Shaping complex functional communication responses

Four children with intellectual disability got FCT. They already had one simple sign like "break."

The team raised the bar slowly. Each week the kids had to say more words before getting the same break.

The design was changing-criterion. The bar moved only after problem behavior stayed low for three days.

All four kids learned long sentences such as "I want break, please" without any spike in hitting or screaming.

Resurgence did not happen. Problem behavior stayed flat while the response grew from one word to six.

Diaz-Salvat et al. (2020) showed that giving three different FCR choices cuts resurgence. Ghaemmaghami got the same safe result with only one response, but they made that response longer and longer.

Sullivan et al. (2020) warned that when extinction ends, other problem forms can pop up. This study tracked the same untargeted behaviors and saw none. The gradual shaping may act like a shield.

Weyman et al. (2022) added a multiple schedule after FCT to protect breaks during rituals. Their layer is extra insurance; shaping alone worked here, but you can combine both tricks.

You no longer have to pick between short, easy mands and relapse risk. Slide the criterion one word at a time and keep reinforcement dense. Monday, write your current FCR at the top of a data sheet, add one more word as the next mastery line, and move the goal only after three clean days. Kids get smoother language, you keep problem behavior gone.