Analog baselines: a critical review of the methodology.
Classic analog FA has seven built-in traps—today’s brief formats and classroom tweaks fix most of them.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Sturmey (1995) looked hard at the classic analog baseline functional analysis. The paper lists seven weak spots in the way most teams run the test.
It is a narrative review, not new data. The author wanted teams to see the traps before they trust FA results.
What they found
The review says multielement designs, short sessions, and tight ABC models can fool you. Results may look clear but still be wrong.
The paper does not say FA is useless. It says we must fix the method before we bet treatment on it.
How this fits with other research
Melanson et al. (2023) and Suchowierska-Stephany (2023) both sweep past this warning. Their 2023 reviews show the field has moved on. Teams now run shorter sessions, add tangible conditions, and use brief or IISCA formats. These changes answer several of the 1995 pitfalls.
Scheithauer et al. (2020) give a direct fix. They proved you can reuse the multielement data as baseline instead of starting over. This saves time and cuts one of the seven problems P flagged.
Nesselrode et al. (2022) and Kestner et al. (2019) stretch the same logic into schools. They tell consultants to check class-wide variables first. If the room is broken, individual FA may not be needed.
Why it matters
Read Sturmey (1995) once and you will never run FA on autopilot again. Use it as a quick checklist: condition fidelity, multielement confounds, setting control, and baseline logic. Then borrow the modern fixes: brief formats, IISCA, classroom probes, and phased sequences. Your next FA will be faster, safer, and more honest.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a one-page FA quality checklist to your case folder and review it before the first session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Analog baselines are an experimental methodology for identifying the functions of maladaptive behavior in the naturally occurring environment (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982; Iwata et al., 1994). This article identifies a number of potential limitations in this methodology. These include: (a) procedural problems inherent in the use of multielement designs, (b) the fidelity of analog baseline design conditions, (c) the relation of the analog conditions to the naturally occurring environment, (d) a narrow analysis of behavior limited by an implicit adherence to an ABC model of behavior, (e) a limited acknowledgement of multifunction and idiosyncratically motivated behaviors, (f) problems in the definition of response classes, and (g) difficulties in the use of analog baselines to design interventions. Future research should attend to three main questions. First, the convergent validity of different assessment methodologies, including analog baselines, should be evaluated. Future research should attend to procedures that can integrate the entire clinical process of referral, identifying the functions of the target behavior, including other methods of identifying the functions of behavior, treatment design, and implementation. Second, assessment failures could be examined carefully to identify ways of developing this methodology further. Third, the process of designing an intervention depends upon input from many sources of information. The use of analog baselines will be enhanced by a greater understanding of the process of clinical decision making.
Research in developmental disabilities, 1995 · doi:10.1016/0891-4222(95)00014-e