Assessment & Research

Evaluations of heart rate during functional analyses of destructive behavior

McCabe et al. (2023) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2023
★ The Verdict

Heart-rate data during FA looks scientific but adds zero predictive value—stick to observing reinforcers.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who assess destructive behavior and wonder if wearables give an edge.
✗ Skip if Clinicians already happy with standard FA interpretation.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team ran normal functional analyses on four patients who hit, bit, or threw things.

While each condition ran, they also taped a small heart-rate monitor to the client’s chest.

They wanted to know if heart-rate spikes could tell us the “why” of the behavior before the behavior happened.

02

What they found

Heart rate went up and down, but the pattern never matched the function of the behavior.

Only one thing predicted the behavior: was a reinforcer present or not.

The extra data added no new clues, so the authors call the measure unreliable.

03

How this fits with other research

Tassé et al. (2013) saw heart rate climb when kids with ASD felt anxious, yet McCabe still found no link to function—showing anxiety and function are different questions.

Vos et al. (2013) validated emotion codes with matching heart-rate changes, but their clients had severe ID and calm tasks; McCabe’s clients showed intense destruction, so heart-rate noise drowned any signal—an apparent contradiction that settings explain.

Palka Bayard de Volo et al. (2021) used cheap watches during FCT and also warned the measure can’t predict outbursts; McCabe’s lab-grade monitors give the same verdict, strengthening the “skip the sensors” message.

van Swieten et al. (2025) reviewed every physiology paper on self-harm and found no consistent marker; McCabe’s negative result is now one more brick in that wall.

04

Why it matters

You can stop shopping for heart-rate straps. Just run the FA, watch the contingencies, and trust the reinforcer test. Save money, save setup time, and avoid false hope in a number that moves for a hundred other reasons.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Run your next FA without heart-rate gear; put the minutes you save into extra reinforcer-only test segments.

02At a glance

Intervention
functional analysis
Design
single case other
Sample size
4
Finding
negative

03Original abstract

Previous research has examined the predictive validity of heart rate on destructive behavior; however, such research has yet to improve clinical practice or enhance our understanding of the relation between physiology and destructive behavior. The purpose of this study was to examine the predictive validity of heart rate on varying topographies and functions of destructive behavior while controlling antecedent and consequent events through functional analysis. We first demonstrated the reliability of the Polar H10 heart rate monitor and assessed the feasibility of its use in simulated functional analysis sessions. However, across four consecutively enrolled patients, heart rate was not found to be a reliable predictor of destructive behavior, regardless of its topography or function. Instead, functional reinforcer presence and absence was sufficient to predict socially reinforced destructive behavior. This study may provide a framework for the future assessment of other biological measures in relation to destructive behavior occurrence and nonoccurrence.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2023 · doi:10.1002/jaba.1019