On the Standardization of the Functional Analysis
Functional analyses are still a mixed bag—match the format to the case, not the other way around.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Jessel et al. (2020) mapped every twist and turn of the functional analysis since 1965. They hunted for patterns in how rooms, timers, and contingencies changed across five decades.
The team did not test new treatments. They simply asked, 'Are we all doing the same thing?'
What they found
The answer was no. Rooms, session lengths, and even the way we pick reinforcers still vary widely today.
In short, the field never settled on one standard playbook.
How this fits with other research
Fisher et al. (2016) and Retzlaff et al. (2020) warn that new, faster formats like IISCA can miss or even create new problem behavior. Their data clash with Coffey et al. (2020), who found IISCA efficient and safe. The gap is methodological: Fisher and Retzlaff used tighter controls, while Coffey looked at broader case series.
Greer et al. (2020) tried to split the difference. They dropped the interview part of IISCA and kept the synthesized test. Results matched traditional FA, showing the interview may be the optional piece.
Rahaman et al. (2024) give you a quick table of sensitivity and specificity so you can pick the safest format for your next case.
Why it matters
You do not need to pick one forever. Keep a traditional FA in your pocket for complex cases. Use a brief IISCA or trial-based format when time or safety is tight. Check Rahaman’s table, run a quick test, and move to treatment faster without sacrificing accuracy.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one adapted FA from Rahaman’s table and trial it against your usual method on the next referral.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The functional analysis procedures described in the seminal Iwata et al. (1982/1994) study are prominent in the applied behavior analytic literature, having been replicated hundreds of times over the past 30 years (Beavers, Iwata, & Lerman, 2013; Hanley, McCord, Iwata, 2003). However, the extent to which particular components of this functional analysis model have become more or less prominent over time is not clear from these literature reviews. We therefore conducted a review of the functional analysis literature between the years of 1965 and 2016 to determine the trends in the usage of particular components over time and to determine if the published literature reflects a standardization of the manner in which functional analyses of problem behavior are conducted. Furthermore, we discuss whether or not this standardization of a functional analysis model is currently necessary.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2020 · doi:10.1007/s40617-019-00366-1