Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatment packages.
When FCT and NCR both stop attention-maintained problem behavior, kids still choose FCT—so let them.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with three children who hit, bit, or screamed to get adult attention. First they did a short functional analysis to be sure attention was the payoff. Then they taught each child to tap a card instead (FCT) and also gave free attention every 30 s (NCR).
Both treatments ran in rapid-turn sessions. After each pair the child could press one of two buttons to pick which session came next. The researchers counted problem behavior and the child’s own choices.
What they found
FCT and NCR both cut problem behavior to near-zero levels. But when the kids got to choose, every single one picked FCT every time. Even though both choices worked, the children wanted the one that let them ask for attention themselves.
How this fits with other research
Jones et al. (1992) showed FCT keeps working months later while time-out fades—this study adds that kids also like FCT more. Martin et al. (1997) moved FCT into homes and saw gains last two years; our paper shows the same procedure is preferred even in clinic rooms.
Torres‐Viso et al. (2018) later used FCT plus extinction for a brand-new function—getting people to rearrange things. They still saw big drops, proving FCT can stretch beyond attention-only cases.
Green et al. (1999) used a similar child-choice layout, but for assessment not treatment. Together these papers say: give clients a voice, and they will usually pick the plan that teaches them to communicate.
Why it matters
If two plans work equally well, let the learner decide. Adding a 30-second choice trial costs nothing yet boosts buy-in and may help maintenance. Next time you run FCT and NCR side-by-side, ask the child which one they want—you might get better cooperation without extra effort.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After comparing FCT and NCR in your next session, give the client a 10-second button press to pick the next round and record their choice.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Functional communication training (FCT) and noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) are commonly prescribed treatments that are based on the results of a functional analysis. Both treatments involve delivery of the reinforcer that is responsible for the maintenance of destructive behavior. One major difference between the two treatment procedures is that client responding determines reinforcement delivery with FCT (e.g., reinforcement of communication is delivered on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule) but not with NCR (e.g., reinforcement is delivered on a fixed-time 30-s schedule). In the current investigation, FCT and NCR were equally effective in reducing 2 participants' destructive behavior that was sensitive to attention as reinforcement. After the treatment analysis, the participants' relative preference for each treatment was evaluated using a modified concurrent-chains procedure. Both participants demonstrated a preference for the FCT procedure. The results are discussed in terms of treatment efficacy and preference for control over when reinforcement is delivered. In addition, a method is demonstrated in which clients with developmental disabilities can participate in selecting treatments that are designed to reduce their destructive behavior.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1997 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-459