Functional communication training with and without alternative reinforcement and punishment: an analysis of 58 applications.

The team looked back at 58 FCT cases. All clients had intellectual disability and severe problem behavior.

They asked: does extra reinforcement during schedule thinning help? They coded each case for added noncontingent or differential reinforcement plus use of multiple schedules.

Cases that got extra reinforcement and multiple schedules kept problem behavior low. Cases without these add-ons lost ground faster.

The combo package made thinning safer and more durable across all 58 applications.

Blair et al. (2025) pooled 34 single-case studies and found the same pattern: FCT plus reinforcement arrangements cuts challenging behavior most.

Briggs et al. (2017) extend this by showing clients will pick the thinning schedule that gives denser pay-offs—so check preference often.

Tsami et al. (2020) seems to disagree: only 1 of 5 kids kept gains when FCT moved from mixed to single conditions. The clash fades when you see Tsami’s kids had multiply-controlled behavior; W et al. did not test that jump, so extra rehearsal may still be needed for complex cases.

You now have a simple checklist for thinning: add noncontingent or differential reinforcement, run a multiple schedule, and probe for resurgence early. These steps, drawn from 58 real cases, give you a safer path from dense FCT to lean real-world schedules without giving problem behavior a comeback stage.