Search

For students with severe or complex challenging behavior, incorporating hypothesis testing as a component of functional behavior assessment (FBA) is often warranted. Several hypothesis testing strategies (i.e., functional analysis, antecedent analysis, concurrent operant analysis) can confirm whether and how features of a student's environment impact their behavior to then inform effective intervention. Yet practitioners have limited guidance on how to select and individualize best-fit strategies for a given student and context. We developed a decision tool for behavior specialists and classroom teachers to collaboratively plan and implement individualized hypothesis testing strategies for students whose initial FBA was inconclusive. We piloted this tool with 12 practitioner teams and students, aiming to (a) identify which assessment strategies were indicated based on practitioner responses; (b) evaluate whether indicated assessments produced conclusive results; and (c) explore practitioner perceptions of the individualized assessment process. The most commonly indicated hypothesis testing strategy was functional analysis. Across teams, one or more hypothesis was successfully confirmed on the first or second assessment iteration. The assessment process was perceived positively by practitioners. Yet they reported feeling ill-equipped to complete the process independently, highlighting important next steps for training and technical assistance work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effectiveness of a behavior intervention package depends heavily on the ability of authentic educators to implement procedures with fidelity. However, much of the training literature focuses on teaching educators to implement procedures with relatively few components (Kirkpatrick Journal of Behavioral Education 28(3): 344–361, 2019). We used a multiple probe across participants design to evaluate the effects of intensive coaching on educator fidelity of a comprehensive, function-based intervention package (skill-based treatment; Hanley Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 47(1): 16–36, 2014) for three public school staff members with no previous training in applied behavior analysis. Relative to a workshop-style behavioral skills training session, intensive coaching increased educators' fidelity to criterion levels. Criterion fidelity in one or both major intervention intervals generalized from implementation with an actor to implementation with a target student, and subsequently to implementation with the student in his regularly assigned classroom. Staff reported the training package to be feasible and the intervention to be effective for improving their student's behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When results of descriptive functional behavior assessments (FBAs) are inconclusive, experimental analysis methods can be used to directly test hypotheses about when or why a student engages in challenging behavior. Despite growing research on practical variations of hypothesis testing in schools, these methods are rarely incorporated in FBAs in practice. To inform practitioner perspectives on hypothesis testing as a component of FBAs, we surveyed a statewide sample of school practitioners who participate in the FBA process (n = 253). The survey addressed their views on three hypothesis testing strategies (i.e., functional analysis, antecedent analysis, concurrent operant analysis) across several dimensions. On 5-point Likert type scales, participants rated acceptability of procedures, feasibility of implementation, utility of results, conditions in which they would likely use or recommend the strategy, and perceived barriers. We used descriptive and nonparametric statistical analyses to compare ratings among the three hypothesis testing strategies. The majority of participants rated all three strategies favorably with respect to utility. However, ratings on acceptability, feasibility, and barriers were differentiated and favored the concurrent operant analysis over the functional and antecedent analyses. We discuss implications for practice and future research on incorporating hypothesis testing in FBAs for students with persistent challenging behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Delay discounting is a process hypothesized to underlie impulsive decision-making and is associated with a host of risky health behaviors, addictive behaviors, and psychiatric diagnoses. While delay discounting has primarily been studied in adult populations, these assessments have potential to facilitate early identification of impulsivity, particularly for children who are at risk for poor long-term outcomes. As a first step toward early identification of risk based on delay discounting, we reviewed the literature including pre-adolescent children to determine (a) for whom delay discounting has been assessed, (b) what assessment procedures have been used, and (c) how assessment parameters affect discounting estimates. Of the 21 identified studies, the majority of participants were children 7 years of age and older who were typically developing or had attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Hypothetical choices about money were most often used in assessments, although commodity magnitudes varied widely. Less than half of assessments included visual supports to aid comprehension of choice options. Effects of assessment parameters on delay discounting were largely unexplored. Future directions for research include identifying limits regarding for whom hypothetical money choice assessments produce interpretable and valid outcomes, as well as alternative assessment approaches or adaptations for children who may have difficulty understanding hypothetical constructs, money, delays, or some combination thereof. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two common barriers to applying statistical tests to single-case experiments are that single-case data often violate the assumptions of parametric tests and that random assignment is inconsistent with the logic of single-case design. However, in the case of randomization tests applied to single-case experiments with rapidly alternating conditions, neither the statistical assumptions nor the logic of the designs are violated. To examine the utility of randomization tests for single-case data, we collected a sample of published articles including alternating treatments or multielement designs with random or semi-random condition sequences. We extracted data from graphs and used randomization tests to estimate the probability of obtaining results at least as extreme as the results in the experiment by chance alone (i.e., p -value). We compared the distribution of p -values from experimental comparisons that did and did not indicate a functional relation based on visual analysis and evaluated agreement between visual and statistical analysis at several levels of α. Results showed different means, shapes, and spreads for the p -value distributions and substantial agreement between visual and statistical analysis when α = .05, with lower agreement when α was adjusted to preserve family-wise error at .05. Questions remain, however, on the appropriate application and interpretation of randomization tests for single-case designs., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018.)