Context Exploration Stations

Description: Participants rotate through four interactive stations, each dedicated to analyzing a distinct type of environmental factor influencing the target behavior. At each station, small groups respond to focused prompts using provided materials. Rotate every 7–8 minutes so all groups visit each station.

Duration: 25 minutes total (4 stations × ~6 minutes analysis + ~1 minute transition)

Rotation Instructions:

• Divide participants into four groups and assign each to a different station.
• At the facilitator’s signal (every 7–8 minutes), rotate clockwise to the next station.
• Record observations directly on the flip‐chart sheets or digital templates at each station.

Station 1: Antecedents

Focus: Identify immediate triggers that directly precede the problem behavior.

Prompts:

• What specific events, instructions, or stimuli occurred just before the behavior?
• Who was present, and what was that person doing or saying?
• Where and when did the behavior most often occur?

Materials:

• Case study scenario handout
• Flip‐chart paper & markers
• Sticky dots for voting on key antecedents

Station 2: Setting Events

Focus: Explore broader contextual factors that alter the individual’s responsiveness to antecedents.

Prompts:

• What recent events (e.g., poor sleep, schedule changes, medical issues) might have influenced behavior intensity or likelihood?
• Are there environmental conditions (noise level, staffing changes) that set the stage for the behavior?
• How might these factors interact with daily routines?

Materials:

• Case history excerpts
• Flip‐chart or butcher paper
• Colored markers to distinguish setting events types

Station 3: Consequences

Focus: Analyze what happens immediately after the behavior and how it may reinforce or reduce future occurrences.

Prompts:

• What adult or peer responses follow the behavior (attention, redirection, reprimands)?
• Does the behavior result in escape from tasks or access to preferred items?
• Are there sensory outcomes (noise reduction, physical relief) maintaining the behavior?

Materials:

• Behavior‐event timeline chart
• Flip‐chart paper & markers
• Index cards labeled “Attention,” “Escape,” “Tangible,” “Sensory” for sorting consequences

Station 4: Cross-Factor Connections

Focus: Synthesize findings across antecedents, setting events, and consequences to see patterns and interactions.

Prompts:

• Which combinations of antecedents and setting events most reliably lead to the behavior?
• What consequences maintain the behavior under those specific conditions?
• Where could an intervention best interrupt the cycle (before the trigger, by altering context, or by modifying consequences)?

Materials:

• Environmental Influences Map printouts
• Large Venn diagram template showing Antecedents ∩ Setting Events ∩ Consequences
• Sticky notes & pens for mapping connections

After completing all stations, participants carry forward their collected notes to the Hypothesis Development phase, synthesizing insights into a precise FBA hypothesis.

Hypothesis Peer Review Discussion Guide

Purpose

Provide structured, collaborative feedback to strengthen each team’s FBA hypothesis by focusing on clarity, completeness, and functional alignment.

Instructions

1. Pair up and exchange your group’s drafted FBA hypothesis document.
2. Take 3–4 minutes to read your partner’s hypothesis silently, referring to your Environmental Influences Map and the Case Analysis Scoring Guide.
3. Use the prompts below to guide your discussion and capture feedback.

Review Prompts

1. Clarity and Specificity

• Is the antecedent described in observable, measurable terms?
• Is the behavior defined objectively (what it looks like, how often, intensity)?
• Is the consequence clearly specified (what follows the behavior and how it might reinforce it)?

2. Completeness

• Does the hypothesis explicitly link an antecedent to the target behavior and then to the consequence?
• Are any relevant setting events or contextual factors mentioned or implied?

3. Functional Alignment

• Does the consequence logically maintain or reduce the behavior under the described conditions?
• Are you convinced this hypothesis could predict when and why the behavior will occur?

4. Contextual Fit

• Does the hypothesis reflect patterns identified in the Context Exploration Stations?
• Are there other environmental factors (antecedents or setting events) that should be included?

Feedback Template

Reviewer Name: ____________________
Hypothesis Team: ___________________

Strengths:
– What parts of the hypothesis are especially clear or well-supported?

Areas for Improvement:
– Which sections need more detail or precision?

Questions to Consider:
– What additional data or observations would strengthen this hypothesis?

Suggested Revisions / Next Steps:
– List 2–3 concrete edits or clarifications.

Follow-Up Discussion (Optional)

If time allows, rotate roles and review another team’s hypothesis, then compare feedback.
– How do different reviewers’ perspectives converge or diverge?
– What common challenges emerged across hypotheses?

Use this guide to ensure every hypothesis is functional, precise, and grounded in the environmental data you mapped earlier. Good peer review leads to stronger, more actionable FBA hypotheses!

Case Analysis Scoring Guide

A 4-point rubric to evaluate each team’s FBA hypothesis. (4 = Exemplary, 3 = Proficient, 2 = Developing, 1 = Beginning; total = 16)

Total Points Possible: 16

Use this guide during Hypothesis Development and Peer Review to ensure every FBA hypothesis is precise, complete, and grounded in the environmental data you mapped earlier.