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.