Exceptional Children, Vt>L 66, No.1, pp. 101-122.

©1999 The Councilfor Exceptional Children.

The Effects ofTeam-Based

Functional Assessment on
the Behavior ofStudents in
Classroom Settings
LYNETTE K. CHANDLER
CAROL M. DAHLQUIST
ALAN C. REPP
Northern Illinois University and Edu-
cational Research and Services Center
CAROL FELTZ
Northern Illinois University

ABSTRACT: we examined the impact offunctional assessment interventions on both the appro-
priate and challenging behaviors ofgroups of students within preschool classrooms for chil-
dren with special needs and for children at risk. we also examined the effectiveness of a
training model to teach school-based teams to conductfunctional assessment. The results indi-
cated that school-based teams were able to conduct functional assessment during intervention
and maintained functional assessment skills during follow-up observations. In addition, the
functional assessment procedures resulted in a decrease in challenging behavior and nonen-
gagement and an increase in active engagement and peer interaction for groups of students
within classroom settings. The levels ofappropriate and challenging behavior observed during
intervention and maintenance within at-risk and special education classrooms were similar to
those observed in early childhood control classrooms.

hallenging behavior has been defined The prevalence of challenging behavior is

C as any behavior that interferes with

children's learning and development
or that is harmful to children and to others (Bai-
ley & Wolery, 1992). Challenging behavior may
include self-injury, stereotypy or repetitive be-
haviors, aggression, negative peer interaction,
disruptive behavior, tantruming, and noncom-
pliance.
greater among individuals with disabilities than
it is among typically developing individuals.
Several studies have documented high rates of
self-injurious behavior, stereotypic behavior, de-
structive and aggressive behaviors, and noncom-
pliance among persons with disabilities (e.g.,
Fidura, Lindsey, & Walker, 1987; Oliver, Mur-
phy, & Corbett, 1987; Walker, 1993).

Exceptional Children fOf

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

 Challenging behavior in classroom set-
tings requires inordinate amounts of educators'
time and effort, decreases the amount of time
available for promoting appropriate behavior,
and may result in referral for more restrictive
placement (Bilden, 1987; McGee & Daly, 1999;
Repp & Karsh, 1990; Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis,
1992). Children who engage in challenging be-
havior have fewer opportunities for positive in-
teractions with others in their environment.
This can lead to isolation and poor self-esteem
for the child, avoidance of the child by peers,
and negative interactions with adults and chil-
dren (Carr, Taylor, & Robinson, 1991; Chan-
dler, Fowler, & Lubeck, 1992).
Many educators do not have adequate
training in the prevention and remediation of
challenging behavior (Carr, Langdon, &
Yarbrough, 1999; Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, &
Rutherford, 1998; Rhode et al., 1992; Watkins
& Durant, 1992). This often results in failure to
address challenging behavior, or the application
of punishment techniques (Arndorfer, Mil-
tenberger, Woster, Rortvedt, & Gaffaney, 1994).
It also may result in the adoption of ineffective
strategies. Although numerous strategies and in-
terventions have .been described in the educa-
tional and behavioral literature, there are few
guidelines to assist educators and parents in se-
lecting one strategy over another in order to pre-
vent and remediate challenging behavior (Kern
& Dunlap, 1999; Munk & Karsh, 1999; Repp,
Karsh, Munk, & Dahlquist, 1995). Intervention
strategies may be selected that do not address
the function of the behavior, or the relationship
between the behavior and the environment af-
fecting the behavior (Foster-Johnson & Dunlap,
1993; Repp & Horner, 1999). Strategies also
may be selected that do not promote the acqui-
sition of appropriate behavior to replace chal-
lenging behavior (Carr, Robinson, & Palumbo,
1990; Carr et al., 1999).
Functional assessment is an assessment
and intervention process that assists educators
in identifying the factors that produce and sup-
port challenging behavior (Chandler &
Dahlquist, 1999; Munk & Repp, 1994; Repp &
Horner, 1999). Functional assessment uses non-
punitive interventions to prevent and remediate
challenging behavior and facilitates the develop-
102
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015
ment of appropriate behaviors. In functional as-
sessment, educators assess the environmental
conditions that set the occasion for and main-
tain challenging behavior and appropriate be-
havior. Then, based on assessment information,
they develop a positive, individualized interven-
tion plan that (a) changes the environmental
variables that contribute to challenging behavior
and, at the same time, (b) provides support for
appropriate behavior that achieves the same
function as the challenging behavior. For exam-
ple, functional assessment would determine if,
when a child runs out of the classroom, the
function or effect is to obtain attention (positive
reinforcement), avoid an activity (negative rein-
forcement), or to change activity level (sensory
regulation). The intervention selected would be
related to the function of behavior. For example,
if running out of the classroom functioned to
produce attention, the intervention would teach
the child a more appropriate and efficient means
of obtaining attention, such as calling the
teacher's name. If the function was to avoid an
activity, intervention might focus on (a) chang-
ing aspects of the activity that are aversive for
the child such as the materials or length of the
task, and also (b) providing reinforcement for
engaging in the activity. If the function was sen-
sory regulation, intervention might increase the
activity level of the task.
In recent years, functional assessment has
been recognized as a critical component of effec-
tive behavior intervention programs (Carr et al.
1994; Reichle & Wacker, 1993; Repp, 1999).
Indeed, the effectiveness of functional assess-
ment has resulted in the inclusion of functional
assessment in federal laws and state regulations
regarding discipline procedures for students
with disabilities (Turnbull, 1999). The 1997
Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabil-
ities Education Act specifies that students who
are referred to an alternative educational setting
or who are suspended from school must have a
functional behavioral assessment and behavior
implementation plan developed by the Individu-
alized Education Program (IEP) team within 10
days of placement (Maloney, 1997; NASDSE,
1997).
While previous research has documented
the effectiveness of functional assessment on re-
Fall 1999
ducing the challenging behavior of individual may have three students who consistently inter-
students (e.g., Arndorfer et al., 1994; Drasgow, rupt during class lectures and discussion peri-
Halle, Ostrosky, & Harbors, 1996; Kern, ods. For one child, the function of the
Childs, Dunlap, Clarke, & Falk, 1994; Kern & challenging behavior may be that he or she re-
Dunlap, 1999; McGee & Daly, 1999; Wacker, ceives one-to-one teacher interaction (positive
Cooper, Peck, Derby, & Berg, 1999), the impact reinforcement). For the second child, the func-
of functional assessment on the challenging and tion may be to prevent the teacher from asking a
appropriate behavior of the group of students question that he or she cannot answer (negative
within a classroom has not been investigated. reinforcement). The function for the third child
This type of research is important because many may be to increase stimulation during the pas-
of the interventions that are developed for indi- sive lecture period (sensory regulation). A func-
vidual students also are often applied to or affect tional assessment-based strategy for the third
other students in the classroom. For example, a child would be to increase stimulation during
common intervention strategy for students who the activity by allowing the child to use manipu-
find it difficult to attend or to wait for their latives that correspond to the activity. This strat-
turn to participate is to employ group respond- egy, however, would not be appropriate for the
ing. Even though this strategy may be selected first child (because it does not provide one-to-
based on functional assessment for one student's one interaction with the teacher) or the second
behavior, it will reduce waiting for other stu- child (because it does not allow the child to
dents as well. In this example, we might expect avoid teacher questions). The interventions for
to see a decrease in challenging behavior and an each of these children should address the func-
increase in attending behavior for the entire tion of their behavior (Carr et al., 1999). Educa-
group. The first purpose of this study was to ex- tors would have a greater impact on addressing
amine the impact of individually-based func- challenging behavior in classroom settings if
tional assessment interventions on the school-based teams were able. to conduct func-
challenging and appropriate behavior of stu- tional assessments and implement appropriate
dents within classroom settings. intervention strategies (Katsiyannis & Maag,
The second purpose of this study. was to 1998). This study evaluated the effectiveness of
evaluate the effectiveness of functional assess- a model to teach school-based teams to imple-
ment when it was conducted by school-based ment functional assessment procedures for indi-
teams. Much of the research concerning func- vidual students and to arrange classroom
tional assessment in school settings follows a environments to prevent challenging behavior
consultation model. In this model, staff first re- and support appropriate behavior. It also evalu-
quests assistance in addressing challenging be- ated maintenance of the ability of teams to im-
havior. Then, an individual who is trained in plement functional assessment procedures and
functional assessment typically observes a re- arrange classroom variables following interven-
ferred student in classroom settings, talks with tion.
classroom staff, and provides suggestions to staff
based on his or her observations. Staff then im- METHOD
plement the recommended procedures.
While this model of consultation may be Participants and Setting
effective at changing the behavior of the referred
student, it does not teach classroom staff how to Children and classrooms were recruited from
conduct functional assessment. Thus, for each three types of preschool programs: (a) class-
challenging behavior, staff depend on, and often rooms for children with special needs, (b) class-
wait for, consultation from a specialist. Or, staff rooms for children at risk, and (c) early
may apply intervention strategies that are not childhood classrooms. All children ranged in age
effective because they do not address the func- from 3-6 years. Teachers in each program were
tion of behavior (Repp, Felce, & Barton, 1988; certified in early childhood or special education.
Repp & Horner, 1999) For example, a teacher The duration of class sessions was 2.5 hr per

103
Exceptional Children

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

day, 5 days per week. Observations occurred
during morning and afternoon sessions.
Early Childhood Control Classrooms. Four
early childhood classrooms participated as con-
trol classrooms. Each classroom contained one
teacher, one teaching assistant, and 18-20 chil-
dren (for a total of 75 children) All but three of
the children enrolled in these classrooms were
identified as typically developing children. One
child received special education services and two
children received bilingual services. These class-
rooms served as control classrooms throughout
the study; they did not participate in interven-
tion.
Classrooms for Children At Risk. Three
classrooms (60 children) for children at risk par-
ticipated as experimental classrooms. All chil-
dren in these classrooms had one or more risk
variables identified on their eligibility forms.
Table 1 presents the number of children, teach-
ers, and teaching assistants in each classroom
and the number of children within each eligibil-
ity category for at-risk and special education
classrooms. In addition to the classroom teacher
and assistants, support staff such as therapists
and social workers provided in-class services to
individuals or small groups of children.
Classroom~ for Children with Special
Needs. Eight classrooms (75 children) for chil-
dren with special needs also participated as ex-
perimental classrooms (see Table 1). Each child
received special education services, which were
documented on IEPs. Support staff such as ther-
apists and social workers provided in-class ser-
vices to individuals or small groups of children.
Procedures
Data Collection. We collected data on
child behavior and on ecobehavioral aspects of
the classrooms during daily activities and rou-
tines. We coded five categories of child behav-
iors.
• ChallengingBehavior: behavior that interferes
with learning and development or that is
harmful to the child or others. This included
behaviors such as negative behavior directed
to peers or adults, stereotypy, disruptive be-
havior, destructive behavior, noncompliance,
tantrums, aggression, and self-abuse.
104
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015
• Active Engagement: appropriate active motor
or verbal behaviors that correctly corre-
sponded to the activity or teacher instruction.
This included appropriate interaction with
peers and adults and appropriate independent
or cooperative toy play.
• Passive Engagement: appropriate passive be-
haviors such as watching, waiting, or listen-
ing that correctly corresponded to the activity
or teacher instruction.
• Nonengagement: behaviors such as wander-
ing, inattentiveness, unoccupied, and sleep-
ing during activities that required active or
passive engagement. Children who exhibited
challenging behavior also were coded as
nonengaged. However, child behavior could
be coded solely as nonengagernent.if chal-
lenging behavior did not simultaneously
occur.
• Peer Interaction: positive verbal and nonver-
bal interaction with a peer for a minimum of
3 s. Active engagement was simultaneously
coded when peer interaction was coded.
Child behavior data were collected using a
computer-based observational system developed
by Repp, Karsh, VanAcker, Felce, and Harmon
(1989). This system uses computers to record up
to 45 events in the sequence in which they
occur. At the end of each session, the computer
printed a summary of the duration of each be-
havior for the group of children.
Students were randomly divided into ob-
servation groups of four or five children. The
observer recorded each child's behavior within a
group in sequential order; however, the order of
observations within and across groups and class-
rooms rotated each observation. Each student's
behavior was coded for 3 min before moving to
the next student in a group. Ten 3-min observa-
tions (total of 30 min) were conducted for each
child during baseline conditions for all class-
rooms and during intervention conditions for
the experimental (special education and at-risk)
classrooms. Five 3-min observations per child
were conducted during maintenance conditions
for the experimental classrooms. Since the pur-
pose of this study was to examine the impact of
functional assessment on the behavior of groups
of students, the percentage of time that children
Fall 1999
TABLE 1

Number ofStudents and Staffin Each Classroom and Within Each Eligibility Criteria Category

Number in Each Classroom Eligibility Criteria

At-Risk
Classrooms Screening Family Multiple
Students Teachers Assistants ESL
Test Score Variables Criteria

Class 1 16 6 3 6

Class 2 22 9 3 3 7

Class 3 22 9 4 3 6

Number in Each Classroom Eligibility Criteria by Disability Label

Special Ed.
Classrooms
Students Teachers Assistants S/L DD Aut. OR MR MD D/B

Class 1 9 2 2

Class 2 9 o 2 2 2 . 2 o

Class 3 9 2 3 2 o o

Class 4 10 2 2 2 2 2 o

Class 5 8 3 2 o o

Class 6 10 2 2 2 2 2 o

Class 7 10 2 4 o o 4 o

Class 8 10 2 2 2 o 2 2

Note: The screening test was the Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning-Revised (Mardell-Czudnowski &
Goldenberg, 1990). Eligibility for special education was based on federal disability categories: S/L = Speech/Language Im-
pairment; DD = Developmental Delay; Aut. =Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder; OR = Orthopedic Impair-
ment; MR = Mental Retardation; MD = Multiple Disabilities; D/B = Deaf and/or Blind.

Exceptional Children 105

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

engaged in each behavior was averaged across
type of classroom per condition. Individual stu-
dent data were not examined.
Observers completed the Observer Rating
of Ecobehavioral Variables Scale (OREVS) at the
end of 20 min observations (Chandler &
Dahlquist, 1992). The OREVS included vari-
ables identified through literature review as fac-
tors that prevent and remediate challenging
behavior and that support appropriate behavior.
The OREVS provided a general measure of the
fidelity of intervention and maintenance as the
strategies identified on the OREVS were dis-
cussed during functional assessment training as
prevention and intervention strategies that
should be implemented in school settings. Ob-
servers coded the OREVS during observations of
child behavior. Ten observations per classroom
were conducted during baseline for all class-
rooms and during intervention in each experi-
mental classroom. Five observations were
conducted in each experimental classroom dur-
ing maintenance conditions.
In scoring the OREVS, the observer
recorded an item if it was present at least 50% of
the observation or for 50% of the children. The
OREVS included 29 items within five cate-
gories. The mean percentage of strategies em-
ployed per condition, per type of classroom is
reported. The categories and number of items
per category were as follows:
• Environmental Arrangements: included items
related to arrangement of physical space, ac-
tivity centers, and materials, and seating
arrangements. This included four items.
• Schedule: items related to the schedule of
daily activities and routines and activity tran-
sitions, the alternation of active and passive
tasks, and whether children were informed of
activity beginnings, endings, and transitions.
This included three items.
• Appropriate Adult Behavior: team behaviors
such as attending to and prompting appropri-
ate behavior and requests for assistance or at-
tention, responding appropriately to
challenging behavior, and providing direction
to team members were coded. This included
12 items.
106
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015
• Instructional Strategies: teaching strategies
and practices such as unison responding, ac-
tivity-based intervention, positive corrective
feedback, offering choices, modifying activi-
ties, and appropriate pacing of instruction
were coded. This included six items.
• Support for Peer Interaction: teaching strate-
gies and environmental arrangements de-
signed to promote and support positive peer
interactions were coded. This included four
items.
Interobserver Agreement. We collected two
types of reliability in each classroom throughout
the study. First, we assessed the reliability of ob-
servations of child behavior across classroom ac-
tivities. A second observer simultaneously and
independently recorded 20% of all observation
sessions. The computer program allowed us to
compare the records of the two observers. The
computer scored agreement if both observers
recorded the same duration of behavior within 3
s of the onset and offset of behavior. Percentage
agreement was calculated by dividing the total
number of agreements by the sum of agreements
and disagreements and multiplying that number
by 100. This calculation was performed for each
child behavior, per type of classroom during
each condition. The mean percentage agreement
across behaviors ranged from 94%-99%. Only
one agreement product was below 90%-the
mean agreement for nonengagement during the
special education baseline was 89%, ranging
from 65%-100%.
We also evaluated the reliability of the
OREVS observations. A second observer
recorded 23% of all observation sessions, across
all classrooms. Percentage agreement was calcu-
lated by comparing the total score obtained by
each observer and dividing the smaller number
by the larger number and multiplying this by
100. The mean percentage agreement for all
classrooms and conditions was 95%, ranging
from a mean of 88%-100%. Only one agree-
ment product was below 90%-the mean per-
centage for the at-risk baseline was 88%,
ranging from 83%-90%. Details on all reliabil-
ity calculations can be obtained from the first
author.
Fall 1999
Experimental Conditions and Design
Experimental control was established through
intergroup replication across the experimental
classrooms (Sidman, 1960). Each special educa-
tion and at-risk classroom team implemented
the functional assessment process following
baseline.
Baseline. Data on child behavior and
ecobehavioral variables were collected across a
minimum 4-week period within each classroom.
Teachers and other service providers were told to
continue using typical daily activities and rou-
tines and teaching strategies.
Intervention: Functional Assessment. Team
members within each at-risk and special educa-
tion classroom attended two 8-hr functional as-
sessment workshops. Teams consisted of
administrators, teachers, assistants, social work-
ers, psychologists, and therapists. The two
workshops presented the process of conducting
functional assessment and selecting and apply-
ing positive intervention strategies related to the
function of behavior. They also focused on
strategies to arrange variables within classroom
settings in order to prevent and remediate chal-
lenging behavior. The workshops consisted of
lecture, discussion, group activities, and analysis
of videotaped and written case studies..
Within 1 week of the workshops each
classroom team, under the guidance of the be-
havior specialist, initiated functional assessment
procedures for an initial student. During the
first week, they (a) collected information con-
cerning the conditions related to challenging
and appropriate behavior, (b) identified the
function of challenging behavior, and (c) devel-
oped positive interventions to reduce environ-
mental and social support for challenging
behavior and to provide support for appropriate
replacement behavior. These procedures were
documented anecdotally by the teams on func-
tional assessment planning forms. During the
remaining weeks, the team implemented inter-
vention strategies. They also developed and im-
plemented strategies to promote maintenance of
appropriate behavior.
Each team received in-class support as
they implemented the functional assessment
process. In-class support was systematically
Exceptional Children.
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015
faded throughout a 4-week period using the fol-
lowing procedures. During the first week, teams
received direct support via coaching and model-
ing procedures. The behavior specialist partici-
pated in team meetings and spent the first day
of intervention implementation in the class-
room. She modeled intervention strategies and
provided team members with instruction and
feedback as they implemented intervention
strategies. In week 2, teams received support
only through coaching. The behavior specialist
observed in the classroom for one class session
and provided advice, feedback, and reinforce-
ment to staff as they implemented intervention
strategies. During week 3, the behavior specialist
continued to provide coaching support; however,
she only remained in the classroom for half of a
class session. During the fourth week, the behav-
ior specialist provided collaborative support. She
attended team planning meetings and provided
advice, feedback, and reinforcement during these
meetings. She did not work with staff during
class sessions.
This model of consultative support was
replicated for four students per classroom. Thus,
each classroom team participated in intervention
for a 4-month period. Teams addressed a variety
of challenging behaviors, ranging from moderate
to severe in nature. The behaviors that were ad-
dressed during intervention and maintenance
conditions are identified on Figure 1.
Maintenance. Follow-up observations of
child behavior and of ecobehavioral variables
(the OREVS) were conducted for 4 weeks fol-
lowing intervention. During maintenance, con-
sultative support was not available and teams
were informed that they could continue using
functional assessment and arranging classroom
variables on their own. Each classroom team
conducted one or two functional assessments
during this condition. Functional assessment
procedures were documented on functional as-
sessment planning forms completed by teams
and collected at the end of the maintenance con-
dition. (Staff were not told to continue using
these forms nor that the forms would be col-
lected.)
Control Classrooms. We collected 4 weeks
of normative data in each control classroom. In
order to control for time as an intervening vari-
107
FIGURE 1
Behaviors That were Addressed Through Functional Assessment During Intervention and
Maintenance Conditions
Poor attending, excess movement
Wandering
Elective mutism
Noncompliance
Tantrums
Constant crying
Swearing, barking
Spitting
Running from the classroom
Shouting
Disruption during group activities
Isolation, no interaction with peers
Poor, negative peer interaction
Note: Children may have exhibited multiple challenging behaviors. The intensity of these behaviors ranged from moderate to
severe across all classrooms.
able and to provide data concerning behavior in
early childhood classrooms, we collected data in
these classrooms throughout the study.
RESULTS
Data for all children within one type of class-
room were combined to produce a mean per-
centage of child behavior per classroom type and
condition. Ecobehavioral data obtained from the
OREVS are presented as the mean percentage of
strategies employed by type of classroom across
conditions. A multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) was used to compare the five de-
pendent variables (child behavior) across (a) con-
ditions or time, (b) type of classroom, and (c)
conditions and classroom type interaction.
These MANOVA outputs are presented in Table
2 and discussed in the following sections.
Child Behavior
The first MANOVA identified a time or condi-
tion effect (baseline, intervention, and mainte-
nance), across four statistical tests (Wilks's
Lambda, Pillai's Trace, Hotelling-Lawley Trace,
and Roy's Greatest Root). All four test statistics
are significant at the 0.0001 probability level, in-
dicating a strong difference among the averages
of child behavior across conditions.
108
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015
Closing eyes
Off task, refusals to sit, out of seat
Destructive behavior directed to materials
Continuous inappropriate initiations to adults
Self-abuse (e.g., pinching, hitting, head butting,
hand biting)
Self-stimulation (e.g., mouthing toys and hands,
rocking, hair twirling)
Aggression (e.g., hitting, pushing, biting)
Bothering peers, inappropriate touching
Refusals to share, hoarding toys
Refusal to participate, nonparticipation
Hiding under teacher's desk
The second MANOVA identified a class
type effect (early childhood, at-risk, and special
education). All four statistical tests are not sig-
nificant, indicating that the averages moved in
the same way across the different types of class-
rooms.
Finally, the third MANOVA identified an
interaction between time or conditions and class
type (at-risk and special education classrooms).
All four statistical tests are significant at the
0.0001 probability level. This indicates that al-
though the averages moved the same way across
classroom types, there was a strong difference
among the averages of the different types of
classrooms, at different times. The averages did
not move the same way for all conditions (time),
across the two types of classrooms.
The MANOVAs presented in Table 2 are
omnibus tests in five dimensions, indicating that
the averages for child behaviors were different
across conditions, type of classroom, and class-
room type and condition interaction. To iden-
tify which of the five child behaviors contributed
to the significant MANOVA, each behavior was
separately analyzed using ANOVA. The results
of these ANOVAs are presented in Table 3. In
addition to statistical analyses, graphed data for
each child behavior also are presented. Figures
2-6 present the mean percentage of sessions
Fall 1999
TABLE 2

MultivariateAnalysis o/Variancefor Child Behavior

Statistic value F NumberDF DenDF Pr>F

Time or Condition Effect

Wilks's Lambda 0.49244686 35.0215 10 824 0.0001

Pillai's Trace 0.51366662 28.5460 10 826 0.0001

Hotelling-Lawley Trace 1.01826148 41.8505 10 822 0.0001

Roy's Greatest Root 1.00592006 83.0890 5 413 0.0001

Class Type Effect

Wilks's Lambda 0.19858720 4.0356 5 5 0.0760

Pillai's Trace 0.80141280 4.0356 5 5 0.0760

Hotelling-Lawley Trace 4.03557128 4.0356 5 5 0.0760

Roy's Greatest Root 4.03557128 4.0356 5 5 0.0760

Condition and Class Type Interaction Effect

Wilks's Lambda 0.82844155 8.1308 10 824 0.0001

Pillai's Trace 0.17546490 7.9436 10 826 0.0001

Hotelling-Lawley Trace 0.20237034 8.3174 10 822 0.0001

Roy's Greatest Root 0.17550217 14.4965 5 413 0.0001

within which child behaviors were observed dur-
ing baseline, intervention, and maintenance con-
ditions for special education and at-risk
classrooms. These figures also present the mean
percentage of sessions within which child behav-
iors were observed in the early childhood control
classrooms. Table 4 presents the means and
standard deviations of child behavior for class-
room type across conditions. Details on data
breakdowns by classroom for each child behavior
are available from the first author.
Challenging Behavior. The application of
functional assessment to individual students had
a significant effect on the challenging behavior
of the group of students within classrooms, as
presented in Figure 2. During baseline, children
in at-risk and special education classrooms gen-
erally engaged in higher levels of challenging be-
havior than children in the early childhood
control classrooms. The percentage of challeng-
ing behavior decreased in both types of experi-
mental classrooms during intervention and
maintenance conditions. The percentage of chal-
lenging behavior for students in special educa-
tion classrooms decreased from a baseline mean
of approximately 23% to an intervention and
maintenance mean of 4%. The baseline mean
for students in at-risk classrooms decreased from
12% to 2% during intervention and mainte-
nance. The percentage of challenging behavior
observed in both types of classrooms during the
maintenance condition was similar to the
amount observed in the early childhood control
group.
The ANOVA for challenging behavior
(Table 3) identified a strong condition effect and
a strong interaction effect between conditions
and classroom type, indicating that the average
percentage of time engaged in challenging be-
havior was different across conditions and that
the effect was different across classroom types.
For each child behavior, because the classes were

Exceptional Children 109

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

TABLE 3
AnalysisofVariance for Child Behaviorand GREVS Variables
Source DF TYpe/55 M5 F Value Pr>F

Challenging Behavior

Time 2 23113.563083 11556.781542 133.55 0.0001

Type 1 4236.422664 4236.422664 9.23 0.0141

Teacher (type) 9 4130.826475 458.980719 5.30 0.0001

Time*Type 2 2110.993696 1055.496848 12.20 0.0001

Active Engagement

Time 2 50080.354603 25040.177301 38.82 0.0001

Type 20645.861629 20645.851629 18.27 0.0021

Teacher (type) 9 10172.666375 1130.296264 1.75 0.0755

Time*Type 2 113.277677 56.638839 0.09 0.9160

Nonengagement

Time 2 42162.190001 21081.095000 175.32 0.0001

Type 8841.247179 8841.247179 11.64 0.0077

Teacher (type) 9 6835.474172 759.497130 6.32 0.0001

Time*Type 2 2463.467935 1231.733967 10.24 0.0001

Peer Interaction

Time 2 19156.109003 9548.054501 47.03 0.0001

Type 26713.617128 26713.617128 90.93 0.0001

Teacher (type) 9 2644.007223 293.778580 1.44 0.1676

Time*Type 2 9499.289619 4749.644809 23.32 0.0001

GREVS Strategies

Time 2 71695.009174 35847.504587 256.92 0.0001

Type 8973.761004 8973.761004 2.69 0.1354

Teacher (type) 9 29976.494134 3330.721570 23.87 0.0001

Time*type 2 1858.859779 929.429889 6.66 0.0015

* = denotes a time by type interaction effect.

110 Fall1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

TABLE 4
Means and Standard Deviationsper BehaviorAcross Conditionsfor At-Risk and SpecialEducation
Classrooms
Baseline Intervention Maintenance
Behavior M SO M SO M SO
At-Risk Classrooms

Challenging Behavior 12.0 12.4 2.2 2.3 2.1 3.6

Active Engagement 543 30.2 75.4 25.1 85.9- 14.5

Passive Engagement 25.2 28.9 21.0 24.6 10.0 15.3

Nonengagement 16.4 12.8 1.8 3.6 2.3 3.4

Peer Interaction 9.1 11.5 34.1 26.8 24.4 18.3

Special Education Classrooms

Challenging Behavior 22.8 13.7 4.2 5.9 4.4 3.5

Active Engagement 40.6 23.2 61.6 26.0 66.0 22.1

Passive Engagement 24.8 20.5 29.8 25.4 26.4 22.0

Nonengagement 30.5 16.5 6.6 8.8 5.5 6.3

Peer Interaction 1.3 4.7 6.9 10.2 13.6 13.2

FIGURE 2
The Mean Percentage ofChallenging BehaviorAcross Types ofClassrooms and Conditions

100
• BudiocIOOIIIroI
90
C1Dlavalti0ll
80 II MaiJltcmDoo
a
'S .~
~
D1
IllI 70
i
i=
~ OIl
60

~.! 50
; 5 40

~a 30
20
10
0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

Exceptional Children 111

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

nested within class type, the Mean Square for
class within class type is the denominator for the
F for Class Type. There is a statistically signifi-
cant effect for challenging behavior across type
of classroom.
Active Engagement. Team-based, individ-
ual functional assessment had a positive impact
on the level of active engagement observed in at-
risk and special education classrooms. Figure 3
presents the mean percentage of active engage-
ment across classrooms. The percentage of active
engagement was highest in the early childhood
control group (70%), followed by baseline levels
for at-risk (54%) and special education (40%)
classrooms. The levels of active engagement in-
creased significantly during intervention and
maintenance for both at-risk and special educa-
tion classrooms. The percentage of active en-
gagement increased in at-risk classrooms to 75%
during intervention and to 86% during mainte-
nance. Active engagement increased to 61 % dur-
ing intervention and 66% during maintenance
for special education classrooms. The levels of
active engagement observed during maintenance
for at-risk and special education classrooms were
similar to the levels observed in the early child-
hood control classrooms.
The ANOVA for active engagement indi-
cates a strong condition effect and type of class
effect. The average percentage of time students
exhibited active engagement was different across
conditions and classroom type. The interaction
between conditions and classroom type is not
significant, indicating that the averages were
moving in the same direction for both the at-risk
and special education classrooms across condi-
tions.
PassiveEngagement. Passive engagement is
presented in Figure 4. The level of passive en-
gagement was similar across all classrooms and
conditions. The ANOVA indicated no signifi-
cant effects across conditions, classroom type, or
conditions and classroom type interaction. As a
result, it is not included in Table 3.
Nonengagement. As shown in Figure 5,
students in the experimental classrooms engaged
in higher levels of nonengagement during base-
line than students in the control classrooms and
the level of nonengagement was higher in special
education classrooms than it was in at-risk class-
112
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015
rooms. Functional assessment produced signifi-
cant decreases in nonengagement for students in
each at-risk and special education classroom.
The percentage of nonengagement observed in
at-risk classrooms decreased from a baseline
mean of 16% to a maintenance mean of 2%. In
special education classrooms, nonengagement
decreased from a baseline mean of 30% to a
maintenance mean of 5%. The percentages of
nonengagement obtained in special education
and at-risk classrooms during maintenance were
similar to those obtained in control classrooms.
The nonengagement ANOVA yielded a
significant effect for condition, across class type,
and for the conditions and class type interaction.
The average percentage of time students were
nonengaged was different across conditions and
the condition effect was different across class-
room types.
Peer Interaction. Figure 6 presents the
mean percentage of peer interaction across type
of classrooms and conditions. During baseline,
students in at-risk and special education class-
rooms engaged in very little peer interaction
(9% and 1%, respectively). Students in the con-
trol classrooms engaged in peer interaction fre-
quently (31 %). Functional assessment produced
significant increases in peer interaction for stu-
dents in at-risk classrooms, increasing to a mean
of 34% during intervention and 24% during
maintenance. These levels were similar to those
obtained in control classrooms. Unfortunately,
these results were not as dramatic for students in
special education classrooms. In these class-
rooms the percentage of peer interaction in-
creased from 1% during baseline to 7% during
intervention and 13% during maintenance.
There was a significant effect for peer in-
teraction across conditions, classroom type, and
conditions and class type interaction. The
ANOVA indicates that the average percentage of
time in peer interaction was different across con-
ditions and this effect was different across
classes.
Ecobehavioral Variables
The mean percentages of ecobehavioral strate-
gies (obtained from OREVS observations) em-
ployed across type of classroom and conditions
are presented in Figure 7. Table 5 presents the
Fall 1999
FIGURE 3
The Mean Percentage ofActive Engagement Across TJpes ofClassrooms and Conditions

100
90
80
~il
Q,I Q,I 70
CIlS
.:! Q,I
60
5iy ::
CIl
s. Cl 50
lt roil
Cl ~ 40
~~ 30
20
10
0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

FIGURE 4

The Mean Percentage ofPassive Engagement Across Types ofClassrooms and Conditions

100
• Buctineloomol
90
C ImavClllion
80 II~
~il
Q,I Q,I
70
gm
Cl CIl 60
~ :.
s. Cl
,troil
50
~ 40
i ·Ii
:8~ 30
20
10
0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

Exceptional Children 113

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

FIGURE 5

The Mean Percentage ofNonengagement Across TYpes ofClassrooms and Conditions

100

90 • BuclinclCOIIIroI
CImavadion
80 D MaintaImlle
'S .. 70
flii
:! ~ 60
IiCol 011
1\1
"'" 011 SO
~a
I:l I
1\1 8 40
~Z 30

20
10

0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

FIGURE 6

The Mean Percentage ofPeer Interaction Across TYpes ofClassrooms and Conditions

100
90 • BuclinclCODIIoI
C lotavaIIion
80 • Maintawnoo
'S
il 70
60

IJM
I:l
SO
40
~~ 30
20
10
0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

114 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

FIGURE 7

The Mean Percentage ofEcobehavioral Strategies EmployedAcross TJpes ofClassrooms and Conditions

100
• Badino'ClOIIIroI
90
CImavadion

·rrJ
80 .. Maintcnaooe .
'S 70
~-=
:!.b 60
~~
m5
~ .~
50

~t
40

~~ 30

20

10

0
Early At-risk Special
Childhood Education
Control

means and standard deviations of the OREVS
variables for class type and for each classroom
within class type, across conditions. The mean
percentage of strategies employed in control and
at-risk classrooms was equal (71 %) and both
were higher than the baseline levels obtained in
special education classrooms (52%). Although
there was variability across individual classrooms
during baseline, there was a profound increase in
the percentages of ecobehavioral variables em-
ployed during intervention and maintenance
conditions for at-risk and special education
classrooms. In fact, the mean percentages of
strategies employed in these classrooms during
intervention and maintenance conditions was
greater than those observed throughout the
study in control classrooms.
The increase in the percentage of ecobe-
havioral strategies employed in at-risk and spe-
cial education classrooms corresponds to the
decreases in challenging and nonengaged behav-
ior and increases in active engagement obtained
during intervention and maintenance condi-
tions.
An ANOVA on ecobehavioral strategies
yielded significant results for conditions, class-
room type, and classroom type by condition in-
teraction. This ANOVA also is presented on
Table 3. The average percentage of strategies
employed was different across conditions, and
this effect was different across classrooms. How-
ever, there is no significant difference across
classroom type when averaged across conditions.
Table 5 presents the means and standard
deviations of the OREVS variables across condi-
tions and type of classroom and for each class-
room. The at-risk and early childhood
classrooms obtained equal mean scores during
baseline and these were higher that the mean
scores obtained across special education class-
rooms. In addition, there is variability across
classrooms during baseline conditions. Nonethe-

ExceptionalChildren 115

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

TABLE 5
Means and Standard Deviations ofOREVS VariablesAcross Conditions and Classrooms
Baseline Intervention Maintenance

Classroom 1jJpe M SD M SD M SD

Early Childhood 1 68.6 17.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Early Childhood 2 66.6 15.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Early Childhood 3 69.1 15.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Early Childhood 4 83.0 8.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 71.5 15.6 N/A N/A N/A N/A

At-Risk 1 85.8 7.2 99.3 2.2 96.6 4.7

At-Risk 2 79.7 7.6 97.6 7.5 98.0 3.0

At-Risk 3 49.5 11.6 90.6 10.6

Total 71.6 18.3 95.5 8.5 97.3 3.8

Special Education 1 61.4 17.2 85.5 9.8 87.6 4.8

Special Education 2 71.5 8.3 87.6 9.8 92.0 2.2

Special Education 3 54.8 11.7 92.5 3.6 98.0 3.0

Special Education 4 51.6 14.0 93.5 5.1 100.0 0.0

Special Education 5 50.8 11.8 93.9 6.0 100.0 0.0

Special Education 6 56.4 15.3 99.6 1.2 100.0 0.0

Special Education 7 33.2 12.7 70.5 14.2

Special Education 8 35.8 10.4 53.0 20.2

Total 51.9 17.4 84.1 18.0 96.2 5.3

Note: Earlychildhood control classrooms did not participate in intervention or maintenance conditions. At-riskClassroom3
and Special Education Classrooms 7 and 8 wereclosedduring school district reorganizationbeforemaintenance data were
collected.

less, each team increased the percentage of
strategies employed during intervention. The
means for each at-risk classroom increased to
above 90% during intervention. The two at-risk
classrooms for which data were available main-
tained this high level. Each special education
classroom also increased the mean percentage of
strategies employed during intervention, ranging
from 53.0% to 99.6%. High levels of OREVS
variables also were noted during maintenance
for the six special education classrooms with
maintenance data.

116 Fall 1999

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

DISCUSSION 50% or more of the students or was in effect for
The first purpose of this study was to examine at least 50% of an observation. Thus, the teams
in this study demonstrated an increase in the ap-
the effects of functional assessment on the chal-
plication of strategies to many students, rather
lenging and appropriate behavior of groups of
than only to specific students.
students within classroom settings. Challenging
It is not possible to identify the number of
behavior within each at-risk and special educa-
students per classroom who exhibited increases
tion classroom decreased during intervention
in positive behavior and decreases in challenging
and maintained at low levels during a 4-week
behavior. The possibility exists that the changes
maintenance condition. Nonengagement de-
in group data were due only to changes in the
creased in each at-risk classroom and in the ma-
behavior of the students for whom functional as-
jority of special education classrooms. The levels
sessment was conducted. In the special educa-
of challenging and nonengaged behavior ob-
tion classrooms, 4 out of 8-10 students received
tained during maintenance were similar to the
functional assessment. In the at-risk classrooms
levels observed in the control classrooms. Active
4 out of 16-22 students received functional as-
engagement and peer interaction increased
sessment. However, functional assessment was
within each at-risk and special education class-
conducted on one child at a time (l month per
room during intervention. During maintenance, child). Thus for the first month of intervention,
the levels of active engagement for at-risk and functional assessment was conducted on one
special education classrooms and the level of child and so forth until the fourth month of in-
peer interaction for at-risk classrooms were simi- tervention when functional assessment was con-
lar to those of the control classrooms. Peer inter- ducted for the fourth child. The full impact of
action in special education classrooms also change due to individualized functional assess-
increased during maintenance; however, the level ment in each classroom would not have been re-
of peer interaction was less than that observed alized until the end of the intervention
for at-risk classrooms and the control class- condition. Anecdotal evidence from teacher
rooms. The levels of passive engagement were progress notes and examination of student files
relatively stable in at-risk and special education in the three at-risk classrooms indicated that
classrooms during all conditions. many students engaged in challenging behavior.
Previous research has documented the ef- Challenging behaviors were specifically noted
fectiveness of functional assessment on changing for 28 of the 60 children in these classrooms.
the behavior of individual students (e.g., Arn- Challenging behaviors were noted for 49 of the
dorfer et al., 1994; Carr et al., 1999; Kern et al., 75 children in the eight special education class-
1994; Repp & Karsh, 1994; Wacker et al., rooms. Unfortunately; the severity and frequency
1999). This study indicates that the behavior of of these challenging behaviors is not known.
the group of students within at-risk and special The changes in grouped data clearly would have
education classrooms improved when functional been influenced by the data for students who re-
assessment was conducted for individual stu- ceived functional assessment; however, it seems
dents. The positive impact of functional assess- likely that the changes observed during interven-
ment on group behavior may have occurred tion also were influenced by changes in the be-
because many of the strategies that are identified havior of additional students. Future research
to address the behavior of one student also are might address this question by collecting data on
inevitably applied to other students within the individual students as well as groups of students.
classroom. For example, strategies such as pro- Students in the at-risk classrooms exhib-
viding breaks or movement during activities may ited levels of peer interaction during interven-
be developed for one student, but they often will tion and maintenance that were similar to
be applied to the entire class. Support for this children in the control classrooms. Challenging
hypothesis comes from the data collected with behavior often reduces opportunities to interact
the OREVS. This checklist allowed an item or positively with peers. When challenging behav-
behavior to be scored only if it was applied to ior decreases and active engagement increases,

Exceptional Children 117

Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015

there are greater opportunities to interact with
peers. For many students, these new opportuni-
ties are sufficient to promote positive interac-
tions. In other words, many of these students
probably had the skills to interact with peers,
but did not have the opportunities to use those
skills. Unfortunately, the level of interaction for
students with special needs was below that of
students in the other classrooms. While this
finding is disappointing, it is not surprising. For
many students with special needs, opportunity
alone is not sufficient to promote interaction.
These children often will require intensive social
skills training in order to learn to interact with
peers (Vanderbilt/Minnesota Project, 1993).
Functional assessment may be a first step in pro-
moting interaction, but it should be used in con-
junction with specific social skills interventions.
The second purpose of this study was to
evaluate the effectiveness of teaching teams to
conduct functional assessment. During interven-
tion, teams in each classroom conducted func-
tional assessments for four students. During
maintenance, teams continued to apply previous
intervention strategies and to conduct indepen-
dent functional assessments with new children.
(Four teams conducted two functional assess-
ments; the remaining teams conducted one or
two functional assessments during mainte-
nance.) Although we did not collect data on in-
dividual students, functional assessment
planning forms provided anecdotal evidence of
positive changes in challenging behavior for
those students for whom functional assessment
was conducted.
The success of teams in being able to con-
duct functional assessments may be related to the
training model and the trainers employed in this
study. First, the workshops and in-class support
were provided by individuals with extensive expe-
rience teaching and implementing functional as-
sessment, and coaching teams within classroom
settings. It may be critical to employ well-trained
and experienced staff as trainers and coaches.
Replication of this study with different trainers
would add validity to the training package.
Second, our consultative model may have
been critical to the generalization and mainte-
nance of skills. We provided support across a 4-
month period. The in-class training allowed the
118
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015
consultant to guide the functional assessment
process, model application of the strategies, and
provide feedback and reinforcement to staff as
they mastered the functional assessment process.
Our model also included several antecedent and
consequence strategies that are important to
generalization and maintenance such as multiple
exemplars, train in natural settings, general case
programming, and reinforce generalization
(Chandler, Lubeck, & Fowler, 1992; Stokes &
Baer, 1977). Unfortunately, it is not possible to
identify which components of the model are
necessary components of training. Future re-
search might examine a variety of consultative
support models.
Third, the results obtained in this study
may be due to the type and form of information
presented during the workshop. The content of
the workshops was very pragmatic and reflected
classroom and school-based settings. We pre-
sented examples of intervention strategies for
the three functions of behavior, as well as gen-
eral strategies to prevent challenging behavior
and support appropriate behavior. We also used
videotaped examples of teams applying func-
tional assessment in school settings. Less empha-
sis was placed on a theoretical understanding of
terms and concepts, data collection techniques,
and a review of research. Nonetheless, partici-
pants did learn to identify setting events, an-
tecedents, consequences, and the function of
appropriate and challenging behavior, and to se-
lect and apply interventions based on the func-
tion of behavior.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act include a mandate for
schools to conduct functional assessment for
some students with disabilities. The success of
functional assessment within school settings will
be contingent on the effectiveness of these pro-
cedures to address the challenging behavior of
students with and without disabilities. However,
success also will depend on the ability of educa-
tional teams to employ functional assessment.
Functional assessment must be feasible or practi-
cal enough to be employed by educational teams
within classrooms and other school settings
Fall 1999
(Odom, McConnell, & Chandler, 1994). This
study documented the effectiveness of functional
assessment in addressing the challenging and ap-
propriate behavior of students within classroom
settings. It further documented that teams were
able to independently employ and maintain
functional assessment procedures within class-
rooms. There are several advantages that en-
hance the feasibility and effectiveness of
functional assessment within school-based set-
tings:
• It is a proactive approach, teaching children
what they should do, rather than punishing
children for engaging in challenging behavior.
• It focuses on prevention as well as remediation
of challenging behavior by arranging an-
tecedents and consequences that may be re-
lated to challenging and appropriate behavior.
• It provides team members from a variety of
disciplines with a common language (e.g.,
setting events, antecedents, function, etc.)
and approach to addressing challenging be-
havior.
• It provides teams with a method of assess-
ment that can be used with any challenging
behavior of any child, regardless of age, dis-
ability, or setting.
• It provides teams with consistent methods for
selecting interventions that address the func-
tion of behavior.
Functional assessment training should be
offered to and implemented by school-based
teams as a means of preventing and remediating
challenging behavior of individuals and groups
of students. In order to do this school districts
or cooperatives will need to identify a group of
individuals who can provide functional assess-
ment training and classroom support to educa-
tional teams. Classroom support should focus
on providing teams with skills that will allow
them to conduct functional assessment and im-
plement assessment-based intervention strate-
gies. Follow-up procedures also should be
initiated and maintained across time. This study
assessed maintenance over a 4-week period via
observation and functional assessment planning
forms. It probably would be wise to periodically
monitor teams and to provide additional sup-
port and consultation as needed. It also would
Exceptional Children
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015
be helpful to develop procedures for teams to re-
quest and obtain follow-up consultation.
REFERENCES
Arndorfer, R. E., & Miltenberger, R. G., Woster S.
H., Rortvedt, A. K., & Gaffaney, T. (1994). Home-
based descriptive and experimental analysis of prob-
lem behavior in children. Topics in Early Childhood
Special Education, 14 (1),64-87.
Bailey, D. B., & Wolery; M. (1992). Teaching infants and
preschoolers with disabilities. NewYork: MacMillan.*
Biklen, D. (1987). In pursuit of integration. In M. S.
Beieres & P. Knoblock, (Eds.), Program models for
mainstreaming: Integrating students with moderate to
severedisabilities (pp. 19-39). Rockville, MD: Aspen."
Carr, E. G., Langdon, N. A., & Yarbrough, S. C.
(1999). Hypothesis-based intervention for severe
problem behavior. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.),
Functional assessmentofproblem behavior: From effec-
tive assessment to effective support (pp. 9-31). Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth.*
Carr, E. G., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J.
I., Kemp, D. c., & Smith, C. E. (1994). Communica-
tion-based intervention for problem behavior: A user's
guide for producing positive change. Baltimore:
Brookes.*
Carr, E. G., Robinson, S., & Palumbo, L. (1990). The
wrong issue: Aversive versus nonaversive treatment.
The right issue: Functional versus nonfunctional
treatment. In A. C. Repp & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Per-
spectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive inter-
ventions for persons with developmental disabilities
(pp. 361-380). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press."
Carr, E. G., Taylor, J. c., & Robinson, S. (1991). The
effects of severe behavior problems on the teaching
behaviors of adults. Journal ofApplied Behavior
Analysis, 24, 523-535.
Chandler, L. K., & Dahlquist, C. M. (1992). Observer
Rating of Ecobehavioral Variables Scale. Unpublished
document.
Chandler, L. K., & Dahlquist, C. M. (1999). The ef-
fects of functional assessment on the challenging and
appropriate behavior of children in preschool class-
rooms. In S. Irwin (Ed.), Challenging the challenging
behaviors:A source book based on the SpeciaLink Insti-
tute (pp. 27-30, 73-79). Cape Breton Island, CA: Bre-
ton Books."
Chandler, L. K., Fowler, S. A., & Lubeck, R. C.
(1992). An analysis of the effects of multiple setting
events on the social behavior of preschool children
119
with special needs. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analy-
sis, 25, 249-264.
Chandler, L. K., Lubeck, R. c., & Fowler, S. A.
(1992). Generalization and maintenance of preschool
children's social skills: A critical review and analysis.
Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 25, 415-428.
Drasgow, E., Halle, J. W, Ostrosky, M., & Harbors,
H. (1996). Using behavioral indication and functional
communication training to establish an initial sign
repertoire with a young child with severe disabilities.
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 500-
521.
Fidura, J. G., Lindsey, E. R., & Walker, G. R. (1987).
A special behavior unit for treatment of behavior
problems of persons who are mentally retarded. Men-
tal Retardation, 25, 107-111.
Foster-Johnson, L., & Dunlap, G. (1993). Using
functional assessment to develop effective individual-
ized interventions for challenging behaviors. TEACH-
ING Exceptional Children, 25(3), 44-50.
Katsiyannis, A., & Maag, J. W (1998). Disciplining
students with disabilities: Issues and considerations
for implementing IDEA 97. Behavioral Disorders, 23,
276-289.
Kern, L., Childs, K. E., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., &
Falk, G. D. (1994). Using assessment-based curricular
intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a
student with emotional and behavioral challenges.
Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 27(1), 7-19.
Kern, L., & Dunlap, G. (1999). Assessment-based in-
terventions for children with emotional and behav-
ioral disorders. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.),
Functional analysis ofproblem behavior: From effective
assessmentto effective support (pp. 197-237). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.*
Maloney, M. (1997). The reauthorization of IDEA:
What are your responsibilities? Knoxville, TN: The
Weatherly Law Firm. *
Mardell-Czudnowski, c., & Goldenberg, D. (1990).
Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learn-
ing-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.*
McGee, G. G., & Daly, T. (1999). Prevention of
problem behaviors in preschool children. In A. C.
Repp & R. Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis ofprob-
lem behavior: From effective assessment to effective sup-
port (pp. 169-196). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.*
Munk, D. D., & Karsh, K. G. (1999). Antecedent
curriculum and instructional variables as classwide in-
terventions for preventing or reducing problem be-
haviors. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.),
120
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015
Functional analysis ofproblem behavior: From effective
assessment to effective support (pp. 259-276). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.*
Munk, D. D., & Repp, A. C. (1994). The relation-
ship between instructional practices and problem be-
havior: A review. Exceptional Children, 60, 390-401.
National Association of State Directors of Special Ed-
ucation (1997). IDEA information: A reauthorized
IDEA is enacted: Comparison ofprevious law and RL.
105-17(1997 amendments). Unpublished document.
Nelson, R. J., Roberts, M. L., Mathur, S. R., &
Rutherford, R. B. (1998). Has public policy exceeded
our knowledge base?A review of the functional behav-
ioral assessment literature. Unpublished manuscript
submitted for review.
Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & Chandler, L. K.
(1994). Acceptability and feasibility of classroom-
based social interaction interventions for young chil-
dren with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60,
226-236.
Oliver, c., Murphy, C. H., & Corbett, J. A. (1987).
Self-injurious behavior in people with mental handi-
cap: A total population study. Journal ofMental Defi-
ciency Research, 31, 144-162.
Reichle, J., & Wacker, D. P. (1993). Communicative
alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating func-
tional assessment and intervention strategies. Balti-
more: Brookes.*
Repp, A. C. (1999). Naturalistic functional assess-
ment with regular and special education students in
classroom settings. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.),
Functional analysis ofproblem behavior: From effective
assessment to effective support (pp. 238-257). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.*
Repp, A. c., Felce, D., & Barton, L. E. (1988). Bas-
ing the treatment of stereotypic and self-abusive be-
havior on hypotheses of their causes. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 281-290.
Repp, A. c., & Horner. R. (1999). Introduction to
functional assessment. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner
(Eds.), Functional analysis ofproblem behavior: From
affective assessment to effective support (pp. 1-6). Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth.*
Repp, A. c., & Karsh, K. G. (1990). A taxonomy for
the functional assessment of maladaptive behavior. In
A. C. Repp & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Perspectives on the
use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for per-
sons with developmental disabilities (pp. 333 ·348).
Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press,*
Repp, A. c., & Karsh, K. G. (1994). Hypothesis-
based interventions for tantrum behavior of persons
Fall 1999
with developmental disabilities. Journal ofApplied Be-
havior Analysis, 25, 701-712.
Repp, A. c., Karsh, K. G., Munk, D., & Dahlquist,
C. M. (1995). Hypothesis-based interventions: A the-
ory of clinical decision making. In W O'Donahue &
L. Krasner (Eds.), Theories in behavior therapy (pp.
585-608). Washington: American Psychological Asso-
ciation.*
Repp, A. c., Karsh, K. G., VanAcker, R., Pelce, D. c.,
& Harmon, M. L. (1989). A computer-based system
for collecting and analyzing observational data. Jour-
nal ofSpecial Education Technology, 9, 207-217.
Rhode, G., Jenson, W, & Reavis, H. K. (1992). The
tough kid book: Practical classroom management
strategies (1992). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.*
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics ofscientific research: Eval-
uating experimental data in psychology. New York:
Basic Books.*
Stokes, T., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit tech-
nology of generalization. Journal ofApplied Behavior
Analysis, 10, 349-367.
Turnbull, H. R. (1999). Two case studies of func-
tional assessment and functional support: Idea com-
pliance and capacity-building issues. In A. C. Repp &
R. Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis ofproblem be-
havior: From effective assessment to effective support
(pp. 321-337). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.*
Vanderbilt-Minnesota Social Interaction Project.
(1993). Play time/Social time: Organizing your class-
room to build interaction skills. Tucson, AZ: Commu-
nication Skill Builders.*
Wacker, D. P., Cooper, L. J., Peck, S. M., Derby, K.
M., & Berg, W K. (1999). Community-based func-
tional assessment. In A. C. Repp & R. Horner (Eds.),
Functional analysis ofproblem behavior: From effective
assessmentto effective support (pp. 238-257). Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth. *
Walker, G. R. (1993). Noncompliant behavior of peo-
ple with mental retardation. Research in Developmen-
tal Disabilities, 14,87-105. In A. C. Repp & R.
Horner (Eds.), Functional analysis ofproblem behav-
ior: From effective assessment to effective support (pp.
32-56). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. *
Watkins, F. P., & Durant, L. (1992). Complete early
childhood behavior management guide. New York: The
Center for Applied Research in Education. *
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
LYNETTE K. CHANDLER (CEC #466), Asso-
cicate Professor, Department of Educational
Psychology, Counseling, and Special Education,
Exceptional Children
Downloaded from ecx.sagepub.com at UNIVERSITE DE MONTREAL on July 8, 2015
Northern Illinois University and Educational
Research and Services Center, DeKalb; CAROL
M. DAHLQUIST, Instructional Strategies Team
Coordinator, Department of Educational Psy-
chology, Counseling, and Special Education,
Northern Illinois University and Educational
Research and Services Center, DeKalb (now at
School Association for Special Education in
DuPage County); ALAN C. REPP, Professor,
Department of Educational Psychology, Coun-
seling, and Special Education, Northern Illinois
University and Educational Research and Ser-
vices Center, DeKalb; CAROL FELTZ, Associ-
ate Professor, Department of Mathematical
Sciences, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.
This study was supported in part by a grant
from the U.S. Department of Education.
We thank Kathy Karsh and Peggy Williams for
their assistance during the study and Roger
Lubeck for editing and assistance with the fig-
ures. We also thank all of the team members and
students who were involved in this study.
Correspondence concerning this article may be
addressed to Lynette K. Chandler, Department
of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and
Special Education at Northern Illinois Univer-
sity, DeKalb, IL 60115. Electronic mail may be
sent to lchandler@niu.edu.
Manuscript received September 1998; revision
accepted June 1999.
~
*To order books referenced in this journal,
please call 24 hrs/365 days: (800)
BOOKS-NOW (266-5766) or (801) 261-1187,
or visit them on the Web at http://www.Books
Now.com/Exceptional Children.htrn. Use Visa,
M/C, or AMEX or send check or money order +
$4.95 S&H ($2.50 each add'l item) to: Books
Now, Inc., 348 E. 6400 South, Suite 220, Salt
Lake City, UT 84107.
121