Systematic Changes in Preference for Schedule-Thinning Arrangements as a Function of Relative Reinforcement Density
Let the client choose between mult and chained FCT schedules; they will pick whichever one currently gives more reinforcement.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with children with autism who had already learned FCT. They wanted to know which schedule-thinning plan the kids would pick.
They compared two ways to thin: a mult schedule and a chained schedule. They let the kids choose after each schedule changed its reinforcement rate.
What they found
Both plans stopped destructive behavior and kept the new communication responses.
The kids switched their pick as soon as one plan gave more reinforcement than the other. Preference followed the denser schedule, not the plan type.
How this fits with other research
Hanley et al. (1997) first showed clients pick FCT over NCR when both work. Briggs et al. (2017) extend that idea inside FCT itself: clients still choose by density, not name.
Carter et al. (2013) showed mult schedules help in 58 cases. The new study adds a rule: watch density and let the client move you to the richer one.
Torres‐Viso et al. (2018) later used mult-schedule thinning for rearrangement mands and also saw good results, backing the mult piece of the target finding.
Why it matters
You no longer have to guess which thinning path to ride. Run quick preference probes while you thin; shift to the schedule that currently pays more. This keeps the client happy, problem behavior low, and treatment moving without extra planning.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After each schedule change, give a two-minute choice between mult and chained arrangements and stay with the one the client picks.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We treated destructive behavior maintained by both social-positive (i.e., access to tangibles) and social-negative (i.e., escape from demands) reinforcement in an individual diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder using functional communication training (FCT). We then thinned the schedule of reinforcement for the tangible function using a multiple schedule (mult FCT) and later thinned the availability of escape using a chained schedule (chain FCT). Both treatments proved effective at maintaining functional communicative responses while decreasing destructive behavior to near-zero levels. In addition, treatment effects maintained when we rapidly thinned mult FCT to the terminal schedule. Throughout chain-FCT schedule thinning, we assessed client preference for each schedule-thinning arrangement (mult FCT or chain FCT) using a concurrent-chains procedure. Client preference reliably shifted from chain FCT to mult FCT as the response requirement increased and the proportion of session spent in reinforcement began to favor mult FCT. We discuss the clinical implications of these findings.
Behavior Modification, 2017 · doi:10.1177/0145445517742883