Instructional DVD

8/2/2019 Instructional DVD

1/18

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 five 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 first 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

Behavioral Interventions

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bin.324

*Correspondence to: Maranda A. Trahan, Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology Division, Johns Hopkins University,5505 Hopkins Bayview Circle, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Present address: Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology Division, Johns Hopkins University, MD, USA.z Coyne & Associates Education Corporation, CA, USA.xThe paper is based on data also used in the first authors Masters Thesis.

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Behav. Intervent. 26: 85102 (2011)

Published online 1 February 2011 in Wiley Online Library


2/18

performance feedback, and rehearsal. Similar findings 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

efficiency 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 efficiency 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 significant 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 staffacquisition 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 toconduct 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 havebeen less than a half an hour. However, given that not every participant met the


M. A. Trahan and A. S. Worsdell86

Behav. Intervent. (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


3/18

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 findings obtained by Moore andFisher (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

efficacy of a commercially available instructional DVD was investigated. Furthermore,

unlike previous functional analysis training studies, participants were taught to implement

five assessment conditions (attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play).

METHOD

Participants and Setting

Two groups of college students participated in the study. The first group was comprised

of six female upper-level students (M age 25) who were completing undergraduate

degrees in a human service field. 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 flyers 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 ofprescribed antecedents and consequences characteristic of five commonly conducted


Instructional DVD 87


DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


4/18

functional analysis conditions (attention, tangible, demand, no interaction, and play).

These specific assessment conditions were chosen because they were reviewed in

the instructional DVD entitled, Functional analysis: A guide for understandingchallenging 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 fixed 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 targetbehavior; (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 priorto 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 first 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 orother materials were present. The therapist sat in the corner of the room and provided




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


5/18

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., movingaway); 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 five 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, defined as forcefully hitting the leg with an open or closedhand); (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 therapistscorrect implementation of programmed antecedents and consequences during 32% of




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


6/18

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%) forthe 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 coefficients 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 targetbehaviors, 93.9% (range 77100%) for other challenging behaviors, and 97.2%

Table 1. Sample script of the attention condition.

Time (min:s) Scripted client behavior

Response class Topography

0:13 Self-injury Leg slap0:23 Disruption Slap floor0:37 Appropriate behavior Say, Please play with me0:42 Self-injury Leg slap0:56 Self-injury Leg slap1:11 Other self-injury Hand bite1:33 Other self-injury Hand bite1:38 Disruption Throw toy1:44 Self-injury Leg slap

1:49 Disruption Throws toy2:02 Self-injury Leg slap2:24 Self-injury Leg slap2:38 Self-injury Leg slap2:50 Appropriate behavior Play with toy appropriately2:55 Appropriate behavior Ask, Can you play with me now?3:07 Self-injury Leg slap3:33 Other self-injury Hand bite3:39 Disruption Slap floor3:55 Self-injury Leg slap4:14 Appropriate behavior Play with toy appropriately4:19 Disruption Slap floor

4:25 Self-injury Leg slap4:37 Self-injury Leg slap4:54 Self-injury Leg slap




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


7/18

(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%) forappropriate 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 five functional analysis

sessions during baseline (i.e., one exposure to each condition), whereas the other halfof 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 final series of five functional analysis sessions. If

a participant did not meet the mastery criterion after the first 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 first series of functionalanalysis 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 briefly 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 five 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 deliveredduring baseline.




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


8/18

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 five 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.

Specifically, 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 five 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 five 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 firstseries of five assessment conditions, s/he entered the feedback phase. During this




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


9/18

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 five-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 implementa-tion, 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 observedduring 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 five assessment

conditions, whereas the other five undergraduates achieved mastery criterion for two

of the five conditions. Because the 90% accuracy criterion was not achieved across allfive conditions for any of the undergraduates, all of them participated in the feedback




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


10/18

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




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


11/18

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 andtangible 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 five

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 implementfunctional 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). Specifically, 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 five functional

analysis conditions. Darlene, Lana, and Myrna met the mastery criterion for two ofthe five conditions, and for the remaining three graduate students (Claude, Irene, and

Reilly), mastery criterion was met for three of the five 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 acrossall five assessment conditions (M changes from baseline 67, 17, 58, 67, and 36%




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


12/18

Figure 2. Percentage of correct implementation for graduate students during baseline, instructionalDVD, and feedback phases.




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


13/18

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

(Mchanges 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 allfive 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 five assessment

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

Figure 4. Percentage change of correct implementation from baseline to the instructional DVD phasefor graduate students.




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


14/18

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 wereobserved 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

five assessment conditions (Mchanges 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 consequencesin 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 five functional

analysis conditions. These findings 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 findings further demonstrated that video modelingcould be a somewhat effective and efficient 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 first study to train subjects using a commercially available

DVD. Thus, it is readily available, widening its impact in the field.

In addition, participants were taught to perform a more comprehensive behavioralassessment that is more representative of functional analyses conducted in published




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


15/18

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 studytargeted 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 social-

positive, 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 behavioranalytic 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 soinflated 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 five 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 inimproving any participants scores to 90% accuracy across all five assessment




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


16/18

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 analysisskills. However, as stated in the pamphlet that accompanied the DVD, it was

designed to be used by Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) or similarly

qualified 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. Interest-ingly, 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 floor, and the therapist removed thematerials 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 findings were similar to those of Moore & Fisher (2007), in that

the number of exemplars depicted in the video modeling procedures was correlatedwith the degree of skill acquisition. When participants were shown the partial




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


17/18

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 therapistbehaviors 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 function-

based 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 functionalanalysis 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 findings demonstrated that an instructional DVD, combined with

experimenter feedback, was successful in training college students to conduct functional

analyses. Given the effectiveness and efficiency 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 couldbe 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 duringsimulation instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 327339.

Center for Autism Spectrum Disorders (Producer). (2005). Functional analysis: A guide for under-

standing 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 video-

based 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.




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102


18/18

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 ofcontinuous and intermittent reinforcement for problem behavior during functional communication

training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 167179.




DOI: 10.1002/bin

26: 85102

Documents

Instructional DVD