A comparison of single-case evaluation tools applied to functional communication training with augmentative and alternative communication supports for students with developmental disabilities.
Expect three different quality labels when you rate FCT+AAC studies, so always compare tools before you trust one score.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team looked at 59 single-case studies on functional communication training plus AAC. They ran each paper through three quality-rating tools.
The goal was to see if the tools agreed on how strong the evidence was.
What they found
The tools did not line up. One tool might label a study high quality while another called the same study weak.
No single tool gave a final answer.
How this fits with other research
Chiviacowsky et al. (2013) showed FCT plus a chained schedule wiped out multiply-controlled problem behavior. That positive result could get three different quality scores under the three tools Bellon-Harn et al. (2020) checked.
Singh et al. (2009) reviewed weighted vests and also found weak evidence, but they used only one rating method. Bellon-Harn et al. (2020) warn that picking a different tool could flip the vest verdict.
Cox et al. (2015) validated a video-only preference assessment. Their design would likely receive mixed ratings too, backing the main point that the tool you pick shapes the label you stick on a study.
Why it matters
Before you call an FCT+AAC paper strong or weak, check more than one rating tool. If the scores clash, dig into the items that differ instead of trusting the first score you see. Share the range of ratings with IEP teams so they know the evidence is still evolving.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run your newest FCT+AAC article through two rating tools; if they disagree, list both scores in the file note.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Students with developmental disabilities frequently present with both limited vocal speech and challenging behavior. Functional communication training (FCT) with augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) supports, is a commonly recommended intervention to reduce challenging behavior for these students, while also increasing appropriate communication. AIMS: Current research on this topic has not applied multiple evaluation tools, despite the recent suggestion to do so. Further, there are limited studies in the field of special education that have (a) applied multiple evaluation tools and (b) compared the results of the tools. METHOD: In the current review, we applied three evaluation tools to intervention studies examining the use of FCT with AAC supports in school-based settings to determine the current level of scientific support for this intervention. We identified 38 studies, which contained 59 single-case designs (SCDs). Next, we compared the methodological rigor and/or quality, outcome scores, and Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) ratings provided by the three evaluation tools. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our results yielded inconsistent methodological rigor and/or quality, participant outcome measures, and EBP classifications between the evaluation tools. No two evaluation tools completely aligned. Limitations and future research are discussed.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2020 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103803