Exceptional Children, Vt>L 66, No.1, pp. 101-122.

©1999 The Councilfor Exceptional Children.

The Effects ofTeam-Based

Functional Assessment on
the Behavior ofStudents in
Classroom Settings
LYNETTE K. CHANDLER
CAROL M. DAHLQUIST
ALAN C. REPP
Northern Illinois University and Edu-
cational Research and Services Center
CAROL FELTZ
Northern Illinois University

ABSTRACT: we examined the impact offunctional assessment interventions on both the appro-
priate and challenging behaviors ofgroups of students within preschool classrooms for chil-
dren with special needs and for children at risk. we also examined the effectiveness of a
training model to teach school-based teams to conductfunctional assessment. The results indi-
cated that school-based teams were able to conduct functional assessment during intervention
and maintained functional assessment skills during follow-up observations. In addition, the
functional assessment procedures resulted in a decrease in challenging behavior and nonen-
gagement and an increase in active engagement and peer interaction for groups of students
within classroom settings. The levels ofappropriate and challenging behavior observed during
intervention and maintenance within at-risk and special education classrooms were similar to
those observed in early childhood control classrooms.

hallenging behavior has been defined The prevalence of challenging behavior is

C as any behavior that interferes with

children's learning and development
or that is harmful to children and to others (Bai-
greater among individuals with disabilities than
it is among typically developing individuals.
Several studies have documented high rates of
ley & Wolery, 1992). Challenging behavior may self-injurious behavior, stereotypic behavior, de-
include self-injury, stereotypy or repetitive be- structive and aggressive behaviors, and noncom-
haviors, aggression, negative peer interaction, pliance among persons with disabilities (e.g.,
disruptive behavior, tantruming, and noncom- Fidura, Lindsey, & Walker, 1987; Oliver, Mur-
pliance. phy, & Corbett, 1987; Walker, 1993).

Exceptional Children fOf

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

 Challenging behavior in classroom set- ment of appropriate behaviors. In functional as-
tings requires inordinate amounts of educators' sessment, educators assess the environmental
time and effort, decreases the amount of time conditions that set the occasion for and main-
available for promoting appropriate behavior, tain challenging behavior and appropriate be-
and may result in referral for more restrictive havior. Then, based on assessment information,
placement (Bilden, 1987; McGee & Daly, 1999; they develop a positive, individualized interven-
Repp & Karsh, 1990; Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis, tion plan that (a) changes the environmental
1992). Children who engage in challenging be- variables that contribute to challenging behavior
havior have fewer opportunities for positive in- and, at the same time, (b) provides support for
teractions with others in their environment. appropriate behavior that achieves the same
This can lead to isolation and poor self-esteem function as the challenging behavior. For exam-
for the child, avoidance of the child by peers, ple, functional assessment would determine if,
and negative interactions with adults and chil- when a child runs out of the classroom, the
dren (Carr, Taylor, & Robinson, 1991; Chan- function or effect is to obtain attention (positive
dler, Fowler, & Lubeck, 1992). reinforcement), avoid an activity (negative rein-
Many educators do not have adequate forcement), or to change activity level (sensory
training in the prevention and remediation of regulation). The intervention selected would be
challenging behavior (Carr, Langdon, & related to the function of behavior. For example,
Yarbrough, 1999; Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, & if running out of the classroom functioned to
Rutherford, 1998; Rhode et al., 1992; Watkins produce attention, the intervention would teach
& Durant, 1992). This often results in failure to the child a more appropriate and efficient means
address challenging behavior, or the application of obtaining attention, such as calling the
of punishment techniques (Arndorfer, Mil- teacher's name. If the function was to avoid an
tenberger, Woster, Rortvedt, & Gaffaney, 1994). activity, intervention might focus on (a) chang-
It also may result in the adoption of ineffective ing aspects of the activity that are aversive for
strategies. Although numerous strategies and in- the child such as the materials or length of the
terventions have .been described in the educa- task, and also (b) providing reinforcement for
tional and behavioral literature, there are few engaging in the activity. If the function was sen-
guidelines to assist educators and parents in se- sory regulation, intervention might increase the
lecting one strategy over another in order to pre- activity level of the task.
vent and remediate challenging behavior (Kern In recent years, functional assessment has
& Dunlap, 1999; Munk & Karsh, 1999; Repp, been recognized as a critical component of effec-
Karsh, Munk, & Dahlquist, 1995). Intervention tive behavior intervention programs (Carr et al.
strategies may be selected that do not address 1994; Reichle & Wacker, 1993; Repp, 1999).
the function of the behavior, or the relationship Indeed, the effectiveness of functional assess-
between the behavior and the environment af- ment has resulted in the inclusion of functional
fecting the behavior (Foster-Johnson & Dunlap, assessment in federal laws and state regulations
1993; Repp & Horner, 1999). Strategies also regarding discipline procedures for students
may be selected that do not promote the acqui- with disabilities (Turnbull, 1999). The 1997
sition of appropriate behavior to replace chal- Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabil-
lenging behavior (Carr, Robinson, & Palumbo, ities Education Act specifies that students who
1990; Carr et al., 1999). are referred to an alternative educational setting
Functional assessment is an assessment or who are suspended from school must have a
and intervention process that assists educators functional behavioral assessment and behavior
in identifying the factors that produce and sup- implementation plan developed by the Individu-
port challenging behavior (Chandler & alized Education Program (IEP) team within 10
Dahlquist, 1999; Munk & Repp, 1994; Repp & days of placement (Maloney, 1997; NASDSE,
Horner, 1999). Functional assessment uses non- 1997).
punitive interventions to prevent and remediate While previous research has documented
challenging behavior and facilitates the develop- the effectiveness of functional assessment on re-

102 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

ducing the challenging behavior of individual may have three students who consistently inter-
students (e.g., Arndorfer et al., 1994; Drasgow, rupt during class lectures and discussion peri-
Halle, Ostrosky, & Harbors, 1996; Kern, ods. For one child, the function of the
Childs, Dunlap, Clarke, & Falk, 1994; Kern & challenging behavior may be that he or she re-
Dunlap, 1999; McGee & Daly, 1999; Wacker, ceives one-to-one teacher interaction (positive
Cooper, Peck, Derby, & Berg, 1999), the impact reinforcement). For the second child, the func-
of functional assessment on the challenging and tion may be to prevent the teacher from asking a
appropriate behavior of the group of students question that he or she cannot answer (negative
within a classroom has not been investigated. reinforcement). The function for the third child
This type of research is important because many may be to increase stimulation during the pas-
of the interventions that are developed for indi- sive lecture period (sensory regulation). A func-
vidual students also are often applied to or affect tional assessment-based strategy for the third
other students in the classroom. For example, a child would be to increase stimulation during
common intervention strategy for students who the activity by allowing the child to use manipu-
find it difficult to attend or to wait for their latives that correspond to the activity. This strat-
turn to participate is to employ group respond- egy, however, would not be appropriate for the
ing. Even though this strategy may be selected first child (because it does not provide one-to-
based on functional assessment for one student's one interaction with the teacher) or the second
behavior, it will reduce waiting for other stu- child (because it does not allow the child to
dents as well. In this example, we might expect avoid teacher questions). The interventions for
to see a decrease in challenging behavior and an each of these children should address the func-
increase in attending behavior for the entire tion of their behavior (Carr et al., 1999). Educa-
group. The first purpose of this study was to ex- tors would have a greater impact on addressing
amine the impact of individually-based func- challenging behavior in classroom settings if
tional assessment interventions on the school-based teams were able. to conduct func-
challenging and appropriate behavior of stu- tional assessments and implement appropriate
dents within classroom settings. intervention strategies (Katsiyannis & Maag,
The second purpose of this study. was to 1998). This study evaluated the effectiveness of
evaluate the effectiveness of functional assess- a model to teach school-based teams to imple-
ment when it was conducted by school-based ment functional assessment procedures for indi-
teams. Much of the research concerning func- vidual students and to arrange classroom
tional assessment in school settings follows a environments to prevent challenging behavior
consultation model. In this model, staff first re- and support appropriate behavior. It also evalu-
quests assistance in addressing challenging be- ated maintenance of the ability of teams to im-
havior. Then, an individual who is trained in plement functional assessment procedures and
functional assessment typically observes a re- arrange classroom variables following interven-
ferred student in classroom settings, talks with tion.
classroom staff, and provides suggestions to staff
based on his or her observations. Staff then im- METHOD
plement the recommended procedures.
While this model of consultation may be Participants and Setting
effective at changing the behavior of the referred
student, it does not teach classroom staff how to Children and classrooms were recruited from
conduct functional assessment. Thus, for each three types of preschool programs: (a) class-
challenging behavior, staff depend on, and often rooms for children with special needs, (b) class-
wait for, consultation from a specialist. Or, staff rooms for children at risk, and (c) early
may apply intervention strategies that are not childhood classrooms. All children ranged in age
effective because they do not address the func- from 3-6 years. Teachers in each program were
tion of behavior (Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988; certified in early childhood or special education.
Repp & Horner, 1999) For example, a teacher The duration of class sessions was 2.5 hr per

103
Exceptional Children

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

day, 5 days per week. Observations occurred • Active Engagement: appropriate active motor
during morning and afternoon sessions. or verbal behaviors that correctly corre-
Early Childhood Control Classrooms. Four sponded to the activity or teacher instruction.
early childhood classrooms participated as con- This included appropriate interaction with
trol classrooms. Each classroom contained one peers and adults and appropriate independent
teacher, one teaching assistant, and 18-20 chil- or cooperative toy play.
dren (for a total of 75 children) All but three of • Passive Engagement: appropriate passive be-
the children enrolled in these classrooms were haviors such as watching, waiting, or listen-
identified as typically developing children. One ing that correctly corresponded to the activity
child received special education services and two or teacher instruction.
children received bilingual services. These class- • Nonengagement: behaviors such as wander-
rooms served as control classrooms throughout ing, inattentiveness, unoccupied, and sleep-
the study; they did not participate in interven- ing during activities that required active or
tion. passive engagement. Children who exhibited
Classrooms for Children At Risk. Three challenging behavior also were coded as
classrooms (60 children) for children at risk par- nonengaged. However, child behavior could
ticipated as experimental classrooms. All chil- be coded solely as nonengagernent.if chal-
dren in these classrooms had one or more risk lenging behavior did not simultaneously
variables identified on their eligibility forms. occur.
Table 1 presents the number of children, teach- • Peer Interaction: positive verbal and nonver-
ers, and teaching assistants in each classroom bal interaction with a peer for a minimum of
and the number of children within each eligibil- 3 s. Active engagement was simultaneously
ity category for at-risk and special education coded when peer interaction was coded.
classrooms. In addition to the classroom teacher
Child behavior data were collected using a
and assistants, support staff such as therapists
computer-based observational system developed
and social workers provided in-class services to
by Repp, Karsh, VanAcker, Felce, and Harmon
individuals or small groups of children.
(1989). This system uses computers to record up
Classroom~ for Children with Special
to 45 events in the sequence in which they
Needs. Eight classrooms (75 children) for chil-
occur. At the end of each session, the computer
dren with special needs also participated as ex-
printed a summary of the duration of each be-
perimental classrooms (see Table 1). Each child
havior for the group of children.
received special education services, which were
Students were randomly divided into ob-
documented on IEPs. Support staff such as ther-
servation groups of four or five children. The
apists and social workers provided in-class ser-
observer recorded each child's behavior within a
vices to individuals or small groups of children.
group in sequential order; however, the order of
Procedures observations within and across groups and class-
rooms rotated each observation. Each student's
Data Collection. We collected data on
behavior was coded for 3 min before moving to
child behavior and on ecobehavioral aspects of
the next student in a group. Ten 3-min observa-
the classrooms during daily activities and rou-
tions (total of 30 min) were conducted for each
tines. We coded five categories of child behav-
child during baseline conditions for all class-
iors.
rooms and during intervention conditions for
• ChallengingBehavior: behavior that interferes the experimental (special education and at-risk)
with learning and development or that is classrooms. Five 3-min observations per child
harmful to the child or others. This included were conducted during maintenance conditions
behaviors such as negative behavior directed for the experimental classrooms. Since the pur-
to peers or adults, stereotypy, disruptive be- pose of this study was to examine the impact of
havior, destructive behavior, noncompliance, functional assessment on the behavior of groups
tantrums, aggression, and self-abuse. of students, the percentage of time that children

104 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

TABLE 1

Number ofStudents and Staffin Each Classroom and Within Each Eligibility Criteria Category

Number in Each Classroom Eligibility Criteria

At-Risk
Classrooms Screening Family Multiple
Students Teachers Assistants ESL
Test Score Variables Criteria

Class 1 16 6 3 6

Class 2 22 9 3 3 7

Class 3 22 9 4 3 6

Number in Each Classroom Eligibility Criteria by Disability Label

Special Ed.
Classrooms
Students Teachers Assistants S/L DD Aut. OR MR MD D/B

Class 1 9 2 2

Class 2 9 o 2 2 2 . 2 o

Class 3 9 2 3 2 o o

Class 4 10 2 2 2 2 2 o

Class 5 8 3 2 o o

Class 6 10 2 2 2 2 2 o

Class 7 10 2 4 o o 4 o

Class 8 10 2 2 2 o 2 2

Note: The screening test was the Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning-Revised (Mardell-Czudnowski &
Goldenberg, 1990). Eligibility for special education was based on federal disability categories: S/L = Speech/Language Im-
pairment; DD = Developmental Delay; Aut. =Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder; OR = Orthopedic Impair-
ment; MR = Mental Retardation; MD = Multiple Disabilities; D/B = Deaf and/or Blind.

Exceptional Children 105

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

engaged in each behavior was averaged across • Instructional Strategies: teaching strategies
type of classroom per condition. Individual stu- and practices such as unison responding, ac-
dent data were not examined. tivity-based intervention, positive corrective
Observers completed the Observer Rating feedback, offering choices, modifying activi-
of Ecobehavioral Variables Scale (OREVS) at the ties, and appropriate pacing of instruction
end of 20 min observations (Chandler & were coded. This included six items.
Dahlquist, 1992). The OREVS included vari- • Support for Peer Interaction: teaching strate-
ables identified through literature review as fac- gies and environmental arrangements de-
tors that prevent and remediate challenging signed to promote and support positive peer
behavior and that support appropriate behavior. interactions were coded. This included four
The OREVS provided a general measure of the items.
fidelity of intervention and maintenance as the
Interobserver Agreement. We collected two
strategies identified on the OREVS were dis-
types of reliability in each classroom throughout
cussed during functional assessment training as
the study. First, we assessed the reliability of ob-
prevention and intervention strategies that
servations of child behavior across classroom ac-
should be implemented in school settings. Ob-
tivities. A second observer simultaneously and
servers coded the OREVS during observations of
independently recorded 20% of all observation
child behavior. Ten observations per classroom
sessions. The computer program allowed us to
were conducted during baseline for all class-
compare the records of the two observers. The
rooms and during intervention in each experi-
computer scored agreement if both observers
mental classroom. Five observations were
recorded the same duration of behavior within 3
conducted in each experimental classroom dur-
s of the onset and offset of behavior. Percentage
ing maintenance conditions.
agreement was calculated by dividing the total
In scoring the OREVS, the observer
number of agreements by the sum of agreements
recorded an item if it was present at least 50% of
and disagreements and multiplying that number
the observation or for 50% of the children. The
by 100. This calculation was performed for each
OREVS included 29 items within five cate-
child behavior, per type of classroom during
gories. The mean percentage of strategies em-
each condition. The mean percentage agreement
ployed per condition, per type of classroom is
across behaviors ranged from 94%-99%. Only
reported. The categories and number of items
one agreement product was below 90%-the
per category were as follows:
mean agreement for nonengagement during the
• Environmental Arrangements: included items special education baseline was 89%, ranging
related to arrangement of physical space, ac- from 65%-100%.
tivity centers, and materials, and seating We also evaluated the reliability of the
arrangements. This included four items. OREVS observations. A second observer
• Schedule: items related to the schedule of recorded 23% of all observation sessions, across
daily activities and routines and activity tran- all classrooms. Percentage agreement was calcu-
sitions, the alternation of active and passive lated by comparing the total score obtained by
tasks, and whether children were informed of each observer and dividing the smaller number
activity beginnings, endings, and transitions. by the larger number and multiplying this by
This included three items. 100. The mean percentage agreement for all
• Appropriate Adult Behavior: team behaviors classrooms and conditions was 95%, ranging
such as attending to and prompting appropri- from a mean of 88%-100%. Only one agree-
ate behavior and requests for assistance or at- ment product was below 90%-the mean per-
tention, responding appropriately to centage for the at-risk baseline was 88%,
challenging behavior, and providing direction ranging from 83%-90%. Details on all reliabil-
to team members were coded. This included ity calculations can be obtained from the first
12 items. author.

106 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

Experimental Conditions and Design faded throughout a 4-week period using the fol-
Experimental control was established through lowing procedures. During the first week, teams
received direct support via coaching and model-
intergroup replication across the experimental
ing procedures. The behavior specialist partici-
classrooms (Sidman, 1960). Each special educa-
pated in team meetings and spent the first day
tion and at-risk classroom team implemented
of intervention implementation in the class-
the functional assessment process following
room. She modeled intervention strategies and
baseline.
provided team members with instruction and
Baseline. Data on child behavior and
feedback as they implemented intervention
ecobehavioral variables were collected across a
strategies. In week 2, teams received support
minimum 4-week period within each classroom.
only through coaching. The behavior specialist
Teachers and other service providers were told to
observed in the classroom for one class session
continue using typical daily activities and rou-
and provided advice, feedback, and reinforce-
tines and teaching strategies.
ment to staff as they implemented intervention
Intervention: Functional Assessment. Team
strategies. During week 3, the behavior specialist
members within each at-risk and special educa-
continued to provide coaching support; however,
tion classroom attended two 8-hr functional as-
she only remained in the classroom for half of a
sessment workshops. Teams consisted of
class session. During the fourth week, the behav-
administrators, teachers, assistants, social work- ior specialist provided collaborative support. She
ers, psychologists, and therapists. The two attended team planning meetings and provided
workshops presented the process of conducting advice, feedback, and reinforcement during these
functional assessment and selecting and apply- meetings. She did not work with staff during
ing positive intervention strategies related to the class sessions.
function of behavior. They also focused on This model of consultative support was
strategies to arrange variables within classroom replicated for four students per classroom. Thus,
settings in order to prevent and remediate chal- each classroom team participated in intervention
lenging behavior. The workshops consisted of for a 4-month period. Teams addressed a variety
lecture, discussion, group activities, and analysis of challenging behaviors, ranging from moderate
of videotaped and written case studies.. to severe in nature. The behaviors that were ad-
Within 1 week of the workshops each dressed during intervention and maintenance
classroom team, under the guidance of the be- conditions are identified on Figure 1.
havior specialist, initiated functional assessment Maintenance. Follow-up observations of
procedures for an initial student. During the child behavior and of ecobehavioral variables
first week, they (a) collected information con- (the OREVS) were conducted for 4 weeks fol-
cerning the conditions related to challenging lowing intervention. During maintenance, con-
and appropriate behavior, (b) identified the sultative support was not available and teams
function of challenging behavior, and (c) devel- were informed that they could continue using
oped positive interventions to reduce environ- functional assessment and arranging classroom
mental and social support for challenging variables on their own. Each classroom team
behavior and to provide support for appropriate conducted one or two functional assessments
replacement behavior. These procedures were during this condition. Functional assessment
documented anecdotally by the teams on func- procedures were documented on functional as-
tional assessment planning forms. During the sessment planning forms completed by teams
remaining weeks, the team implemented inter- and collected at the end of the maintenance con-
vention strategies. They also developed and im- dition. (Staff were not told to continue using
plemented strategies to promote maintenance of these forms nor that the forms would be col-
appropriate behavior. lected.)
Each team received in-class support as Control Classrooms. We collected 4 weeks
they implemented the functional assessment of normative data in each control classroom. In
process. In-class support was systematically order to control for time as an intervening vari-

107
Exceptional Children.

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

FIGURE 1
Behaviors That were Addressed Through Functional Assessment During Intervention and
Maintenance Conditions

Poor attending, excess movement Closing eyes

Wandering Off task, refusals to sit, out of seat
Elective mutism Destructive behavior directed to materials
Noncompliance Continuous inappropriate initiations to adults
Tantrums Self-abuse (e.g., pinching, hitting, head butting,
Constant crying hand biting)
Swearing, barking Self-stimulation (e.g., mouthing toys and hands,
Spitting rocking, hair twirling)
Running from the classroom Aggression (e.g., hitting, pushing, biting)
Shouting Bothering peers, inappropriate touching
Disruption during group activities Refusals to share, hoarding toys
Isolation, no interaction with peers Refusal to participate, nonparticipation
Poor, negative peer interaction Hiding under teacher's desk

Note: Children may have exhibited multiple challenging behaviors. The intensity of these behaviors ranged from moderate to
severe across all classrooms.

able and to provide data concerning behavior in The second MANOVA identified a class
early childhood classrooms, we collected data in type effect (early childhood, at-risk, and special
these classrooms throughout the study. education). All four statistical tests are not sig-
nificant, indicating that the averages moved in
RESULTS the same way across the different types of class-
Data for all children within one type of class- rooms.
room were combined to produce a mean per- Finally, the third MANOVA identified an
interaction between time or conditions and class
centage of child behavior per classroom type and
type (at-risk and special education classrooms).
condition. Ecobehavioral data obtained from the
All four statistical tests are significant at the
OREVS are presented as the mean percentage of
0.0001 probability level. This indicates that al-
strategies employed by type of classroom across
though the averages moved the same way across
conditions. A multivariate analysis of variance
classroom types, there was a strong difference
(MANOVA) was used to compare the five de-
among the averages of the different types of
pendent variables (child behavior) across (a) con-
classrooms, at different times. The averages did
ditions or time, (b) type of classroom, and (c) not move the same way for all conditions (time),
conditions and classroom type interaction. across the two types of classrooms.
These MANOVA outputs are presented in Table The MANOVAs presented in Table 2 are
2 and discussed in the following sections. omnibus tests in five dimensions, indicating that
Child Behavior the averages for child behaviors were different
across conditions, type of classroom, and class-
The first MANOVA identified a time or condi- room type and condition interaction. To iden-
tion effect (baseline, intervention, and mainte- tify which of the five child behaviors contributed
nance), across four statistical tests (Wilks's to the significant MANOVA, each behavior was
Lambda, Pillai's Trace, Hotelling-Lawley Trace, separately analyzed using ANOVA. The results
and Roy's Greatest Root). All four test statistics of these ANOVAs are presented in Table 3. In
are significant at the 0.0001 probability level, in- addition to statistical analyses, graphed data for
dicating a strong difference among the averages each child behavior also are presented. Figures
of child behavior across conditions. 2-6 present the mean percentage of sessions

108 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

TABLE 2

MultivariateAnalysis o/Variancefor Child Behavior

Statistic value F NumberDF DenDF Pr>F

Time or Condition Effect

Wilks's Lambda 0.49244686 35.0215 10 824 0.0001

Pillai's Trace 0.51366662 28.5460 10 826 0.0001

Hotelling-Lawley Trace 1.01826148 41.8505 10 822 0.0001

Roy's Greatest Root 1.00592006 83.0890 5 413 0.0001

Class Type Effect

Wilks's Lambda 0.19858720 4.0356 5 5 0.0760

Pillai's Trace 0.80141280 4.0356 5 5 0.0760

Hotelling-Lawley Trace 4.03557128 4.0356 5 5 0.0760

Roy's Greatest Root 4.03557128 4.0356 5 5 0.0760

Condition and Class Type Interaction Effect

Wilks's Lambda 0.82844155 8.1308 10 824 0.0001

Pillai's Trace 0.17546490 7.9436 10 826 0.0001

Hotelling-Lawley Trace 0.20237034 8.3174 10 822 0.0001

Roy's Greatest Root 0.17550217 14.4965 5 413 0.0001

within which child behaviors were observed dur- mental classrooms during intervention and
ing baseline, intervention, and maintenance con- maintenance conditions. The percentage of chal-
ditions for special education and at-risk lenging behavior for students in special educa-
classrooms. These figures also present the mean tion classrooms decreased from a baseline mean
percentage of sessions within which child behav- of approximately 23% to an intervention and
iors were observed in the early childhood control maintenance mean of 4%. The baseline mean
classrooms. Table 4 presents the means and for students in at-risk classrooms decreased from
standard deviations of child behavior for class- 12% to 2% during intervention and mainte-
room type across conditions. Details on data nance. The percentage of challenging behavior
breakdowns by classroom for each child behavior observed in both types of classrooms during the
are available from the first author. maintenance condition was similar to the
Challenging Behavior. The application of amount observed in the early childhood control
functional assessment to individual students had group.
a significant effect on the challenging behavior The ANOVA for challenging behavior
of the group of students within classrooms, as (Table 3) identified a strong condition effect and
presented in Figure 2. During baseline, children a strong interaction effect between conditions
in at-risk and special education classrooms gen- and classroom type, indicating that the average
erally engaged in higher levels of challenging be- percentage of time engaged in challenging be-
havior than children in the early childhood havior was different across conditions and that
control classrooms. The percentage of challeng- the effect was different across classroom types.
ing behavior decreased in both types of experi- For each child behavior, because the classes were

Exceptional Children 109

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

TABLE 3
AnalysisofVariance for Child Behaviorand GREVS Variables
Source DF TYpe/55 M5 F Value Pr>F

Challenging Behavior

Time 2 23113.563083 11556.781542 133.55 0.0001

Type 1 4236.422664 4236.422664 9.23 0.0141

Teacher (type) 9 4130.826475 458.980719 5.30 0.0001

Time*Type 2 2110.993696 1055.496848 12.20 0.0001

Active Engagement

Time 2 50080.354603 25040.177301 38.82 0.0001

Type 20645.861629 20645.851629 18.27 0.0021

Teacher (type) 9 10172.666375 1130.296264 1.75 0.0755

Time*Type 2 113.277677 56.638839 0.09 0.9160

Nonengagement

Time 2 42162.190001 21081.095000 175.32 0.0001

Type 8841.247179 8841.247179 11.64 0.0077

Teacher (type) 9 6835.474172 759.497130 6.32 0.0001

Time*Type 2 2463.467935 1231.733967 10.24 0.0001

Peer Interaction

Time 2 19156.109003 9548.054501 47.03 0.0001

Type 26713.617128 26713.617128 90.93 0.0001

Teacher (type) 9 2644.007223 293.778580 1.44 0.1676

Time*Type 2 9499.289619 4749.644809 23.32 0.0001

GREVS Strategies

Time 2 71695.009174 35847.504587 256.92 0.0001

Type 8973.761004 8973.761004 2.69 0.1354

Teacher (type) 9 29976.494134 3330.721570 23.87 0.0001

Time*type 2 1858.859779 929.429889 6.66 0.0015

* = denotes a time by type interaction effect.

110 Fall1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

TABLE 4
Means and Standard Deviationsper BehaviorAcross Conditionsfor At-Risk and SpecialEducation
Classrooms
Baseline Intervention Maintenance
Behavior M SO M SO M SO
At-Risk Classrooms

Challenging Behavior 12.0 12.4 2.2 2.3 2.1 3.6

Active Engagement 543 30.2 75.4 25.1 85.9- 14.5

Passive Engagement 25.2 28.9 21.0 24.6 10.0 15.3

Nonengagement 16.4 12.8 1.8 3.6 2.3 3.4

Peer Interaction 9.1 11.5 34.1 26.8 24.4 18.3

Special Education Classrooms

Challenging Behavior 22.8 13.7 4.2 5.9 4.4 3.5

Active Engagement 40.6 23.2 61.6 26.0 66.0 22.1

Passive Engagement 24.8 20.5 29.8 25.4 26.4 22.0

Nonengagement 30.5 16.5 6.6 8.8 5.5 6.3

Peer Interaction 1.3 4.7 6.9 10.2 13.6 13.2

FIGURE 2
The Mean Percentage ofChallenging BehaviorAcross Types ofClassrooms and Conditions

100
• BudiocIOOIIIroI
90
C1Dlavalti0ll
80 II MaiJltcmDoo
a
'S .~
~
D1
IllI 70
i
i=
~ OIl
60

~.! 50
; 5 40

~a 30
20
10
0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

Exceptional Children 111

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

nested within class type, the Mean Square for rooms. Functional assessment produced signifi-
class within class type is the denominator for the cant decreases in nonengagement for students in
F for Class Type. There is a statistically signifi- each at-risk and special education classroom.
cant effect for challenging behavior across type The percentage of nonengagement observed in
of classroom. at-risk classrooms decreased from a baseline
Active Engagement. Team-based, individ- mean of 16% to a maintenance mean of 2%. In
ual functional assessment had a positive impact special education classrooms, nonengagement
on the level of active engagement observed in at- decreased from a baseline mean of 30% to a
risk and special education classrooms. Figure 3 maintenance mean of 5%. The percentages of
presents the mean percentage of active engage- nonengagement obtained in special education
ment across classrooms. The percentage of active and at-risk classrooms during maintenance were
engagement was highest in the early childhood similar to those obtained in control classrooms.
control group (70%), followed by baseline levels The nonengagement ANOVA yielded a
for at-risk (54%) and special education (40%) significant effect for condition, across class type,
classrooms. The levels of active engagement in- and for the conditions and class type interaction.
creased significantly during intervention and The average percentage of time students were
maintenance for both at-risk and special educa- nonengaged was different across conditions and
tion classrooms. The percentage of active en- the condition effect was different across class-
gagement increased in at-risk classrooms to 75% room types.
during intervention and to 86% during mainte- Peer Interaction. Figure 6 presents the
nance. Active engagement increased to 61 % dur- mean percentage of peer interaction across type
ing intervention and 66% during maintenance of classrooms and conditions. During baseline,
for special education classrooms. The levels of students in at-risk and special education class-
active engagement observed during maintenance rooms engaged in very little peer interaction
for at-risk and special education classrooms were (9% and 1%, respectively). Students in the con-
similar to the levels observed in the early child- trol classrooms engaged in peer interaction fre-
hood control classrooms. quently (31 %). Functional assessment produced
The ANOVA for active engagement indi- significant increases in peer interaction for stu-
cates a strong condition effect and type of class dents in at-risk classrooms, increasing to a mean
effect. The average percentage of time students of 34% during intervention and 24% during
exhibited active engagement was different across maintenance. These levels were similar to those
conditions and classroom type. The interaction obtained in control classrooms. Unfortunately,
between conditions and classroom type is not these results were not as dramatic for students in
significant, indicating that the averages were special education classrooms. In these class-
moving in the same direction for both the at-risk rooms the percentage of peer interaction in-
and special education classrooms across condi- creased from 1% during baseline to 7% during
tions. intervention and 13% during maintenance.
PassiveEngagement. Passive engagement is There was a significant effect for peer in-
presented in Figure 4. The level of passive en- teraction across conditions, classroom type, and
gagement was similar across all classrooms and conditions and class type interaction. The
conditions. The ANOVA indicated no signifi- ANOVA indicates that the average percentage of
cant effects across conditions, classroom type, or time in peer interaction was different across con-
conditions and classroom type interaction. As a ditions and this effect was different across
result, it is not included in Table 3. classes.
Nonengagement. As shown in Figure 5,
Ecobehavioral Variables
students in the experimental classrooms engaged
in higher levels of nonengagement during base- The mean percentages of ecobehavioral strate-
line than students in the control classrooms and gies (obtained from OREVS observations) em-
the level of nonengagement was higher in special ployed across type of classroom and conditions
education classrooms than it was in at-risk class- are presented in Figure 7. Table 5 presents the

112 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

FIGURE 3
The Mean Percentage ofActive Engagement Across TJpes ofClassrooms and Conditions

100
90
80
~il
Q,I Q,I 70
CIlS
.:! Q,I
60
5iy ::
CIl
s. Cl 50
lt roil
Cl ~ 40
~~ 30
20
10
0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

FIGURE 4

The Mean Percentage ofPassive Engagement Across Types ofClassrooms and Conditions

100
• Buctineloomol
90
C ImavClllion
80 II~
~il
Q,I Q,I
70
gm
Cl CIl 60
~ :.
s. Cl
,troil
50
~ 40
i ·Ii
:8~ 30
20
10
0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

Exceptional Children 113

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

FIGURE 5

The Mean Percentage ofNonengagement Across TYpes ofClassrooms and Conditions

100

90 • BuclinclCOIIIroI
CImavadion
80 D MaintaImlle
'S .. 70
flii
:! ~ 60
IiCol 011
1\1
"'" 011 SO
~a
I:l I
1\1 8 40
~Z 30

20
10

0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

FIGURE 6

The Mean Percentage ofPeer Interaction Across TYpes ofClassrooms and Conditions

100
90 • BuclinclCODIIoI
C lotavaIIion
80 • Maintawnoo
'S
il 70
60

IJM
I:l
SO
40
~~ 30
20
10
0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

114 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

FIGURE 7

The Mean Percentage ofEcobehavioral Strategies EmployedAcross TJpes ofClassrooms and Conditions

100
• Badino'ClOIIIroI
90
CImavadion

·rrJ
80 .. Maintcnaooe .
'S 70
~-=
:!.b 60
~~
m5
~ .~
50

~t
40

~~ 30

20

10

0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

means and standard deviations of the OREVS ior and increases in active engagement obtained
variables for class type and for each classroom during intervention and maintenance condi-
within class type, across conditions. The mean tions.
percentage of strategies employed in control and An ANOVA on ecobehavioral strategies
at-risk classrooms was equal (71 %) and both yielded significant results for conditions, class-
were higher than the baseline levels obtained in room type, and classroom type by condition in-
special education classrooms (52%). Although teraction. This ANOVA also is presented on
there was variability across individual classrooms Table 3. The average percentage of strategies
during baseline, there was a profound increase in employed was different across conditions, and
the percentages of ecobehavioral variables em- this effect was different across classrooms. How-
ployed during intervention and maintenance ever, there is no significant difference across
conditions for at-risk and special education classroom type when averaged across conditions.
classrooms. In fact, the mean percentages of Table 5 presents the means and standard
strategies employed in these classrooms during deviations of the OREVS variables across condi-
intervention and maintenance conditions was tions and type of classroom and for each class-
greater than those observed throughout the room. The at-risk and early childhood
study in control classrooms. classrooms obtained equal mean scores during
The increase in the percentage of ecobe- baseline and these were higher that the mean
havioral strategies employed in at-risk and spe- scores obtained across special education class-
cial education classrooms corresponds to the rooms. In addition, there is variability across
decreases in challenging and nonengaged behav- classrooms during baseline conditions. Nonethe-

ExceptionalChildren 115

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

TABLE 5
Means and Standard Deviations ofOREVS VariablesAcross Conditions and Classrooms
Baseline Intervention Maintenance

Classroom 1jJpe M SD M SD M SD

Early Childhood 1 68.6 17.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Early Childhood 2 66.6 15.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Early Childhood 3 69.1 15.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Early Childhood 4 83.0 8.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 71.5 15.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A

At-Risk 1 85.8 7.2 99.3 2.2 96.6 4.7

At-Risk 2 79.7 7.6 97.6 7.5 98.0 3.0

At-Risk 3 49.5 11.6 90.6 10.6

Total 71.6 18.3 95.5 8.5 97.3 3.8

Special Education 1 61.4 17.2 85.5 9.8 87.6 4.8

Special Education 2 71.5 8.3 87.6 9.8 92.0 2.2

Special Education 3 54.8 11.7 92.5 3.6 98.0 3.0

Special Education 4 51.6 14.0 93.5 5.1 100.0 0.0

Special Education 5 50.8 11.8 93.9 6.0 100.0 0.0

Special Education 6 56.4 15.3 99.6 1.2 100.0 0.0

Special Education 7 33.2 12.7 70.5 14.2

Special Education 8 35.8 10.4 53.0 20.2

Total 51.9 17.4 84.1 18.0 96.2 5.3

Note: Earlychildhood control classrooms did not participate in intervention or maintenance conditions. At-riskClassroom3
and Special Education Classrooms 7 and 8 wereclosedduring school district reorganizationbeforemaintenance data were
collected.

less, each team increased the percentage of classroom also increased the mean percentage of
strategies employed during intervention. The strategies employed during intervention, ranging
means for each at-risk classroom increased to from 53.0% to 99.6%. High levels of OREVS
above 90% during intervention. The two at-risk variables also were noted during maintenance
classrooms for which data were available main- for the six special education classrooms with
tained this high level. Each special education maintenance data.

116 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

DISCUSSION 50% or more of the students or was in effect for
The first purpose of this study was to examine at least 50% of an observation. Thus, the teams
in this study demonstrated an increase in the ap-
the effects of functional assessment on the chal-
plication of strategies to many students, rather
lenging and appropriate behavior of groups of
than only to specific students.
students within classroom settings. Challenging
It is not possible to identify the number of
behavior within each at-risk and special educa-
students per classroom who exhibited increases
tion classroom decreased during intervention
in positive behavior and decreases in challenging
and maintained at low levels during a 4-week
behavior. The possibility exists that the changes
maintenance condition. Nonengagement de-
in group data were due only to changes in the
creased in each at-risk classroom and in the ma-
behavior of the students for whom functional as-
jority of special education classrooms. The levels
sessment was conducted. In the special educa-
of challenging and nonengaged behavior ob-
tion classrooms, 4 out of 8-10 students received
tained during maintenance were similar to the
functional assessment. In the at-risk classrooms
levels observed in the control classrooms. Active
4 out of 16-22 students received functional as-
engagement and peer interaction increased
sessment. However, functional assessment was
within each at-risk and special education class-
conducted on one child at a time (l month per
room during intervention. During maintenance, child). Thus for the first month of intervention,
the levels of active engagement for at-risk and functional assessment was conducted on one
special education classrooms and the level of child and so forth until the fourth month of in-
peer interaction for at-risk classrooms were simi- tervention when functional assessment was con-
lar to those of the control classrooms. Peer inter- ducted for the fourth child. The full impact of
action in special education classrooms also change due to individualized functional assess-
increased during maintenance; however, the level ment in each classroom would not have been re-
of peer interaction was less than that observed alized until the end of the intervention
for at-risk classrooms and the control class- condition. Anecdotal evidence from teacher
rooms. The levels of passive engagement were progress notes and examination of student files
relatively stable in at-risk and special education in the three at-risk classrooms indicated that
classrooms during all conditions. many students engaged in challenging behavior.
Previous research has documented the ef- Challenging behaviors were specifically noted
fectiveness of functional assessment on changing for 28 of the 60 children in these classrooms.
the behavior of individual students (e.g., Arn- Challenging behaviors were noted for 49 of the
dorfer et al., 1994; Carr et al., 1999; Kern et al., 75 children in the eight special education class-
1994; Repp & Karsh, 1994; Wacker et al., rooms. Unfortunately; the severity and frequency
1999). This study indicates that the behavior of of these challenging behaviors is not known.
the group of students within at-risk and special The changes in grouped data clearly would have
education classrooms improved when functional been influenced by the data for students who re-
assessment was conducted for individual stu- ceived functional assessment; however, it seems
dents. The positive impact of functional assess- likely that the changes observed during interven-
ment on group behavior may have occurred tion also were influenced by changes in the be-
because many of the strategies that are identified havior of additional students. Future research
to address the behavior of one student also are might address this question by collecting data on
inevitably applied to other students within the individual students as well as groups of students.
classroom. For example, strategies such as pro- Students in the at-risk classrooms exhib-
viding breaks or movement during activities may ited levels of peer interaction during interven-
be developed for one student, but they often will tion and maintenance that were similar to
be applied to the entire class. Support for this children in the control classrooms. Challenging
hypothesis comes from the data collected with behavior often reduces opportunities to interact
the OREVS. This checklist allowed an item or positively with peers. When challenging behav-
behavior to be scored only if it was applied to ior decreases and active engagement increases,

Exceptional Children 117

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

there are greater opportunities to interact with consultant to guide the functional assessment
peers. For many students, these new opportuni- process, model application of the strategies, and
ties are sufficient to promote positive interac- provide feedback and reinforcement to staff as
tions. In other words, many of these students they mastered the functional assessment process.
probably had the skills to interact with peers, Our model also included several antecedent and
but did not have the opportunities to use those consequence strategies that are important to
skills. Unfortunately, the level of interaction for generalization and maintenance such as multiple
students with special needs was below that of exemplars, train in natural settings, general case
students in the other classrooms. While this programming, and reinforce generalization
finding is disappointing, it is not surprising. For (Chandler, Lubeck, & Fowler, 1992; Stokes &
many students with special needs, opportunity Baer, 1977). Unfortunately, it is not possible to
alone is not sufficient to promote interaction. identify which components of the model are
These children often will require intensive social necessary components of training. Future re-
skills training in order to learn to interact with search might examine a variety of consultative
peers (Vanderbilt/Minnesota Project, 1993). support models.
Functional assessment may be a first step in pro- Third, the results obtained in this study
moting interaction, but it should be used in con- may be due to the type and form of information
junction with specific social skills interventions. presented during the workshop. The content of
The second purpose of this study was to the workshops was very pragmatic and reflected
evaluate the effectiveness of teaching teams to classroom and school-based settings. We pre-
conduct functional assessment. During interven- sented examples of intervention strategies for
tion, teams in each classroom conducted func- the three functions of behavior, as well as gen-
tional assessments for four students. During eral strategies to prevent challenging behavior
maintenance, teams continued to apply previous and support appropriate behavior. We also used
intervention strategies and to conduct indepen- videotaped examples of teams applying func-
dent functional assessments with new children. tional assessment in school settings. Less empha-
(Four teams conducted two functional assess- sis was placed on a theoretical understanding of
ments; the remaining teams conducted one or terms and concepts, data collection techniques,
two functional assessments during mainte- and a review of research. Nonetheless, partici-
nance.) Although we did not collect data on in- pants did learn to identify setting events, an-
dividual students, functional assessment tecedents, consequences, and the function of
planning forms provided anecdotal evidence of appropriate and challenging behavior, and to se-
positive changes in challenging behavior for lect and apply interventions based on the func-
those students for whom functional assessment tion of behavior.
was conducted.
The success of teams in being able to con- IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
duct functional assessments may be related to the
training model and the trainers employed in this The 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with
study. First, the workshops and in-class support Disabilities Education Act include a mandate for
were provided by individuals with extensive expe- schools to conduct functional assessment for
rience teaching and implementing functional as- some students with disabilities. The success of
sessment, and coaching teams within classroom functional assessment within school settings will
settings. It may be critical to employ well-trained be contingent on the effectiveness of these pro-
and experienced staff as trainers and coaches. cedures to address the challenging behavior of
Replication of this study with different trainers students with and without disabilities. However,
would add validity to the training package. success also will depend on the ability of educa-
Second, our consultative model may have tional teams to employ functional assessment.
been critical to the generalization and mainte- Functional assessment must be feasible or practi-
nance of skills. We provided support across a 4- cal enough to be employed by educational teams
month period. The in-class training allowed the within classrooms and other school settings

118 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

(Odom, McConnell, & Chandler, 1994). This be helpful to develop procedures for teams to re-
study documented the effectiveness of functional quest and obtain follow-up consultation.
assessment in addressing the challenging and ap-
propriate behavior of students within classroom REFERENCES
settings. It further documented that teams were
Arndorfer, R. E., & Miltenberger, R. G., Woster S.
able to independently employ and maintain
H., Rortvedt, A. K., & Gaffaney, T. (1994). Home-
functional assessment procedures within class- based descriptive and experimental analysis of prob-
rooms. There are several advantages that en- lem behavior in children. Topics in Early Childhood
hance the feasibility and effectiveness of Special Education, 14 (1),64-87.
functional assessment within school-based set-
Bailey, D. B., & Wolery; M. (1992). Teaching infants and
tings: preschoolers with disabilities. NewYork: MacMillan.*
• It is a proactive approach, teaching children Biklen, D. (1987). In pursuit of integration. In M. S.
what they should do, rather than punishing Beieres & P. Knoblock, (Eds.), Program models for
children for engaging in challenging behavior. mainstreaming: Integrating students with moderate to
• It focuses on prevention as well as remediation severedisabilities (pp. 19-39). Rockville, MD: Aspen."
of challenging behavior by arranging an- Carr, E. G., Langdon, N. A., & Yarbrough, S. C.
tecedents and consequences that may be re- (1999). Hypothesis-based intervention for severe
lated to challenging and appropriate behavior. problem behavior. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.),
• It provides team members from a variety of Functional assessmentofproblem behavior: From effec-
disciplines with a common language (e.g., tive assessment to effective support (pp. 9-31). Bel-
setting events, antecedents, function, etc.) mont, CA: Wadsworth.*
and approach to addressing challenging be- Carr, E. G., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J.
havior. I., Kemp, D. c., & Smith, C. E. (1994). Communica-
• It provides teams with a method of assess- tion-based intervention for problem behavior: A user's
ment that can be used with any challenging guide for producing positive change. Baltimore:
behavior of any child, regardless of age, dis- Brookes.*
ability, or setting. Carr, E. G., Robinson, S., & Palumbo, L. (1990). The
• It provides teams with consistent methods for wrong issue: Aversive versus nonaversive treatment.
selecting interventions that address the func- The right issue: Functional versus nonfunctional
tion of behavior. treatment. In A. C. Repp & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Per-
spectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive inter-
Functional assessment training should be ventions for persons with developmental disabilities
offered to and implemented by school-based (pp. 361-380). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press."
teams as a means of preventing and remediating Carr, E. G., Taylor, J. c., & Robinson, S. (1991). The
challenging behavior of individuals and groups effects of severe behavior problems on the teaching
of students. In order to do this school districts behaviors of adults. Journal ofApplied Behavior
or cooperatives will need to identify a group of Analysis, 24, 523-535.
individuals who can provide functional assess- Chandler, L. K., & Dahlquist, C. M. (1992). Observer
ment training and classroom support to educa- Rating of Ecobehavioral Variables Scale. Unpublished
tional teams. Classroom support should focus document.
on providing teams with skills that will allow Chandler, L. K., & Dahlquist, C. M. (1999). The ef-
them to conduct functional assessment and im- fects of functional assessment on the challenging and
plement assessment-based intervention strate- appropriate behavior of children in preschool class-
gies. Follow-up procedures also should be rooms. In S. Irwin (Ed.), Challenging the challenging
initiated and maintained across time. This study behaviors:A source book based on the SpeciaLink Insti-
assessed maintenance over a 4-week period via tute (pp. 27-30, 73-79). Cape Breton Island, CA: Bre-
observation and functional assessment planning ton Books."
forms. It probably would be wise to periodically Chandler, L. K., Fowler, S. A., & Lubeck, R. C.
monitor teams and to provide additional sup- (1992). An analysis of the effects of multiple setting
port and consultation as needed. It also would events on the social behavior of preschool children

Exceptional Children 119

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

with special needs. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analy- Functional analysis ofproblem behavior: From effective
sis, 25, 249-264. assessment to effective support (pp. 259-276). Belmont,
Chandler, L. K., Lubeck, R. c., & Fowler, S. A. CA: Wadsworth.*
(1992). Generalization and maintenance of preschool Munk, D. D., & Repp, A. C. (1994). The relation-
children's social skills: A critical review and analysis. ship between instructional practices and problem be-
Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 25, 415-428. havior: A review. Exceptional Children, 60, 390-401.
Drasgow, E., Halle, J. W, Ostrosky, M., & Harbors, National Association of State Directors of Special Ed-
H. (1996). Using behavioral indication and functional ucation (1997). IDEA information: A reauthorized
communication training to establish an initial sign IDEA is enacted: Comparison ofprevious law and RL.
repertoire with a young child with severe disabilities. 105-17(1997 amendments). Unpublished document.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 500- Nelson, R. J., Roberts, M. L., Mathur, S. R., &
521. Rutherford, R. B. (1998). Has public policy exceeded
Fidura, J. G., Lindsey, E. R., & Walker, G. R. (1987). our knowledge base?A review of the functional behav-
A special behavior unit for treatment of behavior ioral assessment literature. Unpublished manuscript
problems of persons who are mentally retarded. Men- submitted for review.
tal Retardation, 25, 107-111. Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & Chandler, L. K.
Foster-Johnson, L., & Dunlap, G. (1993). Using (1994). Acceptability and feasibility of classroom-
functional assessment to develop effective individual- based social interaction interventions for young chil-
ized interventions for challenging behaviors. TEACH- dren with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60,
ING Exceptional Children, 25(3), 44-50. 226-236.
Katsiyannis, A., & Maag, J. W (1998). Disciplining Oliver, c., Murphy, C. H., & Corbett, J. A. (1987).
students with disabilities: Issues and considerations Self-injurious behavior in people with mental handi-
for implementing IDEA 97. Behavioral Disorders, 23, cap: A total population study. Journal ofMental Defi-
276-289. ciency Research, 31, 144-162.
Kern, L., Childs, K. E., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Reichle, J., & Wacker, D. P. (1993). Communicative
Falk, G. D. (1994). Using assessment-based curricular alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating func-
intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a tional assessment and intervention strategies. Balti-
student with emotional and behavioral challenges. more: Brookes.*
Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 27(1), 7-19. Repp, A. C. (1999). Naturalistic functional assess-
Kern, L., & Dunlap, G. (1999). Assessment-based in- ment with regular and special education students in
terventions for children with emotional and behav- classroom settings. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.),
ioral disorders. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis ofproblem behavior: From effective
Functional analysis ofproblem behavior: From effective assessment to effective support (pp. 238-257). Belmont,
assessmentto effective support (pp. 197-237). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.*
CA: Wadsworth.* Repp, A. c., Felce, D., & Barton, L. E. (1988). Bas-
Maloney, M. (1997). The reauthorization of IDEA: ing the treatment of stereotypic and self-abusive be-
What are your responsibilities? Knoxville, TN: The havior on hypotheses of their causes. Journal of
Weatherly Law Firm. * Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 281-290.
Mardell-Czudnowski, c., & Goldenberg, D. (1990). Repp, A. c., & Horner. R. (1999). Introduction to
Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learn- functional assessment. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner
ing-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance (Eds.), Functional analysis ofproblem behavior: From
Service.* affective assessment to effective support (pp. 1-6). Bel-
McGee, G. G., & Daly, T. (1999). Prevention of mont, CA: Wadsworth.*
problem behaviors in preschool children. In A. C. Repp, A. c., & Karsh, K. G. (1990). A taxonomy for
Repp & R. Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis ofprob- the functional assessment of maladaptive behavior. In
lem behavior: From effective assessment to effective sup- A. C. Repp & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Perspectives on the
port (pp. 169-196). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.* use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for per-
Munk, D. D., & Karsh, K. G. (1999). Antecedent sons with developmental disabilities (pp. 333 ·348).
curriculum and instructional variables as classwide in- Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press,*
terventions for preventing or reducing problem be- Repp, A. c., & Karsh, K. G. (1994). Hypothesis-
haviors. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.), based interventions for tantrum behavior of persons

120 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

with developmental disabilities. Journal ofApplied Be- Northern Illinois University and Educational
havior Analysis, 25, 701-712. Research and Services Center, DeKalb; CAROL
Repp, A. c., Karsh, K. G., Munk, D., & Dahlquist, M. DAHLQUIST, Instructional Strategies Team
C. M. (1995). Hypothesis-based interventions: A the- Coordinator, Department of Educational Psy-
ory of clinical decision making. In W O'Donahue & chology, Counseling, and Special Education,
L. Krasner (Eds.), Theories in behavior therapy (pp. Northern Illinois University and Educational
585-608). Washington: American Psychological Asso- Research and Services Center, DeKalb (now at
ciation.* School Association for Special Education in
Repp, A. c., Karsh, K. G., VanAcker, R., Pelce, D. c., DuPage County); ALAN C. REPP, Professor,
& Harmon, M. L. (1989). A computer-based system Department of Educational Psychology, Coun-
for collecting and analyzing observational data. Jour- seling, and Special Education, Northern Illinois
nal ofSpecial Education Technology, 9, 207-217.
University and Educational Research and Ser-
Rhode, G., Jenson, W, & Reavis, H. K. (1992). The vices Center, DeKalb; CAROL FELTZ, Associ-
tough kid book: Practical classroom management ate Professor, Department of Mathematical
strategies (1992). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.*
Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics ofscientific research: Eval-
uating experimental data in psychology. New York: This study was supported in part by a grant
Basic Books.*
from the U.S. Department of Education.
Stokes, T., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit tech-
nology of generalization. Journal ofApplied Behavior We thank Kathy Karsh and Peggy Williams for
Analysis, 10, 349-367.
their assistance during the study and Roger
Turnbull, H. R. (1999). Two case studies of func- Lubeck for editing and assistance with the fig-
tional assessment and functional support: Idea com- ures. We also thank all of the team members and
pliance and capacity-building issues. In A. C. Repp &
students who were involved in this study.
R. Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis ofproblem be-
havior: From effective assessment to effective support
(pp. 321-337). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.* Correspondence concerning this article may be
addressed to Lynette K. Chandler, Department
Vanderbilt-Minnesota Social Interaction Project.
of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and
(1993). Play time/Social time: Organizing your class-
room to build interaction skills. Tucson, AZ: Commu- Special Education at Northern Illinois Univer-
nication Skill Builders.* sity, DeKalb, IL 60115. Electronic mail may be
sent to lchandler@niu.edu.
Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Peck, S. M., Derby, K.
M., & Berg, W K. (1999). Community-based func-
tional assessment. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.), Manuscript received September 1998; revision
Functional analysis ofproblem behavior: From effective accepted June 1999.
assessmentto effective support (pp. 238-257). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth. *
~
Walker, G. R. (1993). Noncompliant behavior of peo- *To order books referenced in this journal,
ple with mental retardation. Research in Developmen- please call 24 hrs/365 days: (800)
tal Disabilities, 14,87-105. In A. C. Repp & R. BOOKS-NOW (266-5766) or (801) 261-1187,
Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis ofproblem behav- or visit them on the Web at http://www.Books
ior: From effective assessment to effective support (pp. Now.com/Exceptional Children.htrn. Use Visa,
32-56). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. * M/C, or AMEX or send check or money order +
Watkins, F. P., & Durant, L. (1992). Complete early $4.95 S&H ($2.50 each add'l item) to: Books
childhood behavior management guide. New York: The Now, Inc., 348 E. 6400 South, Suite 220, Salt
Center for Applied Research in Education. * Lake City, UT 84107.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

LYNETTE K. CHANDLER (CEC #466), Asso-

cicate Professor, Department of Educational
Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education,

121
Exceptional Children

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015