Functional Behavior Assessment France Goulard University of Calgary

Functional Behavioral Assessment Summary Name: Luke Spencer Age: 9 years 11months Gender: Male DOB: 04/21/99 Grade: fourth grade Referral Problem Luke was referred for a behavioral assessment by his fourth grade teacher, Mrs. Robitaille, at Sturgeon Falls School. Lukes mother, classroom teacher, resource teacher and principal have all conveyed concerns about Lukes behavior at school. His identified inappropriate behaviors include disrupting class, by inappropriate verbal behavior, inappropriate noises towards his classmates, and physical aggression towards his classmates. He also displays a noncompliant behavior towards most of his teachers. A functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) was considered appropriate for Luke because his behaviors were disrupting his learning and the learning of those around him and they also posed a threat to the safety of his peers. Included in this FBA are: a review of the students history, a Functional Analysis Interview (FAI), and a Functional Assessment Observation (FAO). The purpose of the FBA is to identify factors that are influencing Lukes behavior. Once these factors are identified they can be used to develop interventions to change Lukes behavior. Parent: Julie Spencer School: Sturgeon Falls School Teacher: Mrs. Robitaille Observer: France Goulard (resource teacher)

Background Information Luke is 9 years and 11 months of age and is currently living with his mother and father, younger sister and younger brother. He attends Sturgeon Falls School, which is a

French chartered school, ranging from kindergarten to grade 9 and has a total of 55 students in the whole school. He is presently in grade 4 in a grade 4,5,6, split class. There are a total of 8 students. There are four students in grade four (two girls and two boys), two students in grade five (two girls), and two students in grade six (two girls). He has been attending this school since grade 1., which at that time in 15 students in total were attending. Lukes inappropriate behaviors were identified as early as grade 1, but given the special circumstances of the school, and the 1 to 3 ratio of teacher/student, the school staff felt that they were able to handle the situation because of its small number of students. Luke did not receive any previous inclass staffing support, such as an educational aide, nor did he receive services in a resource or special education setting for his behavior issues. Since he started school, Luke has spent his full school days in a general French education setting. His class time consisted of the acquisition of three languages (French, English and Spanish), math, and science. Art, music and physical education were provided twice on a weekly basis. Since attending grade one, Luke has always displayed aggressive and inappropriate behaviors but was never formally evaluated to assess his level of functioning and disruptive behaviors. Previous teachers were always trying to handle him their way which sometimes made his behaviors better or worse. Because of the small classroom setting, never exceeding ten kids per class ratio, the previous teachers and principal didnt think that a behavior assessment or PIP was needed in the past. The only interventions used in the past were through classroom behavior management strategies and through the schools general rules to follow strategies, where a student would receive a ticket every time he or she didnt obey the schools rules and get a punishment after receiving three tickets with

the writing act of disobedience he or she displayed. The ticket punishment system goes like this: A student gets taken away a favorite school activity after receiving three tickets, a half day in school suspension after receiving six tickets, a full day of school suspension after receiving nine tickets, and a full day at home suspension after receiving 12 tickets. Although Luke did not like receiving tickets and always regretted his acts of disobedience after receiving each tickets, he continually received them even when he knew if he got one more that would eliminate one of his favorite school outings or even worse, home suspension. He himself was concerned about his disruptive behavior and his impulsivity. This concern did not decrease the amount of times he misbehaved. He continuously caused disruption to the class on a daily basis and even though he was more open to talk about them, he tickets accumulation seemed to be increasing. Now that Luke is in fourth grade and the school population is projected to grow in significantly in the coming years, concerns from Mrs. Robitaille, the principal and other previous teachers have intensified. It seems that his punishments are decreasing in effectiveness and his behaviors are more intensified by him being stronger and more impulsive. Functional Behavioral Assessment Services Summary School staff and Lukes mother considered a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) appropriate due to Lukes classroom and in school behaviors. They hoped some more effective strategies and interventions could be developed to affect a positive change in Lukes behaviors. Mrs. Robitaille, Lukes classroom teacher, and Julie Spencer, his mother were given the Functional Assessment Interview (FAI) form and the motivation assessment scale form by Mme Goulard, the resource teacher, to identify the problem

behaviors and rate them in terms of which needed to be addressed first. The FAI was also used to identify possible antecedents to the behaviors, such as settings, situations, and environmental factors, and consequences of the behaviors. The classroom teacher and his mother (with Lukes help) filled out the FAI and motivation assessment scale with very similar findings. Then, a Functional Assessment Observation (FAO) was conducted in order to document Lukes behaviors and correlate the possible antecedents and consequences to the behaviors. 1) Functional Assessment Interview Mrs. Robitaille described Luke as a boy who had a hard time getting along with his peers due to his impulsiveness and aggression. He displayed a lot of intolerance towards others and towards tasks that he did not enjoy doing. In the interview, Mrs. Robitaille identified multiple problem behaviors that Luke exhibited. The most frequent of those behaviors, was the inappropriate verbal language and threats of other students. These particular behaviors manifested themselves in a number of ways. Luke was seen throwing erasers at other students in order to let them know he wasnt happy with them. He also went as far as pushing their chairs and desks to intimidate them. Physical aggression towards the other students was a primary area of concern for Mrs. Robitaille and occurred most often in the schoolyard where less structure and visible intervention were in play. Another area of concern was noncompliance. Mrs. Robitaille stated that Lukes noncompliant behavior had been increasing as the school year progressed, and seemed to be becoming a pressing concern especially when she wasnt the one trying to intervene. Other teachers and school staff did not seem to have any control on Lukes outbursts. He did not care to listen to them at all and would just get more furious at

them and at the situation if they tried to intervene and/or calm him down. At home, Lukes behavior is described as very similar to the one at school. His mother, Julie Spencer said that he has a hard time getting along with his siblings and acts in impulsive ways when he feels threatened or bothered. She also mentioned that he swears a lot at home to get attention or to simply display that he is not happy with a certain situation. Luke is currently not on any medications and has no history of allergies. He has no difficulty sleeping at night. He goes to bed around nine oclock at wakes up at around seven in the morning. It has been reported that Luke is a very fussy eater. He refuses to eat fruits and vegetables, unless given in juice form. His favorite food is Italian and likes going to restaurants. He also enjoys playing sports and video games on the computer. He also has a dog at home, which he likes to play with a lot. His mother stated that his bad behaviors are more likely to show up during the day and seems calmer in the evenings and at night. According to his mom, transitions are not one of his triggers for his bad behaviors. She feels that his behaviors are mostly displayed when there is a verbal provocation, during a physical activity or an interdiction to do one activity by an adult. Lukes mom also said that he does not like receiving tickets at school for his bad behaviors because he does not want to miss out on school activities or outings. But because of his increased impulsive behavior, he has a hard time controlling his actions and therefore increases the number of tickets he receives. According to his teacher, Lukes problem behaviors, especially physical aggression, seemed to be more frequent in a less structured setting, especially at recess, and identified small group activities as a more likely target for him to display inappropriate behaviors than individual work or general school activities.

2) Functional Assessment Observation The FAO was used to clarify and refine information gathered in the interview and to identify relationships between the problem behaviors and the antecedents and consequences. Using the FAO, Luke was observed for a total of five hours and 30 minutes at Sturgeon Falls School. Observations were conducted during morning and afternoon classes as well as during recess and morning homeroom meetings. Luke was observed over a variety of demand levels of activity as well as structured versus less structured environments. The observation were conducted across the following conditions: a) small group, low demand, b) small group, high demand, c) small group, less structure, d) small group, high structure, and e) independent work, high demand. The small group, low demand, consisted of nonacademic activities, such as physical education, watching a movie and less structured activities. The small group, high demand consisted of more structured courses such as reading, writing and math. Sometimes the students were in groups of two but no more than four per group. Independent work with high demand consisted of students sitting at their appointed seats working on a specific task.

Data Collection: The primary observer, France Goulard, collected information using the FAO on four separate occasions: March 2nd, 2009, March 3rd, 2009, March 4th, 2009, and March 5th, 2009. Target Behaviors:

Based on the problem behaviors identified in the interview, the following four target behaviors were chosen as the most urgently in need of intervention: inappropriate verbal behavior, making noises, noncompliance and physical aggression. Operational Definitions of the Target Behaviors a) Inappropriate Verbal: consisted of any inappropriate verbal statements including swearing, insulting, or verbally threatening others. b) Making noises: consisted of burping in class, hitting desk with head or pencil, tapping feet on floor or hands on desk, or playing with chair and/or desk. c) Noncompliance: consisted of the failure to complete an instruction or to listen to a specific request the teacher asked. d) Physical Aggression: consisted of any inappropriate physical contact including throwing objects at peers, hitting, pushing, grabbing and kicking. Results of FAO Inappropriate Verbal (12 occurrences)- Inappropriate verbal behavior was the most frequently observed target behavior (see figure 1). Luke engaged in this behavior most of the time following a demand/request at 33% or during an interruption at 33%. Other predictors involved were getting no attention at 13% of the time, following a transition at 13% of the time, and difficult task at 7% of the time (see figure 2). The perceived function of the behavior was observed to be for the purpose of gaining attention in 53% of the occurrences and for the purpose of gaining a desired activity or item in 27% of the occurrences. Sometimes it was to simply escape a demand/request at 20% of the time (see figure 3). The actual consequences for inappropriate verbal behavior were as follows: 54% of the time the teacher reprimanded Luke, 23% of the time she redirected him, 15% of the

time a ticket was issued to him for not following school rules, and 8% of the time she simply ignored him or did nothing (see figure 4). Overall, Luke was most likely to engage in inappropriate verbal behavior during conditions involving non structured group with low demand (average rate of 0.06 per minute or approximately 3.6 occurrences per hour) and in conditions involving structured group with low demand (average rate of 0.06 per minute or approximately 3.6 occurrences per hour). He was less likely to engage in conditions involving high structured group with high demand (average rate of 0.03 per minute or approximately 1.8 occurrences per hour) (See figure 5).

Inappropriate noises (14 occurrences)- Inappropriate noises was observed as the second most frequently occurring behavior (see figure 1). Of the time Luke engaged inappropriate noises, it was due 50% of the time following a difficult task, 36% of the time getting no attention, and 14% of the time demand/request (see figure 2). The perceived functions of the behavior were primarily to escape activity at 64% of the time and to sometimes get attention at 36% of the time (see figure 3). The actual consequences of displaying inappropriate noises were as follows: the teacher ignored Luke or did nothing 62% of the time, she also redirected him at 15% of the time or sent him for a walk at 15% of the time if ignoring or doing nothing did not seem to work (see figure 4). Overall, Luke engaged in inappropriate noises during conditions involving high structured group with high demand (average rate of 0.08 per minute or approximately 4.8 occurrences per hour) and during structured group with low demand (average rate of 0.05 per minute or approximately 3.2 occurrences per hour) (see figure 6).

Noncompliance (12 occurrences)- Noncompliance was observed as one of the most frequently occurring behavior (see figure 1). Of the time Luke engaged in noncompliant behavior, it was due from a demand/request 100% of the time (see figure 2). The perceived functions of the behavior were primarily to escape activity 50% of the time and to sometimes escape demand/request at 42% of the time. He also did 8% of the time to get attention (see figure 3). The actual consequences of noncompliance were as follows: the teacher redirected Luke 58% of the time, and if redirecting Luke didnt work after a couple of tries, the teacher would send him for a walk 17% of the time or give him a ticket for not following school rules at 17% of the time (see figure 4). Overall, Luke engaged in noncompliant behavior 27% of the time he was observed. He was likely to engage in noncompliant behavior during conditions involving a structured group with high demand and low demand (average rate 0.05 per minute or approximately 3.2 occurrences per hour for both high and low demand) (see figure 7).

Physical Aggression (3 occurrences)- Physical aggression was observed as the least frequent occurring behavior (see figure 1). Luke engaged in physical aggression following interruption from his peers 100% of the time (see figure 2). The perceived functions of the behavior were observed to be for the purpose of getting activity or item at 67% of the time, and for obtaining attention at 33% of the time (see figure 3). The actual consequences for physical aggression were as follows: 33% of the time Luke was reprimanded and 67% of the time he received a ticket for not following school rules (see figure 4). Luke engaged in physical aggression approximately 7% of the time he was observed. He mostly engaged in this behavior during conditions involving a non-structured group with low demand

(average rate 0.07 per minute or approximately 4.2 occurrences per hour). He also engaged in this behavior involving a high structured group with low demand (average are 0.01 per minute or approximately 0.8 occurrences per hour) (see figure 8).

Additional Behaviors of Concern- During the FAI, Lukes teacher and mother also identified that most of his behaviors were very impulsive. The impulsive behavior was not recorded in the FOA because it was felt that this behavior was part of the more specific behaviors indicated. Summary The data collected from the FAI suggested that Luke engaged in a variety of inappropriate classroom and recess behaviors over a variety of work and non-structured conditions. Due to his impulsivity, Mrs. Robitaille concern was for the safety and well being of her other students as well as his own. She also mentioned that he could demonstrate these behaviors at any time or any place if something was to trigger them. The data supports this initial conclusion to some extent, but by analyzing the results obtained for his FOA, a trend seems to have emerged. Most of Lukes misbehaviors were due to both high structure group with high demand and low structured group with low demand. The most dangerous being the low structured group with low demand, because that is when he would most likely engage in physical aggression. Activities such as football, tag and other physical games during recess were the biggest triggers for him to impulsively hit another classmate (boy or girl) without thinking twice about it. It was often due to him not winning, catching the ball or being teased by the opposing team. The high structured with high demand was not likely to be a dangerous environment, but yet very disturbing and

upsetting for the teacher and fellow classmates. Not to mention creating an ideal environment to make learning very difficult. He usually displayed inappropriate noises in this kind of condition to mainly refrain from doing his task because he didnt feel like working at the time. The observer noted that Luke was less likely to engage in inappropriate behaviors if he enjoyed the task he was doing unless provoked by a classmate. He also seemed to be fine once the task was done because he felt good about himself. The observer noted that he was most likely to engage in inappropriate behaviors when he did not enjoy the subject being taught. It seemed that he wouldnt even try to engage in the activity from the start. He had made his mind up before the task was even presented and decided not to listen. This leads to a conclusion that Lukes inappropriate behaviors were not necessarily the result of the high structured with high demand or low demand but more when there was less structure to no structure (recess and lunch time), even when high demand was requested (physical education or school meetings). It is important to also note that during observations, Mrs. Goulard also noticed patterns of bad behaviors that were emerging at the start of a certain class or activity due to a teacher or subject he did not like. The consequences for many of the behaviors included mainly ignoring. Since making noises seemed to be one of the highest behaviors, the teacher hoped to decrease this behavior by simply ignoring it, which for the most part worked. If it didnt, she would send him for a walk or give him a ticket when nothing else seemed to work. Luke appeared to be doing most of these noises when the teacher was not looking. He seemed to be doing this due to the lack of interest in his task and wanted to get attention from other classmates to disrupt their work and to simply pass the time. Other times, he would display these noises

in plain view of the teacher because she was helping another student and he wanted her attention or help in completing his task. A large amount of noncompliance was due to this particular kind of behavior. Inappropriate verbal behaviors were dealt in a more strict way by immediately redirecting or reprimanding him and a ticket quickly followed if the behavior did not stop shortly after. The teacher felt that this kind of behavior was totally unacceptable and wanted to make sure that everyone in the room knew that. Physical aggression was the only behavior that was not driven by school or by subject, but mostly by peers. He used this behavior to let them know when he was upset with them or tired of being bothered by them. Therefore, there are three primary hypotheses as to why Luke engages in problem behavior. First, it appears that Luke engages in problem behavior to obtain attention. This appears to be supported by the data that 53% of inappropriate verbal behavior, 36% of inappropriate noise behavior, 33% of physical aggression, and 8% of noncompliance was observed to be motivated by attention seeking. This behavior was also supported by the fact that Luke did not like being excluded from group activities and outings, which sometimes escaladed his behavior when he knew he had too many tickets to join. The second hypotheses would be for Luke to escape from a certain activity or task. This is supported by the data also collected during the FAO, that 64% of inappropriate noises, 50% of noncompliance, and 20% of inappropriate verbal behavior was observed to be motivated by trying to not do his work. The last one would be in a low to non-structured environment where Luke seemed to be more impulsive due to the lack of structure. This hypotheses is supported by the high % of physical aggression during recess and lunch time. The following recommendations are offered to assist in decreasing problem behaviors and

increasing appropriate behaviors in the classroom. Recommendations To help Luke with his inappropriate verbal behavior, social skills training may be beneficial. It could also help with his inappropriate noise making and even physical aggression. This type of training should be well structured and with clear positive outcomes to help him engage in this type of training. A daily motivation chart would be beneficial to help Luke get through the classes he doesnt like and help him think twice before displaying a bad behavior. This would motivate him to be more positive through his class knowing there is a positive outcome if he listens well. This chart should be filled out with him and he could also help set up the rules for when he deserves a happy face or when he doesnt. This will make him feel more involved in the consequence of his own actions. For the inappropriate noise making, Luke would benefit sitting on a balance ball during a task so that he can disperse more of his energy without bothering anyone. Luke never stays on his chair properly, which creates a lot of noise to begin with. It is also known that balance balls are good for stress relief and that might cause him to be less reactive or impulsive. A stress relief ball would also be beneficial to him for the times he wants to lash out or is feeling angry inside. It should be left on his desk at all times and used whenever he wants. This could help decrease his noise making, inappropriate verbal behavior and noncompliance. Luke should be seated near the teacher in front of the class where he is less likely to

have eye contact with other students. This will allow the teacher to assure he is not engaging in appropriate behavior or to stop it before it gets out of hand. Lukes noncompliance behavior was mostly motivated by the desire to obtain attention. Giving him specific classroom tasks like writing the date on the board, erasing the board, passing papers, etc. would prevent him from being bored and seeking attention. The need for compliance should therefore decrease. During recess and non-structured group activities, Luke should have an aide to help watch over him and prevent any spontaneous outbursts. Supervision during those times is a must since he clearly cannot control his emotions when provoked, which can become a very dangerous situation for his fellow classmates. As time goes by and physical aggression decreases, the aide can slowly start supervising from a further distance until it is felt that Lukes impulsive behavior is more controlled. To help him control his impulsive behavior which can lead to physical aggression, strategies such as counting to ten, or running away from the game or even entering the school to go play on the computer or on his favorite instrument should be tried and practiced to see if he can do one of those things instead of hurting someone. Another strategy that would decrease Luke from using his bad behaviors would be to always offer him a choice during class. It could simply be choosing between two activities or letting him know that when he behaves badly he can stop and continue the task or get a ticket and more homework at night. This will help him think about what is best for him and at the same time will give him options instead of restricted orders. Also, by giving him these choices, it will teach him that bad behaviors result in consequences, such as tickets or more homework and good behaviors result in

good consequences, such as praise and privileges. A great way to increase Lukes appropriate behaviors is to provide attention and praise to him when he is on task, working hard or listening without disrupting the class. Giving him a unexpected privileges for his appropriate behavior, like five minutes of computer time at the end of class, would encourage him to do it again. It could also mean less homework at night or a big smiley face in his agenda promoting his good behavior. Hopefully this will decrease the inappropriate behavior since the focus of attention will be on his appropriate behavior. Limitations Due to the uniqueness of Lukes school, observations in a large group setting was impossible to obtain. It is questionable if Luke would display certain behaviors like inappropriate verbal, inappropriate noise making and noncompliance in a larger group setting. During the observations, the observer felt that Luke was sometimes too comfortable in his environment and given the information from his mother, acted a lot at school like he would at home. Could this be due to a small group setting? Further observations would be needed to determine that in both the small and large group settings. Another limitation that came to attention was Lukes behavior around his parents. He used a lot of inappropriate verbal and noise making behavior around his parents and they never said or did anything to stop him. It seems like there is less consequences to his actions at home, which in turn makes it more difficult for him to act properly at school. Noncompliance was also observed at many instances towards his mother. She simply just rolled her eyes at him and ignored the situation. They seem to not like when Luke gets full day home suspension, which has occurred twice in the last month are seem to want to help

him behave better. It is critical that strategies to help improve his bad behaviors should be practiced both at school and home. Also, to better help control his impulsive behaviors, further steps should be considered if others fail like seeing a psychologist to try and to the root of his impulsivity and help control those triggers that causes him to hurt other people.

FREQUENCY OF TARGET BEHAVIORS 16

14

12

10

6 Total number of occurrences 4

0 Inappropriate verbal Inappropriate noises Noncompliance Phisical Aggression Target behaviors

Figure 1. Frequency of target behaviors

Predictors of target behaviors
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Percentage of target behaviors 20% 10% 0% Inappropriate Verbal Inappropriate Noises Noncompliance Aggression Target behaviors

Demand/Request Difficult Task Transitions Interruption No attention

Figure 2. Predictors of target behaviors

Perceived Functions of Target Behaviors

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Percentage of target behaviors 20% 10% 0% Inappropriate Verbal Inappropriate Noises Noncompliance Aggression Target behaviors

Attention Get activity/Item Escape Demand/Request Escape Activity Sensory

Figure 3. Perceived Functions of target behaviors

Consequences of Target Behaviors
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Percentage of target behaviors 20% 10% 0% Inappropriate Verbal Inappropriate Noises Noncompliance Aggression Target behaviors

Ignore/Nothing Reprimand Redirect Ticket Sent for walk

Figure 4. Consequences of target behaviors

Rate of Inappropriate Verbal by Condition 0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

Rate of Inappropriate verbal 0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 Sessions structured (low demand) Structured (high demand) non-structured (low demand) 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 5. Rate of Inappropriate verbal

Rate of Inappropriate Noises by Condition
0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

Rate of Inappropriate noises 0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 Sessions Structured (low demand) Structured (high demand) non-structured (low demand) 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 6. Rate of Inappropriate noises

Rate of Noncompliance by Condition

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1 Rate of Noncompliance

0.05

0 1 2 3 4 5 Sessions structured (low demand) Structured (high demand) non-structured (low demand) 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 7. Rate of Noncompliance

Rate of Physical Aggression by Condition
0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02 Rate of Physical aggression

0.01

0 1 2 3 4 5 Sessions structured (low demand) Structured (high demand) non-structured (low demand) 6 7 8 9 10

Figure 8. Rate of Physical Aggression

Inappropriate Verbal
Minutes Sessions 1) structured (low demand) 2) structured (high demand) 3) structured (low demand) 4) non-structured (low demand) 5) structured (high demand) 6) structured (high demand) 7) structured (low demand) 8) structured (high demand) 9) structured (high demand) 10) non-structured (low demand) Total Rates 1) Structured Group (l. d.) 2) Structured Group (h. d.) 3) Non-structured Group (l. d.) 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 75 min 150 min 30 min Times/min 1/15 1/45 1/45 0/15 1/45 0/45 3/15 1/45 2/45 2/15 5/75 5/150 2/30 Min. Rate 0.06 0.02 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.2 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.06 3.6/hr 1.8/hr 3.6/hr Hour Rate

Inappropriate Noises
Minutes Sessions 1) structured (low demand) 2) structured (high demand) 3) structured (low demand) 4) non-structured (low demand) 5) structured (high demand) 6) structured (high demand) 7) structured (low demand) 8) structured (high demand) 9) structured (high demand) 10) non-structured (low demand) Total Rates 1) Structured Group (l. d.) 2) Structured Group (h. d.) 3) Non-structured Group (l. d.) 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 75 min 150 min 30 min Times/min 3/15 2/45 0/45 0/15 3/45 2/45 1/15 2/45 3/45 0/15 4/75 12/150 0/30 Min. Rate 0.2 0.04 0 0 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0 0.05 0.08 0 3.2/hr 4.8/hr 0/hr Hour Rate

Noncompliance
Minutes Sessions 1) structured (low demand) 2) structured (high demand) 3) structured (low demand) 4) non-structured (low demand) 5) structured (high demand) 6) structured (high demand) 7) structured (low demand) 8) structured (high demand) 9) structured (high demand) 10) non-structured (low demand) Total Rates 1) Structured Group (l. d.) 2) Structured Group (h. d.) 3) Non-structured Group (l. d.) 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 75 min 150 min 30 min Times/min 1/15 2/45 1/45 0/15 1/45 2/45 2/15 1/45 2/45 0/15 4/75 8/150 0/30 Min. Rate 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.04 0 0.05 0.05 0 3.2/hr 3.2/hr 0/hr Hour Rate

Physical Aggression
Minutes Sessions 1) structured (low demand) 2) structured (high demand) 3) structured (low demand) 4) non-structured (low demand) 5) structured (high demand) 6) structured (high demand) 7) structured (low demand) 8) structured (high demand) 9) structured (high demand) 10) non-structured (low demand) Total Rates 1) Structured Group (l. d.) 2) Structured Group (h. d.) 3) Non-structured Group (l. d.) 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 45 min 45 min 15 min 75 min 150 min 30 min Times/min 0/15 0/45 1/45 1/15 0/45 0/45 0/15 0/45 0/45 1/15 1/75 0/150 2/30 Min. Rate 0 0 0.02 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.06 0.01 0 0.07 0.8/hr 0/hr 4.2/hr Hour Rate

Inappropriate Verbal Predictors Demand/Request Difficult Task Transitions Interruption No attention Perceived Functions Attention Get activity/Item Escape Demand/Request Escape activity Sensory Consequences Ignore/Nothing Reprimand Redirect Ticket Sent for walk 5 1 2 5 2 15

Inappropriate Noises 2 7 0 0 5 14

Noncompliance 12 0 0 0 0 12

Aggression 0 0 0 3 0 3

8 4 0 3 0 15 1 7 3 2 0 13 Inappropriate Verbal

5 0 0 9 0 14 8 1 2 0 2 13 Inappropriate Noises 14% 50% 0% 0% 36%

1 0 5 6 0 12 1 0 7 2 2 12 Noncompliance 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1 2 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 3 Aggression 0% 0% 0% 100% 0%

Predictors Demand/Request Difficult Task Transitions Interruption No attention Perceived Functions Attention Get activity/Item Escape Demand/Request

33% 7% 13% 33% 13%

53% 27% 0%

36% 0% 0%

8% 0% 42%

33% 67% 0%

Escape activity Sensory Consequences Ignore/Nothing Reprimand Redirect Ticket Sent for walk

20% 0%

64% 0%

50% 0%

0% 0%

8% 54% 23% 15% 0%

62% 8% 15% 0% 15%

8% 0% 58% 17% 17%

0% 33% 0% 67% 0%

Inappropriate Verbal Behavior

Analyzing FAO Data

Inappropriate Verbal Behavior: 15 times Predictors # % Demand 5 33 Task 1 7 Transitions 2 13 Interruption 5 33 No attention 2 13

This data informs us that when Luke engages in inappropriate verbal behaviors, most of the time it follows demand/request (33%) or during an interruption (33%).

Analyzing FAO Data

Inappropriate Verbal Behavior: 15 times P. Function # % Attention 8 53 Get activity/Item 4 27 Escape demand/request 0 0 Escape Activity 3 20 Sensory 0 0

This data informs us that when Luke engages in inappropriate verbal behaviors, the observer perceived his inappropriate behavior to be primarily to get attention (53%).

Analyzing FAO Data

Inappropriate Verbal Behavior: 15 times Consequences # % Nothing 1 8 Reprimand 7 54 Redirect 3 23 Ticket 2 15 Go for walk 0 0

This data informs us that when Luke engages in inappropriate verbal behaviors, a variety of consequences directly follow the behavior. The most likely teacher strategies include reprimand (54%) and redirection (23%). The teacher seems to give Luke a ticket after every second reprimand (23%). Inappropriate Noises

Analyzing FAO Data

Inappropriate Noises: 14 times Predictors # % Demand 2 14 Task 7 50 Transitions 0 0 Interruption 0 0 No attention 5 36

This data informs us that when Luke engages in inappropriate noises, most of the time it follows a difficult task (50%) or when he is not getting any attention (36%).

Analyzing FAO Data

Inappropriate Noises: 14 times P. Function # % Attention 5 36 Get activity/Item 0 0 Escape demand/request 0 0 Escape Activity 9 64 Sensory 0 0

This data informs us that when Luke engages in inappropriate noises, the observer perceived his inappropriate behavior to be primarily to escape activity (64%) and to sometimes get attention (36%).

Analyzing FAO Data

Inappropriate Noises: 14 times Consequences # % Nothing 1 62 Reprimand 7 8 Redirect 3 15 Ticket 2 0 Go for walk 0 15

This data informs us that when Luke engages in inappropriate noises, a variety of consequences directly follow the behavior. The most likely teacher strategies include ignoring/doing nothing (62%) The teacher seems to redirect Luke (15%) or send him for a walk (15%) if ignoring him doesnt seem to work. Noncompliance

Analyzing FAO Data

Noncompliance: 12 times Predictors # % Demand 12 100 Task 0 0 Transitions 0 0 Interruption 0 0 No attention 0 0

This data informs us that when Luke engages in noncompliance, (100%) of the time it follows a demand/request.

Analyzing FAO Data

Noncompliance: 12 times P. Function # % Attention 1 8 Get activity/Item 0 0 Escape demand/request 5 42 Escape Activity 6 50 Sensory 0 0

This data informs us that when Luke engages in noncompliance, the observer perceived his inappropriate behavior to be primarily to escape activity (50%) and to sometimes escape demand/request (42%). He also does it from time to time to get attention (8%).

Analyzing FAO Data

Noncompliance: 12 times Consequences # % Nothing 1 8 Reprimand 0 0 Redirect 7 58 Ticket 2 17 Go for walk 2 17

This data informs us that when Luke engages in noncompliance, a variety of consequences directly follow the behavior. The most likely teacher strategies include redirecting (58%) The teacher seems to send Luke for a walk (17%) or give him a ticket (17%) if redirecting is used too often. Physical Aggression

Analyzing FAO Data

Physical Aggression: 3 times Predictors # % Demand 0 0 Task 0 0 Transitions 0 0 Interruption 3 100 No attention 0 0

This data informs us that when Luke engages in physical aggression, it is followed by interruption from his peers (100%) of the time.

Analyzing FAO Data

Physical Aggression: 3 times P. Function # % Attention 1 33 Get activity/Item 2 67 Escape demand/request 0 0 Escape Activity 0 0 Sensory 0 0

This data informs us that when Luke engages in physical aggression, the observer perceived his inappropriate behavior to be primarily to get activity/or item he wants (67%) and to sometimes get attention (33%).

Analyzing FAO Data

Physical Aggression: 3 times Consequences # % Nothing 0 0 Reprimand 1 33 Redirect 0 0 Ticket 2 67 Go for walk 0 0

This data informs us that when Luke engages in physical aggression, two consequences directly follow the behavior. The most likely teacher strategies include giving a ticket for not following school rules (67%) and to reprimand him if teacher is there to witness the aggression (33%).