d9
86060 F20110410_AAALYX alter_p_Page_026.jpg
3834e7bfe023c61e711afea178fc58ab
58632e0528bae4880b6b6df60ac5e7ecc3dabe60
95408 F20110410_AAAMFG alter_p_Page_193.jpg
3034d59bfb333ce2d23544916fb84d74
453df8c266b0351ce548fa07cac559a55c77d63a
3913 F20110410_AAANIJ alter_p_Page_164.txt
1aa7f9a0816d20304555904f434c9e60
b74caea2b2b50bae225634d28d77adda3721da09
F20110410_AAANHV alter_p_Page_150.txt
3bcf5226f4de97d3f186ba2c899ed41e
369a599ff8aaf0d2dcb88928bd7f31371169946f
57366 F20110410_AAAMET alter_p_Page_180.jpg
778c2bffd4cd927a8153e8b4f39d59b4
e1b8e51fd53f8fe98cf7727caa01dc8a30977a43
83772 F20110410_AAALZN alter_p_Page_042.jpg
8188972cc8d088687a6a6df05a0b76f9
4f3f0d2301524edc6a542fc33704bc3246b2eaaa
85100 F20110410_AAALYY alter_p_Page_027.jpg
6f855bb7bb90ebdfcd018e7fef7bc744
aa5224c67e227c6ba60afb8d7625631acfe43c47
100044 F20110410_AAAMFH alter_p_Page_194.jpg
6c6699ea6164003cb3ecbed4ff2ed36b
bc0c80366d94f43d11945f0440efdc80d71960ba
2493 F20110410_AAANIK alter_p_Page_165.txt
2edbc8c4555192e37a4e181405b34a18
5d16ec3338f04016e11fc20ff1b826eb63117129
F20110410_AAANHW alter_p_Page_151.txt
7542514a423921849f7a5fab3d5610a1
1a575146aeeb087e8098f9b8c750c6c0e040e6ee
67936 F20110410_AAAMEU alter_p_Page_181.jpg
fa3cabfdc8d0be95e12374d9d5b1b079
c9ab203881a28a87e28e60d3d7766122660d6426
F20110410_AAALZO alter_p_Page_043.jpg
fb2e01e89cbc09e3b5a0691c62688503
6bdb24a1c9298e7626d1445dc3424c5b57f3fd60
87112 F20110410_AAALYZ alter_p_Page_028.jpg
86d2a2194a1fa52d060e1493093b1c54
31fc968b35383725886d8de51e1ee9b59b6e88b8
98853 F20110410_AAAMFI alter_p_Page_195.jpg
9d648587d95050c2ad051908e9830a13
1ae84e25d99d48de74147397be234f935671b999
1602 F20110410_AAANJA alter_p_Page_181.txt
bfc5ad4bcaf5be346d4145b289b05005
a9b69b138f757572a5653b4510bd0a2c4c554f3b
93 F20110410_AAANIL alter_p_Page_166.txt
4d5b25a186a0bb69915fb872c1bd94f3
a276f32fa278e5bc2ab0502f4fedb601e8ae49c4
2037 F20110410_AAANHX alter_p_Page_152.txt
89fd401e6c3db3f64a17d11447286344
d7bf5095cbed717c59f2f7767924b4567213a223
69968 F20110410_AAAMEV alter_p_Page_182.jpg
568b13d7bdeba614eb08a34ca9233e18
8a88e48224f70223c1d8c0297c8e21a93d43af3e
86488 F20110410_AAALZP alter_p_Page_044.jpg
0c2357d66cec9087b11dc0288f84ee5f
0ddfd66d10a2c076ba4d29681bda1188c1f51a90
105407 F20110410_AAAMFJ alter_p_Page_196.jpg
629ff8a9899a452c928e09bfcbe405f7
b28c07bf055420cabb3da0cafced6498f271edab
1803 F20110410_AAANJB alter_p_Page_182.txt
8c16d7d459f3f1e59ced55ea9dcb91cb
8835ebf954437e5cc167463d43e14e66364142bc
3173 F20110410_AAANIM alter_p_Page_167.txt
bd0bb3cdfda0d8958d3da44f68df59c3
060cf71e3a0e430a11cfb05d88e44d0254e6e2ef
2008 F20110410_AAANHY alter_p_Page_153.txt
944f6287b80ad9871ae02e1030e2397c
5499f9f61930d8f0e1058a388883dfdf0126fdf3
67387 F20110410_AAAMEW alter_p_Page_183.jpg
85d46ee175ef09e317ebb37784dd8a78
4ff9aa3cdd736517ca4c4290508d536c70fd4f98
81621 F20110410_AAALZQ alter_p_Page_045.jpg
b5d289acf78bf70baa6abadfbed0ae38
c2ad28cd4441f45148ab606e80636edc863163e4
96700 F20110410_AAAMFK alter_p_Page_197.jpg
2b727ca508399942eeb6f618bbe3ce48
8d88bdcd3383a69e071bfb1104bc42ed13c4313c
1539 F20110410_AAANJC alter_p_Page_183.txt
ff13cb5abb37da21e9da026e651c34cc
c5b998497392d84572d073415e2be7be09eaa266
3200 F20110410_AAANIN alter_p_Page_168.txt
620d49ceee853dc17ced2005b3a54066
c87add45f43cd09ac1741de7e5044e7ae6f37c24
2056 F20110410_AAANHZ alter_p_Page_154.txt
550a049594aa6aeee0eeddba150ec718
ecac35857f713bf2ce91f4fcc2efc02af5c3a72f
81595 F20110410_AAALZR alter_p_Page_046.jpg
9f07801edc758f4bffc9baf3eba5491c
84913640e2078b5fdc894c6ccbbe73a3d9230b99
110917 F20110410_AAAMGA alter_p_Page_013.jp2
db0102e6645fcf6b33ecb0dfb1bd4a1d
94c794ffcfe6d79781542bcd8187ac0f361d0e30
96764 F20110410_AAAMFL alter_p_Page_198.jpg
3e668d886678c9c1c04021ecbfa5ca48
d9a1ed7f363b0bf48592dae1e07d136047cf74d3
45115 F20110410_AAAMEX alter_p_Page_184.jpg
9a86ec9fb10ca7db155acc459b090732
f8423cca56e5933a7a07399f8267167dc45fb6ef
1139 F20110410_AAANJD alter_p_Page_184.txt
9b126b1a0c6ff689441eeddae2913bce
0028a9480cad38af10f2860c26827e04d2147c71
1474 F20110410_AAANIO alter_p_Page_169.txt
2497fd141177afd16c37267bd8682f3a
82a36198ae105ff10ebf18519ce33dc4c62bf572
80683 F20110410_AAALZS alter_p_Page_047.jpg
87b710639d81338676e63e991be688ea
903022e589ce76bee6b95f5e97534f50b13ca767
109684 F20110410_AAAMGB alter_p_Page_014.jp2
3249d857a33f8bd5d1b57f659291490d
cd139042674da07307b972790d6a9e87a9b08451
59802 F20110410_AAAMFM alter_p_Page_199.jpg
11718ee1dd35df2c0d748762b16e6337
b428b38c851d00a66e396314c528bf041d6ff3b8
56836 F20110410_AAAMEY alter_p_Page_185.jpg
6864b1e02fe472914ac40dd67bda781a
c659835da03ec35455d79a6245ef070b029b4b18
3256 F20110410_AAANIP alter_p_Page_170.txt
e591f5ab6943d2e66092528614a9f9eb
4deffb3ba024e493bd1e0a86114020760cb8ddc3
83795 F20110410_AAALZT alter_p_Page_048.jpg
40395a2664a33e8fca262ad660d90496
83b8a30b8184f8349204bbdfe0116c6e7970cc17
75988 F20110410_AAAMFN alter_p_Page_200.jpg
7cb521c092a200197b55cab7a9923fe7
50d1537df22f65c53f4eb038732238f723952d76
63224 F20110410_AAAMEZ alter_p_Page_186.jpg
7641b128fdc55b1ff52ea00025ecf8d5
7c8b0a19821a8f4afd04135d009f6cf0d588a5a7
1465 F20110410_AAANJE alter_p_Page_185.txt
4c625145f066f3b5bff5a14c7119a358
585a038f97b5a490a24ea8b3917907432ea2b366
3166 F20110410_AAANIQ alter_p_Page_171.txt
d8952d5a3691b20cc543879607352983
7bebbadacb1b82a247250ced0e04a7e1afd4d932
85663 F20110410_AAALZU alter_p_Page_049.jpg
d6baefa93f3779e471fb9706600099df
b9f10224e23467d0a11e2513997bfcbae3acd79f
110378 F20110410_AAAMGC alter_p_Page_015.jp2
8ad5d1391f721558863930b3688be5c9
912279c8be3d883461ca1f101243a00ca937d195
67630 F20110410_AAAMFO alter_p_Page_201.jpg
e19ae0f09120edaa020249983d147046
e18471b0f67de83fa25e1d4f826c41090ca6bd4f
1567 F20110410_AAANJF alter_p_Page_186.txt
35e4bdcb3ef0932c636b1c6877246714
c3b68cf53fa94418b7e74366b4e786c7ffb27017
1681 F20110410_AAANIR alter_p_Page_172.txt
8b22f466a5bb3c6396c567def96bdac7
d68d6da970e7431d9512f05d70ae4e4355bf1ca4
86981 F20110410_AAALZV alter_p_Page_050.jpg
e54eab16158e19f8213b8e63aafd96a5
f59890cb60caaa1dad15d761490a25e17126ec61
112392 F20110410_AAAMGD alter_p_Page_016.jp2
603df193271c65f1eb166a54d9c3e57a
7c5e058d21f7f781e2f57e5f6b08381d09ffbf9d
30141 F20110410_AAAMFP alter_p_Page_001.jp2
c6db4794228505a7d7d39a0112488451
6e82f552ebcf90b60ab06e35b6c46a5a9fc18bca
1473 F20110410_AAANJG alter_p_Page_187.txt
00d7187d7e2adbbfcd4d40c50d960302
6b948ffc67aef736bb717891dfebbc7a2f0d6188
1044 F20110410_AAANIS alter_p_Page_173.txt
ffb4da847c936f30a0588f4aa8429eab
45021840b3c42092a15b92881f18e17d99723585
111912 F20110410_AAAMGE alter_p_Page_017.jp2
de9f01728b38b1d1eebc2244226ea4b8
1bfbd388b49b72a0cfe779b390842e90cdda9ced
F20110410_AAAMFQ alter_p_Page_002.jp2
dfb8f153b4ff1fcce409e0bfcc37d66f
b9cc13ea346b46950133ca94dc3d425720b038a9
527 F20110410_AAANJH alter_p_Page_188.txt
2ab894b81e9bce47056ae03b0b6d8850
d9c29c5a9172bbbe0e1208b393103b7b212ac923
1864 F20110410_AAANIT alter_p_Page_174.txt
b873acc855bdd244d2f65c7f2de70f13
88b58e2abcb97d94d796240469f8bdc462b14fdb
83348 F20110410_AAALZW alter_p_Page_051.jpg
a976f70b480e6f570050b61b6dc302e7
33545cf1f79c7503067ea66ebbfdc1d8dfdeb81b
108305 F20110410_AAAMGF alter_p_Page_018.jp2
6a92debb3df004a84fa9af7906f6f048
1411b85f8987064a296dfa49468facf8815befe8
4945 F20110410_AAAMFR alter_p_Page_003.jp2
6a745ac7296395eaad1dfa0a4cc3aa2f
adfa67f81ba2bb190d21d6287fb81c48a83db84f
1888 F20110410_AAANJI alter_p_Page_189.txt
bf5f515c7e6acd85cfb34cab7c206be1
faaee3f476797ef70b3af9d560022567ef338716
422 F20110410_AAANIU alter_p_Page_175.txt
4ab25bc6e6229f056fe862a29db61d8e
989340958501e50632aac817480e90e46736c8e1
81511 F20110410_AAALZX alter_p_Page_052.jpg
4ae8237614468b689a58dcc1a8528438
ea918d425eadf21b53b596ba326132f3ab1301a2
106733 F20110410_AAAMGG alter_p_Page_019.jp2
385ab58a8bf03e57af9cf6b83087f52c
a25a4e3672335b12946a0b4d760a770fa46a1f8f
21027 F20110410_AAAMFS alter_p_Page_004.jp2
f9ccd2d5a389f3768fefa39dfe3a1c0e
38647a36dff8f1a0c52ff2c0d16604418b8d918e
2234 F20110410_AAANJJ alter_p_Page_190.txt
b6acdc1c1540f19a101d2c0bd050751d
4a07282c8e07e23997974f396ade6275fa6ac7ba
890 F20110410_AAANIV alter_p_Page_176.txt
bc4f3212967dd604941f89f0af614e93
f7fcbaedd4ce526cc1059461cca62a105c8f4bdc
86678 F20110410_AAALZY alter_p_Page_053.jpg
6b762eec103bb3fc18f056f1011dcc49
791b3d5e1913e08fca2adef25ca320db830e2c96
86808 F20110410_AAAMGH alter_p_Page_020.jp2
08fb1ef69a9207c8c913eb47c28bd28e
034d9d5821293c620f09b46a01d65d6a8a2450f0
1051986 F20110410_AAAMFT alter_p_Page_005.jp2
b933d6ca43b01ea5fdb105871bbf3fda
36a067116eb742c08faae7a5fbf6ad5c684c5f78
2578 F20110410_AAANJK alter_p_Page_191.txt
5b050ea4e0ff5d51a4424efb0bb4ee12
c4c5ca3667671180c2650d06342fa479ec800905
659 F20110410_AAANIW alter_p_Page_177.txt
8fa0769fb43744cffdaa89d8ae773e3e
f22acf843a7451780042355c8e8eb16bb0fc6147
63879 F20110410_AAALZZ alter_p_Page_054.jpg
cd5d1afa7ef88d0e42c4b54ab579e3b3
104f7267597979b0b4872b417699f4887b4c9d6e
99646 F20110410_AAAMGI alter_p_Page_021.jp2
6e2e95fa953dfd4b1c57c87757b6b26f
3ecd8be9400009a22ef7a1b25afd6140b25521d3
1051898 F20110410_AAAMFU alter_p_Page_006.jp2
81d283f92ccbab1f3a0d9e1cab4215ce
f740b7380317d9d01a8f576cba28d871ceb78143
26415 F20110410_AAANKA alter_p_Page_165.QC.jpg
4dc3809aa3bf41de78c11d44579d07fa
77bcdf5bca3e64428d9916282127169576a65837
2714 F20110410_AAANJL alter_p_Page_192.txt
40be04e0be971d64dd1450db0aa32072
cb81c52e5a3be379c0a7fac4175a5696d39b4579
886 F20110410_AAANIX alter_p_Page_178.txt
7c04f884a27e2f4b65488984ab7a6f67
c8e7ec5431bf7b59e4404b6d014aad17a8a71269
111176 F20110410_AAAMGJ alter_p_Page_022.jp2
f7b5ffc77a5529e8bbf7ae0fe2071d8f
34eb9dd608f256214234dd9f6dc067526fce6f60
1051982 F20110410_AAAMFV alter_p_Page_007.jp2
4b253a74dabfee388b6d44070ffdb3a4
ceee55840bb0a8ca4d2208221830fae096f50623
5966 F20110410_AAANKB alter_p_Page_034thm.jpg
2cbc5029dc2b99cb7bf34c42d5188fa0
b36f604494113c22c4eb9d10e285e2e6e7984ca8
2477 F20110410_AAANJM alter_p_Page_193.txt
c516d25559f2fdeaf010c0883501001f
07264cb5de3ea34e9409489ec512c92c5bcff86b
756 F20110410_AAANIY alter_p_Page_179.txt
f426a912e18af753e42045770f13de50
e1d9f2815d27121498c8cf03034179d8ddb1a269
113118 F20110410_AAAMGK alter_p_Page_023.jp2
bdd4a7f60afd76b54b930795c7606ff2
c2dccdf3a6433977177f7eb55eed71cd2e797404
1051973 F20110410_AAAMFW alter_p_Page_008.jp2
426fd0d54b16d89bb91e29686d565264
1c257dc56c9ff32f376ebad081a31c4e9fb2c828
6331 F20110410_AAANKC alter_p_Page_061thm.jpg
ad0b83246e21e002d017458933c40cae
0deaf4c02890e339666f206bc346b005ce6fb7b6
2461 F20110410_AAANJN alter_p_Page_194.txt
056967556f19c12e9b402fc99cb0fbec
47ecafcca64554cd0aeb88de1e7418d442f24c88
F20110410_AAANIZ alter_p_Page_180.txt
61517a53a2aa3985edd9275fa51410b0
6dea3a19202502c49dd9f4800958aeed745003f5
109665 F20110410_AAAMGL alter_p_Page_024.jp2
023329d8e3f8485e73ee5cb80b307fc6
7d2cec3c0acb2cd41ddb1b589bb6f8ebef4ad4ed
495397 F20110410_AAAMFX alter_p_Page_009.jp2
c14441969d98875c329474637a2fb251
9e238021a2be11b9429cf4733b70f7bdf68e7e7c
88043 F20110410_AAAMHA alter_p_Page_039.jp2
f3642cd4d6726920a568eb06761ad9b7
bf6a78d6ada5d18b76b4d77dbbb40ad562eca3d3
2582 F20110410_AAANKD alter_p_Page_120thm.jpg
3f494aea5c6d9b50aae6d9a78ed8c6bd
244d8dd9f3b477c8c7b708de2a4d16dd8cc9bba6
F20110410_AAANJO alter_p_Page_195.txt
6829d7ec896907b87fe454aaed79813e
09ed975ab11957954025b8454a6809c9e5c8435f
109388 F20110410_AAAMGM alter_p_Page_025.jp2
c7d78e971aa33f2a54041285efa10ebd
0798b760b1363bb4a3bb2e6cffdf1bc2d447f9a8
87146 F20110410_AAAMFY alter_p_Page_010.jp2
5d312b68d26fe904cd7cafd9d7e31da4
956d50d3bc819d6a0b937e1196bc343be292221c
1041779 F20110410_AAAMHB alter_p_Page_040.jp2
9fddddc638ca964d08ffe34ebeaf648d
fec49e2e7d92da803bc15bf1d4b597d83969edfa
25750 F20110410_AAANKE alter_p_Page_068.QC.jpg
d5a48e9ac01514ba565a23957924c5c2
6e27d94b3c2ce503152da38aed337a591572076e
2756 F20110410_AAANJP alter_p_Page_196.txt
f24960d1032bc200bf7991a8ea71191c
b19681d662478009f59e3dd8a1fa222db9912386
113193 F20110410_AAAMGN alter_p_Page_026.jp2
3df31368165d493ade7ba1457abac92c
3d1f8f67cf0dd45c2c7b23a2a5459c8e04084b15
80576 F20110410_AAAMFZ alter_p_Page_011.jp2
05a9f1b36e5bb9db67d923385fdc8589
f09b13f3aafbba2604af5e9af8f65b771fffbc57
107663 F20110410_AAAMHC alter_p_Page_041.jp2
91b30078e5aacefa4d3ef14645ab4fe2
659349308e5848301368d2a19e3b6308fe3c02de
2577 F20110410_AAANJQ alter_p_Page_197.txt
fc231e1deff959666976b99d34816ef0
b092cd0c2f0f211469b3cb343751287e918bf817
112356 F20110410_AAAMGO alter_p_Page_027.jp2
500d96a41bbe82e65910f8b4413e3595
59056ba927685c2f074bb0a71e13d9831ec87872
6137 F20110410_AAANKF alter_p_Page_048thm.jpg
ca471dd600eeb4770bb26d43a0892c55
c91d1a701ee825f15e1e573bcd436ac4198dab9c
2433 F20110410_AAANJR alter_p_Page_198.txt
6897bce8e2b065394d428c5137582a83
e4516a7410598e3a675faa3523875b7dd581ca40
113066 F20110410_AAAMGP alter_p_Page_028.jp2
46f70d0c0550fbaf737d1ee2a023e096
0e3f9e45eb831558fc405b141c76f850e0cd38bd
109961 F20110410_AAAMHD alter_p_Page_042.jp2
f746e4ecb15d5a89b59c1be19a9fc49f
afcc830ed49f712b94390af38a5848fafa104eca
25880 F20110410_AAANKG alter_p_Page_051.QC.jpg
f864439e01d11b8045a335a10d6395fa
2dabf81bd1f7456219119c901af8dc30b3345230
1507 F20110410_AAANJS alter_p_Page_199.txt
da42c91e5eedfa0a15622e872fc80399
dbfb1796b4881c9f41def9d607a55792f292572b
105185 F20110410_AAAMGQ alter_p_Page_029.jp2
a032b4b90ab8d51e88b7a2bd4671389d
a8c2b0bda4387efa7ffadab919be2007a8ce8578
107439 F20110410_AAAMHE alter_p_Page_043.jp2
ed92af7d422c059ba7448dc2b0262388
601532197fbf32740e4fb20f4544e90bd10ad2bd
6388 F20110410_AAANKH alter_p_Page_049thm.jpg
28d41900822b13250a9d21d0d4710a60
4a61acd3be9339e2098ee4b340474952f7125611
1823 F20110410_AAANJT alter_p_Page_200.txt
04bfa3922f0c02054fcd01fb1e4cef45
b2857dd54245ce52df7535ee2cf05ccbc792d908
110274 F20110410_AAAMGR alter_p_Page_030.jp2
b650650322e3b872c83ab2bfd6dcdc71
a8d2edef3cb296030a29a60fb8976181bcf43151
112922 F20110410_AAAMHF alter_p_Page_044.jp2
dbb93cead3625b85b791d66226db56d3
a13b939e79020767d3155b8c979ad1a07b9ffa55
6339 F20110410_AAANKI alter_p_Page_109thm.jpg
475240a770eb0984788f0d30fd3879aa
917460aa934bec574fcef6c9e329aad09e9e144a
1599 F20110410_AAANJU alter_p_Page_201.txt
e09183d2d17f09a42a933e149fa1c03a
6f0b55cae583f4dee1b1a56036739695e85455cc
106422 F20110410_AAAMGS alter_p_Page_031.jp2
c7097198c5c84342a1d7e178029aef41
5d5490e761c9f65333e953d990e56142c0bdd312
107520 F20110410_AAAMHG alter_p_Page_045.jp2
6695d92e982821365510545e9f419a18
46efd58e646a7dfca3700e6c7f526daa1f37b058
26929 F20110410_AAANKJ alter_p_Page_151.QC.jpg
22ec8557d82cbb18c58d07a86c1f7802
238e35ea0f5c5335ff7bdb09cbc065d24628b279
F20110410_AAANJV alter_p_Page_001thm.jpg
5e2bda9360b056f87f91036861a875a8
d704fccaf709aa4a162b9b06d19a65e8d1cd581a
114742 F20110410_AAAMGT alter_p_Page_032.jp2
d25ff58d940487389a2a80001b7a4495
59fc5d49fae561e59ed06b680ea4ce9aa2fc6470
105989 F20110410_AAAMHH alter_p_Page_046.jp2
ab9601be44d882bd441695ee9d9b1899
124af69b697fd65c5a8d98ae01f0d6e64dec8762
24699 F20110410_AAANKK alter_p_Page_103.QC.jpg
25fa46f5d01d6d482b5c225bcd4194ea
c33ad5cfb2b262373d326684bf5e250a00b392f8
496234 F20110410_AAANJW alter_p.pdf
a02eaabb316cf5c5f00dd3280d6aba2f
d9a55f1dd32bec63992c1a27ad44feb30bb5fb2a
109492 F20110410_AAAMGU alter_p_Page_033.jp2
721d9460572998747ff1615be274e354
1160b77f0934aefc9bb4e51e1f356551615915d3
105106 F20110410_AAAMHI alter_p_Page_047.jp2
7a65bd1e073cedb42fe65027251e90b3
66dd357a1abcb2bb6386a8fba1763f13483adb8a
6756 F20110410_AAANLA alter_p_Page_175.QC.jpg
c609e29a6590016f4306097cb5e4fa6f
e3a1da3088fcb22d5e4270380b06e6559c5fee06
25537 F20110410_AAANKL alter_p_Page_090.QC.jpg
097828fe6ed3cf8c354f7570c0562dea
833add7330743afad0697a3fd945464ad6a7530d
6227 F20110410_AAANJX alter_p_Page_068thm.jpg
d16f6046b00b393fde5016ae9ee68324
824beef389ab2615ff0ede5f22f825bb18972fbe
106797 F20110410_AAAMGV alter_p_Page_034.jp2
12b4a480274d100ec102d4c25d2a34cd
f0cfdf4cd226b6b828d4773be7044923dfea258f
110644 F20110410_AAAMHJ alter_p_Page_048.jp2
0b661aaff6cd638c928c766ddf9a348d
de2eda6ba1ea41a83a4745336385b62073357078
6063 F20110410_AAANLB alter_p_Page_058thm.jpg
30b0faa952083b3ea003236667f6a668
fb3461cd821a54811947e2702540160537d6e305
433 F20110410_AAANKM alter_p_Page_003thm.jpg
b4a7c7d6e33c2a9dd784db6461afc3c2
37ef553fc661fc90e0e1091c23ef35e4b2a4d8ad
2728 F20110410_AAANJY alter_p_Page_071thm.jpg
7cbe39d9ede658d669e9d80e4041061d
8c201de079c9574d9a195fb97625639e8d90d3fa
114079 F20110410_AAAMGW alter_p_Page_035.jp2
9a52adf97e3e9ca0fb36aa409572aae7
de4b25fbd992c61e6e46498067f479e6db851b4d
111847 F20110410_AAAMHK alter_p_Page_049.jp2
01a5eac6ec9c2c8fc7299352802ec240
5fdf90419eec4616b813c6d56f0d8d8c5471e9c6
25944 F20110410_AAANLC alter_p_Page_038.QC.jpg
2b8ac4047efd82bd670c59ff19275122
602a02ef0c33bf0420fcce8b03b4a6154cfd16d7
6381 F20110410_AAANKN alter_p_Page_142thm.jpg
86aeeee0506378ce4048f83bcff5ebbb
f9784dbcb3883771993871c91e1c6ef16a75ee3e
26533 F20110410_AAANJZ alter_p_Page_016.QC.jpg
2c0fd9f812a7055173ccfbb03c980fc3
e13e7306940ac4211295bc69f7d9c964db080e1c
114296 F20110410_AAAMGX alter_p_Page_036.jp2
986d3198a1c73e1a074bc658b25226b5
a13f6ae09347c9923a9f0c3a74f988a6216ef949
108423 F20110410_AAAMIA alter_p_Page_065.jp2
91ebdc52bf9c0c66baeacde92052954e
2b2cb6a0e3d65cfc9be0b4949a7a611c4219a5df
114769 F20110410_AAAMHL alter_p_Page_050.jp2
de2b27a218d9bb77592a0d4d50038232
b2d5d0b17fe6078f3a8f9a925e39131654d6eced
26098 F20110410_AAANLD alter_p_Page_027.QC.jpg
235d82a3d9bf096eae16f41cd743aa48
8a89a9951bc34fb5e15dcfadba98f6acfdb0c9a6
31224 F20110410_AAANKO alter_p_Page_171.QC.jpg
f817d81c6a2537d93aab2ec30cabd02b
1c7190a4f314fb7c10d7ae14445278ae98acf716
113917 F20110410_AAAMGY alter_p_Page_037.jp2
6120d0e7c9599fc3d5a1296fb68415ef
5d4a26f85b7657049abb7a9ef2d2e9589773c32c
106895 F20110410_AAAMIB alter_p_Page_066.jp2
55d66eacb41e4da2090617a366ec7f26
e0fcb7e54b05a239200c66b2aa70ba9449e6587b
108891 F20110410_AAAMHM alter_p_Page_051.jp2
e01f6fc336191a7f000b83330ee363b2
03eedafd7a161378a9880247d377a229bbca21ba
6362 F20110410_AAANLE alter_p_Page_152thm.jpg
d1944fc2ecd81a592394108f1b22c52a
9f322404aa42f407e0831831fdfda5d7c30ed4d7
24116 F20110410_AAANKP alter_p_Page_085.QC.jpg
897aa368294f8eff75e8adfc09d8c2d0
170ae2a1ad227b0bc69efb2a7d0e604c2598cad8
110542 F20110410_AAAMGZ alter_p_Page_038.jp2
7d33597bdc2896707ab1a8e328037f3f
ef6d01b2a56cbb85e82553f9ea9429fe00ed202e
113252 F20110410_AAAMIC alter_p_Page_067.jp2
b614079375f749d932cd71bf8afc9a00
56fdef78f7b33a0a740e23a7edc9b8a7fe760613
108489 F20110410_AAAMHN alter_p_Page_052.jp2
8382a0a2f705f3310433e751b4a75603
a7337ccb2753aced9f01b1aa4d6182b61d9ceeec
18663 F20110410_AAANLF alter_p_Page_124.QC.jpg
cc0cb134aa84108a2fa6b46ab54c4fd7
f18c56ab10bfa6d87d40b78de9b5643c2a76c8fc
25182 F20110410_AAANKQ alter_p_Page_107.QC.jpg
a573183fb9697fe8bc25d5afe3da9837
c4fd2f861355362092419756b8729a81e7d764f9
109741 F20110410_AAAMID alter_p_Page_068.jp2
4285922480cc131a51cc2b14af2030ac
7e36b2ae470f51c18cfeb0dfd71c2f05029ec47b
113533 F20110410_AAAMHO alter_p_Page_053.jp2
63123ad880e9524429e61bcea0098219
1bc764f919d3fb048240a8cd72404188d2274008
27695 F20110410_AAANKR alter_p_Page_192.QC.jpg
6324c7f7d8b9ef5d4498dfee5ca1e673
ca9bcd0d481b428f214499c81eb66041c9cb0d54
82678 F20110410_AAAMHP alter_p_Page_054.jp2
b29f9132bfe25c85cc57d3d1166715f7
72ebbeca35f44b7212c9b22fa6959a22f53e8350
6307 F20110410_AAANLG alter_p_Page_093thm.jpg
6fe27355aa986c33a1d4ca6bd4d0dc8a
c806af7b1788242486851fed4fde34441da9e489
6190 F20110410_AAANKS alter_p_Page_083thm.jpg
36bd28f2050d44a0c7b8e6543f73c292
8d3e8c36036abea77abe12ce1e1f370994028265
94965 F20110410_AAAMIE alter_p_Page_069.jp2
d8834aaf4a7bbc459aefc001d86afe2c
51e6fce651ccbe033c648ce5f5c4b248783d3230
1051985 F20110410_AAAMHQ alter_p_Page_055.jp2
337451cc4a042c4ef63e054def2b2770
09743cd553cbf7e511593b8a14afeba7f052d4d5
15833 F20110410_AAANLH alter_p_Page_178.QC.jpg
a8bd3dfc593ceaf08ca1c731edfd49df
4fc075dea3e62d7ac1d791216f1f8e74fd2b5101
25946 F20110410_AAANKT alter_p_Page_098.QC.jpg
093f54ba67b3c98580aa3045a4f7c51d
13641dad4a59355d19b3a8e4fed30d126fb5f404
928289 F20110410_AAAMIF alter_p_Page_070.jp2
2e31c8e7bc437e15875969c6999148ff
449179efe9f3a71a64bb0041d71bb2ebec9491c8
1051975 F20110410_AAAMHR alter_p_Page_056.jp2
9fd703a18201dd9681b9ae3699b12ff9
d3e2eab56aa62cc29e2fe9970030eaa0259204ae
6269 F20110410_AAANLI alter_p_Page_146thm.jpg
bf7e7392665b85bcb228f8c39201367d
5766c15fe20726470f22e377eb2cf23635844e01
6328 F20110410_AAANKU alter_p_Page_113thm.jpg
60d1595ad07dc896f5e250cd0ce2217d
4f5a629255da7e22c9d700d1eb311cb6dbfd2944
743908 F20110410_AAAMIG alter_p_Page_071.jp2
ae720fbe6dc17eca398bebc4e33eee59
bb22ab36ca06be04ce6a67d20369fcad8a0ea92e
101831 F20110410_AAAMHS alter_p_Page_057.jp2
fe76d83adaaf88e0018fb7652dbe2886
ddbb1b0ae8d025822415ec0b61b0419d667f3215
6320 F20110410_AAANLJ alter_p_Page_056thm.jpg
279a5d4c6136581ca338415808fe73ff
26d78d2d4f82b7547a4f38fc0438f909f9229a61
6193 F20110410_AAANKV alter_p_Page_158thm.jpg
b4d756e3a9984fa09fdb3327058063d9
29d64cb0c0dfdb51d99f28054fde40922fe8d533
797516 F20110410_AAAMIH alter_p_Page_072.jp2
2b86e1e691bfed0ae75329ca2280e34b
ba55e6ce9a21d00a03f7f4e530a65bb210781388
110524 F20110410_AAAMHT alter_p_Page_058.jp2
f771cc4f03957205c6b5b6b753d0d779
d00c39bddac20200179d67f154451faadfe75b7b
6192 F20110410_AAANLK alter_p_Page_101thm.jpg
46f95ef02b63573614fb40dc2b94373a
78642d3e1e54009494345df98a32dcb692a0bdd1
6263 F20110410_AAANKW alter_p_Page_153thm.jpg
539a60c784387fcd1460b796a2c7a3e3
1dfbc889dd2f9aad6defcedd27df80557f7d6d9e
408523 F20110410_AAAMII alter_p_Page_073.jp2
54755123e6a66deecdafdd1b6324485b
e4ec3d0e8405292f451c52f509ccb4b5ea79b291
116371 F20110410_AAAMHU alter_p_Page_059.jp2
70ec1cde5f39650dde0cda2794b23941
dd632aff69c345d9a9d6c2cee13a0cf832991a5d
17367 F20110410_AAANMA alter_p_Page_169.QC.jpg
2db23dabf84fd062c89242be615b422a
d7e49c2df61acea255d9f90357974bf34a512515
6931 F20110410_AAANLL alter_p_Page_171thm.jpg
76329795576fcb80f7a8932aca538a6d
5fdfdb793068773567816ff3d88ece6bfa7d1d8f
27456 F20110410_AAANKX alter_p_Page_067.QC.jpg
4d852383ba228527073c503ee262d917
06635a2f84b2980e0f8e4683693aac5982ce4293
112401 F20110410_AAAMIJ alter_p_Page_074.jp2
3f9482a3663e3ee6de383b054c26f777
aeacb5b2e9ab6dc42a164aa95bf5c5bd74fd6dd5
110519 F20110410_AAAMHV alter_p_Page_060.jp2
00125f920f78b09a6b0eb173725c85b4
832cf3d2a5adbef6891f9761497cf9813c4e25f7
26856 F20110410_AAANMB alter_p_Page_147.QC.jpg
38eeab4392377b4af5564f6c72587fe2
81161e02f3f497798742e3fa0be51e57b01ce778
4975 F20110410_AAANLM alter_p_Page_187thm.jpg
8d4a7c9eaef095a3d3a88ad45856cff7
ba1b01bf14562265563305ab754bdf6d0c27ad12
2548 F20110410_AAANKY alter_p_Page_176thm.jpg
0b772691fdb8029ed2feff8db2be8659
7b78be5f3ec9fc0065e5c5615ce9443565d184f0
110262 F20110410_AAAMIK alter_p_Page_075.jp2
7248a72379ca34db83d9d9203c6193b5
c0518dcf0e4a52181e42467d178374463445fc1b
112103 F20110410_AAAMHW alter_p_Page_061.jp2
9b1c124fee589538ebf225b83e9a3d25
7cf84c8e15c679f30c946c5967157b596ec3f621
5978 F20110410_AAANMC alter_p_Page_019thm.jpg
cb271eb764722a6b0ed9b9d4220a7e5a
c039d2657dbd11b76ad798e1011241ff9bb2bde9
6345 F20110410_AAANLN alter_p_Page_111thm.jpg
201a6387c3a9b0a301a30414b2dc5e58
9ead0135e7a74f2fa6396fd69dedc7d7fc802517
4677 F20110410_AAANKZ alter_p_Page_006thm.jpg
31ef525f898ce349e000f827a6ff4f0b
b00f0d855ca4c02f3604cb1f498e11a070aa2e6f
109021 F20110410_AAAMJA alter_p_Page_092.jp2
2188c2f6543b0a1f3585b11b4b880958
82590cf52f4d4a9cc89e1100bf7be9179eabfbff
107248 F20110410_AAAMIL alter_p_Page_076.jp2
e3fa21d725bbb4cec88e26cdaeffc5f4
3e51eb1d61a4ef77958104723504863b216c63dc
109116 F20110410_AAAMHX alter_p_Page_062.jp2
5c8ba3d1679ce03e913651e0734044d6
40b568a6e649082bd2fd127b23bcbe5c76602cf7
24539 F20110410_AAANMD alter_p_Page_047.QC.jpg
a9a797d4412ae7fc9102afc1a3d3e25d
14126222167c08eb1b23ec9d1902210a6a922dd9
7213 F20110410_AAANLO alter_p_Page_009.QC.jpg
490979b28b5b0bc339f111a4a8d62a23
39b14393ef5c9a6d0cc3eae89baf8007f2970dc3
112840 F20110410_AAAMJB alter_p_Page_093.jp2
2b42d4dfbf7def6e25438bb54be0baed
c55906853ef66f14c993e16a41473b34b1ffc7df
107261 F20110410_AAAMIM alter_p_Page_077.jp2
8121c013093ef4c0b0041679da513c31
45e3114340d9722ca24b5ac4a731ccfa2d5f20c7
108699 F20110410_AAAMHY alter_p_Page_063.jp2
5b66b4762c1a75595784eabfeb0679dc
7206890fcf7c193adb66c0fc055e0d15206213db
6387 F20110410_AAANME alter_p_Page_053thm.jpg
8f272e781b448de58f65a51dedaa47bf
00ee6975198d29f855df1d4e6e6b94823de6c9ef
26855 F20110410_AAANLP alter_p_Page_111.QC.jpg
35ff1c5e53413f976c3720c923d64090
1c19e004a4857504beb7577d985cce1c3c7acbf8
111890 F20110410_AAAMJC alter_p_Page_094.jp2
e51aeb75325f5ddbac528429d5c53c76
7ac2502f3e13b74f979219cd10361878eb545d99
111477 F20110410_AAAMIN alter_p_Page_078.jp2
5334acd2306784937ae6b0509bec2797
da1e428e7b503584540778cf360aac64ef35a1e5
107469 F20110410_AAAMHZ alter_p_Page_064.jp2
6bf005e380fd7b55cf284146d51cd392
cc7e8770cf247b79a4cde4945187cbc902c3872a
6405 F20110410_AAANMF alter_p_Page_092thm.jpg
9ff5c395af220c1f1a7799cd781de8be
fb35a6418354f8c16828bd52dbb6144f9130f720
26150 F20110410_AAANLQ alter_p_Page_194.QC.jpg
846ff6aa3dabfca066b62ffd015cef06
f5530c21612f431eb603cd8520475320b0eed0d2
109789 F20110410_AAAMJD alter_p_Page_095.jp2
c973ef6a3d178ed9b69c36835e74b2a0
83004d9e0a29195d51600e4c184ad43c6bec749a
109019 F20110410_AAAMIO alter_p_Page_079.jp2
21446e2ed62d5594ac8ae338f84f338d
79fc53c29da3d9d04426cc7607b02f07edd60de6
4948 F20110410_AAANMG alter_p_Page_124thm.jpg
ccff026af70008c5fb7c9a95c51923a7
55272272142acc2dee7c4a21ad3ba0c10da5d9a2
26495 F20110410_AAANLR alter_p_Page_026.QC.jpg
477f357c69284cc2ac8893a709deb98c
845aff3e5d5e1d30c496a7e2fae8497f2912c8b9
90439 F20110410_AAAMJE alter_p_Page_096.jp2
de406fe0102a876180a2a06eed19429d
fc3fb6b0b314cf55a14c1fd5054dc0217f1a8f94
104070 F20110410_AAAMIP alter_p_Page_080.jp2
53b1825f64d381e286c51bc97ade0f97
e401165b2316a38111ecadc12432456e13a26320
5990 F20110410_AAANLS alter_p_Page_114thm.jpg
7885a10a9bb9deb1c8441d3f60285f81
2321753eae8bcaf2a7dc418de686b093304a072e
109251 F20110410_AAAMIQ alter_p_Page_081.jp2
f73d66f481da8d26b68ad92384512c04
a941a81e314e691644b52f4dd6c4d8136cb2dc25
25774 F20110410_AAANMH alter_p_Page_014.QC.jpg
22f1f453d51c79202e7f163035f48d4d
6224daa2ddb932bb2c34be95de9205b1c81e1185
5158 F20110410_AAANLT alter_p_Page_096thm.jpg
3f44172c1b71e01af49908bd73aaa044
312926e318b070fdd0f3051587c18bff37b7de56
110330 F20110410_AAAMJF alter_p_Page_097.jp2
8fc28e18ff84c93ba86154b01655d968
f019b869d27466ed85bb08c32c08350dfff91d1e
108943 F20110410_AAAMIR alter_p_Page_082.jp2
85752852036da2f7c2ba91dbdc939867
800bce943f692afced043c6faf5ded343935f914
23974 F20110410_AAANMI alter_p_Page_190.QC.jpg
ebc92fba525f14509b44ec65669b6a07
1b66600ea3a781a2016fd60779c6eeef2e8b14b7
1038 F20110410_AAANLU alter_p_Page_003.QC.jpg
6744841a6ddc8daeb8d8b3a0354a82cc
574f92d427d826b930a89549780dcdd334d26888
107863 F20110410_AAAMJG alter_p_Page_098.jp2
756f0199205d5150a4442299df3b219a
b0ce6713fb0df2672c53b11d9e9c9b18b72a753f
107793 F20110410_AAAMIS alter_p_Page_083.jp2
20705bf88fac97910c407de991fbbf33
0228c8891af6aad9181c26eb2f1ab02121bf9655
5843 F20110410_AAANMJ alter_p_Page_130thm.jpg
84eea3a83d53590166e4c5a084ea409e
bafbae7991b6754418ecbb251df20ab11a41c5ff
6205 F20110410_AAANLV alter_p_Page_122thm.jpg
04990ca78f4f41202aae4da670f33b4e
83aa6f92c7c67a38fae62afb8ba97573fceb393b
895586 F20110410_AAAMJH alter_p_Page_099.jp2
bbd6cc17f1a4d8f0e77832147af51aa7
9dd9ae00e957daafe9020ef299336bf2529d13c4
110432 F20110410_AAAMIT alter_p_Page_084.jp2
977f754b62858b30b684aeeff6d34e4f
39cc80e4a011653faa1833c8214a54f7c1fefe30
2214 F20110410_AAANMK alter_p_Page_188thm.jpg
fb6fed288e4ce65985369d2c43626551
c0870ff8bfafce2dff52e4d165332d18658eff94
6204 F20110410_AAANLW alter_p_Page_037thm.jpg
f9dc0e5997105ae5432b6012bb1bf083
1a775e9ab2f179b767fc26139e1ca79ed135fd68
99820 F20110410_AAAMJI alter_p_Page_100.jp2
0311c90bbaee26d199f19206e8b84d3e
770433fe86f2d2fcffb3acc4d12e87684abc530c
103260 F20110410_AAAMIU alter_p_Page_085.jp2
bf0c0ebedad5eea0d3da43fd790b6a59
6bc4ab6e3fcb25ed0ad7f25bc8840daf69b8da53
26364 F20110410_AAANNA alter_p_Page_149.QC.jpg
c26974d8599e8cb174a972e66e4e310e
bfffad57d907c0f75799efc45d4dc56e31132d27
6105 F20110410_AAANML alter_p_Page_103thm.jpg
602af88eb792dd7dc0f3251467edb061
dba618cb31ff534724b17543157abf8bcdd92880
30101 F20110410_AAANLX alter_p_Page_167.QC.jpg
60fe352f835a8dc7c1edb21327d83943
a46a57213af359d4f04f775515cfaf5f12b20420
1051900 F20110410_AAAMJJ alter_p_Page_101.jp2
0bb451584f4926c2bf1c0672a4555176
b63bcfaf23e2120fa4e4c468b15b03d00acb4393
105050 F20110410_AAAMIV alter_p_Page_086.jp2
bd3bb38047cc1aba9253578f385444b3
0348372b8e4e13e26ff4bf0268dc8245bc301cb2
6327 F20110410_AAANNB alter_p_Page_067thm.jpg
9ee0589d0cf2e1c78964d4facbe1967b
d26f1bfe6e7af5ca68d406baff3af57216731a5a
6401 F20110410_AAANMM alter_p_Page_194thm.jpg
0c5539e40ac308c8a690c71286c22b85
b4d4cd34d168a4eab10c96daab3817c80a0504ce
25438 F20110410_AAANLY alter_p_Page_141.QC.jpg
f0b9e5e183f15e36565edf1ff12dbf0d
87a7fd21974baef4a00315c0d9b62bf1fa3f3716
1031003 F20110410_AAAMJK alter_p_Page_102.jp2
df1f6292b3631c53cde35f35313be865
30fbf9085c29eda0bfe2ba75119558be8d9cc2b2
111877 F20110410_AAAMIW alter_p_Page_088.jp2
ad70aeae46dcfe7e620e804f1ebdfc4e
8aa3eba758c682be6204ecf6944a7c6f7f32b1cc
6067 F20110410_AAANNC alter_p_Page_052thm.jpg
0242df6c430cb70e7118909e24d287d3
3c26abe30dd22273cfb7ccde3ddf2a804939e2b7
6423 F20110410_AAANMN alter_p_Page_013thm.jpg
19540acd02e24c5fba75e60d9dd1e2d2
76eb7d8e6643f721cff110f62924063f8c3e3da4
4090 F20110410_AAANLZ alter_p_Page_128thm.jpg
8a3cfc47fe14debad7cc10f1cdbbc756
79ffef65a86e4a4a9dbb29332cc54055adc36bf9
104370 F20110410_AAAMJL alter_p_Page_103.jp2
976b284ddcea38973d5134be73dcbc7f
456f442a91bdb896033dd224403609a109b3d4ce
107302 F20110410_AAAMIX alter_p_Page_089.jp2
1c7849702b21932526e89ba2803b53aa
cb72fee6c94f717b149ce2a59f94d1e66eb94c64
109348 F20110410_AAAMKA alter_p_Page_118.jp2
88ac48f01c78231f5093d225bae74f07
4b00f8130107d3557d5b6985400b1a9e4c82778f
23688 F20110410_AAANND alter_p_Page_056.QC.jpg
2e742fbcdbd92a31805cccfac4efd675
51c72c69ee91cb8accabdc41c2f4dafdfe9260d0
1399 F20110410_AAANMO alter_p_Page_002.QC.jpg
7d38c1999b77fe9d46ebe319501288cd
c8e29404c89b03027e825e032ee3ef12e96d5cc6
112753 F20110410_AAAMJM alter_p_Page_104.jp2
b88c5153e521b417223def90ab8cda83
7452d18fc68879d651dd8eff8a404527beaeab19
108089 F20110410_AAAMIY alter_p_Page_090.jp2
e5f805bf7a212b1895a62d049b7d707d
f4250633c2468f7151ba670f5d3211fc935983c2
109854 F20110410_AAAMKB alter_p_Page_119.jp2
028373695891b3a9b9452f5bd09e8fc1
bbf129d2062266257825c00f1c6f1ac591d45baf
27882 F20110410_AAANNE alter_p_Page_059.QC.jpg
b5a03cc33f10e8eeddda81a1fa196d84
80be2ddf3ff84593964fc845bde2bd53a15d926c
6129 F20110410_AAANMP alter_p_Page_129thm.jpg
0bd35205d11fdd9f1b3e5ef4e9960c71
5c9a32023aafd7a4ce7a969c011ef53e409b5968
114041 F20110410_AAAMJN alter_p_Page_105.jp2
9e3c6d94bc6d90b771154e9bfff396b0
6d5f00ca5f64eaf415b8cf3cec2c856615ae7e66
114275 F20110410_AAAMIZ alter_p_Page_091.jp2
ae0dc0098d3ce49ac9684d35bb5c4b39
02038c814e2fe88453e9d455b392ad252f920f32
42208 F20110410_AAAMKC alter_p_Page_120.jp2
6d038f22a239dd03ce5f1141b36aeba1
38ae9b7e967641d558889d180cfe4de192386b42
25234 F20110410_AAANNF alter_p_Page_052.QC.jpg
fe944ea7b5d0833bb73bb19e0a5499d7
ff5b763096303b3dc13793c77989f3a9a1efdda3
25923 F20110410_AAANMQ alter_p_Page_152.QC.jpg
1fc2c10c7da4a61b7aa50af24afc7451
b3daed9f1652aa6b6a1d802d8b8af487118af92c
115905 F20110410_AAAMJO alter_p_Page_106.jp2
dd7cf076a64f5a27f7702c2b6a830060
9a66f1e2363f1461c7aec8d337c1011208cce12e
93570 F20110410_AAAMKD alter_p_Page_121.jp2
ee1bcc1ff8ddf4cdfcf8f989f2767bc1
1c51ac929dab8ef346074fbc97cc4e3c85e4049c
9936 F20110410_AAANNG alter_p_Page_072.QC.jpg
f7fe4888d8f7313b3d99322ac2578819
34906a8421942965aa152cb2405ecd9808054b08
27558 F20110410_AAANMR alter_p_Page_032.QC.jpg
796dbeda91572bf361ef83aed80e6514
41e21db27f17f720fc79ba86c65c3e4fe5c4120f
105811 F20110410_AAAMJP alter_p_Page_107.jp2
cb5e17cf818eaa7414289e1971c24a07
91356dc547b87319a2d3a01ae302652d2d7ffe68
115869 F20110410_AAAMKE alter_p_Page_122.jp2
e65c88aaefaef345b5a6629dc7ca100c
6d0e470de020ead7eeab3c80c88a3168acaf87f1
5685 F20110410_AAANNH alter_p_Page_200thm.jpg
3f0a84ee245b011e9052bbdb827e91ef
fc3156e2af0edd2ccfc22ab53b96750424c85d85
27198 F20110410_AAANMS alter_p_Page_053.QC.jpg
fcffe128b79eb05931e170188875d53d
b1ef47fd7586185f1b9e0c8e863abb6e670c902a
109460 F20110410_AAAMJQ alter_p_Page_108.jp2
b54cae5528748c1178ec4183b6d5d7ec
f923bb0f58a2e27a17d230555be281b4d016bfe7
949546 F20110410_AAAMKF alter_p_Page_123.jp2
6394262d68a2540f84e3cf501a494a63
54c317bcc19f3f30e69e15abe0bab51581bcc71c
6209 F20110410_AAANMT alter_p_Page_145thm.jpg
c8da36f087ae737bf8705f419feaf1dc
6101de70fefacb81f81d786bd5f9b25e1490b3e2
114642 F20110410_AAAMJR alter_p_Page_109.jp2
e05f1c3195b52c13b7b3aa5aa8eee7b7
24f7141f2ccce20891f6a610447c8ccbfbef093c
35545 F20110410_AAANNI alter_p_Page_164.QC.jpg
f858fdf1adb431aa65d8417caa93986f
8b7bb09d2e494d9615da22f665deb49fee6ade31
6319 F20110410_AAANMU alter_p_Page_060thm.jpg
d52095b9279ea5cd4f8657d472687001
c6890740a8e3b2694c072f778a8047394c859f3f
106830 F20110410_AAAMJS alter_p_Page_110.jp2
e27aeff5ed74318d7510fbef948dec4e
a1764238daa2c299eb75afab771c4335b801e2d7
70883 F20110410_AAAMKG alter_p_Page_124.jp2
19cbd154530a778c91f42bcc071893b5
2c6d1ae389f15f4c8e5b3df25d3b64742bb558a5
6261 F20110410_AAANNJ alter_p_Page_074thm.jpg
4cf5d5f7565654f2b7a3f5b6c2a41d7d
98941193f96295e4f939eeb0dbc0d11dffc49857
8971 F20110410_AAANMV alter_p_Page_176.QC.jpg
feeb50bd7bbbc3caaedfe6bd6bb14720
ae2d2dc64c580784b9f6e6a83a51bfe735cba43e
112161 F20110410_AAAMJT alter_p_Page_111.jp2
5ceba94263e01b648c6c9ca3ef19d855
fce288e0f1014c72ec505bdfbafe260f1d0ac738
64403 F20110410_AAAMKH alter_p_Page_125.jp2
26cb9c4fa410df5467e429c0cebbb4ab
f4c1037e1fb41d8e628645b1bde461404093a296
23077 F20110410_AAANNK alter_p_Page_137.QC.jpg
b1fb8d1921add6b18679a455f8791e5e
e20fdc363426673d1b8c658c8494cda0eca6abcc
27040 F20110410_AAANMW alter_p_Page_163.QC.jpg
90f1c430cc289ea96e43da5102c459ae
9248b0d79117eb9363fd6a04c88285de37bb1468
113551 F20110410_AAAMKI alter_p_Page_126.jp2
6ad42ce1e5bb4d6f239c397c2b91ca21
969bb492ee93698a33a17871cfb370e8f2654999
110171 F20110410_AAAMJU alter_p_Page_112.jp2
6e66511be7f44bc10a617f6c675e86b3
4b5e72ac4bb8a51dd881530cfaea599378797429
550 F20110410_AAANOA alter_p_Page_002thm.jpg
57e8cabfca12bf65f99de0726b3eb200
e98837311762af32ab4c12199fc86574fa82d90d
26559 F20110410_AAANNL alter_p_Page_150.QC.jpg
d7ae226e2d678c325fe5c5daf732b626
ec2123072b09065019d68b4d62d146c52b210b1e
5849 F20110410_AAANMX alter_p_Page_057thm.jpg
abb0ac0ae18cb2cc7f99db78cfef4080
6c8b7a125f734c4954f5ba21c3863728554d97c3
73331 F20110410_AAAMKJ alter_p_Page_127.jp2
d4921e0f86cea2dbff8eb4b131831201
26272ab7b8ad27b1c3ab72260e9ae8a13655bad8
107377 F20110410_AAAMJV alter_p_Page_113.jp2
d5de316a2d5ea75bf9c104c7d0d91778
dbe413a81e5527016a984cea22fec0176b8dd6db
6033 F20110410_AAANOB alter_p_Page_085thm.jpg
1fd322c2f31f15ee090abb4be0614e86
07978bbcaa939a0c697cdece0d82d1d4a6f5f8e3
23195 F20110410_AAANNM alter_p_Page_131.QC.jpg
421c44e0486322ab82ac1df4f57bc1fc
18200d61cf2f5325e83cdb61284f76cf25b0a68a
26552 F20110410_AAANMY alter_p_Page_134.QC.jpg
7de1f705a25166aef0c64df21288436f
c2347bd9d118858c97a3a8b6be0f42ad711ba804
54230 F20110410_AAAMKK alter_p_Page_128.jp2
318cfb53dea03aae6cc95249492f3f80
bc76e7fdb808941f24cd728faca6c47b7b17cd49
104827 F20110410_AAAMJW alter_p_Page_114.jp2
6690256517621f0feb517e271fa2ec88
386743b006b461501f3de4c163abcaa2836d2c00
23732 F20110410_AAANOC alter_p_Page_130.QC.jpg
b04eac6042609f2af6e2e8ad66b7213f
8931c1a330debc2133d35449ff16a36040d9daf8
25280 F20110410_AAANNN alter_p_Page_019.QC.jpg
8a32995632641a482d241256380d08fb
a8134213a59b310dc36f8e94ffd7fbf68eb140e4
20517 F20110410_AAANMZ alter_p_Page_181.QC.jpg
ad4034b31139b8bccc5c779b6eed8f5c
efc0a4234f30439e48704e2708c9d0b8a935a7f2
108854 F20110410_AAAMLA alter_p_Page_144.jp2
056b5698b789ab838ac40d0cb78e84e4
8bd6aba980810338c187b02707cfaf9881dee791
107789 F20110410_AAAMKL alter_p_Page_129.jp2
785640fc6c6635a8072ada4b3b9ecf1c
0414a18b5c536f49b5b60357a0c57e0e91f0baaf
108881 F20110410_AAAMJX alter_p_Page_115.jp2
4719496fdfe53d8e2b4dbe4ddb2f6efe
194acaa093414595b60331dfff1c24074727934d
25688 F20110410_AAANOD alter_p_Page_119.QC.jpg
11f16835addecfc962370edb1584c1aa
eb03ebe06f62e5666429a6b2f139f3cc8be22e52
6181 F20110410_AAANNO alter_p_Page_050thm.jpg
757e3a4f2eecdebcb3b888c5b31eeca7
14247f6fe01ea0def9a8314de29f03a4f25a7952
108187 F20110410_AAAMLB alter_p_Page_145.jp2
d940313552f2c4e957f9fba8e0cf6272
72655a1e404fced4e66f7217ced34acde833c812
1031635 F20110410_AAAMKM alter_p_Page_130.jp2
2e04ae19b37dbba234f45e37a9505ba5
9c431d452a81fa4badeeef0ac9cbf153f133420e
108927 F20110410_AAAMJY alter_p_Page_116.jp2
c60c4f8321c0dbab1e8c3fc8c7543c2e
15897e667b279d0ca80fd5f99f2b41aefb3ab36d
849 F20110410_AAANOE alter_p_Page_136thm.jpg
109813372730b1c3172a6c7efb9aefbf
6f62dd8bcfaed8498e00576b523596501ef27117
6325 F20110410_AAANNP alter_p_Page_135thm.jpg
65feb7ed44585daf7c033fa775635ce1
18795441c83cacbb39fdde7b5561f1d4a3db6e36
112232 F20110410_AAAMLC alter_p_Page_146.jp2
a3501bfbba3f2221cee8fb4becda5b5f
c2658e263416298d4f68cde1dd09ea9caed8d078
97058 F20110410_AAAMKN alter_p_Page_131.jp2
1b6bd397ec05f8664424c4d1296dee72
a27e6b5668b0fe8ccebdccb20828a8fd4c768b0f
105033 F20110410_AAAMJZ alter_p_Page_117.jp2
895d21bd75afa7b33bca91037f1dfb23
ab9aa82204e6800acc0826db1db3e657cbee94b4
6662 F20110410_AAANOF alter_p_Page_192thm.jpg
cf08151e7408461b688be60343c3f3ca
bef77378ab005ab3fd275e4f33274b096225c79e
6456 F20110410_AAANNQ alter_p_Page_191thm.jpg
36f5b91eab00b9c0a46e5791fbb60a15
7dca6b783c55f1e01f16f0ecf623698f122bbeaf
113379 F20110410_AAAMLD alter_p_Page_147.jp2
0f515f387165d3b9920c1e27f669a815
dc246ab68df5296645e4c662be690fe2a2d65fca
1044400 F20110410_AAAMKO alter_p_Page_132.jp2
21c7ec40258f913017585c6dbb29f38b
b1b35044bddd8e8f2764422ed7e48a58db985156
5369 F20110410_AAANOG alter_p_Page_186thm.jpg
792168b90f8a6fdb40825000beb2bf2d
7d74f400c4cc198435e3e9cfaf0189b68a8d8487
4986 F20110410_AAANNR alter_p_Page_185thm.jpg
0787a9a78fd22ee86e913b8dfccabb0d
4badcab1bebd62a0cd50ef5d1aa4e1e7800c7ee3
114771 F20110410_AAAMLE alter_p_Page_148.jp2
88004d3aebfdb0a9d0ee76ad984fa555
27c4d2be35c3f87e3e7b58df57b24fd09106526e
924335 F20110410_AAAMKP alter_p_Page_133.jp2
b858128000570fa57101610930ab6c80
aa25212c4b55a09d637317eab76d051410b6b81d
6220 F20110410_AAANOH alter_p_Page_195thm.jpg
048392c29a16bc05790bccda2785465d
18dd94c78ba321f98bfe39d852ff9315f941f1bc
20500 F20110410_AAANNS alter_p_Page_006.QC.jpg
da66ba5ff12684b8324a135e012ec1da
6eaa565ce333dc3f911f119f02601d8f48f85211
109696 F20110410_AAAMLF alter_p_Page_149.jp2
e8f1e9302b7d5add819df55bb825f053
db46447d2797d3a5f40f127ca90b10c8fe93e3e7
109054 F20110410_AAAMKQ alter_p_Page_134.jp2
0ce320da2737d1709296e6f41f5de328
9995aaf054ac2491f584eec3e49a71bd2e3ad210
26819 F20110410_AAANOI alter_p_Page_154.QC.jpg
c20177ef6a66648f1eb7b2fd437d0763
6c4af0a499b70dbd452002beedea0f990667ffe7
6212 F20110410_AAANNT alter_p_Page_023thm.jpg
bf227dbd6e5dab4ecfdf8b0c9b39daaa
3bb55dfb3b4c8b278d4315f02922483e91b76b25
113665 F20110410_AAAMLG alter_p_Page_150.jp2
9b3097d00a2ed25405b1d66af70af316
3bc5736e7af8540c4beed87a1f464aa865f3bedf
111467 F20110410_AAAMKR alter_p_Page_135.jp2
901e37ceeb1d61d316feaf0e8faa2ba7
cd6ec1f893630a5da8bc5f8b10eb2eeecf245fa6
24678 F20110410_AAANNU alter_p_Page_034.QC.jpg
bca802be659b99cb6749632f65c2351e
cb6eead2f612bbefca90bf3d45e70fcb6a7c70a7
11183 F20110410_AAAMKS alter_p_Page_136.jp2
589860a6b371b11d3addb82181255487
918637930e1600443e352d97ebaac2538ee90fb0
27584 F20110410_AAANOJ alter_p_Page_037.QC.jpg
aef485e7ac16407fd99d20d0606db0cc
9df9314dd276c1909c9f63226647ee25c1833786
6207 F20110410_AAANNV alter_p_Page_017thm.jpg
71f3491c43beefed38932e08372da6b4
d3599f20f1c874cceaa46742d9e8ff87b7f954eb
112474 F20110410_AAAMLH alter_p_Page_151.jp2
48ea5bb4ed582a793ad7d08476c5c69c
698fefe54c6af41058b712ddc881d70b8945ec4f
98370 F20110410_AAAMKT alter_p_Page_137.jp2
3ef27cb5a705ba4aecd89ada885deb3d
af939e7400dfe987be8882281cb661be56687fde
5176 F20110410_AAANOK alter_p_Page_127thm.jpg
3091ca955a46fb454905cbb3e37650ec
a649d3f8f634407ac6f0e821c29577ec9093480f
5846 F20110410_AAANNW alter_p_Page_190thm.jpg
960da09c2daaa2f29248fa326ea73ab9
8ed0f45b91bfce83e371c7715c0b12e0ca0a96cc
109411 F20110410_AAAMLI alter_p_Page_152.jp2
1edf110b7e6ccfa4e2b2184d38006106
882a4a7761e03eee104803c67e35c852ff378be6
111165 F20110410_AAAMKU alter_p_Page_138.jp2
e6088b0ff9640e7ac7e3f31fed7b6219
75cb2d08101adce22c38ba11e3f82dc2ff5d8405
6139 F20110410_AAANPA alter_p_Page_029thm.jpg
abf17d462b82c4fe8217ba096f013029
e8df3834a0d0f458a4e333547c2c91bfd8743b9f
6300 F20110410_AAANOL alter_p_Page_098thm.jpg
d51143654d2475ea6b5dbfd74592823b
cf2a1411c1c946779d40c3a5b3a4fafd02f309f1
1609 F20110410_AAANNX alter_p_Page_166.QC.jpg
bf4f50ab8db0062cbb4dec1d86798076
19fc9f10e7719f87cf2e186c72174f2a8138c806
110443 F20110410_AAAMLJ alter_p_Page_153.jp2
5f0ef328c2349d12b69100f9dbd94363
95adc5a5493ffbbe33451510cd0f5e7604b36470
109338 F20110410_AAAMKV alter_p_Page_139.jp2
dd37855c2107e98e2eb42aa8821556b7
5692232ca0dca9b53c97d185f10fb1c9656301bf
6317 F20110410_AAANPB alter_p_Page_051thm.jpg
e284c9fd4249a1c9e35e64f8ed0fbc63
a8dae74b0964a6c0446e7ae3ff2cba7fb38ab2b6
6055 F20110410_AAANOM alter_p_Page_043thm.jpg
391e972e946b29b5422d985f170e0079
551401f334e2ae13af4173fd1488bde0410ed81d
25387 F20110410_AAANNY alter_p_Page_046.QC.jpg
273461b5ce359e0589f898a6558c2754
0907fc6d6f8b48e5ff62a912a0b057537e4424c7
110421 F20110410_AAAMLK alter_p_Page_154.jp2
8bf42b39b7c07f9918b6ec35d78efd3f
9ddde61152cc637def0944475509b358dbab9c21
113107 F20110410_AAAMKW alter_p_Page_140.jp2
626a11665acb79067481002886b286ed
f5a1cc7ea237880d874f7e55c8f54215b834fdc5
6346 F20110410_AAANPC alter_p_Page_150thm.jpg
beedc9b4d89010b681c8a05fff695c3d
c69563373632e8a8a9a32fd958a071a10e8550e8
6302 F20110410_AAANON alter_p_Page_118thm.jpg
013ea5063eb2b49f1207d3afd5f32110
ff96a3d5d40ba0f42f0f6e727995050b1fbbd1f4
5490 F20110410_AAANNZ alter_p_Page_123thm.jpg
89be0161ed5802f3950031671275680f
16a69f325c191335542079f885f78cf6651a323f
113588 F20110410_AAAMLL alter_p_Page_155.jp2
4d24d1995295759cce0ce1568e6f8bed
7c6e8a58646b54be47a78042742cacdb036f46dd
107884 F20110410_AAAMKX alter_p_Page_141.jp2
1b9dc348d776a4be24edfb50ed98cac9
82136432bb3364c913d9be20b5f261f5b12421e2
160797 F20110410_AAAMMA alter_p_Page_170.jp2
89cf6a43f5a07d90f4317110dddb7621
f6cafe3f90c078c1c38678571f2ff41d58a994d9
22684 F20110410_AAANPD alter_p_Page_123.QC.jpg
fd3ef5e2e51a34df990d342b3a4e093c
c3235f847e1bbf89e357f330b6a9932a4fddc448
6093 F20110410_AAANOO alter_p_Page_062thm.jpg
a4520cfbdeab819cbdea7bc407b4e0b1
f292942289cd03111732d7390909553c6d2e7da5
110369 F20110410_AAAMLM alter_p_Page_156.jp2
f8bf3d5273152db0f51b85a1fc456aa3
109c5cc8c33323c2a0fc1e6c2b711cb201b0137b
109259 F20110410_AAAMKY alter_p_Page_142.jp2
84b0363b511d8cc4b00405c0c3f1dbe8
5ed5c5343274e5a3a04054e7c3a298d5686f375b
161971 F20110410_AAAMMB alter_p_Page_171.jp2
f934300f6e42a44475ace23757030cde
931495d0245f8aa07db0c23b152ee38f3a88127d
5371 F20110410_AAANPE alter_p_Page_004.QC.jpg
c2278b47abbe6f7f40b96b0638991250
8c3102c52e2ed873361d6b0406ab94d141fefcaf
20074 F20110410_AAANOP alter_p_Page_041.QC.jpg
49fcc78a720d92d5b4b4fe33812bcb3d
5b4302baebfa2ebc19b252c82a27a02826ca98c2
103884 F20110410_AAAMLN alter_p_Page_157.jp2
7538a49347d3b8917027069100e45dc7
ecce172263a9e721c79e06a329e158a601cdd109
111595 F20110410_AAAMKZ alter_p_Page_143.jp2
1b25d978f23b16f66d854017f3f3ceca
4ea440115cec0adb06923654d98c016d0c7b3a99
98456 F20110410_AAAMMC alter_p_Page_172.jp2
78fec999ee0f58746941af4bed619cbb
70a43cba5388553fa63dda45579f66e82bbc2268
25567 F20110410_AAANPF alter_p_Page_097.QC.jpg
318a1f0d9a2da2bdd5aab7119329a7a6
cf4097a8437e4d6a937d389d80ed4a5c60e5e17c
26001 F20110410_AAANOQ alter_p_Page_013.QC.jpg
06363013aa687a0d9b53a040acbbea5d
cb772d57ebcad640a013e4af9d6410e437038667
110181 F20110410_AAAMLO alter_p_Page_158.jp2
c6d197902af098c736616c509fe2f530
a086d70009c29c3dc11753bdfed239cd5ff37d82
563168 F20110410_AAAMMD alter_p_Page_173.jp2
331837992392975e0b1da87f33f7ebdb
bc1fd6f7cc7a58da544e349f615f8ad835bd05f6
7396 F20110410_AAANPG alter_p_Page_164thm.jpg
840e4126885393bc478ed00364069280
fd189d8e7bc139724426b335e5defcc38685194b
28091 F20110410_AAANOR alter_p_Page_106.QC.jpg
15af42707e91024e2e906913e000aa06
3b43bfebd28de23b1f20a44e905ff3a78e2a9059
108843 F20110410_AAAMLP alter_p_Page_159.jp2
a81fef66b484f5fd6da5e0c05870b7a8
2d37d42c6d9844cf6aa9b10632199ba7dadd2b5a
61535 F20110410_AAAMME alter_p_Page_174.jp2
ce953a24af19c2ac8845832f64a080ef
a2593b8c21061f6d906b25ee9a609b218d8b481d
20515 F20110410_AAANPH alter_p_Page_040.QC.jpg
df0aaa62c5a1f31058f0429879a84e63
64a34cc11b6accb015f883e8b389cc9c688be16b
6400 F20110410_AAANOS alter_p_Page_036thm.jpg
745920e715caa43f8fc1b9490c3ef2d1
12f113389f97bb164e485589c0ea5ffb9cfb4076
111643 F20110410_AAAMLQ alter_p_Page_160.jp2
f0f485c0c96f29095142e3d7ea0b27a9
53799191fcf705b2ec606ff4a287bb7be17fec64
22561 F20110410_AAAMMF alter_p_Page_175.jp2
d48c94042a9348e5cc49639698427435
503020b0fdd30117470ec4be6476d3a248ad7292
5993 F20110410_AAANPI alter_p_Page_063thm.jpg
c8ec062a0bc7d6d1eee3b7526bc2fd22
b7e393244bb223fa86342326ce2eadc8b763c0e5
6278 F20110410_AAANOT alter_p_Page_064thm.jpg
b812fbb976103c459c6e1225342cb7e6
07db2110a1af7c66c79c839deb7a62ca965a8632
110351 F20110410_AAAMLR alter_p_Page_161.jp2
4564ddb160d12c8a97b12671f9aaa20d
6f920e737de1dacb5b2ce3753dbc44dac3b8c5ae
33816 F20110410_AAAMMG alter_p_Page_176.jp2
1179b4532d5f8a0ab297544ef3234844
b7d332a92f389d5fc5034e380314439eb1e3d7e9
5502 F20110410_AAANPJ alter_p_Page_182thm.jpg
fdaf783c0fbb02dfd57c607bb964f661
9c5cef56b5586acde5e039843a334adb3d2e3c21
25961 F20110410_AAANOU alter_p_Page_193.QC.jpg
b74f934a4b67c3890583dd821deb59b9
f5eb1493e378bb459c7323e4d2ad65433e5dab71
20737 F20110410_AAAMLS alter_p_Page_162.jp2
31781f686b2d59766cc4b6389ff36388
b148097dab982a1a8880a9eb852be9ebf15e5006
31444 F20110410_AAAMMH alter_p_Page_177.jp2
1d8987ffb9a2b55446eed73abc71cc75
f5c8e98b75443ac1759902f970dd4b2556a9c284
2997 F20110410_AAANOV alter_p_Page_136.QC.jpg
074d301fc0718723f147baf03143ea91
13c61d46a844fde8f4e723258daad72ef0ef2047
122497 F20110410_AAAMLT alter_p_Page_163.jp2
e5197ccce72b543c9e83e173627f57d3
4e922a5d89debe384a028063c1d150582b8f55e2
26370 F20110410_AAANPK alter_p_Page_065.QC.jpg
4bb3ec4538197484e4d193abe9a8ec86
ac0515e87907a22e3a83fe3cfb5ab514caa5266c
26509 F20110410_AAANOW alter_p_Page_139.QC.jpg
b2ed4049584b3287d9d78c6b88d3798f
806cf69174a5c3a02888dfde0185e37ab0fcfaaa
195196 F20110410_AAAMLU alter_p_Page_164.jp2
a71868aae858fb994c6e5310366ed680
1b47b7fd5f0ce105b3bbf05f5e5c640e229461e0
54193 F20110410_AAAMMI alter_p_Page_178.jp2
c16be4763bb0ee51fcddfea44c50a244
5a95198c42425ceb4f2115c8476e87af32dac17b
26221 F20110410_AAANQA alter_p_Page_161.QC.jpg
0ae6fd625e2fd6fcf12e6925195bade9
9d70855ac4934508bcb0ae07d0b7f6d19a540df5
19551 F20110410_AAANPL alter_p_Page_054.QC.jpg
71a0b10891ff5cf4cfa9e48ecf792fde
e908eccd9b02f0eaaf5cd1e92ea1b01263c1930b
6326 F20110410_AAANOX alter_p_Page_075thm.jpg
77b406459484e8e0bb1ae9977567ef41
9c723bbaed7848b7382d1f83f36cc2e814eb0379
133154 F20110410_AAAMLV alter_p_Page_165.jp2
777aac2f80068a6f2e5691e1a1a32edf
30cc8ad9471ddd8db6646cd3e61b35071fe56ba4
54222 F20110410_AAAMMJ alter_p_Page_179.jp2
67356908fc96c8e5564f329d04bf32c7
27ea0dd43bf23fb15376c9ea5fb638e8321f6a2f
20460 F20110410_AAANQB alter_p_Page_010.QC.jpg
15ee692ffc9299954ecd47398ad1a2d2
4488f47312a1ead2c8905dc58a4cbe1561fa1473
25198 F20110410_AAANPM alter_p_Page_145.QC.jpg
d0e45b2d2691c82f6ede148d1aff9c1a
c9c14de5787a2b496aa7ba51846d05d0e70cf427
5372 F20110410_AAANOY alter_p_Page_181thm.jpg
bafb6804c6435da532e8779af1c199b6
3153e8bec969ec51ea04edb5e3f0255c70b81d74
5928 F20110410_AAAMLW alter_p_Page_166.jp2
aa10a6f6778b6a3aa73c586ae10246ea
45fdb94202a2043253ee580e026005df12dd67aa
72342 F20110410_AAAMMK alter_p_Page_180.jp2
046b582db95795cb1f60b07a6d903bce
9992263337cd2159356c452eddeefab9147ce6c2
23449 F20110410_AAANQC alter_p_Page_200.QC.jpg
c7721120b3fad61289a2ede9b5682c69
a0510ea9487e15cb2e4c3ba24093b4f33d61ff1b
18475 F20110410_AAANPN alter_p_Page_127.QC.jpg
7f838a9bd84592d1176a75b3a1cee141
6756ddf44163dcfbddd32be03dc8601029101ecd
26082 F20110410_AAANOZ alter_p_Page_088.QC.jpg
8b2492c1c75e7ff5f388c80e4a005d3e
8b2570ffbb15b3aeb128dfeae34c1885c159db24
156434 F20110410_AAAMLX alter_p_Page_167.jp2
c0bc70c7dc42f7537b376063fd45d2de
69ab4f73e24fabfc9000086e9387d9997c374752
141801 F20110410_AAAMNA alter_p_Page_196.jp2
7a9a2f80b747d6dfa329ca891d9e48d7
8b6c70c3e7b271d2ac1d5c842077da541fbe9b78
86638 F20110410_AAAMML alter_p_Page_181.jp2
a009c79d5cd4c743cc4f7fb610bc8d92
8830f2f265d7cb1cd5c14072610f7a794c7f6961
F20110410_AAANQD alter_p_Page_197.QC.jpg
c5e3f57b4923c0cc5e1bbb29e98883a2
68cc4550950889ce1b61fd88cea41ea75f1ff2b9
5985 F20110410_AAANPO alter_p_Page_086thm.jpg
2a2f8b0c5a4c53655ca300a8e5d16d0d
10632cd98d2d7339e3d2c28fc2fae8806eeac62d
164150 F20110410_AAAMLY alter_p_Page_168.jp2
dc146b77bb83374f95626ffeeb9bef52
c68ee7d76546766de60d88e092ee3a7ad7e566a8
132126 F20110410_AAAMNB alter_p_Page_197.jp2
016d374b27a567e0626c237b6eec26f1
a81711c5133b1961cbfa94489f3a41f0e25e301f
91955 F20110410_AAAMMM alter_p_Page_182.jp2
bf657d48510f5f2aec00ac476e1ef23d
eb48413d083eee32265c8ba1cd162bbcf18b278e
4644 F20110410_AAANQE alter_p_Page_180thm.jpg
a52524d0cce9d56d70f454fae2cc61a5
bcfe8b23a72b799122095d99d15759312f3ac03e
25485 F20110410_AAANPP alter_p_Page_159.QC.jpg
be7a9d355deeeedb8190af25fda31089
f2eb396733d50e5ffac616f809896418702be329
83997 F20110410_AAAMLZ alter_p_Page_169.jp2
ffda32348d418db8c3efe4d38e75339c
6bc830f3e29ecb80f3da6fd5416cf2189d652a63
1051984 F20110410_AAAMNC alter_p_Page_198.jp2
86eb2aba0be8a872ed836933279f1427
076150c14b3871043e111acdd1f0c72137b13d03
86500 F20110410_AAAMMN alter_p_Page_183.jp2
0ee2a99da45c4ed82f0a98130768967a
b06130c1c9c345e0cb19a4a1122796c6a99660f2
5139 F20110410_AAANQF alter_p_Page_183thm.jpg
3001a6457d599485e64e0a08ab05a805
eabc644d9f5501d5cbcb8489734cb646538b37cb
22497 F20110410_AAANPQ alter_p_Page_182.QC.jpg
0ed481000cc663abe27804f19708f6c2
35fc1ea83e659552dc442af0137fa35199ff9ef6
80415 F20110410_AAAMND alter_p_Page_199.jp2
850564afd752f4737033be0d349bc60f
d729b437fac04f045ee972703136826badf12c84
60521 F20110410_AAAMMO alter_p_Page_184.jp2
37d371f895c9faf29135594f64174025
54ddc640a4fe1f7604358246d5249748a51a02cf
5334 F20110410_AAANQG alter_p_Page_069thm.jpg
3ecbb3a2578aa74249710f7f2321d9ca
f8d53d65762abd9e76ad6645fee2cf6f8f3f36a0
26297 F20110410_AAANPR alter_p_Page_048.QC.jpg
ea54352f4dffd41499038b8e4fe12bb5
7cf53c646e7c0e65b00cfe856f6cfb75468d84d0
97535 F20110410_AAAMNE alter_p_Page_200.jp2
7fd291dae2d924499224e8f485ce1128
316e23fa1d81c7d830cda724fb739cf6c8994030
74259 F20110410_AAAMMP alter_p_Page_185.jp2
3cc4f4fd0b5cdec46e3c57035713100f
b592e850cff23e7ce2468e22d59b1c02bfc850f1
6219 F20110410_AAANQH alter_p_Page_028thm.jpg
e0e110f6dcd0918762bd4693dfbec713
16161850f609067249fc761ee68d6c2c3635e6b7
6356 F20110410_AAANPS alter_p_Page_088thm.jpg
fe4a17eba731d022f44e3706a5d0a131
0ba67399802895162ff88f573eda9d5160ed0320
88935 F20110410_AAAMNF alter_p_Page_201.jp2
2183c1b93a9d5ae138e42c36756fc6cf
01034ddc91a49fc1e283acbc456f8d2f2661c254
82458 F20110410_AAAMMQ alter_p_Page_186.jp2
26666bdaf022441b099b0f8f49f81aa2
2374e58a32029f1171d69f468ab551d5661eea85
6305 F20110410_AAANQI alter_p_Page_084thm.jpg
993d4d6ad9b27b542f8534e877d4d0ac
64db9be88eee21dca565870e343ac305467a46a8
20917 F20110410_AAANPT alter_p_Page_201.QC.jpg
dc8899f4aba75167decee4e59dc5bd16
6ddf73c793b9e2797ccbb260f5a13200b0eaf9b5
F20110410_AAAMNG alter_p_Page_002.tif
f04494ae15baba1134e696396c7b1f88
74da757b54981075c382da878967fa75f45009cd
75451 F20110410_AAAMMR alter_p_Page_187.jp2
539d8d04fe3beca3dbc17963ccbf4b07
dcaa7210b95c7d890a97738d6f2ece289e1cf7aa
27275 F20110410_AAANQJ alter_p_Page_044.QC.jpg
6b9f3bb48c74a81c76b46efd6dec9dd6
b31f7c7c3809a46917dc75a2c02e3ddedc22daa9
3468 F20110410_AAANPU alter_p_Page_008thm.jpg
9822d3f18ca549027e20c76eb20f09fe
aa76b4d11b8bd68720079061887d657e764c4a0d
F20110410_AAAMNH alter_p_Page_003.tif
2d3693f6c7492161297676089270178c
5bc82fea7aa4fcca495fe355ecbebf9e70420c1a
30019 F20110410_AAAMMS alter_p_Page_188.jp2
db5ff6573b418b7fd620621ae650cd75
c0bda891a31d4e0b445a84a5e39e5ecf21d4c56d
22154 F20110410_AAANQK alter_p_Page_121.QC.jpg
30610394a70d58147c7569c2e2b924c9
ae8e76318f8d8872a325a384573a487ad555182e
555 F20110410_AAANPV alter_p_Page_166thm.jpg
7431d1b7333129b17041c8681d5a764a
5762e52cacbee21a5a216b9854572cbd51f21866
25271604 F20110410_AAAMNI alter_p_Page_005.tif
8b081f7361e4db66bad9f37b62947418
7c581d351501eb3fa8b7bb5a08c5bb9d6dc2d248
62758 F20110410_AAAMMT alter_p_Page_189.jp2
e0c73c075e3a0d0cd31efea48e2e2856
4fb958a8b35b9c41fa991361ac200eaadc5f476c
1442 F20110410_AAANPW alter_p_Page_162thm.jpg
d517dd3bd74c7197f8e9ee897396e991
c9c8810db1819acb8aba9d69b92624e7e6c18190
116194 F20110410_AAAMMU alter_p_Page_190.jp2
763e62dcee49f4c4d34484644d10c5b6
679119ded9772ed0a033a632da28975a31932d9b
6183 F20110410_AAANRA alter_p_Page_038thm.jpg
6b13e6b5f1cbb5e1a24d81045dfefa4a
f6d580875b166b2520b4245f249f182e9241d159
26203 F20110410_AAANQL alter_p_Page_074.QC.jpg
2e59e59bb8a8b5d7c8ad20243522b8df
5fd48ed0db70057e26963c799e4d2b0e288edb43
25876 F20110410_AAANPX alter_p_Page_084.QC.jpg
b991017e6f61c95ad469506070d6e757
f9ce2592990944e5b29a723ceec1e2ebb2b85437
F20110410_AAAMNJ alter_p_Page_006.tif
e82fe71527c36fd03b4f3fc1d177808f
6d96e473811fa5dfaa1daf562a691e80981c6c8a
133762 F20110410_AAAMMV alter_p_Page_191.jp2
5657aa1825806c5f51f6be31ae3e014e
aa41a20467da1d2ccf75313ed0e57d417d8c2f78
20447 F20110410_AAANRB alter_p_Page_020.QC.jpg
ff410d140933cc01c19fe9ba3f53c774
36336a527e4f2282dbc12d4f82d68ea7455560ed
11535 F20110410_AAANQM alter_p_Page_070.QC.jpg
1b6a2d8ebaa4cad951477199434db63e
fecbca0c9303f45de48a633f5c082cf88d1be736
6127 F20110410_AAANPY alter_p_Page_047thm.jpg
63ddea65a282221bb55e97c7fb6f11ac
b725d7c4c7ed029d7262b4519dd002e6dab027d0
F20110410_AAAMNK alter_p_Page_007.tif
ba31ebc1124f842382d6518b83ffecad
fc0422c1a47d37e3aed9ee40fcf039f65de6062d
140484 F20110410_AAAMMW alter_p_Page_192.jp2
e78f702e7ac76ebd468716b327f52633
380648ce4f32a93b1dd53ad95e5f7852ae1dbab5
6142 F20110410_AAANRC alter_p_Page_116thm.jpg
aab0d2ea4ad0cbd1144d9985c62c533b
8bee246631b79da530368bb0ce9f7247840fde84
26956 F20110410_AAANQN alter_p_Page_105.QC.jpg
f17195d182feb187bdade13539d99663
2a3f76dd483b08013635c092e68190834f110efe
5960 F20110410_AAANPZ alter_p_Page_082thm.jpg
68fdc896ebc4ab4e978be44ba7632b37
3dae75ce45cbfcd04ac6036d3fdc5092cad3650f
F20110410_AAAMOA alter_p_Page_024.tif
2294dab71fa03dfc417f7f17f252fec2
b31df2f60be85b7b198c436d33829087d11ad59a
F20110410_AAAMNL alter_p_Page_008.tif
6ab4155048d76170e68c60ee0ac80525
f672c8e2a9e5724281d6536c6950d99523752b71
127328 F20110410_AAAMMX alter_p_Page_193.jp2
6a6c3b55f9e75bf2a3c61cecf544ccc1
e755fba2e04bc7fe4211aa2c40fcc237dd55f620
5252 F20110410_AAANRD alter_p_Page_121thm.jpg
9628a8a56551cbeb7aeefd6ae5f5a22d
a0278acc58f93ce9c653ee6f8f4fb7e0e783ab32
6375 F20110410_AAANQO alter_p_Page_027thm.jpg
7da50216f65c51baa26e8171428d0015
af6d6fac458a6e74509373f7183f50dfad83b33c
F20110410_AAAMOB alter_p_Page_025.tif
0c8236c8002c128f3de1734aaa2b0624
1a72cc80e9e0c7126a97262314f727ee6d372694
F20110410_AAAMNM alter_p_Page_009.tif
4b376637b39f5d65e7eef56205852f6f
d821d6220e5a122c77389827f8cd320e68f4e068
126981 F20110410_AAAMMY alter_p_Page_194.jp2
6e58066a530ce5f5d94109525a4520ad
e34b1628cf8f0be9e7aa49d6d19e20b8e93b5950
24892 F20110410_AAANRE alter_p_Page_066.QC.jpg
3f00bd7136286fc1275e86b3d841c853
333eb9c39be1e987d859162816bc230a5abaab0b
6065 F20110410_AAANQP alter_p_Page_110thm.jpg
31f366fdb3e9ecdba236cb1f092ff9e1
8da9f3c8e6cfab1631d9b24ae0c100b016d0f0af
F20110410_AAAMOC alter_p_Page_026.tif
64251420e81aff45a6487b147bf23c2e
a1b54c3aa891241600779c4e221f186d37c7c708
F20110410_AAAMNN alter_p_Page_010.tif
092f952fe85199fd87e86c972e819ee1
795f41a2751471f24d7159cebc1bc74c7caaaf19
128472 F20110410_AAAMMZ alter_p_Page_195.jp2
7525a2216f0fcd161795335041a4cf97
5b53a216772f1cc5fb23862f17e403ceb6b00862
10106 F20110410_AAANRF alter_p_Page_120.QC.jpg
2dc70883d49f6f087e88a0ec360265e5
65b98d1b2c575956b8ed9bbc816497dfb95f9a41
5999 F20110410_AAANQQ alter_p_Page_080thm.jpg
8024e87d2fa15603df120d3d648d95b1
0b7c067dc49bb466f607375349c58e8699f2aea7
F20110410_AAAMOD alter_p_Page_027.tif
c0d8308241a25cb73a1fbd0a686cec25
b26b79131f65942362922bcb97ab6e1d736c31ad
F20110410_AAAMNO alter_p_Page_011.tif
7235f508ea96121d6648d543e9caf103
026d4b0a2b1c86233268c85a4a7998181bca9625
4565 F20110410_AAANRG alter_p_Page_189thm.jpg
c58fb09d6e18c8ef01b7059017a2bd7d
c749e508cf90e35269383c67418aaed771cd899f
25340 F20110410_AAANQR alter_p_Page_116.QC.jpg
0be8ac3c1feec745bd49fd306c91cb51
1aafe35bd4c4fb2c1f7e1871a5c158470edb984e
F20110410_AAAMOE alter_p_Page_028.tif
a628be56159f98bbcc556618028ab3a0
1b7f9c30a69e1807ec420b88efb6d25232459221
F20110410_AAAMNP alter_p_Page_012.tif
812bb0b5a96ef023b0d7f589f36ce8a7
2ea27c5ab97db00258e7b4c9263b9ef29218b317
6144 F20110410_AAANRH alter_p_Page_042thm.jpg
66608ca7b19cc76ab9c40c4ebca6541d
6b96286d6de532c49ff55617ba08a611db03f993
F20110410_AAANQS alter_p_Page_032thm.jpg
989f72e6163564b501e53eb7626042d1
bd63014a7b947a9f93580359c7fbfd4ce65d3ba7
F20110410_AAAMOF alter_p_Page_029.tif
58b8f4023f3cc496e8fd32770ebd79b0
4d31a5f7908facaf84f595978a7bf1c51bc91bfc
F20110410_AAAMNQ alter_p_Page_013.tif
2b9afff08cc7e0af0810f3fdc6bf9833
7640aeb586f18a55f17482d97471b97704502e94
5971 F20110410_AAANRI alter_p_Page_107thm.jpg
d646c581fee7a92a22fdff975a1fe220
8b22332372cc4ac16606d50d63b40f805bf4a89f
23642 F20110410_AAANQT alter_p_Page_021.QC.jpg
6820417c7bb074244173772a7d926e5b
1b44d34260c11b077fa3753d9592d6d0d83eeea2
F20110410_AAAMOG alter_p_Page_030.tif
ab6b3219d1a2a6a48ccd703132de4174
30bdce6b94046d79a32bf0ddfc2bd8db309a0196
F20110410_AAAMNR alter_p_Page_014.tif
fa22f45c13cb9f707d696fb7aa90d8dc
aab7de9a3719e634e3a8cbce4be20079ace8a45d
28123 F20110410_AAANRJ alter_p_Page_196.QC.jpg
fe56e415fe5139b68c6f5d00d4f8c2d7
d531217cff71a9cbbc090dd10b20f0830d065dee
6155 F20110410_AAANQU alter_p_Page_018thm.jpg
7bce31bb2df6931c8a9376ce14e80ceb
0653616476727a965416497dfe40a1932af2c3d0
F20110410_AAAMOH alter_p_Page_031.tif
668dbc73a6e2dde520073c7f048e3455
c10d266aaa987e0456e5082c516f9d881d53f772
F20110410_AAAMNS alter_p_Page_015.tif
e51fd81bb5eb06f6711755dc60314a12
28f8dbd32d8b61612fdf98bc1fbbed932641b842
4950 F20110410_AAANRK alter_p_Page_010thm.jpg
d60ac029e03f3f6b221d13ded39c3884
31ffa149adfc522006685a86edcc1f92574a58c5
5557 F20110410_AAANQV alter_p_Page_041thm.jpg
a4c45073ac8156b7a77841df3b3dbd16
319c688c7e3e52b1bb42cbe5d39503b56f5de65d
F20110410_AAAMOI alter_p_Page_032.tif
9b326fa347c0d3fe057a0983c3ee984c
8becb3e6f102975418251d06fbf729141e38cf92
F20110410_AAAMNT alter_p_Page_017.tif
5158439e98ead8e843ef4b6e7cbb264b
25080a02f781ab6cb3fe8c2abf79cbbc82faa84f
26488 F20110410_AAANRL alter_p_Page_109.QC.jpg
faf0b553e52523159fe243536fc17f4f
a52967419c206287d588d67d1fb82182df6fb28b
25288 F20110410_AAANQW alter_p_Page_095.QC.jpg
0ab0fe17a835e426a46f1a93026348b7
01ef845659e34a58e509a2129521f37ef4acadde
F20110410_AAAMOJ alter_p_Page_033.tif
c1f26ddf53220458494ab00392e70eb2
e6ca3c6a51fc4fba65ebc4d14a92831b4f1cef69
F20110410_AAAMNU alter_p_Page_018.tif
54d0db83461191fd528207de356d5f95
18d3319995378591bd83bf30a27f3d8481ea1442
6180 F20110410_AAANSA alter_p_Page_081thm.jpg
f46659e7731704fbb0230bcd50d02f9d
85e931a4534c1de00b3454e208daee89aa3f99b0
6477 F20110410_AAANQX alter_p_Page_115thm.jpg
c86f936e35470a8d8979a805491f7442
0c882422339f0afe3ef7004cd0ce254ec2a838be
F20110410_AAAMNV alter_p_Page_019.tif
70917be73f7003691e2f7272db1057f3
53fcd7588bdcb9bc1876b39fbc0c5e8ce327c390
14436 F20110410_AAANSB alter_p_Page_184.QC.jpg
a9ac3b614c699c54d43c823bc4df6f95
fd6fd398d5806c657ff180c0bae8bdd55da7e1d8
1748 F20110410_AAANRM alter_p_Page_073thm.jpg
08706abbf587e54020b9b0323a7a41ea
19cf3e283519d39ff278e0694bca6dcdcd8fec7c
25837 F20110410_AAANQY alter_p_Page_160.QC.jpg
83b04c220df95ac2a1af440568abf00d
92f746b8d6048c50f0b4f0fbec5d92022bfa60f0
F20110410_AAAMOK alter_p_Page_034.tif
e44ffce5ab4805839a229c692222fda0
3e4ad4297da1da7512706240c7daf380941f9bb5
F20110410_AAAMNW alter_p_Page_020.tif
2f4093aa15db71c87fa0e4aef4ad1e41
192b783590daad878b6ecafbc878bbbcf8fd7ee7
24682 F20110410_AAANSC alter_p_Page_157.QC.jpg
20a88c2d17e188234ffaeb88a0efdc2c
3334a524f59578cad46d627f14add7a8eff6693b
F20110410_AAANRN alter_p_Page_079thm.jpg
e01affa0723eb8d72dca45efe16ecd25
cd7a014c30ac9817bc6ef09a8d4c288fe818aea3
26522 F20110410_AAANQZ alter_p_Page_153.QC.jpg
50ea38383f1e1d41740d9c4908524025
d2958d0bc9f31e1a965dabe1deae633fec57703a
F20110410_AAAMOL alter_p_Page_035.tif
16420102995f09e4ac86f70c8826cccb
b100c9928fa5559228395967dea57a21fce30d87
F20110410_AAAMNX alter_p_Page_021.tif
cf3a8c967c9afc9f274a90924a76f5de
d92d18d3fa8f6bae6a5e5fc0c03c286a1f310730
F20110410_AAAMPA alter_p_Page_050.tif
6e47f46f8bc674f6a34faf599d0e7188
5d85af761991a1470414fdd3671ff0aee7d440ff
F20110410_AAANSD alter_p_Page_102thm.jpg
13ddeb67bd7c0784a00e8e643eef01fd
d24bddd08d66a733d6575ed3cc6856933042a7b9
23401 F20110410_AAANRO alter_p_Page_100.QC.jpg
5706516ee61f4463d9ceacbc77807a2f
b0724f4986b9c22a8e7ba88ec5f81a9cfff1d0ed
F20110410_AAAMOM alter_p_Page_036.tif
62cd268c7a716a286ca6c96bb31aa4cd
77c1f5066c3bcfd13e8cd2c54e99ed563f55a1b9
F20110410_AAAMNY alter_p_Page_022.tif
3afdc90b2340093564eecfb4dbe16245
0fc962594fac359f469ee5dfbe182757ae654b8f
F20110410_AAAMPB alter_p_Page_051.tif
23fec787dd5a9d399a1f198ba4981a28
b9f545e94717a9d8a1abf8ee610065ffff9e3c31
6264 F20110410_AAANSE alter_p_Page_065thm.jpg
0fd8c8d95f3227f1f06351cea0469437
d3c02573dfdf78f7b28268a3be6f850bfe4f4801
5565 F20110410_AAANRP alter_p_Page_100thm.jpg
2aef2b0f74225c9716acd618ce6743ed
39811fd054f8902dae520fb128d78bfee627e774
F20110410_AAAMON alter_p_Page_037.tif
cda95966bbae7666955cd6401ca6787b
e1732196f4013abe3b30525b0a2ab4e1c6ed41fb
F20110410_AAAMNZ alter_p_Page_023.tif
9b80c0842c9f4ab8174e0a6aa2c9f353
dec87d71ff2916f4b6c2f224e60403805ec24af6
F20110410_AAAMPC alter_p_Page_052.tif
ed8f0ef9656464e72282d5f15cffceab
d53817f4dce65c1da596ea6dcf0a93a248a48421
8064 F20110410_AAANSF alter_p_Page_001.QC.jpg
bd67899628241e33e11291df266327cc
266631f14018b821726626d5150784bc84f5aa33
F20110410_AAANRQ alter_p_Page_125thm.jpg
8abd79d51b8e0b63f61e7ec25539ff13
f967d0f4485fde244c13942ddd1757550f5a41f8
F20110410_AAAMOO alter_p_Page_038.tif
41a45738f34194a8fc93976af62c3362
cdb21f0c79ce58c65c212806d6dc23fb5bdc9b42
F20110410_AAAMPD alter_p_Page_053.tif
6c18dc4d03f1bf174c7d21efaea4ef9f
afbb4f7c45002ba4c8904184eb51ca0b46e9e2ac
4128 F20110410_AAANSG alter_p_Page_173thm.jpg
a0121e7a07ce67010312d1e9317d097e
85cbc94c16c3540403e872addd6c2e6763c0a56b
19231 F20110410_AAANRR alter_p_Page_011.QC.jpg
36090501f909a5de7eae1cd031ff75b1
5fcd1c2fc17d3eac4baaab4067b86726fbf7a5f4
F20110410_AAAMOP alter_p_Page_039.tif
00c005c8bebc8426c25cdbec92c1e873
7a7d5f223db9981a379c9625727a2fdcf54b4b14
F20110410_AAAMPE alter_p_Page_054.tif
ab3bccd6b38f02aafd7b351ab2c8d72c
2c9618b39dd4b77d45b87207c4127ecec5a24d99
5902 F20110410_AAANSH alter_p_Page_095thm.jpg
73414d8f788bd16b2347890c66cab982
a98f0542220784b6902f6c13f4e36495dae223e9
25896 F20110410_AAANRS alter_p_Page_078.QC.jpg
c618530ef39abd7889e0bae9b18723be
914eebf1b0fd118f2b357ec827ae2c4cb2d9ad0d
8423998 F20110410_AAAMOQ alter_p_Page_040.tif
2bca4d2dc4d79c5c276412c5e7feae5c
b6fb4042b7a243f894526ce2de591cb81e0c1be2
F20110410_AAAMPF alter_p_Page_055.tif
404c24b15a4179db5397d563ad3cba57
933033f0266246d10b601a86a111ae1fcc530fd0
5895 F20110410_AAANSI alter_p_Page_040thm.jpg
e609e2ac7196248ba3fce5060d222980
8f921ab0a6b4f81e49189b04d2d566718a67b9bd
14749 F20110410_AAANRT alter_p_Page_128.QC.jpg
89bbcb58936f52058ba3384ede8e3ffb
9a2155b9817763ab124184c245f4d6dff924ba4e
F20110410_AAAMPG alter_p_Page_056.tif
14e3b6eb3c3a0189f9202b08c827b2f5
30c76aa103faad5b280f3f3c72fcd157b91f4660
F20110410_AAAMOR alter_p_Page_041.tif
a8cc28b9cfd9306c58ea474282be5655
82445679cc5114b5749cd570326dabe9eb19480e
4606 F20110410_AAANSJ alter_p_Page_020thm.jpg
bc653616b89704487ed5aa60d13dd0db
a2e65c5da0daf8edc6c250da40a60967b104d9c5
6060 F20110410_AAANRU alter_p_Page_077thm.jpg
0a44255411f862b180545aa751eda4da
4e351f2c3ce2ba20f91404f567d9894d20723eae
F20110410_AAAMPH alter_p_Page_057.tif
5eafea9102ab4fc266c3354321dcaa45
c5ba9ce20b53c35429ce0dca76c5dd11796366c3
F20110410_AAAMOS alter_p_Page_042.tif
fc52b3b3d6f12e878f4c9ef260edbb24
a00de5aad614ef8e71f6677af44a07edc719febb
13580 F20110410_AAANSK alter_p_Page_008.QC.jpg
023a76140cf9284a95718556d9e91a91
45335b4923e36951bc11311a3771a32526f31b95
4538 F20110410_AAANRV alter_p_Page_169thm.jpg
c9ca784af94e51cecacef3326340e085
c36ccd9b10984f02dfc4d2367fd2190d8173cd09
F20110410_AAAMPI alter_p_Page_058.tif
d69e299c971ffc21a4cd59d3907b7bf4
f4a60a29f77cb45774437424c17be0be91b51011
F20110410_AAAMOT alter_p_Page_043.tif
ba7eca0a6779aec317ff943275880598
6db34409f81963cf0ac7ad26854d468a3bddbdd3
322212 F20110410_AAANSL UFE0015410_00001.xml
ceea8386d5489561d7b4508f85b1b912
e666c4ec3fba5cb5b7c215d18e93e28912e6efb1
alter_p_Page_001.tif
21709 F20110410_AAANRW alter_p_Page_096.QC.jpg
0d28d535b4363cead03779e13a4536fb
0b2a63ebf934d5a731b4bf1166288013717661b7
F20110410_AAAMPJ alter_p_Page_059.tif
f68ec3290bb8f877e98460462cc0d472
bfea995317ada73fa5ac35be5e63c1a31255c232
F20110410_AAAMOU alter_p_Page_044.tif
fe928ea67b4614a801d55aef58dc6fd7
b9377d73959a68c5b6da19adbf9d653481ca1d67
26877 F20110410_AAANTA alter_p_Page_036.QC.jpg
602c14fcd9d540551f4ca9a03f1cbc36
353e991a36dd01dfe60ca124da67edfb5424af0e
18524 F20110410_AAANSM alter_p_Page_005.QC.jpg
5d7a2e07bd772fdba719730713347a9b
773767deec1f8f3d31455983f20234506b1123e0
25763 F20110410_AAANRX alter_p_Page_092.QC.jpg
ccc2cc160589c8a2e3d4edc767919ecf
e33644865e4369b02f3790b12282d59400289b4c
F20110410_AAAMPK alter_p_Page_060.tif
dd5848d512bf62b4fa9baa851b621514
5d4c69b2e202cf46c81f8ddc8dba911b3954c302
F20110410_AAAMOV alter_p_Page_045.tif
c8c074999a5ed17d29b73eb4a6c453fb
6d72a1796db72b8d32952e7713e02ca62c19c558
21614 F20110410_AAANTB alter_p_Page_039.QC.jpg
4b0d9a691c4f72943ae873f4d7d5e872
c77de6f38a8b55573f53b19ab1507bae4e6cdd3f
5982 F20110410_AAANRY alter_p_Page_014thm.jpg
0f57dc4faebb577cf2749cf9452d8fcd
42d2f6823b1f3f047790069beb85b222d736a0c4
F20110410_AAAMOW alter_p_Page_046.tif
00b9734b1d2b09e0f8590a9cfce9b295
ef844b4a5f6386893d3fe843e453d6f5594f9e53
25608 F20110410_AAANTC alter_p_Page_042.QC.jpg
4d03445e6add8f1942566db487808dcd
dc5a7fbd9725f0ee1a97f9ecc21c7f906425752d
13445 F20110410_AAANSN alter_p_Page_007.QC.jpg
0f0f25de63f68a099f4d090a53422206
a6160326d27d308958da863ca84c9c1c2b163ffa
25428 F20110410_AAANRZ alter_p_Page_081.QC.jpg
fd259dae21df7f9283f5075d84f2cd1b
5cb618328073b9eda7ffd3101c0aca2052933f7d
F20110410_AAAMQA alter_p_Page_076.tif
ac1fb90876d0abd0b2d83d7d59ab5b15
e264f0c321e27c67ab0fc48992c21498a3b04687
F20110410_AAAMPL alter_p_Page_061.tif
2a41d777be7b3fe0e7b3ddbd4f599da6
f25f2623dbe7feb965ad6ac35d3453a82e1f722f
F20110410_AAAMOX alter_p_Page_047.tif
61a4d5cd54884f2e860e1bd584044555
2d81101adc045f9f4a5a96762d542d1c4ccf0158
25353 F20110410_AAANTD alter_p_Page_043.QC.jpg
bf94afef285fc0dfb18e88cfa93ab0d0
12b8c4a1327e008a83dc12481a66737e1ef90142
21862 F20110410_AAANSO alter_p_Page_012.QC.jpg
207aeb293b189cfb2dbf8b76d133863c
98bbcc7bbee60aeb638e74ef2b2f7f89a9eb0b29
F20110410_AAAMQB alter_p_Page_077.tif
638bce14aefe8c335af28961dfe7ba55
f85dd0b82511667f1f4a35362f993e1e2f4f4deb
F20110410_AAAMPM alter_p_Page_062.tif
0d80fea68dde4e1d53c67b557026d90c
f4ddd997487b799012649c3e08057db5cba4e3b9
F20110410_AAAMOY alter_p_Page_048.tif
448e7149bb8cc7dc4d1988b0ce99ff13
df9b01edd3a53b3fa7ef4b95723bd11e52a60a3b
25260 F20110410_AAANTE alter_p_Page_045.QC.jpg
eaf8272587891648336169920f60bf5f
43197f437e3249dd06d11ea8acac5a134f44f91e
25899 F20110410_AAANSP alter_p_Page_015.QC.jpg
f54669841c43b66c2cc4648c93e25be9
abd212a02ede6faaa6d592a9324281d8f55a9fed
F20110410_AAAMQC alter_p_Page_078.tif
7c540032d2b8230b8dfca345b5629703
cad41d928f1b1c83e7589ce72b77366d67edfbd3
F20110410_AAAMPN alter_p_Page_063.tif
37668bd27a0688da2ed64c98cc24420e
761cc4a117740fcd6e701256cf444ebcd249e5f9
F20110410_AAAMOZ alter_p_Page_049.tif
659645827d96227d6060261177d3f046
ed6feabdb7cc2a722f8b23c1559cbb47a68ea6e1
26534 F20110410_AAANTF alter_p_Page_049.QC.jpg
89735ca2fb99bb871baaa61e959fa83d
7e88ce52931d0d228419f09d589ecc73d0baafd9
26135 F20110410_AAANSQ alter_p_Page_017.QC.jpg
05a7ee11baf8f724e2e43571fb374ee5
5b65d7dbd3adfe5258d8c81cc1890aff8ad43d66
F20110410_AAAMQD alter_p_Page_079.tif
3f0c32d3b5e52a2879141cbbc27b9577
fc592f28d2b7f60fa90050975b72b6d4a6149c87
F20110410_AAAMPO alter_p_Page_064.tif
63eb43ed822063a0da6a560e80ba6165
0067363eeb21d95c7ff0a7d6fb8f16313c8dfee7
27087 F20110410_AAANTG alter_p_Page_050.QC.jpg
93807015c5b1b5f54659af5492e055b0
f41de5d8fe8ef1b4b59a7d85c2d3b98a47ff23f3
25143 F20110410_AAANSR alter_p_Page_018.QC.jpg
3d320f569fa8bcd8c550a006704400de
bbda84deed3919b0991fed65117bb547b90e24c3
F20110410_AAAMQE alter_p_Page_080.tif
28198d550cdf9951bedeca0bdedfbc67
e00cacc8a0ca81af02210416db16aa6634c17959
F20110410_AAAMPP alter_p_Page_065.tif
6457f44cf7b75a67cf54163f0cdc0379
06961a9deb1b410853f74715237131489a99e549
22617 F20110410_AAANTH alter_p_Page_055.QC.jpg
3c2f8cebf17fddfc140e044b55e4c947
853192b50378357dc12a5fa196ce5afb94b3c3e5
26303 F20110410_AAANSS alter_p_Page_022.QC.jpg
e2fb70ede1d7f78de5936d6e520c0fa9
5e7c9c14ebb5c088f70505182743aea37e122001
F20110410_AAAMQF alter_p_Page_081.tif
02db39e9557e393473e5677308d40395
7156e1e7287ef8fa48e756ea2692522e1f573684
F20110410_AAAMPQ alter_p_Page_066.tif
18dcd1cd2000e2390aacec102b03bc0d
7738cae73d9f04322610d8d75ecf885b0fa0d97d
23819 F20110410_AAANTI alter_p_Page_057.QC.jpg
f099bccce51c02f947b49a862925f3d8
e02a75fd585283781e8441c062639d66aecb0adc
27212 F20110410_AAANST alter_p_Page_023.QC.jpg
3ecd928df06c460120a8fffedee16540
86036f4f5384026ed074cceeddc26d16365eedd7
F20110410_AAAMQG alter_p_Page_082.tif
630a72ef17c80745b0e4c7c7a497beea
24f6947b25b5aed740f9a9898b5e35624e42d825
F20110410_AAAMPR alter_p_Page_067.tif
febb5019eb2810cfb26f24c297066072
75f36f501f3ec7cedfc50d52facaf5689cff0342
26059 F20110410_AAANTJ alter_p_Page_058.QC.jpg
02daa515a304f8a3621601e890f24c02
add12797cd84d3d2918baf2e416c0291bfa7acd4
25980 F20110410_AAANSU alter_p_Page_024.QC.jpg
815dd604f8639876d00ab6bb6c6f6fa6
85e7b05f73d31c2d69242718114317c59d0d729e
F20110410_AAAMQH alter_p_Page_083.tif
19dca0b3166f9d4c7dbbfa19bd661f67
428fcae01c0f0549cb34c794c80587f595afc89e
F20110410_AAAMPS alter_p_Page_068.tif
752fd32f692f554df6ede1151d624c07
1f2288f9abb284088870a8a5fefd8fee8a3dd1d5
25933 F20110410_AAANTK alter_p_Page_060.QC.jpg
21a50616781e09215cc4e19b08b09063
4d27d469ace812839bb8a4d325554b549a27b396
25117 F20110410_AAANSV alter_p_Page_025.QC.jpg
8beb8708df81292463bde9d81cf70350
be7fe23a23a8636ca630696e931610700f4c7320
F20110410_AAAMQI alter_p_Page_085.tif
9c06580f2e7e267e978baf0c5e9ec767
c50b41d7e1a77abedd68750c50285322881ab226
F20110410_AAAMPT alter_p_Page_069.tif
13b6c2da57f4e06e14c19f7250056089
6a633c1f68194a3143d4ea988f1f1d7f6ce10d12
27095 F20110410_AAANTL alter_p_Page_061.QC.jpg
064baceafbf67fd39b560d157161690b
3ecf948499870b9feec7ce48f1ef9439dab47e5e
24646 F20110410_AAANSW alter_p_Page_029.QC.jpg
4719b538a03bb12357f84d46a4e56cc2
df5109b76342df5091abd08195f8ffa6e95a804e
F20110410_AAAMQJ alter_p_Page_086.tif
0a54b9b130428f48d5e273bd9731d340
196e30b29d641261f12b9521e508b0a036507f50
8425398 F20110410_AAAMPU alter_p_Page_070.tif
f3af2f88ee37529f0d9a18e0a3faa4a2
49a5db53a78656b5067e9a78a3380d501fb2b1dc
27156 F20110410_AAANUA alter_p_Page_091.QC.jpg
109137c816eb592df5a782a5817eff8f
25500e10b6d45c64ee9cd11e9a33753ec086bbbf
25630 F20110410_AAANTM alter_p_Page_062.QC.jpg
c9dfc9e392fe6752309bb37500490e53
5e6cc6eae3102e05c76dc410f4bda1099e199753
25132 F20110410_AAANSX alter_p_Page_031.QC.jpg
21955840487953f72b3d63c76d30029d
9104094f062e9107d329d17393cdb7ee964de5ea
F20110410_AAAMQK alter_p_Page_087.tif
941283d530bb94517edd16150863819e
94ee431f85d4394074aa67f59aec7d128bc0591f
F20110410_AAAMPV alter_p_Page_071.tif
5c59faacb674f84e7cc5e5819179d3d2
c6fa939e2e4f9a8511a97d5917450f534bdb373f
26705 F20110410_AAANUB alter_p_Page_093.QC.jpg
9cc854daca17d00022eb0b841aeddfb7
627418b2adba3040cd9c0717dfa5253a31e059b6
26201 F20110410_AAANTN alter_p_Page_063.QC.jpg
893ee5ee9f185a4a7b13a27d3092970f
8c7304297e89ca8b439d582618ab4b96fc2fe863
F20110410_AAANSY alter_p_Page_033.QC.jpg
665c56a213041e3350bee08387883752
c811166ddd9f7b87cbecce12a3de865c1f81102c
F20110410_AAAMQL alter_p_Page_088.tif
26a2bc2764ef7267984a8922905d0470
4b1c41087773cd34d9abab354ad89369587de94b
F20110410_AAAMPW alter_p_Page_072.tif
171b7cefb6af7bdb6f25d59718b1e430
c6b0add1e32de267c018b257608acd247d4d78e5
26161 F20110410_AAANUC alter_p_Page_094.QC.jpg
2fd03ee1dd7c7532752ca0c95593a801
3e864ce47f942c44c218107bc276aac7aa07b42e
26818 F20110410_AAANSZ alter_p_Page_035.QC.jpg
ac86d60142af81748ef60227b689bbbd
3f1ecd2d17d9bfe41a0da7b718bbd40ea56fc13a
F20110410_AAAMPX alter_p_Page_073.tif
65ecefccefe2f61bc0cec8c191a89107
5244a779738289f75239d7e33c7799c07b5cb31c
F20110410_AAAMRA alter_p_Page_103.tif
22cbc4b3d2e112cac8609f0b135768b0
0307c99327f990a9216abbf9905f418b1c37deca
22348 F20110410_AAANUD alter_p_Page_099.QC.jpg
2c4605b6d5ced82c3c517fcca5788b2f
52928fe4e7193be2c0c22ab05e60120c678cb834
25282 F20110410_AAANTO alter_p_Page_064.QC.jpg
a85d60642d80289bc3d2c4fa1f0c8245
807c5b53cc4c2ee2fb23ca6b3fd9d7d132b66891
F20110410_AAAMQM alter_p_Page_089.tif
a99cfe88c865bc6d6c5b423f84e5fb29
0159da9d6ade45d668a8cc84b082e753ed3ddf19
F20110410_AAAMPY alter_p_Page_074.tif
44ee14c2c5dafbcad428524ab0c6d297
4ff9b77d683097f67e793d6f853f6f1cb0a142a5
F20110410_AAAMRB alter_p_Page_104.tif
47cb7179d1757db1f39f5c49ff11d0da
55932d48fcbd6370d1c4f3e36cfc42654ff5183c
25547 F20110410_AAANUE alter_p_Page_101.QC.jpg
f5aefdb6be387778d69f3807259e00f0
1ef896eac3828e468d2aea91804f4ee05202db90
9228 F20110410_AAANTP alter_p_Page_071.QC.jpg
64e09ea53d9cc39fd1f49ec32ecc935b
4bd783a5984523f37ff1e44bc3f573892846f314
F20110410_AAAMQN alter_p_Page_090.tif
6b8aa16c0242931ea312e65debc3739e
fc62a6aa2ea59c424cadaf0e35401e250eabe624
F20110410_AAAMPZ alter_p_Page_075.tif
98db79c98304aa44840b29d9a720cddf
7aa2c1719baf9425f5712aa2df98f7867ea25231
F20110410_AAAMRC alter_p_Page_105.tif
8c686b0af884131c335913a114d7f26a
bf13b05b67936673968955cb0777066a4a45a288
23854 F20110410_AAANUF alter_p_Page_102.QC.jpg
420f6bcddf2d5cae0a3c59c42b390b12
48cdb321c7b83565d81a264a07c14b0cdaa408bc
5547 F20110410_AAANTQ alter_p_Page_073.QC.jpg
18e3da7c5f020abe8965cef67fd308a9
fa53ae8255281b3e30f09aa278b8b1e533e4df71
F20110410_AAAMQO alter_p_Page_091.tif
6e98ae35e9b682a93837105ee158f77b
7cdff0b82a1c2bd52ad9d8b8f41d989ee7fc78ad
F20110410_AAAMRD alter_p_Page_106.tif
a8a022f49844920eaaf488021b889b56
95d3edf0d896350f0439d82165a676fa73bb2e16
26381 F20110410_AAANUG alter_p_Page_104.QC.jpg
4643d40f7c275a3fe19707e9d13b349b
6b2cab5d3acabda970aa42f6c6b84b47c6d65990
26080 F20110410_AAANTR alter_p_Page_075.QC.jpg
5837b0781f9ca12d7228a5b9733ee81e
c46d9efbd2e4b0871f559905ba359cf8a35841aa
F20110410_AAAMQP alter_p_Page_092.tif
4e4b217c02813b07508e6b2b94aee8d1
772b9984d8ff4c6128fc3798e660b726f36ac0bd
F20110410_AAAMRE alter_p_Page_107.tif
e2bd44fea41df56222904fdc0f49445a
e745bb5ee94af61c1404810fef44eb70f770716b
25761 F20110410_AAANUH alter_p_Page_108.QC.jpg
2962552db47417be2ca08ff23a27507c
a643a2ebb73b55c837fe5cc5e2aec79b4e5b7a37
25040 F20110410_AAANTS alter_p_Page_076.QC.jpg
eb39ecdb873b14d3165aa3f5b2d9170b
399d7f6d78ac1d7321ddb5277298527d0da2d762
F20110410_AAAMQQ alter_p_Page_093.tif
1f7d748f6eebfebc2d4d35b458aedad4
976dd1d66e58dc44084c7c3ae53277661c79e4dd
F20110410_AAAMRF alter_p_Page_108.tif
8cccdf593a0979262f49373d93aad1c1
295451e01dcddc0062830ad0715a97820d15d873
25559 F20110410_AAANUI alter_p_Page_110.QC.jpg
c6259a649c089b6852f40c1e2e391fbb
3780d6614887d4c60d8ea75f2abc7bda291a2f0e
25243 F20110410_AAANTT alter_p_Page_077.QC.jpg
06630a5cbde2f2b28f324f73222f7242
16489a75318beeb1770c21582bc243163151c073
F20110410_AAAMQR alter_p_Page_094.tif
d888bf1111a4c8a804395302e3ea6c86
5f76de5e6c6d7073eedf9b235a15edc928025c5e
F20110410_AAAMRG alter_p_Page_109.tif
ff52befb72090a857775935c53391ce7
2fb6d1f631b6d5f318a6752e6d72b71f45d36c93
26068 F20110410_AAANUJ alter_p_Page_112.QC.jpg
2f52b29aa25802248322f573e5033ac1
6b207fb2edbcafa58b79ee16f2a6ee783e33a49d
25369 F20110410_AAANTU alter_p_Page_079.QC.jpg
481ee7c02fe748295bbe47fa8b40f35b
36a9c68bf04588b942976dd99a307b95af52deab
F20110410_AAAMQS alter_p_Page_095.tif
5b3e4b40f54746c16bdf0f977518b1b7
885d8fa56071fa39a45b7bc1e800fdcd178f2b45
F20110410_AAAMRH alter_p_Page_110.tif
d436730e08f53a5c148299d319a83d6f
d0a3b74ddc14c17c1bb6f4372ee4a53c05ccf09c
25566 F20110410_AAANUK alter_p_Page_113.QC.jpg
fec8445981db827a18baf55fdd8fee5d
91968510b5dc856d50e0aa0907e568293f86d628
24246 F20110410_AAANTV alter_p_Page_080.QC.jpg
b1dc5898ebbef8cdbe62c82de4efd22c
b0b914672cd5e99e5b7dba321d975bd6be789a94
F20110410_AAAMQT alter_p_Page_096.tif
8f805152ffa88f7f00ac85ddd78ecd86
cb01f17c0b80d21f6b2ee4b005edf958f2781464
F20110410_AAAMRI alter_p_Page_111.tif
3e6909975a00bcda363426408704a09f
2226e72995c222e33cc3771b91ed5243d812fd62
24813 F20110410_AAANUL alter_p_Page_114.QC.jpg
077ae22b76fd52a7fa3995b02f75d601
ae272e505caf3ec3f53f5225c6f263da2f082b30
25480 F20110410_AAANTW alter_p_Page_082.QC.jpg
34ecc148f80e48aa6fe4b5318ec6e71f
bc5409b72ff1d3cdaf38500f64707b1f33878435
F20110410_AAAMQU alter_p_Page_097.tif
e70c9ba5e5334074ac39702398374777
fe0ec8fe19b2fbe61dc39c89578d06f157aed909
F20110410_AAAMRJ alter_p_Page_112.tif
306d74dc711bbd69e09d4b2a1e23213a
778d9a71b17b9a81231c89b6c458d5fe7fcd90c1
26617 F20110410_AAANVA alter_p_Page_155.QC.jpg
27aec0b80254fcfa3ec7334315850267
cb210407aee66274fb8b16aca189239433a8e33a
26233 F20110410_AAANUM alter_p_Page_115.QC.jpg
24abd77d6ad67258fd583aa72cb41adc
580f323ebf059f2199da04b1be605c9166bff221
24722 F20110410_AAANTX alter_p_Page_086.QC.jpg
b9a513976510137194a62455fee8d273
a5b4c2bd7b5627294a58c6ff54c3739e66952725
F20110410_AAAMQV alter_p_Page_098.tif
0d3aef62eb4fed16f801660f5936120c
ad5f2e04bb54c6f6a4e89da236c0566c1305fd50
F20110410_AAAMRK alter_p_Page_113.tif
01369387c00a7138465a02d3d59b762a
54e1fdd67173a544bb789c2d933bce61ef14ce3d
26215 F20110410_AAANVB alter_p_Page_156.QC.jpg
e3f588f333f93bd942219777453949c5
29bd8cd22dd5854b159c685de34edcbdd97bc3c5
24099 F20110410_AAANUN alter_p_Page_117.QC.jpg
7facb5943d89a19f7020afd04f8d1770
6d67dfebdd21664c5a11faccf62aac65c66414a7
25875 F20110410_AAANTY alter_p_Page_087.QC.jpg
1523b1a17d59a196a41de4f839debd42
0087d2a88ce33316578034af368a6492858a7c29
F20110410_AAAMQW alter_p_Page_099.tif
0c7dfbe28321b5f04a2cba68a3d9d9b0
b5e059c9b66a4befd748da45e05ad3e7abb21fff
F20110410_AAAMRL alter_p_Page_114.tif
12b26d0493e2dabcf84268e9c26a3760
a5beed299c633b508a1cbbf8d83f0ce1354e27ae
5162 F20110410_AAANVC alter_p_Page_162.QC.jpg
fadedc1fd1b4ce7024afabd64ec2fa36
67d49f3ffdd085d6ef8e8846cf4c119be03ca0bb
27329 F20110410_AAANUO alter_p_Page_122.QC.jpg
e0a4636eda702d805dcd1795fb3f16f0
f9c0fd63d2ef9b55d91ac34ed0cf6693e032ae34
25380 F20110410_AAANTZ alter_p_Page_089.QC.jpg
0d5d4060ca3957058ac0d7e9d1f5e199
90798ab5004866cc330846a31b8c91ef66da543b
F20110410_AAAMQX alter_p_Page_100.tif
d36d88aab35103f5cfd8e31212638991
9baf89f036f6a51d42257b5721f29418a741d3a3
F20110410_AAAMSA alter_p_Page_129.tif
ed239e9da8bbfadb05e33c2e510f705d
9759dd7d334a99d9949a44fe29c60f233396f1fc
F20110410_AAAMRM alter_p_Page_115.tif
b4c6342dd29bf18c7dc028825e012365
922a0d4fc46589654e3e9ae39b445de71478a9d8
30754 F20110410_AAANVD alter_p_Page_168.QC.jpg
fa95c3c4098bf6c7a0005859f9cbda8b
9ac410954328af5b90d8b1683cac29c4e775b1bb
F20110410_AAAMQY alter_p_Page_101.tif
b32de28fdf6a2eaaf0e13a4e6202d747
2acf8b59f8a9074e59ff82989c667577a2c55ebc
F20110410_AAAMSB alter_p_Page_130.tif
0a9bfe97f8a844efc6f2b068b420fc68
f60c7ff7084a115fa0f5662a290e1ce195d9ac8c
30517 F20110410_AAANVE alter_p_Page_170.QC.jpg
f270684afe8c60ea3fba67a975c4c4b4
3e58d2fda2f47ded7a1e8e4fa0665a13d1bdc1f8
26924 F20110410_AAANUP alter_p_Page_126.QC.jpg
3fb106f44122be093b3c85e3bcfbb749
5c0ced964014dc98ba34541c592419106e9897b5
F20110410_AAAMQZ alter_p_Page_102.tif
cdb7809d4b9a7e0719789b5db48b0e34
0489d677ec5d859d991f814c7aa9ab79bba9bfb8
F20110410_AAAMSC alter_p_Page_131.tif
121b3b432b968145f7df9cf96b32d294
cb92648ade64ee0bb1bed1b7f742f6da018aa5e5
F20110410_AAAMRN alter_p_Page_116.tif
3304961ee535f990983ef8193adaffc5
7dfa88612090007c9ffe6c10edd8f2b7d7e6ca97
20545 F20110410_AAANVF alter_p_Page_172.QC.jpg
62219ac537f9013931f600177ad95887
064e85b35d40cbae5ff49c65677dc6036dfd8a12
24835 F20110410_AAANUQ alter_p_Page_129.QC.jpg
9aa1f18ba86fae2d50fdd86b5925f14c
45038ad93ff912e2b2cf9b548daf3b8061172ede
F20110410_AAAMSD alter_p_Page_132.tif
6fb49be4dc61bdbb8b31abf36f21319b
28bac9f38f62187d1b410190dc6be4ea86d86cca
F20110410_AAAMRO alter_p_Page_117.tif
be0fc79061df36420ccbaae83af25caa
9b3008544e784d97d32e091125c938258056d079
15840 F20110410_AAANVG alter_p_Page_173.QC.jpg
f863dc5177a297ad44a098226dc3079b
cec1729b3366247229e7b59655b2a0a08d3935fd
24508 F20110410_AAANUR alter_p_Page_132.QC.jpg
beea029e690dbd10748bd99c27648507
d10d19c3c10bdf53cd526e4ebe665bd53aca8706
F20110410_AAAMSE alter_p_Page_133.tif
82b10787ff7ed3fc510458463b18dba8
8f0ca70d0ae8d3dec813849307eacaf78dbc16e0
F20110410_AAAMRP alter_p_Page_118.tif
93b7b35080924e72e690f7506dd7064c
27f4e78734adf5ef55263c3e8386fd174d7fa569
16360 F20110410_AAANVH alter_p_Page_174.QC.jpg
b5ed8271d75c0e96d12b5427bd46d7a8
61772e49ab83c0ec3b7847a63b4ce8b320db5c0a
22021 F20110410_AAANUS alter_p_Page_133.QC.jpg
88f0ff324a9477b299a2a207d248619c
1a662ffca7c68a3e213490cf0f76ebbb175287b8
F20110410_AAAMSF alter_p_Page_134.tif
38a994b4e1297a9290c192f07eff458e
0b3982a84859106e38f692dd461ed97ce6523b86
F20110410_AAAMRQ alter_p_Page_119.tif
8241e3625d35ee2daf7911364bebab03
18cf9aea31b8b71fcbe5700fa9a424904abe6ad9
8250 F20110410_AAANVI alter_p_Page_177.QC.jpg
e4eb0ced892da76dd647e0e3571e0586
96c280539368f8a40926e618f568ab598156c879
26503 F20110410_AAANUT alter_p_Page_135.QC.jpg
45eba5f06d0638e8bc9e1d8cfdbe4b86
c0ef04acb0c2b41c62b5c58ee508dad210fadf2c
F20110410_AAAMSG alter_p_Page_135.tif
9073ff5bb192257c97e626efe640b5e8
48e4cd00deca51fa9a32d948337cd3194891427d
F20110410_AAAMRR alter_p_Page_120.tif
1421cfe30f97cff4e9ffccbc24ad7b14
8e02b7ef4debda81ce40d6ec9b8d6ca0a8ff13fc
16084 F20110410_AAANVJ alter_p_Page_179.QC.jpg
550610411297aa65562b6bec8ac14aee
98d75f6bd1019bedd5586ee590a3f66665d5c0a3
26141 F20110410_AAANUU alter_p_Page_138.QC.jpg
afe951d14c04bf85306b79a245af9a69
962652666345d5678b272b6127fe27bb4adfefba
F20110410_AAAMSH alter_p_Page_136.tif
2dbebceedbf9af3340f67f6059c663fe
03759fc93d9862369f1e01a48c1720bffffe3198
F20110410_AAAMRS alter_p_Page_121.tif
87056079cb284b0692d152e531136e52
016e7ce6514802d89dd73971cb42b3c2e7f65c69
18096 F20110410_AAANVK alter_p_Page_180.QC.jpg
6afd4c415b0c68f9d5cbaf2780955289
b63ea0d91f9c3eae3cf0ca249cb10cf045ec4b36
26766 F20110410_AAANUV alter_p_Page_140.QC.jpg
0e795f304e19fc79e55216a0dcb30190
01c4cc5f4fd6e6a4b97350b99537abe1b62c1277
F20110410_AAAMSI alter_p_Page_137.tif
9482dddd76c35979a8b1ea4a0e5c06e6
e04d32208bb8d5a2719e1bb54ea66d129eee10e0
F20110410_AAAMRT alter_p_Page_122.tif
8bc8b5d4327fd280dbfdd1bb4a9ae5ce
7056cad3382087cdc56d4e0c3951c8e13076215c
21183 F20110410_AAANVL alter_p_Page_183.QC.jpg
85d51d29efd96cb4f2fef7668701e311
c44cb0962c89ad5c1c568e3baf51815ecb030963
26274 F20110410_AAANUW alter_p_Page_142.QC.jpg
006d3d640a96a98168b217b66e18dcda
5dea2539bbfb82448639e846b6ae192fe979d24a
F20110410_AAAMSJ alter_p_Page_138.tif
9d6336e6f7514342099c1b7a758bfa8d
a2418759296b534f8a3a67f7ebf6761d8e5afd08
F20110410_AAAMRU alter_p_Page_123.tif
7578d684d3e2a8e32f73b1d33d2810d4
92cc68543335bbc422eecbc6495d45a16ff5e913
5325 F20110410_AAANWA alter_p_Page_012thm.jpg
a7a6b792247507e2c6cbfa1e4feb0a40
f0232a5823d114c07c14052acc64f3e1d870bcbf
18291 F20110410_AAANVM alter_p_Page_185.QC.jpg
253af116c1e622e8da29dfc004a4a889
98f2b7853311fb45ab94a47fecb09c6345e1dadb
25469 F20110410_AAANUX alter_p_Page_144.QC.jpg
f8816235fcdd5eb28ce7465264875aa4
0240b995906387e1d50fd0fff706ec61dd5faa32
F20110410_AAAMSK alter_p_Page_139.tif
eb8afc6e0652dabebb62ece699f342c1
ed09cfdbbb6ab53105e456b37d55077e767cbe0e
F20110410_AAAMRV alter_p_Page_124.tif
95d54d41a8b102fb50bfd060496c5f34
d2f4ca5ce520b363a86ebd98e53f34699b04d729
6124 F20110410_AAANWB alter_p_Page_015thm.jpg
fb71e1050e665db8cad578b36206ef46
1959ff1bc42e96540dd20af3e151ef974793cc9f
20782 F20110410_AAANVN alter_p_Page_186.QC.jpg
b6f82670f0f0fc5d7462e3f1909045cd
37567d94fbdbd73c91240eccf08ab2eee5dbe490
26635 F20110410_AAANUY alter_p_Page_146.QC.jpg
4e485de44156257eef8a6bded94af78b
6312262f129426d8c0ff55a378d8b964e9f450cd
F20110410_AAAMSL alter_p_Page_140.tif
b0b4b24c3b33a7663d2175417a08d2be
08df631e2b26226161ceb123684504ba1169a79b
F20110410_AAAMRW alter_p_Page_125.tif
316c122764275e8a742a298e57f35776
2bb5f82143f1230758254a8e3b2168c57ed28c44
6363 F20110410_AAANWC alter_p_Page_016thm.jpg
d75b39a74a4c9ccc86f8b644f7ad9ac8
88fe88748beaaae4aa14e7c16d419c5cb0fd2cae
18611 F20110410_AAANVO alter_p_Page_187.QC.jpg
56431bcd3d8416f48c00cde0d75314b9
e03a966bb4e18d0758f9706987eeca5c7f5f7870
26939 F20110410_AAANUZ alter_p_Page_148.QC.jpg
fdcefb1327693f12e600030e5671d16f
06c3672cb7e7b77d796ea10274a6170b46930063
F20110410_AAAMTA alter_p_Page_155.tif
858859a325b0cb1caf20a629691b1579
c3f18a474ebaf2db288f4136cfa9a75dbffa76c1
F20110410_AAAMSM alter_p_Page_141.tif
5bbcd6fd203968324e6cfff5979bec40
2b65f9b5fb651958aa47dbc9d405db6fb47a684e
F20110410_AAAMRX alter_p_Page_126.tif
8d941749de765a89a50f0107279636c5
ecadf29150775facf118d31b414a0b17873b2d7d
6188 F20110410_AAANWD alter_p_Page_022thm.jpg
b098acbb315f24b824ed5c3fcc49efb4
7658d43ee9199fc535abe2589328175c374111ab
7769 F20110410_AAANVP alter_p_Page_188.QC.jpg
e53deb4c354840f4855e6fea0bcb60fd
f0182620a3c8f50bf42f356836e6b4827dbe54e5
F20110410_AAAMTB alter_p_Page_156.tif
dabf4d35f67cc76974c778d9ce6d55e4
360e9308870daf9bf07a32ddae8baa2e9d1d9d1b
F20110410_AAAMSN alter_p_Page_142.tif
8d1a99c3ebe6e11d043c09604abfb24f
8ac7dcf34e0571035f3e5f2e74627cbec420d614
F20110410_AAAMRY alter_p_Page_127.tif
a576dc23b5d9ac873d5861fab48cf2ad
7d92a35b58a68ad68122136768d2e7ac0b22cfd6
6149 F20110410_AAANWE alter_p_Page_024thm.jpg
1ea27831a66c0e6fccc2c4d55b55f71d
ccaff1a35500d3ac73011423e5bf3d972530ddcf
F20110410_AAAMTC alter_p_Page_157.tif
f15543f6b356b2a94deb41f65400de33
499a2da5ed02dd835a7e1a4c29b7b4d864b56680
F20110410_AAAMRZ alter_p_Page_128.tif
10e1e5d728991171d7cd3697bb52adc5
7fd64caee83fde7b1fd8b4d6da335c97286d3b11
6074 F20110410_AAANWF alter_p_Page_025thm.jpg
9e88fd6af49d32f5e496653944686d86
3e1469e18768bd944e9ac7469e89c4a49f48bd64
17959 F20110410_AAANVQ alter_p_Page_189.QC.jpg
459fd7dc7d96b7ca51a89893a396cc4c
0cdc2e97be3cd847c205d4bb47cb7ab331acd114
F20110410_AAAMTD alter_p_Page_158.tif
18f761fd95cdd25e45bbdc9d638b864b
3c89e6e5510fff89dbb670020c3c0efbeee515b8
F20110410_AAAMSO alter_p_Page_143.tif
652290f9dc43bcd3e7d2498f3153a727
fb5afb91777d806b73050360faf82e47a8ab653e
6436 F20110410_AAANWG alter_p_Page_026thm.jpg
840d9f1ceba82873a17fdca320acc4bb
47ec35c5cebc6cd0365857cdd5d9c8e310d5ad86
27027 F20110410_AAANVR alter_p_Page_191.QC.jpg
2080a326e8e91e0df3b49973b0a88014
d22a0c9b99d4f61fdd2ccc937fbd3d9ec47da59f
F20110410_AAAMTE alter_p_Page_159.tif
42d7ac5e45c45d655570ab7f414ee736
31cd477e46d1eb204077335bb3b3e8a5e5151dde
F20110410_AAAMSP alter_p_Page_144.tif
e05cb18ff9d7a009bc0391b777a471c1
eb64ce584b88764e67f6d6cf97d74fa88c60f5a1
6213 F20110410_AAANWH alter_p_Page_030thm.jpg
febfc482ba2012452078d5ef673cf1eb
69880d9b06cac0daf2c33c7aa970506d39fee5dc
25553 F20110410_AAANVS alter_p_Page_195.QC.jpg
6893e4e973b3ccc68c4bef71c924928e
a541273c6ebc740b851428420c2679d425504119
F20110410_AAAMTF alter_p_Page_160.tif
f50d8966fab67629f570356d0cd2e042
32ffa46d5a56b756ef6b6abfdaf97bdc56b18ec2
F20110410_AAAMSQ alter_p_Page_145.tif
d7655d4372674eab22707da810d1e5a7
b7b5907b033a3e1f096a1ff08666b4fbad8cb4fe
5930 F20110410_AAANWI alter_p_Page_031thm.jpg
bde6d949b31e3cb3ec23c69d016cd60a
86892851e00e36476331324dc1603f3598b3c1fb
26357 F20110410_AAANVT alter_p_Page_198.QC.jpg
d33c54f379263266354e0b8be5a051f8
f283ee694ca3d01c7df6e97443434f3dc4faebac
F20110410_AAAMTG alter_p_Page_161.tif
fa113204eeb87f16540f2f69fdd9a411
8afbdad9bac90d303eb9b4feaf605ed44d63b616
F20110410_AAAMSR alter_p_Page_146.tif
9f15548ef2c153b176ffb8b771ad1869
79716ff9fdc1b239e309a28c19fedfaf9a38558d
6384 F20110410_AAANWJ alter_p_Page_035thm.jpg
ea47ba35469eb57d1be98f6900065dfa
fdf8cad41ae17c3b0303bcba1b49f67261986811
16408 F20110410_AAANVU alter_p_Page_199.QC.jpg
dac08ba9a1726a25f44a84d4ec6c309a
ec43c95372a902f9614a5688d927f1934c7055e3
F20110410_AAAMTH alter_p_Page_162.tif
061f1cafd230ff5a5b0e01e86ffe78a9
7fcd89b9a690fa58746fb3b31d586f0d008186d0
F20110410_AAAMSS alter_p_Page_147.tif
e67d4b420243686d37c2dc3e75ffc0ad
39a71aaf5cc97edb7ad07d3525834546195f912f
5073 F20110410_AAANWK alter_p_Page_039thm.jpg
85da4308556c8d193c3a1d8ddb44e185
c82308d53277ee64335e3f0cbfd7f1fd5d7e1e78
1542 F20110410_AAANVV alter_p_Page_004thm.jpg
be920d5923db12151da9ab5a62bf88ed
923384057cb616b556264e45346474055da03b49
F20110410_AAAMTI alter_p_Page_163.tif
ab8211ca6e42a140efbfbc17650d8243
e8c8c203ce6b8eee6f3c01dd8003cd0e5d9c110c
F20110410_AAAMST alter_p_Page_148.tif
5a070b99ced443f7c954518452a5432e
d108102d654fe95857203d9f1bfc03331c7f99df
6343 F20110410_AAANWL alter_p_Page_044thm.jpg
81805dffa4c04730c23181f5e1aeea7d
daa5550c89db67e7ca57f7b0311a2a25c2ac02db
4301 F20110410_AAANVW alter_p_Page_005thm.jpg
d3566d2a16183e2833b0e5a9f9b8b93b
c5609766abb5673a73742178557de200d8d46107
F20110410_AAAMTJ alter_p_Page_164.tif
7c2052acb5de03900ac9757dcfd9772c
ee27f7e2d23d3bb954d2074b9dbe1308f9c2566d
F20110410_AAAMSU alter_p_Page_149.tif
2241fb7bb282eb80c62dfa722a7f6171
7e04d567c6d69c44275e12fc962baae32d2d2d11
5776 F20110410_AAANXA alter_p_Page_099thm.jpg
efcfdab691049693e1ed135ade76d209
c942fa4be2b40cee5cdd7890636ad9a519b18d4d
6097 F20110410_AAANWM alter_p_Page_045thm.jpg
d39ee396bd38b09e1596f6959428ded5
698f5d3c1e81719d1ef34afb235b4cddb611f582
3346 F20110410_AAANVX alter_p_Page_007thm.jpg
9ea2563d19603739cc400de044299a46
3f7d5ec9f113cf1943a816625e4f7847bc834d3a
F20110410_AAAMTK alter_p_Page_165.tif
0269918166dba7c68780620522aa9deb
b6483c3d6ab053e23b45d7e4255ddade9247faf9
F20110410_AAAMSV alter_p_Page_150.tif
c4ee9b533cda8e2c4dd0642c5215e22f
ab7d0d7108178d7ee82fb1ac947ebaa72379d044
6334 F20110410_AAANXB alter_p_Page_104thm.jpg
58521837e937ee62e4841ae3285a5573
0f84dfe53437a60da550adffc38a7eda722eb7fc
6022 F20110410_AAANWN alter_p_Page_046thm.jpg
2892133871705c12351112e05529438f
21db38bb9ce45fcfce9ccb4011ecf4135099daaa
1885 F20110410_AAANVY alter_p_Page_009thm.jpg
c7e1e845ad50e676c4540badd91131bf
09d4fb7c8802fc9340921826bed17ddd0b3a1c49
F20110410_AAAMTL alter_p_Page_166.tif
eb9cc4b5fc72f0297b49367a881e022d
8a0782a1d23ae46d0f5968fc934a38768a4c1710
F20110410_AAAMSW alter_p_Page_151.tif
cc3b7c6af339bb7136f1d9025f4014c6
87e9218d1edc5f33140c31a82f94aa5a9f127be1
6391 F20110410_AAANXC alter_p_Page_105thm.jpg
ad25508dfa5939f5e88312b572a82c1e
14d80a178d20ee655e3981cb5b308f07ca222c2b
4818 F20110410_AAANWO alter_p_Page_054thm.jpg
aca17dfb4c99f16744c37d341960d313
0372f05ef32a10aa43fabe2df0e382466a0a5df0
4546 F20110410_AAANVZ alter_p_Page_011thm.jpg
f7414b3592c46174eb959cde4206bebd
38a77227a74ffd028cf58b85ec85f91f6e32482d
F20110410_AAAMTM alter_p_Page_167.tif
b3aa7f884c78c357d39df0293d8c3bc3
dcf77201839606efe2d4569ff6df904f55a0745c
F20110410_AAAMSX alter_p_Page_152.tif
2689dfaadaecd86006a540c5531fb93e
8d3d8f17b7ed1b9cde08d262e8aa13191c9abd18
F20110410_AAAMUA alter_p_Page_182.tif
19b3c3044c1c103eb3afac07e09b1ec2
4d69e084ff432f546e8799e960c51395d6d5da67
6338 F20110410_AAANXD alter_p_Page_106thm.jpg
3b2ec906abcfac877a13ef79762040e3
1e1b44914ee9c703b1941397621dfd10f04b39b1
6333 F20110410_AAANWP alter_p_Page_055thm.jpg
50332787d789ec0c2c41ee81cfcce2c9
ece3b33a469d8792c806867a7512a2cce6e01646
F20110410_AAAMTN alter_p_Page_168.tif
b42769a194367adcdb37c883ff2504e7
f7d1bde8173b8a7880f42378409f71130528352e
F20110410_AAAMSY alter_p_Page_153.tif
7ea1d28112c59d729d31aeabb49022f4
77cc805afe0c14971bfd1c1c659bc974a2e5b3d6
F20110410_AAAMUB alter_p_Page_183.tif
8fbd96318bdd3909abd64c0cf9db05b3
f96fceee3c5058065f4800f51c89d3a4615387a5
6012 F20110410_AAANXE alter_p_Page_108thm.jpg
bc9db3b7028f5a50b76097cf82b2cc58
5158873a58b8f68a21362e78667512d3e262c365
6026 F20110410_AAANWQ alter_p_Page_066thm.jpg
7f05ef2beaa99d187fc25c1688949b40
bc749d2cde4726e1987ba2919d1787c824d0c5e4
F20110410_AAAMTO alter_p_Page_169.tif
cb23a3fc4b7bd3a3c319a9d04c57f780
d7d241d03fcf15961738e5df540e998cb506f2e0
F20110410_AAAMSZ alter_p_Page_154.tif
d40bd1cf5c215c2bced11c5e5ba0e2c6
c3423d5ccccda5245921f29ba64e9c1dc53878df
F20110410_AAAMUC alter_p_Page_185.tif
442f3f680ff20ab40838ec96ed892c26
f709cc76034569fec2bade3c38f30eb0e44a2098
6031 F20110410_AAANXF alter_p_Page_112thm.jpg
1291391a08c9a14deba062e673dcaa53
5b4b827c4e7a3c2ed3c75fb16e8cdf224b920b0d
F20110410_AAAMUD alter_p_Page_186.tif
f85c5836c582cc7ac91ff01d5c43d156
38d67107b790b386044dca30a717d3e6e64f7ed9
5789 F20110410_AAANXG alter_p_Page_117thm.jpg
6bce5b48fa5dee4686dc6fbb09b73e8e
8342f6b0a4cf4284f8a2f967d687f331d51e2b5b
3225 F20110410_AAANWR alter_p_Page_070thm.jpg
2b6256c2694ee2d7eb0f4704e601d62b
7ce857d7d60d85b165245b2107379eca01dd2179
F20110410_AAAMUE alter_p_Page_187.tif
737936988f0d14abf6514418d2c1eaf2
a4f261f41b0ed47f7b63c53c23cd0e9f179a6c87
F20110410_AAAMTP alter_p_Page_170.tif
43769d3b2ec3f7591b5239cc70c74ce2
e1672191b95d896a542d8d1feb83e634c24c9169
F20110410_AAANXH alter_p_Page_119thm.jpg
ffe99834b381465f22a6174722b7d939
03beaf2759231b020d34a64ee832eb04a6adc1cc
2935 F20110410_AAANWS alter_p_Page_072thm.jpg
10d1cc016686cc33c624db31e4146efc
711237c084d1259095f88d1af2519ddfad3cee0e
F20110410_AAAMUF alter_p_Page_188.tif
827d42dd033d2e288031f5fe46a6ed38
6f618bc7c4b37b85ba4c67ec84f7e7a4ebbd3917
F20110410_AAAMTQ alter_p_Page_171.tif
3d0ef88458ef4b31f82f9d13a491f51f
cbf6a7db2a76fc6db72d9525d2b7708cba418d71
6406 F20110410_AAANXI alter_p_Page_126thm.jpg
8e4a12a563a1cc0d853ba8cbefbf6e19
d9e8b54838e14843e6c093ce75c13c8a750fb5e9
5989 F20110410_AAANWT alter_p_Page_076thm.jpg
35098c6a5905350a79b8e47a3ba4b30e
ffdc87c92586ccec687a0dc262dc68e6122f5cbf
51907 F20110410_AAANAA alter_p_Page_143.pro
8089a0177d8242fae6ef6568c117e454
7f6429842f0231442017030d156a267a46bde353
F20110410_AAAMUG alter_p_Page_189.tif
e71ec63e714dca9a5e21865d70044458
a6d93e414da182bb2434630d3caa9b0df1f2c5d5
F20110410_AAAMTR alter_p_Page_172.tif
ddd75352703fe8a9caddc61a966ee224
dc8052d62231f89420d30d2268e93cfe3162cd64
5610 F20110410_AAANXJ alter_p_Page_131thm.jpg
81f6d3597cad6f025e2c52ca421416bf
a17bf22db62a7ff3072fd2c77f1e790430820c3d
F20110410_AAANWU alter_p_Page_078thm.jpg
c7e53dd43ebb6c183e0e5f2c0febd709
f83d7a766a772b4b5b024eccf8f8dac35291d8e5
50091 F20110410_AAANAB alter_p_Page_144.pro
ea4df0097e68ea8b12986b1935feae2c
45e45b6580b8e6f5268b298ce9b864c30084fdda
F20110410_AAAMUH alter_p_Page_190.tif
702cd3e51589eae1ff6f8d29fbd79b83
687e4355f3a79b0aee180632ccc0c4d220c532a1
F20110410_AAAMTS alter_p_Page_173.tif
f585863cb20a652ce8ffc2f67d97abbd
d9362fdcae962fdd715591424ae8bd844c0d32e3
F20110410_AAANXK alter_p_Page_132thm.jpg
b3c00273e0c2b5a4a2facef1c813c1c0
096ad516d1147d0b778f88f6e11e5d50ffe2df55
6079 F20110410_AAANWV alter_p_Page_087thm.jpg
4eed8ce13794852b77b25d23b9f80e26
116c7e503e0bc5776bb16fc077af8af860e2169f
50914 F20110410_AAANAC alter_p_Page_146.pro
15d715a239364509d69b8c083284be45
f2a71c7cd156faff91fa0fe27a2ec2a1b688132d
F20110410_AAAMUI alter_p_Page_191.tif
31d23d3e4c1268c52cae5e943a1b54f8
ce4a281f57014679e786764ee74bfe5b3d7d2d3d
F20110410_AAAMTT alter_p_Page_174.tif
8465befda21ba3b99fb17fafce961473
29f594560cfe2e160da09cb34d5065b43af0028f
5499 F20110410_AAANXL alter_p_Page_133thm.jpg
de422b7a6225d90508f17fd844c755d1
4f9f69b58c3d87b5b5ef19a40e03492a13d5fc43
6288 F20110410_AAANWW alter_p_Page_089thm.jpg
3f56b6eff4ff57f963cced1bca81bc7f
1bb8ab4faab4340d6bf585d3ec7bf3925b68144f
52022 F20110410_AAANAD alter_p_Page_147.pro
34a290117d4bfb5a4f68c9085a82f302
83bf89ab92d166ff2fba21ac399bc38a25d8a805
F20110410_AAAMUJ alter_p_Page_192.tif
b7b3dd02b5bf11cafea28995fbf2fe5c
360616c934bc9d4c130f1314d6eb5b931227bd1e
F20110410_AAAMTU alter_p_Page_175.tif
1ffb2ab47adf0f0c05a2f96a100ade8d
2ab09002936c1fffed5800170b08e6018c3aaa75
5909 F20110410_AAANYA alter_p_Page_157thm.jpg
a5c8fb5e5c7eceebf8260f0a40fea92d
e315cf1781704fcfcd580cb8821d815b50e60239
6409 F20110410_AAANXM alter_p_Page_134thm.jpg
c897fceb3126f30ac041110a7355da57
69bd7abe3f0bbdf7911192e21d3ff39e3c309db3
6313 F20110410_AAANWX alter_p_Page_090thm.jpg
094dc949feb1e2c48a109822e39fe63d
3d7ab4874dff40d6cd4834d6991f796d02440b28
52597 F20110410_AAANAE alter_p_Page_148.pro
899acae2ddcbef5ead8c82c6aa92f1f6
fb9dca433a50a661fa69b6d79509ac75c06a794e
F20110410_AAAMUK alter_p_Page_193.tif
29a32a082ab5ad9528df396575034c46
39346bd9b640836afd7fe39a8ae7b4d277de49ec
F20110410_AAAMTV alter_p_Page_176.tif
3ebca8845d74388323964467eb6eb2d8
fde23e92548f60f5777cb7abb244f7f2f3091f98
6094 F20110410_AAANYB alter_p_Page_159thm.jpg
904fc65230f28e12f64a035392bbc69f
746ef64372875afc3629eac5ebf23f24e2add00f
5482 F20110410_AAANXN alter_p_Page_137thm.jpg
2f32ad6b3e2f549c7e8ad3a1a4fe593c
2a3fcc9b6c5dfb9ec219f3db618376ff932a3e7a
6341 F20110410_AAANWY alter_p_Page_091thm.jpg
10b83380664eff8fddf76a0d4b5c36ed
dfb0bf06cede5120543db7025e576a74bab4336a
50732 F20110410_AAANAF alter_p_Page_149.pro
ca763039951ac0dd325c408a20cdaf4c
76a3167b394322136bda564060fb557ab3ac4dc6
F20110410_AAAMUL alter_p_Page_194.tif
4ab5e40b40055e052cad51cda2d2040f
cc8edee5cd1ef216ea291b856f87a9c154b34753
F20110410_AAAMTW alter_p_Page_177.tif
905273d29187c6914c51155c41c4603c
83edd4d5c658c24a03347f29892a9e87c8f868be
6233 F20110410_AAANYC alter_p_Page_160thm.jpg
fd5f70bc402ba90c0866531db1a2ebd0
4df6cdd2ff7a7f729bd925bb463189f5ed061753
F20110410_AAANXO alter_p_Page_138thm.jpg
bb90ffafd20d0aa6e7a9f82b5dc6759d
656b02ab9bc285feadb44403adf2f23ee06625a7
6441 F20110410_AAANWZ alter_p_Page_094thm.jpg
5f2975de2ebffca42f5d7f84ec300070
9c38f4335c101e9194e9f324b9109921f96017d2
52012 F20110410_AAANAG alter_p_Page_150.pro
a063618bb1fda899bcd9608d83d5f3d6
73f9257ab1f6547dd1afc690bd11ce2e8201d233
11139 F20110410_AAAMVA alter_p_Page_009.pro
8c0da455c581dcf0366816e46f312493
d4cb5511e663dc6b05dcf5804d3e78826e14e32f
F20110410_AAAMUM alter_p_Page_195.tif
456d0e0c9da430ea5c920e388a1d5772
e1ec699823aba581ad9f4717bdf36ba297a6ee0e
F20110410_AAAMTX alter_p_Page_178.tif
7ff24d76d0b0e57b88397e9f2da7ff90
7a1610b89130afc38ddd1b9f3bad5d5ff7da7515
5933 F20110410_AAANYD alter_p_Page_161thm.jpg
8ab19e64a19596ec7032ac054046dc1e
0df736408eac9445622a3ccf3bda3a24a816bb9c
6039 F20110410_AAANXP alter_p_Page_139thm.jpg
4d40f9ad056ea5890f4af0cad60c128d
4de5e0d239e00cc62bef85ee8bc1203e1136e29a
51814 F20110410_AAANAH alter_p_Page_151.pro
ef378c020051bb590790b4ba9224d2ea
060f8883b2cc7cc9ae9f18cd0aa318018249982d
39154 F20110410_AAAMVB alter_p_Page_010.pro
ed5b941210b0e06fde17983845485adc
92607d6eb021e87836dfdb234cfc76730f0a0d6d
F20110410_AAAMUN alter_p_Page_196.tif
c5286ff3f1c37f9a9102e04dc6320046
c45bff0e5093c249224f37b6f65850843c9daa9b
F20110410_AAAMTY alter_p_Page_180.tif
45752858bc6b2830f3ba4070874ff1a3
363b7e22b7c0fda0bb27530e4f0bbf90ca0c630c
6117 F20110410_AAANYE alter_p_Page_163thm.jpg
c869bbb7ce347b51d83f161fb49fee1a
4fa57b0e7451f13c73b181e47459cc6e92b28aa7
6352 F20110410_AAANXQ alter_p_Page_140thm.jpg
d3abe4651e996019bc15ab61ec15ed92
ae3b7ac0523d579644c73efccb136c05766a0bf8
51811 F20110410_AAANAI alter_p_Page_152.pro
872e535322f8bd17095113eda8dadd53
168d12a31bbeb28c778c2f900c26122123443b01
36079 F20110410_AAAMVC alter_p_Page_011.pro
7944809956bc4a4e5a57f1230c27a458
c1cc2de68e28fc6aee9bf2a18800bdc338e2a155
F20110410_AAAMUO alter_p_Page_197.tif
e125610bbf64b42ccdc77137a43b5ea5
337c34f6727318617da7edc904dfe19fc9dfd852
F20110410_AAAMTZ alter_p_Page_181.tif
4e76215ad887db19ae4a991f6b3d2a86
c5b58363d3fe39a7fbb29ee236a0f4a0716a27ae
5934 F20110410_AAANYF alter_p_Page_165thm.jpg
5560b46f193ab65fffb1a6eeb1a884f3
7e22759c4d7862e7de794a625797493b4e15d0df
6098 F20110410_AAANXR alter_p_Page_141thm.jpg
1481b23700f71839b94b270414fea26a
c023c22176727ca946d29d9ce863d13cd4040205
51086 F20110410_AAANAJ alter_p_Page_153.pro
219ae2d953e19885a548e1175bdf0986
74a7fa6882ba2a782f7ca7f0eb69a6d72f683081
42890 F20110410_AAAMVD alter_p_Page_012.pro
233421495b45443d98f515daf6132488
5cd7b4ecb452bb70633fae165d7f9493009f84ef
F20110410_AAAMUP alter_p_Page_198.tif
53f41beea129ed4ff0c04b72904781f9
38ed03a29395710c74f5377244979d6f749146e2
6544 F20110410_AAANYG alter_p_Page_167thm.jpg
5b0cb483746c49bd310e4f00478a9edb
841a40eac31fedbddd876ba09fb8a82d2bae673c
51465 F20110410_AAANAK alter_p_Page_154.pro
7329542ccb2de15e78a9a46da9cad6a7
1d8f56da4c6f2602346cf1cc6208aa56870113ac
50282 F20110410_AAAMVE alter_p_Page_013.pro
9bacd19f8c33873f6d5695bd886692da
0354b87a3c27954b97473cbdc96d852fa7dfffba
6829 F20110410_AAANYH alter_p_Page_168thm.jpg
56dbda52a1bf95f06ca7a7630f4d1d70
dbf5ab56fc498800ea1c4f6d2a6a36e1d7bc2c8c
6223 F20110410_AAANXS alter_p_Page_143thm.jpg
83e87f171567574aabd07fa59d4d42c9
0f0b19e10ac94597e2c30fd669fd358362c36fa9
52950 F20110410_AAANAL alter_p_Page_155.pro
524cadf53b9b6a5d0df2294d19068f48
ee0a252dc57db68c89f8de3e2f380883c514422c
50460 F20110410_AAAMVF alter_p_Page_014.pro
bb7e47ec23ed6d6df01633aba0355a90
52775170389926a91065965c37ab0d18c8af1152
F20110410_AAAMUQ alter_p_Page_199.tif
253b81dae3c8ee2fb8dfebd3e9ab8463
361e6a3f1bc80ac649f4eeeefae97b289e3ad6e3
6732 F20110410_AAANYI alter_p_Page_170thm.jpg
66e4d486fe38fc197a9a37b988b955ae
dcd8da234b330dc04a3a59423d1935e15174698e
6184 F20110410_AAANXT alter_p_Page_144thm.jpg
370db4b67e9e52cfe6cc94b90ba2bf92
c882df6007288f69245a71b751c4c87edc101018
81259 F20110410_AAANBA alter_p_Page_170.pro
3bcef6e24a8647a5d94d1d97ad4508f9
57b7b3c8915a5613dd6c73db8a53fd0d5a2cad5b
50511 F20110410_AAAMVG alter_p_Page_015.pro
8861a1844eeb53625441eb22b5e028cd
bdcfa951d815ad425688c0c848533c138d1a2b7e
F20110410_AAAMUR alter_p_Page_200.tif
9f41587a3c4b13ba971a9250278e6978
521971f6f47452d42306e0046d4c13ff92626392
50796 F20110410_AAANAM alter_p_Page_156.pro
4708c8f456eed146647ea69e13f5766b
565cac0d3b832b4e0b82b876eb88cc4e7f61588a
4994 F20110410_AAANYJ alter_p_Page_172thm.jpg
2d1049940f7a71fa3ed718a1f373bd7c
83933887c17f9af4e3d108f45fd0c923838be157
6446 F20110410_AAANXU alter_p_Page_147thm.jpg
8b1ba53840b3f9894407bc9365eb7456
6a8dd9ed2f6f2a622f925f814aed19c29a43ec64
82338 F20110410_AAANBB alter_p_Page_171.pro
893cc0c11d4524bb290c46fa973cab02
34e0920016436278934768537a7c6c5608540cc7
52278 F20110410_AAAMVH alter_p_Page_016.pro
1a782963adc6bdb7bbc8d290b9c7424d
420b6853cea656ea2fb4704d9e381a8b55240328
F20110410_AAAMUS alter_p_Page_201.tif
14fb6272612965cf9126e112a9036fae
755c687b0ce9c367f74eeb0a059bad09826e94b2
48342 F20110410_AAANAN alter_p_Page_157.pro
bb0504fb404b6f515f61e92b6da8d506
ea9b49489e8e8b711baae907c623f3be0eb4151a
4181 F20110410_AAANYK alter_p_Page_174thm.jpg
3defefed66b7ad3be464fff8256ce568
267d0adb035ade055cc086ad66e48ac5180f879a
6315 F20110410_AAANXV alter_p_Page_149thm.jpg
b9b96d4c679838153ae86b9f952740f7
b01c63449e727f600c07464941a22cf94dd0736f
42977 F20110410_AAANBC alter_p_Page_172.pro
b9b29a672359ef37e454f3de7518ef29
cffe3e72099a3ff101a0bd9657b9a48262867654
51620 F20110410_AAAMVI alter_p_Page_017.pro
d36e9cc3acfa1fb92fa33ade5ec17aa9
fc7c6418a0b2988617f2bbcf9b7f806ba28864bb
10279 F20110410_AAAMUT alter_p_Page_001.pro
cd3c4df280626be128255f352feb9a42
29caf6ef9809d02f3c49cb99c38a5d1eab77f831
51300 F20110410_AAANAO alter_p_Page_158.pro
e6279fcfd521646950e6ba39c6d51416
ade5a5c63d286ba631b1adfdfac9db4a9476c48a
2243 F20110410_AAANYL alter_p_Page_175thm.jpg
dd5c81b9f0fd36f91ecad020b076f8aa
ba39de02c0e7ad49a4e9017bfc9468d321fc3392
6407 F20110410_AAANXW alter_p_Page_151thm.jpg
6a13f50da82ba347e02efc123d507a41
7d1229899da098966536b876b04616c68b4fef9e
13785 F20110410_AAANBD alter_p_Page_173.pro
3ada4e5f7b6d0e17d77db68670e50c95
3b59bc2298273adcf55dda11e25a1b693131eb35
49991 F20110410_AAAMVJ alter_p_Page_018.pro
aea9d0646020b1000ead50e40804a2b6
b54d8bfca535e95a1329b3b0419e3b45712b0bd6
1277 F20110410_AAAMUU alter_p_Page_002.pro
ffce85c11b989a84e869819b7fc52261
af0d727952d9f8d5a9df40298b075bad71e997ce
50613 F20110410_AAANAP alter_p_Page_159.pro
42f6ebc1766688925a04e07c3280bdfa
99f1d3f595bf14185b4906a252d1612e0a9640b4
2727 F20110410_AAANYM alter_p_Page_177thm.jpg
26a86747718c17ea4bcd1c511d71dbc6
b9e2c7f53139da0f8b6261d570aff947cc247292
F20110410_AAANXX alter_p_Page_154thm.jpg
e4bb9f8e44e119c8706178b3a5d3f068
5442990529a3bc19d28f9a21345d8d89d6802cc8
32699 F20110410_AAANBE alter_p_Page_174.pro
38ea02619ae1de2097eab7874e18d347
fce2a2de91b1982c2035946cf61abfedf5d3061b
48981 F20110410_AAAMVK alter_p_Page_019.pro
2f2aa577bad8367228c729237f07400d
220b7451ec911dd58726499606d4ea6572d43d49
1013 F20110410_AAAMUV alter_p_Page_003.pro
6dde0dc2087844e343b80f956a380967
75e3ff5a1c18634a35de4350f4d55f272a6b10de
51568 F20110410_AAANAQ alter_p_Page_160.pro
ab6aefacb0877c8d7c6cd2fdb9152fd6
f58dc11314d32460b614c62f0c831e14045a5a27
4113 F20110410_AAANYN alter_p_Page_178thm.jpg
d031f8d2a719dea5cba174d8054d9c0c
2d9b3d4de79156ff8541816a8b32596d4d42dbb4
6361 F20110410_AAANXY alter_p_Page_155thm.jpg
0af69eb80c3398c31f977d0ec30db2bb
b9da48fc3c9086df9481a3cb596ffc5c48c76c19
7330 F20110410_AAANBF alter_p_Page_175.pro
c80a5b4062b0de8987f29eba97964778
38b5f68fa4dbe2866a58217d9dc9acf5d2708618
39159 F20110410_AAAMVL alter_p_Page_020.pro
dc9aefbabe5797e116d8fd7893b2a8d7
18c94e37518f37ae70ad40ae4f2e408d535b366e
72898 F20110410_AAAMUW alter_p_Page_005.pro
9182348d016e8d2059ec23b715a3c09d
c7a393c9fb24cc804dce8d64d458fa0b156687e8
50708 F20110410_AAANAR alter_p_Page_161.pro
a50223cf6c08fe19c65d1f1ba2747986
3657dfce0dbb673010f4207760ee67a46e2c2cf8
4146 F20110410_AAANYO alter_p_Page_179thm.jpg
44144bfbcdeaad245f6cc476019e4b2e
2cee6e7e0b9ae34c8d51f3d769145ce1d7614a6b
F20110410_AAANXZ alter_p_Page_156thm.jpg
b1b4c32764909866f0107703dca9866a
14698c7057d8ab986707df28e90c87f6dfc89c9b
15658 F20110410_AAANBG alter_p_Page_176.pro
63d29efe49f773bbf6975520e4d169e0
a85718fcab677d08efc7544f6ab61572eb5318cf
46252 F20110410_AAAMVM alter_p_Page_021.pro
32fa9268626c415945d221dac269d346
5817f84cc4b94896da9fe619fa18b194b754b952
91691 F20110410_AAAMUX alter_p_Page_006.pro
102d03e462912d12a06ccd936444f98d
731a869623cfa69cfe8e484b9f6c0fd9a4aaf11c
54044 F20110410_AAAMWA alter_p_Page_035.pro
3787757cd9cd136a1c8e3560e24856f4
7cf13a6800e871ff39fbedcbca7e7695439062f5
8110 F20110410_AAANAS alter_p_Page_162.pro
b7e354e90d42eb0f7356a9d9cb2f8ced
c0c21becdbd89dab55b019262aec60a886b9dde7
4068 F20110410_AAANYP alter_p_Page_184thm.jpg
16aa7c64f8121277d6eacae4102b4284
30442f934189c6975e73c8f93a8a588dbacd002f
13311 F20110410_AAANBH alter_p_Page_177.pro
2e4c1c334d77c0865a044bdd70ce3fee
a22faa3b57d3ce6e99561a256a21b25605c9d9c9
50013 F20110410_AAAMVN alter_p_Page_022.pro
1f06857e72a62a16b3d0d8fa719b5910
33270fa6a94fb2737f2ec85d772473fdb8a8826a
35955 F20110410_AAAMUY alter_p_Page_007.pro
1f71f30a5ce7722e79406a2ce2040b7a
63a87c1992590b2803ccfad5b2772b166d7ab332
53638 F20110410_AAAMWB alter_p_Page_036.pro
168eeb4d7e3a5e86b39c60d822014717
26ffbd0658448a05b944956831a142f87ab071b2
56943 F20110410_AAANAT alter_p_Page_163.pro
5a21d946c078a829f79503719bbdda9a
7a7ee4532435344582ac880ab0cab807b5a21624
6273 F20110410_AAANYQ alter_p_Page_193thm.jpg
a24c3aaa5c02d3077c7da7b61a60121d
9e117b2d0ea09b93d46f22fe9e6d1c0b94b4d5ee
20506 F20110410_AAANBI alter_p_Page_178.pro
4ebd3ab8efafe1c788da15b22f1a2f67
18e0003c510f7583af10ca07189c604e7f29579b
100788 F20110410_AAANAU alter_p_Page_164.pro
a9223e7444ed8c39e09228a0d81005c5
f0f3b1af4df85c5377249663a110aee1bbc3a1b6
52587 F20110410_AAAMVO alter_p_Page_023.pro
ddf085b30f99d1701dee0b13f94a196c
705d7fb0a8de7d1c073e54347d2a886b1f156da2
33839 F20110410_AAAMUZ alter_p_Page_008.pro
592249d05fe6abb8e044b8f5e2ddc11f
c6186a6cb1f1aaabcfa1d2d8739a89c0e53ed994
53958 F20110410_AAAMWC alter_p_Page_037.pro
1c3d5a0caaaceb397c0f82504543efdd
383877056d262385fbaa2502c5709c79049e34ff
6587 F20110410_AAANYR alter_p_Page_196thm.jpg
971beeb6e27b014bf0522a7d661ac843
275a79974a40f610a100801ca0768db75704b8cd
18555 F20110410_AAANBJ alter_p_Page_179.pro
67eb7b1c901c71635725fecadd5854cc
e8962a35685b3b12b16fcd0d39904873a34fa855
63863 F20110410_AAANAV alter_p_Page_165.pro
0fcb7fc98eb86362335da58aba3f5374
9d3d10a6830e83b6501b7b791789815f410058af
50912 F20110410_AAAMVP alter_p_Page_024.pro
ec83a6754e15423f3b5ed96262138214
bceaf19e19f9a145ed54876de8d19dddee905027
50840 F20110410_AAAMWD alter_p_Page_038.pro
9e834e1985501819b02fd4124bed5e16
57ae81b9eeeba3151a27ced9e7e19563dfc13c2d
6474 F20110410_AAANYS alter_p_Page_197thm.jpg
2331c7c03c56426e62fbbfe699343fbe
e98a5f94db44f44f708a21d16f6d35e09aef4648
32846 F20110410_AAANBK alter_p_Page_180.pro
f12fbbf384d7101a5871785385786d93
b6730efc206bf6e5ad7e7ae3c703de2a022237f2
1227 F20110410_AAANAW alter_p_Page_166.pro
484410c11714a7d175091294720d409a
c5f1b639c456adcd2ceb3034034dda6ff1bae0b4
51073 F20110410_AAAMVQ alter_p_Page_025.pro
f725713c14810f366f6647e0e59a9fb3
1a8de2b9d3db5345f67cf6c41f7ed1f55374c3cd
40154 F20110410_AAAMWE alter_p_Page_039.pro
f36245384c74d2e2fb386db1a6fddab5
7c07a647d8db5dc468d8b3a3edd671246acec8d6
40306 F20110410_AAANBL alter_p_Page_181.pro
3fd93f225a570fb452e054a716654796
bf28f9b9d0185ce21dcc7229779072c0eb46723f
79259 F20110410_AAANAX alter_p_Page_167.pro
69ecfd9459871675e0599ce4972fb5a8
9cd174decdd4b60287978db35a85185ba99e7db6
60814 F20110410_AAAMWF alter_p_Page_040.pro
635dfd7e6e3be8bed4596957e260409c
0211f137a2ba5f08243b277d55e0b097ea4ca6cf
3991 F20110410_AAANYT alter_p_Page_199thm.jpg
dc56133c1ffd053cdf1067acfd7b4497
27d83ff946b584d868bb669d27a46ad724beb90c
66983 F20110410_AAANCA alter_p_Page_196.pro
dc2e19c5c0902930153e3a11d11d4dbc
e2618372ff3e504b77fe4ea6320ce63b4ae3f731
42294 F20110410_AAANBM alter_p_Page_182.pro
f03348040a151980ac2d62402d8875b1
ec3235974540ef63f438b76ff261f1f63dbb2c28
83414 F20110410_AAANAY alter_p_Page_168.pro
a934b174a639c2259baf984bb3c5dc2c
ed592b7caf2d6f819eb7b7f04b9f085abafc4694
52588 F20110410_AAAMVR alter_p_Page_026.pro
1f88ad478d2c111c211723604e6d7602
6c57d9ff8321e305a031e66bcb6be99daf1e319f
62192 F20110410_AAAMWG alter_p_Page_041.pro
eed0ea35610290c80739b841061a7f72
00caa708e663675d9e9293e12d978247233faac7
5003 F20110410_AAANYU alter_p_Page_201thm.jpg
dc1872126fb2567bb7796844f8e3378a
2406360cb6710b5ab3bb2452130afa6e031086b6
62412 F20110410_AAANCB alter_p_Page_197.pro
2aaeca3f898bb8da49c99a97f1b930c0
8822833f6761c0f967a14888ea63ec8cf02cdd7a
38596 F20110410_AAANBN alter_p_Page_183.pro
a69ccb252169422969b47548296bc27f
376418372eac9c59ffaeabaf4c1417c9dd457536
36028 F20110410_AAANAZ alter_p_Page_169.pro
fa621df018fb5bb50a50f41a442a1253
d0775543661d5b6624294dc150d7cd148610f3d4
51973 F20110410_AAAMVS alter_p_Page_027.pro
81f0da488d22f2f50e9aed064c1dbcb8
9bdc6249955cf267764d89e55741dc06f383001f
50713 F20110410_AAAMWH alter_p_Page_042.pro
0417168c01bf1c414056fde9ee66a39c
530566a5df13a50761d4c78dfd9cee5318ca6468
58718 F20110410_AAANCC alter_p_Page_198.pro
d145c87265191270077523d33a7478d9
750eda8fb807b3961821fc77696188f99255fee1
25975 F20110410_AAANBO alter_p_Page_184.pro
09acedffe3bf8a7481aaf81e456ea410
9d67ce0d62b272384bd99ffe1eaba2be568f01a5
51922 F20110410_AAAMVT alter_p_Page_028.pro
f37c1291ca5854cb0a2d5c4609813859
24a200df3e4243629ff1d1c135727167e92dc77a
50673 F20110410_AAAMWI alter_p_Page_043.pro
7a1cba345aae049704bfacf61f9e758a
4e12991681f3b077984f1bc4a5adc0fb2c342bb6
36137 F20110410_AAANCD alter_p_Page_199.pro
725b61bd744de54c5e66f6039016bb05
a56fffcdce3c4cbf4a66160b2fa32cf25271c088
33817 F20110410_AAANBP alter_p_Page_185.pro
26dfa0e0e1b8ba8d55c6520b9602d953
62ca3662117bfbca7cd2d0daf5568fa7bd0ba882
48307 F20110410_AAAMVU alter_p_Page_029.pro
ffe2ebb59a4954c4e46734c1b91adcb8
be1afdec4682efa3673a0b5fa980e92aeed446ca
52663 F20110410_AAAMWJ alter_p_Page_044.pro
f8d30910f693e4899bee5b6635967994
c4ce48c51cc26a152b5e23491116dbb43fce5227
45422 F20110410_AAANCE alter_p_Page_200.pro
ef5f6214fb90ac70f3a7c4d4fcaf8385
7ff2a5dbe31959f5c66b380f237a501c77818e83
37867 F20110410_AAANBQ alter_p_Page_186.pro
7c8b9e9d14d14148c5a93fd9c9bdbc20
8251949782d23c39862703833bfa20d6afdaeec0
50727 F20110410_AAAMVV alter_p_Page_030.pro
2aa337474d1e0d5b828cad22dcbc05b9
70f3766bd8e3f3ebcdcd308a7e36e9f72be5cb4e
49372 F20110410_AAAMWK alter_p_Page_045.pro
74c0bf286110faed7125f7ae090674e7
ad7447865382fb3c7f200d6d9d3e72d23d377d01
40165 F20110410_AAANCF alter_p_Page_201.pro
77610d46419aac8f2f22dc18e3520d77
69fe02ec9928472b09ab7cba5b9af52cff57777d
34263 F20110410_AAANBR alter_p_Page_187.pro
a1b2e68746555f9949a4bff7ace0e0f6
2655ca48af9b828903699dd778a3f43a7c3d8e12
48663 F20110410_AAAMVW alter_p_Page_031.pro
7eac9fe9c887cae8dc507b74144c3966
be256b27b33968e78e8b660a0536eed4719069fc
49044 F20110410_AAAMWL alter_p_Page_046.pro
fe0eaa4bea250da1b9a7816c34925e65
0827845f6dde26e7537bdfd0b1062c591bd5d72c
534 F20110410_AAANCG alter_p_Page_001.txt
85fe90aac1d57eaf73c41f70d4ca7d14
9f233ca0fa02b49b7378e7747d3e1c9106923c4f
12108 F20110410_AAANBS alter_p_Page_188.pro
9453daf3245b3d10a8a3b99666fbf9b7
4e88c36b8bfcd69198dad2501fc8d2f6b23f37ca
53674 F20110410_AAAMVX alter_p_Page_032.pro
f1b7164ec6e6719c3158ccd2a7ad4b9e
4473bf2b4731b3d0037559484a891b6171b23087
52870 F20110410_AAAMXA alter_p_Page_061.pro
3648c5a3dbed233e2b8fa0040eac24ea
3fbec9a81671b56d50499d02dbbbfc444a27d5c4
48298 F20110410_AAAMWM alter_p_Page_047.pro
f3bf7f4e047e98dd1d7f4018c19a3bdb
94420c1fe21c5580ff1e42923fc913f77551edf5
103 F20110410_AAANCH alter_p_Page_002.txt
cfe8727f0bcb9ef121fb98c21298e60e
a473834aa51af9155dc239d42f0d5994b234c2c5
33280 F20110410_AAANBT alter_p_Page_189.pro
3d28f45d5023b812a4f933303f5c07f4
a1282e57ecdde8779e92d9278637aa0ea83817ff
49262 F20110410_AAAMVY alter_p_Page_033.pro
78f3142e237bc5f02c8f65ece0b7adca
72608653c863daf63476dbafe4ebc3905a1c4e7f
50641 F20110410_AAAMXB alter_p_Page_062.pro
5da507ce452ee86acaaf99734b9bd341
8c26ec3f1ef43c5d694631a8ace8443e69be0f90
51725 F20110410_AAAMWN alter_p_Page_048.pro
0d80453fce135c397a0bfc1c93e4273a
c3d83b2c3f44a892cc70edc3ba208396a1401381
F20110410_AAANCI alter_p_Page_003.txt
379d5e17b791fbb1b3d65c2b3cad35ef
a21fe240748373a2aed455ee668443e56c1d7da8
54079 F20110410_AAANBU alter_p_Page_190.pro
95bcb3e9570699d7c01a594c44e07e63
135b910d7f16e5f8a57658b1fec81dacd0a3e5a1
49917 F20110410_AAAMVZ alter_p_Page_034.pro
42a3fefda4b647ab3776386171a2b8ee
05eac43ab5c7927cce43cc0d88f94e82ba99ec6f
50110 F20110410_AAAMXC alter_p_Page_063.pro
01b9c504a7656e2172bffc27049dc418
03df545de4472fbf109b79a5e805eaa7c84042b2
52757 F20110410_AAAMWO alter_p_Page_049.pro
414ae6d21f6ac7c947b133d68d66c2db
a6f005b5a60f0fbeaa05ce167f1ec656f43d4f4a
389 F20110410_AAANCJ alter_p_Page_004.txt
4ab184dedc27c7978c4a7e86c8986e52
e7700a2f16f0b1c59f074be734abb1f98fda8fd0
62648 F20110410_AAANBV alter_p_Page_191.pro
8609578b9aefd4bdbf3ea40cfc3825f6
a6b61bc10ca3ba761eee2967d24a1c5bd8e4d016
50648 F20110410_AAAMXD alter_p_Page_064.pro
201b5ace76a8dabdd4050ef76f9fbbb3
e3a7e686bc652e2b1c5265b5a4738b39522535a4
53561 F20110410_AAAMWP alter_p_Page_050.pro
cd69d6c80e6af14b405733b22addfa3c
6d86de823243d61178712dab63ee38cdeda5cc2f
3063 F20110410_AAANCK alter_p_Page_005.txt
a828806fa1d1d113ad7a1c07512eec78
9d33ff9d6690ff52f7f32e3d468a10e2dcfcc14f
65897 F20110410_AAANBW alter_p_Page_192.pro
de844e52bde98e874d3ce5b7c021e33a
84afbf681fcd8cbe878056f470b4ab9ad35cf067
51471 F20110410_AAAMXE alter_p_Page_065.pro
e2a09aae136c3c230c690e710f234c6a
f3106dbdc7b34ec3ca76c128d334242c5d2b0afc
51204 F20110410_AAAMWQ alter_p_Page_051.pro
956221489632bc856d72dc84284d9393
bfa99004cba2829da550a0589952c32203dbc699
3765 F20110410_AAANCL alter_p_Page_006.txt
ea6753676142f393ede9244558069fd4
fa06a66b56310bd5eb63e7958420526c4d4f89dc
59753 F20110410_AAANBX alter_p_Page_193.pro
d8b7b5df54e119995eefd8cf58259929
aeda35aa66c87b904963f02462821f712e717bd4
50367 F20110410_AAAMXF alter_p_Page_066.pro
e0381e5c47c3a1ba6714501c590f9d38
a6319f48fd72e35829062d6e92b3b06a6fc46591
50070 F20110410_AAAMWR alter_p_Page_052.pro
d844532efd1f17f8e4fa041a5675e878
8dcc67565e39e1083aee67c910c71347dfce6adb
1901 F20110410_AAANDA alter_p_Page_021.txt
e1512ea0982d45146b983e86d3432683
233415108ff07cccdecccc92a331151cd306a34c
1376 F20110410_AAANCM alter_p_Page_007.txt
9b9111b52b3bf636f1b61adb438b94ac
877501e66881fa63554ed6543ac2ff6bdfd9409c
59704 F20110410_AAANBY alter_p_Page_194.pro
02d159a04ff9e4ca8c02d7e50772b4fc
2f38d7f1c95af3340e994f3ed5acf89f4bd1d15a
52425 F20110410_AAAMXG alter_p_Page_067.pro
bdd714486c80d8e8a3aef5d1e4929a37
b02608281fab7234839d9e5c94015d7cb5fa6637
F20110410_AAANDB alter_p_Page_022.txt
a501057ebb906c4b09bbbe2f89cddde1
34319dab327c61f7256fec81f99137fa37455adb
1393 F20110410_AAANCN alter_p_Page_008.txt
ddac79963871dca433e2bc209a6e48e4
085977c90af61cc9707211014ca2c2d43651af58
60479 F20110410_AAANBZ alter_p_Page_195.pro
b925b4b1b5799d9f7222708d51d81cbb
9dbca21b392b67db300f157663a90f5d0c34d39e
50836 F20110410_AAAMXH alter_p_Page_068.pro
d7df069dfa1265c9dbd37e1bd0385def
9a356b80592a69e86dde82e564ec163944482ee9
52655 F20110410_AAAMWS alter_p_Page_053.pro
9088d49e9293332ef95930b8587d4605
0dfb7abcf5bc8d9a25db14dd589a187aafe46ffc
2091 F20110410_AAANDC alter_p_Page_023.txt
21ece4cc1e52e81eb8e8919e9b292dcf
4221b4d3a4ab77f94c4788eecb12d24e6cfcab4f
493 F20110410_AAANCO alter_p_Page_009.txt
4fefafa0647dd48e2e857f0d0e8b9032
589b6f72444e3ef46820a5b1dab2fafd0c868228
42624 F20110410_AAAMXI alter_p_Page_069.pro
59af47f927c7d1d757342773b56b17b0
56a048c5ef0e310e9b247ea2ca1300244d879f4b
38215 F20110410_AAAMWT alter_p_Page_054.pro
b9ab95e0763c989163476f3df87dbe78
51e6a1166414d27d3763341571c712514a537179
84641 F20110410_AAAMAA alter_p_Page_055.jpg
1165d2bbb6a78e15d5642183c0fb0c22
1f09eba5478203fe35f156c966f11e64da4a9cef
2002 F20110410_AAANDD alter_p_Page_024.txt
380c4ea587d8b5bba8f7df1a0067a57b
eac1b5ff122241fef6f6f14e5c2f4b358bb88aad
1714 F20110410_AAANCP alter_p_Page_010.txt
6444b7ecf9f475b83de02e647cb5efa8
4f57ca1274ecd966fa198f724596f15363a0c11a
53796 F20110410_AAAMXJ alter_p_Page_070.pro
86e82b810ccecfaf1bbe59fce5f68faa
53a53cf3ae5d880c75b7310c23120901aa3e6c8c
65660 F20110410_AAAMWU alter_p_Page_055.pro
62ecfe61a898eae2bc664dc7f9e9a89e
a56e90a127341bb9154edb5a086d8486952c39b8
83889 F20110410_AAAMAB alter_p_Page_056.jpg
2d24cbceed3dbb7dc7459f150ef798d4
bc19fae91d7e7b89755498dc2c59a0478518b647
2010 F20110410_AAANDE alter_p_Page_025.txt
a904a2764d21bf291d73d4447900df49
e0f2d37ae653080312bd5e2494a2151435c7cbe3
1430 F20110410_AAANCQ alter_p_Page_011.txt
6c20742282e3ced577c4af85908c469b
75ae8806c064bc34174158da0fdd01a7adcba932
42956 F20110410_AAAMXK alter_p_Page_071.pro
831c2d78215784f530b164ccf2b5dcfc
048caa4d32f134e0b4238d7b2067142b23f7fda1
61358 F20110410_AAAMWV alter_p_Page_056.pro
bbbc5c03f288ba5d8efc14a752abad6e
1174f2f74554e03fe224ec49a5bb5de4e092edd6
78662 F20110410_AAAMAC alter_p_Page_057.jpg
c6d887b6acda76447bc263124d825836
c06459e9e79ef580205425e91df64e5985c3c50a
2068 F20110410_AAANDF alter_p_Page_026.txt
b1658ce910b2013bf9dd7259c194ecc6
e7729618c9a0d5413d45be2823500b0d88984adb
1806 F20110410_AAANCR alter_p_Page_012.txt
db711f4d8e8c251d6517468703b9fce0
34d858634cca24b3ff9295479fee7c9e3c7373ca
45861 F20110410_AAAMXL alter_p_Page_072.pro
1198adcefbee65a5cd1fcbc798fa92d2
05657bac6f343a7715b4bd854e63a0f7b7b21002
47522 F20110410_AAAMWW alter_p_Page_057.pro
ca2f3293d9883505d04609d5a0398536
2f96ce8ce942ee0eaf1997941ef48bc1df1517a9
84372 F20110410_AAAMAD alter_p_Page_058.jpg
4f3b496a458d2b9247a8413a4c2fc5bd
1107438f8864ca66f4906aa79982101335b538a9
2038 F20110410_AAANDG alter_p_Page_027.txt
b13f55c9e325aa185275a5ecbf497a75
2f97e8e31542c2d3cdd08ec86be3d206acdecce7
F20110410_AAANCS alter_p_Page_013.txt
7e14744cf377d01ed313d385e2276ab3
7e7aa5bab83343b5b198ecce6dea25c2d718a9c8
51862 F20110410_AAAMYA alter_p_Page_088.pro
d829a1c32ef714fe0ab3ae155214e1ac
41ccb40f819c536985c56cff79118990559f100f
26737 F20110410_AAAMXM alter_p_Page_073.pro
122c8cc1f77f5b7c50f394d5342955d3
27faf5d9f7bccb642903e943ee0af39413ae89ad
51785 F20110410_AAAMWX alter_p_Page_058.pro
e2061f0671a0aa14025984177aa6c4b3
58651f5ad181d7fae53cd336223ce0236cb41fc0
87971 F20110410_AAAMAE alter_p_Page_059.jpg
84dc15764462721c1dedbf1e9c20cc14
22901df7afd89a1db2ef1e708d3c6c0121fb5484
F20110410_AAANDH alter_p_Page_028.txt
6bad2fb99ae43260829575fc087e8833
c35e16ff8716588e7d024278036e32d223f511a7
F20110410_AAANCT alter_p_Page_014.txt
6bb571ee71a7a88560015d16dfb7d253
b48764f5cc3910650069dc540d7ab9a404088ce5
49875 F20110410_AAAMYB alter_p_Page_089.pro
0f029ea9e9ecfe07c66f87f23ddc919e
33ce3a5c08e9bae9aaaf972cbc9aff4bbaa6ef26
51823 F20110410_AAAMXN alter_p_Page_074.pro
32d5c609e4fb144ce3cacbff421e7e75
54985ba465c270e0765f9c9e5ef52624e0cb4b9e
54186 F20110410_AAAMWY alter_p_Page_059.pro
43a70f7ac17fe633b7f2053e327fe494
a4f6903d7618a240175c463a65420f5a274c5957
83767 F20110410_AAAMAF alter_p_Page_060.jpg
51b3ec5ebe5e2ec0d62cd408f6b1d921
e1efbf213fdd2f3326cdf5d5b78a1521402b00c4
1904 F20110410_AAANDI alter_p_Page_029.txt
a746dc528cec364a11b3cbf6a46803f6
ec103b7b98370a5f94ad0243d390a757eacb04c7
1995 F20110410_AAANCU alter_p_Page_015.txt
201c53979b7c2f607ba436675526b1bc
f8b9d5a30469c325ef81bf63fd80f978aacbd5b6
50094 F20110410_AAAMYC alter_p_Page_090.pro
c088996cfa07b036f38392a0202fae49
e7fdd5d6a3ef1a5a6803f98f7507fbfae97573cd
51585 F20110410_AAAMXO alter_p_Page_075.pro
b3f2e1c66b569c913e2a9698e75f00fa
3c96f1b883a14fbb976026d9134763cd13d1c3cb
51478 F20110410_AAAMWZ alter_p_Page_060.pro
fede998335586efca9abb6efd5192d85
a39f2f3376c3d1f9e4e21f2d37889af4f5f1078d
85137 F20110410_AAAMAG alter_p_Page_061.jpg
4d2bc325f44293a389297e88d6b60284
22bdd48dffdfdc865707f486161a4e9faec912c6
F20110410_AAANDJ alter_p_Page_030.txt
34cd35fbe5708cda17b31926c75b8c8c
22dab263039f7ed86664a329fcad3d3f48f27fb5
2051 F20110410_AAANCV alter_p_Page_016.txt
fcf35fad19cc40d350d6635234cf9d5f
bba505a9bbbe1453bb87f5b4bca0f827af9c8eb2
52825 F20110410_AAAMYD alter_p_Page_091.pro
29f1aac749ae7a52035f38cf56432fab
a841c092d4e700bed07717e30a62b717ece20db9
49758 F20110410_AAAMXP alter_p_Page_076.pro
9d8710e2045220fe3fe8cf4fe4a3e7f2
94fd2725b4f521508fe3847dc81e379ec6376a5d
83538 F20110410_AAAMAH alter_p_Page_062.jpg
074e01ba259a7e4caa777d3e82264ab9
41b558a94d20421821a53ab28d25808db1d2d232
F20110410_AAANDK alter_p_Page_031.txt
00da0acac2dd77386ed4c4ae97a19a35
036f88366a2180ae6ca1b452c8897d0378a6f0c6
2026 F20110410_AAANCW alter_p_Page_017.txt
361d95871abb256e834a44137a116398
8a0c519b181aac9fcb2a207ba48fe137cc720408
51410 F20110410_AAAMYE alter_p_Page_092.pro
bd6b9caf85170adb4b77b1e997dba734
3ba91237b738b4122b767d19636221d0a8e423bc
50081 F20110410_AAAMXQ alter_p_Page_077.pro
b2a569342f4602bbc96baf5e61d4bf15
843e622e313bb3ed9922d46e40a8f4a196d98b1d
82717 F20110410_AAAMAI alter_p_Page_063.jpg
e4e701a32ffaa71f6a259edc05f85340
821dcb2375ba7abfc6afb927bdafc871a3a8eef4
2130 F20110410_AAANDL alter_p_Page_032.txt
51bc42088471042f6e2445e9dc995f78
63c97775db33d15125ad1174ee56e7018550412d
1967 F20110410_AAANCX alter_p_Page_018.txt
a5a4f79a666e1cc10c5f16d0543f8369
3c491aabe600c0ec48e8acb03b651bb4c069b743
52736 F20110410_AAAMYF alter_p_Page_093.pro
71fa66bee09360e50be89f26c31c9275
5ea5720a4e49b565757ae31d284467f56478bd4f
50991 F20110410_AAAMXR alter_p_Page_078.pro
8918b0aa57697f1acdf7ccd23c3d6d07
0ac3ed3ff57767cd294f9216597fa0c44517d974
81948 F20110410_AAAMAJ alter_p_Page_064.jpg
aad8a976969353642354c8a4c01b9c52
88fcbe65c2b157bcddc74ee3942487814e25115f
1907 F20110410_AAANEA alter_p_Page_047.txt
7beb5d185a0236578a4d256d6b7df1c4
a794faefb8993013d1edf21729b8117f9c022909
1966 F20110410_AAANDM alter_p_Page_033.txt
4f4bd2408dfd4efa6e20e376547b1c27
5ae273038fcd6e52b5ca652a4378e53721424054
1997 F20110410_AAANCY alter_p_Page_019.txt
4fa241549bcc50c7f667b425dd2c5eae
0594de0f4881845294c525e3846f323d5539969a
53177 F20110410_AAAMYG alter_p_Page_094.pro
4deb1d7279c399f963814056aa314728
b1edf0aff5f794c1a637b7302cc739a7d5a96782
47144 F20110410_AAAMXS alter_p_Page_080.pro
884ee39191368c4ce72b7700ecc10dc1
2291a4d1d6b9ded845519cc6157dbba06eecb2cc
83786 F20110410_AAAMAK alter_p_Page_065.jpg
131f52e3731175c15cff6918fdce5e1a
8e0ad761f3c708c5e86f732a5226dd42ea01c7d1
F20110410_AAANEB alter_p_Page_048.txt
eb7244dddec3559bd43bb2b6143be703
f7aff627ffb101a45cca1e262766dbd952c7e7b1
1965 F20110410_AAANDN alter_p_Page_034.txt
77c30eba5ac3d1e8eb7e696a48cd4ec7
9d279a0bd9a8730c7c420a82f3c8419447f67ae2
1612 F20110410_AAANCZ alter_p_Page_020.txt
91f7ead987cfde73f39fe74c0c6ee1db
3d5e142f8d9a2a369583b80a9931cec7901c4962
F20110410_AAAMYH alter_p_Page_095.pro
62ad15126045d3d53339ae36ff39007f
914e9496ab66f0e47e1bbec95c6ec4cf8f87b704
81556 F20110410_AAAMAL alter_p_Page_066.jpg
ebb86f939ac00bbd8d90c5bf3aaf263f
e9da17ce888ddfff9b486309e6fc542b3ebf95e3
F20110410_AAANEC alter_p_Page_049.txt
b60ffde7d7f480b8fe91e05c80d1ed19
cab5ca2f039051fe139277eac1f319be8d9ee2b5
2117 F20110410_AAANDO alter_p_Page_035.txt
c2a1c98635be37de1e83f8b3b66e30c2
248f78bf0daf39fec48b80b4b4c9d2fd8c686eb0
40842 F20110410_AAAMYI alter_p_Page_096.pro
a590d7a12ca06e156afecdd6cc1a4bc1
b5ec8823748eab4b3da4308f185a80ab14d53631
51215 F20110410_AAAMXT alter_p_Page_081.pro
897d99ecab2e7ebc31ab1ba173e2ba73
ee0ff4c3a59466ba5d80dddb84861f069a06da8a
83502 F20110410_AAAMBA alter_p_Page_081.jpg
7716bf4ca4f90941aeee024dde85e4d2
eb522496dfacba41b55d183134b6697bd13d4ea8
85949 F20110410_AAAMAM alter_p_Page_067.jpg
7a65db3b57f1a04a2226ad8908446c8a
fc7b53cbfbd44e19f7c6e05e66e894195ca5cf3f
2102 F20110410_AAANED alter_p_Page_050.txt
474f9f4cf5c609b9c0ee577812a4f557
a141403507ae51fbce678d25a7cb2729d16fcc98
2107 F20110410_AAANDP alter_p_Page_036.txt
b1b2e58cbd3fabc4f3df4925c52b6c90
b3eeb97930d4e10339f549e28d8069b6bb165d53
52457 F20110410_AAAMYJ alter_p_Page_097.pro
1d5dc15e6241bda838f75801e7108f91
e2f46a35997f3d98e9c75d28ccb28c72e61887ce
50218 F20110410_AAAMXU alter_p_Page_082.pro
ffbf85322f589aeae345186e1d97a450
b6c3e8b997613e2dc24d900a172e46f854197442
82355 F20110410_AAAMBB alter_p_Page_082.jpg
e4bd4d9f96bc30eaa89ffa767e88fdc0
8feed558108cc1b34b97d5b9df3a931d9d2226d2
84002 F20110410_AAAMAN alter_p_Page_068.jpg
0252cc76360446275f5aa557b0eb228b
8b04fe8b712e5de15be68f0cccd1cf53be10ac8e
2012 F20110410_AAANEE alter_p_Page_051.txt
ce067a6f7e02aa2c72c540a88d2c8a7f
9abbe0a6e933afc701ff2599ee9e71bd22da247f
2143 F20110410_AAANDQ alter_p_Page_037.txt
e07abce5039cdab0fed8fcceb4fc129f
b295057e9dfc95dbce274c88cb70997d36e2155e
49296 F20110410_AAAMYK alter_p_Page_098.pro
3a0087e70d10a95febecc51c691ba19c
a577599d741572415d09609e5cd622dd4bcc41c5
50414 F20110410_AAAMXV alter_p_Page_083.pro
00d5efb9d76166b0cbe3ea81512a61f7
afdcbe59463eefdf8c9bc71e058e6e26a5dd2f55
81652 F20110410_AAAMBC alter_p_Page_083.jpg
09434125ffb7e0bf7d874a8287ef8561
24f903398b582b9b65232aaebce03698906f9f20
71597 F20110410_AAAMAO alter_p_Page_069.jpg
c4674c3e45c8d93c5ad8be1aa4b3af31
f07a287f4a75ff3b4dc9ee461fa4743cdfb763d4
1973 F20110410_AAANEF alter_p_Page_052.txt
3d86fc77737421feda8933004097224b
dd953dbfc916670097a6268fa5bd01de814460c6
F20110410_AAANDR alter_p_Page_038.txt
0de41989b18f1f48f910ea644909b3e8
214eee2923a57722e11e347f1fcf22b0de7ce45f
40680 F20110410_AAAMYL alter_p_Page_099.pro
6c6bd54c7ceef9674a5015744d4ee486
414e8fdcff5310401022a2b4e2e02cd80e5b4b53
F20110410_AAAMXW alter_p_Page_084.pro
0a8c2bef318cd233d427b7ce01bec0e5
1e0a87e2351f897210dd46ceab3e9957e9caf3d2
84241 F20110410_AAAMBD alter_p_Page_084.jpg
03ebe31df7bb58d470d1c8c824098fbb
4af8f61ee58b5fe903c8648a80c6f4ef2589b88e
40528 F20110410_AAAMAP alter_p_Page_070.jpg
19abc3a79783a37286841c74ac735024
c94ca4115ddd72945c518a13a4ae40d62b49b292
2070 F20110410_AAANEG alter_p_Page_053.txt
c3913deca1bd6c34d0e3d72b2f4bb0ce
bd6cc35f31510c83686ac08f70c9b5bc4e328539
1600 F20110410_AAANDS alter_p_Page_039.txt
db744053020f605684d2b127d5480998
5ff52f295ac2299f89476423c35ac7d1a9c88324
47455 F20110410_AAAMXX alter_p_Page_085.pro
5ae539c8f39cd20b9ddaed48223f0575
902681b8ddc36c31575b0570e8346c5b49666ee7
78415 F20110410_AAAMBE alter_p_Page_085.jpg
a81ad4375fd62a5f70d24d1239055d88
777c1ab767ea486fc2db457ceadca2add046b836
34417 F20110410_AAAMAQ alter_p_Page_071.jpg
29a61f908ff87b54e1d815cf8709f924
aa1135abca8312b43cfa5d3c6df8608990eb326a
50625 F20110410_AAAMZA alter_p_Page_115.pro
122787518e0f7d400690502bc0658201
2a5f77ccae65faad51bbd5e4dab060a115ed4529
46113 F20110410_AAAMYM alter_p_Page_100.pro
628a9b11a369c423fa8f93f79a3f5221
5e09ff408a09c65a3a9690ccda666e301ff4c677
1523 F20110410_AAANEH alter_p_Page_054.txt
4821e6c7e2942b0306a531eb0ea9116e
d9d5a0284e6a4930701ad7a2e3aa005498d0a54a
3094 F20110410_AAANDT alter_p_Page_040.txt
b5315eca1eba85818b5a3dce3c182693
4af9720f17cdba40277a8e4d40073540ae62d745
48335 F20110410_AAAMXY alter_p_Page_086.pro
32159b83765a599c158f2a170a39063c
afbd37961dd891ab7901d9bd7830e8c851128c97
79434 F20110410_AAAMBF alter_p_Page_086.jpg
f0d01ad9a466ce01a49f0e7b823edba1
7001fe26ef31495961208188096f2728f22b070f
36256 F20110410_AAAMAR alter_p_Page_072.jpg
47dd77a1c2e0dcf16605bcb2bf973fd4
b6c16851b2dfaf35b87e1414bdb28fa46b1e6f0a
50362 F20110410_AAAMZB alter_p_Page_116.pro
ad546e0b88b3eca8e023ccc308c9c080
4bef18a9dc5745964264226ab5cf5ac9f8b38049
52533 F20110410_AAAMYN alter_p_Page_101.pro
fa40775536a1fcb138341c018441a894
b3834b7d6bff8606ffcb0a5ad1a43bcf068ff10d
2948 F20110410_AAANEI alter_p_Page_055.txt
07aee61a95c7636e68bf16ac3d7aa59b
e7b3f9a84c5bf2efc9d23a7c405a67b7091668fe
3357 F20110410_AAANDU alter_p_Page_041.txt
0d0f8187c67368770214de0485a840b7
3df2541031e38acbd708c95a3d3410b384c1ffef
50029 F20110410_AAAMXZ alter_p_Page_087.pro
d9865b53a9ccf351d831130c86d0fa91
fc50c6a5d0b7a61d06e9c5a4ecfe4c1c4f348935
82048 F20110410_AAAMBG alter_p_Page_087.jpg
39025b947a441df9e03eec507853f4f7
c430b6f68f65891dc0423b12923157046e37bb65
20375 F20110410_AAAMAS alter_p_Page_073.jpg
7ea4360fe1c209f0db2e05ceb22e2f4c
c6701da9e0fb4fc3bf5321f8d3e01db1eb894644
46761 F20110410_AAAMZC alter_p_Page_117.pro
16bee74c0e78bc625f9fc01c009912bc
0096af895be10a768b2a6ce9e264a80faa037ce3
48221 F20110410_AAAMYO alter_p_Page_102.pro
62a9dbaf42c374f836e87f28d1a42a12
83a66aaa56763892516a7edc107009a4c7a2ced9
2715 F20110410_AAANEJ alter_p_Page_056.txt
254abe421a1a56327199a726217de628
ddb80808a824ff14e8abf0d0b49534966d03a23d
F20110410_AAANDV alter_p_Page_042.txt
03ce5d2ec7ad5e9e3be9d07a55d2ffb4
938005278a67f3bcdacd775894f7863fb2094674
84834 F20110410_AAAMBH alter_p_Page_088.jpg
68391d44f9b1e9a98fff0b6020ce19b7
fc7e839500f1792fb03d56456b86d9083484889c
84662 F20110410_AAAMAT alter_p_Page_074.jpg
f7797357b0b5ec41513ada23fa702768
5254ffc3e9e0a18f9cf258ad2cdc3f558fa465a4
50854 F20110410_AAAMZD alter_p_Page_118.pro
207eebb8c5c10498db23c8c4748cab43
294930ccbb01858d1191a91e6047c7d077ecdf04
46751 F20110410_AAAMYP alter_p_Page_103.pro
6c7a7c7fc06b77428a896d10e5330ebb
507b752d5341e9ab3024dec3cfd55377c08b2fe2
F20110410_AAANEK alter_p_Page_057.txt
679ab9660a396baf71326d863813a8a4
4c3e8200cabce213175e5ebd66e94e41bd72ba79
1999 F20110410_AAANDW alter_p_Page_043.txt
7c5b5198815537f56d121dd21a234f8c
d9583e9365d72a4938fd7b7345fe1b969e8fad84
80021 F20110410_AAAMBI alter_p_Page_089.jpg
b778235a40f2af68b655209928973c90
6f7fcf5d4d672b9143e9d1bc7a7e87f8e2a0e6cb
83384 F20110410_AAAMAU alter_p_Page_075.jpg
3cbe381b87a29434b4b8c0b4277daa11
754dd935f80265ae3b3f1dfc0d0a7d5a39fb38e7
50334 F20110410_AAAMZE alter_p_Page_119.pro
28102470cfd5df726cb465309ee31166
9192cc249dac145e594f5c920d8cf2167a904f56
51492 F20110410_AAAMYQ alter_p_Page_104.pro
3200a202030eb7a3ba97146aa8aa6f9d
e690c421bdded201cc8fbac8038de7f8d2f84ac4
F20110410_AAANEL alter_p_Page_058.txt
04f5ed534300520ae27743515f4ee94a
38583303a48c319466679b2034bcde07a8088daf
F20110410_AAANDX alter_p_Page_044.txt
4fe3189f179f8cd859c22a9da097fc32
05a54545f7541bc148b6750dd10c396394dfc113
81690 F20110410_AAAMBJ alter_p_Page_090.jpg
b72a67dbce11953042ae5372062401d7
76df3de32c195cf198ef3da39cdfa8ed28b3a29e
81069 F20110410_AAAMAV alter_p_Page_076.jpg
919eb2717efe1c5da89eb4b810c05908
65d2bd9644705a2c12b54ea03674fc9258743bd3
17565 F20110410_AAAMZF alter_p_Page_120.pro
26c922d679caf2764d675120389bcaca
dfa37913fa06003eb999dc86fbfbec60965304ea
53101 F20110410_AAAMYR alter_p_Page_105.pro
25c0c4cdd47836adebbc08b344d28e31
57009f4fbf4ff30babda0683430ebd24e5c6b4bb
F20110410_AAANFA alter_p_Page_074.txt
c9f0a14b7689a57a8f0865f3d06a8d85
7f2fdbbe4eb46720ebf754fd821be5d36b4283bb
2119 F20110410_AAANEM alter_p_Page_059.txt
3c3ae6f077ed79ef242e4c96813f49d7
b8b4cd68e12eaefcbb0d65ef54619ee3f85a590a
F20110410_AAANDY alter_p_Page_045.txt
2079f9bc6460c024bbe08bb98f626f30
493f08c96b62d07fcfeecee864aa4ab6d0aeae60
86756 F20110410_AAAMBK alter_p_Page_091.jpg
f1df6b74fe3a58fa73aa12ad0fbbd0ff
56fab4ff50983331fcac22f58840205fb01dcc5f
80849 F20110410_AAAMAW alter_p_Page_077.jpg
f0ac77a2f252705a94bed3d0c7428322
9962d21873cc72bb6d266236859d800d5c02537e
42383 F20110410_AAAMZG alter_p_Page_121.pro
307e4ef4d7df086d5da2bee53d673b03
e2c7856cf616b473a97c55b64d850cce0f744212
53761 F20110410_AAAMYS alter_p_Page_106.pro
2b32bad654fcfe056914826da7aca359
3355fb081ff553dfdc79e1eb3acdcd1029f343a8
F20110410_AAANFB alter_p_Page_075.txt
309b396353dfef7589979931e77d3411
aa77bf096cd9e75b83837d5f550836c758b9db8e
2025 F20110410_AAANEN alter_p_Page_060.txt
811e39b54d9e018f0f6199845bfff941
cebd34aca7a7d8397945f8827945b172371d4b51
1929 F20110410_AAANDZ alter_p_Page_046.txt
2a4597c7f892369fee58203e0905961c
602ff3e0f2be494a4b66383a29d03f516ab2e8e2
83850 F20110410_AAAMBL alter_p_Page_092.jpg
c88d3b282cca901c42b991969dbbbd2f
e4fb1211e629483a67274eca75494c3738afc59d
83888 F20110410_AAAMAX alter_p_Page_078.jpg
b1679ec5103c7a8871e581430f0ad430
85be116dc93d5b9ab0dfa6c3bf10490d65733aa3
53908 F20110410_AAAMZH alter_p_Page_122.pro
9cc8bb7179efeeeffd7fe9f298dc3958
5497bb8daa159bc8dfb5755ac5d8217dc39afefc
49967 F20110410_AAAMYT alter_p_Page_108.pro
a519df9d3203f14581c5681068c5e5de
7d7efac0d6e5b5ae1f9d2e925ba71cb98fc6f7eb
F20110410_AAANFC alter_p_Page_076.txt
412219705fc0145a435124ad8e26f839
3dbc9fe6c218e5fbc19aa2036419935140affc4b
F20110410_AAANEO alter_p_Page_061.txt
b9f288d975c9d8a59c519e68048f2cb3
06686bf8aa378f95010f0ad505656d0ce906a79f
86100 F20110410_AAAMBM alter_p_Page_093.jpg
00a9c2b15f6569b0641d435322c628ed
3f9a74741faa9ffd38b1b439bfd88cc81fbbb82b
82487 F20110410_AAAMAY alter_p_Page_079.jpg
c9683efe98154fd846ff53bc7513eb6a
cb2a4581a9ec4dbe53659b8cbebea2e8f5423b17
42907 F20110410_AAAMZI alter_p_Page_123.pro
006de2f9f5d1b3bef4618869bbd3f7b9
6252201e1c612869610047a08666bf8d827edd02
80809 F20110410_AAAMCA alter_p_Page_107.jpg
900642f8e9f8987aa58caa7dc569560e
14b1eb4a7e1d1f391b7622832292ece83361a6c9
F20110410_AAANFD alter_p_Page_077.txt
47f29b5e1bbd7f7c261fd179005a765d
e14f454b673f14a0f115bd8928a08aa63f93dcb5
F20110410_AAANEP alter_p_Page_062.txt
bd67c3e52ffc311a1baa2f32f91ac19f
6b1756671b3a31c8ce4b3dcd836745772b4b78a9
85314 F20110410_AAAMBN alter_p_Page_094.jpg
8aa7f8ab512db1fe6e9393445115eca7
f0a9ed5826f7aba8243488102df816fd315fe2a8
78699 F20110410_AAAMAZ alter_p_Page_080.jpg
67b411486afe1c9a3073d1a668648196
3e9843d4b923f53ea1d7d469609aea19bf2e2320
29483 F20110410_AAAMZJ alter_p_Page_124.pro
37b122522ce8ae3afb2d303e9e66f39e
bd4c6cbf3aed6431f8be63ce1541a20f446893d9
50704 F20110410_AAAMYU alter_p_Page_109.pro
ce4dd1a91a6cfd889ab5cc70824b04f4
0f3b0b5af01a2179a6dcf48066f6d36e45f74081
83422 F20110410_AAAMCB alter_p_Page_108.jpg
6802b3a1e874b3fca7120b8f38b57037
68bb50c96c96f6002816427f17096216d7e6c135
F20110410_AAANFE alter_p_Page_078.txt
87f5dbbfd5add1487013a25ea85c9f71
e2504351a41f91ea3c92bb66dd5cd3feb45d0aae
F20110410_AAANEQ alter_p_Page_063.txt
f5eebdeddf08920935cfea35b32e0492
07e87e6da2d6b345999e9cf24c6ec5f694ff25a6
84136 F20110410_AAAMBO alter_p_Page_095.jpg
3692171a93cf768545515d3f19d17f56
511e292676fe042972d6ab6e97e6d148e64d3517
28652 F20110410_AAAMZK alter_p_Page_125.pro
bf8d82eab42880d3ed81dee050e7638f
edeef09f2a9844daeb5c8b8b3e52e2cbbb8a9452
48393 F20110410_AAAMYV alter_p_Page_110.pro
68763c3f44fad24cef689b6c6eaacd20
33d130a72524c05a0cfbea5a380c3cee24d75a5b
86323 F20110410_AAAMCC alter_p_Page_109.jpg
6d104e6a89040875c0b6890bf19fb1e6
088351062fda588ea2173de4d5e1c68de307e4c6
1979 F20110410_AAANFF alter_p_Page_079.txt
6d892b7d56d6bb41f9bb9fce1b3b484b
f417323126c72a4f57799c4e89090cd7f442ec2b
F20110410_AAANER alter_p_Page_064.txt
7bd1a985b67e20e33a68b4a6991a2b94
9e92d25372eac9209d5441f5d2eeca3fbfdeea45
69215 F20110410_AAAMBP alter_p_Page_096.jpg
7f87f71e034f164bb1ac2f45fad0f8db
349aa392bf765fbf347d4c57676bbff6feaf1c74
53382 F20110410_AAAMZL alter_p_Page_126.pro
3cf43598973a35097ea13dce8a04abf5
aef8bedb4103997e4fb45cef1d6cdc44f61457ae
51933 F20110410_AAAMYW alter_p_Page_111.pro
3c4ab707366ad0004a74a0f6ca824f4d
c01cd90536c863676535f3d02048de5c7a1695cd
80515 F20110410_AAAMCD alter_p_Page_110.jpg
1927395c11ceeb0051ae78c51462bdf9
069740d702ea7841c0fa028a9d296da5c0488866
1863 F20110410_AAANFG alter_p_Page_080.txt
9ebe841ff3e96f27650930978455211d
3a0635fbdbd053cd4da5e0bed96aabef0ca46304
F20110410_AAANES alter_p_Page_065.txt
1b43f1572e61316118c5f8b4635b056d
72ea63e6d8f7569cc7ac1105f0b5d8170210aa1a
84191 F20110410_AAAMBQ alter_p_Page_097.jpg
c9bdd86f8789840c0a2707cf4ea191e8
e2a6216e2a778b5ee266ac0ce6c52a44a7058677
32691 F20110410_AAAMZM alter_p_Page_127.pro
12066c6d185f62bb3e3fb4516b311c0a
1a2acd83490c98652325a4fd03f834e527e8ec9d
51172 F20110410_AAAMYX alter_p_Page_112.pro
a5bfc0574f40744da21106e84f133093
f1ce36a9bb309e9652529d88b0d43e25badeb2fd
86957 F20110410_AAAMCE alter_p_Page_111.jpg
65ab2913f56ef737ce6c0d58e4510796
9aba2fdf02b8375c559bb5a106cc809c892378c3
2014 F20110410_AAANFH alter_p_Page_081.txt
b85473409d72e57b0cf7f868c9a9b5e5
2bafb23613717ebff9436cf9c35af2e0ae916de8
1985 F20110410_AAANET alter_p_Page_066.txt
043ffc710b8309401ba8a45e1c6950b4
82c6b1e7e8cb6db78db52e514adef4763da031cc
81897 F20110410_AAAMBR alter_p_Page_098.jpg
d7acd97e9d1097f62053d1a1dedc19b0
b2c0ff31c0bde790cfe9e2dc285d2ecfe950e333
21574 F20110410_AAAMZN alter_p_Page_128.pro
d432cd557f5de72ef50d6f15171e66e9
32d8927816ca0db3912583c5c75c3ecbada0a6c9
49627 F20110410_AAAMYY alter_p_Page_113.pro
4f693f9040b8baf31c75c17e96edcb0c
aefea2530211969bccad07531104e5f80cac85ef
83231 F20110410_AAAMCF alter_p_Page_112.jpg
1a0914d6c5ba7bf6d85de8963558e0d5
c6a51b009784b87e731c557513fdce61c706d997


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015410/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparative Analysis of Functional Assessment Methodologies and Functional Analysis for Young Children with or at Risk for Emotional or Behavioral Disorders
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: UFE0015410:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0015410/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparative Analysis of Functional Assessment Methodologies and Functional Analysis for Young Children with or at Risk for Emotional or Behavioral Disorders
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: UFE0015410:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGIES AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
WITH OR AT RISK FOR EMOTIONAL OR BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS















By

PETER JAY ALTER JR.


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

Peter Jay Alter Jr.

































With love to Erin and Betsy.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am extremely grateful to all for the help and support that I received throughout

this program. It has been fulfilling, challenging and enriching. Most of all, I need to thank

my wife, Erin. I can truly say that without her I would not have gotten to experience this,

and I am eternally grateful.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOW LEDGM ENTS ........................................ iv

LIST OF TABLES ...................... ............................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... ix

ABSTRAC T ............. ............ ................. ........ ........x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ................... ...................................... ......... .......

Overview .................... ...................................................... ...............
State ent of the Problem ...........................................................................8
Significance of the Study ................. ............................................... ..8
Purpose of the Study ................... ............................ ................ .. ......... ..9

2 L ITE R A TU R E R E V IE W ...................................................................................... 10

Prevalence and Impact of Young Children with Challenging Behaviors................ 10
Defining Functional Behavior Assessment ....................................... ......12
Theoretical Framework and Historical Perspective Supporting FBA........................17
R eview of the C current L literature ........................................................................... 21
M ethod to Select Reviewed Studies ............................... ...............22
Results of the Literature Review .......................................................... ... ...... 26
Descriptive Assessment Methodologies.........................................27
Participant and Setting Characteristics..............................................................28
Im plem enter Characteristics ............................................................. ......... 33
Components of the Descriptive Approach ...................................................33
Functions Identified ................ ....... ............... 37
Interventions Im plem ented ............................................................................. 39
Sum m ary ................. ............... ... ..... ... ........... ............. 41
Descriptive Assessments and Functional and Structural Analyses within FBAs.......42
Participant and Setting Characteristics.................................. ....... .............45
Implementer Characteristics ......... ............. ...............47
Components of the Descriptive Approach and Analog Conditions ....................48
Functions Identified ........... ..... ............... 50
Interventions Implemented ..................................................... 52










Su m m ary ................ ...... ... .. ............. ........................ 54
Direct Evaluation of Descriptive Methodologies .............. ...............56
Comprehensive Summary of Research Literature............... .... .................80
Research Questions................ ...... ................. 84

3 METHODS ........................... .............................85

Participants .......................................................85
Settings ........................................ .............................. .........89
M materials ....................................................... .........90
M easurem ent P rocedures....................................................................................... 92
D dependent M measures ................................................. ............... 92
In dep en dent V ariab les .................................................................................... 92
D ata Collection Procedures ........................................... ............... 95
Interobserver Agreement .................... ............................97
Experimental Procedures ............... ......... ................99
Recruitment and Training....................... ......... ....................99
Phase I--Pre-experim ental A ssessm ents............................................................100
Phase II--Descriptive Assessments............................. ..... ........ 101
Phase III--Functional Analysis .............. ...... ...................... 101
Social Validity ......................................... ......... 105
Procedural Integrity ................................................ ........ 105
D esign and D ata A nalysis................................................... 106
Design ............... ...... .................................. 106
Data Analysis. ........... ........... .............. .......... ..........106

4 RESULTS ............................ ............. ............... 110

Individual Child Participant Results............................ ......... ...............111
Ramon.................. .................................112
Anthony ........................ ............ ............. ........113
Jimmy .......................... ............. ............. .........114
Greg ............... ....... ............. ................116
Comparison of Outcomes of Descriptive Assessments..............................118
Social Validity Questionnaire and Interview Results................ ......... .........121
Social Validity Questionnaire................................ ........121
Social Validity Interview..................................... ........123
Summary ..................... ......................... ............124

5 DISCUSSION ............ ........... ................. 126

Limitations.................. .......... ........... ........128
Interpretations of Results.............. ..... .. .................. .........135
Comparison of Descriptive Assessments .............. ................... ................... 135
Comparison of Descriptive Assessments with Functional Analyses ..............138
Social Validity .............................................................. .......142
Future Research ......................................................... ............................. ........143









Im plication s for P practice ...................................................................................... 14 7
Summary ...................................... ................... .................... 150

APPENDIX

A APPROVED IRB FORMS AND PARTICIPANT INFORMED CONSENT
FORMS ......................... .. ...... .... ......... ..52

B FLOW CHART OF TEACHER AND CHILD PARTICIPANT RECRUITING
PROCESS ......... .......................................... 162

C STUDENT PARTICIPANT CHILD BEHAVIOR CHECKLIST (CBCL)
SCORES .......................... ..................... ......... 163

D IN S T R U M E N T S ................................................................................................. 164

E SOCIAL VALIDITY MEASURES ............................ ...............165

F TEACHER TRAINING OUTLINE ........................................... 169

G FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS PROCEDURES.........................................................173

H FINAL SCORING SUMMARY CHART..............................................................178

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ............................................................................................ 179

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............................................................................189
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 Descriptive Methods for Young Children...............................................................29

2-2 Descriptive Methods and Functional Analysis for Young Children........................44

2-3 Direct Evaluations of Descriptive Assessments....................................................59

3-1 Child Participant Inform ation................................................ 88

3-2 Teacher Participant Inform ation............................................ 88

3-3 Summary of Assessments and Their Settings For Each Phase ................................90

3-4 Summary of Child Participants' Preferred Items, Neutral Activities and Difficult
T asks ............... ..................................................................... 9 1

4-1 Summary of the Functions of Challenging Behaviors Across Assessment
M methods .................................................................. .................... 112

4-2 Summary of Agreements Between Descriptive Assessments Compared With
Each Other and w ith a Functional Analysis..........................................................119

4-3 Results of the Social Validity Questionnaire ................. ................. .........121
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

4-1 Challenging Behaviors per Minute During Functional Analysis for Ramon.........113

4-2 Challenging Behaviors per Minute During Functional Analysis for Anthony. .....114

4-3 Challenging Behaviors per Minute During Functional Analysis for Jimmy. ........116

4-4 Challenging Behaviors per Minute During Functional Analysis for Greg. ...........117
















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

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGIES AND FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN
WITH OR AT RISK FOR EMOTIONAL OR BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS

By

Peter Jay Alter Jr.

August 2006

Chair: Vivian I. Correa
Cochair: Maureen A. Conroy
Major Department: Special Education

The prevalence of functional behavior assessments (FBAs) in schools continues to

increase as a result of federal mandates and widespread school policy reform. As the use

of FBAs in schools increases, it is necessary to improve their current condition by

evaluating the concurrent and construct validity of the process components. Failure to

establish FBA as a process with valid outcomes will adversely impact students who

demonstrate challenging behaviors because a method for designing effective

interventions will either be unused or the interventions that result from the process will be

ineffective. There are a large number of descriptive methodologies that can be used

within the FBA process. However, the outcomes of many of these methodologies have

not been compared with each other or validated through functional analysis. Thus, there

is a continuing need to empirically compare and validate the outcomes of these

descriptive assessment methods. The two purposes of this investigation were: (1) to









compare the results of three commercially produced descriptive assessments with each

other to determine concurrent validity, and (2) to compare the descriptive assessment

results with the results of a functional analysis to determine construct validity.

Descriptive assessments including one checklist, an interview, and a direct observation

were completed for four young children (ages 4-6) with or at risk for emotional and

behavioral disorders. Teachers and researchers then completed functional analyses within

the classroom setting of the same participants. Results of the assessments were kept

independent from each other until completion. Teachers also completed a social validity

questionnaire and interview. This study indicated that descriptive assessment results had

low consistency with each other, 8/24 (33%) agreements between assessments, and that

the outcomes of two of the three descriptive assessments (i.e., the interview and

checklist) also had low agreement with the functional analyses with 3/8 (38%)

agreements. However, the direct observations agreed with the functional analyses

conclusions for all 4/4 (100%) of the participants. These results do not support the

concurrent validity of the three descriptive assessments or the construct validity of the

checklist or the interview, but do support the construct validity of direct observations.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides a brief overview of the literature and presents the need to

examine the validity of various assessments in the functional behavior assessment (FBA)

process. This brief overview outlines the use of FBA with preschool-aged children who

demonstrate challenging behavior and also highlights articles that have directly evaluated

the results of these various assessments. The articles that have directly evaluated various

assessments compare the reported results of the descriptive assessments to each other and

to results of functional analyses. The literature provides a synthesis of the evolution of

the FBA process, the need for distinct comparisons of the various assessments and a

rationale for the current study. In addition, the contributions this study makes to improve

the effectiveness of the FBA methodology, in both research and practice, are identified.

Finally, this chapter presents the specific research questions that were addressed in this

study.

Overview

As the utilization of functional behavior assessments (FBAs) increases, it is

incumbent on researchers to improve FBAs' current practices by evaluating the

effectiveness and the efficiency of this process. The increasing prevalence of FBAs is a

direct result of two interrelated factors. The first reason for more widespread application

of FBAs is the increased number of children who are engaging in challenging behaviors

(Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002). The number of young children exhibiting challenging

behaviors is rising. Many of these children may ultimately meet the criteria for









emotional/behavioral disorders (Fox, Dunlap, & Powell, 2002). According to Webster-

Stratton (2000), 7% to 25% of preschool-aged children currently meet criteria that place

them at risk for future development of oppositional defiant disorder or a conduct disorder.

For example, Kaiser, Kai, Hancock and Foster (2002) tested 332 three-year old children

enrolled in Head Start and found that 39% of boys and 22% of girls demonstrated

behavioral deficits that placed them in the clinical range for both internalizing and

externalizing problem behaviors on the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 1992).

FBAs are one strategy that can be used to address children's needs; however, many of the

FBA procedures used are problematic (Johnston & O'Neill, 2001). Increased

effectiveness of FBAs are needed to appropriately meet the increasing needs of young

children with challenging behaviors.

Second, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Amendments (IDEA, 2004) has mandated the use of functional behavior assessments for

all students who have been suspended for over ten days, who demonstrate behaviors that

warrant consideration of a change in educational placement, or disciplinary measures

such as placement in a more restrictive setting (i.e., an interim alternative educational

setting) or expulsion. As a result, school districts now view the completion of an FBA as

the first step in any significant intervention. This IDEA mandate has also impacted early

childhood personnel working with young children ages 3 to 6 served under Section 619

of Part B of the act. The prevalence of FBAs in early childhood settings has been

stimulated both by IDEA legislation (Nielsen & McEvoy, 2004) and recognition that the

process of FBA represents an important methodology in addressing challenging

behaviors demonstrated by young children (Fox, Dunlap & Powell, 2002).









Functional behavioral assessment is a process in which information is gathered

regarding a specific behavior or set of behaviors in order to determine whether that

behavior has any predictable relationship with the environment (O'Neill et al., 1997).

Relationships exist when these environmental factors both predict the behavior and

explain why it is maintained. Identification of these relationships increases understanding

of why a particular behavior occurs or how behavior is reinforced and maintained by the

specific environmental consequences (i.e., functions) they elicit. The FBA must identify

the environmental factors surrounding challenging behaviors. Once environmental factors

are identified and understood through an effective FBA, individualized interventions may

be designed to replace undesirable behavior with appropriate alternatives that efficiently

obtain the same functions of the challenging behavior. For example, if a child engages in

challenging behaviors to receive teacher attention, an intervention is designed that gives

the child increased access to teacher attention by demonstrating desired behaviors and

decreased access to teacher attention for challenging behaviors. In most educational

settings, information for FBAs is gathered using a combination of both indirect and direct

descriptive assessment measures (Johnston & O'Neill, 2001). Indirect measures are those

that do not require direct observation of the student. Indirect measures include interviews

with parents, teachers, and children via the use of questionnaires, rating scales and record

reviews. In contrast, direct measures typically consist of scatter plots (Touchette,

MacDonald, & Langer, 1985) and observation worksheets that reflect a running narrative

of antecedents, behaviors and consequences (ABCs) (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968) that

are recorded as they are observed in natural settings.









An alternative method for gathering information to determine the function of a

challenging behavior is a functional analysis (Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2000).

Functional analysis refers to the use of analog conditions, manipulating specific

environmental conditions that follow challenging behaviors, to systematically identify

consequences as they relate to the function of a behavior (Sugai, Horner, & Sprague,

1999). Following the manipulation of each of these conditions, the consequence that

produces the highest level of behavior is identified as the function. The difference

between the former two descriptive methods (direct and indirect) and the third method of

functional analysis is that the descriptive methods generate correlational results while a

functional analysis identifies causal relationships between behavior and the maintaining

consequences (Lerman & Iwata, 1993). No combination of these three methods has been

accepted as the standard protocol either by research literature or federal mandates (Scott

et al., 2004).

A literature review of the research of the use of FBAs with young children

demonstrating challenging behaviors revealed three distinct groupings: (a) studies that

only employed indirect and direct descriptive methodologies to determine hypothetical

functions; (b) studies that combined descriptive methodologies with functional analysis

methodologies to determine functions; and (c) studies that directly compared the results

of different assessments with each other and/or a functional analysis. Although some

FBA methodologies have been available for use by teachers for over 20 years (Ervin,

Ehrhardt & Poling, 2001), FBA methods are still in a fledgling state of development.

Studies that only used descriptive assessment methods in the FBA process remain

the most prevalent for young children demonstrating challenging behavior. By using only









descriptive assessments, and not using functional analysis, the function identified in this

body of research remains hypothetical. Interventions based on the hypothetical functions

that are not experimentally manipulated (i.e., a reversal design) only provide correlational

support (Kazdin, 1982). Additionally, in studies that only used descriptive assessments,

many of the interventions implemented within the studies were either not directly related

to the hypothetical function or included additional interventions that muddled whether or

not the hypothetical function identification was accurate. For example, Grandy and Peck

(1997) hypothesized that the function of the challenging behavior was teacher attention.

However, rather than creating an intervention that limited teacher attention for

challenging behavior and increased teacher attention for desired behaviors, researchers

implemented a token economy that led to classroom privileges and that indirectly led to

teacher attention. This lack of a direct connection between the determined function and

the intervention implemented calls into question the accuracy of the determined function.

It is impossible to determine if teacher attention was reinforcing the desired behavior or if

it was another element of the token economy. As illustrated through this example, the

body of literature using descriptive assessments gives minimal support to the accuracy or

consistency of the various descriptive assessments.

Studies that employ both descriptive assessments and functional analysis

methodologies also have certain shortcomings. First, researcher influence was

pronounced in these studies that included the time consuming, technically complex

functional analysis process. In many of the studies reviewed, a team of researchers

worked with very few participants (i.e., Doggett, Edwards, Tingstrom & Wilcznski,

2001; Harding et al., 1999; Romaniuk et al., 2002). Another salient difference between









the descriptive methods in the studies that used both descriptive assessments and

functional analysis and the sample that only used descriptive methods is that this sample

was more parsimonious in the use of descriptive assessments. When functional analysis

was also incorporated into the study's protocol, descriptive assessments were only used

to the extent that they could guide the functional or structural analysis procedures. These

studies used the descriptive assessment results to identify times and situations to conduct

analog probes during the times or activities that teachers identified as the most

problematic. For example, in both their studies Broussard and Northup (1995, 1997) only

used direct observations of the participant and a brief interview with the teacher to

determine what would make the analog conditions most representative of the natural

environment. This makes it very difficult to determine what parts of the process are

producing accurate and/ or consistent results. Therefore, the effectiveness and efficiency

of various FBA methodologies are unknown.

There were eight studies that directly evaluated different aspects of the functional

behavior assessment process. This group of studies that attempted to compare the results

of different descriptive assessments with each other and with functional analysis

procedures had several prominent characteristics. Overall, there was agreement between

the different descriptive assessments results. There was also agreement between the

descriptive assessment results and the functional analysis results. However there are three

reasons why these results should be interpreted with caution. First, the descriptive

assessment results informed one another and were not independent from each other as

they were conducted, making direct comparison of separate results impossible. For

example, in Ellingson, Miltenberger, Stricker, Galensky and Garlinghouse (2000),









Murdock, O'Neill and Cunningham (2005) and Newcomer and Lewis (2004), the results

of the indirect assessment directly shaped and guided the direct descriptive observations

thereby compromising their claims of independent consistency across assessment

methods. This makes direct comparison impossible as the results of one assessment

influence the results of another. The second interrelated factor with this assimilation of

assessment methods is that by not being presented in different orders, the order of

administration was not counterbalanced. As a result, the aforementioned three studies and

Yarbrough and Carr (1997) presented their descriptive assessments in the same order,

making it impossible to control for an order effect. In other words, there is a possibility

that a participating teacher's previous responses to an assessment would shape responses

to subsequent assessments.

The third salient factor is the use of the descriptive assessment results to guide the

functional analysis procedures. Within this body of literature, only Cunningham and

O'Neill (2000), and Sasso et al. (1992) conducted functional analysis procedures with

five analog conditions: free play (control), tangible, escape, attention, and alone. Other

studies only tested analog conditions that matched the results of the descriptive

assessments. This difference is subtle yet critical. By only evaluating those hypothetical

functions determined by the descriptive assessment, it is possible to confirm the results as

a function but not the function (because different functions were not compared).

Additionally, two studies, Murdock, et al., (2005) and Ellingson et al. (2000), did not use

any experimental procedures to confirm the functions; this means that their results may

show consistency across descriptive measures, but that does not confirm the accuracy of

the function identified.









In conclusion, all three bodies of FBA literature indicate that there is a need to

evaluate the effectiveness of current assessment procedures. By keeping the different

assessment results separate from each other and from the functional analysis, it was

possible to evaluate each instrument's results independently. This extends current FBA

research that has attempted to evaluate the accuracy of different assessment

methodologies.

Statement of the Problem

No single procedure or combination of procedures for functional behavior

assessment has emerged as the most suitable for use with young children demonstrating

challenging behaviors. Minimal empirical studies have evaluated the effectiveness and

usefulness of various approaches. "Several authors have noted that research directly

comparing the results of different approaches such as interviews and direct observations

is sparse" (Johnston & O'Neill, 2001, p. 206). Failure to establish FBA as a meaningful

process with valid outcomes will adversely impact countless children who demonstrate

challenging behaviors. Absent a highly effective method for determining function and

designing effective interventions, appropriate plans will either go unused or the

interventions that result from the process will be ineffective. Teachers need to be

equipped with strategies that determine the function of a challenging behavior reliably

and accurately for the FBA process to be effective and useful. If the process is ineffective

and does not decrease challenging behaviors, then the FBA process will become another

bureaucratic chore that will not positively impact children (Scott et al., 2004).

Significance of the Study

This fundamental need to meet the demand for effective FBAs that can be

implemented by teachers in a meaningful way leads to an important area of research: to









conduct a series of indirect and direct descriptive assessments and compare the outcomes

of these assessments to each other and to the outcomes of a functional analysis

methodology. This study extends and builds on the current literature that directly

evaluated the results of different descriptive assessments. However, unlike these studies,

the functional analysis in this study was independent of the descriptive assessment

results, thus allowing an unbiased comparison of descriptive and experimental

methodologies. The results of the various direct and indirect descriptive assessments were

recorded independently and separation of the results was maintained until the end of the

study. Additionally, the descriptive assessments' order of administration was

counterbalanced across participants to maintain independence as well. The results of this

research are an empirically validated step towards evaluating descriptive assessments that

can be used both in continuing FBA research and in applied public school and early

childhood settings.

Purpose of the Study

The specific questions this research study addressed were the following:

1. How do the functions of target behaviors identified through various descriptive
functional assessments compare with functions identified through a functional
analysis for young children's challenging behavior?

2. How do the functions of target behaviors identified through various descriptive
functional assessments compare to each other?














CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on the use of functional

behavior assessment (FBA) that address challenging behaviors in applied settings

demonstrated by young children. This review focuses on the processes that comprise

FBAs, in order to determine the most effective methodologies. First, the significance of

completing FBAs will be traced in the context of an increase in the rate and severity of

challenging behaviors demonstrated by young children. Second, this chapter will define

functional behavior assessment, and outline the current components that comprise FBA.

Third, the theoretical underpinnings will be outlined as they relate to its current

application especially with young children. Fourth, specific aspects of this application

will be examined through a targeted review of the empirical literature. This literature will

be divided into three sections: (1) studies that used only descriptive assessments in the

FBA process (2) studies that used both descriptive assessments and experimental

analyses; and (3) studies that directly examined and compared the results of different

descriptive assessment methodologies. Finally, a general discussion will address the

shortcomings of current empirical literature and outline directions for future research.

Prevalence and Impact of Young Children with Challenging Behaviors

The prevalence of young children exhibiting challenging behaviors is increasing

(Fox, Dunlap, & Powell, 2002), and children are at risk for future development of

behavioral disorders (Webster-Stratton, 1997). The young children under consideration

are defined as children under 8 years of age, in accordance with the age limit specified by









the Division of Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children. Researchers

have documented various prevalence rates across a number of different behavior

disorders. For example, 7% to 25% of preschool-age children currently meet the criteria

for a diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) as defined by the Diagnostic

Statistical Manual IV-TR (DSM IV-TR) (Webster-Stratton, 2000). The DSM defines

Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) as "a recurrent pattern of negativistic, defiant,

disobedient, and hostile behavior toward authority figures that persists for at least 6

months." Additionally, Kaiser, Kai, Hancock, and Foster (2002) tested 332 three-year old

children enrolled in Head Start and found that 39% of boys and 22% of girls scored in the

clinical range for both internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors. As the rate of

challenging behaviors demonstrated by young children continues to increase, the need to

manage and modify behavior in early childhood settings also increases. The inability to

remediate these challenging behaviors will affect young children both now and in the

future.

Behaviors such as tantrums, aggression, and chronic non-compliance exhibited by

young children may have immediate and prolonged effects on academic achievement and

appropriate socialization (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). The immediate effects of

challenging behaviors for preschool-aged children are academic under-achievement and

poorly developed social skills (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002; Webster-Stratton, 1997).

The long-term effects of unaddressed challenging behaviors are an increase in both rate

and severity over time (Reid & Patterson, 1991). Early behavior problems have also been

linked with more severe problems such as substance abuse, unemployment, criminal

behavior, and diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder (Reid and Patterson, 1991).









Chandler and Dahlquist (2002) state that difficult behaviors are often rooted in the

functions that they served at young ages, such as hitting a peer to attain a tangible object

(e.g., a toy), and these behaviors may also increase in frequency, duration, and intensity

as the child gets older. Ascertaining the function of a challenging behavior is the key to

developing an effective intervention to extinguish it (Cooper & Harding, 1993; Iwata et

al., 1982/1994; Gresham, 2003; O'Neill et al., 1997; Sasso et al., 2001) and may prevent

its undesirable immediate and long-term consequences.

Defining Functional Behavior Assessment

The use of functional behavior assessments (FBAs) in school settings represents an

important process in the effort to address increasingly prevalent problems with behavior

in children. Using functional behavior assessment and functionally derived interventions,

as opposed to interventions that are unrelated to the function of the behavior, is supported

by research and considered "best practice" in the field (Arndorfer & Miltenberger, 1993;

Gresham, 2003; Iwata et al., 1982/1994; National Institute of Health, 1989; O'Neill et al.,

1997; Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988; Sasso et al., 2001). Functional behavior assessment

was designed to identify variables to manipulate through applied interventions to reduce

challenging behaviors that interfere with or prohibit learning, and increase pro-social and

adaptive behaviors that can lead to greater academic and social success (O'Neill et al.,

1997).

In schools, the use of FBA represents a paradigm shift for educators that

traditionally applied a standard system of consequences for all infractions (i.e., time out,

a phone call to parents, a loss of privileges, suspension, expulsion). In early childhood

settings, FBAs represent a valuable tool to help early childhood professionals address the

behaviors that surpass usual challenging behaviors demonstrated by young children (Fox,









Dunlap, & Powell, 2002). With FBA, educators can design interventions that match the

function of a challenging behavior in children. The function of a behavior refers to the

purpose or outcome of the challenging behavior for the child (Scott et al., 2004). In other

words, a function refers to the desired consequence that motivates a challenging behavior,

and function-based interventions refer to environmental manipulations that allow a

student to achieve the desired goal through other means (i.e., appropriate replacement

behaviors). For example, if the function, or purpose, of a student exhibiting a challenging

behavior is to receive teacher attention, then a challenging behavior could be

extinguished by giving the student access to teacher attention by exhibiting appropriate

behaviors and not providing additional teacher attention for the challenging behavior.

Functional behavior assessment, as defined for this literature review, is a process in

which information is gathered regarding a specific behavior or set of behaviors in order to

determine whether that behavior has any predictable relationship with the environment

(O'Neill et al., 1997). The environment is comprised of all factors preceding

(antecedents) and events following (consequences) the behavior. A relationship exists

when these environmental factors predict the occurrence of the behavior and explain why

the behavior is maintained. This assessment helps to understand why behavior occurs, or

how behavior is reinforced and maintained by the specific environmental consequences

(i.e., functions) they elicit. This assessment also identifies the environmental factors that

precede a challenging behavior and make the challenging behavior more or less likely to

occur. The purpose of an FBA is to understand environmental factors that surround the

behavior so that individualized interventions may be designed to replace undesirable









behavior with appropriate alternatives that efficiently match the functions of the

challenging behavior.

Because current empirical studies have applied the term functional behavior

assessment broadly, the definition of FBA for this literature review requires further

specification. As noted, functions typically refer to environmental consequences that

follow a challenging behavior. The experimental evaluation of functions of behavior is

referred to as 'functional analysis' within the literature. However antecedents, (also

referred to as setting events or establishing operations) that precede and increase the

likelihood of challenging behaviors, also play an important role in functional behavior

assessment (Conroy & Stichter, 2003). Within the literature, experimental evaluation of

antecedents is referred to as a 'structural analysis,' but may also simply be included as

another aspect of an FBA. For the purposes of this literature review, studies that evaluate

both the antecedents and consequences of behavior will be included as part of an FBA.

There are essentially three ways to generate functions of a challenging behavior: (1)

indirect descriptive measures that establish hypothetical functions of a challenging

behavior, (2) direct descriptive measures that establish 1yipohicihu al functions and (3)

experimental analysis of an environment that can determine the actual function of a

challenging behavior. However, for the purposes of this literature review direct and

indirect measures will be combined and simply referred to as descriptive assessment

measures in the three sections of literature that are reviewed (Sturmey, 1994). Indirect

measures are those that do not require direct observation of the student and the

challenging behavior. Typically, indirect measures include interviews with parents,

teachers, (and the student if appropriate), questionnaires, rating scales and reviews of









school records. A number of commercially produced comprehensive interviews exist (see

O'Neill et al., 1997 for an example). In addition, commercially produced behavior

checklists, such as the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) (Durand & Crimmins, 1992)

are designed for determining the hypothetical function of a behavior. The total number of

indirect assessments of this type is difficult to determine. According to a literature review

conducted by Floyd, Phaneuf and Wilczynski (2005) there are 19 commercially produced

indirect assessments; however, this does not include those indirect assessments that are

created by individual school systems or early childhood centers. Further, as Floyd et al.,

(2005) point out most of these other instruments have minimal research into their efficacy

and validity; only O'Neill's interview and the MAS met their criteria for inclusion in a

literature review of indirect descriptive assessment methods.

In contrast, direct measures require the direct observation of the child and the

challenging behaviors. Direct descriptive assessments typically consist of scatter plots

(Touchette, et al., 1985), and observation worksheets that reflect antecedents, behaviors

and consequences (ABCs) (Bijou, et al., 1968) that are recorded in real time as they are

observed. While some school districts and early childhood centers may adopt

commercially produced FBA measures, they also may have created their own direct and

indirect methods of gathering data to identify these functions. This means that there are a

large number of descriptive methodologies that can be used within the FBA process.

Finally, the third type of procedure is an experimental approach, also referred to as

functional and structural analysis. Functional analysis refers to the use of analogs,

manipulating specific environmental conditions that follow challenging behaviors, to

systematically identify consequences as they relate to the function of a behavior (Sugai,









Horner, & Sprague, 1999). For example, to determine the function of the behavior,

analog situations representing possible consequences are manipulated (i.e., attention,

tangible, escape, and control conditions). Following the manipulation of each of these,

the consequence that produces the highest level of behavior is identified as the function.

For example, to determine the function of a challenging behavior, each analog condition

is conducted, contingently providing the targeted consequence following the occurrence

of the behavior. For example, in the attention condition, the consequence of adult

attention would be provided contingently every time the target behavior is demonstrated

while all other possible antecedents and consequences are controlled to account for any

variance. If the consequence of adult attention results in an increased rate of the behavior,

as compared with other consequences administered in the same controlled environment,

then it can be concluded that the function of this challenging behavior is adult attention.

Structural analysis involves a similar process; however, rather than systematically

manipulating the consequences that follow a behavior, a structural analysis manipulates

the antecedents that precede the behavior to identify variables that set the occasion or

serve an evocative effect.

All three of these assessment procedures have drawbacks. Indirect assessments rely

on the subjective judgments of a third party, and direct observations can be context

specific and inefficient in capturing the occurrence of a challenging behavior and its

antecedents and consequences (Floyd et al., 2005). Direct observations can be inefficient

because the probability of actually observing the challenging behavior may be relatively

low, necessitating long and/or frequent observation periods (Scott et al., 2004). In this

sense, the measures are inefficient because they may demand a considerable amount of









time from the practitioner but do not insure meaningful results. Functional and structural

analysis have been identified as too time consuming, and technically complex for

practitioners to conduct, and may lack external validity due to the high degree of

experimental control (i.e., the highly controlled conditions in which it is conducted)

(Arndorfer & Miltenberger, 1993; Ellingson, et al., 2000).

Regardless of the methodology, identifying and evaluating relationships between

environmental antecedents and consequences and challenging behavior improves the

opportunities to enable all students to meet academic and behavioral goals (Hanley, Iwata

& McCord, 2003). As antecedents and consequences that are related to challenging

behavior are identified, environments can be modified to reduce the occurrence of

challenging behavior. This may be done by reducing the antecedents that increase the

occurrence of the challenging behavior, giving students access to desired reinforcement

through adaptive behaviors and/or limiting access to reinforcement for challenging

behaviors. Creating effective interventions that reduce or eliminate challenging behavior

at a young age can decrease the possibility that they will increase in frequency, duration

and intensity as the child gets older. The theoretical framework for designing

interventions according to function is rooted in the Behaviorist approach to human

psychology. This theoretical framework and an historical perspective supporting FBA are

described in the next section.

Theoretical Framework and Historical Perspective Supporting FBA

The theoretical framework for functional behavior assessment methodology can be

traced back to the work of early behaviorists such as J.B. Watson and, so-called neo-

behaviorists such as B.F. Skinner (1953). In fact, the term function, as it is used in this

context, is often credited to Skinner's book Science and Human Behavior (1953). Skinner









(1953) states, "The external variables of which behavior is a function provide for what

may be called a causal or functional analysis." (p. 35). The subsequent work in the field

of applied behavior analysis, codified by the creation of the Journal ofApplied Behavior

Analysis (JABA), expanded this theoretical framework to work with humans in applied

settings.

Within this framework, researchers address behaviors by examining the

environmental variables that maintain them, and operate on the assumption that

functional relations not only exist, but also can be identified and manipulated. Early

seminal work in JABA included an article by Bijou, Peterson and Ault (1968) that

described a method to integrate descriptive and experimental data within field studies.

Additionally, Sailor, Guess, and Rutherford (1968) conducted early work identifying

"functions" of behavior and reported that for a 9 year old who engaged in frequent

tantrums, the problem behavior "seemed to produce the effect of terminating contact with

other individuals who usually were making some demand of her" (p. 238). While

establishing the function of a behavior can be traced back to the work of early

behaviorists, the emergence of a specific process for determining the behavioral functions

is related to two more recent seminal events; the creation of a functional analysis

methodology and the legal mandate of FBA in the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA, 1997; 2004).

First, Iwata et al. (1982/1994) developed a methodology that used various

environmental conditions, referred to as analog probes, in a clinical setting to identify a

relationship between the environment and the function of self-injurious behavior. These

analog probes included the following conditions: adult attention, escape from a task, an









alone condition and free play (Iwata et al., 1982/1994). The direct, systematic

manipulation of environmental factors in a highly controlled environment in order to

evaluate the function of a challenging behavior, in this case self-injurious behaviors, was

termed 'functional analysis.' This procedure led to highly specific, highly effective

intervention plans that incorporated the function of the challenging behavior and thus,

decreased these behaviors. As the importance of finding the function of a challenging

behavior became apparent, the methodologies broadened beyond experimental

manipulation into more descriptive assessments. Following this groundbreaking research,

a more formalized functional behavior assessment process emerged from the clinic

setting and was implemented in more natural settings, such as the classroom.

The second critical event, the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Amendments (1997), provided the impetus to extend the methodology by

making the use of functional behavior assessments (FBAs) mandatory for all students

whose behavior warrants consideration for a change in educational placement or

disciplinary measures such as extended suspension or expulsion. Although IDEA (1997)

provided the impetus to expand the methodology of FBA, it did not specify what

procedures should be used by individuals in schools when implementing an FBA

resulting in varying forms of FBAs from state to state, district to district and even school

to school. Despite its continually increasing prevalence in both educational systems and

research settings, the effectiveness of FBA is still hampered by muddled definitions, an

unspecified protocol and components that have not been empirically validated for use

with various populations in numerous settings (Ervin, Ehrhardt, & Poling, 2001;

Gresham, et. al, 2004; Scott et al., 2004; Sugai, et al., 1999).









While IDEA mandates have specific implications for public schools, the legislation

has also continued to stimulate interest in the FBA process as it impacts early childhood

settings such as child care centers (Neilsen & McEvoy, 2004). This prevalence has a clear

relationship to the federal mandates regarding positive behavior support and the need for

evidence-based practices for all ages (see Conroy, Dunlap, Clark, & Alter, 2005 for a

review). As outlined by Amdorfer and Miltenberger (1993), there are specific

implications for FBA in early childhood settings. These implications include examination

of the utility of functional assessment methods in early childhood settings, especially

including the use of various different descriptive assessments (i.e. indirect and direct

assessments) and the viability of functional analysis procedures in early childhood

settings. Thus, there is a need for examination of these specific components, as the role of

FBA in early childhood settings continues to be prevalent in research and practice.

No single procedure or combination of procedures has emerged as the most suitable

for application with young children demonstrating challenging behaviors. In concert with

this shortcoming, minimal empirical studies have evaluated the effectiveness and

usefulness of these various approaches. "Several authors have noted that research directly

comparing the results of different approaches such as interviews and direct observations

is sparse" (Johnston & O'Neill, 2001, p, 206). Failure to establish FBA as a meaningful

process with valid outcomes will adversely impact countless students who demonstrate

challenging behaviors, because a highly effective method for designing effective

interventions will either be unused or the interventions that result from the process will be

ineffective.









The application of various functional behavior assessment procedures in

educational settings has outpaced current research. There is minimal research validating

the effectiveness of different functional behavior assessment processes currently used for

children with emotional and behavioral disorders (Sasso, Conroy, Stichter & Fox, 2001).

"Given the different options available for conducting a functional assessment, the

question regarding which approach practitioners ought to use to assess problem behavior

is paramount" (Yarbrough & Carr, 2000, p, 133). The rising prevalence of young

children's challenging behavior in early childhood settings increases this urgency. Thus,

educators need to be equipped with strategies that determine the function of a challenging

behavior reliably and accurately for the FBA process to effective and useful.

Review of the Current Literature

Current research in the use of FBAs, including functional and structural analyses,

with young children indicates that although there is considerable application of these

methodologies, the use of FBAs with young children with EBD in applied or natural

(e.g., classrooms, home) settings is still in its fledgling state. The first section of this

review examines the use of both direct and indirect descriptive FBA assessment

methodologies in natural settings (i.e., such as childcare centers, public school

classrooms, and homes). The rationale for reviewing this group of empirical studies is

that they can provide insight into the effectiveness of FBAs that are conducted without

any type of systematic environmental manipulation. The second section examines FBAs

that used both types of descriptive assessments and experimental analysis for FBAs.

Examining this literature will provide a clearer picture as to what place, if any, functional

analysis will hold in natural settings and what the ramifications of not using experimental

analysis may be. The third section examines studies that specifically compared the results









of descriptive assessment methodologies with each other and with the results of a

functional analysis. This purpose of this section of the literature review is to examine

what research has been conducted thus far comparing, evaluating and possibly validating

different components of the FBA process.

Method to Select Reviewed Studies

This literature search was completed in three steps. First, the author conducted a

computer search of EbscoHost including Academic Search Premier, PsychlNFO,

Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and the Professional Development

Collection databases), ERIC, and First Search. The following keyword combinations

were used: functional, assessment, assessment-based, analysis, behavior, experimental,

school, preschool and young children. Second, articles were cross-referenced that were

identified in the computerized search to determine if research articles had been omitted.

Third, the author consulted with researchers who have written extensively in this area to

accumulate any other articles that may have been omitted in the first two steps.

To compare 'descriptive assessments' (direct and indirect) to 'experimental

analysis,' it is necessary to differentiate the two terms. As previously described,

descriptive assessment represents the use of methodologies including: direct observation,

rating scales, interviews, and hypothesis development using antecedent behavior

consequence (ABC) analysis (Bijou et al., 1968). Experimental analysis (i.e., structural

analysis and functional analysis) uses analog probes to purposefully manipulate a

variable within the environment and then develops hypotheses based on these controlled,

manipulated environments. One important distinction between these two terms is that

descriptive assessment methodologies identify only a hypothetical function; whereas,









functional analyses are able to identify a causal relationship (i.e., function) through

experimental analyses (Lerman & Iwata, 1993).

However, certain characteristics of these research articles made separating

descriptive methodologies from functional analysis a complex task in several ways. First,

all descriptive studies included hypothesis testing, the addition or removal of a specific

stimulus in the environment. This type of environmental manipulation is similar to a

traditional FA. However, two features differentiated hypothesis testing and functional

analysis: (1) the type of experimental control and (2) the number of functions tested in

these controlled settings. Control of the environment is the distinguishing characteristic

separating descriptive analysis from functional analysis (Sasso et al., 1992). For

example, if researchers manipulated the environment to keep every other factor

(curriculum, schedule) the same and only systematically changed the analogs, this was

termed a functional analysis. Additionally, if a study tested multiple functions in this

controlled environment then it was termed a functional analysis. For example, if a study

systematically tested tangible items, adult attention and an alone condition, this was

considered a functional analysis. However, if a study only performed a test of one

hypothetical function based on the interviews or direct observations, this was still

considered a validation of the findings from the descriptive assessment (Hanley, et al.,

2003).

Another characteristic that made distinguishing descriptive methodologies from

experimental analysis difficult is the absence of clearly standardized terminology in the

research studies. In certain studies, the actual methodology is obfuscated by an imprecise

use of terms. For example, Kamps et al. (1995) referred to their research as a "functional









analysis." However, because of minimal environmental control, the methodology used in

this study is more accurately judged to be a descriptive analysis, according to Sasso et

al.'s (1992) definition. To counteract the use of imprecise terminology within the

literature, the criterion for categorization was set that if individuals (researchers, teachers,

parents) manipulated the environment to test multiple different functions in any way, in

order to confirm a hypothetical function, then it was deemed an experimental analysis.

There are two final caveats regarding this differentiation. The first issue concerned

studies that implemented interventions-even if interventions were implemented explicitly

to confirm hypothesized functions. Regardless, these studies were still judged to fall

under the 'solely descriptive' section of the literature review. The rationale for this

decision is that while interventions may confirm a functional relationship, they do not

necessarily confirm the functional relationship, unlike a traditional functional analysis.

Other functional relationships may exist that would not be tested simply by implementing

interventions guided by descriptive assessment results. For example, a descriptive

assessment suggests that desire for a tangible object may be the function of the behavior

and an intervention is implemented that provides increased time playing with the toy for

desired behaviors and decreased time playing with the toy for challenging behaviors.

Although this may be an effective way to reduce challenging behaviors, it does not

indicate that this is either the only function or the primary function of the challenging

behavior. The function may actually be the attention the student gets when playing with a

toy, thereby making the real function, attention. As an aside, the efficacy of using

interventions to confirm or disprove functional relationships will be discussed within the

first section of this literature review, studies using solely descriptive assessment studies.









The second caveat was the issue of investigating antecedent-based assessments, at

times referred to as structural analysis, and antecedent-based interventions. The rationale

for including these studies within this review is based on the use of antecedents within

classrooms and other natural settings. It has been noted that antecedent events play an

important role in natural settings because less predictable patterns of behavior occur in

these environments, less control over antecedents occurs, and schedules of reinforcement

may not be consistently applied (Conroy & Stichter, 2003). Furthermore, it is reasonable

to assume that teachers completing the FBA process will not limit the process in the

widespread application of FBAs, solely to consequence-based assessment and

intervention. Thus, studies that addressed antecedents are included in this review.

Additional criteria to determine which research studies would be included were

also determined. First, only studies that occurred in homes, community-based childcare,

and early childhood public school classrooms were used. Because this review is focused

on the use of FBA in real-world settings, its use in highly controlled clinical settings was

not applicable. As a result, a number of articles were excluded due to this potential lack

of external validity. Second, for the first two sections, research studies directed solely

toward populations with low-incidence disabilities, such as autism, or moderate and

severe mental retardation were eliminated, as was research geared toward highly specific

behaviors that are not typical of most young children who demonstrate challenging

behavior, e.g. hair-twirling, eye-poking, breath-holding, were eliminated. Therefore, as

long as at least one participant within the study had been classified as at risk for or having

a high-incidence disability, the study was included within this review. Only the results of

the children with high incidence disabilities were discussed in the first two sections of









this review. Criterion was established to focus on the application of FBA with a broad-

based population that is, young children with or at risk for emotional/behavioral

disorders. However, for the final section of the literature review that consisted of studies

that directly compared and evaluated the results of different descriptive methodologies,

this criterion was expanded due to the dearth in this area of research. For the final section,

results of students who were older or had more severe disabilities were also reported.

Third, in order to focus on FBAs with young children, each study was to include at

least one participant 8 years of age or younger. Fourth, only research published in a peer-

reviewed journal after 1994 was included. Because this methodology has been revised

and refined extensively over the past ten years, articles pre-dating 1994 would not be

applicable to current applications. These criteria were again expanded for the final

section due to the limited number of studies in this area.

Results of the Literature Review

Thirty-two studies were found that met the criteria for inclusion in this review.

Fourteen studies used descriptive methods only to identify the hypothetical function of a

challenging behavior, ten studies used both descriptive methods and functional analysis

to identify the function of a challenging behavior, and eight studies directly compared the

results of descriptive assessments with functional analysis results. In the first two sections

of this review, (1) solely descriptive assessments (indirect and direct), and (2)

experimental analysis and descriptive combined, were evaluated by looking at: (a)

participant and setting characteristics, (b) implementer characteristics, (c) components of

the descriptive approach or analog conditions, (d) antecedents and functions identified,

and (e) interventions implemented. In the final section, each of the eight studies is

presented individually. These studies are discussed in terms of the aforementioned









characteristics, but their findings and implications are also summarized. Patterns of

agreement or disagreement are also presented as well as methodological limitations.

These eight studies are presented in chronological order. The studies in this final section

are presented in greater depth, because their rationales and methodologies provided the

foundation for the current study.

Descriptive Assessment Methodologies

This section of the paper will address the research found on the use of descriptive

assessments in the formulation of FBAs in natural settings. Descriptive assessment

methodologies, both direct and indirect, are procedures that evaluate the function of a

challenging behavior but do not systematically manipulate the environment. Therefore,

there is no experimental validation of the potential antecedents and consequences

identified. In regard to FBAs with young children, descriptive assessments including

interviews, checklists and direct observations (ABC recordings) are far more prevalent

than the more technically complex, time consuming experimental analyses (i.e.,

functional analysis and structural analyses) (Arndorfer & Miltenberger, 1993; Reid &

Nelson, 2002; Scott et al., 2004).

While descriptive assessments are less time consuming and less technically

rigorous, the main drawbacks are that they can only generate hypothetical functions of

behavior. Additionally, descriptive assessments often rely on the judgments of third party

informants. This can be especially problematic as questionnaires and interviews were

subject to the teachers' memories and biases of behavior in different settings (Shores,

Wehby & Jack, 1999). Thus the value of these assessment methodologies hinges on the

informants' accuracy of recall. Despite their current prevalence in educational settings,

there still remains a shortage of literature in regard to studies that used only the









descriptive assessment methodologies. A surprising outcome of this review is that

although IDEA (1997) produced a flurry of position papers (Sasso, et al., 2001), it did not

appear to produce an accompanying flurry of empirical research that met the criteria for

this literature review. In fact, there are six studies on or before 1997 and eight studies

after 1997. A total of fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria (see Table 2-1 for a

summary of information regarding each study). The following sections will highlight the

findings of this group of studies and discuss methodological and practical limitations of

the research.

Participant and Setting Characteristics

In terms of participant characteristics, there were a total of 274 participants in the

solely descriptive studies, however, 210 participants were from a single study (see

Chandler, Dahlquist, Repp, and Feltz, 1999). Because information about ethnicity and

socio-economic level was omitted from most of the studies, particularly those with large

numbers of participants, this level of detail is not discussed in the review. Omitting the

Chandler et al. (1999) study that did not report gender, in the smaller studies that reported

participant gender, only 9 girls (between the ages of 3-6 years old) out of the remaining

64 participants (14%) were evaluated in all of the studies. This is not surprising since

typically boys demonstrate external challenging behaviors at a much higher rate at the

preschool age than girls do (Webster-Stratton, 1997).














Table 2-1. Descriptive Methods for Young Children
Authors/ Year Participant Implementer Descriptive Functions Interventions
of Publication Characteristics Characteristics Methods Identified Implemented
(number, gender, age in
years, label) Setting
characteristics
Dunlap, 3 males, 5-11 yrs**, Researchers DO, HD, I Not stated, Use of choice
dePerczel, EBD and ADHD, self- Lack of in curriculum
Clarke Wilson contained classrooms choice recommended


Wright, White,
& Gomez
(1994)*
Storey, et al.,
(1994)





Clarke, Dunlap,
Foster-Johnson,
Childs, Wilson,
White & Vera
(1995)*

Kamps, Elllis,
Mancina,
Wyble, Greene,
& Harvey
(1995)





Grandy & Peck
(1997)


Umbreit &
Blair (1997)*

Schill,
Kratochowill,
& Elliott
(1998)

Symons,
McDonald &
Wehby (1998)*


1 male, 6 yrs, no label,
reg. ed. Classroom





3 males, 5-11 yrs**,
EBD and ADHD, self-
contained classroom or
separate work room


8 males, 2 females, 3-5
yrs, at risk for EBD,
reg. ed. Classroom or
Head Start classroom






1 male, 6 yrs, no label,
gen. ed. Classroom


1 male, 4 yrs, at risk for
EBD, childcare center

19 students, 12 male, 7
female ages 4-5 yrs, no
label, Head Start
classroom

12 students, all male, 6
yrs, labeled EBD, self-
contained classrooms


Researchers &
Teacher





Researchers &
Teachers


Teachers-
provided with
training
workshops,
Researchers
monitor and
assist


Researchers
and teacher


Researchers &
Teacher

Researchers &
Teachers


Researchers
guided
teachers
through all
FBA
assessments


I, DO


I, RR, DO,
HD


(implied)


Attention, Increased
tangibles specific
reinforcement
using a
reinforcement
system
Lack of Incorporation
interest in of student
assignments interests


DO, HD, Adult Increased
TR attention, supervision,
tangibles reinforcement
for prosocial
behavior,
reduced
attention for
inappropriate
behavior
DO, HD, Teacher Token
SA,TR attention economy (led
to teacher
attention
DO,HD,I, Preference, Pair preferred
SA choice activity with
non-preferred
DO, HD, I, Skill deficit, DRO, Time
CL attention, out, Modeling
tangible


SP, HD, Teacher
SA attention,
Varied with
antecedents


Revised
schedules,
modified
assignments,
restructured
access to
attention












Table 2-1. Continued


Authors/ Year
of Publication




Blair, Umbreit,
Bos (1999)*



Chandler,
Dahlquist,
Repp, & Feltz
(1999)




Kennedy,
Long, Jolivette,
Cox, Tang &
Thompson
(2001)






Roberts,
Marshall,
Nelson &
Albers (2001)


VanDerHeyden
Witt & Gatti
(2001)


Participant
Characteristics
(number, gender, age,
label) Setting
characteristics
4 students, 3 male, 1
female 5 yrs, at risk for
EBD, childcare center


210 students, 3-6 yrs, 3
types of classrooms
special needs (assorted
disabilities), at risk,
early childhood


3 students, 6, 6 and 8
yrs, 2 male, 1 female,
1 identified EBD, 2 'at
risk', self-contained
and gen. ed classrooms






3 students, l-1st grade,
2-4th grade**, all
males, no identified
disability, general ed.
classroom

14 students, ages 2-4
yrs, 2 classrooms,
speech delay, autism,
hypothyroidism


Implementer
Characteristics




Researcher
and teachers



Teachers-
provided with
training
workshops,
Researchers
monitor and
assist
Researchers
and teachers


Researchers
and teachers


Researchers
and teachers


Descriptive Functions Interventions
Methods Identified Implemented


DO, HD, I Attention, Integrate
choice, choice and
preferred preference
task into
curriculum
DO, HD Not stated Varied for
classroom/
child


I, DO, HD Teacher
attention,
Escape,
Topograph-
ically
specific-
functions
varied
across
contexts
I, DO, Escape
Diagnostic motivated
academic
task


I, DO, HD, Teacher
attention
(primary)
escape,
tangible,
peer
attention
(secondary)


Differential
attention,
self-
monitoring,
Eliminate
certain
consequences
(school
suspension)

Used
curriculum
based
assessments
to modify
antecedents
Differential
reinforcement
of alternative
behaviors
(DRA)


Packenham, 2 students, 1 male, 1 Teacher I, HD Teacher Task
Shute & Reid female, 8 & 9 yrs**, no trained and through DO attention, modifications
1( 1 i4) identified disability completed (ABC) escape specific
assessments (only directions,
options) card to access
teacher
attention
Note. DO=direct observation; CL=checklist; I=interview; HD=hypothesis development; RR=record
review; SA=structural analysis; SP=scatterplot; TR=teacher reports; DRO=differential reinforcement of
other behaviors
* indicates a structural or antecedent based assessment used
** indicates only students in age range included









In regard to participants' disabilities, the publication dates of these studies and their

methodologies are suggestive of a type of evolutionary process that occurs with FBA

research, namely the progression of research with more severe, low-incidence disabilities

(autism, profound mental retardation) to participants with less severe, high-incidence

disabilities (EBD, mild mental retardation). Related to participants' disabilities is the

issue of what types of behaviors were being demonstrated and addressed through

functional behavior assessment. Behaviors such as noise making, talking out, property

destruction, excessive off-task behavior and non-compliance represented the majority of

the behaviors that were addressed in this sample of studies. The settings in which these

studies took place are also a highly relevant area of consideration in regard to the

widespread application of the FBA process. The studies in this sample used descriptive

assessments in self-contained special education classrooms (39%), Head Start classrooms

(11%), general education classrooms (39%) or childcare center rooms (11%). Four

studies included different types of classrooms in the same study and Clarke et al., (1995)

also reported using a teacher workroom for part of the assessment process.

The first notable aspect of the literature in regard to practical applications of FBA

in the classrooms is the total number of participants used in this sample of studies.

Omitting the Chandler et al. (1999) study, studies averaged about 6 participants per study,

in terms of all participants (not only the ones that met the inclusion criteria for this

literature review). However, Chandler et al. (1999) identified the importance of training

teachers as the creators and implementers of the FBAs. Through a series of workshops,

teachers were given the requisite knowledge to generate effective FBAs for entire classes.









The emphasis on training for class-wide implementation is indicative of the importance

of implementer characteristics, as discussed in the next section.

The second notable aspect about this sample of studies is in regard to gender. The

minimal representation of female participants is very likely an unavoidable aspect of this

type of research. The omission of girls from all but the largest descriptive methods

studies severely limits the generalizability of the results of the FBA process to this

population. However, this proportion of males to females may be representative of the

population schools and early childhood centers identify as necessitating an FBA.

The third practical consideration that is a strong point in regard to this sample of

FBA studies is the issue of setting. FBAs that are set in highly controlled settings such as

clinics threaten the applicability of this process. This is noted in this sample as all of the

studies were conducted in natural settings. Even the use of separate rooms other than

participants' classrooms threatens the external validity of the FBA process, as it exists

today. The consequence of this artificial setting is that the generalizability of these studies

remains questionable. Because of their countless responsibilities for an entire classroom

of students, it is unlikely that teachers will be able to spend the necessary time required to

conduct one-on-one descriptive assessments of students in separate classrooms.

Furthermore, unless the student's behavior is automatically reinforced, it is likely to be

mediated in some way by social settings. Therefore, conducting assessments away from

the typical classroom or early childhood center milieu may create artificial variables not

typically found in the classroom settings. An additional consideration beyond the FBA

setting is the consideration of who actually conducted and implemented the FBA.









Implementer Characteristics

Because educators will ultimately be responsible for generating effective FBAs, it

is important to note who is generating the FBAs in research studies (Scott et al., 2004). In

all of the studies in this section of the literature review, an effort was made to include

general and special education teachers in the creation and implementation of the FBA

(see Kamps et al., 1995; VanDerHeyden, Witt & Gatti, 2001). However, in 13 out of 14

(93%) of the studies, a number of highly trained researchers and trained graduate and

undergraduate students worked with a small, select group of students (or an individual

student) and the teachers' role appeared to be very limited. It is important to insure that

this process will generalize to the personnel in early childhood centers and schools so that

the process can be implemented after researchers leave. Furthermore, this may be the

opposite of what is currently occurring in a typical classroom, which is a small number of

teachers with minimal training are responsible for creating a large number of FBAs.

While investigating who is completing FBAs is an important consideration, how the

functions of the behavior are determined is the central issue in this literature review.

Components of the Descriptive Approach

In regard to the varying components of the descriptive approach, all fourteen

studies used some combination of descriptive methods to determine a hypothetical

function of a challenging behavior. The descriptive approach may include informant

assessments such as interviews with the teachers, teaching assistants and/or the parents, a

review of permanent records, and behavior checklists. In this sample of articles: 71%

(n=10) used some type of interview, 7% (n=l) used a behavior checklist, 100% (n=14)

used direct observation, 7% (n=l) used a scatter plot and 7% (n=l) explicitly mentioned

performing a records review. All fourteen of the articles also engaged in some type of









hypothesis development in which the researchers and teachers collaborated to generate

hypothetical functions for challenging behavior. It should also be noted that studies that

evaluated antecedents of the challenging behavior used essentially the same methods of

interviewing, behavior checklists, and direct observation for extracting information about

the antecedents that precede challenging behaviors.

While underused in this sample, there are two advantages to the use of checklists.

First, unlike an interview that is open to interpretation by the individual reviewing the

answers, a hypothetical function is explicitly arrived at through the checklist scoring

process. Second, behavior checklists are highly efficient and can be completed quickly

without extra work. However, they do not have the advantage of direct observation of the

child and all information in a behavior checklist is filtered through a third party informant

(Shores, et al., 1999).

Direct observation is another descriptive approach. One of the primary methods of

this descriptive approach is the use of an A-B-C procedure, in which the observer

carefully records the antecedent, behavior, and consequence to establish a pattern of

supporting environmental stimuli (Bijou et al., 1968) that either precede or follow the

challenging behavior. Direct observation and/or generating an ABC (antecedent-

behavior-consequence) hypothesis was used in all fourteen studies. The importance of

direct observation is two-fold. First, it provides basic information that can guide other

descriptive and analog methodologies. Second, it provides the requisite baseline data to

determine if subsequent interventions are effective.

Besides the ABC analysis, another direct observation tool that has been widely

used in research to systematically observe the antecedents and consequences of









challenging behavior is the Functional Assessment Observation Form (FAOF) (O'Neill et

al., 1997). Although more technically complex then the ABC hypothesis sheet, the FAOF

allows for the observation of chains and sequences of multiple behaviors and their

antecedents and consequences. Identifying chains of behaviors can give insight into

whether the challenging behaviors often occur in a hierarchy going from low-intensity to

high-intensity (Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002). For example, a student begins poking his

neighbor to avoid participating in 'Circle Time.' The teacher verbally prompts the student

to stop bothering his neighbor. The student ignores the redirection and begins stomping

the floor with his feet. When the teacher asks the student to get up, the student responds

by screaming at the teacher and flipping over a nearby chair. Without careful

identification of the target behavior, such as 'participating in group activities,' the focus

may be placed solely on the high intensity behavior, when in fact the initial behavior,

avoiding 'Circle Time,' is a more likely target for intervention strategies. In such cases,

interventions can be designed that address the initial challenging behavior early in the

chain before high intensity behavior occurs. In addition, the identification of behavioral

chains provides evidence that is useful in analyzing environmental events that may

precipitate all challenging behaviors. One important methodological consideration noted

in Kennedy et al. (2001) and Grandy and Peck (1997) is that these direct observations

should occur across settings and at different times of the day. The value of this

consideration is that it provides important contextual information regarding the function

of the behavior and reinforces the fact that behavior and its functions are often

contextually specific.









A teacher interview is another prevalent indirect descriptive method. The use of a

semi-structured or unstructured interview with a teacher provided important insight into

the possible functions of a behavior for a number of studies that used only a descriptive

methodology (e.g. Grandy & Peck, 1997; Kamps et al., 1995). The most common

interview used was the Functional Assessment Interview (FAI). The Functional

Assessment Interview (O'Neill et al., 1997) is a multi-step interview form designed to

identify antecedents of the challenging behavior and establish the function of a child's

challenging behavior. This is a comprehensive interview that has some empirical testing

(Kinch, Lewis-Palmer, Hagan-Burke, Sugai, 2001) and is described by Gresham, Watson

and Skinner (2001) as "the most comprehensive, up-to-date treatment of this topic" (p.

162).

Some different methods of assessment such as a careful review of records (Clarke

et al., 1995) and the use of a scatter plot (Symons, McDonald & Wehby, 1998) go

relatively unexplored in regard to research studies. In Packenham, Shute and Reid (2004),

one interesting point in regard to the use of formal descriptive assessments was that the

teacher who participated in the study said "I already do all of this (formal descriptive

assessments), I just never formalized it" (p.23). In light of this consideration, the need for

less formal descriptive assessments and more effective ways to access teacher knowledge

could be an important step in future research. Additionally, continuing to monitor

teachers' perceptions of the FBA process is also an important aspect of current and future

research. In this sample of studies, 6 out of 14 (43%) studies administered some type of

treatment acceptability questionnaire following the study. Finding assessments that









teachers are willing to implement is as important as finding assessments that accurately

identify the functions of challenging behavior.

Functions Identified

Accurately reporting descriptive statistics regarding the determined function for

these studies was not feasible for two reasons. First, in the largest study, Chandler et al.

(1999), the function of the challenging behavior for the 210 participants was not reported.

Second, other studies did not directly report functions of behaviors. For example, some

studies reported possible functions by calculating conditional probabilities between the

target behavior and the consequences (i.e., Kennedy et al., 2001) or other outcomes as

primary and secondary functions (i.e., Van Der Heyden et al., 2001). Therefore, only the

most general observations can be made about patterns in this sample of literature

regarding the three functions of behavior. This is unfortunate as evaluating base rates of

behavioral functions across different populations may be an important area of future

research (Gresham, 2003).

The functions of a target behavior that cause the behavior to increase in frequency

are typically classified into three types. First, external positive reinforcement includes

attention from teacher or peers or tangible rewards (Lalli & Goh, 1993). In this sample,

this was the predominate function of challenging behavior- largely teacher attention,

followed by peer attention and tangible items. Second, external negative reinforcement

includes escape or avoidance of an unpleasant or undesirable stimulus, such as a difficult

academic task. A third type of reinforcement is automatic reinforcement, in which the

reinforcement is hypothesized to be internal and biologic in nature. This type of

reinforcement often explains self-injurious or stereotypic behavior (Mace & Roberts,

1993) and was not a function of behavior for any of the participants in this sample of the









literature. The environmental relationships surrounding a challenging behavior can be

further classified in terms of whether the variable precedes the behavior, which is an

antecedent, or a reinforcer that follows the behavior, which is a consequence or a function

of the behavior. Choice or lack of choice was the predominate antecedent that was

manipulated in the five studies that evaluated antecedents in this sample.

With the exception of the predominance of teacher attention as the function of the

behavior, there was no distinguishable pattern of the fourteen studies investigated in

terms of positive versus negative reinforcement or antecedent versus consequence. The

studies varied in terms of their participants. However, some general practical and

methodological observations can be made. One notable methodological problem in the

research was in regard to the functions determined within this group of studies. These

studies often generated, or at least reported, functions that were very general. For

example, Schill, Kratochwill and Elliott (1998) describe the function of five of their

participants as "attention from adults and/or peers." (p.128). This lack of specificity is

problematic for a number of reasons. First, the lack of specificity makes it difficult to

determine the appropriateness of the intervention. In other words, simply saying that

attention was the function of the challenging behavior leaves the reader to wonder if

access to any type of attention would ameliorate the challenging behavior or does the

student require a specific intervention? To this point, the Schill et al. (1998) study did not

find a statistically significant difference between the effects of function-based

interventions and non-function based interventions. Typically, the greater the amount of

specificity in all areas of applied behavior analysis, the more effectively behavior can be

measured and modified. Determining the function of a behavior should lead to the









identification of an intervention to implement. If a consequence of a challenging behavior

were positive reinforcement through increased adult attention, then an effective

intervention would most likely be decreasing attention for challenging behaviors and

increasing attention for adaptive or pro-social behaviors. Ultimately, the goal of

accurately establishing the function of a behavior is to implement effective interventions.

Interventions Implemented

All of the studies recommended interventions and 93% (n=13) actually

implemented the interventions. Descriptive methods within these studies generated

similar (but participant-specific) interventions and all of the interventions reported at

least initial success at stopping the challenging behaviors to some degree. Examples of

the interventions were increasing teacher supervision (Kamps et al, 1995), increasing

reinforcement for different behaviors (Schill, et al., 1998; VanDerHeyden, et al., 2001),

and embedding preferred activities into existing curriculum (Blair, Umbreit, & Bos,

1999). A more notable aspect of these studies was the follow-up that occurred some time

later. Packenham et al. (2004) reported a continued reduction of the challenging behavior

five weeks later due to suggestion made as a result of the functional behavior assessment.

This finding is surprising, considering Reid (2000) questions whether or not teachers will

persist with interventions that are generated by functional assessment over time.

One criticism of specific articles reviewed was a lack of direct congruence between

the identified function and the intervention implemented. For example, the intervention

of increasing attention to desired behaviors and decreasing attention to challenging

behaviors, (e.g. Kennedy et al. 2001; Storey, et al., 1994), while effective, did little to

highlight the need for an individual FBA unless this intervention directly matches the

antecedents and consequences identified through the FBA process surrounding the









individual target child. A different version of the same criticism was the use of multiple

interventions that may or may not address the same function, but are implemented at the

same time making it impossible to determine what intervention was actually addressing

the identified function.

This lack of distinct function-based interventions is also seen with the insertion of a

mediating intervention between the desired behavior and the reinforcement that addressed

the function of the behavior. For example, Grandy and Peck (1997) determined that the

function of a challenging behavior was teacher attention. However, rather then implement

an intervention that directly linked teacher attention with desired behaviors, the

researchers established a token economy, which targeted obtaining a tangible item, but

indirectly led to increased teacher attention. This lack of direct connection between the

determined function and intervention implemented calls into question the accuracy of the

determined function or the potency of reinforcers that do not necessarily match function

(e.g. tokens). It is impossible to determine if teacher attention was reinforcing the desired

behavior or if it was another element of the token economy.

Finally, the use of interventions to confirm hypothesized functions is not

methodologically problematic. However, what are problematic are the conclusions that

authors of these studies draw from the use of these interventions. For example, by using a

reversal design in the implementation of a function-based intervention, Kamps et al.

(1995) failed to differentiate between a functional relationship that was established and

proven effective and the actual functional relationship that exists for a student's

challenging behavior. In other words, just because an intervention worked does not mean

it addressed the primary function of the challenging behavior, it simply means that this









intervention is powerful enough to be effective even if it does not directly address the

actual function of the challenging behavior. While this is a subtle distinction, it points to

one of the cornerstones of applied behavior analysis which is the need for precision in

language and in all aspects of empirical studies, or as Baer, Wolf and Risley (1968)

described it, the technological dimension of empirical studies.

Summary

Descriptive assessment methods represent the vast majority of the assessments

being used in FBAs. The wide range of descriptive assessments being used singularly or

in varying combinations for the preschoolers in this review also indicate that no one

assessment method or combination of assessment methods has emerged as the

preeminent process for young children with or at risk for EBD. There are two additional

conclusions that can be drawn from a review of these studies.

First and foremost, the issue of methods for accurately determining the function of

challenging behavior remains unresolved. There are two major obstacles to resolving the

question of what will be the most effective protocol of descriptive assessments for FBAs.

First, there is the continued combining of different assessment results in a single study. In

other words, studies continue to use interviews, checklists and direct observations

without separating what procedures are giving consistent information with other

assessments. The second obstacle is the fact that descriptive assessments can only yield

hypothetical functions and there is no way to confirm the accuracy of any method without

providing some type of environmental manipulation. In order to determine what is best in

the widespread application of FBA, it is necessary to determine what components are the

most accurate when compared with these environmental manipulations (i.e., a functional

analysis).









Second after the most accurate ways to determine function in widespread

applications are determined, research should address the issue of function-based

interventions. This must be done after the process to accurately determine function has

been empirically tested, because function-based interventions are unattainable without

accurately determining the function first. This current research sample indicates that there

is a gap between the research that has been done to accurately identify the function of a

challenging behavior and the research that investigates the use of function-based

interventions. Future research needs to concentrate on the implementation of

recommended interventions and the rationales that they are based on. It is imperative that

researchers delineate between individualized function-based interventions and the

recommendation of improved classroom management skills. Researchers and

practitioners must recognize that even if a methodology is highly accurate at determining

the function of a challenging behavior, but does not lead to highly effective interventions,

than the methodology is essentially useless. This leads to the next section of this literature

review that includes empirical studies that combined descriptive assessments with

functional analysis.

Descriptive Assessments and Functional and Structural Analyses within FBAs

The use of experimental analysis has been widely documented over the past twenty

years. While analog assessment is a frequent design in studies in many behavioral

journals, particularly the prestigious Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, it has not

crossed the research to practice gap in the widespread application of FBA in public

schools (McKerchar & Thompson, 2004; Sasso et al., 2001). Explanations for this lack of

widespread application vary, but clearly the technical complexities and the additional

time and staffing demands that are required to complete these procedures are difficult to









overcome. Furthermore, aspects of functional analysis may seem counterintuitive to

many practitioners, especially when conducting functional analysis that manipulate the

environment in an effort to elicit, as opposed to prohibit, certain behaviors. Thus, there

continues to be a limited amount of research in the use of functional analysis in

classroom settings (Ervin et al., 2001).

Illustrating this point, the research base did not translate to a large number of

studies within this literature review. Although many studies have used functional or

structural analyses with young children, the two criteria that eliminated the majority of

the studies were the use of these analyses in natural settings and their use with children

with high incidence disabilities. Functional analysis, particularly, continues to be used

largely in clinical settings and with more individuals with severe developmental

disabilities. In three of the studies that are reviewed, researchers included participants

with high-incidence and low incidence disabilities (Ellis & Magee, 1999; Harding et al.,

1999; Romaniuk et al., 2002); only the high-incidence participants are discussed in this

review. Ten studies met the criteria for inclusion in this section of the literature review

(see Table 2-2 for a summary of information regarding each study). The following

sections will outline the findings and discuss methodological and practical limitations of

the research.











Table 2-2. Descriptive Methods and Functional Analysis for Young Children
Authors/ Year Participant Implementer Descriptive Antecedent Interventions
of Publication Characteristics Characteristics Methods and Functions Implemented
(number, gender, Functional Identified
age, label) Setting Analysis
characteristics


Broussard &
Northrup,
(1995)


Umbreit
(1996)


Broussard &
Northrup
(1997)

Ellis &
Magee (1999)


Harding,
Wacker,
Cooper,
Asmus,
Jensen-
Kovalan, &
Grisolano
(1999)*
Blair,
Umbreit &
Eck (2000)

Boyajian,
Dupaul,
Handler,
Eckert, &
McGoey
(2001)
Doggett,
Edwards,
Moore,
Tingstrom &
Wilcski(2001)


3 males, 6-9 yrs, at
risk for ADHD or
EBD, empty
classroom and
primary classroom


1 male, 5 yrs, mild
MR, daycare center


4 males, 6-9 yrs,
ADHD or at risk for
EBD or ADHD,
primary classroom
3 males, 6-10 yrs,
mild autism, PDD,
EBD, ADHD,
separate classroom
and primary
classroom


3 males, 4 yrs.,
ADD, sight and
hearing, at risk for
EBD, primary
classroom




1 male, 4 yrs., at
risk for EBD,
primary classroom

3 males, 4-5 yrs., at
risk for ADHD,
primary classroom




2 males, 6 & 7 yrs.
old, no identified
disability, primary
classroom


Teachers &
researchers


Teachers &
researchers
(only training &
data collection)
Teachers &
Researchers


Researchers
(separate room
FAs) and
teachers (in
class FAs)




Teachers &
researchers







Teachers &
researchers


Researchers and
teachers





Teachers
(teachers
implemented
BFAs) &
researchers


DO, HD,
BFA, 3 analog
settings based
on descriptive
analysis


HD, I, DO,
BFA-4
conditions

DO, HD, and
BFA


DO, HD, FA-4
conditions
(incl. peer
attn.,
competition
for teacher
attn.)

DO, SA, BFA-
4 analog
conditions






DO, I, HD,
FA- 5
conditions

DO, I, BFA- 4
conditions





DO, I, BFAs-2
conditions


Teacher
attention,
peer
attention,
escape
academic
task
Escape
difficult
tasks

Peer
attention


Peer and
adult
attention,
escape
from
demands


Specific v.
general
directions,
social
attention,
reprimands


Contingency
reversal No
extended
intervention
implemented


Modified
curriculum,
Social skills
training
Token
economy,
DRO

Token
economy,
Social skills
training, task
modification


More specific
directions,
increased
attention for
prosocial
behavior


Attain Social Skills
tangibles training, No
other
interventions
Attention, Contingency
Tangible, reversal over
Escape longer period
of time (11-18
days)


Teacher
attention,
peer
attention


No
interventions










Table 2-2. Continued
Authors/ Year Participant Implementer Descriptive Antecedent Interventions
of Publication Characteristics Characteristics Methods and Functions Implemented
(number, gender, Functional Identified
age, label) Setting Analysis
characteristics

Romaniuk, 7 participants, 5-10 Researchers and I, Preliminary Choice, No No
Miltenberger, yrs, identified for therapists FA, BFAs-4 Choice, interventions
Conyers, problem behaviors conditions Attention,
Jenner, also some Escape
Jergens & participants Mosaic
Ringenberger Down syndrome or
(2002) mental retardation,
separate classroom,
Stichter, 1 male, 7 yrs., Researchers, DO, BSA- 3 Low social Integrate
Sasso & EBD, primary spec. Teachers structural demands, antecedents
Jolivette ed. and gen. ed. provide variables high that decrease
(I'"14)* classrooms descriptive structure challenging
information behavior into
school day
Note. DO=direct observation; CL=checklist; I=interview; HD=hypothesis development; FA=functional
analysis; BFA=brief functional analysis; RR=records review; SA=structural analysis; DRO=differential
reinforcement of other behaviors
* indicates a structural analysis

Participant and Setting Characteristics

The total number of participants for all ten of the studies was 28 participants or an

average of 2.8 participants per study with a range of 1-7 participants. Only three of the

participants in all ten of the studies were female 11% (n=3). Furthermore, while all

studies included at least one participant who met the criteria of a high-incidence

disability, three of the studies included participants with low-incidence disabilities. For

example, in Ellis and Magee (1999) 1 participant had Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity

Disorder (ADHD), but the other 2 participants were labeled with mild autism and

pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). In Romaniuk et al. (2002) 3 of the 7

participants were diagnosed with Down syndrome or mental retardation. In Harding, et

al. (1999) 1 participant had sight and hearing disabilities and 1 was identified with

developmental disabilities. This indicates that functional analysis may have a wider range









of applicability with individuals with high-incidence disabilities than the research base

reflects. In regard to practical limitations of this literature, the limited number of

participants within these research studies is the first indication of the impracticality in

making functional analysis an integral part of early childhood settings. The study with the

most participants, Romaniuk et al., (2002) (n=7), is one of the most recent studies in this

literature review. While this may suggest the possibility of widespread use of functional

analysis within the classroom, there is very little other empirical research. Typically,

functional analysis is time intensive and is completed on one individual child at a time.

One possible explanation is that a low participant size is maintained as researchers place

more emphasis on honing the methodology, exercising environmental control, or

initiating novel interventions than addressing the need for widespread application.

Another possibility is that functional analysis is only appropriate for students needing the

most intensive assessments and interventions. It should be noted that studies ten years

ago (e.g., Broussard & Northup, 1995) acknowledged the need for widespread

application to more students in naturalized settings, although they continued to use very

small sample sizes.

The second observation in regard to participants and settings is that the use of

analogs in primary classrooms during regular classroom activities indicates some

modification from the controlled, structured nature of analogs to more natural, less

restrictive settings. One study that clearly modeled this assimilation is the Ellis and

Magee (1999) study that conducted environmental manipulations both in the classroom

and in a separate environment.









Implementer Characteristics

The roles of researchers and teachers took many forms within this sample of

studies. In six (60%) of the studies, the participants' teachers or other school personnel

were trained and conducted the analog conditions of the functional analysis. For three of

the studies (30%), the researcher conducted the analog conditions. For the Ellis and

Magee (1999) study, the researcher conducted the analogs in the separate room and the

teacher conducted them in the classroom.

While researcher influence was also observed as a limitation for 'descriptive

assessment only' studies, it was even more pronounced in functional and structural

analysis trials. Between training teachers and/or conducting analog conditions,

researcher influence was even more evident in these studies than the studies in the

previous section. This is not surprising due to the highly technical demands of these types

of analysis. However, this is important because the greater the influence researchers have

on the design and implementation, the more difficult it will be to generalize the findings

to teachers as implementers and determine external validity. Some studies included in the

third section of this literature review have created protocols that teach teachers how to

implement a functional analysis. Such creative methodologies and their effectiveness

may be an important part of future research (Sasso et al., 1993).

In fact, the three studies that used researchers to implement the analog conditions

introduced considerable bias considering the number of differences that a researcher

conducting the analog conditions may have versus the teacher conducting analog

conditions. For example, they did not evaluate whether adult attention from a novel

person (the researcher) is more or less powerful than adult attention from a teacher. This

ignores all of the idiosyncratic and qualitative variables that may be influencing the









occurrence for the behavior (i.e., tone of voice, appearance, person preference and so

forth) that are introduced with researchers conducting the analogs. Finally, the issue of

external validity is brought into question. Since these studies were not designed to

address long-term widespread application, it is not necessarily a criticism of these

specific studies but rather a shortcoming of the research base as a whole. The studies that

used researchers to conduct the analogs were actually focused on a specific disability,

such as ADHD (Boyajian et al, 2001) or the effects of antecedents as an environmental

manipulation (Stichter, Sasso & Jolivette, 2004) and were not directed toward examining

the implementation of FBA in school settings. Rather these studies were geared to

investigate other aspects of structural and functional analysis and their applicability with

individuals with a specific disability or the overall value of the use of antecedent

manipulations. The next consideration is how the actual analog procedure took place and

what components comprised its protocol.

Components of the Descriptive Approach and Analog Conditions

The preliminary descriptive components were similar to the sample of studies that

only used descriptive methodologies. All of the studies (100%) used direct observations

and some type of hypothesis development. Five of the studies (50%) also used a

structured interview with the teacher and/ or other individuals who have contact with the

participants. The only salient difference between the descriptive methods in this sample

of studies and the sample of studies that only used descriptive methods is that this sample

of studies was more parsimonious in its use of descriptive assessments. In evaluating the

descriptive assessments listed in these 10 studies, it appeared that the descriptive

assessments were only selected and used to the extent that they could guide the functional

or structural analysis procedures. These studies used the descriptive assessment results to









identify times and situations to conduct analog probes during the times or activities that

teachers identified as the most problematic. For example, both Broussard and Northup

(1995, 1997) only used direct observations of the participant and a brief interview with

the teacher to determine what analog conditions to conduct.

In studies using functional analysis, the five 'traditional' analog conditions were as

varied as the participants with whom they were being implemented. The studies often

included variations of the following conditions (1) alone or ignoring, (2) attention, (3)

tangible reward, (4) escape or avoidance of a task and (5) free play. These are the classic

conditions established by Iwata (1982/1994) and other researchers using functional

analysis. Besides using two different settings, classroom and separate room, Ellis and

Magee (1998) described another notable variation of their analog conditions. Two

alternative analog settings were implemented: (1) peer attention with the use of a

confederate peer attending the target behavior and (2) peer competition for teacher

attention. These two contrived analogs represent another step toward integrating

functional analysis into more natural settings and provide a more accurate means of

assessment using functional analysis. The results indicated that peer attention did play a

role in the function of one participant's target behavior.

Romaniuk et al. (2002) provided another addition to the classic analogs by the

testing choice or 'control' as a precursor of challenging behavior; this manipulation is

considered a structural analysis. To test control, this study offered the participant the

option to choose the activity in one condition and did not allow them to choose the

activity in another condition. Not being able to choose the activity was the setting event

or antecedent of the participant's challenging behaviors. The examination of choice or









'control' as a possible pre is similar to the Blair, Umbreit and Bos (1999), a study

reviewed in the 'descriptive methods only' section of this literature review.

The methodology of all of the functional analyses studies differed from those that

were originally conceived of in Iwata et al. (1982/1994); because they took far less time,

used descriptive methods to precede the analog settings, and were subject to more of the

situations that occur in natural settings. Thus, while the roots of functional analysis can

be traced back to Iwata et al. (1982/1994), the process has clearly evolved. This evolution

also includes the use of structural analyses, manipulating antecedents in much the same

way that a functional analysis manipulates consequences. This process was used with

two studies, Harding et al. (1999) and Stichter et al. (2004). In Harding et al. (1999),

variables such as general directions versus specific directions and group activity versus

independent activity were manipulated. For Stichter et al. (2004), variables such as noise,

structure, and levels of socialization were manipulated. Whether investigating

antecedents or consequences, the important issue in these studies is determining the

environmental factors that are related to the challenging behavior so that the functions

may be accurately identified.

Functions Identified

As noted in Broussard and Northup (1995), the most prevalent functions typically

identified, in general, are teacher attention, peer attention, and escape from academic

demands. An overview of this sample of studies confirms this assertion and, similar to the

sample of studies that used descriptive assessments only, it is impossible to descriptively

summarize the most prevalent functions using descriptive statistics. However, it can be

observed that no other pattern of identified functions emerged. In other words, there was

not a clear difference in the number of participants whose function was either positively









reinforced (i.e., attention or tangible) or negative reinforced (i.e., escape). Furthermore,

the explanation for why it is so difficult to make summative statements is a notable

strength of this sample of studies. Namely, the high degree of specificity of function

makes summative statements across participants difficult. A difference between this

group of studies and the 'descriptive methods only' studies is that the functions that

functional analysis determines are more specifically and precisely defined. Proponents of

functional analysis view the lack of specificity with descriptive assessments as

problematic. They assert that as functions are more generally defined, the intervention

becomes more idiosyncratic and less effective (Sasso et al., 1992). Harding et al. (1999)

noted that in their comparison of the two methodologies, the descriptive methodology

produced results that were "difficult to interpret" (p. 329) and "brief experimental

analyses were needed to clarify functional relations" (p.330). They did note that this was

a result of not being able to observe the target behavior during descriptive analysis.

Another direction of the research within this sample of studies is the combining of

structural analysis and functional analysis. As Romaniuk et al. (2002) points out,

combinations of antecedents and established functions have not been extensively

investigated through research methods. In this study, the antecedent of choice or control

over tasks had different effects determined by whether the function of the challenging

behavior was attention or escape. This study indicated that choice could serve as a

powerful antecedent when the function of a challenging behavior was escape. Harding et

al. (1999) used a similar design of measuring both antecedents and consequences. The

next logical step after the accurate identification of the functions of challenging behavior









is the implementation of effective interventions that use the information gathered through

these methods.

Interventions Implemented

Multiple types of interventions were used with these studies. Functional analysis

methodology creates a complex issue when evaluating the interventions used with these

studies. Within the ten articles reviewed, following the functional and structural analysis,

an environmental manipulation was conducted that resulted in reducing the challenging

behavior using a contingency reversal. There were also a variety of other interventions

that occurred following the functional analysis. Five studies (50%) reported reducing the

occurrence of challenging behaviors during the intervention phase, also referred to as the

contingency reversal phase. However, the other 5 studies used other interventions

including differential reinforcement of other behaviors (DRO), and implementing token

economies.

It should be noted that Boyajian et al. (2001) reported a continued reduction of the

challenging behavior six months later due to implementing contingency reversal elements

into the milieu; thus, the contingency reversal became the intervention that was

implemented over time. Contingency reversal involves establishing an environment that

increases the rate of challenging behavior and implementing a phase of the opposite

condition. For example, because a challenging behavior increases during a 'no choice,

high academic demand' condition, the reversal contingency would be 'participant choice

and low academic demand.' While this reversal accomplished the desired result, it may

not be a situation that is appropriate across situations in the typical preschool

environment. The reason this situation may not be appropriate to generalize to typical

preschool environments is that at some point it is necessary to give children tasks that are









not preferred and to ask children to participate in activities that are not preferred. It

should also be noted that even if an antecedent based intervention is implemented that

decreases the probability of the challenging behavior, one will still have to implement an

intervention that directly addresses the occurrence of the challenging behavior at some

point.

The fact that a reversal contingency may not be appropriate for implementation in

an early childhood environment illustrates a practical limitation in studies with this type

of design. As Blair, Umbreit and Eck (2000) indicate, the reversal of the problematic

contingency was not feasible in preschool settings, because it is not always possible to

put children in the situations that will reduce challenging behaviors (i.e., always making

sure there were a positive ratio of available toys to peers). In the natural setting of a

preschool classroom, there will be times when there are not enough toys for everyone, or

when access to a preferred toy may not be possible because another child is playing with

it. Further, insuring that this does not ever happen to the student does not allow the

participant to gain appropriate adaptive or social skills. It may be more appropriate to

increase the amount of social skill instruction that precedes a functional behavior

assessment to alleviate its use and then to have specific interventions in place that address

the challenging behaviors after they occur.

A notable aspect of these studies was the follow-up that occurred some time later.

Harding et al. (1999), Boyajian et al. (2001), and Ellis and Magee (1999) reported

continued decreases in challenging behaviors for the participants as they followed up to

six months later. The durability of these prescribed interventions is encouraging. As FBA

research continues, more and more examples of effective interventions will be devised









and illustrated, allowing practitioners to make direct connections between the identified

function and the intervention that is implemented.

Summary

The use of functional and structural analysis with young children with or at risk for

EBD remains an important area of future research. Clearly, the research is still in the

process of evolving from its setting in clinics with individuals with severe disabilities to

settings with children in classrooms with mild disabilities. However, it is difficult to

determine what role the methodical manipulation of the environment will play in the

widespread application of functional analysis methodology in FBAs. Thus far, this

methodology has not become a part of the protocol in the formulation of FBAs in

schools. The concept of teachers deliberately manipulating the environment and tracking

the increase or decrease of challenging behavior may never be feasible. In this sample of

studies, functional analysis was used as one more method, albeit typically the most

decisive and trustworthy method, to triangulate assessment methods and accurately

determine the function of challenging behavior. There are three salient points that can be

drawn from this sample of the literature.

First, similar to the first set of studies, no study with functional analysis procedures

could be conducted with large numbers of children in the same setting, thus there

continues to be small sample sizes and little replication has occurred. Researcher

involvement and highly specific but varied methodologies make it difficult to foresee

what role functional analysis will play in school and early childhood settings based on

this sample of literature. The issue of data collection is also an important consideration.

In all of these studies, functional analysis was a multi-person job and, while it was

encouraging to see teachers taking an active role in conducting the analogs, it was still









necessary to have trained observers count and record the occurrences of the behavior. It is

impossible to know whether early childhood centers and schools will be able to dedicate

the appropriate amount of personnel for training and data collection that is necessary to

both conduct the analog conditions but also to record the occurrences of behaviors. To

the second point, if the interventions are not feasible or lack social validity, this

dedication of time, personnel, and resources to functional analysis may not even be

desirable.

Second, in each of these studies, functional analysis procedures depended on

descriptive assessments and discerning the results from the different descriptive methods

and the functional analysis were impossible. This leads to the question 'Was the

functional analysis, as part of an FBA protocol, necessary if descriptive assessments

arrived at the same function?' Additionally, a core principle of functional analysis is

environmental control (Sasso et al., 2001) and functional analysis is only as effective as

the amount of control that can be obtained. The difficulty is that classrooms by nature are

free operant environments, especially compared with clinics (Scott et al. 2004) and

establishing necessary environmental control may be difficult for educators with limited

time and resources. For this reason, functional analysis may not be appropriate as one

more component of a FBA protocol. It is important for future research to continue to use

more classroom settings and to increase the amount of teacher influence to evaluate the

role of functional analysis in classroom protocols.

Third, while functional analysis can develop more specific functions that lead to

more effective interventions (Harding et al., 1999), they can also lead to interventions

that are not practical or appropriate for implementation in the natural setting (Blair,









Umbreit & Eck, 2000). In consideration of these points, the ultimate role of functional

analysis may be as an effective method to evaluate the accuracy of less obtrusive

descriptive methodologies, however, it is difficult to see its widespread adoption as a

component of a standard FBA protocol. Unlike the studies reviewed in this section that

combined functional analysis and descriptive methodologies as a protocol to determine

function, the next section will separately evaluate different descriptive methodologies

using functional analysis as the standard to determine their accuracy.

Direct Evaluation of Descriptive Methodologies

A search for articles that directly evaluated different descriptive methodologies

indicates a dearth of research in this area. Only eight studies were identified that

evaluated the reliability of different descriptive methodologies when comparing the

results with each other, such as comparing the results of a direct observation and a

teacher interview. Furthermore, only six out of these eight evaluated the validity of these

descriptive methodologies by comparing them to a functional analysis. Murdock, et al.,

(2005) and Ellingson et al. (2000) only compared different types of descriptive

assessments with each other. This paucity in the research is particularly evident with

children who are diagnosed or at risk for EBD (Gresham, 2003; Gresham et al. 2004;

Fox, Conroy, Heckaman, 1998; Sasso et al., 2001). Due to the limited research in this

area, it was necessary to expand the exclusion criteria beyond young children with EBD

to include all ability and age levels of children. In fact, all but one of the studies included

participants with more severe developmental disabilities and the age range was expanded

to even include young adults, some of whom were evaluated in residential and vocational

settings. Additionally, the criterion regarding the age of the research was also expanded

from ten years to 15 years.









Finally, unlike the previous two bodies of literature, the interventions were not

evaluated within this section of the study, because the focus of this review is to determine

how accurately functions are identified via various descriptive methodologies. Evaluating

function-based interventions will be an important area of future research but that area is

premature until the methods for accurately identifying functions have been evaluated.

Further, the rationale for omitting this aspect of the research study was to provide greater

focus on the methodologies used to evaluate the assessments rather than evaluating the

resulting interventions; therefore, the focus of this section is to examine the portion of the

study that attempted to determine a primary function of the challenging behavior.

Function-based interventions will be an important area of future research; however,

research methods must first empirically determine whether the assessment methods can

accurately arrive at the function of the challenging behavior.

All other criteria that were established for this review of the literature were

maintained. One important criterion that was maintained between this body of research

and the other two areas of research was limiting the specific target behaviors to exclude

research geared toward highly specific behaviors that are not typical of most young

children who demonstrate challenging behavior (e.g. self-injurious behavior, stereotypy,

hair-twirling, eye-poking, breath-holding) were eliminated. Therefore, studies that

compared descriptive assessments with functional analyses for bizarre speech (Mace &

Lalli, 1991) stereotypy (Crawford, Brockel, Schauss, & Miltenberger, 1992; Paclawskyj,

Matson, Rush, Smalls & Vollmer, 2001) or self-injurious behavior (Belfiore, Browder &

Lin, 1993; Lerman & Iwata, 1993; Paclawskyj et al., 2001) for the majority of the

participants were excluded.









Because the different assessment methods were evaluated separately and, in some

cases, compared with the results of a functional analysis, these eight studies are unlike the

other studies that used descriptive assessments and functional analysis in the FBA

process. The studies in the previous two sections simply used various descriptive

assessment methods and assimilated the results to develop a hypothetical function and/or

guide a functional analysis. The studies that evaluated the different descriptive

assessment methods listed the results of each method separately and reported agreement

or disagreement between the methods. Because these studies more closely resemble the

study being proposed, these eight studies will be presented in a study-by-study basis, in

reverse chronological order, presenting the most recent study first (see Table 2-3 for a

summary of information regarding each of these studies).

In Murdock, et al., (2005), eight junior high school students (7 classified as EBD, 1

classified as LD) were evaluated using three descriptive assessment methods. The three

methods were a teacher team interview, a student interview and classroom observations.

No functional analysis procedures were used. First, a team of teachers who worked with

an individual student was assembled and the first author used a questionnaire to guide the

interview process regarding specific challenging behaviors and the environmental factors

that surrounded the behaviors. The responses were condensed into summary statements

that included the challenging behaviors, and both antecedents and hypothetical functions.















Table 2-3. Direct Evaluations of Descriptive Assessments
Studies Participants: Setting Who completed the What descriptive Agreement How was the Agreement
Age, Gender, FBA? assessments were between functional between FA
Disability used? descriptive analysis and descriptive
assessments completed? assessments
Murdock, O'Neill -8 junior high General ed and -Teacher Team Teacher FAI, 9/ 14 (64%) N/A N/A


& Cunningham
(2005)


Newcomer &
Lewis (2'1"4)









Cunningham &
O'Neill (2000)


school age
males
-7 classified
EBD
-1 classified LD


-9 years, Male,
OHI
-11 years, Male,
at-risk
-11 years,
Female,
at risk



-3 years, Male,
Autism
-5 years,
Male, Autism
-5 years Male,
Autism


resource
classrooms


General education
classrooms









Self-contained
classrooms


completed
questionnaire
-Student
questionnaire
-Researchers and
paraprofessional
conducted direct
observations


Researchers
administered FAI
and PBQ to
teachers and
students.
Researchers
completed direct
observations and
FAs

Researchers
administered
descriptive
assessments to
teacher and
classroom assistant.
Teacher completed
the FAO.
Researchers
completed FAs.


Student-FAI and
FAOF


FAI (S-FAI),
PBQ, Scatterplot,
ABC








MAS, FAI, FAO,
Informal
question


agreement on all
three
13/ 14 (93%)
agreement
between teacher
FAI and FAOF


Assessments
were consistent
except for PBQ
results with 2/3
participants






Good consistency
across methods
and participants.
Used rank orders
for hypothetical
functions


Based on
descriptive
assessments,
each participant
placed in one
indicated and
one control
condition


Each participant
placed in 5
analog
conditions in a
separate school
multi-purpose
room


Agreement
between
descriptive
assessments
and functional
analysis for 2/3
participants



Rank order
indicates good
agreement of
primary
function
between
descriptive
assessments
and FA for 2/3
participants















Table 2-3. Continued
Studies Participants: Setting Who completed the What descriptive Agreement How was the Agreement
Age, Gender, FBA? assessments were between functional between FA
Disability used? descriptive analysis and descriptive
assessments completed? assessments
Ellingson, -19 years, Self-contained Researchers Questionnaire, Questionnaires N/A N/A


Miltenberger et al.
(2000)








Yarbrough & Carr
(2000)


Female, Severe
M.R.
-18 years, Male,
Angelman's
syndrome &
profound M.R.
-12 years
Male, Severe
M.R.
-18.33 years
Male, Autism &
Profound M.R.
-11.5 years.
Female, Autism
& Profound
M.R.
-12.4 years,
Female
DeLange
Syndrome &
Moderate M.R.


classrooms


Self-contatined
classrooms,
vocational and
community
placements


administered
questionnaire to
teachers and
teachers completed
questionnaire
independently.
Conducted direct
observations

Researchers
administered
adapted FAI to
teachers and
classroom
assistants and
conducted
functional analysis


Interview, and
ABC


and interviews
consistent with
each other.
Results from
ABC were not
consistent with
questionnaire
results


FAI followed by
a Likert scale
rating the
resulting
hypothesized
functions. FAI
also generated
high and low
likelihood
antecedents


Based on FAI
information
high and low
likelihood
antecedents
manipulated in
natural settings
and one
hypothesized
function is
implemented
across
antecedents


Agreement
between FAI
and FAs
consistent for
high likelihood
but not for low
likelihood
antecedents















Table 2-3. Continued
Studies Participants: Setting Who completed the What descriptive Agreement How was the Agreement
Age, Gender, FBA? assessments were between functional between FA
Disability used? descriptive analysis and descriptive
assessments completed? assessments


Calloway &
Simpson (1998)


Amdorfer,
Miltenberger,
Woster, Rortvedt,
& Gaffeney
(1994)


-3 years,
Male,
Developmental
delays 4 years,
Male, Speech &
Cognitive
delays
-4 years,
Male,
Speech &
Language,
Chronic
misbehavior

-3 years,
Female, Speech
delays
-13 years, Male,
Down syndrome
-5 years,
Male,
Autism & Mild
MR
-2 years,
Male,
FAS
-5 years,
Male, Bipolar
disorder


Self-contained
classrooms


Participants'
homes


Researchers
conducted FAs and
administered
descriptive
assessment to
teacher and
paraeducators


-Researchers
administered MAS
and FAI to parents.
Researchers
completed A-B-C
direct observation
assessments. -
Researchers
directed parents in
FA conditions


Informal ranking
process of 4
possible
functions of
misbehavior,


MAS, FAI, ABC


N/A


-MAS consistent
with FAI for 2/5*
-FAI and A-B-C
consistent 5/5.
MAS and A-B-C
consistent 2/5


Based on
preliminary
assessments
each participant
placed in 1-3
analog
conditions.
Analysis
occurred in
small work
room or isolated
classroom


Each participant
was placed in
two analog
conditions either
escape or
attention**


Minimal
agreement
between
informal
assessment and
FA. Only one
paraeducator
for one
participant
agreed with the
FA results for
primary
functions

Consistent
agreement
between ABC,
FAI and FA.
Inconsistent
agreement for
MAS and FA.














Table 2-3. Continued
Studies Participants: Setting Who completed the What descriptive Agreement How was the Agreement
Age, Gender, FBA? assessments were between functional between FA
Disability used? descriptive analysis and descriptive
assessments completed? assessments
Sasso et al. (1992) -7.5 years, Self-contained Teachers ABC direct N/A Researcher Consistent
Female, Autism classrooms completed all observation conducted agreement
-13 years, aspects of FBA formal FA. Each between ABC
Male, Autism teacher results and
conducted 5 FAs
analog
conditions in
classroom
*For the other 3 participants, the second function on the MAS was the same as the primary function for the FAI.
**One participant was placed in an interrupted play versus non-interrupted play condition.









The team scored the accuracy of the statements on a four-point Likert scale and

then ranked the summary statements from least to most problematic for the student in the

classroom. This final step of scoring summary statements for accuracy was developed in

another study included in this review, Yarbrough and Carr (2000). Second, the first

author conducted the same interview process with each individual student. Third, the first

author and a paraprofessional conducted direct classroom observations using the

Functional Assessment Observation Form (FAOF). Using the results from the teacher

team interview as a guide, students were observed for 20-30 minutes, 1-3 times per week

for three weeks.This resulted in a total range of 5-15 hours of direct observation. Inter-

observer agreement was conducted for 19% of the sessions and averaged 80% agreement.

Participating teachers also completed a social validity scale to assess the three-step

process. There were four possible hypothetical functions (attention, escape, tangible and

self-stimulation) that the three assessment methods could identify. However, tangible

and self-stimulation were almost never identified in teacher and student summary

statements. Results of the study indicated agreement of a hypothesized function for all

three methods 9/14 (64%) of the time when either escape or attention was identified.

When there was not agreement across all three methods, the teacher team interview and

the direct observations still agreed four out of the other five times. Escape from a task or

activity was the most prevalent function identified.

There are four conclusions that can be drawn from this study. First, these

investigators achieved a moderate level of agreement across descriptive assessments.

Second, although there was agreement across the results of different assessment methods

(including a measure of confidence from participating teachers and students), the validity









of the results remains unconfirmed because no experimental procedure occurred. Thus,

the results are correlational in nature. Without an experimentally rigorous functional

analysis, the consistency across instruments does not necessarily indicate validity of the

function. In other words, all of the descriptive assessment may agree with each other that

the function is attention, but this may not actually be the function. This is especially true

if the same individual is completing all of the descriptive assessments. Third, the nature

of the participants limited the possible hypothetical functions that could be determined. It

is unlikely that in this setting junior high school aged students with disabilities such as

LD and EBD would engage in self-stimulation or have acquiring tangibles as the function

of their behavior. In other words, this sample of students was unlikely to engage in

stereotypy and also unlikely to argue over toys (although other tangibles could cause

challenging behavior). By limiting possible functions to attention and escape, this

increased the possibility for agreement across measures. Fourth, the findings of the

descriptive assessments were not kept separate in this study, the direct observations were

informed by the teacher team interviews "the behaviors listed on the observation form

came directly from those listed on the teacher interview form." (p.10). This makes the

level of agreement between the teacher interviews and the direct observations less

compelling.

In Newcomer and Lewis (2004), three elementary-aged students (one classified as

Other Health Impaired, two not classified with any specific disability) were first

evaluated using five descriptive assessment methods followed by a brief functional

analysis was conducted. The five assessment methods were a teacher interview, a student

interview, a teacher checklist, a scatter plot, and classroom observations. The functional









analysis procedures presented a limited number of conditions (attention v. no attention,

preferred v. non-preferred peer groups, easy task v. hard task). These conditions were

guided by the descriptive assessment results and while the article refers to all three

experimental procedures as functional analyses, the manipulations of peer group and task

difficulty is more aptly described as a structural analysis, because it is a manipulation of

antecedents rather than consequences.

The five descriptive assessments were presented in the same order for all

participants. First, the teachers were interviewed using an adapted version of the

Functional Assessment Interview (O'Neill et al., 1997). After a hypothesis regarding

function was formulated using the interview results, teachers were asked to complete the

checklist, the Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ), and a scatter plot for a minimum

of five days. It should be noted that unlike the other assessment methods used in this

study, the scatter plot does not lead to a hypothetical function, it is a direct observational

tool that identifies patterns between occurrences of the behavior and times of day and/ or

activities (Touchette, et al., 1985). Targeted students were then interviewed using the

student version of the FAI. Finally, the student was observed using the Antecedent

Behavior Consequence (A-B-C) sheet. The observation periods were determined by

results from the other descriptive assessments. The amount of time and number of

observations for this descriptive assessment were not reported. These descriptive

assessment results were assimilated to identify a primary hypothetical function that was

tested through experimental analysis.

The experimental analysis was constructed using a single-case, alternating

treatment design. The analyses occurred in natural classroom settings during both









academic and low structure tasks and targeted individually identified challenging

behaviors. Each child was exposed to 10-minute analog probes featuring the

hypothesized function condition, according to the descriptive assessments and a control

or contra-indicated condition. There was a range of 13-22 sessions over 2- 7 days. The

results of the experimental analysis showed clear differentiation of rates of challenging

behavior across conditions for 2 of the 3 participants, supporting the summative results of

the descriptive assessments for these 2 participants. There was only slight differentiation

between the conditions for the third participant offering limited support to the result of

the descriptive assessment.

The results of the descriptive assessments were also compared with each other.

Newcomer and Lewis state that all of the descriptive assessments were consistent with

two exceptions. For one student, the teacher interview and the checklist indicated

attention was the primary function, but all of the other assessments including the

experimental analysis indicated that escape was the primary function. Similarly, for

another participant, the checklist identified attention as the primary function when all

other assessments supported escape as the primary function. It is notable that neither of

these 2 participants was the same individual that had limited support from the functional

analysis. Therefore, all 3 participants had some type of assessment result that was

inconsistent with other assessment results.

There are three conclusions that can be drawn regarding this research study. First,

although there is some evidence to support the reliability and validity of descriptive

assessments, in that they had fairly consistent results that were supported by an

experimental procedure, the function of behavior in this case does appear contextually









relative and somewhat fluid. Second, the use of descriptive assessments as a 'package'

with a specific order and one assessment informing the next one does not allow for

scrutiny of the individual assessments and does make the results vulnerable to an order

effect. Third, by limiting the functional analysis conditions to those suggested by the

descriptive assessments, no other functions were experimentally tested. This means that if

additional function of the behavior exists, but was not indicated by the majority of the

descriptive assessments, then it was not evaluated experimentally.

In Cunningham and O'Neill (2000), three preschool aged children with autism

were evaluated using four descriptive assessments and an experimental functional

analysis. The four descriptive assessments were: an informal question to the teacher and

classroom assistant (e.g. "Why do you think Dan bites?"), a teacher interview (the

Functional Assessment Interview), a behavior checklist (the Motivation Assessment

Scale), and descriptive observations (the Functional Assessment Observation Form). The

functional analysis was then conducted replicating the procedure outlined in Iwata,

Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman and Richman (1994/1982) presenting 5 analog conditions:

demand (escape), attention, tangible, alone and free play.

The procedure for this study consisted of conducting the indirect descriptive

assessments (the informal question, the interview, and the behavior checklist) with both

the teacher and the classroom assistant after class hours. These were conducted separately

for each teacher/classroom assistant dyad to determine if the two adults present in the

classroom had similar perceptions of the challenging behavior and its antecedents and

consequences. The MAS scores were then combined to give an average score for the

primary function. The primary classroom teacher then completed the direct observations









for two hours a day for 4-5 days, resulting in a total of 10-12 hours of direct observation

for each participating student. Inter-observer agreement was conducted for 20% of these

sessions and ranged from 80%-100% agreement. The design for the experimental

functional analysis was a single subject, multi-element design with 15-minute sessions

being conducted in separate rooms that were made available to the researchers, e.g. a

multi-purpose room adjacent to the gymnasium.

The results for the various different descriptive assessments were presented as a

rank ordering of hypothetical functions of the target behavior. For the descriptive

assessments, there was perfect agreement for the informal question and the interview for

all dyads of teachers and assistants. The other assessments also had fairly good agreement

in which all the assessments varied only somewhat, for example, the MAS listed escape

as the primary function and tangible as secondary and the FAI listed tangible as primary

and escape as secondary. For the functional analysis, 2 of the 3 participants had little

differentiation between tangible and escape. However, this mixed result actually confirms

the descriptive results that had similar mixed primary functions across the different

assessments.

There are three conclusions regarding this research study. First, soliciting

information from both the teacher and the classroom assistant determined that the two

adults present in the room had similar perceptions regarding behavioral functions (i.e.,

inter-rater reliability). Second, the use of ranking the functions for each student and each

assessment allowed for students whose challenging behavior may have dual functions but

could have complex results. Subsequently complex interventions that may be difficult to

implement in classrooms are the end product. Third, one aspect of the functional analysis









that may make its results less compelling was the low rate of challenging behavior

demonstrated across all analog conditions. But because the greatest rate for the students,

means of 10%, 10% and 9%, was consistent with the descriptive assessment results, the

functional analysis appears accurate.

In Yarbrough and Carr (2000) 3 participants between the ages of 11 and 18 years

old were evaluated. Two participants were classified autistic and the third participant was

diagnosed with DeLange syndrome. There was only one descriptive assessment used. An

adapted version of a Functional Assessment Interview was used with two professionals

who had had up to two weeks of contact with the participating student. This descriptive

assessment was followed by a brief functional analysis. The brief functional analysis

manipulated both antecedents and consequences that had been identified by the

descriptive assessment results.

The FAI was adapted in three ways. First, after information had been gathered

using the standard FAI questions, summary statements were generated for each

participant that outlined setting events, antecedents and consequences. Each professional

who was interviewed then verified each statement for accuracy and rated each summary

statement on a 7-point Likert scale for likelihood of the situation occurring. Next, the

second professional would then evaluate and agree or disagree with these hypothesized

summary statements. Lastly, these same steps would be taken with the roles of the two

professionals reversed. If statements were generated that the second professional could

not confirm witnessing, then a third professional, such as another classroom assistant,

would be asked to confirm the statement and its likelihood rating. Following this









descriptive assessment process, a brief functional analysis was conducted using the

results.

In the functional analysis, a reversal design was used in which the different

hypothesized situations were compared with control conditions that regulated the

presence of the hypothesized contributory variables. The 3 participants were placed in

seven situations while one or two different hypothetical functions were tested in each

condition. For example, the first participant was placed in a situation in which he had to

clean a table. The hypothetical function was that his challenging behavior of self-injury

was maintained by escaping difficult tasks. A control condition consisted of assigning the

participant to a task he found easier, object identification. The frequency of the

challenging behavior in these two conditions was then compared. Each participant was

placed in two or three high and low-likelihood situations with one or two hypothetical

functions of the challenging behavior being tested for each participant.

When the information gathered through the descriptive assessments was tested

using an experimental functional analysis, a clear pattern emerged. In those situations that

had a high-likelihood of eliciting problem behaviors, the informants accurately identified

the surrounding environmental variables. For the situations that had a low likelihood of

eliciting challenging behaviors, the functional analysis did not validate the informants'

hypotheses of the antecedents and the functions of the challenging behaviors. The authors

offer four interrelated factors that may explain this pattern: (1) infrequent opportunities to

observe the low-likelihood situations; (2) stimulus complexity; (3) perceived strength of

reinforcement; (4) the role of setting events. These factors should be interpreted with

caution, as they are not experimentally validated. In terms of evaluating the efficacy and









efficiency of the descriptive assessment method (i.e., the FAI adaptation), it can be

concluded that this method is effective for identifying the function for certain frequent

behavior problems, but limited in detecting more subtle variables in low-likelihood

situations. Unfortunately, the authors did not conduct a treatment acceptability measure,

so it cannot be determined if this benefit is worth the time and energy investment for the

participating professionals.

In Ellingson, et al., (2000), 3 participants, aged 19, 18 and 12, were evaluated using

two different descriptive assessments. No experimental functional analysis procedures

were used. The participants were all classified as either severely or profoundly mentally

retarded and one participant was also diagnosed with Angelman's syndrome. All of the

assessments occurred in special education classrooms in public schools. A second phase

of this study investigated function-based interventions, but this phase of the research is

outside the scope of this literature review.

The two descriptive assessments were each used in two different ways. The first

descriptive assessment was an interview that was presented as both an interview with the

first author asking follow-up questions and as a questionnaire that the teacher completed

independently. The second descriptive assessment was a direct assessment that used the

Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) worksheet. These worksheets were

simultaneously completed by both teachers and experts trained in Applied Behavior

Analysis. The assessments were always presented in the same order: (1) the teacher

completed the questionnaire independently, (2) the teacher was interviewed using the

same questions as the questionnaire by the first author except follow-up questions were

also asked, (3) using the information provided by the interviews and questionnaires an









ABC checklist was formulated and direct observations with the ABC instrument were

conducted at the same time by both the classroom teacher and a trained expert. Two other

trained behavior analysts conducted reliability checks on the hypothetical function

determined for the interview and the questionnaire.

The results of the descriptive assessments were determined by the authors'

evaluations of the interview/questionnaire and the ABC checklist results. All of the

hypothetical functions were determined to be either attention or escape. For one

participant, all of the different methods of assessment, including the second rater who

supplied reliability data, agreed that the function of the challenging behavior was

attention. For the second participant there was agreement that the function of the behavior

was attention for all of the assessments except for the second rater of the questionnaire.

For the third participant there was agreement from the indirect assessments; the interview

and questionnaire agreed that the function of the problem behavior was both attention and

escape. All of the direct observation results determined that the function of the problem

behavior was attention.

There are three conclusions regarding this research. First, the agreement between

the questionnaire, the interview and the direct observations are encouraging but in

consideration for the amount of influence the questionnaire and interview had over

structuring the direct observation, the agreement is less compelling. The construction of

an ABC checklist using indirect assessments requires further testing, especially against a

less structured ABC observation sheet and functional analysis. Second, the agreement

between the questionnaire and the interview is a step toward making the process more

efficient, (i.e., it only requires one person rather than two people); however, this result









may be idiosyncratic to the skills of the interviewer. Some interviewers may elicit

valuable information through follow-up questions that a questionnaire completed

independently could never draw out. Third, it is unclear whether the possible functions

were in some way limited to the choices of attention or escape, or if this was simply a

characteristic of these three specific participants.

In Calloway and Simpson (1998), three preschool aged children were evaluated

using two descriptive assessments, an experimental analysis and an informal question

posed to teachers and para-educators. The result of the descriptive assessment and the

experimental analysis were then compared with the responses to the informal question.

The 3 participants were male, ages 4, 4 and 3 and three were in an inclusive community

early childhood special education classroom. Two participants were in the same

classroom and one was in a different classroom; all assessments took place in the

classroom setting. Two children had speech and language and cognitive delays and one

participant was diagnosed with developmental delays and suspected autism. All three had

been referred to this study for repeated demonstration of various problem behaviors.

The procedure for this study occurred in three phases. The first phase consisted of

descriptive classroom observations and completion of the MAS. The researchers

interpreted this information and generated a hypothetical function. Manipulating through

analog conditions tested this hypothesized function. A reversal design was used with a

contra-indicated activity to compare behavioral frequencies. These reversals took place

every two or five minutes for either one 10 or 20 minute session. The second phase

involved implementing an intervention directly related to this function. This was

implemented not only to reduce the problem behaviors for the individual child, but also









to provide further validation of the function of the behavior as determined by the

descriptive assessment and functional analysis.

In the third phase of the study, three classroom professionals, either the teacher

and/or the classroom para-educators, were asked to identify a hypothetical function of the

problem behavior. They had no knowledge of the results of the formal analyses. The

classroom professionals were asked to identify the behavioral function using a ranking

system of 1-4 for these choices: (a) avoidance, (b) attention, (c) self-expression, and (d)

power/control.

According to the formal analyses, one student's function was confirmed as

attention, the second student's function was escape and the third student's results

indicated that the problem behavior was maintained by multiple functions: attention,

power/control and escape. The results of the ranking system indicated that the classroom

professional agreed with each other six out of nine opportunities (66%) in identifying the

primary function. However when comparing the formal and informal analysis results, the

classroom professionals only agreed with the formal analysis one out of nine times

(11%).

There are three salient aspects about this research study. First, the use of 'self-

expression' and 'power/control' as possible functions is divergent from most current

literature regarding functions of problem behavior. Self-expression was the function

chosen five out of nine times by the teachers and paraprofessionals, and it was not

confirmed by any of the formal analyses. Further, the functions of self-expression and

power/control are not even options on the MAS; therefore, a direct comparison between

the interview and the MAS for some participants was not possible. Second, agreement









between the analog conditions and the descriptive assessments is difficult to determine

since the analogs directly applied the results of the descriptive assessments, making it

impossible to separately evaluate them. Third, in regard to the results of the informal

analysis, this point to a larger consideration, namely that consistency does not equal

accuracy. The professionals were consistent with each other 66% of the time, but they

were only accurate in the sense that they agreed with the functional analysis 11% of the

time.

In Arndorfer, Miltenberger, Woster, Rorvedt and Gaffeney (1994), five children

ages 2 to 13 years old were evaluated using three descriptive assessments and a brief

experimental analysis. Unlike the other studies included in this section of the literature

review, all of the assessments occurred in the participants' homes. Parents served as the

source of information for the indirect assessments and also conducted direct assessments.

The 5 participants had been diagnosed with different disabilities including: (1) Down

syndrome, (2) fetal alcohol syndrome, (3) autism and mild mental retardation, (4)

developmental speech and cognitive delays, and (5) bipolar disorder. All of the

participants were referred to this study due to repeated demonstrations of problem

behaviors.

There were two phases of this research study. The first phase consisted of the

parents completing the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) two times with one to two

week delays between administrations. Repeated administrations were done to evaluate

reliability over time. Before the MAS was scored, the first author conducted the FAI with

the parents and the first and second authors independently reviewed the responses and

generated hypothetical functions. The MAS was then scored to also determine a









hypothetical function. Then, a third researcher and the parents of the participant, who

were unaware of the indirect assessment results, conducted three to five 30-60 minute

direct observations using the FAOF. The parents received a brief training session on

conducting a direct observation using the FAOF. A scatter-plot assessment determined

specific times target behaviors were likely to occur and this guided the times the direct

observations were conducted. Inter-observer agreement was conducted for 33% of all

direct descriptive assessments. Using the results of direct observations, hypothetical

functions of the problem behavior were formulated.

The second phase consisted of experimentally manipulating antecedents and

consequences that had been identified through the descriptive assessments. A reversal

design consisting of high-likelihood antecedents and consequences and low-likelihood

antecedents and consequences was conducted. For example, a participant whose

descriptive assessments indicated that attention was the primary function of her behavior

had a session where her mother looked at, talked to, or touched her at least twice every

minute and all problem behaviors were ignored. In the next condition, the mother looked

at, talked to, or touched the participant's siblings at least twice every minute but gave

contingent attention based on the participant exhibiting problem behaviors. These

conditions were presented in 15-30 minute sessions on the same day for three of the

children and over two to three days for the other two children. Only one session of each

phase was conducted for each child in an effort to make the experimental analysis as

brief, and socially valid, as possible.

The result of the descriptive agreement indicated agreement 16 out of 20

opportunities (four descriptive assessment results for 5 participants). For three out of the









four disagreements, the MAS was the instrument with divergent results. Additionally,

agreement between the two administrations of the MAS indicated agreement for

individual questions ranging from 56% to 75% (M=64%). The experimental analysis

supported the results of the interview and the direct observations for all five of the

participants (100%). There was differentiation in the frequency of the problem behaviors

throughout the reversal of the conditions.

There are three conclusions regarding this research study. First, this study bolsters

the use of the FAI and the direct observations to generate accurate hypothetical functions

of behavior, but draws the validity of the results of the MAS into question. Second, while

the experimental analysis does offer support for the descriptive assessments, because it

only tested one function, it is not possible to know if other functions of the behavior exist

without testing multiple functions. Third, by only conducting sessions of each condition

on one day for 3 of the 5 participants, there are contextual factors, and setting events that

may not be accounted for and may impact the function of the problem behavior. It seems

possible that this study may have sacrificed a degree of accuracy in an effort to increase

efficiency and social validity of the experimental process.

In Sasso et al. (1992), 2 participants, ages 7 and 13 years old, were evaluated using

a conventional functional analysis, a direct observation descriptive assessment and a

teacher conducted functional analysis. Both participants were classified as autistic and the

descriptive assessment and teacher conducted functional analysis occurred in self-

contained special education classrooms. The conventional functional analysis occurred

outside the classroom setting. The direct observation assessment was the ABC worksheet.

However, it was completed during specific activities that are similar to the conditions of









the functional analysis conditions (i.e., presentation of a difficult task). The functional

analyses consisted of a multi-element design based on Iwata et al. (1982/1994) featuring

four conditions: alone, escape, attention, and free play and also including a tangible

condition.

There were three phases of this study. First, researchers conducted a conventional

functional analysis. Second, the first teacher was trained to complete an ABC

observation. Then, the teacher conducted four 15-minute observations of the student. The

environment was varied for the observations and included solitary play, a high demand,

low teacher attention condition and a low demand and high teacher attention condition.

After the direct descriptive observations were completed, a brief functional analysis

within the classroom was conducted. The classroom teacher modified the environment to

test the five analog conditions. The same procedure occurred for the second participant-

the only difference was that the first teacher, rather then the researcher, taught the second

teacher to conduct the descriptive assessment and the classroom based functional

analysis. The results of this study indicated that in all three methods of assessment,

escape and tangible were the functions of the problem behavior for one participant and

escape was the function of the problem behavior for the other participant. Thus, there was

100% agreement for both participants.

There are three conclusions that can be drawn from this research study. First, this

research article demonstrates flexibility in the functional analysis process, in that the

same procedures can be applied across different settings and produce similar results.

Second, this study suggests that functional analysis procedures may have broader

applicability for classroom teachers. This runs counter to the concept that functional









analysis procedures are too complex to have broad-based appeal. Third, this idea that

teachers can effectively train teachers suggests of the possibility of a much broader

training model.

There are two conclusions that can be drawn from a summative evaluation of these

eight studies that directly compared descriptive assessments with each other and/or some

type of functional analysis. First, no descriptive assessment method has emerged as the

preeminent method to accurately determine a hypothetical function. It appears that for

indirect assessments, teacher interviews, both formal and informal, play an important role

in identifying potential functions in seven out of eight of these studies. Their overall

accuracy is further suggestion of the conclusion drawn earlier that research should

continue to focus on the knowledge teachers already have about their students' behaviors

and effectively and efficiently hone methodologies to access this knowledge. For direct

descriptive assessments, ABC assessment sheets completed by both teachers and

researchers do reveal accurate antecedents and functions. However, this conclusion is

tainted by the second conclusion about the overall state of this research. Namely, that all

of the methods, descriptive and experimental, were not conducted independently of each

other with a high degree of control.

This second conclusion, that the assimilation of results for all of the methodologies

muddled the final results, is pervasive throughout all eight of the studies. This is true

both for the descriptive assessments and for the link between the descriptive assessments

and the functional analyses. The end result is that no conclusions can be drawn about

what single descriptive methodology is the most accurate. This occurred for a variety of

reasons. First, some studies used a ranking system between raters that allowed for









multiple functions to be enumerated within the results. The second and most influential

reason is that the descriptive assessments were used to guide the functional analysis. By

not maintaining separation of the descriptive assessments from the functional analysis,

the functional analysis can only verify or refute the hypothetical function that the

descriptive assessments reveal. Conducted independently, functional analysis can

establish the function of the challenging behavior (Iwata et al., 1982/1994). In future

research, these results could then be taken back and compared with the independent

descriptive assessments to determine which ones accurately arrived at the function.

In summary, the overall lack of comparative studies that evaluated descriptive

assessments suggests that descriptive methods have not been validated by research. If

descriptive assessments, such as rating scales, interviews, and hypothesis development

using antecedent, behavior, consequence (ABC) analysis (Bijou, et al., 1968) indicate an

inability to accurately determine the function of a young child's disruptive behavior, then

their use is ill-advised. However, if descriptive methods adequately arrive at the same

function as experimental analysis, then the use of these simpler, less time-consuming

methods has been supported. Regardless of the outcome of the project, it is incumbent

upon researchers to prepare school and early childhood center personnel with the best,

experimentally validated procedures.

Comprehensive Summary of Research Literature

"Whether FBA can be effectively and efficiently accomplished outside a research

setting remains to be seen"(Reid & Nelson, 2002, p.23). As Reid and Nelson suggest, the

use of FBA as a durable, highly effective strategy in widespread applications in applied

settings remains to be seen. A review of 32 studies that used FBA, predominately with

young children with high incidence disabilities in natural settings, indicates three









conclusions that can be drawn from the current state of the research. First, in regard to the

participants and settings, the use of functional behavior assessment is still clearly

evolving in terms of its use with large numbers of young students with mild disabilities in

classroom settings. Second, interventions generated by FBA, while effective in the

studies in this sample, remain idiosyncratic and, at times, the relationship between the

derived function and the function-based intervention could be described as tenuous at

best. The third and the most important factor is that in terms of the FBA process the

individual components that would make up a universal FBA protocol have not been

established as valid and reliable for the widespread application of functional behavior

assessment.

The first conclusion in regard to the research in this literature review concerns the

participants and settings of FBA. Two considerations regarding the practical limitations

of all of these studies are the types of disabilities that are being addressed and their use of

large numbers of students. A third ancillary consideration is the type of behaviors that are

being addressed within the FBA literature. What may be attributed to IDEA (1997) was

this use of FBAs for children with disabilities other than developmental disabilities. In

1999, Nelson, Roberts, Mathur and Rutherford estimated that 80%-90% of functional

assessment research had been conducted with children with developmental disabilities.

The trend, however, to apply it to students with other disabilities or no disability at all is

proliferating according to this sample of studies. This is encouraging and indicates that

FBA is a highly flexible process with multiple levels of applications.

Combined with the problem of determining the ability to generate large numbers of

FBAs, the problem of researcher influence is an important consideration. The question of









'how well do these studies indicate what will occur in generalized application after the

study?' remains. This threat to external validity points to an important area of future

research. There is a need for further research in this area that uses longitudinal

methodology providing initial teacher training on the use of descriptive assessments, a

series of temporally determined probes to evaluate implementation fidelity, and a final

measure of effectiveness. Studies using a design such as this will allow researchers to

minimize the impact that they are having on teacher implementation of the FBA process.

This is a problematic shortcoming of the research that has not been answered to date.

A third point regarding this first conclusion is in regard to what types of behaviors

research has addressed with FBA methodology. Studies clearly addressed a

predominance of externalizing behaviors. While this is not surprising, as teachers are

more likely to identify externalizing behaviors as problematic, it does point to another

shortcoming in literature thus far. This is the question 'can FBA procedures effectively

address problematic internalizing behaviors?' Internalizing behaviors, social withdrawal,

isolation, and flat affect can be as problematic for students as externalizing behaviors

(Chandler & Dahlquist, 2002). However, current research has not addressed whether

these behaviors can be effectively addressed through functional behavior assessment.

The second conclusion is in regard to function-based interventions. While some

interventions led to highly specific interventions directly related to the function of the

challenging behavior, other interventions were only indirectly related to the function or

were not related at all. Researchers and teachers implemented a number of effective

interventions, manipulating both antecedents and consequences to reduce challenging

behaviors; however, one practical and methodological limitation is evident from this









sample of literature. In regard to methodology, even studies that were directly linked to

the intervention received far less emphasis than the process that arrived at the function of

the behavior. Empirical research has not produced a 'menu' of validated interventions

that directly match functions. However, the overall lack of emphasis on interventions is

surprising as the ultimate goal of FBAs is the formulation of effective intervention and

essentially FBA methodology will be judged on its effectiveness. In regard to practical

limitations, a limitation that this sample of studies did not address is the question of

teachers being able to sustain prescribed, function-based interventions for a number of

students over time. This will be an important area of future research as widespread

application of function-based interventions continues to broaden into different types of

classrooms and different populations of students.

The third and most important conclusion regarding this literature is the lack of

validity and reliability studies that directly evaluate the components that make up the

FBA process. The reason this conclusion is the most important is that before widespread

application for many children in applied settings with a variety of behaviors can occur,

the process must be honed so that it is not only reliable and valid, but also accessible to

minimally trained school personnel and highly efficient. Similarly, although effective

function-based interventions are paramount to the process, it will be impossible to derive

those without reliable and valid components. Unfortunately, even in the third section of

this literature review, a section that was comprised of studies that directly evaluated

descriptive assessments, useful evaluation of the components did not occur. There was

still a lack of separation of the findings between the individual descriptive assessments

and the descriptive assessments and the functional analysis that was often used to validate









the hypothetical functions. As a result in these research studies, it was very difficult to

determine what components were most effective.

This leads to an important area of research namely, conducting a series of indirect

and direct descriptive assessments and comparing the outcomes of these assessments to

the outcomes of a functional analysis methodology. However, to rectify limitations in the

existing research, independence of the descriptive assessment results and the functional

analysis results is important to determine if the descriptive instruments are able to obtain

valid functions independent of the functional analyses. Additionally, the results of the

various direct and indirect descriptive assessments would need to be kept separate and

counterbalanced across participants to maintain control for carry over and order effects.

These assessments should occur in natural settings with consideration of total time of

procedures and necessary levels of training with the goal of maximizing efficiency

without sacrificing validity. While this literature review has indicated a number of

problems with the widespread application of FBA in natural settings, it is vital that the

methodologies be evaluated before issues of implementation, teacher training, and

effective interventions are addressed. The results of this research are an empirically

validated step towards establishing a universal protocol that can be applied consistently

both in continuing FBA research and in applied settings.

Research Questions

The following questions were addressed in this study:

1. How do the functions of target behaviors identified through various descriptive
functional assessments compare to each other?

2. How do the functions of target behaviors identified through various descriptive
functional assessments compare with functions identified through a functional
analysis for young children's challenging behavior?














CHAPTER 3
METHODS

This chapter outlines the methodology used to conduct this study. The goals of this

study were to compare the functions determined by three descriptive assessments with

each other and with the functions determined by functional analyses (FA) for young

children who demonstrate challenging behaviors. Teachers' perceptions of the process

and its results were also evaluated. This chapter presents the following information: (a)

participants, (b) settings, (c) materials, (d) measurement procedures including dependent

measures, the independent variables, data collection and type of data recording, and

interobserver agreement. This chapter then outlines the experimental procedures

including recruitment and training, pre-experimental assessments, descriptive

assessments, and functional analysis. Finally, the methods of measuring social validity,

procedural integrity, and the design and data analysis are presented.

Participants

Four teacher-child dyads participated in this study. In accordance with the policies

set forth by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board, the principal

investigator obtained informed consent from the participating teachers and caregivers of

participating children (see Appendix A for approved IRB forms and participant informed

consent forms). All participating teachers and the child participants' parents received a

$25 dollar gift card. Child participants were four children who met the following criteria.

* Children were between the ages of 3 and 6 years old.









* They were currently enrolled in a Day Care Center, Pre-kindergarten, Kindergarten,
or First Grade class (general education or special education) in North Central
Florida.

* They had been identified through teacher nominations, in that teachers have
reported that these children are having challenging behaviors that are interfering
with their learning and this behavior warrants an FBA.

* They had a Total Problem Score of no less then 60 on the Child Behavior Checklist
(CBCL-TRF 1.5-5 or 6-18 years old) (Achenbach, 1992).

* They had consistent attendance at school, defined as 80% attendance or 4 out of 5
days a week, documented through school records.

* Teacher reports indicated average cognitive functioning.

Teacher participants were four individuals who met the following criteria:

* They taught children ages 3-6 years old.
* They had at least one child in the classroom who met the criteria above.
* They held at least an Associate of Arts degree,
* They served as the child participant's primary teacher for at least one month.

The flow chart of the teacher and child participant recruiting process is outlined in

Appendix B. The following is a brief description of all four participant dyads.

Ramon. Ramon is a 4-year old Hispanic male. His primary teacher, Rose, is a

Hispanic female. She has thirty years of experience in early childhood care settings; she

has had 7 months of contact with the participating child, and holds a Bachelor of Arts

degree. His teacher reported average cognitive functioning. The teacher report form of

the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF 1.5-5) (Achenbach, 1992) indicated that

Ramon has a total score on the Total Problem scale of 110 (>97 percentile) with sub-

scores in the clinically significant range for emotionally reactive behavior,

anxious/depressed, withdrawn, attention problems and aggressive behavior. Ramon's

challenging behaviors were disruptive vocalizations defined as raising his voice above









the classroom volume level, asking more than three questions in a 10-second interval or

using profanity or "bathroom talk."

Anthony. Anthony is a 5-year old African-American male. His teacher reported

that Anthony has average cognitive functioning. His primary teacher, Terry, is a white

female. She has 4 years of experience in early childhood care settings, has known the

participating child for 6 months and has completed her Associate of Arts degree. The

teacher report form of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF 1.5-5) (Achenbach,

1992) indicated that Anthony has a total score on the Total Problem Scale of 88 (>97

percentile) with sub-scores in the clinically significant range for emotionally reactive

behavior, sleep problems, and aggressive behavior. Anthony's challenging behaviors

were crying, yelling "Mom" or "Mama", rolling around on the ground, raising his voice

above the classroom volume level and leaving his assigned area (defined as being more

than 6 feet away from his assigned area).

Jimmy. Jimmy is a 5-year old African-American male. His teacher reported

average cognitive functioning. His primary teacher, Amy, is a white female. She has 25

years of experience in an early childhood care setting, has known the participant for 7

months and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree. The teacher report form of the Child

Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF 1.5-5 years old) (Achenbach, 1992) indicated that

Jimmy has a total score on the Total Problem Scale of 61 (87 percentile) with sub-scores

in the borderline range for aggressive behavior. Jimmy's challenging behaviors were

disruption defined as verbal defiance screaming, teasing, saying 'No', crying or whining.

Greg. Greg is a 6-year old African-American male. Teacher reports indicated

average cognitive functioning. His primary teacher, Alison, is a Hispanic female. She has









1 year of experience in the classroom; she has had 7 months of contact with the

participating child and has a Bachelor of Arts degree. The teacher report form of the

Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL-TRF 6-18) (Achenbach, 1992) indicated that Greg has

a total score on the Total Problem Scale of 95 (>98 percentile) with sub-scores in the

borderline range for social problems and rule-breaking behavior and in the clinical range

for thought problems and aggressive behavior. Greg's challenging behaviors were

disruptive noises defined as tapping his pencil, whistling and raising his voice above the

classroom volume level. Child and teacher information are summarized in Tables 3-1 and

3-2. All CBCL sub-scores are reported in Appendix C.

Table 3-1. Child Participant Information
Child Participant Age Race Gender CBCL-TRF Total Score
Ramon 4.9 Hispanic Male 110 (97th percentile)

Anthony 5.0 African-American Male 88 (>97th percentile)

Jimmy 5.5 African-American Male 61 (87th percentile)

Greg 6.4 African-American Male 95 (>98th percentile)


Table 3-2. Teacher Participant Information
Teacher Child Years of
Participant participant Experience

Rose Ramon 30 years

Terry Anthony 4 years

Amy Jimmy 25 years

Alison Greg 1 year


Race


Hispanic

White

White

Hispanic


Months of
Contact with
Child
7 months

6 months

7 months

7 months


Current Level
of Education

Bachelor of
Arts
Associate of
Arts
Bachelor of
Arts
Bachelor of
Arts









Settings

The settings for all of the assessment methods were the primary classrooms; a

primary classroom setting was defined as the room in which the child participant spends

the majority of his school day. For the first 3 participants listed (Ramon, Jimmy and

Anthony), the setting was the 4 and 5-year-old classroom of a university-sponsored early

childhood care center. The fourth participant's (Greg) primary setting was at a public

elementary school multi-grade, self-contained, special education classroom. The pre-

experimental assessments and teacher training occurred in the primary classroom with the

teacher during non-student contact times, (i.e., planning periods, nap times or after

dismissal). The indirect descriptive methods (interview and checklists were also

conducted in the primary classroom of the individual child during non-student contact

times, (i.e., planning periods, or naps).

The direct descriptive observations occurred during different classroom activities

with the majority of the observations in the child participant's primary classroom setting.

For the three participants in the early childhood center, the activities were primarily

Centers Time and Free Play. For the student in Kindergarten participant (Greg), the

activity was mainly independent work time. However, observations also occurred on the

playground for all 4 participants and in the cafeteria for Greg. The functional analyses

also occurred in the primary classroom setting. For the functional analysis, an area within

the primary classroom was designated where other children were not located, e.g. an area

in the corner of the room. Table 3-3 lists summaries of the phases, the assessments and

the settings in which they took place.