Shaping complex functional communication responses

Abstract

Response efficiency plays an important role in the initial success of functional communication training (FCT). Although low-effort functional communication responses (FCRs) have been shown to be most effective in replacing problem behavior; more developmentally advanced FCRs are favored later in the treatment process. Attempts to teach these more complex FCRs, however, often lead to the resurgence of problem behavior. In this study, we provide a detailed description of an effective shaping process applied within a changing criterion design to develop complex FCRs from simple FCRs without resurgence of problem behavior. Four children with various language and intellectual abilities participated in this study. A practical shaping procedure, suitable for typical teaching contexts, is described for two participants in Experiment 1. The necessity and efficacy of the shaping process are demonstrated with the participants in Experiment 2. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

Assessing the generality and durability of interview‐informed functional analyses and treatment

“…Like Ghaemmaghami et al (), we taught specific FCRs for various activities as opposed to a an omnibus “My way” request (Hanley et al, ; Ghaemmaghami et al, ; Jessel et al, ). Unlike Ghaemmaghami et al (), we did not see persistence of problem behavior while we taught precise mands which may be because we taught mands for different toys whereas Ghaemmaghami et al () taught precise mands for different functional classes of reinforcement (i.e., escape, tangibles, and attention).…”

“…Although the results of the assessment and treatment model employed by Hanley et al () are promising and there have been numerous replications of the assessment process and initial stages of treatment (e.g., Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, & Jessel, ; Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, Jessel, & Landa, ; Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, Jin, & Vanselow, ; Jessel et al, ; Slaton, Hanley, & Raftery, ), there are fewer replications of the entire assessment and treatment process with evaluations of the social validity of the outcomes (Herman et al, ; Jessel et al, ; Santiago et al, ; Strand & Eldevik, ; Taylor et al, ), and there are limited data on the maintenance of effects. In addition, only three replications were published by authors who did not train with Dr. Hanley at the Life Skills Clinic at Western New England University (Herman et al, ; Strand & Eldevik, ; Taylor et al, ).…”

Resurgence as Choice: Implications for promoting durable behavior change

“…The left panel shows that larger increases in effort of the alternative behavior are predicted to produce more resurgence of target behavior, and the right panels show that larger increases in effort of the alternative behavior are also expected to produce larger decreases in the rates of alternative behavior. There is existing evidence consistent with this prediction of RaC that increases in alternative-response effort can produce resurgence of problem behavior (see Ghaemmaghami et al, 2018). In addition, Ghaemmaghami et al (2018) showed that such resurgence might be reduced by employing a gradual shaping process in which progressively complex and effortful alternative responses are reinforced at a high rate.…”

“…There is existing evidence consistent with this prediction of RaC that increases in alternative-response effort can produce resurgence of problem behavior (see Ghaemmaghami et al, 2018). In addition, Ghaemmaghami et al (2018) showed that such resurgence might be reduced by employing a gradual shaping process in which progressively complex and effortful alternative responses are reinforced at a high rate. Although it is difficult to precisely quantify such a procedure with RaC at this point, the outcome of the procedure is at least conceptually consistent with RaC in terms of establishing and increasing the value of approximations to the terminal response relative to problem behavior.…”

A review of environmental enrichment as treatment for problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement

“…The inconsistent inclusion of a skill‐building component in treatments for automatically maintained behavior contrasts with that of problem behavior maintained by social reinforcement, for which functional alternatives are frequently increased through a training program such as functional communication training (e.g., Greer, Fisher, Saini, Owen, & Jones, ), shaping (e.g., Ghaemmaghami, Hanley, Jessel, & Landa, ), chaining (e.g., Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, & Hanratty, ), and prompt fading (e.g., Torres‐Viso, Strohmeier, & Zarcone, ). One reason for this discrepancy may be the challenge in finding reinforcers for play skills that compete with the automatic reinforcer for problem behavior.…”