Functional Communication Training
The purpose of this research was interesting
and of value as it focused on problems
that often occur when Functional
Communication Training (FCT) is in use. This
study sought to find effective
solutions as desired ". . .response[s] may be
weakened and destructive
behavior[s] may reemerge . . ." when reinforcements
of communication are
delayed or denied due to impossibility or inconvenience of
the caregiver or
instructors ability to provide said reinforcement in a timely
manner. ". .
.procedures are needed to increase the effectiveness of FCT in
situations in
which it is impractical or impossible to deliver a given
reinforcer."
Research design and design rationale: This study was broken up
into 4 phases
(the fourth phase ". . .was completed with only 1 participant in
only one
condition because of time limitations on the participants’
hospital
admission.") Phase 1: Functional Analyses and Descriptive
Assessments.
Alternating treatment with no baseline design. "During this
analysis, a test
condition . . .and a control condition were compared using a
multi-element
design." Phase 2: Communication and Discrimination Training.
Phase 3:
Treatment Evaluation of FCT with Discriminative Stimuli. Between
series,
alternating treatment (ABAB) design was used to compare FCT + EXT vs.
ACT + EXT
in two conditions for one participant (Amy) and in one condition
for one
participant (Ned). Phase 4: Independent Effects of FCT and EXT.
Between series,
alternating treatment and a final treatment design was used
to compare FCT/ACT
(w/o EXT) vs. EXT alone with the final series being
strictly FCT/ACT (w/o EXT).
The order of presentation for Amy’s
discrimination training were "..
.stimulus-present and stimulus-absent
periods [that] were alternated every 30 s
for the duration of the 10-min
session. For Ned, ". . .one SD at a time was
presented for 1 min. The order
of the first three SD presentations in a given
session was randomized,
without replacement; thereafter, the order remained
constant." Phase 1 was
"conducted to test the hypotheses generated by the
results of. . .descriptive
assessments. . .to determine whether . . .destructive
behavior was multiply
maintained by both attention and access to tangible items,
but under specific
stimulus conditions [for Amy]. . .[and whether] destructive
behavior was
maintained by . . .attention [for Ned]," therefore this specific
phase of the
test did not require a baseline. Once these results were
established, and
training had incurred, the rationale for design for Phases 3
and 4 were to
show contrast between the various interventions. Overall study
limitations: I
think this study covered it’s bases well and the only
limitation I can
rightly see is one that is prone to single-subject research,
that is, the use
of only two participants. It would have strengthened this study
further too
if the researchers had been able to complete the final Phase 4 on
both of the
participants.