Abstract:
Challenging behaviours are commonplace amongst children and adolescents, yet it can have detrimental effects on physical well-being, social integration, and life outcomes when it persists beyond age-appropriate levels. Elevated prevalence of challenging behaviour has been reported amongst individuals with intellectual disabilities and individuals with autism. The ensuing impediments call for a competent assessment instrument that is capable of informing behavioural interventions. The Standard Analogue Functional Analysis (SAFA) has been regarded as the gold standard in the field of Applied Behaviour Analysis as it is able to identify the functions of challenging behaviours. Nevertheless, it presents with some limitations and procedural modifications have been suggested to improve its utility. This paper aimed to compare a variation called the Interview Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) against the SAFA in the assessment and intervention of challenging behaviours amongst two children with a primary diagnosis of autism. In Study 1, the SAFA and the IISCA were conducted with the participants, and the results were compared for concordance. The SAFA identified the function of attention and escape from demands as causes for the challenging behaviours of both participants. The IISCA produced similar results regarding the aforementioned variables but also indicated the presence of a third variable, the access to tangible items, for both participants. In Study 2, the SAFA and IISCA results were used to design function-based interventions in order to assess their effectiveness in reducing the rate of challenging behaviour. The IISCA-based intervention was faster in reducing the rate of challenging behaviour to zero for both the participants. Taken together, the findings validate the use of the IISCA and renders support to its effectiveness above the SAFA.
