TEACHER-CONDUCTED TRIAL-BASED FUNCTIONAL ANALYSES AS THE BASIS FOR INTERVENTION SARAH E. BLOOM,JOSEPH M. LAMBERT ,ELIZABETH DAYTON, AND ANDREW L. SAMAHA UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Previous studies have focused on whether a trial-based functional analysis (FA) yields the same outcomes as more traditional FAs, and whether interventions based on trial-based FAs can reduce socially maintained problem behavior. We included a full range of behavior functions and taught 3 teachers to conduct a trial-based FA with 3 boys with developmental and intellectual disabilities who engaged in problem behavior. Based on the results of the trial-based FAs, we developed and conducted 5 function-based interventions, using differential reinforcement of an alternative behavior and extinction in all but 1 case. In the remaining case, we used noncontingent reinforcement. All interventions led to reductions in problem behavior and increases in alternative behavior. Key words: functional analysis, function-based treatments, problem behavior, differential reinforcement, noncontingent reinforcement Problem behavior is estimated to occur in approximately 10% to 15% of individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (Emer- son et al., 2001). A number of negative outcomes may be expected for those individuals, including academic underachievement compared to indi- viduals of similar intellect (Hinshaw, 1992), increased likelihood of psychoactive medication (Jacobson & Ackerman, 1993), and restrictive interventions that include punishment (Lerman & Vorndran, 2002). Effective, reinforcement- based interventions for problem behavior require knowledge of the environmental determinants of that problem behavior. Once known, the reinforcer that had previously maintained prob- lem behavior can be arranged such that problem behavior no longer produces it (extinction; see Iwata, Pace, Kalsher, Cowdery, & Cataldo, 1990), it is provided noncontingently (see Kahng, Iwata, DeLeon, & Wallace, 2000), or it is provided via differential reinforcement contin- gencies arranged for the absence of problem behavior or for alternative behaviors (see Vollmer & Iwata, 1992, for review). Although the most rigorous approach to assessment of problem behavior is the functional analysis (FA; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994), recent research on the trial-based FA shows promise as an alternative when traditional FAs cannot be conducted. The primary difference between the traditional FA and the trial-based version is that FAs usually are session based instead of trial based. That is, traditional FAs usually consist of repeated series of sessions (5 to 15 min each). In each session, multiple instances of problem behavior may occur, and every instance results in a specific programmed consequence (i.e., the putative reinforcer). The consequences are briefly provid- ed and then the motivating operation for the putative reinforcer is re-presented, allowing another opportunity for problem behavior to occur. By contrast, the trial-based FA includes only a single opportunity for problem behavior to occur per trial segment. When problem behavior occurs, the programmed consequence is provided (during the test segment) and then the trial ends. Elizabeth Dayton is now at Melmark, Pennsylvania. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sarah E. Bloom, Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Utah State University, 2865 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84332 (e-mail: sarah. bloom@usu.edu). doi: 10.1002/jaba.21 JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2013, 46, 208–218 NUMBER 1(SPRING 2013) 208