A comparison of methodologies of brief functional analysis

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate correspondence between three models of brief functional analysis (BFA); to evaluate a latency-based model of BFA.

Methods: Single subject research; three models of BFA; latency-based BFA; brief A-B model with programmed antecedents and no programmed consequences for aberrant behaviour; A-B-C model with programmed antecedents and programmed consequences for aberrant behaviour; contingency reversal treatment evaluations conducted with each model; each model implemented with four individuals with autism diagnoses; correspondence of results between the three BFA models in terms of the conditions in which aberrant behaviour occurred.

Results: Overall, strong correspondence between all three BFA models was observed; several specific instances of non-correspondence within participants observed; more differentiation observed between test and control conditions in A-B model than A-B-C model.

Conclusions: Additional support that clinicians and educators have flexibility in choosing BFA model that fits the specific, idiosyncratic variables and constraints of their setting (e.g. outpatient; classroom) and client(s).

• Aberrant behaviour
• autism
• brief functional analysis
• functional behavioural assessment
• functional communication training
• latency

Acknowledgements

This project was completed in partial fulfillment of the Masters Degree in Special Education by the first author under the direction of the second. We thank Joel Ringdahl for his comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. We thank Summer Gainey, Katherine Hoffman, and Colin Muething for their assistance with various aspects of this investigation. Natalie Badgett is now affiliated with the University of Washington.

Declaration of interest

The authors report no declaration of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.