<scp>DRA</scp> contingencies promote improved tolerance to delayed reinforcement during <scp>FCT</scp> compared to <scp>DRO</scp> and fixed‐time schedules
Require an alternative response (DRA) during FCT delay fading—kids wait better and problem behavior stays low compared with DRO or fixed-time delivery.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Drifke et al. (2020) tested three ways to stretch the wait for reinforcement during FCT. They used an alternating-treatments design with three children who had intellectual or developmental disabilities.
Each child got three delay schedules: DRA (had to press a card for attention), DRO (just had to wait without problem behavior), and fixed-time (reinforcer came every few minutes no matter what).
What they found
DRA kept problem behavior lowest and kept the card-press communication strong. DRO and fixed-time let more problem behavior slip through.
The kids learned to wait better when they had to DO something (DRA) instead of just sit tight (DRO) or get free snacks (fixed-time).
How this fits with other research
Iannaccone et al. (2021) ran the same DRA-vs-DRO race with college students in a lab and saw the same winner: DRA produced more appropriate behavior during delays. The pattern holds across kids with disabilities and typical adults.
Chesbrough et al. (2024) extends this work. After communication is solid, they show you can skip gradual thinning entirely and jump straight to a lean fixed schedule—saving time without losing control.
Kittler et al. (2004) already hinted at that shortcut: fixed-lean beat dense-to-lean thinning for two of three participants years ago. The new FCT studies update and refine that old tip.
Why it matters
When you fade delays during FCT, pick DRA. Make the child ask again instead of just waiting or getting free reinforcement. It keeps problem behavior low and communication alive. After the mand is strong, consider jumping straight to the leanest schedule you need—recent work says it’s faster and still safe.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Swap any DRO or fixed-time delay steps in your FCT plan to DRA—have the child emit the mand again before delivering the reinforcer.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Following Functional Communication Training (FCT), clinicians often gradually expose newly taught communicative responses to delayed reinforcement contingencies to prepare clients for the normative environment in which requests are frequently reinforced after a delay. The introduction of delays may result in the resurgence and maintenance of problem behavior and the weakening of the newly trained communicative response. The current study compared delay tolerance with three individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities when reinforcement for the functional communication response (FCR) was delivered following (a) the passage of time, (b) the omission of problem behavior, or (c) the occurrence of an alternative behavior. We measured delay tolerance in terms of minimizing problem behavior and maintaining efficient FCRs. Outcomes support requiring alternative responding during delays to attain optimal treatment results.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2020 · doi:10.1002/jaba.704