Discussion

 

After watching the

Functional Analysis

of Problem Behavior video discuss the following:

1. Importance of conducting a functional analysis.
2. How functional analysis will support your work with clients.
3. What challenges you might foresee in conducting a FA.
4. Why do we want to evoke a response?

In addition, ask one question you have from the video that your peers can answer.

information additional :   

Functional Analysis

Functional analysis is defined by Cooper, Heron, & Heward (2007) as an analysis of the purposes (i.e., functions) of problem behavior, wherein antecedents and consequences representing those in the person’s natural routines are arranged within an experimental design so that their separate effects on problem behavior can be observed and measured. A functional analysis typically consists of four conditions:

1. contingent      attention,
2. contingent      escape,
3. alone,      and
4. a      control condition.

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 1994, 27, 385-392 NUMBER 2 (SUMMER 1994)

THE SIGNIFICANCE AND FUTURE OF FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGIES

F. CHARI.ES MAcE

THE UNNERSI1Y OF PENNSYLVANIA

Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982) presented the first comprehensive and stan­
dardized methodology for identifying operant funaions of aberrant behavior. This essay discusses
the significance functional analysis has had for applied behavior analysis. The methodology has
lessened the field’s reliance on default technologies and promoted analysis of environment-behavior
interactions maintaining target responses as the basis for selecting treatments. It has also contributed
to the integration of basic and applied research. Future directions for this research are suggested.

DESCRIPTORS: functional analysis, behavior modification, behavior analysis

The roots of functional analysis methodologies
can be traced to the earliest years of applied be­
havior analysis (e.g., Ayllon & Michael, 1959; Bi­
jou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968). However, the article
by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman
( 1982) (reprinted in this issue of JABA) built upon
previous theoretical papers (e.g., Carr, 1977) and
research methods (e.g., Bijou et al., 1968; Thomas,
Becker, & Armstrong, 1968) to formulate the first
comprehensive and standardized functional analysis
methodology. This methodology, initially applied
to the analysis of self-injurious behavior, was soon
adapted to analyze environment-behavior inter­
actions that maintained a wide variety of behavior
disorders, such as aggression (Mace, Page, Ivancic,
& O’Brien, 1986; Wacker et al., 1990), destructive
behaviors (Slifer, Ivancic, Parrish, Page, & Burgio,
1986), disordered speech (Mace & Lalli, 1991;
Mace, Webb, Sharkey, Mattson, & Rosen, 1988;
Mace & West, 1986), stereotypy (Durand & Carr,
1987; Mace, Browder, & Lin, 1987; Wacker et
al., 1990), pica (Mace & Knight, 1986), and tan­
trums (Carr & Newsom, 1985).

Since being introduced to functional analysis as
an intern at the Kennedy Institute in 1982, I have
always considered the methodology to be one of
the most significant developments in applied be­
havior analysis. My objectives in this essay are to

offer some perspectives on the importance of func-

Requests for reprints may be addressed to F. Charles Mace,
Department of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, 3405
Civic Center Blvd., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104.

tional analysis to applied behavioral science and
technology development and to suggest some di­
rections for the future evolution and refinement of
functional analysis methodologies.

The Significance of Functional Analysis

Beyond behavior modification: A return to
behavior analysis. An assumption common to most
applications of learning theory aimed at modifi­
cation of socially relevant human behavior is that
both adaptive and aberrant behaviors are learned
through a history of interactions between an indi­
vidual and the environment (Baer, Wolf, & Risley,
1968; Bijou & Baer, 1961; Krasner & Ullmann,
1965; Skinner, 1953; Tharp & Wetzel, 1969).
The vast majority of these interactions are believed
to follow operant paradigms of positive and neg­
ative reinforcement. This history of reinforcement,
in tum, influences how an individual responds to
current environmental contingencies.

Before applied behavior analysts had a meth­
odology to identify the conditions maintaining ab­
errant behavior, the reinforcement histories that
gave rise to current behavior-environment inter­
actions were largely ignored. Instead, existing rep­
ertoires were altered and new ones established by
superimposing reinforcement contingencies, pun­
ishment contingencies, or both, onto the current
environmental contingencies or unknown processes
that maintained aberrant behavior. The approach
was known generically as behavior modification.
However, without the capacity to explicitly inter­
rupt the events maintaining aberrant behavior, be-

385

http:CHARI.ES

386 F. CHARLES MACE

havioral interventions relied on potent reinforcers
and/or punishers that could override the conditions
that supported problem behavior. Although effec­
tive in many cases, this strategy of overriding the
maintaining conditions led to concerns about the
field· s overreliance on the default technologies of
contingent aversive stimulation and artificial posi­
tive reinforcement (Iwata, 1988; Johnston, 199 la,
1991b; Sherman, 1991).

Behavior modification has also come under fire
for its approach to technology development and
the treatment philosophies it has spawned (e.g.,
Dietz, 1978; Hayes, Rincover, & Solnick, 1980;
Johnston, 1991a; Mace, 1994; Pierce & Epling,
1980). Technology is directly affected by the scope
of research questions posed. Behavior modification
research has generally limited itself to the following
questions: “What procedures produce behavior
change?” “What is the generality of these effects
across subjects, behaviors, and settings?” “What
are the long-term benefits of this procedure?’· ”What
is the relative efficacy of various procedures in treat­
ing the same problem behavior?’· Although these
questions certainly have merit, their focus is limited
to technical application per se without concern for
discovety of the variables that control behavior un­
der natural conditions (Morris, 1991). Thus, if a
particular intervention fails to produce behavior
change, it is unlikely to be subjected to the tests
of generality, long-term benefits, and relative effi­
cacy. Moreover, treatment failures are seldom an­
alyzed to identify the conditions necessary and suf­
ficient for a given class of procedures to result in
behavior change. (For example, under what con­
ditions will contingent praise positively reinforce
social interaction and result in a concomitant re­
duction in aberrant behavior?)

This approach to technology development also
influences the philosophies used to guide treatment
selection. For example, in the field of developmen­
tal disabilities, treatments for aberrant behavior are
frequently selected following a least-to-most intru­
sive intervention model. Treatments designated as
less intrusive are used first and, if ineffective, are
followed by interventions that are considered to be
progressively more intrusive. Treatments are gen-

erally judged to be effective or ineffective, but are
rarely fine-tuned to improve their efficacy. This
tendency to abandon initially ineffective treatments
may be due to the absence of a rationale for match­
ing a particular treatment to a given individual’s
behavior disorder (Iwata, Vollmer, Zarcone, &

Rodgers, 1993). A number of studies have now
shown that the inefficacy of some nonintrusive treat­
ments may be due to the mismatch between operant
function and treatment (Durand & Carr, 1987;
Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988) or to a change in
operant function over time (Lerman, Iwata, Smith,
Zarcone, & Vollmer, 1994) rather than an indi­
cation of the need for more intrusive procedures.

The advent of functional analysis methodologies
led to significant shifts in intervention development
and treatment philosophy. Although identification
of the operant function of an individual’s aberrant
behavior does not guarantee successful treatment
via procedures matched to that function (Iwata,
1988, 1991), over a decade of research has in­
creased confidence in the effectiveness of this treat­
ment model and encouraged its widespread en­
dorsement (Axelrod, 1987; Iwata et al., 1993;
Mace, Lalli, & Pinter-Lalli, 1991). For example, a
panel convening a 1989 National Institutes of
Health Consensus Conference on the treatment of
destructive behaviors associated with developmen­
tal disabilities recommended that treatment of se­
vere behavior disorders be based on the results of
a pretreatment functional analysis (NIH, 1989).

Treatment matched to the operant function of
aberrant behavior generally follows two interrelated
strategies: (a) weakening the maintaining response­
reinforcer relationship, and (b) establishing or
strengthening a response-reinforcer relationship for
an adaptive response class that replaces the function
of the aberrant one. However, both strategies can
take numerous forms and can be tailored to indi­
vidual cases and circumstances. For example, three
classes of procedures have been used to weaken
response-reinforcer relationships: extinction, re­
sponse-independent reinforcement, and punish­
ment. In the case of extinction, there are numerous
operations, both within and across maintaining
functions, that can discontinue the reinforcement

387 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

contingency maintatrung aberrant behavior (see
Iwata, Pace, Cowdery, & Miltenberger, 1994). For
instance, extinction of attention-maintained behav­
ior may consist of planned ignoring (Repp et al.,
1988) or time-out (Mace et al., 1986), whereas
extinction of escape-maintained behavior may en­
tail continuation of instruction (Mace et al., 1987)
or guided compliance (Iwata, Pace, Kalsher, Cow­
dery, & Cataldo, 1990).

The key point here is that numerous treatment
options are available when treatment and operant
function are matched. Because treatment compo­
nents are selected based on their likelihood to dis­
rupt maintaining contingencies or reinforce adap­
tive replacement behaviors, behavior analysts are
encouraged to adjust parameters of reinforcement
schedules and discriminative stimuli to achieve de­
sired treatment outcomes before pursuing a differ­
ent course of treatment altogether. The result is an
analytic treatment model aimed at identification
and manipulation of variables that control socially
significant behavior under natural conditions.

Opportunities to apply advances in basic re­
search. Functional analysis methods may also con­
tribute to the integration of basic and applied re­
search by permitting applied behavior analysts to
incorporate advances in basic research into the anal­
ysis and treatment of behavior disorders (Mace et
al., 1991; Neef, Mace, Shea, & Shade, 1992).
Knowing the operant function of aberrant behavior
opens the door for applied researchers to concep­
tualize related environment-behavior interactions
as basic operant processes. Research that isolates
the variables influencing these processes may then
prove to be relevant to applied work (see essays by
Hayes & Hayes, 1993; Hineline & Wacker, 1993;
Iwata & Michael, 1994; Nevin & Mace, in press;
Shull & Fuqua, 1993).

Of the numerous areas of basic research with
potential for application, three are especially rele­
vant to functional analysis work. Perhaps the most
fundamental applied questions are, ”Why does a
given behavior problem occur?” and “Why does
the behavior persist in the face of treatment pro­
cedures that should be effective?” Basic research on
choice and conceptual analyses of establishing op-

erations are relevant to the first question, and basic
studies on behavioral momentum or response
strength apply to the second.

Like most behavior, aberrant responses can be
conceptualized as choice (Myerson & Hale, 1984).
The choice is between allocating responses to the
aberrant response class or to one or more concur­
rently available response alternatives. Over three
decades of research based on Herrnstein’s matching
law (Herrnstein, 1961, 1970) has demonstrated
that patterns of response allocation across concur­
rent alternatives are orderly and are a function of
relative reinforcer rates and amounts, reinforcer
quality, reinforcer delay, and response force or effort
(Davison & McCarthy, 1988). When the effects
of relative reinforcer deprivation and satiation are
also considered (Iwata et al., 1993; Michael, 1982,
1993), it becomes apparent that aberrant respond­
ing is controlled by several factors that may be
targets for manipulation in a treatment protocol
(Mace, Lalli, & Shea, 1992; Mace & Shea, 1991).
For example, a functional analysis may show that
a child’s aggressive behavior is maintained by pa­
rental reprimands delivered on a variable-ratio (VR)
8 schedule. To discourage allocation of behavior to
aggression, a treatment could be designed that ar­
ranged high-rate (continuous reinforcement) and
high-quality parental attention (affectionate praise)
for appropriate social interaction, while discontin­
uing the contingency between aggression and at­
tention (i.e., extinction). The intervention could be
further strengthened by teaching appropriate social
interaction following periods of low adult attention
in order to increase the reinforcing value of parental
attention (Vollmer & Iwata, 1991). The general
treatment strategy illustrated in this example is to
shift response-allocation patterns away from aber­
rant behavior and toward adaptive replacement re­
sponses through deliberate manipulation of estab­
lishing stimuli and the variables that affect choice.

However, even well-designed treatments may
not rapidly reduce rates of aberrant behavior. Sev­
eral basic research studies have shown that despite
extinction, satiation, alternative reinforcement, dis­
traction, and punishment, reinforced behavior per­
sists or has momentum over time (Cohen, Riley,

388 F. CHARLES MACE

& Weigle, 1993; Nevin, Mandel, & Atak, 1983;
Nevin, Tota, Torquato, & Shull, 1990). A con­
sistent finding across species and environmental
challenges to the respon~reinforcer relation is that
behavior is more persistent under stimulus condi­
tions that are correlated with higher baseline rates
of reinforcement. Of particular significance to ap­
plied work is the fact that this effect occurs re­
gardless of whether reinforcement is contingent on
the target response, is delivered noncontingently,
or is arranged for a concurrently available response
(Nevin et al., 1990). This fundamental property
of reinforced behavior seems to be relevant to the
treatment of behavior disorders, especially when
the maintaining reinforcer can be identified via
functional analysis.

Several investigators have drawn upon Nevin’s
basic research on behavioral momentum to for­
mulate novel treatments for noncompliance. By
arranging high-rate reinforcement for a class of re­
sponses called ”compliance” immediately before
issuing a request to perform a task with a low­
probability of compliance, clinicians were able to
establish a “momentum” of compliant behavior
that resisted the challenge of the low-probability
requests (Davis, Brady, Williams, & Hamilton,
1992; Mace, Hock, et al., 1988; Singer, Singer,
& Horner, 1987). However, when the persistence
of a specific aberrant response, such as self-injury,
is encountered during treatment, the traditional in­
tervention of extinction plus alternative reinforce­
ment may actually prove to be counterproductive
if Nevin’s findings with pigeons generalize to hu­
man behavior problems. That is, alternative rein­
forcement, when presented in a context correlated
with the occurrence of self-injury, may actually in­
crease the persistence of self-injury, requiring longer
to reach treatment goals, even though the rate of
self-injury may be reduced by the intervention
(Mace, 1994; Nevin & Mace, in press). If this
occurs, different treatment sequences may be used
to avoid correlating aberrant behavior with high­
rate alternative reinforcement. Of course, such hy­
potheses warrant rigorous examination by applied
researchers before treatment practices are altered.
However, the important message here is that func-

tional analysis permits investigation of research
questions that could not be seriously considered
only a decade ago.

Future Directions for Functional
Analysis

Numerous functional analysis methodologies
have been reported in the literature, each with its
attendant strengths and limitations. Indirect meth­
ods, such as rating scales completed by a client’s
care provider (e.g., Motivational Assessment Scale;
Durand & Crimmins, 1988), are convenient to
administer and have the potential to assess the
function of aberrant behavior in the natural envi­
ronment. The principal and significant limitation
of ratings scales is that the findings are unreliable
when compared to direct and detailed assessments
of behavior (Zarcone, Rodgers, Iwata, Rourke, &

Dorsey, 1991). Descriptive methods use direct ob­
servations of client behavior and environmental
events in natural settings to formulate data-based
hypotheses about the operant function of aberrant
behavior. Although descriptive analysis can provide
information about the idiosyncratic reactions of care
providers to problem behavior and provide esti­
mates of natural schedules of reinforcement, the
data collection methods are difficult to standardize,
and the resulting data are correlational by nature
and, therefore, must be interpreted with consid­
erable caution (Lerman & Iwata, 1993; Mace &

Lalli, 1991). Finally, experimental methods isolate
and control contingencies that may maintain an
individual’s aberrant behavior using standardized
procedures that are analogues of naturally occurring
situations. They provide a direct and reliable means
of identifying functional relations. The major lim­
itations of experimental analyses are that they may
overlook important variables that operate in the
client’s natural setting, and, hence, the results may
not generalize outside the analogue conditions (Hal­
le & Spradlin, 1993; Lerman & Iwata, 1993; Mace
& Shea, 1991).

Given the respective strengths and limitations of
available functional analysis methods, in what di­
rection should the methodology evolve toward the
goal of identifying the operant function of naturally

389 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

occurring aberrant behavior? I believe there are two
answers to this question. First, the operant function
of many cases of aberrant behavior can be accurately
identified with existing methodologies. Moreover,
several investigators have shown that brief and sim­
plified methods of functional analysis can be useful
for selecting effective treatments. For example,
Wacker and his colleagues (Cooper, Wacker, Sasso,
Reimers, & Donn, 1990; Derby et al., 1992; Nor­
thup et al., 1991) have developed a 90-min as­
sessment for use in outpatient clinics based on Iwata
et al.’s (1982) model. Clients are presented with
different analogue conditions in 10-min sessions to
assess whether their aberrant or appropriate behav­
ior is sensitive to one or more environmental con­
tingencies. Preliminary studies have reponed mod­
erate correspondence between results of brief
functional assessments and extended experimental
analyses (Rodgers, Zarcone, & Iwata, 1990). An­
other efficient approach to functional analysis and
treatment of behavior disorders has been to imple­
ment multiple treatments matched to different pos­
sible functions of the aberrant target response (e.g.,
escape and attention). If the aberrant behavior is
responsive to one but not the other treatments, it
may be reasonable to infer the operant function of
the behavior based on the differential effectiveness
of the treatments (Repp et al., 1988; Lalli, Brow­
der, Mace, & Brown, 1993). Using either strategy,
the acid test is the effectiveness of analysis-based
treatments. If these efficient and abbreviated func­
tional assessments can lead to effective treatment,
there may be little reason to conduct more extensive
and comprehensive forms of functional analysis.

The second answer to the question of which
direction functional analysis methodologies should
evolve concerns strategies for use with individuals
with difficult-to-treat behavior disorders. It may be
reasonable to conclude that, if treatment based on
the results of an abbreviated functional analysis
proves to be ineffective, the analysis lacked internal
or external validity. That is, an operant function
was not identified by the assessment (internal va­
lidity), or the operant function detected in the as­
sessment did not hold in the individual’s natural
environment (external validity). In such circum-

stances, the behavior analyst has the option of con­
ducting an extended experimental analysis char­
acteristic of the Iwata et al. (1982) model or
combining descriptive and experimental methods
to design individualized assessment conditions (Mace
& Lalli, 1991). With the latter approach, the nat­
urally occurring consequences for target behaviors
and the schedules in which these consequences are
arranged are incorporated into the design of ana­
logue experimental conditions. The goal is to in­
crease the external validity of the experimental anal­
ysis, thereby increasing confidence that the results
will generalize outside the experimental setting. Al­
though the combination of descriptive and exper­
imental methods has cenain advantages, it can also
be time consuming and complicated to execute-­
panicularly the data collection and data analysis
portions of the descriptive analysis. Additional work
is needed to standardize descriptive analysis meth­
ods and make them easier to use on a wide-scale
basis. In any case, whether experimental methods
are used alone or in combination with descriptive
assessments, our greatest confidence should rest on
the findings from the experimental analysis. This
is especially true when descriptive and experimental
findings correspond. However, when no naturalistic
observations are available or when descriptive and
experimental findings are discordant, conclusions
about the operant function of a behavior problem
under natural conditions are best tempered, at least
until treatments based on the analysis prove to be
effective.

I want to observe, in conclusion, that the func­
tional analysis of aberrant behavior has made tre­
mendous advances since and because of the Iwata
et al. (1982) publication. It has revolutionized how
behavior analysts conceptualize and treat behavior
disorders. Perhaps more significantly, it has renewed
the analytic spirit in applied behavioral psychology
and has contributed to closer connections between
the basic and applied analysis of behavior. Evo­
lution of functional analysis methodologies is in­
evitable and is to be encouraged. We can be con­
fident that the next decade will provide us with
improved technologies to identify the operant func­
tion of a wide range of behavior disorders.

390 F. CHARLES MACE

REFERENCES

Axelrod, S. (1987). Functional and structural analyses of
behavior: Approaches leading to reduced use of punish­
ment procedures. Research in Developmental Disabil­
ities, 8, 165-178.

Ayllon, T., & Michael, J. (1959). The psychiatric nurse as
a behavioral engineer. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 2, 323-334.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some
current dimensions of applied behavior analysis.Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.

Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1961). Child development:
I. A systematic and empirical theory. New York: Ap­
pleton-Century-Crofts.

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. Jour­
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175-191.

Carr, E. G. (1977). The motivation of self-injurious be­
havior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bul­
letin, 84, 800-816.

Carr, E. G., & Newsom, C. (1985). Demand-related tan­
trums. Behavior Modification, 9, 403-426.

Cohen, S. L., Riley, D. S., & Weigle, P. A. (1993). Tests
of behavior momentum in simple and multiple schedules
with rats and pigeons. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 60, 255-291.

Cooper, L. J ., Wacker, D. P., Sasso, G. M., Reimers, T. M.,
& Donn, L. K. (1990). Using parents as therapists to
evaluate appropriate behavior of their children: Appli­
cation to a tertiary diagnostic clinic. journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 23, 285-296.

Davis, C. A., Brady, M. P., Williams, R. E., & Hamilton,
R. (1992). Effects of high-probability requests on the
acquisition and generalization of responses to requests in
young children with behavior disorders. journal of Ap­
plied Behavior Analysis, 25, 905-916.

Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law:
A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Nor­
thup, J., Cigrand, K., & Asmus, J. (1992). Brieffunc­
tional assessment techniques to evaluate aberrant behav­
ior in an outpatient setting: A summary of 79 cases.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 713-721.

Dietz, S. M. ( 1978). Current status of applied behavior
analysis. American Psychologist, 33, 805-814.

Durand, V. M., & Carr, E. G. (1987). Social influences
on “self-stimulatory” behavior: Analysis and treatment
application.journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20,
119-132.

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

Halle,]. W., & Spradlin,]. E. (1993). Identifying stimulus
control of challenging behavior. In J. Reichele & D.
Wacker (Eds.), Communicative alternatives to chal­
lenging behavior (pp. 83-109). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Hayes, S. C., & Hayes, L. J. (1993). Applied implications

of current}EAB research on derived relations and delayed
reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
26, 507-511.

Hayes, S. C., Rincover, A., & Solnick, J. V. (1980). The
technical drift of applied behavior analysis. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 275-285.

Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength
of response as a function of reinforcement. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 267-272.

Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the Jaw of effect. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243-266.

Hineline, P. N., & Wacker, D. P. (1993). JEAB, No­
vember ’92: What’s in it for the]ABA reader? Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 269-274.

Iwata, B. A. ( 1988). The development and adoption of
controversial default technologies. The Behavior Ana­
lyst, 11, 149-157.

Iwata, B. A. (1991). Applied behavior analysis as tech­
nological science.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
24, 421-424.

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

Iwata, B. A., & Michael,]. L. (1994). Applied implications
of theory and research on the nature of reinforcement.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 183-193.

Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Cowdery, G. E., & Miltenberger,
R. G. (1994). What makes extinction work?: An anal­
ysis of procedural form and function.Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 27, 131-144.

Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Kalsher, M. J., Cowdery, G. E.,
& Cataldo, M. F. (1990). Experimental analysis and
extinction of self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 11-27.

Iwata, B. A., Vollmer, T. R., Zarcone, J. R., & Rodgers, T.
A. (1993). Treatment classification and selection based
on behavioral function. In R. Van Houten & S. Axelrod
(Eds.), Behavior analysis and treatment (pp. 101-12 5).
New York: Plenum.

Johnston, J. M. (1991a). We need a new model of tech­
nology.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 425-
428.

Johnston,]. M. (1991b). What can behavior analysis learn
from the aversives controversy? The Behavior Analyst,
14, 187-196.

Krasner, L., & Ullmann, L. P. ( 1965). Research in behavior
modification. New York: Holt.

Lalli, J. S., Browder, D. M., Mace, F. C., & Brown, K.
(1993). Teacher use of descriptive analysis data to im­
plement interventions to decrease students’ maladaptive
behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26,
227-238.

Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1993). Descriptive and
experimental analyses of variables maintaining self-in­
jurious behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
26, 293-319.

Lerman, D. C., Iwata, B. A., Smith, R. G., Zarcone, J. R.,
& Vollmer, T. R. (1994). Transfer of behavioral func-

391 FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS

tion as a contributing factor in treatment relapse.Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 357-370.

Mace, F. C. (1994). Basic research needed for stimulating
the development of behavioral technologies. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 61, 529-550.

Mace, F. C., Browder, D., &. Lin, Y. ( 1987). Analysis of
demand conditions associated with stereotypy. Journal
of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 18,
25-31.

Mace, F. C., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West, B. J., Belfiore,
P., Pinter, E., &. Brown, D. K. (1988). Behavioral
momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 123-141.

Mace, F. C., &. Knight, D. (1986). Functional analysis and
treatment of severe pica. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 19, 411-416.

Mace, F. C., &. Lalli, J. S. (1991). Linking descriptive and
experimental analyses in the treatment of bizarre speech.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 553-562.

Mace, F. C., Lalli, J. S., &. Pinter-Lalli, E. (1991). Func­
tional analysis and the treatment of aberrant behavior.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12, 155-180.

Mace, F. C., Lalli, J. S., &. Shea, M. C. (1992). Functional
analysis of self-injury. In J. Luiselli, J. Matson, &. N.
Singh (Eds.), Assessment, analysis and treatment of self­
injury (pp. 122-152). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Mace, F. C., Page, T. ]., Ivancic, M. T., &. O’Brien, S.
(1986). Analysis of environmental determinants of ag­
gression and disruption in mentally retarded children.
Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7, 203-221.

Mace, F. C., &. Shea, M. C. (1991). New directions in
behavior analysis for the treatment of severe behavior
disorders. In S. Harris &. J. Handleman (Eds.), Aversive
and non-aversive interventions: Controlling life-threat­
ening behavior by the developmentally disabled (pp.
57-79). New York: Springer.

Mace, F. C., Webb, M. E., Sharkey, R. W., Mattson, D.
M., &. Rosen, H. S. (1988). Functional analysis and
treatment of bizarre speech. Journal of Behavior Ther­
apy and Experimental Psychiatry, 19, 289-296.

Mace, F. C., &. West, B. (1986). Analysis of demand
conditions associated with reluctant speech. journal of
Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 17,
285-294.

Michael, J. ( 1982). Distinguishing between discriminative
and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149-155.

Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior
Analyst, 16, 191-206.

Morris, E. K. (1991). Deconstructing “technological to a
fault.”}ournal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 411-
416.

Myerson, J., &. Hale, S. (1984). Practical implications of
the matching law. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal­
ysis, 17, 367-380.

National Institutes of Health. (1989). NIH consensus de­
velopment conference on the treatment of destructive
behaviors in persons with developmental disabilities.
Bethesda, MD: Author.

Neef, N. A., Mace, F. C., Shea, M. C., &. Shade, D. ( 1992).
Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on allo­
cation of academic behavior. journal of Applied Be­
havior Analysis, 25, 657-664.

Nevin,]. A.,&. Mace, F. C. (in press). The ABCs of]EAB,
September 1993.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.

Nevin, J. A., Mandel, C., &. Atak, J. (1983). The analysis
of behavioral momentum. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 39, 49-59.

Nevin, J. A., Tota, M. E., Torquaro, R. D., &. Shull, R. L.
(1990). Alternative reinforcement increases resistance to
change: Pavlovian or operant contingencies? Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 53, 359-379.

Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Cigrand,
K., Cook, J., &. DeRaad, A. (1991). A brieffunctional
analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an out­
clinic setting. journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
24, 509-522.

Pierce, W. D., &. Epling, W. F. (1980). What happened
ro analysis in applied behavior analysis? The Behavior
Analyst, 3, 1-9.

Repp, A. C., Felce, D., &. Barton, L. E. (1988). Basing
the treatment of stereotypic and self-injurious behaviors
on hypotheses of their causes. Journal of Applied Be­
havior Analysis, 21, 281-289.

Rodgers, T. A., Zarcone, J. R., &. Iwata, B. A. (1990). A
comparison of methods for conducting functional anal­
ysis of self-injurious behavior. Paper presented at the
16th annual convention of the Association for Behavior
Analysis, Nashville, TN.

Sherman, R. A. ( 1991). Aversives, fundamental rights and
the courcs. The Behavior Analyst, 14, 197-206.

Shull, R. L., &. Fuqua, R. W. ( 1993). The collateral effects
of behavioral interventions: Applied implications from
JEAB, January 1993. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 26, 409-415.

Singer, G. H., Singer, J., &. Horner, R. H. (1987). Using
pretask requests to increase the probability of compliance
for students with severe disabilities. Journal of the As­
sociation for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 287-
291.

Slifer, K. J., Ivancic, M. T., Parrish, J. M., Page, T. J., &.
Burgio, L. ( 1986). Assessment and treatment of mul­
tiple behavior problems exhibited by a profoundly re­
tarded adolescent. Journal of Behavior Therapy and
Experimental Psychiatry, 17, 203-213.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New
York: The Macmillan Company.

Tharp, R. G., &. Wetzel, R. J. (1969). Behavior modi­
fication in the natural environment. New York: Aca­
demic Press.

Thomas, D. R., Becker, W. C., &. Armstrong, M. (1968).
Production and elimination of disruptive classroom be­
havior by systematically varying teacher’s behavior.Jour­
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 35-45.

Vollmer, T. R., &. Iwata, B. A. (1991). Establishing op­
erations and reinforcement effects. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 24, 279-291.

Wacker, D. P., Steege, M. W., Northup,]., Sasso, G., Berg,

392 F. CHARLES MACE

W., Reimers, T., Cooper, L., Cigrand, K., & Donn, L. motivational assessment scale: A failure to replicate. Re­
(1990). A component analysis of functional commu­ search in Developmental Disabilities, 12, 349-360.
nication training across three topographies of severe be­ Received March 1, 1994
havior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Initial editorial decision March 5, 1994
23, 417-429. Revision received March 11, 1994

Zarcone, J. R., Rodgers, T. A., Iwata, B. A., Rourke, D., Final acceptance March 11, 1994
& Dorsey, M. F. (1991). Reliability analysis of the Action Editor, Brian A. Iwata

Discussion Post Rubric
(20) Possible Points

Category 4 Points 2 Points 0 Points

Length of Post The author’s post
consisted of 150 – 200
words.

The author’s post
consisted of 150 – 100
words.

The author’s post
consisted of 100 words
or less.

Grammar, usage,
spelling

The author’s post
contained less than 2

The author’s post
contained 3 – 4

The author’s post
contained over 5

grammar, usage, or grammar, usage, or grammar, usage, or
spelling errors. spelling errors. spelling errors and
proofreading was not
apparent.

Referencing and
utilizing outside
sources

The author posted
references in APA
format and cited an
one or more original
references, outside of
the assigned readings.

The author posted
references in APA
format of assigned
readings, but did not
include an additional
reference.

The author neither
utilized APA format or
referenced material
used nor cited an
outside reference.

Promotes
Discussion

The author’s post
clearly responds to the
assignment prompt,

The author’s post
responds to the
assignment prompt,

The author’s post does
not correspond with
the assignment

develops ideas but relies heavily on prompt,
cogently, organizes definitional mainly discusses
them logically and explanations and does personal opinions,
supports them through not create and develop irrelevant information,
empirical writing. The original ideas and or information is
author’s post also support them logically. presented with limited
raises question or The author’s post may logic and lack of
stimulates discussion. stimulate some development and
discussion. organization of ideas.
Does not support any
claims made.

Timely Response Assignment is posted
on or prior to due date.

Assignment is one day
late.

Assignment is two
days late.

Be advised, there are also response costs associated with specific behaviors:

• response cost of (3) points will be administered for not responding to a
peer’s post.

• response cost of (1) point will be administered for not reading all of peers’
posts.

• Discussion posts that are turned in more than two days after the due date
will not be accepted unless otherwise excused by the instructor.