Ffa Screening Research

8/13/2019 Ffa Screening Research

1/5

FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR: A BRIEF REVIEW

JOSHUAB. PLAVNICK

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

AND

MATTHEWP. NORMAND

UNIVERSITY OF THE PACIFIC

A variation of the preintervention functional analysis of problem behavior has recently beenextended to identify the function of verbal behavior emitted by children with autism. Recentresearch suggests that a functional analysis of verbal behavior might be beneficial in evaluatingprevious instruction and guiding the selection of future educational targets and instructionalprocedures. The present paper reviews previous literature on the functional analysis of verbalbehavior and identifies avenues for future research.

Key words: autism, functional analysis, language, typical development, verbal behavior

Preintervention functional analyses (e.g.,Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994) are considered by many to be the goldstandard assessment method for informinginterventions designed to reduce problem behav-ior (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Recently,

the logic of such analyses has been extended toverbal behavior, with promising results (Kelleyet al., 2007; LaFrance, Wilder, Normand, &Squires, 2009; Lerman et al., 2005; Normand,Machado, Hustyi, & Morley, 2011; Normand,Severtson, & Beavers, 2008; Plavnick &Ferreri, 2011). Similar to research on functionalanalyses (FAs) of problem behavior, the verbalbehavior research suggests that a priori under-standing of the variables that evoke and maintain

verbal behavior can be used to develop effectiveinterventions (e.g., Plavnick & Ferreri, 2011). Inaddition, the FA of emerging verbal behavior maybe a useful tool for evaluating the effectiveness ofprevious instruction and for conducting basic and

translational research on language development(e.g., Normand et al., 2011). The purpose of thisreview is to summarize recent research on the FAof verbal behavior and to suggest areas for futureresearch.

TOWARD A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OFVERBAL BEHAVIOR

Although any demonstration of a functionalrelation between a verbal response and someenvironmental variable constitutes an FA of verbalbehavior, Lerman et al. (2005) were the first toreport an assessment of verbal behavior similar tothat described for problem behavior (i.e., Iwataet al., 1982/1994). Based on Skinners (1957)

functional taxonomy of language and the FAmethodology described by Iwata et al., Lermanet al. reported an FA of verbal behavior thatinvolved several test conditions, each with acorresponding control condition, in which moti-vating operations, discriminative stimuli, andconsequences were manipulated. This first verbalbehavior FA was used to evaluate emerging speechof young children with developmental disabilities.

Results showed that most of the verbal responseswere mands; relatively little responding occurredduring tact and intraverbal conditions.

Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressed to Joshua B. Plavnick, Michigan State University,620 Farm Lane #341, East Lansing, Michigan 48824(e-mail: [email protected]) or Matthew Normand, Uni-versity of the Pacific, Department of Psychology, Stockton,California 95211 (e-mail: [email protected]).

doi: 10.1002/jaba.1

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2013, 46, 349353 NUMBER1 (SPRING2013)

349


2/5

Extensions of the verbal behavior FA producedsimilar outcomes, in that differential verbal re-sponding was observed across conditions (Kelleyet al., 2007; Normand et al., 2008). Normand

et al. (2008) demonstrated that a brief multiele-ment design with a single control conditionresulted in differential levels of sign language,

with responding occurring most often undermand conditions. Kelley et al. (2007) described abrief trial-based FA that produced differentiallevels of responding, with the majority of responsesobserved during tact and echoic conditions. Suchbetween-subjects variation in function suggeststhat the verbal behavior FA could prove to be a

useful tool for understanding emerging language,although procedural differences across the studieslimit the possible conclusions.

LaFrance et al. (2009) conducted a systematicreplication of Lerman et al. (2005), followed byan extension that involved several proceduralvariations. In the first experiment, the methodol-ogy of Lerman et al. was used; results indicatedthat vocal verbal behavior occurred during both

the mand and tact conditions for two participants,but results were less clear for a third participant.However, responding occurred consistently dur-ing mand conditions only when the relevant item

was in sight. In a second experiment, LaFranceet al. assessed vocal verbal behavior with the sameparticipants as in Experiment 1 but targeteddifferent response topographies. Proceduralchanges included the removal of the intraverbaltest condition and thinning of the schedule of

prompts used in the first experiment. Anadditional test condition was used to rule outautomatic reinforcement as a possible function ofbehavior. The results indicated that the behavioroccurred at the highest rate during tact and echoicconditions, although some responding occurredduring the mand condition.

Collectively, results of the studies reviewedabove suggest that it is possible to develop test and

control conditions that are sufficient to demon-strate experimental control over verbal behaviorand that verbal responding aligns with Skinners

(1957) taxonomy. However, they also raise severalquestions. Specifically, does the function of averbal response identified through an FA align

with the function of that response when emitted

within a verbal community? In addition, can theFA of verbal behavior inform interventions thatimprove verbal behavior training?

IMPLICATIONS OF A FUNCTIONALANALYSIS OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR

Iwata et al.s (1982/1994) seminal paperestablished a methodology for the identificationof the function of problem behavior and

elucidated the variables that are responsible forself-injury. Thus, the paper served to inform boththe practice of assessment and the understandingof a particular category of behavior (self-injury).In much the same way, the FA of verbal behaviorcan both inform experimental assessments oflanguage for clinical purposes and lead to a betterunderstanding of language development.

Two recent studies have shown that, at least in

the case of the mand, an FA of verbal behavior canbe used to support verbal behavior training(Normand et al., 2011; Plavnick & Ferreri,2011). Normand et al. (2011) provided apreliminary validation of the verbal behaviorFA by demonstrating that manual signs taught totypically developing infants under mand andmimetic conditions occurred only during themand and mimetic conditions of a subsequentFA. Thus, the FA methodology might be used as a

form of progress monitoring to confirm thatchildren acquire communicative responses thatcorrespond to the conditions under which they

were taught (e.g., mand, tact, intraverbal) andgeneralize beyond the training situation.

Plavnick and Ferreri (2011) conducted apreintervention FA to identify the specific typeof socially mediated reinforcement (e.g., atten-tion, escape, tangible) that maintained gestures

emitted by young children with autism. Differ-entiated responding across FA conditions wasobserved within and across participants, which

350 JOSHUA B. PLAVNICK and MATTHEW P. NORMAND


3/5

suggested that the assessment might inform thedevelopment of verbal behavior training proce-dures. Based on these outcomes, the researchersdeveloped two sets of individualized video models

for each participant; one set depicted a peer mand-ing for items or activities that were functionallyequivalent to the participants gesture, and thesecond set depicted a peer manding for an item oractivity that was unrelated to the function of thegesture. All participants learned functionallyequivalent mands, and only one learned theunrelated mands.

A primary benefit of the FA for teaching verbalbehavior to participants in Plavnick and Ferreri

(2011) was that the experimenters could depictrelevant reinforcing consequences in the videosshown to each participant. The inclusion of thiskind of reinforcement appeared to influenceoutcomes, because participants did not acquireverbal behavior when consequences that did notreinforce gestures were depicted in the videos.This suggests that FAs of verbal behavior mightbe useful for designing training procedures to

promote the acquisition of verbal operants,although the degree to which this is true remainsunknown.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Previous FAs of verbal behavior can becategorized into methodological investigations,

which attempted to establish procedures thatidentify the variables controlling certain forms of

verbal behavior (e.g., Lerman et al., 2005), andpractical applications which used those proce-dures to evaluate language training or informintervention design (e.g., Normand et al., 2011).

Additional research is needed to further refine theFA of verbal behavior for these purposes.

Methodology

The specific arrangement of the test and

control conditions warrants consideration. Forexample, appropriate antecedents for an intra-verbal test condition are likely to differ from

situation to situation. Thus, developing a proce-dure to identify the relevant variables for the testcondition is important. Combining descriptiveassessments of the natural language environment

with FAs seems to be worthwhile, much like whathas been done with FAs of problem behavior (e.g.,Mace & Lalli, 1991). Prior to conducting an FA,a descriptive assessment of the natural languageenvironment could be conducted to identify therelevant stimulus conditions for the FA. Con-versely, it would be beneficial to conduct the FAprior to a descriptive analysis to determine theextent to which the specific antecedents andconsequences that control verbal responding

during the FA are observed in the naturalenvironment (cf. Moerk, 1990).

More work also is needed along the lines ofNormand et al. (2011), whereby previously taughtoperants of known function are assessed during theverbal behavior FA. Researchers could train verbaloperants under a range of stimulus conditions andthen have experimenters who are unaware of thespecific teaching conditions conduct the FAs. If the

analyses identify the stimulus conditions usedduring training, the validity of the functionalanalysis would be bolstered further.

Currently, the most prominent behavior-analytic language assessments rely on descriptivemethods. Research that has compared the out-comes of descriptive assessments to those of FAs,at least in the context of problem behavior,suggests poor correspondence between the twomethods (Pence, Roscoe, Bourret, & Ahearn,

2009; Thompson & Iwata, 2007). Therefore, theuse of descriptive assessments for verbal behavior

warrants attention. The use of FA (i.e., experi-mental) methods could prove to be more effectivefor determining the function of a specific verbalresponse than the use of descriptive assessmentsor, at minimum, might be used to assess thevalidity of descriptive methods.

PracticalityFrom a practical perspective, future researchcould examine the utility of the FA to evaluate

BRIEF REVIEW 351


4/5

progress during or following intervention. Manychildren with autism receive verbal behaviortraining under tightly controlled conditions. AnFA of verbal behavior could be used to determine

whether the verbal operant occurs away from thespecific environmental conditions used duringtraining (e.g., a specific listener or instructionalsetting). Or, if the operant is multiply controlled,an FA with a sequential progression of testconditions (as in LaFrance et al., 2009) mayidentify multiply controlled operants and informinstructional methods that free an operant fromundesirable sources of stimulus control.

A similar application of the FA could be used

when a training goal is to teach a single responsetopography that can be emitted under a variety ofoperant conditions. Normand et al. (2011) foundthat infants emitted a response taught as a mandunder both the mand and mimetic test con-ditions of the FA, probably due to the promptingprocedure used during teaching. Skinner (1957)argued that the acquisition of a verbal responseunder one set of conditions does not automati-

cally lead to acquisition of that response underanother set of conditions, and subsequentresearch provides evidence to support this claim(Lamarre & Holland; 1985; Twyman, 1996).However, it might be possible to devise teachingprocedures such that a response could generalizeacross functions, and doing so has obviousclinical benefits. An FA of verbal behavior mightelucidate which language training procedures canefficiently establish multiple functions for the

same response form.Additional research also is needed to determine

the conditions under which a verbal behavior FAeffectively informs intervention development (asin Plavnick & Ferreri, 2011). One possibility is touse information derived from an FA to create andexpand the specific antecedents that occasionverbal behavior in the natural environment. Suchan approach would be systematic and could

provide both a minimal alteration of the naturalenvironment and a positive impact on thedevelopment and production of verbal behavior.

SUMMARY

The preintervention FA has proven to be avaluable assessment tool that can be used toinform effective interventions for problem

behavior, because such analyses identify relevantcontrolling variables for behavior that can bemanipulated systematically during intervention(Hanley et al., 2003). Similarly, FAs of verbalbehavior can identify the conditions that evokeand maintain verbal behavior, with this informa-tion then available to inform interventions. Theavailable data suggest that this methodology canhelp researchers and clinicians better understand

language development and can be used to guideinterventions in cases in which language devel-opment is delayed.

REFERENCES

Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. (2003).Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,36, 147185. doi:10.1901/jaba.2003.36-147

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., &Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis ofself-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27,197209. (Reprinted fromAnalysis and Intervention inDevelopmental Disabilities, 2, 320, 1982) doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197

Kelley, M. E., Shillingsburg, M. A., Castro, M. J., Addison,L. R., LaRue, R. H., Jr., & Martins, M. P. (2007).Assessment of the functions of vocal behavior inchildren with developmental disabilities: A replication.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,40, 571

576. doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.40-571LaFrance, D., Wilder, D. A., Normand, M. P., & Squires,

J. L. (2009). Extending the assessment of functions ofvocalizations in children with limited verbal repertoires.The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,25, 1932.

Lamarre, J., & Holland, J. G. (1985). The functionalindependence of mands and tacts. Journal of theExperimental Analysis of Behavior, 43, 519. doi:10.1901/jeab.1985.43-5

Lerman, D. C., Parten, M., Addison, L. R., Vorndran,C. M., Volkert, V. M., & Kodak, T. (2005).A methodology for assessing the functions of emergingspeech in children with developmental disabilities.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,38, 303316. doi:10.1901/jaba.2005.38-303

352 JOSHUA B. PLAVNICK and MATTHEW P. NORMAND


5/5

Mace, F. C., & Lalli, J. S. (1991). Linking descriptive andexperimental analyses in the treatment of bizarrespeech.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 553562. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-553

Moerk, E. L. (1990). Three-term contingency patterns in

mother-child verbal interactions during first-languageacquisition. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 293305. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.54-293

Normand, M. P., Machado, M. A., Hustyi, K. M., &Morley, A. J. (2011). Infant sign training and functionalanalysis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,44, 305314. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-305

Normand, M. P., Severtson, E. S., & Beavers, G. A. (2008).A functional analysis of nonvocal verbal behavior of ayoung child with autism. The Analysis of VerbalBehavior,24, 6367.

Pence, S. T., Roscoe, E. M., Bourret, J. C., & Ahearn, W. H.

(2009). Relative contributions of three descriptivemethods: Implications for behavioral assessment.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 425446.doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-425

Plavnick, J. B., & Ferreri, S. F. (2011). Establishing verbalrepertoires in young children with autism usingfunction-based video modeling. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 44, 747

766. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-747Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2007). A comparison

of outcomes from descriptive and functional analyses ofproblem behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,40, 333338. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.40-333

Twyman, J. (1996). The functional independence of impuremands and tacts of abstract stimulus properties. TheAnalysis of Verbal Behavior,13, 119.

Received May 23, 2012

Final acceptance August 19, 2012Action Editor, Dorothea Lerman

BRIEF REVIEW 353

Documents

Ffa Screening Research