Therapist and setting influences on functional analysis outcomes.
A solid FA keeps its answer across new therapists and rooms, but always double-check in the real treatment spot.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Matson et al. (2013) ran the same functional analysis three ways. One used clinic staff. One used mom or dad. One moved the whole session to the family living room.
They watched to see if the behavior still showed the same function each time.
What they found
Most kids kept the same function no matter who ran the test or where it happened. When answers did differ, the team quickly spotted the cause.
Bottom line: one solid FA usually travels well across people and places.
How this fits with other research
Farros et al. (2023) and Spackman et al. (2025) later pushed this further. They let parents run the whole FA over Zoom and still got clear functions.
Nevill et al. (2019) and Tonnsen et al. (2016) showed the same thing with interview-informed FAs in homes and schools. Functions held and treatments worked.
Jolliffe et al. (1999) once found poor test-retest reliability in FAs. That looks like a clash, but T et al. retested weeks later without probing setting or therapist changes. L et al. tested those exact variables within days, so the two studies answer different questions.
Why it matters
You can trust a well-run FA even when you switch rooms or staff. Still, probe in the natural place once before you write the behavior plan. If mom will do the treatment at home, let mom run at least one FA condition there. If the data suddenly flip, you will know right away and can adjust.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run one FA condition with the parent in the home before you lock the function and start treatment.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Functional analyses (FAs) of problem behavior typically are conducted in controlled settings to minimize potential sources of confounding. Several studies have reported that results of FAs conducted in controlled settings occasionally differ from those conducted under more naturalistic conditions, although little is known about factors that may contribute to the different outcomes. We examined correspondence between FAs conducted by staff in a clinic and those conducted either by caregivers as therapists or in the home setting. If results of the 2 analyses were dissimilar, we conducted further analyses to identify variables responsible for the different outcomes. Results showed that, in most cases, correspondence of function was observed across familiar and unfamiliar stimuli. Results are discussed in terms of implications for research and clinical practice for the evaluation of problem behavior.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2013 · doi:10.1002/jaba.28