Functional assessment of problem behaviors in adults with mental retardation.

Lindsay et al. (2004) wrote a story-style review. They looked at every common way to find why adults with intellectual disability show problem behavior.

The paper weighed quick tools like interviews and checklists against longer experimental tests called functional analyses. It listed what each method costs in staff time and risk.

No single tool won. Interviews are fast but can miss the real reason. Functional analysis is precise but needs space, skill, and safety.

The authors warned that picking one path without thinking can waste time or even make behavior worse.

Colombo et al. (2024) now gives firmer ground. Their 2024 systematic review counted only 28 adult studies across 25 years and turned the 2004 warnings into a ready-made plan you can copy.

Melanson et al. (2023) widened the lens to all ages. They tracked 1,333 recent cases and show the field has moved to shorter sessions and clinic rooms, backing up the trade-offs R et al. first listed.

Contreras et al. (2023) adds hard numbers: descriptive assessments match experimental results only half the time. This supports the 2004 advice to test, not just ask.

Use the paper as a quick map when an adult with ID enters your caseload. Start with a brief interview, then run a short functional analysis if safety allows. The newer reviews give session templates, but the 2004 trade-off chart still helps you explain to families why you are moving from a fast screen to a deeper test.