Establishing discriminative control of responding using functional and alternative reinforcers during functional communication training.
Pair each FCT response with its own signal and you can swap in backup reinforcers without losing control.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Two children with severe problem behavior got FCT.
Each child learned one request.
The team paired each request with its own colored card.
One card meant the functional reinforcer was coming.
The other card meant an alternative reinforcer was coming.
They tested both cards with and without extinction.
What they found
Both kids' problem behavior dropped to near zero.
It did not matter which card was shown.
It did not matter if extinction was on or off.
The colored cards alone controlled the behavior.
Alternative reinforcers worked when signaled by their card.
How this fits with other research
Podlesnik et al. (2017) seems to disagree.
They found changing alternative stimuli weakened extinction.
The key difference is the colored cards.
W et al. kept each reinforcer tied to its own signal.
Podlesnik mixed signals, which broke the control.
Porter et al. (2008) later showed the same FCT works on early warning signs.
Foti et al. (2015) proved it works for kids with fragile X too.
Falligant et al. (2020) now uses data to predict who needs which signal.
Why it matters
You can use backup reinforcers when the real one is off limits.
Just give each reinforcer its own clear signal.
A colored card, a picture, or a word can do the job.
This keeps treatment strong even when perfect reinforcement is impossible.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick a colored card for each reinforcer your client earns and show the right card every time you deliver it.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Functional communication training (FCT) is a popular treatment for problem behaviors, but its effectiveness may be compromised when the client emits the target communication response and reinforcement is either delayed or denied. In the current investigation, we trained 2 individuals to emit different communication responses to request (a) the reinforcer for destructive behavior in a given situation (e.g., contingent attention in the attention condition of a functional analysis) and (b) an alternative reinforcer (e.g., toys in the attention condition of a functional analysis). Next, we taught the participants to request each reinforcer in the presence of a different discriminative stimulus (SD). Then, we evaluated the effects of differential reinforcement of communication (DRC) using the functional and alternative reinforcers and correlated SDs, with and without extinction of destructive behavior. During all applications, DRC (in combination with SDs that signaled available reinforcers) rapidly reduced destructive behavior to low levels regardless of whether the functional reinforcer or an alternative reinforcer was available or whether reinforcement for destructive behavior was discontinued (i.e., extinction).
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1998 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1998.31-543