JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

2013, 46, 349353

NUMBER

1 (SPRING 2013)

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR: A BRIEF REVIEW JOSHUA B. PLAVNICK

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

AND

MATTHEW P. NORMAND
UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC

A variation of the preintervention functional analysis of problem behavior has recently been extended to identify the function of verbal behavior emitted by children with autism. Recent research suggests that a functional analysis of verbal behavior might be beneficial in evaluating previous instruction and guiding the selection of future educational targets and instructional procedures. The present paper reviews previous literature on the functional analysis of verbal behavior and identifies avenues for future research. Key words: autism, functional analysis, language, typical development, verbal behavior

Preintervention functional analyses (e.g., Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/ 1994) are considered by many to be the gold standard assessment method for informing interventions designed to reduce problem behavior (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Recently, the logic of such analyses has been extended to verbal behavior, with promising results (Kelley et al., 2007; LaFrance, Wilder, Normand, & Squires, 2009; Lerman et al., 2005; Normand, Machado, Hustyi, & Morley, 2011; Normand, Severtson, & Beavers, 2008; Plavnick & Ferreri, 2011). Similar to research on functional analyses (FAs) of problem behavior, the verbal behavior research suggests that a priori understanding of the variables that evoke and maintain verbal behavior can be used to develop effective interventions (e.g., Plavnick & Ferreri, 2011). In addition, the FA of emerging verbal behavior may be a useful tool for evaluating the effectiveness of previous instruction and for conducting basic and
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joshua B. Plavnick, Michigan State University, 620 Farm Lane #341, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 (e-mail: plavnick@msu.edu) or Matthew Normand, University of the Pacific, Department of Psychology, Stockton, California 95211 (e-mail: mnormand@pacific.edu). doi: 10.1002/jaba.1

translational research on language development (e.g., Normand et al., 2011). The purpose of this review is to summarize recent research on the FA of verbal behavior and to suggest areas for future research. TOWARD A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR Although any demonstration of a functional relation between a verbal response and some environmental variable constitutes an FA of verbal behavior, Lerman et al. (2005) were the first to report an assessment of verbal behavior similar to that described for problem behavior (i.e., Iwata et al., 1982/1994). Based on Skinners (1957) functional taxonomy of language and the FA methodology described by Iwata et al., Lerman et al. reported an FA of verbal behavior that involved several test conditions, each with a corresponding control condition, in which motivating operations, discriminative stimuli, and consequences were manipulated. This first verbal behavior FA was used to evaluate emerging speech of young children with developmental disabilities. Results showed that most of the verbal responses were mands; relatively little responding occurred during tact and intraverbal conditions.

349

350

JOSHUA B. PLAVNICK and MATTHEW P. NORMAND (1957) taxonomy. However, they also raise several questions. Specifically, does the function of a verbal response identified through an FA align with the function of that response when emitted within a verbal community? In addition, can the FA of verbal behavior inform interventions that improve verbal behavior training? IMPLICATIONS OF A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR Iwata et al.s (1982/1994) seminal paper established a methodology for the identification of the function of problem behavior and elucidated the variables that are responsible for self-injury. Thus, the paper served to inform both the practice of assessment and the understanding of a particular category of behavior (self-injury). In much the same way, the FA of verbal behavior can both inform experimental assessments of language for clinical purposes and lead to a better understanding of language development. Two recent studies have shown that, at least in the case of the mand, an FA of verbal behavior can be used to support verbal behavior training (Normand et al., 2011; Plavnick & Ferreri, 2011). Normand et al. (2011) provided a preliminary validation of the verbal behavior FA by demonstrating that manual signs taught to typically developing infants under mand and mimetic conditions occurred only during the mand and mimetic conditions of a subsequent FA. Thus, the FA methodology might be used as a form of progress monitoring to confirm that children acquire communicative responses that correspond to the conditions under which they were taught (e.g., mand, tact, intraverbal) and generalize beyond the training situation. Plavnick and Ferreri (2011) conducted a preintervention FA to identify the specific type of socially mediated reinforcement (e.g., attention, escape, tangible) that maintained gestures emitted by young children with autism. Differentiated responding across FA conditions was observed within and across participants, which

Extensions of the verbal behavior FA produced similar outcomes, in that differential verbal responding was observed across conditions (Kelley et al., 2007; Normand et al., 2008). Normand et al. (2008) demonstrated that a brief multielement design with a single control condition resulted in differential levels of sign language, with responding occurring most often under mand conditions. Kelley et al. (2007) described a brief trial-based FA that produced differential levels of responding, with the majority of responses observed during tact and echoic conditions. Such between-subjects variation in function suggests that the verbal behavior FA could prove to be a useful tool for understanding emerging language, although procedural differences across the studies limit the possible conclusions. LaFrance et al. (2009) conducted a systematic replication of Lerman et al. (2005), followed by an extension that involved several procedural variations. In the first experiment, the methodology of Lerman et al. was used; results indicated that vocal verbal behavior occurred during both the mand and tact conditions for two participants, but results were less clear for a third participant. However, responding occurred consistently during mand conditions only when the relevant item was in sight. In a second experiment, LaFrance et al. assessed vocal verbal behavior with the same participants as in Experiment 1 but targeted different response topographies. Procedural changes included the removal of the intraverbal test condition and thinning of the schedule of prompts used in the first experiment. An additional test condition was used to rule out automatic reinforcement as a possible function of behavior. The results indicated that the behavior occurred at the highest rate during tact and echoic conditions, although some responding occurred during the mand condition. Collectively, results of the studies reviewed above suggest that it is possible to develop test and control conditions that are sufficient to demonstrate experimental control over verbal behavior and that verbal responding aligns with Skinners

BRIEF REVIEW suggested that the assessment might inform the development of verbal behavior training procedures. Based on these outcomes, the researchers developed two sets of individualized video models for each participant; one set depicted a peer manding for items or activities that were functionally equivalent to the participants gesture, and the second set depicted a peer manding for an item or activity that was unrelated to the function of the gesture. All participants learned functionally equivalent mands, and only one learned the unrelated mands. A primary benefit of the FA for teaching verbal behavior to participants in Plavnick and Ferreri (2011) was that the experimenters could depict relevant reinforcing consequences in the videos shown to each participant. The inclusion of this kind of reinforcement appeared to influence outcomes, because participants did not acquire verbal behavior when consequences that did not reinforce gestures were depicted in the videos. This suggests that FAs of verbal behavior might be useful for designing training procedures to promote the acquisition of verbal operants, although the degree to which this is true remains unknown. FUTURE DIRECTIONS Previous FAs of verbal behavior can be categorized into methodological investigations, which attempted to establish procedures that identify the variables controlling certain forms of verbal behavior (e.g., Lerman et al., 2005), and practical applications which used those procedures to evaluate language training or inform intervention design (e.g., Normand et al., 2011). Additional research is needed to further refine the FA of verbal behavior for these purposes. Methodology The specific arrangement of the test and control conditions warrants consideration. For example, appropriate antecedents for an intraverbal test condition are likely to differ from

351

situation to situation. Thus, developing a procedure to identify the relevant variables for the test condition is important. Combining descriptive assessments of the natural language environment with FAs seems to be worthwhile, much like what has been done with FAs of problem behavior (e.g., Mace & Lalli, 1991). Prior to conducting an FA, a descriptive assessment of the natural language environment could be conducted to identify the relevant stimulus conditions for the FA. Conversely, it would be beneficial to conduct the FA prior to a descriptive analysis to determine the extent to which the specific antecedents and consequences that control verbal responding during the FA are observed in the natural environment (cf. Moerk, 1990). More work also is needed along the lines of Normand et al. (2011), whereby previously taught operants of known function are assessed during the verbal behavior FA. Researchers could train verbal operants under a range of stimulus conditions and then have experimenters who are unaware of the specific teaching conditions conduct the FAs. If the analyses identify the stimulus conditions used during training, the validity of the functional analysis would be bolstered further. Currently, the most prominent behavioranalytic language assessments rely on descriptive methods. Research that has compared the outcomes of descriptive assessments to those of FAs, at least in the context of problem behavior, suggests poor correspondence between the two methods (Pence, Roscoe, Bourret, & Ahearn, 2009; Thompson & Iwata, 2007). Therefore, the use of descriptive assessments for verbal behavior warrants attention. The use of FA (i.e., experimental) methods could prove to be more effective for determining the function of a specific verbal response than the use of descriptive assessments or, at minimum, might be used to assess the validity of descriptive methods. Practicality From a practical perspective, future research could examine the utility of the FA to evaluate

352

JOSHUA B. PLAVNICK and MATTHEW P. NORMAND SUMMARY The preintervention FA has proven to be a valuable assessment tool that can be used to inform effective interventions for problem behavior, because such analyses identify relevant controlling variables for behavior that can be manipulated systematically during intervention (Hanley et al., 2003). Similarly, FAs of verbal behavior can identify the conditions that evoke and maintain verbal behavior, with this information then available to inform interventions. The available data suggest that this methodology can help researchers and clinicians better understand language development and can be used to guide interventions in cases in which language development is delayed.

progress during or following intervention. Many children with autism receive verbal behavior training under tightly controlled conditions. An FA of verbal behavior could be used to determine whether the verbal operant occurs away from the specific environmental conditions used during training (e.g., a specific listener or instructional setting). Or, if the operant is multiply controlled, an FA with a sequential progression of test conditions (as in LaFrance et al., 2009) may identify multiply controlled operants and inform instructional methods that free an operant from undesirable sources of stimulus control. A similar application of the FA could be used when a training goal is to teach a single response topography that can be emitted under a variety of operant conditions. Normand et al. (2011) found that infants emitted a response taught as a mand under both the mand and mimetic test conditions of the FA, probably due to the prompting procedure used during teaching. Skinner (1957) argued that the acquisition of a verbal response under one set of conditions does not automatically lead to acquisition of that response under another set of conditions, and subsequent research provides evidence to support this claim (Lamarre & Holland; 1985; Twyman, 1996). However, it might be possible to devise teaching procedures such that a response could generalize across functions, and doing so has obvious clinical benefits. An FA of verbal behavior might elucidate which language training procedures can efficiently establish multiple functions for the same response form. Additional research also is needed to determine the conditions under which a verbal behavior FA effectively informs intervention development (as in Plavnick & Ferreri, 2011). One possibility is to use information derived from an FA to create and expand the specific antecedents that occasion verbal behavior in the natural environment. Such an approach would be systematic and could provide both a minimal alteration of the natural environment and a positive impact on the development and production of verbal behavior.

REFERENCES
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147185. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147 Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197209. (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 320, 1982) doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197 Kelley, M. E., Shillingsburg, M. A., Castro, M. J., Addison, L. R., LaRue, R. H., Jr., & Martins, M. P. (2007). Assessment of the functions of vocal behavior in children with developmental disabilities: A replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 571576. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.40-571 LaFrance, D., Wilder, D. A., Normand, M. P., & Squires, J. L. (2009). Extending the assessment of functions of vocalizations in children with limited verbal repertoires. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25, 1932. Lamarre, J., & Holland, J. G. (1985). The functional independence of mands and tacts. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 519. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1985.43-5 Lerman, D. C., Parten, M., Addison, L. R., Vorndran, C. M., Volkert, V. M., & Kodak, T. (2005). A methodology for assessing the functions of emerging speech in children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 303316. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.38-303

BRIEF REVIEW
Mace, F. C., & Lalli, J. S. (1991). Linking descriptive and experimental analyses in the treatment of bizarre speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 553 562. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-553 Moerk, E. L. (1990). Three-term contingency patterns in mother-child verbal interactions during first-language acquisition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 293305. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.54293 Normand, M. P., Machado, M. A., Hustyi, K. M., & Morley, A. J. (2011). Infant sign training and functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 305 314. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-305 Normand, M. P., Severtson, E. S., & Beavers, G. A. (2008). A functional analysis of nonvocal verbal behavior of a young child with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24, 6367. Pence, S. T., Roscoe, E. M., Bourret, J. C., & Ahearn, W. H. (2009). Relative contributions of three descriptive methods: Implications for behavioral assessment.

353

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 425446. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-425 Plavnick, J. B., & Ferreri, S. F. (2011). Establishing verbal repertoires in young children with autism using function-based video modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 747766. doi: 10.1901/ jaba.2011.44-747 Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2007). A comparison of outcomes from descriptive and functional analyses of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 333338. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.40-333 Twyman, J. (1996). The functional independence of impure mands and tacts of abstract stimulus properties. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 13, 119. Received May 23, 2012 Final acceptance August 19, 2012 Action Editor, Dorothea Lerman