Comparison of naturalistic and arbitrary discriminative stimuli during schedule thinning following functional communication training

Abstract

We replicated and extended research on incorporating naturalistic discriminative stimuli into schedule thinning following functional communication training with three boys with autism spectrum disorder who engaged in severe behavior. Comparing naturalistic to arbitrary discriminative stimuli, two participants demonstrated differentiated communication in fewer sessions when arbitrary stimuli were used, while the third participant mastered the discriminations in a comparable number of sessions. Although previous research has demonstrated success in rapidly thinning the schedule with arbitrary stimuli, we extended this line of research by evaluating the extent to which differentiated communication would maintain during rapid schedule thinning in both naturalistic and arbitrary conditions. Two participants' communication remained differentiated, and in both conditions, during rapid schedule thinning. However, neither discrimination maintained for the third participant. Results are discussed in terms of the existing literature and directions for future research.

Discriminative stimuli promote the efficacy of delay tolerance training.

“…As a result, clinicians may find themselves in a predicament if naturalistic stimuli are not effective for a given client, but socially valid for the client and/or the stakeholders. This study adds to the small body of literature on naturalistic stimuli during schedule thinning (e.g., Boyle et al, 2021;Kuhn et al, 2010;Leon et al, 2010;Shamlian et al, 2016) by demonstrating the efficacy of a stimulus fading procedure to transfer control from arbitrary to naturalistic discriminative stimuli. Given this study is the first to examine this question, future studies should replicate our procedures with more participants to examine the generality of our findings and examine other important questions.…”

“…The challenge of poor discriminated use of the FCR, including loss of or high rates of the FCR during extinction intervals, has resulted in many schedule thinning approaches incorporating arbitrary discriminative stimuli (Hagopian et al, 2011; Kranak & Brown, 2024). Despite the known benefits of incorporating these stimuli, they may not be widely viewed as socially or ecologically valid (Boyle et al, 2021). The delay tolerance approach to schedule thinning relies on naturalistic vocal discriminative stimuli to address these social and ecological validity concerns, but in some cases, fails to maintain discriminated use of the FCR (e.g., Brown, Gaynor, et al, 2022; Drifke et al, 2020; Ghaemmaghami et al, 2016).…”

“…Although clinicians often use arbitrary discriminative stimuli during schedule thinning given its empirical support (Hagopian et al, 2011; Kranak & Brown, 2024; Saini et al, 2016), these stimuli can have broad social and ecological validity concerns (Boyle et al, 2021). As a result, clinicians may find themselves in a predicament if naturalistic stimuli are not effective for a given client, but socially valid for the client and/or the stakeholders.…”

“…Further research is needed to investigate behavioral capacity predictive behavioral markers for schedule thinning treatments and should closely monitor for potentially different predictors between schedule thinning approaches. This important line of inquiry is likely to result in individualized treatments that are more effective, efficient, and durable (Wacker et al, 2011(Wacker et al, , 2017 Although clinicians often use arbitrary discriminative stimuli during schedule thinning given its empirical support (Hagopian et al, 2011;Kranak & Brown, 2024;Saini et al, 2016), these stimuli can have broad social and ecological validity concerns (Boyle et al, 2021). As a result, clinicians may find themselves in a predicament if naturalistic stimuli are not effective for a given client, but socially valid for the client and/or the stakeholders.…”

“…To date, few studies have examined the efficacy of naturalistic stimuli during schedule thinning. Of these studies, researchers either initiated schedule thinning with naturalistic stimuli (e.g., Kuhn et al, 2010; Leon et al, 2010) or directly compared the use of arbitrary and naturalistic stimuli across conditions (e.g., Boyle et al, 2021; Shamlian et al, 2016). To our knowledge no study has examined if arbitrary discriminative stimuli can be used to establish discriminated responding and the stimulus properties subsequently transferred to naturalistic stimuli using stimulus fading procedures.…”