functional behavior assessment (FBA) (descriptive assessment) process and functional experimental analysis (FA) process.

Functional Behaviour Assessment
Name
Institution

An FBA (Functional Behaviour Assessment) is a multi-faceted concept used in the description of some methodologies that allow practitioners and researchers in the identification of reason as to why specific behaviors occur (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Typically, these assessments used to point out the reason behind the “challenging behavior” such as destructive behaviors, “aggression” towards others or self-injury, even though these evaluations are characteristically not exclusive (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman & Richman, 1994). Even though there exist various methods for undertaking “functional assessments”, they all have a specific goal which is; the identification of the “function”(defined below) of a behavior that is challenging so that a way around can be employed to reduce the identified behavior and/or enhance a more adaptive behavior. “While functional behavior assessment (FBA) has been a part of special education law and embedded in Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) since 1997, a precise definition of what actions or processes constitute a legal FBA has never been adequately addressed in the law.” (Miltenberger, 2008)
There are three explicit “functional assessment” methods: Functional Analysis, “Direct observation” and “informant methods.” The term “functional assessment” and “functional assessment” are often confused as the same concept, but they are not. A “functional analysis” is one particular type of “functional assessment.

”
Source: Miltenberger, R. (2008). Behaviour Modification. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth
Publishing
Direct Observation
For “direct observation” method, the expert or researcher would watch the subject as they undertake normal “activities” within their usual environment. When challenging behaviors happen, the observer would note down what occurred just before them, what occurred just after the behavior besides noting down what they think is the potential reason as to why the behavior occurred. This method is employed in the development of a hypothesis regarding the function of the observed behavior. “Descriptive Functional Behaviour Assessment,”(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). and “Direct Observation” (Miltenberger, 2008) are the phrases usually for this assessment method.
Informant Methods
The “Informant Method” involves questionnaires and interviews to the subject and “can be completed by the client, staff members, their parents or teachers. The interviews are used in the identification of what happens before the occurrence of the behavior and what happens after the occurrence of the behavior.” (Cooper et al., 2007). Just like in the “direct observation” method, the “informant method” is also used in developing a hypothesis for the behavior function. “Indirect Functional Behaviour Assessment” (Cooper et al., 2007) and “Indirect Methods” (Miltenberger, 2008) are the terms used in this method.
Functional Analysis
“When behavior occurs there will always be two features present, the form and the function of the behavior. The form of behavior is most easily identified. The form of behavior is what is observed. The function of a behavior is less easily identified. Functional Behavior Analysis (FBA) can be defined as the analysis of the function of behavior”.
The functional analysis method is the only method where there exists consensus among researchers on the topic. The method involves the practitioner or researcher intentionally changing what occurs before and after the episode of the behavior with the aim of testing what might be the reason behind the behavior. Unlike the informant and direct observation methods where the practitioner creates a hypothesis, the “functional analysis method” is used to essentially put to test the premise and has been found to be the only technique among the three that can actually predict the “occurrence” of the behavior (Hanley, Iwata & McCord, 2003).
The term “functional analysis” was used by Skinner to indicate experimental demonstrations of “cause-and-effect relations” between behavior and the environment. Nonetheless, the term has been used by psychologists and behavioral analysts in general to denote a variety of operations and procedures that differ in many vital ways. (Haynes et al.,. 1990) And (Iwata et al., 2000), the authors have discussions that are different but are very comprehensive on the topic. Additionally, the term brings to mind diverse responses through rather different uses in disciplines such as mathematics, medicine biology, and physics. In “behavior analysis” literature, the term “function” has been used different ways; one of the uses conveys the results that a conduct has on the “environment” or, loosely speaking, what purpose a certain behavior serves the person, for instance, “the function of behavior is to terminate an ongoing event” (Iwata et al., 2000). Another use illustrates the relationship between two variables (usually between a class of behavior and some environmental event) where one varies given the absence or presence of the other (for instance, responding as an event action). In both cases where the term is used, the term is relevant to a “functional analysis” of existing conduct, in that the relationship between environmental and behavioral events is exhibited in a learning context of the behavior and how it operates within the given environment.
The functional experimental analysis is a methodology for identifying variables that influence the manifestation of “problem behavior” and has the hallmark of valuation of conduct. Before the dawn of analysis advances to evaluation, problem conducts generally treated by applying powerful uninformed contingencies of punishment or reinforcement over existing but usually unidentified cradles of underpinning for problem behavior. By contrast, by pointing out contingencies that presently maintain problem behavior, consequences that are relevant and discriminative stimuli (SDs) that are associated to them and EOs -establishing operations may be changed to reduce problem behavior. O’Neill et al., (1997, p.67) points out that, “fundamentally, FBA methodologies emphasize the significance of applied research in contributing to an understanding of the determinants of behavior as the foundation for spotting effective treatments that generate results that are generalized.”
Since the innovation in the all-inclusive simulations for carrying out “functional analyses” such as those that scrutinize several sources of influence, hundreds of systematic and direct replications, besides extensions across “populaces, settings, and topographies of problem behaviors,” (O’Neill et al 1997). Have been reported by researchers in the field. Nonetheless, the level to which these variations go has not yet been evaluated systematically or examined critically.
“Descriptive vs. Experimental Functional Assessments”
Even though, both “informant and direct observation” methods are “descriptive assessments” since they both describe what happens before and after the occurrence of challenging behavior. The methods can only present correlational data; this brings to the conclusion that while one may be able to create a hypothesis from the gathered information about the reason behind the occurrence of the behavior, only the “functional analysis” technique can identify the “function of the behavior.” A functional analysis can achieve this since it is an “experimental assessment” that can manipulate what occurs before and after the occurrence of a challenging behavior whereas recording data continuously to see which alteration causes the highest frequency of occurrence of the behavior.
Caution with “Functional Assessments”
Whereas “functional assessments are professional standards, there are considerations that one has to take into account before conducting the assessment. For instance, “it may be unethical to use a functional assessment, particularly the functional analysis method where deliberate manipulations are made that effectively encourage the client to engage in the target behavior” (O’Neill et al 1997). This may not be ethical since if put into consideration the reason why a child is aggressive towards other children or engages in “self-injury,” the question that arises is whether it is up to standard to intentionally test different consequences and antecedents that will cause the child injuring another person or themselves. O’Neill et al., (1997, p.61) point out that “before carrying out manipulations involving such behaviors, we need to determine the level of potential risk and decide whether taking those risks are justified by the potential outcomes.”
Strategies need to be developed to protect those conducting the assessment and the subjects. In such situations, anyone that is involved with the subject-client- (the client if possible, practitioners, staff and parents) and any other committees or legal review boards within the area of need to be informed and consulted and consent obtained before the assessment is undertaken. Additionally, there is the issue that “behaviors may be occurring as a result of a medical or physical condition. For example, sinus or ear infections, mouth ulcers, allergies, toothaches, constipation, etc. may induce or worsen a challenging behavior.” (O’Neill and Horner et al.,1997). It is particularly vital that any physical or medical situation is disqualified so that an assessment is not carried out unnecessarily and to the disadvantage of the subject (Magee & Ellis, 2000).
References
Cooper, J., Heron, T., & Heward, W. (2007). Applied Behaviour Analysis. New Jersey:
Pearson Education.
Hanley, G., Iwata, B., & McCord, B. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: a review. Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(2), 147-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147
Iwata, B., Dorsey, M., Slifer, K., Bauman, K., & Richman, G. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197
Iwata, B., Wallace, M., Kahng, S., Lindberg, J., Roscoe, E., Conners, J., Hanley, G.,
Thompson, R., & Worsdell, A. (2000). Skill Acquisition in the Implementation of
Functional Analysis Methodology. Journal of Applied Behaviour Analysis, 33, 181-194.
DOI:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-181
Magee, S., & Ellis, J. (2000). Extinction effects during the assessment of multiple problem behaviors. Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(3), 313-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-313
Miltenberger, R. (2008). Behaviour Modification. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth Publishing.
O’Neill, R., Horner, R., Albin, R., Sprague, J., Storey, K., & Newton, J. (1997). Functional
Assessment and Programme Development for Problem Behaviour: A Practical
Handbook. Pacific Grove, CA. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.