On the validity of interpreting functional analyses of inappropriate mealtime behavior using structured criteria

The team asked if structured rules can replace watching FA graphs by eye. They tested 30 mealtime FAs. They compared two ways to decide when the test is done: strict numeric rules versus a clinician watching the data line rise and fall.

They tracked how long each method took and how often each one got the function right.

The numeric rules alone missed the real function more often for food refusal than for hitting or screaming. Yet when staff still glanced at the graph while using the rules, the whole FA finished a large share faster.

So the rules sped things up, but only if you still peek at the data as it comes in.

Peters et al. (2013) showed a 5-minute alone probe can skip a full FA for auto-reinforced behavior. Guerrero et al. (2022) now shows that even when you run the full FA, you can still save time by mixing rules with quick visual checks.

Suhrheinrich et al. (2020) proved a 3-point fidelity checklist beats long coding. The same logic applies here: a lighter rule set plus brief visual review keeps accuracy while cutting effort.

Boudreau et al. (2015) found weak validity for a popular autism rating scale. Likewise, Guerrero et al. found the numeric rules alone had weaker validity for mealtime problems. Both papers warn that shortcuts can mislead if used without extra checks.

You can shorten mealtime FAs without losing accuracy. Use the numeric stop rules, but still watch the graph each session. This simple tweak saves about one-third of your assessment time and keeps your conclusions safe.