The form and function of challenging behaviours.
Self-injury usually feeds the sensory system, but aggression and property destruction do not pick one function—so assess, don’t guess.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Dugan et al. (1995) looked at every adult with intellectual disability in one catchment area. They used the Motivation Assessment Scale to ask why each person hit, bit, or rocked.
The team wanted to see if the shape of a behavior predicts its job. Does head-banging always get attention? Does hand-biting always give sensory pay-off?
What they found
Only self-injury showed a clear link: it usually served self-stimulation. Other topographies—hitting others, breaking things—did not stick to one function.
Severe disability went with severe challenging behavior. Yet the same behavior form could work for escape, attention, or sensory feedback depending on the person.
How this fits with other research
Garcia et al. (1999) built on this by showing that people who self-injure or aggress also have fewer social skills. The form–function map now includes a social-skills gap you can measure.
Storch et al. (2012) zoomed in with t-pattern analysis. They found self-injury can organize whole chains of behavior over time. E et al. gave the snapshot; A et al. showed the movie.
Van Houten et al. (1980) warned that labels like ‘self-injury’ carry extra meaning. E et al. answered by using the MAS to give each behavior a data-based job description.
Why it matters
Do not assume hand-biting is always sensory. Test it with the MAS or ABC data each time. When self-injury pops up, plan sensory toys or matched stimulation first. For other topographies, cast a wider net: check escape and attention triggers too.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pull the MAS on any new self-injury case; if sensory scores high, start matched stimulation or sensory toys before you trial other interventions.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Aspects of the topography and behavioural function underlying the challenging behaviours of all people with learning disabilities and challenging behaviour (n = 70) in a defined geographical area were investigated. Results indicated that: (1) more severe challenging behaviours were shown by people with more severe disabilities; (2) a significant minority (44%) of people showed more than one form of challenging behaviour, this rising to 79% among people with more severe challenging behaviours; and (3) cross-sectional analyses revealed specific clusters of problematic, aggressive and self-injurious behaviours. Analysis of information derived from the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) indicated that (5) the most common functions of challenging behaviours appeared to be 'self-stimulation' (for self-injury, destructiveness and 'other' challenging behaviours) and securing the attention of carers (for aggressive behaviours). However, (6) parametric analyses failed to identify any consistent relationships between the form and function of an individual's challenging behaviour for aggressive, destructiveness and 'other' challenging behaviours, but (7) clients with self-injurious behaviour were significantly more likely to score highly on the 'self-stimulation' sub-scale than other sub-scales of the MAS. Finally, (8) significant consistency of behavioural functions across different forms of challenging behaviours shown by the same individual were found for the two combinations of aggressive-destructive behaviours and self-injury-'other' behaviours.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 1995 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.1995.tb00543.x