A Component Analysis of Schedule Thinning During Functional Communication Training

Abstract

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.

A preliminary investigation on improving functional communication training by mitigating resurgence of destructive behavior

“…Despite these limitations, the current findings, combined with those of Betz et al (2013), suggest that mult FCT may be used to mitigate resurgence of destructive behavior when the FCR contacts relatively extended periods of extinction. It is not entirely clear at this point whether the effectiveness of mult FCT under these conditions is due primarily to stimulus control (i.e., the presence of the S Δ ), to the reduction in reinforcement rates during mult FCT resulting from schedule thinning, or to the combination of these variables.…”

“…That is, individuals who are specifically taught, using schedule thinning, to tolerate periods in which a functional reinforcer is unavailable (Betz, Fisher, Roane, Mintz, & Owen, 2013; Fisher, Greer, Querim, & DeRosa, 2014; Fisher, Thompson, Hagopian, Bowman, & Krug, 2000; Greer, Fisher, Saini, Owen, & Jones, 2016; Hanley, Iwata, & Thompson, 2001) may be less prone to resurgence of problem behavior. Results of recent research suggest that multiple schedules provide an effective method of increasing the practicality of FCT through schedule thinning (Betz et al, 2013; Greer et al, 2016; Hanley et al, 2001; Rooker, Jessel, Kurtz, & Hagopian, 2013). The results of Betz et al (2013) further suggest the possibility that the discriminative control provided by multiple schedules, as opposed to schedule thinning per se, may prevent or mitigate resurgence of destructive behavior when the FCR is initially exposed to a relatively long period of extinction.…”

“…Results of recent research suggest that multiple schedules provide an effective method of increasing the practicality of FCT through schedule thinning (Betz et al, 2013; Greer et al, 2016; Hanley et al, 2001; Rooker, Jessel, Kurtz, & Hagopian, 2013). The results of Betz et al (2013) further suggest the possibility that the discriminative control provided by multiple schedules, as opposed to schedule thinning per se, may prevent or mitigate resurgence of destructive behavior when the FCR is initially exposed to a relatively long period of extinction. For example, four of five participants engaged in marked resurgence of destructive behavior when Volkert et al (2009) introduced extinction or lean schedules of reinforcement for the FCR following FCT.…”

Treatment of escape-maintained challenging behavior using chained schedules: an evaluation of the effects of thinning positive plus negative reinforcement during functional communication training

“…To thin schedules of reinforcement, a multiple schedule that signals periods of time in which the reinforcer is and is not available, has been proven both practical and effective when applied to FCT interventions for individuals with challenging behavior maintained by social-positive reinforcement (e.g., Betz, Fisher, Roane, Mintz, & Owen, 2013). When using a multiple schedule in this way, two distinct signals are presented to the individual, one signaling that engaging in the FCR will result in access to the reinforcer (S+) and the other signaling that engaging in the FCR is will not result in access to the reinforcer (S−; i.e., the FCR is on EXT), and these signals alternate in a time-based manner (e.g., 60 s of reinforcement for the FCR followed by 60 s of EXT for the FCR).…”

Practice Recommendations for Addressing Problem Behaviors in Siblings with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…That is, a single caregiver could not take Beck on a walk while simultaneously monitoring Silas' access to preferred toys. To address this problem, a multiple schedule (Hanley, Iwata, & Thompson, 2001;Betz, Fisher, Roane, Mintz, & Owen, 2013) was utilized that included three schedules of reinforcement, rather than two as is typical: (a) reinforcement for Silas, (b) reinforcement for Beck, and (c) no reinforcement for either boy. Discriminative stimuli, in the form of different colored bracelets, signaled the condition underway at the time to each boy: a green bracelet was paired with reinforcement for Beck, which in turn signaled restricted access to activities Fig.…”