Magidson Et Al. Reaction Paper

Reaction Paper #5

Magidson et al. (2014)’s review of Functional Analysis identified the underlying theoretical framework behind the behavioral technique, and also presented a well-defined step-by-step guide towards implementation. The review highlighted the need for a clinically favorable approach towards implementation as a result of many differences in clinician’s methods and overall understanding of functional analysis. This step-by-step process involved identifying problem behavior, triggers, thoughts, feelings, positive consequences of problem behavior, negative consequences of problem behavior, alternative behavior, positive consequences of alternative behavior, and negative consequences of alternative behavior. These steps were established to expand the Functional Analysis framework as well as allow for additional data to be contextualized that underlie and/or maintain problem behavior. Additionally, Magidson et al (2014) presented a hypothetical case study using a 34-year old Caucasian male who was noted as dealing with depression, tobacco and alcohol use, and functional impairment at work and home. The goal of this case study was to accentuate the usage of the Functional Analysis approach. Together, the step-by-step explanation and case study emphasize the potential for a more accurate diagnostic assessment and access to quick treatment planning across multiple theoretical perspectives.

        There are numerous links between Magidson et al. (2014)’s article and the material covered in lecture in the previous week. First, last Tuesday and Thursday’s lectures were dedicated to highlight major points presented in Magidson et al. (2014) and go into deeper detail through class discussion to heighten understanding of functional analysis. One link in particular, specifically the latter used ABC model is important in understanding the current framework for functional analysis. The ABC framework includes Antecedent – Behavior – Consequence. Perhaps more important, however, are the links between the articles discussion of antecedents and class material, which are covered largely in the third step of Magidson et al. (2014)’s step-by-step Functional Analysis protocol, specifically triggers. For example, once the behavioral problem is identified, the triggers help describe the behaviors and the intensity of such problems. These triggers, as discussed in class, point to specific peoples, places, and things (including time). Magidson et al. (2014)’s does a thorough job discussing the differences between distal, recent, and proximal triggers. The differences between the three triggers cannot be undervalued. As discussed in class as well as in Magidson et al. (2014) proximal triggers holds more attention in terms of clinical diagnosis. Highlighting these “most recent” triggers often fails to speak to the entire problem that triggers present in the diagnosis and treatment of behavioral problems. Another link between class discussion and the case study in Magidson et al.(2014) was the examination of both positive and negative consequences. In class we discussed the criteria by which consequences were evaluated including magnitude, duration, immediacy, and certainty. In the case study Mr.Y portrays the positive consequences of drinking and smoking cigarettes. Specifically, Mr.Y feels relieved after using alcohol or tobacco, he looks forward to such behaviors after a long day, and it provides a distraction from his household issues. These examples highlight our understanding that low magnitude, low duration, high levels of immediate satisfaction, and obvious benefits often characterize positive consequences. This example serves to show that consequences are an important and necessary diagnostic criteria which serves to support Functional Analysis in clinical settings.