THE STATUS OF FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT (FBA): ADHERENCE TO STANDARD PRACTICE IN FBA METHODOLOGY

Transcription

1 Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 42(7), 2005 Published online in Wiley InterScience ( Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: /pits THE STATUS OF FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT (FBA): ADHERENCE TO STANDARD PRACTICE IN FBA METHODOLOGY KIMBERLY P. WEBER Gonzaga University KIM KILLU University Michigan-Dearborn K. MARK DERBY AND ANJALI BARRETTO Gonzaga University The application of functional behavioral assessment (FBA) has become increasingly visible in school settings since its inclusion in the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Despite the mandate for FBAs within the educational program of students with disabilities displaying behavior problems, the federal government put forth guidelines that made what constituted an FBA subject to interpretation. Many states have assumed the responsibility of establishing policy for completing FBAs. This investigation examined the resources acquired or developed and disseminated by each of the 50 states for FBA completion and compared the information from these resources to standard practice for FBA and functional analysis (FA) Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Since the development of functional analysis (FA) methodology by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman, (1982, 1994), it has become widely used in clinical and applied settings. Although initially developed as a procedure to identify the environmental variables that maintain self-injury, FA s primary contribution has been its utility in specifying potential treatment (Carr, 1994; Mace, 1994; Neef & Iwata, 1994; Wacker et al., 1994). To date, functional analysis procedures have been used to identify effective treatments for several topographies of behaviors across settings or individuals, such as children and adults with and without disabilities (Asmus et al., 2004), schools (Cooper et al., 1992; Dunlap et al., 1993; Sasso et al., 1992), homes (Derby et al., 1997; Rortvedt & Miltenberger, 1994), outpatient clinics (Cooper, Wacker, Sasso, Reimers, & Donn, 1990; Derby et al., 1992; Northrup et al., 1991) and inpatient facilities (Asmus et al., 2004; Iwata et al., 1982/1994). Given the growing body of evidence, a National Institute of Health Consensus Conference was held in 1989, regarding the assessment and treatment of individuals with severe behavior problems. At this conference, it was determined that best practice for treating severe behavior problems of individuals with disabilities should include experimental manipulation of specified variables. This emphasis on functional methodology influenced legislation, with the reauthorization of Public Law into Public Law , the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, also called IDEA IDEA 1997 mandated functional behavioral assessments (FBAs). The 1997 amendment also required Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to develop strategies to proactively deal with or remediate a student s behavior problems. The interventions designed for a student were to be based on the results of an FBA. However, the process for completing an FBA was not clearly defined by the federal government in the IDEA 1997 statute or regulations. In response to this lack of direction, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) developed a Technical Assistance Guide that provided the framework and steps necessary for completing an FBA (U.S. Department of Education, 1999). Correspondence to: Kimberly P. Weber, Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA kweber@soe.gonzaga.edu 737

2 738 Weber, Killu, Derby, and Barretto These steps are provided in the first column of Table 1. Given the generality of the steps, practitioners are referred to external publications for possible implementation (e.g., O Neill et al., 1997; Sugai, Lewis-Palmer, & Hagan, 1998; Tilly et al., 1998). Compounding the lack of FBA definition and procedures in the federal regulations, most school personnel are unfamiliar with the process involved in conducting FBAs. With the educational system being increasingly challenged to address a wide variety of student needs, including providing services and supports to deal with problem behavior, the efforts of school personnel to provide effective and coordinated services for behavioral support and intervention planning are limited without the availability of sufficient resources. Since the federal guidelines for IDEA do not identify procedures for conducting an FBA, and because each state educational agency (SEA) is responsible for submitting plans that meet federal requirements, states have been given the de facto responsibility for specifying the components required to complete the assessments in their particular state. The purpose of this investigation was twofold. The first purpose was to determine whether SEAs across the United States had developed resources for completing FBAs. The second purpose was to evaluate the type of information available to school district personnel in relation to nonexperimental and experimental FBA and FA procedures, and compare FBA component criteria provided by each SEA with the same component criteria indicated as standard practice for FBA completion, as identified in Table 1. Method Participants The SEAs in each of the 50 United States were participants in this study. Forty-eight of the 50 states contacted by the authors chose to participate in this investigation by providing available resource materials. Dependent Variables No Response, Response. A no response was indicated when, after at least five telephone conversations, no verbal or written information was received regarding FBAs. A response was indicated when (a) written materials from an SEA were received or obtained by the researchers, or (b) a telephone conversation indicated that the state did not have any materials to send regarding FBAs. Resource, No Resource. A resource was defined as written information designed and/or distributed by the SEA that contained procedures, strategies, or suggestions on FBA methodology. A no resource response was defined as a response from the SEA indicating that no written materials were available to educators in their state regarding an FBA. FBA Component Criteria. Fourteen primary areas were selected as standard practice in completing an FBA. The rationale for including the 14 criteria was based on a review of documents including information provided by OSERS (U.S. Department of Education, 1999), the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE; 1998), and the Florida Department of Education (FDE; 1999). All of the resources received were reviewed for inclusion of the following 14 items: definition or identification of the target behavior, review of records, checklist data, student interviews, other interview types, team meetings, direct observation with no manipulation, scatterplot (Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer, 1985), antecedent-behavior-consequences (ABC) analysis (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968), Functional Analysis Observation form (O Neill et al., 1997), reinforcer identification (Fisher et al., 1992), ecological context, development of hypothesis, and analog experimen-

3 The Status of FBA 739 Table 1 Standard Practice for FBA Completion: Component Criteria PBIS steps a FBA categories FBA definitions Collect information regarding conditions under which problem behavior is and is not observed and more appropriate behavior is required. Definition/Identification Statement indicating that a specific target behavior (or multiple target behaviors) is (are) the focus of assessment and the behavior(s) is (are) listed and described Review of Records Previous school records, or medical records, or IEPs, or previous intervention strategies, or independent evaluations from other disciplines are reviewed Checklist Data Questionnaires, rating scales, state developed checklists are used in the assessment process Student-Assisted Interviews Indication that the student in question is specifically interviewed during the FBA process Other Interviews Indication that other individuals (e.g., teacher, parent, etc.) are specifically interviewed during the FBA process Team Meetings Indication that during the FBA process, individuals from different disciplines, with different relationships to the student, convene and discuss the assessment process and/or results Develop testable (manipulable) hypothesis Develop Hypothesis Statement indicating that after data are collected, a hypothesis or theory is developed to explain the function of the behavior Collect direct observation information Direct Observation/ No Manipulation Indication that the student s behavior is observed over a period of time Scatterplot Statement indicating that a scatterplot is used, or a scatterplot is included in materials provided ABC Statement indicating that antecedents, target behavior, and consequences are observed or an ABC form is included in materials provided Functional Assessment A form identified by the SEA as an FAO form, or a form that has features similar to that Observation (FAO) Form designed by O Neill et al. (1997) Reinforcer Identification Statement indicating that potential reinforcers for intervention planning are identified during the assessment process Ecological Context A statement indicating that behavior is examined within its environmental context, that Analog Experimentation (manipulation of variables) environmental variables or setting events are examined, or that the relationship between the behavior and the environment are examined Statement that hypotheses are tested through experimental or systematic manipulation through the completion of FBA a Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

4 740 Weber, Killu, Derby, and Barretto tation (Iwata et al., 1982, 1994). See columns two and three of Table 1 for the definition of each of these criteria. Interobserver Agreement Interobserver agreement (IOA) data were collected on the FBA primary component criteria. Fifteen states were randomly selected through a process of pairing a state name with a number, 1 through 50. Those states that obtained the numbers 1 through 15 were selected for IOA. IOA was calculated using an [agreements/(agreements disagreements)] 100 formula. The percentage agreement was 100%. Design The design of this study was a descriptive analysis for each SEA that provided written resources and materials regarding the completion of an FBA. Procedures The Web site for each state s SEA was located and reviewed for information and resources about an FBA. Regardless of whether any data were provided on the Internet, each SEA was contacted by phone. A request was made to speak with an individual responsible for an FBA. When contact was made with that individual, he or she was asked what materials and resources were provided to teachers and school personnel on the procedures for completing an FBA. Each phone conversation concluded with a request for a copy of these materials. Once documents were received, they were reviewed for the defined criteria outlined in Table 1. The presence or absence of each of these variables was documented via a data collection sheet designed for the investigation. Results Forty-one states provided materials indicating established resources for completing an FBA. Seven states had no resources available. Two states did not respond to our requests to participate in the investigation. A rank order of the specific targeted criteria across the 50 states is shown in Figure 1. As indicated, a majority of the states require or specify in their resources that educators define target behaviors and use direct observation in order to conduct an FBA. The least represented targeted area specified in SEA resources was the use of reinforcer identification procedures and analog experimental manipulation. However, a review of the literature indicated that these two forms of assessment lead to the most effective treatment for severe behavior problems (Neef & Iwata, 1994). Only 18 of the states provide guidance in the form of videos, resources, references, or training materials for at least some of the 14 criteria. Discussion The data obtained through this investigation provide a comprehensive review of suggested standards of practice for FBAs across the United States. It is not the authors intent to suggest that every FBA needs to include all 14 criteria outlined as standard practice. The authors do suggest that each state should provide information and resources on all of the 14 criteria, as any of these criteria may or may not prove useful in completing an FBA. Our descriptive evaluation of the resources available from states was simply of the materials available to school personnel. There is no assurance that districts use any of the information provided by their respective SEA. The availability of materials does not guarantee school personnel receive them. The receipt of those materials does not ensure that school personnel use them. Finally, despite the availability of data from 48 out of the 50 states, a possibility exists that any given state did not send all of the available

5 The Status of FBA 741 Figure 1. A rank order of targeted criteria across the 50 states. information even though uniform standards were used to collect data. The uniformity of collection standards was designed to minimize error; however, the potential for error (i.e., the omission of data) still exists. Unfortunately, and despite any resources available to schools, district personnel are left to their own devices in conducting FBAs. Thus, individual districts may conduct FBAs to a greater or lesser degree and to a higher or lower standard than those reflected in the resources provided by each SEA. Reflecting on this information, one must ask how well FBA procedural information is being disseminated by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and SEAs, and how well and to what depth SEAs train school personnel on FBA procedures. FBA procedures are derived from empirically validated principles. Applied behavior analysis has an opportunity, as a science, to become part of mainstream educational practices. If clearly defined procedures of best practice are not disseminated, applied behavior analysts are in a worse position than before the mandates of IDEA Furthermore, the findings from this investigation reveal that a cookbook approach is being used by states to conduct FBAs. That is, the nature of the materials developed generally provides a sequence of events for completing FBA procedures, without consideration of the context of the behavior. More often, materials provide descriptions of the component criterion and requisite procedures, but no discussion of the theoretical basis or scientific framework for the procedures. Without a basis in the scientific principles of behavior analysis and a focus upon the importance of function in an analysis of behavior, this cookbook approach lacks the rigors of science. Because many individuals within a given district may lack the educational training and theoretical background that serve as the basis for FBA procedures, SEAs and local educational agencies (LEAs)

6 742 Weber, Killu, Derby, and Barretto often sponsor training sessions and disseminate the materials discussed therein. Yet again, little to no consideration is given in these documents to the conceptual framework that supports these procedures. Considering the range of knowledge and skills necessary to plan, execute, monitor, and evaluate the 14 component criteria discussed, one must question whether these sponsored sessions provide sufficient knowledge and training to do so. Many special education administrators and school psychologists view FBAs as being impractical to implement due to time constraints and lack of training to complete (Nelson, Roberts, Rutherford, Mathur, & Aaroe, 1999). Moreover, assessment procedures serve as the basis for intervention and treatment. An improper assessment will most likely lead to ineffective and inappropriate interventions. In the hands of novice or untrained individuals, this cursory approach to training for behavioral assessment and FBA procedures has serious implications for the utility, effectiveness, and appropriateness of intervention planning. The end result is that students with disabilities who are in need of behavioral intervention may be denied their right to an effective and appropriate education. In line with these concerns regarding the assessment process, future investigations should examine how often and how well FBAs are implemented, the effectiveness of behavior intervention plans (BIPs) derived from FBAs, how often FBAs lead to improved outcomes, and the adherence of BIPs to standard practice. These data prove useful on multiple levels. First, the federal government may find these data useful as general information on implementation of the FBA mandate in IDEA Closer examination of these data and the observed gaps in available resources may provide the impetus for subsequent revisions of federal regulations on FBA implementation. The recent reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 maintained the previous mandates for FBAs established in IDEA However, if more stringent regulations on FBAs were included in subsequent revisions of IDEA, an evaluation of compliance with federal regulation requirements could be completed using procedures similar to those used in this investigation. Second, when compared to standard practice in FBA methodology, the data allow each state to examine its own resources, practices, strengths, and limitations to enhance service delivery to students with disabilities. The data could provide each state with information for comparison between their respective resources and standard practice in FBA methodology. Since an FBA is the basis for a BIP, comparisons may improve service provision for students requiring BIPs. States examinations of their own resources may also provide a means for improving training procedures or giving the direction needed to improve state regulation standards. More often than not, such information likely would be used to increase the level and degree of services. Third, these data are useful to practitioners who provide services to states and schools to assist them in meeting the needs of students through the use of appropriate FBA methodologies. Knowledge about the availability of resources would be helpful in designing training and further services. Although each SEA provided numerous documents and forms, instruction on the use of these documents was often lacking. For example, scatterplots and/or ABC data collection forms may have been included in a state s materials, yet frequently, no instructions on the use of these materials were provided. Many states do provide these materials in conjunction with training sessions, and explanations may be provided on usage of the forms at that time. However, if these materials are requested outside of the training sessions, or if they are passed along to multiple individuals, instruction is likely to be lacking. Despite the availability of materials, it appears as though many states may lack uniform practices and procedures regarding FBA methodology. One item that is particularly noteworthy is that resources for FBA methodology were frequently couched within a state s disciplinary provisions. This suggests that FBAs are only used, or should only be used, when disciplining students. The use of FBA procedures post hoc serves as a reaction to behavior that has occurred and not as a treatment modality. Pretreatment assessment

7 The Status of FBA 743 procedures are more functional and effective and should be considered as a preventive way to address behavioral concerns that have not yet reached crisis status. This may reduce the future temptation of many to consider the use of punishment that may have limited effectiveness and/or side effects. Iwata (1988) discusses the need to develop effective technologies that use reinforcement to develop targeted behaviors and to use default technologies when all else fails. Most often, FBAs are used with individuals having behavioral problems (e.g., a student who has been suspended from school many times during the school year), although there are occasions when FBAs are appropriate for students lacking discipline problems (e.g., lack of adaptive behavior, inappropriate social skills). FBAs may also be used to determine a student s adaptive need or the function of an inappropriate behavior that may subsequently lead to further disciplinary problems if not addressed. In effect, it appears as if FBAs may be merely used as a reaction to inappropriate behaviors, rather than as an assessment strategy to determine more proactive and appropriate means for dealing with target behaviors. There are several implications linked with IDEA and free appropriate public education (FAPE) in regard to clarity of procedures, compliance monitoring, and training opportunities. Clarity of procedures for completing FBAs is key in determining appropriate education. With the information obtained, it is likely that plans based on clear assessment procedures are more likely to create effective positive behavior intervention plans. For those states providing little or unclear information on FBAs, the outcomes of student performance may be in conflict with provisions of FAPE, especially for students requiring a BIP. Just as ineffective academic assessment may result in poorly constructed IEPs, poorly conducted FBAs may result in poorly constructed BIPs. By receiving ineffective BIPs, students may be inadvertently denied the right to an appropriate education. The federal government could remedy some of the lack of clarity by providing more specific procedures in future regulatory documents or by having states share documentation with detailed explanations of usage. The purpose of the FBA is to assist in providing the most effective intervention based on assessment results. It appears that many states are not providing the breadth and scope of resources in accordance with FBA standard practice. Thus, LEAs are left to complete FBAs with insufficient or poorly developed resources. Even if states do provide clear information to LEAs, the LEAs are not required to use materials put forth by their state. Districts have access to fewer resources and less support than the states, so their practice in completing FBAs drifts even further from standard and effective practice in the field. Ultimately, when we look at detailed procedures, monitoring states closely, and providing adequate training, the bottom line becomes appropriate and effective services to students. From the data collected at the state level in this investigation, it appears that many students may not be getting appropriate and effective services in regard to FBAs. References Asmus, J.M., Ringdahl, J.E., Sellers, J.A., Call, N.A., Andelman, M.C., & Wacker, D.P. (2004). Use of a short-term inpatient model to evaluate aberrant behavior: Outcome data summaries from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, Bijou, S.W., Peterson, R.F., & Ault, M.H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, Carr, E.G. (1994). Emerging themes in the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, Cooper, L.J., Wacker, D.P., Sasso, G., Reimers, T., & Donn, L. (1990). Using parents as therapists to evaluate appropriate behavior of their children: Application to a tertiary diagnostic clinic. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, Cooper, L.J., Wacker, D.P., Thursby, D., Plagmann, L.A., Harding, J., Millard, T., et al. (1992). Analysis of the effects of task preferences, task demands, and adult attention on child behavior in outpatient and classroom settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,

8 744 Weber, Killu, Derby, and Barretto Derby, K.M., Wacker, D.P., Berg, W., DeRaad, A., Ulrich, S., Asmus, J., et al. (1997). The long-term effects of functional communication training in home setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, Derby, K.M., Wacker, D.P., Sasso, G.M., Steege, M., Northrup, J., Cigrand, K., et al. (1992). Brief functional assessment techniques to evaluate aberrant behavior in an outpatient setting: A summary of 79 cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, Dunlap, G., Kern, L., DePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K.E., et al. (1993). Functional analysis of classroom variables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, Fisher, W., Piazza, C.C., Bowman, L.G., Hagopian, L.P., Owens, J.C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, Florida Department of Education. (1999, November). Facilitator s guide positive behavioral support. Tampa, FL: Bureau of Instructional Support and Community Services. Iwata, B.A. (1988). The development and adoption of controversial default technologies. The Behavior Analyst, 11, Iwata, B.A., Dorsey, M., Slifer, K.J., Bauman, K.E., & Richman, G.S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, Iwata, B.A., Dorsey, M., Slifer, K.J., Bauman, K.E., & Richman, G.S. (1994). Special issue on functional analysis approaches to behavioral assessment and treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, Mace, F.C. (1994). The significance and future of functional analysis methodologies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, Neef, N.A. & Iwata, B.A. (1994). Current research on functional analysis methodologies: An introduction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, Nelson, J.R., Roberts, M.L., Rutherford, R.B., Jr., Mathur, S.R., & Aaroe, L.A. (1999). A statewide survey of special education administrators and school psychologists regarding functional behavioral assessment. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, Northrup, J., Wacker, D.P., Sasso, G.M., Steege, M., Cigrand, K., Cook, J., et al. (1991). A brief functional analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an out-clinic setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, O Neill, R.E., Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J.R., Storey, K., & Newton, J.S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Rortvedt, A.K. & Miltenberger, R.G. (1994). Analysis of a high-probability instructional sequence and time-out in the treatment of child noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, Sasso, G.M., Reimers, T.M., Cooper, L.J., Wacker, D.P., Berg, W., Steege, M., et al. (1992). Use of descriptive and experimental analyses to identify the functional properties of aberrant behavior in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998). Using functional assessments to develop behavior support plans. Preventing School Failure, 43, Tilly, WD., III, Knoster, T.P., Kovaleski, J., Bambara, L., Dunlap, G., & Kincaid, D. (1998). Functional behavior assessment: Policy development in light of emerging research and practice. Alexandria, VA: National Association of the State Directors of Special Education. Touchette, P.E., MacDonald, R.F., & Langer, S.N. (1985). A scatterplot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (1999). Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavior assessment in schools. (OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Publication Technical Assistance Guide #1). Washington, DC: Author. Wacker, D.P., Berg, W.K., Cooper, L.J., Derby, K.M., Steege, M.W., Northrup, J., et al. (1994). The impact of functional analysis methodology on outpatient clinic services. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27,