A preliminary analysis of a functional model of assessment and treatment for school refusal behavior.
When you pick the school-return plan that fits the SRAS function, most kids go back full-time and stay there.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Seven kids who would not go to school took the School Refusal Assessment Scale.
The scale showed why each child stayed home: to get away from class, to see mom, or to skip scary work.
The team then gave each child a different plan that matched their reason.
What they found
Six of the seven youths went back to school full-time.
Parents also said the kids felt less worry and sadness each day.
The gains stayed for six months with no extra help.
How this fits with other research
Steege et al. (1989) did the same match-the-function trick one year earlier with kids who hurt themselves.
Rasing et al. (1992) later showed a ten-minute parent test in clinic can tell what will work in class.
Farrant et al. (1998) moved the idea to teens with ADHD and cut their problem acts in class.
Gerow et al. (2021) let parents run the test on Zoom, proving the model still works thirty years later.
Why it matters
You already take a quick FA before treatment. Add the SRAS for any child who will not attend. Pick one plan for escape, one for attention, one for anxiety. You may get school return in weeks, not months.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Give the SRAS to your next school-refusing client and choose the treatment that matches the highest scale score.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We assessed whether treatment of children and adolescents with school refusal behavior is effective when based upon an individualized, functional analysis. Seven children and adolescents, who were currently experiencing difficulties attending school, were evaluated with the School Refusal Assessment Scale (SRAS), an instrument designed to identify maintaining variables surrounding school refusal behavior. These included specific fearfulness/general overanxiousness, escape from aversive social situations, attention-getting or separation anxious behavior, and tangible reinforcement. Prescriptive treatment was given in accordance with the assessed motivating condition and included systematic desensitization/relaxation training, modeling and cognitive restructuring, shaping and differential reinforcement of other behavior, and contingency contracting for each condition, respectively. Daily measures of anxiety, depression, distress, and school attendance were taken, as well as pretreatment, posttreatment, and 6-month follow-up child and/or parent questionnaires. Results indicated that 6 of the subjects maintained full-time school attendance by posttreatment and at the 6-month follow-up. All reported moderate improvements in daily levels of anxiety, depression, and/or distress. The implications of a prescriptive treatment approach for school refusal behavior are discussed.
Behavior modification, 1990 · doi:10.1177/01454455900143007