An analysis of functional communication training as an empirically supported treatment for problem behavior displayed by individuals with intellectual disabilities.

The authors read every FCT paper they could find. They checked if the studies met APA rules for a well-established treatment. They looked at kids and adults with intellectual disability or autism.

Enough good single-case studies exist to call FCT well-established for children. The evidence for adults is thinner, so it rates only probably efficacious.

Ghaemmaghami et al. (2021) later re-checked the same APA rules. They say FCT still lacks real-world effectiveness data, so it should not yet be called evidence-based in everyday homes and schools. The two reviews use the same checklist but reach different labels.

Corr et al. (2025) add newer school studies. They agree FCT cuts problem behavior in classrooms, yet they also ask for more natural-setting reports. The 2011 and 2025 reviews line up on one point: the core clinic evidence is strong.

Lindgren et al. (2020) show the gap can close. Their 12-week telehealth RCT gave parents FCT coaching and saw 98% problem-behavior drop at home. This single study supplies the kind of everyday evidence the 2021 review says is missing.

You can tell funders and families that FCT is well-supported for children in controlled studies. If they ask, Does it work at home? cite Lindgren et al. (2020) and start parent coaching. Track data so we can strengthen the real-world evidence base.