Evaluation of multiple schedules with naturally occurring and therapist-arranged discriminative stimuli following functional communication training

Abstract

Many studies have shown that (a) functional communication training (FCT) is effective for reducing problem behavior, and (b) multiple schedules can facilitate reinforcer schedule thinning during FCT. Most studies tha have used multiple schedules with FCT have included therapist-arranged stimuli (e.g., colored cards) as the discriminative stimuli (S(D) s), but recently, researchers have evaluated similar multiple-schedule training procedures with naturally occurring S(D) s (e.g., overt therapist behavior). The purposes of the current study were to compare the effects of arranged and naturally occurring S(D) s directly during (a) acquisition of discriminated functional communication responses (FCRs) and (b) generalization of discriminated FCRs when we introduced the multiple schedules in novel contexts in which the naturally occurring stimuli were either relatively easy or difficult to discriminate. Results showed that (a) 2 of 3 participants acquired discriminated responding of the FCR more rapidly with arranged than with naturally occurring stimuli, (b) 2 of 3 participants showed resurgence of problem behavior , and (c) 2 of 3 participants showed greater generalization of discriminated responding to novel contexts with arranged stimuli than with naturally occurring stimuli. We discuss these results relative to the conditions under which naturally occurring and arranged S(D) s may promote rapid and generalized treatment gains.

Keywords: discriminative stimuli; functional communication training; generalization; multiple schedules; resurgence.

Figure 1

Responses per minute of problem behavior during the functional analyses for Maurice (top), Bernard (middle), and Keith (bottom).

Figure 2

FCT treatment evaluation: Responses per minute during FCT + EXT for Maurice (top), Bernard (middle), and Keith (bottom).

Figure 3

Percentage of functional communication responses (FCRs) across participants when the S^D was present for busy (B) and nonbusy (NB) components of Pair 1 and Pair 2 activities during baseline and training with naturally occurring and arranged S^Ds for Maurice (top), Bernard (middle), and Keith (bottom).

Figure 4

Mean FCRs per minute for S^D and S^Δ components of therapist-arranged and naturally occurring conditions during baseline and multiple-schedule training (Pairs 1 and 2) in Experiment 1 for Maurice (top left), Bernard (top right), and Keith (bottom).

Figure 5

Responses per minute of problem behavior across participants when the S^D was present for busy and nonbusy components of Pair 1 and Pair 2 activities during baseline and training with naturally occurring and arranged S^Ds for Maurice (top), Bernard (middle), and Keith (bottom).

Figure 6

Percentage of functional communication responses (FCRs) when the S^D was present for Bernard and Keith during posttraining generalization sessions for easy and difficult pairs of activities with naturally occurring and arranged S^Ds.

Figure 7

Responses per minute of problem behavior for Keith during posttraining generalization sessions for easy and difficult pairs of activities with naturally occurring and arranged S^Ds.