Magidson Et Al. Reaction Paper

...

Magidson et al. (2014) presented a concrete step-by-step procedure for effective usage of functional analysis in a clinical setting. However, some issues arise when examined thoroughly. In class we discussed the three strategies for dealing with triggers namely, avoid, alter, or substitute. This paper fails to address these three strategies and relies heavily on explaining their causes rather than how they might be handled. For example, in the case study Mr.Y is prompted into thinking deeply about what triggers his use of tobacco and alcohol. He provides evidence of proximal, recent, and distal triggers. When asked to think critically about how to solve these issues the therapist does little to address the triggers, but rather focuses on alternative behavior. Failing to focus directly on his triggers and how he is avoiding, altering, or substituting may not lead to a sustainable treatment plan, but rather, an at the surface treatment plan designed to stop the consequence and not deal with the preceding triggers. Finally, the closing remarks of Magidson et al.(2014)’s paper seem somewhat contradictory to much of the paper’s focus. The way in which they present Functional Analysis is a clear step-by-step process; while at the same time argue for its flexibility in order to not be limited to behaviorist and cognitive therapists. The adoption of the functional analysis framework is in itself inflexible and limiting. It is a process rooted in steps which may or may not be changed depending on the needs of the therapist, but are none the less intertwined with the whole of functional analysis. For example, would functional analysis be useful to a therapist whose patient has chemical imbalances in the brain leading to drug abuse and suicidal thoughts? I would say no, this is a patient whose needs lie on psychiatrics usage of drugs to counterbalance the brains chemical imbalances rather than relying on functional analysis as a assessment and possible intervention method.