Functional Communication Training for Multiple Reinforcers: an Evaluation of Isolated Control Following a Synthesized Context

The team taught one child two different ways to ask for things. Each request matched a different reason the child had been acting out.

First they ran a full functional analysis. It showed problem behavior was fed by two reinforcers, not one. They then blended those reinforcers into a single, synthesized context for FCT teaching.

After the child used both new mands in the mixed setting, the researchers pulled the reinforcers apart again. They wanted to see if each request would still work when only its own payoff was available.

The child learned both responses quickly. Problem behavior stayed low during the blended sessions.

When the team later tested each reinforcer alone, the correct mand still happened and problem behavior did not return. Clean stimulus control held even though training had always mixed the two payoffs.

Tsami et al. (2020) tried the same synthesized-to-isolated move with five kids. Four of them lost their gains and showed resurgence. Boyle et al. (2019) shows the pattern can work, but the single case warns you not to expect it every time.

Neely et al. (2018) reviewed 37 FCT studies and found most never check maintenance under new conditions. Boyle’s careful probe fits the rare good example Leslie called for.

Blair et al. (2025) meta-analysis pools 34 studies and says FCT works best in natural settings. Boyle adds a nuance: when behavior is driven by more than one reinforcer, you can still get clean control if you test each piece after combined teaching.

You can save time by teaching two mands together, but you must probe each reinforcer alone before you call the case closed. If the response breaks apart when contingencies split, add brief re-training in isolation. Use Boyle’s probe step as a standard checkout whenever your functional analysis points to multiple reinforcers.