What can Ms. Rollison do to modify Joseph’s behavior?

Page 9: Design a Function-Based Intervention

Once a hypothesis to explain the function of the problem or target behavior has been developed, it’s time to move on to the fourth step in the FBA process: designing a function-based intervention. This process often includes teaching or reinforcing a replacement behavior that serves the same function as the problem behavior.

Teachers seeking to determine exactly which type of intervention is needed might find it helpful to answer these two questions:

• Can the student perform the replacement behavior? It is necessary to determine whether the student can’t do the behavior or won’t do the behavior.
• Is there anything that the teacher can change in this classroom (i.e., antecedent conditions) to set the stage for the replacement behavior to occur? Such changes might include modifications to the room arrangement, to teacher instruction, to instructional materials, or to any other factors that might act as a trigger for the problem behavior or that might promote the replacement behavior.

The table below illustrates the circumstances under which a team might select a particular intervention. Regardless of the type of intervention selected, however, a teacher might need to:

• Adjust the antecedents to provide opportunities for the replacement behavior to occur
• Modify the consequences to 1) reinforce the replacement behavior, and 2) not reinforce the problem behavior (i.e., extinction)

Earlier in the module, you learned that extinction—when used alone—is problematic and difficult to implement. However, when used as one component of a comprehensive intervention, it can be quite useful.

Let’s consider a function-based intervention for David. Recall the following hypothesis statement about his behavior:

The primary motivator for David’s off-task behavior (e.g., walking around the room, talking with peers) is to avoid class work. To a lesser extent, he also seeks to obtain peer attention.

After reviewing the data further, the team determines that David does in fact possess the prerequisite skills to complete his assignments. They also determine that a specific antecedent—in this case, the assignment of independent work—triggers David’s off-task behavior. In response, they develop an antecedent-based intervention.

Problem behavior	Off-task—participation in activities that are not part of the teacher-assigned instructional activity
Function	Task-avoidance (primary), peer attention (secondary)
Replacement behavior	On-task—engagement in teacher-assigned activities that are part of the instructional activity
Teach skill	N/A
Adjust antecedent	After the teacher assigns independent seatwork, she will provide support to David by: Prompting him to begin the assignment Instructing him to work for two minutes independently and then raise his hand for feedback Going to his desk to check his work after he raises his hand Repeating steps 2 and 3 until the end of the independent seatwork period
Modify consequences	1) Reinforce the replacement behavior After David works for 2–3 minutes, the teacher will allow him to take a brief pause from his classwork while she checks it. 2) Do not reinforce the problem behavior (i.e., extinction) The teacher will not allow David to avoid work by wandering around the room or talking to his peers.

This intervention addresses the problem behavior in a number of ways. First, it breaks David’s work into smaller tasks, which are less overwhelming. Though two minutes may seem like a short time for David to work, his baseline data indicate that he is unable to stay on task for even this short amount of time. Second, David receives reinforcement in the form of a brief pause from the task (e.g., 20–30 seconds in his seat) during which time his teacher checks his work. The pause serves the same task-avoidance function as his previous off-task behavior but is a part of the natural classroom routine and less disruptive than David’s wandering around the room or talking to Angelina. Third, the intervention requires that David stay in his seat rather than walk to the teacher’s desk. This eliminates the potential for him to wander around the room. Once David has successfully demonstrated his ability to stay on task for two minutes, his teacher will gradually increase the time that he is required to work, with the goal of maintaining on-task behavior for the entire independent work period.

This intervention addresses the primary function of David’s behavior (i.e., to avoid work). The team expects that the intervention, by keeping David engaged in his work, will also address the secondary function of his behavior (to seek attention). If the data show that the intervention is working, the teacher will continue to implement it. If, however, his problem behavior remains unchanged or increases, the team will modify his intervention. This intervention addresses the primary function of David’s behavior (i.e., to avoid work).

The team summarizes the information above into a function-based intervention plan. This becomes a tool to effectively communicate the basic information necessary to implement and monitor the intervention. Click here to view David’s function-based intervention plan.