functional behavior assessment hypothesis statement example

• Learning Modules
• About the Project
• Project Resources

Functional Behavior Assessment

• Overview of Functional Behavior Assessment
• Step 1 Planning
• Step 2.1 Collect baseline data using direct and indirect assessment methods
• Step 2.2 Gather observation-based data on the occurrence of the interfering behavior
• Step 2.3a Identify variables of the behavior

Step 2.3b Create a hypothesis statement for the purpose of the behavior

• Step 2.3c Test the hypothesis (behavior) statement
• Step 2.4 Develop a behavior intervention plan (BIP)
• Practice Scenarios: Implementing FBA
• Knowledge Check
• Step 3 Monitoring Progress
• Module Resources

Create a hypothesis (behavior) statement

A hypothesis statement should be based upon the assessment results and describes the best guess of the purpose of the behavior in sufficient detail. That is, what is the behavior trying to tell us? Analyzing assessment data helps  team members  identify patterns or behaviors across time and settings. Often times, patterns of behavior and the possible reasons for the behaviors will be obvious; however, at other times, the behavior patterns may be subtle and difficult to identify. When this occurs, additional data might need to be gathered to guide the development of a behavior statement. 

Team members develop a behavior statement for the interfering behavior that includes:

• the setting events, immediate antecedents, and immediate consequences that surround the interfering behavior
• a restatement and refinement of the description of the interfering behavior that is occurring
• the purpose the behavior serves (i.e., get/obtain, escape/avoid)

Example hypothesis (behavior) statement:

“Tino falls onto the floor, screaming and crying, when asked to clean up his toys, and he is then taken to his room where his mom rocks him on the rocking chair to calm him down.”

• Printer-friendly version

This project is a program of the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill .

Special Educator Academy

Free resources, ep. 13: how to write useful fba hypothesis statements.

Sharing is caring!

Welcome back and I am so glad that you have joined us again. We are talking about behavior, which I know is an issue for many of us in special education classrooms. I am Chris Reeve, I’m your host and up to now we’ve taken our data, we have gathered all of our information and today we’re going to start getting to the good stuff because we’re starting to get to the point where we’re going to look at why in the world is this behavior happening in the first place and what are we going to do about it

You also will see a number of visual examples that I obviously cannot give you on a podcast, so that may make it a little bit easier. So you can go to the blog post and you can see all the different examples of hypothesis statements, download the template and you’ll also be able to download a transcript or read this if you would rather make sense of it that way. It gets a little interesting when I start to talk about these things without any visuals, because you know how I love visuals. So let me give you just a quick disclaimer as well.

SYNTHESIZE FBA INFORMATION

I’m going to give you hypothesis statements in this podcast and I’m going to kind of give you a summary of the information about the student’s behavior. It’s going to sound like those instances came from one instance, but they didn’t.

We have to triangulate all of our information, our information from staff, our information from families, our data collection, our record review, all the things we’ve talked about up until this point are going to go into that hypothesis statement. So they are all very important and I’m going to pick up from where we’ve triangulated all that information. We’ve got some idea about some setting events, we’ve seen what happens before, we’ve seen what happens afterwards and put it in kind of a compilation. So it isn’t as easy as I make it sound because as I often say, human behavior is just not simple. But when you just hear me talk about it, the cases kind of sound like I’m just picking out one instance. I’m not picking out a single episode of behavior, I’m using a composite of all the different information. So let’s get started.

BUILDING EFFECTIVE HYPOTHESIS STATEMENTS

We’re now moving into step 3 in our 5-step process of meaningful behavioral support and that is really developing our hypothesis statements. Now keep in mind that a hypothesis is a best guess. We don’t know that this is what’s actually driving the behavior until we confirm our hypothesis and I’ll be talking about that later in the series and how we can do that. Because you can do it when you develop them and you can test them more likely you will develop interventions that address them and see if they work when we’re within a school setting.

We want to make sure that when we are developing our hypothesis statements that we are clearly tying them to the data that we’re not getting lost in our interviews and things like that. We want to make sure that we’re accounting for that interview and that less objective information, but that we are making sure that our data is solidly supporting our hypothesis. That’s why we took it.

FREE DOWNLOAD OF GRAPHIC ORGANIZER

Writing our hypothesis statements is critical to the success of the intervention plan because they should lead you to what your behavioral solutions are going to be and in the blog post that goes with today’s podcast, you will find a download that you can get that actually structures your hypothesis statements.

One of the things that I like about using this hypothesis statement structure is I can take my antecedent information and my setting event information and put it in one block. Then my behavior goes in the next block and how the environment is responding or what’s happening in the environment comes afterwards. So it’s very easy to take my ABCs and translate them into this. I can then take this set up and say, when this happens he is likely to engage in this behavior and in the environment this commonly happens if that’s what my data tech trends are telling me.

That then allows me to take those antecedents and make adjustments to the environment so that we can prevent the behavior from happening. It allows me to know if he start off with smaller behaviors, that should be an indicator to me that something bigger is coming, then I should intervene earlier and it lets me know what do we need to change about how we react or respond to the behavior or what’s happening in the environment after the behavior so that we can reduce the reinforcement to it. And all of that gets directly mapped onto the hypothesis from the hypothesis statement. So go to autismclassroomresources/episode13 and download the hypothesis statement graphic and it will walk you through how to put that together. And you can also download a transcript and you can also read this post if you’d rather do that rather than listening.

WHAT GOES INTO A HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT

So let’s talk for a few minutes about what goes into your hypothesis statement.

SETTING EVENTS

One is the setting events. So that leads us to how do we eliminate or reduce the impact of distant factors that might influence the behavior. So our setting events in our hypothesis. He is more likely to engage in this behavior when X, Y, and Z, tell us we need to address X, Y, and Z in some way. Now as we’ve said in  episode 11  we cannot always make X, Y and Z go away. If I could make him sleep through the night, I’d do it.

But I do know that maybe I can modify what I ask you to do on a day when you didn’t sleep well at night, or a day that you don’t feel well, or a day that you didn’t take your medicine. Maybe I modify my demands. Maybe I have you participate in group activities less. And that’s where that brainstorming process that we’ll talk about when we get to intervention plans becomes really key. But your setting events are going to tell you what you need to try to accommodate for if you cannot change it.

ANTECEDENTS

Your antecedents are going to lead us to to know exactly how to restructure the environment to prevent the behavior.

Our behavior tells us whether or not the form of the behavior is relevant to the function. So does he only scream and get attention, but when he hits people ignore him. Probably what happened the other way around, but it is the form related to the function. Most of the time, it’s not in my experience, but it is possible that you will have a student that engages one kind of behavior. Because people may come to him sometimes and another type of behavior because it gets people to go away.

CONSEQUENCES

The consequence tells us what might be maintaining the behavior. So we need to know how we need to change our response to try to prevent the behavior from increasing over time. So when we use the graphic organizer for the hypothesis statements, we have three boxes. When the student and we fill that in, he will. That’s the behavior. And as a result this happens. And the setting events kind of go over that. So when this situation is in place, when this student does this or encounters this, he engages in this behavior and this is what happens in the environment.

FBA HYPOTHESES STATEMENT EXAMPLES

So to give you an example of a hypothesis, when the student, so when faced with situations with social or academic demands, particularly those involving language. So very specific. I’ve been able to take my data and say this almost always happens in situations with social or academic demands, so not other kinds of demands. And those that involve making him practice language related tasks are much more likely to have problem behaviors. The behavior is when faced with those situations, he sometimes, because it’s not every single time hits, screams and or bites others, and then what happens as a result, he is sometimes removed from the situation, the task is delayed by the behavior or staff provides assistance in completing the task. And those are all consequences that often differ based on what situation he’s in and what setting he’s in and things like that, but they were common consequences to this behavior that basically kept him from having to do the activity or delayed it in some way.

INTEGRATE WHAT YOU’VE LEARNED

Now that’s a whole lot more descriptive than a function that just says he engages in this behavior to escape. Because now I know when he’s faced with situations with social or academic demands. in particular, those involving language, we need to maybe include more easy tasks in with our heart, with our language demands. We need to give him, maybe, more breaks during that time.

We know what his behavior is and he does a constellation of behavior. There’s not one specific form of behavior related to this situation and then we need to give him a way to replace this because it is an escape. We need to give him a way to ask for a break, because the result of his behavior is having to be removed or having the task be delayed. It’s essentially escape related. So we want to make sure that we’ve got a replacement behavior that focuses on that. And we will talk about a in a whole episode about replacement behaviors because they aren’t often what many people think they are. But back to task so you can see how that gives me much more specific information about where I’m going to address my behavior intervention plan.

MORE SPECIFIC

Now I may get even more specific. I may say something like…

James appears to engage in challenging behavior to escape from tasks that are difficult for him. Some of these tasks are work-related. Some may be overwhelming or difficult socially, and some may be things that are frustrating for him like waiting. Engaging in significant challenging behaviors serves to gain assistance or removal from these situations effectively.

You may also have,

James sometimes engages in challenging behavior to protest or express frustration about what not being allowed to have something that he wants.

BEHAVIOR OFTEN HAS MULTIPLE FUNCTIONS

So we know what situations he’s likely to have the problem in. And we also know that his behavior is complex. And you’ve heard me say this throughout this series. Human behavior isn’t simple. And rarely except in very young children occasionally, but rarely ,do we see behavior serving only one function very frequently. We see it having maybe a main function, but also another function.

So often we will see a student who engages in behavior to escape. But when you give him just a break where nobody interacts with them, you continue to see problems because that behavior was also to get attention. So it got him out of the task and it got people engaging with him together. So never think when you’re writing your hypothesis statements that you have to be limited to one function. We will have to pick what we’re going to do when we get to the behavior plan based on that. So our setting events factor into the  “When the student..”  section of the hypothesis and they help us explain why behaviors happen on one day in relation to an antecedent and on another day they don’t.

COMPLEX PROBLEMS HAVE COMPLEX HYPOTHESIS STATEMENTS

So James’ data indicated that the behaviors occurred on some days and not on others. And further investigation into the data showed us that days on which he hadn’t had his medicine were more likely to result in challenging behavior. One solution: make sure he always takes his medicine. We may be able to do that. And I’ve certainly had students that we’ve said, “You know what? Send his medicine to school. We’re happy to give it to him first thing in the morning if they’re having a hard time getting him to take it”. Sometimes even at school, James wouldn’t necessarily take his medicine. He put it in his mouth, he spit it out. Twenty minutes later we’d find out he hadn’t taken it. So, another solution factored into his program and the hypothesis statements:

On days when James has not had his medication, he is and he is presented with a language task, he is likely to engage in these behaviors which then result in being removed from the task.

So maybe on the days when we knew he hasn’t taken his medicine, we adjust our demands so that we might lower that antecedent that sets that behavior off.

MORE EXAMPLES OF HYPOTHESIS STATEMENTS

So let’s look at a few other examples for different kinds of functions.

ESCAPE FUNCTION HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT

So let’s look at Sammy. And Sammy’s data, one of his instances is when has been to more group activities during a day. These behaviors are more likely to occur when he checks his schedule and sees the teacher icon, he falls on the ground and screams. Sometimes he does this when he transitions out of the room for assembly and group activities. So this is kind of my summary of what we see in his data. Sammy screams and cries when the staff tries to redirect him, he screams louder. If given the opportunity to go to a quiet area and calm down, he stopped screaming and he’s calm and the outcome is his staff moves him to the work table or the upcoming activity. His behavior continues.

So that tells us that when we look at Sammie’s behavior,

Sammy appears to engage in challenging behaviors to escape from tasks that are difficult for him. Some of these tasks are work-related, some may be overwhelming or difficult socially and some may be things that are frustrating for him like waiting. Engaging in significant challenging behavior serves to gain assistance or removal from these situations effectively. Sammy is more likely to engage in these behaviors when he’s had a lot of group work during the day.

So I put my setting event kind of at the end of that one. But you can see it’s obviously an escape from work and social situations that is the real underlying function. But I now know that there are certain tasks that I need to adjust to prevent the behaviors. I can teach him a way to escape appropriately as a replacement behavior.

And my outcome needs to be that the behavior doesn’t get him out of the task as quickly as the replacement behavior. And we’ll talk about all of that more when we talk about behavior support plans. But I want you to understand how it all lines up.

ESCAPING FROM WHAT?

Let’s think about Simon. Simon has had several instances talking to his friends in the atrium of the high school. And suddenly in the middle of the conversation he started telling the other kids that he was going to kill them. tThe other kids left him alone and went to tell the teacher. So let’s think about the function for Simon or the hypothesis…

When presented with unstructured social interactions, which is when Simon is in the atrium of the school, there’s nobody there setting up interactions. Simon’s violent threats have been successful in extricating him from the social situation and escaping from the social demands.

So what we’re saying is that he is trying to escape social situations. Unstructured social situations set him up to have these behaviors, and this is a very efficient manner of getting people to leave him alone. So I now know that maybe I need to structure his social interactions a little bit more. I need to teach him a better way to get people to leave him alone more appropriately. And then we need to work on probably some underlying social skills as part of that as well.

ESCAPE FUNCTION WITH SETTING EVENT

Let’s look at Jimmy. Jimmy was playing with the other kids on the playground and they were playing horse with the basketball and when it was Jimmy’s Turney missed the basket. The other kids told him he got the letter S and the teacher, her, Bobby, tell him better luck next time and slap him on the back. Okay, very common. Hey, I’m trying to make you feel better kind of activity kind of behavior. Jimmy then hit Bobby and they got into a fight. When the playground supervisor asked what happened, Jimmy told her Bobby was bullying him. When we looked at Jimmy’s data, we found a large pattern of difficulty in social situations as the antecedent and that he was interpreting the perspectives when we talked to other kids that he was accusing of bullying him or fighting with them. He would tell them that, that they had done something.

And all of the things that he described were things that, from the perspective of the person who did them, were meant to be supportive, not problematic. So in knowing Jimmy and everything we know about Jimmy, we know that Jimmy has significant difficulty interpreting the perspectives of others and therefore understanding their intentions in his environment. He frequently interprets their behavior as a negative action toward himself. So….

When presented with an action, he interprets it negatively and he responds in a way to escape from that situation.

So he gets removed from the situation because he’s fighting. It gets him removed from the difficult situation. And so we’ve got an escape from social situations, but there’s an underlying setting event of not understanding the perspectives of other people.

And this is something we see a lot with our students with autism, that social piece is a big piece, but it’s also something I see a lot with students who have other types of disabilities other than autism where people aren’t necessarily picking up on the social thinking and the social perspective piece of it because they don’t have that diagnosis. So keep that in mind as we’re working with some of our students with emotional disturbances and things like that.

TANGIBLE SEEKING FUNCTION

Let’s look at two more. It’s time for Jimmy to be doing some math seat work and instead he gets up and he runs to the computer, he sits down and when the teacher tries to move him back to his desk, he throws himself on the floor and kicks her. So in this case we’ve got a kid who clearly wants something that he can’t have. It’s time to do work. And so he’s going to that thing that he wants and he’s behaving this way until it ends up being his term. So we’ve got an obtaining function of a tangible item.

Jimmy is highly interested in the computer when presented with a situation in which he has to wait his turn on the computer, he falls on the floor and kicks and screams until it is his turn.

AUTOMATIC FUNCTION HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT

Now let’s look at one has an automatic function because I think that’s a really hard one to focus on. Abe engages in a variety of repetitive movements throughout the day, including hitting his forehead and head with his hand. He will engage in these behaviors when there are no demands and there is no one to attend to him. These behaviors appear more frequently during downtime and appear to provide some type of internal reinforcement. So they occur more likely when people are not around and the staff report that he seems calmer after he hits himself. tTt’s kind of a summary of Abe. Our automatic reinforcement hypothesis might be… when asked to wait or left to work independently or without someone specifically engaging him.

Because remember, we can only have an automatic function if it would happen when nothing else is there and no one is around because that means there are no other factors.That’s the way we rule it out. It can’t simply be, we don’t know what the function is. So we think it’s automatic. It’s automatic, which some people call a sensory function. I think that’s a little misleading. And I talk about all of that in our  episode on functions,  which I’ll link in the show notes, but we really want to make sure that our antecedent is that he’s kind of left alone with nothing to do.

The behavior is that he frequently hits his head with his fist and following this behavior, his demeanor appears calmer. If stopped, he’ll begin to hit himself harder and scream. So that’s kind of our consequence for that behavior. So our hypothesis might be…

Abe engages in a variety of repetitive movements throughout the day, including hitting his forehead and head with his hand. He will engage in these behaviors when there are no demands and there is no one around to attend to him.   These behaviors appear more frequently during downtime and appear to provide some type of internal reinforcement. His demeanor appears calmer after completing them.

So that tells us that if we lead Abe alone, we need to give him something to do that he will engage with because not having that is going to be a trigger for the automatic self injury behavior. We know that when he does this, we need to engage him in something so that the behaviors decrease rather than simply trying to stop him. So this then leads us to what our behavior support plan is.

HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT DO AND DON’TS

So I want to finish just with a few do’s and don’ts about hypothesis statements. You want to make sure that you do include as much information as possible. I realized that when I talk about hypothesis statements, some people will think that they’re kind of wordy, but I find that wordy to be a good summary of the function of the behavior that can lead us directly into our behavior support plan. And I’ll talk in our next episode of how we do that.

How you write the hypothesis statements for your functional behavior assessment is critical to how strong your behavior support plan will be.

HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT DOS

Do: only describe what you can see and observe..

And we talked about that when we talked about  the data collection . And so I’ll link to that episode. But earlier in the series we’ve talked about the fact that if I can’t see it, I don’t know that it’s happened and so I really have to focus on the behaviors that I see.

DO: INCLUDE SETTING EVENTS

You want to make sure that we do include our setting events into our hypothesis statements because they are things we’re going to have to address in our behavior support plan.

DO: VERIFY HYPOTHESIS STATEMENTS

And so one thing that we can do is set up a situation similar to the thing that we think is setting off and reinforcing the behavior and see if it happens. So if the behavior is not self-injurious or really dangerous, then we could actually set up situations, take data and see if the behavior occurs in the situations that we think that they do.

DO: DEVELOP HYPOTHESIS STATEMENTS TIED TO OUR DATA

Another thing that we can do is develop a behavior support plan that we know is tightly tied to our hypotheses and take data to see whether or not the behavior continues. If it does continue that then confirms our hypothesis. If it does continue, then it tells us we need to go back and re look at our hypothesis. So we can use our intervention as our way to verify our hypotheses. But it’s critical when we do that that we make sure that our hypothesis statements and our behavior support plans are very tightly linked. And this format that you can download on the blog page actually will give you that linkage.

HYPOTHESIS STATEMENT DON’TS

So let’s talk about some things you shouldn’t do with your hypothesis statements.

DON’T GET DISTRACTED BY THE FORM OF BEHAVIOR

Don’t get misled by the form of the behavior. In other words, don’t assume that because somebody is biting or eating things that they’re not supposed to have, that it is an automatic reinforcer. Those behaviors can have outward impacts on an antecedent as well. So just because it involves a sense does not mean it’s a sensory function.

DON’T ASSUME FUNCTIONS.

I think a lot of times we assume the automatic and function or the sensory function because we can’t see what the pattern is. But that’s not really a valid way to make that decision as I’ve talked about earlier.

DON’T ASSUME THAT A BEHAVIOR HAS ONLY ONE FUNCTION.

Very frequently, behavior has more than one function and you might have more than one hypothesis. So you might have more than one hypothesis that describes the range of behaviors that the student is showing or the range of situations that the behaviors are occurring in.

DON’T STOP TAKING DATA.

Now you don’t necessarily need to continue to take ABC data unless you really don’t know what your functions are. So if you haven’t been able to come up with a hypothesis statement, you need more data.

If you have a hypothesis statement, take that, make sure you’ve got solid baseline data of how often behaviors are occurring now. You can do that if you’ve been taken ABC data throughout the day. You can do that by adding up the incidents. Then look at taking something like frequency data or duration data to monitor your plan and we’ll talk about that in a future episode. But it’s important that we don’t stop taking the data just because we’ve developed our hypothesis.

So I will be back next week and I will talk more about designing behavior support plans and how we take this information and actually turn it into something that actually may change the behavior of the student in your classroom, which I know is the piece that all of you have been waiting for, but you have to have these pieces in place in order to get to that place. So that will be our next topic and I will give you some examples and we’ll kind of walk through how do you take this information and turn it into that.

If you would like to do a bigger deep dive into behavioral problem solving, I highly encourage you to check out the  Special Educator Academy . That is where you’ll find me. I’m available in our forums to answer questions, provide support and also our behavioral course has a wide variety of data sheets, strategies, videos and information about this entire process and hopefully pulls it all together. And then when there are questions about it, people can come to the community and ask them and we’re all working off of the same page.

You can find more information about the Special Educator Academy at  specialeducatoracademy.com  come try our free 7- day trial and see if it’s for you.

Thank you so much for spending this time with me. I really appreciate it. I hope that this has been helpful in giving you some ideas about formulating hypotheses for your students, and I hope to see you again in our next episode.

I hope that you’re enjoying the podcast and I’d love it if you’d  hop over to iTunes  and leave a review or and or subscribe a so that you will continue to get episodes.

Never Miss An Episode!

Grab a Free Resource

(and get free tips by email)

Training & Professional Development

• On-Site Training
• Virtual Training

Privacy Policy

Disclosures and copyright.

• Core Beliefs

Unlock Unlimited Access to Our FREE Resource Library!

Welcome to an exclusive collection designed just for you!

Our library is packed with carefully curated printable resources and videos tailored to make your journey as a special educator or homeschooling family smoother and more productive.

Functional Behavior Assessment

• First Online: 30 March 2021

Cite this chapter

• Jill M. Harper 3 , 4 ,
• Juliya Krasnopolsky 3 , 4 ,
• Melissa C. Theodore 4 ,
• Christen E. Russell 4 &
• Eris J. Dodds 4  

Part of the book series: Advances in Preventing and Treating Violence and Aggression ((APTVA))

746 Accesses

2 Citations

This chapter discusses approaches to functional behavioral assessment (FBA) within applied settings. The chapter begins with an overview of the FBA process as best practice in the assessment and treatment of challenging behavior. The next section provides a review of FBA methods with a focus on indirect and descriptive assessments. Within this section, common FBA procedures are reviewed, considerations in the selection of FBA methods are discussed, and a summary of relevant literature is provided. The chapter ends with practice guidelines for practitioners and future areas of study for researchers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Alter, P. J., Conroy, M. A., Mancil, G. R., & Haydon, T. (2008). A comparison of functional behavior assessment methodologies with young children: Descriptive methods and functional analysis. Journal of Behavioral Education, 17 (2), 200–219.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, C. M., Rodriguez, B. J., & Campbell, A. (2015). Functional behavior assessment in schools: Current status and future directions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24 (3), 338–371.

Barton-Arwood, S. M., Wehby, J. H., Gunter, P. L., & Lane, K. L. (2003). Functional behavior assessment rating scales: Intrarater reliability with students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 28 (4), 386–400.

Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). Thirty years of research on the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46 (1), 1–21.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Belva, B. C., Hattier, M. A., & Matson, J. L. (2013). Assessment of problem behavior. In Handbook of crisis intervention and developmental disabilities (pp. 123–146). New York: Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts 1. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1 (2), 175–191.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Blood, E., & Neel, R. S. (2007). From FBA to implementation: A look at what is actually being delivered. Education and Treatment of Children, 30 , 67–80.

Borgmeier, C., Horner, R. H., & Koegel, R. L. (2006). An evaluation of the predictive validity of confidence ratings in identifying functional behavioral assessment hypothesis statements. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8 (2), 100–105.

Camp, E. M., Iwata, B. A., Hammond, J. L., & Bloom, S. E. (2009). Antecedent versus consequent events as predictors of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42 (2), 469–483.

Chok, J. T., Harper, J. M., Weiss, M. J., Bird, F. L., & Luiselli, J. K. (2020). Functional analysis: A practitioner’s guide to implementation and training . New York: Elsevier/Academic Press.

Google Scholar  

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.

Book   Google Scholar  

Dracobly, J. D., Dozier, C. L., Briggs, A. M., & Juanico, J. F. (2018). Reliability and validity of indirect assessment outcomes: Experts versus caregivers. Learning and Motivation, 62 , 77–90.

Dufrene, B. A., Kazmerski, J. S., & Labrot, Z. (2017). The current status of indirect functional assessment instruments. Psychology in the Schools, 54 (4), 331–350.

Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18 (1), 99–117.

Ellingson, S. A., Miltenberger, R. G., & Long, E. S. (1999). A survey of the use of functional assessment procedures in agencies serving individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavioral Interventions: Theory & Practice in Residential & Community-Based Clinical Programs, 14 (4), 187–198.

English, C. L., & Anderson, C. M. (2004). Effects of familiar versus unfamiliar therapists on responding in the analog functional analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25 (1), 39–55.

Fee, A., Schieber, E., Noble, N., & Valdovinos, M. G. (2016). Agreement between questions about behavior function, the motivation assessment scale, functional assessment interview, and brief functional analysis of children’s challenging behaviors. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 16 (2), 94.

Floyd, R. G., Phaneuf, R. L., & Wilczynski, S. M. (2005). Measurement properties of indirect assessment methods for functional behavioral assessment: A review of research. School Psychology Review, 34 (1), 58–73.

Fryling, M. J., & Baires, N. A. (2016). The practical importance of the distinction between open and closed-ended indirect assessments. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9 (2), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0115-2

Gable, R. A., Quinn, M. M., Rutherford Jr., R. B., Howell, K. W., & Hoffman, C. C. (1999). Addressing student problem behavior: Part 2. Conducting a functional behavioral assessment (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice.

Gresham, F. M., Watson, T. S., & Skinner, C. H. (2001). Functional behavioral assessment: Principles, procedures, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 30 (2), 156–172.

Hagopian, L. P., Dozier, C. L., Rooker, G. W., & Jones, B. A. (2013). Assessment and treatment of severe problem behavior. In APA handbook of behavior analysis (Translating principles into practice) (Vol. 2, pp. 353–386). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hall, S. S. (2005). Comparing descriptive, experimental and informant-based assessments of problem behaviors. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26 (6), 514–526.

Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problem behavior: Dispelling myths, overcoming implementation obstacles, and developing new lore. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5 (1), 54–72.

Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36 (2), 147–185.

Iwata, B. A., DeLeon, I. G., & Roscoe, E. M. (2013). Reliability and validity of the functional analysis screening tool. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46 (1), 271–284.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27 (2), 197–209.

Iwata, B. A., Pace, G. M., Cowdery, G. E., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1994). What makes extinction work: An analysis of procedural form and function. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27 (1), 131–144.

Johnson, A. H., Goldberg, T. S., Hinant, R. L., & Couch, L. K. (2019). Trends and practices in functional behavior assessments completed by school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 56 (3), 360–377.

Kahng, S., Iwata, B. A., Fischer, S. M., Page, T. J., Treadwell, K. R., Williams, D. E., et al. (1998). Temporal distributions of problem behavior based on scatter plot analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31 (4), 593–604.

Kelley, M. E., LaRue, R., Roane, H. S., & Gadaire, D. M. (2011). Indirect behavioral assessments: Interviews and rating scales. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp.182–190). New York, NY: Guilford.

Lerman, D. C., Hovanetz, A., Strobel, M., & Tetreault, A. (2009). Accuracy of teacher-collected descriptive analysis data: A comparison of narrative and structured recording formats. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18 (2), 157–172.

Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1993). Descriptive and experimental analyses of variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26 (3), 293–319.

Luna, O., Petri, J. M., Palmier, J., & Rapp, J. T. (2018). Comparing accuracy of descriptive assessment methods following a group training and feedback. Journal of Behavioral Education, 27 (4), 488–508.

Maas, A. P., Didden, R., Bouts, L., Smits, M. G., & Curfs, L. M. (2009). Scatter plot analysis of excessive daytime sleepiness and severe disruptive behavior in adults with Prader-Willi syndrome: A pilot study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30 (3), 529–537.

Matson, J. L., & Vollmer, T. R. (1995). The questions about behavioral function (QABF) user’s guide . Baton Rouge, LA: Scientific Publishers.

Matson, J. L., Kuhn, D. E., Dixon, D. R., Mayville, S. B., Laud, R. B., Cooper, C. L., et al. (2003). The development and factor structure of the Functional Assessment for multiple CausaliTy (FACT). Research in Developmental Disabilities, 24 (6), 485–495.

Matson, J. L., & Wilkins, J. (2008). Reliability of the autism spectrum disorders-comorbid for children (ASD-CC). Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 20 (4), 327–336.

Mayer, G. R., Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Wallace, M. (2014). Behavior analysis for lasting change (3rd ed.). Cornwall-on-Hudson, NY: Sloan Publishing.

Mayer, K. L., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2013). Effects of a training package to improve the accuracy of descriptive analysis data recording. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 33 (4), 226–243.

Neidert, P. L., Rooker, G. W., Bayles, M. W., & Miller, J. R. (2013). Functional analysis of problem behavior. In Handbook of crisis intervention and developmental disabilities (pp. 147–167). New York: Springer.

O’Neil, R. E., Horner, R. H., Ablin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment and program development for problem behaviors: A practical handbook . New York: Brooks/Cole.

Oliver, A. C., Pratt, L. A., & Normand, M. P. (2015). A survey of functional behavior assessment methods used by behavior analysts in practice. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48 (4), 817–829.

Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S., Smalls, Y., & Vollmer, T. R. (2000). Questions about behavioral function (QABF): A behavioral checklist for functional assessment of aberrant behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21 (3), 223–229.

Payne, L. D., Scott, T. M., & Conroy, M. (2007). A school-based examination of the efficacy of function-based intervention. Behavioral Disorders, 32 (3), 158–174.

Pence, S. T., Roscoe, E. M., Bourret, J. C., & Ahearn, W. H. (2009). Relative contributions of three descriptive methods: Implications for behavioral assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42 (2), 425–446.

Rooker, G. W., DeLeon, I. G., Borrero, C. S., Frank-Crawford, M. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (2015). Reducing ambiguity in the functional assessment of problem behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 30 (1), 1–35.

Roscoe, E. M., Phillips, K. M., Kelly, M. A., Farber, R., & Dube, W. V. (2015). A statewide survey assessing practitioners’ use and perceived utility of functional assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48 (4), 830–844.

Saini, V., Ubdegrove, K., Biran, S., & Duncan, R. (2019). A preliminary evaluation of interrater reliability and concurrent validity of open-ended indirect assessment. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13 (1), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00364-3

Scott, T. M., McIntyre, J., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., Conroy, M., & Payne, L. D. (2005). An examination of the relation between functional behavior assessment and selected intervention strategies with school-based teams. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7 (4), 205–215.

Slocum, T. A., Detrich, R., Wilczynski, S. M., Spencer, T. D., Lewis, T., & Wolfe, K. (2014). The evidence-based practice of applied behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 37 (1), 41–56.

Sloman, K. N. (2010). Research trends in descriptive analysis. The Behavior Analyst Today, 11 (1), 20.

Smith, C. M., Smith, R. G., Dracobly, J. D., & Pace, A. P. (2012). Multiple-respondent anecdotal assessments: An analysis of interrater agreement and correspondence with analogue assessment outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45 (4), 779–795.

Spencer, T. D., Detrich, R., & Slocum, T. A. (2012). Evidence-based practice: A framework for making effective decisions. Education and Treatment of Children, 35 (2), 127–151.

Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Hagan, S. (1998). Using functional assessments to develop behavior support plans. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 43 (1), 6–13.

Tarbox, J., Wilke, A. E., Najdowski, A. C., Findel-Pyles, R. S., Balasanyan, S., Caveney, A. C., et al. (2009). Comparing indirect, descriptive, and experimental functional assessments of challenging behavior in children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 21 (6), 493.

Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2007). A comparison of outcomes from descriptive and functional analyses of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40 (2), 333–338.

Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18 (4), 343–351.

Vollmer, T. R., Borrero, J. C., Wright, C. S., Camp, C. V., & Lalli, J. S. (2001). Identifying possible contingencies during descriptive analyses of severe behavior disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34 (3), 269–287.

Walker, V. L., Chung, Y. C., & Bonnet, L. K. (2018). Function-based intervention in inclusive school settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20 (4), 203–216.

Zaja, R. H., Moore, L., Van Ingen, D. J., & Rojahn, J. (2011). Psychometric comparison of the functional assessment instruments QABF, FACT and FAST for self-injurious, stereotypic and aggressive/destructive behaviour. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 24 (1), 18–28.

Zarcone, J. R., Rodgers, T. A., Iwata, B. A., Rourke, D. A., & Dorsey, M. F. (1991). Reliability analysis of the Motivation Assessment Scale: A failure to replicate. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12 (4), 349–360.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Melmark New England, Andover, MA, USA

Jill M. Harper & Juliya Krasnopolsky

Van Loan School, Endicott College, Beverly, MA, USA

Jill M. Harper, Juliya Krasnopolsky, Melissa C. Theodore, Christen E. Russell & Eris J. Dodds

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill M. Harper .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

James K. Luiselli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Harper, J.M., Krasnopolsky, J., Theodore, M.C., Russell, C.E., Dodds, E.J. (2021). Functional Behavior Assessment. In: Luiselli, J.K. (eds) Applied Behavior Analysis Treatment of Violence and Aggression in Persons with Neurodevelopmental Disabilities . Advances in Preventing and Treating Violence and Aggression . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68549-2_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68549-2_2

Published : 30 March 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-68548-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-68549-2

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Unauthorized Request

Unauthorized activity detected.

• Enroll & Pay
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Degree Programs

Functional Behavioral Assessment

Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is a process used to gather details about the events that predict and maintain a student's problem behavior. The purpose of the FBA is to provide information that will be used to design effective positive behavior support plans. To support a student who is engaging in problem behaviors in your classroom, it is important to consider the reasons why a student may be engaging in problem behavior. Behaviors are not repeated unless they serve a function for the student. 

Why Do Students Engage in Problem Behavior?

Although there are many reasons why a student may engage in problem behavior, they fall into two major categories: to avoid or escape something unpleasant and to obtain something desirable. For instance, a student may try to escape from a difficult or boring task by becoming disruptive in class because he knows the teacher will send him to the office for misbehaving. In other situations, a student tells jokes and makes funny noises during independent seat work because she is seeking attention from her teacher and peers. In this way, problem behavior can be seen as a form of communication. It is the student's way of telling others that he or she is tired, bored, needs a break, and/or wants attention.    Some students do not have the skills to communicate and have learned over time that engaging in problem behavior results in desirable outcomes. Students may also engage in problem behavior even though they know how to communicate in more appropriate ways because problem behavior is usually more effective and efficient for them. Imagine a student who raises his hand to gain his teacher's attention but the teacher doesn't respond because she is busy working on another task. However, when the student yells loudly, the teacher immediately turns around, tells him to be quiet, and asks what he wants. If the teacher responds this way frequently, over time, the student will learn that the most efficient and effective way to get the teacher's attention is to engage in problem behavior.    Problem behavior may occur in order to escape from or obtain internal events as well. In some cases, students with too much energy are unable to sit still or participate in class. Students with developmental disabilities may engage in repetitive behaviors (including rocking, eye poking, or self-injury) which are maintained by internal physiological factors. Students with mental health concerns or students with physiological factors who maintaining problem behaviors can still benefit from a FBA. Although the behaviors in these cases may not be maintained by social situations or events, the environment still has an impact on the frequency and intensity of problem behavior. By understanding the variables within the environment that are associated with positive social interactions, students show lower levels of problem behavior, which leads to a higher quality of life for the student. This can help your student's team build an effective  PBS plan .    Sometimes, a student's behavior may initially be maintained by physiological factors, but over time the student learns that his behavior has an impact on the environment. For instance, a small child with an earache may strike at her ears with her fist because it decreases the pain she is experiencing. The student's self-injury results in immediate concern from his teacher who provides comfort and high levels of positive attention. Once the earache is gone, the student may still strike at her head because she knows her teacher will give her immediate comfort and attention. 

How is a Functional Behavioral Assessment Completed?

A FBA is not completed in the same way every time. The type of information that is collected varies depending upon the individual student's problem behavior, strengths, and needs. In some cases, specific tools are needed in a FBA to collect information about medications, sleeping patterns, or social and interactional skills. The level of complexity needed to complete a FBA varies as well. A teacher may conduct a simple and time efficient FBA to better understand a student's minor disruptive behaviors. However, a student who engages in serious aggression or self-injury at home, in school, and in the community may need higher levels of support from his teacher, parents, and other important people in his life. In this case, the FBA may require more time and energy to complete. Even though the FBA tools and level of intensity vary, the process remains the same.    The FBA is considered complete when the following products have been documented:

• a clear and measurable definition of the problem behavior
• events that predict when problem behaviors will occur and will not occur
• consequences that maintain problem behaviors
• one or more hypotheses about the function maintaining problem behavior
• direct observations data supporting the hypotheses.

  Hypothesis Statements The hypothesis about the function maintaining a student's problem behavior is a very important outcome of the FBA. The hypothesis statement starts with any setting events that increase the likelihood of problem behavior that have been identified in the FBA. 

Setting Events

Antecedents(Triggers)

Problem Behavior

Consequences

Setting events affect how a student will respond to situations by temporarily increasing or decreasing reinforcers in the environment. For instance, a classroom activity a student usually enjoys may not be as reinforcing right before the holidays. Math class may be difficult for a student who has a learning disability, but on most days the student copes well. However, on days when this particular student has a bad headache, the presentation of math problems may be more aversive than usual. Setting events can occur immediately before a problem behavior or days in advance. Some setting events are obvious while other setting events can be more difficult to identify. For example, the death of a close family member that occurred before school started can increase the likelihood the student will engage in problem behavior a few months later when school starts. Setting events can be social (e.g. arguments), physiological (e.g. illness), or environmental (e.g. noisy or crowded rooms). 

Events that directly precede and serve as a "trigger" for a problem behavior are called antecedents. Antecedents serve as cues signaling when a behavior will be reinforced. A substitute teacher can sometimes be an antecedent for problem behavior. In this situation, the presence of someone other than the students' teacher signals that talking loudly, pretending to have homework already turned in, and off task behavior in general will be reinforced, allowing the students to escape from their school work. Antecedents can be related to the physical setting, materials, time of day or social situations. Examples of common antecedents include verbal demands, criticism, teasing, the absence of attention, and the presence or absence of specific people, materials, or events. The difference between an antecedent and a setting event is that setting events increase the likelihood that an antecedent will trigger problem behavior.   

One or more problem behaviors identified within a hypothesis statement may be maintained by the same function. Sometimes problem behaviors occur in a chain with less intense behaviors (complaining, tapping pencil loudly, placing head on desk) starting first and leading to more serious problem behavior (shouting, throwing pencil or books, pushing desk over). This important information can be used to intervene early in an escalating sequence of problem behaviors. 

A student's problem behavior may increase to obtain or avoid something. Consequences are the events that directly follow a behavior. Toys, praise, physical attention, and even "negative" attention are examples of events or items that may be identified as reinforcers. These events, items, or people immediately following a behavior are considered positive reinforcers if behavior increases when the consequence is presented. A behavior can also be reinforced by escaping or avoiding an event, item, or activity. If the consequence following a behavior results in escape or avoidance of events, items, or activities and behavior increases, it is referred to as negative reinforcement. Punishment, on the other hand, results in a decrease in behavior. A common mistake is to assume that a consequence is punishing for a student without considering whether the student's behavior is increasing or decreasing when the consequence is presented. The use of consequences such as time out, detention, and in-school suspension may actually be increasing the likelihood of problem behavior for students who engage in problem behavior to escape class or obtain attention from teachers and peers.    At times, there is not a clear social function for problem behavior. In these situations, internal sensory feedback can be positively or negatively reinforcing a person's problem behavior. Behaviors that continue to occur when the students are alone or occur across many situations and settings are sometimes maintained by internal reinforcers. 

Functional Behavioral Assessment Process

The process for conducting a FBA involves three different types of strategies: indirect assessment, direct observation, and functional analysis. These activities are completed by a team, including the teacher (or teachers), the student, parents, and other important individuals. A team approach ensures that the FBA gathers accurate information that reflects the perspectives of the student and the people within his or her social network. Sharing responsibilities for completing a more complicated FBA can reduce stress for any one person in the group. Schools who are implementing school-wide PBS often embed the FBA and PBS planning process into already existing student support teams. 

Indirect Assessment

Indirect assessment strategies are often the first type of FBA strategy conducted and involve a combination of activities including:

Interviews Interviews with key people are used to determine the concerns and perspectives about the student and to begin identifying the events associated with the occurrence and nonoccurrence of problem behavior. Teachers who are reporting that the student engages in problem behavior in their classrooms are interviewed to gather initial information. However, teachers who indicate the student does not engage in problem behavior in their classes may also be able to share important details about the setting, teaching strategies, or other characteristics of the class that result in the student's success. The student (whenever possible), parents, and others are also interviewed to gain their perspectives.    Record reviews Reviewing a student's academic, behavioral, and psychological reports provides information that can uncover important information about possible setting events, social skills, issues related to quality of life, and academic strengths and problems.    Checklists and questionnaires A variety of checklists and questionnaires are available which assist in the FBA. Quality of life measures highlight the social aspects of the individual's life that may need attention. Checklists and rating scales related to social skills and problem behavior provide insight into the function maintaining the student's problem behavior.

• interviews,
• record reviews, and
• checklists and questionnaires

Indirect assessment measures should be used in combination with direct observation methods.    Direct Observation Direct observations of a student should be used to develop and support the hypothesis you have about why problem behaviors are occurring. Often, direct observations include gathering information about when problem behavior occurs, what happens right before problem behavior (e.g., antecedent triggers), what problem behavior looks like, and how people respond to the occurrence of problem behavior (e.g., consequences). There are many types of direct observation methods available. Here are some common strategies for collecting direct observation data.

Scatter plot A method called the scatter plot is frequently used to collect information about a problem behavior during specific time intervals across the day. The scatter plot helps identify whether problem behaviors occur at predictable time periods. This information can be used to identify specific routines and settings where interventions might occur.    ABC Chart The Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) chart is used to record descriptive information while observing a student in natural classroom, recess, lunch, home, or community settings. The ABC chart assists in the development and confirmation of the hypothesis statement.    Direct measures of behavior Measurement methods can include recording the frequency, duration, latency, and intensity of problem behavior. Permanent products refer to a result of the behavior that can be measured. For instance, the number of assignments turned in to the teacher or completed office referral forms are examples of permanent products. Direct measures of behavior collected during the FBA process are often used later to compare with measures of a problem behavior once an intervention has been implemented. If there is a decrease in problem behavior or increase in adaptive behavior compared to the data collected during the FBA (the baseline data), there is support for the PBS plan's effectiveness.

Functional analysis

A "functional analysis" systematically tests hypotheses by manipulating the events that are thought to be associated with the occurrence of problem behavior. A functional analysis is a formal test of the relationship between environmental events and problem behavior. Each event that is suspected to contribute to the occurrence of a problem behavior is presented by itself while controlling other possible sources of variance. Researchers often use this approach because it is the most rigorous way to test a hypothesis about the function maintaining problem behavior.    To conduct a FBA effectively, combining indirect assessment with either direct observational strategies or functional analysis is necessary. Interviews, checklists, and rating scales may seem to save time. Unfortunately, the information gathered can be highly subjective and inaccurate. Without more objective methods to verify the indirect assessment information, your FBA will be incomplete. In most applied situations, a combination of indirect assessment and direct observation data will provide the information necessary to support your hypothesis.    If you have not completed an FBA before, the best way to learn how to use the tools in this module is to find someone who has a background and expertise in positive behavior support or applied behavior analysis. Ask this person to coach you as you complete your first FBA. This person can help you learn more about the FBA process and teach you how to make decisions about when a functional analysis may be necessary.    Developed by: Rachel Freeman University of Kansas