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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Behavioral interventions 2015-02, Vol.30 (1), p.1-35
Hauptverfasser: Rooker, Griffin W., DeLeon, Iser G., Borrero, Carrie S. W., Frank-Crawford, Michelle A., Roscoe, Eileen M.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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