Embedding a functional analysis of compliance in small group instruction

Lloyd and team ran a 5-minute functional analysis right inside a second-grade reading group. One boy with intellectual disability kept refusing teacher requests. They tested three quick conditions: escape from work, access to toys, and attention from adults.

They rotated the conditions during regular small-group lessons. No extra room, no long pull-outs. The whole test took only 20 minutes across four school days.

Escape plus tangible access drove the boy's refusal. When work stopped and he got a toy for completing a task, compliance jumped to a large share. Pure escape or attention alone did little.

The teacher used the result to build a plan. Work-break plus small toy reward cut refusal to near zero for the rest of the semester.

McConnell et al. (2020) later used the same embed idea at the dentist. They found escape extinction plus graduated exposure cut disruption for autistic young adults. Both studies show you can test function in the real place instead of a clinic room.

Weyman et al. (2022) also used brief trial-based FAs during daily routines. Their ritual-interruption test took only minutes, like Lloyd's 5-minute cycles. Both papers prove short embedded FAs give clear answers.

Slocum et al. (2025) looked at escape behavior too, but in a lab-style RCT. They found differential positive reinforcement beats escape extinction at first. Lloyd's field test adds the classroom angle: find the function fast, then match the reward.

You can copy this tomorrow. Pick a learner who stalls during group work. Run 2-minute cycles of escape, tangible, and attention right at the kidney table. Use the winner to set a simple contingency: finish three problems, get 30 seconds with a fidget and a short break. No extra staff, no disruption to the lesson.