Effects of Continuous and Intermittent Reinforcement for Problem Behavior During Functional Communication Training

Abstract

We evaluated the effectiveness of functional communication training (FCT) in reducing problem behavior and in strengthening alternative behavior when FCT was implemented without extinction. Following the completion of functional analyses in which socialpositive reinforcement was identified as the maintaining variable for 5 participants' selfinjurious behavior (SIB) and aggression, the participants were first exposed to FCT in which both problem behavior and alternative behavior were reinforced continuously (i.e., on fixed-ratio [FR] 1 schedules). During subsequent FCT conditions, the schedule of reinforcement for problem behavior was made more intermittent (e.g., FR 2, FR 3, FR 5, etc.), whereas alternative behavior was always reinforced according to an FR 1 schedule. Results showed that 1 participant's problem behavior decreased and alternative behavior increased during FCT when both behaviors were reinforced on FR 1 schedules. The remaining 4 participants shifted response allocation from problem to alternative behavior as the schedule of reinforcement for problem behavior became more intermittent. These results suggest that individuals might acquire alternative responses during FCT in spite of inconsistencies in the application of extinction, although even small errors in reinforcement may compromise treatment effects.DESCRIPTORS: functional analysis, functional communication training, intermittent reinforcement, extinction, self-injurious behavior, aggression Functional communication training (FCT;Carr & Durand, 1985) has become a popular treatment for behavior disorders in individuals with developmental disabilities. FCT typically contains two procedural components characteristic of a differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior (DRA) contingency: (a) Reinforcement for problem behavior is discontinued (extinction), and (b) an alternative behavior is prompted or shaped using the same reinforcer that maintains problem behavior (reinforcement of an alternative mand).A great deal of emphasis has been placed This research was supported in part by a grant from the Florida Department of Children and Families. We thank Juliet Conners for her assistance in conducting this project. SungWoo Kahng is now at the Kennedy Krieger Institute, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.Reprints may be obtained from Brian Iwata, Psychology Department, The University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611.on the reinforcement component of FCT, yet results from several studies indicate that the extinction component may be just as important to the success of FCT interventions. For example, Shirley, Iwata, Kahng, Mazaleski, and Lerman (1997) compared the effectiveness of FCT with and without extinction in decreasing self-injurious behavior (SIB) and in establishing an alternative response (a manual sign) with 3 participants. During FCT without extinction, when both SIB and signing produced access to reinforcement on a continuous basis (i.e., a fixed-ratio [FR] 1 schedule), all participants continued to exhibit high rates o...

Differential Responding in the Presence and Absence of Discriminative Stimuli During Multielement Functional Analyses

“…The Phase 1 and Phase 2 functional analyses for Janet, Mary, and Shelby were separated by treatment conditions not reported in this study (all other functional analyses were conducted back to back). Figure 1 shows results of the functional analyses for Bob, Annette, Jed, and Max (note that portions of the data for Annette, Jed, and Max also appear in Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000). Bob's data in Phase 1 showed that his highest rates of SIB occurred in the attention condition.…”

A Meta-analytic Review of Functional Communication Training Across Mode of Communication, Age, and Disability

“…This includes individuals in preschool (e.g., Durand 1993;Durand and Carr 1987;Gibson et al 2010;Mancil et al 2009;Wacker et al 2013), elementary school (e.g., Durand and Carr 1991;Franco et al 2009;, secondary school (e.g., Carr and Durand 1985;Fisher et al 2005), and adults (e.g., Kahng et al 1997;*Shirley et al 1997;*Worsdell, A. S et al 2000).…”

Obtained Versus Programmed Reinforcement: Practical Considerations in the Treatment of Escape‐reinforced Aggression

“…Undetected differences between programmed and obtained rates of reinforcement could potentially introduce unexpected variability in the data or unexplained effects. For example, the findings of a number of applied studies suggest that when concurrent FR 1 FR 1 reinforcement schedules are arranged, problem behavior is more likely to occur than an appropriate alternative response (DeLeon, Fisher, Herman, & Crosland, 2000;Shirley, Iwa-ta, Kahng, Mazaleski, & Lerman, 1997;Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000). This apparent response bias might be accounted for by reinforcement history (DeLeon et al, 2000).…”