title: A comparison of methodologies of brief functional analysis.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate correspondence between three models of brief functional analysis (BFA); to evaluate a latency-based model of BFA.
  
  
  METHODS
  Single subject research; three models of BFA; latency-based BFA; brief A-B model with programmed antecedents and no programmed consequences for aberrant behaviour; A-B-C model with programmed antecedents and programmed consequences for aberrant behaviour; contingency reversal treatment evaluations conducted with each model; each model implemented with four individuals with autism diagnoses; correspondence of results between the three BFA models in terms of the conditions in which aberrant behaviour occurred.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Overall, strong correspondence between all three BFA models was observed; several specific instances of non-correspondence within participants observed; more differentiation observed between test and control conditions in A-B model than A-B-C model.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Additional support that clinicians and educators have flexibility in choosing BFA model that fits the specific, idiosyncratic variables and constraints of their setting (e.g. outpatient; classroom) and client(s).
authors.affiliation: Department of Special Education, The University of Texas at Austin and the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk , Austin, TX , USA.
authors.forename: Natalie
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Badgett
authors.forename: Terry S
authors.initials: TS
authors.lastname: Falcomata
mesh_terms: D001321:Autistic Disorder / Q000523:psychology* / Q000628:therapy; D001521:Behavior Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male
keywords: Aberrant behaviour; autism; brief functional analysis; functional behavioural assessment; functional communication training; latency