Functional AnalysesFiguring out the source of the problem, the problem, and the resolution of the problem
Functional Analyses
Has long been established in behavior analysis that one must understand the Antecedents
Behavior
Consequences
of any situation in order to alter the behavior
Hence Functional Analyses of behavior were created
Functional analyses
Initially developed by Brian Iwata
Investigates potential maintaining consequences for problem behavior Initially for kids
Now many organisms (e.g., Farmer-Dougan, in press, for captive wild animals!).
Involves Direct observation and repeated measurement
Across several situations that attempt to mimic possible maintaining situations
Functional Analysis
Must get baseline first: examine environment before begin testing
Assess validity by comparing rates of behavior across the different settings/conditions
Repeat until 1 or more settings found to elicit target behavior at highest and most steady rate
Four Settings
Alone: client in barren room (no obvious reinforcers) See if behavior is self-reinforcing or self-maintaining
E.g., self stim behavior (excessive licking)
Attention: Provide client with attention only when client exhibits
behavior
E.g., child hits head, you run and get him to stop
Can look at attention vs. access to food or tangible
Four Settings
Demand: client is asked to engage in contingent activity
Demands made on client to engage in behavior
E.g., doing math problems, obeying commands
See if behavior increases (to escape demands)
Play: Typically control procedure Client allowed to play in room
No contingencies or demands
Attention given for any behavior
Let’s apply this to dogs
#1 reason dogs are returned to shelter: behavioral problems!
About 26%
How can shelter/rescue workers develop assessment system that Doesn’t involve prior owner
Doesn’t involve long and complicated process or questionnaires
Is quick, effective and efficient
Dorsey, et al., Functional Analysis with dogs
Recruited dogs who jumped on people No aggression
Young adult dogs
No known health issues
Conducted both a Questionnaire
Assessment phase
Dorsey et al.’s questionnaire
Assessment
Each of 4 conditions presented for 5 min (2 min ITI) Play, ignore, tangible, demand, attention
All 5 presentations = 1 cycle; no more than 2 cycles/day
Continued with cycles until problem area was identified
Assessment Conditions
Began with walking in door/greeting (SD)
Ignore: entered room but
gave no attention or eye contact to dog
Attention: Entered room;
only gave attention when dog jumped up;
petted, hugged dog for 20 sec after each jump
Play: dog given squeaky toy Dog allowed to play with toy
Attention given for 5 of every 20 seconds (noncontingent)
Assessment Conditions
Demand entered room
Gave commands that were within the dogs’ behavioral repertoire
Food require for compliance with command
Repeated commands until complied
Tangible Entered room;
Experimenter held high-demand toy
Tried to elicit jumping by holding toy up high
Treatment Phase
Once identified sustaining variable, used this as part of treatment
Treatment based on maintaining variable of the behavior, not on the function of the behavior Why the dog jumped up
Not that the dog hurt you or pushed you over
Treatment Types
Attention:
Gave no attention for 20 sec
If dog did not jump up for 20 sec, lots of attention
If dog did jump up; timer restarted
Demand:
If dog jumped up during command, was ignored
Command was carried through anyway
Attention ONLY for compliance
Tangible
No toy unless no jumping for 20 sec
Again, timer restarted if jumped
Results
Note that used nonparmetric stats Used when have small N or lopsided data
Looked to see what drove jumping!
Noted that the assessment matched survey
Results of treatment:
Was successful!
Okay, so…..
Functional analysis works
But, hard for general shelter workers to use Not want to conduct these ‘phases’ or cycles
Not want to have to do data analysis
Alternative? A canned method Emily
Okay, so…..
Alternative? A canned method Dr. Emily Weiss, director of companion animal behavior at
ASPCA
Developed the Meet Your Match program
Both a functional analysis AND a behavioral assessment program
Two components
SAFER
Canine-ality
The MYM SAFER
Examines behavior in several domains Look
(touch) sensitivity
Tag (play)
Squeeze (again touch sensitivity)
Food behavior (in dish)
Toy behavior (reinforcer assessment)
Dog to dog behavior
The MYM Canine-ality
Examines behavior across several domains: Left alone
Greeting
Crate
Play
Food motivation
Manners
Sum score to get activity level
Then assess motivation
Social (all people)
Independent (not attached to people)
One person dog
Is the Canine-ality a functional assessment?
Yes
Look at domains: Alone/ignore
Attention
Demand
Play
Tangible and food
Is a quick and dirty way to conduct a FA
Problems with the Canine-ality?
Should you use when the dog first arrives at shelter or class? Why or why not?
Could environment alter the results?
Could who gives the assessment alter the results?
Need to use with care and understand its limits
For shelters/rescues ALSO use the adopter survey
Adopter survey looks at what kind of activity level/expectations the family might have.
MYM = meet your match
Attempt to match right dog to right family
Works very well when used appropriately!