Citation
Implementation of Functional Behavioral Assessments with Preschool Children:A Descriptive Systematic Review of the Literature

Material Information

Title:
Implementation of Functional Behavioral Assessments with Preschool Children:A Descriptive Systematic Review of the Literature
Creator:
Mera, Nicole
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Behavioral assessment ( jstor )
Child psychology ( jstor )
Childhood ( jstor )
Classrooms ( jstor )
Data validity ( jstor )
Disabilities ( jstor )
Family members ( jstor )
Observational research ( jstor )
Tax noncompliance ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
Challenging Behavior
Functional Behavioral Assessment
Goal Setting
Hypothesis Testing
Preschool

Notes

Abstract:
Functional behavioral assessment is a promising approach for identifying the function of young children’s challenging behavior and developing effective intervention plans. The purpose of the present thesis was to conduct a systematic descriptive literature review of the implementation of functional behavioral assessment (FBA) with preschool children (ages 3 to 5 years). Coding of 25 studies that met inclusion criteria involved the researcher analyzing the studies for the following information: (a) characteristics of the child participants, (b) the type of preschool classrooms in which children were enrolled, (c) the types of challenging behavior they exhibited, (d) the forms and function(s) of the challenging behavior, (e) who was involved in conducting the FBA and implementing the behavior intervention plan (BIP), (f) the teacher’s role in conducting the FBA and implementing the BIP, (g) which of five steps for conducting FBAs were implemented, (h) if follow-up data were gathered, and (i) if social validity data were collected from teachers. Findings showed only six studies reported implementing all five steps of the FBA. Both indirect and direct methods were used to obtain information about the function of the child’s challenging behavior. Thirteen of the 25 studies also included a brief experimental analysis to verify behavior function. Across studies, the classroom teacher most often contributed information through indirect and direct methods and was involved in implementation of the BIP. Only nine studies reported conducting follow-up activities with the teacher and 10 studies reported gathering social validity data. Implications of study findings for practice and future research are discussed. ( en )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Nicole Mera. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Running Head: FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! 1 Implementation of Functional Behavioral Assessments with Preschool Children: A Descriptive Systematic Review of the Literature Nicole Mera Mentors: Dr. Patricia Snyder and Cinda Clark University of Florida

PAGE 2

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2 Abstract ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 3 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 4 Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 9 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 12 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 18 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 23 Table 1 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 31 Table 2 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 34 Table 3 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 41 Table 4 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 54 Table 5 ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 63

PAGE 3

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 3 Abstract Functional behavioral assessment is a promising approach for identifying the function of you ng Th e purpose of the present thesis was to conduct a systematic descriptive literature review of the implementation of functional behavioral assessment (FBA) with preschool children (ages 3 to 5 years). Coding of 25 studies that met inclusion criteria involved the researcher analyzing the st udies for the following information: (a) characteristics of the child participants, (b) the type of preschool classrooms in which children were enrolled , ( c ) the types of challenging behavior they exhibited, ( d ) the forms and function(s) of the challenging behavior, ( e ) who was involved in conducting the FBA and implementing the behavior intervention plan (BIP) , ( f conducting the FBA and implementing the BIP, (g) which of five steps for conducting FBAs were implemented, (h) if follow up data were gathered, and (i) if social validity data were collected from teachers. Findings showed only six studies reported implementing all five steps of the FBA. B oth indirec t and direct methods were used to obtain information about the function of Thirteen of the 25 studies also included a brief experimental analysis to verify behavior function. Across studies, the classroom teacher most oft en contributed information through indirect and direct methods and was involved in implementation of the BIP. Only nine studies reported conducting follow up activities with the teacher and 10 studies reported gathering social validity data. Implications of study findings for practice and future research are discussed.

PAGE 4

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 4 Implementation of Functional Behavioral Assessments with Preschool Children: A Descriptive Systematic Review of the Literature Young children who exhibit persistent challenging behaviors experience difficulties with engagement and learning during the preschool years, including difficulty acquiring social and behavioral skills that serve as important foundations for social interact ions and later school success . The numbers of preschool children with persistent challenging behavior appear to be increasing. Prevalence rates for young children with challenging behavior have been reported to range from 10% to 30% (Fox & Smith , 2007). Campbell (1995) estimated that 10% to 15% of young children have mild to moderate behavior problems. Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study revealed that 10% of kindergarteners arrive at school with problematic behavior (West, Denton, & G ermino Hausken, 2000). The short term consequences for young children with severe problem behaviors include early and persistent peer rejection (Coie & Dodge, 1998), mostly punitive contacts with teachers (Strain , Lambert, Kerr, Stragg, & Lenker , 1983), a nd failure in their academics (Kazdin, 1993; Tremblay, 2000). Among the long term consequences are experiencing a greater risk for school failure, delinquency, and substance abuse (Webster Stratton & Taylor, 2001). Res earch conducted by Gilliam (200 5) has shown that young children who engage in persistent challenging behavior are more likely to experience expulsion from preschool programs and preschool expulsion rate s are 3.2 times th ose of K 12 students. Gilliam also reported that preschool programs witho ut access to behavioral support services for young children with persistent challenging behavior are twice as likely to expel preschool children with challenging behavior than preschool programs that have access to behavioral support services. In addition, data from surveys conducted with pre service students as well as teachers working in preschool

PAGE 5

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 5 programs have repeatedly shown these individuals report they are unprepared to deal effectively with children who exhibit persistent challenging behavior (Hemme ter, 2006; Hemmeter, Corso, & Cheatham, 2006) and having children with persistent challenging behavior can lead to increased teacher burnout and stress (Hemmeter et al., 2006 ; Joseph, Strain, & Skinner 2003). Persistent challenging behavior has short and long term consequences both for young children and for the teachers who interact with these children on a daily basis. Defining Challenging Behavior in the Preschool Years perception of behavior, that interferes with or is at risk of interfering with optimal learning or engagement in pro & Fox, 2003 , p. 7 ). The excessive and inappropriate crying, violent tantrums, throwing objects, kicking, hitting, pushing, spitting, yelling, running, and repetitive or perseverative actions that occur for extended and unreasonable periods of time. Challenging behavior patterns c an also be defined by excessive lack of cooperation (or noncompliance) and a marked failure to respond or interact with others (Dunlap, Wilson, Strain, & Lee, 2013). For purposes of th e present paper , challenging behavior is characterized into four categories: aggression, inappropriate vocalizations, noncompliance, and social withdrawal. Aggression encompasses physical damage (hitting, kicking, biting, pinching, punching, grabbing toys) as well as pro perty damage (throwing materials). Inappropriate vocalizations include prolonged tantrums, outbursts, screaming, and persistent crying. Noncompliance comprises instances where children are continuously not following the directions posed by the teacher or e ngaging in frequent off task behavior. Social withdrawal is when children are continuously

PAGE 6

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 6 resistant to interactions with peers or adults or have very poor social skills, which makes it difficult for peers or adults to communicate effectively with the chil d. There are occasions when young children may engage in transient challenging behaviors that are associated with their developing independence ; their desire for attention , materials, or preferred activities ; or their desire to avoid challenging tasks or situations . The present literature revi ew differentiates these types of challenging behaviors from high intensity and persistent challenging behavior. Persistent challenging behavior is distinguished from transient challenging behavior when the child repea tedly engag es in challenging behavior over a period of weeks or months and the behavior is unresponsive to the regular guidance, redirection, and instructional strategies used within the preschool classroom (Dunlap et al., 2013). Functional Behavi oral Assessment: Purposes and Processes Functional behavior assessment (FBA) is a n individualized process of gathering information to make informed decisions about the function of challenging behavior. The process can include both indirect (e.g. , interviews, rating scales) and direct (e.g., observation) assessments to assist in identifying the factors that contribute to challenging In addition, brief exp erimental assessments, also known a s structural analyses, ca n be implemented to confirm hypotheses about the function of challenging behavior (Boyajian, DuPaul, Handler, Eckert, & McGoey, 2001). Indirect methods are characterized by being removed in time and place from the phenomena they measure (e.g., behaviors an d functional relations ; Cone, 19 97 ). Indirect methods are less time consuming than direct observations and experimental analyses and they often require less training, expertise, and staff collaboration to complete than a direct method such as observation o r an experimental All three assessments methods are often

PAGE 7

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 7 recommended to be conducted as part of a n FBA . behavior is occurring (function), (c) identify what happens before the behavior occurs (antecedents), (d) identify what is maintaining the behavior (consequences), (e) devel op an individualized and functional intervention plan based on child characteristics and results from the functional behavioral assessment, (f) implement an intervention plan, and (g) evaluate if the plan is effective for reducing or eliminating challengin g behavior (Alter, Conroy, Mancil, & Haydon, 2008; Sugai, Le wis Palmer, & Hagan Burke, 2000 ). To conduct an FBA, it is imperative to gather information about environmental factors surrounding the challenging behavior to determine the form and function of t he behavior. This includes factors that set the occasion for the behavior and factors that are maintaining the behavior. Function based interventions (FBI) are strategies for improving behavior that are linked to and logically derived from an FBA of challe nging behavior (Dunlap & Fox, 2011). The form of challenging behavior is the type of challenging behavior exhibited by the child (e.g., hitting, biting). The function of challenging behavior focuses on variables that are eliciting or maintaining the chall enging behavior or why the child is engaging in the behavior. For example, a child does not want to go to outside so when the teacher says it is time to go outside and the rest of the children are ready to leave the room, the child takes off his shoe and t hrows it against the wall. The form of the challenging behavior is throwing the shoe against the wall (i.e., throwing objects). A n FBA might hypothesize that the function of this behavior is escape as the child avoids going outside by taking off his shoe a nd throwing it against the wall. Four categories of function often described in the FBA literature are attention, escape, access to materials, and sensory input (Conroy, Davis, Fox, & Brown, 2002; Neilsen & Mc E voy, 2004).

PAGE 8

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 8 FBA and FBI are increasingly recog nized as effective approaches for identifying and addressing persistent challenging behavior in early childhood classrooms (DEC, 2007; Dunlap et al. , 2013). It is important that teachers have a clear understanding of how to conduct or be involved in effici ent and reliable FBAs because the FBA process is key to the development of quality FBIs, which teachers often implement. Five steps often are identified as part of the FBA process: (a ) i dentify and define the challenging behavior; (b ) c ollect information t o determine form and function of the challenging behavior; (c ) d etermine if a replacement or alternative behavior needs to be taught or was already learned , but is not being used; (d ) a nalyze information from the FBA to form a hypothesis about why and unde r what conditions the behavior occurs and is maintained ; and (e ) u se information gathered as part of the FBA to develop a FBI plan or a behavior intervention plan (BIP) to be implemented by a teacher or by lic Education Department, 2010; Sugai et al., 2000; Weber, Kim, Derby, & Barretto, 2005). These five steps were used to analyze articles inclu ded in the present literature review. Wood, Blair, and Ferro (2009) examined 35 studies published between 1990 through 2007 that used a variety of FBA strategies and intervention elements with preschool aged children. None of the studies they reviewed provided a clear explanation of the processes used to complete the FBA or to develop an FBI using a decision making model. These authors concluded that the research literature to date has not fully described FBA procedures in a way that preschool teachers can effectively and efficiently use them. Purpose The purpose of this systematic literature review is to summarize a body of literature focused on implementation of the five FBA steps with preschool aged children and to describ e

PAGE 9

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 9 with whom and under what circumstances the FBA was conducted and the roles teachers had in the FBA and BIP. Method Inclusion and Exclusion Cr iteria For a study to be included in the present review, it had to meet several inclusion criteria. First, the study had to be conducted in a preschool classroom that enrolled children between the ages of 3 through 5 years. Second, the study had to be an o riginal report of research published in a peer reviewed journal. Third, the teacher had to have some role in the FBA or FBI process . Finally, the study had to include implementation of an individual FBA. Studies were excluded if the FBA was a classroom wid e FBA , was conducted in a kindergarten setting , or did not involve the preschool teacher i n any aspect of the FBA or FBI . Article Search First, an electronic search was conducted via the University of Florida libraries using the following databases: ERIC, PsycInfo, SAGE, and Academic Search Premier. All combinations of the following search terms were used in each of the databases: functional behavior* assessment, FBA, functional analysis, function based intervention, and functional assessment, which were co mbined with the following terms: preschool, young children, and early childhood. The publication date was limited to 1990 through 2014. Across the databases searched, 3237 hits were recovered. Once duplicates were omitted, 1306 articles remained. The proce sses used to identify studies for inclusion in the review involved reading the title and abstract to determine if the study met the inclusion criteria. If further clarification was needed, the article was read in its entirety to obtain more information. Th e student researcher screened the 1306 articles identified through the search process.

PAGE 10

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 10 Secondary screening was completed by a doctoral student in special education and early childhood studies on a random selection of 33% ( n = 430) of the articles. Interrater agreement was 98.8%. The student researcher then conducted an ancestral hand search on the 2 2 articles that met the screening criteria to identify other eligible studies not found through the electronic search. Three additional articles were ob tained through the ancestral hand search, for a total of 2 5 articles. Initial Screening The screening form contained the following three questions: ( a ) Was the study conducted in a preschool classroom (children ages 3 5)? ( b ) Was the teacher involved in t he FBA or BIP implementation processes? ( c ) Did the study involve an individual FBA, not a classroom wide FBA? When an abstract did not contain sufficient information to answer the three screening questions, the full article was obtained and reviewed. The screening process resulted in 2 5 three questions on the screening form (see Table 1 for a list of the 2 5 studies). Review Procedures The article review proce ss for the 2 5 studies involved the following steps. First, a coding form to review identified studies was developed by the student researcher with input from her advisors. Second, the student researcher and her advisors reviewed the coding form and coding definitions b efore the review of studies began. Third, the student researcher read each study in its entirety and extracted information using the coding form. Fourth, a second coder who was the same doctoral student in special education and early childhood studies who conducted secondary screening independently read and coded 9 of the 25 (36%) studies and interrater coding agreement was examined. Interrater agreement was 86.57%. Finally, the student researcher a nd

PAGE 11

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 11 her advisors reviewed the coding conducted for all 25 articles and reached consensus on co des for each article . Coding Form The coding form included two primary sections. One section of the coding form included information about the child, the form and function of the challenging behavior, and the contexts an d conditions under which the FBA was conducted. Codes were (a) child age, (b) if the child had an IEP and/or a disability, (c) child race/ethnicity, (d) child gender, (e) type of challenging behavior, (f) function of challenging behavior, (g) which profess ionals and family members were or FBI . The second section was used to record information about which steps were involved in implementing the FBA and used following five steps: ( a ) identify and define the challenging behavior, ( b ) collect information to determine the form and the function of the challenging behavior, ( c ) determine if a replacement or alternative behavior needs to be taught or has already been learned, ( d ) analyze information from the FBA to form a hypothesis about why and under what conditions the behavior occurs and is maintained, and ( e ) use information gathered as part of the FBA and develop a n FBI or a . In addition, yes/no code s w ere used to record if data related to challenging behavior or the replacement behavior were displayed in a graph or table , if follow up data related to implementation of the FBI or BIP were gathered, and if social validity data were gathered from the teacher about the acceptability, utility, and feasibility of the FBA and FBI/BIP.

PAGE 12

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 12 Results Characteristics of Preschool Children A cross the 25 articles, there were a total of 60 children between the ages of 3 an d 5 . Eleven (18 %) of these children were 3 year old s , 24 (40 %) were 4 year old s , and 1 2 (20 %) were 5 yea r old s . One of the studies had three (5%) children between the ages of 3 and 4 and another study had 10 (17%) children between the ages of 4 and 5 but the authors did not specify individual ages for these children. Forty of the children were males (67 %) , 10 (17 %) were females , and . Race/ethnicity was reported for 23 (38 %) children: 13 (22 %) were iden tified as African American , six (10 %) as Caucasian , three (5 %) as Hispanic , and one (2 %) as Native American ( s ee Table 2). Across the reviewed studies, 2 9 children (48 %) were reported not to have an individualized education program (IEP) or a disabili ty . Of the 31 (52%) children who did have a disability or delay, only four (7%) were explicitly reported as having an IEP. The remainder of the studies , consisting of 27 (45%) children, did not specify if the children had IEP s . Even though most studies did n ot explicitly state that a child had an IEP, disabilities or delays were reported in some articles. The 31 ( 52 % ) children who did have reported disabilities or delays were s even (12 %) children with a developmental delay (DD), six (10%) with autism, four (7%) with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), three (5%) with emotional/behavioral disorder (EBD) , three (5%) with pervasive developmental disorder (PDD), two (3%) with Down syndrome . In addition, there was one chil d with a severe vision and hearing impairment, one with an intellectual disability (ID), one with a learning disability (LD), one with Asperger syndrome, one with attention deficit disorder (ADD) and EBD, and one with a DD and EBD ( s ee Table 2).

PAGE 13

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 13 Contexts f or the FBA The child participants were enrolled in preschoo l classrooms located in different types of programs. Twenty three (38%) of the children were in Head Start classrooms, 11 (18%) in community based (child care and day care) classrooms, eight (1 3 %) in inclusive community based classrooms, six (10%) in inclusive public school classrooms, five (8%) in public school classrooms, three (5%) in nursery/preschool classrooms, and four ( 7 %) in early childhood special education classrooms ( s ee Table 3). Professional and Family Member Involvement in the FBA A number of professionals were involved in the variety of FBAs conducted . These included classroom teachers (gener al and special education), teacher assistants ( paraprofessionals ), program administrators (directors and coordinators), related service personnel ( behavior consultants , psychologists, case managers , researchers , family specialists, nutritionists, and therapists), and researchers (undergraduate students , graduate students, and aut hors). As shown in Table 3 , in addition to teachers, 14 (56 %) studies involved a teachi ng assistant , 8 (32%) involved an administrator, 8 (32 %) involved related service personnel , and 14 (56%) involved a researcher. All 25 (100%) studies had two or more pe ople involved in the FBA . In addition to professional s, family members were i nv olved in the FBA process in nine (36 %) of the studies. Family members who we re reported to be involved were : p arents, grandparents, brothers, aunts, uncles, babysitters, and family friends. Two (8%) studies had one family member involved, one (4%) study had two family members involved, two (8 %) had three fa mily members involved, one (4%) had eight family members involved, and three (12 %) did not specify the number of family me mbers involved.

PAGE 14

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 14 s in the FBA Process All studies included in the review indicated the lead teacher was involved in at least one of the five steps of the FBA . The teacher was often asked to provide answers to interview questions used as part of indirect assessment methods to determine more about the type and form of the challenging behavior that the target child was exhibiting. Some teachers were also involved in collecting data about the function of the behavior . Across the 25 st udies, 18 (72%) studies had the lead teacher responsible for implementing the plan that was devised for the children. As for teacher involvement in each of the five steps, two (8%) were involved in only on e step, which was implementing the intervention pla n (S tep 5) . Two (8%) we re involved in two steps (Steps 1 and 2) by contributing information to identify and define the challenging behavior and determine the form and function. Seven (28%) were involved three of the FBA steps and the distributions were as follows: 1 teacher (4%) involved in s teps 1 , 2 , and 3 ; two teachers (8%) in volved in s teps 1 , 2 , and 4 ; one (4%) teacher involved in s teps 1 , 2 , and 5 ; and three (12%) teachers involved in s teps 1 , 4 , and 5 . Ten (40%) teachers implemented four of five steps , which were s teps 1, 2, 4, and 5. Only f our ( 16%) teachers were involved in all five steps of the FBA process (see Table 3). Implementation of Five Steps of FBA All 25 studies implemented at least three of the five FBA steps . All 25 studies implemented s teps 1 and 2 , nine (36%) implemented s tep 3 , 24 (96%) implemented s tep 4 , and 20 (80%) implemented s tep 5 . Across the studies, various combinations of d irect methods, indirect methods, and brief experimental functional analyses were us ed to conduct the FBA ( s ee Table 4). Thirteen studies (52%) used a brief experimental functional analysis in combination

PAGE 15

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 15 with indirect and direct methods and the remaining studies used a combination of indirect and direct methods. Step 1: Identify and define the challenging behavior. The challenging behavior reported for each child was subsumed under one of four categories: a ggression, inappropriate vocalizations, noncomplianc e, and social withdrawal. Twenty nine (48%) children exhibited behaviors consi stent with only one categor y of challenging behavior : 12 (20%) with aggression, 7 (12%) with inappropriate vocalizations, 8 (13%) with noncompliance, and 2 (3%) with social withdrawal. Twenty two (37%) children exhibited behaviors consistent with two of th e challenging behavior categories : four (7%) with aggression and inappropriate vocalizations, eight (13%) with aggression and noncompliance, one (2%) with aggression and social withdrawal, six (10%) with inappropriate vocalizations and noncompliance, one ( 2%) with inappropriate vocalizations and social withdrawal, and two (3%) with nonc om pliance and social withdrawal. Eight (13%) children exhibited behaviors consistent with three of the challenging behavior categories : five (8%) children with aggression, inappropriate voc alizations, and noncompliance; two (3%) with aggression, noncomp liance, and social withdrawal; and one (2%) with inappropriate vocalizations, noncompliance, and social withdrawal. O ne (2%) child exhibited challenging behavior consistent wi th the four categories of aggression, inappropriate vocalizations, noncompliance, and social withdrawal ( s ee Table 3). Teacher interv iews were the most common method used to identify and define the challenging behaviors. Other team members , including admi nistrators and family members , also contributed to this step of the FBA process. Informal methods that were used included the Functional Assessment Informant Record for Teachers Preschool Version (FAIR T P II ; Doggett, Edwards, Moore, Tingstrom, & Wilczynski, 2001 ), Problem Identification Interview

PAGE 16

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 16 (PII ; Durand & Crimmons, 1988 ), Social Skills Interview (SSI ; Asmus, Conroy, Ladwig, Boyd, & Sellers, 2004 ), Child Behavior Checklist (CBC L; Achenbach, 1991 ), Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS ; Erchul, & Martens, 2010 ) and Functional Analysis Interview (FAI Horner, Albin, Storey, & Sprague, 1990 ). In addition to indirect methods, some studies used direct observations such as antecedent behavior consequence (ABC) observations to supplement the information obtained from the indirect observations. Step 2: Determine form and function . Across the 60 children in the 25 studies, 4 4 (73%) had one function identified for their challenging behavior, 12 (20%) had two functions identified for their challenging behavior, and four (6%) had three functions identified for their challenging behavior. Twenty two (37%) children engaged in challenging behavior to obtain attention from adults and/or peers, eight (13%) children engaged in challenging behavior to escape an event or task, eight (13%) children engaged in challenging behavior to obtain access to materials and/ or activities, two (3%) children engaged in challenging behavior for sensory stimulation s behavior was not explicitly stated but , based on the information provided, was assumed to be attention for one child and escape for the other. Seven (12% ) children engaged in challenging behavior for attention or escape, and five (8%) children engaged i n challenging behavior for access to materials or attention. Four (6%) children engaged in challenging behavior for attention, escape, or access to materials. In addition to function, one (2%) child was determined to have a knowledge deficit that contribut ed to challenging behavior and one (2%) child was determined to have a skill deficit that contributed to challenging behavior. Combinations of brief experimental methods, direct observations and indirect methods were most common to determine the form and f unction of the challenging behavior. Direct observations included the Snapshot Assessment Tool (SAT ; Conroy, Asmus, Ladwig, Sellers, &

PAGE 17

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 17 Boyd, 2004 ) and ABC ( Dunlap et al., 2013 ) systematic behavioral observations . The brief experimental methods often involved testing three potential functions (i.e., attention, access to materials/tangibles, escape) and using contingency reversal designs to verify function. Step 3: Replacement or alternative behavior taught or already learned. The third step is one th at only nine studies (36%) explicitly stated was used as part of their FBA process. When studies did imp lement this step, they used a decision model, the SSI , or other informal interviews to determine if the challenging behavior could be related to a skill or performance defici t related to potential replacement or alternative behaviors. Step 4: Analyze information to form a hypothesis. In the majority of the studies, this step was often a collaborative effort between team members but occasionally was condu cted solely by the researchers . The team used data from s teps 1 3 to develop or to develop and then explicitly test hypotheses through brief experimental assessments about the function of the challenging behavior. Step 5: Use data and develop FBI or BIP to be implemented. In this step, team members analyzed the data from the first four steps to come up with an intervention plan to decrease the challenging behavior by altering the variables hypothesized to be eliciting or maintain ing the behavior. In addi tion, the FBI or BIP sometimes included alternative or replacement skills that would be taught . The most common approach to s tep 5 involved the teacher implementing the plan after contributing ideas along with the team in s teps 1 to 4 . Other s tep 5 approac hes included the researcher implementing the final step or the researcher training the teacher on how to administer the intervention plan without th e teacher having an active role in the earlier steps.

PAGE 18

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 18 Da ta Displayed in Charts or Tables The 25 studies were analyzed to determine if the studies included data from the functional analysis (FA) and/or from the FBI or BIP. The FA data is derived specifically from the brief experiment al assessment conducted to document occurrences of challenging behavior and confirm function, whereas data from the FBI or BIP is the data associated with implementation of th e intervention plan. Three (12%) studies provided data only on the FA, seven ( 28 %) provided data only on the intervention, and 10 ( 40 %) provide d data on both the FA and the intervention. Five studies (20%) did not provide data displays for e ither the FBA or the FBI or BIP (see Table 5). Follow Up The 25 articles were also evaluated to determine if follow up about the FBA or FBI or BIP was conducted with teachers. Only 9 studies (36%) reported conducting follow up about continued int ervention use and effectiveness (see Table 5). Social Validity Articles included in this review were also analyzed to determine if some form of social validity data were gathered from teachers about the acceptability, utility, and feasibility of FBA and FBI or BIP processes. Ten (40%) studies gathered and reported soc ial validity data (see Table 5). Discussion The purpose of this systematic descriptive literature review was to analyze the current body of literature focused on the five steps of implementing an FBA, determine teacher and fami ly involvement in this process , and summarize characteristics of children involved and the types of preschool classrooms in which FBAs were conducted. As the numbers of preschool

PAGE 19

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 19 children with challenging behavior appears to be continually increasing, FBAs are becoming even more crucial to minimize the expulsion rates that young children with persistent challenging behaviors might face (Gilliam, 2005). In addition, a primary emphasis in FBA is to develop individualized behavior support and intervention plans that address chal leng ing behavior and help young children develop functional social and behavioral skills that will support their interactions with peers and adults as well as their engagement and learning. In FBA, a primary goal is to understand the function of challenging behavior and the motivational or environmental variables that are maintaining the behavior (Dunlap et al., 2013). Traditionally, these assessments have been more commonly used with older students and only recently has there been an increase in using FBA me thods in authentic early childhood settings, including preschool classrooms (Wood , Drogan, & Janney , 2013). Intervening to prevent challenging behavior in the early years is crucial for young of FBA includes the involvement of teachers and family members who spend significant time with young children. When trained professionals conduct FBAs in clinical settings without the involvement of preschool teachers , findings from the FBA might not uncov er the variables that are eliciting or maintaining the challenging behavior in the preschool classroom and the likelihood that a teacher can reliably implement the BIP in the classroom is diminished. Because a teacher spends every day with the child and is the one who will continue interacting with the child and implementing the plan, the , along with the continued involvement and ew demonstrated that it was feasible to conduct FBAs and to implement the resulting FBI s in preschool classrooms, which is a positive and promising finding.

PAGE 20

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 20 Findings from this review indicate that many different types of children engage in challenging beha vior, including children without identified disabilities. Almost half of the children in these studies did not have diagnosed disabiliti es or delays but were exhibiting persistent ch allenging behaviors. This suggests that FBA is a process that has been us ed an d should continue to be used with a varie ty of children and not specifically those with identified disabilities or delays. Additionally, FBAs were conducted in different t ypes of early childhood classrooms , which suggests the utility of the approach a cross different early childhood sectors such as Head Start, public preschool, and child care programs . A number of in direct and direct methods were used as part of the FBA . In more than half of the studies, a brief experimental assessment was successfu lly conducted in the context of a preschool classroom. One of the most common indirect methods used involved a structured interview using an adapted form of the Functional Analysis Interview form et al., 1990, 1997) . This form was useful for gathering information from teachers, family members, and others who spend significant time with the child about the type s or forms of challenging behaviors as well as information about the potential function of challenging behaviors. In a few of the studi es, the teacher was only involved in the FBA process by identifying the type s or forms of challenging behavior s and implement ing the FBI or BIP . In the majority of studies reviewed, teachers played a more active role in the FBA process, although based on the information provided, it was difficult to determine the exten t of her engagement in the process. This finding is consistent with the findings of Wood et al. (2013), who reported that it was difficult to ascertain the extent of teacher involvement in F BA processes. It is i mportant for the success of the FBA process and the resulting intervention plan that the teacher plays an active role in e very step of the process .

PAGE 21

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 21 As for limitations, only six studies used all five steps and different methods and pr ocesses were used across studies to implement each step. Another limitation is that there were some studies in this review that excluded i nformation that would have been important for understanding the characteristics of the children involved and the clas srooms in which they were enrolled (e.g., numbers of children with IEPs). abilities as part of step three of the FBA. This is a very important step in the FBA process because it helps determine whether a replacement or alternative behavior needs to be taught or has already been learned. Without this information, behaviors identified as replacements for or alternatives to challenging behavior on the BIP may not be appr opriate. Very few studies reported conducting follow up activities to determine if the intervention plan was still being implemented or was still effective. In addition, fewer than half of the studies gathered data from teachers about the acceptability, utility, and feasibility of conducting FBAs and implementing FBIs or BIPs . Social validity data are important because if teachers do not find interventions such as FBA to be useful, acceptable, or feasible to i mplement, then they are unlikely to continue using them (Wolf, 1978). Despite these noted limitations, it was found that FBAs could be effective ly implemented across different early childhood settings for children exhibiting persistent challenging behavior s . The majority of studies included in this review reported positive effects on decreasing challenging behavior by implementing a n FBA and subsequent intervention . One key finding from this literature review was that the teacher was involved in implementin g the FBA and intervention plan after collaborating with team members . All studies included at least two team members, and most ha d more than that. With the input of different professionals and family

PAGE 22

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 22 members, the potential effectiveness of the FBI for the child is much higher than if one professional implements the FB I independently. A family focused theme was also common throughout the reviewed articles with the family, teachers, and staff working together to determine the settings where challenging behav ior occurred and collaborating to identify the function of the challenging behavior . In summary, the findings of this review suggest the importance of teacher involvement not only in the implementation of the behavior intervention plan but also in the imp lementation of the FBA. More training need s to be conducted for teachers working in early childhood settings on FBA because it is important to minimize challenging behavior when the child is young so they are prepared for their transition into Kindergarten . the FBA and BIP process in an early childhood setting. Future research should be conducted focused on follow up to determine if teachers continue to use FBA proc esses and implement intervention plans reliably. In addition, research is needed to demonstrate further the usefulness, acceptability, and feasibility of implementing FBAs in preschool classrooms.

PAGE 23

Running Head: FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! 23 References Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manuscript for the Child Behavior Checklist/4 18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Alter, P. Conroy, M., Mancil, G.R., & Haydon, T. (2008). A comparison of functional behavior assessment methodologies with young children: Descriptive methods and functional analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17 (2), 200 219. Asmus, J. M., Conroy, M. A., Ladwig, C. N., Boyd, B., & Sell ers, J. (2004). Social skills interview . Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida. * Bayat, M., Mindes, G., & Covitt, S. (2010). What does RTI (response to intervention) look like in preschool? Early Childhood Education Journal , 37 (6), 493 500. doi:10 .1007/s10643 010 0372 6 * Becker Cottrill, B., McFarland, J., & Anderson, V. (2003). A model of positive behavioral support for individuals with autism and their families: The family focus process. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18 (2) , 113 123. doi:10.1177/108835760301800205 * Bellone, K. M., Dufrene, B. A., Tingstrom, D. H., Olmi, D. J., & Barry, C. (2014). Relative efficacy of behavioral interventions in preschool children attending head start. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23 (3), 378 400. * Blair, K. C., 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 (2), 151.

PAGE 24

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 24 * Blair, K. C., Umbreit, J., & Eck , S. (2000). Analysis of multiple variables related to a young child's aggressive behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2 (1), 33 39. doi:10.1177/109830070000200105 * Blair, K. C., Fox, L., & Lentini, R. (2010). Use of positive behavior suppo rt to address the challenging behavior of young children within a community early childhood program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30 (2), 68 79. * Boyajian, A. E., DuPaul, G. J., Handler, M. W., Eckert, T. L., & McGoey, K. E. (2001). The use of classroom based brief functional analyses with preschoolers at risk for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Review, 30 (2), 278 293. Campbell, S. B. (1995). Behavior problems in preschool children: A review of recent research. J ournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36 (1), 113 149. Coie, J. K. & Dodge, K. A. (1998). Aggression and antisocial behavior. In W . Damon & N. Eisenberg (Ed s.) . Handbook of child psychology ( 5th ed ., Vol 3, pp. 779 862). Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons Inc . Cone, J.D. (1997). Issues in functional analysis in behavioral assessment. Behaviour R esearch and T herapy , 35 (3) , 259 275. Conroy, M. A., Asmus, J. M., Ladwig, C. N., Sellers, J., & Boyd, B. (2004). The Snapshot Assessment Tool . Unpublished manus cript. * Conroy, M. A., Boyd, B. A., Asmus, J. M., & Madera, D. (2007). A functional approach for ameliorating social skills deficits in young children with autism spectrum disorders. Infants & Young Children, 20 (3), 242 254.

PAGE 25

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 25 Conroy, M. A., Davis, C. A., Fox, J. J., & Brown, W. H. (2002). Functional assessment of behavior and effective supports for young children with challenging behaviors. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 27 , 35 47. Division for Early Childhood. (2007, August). Position statement: Identification of and intervention with challenging behavior . Retrieved from http://yec.sagepub.com/content/13/5/47.full.pdf Doggett, R. A., Edwards, R. P., Moore, J. W., Tingstrom, D. H., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2001). An approach to functional assessment in general education classroom settings. School Psychology Review, 30 , 313 328. * Dooley, P., Wilczenski, F. L., & Torem, C. (2001). Using an activity schedule to smooth school transitions. J ournal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3 (1), 57 61. doi:10.1177/109830070100300108 * Duda, M. A., Dunlap, G., Fox, L., Lentini, R., & Clarke, S. (2004). An experimental evaluation of positive behavior support in a community preschool program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24 (3), 143 155. doi:10.1177/02711214040240030201 * Dufrene, B. A., Doggett, R. A., Henington, C., & Watson, T. S. (2007). Functional assessment and intervention for disruptive classroom behaviors in preschool and head star t classrooms. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16 (4), 368 388. Dunlap, G., & Fox, L. (2011). Function based interventions for children with challenging behavior. Journal of Early Intervention , 33 , 333 343. Dunlap, G., Wilson, K., Strain, P. S., & Lee, J. (2013). Prevent, teach, reinforce for young children : The early childhood model of individualized positive behavior support . Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

PAGE 26

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 26 Durand, V. M., & Crimmons, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99 117. Erchul, W. P., & Martens, B. K. (2010). School consultation: Conceptual and empirical bases of practice (3rd ed.). New York: Springer. Fox, L., & Smith, B. J. (2007 , January ). Issue Bri ef: Promoting social, emotional and behavioral outcomes of young children served under IDEA . Tampa, FL: Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Intervention and Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning . Retrieved from http://challengingbehavior.fmhi.usf.edu/do/resources/documents/brief_promoting.pdf Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rates in state prekindergarten systems (Policy Brief Series No. 3). Retrieved from Foundation for Child Dev elopment website: http://fcd us.org/resources/prekindergartners left behind expulsion rates state prekindergarten programs * Harding, J., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Asmus, J., Jensen Kovalan, P., & Grisolano, L. A. (1999). Combining descriptive and exp erimental analyses of young children with behavior problems in preschool settings. Behavior Modification, 23 (2), 316 333. doi:10.1177/0145445599232008 Hemmeter, M. L. (2006, November). Research findings and issues for implementation, policy, and scaling up : Training and supporting personnel and program wide implementation . er on Evidence based Practices: Young Children with Challenging Behavior, Washington, DC. Hemmeter, M.L., Corso, R., Cheatham, G. (2006, February). I ssues in addressing challenging behaviors in young children: A national survey of early childhood educators . Paper

PAGE 27

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 27 presented at the conference of Research Innovations in Early Interventions, San Diego, CA. * Ishuin, T. (2009). Linking brief fun ctional analysis to intervention design in general education settings. The Behavior Analyst Today, 10 (1), 47 53. Joseph, G. E., Strain, P. S., & Skinner, B. (2003). Early care and education ldren with challenging behavior: A survey . Unpublished raw data. University of Colorado at Denver. Kazdin, A. (1993). Adolescent mental health: Prevention and treatment programs. American Psychologist, 48 , 127 141. * Lambert, J. M., Bloom, S. E., & Irvin, J. (2012). Trial based functional analysis and functional communication training in an early childhood setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45 (3), 579 584. * Lawry, J. R. (1993). Analyzing problem behaviors in the classroom: A case study of functional analysis. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29 (2), 96 100. * Martens, B. K., Gertz, L. E., de, L. W., & Rymanowski, J. L. (2010). Agreement between descriptive and experimental analyses of behavior under naturalistic test conditions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 19 (3), 205 221. * May, M. E., & Howe, A. P. (2013). Evaluating competing reinforcement contingencies on off task behavior in a preschooler with intellectual disability: A data based case study . Education and Treatment of Children , 36 (1), 97 109.

PAGE 28

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 28 * McLaren, E. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2009). Using functional behavior assessment to develop behavior interventions for students in head start. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11 (1), 3 21. doi:10.1177/1098300708318960 Neilsen, S. L., & McEvoy, M. A. (2004). Functional behavioral assessment in early education settings. Journal of Early Intervention, 2 , 115 131. New Mexico Public Education Department. (2010). Addressing student behavior: A guide for all educators . Retr ieved from New Mexico Public Education Department website: www.ped.state.nm.us/ Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practi cal handbook (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. O'Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1990). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A practical assessment guide. Monterrey, CA: Brooks/Cole. * Park, K. L., & Scott, T. M. (2009). Antecedent based interventions for young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 34 (4), 196 211. * Payne, S. W., Dozier, C. L., Neidert, P. L., Jowett, E. S., & Newquist, M. H. (2014). Using addi tional analyses to clarify the function of problem behavior: An analysis of two cases. Education & Treatment of Children, 37 (2), 249 275. * Rogers, E. L. (2001). Functional behavioral assessment and children with autism: Working as a team. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16 (4), 228 231. * Schill, M. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1998). Functional assessment in behavioral consultation: A treatment utility study. School Psychology Quarterly, 13 (2), 116 140.

PAGE 29

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 29 * Schwartz, I. S., Boulware, G., McBride, B. J., & Sandall, S. R. (2001). Functional assessment strategies for young children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16 (4), 222 227. Smith, B., & Fox, L. (2003). Systems of service delivery: A synt hesis of evidence relevant to young children at risk of or who have challenging behavior . Tampa, FL: Center for Evidence Based Practice: Young Children with Challenging Behavior, University of South Florida. Strain, P.S., Lambert, D., Kerr, M.M., Stragg, V., & Lenker, D. (1983). Naturalistic assessment Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16 , 243 249. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 131 143 . Sugai, G., Lewis Palmer, T, & Hagan Burke, S. (2000). Overview of the functional behavioral assessment process . Exceptionality, 8 (3), 149 160. Tremblay, R.E. (2000). The development of aggressive behavior during childhood: What have we learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24 , 129 141. ! "#$%&'()*+,)*-*./0' %)*1,*2,*345567,*"8'9:*8(%;<(;%0/*090/=8'8*(>*?0<'/'(0(&*(%&0(#&9(*>?*0::%&88'>9* * 09@*9>9<>#A/'09<&*'9*0*=>;9:*%*$&B0E'>%0/*@'8>%@&%8,* !"#$%&'($)* * +&,'(-"(, )*6F C GH, * Weber, K. P., Kim, K., Derby, K. M., & Barretto, A. (2005). The status of f unctional behavioral assessment (FBA): Adherence to standard practice in FBA

PAGE 30

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 30 methodology. Psychology in the Schools , 42 (7), 737 744. Webster Stratton, C., & Taylor, T. (2001). Nipping early factors in the bud: Preventing substance abuse, delinquency, and violence in adolescence through interventions targeted at young children (0 8 years). Prevention Science, 2 , 165 192. West, J., Denton, K., & Germino Hauske n E. (2000). k indergartners: Early c hildhood l ongitudinal s tudy , kindergarten class of 1998 99, fall 1998 (NCES 2000 070) . Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education National C enter for E ducation S tatistics websit e: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000070.pdf Wolf, M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 11 , 203 214. Wood, B. K., Blair, K. S., & Ferro, J. B . (2009). Young children with challenging behavior: Function based assessment and intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29 , 68 78. doi:10.1177/0271121409337951 * Wood, B. K., Ferro, J. B., Umbreit, J., & Liaupsin, C. J. (2011). Address ing the challenging behavior of young children through systematic function based intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30 (4), 221 232. Wood, B. K., Drogan, R. R., & Janney, D. M. (2013). Early childhood practitioner involvement in fun ction behavioral assessment and function based interventions: a literature review. Topics in Ear ly Childhood Special Education . Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0271121413489736 * indicates an article included in the review

PAGE 31

Running Head: FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! 31 Table 1 Studies Included in the Systematic Review ( N = 25 ) Author Year of Publication Bayat, M., Mindes, G., & Covitt, S. 2010 Becker Cottrill, B., McFarland, J., & Anderson, V. 2003 Bellone, K. M., Dufrene, B. A., Tingstrom, D. H., Olmi, D. J., & Barry, C. 2014 Blair, K. C., Umbreit, J., & Bos, C. S. 1999 Blair, K. C., Umbreit, J., & Eck, S. 2000 Blair, K. C., Fox, L., & Lentini, R. 2010 Boyajian, A. E., DuPaul, G. J., Handler, M. W., Eckert, T. L., & McGoey, K. E. 2001 Conroy, M. A., Boyd, B. A., Asmus, J. M., & Madera, D. 2007 Dooley, P., Wilczenski, F. L., & Torem, C. 2001 Duda, M. A., Dunlap, G., Fox, L., Lentini, R., & Clarke, S. 2004

PAGE 32

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 32 Table 1. Studies Included in the Systematic Review ( N = 25) (continued) Author Year of Publication Dufrene, B. A., Doggett, R. A., Henington, C., & Watson, T. S 2007 Harding, J., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Asmus, J., Jensen Kovalan, P., & Grisolano, L. A. 1999 Ishuin, T. 2009 Lambert, J. M., Bloom, S. E., & Irvin, J. 2012 Lawry, J. R. 1993 Martens, B. K., Gertz, L. E., de, L. W., & Rymanowski, J. L. 2010 May, M. E., & Howe, A. P. 2013 McLaren, E. M., & Nelson, C. M. 2009 Park, K. L., & Scott, T. M. 2009 Payne, S. W., Dozier, C. L., Neidert, P. L., Jowett, E. S., & Newquist, M. H. 2014 Rogers, E. L. 2001 Schill, M. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. 1998

PAGE 33

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 33 Table 1. Studies Included in the Systematic Review ( N = 25) (continued) Author Year of Publication Schwartz, I. S., Boulware, G., McBride, B. J., & Sandall, S. R. 2001 Umbreit, J., & Blair, K. S. 1997 Wood, B. K., Ferro, J. B., Umbreit, J., & Liaupsin, C. J. 2011

PAGE 34

Running Head: FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! 34 Table 2 Child Participant Characteristics by Study Authors Age IEP Disability Race Gender Bayat, Mindes, & Covitt, 2010 3 ( n = 1) No No disability NR Male Becker Cottrill, McFarland, & Anderson, 2003 4 ( n = 1) NR Autism NR Male Bellone, Dufrene, Tingstrom, Olmi, & Barry, 2014 4 ( n = 3); 3 ( n = 1) No No disabilities African American Males

PAGE 35

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 35 Table 2. Child Participant Characteristics by Study (continued) Authors Age IEP Disability Race Gender Blair, Umbreit, & Bos, 1999 5 ( n = 4) NR EBD ( n = 3); (ADD) and EBD ( n = 1) NR Males ( n = 3), Female ( n = 1) Blair, Umbreit, & Eck, 2000 4 ( n = 1) NR DD and EBD NR Male Blair, Fox, & Lentini, 2010 3 ( n = 2); 4 ( n = 1) NR DD ( n = 1); ADHD ( n = 1); PDD ( n = 1) African American ( n = 2); Hispanic ( n = 1) Males

PAGE 36

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 36 Table 2. Child Participant Characteristics by Study (continued) Authors Age IEP Disability Race Gender Boyajian, DuPaul, Handler, Eckert, & McGoey, 2001 4 ( n = 2); 5 ( n =1) NR ADHD Hispanic ( n = 1); Caucasian ( n = 2) Males Conroy, Boyd, Asmus, & Madera, 2007 4 ( n = 1) NR` PDD NR Male Dooley, Wilczenski, & Torem, 2001 3 ( n = 1) NR PDD NR Male

PAGE 37

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 37 Table 2. Child Participant Characteristics by Study (continued) Authors Age IEP Disability Race Gender Duda, Dunlap, Fox, Lentini, & Clarke, 2004 3 ( n = 2) No ( n = 1); NR ( n = 1) No disability ( n = 1); Down Syndrome ( n = 1) NR Females Dufrene, Doggett, Henington, & Watson, 2007 5 ( n = 3) No ( n = 2); NR ( n = 1) No disabilities ( n = 2); DD ( n = 1) African American ( n = 2); Native American ( n = 1) Males ( n = 2); Females ( n = 1) Harding et al., 1999 4 ( n = 3) No ( n = 1); NR ( n = 2) No disability ( n = 1); DD ( n = 1); severely impaired in both hearing and vision ( n = 1) NR Males Ishuin, 2009 4 ( n = 1) No No disability NR Male

PAGE 38

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 38 Table 2. Child Participant Characteristics by Study (continued) Authors Age IEP Disability Race Gender Lambert, Bloom, & Irvin, 2012 3 to 4 ( n = 3) NR DD NR Male ( n = 1), Females ( n = 2) Lawry, 1993 5 ( n = 1) No No disability NR Male Martens, Gertz, Werder, & Rymanowski, 2010 4 ( n = 2); 5 ( n = 1) NR Autism Caucasian Males ( n = 2), Female ( n = 1) May & Howe, 2013 4 ( n = 1) NR ID African American Female McLaren & Nelson, 2009 3 ( n = 3) No No disabilities NR Males

PAGE 39

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 39 Table 2. Child Participant Characteristics by Study (continued) Authors Age IEP Disability Race Gender Park & Scott, 2009 4 ( n = 2); 5 ( n = 1) No No disabilities African American Males ( n = 2), Female ( n = 1) Payne, Dozier, Neidert, Jowett, & Newquist, 2014 4 ( n = 2) No ( n = 1); NR ( n = 1) No disability ( n = 1); LD ( n = 1) NR Male ( n = 1), Female ( n = 1) Rogers, 2001 5 ( n = 1) NR Autism NR Male Schill, Kratochwill, & Elliott, 1998 4 or 5 ( n = 10) N o No disabilities NR Males and Females ( n = 10)

PAGE 40

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 40 Table 2. Child Participant Characteristics by Study (continued) Authors Age IEP Disability Race Gender Schwartz, Boulware, McBride, & Sandall, 2001 4 ( n = 1) Yes Asperger syndrome NR Male Umbreit & Blair, 1997 4 ( n = 1) No No disability NR Male Wood, Ferro, Umbreit, & Liaupsin, 2011 3 ( n = 1); 4 ( n = 2) Yes DD ( n = 1); Down syndrome ( n = 1); Autism ( n = 1) African American ( n = 1); Caucasian ( n = 1); Hispanic ( n = 1) Males Note. DD=developmental delay, ADHD=attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADD=attention deficit disorder, EBD=emotional/behavioral disorder, PDD=pervasive developmental disorder, ID=intellectual disability, LD=learning disability

PAGE 41

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 41 Table 3 Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Bayat, Mindes, & Covitt, 2010 Public Aggression and inappropriate vocalizations Not explicitly stated (appears to be attention) Classroom teacher, assistant, administrator, related service personnel ( n = 3), family member Contribute info rmation on identifying challenging behavior, hypothesizing and implementing the plan and collecting data during intervention (Steps 1, 4, 5) Becker Cottrill, McFarland, & Anderson, 2003 Public Inappropriate vocaliz ations and noncompliance Attention and/or escape Classroom teachers ( n = 3), administrator, related service personnel ( n = 2), family members ( n = 8) Attended lectures and small team meetings. Assisted in team contribution and colle cting data for steps 1, 2, 5.

PAGE 42

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 42 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Bellone, Dufrene, Tingstrom, Olmi, & Barry, 2014 Head Start Aggression, inappropriate vocalizations, and noncompliance ( n = 2); Inappropriate vocalizations and noncompliance ( n = 1); Aggression and noncompliance ( n = 1) Attention Classroom t eacher ( n = 4), assistant ( n = 4), researchers, Teachers referred children and trained to implement plan. Completed Fair T P II (Step s 1, 2, 4, 5) Blair, Umbreit, & Bos, 1999 Community based Noncompliance ( n = 1); Aggression and noncompliance ( n = 2); Aggression, noncompliance, and social withdrawal (n = 1) Access to materials ( n = 3); A ccess to materials and attention ( n = 1) Classroom teachers ( n = 2), administ r ator , researchers Identified children with problem behavior. Provided info rmation on how teachers respond to CB. Administered preference assessment, helped develop hypothesis and implement plan (Steps 1, 4, 5)

PAGE 43

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 43 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Blair, Umbreit, & Eck, 2000 Community based Aggression and noncompliance Access to materials Classroom teacher, assistants ( n = 2), administrators ( n = 2), family members ( n = 3) Provided information for steps 1, 2, and 3 Blair, Fox, & Lentini, 2010 Community based (inclusive) Aggression, inappropriate vocalizations, and noncompliance ( n = 2); Aggression, inapp ropriate vocalizations, noncompliance, and social withdrawal ( n = 1) Access to activities or materials, attention, and escape ( n = 2); attention and escape ( n = 1) Classroom teacher, assistant, administrators ( n = 2), related service personnel, researchers ( n = 2), family members Completed O'Neill's FAI and interview for step 1 and confirmed observation results. Implement ed the plan with assistant teacher. 2nd phase just assistant teacher due to lead teacher on extended leave.

PAGE 44

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 44 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Boyajian, DuPaul, Handler, Eckert, & McGoey, 2001 Community based ( n = 2); nursery/preschool ( n = 1) Aggression ( n = 2); Noncompliance ( n = 1) Attention ( n = 1); access to materials ( n = 1); escape ( n = 1) Classroom teachers ( n = 5), researchers Contributed info rmation for Steps 1 & 4 in PII interview, helped develop intervention and gradually took over implementation after consultants Conroy, Boyd, Asmus, & Madera, 2007 Community based Social withdrawal Not explici tly stated (appears to be escap ing social interactions) Classroom teachers ( n = 6), administrator, researchers Contributed info rmation for Social Skills Interview (SSI) and SAT for Steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. U sed asse ssment findings from SSI and SAT to help develop and implement intervention plan

PAGE 45

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 45 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Dooley, Wilczenski, & Torem, 2001 Special education Aggression and inappropriate vocalizations Attention and escape Classroom teacher, assistants ( n = 2), related service personnel ( n = 1), researchers ( n = 2) , family members Implemented the intervention plan and provided reports. Completed reliability for consultant observations Duda, Dunlap, Fox, Lentini, & Clarke, 2004 Community based (inclusive) Aggression and social withdrawal ( n = 1); Inappropriate vocalizations and social withdrawal ( n = 1) Attention ( n = 1); escape ( n = 1) Classroom teacher, assistant, administrators ( n = 2), related service personnel ( n = 2), family members ( n = 2) R equested assistance for behavioral challenges and reported on CB. Selected activities for intervention. Completed FAI. Contributed to Step 5 and implemented plan

PAGE 46

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 46 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Dufrene, Doggett, Henington, & Watson, 2007 Head Start ( n = 2); preschool/ nursery ( n = 1) Aggression ( n = 2); noncompliance ( n = 1) Attention ( n = 2); escape ( n = 1) Classroom teachers ( n = 5), researchers ( n = 4) Referred children with CB. Completed FAIR T P for steps 1, 2, 4. Implemented B inte r vention phase Harding et al., 1999 Community based ( n = 2); special education (n = 1) Aggression and noncompliance ( n = 1); Noncompliance and social withdrawal ( n = 1); Inappropriate vocalizations, noncompliance, and social withdrawal ( n = 1) Attention ( n = 3) Classroom teachers ( n = 3), researchers ( n = 5) I mplemented interventions associated with brief experimental a nalysis

PAGE 47

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 47 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Ishuin, 2009 Public Noncompliance Attention and escape Classroom teacher, assistant, researchers ( n = 2) I dentif ied and defin ed the problem behavior by participating in an interview and determining form and function Lambert, Bloom, & Irvin, 2012 Community based ( inclusive) Aggression ( n = 2); Aggression and inappropriate vocalizations ( n = 1) Attention ( n = 1); Attention and escape ( n = 1); Access to materials, a ttention, escape, ( n = 1) Classroom teacher, assistant Primary data collector for all components. Conducted FAI trials to develop hypothesis. Implemented plan in step 5 Lawry, 1993 Head Start Aggression, inappropriate vocalizations, and noncompliance A ccess to materials and attention Classroom teacher, assistant, researcher Completed interview form. Contributed info rmation for steps 1, 2, 4 . I mplemented plan for step 5

PAGE 48

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 48 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Martens, Gertz, Werder, & Rymanowski, 2010 Public (inclusive) Aggression and inappropriate vocalizations ( n = 1); Inappropriate vocalizations and noncompliance ( n = 1); Inappropriate vocalizations ( n = 1) Attention ( n = 1), attention or escape ( n = 1), sensory stimulation ( n = 1) Classroom teachers ( n = 2), assistants ( n = 4) Completed PII and brief functional analysis (Steps 1, 2, 4) May & Howe, 2013 Special education Noncompliance Escape Classroom teachers, researchers Report ed on type of CB and completed two questionnaires . C ontribute d to Steps 1, 2, and 4 and implemented the plan in step 5

PAGE 49

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 49 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role McLaren & Nelson, 2009 Head Start Aggression ( n = 2); noncompliance ( n = 1) Attention ( n = 2); sensory stimulation ( n = 1) Classroom teachers ( n = 2); assistants ( n = 3), researchers Recommended children for study. Contributed info rmation by completing interview for steps 1, 2, 4, 5 and implemented in step 5 Park & Scott, 2009 Head Start Aggression and noncompliance ( n = 2); Noncompliance and social withdrawal ( n = 1) Attention and access to materials ( n = 2); access to materials ( n = 1) Classroom teachers ( n = 3), researchers Teacher contributed info rmation through Child Behavior Checklist (CBC) for Steps 1, 2, 4, 5 and implemented plan in step 5

PAGE 50

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 50 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Payne, Dozier, Neidert, Jowett, & Newquist, 2014 Public Aggression ( n = 2) Escape ( n = 1); Access to materials, attention, and escape ( n = 1) Classroom teachers, related service personnel Implemented the intervention (Step 5) Rogers, 2001 Special education Inappropriate vocalizations Escape Teacher, assistant , related service personnel ( n = 3), family member ( n = 1) Contributed info rmation by completing FAI and MAS, setting event checklist for steps 1, 2, and 4

PAGE 51

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 51 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Schill, Kratochwill, & Elliott, 1998 Head Start Social withdrawal ( n = 1); aggression, noncompliance, social withdrawal ( n = 1); inappropriate vocalizations ( n = 5); aggression ( n = 2); noncompliance ( n = 1) Skill deficit ( n = 1); attention ( n = 5); access to materials ( n = 2); access to materials and attention ( n = 1); Knowledge deficit ( n = 1) Classroom teachers ( n = 11), researchers ( n = 13) , family members Contributed by identifyin g and defining the problem behavior, determining form and function, and contribut ing information about the hypothesis (Steps 1, 2, and 4). Collected data on frequency, duration, or intensity of target behavior. Collaborated with consultant to develop treatment plan. Collected data to monitor change

PAGE 52

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 52 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Schwartz, Boulware, McBride, & Sandall, 2001 Preschool Noncompliance Escape Parents, teachers, related service personnel Implement ed the plan in step 5 Umbreit & Blair, 1997 Community based Aggression and noncompliance Escape Classroom teachers ( n = 2), assistants ( n = 4), administrator Contributed info rmation in structured interview to identify and define problem behavior and participated in hypothesis testing by impleme n ting assessment procedures. Collaboratively designed intervention and implemented plan. ( Steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 )

PAGE 53

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 53 Table 3. Contexts and Circumstances for Functional Behavioral Assessments by Study (continued) Authors Setting Challenging Behavior Function People Involved Teacher's Role Wood, Ferro, Umbreit, & Liaupsin, 2011 Public (inclusive) Inappropriate vocalizations and noncompliance ( n = 3) Attention ( n = 2), attention and escape ( n = 1) Classroom teacher ( n = 2), assistants ( n = 4), family members ( n = 3) Contribute d info rmation through FAI for steps 1, 2, 4, and 5 and involved in developing and implement ing plan in step 5 Note . CB=challenging behavior

PAGE 54

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 54 Table 4 Implementation of FBA Steps by Study Authors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Bayat, Mindes, & Covitt, 2010 Yes. Interviews and direct observations Yes. Direct observations No Yes. Teacher interview provided hypothesis Yes. Team met to devise plan for teachers to implement Becker Cottrill, McFarland, & Anderson, 2003 Yes. Team determined operational definitions at meeting Yes. Team determined data collection procedures at meeting Yes. Skill deficit focus is on building replacement skills and reducing challenging behaviors Yes. Through Functional Analysis Observation Form Yes. Team developed and implemented plan through PATH goals Bellone, Dufrene, Tingstrom, Olmi, & Barry, 2014 Yes. Problem behaviors defined by teacher referral, Fair T P II and teacher interviews Yes. One 10 min screening observation conducted No Yes. Data analyzed from the experiment al design Yes. Teachers trained using behavioral skills training procedu res to implement the plan

PAGE 55

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 55 Table 4. Implementation of FBA Steps by Study (continued) Authors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Blair, Umbreit, & Bos, 1999 Yes. Teacher referral Yes. During condition testing, data collection completed No Yes. Questionnaire done with director and teachers and structured observations Yes. Teachers implemented intervention procedures Blair, Umbreit, & Eck, 2000 Yes. Teacher and director contributions Yes. Questionnaire items for staff and family Yes. Teacher questionnaire for skill deficits Yes. Developed through interviews and A B C data observations No Blair, Fox, & Lentini, 2010 Yes. Interview with family and teacher and A B C observations Yes. Interviews and A B C observations No Yes. Interviews and A B C observations. Teachers and researchers jointly formed these Yes. Behavior support plans developed jointly by classroom staff and researchers and implemented by teacher

PAGE 56

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 56 Table 4. Implementation of FBA Steps by Study (continued) Authors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Boyajian, DuPaul, Handler, Eckert, & McGoey, 2001 Yes. Problem Identification Interview (PII) with teacher Yes. Direct observation data using 10 second partial interval by researchers. Single case sequential design with contingency reversals and PII No Yes. During PII interview with teacher. Collected data on aggressive and noncompliant behavior Yes. Teacher and researchers used PAI. Classroom teachers implemented gradually after consultant Conroy, Boyd, Asmus, & Madera, 2007 Yes. SSI with teachers and director Yes. SSI and Snapshot Assessment Tool (SAT) (direct observation) Yes. SSI with teachers and director Yes. Teachers and researchers used assessment findings from SSI and SAT Yes. Based on assessment data from SSI (indirect) and SAT (direct). Teacher and researchers used Social Skills Observation (SSO) to examine effects

PAGE 57

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 57 Table 4. Implementation of FBA Steps by Study (continued) Authors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Dooley, Wilczenski, & Torem, 2001 Yes. Using methods and observation forms (O'Neill) and direct observation Yes. Direct observation No Yes. Based on functional assessment data Yes. Based on review of literature on functional communication and self management Duda, Dunlap, Fox, Lentini, & Clarke, 2004 Yes. Staff completed FAI (O'Neill) Yes. FAI and systematic behavioral observations No Yes. Using data from FAI and direct observation, teacher helped to generate hypotheses Yes. Team developed intervention based on functional assessment data and observations Dufrene, Doggett, Henington, & Watson, 2007 Yes. Functional Assessment Informant Records for Teachers Pre School Version (FAIR T P) Yes. Partial interval recording methods, frequency count and FAIR T P No Yes. Used data from FAIR T P, direct descriptive assessments, and did abbreviated experimental analysis to determine function Yes. Designed based on results from comprehensive FA. Researcher implemented A phase, teacher implemented B phase

PAGE 58

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 58 Table 4. Implementation of FBA Steps by Study (continued) Authors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Harding et al., 1999 Yes. Clinic evaluations and interviews Yes. Using structural analysis observation No Yes. Derived from descriptive analysis of functional variables No Ishuin, 2009 Yes. Teacher interview Yes. Interviews and functional analysis No Yes. Determined based on data No Lambert, Bloom, & Irvin, 2012 Yes. Teacher reports Yes. Trial based FA data collected No Yes. Conducted FA trials to develop hypothesis Yes. FCT intervention developed based on trial based FA Lawry, 1993 Yes. O'Neill's interview form completed by teacher Yes. Teacher interview and FA observation No Yes. Based on teacher interview and FA observations Yes. Plan devised based on data and teacher implemented

PAGE 59

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 59 Table 4. Implementation of FBA Steps by Study (continued) Authors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Martens, Gertz, Werder, & Rymanowsk i, 2010 Yes. PII and direct observations Yes. PII and direct observations No Yes. PII and direct observations. Teacher ad researcher did FA and compared results to make hypothesis No May & Howe, 2013 Yes. Teacher questionnaires and researcher observation Yes. Teachers completed MAS and Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) No Yes. Developed based off questionnaire results and teacher discussions Yes. Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) plus engagement stimuli packaged developed based on FA results McLaren & Nelson, 2009 Yes. Teacher interviews, direct observations with scatter plots, ABC observations Yes. Teacher interviews, direct observations with scatter plots, ABC observations Yes. During teacher interview Yes. Based on teacher interviews and ABC direct observations Yes. Developed based on da ta by researcher, teacher, and assistant. Teacher implemented intervention

PAGE 60

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 60 Table 4. Implementation of FBA Steps by Study (continued) Authors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Park & Scott, 2009 Yes. Teacher and 1 parent completed CBC and A B C recording Yes. Structured interviews with teachers and direct observations using A B C recording No Yes. Developed based on ABC observations gathered from interviews and direct observations and tested through brief structural analysis Yes. Intervention pl an developed collaboratively between teacher and researcher. Teacher implemented the plan Payne, Dozier, Neidert, Jowett, & Newquist, 2014 Yes. Researcher observation Yes. Direct observations and implementation by therapists No Yes. Developed based on direct observation data and tested by the FA Yes. Developed treatment of DRA plus extinction . Therapist implemented first and teacher implemented final intervention

PAGE 61

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 61 Table 4. Implementation of FBA Steps by Study (continued) Authors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Rogers, 2001 Yes. Functional analysis interview, MAS, direct observations Yes. MAS, setting event checklist, mother anecdotal notes, and direct observations Yes. During FAI Yes. Based on MAS and setting event checklist data, team developed hypothesis No Schill, Kratochwill, & Elliott, 1998 Yes. PII and Problem Analysis Interview (PAI). Consultant Functional Analysis Observation Form Yes, complete d Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) questionnaire. Direct observation data by the teachers Yes. MAS, direct observations, and teacher interviews Yes. MAS, PAI, consultant observation, and direct observation data by the teachers Yes. Consultants and teachers devised intervention plans linked to functional variables maintaining target problem and teacher implemented treatment Schwartz, Boulware, McBride, & Sandall, 2001 Yes. Parent report and observations at school Yes. Parent reports Yes. Brainstorming process to discover that he had ability to complete task No Yes. Three primary stages of intervention written based on data and teacher implemented the plan then parents at

PAGE 62

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 62 home Table 4. Implementation of FBA Steps by Study (continued) Authors Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Umbreit & Blair, 1997 Yes. Structured interviews and observation Yes. Structured interview and observation Yes. Through structured interview form Yes. Based on data from interviews and observations Yes. Teacher implement ed plan agreed on by team Wood, Ferro, Umbreit, & Liaupsin, 2011 Yes. Parent and teacher interview through FAI form and direct observations Yes. Interviews (FAI), direct observations (A B C data), function identification using Function Matrix Yes. Decision Model identifie d skill deficits Yes. Based on interviews and direct observations Yes. Decision Model used to develop function based interventions

PAGE 63

Running Head: FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! 63 Table 5 Inclusion of FBA and Intervention Data, Follow Up Data, and Social Validity Data Authors/Year Data for FBA Only Data for Intervention Only Data for both FBA and intervention Follow Up Social Validity Bayat, Mindes, & Covitt, 2010 Becker Cottrill, McFarland, & Anderson, 2003 Bellone, Dufrene, Tingstrom, Olmi, & Barry, 2014 Blair, Umbreit, & Bos, 1999

PAGE 64

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 64 Table 5. Inclusion of FBA and Intervention Data, Follow Up Data, and Social Validity Data (continued) Authors/Year Data for FBA Only Data for Intervention Only Data for both FBA and intervention Follow Up Social Validity Blair, Umbreit, & Eck, 2000 Blair, Fox, & Lentini, 2010 Boyajian, DuPaul, Handler, Eckert, & McGoey, 2001 Conroy, Boyd, Asmus, & Madera, 2007 Dooley, Wilczenski, & Torem, 2001

PAGE 65

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 65 Table 5. Inclusion of FBA and Intervention Data, Follow Up Data, and Social Validity Data (continued) Authors/Year Data for FBA Only Data for Intervention Only Data for both FBA and intervention Follow Up Social Validity Duda, Dunlap, Fox, Lentini, & Clarke, 2004 Dufrene, Doggett, Henington, & Watson, 2007 Harding et al., 1999 Ishuin, 2009 Lambert, Bloom, & Irvin, 2012

PAGE 66

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 66 Table 5. Inclusion of FBA and Intervention Data, Follow Up Data, and Social Validity Data (continued) Authors/Year Data for FBA Only Data for Intervention Only Data for both FBA and intervention Follow Up Social Validity Lawry, 1993 Martens, Gertz, Werder, & Rymanowski, 2010 May & Howe, 2013 McLaren & Nelson, 2009 (only for one child) Park & Scott, 2009

PAGE 67

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 67 Table 5. Inclusion of FBA and Intervention Data, Follow Up Data, and Social Validity Data (continued) Authors/Year Data for FBA Only Data for Intervention Only Data for both FBA and intervention Follow Up Social Validity Payne, Dozier, Neidert, Jowett, & Newquist, 2014 Rogers, 2001 Schill, Kratochwill, & Elliott, 1998 Schwartz, Boulware, McBride, & Sandall, 2001

PAGE 68

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS ! ! ! ! 68 Table 5. Inclusion of FBA and Intervention Data, Follow Up Data, and Social Validity Data (continued) Authors/Year Data for FBA Only Data for Intervention Only Data for both FBA and intervention Follow Up Social Validity Umbreit & Blair, 1997 Wood, Ferro, Umbreit, & Liaupsin, 2011