Functional Communication Training Without Extinction Using Concurrent Schedules of Differing Magnitudes of Reinforcement in Classrooms

Abstract

In 1968 Baer, Wolf, and Risley identified several important dimensions of research in Applied Behavior Analysis. It is applied, behavioral, analytic, technological, conceptually systematic, effective, and results in some form of generalization. Behavior analysts need to study behaviors that society deems important to change as opposed to behaviors that are studied because they are convenient. However, society rarely provides easily manipulated settings and behaviors solely for the purpose of scientific replication; therefore, much applied research is conducted in analogue settings. Unfortunately, analogue settings remove the individual from the social environments that are supporting the behavior of interest. As a result, when behavior is changed in analogue settings, it may not generalize to the individuals' social, educational, and vocational settings.Functional communication training (FCT) is an effective, well-researched, technological procedure for replacing inappropriate behaviors with appropriate communication skills (Bird, Dores, Moniz, & Robinson, 1989;Carr & Durand, 1985). Using FCT, an aberrant behavior can be eliminated while an individual learns an appropriate replacement behavior that maintains the same social effects (Durand & Carr, 1991). FCT was introduced in 1985, and by the 1990s research teams began exploring the effects of FCT in analogue settings with different topographies of behaviors and subgroups of individuals with disabilities (Hagopian, Fisher, Sullivan, Acquisto, & LeBlanc, 1998;Wacker et al., 1990). This first-generation research in analogue settings was important for developing a technologically sound procedure. Although the technology has been shown to be effective, communication skills learned in these analogue settings do not always generalize to the natural setting, leading to secondgeneration research issues (Hagopian et al., 1998).Typically, prior to FCT a functional analysis (FA) is conducted to determine the maintaining variable for the aberrant behavior and once the maintaining variable is ascertained, a more socially acceptable behavior is taught that produces the same reinforcement. However, functional relations identified in analogue FA settings may not match those that 97P BI14310.1177/1098300711429597Davis rventions ies AbstractThis study investigated the effects of functional communication training (FCT) implemented with concurrent schedules of differing magnitudes of reinforcement in lieu of extinction to reduce inappropriate behaviors and increase alternative mands. Participants were four adolescent students diagnosed with severe emotional and behavior disorders (SEBD), and mild to severe intellectual disabilities. Functional analyses revealed inappropriate behaviors as escape maintained. During subsequent FCT, the reinforcement provided for inappropriate behaviors was escape from task for 30 s (S R-). The reinforcement for the alternative mand was a 30-s escape from task during which access to a preferred activity was provided (S R-/PA). Results for three of the p...

Systematic Review of Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior Without Extinction for Individuals With Autism

“…The settings included in-patient hospitals, schools, and clinics. Of the 10 studies, three took place in an in-patient hospital (Adelinis, Piazza, & Goh, 2001; Ingvarsson, Kahng, & Hausman, 2008; Kahng, Hendrickson, & Vu, 2000), three took place in either a public school or school for individuals with severe emotional/behavioral disorders (Davis, Fredrick, Alberto, & Gama, 2012; Kelley, Lerman, & Van Camp, 2002; Marcus & Vollmer, 1996), three took place in a day clinic setting (Kunnavatana et al, in press; Roane, Fisher, Sgro, Falcomata, & Pabico, 2004; Slocum & Vollmer, 2015), and one took place in either a clinic or a school (Athens & Vollmer, 2010). For the two participants whose interventions took place at a school, no other children were in the room during the analysis except for the final experimental condition assessing generality.…”

“…For the two participants whose interventions took place at a school, no other children were in the room during the analysis except for the final experimental condition assessing generality. In Roane et al (2004) and Davis et al’s (2012) studies, interventions were conducted either in a hospital waiting room (Roane et al, 2004) with other individuals present or in a regular classroom with other students present in the classroom (Davis et al, 2012). All other studies implemented their interventions in a private setting with no other individuals other than the participant and therapist(s).…”

“…The most common alternative behavior was picture exchange ( n = 12; 40%). For example, in Davis et al’s (2012) study, participants were taught to place a card with a picture indicating break time in the hand of the instructor.…”

Practices Reflecting Functional Communication Training for Students With or At Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: Systematically Mapping the Literature

“…Whether they use the general term DR or specifically reference DRA, most indicate reinforcement is provided for a CR and withheld for the target behavior (e.g., Carr & Durand, 1985; Kurtz et al, 2011; Mancil & Boman, 2010; Tiger et al, 2008). Others, however, have indicated extinction perhaps is not a required element (Betz et al, 2013; Davis, Fredrick, Alberto, & Gama, 2012). We coded each of these elements according to the following definitions.…”

Trial-Based Functional Analyses With a Student Identified With an Emotional and Behavioral Disorder

“…FA applied to those identified with EBD in public school settings have included the “traditional” FA (Alter, Conroy, Mancil, & Haydon, 2008; Bessette & Wills, 2007; Davis, Fredrick, Alberto, & Gama, 2012; Edwards, Magee, & Ellis, 2002; Ellis & Magee, 1999; Wright-Gallo, Higbee, Reagon, & Davey, 2006), brief (Cooper et al, 1992; Cunningham & O’Neill, 2007; Kwak, Ervin, Anderson, & Austin, 2004; Umbreit, 1995), structural analysis (DePaepe, Shores, Jack, & Denny, 1996; Dunlap et al, 1994; Dunlap, Kern-Dunlap, Clarke, & Robbins, 1991; Kern, Dunlap, Clarke, & Childs, 1994; Lee, Sugai, & Horner, 1999; Lewis & Sugai, 1996; Newcomer & Lewis, 2004; Stichter, Hudson, & Sasso, 2005; Stichter, Sasso, & Jolivette, 2004), or a combination approach (Broussard & Northup, 1995; Dunlap et al, 1993; Stage et al, 2008). Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994) first described an FA of interfering behavior.…”