Welcome to our live chat with Carol Davis, Ed.D. of the University of Washington. Today's topic is "A Multi-Level Model of Functional Assessment." Carol, what is meant by multi-level? How is this model different from the other functional assessment processes?

In using the term multi-level FA, we have attempted to broaden the practitioner's understanding of the traditional FA. The traditional functional assessment usually begins with an interview or review of existing documents. It then progresses to identifying the antecedents and consequences to a specific behavior. While the same is true in a multi-level assessment process, we start at environmental level of assessment and try to identify environmental variables that might contribute to the problem behavior and intervene at this level first.

Do you still address a specific behavior, or respond to a more general concern?

Yes, we do still look at a specific behavior, but we are more interested in examining if there are some interventions that can be utilized before we move to a more intrusive assessment and intervention. Once we identify variables at the environmental level, we make recommendations for intervention. If, after the interventions at this level have been tried and are unsuccessful at eliminating the target behavior, we move to the next level. At the next level, we assess the room or setting for instructional variables that may be influencing behavior.

Are you looking at a specific kid and specific behavior?

Yes, we do come in initially looking at one child or a target behavior. However, interventions done at the first two levels of the process may benefit all kids. Let me see if I can explain the model better. This model is three-tiered: environment, interactions and instruction, and then what we might characterize as a traditional FA.

The reason we proposed this model is often when we were called in as TA providers to a classroom to look at one kid, we found that in order to assess the antecedent and consequences, we needed some kind of stable environment or some type of appropriate instruction and interactions ongoing before we could come up with an assessment that was valid or a direct intervention that would be appropriate and work. So, to answer your question, yes, we are looking at one kid.

Earlier you mentioned the environment. Can you give us an idea of some of the things you may look at in the room or setting for instructional variables?

Yes. For the environment, we have used a modified version of an environmental checklist that was published by Mark Wolery (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai). We have also made some modifications to this checklist. For the instruction and interaction level, we have reviewed the literature to identify those variables likely to influence behavior (e.g., rate of teacher praise, providing information before requesting a response from the child, providing a functional curriculum, etc.).

From past experience in trying to implement a BSP from an FA when the classroom needs organizational help first, I can really see the advantage of this.

We did a pilot study last year in which we went into a Head Start classroom. The teacher requested that we do a functional assessment on 5 kids. We knew that we did not have that kind of time. So we approached it from a multi-level approach. We first used the Environmental checklist and, based on that, recommended three interventions. The team was not willing to do two of the interventions but agreed to limit the number of children in the center area at one time.

After implementing this, we saw that two of the five no longer had a need for an FA (behavior not a problem). Next, we assessed the instruction in the class and, based on this assessment we recommended three interventions. Again, teachers agreed to change how they approached kids to redirect them.

Thus, we were left with one kid for which we had to complete a traditional FA. This was more manageable for the staff. In addition, when we did do the FA and interventions, we were more likely to be successful because the room was a better place.

I was at a school district behavior team meeting this morning, actually, the team you met with years ago, and they had a question for you.

I miss them!

In this procedure, at what point do you need to complete the Due Process forms for an assessment?

Since we view this model as one that is practitioner-based, we are hoping that as behavior problems begin to surface in the classroom, teachers will implement the first level -- assess their environment. I also believe the intent of the FBA process to be proactive; however, the reading of the law encourages its use after the behavior becomes a problem. Clearly, communication with the family should be ongoing and, thus, the need for formal paper work may not be necessary.

I believe it is a different question if you have a child that has not been identified and you think he/she may have a behavior problem. At that point, a referral needs to be made. However, a functional assessment (particularly this model) we hope will be used to help us reduce the number of kids we refer for SPED.

If the kids are in a program, would there be the need to send home due process papers? This may be a difference in state implementation rules.

Have you written any articles on this that we might obtain regarding the multi-level assessment?

Maureen Conroy and I wrote a paper last year in "Preventing School Failure." We also have one coming out in Young Exceptional Children.

Carol, thanks for sharing this information with us today. It really seems a sensible way to approach FA to be the most successful for the kids we want to help. It also is going to be great for the greater number of children in the whole classroom. Any final comments you would like to make?

I guess I hope that people will use this proactively and it will help them in reducing the number of children in which we need to spend the time conducting a traditional FA.

Thanks, Carol. We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise in this area with us today.

Thank you.

Additional Readings:

Bailey & Wolery (1992). Teaching infants and preschoolers with disabilities. New York, NY: McMillan Publishing.

Conroy, M. & Davis, C.A. (2000). Early elementary-aged children with challenging behaviors: Legal and educational issues related to IDEA and functional behavioral assessment. Preventing School Failure, 44, 163-168.

Wolery, M., Bailey, D., & Sugai, G. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Printer-friendly pdf version

Joe Reichle, Ph.D., Co-Principal Investigators
LeAnne Johnson, Project Coordinator
Phone: 612-626-9528 Fax: 612-625-6619 E-mail: chaf0032@umn.edu

[Home] | [Personnel] | [Presentations] | [Strategies] | [Case Studies] | [Discussion] | [Links] | [Contact Us]