A comparative effectiveness trial of functional behavioral assessment methods

Call et al. (2024) compared two ways to build a behavior plan. One group got the full package: interviews, rating scales, AND a functional analysis. The other group skipped the FA and used only interviews and scales.

All kids were preschoolers with autism and severe problem behavior. Every child then received the same FCT plan. The team tracked who improved and how well the two FBA methods agreed.

Every child who finished FCT did well, no matter which FBA path they took. Skipping the FA did not hurt the final result.

The catch: the two FBA methods only matched about half the time. A brief interview might say "escape" while the full FA said "attention." Still, FCT worked once a function was picked.

Blair et al. (2025) pooled 34 single-case studies and found big behavior drops when young autistic children get FCT. Call’s trial fits right into that happy picture.

Young (2020) looked only at Korean FCT studies and saw better communication but NO drop in problem behavior. The clash is likely about culture and how services are delivered, not about FCT itself.

DeRoma et al. (2004) reviewed school studies and saw that plans WITHOUT any FBA worked just as often as plans with one. Call’s finding — FCT succeeds even when the FA is skipped — backs up that older warning: more assessment does not always mean more success.

You can start FCT sooner by dropping the FA when time, staff, or setting blocks a full analysis. Pick the clearest hypothesis from interviews and run with it. Just don’t expect every tool to name the same function — plan to watch early data and adjust.