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

Livingston et al. (2023) worked with children whose problem behavior served two or more purposes at once.

The team used one FCT package that chained two reinforcement schedules back-to-back.

First the child asked for a break, then the break room offered toys or snacks.

Parents helped pick the final, thinned schedule so treatment could fit real life.

Problem behavior dropped and stayed low while appropriate requests and compliance rose.

Even after the schedule was thinned to parent-set levels, gains held steady.

One streamlined plan handled multiply maintained behavior without separate treatments for each function.

Zangrillo et al. (2016) showed chained-schedule FCT cut escape-only SIB, but warned that resurgence can return when you add extinction. Livingston keeps the chain and avoids that trap by staying with differential reinforcement instead of extinction.

Tsami et al. (2020) saw most kids lose their FCT gains when they moved from combined to isolated conditions. Livingston’s chained schedule keeps combined reinforcement in place while thinning, sidestepping that transfer problem.

Briggs et al. (2017) let clients pick between mult and chained schedules based on which gave denser reinforcement. Livingston locks in the chained version and proves it still works when behavior is driven by multiple reinforcers, not just escape.

You no longer need two FCT plans for one child. Plug the break request and the reinforcer room into a single chain, then thin with parent input. Expect fewer spikes in problem behavior and less resurgence than older methods that lean on extinction. Try it next time your functional analysis shows two or more maintaining variables.