Functional Analysis and Treatment of Pica on a Preschool Playground

Ledford et al. (2019) worked with a preschooler who kept eating non-food items on the playground. The team first ran a quick functional analysis. They saw pica happened most when adults gave eye contact or spoke to the child.

Next they built a simple plan. Teachers taught the child to hand over the item and say "Here." This gave the same adult attention but in a safe way. Sessions took place outside during normal recess.

Pica dropped quickly once the new request was taught. The teachers kept using the plan without help. Four weeks later pica was still low.

No extra rewards or punishment were needed. Just trading the item for a short adult comment kept the child safe.

Frank‐Crawford et al. (2025) later tested a larger set of 33 children. They added more parts like blocking and competing toys. Their big sample shows the 2019 single case still holds up.

Ruckle et al. (2023) used a different response: throw the item in the trash. Both studies got the same good result. This tells you the exact topography is less important than matching the function.

Meier et al. (2012) warned that generalization and maintenance often fail. The 2019 case met that challenge; teachers kept the plan and data stayed flat.

You can cut pica fast on the playground without stopping play. First do a 5-minute functional analysis. If attention drives the behavior, teach one simple request. Let the child trade the object for a quick “Thanks.” Start the plan on Monday and keep tally for a month. The child stays safe and the class keeps moving.