ABA Fundamentals

Further analysis of fixed‐lean approaches to reinforcement schedule thinning

Chesbrough et al. (2024) · Behavioral Interventions 2024
★ The Verdict

Start FCT thinning on the final lean schedule—clients reach stability faster with no loss in behavior reduction.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running FCT who want to speed up schedule thinning.
✗ Skip if Practitioners already using fixed-lean starts or those not yet trained in FCT.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Chesbrough et al. (2024) compared two ways to thin reinforcement during FCT. One group started on the final lean schedule right away. The other group began on a dense schedule and slowly leaned it out.

They used an alternating-treatments design so each participant got both methods. The team tracked how fast each route cut problem behavior to a clinically low level.

02

What they found

Jumping straight to the lean schedule reached the goal faster. The dense-to-lean path took longer with no extra benefit.

Problem behavior stayed low in both paths, so the quicker route did not trade away clinical effect.

03

How this fits with other research

Kittler et al. (2004) ran the same comparison twenty years earlier and saw the same pattern. Two of their three participants also hit goals faster with the fixed-lean start. Chesbrough et al. (2024) serve as a clean replication and update of that earlier work.

Stevens et al. (2018) extended the fixed-lean idea to children with autism. They showed the schedule still works and keeps mands discriminated in that population. The new paper adds more evidence that the tactic is robust across clients.

Capriotti et al. (2017) looked at fixed versus progressive schedules in tic suppression and found no added benefit for the gradual route. Their null result lines up with the FCT finding: skipping the gradual steps saves time without hurting outcomes.

04

Why it matters

If you are thinning reinforcement after FCT, start at the terminal lean schedule. You will reach safe levels of problem behavior sooner and free up session time for other goals. The move is backed by two decades of alternating-treatments studies and works across diagnoses. Check your baseline data, pick your lean schedule, and begin there next session.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Skip the dense-to-lean steps: begin the next FCT case on the leanest schedule you ultimately want.

02At a glance

Intervention
functional communication training
Design
alternating treatments
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

AbstractFunctional communication training is an effective intervention for establishing an appropriate, alternative response that produces the functional reinforcer maintaining challenging behavior. Once the alternative response is established, it is differentially reinforced—typically using dense schedules—while challenging behavior is placed on extinction. After achieving clinically significant reductions in challenging behavior, reinforcement schedule thinning is conducted to promote the maintenance of the alternative response under more practical reinforcement schedules. In the current study, we compared two different methods for thinning the schedule of reinforcement for the alternative response to a terminal schedule. One method, referred to as the dense‐to‐lean (DTL) approach, involves gradually decreasing the density of alternative reinforcement over successive sessions until the terminal schedule is reached. Another method, referred to as the fixed‐lean (FL) approach, involves abruptly decreasing the density of alternative reinforcement by rapidly transitioning to the terminal schedule. Whereas the former approach has been evaluated extensively within the applied literature, the latter approach has not been the focus of much empirical work in either the clinic or the laboratory. An alternating treatment design was used to directly compare these approaches, both of which included noncontingent access to competing stimuli. Participants achieved clinically significant reductions in challenging behavior at the terminal schedule more readily with the FL than the DTL approach. The results are further discussed in terms of the efficacy and efficiency for both approaches, the potential mediating effect of competing stimuli, and implications for future research.

Behavioral Interventions, 2024 · doi:10.1002/bin.2055