FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
Series VI – Part III Direct and Indirect Measures of Student Behavior
Introduction
Functional behavioral assessment can be a time-consuming process, one that usually is best accomplished in stages. The functional behavioral assessment process may begin with a series of initial direct and indirect observations (e.g., using a scatterplot) and/or discussions with adults or students who have witnessed the behavior (e.g., functional interviews). An examination of the information from these observations and interviews may suggest specific times and settings in which to conduct more thorough observations (e.g., during a specific academic subject or class period). These subsequent observations would lead the IEP team to develop an hypothesis statement regarding the factors that are most predictive of the student’s behavior (e.g., a science lesson that requires lengthy silent reading of technical material). Both direct and indirect measures of student behavior are described more thoroughly in this section.
Direct Assessment
Direct assessment consists of actually observing the problem behavior and describing the conditions that surround the behavior (its context). This context includes events that are antecedent (i.e., that occur before) and consequent (i.e., that occur after) to student behaviors of interest. There are several tools to select from in recording direct assessment data. Each has its particular strength. IEP teams should consider what they want or need to know about the presenting behavior and select direct observation strategies and recording tools accordingly. A description of the most commonly used tools and the kinds of data they can help gather follows.
Scatterplots. Often, initial observations can be accomplished through the use of a scatterplot (see Appendix A for sample scatterplot forms). The purpose of a scatterplot is to identify patterns of behavior that relate to specific contextual conditions. A scatterplot is a chart or grid on which an observer records single events (e.g., number of student call-outs) or a series of events (e.g., teacher requests and student responses) that occur within a given context (e.g., during teacher-led reading instruction, at lunch, on the playground). Scatterplots take various forms, depending on the behavior of interest and its social/physical context. Some require observers to sequentially record (by category) various events (e.g., format of instruction, teacher behavior, student/peer responses, likely purpose of student reaction).
ABC charts. Another way to observe student behavior is with an Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) chart (also referred to as an Antecedent-Response-Consequence or ARC chart) (see Appendix B for examples of ABC charts). This approach allows an observer to organize anecdotal or descriptive information on the student’s interactions with other students and adults in such a way that patterns of behavior often become clear. A modified ABC chart might be individualized to contain several predetermined categories of teacher or peer antecedent behavior, student responses, and consequent events, along with space for narrative recording of classroom observations.
Using scatterplots and ABC charts together. By using the ABC procedure, the student may be observed in settings and under conditions where the behavior is most likely and least likely to occur. A scatterplot to chart the relationship between specific types of instruction and the student’s appropriate/inappropriate responses may also be developed.
A scatterplot can be developed to observe and record the relationship between a specific set of classroom variables (e.g., teacher lecture and student off-task behavior) or playground behaviors and to analyze a particular situation. For instance, out-of-seat behavior might be measured in increments of 1-5 minutes, while fights on the school bus may be recorded daily (e.g., critical incident reports). Furthermore, student behavior may be a function of specific teacher-pupil interactions (e.g., there may be a relationship between teacher reprimands and student outbursts).
Observing and recording teacher-pupil interactions may lead to a better understanding of the relationship between these factors of classroom interactions. Both the ABC and scatterplot procedures are useful in identifying environmental factors (e.g., seating arrangements), activities (e.g., independent work), or times of the day (e.g., mornings) that may influence student behavior.Both ABC and scatterplot recording procedures are useful not only in identifying problem behavior, but also in identifying the classroom conditions that may trigger or maintain the student’s behavior. It is also important to observe situations in which the student performs successfully so that IEP teams can compare conditions and identify situations that may evoke and maintain appropriate rather than inappropriate behavior (e.g., in science class as opposed to language arts class). In this way, it is possible to get a clearer picture of the problem behavior, determine the critical dimensions of the behavior, write a precise definition of the behavior, select the most appropriate assessment tools, and develop an effective intervention plan for changing the behavior.
As we already mentioned, multiple measures of student behavior and its social/ environmental contexts usually produce more accurate information than a single measure. This is especially true if the problem behavior serves several functions or purposes that may vary according to circumstance. In our previous example of Mandy’s wisecracks, making inappropriate comments during lectures may serve in some instances to get her something (e.g., peer attention). In another classroom, the same behavior may help her to avoid something (e.g., being called on by the teacher). Information gathered through repeated observations of Mandy across settings will enable the IEP team to distinguish among the various purposes for her inappropriate remarks.
Amount versus quality of behavior. Different types of behavior may require different data collection techniques. For example, it is important to know how often a behavior occurs (e.g., call-outs); in this case, a system that yields the number of behaviors, or frequency measure, is appropriate. At other times, knowing how long the behavior occurs is more relevant (e.g., out-of-seat), so that a duration measure becomes more useful. Furthermore, the usefulness of documenting the severity or intensity of a behavior is evident when the IEP team tries to measure other disruptive behaviors. To say that Charles was upset two times yesterday may not reflect the fact that he succeeded in disrupting instruction in the entire middle school wing for a total of 45 minutes.
Severity of Disruptive Behavior Rating Rubric
- Behavior is confined only to the observed student. May include such behaviors as: refusal to follow directions, scowling, crossing arms, pouting, or muttering under his/her breath.
- Behavior disrupts others in the student’s immediate area. May include: slamming textbook closed, dropping book on the floor, name calling, or using inappropriate language.
- Behavior disrupts everyone in the class. May include: throwing objects, yelling, open defiance of teacher directions, or leaving the classroom.
- Behavior disrupts other classrooms or common areas of the school. May include: throwing objects, yelling, open defiance of school personnel’s directions, or leaving the school campus.
- Behavior causes or threatens to cause physical injury to student or others. May include: display of weapons, assault on others.
In some cases, it is useful to report the severity and measure of a behavior using a rubric to capture the magnitude and/or amount of variation in the behavior. This is true with regard to both student and adult behavior. That is, a student tantrum may be minor or extreme and of short or long duration. Teacher reprimands might be insignificant except when they are repeatedly and loudly delivered to the student for an extended amount of time. The following rubric could be used to observe and record the severity of a student’s disruptive behavior.
Indirect Assessment
We know that student behavior usually is related to the context in which it occurs. However, the IEP team will not always be able to directly observe all the events that bring about or maintain specific student behavior. So-called “setting events” (sometimes referred to as slow triggers) can exist within the classroom (e.g., Charles is asked to join a new reading group), or be far removed from it but still exert a powerful influence over student behavior (e.g., Charles has an argument with another student at the bus stop before school). External events of this nature may increase the likelihood of conflict in the classroom, especially if the student is struggling academically and/or dislikes the subject matter. These setting events (or specific antecedents for the behavior) often may not be directly observable. In other cases, the behavior may be serious but not occur frequently enough in settings accessible to adults to be readily observed (e.g., verbal or physical aggression). In these instances, the behavior must be assessed by using indirect measures.
Methods of indirect assessment. Indirect or, as it is sometimes called, informant assessment, relies heavily on the use of interviews with teachers and other adults (e.g., bus drivers, cafeteria workers, office staff) who have direct contact with the student. (See Appendix C for a sample interview form.) In addition, a semi-structured interview with the student, himself, could provide insight into the student’s perspective of the situation and yield a more complete understanding of the reasons behind the inappropriate behavior. It may be useful to follow the same interview format with both the student and significant adults (e.g., special and regular classroom teachers, support personnel) and to compare these two sources of information. Even elementary aged students can be credible informants, capable of sharing accurate information about contextual factors that influence their behavior. Indirect measures can yield valuable information, but they usually are not as reliable as direct observation measures. For this reason, IEP teams must be careful not to put too much faith in information derived from informant accounts alone.
Surveys or questionnaires are another source of indirect information. For example, a Problem Behavior Questionnaire can be administered to one or more teachers who have day-to-day contact with a student of concern. Recalling a typical behavioral episode, teachers read 15 statements and circle a number on the questionnaire that corresponds to the percent of time each statement is true for that student. A second form is used for recording and interpreting the responses from everyone who completed a questionnaire for that student. Any item marked with a three or above on this profile form suggests the potential function of the problem behavior. If there are two or more statements scored as three or above (i.e., (50% of the time) under a particular sub-column (e.g., escape under peers or attention under adults), then it may indicate a possible primary function of the behavior.
In collecting information regarding the context of a behavior problem, it is important to understand that contextual factors may include certain affective or cognitive behaviors, as well. For instance, Juan repeatedly acts out and is verbally threatening during instruction when given lengthy and difficult assignments. Even so, it may not be the assignment itself that triggers the acting-out behavior. Rather, it may be the fact that he knows he doesn’t have the skills necessary to complete the work that prompts an anticipation of failure or ridicule. Or, he may have a family member who is critically ill; therefore, he finds it difficult to concentrate.
Accuracy of Behavior Measurement
There are a number of ways that accuracy in observing and recording student behavior and the social/environmental conditions that surround it can be jeopardized. Common problems include:
- a vague definition of the behavior (e.g., Charles sometimes gets upset);
- untrained or inexperienced observers;
- difficulty observing multiple student behaviors (e.g., out of seat, off task, and rude gestures);
- potential observer bias regarding the student’s behavior (e.g., the observer is subjected to repeated teacher complaints about the severity of the student’s classroom conduct); or
- difficulty precisely capturing classroom interactions (e.g., observing a group learning activity in which students move about the classroom).
In the end, the usefulness of functional behavioral assessment depends on the skills and objectivity of the persons collecting the information. Accordingly, if the information is to be helpful to IEP teams, it must be reliable and complete information about the behavior. Those conducting the functional behavioral assessment must: a) clearly define the behavior of concern and regularly review that definition; b) have sufficient training and practice to collect observation and interview data; c) select the most appropriate assessment procedure(s) for both the behavior and the context; d) collect information across time and settings using multiple strategies and individuals; and, e) conduct routine checks of the accuracy of observer scoring/recording procedures.
1. Analyze Information Using Triangulation and/or Problem Pathway Analysis
Once the team is satisfied that enough information has been collected, the next step is to compare and analyze all the compiled information. Such an analysis helps to determine which specific social, affective, and/or environmental conditions are associated with student behavior. For example, in recalling Vignette II, an analysis of Trish’s behavior might lead the team to conclude that whenever Trish does not get her way she reacts by hitting someone. Analysis of the information gathered can be accomplished through techniques called data triangulation and problem pathway analysis.
Use of a data triangulation chart allows IEP teams to pull together and visually compare information collected from various sources (e.g., functional interviews, observations using a scatterplot, student questionnaires). Using a data triangulation chart, team members attempt to identify possible patterns of behavior, conditions that trigger the behavior, consequences that maintain or continue the behavior, and, finally, the likely functions the problem behaviors serve for the student.
Problem behavior pathway charts also allow the team to organize information by recording it under the following columns: a) setting events, b) antecedents, c) the behavior itself, and d) likely maintaining consequences for the behavior of concern (see Appendix G). In analyzing information using these techniques, the IEP team can develop an hypothesis statement about the probable function of the behavior and identity one or more variables that may be starting or continuing the behavior.
2. Generate a Hypothesis Statement Regarding Probable Function of Problem Behavior
Using the information that emerges from data triangulation and/or pathway analysis, the team can develop an hypothesis statement regarding the likely function(s) of the student behavior. The hypothesis statement can then be used to predict the social/environmental conditions (the context) within which the behavior is most likely to occur. For instance, should a teacher report that Charles swears during reading class, the reason for the behavior might be to: (a) gain attention, (b) avoid instruction, (c) seek stimulation, or (d) some combination of these functions.
Only when the function(s) of the behavior is (are) known is it possible for the IEP team to establish an effective behavioral intervention and support plan that addresses Charles’ needs. Following are several examples of hypothesis statements written in such a way that IEP teams can draw specific information from the statement to develop an individualized behavior intervention plan.
- Charles disrupts reading class by swearing at the teacher when he is asked to read aloud. He is most likely to disrupt the class if he has not had breakfast or if there was a problem at the bus stop. Charles stops swearing when he is told to leave the group.
- When she does not get what she wants from her peers, Trish calls them names and hits them until they give in to her demands.
- Juan verbally threatens the teacher when he is given a math assignment that he sees as too lengthy and too difficult, but stops when he is told to find something else to do.
The hypothesis statement is a concise summary of information collected during the assessment phase, a statement that explains or represents a “best guess” regarding the reason(s) for the behavior. A well-written hypothesis statement gives clear direction to IEP members, who are responsible for developing a behavior intervention plan. It allows the IEP team to spell out a three-fold contingency—when X occurs, the student does Y, in order to achieve Z—and to translate that knowledge into an individualized behavior intervention plan.
3. Test the Hypothesis Statement Regarding the Function of the Problem Behavior
Because of the obvious difficulties associated with problem behavior in the school and classroom, school personnel may be tempted to proceed immediately to designing a behavioral intervention plan. However, in most cases, it is important that the team take the time to make sure that the hypothesis is accurate. To do so, IEP team members should “experimentally manipulate” certain variables to see if the team’s assumptions regarding the likely function of the behavior are accurate. For instance, after collecting data, the team working with Charles may hypothesize that, during reading class, Charles swears at the teacher to escape an aversive academic situation. Thus, the teacher might change aspects of instruction to ensure that Charles gets work that is within his capability and is of interest to him. If these accommodations produce a positive change in Charles’ behavior, then the team can assume its hypothesis was correct and a behavioral intervention plan can be fully implemented. However, if Charles’ behavior remains the same following this change in classroom conditions, a new hypothesis should be formulated.
As a general rule, IEP teams will stay with a plan for at least 5-7 lessons, to distinguish between behavior changes stemming from the novelty of any change in classroom conditions and those changes related specifically to the intervention. It is important to remember that the inappropriate behavior has probably served the student well for some time and that it will be resistant to change. For this reason, the team will need to be patient when testing its hypothesis regarding the function(s) of the misbehavior.
A procedure known as analogue assessment is one way to verify the IEP team’s assumptions regarding the function of a student’s behavior. Analogue assessment involves a contrived set of conditions to test the accuracy of the hypothesis. This procedure allows school personnel to substantiate that a relationship exists between specific classroom events (e.g., an aversive task) and the student’s behavior (e.g., disruptive behavior). This can be accomplished through teacher manipulation of specific instructional variables (e.g., complexity of learning tasks, oral or written student responses), introduction or withdrawal of variables (e.g., teacher attention, physical proximity), or other changes in conditions assumed to trigger the occurrence of problem behavior (e.g., student seating arrangement, desk placement). In this way, the IEP team may be able to determine precisely the conditions under which the student is most (and least) likely to behave appropriately. Finally, similar to an “allergy test,” teachers can briefly sample student responses to a succession of changes in classroom conditions to determine the accuracy of the hypothesis statement.
There are times when it may not be feasible to make changes to classroom variables and to observe their effects on student behavior. A prime example is when a student begins to engage in acting-out or aggressive behavior. In these instances, the IEP team should immediately develop and implement a behavioral intervention plan (before any disciplinary action is required). Then, they should directly and continuously evaluate its impact against any available information about the level or severity of the behavior prior to the intervention. IEP teams can, however, continue to consider information collected through a combination of interviews and direct observation.
Finally, there may be instances when the IEP team may not be able to identify the exact mix of variables that cause the student to misbehave (e.g., composition of the learning group, the academic subject area, teacher expectations) or the exact amount of a specific setting or antecedent variable that serves to trigger the behavior (e.g., repeated peer criticism). Since problem behavior can have multiple sources which can change across time, IEP teams should continue to evaluate and modify a student’s behavior—even after an initial intervention plan has been implemented. The nature and severity of the behavior will determine the necessary frequency and rigor of this ongoing process.
SUMMARY OF STEPS TO CONDUCT A FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT
To review, in conducting a functional behavioral assessment, the IEP team identifies and defines the problem behavior first in broad and then specific terms (Steps 1 and 2). The team reviews information from various sources (e.g., questionnaires; semi-structured interviews with students, teachers, and others; or observations of students in various settings) and in various forms (e.g., scatterplots or ABC charts). Next, the team carefully examines what they have learned about the behavior and its context in order to determine its function(s) and decides what to do next (Step 4). In some cases, both the purpose of the misbehavior and an appropriate intervention will quickly become apparent, as when a student repeatedly acts up when asked to complete too demanding an assignment in reading. In other instances, the IEP team will need to collect and analyze different types of information and look for multiple clues regarding the source(s) of the problem behavior, such as antecedents that trigger or consequences that maintain acting-out behavior (Step 5).
As we have suggested, no two problems are likely to stem from the exact same source, and information collected on different students will likely vary in kind and amount. In the end, the team must work to develop a probable explanation of why the student is not behaving appropriately, test the hypothesis (Step 6), and develop a behavior intervention plan accordingly.
THE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTION PLAN
After collecting sufficient information about a student’s behavior to determine the likely function of that behavior, the IEP team must develop (or revise) the student’s behavior intervention plan. The process of identifying possible behavioral supports and developing and implementing a behavioral intervention plan will be discussed in more detail in the third and final monograph in this series. This plan should include positive strategies, program modifications, and the supplementary aids and supports required to address the disruptive behaviors and allow the student to be educated in the least restrictive environment. It also should contain strategies to teach the student “functionally equivalent” replacement behaviors (i.e., behavior that serves the same purpose but is more acceptable). This is accomplished by drawing upon the information collected during the functional behavioral assessment to determine the most effective and practical intervention(s) and supports to address the student’s behavior.
CONCLUSION
The IEP team is required under certain circumstances to develop a functional behavioral assessment plan and a behavior intervention plan to address a student’s behaviors that interfere with learning or require disciplinary action. Schools are seeking to better understand the exact conditions under which to implement this provision of IDEA. The persons responsible for conducting the functional behavioral assessment likely will vary from state to state, district to district. Some functional behavioral assessment procedures will require persons with specific training (e.g., a behavior specialist or a school psychologist). With specialized training and experience, an adjusted job assignment, and ongoing technical support, various IEP team members (e.g., special or general educators, counselors, parents) can conduct different parts of the assessment.
Regardless of who is charged with the responsibility to conduct a functional behavioral assessment, emphasis should be on developing both a short- and long-term plan to enhance the student’s ability to benefit as much as possible from classroom instruction. Students can be helped to accomplish this goal through positive behavior interventions based on an accurate assessment of their individual needs. This goal is best accomplished before student behavior becomes so severe that formal disciplinary action is necessary.
Download this Issue
Download a PDF file version of this issue of The Classroom Management Series – CLICK HERE
