Assessing the generality and durability of interview‐informed functional analyses and treatment

et al. 2019

We conducted this study to determine if the efficiency of the functional analysis could be improved without detrimental effects on control. In Experiment 1, we reanalyzed functional analyses conducted for the problem behavior of 18 children. We analyzed rates of problem behavior during the first 5 min and first 3 min of the original 10-min sessions and evaluated if changes in the level of control over problem behavior by the programmed contingency were evident from the analyses of shorter session duration. In Experiment 2, we conducted 8 consecutive functional analyses with 3-min sessions to further evaluate the utility of brief session durations. We found that control over problem behavior was demonstrated when conducting functional analyses with sessions as brief as 3 min.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the boundaries of analytic efficiency and control: A consecutive controlled case series of 26 functional analyses

Jessel

Metras

et al. 2019

“…The validity of conclusions from synthesized reinforcement contingencies with an open‐contingency class is also supported by recent treatment effectiveness studies. Beaulieu, Clausen, Williams, and Herscovitch (), Rose and Beaulieu (), Hanley et al (), Herman, Healy, and Lydon (), Jessel et al (), Taylor, Phillips, and Gerzog (), Santiago, Hanley, Moore, and Jin (), and Strand and Eldevik (2017) all described socially validated outcomes of function‐based treatments designed from single‐test analyses that arranged interview‐informed synthesized reinforcement for open‐contingency classes. Treatments from these studies included practical schedules of reinforcement and were implemented by caregivers in relevant contexts by the close of each study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward accurate inferences of response class membership

Warner

Landa

et al. 2019

In their review of synthesis within the functional analysis (FA) literature, Slaton and Hanley (2018) reported that most synthesized contingency analyses have included multiple topographies of problem behavior in the reinforcement contingency class. This leaves the question of whether one, some, or all forms of problem behavior are sensitive to the synthesized reinforcement contingencies in published analyses. To address this ambiguity, all topographies of problem behavior that were reported by caregivers to co-occur with the most concerning problem behavior were analyzed for 10 participants. We implemented extinction across one or more forms of problem behavior to determine whether all forms reported to co-occur were sensitive to the same synthesized reinforcement contingency. For nine of 10 participants, the most concerning topographies were sensitive to the same synthesized reinforcement contingencies as the less concerning topographies (results were inconclusive for one). Implications for inferring response class membership from single analyses are discussed.

“…When delays to reinforcement are introduced, however, FCT with extinction often fails (Fisher et al, 2000; Hagopian et al, 1998; Hanley et al, 2001, Rooker et al, 2013) unless certain strategies are implemented as part of thinning reinforcement (see Hagopian et al, 2011, for a detailed review). Some of these strategies include establishing discriminative control of FCRs via multiple schedules (e.g., Greer et al, 2016; Hanley et al, 2001), chained schedules or demand fading (e.g., Falcomata et al, 2013; Lalli et al, 1995), and contingency‐based delay tolerance training (e.g., Ghaemmaghami et al, 2016; Hanley et al, 2014; Jessel et al, 2018; Rose & Beaulieu, 2018).…”

Section: Functional Communication Trainingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Functional communication training: From efficacy to effectiveness

Ghaemmaghami

Jessel

2020

Functional communication training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is a common function‐based treatment in which an alternative form of communication is taught to reduce problem behavior. FCT has been shown to result in substantial reductions of a variety of topographically and functionally different types of problem behavior in children and adults (efficacy). The extent to which these reductions maintain in relevant contexts and result in meaningful changes in the lives of those impacted (effectiveness) is the focus of this paper. This review evaluates the degree to which FCT has been established as an evidence‐based practice in psychology (EBPP) according to the definition set out by the American Psychological Association's 2005 Presidential Task Force on Evidence‐Based Practice. Our review finds overwhelming evidence in support of FCT as an efficacious treatment but highlights significant limitations in support of its effectiveness. In order to also be recognized as an EBPP, future research on FCT will need to focus more closely on issues related to home, school, and community application, feasibility, consumer satisfaction, and more general and global changes for the individual.