Comments on functional analysis procedures for school-based behavior problems.

Preston (1994) is not an experiment. It is a think-piece. The author tells clinicians how to bend rigid clinic-style functional analysis so it fits noisy classrooms. The paper lists what to watch for when you move FA from a quiet therapy room to a room with 25 kids, bells, and a teacher who must also teach.

There are no data. The paper simply flags problems you will meet: short staff, little time, peer attention as a reinforcer you cannot unplug, and the risk that test conditions will look like bad teaching. The message is: plan ahead or the method will fail.

Rojahn et al. (1994) answered the warning the same year. Their school teams ran full FAs with only monthly expert visits and cut severe behavior for 18 months. The combo shows: worry, but try it anyway.

Meyer (1999) later trimmed the FA to two quick conditions and still helped four typical kids stay on task. Petry et al. (2007) added a shortcut: a five-minute kid-choice test matched the full FA in three of four teens. Together these papers extend the 1994 call by proving brief, teacher-friendly versions work.

Slaton et al. (2024) push further. They used the practical FA package, added FCT, and kept crisis holds at zero one year later. The chain is clear: 1994 warns, later studies simplify, and now we have a durable school model.

You no longer need a clinic lab. Start with the shortest FA that still gives you a clear function. Add function-based treatment and thin the schedule as you go. The 30-year arc from Preston (1994) to Slaton et al. (2024) gives you permission to adapt, safe in the knowledge that lighter versions still pass the test.