Evaluating competing activities to enhance functional communication training during reinforcement schedule thinning

Fuhrman et al. (2018) asked a simple question. When you thin the reinforcement schedule after FCT, how do you stop problem behavior from popping back up?

They taught each child a single request word or card. Then they started a multiple schedule. Some periods gave the item right away. Other periods said “not now.”

Before the “not now” periods, the team ran a 2-minute contest. They let the child pick the best toy or iPad game. That item stayed available only during the wait.

Problem behavior stayed low for every child while the schedule got thinner. The quick activity contest was enough to fill the gap.

No extra delay fading or punishment was needed. The top competing activity did the heavy lifting.

Boyle et al. (2021) ran almost the same plan with a boy with autism and got the same good result. The 2021 paper calls itself a direct replication.

Sumter et al. (2020) took a different road. They gave extra functional reinforcers during the delay instead of a fun activity. Both tricks worked, so you now have two low-effort choices.

Hoyle et al. (2022) compared chained and multiple schedules without extras. Both cut behavior, but chained schedules pushed compliance a bit higher. Fuhrman shows you can keep the simpler multiple schedule if you just add a favorite activity.

You no longer need to choose between a complex chained schedule and slow delay fading. Ask the child to rank three toys or games, hand over the winner during “not now” periods, and keep thinning. The whole assessment takes five minutes and saves hours of resurgence later.