Brief report: a comparison of indirect versus experimental strategies for the assessment of pica.

The team compared two ways to find why children eat non-food items.

One way was quick: they asked caregivers to fill out two checklists, the QABF and the MAS.

The other way was a full functional analysis: they watched the child alone, with toys, and with adults to see when pica happened most.

All children had intellectual disability and long histories of pica.

Both checklists and the full experiment pointed to the same answer.

Pica happened for internal sensory payoff, not for attention or escape.

The short checklists matched the long test, saving hours of session time.

Logan et al. (2000) built the QABF checklist; Bigby et al. (2009) now show it works for pica without extra proof.

Frank‐Crawford et al. (2025) later treated 33 clients after brief FAs like these and cut pica 90%, proving the shortcut still leads to strong treatment.

Ledford et al. (2019) moved the same logic to preschool playgrounds, finding attention-driven pica instead of automatic; the method fits any function, not just sensory.

Bottini et al. (2022) looked back at 51 cases and saw that kids with pica almost always show automatic reinforcement in long alone sessions; the checklist catches the same signal faster.

You can start pica treatment sooner.

Give the QABF and MAS first; if both say “sensory,” move straight to intervention without a 20-session FA.

This saves clinic time, reduces risk, and lets you focus on teaching safe mouth play or alternate sensory items right away.