PSY 620 Module 4 Assessment Through Behavioral Dialogue Example

Asking the Right Questions: Behavioral Assessment Through Consultation Dialogue

Student Name

Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University

PSY 620: Psychological Interactions

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Asking the Right Questions: Behavioral Assessment Through Consultation Dialogue

Gloria, the third-grade teacher at Desert Willow Elementary, and Leah, the psychologist consulting with her, are fictional, as is the Tucson school. Gloria's working theory, voiced in earlier meetings, was that Mateo "just wants attention." This paper shows how Leah used consultation interviews and observation to assess his behavior with Gloria and what the assessment revealed.

Assessment as Dialogue

Bergan and Kratochwill (1990) built behavioral consultation around structured interviews in which the consultant's questions guide the consultee from general concerns to specific, measurable behavior. In the first of these conversations, the consultee names the concern, offers recent examples, guesses how often it happens and in which settings and settles with the consultant on a simple recording method. The problem analysis interview reviews the data and explores the conditions around the behavior: what typically happens before, what follows and what the consultee has tried. The consultant's role in these interviews is to ask, summarize and check, so that the consultee's knowledge becomes usable information.

In the first interview, Leah asked Gloria questions such as: "When you say Mateo is disruptive, what exactly does he do?" "What does it look like the last time it happened?" "About how many times in a typical morning?" "When is it least likely to happen?" Gloria's answers narrowed "disruptive" to two behaviors: calling out without raising his hand and leaving his seat without permission.

Functional Behavioral Assessment

Gresham et al. (2001) describe functional behavioral assessment as a set of methods for identifying the variables that maintain a behavior, so that intervention can address why the behavior occurs rather than only what it looks like. They distinguished three levels. Indirect methods, such as interviews and rating scales, gather informants' reports. Descriptive methods, such as direct observation recording antecedents, behaviors and consequences, show what happens in the natural setting. Experimental functional analysis systematically varies conditions to test which ones produce the behavior. Each level offers more certainty and requires more resources. In schools, the authors noted, indirect and descriptive methods are most common, with experimental analysis reserved for cases where the function remains unclear.

Why Function Matters

Iwata et al. (1994), in a study first published in 1982 and reprinted as a landmark, exposed individuals who injured themselves to several conditions: attention following the behavior, removal of a demand following the behavior, an unstructured play condition and being alone. The same behavior occurred under different conditions for different individuals: for some it was highest when it brought attention, for others when it allowed escape from demands and for others when alone, suggesting it was maintained by its own sensory consequences. The study established that identical behaviors can serve different functions and that effective intervention depends on knowing which. For Mateo, it raised the question that Gloria's explanation took for granted: does calling out bring him attention, escape or something else?

The Observation

Gloria and Leah agreed on definitions. Calling out meant speaking to the teacher or class without being called on, during whole-class or independent work. Leaving his seat meant standing or walking away from his desk without permission. Leah observed five forty-minute sessions across two weeks, recording each instance and what came before and after.

The Hypothesis

The data did not fit Gloria's explanation well. Calling out was rare during whole-class instruction, when attention was most available, and frequent during independent written work, when it often ended with Mateo leaving the room. The best-supported hypothesis was that the behavior functioned mainly as escape from written tasks, which Mateo may have found hard. Leah shared the table with Gloria without arguing for a conclusion and asked what she saw. Gloria noted the worksheets herself and added that Mateo wrote laboriously and often handed in half-finished pages. She asked whether he should be evaluated for a learning difficulty, a question Leah noted for the school's student support team.

Checking the Hypothesis

A descriptive assessment shows patterns, not proof. Escape from written work fit the data best, but other explanations were possible: Mateo might be tired in the late morning, when independent work usually happened, or a classmate seated nearby might provoke him. Leah and Gloria checked the first by looking at two days when independent work was moved to early morning; the pattern followed the task, not the time. They checked the second by noting that the behavior continued when the classmate was absent. A full experimental functional analysis was not needed, since the hypothesis held up and the plan itself would test it further.

From Hypothesis to Plan

A plan based on attention, such as ignoring calling out, would not address escape and might be ineffective or make things worse. A plan based on escape would make written work more manageable and give Mateo an appropriate way to ask for a break or help. Gloria and Leah agreed to divide worksheets into shorter sections, teach Mateo to use a help card to request assistance, allow a short break after completing each section and stop sending him out of the room, which had been rewarding the behavior by removing the task. Gloria would continue tallying during independent work so that the plan could be evaluated. They also agreed to praise Mateo specifically when he used the help card, so that asking for help would become a quicker route to relief than calling out had been.

Conclusion

Assessment through dialogue turned a teacher's impression into defined behaviors and data. Bergan and Kratochwill's interviews structured the conversation, Gresham and colleagues' account of functional behavioral assessment guided the choice of methods and Iwata and colleagues' functional analysis explained why function, not form, must shape the plan. The data pointed to escape from written work, and the plan addresses that function.

References

Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. Plenum Press.

Gresham, F. M., Watson, T. S., & Skinner, C. H. (2001). Functional behavioral assessment: Principles, procedures, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 30(2), 156-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086106

Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197-209. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197