1. Functional Analyses Figuring out the source of the problem, the problem, and the resolution of the problem

2. Functional Analyses  Has long been established in behavior analysis that one must understand the  Antecedents  Behavior  Consequences of any situation in order to alter the behavior  Hence Functional Analyses of behavior were created

3. Functional analyses  Initially developed by Brian Iwata  Investigates potential maintaining consequences for problem behavior  Initially for kids  Now many organisms (e.g., Farmer-Dougan, in press, for captive wild animals!).  Involves  Direct observation and repeated measurement  Across several situations that attempt to mimic possible maintaining situations

4. Functional Analysis  Must get baseline first: examine environment before begin testing  Assess validity by comparing rates of behavior across the different settings/conditions  Repeat until 1 or more settings found to elicit target behavior at highest and most steady rate

5. Four Settings  Alone: client in barren room (no obvious reinforcers)  See if behavior is self-reinforcing or self-maintaining  E.g., self stim behavior (excessive licking)  Attention:  Provide client with attention only when client exhibits behavior  E.g., child hits head, you run and get him to stop  Can look at attention vs. access to food or tangible

6. Four Settings  Demand:  client is asked to engage in contingent activity  Demands made on client to engage in behavior  E.g., doing math problems, obeying commands  See if behavior increases (to escape demands)  Play: Typically control procedure  Client allowed to play in room  No contingencies or demands  Attention given for any behavior

7. Let’s apply this to dogs  #1 reason dogs are returned to shelter:  behavioral problems!  About 26%  How can shelter/rescue workers develop assessment system that  Doesn’t involve prior owner  Doesn’t involve long and complicated process or questionnaires  Is quick, effective and efficient

8. Dorsey, et al., Functional Analysis with dogs  Recruited dogs who jumped on people  No aggression  Young adult dogs  No known health issues  Conducted both a  Questionnaire  Assessment phase

9. Dorsey et al.’s questionnaire

10. Assessment  Each of 4 conditions presented for 5 min (2 min ITI)  Play, ignore, tangible, demand, attention  All 5 presentations = 1 cycle; no more than 2 cycles/day  Continued with cycles until problem area was identified

11. Assessment Conditions  Began with walking in door/greeting (S D )  Ignore:  entered room but  gave no attention or eye contact to dog  Attention:  Entered room;  only gave attention when dog jumped up;  petted, hugged dog for 20 sec after each jump  Play: dog given squeaky toy  Dog allowed to play with toy  Attention given for 5 of every 20 seconds (noncontingent)

12. Assessment Conditions  Demand  entered room  Gave commands that were within the dogs’ behavioral repertoire  Food require for compliance with command  Repeated commands until complied  Tangible  Entered room;  Experimenter held high-demand toy  Tried to elicit jumping by holding toy up high

13. Treatment Phase  Once identified sustaining variable, used this as part of treatment  Treatment based on maintaining variable of the behavior, not on the function of the behavior  Why the dog jumped up  Not that the dog hurt you or pushed you over

14. Treatment Types  Attention:  Gave no attention for 20 sec  If dog did not jump up for 20 sec, lots of attention  If dog did jump up; timer restarted  Demand:  If dog jumped up during command, was ignored  Command was carried through anyway  Attention ONLY for compliance  Tangible  No toy unless no jumping for 20 sec  Again, timer restarted if jumped

15. Results  Note that used nonparmetric stats  Used when have small N or lopsided data  Looked to see what drove jumping!  Noted that the assessment matched survey

16. Results of treatment:  Was successful!

17. Okay, so…..  Functional analysis works  But, hard for general shelter workers to use  Not want to conduct these ‘phases’ or cycles  Not want to have to do data analysis  Alternative? A canned method  Emily

18. Okay, so…..  Alternative? A canned method  Dr. Emily Weiss, director of companion animal behavior at ASPCA  Developed the Meet Your Match program  Both a functional analysis AND a behavioral assessment program  Two components  SAFER  Canine-ality

19. The MYM SAFER  Examines behavior in several domains  Look  (touch) sensitivity  Tag (play)  Squeeze (again touch sensitivity)  Food behavior (in dish)  Toy behavior (reinforcer assessment)  Dog to dog behavior

20. The MYM Canine-ality  Examines behavior across several domains:  Left alone  Greeting  Crate  Play  Food motivation  Manners  Sum score to get activity level  Then assess motivation  Social (all people)  Independent (not attached to people)  One person dog

21. Is the Canine-ality a functional assessment?  Yes  Look at domains:  Alone/ignore  Attention  Demand  Play  Tangible and food  Is a quick and dirty way to conduct a FA

25. Problems with the Canine-ality?  Should you use when the dog first arrives at shelter or class? Why or why not?  Could environment alter the results?  Could who gives the assessment alter the results?  Need to use with care and understand its limits  For shelters/rescues ALSO use the adopter survey  Adopter survey looks at what kind of activity level/expectations the family might have.  MYM = meet your match  Attempt to match right dog to right family  Works very well when used appropriately!