Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is being used increasingly in schools as a potentially effective means of matching intervention strategies to behavioral function. The unqualified use of FBA often is driven more by legal and policy decisions than by sound empirical data dictating its efficacy in all cases. Two fundamental questions have not been adequately answered by the FBA literature: (a) Are interventions matched to the operant function of behavior more effective than interventions not matched to the function of behavior? and (b) Can researchers and practitioners determine behavioral function reliably and accurately? The author presents conceptual and measurement challenges surrounding the use of FBA in school settings, as well as evidence for the technical adequacy of FBA procedures in terms of reliability and validity. The research to date has not marshaled adequate empirical evidence for the reliability of determining behavioral function, investigation of the conditions under which behavioral function is stable or unstable over time, the convergent validity of indirect and direct FBA methods, validity generalization, decision validity, and social validity of FBA. Finally there is insufficient empirical evidence to suggest that interventions matched to behavioral function are more effective than behavioral interventions not based on an FBA. Future research agendas and strategies are discussed to improve the technical adequacy of FBA in school settings for students with emotional or behavioral disorders.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 58 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.