By Megan Elizabeth Anne Miller, M.A., BCBA, EMT
Graham Behavior Services
In a world where it is becoming more and more difficult to identify unbiased statements, we want to provide listeners with a clearly stated topic that is explained and supported by well researched input from opposing viewpoints. Since May of 2019, our podcast, ABA Ultimate Showdown, has been promoting constructive, respectful, and professional discourse to advance the field of behavior analysis. To date, topics have covered the ethics of gift giving, when to include parents in the implementation of a behavior intervention plan, the use of restraint, and most recently the supervision system.
In our preparations to produce these podcasts, we researched different frameworks in the field of speech and debate in order to develop a modified format that we feel can have widespread use, from conferences to college classrooms. One important modification is that there is no winner, nor is there a loser in these debates. Our intention is to present a point of view that you may not have previously considered. It is difficult to effectively argue a point if you have no understanding of the counterpoint.
We also want to make it clear that that we are in no way experts on any topic we discuss. We have attempted to synthesize as much research as possible and relay the sides as accurately as we can. Our intention is to promote dialogue within our community, not to present ourselves as experts.
In our first episode, we tackled a controversial topic in our field right now: the Practical Functional Assessment (IISCA) vs. the Traditional Functional Analysis. In order to ensure listeners have adequate background information to sufficiently unpack the debate, we recorded an introductory episode to give an overview of the basics of each approach. This episode provides the background knowledge necessary to fully understand the topics discussed in Round 1.
The original functional analysis (FA) was described by Iwata and colleagues in their seminal paper, “Toward A Functional Analysis of Self Injury” (1982/1994). The purpose of conducting a functional analysis is to determine the environmental conditions under which problem behavior occurs and the consequences that maintain them. In other words, an FA systematically determines the function of the problem behavior. The results of the FA are used to develop a function-based treatment, such as functional communication training or demand fading. The development of the functional analysis enabled the field of behavior analysis to provide function-based treatments that have led to important socially and educationally valid outcomes for individuals with challenging behavior (e.g., Beavers, Iwata, & Lerman, 2013).
The practical functional assessment is a type of functional analysis designed by Dr. Greg Hanley and his colleagues at Western New England University. The practical functional assessment consists of two main components: a structured, open- ended interview and the specific type of functional analyses they call the IISCA – the Interview-Informed, Synthesized Contingency Analysis. The first empirical results of the IISCA were reported by Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, & Hanratty in 2014. One way the practical functional assessment differs from a traditional FA is that it recreates multiple idiosyncratic establishing operations individualized for each participant. For example, whereas the traditional FA may provide generic attention in one condition and available tangibles in a separate condition, the IISCA would provide attention from a specific person and a specific iPad app in one synthesized condition, both of which had been informed by the open-ended interview.
There are many similarities between the practical functional assessment and the traditional functional analysis, but the controversy lies within the differences. The traditional FA is supported by 37 years of research but the first research supporting the practical functional assessment and IISCA was only published in 2014. Furthermore, in 2016, Fisher, Greer, Romani, Zangrillo, & Owen, showed that the synthesized contingency in in one participant’s IISCA basically added two irrelevant functions. However, supporters of the practical functional assessment state that it is unnecessary and dangerous to evoke challenging, potentially harmful behaviors that may occur during the traditional FA. In addition, Slaton, Hanley, and Raftery compared results of the IISCA and traditional FA and found that for some participants, neither the escape condition on its own nor the attention condition on its own create a strong enough EO for problem behavior but their combined effects or the interactions of their contingencies do (2017). These conflicting statements are where Round 1 of ABA Ultimate Showdown begins. Where do you stand on this topic? Listen to learn more about each side in an unbiased debate explained and supported by well researched input from opposing viewpoints.
The National Speech and Debate Association website highlights this relevant quote:
“Discussion dilutes division. If we just stick to our very own opinions, then we’re not being exposed to other people’s ideas.”
We hope that our podcast will encourage a discussion that unifies instead of dividing our professional community and developed them with that intent. Thanks for giving our podcasts a listen!
References
Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). Thirty years of research on the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.30
Fisher, W. W., Greer, B. D., Romani, P. W., Zangrillo, A. N., & Owen, T. M. (2016). Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(3), 596–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.314
Graham, C. (Producer). (2019, May 20). ABA Ultimate Showdown [Audio Podcast] (Introductory Episode). Retrieved from https://www.grahambehaviorservices.com/showdown
Graham, C. (Producer). (2019, May 21). ABA Ultimate Showdown [Audio Podcast] (Precursor to Round 1: Practical Functional Assessment (IISCA) vs. the Traditional Functional Analysis). Retrieved from https://www.grahambehaviorservices.com/showdown
Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., & Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful improvements in problem behavior of children with autism via synthesized analyses and treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.106
Iwata, B. A., & Dorsey, M. F. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197
Mission & vision. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.speechanddebate.org/mission/
Slaton, J. D., Hanley, G. P., & Raftery, K. J. (2017). Interview-informed functional analyses: A comparison of synthesized and isolated components. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(2), 252–277. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.384
Citation for this article:
Miller, M. (2019). Overview of ABA Ultimate Showdown Podcasts for Round 1 (IISCA vs. Traditional FA) Science in Autism Treatment, 16(11).
