research & summaries project and need the explanation and answer to help me learn.
I need help synthesizing two documents to add the information to my project and also add the compassion approach. All will be attached.
Requirements: 2 pages minimum
Functional Communication Training (FCT) is an evidence-based intervention for individuals with developmental disabilities who engage in socially reinforced destructive behavior. The aim of FCT is to teach individuals to use appropriate communication responses rather than destructive behaviors. However, reducing the frequency of reinforcement for appropriate communication responses to a socially acceptable level, known as schedule thinning, can be challenging during FCT.
Multiple schedules have been found to be an effective schedule thinning procedure. In multiple schedules, periods of reinforcement (SD) are followed by periods of extinction (SΔ) when reinforcement is unavailable. The length of the SΔ intervals increases over time if appropriate communication and low levels of destructive behavior are maintained. FCT with multiple schedules is effective in treating various behaviors and functions.
During schedule thinning, there is a possibility of the resurgence of destructive behavior when alternative communication responses encounter extinction or reduced reinforcement. To improve schedule thinning procedures, researchers suggest modifications such as noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) or competing stimulus assessments. Incorporating a differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) contingency with FCT has also shown promising results. By reinforcing compliance with demands or engaging in alternative activities, the motivation for engaging in destructive behavior can be reduced.
Teaching individuals to request alternative reinforcers during periods when the desired reinforcer is unavailable has also been effective in maintaining low levels of destructive behavior. Adding alternative items and activities during schedule thinning improves its effectiveness. Individualized approaches to reinforcement schedule thinning have also been successful in maintaining appropriate communication responses and low rates of destructive behavior. Modifications are suggested to make schedule thinning procedures more closely resemble real-life situations. For instance, instead of restricting access to preferred items and activities during extinction periods, individuals can be provided with access to lower-preferred items and activities. This approach promotes more efficient schedule thinning, reduces the likelihood of behavior resurgence, and enhances generalization across different contexts and implementers.
In a recent study, four children with destructive behavior were assessed and treated using FCT and schedule thinning procedures. The participants were between 5 to 18 years old, had a socially mediated source of reinforcement based on a functional analysis, and had diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or another developmental disability. All participants demonstrated match-to-sample skills. Diverse types of behavior, including aggression, property destruction, self-injurious behavior, and inappropriate vocalizations, were recorded through interviews and observations.
Data collectors recorded the frequency of destructive behavior, appropriate and incorrect functional communication responses (FCRs), compliance with instructions, and duration of engagement with alternative items and activities during scheduled thinning sessions. Preference assessment trials were conducted to determine participants’ preferences. Trained observers collected IOA data for the study, calculating IOA using the formula: agreements / (agreements + disagreements) x 100. The study used an A-B-A-B withdrawal design to evaluate FCT treatment, focusing on a specific tangible function based on caregiver preference. During the evaluation, the preferred item was made available and then restricted if destructive behavior occurred. The participants underwent pretraining to learn how to request their preferred item using a verbal response. The actual FCT procedure was like pretraining but prompts to emit the verbal response were discontinued.
The study examined the impact of schedule thinning on rates of destructive behavior in Rex, Jackson, Jeremy, and Greg. The therapists used different conditions to evaluate the schedule thinning process, such as control, noncontingent access to alternative tangible items, noncontingent access to attention, and differential reinforcement for compliance with demands. Afterward, the primary therapists assessed participant preferences using colored laminated cards and a brief questionnaire.
The study found that FCT and schedule thinning resulted in low rates of destructive behavior and high rates of functional communication. The preference assessment showed that each participant favored the condition that achieved mastery. The study also highlights the need to evaluate the efficiency and social validity of schedule thinning procedures by incorporating alternative items or activities and considering participant and therapist preferences.
Functional analysis helps behavior analysts evaluate variables affecting destructive behavior and determine intervention strategies. Functional communication training (FCT) is one such intervention that teaches alternative communication responses to access the maintaining reinforcer while putting destructive behavior on extinction. Reinforcement schedule thinning is a widely researched procedure that involves using a multiple schedule. While extending SΔ periods can increase the value of the functional reinforcer, non-contingent provision of competing activities during SΔ periods facilitates reinforcement schedule thinning during FCT. No study has directly compared the efficacy of different competing activities within individuals.
The two children with destructive behavior participated in the study: Jacob, a 6-year-old diagnosed with disruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorder who displayed aggression and property destruction, and Alan, a 3-year-old diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and self-injurious behavior who displayed aggression. The sessions were held in padded or nonpadded rooms, and the evaluation results are available in Fisher et al.’s previous programs.
We collected data on destructive behavior and FCRs of each child using laptop computers behind the observation window. Self-injurious behavior, aggression, and property destruction were observed. The study had session-termination criteria for safety, but they were not met. FCRs included stating, “My turn please,” or exchanging a card with a picture of the child consuming the functional reinforcer. We calculated interobserver agreement for each session by dividing it into successive 10-second intervals. The mean interobserver-agreement coefficients for aggression, property destruction, and FCRs were 97%, 99%, and 98% for Jacob and 99%, 100%, 99%, and 99% for Alan.
Two separate Mult FCTs were implemented, one with Jacob and one with Alan. Jacob’s therapy utilized a yellow wristband as the SD and lasted approximately 10 minutes, while Alan’s therapy utilized green and red index cards to signal schedule components and lasted 5 minutes. Both therapies implemented a 3-second changeover delay to prevent adventitious reinforcement of destructive behavior. In Alan’s therapy, variable SΔ durations were used to make the schedule-thinning steps less discriminable.
The study’s purpose was to compare different activities to evaluate their effectiveness during periods of reinforcement schedule thinning when the functional reinforcer was unavailable. The study included two participants, Jacob and Alan, and the selection of competing activities was based on informal observations, functional analysis results, and discussions with the caregivers. Attention and demands were used as the two competing activities for Jacob, and attention and an alternative tangible were used for Alan. The sessions lasted for 10 minutes for Jacob and 5 minutes for Alan. The study included three different conditions: Mult FCT, Mult FCT plus attention, and Mult FCT plus alternative tangible. The therapist provided high-quality attention in the form of physical play and conversation during the SΔ component of the multiple schedules in the Mult FCT plus attention condition. In the Mult FCT plus alternative tangible condition, the therapist provided Alan with a preferred tangible other than the iPad throughout the SΔ component.
The text describes the results of a comparison of different treatment strategies for two individuals, Jacob, and Alan, who displayed destructive behavior. The study examined the effectiveness of competing-activities training (FCT) in reducing rates of destructive behavior and thinning reinforcement schedules. The results showed that all three variations of FCT were effective in reducing the baseline rates of destructive behavior in both individuals. However, providing access to competing activities in the form of attention or alternative tangible during the SΔ component of FCT was found to be most effective in suppressing destructive behavior. The study also showed that reinforcement schedule thinning using FCT led to a recurrence of destructive behavior but providing access to competing activities during the SΔ component of FCT helped facilitate reinforcement schedule thinning.
In this study, we attempted to reduce destructive behavior by thinning the schedule of reinforcement using a multiple schedule. We found that providing competing activities during periods without the functional reinforcer effectively reduced destructive behavior. We also observed that there are individual differences in terms of what activities will successfully reduce destructive behavior and that the selection of competing activities should be subjected to empirical validation before incorporation into schedule thinning. Future research should evaluate the relative preference for diverse types of competing activities and consider limiting additional exposure to the EO by providing continuous access to the alternative tangible across both components of the multiple schedules. Overall, we believe that our results demonstrate the importance of evaluating each competing activity as a potential context that would need to be mastered for a successful transition of intervention into the natural environment.
EfficiencyandpreferenceforalternativeactivitiesduringschedulethinningwithfunctionalcommunicationtrainingChristinaA.SimmonsandGiovannaL.SalvatoreRowanUniversityAmandaN.ZangrilloUniversityofNebraskaMedicalCenter’sMunroe-MeyerInstituteFunctionalcommunicationtrainingisaneffectivetreatmentfordecreasingsociallyreinforceddestructivebehavior(Carr&Durand,1985).Cliniciansfrequentlyusemultipleschedulestothinthereinforcementschedule(Hanleyetal.,2001).Individualsareoftentaughttowaitforfunctionalreinforcerswithoutalternativeprogrammedstimuli.However,concurrentlyavailableitemsandactivitiesareoftenaccessibleinthenaturalenvironment.Inthisstudy,wetaught4participantsafunctionalcommunicationresponsetoaccessfunctionalreinforcers.Weimplementedamultiplescheduleduringschedulethinning,comparingacontrolcondition(nothingavailableduringSΔintervals)toseparateconditionswithitems/activities(moderatelypreferredtangibleitems,attention,demands)noncontingentlyavailableduringSΔintervals.Afterreachingtheterminalscheduleinonecondition,therapistsassessedparticipantpreferenceacrossSΔconditions.Forallparticipants,theterminalschedulewasreachedwithalternativeitemsandactivities,andparticipantpreferencecorrespondedwiththemostefficientschedulethinningcondition.Therapistsalsoindicatedpreferenceforalternativeitems/activities.Keywords:efficiency,functionalcommunicationtraining,preference,schedulethinningFunctionalcommunicationtraining(FCT)isthemostcommonempiricallysupportedinter-ventionforindividualswithdevelopmentaldis-abilitieswhoengageinsociallyreinforceddestructivebehavior(Tigeretal.,2008).Dur-ingFCT,practitionersteachindividualstoemitanappropriatefunctionalcommunicationresponse(FCR)toobtainthereinforcerdeter-minedtomaintaindestructivebehavior(Carr&Durand,1985).Althoughhighlyeffec-tiveatdecreasingdestructivebehavior,rein-forcementforFCRsmaynotbereadilyavailableinthenaturalenvironmentwhenindi-vidualsengageinFCRsatahighfrequencyoratinappropriatetimes(Betzetal.,2013).Prac-titionersoftenimplementschedulethinningprocedureswithFCTtothinthescheduleofreinforcementtoasociallyacceptablelevel.Multipleschedulesareoneofthemosteffec-tiveschedulethinningproceduresforaddressingdestructivebehaviormaintainedbysocial-positivereinforcement(Hanleyetal.,2001).Multipleschedulesusesignaledperiodsofrein-forcement(SD)inwhichfunctionalreinforcersareprovidedcontingentuponanappropriateFCR,andextinction(SΔ)inwhichfunctionalreinforcementisunavailable.ThelengthoftheSΔintervalissystematicallyincreasedrelativetotheSDintervalcontingentuponappropriatecommunicationandlowlevelsofaberrantbehavior(Hanleyetal.,2001).ResearchhasdemonstratedtheefficacyofmultipleschedulesincombinationwithFCTfortreatingvarioustopographiesofbehaviorandfunctions(Greeretal.,2016;Hagopianetal.,2005;Rookeretal.,2013;Sainietal.,2016).OnedocumentedchallengeofFCTschedulethinningisresurgenceofdestructivebehaviorThisstudywaspartiallysupportedbySeedFundingfromRowanUniversity.Addresscorrespondenceto:ChristinaSimmons,Depart-mentofPsychology,RowanUniversity,201MullicaHillRoad,RobinsonHallSuite117,Glassboro,NJ08028.Email:simmonsc@rowan.edudoi:10.1002/jaba.886JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis2022,55,101–120NUMBER1(WINTER)©2021SocietyfortheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior(SEAB).101
whileprogressingthroughschedulethinningsteps.Resurgenceisthereemergenceofapreviouslyextinguishedbehavior(e.g.,destructivebehavior)whenanalternativebehavior(e.g.,FCR)contactsextinctionoradecreasedrateofreinforcement(e.g.,duringprogressivelyincreasingSΔintervals).Briggsetal.(2018)documentedresurgencein19of25(75%)schedulethinningapplicationsconductedbyhighlytrainedclinicians.Thelikeli-hoodofresurgencemaybegreaterinthenaturalenvironmentwherecaregiversmaydeliverrein-forcersinresponsetoresurgentbehavior(Briggsetal.,2018).Researchershavedescribedseveralmodifica-tionstoimproveFCTschedulethinningproce-dures.Onesuchstrategyisnoncontingentreinforcement(NCR)whichincludesdeliveringareinforcingstimulusonafixed-orvariable-timeinterval(Rookeretal.,2013).Reinforcerscanbeeithermatchedtofunction(Vollmer&Iwata,1992)orarbitrarilyselected(Fischeretal.,1997).Hagopianetal.(2005)extendedtheliteraturebyconductingacompetingstim-ulusassessmenttoidentifystimulithatpro-ducedlowlevelsofdestructivebehaviortoincludeduringreinforcementschedulethin-ning.Researcherscomparednoncontingentaccesstocompetingstimuliduringextinctionperiodsforthreeparticipants.ResultsindicatedthatNCRincombinationwithFCTfacilitatedmoreefficientschedulethinningtoreachtheterminalgoalandmaintainedlowerlevelsofdestructivebehavior.Thus,competingstimulimayhaveattenuatedthemotivatingoperation(MO)fordestructivebehaviorandFCRs,decreasingtheprobabilityoftheirreoccurrenceduringschedulethinning.Further,concurrentlyincorporatingadifferen-tialreinforcementofalternativebehavior(DRA)contingencywithFCT,mostcommonlyprovid-ingreinforcementforcompliancewithdemands,hasenhancedFCTprocedures.Hardingetal.(1994)combinedFCT(i.e.,requestsforassistance)withDRA(i.e.,attemptingthetask)withtwoindividualswhoseaberrantbehaviorwasmaintainedbyescape.ResultsconfirmedtheefficacyofFCTwithDRAforreinforcementschedulethinningcomparedtoFCTalone.Inanotherapplication,Fisheretal.(2000)com-paredFCTplusextinctionwithandwithoutalternativeworkactivitiesduringperiodsofrestrictedaccesstotangibleitemsforonepartici-pant.Researchersusedleast-to-mostpromptingfollowingdemandpresentationandprovidedpraisecontingentuponcompliancewiththever-balormodelprompt.Schedulethinningwasmoreefficientwiththeembeddedworkactivitiesandmaintainedlowratesofdestructivebehavior.TheadditionofreinforcementforcompliancemaydecreasetheMOforescape,therebyreduc-ingthelikelihoodofaberrantbehaviorandFCRsduringextinctionintervals.Althoughnotwithinthecontextofschedulethinning,Fisheretal.(1998)taughttwopartic-ipantstomandforalternativereinforcersdur-ingperiodswhenreinforcementwasnotavailable.Researchersuseddiscriminativestim-ulitosignalwhichcommunicationresponsewouldcontactreinforcement.Participantscouldrequestaccesstoattentionwhentangibleitemswereunavailableandviceversa.Resultsindicatedthatdestructivebehaviormaintainedatlowlevelsduringperiodswhenthereinforcerwasunavailable,suggestingtheutilityofdiffer-entiallyreinforcinganalternativecommunica-tionresponseduringadelaytoreinforcement.AswithNCR,accesstothealternativeactivityduringdelaysmayhavedecreasedtheMOfordestructivebehaviorandFCRs.Rookeretal.(2013)evaluatedtheefficacyofFCTbothaloneandincombinationwithothertreatmentcomponentsinaconsecutivecon-trolledcaseseriesfrom58applicationsofFCT.TheseresearchersdemonstratedthatFCTwasmoreeffectivewithalternativeitemsandactivi-tiesavailableduringschedulethinning.Specifi-cally,cliniciansappliedFCTwithNCRinninecases(e.g.,arbitraryavailabilityoftoysduringdelaystoreinforcement),FCTwithDRAinthreecaseswithescape-maintainedbehaviorChristinaA.Simmonsetal.102
(e.g.,reinforcementprovidedforcompliance),andFCTwithDROintwocases(e.g.,edibleitemsprovidedforengaginginbehaviorotherthandestructivebehavior).Interestingly,forsevenapplications,alternativereinforcementwasaddedtoFCTfollowingfailedtreatment.Consistentwiththeliterature,addingalterna-tivereinforcementtoFCTfacilitatedschedulethinningwhilemaintaininglowlevelsofdestructivebehavior.ThealternativeactivitiesmayhaveattenuatedtheMOfordestructivebehaviorandtheFCR,therebymakingdestruc-tivebehaviorlesslikelytoreemergeduringschedulethinningstepswhentheFCRwasnotreinforced.TheseresultsmayalsobeexplainedbycompetingresponseswherebyengagingindestructivebehaviororanFCRisincompatiblewithengagementinanalternativeactivity.Sim-ilarly,inareviewof25applicationsofFCT,Greeretal.(2016)foundthatsupplementalprocedureswereaddedin28%ofapplicationsandenhancedFCTschedulethinning.Supple-mentalprocedureswereaddedpriortoschedulethinningforthreeapplications(12%)anddur-ingschedulethinningforfourapplications(16%).ThesesupplementalproceduresincludedNCRwhilethefunctionalreinforcerwasunavailableforoneparticipant,tangibleitemsand/orattentiondeliveredwiththefunc-tionalreinforcerforfiveparticipants,andpun-ishmentforoneparticipant.Inareviewoftheextantliterature,Sainietal.(2016)suggestedseveralmethodstoimproveschedulethinningmethodology,includingimplementingamomentarydifferentialreinforce-mentcontingency(i.e.,waitingfortheabsenceoftargetbehaviortochangecontingencies)topre-ventadventitiousreinforcementandsystematicallyselectingSΔandSDdurations.Calletal.(2018)systematicallyevaluatedtheserecommendationsbyconductinganindividualizedapproachtorein-forcementschedulethinningwithfivepartici-pants.ResearchersyokedtheinitialdurationoftheSΔcomponenttotherateofFCRsduringtheFCTevaluationandimplementedadelaytoinitiationoftheSDintervalcontingentupondestructivebehavior.Thisnovelapproachwassuc-cessfulinmaintainingdiscriminatedFCRsforallparticipantsandlowratesofdestructivebehaviorforfouroffiveparticipantsduringschedulethin-ning.Suchstudieshighlighttheimportanceofindividualizingreinforcementschedulethinningprocedurestoimprovetheireffectivenessandsocialvalidity.Despitetheutilityandempiricalsupportofmultipleschedulesforschedulethin-ning,researchershaveraisedconcernsregardinggeneralizationofschedulethinningprocedurestonaturalcontextsandwithnaturalchangeagents(e.g.,Sainietal.,2016).Inadditiontoconductingschedulethinningevaluationswithcaregivers(e.g.,Tsamietal.,2019;Wackeretal.,2013),researchersshouldconsidermodificationstoensurethatschedulethinningprocedurescloselyresemblethenaturalenvironment.Althoughrestrictedaccesstoalternativeitemsandactivitiesduringextinctionperiodsmaybefeasibleinclinicalpractice,restrictedaccesstostimulimaynotbepracticalinappliedsettings.Ofteninnaturalcontexts,individualswhoarewaitingforhighlypreferreditemsandactivitiescaninsteadaccesslowerpreferreditemsandactivities.Forexample,ifasiblinginthehomeisplayingwithachild’stablet,thechildcanchoosetoplaywithLegos®,talkwithaparent,orcom-pletehomeworkorchoreswhiletheywaitforthetablettobecomeavailable.Schedulethinningwithalternativeitemsoractivitiesmaypromotemoreefficientschedulethinning,reducepossibleresurgenceofdestructivebehavior,andincreasegeneralizationacrosscontextsandimplementers.Inthecurrentstudy,weextendtheliteraturedemonstratingtheutilityofalternativeitemsandactivitiesduringschedulethinningtoconcur-rentlyevaluatetheefficiencyofschedulethinningwithdifferentalternativeitemsoractivitiesavail-ableduringSΔintervals(i.e.,NCRtangible,NCRattention,DRAforcompliancewithdemands).Furthermore,weextendtheliteraturebyevaluatingparticipantandtherapistpreferenceforschedulethinningprocedures.Throughthis103ScheduleThinningComparison
study,weaimedtoimprovethesocialvalidityofschedulethinningusingamultipleschedulewithFCTtocloselyresemblethenaturalenvironmentinwhichalternativestimuliarelikelyavailableduringdelaystoreinforcement.MethodParticipantsFourchildrenconsecutivelyreferredfortheassessmentandtreatmentofdestructivebehaviorparticipatedinthisstudy.Participantswereincludediftheywerebetweentheagesof5to18yearsandafunctionalanalysis(FA)identifiedasociallymediatedsourceofreinforcement.Theseparticipantsrangedinagefrom6to10years(M=7.25years)andpresentedwithautismspec-trumdisorder(ASD)oranotherdevelopmentaldisability,withvaryinglevelsofvocalcommunica-tion.Rexwasa6-year-oldWhitemalewithASD.Histargetbehaviorsincludedaggression,propertydestruction,andself-injuriousbehavior.Rexcom-municatedinthree-to-fivewordphrases,primarilyconsistingofmands,tacts,andrepetitivevocaliza-tions.Jacksonwasa6-year-oldWhitemalewithspeechsounddisorder.Jackson’stargetbehaviorsincludedaggression,propertydestruction,andinappropriatevocalizations.Jacksoncommunicatedinphrasespeech(e.g.,complexmand,tact,andintraverbalrepertoire)withsomearticulationdiffi-culty,limitingintelligibility.Jeremywasa10-year-oldWhitemalewithASDandattention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder(ADHD).Jeremycommuni-catedusinggesturesandsingle-tothree-wordphrasesprimarilyconsistingofmands.Targetbehaviorsincludedaggression,propertydestruc-tion,self-injuriousbehavior,andinappropriatevocalizations.Gregwasa7-year-oldWhitemalewithASD.Histargetbehaviorsincludedaggres-sion,propertydestruction,andself-injuriousbehavior.Gregcommunicatedusingthree-toseven-wordphrases,primarilyconsistingofmands.Allparticipantsdemonstratedmatch-to-sampleskills(e.g.,picture-to-objectmatching)asindentifiedbyselecttasksfromtheVerbalBehaviorMilestonesAssessmentandPlacementProgram(VB-MAPP;Sundberg,2014).SettingSessionsforRex,Jackson,andGregwereconductedinapaddedtreatmentroom(3mx3m)withaone-wayobservationmirror.Thesessionroomcontainedatable,twochairs,andtherelevantstimuliforeachcondition.SessionsforJeremywereconductedinadesignatedinstructionalspaceinhishomewithatable,chairs,andrelevantstimuli.ResponseDefinitionsandRecordingProceduresWedefineddestructivebehaviorforeachpar-ticipantbasedoncaregiverinterviewanddirectobservation.Acrossparticipants,aggressionincludedanycompleted,attempted,orblockedresponsethatcouldcauseinjurytoanotherper-son,including(butnotlimitedto)hitting,punching,kicking,pushing,pulling,grabbing,throwing,pinching,scratching,headbutting,andbiting.Propertydestructionwasdefinedasanycompletedorblockedresponsethatcouldcausedamagetomaterialsoranyotherobjectsorsurfaceswithintheimmediateenvironment,including(butnotlimitedto)throwing,kicking,breaking,andhittingobjects;overturningfurni-ture;swipingobjectsfromatableorothersur-face;andtearingmaterials.Self-injuriousbehaviorwasdefinedasanycompletedorblockedresponsethatwasself-directedsuchthatrepetitionofthebehaviorovertimehadorwouldcausebodilyinjury,including(butnotlimitedto)headbanging,self-hitting,biting,eyepoking,bodyslamming,hairpulling,grabbing,choking,pinching,andscratching.Inappropriatevocalizationsincludedanyintelligibleinsultorthreat,withanewinstancescoredafteratleasta2-spause.Duringschedulethinningsessions,traineddatacollectorsrecordedthefrequencyofdestructivebehavior,FCRs,instructionsandChristinaA.Simmonsetal.104
compliance,anddurationofengagementwithalternativeitemsandactivities.Wedefinedcor-rectFCRsasanunpromptedvocalresponse(e.g.,“[nameofitem],please”)occurringbetweenthepresentationoftheSDanddeliveryofthefunctionalreinforcer.Wedefinedincor-rectFCRsasavocalresponseduringtheSΔintervalorduringdeliveryofthefunctionalreinforcerintheSDinterval,aswellasapromptedFCRduringtheSDinterval.PercentcorrectFCRswascalculatedbydividingcorrectFCRsbytotalFCRsandconvertingtoaper-centage.Wedefinedengagementasmanipula-tionofanalternativetangibleitemasintended,interactionwiththetherapist,orcompletionofdemandsduringtherelevantSΔinterval.Per-centengagementwascalculatedbydividingthedurationofengagementbythetotalSΔintervaldurationandconvertingtoapercentage.Duringpreferenceassessmenttrials,partici-pantsindicatedpreferencewithavocal(i.e.,statingthenameoftheconditionorcorre-latedcolor)orgesturalresponse(i.e.,pointingtoortouchingthecolor-correlatedstimuli).InterobserverAgreementTwoindependenttrainedobserverscollectedinterobserveragreement(IOA)data.Anagree-mentwasdefinedasa10-sintervalinwhichbothobserversrecordedthesamefrequencyofoccur-rencesordurationofthetargetbehavior.Duringthepreferenceassessment,anagreementwasdefinedasbothobserversrecordingthesamequal-itativeselection.IOAwascalculatedusingthefor-mula:agreements/(agreements+disagreements)x100.Acrossparticipants,IOAwascollectedforameanof42.49%ofsessions(range,23.42%to61.63%),includingaminimumof20%ineachphaseforeachparticipantand100%ofpartici-pantselections.Acrossparticipants,meanIOAwas98.83%(range,97.50%to99.31%)fordestructivebehavior,99.15%(range,98.67%to99.14%)forFCRs,94.51%(range,92.50%to95%)forinstructions,94.82%(range,92.22%to94.49%)forcompliance,95.79%(range,93.48%to96.01%)foralternativeactivityengagement,and100%forparticipantselections.ProceduresFunctionalAnalysisForeachparticipant,weconductedafunc-tionalanalysis(FA)priortothecurrentstudyaspartofstandardclinicalprocedurestodeter-minetheenvironmentalvariablesthatmaintainedeachparticipant’sdestructivebehav-ior.AvisualizationoftheFAprogressionispresentedasSupplementalMaterials.Relevanttestconditionsweredeterminedfromcaregiverinterviewsanddirectobservations.Wedeter-minedstimulitoincludeinpositivereinforce-mentconditionsviatheReinforcerAssessmentforIndividualswithSevereDisabilitiesinterview(Fisher,Piazza,Bowman,&Amari,1996)con-ductedwithcaregiversanddirectassessments(i.e.,paired-stimuluspreferenceassessment;Fisheretal.,1992)conductedwithpartici-pants.Participantsweregiven1-minpresessionexposuretoeachstimuluspriortoinitatingthepreferenceassessment.DemandmaterialsweredeterminedviatheDemandAssessmentforIndi-vidualswithSevereDisabilitiesinterview(Zangrilloetal.,2020)conductedwithcare-giversandthedemandlatencyassessment(Calletal.,2009)conductedwithparticipants.Atherapistalsoconductedacaregiverinterviewandpaired-stimulusattentionpreferenceassess-menttodeterminepreferredtypesofattention.Thetherapistfirstinterviewedtheprimarycare-giverabouttypesofattentionthatwerepre-ferredacrossdifferentcategories(e.g.,lightphysicalattention,conversationtopics).Duringthepaired-stimulusattentionpreferenceassess-ment,twoattentiontypeswerepresentedtotheparticipantatatimeusingpicturecardswithgraphicsdepictingthatattentiontype(Kellyetal.,2014).Selectionresultedin30sofaccesstothecorrespondingattentiontype.Attentiontypeswerepaireduntileachattention105ScheduleThinningComparison
typehadbeenpairedonetimewitheveryotherattentiontypetocreateahierarchyfrommosttoleastselected.ProceduresandrationaleforallFAconditions,includingthespecificstimuliused,arepresentedasSupplementalMaterials.ForRex,Jackson,andGreg,weconductedamultielementfunctionalanalysis(FA)withproceduresadaptedfromthosefirstdescribedbyIwataetal.(1982/1994)withmodifications:(a)5-minconditions,(b)theinclu-sionofatangibletestcondition(Dayetal.,1988),(c)equatingreinforcerdurationacrosstestconditions(Fisher,Piazza,&Chiang,1996),(d)includingdiscriminativestim-ulitoaidindiscriminationbetweenconditions(Connersetal.,2000),(e)usingafixedsequenceoftestandcontrolsessionstobuildtheesta-blishingoperationfortestconditions(Hammondetal.,2013),and(f)screeningforautomaticallymaintainedbehavioratthestartoftheFA,whenrelevant(Querimetal.,2013).ForJeremy,alatency-basedfunctionalanalysiswasconductedinthehometominimizetheoccurrenceofseveredestructivebehaviorinthehomeenvironmentandefficientlybegintreatment.Sessionscontin-uedfor5minoruntilthefirstinstanceoftargetbehavior(Thomason-Sassietal.,2011).Thera-pistsconductedaminimumoffiveseries.Subse-quentpairwiseevaluations(Iwataetal.,1994)wereconductedfollowingundifferentiatedmul-tielementFAresultstominimizeinteractioneffects.PairwiseFAsconsistedofalternationbetweenamatchedcontrolconditionandtestcondition.AcrossallFAconditions,color-correlatedstimuli(i.e.,coloredposterboard)asso-ciatedwitheachconditionwereplacedonthewallandthetherapistnotedthecolor(e.g.,“Look,it’sgreen”)priortothestartofeachsession.FunctionalCommunicationTraining(FCT)InitialEvaluationofFCT.WeconductedaninitialFCTevaluationtoconfirmtheeffec-tivenessofFCTasatreatmentfordestructivebehaviorusinganA-B-A-Bwithdrawaldesign.Foreachparticipant,weprioritizedatangiblefunctionfortreatmentwithFCTbasedoncaregiverpreference.Treatmentofotherfunc-tionswasaddressedfollowingthecurrentevaluation.Baseline.ThebaselineconditionoftheFCTevaluationwasidenticaltothetangiblecondi-tionoftheFA.Priortothestartofsession,thetherapistprovidedaccesstothehighestpre-ferredtangibleitemfor1min.Thetherapistthenrestrictedaccesstothetangibleitem.Con-tingentupondestructivebehavior,thetherapistprovidedaccesstothetangibleitemfor20s,thenrestrictedtheitemagain.Thissequencecontinuedfor5min.Pretraining.WethentaughtparticipantstoengageinanFCRtorequesttheirhigh-preferredtangibleitemusingaprogressive-promptdelay(0s,2s,5s,10s)toavocalpromptduring10-trialsessions.Thetherapistrestrictedaccesstothepreferredtangibleitemoneachtrial.FCRsresultedin20sofaccesstothepreferreditem.WedefinedacorrectFCRasavocalresponse(e.g.,“iPad,please”)occurringwithin5sofpresentingtheestablishingopera-tionfordestructivebehavior(i.e.,restrictionofthetangibleitem).WedefinedanincorrectFCRasoccurringfollowingavocalprompt.Alldestructivebehaviorwasplacedonextinction.Weincreasedthepromptdelayfollowingtwoconsecutivesessionswith80%orfewertrialswithdestructivebehaviorand90%orgreatertri-alswithcorrectFCRs(ondelaysgreaterthan0s).IfanFCRco-occurredwithdestructivebehavior,thetherapistimplementeda3-scon-tingentdelaybywaitingfor3swithoutdestructivebehaviorbeforereinforcingtheFCRtopreventadventitiousreinforcementofdestructivebehavior.Pretrainingwascompletedoncetheparticipanthadreachedtwoconsecu-tivesessionswith80%orfewertrialswithdestructivebehaviorand90%orgreatertrialswithcorrectFCRsatthe10-spromptdelay(datanotdisplayed).FCT.FCTprocedureswereidenticaltopre-trainingexceptthatwediscontinuedpromptsChristinaA.Simmonsetal.106
toemittheFCR.Sessiondurationwas5min.DatawerecollectedondestructivebehaviorandFCRs.ScheduleThinningForRex,Jackson,andJeremy,thefirsttangi-blebaselinephasefromtheFCTevaluationwasusedtocompareratesofdestructivebehav-ioracrossschedulethinningconditions.ForGreg,wedeterminedbaselineratesofdestruc-tivebehaviorpriortothestartofschedulethin-ningusingidenticalprocedurestothetangiblebaselinefromtheFCTevaluationduetoclini-calinstructionsofthesupervisingboardcerti-fiedbehavioranalyst,independentoftheresearchers.Wethenimplementedamultiplescheduletothinthescheduleofreinforcement.Therapistsworewhiteandredbraceletstosig-nalperiodsofreinforcement(SD)andextinc-tion(SΔ),respectively.ThewhitebraceletrepresentedthereinforcementconditioninwhichapreferreditemwasavailablefollowinganappropriateFCR.Theredbraceletrepresen-tedtheextinctionconditioninwhichdestruc-tivebehaviorandFCRswereplacedonextinction.Priortothestartofeachsession,thetherapistaskedtheparticipanttoselectfromtheirthreemost-selecteditemsfromthepaired-stimulustangiblepreferenceassessmentthatwasconductedpriortothestartoftheevaluation.Thiswasdonetopreventsatiation.Participantsalmostexclusivelyselectedtheirtoppreferredtangibleitempriortoallsessions.Theparticipantwasprovidedaccesstothefunctionalreinforcerfor1minpriortothestartofsession.ThetherapistthenheldupthewhitebracelettosignaltheSDintervalandrestrictedaccesstotheitem.ContingentuponacorrectFCR,thetherapistreturnedtheitemfortheremainderoftheSDinterval.IftheparticipantdidnotemitanFCR,thetherapistpresentedthevocalpromptonetime(e.g.,“Say‘[nameofitem],please.’”).OncetheSDintervalhadelapsed,thetherapistthenswitchedthebracelettored(SΔinterval)withineyesightoftheparticipantandrestrictedaccesstotheitem(individualSΔconditionsdescribedbelow).AttheendoftheSΔinterval,thetherapistswitchedthebracelettowhiteandcontinuedthesequenceofSD–SΔintervalsuntiltheses-siondurationelapsed(i.e.,maximumoffiveSD–SΔintervalswhenintervalswere30s).Weimplementeda3-sdelayfordestructivebehav-iorandFCRsbetweentheSΔandSDcondi-tionssuchthatwedidnotinadvertentlyreinforcedestructivebehaviororincorrectcom-munication.Alltargetdestructivebehaviorwasplacedonextinction.WesimultaneouslyevaluatedfourdifferentSΔconditions:control,noncontingentaccesstoalternativetangibleitems,noncontingentaccesstoattention,anddifferentialreinforcementforcompliancewithdemands,eachpairedwithcolor-correlatedstimuli(i.e.,coloredposterboardonthesessionroomdoorandwall).Spe-cificstimuliincludedineachconditionforeachparticipantarepresentedinTable1.Sessionorderwasrandomizedinblocksoffour.Priortothestartofeachsession,thetherapistdirectedtheparticipant’sattentiontothecol-oredstimuliandaskedtheparticipanttoiden-tifytheposterboardcolor.Inthecontrolcondition,noalternativestimuliwereavailableduringtheSΔinterval.Inthetangiblecondi-tion,amoderatelypreferredtangibleitemfromapaired-stimulustangiblepreferenceassessmentwasnoncontingentlyavailableduringtheSΔinterval.Priortothestartofeachtangibleses-sion,theparticipantwasaskedtoselectbetweenthreemoderatelypreferredtangibleitemstoincludeasalternativetangibleitems.Moderatelypreferreditemsweredefinedasthoseitemsfallingatthecenteroftherankingfromthepaired-stimuluspreferenceassessmentfrommosttoleastselectedstimuli.Weincludedtheitemdirectlyatthecenteraswellastheitemdirectlyaboveandbelowthatitem.Iftherewasatieforthecenteritem,wealsoincludedtheitemrankeddirectlybelowthesetwoitems.Theselectedtangibleitemwas107ScheduleThinningComparison
placedonthetableatthestartofsession.UponinitiatingthefirstSΔinterval,thetherapistremovedaccesstothefunctionalreinforcerandstatedthattheparticipantcouldplaywiththemoderatelypreferredtangibleitemwhileges-turingtothetable(e.g.,“TheiPadisn’tavail-able,butyoucanplaywiththecars).Onanysubsequentintervals,thetherapistdidnotpro-videanypromptstoengagewiththealternativetangibleitems.Intheattentioncondition,thetherapistnon-contingentlyprovidedmoderatequalityattentionduringtheSΔinterval,determinedfromapaired-stimulusattentionpreferenceassessmentcon-ductedpriortothestartoftheevaluation.Thetherapistalternatedbetweendeliveringthetwoattentiontypesdirectlyatthecenteroftherank-ingfrommost-to-leastselectedevery30sduringtheSΔinterval.AtthestartofthefirstSΔinterval,thetherapiststatedthattheycouldengageinthespecifiedtypesofattentionwhilethefunctionalreinforcerwasunavailable(e.g.,“TheiPadisn’tavailable,butwecantalkaboutarmymenorwhatagoodjobyou’redoing”).Weincludedtwomod-eratelypreferredattentiontypes(Rex,Jackson,Jeremy)toincreasethepracticalityofattentiondelivery(e.g.,notdeliveringhighfivesthroughouta5-minsession,notrepeatingpraisestatements).Inthedemandcondition,atherapistpres-entedmoderatelyaversivedemandsfromademandlatencyassessmentconductedpriortothestartoftheFA.Amoderatelyaversivedemandwasthedemandthatfellatthecenterofthehierarchyfromshortesttolongestmeanlatencytotargetbehavior.AtthestartoftheSΔinterval,thetherapiststatedthattheycoulddoworkwhilethefunctionalreinforcerwasunavailable(e.g.,“TheiPadisn’tavailable,butwecancleanuptoys).Thetherapistthenusedleast-to-mostprompting(i.e.,vocal,model,physicalprompt)topresentdemandsevery30sforthedurationoftheSΔinterval.Thetherapistprovideddifferentialreinforcementforcompliancefollowingthevocalormodelpromptintheformofbriefvocalpraise.OncetheSΔintervallengthelapsed,thetherapistswitchedtotheSDintervalimmediately,regardlessofwhethertheparticipanthadcom-pletedthedemandpresented.WeincreasedtheSΔintervalfollowingtwoconsecutivesessionswithan80%orgreaterreductionindestructivebehaviorfrombaselineand80%orgreatercorrectFCRs.Weprog-ressedthroughSD/SΔintervals,inseconds,(i.e.,30/30,30/45,30/60,30/90,30/120,45/150,45/180,60/210,60/240,60/270,Table1ItemsandActivitiesUsedDuringReinforcementScheduleThinningSΔItemsandActivitiesParticipantFunctional(tangible)ReinforcerTangibleAttentionDemandRexYouTube®,exerciseball,musicFirstset:Matchbox®cars,spinningquarters,Pokémon™cardsSecondset:coloring,dinosaurs,bubblesThirdset:slime,squishball,Play-Doh®handshakes(madeupsequence),complimentsReadingwordsJacksonRoblox®,YouTube®,plushfootballISpy®books,Connect4®,dinosaurspraise,talkingaboutarmymenCleaninguptoysJeremytablet,UNO®,balloonscars,dinosaurs,actionfigureshighfives,praiseMathworksheetsGregtablet,playingcards,Legos®cars,Jenga®,bookstalkingwiththerapistsMathworksheetsChristinaA.Simmonsetal.108
75/300)tomaintaina1:4ratioofreinforcementtoextinction.Sessionswere5minthroughcom-pletionofthe30/120interval;sessiondurationthenincreasedtothetimerequiredtocompletetwoSD/SΔintervals.WecontinuedschedulethinningwiththefourSΔconditionsuntiltheparticipantreachedtheterminalgoalinatleastonecontext,therebyendingtheschedulethin-ningevaluation.Theterminalgoalwasdeter-minedaprioribyeachparticipant’sprimarycaregiver.TheterminalSΔintervalforRex,Jeremy,andGregwas5min(75/300)and4min(60/240)forJackson.Followingfiveconsecutivesessionsinwhichtheparticipantdidnotmeetschedulethinningcriteriaandatherapeutictrendwasnotobserved,therapistsreturnedtothepreviousinterval.ForRex,weintroducednewtangibleitemstwotimesduringthetangible30/30intervalduetocontinuedoccurrenceofdestructivebehaviorandlowitemengagement(seeleftsecondpanelofFigure2).Thesecondsetofitemsincludedthethreeleast-selecteditemsfromthepairedstimuluspreferenceassessment.Thethirdsetofitemsincludedtan-gibleitemsavailableintheclinicalsettingofwhichonlyasingleitemwaspresentedatatimeandtheitemwouldnotcauseharmifthrownatatherapist.ForGreg,highratesofdestructivebehaviorwereobservedduringthedemand30/30interval,FCRsdroppedtozero,andcompliancewithdemandswaslow.Wethentransitionedtoachainedscheduleinthedemandcontext,suchthatschedulethinningwasdependentuponcompliance.Specifically,duringthesignaledSΔinterval,thetherapistpresenteddemandsandusedleast-to-mostpromptinguntiltheparticipantcompliedwiththerequisitenumberofdemands,eitherinde-pendentlyorfollowingthemodelprompt.Wemeasuredtimetocompleteeachdemandatthepreviousschedule-thinningsteptomaintaina1:4ratioofSDtoSΔdurationacrosscondi-tions.Oncetheworkintervalreachedatleast300swiththechainedschedule,wereturnedtotheterminalgoalofa75/300multiplescheduletopromoteconsistencyacrosspartici-pants(seerightfourthpanelofFigure3).SocialValidityWeassessedparticipantpreferenceacrossSΔconditionsfollowingatleastoneSΔconditionmeetingtheterminalschedulecriteria.Therapistspresentedfourlaminatedcoloredcards(10.75cm14.00cm)thatcorrespondedwiththecolor-correlatedstimuliusedduringschedulethinningsessions.CardswereVelcroedtoalaminatedpieceofpaperinlandscapeorientationwithtwocardsonthetoprowandtwocardsdirectlybelowinasecondrow.Thetherapistpointedtoeachcardandbrieflyexplainedwhateachcardrepresented(e.g.,“Greenmeansyougettoplaywithothertoyswhileyouwait”).Onceaselec-tionwasmade,weconductedone30/30SD/SΔintervalwiththeselectedcondition.Preferencetrialswererepeateduntilstableselectionwasobservedbytherapists(e.g.,4outof5choices)or10trialswerecompleted.Theorderofcardpre-sentationwasrandomizedforeachtrialandcounterbalancedsuchthateachcardappearedatleastonceineachlocationduringablockoffivetrials.Eachparticipant’sprimarytherapist(s)com-pletedabriefthree-itemsocialvalidityques-tionnairetoassesssocialvalidityusingtheQualtrics®surveyplatform.Therapistswereaskedtorankeachconditiononafour-pointLikert-typescaleonpreferenceforprocedure,perceivedeffectiveness,andeaseofimplementa-tioninthenaturalenvironment.Responseswereanonymouslyrecordedandwerenotreviewedbytheresearchersuntilallparticipantscompletedthestudy.ResultsFunctionalanalysisresultsindicatedthatdestructivebehaviorwasmultiplymaintainedforallparticipants.SeeSupplementalMaterialsfortheratesofdestructivebehaviorineachFA109ScheduleThinningComparison
conditionandpercentofdatapointsthatfellabovetheuppercriterionasdeterminedbyvisualinspectioncriteria(Roaneetal.,2013)oramodificationofthesevisualinspectioncriteriatosuittheFAdesign.Functionalanalysisgraphsareavailablefromthefirstauthoruponrequest.Allparticipantswereidentifiedashav-ingatangiblefunction,whichwasprioritizedbycaregiversonintakeassessmentmeasuresandtargetedduringthistreatmentevaluation.ResultsoftheFCTevaluationforeachpar-ticipantaredepictedinFigure1.Allpartici-pantsengagedinhighratesofdestructivebehaviorpriortopretraining(Rex,M=1.44perminute;Jackson,M=5.08;Jeremy,M=2.32;Greg,M=3.45).Duringpre-training(notdisplayed),allparticipantsreachedhighratesofcorrectFCRsandengagedinlowratesofdestructivebehavior.Withtheintro-ductionofFCT,allparticipantsengagedinlowratesofdestructivebehaviorandhighratesofFCRs.TheseresultswerereplicatedinthefinalFCTphase(Rex,M=0perminute;Jackson,M=0;Jeremy,M=0.07;Greg,M=0.07).Ofnote,GregfrequentlyengagedinrapidFCRs,emittingmultipleFCRspriortotheFigure1FCTEvaluationResultsAcrossParticipantsNote.FCT=functionalcommunicationtraining;FCR=functionalcommunicationresponse.ChristinaA.Simmonsetal.110
Figure2ScheduleThinningResultsforRexandJacksonNote.Baselinesdepictthesamedataacrossconditions.FCR=functionalcommunicationresponse;BL=baseline;PA=preferenceassessment;1=30/30;2=30/45;3=30/60;4=30/90;5=30/120;6=45/150;7=45/180;8=60/210;9=60/240;10=75/270;11=75/300.111ScheduleThinningComparison
Figure3ScheduleThinningResultsforJeremyandGregNote.Baselinesdepictthesamedataacrossconditions.FCR=functionalcommunicationresponse;BL=baseline;PA=preferenceassessment;1=30/30;2=30/45;3=30/60;4=30/90;5=30/120;6=45/150;7=45/180;8=60/210;9=60/240;10=75/270;11=75/300;2A=FR1;3A=FR2;4A=VR2;5A=VR4;6A=VR8;7A=VR12;8A=VR16;9A=VR20.ChristinaA.Simmonsetal.112
therapistdeliveringthefunctionalreinforcer,resultinginahighmeanrateofFCRsduringthefirst(M=4.3)andsecondphase(M=4.2)oftheFCTevaluation.Thispatternofrespondingdidnotpersistthroughoutsubse-quentschedulethinning.SchedulethinningresultsforeachparticipantarepresentedinFigures2and3.Sincedestruc-tivebehavioroccurredprimarilyduringtheSΔintervalwhenthefunctionalreinforcerwasunavailable(i.e.,establishingoperationpresent)andoccurredatverylowratesduringtheSDinterval(i.e.,establishingoperationabsent),thesedataaredepictedastotaltargetbehaviorspersession.Table2displaysdestructivebehav-iormeansseparatedbySΔandSDintervalsandmeanratesofcorrectFCRs(i.e.,correctFCRsduringSD)andincorrectFCRs(i.e.,FCRsdur-ingSΔ,promptedFCRs,andFCRsduringreinforcementinterval).Withtheintroductionofthemultiplescheduleandsubsequentsched-ulethinning,ratesofdestructivebehaviordecreasedandparticipantsmettheterminalscheduleinatleastoneoftheSΔconditions.Figure4depictsacumulativerecordofsched-ulethinningstepsmasteredacrossSΔcondi-tions.ForJackson,Jeremy,andGreg,thehighestmeanrateofdestructivebehaviorwasobservedinthecontrolcondition.Rexreachedtheterminalscheduleintheattentioncondi-tion,withalowoverallmeanrateofdestructivebehavior(0.07perminute;range,0to0.90).Intheattentioncondition,RexalsoengagedinthehighestmeanpercentageofcorrectFCRs(98.89%).ForRex,highmeanratesofdestruc-tivebehaviorwereobservedintheotherthreeconditions(controlM=0.90,range,0to5.00;tangibleM=1.60,range,0to5.60;demandM=1.7,range,0to8.20).Jacksonreachedtheterminalscheduleintheattentioncondition,withameanrateofdestructivebehaviorof0.04perminute(range,0to0.60)and98.26%correctFCRs.WealsoobservedlowratesoftargetbehaviorandhighpercentcorrectFCRsinthedemandcondition(0.14perminute;range,0to1.4;92.81%)andhighratesoftargetbehaviorinthecontrolandtan-gibleconditionswithlowerpercentcorrectTable2DestructiveBehaviorandFCRsAcrossScheduleThinningContextsSΔConditionParticipantBehaviorMeasuredControlTangibleAttentionDemandRexMeanDestructiveBehavior(SΔ/SD)0.86/0.041.44/0.160.07/0.001.66/0.04MeanRateCorrectFCRs1.91.81.51.8MeanRateIncorrectFCRs0.20.10.040.04PercentEngagement—32.7485.0080.90JacksonMeanDestructiveBehavior(SΔ/SD)1.00/0.000.52/0.080.03/0.010.14/0.00MeanRateCorrectFCRs1.71.61.81.6MeanRateIncorrectFCRs0.30.20.040.1PercentEngagement—77.2087.2091.28JeremyMeanDestructiveBehavior(SΔ/SD)0.81/0.050.17/0.050.36/0.030.18/0.02MeanRateCorrectFCRs1.71.51.71.6MeanRateIncorrectFCRs0.50.20.20.1PercentEngagement—85.0283.4589.96GregMeanDestructiveBehavior(SΔ/SD)2.00/0.000.16/0.040.72/0.091.10/0.10MeanRateCorrectFCRs1.61.31.41.2MeanRateIncorrectFCRs0.060.030.070.06PercentEngagement—93.1074.168.6/86.4/89.4Note.FCR=functionalcommunicationresponse.Demandpercentengagementisreportedasoriginalmultiplesched-ule/chainedschedule/finalmultipleschedule.Boldtextdenotestheoptimaloutcomeoneachvariablemeasuredacrossschedulethinningconditions.113ScheduleThinningComparison
FCRs.Jeremyreachedtheterminalscheduleinthetangiblecondition,withameanrateofdestructivebehaviorof0.22perminute(range,0to3.20)and92.72%correctFCRs.AslightlylowermeanrateofdestructivebehaviorandhigherpercentcorrectFCRswereobservedinthedemandcontext(0.20perminute;range,0to4.0;94.34%).Finally,Gregreachedtheterminalscheduleinthetangiblecondition,withameanrateofdestructivebehaviorof0.20perminute(range,0to5.5)and98.96%correctFCRs.Interestingly,althoughGregalsoreachedtheterminalscheduleinthedemandcontext,themeanrateofdestructivebehavioracrosstheconditionwashigherinthedemandcontext(1.20perminute;range,0to7.8).Excludingthedatafromtheinitial30/30mul-tipleschedule,themeanrateofdestructivebehaviorinthedemandcontextwas0.46(range,0to3.4).Asanappliedextension,weconductedadditionalsessionsforGregfollow-ingthepreferenceassessmenttodeterminewhenhewouldmeettheterminalcriteriaintheremainingalternativeschedulethinningconditions(seefinalphaseinrightpanelofFigure3).Gregreachedmasterycriteriaintheattentionconditionintwoadditionalsessionsanddemandcontextinthreeadditionalsessions.Acrossparticipants,weobservedgenerallyhighmeanpercentengagement(i.e.,>70%)withnoncontingentlyavailablealternativeitemsandactivities(seeTable2),withtheexceptionofthealternativetangibleconditionforRex(32.74%).ForRexandGreg,thehighestper-centengagementwasobservedintheconditionthatfirstreachedmastery,with85%foratten-tionandand93.10%foralternativetangibleFigure4CumulativeRecordofScheduleThinningStepsMasteredAcrossSΔConditionsNote.Totalschedulethinningstepstoterminalgoalwas11forRex,Jeremy,andGreg(i.e.,5-minSΔ)and9forJack-son(i.e.,4-minSΔ).ChristinaA.Simmonsetal.114
items,respectively.ForJacksonandJeremy,theconditiontoreachmasteryalsoyieldedhighengagement,with87.20%and85.02%foralternativetangibleitems,respectively.Forallfourparticipants,wewereabletofacilitatecompliancewithdemandsusingaDRAprocedureduringtheSΔdemandcondi-tion.Participantcompliancewashighacrossthedemandcondition(RexM=78.90%;Jackson,M=85.45%;Jeremy,M=99.13%;Greg,M=47.54%duringoriginalmultipleschedule,M=93.28%aftertransitioningtochainedschedule)Eachparticipantdemonstratedpreferencefortheconditionthatreachedmasteryfirst.Partici-pantselectionsaredisplayedinthepreferenceassessment(PA)phaseofFigures2-3withintherespectiveconditionthatwasselected.RexandJacksonselectedattentionin5outof5tri-als,Jeremyselectedtangiblein4outof5trials,andGregselectedtangiblein5outof5trials.Onthe4-pointsocialvalidityquestionnaire,therapistpreferenceforimplementingthetan-giblecondition(M=3.5;range,3to4)andattentioncondition(M=3.25;range,3to4)washigh,withvariablepreferenceforthecon-trolcondition(M=2.25;range,2to3),andlowpreferenceforthedemandcondition(M=1.75;range,1to2).Therapistsratedeffectivenessashighintheattention(M=3.75;range,3to4)andtangiblecondi-tions(M=3.25;range,2to4),variableinthedemandcondition(M=2.75;range,2to4),andlowinthecontrolcondition(M=1.5;range,1to2).Therapistsratedeaseofimple-mentationashighinthetangible(M=3.75;range,3to4)andattentionconditions(M=3),variableinthecontrolcondition(M=2.25;range,1to3),andlowinthedemandcondition(M=1.75;range,1to3).DiscussionAlthoughrestrictingaccesstobothfunc-tionalreinforcersandalternativeitemsandactivitiesisfeasibleincontrolledclinicalset-tings,suchrestrictedaccessmaynotbepracti-calinthenaturalenvironment,wherealternativeitemsandactivitiesarefreelyavail-ablewhenfunctionalreinforcersarerestricted.Inthisstudy,wemaintainedlowratesofdestructivebehaviorwhilethinningthesched-uleofreinforcementwithatleastonetypeofalternativeitemoractivitynoncontingentlyavailableduringSΔintervals,tomorecloselyresemblethenaturalenvironment.Participantsreachedtheirterminalgoalmoreefficientlyandwithlowerratesofdestructivebehaviorwithembeddednoncontingentaccesstotangibleitems,attention,and/orreinforcingcompliancewithdemandsduringSΔintervals.Forexam-ple,atthepointinwhichRexreachedtheter-minalgoalof75/300intheattentioncondition,hehadonlyreachedthe30/60scheduleinthecontrolcondition.AlthoughRexmayhaveeventuallyreachedtheterminalgoalinthecontrolconditionwithnoitemsoractivitiesavailable,wepotentiallyhelpedhimreachmasterycriteriafourtimesquickerbyembeddingattentionduringperiodswherehishighestpreferredtangibleitemwasunavailable.Gregreachedtheterminalgoalfirstinthetan-giblecondition.However,theembeddedatten-tionanddemandconditionsalsoproducedlowratesofdestructivebehaviorandhighFCRs,andhereachedtheterminalgoalintwoandthreeadditionalsessions,respectively.Noneoftheparticipantsreachedtheterminalgoalinthecontrolconditioninthecourseofthestudy.ResultsareconsistentwiththeliteraturethatsuggestsmoreefficientschedulethinningwhenembeddingNCR(i.e.,alternativetangibleitems,attention)andDRA(i.e.,compliancewithdemands).Suchalternativeitemsandactivitiesmayhaveproducedacompetingsourceofreinforcementwhenthefunctionalreinforcerwasnotimmediatelyavailable,thusservingasanabolishingoperationfordestruc-tivebehaviorandfunctionalcommunication.115ScheduleThinningComparison
Higherandmorevariableratesofdestructivebehaviorduringthecontrolconditionmaybeattributedtoresurgenceduringincreaseddelaystoreinforcement,suggestingthatprovidingalternativeitemsandactivitiesmayreducethelikelihoodofresurgence.Further,despiteover-allhighpercentcorrectFCRs,thelowestper-centagecorrectwasobservedduringthecontrolcontextforthreeparticipants(Rex,Jackson,andJeremy),suggestingthatpersistenceofFCRsduringextinctionmaybemorelikelywhenalternativeitemsandactivitiesareunavailable.Inaddition,thehighestratesofFCRsduringtheSΔintervalwereobservedinthecontrolconditionforallparticipants,fur-thersupportingthishypothesis.EvaluatingboththepercentageofcorrectFCRsandratesofFCRsprovidesevidenceoftwogoalsofschedulethinning:decreasingtheoverallrateofFCRsandbringingFCRsundertheappropri-atestimuluscontrol.Toevaluatethesocialvalidityofschedulethinningwithalternativeitemsandactivities,therapistsassessedparticipantpreferenceacrossSΔconditions.Participantspreferrednon-contingentaccesstotangibleitemsorattentionduringperiodswhentheirhighestpreferredtangibleitemswereunavailable.Allfourpartici-pantsreachedtheirterminalgoalfirstintheirpreferredcondition.Selectionsduringthepref-erenceassessmentmaybeattributed,inpart,toparticipants’functionofdestructivebehavior.Ifparticipantscannothaveaccesstotheirhighlypreferredtangibleitem,theymaypreferanothermoderatelypreferredtangibleitemtoprovideacompetingsourceofreinforcement.DestructivebehaviorforRexandJacksonwasalsomaintainedbyaccesstoattentionandbothselectedattentionasthemostpreferredcondi-tion,suggestingthepotentialutilityoffunction-basedNCR.Someindividualsmayhaveonehighestpreferredtangibleitemandnotengagewithmoderatelypreferredalterna-tives.ThisexplanationmaysupportwhyRexengagedinhighratesofdestructivebehaviorinthealternativetangiblecontext(e.g.,throwingalternativetangibleitems)andlowitemengage-ment.Astrengthoftheseresultsisthatalterna-tivetangibleitemsandattentionmaybefeasibletoprovideinthenaturalenvironment.Forexample,ifachildiswaitingforanappointmentandtheirhighly-preferredtangibleitemisnotavailable(e.g.,iPadhaslowbattery),parentscouldeasilyreplacethatitemwithamoderatelypreferredtangibleitemorprovideattention.Itisunsurprisingthatparticipantsdidnotselectdemandsasallparticipants’destructivebehaviorwasmultiplymaintainedbyescapefromdemands.FutureresearchshouldexamineparticipantpreferencewhenimplementingFCTandschedulethinningwithotherfunctions.Further,alltherapistsindicatedpreferenceforandefficacyofschedulethinningwithalter-nativeitemsandactivitiesnoncontingentlyavailable.Therapistpreferenceforthenon-contingenttangibleconditionovernon-contingentattentionandDRAcompliancewithdemandsisexpected,asprovidingnon-contingentaccesstotangibleitemsrequiredtheleasttherapistresponseeffort.Noneofthether-apistspreferredthedemandcontext,despiteitseffectiveness.Repeatedlypresentingdemands,followingthroughwithleast-to-mostprompt-ing,anddeliveringdifferentialreinforcementislaborintensiveandmaynotbefeasibleinthenaturalenvironment,assupportedbythelow-estratingforeaseofimplementationinthedemandcontext.Futureresearchmayconsidernoncontingentdemandcontextswherepartici-pantsindependentlycompleteworkactivitiesduringSΔintervalsandwhenpraiseisnotdeliveredfollowingeachinstanceofcompliance.Acrossparticipants,weobservedgenerallyhighmeanpercentcompliance(range,78.90%to99.13%)inthedemandcondition.Thisresultmaybeduetoescapeextinctionpro-ducedbyleast-to-mostpromptingordifferen-tialreinforcementforcompliance(i.e.,DRAChristinaA.Simmonsetal.116
procedure).Forthreeparticipants,least-to-mostpromptinganddifferentialreinforcementofcomplianceembeddedwithinamultiplesched-uleincreasedcompliancewithdemandsduringSΔintervals.However,forsomeindividuals(e.g.,Greg),achainedschedulemaybeeffec-tivesuchthatnoncomplianceisnotreinforcedattheendoftheSΔinterval.Futureresearchshouldconsidercomparingreinforcementschedulesfordemandsembeddedwithinsched-ulethinningforpositivereinforcement.Wewereabletoprogressthroughschedulethinningusingreinforcement-basedprocedures.Despitenotreachingtheterminalgoalinthecontrolcontext,noncontingentalternativeitemsandactivitiesfacilitatedschedulethinningwithouttheneedforsupplementalprocedures(e.g.,punishment).PreviousreviewsoftheFCTliteraturehavesuggestedtheneedforpunishmentinsomeinstancesduringschedulethinning(e.g.,Hagopianetal.,1998;Rookeretal.,2013).Themethodologyinthecurrentstudyallowedustosystematicallycompareeffectivenessofschedulethinningacrosscontrolandalternativecontextstoultimatelyselectthemosteffectivecondition(s),withoutconsideringpunishment.Hadweonlyimplementedthecontrolcontext,wemayhavethenconsideredevaluatingsuchalternativesfollowinginefficientschedulethinning.Thereareseverallimitationstothisstudythatwarrantmention.Althoughresultswiththesefourparticipantsarepromising,futureresearchshouldbeconductedwithadditionalparticipantsranginginageandleveloffunc-tioningtofurtherevaluatetheeffectivenessofalternativeitemsoractivitiesduringschedulethinning.Inthisstudy,schedulethinningandsubsequentassessmentofpreferencewascon-ductedbytrainedtherapists.Weattemptedtoapproximatethenaturalenvironmentbyselectingitemsandactivitiesnominatedbycaregiversanddeliveringtheminasimilarmanner(e.g.,typicallypresenteddemands,typeofattentioncaregiversprovided).Futureresearchersmayconsidercomparingschedulethinningcontextsandparticipantpreferencewithvariousimplementers,suchasprimarycaregiversandteachers.Inaddition,itisimpor-tanttoevaluatesocialvaliditywithparentstodeterminehowfeasibleandacceptableprovid-ingaccesstoalternativesmaybeinthenaturalenvironment.Inthisstudy,twoparticipantspreferredaccesstononcontingentattentionwhilehighlypreferredtangibleitemswereunavailable.Providingaccesstoattentionapproximatelyevery30smaybeimpracticalduringperiodslongerthan5min.Further,themoderatelypreferredtypesofattentionincludedinthisstudywerevocal(e.g.,conversations,praise)orlightphysicaltouch(e.g.,highfives,handshakes).Attentiondeliverymaynotbefeasibleifmoderatelypre-ferredattentionincludesmoreactiveformsofphysicalattentionsuchaschaseortickles.Inthisstudy,wesystematicallythinnedthescheduleofreinforcementinsmallincrements(i.e.,30s).Weusedsmallschedulethinningincrementstominimizetheoccurrenceofdestructivebehavior,aspreviousresearchsug-geststhatresurgencemayoccurduringsched-ulethinningwhentransitioningbetweenschedulethinningsteps(Briggsetal.,2018).Someparticipantsmaysuccessfullyprogressthroughschedulethinningwithlargertimeincrementsandreachlargerterminalgoalsmoreefficiently.Researchersshouldconsiderconductingterminalprobesthroughoutsched-ulethinningtopotentiallyeliminateunneces-saryschedulethinningsteps.Wealsoconductedschedulethinningtotheterminalschedulegoaldeterminedbyparents(300sforRex,Jeremy,andGreg;240sforJackson).Theseterminalintervalsareconsistentwiththepublishedliter-ature.InGreeretal.(2016),outof25applica-tionsofschedulethinning,theterminalgoalonlyexceeded300sforfourparticipants,withaterminalSΔintervalof240sfor14partici-pants(56%)and300sforfourparticipants(16%).Althoughconsistentwithpublished117ScheduleThinningComparison
literatureonFCTschedulethinning,theseintervalsmaynotapproximateintervalsduringwhichitemsarerestrictedinthenaturalenvi-ronment.Inadditiontomeasuringcaregiversocialvalidityratings,researchshouldconsidergeneralizingtreatmenteffectstothehomeenvi-ronmentandevaluatinglongerSΔintervals.LowratesofdestructivebehaviorandhighratesofappropriateFCRscorrespondedwitheachparticipant’spreferredcondition.Furtherresearchshoulddeterminewhetherparticipantpreferenceafterbriefexposuretoeachcontextcorrespondswiththemosteffectiveschedulethinningcondition.Determiningthepointatwhichparticipantscanreliablyselectthemosteffectiveconditionwouldpromotemoreeffi-cientschedulethinninginonecontext.Allparticipantsengagedindestructivebehav-iorthatwasmaintainedbymultiplesourcesofreinforcement(e.g.,accesstotangibleitemsandattention).Duringthenoncontingentalter-nativetangibleconditionofschedulethinning,itispossiblethatweprovidedaccesstoadiffer-entfunctionalreinforcerduringtheSΔinterval.Thepresenceofotherreinforcersmayhavecompetedwithattemptstocreateanesta-blishingoperationwhenthehighestpreferredtangibleitemwasrestricted,therebylimitingtheconclusionsthatcanbedrawnwithregardtoschedulethinning.Accordingtothepaired-stimuluspreferenceassessmentliterature(Fisheretal.,1992),itemsselectedonatleast80%oftrialsaremorelikelytofunctionasreinforcersthanitemsselectedonfewerthan80%oftrials.Byincludingmoderatelypre-ferredtangibleitemsthatwereselectedin35%orfewertrialsacrossparticipants,weaimedtodecreasethelikelihoodthatthesealternativetangibleitemsservedasfunctionalreinforcers.Withregardtoattentiondelivery,attentionservedasafunctionalreinforcerfordestructivebehaviorforallparticipants.Wedidnotevalu-atethespecifictypesofmoderatelypreferredattentiondeliveredduringSΔintervalsintheFA.Thereisapossibilitythatweprovidedaccesstoadifferentfunctionalreinforcerduringourschedulethinningevaluation.Nevertheless,par-ticipantslearnedtotolerateperiodsinwhichaccesstoahighlypreferreditemwasunavailable.Thepresenceofanestablishingoperationwasdemonstratedbyparticipantsconsistentlyrequestingaccesstothehighlypreferredtangibleitemsassoonastheywereavailable(SDinterval).Futureresearchmayconsiderincludingmoder-atelypreferreditemsandattentiontypesinthetangibleandattentionconditionsofanFAtodeterminewhethertheyarefunctionalrein-forcerspriortotheirinclusionduringschedulethinning.Theseresultsindicatethatratesofdestruc-tivebehaviorduringSΔintervalsremainlowwhenindividualsareprovidedwithanon-contingentalternativetangibleitem,attention,ordemandswhilefunctionalreinforcersareunavailable.Althoughwediscontinuedsched-ulethinningoncethefirstconditionreachedtheterminalgoal,wewereabletoprovidecare-giverswithmultiplesuggestionsofalternativeitemsoractivitiestoprovidewhenpreferreditemswereunavailable.CliniciansmayconsiderincorporatingalternativeitemsandactivitiesduringFCTschedulethinningtoimprovesocialvalidityandmorecloselyresemblenatu-ralcontextsinwhichalternativesarelikelyavailable.Suchaprocessmaybeindividualizedforeachclienttoaccountforindividualprefer-encesandfunctionalreinforcers.Forexample,cliniciansmayomitnoncontingentalternativetangibleitemsforparticipantswhoserestrictedinterestslimittheirrepertoireofpreferreditems,omitnoncontingentattentionforpartici-pantsforwhomengagementwithaclinicianisaversive,orconsiderwhethertheyaredeliveringanotherfunctionalreinforcerforclientswhosedestructivebehaviorismaintainedbymultiplesourcesofreinforcement.Cliniciansmayalsoconsiderevaluatingmorethanoneschedule-thinningconditiontoprovidecaregiverswithmultipletreatmentoptions.Althoughthecon-trolconditionwaslessefficient,clientsmayChristinaA.Simmonsetal.118
benefitfromexposuretowaitingtoaccesspositivereinforcerswithoutalternativestopreparethemforsituationsinthenaturalenvironmentwhenalternativesmaybetemporarilyunavailable.REFERENCESBetz,A.M.,Fisher,W.W.,Roane,H.S.,Mintz,J.C.,&Owen,T.M.(2013).Acomponentanalysisofsched-ulethinningduringfunctionalcommunicationtrain-ing.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,46(1),219-241.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.23Briggs,A.M.,Fisher,W.W.,Greer,B.D.,&Kimball,R.T.(2018).Prevalenceofresurgenceofdestructivebehaviorwhenthinningreinforcementschedulesduringfunctionalcommunicationtraining.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,51(3),620-633.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.472Call,N.A.,Clark,S.B.,Mevers,J.L.,Parks,N.A.,Volkert,V.M.,&Scheithauer,M.C.(2018).Anindividualizedmethodforestablishingandthinningmultipleschedulesofreinforcementfollowingfunc-tionalcommunicationtraining.LearningandMotiva-tion,62,91-102.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2017.03.006Call,N.A.,Pabico,R.S.,&Lomas,J.E.(2009).Useoflatencytoproblembehaviortoevaluatedemandsforinclusioninfunctionalanalyses.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,42(3),723-728.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-723Carr,E.G.,&Durand,V.M.(1985).Reducingbehaviorproblemsthroughfunctionalcommunicationtrain-ing.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,18(2),111-126.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111Conners,J.,Iwata,B.A.,Kahng,S.,Hanley,G.P.,Worsdell,A.S.,&Thompson,R.H.(2000).Differ-entialrespondinginthepresenceandabsenceofdis-criminativestimuliduringmultielementfunctionalanalyses.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,33(3),299–308.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-299.Day,R.M.,Rea,J.A.,Schussler,N.G.,Larsen,S.E.,&Johnson,W.L.(1988).Afunctionallybasedapproachtothetreatmentofself-injuriousbehavior.BehaviorModification,12(4),565–589.https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455880124005Fischer,S.M.,Iwata,B.A.,&Mazaleski,J.L.(1997).Noncontingentdeliveryofarbitraryreinforcersastreatmentforself-injuriousbehavior.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,30(2),239-249.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-239Fisher,W.W.,Kuhn,D.E.,&Thompson,R.H.(1998).Establishingdiscriminativecontrolofrespondingusingfunctionalandalternativerein-forcersduringfunctionalcommunicationtraining.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,31(4),543-560.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1998.31-543Fisher,W.W.,Piazza,C.C.,Bowman,L.G.,&Amari,A.(1996).Integratingcaregiverreportwithasystematicchoiceassessmenttoenhancereinforceridentification.AmericanJournalonMentalRetarda-tion,101(1),15-25.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8827248/Fisher,W.W.,Piazza,C.C.,Bowman,L.G.,Hagopian,L.P.,Owens,J.C.,&Slevin,I.(1992).Acomparisonoftwoapproachesforidentifyingreinforcersforpersonswithsevereandprofounddisabilities.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,25(2),491-498.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491Fisher,W.W.,Piazza,C.C.,&Chiang,C.L.(1996).Effectsofequalandunequalreinforcerdurationdur-ingfunctionalanalyses.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,29(1),117-120.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.26-117Fisher,W.W.,Thompson,R.H.,Hagopian,L.P.,Bowman,L.G.,&Krug,A.(2000).Facilitatingtoler-anceofdelayedreinforcementduringfunctionalcom-municationtraining.BehaviorModification,24(1),3-29.https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445500241001Greer,B.D.,Fisher,W.W.,Saini,V.,Owen,T.M.,&Jones,J.K.(2016).Functionalcommunicationtrainingduringreinforcementschedulethinning:Ananalysisof25applications.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,49,105-121.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.265.Hagopian,L.P.,ContrucciKuhn,S.A.,Long,E.S.,&Rush,K.S.(2005).Schedulethinningfollowingcommunicationtraining:Usingcompetingstimulitoenhancetolerancetodecrementsinreinforcerdensity.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,38(2),177–193.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.43-04Hagopian,L.P.,Fisher,W.W.,Sullivan,M.T.,Acquisto,J.,&LeBlanc,L.A.(1998).Effectivenessoffunctionalcommunicationtrainingwithandwith-outextinctionandpunishment:Asummaryof21inpatientcases.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnaly-sis,31(2),211-235.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1998.31-211Hammond,J.L.,Iwata,B.A.,Rooker,G.W.,Fritz,J.N.,&Bloom,S.E.(2013).Effectsoffixedversusrandomconditionsequencingduringmul-tielementfunctionalanalyses.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,46(1),22–30.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.7Hanley,G.P.,Iwata,B.A.,&Thompson,R.H.(2001).Reinforcementschedulethinningfollowingtreatmentwithfunctionalcommunicationtraining.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,34(1),17-38.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-17Harding,J.,Wacker,D.P.,Cooper,L.J.,Millard,T.,&Jensen-Kovalan,P.(1994).Briefhierarchicalassess-mentofpotentialtreatmentcomponentswithchil-dreninanoutpatientclinic.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,27(2),291-300.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-291119ScheduleThinningComparison
Iwata,B.A.,Dorsey,M.F.,Slifer,K.J.,Bauman,K.E.,&Richman,G.S.(1982/1994).Towardafunctionalanalysisofself-injury.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,27,197-209(ReprintedfromAnalysisandInterventioninDevelopmentalDisabilities,2,3–201982).https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197Iwata,B.A.,Duncan,B.A.,Zarcone,J.R.,Lerman,D.C.,&Shore,B.A.(1994).Asequential,test-controlmethodologyforconductingfunctionalanalysesofself-injuriousbehavior.BehaviorModifica-tion,18(3),289-306.https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455940183003Kelly,M.A.,Roscoe,E.M.,Hanley,G.P.,&Schlichenmeyer,K.(2014).Evaluationofassessmentmethodsofidentifyingsocialreinforcers.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,47(1),113-135.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.107Querim,A.C.,Iwata,B.A.,Roscoe,E.M.,Schlichenmeyer,K.J.,ViruésOrtega,J.,&Hurl,K.E.(2013).Functionalanalysisscreeningfordestructivebehaviormaintainedbyautomaticrein-forcement.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,46(1),47-60.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.26Roane,H.S.,Fisher,W.W.,Kelley,M.E.,Mevers,J.L.,&Bouxsein,K.J.(2013).Usingmodi-fiedvisual-inspectioncriteriatointerpretfunctionalanalysisoutcomes.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnaly-sis,46(1),130-146.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.13Rooker,G.W.,Jessel,J.,Kurtz,P.F.,&Hagopian,L.P.(2013).Functionalcommunicationtrainingwithandwithoutalternativereinforcementandpunishment:Ananalysisof58applications.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,46(4),708-722.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.76Saini,V.,Miller,S.A.,&Fisher,W.W.(2016).Multipleschedulesinpracticalapplication:Researchtrendsandimplicationsforfutureinvestigation.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,49(2),421-444.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.300Sundberg,M.L.(2014).Theverbalbehaviormilestonesassessmentandplacementprogram:TheVB-MAPP(2nded.).AVBPress.Thomason-Sassi,J.T.,Iwata,B.A.,Neidert,P.L.,&Roscoe,E.M.(2011).Responselatencyasanindexofresponsestrengthduringfunctionalanalysesofproblembehavior.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnaly-sis,44(1),51-67.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-51Tiger,J.H.,Hanley,G.P.,&Bruzek,J.B.(2008).Functionalcommunicationtraining:Areviewandpracticalguide.BehaviorAnalysisinPractice,1(1),16–23.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391716Tsami,L.,Lerman,D.,&Toper-Korkmaz,O.(2019).Effectivenessandacceptabilityofparenttrainingviatelehealthamongfamiliesaroundtheworld.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,52(4),1113–1129.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.645Vollmer,T.R.,&Iwata,B.A.(1992).Differentialrein-forcementastreatmentforbehaviordisorders:Proce-duralandfunctionalvariations.ResearchinDevelopmentalDisabilities,13,393–417.https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(92)90013-VWacker,D.P.,Lee,J.F.,PadillaDalmau,Y.C.,Kopelman,T.G.,Lindgren,S.D.,Kuhle,J.,Pelzel,K.E.,Dyson,S.,Schieltz,K.M.,&Waldron,D.B.(2013).Conductingfunctionalcom-municationtrainingviatelehealthtoreducetheprob-lembehaviorofyoungchildrenwithautism.JournalofDevelopmentalandPhysicalDisabilities,25,35–48.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-012-9314-0Zangrillo,A.N.,Simmons,C.A.,Fisher,W.W.,&Owen,T.M.(2020).Useofapaired-stimulusdemandanalysistoevaluatedemandsforinclusioninfunctionalanalyses.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnaly-sis,53(2),665-677.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.651ReceivedSeptember29,2020FinalacceptanceSeptember30,2021ActionEditor,JessicaBecraftSupportinginformationAdditionalSupportingInformationmaybefoundintheonlineversionofthisarticleatthepublisher’swebsite.ChristinaA.Simmonsetal.120
EVALUATINGCOMPETINGACTIVITIESTOENHANCEFUNCTIONALCOMMUNICATIONTRAININGDURINGREINFORCEMENTSCHEDULETHINNINGASHLEYM.FUHRMAN,BRIAND.GREER,AMANDAN.ZANGRILLO,ANDWAYNEW.FISHERUNIVERSITYOFNEBRASKAMEDICALCENTER’SMUNROE-MEYERINSTITUTEArrangingperiodsinwhichrequestsforreinforcementaredeniedinamultipleschedulemayresultinincreaseddestructivebehaviorduringtheseperiodsforindividualswhoreceivefunc-tionalcommunicationtraining(FCT)astreatmentforseveredestructivebehavior.Providingaccesstocompetingactivitiesduringperiodsofreinforcerunavailabilityhasbeenshowntomin-imizedestructivebehavior.Weevaluatedmethodstoidentifyeffectivecompetingactivitiesforusewhenthinningreinforcementavailabilityinamultiplescheduleandcomparedcompetingactivitiesembeddedwithinthemultiplescheduleusinganalternating-treatmentsdesign.Resultssuggestedatleastonecompetingactivityfacilitatedfavorabletreatmentoutcomesforeachpar-ticipant.Wediscussbuildingonthisempiricalapproachtoidentifyeffectivecompetingactivi-tiesforuseduringreinforcementschedulethinning.Keywords:competingactivities,destructivebehavior,functionalcommunicationtraining,multiplescheduleAfunctionalanalysis(Iwata,Dorsey,Slifer,Bauman,&Richman,1982/1994)enablesabehavioranalysttoevaluatetheeffectsofcer-tainvariablesondestructivebehaviorandpro-videstheanalystadirectionforintervention.Literaturereviewshaveshownthatinterven-tionsthatmanipulatereinforcersdemonstratedtomaintaindestructivebehaviorduringafunc-tionalanalysisaremorelikelytobeefficaciousthaninterventionsnotinformedbytheresultsofafunctionalanalysis(Didden,Duker,&Korzilius,1997;Didden,Korzilius,vanOor-souw,&Sturmey,2006).Onesuchfunction-basedinterventionisfunctionalcommunicationtraining(FCT)inwhichabehavioranalysttea-chesanalternativeandmoresociallyappropri-atefunctionalcommunicationresponse(FCR)asameansofaccessingthemaintainingreinforcerandplacesdestructivebehavioronextinction(Carr&Durand,1985;Fisheretal.,1993).FCTistypicallyinitiatedwithreinforce-mentfortheFCRdeliveredonanimpracticallydensescheduletoensureacquisitionofthenovelresponse.However,afteracquisitionoftheFCR,behavioranalystsoftenmakerein-forcementavailablelessfrequentlytoimprovethepracticalityoftheintervention.Oneofthemostresearchedschedule-thinningproceduresinvolvesarrangingamulti-pleschedule(Betz,Fisher,Roane,Mintz,&Owen,2013;Fisher,Greer,Fuhrman,&Querim,2015;Greer,Fisher,Saini,Owen,&Jones,2016;Hanley,Iwata,&Thompson,2001;Rooker,Jessel,Kurtz,&Hagopian,2013;Saini,Miller,&Fisher,2016;Sidener,Shabani,Carr,&Roland,2006).Inmultipleschedules,periodsinwhichtheFCRproducescontinuousreinforcementalternatewithperiodsinwhichtheFCRdoesnotresultinreinforcement(i.e.,extinction;typically,thisperiodisbriefinitially).Eachoftheseperiodsisassociatedwithadistinctstimulus.Theindivid-uallearnstorespondonlyinthepresenceofGrants5R01HD079113and5R01HD083214fromTheNationalInstituteofChildHealthandHumanDevelopmentprovidedpartialsupportforthiswork.AddresscorrespondencetoAshleyM.Fuhrman,CenterforAutismSpectrumDisorders,985450NebraskaMedi-calCenter,Omaha,Nebraska68198.E-mail:ashley.fuhrman@unmc.edu.doi:10.1002/jaba.486JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS2018,51,931–942NUMBER4(FALL)©2018SocietyfortheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior931
thestimulusassociatedwithreinforcementavailability(termedtheSD)andtonotrespondinthepresenceofthestimulusassociatedwithreinforcementunavailability(termedtheSΔ).AftertheindividuallearnstorespondalmostexclusivelyduringSDpresentations,thetimeinwhichtheSDispresentdecreases,andthetimeinwhichtheSΔispresentincreasesuntilprac-ticaldurationsofbothareachieved.Forchil-drenwithescape-maintaineddestructivebehavior,behavioranalystsmayprogramachainedscheduleinwhichthepresenceoftheSDiscontingentonthecompletionofaspeci-fiednumberofdemandsduringtheSΔperiod.Theresponserequirementistypicallysetini-tiallylowandgraduallyincreaseduntilapracti-caldurationofworktimeisachieved(Lalli,Casey,&Kates,1995).OnechallengeexperiencedduringschedulethinningisthatextendingSΔperiods(i.e.,thoseinwhichafunctionalreinforceriswithheld)furtherestablishesthevalueofthefunctionalreinforcer,increasingthelikelihoodofresponsesthathavehistoricallyproducedthatreinforcer(Michael,1982).Asaresult,extendedSΔperiodscaninvolvethereemer-genceofdestructivebehavior(Briggs,Fisher,Greer,&Kimball,inpress),increasedratesoftheFCR(essentiallynagging),orboth.Thus,reinforcementschedulethinningmaydeterio-ratetreatmenteffects.Researchhasshownthatprovidingcompet-ingactivitiesnoncontingentlyduringSΔperiodsmayfacilitatereinforcementschedulethinningduringFCT(Greeretal.,2016;Hagopian,ContrucciKuhn,Long,&Rush,2005;Rookeretal.,2013).ResearchershaveusedvariousmethodsforidentifyingcompetingactivitiestodeliverduringFCT.Forexample,Fisher,Kuhn,andThompson(1998)con-ductedstimuluspreferenceassessmentstoiden-tifyhighlypreferredtangiblestodeliverduringperiodswhenfunctionalreinforcerswereuna-vailable.Hagopianetal.(2005)conductedcompeting-stimulusassessmentsinwhichitemswereidentifiedbaseduponselectionsduringapreferenceassessmentandtheabsenceofdestructivebehaviorduringstimulusdelivery.Fisher,Thompson,Hagopian,Bowman,andKrug(2000)promptedonechildtocompletedemandswhentangibleswereunavailabletofacilitatereinforcementschedulethinning;how-ever,theauthorsdidnotdescribehowtheyarrivedatdemandsasacompetingactivity.Despitethesecontributions,nostudyhasdirectlycomparedtheefficacyofdifferentcom-petingactivitieswithinindividuals.Wecom-paredtheefficacyofprovidingvariouscompetingactivitiestotwoindividualswhosedestructivebehaviorwasresistanttoinitialattemptstothinamultiplescheduleofrein-forcementduringFCT.METHODSubjectsandSettingTwochildrenreferredfortheassessmentandtreatmentofdestructivebehaviorparticipatedinthecurrentstudy.Jacobwasa6-year-oldboydiagnosedwithunspecifieddisruptive,impulse-control,andconductdisorderwhodis-playedaggressionandpropertydestructionandspokeincompletesentences.Alanwasa3-year-oldboydiagnosedwithautismspectrumdisorder,stereotypicmovementdisorderwithself-injuriousbehavior,andotherspecifieddis-ruptive,impulse-control,andconductdisorderwhodisplayedaggressionandself-injuriousbehavior(SIB)andcommunicatedprimarilyusinggesturesorbyexchangingpictures.Weconductedallsessionsin3-mby3-mpadded(Alan)ornonpadded(Jacob)rooms.Sessionroomscontainedatableandchairs(Jacobonly),anynecessarysessionmaterials(e.g.,instructionalmaterials,preferredstimuli),aone-wayobservationwindow,andatwo-wayintercomsystem.Priortoandfollowingparticipationinthecurrentstudy,JacobparticipatedinFisheretal.(2015).AfunctionalanalysisrevealedthatASHLEYM.FUHRMANetal.932
bothaccesstotangibles(i.e.,aniPad)andescapefromdemandsreinforcedhisdestructivebehavior.Inaddition,aninitialevaluationofFCTreducedhisdestructivebehaviorandmaintainedtheFCRatefficientlevels.PleaserefertoFisheretal.(2015)forthefunctional-analysisandFCT-evaluationresultsforJacob.Priortoparticipatinginthecurrentstudy,AlanparticipatedinFisher,Greer,Romani,Zangrillo,andOwen(2016)andinFisheretal.(2018).Afunctionalanalysisrevealedthataccesstopreferredtangibles(i.e.,aniPad)andescapefromdemandsreinforcedhisdestructivebehavior.Inaddition,theresultsofaninitialFCTevaluationprovidedevidencethatFCTwasanefficacioustreatmentforAlan’sdestruc-tivebehavior.PleaserefertoFisheretal.(2016)orFisheretal.(2018)forthefunctional-analysisresultsandFisheretal.(2018)fortheFCT-evaluationresults.ResponseMeasurementandInterobserverAgreementWecollecteddataoneachchild’sdestructivebehaviorandFCRsusinglaptopcomputerslocatedbehindtheobservationwindow.Self-injuriousbehavior(Alanonly)includedheadbanging,self-hitting,body-slamming,flopping,andself-biting.Aggressionincludedhittingorkickingthetherapist,biting,orthrowingobjectsatthetherapist.Propertydestructionincludedhittingorkickingobjects,overturningfurniture,andthrowingorrippingmaterials.Session-terminationcriteriaremainedinplacethroughoutthestudyforsafetypurposes(seeBetz&Fisher,2011);however,terminationcriteriawerenotmetinanysession.Functionalcommunicationresponsesincludedstating,“Myturnplease”(Jacob)orexchangingacardwithapictureofthechildconsumingthefunctionalreinforcer(Alan).Duringmultipleschedules,datacollectorsscoredFCRsascorrectwhentheyoccurredindependentlyduringtheSDcomponent,aspromptedwhenthetherapisthadtoprompttheresponseduringtheSDcomponent(Alanonly),andasincorrectwhentheyoccurredduringtheSΔcomponent.Anindependent,secondobservercollecteddatasimultaneouslywiththeprimaryobserveronatleast28%ofsessionsforJacobandAlan.Wecalculatedinterobserveragreementbydividingeachsessionintosuccessive10-sinter-valsandscoringanagreementforeachintervalinwhichbothobserversrecordedthesamenumberofresponses(i.e.,exactagreement).Wethendividedthenumberofagreementintervalsbythetotalnumberofintervalsinthesessionandconvertedeachquotienttoaper-centage.Meaninterobserver-agreementcoeffi-cientsforJacobwere97%(range,85%-100%)foraggression,99%(range,85%-100%)forpropertydestruction,and98%(range,87%-100%)forFCRs.Meaninterobserver-agreementcoefficientsforAlanwere99%(range,87%-100%)foraggression,100%forpropertydestruction,99%(range,87%-100%)forSIB,and99%(range,93%-100%)forFCRs.ReinforcementScheduleThinningMultFCT(Jacob).AyellowwristbandservedastheSD.Priortoeachsession,thetherapisttoldJacob,“WhenIhavetheyellowbraceleton,ifyousay‘myturnplease,’youcanhavetheiPad.”Eachsessionbeganwitha60-sSDcomponent.FCRsduringtheSDcomponentproducedpraise(e.g.,“Goodjobsaying‘myturnplease’”)and20-saccesstotheiPad.ThefirstSDperiodwasfollowedimmediatelybya60-sSΔcomponentinwhichtheyellowwrist-bandwasremoved,andFCRsproducednoprogrammedconsequence(i.e.,extinction).SubsequentSDandSΔcomponentsalternatedquasirandomlythroughouttheremainderofthesessionwithnomorethantwoidenticalcomponentsoccurringconsecutively.Destruc-tivebehaviorresultedinnoconsequenceacrosscomponents.Jacob’ssessionsendedfollowing933COMPETINGACTIVITIESDURINGFCT
fiveintervalsofeachcomponenttype(i.e.,sessionslastedapproximately10min).Weincorporateda3-schangeoverdelay(COD;Herrnstein,1961)topreventadventitiousrein-forcementofdestructivebehavior.Thatis,thetherapistwithheldreinforcementifdestructivebehavioroccurredwithin3softheFCR,andthetherapistrequiredJacobtoemitanotherFCRwithoutco-occurringdestructivebehaviorinordertoaccessthereinforcer.Inaddition,weincludeda3-sCODtopreventadventitious(secondary)reinforcementofdestructivebehav-iorbytransitioningfromtheSΔtotheSDfol-lowingdestructivebehavior(Ferster&Perrott,1968;Spradlin&Simon,2011;Williams&Heyneman,1981).Therefore,ifJacobdis-playeddestructivebehaviorjustbeforeasched-uledtransitionfromtheSΔtotheSD,wedelayedthattransitionuntil3selapsedwithoutdestructivebehavior.Althoughtheincorpora-tionofaCODaddedaresponse-basedcontin-gency,theprocedurewasinplaceacrossalltreatmentconditionsandwasonlyimplemen-tedifdestructivebehavioroccurredwithin3softhescheduledtransitionfromtheSΔtotheSD.MultFCT(Alan).Alan’ssessionswereiden-ticaltoJacob’sexcept(a)sessionslasted5min;(b)stimuliconsistedofgreen(SD)andred(SΔ)indexcards(7.6cmby12.7cm)tosignalschedulecomponents(whereaswithJacob,thesignalsconsistedofthepresenceofandremovalofayellowwristband);(c)priortoeachsession,thetherapistpresentedthediscriminativestim-uliandFCRcardsinglyinAlan’slineofsightandstated,“Look,thecardyouusetoaskfortheiPad[displayingtheFCRcard],agreencard[displayingtheSD],andaredcard[displayingtheSΔ];”(d)throughoutthesession,thethera-pistblockedallincorrectFCRsandphysicallyguidedAlantoemittheFCRifhehadnotalreadydonesowithin10softhepresentationoftheSDcomponent;and(e)Alan’sSDcom-ponentlasted30s.WealsousedvariableSΔdurationswithAlantomaketheschedule-thinningstepslessdiscriminable.ThedurationofAlan’sSΔcomponentincreasedaccordingtothefollowingprogression:5s,8s,variable(v)8s,v15s,v30s,v60s,v90s,v120s,andv240sfollowingaminimumoftwoconsecu-tivesessionswithatleast90%ofFCRsoccur-ringduringtheSDcomponentandlowlevelsofdestructivebehavior.VariableSΔdurations(beginningwithSession16)rangedfrom50%aboveandbelowthemeanSΔdurationandwererandomizedforeachsession(e.g.,v8sresultedinnineintervals,rangingfrom4sto12s).BeginningwithSession30,wedecreasedthisrangeofvaluesto20%aboveandbelowthemeandurationtominimizetheoccurrenceofrelativelylongSΔdurations.Atthispoint,webeganrandomizingthepossibleintervaldurationsandselectedthefirstnineofthoserandomizedvaluesfortheupcomingsession(e.g.,withv60s,everyintegerbetween48sand72swasrandomized,andthefirstnineofthoserandomizedvalueswereselected).Ifthelowestvalueandhighestvalueswererandom-izedtooccurconsecutively,werandomizedthevaluesagaintoavoidlarge(andpotentiallydis-criminable)differencesbetweensuccessiveSΔdurations.ComparisonofCompetingActivitiesDuringPeriodsofReinforcerUnavailabilityThepurposeofcomparingcompetingactivi-tieswastoevaluatetheireffectivenesswhenreinforcementschedulethinningproducedele-vatedratesofdestructivebehaviorduringtimesinwhichthefunctionalreinforcerwasunavail-able(within-sessiondataavailableuponrequest).Weselectedthecompetingactivitiesbycon-ductinginformalobservations,evaluatingthefunctional-analysisresults,andspeakingwiththecaregiversofeachoftheparticipants.ForJacob,weusedattentionanddemandsasthetwocompetingactivities,andforAlan,weusedattentionandanalternativetangible.WeASHLEYM.FUHRMANetal.934
selectedattentionforbothparticipantsbecausecaregiversreportedoftenusingattentiontoredirectdestructivebehavior.WeuseddemandsasoneofthecompetingactivitiesforJacobbecauseweidentifiedanescapefunctionofdestructivebehaviorandwouldhaveaddressedthisfunctionwithintreatment,regardless.Thus,wewantedtoevaluatewhetherthecom-pletionofdemandsduringtheSΔcomponent(withacontingencyinplaceforcompliance;chainedFCT)effectivelycompetedwiththeestablishingoperation(EO)fordestructivebehaviormaintainedbytangiblereinforcement.Alanfrequentlyhadaccesstoanalternativetoyand/oradultattentionwhenhisiPadwasuna-vailable.Therefore,wechosetoevaluateanalternativetangible,ratherthandemands,asAlan’ssecondcompetingactivity.WeaddressedAlan’sescapefunctionfollowinghisparticipa-tioninthecurrentstudy.Baseline.Priortothesession,thetherapistprovided1-minaccesstotheiPad.Atthestartofsession,thetherapistremovedtheiPadanddelivereditagainfor20sfollowingeachinstanceofdestructivebehavior.Sessionslasted10minforJacoband5minforAlan.MultFCT.Mult-FCTsessionswerecon-ductedsimilarlytothosedescribedaboveanddidnotincludecompetingactivitiesduringSΔperiods.Eachcomponentlasted60s(Jacob)or30s(Alan),andthetherapistsignaledeachcomponentusingcoloredwristbands(Jacob)orcoloredindexcards(Alan).Greendiscrimina-tivestimuliservedastheSD,whereasreddis-criminativestimuliservedastheSΔ.Thesestimuliremainedunchangedfromreinforce-mentschedulethinningforAlan,butwemodi-fiedJacob’sdiscriminativestimulifromthosedescribedabove.Thatis,tobemoreconsistentwiththeproceduresusedwithAlanandtomoreclearlysignalwhenextinctionwasinplacefortheFCR,wesignaledthecomponentswithgreenandredwristbandsinsteadofwiththepresenceandabsenceofayellowwristband.Priortoeachsession,thechildorthetherapistlabeledthetherapist’sshirtcolorandthethera-pistsaid,“WhenIhavethegreenwristband/cardon[displayingtheSD],ifyou[describetopographyofFCR],youcanhavetheiPad.WhenIhavetheredwristband/cardon[dis-playingtheSΔ],youhavetowaitfortheiPad,andifyou[describetargetbehavior],itwilltakelongerformetoputonthegreenwrist-band/card.”Weincludedthelastclausetoindi-catethecontinuedpresenceofthe3-sCOD.Otherwise,weusedthesameproceduresasthoseusedduringreinforcementschedulethin-ning.Sessionslasted10minforJacoband5minforAlan.MultFCTplusattention.Thisconditionwasidenticaltothemult-FCTcondition,exceptthetherapistprovidedattentionthroughouttheSΔcomponentofthemultipleschedule.Priortoeachsession,thechildortherapistlabeledthetherapist’sshirtcolor,andthetherapistsaid,“WhenIhavethegreenwristband/cardon[displayingtheSD],ifyou[describetopogra-phyofFCR],youcanhavetheiPad.WhenIhavetheredwristband/cardon[displayingtheSΔ],youhavetowaitfortheiPad,butwecantalkandplay.Ifyou[describetargetbehavior],itwilltakelongerformetoputonthegreenwristband/card.”DuringeachSΔcomponent,thetherapistprovidedhigh-qualityattentionintheformofphysicalplay[AlanandJacob]andconversation[Jacob].Thetherapist’sattentionwasunavailableduringtheSDcomponent.MultFCTplusalternativetangible.OnlyAlanexperiencedthiscondition,whichwasidenticaltothemult-FCTcondition,exceptthetherapistprovidedAlanwithapreferredtangible(otherthantheiPad)throughouttheSΔcomponentofthemultipleschedule.Thatis,atthestartoftheSΔcomponent,thethera-pistremovedtheiPadandhandedAlanthealternativetangibleitem.AtthestartoftheSDcomponent,thetherapistremovedthealterna-tivetangibleitemandrestrictedaccesstoituntilthenextSΔcomponent.Priortoeachses-sion,thetherapistconductedaone-trial935COMPETINGACTIVITIESDURINGFCT
multiple-stimulus-without-replacement(MSWO)preferenceassessment(DeLeon&Iwata,1996)anddeliveredthestimulusselectedonthefirsttrialoftheMSWOthroughouttheSΔcompo-nentoftheupcomingsession.Followingthefirsttwosessions,weremovedhighlypreferredtangibles(i.e.,itemsselectedduringtheone-trialMSWO)fromtheMSWOarray,leavingrela-tivelyless-preferredstimuliinthearray,andthuspreventingaccesstohighlypreferredstim-uliinfuturesessions.WedidthistominimizethelikelihoodthatstimulideliveredduringtheSΔcomponentofthemultipleschedulewereaspreferred(andreinforcing)astheiPad.Priortothesesessions,Alanorthetherapistlabeledthetherapist’sshirtcolor,andthethera-pistsaid,“WhenIhavethegreenwristband/cardon[displayingtheSD],ifyou[describetopographyofFCR],youcanhavetheiPad.WhenIhavetheredwristband/cardon[dis-playingtheSΔ],youcanhave[alternativetangi-ble].Ifyou[describetargetbehavior],itwilltakelongerformetoputonthegreenwrist-band/card.”ChainedFCT.OnlyJacobexperiencedthechained-FCTcondition,whichwasidenticaltothemult-FCTcondition,exceptthetherapistrequiredJacobtocomplywitharequisitenum-berofdemandspriortoswitchingfromtheSΔcomponenttotheSDcomponent.Wechosemathproblemsasdemandstoremainconsis-tentwithwhatwasnominatedbythechild’scaregiverandwhatweusedduringtheescapeconditionofthefunctionalanalysis.Wesettheinitialresponserequirementatafixed-ratio(FR)7toequatethedurationofSΔcompo-nentsinotherconditions(i.e.,hetypicallyrequired60stocompletesevenmathprob-lems.Welaterdecreased(FR3)andthereafterincreased(FR7)theresponserequirementtoaccountforfluctuationsintheobtaineddura-tionofhisSΔcomponenttokeepitatapproxi-mately60s.Thetherapistusedthree-stepprompting(i.e.,vocal,model,physical)toguideJacobtocompleteeachmathproblemoftheFRrequirement.JacobwasrequiredtocompleteeachmathproblemfollowingeitherthevocalormodelpromptinorderforthecompletiontocounttowardstheFRrequirement.Priortoeachsession,Jacoborthetherapistlabeledthetherapist’sshirtcolor,andthetherapistsaid,“WhenIhavethegreenwrist-band/cardon[displayingtheSD],ifyou[describetopographyofFCR],youcanhavetheiPad.WhenIhavetheredwristband/cardon[displayingtheSΔ],youhavetofinishsomeworkbeforeIputonthegreenwrist-band/card.Ifyou[describetargetbehavior],itwilltakelongerformetoputonthegreenwristband/card.”Experimentaldesign.Wealternatedexperi-mentalconditionsinareversaldesignwithanembeddedalternating-treatments(i.e.,multiele-ment)designforthepurposeofdemonstratingexperimentalcontrol.Topromotediscrimina-tionbetweenexperimentalconditions,wearrangeduniquediscriminativestimuliforeachconditionusingcoloredshirts.RESULTSFigure1displaystheresultsofthecompeting-activitiescomparisonforJacob.ReinforcementschedulethinningusingmultFCTresultedinrapidrecurrenceofdestructivebehavior.ThepercentageofcorrectFCRsincreasedacrossmult-FCTsessions.Wetermi-natedJacob’soriginalmultFCT60/60condi-tionaftersixsessionsinwhichratesofdestructivebehaviordecreasedinitially,butlaterincreasedtobaselinelevels.Within-sessiondataanalysisfromthemult-FCTconditionindicatedthatdestructivebehavioroccurredexclusivelyduringperiodsoftimeinwhichJacobdidnothaveaccesstothefunctionalreinforcer(i.e.,onlyEO-presentdestructivebehavior).Thispatternofrespondingsuggestedthatprovidingaccesstocompetingactivitiesduringtheseperiodsoftime(e.g.,duringtheASHLEYM.FUHRMANetal.936
SΔcomponent)ofmultFCTmightfacilitatereinforcementschedulethinning.BothbaselinephasesofthecomparisonforJacobresultedinelevatedlevelsofdestructivebehavior.Theinitialcompeting-activitiescom-parisonshowedloweroverallratesofdestruc-tivebehaviorwhenthetherapistprovidedattentionthroughouttheSΔcomponent(i.e.,multFCT60/60plusattention).Althoughtheinitialchained-FCTsessionsresultedinvariableandoftenhighratesofdestructivebehavior,reducingtheresponserequirementfromFR7toFR3correspondedwithdecreasedratesofdestructivebehavior,whichmaintainedwhentherequirementreturnedtoFR7.ThemultFCT60/60condi-tion(whicharrangedgreenandredwristbandstosignaltheSDandSΔcomponents,respec-tively)forJacobresultedinanoveralldecreaseinratesofdestructivebehaviorwhencomparedtothoseinbaseline;however,Jacob’sdestruc-tivebehaviorpersistedatlowratesacrossthesesessions,unlikeeitheroftheothertwovaria-tionsofmultFCT.Jacob’spercentageofcor-rectFCRsremainedhighacrossallvariationsofmultFCT.Followingareturntobaseline,welaterreplicatedtheresultsofmultFCT60/60plusattentionandchainedFCT,withrelatively0246DestructiveBehaviorPerMinMultFCTBaseline(BSL)Competing ActivitiesBSLCompeting Activities60/FR760/FR360/FR7Chained FCTMult FCT 60/60Mult FCT 60/60plus Attention*10203040506070020406080100SessionsPercentageCorrectFCRsFigure1.Resultsofthecompeting-activitiescomparisonforJacob.TheasteriskdenotesthefirstsessionofmultFCT60/60inwhichweusedthegreenandredwristbandsasdiscriminativestimulitosignaltheSDandSΔcomponents.937COMPETINGACTIVITIESDURINGFCT
greatersuppressionofrespondingwiththeuseofattention.PercentageofcorrectFCRsremainedatornearonehundredpercentacrossmultFCT60/60plusattentionandchainedFCT.Theseresultssuggestthatallthreevaria-tionsofFCTwereeffectiveinreducingJacob’sbaselineratesofdestructivebehaviorbutthattheadditionofacompetingactivityintheformofattentionprovidedwhenJacobdidnothaveaccesstothefunctionalreinforcerbestsup-pressedhisdestructivebehavior.Immediatelyfollowingthecomparisonofcompetingactivi-ties,JacobparticipatedinFisheretal.(2015),duringwhichthereinforcementscheduleofmultFCTplusattentionwasrapidlythinnedfromamultFCT60/60toamultFCT60/300.Figure2displaystheresultsofthecompeting-activitiescomparisonforAlan.Rein-forcementschedulethinningusingmultFCTresultedinagradualrecurrenceofdestructivebehaviorasthereinforcementschedulebecameprogressivelylean.AlthoughthepercentageofcorrectFCRsremainedgenerallyhighandratesofdestructivebehaviorremainednearzerothroughoutthefirstfewstepsofreinforcementschedulethinning,relativelyleanerschedulesproducedelevatedresponserates,andourattemptstoreestablishlowratesofdestructivebehaviorbyreturningtopreviouslyeffectivereinforcementschedulesprovedineffective.SimilartoJacob,within-sessiondataanalysisfromthemult-FCTconditionindicatedthatdestructivebehavioroccurredexclusivelyduringEO-presentperiods,suggestingthatprovidingaccesstocompetingactivitiesduringtheSΔcomponentofmultFCTmightfacilitaterein-forcementschedulethinning.Alanengagedinincreasingandelevatedratesofdestructivebehaviorinbothbaselinephasesofthecomparison.Theinitialcomparisonshowedloweranddecreasingratesofdestruc-tivebehaviorinbothmultFCT30/30andmultFCT30/30plusattention.However,whenthetherapistprovidedAlanwithamoderatelypreferredtangibleduringtheSΔcomponent(i.e.,multFCT30/30plusalterna-tivetangible),hedisplayedvariableandsome-timeshighratesofdestructivebehavioracrossbothcomponentsofthemultipleschedule.Per-centageofcorrectFCRswerevariableacrossconditionswiththehighestandmoststablerespondinginmultFCT30/30plusalternativetangible.Followingareturntobaseline,wereplicatedthetreatmenteffectsofmultFCT30/30andmultFCT30/30plusattention,showingslightlybettersuppressionofdestruc-tivebehaviorwiththeuseofattentionandhigh,stablelevelsofcorrectFCRsacrossbothconditions.Immediatelyfollowingthecompari-sonofcompetingactivities,wetransitionedAlan’smultFCTplusattentionconditiontoachainedscheduleofreinforcement(datanotdisplayed)inwhichgainingaccesstotheSDcomponentwasdependentonhiscompliancewithagraduallyincreasingnumberofdemands(i.e.,FR1toavariableratio12).Alan’stermi-naltreatmentconsistedofhimworkingforapproximately240sfor30-saccesstohisiPad.DISCUSSIONWeattemptedtothinthescheduleofrein-forcementusingamultiplescheduleandobservedtherecurrenceofdestructivebehaviorwithtwoparticipants.Wereplicatedpreviousresearchdemonstratingthatprovidingcompet-ingactivitiesduringperiodswithoutthefunc-tionalreinforcereffectivelyreduceddestructivebehavior(e.g.,Fisheretal.,1998;Fisheretal.,2000;Hagopianetal.,2005).Furthermore,weextendedpreviousresearchbycomparingmul-tiplecompetingactivitieswithin-subject.WithJacob,providingattentionresultedinlowerlevelsofdestructivebehaviorthanprovid-ingdemands.Theefficacyofattentionasacompetingactivitywassimilartoonedemon-strationinAustinandTiger(2015),butthefindingthatprovidingcompetingdemandsdidnotresultintheimmediatesuppressionofASHLEYM.FUHRMANetal.938
destructivebehaviorcanbecontrastedwithFisheretal.(2000),whodemonstratedsus-tainedlowlevelsofdestructivebehaviorwhendemandswereprovidedduringschedulethin-ning.ForAlan,providingattentionresultedinlowerlevelsofdestructivebehaviorthanprovid-inganalternativetangible.ThisresultcanbecontrastedwiththeresultsofHagopianetal.(2005)andAustinandTiger,whoeachdemonstratedthatprovidingalternativetangi-blesfacilitatedschedulethinning.Collectively,theseresultsdemonstratethatthereareindivid-ualdifferencesintermsofwhatactivitieswillsuccessfullyreducedestructivebehaviorandthattheselectionofcompetingactivitiesshouldbesubjectedtoempiricalvalidationbeforeincorporationintoschedulethinning.Whatwehavereferredtoas“competingactivities”includedavarietyofprocedures,including:(a)providingaccesstocompetingactivitiesthatdidnotfunctionasreinforcersfordestructivebehavior(i.e.,attentionforbothJacobandAlan);(b)possiblefunctionalrein-forcers(i.e.,less-preferredtangiblesforAlan);and(c)demands(i.e.,instructionsembeddedwithinachainedscheduleforJacob).Wechosethesespecificactivitiesforinclusioninthealternating-treatmentcomparisonbasedon0102030405060708090100110020406080100SessionsPercentageCorrectFCRs01234DestructiveBehaviorPerMinMult FCTBaseline(BSL)BSLCompetingActivitiesCompetingActivitiesMult FCT 30/30Mult FCT 30/30plus AttentionMult FCT 30/30plus Alt. Tangible30/530/830/v830/v1530/v3030/v6030/v9030/v6030/v30Figure2.Resultsofthecompeting-activitiescomparisonforAlan.939COMPETINGACTIVITIESDURINGFCT
caregiverreport,informaltherapistobservation,andpriorevidenceintheliteraturedemonstrat-ingsuccesswiththeseapproaches.However,futureresearchersmayconsiderevaluatingwhetherandtowhatextentdifferenttypesofcompetingactivitiesaffecttheefficacyofrein-forcementschedulethinningduringFCT.WithAlan,providinganalternativetangibleduringextinctionperiodsproducedhighlyvari-ableratesofdestructivebehavior.DestructivebehaviorinthisconditionoccurredmostoftenwhenthetherapistreplacedtheSΔwiththeSD(signalingthattheiPadwasavailable)andremovedthealternativetangible.WeremovedthealternativetangiblewhentheiPadbecameavailabletoensurethatAlanwouldcontinuetoemittheFCRduringtheSD.However,doingsostillinvolveddisruptinghisengagementandremovingatangibleitem.Thus,destructivebehaviormaintainedbyaccesstotangiblesextendedbeyondtheiPadtootheritemssuchthattheremovalofanyvaluedtangibleevokeddestructivebehavior.Thus,itmaybethecasethatprovidingalternativetangiblesasacompet-ingactivityonlyduringperiodsofreinforcerunavailabilityisnotidealforindividualswithdestructivebehaviormaintainedbyaccesstotangibles.Futureresearchshouldevaluatetherelativepreferenceforfunctionalandalternativetangiblesandconsiderlimitingadditionalexpo-suretotheEObyprovidingcontinuousaccesstothealternativetangibleacrossbothcompo-nentsofthemultipleschedule.ForJacob,providingdemandsduringperiodswhenhisiPadwasunavailablewasinsufficientinproducinganimmediatesup-pressioninratesofdestructivebehavior.ThisresultisnotsurprisinggiventhatJacobalsodis-playedescape-maintaineddestructivebehaviorduringhisfunctionalanalysis.Oneinterpreta-tionofthesedatacouldbethatifpresentingdemandsduringperiodsofreinforcerunavail-ability,practitionersshouldinitiallyprogramalowresponserequirementwhenusingdemandsasacompetingactivityforindividualswithescape-maintaineddestructivebehavior.Weinterprettheseresultstoindicatethatwesuc-cessfullytreatedtwobehavioralfunctionssimultaneouslyinwaysthatwerelikelytooccurinthenaturalenvironment.Thatis,parentsarelikelytosimultaneouslyestablishtangiblesandescapefromdemandsasreinforcers,forexam-plebyinstructingtheirchildrentoputawaytheiriPadandworkontheirhomework.Inthatregard,wesuggestevaluatingeachcompet-ingactivityasapotentialcontextthatwouldneedtobemasteredforsuccessfultransitionofinterventionintothenaturalenvironment.Thatis,sometimeschildrenwillhavetoputawaytheiriPadtodowork,sometimestheywillhavetoputawaytheiriPadandplaywithsomethingelse,andsometimestheywillhavetoputtheiriPadawayandtalkwiththeirfam-ily.Itisalsoimportanttoconsiderthefeasibil-ityofeachofthesecontextsforcaregivers.Forexample,whenchildrenhavetoputawaytheiriPadtodowork,sometimestheymayhavetocompletedemandsthatrequirerepeatedpromptingfromcaregivers(similartothoseinthecurrentstudy),andsometimestheymaycompletedemandsthatentailextended,inde-pendentengagement(e.g.,readingorworkingthroughafullworksheet).Comprehensiveinterventionwillassesstreatmentsuccessineachofthesecontextsandensurefamiliescanaddressthechallengestheyarelikelytoexperience.WithJacobandAlan,arrangingperiodsofreinforcementandnonreinforcementusingamultiplescheduleinitiallyresultedinincreasedlevelsofdestructivebehavior.Wemadereinforcement-basedmodificationstotheSΔcomponentofthemultipleschedulethatprovedsufficientforproducingclinicallysignif-icantreductionsinratesofdestructivebehaviorwithouttheuseofpunishment,whichcom-monlyhasbeenimplementedintheliterature(Fisheretal.,1993;Greeretal.,2016;Hago-pian,Fisher,Thibault-Sullivan,Acquisto,&LeBlanc,1998;Rookeretal.,2013).OneofASHLEYM.FUHRMANetal.940
thechallengesofarrangingperiodsofextinctionisthatapredominantresponse(i.e.,theFCR)isnolongereffective,andsuchperiodsofextinctionarelikelytooccasionresponsetopog-raphiesthathavereliablyresultedinreinforce-mentinthepast(e.g.,destructivebehavior).Presumably,competingactivitiesarelikelyeffectiveindecreasingratesofdestructivebehaviorbystrengtheningotherformsofbehavior(e.g.,engagement)thatareincompati-blewithdestructivebehavior.Insituationsinwhichthosecompetingactivitiesdonotpro-moteengagement,punishmentmaybeneces-sarybutshouldbereservedasafinaloption.REFERENCESAustin,J.E.,&Tiger,J.H.(2015).Providingalternativereinforcerstofacilitatetolerancetodelayedreinforce-mentfollowingfunctionalcommunicationtraining.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,48,663-668.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.215Betz,A.M.,&Fisher,W.W.(2011).Functionalanaly-sis,historyandmethods.InW.W.Fisher,C.C.Piazza,&H.S.Roane(Eds.),Handbookofappliedbehavioranalysis(pp.206-225).NewYork,NY:GuilfordPublishing.Betz,A.M.,Fisher,W.W.,Roane,H.S.,Mintz,J.C.,&Owen,T.M.(2013).Acomponentanalysisofschedulethinningduringfunctionalcom-municationtraining.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,46,219-241.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.23Briggs,A.M.,Fisher,W.W.,Greer,B.D.,&Kimball,R.T.(inpress).Prevalenceofresurgenceofdestructivebehaviorwhenthinningreinforcementschedulesduringfunctionalcommunicationtraining.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis.Carr,E.G.,&Durand,V.M.(1985).Reducingbehaviorproblemsthroughfunctionalcommunicationtrain-ing.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,18,111-126.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111DeLeon,I.G.,&Iwata,B.A.(1996).Evaluationofamultiple-stimuluspresentationformatforassessingreinforcerpreferences.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,29,519-532.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519Didden,R.,Duker,P.,&Korzilius,H.(1997).Meta-analyticstudyoftreatmenteffectivenessforproblembehaviorswithindividualswhohavementalretarda-tion.AmericanJournalofMentalRetardation,101,387-399.https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2006)111[290:btocbi]2.0.co;2Didden,R.,Korzilius,H.,vanOorsouw,W.,&Sturmey,P.(2006).Behavioraltreatmentofchalleng-ingbehaviorsinindividualswithmildmentalretarda-tion:Meta-analysisofsingle-subjectresearch.AmericanJournalofMentalRetardation,111,290-298.https://doi.org/10.1352/0895-8017(2006)111[290:btocbi]2.0.co;2Ferster,C.B.,&Perrott,M.C.(1968).Behaviorprinciples.NewYork:NewCentury.Fisher,W.W.,Greer,B.D.,Fuhrman,A.M.,&Querim,A.C.(2015).Usingmultipleschedulesdur-ingfunctionalcommunicationtrainingtopromoterapidtransferoftreatmenteffects.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,48,713-733.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.254Fisher,W.W.,Greer,B.D.,Mitteer,D.R.,Fuhrman,A.M.,Romani,P.W.,&Zangrillo,A.N.(2018).Furtherevaluationofdifferentialexposuretoestablishingoperationsduringfunctionalcommunica-tiontraining.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,51,360-373.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.451Fisher,W.W.,Greer,B.D.,Romani,P.W.,Zangrillo,A.N.,&Owen,T.M.(2016).Compari-sonsofsynthesizedandindividualreinforcementcon-tingenciesduringfunctionalanalysis.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,49,596-616.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.314Fisher,W.W.,Kuhn,D.E.,&Thompson,R.H.(1998).Establishingdiscriminativecontrolofrespondingusingfunctionalandalternativereinforcersduringfunctionalcommunicationtraining.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,31,543-560.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1998.31-543Fisher,W.W.,Piazza,C.,Cataldo,M.,Harrell,R.,Jefferson,G.,&Conner,R.(1993).Functionalcom-municationtrainingwithandwithoutextinctionandpunishment.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,26,23-36.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-23Fisher,W.W.,Thompson,R.H.,Hagopian,L.P.,Bowman,L.G.,&Krug,A.(2000).Facilitatingtol-eranceofdelayedreinforcementduringfunctionalcommunicationtraining.BehaviorModification,24,3-29.https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445500241001Greer,B.D.,Fisher,W.W.,Saini,V.,Owen,T.M.,&Jones,J.K.(2016).Functionalcommunicationtrain-ingduringreinforcementschedulethinning:Ananal-ysisof25applications.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,49,105-121.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.265Hagopian,L.P.,ContrucciKuhn,S.A.,Long,E.S.,&Rush,K.S.(2005).Schedulethinningfollowingcommunicationtraining:Usingcompetingstimulitoenhancetolerancetodecrementsinreinforcerdensity.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,38,177-193.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.43-04Hagopian,L.P.,Fisher,W.W.,Thibault-Sullivan,M.,Acquisto,J.,&LeBlanc,L.A.(1998).Effectivenessoffunctionalcommunicationtrainingwithand941COMPETINGACTIVITIESDURINGFCT
withoutextinctionandpunishment:Asummaryoftwenty-oneinpatientcases.JournalofAppliedBehav-iorAnalysis,31,211-235.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1998.31-211Hanley,G.P.,Iwata,B.A.,&Thompson,R.H.(2001).Reinforcementschedulethinningfollowingtreatmentwithfunctionalcommunicationtraining.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,34,17-38.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-17Herrnstein,R.J.(1961).Relativeandabsolutestrengthofresponseasafunctionoffrequencyofreinforcement.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,4,267-272.https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267Iwata,B.A.,Dorsey,M.F.,Slifer,K.J.,Bauman,K.E.,&Richman,G.S.(1994).Towardafunctionalanalysisofself-injury.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,27,197-209.(ReprintedfromAnalysisandInterventioninDevel-opmentalDisabilities,2,3-20,1982).https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197Lalli,J.S.,Casey,S.,&Kates,K.(1995).Reducingescapebehaviorandincreasingtaskcompletionwithfunctionalcommunicationtraining,extinction,andresponsechaining.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,28,261-268.https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1995.28-261Michael,J.(1982).Distinguishingbetweendiscriminativeandmotivationalfunctionsofstimuli.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,37,149-155.https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-149Rooker,G.W.,Jessel,J.,Kurtz,P.,&Hagopian,L.P.(2013).Functionalcommunicationtrainingwithandwithoutalternativereinforcementandpunishment:Ananalysisof58applications.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,46,708-722.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.76Saini,V.,Miller,S.A.,&Fisher,W.W.(2016).Multipleschedulesinpracticalapplication:Researchtrendsandimplicationsforfutureinvestigation.JournalofAppliedBehaviorAnalysis,49,421-444.https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.300Sidener,T.M.,Shabani,D.B.,Carr,J.E.,&Roland,J.P.(2006).Anevaluationofstrategiestomaintainmandsatpracticallevels.ResearchinDevel-opmentalDisabilities,27,632-644.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2005.08.002Spradlin,J.E.,&Simon,J.L.(2011).Stimuluscontrolandgeneralization.InW.W.Fisher,C.C.Piazza,&H.S.Roane(Eds.),Handbookofappliedbehavioranalysis(pp.76-91).NewYork:Guilford.Williams,B.A.,&Heyneman,N.(1981).Determinantsofcontrastinthesignal-keyprocedure:evidenceagainstadditivitytheory.JournaloftheExperimentalAnalysisofBehavior,35,161-173.https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1981.35-161ReceivedJuly5,2016FinalacceptanceJuly6,2017ActionEditor,JeffreyTigerASHLEYM.FUHRMANetal.942
