The Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) Behavioral Rating Scale

The Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) is a rating tool used to assess the functions behind
problem behaviors in individuals with developmental disabilities. Developed by Durand and
Crimmins, MAS is an informant-based tool that categorizes behavioral motivations into four
primary functions: Sensory, Escape, Attention, and Tangible (access to items). It consists of
16 questions rated on a 7-point scale, where informants like parents, teachers, or caregivers
report the likelihood of certain motivations for the individual’s behaviors based on observed
patterns. For Carlos’s case, his mother, Mrs. White, completed the MAS, providing insights
into Carlos’s chair-slamming and growling behaviors. Her responses primarily highlighted
that Carlos’s behaviors are likely motivated by escape from challenging tasks and attention-
seeking from adults, with escape scoring highest, followed by attention. Lower scores in the
Sensory and Tangible categories suggest that Carlos’s behaviors are less related to sensory
needs or a desire for specific items, supporting earlier functional analysis findings. These
MAS results confirm that Carlos’s disruptive behaviors are primarily reinforced by task
avoidance and attention, aligning well with the hypotheses formed from ABC analysis and
interviews. The information will aid in refining his Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) to
incorporate strategies focused on task engagement and alternative attention-seeking
behaviors.

The completed MAS with raw data is included in Appendix C for reference

Functional Analysis.
The FA was conducted within the classroom setting with Carlos’s teacher and peers present
to assess whether his target behaviors—specifically, chair slamming and growling—are
maintained by attention or the avoidance of non-preferred tasks. Sessions were one minute
in length to align with Carlos’s limited attention span, and they alternated between test and
control conditions for both attention and escape functions. All target behaviors (i.e., chair
slamming, growling) were observed during the analysis and recorded together as combined
target behaviors per minute. During the attention test condition, Carlos was in a group
activity. The teacher and peers withheld attention each time Carlos engaged in chair
slamming or growling, ignoring him entirely. When Carlos increased the frequency or
intensity of his behaviors, the teacher briefly acknowledged him with a neutral response
such as, “I see you, Carlos,” then redirected her attention away again. This setup tested
whether Carlos’s disruptive behaviors would increase in the absence of attention and, if so,
were likely motivated by attention-seeking. In the attention control condition, Carlos
received consistent attention throughout, regardless of his behavior. The teacher stayed
within touching distance, constantly verbally praised and responded to Carlos without
correcting his behavior based on his actions. This condition made it possible to compare and
see if the frequency of certain behaviors was reduced when attention was always being
provided. In this study ‘‘escape test condition’’ Carlos performed a difficult worksheet in
which he was required to solve it. If he threw chairs, argued, or slammed on the chair, the
worksheet was taken away, and he was given time off from it. S such a setup, it became
possible to assess if Carlos employed these behaviors to avoid or escape non-preferred
tasks. In the escape control condition, Carlos spent his time with no responsibilities and no
one telling him what to do. The classroom aide was present close to Carlos, and Carlos was
allowed to play freely without anyone requesting him to perform any task. This condition
 provided a measure against which it could be determined if disruptive behaviors were
minimized when tasks were not presented. These alternating conditions enabled a
structured investigation into the factors underpinning Carlos’s observed behaviors, with
data indicating that both attention and task escape are effective reinforcers for his
disruptive behaviors to guide further treatment steps.

In this graph:

 Open triangles represent the frequency of chair slamming in test conditions (attention and
escape).
 Open circles indicate the frequency of growling in control conditions.

The results show elevated rates of both chair slamming and growling in test conditions
compared to control conditions, suggesting that Carlos’s behaviors are likely maintained by
attention-seeking and task-avoidance functions. Specifically, increased behaviors during test
sessions for attention indicate that Carlos may use these behaviors to gain attention, while
higher rates in escape test conditions suggest that he may also use these behaviors to avoid
non-preferred tasks.

FA protocol and “mock” data collection sheet in Appendix D.

Summary of Functional Assessment Results:

Carlos demonstrates chair slamming and growling behaviors at moderate to high levels. A
functional assessment, including ABC analysis, interviews, and trial-based functional
analysis, was conducted. Based on the functional assessment, it is hypothesized that Carlos
is likely to engage in chair slamming and growling when antecedents such as task demands,
transitions, or perceived lack of attention occur. Additionally, it is hypothesized that
following the occurrence of these behaviors, consequences such as receiving attention or a
temporary removal from tasks occur. Functional analysis results confirmed these
hypotheses as Carlos engaged in the highest levels of target behaviors when task demands
or lack of attention occurred, which were most often followed by attention from the teacher
or brief task removal.

CONSENT/ASSENT FOR ASSESSMENT

Consent for Intervention: (if client is able to consent)

I, __________________ (client name) consent to this Functional Assessment.

__________________________
Client Signature Date

Note: Caregiver can withdraw consent by notifying BCBA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---

Consent for Intervention: (if client is unable to consent)

I, Mrs. White consent to this Behavioral Intervention Plan for

Carlos (client name).

__________________________
Client Signature Date

Note: Caregiver can withdraw consent by notifying BCBA.

Assent for Intervention: (if client is unable to consent, accompanies consent section above)

Option 1: I, _________________ (client/student) assent to this intervention.

_____________________________
Client/Student Name Date

Note: Client/student can withdraw consent by notifying BCBA.

Option 2: ________ Client/student communicated consent by:

__________________________

Client assent and assent withdrawal will continue to be monitored by: _______________

________________________________________________________________________
Note: Client/student assent and assent withdrawal will be monitored in an ongoing manner
to inform needed adjustments to services/intervention.
 II. Function-Based Intervention

Client/Student Goals:
GOAL 1: Over a period of six weeks, Carlos will decrease chair-slamming behavior by 80%
during classroom transitions, given structured transition supports and attention-based
reinforcement.

 Objective: Carlos will be provided with a visual transition cue 30 seconds before each
classroom transition, aiming to reduce unexpected changes that trigger disruptive
behaviors.

GOAL 1: Over six weeks, Carlos will reduce growling behavior during independent tasks
within the classroom by 75%, given scheduled attention breaks and task modification
supports.
 Objective: Carlos will receive a 2-minute attention break every 15 minutes during
independent tasks to preemptively reduce attention-seeking behaviors.

Intervention Procedures:
Based on the functional assessment results, an intervention package that includes the
following components was implemented to decrease Carlos’s target behaviors and increase
his adaptive behaviors: structured transition supports, functional communication training,
and scheduled attention breaks. This intervention package was chosen because it
corresponds to Carlos’s behavioral requisites, is practicable in the classroom, and is
compatible with materials available at the center.

Antecedent Modifications
Adults will use antecedent modification to reduce instances of target behaviors through the
use of visual prompts and verbal directions to Carlos 30 seconds before changes take place.
This helps Carlos to prepare for the change of schedule or routine, minimizing the chance of
behaviors associated with frustration, such as chair slamming. Also, adults will share with
Carlos a visually familiar arrangement of icons to help him express planned activities. These
antecedent modifications will gradually become extinct based on the observation of Carlos’s
behavior goals in his individualized plan.
Functional Communication Training (FCT) for Attention-Seeking
Carlos will be taught a replacement behavior to request attention appropriately without
engaging in disruptive actions. Adults will teach Carlos to raise his hand or use a simple
signal to indicate when he needs attention or support, reinforced immediately with verbal
acknowledgment or proximity from the teacher. Initially, reinforcement will be given
following both prompted and independent uses of this communication signal, but over time,
reinforcement will only be provided for independent responses as Carlos demonstrates
mastery of the skill.

Scheduled Attention Breaks

To reduce Carlos’s reliance on disruptive behaviors for attention-seeking, adults will
implement scheduled breaks throughout independent work periods. Carlos will receive a
brief, 2-minute attention break every 15 minutes to mitigate frustration and preemptively
 address his need for social interaction. As Carlos gains behavioral stability and reduces
disruptive behaviors, the frequency of scheduled breaks will be gradually reduced based on
his demonstrated ability to remain engaged without frequent attention.

Intervention Evaluation:
Data were collected to determine the effectiveness of the intervention package, consisting
of structured transition supports, functional communication training (FCT), and scheduled
attention breaks. Using a multiple baseline design across behaviors, data were analyzed to
assess whether this intervention package was responsible for reductions in Carlos’s target
behaviors of chair slamming and growling.
Evaluation Results

 Level: After implementing the intervention, there was a noticeable reduction in the average
level of both chair slamming and growling, suggesting the intervention's immediate positive
impact on Carlos’s behaviors.
 Trend: The trend in Carlos’s disruptive behaviors consistently decreased over the
intervention period, showing a downward trajectory that supports the intervention's
effectiveness in decreasing behavior frequency.
 Variability: Carlos’s responses initially varied, especially in the first week. However,
behaviors stabilized as the intervention continued, indicating adaptation to the supports
and a reduction in behavior spikes.
 Immediacy of Change: Immediacy of change was observed following the introduction of the
intervention, with a sharp decrease in disruptive behaviors during transitions and
independent tasks, demonstrating the intervention's effectiveness in a relatively short time
frame.
 Overlap within/across Phases: Minimal overlap was observed between baseline and
intervention phases, indicating a clear distinction between Carlos’s behaviors before and
after the intervention.

Functional Relationship: The data support a functional relationship between the

intervention package and the reduction in Carlos’s disruptive behaviors. The immediate
change, combined with the consistent trend, suggests that the intervention directly
impacted Carlos’s behavior patterns.
Implications: The results imply that interventions tailored to Carlos’s functional behavior
needs—such as predictable transitions and communication training—effectively reduce
disruptive behaviors and increase classroom engagement. This suggests a continued focus
on similar functional, adaptive strategies in future behavior planning for Carlos.

Training of Interventionists:
Stakeholders who will be responsible for the implementation of the intervention will be
trained to implement the intervention as intended. Initial training will include an outline
of training procedures and training criteria. For implementation on ongoing monitoring of
the accuracy of implementation, please refer to the Intervention Integrity section below.

III. Data-Based Monitoring and Decision-Making

Social Validity:
The social validity of the intervention package will be systematically and informally sought
from Carlos’s parents, teachers, and other relevant professionals by the BCBA. Systematic
opportunities for feedback will be structured through biweekly meetings, occurring every
two weeks. During these meetings, the BCBA will describe the intervention goals,
procedures, and outcomes and solicit input on their acceptability and effectiveness from all
stakeholders. Feedback and preferences will be used to make necessary adjustments to the
intervention, ensuring that it remains relevant and practical for Carlos’s daily environment.
Data Collection:
Data will be collected to monitor the effectiveness of the intervention package. The data
collection system will measure the frequency of Carlos’s chair slamming and growling
behaviors. Observers will document each occurrence during structured classroom
transitions and independent task times, which are the primary contexts for Carlos’s target
behaviors. Necessary materials for data collection include the data sheet and a timer to
monitor observation intervals.
Interobserver Agreement:
The reliability of the data to be collected will be determined by setting an interobservance
agreement (IOA). Observations: IOA will be assessed by using the total count method on a
weekly basis by the independent and trained observers. IOA will be calculated as follows: It
is the percentage that was computed using the formula of (Agreement Occurrences / Total
Occurrences) × 100%, thus implying that the higher the percentage, the higher the level of
agreement. IOA should be 85% or higher, any lower and extra training and rechecking of the
observers will be done for the passing of the criterion.
Procedural Fidelity:
Fidelity of the procedures will be measured in order to assess the overall distinctiveness of
the intervention package. Therefore, procedural fidelity will be determined directly from a
checklist on a biweekly basis by the BCBA. The checklist of procedural fidelity is presented in
Appendix 4. Procedural fidelity will be calculated as follows: The percentage using the
formula (Number of Steps Implemented Correctly / Total Number of Steps) × 100% with the
higher values representing higher levels of implementation accuracy. The planned level of
procedural fidelity is to stay at or above 90%, and any deviations from the set criterion will
require increased training and feedback.
Generalization Procedures:
In this context, generalization programming will successively expose Carlos to other
classroom placements and tasks in which the intervention strategies will also be
implemented to facilitate the generalization of gains across relevant situations. Carlos’s
teacher and classroom aide will help him transfer the learned behaviors in these different
settings.