Aggression During Transitions: Choosing the Right FBA Path
A behavior interventionist in a public elementary school is asked to assess Mateo, age 7, who has autism and limited vocal speech. In the past month he has engaged in aggression (hitting, scratching) an average of 11 times per week, mostly when staff remove a preferred tablet or move him from recess to reading. The teacher completed a 20-item rating scale that suggests attention as the function; a paraprofessional's ABC log over four days records 19 episodes, 15 of which followed a demand and 12 of which were followed by removal from the activity. The school psychologist wants to start a function-based plan immediately. The parent reports similar behavior at home during bedtime routines. The team has not conducted a structured functional analysis, and district policy allows it only with parental consent and a safety review.
1. What additional assessment steps are justified before selecting an intervention, and how would you weigh the indirect and direct data?
Read the worked answer
The indirect rating and the ABC log point in different directions, so I would treat both as hypotheses rather than conclusions. The rating scale is a broad informant measure; it may reflect the teacher's overall experience of Mateo rather than the consequence maintaining aggression in specific routines. The ABC log is more proximal but covers only four days, 19 episodes, and one observer, so it may overrepresent the most memorable events. I would calculate conditional probabilities for demand and attention within the same episodes, operationally define aggression (topography, duration, intensity), and collect data across at least two routines and two staff members. Because the parent reports bedtime problems, I would add a structured interview and, with consent, brief home data. A functional analysis may be justified if the hypothesis remains ambiguous or if the plan would rely on escape extinction, but district policy requires consent and a safety review. I would not accept the rating scale's attention hypothesis as a basis for a consequence-heavy plan; low-risk antecedent supports and a functional communication response can begin while assessment continues.
2. If the team proceeds with a function-based plan before a full functional analysis, what safeguards and decision rules should be in place?
Read the worked answer
Safeguards should include written consent, a safety plan for aggression, a clear hypothesis linking antecedents, behavior, and consequences, treatment-integrity checks, and objective measures of aggression, mands, and task completion. The plan should not rely on escape extinction alone. It should teach and consistently reinforce a replacement response such as a break card or 'finished,' honor that response during the teaching phase, and thin breaks gradually. Decision rules should be set before implementation; for example, if aggression does not fall by at least 20% from baseline within 10 school days, or if injury occurs, the team reconvenes and considers a structured functional analysis. Staff should record each episode and the consequence delivered. The psychologist's urgency is understandable, but urgency does not justify skipping baseline, consent, or measurement. A hypothesis-driven plan with these safeguards is defensible; a plan that assumes attention without support is not.
3. How should the discrepancy between the teacher rating and the ABC data be documented and communicated?
Read the worked answer
I would document the discrepancy in a neutral table showing source, setting, dates, definitions, and counts. The report should state that the teacher rating suggests attention while the ABC log suggests escape from demands, and that neither source alone confirms function. I would avoid attributing motives to the teacher or paraprofessional. At the team meeting, I would ask both informants to describe what the behavior looks like and what usually happens next, then agree on a common operational definition. I would explain that the team can start antecedent and teaching strategies while the functional assessment continues, but consequence-based decisions will wait for better data. This protects Mateo from a mismatched plan and protects the team from making a high-stakes decision on conflicting evidence.