Reducing Escape Behavior and Increasing Task Completion With Functional Communication Training, Extinction and Response Chaining

Abstract

The effects of functional communication training, extinction, and response chaining on 3 subjects' escape-maintained aberrant behavior were evaluated using a multielement design. Functional communication training consisted of teaching subjects a verbal response that was functionally equivalent to their aberrant behavior. Subjects initially were allowed to escape from a task contingent on the trained verbal response. In subsequent treatment phases, escape was contingent on the trained verbal response plus the completion of the specified number of steps in the task (response chaining). The number of steps was increased until a subject completed the task to obtain a break. Results showed that the treatment reduced rates of aberrant behavior and that the chaining procedure was effective in decreasing the availability of escape.

Functional Analysis and Treatment of Problem Behavior Evoked by Noise

“…Sarah also showed a noticeable preference for one item (cheese puffs), although her overall selections were somewhat more evenly distributed. PHASE 4: TREATMENT EVALUATION Several types of interventions have been used as treatment for escape behavior, including extinction (Iwata, Pace, Kalsher, Cowdery, & Cataldo, 1990), noncontingent reinforcement (Vollmer, Marcus, & Ringdahl, 1995), and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (Lalli, Casey, & Kates, 1995). Given the ubiquitous and unpredictable nature of noise, and the fact that it may often be difficult to terminate many ongoing noises (on either a contingent or noncontingent basis), our approach to treatment was based on increasing tolerance to noise rather than on establishing appropriate escape behavior.…”

Reinforcement Schedule Thinning Following Functional Communication Training: Review and Recommendations

“…Of the 19 studies that included schedule thinning, a total of 52 applications 1 of FCT with schedule thinning were described. Schedule arrangements employed in these studies included: (a) delay schedules, which involve introducing delays to reinforcement following the emission of the target communication response (e.g., Fisher et al, 1993); (b) chain schedules, which, in the case of escape-maintained problem behavior, involve increasing the number of demands that must be completed before requests for a break will be honored (also described as "demand fading" or "response chaining," e.g., Lalli, Casey, & Kates, 1995); (c) multiple schedules, wherein the duration of a signaled reinforcement component is progressively decreased while the duration of a signaled extinction component is increased (e.g., Hanley et al, 2001); response restriction, which involves restricting access to the communication response (or device) for progressively longer periods of time (Roane, Fisher, Sgro, Falcomata, & Pabico, 2004). The Table provides a summary of the published studies employing these four methods of schedule thinning following FCT and each is described below.…”

“…Lalli et al (1995) implemented demand fading with three individuals with intellectual disabilities (two individuals also had autism) admitted to a hospital inpatient unit for severe disruptive behavior (i.e., aggression, self-injury). First, a functional analysis demonstrated that disruptive behavior for each of the participants was maintained by negative reinforcement in the form of escape from tasks.…”

“…Multiple schedules are the alternative to delay schedules when there is a need to have relatively long periods in which positive reinforcement will not be available (Hagopian et al, 2005;Hanley et al, 2001;Tiger et al, 2008). In the case of negative reinforcement (e.g., FCT for escape-maintained problem behavior), chain schedules are recommended (Lalli et al, 1995). The response restriction procedure has also shown promise, however, this procedure is restricted to forms of mands that require a communication device and may not be appropriate If problem behavior begins to increase during schedule thinning, first determine whether the benefits of a lean rein forcement schedule justify the additional effort associated with including additional treatment components .…”

Teaching Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders to Mand for the Removal of Stimuli That Prevent Access to Preferred Items

“…Research has shown that such mands can be taught by offering nonpreferred items to an individual and then removing them contingent upon saying ''no'' or emitting other appropriate refusal responses (e.g., Drasgow, Halle, Ostrosky, & Harbers, 1996;Duker, Dortmans, & Lodder, 1993;Neef, Walters, & Egel, 1984;Reichle, Rogers, & Barrett, 1984;Shillingsburg, Kelley, Roane, Kisamore, & Brown, 2009;Sigafoos, Drasgow, Reichle, O'Reilly, & Tait, 2004). Behavioral interventions targeting mands for breaks from instructional demands have also been studied in the literature on functional communication training (e.g., Lalli, Casey, & Kates, 1995;Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier, 2002). Another scenario in which a mand to remove a stimulus may occur involves removal of a stimulus that prevents access to a preferred activity.…”