Contingency-based delay to reinforcement following functional communication training for autistic individuals: A multilevel meta-analysis.
Use DRA-based contingency delays after FCT to keep problem behavior low while you stretch reinforcement.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Reem and colleagues pooled every study that added a contingency-based delay after FCT for autistic learners. They compared two delay types: DRA-based delays that let kids earn reinforcement for good communication, and DRO-based delays that only give reinforcement if no problem behavior happens.
The meta-analysis looked at how well each delay type kept problem behavior low while thinning reinforcement.
What they found
DRA-based contingency delays won. They kept challenging behavior low better than DRO-based delays.
In plain words: let the learner keep earning stuff for using words or pictures while you stretch the wait time.
How this fits with other research
Gerow et al. (2018) already showed parent-run FCT works, but they warned we rarely check if parents keep the plan going. Reem’s data say when parents do keep going, choosing DRA delays gives the safest path.
Boyle et al. (2021) tried rapid thinning with arbitrary cues and saw mixed maintenance. Reem’s findings add a second layer: even if cues help, the type of delay inside the schedule still matters.
Dugdale et al. (2000) used non-contingent reinforcement plus a simple stimulus delay and hit near-zero problem behavior. Their tactic looks opposite—no response required—but both studies agree that embedding a small delay can protect the gains.
Why it matters
You now have a clear, evidence-based rule for the thinning phase: pick DRA-based delays. Tell the learner, “First card, then break,” and slowly add seconds. You keep reinforcing communication, so problem behavior stays useless. Try it next time you move from continuous to leaner schedules after FCT.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add two-second DRA delays to your current FCT plan: reinforce each mand, then wait two seconds before delivery.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Functional communication training, an intervention for challenging behavior rooted in principles of applied behavior analysis, has copious empirical support dating back to the mid-1980s for autistic individuals. Recently, there has been a concerted effort to thin reinforcement delivery during functional communication training using contingency-based delays that, in turn, are designed to enhance practicality and feasibility while not compromising efficacy. In this synthesis, we meta-analyzed the literature base with the goal of investigating both combined and across type effectiveness of contingency-based delays. We also aimed to investigate moderating variables that might impact intervention outcomes. Findings showed that contingency-based delays were effective for individuals with an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis and most effective when the delay incorporated some form of positive reinforcement. In addition, differential reinforcement of alternative-based delays was overall more effective when compared to differential reinforcement of other behavior-based delays. Noteworthy moderating variables found to impact contingency-based delay efficacy included the intervention dosage and the topography of behavior. We discuss these findings and highlight directions where additional empirical research is warranted to improve our understanding about contingency-based delays for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
Autism : the international journal of research and practice, 2022 · doi:10.1177/13623613211065540