Contingencies promote delay tolerance

The effectiveness of functional communication training as treatment for problem behavior depends on the extent to which treatment can be extended to typical environments that include unavoidable and unpredictable reinforcement delays. Time‐based progressive delay (TBPD) often results in the loss of acquired communication responses and the resurgence of problem behavior, whereas contingency‐based progressive delay (CBPD) appears to be effective for increasing tolerance for delayed reinforcement. No direct comparison of TBPD and CBPD has, however, been conducted. We used single‐subject designs to compare the relative efficacy of TBPD and CBPD. Four individuals who engaged in problem behavior (e.g., aggression, vocal and motor disruptions, self‐injury) participated. Results were consistent across all participants, and showed lower rates of problem behavior and collateral responses during CBPD than during TBPD. The generality of CBPD treatment effects, including optimal rates of communication and compliance with demands, was demonstrated across a small but heterogeneous group of participants, reinforcement contingencies, and contexts.     

Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition

We examined the extent to which noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), when used as treatment to reduce problem behavior, might interfere with differential reinforcement contingencies designed to strengthen alternative behavior. After conducting a functional analysis to identify the reinforcers maintaining 2 participants' self-injurious behavior (SIB), we delivered those reinforcers under dense NCR schedules. We delivered the same reinforcers concurrently under differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior (DRA) contingencies in an attempt to strengthen replacement behaviors (mands). Results showed that the NCR plus DRA intervention was associated with a decrease in SIB but little or no increase in appropriate mands. In a subsequent phase, when the NCR schedule was thinned while the DRA schedule remained unchanged, SIB remained low and mands increased. These results suggest that dense NCR schedules may alter establishing operations that result in not only suppression of problem behavior but also interference with the acquisition of appropriate behavior. Thus, the strengthening of socially appropriate behaviors as replacements for problem behavior during NCR interventions might best be achieved if the NCR schedule is first thinned.     

Providing noncontingent,alternative, functional reinforcers during delays following functional communication training

Functional Communication Training (FCT) involves arranging extinction for problem behavior and reinforcement for a more desirable, functionally equivalent, communicative response (FCR). Although effective under ideal arrangements, the introduction of delays to reinforcement following the FCR can result in increased problem behavior. Austin and Tiger (2015) showed that for individuals whose problem behavior was sensitive to multiple sources of reinforcement, providing access to alternative, functional reinforcers during delays mitigated this increase in problem behavior during delay fading. The current study replicated the procedures of Austin and Tiger with 2 individuals displaying multiply controlled problem behavior. Providing alternative functional reinforcers reduced problem behavior during 10-min delays for both participants without requiring delay fading.     

An evaluation of delay to reinforcement and mand variability during functional communication training

Children with autism spectrum disorder and other developmental disabilities often exhibit invariant responding (i.e., restricted behavioral repertoires), deficits in communication, and challenging behavior. Approaches demonstrated in the basic and applied literature to increase response variability include extinction, lag schedules of reinforcement, and percentile schedules of reinforcement. Results of basic studies have also indicated that delays to reinforcement often produce increases in response variability. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of a delay to reinforcement on the variability of communication responses during functional communication training with individuals with developmental disabilities and histories of engaging in challenging behavior. Results indicated that delays to reinforcement increased mand variability with all four participants with variable effects on challenging behavior across participants.     

Effects of continuous and intermittent reinforcement for problem behavior during functional communication training

We evaluated the effectiveness of functional communication training (FCT) in reducing problem behavior and in strengthening alternative behavior when FCT was implemented without extinction. Following the completion of functional analyses in which social-positive reinforcement was identified as the maintaining variable for 5 participants' self-injurious behavior (SIB) and aggression, the participants were first exposed to FCT in which both problem behavior and alternative behavior were reinforced continuously (i.e., on fixed-ratio [FR] 1 schedules). During subsequent FCT conditions, the schedule of reinforcement for problem behavior was made more intermittent (e.g., FR 2, FR 3, FR 5, etc.), whereas alternative behavior was always reinforced according to an FR 1 schedule. Results showed that 1 participant's problem behavior decreased and alternative behavior increased during FCT when both behaviors were reinforced on FR 1 schedules. The remaining 4 participants shifted response allocation from problem to alternative behavior as the schedule of reinforcement for problem behavior became more intermittent. These results suggest that individuals might acquire alternative responses during FCT in spite of inconsistencies in the application of extinction, although even small errors in reinforcement may compromise treatment effects.     

Evaluation of a break-to-choice chained-schedule intervention for multiply maintained problem behavior

Interventions for multiply maintained problem behavior often involve developing separate treatment conditions to address each function. Although isolating treatment conditions lead to positive outcomes, developing individual treatments for each identified function may be time-consuming. Alternatively, synthesizing treatment procedures may allow for more efficient treatment effects. We extended previous research by evaluating functional communication training (FCT) and chained schedules of reinforcement to treat multiply maintained problem behavior in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. First, we conducted a functional analysis that concluded problem behavior was multiply maintained. Next, we taught functional communication responses (FCRs) and implemented a chained schedule of reinforcement. During the initial link, FCRs for a break resulted in the presentation of a choice menu with the other putative reinforcers in the terminal link. The relevant reinforcer was delivered contingent on the emission of subsequent FCRs. Finally, we systematically schedule thinned to caregiver-informed terminal schedules for each participant. The results of our study demonstrated that FCT, in combination with a sequential compound schedule of reinforcement, effectively decreased multiply maintained problem behavior and increased appropriate alternative responses (FCRs and compliance) even at terminal schedules of reinforcement.     

A multicomponent approach to thinning reinforcer delivery during noncontingent reinforcement schedules

We evaluated a noncontingent reinforcement procedure that involved initially providing three subjects with signaled, continuous access to the functional reinforcer for aggression and slowly increasing the amount of time subjects were exposed to the signaled unavailability of the reinforcer. Additionally, alternative potential reinforcers were available throughout the sessions. Results showed immediate and substantial reductions in aggression for all three subjects. The clinical utility of this intervention is discussed, and future research directions are recommended.     

Prevalence of resurgence of destructive behavior when thinning reinforcement schedules during functional communication training

Functional communication training is a well‐established treatment for socially reinforced destructive behavior that typically includes differential reinforcement of the functional communication response (FCR) in combination with extinction of destructive behavior. However, when the schedule of reinforcement for the FCR is thinned, destructive behavior may resurge (e.g., Greer, Fisher, Saini, Owen, & Jones, 2016). Currently, data are unavailable on the prevalence and characteristics of resurgence during reinforcement schedule thinning. In this study, we evaluated the prevalence of resurgence during reinforcement schedule thinning on a per‐case and per‐schedule‐step basis and also evaluated the magnitude of resurgence in relation to the functions of destructive behavior. We observed resurgence in 19 of the 25 (76%) applications of reinforcement schedule thinning. In some cases, the magnitude of resurgence exceeded the mean levels of destructive behavior observed in baseline. We discuss these results relative to prior translational and applied research on resurgence.     

A comparison of fixed momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior to variable momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce challenging behavior

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to reduce behavioral excesses. Momentary DRO schedules involve delivery of reinforcement contingent upon the absence of the target behavior at a given moment. Two variations of momentary DRO exist: fixed-momentary (FM) DRO and variable-momentary (VM) DRO. In the current study, we directly compared FM-DRO and VM-DRO schedules to reduce challenging behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement exhibited by four children with autism spectrum disorder. The results suggest that both the DRO schedules were equally effective to reduce challenging behavior. A social validity measure showed that most caregivers rated the VM-DRO as a preferred schedule and noted the potential for FM-DRO schedule to become more discriminable over time, which could reduce its effectiveness. However, most caregivers also commented that the FM-DRO schedule was easier to implement.     

Response duration is sensitive to both immediate and delayed reinforcement

We investigated the duration of lever pressing by rats when the delivery of appetitive reinforcers was contingent upon response duration. In the first experiment, response durations increased when duration requirements were imposed, and they decreased when duration requirements were removed. This effect occurred whether reinforcers were immediate or delayed by 8 s. In order to maintain the integrity of the delay intervals, reinforcer delivery was dependent upon both lever depression and release. In a second experiment, lever depression only and a response duration of at least 4 s were required for reinforcer delivery. Compared to immediate reinforcement conditions, delayed reinforcers increased both variability and the length of the maximum response durations. In a third experiment, immediate reinforcers were delivered contingent upon lever depression and release under a variety of duration requirements. Median lever‐press durations tracked the contingencies rapidly. Across all three experiments, rats emitted numerous response durations that were too short to satisfy the reinforcer requirements, and bimodal distributions similar to those produced by differential reinforcement of low rate schedules were evident for most rats. In many aspects, response duration responds to reinforcement parameters in a fashion similar to rate of discrete responding, but an examination of this continuous dimension of behavior may provide additional information about environment–behavior relationships.     

Reinforcement magnitude and responding during treatment with differential reinforcement

Basic findings indicate that the amount or magnitude of reinforcement can influence free-operant responding prior to and during extinction. In this study, the relation between reinforcement magnitude and adaptive behavior was evaluated with 3 children as part of treatment with differential reinforcement. In the first experiment, a communicative response was shaped and maintained by the same reinforcer that was found to maintain problem behavior. Two reinforcement magnitudes (20-s or 60-s access to toys or escape from demands) were compared and found to be associated with similar levels of resistance to extinction. The relation between reinforcement magnitude and response maintenance was further evaluated in the second experiment by exposing the communicative response to 20-s or 300-s access to toys or escape. Results for 2 participants suggested that this factor may alter the duration of postreinforcement pauses.     

Achieving socially significant reductions in problem behavior following the interview‐informed synthesized contingency analysis: A summary of 25 outpatient applications

Jessel, Hanley, and Ghaemmaghami (2016) reported the results of 30 interview‐informed, synthesized contingency analyses (IISCAs) and found the IISCAs to be an effective tool for identifying the functions of problem behavior across a variety of topographies, participants, and settings. Jessel et al. did not, however, include data on the effectiveness of the corresponding treatments. In the current study, we collected and summarized 25 additional applications, from analysis to treatment, in which the IISCA was applied in an outpatient clinic. The IISCA identified various social functions of problem behavior, which informed personalized treatments of functional communication training with contingency‐based reinforcement thinning. A 90% or greater reduction in problem behavior was obtained for every participant by the end of the treatment evaluation. The assessment and treatment process was socially validated by caregivers who rated the procedures highly acceptable and helpful, and the improvement in their child's behavior highly satisfactory.     

A comparison of isolated and synthesized contingencies in functional analyses

Recently, researchers have compared the utility of isolated versus synthesized contingencies in functional analysis (FA) methodology (e.g., Fisher et al., 2016; Slaton et al., 2017). A limitation of these studies is that there were other differences across FA methodologies (e.g., design, contingency) that did not allow for isolation of the influence of isolated versus synthesized contingencies. Therefore, the current study compared outcomes of FAs that involved isolated versus synthesized contingencies for problem behavior of 5 children while controlling for these other differences across FAs (Experiment 1). Next, the current study compared the effects of interventions based on the functions identified in the isolated and synthesized contingencies for each participant (Experiment 2). Results indicated isolated contingency FAs produced differentiated responding for 1 or both functions for all 5 participants, and there were little to no differences between treatments informed by isolated and synthesized contingency FAs.     

Comparisons of synthesized and individual reinforcement contingencies during functional analysis

Researchers typically modify individual functional analysis (FA) conditions after results are inconclusive (Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003). Hanley, Jin, Vanselow, and Hanratty (2014) introduced a marked departure from this practice, using an interview‐informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA). In the test condition, they delivered multiple contingencies simultaneously (e.g., attention and escape) after each occurrence of problem behavior; in the control condition, they delivered those same reinforcers noncontingently and continuously. In the current investigation, we compared the results of the IISCA with a more traditional FA in which we evaluated each putative reinforcer individually. Four of 5 participants displayed destructive behavior that was sensitive to the individual contingencies evaluated in the traditional FA. By contrast, none of the participants showed a response pattern consistent with the assumption of the IISCA. We discuss the implications of these findings on the development of accurate and efficient functional analyses.     

Developing a treatment for hand‐clapping maintained by automatic reinforcement using sensory analysis,noncontingent reinforcement,and thinning

Two subjects diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and related disabilities who engaged in hand‐clapping maintained by automatic reinforcement participated in this study. We conducted a sensory analysis to evaluate matched stimuli that functioned as an abolishing operation or extinction for different sources of sensory reinforcement. Finally, we implemented noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) using the stimuli found to compete in the assessment to reduce the target behavior, and we thinned item availability. Results showed a decrease in hand‐clapping, and hand‐clapping remained low when we thinned the schedule of reinforcement. This research further elucidates how NCR can treat problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement.