Effects of therapist‐worn protective equipment during functional analysis of aggression

Oropeza et al. ran two functional analyses at the same time. One FA had the therapist wear face shields, arm guards, and thick jackets. The other FA had no gear.

They switched the sessions back-to-back. Each client got both types in random order. The team recorded how often and how hard aggression hit.

The graphs landed on top of each other. Escape, attention, or automatic functions looked the same whether the therapist wore pads or plain clothes.

No client needed different treatment plans. The gear did not create or hide any behavior patterns.

McConnell et al. (2020) also changed the FA setting. They tested disruptive behavior in a real dental chair and still found clear functions. Both studies show you can bend FA conditions for safety or context without losing validity.

Frank-Crawford et al. (2026) asked if latency-based CSA gives the same answer as rate-based CSA. Like Oropeza, they compared two ways to collect data and found the main result holds. These papers form a set: small procedural tweaks do not break the assessment.

Hoffmann et al. (2025) surveyed experts who warn against always using the classic FA format. Their advice lines up here: if safety gear lets you run the FA, use it. The function stays true.

You no longer need to choose between staff safety and a clean FA. Suit up, run the analysis, and trust the outcome. This small change can cut injury risk and reduce session cancellations, speeding up treatment for clients with severe aggression.