A Comparison of Demand Fading and a Dense Schedule of Reinforcement During Functional Communication Training

Gerow et al. (2020) worked with children with autism who showed problem behavior to escape work.

They compared two ways to run FCT. One way gave lots of breaks right after each mand. The other way started with easy work and slowly added more.

The team used an alternating-treatments design. Each child got both FCT versions in mixed order.

Demand fading kept problem behavior low and helped kids finish more tasks.

Dense reinforcement alone let problem behavior creep back up.

Mand counts went up in both plans, but results varied by child.

Blair et al. (2025) pooled 34 FCT studies and found big behavior cuts in natural settings. The new data line up with that large picture.

Carter et al. (2013) showed that adding extra reinforcement during thinning helps. Demand fading is another thinning tool that gives the same boost.

Torelli et al. (2024) tried FCT without extinction in classrooms and saw mixed behavior drops. Gerow’s team also saw mixed mand gains, hinting that classrooms may need extra supports.

If you run FCT for escape behavior, pair the mand with a dense schedule at first, then fade in work. This simple twist keeps gains steady while you thin reinforcement. Try it next time a learner asks for breaks but still avoids tasks.