On the Reliability and Treatment Utility of the Practical Functional Assessment Process

Saini et al. (2019) urged caution with respect to the use of practical functional assessment (PFA) procedures to inform behavioral treatment when they found that responses to an open-ended caregiver interview were only somewhat reliable and showed moderate to weak correspondence with analog functional analyses. Because the practitioner’s goal in conducting any functional assessment process is to inform the successful treatment of problem behavior, we replicated and extended Saini et al. by (a) evaluating the reliability of hypotheses gleaned from two independent PFA processes for each of four children, (b) conducting treatment informed by a randomly assigned PFA, and (c) determining the extent to which potentially different levels of reliability impacted the treatment utility of the PFA process. Results indicated that the reliability of the PFA process varied depending on the stringency with which it was evaluated. However, treatments developed from randomly determined PFA processes produced efficacious outcomes on problem behavior and targeted social skills that transferred to the context designed from the other PFA process in all evaluations, suggesting that the PFA has strong treatment utility despite parts of the process having ambiguous levels of reliability. We discuss implications for practitioners tasked with treating severe problem behavior.