This paper presents a functional behavior assessment and corresponding behavioral intervention plan (BIP) for a seven-year-old male student diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Following a single day of structured observation, three target behaviors were identified: hitting others, yelling, and going off task. For each behavior, the paper analyzes likely antecedents, functional consequences, and hypothesized causes, then recommends proactive strategies, reinforcement systems, and reactive measures. Interventions emphasize visual supports, simple verbal phrases, modeling, and token reinforcement systems. The paper acknowledges the limitations of a brief observation window and stresses that the functional assessment should remain an ongoing component of the overall intervention process.
The paper demonstrates applied functional behavior analysis by moving systematically from observation data to hypothesis formation to intervention design. The author links behavioral functions (e.g., attention-seeking, frustration) to specific proactive and reactive strategies, grounding recommendations in cited literature rather than presenting them as unsupported opinions.
The paper opens with a narrative case discussion organized around three target behaviors, each examined through the lens of setting, antecedents, and consequences. A brief transitional section addresses communication strategies that cut across all three behaviors. A short summary precedes the formal BIP document, which mirrors the narrative structure using a standardized format covering replacement behaviors, proactive strategies, reinforcers, reactive strategies, crisis planning, and monitoring. References are listed at the end in APA format.
The subject is a seven-year-old male student with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder currently enrolled in the second grade. Due to behavioral issues, a functional assessment of the subject's behavior was completed, followed by a behavioral intervention plan. Three target behaviors were identified for intervention following the functional assessment and will be discussed separately. The functional assessment was brief, covering one day of observation and recording. Ideally, a longer period of observation would produce a more reliable functional assessment (Vismara & Rogers, 2010); however, it was determined that a plan of action should be implemented immediately, with the functional assessment continuing on an ongoing basis.
1. Hitting others. The first target behavior is the subject's hitting of others. Over the observational period, the subject was observed striking others four times. Three of the four observations occurred in the afternoon (75%), and the other occurred first thing in the morning. One observation notes that the subject was alone at the time, which appears to be a recording error. The settings in which hitting occurred varied, highlighting the need for continued observations of this behavior. The consequence of this behavior was that the subject received attention. It is therefore suspected that the subject is prone to aggressive behaviors when tired, over-stimulated, or feeling neglected — though caution is warranted given the small sample size.
A reactive plan of remediation should include consequences that remove the attentional reward (Vismara & Rogers, 2010). Time-outs can be useful in this situation but need to be strictly and consistently applied (Houston-Wilson & Lieberman, 2003). Nonetheless, reinforcing positive behaviors should be the primary mode of intervention. Proactively, working with the subject to verbally express feelings to teachers — using short phrases or a picture book showing faces depicting emotions — and setting up a reinforcement system for verbally communicating feelings, expressing them through visual mediums, and not striking others would be beneficial (Hattier, Matson, Sipes, & Turygin, 2011). The use of gestures and modeling on the part of the teacher may also be useful. The most effective reinforcement may involve allowing the subject to play with a favorite toy for a few minutes.
2. Yelling. The subject was observed yelling on two occasions — both in the morning and both when alone — suggesting this behavior may reflect frustration and occur when the subject is tired or anxious. He received attention following one instance and was ignored following the other. One instance occurred in class and one on the playground. Again, given that only one day of observations was recorded, the sample size is small. However, it can be hypothesized that, like hitting, yelling may be functionally reinforced by gaining attention and may also serve as an outlet for loneliness or frustration.
Intervention here should be primarily proactive: discussing how to verbally communicate feelings to teachers and how to productively reduce stress, using as many visual aids and simple phrases as possible. Modeling proactive behaviors can also be of use. For reactive measures, ignoring minor instances is appropriate, while time-outs should be reserved for only the most disruptive episodes (Houston-Wilson & Lieberman, 2003).
3. Going off task. This behavior occurred three times — once in the morning and twice in the early afternoon. All three occasions occurred in a classroom setting following a request; nothing was done on two occasions, and a break was given on the third. Of the three target behaviors, this one is likely the most straightforward to address. It can be surmised that this behavior reflects confusion and poor sustained attention. Breaking tasks down into short sequential steps, providing breaks, and offering reinforcement for staying on task will help reduce this behavior. Modeling and having the subject mimic the teacher is also an effective strategy for encouraging task follow-through.
To facilitate communication with this student, the use of key code words or short phrases — such as "mad" or "lonely" — combined with visual stimuli can help the subject express himself more effectively. Short directions that incorporate visual, auditory, and tactile input will be beneficial. Reinforcement should be used frequently. Frequently rotating tasks and breaking down complex tasks into manageable components will also be extremely important (Vismara & Rogers, 2010).
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.