A preliminary comparison of functional analysis results when conducted in contrived versus natural settings.

Two boys with autism took part in a functional analysis.

One was 5, the other 7.

The team ran the same FA twice: once in a clinic room, once in the child’s real classroom.

They used an ABAB reversal design so each boy went back and forth between settings.

Sessions were 10 minutes long.

The goal was to see if the FA told the same story in both places.

The clinic and the classroom gave different answers.

In the clinic, one boy’s problem behavior looked escape-maintained.

In the classroom, the same behavior looked attention-maintained.

The other boy showed the same flip.

Results were stable when they reversed back to each setting.

Setting, not the child, drove the function.

Nesselrode et al. (2022) reviewed 30 years of school FAs and found most still happen in empty therapy rooms.

Lang et al. (2008) shows why that can mislead you.

Contreras et al. (2023) found descriptive assessments only match FA results half the time.

Adding a setting mismatch may explain part of that 50 % gap.

Tiger et al. (2021) tweaked FA procedures and still got solid data, proving the tool is flexible, but only if the context is right.

Before you write a behavior plan, run your final FA in the place the child actually lives, learns, or plays.

If you can’t, use brief trial-based formats in the classroom like those Nesselrode et al. (2022) highlight.

One extra 15-minute session on the rug can save weeks of failed treatment later.