Comparison of Functional Assessment

Methods Targeting Aggressive and

Stereotypic Behaviour in a Child with
Autism
Jenelle McDonald, Dennis W. Moore and Angelika Anderson
Krongold Centre, Faculty of Education, Monash University

There has been considerable research addressing functional assessment procedures, but little direct comparison of the practical utility of different methods
of assessment. The aim of this study was to examine three different methods of
conducting functional assessments of problem behaviours of a child with autism.
Data obtained through indirect, direct and experimental functional assessment
methods in both a classroom and playground setting were compared. Although
results from both the indirect and direct observation methods gave some indication of the possible function of the target behaviour, the functional analysis
provided conclusive results that the behaviour was maintained by access to preferred activities/tangibles. A brief trial of an intervention based on these results
was effective in reducing problem behaviour and increasing desired behaviour.
 Keywords: functional behaviour analysis, functional behaviour assessment,
autism, autism intervention

Stereotypic and repetitive behaviours (SRBs) and aggressive behaviours are common
with children with autism and often present as problematic due to their social inappropriateness, and the challenges they present to teachers, family and others dealing
directly with the child (Patterson, Smith, & Jelen, 2010). SRBs have also been shown
to affect childrens learning and interfere with adaptive social interactions (Patterson
et al.). Children with autism present with a variety of SRBs, some having limited
and repetitive play repertoires while others present with behaviours including hand
flapping, body rocking, repeating words and phrases, following fixed routines and/or
walking on tiptoes (OReilly et al., 2010; Spreckley & Boyd, 2009). Further, interruption of stereotypic and repetitive behaviours through, for example, teacher redirection,
may result in other challenging behaviours such as aggression or self injury (OReilly
et al., 2010; Sigafoos, Green, Payne, OReilly, & Lancioni, 2009).
Many researchers have worked at developing effective early interventions for teaching children with autism and for addressing challenging behaviours (Koegel, Koegel,
Hurley, & Frea, 1992; Shukla-Meta, Miller, & Callahan, 2009). Researchers have
demonstrated the relative effectiveness of function-based interventions compared
to other methods of intervention (Filter & Horner, 2009; Hanley, 2010; Herzinger &
Address for correspondence: Jenelle McDonald, Krongold Centre, Faculty of Education, Monash

University, Melbourne VIC 3800, Australia. E-mail: jgmcd2@student.monash.edu

52

The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

c Australian Psychological Society Ltd 2012 |
Volume 29 | Issue 1 | 2012 | pp. 5265 | 
doi 10.1017/edp.2012.9

Methods Targeting Aggressive and Stereotypic Behaviour in a Child with Autism

Campbell, 2007; Thompson & Iwata, 2007). Current educational and psychological
standards of practice dictate determination of the function of challenging behaviours
prior to treatment and for interventions to be based on the function or purpose the
behaviour serves an individual (Tarbox et al., 2009).
Functional behaviour assessment (FBA) is intended to help identify the environmental conditions under which challenging behaviour occurs (Horner & Carr, 1997)
and the source of reinforcement for this behaviour (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003;
Tarbox et al. 2009). Different approaches have been taken to the functional assessment
process, these approaches varying on (a) time/effort/cost, (b) richness of information
gained, and (c) ability to differentiate between correlational and functional associations between behaviour and observed antecedents/consequences. Researchers differ
in their views regarding the utility of both indirect and direct, but nonexperimental
functional assessment procedures and the feasibility of undertaking in situ functional
analyses (Alter, Conroy, Mancil, & Haydon, 2008; Fox, 1998; Sasso, Conroy, Peck
Stichter, & Fox, 2001).
From a practical point of view it could be argued that the most cost- and timeefficient methods (indirect and direct functional assessment procedures) should be
used. However, some research evidence suggests that these do not yield adequate results
and experimental FA are required (Alter et al., 2008). In practice, it has been reported
that there is an over-reliance on indirect FBA methods by behaviour specialists in
schools in Australia (ONeill & Stephenson, 2010) as well as overseas (Blood & Neel,
2007). A possible reason for this is the time, cost and skill requirements for FA. It is
therefore important to identify feasible alternative procedures that do not require a
large amount of therapist time, and that can be conducted in natural environments
by individuals with little additional training. Two promising developments in this
regard are technological advances for remote observations (Behavior Imaging), and
the development of brief functional analysis procedures.
Behavior Capture is a video-based capture-and-access system for recording, annotating and communicating behaviour-imaging data collected in natural settings.
The system consists of a laptop computer, a web-cam, a remote control, and specifically designed software. With a button pressed on the wireless hand-held remote, the
system is activated and records (captures) video footage of the target behaviour,
including up to 8 minutes before and after the button press. In this way both
antecedent and consequent events of the target behaviour can be captured. The
recorded images can then be uploaded to the secure-storage website, Behavior Connect (http://www.behaviorimaging.com/html/connect.htm) and shared with specified
individuals for analysis/annotation. Behavior Capture, in conjunction with Behavior
Imaging, has thus provided a feasible means for conducting ABC observations by
capturing the triggers and consequences of behaviours via video technology (Reischl
& Oberleitner, 2009), thereby potentially overcoming some of the challenges to direct
observation identified above. The system has been trialled in classrooms overseas with
promising results (Behavior Imaging Solutions: Technology for Behavioural Health,
2007).
Advances in functional analysis procedures include the development of methodologies that are brief and that can be conducted in natural environments (Iwata &
Worsdell, 2005; Northup et al., 1991) and by individuals without special training in
the procedure (for a comprehensive review see Hanley et al, 2003). One of these is
the discrete trial method developed by Sigafoos and Saggers (1995). It involves the
The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

53

Jenelle McDonald, Dennis W. Moore, and Angelika Anderson

presentation of a trial condition (attention, task, or tangible) for up to 60 seconds, followed immediately by a 60-second control condition where the function being tested
is freely accessible and no demands are made. The trial condition is terminated as
soon as the individual exhibits the target behaviour, and the control condition begins
at this point. For example, in the attention condition the examiner is positioned close
to the person but then withdraws attention. As soon as the individual exhibits any
of the target behaviours the examiner delivers attention, and moves straight into the
control condition, that is, attention is delivered freely for 60 seconds. If the target
behaviour does not occur in the trial condition this condition is maintained for
60 seconds, after which it is followed by the control condition.
Sigafoos and Saggers (1995) got the teacher to carry out four trials of each condition
interspersed throughout the school day, whenever it fitted into the natural routine
(e.g., testing for tangibles at snack time). In all, they conducted 20 trials of each
condition over the course of a week. Their results showed that this method clearly
identified the functions of the target behaviour for each of their two participants.
This discrete trial method has several distinct advantages: it can be carried out in
the setting where the behaviour typically occurs, may involve the people who normally
work with the participants (in this instance a teacher), and each target behaviour is
only elicited briefly (a single occurrence) in each trial. Although Sigafoos and Saggers
(1995) conducted their FA over the course of a week, as each trial only lasted a
maximum of 2 minutes the total FA process in this study took no more than 40
minutes. They also suggested that fewer trials over a shorter time span could be used.
The purpose of this current study was to explore the utility and feasibility of three
novel procedures designed to help understand the function of classroom behaviours:
indirect functional assessment interviews, direct functional assessment observations
utilising current IT technologies (Behavior Imaging, and Flip video), and a discrete
trial functional analysis based on the procedure developed by Sigafoos and Saggers
(1995). We anticipated that, with guidance, teachers would be able to carry out the
FBA procedures during their regular classroom routines and that imaging technologies
would facilitate the direct FBA process. It was predicted that the results obtained from
indirect FBA and direct FBA would differ from the results of the FA.
Method
Prior to commencement, this study was approved by the universitys ethics committee
and by the Victorian Government Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development Ethics Committee. Informed consent was obtained from the participants school principal and teacher. Consent was also obtained from the participants
parents on the participants behalf.
PARTICIPANT

The participant, pseudonym Tom, was a 5-year-old boy previously diagnosed with
autism. According to school records Tom presented as severely autistic, having a
total score of 42 on the Child Autism Rating Scale (CARS; Schopler, Reichler, &
Rochen Renner, 1988). Scores on this instrument range from 1560, with a score
above 30 indicative of a person being autistic, and above 37, severely autistic. Tom was
referred with a history of problem behaviour including aggressive outbursts in both
the classroom and playground.
54

The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

Methods Targeting Aggressive and Stereotypic Behaviour in a Child with Autism

SETTING

The study was conducted in a special development school, both in the classroom
and in the outdoors playground. The classroom was staffed by two teachers and the
class was made up of four students, all of whom had an autism spectrum disorder. In
the playground the children had access to climbing equipment, bikes and a sandpit.
Playtime was supervised by four teachers.
MATERIALS

Indirect assessment. A functional behavioural assessment interview based on the Functional Analysis Interview Form (FAI; ONeill et al., 1997) was used to conduct the
initial interview with Toms classroom teacher. The FAI consists of nine sections which
include items to describe the behaviours, define ecological events (setting events) that
predict or set up the problem behaviours, identify specific immediate antecedent
events that predict when the behaviours are likely and not likely to occur, and identify
consequences or outcomes of the problem behaviours that may be maintaining them.
Direct assessment. Data depicting AntecedentBehaviourConsequence (A-B-C)
associations (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968) were collected by means of Behavior
Imaging technology (Reischl & Oberleitner, 2009) and Flip video technology. The
Behavior Imaging system consisted of a laptop with Behavior Capture software, a
webcam and remote control button. Flip video technology consisted of a small hand
held video camera that is capable of recording for 2 hours.
Experimental functional analysis (FA). Observational data were collected for the FA
using Flip video technology.
DEPENDENT MEASURES

The dependent measures were (a) aggressive outbursts, both verbal and physical, and
(b) stereotypy, defined as follows.
Verbal aggression. Verbal outbursts were defined as yelling, calling out, loud bursts of
echolalic speech, and screaming at inappropriate times.
Physical aggression. Physical outbursts consisted of pushing, hitting, kicking, and
grabbing others within the classroom and in the playground.
Stereotypic behaviours. Stereotypic behaviours in the classroom included staring into
the distance, oral stimulation (which consisted of chewing on a rubber tube) and lying
on the ground. Stereotypic behaviours in the playground included aimless wandering,
running between the school wall and a tree, and standing motionless and staring.
In addition to the target behaviours the following behaviours were also monitored:
Engaged behaviours. Engaged behaviours in the classroom included activities such as
pasting, colouring, and playing with toys or figurines. Outside, engaged behaviour
included activities such as riding a bike, hopping on a rocker or being on the climbing
equipment.
Other behaviours. Other behaviours of interest in the classroom included time spent
sitting at the table having morning tea and/or sitting in the circle for activity time.
The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

55

Jenelle McDonald, Dennis W. Moore, and Angelika Anderson

Other behaviour during playtime included complying with teacher directives, and
walking around the garden beds.
DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

Prior to any formal observations, the first author was present in the classroom and
the playground at various times over 4 days. Informal observations were undertaken
in part to provide the opportunity for Tom, his teachers, and the other children to
become familiar with the observer to limit possible reactivity effects. In the formal
observation process throughout the various procedures, including data obtained by
Behavior Imaging and Flip video technology, aggressive outbursts were measured
via event recording, and all other behaviours were measured by recording the total
duration of the occurrence of each behaviour in each 15-minute continuous Flip
video-sample analysed.
The Behavior Imaging system was operated by the classroom teacher and yielded
35 short (on average 2-min.) videos, that were uploaded to a secure website (Behavior Connect) for analysis. The Flip video camera was operated by the first author
and yielded seven 15-minute clips of continuous recordings of both classroom and
playground activities, as well as video images of the experimental FA.
INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT (IOA)

Interobserver agreement data were collected during 37% of all sessions distributed
evenly across all observational processes. Interobserver agreement for the FBA data
was calculated using an interval-by-interval procedure with a second, trained, observer
independently viewing the recorded sessions and comparing these results with those
of the primary observer. Total interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing the
number of intervals of agreement within each session by the number of intervals of
agreement plus disagreement, multiplied by 100 (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007).
The mean total IOA for the FBA was 89.6% (range, 85% to 100%).
Observer reliability for the FA data was also assessed by comparing on an interval by
interval basis the observation sheets completed independently by the two observers.
An agreement on the occurrence of the problem behaviour was scored if both observers
agreed on the presence or absence of problem behaviour. A disagreement was scored
if there was a discrepancy. There were no instances of disagreements on the presence
or absence of aggressive or stereotypic behaviour giving an IOA of 100% for the FA.
PROCEDURE

Indirect assessment. The first author interviewed Toms classroom teacher using the
FAI to obtain as much information about him and his behaviour as possible. The
interview took approximately 1 hour to complete.
Direct assessment 1. The Behavior Imaging system was set up in the classroom and
the teacher was taught how to use it. The teacher was instructed to activate the
system every time an incident of the target behaviour as defined during the indirect
assessment occurred in the classroom, by pressing the remote button. The teacher
had only identified aggressive behaviour as a problem, and therefore only targeted
aggressive behaviour for video capture.
56

The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

Methods Targeting Aggressive and Stereotypic Behaviour in a Child with Autism

Direct assessment 2. Extended and uninterrupted video data were collected by the first
author in the classroom and in the playground during morning play and lunch time
using the Flip video camera.
Experimental assessment (FA). A functional analysis was conducted to identify the
variables that maintained Toms aggressive behaviour. The discrete trial functional
analysis methodology was as described by Sigafoos and Saggers (1995). Over 2 days
Tom was exposed to four assessment conditions: (a) attention, (b) demand, (c) access
to preferred activities/tangibles, and (d) play, with three trials under each condition.
Each trial took approximately 2 minutes (60 s each for the trial and control conditions)
and trials were distributed randomly throughout the day.
Brief intervention trial. As a variation of the Hoff, Ervin, and Friman (2005) procedure, after the fifth play time session of the direct assessment in the playground
(continuous recording; see above) a trial intervention which involved directing Tom
to a specific activity was instigated to observe the possible impact of this on the
probability of his stereotypic behaviour.
Results
RESULTS OF THE FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS INTERVIEW

In the FAI the teacher reported that Tom engaged in aggressive behaviours daily and
the teacher believed this to be problematic and disrupting throughout the school day.
Generally these behaviours were reported to occur both within the classroom and
playground when Tom was approached or asked by the teacher to do a task, or when
he was withdrawn from an activity. The teacher said Tom would scream at you and
if in reach try to kick or hit you if a desired activity was interrupted. The teacher
was unable to identify the consequences or outcomes of the problem behaviours in
different situations. Toms favourite items were reported to be the computer, soft
animals, and figurines, and preferred activities included going on outings to the park
or for a walk.
RESULTS OF FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOUR ASSESSMENT IN THE CLASSROOM
USING BEHAVIOR IMAGING AND FLIP VIDEO TECHNOLOGY

Thirty-five sessions were recorded by Behavior Capture; however, only 10 sessions

showing instances of aggressive behaviour were deemed suitable for analysis as the
others did not include instances of any problem behaviour (aggressive or stereotypic
behaviour). Figure 1 shows the results of the ABC analysis. In the 10 analysed videos,
teacher instruction and unoccupied/low attention each preceded aggressive behaviour
in four instances, and being denied access to an activity was an antecedent to aggressive
behaviour on two occasions. Regarding the consequences to the aggressive behaviour,
these data indicate that on eight occasions the behaviour was followed by some form
of teacher attention, while two videos suggested possible escape from demands.
Figure 2 depicts the observed antecedents and consequences of seven instances of
aggressive behaviour in the classroom observed across the accumulated Flip video
recordings. Most (five of seven) incidents of aggression occurred after the teacher
issued a demand/request to Tom. Each incidence of aggression resulted in attention
from the teacher.
The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

57

Jenelle McDonald, Dennis W. Moore, and Angelika Anderson

FIGURE 1
Results of ABC analysis of Classroom Aggressive Behaviour using data generated by Behavior
Capture based observation.

RESULTS OF PLAYGROUND ABC OBSERVATIONS OF AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOUR

USING FLIP VIDEO TECHNOLOGY

Figure 3 depicts the observed antecedents and consequences of aggressive behaviour

observed across the accumulated Flip video recordings in the playground. Teacher instruction (reprimands or desists) preceded six incidences of aggression and resulted in
Tom gaining simultaneously both teacher attention (in the form of a verbal reprimand
or being taken by the hand and moved to sit elsewhere in playground) and escape from
the current (non) activity or situation. The other 23 instances of aggressive behaviour
were triggered by Tom being interrupted from his activity by another child running
in front of him. These resulted in teacher attention in the form of a desist and some
form of redirection to another activity.
RESULTS OF UNINTERRUPTED CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS USING FLIP VIDEO
TECHNOLOGY

Figure 4 depicts the rates of the participants stereotypic, engaged and other behaviour
as observed using the Flip camera in the classroom. Through the analysis of these
15 min uninterrupted videos, high rates of stereotypic behaviour were observed in
the first three sessions (M = 92.9%; range, 82.5% to 100%). Low rate aggression was
observed in Sessions 1 and 3 coinciding with the higher levels of stereotypy. Session 1,
during which there was individual teacher instruction, showed two occurrences of
aggression in the form of verbal outbursts. Session 3, during which Toms stereotypy
was interrupted by another child, showed five occurrences of physical outbursts.
Analysis of the videos revealed a decrease in the rate of stereotypic behaviour to
15.6 % in Session 4. This coincided with the teacher directing Tom to complete a
pasting task and was also associated with an increase in engaged behaviour rate to
47.2% and an increase in other, appropriate free play activity (Session 4 = 37%).
58

The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

Methods Targeting Aggressive and Stereotypic Behaviour in a Child with Autism

FIGURE 2
ABC analysis of Classroom Aggressive Behaviour, data generated by Flip video technology.

FIGURE 3
ABC analysis results of Flip video data obtained in the playground.

The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

59

Jenelle McDonald, Dennis W. Moore, and Angelika Anderson

FIGURE 4
Classroom behaviour rate per 15 minute session.

Session 5, during which the speech therapist was working one-on-one with Tom,
showed a further increase in engaged behaviour to 89.5% and a decrease in stereotypic
behaviour to 10.1%. Activities during this session with the speech therapist included
use of Boardmaker visual cards to teach verbal responses to a visual cue.
RESULTS OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS IN THE CLASSROOM

number of trials with aggression

Figure 5 shows the number of trials in which aggressive behaviours occurred in

each condition of the functional analysis. Zero aggression rates were observed under
both attention and escape from task demands conditions. The only occurrence of
3

2
trial
control

-1
Teacher aenon Escape from easy
task

Access to
preferred
acvity/
items/tangibles

Play condion

FIGURE 5
Number of trials with aggressive behaviour during the trial and control conditions across each of
the four conditions.
60

The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

Methods Targeting Aggressive and Stereotypic Behaviour in a Child with Autism

percentage of me spent on

behaviours

100
80
Stereotypic
behaviour

60

Engaged
behaviour

40

Other

20
0

FIGURE 6
Playground behaviour rate per 15-minute sessions.

aggressive behaviour was in the access to preferred activity/tangible condition. Tom

showed incidents of aggressive behaviour in each trial under this condition.
These results indicate that Toms outbursts of low rate aggression were maintained
by positive reinforcement in the form of access to preferred activities or items.
RESULTS OF UNINTERRUPTED PLAYGROUND OBSERVATIONS USING FLIP
VIDEO TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING A BRIEF INTERVENTION TRIAL

Figure 6 represents the frequency of the participants observed stereotypic, engaged

and other behaviour in the playground. Analysis of the uninterrupted videos reveals
that levels of stereotypic behaviour decreased as levels of engaged behaviour increased.
Sessions 1 to 5 indicate that Tom exhibited high levels of stereotypic behaviour (M =
64%; range 43.8% to 85.8%) and low levels of engaged behaviour (M = 19.2%;
range 5.4% to 37.3%). Low rates of aggression were observed in the first five sessions, with Session 1 showing the highest occurrence with 14 incidents, decreasing to
2 incidents in Session 5 and no occurrences in Sessions 6 and 7. Sessions 6 and 7
revealed an increase in engaged behaviour (84.2% and 85.3% respectively), which
coincided with the researcher trialling a simple intervention (redirecting Tom; asking
him if he wanted to ride a bike) at which point he ran straight to it, hopped on
and spent the remainder of the session engaged in bike riding. Associated with this
increased engagement, observed levels of stereotypic behaviour decreased to 9 and
7% respectively in Sessions 6 and 7.
Discussion
INDIRECT ASSESSMENT INADEQUATE

This study extends the research describing the variety of methods used to determine the
function of problem behaviour in school settings. The aim of the study was to explore
the utility and feasibility of indirect, direct and experimental functional behaviour
The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

61

Jenelle McDonald, Dennis W. Moore, and Angelika Anderson

assessment processes intended to inform an effective function-based intervention.

Novel technology, Behavior Capture, was trialled to collect observation data in the
classroom, and the effectiveness of a discrete trial FA was explored.
The results obtained from indirect FBA partially confirmed our prediction that
this method of data collection would yield a different result to those of a descriptive
assessment and FA. The results obtained by the indirect FBA were inconclusive,
but suggested that the function of the aggressive behaviour was primarily to gain
teacher attention. One drawback with the indirect assessment was that the teacher
only identified aggression as problematic. Given that this information was used to
inform the data-collection procedures that followed, this had implications for the
next analyses.
The results from the direct assessment in the classroom using Behavior Capture
concurred with those from the indirect assessment in that they indicated that problem behaviour (aggression) was maintained by adult attention. The direct FBA via
Behaviour Capture only analysed aggressive behaviour. This was not only a result of
the limitations of our indirect assessment process, but illustrates a potential limitation
of the Behaviour Imaging technology more generally when it is used by parents or
teachers. It relies on the correct identification of problem behaviour as well as reliable
capture of instances of these behaviours. A further limitation of this technology in the
present study was that technical considerations precluded its use for data collection
in the playground.
A Flip video camera was used to obtain continuous video data of the childs
behaviour in two settings: the classroom and the outdoor playground. These data
were then analysed in the same way as was the Behavior Capture data. The results of
classroom data concurred with the Behavior Capture results, suggesting that aggressive
behaviour was maintained by adult attention. This differed from the playground data,
however, which suggested that Toms aggressive behaviour in the playground was
maintained by both teacher attention and escape.
During the data collection via Flip camera it became apparent that Tom engaged in
high levels of stereotypic behaviour. Therefore the Flip video data were also analysed
using a more open-ended procedure (Hanley, 2010), and using a time-sampling procedure to record the duration of stereotypic behaviour, engaged behaviour, and other
behaviour. This analysis revealed high levels of stereotypic behaviour when the participant was unoccupied, both in the classroom and in the playground. When Tom was
engaged in stimulating activities the stereotypic behaviour reduced dramatically. This
was observed naturally on two occasions in the classroom when the teacher/speech
therapist engaged Tom in an activity.
Extended uninterrupted observations also showed that acts of aggression were
relatively rare and tended to occur when Tom was interrupted from his stereotypic
behaviours. This led to a tentative hypothesis that escape from understimulation
(boredom) was the function of this problem behaviour. The continuous data gathered
via the Flip video technology yielded valuable in-depth data when analysed using
open-ended procedures, without a priori categorisation of behaviours. This way the
high levels of stereotypic behaviour, and their relationship with the acts of aggression
was noticed.
Results from the indirect and direct FBA methods were inconclusive, suggesting that perhaps attention was maintaining the behaviour. However, as has been
noted previously (Hanley, 2010), direct but nonexperimental functional assessment
62

The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

Methods Targeting Aggressive and Stereotypic Behaviour in a Child with Autism

procedures can at best reveal temporal relationships between behaviour and antecedents and consequences associated with it, and teacher attention in particular,
being highly likely in situations of possible danger to the child or others, may well be
masking the actual function of a behaviour if that is escape from an aversive situation
(Alter et al, 2008; St Peter et al., 2005; Thompson & Iwata, 2007; Umbreit, Ferro,
Laiupsin, & Lane, 2007).
In contrast, the discrete trial FA conducted in the classroom provided unequivocal
evidence that Toms aggressive behaviour in the classroom was being maintained
by access to activities/tangibles. This concurred with the results of the open-ended
analysis of the Flip video data. This finding was confirmed in a brief intervention
trial (Hoff et al., 2005) in the playground that showed that Toms levels of stereotypic
behaviour decreased when he was engaged in a stimulating activity, and that a lack of
engagement (boredom) was a precursor to problem behaviour.
The results from the present study confirm that a FA is required to clearly identify
the function of problem behaviour. In addition, as previously concluded (Sigafoos
& Saggers, 1995), our findings suggest that the discrete trial approach to functional
analysis is a successful and efficient method of collecting data in a short period of
time. The discrete trial approach requires a minimal period of time and effort for its
application in the classroom, can be conducted easily by teaching staff, and would be
a viable alternative to direct FBA.
The study has a number of limitations. The findings have limited generalisability as
there was only one participant in one classroom. Systematic replication is warranted.
Another limitation is that other than the brief intervention trial no intervention was
implemented as the school year came to an end. Ideally an intervention based on the
findings and on a decision-making model (Umbreit et al., 2007) should have been
implemented and experimentally tested. Our data suggest that improvement of the environment (instructing teachers to direct the student to adaptive and developmentally
appropriate activities when he was unengaged) and teaching the child replacement
behaviour (either to ask a teacher What can I do? or to choose and engage in play
activities independently) are two possible elements of such an intervention.
Conclusions
This study showed that FBA can be carried out in a school environment with minimal
disruption to regular classroom activities. It illustrated that indirect and direct FBA are
of limited utility, regardless of the technology used, especially if closed data collection
and analysis methods are used. On the other hand, the open analysis of continuous
video recordings yielded rich data that were useful in problem analysis and hypothesis
development. Finally, the discrete trial functional analysis was easy to implement in
the classroom, and it did not require much time or disruption to the classroom.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by a grant from the Faculty of Education, Monash
University. The authors wish to acknowledge the Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development (DEECD) for permission to conduct this research project.
The opinions expressed herein do not reflect the views of the DEECD. We would also
like to thank the school, the teachers, and most of all, the child, for their participation,
their time, and for welcoming us into their spaces.
The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

63

Jenelle McDonald, Dennis W. Moore, and Angelika Anderson

References
Alter, P. J., Conroy, M. A., Mancil, G. R., & Haydon, T. (2008). A comparison of functional behaviour
assessment methodologies with young children: Descriptive methods and functional analysis. Journal
of Behavioral Education, 17, 200219.
Behaviour Imaging Solutions: Technology for Behavioural Health. (2007). Technical monograph B.I.
Capture in the Classroom. Retrieved from http://www.behaviorimaging.com
Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field
studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175191.
Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually being delivered.
Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 6780.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education.
Filter, K. J., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Function-based academic interventions for problem behavior.
Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 119.
Fox, J. (1998). Research Issues in functional assessment of the challenging behaviors of students with
emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24(1), 2633.
Hanley, G. P. (2010). Prevention and treatment of severe problem behavior. In E. Mayville & J. Muklick
(Eds.), Behavioral Foundations of Effective Autism Treatment. Cornwall-on-Hudson: Sloan Publishing.
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147185.
Herzinger, C. V., & Campbell, J. M. (2007). Comparing functional assessment methodologies: A quantitative synthesis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 14301445.
Hoff, K. E., Ervin, R. A., & Friman, P. C. (2005). Refining functional behavioral assessment: Analyzing
the separate and combined effects of hypothesized controlling variables during ongoing classroom
routines. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 4557.
Horner, R. H., & Carr, E. G. (1997). Behavioral support for students with severe disabilities: Functional
assessment and comprehensive intervention. [Comment/Reply]. The Journal of Special Education,
31(1), 84109. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002246699703100108
Iwata, B. A., & Worsdell, A. S. (2005). Implications of functional analysis methodology for the design of
intervention programs. Exceptionality, 13(1), 25.
Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., Hurley, C., & Frea, W. D. (1992). Improving social skills and disruptive behavior
in children with autism through self-management. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 341
353.
Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., & Steege, M., Cigrand, K., Cook, J., & DeRaad, A. (1991). A brief
functional analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an outclinic setting. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 24(3), 509.
ONeill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional
assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
ONeill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2010). The use of Functional Behavioural Assessment for students with
challenging behaviours: Current patterns and experience of Australian practitioners. Australian Journal
of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 10, 6582.
OReilly, M., Rispoli, M., Davis, T., Machalichek, W., Lang, R., Sigafoos, J., . . . Didden, R. (2010).
Functional analysis of challenging behavior in children with autism spectrum disorders: A summary
of 10 cases. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 110.
Patterson, S. Y., Smith, V., & Jelen, M. (2010). Behavioural intervention practices for stereotypic and
repetitive behavior in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 52, 318327.
Reischl, U., & Oberleitner, R. (2009). Development of a telemedicine platform for the management of
children with autism. Zeitschrift fur NachwuchswissenschaftlerGerman Journal for Young Researchers,
1(1). Retrieved from http://www.behaviorimaging.com/miscFiles/ZfN-2009-1-3.pdf
64

The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

Methods Targeting Aggressive and Stereotypic Behaviour in a Child with Autism

Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Peck Stichter, J., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon: The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 26(4), 282296.
Shukla-Meta, S., Miller, T., & Callahan, K. J. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of video instruction on
social skills training for children with autism spectrum disorders: A review of the literature. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 2436.
Sigafoos, J., Green, V. A., Payne, D., OReilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2009). A classroom-based antecedent
intervention reduces obsessive-repetitive behavior in an adolescent with autism. Clinical Case Studies,
8(1), 313. doi: 10.1177/1534650108327475
Sigafoos, J., & Saggers, E. (1995). A discrete-trial approach to functional analysis of aggressive behaviour
in two boys with autism. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20, 287297.
Spreckley, M., & Boyd, R. (2009). Efficacy of applied behavioural intervention I preschool children with
autism for improving cognitive, language and adaptive behaviour: A Systematic review. Journal of
Pediatrics, 154, 338344.
St Peter, C. C., Vollmer, T. R., Bourret, J. C., Borrero, C. S. W., Sloman, K. N., & Rapp, J. T. (2005). On
the role of attention in naturally occurring matching relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
38(4), 429433. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.172-04
Tarbox, J., Wilke, A. E., Najdowski, A. C., Findel-Pyles, R. S., Balasanyan, S., Caveney, A. C., . . . Tia,
B. (2009). Comparing indirect, descriptive, and experimental functional assessments of challenging
behavior in children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 21, 493514.
Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2007). A comparison of outcomes from descriptive and functional analyses of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(2), 333. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.56-06
Umbreit, J., Ferro, J., Laiupsin, C., & Lane, K. L. (2007). Functional behavioural assessment and functionbased interventions: An effective, practical approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/PrenticeHall.

The Australian Educational and Developmental Psychologist

65