Functional Communication Training and Chained Schedules of Reinforcement to Treat Challenging Behavior Maintained by Terminations of Activity Interruptions

Abstract

In this article, the authors evaluated functional communication training (FCT) and a chained schedule of reinforcement for the treatment of challenging behavior exhibited by two individuals diagnosed with Asperger syndrome and autism, respectively. Following a functional analysis with undifferentiated results, the authors demonstrated that challenging behavior was occasioned by interruptions of ongoing activities and maintained by terminations of interruptions. Next, they demonstrated the effectiveness of a treatment consisting of FCT with a chained schedule of reinforcement. Last, they modified the chained schedule procedure to increase ease of implementation and promote toleration of activity interruptions, and academic tasks were incorporated into the treatment.

Treating aggression in persons with autism spectrum disorders: A review

“…Thus, the range of participant numbers across studies varied from one to 218. Thirteen of the papers reported on the treatment of one or two individuals (Braithwaite & Richdale, 2000;Davis et al, 2013;Falcomata, Roane, Muething, Stephenson, & Ing, 2012;Fisher, Lindauer, Alterson, & Thompson, 1998;Foxx & Garito, 2007;Foxx & Meindl, 2007;Hittner, 1994;Kern, Carberry, & Haidara, 1997;Kuhn, Hardesty, & Sweeney, 2009;Luiselli, Blew, Keane, Thibadeau, & Holzman, 2000;Matson, LoVullo, Boisjoli, & Gonzales, 2008;Robertson, Wehby, & King, 2013;Sigafoos & Meikle, 1996), and two studies involved 100 or more people Silverman et al, 2014). The higher number of participated studies involved drug treatments (Arnold et al, 2003;Hellings et al, 2005;King & Davanzo, 1996;Marcus et al, 2009;McDougle et al, 1996;McDougle, Kem, & Posey, 2002;McDougle et al, 1998;Owen et al, 2009;Silverman et al, 2014;Troost et al, 2005), while the low number studies were largely psychologically based interventions.…”

“…Sixteen of the reviewed studies used psychologically based therapies; one paper employed music (Lundqvist et al, 2009) while the other 15 papers relied on ABA principles and procedures (Braithwaite & Richdale, 2000;Davis et al, 2013;Falcomata et al, 2012;Fisher et al, 1998;Foxx & Garito, 2007;Foxx & Meindl, 2007;Fulton, Eapen, Walter, & Rogers, 2014;Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, & Hanratty, 2014;Hittner, 1994;Kern et al, 1997;Kuhn et al, 2009;Matson, LoVullo, et al, 2008;Robertson et al, 2013;Silverman et al, 2014;Sigafoos & Meikle, 1996). Two papers that used punishment procedures (i.e., overcorrection, physical restraint) were papers by Foxx and colleagues (Foxx & Garito, 2007;Foxx & Meindl, 2007).…”

“…Eight of the 16 papers described a functional assessment approach (Davis et al, 2013;Fisher et al, 1998;Fulton et al, 2014;Hanley et al, 2014;Kern et al, 1997;Kuhn et al, 2009;Robertson et al, 2013;Sigafoos & Meikle, 1996). Functional communication training was reported in five papers (Braithwaite & Richdale, 2000;Falcomata et al, 2012;Hanley et al, 2014;Kuhn et al, 2009;Matson, LoVullo, et al, 2008). Typically, these frequently used methods were paired with one or more additional methods.…”

Contingencies promote delay tolerance

“…Chained schedules have historically been referred to as demand fading and have been used to treat negatively reinforced problem behavior (Hagopian et al, ; Lalli et al, ). Although supplemental strategies (including punishment) have often been necessary to achieve the desired outcomes with demand fading (Hagopian et al, ), more recent evaluations by Falcomata et al () and Falcomata, Roane, Muething, Stephenson, and Ing () have been conducted in which various elements of both multiple schedules (the discriminative stimuli) and chained schedules (the contingency‐based alternation of the component change) were used to treat problem behavior maintained by a synthesis of both positive and negative reinforcement. The contingency arranged in the traditional chained schedules is somewhat different than the arrangement used in CBPD.…”

Current Perspectives on Interventions for Self-Injurious Behavior of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review of the Literature

“…The researcher was the person implementing the intervention for 25% (6 of 24) of the studies (e.g., Machalicek et al 2009;DeRosa et al 2013); the teacher for 8% (2 of 24) of the studies (e.g., Casey and Merical 2006;Luiselli et al 2005); the parents for 13% (3 of 24) of the studies ); the therapist for 50% (12 of 24) of the studies (e.g., Falcomata et al 2012;Neidert et al 2005); and multiple people including the therapist and the teacher for 4% (1 of 24) of the studies (Foxx and Garito 2007).…”