Functional Communication Training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is currently one of the most commonly utilized treatments for challenging behavior in the behavioral literature (Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008). FCT is typically implemented following the identification of the function(s) of challenging behavior via functional assessment. Following the functional assessment, the identified functional reinforcement is made contingent on an appropriate communicative response (mand) and withheld following occurrences of challenging behavior. FCT and various mechanisms that influence the treatment's effectiveness have been evaluated within many second-generation studies following the seminal study published by Carr & Durand (1985). These include reinforcement-based components such as the role of extinction (Fisher et al., 1993; Wacker, et al., 1990) and punishment (Wacker et al., 1990); and topography-based variables such as effort associated with various mands (Buckley & Newchok, 2005; Richman, Wacker, & Winborn, 2001), the relative novelty of mands in an individual's behavioral repertoire (Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier, 2002), preference for various available mands (Winborn-Kemmerer, Ringdahl, Wacker, & Kitsukawa, 2009), and the relative proficiency with which individuals use various mand topographies (Ringdahl et al., 2009). In addition, several second-generation studies have evaluated the role of various antecedent variables on the effectiveness of FCT (e.g., Fisher, Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Lerman, Vorndran, Addison, & Kuhn, 2004; Peyton, Lindauer, & Richman, 2005). For example, several studies have evaluated various prompt parameters including prompt type (Lerman et al.; Peyton et al.) and schedule of prompting (Johnson, McComas, Thompson, & Symons, 2004). Specifically, Johnson et al. provided preliminary evidence of the effect of prompt schedule on mands during FCT. In that study, the experimenters implemented FCT in which both aggression and mands were reinforced on concurrent FR1 schedules of reinforcement. Initially, mand prompts were delivered on a VT 75 s schedule and mands were exhibited at low rates (i.e., 0.3 responses per minute; RPM) while aggression was exhibited at comparatively higher rates (i.e., 1.1 RPM). When prompts for manding were delivered on a FT 10s schedule, the mean rate of mands increased to 1.2 RPM while the mean rate of aggression decreased to 0.1 RPM. Although Johnson et al.'s results suggested the important role that prompt schedules likely play in mand allocation during FCT, it was not a primary focus of the study and the effects of prompt schedules were not experimentally established. Other research has focused on the effect of concurrent schedules on responding (e.g., Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000), expanding the understanding of the interaction between reinforcement schedules and appropriate communicative behavior. Concurrent schedules have also been used to demonstrate that response parameters, such as preference (e.g., Winborn-Kemmerer et al., 2009) and effort (Buckley & Newchok, 2005) among mand topographies, influences responding. For example, Buckley and Nowchok used concurrent schedules to demonstrate that a separate response-related variable, effort, can impact communicative responding during FCT. Thus, concurrent schedules may also be useful in evaluating the effects of other potentially influential dimensions such as antecedent-based parameters (e.g., prompt rate). There were two main purposes of the current study. First, we wanted to evaluate the effects of various prompt schedules on mand usage for the purpose of facilitating appropriate recruitment of reinforcement. Second, we wanted to evaluate preference for available mands across prompt schedules when identical concurrent schedules of reinforcement were in place for each mand (i.e., FR1/FR1/FR1). Method Participant and Setting Sara was a 34-year-old female diagnosed with autism and mild to moderate retardation. …
Read full abstract