Functional Analyses

1. Functional Analyses Figuring out the source of the problem, the problem, and the resolution of the problem

2. Functional Analyses • Has long been established in behavior analysis that one must understand the • Antecedents • Behavior • Consequences of any situation in order to alter the behavior • Hence Functional Analyses of behavior were created

3. Functional analyses • Initially developed by Brian Iwata • Investigates potential maintaining consequences for problem behavior • Initially for kids • Now many organisms (e.g., Farmer-Dougan, in press, for captive wild animals!). • Involves • Direct observation and repeated measurement • Across several situations that attempt to mimic possible maintaining situations

4. Functional Analysis • Must get baseline first: examine environment before begin testing • Assess validity by comparing rates of behavior across the different settings/conditions • Repeat until 1 or more settings found to elicit target behavior at highest and most steady rate

5. Four Settings • Alone: client in barren room (no obvious reinforcers) • See if behavior is self-reinforcing or self-maintaining • E.g., self stim behavior (excessive licking) • Attention: • Provide client with attention only when client exhibits behavior • E.g., child hits head, you run and get him to stop • Can look at attention vs. access to food or tangible

6. Four Settings • Demand: • client is asked to engage in contingent activity • Demands made on client to engage in behavior • E.g., doing math problems, obeying commands • See if behavior increases (to escape demands) • Play: Typically control procedure • Client allowed to play in room • No contingencies or demands • Attention given for any behavior

7. Let’s apply this to dogs • #1 reason dogs are returned to shelter: • behavioral problems! • About 26% • How can shelter/rescue workers develop assessment system that • Doesn’t involve prior owner • Doesn’t involve long and complicated process or questionnaires • Is quick, effective and efficient

8. Dorsey, et al., Functional Analysis with dogs • Recruited dogs who jumped on people • No aggression • Young adult dogs • No known health issues • Conducted both a • Questionnaire • Assessment phase

9. Dorsey et al.’s questionnaire

10. Assessment • Each of 4 conditions presented for 5 min (2 min ITI) • Play, ignore, tangible, demand, attention • All 5 presentations = 1 cycle; no more than 2 cycles/day • Continued with cycles until problem area was identified

11. Assessment Conditions • Began with walking in door/greeting (SD) • Ignore: • entered room but • gave no attention or eye contact to dog • Attention: • Entered room; • only gave attention when dog jumped up; • petted, hugged dog for 20 sec after each jump • Play: dog given squeaky toy • Dog allowed to play with toy • Attention given for 5 of every 20 seconds (noncontingent)

12. Assessment Conditions • Demand • entered room • Gave commands that were within the dogs’ behavioral repertoire • Food require for compliance with command • Repeated commands until complied • Tangible • Entered room; • Experimenter held high-demand toy • Tried to elicit jumping by holding toy up high

13. Treatment Phase • Once identified sustaining variable, used this as part of treatment • Treatment based on maintaining variable of the behavior, not on the function of the behavior • Why the dog jumped up • Not that the dog hurt you or pushed you over

14. Treatment Types • Attention: • Gave no attention for 20 sec • If dog did not jump up for 20 sec, lots of attention • If dog did jump up; timer restarted • Demand: • If dog jumped up during command, was ignored • Command was carried through anyway • Attention ONLY for compliance • Tangible • No toy unless no jumping for 20 sec • Again, timer restarted if jumped

15. Results • Note that used nonparmetric stats • Used when have small N or lopsided data • Looked to see what drove jumping! • Noted that the assessment matched survey

16. Results of treatment: • Was successful!

17. Okay, so….. • Functional analysis works • But, hard for general shelter workers to use • Not want to conduct these ‘phases’ or cycles • Not want to have to do data analysis • Alternative? A canned method • Emily

18. Okay, so….. • Functional analysis works • But, hard for general shelter workers to use • Not want to conduct these ‘phases’ or cycles • Not want to have to do data analysis • Alternative? A canned method • Emily • Developed the Meet Your Match program • Both a functional analysis AND a behavioral assessment program • Two components • SAFER • Canine-ality

19. The MYM SAFER • Examines behavior in several domains • Look • (touch) sensitivity • Tag (play) • Squeeze (again touch sensitivity) • Food behavior (in dish) • Toy behavior (reinforcer assessment) • Dog to dog behavior

20. The MYM Canine-ality • Examines behavior across several domains: • Left alone • Greeting • Crate • Play • Food motivation • Manners • Sum score to get activity level • Then assess motivation • Social (all people) • Independent (not attached to people) • One person dog

21. Is the Canine-alitya functional assessment? • Yes • Look at domains: • Alone/ignore • Attention • Demand • Play • Tangible and food • Is a quick and dirty way to conduct a FA

22. Problems with the Canine-ality? • Should you use when the dog first arrives at shelter or class? Why or why not? • Could environment alter the results? • Could who gives the assessment alter the results? • Need to use with care and understand its limits • For shelters/rescues ALSO use the adopter survey • Adopter survey looks at what kind of activity level/expectations the family might have. • MYM = meet your match • Attempt to match right dog to right family • Works very well when used appropriately!