FBA

The process of completing a functional behavioral assessment at the St. Claire County Regional Educational Service Agency seems fairly comprehensive and in line with the theory behind FBAs as described by Glasberg.  I like that RESA, like Glasberg, discussed the importance of describing problem behaviors, as opposed to just naming them.  This is vital since “non-compliance” for example, is a response class which might look different to different people and therefore instances may be over or under recorded if the behavioral responses that make up the class are not objectively described.  I also liked that they both stressed having the student take part in the interview process since often this is forgotten and student responses can provide valuable insight as to what is motivating their behavior.

The FBA process used at RESA is along the same lines as that used within my organization.  To begin I select target behavior(s) based on concerns stated by the parent, teacher, service providers and those noted my observations, prioritizing dangerous behaviors and those of the greatest social significance.  I collect indirect data on the target behavior(s) in the form of parent and teacher interviews and if the student has the communicative ability to take part in the interview process, I collect this data also.  Generally, I will also have the parents, teachers and/or service providers fill out motivation assessment scales (MAS) to collect information on potential functions.  Once the indirect portion of the FBA data is complied I collect direct observation scatterplot and ABC data on the behavior(s).  I might use information from the parent and teacher interviews to determine the best times and places to observe in order to see occurrences and non-occurrences of the behavior.   During these observations, I look for setting and antecedent events that reliably set the occasion for problem behavior and consequences that follow instances of the behavior.  In most cases, the indirect assessment data and direct observation data is sufficient for me to be confident in hypothesizing a likely function for the target behavior(s), but in some cases, more information is needed.  In these cases, I complete a functional analysis or structural analysis; systematically manipulating antecedent and consequent variables to set off problem behavior.  Once I am fairly confident in the function of the behavior I, like RESA, formulate my hypothesis or summary statements describing target behaviors and the events surrounding them.  This can be helpful in determining a functionally equivalent behavior.  When the behavioral intervention plan (BIP) is written, I tend to include these summary statements, along with summary statements describing replacement behaviors in the context of the same events to give family and staff members a better understanding of why and how the plan is going to work to change problem behavior.

Perhaps the most important part of the FBA process (and I like that RESA mentions this) is continually and consistently analyzing the data.  Once the FBA has been completed and the report and BIP have been distributed to the TEAM, I observe staff following the plan and graph the data weekly to make sure data is being accurately recorded, determine if the plan is working and being run correctly, and look for changes that may need to be made to the intervention itself.

In terms of the instrument used by RESA, I like that it covers everything in one fairly simple form, but I prefer to use separate forms and later compile them into a report.  I use different forms for parent, teacher and student interviews, tailoring the questions to each reporter.  For example, a teacher would be asked questions about the effects of group instruction on behavior whereas a parent would be asked about the effects of sleeping patterns and medications.  I also keep indirect data and direct data separate within the written report so the information is clear to anyone reading.  I break the results section into individual portions, interviews, MAS, direct observation, functional analysis and graphs, and hypotheses.  It may just be that this is what I am used to so I prefer it, but in my opinion it seems best for clarification purposes.  If someone reading the report wanted to know where a piece of information came from, for example, an interview with the teacher or direct observation of the behavior, the information would be readily available.