journal of applied behavior analysis 36,

147

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2003, 36, 147–185 NUMBER 2 (SUMMER 2003)

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PROBLEMBEHAVIOR: A REVIEW

GREGORY P. HANLEY

UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

BRIAN A. IWATA

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

AND

BRANDON E. MCCORD

ARLINGTON DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER

Functional analysis methodology focuses on the identification of variables that influencethe occurrence of problem behavior and has become a hallmark of contemporary ap-proaches to behavioral assessment. In light of the widespread use of pretreatment func-tional analyses in articles published in this and other journals, we reviewed the literaturein an attempt to identify best practices and directions for future research. Studies includedin the present review were those in which (a) a pretreatment assessment based on (b)direct observation and measurement of (c) problem behavior was conducted under (d)at least two conditions involving manipulation of an environmental variable in an attempt(e) to demonstrate a relation between the environmental event and behavior. Studies thatmet the criteria for inclusion were quantified and critically evaluated along a number ofdimensions related to subject and setting characteristics, parametric and qualitative char-acteristics of the methodology, types of assessment conditions, experimental designs, to-pographies of problem behaviors, and the manner in which data were displayed andanalyzed.

DESCRIPTORS: functional analysis, assessment, problem behavior

Functional analysis methodology identi-fies variables that influence the occurrence ofproblem behavior and has become a hall-mark of behavioral assessment (see the spe-cial issue on functional analysis in the Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis [JABA],1994, Vol. 27). Prior to the advent of func-tional analysis approaches to assessment,problem behavior was typically treated bysuperimposing powerful arbitrary contingen-

This research was supported in part by a grant fromthe Florida Department of Children and Families. Wethank Marc Branch and several anonymous reviewersfor their insightful comments and suggestions on ear-lier versions of this article.

Reprints may be obtained from Greg Hanley, De-partment of Human Development and Family Life,4001 Dole Center, University of Kansas, Lawrence,Kansas 66045 (e-mail: [email protected]).

cies of reinforcement or punishment over ex-isting but often unknown sources of rein-forcement for problem behavior (Mace,1994). By contrast, by identifying contin-gencies that currently maintain problem be-havior, relevant consequences and their as-sociated discriminative stimuli (SDs) and es-tablishing operations (EOs) may be alteredto reduce problem behavior. In essence,functional analysis methodology reempha-sized the importance of applied research incontributing to an understanding of the de-terminants of behavior as the basis for iden-tifying effective treatments that produce gen-eralized results.

Since the development of comprehensivemodels for conducting functional analyses(i.e., those that examined multiple sources

148 GREGORY P. HANLEY et al.

of influence; E. G. Carr & Durand, 1985;Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman,1982/1994), hundreds of direct and system-atic replications, as well as extensions acrosspopulations, settings, and topographies ofproblem behavior, have been reported in theliterature. However, the extent of these var-iations has not yet been systematically eval-uated or critically examined. The purpose ofthis review is to provide a quantitative andqualitative analysis of research on the func-tional analysis of problem behavior and toidentify unanswered questions that may beaddressed in future research.

The term functional analysis was used bySkinner (1953) to denote empirical dem-onstrations of ‘‘cause-and-effect relations’’between environment and behavior; howev-er, the term has been extended by behavioranalysts and psychologists in general to de-scribe a wide range of procedures and op-erations that are different in many importantways (see Haynes & O’Brien, 1990, andIwata, Kahng, Wallace, & Lindberg, 2000,for two different but comprehensive discus-sions). In addition, the term evokes differentresponses through somewhat different usesin other disciplines such as medicine, math-ematics, physics, and biology. In the behav-ior analysis literature, the term function hasbeen used in two ways. One use conveys theeffect that a behavior has on the environ-ment or, speaking loosely, the purpose thebehavior serves for an individual (e.g., thefunction of behavior is to terminate an on-going event). The second use describes a re-lation between two variables (typically be-tween some environmental event and a classof behavior) in which one varies given thepresence or absence of the other (e.g., re-sponding as a function of an event). Bothuses of the term are relevant to a functionalanalysis of existing behavior, in that relationsbetween behavior and environmental eventsare demonstrated in the context of learning

about how the behavior operates on the en-vironment.

Although early conceptual analyses (Bach-man, 1972; E. G. Carr, 1977; & Smolev,1971) suggested that self-injurious behavior(SIB) might be the product of reinforcementcontingencies that differed across individualswho exhibited these behaviors, methods foridentifying various conditions that were cor-related with SIB and other problem behav-iors prior to intervention were not describeduntil years later. Nevertheless, several note-worthy studies included systematic empiricalinvestigations of environmental influenceson problem behavior and laid the ground-work for a comprehensive functional analysismethodology. Lovaas and colleagues (Lovaas,Freitag, Gold, & Kassorla, 1965; Lovaas &Simmons, 1969) were the first to demon-strate the effects of social-positive reinforce-ment (attention) on the SIB of children whohad been diagnosed with autism and mentalretardation. Similar studies demonstratedthe effects of attention on problem behaviorscommon to the classroom, such as aggres-sion (Pinkston, Reese, LeBlanc, & Baer,1973) and disruption (Thomas, Becker, &Armstrong, 1968). Sailor, Guess, Ruther-ford, and Baer (1968) provided an earlydemonstration that problem behavior alsocould be maintained by negative reinforce-ment (escape from difficult instruction) in ayoung girl with mental retardation; thiswork was extended by E. G. Carr, Newsom,and Binkoff (1976, 1980), who showed thataggression and SIB were correlated with thepresentation and removal of demands, andby Weeks and Gaylord-Ross (1981), whoshowed that SIB was positively correlatedwith task difficulty. In addition to demon-strating the effects of specific contingencieson problem behavior, these studies illustrat-ed the general value of identifying the con-ditions under which problem behavior mayactually worsen: If one could specify whichaspects of a procedure led to more problem

149FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

behavior, one should then be able to changethe procedure so as to effect a reduction inproblem behavior (a similar notion was pre-sented by Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968).

The preceding studies established the ba-sic methodological features of a functionalanalysis of problem behavior: direct obser-vation and measurement of problem behav-ior under test and control conditions inwhich some environmental variable is ma-nipulated. From these strategies, a relationbetween an environmental event and behav-ior was demonstrated. However, all of thestudies described above focused on single re-sponse–reinforcer relations.

The first comprehensive analysis of thedeterminants of problem behavior was re-ported by Iwata et al. (1982/1994), whoproposed a general model for concurrentlyassessing the sensitivity of SIB to contingen-cies of positive, negative, and automatic re-inforcement. More specifically, direct obser-vation and repeated measurement of behav-ior were conducted across four conditions(three tests and one control) arranged in amultielement, single-subject experimentaldesign (Ulman & Sulzer-Azaroff, 1975).Each test condition contained an EO, SD,and source of reinforcement for a given con-tingency, whereas these same operations andcontingencies were absent from the controlcondition. This methodology was applied tovarious forms of SIB (e.g., head banging,biting, eye gouging, face slapping, hair pull-ing) exhibited by 9 children with develop-mental disabilities. Results showed that lev-els of SIB varied widely across participants.More important, they showed that SIB washigher in particular test conditions relativeto the control for 8 of the 9 participants.

E. G. Carr and Durand (1985) describedanother model for conducting a functionalanalysis of problem behavior. The influencesof three assessment conditions were evalu-ated on varied problem behaviors (aggres-sion, tantrums, SIB, opposition, and out of

seat) of 4 children with developmental dis-abilities in which two antecedent variables,amount of attention and difficulty of in-struction, were manipulated. Several patternsof problem behavior were observed, suggest-ing that influential variables differed acrossparticipants.

The functional analysis methods de-scribed by Iwata et al. (1982/1994) and E.G. Carr and Durand (1985) marked the be-ginning of a comprehensive approach to in-tervention in which control techniques de-rived from the experimental analysis of be-havior were applied, not only to the treat-ment of problem behavior but to itsassessment as well. In addition, both assess-ment models represented an improvementover arbitrary approaches to the treatment ofproblem behavior and led to the develop-ment of more precise reinforcement-basedinterventions and an apparent decrease inthe use of punishment (Pelios, Morren,Tesch, & Axelrod, 1999). In essence, func-tional analysis has provided a means to de-termine in advance which treatments shouldand should not work, as well as why. Whatfollows is a review of functional analysismethodology, a presentation of guidelinesfor best practice, and a discussion of areasthat warrant further research attention.

METHODFunctional analysis studies were identified

through a search of Current Contents,PsychInfo, and ERIC using the key wordsfunction, analysis, and behavioral assessmentthrough 2000. The reference section of eacharticle so identified was then examined toidentify additional functional analysis arti-cles. Finally, all identified studies were re-viewed to determine if they met criteria forinclusion in the present review.

INCLUSION AND

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies included in the present reviewwere those in which (a) a pretreatment as-


sessment based on (b) direct observation andmeasurement of problem behavior was con-ducted under (c) at least two conditions in-volving manipulation of some environmen-tal variable in an attempt (d) to demonstratea relation between the environmental eventand behavior. The criteria for inclusion (andexclusion) are described more fully below.

Pretreatment Assessment

Pretreatment assessment refers to an at-tempt by the researcher to identify variablesthat affected rates of problem behavior (anevaluation of a treatment was not required).This criterion ruled out studies in which afunctional relation was established only inthe context of treatment (e.g., SIB decreasedwhen a particular intervention was used).That is, studies were excluded if functionalrelations were not demonstrated indepen-dent of treatment.

Direct Observation and Measurement ofProblem Behavior

The focus of the current review is on thefunctional analysis of problem behavior, de-fined as behavioral excess that is socially sig-nificant to the extent that someone com-plains of its occurrence. These behaviors aretypically of sufficient intensity or frequencythat the safety of the person or others isthreatened, the ability of the person or oth-ers to acquire new skills is hindered, or morerestrictive living arrangements are warranted.

The requirement for direct observationand measurement specified that the primarydata used in the analysis were collected byobservers who recorded responses of studyparticipants (either live or from videotape).Thus, reviews, commentaries, and discussionpapers were excluded because they did con-tain data of this type. In addition, studiesthat relied exclusively on indirect means toidentify functional variables were excluded.More specifically, studies in which data werebased solely on rating scales (e.g., Weiseler,

Hanson, Chamberlain, & Thompson,1985), questionnaires (e.g., Matson, Bam-burg, Cherry, & Paclawskyj, 1999), or clin-ical interviews (e.g., O’Neill, Horner, Albin,Storey, & Sprague, 1990) were not includeddue to their reliance on anecdotal reportsfrom caregivers in lieu of direct observationof problem behavior.

Manipulation

By limiting the review to studies involvingat least two conditions in which some en-vironmental variable was manipulated, allstudies that relied exclusively on descriptiveanalysis were not included. Descriptive anal-ysis involves direct observation of behaviorunder naturally occurring (uncontrolled)conditions in an attempt to identify envi-ronmental correlates of problem behavior.Examples of this approach include continu-ous observation methods (e.g., Bijou, Peter-son, & Ault, 1968), antecedent-behavior-consequence (ABC) recording (e.g., Groden,1989), and scatter-plot recording (e.g.,Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer, 1985).Studies that included descriptive analysis inaddition to other types of analysis that metthe criteria noted above were included in thepresent review (e.g., Lerman & Iwata, 1993;Mace & Lalli, 1991).

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Studies that met the criteria for inclusionin the present review varied along a numberof dimensions related to subject and settingcharacteristics, parametric and qualitativecharacteristics of the methodology, types ofconditions arranged, experimental designsused, types of problem behaviors evaluated,and the manner in which data were dis-played and analyzed. Studies that met cri-teria for inclusion were quantified and crit-ically evaluated along the following dimen-sions.


Population and Setting CharacteristicsParticipants. Data were collected on par-

ticipant age, level of functioning, and diag-nosis. Participants were categorized as eitherchild (1 to 18 years) or adult (19 and over).It was noted whether participants fell withina normal range of functioning or if a partic-ular developmental disability (e.g., mentalretardation) was noted. Diagnoses of autismalso were documented.

Settings. Settings in which assessment oc-curred were categorized as home, school,outpatient clinic, inpatient hospital unit, in-stitution, or vocational program.

Response TopographiesData were collected on the specific topog-

raphies of problem behavior included in thefunctional analyses. Based on the authors’description, behaviors were categorized asSIB, aggression, property destruction, pica,motor disruptions, vocalizations (either bi-zarre or disruptive), elopement, stereotypy,tantrums, aberrant (this was scored if severaltopographies were combined into one re-sponse class), or other.

Type of Functional AnalysisData were collected on which of the two

general types of functional analysis, the AB(antecedent-behavior) model (E. G. Carr &Durand, 1985) or the ABC model (Iwata etal., 1982/1994), characterized the structureof the functional analyses in each study.Data also were collected on whether addi-tional pretreatment assessment data, such asthose derived from indirect or descriptivetypes of functional assessment, were includ-ed. Finally, it was noted if a comparison ofany of the methodologies (indirect assess-ment, descriptive analysis, or functionalanalysis) was conducted.

Condition TypesData were collected on whether single or

multiple functions of behavior were assessed.

If several conditions were used to evaluatemultiple functions, we documented whichones were assessed (e.g., attention, tangible[materials or food], escape, automatic [pos-itive or negative]) and whether a relevantcontrol condition was included. Descrip-tions of atypical test conditions (e.g., escapefrom noise) were also noted.

Assessment Duration

Data were collected on the total numberof analysis sessions for each participant andwere categorized according to the number ofobservations per condition. An analysis wasconsidered brief (e.g., Northup et al., 1991)if two or fewer observations were conductedin each condition, whereas an analysis wasconsidered full if three or more observationswere conducted in at least two conditions.

Session Duration

Data were collected on the duration ofeach observation session in the analysis.

Experimental Design

The type of single-subject design used todemonstrate the effects of a variable onproblem behavior was noted. Each analysiswas categorized as a reversal, multielement(i.e., rapid alternation between two or moreconditions), or pairwise (sequential evalua-tion of each test condition through rapid al-ternation between a single test and controlcondition; Iwata, Duncan, Zarcone, Ler-man, & Shore, 1994) experimental design,or as sharing features of more than one de-sign (noted as a combination).

Data Display and Analysis

Data were collected on the method usedto present data from the functional analyses.All of the data conformed to one of threetypes of displays. Data were presented as (a)condition means exclusively (typically pre-sented as a bar graph, table, or numericaldata in the text), (b) values for each session


typically displayed on a graph (i.e., a pointper session), or (c) within-session values (i.e.,the data binned in sequential time segmentsduring one or more sessions). It was alsonoted whether data analysis relied exclusivelyon visual inspection or was aided or replacedby some descriptive or inferential statisticalprocedures.

Stimulus Parameters

Antecedent variables. Descriptions of an-tecedent variables that were manipulatedwere recorded (e.g., instructional types,manner in which attention was diverted).

Consequence variables. If consequenceswere programmed for the occurrence ofproblem behavior during test conditions, thespecific type of consequence provided (e.g.,verbal reprimand or physical interaction), aswell as its duration, was noted. Scheduleswere categorized as either continuous (i.e.,consequences delivered following each in-stance of problem behavior) or intermittent(consequences delivered following a propor-tion of responses).

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OUTCOME SUMMARY

To avoid summarizing functional analysisdata published in more than one study(Fisher, Piazza, & Hanley, 1998) or smalldata sets also published as aggregates (e.g.,Derby et al., 1992), only functional analysisdata that appeared in a line chart formatwere included in the outcome summary. Byso doing, any data that appeared in morethan one study were easily identified and in-cluded only once in the summary.

General Outcome across Topography

Based on the authors’ conclusions pre-sented in each study, the number of differ-entiated (i.e., those assessments that yieldeda determination of behavioral function) andundifferentiated functional analyses was not-ed for each topography of problem behavior.

Behavioral Function by TopographyFor analyses in which the behavior’s main-

taining reinforcer was identified, the specificbehavioral function (as noted by the authorsof each study) was catalogued across behav-ioral topography. Maintaining reinforcer cat-egories included attention, tangible (edibleitems, toys), escape, automatic, or multiple(two or more behavioral functions).

INTERRATER AGREEMENT

A second reader independently analyzed12.6% of the articles as a basis for assessinginterrater agreement on the categorization ofstudies. Agreement was then assessed by anitem-by-item comparison of score sheetsgenerated by the two readers in which thenumber of agreements between the two (i.e.,same subcategory scored) was divided by thenumber of agreements plus disagreementsand multiplied by 100%. The mean inter-rater agreement was 98.0% (range, 92.1%to 100%) across score sheets.

RESULTS

Given the search strategy described above,a total of 790 published works were identi-fied. Of these, 215 articles were excludedfrom the analysis because they were bookchapters, reviews, discussion pieces, or com-mentaries on functional analysis methodol-ogy that did not contain any data. Althoughdata based, an additional 298 studies wereexcluded because they lacked critical func-tional analysis elements described above asinclusion criteria. From this, a total of 277empirical studies were identified and includ-ed in the quantitative review.

JOURNALS PUBLISHING FUNCTIONAL

ANALYSIS STUDIES

Table 1 lists the journals in which func-tional analysis studies have been published.A total of 34 journals have published at leastone functional analysis study (as defined in


Table 1Journals Publishing Functional Analysis Studies

JournalNumber of

studiesPercentageof sample

Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis

180 64.9

Research in Developmental Dis-abilitiesa

21 7.6

Behavior Modification 10 3.6Journal of Behavior Therapy

and Experimental Psychiatry9 3.2

Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handi-capsb

6 2.2

Behavioral Interventionsc 5 1.8Education and Training in

Mental Retardation and De-velopmental Disabilities

5 1.8

Journal of Autism and Develop-mental Disordersd

4 1.4

Journal of Developmental andPhysical Disabilitiesa

4 1.4

School Psychology Quarterly 4 1.4Behavioral Disorders 3 1.1Behavior Therapy 3 1.1Journal of Intellectual Disability

Researchf2 0.7

Number of other journals withone publication

21 7.6

Total number of functionalanalysis studiesa

277

a Applied Research in Mental Retardation merged with Anal-ysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities to becomeResearch in Developmental Disabilities.

b Formerly Journal of the Association for Education of Personswith Severe and Profound Handicaps.

c Formerly Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia.d Formerly Behavioral Residential Treatment.e Formerly Journal of the Multihandicapped Person.f Formerly Journal of Mental Deficiency Research.g Functional analysis studies as defined in the Method Sec-

tion.

the present review); 13 journals have pub-lished two or more studies. Combined withthe fact that numerous discussion and reviewpapers have appeared in still more journals(especially those in the area of education),the data suggest that a large number of read-ers of psychological literature have come incontact with functional analysis methodolo-gy. The number of different journals thatpublished a functional analysis study showsa slight increasing trend across years (see Fig-

ure 1); however, the overwhelming majorityof functional analysis studies have been pub-lished in JABA (64.9%). This is not surpris-ing given that the procedures (operant con-tingencies) and methodology (single-subjectdesigns) on which functional analysis isbased are also the cornerstones of appliedbehavior analysis and the most commoncharacteristics of articles published in JABA.Although functional analysis may still belimited to the research and practice of asmall number of individuals (Gable, 1996;Gresham, Quinn, & Restori, 1999), thepresent database shows that over 400 indi-viduals have coauthored data-based func-tional analysis studies.

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Population and Setting Characteristics

Although a substantial proportion offunctional analysis studies (37.2%) includedadults, the majority of studies included chil-dren (70.0%) with some form of develop-mental disability (91.3%; see Table 2). Giv-en the high prevalence of problem behaviorin persons with developmental disabilities,the fact that the majority of functional anal-ysis studies have focused on this populationis not surprising. A much lower percentageof studies included functional analyses ofproblem behaviors exhibited by personswithout disabilities (9.0%), showing thatthis is a relatively underresearched area.However, functional analysis methodologyhas been applied in 25 studies to evaluateproblem behaviors that are more commonamong typically developing children (someof these studies will be described below).

Most functional analysis studies have beenconducted in hospital (inpatient) facilities(32.5%), schools (31.4%), or institutions(25.3%; see Table 2); much less research(17.4%) has been conducted in other set-tings (e.g., homes, vocational programs, andoutpatient clinics). It is unclear whether


Figure 1. Total number of functional analysis publications (dark bars) and total number of publishingjournals (light bars) for 5-year periods between 1961 and 2000.

Table 2Participant and Setting Characteristics

Number ofstudies

Percentageof sample

Participants ChildAdultDevelopmental disabilityAutismNo disability

194103253

5825

70.037.291.320.9

9.0

Setting Hospital (inpatient)SchoolInstitutionHomeClinic (outpatient)Vocational program

90877021216

32.531.425.3

7.67.62.2

choice of setting has been due to the greaterdegree of control afforded by institutionalenvironments or the fact that persons withmore severe problem behaviors are morelikely to be treated in these settings.

Response TopographiesThe majority of functional analysis studies

have either included some form of SIB inthe cluster of behaviors undergoing assess-ment or exclusively evaluated the controlling


Table 3Prevalence of Behavior Topographies

TopographyNumber of

studiesPercentageof sample

Self-injuryAggressionDisruptionVocalizationsProperty destructionStereotypyNoncomplianceTantrumsElopementPicaOther

179 (130)113 (46)

53 (19)35 (16)29 (2)25 (17)12 (1)10 (1)

8 (1)7 (3)

10 (0)

64.6 (4.6)40.8 (1.6)19.1 (6.9)12.6 (5.8)10.5 (0.7)

9.0 (6.1)4.3 (0.3)3.6 (0.3)2.9 (0.3)2.5 (1.1)3.6 (0)

Note. The numbers in parentheses indicate studies that in-cluded one specific topography in the analysis contingencyclass.

variables for SIB (179 or 64.6%; see Table3). Aggression (113 or 40.8%) and disrup-tion (53 or 19.1%) were, respectively, thesecond and third most common topogra-phies of problem behavior evaluated. A largepercentage of studies (85.0%) included onlytopographically similar responses (e.g., onlyself-injurious head hitting or only pica) inthe class of responses for which consequenc-es were programmed. A fairly large percent-age of studies (27.8%) included two or more(typically more) topographies in the targetresponse class in at least one of the func-tional analyses.

Although the majority of functional anal-ysis studies have examined some form ofSIB, aggression, or disruption, the method-ology has been extended to a variety of otherproblem behaviors including reluctant or bi-zarre vocalizations (e.g., Durand & Crim-mins, 1987; Mace & West, 1986), vocal tics(J. E. Carr, Taylor, Wallander, & Reiss,1996), stereotypy (e.g., Mace, Browder, &Lin, 1987), mouthing (Goh et al., 1995),breath holding (Kern, Mauk, Marder, &Mace, 1995), pica (Mace & Knight, 1986;Piazza, Hanley, & Fisher, 1996), hair pulling(Miltenberger, Long, Rapp, Lumley, & El-liot, 1998), noncompliance (Reimers et al.,

1993), tantrums (Vollmer, Northup, Ring-dahl, LeBlanc, & Chauvin, 1996), drug in-gestion (Chapman, Fisher, Piazza, & Kurtz,1993), elopement (Piazza, Hanley, et al.,1997), and property destruction (Fisher,Lindauer, Alterson, & Thompson, 1998). Inaddition, topographies of problem behaviormore commonly exhibited by either typicallydeveloping children or children with milddisabilities have also been assessed via func-tional analysis; examples include disruptivebehavior of children in regular educationclassrooms (Broussard & Northup, 1995,1997), disruptive classroom behavior of stu-dents with emotional disabilities (DePaepe,Shores, Jack, & Denny, 1996), finger suck-ing by children in the home (Ellingson etal., 2000), inappropriate classroom behaviorof an elementary student (Lewis & Sugai,1996), reluctant speech of an elementaryschool student (Mace & West, 1986), off-task behavior of elementary school childrenwith mild learning disabilities (Meyer,1999), and classroom disruptive behaviors ofchildren with attention deficit disorder(Northup et al., 1995; Umbreit, 1995b).These studies represent a first step towardsextending functional analysis methodologyto the problem behavior of typically devel-oping children, and the continued extensionand refinement of these methods representsan exciting and important area for futurework.

In contrast to recent demonstrations withtypically developing children, functionalanalysis methodology has not yet been ex-tended to behavior problems (e.g., nail bit-ing, complaining, smoking, drug abuse,overeating, or problem behaviors associatedwith mental illnesses such as depression, bu-limia, or anorexia) exhibited by adults with-out disabilities. This too represents an im-portant area for the systematic extension offunctional analysis methodology (see addi-tional discussions by Axelrod, 1991; Haynes


Table 4Methodological Characteristics of

Functional Analysis

Numberof studies

Percentageof sample

Model typeABC modelAB modelBoth models

2415620

87.020.2

7.2

Supplementary assessmentsDescriptive or indirectDescriptiveIndirectDescriptive and indirect

292312

7

10.58.34.32.5

Condition typesSocial-negative reinforcementSocial-positive reinforcement

AttentionTangible

Automatic reinforcement

247237229

96165

89.285.682.734.759.6

Number of test conditionsMultipleSingle

24851

89.518.4

Assessment lengthFullBriefUnknown

2293614

82.713.0

5.0

Session duration5 min

10 min15 minOtherUnknown

31144

781222

11.152.028.2

4.37.9

Experimental designsMultielementReversalPairwiseCombinationUnknown

22543

77

16

81.215.5

2.52.55.8

Data presentationSession valuesCondition meansWithin-session values

20874

3

75.126.7

1.1

& O’Brien, 1990; McManus & Waller,1995).

The extension of functional analysismethods to novel topographies of problembehavior has also necessitated proceduralvariations. For instance, analyses of pica (Pi-azza et al., 1998), mouthing (Goh et al.,1995), and property destruction (Fisher,Lindauer, Alterson, & Thompson, 1998) re-quired the selection and arrangement of safematerials to consume or destroy; the analysisof elopement (Piazza, Hanley, et al., 1997)required that the participant could be re-trieved at least several times so that multipleopportunities to respond were available;analyses of aggression required that a personbe within reach and protected; and analysesof noncompliance (Reimers et al., 1993) ne-cessitated the delivery of a consistent num-ber of instructions. Other topographies ofproblem behavior (e.g., out of seat, crying)have been included in functional analyses;however, these particular responses were partof a larger group of topographically distinctbehaviors. Therefore, the utility of function-al analysis methods remains undemonstratedfor these and other unique, or possibly com-mon, problem behaviors.

Type of Functional Analysis

Functional analysis models. As describedearlier, one general model of functional anal-ysis in current use involves the exclusive ma-nipulation of antecedent events (an ABmodel; see E. G. Carr & Durand, 1985).The second involves manipulation of all as-pects of the three-term contingency (i.e., an-tecedent and consequent events; an ABCmodel; see Iwata et al., 1982/1994). TheABC model was incorporated in 241 or87.0% of the functional analysis studies,whereas the AB model was used in 56 or20.2% of the studies (see Table 4). Most ofthe 277 studies employed one model to theexclusion of the other; however, 20 studies(7.2%) included both types of assessment ei-

ther with the same participant or across dif-ferent participants.

Supplementary functional assessments. De-scriptive data (i.e., data collected through di-rect observation of behavior in the absence


of experimental manipulation) were includ-ed in 23 studies (8.3%), data generated fromindirect means (i.e., questionnaires, ratingscales) were included in 12 studies (4.3%),either a descriptive or indirect assessmentwas included in 29 studies (10.5%), andboth descriptive and indirect functional as-sessment data in addition to that derivedfrom a functional analysis of problem be-havior were included in 7 studies (2.5%).Many studies described the use of prelimi-nary assessments as part of the process ofidentifying variables influencing problem be-havior. However, studies in which it wasnoted that observations, interviews, and soforth were conducted prior to a functionalanalysis of problem behavior, but in whichdata from these supplementary assessmentswere not reported, were not included inthese calculations.

Condition Types

The basis for identifying environmentalinfluences in a functional analysis lies in acomparison of behavior under test and con-trol conditions. Test conditions involve somepotentially relevant independent variable(e.g., contingency between problem behaviorand access to toys), whereas control condi-tions are generally constructed so that thesame independent variable is absent (e.g.,toys are not provided following problem be-havior).

Social-positive reinforcement. Most func-tional analysis studies involved tests for be-havior maintained by social-positive rein-forcement (85.6%), with the majority ofthese studies (96.6%) specifically assessingthe effects of attention on problem behavior.A smaller percentage of studies assessed theeffects of other forms of social-positive re-inforcement such as foods, toys, or othertangible items (38.3%) on the occurrence ofproblem behaviors. Assessment of the effectof tangible reinforcement on problem be-havior was first reported by Mace and West

(1986); however, R. M. Day, Rea, Schussler,Larsen, and Johnson (1988) published theearliest demonstration of behavioral main-tenance by access to tangible items. Sincethen, tests for behavioral sensitivity to tan-gible forms of reinforcement have often beenincluded in functional analyses (47.0% offunctional analyses in the last 5 years in-cluded a tangible test condition). The ma-jority of tests for maintenance via social-pos-itive reinforcement arranged a contingencybetween problem behavior and access to at-tention or tangible items (94.9%); a smallerpercentage of studies (6.7%) exclusively ma-nipulated antecedent events (e.g., altered thepercentage of time in which attention ortangible items were available) and inferredbehavioral function from the resulting data.

Social-negative reinforcement. Most func-tional analysis studies involved tests for be-havioral maintenance by escape or avoidancecontingencies (89.2%) and typically referredto this arrangement as the demand or escapecondition. In most cases (88.3% of thosetesting for a negative reinforcement rela-tion), a brief break from ongoing instruc-tions (or social interaction, e.g., Vollmer etal., 1998) was provided following problembehavior such that a direct test of the effectof a negative reinforcement contingency wasevaluated. In a smaller percentage of thestudies (18.6%), consequences were not ma-nipulated (and in many instances not spec-ified or controlled); instead, various charac-teristics of the antecedent environment (e.g.,task difficulty) were altered.

Automatic reinforcement. More than half(59.6%) of the functional analysis studies in-cluded conditions to test for maintenance byautomatic reinforcement. These tests arenecessarily indirect because the delivery ofautomatic reinforcement typically cannot becontrolled or directly manipulated by others.Therefore, the test for this sort of relationrelies on a strategy in which the influence ofsocial reinforcement is removed by observing


behavior under relatively barren conditions(this test is typically referred to as the aloneor ignore condition). If problem behaviorpersists under these conditions, in which nosocial reinforcement contingencies are pro-grammed and ambient stimulation that mayoccasion escape-maintained behavior is ab-sent, evidence of maintenance via automaticreinforcement is provided. In an attempt todecrease the possibility that bursts of sociallymediated behavior are misdiagnosed as au-tomatically reinforced behavior, several re-searchers have included either extended (oflonger duration) or repeated (consecutivesessions) observations in the alone condition(e.g., Vollmer, Marcus, Ringdahl, & Roane,1995). Persistence under these conditionsprovides further support for the nonsocialmediation of problem behaviors.

Control conditions. Of the 56 functionalanalysis studies employing the AB model, 40(71.4%) included a control condition to de-termine the influence of one of two anteced-ent variables (attention and task difficulty)on problem behavior. The remaining studiesin this group simply excluded a relevant an-tecedent event (i.e., the event present in thetest condition) from the control condition.The typical control condition in ABC func-tional analyses (described originally by Iwataet al., 1982/1994, as the ‘‘play’’ condition)also controls for multiple sources of influ-ence. More specifically, no demands are pre-sented, attention is withheld for problem be-havior and is available either freely or forappropriate behavior, and access to alterna-tive forms of stimulation is continuouslyavailable (i.e., free access to toys is arranged).Thus, the EOs (deprivation from attentionor stimulation, or the presentation of de-mands) for the three sources of reinforce-ment, as well as the contingencies for thetwo sources of social reinforcement, areeliminated or at least minimized in this con-dition. From this, the effects of several con-tingencies arranged either directly (attention

and escape) or indirectly (automatic rein-forcement) are assessed by comparing therelative rates of behavior in these test con-ditions to those observed in a single controlcondition. This general type of control con-dition was used in 91.7% of the 241 func-tional analysis studies that employed theABC model. The remaining 8.3% relied ona test condition for one function serving asa control for another test condition (e.g., nodemands are presented in the attention con-dition, and contingent attention is unavail-able in the demand condition). This strategywas often employed in brief functional anal-yses (e.g., Northup, 1991) in which practicalconstraints limited the number of sessionsthat could have been conducted. The mainlimitation of these and other studies that didnot arrange a deliberate control condition isthe inability to discriminate between multi-ply controlled and undifferentiated (or ex-clusively automatically reinforced) respond-ing (see E. G. Carr, Yarbrough, & Langdon,1997, for examples).

Number of test conditions. Early researchon the functional analysis of problem behav-ior (i.e., studies published prior to 1982)evaluated the effects of a single source of re-inforcement. However, the majority of stud-ies in the current review (89.5%) evaluatedthe effects of multiple sources of influencethrough the inclusion of two or more testconditions in each functional analysis. Inother words, most functional analysis studiesincluded test conditions to delineate controlby positive versus negative reinforcement orsocial versus automatic sources of reinforce-ment. Clearly, the comprehensive approachrepresents a refinement in assessment strat-egy because it (a) identifies important con-trolling relations, (b) rules out competing re-lations, (c) allows one to select a treatmentmatched to the function of behavior, and (d)avoids programming changes that will notaffect the occurrence of problem behavior(or will be contraindicated). In addition,


comprehensive functional analyses mayidentify (or rule out) multiple sources ofcontrol (H. M. Day, Horner, & O’Neill,1994).

Session Duration

Data from published studies indicate thatmost functional analysis sessions are 10 min(52.0%), 15 min (28.2%), or 5 min(11.1%) in duration. However, a few studieshave programmed sessions as brief as 1 min(Sigafoos & Meikle, 1996; Sigafoos & Sag-gers, 1995) or as long as 30 min (e.g., Arn-dorfer, Miltenberger, Woster, Rortvedt, &Gaffaney, 1994; Reese, 1997).

Assessment Duration

Assessment duration refers to the numberof sessions that comprise a functional anal-ysis. Most functional analyses are conducteduntil stability is achieved (i.e., no a prioricriteria are used for terminating the analysis;rather, the analysis is concluded when usefulinformation has been obtained). This is con-sistent with the general strategies of single-subject research (Sidman, 1960). However,the exigencies of clinical practice (e.g., timelimitations) often compromise attempts atthorough assessment, thus necessitating theuse of either alternative functional assess-ment tools (e.g., indirect methods) or mod-ifications to functional analysis methodolo-gy. In a significant contribution to the lit-erature, Northup et al. (1991) illustrated thelatter strategy through development of whathas come to be called the brief functionalanalysis. It was designed to accommodate a90-min outpatient evaluation, thereby cir-cumventing limitations posed by the use ofindirect assessment while addressing thepractical limitations posed by more lengthyfunctional analysis. Basically, one or two ses-sions were conducted under various test con-ditions to determine the function of the tar-get behavior. The current review identified36 studies (13.0%) that employed brief

functional analyses (i.e., two or fewer obser-vations in each test condition). The lengthof assessment was not described and is there-fore unknown in 14 studies (5.0%), and fullanalyses (three of more observations per con-dition) were included in the majority ofstudies (229 or 82.7%).

Experimental Design

Most single-subject experimental designsinvolve observation of several features of be-havior (i.e., level, trend, and stability) acrosstwo or more conditions in which relevantstimuli are either present (test conditions) orabsent (control conditions). The designmost commonly used in functional analysisstudies was the multielement (225 studies or81.2%), which is characterized by the rapidalternation of the experimental conditions.This design is attractive for functional anal-yses because it is an efficient way to examinethe effects of several independent variables(e.g., social-positive, social-negative, or au-tomatic reinforcement). In addition, organ-ismic or other extraneous variables (e.g., al-lergies, medication changes) should affectbehavior similarly across all conditions be-cause the individual is exposed to the alter-nating conditions within a relatively shortperiod.

The second most common experimentaldesign was the reversal or ABAB designcharacterized by repeated observations of be-havior under a single condition, followed bythe introduction, withdrawal, and reintro-duction of an experimental variable. The re-versal design was used in 43 functional anal-ysis studies (15.5%) and was more commonin studies evaluating a single source of influ-ence on behavior or in those employing anAB model. Although the reversal design is atime-consuming strategy for evaluating mul-tiple sources of behavioral control, Vollmer,Iwata, Duncan, and Lerman (1993) provid-ed evidence that reversal designs may behelpful if the rapidly alternating conditions


of the multielement designs produce inter-action effects (Higgins Hains & Baer, 1989).

Iwata, Duncan, Zarcone, Lerman, andShore (1994) described a method for con-ducting functional analyses that combinedfeatures of the reversal and multielement de-signs. Test conditions were implemented se-quentially (as in a reversal design); however,each test condition was alternated with acontrol condition in a multielement format.The sequential test–control (or pairwise) de-sign was intended to minimize interactioneffects while decreasing the number of re-versals required to demonstrate a functionalrelation and was shown to result in differ-entiated outcomes for 2 participants whoseprior multielement analyses yielded unclearresults.

The pairwise design has appeared in sixsubsequent functional analysis studies. Threestudies used the design from the outset ofthe assessment (Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson,1998; Lalli, Casey, & Kates, 1995; Shirley,Iwata, Kahng, Mazaleski, & Lerman, 1997),and all analyses yielded a clear behavioralfunction. Two studies provided systematicreplications of the strategy described by Iwa-ta, Duncan, Zarcone, Lerman, and Shore(1994), in which pairwise analyses yieldedclear results following initially unclear mul-tielement outcomes (Piazza, Fisher, et al.,1997; Piazza, Hanley, et al., 1997).

Data Display and Analysis

Researchers in behavior analysis have longrelied on visual inspection of data for draw-ing conclusions about the effects of experi-mental variables. Visual analysis of data is anattractive tool because it allows researchers(a) to view much of the raw data, (b) todetect interesting changes in behavior (e.g.,extinction bursts), (c) to analyze data on acontinual basis (as opposed to waiting untilall of the data have been collected), and (d)to assess effects of experimental variableswithout relying on inferential statistics

(Hopkins, Cole, & Mason, 1998; Huitema,1986; Michael, 1974). Thus, it is not sur-prising that most functional analysis datahave been depicted in line charts displayingindividual session values (208 studies or75.1%). However, 74 functional analysisstudies (26.7%) reported condition meansonly (in text or bar charts), which is some-what troublesome because it eliminates ac-cess to aspects of the data (changes in level,trend, or stability) that could influence con-clusions about behavioral function.

In contrast to displaying data as whole-session values, some authors have binneddata within smaller time intervals (e.g., 1min) from each session to view more fine-grained trends (Kahng & Iwata, 1999; Voll-mer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, & Mazaleski,1993a, 1993b; Vollmer et al., 1995). It ispossible that differences in responding acrossconditions may go undetected if data arecollapsed as session means (Roane, Lerman,Kelley, & Van Camp, 1999); however, theutility of viewing within-session patterns hasnot been established because the same con-clusions typically can be drawn regardless ofwhether data are portrayed as sessions meansor within-session patterns. A notable excep-tion was reported by Vollmer et al. (1993b),who showed that 1 participant’s SIB, whichwas high and undifferentiated across sixfunctional analysis sessions, revealed extinc-tion effects in the play and alone conditionsand maintenance of SIB in the attentioncondition. These effects were apparent onlywhen within-session data were examined.

STIMULUS PARAMETERS

Researchers typically arrange similar an-tecedent conditions (i.e., low levels of atten-tion, presentation of instructions) and, if in-corporated, similar consequent events (i.e.,attention, escape from instructions) duringthe conditions of a functional analysis. How-ever, some researchers have evaluated specificaspects of these antecedent and consequent


events or have incorporated unusual varia-tions of these events in their functional anal-yses. These methodological variations, cate-gorized as either antecedent or consequentvariables, are described below.

Variations in Antecedent Events

Most of the antecedent events manipulat-ed in functional analyses (e.g., amount ofattention) may best be conceptualized asEOs that influence behavior by altering thereinforcing effectiveness of some conse-quence (Michael, 1982). This is in contrastto SDs, which influence behavior throughtheir correlation with the differential avail-ability of reinforcement. Both can be con-trasted with other descriptive labels for an-tecedent variables (setting events, contextualvariables) that do not specify a particularsource of influence in any response–reinforc-er relation (see Iwata, 1994, and Smith &Iwata, 1997, for discussions). Although pro-cedural labels have often been used in theliterature, antecedent manipulations can bediscussed in the context of particular typesof reinforcement relations (e.g., social-posi-tive, social-negative, automatic). The evoca-tive effects of low levels of attention for at-tention-maintained problem behavior, lowlevels of ambient stimulation for automati-cally reinforced behavior, and the presenta-tion of instructions for escape-maintainedbehavior have been repeatedly demonstratedin the functional analysis literature. How-ever, some authors have suggested strategiesfor either increasing the influence exerted bythese typical antecedent events or demon-strating functional control of qualitativelydifferent antecedent events.

Variations for social-positive reinforcementrelations. Responding in a particular testcondition may be influenced by the extentto which the putative reinforcer is availableprior to the actual test session. Taking ad-vantage of the establishing (and abolishing)effects of functional analysis sessions, Iwata,

Pace, et al. (1994) described a fixed cycle ofcondition presentation (alone, attention,play, demand) that maximized EOs duringassessment. For example, if problem behav-ior were maintained by attention, the alonecondition would provide presession depri-vation from attention, whereas the noncon-tingent attention delivered during the playcondition should eliminate attention depri-vation (or at least minimize carryover fromthe preceding attention session). Presessionvariables other than assessment sessions perse that may exist immediately prior to as-sessment observation also have been dem-onstrated to influence responding duringfunctional analyses (Berg et al., 2000;O’Reilly, 1999; O’Reilly & Carey, 1996).More specifically, O’Reilly showed that levelsof SIB were higher during a contingent at-tention test condition when presession atten-tion was withheld compared to when pre-session attention was available on a richschedule. These results suggest that certaincondition sequences may facilitate rapid re-sponse differentiation, especially during out-patient evaluations in which sessions areconducted with little time between sessions.However, this strategy may exert little influ-ence if extended periods of time expire be-tween sessions, in which case researchersshould consider the establishing effects ofspecific presession variables and programconditions that maximize the effects of as-sessment contingencies.

During the attention test condition inABC functional analyses, the antecedentevent typically involves having the therapistengage in a solitary activity. Mace, Page,Ivancic, and O’Brien (1986) introduced aninteresting variation of the attention condi-tion, referred to as divided attention, inwhich the therapist attends to another per-son in the room, and the utility of this novelarrangement was demonstrated in subse-quent studies (Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson,1998; O’Reilly, Lancioni, King, Lally, &


Dhomhnaill, 2000; J. C. Taylor, Sisson,McKelvey, & Trefelner, 1993). For example,Taylor et al. showed that the functional re-lation between problem behavior and con-tingent attention was dependent on the ther-apist attending to another person by show-ing zero or near-zero rates of problem be-havior during a typical attention conditionand high rates of problem behavior during adivided-attention condition. Other interest-ing antecedent variations that have beenshown to influence responding include ar-ranging for the therapist to leave the roomfollowing the delivery of reinforcement(Vollmer et al., 1998) or situating the clientin particular positions (sitting in a wheel-chair as opposed to sitting on a mat; Adelin-is, Piazza, Fisher, & Hanley, 1997). Al-though these variations and their results mayseem idiosyncratic, they illustrate the generalstrategy described by Smith, Iwata, Goh,and Shore (1995) of assessing antecedent in-fluences by holding a reinforcement contin-gency constant while manipulating the an-tecedent event of interest. These studies alsoshow that the influence of antecedent eventsmay be best understood in the context ofcontingencies and indicate that the influenceof idiosyncratic antecedent events should beconsidered when typical analyses fail to un-cover functional relations.

Variations for social-negative reinforcementrelations. In most tests for social-negative re-inforcement relations, some form of task de-mand is presented as a means of establishingthe reinforcing efficacy of escape and, con-sequently, of evoking escape-maintainedproblem behavior. The identification of idi-osyncratic antecedent events (i.e., task diffi-culty, lack of choice among tasks, curricularinfluences, social interaction) has beenprominent in studies employing an AB func-tional analysis model (e.g., DePaepe et al.,1996; Dunlap, Kern-Dunlap, Clarke, &Robbins, 1991; E. G. Durand & Carr,1991; Kennedy, 1994; Kennedy & Itkonen,

1993; Lee, Sugai, & Horner, 1999; J. T.Taylor, Ekdahl, Romanczyk, & Miller, 1994;Vaughn & Horner, 1997; Weeks & Gay-lord-Ross, 1981); however, the functionalbasis for these influences has been difficultto specify in the absence of reinforcementcontingencies (Smith & Iwata, 1997).

By contrast, Smith et al. (1995) evaluatedEOs in the presence of an escape contingen-cy for problem behavior and showed thatseveral aspects of the demand situation (tasknovelty, duration of instructional session,and rate of task presentation) altered the ef-fects of negative reinforcement in differentways across individuals. The strategy ofmaintaining a negative reinforcement con-tingency while manipulating aspects of theantecedent condition to identify idiosyncrat-ic EOs was used in several studies in whichotitis media (O’Reilly, 1997), sleep depri-vation (O’Reilly, 1995), amount of attentionor instruction during prior classroom con-ditions (O’Reilly & Carey, 1996), or variousinstructional procedures (McComas, Hoch,Paone, & El-Roy, 2000) were shown to af-fect levels of problem behavior in demandconditions. Collectively, these studies are ex-emplary in demonstrating the effects of an-tecedent events (temporally proximate ordistant) on the occurrence of negatively re-inforced problem behavior.

Although task instructions are typicallyprogrammed in tests for negatively rein-forced problem behavior, researchers havedemonstrated the evocative effects of othertypes of EOs such as medical examinations(Iwata, Pace, Kalsher, Cowdery, & Cataldo,1990), noise or other auditory stimulation(Derby et al., 1994; O’Reilly, 1997; Smithet al., 1995), and social interaction (Frea &Hughes, 1997; Vollmer et al., 1998). Con-tinued improvements in the assessment andtreatment of negatively reinforced problembehavior may be realized by additional re-search that documents the influence of (a)different classes of EOs (e.g., loud noises),


(b) temporally proximate events that occurwithin demand conditions (e.g., pace of in-struction), and (c) temporally distant events(e.g., illness) that culminate in establishingthe value of escape.

Variations for automatic reinforcement re-lations. The influence of antecedent eventson problem behavior maintained by auto-matic reinforcement (beyond those typicallymanipulated, such as low levels of ambientstimulation during the alone condition) hasnot often been examined in the functionalanalysis literature. Several studies (e.g., Fish-er, Lindauer, Alterson, & Thompson, 1998;Goh et al., 1995; Piazza, Adelinis, Hanley,Goh, & Delia, 2000) have shown that accessto certain leisure materials may competewith the stimulation produced by problembehavior, thereby diminishing its reinforcingeffects. Manipulations of this sort are typi-cally involved in functional analyses. For in-stance, a variety of toys are included in thecontrol (i.e., play) and the attention condi-tions but typically are absent in the test con-dition for automatic reinforcement. Al-though antecedent events are not typicallyaltered prior to or during test conditions forautomatically reinforced problem behaviors,Van Camp et al. (2000) showed that unusualantecedent events (a specific toy, social in-teraction) evoked 2 children’s stereotypic be-havior that persisted in the absence of socialcontingencies.

O’Reilly (1996) described another notableexception in which an individual’s SIB didnot occur during a functional analysis for 35out of 40 days; however, SIB persisted acrossall conditions (including an alone condition)during the 5 days that were preceded bynights spent at a respite care facility. Theeffect of spending a night at the respite fa-cility was then systematically manipulated,and the results showed that high rates of SIBwere observed only following nights at therespite facility (as opposed to nights spent athome). This study is exemplary in that it

illustrates a method for assessing the influ-ence of temporally distant antecedent eventson the occurrence of behavior (in this case,automatically reinforced SIB) during func-tional analyses. Caution should be taken (asO’Reilly suggested) in concluding that re-spite care was an EO for this individual’sbehavior because, although respite care andthe occurrence of SIB were correlated, thefunctional relation was unknown. The nextstep to be taken in such analyses is to iden-tify the critical events that are correlatedwith respite care (deprivation from stimula-tion in this case?) that may have greaterfunctional significance to the maintenance ofSIB. From these extended analyses, treat-ments of greater scope and effectiveness maybe derived.

Variations in Consequent Events

Consequence manipulations in functionalanalysis research are organized and discussedaccording to their properties of quality, type,duration, and schedule.

Quality or type. The qualitative aspects ofattention, delivered as positive reinforce-ment, often are described only briefly: Re-searchers typically note that reprimands(e.g., ‘‘don’t do that, you might hurt your-self ’’) and brief physical contact such as apat on the back or a touch to the shoulderare provided by adults on a contingent basis.However, several studies have shown that thesource of attention may be an important fac-tor. For instance, the problem behavior ofsome students has been shown to be sensi-tive to attention provided by peers but notby adults (Broussard & Northup, 1997;Lewis & Sugai, 1996; Northup et al., 1995,1997). Although the critical variables re-sponsible for observed differences were pre-sumably qualitative (e.g., form or intensityof attention) or historical (e.g., children mayhave customarily attended to the problembehavior of the participants), these factorswere not directly evaluated and therefore


represent an interesting area of future re-search.

Fisher, Ninness, Piazza, and Owen-De-Schryver (1996) published the initial studyshowing some forms of attention (repri-mands) functioned as reinforcement forproblem behavior, whereas others (state-ments unrelated to the problem behavior)did not. Richman and Hagopian (1999) andPiazza et al. (1999) also demonstrated im-portant qualitative differences in the rein-forcing effectiveness of attention. Initialfunctional analyses in the Richman and Ha-gopian study showed undifferentiated pat-terns of responding. Parental interview andinformal observation suggested that the formof the attention used in the initial analyses(i.e., verbal reprimands) was different thanthat provided by caregivers who either deliv-ered exaggerated vocal (high level of voiceintonation and dramatic description of theproblem behavior) or physical attention (be-ing picked up and held) following problembehaviors. Incorporation of these idiosyn-cratic types of attention into subsequentfunctional analyses yielded differentiated re-sults.

Tests for behavioral maintenance by atten-tion as well as by food, toys, and particularactivities have been demonstrated oftenwithin functional analyses (e.g., Durand &Crimmins, 1988; Vollmer et al., 1995). Aunique form of social-positive reinforcementthat has been shown to support SIB is thatof restraint. Smith, Lerman, and Iwata(1996) showed that access to self-restraint(self-initiated confinement) functioned as re-inforcement for SIB in a woman with pro-found mental retardation, and Vollmer andVorndran (1998) replicated these findings.Although SIB and self-restraint may be re-lated in several different ways (see Fisher &Iwata, 1996), these studies demonstrate thatidiosyncratic and mundane materials (e.g.,particular clothing types) may serve as pos-itive reinforcers for severe problem behavior.

It may be difficult to determine behavior-al function if the reinforcing value of eventspresented during assessment varies acrosstime. An example of this phenomenon wasdescribed by Bowman, Fisher, Thompson,and Piazza (1997), whose initial functionalanalyses yielded unclear results for 2 partic-ipants. Informal observations suggested thatproblem behavior was occasioned by paren-tal noncompliance with each child’s mands(i.e., when the parent did not deliver or re-move something the child had requested, thechild engaged in problem behavior). Duringassessment, problem behavior was observedat its highest rates when the therapist com-plied with the child’s mands following oc-currences of problem behavior. Subsequentanalyses showed that when mands were im-mediately reinforced, zero or near-zero ratesof problem behavior occurred. Two thingswere unique about the relations described byBowman et al. First, problem behavior didnot appear to be maintained by access to anyone particular type of reinforcement. Sec-ond, the event that evoked problem behaviorwas specified by the participant prior to itsoccurrence (via manding). The generality ofthis relation between mands and multiple re-inforcement contingencies for problem be-havior has yet to be determined, but thestrategy described by Bowman et al. couldbe a promising way to identify variables thatinfluence problem behaviors exhibited bypersons with verbal repertoires. A second ex-ample of problem behavior that appeared tobe motivated by different events across timewas described by Fisher, Adelinis, Thomp-son, Worsdell, and Zarcone (1998). Follow-ing initial undifferentiated functional analy-ses, several subsequent analyses showed thatproblem behavior was evoked by instruc-tions to engage in behavior that interferedwith an individual’s current ongoing activity,and that problem behavior was maintainedby resumption of that activity. These resultssuggest that, although instructions may


evoke problem behavior, it is possible thatthe target response could be maintained bypositive reinforcement (resumption of a pre-ferred activity) rather than by negative re-inforcement (termination of an aversiveevent).

By contrast, Adelinis and Hagopian(1999) found that the type of instructionthat interrupted the preferred activity (‘‘do’’vs. ‘‘don’t’’ requests) was influential in evok-ing problem behavior. Specifically, theyfound that ‘‘don’t’’ requests that interruptedan activity (e.g., ‘‘don’t lie on the floor’’)evoked problem behavior, whereas symmet-rical ‘‘do’’ requests (e.g., ‘‘sit in a chair’’) didnot. These results suggest that the form ofthe instruction, in addition to the context inwhich it is delivered, may contribute to thecontrol of problem behavior for some indi-viduals. Additional studies in this area mayhelp to clarify the respective roles of partic-ular forms of instructions and the type ofrelations involved. Nevertheless, these stud-ies provide sound experimental evidence ofcomplex behavior relations that, once dis-covered, lead to effective interventions.

Duration. Consequences used in function-al analysis conditions are typically deliveredbriefly, which permits repeated contact be-tween problem behavior and the pro-grammed contingency within a session. Al-though the duration of reinforcement hasvaried across conditions within a study andwithin the same condition across studies, at-tention typically is delivered for 5 to 10 s,tangible items are delivered for 30 s, andescape is provided for either 30 s or the re-mainder the intertrial interval (ranging from1 to 29 s).

The influence of reinforcer (and relatedEO) duration on the outcomes of functionalanalyses was examined by Fisher, Piazza, andChiang (1996) in an ABAB design. Duringthe first and third phases, which typifiedmost ABC multielement functional analyses,the relative durations of reinforcement were

unequal across the tests for attention, tan-gible, and escape conditions, with attentiondelivery being brief and tangible and escapeconsequences lasting for 30 s. Durations ofreinforcement were equal (escape, tangible,and attention consequences were all 30 s) inthe second and fourth phases. Rates of prob-lem behavior were higher in the three testconditions relative to the play (control) con-dition in all phases. However, markedlyhigher rates of responding were observed inthe attention condition when relative rein-forcer durations were unequal, whereas sim-ilar levels of responding across the three testconditions were observed when reinforcerdurations were equal. These data suggestthat the relative duration of reinforcement(and related EOs) should be consideredwhen designing or interpreting functionalanalyses. In other words, responding washigher in the attention condition of the typ-ical functional analysis, not because atten-tion was a more potent reinforcer or thatproblem behavior was primarily sensitive toattention as reinforcement, but, rather, be-cause there was simply more opportunity torespond under relevant deprivation (i.e., ab-sence of the reinforcing event). One maywish to equate reinforcement duration (andthe length of exposure to the EOs) duringfunctional analyses to avoid interpretativedifficulties. Alternatively, it may be best (a)to include a condition that controls for theeffects of the contingencies in the test con-ditions and (b) always to compare rates ofproblem behavior in each test condition tothat of the control (as opposed to rates ofresponding in other test conditions) whendetermining behavioral function.

Schedule. Most studies arrange conse-quences on a continuous reinforcement(CRF) schedule during functional analysessuch that each occurrence of problem be-havior results in a programmed reinforcer(216 of the 241 studies [89.6%] employingan ABC model incorporated CRF schedules


Table 5Functional Analysis Outcome Summary

TopographyUndifferen-

tiatedDifferen-

tiated Escape Attention Tangible Automatic Multiple

Self-injuryAggressionProperty destructionPicaDisruptionVocalizationsNoncomplianceElopementStereotypyTantrumsOtherAberrant

Total numberPercentage of sample

1320001001005

224.1

22250

26

1614

83

306

13144

51495.9

6524

00

11610624

57

17634.2

599013320015

47

13025.3

286201110010

12

5210.1

551031000

19011

8115.8

1510020443523

27

7514.6

in the analysis). Intermittent schedules wereused in 10 studies (4.1%), and the type ofschedule was not clear in 15 studies. Studiesthat incorporated intermittent schedules(e.g., Kern, Carberry, & Haidara, 1997; Lal-li & Casey, 1996; Mace et al., 1986; Paisey,Whitney, & Hislop, 1991; Sturmey, Carlsen,Crisp, & Newton, 1988) typically based theschedule on data generated from a descrip-tive assessment in which a caregiver was ob-served to deliver the putative reinforcers in-termittently. The ecological validity of thefunctional analysis may be enhancedthrough such an approach, and the potentialof problem behavior entering into novel re-sponse–reinforcer relations may be decreasedwith the use of leaner schedules. However,the use of intermittent schedules in func-tional analyses may pose certain problems:(a) Lengthy descriptive assessments would berequired to identify the parameters of theintermittent schedule. (b) Intermittentschedules, although derived from descriptiveassessment, do not represent the actualschedule that generated or maintains theproblem behavior outside the environmentin which specific interactions were observed.(c) Problem behavior may not contact the

reinforcing contingency on a sufficient num-ber of occasions early in the functional anal-ysis and thus may necessitate more lengthyanalyses. (d) Higher rates or intense burstsof behavior may be engendered by intermit-tent reinforcement relative to a CRF sched-ule. A direct comparison of the types of per-formances and outcomes generated by CRFand intermittent schedules in functionalanalyses is an interesting and necessary fu-ture area of research.

SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONAL

ANALYSIS OUTCOMES

Through 2000, 536 graphed individualdata sets (with at least one data point perobservation session) have been published de-picting the results of functional analyses (seeTable 5). The majority of these graphs (514or 95.9%) were interpreted by their authorsas representing differentiated outcomes.Large proportions of differentiated function-al analyses showed behavioral maintenancethrough social-negative (34.2%) and social-positive reinforcement (35.4%). More spe-cifically, 25.3% showed maintenance via at-tention and 10.1% via access to tangibleitems. Automatic reinforcement was impli-


cated in 15.8% of cases. Finally, multiple re-inforcement contingencies were identified in14.6% of cases. A small proportion of cases(4.1%) were interpreted as undifferentiatedby their authors.

Conclusions regarding the multiple con-trol of aberrant behavior are somewhat trou-blesome given that the aberrant behaviorcategory is comprised of multiple responsetopographies. Therefore, the data beg thequestion as to whether each topography ofproblem behavior was sensitive to multiplereinforcers or whether different behavioraltopographies served single (but different)behavioral functions. The studies in whichone response topography was analyzed mayprovide a more accurate estimate of the prev-alence of multiply controlled behavior. Inaddition, more analyses such as those con-ducted by Smith, Iwata, Vollmer, and Zar-cone (1993), in which different function-based treatments are assessed as a means ofsupporting conclusions of multiple control,may provide more rigorous demonstrationsof multiply controlled behavioral phenome-na.

As evident in the epidemiological studyconducted by Iwata, Pace, et al. (1994) andthe present analysis, the function of SIBvaries across individuals and necessitates in-dividualized assessment. Other topographiesshow trends that may suggest a particularfunction for a given topography of problembehavior. For instance, an overwhelmingmajority of functional analyses identified es-cape as the reinforcer for aggression and au-tomatic reinforcement as supporting stereo-typy. However, there have been exceptionsto the predominant function for both to-pographies, and a relatively small number offunctional analyses have been conducted ex-clusively for each topography. Even consid-ering the trends in the summary of functionacross topography, it appears that behavioralfunction and topography remain indepen-

dent, such that function cannot be predictedby the topography of problem behavior.

Less than 5% of the studies have includedundifferentiated functional analysis resultssuch that an assessment-based course oftreatment could not be identified. Giventhat publication contingencies generally fa-vor positive findings, this low percentage ofundifferentiated results may not be represen-tative of the actual failure rate in clinical set-tings. Although publication of only assess-ment failures is rare, many studies includedin the present review described initially un-clear results that were clarified by one of sev-eral strategies: (a) inclusion of idiosyncraticantecedent and consequent variables duringsubsequent functional analyses (Bowman etal., 1997; Fisher, Lindauer, Alterson, &Thompson, 1998; Thompson, Fisher, Piaz-za, & Kuhn, 1998), (b) altering the experi-mental design (e.g., Iwata, Duncan, Zarco-ne, Lerman, & Shore, 1994; Piazza, Fisher,et al., 1997) or aspects of the experimentalarrangement (Conners et al., 2000) to facil-itate discrimination across conditions, or (c)including assessments of the efficacy of theputative reinforcers for problem behavior tostrengthen alternative behaviors (e.g., Steege,Wacker, Berg, Cigrand, & Cooper, 1989).In addition, Vollmer et al. (1995) describeda methodology that progressed from rela-tively brief assessments to more extendedanalyses that resulted in clear and replicableresponse patterns for 85% of participants.

DISCUSSION

In considering historical and current func-tional analysis research, two final areas ofdiscussion seem warranted: (a) experimentalintegrity and (b) the ecological validity offunctional analysis. The importance of spe-cific issues related to these broad topics willbe presented, as will future directions for re-search and suggestions for best practices.


EXPERIMENTAL INTEGRITY

Functional Analysis Models

Both general models of functional analysisattempt to identify behavioral function so asto facilitate development of an effective,function-based treatment; however, the ABCmodel provides a more rigorous demonstra-tion of causation. The AB model is consid-ered a functional analysis in that a functionalrelation is demonstrated between an envi-ronmental event and problem behavior, andfrom this, situations in which problem be-havior is more likely are clearly identified.However, because putative reinforcers arenot manipulated in the AB analysis, thesource of reinforcement for problem behav-ior must be inferred on the basis of the cor-relation between behavior and the anteced-ent conditions under which a contingency islikely to operate.

However, patterns of responding observedin AB analyses may sometimes lead to er-roneous conclusions about behavioral func-tion. For example, demands may occasionproblem behavior not because they establishescape as negative reinforcement but becausethe prompting may signal that attention(positive reinforcement) is available forproblem behavior (Vollmer, Iwata, Smith, &Rodgers, 1992). Alternatively, high levels ofproblem behavior observed when low levelsof antecedent attention are arranged may beindicative of an attention function or mayreflect the evocative effects of a relativelybarren environment on automatically rein-forced behavior. However, it should be notedthat this could also be a limitation of ABCassessments when the quality of attentiondelivered contingent on problem behaviordoes not compete effectively with the puta-tive automatic reinforcer.

Because AB assessments do not arrangesocial reinforcement for problem behavior, itis somewhat counterintuitive that target be-haviors (other than those maintained by au-

tomatic reinforcement) would persist inthese assessments. One possible explanationis that observed rates of problem behaviormay simply reflect an early stage of extinc-tion (i.e., elevated rates of responding). Be-cause the majority of studies employing theAB model also conduct few observations percondition in a reversal design, the latter stageof the extinction process (i.e., near-zero ratesof responding) may not be readily apparentin the data. An alternative possibility is thatAB assessments involve responding duringextinction that culminates in reinforcement(e.g., problem behavior may be followed byattention that is provided in every third in-terval) and therefore the problem behavior ismaintained even though reinforcement isnot programmed for problem behavior. Inessence, the processes responsible for behav-ioral persistence during the AB functionalanalysis model may be related to by-prod-ucts of extinction processes (Goh & Iwata,1994) or adventitious reinforcement (Voll-mer, Ringdahl, Roane, & Marcus, 1997).

By contrast, the ABC model of functionalanalysis involves a strong contingency be-tween problem behavior and putative rein-forcers (typically, every response results inthe programmed consequence of a givencondition) in the presence of strong EOs(putative reinforcement is available only fol-lowing the emission of problem behavior).Whereas AB assessments rely on inference,probabilistic contingencies, or indirect ef-fects of extinction in determining behavioralfunction, an ABC model demonstrates func-tional relations between antecedent eventsand behavior (e.g., low levels of antecedentattention are associated with high levels ofproblem behavior) as well as the adaptivefunction of problem behavior (e.g., the levelof problem behavior is high when and onlywhen attention is arranged as a conse-quence).

Given the apparent advantages of con-ducting ABC analyses, it is difficult to de-


termine why AB analyses continue to beconducted as a method for assessing behav-ioral function. It cannot be because AB anal-yses are more efficient—the delivery of con-sequences takes hardly any time. It may beargued that ABC analyses are less attractivebecause they contain explicit reinforcementcontingencies for problem behavior (i.e., in-creased risk to the client), whereas AB anal-yses do not. However, both assessments aredesigned to produce occurrences of problembehavior; therefore, both assessments placethe client at a similar risk of harm from en-gaging in problem behavior.

Finally, some authors (e.g., Martin, Gaf-fan, & Williams, 1999; Sturmey, 1995) havesuggested that arranging explicit contingen-cies may result in new learning during as-sessment. However, the contingent eventsmanipulated in functional analyses are eithermundane events (e.g., attention or escape)that are typically delivered for problem be-haviors (Thompson & Iwata, 2001) or arederived from clinical interview or observa-tion (Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998), sothe likelihood of establishing new response–reinforcer relations seems low. Incidentalmaintenance of problem behavior has beenobserved rarely during a functional analysisand only when highly preferred tangibleitems were presented following problem be-havior in the absence of information sug-gesting that a contingency may have existed(Shirley, Iwata, & Kahng, 1999). But, thisfinding underscores the importance of clin-ical interview or observation prior to arrang-ing contingencies between problem behaviorand atypical and potentially potent tangiblereinforcers during functional analyses. In ad-dition, identifying new contingencies thatsupport problem behavior is not necessarilyunimportant. It may lead to measures thatprevent the development of new reinforce-ment contingencies in the natural environ-ment (i.e., redirection to preferred itemsmay be strongly discouraged). In sum, ABC

analyses do not appear to be associated withgreater risk or less efficiency than do ABanalyses. Moreover, given the greater preci-sion of the ABC analysis, the best practicerecommendation is to include the manipu-lation of consequences in functional analy-ses.

Number of Topographies in theContingency Class

When several topographies of problembehavior are included in the same functionalanalysis, interpretation based on examina-tion of aggregate data may obscure impor-tant findings. For instance, Derby et al.(1994, 2000) showed that different forms ofproblem behavior (e.g., aggression and ste-reotypy) appeared to have different functionswhen graphed separately. A more rigorousstrategy for determining if multiple topog-raphies belong to the same response class(i.e., are maintained by the same reinforce-ment) is to arrange extinction contingenciesfor the predominant responses and then toobserve reinforcement effects in the remain-ing responses (e.g., Lalli, Mace, Wohn, &Livezey, 1995; Richman, Wacker, Asmus,Casey, & Andelman, 1999). Magee and Ellis(2000) arranged contingencies for multipletopographies of behavior (out of seat, yell-ing, inappropriate language, and destructionfor 1 participant; object mouthing, destruc-tive and aggressive behavior for a 2nd par-ticipant), and only one of the topographieswas observed consistently in a single testcondition for each participant. The authorsthen implemented extinction for the mostfrequent response and observed a decrease inthose responses and increases in other re-sponses. This procedure was continuedacross the remaining topographies, and sim-ilar effects were observed, thereby demon-strating functional relations for each distincttopography.

If additional graphing solutions (e.g.,Derby et al., 1994, 2000) or extinction as-


sessments (Magee & Ellis, 2000) are not em-ployed, some functional relations may gounnoticed when multiple topographies ofbehavior are included in the same contin-gency class. In such cases, separate analysesfor single topographies may increase the like-lihood of developing effective treatments(see Thompson et al., 1998, for an exampleof this phenomenon). Practical consider-ations are probably the strongest justificationfor including more than one topography ina functional analysis. This approach may notbe deleterious if the multiple topographiesof behavior do indeed serve the same func-tion; however, this cannot be known priorto conducting a functional analysis. In ad-dition, as the number of different topogra-phies of behavior included in the contingen-cy class increases, so does the likelihood thatsome target behaviors will serve differentfunctions (resulting in an undifferentiatedassessment outcome). From this, the rec-ommendation for best practice is to mini-mize the number of different topographiesof problem behavior included in a singlefunctional analysis. If multiple topographiesare included in the analysis, then each to-pographical class of behavior should be sub-jected to extinction or separate topographiesof behavior should be graphically analyzedto verify membership in the reinforced class.

Parameters of Control Conditions

A distinguishing feature of applied behav-ior analysis is its emphasis on single-subjectexperimental designs, in which each partic-ipant serves as his or her own control in eval-uating the effects of independent variables.Control conditions are based on the generalstrategy of retaining all features of the ex-perimental condition with the exception ofthe contingency of interest (Barlow & Her-sen, 1984; Rescorla, 1967). All of the func-tional analysis studies included some type ofcontrol condition; however, the specific type

and rigor of some of the control conditionsvaried.

Although the play condition described byIwata et al. (1982/1994) has functioned asan effective control condition for the major-ity of functional analyses, several variationshave been described. The first involves themanner in which attention is delivered: (a)according to a fixed-time 30-s schedule, (b)in conjunction with a brief omission contin-gency, or (c) continuously available. Thesearrangements differ in the extent to whichthe EO or contingency involving attentionis removed. The second variation involvesthe type of leisure materials provided. Moststudies do not specify the manner in whichitems were selected for inclusion, but severalstrategies are available: (a) Toys are selectedthat are thought to be sufficiently stimulat-ing to compete with automatically rein-forced behavior, (b) the most highly pre-ferred items based on a systematic preferenceassessment are selected, (c) toys are selectedfrom those that caregivers report can befound in the natural environment, or, if atest for behavioral sensitivity to tangible re-inforcement is arranged, (d) the same itemsas used in the tangible test condition are se-lected. To date, no systematic evaluation ofthese strategies has been undertaken, yet thisis an important area of future research be-cause without effective control conditions,determination of behavioral function is un-likely.

In contrast to the various ways of con-trolling for the effects of positive reinforce-ment during functional analyses, the effectsof negative reinforcement are typically con-trolled by providing continuous escape (i.e.,absence of instructions) in the play condi-tion. However, Kahng and Iwata (1998) sug-gested that the alone condition might be abetter control for the evaluation of negativereinforcement on problem behavior (thatdoes not require the presence of another per-son), because the SD (a person who may


have a history of delivering instructions) aswell as the EO (instructions) and contingen-cy (escape following problem behavior) areabsent from the alone condition. The au-thors provided supporting data, in thatgreater differences between alone and de-mand conditions were observed for mostparticipants relative to the differences ob-served between play and demand conditions.

A strength of the control conditions(whether play or alone) in ABC functionalanalyses is the efficiency with which infor-mation regarding behavioral function can beobtained—multiple sources of influence canbe assessed through comparison with a singlecondition. In addition, large discrepanciesbetween test and control conditions are ar-ranged (i.e., strong contingencies and EOsare present in the test conditions, whereasthese same events are typically absent fromthe control condition), which presumablyresult in more rapid differentiation betweenrates of problem behavior across test andcontrol conditions. However, these same as-pects may compromise the experimental in-tegrity of the analysis in that multiple fea-tures of the environment are altered acrosstest and control conditions (i.e., specifica-tion of the primary sources of behavioral in-fluence may be difficult given the multipledifferences between test and control condi-tions). The extent to which this may be aproblem has not been clearly demonstrated.Nevertheless, examples of analyses that ex-clusively controlled for a contingency ar-ranged in test conditions were provided byFisher, Kuhn, and Thompson (1998), Siga-foos and Meikle (1996), and Sigafoos andSaggers (1995); these authors arranged forthe reinforcer used as a consequence in thetest condition to be available continuouslyand noncontingently in the control condi-tion while all other features of the environ-ment remained unchanged across test andcontrol conditions. Future research could bedirected towards evaluating the relative mer-

its and limitations of using a single controlcondition to assess the effects of several testconditions versus arranging a specific controlcondition (with only one altered variable)for each test condition. Best practice rec-ommendations regarding the selection ofcontrol conditions are highly dependent ontime constraints. If efficiency is required, de-signing a single control condition that pro-vides high levels of noncontingent access toall reinforcers to be tested while eliminatingthe contingency between reinforcers andproblem behavior is recommended. If thesituation calls for the most thorough analy-sis, designing individual control conditionsmatched to each test condition is recom-mended.

Tests for Automatic Reinforcement

Slightly more than 40% of the functionalanalysis studies did not include a test for be-havioral persistence in the absence of socialcontingencies. Unfortunately, the omissionof conditions controlling for the effect of so-cial events may lead to erroneous conclu-sions about behavioral function. For exam-ple, high rates of behavior observed in a con-dition in which low levels of attention arescheduled may reflect the effects of depri-vation from attention (social reinforcement);alternatively, the behavior could be auto-matically reinforced and observed only un-der conditions of low stimulation (Daven-port & Berkson, 1963).

The type of problem behavior examined(e.g., aggression) in many studies may implymaintenance through social reinforcement,suggesting that a test for automatic rein-forcement may not be warranted. This alsomay be problematic. For example, Thomp-son et al. (1998) showed that some forms ofa young boy’s aggression (e.g., hitting, kick-ing) were socially mediated; whereas another(chin grinding) was automatically reinforcedby the stimulation directly produced by theresponse. The authors provided further sup-


port for these conclusions by demonstratingthe effectiveness of separate treatmentsmatched to the specific function of eachform of aggression.

Although the test for automatically rein-forced problem behavior typically consists ofobserving the persistence of responding in acondition in which the individual is alone,some authors have used an ignore conditionin which a person is present but does notprovide social consequences for responding.This modification is included in analyses be-cause some behavior cannot occur in the ab-sence of another person (e.g., aggression),particularly intense SIB may require block-ing if it exceeds a particular frequency, or theassessment environment does not allow un-obtrusive observation. A potential problemwith the ignore condition as a test for au-tomatically reinforced behavior is that an SD

for socially mediated behavior is present. Be-cause social reinforcement is not deliveredfollowing occurrences of problem behaviorduring ignore conditions, socially mediatedproblem behavior should be extinguished.However, Hanley, Piazza, Fisher, and Adelin-is (1997) showed that the presence of an-other person might exert powerful stimuluscontrol over responding to the extent thattheir participant’s attention-maintainedproblem behavior persisted under extinction(when the person was present) for 50 con-secutive sessions (problem behavior was rap-idly extinguished in the absence of the per-son). These data suggest that elevated re-sponse rates across all assessment conditions(suggestive of automatically maintained re-sponding or of undifferentiated responding)may be under the discriminative control ofthe presence of a person. Conducting truealone sessions in which the SD (a person) forsocial reinforcement is absent or creatingnovel discriminative control by correlatingconditions with different cues (Conners etal., 2000) may help to clarify undifferenti-ated analyses that result from control exerted

by stimuli common across assessment con-ditions (e.g., people).

Because interventions for problem behav-iors maintained by either social or automaticreinforcement involve the manipulation ofvery different contingencies and environ-mental events, it is important to be able todistinguish between the two types of main-taining contingencies. Therefore, it is rec-ommended that functional analyses includetests for automatic reinforcement that min-imize all features of the environment thatmay occasion socially mediated responding.Consistent with strategies described by Gohet al. (1995) and Piazza et al. (1998), futureresearch should proceed beyond demonstrat-ing behavioral persistence in the absence ofsocial consequences and continue analyses toidentify the specific features of the environ-ment that serve to maintain automaticallyreinforced problem behavior.

Alternative Methods of Data Analysis

Interpretation of results from functionalanalyses typically is done through visual in-spection of graphed data, a process that issomewhat informal. Several authors havesuggested using either explicit, structuredcriteria during visual inspection (Hagopianet al., 1997; Toogood & Timlin, 1996) ormore formal statistical analysis of the data(Martin et al., 1999). Hagopian et al. de-veloped a set of formal criteria for visual in-spection of multielement functional analysisdata based on consensus by experts, whichresulted in higher interrater agreement thanthat resulting from unstructured visual in-spection. These results suggested that (a) de-terminations of behavioral function may beless reliable than generally assumed, (b) rulesused by experts to determine behavioralfunction can be operationalized, and (c) in-dividuals with a limited history of interpret-ing functional analysis data can be trainedto apply these rules to improve accuracy andconsistency. A strength of the interpretative


strategy described by Hagopian et al. is thatit established a consistent basis for evaluatingcomplex data arrays (e.g., the relation be-tween trends and levels of responding in par-ticular test and control conditions) that typ-ically requires a more extensive history withfunctional analysis data.

Martin et al. (1999) compared a modifiedversion of the structured criteria describedby Hagopian et al. (1997; 50% or more ses-sions in the highest condition had to be 1SD above the mean rates in the control con-dition for a determination of behavioralfunction) with another set of criteria pro-posed by Toogood and Timlin (1996; 50%or more sessions in the highest conditionhad to be at least 50% higher than the over-all assessment mean to ascribe behavioralfunction) and with a probability-based sta-tistical procedure (modified z score) for in-terpreting functional analysis results. Theauthors found generally low agreementacross the three interpretive strategies. Theyalso evaluated the validity of each strategyby examining the number of assessments forwhich each interpretive strategy yielded a be-havioral function, and found that the prob-ability-based procedure resulted in the larg-est number of identified functions. However,the fact that an analytic strategy yields a de-termination of behavior function does notimply that it would be the basis for effectivetherapeutic action because the behavioralfunctions identified via the probability-basedstatistical procedure may have representedfalse-positive outcomes.

This same difficulty is present in otherstudies that compared outcomes of variousfunctional assessments (indirect assessments,descriptive or functional analyses) by com-paring the number of assessments for whicha determination of behavioral function wasachieved (e.g., Toogood & Timlin, 1996). Inother words, simply guessing will alwaysyield a behavioral function. The main diffi-culty in determining which method of data

analysis (or which functional assessmentstrategy) is more accurate is that there is nouniversal standard for comparison. Compar-ing the efficacy of different courses of action(e.g., treatments) suggested by either differ-ent interpretative methods or different typesof assessment may be helpful on a practicallevel, but this would not directly address theissue of accuracy. Although an apparent needfor more studies on the interrater agreementand accuracy of visual inspection or statisti-cal strategies for interpreting functional anal-ysis data is suggested by the Hagopian et al.(1997), Martin et al. (1999), and Toogoodand Timlin (1996) studies, an alternativeline of research might attempt to identify thehistorical and methodological variables thatgive rise to ‘‘noisy’’ and difficult-to-interpretfunctional analysis outcomes, thereby reduc-ing the need for more subtle (statistical) in-terpretive strategies. That is, tighter controlover influential variables would lead to moreeasily interpretable, differentiated functionalanalyses. Therefore, a best practice recom-mendation is to continue to refine and in-dividualize the various components of func-tional analysis methodology until a clear (vi-sual) determination of behavioral functioncan be made.

ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

Assessment Settings and Therapists

Although the settings in which functionalanalyses are conducted may vary (e.g.,school, hospital, etc.), most are conductedunder well-controlled conditions that maynot closely resemble the settings in whichthe problem behavior of interest typically oc-curs. For example, a functional analysis inthe school may be conducted in the cornerof the classroom away from the other stu-dents (e.g., J. Taylor & Miller, 1997). Thus,functional analyses usually are conducted insettings that are neutral with respect to be-havioral history. The advantage of arranging


controlled conditions away from the naturalenvironment is that changes in rates of be-havior across conditions can be attributed tothe variables explicitly manipulated by theexperimenter; thus, conclusions regardingbehavioral function can be derived with con-fidence.

Nevertheless, several authors have ques-tioned the ecological validity of functionalanalysis methodology based on the fact thatassessment takes place outside the naturalenvironment (these authors typically refer tofunctional analyses as analogue assessments),therefore rendering conclusions about thefunction of behavior somewhat questionable(e.g., Conroy, Fox, Crain, Jenkins, & Bel-cher, 1996; Martin et al., 1999; Sturmey,1995). Ecological validity is used here to in-dicate the extent to which functional rela-tions tested in the analysis are consistentwith those that operate in the natural envi-ronment. In other words, the functionalanalysis may identify a response–reinforcerrelation that is not necessarily the same asthe one that maintains problem behavior ei-ther at home or at school. Several researchershave seemingly circumvented this issue by(a) conducting sessions during a child’s typ-ical routine in the home (e.g., Arndorfer etal., 1994; H. M. Day et al., 1994; Ellingsonet al., 2000), (b) embedding sessions in achild’s normal mealtime routine (Paisey etal., 1991), or (c) conducting sessions duringtypical classroom activities (e.g., Lalli, Brow-der, Mace, & Brown, 1993; Northup et al.,1995, 1997; Sasso et al., 1992; Umbreit,1995a, 1995b).

An interesting approach to conductingfunctional analyses under naturalistic condi-tions was described by Sigafoos and Saggers(1995), who assessed the effects of contingentattention, tangible items, or escape from task-related instructions during 20 2-min trialsdistributed at various times across the child’sschool day. Each trial consisted of two parts.In the first minute, the reinforcer was avail-

able only following aggression; in the secondminute, the same reinforcer was availablecontinuously. Using these brief and intermit-tent test-control trials, the authors observeddifferential responding for both participants.This approach was replicated (Sigafoos &Meikle, 1996) with 2 boys with autism whoengaged in multiple problem behaviors, andsuccessful function-based treatments wereagain prescribed. Just as the brief functionalanalysis (Northup et al., 1991) serves as apractical and effective substitute when morethorough analyses cannot be conducted, theapproach described by Sigafoos and col-leagues may be an attractive option for en-hancing the ecological validity of behavioralassessment. Strategies such as these may leadto an understanding of the natural conditionsunder which problem behaviors occur morereadily than indirect or descriptive assessmentmethods, which omit methodological re-quirements (e.g., direct observation and ma-nipulation) for isolating behavioral phenom-ena. However, a potential limitation of thisapproach is that the complex nature of nat-urally occurring events may compromise pro-cedural integrity (i.e., lack of control over thetype, quality, schedule, and duration of theprogrammed consequences). This may leadto extended assessment durations or may pro-hibit entirely the accurate identification ofspecific variables that influence problem be-havior.

Another strategy for increasing the eco-logical validity of functional analyses in-volves incorporating into assessment sessionsindividuals who have a previous history ofinteraction with the person exhibiting prob-lem behavior, such as parents or other familymembers (e.g., Reimers et al., 1993; Um-breit, 1996; Vollmer et al., 1996), teachers(e.g., Mace, Yankanich, & West, 1989; Wat-son, Ray, Turner, & Logan, 1999), or class-room peers (e.g., Broussard & Northup,1995; J. E. Carr et al., 1996). Results of apreliminary study by Ringdahl and Sellers


(2000) suggest that having caregivers deliverprogrammed consequences during function-al analyses may facilitate clearer outcomes;however, additional research is needed to de-termine the utility of this practice. In otherwords, the extent to which conducting ses-sions in the natural environment during typ-ical routines or having caregivers or teachersconduct assessment sessions will improve theefficiency or accuracy of a functional analysisis still not well known. Large-scale directcomparisons of ecologically valid and moretightly controlled analyses are needed toidentify both the benefits and limitations ofincorporating natural features of the client’senvironment into analysis conditions. Withrespect to best practice, it seems reasonableto incorporate as many features of the cli-ent’s natural environment into the assess-ment conditions as possible, as long as theintegrity of the experimental arrangements ismonitored to insure that procedures are im-plemented as specified.

Supplemental Assessments

Many studies described the use of prelim-inary assessments (indirect or descriptiveprocedures) to facilitate the functional anal-ysis process. Although these types of assess-ment may be helpful in structuring moreprecise functional analyses of problem be-havior, the data derived from these supple-mentary assessments have been presentedrarely, and the relevance of the supplemen-tary assessment data in the studies that didinclude them is not well known (Iwata,1994). In other words, it is possible thatanalysis outcomes would be the same wheth-er or not results from additional assessmentswere used as a basis for structuring the func-tional analysis. The definitive study yet tobe conducted would involve conducting twosimultaneous but procedurally differentfunctional analyses, one of which would bebased on results of a supplementary assess-ment and the other would be structured typ-

ically and without supplementary informa-tion.

One general criticism found in severalcommentaries on functional analysis meth-odology that appeared in the 1994 specialissue of JABA was that functional analysesdo not adequately sample all relevant aspectsof the controlling environment. Some ofthese aspects include (a) physiological or in-ternal states related to illness or drugs (E. G.Carr, 1994), (b) structural aspects of rein-forcers (Carr) or EOs (Horner, 1994), or (c)temporally distant events that may influencethe occurrence of problem behavior (Repp,1994). The authors referred to these poten-tially important antecedent events as eithersetting events (Carr; Repp) or contextualvariables (Carr; Horner) and lamented theirlack of consideration in functional analysismethodology. They also suggested that theidentification of these contextual variableswould result in more accurate behavioral as-sessment and ultimately more effective anddurable treatments. Relevant to the presentdiscussion, several authors suggested that agreater emphasis on either indirect or de-scriptive assessments might resolve this par-ticular limitation of functional analysismethodology (Carr; Horner; Mace, 1994;Repp).

Mace (1994) suggested that descriptive as-sessments might be useful in identifying id-iosyncratic reinforcers or schedules, whichcould be programmed subsequently in afunctional analysis. However, the extent towhich complex descriptive analyses wouldimprove the efficiency or accuracy of a func-tional analysis has not been demonstratedempirically. In fact, indirect and descriptiveassessment strategies (e.g., Durand & Crim-mins, 1988; Mace & Lalli, 1991) do notnecessarily sample a wider range of EOs orreinforcers. Instead, they seem to represent adifferent way of gathering information aboutthe same variables manipulated in a func-tional analysis, and, as a result, would not


enhance the accuracy or ecological validityof the functional analysis.

By contrast, results from several studieshave suggested that unstructured observa-tions conducted outside the assessment con-text sometimes have been helpful in identi-fying unusual events that, once incorporatedinto a functional analysis, resulted in theidentification of functional relations (seeBowman et al., 1997; Fisher, Adelinis,Thompson, Worsdell, & Zarcone, 1998;Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Fisher,Lindauer, Alterson, & Thompson, 1998;Richman & Hagopian, 1999; Thompson etal., 1998). The authors of these studies didnot use formal descriptive analysis tech-niques, questionnaires, or rating scales; in-stead, they merely had observers documentunusual aspects of caregiver–child interac-tions or environmental conditions that werepresent when problem behavior occurred.This process may be best characterized as anopen-ended descriptive assessment in whichthe antecedent and consequent events arenot specified prior to the observation. It is aprocess that is more akin to the narrativerecording technique described by Bijou et al.(1968), which permits the identification ofidiosyncratic types of EOs (e.g., talking toanother person) and consequences (e.g., spe-cific type of attention) that typically wouldnot be included in a functional analysis andalso would not be captured via questionnaireor descriptive analysis. As illustrated in thestudies cited, these events, once identified,may be incorporated into a functional anal-ysis when initial analyses yield uninformativeresults.

If idiosyncratic events that may influencebehavior are identified via supplemental as-sessment, their functional role as EOs or re-inforcers still requires demonstration by wayof a functional analysis. For instance, if thehypothesis derived from clinical observationis that SIB is maintained by escape from in-structions but only when the individual is

tired or ill, the impact of these EOs can beobserved by conducting functional analysisconditions before and following exercise,nights of disturbed sleep, or bouts of illness.Unique and temporally proximal or distantEOs may exert control over behavior main-tained by a given contingency (e.g., negativereinforcement); however, these effects canonly be verified in the context of experimen-tal manipulation. In other words, progressfrom general classes of maintaining contin-gencies (e.g., positive vs. negative reinforce-ment or social vs. automatic reinforcement)to more individualized environment–behav-ior relations (i.e., increased precision) mightbe best accomplished through more carefulexperimental manipulation (e.g., Smith etal., 1995; Thompson et al., 1998) ratherthan through more extensive indirect or de-scriptive strategies.

To summarize, all forms of functional as-sessment are limited in that potentially im-portant, idiosyncratic reinforcers and EOsmay go unnoticed. Identifying idiosyncraticevents prior to conducting a functional anal-ysis is not always essential for determiningbehavioral function and designing effectiveintervention (e.g., sleep deprivation may actas an EO and increase escape-reinforcedproblem behavior, but escape extinctionshould be effective even if the relation be-tween sleep and problem behavior goes un-detected). However, observing idiosyncraticfeatures of the natural environment whenfunctional analyses yield undifferentiated re-sults is highly recommended. Future re-search should establish guidelines for exam-ining natural environments for idiosyncraticfeatures that may be relevant to the main-tenance of problem behavior.

PRACTICAL ENHANCEMENTS

Tests for Single Sources of Influence

Although most functional analysis re-search includes tests for multiple sources of


control, assessment of single response–rein-forcer relations continues to a lesser extent(at least two studies each year since 1990have tested for single sources of control). As-sessment strategies that focus on single re-sponse–reinforcer relations may be beneficialunder some conditions. For example, if an-ecdotal information or descriptive assess-ment data are strongly suggestive of a par-ticular source of influence, that variable canbe evaluated quickly, and treatment matchedto that function can be initiated prior to orconcurrent with tests of other sources of in-fluence.

Brief Session Duration

Wallace and Iwata (1999) examined theextent to which variations in session dura-tion (5, 10, or 15 min) affected the out-comes of functional analyses. All of the 10-min data sets yielded interpretations identi-cal to those based on the 15-min data sets(i.e., 100% agreement), whereas three of the5-min data sets yielded interpretations dif-ferent than those based on the 15-min datasets (i.e., 93.5% agreement). Their resultssuggested that assessment efficiency could beimproved with little or no loss in clarity byconducting brief (5- or 10-min) sessions.

Brief Assessment Duration

Kahng and Iwata (1999) compared datasets from 50 full functional analyses (35 ofwhich showed clear response patterns and 15of which were undifferentiated) with thosefrom brief assessments that were constructedby isolating the first session of each condi-tion from the full analyses. The outcomes ofthe brief assessments corresponded withthose of the full analyses in 66% of cases.The results of this study, along with numer-ous replications of the procedures describedby Northup et al. (1991), suggest that thebrief functional analysis may be adequatewhen circumstances do not permit repeated

observation of problem behavior under mul-tiple test and control conditions.

Discriminative Stimuli

Conners et al. (2000) attempted to min-imize interaction effects within functionalanalyses by increasing the discriminability ofassessment conditions. Multielement func-tional analyses were conducted on the SIBor aggression of 8 adults with mental retar-dation in which each condition initially wascorrelated with a specific therapist and roomcolor. In subsequent analyses, the pro-grammed SDs were removed (i.e., all condi-tions were conducted by the same therapistin the same room). Results indicated thatthe inclusion of distinctive visual SDs facili-tated differential responding during multi-element functional analyses in half of theparticipants. Strengthening the stimuluscontrol exerted in each analysis conditionmay be especially helpful when conducting(a) brief assessments (e.g., Northup et al.,1991), (b) sessions of short duration (e.g., 5min), or (c) assessments in the same setting(e.g., classroom). Future research could iden-tify a range of stimuli that facilitate discrim-ination under different situations (e.g., par-ticular seating positions in the classroom) orby different individuals (e.g., scents withpersons who are blind), so that therapistscan construct efficient assessment proceduresin spite of practical constraints imposed bytime, setting, or personnel.

Proceeding from Undifferentiated Analyses

Although not commonly reported, undif-ferentiated analysis outcomes occur, most of-ten when problem behavior occurs sporadi-cally or at very low rates. As noted previ-ously, the inclusion of information gatheredthrough other sources (e.g., about idiosyn-cratic EOs, qualitative aspects of reinforce-ment) in functional analyses may clarify ini-tially undifferentiated results (see E. G. Carret al., 1997, for an example). Including


stimuli from the client’s natural environmentor conducting the analysis in the environ-ment in which the problem behavior occurs(e.g., Sigafoos & Saggers, 1995) also mayincrease the likelihood of a differentiated as-sessment outcome (although this has notbeen empirically demonstrated). Minimizingthe number of response topographies in thecontingency class (e.g., Thompson et al.,1998) or graphing response topographiesseparately (Derby et al., 1994, 2000) mayalso yield clear assessment outcomes. Whenfunctional analyses based on brief sessionduration (5 to 15 min) yield undifferenti-ated results, observing the effects of contin-gencies over longer periods (hours, days, orweeks) may allow relevant EOs to operatefor a sufficient amount of time to evokeproblem behavior and yield clear assessmentresults (e.g., Arndorfer et al., 1994; Reese,1997). Finally, arranging contingencies tofollow reported precursors to the target re-sponses or even arbitrary responses (see Pi-azza, Hanley, et al., 1997, Grace, Thomp-son, & Fisher, 1996) may demonstrate be-havioral sensitivity to particular forms of re-inforcement that can then be incorporatedinto treatments for problem behavior (thisstrategy may be an improvement over arbi-trarily selecting an intervention, but it doesnot determine the actual function of prob-lem behavior).

CONCLUSION

Several researchers have suggested thatthere has been a lack of systematic extensionof functional analysis methodology (e.g.,Gable, 1996; Gresham et al., 1999; Sturmey,1995). However, it is apparent from thepresent review that comprehensive function-al analysis models (E. G. Carr & Durand,1985; Iwata et al., 1982/1994) have gener-ated a voluminous database of extensions aswell as replications across a wide range ofclient populations, target behaviors, and set-

tings. Systematic growth in the use of func-tional analysis methodology as a primarymethod of behavioral assessment and, moregenerally, as a means of studying environ-ment–behavior relations is evident in thesharply increasing trend in the publicationrates of functional analysis research (see Fig-ure 1).

At the present time, functional analysis re-search has not yielded an established set ofrules for conducting an assessment; however,best practices are beginning to emerge. Asnoted in the Discussion, these practices in-clude (a) limiting response classes to one ora few behavior topographies, (b) program-ming consequences for the occurrence of tar-get behaviors, (c) incorporating EO influ-ences before and during assessment, (d) in-cluding SDs to facilitate discrimination oftest conditions, (e) conducting relativelybrief (e.g., 10-min) sessions, (f ) includingtests to identify behavior maintained by au-tomatic reinforcement, (g) considering rela-tive reinforcement durations when interpret-ing analysis results, (h) testing for functionalrelations between problem behavior and tan-gible reinforcement only when preliminaryassessment information suggests a relationmight exist, (i) starting brief and simple (i.e.,arranging common test conditions) and pro-gressing to more lengthy or complex assess-ments as needed, and (j) using other sourcesof information (e.g., open-ended interviewsand observations) as adjuncts to structurethe more complex analyses.

Although functional analysis has been re-peatedly shown to be a powerful behavioralassessment tool for prescribing effectivetreatments, concerns have been raised aboutthe feasibility of conducting functional anal-yses in typical service settings (e.g., class-rooms) due to either time requirements (Ap-plegate, Matson, & Cherry, 1999; Pyles,Riordan, & Bailey, 1997) or the level oftraining and clinical expertise needed to in-sure procedural fidelity (Crawford, Brockel,


Schauss, & Miltenberger, 1992; Sturmey,1994). However, as noted earlier, over 80functional analysis studies have been con-ducted in school settings. In addition, Iwataet al. (2000) noted that the time commit-ment appears no greater than that requiredby a descriptive assessment and presented a2-hr strategy for teaching the basic skills nec-essary for conducting a functional analysis.Combining these instructional procedureswith information regarding best practice inconducting functional analyses and analyz-ing their results should produce a set of basiccompetencies in clinicians and educatorswho are charged with assessing and treatingproblem behaviors.

As with all behavioral assessment strate-gies, it is important to consider ethical issueswhen implementing functional analysismethodology. Questions arise concerningthe necessity of a rigorous functional analysisand the potential harm to the individual thatmay be incurred during assessment. Wheth-er a problem behavior necessitates such rig-orous analysis may be partially addressed byconsidering the short- and long-term cost(or danger) of ineffective treatment versusthe potential harm that may be engenderedduring the course of a functional analysis.Consideration of brief assessments, carefulstructuring of analyses, and evaluations ofwithin-session patterns may be appropriatemeasures to avoid lengthy behavioral assess-ment.

Although a number of permutations offunctional analysis procedures have been de-scribed, further refinements are still neededto improve the efficiency and generality offunctional analysis methodology while itsprecision is maintained. Developing practi-cal yet precise assessment strategies may bean elusive goal, but its realization can beachieved only through systematic refinementbased on sound research. Experimentalmethods have led to a greater understandingof a wide range of phenomena, and their

extension to the evaluation of environment–behavior relations that influence clinicalphenomena constitutes a clear improvementover alternative strategies.

REFERENCES

Adelinis, J. D., & Hagopian, L. P. (1999). The useof symmetrical ‘‘do’’ and ‘‘don’t’’ requests to inter-rupt ongoing activities. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 32, 519–523.

Adelinis, J. D., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., & Han-ley, G. P. (1997). The establishing effects of clientlocation on self-injurious behavior. Research in De-velopmental Disabilities, 18, 383–391.

Applegate, H., Matson, J. L., & Cherry, K. E. (1999).An evaluation of functional variables affecting se-vere problem behaviors in adults with mental re-tardation by using the questions about behavioralfunction scale (QABF). Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 20, 229–237.

Arndorfer, R. E., Miltenberger, R. G., Woster, S. H.,Rortvedt, A. K., & Gaffaney, T. (1994). Home-based descriptive and experimental analysis ofproblem behaviors in children. Topics in EarlyChildhood Special Education, 14, 64–87.

Axelrod, S. (1991). Smoking cessation through func-tional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-sis, 24, 717–718.

Bachman, J. A. (1972). Self-injurious behavior: A be-havioral analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,80, 211–224.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968).Some current dimensions of applied behavioranalysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1,91–97.

Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case ex-perimental designs (2nd ed.). Needham Heights,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Berg, W. K., Peck, S., Wacker, D. P., Harding, J.,McComas, J., Richman, D., et al. (2000). Theeffects of presession exposure to attention on theresults of assessments of attention as a reinforcer.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 463–477.

Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968).A method to integrate descriptive and experimen-tal field studies at the level of data and empiricalconcepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1,175–191.

Bowman, L. G., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., &Piazza, C. C. (1997). On the relation of mandsand the function of destructive behavior. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 251–265.

Broussard, C. D., & Northup, J. (1995). An ap-proach to functional assessment and analysis ofdisruptive behavior in regular education class-rooms. School Psychology Quarterly, 10, 151–164.


Broussard, C., & Northup, J. (1997). The use offunctional analysis to develop peer interventionsfor disruptive classroom behavior. School Psychol-ogy Quarterly, 12, 65–76.

Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injuriousbehavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 84, 800–816.

Carr, E. G. (1994). Emerging themes in the func-tional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 27, 393–399.

Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing be-havior problems through functional communica-tion training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,18, 111–126.

Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., & Binkoff, J. A. (1976).Stimulus control of self-destructive behavior in apsychotic child. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-chology, 4, 139–153.

Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., & Binkoff, J. A. (1980).Escape as a factor in the aggressive behavior oftwo retarded children. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 13, 101–117.

Carr, E. G., Yarbrough, S. C., & Langdon, N. A.(1997). Effects of idiosyncratic stimulus variableson functional analysis outcomes. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 30, 673–686.

Carr, J. E., Taylor, C. C., Wallander, R. J., & Reiss,M. L. (1996). A functional-analytic approach tothe diagnosis of a transient tic disorder. Journal ofBehavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 27,291–297.

Chapman, S., Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., & Kurtz, P.F. (1993). Functional assessment and treatmentof life-threatening drug ingestion in a dually di-agnosed youth. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 26, 255–256.

Conners, J., Iwata, B. A., Kahng, S., Hanley, G. P.,Worsdell, A. S., & Thompson, R. H. (2000).Differential responding in the presence and ab-sence of discriminative stimuli during multiele-ment functional analyses. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 33, 299–308.

Conroy, M., Fox, J., Crain, L., Jenkins, A., & Belcher,K. (1996). Evaluating the social and ecologicalvalidity of analog assessment procedures for chal-lenging behaviors in young children. Educationand Treatment of Children, 19, 233–256.

Crawford, J., Brockel, B., Schauss, S., & Miltenberger,R. G. (1992). A comparison of methods for thefunctional assessment of stereotypic behavior.Journal of the Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps, 17, 77–86.

Davenport, R. K., & Berkson, G. (1963). Stereo-typed movements in mental defectives: II. Effectsof novel objects. American Journal of Mental De-ficiency, 67, 879–882.

Day, H. M., Horner, R. H., & O’Neill, R. E. (1994).Multiple functions of problem behaviors: Assess-

ment and intervention. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 27, 279–289.

Day, R. M., Rea, J. A., Schussler, N. G., Larsen, S.E., & Johnson, W. L. (1988). A functionallybased approach to the treatment of self-injuriousbehavior. Behavior Modification, 12, 565–589.

DePaepe, P. A., Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L., & Denny,R. K. (1996). Effects of task difficulty on thedisruptive and on-task behavior of students withsevere behavior disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 21,216–225.

Derby, K. M., Hagopian, L., Fisher, W. W., Richman,D., Augustine, M., Fahs, A., et al. (2000). Func-tional analysis of aberrant behavior through mea-surement of separate response topographies. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 113–117.

Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Peck, S., Sasso, G.,DeRaad, A., Berg, W., et al. (1994). Functionalanalysis of separate topographies of aberrant be-havior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27,267–278.

Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Sasso, G., Steege, M.,Northup, J., Cigrand, K., et al. (1992). Brieffunctional assessment techniques to evaluate ab-errant behavior in an outpatient setting: A sum-mary of 79 cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 25, 713–721.

Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins,F. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricularrevision, and severe behavior problems. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 24, 387–397.

Durand, V. M., & Carr, E. G. (1991). Functionalcommunication training to reduce challenging be-havior: Maintenance and application in new set-tings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24,251–264.

Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1987). Assess-ment and treatment of psychotic speech in an au-tistic child. Journal of Autism and DevelopmentalDisorders, 17, 17–28.

Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identi-fying the variables maintaining self-injurious be-havior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Dis-orders, 18, 99–117.

Ellingson, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., Stricker, J. M.,Garlinghouse, M. A., Roberts, J., & Galensky, T.L. (2000). Analysis and treatment of finger suck-ing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 41–52.

Fisher, W. W., Adelinis, J. D., Thompson, R. H.,Worsdell, A. S., & Zarcone, J. R. (1998). Func-tional analysis and treatment of destructive behav-ior maintained by termination of ‘‘don’t’’ (andsymmetrical ‘‘do’’) requests. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 31, 339–356.

Fisher, W. W., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). On the func-tion of self-restraint and its relationship to self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29,93–98.


Fisher, W. W., Kuhn, D. E., & Thompson, R. H.(1998). Establishing discriminative control of re-sponding using functional and alternative rein-forcers during functional communication training.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 543–560.

Fisher, W. W., Lindauer, S. E., Alterson, C. J., &Thompson, R. H. (1998). Assessment and treat-ment of destructive behavior maintained by ste-reotypic object manipulation. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 31, 513–527.

Fisher, W. W., Ninness, H. A. C., Piazza, C. C., &Owen-DeSchryver, J. S. (1996). On the reinforc-ing effects of the content of verbal attention. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 235–238.

Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., & Chiang, C. L. (1996).Effects of equal and unequal reinforcer durationduring functional analysis. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 29, 117–120.

Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., & Hanley, G. P. (1998).Informing readers of the presence of data com-mon to multiple investigations. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 31, 703–704.

Frea, W. D., & Hughes, C. (1997). Functional anal-ysis and treatment of social-communicative be-havior of adolescents with developmental disabil-ities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 701–704.

Gable, R. A. (1996). A critical analysis of functionalassessment: Issues for researchers and practition-ers. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 36–40.

Goh, H., & Iwata, B. A. (1994). Behavioral persis-tence and variability during extinction of self-in-jury maintained by escape. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 27, 173–174.

Goh, H., Iwata, B. A., Shore, B. A., DeLeon, I. G.,Lerman, D. C., Ulrich, S. M., et al. (1995). Ananalysis of the reinforcing properties of handmouthing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,28, 269–283.

Grace, N. C., Thompson, R., & Fisher, W. W.(1996). The treatment of covert self-injurythrough contingencies on response products. Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 239–242.

Gresham, F. M., Quinn, M. M., & Restori, A.(1999). Methodological issues in functional anal-ysis: Generalizability to other disability groups.Behavioral Disorders, 24, 180–182.

Groden, G. (1989). A guide for conducting a com-prehensive behavioral analysis of a target behavior.Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psy-chiatry, 20, 163–169.

Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H.,Owen-DeSchryver, J., Iwata, B. A., & Wacker, D.P. (1997). Toward the development of structuredcriteria for interpretation of functional analysisdata. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,313–326.

Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., & Adelin-is, J. D. (1997). Stimulus control and resistance

to extinction in attention-maintained SIB. Re-search in Developmental Disabilities, 18, 251–260.

Haynes, S. N., & O’Brien, W. H. (1990). Functionalanalysis in behavior therapy. Clinical PsychologyReview, 10, 649–668.

Higgins Hains, A. H., & Baer, D. M. (1989). Inter-action effects in multielement designs: Inevitable,desirable, and ignorable. Journal of Applied Behav-ior Analysis, 22, 57–69.

Hopkins, B. L., Cole, B. L., & Mason, T. L. (1998).A critique of the usefulness of inferential statisticsin applied behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst,21, 125–137.

Horner, R. H. (1994). Functional assessment: Con-tributions and future directions. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 27, 401–404.

Huitema, B. E. (1986). Statistical analysis and single-subject designs: Some misunderstandings. In A.Poling & R. W. Fuqua (Eds.), Research methods inapplied behavior analysis (pp. 209–232). NewYork: Plenum.

Iwata, B. A. (1994). Functional analysis methodolo-gy: Some closing comments. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 27, 413–418.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K.E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a func-tional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 27, 197–209. (Reprinted fromAnalysis and Intervention in Developmental Dis-abilities, 2, 3–20, 1982)

Iwata, B. A., Duncan, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Lerman,D. C., & Shore, B. A. (1994). A sequential, test-control methodology for conducting functionalanalyses of self-injurious behavior. Behavior Mod-ification, 18, 289–306.

Iwata, B. A., Kahng, S., Wallace, M. D., & Lindberg,J. S. (2000). The functional analysis model ofbehavioral assessment. In J. Austin & J. E. Carr(Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp.61–90). Reno, NV: Context Press.

Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Dorsey, M. F., Zarcone, J.R., Vollmer, T. R., Smith, R. G., et al. (1994).The functions of self-injurious behavior: An ex-perimental-epidemiological analysis. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 27, 215–240.

Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Kalsher, M. J., Cowdery,G. E., & Cataldo, M. F. (1990). Experimentalanalysis and extinction of self-injurious escape be-havior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23,11–27.

Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S., Lindberg, J.S., Roscoe, E. M., Conners, J., et al. (2000). Skillacquisition in the implementation of functionalanalysis methodology. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 33, 181–194.

Kahng, S., & Iwata, B. A. (1998). Play versus aloneconditions as controls during functional analysesof self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 31, 669–672.


Kahng, S., & Iwata, B. A. (1999). Correspondencebetween outcomes of brief and extended func-tional analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 32, 149–159.

Kennedy, C. H. (1994). Manipulating antecedentconditions to alter the stimulus control of prob-lem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,27, 161–170.

Kennedy, C. H., & Itkonen, T. (1993). Effects ofsetting events on the problem behavior of studentswith severe disabilities. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 26, 321–327.

Kern, L., Carberry, N., & Haidara, C. (1997). Anal-ysis and intervention with two topographies ofchallenging behavior exhibited by a young womanwith autism. Research in Developmental Disabili-ties, 18, 275–287.

Kern, L., Mauk, J. E., Marder, T. J., & Mace, F. C.(1995). Functional analysis and intervention forbreath holding. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 28, 339–340.

Lalli, J. S., Browder, D. M., Mace, F. C., & Brown,D. K. (1993). Teacher use of descriptive analysisdata to implement interventions to decrease stu-dents’ problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 26, 227–238.

Lalli, J. S., & Casey, S. D. (1996). Treatment of mul-tiply controlled problem behavior. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 29, 391–395.

Lalli, J. S., Casey, S., & Kates, K. (1995). Reducingescape behavior and increasing task completionwith functional communication training, extinc-tion, and response chaining. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 28, 261–268.

Lalli, J. S., Mace, F. C., Wohn, T., & Livezey, K.(1995). Identification and modification of a re-sponse-class hierarchy. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 28, 551–559.

Lee, Y., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999). Usingan instructional intervention to reduce problemand off-task behaviors. Journal of Positive BehaviorInterventions, 1, 195–204.

Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1993). Descriptiveand experimental analyses of variables maintainingself-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 26, 293–319.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1996). Descriptive andexperimental analysis of teacher and peer attentionand the use of assessment-based intervention toimprove pro-social behavior. Journal of BehavioralEducation, 6, 7–24.

Lovaas, O. I., Freitag, G., Gold, V. J., & Kassorla, I.C. (1965). Experimental studies in childhoodschizophrenia: Analysis of self-destructive behav-ior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2,67–84.

Lovaas, O. I., & Simmons, J. Q. (1969). Manipula-tion of self-destruction in three retarded children.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 143–157.

Mace, F. C. (1994). The significance and future offunctional analysis methodologies. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 27, 385–392.

Mace, F. C., Browder, D. M., & Lin, Y. (1987). Anal-ysis of demand conditions associated with stereo-typy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and ExperimentalPsychiatry, 18, 25–31.

Mace, F. C., & Knight, D. (1986). Functional anal-ysis and the treatment of severe pica. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 19, 411–416.

Mace, F. C., & Lalli, J. S. (1991). Linking descriptiveand experimental analyses in the treatment of bi-zarre speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,24, 553–562.

Mace, F. C., Page, T. J., Ivancic, M. T., & O’Brien,S. (1986). Analysis of environmental determi-nants of aggression and disruption in mentally re-tarded children. Applied Research in Mental Retar-dation, 7, 203–221.

Mace, F. C., & West, B. J. (1986). Analysis of de-mand conditions associated with reluctant speech.Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psy-chiatry, 17, 285–294.

Mace, F. C., Yankanich, M. A., & West, B. J. (1989).Toward a methodology of experimental analysisand treatment of aberrant classroom behaviors.Special Services in the Schools, 4, 71–88.

Magee, S. K., & Ellis, J. (2000). Extinction effectsduring the assessment of multiple problem behav-iors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 313–316.

Martin, N. T., Gaffan, E. A., & Williams, T. (1999).Experimental functional analyses for challengingbehavior: A study of validity and reliability. Re-search in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 125–146.

Matson, J. L., Bamburg, J. W., Cherry, K. E., & Pa-clawskyj, T. R. (1999). A validity study on thequestions about behavioral function (QABF)scale: Predicting treatment success for self-injury,aggression, and stereotypies. Research in Develop-mental Disabilities, 20, 163–176.

McComas, J., Hoch, H., Paone, D., & El-Roy, D.(2000). Escape behavior during academic tasks: Apreliminary analysis of idiosyncratic establishingoperations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,33, 479–493.

McManus, F., & Waller, G. (1995). A functionalanalysis of binge-eating. Clinical Psychology Re-view, 15, 845–863.

Meyer, K. A. (1999). Functional analysis and treat-ment of problem behavior exhibited by elemen-tary school children. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 32, 229–232.

Michael, J. (1974). Statistical inference for individualorganism research: Mixed blessing or curse? Jour-nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 647–653.

Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discrim-inative and motivational functions of stimuli.


Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,37, 149–155.

Miltenberger, R. G., Long, E. S., Rapp, J. T., Lumley,V., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Evaluating the functionof hair pulling: A preliminary investigation. Be-havior Therapy, 29, 211–219.

Northup, J., Broussard, C., Jones, K., George, T., Voll-mer, T. R., & Herring, M. (1995). The differ-ential effects of teacher and peer attention on thedisruptive classroom behavior of three childrenwith a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28,227–228.

Northup, J., Jones, K., Broussard, C., DiGiovanni, G.,Herring, M., Fusilier, I., et al. (1997). A prelim-inary analysis of interactive effects between com-mon classroom contingencies and methylpheni-date. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,121–125.

Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Cig-rand, K., Cook, J., et al. (1991). A brief func-tional analysis of aggressive and alternative behav-ior in an outclinic setting. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 24, 509–522.

O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey,K., & Sprague, J. R. (1990). Functional analysisof problem behavior: A practical guide. Sycamore,IL: Sycamore Press.

O’Reilly, M. F. (1995). Functional analysis and treat-ment of escape-maintained aggression correlatedwith sleep deprivation. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 28, 225–226.

O’Reilly, M. F. (1996). Assessment and treatment ofepisodic self-injury: A case study. Research in De-velopmental Disabilities, 17, 349–361.

O’Reilly, M. F. (1997). Functional analysis of episod-ic self-injury correlated with recurrent otitis me-dia. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 165–167.

O’Reilly, M. F. (1999). Effects of presession attentionon the frequency of attention-maintained behav-ior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 371–374.

O’Reilly, M. F., & Carey, Y. (1996). A preliminaryanalysis of the effects of prior classroom condi-tions on performance under analogue analysisconditions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,29, 581–584.

O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., King, L., Lally, G.,& Dhomhnaill, O. N. (2000). Using brief as-sessments to evaluate aberrant behavior main-tained by attention. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 33, 109–112.

Paisey, T. J. H., Whitney, R. B., & Hislop, P. M.(1991). Brief report: Non-intrusive operant anal-ysis of aggressive behavior in persons with mentalretardation. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 6,54–61.

Pelios, L., Morren, J., Tesch, D., & Axelrod, S.

(1999). The impact of functional analysis meth-odology on treatment choice for self-injurious andaggressive behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 32, 185–195.

Piazza, C. C., Adelinis, J. D., Hanley, G. P., Goh, H.,& Delia, M. D. (2000). An evaluation of theeffects of matched stimuli on behaviors main-tained by automatic reinforcement. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 33, 13–27.

Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Contrucci, S. A., Delia,M. D., Adelinis, J. D., & Goh, H. (1999). Anevaluation of the properties of attention as rein-forcement for destructive and appropriate behav-ior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 437–449.

Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hanley, G. P., LeBlanc,L. A., Worsdell, A. S., Lindauer, S. E., et al.(1998). Treatment of pica through multiple anal-yses of its reinforcing functions. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 31, 165–189.

Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hanley, G. P., Remick,M. L., Contrucci, S. A., & Aitken, T. L. (1997).The use of positive and negative reinforcement inthe treatment of escape-maintained destructive be-havior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,279–298.

Piazza, C. C., Hanley, G. P., Bowman, L. G., Ruyter,J. M., Lindauer, S. E., & Saiontz, D. M. (1997).Functional analysis and treatment of elopement.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 653–672.

Piazza, C. C., Hanley, G. P., & Fisher, W. W. (1996).Functional analysis and treatment of cigarettepica. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29,437–450.

Pinkston, E. M., Reese, N. M., LeBlanc, J. M., &Baer, D. M. (1973). Independent control of apreschool child’s aggression and peer interactionby contingent teacher attention. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 6, 115–124.

Pyles, D. A. M., Riordan, M. M., & Bailey, J. S.(1997). The stereotypy analysis: An instrumentfor examining environmental variables associatedwith differential rates of stereotypic behavior. Re-search in Developmental Disabilities, 18, 11–38.

Reese, R. M. (1997). Biobehavior analysis of self-in-jurious behavior in a person with profound hand-icaps. Focus on Autism and Other DevelopmentalDisabilities, 12, 87–94.

Reimers, T. M., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Sasso,G. M., Berg, W. K., & Steege, M. W. (1993).Assessing the functional properties of noncompli-ant behavior in an outpatient setting. Child andFamily Behavior Therapy, 15, 1–15.

Repp, A. (1994). Comments on functional analysisprocedures for school-based behavior problems.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 409–411.

Rescorla, R. A. (1967). Pavlovian conditioning andits proper control procedures. Psychological Review,74, 71–80.


Richman, D. M., & Hagopian, L. P. (1999). On theeffects of ‘‘quality’’ of attention in the functionalanalysis of destructive behavior. Research in De-velopmental Disabilities, 20, 51–62.

Richman, D. M., Wacker, D. P., Asmus, J. M., Casey,S. D., & Andelman, M. (1999). Further analysisof problem behavior in response class hierarchies.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 269–283.

Ringdahl, J. E., & Sellers, J. A. (2000). The effectsof different adults as therapists during functionalanalyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33,247–250.

Roane, H. S., Lerman, D. C., Kelley, M. E., & VanCamp, C. M. (1999). Within-session patterns ofresponding during functional analyses: The roleof establishing operations in clarifying behavioralfunction. Research in Developmental Disabilities,20, 73–89.

Sailor, W., Guess, D., Rutherford, G., & Baer, D. M.(1968). Control of tantrum behavior by operanttechniques during experimental verbal training.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 237–243.

Sasso, G. M., Reimers, T. M., Cooper, L. J., Wacker,D., Berg, W., Steege, M., et al. (1992). Use ofdescriptive and experimental analyses to identifythe functional properties of aberrant behavior inschool settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 25, 809–822.

Shirley, M. J., Iwata, B. A., & Kahng, S. (1999).False-positive maintenance of self-injurious behav-ior by access to tangible reinforcers. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 32, 201–204.

Shirley, M. J., Iwata, B. A., Kahng, S., Mazaleski, J.L., & Lerman, D. C. (1997). Does functionalcommunication training compete with ongoingcontingencies of reinforcement? An analysis dur-ing response acquisition and maintenance. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 93–104.

Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. NewYork: Basic Books.

Sigafoos, J., & Meikle, B. (1996). Functional com-munication training for the treatment of multiplydetermined challenging behavior in two boys withautism. Behavior Modification, 20, 60–84.

Sigafoos, J., & Saggers, E. (1995). A discrete-trial ap-proach to the functional analysis of aggressive be-haviour in two boys with autism. Australia & NewZealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20,287–297.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior.New York: Macmillan.

Smith, R. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1997). Antecedentinfluences on behavior disorders. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 30, 343–375.

Smith, R. G., Iwata, B. A., Goh, H., & Shore, B. A.(1995). Analysis of establishing operations forself-injury maintained by escape. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 28, 515–535.

Smith, R. G., Iwata, B. A., Vollmer, T. R., & Zarcone,

J. R. (1993). Experimental analysis and treatmentof multiply controlled self-injury. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 26, 183–196.

Smith, R. G., Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1996).Self-restraint as positive reinforcement for self-in-jurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 29, 99–102.

Smolev, S. R. (1971). Use of operant techniques forthe modification of self-injurious behavior. Amer-ican Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 295–305.

Steege, M. W., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Cigrand,K. K., & Cooper, L. J. (1989). The use of be-havioral assessment to prescribe and evaluate treat-ments for severely handicapped children. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 23–33.

Sturmey, P. (1995). Analog baselines: A critical reviewof the methodology. Research in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 16, 269–284.

Sturmey, P., Carlsen, A., Crisp, A. G., & Newton, J.T. (1988). A functional analysis of multiple ab-errant responses: A refinement and extension ofIwata et al.’s (1982) methodology. Journal of Men-tal Deficiency Research, 32, 31–46.

Taylor, J., & Miller, M. (1997). When timeout workssome of the time: The importance of treatmentintegrity and functional assessment. School Psy-chology Quarterly, 12, 4–22.

Taylor, J. C., Sisson, L. A., McKelvey, J. L., & Tre-felner, M. F. (1993). Situation specificity in at-tention-seeking problem behavior. Behavior Mod-ification, 17, 474–497.

Taylor, J. T., Ekdahl, M. M., Romanczyk, R. G., &Miller, M. L. (1994). Escape behavior in task sit-uations: Task versus social antecedents. Journal ofAutism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 331–344.

Thomas, D. R., Becker, W. C., & Armstrong, M.(1968). Production and elimination of disruptiveclassroom behavior by systematically varyingteacher’s behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 1, 35–45.

Thompson, R. H., Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., &Kuhn, D. E. (1998). The evaluation and treat-ment of aggression maintained by attention andautomatic reinforcement. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 31, 103–116.

Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2001). A descrip-tive assessment of social consequences followingproblem behavior. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 34, 169–178.

Toogood, S., & Timlin, K. (1996). The functionalassessment of challenging behavior: A comparisonof informant-based, experimental and descriptivemethods. Journal of Applied Research in IntellectualDisabilities, 9, 206–222.

Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N.(1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimuluscontrol of problem behavior. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 18, 343–351.


Ulman, J. D., & Sulzer-Azaroff, B. (1975). Multiel-ement baseline design in educational research. InE. Ramp & G. Semb (Eds.), Behavior analysis:Areas of research and application (pp. 377–391).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Umbreit, J. (1995a). Functional analysis of disruptivebehavior in an inclusive classroom. Journal of EarlyInterventions, 20, 18–29.

Umbreit, J. (1995b). Functional assessment and in-tervention in a regular classroom setting for thedisruptive behavior of a student with attention def-icit hyperactivity disorder. Behavioral Disorders,20, 267–278.

Umbreit, J. (1996). Assessment and intervention forthe problem behaviors of an adult at home. Jour-nal of the Association for Persons with Severe Hand-icaps, 21, 31–38.

Van Camp, C. M., Lerman, D. C., Kelley, M. E.,Roane, H. S., Contrucci, S. A., & Vorndran, C.M. (2000). Further analysis of idiosyncratic an-tecedent influences during the assessment andtreatment of problem behavior. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 33, 207–221.

Vaughn, B. J., & Horner, R. H. (1997). Identifyinginstructional tasks that occasion problem behav-iors and assessing the effects of student versusteacher choice among these tasks. Journal of Ap-plied Behavior Analysis, 30, 299–312.

Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Duncan, B. A., & Ler-man, D. C. (1993). Extensions of multielementfunctional analysis using reversal-type designs.Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities,5, 311–325.

Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Smith, R. G., & Rodgers,T. A. (1992). Reduction of multiple aberrant be-haviors and concurrent development of self-careskills with differential reinforcement. Research inDevelopmental Disabilities, 13, 287–299.

Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Smith, R.G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993a). The role of at-tention in the treatment of attention-maintainedself-injurious behavior: Noncontingent reinforce-ment and differential reinforcement of other be-havior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 9–21.

Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Smith, R.

G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993b). Within-sessionpatterns of self-injury as indicators of behavioralfunction. Research in Developmental Disabilities,14, 479–492.

Vollmer, T. R., Marcus, B. A., Ringdahl, J. E., & Ro-ane, H. S. (1995). Progressing from brief assess-ments to extended experimental analyses in theevaluation of aberrant behavior. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 28, 561–576.

Vollmer, T. R., Northup, J., Ringdahl, J. E., LeBlanc,L. A., & Chauvin, T. M. (1996). Functionalanalysis of severe tantrums displayed by childrenwith language delays: An outclinic assessment. Be-havior Modification, 20, 97–115.

Vollmer, T. R., Progar, P. R., Lalli, J. S., Van Camp,C. M., Sierp, B. J., Wright, C. S., et al. (1998).Fixed-time schedules attenuate extinction-inducedphenomena in the treatment of severe aberrantbehavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31,529–542.

Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., Roane, H. S., & Mar-cus, B. A. (1997). Negative side effects of non-contingent reinforcement. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 30, 161–164.

Vollmer, T. R., & Vorndran, C. M. (1998). Assess-ment of self-injurious behavior maintained by ac-cess to self-restraint materials. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 31, 647–650.

Wallace, M. D., & Iwata, B. A. (1999). Effects ofsession duration on functional analysis outcomes.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 175–183.

Watson, T. S., Ray, K. P., Turner, H. S., & Logan, P.(1999). Teacher-implemented functional analysisand treatment: A method for linking assessmentto intervention. School Psychology Review, 28,292–302.

Weeks, M., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1981). Task diffi-culty and aberrant behavior in severely handi-capped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-ysis, 14, 449–463.

Weiseler, N. A., Hanson, R. H., Chamberlain, T. P.,& Thompson, T. (1985). Functional taxonomyof stereotypic and self-injurious behavior. MentalRetardation, 23, 230–234.

Received March 8, 2002Final acceptance February 20, 2003Action Editor, Dorothea Lerman

journal of applied behavior analysis 36,

Documents