Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The use and perceptions of experimental analysis in assessing problem behavior of public education students: the interview - informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA)
(USC Thesis Other)
The use and perceptions of experimental analysis in assessing problem behavior of public education students: the interview - informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA)
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
1
The Use and Perceptions of Experimental Analysis in Assessing Problem Behavior of Public
Education Students: The Interview - Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA)
by
Jeffrey Salmons
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2024
Copyright 2024 Jeffrey Salmons
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
2
Acknowledgements
To my wife, sons, parents, and the rest of my family, I want to express my deepest gratitude.
We did it. Without your love, support, and encouragement this would not be possible. This
achievement is as much yours as it is mine.
To my wife, Nelsy, you have been everything to me during our journey. You believe in me
more than I can see in myself. Your sacrifices and unwavering efforts provided me with the
motivation to continue on. I am grateful to have you by my side.
To my sons, Quincy and Presley, you both inspire me every day. You both have been so
understanding and patient with my absences. Being your father fills me with love and purpose.
You are my greatest accomplishments. I am grateful to have you as my sons.
To my father, Raymond, thank you for not just teaching me how to be a father but showing
me. The work ethic you have modeled has played a significant role in my current and ongoing
success. I am grateful to have you as my father and to be your son.
Last but not least, to my mother, Bonnie Jane, thank you for the love and joy you have
given to my life. You taught me the importance of family, sacrifice, education, and putting others
before yourself. I am who I am because of you. I am grateful to have you as my mother and to be
your son.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Table of Contents 3
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Introduction 7
Literature Review 9
Theoretical Foundations 16
Positionality 19
Methods 20
Research Questions 20
Context of the Study 21
Participants 20
Instrumentation 23
Data Collection 23
Data Analysis 26
Findings 26
Research Question 1: To what extent can school staff be trained to implement the IISCA
with fidelity in a public school setting? 27
Research Question 2: What are school district practitioner’s perceptions on the IISCA
implementation as part of the FBA procedures? 34
Discussion and Implications 36
Recommendations 39
Limitations 41
Conclusion 43
References 44
APPENDIX A 49
APPENDIX B 51
APPENDIX C 54
APPENDIX D 57
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
4
List of Tables
Table 1: IISCA Facilitator Characteristics 21
Table 2: Student Participant Characteristics 23
Table 3: Topographies of Problem Behavior and Precursor 32
Table 4: IISCA Control and Test Conditions 33
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
5
List of Figures
Figure 1: Interview - Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) for Adrian 29
Figure 2: Interview - Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) for Nixon 30
Figure 3: Interview - Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) for George 32
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
6
Abstract
This study applies a mixed method approach in demonstrating the Interview - Informed
Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) from newly trained public-school staff and
understanding their perceptions of using this analysis. The first purpose was to demonstrate the
IISCA within the public education environment. Upon completion of training and demonstration
of competency, the newly trained school staff called IISCA facilitators implemented the IISCA
with student participants referred for behavior treatment. The second purpose is to understand the
unique perspective of the IISCA facilitators on the IISCA implementation. Once IISCA
facilitators completed the IISCA, an open - ended interview was conducted. Findings proved that
after specific training school staff can effectively implement the IISCA within the public-school
setting. Additionally, IISCA facilitators reported the IISCA to be a benefit to the behavior
assessment and were open to future use. This study illustrates a practical application in
improving the behavior assessment of students in public education.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
7
The Use and Perceptions of Experimental Analysis in Assessing Problem Behavior of
Public Education Students: The Interview - Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis
(IISCA)
One of the initial steps in dignifying students engaging in problem behavior is a
Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA). The FBA is used to identify the variables contributing
to the problem behavior, determine the reason (e.g., function) problem behavior is occurring, and
develop a thorough treatment plan to reduce problem behavior while increasing functional skills.
This comprehensive assessment includes 3 broad categories: indirect assessment (e.g.,
interviews, questionnaires, rating scales), descriptive assessment (e.g., direct observations), and
experimental analysis (e.g., Functional Analysis, Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency
Analysis, Structured Descriptive Assessment). Despite the fact that there are no legal or
professional requirements in conducting an FBA, the behavior analytic research is clear on what
constitutes best practice.
The consensus “gold standard” of FBA procedures is known as the standard Functional
Analysis (FA) developed by Iwata and colleagues (1982/1994) (Oliver et al., 2015; Roscoe et al.,
2015). This experimental analysis exposes students to strict environmental conditions where
events occurring immediately before behavior (e.g., antecedents) and events occurring
immediately after behavior (e.g., consequences) are systematically manipulated for the analysis
of problem behavior. Under these experimental conditions, single variables can be assessed in
determining the relationships of environmental variables and problem behavior in 94% of cases
(Beavers et al., 2013). Even though behavior analysts agree the use of experimental analysis are
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
8
fundamental to FBAs, most practitioners exclude these procedures from their assessment
practices (Desrochers, 1997; Johnson et al., 2019; Oliver et al., 2015).
Although research shows that conducting an experimental analysis prior to addressing
problem behavior results in superior treatment outcomes (Jeong & Copeland, 2020), most FBAs
do not include them (Oliver et al., 2015). So, why haven't practitioners aligned FBA practice
with the research necessitating experimental analysis? Common barriers in conducting
experimental analysis included: the time required for completion, lack of space or materials,
organizational policies, and insufficient training (Desrochers, 1997; Oliver et al., 2015). Hanley
(2012) developed an FBA process called the Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency
Analysis (IISCA) which addresses the aforementioned barriers while maintaining efficiency and
experimental control. The IISCA consists of a systematic process that includes an indirect
assessment, brief observation, and concludes with an experimental analysis.
Layman and colleagues (2023) completed a meta-analysis of 39 IISCA articles involving
235 participants finding differentiated results in 96% of studies. Meaning that the IISCA
outcomes are comparable to the “gold standard” FA. The overwhelming majority of participants
(91%) were school-aged, falling between the ages of 3 years old and 19 years old. However,
most analyses were completed outside school environments (e.g., clinical settings, home,
rehabilitation centers, residential). Since much of the participants necessitating behavior
assessment fall in the school-age range and a large portion of their day is spent at school, more
focus should be placed in school environments.
Students with disabilities engaging in problem behavior(s) may pose a direct danger to
themselves or others necessitating the need for a comprehensive FBA. Not only does law require
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
9
an FBA for these students (IDEA; 2004), best practice in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis
(ABA) mandates the use of reliable and valid procedures in conducting FBAs (Anderson &
Long, 2002, Hanley, 2012; Hanley et al., 2003; Lloyd et al., 2016). Results from the FBA
directly inform the Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) which include specific evidence - based
strategies tailored to the unique variables impacting the particular student’s success. Without a
quality FBA as part of the initial steps in reducing problem behavior, students with disabilities
will continue to face disproportionate discipline and poor academic outcomes (Sullivan & Bal.,
2013; Losen et al., 2015).
The purpose of this study is to (a) demonstrate the IISCA procedures outlined by Hanley
(2012) within a public education setting and (b) understand the perceptions of newly trained
school staff practitioners on implementing the IISCA. The study will include two sets of
participants: (1) student participants requiring behavior assessment and (2) school-district
practitioners. This study will utilize a mixed method approach. The IISCA demonstration will be
analyzed quantitatively following a single-subject multielement design. Perceptions of the
participating practitioners will follow a qualitative approach through open - ended interview
questions at the conclusion of the study.
Literature Review
Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) Defined
FBAs are a comprehensive set of procedures which include three broad categories:
indirect assessment, descriptive assessment, and experimental analysis (O’Neill et al., 1996).
Indirect assessments are methods for collecting data without directly observing or interacting
with the individual being assessed such as interviewing caregivers and use of questionnaires or
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
10
rating scales. Descriptive assessments involve the assessor collecting data while observing the
individual in their natural environment. The experimental analysis consists of the purposeful
manipulation of specific environmental variables to determine causal relationships with problem
behavior. Although most practitioners believe that experimental analysis is a necessary
component of any FBA, most practitioners rely solely on indirect and direct assessments (Oliver
et al., 2015; Petursdottir, 2010; Roscoe et al., 2015).
Purpose for Conducting an FBA
Prior to the development of a treatment plan or Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) for
problem behavior, concretely identifying the function (e.g., reason) of the problem behavior is
commonly considered a professional standard of practice (O'Neil et al., 2014). The function of
behavior is the environmental reinforcement received contingent on the engagement of that
particular problem behavior. The common functions (or reasons) for problem behavior are access
to tangible items or activities, attention from others, escape from demands, or automatic
reinforcement (e.g., self - stimulation) (Iwata et al., 1994). The determination of the function
allows for practitioners to develop a function - based BIP to reduce problem behavior and
increase appropriate social behavior (Campbell, 2003; Ingram et al., 2005). Conversely, BIPs
developed without a determined function or misidentified function risk inadvertently increasing
problem behavior. Not only is the assessment of problem behavior a “best practice”, federal law
mandates it for students within education (IDEA; 2004).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 requires that every
student with serious problem behaviors have a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA)
conducted as part of their Individualized Education Plan (IEP). In 2004, IDEA maintained the
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
11
use of FBAs with additional requirements as it pertains to disciplining students with disabilities
and when changing academic placement. Although school districts are legally required to
conduct FBAs, there are no procedural guidelines in how to conduct one (IDEA, 2004; Zirkel,
2011). With inadequate legal guidance and requirements, practitioners should rely on the best
standards of practices from the field of behavior analysis (Collins & Zirkel, 2017).
Fundamental Components of an FBA
As previously stated, Iwata and colleagues (1982/1994) developed the Functional
Analysis (FA), which is accepted as the “gold standard” of FBA practice (Oliver et al., 2015;
Roscoe et al., 2015). This practice has a rich history in the literature consistently demonstrating
scientific control of problem behaviors through reinforcement contingencies and effective
treatment plans (Campbell, 2003, Hayvaert et al., 2012). The FA exposes students to strict
environmental conditions where antecedents and consequences are systematically manipulated
for the analysis of problem behavior. In the most basic form, FAs consist of three fundamental
parts (a) test conditions where a hypothesized reinforcer is delivered contingent on the
occurrence of problem behavior, (b) a control condition where the problem behavior -
reinforcement contingency is absent, (c) the use of a single - subject design (Iwata et al., 1994).
Each participant is examined in four conditions: alone, attention, demand, and play. Under these
experimental conditions, single variables can be assessed in determining functional relationships
of the environment and the problem behavior. In a review of the research, FAs yield over a 90%
singular function identification (Hanley et al., 2003; Beavers et al., 2013; Melanson and Fahmie,
2023). If experimental analysis is the most accurate in identifying the function of problem
behavior, why are practitioners excluding it as part of their FBA design?
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
12
Perceived Barriers to FBA Practice
Oliver, Pratt, and Normand (2015) surveyed 724 Board Certified Behavior Analysts
(BCBAs) on their FBA methods in practice. Findings showed that 90% of the participants rely
on descriptive assessments (e.g., indirect and direct assessments) for conducting FBAs. Even
though this is the more common FBA design, most practitioners do not believe descriptive
assessments are the best method in developing intervention plans (Roscoe et al. 2015). Further,
this descriptive based methodology as the primary methods for the FBA has limited support in
the research literature (Tarbox et al., 2009). In fact, Contreras et al. (2023) found a
correspondence of 50% when comparing FBA results of a descriptive only assessment versus the
results from experimental analysis.
The most common perceived barriers to conducting experimental analysis are lack of
time required to complete, shortage of space or essential materials, perceived complexity, the
likelihood of student harm, and the absence of organizational support (Desrochers et al., 1997;
Oliver et al., 2015; Roscoe et al., 2015). Addressing these perceived barriers is necessary for
experimental analysis to become common FBA practice. Hanley (2012) described an emerging
experimental analysis called the Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA)
as part of the Practical Functional Analysis (PFA) that addresses each perceived barrier.
The Practical Functional Assessment (PFA)
The PFA is a functional assessment process in addressing problem behavior that involves
an (a) indirect assessment, (b) direct observation, (c) IISCA, and (d) the design of an individual
Skills Based Treatment (SBT; Hanley, 2012). The assessment begins with an open - ended
interview with a caregiver and or teacher (e.g., indirect assessment). This is followed by a short
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
13
observation to identify potential variables contributing to the occurrence or continuance of
problem behavior (e.g., direct assessment). The specific information gathered is then utilized in
an alternating condition IISCA. Hanley (2012, 2014) claimed the IISCA maintains experimental
control while maximizing efficiency.
The IISCA is an experimental analysis and a form of an FA that tests the potential
problem behavior and reinforcement contingencies. The main differences between the
experimental approaches are (a) interviews dictate the experimental condition to be assessed (b)
only suspected reinforcement contingencies are assessed in test and control conditions (c)
synthesized (multiple) variables are used (Iwata et al., 1994, Hanley 2012, Hanley et al. 2014).
For example, Hanley et al (2014) detailed the IISCA for Dale, an 11-year old boy with Autism.
The information from parent interview and the short observation indicated that Dale’s problem
behavior was elicited by initiated activities being disrupted by adults, denied requests, and
retaking access to activities. Given this information, the control condition allowed continuous
access to his chosen activities (e.g., watching movies, playing on the computer, conversing on
preferred interests). In this highly reinforcing environment with free access to choice and
absence of demands, problem behaviors are unlikely to occur. For the test condition, the assessor
interrupted continuous access to chosen activities with an instruction to complete homework
(e.g., math, reading, writing). If Dale engaged in any problem behavior during the test condition,
the instructional demand was removed and he was regiven continuous access to the interrupted
activity. The instruction to complete homework was reintroduced 30 seconds after the student
returned to baseline behaviors observed in the control condition. If problem behaviors are absent
with free access to reinforcement (control condition), “turned on” when reinforcement is
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
14
interrupted with instructions to complete work and “turned off” when free access to
reinforcement is returned (test condition), functional relations can be determined. Following this
methodology, the sole difference between control and test conditions are the possible
reinforcement contingencies.
Jessel and colleagues (2016) reviewed the results from 30 IISCAs concluding the
effectiveness of this method in identifying variables contributing to problem behavior across
individuals, environments, and contingencies. Additionally, Coffey et al. (2020) reanalyzed 102
IISCAs and found 95% determined a function with a subsequent 90% reduction in problem
behavior. When directly comparing the FA to the IISCA, both yield similar findings in
determining problem behavior function (Slaton et al., 2017) and treatment effectiveness (Tiger &
Effertz, 2021). This evidence suggests the IISCA is an efficacious option to the FA in both
results and treatment outcomes. However, if the IISCA is to become common practice across
environments but specifically within the school environment, the aforementioned barriers to
conducting experimental analysis must be addressed.
IISCA in Addressing Perceived Barriers to FBA Practice
Time, shortage of space, perceived complexity, likelihood of student harm, and the lack
of organizational support were identified as barriers to conducting FAs (Desrochers et al., 1997;
Oliver et al., 2015; Roscoe et al., 2015). Based on the review of literature by Coffey et al. (2020),
an entire PFA (e.g., interview, observation, analysis) can be completed within a single 90-minute
visit. More specifically, the full experimental analysis portion (e.g., IISCA) averages less than 30
minutes (Jessel et al., 2016; Slaton et al., 2017; Coffey et al., 2020). In terms of adequate space
to conduct the PFA, Rajaraman et al. (2022) completed a successful PFA within the public-
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
15
school environment (e.g., library, guidance counselor office). Dr. Hanley has formed FTF
Behavior Consulting (https://ftfbc.com) and manages the Practical Functional Assessment
website (Hanley & Fiani, 2023) which has a library of materials and recorded trainings for
conducting IISCAs. In terms of maintaining student safety, multiple studies have proven the link
between “non-dangerous” precursor behavior and the targeted problem behavior (Fritz et al.
2013; Borlase et al., 2017). These findings allow practitioners to intervene at the slightest
indication of behavior escalation so that problem behavior does not intensify thereby minimizing
risk of harm.
The last and possibly the largest barrier in making experimental analysis as part of the
FBA design is organizational acceptance. This final hurdle is a sum of the previously identified
barriers, as the organization (e.g., school) is ultimately liable for student safety and success.
Therefore, each of the common barriers must be thoroughly addressed in order to receive
organizational support. To gain this organizational approval, Hanley (2012) suggested that
practitioners consider the following approaches (a) share how the open-ended interview
immediately establishes therapeutic rapport, (b) describe the necessity of identifying function
prior to intervention, (c) explain how reinforcement-based interventions have a greater likelihood
following experimental analysis, and (d) apply procedures that are time efficient and promote
safety.
Utility of the IISCA in Public Education
Taylor, Phillips, and Gertzog (2017) successfully replicated the IISCA procedure outlined
in Hanley (2012) within a public-school setting. The IISCA was implemented with a 12-year old
student with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) that engaged in serious problem behavior (e.g.,
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
16
aggression, elopement, property destruction). The interview and brief observation identified task
demands and denied access to the tablet as the variables contributing to the occurrence of the
problem behaviors. For the IISCA, the control condition allowed uninterrupted access to the
tablet while the test condition introduced task demands and interruption of tablet access. The
Skills Based Treatment (SBT) following the IISCA yielded a reduction of problem behavior by
over 90%, which consequently increased student cooperation, and expanded the student’s school
day into the general education classroom. The results substantiated the IISCA utility in
developing a successful treatment plan in a public-school environment.
Foundation in Applied Behavior Analysis
The study is rooted in the science of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). According to
Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2017), “ABA is the science in which tactics derived from the
principles of behavior are applied systematically to improve socially significant behavior and
experimentation is used to identify the variables for behavior change” (pg. 19). The core
characteristics that guide research and practice require ABA to be applied, behavioral, analytic,
technological, conceptually systematic, effective, and have generalizable outcomes (Baer et al.,
1968).
Applied is the commitment to behavior improvement that positively impacts the lives of
others. Behaviors targeted for change are selected only if they are socially meaningful for the
participant such as functional communication, academic, hygiene, vocational, independent
living, and social skills. Immediate impact of behavior change should improve the participant’s
life and that of those in their immediate environment (e.g., parents, siblings, teachers, peers,
colleagues).
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
17
Behavior is a rather apparent characteristic in the study and practice of ABA.
Nevertheless, behavior is a three-pronged criterion detailed by Baer and colleagues (1968). First,
behavior analysts conduct direct studies of behavior and their variables as opposed to indirect
measures about behavior. Secondly, the selected behavior must be measurable with accuracy and
reliability. Lastly, examining whether behavior change was observed in the participant or
investigator.
ABA research is analytic when a clear demonstration of a functional relationship occurs
between manipulated variables with consistent change in behavior (Cooper et al., 2017).
Analysts must show control to the highest degree achievable with results presented to the
community of researchers for opinion. By conducting research that is analytic, analysts provide
scientific proof of behavior change and the specific conditions in which results can be replicated.
ABA research that is technological describes all procedures with adequate details such
that other analysts may replicate with similar results (Cooper et al., 2017). A study purporting an
intervention resulting in a drastic behavior change provides little to no value if the methods
cannot be replicated. This intervention would lack technology and would require improvement in
describing the methodology. A good way to ensure procedures are technological is to have an
impartial analyst review and role-play the description. If the analyst misses, skips, or includes
additional steps, the description needs additional information.
In the Baer and colleagues (1968) publication, there was no explicit mention of
conceptually systematic as a core characteristic for assessing applied behavior analysis research
and practice. ABA research is conceptually systematic when procedures are connected to the
basic principles of behavior (Cooper et al., 2017). In doing so, consumers can develop their own
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
18
procedures stemming from the same basic behavior principle(s). Additionally, being
conceptually systematic validates the field of ABA as a science and not as “tricks” to persuade
behavior change.
Behavior analysis must be effective in changing behavior in a socially significant capacity
(Cooper et al., 2017). The significance and therefore the effectiveness of behavior change is
predicated on those people who interact with behavior routinely. Secondly, effectiveness should
be measured with how those behaviors selected for change have social validity. For example,
effectiveness of teaching safety skills can be measured by the increased use of a particular safety
skill (e.g., remaining close to parents in public) and by the individual’s ability to stay safe in the
community.
Finally, behavior change must display generality across environments, people, and time
(Cooper et al., 2017). Generality can be observed when behavior change is occurring outside of
intervention, targeted behavior change is changing other socially significant behaviors, and when
behavior change continues to occur after treatment. Behavior that does not demonstrate
generality fails to be socially significant or effective.
Nearly 55 years have passed since Baer, Wolf, Risley (1968) wrote “Some Current
Dimensions of Applied Behavior Analysis” in which the 7 characteristics of ABA remain key
features of the field. Additional characteristics that are suggested for consideration include:
accountability, public, doable, empowering, and optimistic. By maintaining these features, many
disciplines can look to ABA as an effective, evidence–based discipline for achieving positive
results.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
19
Positionality
As a public-school special education administrator, I work directly with students who
engage in serious problem behavior. A portion of my job responsibility is conducting FBAs,
creating Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs), and training staff in the application of evidence–
based behavior practices. My assumptions are that (a) quality FBAs lead to a decrease in
problem behavior and increase in functional skills, (b) IISCAs are effective and feasible, (c)
public school practitioners can realistically implement the IISCA into their current FBAs. These
biases will be addressed with an impartial public-school practitioner receiving training and
coaching on the IISCA, followed by the implementation of the IISCA with students. All results
of the IISCA will follow strict Inter-Observer Agreement (IOA) to ensure data is objective,
detect observer drift, confidence in operational definitions, and assurance that variability of data
is not dependent on a particular observer (Cooper et al., 2017).
Methods
This current study follows and extends the methods originally detailed in Hanley (2012)
and demonstrates the IISCA from Taylor and colleagues (2018) within a public-school setting.
Each analysis will begin with an open-ended interview with stakeholders (e.g., parent(s),
teachers, or both), a brief observation between 30 to 60 minutes, and finally the IISCA using the
information gained directly from the interviews and observation. The slight modification is using
newly trained IICSA Facilitators to implement the assessment procedures.
Research Questions
The purpose of the current study is to demonstrate the IISCA (Hanley, 2012; Taylor et
al., 2018) implementation within the public-school setting for students currently engaging in
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
20
problem behavior and to understand the perceptions of school practitioners on implementing the
IISCA for the first time. The following questions will guide the study:
1. To what extent can school staff be trained to implement the IISCA with fidelity in
a public-school setting?
2. What are school district practitioner’s perceptions on the IISCA implementation
as part of the FBA procedures?
Context of the Study
The study took place at a large public unified school district in Southern California that
serves over 20,000 students. Interviews with parents and or teachers took place via phone call,
virtual meeting, or in person depending on the preference of the interviewee. Direct observations
and the IISCA occurred within the student’s typical school environments (e.g., general
education, special education classroom)
Participants and Personnel
The IISCA Facilitator participants conducting the analysis met each inclusion criteria: (a)
current employee of the current school district, (b) conduct FBAs as part of their current job
duties, (c) have not conducted an IISCA in the past, and (d) explicit consent to participation for
the current study. IISCA Facilitator participants who did not meet each criterion were excluded
from the study. From the selection process, two IISCA Facilitators agreed to participate.
Paige is in her fifth year as a school psychologist with 15 total years of experience in
education as an adult education teacher, special education teacher, and general education teacher.
In her current role, she conducts between four to five FBAs per school year. As part of her FBA
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
21
practices, she uses indirect assessments (e.g., interviews) and descriptive assessments (e.g.,
observations but does not include any experimental analysis.
Candice is in her seventh year as a school psychologist with 10 total years of experience
in education as an ABA aide, school psychologist, and a lead school psychologist specialist. As a
school psychologist, she conducts between three to five FBAs per school year. As part of her
FBA practices, she uses indirect assessments (e.g., interviews) and descriptive assessments (e.g.,
observations but does not include any experimental analysis.
Table 1
IISCA Facilitator Characteristics
Participant
Pseudonyms
Title Years in
Current
Position
Years
Conducting
FBAs
Total Years in
Education
Paige School Psychologist 5 4 15
Candice School Psychologist
Specialist
7 7 10
Student participants were only selected if they met all inclusion criteria: (a) enrolled in
the selected school district, (b) attended in-person instruction (c) referred by special education
administrator for treatment of problem behavior, (d) explicit parent consent to participate (e)
explicit consent from the student’s teacher to participate. All potential student participants that
did not meet each criterion were excluded from the study. From the selection process, three
student participants were referred for participation.
George, an 11-year old student who receives special education services under the primary
eligibility of Intellectual Disability (ID) and a secondary in Speech and Language Impairment
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
22
(SLI), engaged in aggression and refusal. He communicated vocally in short sentences. George is
placed in a 4th – 5th grade, Mild / Moderate (M/M) classroom. Following the interviews, the
observation took place in the M/M classroom while the experimental analysis took place in a pod
area used as an additional instructional area.
Adrian, an 11-year old student who received special education services under the primary
eligibility of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and a secondary in Other Health Impairment
(OHI), engaged in refusal, tantrums, and property destruction. He communicated vocally with
full fluency. Adrian is placed in 5th grade, General Education (GE) classroom. Following the
interviews, the observation and experimental analysis took place in his GE classroom.
Nixon, a 5-year old student who received special education services under the primary
eligibility of Speech and Language Impairment (SLI), engaged in tantrums and property
destruction. He communicated vocally in short sentences. Nixon is placed in a Transitional
Kindergarten – Kindergarten, M/M classroom. Following the interviews, the observation and the
experimental analysis took place in the M/M classroom.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
23
Table 2
Student Participant Characteristics
Participant Age Sex Primary
Eligibility
Secondary
Eligibility
Language
Abilitya
Problem
Behavior
George 11 M ID SLI 3 Agg, Ref
Adrian 11 M ASD OHI 4 Ref,
Tantrums,
PD
Nixon 5 M SLI - 3 Ref,
Tantrums,
PD a 1 = non-vocal; 2 = single-word utterances; 3 = short sentences; 4 = full fluency
Note: ASD is autism spectrum disorder. ID is intellectual disability. SLI is speech and language
impairment. Agg is aggression. Ref is refusal. PD is property destruction.
Instrumentation
The IISCA begins with a semi structured open–ended interview (see Appendix A) to
identify perceived variables associated with problem behavior (e.g., antecedent and consequence,
environment, reinforcement) to be further investigated. Interviews are to be conducted with
individuals that have the most familiarity with the student’s behavior such as parent(s) and
teacher. Following the interview, students will be directly observed for 30 to 60 minutes in
suspected school environments where problem behavior occurs while the observer notes problem
behavior, precursors behaviors, events occurring prior to problem behavior, responses to problem
behavior, and student reinforcers. Designing the IISCA (Appendix B) will follow the interviews
and observation. This form will guide the constructs for the IISCA based on the interview
responses and the observation. Once the IISCA is designed, practitioner participants will follow
the procedures detailed in Appendix C.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
24
After the IISCA Facilitators have completed all of the IISCAs, they will be interviewed
on their perceptions of using the IISCA (Appendix D). The interviews will take place in person
or via teleconference, depending on the preference of the practitioner participant. The interviews
will be recorded to ensure accuracy in transcription.
Data Collection
Once receiving Internal Review Board (IRB) approval for the study, data was collected
during the interview with stakeholders (e.g., parents, teachers), brief observation, and the IISCA.
Responses from the interviewees were transcribed during the interview. The entirety of the
interview process took about 30 minutes per interview. The brief observations were each 30
minutes in duration and data was collected on the Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence (ABC) of
problem behavior, any early signs of problem behavior, and the student’s reinforcers. The
IISCA’s averaged 12 minutes in length and data was collected on the occurrence or early signs of
problem behavior. Therefore, the full IISCA process, from beginning to end, averaged 72
minutes.
IISCA Procedures
The information gathered from the interviews and observation will directly determine the
control and test conditions of the IISCA (Hanley, 2012). The conditions will occur within the
environment (e.g., classroom) where problem behavior is most likely to occur. The control
condition will have a duration of five minutes and will include the identified or observed
reinforcers (e.g., access to items, attention) that maintain a Happy, Relaxed, and Engaged (HRE)
demeanor. The control condition will begin with allowing the student access to reinforcers and
the facilitator stating something like, “I’m right here if you need me”, while maintaining their
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
25
orientation towards the student. The facilitator will respond to social invitations to interact (e.g.,
questions, comments, references, initiations). No instructional demands are directed towards the
student throughout the condition. The goal of the control condition is to maintain the student at
HRE for the entire five-minute duration with the absence of problem behavior.
During the test condition, the suspected antecedents (or triggers) to problem behavior will
be introduced. For example, students may be instructed to put down reinforcers, transition to
non-preferred areas within the classroom, and complete school work. The test condition will
begin with the facilitator standing up, softly clapping their hands, approaching the student and
then issuing instructions. The facilitator should pause in between each action to allow the student
to respond to the changing condition. If the student does not cooperate with the instructions
without the presence of problem behavior, a 3-step prompting hierarchy (e.g., verbal, gesture,
physical guidance) will be utilized. At the earliest indicator of problem behavior or actual
problem behavior, the facilitator will say something like, “never mind, you don’t have to do it”
and refrain from issuing instructional demands while allowing access to reinforcers. Once the
student returns to HRE levels for 30 seconds, the facilitator will repeat the test condition steps.
This condition is completed once the problem behavior is turned on and instantly turned off for 3
to 5 consecutive trials. The goal of the test condition is to immediately turn on precursor or
problem behavior while the goal of the control condition is to turn off problem behavior and
maintain HRE. If problem behavior is turned on and off in the alternating conditions, this
demonstrates a functional relationship between the environmental variables introduced and
problem behavior.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
26
The IISCA will follow the original procedures described by Hanley (2012) and expanded
in the Taylor et al (2018) for implementation in the public-school setting (Appendix C).
Conditions will follow a CTCTT multielement design (e.g., control, test, control, test, test).
Although the number of conditions are pre-determined, there is no set standard across studies as
assessments should continue until a demonstration of a functional relationship is observed (Jessel
et al., 2016).
Data Analysis
Raw data gathered from the interview, observation, and IISCA was synthesized.
Interview responses determined when and where to conduct the brief observations. During the
observations, data collected either validated responses from the interview or developed new
variables to be examined in the experimental analysis. While conducting the experimental
analysis, the IISCA facilitator and the primary investigator tracked the occurrence and nonoccurrence of problem behavior or precursors to problem behavior.
Findings
The following section provides results of school district personnel demonstrating the
IISCA in assessing student problem behavior in a public-school setting. Once school district
personnel were identified for participation, participants underwent explicit training on the IISCA
prior to student implementation. At the conclusion of staff participation, an exit interview was
conducted to gain biographical information, FBA practice, and perspectives on the IISCA.
IISCA Facilitator Training
Staff training on the IISCA, IISCA procedures, and IISCA implementation occurred prior
to the assessment of student participants. Training followed the components of Behavior Skills
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
27
Training (BST) of instruction, modeling, rehearsal, and feedback (Parsons et al., 2013). The
instructional phase began with an overview of the study, followed by the procedures of the
IISCA interview, brief observation, and experimental analysis. Towards the conclusion of the
instructional phase, modeling was provided through videos and demonstrations from the primary
investigator. Once participant students were identified, rehearsal in the form of role - playing
took place between the IISCA facilitator and primary investigator. Only after the completion of
the training and demonstration of competency, IISCA facilitators began the assessment process
with student participants.
Research Question 1: To what extent can school staff be trained to implement the IISCA with
fidelity in a public-school setting?
The results show that experimental analysis in the form of the IISCA can be successfully
trained and implemented with existing school staff within the public-school setting. Training
began with a didactic PowerPoint (PPT) overview of the study and the fundamental IISCA
procedures. Upon receiving consent, parents and or teachers were interviewed (Appendix A) by
the IISCA facilitator and primary investigator. After the interviews, scheduled student
observations were conducted. Next, the IISCA conditions were developed in collaboration
(Appendix B). Once the conditions were established, the primary investigator modeled the
IISCA implementation. Thereafter, role-playing of the IISCA procedures occurred between the
IISCA facilitator and primary investigator with feedback delivered accordingly. Student
implementation began only after IISCA facilitators demonstrated competency and fluidity with
the IISCA procedure.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
28
During implementation, both IISCA facilitators demonstrated a relationship between the
developed environmental conditions and problem behavior for each student participant. This
demonstration verified IISCA skill acquisition and generalization, as student behavior changed in
response to the implemented conditions. During control conditions, students maintained a happy,
relaxed, and engaged. Test conditions predictively elicited pre-cursor or problem behavior to
which both IISCA facilitators appropriately returned to control conditions. The findings show
staff can be effectively trained in experimental analysis and implement the procedures
successfully.
Paige - IISCA Facilitator 1
Paige conducted the IISCA for both Adrian and Nixon. Adrian was an 11-year old, fifth
grader referred for complete work refusal that has escalated to tantrums and property destruction
(e.g., throwing chairs). From the interviews with mom and teacher, he enjoys drawing and
spends long durations drawing while in class. Problem behavior tends to occur when disrupting
his current task to engage in work related instructions. The classroom observation verified
Adrian engaged in drawing throughout a whole group lesson. Therefore, during the control
condition, Paige gave free access to drawing, drawing materials, in the absence of instructions,
and no interruptions to drawing. When the test condition began, Paige disrupted access to
drawing, removed drawing materials, presented writing materials, and instructions to copy from
the front board. Results showed that Adrian remained in HRE during each of the control
conditions. When each test condition began, Adrian would initially copy the board but would
scribble on the page which was an identified precursor behavior to more intense problem
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
29
behavior (e.g., tantrum, property destruction). Adrian immediately returned to HRE when the test
condition variables were removed and the drawing materials were returned.
Figure 1. Interview - Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) for Adrian
Nixon is a five-year old, transitional kindergarten student referred for refusal, tantrums,
and property destruction where other students must evacuate the classroom as a safety measure.
From the interview with mom, he loves playing on the iPad but has difficulty transitioning away
from the iPad. The teacher confirmed the difficulties during transitions from highly preferred
activities (e.g., iPad, access to toys) to less preferred activities (e.g., academic instruction,
writing). Therefore, during the control condition, Paige gave free access to toys (e.g., dinosaurs),
play-doh, white board with dry erase markers, the absence of instructions, and no interruptions to
materials. For the test condition, Paige disrupted free access to reinforcement materials, removed
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
30
the reinforcement materials, presented a writing worksheet, and instructed Nixon to complete the
worksheet. At the beginning of the analysis (control condition), Nixon unexpectedly engaged in
precursor behaviors of whining and grimacing when presented with reinforcing materials. Paige
then waited for Nixon to return to HRE for 30 seconds, before re-introducing the control
condition. This may have been caused due to Nixon’s unfamiliarity to Paige as an instructor.
Afterwards, there was no observed problem behavior in any of the subsequent control conditions.
When each test condition began with the instruction to pause access to reinforcement materials,
precursor behaviors of whining, grimacing, and questioning were observed by Paige. During
each control condition, Nixon immediately returned to HRE levels.
Figure 2. Interview - Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) for Nixon
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
31
Candice - IISCA Facilitator 2
Candice conducted the IISCA for George, an 11-year old, 5th grade student. George was
referred for his frequent episodes of aggression. From the teacher interview, aggression occurs
about 10 times per school day for various reasons with no clear precursor behavior occurring
prior to aggression. Through the observations it was determined that problem behavior occurred
when disrupting access to the iPad. Therefore, during the control condition, Candice gave free
and uninterrupted access to the iPad with no instructions presented. For the test condition,
Candice interrupted access to the iPad, removed the iPad, presented a writing worksheet, and
provided instructions to complete the worksheet. While in the control conditions, George
maintained a HRE demeanor. When the test condition variables were introduced, George would
instantaneously engage in aggression towards Candice. Once Candice returned the iPad in the
control condition, no instances of aggression were observed.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
32
Figure 3. Interview - Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) for George
Table 3
Topographies of Problem Behavior and Precursors
Participant Problem Behaviors Precursor(s)
Adrian Loud vocalizations, throwing items,
breaking items, bumping into others,
eloping, refusal
Scribbling, drawing, whining
Nixon Loud vocalizations, throwing items, eloping,
grabbing items, crying, refusal
Whining, grimace, reaching
for items
George Hitting, kicking, grabbing, pushing, loud
vocalizations, and verbal protesting
None reported
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
33
Table 4
IISCA Test and Control Conditions
Participant Control Condition Test Condition
Adrian Free access to draw, no academic demands
presented with no interruptions
Removal of drawing
materials, presentation of
writing materials with the
instruction to copy from the
board
Nixon Free access to dinosaur figurines, Play-Doh,
whiteboard, dry erase marker, and eraser
with no academic demands presented
Removal of the toys,
presentation of a math
worksheet with the
instruction to complete the
work
George Free access to the iPad and no academic
demands presented with no academic
demands presented
Pause and removal of the
iPad, presentation of
handwriting worksheet
Both IISCA facilitators effectively implemented the IISCA procedures as there were
clear differences in student behaviors in each condition. With the exception of the initial control
condition with Nixon, each student remained at HRE and did not display any problem behavior
in the control conditions. This showed that each IISCA facilitator identified the reinforcers
needed to effectively “turn off” precursor or problem behaviors. Conversely, during the test
conditions each IISCA facilitator introduced the specific variable to “turn on” precursor or
problem behaviors. This demonstration of “turning off” and “turning on” problem behavior in
this highly controlled fashion illustrates a functional relationship between the introduced
antecedents and problematic behaviors.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
34
Research Question 2: What are school district practitioner’s perceptions of the IISCA
implementation as part of the FBA procedures?
Both IISCA facilitators reported positively to the use of the IISCA, finding the
assessment beneficial and would consider using the IISCA in their future FBA practice.
Common advantages of using the IISCA included: enhanced data collection opportunities, the
ease of demonstrating factors influencing student behavior, and the improved defensibility of the
FBA. Although both IISCA facilitators responded favorably to using the IISCA, they shared the
need for continued training and coaching to establish fluency with the IISCA procedures.
Paige - IISCA Facilitator 1
Paige is completing her fifth year as a school psychologist across elementary, middle, and
high school within the participating district. In her current role, she completes four to five FBAs
each school year that take 30 hours on average to complete. Her FBA practice typically involves
a mix of interviews and observations that includes data collection. Although course content in
graduate school covered FBAs, most of her skill is attributed to on the job practice of conducting
FBAs. Prior to the study, Paige had no experience applying a strict experimental analysis such as
the IISCA in her FBA procedures.
After completing the IISCA, Paige shared that the IISCA presented the minor challenge
in adjusting to new procedures of strictly timed conditions. Paige acknowledged that any new set
of procedures could be challenging and reported the need for more practice on the strict timed
conditions. “Getting adjusted to the time frame, of you know, giving the demand and removing
the demand, it took some adaptation. I wouldn’t say it was a challenge but I needed to get used to
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
35
it.” Although Paige perceived this as a small challenge, implementation was not affected as
demonstrated by clear behavior changes the experimental conditions.
Regardless of the perceived challenges and barriers, Paige found the IISCA an overall
benefit to the FBA process. “What I like about the IISCA and I want to adopt it in the future is
that it is very in the moment and very hands on…it was very experimental”. Paige felt that the
IISCA was effective in identifying variables contributing to problem behavior and would be
open to using it again in the future. More specifically, Paige pointed out the applied data
collection of the experimental analysis allowed for the validation of hypothesized functions and
variables influencing problem behaviors. “I will most likely use the IISCA [in the future] in
terms of the data collection, in the moment, let me test this hypothesis, let me test if these are the
triggers of behavior.”
Candice - IISCA Facilitator 2
Candice is in her first year as a lead school psychologist and has a total of 7 years as a
school psychologist. Her experience has been across grade levels with a greater concentration
with elementary students. In her role as a school psychologist, she completed an average of four
FBAs per school year that averaged 12 hours per assessment. When conducting an FBA, Candice
will generally incorporate interviews and the analysis of data through direct observations. Prior
to conducting FBAs, Candice did take a class involving FBAs and BIP development, however
her competency was developed in practice as a school psychologist. Before participating in the
study, Candice did not include any form of experimental analysis in her FBA practice.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
36
During the interview, Candice reported the challenge of adapting to the IISCA
methodology. The mental hurdle of allowing George access to reinforcement (e.g., iPad) after
engaging in aggression went against all her previous training in responding to problem behavior:
I guess mentally, you know, you’ve always been trained like, don’t give them what they
want when they are hitting. Right? And that’s what we were doing. And so, that mentally,
that was a challenge because this goes against everything I know. So, he just hit me and
I’m going to reward him with the iPad?
Though Candice experienced the challenge of adapting to a new methodology, implementation
of the IISCA remained successful as demonstrated by the clear differences in George’s behavior
across experimental conditions.
Through the recognized challenges and barriers, Candice felt the IISCA was a useful
component in conducting an FBA. Candice noted that the IISCA may add to the defensibility of
the FBA and would incorporate the IISCA procedures into her future FBA practice if approved
and supported by the school district. Additionally, Candice believed the IISCA could make the
FBA process easier while possibly being a training tool for classroom teachers and staff. “I think
it would definitely make things easier and if you were doing it with let’s say a classroom teacher
or instructional staff I think they would benefit from seeing it happen and they would understand
the function faster.”
Discussion
The study's initial focus was to demonstrate the IISCA within a public-school setting.
The primary objective was then to explore the perceptions of newly trained public-school
assessors in their use of the IISCA. After the completion of explicit training including the
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
37
components of Behavior Skills Training (BST) and the demonstration of competency, IISCA
facilitators assessed participating students. Each IISCA implemented demonstrated clear effects
of introduced and or removed variables on student behavior. Perceptions of IISCA facilitators
regarding the use of the IISCA were favorable and were likely to use the IISCA in their future
FBA practice.
Results from the current study indicate that experimental analysis can and should be a
part of common FBA practice in public education. Both IISCA facilitators had no experience on
using any experimental analysis of any form in their FBAs, let alone the IISCA. Furthermore,
both IISCA facilitators shared very minor challenges in using the IISCA and both were willing to
use the IISCA in future FBAs. The perceived barriers to experimental analysis found in the
literature of not enough time, shortage of space or materials, assumed complexity, and or
likelihood of student harm were non-factors implementing the IISCA during the course of the
study.
Both IISCA facilitators reported spending 12 or more hours on average completing FBAs
that mostly included interviews and observations. By including the IISCA, the average duration
of FBAs should drastically reduce observation time with the purposeful observations and
experimental analysis. Facilitators would not need to conduct lengthy observations waiting for
naturally occurring variables to enter or exit the student’s environment. The intentional practice
of the IISCA directly examines the changes of student behavior when environmental conditions
are altered in a systematic fashion. For this reason, including the IISCA can and will reduce the
assessment time in completing FBAs as experimental analysis is more efficient than direct
observations.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
38
Each of the implemented IISCAs did not require any additional space or materials. The
experimental analysis occurred in familiar and natural instructional environments the
participating students frequented. No additional supplies were needed and all materials used
were from within the classroom such as perspective reinforcers and instructional materials.
The presumed complexity of experimental analysis can be dispelled by the lack of direct
training. Each facilitator underwent specific training following the BST model of instruction,
modeling, rehearsal, and feedback (Parsons et al., 2013). During implementation, both IISCA
facilitators illustrated evident contrasts in student behavior when alternating conditions. These
contrasts demonstrate a clear functional relationship which is the goal of any behavior
assessment.
The IISCA specifically intervenes at the lower intense precursor behaviors reducing the
occurrence of more intense dangerous behaviors. For example, when Adrian and Nixon engaged
in established precursor behaviors, Paige returned to the control conditions (e.g., access to
reinforcers, removal of academic demands) thereby removing the need to engage in higher
escalation behaviors. Because early escalation behaviors are linked to higher escalation
behaviors (Fritz et al. 2013; Borlase et al., 2017), the IISCA guides facilitators to respond to less
dangerous behavior resulting in a safer behavior assessment.
In summary, FBAs include comprehensive procedures that include three broad categories
of indirect assessment, descriptive assessment, and experimental analysis (O’Neill et al., 1996).
The research (Desrochers et al., 1997; Oliver et al., 2015; Roscoe et al., 2015) suggests that most
FBA practitioners leave out experimental analysis for the aforementioned perceived barriers. The
IISCA proved to address each of the identified barriers in using experimental analysis in FBA
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
39
practice. The IISCA reduces assessment duration, does not require extra space or materials,
becomes less complex with specific training, and reduces the opportunity for student harm.
Given these findings, the IISCA should be considered when assessing problem behavior.
Reflecting back on this study, most public-school districts approached for participation
were reluctant to get involved in studies focusing on special education students, especially those
engaging in problem behaviors. Despite several districts recognizing the potential benefit of the
study, only one district ultimately agreed to participate. Without school districts providing
adequate research opportunities centering “at – risk” students, the chances to identify effective
interventions will be significantly limited. This lack of support will continue to impede progress,
and perpetuate the disparities that lead to disproportionate outcomes across educational
organizations.
Recommendations
Based upon the findings presented in the study, this section aims to provide practical
recommendations in improving behavior assessment of students in public education. The
potential benefits of incorporating experimental analysis into common FBA practice are superior
treatment outcomes (Jeong & Copeland, 2020), complies with legal guidelines (IDEA; 2004),
and follows best practice (Anderson & Long, 2002, Hanley, 2012; Hanley et al., 2003; Lloyd et
al., 2016). Most importantly, conducting a thorough behavior assessment centers the student by
taking the adequate measures to understand the individualized history of their problem behavior
and the necessity for behavior treatment. The following recommendations are meant to advise
public school practitioners, policymakers, and future researchers in strengthening FBA
implementation and practice.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
40
To minimize the perceived barriers in conducting experimental analysis, it is
recommended that specific and purposeful training be developed and instituted for all staff
conducting behavior assessments. School districts should not rely solely on graduate school
courses to have fully developed their practitioner’s behavior assessment repertoire, prerequisite
and ongoing training must occur for assessment proficiency. Trainings should replicate the BST
model (Parsons et al., 2013) outlined in the study procedures and demonstrate competency prior
to conducting behavior assessments.
The school district policymakers should consider incorporating all essential components
into standardized FBA practice across the entire organization. The essential components of an
FBA include: indirect assessment, descriptive assessment, and experimental analysis (O’Neill et
al., 1996). Instituting such a policy with aforementioned training recommendation will make
certain each student receives a quality behavioral assessment prior to treatment development.
More research should occur on at-risk populations within public education, more
specifically, students with disabilities who engage in problem behavior. Conducting research in a
highly bureaucratic public education system requires approval from administrators,
superintendent, and or the board of education. Furthermore, school districts have a greater level
of apprehension of permitting research on sensitive populations such as students engaging in
problem behavior. This level of review is understandable as the organization must protect student
privacy and well-being while providing the highest quality education for each student. Without a
genuine willingness to study this demographic, students with disabilities will continue to receive
disproportionate discipline and will continue to underperform academically (Sullivan & Bal.,
2013; Losen et al., 2015). Given this information, it is recommended that public education
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
41
organizations place more emphasis on granting research on sensitive groups as they are
deserving and arguably the most in need for investigation.
Additionally, more research needs to occur on the behavior assessment and the treatment
development of students with disabilities in public education. The following study highlighted
the implementation of the behavior assessment and not the treatment synthesized through the
IISCA. Treatment outcomes are the ultimate measure of success which this present study does
not account for. Therefore, it is necessary for public school organizations to make a concerted
effort in approving the treatment examination of problem behaviors amongst their students.
Finally, given the advantages provided by experimental analysis through the IISCA,
school organizations should consider forming an IISCA team to strengthen the integrity of
behavior assessments, improve student success, and optimize both efficiency and cost. The team
should consist of a lead assessor and two IISCA facilitators, all of whom are Board Certified
Behavior Analyst (BCBA). Students with significant behavior challenges can be referred to the
IISCA team for assessment and behavior treatment. Additionally, the IISCA team would provide
training, coaching, and consultation in building capacity for the school districts response to
problem behaviors.
Limitations
While the current study provides insight into the inclusion of the IISCA into common
practice in public education behavior assessments, it is important to recognize the study
limitations. By acknowledging the study limitations, future practitioners or researchers can
understand the extent and applicability of the findings. The following section summarizes the
key limitations: the lack of procedural integrity, the inability to determine a single function to
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
42
student problem behavior, the small sample size of participants, and there is no behavior
treatment outcomes.
When determining the efficacy of training, procedural integrity should be examined
ensuring procedures are implemented as intended. This study did not account for procedural
integrity which may question the effectiveness of the IISCA facilitator training. Future studies
should establish procedural integrity to enhance the reliability of attributing the reported results
to the training intervention.
A frequent criticism of the IISCA process is that a single contingency cannot be
determined. Since multiple variables are being assessed concurrently (e.g., removal of
reinforcement, instructions to school work, transitions), individual variables cannot be assessed
in isolation. Although finding an isolated contingency can be valuable, there is uncertainty if
single variables offer any practicality when students are exposed to multiple variables
simultaneously in their naturally occurring school environment.
A second limitation is the lack of generalizability of findings due to a small sample size.
The quantitative portion involving student participants followed a single-subject design which
inherently questions if the results from one student will yield similar results for another (Kazdin,
2011). Therefore, IISCA outcomes will range from student to student due to differences in the
environment, individual response to conditions, and behavior contingencies. Additionally, the
qualitative portion of the study had two IISCA facilitators participate which is not representative
of all FBA assessors in public education.
Lastly and most importantly, all behavior assessments are judged by the outcomes of the
behavior treatment plan. Put simply, problem behavior reduction and skill development
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
43
determines the ultimate success of all behavior assessments. The sole purpose of the FBA is to
gather the appropriate information to create an individualized behavior treatment plan that will
result in a more successful student. The current study does not account for the creation of a
behavior plan or the student response to behavior treatment derived from the IISCA.
Conclusion
The study shows that newly trained public education staff can effectively utilize
experimental analysis in the form of the IISCA in their FBA practice. The main findings
highlight that trained public school staff can implement the IISCA successfully while finding the
IISCA valuable and effective. This study contributes to the extensive research on the IISCA,
demonstrating successful application within public education with newly trained staff. Findings
illustrate the direct application of “best practices” for a marginalized population of students
worthy of our support.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
44
References
Anderson, C. M., & Long, E. S. (2002). Use of a structured descriptive assessment methodology
to identify variables affecting problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
35, 137–154.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior
analysis. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1(1), 91.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986(23-
28).
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
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.
Borlase, M. A., Vladescu, J. C., Kisamore, A. N., Reeve, S. A., & Fetzer, J. L. (2017).
Analysis of precursors to multiply controlled problem behavior: A replication. Journal of
applied behavior analysis, 50(3), 668-674.
Campbell, J. M. (2003). Efficacy of behavioral interventions for reducing problem behavior in
persons with autism: A quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 24, 120–138. doi: 10.1016/S0891-4222(03)00014-3.
Coffey, A. L., Shawler, L., Jessel, J., Nye, M. L., Bain, T. A., & Dorsey, M. F. (2020).
Interview-informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA): Novel interpretations
and future directions. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13, 217–225
Collins, L. W., & Zirkel, P. A. (2017). Functional behavior assessments and behavior
intervention plans: Legal requirements and professional recommendations. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 19(3), 180-190.
Contreras, B. P., Tate, S. A., Morris, S. L., & Kahng, S. (2023). A systematic review of the
correspondence between descriptive assessment and functional analysis. Journal of
applied behavior analysis, 56(1), 146-165.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2019). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd Edition).
Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
45
Desrochers, M. N., Hile, M. G., & Williams-Moseley, T. L. (1997). Survey of functional
assessment procedures used with individuals who display mental retardation and severe
problem behaviors. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 101(5), 535–546.
Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (2013). Social learning and imitation. Routledge.
Dominick, K. C., Davis, N. O., Lainhart, J., Tager-Flusberg, H., & Folstein, S. (2007). Atypical
behaviors in children with autism and children with a history of language impairment.
Research in developmental disabilities, 28(2), 145-162.
Emerson, E., Kiernan, C., Alborz, A., Reeves, D., Mason, H., Swarbrick, R., ... & Hatton, C.
(2001). The prevalence of challenging behaviors: A total population study. Research in
developmental disabilities, 22(1), 77-93.
Fritz, J. N., Iwata, B. A., Hammond, J. L., & Bloom, S. E. (2013). Experimental analysis of
precursors to severe problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 101-
129.
FTF Behavior Consulting. FTF Behavioral Consulting. (2023, April 28). https://ftfbc.com/
Hanley, G. P. (2012). Functional assessment of problem behavior: Dispelling myths, overcoming
implementation obstacles, and developing new lore. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5, 54-
72.
Hanley, G., & Fiani, T. (n.d.). Practical functional assessment. Practical Functional Assessment.
https://practicalfunctionalassessment.com/
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.
Harvey, S. T., Boer, D., Meyer, L. H., & Evans, I. M. (2009). Updating a meta-analysis of
intervention research with challenging behaviour: Treatment validity and standards of
practice. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 34(1), 67-80.
Heyvaert, M., Maes, B., Van Den Noortgate, W., Kuppens, S., & Onghena, P. (2012). A
multilevel meta-analysis of single-case and small-n research on interventions for reducing
challenging behavior in persons with intellectual disabilities. Research in developmental
disabilities, 33(2), 766-780.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446,
20 U.S.C., § 1400 et seq. (2004).
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
46
Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. (2005). Function-based intervention planning:
Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non—function-based
intervention plans. Journal of positive behavior interventions, 7(4), 224-236.
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, 197–209.
doi: 10.1901/ jaba.1994.27-197 (Reprinted from Analysis and Inter- vention in
Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20, 1982)
Jeong, Y., & Copeland, S. R. (2020). Comparing functional behavior assessment-based
interventions and non-functional behavior assessment-based interventions: A systematic
review of outcomes and methodological quality of studies. Journal of Behavioral
Education, 29(1), 1-41.
Jessel, J., Hanley, G. P., & Ghaemmaghami, M. (2016). Interview-informed synthesized
contingency analyses: Thirty replications and reanalysis. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 49(3), 576-595.
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.
Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings
(2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Layman, L. N., Dufrene, B. A., Ackley, M. M., Weaver, C. M., Schneider, D. E., LaBrot, Z. C.,
Taylor, C. N., Rahaman, J. A., Tawney, K. N., Hart, T., & Olmi, D. J. (2023). InterviewInformed Synthesized Contingency Analyses on Challenging Problem Behavior: a
Single-Case Meta-analysis. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1-
19.
Lloyd, B. P., Weaver, E. S., & Staubitz, J. L. (2016). A review of functional analysis methods
conducted in public school class- room settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25(3),
324–356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-015-9243-y
Losen, D., Hodson, C. I., Keith, I., Michael, A., Morrison, K., & Belway, S. (2015). Are we
closing the school discipline gap? K-12 Racial Disparities in School Discipline.
Maenner MJ, Warren Z, Williams AR, et al. Prevalence and Characteristics of Autism Spectrum
Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years — Autism and Developmental Disabilities
Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States, 2020. MMWR Surveill Summ 2023;72(No.
SS-2):1–14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss7202a1.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
47
Melanson, I. J., & Fahmie, T. A. (2023). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A 40-year
review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 56(2), 262-281
Oliver, A. C., Pratt, L. A., & Normand, M. P. (2015). A survey of FBA methods used by
behavior analysts in practice. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 817–829.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.256.
O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1996). Functional
assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook.
Wadsworth.
Parsons, M. B., Rollyson, J. H., & Reid, D. H. (2013). Teaching practitioners to conduct
behavioral skills training: A pyramidal approach for training multiple human service
staff. Behavior analysis in practice, 6, 4-16.
Petursdottir, A. I., Esch, J. W., Sautter, R. A., & Stewart, K. K. (2010). Characteristics and
hypothesized functions of challenging behavior in a community-based sample. Education
and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 81-93.
Practical functional assessment. Practical Functional Assessment. (n.d.).
https://practicalfunctionalassessment.com/
Rajaraman, A., Hanley, G. P., Gover, H. C., Staubitz, J. L., Staubitz, J. E., Simcoe, K. M., &
Metras, R. (2022). Minimizing escalation by treating dangerous problem behavior within
an enhanced choice model. Behavior analysis in practice, 15(1), 219-242.
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.
Slaton, J. D., Hanley, G. P., & Raftery, K. J. (2017). Interview-informed functional analyses: A
comparison of synthesized and isolated components. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 50, 252–277.
Sullivan, A. L., & Bal, A. (2013). Disproportionality in Special Education: Effects of Individual
and School Variables on Disability Risk. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 475–494.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900406
Tarbox, J., Wilke, A. E., Najdowski, A. C., Findel- Pyles, R. S., Balasanyan, S., Caveney, A. C.,
Chilingaryan, V., King, D. M., Niehoff, S. M., Slease, K., & Tia, B. (2009). Comparing
indirect, descriptive, and experimental functional assessments of challenging behavior in
children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 21, 493-514.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
48
Tiger, J. H., & Effertz, H. M. (2021). On the validity of data produced by isolated and
synthesized contingencies during the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(3), 853-876.
Zirkel, P. A. (2011). Case law for functional behavior assessments and behavior intervention
plans: An empirical analysis. Seattle Law Review, 35, 175–212.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
49
Appendix A
Open-Ended Functional Assessment Interview
Date of Interview: ____________________
Developed by Gregory P. Hanley, Ph.D., BCBA-D
(Developed August 2002; Revised: August 2009 and February 2022)
Child/Client: __________________________________ Respondent: ___________________
Respondent’s relation to child/client: _________________ Interviewer: ___________________
RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. His/her date of birth and current age: ____-_____-_________ ____yrs ____mos
Male/Female
2. Describe his/her language abilities.
3. Describe his/her play skills and preferred toys or leisure activities.
4. What else does he/she prefer?
QUESTIONS TO INFORM THE DESIGN OF A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS
To develop objective definitions of observable problem behaviors:
5. What are the problem behaviors? What do they look like?
To determine which problem behavior(s) will be targeted in the functional analysis:
6. What is the single-most concerning problem behavior?
7. What are the top 3 most concerning problem behaviors? Are there other behaviors
of concern?
To determine the precautions required when conducting the functional analysis:
8. Describe the range of intensities of the problem behaviors and the extent to which
he/she or others may be hurt or injured from the problem behavior.
To assist in identifying precursors to or behavioral indicators of dangerous problem behaviors
that may be targeted in the functional analysis instead of more dangerous problem behaviors:
9. Do the different types of problem behavior tend to occur in bursts or clusters and/or
does any type of problem behavior typically precede another type of problem
behavior (e.g., yells preceding hits)? Are there behaviors that seem to indicate that
severe problem behavior is about to occur?
To determine the antecedent conditions that may be incorporated into the functional analysis test
conditions:
10. Under what conditions or situations are the problem behaviors most likely to
occur?
11. Do the problem behaviors reliably occur during any particular activities?
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
50
12. What seems to trigger the problem behavior?
13. Does problem behavior occur when you break routines or interrupt activities? If so,
describe.
14. Does the problem behavior occur when it appears that he/she won’t get his/her
way? If so, describe the things that the child often attempts to control.
To determine the test condition(s) that should be conducted and the specific type(s) of
consequences that may be incorporated into the test condition(s):
15. How do you and others react or respond to the problem behavior?
16. What do you and others do to calm him/her down once he/she engaged in the
problem behavior?
17. What do you and others do to distract him/her from engaging in the problem
behavior?
In addition to the above information, to assist in developing a hunch as to why problem behavior
is occurring and to assist in determining the test condition(s) to be conducted:
18. What do you think he/she is trying to communicate with his/her problem behavior,
if anything?
19. Do you think this problem behavior is a form of self stimulation? If so, what gives
you that impression?
20. Why do you think he/she is engaging in the problem behavior?
To ensure that the analytic context is properly designed for developing the most important skill
branches.
21. Besides communication, toleration, and cooperation,
A. What skills would make this child/client’s life better/more joyful?
B. What are the three most useful things the child/client could be taught to do?
C. What skills, if this child/client had them, would make your life or the lives of
other close caregivers better?
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
51
Appendix B
Form for Designing the IISCA
Once the open-ended functional assessment interview is complete, use this form to design an IISCA.
Client Pseudonym: Names of caregivers in
attendance:
Client language
abilities:
Primary language of
caregivers:
1. Implementer: Note who will implement the analysis and why this person was selected to
be the implementor. Consider that the person implementing the IISCA will also be the
initial implementer of the SBT treatment.
2. Location: Describe the general location and specific area in which the analysis will take
place. Consider the extent to which the location/area can be designed to be the most
comfortable/preferred location for the child/client. Consider the availability of this space
for the initial phases of treatment as the location of SBT will be the same as the IISCA.
3. Materials for reinforcement context: Describe the equipment and materials to be
placed in the analysis space to immediately occasion engagement and maintain a happy,
relaxed, and engaged demeanor.
4. Interactions during reinforcement. Describe where the implementer will be positioned
and how they will interact with the child/client. Also note the interactions that will be
minimized during this time.
● Remain in a seated/crouched and central position
● Be oriented toward child/client at all times
● Respond in kind to all questions, social bids, social referencing, joint initiations,
etc.
● Provide a comment on engagement when the child does something impressive
● Refrain from asking questions, placing social demands, issuing instructions,
redirecting behavior, touching materials, offering choices, reminding the child
about what they can do, following them around the area
5. Progressing the EO: Describe how the implementer will progress the establishing
operation, e.g.:
● Stand, pause
● Clap softly, pause
● Move close, pause
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
52
● Instruct child to stop or relinquish, pause
○ Vocal then model then physical prompts may be used in that order and as
needed
● Instruct child to transition to area of high expectations, pause
● Instruct child to get ready to learn, pause
● Provide instructions to complete challenging work, tasks, or expectations through
terminal goal expectations (see box below)
(Note, the pauses allow the client time to respond to the change in the prevailing
conditions).
● Throughout progression:
○ Acknowledge but do not comply with any requests
○ Acknowledge but minimize reinforcing social bids
○ Provide specific instructions, prompts, corrections, and revisions as
necessary
● Consider minimizing interfering stereotypic behavior with vocal and physical
redirections
● Consider engaging and attending to others while the high expectations are in place
(the relevance of diverted attention versus direct step-by-step instructions as an
EO may differ amongst learners)
6. Materials for EO contexts: Describe the equipment and materials to be placed in the
area or on the table of high expectations to signal the expectations and allow for the
progression of the EO to the terminal performance expectations listed above (Note: peers
and siblings will not be included in the analysis but the contexts with peers and siblings
should be emulated as best as possible).
● Branch A
○ Materials needed:
○ Description of terminal expectation (i.e., response chain/duration that if
emitted will be reinforced) and manner of instruction:
● Branch B
○ Materials needed:
○ Description of terminal expectation and manner of instruction:
● Branch C
○ Materials needed:
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
53
○ Description of terminal expectation and manner of instruction:
7. Data Collection.
● Name and define the severe problem behaviors (these are referred to as R1s in
data collection):
● Name and define the precursors, associated-non-dangerous problem behaviors,
and indicators (these are referred to as R2s in data collection):
8. Responding to problem behavior.
● Describe how the implementer will respond to PB occurring in the EO context
(i.e., examples of emphatic statements to provide, changes in body language, and
any deviation from the general recommendations):
● Describe how the implementer will respond to PB occurring in the reinforcement
context (i.e., examples of emphatic statements to provide, changes in body
language, and any deviation from the general recommendations):
9. Responding to leaving. Describe how the implementer will act if the child leaves the
analysis area. Consider safety while maximizing the open-door policy and continuous
assent.
● Places allowed:
● Places not allowed:
10. Additional considerations for responding to the child for attempting to do
something that’s not allowed.Describe any changes to typical procedures must be made
for safety reasons.
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
54
Appendix C
Interview – Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) Procedures
Open – Ended Interview with Stakeholders
● Using the open – ended interview questions from Appendix B, practitioner participant will
interview parent(s) and or primary teacher in – person, phone call, or video conference
● During the interview, primary investigator and IISCA Facilitator will record the interview
responses
● The goal of the interview is to:
1. Describe the problem behavior(s)
2. Document early signs of problem behavior
3. Record what is occurring before and after the problem behavior(s)
4. Note the possible reasons for the problem behavior
5. List student’s reinforcers
6. Which skills needing development
Student Observation (30 to 60 minutes)
● From the interview responses shared by parents and or teacher, primary investigator and
IISCA Facilitator will observe the student in the places where problem behavior is reported
to occur
● During the observation, primary investigator and IISCA Facilitator will note the following
information
1. Time the total length of the observation
a. Duration: Timer begins once the observation starts and ends once the
observation is completed
2. Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence (ABC) data when problem behavior occurs
b. Antecedent – what occurred right before problem behavior
c. Behavior – Actions the student does or says
i. Note precursor behaviors
d. Consequence - what occurred right after problem behavior
Designing the IISCA
● From the information from the interview and observation, the primary investigator will use
the “Form for Designing the IISCA” in Appendix B
IISCA
● Prior to implementation, IISCA Facilitator and primary investigator rehearse the analysis
through modeling, role-playing, and feedback
● IISCA Facilitator will implement the analysis with the student
1. Note: The IISCA Facilitator will be the only investigator interacting with the
student
● Primary investigator and IISCA Facilitator will notate the occurrence or non - occurrence of
problem behavior or precursors to problem behavior during each condition of the IISCA
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
55
● The IISCA will follow a 5 condition, control - test - control - test - test (CTCTT) pattern
● Once all 5 conditions are concluded and problem behavior is demonstrated to “turn
on” and “turn off”, the IISCA is complete
Control Condition (C)
The analysis starts in the control condition
1. The student will be brought to or is in a location in the classroom that has free
access to their reported or observed reinforcers
2. The reinforcers will be freely accessible for the student to engage with to maintain
Happy, Relaxed, and Engaged (HRE) behaviors
3. IISCA Facilitator will:
○ Say something like, “I am right here if you need me”
○ Remain seated nearby the student
○ Body facing the student
○ Respond to simple questions, social opportunities, or initiations
○ Provide a comment or response when the student is engaged
4. IISCA Facilitator should avoid:
○ Asking questions
○ Placing social demands
○ Issuing instructions
○ Redirecting behavior
○ Touching materials
○ Offering choices
○ Reminding the student about what they can do
○ Following the student around
● Control condition duration is 5 minutes
● The goal of the control condition is for the student to maintain HRE behaviors throughout the
entire duration
Test Condition (T)
Immediately following the control condition, the test condition will introduce the reported or
observed situations that trigger problem behavior(s)
● IISCA Facilitator will:
○ Stand up, pause
○ Clap softly, pause
○ Move close to the student, pause
○ Instruct the student to stop or hand over the reinforcers, pause
○ Instruct the student to challenging work or transition to a work area (e.g.,
desk), pause
○ Provide instructions to complete challenging work
★ The pauses allow the student time to respond to the changing test conditions
★ 3 – step prompting hierarchy used if the student does not respond within 3 – 5 seconds
(e.g., verbal, gesture, physical guidance). For example, if the student is ignoring the
instruction but does not have problem behavior, the IISCA Facilitator will give a verbal
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
56
prompt (e.g., “stand up”). If the student does not respond to the verbal prompt the IISCA
Facilitator will give a model prompt (e.g., demonstrate standing up). If the student does
not respond to the gesture prompt the IISCA Facilitator will physically guide the student
to follow the instruction with the minimal amount of support for cooperation
● At the earliest sign of problem behavior or actual problem behavior, the IISCA
Facilitator will:
○ Say something like, “it’s ok, you don’t have to do it”
○ Stop giving any demands or instructions
○ Return reinforcers
○ Give the student space
○ Sit down
○ Divert attention (e.g., book, writing)
● Wait until the student returns to a HRE state similar to the demeanor in the
control condition for 30 seconds
● After 30 seconds of HRE, IISCA Facilitator will repeat the test steps
● Repeat the sequence until problem behavior is immediately turned on and off for
3 to 5 consecutive trials
● Once problem behavior is turned on and off for 3 to 5 consecutive trials, the test
condition ends
★ Goal of the test condition is the ability to turn on and off problem behavior (demonstration of
a functional relationship)
● Repeat conditions in a CTCTT patter
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
57
Appendix D
1. First, tell me about your background in public education
a. How did you become interested in the field of education?
b. How long have you worked in the field?
c. What roles or positions have you held in education?
2. What are your current assignments?
a. Elementary, Middle, High School, District office?
b. Any specialty programs that you are part of (e.g., Autism Focus, Mental Health,
Medically Fragile, Deaf and Hard of Hearing)
c. Any assignments outside of the school campus (e.g., Non – Public School, Adult
Transition Program, Home Hospital, County Program)
3. Next, I’d like to get your thoughts on your graduate program in preparing you for
conducting FBAs
a. What courses or coursework help develop your knowledge in FBAs?
b. Did you feel adequately prepared for an FBA leaving the program?
4. How many years of experience do you have in conducting FBAs?
5. On average, how many FBAs do you complete in a school year?
6. Describe your confidence level in conducting FBAs?
7. In your own words, what is the purpose of conducting an FBA?
8. Tell me about your FBA style.
9. How many hours do you typically spend conducting an FBA?
10. How effective do you believe FBAs are, in supporting students with problem behavior?
11. Prior to participation in the study, what were your thoughts on experimental analyses in
FBAs?
12. Why do you believe experimental analyses are not part of FBA practice in the school
setting?
13. Have you included experimental analysis as part of your FBAs in the past? If not, why?
14. Do you currently include experimental analyses as part of your FBA practice? If not,
why?
15. How would you describe your previous knowledge of the Interview-Informed
Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA)?
16. What challenges did you encounter when using the IISCA?
17. How effective do you feel the IISCA is at identifying the variables contributing to problem
behavior?
18. How might the IISCA impact your work with challenging behavior?
19. How likely are you to use the IISCA in your future FBA practice?
Analysis of Problem Behavior in Public School Settings
58
20. What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about conducting
FBAs today that I might not have covered, if any?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study applies a mixed method approach in demonstrating the Interview - Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) from newly trained public-school staff and understanding their perceptions of using this analysis. The first purpose was to demonstrate the IISCA within the public education environment. Upon completion of training and demonstration of competency, the newly trained school staff called IISCA facilitators implemented the IISCA with student participants referred for behavior treatment. The second purpose is to understand the unique perspective of the IISCA facilitators on the IISCA implementation. Once IISCA facilitators completed the IISCA, an open - ended interview was conducted. Findings proved that after specific training school staff can effectively implement the IISCA within the public-school setting. Additionally, IISCA facilitators reported the IISCA to be a benefit to the behavior assessment and were open to future use. This study illustrates a practical application in improving the behavior assessment of students in public education.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Training staff to implement the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA)
PDF
Evaluating the effectiveness of interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis for survivors of traumatic brain injury
PDF
Neurodivergent-affirming care within applied behavior analysis
PDF
Assessing administrators’ perceptions of implementing trauma-informed care in K−12 schools
PDF
Behavioral coaching for athlete health behaviors
PDF
Math teachers and growth mindset
PDF
Perceptions of college students with ADHD and their learning strategies
PDF
Black brilliance in leadership: increasing the number of Black women in the senior executive service
PDF
Using acceptance and commitment training to enhance the effectiveness of behavioral skills training
PDF
Understanding the perceptions of Latine undocumented students' sense of belonging in higher education
PDF
Educators, experiences, and environment: exploring Doctor of Physical Therapy student perceived influences on professional identity formation
PDF
Motivation, persistence, and achievement in East Asian languages learning: an expectancy-value theory perspective
PDF
Use of a clinical decision model to support the transition of services for individuals with autism spectrum disorder
PDF
Learning in the workplace: investigating perceived workload, work motivation, and choice independence in the construction industry
PDF
The barriers and challenges associated with mental health help-seeking behaviors of police officers in the United States: a descriptive study
PDF
A preliminary evaluation of a telehealth approach to acceptance and commitment training (ACT) for enhancing behavioral parent training (BPT) for Chinese parents
PDF
Effective school leadership: practices that promote a culture of high student achievement
PDF
The underrepresentation of Asian American Pacific Islanders serving in the senior and executive leadership ranks in the U.S. Navy SEALs
PDF
Staff perceptions of critical challenges faced by Long-Term English Learners (LTEL) during the transition to junior high school
PDF
The effects of acceptance and commitment therapy-based exercises on eating behaviors in a laboratory setting
Asset Metadata
Creator
Salmons, Jeffrey Erwin
(author)
Core Title
The use and perceptions of experimental analysis in assessing problem behavior of public education students: the interview - informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA)
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2024-12
Publication Date
09/18/2024
Defense Date
08/14/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Aba,Applied Behavior Analysis,IISCA,Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis,interview,OAI-PMH Harvest,problem behavior,public education
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Hirabayashi, Kimberly (
committee chair
), Malloy, Courtney (
committee member
), Tarbox, Jonathan (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jsalmons@usc.edu;jeffrey.salmons@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11399AT0J
Unique identifier
UC11399AT0J
Identifier
etd-SalmonsJef-13533.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SalmonsJef-13533
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Salmons, Jeffrey Erwin
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240918-usctheses-batch-1212
(batch),
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
IISCA
Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis
interview
problem behavior