Functional analysis: what have we learned in 85 years?
Traditional FA is still king, yet brief and IISCA formats now have enough evidence to share the throne.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Suchowierska-Stephany (2023) looked back at 85 years of functional analysis research. The paper is a narrative review, not a new experiment. It charts how FA started, how it grew, and what newer twists like the IISCA bring to the table.
What they found
The review calls traditional FA the gold-standard test for finding why problem behavior happens. It also says shorter, safer versions like the IISCA now have enough backing to sit beside the classic method. The author says we still need more real-world studies.
How this fits with other research
Melanson et al. (2023) ran a similar 40-year sweep and saw the same trend: brief and outpatient FAs are on the rise. Their data set of 1,333 outcomes gives muscle to the narrative claim that practice is shifting.
Henry et al. (2021) and Perez et al. (2015) show how to do it. Both teams used staged brief-to-extended protocols and reached clear functions for nearly every participant. These papers turn the review’s “promise” into a ready-made procedure you can copy.
Contreras et al. (2023) add a caution. They found plain descriptive assessments match full FA results only half the time. This supports the review’s stance: keep the experimental logic, just streamline it.
Why it matters
You do not have to choose between long analog sessions and quick checklists. Keep the full FA for complex cases, but pull out brief, trial-based, or synthesized formats when time, safety, or caregiver stress is a concern. Map your decision tree today: list which referral signs trigger each type of assessment.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one case on your caseload and run a 10-minute trial-based FA instead of a full 30-minute condition.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Even though the term “functional analysis” (FA) is prevalent in the current behavioral literature, the concept and process have roots in the early days of basic research in behavior analysis. Furthermore, the methodology developed in the field of FA has been one of the most significant advances in research on challenging behaviors over the past four decades. The current article reviews the history of the term “functional analysis” and research related to experimental FA. The aim is to summarize what the field of behavior analysis has learned about this powerful methodology. FA is considered a gold standard of functional assessment. However, several arguments about limitations relating to methodological issues in FA and its ecological validity have been put forward. Some of these shortcomings include constraints on the time available for assessment, the risk posed by severe problem behavior, and the inability to exert tight control over environmental conditions. The literature on the subject clearly shows that refinements have been aimed not only at improving some of the methodological characteristics of FA but also at adapting the strategy for real-world application. Practical functional assessment (known as interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis [IISCA]) is a contemporary approach to assessing and treating problem behavior. Recent research on IISCA offers empirical support for the practical functional assessment and skill-based treatment model, confirming that it can obtain sustainable and socially meaningful reductions in problem behavior. Nevertheless, more research is needed to address procedural variations in, and the utility and social validity of, IISCA.
Advances in Psychiatry and Neurology, 2023 · doi:10.5114/ppn.2024.135277