An evaluation of functional variables affecting severe problem behaviors in adults with mental retardation by using the Questions about Behavioral Function Scale (QABF).

The team gave the 25-item QABF survey to 417 adults living in state facilities. All had severe problem behavior and intellectual disability. Staff who knew them filled out the form. The goal was to see which function each topographies served most often.

They tallied scores for five categories: attention, escape, tangible, physical, and nonsocial. Then they picked the highest score as the likely reason for the behavior.

Aggression was the only behavior tied to social payoffs. Most reports tagged it as escape or attention driven. Self-injury, stereotypy, pica, and rumination landed in the nonsocial column. In plain words, the first looks like a bid to get something from people; the rest look like internal feedback loops.

The pattern held across mild, moderate, and severe ID levels.

Chiviacowsky et al. (2013) later tested the same scale head-to-head with the MAS. Item-level agreement was poor. Their warning: do not trust the QABF alone. The 1999 picture is still useful, but you now need extra data before you write a behavior plan.

Lancioni et al. (2008) showed that even trained eyes disagree when they read FA graphs. Both papers push the same message: single-method answers are risky. Use the QABF as a quick map, then run an FA or gather ABC data to double-check.

Dutt et al. (2019) built a new tool to rate teacher FBA skill. Their work keeps the theme alive: good assessment needs both good tools and good users.

You can start with the QABF tomorrow. If aggression tops the chart, probe social reinforcement first. If self-injury or pica leads, test sensory or automatic sources next. Just remember the 2013 red flag: one survey is not enough. Pair it with brief observations or a mini FA before you write the plan.