Running head: TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT

Teacher Directed Functional Behavior Assessment Candace Joy Gann University of Arizona

Author Note Candace Joy Gann, Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, University of Arizona. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Candace Joy Lane, Department of Disability and Psychoeducational Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721. E-mail: candace@email.arizona.edu

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Abstract

Using percent of non-overlapping data (PND), 14 single-subject design studies in which teachers conducted functional behavior assessment (FBA) procedures were analyzed to determine the quality of methods used. The studies were analyzed to (a) identify methods of FBA that were used by teachers, (b) determine the effectiveness of these methods, and (c) determine the level of support needed by teachers. As a result of this analysis, the author found that teachers most often conducted functional analysis within FBA research. Further, all interventions developed based on functions identified by teachers through functional analysis procedures were determined to be highly effective based on the PND. Research and practice could be improved if additional studies including teachers in FBA procedures were conducted with results reported, regardless of effectiveness. Additionally, further training might be needed for teachers to conduct FBAs and develop functional interventions. Keywords: functional behavior assessment, teacher involve, training, FBA procedures

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Teacher Directed Functional Behavior Assessment Functional behavior assessment (FBA) had been identified as an empirically validated strategy using direct and indirect methods to identify function of behavior and design behavior support plans based on the identified function. Functional assessments have helped educators identify the physical aspects of the problem behaviors as well as the antecedents and consequences that triggered and maintained the behaviors. When an FBA is conducted, a behavior support plan can be designed to do the following: eliminate the triggers of negative behaviors, teach replacement behaviors that meet the same behavioral functions, and deliver

consequences to maintain the appropriate behaviors taught as a result of the plan (Ingram, LewisPalmer & Sugai, 2005). Once problem behaviors have been eliminated, the child might become better integrated into the classroom environment and successfully participate in all academic and social activities. Experimenters or behavior therapists have conducted the majority of functional behavior assessments; however, FBAs conducted by teachers have increased. Snell, Voorhees and Chen (2005) reported that experimenters and behavior therapists conducted 96% of functional assessments with 30% of FBAs conducted in the special education classroom and only 10% in the general education classroom. Weber, Killu, Derby and Barretto (2005) found most school personnel were unfamiliar with functional behavior assessment while professionals at the state level had limited resources available to teachers about this type of behavioral assessment. As educators began including FBAs in district policies and procedures, pressure was put on the teachers to take part in the process. As a result, research related to teacher directed FBAs had increased (Snell et al., 2005). Historically, teachers were required to provide only information about the student or implement functional interventions (Symons, McDonald, &

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Wehby, 1998). However, researchers have shown that teachers were capable of conducting

functional behavior assessments, including experimental analysis (Skinner, Veerkamp, Kamps & Andra, 2009). In these studies, teachers have collected and analyzed direct observation data, formulated hypotheses about functions of behaviors, conducted functional analysis, and assessed intervention success and failure (Carter, 2006; Davey & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2006; Elingson, Miltenberger, Stricker, Galensky, & Garlinghouse, 2000; Grey, Honan, McClean, & Daly, 2005; Kamps, Wendland, & Culpepper, 2006; Lane, Weisenbach, Little, Phillips, & Wehby, 2006; LeVelle, 1999; Maag & Larson, 2004; Patterson, 2009; Renshaw, Christensen, Marchant, & Anderson, 2008; Shumate, 2009; Skinner et al., 2009; Symons et al., 1998; Watson, Ray, Turner, & Logan, 1999). Though conducting functional behavior assessment requires much time and training, FBAs are necessary to help children displaying problem behaviors so they could learn at the same pace as their peers. When teachers conducted functional assessments, problem behaviors have been reduced in the school and home environment. With problem behaviors reduced, individuals could be involved in the school, home, and community environments. These individuals were then subsequently able to learn academic and self-care skills necessary for a successful, independent life. For this success to occur in the school environment, school personnel have had to learn to conduct functional behavior assessments and implement interventions based on the functions of behaviors. As the amount of money available to school districts continues to decrease, fewer behavior support personnel may be available within school districts to conduct this type of assessment. Teachers would then be required to become more proficient in conducting functional behavior assessments and designing functional interventions. If teachers were capable of conducting FBAs if given training in efficient FBA methods, they

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT could then design effective interventions to eliminate problem behaviors and increase student academic and social skills within the school environment. The goal of this review was to conduct a comprehensive review of the literature on teacher directed functional behavior assessment to (a) identify the methods of functional behavior assessments used by teachers, (b) determine the effectiveness of functional interventions as implemented by teachers within the school setting, and (c) identify the level of support needed by each teacher to complete the functional behavior assessment process. This review was different from previously published literature reviews. Specifically, research that included FBAs conducted by teachers rather than a researcher or a behavior specialist was

synthesized. Additionally, the FBA methods used by teachers were analyzed to identify the most frequently used methods and effectiveness of interventions. The following research questions were considered to guide this review: 1. What methods of functional behavior assessment did teachers use in published research? 2. How effective were functional interventions developed as a result of teacher directed functional behavior assessments? 3. What level of support was needed for teachers to complete the FBA process? Methods Article Selection Procedure A systematic search of PsycINFO, Academic Search Complete, ERIC, and ProQuest was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies, dissertations, and theses about teacher directed functional behavior assessment. Search terms included teacher and implement and functional behavior assessment, teacher and implement FBA, teacher and direct and functional behavior assessment, teacher and direct and FBA, teacher and conduct and functional behavior

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT assessment, and teacher and conduct and FBA. The title and abstract for each article was evaluated to determine whether it would be read in its entirety. Additionally, references from chosen articles were searched for additional related studies. Fifty articles focused on teacher directed functional behavior assessment were identified for further review and read in their entirety. Inclusion Criteria The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher directed

functional behavior assessment within the school setting. Studies were included in this review if (a) the participants were of school age and displayed problem behaviors, (b) the teacher was involved in the FBA process through either direct observations, indirect assessments, or experimental analysis, and (c) implementation of a function-based intervention was included to test the results of the functional behavior assessment. Of the 50 studies identified for potential use in the search, only 14 of them met the inclusion criteria as described above for further evaluation. Participant and setting information for each of the studies was included in Table 1. For the purpose of this review, behaviors were categorized according to the following: disruptive, off-task, self-injurious, aggressive, tantrum, and academic. Disruptive behavior was defined as talking out, throwing objects, and vocalizing inappropriately. Off-task behavior was defined as out of seat, task avoidance, questioning, noncompliance, and inattentiveness. Selfinjurious behavior included any behavior displayed that resulted in purposeful injury and hygienic risk to the participant such as biting or urinating on self. Aggressive behavior included verbal aggression and physical aggression toward others and tantrum behavior was defined as dropping to the floor and crying. Finally, academic behavior included latency in response and

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT prompt dependence. Additionally, each study was assigned a number in Table 1 that would be

used in subsequent tables to identify each study. Reporting Procedures for Quality Indicators Each of the studies was scrutinized using the quality indicators set forth by Horner et al. (2005). These quality indicators were separated into seven separate categories: participants and settings, dependent variable, independent variable, baseline, experimental control, external validity, and social validity. Each study was then judged by the criteria for each category. While reading each article, this author reported on the criteria categories using the qualifiers yes and no. Yes implied the criteria were reported for that category with enough detail in the article according to quality indicators laid forth by Horner et. al. (2005). The no qualifier was used to signify the criteria were absent from the article. Yes responses were then summed and divided by a total of 21 criteria. The calculated percentage was judged by author-imposed standards for meeting the criteria. A study was considered to have met criteria if 80% or higher points were assigned, while it approached criteria if 70% to 80% of points were assigned. All studies assigned below 70% of points based on quality indicators were determined to be below criteria. Because so few studies were found related to this topic, studies approaching criteria were included in this review in addition to those that met criteria. Each of the 14 articles was included in this review based on quality indicator criteria. Evaluation Procedures The articles meeting quality indicator criteria then were evaluated for participant information, methods of FBA, types of behavior interventions, and levels of support needed for the teacher to conduct the FBA. Participants from each study were described by age, diagnosis, target behavior, and setting as seen in Table 1. The methods of functional behavior assessment

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT then were categorized by teacher interview, student interview, direct observation, scatterplot, functional analysis (FA), preference assessment, record review, and rating scale for both the completed FBA and the portion completed by the teacher. For the purposes of this review,

teacher and student interviews included any interview method used by a teacher or researcher to elicit information related to behavioral function. Direct observations included methods to identify functions, such as the antecedent-behavior-consequence (ABC) method. A scatterplot was defined as a grid divided into segments of time across a day for several days. Within each time segment, rates of behavior were recorded for the purpose of identifying behavioral trends (Touchette, MacDonald, & Langer, 1985). Functional analysis was identified as a method widely used by researchers to validate hypothesis statements. In this method, experimental probes for various functions were designed and presented in a brief, systematic manner under highly controlled and counterbalanced conditions (Quinn et al., 2001; Conroy & Fox, 1996; Horner, 1994; Northup et al., 1991). The condition that resulted in the highest occurrence of behaviors was then identified as the function of behaviors for the individual (Alter et al., 2008). Preference assessments included any method for identifying reinforcing items and activities for a student. A record review involved any review of previously documented behavior infractions and rating scales included any Likert-style scale used to identify the frequency of behavior under differing circumstances. Finally, a function matrix was a tool used to organize FBA information into a table used to identify function. This tool provided a structure for considering the six combinations resulting from two functions of behavior (positive and negative reinforcement) and three categories of reinforcers (attention, tangibles/activities, and sensory). An X was placed in the corresponding boxes in the table to identify the exact functional combination maintaining problem behaviors (Umbreit et al., 2007). Methods of conducting the FBA were not only

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT described as a total assessment, but also according to portions of the assessment completed by teachers. The author was then able to quantify the level of support needed by the teachers when

conducting functional behavior assessments according to percentage. To calculate the percent of FBA procedures conducted by teachers, the number of FBA components conducted by the teacher was divided by the total number of procedures included in the FBA process and multiplied by 100. Finally, the results of the interventions were evaluated for magnitude of change from baseline to intervention according to each individual behavior. This evaluation was necessary to determine the effectiveness of functional interventions developed as a result of teacher directed functional behavior assessments. Results A total of 14 studies published between 1998 and 2009 met criteria for inclusion in this review. Table 2 includes summaries of the quality indicators for each study. In these studies, 37 teachers were involved in the FBA process to identify behavioral functions and implement functional interventions for 40 students. The teachers involved in the FBA process were both special education teachers (including reading interventionists) and general education teachers; however, the majority, 59% of the teachers that participated in the FBA process, were special education teachers. Functional behavior assessment (FBA) procedures and teacher roles in the process, as well as magnitude of change in behavior as a result of the FBA and intervention process, were synthesized as part of this review. Magnitude of change was calculated according to percentage of non-overlapping data (PND). PND was calculated by dividing the number of intervention data points that exceeded the highest baseline data point by the total number of intervention phases data points, multiplied

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT by 100 (Scruggs, Mastreopieri, & Casto, 1987). Percentage of non-overlapping data for the participants was used to determine the effect size from visual analysis of graphed data to determine the effects of the intervention (Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1998). Scruggs and Mastropieri (1998) recommended the following guidelines to evaluate PND scores: highly effective treatments had scores higher than 90%, effective treatments had scores from 70% to

10

90%, questionable treatments had scores between 50% and 70%, and ineffective treatments had scores below 50%. Because percentage of non-overlapping data could not be calculated for studies that did not include visual analysis, all participant data could not used for this analysis (Davey & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2005; Grey et al., 2005). Additionally, participants whose data included a baseline data point of zero could not be used to calculate PND (Carter, 2006; LeVelle, 1999; Shumate, 2009). As a result, only 12 studies and 28 participants were included in this statistical analysis. Individual participant interventions corresponding to study number and participant age and gender can be found in Table 4. Percentage of non-overlapping data for each participant was included in Table 4, as well. Functional interventions were highly effective for the majority of the participants. In fact, 74% of interventions reported using visual analysis were determined to be highly effective. Interventions were effective for 11% of participants and of questionable effectiveness for 7% of participants. Finally, interventions were ineffective for 7% of the participants across the 12 studies in which visual analysis of data was used. The number of interventions in each category of effectiveness as defined by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1998) can be found in Figure 1. Functional Behavior Assessment Procedures The articles included in this review were analyzed for functional assessment procedures

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT

11

used in identifying functions of behaviors for the purpose of developing a behavior intervention. The procedures included teacher interviews, student interviews, direct observations, scatter plots, functional analyses, preference assessments, record reviews, questionnaires, and function matrices. Within each completed functional assessment, procedures conducted by the teacher in the study were identified and participation level calculated. An overview of the FBA procedures included in the studies used for this review, along with teacher involvement, can be found in Table 3. That level of teacher participation then was calculated for each study by dividing the number of total procedures included in the FBA by the number of procedures completed by the teacher. An overview of the FBA procedures included in the studies used for this review, along with teacher involvement, could be found in Table 3. Overall, teachers were provided support ranging from 0 to 75% of the FBA process with a mean of 49% of procedures conducted by an outside source. Further, teachers most often conducted functional analyses and direct observation procedures in the FBA process (Kamps et al., 2006; LeVelle, 1999; Shumate, 2009; Skinner et al., 2009; Symons et al., 1998) while they completed a function matrix and student interviews least often (Lane et al., 2006; Patterson, 2009; Renshaw et al., 2008). Highly Effective Interventions and Teacher Participation Within the analyzed studies, 20 interventions were found to be highly effective in changing student behavior according to PND. Only four of the interventions were developed as a result of a functional behavior assessment in which the teacher conducted all of the assessment procedures necessary to determine function. Maag and Larson (2004) were successful in training a veteran fifth-grade general education teacher in the use of a scatter plot and questionnaire developed by the authors to design and implement function-based interventions for two participants. Similarly, a teacher in a study conducted by Patterson (2009) used the Functional

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Assessment Protocol to conduct a functional behavior assessment. This protocol combined

12

teacher interview questions and checklists used to hypothesize functions of behavior to identify function to develop a highly effective intervention (S. Patterson, personal communication, March 23, 2011). Finally, Renshaw et al. (2008) trained four general education teachers in kindergarten, first, and second grade classrooms to conduct functional behavior assessments that included teacher and student interviews in addition to ABC direct observations. However, only one of the four interventions included in the study was determined to be highly effective based on PND. Two interventions determined to be highly effective were developed based on findings of an FBA conducted with 67% of procedures completed by a teacher. Ellingson et al. (2000) included the teacher through the use of a teacher completed behavioral interview presented in a questionnaire format in addition to direct observations; the experimenters conducted the teacher interview. Only one of the three interventions in this study met criteria to be determined highly effective. Similar to Ellingson et al. (2000), the researcher in Carters (2006) study completed the Functional Assessment Interview while the teachers conducted direct observations using the Functional Assessment Observation Form. The Functional Assessment Observation Form combined the use of the ABC method of recording function with a scatter plot. After completion of the FBA interview and observations, the teachers and researcher met to discuss results and develop a functional intervention for the participant. Six highly effective interventions included in three studies were developed based on an FBA conducted with teacher participation in only half of included procedures. For each of the studies, the authors conducted the teacher interview and the teachers conducted functional analysis procedures (LeVelle, 1999; Skinner et al., 2009; Watson et al., 1999). Skinner et al.

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT

13

(2009) and LeVelle (1999) trained teachers to identify functions of escape, teacher attention, and peer attention through functional analysis; however, Watson et al. (1999) provided training to teachers to identify the functions of escape, access to tangibles, automatic reinforcement, and attention through this method. Though the teachers were trained to identify different functions using functional analysis, each of the interventions was highly effective in changing behavior based on PND. The teachers involved in the Kamps et al. (2006) and Shumate (2009) studies directed functional analysis procedures to identify functions of escape and attention while the experimenters conducted teacher interviews and direct observations. Each of the six interventions in these studies was highly effective with 33% teacher involvement in the FBA process. Finally, Lane et al. (2006) included teachers in 25% of the FBA procedures used to identify function and develop interventions for two participants. In this study, the authors conducted teacher and student interviews with two general education second grade teachers in addition to direct observations to obtain ABC data for target behaviors for two student participants. The teachers involved in the study then organized three hours of ABC data into a function matrix to identify potential functions of the behaviors. Functional interventions were highly effective for many behaviors including off-task, selfinjurious, disruptive, tantrum, disruptive, and aggressive. However, intervention effectiveness increased as teacher involvement decreased as shown in Figure 2. Additionally, experimental control was low across six of the 11 studies that included interventions meeting criteria to be determined highly effective with teacher involvement in FBA procedures according to singlesubject quality indicator criteria. In two of the studies (Lane et al., 2006; Maag & Larson, 2004), experimental effect was only demonstrated with two participants at two different points in time

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT

14

using a multiple baseline design (Lane et al, 2006; Maag & Larson, 2004). According to Horner et al. (2005), experimental effect must be shown at three different points in time. None of the authors in the remaining four studies withdrew interventions to return to baseline. Without this withdrawal, the researchers did not control for common threats to internal validity and the results did not have a pattern that demonstrated experimental control (Carter, 2006; Renshaw et al., 2008; Skinner et al., 2009; Watson et al., 1999). This lack of withdrawal could have been due to teacher preference. When an intervention was effective in changing challenging behaviors, the teacher might not have wanted to return to baseline to maintain experimental control and risk an increase in negative behaviors within the classroom. The procedure most commonly used by the teacher to determine functions of behavior and develop highly effective intervention was functional analysis. Functional analysis was used to determine function in 12 highly effective interventions across five studies (Kamps et al., 2006; LeVelle, 1999; Shumate, 2009; Skinner et al., 2009; Watson et al., 1999). Overall, the authors of these studies reported teachers were satisfied with their involvement in the FBA procedures and the changes in behavior resulting from the functional interventions. Effective Interventions and Teacher Participation Within the analyzed studies, three interventions were found to be effective in changing student behavior based on PND. Only one of the interventions was developed as a result of a functional behavior assessment in which the teacher conducted all of the assessment procedures necessary to determine function (Renshaw et al., 2008). Within Ellingson et al.s (2000) study, the teachers conducted direct observations in the same way as in Renshaw et al.; however, rather than the teacher conducting all procedures, they conducted only 67% of procedures used to identify function and develop an intervention. In the final study in which the intervention was

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT determined to be effective, Symons et al. (1998) trained teachers to conduct 50% of functional assessment procedures through the use of a scatterplot while the researchers in this study

15

conducted teacher interviews. Only one of the interventions measured in each study met criteria to be identified as effective. Functional interventions were effective for several behaviors including disruptive behavior, aggressive behavior, and off-task behavior. Unlike those interventions determined to be highly effective, intervention effectiveness remained fairly constant regardless of teacher participation as shown in Figure 2. Additionally, experimental control was low across two of the three studies that included interventions meeting criteria to be determined effective with teacher involvement in FBA procedures according to single-subject quality indicator criteria. In each study (Renshaw et al., 2008; Symons et al., 1998), an AB design was used; therefore, neither experimental effect nor threats to internal validity were shown. Additionally, Symons et al. only included two participants at two different points in time. The procedure most commonly used by the teacher to determine functions of behavior and develop effective interventions was direct observation. The teachers conducted direct observations to assist in determining function in two of the three effective interventions across two studies (Ellingson et al., 2000; Renshaw et al., 2000). Overall, the authors of these studies

reported teachers were satisfied with their involvement in the FBA procedures and the changes in behavior resulting from the functional interventions. Questionable Interventions and Teacher Participation Within the analyzed studies, two interventions were found to have questionable effectiveness in changing student behavior based on PND. Only one of the interventions was developed as a result of a functional behavior assessment in which the teacher conducted all of

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT the assessment procedures necessary to determine function (Renshaw et al., 2008); in the other (Symons et al., 1998), the teacher conducted half of FBA procedures. Both authors included interventions in their studies that resulted in different levels of effectiveness; though, neither author trained the teachers to conduct functional behavior assessments in the same way. Functional interventions had questionable effectiveness for off-task and aggressive

16

behaviors in these studies. Additionally, FBA procedures conducted by the teachers were not the same across the two studies. Even though the level of behavior change from baseline to intervention was questionable, the authors of these studies reported teachers were satisfied with their involvement in the FBA procedures and the changes in behavior resulting from the functional interventions. Experimental control was low across each of the studies that included interventions that met criteria to be determined questionable with teacher involvement in FBA procedures according to single-subject quality indicator criteria. In each study (Renshaw et al., 2008; Symons et al., 1998), an AB design was used; therefore, experimental effect and threats to internal validity were not shown. Additionally, Symons et al. only included two participants at two different points in time. Ineffective Interventions and Teacher Participation Within the analyzed studies, two interventions were found to be ineffective in changing student behavior based on PND. Only one of the interventions was developed as a result of a functional behavior assessment in which the teacher conducted all of the assessment procedures necessary to determine function (Renshaw et al., 2008). Within Ellingson et al.s (2000) study, the teachers conducted direct observations in the same way as in Renshaw et al. (2008); however, rather than the teacher conducting all procedures, they conducted only 67% of

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT procedures used to identify function and develop an intervention. Functional interventions were ineffective in changing off-task behaviors in both studies.

17

Unlike those interventions determined to be highly effective, intervention effectiveness remained fairly constant regardless of teacher participation as shown in Figure 2. Additionally, experimental control was low for only one of the studies that included interventions meeting criteria to be determined ineffective with teacher involvement in FBA procedures according to single-subject quality indicator criteria. In this study (Renshaw et al., 2008), experimental effect and threats to internal validity were not shown. The procedure most commonly used by the teacher to determine functions of behavior and develop effective interventions was direct observation. The teachers conducted direct observations to assist in determining function in each of the ineffective interventions across studies (Ellingson et al., 2000; Renshaw et al., 2000). Overall, the authors of these studies reported teachers were satisfied with their involvement in the FBA procedures and the changes in behavior resulting from the functional interventions, even though the percentage of nonoverlapping data in each case was in the ineffective range. Discussion Within published research, teachers most often conducted functional analysis procedures to identify function of behavior. Additionally, all interventions were rated as highly effective according to PND in each of the studies employing functional analysis conducted by teachers to identify function (Kamps et al., 2006; LeVelle, 1999; Shumate, 2009; Skinner et al., 2009; Watson et al., 1999). Within the studies including interventions that did not meet criteria to be highly effective or effective, FBA procedures conducted by teachers were not consistent. Rather, procedures included scatterplot, direct observation, questionnaires, teacher interviews, and

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT student interviews (Ellingson et al., 2000; Renshaw et al., 2008; Symons et al., 1998). It is

18

important to note that studies in which interventions are not effective are rarely published within peer-reviewed research. Therefore, additional studies including ineffective treatments developed based on FBA results as determined by teachers may not be available and effectiveness results skewed. One can conclude that teachers currently require consultant or researcher support in the FBA process as shown by the low number of FBA procedures conducted by teachers in which highly effective or effective interventions were developed. Further training is needed for teachers to conduct functional behavior assessments because most school personnel re unfamiliar with function behavior assessment prior to receiving researcher training (Weber et al., 2005). Finally, further quality research on this topic is necessary to support teacher directed functional behavior assessments within the school setting. The existing research is scarce and does not meet quality indicators for experimental control. For teachers involvement in the FBA process to be accepted as a best practice, further research must be focused on training and support needed by teachers as well as the effectiveness of interventions developed using teacher data. History has shown that functional behavior assessment is a necessary component in the FBA process. However, research has not consistently shown that teachers are able to conduct these specific assessments. As schools continue to lose funding, teachers may be required to do more functional behavioral assessments and develop interventions without assistance from outside sources. Without this support, children may miss important learning opportunities due to the presence of inappropriate behaviors in the classroom.

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT References Alter, P. J., Conroy, M. A., Mancil, G. R., & Haydon, T. (2008). A comparison of functional assessment methodologies with young children: Descriptive methods and functional

19

analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 200-219. doi:10.1007/s10864-008-9064-3 Carter, R. D. (2006). Functional behavior assessment for a student with autism: Evaluation of a training program for teachers and education program assistants (Masters thesis, Mount Saint Vincent University, Canada). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses data base (UMI No. MR34663). Conroy, M. & Fox, J. (1996). Evaluating the social and ecological validity of analog assessment procedures for challenging behaviors in young children. Education and Treatment of Children, 19(3), 233-256. Retrieved from http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net Davey, B. J. & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2005). A practical approach to functional behavioral assessment in a public (state supported) school: Successes and limitations. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 10(4), 255-268. doi:10.1177/1363275205058998 Ellingson, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., Stricker, J., Galensky, T. L., & Garlinghouse, M. (2000). Functional assessment and intervention for challenging behaviors in the classroom by general classroom teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(2), 85-97. doi:10.1177/109830070000200202 Grey, I. M., Honan, R., McClean, B., & Daly,M. (2005). Evaluating the effectiveness of teacher training in applied behavior analysis. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 9(3), 209-227. doi:10.1177/1744629505056695 Horner, R. H. (1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future directions. Journal of

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 401-404. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-401 Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Content /NavigationMenu/ Publications2/ExceptionalChildren/default.htm Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning:

20

Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 224-236. doi:10.1177 /10983007050070040401 Kamps, D., Wendland, M., & Culpepper, M. (2006). Active teacher participation in functional behavior assessment for students with emotional and behavioral disorders risks in general education classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 31(2), 128-146. Retrieved from http://www.ccbd.net/publication/behavioraldisorders Lane, K. L., Weisenbach, J. L., Little, M. A., Phillips, A., & Wehby, J. (2006). Illustrations of function-based interventions implemented by general education teachers: Building capacity at the school site. Education and Treatment of Children, 29(4), 549-571. Retrieved from http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net LeVelle, J. A. (1999). Analog functional assessment in general education settings (Doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9922093) Maag, J. W. & Larson, P. J. (2004). Training a general education teacher to apply functional assessment. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(1), 26-36. Retrieved from http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT

21

Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Cigrand, K., Cook, J., & DeRaad, A. (1991). A brief functional analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an outclinic setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(3), 509-522. doi:10.1901/jaba.1991.24-509 Patterson, S. T. (2009). The effects of teacher-student small talk on out-of-seat behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(1), 167-174. doi:10.1353/etc.0.0048 Quinn, M. M., Gable, R. A., Fox, J., Rutherford, R. B., Van Acker, R., & Conroy, M. (2001). Putting quality functional assessment into practice in schools: A research agenda on behalf of E/BD students. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(3), 261-275. Retrieved from http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net Renshaw, T. L., Christensen, L., Marchant, M., & Anderson, T. (2008). Training elementary school general educators to implement function-based support. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(4), 495-521. doi:10.1353/etc.0.0037 Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). Summarizing single subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221-242. doi:10.1177/01454455980223001 Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of singlesubject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24-33. Retrieved from http://rse.sagepub.com/ Shumate, E. D. (2009). The effectiveness of classroom-based functional analyses and interventions for off-task and disruptive behaviors in a general education reading classroom (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3349821) Skinner, J. N., Veerkamp, M. B., Kamps, D. M., & Andra, P. R. (2009). Teacher and peer

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT

22

participation in functional analysis and intervention for a first grade student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(2), 243-266. doi:10.1353/etc.0.0059 Snell, M. E., Voorhees, M. D., & Chen, L. (2005). Team involvement in assessment- based interventions with problem behavior: 1977-2002. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(3), 140-152. doi:10.1177/10983007050070030301 Symons, F. J., McDonald, L. M., & Wehby, J. H. (1998). Functional assessment and teacher collected data. Education and Treatment of Children, 21(2), 135-159. Retrieved from http://www.educationandtreatmentofchildren.net Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(4), 343351. doi:10.1901/jaba.1985.18-343 Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Liaupsin, C., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional behavior assessment and function-based intervention: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Watson, T. S., Ray, K. P., Turner, H. S., & Logan, P. (1999). Teacher-implemented functional analysis and treatment: A method for linking assessment to intervention. School Psychology Review, 28(2), 292-302. Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org /publications/spr/sprmain.aspx Weber, K. P., Killu, K., Derby, K. M., & Barretto, A. (2005). The status of functional behavior assessment (FBA): Adherence to standard practice in FBA methodology. Psychology in the Schools, 42(7), 737-744. doi:10.1002/pits.20108

Running head: TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Table 1 Student Participant Information Study 1. Symons et al. (1998) Setting Special education Special Education General education General education General education General education General education Special education Special education Special education General education General Education General Education Age/Gender 8/male 12/male 10/female 5/male 8/male 10/male 9/male 10/male 19/female 18/male 12/male -/male -/male Diagnosis ADHD None None None None None None MR MR MR MR EBD LD

23

Target Behavior Disruptive behavior Aggressive behavior Off-task behavior Off-task behavior Off-task behavior Off-task behavior Off-task behavior Self-injurious behavior Disruptive behavior Aggressive behavior Off-task behavior Disruptive behavior Disruptive behavior

2. LeVelle (1999)

3. Watson et al. (1999) 4. Ellingson et al. (2000)

5. Maag & Larson (2004)

Note: ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; MR = Mental Retardation; EBD = Emotional Behavioral Disorder; LD = Learning Disability (continued)

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Table 1 Student Participant Information Study 6. Grey et al. (2005) Setting Special education Special education Special education Special education Special education Special education Special education Special education Special education Special education Special education Special education Special education Age/Gender 9/male 8/male 6/male 13/male 15/male 10/male 10/female 2/female 3/female 6/male 8/male 9/male 6/female Diagnosis Autism Autism Autism Autism Autism Autism Autism Autism Autism Autism Autism Autism

24

Target Behavior Aggressive behavior Off-task behavior Disruptive behavior Aggressive behavior Off-task behavior Aggressive behavior Off-task behavior Academic behavior Aggressive behavior Self-injurious behavior Academic behavior Tantrum behavior Aggressive behavior

7. Carter (2006) 8. Davey & Lignugaris/Kraft (2006) 9. Kamps et al. (2006)

Bipolar and ADHD

General education General education General education General education

7/female 7/male -/male -/female

None, at-risk None, at-risk None, at-risk for EBD None, at-risk for EBD

Off-task behavior Off-task behavior Off-task behavior Off-task behavior

10. Lane et al. (2006)

Note: ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; MR = Mental Retardation; EBD = Emotional Behavioral Disorder; LD = Learning Disability (continued)

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Table 1 Student Participant Information Study 11. Renshaw et al. (2008) Setting General education General education General education General education General education Small group reading Small group reading Small group reading Small group reading General education Age/Gender -/male -/male -/male -/male 15/male 8/female 7/male 8/male 7/female -/male Diagnosis None None None None None None None None None

25

Target Behavior Off-task behavior Off-task behavior Off-task behavior Off-task behavior Off-task behavior Disruptive and off-task Disruptive and off-task Disruptive and off-task Disruptive and off-task Disruptive and aggressive behavior

12. Patterson (2009) 13. Shumate (2009)

14. Skinner et al. (2009)

Note: ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; MR = Mental Retardation; EBD = Emotional Behavioral Disorder; LD = Learning Disability

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Table 2 Summary of Quality Indicators for Single-Subject Research

26

Quality Indicator Participants and Setting Dependent Variable Independent Variable Baseline Experimental Control External Validity Social Validity Total 1 3/3 2 3/3 3 3/3 4 3/3 5 3/3 6 3/3

Study Number 7 3/3 8 3/3 9 3/3 10 3/3 11 3/3 12 3/3 13 3/3 14 3/3

5/5

5/5

5/5

5/5

5/5

2/5

3/5

4/5

5/5

5/5

5/5

4/5

4/5

5/5

2/3

3/3

3/3

3/3

3/3

2/3

2/3

1/3

2/3

3/3

3/3

2/3

3/3

3/3

2/2 0/3

0/2 3/3

2/2 1/3

2/2 3/3

2/2 2/3

2/2 1/3

2/2 0/3

2/2 0/3

2/2 3/3

2/2 2/3

2/2 0/3

2/2 3/3

2/2 3/3

2/2 2/3

1/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

0/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

1/1

0/1

1/1

0/1

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

4/4

81% 90% 90% 100% 90% 71% 71% 71% 95% 95% 86% 86% 95% 90% Met Met Met Met Met Appr. Appr. Appr. Met Met Met Met Met Met Note: Studies are numbered according to numeration in Table 1; Appr. = Approaching Criteria. Adapted from The Use of SingleSubject Research to Identify Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education, by R. H. Horner et al., 2005, Exceptional Children, 71, p. 174. Copyright 2005 by Council for Exceptional Children.

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Table 3 Functional Behavior Assessment Procedures Study Number 7 8 9 + + +

27

Teacher Interview Student Interview Direct Observation Scatter Plot Functional Analysis Preference Assessment Record Review Questionnaire

1 +

2 +

3 +

4 +

10 +

11 ++

12 ++

13 +

14 +

++

++

++

++

++

++ ++ ++

++

++ ++ ++ ++

++

++

++

++

++

Function ++ Matrix Note: Studies are numbered according to numeration in Table 1. The + is used to signify the experimenter conducted the FBA procedure. The ++ is used to signify the teacher conducted the FBA procedure.

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Table 4 Interventions and Percentage of Non-overlapping Data Study 1 Participant 8/male

28

Intervention Teacher restructured first line-up procedure to include aide meeting the students outside the entrance and sending each student to the classroom one at a time at 3 minute intervals to temporarily separate them; teacher greeted each student as they came in the door to provide a brief moment of individual attention; teacher provided a prompt and description of the morning task or sent to integration classroom Provided more task/activity structure in the interval immediately following morning recess (desk work) Provided peer attention Provided teacher attention Provided easier tasks Provided peer and teacher attention Provided peer attention Teacher trained the use of a replacement behavior (raising ones hand to gain teacher attention) and differential reinforcement of an alternative behavior (raising hand) while she ignored less severe inappropriate behaviors; intermittent reinforcement for appropriate classroom behavior using a token economy; clear instructional and behavioral expectations; a three-step prompting procedure in response to minor behavioral and academic errors; timeout for severe aggressive behavior

PND 75%

12/male

50%

10/female 5/male 8/male 10/male 9/male

100% 100% -100% 100% 96%

10/male

Note: Studies are numbered according to numeration in Table 1. PND = Percentage of Non-overlapping Data (continued)

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Table 4 Interventions and Percentage of Non-overlapping Data Study 4 Participant 19/f

29

Intervention Frequent non-contingent attention from teacher sitting next to her (once every 6-seconds); differential reinforcement of an alternative behavior (getting high five) using verbal and physical attention; and the removal of attention specific to pounding

PND 100%

18/male

Provided non-contingent attention for appropriate behavior in 6-second intervals; prompted 88% participant to engage in an acceptable alternative behavior of giving a high five and responded enthusiastically with attention; and removed all attention specific to attention Provided attention for compliance and non-attention for off-task and non-compliance Choice of preferred seating and therefore preferred peer Provide teacher reinforcement of assignment completion 14% 100% 100%

12/male 5 -/male -/male 6

9/male Environmental accommodations, skill training (general skills, functionally equivalent -8/male skills, coping and tolerance skills) and reactive strategies -6/male -13/male -15/male -10/male -10/female -2/female -3/female -6/male -8/male -Note: Studies are numbered according to numeration in Table 1. PND = Percentage of Non-overlapping Data; -- = PND not calculated (continued)

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Table 4 Interventions and Percentage of Non-overlapping Data Study 7 Participant 9/male

30

Intervention Provided snack upon arriving at school; taught self-relaxation techniques; remove to sensory room upon arriving at school upset Emphasized escape extinction and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA); prevented participant from escaping a command or task contingent upon selfinjurious behavior; allowed to escape only when he complied or completed the task without self-injuring; differential reinforcement involved allowed participant to have access to a preferred activity contingent upon compliance with a command or performance of a task Increased levels of teacher attention and points for appropriate behaviors, with lottery tickets for occasional tangible reinforcement; provided self-recording of responses during group choral reading; limited reminders of class rules Praised and given points during group instruction, limited attention to inappropriate behaviors, a lottery reinforcement system; provided self-recording of on-task and off-task behavior at 1-2 minute intervals. Reinforced replacement behavior; provided a method to organize assignments; provided behavior goal checklist; reinforced meeting goals; withheld consequence previously reinforcing the target behavior

PND 100%

6/female

--

7/female

100%

7/male

100%

10

-/male

100%

Provide examples at the top of each assignment; provided assignment checklist; reinforced 100% for completing assignments; withheld allowance of escape and attention during periods of task avoidance Note: Studies are numbered according to numeration in Table 1. PND = Percentage of Non-overlapping Data; -- = PND not calculated (continued)

-/female

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Table 4 Interventions and Percentage of Non-overlapping Data Study 11 Participant -/male

31

Intervention PND Provided reminders of expectations; reviewed replacement behavior; trained class to ignore 100% inappropriate behaviors; reinforced replacement behavior; provided praise note at the end of class; allowed reinforcer exchange Improved the classroom environment; moved seating to close to teacher; reminded of expectations; reminded of reinforcement possibilities; provided verbal and written praise; teacher ignored off-task behavior Reinforced replacement behavior; provided reminders of expectations; reminded of reinforcement possibilities; provided verbal praise and token reinforcement; allowed reinforcer exchange; allowed get out of a center free card Reinforced replacement behavior; provided reminder of expectations; provided verbal praise; provided token reinforcement; allowed reinforcer exchange Engaged participant in conversation before he entered the classroom Fixed momentary differential reinforcement of other behaviors; differential reinforcement of alternative behaviors; extinction for all participants 80%

-/male

-/male

60%

-/male

33%

12 13

15/male 8/female 7/male 8/male 7/female

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Note: Studies are numbered according to numeration in Table 1. PND = Percentage of Non-overlapping Data; -- = PND not calculated (continued)

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT Table 4 Interventions and Percentage of Non-overlapping Data Study 14 Participant -/male

32

Intervention Function-based fixed time reinforcement providing teacher attention and/or breaks on a fixed-time schedule (every 3 minute); compliments were given for engagement in work activities, working well with peers, sitting quietly, listening, and other on-task behaviors.

PND 100%

Peer attention was added to the FT reinforcement intervention after the participant was taken off of his medications. The peer was prompted to provide attention on a 3-minute schedule through assistance with task or verbal praise. fNote: Studies are numbered according to numeration in Table 1. PND = Percentage of Non-overlapping Data; -- = PND not calculated

Running head: TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT

33

20

18

16

14 Number of Interventions

12

10

Highly Effective

Effective

Questionable

Ineffective

Levels of Effectiveness according to PND

Figure 1. The number of interventions in each category of effectiveness according to percent of non-overlapping data is included in this figure.

TEACHER DIRECTED FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT

34

Highly Effective 100

Effective

Questionable

Ineffective

90

80

Percent of Interventions in PND Effectiveness Categories

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 100% -10 67% 50% 33% 25% Percent of FBA Procedures Conducted by Teachers

Figure 2. The percent of interventions according to intervention effectiveness determined by percent of non-overlapping data for each level of teacher participation is included in this figure