Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38559604›Full record

ReviewPostepy psychiatrii neurologii2023

Functional analysis: what have we learned in 85 years?

Monika Suchowierska-Stephany

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Postepy psychiatrii neurologii, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Monika Suchowierska-StephanySWPS University, Warsaw, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3961-4184
Uniwersytet SWPS · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Even though the term "functional analysis" (FA) is prevalent in the current behavioral literature, the concept and process have roots in the early days of basic research in behavior analysis. Furthermore, the methodology developed in the field of FA has been one of the most significant advances in research on challenging behaviors over the past four decades. The current article reviews the history of the term "functional analysis" and research related to experimental FA. The aim is to summarize what the field of behavior analysis has learned about this powerful methodology. Views: FA is considered a gold standard of functional assessment. However, several arguments about limitations relating to methodological issues in FA and its ecological validity have been put forward. Some of these shortcomings include constraints on the time available for assessment, the risk posed by severe problem behavior, and the inability to exert tight control over environmental conditions. Conclusions: The literature on the subject clearly shows that refinements have been aimed not only at improving some of the methodological characteristics of FA but also at adapting the strategy for real-world application. Practical functional assessment (known as interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis [IISCA]) is a contemporary approach to assessing and treating problem behavior. Recent research on IISCA offers empirical support for the practical functional assessment and skill-based treatment model, confirming that it can obtain sustainable and socially meaningful reductions in problem behavior. Nevertheless, more research is needed to address procedural variations in, and the utility and social validity of, IISCA.

Indexed as

challenging behaviorexperimental functional analysisfunctional analysisfunctional assessmentinterview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA)

Identifiers

PMID38559604
PMCPMC10976622
OpenAlexW4392306520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.