A systematic review of the correspondence between descriptive assessment and functional analysis
Descriptive assessments only match FA results half the time, so use them to rule out functions rather than confirm them.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Contreras and his team read 48 studies that compared two ways to find why problem behavior happens.
One way is descriptive assessment. Staff watch and write down what happens before and after behavior.
The other way is functional analysis. Staff test each possible cause one at a time in short sessions.
They asked: do both methods give the same answer?
What they found
The two methods matched only half the time.
When they did match, it was usually when the FA showed no clear function.
Structured descriptive assessments worked better than simple ABC notes.
If ABC data said attention was the cause, the FA agreed a large share of the time.
How this fits with other research
Nesselrode et al. (2022) found schools still use full FAs most often. This new review shows you might waste time if you skip descriptive work first.
Lang et al. (2008) showed FA results can change between clinic and classroom. Contreras adds another layer: even when you do the FA, it might not match what you saw in the real world.
Tiger et al. (2021) proved FA results hold up in treatment. This seems to clash with the a large share match rate. The key difference: Tiger looked at whether FA-guided treatment worked, not whether two assessment types agreed.
Why it matters
Do not trust ABC data alone. Use it to rule out functions, not to pick them. When ABC shows no clear cause, the FA usually agrees. When ABC points to a cause, double-check with a brief FA before you start treatment. This saves you from building plans on shaky ground.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Take your last ABC case where attention looked like the function and run a 10-minute brief FA to confirm it
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Clinicians report that they often rely on descriptive assessments when developing behavior-reduction plans despite literature suggesting that functional analysis is the most rigorous assessment method. Further, research comparing the outcomes of descriptive assessments and functional analyses is mixed, with some studies showing low correspondence and others showing high correspondence. Such persistent use of descriptive assessments suggests that they may yield useful information despite inconsistent correspondence with functional analyses. A more fine-grained analysis of the relation between descriptive assessments and functional analyses may elucidate variables affecting their utility. We conducted a review of 48 studies that included descriptive assessments and functional analyses and evaluated several measures of correspondence between each pair of assessments. Results indicated that descriptive assessments had exact correspondence with functional analyses in 50% of comparisons. Results also suggested that descriptive assessments were more likely to accurately identify and predict the absence of a function relative to the presence of a function and that structured descriptive assessments were more likely to accurately predict functions.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2023 · doi:10.1002/jaba.958