One limitation of functional communication training (FCT) is that individuals may request reinforcement via the functional communication response (FCR) at exceedingly high rates. Multiple schedules with alternating periods of reinforcement and extinction of the FCR combined with gradually lengthening the extinction-component interval can effectively address this limitation. However, the extent to which each of these components contributes to the effectiveness of the overall approach remains uncertain. In the current investigation, we evaluated the first component by comparing rates of the FCR and problem behavior under mixed and multiple schedules and evaluated the second component by rapidly switching from dense mixed and multiple schedules to lean multiple schedules without gradually thinning the density of reinforcement. Results indicated that multiple schedules decreased the overall rate of reinforcement for the FCR and maintained the strength of the FCR and low rates of problem behavior without gradually thinning the reinforcement schedule.

The current investigation evaluated repertoires that may be related to performance on auditory-to-visual conditional discrimination training with 9 students who had been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The skills included in the assessment were matching, imitation, scanning, an auditory discrimination, and a visual discrimination. The results of the skills assessment showed that 4 participants failed to demonstrate mastery of at least 1 of the skills. We compared the outcomes of the assessment to the results of auditory-visual conditional discrimination training and found that training outcomes were related to the assessment outcomes for 7 of the 9 participants. One participant who did not demonstrate mastery of all assessment skills subsequently learned several conditional discriminations when blocked training trials were conducted. Another participant who did not demonstrate mastery of the auditory discrimination skill subsequently acquired conditional discriminations in 1 of the training conditions. We discuss the implications of the assessment for practice and suggest additional areas of research on this topic.

No abstract

Unlike potential tangible positive reinforcers, which are typically identified for inclusion in functional analyses empirically using preference assessments, demands are most often selected arbitrarily or based on caregiver report. The present study evaluated the use of a demand assessment with 12 participants who exhibited escape-maintained problem behavior. Participants were exposed to 10 demands, with aversiveness measured by average latency to the first instance of problem behavior. In subsequent functional analyses, results of a demand condition that included the demand with the shortest latency to problem behavior resulted in identification of an escape function for 11 of the participants. In contrast, a demand condition that included the demand with the longest latency resulted in identification of an escape function for only 5 participants. The implication of these findings is that for the remaining 7 participants, selection of the demand for the functional analysis without using the results of the demand assessment could have produced a false-negative finding.

School consultants who rely on direct observation typically conduct observational samples (e.g., 1 30-min observation per day) with the hopes that the sample is representative of performance during the remainder of the day, but the representativeness of these samples is unclear. In the current study, we recorded the problem behavior of 3 referred students for 4 consecutive school days between 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. using duration recording in consecutive 10-min sessions. We then culled 10-min, 20-min, 30-min, and 60-min observations from the complete record and compared these observations to the true daily mean to assess their accuracy (i.e., how well individual observations represented the daily occurrence of target behaviors). The results indicated that when behavior occurred with low variability, the majority of brief observations were representative of the overall levels; however, when behavior occurred with greater variability, even 60-min observations did not accurately capture the true levels of behavior.

No abstract