Escape extinction
569509TECXXX10.1177/0271121415569509Topics in Early Childhood Special EducationDurand and Moskowitz research-article2015
Article
Functional Communication Training: Thirty Years of Treating Challenging Behavior
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 2015, Vol. 35(2) 116–126 © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0271121415569509 tecse.sagepub.com
V. Mark Durand, PhD1 and Lauren Moskowitz, PhD2
Abstract Thirty years ago, the first experimental demonstration was published showing that educators could improve significant challenging behavior in children with disabilities by replacing these behaviors with forms of communication that served the same purpose, a procedure called functional communication training (FCT). Since the publication of that paper, hundreds of demonstrations of the effectiveness of this approach have been published. This article describes the original study, the basic steps involved in using FCT, and how this approach can be used to reduce challenging behavior among toddlers and preschoolers.
Keywords functional communication training, challenging behavior, preschoolers, toddlers, positive behavior support
The concept is a deceptively simple one: Much of the mis- behavior seen in children can be viewed as a form of com- munication. Philosophers and others have for thousands of years used this metaphor to explain why young children cry and scream (e.g., Plato, 1960; Rousseau, 1762/1979). However, it wasn’t until relatively recently that serious research was conducted to discover if this concept could be used to actually improve the behavior of children. Three decades ago, a study published by one of us (V.M.D.) and the late Edward (Ted) Carr was the first to document how challenging behavior could be significantly improved by teaching children to use alternative communicative responses to these problem behaviors (Carr & Durand, 1985). The rationale used in the study was that if we could determine the “messages” of the children’s behavior prob- lems and teach them to communicate the same message more appropriately, their problem behavior would not be necessary and would be reduced.
The Study
In this first demonstration, four children participated who were between the ages of 7 and 14, who had a variety of developmental disorders, and who had chronic and serious challenging behaviors (e.g., aggression, tantrums, self- injury). The first step was to determine the function(s) of their behavior problems—one of a set of procedures that are now generally referred to as functional behavioral assess- ment (FBA). Research that predated our study showed that some children would engage in problem behavior to seek attention from others (e.g., Lovaas, Freitag, Gold, & Kassorla, 1965) or to escape from difficult tasks (e.g., Carr,
Newsom, & Binkoff, 1980). We therefore designed differ- ent task settings to determine if teacher attention or the type of tasks they were presented would elicit behavior prob- lems. (It should be noted that other research identified addi- tional common messages such as a desire for favorite objects or activities [e.g., Durand & Crimmins, 1988] or to gain access to various forms of physical stimulation [e.g., Rincover, Cook, Peoples, & Packard, 1979].) The children in our study were observed in typical classroom situations, but we manipulated the amount of teacher attention they received (high vs. low levels of attention). In a second series of conditions, we kept the level of teacher attention the same but manipulated the difficulty of the tasks they were presented with (easy vs. difficult tasks).
What we observed in this experiment was that the chil- dren responded in different ways to these manipulations. Two children primarily became seriously disruptive when they were presented with difficult tasks, although levels of teacher attention had no measurable influence on their behavior. Using the communication metaphor, we inter- preted this to suggest that they were using their challenging behaviors to ask to escape from the task (“I don’t want to do this!”). One student was unaffected by changes in task dif- ficulty but engaged in more challenging behaviors when the amount of teacher attention was reduced. Again, this pattern
1University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, USA 2St. John’s University, Jamaica, NY, USA
Corresponding Author: V. Mark Durand, University of South Florida St. Petersburg, 140 Seventh Avenue S., St. Petersburg, FL 33701, USA. Email: vdurand@mail.usf.edu
117 Durand and Moskowitz
of responding could be interpreted to be a request for atten- tion (“Would you come here?”). Finally, the fourth student engaged in more problem behavior when either exposed to difficult tasks or to lower levels of teacher attention, sug- gesting that this participant used challenging behavior to communicate for different things at different times.
After these students participated in the FBA and the potential messages were identified for their behaviors, we tested the notion that teaching them to communicate these messages in a more appropriate way (in this study respond- ing verbally) would result in their behavior problems being reduced in frequency. We made the decision that, for the message to escape from the difficult task, we would not teach them to say “I don’t want to do this!” as this would interfere with their educational progress. Instead, we taught the phrase “I don’t understand,” because in a typical educa- tional situation this would be followed by help or prompts from a teacher. This type of help would presumably make the task easier to complete and therefore the student would not seek to escape the situation. For the attention-getting phrase, we chose to teach the response “Am I doing good work?” One of us (V.M.D.) informally observed students in several regular education classes and determined that teach- ers would be more likely to attend to students who were seeking feedback on their work than if students just requested the teacher’s attention. Knowing how others are likely to respond to a child’s communication is an important aspect of the successful implementation of functional com- munication training (FCT).
In the second phase of this study, we placed each of these same four students in both difficult task conditions and alternated that with reduced adult attention conditions. In some of these settings, we taught and prompted them to communicate the phrase that matched the situation that resulted in problem behavior (e.g., Prompting “I don’t understand” to students who misbehaved in the difficult task situation and “Am I doing good work?” for students seeking attention). In other conditions, we prompted them to communicate the phrase that did not match the function of their behavior problem (e.g., Prompting them to say “Am I doing good work?” for students trying to escape from the task and “I don’t understand” for students seeking atten- tion).1 We wanted to demonstrate that simply communicat- ing with others would not be sufficient to reduce behavior problems. Instead, we needed to show that FCT is success- ful only when the student successfully communicated the phrases that would match the function of their behavior problems. For example, if a student becomes upset during a difficult task and asks for and gets attention but not help on the task, this should not reduce behavior problems. In other words, it is not communication per se that is the key to reducing problem behavior but communicating for the things that they were requesting using their behavior problems.
The results of this second phase of our study supported our predictions. Only when each child made a request for attention and/or help that matched the function of his or her behavior problems did these behaviors substantially reduce in frequency. So by teaching children to request help, we were able to improve their chronic behavior problems that were being used to escape from tasks. Similarly, when we taught children to appropriately ask for adult attention, behavior problems that were being used to get attention improved significantly. Importantly, this first study showed that we could improve the severe and chronic behavior problems exhibited by these children in their classrooms with a strictly positive technique (Carr & Durand, 1985).
Mechanisms of Change
The mechanism of behavior change that underlies the reduction of problem behavior using FCT is the concept of “functional equivalence” (Carr, 1988; Durand, 1987). The assumption is that problem behaviors are maintained by a particular reinforcer or reinforcers (e.g., attention from oth- ers, escape from work). Theoretically, then, these behaviors can be replaced by other behaviors if these new behaviors serve the same function and are more efficient at gaining the desired reinforcers. As mentioned, FCT is presumed to reduce problem behavior because it involves teaching and reinforcing a replacement behavior that serves the same function.
The concept of “recruiting natural communities of rein- forcement” (Stokes, Fowler, & Baer, 1978) is central to the success of FCT (Durand, 1990b). In other words, the unique aspect of FCT over other interventions is that the student initiates the treatment rather than having another person observe a behavior problem and begin an intervention. This is a particularly important aspect of FCT when comparing the outcomes with FCT to other intervention strategies. For example, we conducted an experimental analysis of this aspect of FCT in a study comparing this treatment approach with another, common approach to reacting to challenging behavior—time-out from positive reinforcement (TO; Durand & Carr, 1992). In this study, we selected 12 students 4 to 5 years of age, all of whom engaged in a variety of chal- lenging behaviors (e.g., tantrums, self-injury, and aggres- sion). In addition, we screened for students whose challenging behaviors were being maintained by attention from others. The rationale for selecting students who only had attention-maintained problem behavior was to ensure that they would be appropriate for using TO.
Six students were randomly assigned to one of the two treatment conditions—FCT or TO. Just prior to introducing the treatments, the students were individually placed with teachers who had no knowledge of the study and who were instructed to work with the student on a task. No instruc- tions were given about how to react to behavior problems.
118 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 35(2)
Treatment was then introduced by other teachers and was successful in reducing challenging behaviors for each child. Thus, the first finding was that both FCT and TO could suc- cessfully reduce challenging behavior. Then, the students were placed back with the teachers who were naïve to the treatment program. For the students who had received TO as a treatment, the students quickly found that TO as a con- sequence would not occur in this setting and they resumed their behavior problems. In contrast, the students who received FCT as a treatment used their communicative responses to request attention from the naïve teachers and the naïve teachers responded appropriately, maintaining the reduction of the challenging behavior. In short, the advan- tage of FCT was not solely in the initial reduction in chal- lenging behavior—which both treatments could produce—but also in its ability to prompt the teacher to reinforce them with what they were requesting (recruit nat- ural communities of reinforcement; Shoham-Vardi et al., 1996). In other words, FCT generalized to the untrained condition, whereas TO did not.
The Implications and Impact of FCT
FCT was developed in the early 1980s at a time when con- troversies erupted over the use of painful or humiliating interventions with persons with disabilities. The sometimes acrimonious nature of these discussions did little to further the solution to this issue, which was to provide an evidence base for non-aversive interventions that could be used to successfully treat severe challenging behaviors (Durand, 1990a). FCT fit with the zeitgeist of the time to develop research on interventions for even the most severe challeng- ing behaviors that would avoid relying on procedures that might be unpleasant or dehumanize the individual (Durand, 1987). This first study documented that a positive approach consistent with today’s efforts at positive behavior support (PBS) could effectively treat chronic and severe problem behavior.
Since its publication, this study has been cited more than 1,500 times and replicated in hundreds of other studies on a wide range of populations and types of problem behavior (for reviews, see Durand, 2012; Kurtz, Boelter, Jarmolowicz, Chin, & Hagopian, 2011; Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008). There is a wide range of behaviors that have been targeted with FCT, including aggression and self-injury to elope- ment (i.e., running away; Lang et al., 2009) and inappropri- ate sexual behavior (Fyffe, Kahng, Fittro, & Russell, 2004). FCT is used in homes, schools and in the community by family members as well as a range of professionals (Dunlap, Ester, Langhans, & Fox, 2006; Durand, 1999; Kemp & Carr, 1995). Research on FCT has been successfully used with individuals across all ages (from infants/toddlers to older adults), developmental levels (from those with perva- sive needs for support to those with average or above
average cognitive abilities), language (Mancil, 2006; Petscher, Rey, & Bailey, 2009; Snell, Chen, & Hoover, 2006), and diagnoses such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD; for example, Brown et al., 2000), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; for example, Flood & Wilder, 2002), and traumatic brain injury (Gardner, Bird, Maguire, Carreiro, & Abenaim, 2003). Our first study included children who could say a few words, but other studies have now shown that children who are non-verbal can use a variety of augmentative systems to succeed with FCT (Durand, 1999; Mirenda, 1997; Walker & Snell, 2013). FCT exceeds the American Psychological Association’s cri- teria for empirically supported treatments to be designated as a well-established treatment for challenging behavior for children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including ASD (Chambless et al., 1996; Task Force Promoting Dissemination of Psychological Procedures, 1995; Wong et al., 2013).
Research With Toddlers and Preschoolers
Children’s problem behavior is often rated as the chief con- cern for early childhood educators, with the prevalence of problem behavior estimated at approximately 10% to 25% of young children (e.g., Joseph & Strain, 2003). Increasingly, researchers and policymakers have been paying more atten- tion to the problem behavior exhibited by young children, and there is an increasing concern regarding the long-term implications of such behavior (e.g., Dunlap, Strain, et al., 2006; New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, 2003). Importantly, there is a poor prognosis for children who exhibit early-onset behavioral problems. Without effective interventions to address problem behaviors and teach more appropriate replacement behaviors, toddlers and preschool- ers who exhibit such behavioral challenges may be at risk for long-term problems with socialization and academic success (e.g., Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Evidence suggests that problem behaviors that begin in early child- hood persist from toddlerhood through adolescence and even adulthood. In fact, recent findings suggest that behav- ior problems are present in a recognizable form as early as 8 months of age (Lorber, Del Vecchio, & Smith Slep, 2014).
There is increasing demand for effective interventions for children at younger ages than have traditionally been targeted in earlier years (e.g., Dunlap, Ester, et al., 2006). Given the fact that FCT can be implemented by natural intervention agents such as parents, teachers, and teaching assistants (e.g., Schindler & Horner, 2005), and given that a child who is taught a functional communication skill can then recruit reinforcers without an interventionist needing to train other people how to respond, this makes it an ideal intervention approach for use with very young children in their homes and preschools.
119 Durand and Moskowitz
Research suggests that FCT is an effective strategy for addressing the behavior problems of young children. Studies using FCT with young children have targeted tod- dlers from 16 to 36 months of age (Dunlap, Ester, et al., 2006; Harding et al., 2009; Peck et al., 1996; Wacker et al., 2005; Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, & Geier, 2002) as well as preschoolers from 3 to 5 years of age (e.g., Olive, Lang, & Davis, 2008; Schindler & Horner, 2005), with most studies targeting children who span across both tod- dler and preschool years. Not only have researchers and therapists been able to effectively implement FCT with young children (Durand & Carr, 1992; Falcomata, Roane, Feeney, & Stephenson, 2010; Mildon, Moore, & Dixon, 2004; Peck et al., 1996; Winborn et al., 2002), but parents have been successful in using FCT with their toddlers and preschoolers in home settings (Berg, Wacker, Harding, Ganzer, & Barretto, 2007; Derby et al., 1997; Dunlap, Ester, et al., 2006; Harding et al., 2009; Mancil, Conroy, Nakao, & Alter, 2006; Moes & Frea, 2002; Olive et al., 2008; Rispoli, Camargo, Machalicek, Lang, & Sigafoos, 2014; Schieltz et al., 2011; Wacker, Harding, & Berg, 2008; Wacker et al., 2011) and teachers have had success using FCT in early childhood settings, preschools, and schools (Gibson, Pennington, Stenhoff, & Hopper, 2010; Lambert, Bloom, & Irvin, 2012; Schindler & Horner, 2005). In addition, although the majority of research on FCT has used verbal speech or sign language, there are several studies of FCT in young children that use “communication cards” or picture cards (e.g., Berg et al., 2007; Falcomata et al., 2010; Lambert et al., 2012; Mancil et al., 2006; Peck et al., 1996; Rispoli et al., 2014; Schieltz et al., 2011; Schindler & Horner, 2005; Wacker et al., 2005; Wacker et al., 2011; Winborn et al., 2002) or assistive technology such as a microswitch (e.g., Harding et al., 2009; Olive et al., 2008; Peck et al., 1996; Schieltz et al., 2011; Wacker et al., 2005; Wacker et al., 2011; Winborn et al., 2002). Such alternative forms of communication might be particularly important for young children with developmental delays.
The breadth of studies using FCT with young children is shown in Table 1, which includes 21 studies that used FCT exclusively with young children (ages 1–6 years old). Other studies include mixed-age groups with younger children and older children, but these studies are not included in this review. The table summarizes the participants’ age and diagnoses, the problem behavior targeted with FCT, the communicative response taught, and the interventionist who implemented FCT. Although FCT is efficacious, there are certain considerations to be taken into account when implementing FCT that are impor- tant to its effectiveness in natural settings. Two such consider- ations are the issues of schedule thinning and contextual fit.
Schedule Thinning
When teaching a child to use a communicative response, it is important that we initially reinforce him by giving him
what he is asking for every time he asks for it (i.e., provid- ing him with a “rich” or “dense” schedule of reinforcement, in which the reinforcer is easily obtained) so that he quickly acquires the skill (Durand, 1990b). If the reinforcer was too difficult to obtain in the early stages of attempting to use a new communication skill, the child might resort to using problem behavior to gain his reinforcer rather than using his new communication skill. However, although continuously reinforcing the new communicative skill at high rates will help the child learn the skill more quickly, in practice, it can be challenging for parents or teachers to have to respond to the child’s request every time he makes it. For example, if a child is requesting attention every minute, it can be irritat- ing or stressful for family members or teachers and likely impossible to sustain. Likewise, if a child is repeatedly requesting a break every 1 or 2 min, or requesting his toy every few minutes, it can keep him from completing tasks and result in reduced learning opportunities. Therefore, to address this problem, several studies have examined reduc- ing or “thinning” a schedule of reinforcement for a com- munication skill from a continuous schedule to a more intermittent schedule.
In one example, Rispoli and colleagues (2014) examined the effects of FCT plus extinction and schedule thinning for three preschool children with ASD (ages 3–4 years old) who displayed problem behavior when their rituals were interrupted. After a functional analysis (FA) showed that problem behavior was maintained by reinstatement of the interrupted routine, each child was taught the communica- tive response of saying, “I don’t want that” (or handing the interventionist a card with the “no” symbol) if they did not want their routine to be interrupted. Use of the communica- tive response resulted in temporary reinstatement of the ritual, whereas problem behavior did not result in attention or reinstatement of the ritual. The researchers gradually increased the time between the communicative response (e.g., “I don’t want that”) and the reinforcement (i.e., rein- statement of ritual) using a digital kitchen timer, such that the child could receive reinforcement for using his commu- nicative response only when the timer sounded. Reinforcement was available after 5 s of ritual interruption in the first phase, with the duration of ritual interruption gradually increased to 2 min. Results revealed that, follow- ing FCT plus extinction, problem behavior decreased and appropriate communication increased for all three children across each of the schedule-thinning phases. Although the children initially used the communicative response at high levels, their use of the response decreased (while problem behavior remained near zero) as schedule thinning pro- gressed (as the duration of the ritual interruption increased).
The researchers conceptualized the schedule thinning as possibly being similar to a “signaled demand fading” in that there are limited demands in the initial FCT plus extinction condition and the demands (i.e., duration of ritual interruption) are systematically increased before providing reinforcement
Table 1. Studies Using FCT With Young Children.
Citation n Participant ages (years) Diagnoses Problem behavior
Communicative response form Interventionist
Arndorfer, Miltenberger, Woster, Rortvedt, and Gaffaney (1994)
5 (n = 2 FCT) 2–3 Developmental speech delay, fetal alcohol syndrome
Aggression, SIB, disruptive behaviors
Verbal Parent, researcher
Berg, Wacker, Harding, Ganzer, and Barretto, (2007)
4 4–5 DD, speech and language disorders
Aggression, property destruction, non- compliance
Verbal, picture card (touching card)
Parent
Blair, Fox, and Lentini (2010) 3 (n = 1 FCT) 3 Language developmental delay
Tantrums, aggression Did not specify (multicomponent PBS plan including “teaching skills”)
Teacher, teaching assistant
Derby et al. (1997) 4 2–5 DD, ID, language delay, visual impairment, asthma, cerebral palsy, epilepsy
SIB, property destruction, non- compliance, tantrums
Verbal, sign language Parent
Duda, Dunlap, Fox, Lentini, and Clarke (2004)
2 (n = 1 FCT) 3 Down syndrome Aggression, disruptive behavior
Verbal, gestural (tap arm) Teacher, paraprofessional
Dunlap, Ester, et al. (2006) 2 2 Speech and language delay Aggression, disruptive behaviors
Verbal Parent
Durand and Carr (1992) 12 (n = 6 in FCT group)
3–5 ASD, ID, ADHD, developmental language disorder
Aggression, tantrums, property destruction,
Verbal Researcher
opposition Falcomata, Roane, Feeney, and
Stephenson (2010) 1 5 ASD Elopement Picture card (touching
card) Therapist
Gibson, Pennington, Stenhoff, and Hopper (2010)
1 4 ASD Elopement Verbal, hand raising Teacher
Harding et al. (2009) 3 1–3 DD, language delay, disruptive behavior disorder
SIB, aggression, property destruction
Verbal, picture card (touching card), sign language, assistive technology
Parent
Lambert, Bloom, and Irvin (2012) 3 3–4 DD Aggression, tantrums Picture card (touched teacher with card)
Teacher
Mancil, Conroy, Nakao, and Alter (2006)
1 4 PDD Tantrums Verbal, picture card (hand to researcher)
Researcher, parent
Mildon, Moore, and Dixon (2004) 1 4 ASD Aggression, disruptive behaviors, non-
Verbal Researcher
compliance Moes and Frea (2002) 3 3 ASD Aggression, disruptive
behavior Verbal, sign language Parent, sibling
Olive, Lang, and Davis (2008) 1 4 ASD Elopement, disruptive behavior
Assistive technology Parent
(continued)
120
Table 1. (continued)
Participant Communicative response Citation n ages (years) Diagnoses Problem behavior form Interventionist
Peck et al. (1996) 5 1–4 DD, language delay, short- bowel syndrome, severe pulmonary hypertension, atrial septal defect, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, failure to thrive
SIB, aggression, property destruction, non-compliance, screaming
Verbal, picture card (touching card), assistive technology, choice- making procedures (i.e., choosing an appropriate object for getting attention, eating)
Parent, researcher, nurse
Rispoli, Camargo, Machalicek, Lang, and Sigafoos (2014)
Schieltz et al. (2011)
3 3–4 ASD, PDD-NOS Aggression, tantrums Verbal, picture card (exchange of card)
Parent, therapist
10 1–4 ASD, DD, FXS, ID, Peter’s anomaly, Mecke’s diverticulum reflux, and Viral-induced asthma
SIB, aggression, property destruction, and disruptive behavior
Verbal, picture card, sign language, assistive technology
Parent
Schindler and Horner (2005) 3 4–5 ASD, charge syndrome Aggression and Picture card (pointing to Parent, teacher, disruptive behavior picture) teaching assistant
Wacker et al. (2005) 25 1–6 ASD, DD, PDD, speech and language delay, Rett syndrome, cerebral palsy, seizure disorder, Soto syndrome, behavior disorder, ADHD, expressive communication disorder, Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, bronchial pulmonary dysplasia, asthma, microcephaly, vision and hearing impairment, articulation disorder
SIB, aggression, property destruction
Verbal, picture card (touching card), sign language, assistive technology
Parent
Wacker, Harding, and Berg (2008) 3 5 ASD, FXS, PDD, ID, ODD SIB, aggression, property destruction
Verbal Parent
Wacker et al. (2011) 8 2–4 ASD, FXS, DD, mild/ moderate ID
SIB, aggression, property destruction
Verbal, picture card (touching card), sign language, assistive technology
Parent
Winborn, Wacker, Richman, Asmus, and Geier (2002)
2 2.5 Developmental delays and seizures
SIB, aggression, property
Destruction, tantrums, non-compliance
Verbal, picture card, assistive technology, gestural (shake head “no”)
Therapist
Note. FCT = functional communication training; SIB = self-injurious behavior; DD = developmental disability; PBS = positive behavior support; ID = intellectual disability; ASD = autism spectrum disorder (might be referred to as “autism” or “autistic disorder” in the study); PDD-NOS = pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified; FXS = Fragile X Syndrome; ODD = oppositional defiant disorder.
121
122 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 35(2)
for the communicative response. These results contrast with some other studies that show mixed results of schedule thin- ning in the context of FCT for individuals with a wider age range (e.g., individuals ranging from 2 to 16 years of age in Hagopian, Fisher, Sullivan, Acquisto, & LeBlanc, 1998). This may be because these other studies did not use an audi- tory signal (such as the kitchen timer) or a visual signal (such as a red/green card), signaling to the individuals when they would be reinforced for using their communicative response. If a schedule of reinforcement is being thinned without such a signal, it may be difficult for the individual to tell when his request will be reinforced, which could lead to increased requesting. Audio or visual signals could be particularly helpful for very young children, who may need more concrete cues to aid them in discriminating when they will receive reinforcement for using their communicative responses and when they will not.
Contextual Fit With Family Routines
Although the majority of the initial studies of FCT were conducted in analog settings (e.g., university clinics) or classrooms and implemented by researchers, and some later ones were conducted in family settings but used the proto- cols from analog settings, Moes and Frea (2002) were the first to integrate FCT into families’ everyday routines at home. Given that toddlers and preschool-age children spend more time at home than older children, it is especially important to ensure that FCT procedures fit within families’ existing daily routines. Considering the needs of the whole family may make the procedures more likely to be imple- mented with high integrity and their efforts can be sustained over time. Moes and Frea (2002) examined both standard FCT and “contextualized FCT”—in which family contex- tual factors (i.e., caregiving demands, family support, pat- terns of social interaction) were incorporated to adapt FCT to family routines—for three preschoolers with ASD (3–5 years of age). After the functions of the children’s problem behavior were identified, each child was taught to use spe- cific communicative responses that were selected by family members during target routines (e.g., dinner, playtime). As part of standard FCT, parents were taught to prompt the child for an appropriate communication response, provide access to the desired item/activity for an appropriate com- munication response, and prevent access in the presence of problem behavior (extinction). As part of contextualized FCT, although these procedures were the same, the research- ers collaborated with parents to individualize the way in which FCT procedures were taught and implemented, so that they were contextually relevant (individualized to their strengths, needs, and concerns within the given contexts), such as by teaching the child’s sibling how to implement the intervention in the context of playtime or serving small por- tions during dinnertime to create teaching opportunities.
Parents were trained to implement FCT through modeling, followed by performance feedback within the routine. Although all three children showed increases in functional communication and decreases in problem behavior when standard FCT was introduced, when the contextualized FCT was introduced, their problem behaviors were elimi- nated or reached near zero levels and their functional com- munication continued to increase. Furthermore, after contextualized FCT, follow-up probes showed reductions in problem behavior and increased use of functional commu- nication were maintained in both the target routines and untrained (generalization) routines. Overall, the results sug- gest that considering family context in assessment and intervention does not undermine the efficacy of FCT; rather, such considerations may actually improve families’ percep- tions of FCT and increase the stability and durability of reductions in problem behavior that are attained through FBA and FCT.
FCT With Toddlers
Although there are a handful of FCT studies that include children less than 3 years of age, these studies generally include only one toddler in a group of older children. Dunlap, Ester, et al. (2006) examined FCT exclusively with toddlers (30 and 33 months of age) in natural home rou- tines. Both toddlers had a language delay, although they could imitate spoken words and short phrases, and both exhibited aggression (e.g., kicking, hitting, hair-pulling) and disruptive behavior (e.g., spitting, whining). The func- tion of Alexis’ challenging behavior was attention-main- tained in all three routines, whereas Maria’s challenging behavior served a different function in each routine. The study was conducted in the home during activities that par- ents had identified as triggering their child’s challenging behaviors. The children’s mothers were the key intervention agents in that they chose the three home routines that they felt were particularly problematic to target for intervention and they were trained to use FCT.
During intervention, the mother was asked to begin the target routine (e.g., transition, sharing) and then anticipate the occurrence of the child’s challenging behavior by proac- tively prompting the child to use her communication skill (e.g., “Say, ‘Play with me’”). (Of note, there were no planned efforts to fade the prompts; there was no mention of demand fading or schedule thinning in this study or the one by Moes and Frea.) The sessions continued until the mother provided the reinforcer following either the replacement behavior or extended challenging behavior (there was no mention of extinction of challenging behavior or response- independent consequences). Results demonstrated that problem behavior was substantially reduced when FCT was introduced, that the effects were socially valid as judged by a typical consumer (parent), that both mothers used the FCT
123 Durand and Moskowitz
procedures with fidelity, and that both mothers described the procedures as being feasible and compatible with their families’ routines and expectations.
Adaptations for Early Childhood Setting
Just as FCT may need to be tailored to fit the needs of fami- lies in home environments, FCT procedures may also need to be adapted for use in schools and early childhood settings so that they will fit within the constraints of a classroom and fit the needs of teachers. As previously mentioned, FCT is predicated on conducting a thorough FBA, given that the communicative response taught needs to serve the same function as the problem behavior (which is identified through FBA). However, a formal FA (in which antecedents and/or consequences are systematically manipulated) can be time-consuming and is usually conducted only under highly controlled environmental conditions, both of which may limit the feasibility or practicality of conducting it in a school setting.
The difficulties involved with using a typical FA have led to studies examining the effectiveness of the “trial-based FA.” This is an adaptation that may be particularly useful for early childhood settings because brief FA probes (trials) are embedded into regularly scheduled classroom activities throughout the day. For example, Lambert et al. (2012) examined whether teachers could conduct a trial-based FA and implement FCT for three preschoolers (ages 3–4) with developmental delays in an early childhood setting. Trials were embedded into ongoing classroom activities, such that escape trials, for example, were conducted during work periods. Intervention, which involved extinction of problem behavior and FCT, was developed for each child based on the results of the trial-based FA. For all three children, the teacher was able to identify at least one function for prob- lem behavior and successfully treat that function using FCT; all three children showed increases in the communica- tive response and reductions in problem behavior. These findings support that interventions based on the results of teacher-conducted trial-based FAs can reduce behavior problems and increase communication skills in an early childhood setting. That said, there is a relative lack of research on teachers implementing FCT in preschools/early childhood settings, at least relative to the amount of FCT studies conducted in analog settings, homes, and schools for older children, and more research needs to be conducted tailoring FCT to the unique needs of early childhood educators.
Future Directions
More comprehensive approaches to treating problem behavior—called PBS—include antecedent-based (preven- tion) and consequence-based strategies, as well as teaching
the child replacement skills (e.g., FCT). Studies that have implemented multicomponent PBS plans in community early childhood programs have found increases in task engagement and reductions in challenging behavior (Duda, Dunlap, Fox, Lentini, & Clarke, 2004) and that teachers successfully implemented the plans and generalized the use of interventions to non-trained routines (Blair, Fox, & Lentini, 2010). Duda et al. (2004) found that teaching staff were more consistently able to implement structural and environmental modification strategies (e.g., following spe- cific seating arrangements, setting predicable routines) than those intervention strategies that required individualized, verbal interactions (e.g., providing specific opportunities for child-directed praise or questions), perhaps because the structural strategies may have been perceived by staff as more efficient or feasible. Similarly, Blair et al. (2010) noticed that, although teachers implemented the preventive strategies at high levels, they rarely implemented the sys- tematic teaching strategies.
Teaching replacement skills is critical so that prevention strategies can be faded out once the child learns more appropriate ways to express his needs (Blair et al., 2010). Recent work suggests that overreliance on prevention strat- egies in the absence of teaching skills may result in teachers and parents changing the environment to avoid problematic situations rather than using more active strategies such as teaching the child how to cope with difficult situations (e.g., communicating his needs in that situation), which could result in reduced maintenance and generalization over time (Durand, 2011a, 2011b). Thus, future research needs to focus on ensuring that teachers and parents can and want to implement all PBS procedures with fidelity, particularly teaching replacement skills such as functional communica- tion skills. In addition to providing them with ongoing direct coaching and feedback to increase fidelity (Blair et al., 2010), future studies need to further examine the barri- ers to implementing FCT with integrity, including time and resource constraints, administrative support, and attitudinal barriers.
The extensive body of evidence over the past three decades since we first introduced FCT as an intervention (Carr & Durand, 1985) points to its success in reducing challenging behavior. However, we are finding that up to 50% of the families or teachers with whom we work are not able to fully carry out behavioral interventions. Evidence is growing that parents and teachers differ in their perceptions of themselves (e.g., feeling out of control or inadequate as a parent or teacher), the child with a disability (e.g., whether or not their child is capable of making behavioral improve- ments), and their degree of optimism about future prospects for change. This can negatively affect their ability to imple- ment potentially successful interventions. Recent work addresses the needs of these families and teachers by integrat- ing cognitive behavioral interventions (optimism training)
124 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 35(2)
with positive behavioral support (Durand, Hieneman, Clarke, Wang, & Rinaldi, 2013; Steed & Durand, 2013). Continuing research in this area promises to broaden the benefits associated with FCT to a larger group of individu- als challenged by problem behavior.
Conclusion
The first study on FCT in 1985 provided clear and effective procedures for the treatment of problem behavior based on function, which is critical because treatments based on the function of problem behavior are twice as likely to be suc- cessful as those that are not (Carr et al., 1999). However, what might be even more important than the effective pro- cedures was the novel way of conceptualizing problem behavior that the study by Carr and Durand (1985) sug- gested: conceptualizing problem behavior as not just serv- ing a function or purpose, but as a form of communication. Although this difference may at first seem to appear to be only a semantic distinction, we argue that conceptualizing a preschooler as biting because it results in escape from an aversive task may be perceived as different than a pre- schooler biting because he is trying to say, “Help me Mom; I don’t understand how to do this.” Although these views are functionally the same, this difference in conceptualiza- tion may lead to very different interpretations and attribu- tions by parents, teachers, and therapists as well as different intervention strategies to reduce or prevent the problem behavior. For example, viewing the function of a preschool- er’s yelling as attention-maintained may lead to reductive attempts to eliminate the behavior (by punishment or extinction) or simply positively reinforce the absence of yelling (e.g., silence), whereas FCT helps that child to get his need for attention met in a better way—by teaching him an appropriate skill.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Alexis Ritter for her assistance with the litera- ture search, creation of the table, and reference check. Her help was invaluable.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Note
1. The training procedures used in functional communication training (FCT) are outlined in detail in several books (e.g., Carr et al., 1994; Durand, 1990b).
References
Arndorfer, R. E., Miltenberger, R. G., Woster, S. H., Rortvedt, A. K., & Gaffaney, T. (1994). Home-based descriptive and experimental analysis of problem behaviors in children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14, 64–87. doi:10.1177/027112149401400108
Berg, W. K., Wacker, D. P., Harding, J. W., Ganzer, J., & Barretto, A. (2007). An evaluation of multiple dependent variables across distinct classes of antecedent stimuli pre and post func- tional communication training. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 3.4–4.1, 305–333.
Blair, K. C., Fox, L., & Lentini, R. (2010). Use of Positive Behavior Support to address the challenging behavior of young children within a community early childhood program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30, 68–79. doi:10.1177/0271121410372676
Brown, K. A., Wacker, D. P., Derby, K. M., Peck, S. M., Richman, D. M., Sasso, G. M., . . . Harding, J. W. (2000). Evaluating the effects of functional communication training in the presence and absence of establishing operations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 53–71.
Carr, E. G. (1988). Functional equivalence as a mechanism of response generalization. In R. H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R. L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Lifestyle changes in applied settings (pp. 194–219). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior prob- lems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111–126. doi:10.1901/ jaba.1985.18-111
Carr, E. G., Horner, R. H., Turnbull, A. P., Marquis, J. G., Magito McLaughlin, D., McAtee, M., . . . Doolabh, A. (1999). Positive Behavior Support for people with developmental dis- abilities: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Carr, E. G., Levin, L., McConnachie, G., Carlson, J. I., Kemp, D. C., & Smith, C. E. (1994). Communication-based interven- tion for problem behavior: A user’s guide for producing posi- tive change. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., & Binkoff, J. A. (1980). Escape as a factor in the aggressive behavior of two retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 101–117.
Chambless, D. L., Sanderson, W. C., Shoham, V., Bennett Johnson, S., Pope, K. S., Crits-Christoph, P., . . . McCurry, S. (1996). An update on empirically validated therapies. The Clinical Psychologist, 49, 5–18.
Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W., DeRaad, A., Ulrich, S., Asmus, J., & Stoner, E. A. (1997). The long-term effects of functional communication training in home settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 507–531. doi:10.1901/ jaba.1997.30-507
Duda, M. A., Dunlap, G., Fox, L., Lentini, R., & Clarke, S. (2004). An experimental evaluation of Positive Behavior Support in a community preschool program. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24, 143–155.
Dunlap, G., Ester, T., Langhans, S., & Fox, L. (2006). Functional communication training with toddlers in home environments. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 81–96.
125 Durand and Moskowitz
Dunlap, G., Strain, P. S., Fox, L., Carta, J. J., Conroy, M., Smith, B. J., . . . Sowell, C. (2006). Prevention and intervention with young children’s challenging behavior: Perspectives regard- ing current knowledge. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 29–45.
Durand, V. M. (1987). “Look homeward angel”: A call to return to our (functional) roots. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 299–302.
Durand, V. M. (1990a). The “aversives” debate is over: And now the work begins. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 15, 140–141.
Durand, V. M. (1990b). Severe behavior problems: A functional communication training approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Durand, V. M. (1999). Functional communication training using assistive devices: Recruiting natural communities of rein- forcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 247– 267.
Durand, V. M. (2011a). The concession process: A new framework for understanding the development and treatment of challeng- ing behavior in autism spectrum disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Durand, V. M. (2011b). Optimistic parenting: Hope and help for you and your challenging child. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Durand, V. M. (2012). Functional communication training to reduce challenging behavior. In P. Prelock & R. McCauley (Eds.), Treatment of autism spectrum disorders: Evidence- based intervention strategies for communication & social interaction (pp. 107–138). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Durand, V. M., & Carr, E. G. (1992). An analysis of maintenance following functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 777–794.
Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the vari- ables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 99–117.
Durand, V. M., Hieneman, M., Clarke, S., Wang, M., & Rinaldi, M. L. (2013). Positive family intervention for severe challeng- ing behavior I: A multisite randomized clinical trial. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 133–143.
Falcomata, T. S., Roane, H. S., Feeney, B. J., & Stephenson, K. M. (2010). Assessment and treatment of elopement main- tained by access to stereotypy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 513–517. doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-513
Flood, W. A., & Wilder, D. A. (2002). Antecedent assessment and assessment-based treatment of off-task behavior in a child diagnosed with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 331–338.
Fyffe, C. E., Kahng, S., Fittro, E., & Russell, D. (2004). Functional analysis and treatment of inappropriate sexual behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 401–404.
Gardner, R. M., Bird, F. L., Maguire, H., Carreiro, R., & Abenaim, N. (2003). Intensive Positive Behavior Supports for adoles- cents with acquired brain injury: Long-term outcomes in com- munity settings. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 18, 52–74.
Gibson, J. L., Pennington, R. C., Stenhoff, D. M., & Hopper, J. S. (2010). Using desktop videoconferencing to deliver interventions to a preschool student with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 214–225. doi:10.1177/0271121409352873
Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., Sullivan, M. T., Acquisto, J., & LeBlanc, L. A. (1998). Effectiveness of functional communi- cation training with and without extinction and punishment: A summary of 21 inpatient cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 211–235.
Harding, J. W., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Winborn-Kemmerer, L., Lee, J. F., & Ibrahimovic, M. (2009). Analysis of mul- tiple manding topographies during functional communication training. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 21–36.
Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. S. (2003). Comprehensive evidence- based social-emotional curricula for young children: An analysis of efficacious adoption potential. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23, 65–76.
Kemp, D. C., & Carr, E. G. (1995). Reduction of severe problem behavior in community employment using an hypothesis- driven multicomponent intervention approach. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 20, 229–247.
Kurtz, P. F., Boelter, E. W., Jarmolowicz, D. P., Chin, M. D., & Hagopian, L. P. (2011). An analysis of functional commu- nication training as an empirically supported treatment for problem behavior displayed by individuals with intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 2935–2942.
Lambert, J. M., Bloom, S. E., & Irvin, J. (2012). Trial-based functional analysis and functional communication training in an early childhood setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 579–584.
Lang, R., Rispoli, M., Machalicek, W., White, P. J., Kang, S., Pierce, N., . . . Lancioni, G. (2009). Treatment of elopement in individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 670–681.
Lorber, M. F., Del Vecchio, T., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2014). The emergence and evolution of infant externalizing behavior. Development and Psychopathology. Advance online publica- tion. doi:10.1017/S0954579414000923
Lovaas, O. I., Freitag, G., Gold, V. J., & Kassorla, I. C. (1965). Experimental studies in childhood schizophrenia: Analysis of self-destructive behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2, 67–84.
Mancil, G. R. (2006). Functional communication training: A review of the literature related to children with autism. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 213–224.
Mancil, G. R., Conroy, M. A., Nakao, T., & Alter, P. J. (2006). Functional communication training in the natural environment: A pilot investigation with a young child with autism spectrum disorder. Education and Treatment of Children, 29, 615–633.
Mildon, R. L., Moore, D. W., & Dixon, R. S. (2004). Combining noncontingent escape and functional communication training as a treatment for negatively reinforced disruptive behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 92–102.
Mirenda, P. (1997). Supporting individuals with challeng- ing behavior through functional communication training and AAC: Research review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 13, 207–225.
Moes, D. R., & Frea, W. R. (2002). Contextualized behavioral support in early intervention for children with autism and their families. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 519–533.
126 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 35(2)
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. (2003). Achieving the promise: Transforming mental health care in America. Final report (DHHS Pub. No. SMA-03-3832). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Olive, M. L., Lang, R. B., & Davis, T. N. (2008). An analysis of the effects of functional communication and a voice output communication aid for a child with autism spectrum disor- der. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 223–236. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2007.06.002
Patterson, G. R., Reid, J., & Dishion, T. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia Press.
Peck, S. M., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Cooper, L. J., Brown, K. A., Richman, D., . . . Millard, T. (1996). Choice-making treat- ment of young children’s severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 263–290. doi:10.1901/ jaba.1996.29-263
Petscher, E. S., Rey, C., & Bailey, J. S. (2009). A review of empirical support for differential reinforcement of alterna- tive behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 30, 409–425.
Plato. (1960). The laws (A. E. Taylor, Trans.). London, England: J. M. Dent. (Original work published circa 348 BC)
Rincover, A., Cook, R., Peoples, A., & Packard, D. (1979). Sensory extinction and sensory reinforcement principles for programming multiple adaptive behavior change. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 221–233. doi:10.1901/ jaba.1979.12-221
Rispoli, M., Camargo, S., Machalicek, W., Lang, R., & Sigafoos, J. (2014). Functional communication training in the treatment of problem behavior maintained by access to rituals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 580–593. doi:10.1002/ jaba.130
Rousseau, J. J. (1979). Emile (A. Bloom, Trans.). New York, NY: Basic Books. (Original work published 1762)
Schieltz, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Harding, J. W., Berg, W. K., Lee, J. F., Padilla Dalmau, Y. C., . . . Ibrahimović, M. (2011). Indirect effects of functional communication training on non-targeted disruptive behavior. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 15–32. doi:10.1007/s10864-011-9119-8
Schindler, H. R., & Horner, R. H. (2005). Generalized reduction of problem behavior of young children with autism: Building trans-situational interventions. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110, 36–47.
Shoham-Vardi, I., Davidson, P. W., Cain, N. N., Sloane-Reeves, J. E., Giesow, V. E., Quijano, L. E., & Houser, K. D. (1996). Factors predicting re-referral following crisis intervention for community-based persons with developmental disabilities and behavioral and psychiatric disorders. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 109–117.
Snell, M. E., Chen, L. Y., & Hoover, K. (2006). Teaching augmen- tative and alternative communication to students with severe disabilities: A review of intervention research 1997-2003. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 203–214.
Steed, E. A., & Durand, V. M. (2013). Optimistic teaching: Improving the capacity for teachers to reduce young chil- dren’s challenging behavior. School Mental Health, 5, 15–24. doi:10.1007/s12310-012-9084-y
Stokes, T. F., Fowler, S. A., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Training pre- school children to recruit natural communities of reinforce- ment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 285–303.
Task Force Promoting Dissemination of Psychological Procedures. (1995). Training in and dissemination of empirically-vali- dated psychological treatments: Report and recommenda- tions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 48, 3–23.
Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bruzek, J. (2008). Functional com- munication training: A review and practical guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1(1), 16–23.
Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Harding, J. W., Barretto, A., Rankin, B., & Ganzer, J. (2005). Treatment effectiveness, stimulus generalization, and acceptability to parents of functional com- munication training. Educational Psychology, 25, 233–256. doi:10.1080/0144341042000301184
Wacker, D. P., Harding, J. W., & Berg, W. K. (2008). Evaluation of mand-reinforcer relations following long-term func- tional communication training. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 25–35.
Wacker, D. P., Harding, J. W., Berg, W. K., Lee, J. F., Schieltz, K. M., Padilla, Y. C., . . . Shahan, T. A. (2011). An evaluation of persistence of treatment effects dur- ing long-term treatment of destructive behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 261–282. doi:10.1901/jeab.2011.96-261
Walker, V. L., & Snell, M. E. (2013). Effects of augmentative and alternative communication on challenging behavior: A meta- analysis. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 29, 117–131. doi:10.3109/07434618.2013.785020
Winborn, L., Wacker, D. P., Richman, D. M., Asmus, J., & Geier, D. (2002). Assessment of mand selection for functional com- munication training packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 295–298.
Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., . . . Schultz, T. R. (2013). Evidence- based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, Autism Evidence-Based Practice Review Group.