Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 343–357 | Cite as

Functional Communication Training and Demand Fading Using Concurrent Schedules of Reinforcement

  • Tonya N. Davis
  • Regan Weston
  • Abby Hodges
  • Lauren Uptegrove
  • Kristen Williams
  • Kelly M. Schieltz
Original Paper


Demand fading, a schedule thinning procedure for escape-maintained behaviors, typically includes an escape extinction component. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of demand fading with alternative reinforcement utilizing concurrent reinforcement schedules without extinction. During demand fading, aggression and requests emitted prior to meeting the task completion criterion were reinforced with short, low-quality breaks, but requests emitted following the task completion criterion were reinforced with long, high-quality breaks. Results suggest that concurrent schedules of reinforcement may be an effective alternative to extinction as a component of demand fading.


Demand fading Choice making Functional communication training 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Athens, E. S., & Vollmer, T. R. (2010). An investigation of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 569–589. Scholar
  2. Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111–126. Scholar
  3. DeLeon, I. G., Neidert, P. L., Anders, B. M., & Rodriguez-Catter, V. (2001). Choices between positive and negative reinforcement during treatment for escape-maintained behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 521–525. Scholar
  4. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C., Cataldo, M., Harrell, R., Jefferson, G., & Conner, R. (1993). Functional communication training with and without extinction and punishment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 23–36. Scholar
  5. Gardner, A. W., Wacker, D. P., & Boelter, E. W. (2009). An evaluation of the interaction between quality of attention and negative reinforcement with children who display negative reinforcement with children who display escape-maintained problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 343–348.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Hagopian, L. P., Boelter, E. W., & Jarmolowicz, D. P. (2011). Reinforcement scheduling thinning following functional communication training: Review and recommendations. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4, 4–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Hagopian, L. P., Toole, L. M., Long, E. S., Bowman, L. G., & Lieving, G. A. (2004). A comparison of dense-to-lean and fixed lean schedules of alternative reinforcement and extinction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 323–337. Scholar
  8. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Thompson, R. H. (2001). Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment with functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 17–38. Scholar
  9. Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., & Fisher, W. W. (1997). Noncontingent presentation of attention and alternative stimuli in the treatment of attention-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 229–237.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoch, H., McComas, J. J., Thompson, A. L., & Paone, D. (2002). Concurrent reinforcement schedules: Behavior change and maintenance without extinction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 155–169.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Horner, R. H., & Day, M. D. (1991). The effects of response efficiency on functionally equivalent competing behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 719–732. Scholar
  12. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994a). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197–209. Scholar
  13. Iwata, B. A., Duncan, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Lerman, D. C., & Shore, B. A. (1994b). A sequential, test control methodology for conducting functional analyses of self-injurious behavior. Behavior Modification, 18, 289–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  15. Kodak, T., Lerman, D. C., Vokert, V. M., Trosclair, N. (2007). Further examination of factors that influence preference for positive versus negative reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 25–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Leon, Y., Hausman, N. L., Kahng, S. W., & Becraft, J. L. (2010). Further examination of discriminated functional communication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 525–530.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Lerman, D. C., & Iwata, B. A. (1995). Prevalence of extinction burst and its attenuation during treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 93–94.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Morgan, D. L., & Lee, K. (1996). Extinction-induced response variability in humans. The Psychological Record, 46, 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Neef, N. A., Mace, F. C., Shea, M., & Shade, D. (1992). Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Applications of matching theory to educational settings. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 25, 691–699. Scholar
  20. Peck Peterson, S. M., Caniglia, C., Royster, A. J., Macfarlane, E., Plowman, K., Baird, S. J., et al. (2005). Blending functional communication training and choice making to improve task engagement and decrease problem behavior. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 25, 257–274. Scholar
  21. Perry, A. C., & Fisher, W. W. (2001). Behavioral economics influences on treatments designed to decrease destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 211–215. Scholar
  22. Piazza, C. C., Moes, D. R., & Fisher, W. W. (1996). Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and demand fading in the treatment of escape maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 569–572. Scholar
  23. Saini, V., Miller, S. A., & Fisher, W. W. (2016). Multiple schedules in practical application: Research trends and implications for future investigation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 421–444. Scholar
  24. Schieltz, K., Wacker, D. P., & Romani, P. W. (2017). Effects of signaled positive reinforcement on problem behavior maintained by negative reinforcement. Journal of Behavioral Education, 36, 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bruzek, J. (2008). Functional communication training: A review and practical guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 16–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Wacker, D. P., Harding, J. W., Berg, W. K., Lee, J. F., Schieltz, K. M., Padilla, Y. C., et al. (2011). An evaluation of persistence of treatment effects during long-term treatment of destructive behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96, 261–282.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tonya N. Davis
    • 1
  • Regan Weston
    • 1
  • Abby Hodges
    • 1
  • Lauren Uptegrove
    • 1
  • Kristen Williams
    • 1
  • Kelly M. Schieltz
    • 2
  1. 1.Baylor UniversityWacoUSA
  2. 2.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations