What Is a Functional Analysis — and Why Does It Matter Here?

Core ABA Concept

A functional analysis (FA) is an experimental method for identifying the variables that maintain a problem behavior. Unlike indirect assessments (interviews, rating scales) or descriptive assessments (ABC observations), an FA directly manipulates antecedent conditions and consequences to test hypotheses about why a behavior occurs. It produces the most conclusive evidence of function available in behavioral assessment.

Assignment 3 asks you to apply this methodology to a specific case. Shaniqua is a 6-year-old in first grade. She destroys school property — ripping papers, writing on furniture, breaking supplies. Your job is to explain how you would conduct an FA on that behavior, create hypothetical data from 15 sessions across 5 conditions, and then use that data to argue what function the behavior serves.

This is a three-part task. Most students trip up on one of three things: not being specific enough about what the MO and consequence look like in each condition, making hypothetical data that doesn’t actually support a clear function, or writing a vague function conclusion that doesn’t connect back to the data. This guide addresses all three.

📖

Required Reading for This Assignment

The assignment specifically references Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2020), Chapter 27, particularly Table 27.1. That table outlines the standard FA conditions, antecedent arrangements, and consequence delivery for each condition. Your answers need to align with that framework — not just general ABA knowledge. If your course also assigned the original Iwata et al. (1982/1994) analog FA paper, cite it too. It’s the foundational study this whole methodology is built on.

5
FA test conditions you need to explain for this assignment
15
total sessions (3 per condition) — all hypothetical data
10
minutes per session — your data reflects occurrences per 10-min block
100
points possible — rubric weights condition explanations heavily (50 pts total)

Understanding the Scenario Before You Write Anything

Before diving into conditions, spend a minute understanding who Shaniqua is and what her target behavior looks like. This matters for the condition setup — your MOs and consequences need to be realistic for a 6-year-old in a first-grade classroom, not generic or abstract.

The target response class is “destroying school property” and it’s already operationally defined for you: (1) ripping papers like worksheets or textbook pages, (2) writing on furniture like desks or tables, and (3) breaking school supplies like pencils or crayons. That’s your operational definition — use it. Don’t redefine it. When you describe consequences, they should be tied to these specific behaviors.

The behavior analyst has already done indirect and descriptive assessments. The FA is the next step — the experimental one. You’re designing it to pinpoint the primary function. Keep that framing in your paper. You’re not guessing; you’re systematically testing competing hypotheses.

The goal of a functional analysis isn’t to prove your hypothesis. It’s to test it. Design each condition to isolate one possible maintaining variable — and let the data tell you which one is actually driving the behavior.

— Applied Behavior Analysis: Principles and Practice, Cooper et al. (2020)
⚠️

Write in Your Own Words — This Is Explicitly Required

The assignment instructions say: “Be sure to write your answers in your own words to receive full credit.” That means you cannot copy Table 27.1 from Cooper et al. verbatim. You can reference it and cite it, but your explanation of each condition needs to be original — applied to Shaniqua’s specific behavior in a first-grade classroom setting.


The 5 FA Conditions — What Each One Tests

Here’s the core of Part 1. Each condition is designed to test a different hypothesis about what’s maintaining the property destruction. You’re not testing all conditions simultaneously — you run them one at a time, alternating in a multielement design.

Think of each condition as a controlled experiment. You change the environment in a specific way. If the behavior goes up, that suggests this condition contains the relevant maintaining variable. If behavior stays low, that condition probably isn’t the function.

01

Alone Condition

Function Being Tested:

Automatic reinforcement — behavior maintained by sensory consequences, not social consequences. No one needs to do anything for the behavior to be reinforced.

What You’re Looking For:

If property destruction happens even when Shaniqua is completely alone — no teacher, no peers, no one to react — then the behavior likely produces its own reinforcement (sensory stimulation from tearing paper, breaking a crayon, etc.).

02

Attention Condition

Function Being Tested:

Social positive reinforcement — specifically, attention from adults or peers contingent on the behavior.

What You’re Looking For:

If Shaniqua tears up a worksheet and the teacher immediately goes to her (“Shaniqua, stop that!”), and if behavior is high in this condition, attention is likely the maintaining reinforcer. Even reprimands count as attention.

03

Demand/Escape Condition

Function Being Tested:

Social negative reinforcement — behavior maintained by escape or avoidance of aversive tasks or demands.

What You’re Looking For:

If Shaniqua destroys her worksheet and the teacher removes the task or gives her a break, and if behavior rates are elevated in this condition, the function is likely escape. This is the most common function for academic settings.

04

Tangible Condition

Function Being Tested:

Social positive reinforcement via access to preferred items or activities — contingent on the behavior.

What You’re Looking For:

If Shaniqua breaks a crayon and is immediately given access to a preferred toy, game, or activity, and if behavior is high in this condition, the function may be tangible access. Less common in school settings but important to test.

05

Play/Control Condition (Baseline)

Function Being Tested:

This isn’t testing a function — it’s your baseline. The child has free access to attention, preferred items, and no demands are placed. Problem behavior produces no differential consequences.

What You’re Looking For:

Low rates of property destruction. If behavior is high even in the control condition, that’s a red flag suggesting automatic reinforcement OR that your control condition isn’t set up properly. The control condition gives you a comparison point for all the others.

Quick Sanity Check on Your Condition Setup

  • Each condition should have a clearly different antecedent arrangement and a clearly different consequence for the target behavior
  • The antecedent sets up the MO — it makes a specific type of reinforcement more or less valuable
  • The consequence is delivered contingent on property destruction occurring
  • In the control condition, the consequence for property destruction is the same as without it — no differential reinforcement

How to Describe MOs and Consequences for Each Condition

Part 1 of the assignment asks you to explain the antecedent conditions (motivating operations) and the consequences for the problem behavior in each of the 5 conditions. This is where most students lose points — they describe the conditions too generally without connecting them to Shaniqua’s specific behavior and classroom context.

Here’s the structure you want for each condition: what the environment looks like before the behavior (the antecedent setup, which includes the MO), and what happens immediately after the behavior occurs (the consequence). Be specific. “Teacher gives attention” is weaker than “the teacher immediately walks over to Shaniqua, makes eye contact, and says ‘Shaniqua, we don’t do that in class’ while removing the torn paper.” Same concept, but the second one shows you understand exactly what contingent attention looks like for a 6-year-old.

Condition Antecedent / MO Setup Consequence for Property Destruction Why This Tests That Function
Alone Shaniqua is in the room with no adults or peers present. No demands, no interaction. Preferred and non-preferred items available. Attention has been withheld — she hasn’t had social contact, making automatic reinforcement the only available source. No social consequence. The behavior produces only its own sensory output. No one enters the room or reacts. If automatic reinforcement maintains the behavior, it will occur without any social consequence being delivered. Elevated rates here = automatic function.
Attention Shaniqua has been without adult attention for a period before the session (attention deprivation = MO that increases the value of attention). Teacher is present but engaged elsewhere — reading, at desk — not attending to Shaniqua. Contingent on property destruction, the teacher immediately provides attention — verbal reprimand, physical proximity, concern (“Are you okay? Why did you do that?”). Attention is then withdrawn again until next occurrence. Elevated rates under these conditions suggest the behavior is being maintained by contingent social attention, even if that attention is negative.
Demand/Escape Non-preferred academic tasks are presented continuously — worksheets, writing assignments, reading activities. Demands represent the establishing operation (EO) that increases the value of escape. Task difficulty is calibrated to be challenging but not impossible. Contingent on property destruction, the teacher removes the task and gives Shaniqua a brief break from demands (30–60 seconds). Then task is re-presented. If escape is the function, rates will be highest in this condition because destroying the worksheet reliably removes the aversive demand.
Tangible A preferred item (toy, game, tablet) is visible but out of Shaniqua’s reach. It has been briefly taken away just before the session begins (establishing access deprivation as the MO that increases value of the tangible). Contingent on property destruction, the preferred item is provided for 30 seconds, then removed until the next occurrence of the behavior. Elevated rates here suggest Shaniqua is destroying property to gain access to preferred items — tangible positive reinforcement.
Play/Control Shaniqua has continuous, non-contingent access to preferred items and adult attention. No demands are placed. The environment is enriched. This abolishes the MO for all tested functions simultaneously. No differential consequence. Property destruction, if it occurs, produces no change in access to attention, tangibles, or demands. Should produce the lowest rates of behavior. If it doesn’t, question your control condition setup or consider automatic reinforcement as a primary function.
💡

The Language the Rubric Is Looking For

The rubric gives full credit for being “completely accurate in content and clearly articulated.” That means your descriptions need to use proper ABA terminology — MO, EO, abolishing operation, contingent consequence, non-contingent reinforcement — while also being specific to Shaniqua’s case. Don’t describe generic FA conditions. Describe FA conditions for a 6-year-old who tears worksheets in a first-grade classroom.


How to Make Up Hypothetical Data That Actually Works

You’re running each of the 5 conditions 3 times — 15 sessions total, each 10 minutes. You’re recording the number of occurrences of property destruction (ripping, writing on furniture, breaking supplies) per session.

The key word is hypothetical. You’re making this up. But it needs to look like real FA data — meaning one condition should clearly stand out from the others, and that elevated condition should be consistent across all 3 sessions. Here’s how to make data that tells a clean story.

01

Pick Your Function First

Decide which function you want your data to support before you write any numbers. This is a design decision, not a data decision. Escape is the most common function for problem behaviors in school settings, and it’s the most defensible choice for a first-grader during academic tasks. Attention is also very reasonable. Pick one. Your data then needs to reflect it clearly.

Don’t try to show a “mixed function” unless you’re very confident explaining that in Part 3. Keep it clean for this assignment.

02

Make One Condition Consistently High

The condition matching your chosen function should show clearly elevated and consistent rates across all 3 sessions. For a 10-minute session, something in the range of 5–12 occurrences per session is realistic for moderate-to-severe property destruction in a child already referred for behavioral services. Use variation — not the same number three times.

Example for escape function: Session 1 = 8, Session 2 = 10, Session 3 = 9. That looks real. Session 1 = 9, Session 2 = 9, Session 3 = 9 looks fabricated.

03

Keep the Other 4 Conditions Low

Your control condition should be near zero — 0, 1, maybe 2 occurrences per session. The non-matching test conditions should also be low, but not necessarily identical to the control. A little variation is realistic. The point is that they shouldn’t come close to the elevated condition.

Alone and Attention conditions at 0–3 occurrences per session work fine if your function is Escape. The contrast is what tells the story.

04

Order Your Sessions Thoughtfully

Sessions 1–15 represent all 15 runs in whatever order you choose to present them. A multielement design typically alternates conditions — so you might run Alone (Session 1), Attention (Session 2), Demand (Session 3), Tangible (Session 4), Control (Session 5), then repeat. That interleaving makes your graph more interpretable. Think about it before you assign numbers to sessions.

Example Hypothetical Data Structure (Escape Function)
Test Condition Session 1 (Obs. 1) Session 2 (Obs. 2) Session 3 (Obs. 3)
Alone 1 0 2
Attention 2 3 1
Demand/Escape 8 10 9
Tangible 1 2 1
Play/Control 0 1 0
⚠️ This is a structural example only. Do not copy these exact numbers — create your own and choose your own function.
🧠

What Makes Data “Hypothetical” vs. “Random”

Hypothetical data is internally consistent — it reflects a plausible pattern that a real FA might produce. Random data is just numbers that don’t tell any story. If a grader looks at your data and can’t identify the function without reading your Part 3 answer, your data isn’t doing its job. The data should speak for itself. Part 3 is where you explain what the data says — but the data needs to be saying something first.


Graph vs. Table: Which One Should You Use?

The assignment gives you a choice. A graph is worth 15 points and is graded on whether it has proper x/y-axis labels, a title, and a legend. A table is the fallback option — same data, different format. The rubric applies the same point values to both.

Here’s the honest take: a graph communicates the pattern of your data far more powerfully than a table. If you’ve designed your hypothetical data so one condition is clearly elevated, that visual contrast hits immediately in a line graph. In a table, a reader has to work harder to see the same pattern. If you can make a graph in Excel, Google Sheets, or even Word’s chart function — do it.

If You’re Going With a Graph

  • X-axis: Sessions, numbered 1–15. Label it “Sessions.”
  • Y-axis: Number of occurrences of property destruction per 10-minute session. Label it “Number of Occurrences of Property Destruction” or “Frequency of Property Destruction.”
  • Title: The assignment specifies this — use “Functional Analysis of Destroying School Property.”
  • Legend: Each of the 5 conditions needs its own line/color with a label in the legend. Match the sample graph format from the assignment.
  • Plot each condition’s 3 data points at the sessions they were run. Connect data points within the same condition only.

If You’re Going With a Table

  • First column: Test Condition name (Alone, Attention, Demand, Tangible, Play/Control)
  • Columns 2–4: Observation 1, Observation 2, Observation 3 — number of occurrences in each 10-minute session
  • APA format for the table: include a table number, a title above the table, and a note below if needed
  • Make sure the data pattern is still readable — the function should be evident from the numbers
💡

A Quick Way to Make the Graph in Excel

Enter your 15 session numbers across Row 1 (columns B–P). Enter each condition’s occurrences in its own row. Select all cells and insert a Line Chart with Markers. Then: right-click → Select Data to rename each series to the condition name. Add axis titles under Chart Design → Add Chart Element. Paste it into your Word document. Done.


How to Identify and Explain the Function of the Behavior

Part 3 asks two things: WHAT is the function, and WHY do you think so. Both are graded. A one-line answer that says “the function is escape” with no explanation is not going to get full marks. You need to connect your data to your conclusion.

There are four possible functions an FA can reveal. Each has a different implication for intervention — which is exactly why identifying it correctly matters in applied practice, not just on an exam.

🏃

Negative Reinforcement — Escape/Avoidance

The Demand condition is elevated. Property destruction is maintained because it successfully removes or postpones aversive academic tasks. In a first-grade classroom context, this is often the most likely function for a child struggling academically or who finds schoolwork aversive for any reason.

👀

Social Positive Reinforcement — Attention

The Attention condition is elevated. The behavior produces social contact — teacher reprimands, peer reactions, adult proximity — and that contact is reinforcing enough to maintain property destruction. Remember: even negative attention is still attention.

🔄

Automatic Reinforcement

The Alone condition is elevated. The behavior produces its own sensory reinforcement — the sound of tearing paper, the tactile sensation of breaking a crayon, the visual stimulation of marks on a desk. No social consequence is required.

🎯

Social Positive Reinforcement — Tangible

The Tangible condition is elevated. The behavior is a reliable way to gain access to preferred items or activities. Less common in school settings but relevant when a child is consistently denied access to preferred things and has learned that disruptive behavior produces access.

How to Write Your Part 3 Explanation

Structure it simply. State the function first. Then explain the evidence: which condition was elevated, what the occurrences looked like across all 3 sessions, and how those rates compare to the control and other test conditions. Then connect it back to the MO and consequence you described in Part 1 — show that it’s logically consistent.

Template Structure for the Function Explanation
State the Function
Name the specific function clearly. Example: “Based on the hypothetical FA data, the primary function of Shaniqua’s property destruction appears to be negative reinforcement — specifically, escape from academic demands.” Don’t be vague. Name the reinforcement type (positive or negative) and the specific reinforcer.
Point to the Data
Reference the actual numbers. Example: “The Demand/Escape condition produced the highest and most consistent rates of property destruction across all three sessions (8, 10, and 9 occurrences respectively), compared to the Play/Control condition (0, 1, 0) and all other test conditions (all below 4 occurrences per session).” Specific numbers show you actually analyzed your data.
Connect to the Mechanism
Explain the behavioral mechanism. Example: “This pattern is consistent with negative reinforcement — property destruction was reliably followed by removal of the academic task (the consequence), and task deprivation served as the motivating operation that increased the value of escape prior to each session.” This shows conceptual understanding, not just data reading.
Rule Out Alternatives
Briefly note why the other conditions don’t support alternative functions. Example: “Low rates in the Alone condition suggest automatic reinforcement is not the primary function, and low rates in the Attention condition indicate that contingent social attention is not currently maintaining this behavior.” This strengthens your argument.

What Full-Credit Answers Have in Common

  • They name the function with the correct ABA terminology (positive vs. negative reinforcement, specific reinforcer type)
  • They reference specific session data — not just “the demand condition was high” but actual numbers
  • They explain the MO-behavior-consequence mechanism, not just describe what happened
  • They acknowledge what the data rules out, not just what it supports
  • They use language from Cooper et al. (2020) where appropriate and cite it

APA Formatting and Submission Requirements You Can’t Miss

The assignment is explicit: Word Document, Times New Roman 12, APA format, with an appropriate heading and references. These aren’t suggestions — they’re rubric items under the “Overall writing (clarity, APA style formatting)” category worth 10 points.

01

Document Setup

Times New Roman, 12-point, double-spaced throughout. 1-inch margins on all sides. This is standard APA 7th edition formatting. Your title page should include the paper title, your name, institution, course number (ABA503), instructor name, and date.

02

Headings and Organization

Use APA Level 1 headings (centered, bold) for your three main sections: something like “Functional Analysis Conditions,” “Hypothetical Data,” and “Function Identification.” Within Part 1, you might use Level 2 headings (left-aligned, bold) for each of the 5 conditions — “Alone Condition,” “Attention Condition,” and so on. This makes it easy for the grader to find each section and award points.

03

References You Should Include

At minimum: Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson. If you cite the original Iwata et al. analog FA study, include that too: Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197–209. (Originally published 1982.) Format them in APA 7th edition — hanging indent, double-spaced.

04

Graph or Table Formatting in APA

If you use a graph: include a Figure number (“Figure 1”), a brief title below the figure in italics, and a note if the legend needs explanation. If you use a table: include a Table number (“Table 1”), a title above the table in italics (not bold, not in title case for the note — check APA 7th), and a note below. Either way, embed it in the document body after it’s first referenced in text — don’t dump it in an appendix unless the assignment requires it.

⚠️

The APA Mistake Most Students Make on This Assignment

In-text citations. Every time you describe a condition using language or concepts from Cooper et al. (2020), cite it. “According to Cooper et al. (2020), the demand condition involves…” is how you show you’re working from the text, not just from memory. Describing all 5 conditions without a single citation will raise questions about academic integrity, even if the content is accurate. Cite the text. Every condition explanation should have at least one reference to the source material you used.


Need Help Putting It All Together?

Our team includes Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) and ABA graduate students who know this material from the inside. We can help you draft, review, or structure your ABA503 Assignment 3 from scratch.

Get Professional Help Now →

FAQs: ABA503 Assignment 3 — Functional Analysis

What are the 5 FA test conditions I need to explain?
The five standard conditions used in analog functional analyses are: (1) Alone — tests automatic reinforcement; (2) Attention — tests social positive reinforcement via contingent adult or peer attention; (3) Demand/Escape — tests social negative reinforcement via escape from aversive tasks; (4) Tangible — tests social positive reinforcement via access to preferred items; and (5) Play/Control — the baseline condition with enriched environment and no demands, where low rates of behavior are expected. These correspond to Table 27.1 in Cooper et al. (2020), which is explicitly referenced in the assignment instructions.
What is a motivating operation (MO) and how do I apply it to each condition?
A motivating operation (MO) is an environmental variable that temporarily changes the reinforcing value of a consequence AND the frequency of behavior that has historically produced that consequence. In each FA condition, you set up the antecedent environment to establish the relevant MO: Attention condition — withhold attention before the session to increase its value (establishing operation); Demand condition — present non-preferred tasks continuously to make escape more valuable; Tangible condition — briefly remove access to a preferred item to increase its value; Alone condition — no specific social MO; tests behavior maintained independent of social consequences; Control — provides non-contingent access to all potential reinforcers, abolishing the MO for all other conditions. For each condition in your paper, explicitly name what the MO is and how you’ve arranged the antecedent environment to establish it. That’s what the rubric is grading.
How many occurrences should I put in my hypothetical data?
There’s no required number — it’s hypothetical, so you have latitude. The key is that your data needs to show a clear pattern. The condition matching your chosen function should have consistently higher rates (something in the range of 5–12 occurrences per 10-minute session is realistic for a referred child with moderate property destruction). All other conditions — especially the control — should be much lower, ideally 0–3 per session. The contrast needs to be obvious enough that anyone reading your data can identify the function without reading your Part 3 answer. Add natural variation between the 3 sessions of each condition — identical numbers across all 3 sessions of a condition look fabricated.
Should I choose a graph or a table for presenting my data?
Both are accepted and graded on the same 15-point scale. A graph is the preferred format in ABA practice because it makes the data pattern immediately visible — you can see which condition is elevated at a glance. It requires x/y-axis labels, a title (“Functional Analysis of Destroying School Property”), and a legend for all 5 conditions. A table is simpler to produce and still earns full marks if the columns are correctly labeled (Condition, Session 1, Session 2, Session 3) and formatted in APA style. If you have access to Excel or Google Sheets, a line graph with markers is worth the extra ten minutes it takes. The visual contrast makes your Part 3 argument stronger too.
Can I say the function is escape for Shaniqua’s property destruction?
Yes — and it’s a well-defensible choice. In school settings, problem behavior in children during academic tasks is frequently maintained by escape from demands. A 6-year-old destroying worksheets, breaking crayons, and writing on desks during classroom activities fits the escape hypothesis well. That said, attention is also very plausible — property destruction is highly conspicuous behavior that reliably draws teacher attention. Either function is academically defensible as long as your hypothetical data supports it and your Part 3 explanation connects the data to the mechanism. What you can’t do is claim a function that your data contradicts.
What external sources should I cite in this assignment?
The assignment explicitly references Cooper, Heron, and Heward (2020) Chapter 27 — that’s your primary source. You should also be familiar with the original Iwata et al. (1982/1994) analog FA study published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, which established the methodology this assignment is based on. For external verification of FA methodology, the Iwata et al. (1994) republication is freely available via PubMed/PMC — a peer-reviewed, primary-source reference you can cite with confidence. Your reference list should include Cooper et al. (2020) at minimum, and the Iwata et al. paper if you describe the history or methodology of analog FAs.

Put It Together: What This Assignment Is Actually Grading

The rubric is grading three things: whether you understand each FA condition well enough to describe it accurately and specifically (50 pts), whether your hypothetical data is coherent and interpretable (10 pts plus the 15 pts for the graph/table), and whether you can connect data to a function conclusion with a clear rationale (15 pts). The remaining 10 pts are APA writing quality.

Most of the points live in Part 1. Get specific. Don’t describe “the demand condition” in the abstract — describe what the demand condition looks like for Shaniqua, in a first-grade classroom, with property destruction as the target behavior. That specificity is the difference between a 3 and a 10 on each condition.

For your data: pick one function, make the relevant condition clearly elevated, keep everything else low. Don’t overthink it. For Part 3: name the function with precise ABA language, reference your actual numbers, explain the mechanism, and rule out alternatives briefly.

If you want expert support writing, reviewing, or formatting this assignment — including proper APA citations and a graph that meets the rubric requirements — the team at Smart Academic Writing provides assignment help, editing and proofreading, and online tutoring across ABA and behavior analysis coursework.