A functional analysis (FA) is the most commonly used assessment methodology for identifying maintaining variables influencing problem behavior. However, if an FA does not produce clear differentiation, researchers and practitioners often then modify procedures to include additional individualized variables. The interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA) provides a marked departure from FA methodology and aims to include individualized factors at the initiation of the assessment in order to more rapidly produce differentiation and clear results. We sought to further evaluate and compare the outcomes of two different functional analysis methods: the single-contingency functional analysis (FA) and the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA) to determine the function of problem behavior and evaluate the subsequent function-based treatment determined from the functional analysis results with two children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Both participants engaged in problem behavior maintained by single-contingencies of reinforcement identified within the single-contingency FA and emphasized by the effectiveness of each single-contingency function-based treatment.

The individual functional analysis (FA) is the most widely used method to identify variables that influence the occurrence of problem behavior. Researchers often modify the FA after the analysis reveals undifferentiated responding. The interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA) is one of the most substantial variations of the FA that builds upon the FA modifications. We evaluated the use of the two different functional analytic methods, the FA and IISCA, and the subsequent function-based treatment to reduce problem behavior for three children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The individual FA and the IISCA demonstrated differentiated responding for all participants. The treatment based on the results from the traditional FA was effective for all children. We discuss the implications of these findings.

We assessed the implementation accuracy and fidelity of two board certified behavior analysts (BCBAs) using the open-ended interview from Hanley. Participants interviewed a confederate using the open-ended interview, and were then asked to use information gathered from the interview to create operational definitions of target behaviors as well as test and control condition procedures for a subsequent matched test-control functional analysis as is characteristic of the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA) strategy. Brief behavioral skills training (BST) was then implemented with all participants to increase the accuracy of constructing both target behavior definitions and functional analysis procedures. Preliminary results show moderate rates of accuracy of target behavior definitions and functional analysis procedures prior to BST, and high rates of accuracy following BST. The results also suggest high implementation fidelity on the open-ended interview may not be necessary to achieve high accuracy when constructing target behavior definitions and functional analysis procedures.

The current investigation replicated and extended previous research on training of behavior professionals to implement functional assessment and analysis procedures. Specifically, the study extended procedures described by Metras to train board certified behavior analysts (BCBAs) to administer two components of the Interview Informed Synthesized Contingency Analyses (IISCA) by: (1) conducting the study in the context of a large residential/training facility for adults with ID, (2) including a participant who served as a behavior analyst for a caseload of individuals who lived and received services at the facility, and (3) adjusting the vignettes and interview scripts to reflect the change in context. This current study shows that, following a brief training sequence, the participant was able to accurately administer the open-ended interview and construct a synthesized test and control condition.