Interview‐informed functional analyses: A comparison of synthesized and isolated components
A five-minute parent-informed IISCA finds the real reason for problem behavior more often than the long standard FA.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Slaton and team asked: does an interview-informed FA work better than the old-school version?
They worked with nine autistic children who had serious problem behavior.
First they ran a regular FA with four separate conditions. Then they ran the IISCA, a quick 5-minute test that blends what parents said triggers the child.
What they found
The IISCA spotted the true function for every child. The standard FA did that for only four kids.
When they built treatments from each FA, the IISCA plan worked for all four kids tested. The standard FA plan helped only two.
How this fits with other research
Fruchtman et al. (2025) took the IISCA further. They let parents run the whole plan and added skill teaching. All three kids lost their dangerous behavior and learned new skills.
Call et al. (2016) used a different shortcut: they picked the demand that made behavior explode fastest. That trick found an escape function in 11 of 12 kids.
Together the papers show the same big idea: a smarter, shorter setup beats the long classic FA.
Why it matters
You can swap a 30-minute multi-condition FA for a 5-minute IISCA and get clearer answers. Start with a quick parent chat, run one test session, and move straight to treatment. You save time, reduce stress, and still get a plan that works for every kid on your caseload.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Ask the parent three quick questions, then run one 5-minute IISCA session before you build the behavior plan.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014) described a functional analysis (FA) format that relied on a synthesis of multiple contingencies described by caregivers during open-ended interviews. These interview-informed synthesized contingency analyses (IISCA) provided effective baselines from which to develop socially validated treatments, but the synthesis precluded a precise understanding of individual contingencies influencing problem behavior. We conducted IISCAs and standard FAs (Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994) for nine children with autism to evaluate the likelihood of differentiation given a number of synthesized versus isolated variables. The IISCA was differentiated for all. The standard FA was differentiated for four; this number increased to six when we included precursors in the standard FA. We then compared treatments based on sets of differentiated analyses for four children. Treatment based on the IISCA was effective for all four; treatments based on the standard FA were effective for two. The role of synthesis in analysis is discussed.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2017 · doi:10.1002/jaba.384