Serial functional communication training: Extending serial DRA to mands and problem behavior

Abstract

Functional communication training (FCT) is commonly used to eliminate problem behavior. Not surprisingly, the efficacy of the intervention depends on fidelity to programmed procedures. For instance, problem behavior is likely to resurge if caregivers fail to reinforce mands during the maintenance stages of FCT. Despite this, recent translational work on arbitrary human responses suggests that incorporating multiple‐mand instruction into a serial‐training format may increase the probability of a recency effect, and a reversion of response resurgence (both desirable outcomes when mands are the most recently reinforced responses prior to extinction). Although promising, this effect has not been replicated with socially significant human behavior. Thus, we compared the relative effect of traditional FCT with that of serial FCT on the resurgence of the problem behavior, and mands, of 2 children. In contrast to previous research, we observed primacy effects for both subjects (i.e., the magnitude of the resurgence of problem behavior was greater than it was for any subsequently trained mand), and mand resurgence never occurred for one subject. Notwithstanding these limitations, the percentage of total responding allocated toward the resurgence of problem behavior was less in the serial FCT component relative to the traditional FCT component, and we observed a reversion of response resurgence for one subject.

Hierarchical resurgence

“…Thus, recency of training prevailed over primacy of training in determining resurgence. These findings stand in contrast to the earlier findings of Reed and Morgan (2006), Bruzek et al (2009) and Lambert et al (2017) in that the first-trained response resurged before the second-trained one.…”

“…The order of resurgence of the remaining responses also was mixed, with only one of the participants' responses not resurging in a strictly reverse order. In a systematic replication of this experiment involving functional communication training with two children, rather than an arbitrary response, Lambert et al () failed to replicate the results of Lambert et al (), finding instead that the last‐trained alternative response was the first to resurge. The second of the three alternative responses to resurge, however, was different for the two participants.…”

“…Lambert and colleagues (Lambert, Bloom, Samaha, Dayton, & Rosewald, ; Lambert, Bloom, Samaha, & Dayton, ) reported mixed evidence of primacy and recency resurgence effects. Following reinforcement of a switch‐depression response with three children as participants, Lambert et al () extinguished the latter as either a single alternative response was reinforced in one component of a multiple schedule, or three alternative responses were reinforced and extinguished successively.…”

“…Furthermore, the generality of these latter results to conventional singleresponse resurgence preparations may be limited because they are based on a procedure involving response sequences. The mixed outcomes of Lambert et al (2015Lambert et al ( , 2017 also invite further consideration.…”

Resurgence when challenging alternative behavior with progressive ratios in children and pigeons

“…Clinically, reducing or eliminating alternative reinforcement during DRA treatment potentially could result in the return of previously reinforced and potentially more severe topographies of problem behavior (e.g., Lalli, Casey, & Kates, 1995). Therefore, examining previously learned problematic and appropriate responses that are functionally equivalent to target responding could be useful both for understanding the recurrence of behavior during DRA treatments as well as for designing more effective and durable treatments (see Lambert, Bloom, Samaha, & Dayton, 2017;Lambert et al, 2015).…”