Evaluation of a pre-treatment assessment to select mand topographies for functional communication training.

The team ran a single-case experiment. They first tested how well each learner could already ask for things.

Next they used FCT with two kinds of mands. One mand the learner already did well. The other mand the learner did poorly.

They watched which FCT cut problem behavior faster.

FCT worked best when the mand was already strong. High-proficiency mands cut problem behavior more than low-proficiency mands.

Picking the easy, fluent request made treatment shorter and smoother.

Blair et al. (2025) looked at 34 FCT studies and found big behavior drops in young kids with ASD. Their meta backs up the 2009 point: FCT works, and small choices like mand type can boost the effect.

Cadette et al. (2016) asked kids and parents which mand they liked. They also picked one mand over others, but used a 5-minute preference test instead of a skill test. Together the papers say: check both ease and like before you start.

Perez et al. (2015) seems to clash. They saw kids stick with their old, easy mand even when it caused more problem behavior. So high ease can backfire if the old mand is tangled up with chaos. The 2009 study kept the high-proficiency mand but paired it with extinction, showing ease helps only when you also block the old problem route.

Before you write the FCT plan, run a quick mand probe. Have the learner try signs, pictures, or voice outputs. Score speed and clarity. Pick the one that already looks smooth, then add extinction for problem behavior. This one extra step can save you weeks of teaching and crying later.