Functional communication training (FCT) and noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) are commonly prescribed treatments that are based on the results of a functional analysis. Both treatments involve delivery of the reinforcer that is responsible for the maintenance of destructive behavior. One major difference between the two treatment procedures is that client responding determines reinforcement delivery with FCT (e.g., reinforcement of communication is delivered on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule) but not with NCR (e.g., reinforcement is delivered on a fixed-time 30-s schedule). In the current investigation, FCT and NCR were equally effective in reducing 2 participants' destructive behavior that was sensitive to attention as reinforcement. After the treatment analysis, the participants' relative preference for each treatment was evaluated using a modified concurrentchains procedure. Both participants demonstrated a preference for the FCT procedure. The results are discussed in terms of treatment efficacy and preference for control over when reinforcement is delivered. In addition, a method is demonstrated in which clients with developmental disabilities can participate in selecting treatments that are designed to reduce their destructive behavior.

The current study describes an assessment sequence that may be used to identify individualized, effective, and preferred interventions for severe problem behavior in lieu of relying on a restricted set of treatment options that are assumed to be in the best interest of consumers. The relative effectiveness of functional communication training (FCT) with and without a punishment component was evaluated with 2 children for whom functional analyses demonstrated behavioral maintenance via social positive reinforcement. The results showed that FCT plus punishment was more effective than FCT in reducing problem behavior. Subsequently, participants' relative preference for each treatment was evaluated in a concurrent-chains arrangement, and both participants demonstrated a dear preference for FCT with punishment. These findings suggest that the treatment-selection process may be guided by person-centered and evidence-based values.

Several brief preference assessments have recently been developed to identify reinforcers for individuals with developmental disabilities. One purported advantage of brief assessments is that they can be administered frequently, thus accommodating shifts in preference and presumably enhancing reinforcement effects. In this study, we initially conducted lengthy paired-choice preference assessments and identified a hierarchy of preferred items for 5 individuals with developmental disabilities. Subsequently, brief multiplestimulus-without-replacement assessments using the same items were completed each day prior to work sessions. On days when results of the daily brief assessment differed from the one-time lengthy assessment, the relative reinforcing effects of the top items from each assessment were compared in a concurrent-schedule arrangement. The results revealed that when the two assessments differed, participants generally allocated more responses to the task associated with the daily top-ranked item.

Covert food stealing is common among individuals with Prader-Willi syndrome. We found that verbal reprimands, delivered contingent upon eating prohibited foods, were sufficient to decrease the food stealing of a girl with Prader-Willi syndrome. Warning stimuli were then used to help her discriminate between permitted and prohibited foods during sessions in which food stealing was not directly observed. This procedure resulted in decreases in food stealing from containers labeled with the warning stimuli.

No abstract

Behavioral interventions that include reinforcement as a treatment component have proven quite effective in decreasing problem behavior in children and individuals with developmental disabilities. These interventions are typically initiated with frequent, immediate reinforcement to increase the likelihood of success and schedules may then be thinned to more clinically manageable schedules to promote generalization and maintenance of treatment effects. Immediate reinforcement can also be delayed to the same effect. However, there are currently no specific procedural guidelines for decreasing the intensity of effective behavioral interventions. The current paper examines several conceptual issues regarding procedures for decreasing the intensity of behavioral interventions and presents clinical and research suggestions.

No abstract

No abstract