Newsletter > Volume1 > Issue1

George Sugai and Rob Horner

Since the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997, attempts to implement function-based behavior supports have increased. We view these efforts as important enhancements toward improving the effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of educational programming for students with problem behaviors. However, we are becoming increasingly concerned by the potential for misapplication and over-extension of the function-based approach to behavior support programming. Thus, the purpose of this brief commentary is to describe considerations in the identification of behavior functions. This commentary describes potential misapplications in the identification of behavioral functions and offers readings for a more complete review of the issues and process.

Misapplications and Summary of What We Know

Schools should be commended for their efforts to adopt a function-based approach to behavior support programming. This approach has a long history of theoretical development, research validations, and practical applications. However, a number of limitations exist and should be acknowledged to avoid the development of misapplications.

Theoretical Foundations Are Behavioral

The function-based approach to behavior support programming is founded theoretically on a behavior analytic tradition of teaching and learning. Early behavioral psychologists and educators demonstrated that individual performance or behavior could be explained by the influence of a variety of environmental factors. In general, antecedent events trigger or occasion behavior, and consequence events affect the probability that a behavior will occur (reinforcement) or not occur (punishment). When describing the functions that maintain problem behavior (or any behavior), hypothesis statements are narrowed to two primary behavioral principles:

1. Positive reinforcement is the condition in which a behavior has an increased likelihood of occurring in the future if something (object or event) is given or presented after the behavior occurs.
2. Negative reinforcement is the condition in which a behavior has an increased likelihood of occurring in the future if something (object or event) is avoided, escaped, or removed after the behavior occurs.

The theoretical and empirical supports for these two behavioral principles are extensive in range and depth. Extensions of function-based behavior support to other theoretical approaches and disciplines have not been demonstrated. For example, non-behavioral functions such as, “control,” “authority,” “bullying,” “anger management,” and “intimidation” are appearing as behavioral functions. These labels are inappropriate because they (a) go beyond the behavioral foundations, (b) locate the problem within the students, (c) lack empirical verification, (d) are not observable and therefore measurable, and (e) focus responsibility for change on the student. Of equal importance, these labels are not useful in the active design of behavior support.

For example, a student who engages in verbal threats and profanity may be viewed as having behaviors that are maintained by “a need for control.” This may lead to intervention strategies to address his need for control. Historically this approach to intervention development has not been associated with reduction in problem behavior. Describing behavior as maintained by a “need for control” is consistent with colloquial ways of describing behavior, but not with a function-based logic. A function-based approach would identify those consequences (events or objects that the student either gained or escaped) when he used verbal threats and profanity. In this example, the student is more likely to engage in problem behaviors when a demand is presented, but he is unclear about what to do. He finds these situations highly aversive, and his verbal behavior is associated with rapid removal from the unpleasant context. In this way his verbal threats and profanity are viewed as maintained by escape from a specific type of demand context. The intervention designed to address this hypothesis is likely to be much more targeted, instructive and effective. The main reason for defining the function of problem behaviors is to guide the design of effective and efficient behavior support. The more precise and clearer the identification of the behavioral function, the more helpful for development of support strategies.

Behavior Expertise Is Needed

Understanding problem behavior and developing and implementing behavior support plans based on this understanding can appear deceptively simple and straightforward. However, the reality is that function-based behavior support planning becomes increasingly more intricate as the intensity and complexity of student problem behavior increases, for example,

1. Behaviors that are low frequency but high intensity (e.g., vandalism, fighting, running away).
2. Behaviors that have multiple functions (e.g., profanity is used in one situation for accessing attention and in another situation to avoid attention).
3. Large and multiple response classes of problem behaviors (e.g., profanity, hitting, stealing, crying, and biting hand are used to access peer attention).
4. Behaviors that are “covert” and difficult to observe (e.g., drug/tobacco use, stealing, cheating, lying)
5. Behaviors that are situation-specific (e.g., profanity is observed when a particular teacher corrects the student, but not with other teachers, or in other situations).
6. Behaviors that have a long history (e.g., early antisocial behaviors).

Because of this complexity, we recommend that function-based behavior support planning should be conducted by a team whose members know the student, have behavioral fluency and expertise, follow a best-practice and evidence-based approach, and emphasize a strength-based and person-centered approach to problem solving and plan development. This team should rely on multiple forms of data (e.g., direct observation, interview, archival review) that are collected from multiple sources (e.g., student, family members, teachers) to maximize their ability to agree upon a behavior function and to build a function-based behavior support plan. In addition, data should be collected regularly and frequently to provide maximum opportunities to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention plan and to make modifications quickly.

The purpose of this brief commentary was to remind practitioners, family members, staff developers, administrators, etc. about what we know about function-based behavior support programming. The basic message is that we must stay close to what we know and avoid creating applications and practices that are not supported by our behavior analytic, empirically-based, and applied knowledge base. The following guide should be used as a self-assessment and reminder about the important features of a function-based behavior support process.

Self-Assessment Guide to Function-based Behavior Support Planning

For more in-depth information about behavior functions, function-based behavior support planning, and this self-assessment guide, visit www.pbis.org and see the following selected references: 

Selected References

Blakeslee, T., Sugai, G., & Gruba, J. (1994). A review of functional assessment use in data-based intervention studies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 397-414.

Broussard, C. & Northup, J. (1997). The use of functional analysis to develop peer interventions for disruptive classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(11), 65-76.

Carr, E.G., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J. I., Kemp, D. C., & Smith, C. E. (1994). Communication-based intervention for problem behavior. A user's guide for producing positive change. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Chandler, L. K., Dahlquist, C. M., Repp, A. C., & Feltz, C. (1999). The effects of team-based functional assessment on the behavior of students in classroom settings. Exceptional Children, 66, 101-122.

Crone, D. A. & Horner, R. H. (1999-2000). Contextual, conceptual, and empirical foundations of functional behavioral assessment in schools. Exceptionality, 8(3), 161-172.

Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 387-397.

Dunlap, G., Newton, J. S., Fox, L., Benito, N., & Vaughn, B. (in press). Family involvement in functional assessment and positive behavior support. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities.

Dunlap, G., White, R., Vera, A. G., Wilson, D., & Panacek, L. (1996). The effects of multi-component, assessment-based curricular modifications on the classroom behavior of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 481-500.

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, 85-97.

Ervin, R. A., DuPaul, G. J., Kern, L., & Friman, P. A. (1998). Classroom-based functional and adjunctive assessments: Proactive approaches to intervention selection for adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 65-78.

Foster-Johnson, L., & Dunlap, G. (1993). Using functional assessment to develop effective, individualized interventions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25, 44-50.

Harrower, J. K., Fox, L., Dunlap, G., & Kincaid, D. (1999-2000). Functional assessment and comprehensive early intervention. Exceptionality, 8(3), 189-204.

Horner, R. H. (1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future directions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 401-404.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G. Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (1999-2000). Elements of behavior support plans: A technical brief. Exceptionality, 8, 205-216.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3-20.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197-209.

Kern, L., Childs, K. E., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Falk, G. D. (1994). Using assessment-based curricular intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a student with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 7-19.

Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., & Dunlap, G. (Eds.) (1996). Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Lee, Y., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (1999). Effect of component skill instruction on math performance and on-task, problem, and off-task behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 1, 195-204.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1993). Teaching communicative alternatives to socially withdrawn behavior: An investigation in maintaining treatment effects. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 61-75.

Lewis, T., & Sugai, G. (1996). Descriptive and experimental analysis of teacher and peer attention and the use of assessment-based intervention to improve the pro-social behavior of a student in a general education setting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 7-24.

Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1996). 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.

Nelson, J. R., Roberts, M. L., Mathur, S. R., & Rutherford, R. B. , Jr. (1999). Has public policy exceeded our knowledge base? A review of the functional behavioral assessment literature. Behavioral Disorders, 24(2), 169-179.

Nelson, J. R., Roberts, M. L.,& Smith, D.J. (1998) Conducting functional behavioral assessments: A practical guide. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1997). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A practical assessment guide (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brookes/Cole.

Repp, A. C. (1994). Comments on functional analysis procedures for school-based behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 409-411.

Repp, A. C., & Horner, R. H. (Eds.) (1999). Functional analysis of problem behavior: >From effective assessment to effective support. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Sailor, W., Freeman, R., Britten, J., McCart, A., Smith, C., Scott, T. M., & Nelson, M. (1999-2000). Using information technology to prepare personnel to implement functional behavioral assessment and positive behavioral support. Exceptionality, 8(3), 217-230.

Sasso, G. M., Reimers, T. M., Cooper, L. J., Wacker, D., Berg, W., Steege, M., Kelly, L., & Allaire, A. (1992). Use of descriptive and experimental analyses to identify the functional properties of aberrant behavior in school settings. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 25, 809-821.

Schill, M. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1998). Functional assessment in behavioral consultation: A treatment utility study. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 116-140.

Scott, T. M., Meers, D. T., & Nelson, C. M. (2000). Toward a consensus of functional behavioral assessment for students with mild disabilities in public schools: A national survey. Education and Treatment of Children, 23, 265-285.

Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1999). Functional behavioral assessment: Implications for training and staff development. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 249-252.

Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1999). Using functional behavioral assessment to develop effective intervention plans: Practical classroom applications. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 242-251.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999-2000). Including the functional behavioral assessment technology in schools (invited special issue). Exceptionality, 8, 145-148.

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G. Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., III, Wickham, D. Reuf, M., & Wilcox, B. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 131-143.

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Sprague, J. (1999). Functional assessment-based behavior support planning: Research-to-practice-to-research. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 223-227.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998). Using functional assessments to develop behavior support plans. Preventing School Failure, 43(1), 6-13.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan-Burke, S. (1999-2000). Overview of the functional behavioral assessment process. Exceptionality, 8, 149-160.

Todd, A., Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (1999). Effects of self-monitoring and self-recruited praise on problem behavior, academic engagement and work completion in a typical classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 66-76.

Todd, A., Horner, R., Sugai, G., & Colvin, G. (1999). Individualizing school-wide discipline for students with chronic problem behaviors: A team approach. Effective School Practices, 17(4), 72-82.

Umbreit, J. (1995). Functional assessment and intervention in a regular classroom setting for the disruptive behavior of a student with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 267-278.

Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Peck, S. M., Derby, K. M., & Berg, W. K. (1999). Community-based functional assessment. in A.C. Repp & R.H. Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis of problem behavior: >From effective assessment to effective support (pp. 32-56). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth

Wilcox, B. L., Turnbull III, H. R., & Turnbull, A. P. (1999–2000). Behavioral issues and IDEA: Positive behavioral interventions and supports and the functional behavioral assessment in the disciplinary context. Exceptionality, 8(3), 173–187.

All content of this newsletter and the website are the property of the Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Support. Duplication without express written consent by authors is strictly prohibited. For any questions please contact: riffy@ku.edu