A concise review of the correspondence between the traditional functional analysis and alternative assessment formats

Rahaman et al. (2024) pulled every head-to-head study that compared old-school functional analysis with newer shortcuts. They lined up the numbers for sensitivity, specificity, and safety in one big table.

The review covers trial-based formats, interview-informed synthesized formats, and other speed tools. No new data were collected; the team just counted hits and misses already published.

Some shortcuts matched the classic FA almost perfectly. Others missed the true function half the time or even made new problem behavior pop up.

The table shows you which format to pick if you want speed, which to pick if you want safety, and which to avoid if you need rock-solid answers.

Greer et al. (2020) found their standardized synthesized contingency analysis worked as well as the full interview-driven IISCA. Fisher et al. (2016) saw the opposite: traditional FA beat IISCA in four of five kids. Rahaman’s table explains the gap—sample size, behavior type, and how “match” was defined all differed.

Retzlaff et al. (2020) warned that synthesized formats can accidentally strengthen new problem behavior in half of cases. The 2024 review keeps that safety flag in the table so you can weigh speed against risk.

Doughty et al. (2010) showed trial-based FA cut assessment time by about 85%. Rahaman et al. confirm the speed gain and add the missing sensitivity numbers, giving you both pieces in one glance.

Next time you plan an assessment, open the review’s table first. Choose the format whose sensitivity and specificity fit the setting, the stakeholder’s patience, and the behavior’s danger level. You will leave the meeting with a clear, evidence-based reason for your choice instead of defaulting to the method you learned first.