Skip to main content
Log in

On the Efficiency and Control of Different Functional Analysis Formats

  • Review
  • Published:
Education and Treatment of Children Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Jessel et al. (Behavior Analysis & Practice, 13(1), 205–216, 2020a) conducted a review of the functional analysis literature between the years 1965 and 2016. The authors found an increasing trend in analyses replicating the components of Iwata et al. (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209, 1982/1994a) and determined that those components have come to represent a standard format. Since the inception of the standard, other functional analysis formats (e.g., brief, latency-based, trial-based) have been developed to improve analysis efficiency and control, with most retaining fundamental components of the standard and some omitting all (e.g., interview-informed, synthesized contingency analysis; IISCA). We conducted a review of functional analyses in this two-part evaluation to determine the levels of efficiency and control afforded by functional analysis variations and formats.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Associated data supporting our findings is in a data repository available upon request from the first author.

Notes

  1. Querim et al. (2013) calculated efficiency by dividing the total duration of the briefer analysis by the total duration of the longer analysis.

  2. Efficiency has been improving over the years with early development typically resulting in longer analyses based on an unpublished data set (available from the first author on request).

  3. Overlap during the trial-based format was considered if the aggregate bar of the test condition did not extend to the full 100%. This was because an individual trial in which problem behavior did not occur would have been scored as 0%, inevitably overlapping with any trials from the control condition.

  4. The number of applications will vary between analyses of efficiency and control because of these additional exclusion criteria.

 References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua Jessel.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

For this type of study formal consent is not required.

Conflict of Interest

Joshua Jessel declares a part-time consulting position at FTF Behavioral Consulting. Gregory P. Hanley declares that he is the owner and founder of FTF Behavioral Consulting. Mahshid Ghaemmaghami declares that she is a lead consultant and clinical director at FTF Behavioral Consulting. Matthew J. Carbone declares a part-time consulting position at FTF Behavioral Consulting.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 55 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jessel, J., Hanley, G.P., Ghaemmaghami, M. et al. On the Efficiency and Control of Different Functional Analysis Formats. Educ. Treat. Child. 45, 69–84 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00059-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-021-00059-x

Keywords

Navigation