
Functional Communication Training without Extinction Using Concurrent Schedules of Differing Magnitudes of Reinforcement in Classrooms
Davis, Dawn H.; Fredrick, Laura D.; Alberto, Paul A.; Gama, Roberto (2012). Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, v14 n3 p162-172. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ968487
-
examining3Students, grades3-12
Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions Intervention Report
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2016
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see Functional Behavioral Assessment-based Interventions Intervention Report (977 KB)
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 34%
Male: 66%
Study Details
Setting
Participants were enrolled in a public school program for students diagnosed with a severe emotional and behavior disorder (EBD). Students received instruction in their regular classrooms from their regular teacher. The intervention was administered during times the teachers identified as periods when the most inappropriate behaviors typically occurred.
Study sample
The study sample consisted of four individual students classified with a severe EBD and an intellectual disability (ID). Eli was 18 and receiving services for both diagnoses. His problem behaviors included leaving the classroom, turning over furniture, and displaying physical aggression toward staff. Mary was 8 and was receiving services for EBD, a moderate ID, cerebral palsy, and a feeding disorder. Her problem behavior was forcefully hitting others. Todd was 17 and receiving services for EBD, a moderate ID, autism, and limited speech. His problem behaviors included screaming, throwing, hitting, crying, yelling, refusing to move, and picking at the skin on his hands. The study also reported outcomes for an additional student (Tony) with EBD; the response to an author query revealed that inter-assessor agreement data were not collected during his second baseline phase, so the experiment for this student does not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards. As a result, Tony’s experiment is not described in this report or included in the ratings of effectiveness.
Intervention
Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures for each student included interviews with teachers, followed by direct observations. Based on the results, researchers developed functional communication training interventions that trained students to request a short break for a preferred activity, instead of acting inappropriately. Following the first baseline phase, students were trained to place a break card in their teacher’s hand to ask for a break. They would then receive the break and a reward. If the students did not place the break card in their teacher’s hand or displayed inappropriate behavior within 5 seconds of the start of the session, the teacher physically prompted the students to place the break card in their hand. The students then received a break and a reward. Training ended when the students successfully placed the break card in their teacher’s hand five consecutive times. After training, the teacher placed the work and the break card on the student’s desk and reminded the student that using the break card (referred to as an “alternative mand behavior” in the original study) would result in receiving a break and a reward. Students were then either rewarded with the activity of their choosing if they used the alternative behavior on which they were trained or penalized for inappropriate behavior by being removed from the task without getting to do a desired activity. Each student’s reward was based on his/her FBA. Eli’s reward was playing puzzle games or listening to music with his headphones; Mary’s reward was playing with plastic straws and eating pudding; and Todd’s reward was sensory reinforcement including hand games and ear tickling. When the student displayed inappropriate behavior, the student received a 30-second break without a reward. Eli’s second intervention phase included a 30-second delay in which he would receive reinforcement.
Comparison
The study used a reversal-withdrawal design for all three students. During the baseline/withdrawal condition, students did not have access to their break card, and negative reinforcement was used for inappropriate behavior. This involved removal from a task for a period of 30 seconds.
Support for implementation
Teachers received training from the researchers before the FBA and implementation of the intervention. The training consisted of a review and practice of the procedures until they were performed with 100% accuracy. Researchers were also present during all study phases to provide support to teachers.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).