The Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF): current status as a method of functional assessment.

Goodwin et al. (2012) wrote a narrative review of the Questions About Behavioral Function scale. They looked at every paper that had used the QABF since it was created.

The authors wanted to see how well the scale works and how people were using it in practice.

The QABF is the most studied checklist for guessing why problem behavior happens. Yet it is still only a backup tool to real functional analysis.

The review says you should always double-check QABF results with direct data or an experimental test.

Reid et al. (1999) ran the first big QABF survey in 417 adults with ID. Their data showed aggression is usually social, while SIB and pica are mostly nonsocial. Goodwin et al. (2012) used these numbers to support the scale’s value.

Chiviacowsky et al. (2013) tested the QABF head-to-head with the MAS one year later. They found both scales give shaky item-level answers and often disagree on function. This seems to clash with the rosy picture in Goodwin et al. (2012), but the two papers actually agree: questionnaires are only a first step.

Schaaf et al. (2015) asked 312 BCBAs what they really do. Most said they skip experimental analyses and lean on descriptive tools like the QABF. Their survey extends the review’s warning that practice lags behind science.

If you use the QABF, treat it as a quick screen, not a verdict. Pair it with ABC recording or a brief functional analysis. Tell staff and parents that checklist results are hypotheses, not facts. This small shift keeps treatment decisions data-based and avoids chasing the wrong function.