BA430 Unit 6 Functional Analysis Paper Example

The Truck Condition Settled It: A BA430 Unit 6 Functional Analysis Paper

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

BA430: Behavior Assessment

Unit 6 Functional Analysis Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the cooperative, the student, the supervisor and every figure are composite and illustrative; the articles cited are real.

The Question Left Open

Descriptive data had shown that Kou's screaming during transitions was associated with two events that usually happened together: getting his toy truck back and delaying a move into the loud gym. Because the two were confounded, observation could not separate them. A functional analysis does what observation cannot. It arranges conditions in which one consequence at a time follows the behavior and compares rates of behavior across conditions.

Because Kou sometimes hits during episodes, my supervising behavior analyst designed and ran the analysis with me, as we had agreed when reviewing my scope of competence. His grandmother gave written consent after a meeting with an interpreter in which we explained each condition, what might happen, and that she could stop the analysis at any time.

The Model

Iwata et al. (1994) published the first systematic functional analysis methodology, originally reported in 1982. Participants with self-injury were exposed to conditions in a multielement design: social disapproval, in which attention followed the behavior; academic demand, in which a break followed it; unstructured play, a control with attention and toys freely available; and alone, testing whether the behavior persisted without social consequences. Different patterns across conditions identified different functions for different individuals.

The model is flexible. Conditions are designed to test the hypotheses suggested by earlier assessment, and the control condition provides a comparison in which the tested reinforcers are freely available.

Each condition asked one question, and the control condition asked what happens when nothing is withheld.

Conditions for Kou

We designed four conditions, each five minutes, run in an empty classroom with the door closed. In the tangible condition, Kou played with the truck for two minutes before the session; at the start, my supervisor took it and set it on a shelf in view, returning it for thirty seconds after each scream. In the escape-from-noise condition, a recording of gym noise played at a moderate volume, and it was turned off for thirty seconds after each scream. In the attention condition, my supervisor sat nearby reading and gave brief verbal attention after each scream. In the control condition, Kou had the truck, the room was quiet and an adult played with him.

Conditions rotated in a fixed order across three sessions per day over two days. I recorded screams and hits on a tablet, and a second observer recorded a third of sessions for agreement, which averaged 92 percent.

Safety Plan

Before the first session, we wrote a safety plan. The room was cleared of hard objects, and staff wore long sleeves. Any session would end if Kou hit more than three times, if he showed signs of distress beyond the screaming typical of his transitions, or if his grandmother or teacher asked us to stop. Sessions were brief to limit exposure, and each ended with a few minutes of play with the truck. No session met the termination criteria.

Results

Screaming occurred in every tangible session, averaging 4.3 screams per session, with two hits across all three sessions. The escape-from-noise condition produced lower but consistent screaming, averaging 1.7 per session. Attention sessions averaged 0.3, and control sessions produced none.

The results pointed to access to the truck as the primary reinforcer. Escape from noise produced some screaming, which suggested that noise was aversive to him. My supervisor interpreted the pattern as tangible-maintained screaming with loud settings as a possible motivating operation, making the truck, a familiar comfort, more valuable when noise was ahead.

A Trial-Based Follow-Up

An analysis in an empty room can differ from the conditions a child actually faces. Bloom et al. (2011) developed a trial-based functional analysis for classrooms, in which brief trials are embedded in ongoing activities. Each trial has a control segment, in which the relevant reinforcer is available, and a test segment, in which it is withheld until the behavior occurs. They compared trial-based and standard analyses for students in classroom settings and found that results corresponded for most participants, supporting trial-based analyses as a practical classroom option.

We ran ten trials during real transitions over a week. In each tangible trial, Kou held the truck for one minute, then was asked to put it away for one minute, with the truck returned if he screamed. He screamed in seven of ten test segments and in none of the control segments. Noise trials, in which he walked toward the gym and was returned to the quiet hall after screaming, produced screaming in three of ten test segments. The classroom results matched the analysis in the empty room.

Common Concerns

Hanley (2012) addressed concerns that often keep practitioners from conducting functional analyses: that they take too long, are too risky, or cannot be done in schools. He argued that brief, well-designed analyses with safety safeguards are often feasible and that the information they provide is worth the time. Our analysis took two short mornings and one week of embedded trials, with no injuries and no session ended early.

Limits of the Analysis

The analysis had limits that the team recorded alongside the results. Three sessions per condition is a small sample, and the escape condition used recorded noise, which may be less aversive than a real gym full of children. The analysis also tested only school conditions. If screaming at home serves attention, as his grandmother described, a school analysis says nothing about it. Finally, Kou knew my supervisor and me by then, and his behavior with less familiar staff could differ. My supervisor wrote these limits into the report so that the next reader would not treat one week of data as settled for every setting and every adult.

What the Analysis Changed

The descriptive data had left the team considering a plan built on noise reduction, which would have helped only partly. The analysis showed that access to the truck mattered most. The treatment discussion moved toward teaching Kou to request the truck or to carry it in a backpack during transitions, with noise reduction as a secondary support. The pattern at home, where his grandmother described attention, would need its own assessment.

Conclusion

Twelve brief sessions built on Iwata and colleagues' model separated two variables that observation could not. Screaming was highest when the truck was removed and returned contingent on screaming, lower when noise was escaped, and nearly absent in attention and control sessions. A trial-based follow-up based on Bloom and colleagues confirmed the result during real transitions, and the safety plan kept the analysis brief and safe.

References

Bloom, S. E., Iwata, B. A., Fritz, J. N., Roscoe, E. M., & Carreau, A. B. (2011). Classroom application of a trial-based functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(1), 19-31. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-19

Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problem behavior: Dispelling myths, overcoming implementation obstacles, and developing new lore. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(1), 54-72. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391818

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197