Evaluation of the "control over reinforcement" component in functional communication training.

The team asked: does FCT work because the client controls the reinforcer? They worked with adults with intellectual disability who hit or bit themselves. Each adult got two treatments in random order: FCT where they asked and then received the item, and yoked NCR where the item arrived on the same schedule but with no request needed.

Both FCT and the matched NCR cut self-injury by the same amount. The surprise: letting the client control the reinforcer was not the magic piece. Yet FCT still beat NCR on one front—it made the new communication response happen more often and more steadily.

Perez et al. (2015) meta-analysis shows NCR alone can slam problem behavior very hard, backing the equal drop seen here. Jessel et al. (2018) later stacked 25 clinic cases and got 90% or better reduction with IISCA-driven FCT, showing the package still wins in the real world.

Demello et al. (1992) review already said reinforcers must match the function; this study adds that, once matched, who delivers them does not change the bite count. Mueller et al. (2000) then proved variable-time NCR works too, so schedule type also matters less than function.

You can relax about "control" and still pick FCT. Use it when you want the client to gain a voice, not just to stop the blow. If time is short and you only need quick suppression, yoked NCR with the right reinforcer is an honest shortcut—just don’t expect a new skill to grow.