Student replies-Direct Descriptive FBA

review the primary posts of your classmates and respond specifically and substantially (no less than 100 words) to at least two other students.

Student one

Tiara Lycans posted Jun 4, 2018 1:36 PM

Subscribe

Discuss why conducting a Direct Descriptive FBA could be considered a better choice than relying upon the utilization of the Indirect assessment processes described in Unit 6.

A direct descriptive FBA could be considered a better choice than relying upon the utilization of the indirect assessment processes. For one, a direct directive FBA focuses on the direct observations made by the analyst making the hypothesis more accurate. Direct descriptive FBAs involve observing and recording behaviors first hand. While indirect assessments can be helpful, relying solely on indirect assessments can lead to inaccuracies due to bias or lack of knowledge on what is being and needs to be observed. Direct observations offer insight on what can be causing the behaviors, what specific behaviors are occurring, and what the consequences are that can possibly be reinforcing negative or unwanted behaviors. By utilizing direct descriptive FBAs, analysts can better hypothesize antecedents, behaviors, and needed interventions for needed behavior modification (Steege & Watson, 2009).

Compare and Contrast 2 of the specific data recording procedures utilized in the Direct Descriptive approach as reviewed in the assigned Reading for Unit 7 (Chapter 8 of the e-book). Be sure to discuss how each contributes to the development of a hypothesis for the function of the target behavior.

The task difficulty antecedent analysis form is a particularly useful direct observation tool. This form is used to determine the possibility of a difficult task being the antecedent of negative behaviors. Before the direct observation begins, the analyst must coordinate with the teacher to determine which tasks are considered easy, medium, and difficult. Easy tasks typically have an accuracy of 90% or more. Medium tasks have an accuracy of 70%-80%, and difficult task have an accuracy of less that 70%. For a minimum of 5 minutes and a maximum of 10 minutes, the analyst observes the behaviors of the child when presented with each difficulty category in 10 second intervals. If the child presents with a behavior, the analyst marks the chart in the correct 10 second interval with an identifying mark. If there are no behaviors within that interval, the analyst may mark the chart with a zero. The results are then combined to form percentages of the occurrence of the negative behavior with each task. For example, if a child acts out in 7/30 10-second intervals then the behavior occurs 23% of the time. If the results indicate that the child exhibits negative behavior 10% during easy tasks, 20% during medium tasks, and 72% during difficult tasks, it shows a functional relationship between the difficulty of the task and the negative behavior (Steege & Watson, 2009).

The conditional probability record (CPR) is another tool often used in direct observations. The CPR offers the analyst to observes the antecedents and consequences of a specific behavior on one chart with the time noted. By doing this, it allows the analyst to formulate the likelihood that a behavior will occur with a specific antecedent as well as determine what the probable consequence would be. For example, in a 15-minute observation, a child may exhibit a behavior for a total of 5 minutes making it 33% of the time. By using the chart, the analyst can document what the teacher was doing and what specific task the class was doing when the behavior occurs. The analyst also documents what the teacher and peers do after the behaviors occur to better understand the consequences of the behavior (Steege & Watson, 2009).

Reference

Steege, M. W., & Watson, T. S. (2009) Conducting school-based functional behavioral assessments, 2nd Edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

Student two

Maryanne Harris posted Jun 3, 2018 11:19 AM

Subscribe

Topic 1: Direct Descriptive FBA

Discuss why conducting a Direct Descriptive FBA could be considered a better choice than relying upon the utilization of the Indirect assessment processes described in Unit 6

According to Steege& Watson (2009), the Direct descriptive Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) is one of the most powerful tools in a school-based FBA. Each of its procedures is based on direct observation of the behavior in the setting when the behavior is happening. Therefore, an hypotheses can be formed about the function and triggers based on first hand eye witness accounts and not from someone else’s conjecture or indirect information. (Steege & Watson, 2009)

Doing a Direct Descriptive FBA allows the evaluator to see firsthand what the behavior looks like and it is in the setting when it most often occurs, giving the evaluator the function (s) of the behavior. Doing Indirect assessment is relying on someone else to describe the behavior and that may not be enough to figure out what is the function of that behavior.

Compare and Contrast 2 of the specific data recording procedures utilized in the Direct Descriptive approach as reviewed in the assigned Reading for Unit 7 (Chapter 8 of the e-book). Be sure to discuss how each contributes to the development of a hypothesis for the function of the target behavior.

I have chosen the Conditional Probability Record (CPR) and Functional Behavioral Assessment Observation Form (FBAOF).

The CPR form allows the observer to look at more than one behavior at a time, antecedents and consequences. There are several coding elements to the CPR , that need to be listed on the paper so that each one can be properly coded when that particular behavior occurs. The CPR measures interfering behaviors in increments of minutes (Steege & Watson, 2009). The advantage of using the CPR is to allow for analyzing the likely hood of a behavior that is given a particular antecedent and the likelihood of t particular consequence following that behavior. (Steege & Watson, 2009)

The FBAOF is used by an observer to record single interfering behavior and requires more explaining of the behavior than a code. FBAOF allows the observer to be more detailed in the description of the interfering behavior. Allows many different observers to have input of the interfering behavior as well. The FBAOF can be modified as well to include both the behavior and the magnitude of the behavior. FBAOF also allows for the setting event and the antecedent to be listed because the setting event (Where the behavior occur?) is different most times that the antecedent (What are the specific events that occurred immediately prior to the interfering behavior?)

Reference

Steege, M. W., & Watson, T. S. (2009). Conducting school-based functional behavioral assessments: A practitioner’s guide (2nd ed.).