Study 1 evaluated agreement among five respondents using the Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST), the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) and Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF). Respondents provided ratings for 20 target behaviors exhibited by 10 individuals. At least 4/5 raters agreed on the primary maintaining variable in 80% of cases with the FAST, 70% of cases with the MAS, and 55% of cases with the QABF. Study 2 evaluated correspondence between results of anecdotal assessments and experimental functional analysis for 10 target behaviors selected from Study 1. Correspondence between the experimental functional analyses was 60% with the FAST and the MAS, 50% with the QABF.

The current study was designed to evaluate the utility of progressing sequentially from multiple-respondent anecdotal assessments through test-control treatment analysis as an effective and efficient method of identifying the environmental determinants of problem behavior. the goal of the study was to evaluate overall agreement among multiple respondents on the primary function of aberrant behavior using the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) and Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) and, if agreement was obtained, conduct a test-control evaluation to confirm anecdotal assessment findings while simultaneously evaluating the effects of function-based treatment. for 4 individuals, at least 4 of 5 respondents to the anecdotal assessments agreed (both within and across assessments) on the probable maintaining consequence for their problem behaviors. Test-control multielement evaluations were then conducted in which baseline sessions, corresponding to the suspected operant function of each individual’s problem behavior, were alternated with sessions in which the identified contingency was arranged for alternative behavior. Each evaluation showed substantial decreases in problem behavior and maintenance of alternative responses.

We administered the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) and the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) to five raters and compared the results with functional analysis outcomes for 12 cases in which agreement was obtained for at least four out of five raters on either anecdotal assessment. The scores for functional categories on the MAS and QABF were ranked by averaging the scores for the raters who agreed on the primary maintaining variable. Functional analysis results were ranked by examining average responding across all conditions. A comparison showed correspondence between the highest category and the highest functional analysis condition for 10 out of 11 cases for the MAS and all 10 cases for the QABF. Correspondence for the category and condition ranked second was found for 2 out of 11 cases for the MAS and 2 out of 10 cases for the QABF. The magnitude of difference between categories on the MAS/QABF did not appear to predict the amount of difference in responding in the corresponding functional analyses.