A comparison of functional analysis methods of inappropriate mealtime behavior
Prompt bites across all FA conditions or you risk missing attention functions and picking the wrong treatment.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Bachmeyer et al. (2019) compared two ways to run a feeding functional analysis. One way only prompts bites during the escape condition. The other way prompts bites in every condition.
They tested three kids with feeding disorders. Each child got both FA methods in an alternating-treatments design.
What they found
The two methods disagreed for two of the three kids. When prompts stayed in the escape condition only, the team missed clear attention functions.
Missing those functions led to weaker treatments. The escape-only prompts gave false negatives.
How this fits with other research
Dolezal et al. (2010) already showed that parental attention can quickly improve bite acceptance. Their descriptive study foreshadowed the 2019 result: attention matters in feeding.
Silbaugh et al. (2018) used the same alternating-treatments design to compare physical guidance versus reinforcement-only. Both papers highlight how small procedural tweaks change outcomes.
Davison et al. (1984) and Einfeld et al. (1996) proved that strong feeding interventions work. Bachmeyer et al. (2019) now warns that poor FA setup can hide the functions those treatments should target.
Why it matters
If you run a feeding FA, prompt bites in every condition, not just escape. Skipping this step can miss attention functions and waste treatment time. One simple change keeps your assessment honest and your intervention stronger.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add bite prompts to every FA condition, not just escape
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Investigators have evaluated two procedural variations for conducting a functional analysis of inappropriate mealtime behavior exhibited by children with feeding problems. One method involves prompting bites only in the escape condition (e.g., Najdowski et al., 2008). Another method involves prompting bites across all conditions (e.g., Piazza et al., 2003). We assessed the food refusal of 3 children diagnosed with a feeding disorder by comparing the two variations. The two methods resulted in different outcomes for 2 of 3 children. Prompting bites only in the escape condition identified a single function (i.e., escape). Prompting bites across all conditions identified multiple functions (i.e., escape and attention). We then examined the relative effects of extinction procedures (individually and in combination) to determine the validity of each method. Results of the treatment evaluation suggested that the procedural variation that failed to identify an attention function for 2 of 3 children produced false negative findings.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2019 · doi:10.1002/jaba.556