Evaluation of the Treatment Utility of the Analog Functional Analysis and the Structured Descriptive Assessment

Abstract

Direct methods of functional assessment—through which information is gathered by observing environment—behavior relations—vary with the degree to which environmental events are manipulated. Unstructured (ABC) assessments involve observing the occurrence of problem behavior without altering environmental events in any way. At the other extreme, the analog functional analysis is conducted by systematically manipulating predefined environmental events, usually in a controlled environment. Because one primary goal of functional assessment is to develop efficacious interventions based on hypotheses gleaned from the assessment, research evaluating the treatment utility of methods of functional assessment is warranted. Previous research comparing results obtained from different methods of assessment has yielded mixed results. The purpose of this study was not only to compare hypotheses derived from different methods of direct functional assessment (caregiver-conducted analogs, experimenter-conducted analogs, the structured descriptive assessment [SDA]) but also to systematically evaluate interventions derived from each assessment. Three children diagnosed with developmental disabilities participated, along with their caregivers. For all three participants, different patterns of responding were observed across all three assessments. Furthermore, for all participants, the interventions based on the results of the SDA were more effective than interventions based on the analog functional analysis.