Reducing Ambiguity in the Functional Assessment of Problem Behavior
Severe problem behavior (e.g., self‐injury and aggression) remains among the most serious challenges for the habilitation of persons with intellectual disabilities and is a significant obstacle to community integration. The current standard of behavior analytic treatment for problem behavior in this...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Behavioral interventions 2015-02, Vol.30 (1), p.1-35 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 35 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | Behavioral interventions |
container_volume | 30 |
creator | Rooker, Griffin W. DeLeon, Iser G. Borrero, Carrie S. W. Frank-Crawford, Michelle A. Roscoe, Eileen M. |
description | Severe problem behavior (e.g., self‐injury and aggression) remains among the most serious challenges for the habilitation of persons with intellectual disabilities and is a significant obstacle to community integration. The current standard of behavior analytic treatment for problem behavior in this population consists of a functional assessment and treatment model. Within that model, the first step is to assess the behavior–environment relations that give rise to and maintain problem behavior, a functional behavioral assessment. Conventional methods of assessing behavioral function include indirect, descriptive, and experimental assessments of problem behavior. Clinical investigators have produced a rich literature demonstrating the relative effectiveness for each method, but in clinical practice, each can produce ambiguous or difficult‐to‐interpret outcomes that may impede treatment development. This paper outlines potential sources of variability in assessment outcomes and then reviews the evidence on strategies for avoiding ambiguous outcomes and/or clarifying initially ambiguous results. The end result for each assessment method is a set of best practice guidelines, given the available evidence, for conducting the initial assessment. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/bin.1400 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4521420</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3607642931</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5790-506315edfebf8cfb52fb1cd6e14d7e29446180a8e037fd98bf4f588d8e0129c23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkV1rFDEUhoMotlbBXyAD3ngzNcnk80bYLrYWS5Wi6F3IZE52U2cmNZmp7r83S9elCuLVCcnDk3POi9Bzgo8JxvR1G8ZjwjB-gA4J1rrGUn19uD1LWmPF5AF6kvM1xlgL2jxGB7QUQRg_RMsr6GYXxlW1GNqwmsO0qcJYTWuoTufRTSGOtq8WOUPOA4xTFX31McW2h6E6gbW9DTE9RY-87TM829Uj9Pn07aflu_riw9n5cnFROy41rjkWDeHQeWi9cr7l1LfEdQII6yRQzZggClsFuJG-06r1zHOlunJBqHa0OUJv7rw3cztA50o7yfbmJoXBpo2JNpg_X8awNqt4axinhFFcBK92ghS_z5AnM4TsoO_tCHHOhigqBCVlY_9HhShGTbku6Mu_0Os4p7K2LcWVlAKTe3-7FHNO4Pd9E2y2IZoSotmGWNAX9-fcg79TK0B9B_wIPWz-KTIn55c74Y4PeYKfe96mb0bIRnLz5fLMMKlF01y9N6T5BawZs7g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1658776010</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reducing Ambiguity in the Functional Assessment of Problem Behavior</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Rooker, Griffin W. ; DeLeon, Iser G. ; Borrero, Carrie S. W. ; Frank-Crawford, Michelle A. ; Roscoe, Eileen M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rooker, Griffin W. ; DeLeon, Iser G. ; Borrero, Carrie S. W. ; Frank-Crawford, Michelle A. ; Roscoe, Eileen M.</creatorcontrib><description>Severe problem behavior (e.g., self‐injury and aggression) remains among the most serious challenges for the habilitation of persons with intellectual disabilities and is a significant obstacle to community integration. The current standard of behavior analytic treatment for problem behavior in this population consists of a functional assessment and treatment model. Within that model, the first step is to assess the behavior–environment relations that give rise to and maintain problem behavior, a functional behavioral assessment. Conventional methods of assessing behavioral function include indirect, descriptive, and experimental assessments of problem behavior. Clinical investigators have produced a rich literature demonstrating the relative effectiveness for each method, but in clinical practice, each can produce ambiguous or difficult‐to‐interpret outcomes that may impede treatment development. This paper outlines potential sources of variability in assessment outcomes and then reviews the evidence on strategies for avoiding ambiguous outcomes and/or clarifying initially ambiguous results. The end result for each assessment method is a set of best practice guidelines, given the available evidence, for conducting the initial assessment. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1072-0847</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-078X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/bin.1400</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26236145</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BEHIE2</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Behavior disorders ; Behavior modification ; Best practice ; Disability ; Medical treatment ; Risk assessment</subject><ispartof>Behavioral interventions, 2015-02, Vol.30 (1), p.1-35</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright Wiley Subscription Services, Inc. Feb 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5790-506315edfebf8cfb52fb1cd6e14d7e29446180a8e037fd98bf4f588d8e0129c23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5790-506315edfebf8cfb52fb1cd6e14d7e29446180a8e037fd98bf4f588d8e0129c23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fbin.1400$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fbin.1400$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26236145$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rooker, Griffin W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeLeon, Iser G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borrero, Carrie S. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frank-Crawford, Michelle A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roscoe, Eileen M.</creatorcontrib><title>Reducing Ambiguity in the Functional Assessment of Problem Behavior</title><title>Behavioral interventions</title><addtitle>Behav. Intervent</addtitle><description>Severe problem behavior (e.g., self‐injury and aggression) remains among the most serious challenges for the habilitation of persons with intellectual disabilities and is a significant obstacle to community integration. The current standard of behavior analytic treatment for problem behavior in this population consists of a functional assessment and treatment model. Within that model, the first step is to assess the behavior–environment relations that give rise to and maintain problem behavior, a functional behavioral assessment. Conventional methods of assessing behavioral function include indirect, descriptive, and experimental assessments of problem behavior. Clinical investigators have produced a rich literature demonstrating the relative effectiveness for each method, but in clinical practice, each can produce ambiguous or difficult‐to‐interpret outcomes that may impede treatment development. This paper outlines potential sources of variability in assessment outcomes and then reviews the evidence on strategies for avoiding ambiguous outcomes and/or clarifying initially ambiguous results. The end result for each assessment method is a set of best practice guidelines, given the available evidence, for conducting the initial assessment. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</description><subject>Behavior disorders</subject><subject>Behavior modification</subject><subject>Best practice</subject><subject>Disability</subject><subject>Medical treatment</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><issn>1072-0847</issn><issn>1099-078X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkV1rFDEUhoMotlbBXyAD3ngzNcnk80bYLrYWS5Wi6F3IZE52U2cmNZmp7r83S9elCuLVCcnDk3POi9Bzgo8JxvR1G8ZjwjB-gA4J1rrGUn19uD1LWmPF5AF6kvM1xlgL2jxGB7QUQRg_RMsr6GYXxlW1GNqwmsO0qcJYTWuoTufRTSGOtq8WOUPOA4xTFX31McW2h6E6gbW9DTE9RY-87TM829Uj9Pn07aflu_riw9n5cnFROy41rjkWDeHQeWi9cr7l1LfEdQII6yRQzZggClsFuJG-06r1zHOlunJBqHa0OUJv7rw3cztA50o7yfbmJoXBpo2JNpg_X8awNqt4axinhFFcBK92ghS_z5AnM4TsoO_tCHHOhigqBCVlY_9HhShGTbku6Mu_0Os4p7K2LcWVlAKTe3-7FHNO4Pd9E2y2IZoSotmGWNAX9-fcg79TK0B9B_wIPWz-KTIn55c74Y4PeYKfe96mb0bIRnLz5fLMMKlF01y9N6T5BawZs7g</recordid><startdate>201502</startdate><enddate>201502</enddate><creator>Rooker, Griffin W.</creator><creator>DeLeon, Iser G.</creator><creator>Borrero, Carrie S. W.</creator><creator>Frank-Crawford, Michelle A.</creator><creator>Roscoe, Eileen M.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201502</creationdate><title>Reducing Ambiguity in the Functional Assessment of Problem Behavior</title><author>Rooker, Griffin W. ; DeLeon, Iser G. ; Borrero, Carrie S. W. ; Frank-Crawford, Michelle A. ; Roscoe, Eileen M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5790-506315edfebf8cfb52fb1cd6e14d7e29446180a8e037fd98bf4f588d8e0129c23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Behavior disorders</topic><topic>Behavior modification</topic><topic>Best practice</topic><topic>Disability</topic><topic>Medical treatment</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rooker, Griffin W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>DeLeon, Iser G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borrero, Carrie S. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Frank-Crawford, Michelle A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roscoe, Eileen M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Behavioral interventions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rooker, Griffin W.</au><au>DeLeon, Iser G.</au><au>Borrero, Carrie S. W.</au><au>Frank-Crawford, Michelle A.</au><au>Roscoe, Eileen M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reducing Ambiguity in the Functional Assessment of Problem Behavior</atitle><jtitle>Behavioral interventions</jtitle><addtitle>Behav. Intervent</addtitle><date>2015-02</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>35</epage><pages>1-35</pages><issn>1072-0847</issn><eissn>1099-078X</eissn><coden>BEHIE2</coden><abstract>Severe problem behavior (e.g., self‐injury and aggression) remains among the most serious challenges for the habilitation of persons with intellectual disabilities and is a significant obstacle to community integration. The current standard of behavior analytic treatment for problem behavior in this population consists of a functional assessment and treatment model. Within that model, the first step is to assess the behavior–environment relations that give rise to and maintain problem behavior, a functional behavioral assessment. Conventional methods of assessing behavioral function include indirect, descriptive, and experimental assessments of problem behavior. Clinical investigators have produced a rich literature demonstrating the relative effectiveness for each method, but in clinical practice, each can produce ambiguous or difficult‐to‐interpret outcomes that may impede treatment development. This paper outlines potential sources of variability in assessment outcomes and then reviews the evidence on strategies for avoiding ambiguous outcomes and/or clarifying initially ambiguous results. The end result for each assessment method is a set of best practice guidelines, given the available evidence, for conducting the initial assessment. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>26236145</pmid><doi>10.1002/bin.1400</doi><tpages>35</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1072-0847 |
ispartof | Behavioral interventions, 2015-02, Vol.30 (1), p.1-35 |
issn | 1072-0847 1099-078X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4521420 |
source | Wiley Online Library All Journals |
subjects | Behavior disorders Behavior modification Best practice Disability Medical treatment Risk assessment |
title | Reducing Ambiguity in the Functional Assessment of Problem Behavior |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T09%3A06%3A00IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reducing%20Ambiguity%20in%20the%20Functional%20Assessment%20of%20Problem%20Behavior&rft.jtitle=Behavioral%20interventions&rft.au=Rooker,%20Griffin%20W.&rft.date=2015-02&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=35&rft.pages=1-35&rft.issn=1072-0847&rft.eissn=1099-078X&rft.coden=BEHIE2&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/bin.1400&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E3607642931%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1658776010&rft_id=info:pmid/26236145&rfr_iscdi=true |