Show simple item record

dc.contributor Miguel, Caio en
dc.contributor Wallace, Michele, 1968- en
dc.contributor.advisor Penrod, Becky en
dc.contributor.author Kohlman, Sarah A. en
dc.date.accessioned 2013-09-13T16:45:46Z en
dc.date.available 2013-09-13T16:45:46Z en
dc.date.issued 2013-09-13 en
dc.date.submitted 2013-07-29 en
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10211.9/2252 en
dc.description Thesis (M.A., Psychology (Applied Behavior Analysis))--California State University, Sacramento, 2013. en
dc.description.abstract In this study, the effectiveness of two different trial-based functional analysis methodologies were compared in a center-based setting. Three participants referred for problem behavior were exposed to both a Natural Trial-Based Functional Analysis and a Contrived Trial-Based Functional Analysis throughout their day. Results of these analyses were compared to each other and then to a Standard Functional Analysis. Correspondence was observed for all three participants. Further, an analysis of the duration of time it took to complete the Natural Analysis versus the Contrived Analysis indicated that the Contrived Trial-Based Functional Analysis might be both a more efficient and acceptable method to determine the function of problem behavior in natural settings. en
dc.description.sponsorship Psychology (Applied Behavior Analysis) en
dc.language.iso en_US en
dc.subject Functional analysis en
dc.subject Trial-based functional analysis en
dc.subject Autism en
dc.title An evaluation of trial-based functional analyses en
dc.type Thesis en

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace

My Account

RSS Feeds