Week 3 Article Review

provide reference using APA format (5 points):

1. Summarize the purpose of the study (at least 3 sentences – 10 points):
2. What/who are the subjects and setting (at least 4 sentences – 10 points):
3. What experimental design did the authors use?(at least 2 sentences – 10 points):
4. Summarize the results of the study? (at least 4 sentences- 10 points): 
5. What are your criticisms of the study? What is a possible future direction for the research? In other words, what should come next if you were going to conduct the next study? (at least 5 sentences- 5 points)

link to article in attachments

137

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2002, 35, 137–154 NUMBER 2 (SUMMER 2002)

USE OF A STRUCTURED DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY TO IDENTIFY VARIABLES

AFFECTING PROBLEM BEHAVIOR

CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON AND ETHAN S. LONG

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

This study evaluated a variation of functional assessment methodology, the structured
descriptive assessment (SDA). The SDA is conducted in an individual’s natural environ-
ment and involves systematically manipulating antecedent variables while leaving conse-
quences free to vary. Results were evaluated by comparing the results of an SDA with
results obtained from an analogue functional analysis with 4 children who exhibited
problem behavior. For 3 of 4 participants, the results of the two assessments suggested
similar hypotheses about variables maintaining problem behavior. Interventions based on
the results of the SDA were implemented for 3 children and resulted in significant
reductions in rates of problem behavior.

DESCRIPTORS: functional assessment, functional analysis, intervention, problem
behavior

Research has demonstrated the utility of
the analogue functional analysis methodol-
ogy developed by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bau-
man, and Richman (1982/1994) for identi-
fying sources of reinforcement that maintain
aberrant behavior. This methodology sys-
tematically assesses situations hypothesized
to be analogueous to those in the natural
environment by directly manipulating pu-
tative antecedents and consequences for
problem behavior. The major advantage of
this methodology compared to other meth-
ods of functional assessment is that it allows
greater control over the environment, result-
ing in a more direct inference of functional
relations.

In contrast to the analogue functional
analysis, descriptive assessments involve di-
rect observation of behavior and events in
the individual’s natural environment and in-

Ethan Long is now at the Kennedy Krieger Insti-
tute, Baltimore, Maryland.

We thank Carie English, Shannon Haag, Bridget
Hayes, Ellen McCartney, and Mary Mich for their
assistance with data collection and analysis.

Address correspondence to Cynthia M. Anderson,
Department of Psychology, Box 6040, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506-6040
(e-mail: cindy.anderson@mail.wvu.edu).

volve less control over environmental vari-
ables. Descriptive assessments may yield in-
formation about naturally occurring sched-
ules of reinforcement and idiosyncratic var-
iables associated with problem behavior
(e.g., Fisher, Adelinis, Thompson, Worsdell,
& Zarcone, 1998; Mueller, Sterling-Turner,
& Scattone, 2001). As a result, descriptive
assessments may enhance understanding of
how reinforcement operates in the natural
environment.

Recent research suggests that descriptive
assessment may be beneficial in augmenting
analogue functional analyses. For example,
hypotheses about environment–behavior re-
lations might be developed via descriptive
assessment when results of an analogue func-
tional analysis are inconclusive (Mace & Lal-
li, 1991). Descriptive assessments also may
be useful when it is difficult or impossible
to conduct analogue functional analyses.

Despite these potential benefits, a number
of limitations are associated with commonly
used methods of descriptive assessment.
First, data obtained via descriptive assess-
ment provide only correlational information
about environment–behavior relations, and
therefore do not allow causal statements to

138 CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON and ETHAN S. LONG

be made (Mace, Lalli, & Shea, 1992). Sec-
ond, if behavior is reinforced only occasion-
ally, it may be difficult to identify reinforc-
ing consequences (Lerman & Iwata, 1993;
Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1977). Third, be-
cause antecedent and consequent stimuli are
not controlled, functionally relevant stimuli
may not occur during the observation peri-
od. This may occur, for example, if care pro-
viders have modified the environment such
that discriminative stimuli or establishing
operations that occasion problem behavior
are removed in an attempt to prevent the
occurrence of such problems.

One strategy that might increase the util-
ity of the descriptive assessment is to pro-
gram the occurrence of specific antecedent
conditions (i.e., task presentation, removal
of tangible items, attention deprivation) that
have been demonstrated, by research em-
ploying the analogue functional analysis, to
be functionally related to challenging behav-
ior. To illustrate, Freeman, Anderson, and
Scotti (2000) evaluated 2 individuals’ prob-
lem behavior using a structured descriptive
assessment (SDA). The SDA was conducted
by typical care providers in the individuals’
natural environment and involved imple-
menting specific antecedent conditions sim-
ilar to those found in the analogue function-
al analysis while observing naturally occur-
ring consequences. Results of the SDA were
compared to those of analogue functional
analyses and typical descriptive assessments.
Results indicated that the SDA resulted in
greater occurrence of targeted environmental
events (e.g., antecedents mentioned above
and specific consequences such as attention
delivery, task removal, delivery of tangible
items) when compared to the descriptive as-
sessment. Also, the patterns of responding in
the SDA were similar to those observed in
the analogue functional analysis, resulting in
similar hypotheses about the function of
problem behavior for the 2 participants.

Although the results obtained by Freeman

et al. (2000) tentatively support the utility
of the SDA, the results were limited for sev-
eral reasons. First, the authors did not de-
termine if specific environmental events oc-
curred more often in conjunction with prob-
lem behavior (i.e., conditional probabilities
were not calculated), so it is difficult to draw
conclusions about potential functional rela-
tions. Second, because the study was con-
ducted with only 2 participants, the gener-
ality of these findings were limited. Finally,
the utility of this method remains unclear
because interventions were not evaluated.

Given that descriptive assessments are a
potential alternative or adjunct to analogue
functional analyses, it is important to con-
tinue to evaluate the utility of the SDA. The
purpose of this study was to conduct further
evaluations of the SDA by comparing results
obtained with the SDA to results obtained
with the analogue functional analysis with 4
participants. A second purpose of this study
was to evaluate the extent to which the SDA
led to development of an effective treatment.
If so, a case may be made for use of the SDA
as an adjunct to or replacement for an ana-
logue functional analysis under certain cir-
cumstances. Finally, research on the SDA
may provide additional insights as to how
behavior is reinforced in the natural environ-
ment.

STUDY 1:
FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT

METHOD

Participants and Setting

Four children who had been referred for
the assessment and treatment of severe be-
havior problems participated. Drew was an
8-year-old boy who had been diagnosed
with autism and moderate to severe mental
retardation. He had been referred for treat-
ment of self-injurious behavior (SIB), ag-
gression, and disruption. Jane, a 13-year-old

139STRUCTURED DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT

girl who had been diagnosed with Down
syndrome and profound mental retardation,
had been referred for treatment of SIB.

Lyle

was a 13-year-old boy who had been diag-
nosed with moderate to severe mental retar-
dation. He had been referred for treatment
of aggression and disruption. Mitch was a 6-
year-old boy who had been diagnosed with
autism and had been referred for treatment
of aggression.

Analogue functional analyses for all par-
ticipants were conducted in a therapy room
equipped with a one-way mirror. SDA ses-
sions with Drew were conducted in his
home. SDA sessions for Jane, Lyle, and
Mitch were conducted in their classrooms.

Response Definitions, Data Collection, and
Interobserver Agreement

Analogue functional analysis. Definitions
for problem behavior were developed from
interviews with parents (Drew), teachers
(Jane, Lyle, and Mitch), and direct obser-
vations conducted prior to beginning the
study. Target behaviors included SIB (

Drew

and Jane), defined as head banging, head
hitting, ear scratching, slamming the body
against hard surfaces, and banging an arm or
hand against a hard object; aggression
(Drew, Lyle, and Mitch), defined as hitting,
kicking, pinching, and pulling hair of others;
and disruption (Drew, Lyle, and Mitch), de-
fined as throwing objects and knocking over
furniture. Due to the severity of her SIB,
Jane wore a boxing helmet to protect her
ears. All target behaviors were scored using
continuous frequency recording.

Frequency data were collected on the fol-
lowing therapist responses for all partici-
pants: (a) prompt, defined as providing a
verbal, gestural, or physical request; (b) at-
tention delivery, defined as 3-s to 5-s verbal
statements that were not prompts; (c) deliv-
ery of tangible items, defined as placing a
preferred object within the reach of the par-
ticipant; and (d) removal of tangible items,

defined as removing a preferred object from
the participant. Partial-interval data were
collected on the occurrence of the following
variables across consecutive 5-s intervals: (a)
attention deprivation, defined as the absence
of attention for a complete interval; (b) es-
cape, scored only if a prompt occurred in a
preceding interval, the participant was not
engaged in a previously requested task, and
prompts to engage in the task were not pre-
sented for the entire interval; and (c) tangi-
ble deprivation, defined as the removal of a
preferred tangible item for at least one com-
plete interval. Therapist behaviors were cod-
ed as soon as they occurred, and the order
of occurrence was recorded if they occurred
within the same interval as a child problem
behavior. When a therapist response contin-
ued to occur across adjacent intervals, it was
rescored in each new interval until the event
ended. For example, after attention had been
absent for one complete interval, attention
deprivation was scored in each subsequent
interval until attention was reinstated. If
both the therapist and participant continued
to respond across intervals, the original order
of responding was maintained at the begin-
ning of each interval.

Sessions were coded either during the ses-
sion or from videotapes using a computer-
ized data-collection system. Interobserver
agreement was calculated for frequency mea-
sures by breaking sessions into consecutive
10-s intervals and dividing the smaller num-
ber of responses recorded by an observer by
the larger number of responses recorded by
the other observer. The resulting fractions
were averaged across intervals and multiplied
by 100%. Mean interobserver agreement
across participants was 91% for problem be-
havior (range, 83% to 100%), 98% for
prompts (range, 95% to 100%), 97% for
attention delivery (range, 93% to 100%),
99% for delivery of tangible items (range,
98% to 99%), and 95% for removal of tan-
gible items (range, 93% to 100%). For par-

140 CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON and ETHAN S. LONG

tial-interval measures, percentages of occur-
rence and nonoccurrence agreement were
calculated by dividing the number of inter-
vals in which both observers agreed on the
occurrence or nonoccurrence of the response
by the total number of intervals and multi-
plying by 100%. Mean occurrence and non-
occurrence agreement scores for therapist be-
haviors across subjects were as follows: atten-
tion deprivation, occurrence 98% (range,
92% to 99%), nonoccurrence 99% (range,
97% to 100%); tangible deprivation, occur-
rence 100%, nonoccurrence 100%; escape,
occurrence 100%, nonoccurrence 100%.

Structured descriptive assessment. Response
definitions for problem behavior were iden-
tical to those described above. In addition to
the boxing helmet, Jane wore arm splints
due to concerns raised by her teacher. How-
ever, the splints were loosened so that

Jane

could contact her head with her hand. Be-
haviors exhibited by participants and thera-
pists were videotaped and scored using a
computerized scoring system. Data on ther-
apist behavior were collected using 5-s par-
tial-interval recording. Target therapist
(teacher or parent) behaviors included
prompts, attention delivery, tangible deliv-
ery, attention deprivation, escape, and tan-
gible removal. Prompts were defined as an
instruction to complete an action, including
physical prompts, and an ongoing instruc-
tional context. Requests to verbalize a state-
ment (e.g., ‘‘say hi’’) were coded only for
Mitch, who was verbal. Attention delivery
was scored when the therapist interacted
with the participant in a noninstructional
manner. This included reprimands, verbal
statements toward the child (e.g., ‘‘you look
nice today’’), and physical interaction (e.g.,
hug, pat on the shoulder). Tangible delivery
was defined as allowing the participant ac-
cess to the predefined preferred stimulus.
Tangible delivery was coded if the therapist
handed the item to the child, told the child
that he or she could have it, or simply al-

lowed the child to independently obtain the
item. Response definitions for attention dep-
rivation, escape, and tangible removal were
identical to those used in the analogue func-
tional analysis.

Interobserver agreement, calculated as de-
scribed above, was obtained for at least 30%
of all sessions for all participants. Mean
agreement for problem behavior was 84%
(range, 74% to 100%), 94% (range, 86% to
100%), 80% (range, 50% to 99%), and
92% (range, 82% to 100%) for Drew, Jane,
Lyle, and Mitch, respectively. Mean occur-
rence and nonoccurrence agreement scores
for therapist behaviors across participants
were as follows: prompt, occurrence 94%
(range, 91% to 99%), nonoccurrence 98%
(range, 98% to 99%); attention delivery, oc-
currence 88% (range, 80% to 94%), non-
occurrence 91% (range, 85% to 100%); tan-
gible delivery, occurrence 70% (range, 0%
to 100%), nonoccurrence 99% (range, 98%
to 100%); instruction delivery, occurrence
94% (range 91% to 99%), nonoccurrence
99% (range, 98% to 99%); attention dep-
rivation, occurrence 94% (range, 83% to
99%); nonoccurrence 97% (range, 94% to
99%); tangible removal, occurrence 100%,
nonoccurrence 100%; escape, occurrence
93% (range, 82% to 100%), nonoccurrence
90% (range, 75% to 100%).

Procedure

The analogue functional analysis was con-
ducted prior to the SDA for all participants
except Jane, whose assessments were con-
ducted simultaneously. All sessions were 10
min in length. In both analyses, sessions
were conducted until response differentia-
tion was observed or (for Jane) until rates of
problem behavior were relatively stable
across conditions. Definitions for preferred
stimuli were obtained through parental in-
terviews and direct observation conducted
prior to beginning the study. Preferred stim-
uli for each participant were as follows:

141STRUCTURED DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT

Drew, cookies and a mechanical singing
plant; Jane, paper; Lyle, automobile maga-
zines and toy cars; and Mitch, a train video
and toy trains.

Analogue functional analysis. Participants
were exposed repeatedly to four or five ex-
perimental conditions similar to those de-
scribed by Iwata et al. (1982/1994). Con-
ditions were randomly presented in a mul-
tielement design. All participants were ex-
posed to attention, task, and play
conditions. A tangible condition was imple-
mented with Jane, Lyle, and Mitch, and an
alone condition was implemented with Jane
and Drew, both of whom exhibited SIB.
The tangible condition was not conducted
with Drew, because his mother indicated
that removal of tangible items never evoked
problem behavior and requested that the
tangible condition not be conducted.
Trained graduate and undergraduate stu-
dents served as therapists.

Structured descriptive assessment. Partici-
pants were exposed repeatedly to four exper-
imental conditions: attention, task, tangible,
and play. The classroom teacher served as
therapist for Jane, Lyle, and Mitch. Drew’s
mother served as his therapist. For all par-
ticipants except Drew, sessions were con-
ducted during times of the day when certain
activities pertaining to each SDA condition
normally occurred (e.g., attention sessions
occurred when the therapist typically was
unable to interact directly with the child).
Sessions with Drew were conducted in ran-
dom order, because his mother reported that
no specific activity schedule was followed.
Prior to each session, therapists were given
specific instructions about the antecedent
condition (detailed below) and were asked
to respond to problem behavior as they typ-
ically would. Because antecedent conditions
were controlled as part of the assessment,
therapists were asked to reestablish anteced-
ent events if the designated event had not

occurred for 2 min in the absence of prob-
lem behavior.

The purpose of the attention condition
was to establish the antecedent of attention
deprivation. This condition was conducted
during times when the therapist typically did
not directly interact with the child (e.g., was
working with another child). Two minutes
prior to beginning the session, the therapist
was told, ‘‘Please play with the child as you
typically do. Do not give requests or ask the
child to engage in any demands at this
time.’’ Upon initiation of the session, the
therapist was told, ‘‘In this role-play we
would like you to pretend this is a time that
you cannot directly interact with the child.
You may interact with other children or en-
gage in another activity, such as working at
your desk.’’ The therapist also was asked to
keep preferred tangible items out of sight
and reach of the child. The task condition,
designed to establish the antecedent of pre-
sentation of requests to work, was conducted
when the participant was expected to com-
plete tasks. Jane, Lyle, and Mitch worked on
preacademic tasks, specified in their individ-
ualized education plans. Drew worked on
daily living skills (e.g., copying letters) and
receptive language tasks. Similar tasks were
used in the analogue functional analysis and
the SDA. Removal of preferred tangible
items or activities did not occur within 2
min of initiating this condition. At the start
of the task condition, the therapist was told,
‘‘In this role-play we want to see how the
child responds to requests. Please work with
the child on activities that you typically en-
gage the child in and use prompting strate-
gies you normally use.’’ The tangible con-
dition, conducted when access to preferred
items was ending (access had occurred for at
least 2 min), was designed to establish the
antecedent of removal of preferred tangible
items. At the beginning of the condition, the
therapist was told, ‘‘In this role-play we want
to see how the child reacts when preferred

142 CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON and ETHAN S. LONG

activities end. When we tell you to begin,
please remove [preferred item]. You may in-
teract with the child as you desire, but please
refrain from attempting to engage the child
in work activities.’’ The play condition was
designed to simulate an enriched environ-
ment, similar to the play condition of the
analogue functional analysis. Preferred items
were available, and the therapist was told,
‘‘In this role-play we would like to see how
the child responds when you are not making
requests and preferred items are available.
Please play with the child as you normally
do.’’

Data Analysis

Mean rate (number of responses per min-
ute) of problem behavior was compared
across conditions for the analogue functional
analysis and the SDA. However, one impor-
tant way that the SDA differed from the an-
alogue functional analysis was that the oc-
currence of antecedent and consequent
events was not controlled. Although we did
exert some control over antecedent condi-
tions, the frequency and timing of these
events were somewhat uncontrolled. Thus,
conditional probabilities also were calculated
for the SDA to determine the relation be-
tween environmental events and problem
behavior (Blakeman & Gottman, 1997;
Freeman et al., 2000; Lerman & Iwata,
1993). All probabilities were calculated
based on the first occurrence of child behav-
ior in each interval (i.e., as though child be-
havior was coded as a partial-interval mea-
sure).

Conditional probabilities were calculated
for consequences as described by Lerman
and Iwata (1993), except that proportions
were calculated for environmental events
that occurred within 5 s of the problem be-
havior. Also, proportions were calculated
only for problem behavior that occurred in
the presence of a given antecedent variable,
thus taking into account the presence of pu-

tative establishing operations. For example,
if a child already had access to a preferred
tangible item, emitted problem behavior,
and continued to have access to the item,
these data were not included in the calcu-
lations of tangible delivery as a consequence
for problem behavior. This was necessary to
control for the fact that therapists may not
have implemented the relevant establishing
operation throughout some portion of the
sessions.

Conditional probabilities were calculated
in two ways. First, behavior-based probabil-
ities were calculated to determine the pro-
portion of problem behavior that occurred
within 5 s prior to environmental events by
dividing the number of intervals containing
problem behavior that preceded the environ-
mental event by 5 or fewer seconds by the
total number of intervals scored with prob-
lem behavior. Second, event-based probabil-
ities were calculated to reveal the proportion
of intervals containing environmental events
that followed problem behavior and were
conducted to control for the possibility that
the occurrence of environmental events
might vary across conditions. These proba-
bilities were calculated by dividing the num-
ber of intervals containing problem behavior
that preceded the environmental event by 5
or fewer seconds by the total number of in-
tervals scored with the event.

RESULTS

Figures 1 through 4 depict mean rates of
problem behavior across conditions of the
analogue functional analysis and the SDA
and results of the conditional probability
calculations from the SDA for each partici-
pant. The mean percentage of session time
that antecedent variables were scored in each
condition of the analogue functional analysis
and the SDA are shown in Table 1. Per-
centages were obtained by dividing the num-
ber of intervals in which an antecedent stim-

143STRUCTURED DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT

Table 1
Mean Percentage of Intervals Containing Antecedent Events Across Conditions of the Structured Descriptive

Assessment and Analogue Functional Analysis

Condition Antecedent

Drew

Structured Analogue

Jane

Structured Analogue

Lyle

Structured Analogue

Mitch

Structured Analogue

Attention Attention
deprivation

97 93 81 83 81 11 91 99

Prompt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tangible

deprivation
0 0

Demand Attention
deprivation

38 28 18 68 38 23 28 13

Prompt 75 68 77 23 54 78 68 70
Tangible

deprivation
0 0 0 0

Tangible Attention
deprivation

67 100 58 100 83 100

Prompt 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tangible

deprivation
94 57 100 93 100 23

Control Attention
deprivation

12 75 18 77 21 73 0 73

Prompt 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tangible

deprivation
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ulus was scored by the total number of in-
tervals.

Drew
Drew exhibited the highest rates of prob-

lem behavior in the task condition of the
analogue functional analysis, suggesting that
his problem behavior was maintained by es-
cape from tasks (Figure 1). Drew also emit-
ted the highest rates of problem behavior in
the task condition of the SDA. In interpret-
ing the conditional probability data, one
would have the most confidence in a hy-
pothesized function (e.g., escape) if that
event consistently followed problem behav-
ior, but only in the relevant condition (e.g.,
task), and other events (e.g., attention deliv-
ery, tangible delivery) rarely followed prob-
lem behavior in any of the conditions. Fig-
ure 1 shows that occurrences of problem be-
havior were often followed by escape in both

the task condition (M 5 53%) and the play
condition (M 5 67%), whereas escape never
occurred in the attention and tangible con-
ditions. In addition, attention and tangible
delivery rarely occurred in any condition.
These results are consistent with the hypoth-
esis that Drew’s problem behavior was main-
tained by escape, with one exception: The
conditional probabilities of problem behav-
ior and escape were high in the play condi-
tion (not solely in the task condition). How-
ever, it should be noted that some prompts
were presented in the play condition, which
likely evoked escape-maintained problem be-
havior.

Jane
Jane emitted high rates of SIB in all con-

ditions of the analogue functional analysis,
but rates were highest in the task condition
(Figure 2). Further analysis of within-session

144 CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON and ETHAN S. LONG

Figure 1. Mean response rate (number of responses per minute) in the analogue functional analysis for
Drew (top panel); mean rate of problem behavior across conditions of the SDA (middle panel); proportion of
event intervals following problem behavior (bottom left panel); and proportion of problem behavior intervals
preceding events (bottom right panel) during the SDA.

145STRUCTURED DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT

Figure 2. Mean response rate in the analogue functional analysis for Jane (top panel); mean rate of problem
behavior across conditions of the SDA (middle panel); proportion of event intervals following problem behavior
(bottom left panel); and proportion of problem behavior intervals preceding events (bottom right panel) during
the SDA.

146 CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON and ETHAN S. LONG

patterns of responding revealed that SIB oc-
curred almost continuously throughout the
task condition (i.e., during escape intervals
as well as when prompting occurred; data are
available from the first author upon request).
Thus, results suggested that Jane’s SIB was
either multiply maintained or maintained by
nonsocial reinforcement. As in the analogue
functional analysis, Jane emitted high rates
of SIB across all conditions of the SDA, and
rates were slightly higher in the task condi-
tion. Event-based conditional probabilities
for the SDA revealed that less than half the
occurrences of targeted social variables that
occurred in the presence of relevant anteced-
ent conditions followed SIB, and escape was
only slightly more likely to follow SIB com-
pared to other consequences. Further, very
small proportions of SIB were followed by
any social consequence when the relevant es-
tablishing condition was present. These re-
sults suggest that responding was maintained
by nonsocial reinforcement because SIB was
not differentially related to the presence or
absence of social variables.

Lyle

Lyle exhibited problem behavior almost
exclusively in the attention condition of the
analogue functional analysis, suggesting that
problem behavior was maintained by atten-
tion (Figure 3). Although he also emitted
high rates of responding in the attention
condition of the SDA, similar rates were ob-
served in the tangible condition. This find-
ing suggested that Lyle’s problem behavior
was maintained by both attention and access
to tangible items. Conditional probabilities
for both the attention and tangible condi-
tions showed that, given the antecedent of
attention deprivation, the vast majority of
intervals containing attention delivery fol-
lowed problem behavior, and problem be-
havior in both conditions was frequently fol-
lowed by attention delivery (65% in atten-
tion, 85% in tangible). Conversely, tangible

delivery never followed problem behavior in
any condition. This finding suggested that
problem behavior was maintained by atten-
tion only. Inspection of overall levels of the
antecedent events during the SDA (see Table
1) indicates that, in the tangible condition,
tangible deprivation was in effect for 100%
of the intervals; tangible items were never
provided to Lyle contingent on problem be-
havior in the tangible (or any other) condi-
tion. Further, attention deprivation occurred
in more than half (58%) of the intervals in
the tangible condition. Thus, this condition
resembled the attention condition. The pres-
ence of attention deprivation and contingent
access to attention in the tangible condition
likely accounts for the high rates of problem
behavior.

Mitch

Mitch emitted the highest rates of aggres-
sion in the tangible condition of the ana-
logue functional analysis, suggesting that
problem behavior was maintained by access
to preferred tangible items (Figure 4). In the
SDA, Mitch emitted aggression primarily
during the task condition, suggesting that
aggression was maintained by escape from or
avoidance of tasks. The conditional proba-
bilities showed that the only consequence
that occurred contiguous to problem behav-
ior was escape from tasks. As shown in Table
1, tangible deprivation was in effect during
a large proportion of the tangible sessions of
the SDA, indicating that the relevant estab-
lishing operation was in effect (see further
discussion below). Nevertheless, Mitch rarely
emitted problem behavior in this condition,
and when he did, it was not followed by
tangible delivery. Further, prompts were pre-
sented in almost 70% of the intervals during
the task condition, indicating that the rele-
vant establishing operation also was in effect
in the task condition.

147STRUCTURED DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT

Figure 3. Mean response rate in the analogue functional analysis for Lyle (top panel); mean rate of problem
behavior across conditions of the SDA (middle panel); proportion of event intervals following problem behavior
(bottom left panel); and proportion of problem behavior intervals preceding events (bottom right panel) during
the SDA.

148 CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON and ETHAN S. LONG

Figure 4. Mean response rate in the analogue functional analysis for Mitch (top panel); mean rate of
problem behavior across conditions of the SDA (middle panel); proportion of event intervals following problem
behavior (bottom left panel); and proportion of problem behavior intervals preceding events (bottom right
panel) during the SDA.

149STRUCTURED DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT

Control over Antecedent Variables

The data presented in Table 1 suggest that
therapists implemented antecedent condi-
tions in the SDA with a high degree of in-
tegrity; that is, relevant establishing opera-
tions were in effect. In fact, levels closely re-
sembled those observed in the analogue
functional analysis, during which presenta-
tion of antecedents was tightly controlled. In
the attention condition, therapists never is-
sued instructional prompts or manipulated
preferred tangible items, and attention dep-
rivation was in effect for a large portion of
the sessions. In the task condition, prompts
occurred in the majority of intervals for all
participants, and preferred tangible items
were never manipulated. In the tangible con-
dition, tangible items were never re-present-
ed after the session began for all participants
except Jane. Thus, tangible deprivation was
in effect for all intervals scored. During the
tangible condition, none of the therapists is-
sued instructional prompts, and attention
deprivation was scored in the majority of in-
tervals for all participants. This finding sug-
gested that the tangible condition resembled
the attention condition. In the play condi-
tion, therapists never issued instructional
prompts (with the exception of Drew’s
mother, who issued prompts in 9% of in-
tervals), and tangible deprivation did not oc-
cur. Attention deprivation occurred in less
then 25% of intervals for all participants.

STUDY 2:
TREATMENT

METHOD

Participants and Setting

Drew, Lyle, and Mitch participated. Jane
did not participate because the frequency of
her SIB decreased markedly shortly after
completing the assessments and, as a result,
her parents declined treatment. Intervention
for Drew was conducted in his home during

speech therapy sessions. Drew’s speech ther-
apist served as the therapist. Drew’s mother
implemented the intervention outside ses-
sion times, but she declined to participate in
the study because the presence of observers
reportedly made her nervous. Lyle’s treat-
ment was conducted in the classroom, and
his primary teacher served as therapist.
Mitch’s assessment was conducted at the end
of the academic year, and he began the next
school year in a new class. Thus, the treat-
ment evaluation took place in a new class-
room for typically developing children. A
teacher’s aide implemented the intervention
during sessions.

Response Measurement and Interobserver
Agreement

Response definitions for problem behav-
iors were identical to those in Study 1. Ses-
sions were 10 min long and were conducted
one to three times per day, two to four times
per week. Observers used frequency record-
ing to collect data during sessions. Interob-
server agreement was assessed on child be-
haviors during at least 30% of all sessions.
Agreement coefficients were calculated as in
Study 1. Mean percentage agreement across
baseline and treatment was 98% (range,
91% to 100%), 93% (range, 88% to
100%), and 93% (range, 82% to 100%) for
Drew, Lyle, and Mitch, respectively.

Procedure

For each participant, intervention was
matched to the functions of problem behav-
ior as identified via the analogue functional
analysis and SDA. For Drew and Lyle, both
assessments suggested similar hypotheses, so
only one intervention was implemented.
The assessments suggested contrasting hy-
potheses for Mitch; however, an intervention
based on access to tangible items was not
evaluated in the classroom because his teach-
er reported that problem behavior occurred
only when Mitch was working on tasks at

150 CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON and ETHAN S. LONG

his desk, not when tangible items were re-
moved. Thus, it was not possible to fully
evaluate the intervention suggested by the
analogue functional analysis (intervention
based on responding maintained by access to
preferred tangible items). However, when
follow-up observations were conducted at
summer camp approximately 21 months af-
ter the intervention was completed, Mitch’s
camp director indicated that Mitch had dif-
ficulty sharing his trains with others. As a
result, follow-up data were collected during
two situations: a task situation, during
which Mitch worked on word recognition
tasks, and a social skills situation, which fo-
cused on sharing toys with peers.

All data for each participant were collect-
ed at times problem behavior was reported
to occur (during therapy sessions for Drew,
throughout the day for Lyle, and during ta-
ble work times for Mitch). An ABAB design
was used to evaluate treatment effects with
both Drew and Lyle. An ABC design was
used with Mitch because, although his
teacher had agreed to a brief return to base-
line prior to implementing intervention, she
was unwilling to do so once the intervention
had actually been implemented.

Drew. Data were collected when Drew
was working on match-to-sample and recep-
tive language tasks, which were identified by
the speech therapist as tasks that evoked
problem behavior most often. During base-
line, the therapist was instructed to respond
as she normally did when problem behaviors
occurred. If the therapist ceased to deliver
instructional prompts for 2 consecutive min-
utes in the absence of problem behavior, she
was asked to reinitiate prompting. Interven-
tion consisted of escape extinction combined
with praise and brief (10 s to 30 s) breaks
contingent on compliance. Drew’s speech
therapist also was taught to use a sequential
prompting procedure, consisting of verbal,
gestural, and physical prompts. If Drew
emitted a problem behavior, the therapist

immediately physically guided him to com-
plete the task.

Lyle. Sessions were conducted throughout
the academic day, but occurred most often
when Lyle was not working on academic
tasks (e.g., play time). During baseline, Lyle’s
teacher was asked to respond to problem be-
havior as she normally did; however, if she
interacted with Lyle in a noninstructional
manner (i.e., did not prompt him to com-
plete tasks) for 2 consecutive minutes in the
absence of problem behavior, she was asked
to stop. Intervention consisted of differential
reinforcement of other behavior. The teacher
was taught to periodically praise Lyle when
he was not emitting problem behavior and
to ignore instances of problem behavior. Al-
though an attempt was made to have the
teacher set a timer to indicate when to de-
liver praise (based on mean rate of respond-
ing in baseline), she indicated that this
would be too difficult. Thus, she simply de-
livered praise periodically throughout the
day during times that Lyle was not engaging
in problem behavior. On average, the teach-
er delivered verbal praise once every 2 min.

Mitch. Sessions were conducted when
Mitch was expected to be working at his
desk. During baseline, Mitch’s aide was
asked to respond to problem behavior as she
typically did. Intervention consisted of es-
cape extinction and differential reinforce-
ment of appropriate behavior. The aide
stood behind Mitch, positioning herself at
least 1 m from him. If Mitch began to turn
his head away from the teacher or the ma-
terials in front of him, the aide moved for-
ward and prompted him back to work using
a sequential three-step verbal prompting
procedure. When Mitch began to work in-
dependently, the aide moved away. In addi-
tion, Mitch was provided periodic 20-s
breaks for working appropriately, during
which he was allowed to walk away from his
desk with his aide. The aide typically hugged
Mitch and engaged him in a brief activity

151STRUCTURED DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT

(e.g., playing ‘‘rock, scissors, paper’’) during
breaks. Initially, breaks occurred once every
2 min, but breaks were faded over time until
they were occurring once every 5 min.

Follow-up data were obtained with Mitch
at a summer program approximately 21
months after the intervention was complet-
ed. Data were collected during two situa-
tions: a task situation, during which Mitch
worked on word recognition tasks, and a so-
cial skills situation, which focused on shar-
ing toys with peers. During the latter situa-
tion, a toy train was used and Mitch was
expected to allow a peer to play with the
train when the peer requested to do so.
Mitch could have the train back if he stated,
‘‘train please.’’ Mitch’s camp director indi-
cated that initially this situation evoked high
rates of problem behavior (providing anec-
dotal support for the hypothesis obtained in
the analogue functional analysis), but that a
combination of escape extinction for prob-
lem behavior combined with differential re-
inforcement for manding had resulted in
substantial decreases in problem behavior.
Thus, during follow-up, treatments based on
both assessments were used.

RESULTS

Results obtained for each participant are
shown in Figure 5. In baseline, Drew emit-
ted an average of 3.6 problem behaviors per
minute. Intervention resulted in significant
decreases in problem behavior, and a reversal
to baseline conditions was implemented to
assess functional control. During the return
to baseline, Drew’s therapist was instructed
to no longer implement physical guidance
upon occurrence of problem behavior, but
instead to respond as in baseline. Following
reimplementation of escape extinction, rates
of problem behavior once again decreased,
and a mean reduction of over 90% below
baseline rates was achieved.

Lyle emitted an average of 7.8 problem
behaviors per minute in baseline. Interven-

tion also resulted in significant reductions in
problem behavior, and a reversal was con-
ducted to demonstrate functional control.
During the final phase of intervention, Lyle
averaged 0.8 responses per minute, slightly
greater than a 90% reduction over baseline.

Intervention for Mitch also resulted in
significant reductions in problem behavior.
In fact, Mitch did not emit any instances of
problem behavior during the last eight ses-
sions conducted prior to follow-up. During
follow-up, he continued to emit low rates of
problem behavior during work periods. In
addition, he used a mand to request trains,
averaging 0.7 mands per minute during fol-
low-up sessions.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

For 3 of 4 participants, results of the an-
alogue functional analysis and SDA led to
similar hypotheses about the function of
problem behavior. Findings from the SDA
also were helpful for developing effective in-
terventions for 2 of the 3 children who par-
ticipated in Study 2. Results for Mitch, how-
ever, suggested that both assessments were
necessary to identify all variables that were
functionally related to problem behavior and
to develop an intervention that would be ef-
fective in all relevant contexts. Thus, the
findings of this study suggest that the SDA
may be useful as a substitute for or an ad-
junct to the analogue functional analysis.

For Drew and Jane, evaluation of overall
levels of problem behavior across conditions
of the SDA and the analogue functional
analysis resulted in similar hypotheses about
the function of problem behavior. Exami-
nation of overall rates in the SDA conducted
with Lyle would have led to identification of
an irrelevant function (access to tangible
items). It was necessary to analyze condi-
tional probabilities to identify the function
of his problem behavior. A comparison of
results obtained with Mitch from the two

152 CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON and ETHAN S. LONG

Figure 5. Mean rate of problem behavior during the intervention for Drew (top panel), Lyle (middle panel),
and Mitch (bottom panel). On Mitch’s graph, closed triangles represent aggression per minute in work settings,
open squares represent aggression per minute in the train-sharing condition, and open circles depict mands
emitted per minute.

153STRUCTURED DESCRIPTIVE ASSESSMENT

assessments suggested that the SDA might
have identified a functional relation that was
not identified in the analogue functional
analysis. Specifically, the SDA suggested that
tasks often evoked problem behavior and
that, in the presence of tasks, problem be-
havior was maintained by escape from or
avoidance of tasks. Conversely, results also
indicated that the analogue functional anal-
ysis identified a functional relation that was
not identified in the SDA—that problem
behavior might have been maintained by ac-
cess to tangible items.

Anecdotal information provides some
possible reasons for the discrepancies be-
tween the findings of the analogue function-
al analysis and the SDA for Mitch. First, the
prompting procedure used in the classroom
(repeated verbal prompts issued quite rap-
idly) was markedly different than that used
in the analogue functional analysis. It is pos-
sible that an escape function would have
been identified if a prompting strategy more
similar to that used in the classroom had
been used in the analogue functional analy-
sis. With regard to the tangible function
identified in the SDA, upon removal of the
tangible item during the tangible condition
of the SDA, Mitch’s teacher immediately en-
gaged him in another activity, so as to dis-
tract him from the loss of the item. It is
possible that tangible removal did, at one
time, evoke problem behavior (supporting
the results of the analogue functional anal-
ysis), but that she had developed an effective
antecedent intervention with which to de-
crease the likelihood of problem behavior.

Results of Study 2 suggested that the SDA
may be useful when the goal of assessment
is to design effective treatments. One poten-
tial advantage of the SDA is that it is not
necessary to remove the individual from his
or her natural environment or disrupt his or
her routine. Thus, the utility of the SDA
may prove beneficial for practitioners who
are not able to conduct analogue functional

analysis. The SDA might also be useful in
providing information about reinforcement
contingencies in the natural environment
(e.g., schedules of reinforcement, stimuli
that commonly follow problem behavior).
For example, with the exception of Jane, tan-
gible items were never delivered contingent
on problem behavior. Thompson and Iwata
(2001) evaluated naturally occurring re-
sponse–consequence relations and also
found infrequent presentation of tangible
items following problem behavior. Future re-
search should examine the extent to which
procedures in the tangible condition of the
analogue functional analysis replicate natu-
rally occurring events.

Further refinements and evaluation of the
SDA are needed to examine the extent to
which the SDA can augment or be used as
an adjunct to analogue functional analysis.
First, research should evaluate the external
validity of the SDA and analogue functional
analysis. One strategy for doing so would be
to conduct the SDA and the analogue func-
tional analysis and then implement interven-
tion evaluations using baselines matched to
hypothesized functions of problem behavior.
Research also is needed to evaluate the ex-
tent to which the SDA might be used to
develop relevant hypotheses without deter-
mining conditional probabilities. A reason-
able next step would be to conduct the SDA
with more participants and to evaluate the
results obtained from examining overall re-
sponse patterns compared to conditional
probabilities, and then conducting treatment
evaluations to evaluate the utility of discrep-
ant hypotheses.

REFERENCES

Blakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing
interaction: An introduction to sequential analyses
(2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, W. W., Adelinis, J. D., Thompson, R. H.,
Worsdell, A. S., & Zarcone, J. R. (1998). Func-
tional analysis and treatment of destructive behav-

154 CYNTHIA M. ANDERSON and ETHAN S. LONG

ior maintained by termination of ‘‘don’t’’ (and
symmetrical ‘‘do’’) requests. Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis, 31, 339–356.

Freeman, K. A., Anderson, C. M., & Scotti, J. R.
(2000). A structured descriptive methodology: In-
creasing agreement between descriptive and ex-
perimental analyses. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,
35, 55–66.

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K.
E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a func-
tional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis, 27, 197–209. (Reprinted from
Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Dis-
abilities, 2, 3–20, 1982)

Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1993). Descriptive
and experimental analysis of variables maintaining
self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 26, 293–319.

Mace, F. C., & Lalli, J. S. (1991). Linking descriptive
and experimental analyses in the treatment of bi-

zarre speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
24, 553–562.

Mace, F. C., Lalli, J. S., & Shea, M. C. (1992). Func-
tional analysis and treatment in self-injury. In J.
Luiselli, J. Matson, & N. Singh (Eds.), Assessment,
analysis, and treatment of self-injury (pp. 122–
152). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Mueller, M. M., Sterling-Turner, H. E., & Scattone,
D. (2001). Functional assessment of hand flap-
ping in a general education classroom. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 233–236.

Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1977). Applying
behavior-analysis procedures with children and
youth. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2001). A descrip-
tive analysis of social consequences following
problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 2, 169–178.

Received March 26, 2001
Final acceptance February 6, 2002
Action Editor, Dorothea Lerman

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What limitations of descriptive analysis methodology were noted by the authors, and how
might the structured descriptive analysis (SDA) address these limitations?

2. Describe some of the similarities and differences between the functional analysis and the
SDA.

3. Briefly describe the SDA conditions and the purpose of each condition.

4. Why did the authors calculate conditional probabilities? What was the difference between
the two types of calculations?

5. Summarize the results obtained from the functional analysis and the SDA.

6. How did the authors explain discrepancies between results of the functional analysis and the
SDA for Lyle and Mitch?

7. Briefly describe the treatments evaluated for each participant.

8. What appears to be the major advantage and disadvantage of the SDA relative to the func-
tional analysis?

Questions prepared by Claudia Dozier and Jessica Thomason, The University of Florida