Efficiency, Safety, and Dissemination: Considerations for Research and Practice Related to the Practical Functional Assessment

Kranak and colleagues wrote a position paper, not a new experiment. They looked at how fast the IISCA/PFA model has spread in clinics and schools. They asked, "Are we using this tool before we really know when it fails or hurts kids?"

The authors say the IISCA is handy because it is quick. They warn that speed may trade off with accuracy and safety. They urge teams to check each case before picking IISCA over a standard functional analysis.

Jessel et al. (2018) showed 25 kids hit 90% less problem behavior after an IISCA-driven plan. That happy story helped the tool go viral.

Fisher et al. (2016) gives a counter-view. Traditional FA found the true function in 4 of 5 kids; IISCA found none. The papers seem to clash, but the kids and settings were different. IISCA may miss subtle functions that classic FA catches.

Retzlaff et al. (2020) add a safety flag. Their synthesized contingency tests created new problem behavior in half of cases. Kranak folds this into the bigger warning: faster is not always safer.

Before you schedule that 30-minute IISCA next week, pause. Ask if the brief version can still catch all likely functions. If the stakes are high or the case is complex, run a traditional FA or collect extra data. Your integrity, and the child’s safety, are worth the extra hour.