Kerry, a 12 year old who has problems paying attention, is so overstimulated by what she sees out of the window and hears in the nearby reading group, she slams her text shut and loudly declares that she cannot work.

A conclusion gleaned from these examples may be that, although the topography (what the behavior looks like or sounds like) of the behaviors may be similar, in each case, the "causes," or functions, of the behaviors are very different. Thus, focusing only on the topography will usually yield little information about effective interventions. Identifying the underlying cause(s) of a student’s behavior, however, or, more specifically, what the student "gets" or "avoids" through the behavior, can provide the IEP team with the diagnostic information necessary to develop proactive instructional strategies (such as positive behavioral interventions and supports) that are crafted to address behaviors that interfere with academic instruction.

To illustrate this point, again consider the acting-out behaviors previously described. Reactive procedures, such as suspending each student as a punishment for acting-out, will only address the symptoms of the problem, and will not eliminate the embarrassment Juan feels, Sumi’s boredom, the frustration that Maurice is experiencing, or Kerry’s overstimulation. Therefore, each of these behaviors are likely to occur again, regardless of punishment, unless the underlying causes are addressed.

Functional behavioral assessment is generally considered to be an approach that incorporates a variety of techniques and strategies to diagnose the causes and to identify likely interventions intended to address problem behaviors. In other words, functional behavioral assessment looks beyond the overt topography of the behavior, and focuses, instead, upon identifying biological, social, affective, and environmental factors that initiate, sustain, or end the behavior in question. This approach is important because it leads the observer beyond the "symptom" (the behavior) to the student’s underlying motivation to escape, "avoid," or "get" something (which is, to the functional analyst, the root of all behavior). Research and experience have demonstrated that behavior intervention plans stemming from the knowledge of why a student misbehaves (i.e., based on a functional behavioral assessment) are extremely useful in addressing a wide range of problems.

The functions of behavior are not usually considered inappropriate. Rather, it is the behavior itself that is judged appropriate or inappropriate. For example, getting high grades and acting-out may serve the same function (i.e., getting attention from adults), yet, the behaviors that lead to good grades are judged to be more appropriate than those that make up acting-out behavior. For example, if the IEP team determines through a functional behavioral assessment that a student is seeking attention by acting-out, the team can develop a plan to teach the student more appropriate ways to gain attention, thereby filling the student’s need for attention with an alternative behavior that serves the same function as the inappropriate behavior.

By incorporating functional behavioral assessment into the evaluation IEP process, the IEP team members can gain the information needed to develop a plan or include strategies in the IEP, and IEP team members can develop a plan that teaches and supports replacement behaviors, which serve the same function as the problem behavior, itself (e.g., teaching Maurice to calmly tell the teacher when he feels frustrated, and to ask for assistance when he finds a task too difficult to accomplish). At the same time, strategies may be developed to decrease or even eliminate opportunities for the student to engage in behavior that hinders positive academic results (e.g., making sure that Maurice’s assignments are at his instructional level).

Conducting a Functional Behavioral Assessment

Identifying the underlying causes of behavior may take many forms; and, while the Amendments to IDEA advise a functional behavioral assessment approach (which could determine specific contributors to behavior), they do not require or suggest specific techniques or strategies to use when assessing that behavior. While there are a variety of techniques available to conduct a functional behavioral assessment, as a general matter, the first step in the process is to define the behavior in concrete terms. In the following section we will discuss techniques to define behavior.

Identifying the Problem Behavior

It may be necessary to carefully and objectively observe the student’s behavior in different settings and during different types of activities, and to conduct interviews with other school staff and caregivers, in order to pinpoint the specific characteristics of the behavior.

Once the problem behavior has been defined concretely, the team can begin to devise a plan for conducting a functional behavioral assessment to determine functions of the behavior. The following discussion can be used to guide teams in choosing the most effective techniques to determine the likely causes of behavior.

Possible Alternative Assessment Strategies

A well developed assessment plan and a properly executed functional behavioral assessment should identify the contextual factors that contribute to behavior. Determining the specific contextual factors for a behavior is accomplished by collecting information on the various conditions under which a student is most and least likely to be a successful learner. That information, collected both indirectly and directly, allows school personnel to predict the circumstances under which the problem behavior is likely and not likely to occur.

Multiple sources and methods are used for this kind of assessment, as a single source of information generally does not produce sufficiently accurate information, especially if the problem behavior serves several functions that vary according to circumstance (e.g., making inappropriate comments during lectures may serve to get peer attention in some instances, while in other situations it may serve to avoid the possibility of being called on by the teacher).

It is important to understand, though, that contextual factors are more than the sum of observable behaviors, and include certain affective and cognitive behaviors, as well. In other words, the trigger, or antecedent for the behavior, may not be something that anyone else can directly observe, and, therefore, must be identified using indirect measures. For instance, if the student acts out when given a worksheet, it may not be the worksheet that caused the acting-out, but the fact that the student does not know what is required and thus anticipates failure or ridicule. Information of this type may be gleaned through a discussion with the student.

Since problem behavior stems from a variety of causes, it is best to examine the behavior from as many different angles as possible. Teams, for instance, should consider what the "pay-off" for engaging in either inappropriate or appropriate behavior is, or what the student "escapes," "avoids," or "gets" by engaging in the behavior. This process should identify workable techniques for developing and conducting functional behavioral assessments and developing behavior interventions. When considering problem behaviors, teams might ask the following questions.

Is the problem behavior linked to a skill deficit?

Is there evidence to suggest that the student does not know how to perform the skill and, therefore cannot? Students who lack the skills to perform expected tasks may exhibit behaviors that help them avoid or escape those tasks. If the team suspects that the student "can’t" perform the skills, or has a skill deficit, they could devise a functional behavioral assessment plan to determine the answers to further questions, such as the following:

Does the student have the skill, but, for some reason, not the desire to modify his or her behavior?

Sometimes it may be that the student can perform a skill, but, for some reason, does not use it consistently (e.g., in particular settings). This situation is often referred to as a "performance deficit." Students who can, but do not perform certain tasks may be experiencing consequences that affect their performance (e.g., their non-performance is rewarded by peer or teacher attention, or performance of the task is not sufficiently rewarding). If the team suspects that the problem is a result of a performance deficit, it may be helpful to devise an assessment plan that addresses questions such as the following:

Addressing such questions will assist the IEP team in determining the necessary components of the assessment plan, and ultimately will lead to more effective behavior intervention plans. Some techniques that could be considered when developing a functional behavioral assessment plan are discussed in the following section

Techniques for Conducting the Functional Behavioral Assessment

Indirect assessment

Interviews with the student may be useful in identifying how he or she perceived the situation and what caused her or him to react or act in the way they did. Examples of questions that one may ask include:

Commercially available student questionnaires, motivational scales, and checklists can also be used to structure indirect assessments of behavior. The district’s school psychologist or other qualified personnel can be a valuable source of information regarding the feasibility of using these instruments.

Direct assessment

The observer also may choose to use a matrix or scatter plot to chart the relationship between specific instructional variables and student responses. (See Appendix B for examples). These techniques also will be useful in identifying possible environmental factors (e.g., seating arrangements), activities (e.g., independent work), or temporal factors (e.g., mornings) that may influence the behavior. These tools can be developed specifically to address the type of variable in question, and can be customized to analyze specific behaviors and situations (e.g., increments of 5 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, or even a few days). Regardless of the tool, observations that occur consistently across time and situations, and that reflect both quantitative and qualitative measures of the behavior in question, are recommended.

Data analysis

Hypothesis statement

Only when the relevance of the behavior is known is it possible to speculate about the true function of the behavior and establish an individual behavior intervention plan. In other words, before any plan is set in motion, the team needs to formulate a plausible explanation (hypothesis) for the student’s behavior. It is then desirable to manipulate various conditions to verify the assumptions made by the team regarding the function of the behavior.

For instance, the team working with Lucia in the example above may hypothesize that during class discussions, Lucia calls out to get peer attention. Thus, the teacher might make accommodations in the environment to ensure that Lucia gets the peer attention she seeks as a consequence of appropriate, rather than inappropriate behaviors. If this manipulation changes Lucia’s behavior, the team can assume their hypothesis was correct; if Lucia’s behavior remains unchanged following the environmental manipulation, a new hypothesis needs to be formulated using data collected during the functional behavioral assessment.

Many products are available commercially to assess behaviors in order to determine their function. Sources for more information about techniques, strategies, and tools for assessing behavior are presented in the last section of this discussion.

Individuals Assessing Behavior

Behavior Intervention Plans

The input of the general education teacher, as appropriate (i.e., if the student is, or may be participating in the regular education environment), is especially crucial at this point. He or she will be able to relay to the team not only his or her behavioral expectations, but also valuable information about how the existing classroom environment and/or general education curriculum can be modified to support the student.

Intervention plans and strategies emphasizing skills students need in order to behave in a more appropriate manner, or plans providing motivation to conform to required standards, will be more effective than plans that simply serve to control behavior. Interventions based upon control often fail to generalize (i.e., continue to be used for long periods of time, in many settings, and in a variety of situations) — and many times they serve only to suppress behavior — resulting in a child manifesting unaddressed needs in alternative, inappropriate ways. Positive plans for behavioral intervention, on the other hand, will address both the source of the problem and the problem itself.

IEP teams may want to consider the following techniques when designing behavior intervention plans, strategies, and supports:

The following section describes some ideas IEP teams may consider when developing behavior intervention plans and strategies.

Addressing Skill Deficits

If the student does not know what the behavioral expectations are, the plan can be formulated to teach expectations, and would include the supports, aids, strategies, and modifications necessary to accomplish this instruction, with expectations explained in concrete terms. For example, if the expectation is "to listen to lectures," the intervention plan might include the following:

Goal: During classroom lectures, Jim will make only relevant comments and ask only relevant questions in 80 percent of the opportunities.

Objectives: Given a 50 minute, large group (i.e., more than 20 students) classroom lecture, Jim will ask one appropriate question and make two relevant comments on each of 3 consecutive school days.

Activities to accomplish the goal and objectives:

If the student does not realize that he or she is engaging in the behavior, (i.e., the student is reacting out of habit), the team may devise a plan to cue the child when she or he is so engaged. Such a cue could be private and understood only by the teacher and the student. If Mariah, for instance, impulsively talks out during Ms. Bader’s class discussions, Ms. Bader and Mariah may agree that Ms. Bader will look directly at Mariah and slightly move her right hand in an upward motion to remind Mariah to raise her hand. If Mariah does raise her hand, Ms. Bader agrees to call on her.

Sometimes, for biological or other reasons, a student is unable to control his or her behavior without supports. If the IEP team believes the student needs medical services for diagnostic and evaluation purposes, an appropriate referral can be made.

Should the student not know how to perform the expected behaviors, the intervention plan could include modifications and supports to teach the child the needed skills. Such instruction may require teaching academic skills as well as behavioral and cognitive skills, and may require a team member to do a task analysis (i.e., break down a skill into its component parts) of the individual behaviors that make up the skill. For example, if the skill is to "think through and solve social problems, " the individual skills may include:

The behavior intervention plan, in the previous case, would likely include methods to teach the necessary skills to the child, and would provide the supports necessary to accomplish such plans. Methods may include the following components:

A technique known as curricular integration is useful in teaching skills to students, as the technique integrates positive strategies for modifying problem behavior into the existing classroom curriculum, and is based upon the premise that a skill is more likely to be learned when taught in the context in which it is used. Teachers who incorporate behavioral interventions into daily instruction generally state that this technique has proven to be particularly effective for teaching replacement behaviors.

Addressing Performance Deficits

If the assessment reveals that the student is engaging in the problem behavior because it is more desirable (or reinforcing) than the alternative, appropriate behavior, the intervention plan could include techniques for making the appropriate behavior more desirable. For instance, if the student makes rude comments in class in order to make her peers laugh, the plan might include strategies for rewarding appropriate comments as well as teaching the student appropriate ways to gain peer attention. Behavioral contracts or token economies and other interventions that include peer and family support may be necessary in order to change the behavior.

Sometimes a child does not perform the behavior simply because he or she sees no value in it. While the relevance of much of what we expect students to learn in school is apparent to most children, sometimes (especially with older children) it is not. For example, if Sheran wants to be a hairdresser when she graduates, she may not see any value in learning about the Battle of Waterloo. Therefore, the intervention plan may include strategies to increase her motivation, such as demonstrating to Sheran that she must pass History in order to graduate and be accepted into the beauty school program at the local community college.

Another technique for working with students who lack intrinsic motivators is to provide extrinsic motivators. If the student cannot see any intrinsic value in performing the expected behaviors, it may be necessary to, at least init ially, reinforce the behaviors with some type of extrinsic reward, such as food, activities, toys, tokens, or free time.

Of course, extrinsic rewards should gradually be replaced with more "naturally occurring" rewards, such as good grades, approval from others, or the sheer pleasure that comes from success. This process of fading out, or gradually replacing extrinsic rewards with more natural or intrinsic rewards, may be facilitated by pairing the extrinsic reward with an intrinsic reward.

For example, when rewarding David with popcorn for completing his homework, the paraprofessional could say, David, you have completed all of your homework this week, and your class participation has increased because you are better prepared. You must be very proud of yourself for the hard work you have done. In this way, David should eventually become intrinsically rewarded by a sense of pride in completing all of his assignments.

Addressing Both Skill and Performance Deficits

and have the added support of:

In addition, the student may need to be provided with external rewards for appropriately dealing with anger.

Many professionals and professional organizations agree that it is usually ineffective and often unethical to use aversive techniques to control behaviors, except in very extreme cases, such as situations in which:

It is important for IEP teams to consider all positive interventions before they consider punishment as an option. Punishment often makes behavior worse. Further, punishment seeks to control the symptom of the problem and does not address the function of the behavior.

Modifying the Learning Environment

In addition to factors of skill and motivation, the functional behavioral assessment may reveal conditions within the learning environment, itself, that may precipitate problem behavior. Factors that can serve as precursors to misbehavior range from the physical arrangement of the classroom or student seating assignment to academic tasks that are "too demanding" or "too boring." Again, simple curricular or environmental modifications may be enough to eliminate such problems.

Providing Supports

Families, who may provide support through setting up a homework center in the home and developing a homework schedule;

Teachers and paraprofessionals, who may provide both academic supports and curricular modifications to address and decrease a student’s need to avoid academically challenging situations; and

Language pathologists, who are able to increase a child’s expressive and receptive language skills, thereby providing the child with alternative ways to respond to any situation.

Whatever the approach, the more proactive and inclusive the behavior intervention plan – and the more closely it reflects the results of the functional behavioral assessment – the more likely that it will succeed. In brief, one’s options for positive behavioral interventions may include:

Care should be given to select a behavior that likely will be elicited by and reinforced in the natural environment, for example, using appropriate problem-solving skills on the playground will help the student stay out of the principal’s office.

Evaluating the Behavior Intervention Plan

The Amendments to the IDEA require the IEP team "in the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, consider, when appropriate, strategies, including positive behavior interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior" (614(d)(3)(B)(i). 

To be meaningful, behavior intervention plans need to be reviewed at least annually and revised as appropriate. However, the plan may be reviewed and reevaluated whenever any member of the child’s IEP team feels that a review is necessary. Circumstances that may warrant such a review include:

The point is to predicate all evaluation on student success.

Summary

Resources

Bullock, L.M., & Gable, R.A. (Eds.) (1997). Making collaboration work for children, youth, families, schools, and communities. Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders & Chesapeake Institute.

Carr, E. G., Robinson, S., & Polumbo, L. W. (1990). The wrong issue: Aversive versus nonaversive treatment. The right issue: Functional versus nonfunctional treatment. In A. Repp & N. Singh (Eds.), Aversive and nonaversive treatment: The great debate in developmental disabilities (pp. 361-380). DeKalb, IL: Sycamore Press.

Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-126.

Cooper, L. J., Wacker, D. P., Thursby, D., Plagmann, L. A., Harding, J., Millard, T., & Derby, M. (1992). Analysis of the effects of task preferences, task demands, and adult attention on child behavior in outpatient and classroom settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 823-840.

Donnellan, A. M., Mirenda, P. L., Mesaros, R. A., & Fassbender, L. L. (1984). Analyzing the communicative functions of aberrant behavior. Journal of The Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 201-212.

Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K.E., White, R., & Falk, G. D. (1993). Functional analysis of classroom variables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 275-291.

Durand, V. M. (1993). Functional assessment and functional analysis. In M. D. Smith (Ed.). Behavior modification for exceptional children and youth. Boston: Andover Medical Publishers.

Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99-117.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Bahr, M. (1990). Mainstream assistant teams: A scientific basis for the art of consultation. Exceptional Children, 57, 128-139.

Gable, R. A. (1996). A critical analysis of functional assessment: Issues for researchers and practitioners. Behavioral Disorders, 22, 36-40.

Gable, R. A., Sugai, G. M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, J. R., Cheney, D., Safran, S. P., & Safran, J. S. (1997). Individual and systemic approaches to collaboration and consultation. Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.

Gresham, F.M. (1991). Whatever happened to functional analysis in behavioral consultation? Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2, 387-392.

Haynes, S. N., & O"Brien, W. H. (1990) Functional analysis in behavior therapy. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 649-668.

Hendrickson, J. M., Gable, R. A., Novak, C., & Peck, S. (1996). Functional assessment for teaching academics. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 257-271.

Horner, R. H., & Day, H. M. (1991). The effects of response efficiency on functionally equivalent competing behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 719-732.

Horner, R. H., Sprague, J. R., O"Brien, M., & Heathfield, L. T. (1990). The role of response efficiency in the reduction of problem behaviors through functional equivalence training. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 91-97.

Iwata, B. A., Vollmer, T. R., & Zarcone, J. R. (1990). The experimental (functional) analysis of behavior disorders: Methodology, applications, and limitations. In A. C. Repp & N. Singh (Eds.), Aversive and nonaversive treatment: The great debate in developmental disabilities (pp. 301-330). DeKalb, IL: Sycamore Press.

Kaplan, J.S. (with Carter, J.) (1995). Beyond behavior modification: A cognitive-behavioral approach to behavior management in the school (3rd edition). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Karsh, K. G., Repp, A. C., Dahlquist, C. M., & Munk, D. (1995). In vivo functional assessment and multi-element interventions for problem behaviors of students with disabilities in classroom settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 189-210.

Kerr, M.M., & Nelson, C.M. (1998). Strategies for managing behavior problems in the classroom(3rd edition). New York: MacMillan.

Lawry, J. R., Storey, K., & Danko, C. D. (1993). Analyzing behavior problems in the classroom: A case study of functional analysis. Intervention in the School and Clinic, 29, 96-100.

Lewis, T. J. (1997). Teaching students with behavioral difficulties. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Lewis, T. J., Scott, T. M., & Sugai, G. M. (1994). The problem behavior questionnaire: A teacher-based instrument to develop functional hypotheses of problem behavior in general education classrooms. Diagnostique, 19, 103-115.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. M. (1994). Functional assessment of problem behavior: A pilot investigation of the comparative and interactive effects of teacher and peer social attention on students in general education settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 1-19.

Long, N., & Morse, W.C. (1996). Conflict in the classroom. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

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, 343-351.

Wood, F. M. (1994). May I ask you why you are hitting yourself? Using oral self-reports in the functional assessment of adolescents’ behavior disorders. Preventing School Failure, 38, 16-20.

Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice
American Institutes for Research
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20007
Toll free: (888) 457-1551
Local: (202) 944-5400
E-mail: center@air-dc.org
Web site: www.air-dc.org/cecp/cecp.html

Council for Exceptional Children
1920 Association Drive
Reston, VA 22091-1589
Toll-free: (800) CEC-READ
Local: (703) 620-3660
E-mail: cec@cec.sped.org
Web site: www.cec.sped.org/

Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior
1265 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR  97403-1265
Phone:(541) 346-3592
E-mail:ibdb@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Web site:interact.uoregon.edu/ivdb/ivdb.html

National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities
Academy for Educational Development
P.O. Box 1492
Washington, DC 20013-1492
Toll-free: (800) 695-0285
Local: (202) 884-8200
E-mail: nichcy@aed.org
Web site: http://nichcy.org/

Office of Special Education Programs
U.S. Department of Education
Mary E. Switzer Building
330 C Street, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Toll-Free:(800)872-5327
Local: (202) 401-2000
Web site:www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/index.html

OSEP’s Technical Assistance and Dissemination Network
Federal Resource Center for Special Education (FRC)
Academy for Educational Development
1875 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: (202) 884-8215
E-mail: frc@aed.org
Web site: www.dssc.org/frc/

================

Appendix A