Functional analysis of aberrant behavior through measurement of separate response topographies.

The team ran functional analyses on a small group who each showed more than one problem behavior. Instead of lumping all responses into one graph, they drew a separate line for each topography—one for head-hit, one for scream, and so on.

They watched to see if different shapes of behavior rose or fell in the same test condition.

The separate graphs told a clearer story. One topography might soar in the attention condition while another stayed flat. Lumping them together would have masked the real functions.

Seeing each line alone let the analysts spot which consequence kept each behavior alive.

Christian et al. (1997) had already shown the same client can hit for escape and bite for access. Mueller et al. (2000) turned that insight into a graphing rule: draw each topography on its own axes.

Saini et al. (2024) later built a super-short FA just for food refusal, proving the idea still saves time when the topography is narrow.

Melanson et al. (2023) sweep 1,333 cases into one review and note that today's FAs use shorter sessions and more tangible tests—both trends easier to read when you follow the 2000 graphing tip.

Next time you run a standard FA, split the response shapes before you graph. One sheet per topography takes five extra minutes and can stop you from writing a vague 'automatic' hypothesis when the real split is attention vs escape. Clearer graphs lead to tighter interventions and faster behavior reduction.