Comparison of traditional and trial-based methodologies for conducting functional analyses.
Short trial-based FA gives the same function as long sessions in a fraction of the time.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Doughty et al. (2010) compared two ways to run a functional analysis. One used long 15-minute sessions. The other used short 1–2-minute trials.
They tested five people with problem behavior. Each person got both methods in a single-case design.
What they found
The short trial-based FA gave the same answer as the long method for four of five people. It also cut assessment time by about 85 percent.
Less time meant the person got less reinforcement for hitting or yelling during the test.
How this fits with other research
Rispoli et al. (2015) later showed Head Start teachers could run the same short trials after one afternoon of training. Their function-based plans beat plans that ignored the results.
Sorrell et al. (2025) built a virtual video course that taught future teachers to run the trials with no in-person coach. Skills moved to real classrooms for most trainees.
Rahaman et al. (2024) reviewed many FA formats and listed the trial-based version as one of the safest and fastest. The 2010 data sit inside their accuracy table.
Why it matters
You can swap your long FA sessions for 1–2-minute trials and still trust the answer. You save time, reduce problem behavior during the test, and can train staff with video or a short workshop. Try one brief trial next session and watch the data match what you would have seen in fifteen minutes.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run your next FA with 90-second trials instead of 15-minute sessions and compare the graphs.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Functional analysis represents a sophisticated and empirically supported functional assessment procedure. While these procedures have garnered considerable empirical support, they are often underused in clinical practice. Safety risks resulting from the evocation of maladaptive behavior and the length of time required to conduct functional analyses may deter practitioners from using models of assessment with considerable empirical support. The current study evaluated a trial-based model of functional analysis that limited opportunities to engage in problem behavior and used 1-2 min sessions to shorten analysis time. The results from the trial-based analysis were then compared to the results of traditional functional analyses. Correspondence between both models of assessment was strong. Exact correspondence was observed for 4 of the 5 participants. In addition, the trial-based procedure did not require the repeated reinforcement of maladaptive behavior and results were obtained in 84.8% less time.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2010 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2009.10.020