Functional Assessment

PSY 513 – Functional Assessment Project 4: Conduct a Functional Analysis and Write a Report Assignment After obtaining basic information through interviews and other indirect assessment methods, we will often progress to a functional analysis to experimentally determine the source of reinforcement for the problem behavior. Using this function information, along with the information collected during any indirect or observational assessment, we can continue to a treatment recommendation. For this assignment you will conduct a role-play functional analysis, analyze the resulting data and write a report based on those data that presents a treatment recommendation. A sample report appears in Appendix 1. Please limit your report to no more than two pages. Review the evaluation criteria and address each criterion in your report. You will be using your fake learner from projects 1 and 2 for this assignment. I will provide data from the functional analysis once we have completed it in class. Please complete the following activities for this project: 1. Develop a target response definition for the problem behavior assigned to your fake learner during project 1. 2. Analyze the functional analysis data that will be available on Canvas and prepare a graph of the results. 3. Write a narrative report about the results of the functional analysis. Be sure to include an initial treatment recommendation and a reference that provides an experimental evaluation of the recommended treatment. Be sure to review the evaluation criteria listed in the rubric below and address each criterion in your submission. Submit your final functional analysis report on Canvas using the following task analysis: 1. Log on to Canvas. 2. Select PSY 513 from the Dashboard. 3. Click on Project 4: Functional Analysis Report 4. Click on the Upload button under Choose a submission type. 5. Click on the Choose a file to upload link. 6. Navigate to your Functional Analysis Report document. 7. Click on the Open button. 8. Click on the Submit Assignment button in the bottom right corner of the screen. Appendix 2 Sample Functional Analysis Assessment Report Functional Analysis Assessment Learner: Rachel Mills Date: November 21, 2024 Prepared by: John L. Brown, Ph.D., BCBA-D, LBA Rachel Mills is an 11-year-old female learner who has autism spectrum disorder requiring substantial support. Rachel resides in a group-home residence with 4 other individuals who have autism spectrum disorder. She was referred for a functional analysis because of high frequency self-injury. Target Response: Self-injury is defined as any response that leaves a visible mark on Rachel’s skin or any open-handed or closed-fist contact with her head. Typical responses include biting, scratching, picking at scabs, or hitting herself. Responses directed toward others are not scored as self-injury. Assessment Methodology: An interview and a Functional Analysis Screening Test were conducted with Rachel’s mother and father on January 26, 2025 and February 5, 2025, respectively. The results of these preliminary assessments were used to develop a functional analysis assessment for Rachel’s self-injury. After obtaining written informed consent from her mother, the analog functional analysis was conducted at the Rider University Center for Applied Behavior Analysis. A total of 32 10-minute functional analysis sessions were conducted between February 20, 2025 and February 24, 2025. Throughout the functional analysis the occurrence/nonoccurrence of self-injurious responses was measured every ten seconds. Three potential functions of Rachel’s self-injury were examined: Escape, attention, and automatic reinforcement. During the escape condition Rachel entered the evaluation room and was asked, by a behavior technician, to complete academic work and if self-injury occurred, the technician provided a 30-second break from the work. During the attention condition Rachel was in the evaluation room with a behavioral technician who was occupied with paperwork. Preferred stimuli were available during attention sessions. The technician provided verbal and physical attention, in the form of a gentle reprimand and light touch, each time self-injury occurred. The automatic reinforcement sessions consisted of having Rachel enter the evaluation room with a behavior technician who then left her in the room for the duration of the session. During these sessions, preferred stimuli were not available and no consequences were provided for self-injury. A play condition, which served as a control condition was also conducted. Low rates of self-injury were expected in the play condition. During the play condition preferred stimuli were available in the evaluation room. In addition, a behavior technician was present who delivered social attention in the form of vocal praise statements and gentle touch every 30 seconds. Assessment Results: The data obtained from the analog functional analysis were examined to determine which of the possible functions was most likely serving as a reinforcer for Rachel’s self-injury. Based on this analysis Rachel’s self-injury was reinforced by escape from task demands. Figure 1 shows the relative rates of self-injury during each of the four test conditions. Figure 1. Functional analysis results for Rachel Mills. Data are expressed at the percentage of intervals scored for self-injury across escape, attention, alone, and play conditions. Assessment Discussion: The results of the functional analysis clearly show that Rachel’s self-injury is maintained by escape from task demands. Throughout the functional analysis Rachel consistently engaged in various forms of self-injury as soon task demands were presented. Rachel exhibited few episodes of self-injury during any of the other test conditions. Given that the function of Rachel’s self-injury is escape from task demands and adequate staffing is available in her group-home residence and school, it is recommended that demand-fading (Pace et al. 1993) along with differential reinforcement (Vollmer & Iwata, 1992) be used to manage her self-injury. Demand fading begins by reducing Rachel’s demands to a minimal level and then systematically increasing the demands in small steps as long as her self-injury is maintained at zero or near-zero levels. Demands can then be systematically increased until a reasonable number of demands has been achieved. Concurrently, a differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) procedure should be implemented. Based on the data collected during the functional analysis an initial DRO interval should be 2 minutes. As the rate of Rachel’s self-injury decreases the DRO interval should be proportionately increased. If a substantial reduction in Rachel’s self-injury is not seen with combined demand fading and DRO, additional assessment is recommended. February 25, 2025 Provider Signature Date References Pace, G. M., Iwata, B. A., Cowdery, G. E., Andree, P. J., & McIntyre, T. (1993). Stimulus (instructional) fading during extinction of self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(2), 205–212. https://doi(dot)org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-205 Vollmer, T. R., & Iwata, B. A. (1992). Differential reinforcement as treatment for behavior disorders: Procedural and functional variations. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13(4), 393–417. https://doi(dot)org/10.1016/0891-4222(92)90013-V