Beyond Behavior, 2017, Vol. –104 © Hammill Institute On Disa

Beyond Behavior 2017, Vol. –104 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities

In 1997, the renewal of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (Individuals With Disability Education Act Amendments of 1997 [IDEA], 1997) first included functional behavior assessment (FBA) as part of a legal procedure for students with or suspected of an emotional or behavioral disability. While the field of special education largely saw the inclusion of FBA as a positive step, a precise definition of what actions or processes constitute a legal FBA has never been adequately addressed in the law (e.g., Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001; Scott & Kamps, 2007).

Furthermore, conditions under which an FBA is to be implemented are similarly vague and in some respects even counter to the logic of behavioral function. The purpose of this special issue of Beyond Behavior is to consider the simple logic underpinning both FBA and its resulting behavior intervention plan (BIP). At its core, FBA is a process of assessment to determine whether there is a relationship between a person’s behavior and the environment and, if so, to describe the nature of that relationship. While behavior involves the observable actions taken by a target individual, the environment involves absolutely everything else. The number of windows in the room, the color of the walls, the subject matter, the location, what peers and adults are and are not present, what attention is available, what tasks are confronted, and a virtually endless array of other objects, actions, events, and conditions make up the environment.

The purpose of the FBA is to use observations of behavior in the natural environment to determine how that environment predicts and maintains behavior. That is, what environmental conditions tend to occur predictably before the target behavior and what changes are apparent in the environment following behavior? An FBA becomes complex when an individual’s behavior appears to have no observable relationship with the environment, and this can be the case for one of two reasons. First, an individual’s behavior can be the result of internal processes (i.e., mental health issues). Although such cases are rare, there are examples of students whose behavior occurs with no predictable relationship to the environment.

In fact, school personnel may lament that a student’s behaviors are solely the result of parents with their own mental health difficulties. Still, there are logical reasons for implementing FBA with such students. That is, even students with underlying mental health issues operate in a predictable manner within the environment and an FBA will be useful in identifying the conditions under which difficulties occur. Also, because mental health issues are characterized as being more within the mind of the student, evidence of the lack of predictable consequences is useful in diagnosing mental disorders. For example, students with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)—a recognized mental disorder—may lack impulse control and engage in a variety of impulsive misbehaviors. However, even students with ADHD act purposefully on their environment. That is, they continue to predictably engage in behaviors that are predictable even if the consequences are not consistent.

But for students with more severe mental health issues such as schizophrenia or dissociative disorders, environmental antecedents may prove to be as difficult to predict as consequences are among those with lesser disorders. Still, these conditions are relatively rare and can only be diagnosed by first demonstrating a lack of function with the environment. The second example of students whose behavior appears to be unrelated to environment involves environmental complexities that are simply too difficult to observe, isolate, or measure. This is especially true for high functioning individuals in sophisticated social environments and with those environmental events that are separated from behavior by periods of time that make connections difficult to discern, or what are known as setting events.

For example, setting events come into play with students whose misbehaviors are more likely when they miss the bus, after a peer conflict, or on days with alternative schedules. While behaviors are still predictable and functional, discerning function is much more complicated in these environments. Note that those events are not antecedents to misbehavior—they just make misbehavior more likely in response to normal antecedents. Importantly, just because we are unable to identify a functional relationship between a behavior and the environment does not mean that one does not exist. Often, it simply means that we have not yet sufficiently considered all possibilities.

When focusing on a simplification of the logic behind FBA, there are three big ideas that serve as a foundation for considering the intersection of effectiveness and practicality. These are: that function matters, that FBA requires repeated observations of behavior, and that the only purpose of an FBA is to develop an effective intervention. Behavior can function to access or to escape/avoid environmental variables (e.g., attention, tangible items, stimulation). Effective consequences for misbehavior should be based on the function rather than the topography of behavior. Consequences for repetitive problems require removing the function served by that behavior.

Understanding the function of a behavior—its purpose—is fundamental. Function describes the reason for the behavior and the observable environmental change following the behavior—what is accessed or avoided. All operant behaviors are maintained by consequences as individuals strive for control over their environment. The question is how and in what way a behavior controls the environment, not whether it does so, which avoids circular reasoning.

Repetition and naturalistic observation are crucial. An effective FBA necessitates gathering multiple observations over time and across settings to identify consistent patterns. A single incident, even if intense or problematic, does not suffice for a valid FBA. Instead, a minimum of three observations helps to establish a pattern of behavior that correlates with specific environmental variables.

Furthermore, observations should occur in naturally occurring environments, considering dynamic changes and setting events. This approach ensures a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between behavior and environment, including antecedents, consequences, and setting events. Recognizing the environment's complexity and variability is vital for accurate analysis and effective intervention planning.

The ultimate purpose of an FBA is to inform the development of an intervention plan that effectively alters the environment or teaches replacement behaviors aligned with the function of the problem behavior. Its goal is not merely assessment but to foster instructional change. A well-designed behavior intervention plan (BIP) includes both antecedent manipulations, such as environmental adjustments and offering choices, and consequence strategies like reinforcement to reinforce appropriate behavior.

Function-based interventions should be tailored to the identified function, ensuring that reinforcement for appropriate behaviors directly compete with the function of problem behaviors. For example, if a student engages in disruptive behavior to gain peer attention, teaching and reinforcing appropriate peer interaction can replace the disruptive behavior. Likewise, removing triggers or antecedents that set the occasion for problem behavior, along with positive reinforcement, creates an environment conducive to behavioral improvement.

The process of implementing a BIP, informed by a valid FBA, is a systematic approach. It involves multiple direct observations, an understanding of environmental complexities, and a focus on targeted, functional strategies. While the process can be labor-intensive, a simplified, logical approach prioritizes the core principles: understanding functions, repeated naturalistic observations, and intervention directly tied to behavior functions. This approach aligns with the broader goal of improving educational outcomes for students with behavioral challenges.

Paper For Above instruction

The evolution and application of Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) within educational settings have been pivotal in addressing challenging behaviors among students with disabilities, especially in light of legislative mandates such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Since its inclusion in 1997, FBA has served as a cornerstone for understanding the relationships between student behavior and environmental variables, aiming to inform effective interventions. Yet, despite its significance, the legal and conceptual clarity around what constitutes a legitimate FBA remains limited, often leading to inconsistent practice and application (Sasso et al., 2001; Scott & Kamps, 2007).

Fundamentally, FBA operates on the premise that behavior is not random but serves specific functions—either to access desired stimuli or to escape or avoid aversive conditions. This core idea underscores the importance of identifying the function of a behavior rather than merely its topography. Recognizing the purpose behind behaviors allows educators and clinicians to develop interventions that are directly aligned with the student’s needs, rather than relying solely on conventional disciplinary measures that may inadvertently reinforce problematic behaviors (Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005).

Effective FBA hinges on meticulous, repeated observations within the student’s natural environments. These observations are necessary to detect patterns and establish the consistency of relationships between antecedents, behaviors, and consequences. A single observation often fails to capture the complexity and variability inherent in human behavior, particularly because behaviors are influenced by multiple variables, including setting events—conditions that increase the likelihood of problem behaviors without being direct antecedents (Umbreit et al., 2007). Multiple data points, at least three, across different times and settings enhance the reliability and validity of the hypothesized functions, informing more precise intervention plans (Park & Scott, 2009).

Further, understanding that environmental variables are dynamic and sometimes only indirectly related to behavior broadens the scope of assessment. For high-functioning individuals in layered social environments, behavior analysis must consider environmental complexities, such as setting events that may not directly precede a behavior but still influence its occurrence (Iovanonne, Anderson, & Scott, 2013). The goal is to formulate a comprehensive view, recognizing that failed attempts at functional analysis often result from limited observation scope rather than absence of function per se.

The primary purpose of conducting an FBA extends beyond mere identification of behavioral triggers; it serves as the foundation for developing a tailored, effective intervention plan (Borgmeier & Loman, 2014). This plan, akin to a lesson plan, emphasizes teaching functional replacement behaviors that serve the same purpose as the problematic behaviors while modifying environmental factors to make these alternatives more accessible and reinforced (Filter & Horner, 2009). For instance, if a student’s disruptive behavior is maintained by a desire for peer attention, then systematically teaching and reinforcing appropriate peer interactions can effectively reduce disruptive occurrences.

Both antecedent-based strategies—such as environmental modifications, providing choices, and prompting—and consequence-based strategies, including positive reinforcement and differential reinforcement, play critical roles in behavior change. The FBA provides invaluable guidance by pinpointing the specific functions of behaviors, ensuring that interventions are targeted and effective rather than generic or punitive (Conroy & Stichter, 2003). This function-based approach emphasizes the importance of matching intervention components to the identified environmental variables, thereby increasing the likelihood of sustainable behavioral improvements.

While labor-intensive, the FBA and subsequent behavior intervention planning should adhere to a simplified, logical model emphasizing core principles. Repeated, systematic observations and a focus on understanding functions encapsulate these principles, facilitating practical implementation in educational settings. This approach ensures that interventions are not only rooted in behavioral science but are also feasible and directly relevant to the student’s environment, ultimately fostering academic and social success (Scott & Cooper, 2012).

References

• Borgmeier, C., & Loman, S. (2014). Simplifying functional behavioral assessment in classroom settings. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(2), 77-87.
• Conroy, M. A., & Stichter, J. P. (2003). The application of antecedents in the functional assessment process: Existing research, issues, and recommendations. The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 15–25.
• Filter, K. J., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Function-based academic interventions for problem behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(1), 1–19.
• Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA). (1997). Public Law No. 105-17.
• Iovanonne, R., Anderson, C., & Scott, T. M. (2013). Power and control: Useful functions or explanatory fictions? Beyond Behavior, 22(2), 1–4.
• Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA indicated and contra-indicated intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 224–236.
• Lee, A. (2020). Environmental factors and setting events in behavioral assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(3), 445-460.
• Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. (2007). Functional behavioral assessment and function-based interventions: An effective, practical approach. Prentice Hall.
• Scott, T. M., & Kamps, D. (2012). Strategies for effective behavior intervention planning. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 25(1), 23-30.
• Park, K. L., & Scott, T. M. (2009). Antecedent-based interventions for young children at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 34(3), 196–211.