Further evaluation of differential exposure to establishing operations during functional communication training

Abstract

Recent research findings (DeRosa, Fisher, & Steege, 2015) suggest that minimizing exposure to the establishing operation (EO) for destructive behavior when differential reinforcement interventions like functional communication training (FCT) are introduced may produce more immediate reductions in destructive behavior and prevent or mitigate extinction bursts. We directly tested this hypothesis by introducing FCT with extinction in two conditions, one with limited exposure to the EO (limited EO) and one with more extended exposure to the EO (extended EO) using a combined reversal and multielement design. Results showed that the limited-EO condition rapidly reduced destructive behavior to low levels during every application, whereas the extended-EO condition produced an extinction burst in five of six applications. We discuss these findings in relation to the effects of EO exposure on the beneficial and untoward effects of differential reinforcement interventions.

Prevalence of resurgence of destructive behavior when thinning reinforcement schedules during functional communication training

“…Several studies suggest that minimizing exposure to the establishing operation for destructive behavior when differential reinforcement interventions are introduced may produce more immediate reductions in destructive behavior and prevent or mitigate dangerous instances of extinction‐induced generative responding (DeRosa et al, 2015; Fisher et al, ). Similarly, researchers have attempted to mitigate resurgence by controlling the exposure to the establishing operation by either providing reinforcement on a fixed‐time schedule (Lieving & Lattal, , Experiment 3; Marsteller & St. Peter, ) or by selecting the initial schedule densities during schedule thinning based on patterns of prior responding such as (a) latency to destructive behavior (e.g., Lalli, Casey, & Kates, ), (b) mean interresponse times for destructive behavior (e.g., Kahng, Iwata, DeLeon, & Wallace, ), (c) results of a progressive‐interval assessment (Fisher, Greer, Fuhrman, Saini, & Simmons, in press; Fisher et al, ), or (d) rate of mands (Call et al, ). Future research is warranted to determine whether these or similar procedures might mitigate resurgence of destructive behavior by minimizing initial exposure to the establishing operation for the reinforcer at the start of FCT schedule thinning (Saini et al, ; Shamlian et al, ).…”

“…Specifically, prevalence studies found that when extinction‐based interventions were implemented in isolation, bursts of self‐injurious behavior and extinction‐induced aggression occurred in 43% and 29% of applications, respectively; however, when combining extinction with other procedures, such as differential reinforcement, the number of applications with either of these side effects reduced by more than 50% (Lerman & Iwata, ; Lerman et al, ). In addition, Fisher and colleagues showed that short exposures to the establishing operation for destructive behavior prevented extinction bursts, and longer exposures promoted extinction bursts (DeRosa, Fisher, & Steege, ; Fisher et al, ). These data help to clarify and describe two side effects of extinction, bursting and induced aggression, and identify variables that promote and diminish these side effects.…”

The effectiveness of supplemental phonics instruction employing constant time delay instruction for struggling readers

“…The standard is arbitrary in that it is not dependent upon the stability or consistency of the obtained data nor the magnitude of effect. There are certainly cases in which five data points will prove to be insufficient because of levels of variability, and there are published studies whose data paths are sufficiently clear that they have contained fewer than five data points per phase/condition because of consistent responding (Fisher et al., ; Normand & Beaulieu, ). Our data meet arbitrary standards with the reserved recommendation of Kratochwill and colleagues (), and we argue that the data are readily interpretable as a result of our participants demonstrating both a steady‐state baseline and clear replicated response to CTD (Sidman, ).…”

Shaping complex functional communication responses

“…Horner and Day found that the shorter the time delay between the presentation of the discriminative stimulus and the delivery of reinforcement, the more efficient the response. Similarly, Derosa, Fisher, and Steege () and Fisher et al () found that communication response topographies that allow for a shorter duration of exposure to the establishing operations (EO) result in larger and more rapid reductions in problem behavior and decrease the likelihood of an extinction burst. For example, a picture‐exchange communication response can be prompted more quickly and reliably than a vocal communication response, thereby reducing the amount of EO exposure.…”