fba in school settings: innovative function ... - nc-aba… · & salama, 2006) • efficacy of...
TRANSCRIPT
FBA IN SCHOOL SETTINGS:
INNOVATIVE FUNCTION-BASED
INTERVENTIONS FOR CHILDREN WITH
VARYING DIAGNOSES
LAUREN LOULOUDIS
BEHAVIORAL CONSULTATION & PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES
CAROLINE MULHARE, BRITTANY GOSS, ANA LEPAGE, KELLI MINTON & JEANNIE GOLDEN
EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
NCABA 2018
Winston-Salem, NC
Graduate Students in Pediatric School
Psychology
Completing various practicum placements in a variety of settings
Agency that serves children with autism in a pre-school setting
Residential facility for children with developmental disabilities who are medically fragile
Public school classrooms with inclusion
PSYC 6353: BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT & INTERVENTION
Cipani, E. & Schock, K. (2011).
Function Behavior Assessment,
Diagnosis, and Treatment: A
Complete System for Education
and Mental Health Settings New
York, NY: Springer Publishing
Company
Function-Based Classification System: It’s What
Happens On the Outside, Not On the Inside! (Cipani & Schock, 2011)
Four Major Categories of Problem
Behavior Functions
Direct access
Socially mediated access
Direct escape
Socially mediated escape
Function-Based Classification System:
Access
Direct access (DA) Sensory reinforcer
Tangible reinforcer
Other
Socially mediated access (SMA) Adult attention
Peer attention
Tangible reinforcer
Other
Function-Based Classification System:
Escape
Direct escape (DE) Unpleasant social situations
Lengthy tasks/chores
Difficult tasks/chores
Aversive physical stimuli/events
Other
Socially mediated escape (SME) Unpleasant social situations
Lengthy tasks/chores
Difficult tasks/chores
Aversive physical stimuli/event
Other
Function-Based Behavioral Intervention:
One Person’s Pleasure Is Another Person’s Pain!
You Must Identify a Replacement Behavior that
Serves the Same Function as the Problem
Behavior
Identify diagnostic category of problem behavior
Identify specific reinforcers that result from
occurrence of problem behavior
Designate alternate appropriate behavior that will
produce same function as problem behavior
Develop and implement function-based interventions
USING FBA TO DEVELOP AN
INTERVENTION FOR A
PRE-SCHOOL CHILD WITH
ELOPEMENT BEHAVIOR
Lauren Louloudis
Behavioral Consultation and Psychological Services
Participant
“Sam”
4-year old boy
Diagnosed with Autism
Services: 3 days a week, 4 hour sessions
Preschool clinical setting
4 and 5 year old children diagnosed with autism
Pre-Academic skills:
Reading, matching categories, matching numbers to number sets
Language Skills/Verbal Behavior
Expressive Language
Verbally making a request for
item/desired activity (mand)
Responding yes/no
Ask for help
Describe items by feature and
class
Receptive Language
Matching words to items in the
environment
Discriminate between touch
word or picture when vocally
given instruction
Follow commands:
‘give me’, ‘point’, ‘touch’
Target Behavior
Elopement from lunch table
Operational definition:
Getting out of seat and walking away from table to
another center, which includes: play center, red center,
blue center, and movement break area
Lunch Table Play
Center
Blu
e
Cente
r
Movement
Red
Cente
r
Functional Assessment
FAST:
Results: Escape maintained behavior
ABC Descriptive Analysis:
Collected during lunch time (11:30-12:00)
Analogue Assessment:
Collected during lunch time, DTT, motor activity, free play
Baseline data collection:
Frequency of elopement from lunch table during regular lunch period (11:30-12:00)
A-B-C Descriptive Analysis Time Situation Antecedent Behavior Consequence
11:35 am Sitting at lunch
table, 5 minutes
after arrival
Lunch placed on
table in front of
child
Eloped to play
center, picked up
toy
Redirection: ‘Sit
good at the lunch
table’
*left toy, came
back
11:37 am
Sitting at lunch
table
No demand
placed on child
Eloped to
movement area,
playing with toy
2 VR: ‘Bring toy
to lunch table’
*brought toy
back
11:46 am
Sitting at lunch
table
Verbal prompt:
‘Take bite’
Eloped to play
center, picked up
different toy
3 VR: ‘Bring toy
to table’
*exchanged toys,
came back
11:54 am
Sitting at lunch
table
Verbal prompt:
‘Take bite’
Eloped to red
center, began
playing with toys
3 VR: ‘Sit good at
lunch table’
*sits good
Analogue Assessment
Session Type Lunch Table One-on-one
Therapy
Group Motor
Activity
Free play
Social vs. Alone
(S or A)
S A S A
No. of Elopement
Behavior
8 2 9 0
Duration of time
remaining in
designated area
22 minutes, 73%
of the interval
27 minutes, 90%
of the interval
19 minutes, 63%
of time
100% of the
interval
Baseline Data
Date Target Behavior
12/6 8
12/11 11
12/13 9
12/18 8
12/27 8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fre
qu
ency
Date
Frequency of Elopement from Lunch Table
Elopement
Hypothesized Function
Function Based Classification:
1.2 DA: Direct Access to Tangibles
3.1 DE: Direct Escape from an Unpleasant Social Situation
(Cipani &Shock, 2011)
Literature Review
Escape maintained challenging behavior: effects of general and explicit
cues when implementing signaled delay of reinforcement (Reichle, Johnson,
Monn, & Harris, 2010)
Function based treatment for escape-maintained behavior (Geiger, Carr, &
LeBlanc, 2010)
Escape maintained behavior in child with autism (Butler & Luiselli, 2007)
Using functional analysis to design interventions for students diagnosed with
autism (Larkin, Hawkins, & Collins, 2016)
Functional Treatment for DA
Rearrange environment:
All items were removed from the classroom before the child arrived
The only items that remained in the room were the chairs, tables, and food for lunch
Direct Access Procedure:
Therapist selected a reinforcing item to remain at table (highly preferred item)
If child eloped from table, item remained at table
Functional Treatment for DE
Chain Interruption
Chair placed diagonally next to child so that child could
not easily escape
Blocks target behavior and allows opportunity to teach
replacement behavior, prior to presentation of target
behavior
Replacement Behavior for DE:
Escape Mand
Ability to terminate undesired social condition using a verbal protest: ‘Can I get up?’
Procedure for Replacement Behavior:
When child is out of seat and has not yet left area (chain interruption), therapist will prompt ‘Can I get up?’ to begin teaching the escape mand
Upon echo, therapist models the replacement behavior and moves own seat from table and gestures to leave area
Added Component for DE
Tolerance Training
Task is terminated when a certain time interval passes in which no target behaviors occur
Identify reasonable DNRO interval:
Based on baseline data: 2 minute interval (avg. 3.75)
DNRO process: When student has remained at table for 2 minutes, therapist prompts escape mand or asks ‘Do you want to get up?’
Given opportunity to escape
Preferred item remains at table
Intervention Data
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
1/24 1/25 1/26 1/27 1/28 1/29 1/30 1/31 2/1 2/2
Fre
quen
cy
Date
Frequency of Elopement from Lunch Table
Elopement
Results
Duration at table, frequency of elopement
Results
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
6-Dec 13-Dec 20-Dec 27-Dec 3-Jan 10-Jan 17-Jan
Fre
quen
cy
Date
Frequency of Elopement from Lunch Table
Baseline
Intervention
Discussion
Intervention advantages:
Increases reinforcement opportunities for appropriate behavior
Builds on current verbal repertoire
Moving forward:
Use mand independently
Generalize to other social situations (circle time, social skills group,
motor activities)
Expand on verbal behavior (Can I get red train?)
References
Butler, L. R. & Luiselli, J. K. (2007). Escape-maintained problem behavior in a child with autism: antecedent
functional analysis and intervention evaluation of noncontingent escape and instructional fading. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 9(4), 195-202.
Cipani, E. & Schock, K. M. (2011). Functional behavior assessment, diagnosis, and treatment: A complete system
for education and mental health settings (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Geiger, K. B., Carr, J. E., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2010). Function-based treatments for escape-maintained behavior:
a treatment-selection model for practicing behavior. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3(1), 22-32.
Larkin, W., Hawkins, R. O., & Collins, T. (2016). Using trial-based functional analysis to design effective
interventions for students diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(4), 534-
547.
Reichle, J., Johnson, L., Monn, E., & Harris, M. (2010). Task engagement and escape maintained challenging
behavior: differential effects of general and explicit cues when implementing a signaled delay in the
delivery of reinforcement. J Autism Dev Discord, 40, 709-720.
Schmidt, J. D., Drasgow, E., Halle, J. W., Marin, C. A., & Bliss, S. A. (2014). Discrete-trial functional analysis
and functional communication training with three individuals with autism and severe problem behavior.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(1), 44-45.
Tarbox, J. et al. (2009). Comparing indiret, descriptive, and experimental functional assessments of
challenging behavior in children with autism. J Dev Phys Disabil, 21, 493-514.
INCREASING ON-TASK BEHAVIOR
USING NONCONTINGENT
REINFORCEMENT
Caroline Mulhare
East Carolina University
Literature Review
• Efficacy of using verbal praise if student was on-task and redirection if
student was off-task using a four-minutes fixed time interval with two typically
developing boys (Austin & Soeda, 2008)
• Efficacy of using NCR with typically developing children to increase their
ability to sit still while receiving dental treatment (O’Callaghan, Allen, Powell,
& Salama, 2006)
• Efficacy of using verbal praise and redirection on a five-minute fixed time
interval with two children with ADHD (Riley, Mckevitt, Shriver, & Allen, 2011)
Introduction and Purpose
John, Lily, and Isaiah were referred for exhibiting off-task behaviors that
were adversely affecting their ability to learn.
A functional behavioral assessment was conducted with Lily and John.
Literature review indicated that noncontingent reinforcement was most
effective to reduce off-task behavior rooted in access to attention.
Purpose: To determine if teacher attention at a fixed rate of 5 minutes will
increase three second grade children’s on-task behavior, generalize to
other settings, and maintain over time.
Participants
“John”
9-year-old African American Male
Autism Spectrum Disorder (Mild)
“Lily”
9-year-old Hispanic Female
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(Combined)
“Isaiah”
9-year-old Caucasian Male
Typically Developing
Target Behavior
On-Task Behavior
Definition: engaging in any behavior that matches the
classroom instruction and attending to class instruction for
more than 15 seconds
Hypothesized Function of Behavior-Lily
To access teacher attention
Narrative ABC recording example of Lily
Antecedent Behavior Consequence
- Teacher is talking to the
class
- Teacher ignores her
Teacher is walking
around the classroom
Teacher finishes giving
instructions
- Lily gets out of seat
- Lily talks to another student
- Lily has her thumb in her
mouth while looking around the
room
- Lily writes and says “got it”
- Teacher ignores her
- Teacher walks away
- Teacher says "Hands out of
your mouth please"
Teacher calls on her
- Teacher says “good job”
Hypothesized Function of Behavior-John
To access teacher attention
Narrative ABC recording example of John
Antecedent Behavior Consequence
- Teacher is working with
other students
- Teacher asks if John is
finished with assignment
- Teacher instructs John to
get on-task
- Teacher is working with
other students
Teacher is working with a
small group of students
-John turns around to face peer
-John says “no”
- John writes in notebook
- John watches another peer
play a computer game
- John is looking around the
room
-Teacher continues working with
other students
-Teacher instructs John to get
on-task
-Teacher says “Thank you for
getting on-task”
- Teacher ignores him
-Teacher asks John if he has
finished his worksheet
Procedure and Research Design
Noncontingent access to teacher attention on a five-minute fixed interval
schedule.
Multiple baseline across participants
Generalization probes were taken throughout baseline, in
tervention, and maintenance.
Maintenance probes were collected 1-2 weeks after the conclusion of
intervention.
Visual analysis and mean level analysis were used to determine if the
intervention was effective.
Observational Recording Method
Whole interval recording
30-second intervals during a 30-minute period
Participants were observed during reading center time
Generalization probes were taken during whole group
instruction
Results
John’s on-task behavior was an average of
32.96% and increased to 65.87% during
intervention.
Lily’s on-task behavior was an average of 41.3%
during baseline and increased to 68.65% during
intervention.
Isaiah’s on-task behavior during baseline was an
average of 55.8% and maintained at 55.2%
during intervention.
Interrater reliability (IOA) was conducted for eight
out of 25 sessions. The average IOA was 89.25%.
Intervention Generalization
Discussion
Overall, John and Lily’s on-task behavior increased, while Isaiah’s behavior
did not change.
NCR was effective because the function of John and Lily’s behavior seemed
to be access the teacher’s attention. Since an FBA was not conducted with
Isaiah, NCR may not have been effective in reducing his off-task behavior.
Generalization probes indicated that NCR increased on-task behavior to
other settings. Maintenance probes indicated that on-task behavior
continued after the conclusion of the intervention.
References
Austin, J. L., & Soeda, J. M. (2008). Fixed-Time Teacher Attention to Decrease Off-Task Behaviors of
Typically Developing Third Graders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 279-283.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-279
O’Callaghan, P. M., Allen, K. D., Powell, S., & Salama, F. (2006). The efficacy of noncontingent escape for
decreasing children’s off-task behavior during restorative dental treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 39, 161–171.
Riley, J. L., Mckevitt, B. C., Shriver, M. D., & Allen, K. D. (2011). Increasing on-task behavior using teacher
attention delivered on a fixed-time schedule. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 149-162.
doi:10.1007/s10864-011-9132-y
FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR
ASSESSMENT
WITH A YOUNG GIRL WHO
IS DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED & MEDICALLY
FRAGILE
Brittany Goss
East Carolina University
Client
“Mary”
4 years old
Residential facility with onsite educational program
Target Behavior
Mary was referred for behavioral health services for
Repetitive Behavior
It was reported that repetitive rubbing created a bald spot on the
side of her head
It was also reported that she engaged in repetitive thumb sucking
“Aggressive” Behavior
It was reported that Mary throws anything put in front of her or
within her reach
It was further reported that Mary hits staff and other residents
Functional Behavioral Assessment
Record review
Interview with RHA staff
Functional Assessment Screening Tool (FAST)
Interval recording
In-situ hypothesis testing
Record Review
Significant cognitive delays
Minimal to no communication skills
Deaf with suspected minimal hearing
Gross motor impairments (unable to walk or stand independently)
Some visual deficits associated with focal palsy but unable to fully ascertain visual impairments
Multiple medical conditions that impact functioning
Interviews
Staff members reported…
Repetitive behaviors occur frequently across settings,
staff and time
No clear trigger
Staff typically do not attempt to stop her repetitive
behaviors nor do they acknowledge her repetitive
behaviors
Occurs in the absence and presence of others
FAST
FAST suggested that the function of Mary’s behavior
was automatic reinforcement (sensory stimulation)
Operational Definitions of Target
Behaviors
Repetitive Behaviors:
Head rubbing - defined as making contact or rubbing the side of the
head with the hand or finger tips. More specifically, it is the placement of
one’s arm over the top of one’s head or across the forehead either
rubbing the side of one’s head with one’s hand (fingers) or placing one’s
hand (fingers) on the side of one’s head while making contact with one’s
head. (This behavior is targeting the spot on the side of Mary’s head.)
Head rubbing does not include one rubbing or placing one’s arm/hand
on one’s forehead or on the top of one’s head.
Thumb sucking - defined as placing a thumb in the mouth and/or sucking.
This behavior does not include sucking on any other finger or an object.
Interval Recoding
Momentary time sampling was used to estimate
the baseline occurrence of repetitive behaviors
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
ent of
Inte
rval
Date of Observation
Average Percent of Intervals: Head Rubbing
Average Percent of Intervals
Linear (Average Percent of Intervals)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Perc
ent of
Inte
rvals
Date of Observation
Average Percent of Intervals: Thumbsucking
Average Percent of Intervals
Linear (Average Percent of Intervals )
Hypothesized Function
Direct Access: Immediate Sensory Stimuli
Direct access was identified as the function of her repetitive behavior because Mary engaged in the behaviors…
independent of the reaction from the social environment.
across all observed contexts (bedroom, classroom, and cafeteria)
across all observed staff ( school staff and room staff)
across time
Ellingson, Miltenberger, Sticker, Garlinghouse, Roberts,
Galensky & Rapp (2000)
Functional analysis of two children whom engaged
in repetitive finger sucking
Coded occurrence and nonoccurrence of finger
sucking, providing a percent of duration
Experimental design conditions: attention, demand,
alone, control, and adhesive bandages
For both children finger sucking occurred more
frequently in the alone condition and appeared to
be maintained by automatic reinforcement
Rapp, Mitenberger, Galensky, Ellingon
& Long (1999)
Function of hair pulling and hair manipulation of a
19-year old woman, Kris
Four conditions: demand, attention, alone and
control
Functional analysis revealed that Kris pulled and
manipulated hair for the greatest amount of time in
the alone conduction, suggesting that some form of
automatic reinforcement maintained her behavior
Deaver, Miltenberger & Sticker (2001)
Tina, a 2.5 year old
Functional analysis of hair twirling
Interview with mother: hair twirling occurred primarily when Tina was alone, specifically while in bed, and that verbal reprimands were provided when Tina was observed engaging the target behavior.
Three functional analysis conditions: alone, contingent, noncontingent attention condition
Automatic reinforcement
During treatment an ABAB design was employed with treatment consisting of noncontingent application of mittens, which reduced hair pulling to near-zero levels
In-Situ Hypothesis Testing (Cipani & Schock 2011)
Baseline (In-seat condition): secured in her chair
Measured the percent of intervals with which repetitive behaviors occurred during this condition
Treatment (Out-of-seat condition): out of her chair (allowed to explore the environment and engage in preferred toy play or preferred activities)
Measured the percent of intervals with which repetitive behaviors occurred during this condition
Baseline data collection: Momentary time sampling consisting of 30, 20sec intervals
Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
11/3/16 11/10/16 11/17/16
Perc
ent of
Inte
rvals
Date of Observation
Average Percent of Intervals: Head Rubbing
Average Percent of Intervals In-Seat
Average Percent of Intervals Out-of-Seat
Results
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
11/3/16 11/10/16 11/17/16
Perc
ent of
Inte
rvals
Date of Observation
Average Percent of Intervals: Thumbsucking
Average Percent of Intervals In-Seat
Average Percent of Intervals Out-of-Seat
Results
Results indicated that Mary’s repetitive behavior
was likely maintained by direct access to sensory
stimulation
One data point with equal in- and out-of-seat head
rubbing
Visual analysis of the data indicated that access to
sensory stimulation was associated with decreased
rates of repetitive behaviors
Intervention: Differential Reinforcement of
Alternative Behavior (DRA)
When in the chair, contingent on pushing a button, a chair pad
would vibrate
She held down the button for long durations, but either rubbed
her head or sucked her thumb with the other hand
Plans were made to purchase a two-button switch that
required both hands to access the vibration, which would have
been Differential Reinforcement of an Incompatible Behavior
(DRI)
Intervention: Access Mand
Attempted to teach her to request preferred
sensory stimulation activities by touching a single card
with one activity (bubbles)
After she was able to touch a single card at 80%
accuracy (as opposed to swiping or grabbing), a
second card was introduced
Data indicated that she was unable to discriminate
between the two cards to choose a preferred activity
Data on Access Mand
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
9/15
/16
9/17
/16
9/19
/16
9/21
/16
9/23
/16
9/25
/16
9/27
/16
9/29
/16
10
/1/16
10
/3/16
10
/5
/1
6
10
/7/16
10
/9/16
10
/11
/16
10
/13
/16
10
/15
/16
10
/17
/16
10
/19
/16
10
/2
1/1
6
10
/23
/16
10
/25
/16
10
/27
/16
Avera
ge P
erc
ent C
orr
ect
Date
Average Percent Correct: Access Mand Training-Discrimination Phase
Average Percent Correct
Intervention: Functionally Equivalent
Behaviors
Provide her with out of seat time as much as possible
During out of seat time, she would engage in other
stimulating activities such as scooting around on the
floor, walk with assistance around the furniture, swat
at a ball, explore her environment
Discussion
DRA
DRI
Access Mand
Functionally Equivalent Behaviors
References
Cipani, E., & Schock, K. M. (2011). Functional behavioral assessment,
diagnosis, and treatment: A complete system for education and mental
health settings (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Deaver, C. M., Miltenberger, R. G., & Stricker, J. M. (2001).
Functional analysis and treatment of hair twirling in a young
child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(4), 535-538.
Ellingson, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., Stricker, J. M., Garlinghouse, M.
A., Roberts, J., Galensky, T. L., & Rapp, J. T. (2000). Analysis and
treatment of finger sucking. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(1),
41-52.
Rapp, J. T., Miltenberger, R. G., Galensky, T. L., Ellingson, S. A., &
Long, E. S. (1999). A functional analysis of hair pulling. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(3), 329-337.
FBA: SCHOOL REFUSAL IN A
RURAL PRIMARY SCHOOL
Ana LePage
East Carolina University
Participant and Setting
“Jake”
7 year old boy in the first grade
ADHD-C
Mild ID – receives special education services
The setting is a primary school in a rural community
Reason for Referral
In the classroom, his teacher reports that Jake is
frequently out of his seat and calls out.
When he does not want to do something, he will pout
and put his head down.
When his mom drops him off in the morning, he asks
her not to leave and cries every day after she leaves
the classroom.
Possible school refusal? (Kearney& Albano, 2004; Lee & Miltenberger,1996)
School refusal is a child-motivated refusal to go to
school at all or to only go for part of the day
School refusal behaviors can present in different
ways
Internalizing
Externalizing
Mixed symptoms
Functional Behavior Assessment
Procedure
Teacher Interview
ABC Observations
Parent Interview
School Refusal Assessment Scale – Revised
(SRAS-R)
Partial Interval Recording
(Kearney, Lemos & Silverman, 2004)
Teacher Interview
Disruptive Behavior
Calling out
Out of seat
Difficulty with being dropped off in the morning
When he does not want to do something, he pouts
and says he misses his mom
ABC Observation
Time Antecedent Behavior Consequence
8:05 Mom and Jake walk into class Jake hugs mom Mom stays in
classroom
8:06 Teacher asks Jake to put stuff away Jake ignored teacher Mom hugged Jake
8:07 Mom began to say bye Jake pouted Mom said “you have
to stay”
8:08 Mom walked out of class Jake started to cry
and put his head
down at his desk
Teacher ignored
8:11 Teacher asked student to get ready Jake looked up and
pouted
Teacher said “put your
bag away”
8:11 Teacher said “put your bag away” Jake got up and got
unpacked
Teacher said “good
job”
8:12 Teacher asked Jake to go to his
resource class
He pouted and said “I
miss my mom”
Teacher ignored
ABC Observation
Time Antecedent Behavior Consequence
8:02 Mom and Jake walk into class Jake pouts at mom Mom said “it’s ok”
8:03 Mom said bye Jake asked to be
picked up early
Mom hugged Jake
8:04 Mom said “no” Jake hugged mom Mom did not leave
8:06 Mom said bye Jake pouted Mom kept walking,
said goodbye 3x
8:07 Mom left room Jake started to cry
and put his head
down at his desk
Teacher ignored
8:12 Teacher ignored student Jake walked over to
teacher
Teacher smiled and
asked student to put
his stuff away
Parent Interview
Mom expressed concerns with problem behaviors
at home.
When he does not get his way, he “throws a
tantrum”
Mom reports that this happens at least once per
day, 4 out of 7 days a week.
When he has a “tantrum” he sometimes is placed
in time-out
SRAS-R (Kearney, 2002)
It is a 24-item measure developed to help assess the classification function of school refusal behavior
The function divisions are as follows:
Function one - avoidance of stimuli provoking negative affectivity
Function two - escape from aversive social and/or evaluative situations
Function three - attention seeking
Function four - tangible rewards
SRAS-R
Mom filled out the SRAS-R
The highest mean was for function 3 - attention seeking,
closely followed by function 1 - avoidance of stimuli
provoking negative affectivity
Endorsed items such as:
Almost always wants to stay home to be with parents
Always feels worse at school (e.g., scared, nervous, or
sad) compared to home.
Target Behaviors
Calling out – during whole group or independent
instruction student speaks without permission
and/or without raising hand
Out of Seat – during whole group or independent
instruction student is out of seat without teacher
permission, wandering around room, or gets up to
show teacher his work
Partial Interval Recording Observation Time: 10:10-10-20 Setting: Class (test) Length of each interval: 1 min Date: 3/28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Calling
out
I I I I I
Out of
seat
TR -+ -+ +- -+ -- +- -+ +- -+ -+
Observation Time:10:21-10:31 Setting: Class(test) Length of each interval: 1 min Date: 3/28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Calling
out
I I I I I I I I I
Out of
seat
I
TR +- -+ -+ +- +- -+ +- -+ +- -+
Observation Time:1:20-1:30 Setting: EC Class (small group) Length of each interval:1 min Date: 4/10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Calling
out
I
Out of
seat
I I I I I I I I I I
TR -- ++ ++ ++ ++ -- ++ -- ++ ++
Partial Interval Recording
Observation Time: 9:03-9:13 Setting: Class (group activity) Length of each interval: 1 min Date:4/11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Calling
out
I I I I
Out of
seat
TR -- +- -+ +- ++ +- --
Observation Time: 9:13-9:23 Setting: Class (group activity) Length of each interval: 1 min Date:4/11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Calling
out
I I
Out of
seat
I
TR -+ ++ +- ++ --
Partial Interval Observation Results
Hypothesized Function
Jake’s target behaviors and school refusal appear to
be maintained by attention from adults based on
data collected as part of the FBA
Function-Based Intervention
Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior
Home-school collaboration to address his
disruptive behaviors and school refusal
Check-in/Check-out (CICO)with rewards at school
and home (Todd, Campbell, Meyer & Horner,
2008)
CICO Procedures
CICO Form
Function-Based Intervention
Gradual exposure to improve drop-off
experience (Maeda, Hatada, Sonada &
Takayama, 2012)
Make a plan with mom to gradually change drop-
off procedure
Praise using DRA and ignore complaining, crying,
and pouting
Latency recording form
School attendance data
Latency Recording Form
References
Kearney, C. A. (2002). Identifying the function of school refusal behavior: A revision of the school refusal assessment scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 24, 235-245. doi:10.1023/A:1020774932043
Kearney, C. A., & Albano, A. M. (2004). The functional profiles of school refusal behavior: Diagnostic aspects. Behavior Modification, 28, 147-161. doi:10.1177/0145445503259263
Kearney, C. A., Lemos, A., & Silverman, J. (2004). The functional assessment of school refusal behavior. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5, 275-283. doi:10.1037/h0100040
Lee, M. I., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1996). School refusal behavior: Classification, assessment, and treatment issues. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 474-486.
Maeda, N., Hatada, S., Sonoda, J., & Takayama, I. (2012). School-based intensive exposure therapy for school refusal behavior. Clinical Case Studies, 11, 299- 311. doi:10.1177/1534650112457456
Todd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., & Horner, R. H. (2008). The effects of a targeted intervention to reduce problem behaviors: Elementary school implementation of check in—check out. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 46-55. doi:10.1177/1098300707311369