Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 15, 2026
Evaluating Flight Performance and Eye Movement Patterns Using Virtual Reality Flight Simulator
Published on: May 19, 2023
A Pilot Evaluation of Expert and Novice Use of the Functional Analysis Risk Assessment Decision Tool
Ali C Schroeder1, Stephanie M Peterson1, Mashiath Binti Mahabub1
1Department of Psychology, Western Michigan University, 903 W. Michigan Avenue, Mail Stop #5439, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5439 USA.
None:
Risk assessment and evaluation before behavioral assessment and intervention is required by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board® (BACB®) Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (BACB, 2020). Methods to do so and potential factors to consider are not readily available. Deochand et al. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13, 978-990, (2020) developed the Functional Analysis Risk Assessment Decision Tool (FARADT) to aid behavior analysts in ethical decision-making regarding whether to conduct a functional analysis. An empirical evaluation of whether use of the FARADT impacts novice users' ratings of risk has not yet been conducted. The present study served as a pilot evaluation of expert and novice behavior analysts' ratings of risk with and without access to the FARADT when given scenarios in which a functional analysis was being considered. Results indicated that for our participants, FARADT decreased variability of risk ratings for novices and produced ratings of risk that more closely matched the intended risk level of the vignette for both experts and novices. Results provided preliminary evidence that decision-making tools may be helpful to both novice and expert behavior analysts.In order to be in compliance with the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (Behavior Analyst Certification Board® [BACB®], 2020), it is important that behavior analysts are evaluating risks associated with functional analyses prior to beginning assessment.The FARADT is a tool that may be helpful to both expert and novice behavior analysts as they evaluate the risks inherent in functional analyses.There is limited empirical research on the utility and effectiveness of behavior-analytic decision-making tools.Our findings suggest experts engage in complex covert verbal behavior when evaluating risk.More research is needed on the decision-making processes experts utilize when analyzing complex and nuanced contexts of assessment and treatment.
Supplementary Information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40617-024-01006-z.
Related Concept Videos
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:09Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...
01:14Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
02:01Factorial Design
01:14SBAR II: Application of SBAR
SBAR Report from a Nurse to a Health Care Provider
S: "Hello, Dr. Smith. This is Jane, RN, from the Med Surg unit. I am calling to tell you about Ms. White in Room 210, who is experiencing increased pain and redness at her incision site. Her recent...