4.4: Using Assessment to Guide Function-Based Supports

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 57843

Samuel Sennott, Sheldon Loman, Kristy Lee Park, Luis F. Pérez, Michael J. Kennedy, John Romig, & Wendy J. Rodgers
Portland State University via Portland State University Library

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

Function-based supports are developed using a clear, detailed summary statement from the FBA (outlining the antecedents, behaviors, and maintaining consequences within a specific routine/context). This summary statement should be framed within a specific routine or context because similar behaviors often serve different functions for the student in different contexts. For example, a student may predictably hit a peer during round robin reading so he can be sent to the back of the room to avoid reading failure in front of peers, and he may also regularly hit a peer at recess so the peer quits teasing him. Once the team has established a clear understanding of the problem behavior and the environmental features predicting and maintaining problem behavior in a given context, then they can develop function-based interventions.

Above the dotted line in Figure 4.10.1, a Competing Behavior Pathway (O’Neill et al., 1997) visually frames the FBA summary statement to guide function-based support planning. The FBA summary statement or hypothesis forms the center of the Competing Behavior Pathway (the antecedent(s), problem behavior(s), and maintaining function of student behavior) for a prioritized routine or context. Within the Competing Behavior Pathway the summary of behavior is used to inform identification of the alternative behavior and desired behavior. Each is defined in Figure 4.10.1.

A completed example of the FBA summary statement in Figure 4.10.2 should read, “During math (routine/context) when Jackson is asked to work independently on a double-digit multiplication worksheet (antecedent), he fidgets, gets off task, uses foul language, slams his book, and picks on peers (problem behavior), which typically results in the teacher asking Jackson to leave the room and go to the principal’s office (consequence). It is hypothesized that Jackson’s behavior is maintained by escaping the independent math worksheet (function; the “why” or “pay-off”).”

The completed FBA summary statement for Sophia in Figure 4.10.3 should read, “During carpet time (routine/context) when the whole class is receiving instruction and Sophia is asked to sit quietly in her carpet square for more than five minutes (antecedent), Sophia fidgets and disrupts the class by yelling or wandering around the room (problem behavior), which typically results in Sophia’s teacher chasing her around the room, asking her to be quiet, and scolding her about how to behave (consequence). Given this information, it is hypothesized that Sophia’s disruptive behaviors are maintained by obtaining teacher attention (function; the “why” or “student pay-off”).”