Mobile Campaigns: How to Create a Mobile Marketing Strategy

Behavioral Assessment

1. Why are these methods of behavioral assessment called “indirect?”

Direct and indirect assessment are both methods of collecting information for further analysis. The former involves using actual samples and can include practical observation. On the other hand, the later involves the other means of gathering information instead of looking at actual samples and may include surveys or interviews. The methods of behavioral assessment in the articles include the Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST), the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF), the Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ), and the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS), which are all questionnaires identifying different aspects related to individual behavior. They satisfy reference as “indirect” methods of behavioral assessment which Iwata et al. (2013) describe as a verbal report with informants having little-to-no level of formal training in behavior analysis.

2. Who published the first “indirect assessment” tool, which assessment was it?

Durand and Crimmins published the first “indirect assessment tool, that is, the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS). According to Durand and Crimmins (1988) they built upon series of analogue conditions set for assessment through observing changes in self-injury provided by Iwata and colleagues. Durand and Crimmins developed MAS as a rating scale whose structure assesses the relative influence regarding social intervention, tangibles, escape, and sensory consequences on self-injury. MAS questions the probability of a target’s behavior occurring in multiple situations such as in social isolation or incurring a function of difficult task. Durand and Crimmins utilized the analogue conditions to invent MAS with the goal to predict how self-injurious individuals will behave in settings similar to those set by Iwata and colleagues.

3. What maintaining consequence did Durand and colleagues (1988) identify through the use of the MAS ?

Durand and colleagues (1988) utilized the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) as an alternative to the functional analysis of self-injurious behavior leading to identification of tangible consequences as a crucial variable in maintaining the behavior. They presented MAS as an adjunct to find out the variables controlling self-injurious behavior building on previous works. The authors, through using their tool, identified positive (which includes access to tangibles contingent on self-injury) and negative (escape from the denial of tangibles) as maintaining consequence. The authors established tangible consequences as independent of well-documented influences such as social attention, trying to escape from tough task demands, and consequences arising from senses.

4. Describe the similarities and differences between the three most often used indirect assessments.

The three most often used indirect assessments that have similarities and differences include the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS), the Functional Analysis Interview, and the Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ). The three are similar regarding their structure that assesses behavior of target individuals. They are equally alike in using question-answer approach to facilitate the assessment. Despite the three indirect assessments displaying similarities, they have intrinsic differences. For example, whereas Durand and Crimmins (1988) submit that MAS is a 16-item questionnaire, Lewis et al. (1994) suggests Functional Analysis Interview entails a series of open-ended questions while PBQ entails 15 items (questions). The three equally differ in administering with Functional Analysis Interview standing out due to issued open-ended questions. Lastly, PBQ differs from the rest with its structuring usable in all education settings going beyond specialized areas.

5. Describe the problems inherent in the design of these tools that effect their utility.

Some problems inherent in the design of these tools which affect their utility regards the incapability to mitigate receiving misleading information. A responded can provide misguided responses due to bias or natural human era. Stereotypes can influence issuing the misguided information, furthermore, an interviewee might misinterpret the provided information. The tools lack an internal self-correcting mechanism that address the probable shortcomings. Furthermore, the initial assessment tools’ design such as MAS limited their reach to specialized settings. Lastly, the tools designs do not factor situational shortcomings such as lack of proper understanding of the questionnaires or language barriers with the entire set not fully sufficient in addressing behavioral concerns leading to treatment outcomes.

6. Summarize the research findings evaluating these tools.

The findings generally commend the application of each tool and issue information on further usage. For example, Iwata et a. (2013) findings suggest the benefits of using the Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST) method include a uniform format for information gathering, gathered information serving as the premise for further interviews and observations, and ease of verification in case of many informants skewing towards the analogy that an individual’s problem behavior has a specific function. The final remark from the authors however recommend further improvements. Paclawskyj et al. (2000) equally commend the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) although suggest need for more efficient approaches. The trend is similar for the other authors exploring tools such as MAS and PBQ.

7. Why are topographically based interventions ineffective? What would a more appropriate approach to intervention be?

Topographically based interventions are ineffective due to the high chances of bias. Every locality has a set of stereotypes or culture that may prove as an impediment to successful intervention. The presence of bias within regions can influence the results of an assessment leading to improper or misguided information (Silbaugh et al., 2018). The stereotypes which are mostly untrue play a significant role in influencing the bias leading to inefficiencies when relying on topographically based interventions. Iwata et al. (2013) submit that future research regarding function-based rating scales might examine their adaption for particular response topographies further submitting that several studies suggests stereotypy is the most probable outcome maintained by automatic reinforcement. A more appropriate approach to invention would be authority-approved intervention measures such as those provided by the American Psychological Association (APA).

8. Describe the differences between the Durand & Crimmins article on the MAS and the Zarcone, et al, reliability analaysis of the MAS.

Durand and Crimmins article and Zarcon et al. piece both concern the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) with intrinsic differences. Whereas the former operates as primary data given it uses the tool to identify the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior, the latter functions as secondary data by making a reliability analysis of the tool with Durand and Crimmins submissions as the premise. Durand and Crimmins (1988) present MAS as an alternative for more functional analysis in the assessment of self-injurious behavior. On the other hand, Zarcon et al. (1991) establish a low inter-rater reliability score in their assessment of MAS. Therefore, whereas Durand and Crimmins findings praise MAS as instrumental in further application when selecting reinforces, Zarcon et al. express need for extreme caution when administering MAS and using the results for interpretation indicating information from MAS as probably not any more useful. Therefore, despite similarities in assessing MAS, Zarcon et al. provide an opposite inference.

9. Is it ever appropriate to base a treatment intervention solely on an Indirect Assessment?

It is never appropriate to base a treatment intervention solely on an Indirect Assessment. Indirect assessment tools, in some cases, are vital in treatment intervention. For example, Durand and Crimmins (1988) suggest their application of MAS in designing treatments for attributes bedeviling autistic individuals, especially behavioral issues. However, Zarcon et al. (1991) provide an assessment of the reliability of MAS as proposed by Durand and Crimmins and establish some shortcomings leading to their advice of exercising extreme caution in further application of the tool. Lewis et al. (1994) equally cautions against solely relying on PBQ as a source of information that leads to selecting an intervention plan. The provided examples satisfy why it is never appropriate to solely base a treatment intervention on an indirect assessment. There is need to use other commendable approaches such as functional analysis methodology or other commendable means of diagnosis and treatment issued by relevant authorities to support indirect assessment tools.

10. In what settings might using the Problem Behavior Questionnaire be most appropriate?

General education environments might be the most appropriate settings for using the Problem Behavior Questionnaire (PBQ). Lewis et al. (1994) suggests that previous assessment tools focused on students with extreme disabilities in specialized settings. The author suggests PBQ as an instrumental assessment tool going beyond past structures to design the instrument for use with students displaying behavior problems in general education settings. The author’s inference posits that PBQ as a functional assessment technology is significant in providing useful data, issuing a practical and easy method for assessing behavioral issues within general education settings, and assessing the potential effects regarding peer attention on problem behavior. PBQ as a functional assessment tool can therefore be used in vast education settings not limiting itself to specialized environments for learners with extreme disability cases.

References

Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior.  Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders ,  18 (1), 99-117.

Iwata et al. (2013). Reliability and validity of the functional analysis screening tool.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis ,  46 (1), 271-284.

Lewis et al. (1994). The problem behavior questionnaire: A teacher-based instrument to develop functional hypotheses of problem behavior in general education classrooms.  Diagnostique ,  19 (2-3), 103-115.

Paclawskyj et al. (2000). Questions about behavioral function (QABF):: A behavioral checklist for functional assessment of aberrant behavior.  Research in developmental disabilities ,  21 (3), 223-229.

Silbaugh et al. (2018). Effects of a lag schedule of reinforcement with progressive time delay on topographical mand variability in children with autism.  Developmental neurorehabilitation ,  21 (3), 166-177.

Zarcone et al. (1991). Reliability analysis of the Motivation Assessment Scale: A failure to replicate.  Research in Developmental Disabilities ,  12 (4), 349-360.