Establishing Functional Communication Responses and Mands: A Scoping Review of Teaching Procedures and Implications for Future Investigation
Teach one quick FCR to stop crisis, then grow it into many mands for lasting communication.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Dawson et al. (2026) read every mand and FCT paper from 2014-2024. They kept 98 studies. They sorted how each study taught kids to talk instead of tantrum.
The team looked at two camps. Mand training teaches many ways to ask. FCT teaches one fast response to stop danger behavior.
What they found
Mand programs want a big toolbox: many words, many people, many places. FCT programs want one strong tool: a quick card or sign that ends hitting now.
The two camps rarely trade notes. Mand folks ignore rapid behavior stop. FCT folks ignore wide word growth.
How this fits with other research
Carr et al. (1985) showed the first FCT. One response plus extinction killed severe SIB. That speed goal still drives FCT today.
Torelli et al. (2023) and Fuhrman et al. (2016) prove FCT can keep its punch after thinning. They add chained schedules or multiple schedules to stop resurgence. These tools live in the FCT speed camp.
Mitteer et al. (2022) warn that two-thirds of FCT cases see relapse when you thin. Their data push for more mand-style variety to buffer against loss.
Ghaemmaghami et al. (2018) bridge the camps. They shaped one simple FCR into longer, richer sentences without resurgence. Their method mixes FCT speed with mand breadth.
Why it matters
You no longer have to pick one camp. Start with a single FCR to shut down danger fast. Then shape that response into a chain of varied mands. Use multiple schedules and extinction to guard against relapse. You get safe now and skilled for life.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick the child’s strongest FCR, add one new word to it each day while keeping extinction on problem behavior.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The functional communication response (FCR) shares fundamental properties with the mand, with both responses linking the relevant motivating operation and the reinforcer maintaining a response. The FCR differs from the mand in that the communication response has the expressed intention of replacing challenging behavior by providing an outlet to access the same functional reinforcer. Research describes the development of mand and FCR repertoires; however, no research to date elucidates differences and similarities in how these repertoires are established. A scoping review was selected to systematically map and compare instructional procedures across FCT and mand training studies. In this scoping review, we analyzed 98 peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2014 and 2024 that taught FCR or mand repertoires, identified through searches of PsychINFO and ERIC using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We (a) reviewed teaching strategies for developing mand and FCR repertoires, (b) analyzed unique and shared teaching features, and (c) identified implications for future research on teaching FCRs to replace challenging behaviors. Results showed that mand training studies more often targeted multiple responses to expand communication repertoires, whereas FCT studies typically focused on teaching a single response to rapidly suppress problem behavior. Additional distinctions included strategies for contriving motivating operations, prompting procedures, and communication topographies. These findings highlight important procedural divergences and suggest the need for integrated instructional approaches that promote generalization and functional use of communication.
Behavioral Sciences, 2026 · doi:10.3390/bs16020182