Assessing the functions of aberrant behaviors: a review of psychometric instruments.

The author read every paper he could find on rating scales that claim to tell why a child hits, screams, or bites.

He looked at four popular tools: the Motivation Assessment Scale, the Functional Analysis Screening Tool, the Problem Behavior Questionnaire, and another early checklist.

He asked two simple questions: do two people who fill out the same scale agree, and does the scale really guide treatment that works?

All four scales had shaky test-retest numbers and weak inter-rater reliability.

More important, almost no study showed that picking a treatment based only on the scale actually reduced problem behavior.

In short, the tools looked scientific but did not deliver solid answers you could trust in court or in the classroom.

Lindsay et al. (2004) updated the story ten years later and added experimental functional analysis to the menu, agreeing that checklists alone are not enough.

Nicholson et al. (2006) then gave the QABF a real psychometric test; they found good internal stats but only modest agreement between two teachers, backing the original warning.

Logan et al. (2000) introduced the QABF right after the critique, trying to fix the flaws; the later data show they partly succeeded, yet the same caution still applies.

If you start an intervention because a checklist said the function is "escape," you may waste weeks on the wrong plan.

Pair any brief scale with direct observation or a short experimental analysis before you write the behavior plan.

Tell parents and teachers the score is just a clue, not a verdict, and keep measuring once treatment starts.