Use of The Structured Descriptive Assessment With Typically Developing Children

Behavior Modification
http://bmo.sagepub.com/
Use of the Structured Descriptive Assessment With Typically Developing Children

Cynthia M. Anderson, Carie L. English and Theresa M. Hedrick
Behav Modif 2006 30: 352
DOI: 10.1177/0145445504264750
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://bmo.sagepub.com/content/30/3/352
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Behavior Modification can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://bmo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://bmo.sagepub.com/content/30/3/352.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Mar 30, 2006
What is This?
Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

BEHAVIOR
10.1177/0145445504264750
Anderson et al.
MODIFICATION
/ STRUCTURED/ May
DESCRIPTIVE
2006 ASSESSMENT
Use of the Structured Descriptive

Assessment With Typically
Developing Children
CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON
CARIE L. ENGLISH
THERESA M. HEDRICK
West Virginia University
To date, only a limited number of studies have focused on functional assessment with typically
developing populations. The most commonly reported method of functional assessment with this
population seems to be descriptive assessment; however, the methods used in the descriptive
assessment often are unclear. This is unfortunate as researchers and practitioners often are left
with little guidance as to how to conduct a functional assessment with typically developing chil-
dren. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the structured descriptive assessment
(SDA) might be used with typically developing children. Four children with problem behavior
participated in the study, and hypotheses about functional relations were developed for all chil-
dren. Furthermore, efficacious interventions were developed and implemented for 2 children
based on the results of the SDA.
Keywords: functional assessment; interventions; functionally derived interventions; problem

behavior; day care
The utility of a pretreatment functional assessment for identifying

environmental variables affecting problem behavior is well estab-
lished (see the special issue on functional assessment in Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 1994, Vol. 27). To date, however, the vast
majority of research on functional assessment has been conducted
with individuals with developmental disabilities; relatively little
research exists to guide practitioners working with typically develop-
ing children—children not diagnosed with mental retardation or some
other developmental delay (Fox, Conroy, & Heckaman, 1998; Hanley,
AUTHORS’ NOTE: Carie L. English is now at the University of South Florida.

BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION, Vol. 30 No. 3, May 2006 352-378
DOI: 10.1177/0145445504264750
© 2006 Sage Publications
352

Anderson et al. / STRUCTURED DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT 353
Iwata, & McCord, 2003; Heckaman, Conroy, Fox, & Chait, 2000;
Sasso, Conroy, Stichter, & Fox, 2001). In a review of the literature,
Sasso et al. identified only 18 published studies using pretreatment
functional assessment with children identified as having or being at
risk for an emotional or behavioral disorder. This is unfortunate
because, as pointed out by Lewis and Sugai (1996), the extent to
which the methods used in studies with individuals with disabilities
will be efficacious with different behavior problems (e.g., low fre-
quency responses) and in different settings (e.g., schools or homes vs.
inpatient hospitals) is unclear. Several studies have highlighted the
need to include a wider variety of variables in functional assessment
(e.g., Carr, 1994; Carr, Yarbrough, & Langdon, 1997; Mace, Lalli,
Pinter Lalli, & Shea, 1993), and this seems especially important when
working with typically developing children. To illustrate, Lewis and
Sugai (1996) demonstrated that peer attention, an environmental
event not typically assessed in functional assessments, might maintain
problem behavior exhibited by some children.
Although only a few studies have examined functional assessment
with typically developing children, increased attention has been
focused on this population in recent years. Most research has used
descriptive functional assessments, although a small number of stud-
ies have used experimental manipulations to test hypotheses derived
from descriptive assessments.
Descriptive assessments typically are conducted in the natural
environment, and environmental variables are not manipulated.
Instead, descriptive assessments involve recording instances of the
target behavior and environmental events that precede or follow the
behavior. The most common method of descriptive assessment is
antecedent behavior consequence (ABC) recording (e.g., Lewis &
Sugai, 1996). Most descriptive assessments focus on both antecedent
and consequent events (e.g., Lewis & Sugai, 1996); however, some
researchers have focused primarily on antecedent variables in their
assessment. For example, Ervin et al. (2000) conducted descriptive
assessments to identify classroom and curricular variables that often
evoked problem behavior exhibited by three adolescents diagnosed
with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Variables
found to evoke problem behavior included specific classes (e.g., sci-

354 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / May 2006
ence) or teaching strategies (e.g., lectures vs. active, hands-on partici-

pation). Although descriptive assessments are the most commonly
reported method of functional assessment with this population, the
methods used in the assessment vary widely across studies, and the
specific methods used in the assessment often are unclear. To illus-
trate, Ervin et al. (2000) noted that descriptive data were collected
using a behavior tracking form adapted from another measure but did
not delineate the manner in which data were collected (e.g., fre-
quency, partial-interval), the dependent variables coded, or how
observations were scheduled. Similarly, Lewis and Sugai (1996)
reported that direct observations were conducted using an ABC for-
mat, but the environmental events observed, the method of recording
used, and the frequency and duration of observations were not delin-
eated. In the literature review conducted by Sasso et al. (2001), 83% of
studies reporting a descriptive functional assessment did not include a
description of the methods used in the assessment.
An alternative to descriptive assessments are experimental func-
tional assessments (i.e., functional analyses), which involve manipu-
lation of one or more environmental variables (e.g., analog functional
analysis; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1994). Experi-
mental functional analyses typically are conducted in a systematic
fashion using a single-subject design and therefore allow for demon-
stration of a causal relation between environmental events and prob-
lem behavior. Although experimental analyses are reported fairly
often in empirical studies with individuals with disabilities, they are
used only rarely with typically developing populations (Hanley et al.,
2003). Experimental functional analyses likely are used infrequently
with typically developing children as many researchers and practitio-
ners view the range of variables manipulated in experimental analyses
as restrictive and question the external validity of hypotheses derived
from assessments conducted in atypical settings (e.g., laboratories)
by atypical care providers (Anderson, Freeman, & Scotti, 1999; Carr
et al., 1997; Mace et al., 1993). Of studies reporting an experimental
functional analysis with typically developing children, most did not
involve an analog functional analysis (as is the most common method
of experimental functional analysis with people with disabilities;
Hanley et al., 2003) but instead used brief contingency reversals to

demonstrate the relation between environmental events identified in a

descriptive assessment and problem behavior (e.g., Broussard &
Northup, 1995; Dunlap et al., 1993; Harding et al., 1999; Lewis &
Sugai, 1996; Umbreit, 1995). For example, Dunlap et al. (1993)
developed hypotheses about environmental manipulations that might
decrease problem behavior based on descriptive assessments (the
manner in which the descriptive assessment was conducted was not
described) and interviews for five children exhibiting problem behav-
ior. Three hypotheses were developed for most participants, one iden-
tifying strategies to increase appropriate behavior (e.g., delivering
verbal praise for appropriate behavior), one focusing on strategies to
decrease inappropriate behavior (e.g., ignoring problem behavior),
and a third focusing on either an antecedent manipulation or a self-
control strategy (e.g., task interspersal, teaching the child to evaluate
his or her verbal statements). Each hypothesis then was evaluated sys-
tematically using a brief reversal design. Although the use of experi-
mental manipulations to demonstrate the validity of hypotheses
derived from descriptive assessments is a useful strategy, the extent to
which findings of these studies and others can be replicated or used by
practitioners seeking guidance in conducting functional assessments
is limited because, as noted earlier, the specific strategies used to con-
duct descriptive assessments rarely are described with precision.
Given that only a small number of studies report the use of func-
tional assessment with typically developing children, this lack of
methodological clarity is troubling. Researchers wishing to further
validate or refine measures and clinicians searching for efficacious
functional assessment methods are left with little guidance as to how a
descriptive assessment might best be conducted with this population.
Clearly, more research is needed to identify specific methods of func-
tional assessment that might be useful for typically developing chil-
dren. The current study was designed to evaluate the utility of the SDA
(Anderson & Long, 2002) for use with typically developing children.
The SDA involves conducting observations under specific stimulus
conditions and thus limits the ambiguity present in many descriptive
assessments. Because previous research (Anderson & Long, 2002;
Freeman, Anderson, & Scotti, 2000) has demonstrated the utility of
the SDA with individuals with disabilities in community settings, the

next logical step is to evaluate its utility with typically developing

populations.
EXPERIMENT 1
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Four children referred for the assessment and treatment of problem

behavior participated. Prior to conducting the study, all caregivers
were interviewed to determine preferred tangible items and to identify
caregiver hypotheses about the function(s) of their child’s problem
behavior. Art1 was a 4-year-old, typically developing boy who exhib-
ited aggressive and disruptive behavior. Art’s aggression was directed
primarily toward his younger brother, resulting in scratches and
bruises on his sibling’s face. Art’s SDA was conducted at home, and
his father conducted all sessions during the preassessment interview.
Art’s father suggested that problem behavior most likely occurred
because Art was jealous of his younger brother. Don was a 6-year-old,
typically developing boy who exhibited aggression, disruption, and
self-injurious behavior (SIB). Don’s SDA was conducted at his day
care. There were three adult teachers at the day care, and all were
involved in conducting the SDA. The supervisor of Don’s day care
suggested that problem behavior might be occurring because Don was
angry at his parents for leaving him at day care. Pat was a 4-year-old,
typically developing girl who also exhibited aggression, disruption,
and SIB. Pat lived at home with her mother, who was diagnosed with
borderline mental retardation. Due to a history of suspected abuse and
neglect, at the time we worked with Pat direct-care staff workers were
in the home 24 hours a day to supervise parent-child interactions and
to train Pat’s mother in basic child care and daily living skills. Pat’s
SDA was conducted at home, and her mother conducted the SDA,
although direct-care staff workers occasionally interacted with Pat
during the assessment. Pat’s mother reported that Pat exhibited prob-

lem behavior because direct-care staff members were mean; direct-

care staff workers suggested that Pat suffered from severe mental ill-
ness, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia and that this was the
reason she exhibited problem behavior. Tim was a 6-year-old, typi-
cally developing boy referred for assessment and treatment of aggres-
sive and disruptive behavior. Tim’s SDA was conducted at his day
care, and the two teachers working in the day care conducted the
assessment. Tim was at risk for being expelled from day care due to
the severity of his behavior. Prior to beginning our assessment, Tim
had been suspended from day care five times for behaviors such as
threatening peers and adults (making stabbing gestures with scissors),
punching peers, and attempting to set a fire at the day care. Tim’s day
care supervisor believed that Tim’s problem behavior was the result of
significant mental illness and suspected that Tim suffered from
bipolar disorder.
Response Definitions, Data Collection,

and Interobserver Agreement
Definitions for problem behavior were based on interviews con-

ducted with caregivers and on direct observations conducted prior to
beginning the study. Problem behaviors included aggression, defined
as hitting, kicking, pinching, scratching, biting, and throwing objects
that landed within 1 ft of a person; disruption, defined as throwing
objects, ripping objects, and knocking over furniture; and self-injury
(Don and Pat only), defined as head banging and head hitting. All tar-
get child behaviors were scored using continuous frequency
recording.
All caregiver responses were coded on an interval-by-interval basis
using continuous recording across consecutive 5-s intervals. To facili-
tate coding of caregiver responses, all sessions were coded at least
twice. Initially, the following responses were coded: prompts, atten-
tion delivery, tangible delivery, attention deprivation, escape, tangible
removal, and time-out (Tim only). Prompts were defined as an
instruction to complete an action, including physical prompts, and an
ongoing instructional context. Attention delivery was scored as occur-
ring when the therapist interacted with the participant in a nonin-

structional manner. This included reprimands, verbal statements

toward the child, and physical interaction. Tangible delivery was
defined as allowing the participant access to the predefined, preferred
stimulus. Tangible delivery was coded if the caregiver handed the item
to the child, told the child that he or she could have it, or simply
allowed the child to independently access the item. Attention depriva-
tion was defined as the absence of attention for a complete interval.
Escape was scored if the participant was not engaged in a previously
requested task and prompts to engage in the task were not presented
for the entire interval. Tangible deprivation was defined as the
removal of a preferred tangible for at least one complete interval.
Time-out was coded only for Tim. Although all caregivers reported
using time-out, it was observed only with Tim. Time-out was defined
as the caregiver’s telling Tim to go to time-out and then placing him in
the designated time-out chair. Time-out continued to be coded for as
long as Tim remained in the designated chair.
After coding caregiver responses as described above, sessions were
rescored to provide more information about caregiver prompts and
attention delivery. Prompts were coded as either physical prompts,
prompts requiring movement to complete, prompts that did not
require movement to complete, instructional context with the care-
giver present, and instructional context with caregiver absent. Physi-
cal prompts were defined as requests involving hand-over-hand guid-
ance (e.g., the caregiver physically picked the child up and walked
him or her down the hall); prompts requiring movement were requests
that, to comply with, the child would have to physically move from
one location to another (e.g., putting toys away); and prompts not
requiring physical movement could be completed in place (e.g., table
work). Finally, the presence of an instructional context (e.g., circle
time, table work) was coded as either one in which the caregiver was
within 2 ft of the child (caregiver present) or further than 2 ft from the
child (caregiver absent). Attention delivery was scored as either
positive/neutral attention or negative attention.
Peer responses were coded for all target children except Pat (as no
peers were present in her home). Peer responses were coded using par-
tial interval coding across continuous 5-s intervals. Peer responses
coded included positive/neutral attention delivery and ongoing inter-

action. Positive/neutral attention was defined as verbal statements

directed toward the child (e.g., “Want to play?” or “Look at this.”) or
physical interaction (e.g., hugging, holding hands). Negative atten-
tion was defined as aggression directed toward the target child or
derogatory verbal statements (e.g., “I hate you,” “Stop pushing,” “Cut
it out.”). Ongoing interaction was coded when the target child was
actively engaged with another child for two or more consecutive inter-
vals. Parallel play and simply sitting together was not coded as ongo-
ing interaction. Examples of ongoing interaction included building a
block tower together or working together on a work sheet.
Caregiver and peer behaviors were coded as soon as they occurred,
and the order of occurrence was recorded if they occurred within the
same interval as a child problem behavior. When a caregiver or peer
response continued to occur across adjacent intervals, it was rescored
in each new interval until the event ended. For example, if the care-
giver continued to sit with a child on his or her lap in consecutive inter-
vals, positive/neutral attention was scored as soon as it occurred and in
each subsequent interval until attention delivery ceased. If both the
caregiver or peer and participant continued to respond across inter-
vals, the original order of responding was maintained at the beginning
of each interval.
Sessions were coded from videotapes using a computerized data
collection system. Interobserver agreement was calculated for child
problem behavior by breaking sessions into consecutive 10-s intervals
and dividing the smaller number of responses recorded by an observer
by the larger number of responses recorded by the other observer. The
resulting fractions were averaged across intervals and multiplied by
100%. Mean interobserver agreement for problem behavior was 93%
(range 87%-100%), 87% (range 79%-100%), 100%, and 88% (range
77%-100%) for Art, Don, Pat, and Tim, respectively. For partial inter-
val measures, percentages of occurrence and nonoccurrence agree-
ment were calculated by dividing the number of intervals in which
both observers agreed on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the
response by the total number of intervals and multiplying by 100%.
Mean occurrence (OA) and nonoccurrence (NA) agreement scores for
therapist behaviors across participants are shown in Table 1.

TABLE 1
Interobserver Agreement for Caregiver Responses and
Peer Responses; Total Agreement Scores Are Reported
% Art % Don % Pat % Tim
Caregiver Responses Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
Attention deprivation 99 98 99 95
Positive attention 94 96 99 99
Negative attention 97 93 98 96
Instructional context, present 100 100 100 100
Instructional context, absent 100 100 98 83
Physical prompt 100 100 100 100
Movement prompt 100 98 100 99
Nonmovement prompt 100 100 100 100
Tangible delivery 100 100 100 100
Tangible removal 100 100 98 100
Escape 100 96 100 99
Time-out — — — 90
Peer Responses
Positive attention 100 98 — 93
Negative attention 100 99 — 97
Interaction 100 86 — 94
PROCEDURE
Participants were exposed repeatedly to three or four conditions

similar to those described by Anderson and Long (2002): attention,
play, tangible, and task. For Don and Tim, sessions were conducted at
times of the day when activities related to a specific condition were
likely to occur. For example, task conditions were conducted when
activities such as cleanup or circle time occurred. Because there was
no set schedule in Art’s or Pat’s home, conditions were conducted in
random order. All sessions were 10 min in length and were videotaped
for later coding. Sessions were conducted until response differentia-
tion occurred. Definitions for preferred stimuli were obtained through
parental interviews and direct observation conducted prior to begin-
ning the study. Preferred stimuli for each participant were as follows:
Art, video games and television; Don, blocks; Pat, chalk and playing
outside; and Tim, riding toys (e.g., a tricycle).

Prior to conducting the study, caregivers were provided with a

rationale for the assessment and written instructions as to how to con-
duct each condition. Before each session, therapists were given spe-
cific instructions about the relevant antecedent variable being manip-
ulated and were asked to respond to problem behavior as they
typically would. Because antecedent conditions were controlled as
part of the assessment, therapists were asked to reestablish antecedent
events if the designated event had not occurred for 30 s in the absence
of problem behavior.
The purpose of the attention condition was to establish the anteced-
ent of attention deprivation. This condition was conducted during
times when the caregiver typically did not directly interact with the
child (e.g., was working with another child). Approximately 2 min
prior to the session, the caregiver was asked to play with the child.
When the session began, caregivers were told, “Pretend this is a time
that you cannot directly interact with the child. You may interact with
other children or engage in another activity, such as working at your
desk.” Caregivers also were asked to keep preferred tangibles out of
sight and reach of the child. The play condition was designed to simu-
late an enriched environment, similar to the play condition of the ana-
log functional analysis. Preferred items were available and caregivers
were told, “In this role-play, we would like to see how the child
responds when you are not making requests and preferred items are
available. Please play with the child as you normally do.” The purpose
of the tangible condition was to establish the antecedent of removal of
preferred tangibles. This condition was conducted when access to pre-
ferred items was ending (access had occurred for at least 2 min). At the
beginning of the condition, caregivers were told, “In this role-play we
want to see how the child reacts when preferred activities end. When
we tell you to begin, please remove [preferred item]. You may interact
with the child as you desire, but please refrain from attempting to
engage the child in work activities.” Although the tangible condition
was initially conducted with Don and Tim, it was discontinued
because tangible removal almost always immediately preceded tran-
sition to work activities (e.g., table work, cleanup, circle time), and,
due to the structure of the day care situation, caregivers were unable to
refrain from engaging the child in the work activity. Thus, the tangible

condition was equivalent to the task condition and was discontinued

(data from early tangible conditions are available from the first author
on request). The task condition, designed to establish the antecedent
of presentation of requests to work, was conducted when the partici-
pant was expected to complete tasks. For Art and Pat, tasks consisted
primarily of picking up toys. Tasks for Don and Tim included circle
time, cleanup, and table activities (e.g., art). Removal of preferred tan-
gibles or activities did not occur within 2 min of initiating this condi-
tion. At the start of the task condition, caregivers were told, “In this
role-play we want to see how the child responds to requests. Please
work with the child on activities that you typically engage the child in,
and use prompting strategies you normally use.”
DATA ANALYSIS
Mean responses per minute of problem behavior were compared

across conditions of the SDA. In addition, conditional probabilities
were calculated to evaluate the relation between environmental events
(caregiver and peer responses) and child problem behavior. To calcu-
late proportions, the first occurrence of child problem behavior in an
interval was used (as if it was coded as a partial interval measure).
Conditional probabilities were calculated for environmental events
that occurred within 5 s of a response. Two kinds of conditional proba-
bilities were conducted. First, event-based proportions were calcu-
lated by dividing intervals in which an environmental event preceded
(e.g., physical prompt) or followed (e.g., negative attention) problem
behavior by 5 s or less by the total number of intervals scored with the
event. In the case of antecedent events, event-based proportions reveal
the proportion of intervals scored with an event that preceded problem
behavior. In the case of consequent events, event-based proportions re-
veal the proportion of events that were response dependent. Behavior-
based proportions were calculated by dividing intervals in which an
environmental event preceded or followed problem behavior by 5 s or
less by the total number of intervals scored with the problem behavior.
When calculated for antecedent events, behavior-based proportions
reveal the proportion of intervals scored with problem behavior pre-

ceded by an event. When calculated for consequent events, these pro-

portions speak to the putative schedule of reinforcement; the closer
the proportion is to 1 the denser the schedule of reinforcement.
Conditional probabilities were calculated across sessions and also
in the presence of relevant antecedent stimuli. For example, attention
delivery was calculated as a consequence across the entire session and
also only in the presence of antecedent events that might function as
establishing operations (e.g., attention deprivation). Event-behavior
relations were calculated in the presence of the following antecedents:
attention delivery as a consequence in the presence of attention depri-
vation, tangible deprivation, and prompts; escape in the presence of
prompts; tangible delivery in the presence of tangible removal; and
peer attention in the presence of adult attention deprivation. For all
environment-behavior relations, proportions calculated within the
presence of relevant antecedent variables were more revealing, so
only those calculations are reported (the remaining proportions are
available from the first author).
RESULTS
Figures 1 to 4 depict mean levels of problem behavior across condi-

tions of the SDA (top panels) and results of the conditional probability
calculations from the SDA for each participant. The mean percentage
of session time that antecedent variables were scored in each condi-
tion of the SDA is shown in Table 2. Calculations were obtained by
dividing the number of intervals in which an antecedent stimulus was
scored by the total number of intervals.
Art. Art exhibited the highest rates of problem behavior in the

attention condition of the SDA. Conditional probabilities revealed
that problem behavior never occurred in the presence of prompting in
any condition and that the only consequences that followed problem
behavior were adult and peer attention (in the presence of adult atten-
tion deprivation). Thus, further analyses were conducted on adult and
peer attention. The middle and bottom panels of Figure 1 depict event-
based (middle panel) and behavior-based (bottom panel) conditional

Figure 1. Mean responses per minute of problem behavior across conditions of the SDA
(structured descriptive assessment) for Art (top panel); proportion of event
intervals following problem behavior (middle); and proportion of problem
behavior intervals preceding events (bottom panel) during the SDA.
probabilities for adult and peer attention delivery in the presence of

adult attention deprivation. The focus is on the attention condition, as
problem behavior rarely occurred in other conditions. In the attention
condition, the event-based proportions reveal that although adult posi-

tive attention was more likely to occur independent of problem behav-

ior, the majority of intervals (62%) scored with negative attention fol-
lowed problem behavior (middle panel). Interestingly, although peer
attention was only slightly more likely to follow problem behavior
than to occur at other times, the only type of peer attention that ever
followed problem behavior was negative attention. Behavior-based
proportions reveal that problem behavior was followed by positive or
negative adult attention only intermittently and that one type of atten-
tion was not significantly more likely to follow problem behavior than
the other (bottom panel). Although adult attention was delivered con-
tingent on problem behavior on a rather thin schedule, the duration of
attention delivery was slightly longer following problem behavior;
attention delivery lasted an average of one interval when it occurred
response independently but lasted an average of two intervals when
attention followed problem behavior. As was the case with adult atten-
tion, peer attention, which was exclusively negative attention, fol-
lowed problem behavior on an intermittent schedule (although
negative peer attention followed problem behavior more often than
did adult attention).
Don. Don exhibited problem behavior in the task, attention, and

control conditions (top panel, Figure 2). In the presence of attention
deprivation (second panels), attention was much more likely to occur
independent of problem behavior (left panel), and problem behavior
was followed by attention only rarely (right panel). Peer attention
never followed problem behavior. In the presence of prompts (third
panels), attention also was more likely to occur at other times than
after problem behavior (third left panel), and only a small proportion
of intervals scored with problem behavior in the presence of prompts
were followed by attention (third right panel). In the presence of
prompts, escape was much more likely to be delivered contingent on
problem behavior than to occur at other times (76% of intervals scored
with escape in the task condition preceded problem behavior). Behavior-
based proportions reveal that just more than half of the intervals
scored with problem behavior were followed by escape. Not only was
escape more likely to follow problem behavior than to occur at other

(structured descriptive assessment) for Don (top panel); proportion of event
intervals following problem behavior in the presence of attention deprivation
(second left panel); proportion of problem behavior intervals preceding events
(second right panel) in the presence of attention deprivation; proportion of
event intervals following problem behavior in the presence of prompts (third left
panel); proportion of problem behavior intervals preceding events (third right
panel) in the presence of prompts; proportion of prompt intervals preceding
problem behavior (bottom left panel); and proportion of problem behavior
intervals following prompts (bottom right panel) during the SDA.

times, but the duration of escape was greater when it followed prob-
lem behavior as well. The mean duration of escape scored outside of
problem behavior was 17 s; mean duration of escape following prob-
lem behavior was 64.48 s. Follow-up analyses conducted in the task
condition revealed that prompts requiring physical movement were
most likely to evoke problem behavior (bottom left panel), and that of
all the intervals scored with problem behavior in the presence of
prompting, 88% of problem behavior intervals followed a prompt
requiring physical movement (bottom right panel).
Pat. Pat exhibited problem behavior primarily in the tangible con-

dition (top panel, Figure 3). Across conditions, problem behavior
occurred exclusively in the presence of attention deprivation or tangi-
ble removal, so further analyses were conducted in the presence of
these antecedent conditions. In the presence of attention deprivation,
although attention irrespective of type (positive or negative) was
slightly more likely to occur at times other than after problem behav-
ior, negative attention was delivered only following problem behav-
ior. Behavior-based proportions (middle right panel) reveal that prob-
lem behavior was followed exclusively by negative attention and that
negative attention followed problem behavior on a rich schedule (FR-1
in the attention condition). A similar pattern is seen in the presence of
tangible deprivation (bottom panels); the majority of intervals scored
with negative attention (all intervals in the control condition) followed
problem behavior (bottom left panel), and the majority of intervals
scored with problem behavior were followed by negative attention
(bottom right panel).
Tim. Tim exhibited high rates of problem behavior in all conditions,

and responding was relatively undifferentiated across conditions (top
panel, Figure 4). The second panels of Figure 4 show that during times
of attention deprivation, attention was rarely delivered independent of
problem behavior (left panel) and that the only type of attention to fol-
low problem behavior was negative attention. Behavior-based propor-
tions (second right panel) reveal that problem behavior was followed
by negative attention on an intermittent schedule across conditions.
Attention delivered independent of problem behavior lasted an aver-

(structured descriptive assessment) for Pat (top panel); proportion of event
(middle left panel); proportion of problem behavior intervals preceding events
in the presence of attention deprivation (middle right panel); proportion of
event intervals following problem behavior in the presence of tangible depriva-
tion (bottom left panel); proportion of problem behavior intervals preceding
events (bottom right panel) in the presence of tangible deprivation during the
SDA.

(structured descriptive assessment) for Tim (top panel); proportion of event
(second left panel); proportion of problem behavior intervals preceding events
in the presence of attention deprivation (second right panel); proportion of
event intervals following problem behavior in the presence of prompts (third left
panel); proportion of problem behavior intervals preceding events (third right
panel) in the presence of prompts; proportion of event intervals following prob-
lem behavior in the presence of time-out (bottom left panel); proportion of prob-
lem behavior intervals preceding events (bottom right panel) in the presence of
prompts during the SDA.

age of three intervals, and response-dependent attention lasted an

average of six intervals.
In the presence of prompts (third panels), attention was slightly
more likely to occur outside of problem behavior (with the exception
of prompts delivered in the attention condition), but, again, the major-
ity of attention delivered was negative attention and it followed prob-
lem behavior only intermittently. In the task condition, escape was
more likely to follow problem behavior than to occur at other times
(left panel), and 62% of intervals scored with problem behavior were
followed by escape. Proportions were slightly lower in other condi-
tions; however, prompts occurred only rarely in these conditions. Es-
capes occurring after problem behavior typically were longer than es-
capes occurring at other times; mean duration of escape after problem
behavior was 74 s, mean duration of escape at other times was 43 s.
Physical prompts and prompts requiring movement to complete were
most frequently associated with problem behavior: In the task condi-
tion, 67% of intervals scored with physical prompts and 39% of inter-
vals scored with prompts requiring movement preceded problem
behavior. Although 100% of intervals scored with escape in the pres-
ence of physical prompts followed problem behavior, escape was less
likely to be dependent on problem behavior in the presence of other
types of prompts (resulting in the lower behavior-based proportions
for escape).
In the presence of time-out (bottom panels), the majority of inter-
vals scored with attention and escape (defined as allowing Tim to
leave the time-out chair prior to being given verbal permission to
leave) followed problem behavior, and problem behavior was fol-
lowed by attention (negative) on a dense schedule. Escape followed
problem behavior more intermittently, typically occurring after Tim
hit an adult and then eloped from the time-out chair.
CONTROL OVER ANTECEDENT VARIABLES
Table 2 depicts the mean percentage of intervals scored with ante-

cedent events in each condition of the SDA. Overall, caregivers imple-
mented antecedent conditions in the SDA with a high degree of integ-

rity; that is, relevant establishing operations were in effect. In the

attention condition, therapists rarely issued instructional prompts or
manipulated preferred tangibles, and attention deprivation was in
effect for the majority of sessions. In the task condition, preferred tan-
gibles were never manipulated. Tasks were presented in the majority
of intervals for Art and Pat but occurred less often for Don and Tim,
for whom the results of the SDA suggested escape might maintain
problem behavior. The tangible condition was conducted only with
Art and Pat, and tangible deprivation was in effect for the majority of
intervals for both participants. During the tangible condition, care-
givers emitted prompts only infrequently. In the play condition, care-
givers rarely issued instructional prompts (with the exception of Pat’s
mother who issued prompts in 23% of intervals), and tangible depri-
vation did not occur. Attention deprivation occurred only infrequently
for all participants except Tim; Tim’s caregiver often had to be
prompted to interact with Tim, and she typically did so in a rather
perfunctory manner.
EXPERIMENT 2: INTERVENTION
METHOD
Participants and Setting
Art and Don participated in Experiment 2. Pat did not participate

because parental custody was terminated shortly after completion of
the SDA (for reasons unrelated to her challenging behavior). Tim did
not participate because he was expelled from day care during the 2nd
day of intervention for bringing a pocketknife to day care. Art’s father
implemented intervention for Art, and Don’s day care instructors
implemented intervention for Don.
Response Measurement and Interobserver Agreement
Response definitions for problem behaviors were identical to those

in Experiment 1. Sessions were 10 min and were conducted two to six

TABLE 2
Mean Percentage of Intervals Containing Antecedent Events
Across Conditions of the Structured Descriptive Assessment
and Analog Functional Analysis
Condition Antecedent % Art % Don % Pat % Tim
Attention Attention deprivation 80 92 79 66

Prompt 4 0 2 2
Tangible deprivation 0 0 0.02 0
Peer interaction 24 47 NA 19
Task Attention deprivation 11 48 24 36
Prompt 58 26 59 30
Tangible deprivation 0 0 0 0
Tangible Attention deprivation 32 NA 52 NA
Prompt 4 NA 3 NA
Tangible deprivation 100 NA 99 NA
Peer interaction 0.01 NA NA NA
Control Attention deprivation 25 34 26 61
Prompt 0.01 2 23 3
Tangible deprivation 0 0 0 0
NOTE: Tangible deprivation was scored only if child previously had access to tangible item.
Thus, tangible deprivation is 0 in the task condition because the child never had access to the item
to have it removed.
times per day, two to four times per week. Observers used frequency
recording to collect data during sessions. Interobserver agreement
was assessed on child responses during at least 30% of all sessions.
Agreement coefficients were calculated as in Experiment 1. Mean
percentage agreement across baseline and treatment for child
responses was 93% (range 98%-100%) for Art and 88% (range 81%-
92%) for Don.
PROCEDURE
For both participants, intervention was matched to the function(s)

of problem behavior as identified via the SDA. An ABAB design was
used to evaluate the effects of the intervention for Art. An ABAB
design was planned for Don (and initially agreed on by the day care),

but his day care instructors were unwilling to remove the intervention
once it was in place.
Art. Data were collected during times Art’s father was involved
with other activities (the attention-deprivation condition of the SDA).
Art’s brother was present throughout the treatment evaluation. During
baseline, Art’s father was instructed to interact with Art as he nor-
mally did; however, if he interacted with Art for more than 1 min in the
absence of problem behavior, he was asked to return to what he previ-
ously had been engaged with. Intervention consisted of a 30-s chair
time-out contingent on problem behavior. Art’s father was taught to
tell Art, “No ____, go to time-out” and, if Art did not independently sit
in the time-out chair within 5 s, to physically guide him to time-out.
Art’s father was taught to hold Art in the chair if he attempted to elope,
but this occurred only during the initial time-out. Importantly, Art’s
brother was taught to ignore Art during time-out.
Don. Intervention for Don was conducted during times Don was
required to engage in tasks requiring physical movement, such as
cleaning up toys. During baseline, his teacher was asked to attempt to
have Don engage in the task and to respond to problem behavior as she
typically did. If she ceased prompting for 2 min in the absence of com-
pliance or problem behavior, she was asked to resume prompting.
Intervention consisted of differential reinforcement of compliance
with verbal praise and contingent physical guidance following
exhibition of problem behavior.
RESULTS
Results obtained for each participant are shown in Figure 5. In

baseline, Art emitted an average of 2.6 problem behaviors per minute
(see top panel). Intervention resulted in significant decreases in prob-
lem behavior, and a reversal to baseline conditions was implemented
to assess functional control. During the return to baseline conditions,
Art’s father was instructed to respond to problem behavior as he had

Figure 5. Mean responses per minute of problem behavior during the intervention analy-
ses for Art (top panel) and Don (bottom panel).
during baseline. Following reimplementation of time-out, rates of

problem behavior were completely suppressed.
Don emitted an average of 4.1 problem behaviors per minute in
baseline (bottom panel). Intervention with Don resulted in slightly
more than a 95% reduction over baseline.

DISCUSSION
The results of the current study extend previous work on functional

assessment. The SDA (Anderson & Long, 2002) was used with four
typically developing children and was found to be useful in develop-
ing hypotheses about environment-behavior relations.
For all children, it was necessary to examine conditional probabili-
ties in addition to overall response rates to develop hypotheses about
functional relations. For example, Art exhibited the highest rates of
responding in the attention condition (suggesting adult attention
might maintain problem behavior), but peer attention as well as adult
attention were suggested by conditional probabilities to maintain
problem behavior (note that peer attention as a putative reinforcer can
be identified only via conditional probabilities). Don exhibited ele-
vated rates of responding across conditions; however, the conditional
probabilities suggested that problem behavior was related almost
exclusively to task presentation and maintained primarily by escape
or avoidance. Conditional probabilities also were useful for providing
more specific information about environmental events such as the
type of task most likely to evoke problem behavior or the type of
attention (positive or negative) likely maintaining behavior.
The SDA may be a useful method for conducting descriptive
assessments because structuring the antecedent conditions increases
the likelihood that problem behavior will occur yet still allows for
observation of naturally occurring consequences and schedules of
reinforcement. For example, peer attention, a variable not typically
assessed in experimental functional assessments, was suggested to
maintain Art’s problem behavior. Also, contingent delivery of pre-
ferred tangibles, a consequence frequently assessed for in experimen-
tal functional analyses, never occurred contingent on problem
behavior in the current study.
There were a number of limitations in the current study that warrant
further investigation. First, there was some carryover of antecedent
events across conditions in the current study, something that rarely
occurred in Anderson and Long (2002). Interestingly, this was much
more likely to occur with Don and Tim, whose SDAs were conducted
in day care. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this may have occurred

because the day was highly structured and prompts (as defined in the
current study) frequently occurred. For example, during free play,
adults often attempted to structure the situation or facilitate learning
by asking children to label objects or complete other such requests.
One solution to this might be to more rigidly define “task.” Another
possible solution, and one that might result in greater stability across
sessions, would be to run SDA conditions until problem behavior is
observed and to then conduct conditional probabilities on antecedent
events to identify the specific type of antecedent (e.g., movement
prompts vs. nonmovement prompts; attention deprivation during
which the adult was working with another child vs. sitting at a desk)
related to problem behavior and to then manipulate that antecedent
variable systematically.
Perhaps the greatest limitation of the current study is that hypothe-
sized functional relations were not evaluated experimentally.
Although interventions were developed based on the results of the
SDA for 2 participants, the extent to which the SDA resulted in accu-
rate hypotheses about functional relations cannot be determined.
Future research should focus on experimentally manipulating envi-
ronmental events suggested by the SDA to be related to problem
behavior and evaluate the utility of interventions derived from the
SDA with more participants.
Future research also should examine the extent to which participa-
tion in a functional assessment affects caregivers’ understanding of
functional relations and the likelihood they will accurately implement
a functionally derived intervention. In the current study, interviews
conducted prior to conducting the functional assessments suggested
that caregivers had little understanding of the relation between envi-
ronmental events and their child’s problem behavior. Results of the
SDA were shared with caregivers following the assessment and all,
with the exception of Pat’s mother, reported understanding the rela-
tion between their own behavior and the behavior of the target child.
Unfortunately, the effects of participating in a functional assessment
on caregiver understanding of environment-behavior relations were
not directly assessed in this study; this is an important direction for
future research.

NOTE
1. All names used in this article are pseudonyms.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. M., Freeman, K. A., & Scotti, J. R. (1999). Evaluation of the generalizability (reli-
ability and validity) of analog functional assessment methodology. Behavior Therapy, 30,
31-50.
Anderson, C. M., & Long, E. (2002). Evaluation of structured functional assessment methodol-
ogy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 137-154.
Broussard, C. D., & Northup, J. (1995). The use of functional analysis to develop peer interven-
tions for disruptive classroom behavior. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 65-76.
Carr, E. G. (1994). Emerging themes in the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 393-399.
Carr, E. G., Yarbrough, S. C., & Langdon, N. A. (1997). Effects of idiosyncratic stimulus vari-
ables on functional analysis outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 673-686.
Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K. E., et al. (1993). Func-
tional analysis of classroom variables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.
Behavioral Disorders, 18, 275-291.
Ervin, R. A., Kern, L., Clarke, S., DuPaul, G. J., Dunlap, G., & Friman, P. C. (2000). Evaluating
assessment-based intervention strategies for students with ADHD and comorbid disorders
within the natural classroom context. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 344-358.
Fox, J., Conroy, M., & Heckaman, K. (1998). Research issues in functional assessment of the
challenging behaviors of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Dis-
orders, 24, 26-33.
Freeman, K. A., Anderson, C. M., & Scotti, J. R. (2000). A structured descriptive methodology:
Increasing agreement between descriptive and experimental analyses. Education and Train-
ing in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 55-66.
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A
review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147-185.
Harding, J., Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Asmus, J., Jensen-Kovalan, P., & Grisolano, L. (1999).
Combining descriptive and experimental analyses of young children with behavior problems
in preschool settings. Behavior Modification, 23, 314-333.
Heckaman, K., Conroy, M., Fox, J., & Chait, A. (2000). Functional assessment-based interven-
tion research on students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in school set-
tings. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 196-210.
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a func-
tional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197-209.
Lewis, T. J., & Sugai, G. (1996). Functional assessment of problem behavior: A pilot investiga-
tion of the comparative and interactive effects of teacher and peer social attention on students
in general education settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 1-19.
Mace, F. C., Lalli, J. S., Pinter Lalli, E., & Shea, M. C. (1993). Functional analysis and treatment
of aberrant behavior. In R. Van Houten & S. Axelrod (Eds.), Behavior analysis and treatment
(pp. 102-125). New York: Plenum.

Sasso, G. M., Conroy, M. A., Stichter, J. P., & Fox, J. J. (2001). Slowing down the bandwagon:
The misapplication of functional assessment for students with emotional or behavioral disor-
ders. Behavioral Disorders, 26, 282-296.
Umbreit, J. (1995). Functional assessment and intervention in a regular education classroom for
the disruptive behavior of a student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Behavioral
Disorders, 20, 267-278.
Cynthia M. Anderson, Ph.D., is an assistant professor in the Department of Psychology

at West Virginia University. Her research interests include evaluating the generality and
utility of methods of functional assessment across populations and settings.
Carie L. English, Ph.D., is a visiting professor at the University of South Florida. Her
research interests include technology transfer and the assessment and treatment of
severe problem behavior.
Theresa M. Hedrick is a graduate student in the behavior analysis program at West Vir-
ginia University. Her research interests include evaluating methods of functional assess-
ment and functionally derived interventions.

Use of The Structured Descriptive Assessment With Typically Developing Children

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Use of The Structured Descriptive Assessment With Typically Developing Children

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Behavior Modification

Use of the Structured Descriptive Assessment With Typically Developing Children

The online version of this article can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Mar 30, 2006

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

Use of the Structured Descriptive

Keywords: functional assessment; interventions; functionally derived interventions; problem

The utility of a pretreatment functional assessment for identifying

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Carie L. English is now at the University of South Florida.

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

ence) or teaching strategies (e.g., lectures vs. active, hands-on partici-

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

demonstrate the relation between environmental events identified in a

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

next logical step is to evaluate its utility with typically developing

Participants and Setting

Four children referred for the assessment and treatment of problem

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

lem behavior because direct-care staff members were mean; direct-

Response Definitions, Data Collection,

Definitions for problem behavior were based on interviews con-

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

structional manner. This included reprimands, verbal statements

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

action. Positive/neutral attention was defined as verbal statements

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

Participants were exposed repeatedly to three or four conditions

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

Prior to conducting the study, caregivers were provided with a

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

condition was equivalent to the task condition and was discontinued

Mean responses per minute of problem behavior were compared

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

ceded by an event. When calculated for consequent events, these pro-

Figures 1 to 4 depict mean levels of problem behavior across condi-

Art. Art exhibited the highest rates of problem behavior in the

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

probabilities for adult and peer attention delivery in the presence of

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

tive attention was more likely to occur independent of problem behav-

Don. Don exhibited problem behavior in the task, attention, and

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

Pat. Pat exhibited problem behavior primarily in the tangible con-

Tim. Tim exhibited high rates of problem behavior in all conditions,

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

age of three intervals, and response-dependent attention lasted an

CONTROL OVER ANTECEDENT VARIABLES

Table 2 depicts the mean percentage of intervals scored with ante-

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

rity; that is, relevant establishing operations were in effect. In the

Participants and Setting

Art and Don participated in Experiment 2. Pat did not participate

Response Measurement and Interobserver Agreement

Response definitions for problem behaviors were identical to those

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014

Attention Attention deprivation 80 92 79 66

For both participants, intervention was matched to the function(s)

Downloaded from bmo.sagepub.com at UNIV OF NEVADA RENO on December 2, 2014