Functional analysis: what have we learned in 85 years?

Postepy psychiatrii neurologii Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-20 DOI:10.5114/ppn.2024.135277
Monika Suchowierska-Stephany
{"title":"Functional analysis: what have we learned in 85 years?","authors":"Monika Suchowierska-Stephany","doi":"10.5114/ppn.2024.135277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Even though the term \"functional analysis\" (FA) is prevalent in the current behavioral literature, the concept and process have roots in the early days of basic research in behavior analysis. Furthermore, the methodology developed in the field of FA has been one of the most significant advances in research on challenging behaviors over the past four decades. The current article reviews the history of the term \"functional analysis\" and research related to experimental FA. The aim is to summarize what the field of behavior analysis has learned about this powerful methodology.</p><p><strong>Views: </strong>FA is considered a gold standard of functional assessment. However, several arguments about limitations relating to methodological issues in FA and its ecological validity have been put forward. Some of these shortcomings include constraints on the time available for assessment, the risk posed by severe problem behavior, and the inability to exert tight control over environmental conditions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The literature on the subject clearly shows that refinements have been aimed not only at improving some of the methodological characteristics of FA but also at adapting the strategy for real-world application. Practical functional assessment (known as interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis [IISCA]) is a contemporary approach to assessing and treating problem behavior. Recent research on IISCA offers empirical support for the practical functional assessment and skill-based treatment model, confirming that it can obtain sustainable and socially meaningful reductions in problem behavior. Nevertheless, more research is needed to address procedural variations in, and the utility and social validity of, IISCA.</p>","PeriodicalId":74481,"journal":{"name":"Postepy psychiatrii neurologii","volume":"32 4","pages":"188-199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10976622/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postepy psychiatrii neurologii","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ppn.2024.135277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Even though the term "functional analysis" (FA) is prevalent in the current behavioral literature, the concept and process have roots in the early days of basic research in behavior analysis. Furthermore, the methodology developed in the field of FA has been one of the most significant advances in research on challenging behaviors over the past four decades. The current article reviews the history of the term "functional analysis" and research related to experimental FA. The aim is to summarize what the field of behavior analysis has learned about this powerful methodology.

Views: FA is considered a gold standard of functional assessment. However, several arguments about limitations relating to methodological issues in FA and its ecological validity have been put forward. Some of these shortcomings include constraints on the time available for assessment, the risk posed by severe problem behavior, and the inability to exert tight control over environmental conditions.

Conclusions: The literature on the subject clearly shows that refinements have been aimed not only at improving some of the methodological characteristics of FA but also at adapting the strategy for real-world application. Practical functional assessment (known as interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis [IISCA]) is a contemporary approach to assessing and treating problem behavior. Recent research on IISCA offers empirical support for the practical functional assessment and skill-based treatment model, confirming that it can obtain sustainable and socially meaningful reductions in problem behavior. Nevertheless, more research is needed to address procedural variations in, and the utility and social validity of, IISCA.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
功能分析:85 年来我们学到了什么?
目的:尽管 "功能分析"(FA)一词在当前的行为学文献中十分流行,但其概念和过程却起源于早期的行为分析基础研究。此外,在过去的四十年里,功能分析领域所开发的方法是挑战性行为研究中最重要的进展之一。本文回顾了 "功能分析 "一词的历史以及与实验性功能分析相关的研究。目的是总结行为分析领域对这一强大方法的认识:观点:功能分析被认为是功能评估的黄金标准。然而,人们也提出了一些有关功能分析方法论问题及其生态学有效性局限性的论点。其中一些缺陷包括评估时间的限制、严重问题行为带来的风险以及无法对环境条件进行严格控制:有关这一主题的文献清楚地表明,改进的目的不仅在于改善功能评估方法的某些特点,还在于使这一策略适应现实世界的应用。实用功能评估(即访谈信息综合或然分析法 [IISCA])是当代评估和治疗问题行为的一种方法。有关 IISCA 的最新研究为实用功能评估和技能治疗模式提供了实证支持,证实该模式可以持续减少问题行为,并具有社会意义。然而,还需要进行更多的研究,以解决 IISCA 在程序上的差异以及其实用性和社会有效性问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pathology and treatment methods in pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration. Secretome - the role of extracellular vesicles in the pathogenesis and therapy of neurodegenerative diseases. Severe headache as the first presentation of post-COVID-19 brain and spinal cord injury resembling neurosarcoidosis. The effect of denosumab vs. zoledronic acid in preventing skeletal-related events, including pain-related bone metastasis: a systematic review. Communication issues in co-occurring ADHD and autism spectrum disorders. Evaluative approaches and targeted interventions: mini review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1