A comparison of methodologies of brief functional analysis. (August 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Badgett, Natalie; Falcomata, Terry S.
• Is Part Of: Developmental neurorehabilitation. Volume 18:Number 4(2015:Aug.)
• Page Start: 224
• Page End: 233
• Publication Date: 2015-08
• Subjects: Children with disabilities -- Rehabilitation -- Periodicals; Developmentally disabled children -- Rehabilitation -- Periodicals; 615.542
• DOI: 10.3109/17518423.2013.792298
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1751-8423

Abstract

<abstract> <title>Abstract</title> <p> <italic>Objective</italic>: To evaluate correspondence between three models of brief functional analysis (BFA); to evaluate a latency-based model of BFA.</p> <p> <italic>Methods</italic>: Single subject research; three models of BFA; latency-based BFA; brief A-B model with programmed antecedents and no programmed consequences for aberrant behaviour; A-B-C model with programmed antecedents and programmed consequences for aberrant behaviour; contingency reversal treatment evaluations conducted with each model; each model implemented with four individuals with autism diagnoses; correspondence of results between the three BFA models in terms of the conditions in which aberrant behaviour occurred.</p> <p> <italic>Results</italic>: Overall, strong correspondence between all three BFA models was observed; several specific instances of non-correspondence within participants observed; more differentiation observed between test and control conditions in A-B model than A-B-C model.</p> <p> <italic>Conclusions</italic>: Additional support that clinicians and educators have flexibility in choosing BFA model that fits the specific, idiosyncratic variables and constraints of their setting (e.g. outpatient; classroom) and client(s).</p> </abstract>