Behavioral Interventions Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) Published online 1 February 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.

com) DOI: 10.1002/bin.324

EFFECTIVENESS OF AN INSTRUCTIONAL DVD IN TRAINING COLLEGE STUDENTS TO IMPLEMENT FUNCTIONAL ANALYSESx

Maranda A. Trahan*,y and April S. Worsdellz
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, IL, USA

A functional analysis is a valuable assessment technique that requires a unique kind of precision on behalf of the therapist. However, there is a lack of empirically validated tools for training functional analysis skills. This study examined the effectiveness of an instructional DVD in training college students to perform ve functional analysis conditions. During simulated sessions, participants acted as therapists, and observers measured the accuracy with which they implemented programmed antecedents and consequences. Results showed that the DVD was effective in improving all participants accuracy above baseline levels; however, in order to meet the 90% performance criterion, all participants required feedback. These results suggest that an instructional video is a useful training tool in providing basic skills for conducting functional analyses. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, researchers have evaluated a variety of methods for training therapists to implement functional analyses (Iwata et al., 2000; Moore & Fisher, 2007; Moore, Edwards, Sterling-Turner, Riley, DuBard, & McGeorge, 2002; Wallace, Doney, Mintz-Resudek, & Tarbox, 2004). In the rst study of its type, Iwata et al. (2000) used a multi-component training program to successfully teach eleven college students in the correct implementation of therapist behaviors during three functional analysis conditions (attention, demand, and play). Training lasted approximately 2 h and consisted of: (a) Reading and reviewing descriptions and outlines of each functional analysis condition, (b) watching simulated videos of each condition, (c) answering and reviewing quizzes, (d) rehearsal, and (e) post-session verbal and video
*Correspondence to: Maranda A. Trahan, Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology Division, Johns Hopkins University, 5505 Hopkins Bayview Circle, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. E-mail: maranda.trahan@jhu.edu y Present address: Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology Division, Johns Hopkins University, MD, USA. z Coyne & Associates Education Corporation, CA, USA. x The paper is based on data also used in the rst authors Masters Thesis.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

86

M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell

performance feedback, and rehearsal. Similar ndings have been obtained in other studies that evaluated instructional packages for teaching people to conduct functional analyses (Moore et al., 2002; Wallace et al., 2004). Although training packages have been effective in teaching functional analysis skills, they may be less likely to be utilized due to the effort and time involved in implementing multiple instructional components. One way to improve upon the efciency of functional analysis training is to use the minimum number of training components needed to produce desired results, thereby reducing complexity and overall training time. In terms of its efciency and effectiveness, the use of video represents an appealing methodology for skill acquisition training. Videos have been demonstrated to be successful in improving a variety of socially signicant behaviors, such as social skills (Alberto, Cihak, & Gama, 2005; Morgan & Salzberg, 1992), consumer food purchases (Winett, Kramer, Walker, Malone, & Lane, 1988), energy conservation (Winett et al., 1982), spoken and sign language (Watkins, Sprafkin, & Krolikowski, 1990), and domestic skills (Goodson, Sigafoos, OReilly, Cannella, & Lancioni, 2007). In addition, video ensures that an identical intervention is being implemented with all persons undergoing training. This high degree of standardization not only strengthens the conclusions drawn, but it also decreases the likelihood of threats to internal validity. Moore and Fisher (2007) compared the relative effectiveness of three training techniques (lectures, partial video modeling, and complete video modeling) on staff acquisition of functional analysis skills. Participants performed the role of the therapist during natural and simulated functional analyses in which either a real client or an adult actor served as the client. Written materials, which included descriptions and protocols for each of the three functional analysis conditions (attention, demand, and play), were given to participants to read over during baseline phases. During the training phases, the three functional analysis conditions were randomly assigned to the three aforementioned training techniques. Lectures consisted of a presentation on the rationale, history, procedures, and outcomes of a functional analysis. Both types of the video modeling procedures used two adult actors to illustrate how to conduct a functional analysis. The only difference between the two video modeling procedures was that partial video modeling exhibited 50% of possible therapist behaviors, while complete video modeling demonstrated 100% of all probable therapist behaviors. Training was completed when the participant achieved 80% accuracy in the implementation of all three assessment conditions. Results showed that all participants met the designated mastery criterion only when the complete video modeling training technique was employed. Although the total training time for each participant was not given, the authors did note that since each assessment conditions video was 5 min in duration, a possible total training time could have been less than a half an hour. However, given that not every participant met the
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

Instructional DVD

87

mastery criterion for each functional analysis condition immediately after watching the complete modeling video, it seems as though the above estimate is idealistic. The purpose of the current study was to extend the ndings obtained by Moore and Fisher (2007) on the effectiveness of video as a tool for training functional analysis skills. Rather than developing a simulated training video for the purposes of the study, the efcacy of a commercially available instructional DVD was investigated. Furthermore, unlike previous functional analysis training studies, participants were taught to implement ve assessment conditions (attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play).

METHOD Participants and Setting

Two groups of college students participated in the study. The rst group was comprised of six female upper-level students (M age 25) who were completing undergraduate degrees in a human service eld. The second group of participants were four female and two male graduate students enrolled in a masters degree program in behavior analysis (M age 23.5). All participants were recruited via class visits, as well as from departmental yers placed in university mailboxes and posted in campus buildings. The study was conducted at the beginning of the fall and spring semesters. To ensure that the participants basic knowledge of conducting functional analyses was minimal, all participants were pre-screened with a quiz prior to beginning the study. The pre-screening quiz was adapted from a set of review questions that were included in an instructional DVD entitled, Functional analysis: A guide for understanding challenging behavior (Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2005). It was comprised of 12 short-answer questions, and the questions pertained to the correct implementation of antecedents and consequences during various functional analysis conditions. If a student scored above 80% correct on the pre-screening quiz, s/he was excluded from participation. All students who scored below 80% on the quiz were included as participants in the study. Participants served as therapists during all scripted functional analysis sessions, and trained graduate students played the role of clients who exhibited challenging behavior. All sessions were conducted in university classrooms equipped with the materials needed to conduct individual simulated sessions.

Target Behaviors and Assessment Conditions

Data were collected on the therapists correct and incorrect implementation of prescribed antecedents and consequences characteristic of ve commonly conducted
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

88

M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell

functional analysis conditions (attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play). These specic assessment conditions were chosen because they were reviewed in the instructional DVD entitled, Functional analysis: A guide for understanding challenging behavior (Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2005). Each scripted functional analysis condition was 5 min in length, and each series of conditions was presented in the following xed sequence: Attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play. All sessions were videotaped for subsequent data collection. During the attention condition, the client was given free access to toys for the duration of the session. The therapist instructed the client to play while the therapist worked. The therapists responses were scored as correct or incorrect for the implementation of three components: (a) Initiating the session within 10 s after the experimenter cued the therapist to begin (i.e., providing verbal instructions, walking away, and engaging in busy work); (b) delivering brief attention contingent on each occurrence of the clients target behavior; and (c) not providing attention following all other behaviors (appropriate or inappropriate). During the tangible condition, preferred toys were removed from the client but remained within the clients reach. The therapists responses were scored as correct or incorrect for the implementation of the following components: (a) Initiating the session within 10 s after the experimenter cued the therapist to begin (i.e., providing verbal instructions, removing all materials, and moving away); (b) immediately delivering the toys to the client contingent on each instance of the clients target behavior; (c) allowing approximately 30 s access to the toys; (d) removing the toys after approximately 30 s of access; and (e) refraining from delivering the toys following all other behaviors (appropriate or inappropriate). During the demand condition, the therapist delivered continuous instructions to the client using a three-step prompting sequence (i.e., VerbalModelPhysical Guidance). Between each prompt, 5 s was allotted for compliance. If the client did not comply within 5 s of the Verbal prompt, the therapist issued the Model prompt. If the client did not comply within 5 s of the second prompt, the therapist issued the Physical Guidance prompt. Brief verbal praise was delivered for compliance prior to the third prompt. Correct and incorrect therapist responses were scored for the occurrence or nonoccurrence of several components: (a) Initiating the session within 10 s after the experimenter cued the therapist to begin (i.e., providing verbal instructions); (b) presenting and timing the instructions; (c) issuing prompts in the correct sequence; (d) delivering praise contingent on compliance with the rst or second prompt; (e) delivering escape from the instructional task for approximately 30 s contingent on each occurrence of the clients target behavior; and (f) continuing with the prompting sequence following all other behaviors (appropriate or inappropriate). During the no interaction condition, the client was in a room in which no toys or other materials were present. The therapist sat in the corner of the room and provided
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

Instructional DVD

89

no social interaction to the client. The therapists responses were scored as correct or incorrect based on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the following: (a) Initiating the session within 10 s after the experimenter cued the therapist to begin (i.e., moving away); and (b) withholding attention for all behavior (appropriate or inappropriate, including the clients target behavior). Throughout the play condition, the client was given continuous access to toys, and no demands were presented. The therapist provided neutral to positive verbal statements at least every 30 s. If the client engaged in inappropriate behavior when attention was to be delivered, the therapist withheld attention until the inappropriate behavior stopped for at least 5 s. The therapists responses were scored as correct or incorrect based on the implementation of the following behaviors: (a) Initiating the session within 10 s after the experimenter cued the therapist to begin (i.e., providing verbal instructions); (b) providing attention at least once every 30 s; (c) withholding attention until inappropriate behavior ceased, if attention was scheduled to be delivered; and (d) not providing attention for 5 s following all inappropriate behaviors. Session scripts were developed by the experimenter to simulate each functional analysis condition. Three different scripts were created for each of the ve assessment conditions, totaling 15 scripts (see Table 1 for a sample session script). Each script included one or more occurrences of the following client behaviors: (a) The target behavior (i.e., leg slapping, dened as forcefully hitting the leg with an open or closed hand); (b) other inappropriate behavior (e.g., disruption, other forms of self-injurious behavior); (c) appropriate behavior (e.g., manipulating toys, appropriate initiations); and (d) compliance with instructions. Scripts always contained an equal number of target behaviors, other inappropriate behaviors, and appropriate behaviors. A minimum of 10 client behaviors was required per script, and each script differed in the temporal distribution of the behaviors.

Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement

Data were collected by trained graduate students using a handheld computer device equipped with the data collection program !Observe. The primary behavior of interest was the therapists implementation of prescribed antecedents and consequences for each functional analysis condition. Data were collected on the frequency of correct and incorrect therapist responses in each condition and were summarized as the percentage of correct implementation. For example, the therapists correct responses to client target behaviors during the attention condition were scored by dividing the number of correct responses by the number of implementation opportunities and multiplying by 100%. A second observer later scored the therapists correct implementation of programmed antecedents and consequences during 32% of
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

90
Table 1. Sample script of the attention condition. Time (min:s) Response class 0:13 0:23 0:37 0:42 0:56 1:11 1:33 1:38 1:44 1:49 2:02 2:24 2:38 2:50 2:55 3:07 3:33 3:39 3:55 4:14 4:19 4:25 4:37 4:54 Self-injury Disruption Appropriate behavior Self-injury Self-injury Other self-injury Other self-injury Disruption Self-injury Disruption Self-injury Self-injury Self-injury Appropriate behavior Appropriate behavior Self-injury Other self-injury Disruption Self-injury Appropriate behavior Disruption Self-injury Self-injury Self-injury

M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell

Scripted client behavior Topography Leg slap Slap oor Say, Please play with me Leg slap Leg slap Hand bite Hand bite Throw toy Leg slap Throws toy Leg slap Leg slap Leg slap Play with toy appropriately Ask, Can you play with me now? Leg slap Hand bite Slap oor Leg slap Play with toy appropriately Slap oor Leg slap Leg slap Leg slap

all undergraduates sessions, and during 30% of all graduate students sessions. Interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated by dividing the number of agreements (for the occurrence or nonoccurrence of therapist behavior) by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. In the case of the undergraduate participants, mean agreement was 99.7% (range 87100%) for the implementation of correct antecedents, 99.6% (range 87100%) for incorrect antecedents, 99.0% (range 83100%) for correct consequences, and 2% (range 87100%) for incorrect consequences. Mean reliability coefcients for graduate student participants were 98.7% (range 80100%) for the implementation of correct antecedents, 99.0% (range 77100%) for incorrect antecedents, 96.7% (range 90100%) for correct consequences, and 98.6% (range 77100%) for incorrect consequences. In addition to therapist behaviors, IOA data also were collected on the scripted client behaviors to ensure procedural integrity. During the undergraduate sessions, mean agreement score were 94.1% (range 80100%) for client target behaviors, 93.9% (range 77100%) for other challenging behaviors, and 97.2%
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

Instructional DVD

91

(range 87100%) for appropriate behaviors. In the case of graduate student sessions, mean IOA was 97.5% (range 73100%) for client target behaviors, 94.6% (range 80100%) for other challenging behaviors, and 96.4% (range 87100%) for appropriate behaviors.

Experimental Design
A multiple baseline across subjects design was used to evaluate the effects of the instructional DVD on correct implementation of functional analysis sessions. Within each student group, half of the participants conducted ve functional analysis sessions during baseline (i.e., one exposure to each condition), whereas the other half of the participants conducted 10 baseline sessions (i.e., two exposures). When a participant began the study, s/he was semi-randomly assigned to either a 5- or 10-session baseline length. Following DVD training, all participants completed at least two functional analysis series. Training was considered completed if a participant met the performance criterion of 90% accuracy in the implementation of all assessment conditions during the nal series of ve functional analysis sessions. If a participant did not meet the mastery criterion after the rst series of functional analysis sessions, s/he immediately moved into the feedback phase. Thus, even if a participant performed at or above 90% accuracy during the rst series of functional analysis sessions, s/he was required to complete a second series at a similar accuracy level prior to ending the study.

Baseline
One day before baseline data collection began, the participant met briey with the experimenter in a university classroom. The participant was given the methods section of a published functional analysis study (Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000) to take home and review. The participant was instructed to review the written materials as many times as s/he wished, and to return to the classroom the following day. The next day, baseline data collection was initiated, during which the participant played the role of the therapist for each of the ve simulated functional analysis conditions. The participant was permitted to review the written materials prior to each assessment session while the experimenter set up for the next session. In addition, the participant was given the name of the assessment condition that was about to be conducted, and s/he was informed of the designated client target behavior. No other instructions or feedback from the experimenter were delivered during baseline.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

92

M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell

Instructional DVD
Following baseline sessions, the participant was given the following instructional DVD to take home and view: Functional analysis: A guide for understanding challenging behavior (Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2005). The DVD consisted of a 28-min video simulating ve functional analysis conditionsattention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play. Unlike previously used simulated training videos, during each condition, a narrator explained and outlined the correct therapist behaviors to emit before and during each session. In addition, the DVD contained a video sample of each condition, which demonstrated the therapists correct implementation of programmed antecedents and consequences. Along with the DVD, the participant received a DVD Highlights pamphlet. The pamphlet included brief outlines that instructed the reader on the correct therapist behaviors to emit before and during each functional analysis session, and a 20-question quiz. The participant was instructed to watch the DVD and review the pamphlet at least once, although consent was given to view the DVD multiple times and to take notes. In addition, the participant was given a 12-question quiz, which was identical to the pre-screening quiz, and was asked to answer the quiz questions prior to returning to conduct sessions. Because instructional DVDs are often purchased by customers and viewed in the absence of additional verbal explanation by trainers, a check-out system was utilized for DVD viewing. Specically, after a participant completed baseline, s/he checked out the DVD from the experimenter for one night. As a result, the participant could watch the DVD at her/ his own pace (e.g., view the DVD more than once, pause the DVD to take notes). A recording sheet also was given to the participant at the time of the check out. The participant was asked to track the number of times the DVD was viewed and which viewing format was used (e.g., watched entire DVD in one sitting, watched each assessment condition in separate sittings, took the quiz while watching the DVD, etc.). The following day, the participant returned to the university classroom and acted as therapist for all ve functional analysis conditions. Sessions were conducted similar to baseline (e.g., no instructions or feedback delivered), except that the participant was allowed to review the DVD pamphlet and any personally-written notes prior to each session. If a participant met the 90% accuracy criterion across all ve sessions, s/he was asked to return the next day to complete a second functional analysis series. If accuracy criterion was met after the second series, functional analysis skills were considered mastered, and the participants involvement in the study ended.

Feedback
If a participant did not meet the 90% accuracy criterion after conducting the rst series of ve assessment conditions, s/he entered the feedback phase. During this
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

Instructional DVD

93

phase, the participant watched the DVD in a university classroom with the experimenter present. While the DVD played, the experimenter reviewed and discussed with the participant each condition in which mastery criterion was not met. The experimenter also reviewed the second quiz, answered any questions concerning the DVD or the quiz, and role-played correct therapist responses as needed. The feedback components were designed to last no longer than 90 min. On the day after feedback was delivered, the participant completed another functional analysis series using procedures identical to those used during the previous phase. That is, no instructions or feedback were delivered during simulated sessions, and the participant could review the DVD pamphlet and any notes prior to a session. The feedback phase continued until the participant met the 90% mastery criterion during a ve-session functional analysis series.

RESULTS
Figure 1 shows the undergraduate students percentage of correct implementation of therapist behaviors during simulated functional analysis sessions. Baseline performances showed a great deal of variability both within and across participants (M 48.3%; range 0100%). Dana, Bette, and Alice performed with the highest overall accuracy during baseline, averaging 2, 54.8, and 54.8% correct implementation, respectively. Tina and Shane correctly implemented 40 and 46.2% of the prescribed antecedents and consequences, respectively. Jenny obtained the lowest accuracy percentages during baseline, implementing 39% of the therapist behaviors correctly. In the case of individual condition performance, the no interaction condition produced the highest levels of correct implementation for all of the undergraduates (M 95.3%; range 93100%). During the attention and play conditions, the undergraduates performed with moderate accuracy (Ms 66.3 and 59.3%, respectively). Overall, the lowest levels of correct implementation were observed during the tangible and demand conditions (Ms 17.6 and 3%, respectively). During the tangible sessions for three participants (Bette, Tina, Shane) and the demand sessions for three participants (Tina, Alica, Dana), no therapist behaviors were performed correctly. After watching the instructional DVD, all of the undergraduates improved their accuracy in implementing correct therapist behaviors (M 76.7%; range 25100%). One participant (Alice) met the mastery criterion for three of the ve assessment conditions, whereas the other ve undergraduates achieved mastery criterion for two of the ve conditions. Because the 90% accuracy criterion was not achieved across all ve conditions for any of the undergraduates, all of them participated in the feedback
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

94

M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell

Figure 1. Percentage of correct implementation for undergraduate students during baseline, instructional DVD, and feedback phases.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

Instructional DVD

95

phase. Bette, Tina, and Jenny only required one session of feedback, after which they met the mastery criterion. In contrast, Alice, Shane, and Dana needed two feedback sessions in order to reach the mastery criterion and complete the study. Figure 2 displays the graduate students percentage of correct implementation of antecedents and consequences during functional analysis sessions. Baseline accuracy for the graduate students was higher than that observed for undergraduates, although variability in correct implementation was observed across sessions and participants (M 68.4%; range 0100%). Collectively, the graduate students performed with the highest baseline accuracy during attention and no interaction sessions (Ms 95.7 and 95.4%, respectively). During play baseline sessions, correct implementation averaged 72.3%. Similar to the undergraduates results, the lowest levels of accuracy occurred during demand and tangible sessions for the graduate students (Ms 47.1 and 31%, respectively). In fact, three of the participants (Claude, Irene, and Reilly) failed to implement any antecedent or consequences correctly during baseline tangible sessions. Upon implementation of the instructional DVD, all of the graduate students improved their accuracy in performing therapist behaviors for at least three of the ve assessment conditions (M 77.9%). Claude and Darlene performed with the highest overall accuracy during the instructional DVD phase, averaging 89.4 and 86.8% correct implementation, respectively. Irene and Reilly exhibited modest increases in their ability to correctly implement functional analysis sessions (Ms 73.6 and 72.8%, respectively). In contrast, after Myrna and Lana watched the instructional DVD, their mean percentage of correct implementation decreased slightly from baseline levels (Ms 66 and 78.8%, respectively). Specically, both Myrnas and Lanas performance declined during the play condition, and Myrnas accuracy in implementing the tangible condition decreased to zero. During the instructional DVD phase, none of the graduate students achieved the designated mastery criterion of 90% correct implementation for all ve functional analysis conditions. Darlene, Lana, and Myrna met the mastery criterion for two of the ve conditions, and for the remaining three graduate students (Claude, Irene, and Reilly), mastery criterion was met for three of the ve assessment conditions. As a result, all of the graduate students were required to participate in the feedback phase. After completing one session of feedback, three participants (Claude, Darlene, Lana) achieved the mastery criterion, whereas two feedback sessions were needed for the remaining three participants (Irene, Reilly, Myrna). Figure 3 depicts the percentage change in undergraduates implementation of therapist behaviors from the baseline phase to the instructional DVD phase. Relative to baseline, improvements were observed in the implementation of antecedents across all ve assessment conditions (M changes from baseline 67, 17, 58, 67, and 36%
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

96

M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell

Figure 2. Percentage of correct implementation for graduate students during baseline, instructional DVD, and feedback phases.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

Instructional DVD

97

Figure 3. Percentage change of correct implementation from baseline to the instructional DVD phase for undergraduate students.

during attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play conditions, respectively). With respect to the implementation of consequences, accuracy improved during the instructional DVD phase in all conditions but the no interaction condition (M changes from baseline 28, 36, 56, 0, and 10% during attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play conditions, respectively). In addition, when the overall implementation of antecedents and consequences were combined into a summary score, the total percentage change from baseline to instructional DVD also improved in all ve functional analysis conditions. The largest total improvements were observed in the undergraduates implementation of demand sessions, whereas the lowest total percentage change occurred during no interaction sessions (M changes from baseline 52.4 and 3.7% during demand and no interaction conditions, respectively). The graduate students percentage change in accuracy observed from the baseline phase to the instructional DVD phase is displayed in Figure 4. In all ve assessment

Figure 4. Percentage change of correct implementation from baseline to the instructional DVD phase for graduate students.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

98

M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell

conditions, correct implementation of antecedents improved. These improvements in antecedent accuracy were most notable in the attention and no interaction conditions (M changes from baseline 100 and 83%, respectively). Improvements also were observed in the implementation of consequences during the tangible and demand conditions (M changes from baseline 33 and 35%, respectively. No changes from baseline were observed in the accuracy of consequence implementation during attention and no interaction sessions, and a 15% decrease in accuracy occurred during play sessions in the instructional DVD phase. In the case of total percentage changes from baseline, graduate students accuracy increased, albeit by a small amount, in all ve assessment conditions (M changes from baseline 4.3, 9.2, 21.9, 4.6, and 7.0% during attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play conditions, respectively).

DISCUSSION
Previous researchers have suggested that the procedures necessary to train individuals in the functional analysis methodology are overly time consuming and complex (Durand & Crimmins, 1988). The present study added to the existing literature by evaluating the use of an instructional DVD in training college students to implement functional analyses. Results showed that both undergraduate and graduate students were able to correctly implement antecedents and consequences in some sessions during baseline. After viewing the instructional DVD, all 12 participants improved their accuracy in implementing therapist behaviors during three or more assessment conditions. However, feedback was needed in all cases to achieve the designated mastery criterion of 90% accuracy across all ve functional analysis conditions. These ndings suggest that with minimal training, individuals can perform with the technical accuracy needed to correctly perform a functional analysis. The results of this study extended the functional analysis training literature in several ways. First, the current ndings further demonstrated that video modeling could be a somewhat effective and efcient method to train participants in the implementation of functional analysis procedures. Similar to Moore and Fisher (2007), participants were taught to accurately perform functional analysis sessions in less than 2 h. Moreover, the current training methodology is noteworthy in that the instructional DVD may have minimized the use of trainer resources by reducing the amount of face-to-face interaction with an expert (and often expensive) trainer. More importantly, this is the rst study to train subjects using a commercially available DVD. Thus, it is readily available, widening its impact in the eld. In addition, participants were taught to perform a more comprehensive behavioral assessment that is more representative of functional analyses conducted in published
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

Instructional DVD

99

research (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Whereas previous studies trained individuals to implement only two or three assessment conditions (Iwata et al., 2000; Moore & Fisher, 2007; Moore et al., 2002; Wallace et al., 2004), the current study targeted four test conditions (attention, tangible, demand, no interaction) and one control condition (play). Thus, participants were trained to assess a variety of potential sources of control that would be necessary to distinguish among socialpositive, social-negative, and automatic reinforcement functions. On average, graduate student participants required 43 min (range 3060 min) of feedback, which was half the amount of time undergraduates to be trained to mastery (M 80 min; range 7090 min). Although an attempt was made to equate the participants experience with functional analyses by conducting a pre-screening quiz, it is likely that the graduate students had more knowledge of basic behavior analytic principles, and more awareness of the functional analysis methodology. Anecdotally, all six of the undergraduate students reported not knowing the purpose of a functional analysis, or what it entailed, prior to their participation in the study. In contrast, all of the graduate students anecdotally noted some familiarity with functional analysis procedures, although none of them had previously conducted or observed an assessment. The higher baseline accuracy obtained by the graduate students suggested that their skill acquisition may have been facilitated by a history of coursework in behavioral principles. Nevertheless, training times for the undergraduates, who reported no prior behavior analytic knowledge, were not so inated that they would discourage one from training such a population. Future research should further evaluate the rate at which individuals with different skill sets learn how to implement functional analyses. Although all participants reached the mastery criterion across all ve assessment conditions, it was found that acquisition occurred more quickly (or more slowly) during similar sessions for both groups of participants. That is, during baseline, both the undergraduate and graduate students achieved over 95% accuracy when implementing no interaction sessions. In contrast, both groups showed the lowest percentages of correct therapist behaviors during demand and tangible sessions. These disparities in baseline accuracy suggest that the level of complexity may have been different across functional analysis sessions. For example, during the no interaction condition, the therapists antecedent behavior was scored as correct if s/he moved at least 0.9 m away from the client and did not issue any verbal statements. In contrast, more intricate antecedent behaviors were required during the demand and tangible conditions. Thus, the effort required by the therapist, and the amount of interaction with the client, were unequal across conditions, and these differences in complexity may help explain the variability observed in correct implementation during baseline. It is important to note that the instructional DVD alone was not effective in improving any participants scores to 90% accuracy across all ve assessment
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

100

M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell

conditions. That is, each undergraduate and graduate student needed feedback from a trainer before achieving the mastery criterion. These results suggest that the instructional DVD in isolation may not be successful in training functional analysis skills. However, as stated in the pamphlet that accompanied the DVD, it was designed to be used by Board Certied Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) or similarly qualied professionals as part of a more comprehensive functional assessment course or training program (Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2005). Future research should investigate the effectiveness of the instructional DVD in training functional analysis skills in a group workshop or classroom format. These results may also be attributed to the check-out system utilized in this study. Observers did not directly observe the participants viewing the DVD. Participants verbally reported watching the DVD. It is possible the participants did not view the DVD in its entirety. However, participants reported watching the DVD at least once. Future research should explore exposing the participant to the DVD for more than one viewing. In the current study, functional analysis sessions were simulated and all client behaviors were scripted. The decision was made not to conduct in situ sessions due to the possible risks of harm to inexperienced participants or to the actual person exhibiting challenging behaviors. As a result, the participants correct responses to more unpredictable or dangerous behaviors were not assessed, and it is unknown the extent to which their newly acquired skills would generalize to a more authentic assessment situation with individuals referred for challenging behaviors. Interestingly, at the end of the study, participants anecdotally noted confusion related to differences between the sessions portrayed in the DVD and the simulated sessions. During the instructional DVD, the challenging behavior exhibited by the client (child actor) was aggression in the form of hitting. In contrast, during simulated assessment conditions, the client (adult experimenter) exhibited self-injurious behavior so that participants would not be exposed to physical aggression. In addition, the physical organization of the room and the manner in which actors in the instructional DVD utilized the room differed from that of simulated sessions. For example, during the DVD tangible session, the actors sat on the oor, and the therapist removed the materials by sliding them to her side, out of the clients reach. However, because space was limited during simulated sessions due to videotaping, the therapist and client sat at a small table. As a result, when some participants mirrored the actors technique of sliding the materials off to the side, they remained on the table and within clients reach (i.e., an incorrect behavior). Although practical constraints made it necessary to alter the simulated functional analyses, these differences may have contributed to slower skill acquisition during the instructional DVD phase. These ndings were similar to those of Moore & Fisher (2007), in that the number of exemplars depicted in the video modeling procedures was correlated with the degree of skill acquisition. When participants were shown the partial
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

Instructional DVD

101

modeling video, in which only 50% of the possible therapist behaviors were demonstrated, no participant met the mastery criterion. However, after participants watched the complete modeling video, during which 100% of probable therapist behaviors were exhibited, all participants met the mastery criterion. Another limitation of this study was that participants were not trained to mastery in other functional analysis skill areas. Therefore, it is unlikely that the decision-making skills needed to accurately interpret functional analysis data or to design functionbased interventions were acquired by participants. The current study attempted to improve the correct implementation of programmed antecedents and consequences during functional analyses sessions, rather than teach behaviors that involved some degree of clinical judgment. However, at least one study has shown that it is possible to teach individuals to use structured criteria in the visual inspection of functional analysis data (Hagopian, Fisher, Thompson, Owen-DeSchryver, Iwata, & Wacker, 1997). Additional research is needed to develop and evaluate methods for teaching more complex functional analysis skills. In sum, the present ndings demonstrated that an instructional DVD, combined with experimenter feedback, was successful in training college students to conduct functional analyses. Given the effectiveness and efciency of this training approach, researchers should further explore the utility of video modeling in teaching other complex skill sets. In addition, it may be possible to use video not only during initial instruction, but also when delivering feedback. For example, a trainees performance of certain skills could be videotaped, and then the video could be viewed (and/or scored) by the person in an attempt to occasion more precise discriminations between correct and incorrect behaviors. By improving the cost-effectiveness of skills training programs, organizations may be more inclined to maintain rigorous training regimens for their staff.

REFERENCES
Alberto, P., Cihak, D., & Gama, R. (2005). Use of static picture prompts versus video modeling during simulation instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 327339. Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders (Producer). (2005). Functional analysis: A guide for understanding challenging behavior [DVD] (Available from the Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders, Mailcode 6607, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 6290). Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variable maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99117. Goodson, J., Sigafoos, J., OReilly, M., Cannella, H., & Lancioni, G. E. (2007). Evaluation of a videobased error correction procedure for teaching a domestic skill to individuals with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 458467. Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Owen-DeSchryver, J., Iwata, B. A., & Wacker, D. P. (1997). Toward the development of structured criteria for interpretation of functional analysis data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 313326.
Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin

102

M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell

Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147185. Iwata, B. A., Wallace, M. D., Kahng, S., Lindberg, J. S., Roscoe, E. M., & Conners, J., et al. (2000). Skill acquisition in the implementation of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 181194. Moore, J. W., Edwards, R. P., Sterling-Turner, H. E., Riley, J., DuBard, M., & McGeorge, A. (2002). Teacher acquisition of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 7377. Moore, J. W., & Fisher, W. W. (2007). The effects of videotape modeling on staff acquisition of functional analysis methodology. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 197202. Morgan, R. L., & Salzberg, C. L. (1992). Effects of video-assisted training on employment-related social skills of adults with severe mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 365383. Wallace, M. D., Doney, J. K., Mintz-Resudek, C. M., & Tarbox, R. S. F. (2004). Training educators to implement functional analyses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 8992. Watkins, L. T., Sprafkin, J. N., & Krolikowski, D. M. (1990). Effects of video based training on spoken and signed language acquisition by students with mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 273288. Winett, R. A., Hatcher, J. W., Fort, T. R., Leckliter, I. N., Love, S. Q., & Riley, A. W., et al. (1982). The effects of videotape modeling and daily feedback on residential electricity conservation, home temperature and humidity, perceived comfort, and clothing worn: Winter and summer. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 381402. Winett, R. A., Kramer, K. D., Walker, W. B., Malone, S. W., & Lane, M. K. (1988). Modifying food purchases in supermarkets with modeling, feedback, and goal-setting procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 7380. Worsdell, A. S., Iwata, B. A., Hanley, G. P., Thompson, R. H., & Kahng, S. W. (2000). Effects of continuous and intermittent reinforcement for problem behavior during functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 167179.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011) DOI: 10.1002/bin