A preliminary analysis of environmental variables affecting the observed biobehavioural states of individuals with profound handicaps.

The team watched students with profound ID during class. They noted each teen's biobehavioural state every few minutes.

At the same time they tracked five things: the student's body position, how close staff stood, what cue was given, the type of activity, and the teen's state just before. They wanted to see which factors predicted the next state.

All five variables tied strongly to the next state. For example, a student who was lying down was more likely to stay drowsy. A staff member standing close or using a verbal cue often shifted the teen toward alertness.

The single best predictor was the student's own prior state. After that, body position, staff distance, cue type, and activity stimulus each added useful information.

Szempruch et al. (1993) later showed the same population became more alert and less self-injurious on busy community trips than in quiet center rooms. Together the two papers say both moment-to-moment and setting-wide variables shape state.

Jackson et al. (2022) turned these clues into action. They simply moved furniture and cut visual clutter in three ASD classrooms and saw engagement jump and problem behavior fall. The 1992 data mapped what to change; the 2022 study proved it works.

Kennedy et al. (1993) also tested an antecedent fix. They removed morning setting events like loud hallway noise and recorded fewer problem behaviors all day. All four studies agree: tweak the environment before behavior occurs, not after.

When you assess state or conduct a functional analysis, record body position, staff distance, cue style, and activity. These details can swing the data. If a student looks half-asleep, try changing position first or adding a high-preference visual cue before you call the result a skill deficit. Share the list with classroom aides so everyone tracks the same context.