Functional Communication Training (FCT) – Edward G. Carr & V. Mark Durand

Severe challenging behaviors—encompassing self-injurious behavior (SIB), physical aggression, property destruction, and extreme tantrums—represent some of the most formidable obstacles encountered in clinical psychology, special education, and developmental disability services. For decades throughout the mid-twentieth century, prevailing clinical models conceptualized these topographies largely as internal pathology, neurochemical aberrations, or deliberate non-compliance, frequently responding with restrictive, punitive, or aversive interventions. The landmark publication of Edward G. Carr and V. Mark Durand’s 1985 study in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis radically altered this trajectory, inaugurating a profound paradigm shift: aberrant behaviors were redefined not as maladaptive deficits to be mechanically suppressed, but as functional, intent-driven, pre-linguistic forms of communication.

Functional Communication Training (FCT) emerged from this empirical breakthrough as an application of applied behavior analysis (ABA) and pragmatic language theory. Rather than attempting to eliminate an aberrant response through contingent aversives or arbitrary extinction alone, FCT operates on the foundational principle of functional equivalence: identifying the environmental contingencies maintaining the challenging behavior and systematically teaching a functionally equivalent, socially recognizable, and efficient communicative alternative (such as vocal speech, manual signs, picture exchange, or speech-generating devices). By empowering the individual with a reliable verbal or symbolic strategy to control their environment, FCT aligns clinical intervention with human agency, dignifying the individual’s underlying needs while dramatically reducing rates of severe problem behavior.

Across the subsequent four decades, FCT has become one of the most empirically validated, widely researched, and ethically celebrated behavioral interventions in contemporary practice. From its roots in operant conditioning and functional behavior assessment (FBA) to its modern integration within multi-tiered systems of support, neurodiversity-affirming frameworks, and trauma-informed behavioral care, FCT bridges the gap between radical behaviorism and human rights. This treatise provides an exhaustive, academic examination of the theoretical architectures, empirical methodologies, clinical technologies, schedule thinning paradigms, relapse mitigation models, and historical legacies that define Functional Communication Training as pioneered by Edward G. Carr and V. Mark Durand.

1. Historical Foundations and the Paradigm Shift of Carr and Durand (1985)

1.1 The Seminal 1985 Study: Reducing Severe Behavior Problems Through Communicative Alternatives

In 1985, Edward G. Carr and V. Mark Durand published their groundbreaking investigation titled “Reducing Behavior Problems Through Functional Communication Training” in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA). At the time of its publication, the dominant clinical ethos surrounding developmental disabilities and severe behavior disorders was heavily reliant on default aversive contingencies. Interventions routinely featured overcorrection, timeout, contingent physical restraint, visual screening, and in extreme cases, contingent electric shock delivered via apparatuses such as the Self-Injurious Behavior Inhibiting System (SIBIS). While these techniques could decelerate rates of self-injury or aggression, they routinely failed to produce durable generalization, carried severe side effects including counter-control and affective agitation, and offered no constructive behavioral repertoire to replace the extinguished topographies.

Carr and Durand fundamentally disrupted this landscape by hypothesizing that severe problem behaviors function as non-verbal communicative acts. Working with four children diagnosed with autism and developmental delays who exhibited severe aggression, tantrum behaviors, and destructive acts, the researchers evaluated the environmental determinants of these behaviors across discrete academic and social contexts. They discovered clear functional relations: for specific participants, disruptive behaviors escalated dramatically during difficult instructional demands (escape-maintained), whereas for others, disruptive behaviors occurred primarily when adult attention was withdrawn (attention-maintained).

The methodological brilliance of the 1985 study lay in the systematic instruction of communicative alternatives that were functionally matched to these specific environmental determinants. Carr and Durand taught participants to emit simple, socially appropriate verbal phrases. Children whose behavior was maintained by escape from task demands were taught to say, “I don’t understand,” thereby securing teacher assistance and task modification. Conversely, children whose behavior was maintained by adult attention were taught to ask, “Am I doing good work?”, which produced contingent social approval. When participants emitted these functionally equivalent responses, problem behavior plummeted to near-zero levels. Critically, Carr and Durand demonstrated that teaching a non-matched communicative response (e.g., teaching an escape-motivated child to solicit attention) failed to suppress the problem behavior, providing irrefutable empirical proof that behavior reduction was driven by the specific functional equivalence of the communicative replacement rather than mere verbal conditioning or distraction.

1.2 Biographical Profiles: Edward G. Carr and V. Mark Durand

The conceptual genesis of Functional Communication Training is inseparable from the scholarly trajectories of its co-founders, Edward G. Carr (1948–2009) and V. Mark Durand. Edward G. Carr, who completed his doctorate at the University of California, San Diego, under the mentorship of pioneering behavioral scientists, emerged as a transformative figure in the field of clinical behavior analysis. Throughout his tenure at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook, Carr championed the integration of rigorous behavioral science with compassionate, person-centered philosophies. He was instrumental in establishing the discipline of Positive Behavior Support (PBS), persistently arguing that interventions must demonstrate “contextual fit”—the principle that behavioral strategies must respect the values, routines, skills, and emotional realities of individuals and their natural support networks. Carr’s scholarship extended far beyond technical behavior modification; he viewed behavior analysis as an instrument of social justice designed to de-institutionalize individuals and foster community inclusion.

V. Mark Durand, carrying forward this intellectual lineage through his doctoral work under Carr at Stony Brook and subsequent leadership roles at the University of South Florida St. Petersburg, brought an equally pioneering vision to the study of severe behavior disorders, dual diagnosis, and developmental psychopathology. Durand distinguished himself through rigorous empirical investigations into the physiological, cognitive, and communicative mechanisms of aberrant behavior. His clinical research expanded FCT into multimodal domains, demonstrating its efficacy when implemented via augmentative and alternative communication (AAC), and addressing concurrent complexities such as sleep disturbances, anxiety, and pediatric distress. Durand co-developed the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS), one of the earliest psychometric instruments designed to systematically identify the operant functions of challenging behavior.

Together, Carr and Durand synthesized two theoretical traditions that had historically operated in clinical isolation: radical behaviorism and developmental pragmatics. Radical behaviorism contributed the precise mechanics of operant selection, three-term contingencies, and functional analysis; developmental pragmatics contributed the understanding that communicative competence precedes grammatical morphology and that non-linguistic topographies frequently serve intentional communicative functions. Their collaborative synthesis reshaped clinical behavior analysis, developmental disabilities research, and special education policy, setting in motion an international standard of care that prioritizes communicative empowerment over punitive behavioral suppression.

1.3 Historical Evolution from Aversive Interventions to Positive Behavior Support

The emergence of FCT must be contextualized within the broader sociopolitical and legal transformations that characterized disability rights in the late twentieth century. Prior to the mid-1980s, institutions and residential developmental centers relied heavily on behavioral deceleration technologies rooted in early operant punishment paradigms. Physical restraints, mechanical stabilization boards, chemical restraints, and noxious sensory stimuli were standard components of behavior management programs. Although researchers like B.F. Skinner had long warned that punishment merely suppresses behavior temporarily without altering the underlying operant drive, applied settings routinely favored aversive procedures due to their rapid, immediate suppression effects.

However, this reliance on punitive methods sparked an ethical crisis within applied behavior analysis and special education. Landmark legal rulings, including Wyatt v. Stickney (1972), established the constitutional right to treatment and asserted the principle of the Least Restrictive Alternative (LRA). The LRA doctrine mandated that clinicians and educators exhaust non-aversive, constructive, and positive behavioral strategies before even considering restrictive or intrusive options. Concurrently, advocacy groups and ethical watchdogs brought mounting public scrutiny to bear on the institutional abuses wrought by contingent aversives. It was within this crucible that FCT provided the critical, empirical proof-of-concept that practitioners desperately needed: severe, life-threatening behaviors could be eliminated without a single aversive stimulus, provided the functional communicative repertoire was developed and reinforced.

Over the ensuing decades, FCT became the technical bedrock of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) and its school-wide implementation, School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS). SWPBIS operationalized FCT within a multi-tiered public health model, deploying environmental restructuring and direct communication instruction across Tier 1 (universal supports), Tier 2 (targeted interventions), and Tier 3 (intensive, individualized functional assessments). By re-anchoring behavior change within systems of ecological validity, stakeholder collaboration, and functional skill acquisition, Carr and Durand’s functional communication paradigm catalyzed the modern transition away from punitive institutional control toward inclusive, autonomy-driven behavioral support systems worldwide.

2. Theoretical Underpinnings: Applied Behavior Analysis and Pragmatic Communication Theory

2.1 Operant Conditioning Mechanisms Governing Problem Behavior

To understand the clinical mechanics of Functional Communication Training, one must first dissect the fundamental operant mechanisms that generate and sustain challenging behavior. Within the classical three-term contingency—comprising the Antecedent ($A$), the Behavior ($B$), and the Consequence ($C$)—problem behavior is not viewed as random, endogenous, or symptomatic of an unalterable neurodevelopmental condition. Rather, it is selected and maintained by contingent environmental consequences that follow its emission:

• Positive Reinforcement ($\text{S}^{\text{R}+}$): Challenging behavior produces contingent access to desirable stimuli. This includes access to tangible items (food, preferred toys, digital media), adult or peer attention (verbal reprimands, consoling statements, physical proximity), or automatic positive reinforcement (direct sensory or proprioceptive stimulation produced by the motor act itself).
• Negative Reinforcement ($\text{S}^{\text{R}-}$): Challenging behavior terminates, attenuates, or postpones an aversive or non-preferred stimulus. This includes escape from demanding academic tasks, sensory-overwhelming environments (auditory overstimulation, bright lighting), physical pain or gastrointestinal distress, or social interactions perceived by the individual as threatening or demanding.

Crucial to this operant architecture are Motivating Operations (MOs), conceptualized by Jack Michael and expanded by Laraway and colleagues. MOs are environmental events, operations, or stimulus conditions that alter the momentary effectiveness of a reinforcer (the value-altering effect) and alter the momentary frequency of all behavior that has been reinforced by that consequence (the behavior-altering effect). Establishing Operations (EOs) establish the potency of a reinforcer; for instance, prolonged social deprivation establishes social attention as a powerful reinforcer and evokes attention-seeking topographies, while physiological exhaustion or sustained academic presentation establishes task termination as a powerful reinforcer and evokes escape-maintained aggression. Abolishing Operations (AOs), by contrast, decrease reinforcer value and momentarily suppress associated behaviors. FCT leverages these dynamics by precisely identifying the active EO and teaching a communicative response that exploits the exact same value-altering state to supersede the aberrant response.

2.2 Pragmatic Language Frameworks and Communicative Functions

While operant conditioning explains the contingency mechanics, developmental pragmatic theory explains why individuals without functional language resort to challenging topographies in the first place. Elizabeth Bates, in her foundational works on communicative competence, articulated that communication develops along a continuum from perlocutionary acts (behavior that has an effect on the listener without intentional communicative design), to illocutionary acts (conventional or unconventional intentional signals without formal symbolic syntax), to locutionary acts (symbolic, syntactic linguistic forms). Individuals presenting with severe autism, intellectual disabilities, or motor apraxia often experience profound developmental blockages along this continuum. They lack the fine-motor dexterity, phonological processing, or symbolic scaffolding required to transition into standard locutionary speech.

In B.F. Skinner’s 1957 treatise Verbal Behavior, language is parsed not by formal syntax or grammar, but by functional operant classes—most notably the mand. A mand is a verbal operant in which the response topography is specifically reinforced by a characteristic consequence and is under the functional control of motivating operations (deprivation or aversive stimulation). Carr and Durand recognized that severe self-injurious and aggressive behaviors are, in reality, functionally identical to mands. When an individual hits their own head to terminate an instructional demand, the head-hitting is functionally a mand for escape. When a non-speaking child bites a parent to obtain an iPad, the bite is functionally a mand for a tangible reinforcer.

This formulation seamlessly interfaces with J.L. Austin and John Searle’s Speech Act Theory. In speech act theory, every communicative utterance contains three dimensions:

• The locutionary act: the physical production of the communicative vehicle (sounds, marks, movements).
• The illocutionary force: the intended functional objective of the speaker (requesting, protesting, questioning).
• The perlocutionary effect: the actual consequential impact the act exerts upon the listener’s behavior.

In individuals with limited conventional communication repertoires, aberrant behavior carries immense illocutionary force and reliably achieves devastatingly effective perlocutionary effects. A violent outburst immediately induces a caregiver to retract a difficult demand or supply a favorite item. The behavior persists not because the individual is inherently aggressive, but because the aberrant topography is the only behavior in their existing behavioral repertoire capable of producing the intended perlocutionary outcome.

2.3 The Construct of Functional Equivalence

The core theoretical pillar uniting operant psychology and pragmatic language within FCT is the construct of functional equivalence. In applied behavior analysis, two behaviors are functionally equivalent when they produce the exact same reinforcing consequence within identical stimulus conditions, belonging to the same operant response class despite possessing entirely disparate topographies.

Historically, traditional behavior modification frequently focused on topographic suppression—attempting to extinguish or penalize a behavior without acknowledging its maintaining contingency. For instance, if an adolescent engaged in destructive behavior to escape an overwhelming classroom environment, staff might implement response blocking or contingent loss of privileges. However, because the motivating operation (sensory overload/escape drive) remained unaddressed and no alternate route to escape was provided, the individual’s behavior inevitably escalated, or novel aberrant topographies emerged to fill the functional vacuum—a phenomenon often colloquially mischaracterized as “symptom substitution,” but more accurately described in behavior analysis as the resurgence of alternative members of an extinction-resistant response class.

Functional Communication Training circumvents this failure mode by engineering functional isomorphism. The clinician deliberately engineers an alternative communicative response (the Communicative Replacement Behavior, or CRB) that accesses the exact environmental consequence sustaining the problem behavior. If the problem behavior is maintained by escape from task demands, the CRB is an escape mand (e.g., “Break please”). If the problem behavior is maintained by attention, the CRB is an attention mand (e.g., “Look at me”). By coupling the CRB with the identified reinforcer on a denser, lower-effort schedule of reinforcement while placing the aberrant topography on extinction, FCT directly shifts the operant equilibrium. The individual continues to satisfy their communicative objective, rendering the challenging behavior obsolete.

3. Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) as the Empirical Prerequisite for FCT

3.1 Indirect Assessment Modalities

Because the clinical success of Functional Communication Training is contingent upon achieving precise functional equivalence, the implementation of FCT without a prior, rigorous Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) is a direct violation of professional standards and clinical ethics. Initiating communication training based on intuitive guesswork routinely results in intervention failure, as misidentifying the maintaining reinforcer causes the newly taught communication response to fail to compete with the problem behavior.

Indirect assessments serve as the initial, exploratory phase of the FBA process. These modalities gather retrospective informant data from individuals who possess longitudinal familiarity with the client, such as parents, teachers, and residential support staff. Foremost among these instruments is the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS), engineered specifically by V. Mark Durand and Daniel B. Crimmins (1988). The MAS is a 16-item standardized questionnaire designed to estimate the relative influence of four maintaining conditions: sensory consequences, escape, attention, and tangible consequences. Informants rate the likelihood of the behavior occurring across various hypothetical scenarios using a 7-point Likert scale.

Subsequent psychometric tools include the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) developed by Paclawskyj and colleagues (2000), and the Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST) formulated by Iwata and DeLeon. While these instruments offer efficient, low-cost screening of behavioral topology, behavior analysts must account for their empirical limitations. Studies evaluating the inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of indirect tools have revealed significant psychometric variability. Informant reports are inherently vulnerable to recall bias, halo effects, and affective projections. Consequently, indirect assessments are never utilized in isolation as the sole empirical justification for an FCT intervention; rather, they serve as navigational hypotheses to inform direct observational and experimental analyses.

3.2 Descriptive Direct Observation Methods

Descriptive assessments elevate empirical rigor by transitioning from retrospective informant recall to real-time, direct measurement of the client’s behavior within naturalistic environments. These methods systematically capture behavioral topographies alongside temporally proximate environmental events, providing correlational data regarding potential antecedent triggers and contingent outcomes.

The primary descriptive tool is the Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence (ABC) assessment, which can be executed via continuous recording or narrative recording. In ABC continuous recording, predetermined behavioral topographies and discrete environmental events (e.g., peer approach, task presentation, adult disengagement) are coded across contiguous observation intervals. This permits the calculation of conditional and unconditional probabilities:

• The clinician calculates the baseline probability of the target behavior occurring throughout an observation period:
  $$P(\text{Behavior})$$
• This is compared to the conditional probability of the behavior occurring given a specific antecedent:
  $$P(\text{Behavior} mid \text{Antecedent})$$
• As well as the conditional probability of a specific consequence occurring given the emission of the target behavior:
  $$P(\text{Consequence} mid \text{Behavior})$$

If the conditional probability of task removal given aggression is significantly higher than the baseline probability of task removal in the environment, an escape function is strongly implicated. Supplementary descriptive strategies include scatterplot analyses (Touchette et al., 1985), which plot behavioral frequencies across hours of the day and daily routines to identify temporal patterns, instructional transitions, or physiological fluctuations (such as hunger or fatigue) that act as setting events. Nevertheless, clinicians must recognize the cardinal limitation of descriptive data: correlation does not establish causation. Caregivers frequently respond to aggressive outbursts by offering items or attention in an attempt to de-escalate crisis states, creating spurious correlations that can mislead the practitioner regarding the true operant reinforcer maintaining the behavior.

3.3 Experimental Functional Analysis Methodologies

The gold standard for establishing definitive functional relations prior to FCT implementation is the experimental Functional Analysis (FA), established by Brian A. Iwata and his colleagues in their seminal 1982/1994 methodology. Unlike descriptive observations, an experimental FA systematically manipulates environmental antecedents and consequences across rapid, multi-element single-case experimental designs (e.g., alternating treatments designs), isolating the precise maintaining variable with experimental control.

The classic Iwata protocol evaluates the target behavior across four distinct test conditions and one control condition:

• Play (Control) Condition: The individual has continuous access to preferred leisure items, persistent non-contingent social attention, and zero academic demands. Problem behavior is expected to remain near zero; this serves as the comparative baseline.
• Attention Condition (Positive Social Reinforcement): The therapist pretends to be busy and withholds attention. Contingent upon the emission of the target behavior, the therapist immediately provides social disapproval or comforting physical contact (e.g., “Don’t do that, you’ll hurt yourself”).
• Demand Condition (Negative Reinforcement): The therapist presents educational or daily living tasks using a three-step prompting hierarchy. Contingent upon the target behavior, the task materials are immediately removed and the individual is granted a 30-second break.
• Alone/Ignore Condition (Automatic Reinforcement): The individual is situated in an impoverished sensory environment without materials or social interaction. Problem behaviors occurring here suggest reinforcement is direct, proprioceptive, or sensory.
• Tangible Condition: Evaluated when indirect data suggests tangible maintenance; preferred items are withheld and returned contingent upon problem behavior.

In contemporary clinical practice, traditional multi-element FAs are often adapted to address practical constraints, high-rate environments, and safety concerns. Brief Functional Analyses compress session durations to 5–10 minutes, while Trial-Based Functional Analyses embed discrete 2-minute assessment probes directly into natural classroom instructional routines. Most notably, Gregory P. Hanley and colleagues (2014) introduced the Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA). The IISCA departs from isolated univariate conditions by synthesizing complex, ecologically valid contingencies (e.g., simultaneously delivering escape from demands *and* access to attention/tangibles) based directly on parent interviews. While synthesized contingencies remain a topic of scholarly debate regarding whether they obscure specific functional drivers, they minimize assessment duration and rapidly evoke synthesized response classes, serving as an effective baseline launchpad for practical FCT and Skill-Based Treatment (SBT) protocols.

4. Establishing Functional Equivalence: Selecting Replacement Communicative Behaviors

4.1 Topography Selection and Response Effort

Once the maintaining function of challenging behavior has been isolated, the clinician must engineer the topography of the Communicative Replacement Behavior (CRB). This process requires adherence to the principles of response efficiency and physical effort, articulated empirically by Robert H. Horner and E.A. Day (1991). Response efficiency dictates that for an alternative behavior to successfully outcompete an established, long-standing problem behavior, the replacement response must be more efficient than the problem behavior across three primary dimensions: response effort, latency to reinforcement, and reinforcement schedule.

Response effort refers to the physical energy, motor coordination, and cognitive processing required to execute the behavior. If a non-speaking individual can access task termination by simply dropping to the floor (a low-effort motor topography), teaching a replacement behavior that requires navigating through multiple dynamic folders on an electronic tablet or executing a complex, fine-motor multi-sign sentence introduces excessive response effort. Under conditions of acute physiological arousal, emotional distress, or intense motivating operations, high-effort communicative responses collapse:

$$\text{Effort}(\text{CRB}) ll \text{Effort}(\text{Problem Behavior})$$

Clinicians must actively engineer the CRB so that its execution demands minimal physical output, especially during the acquisition phase. A large, high-contrast microswitch, a single static visual card worn on the wrist, or a single-word vocal approximation represents a low-effort topography capable of competing directly with low-effort aggression or self-injury. Furthermore, the selected topography must fit the client’s cultural, familial, and social ecological systems. If an individual operates within a community where sign language is virtually unknown, manual signs will fail to produce natural reinforcement, leading to frustration and behavioral relapse. The CRB must be immediately meaningful and interpretable within the individual’s natural environment.

4.2 Omnibus Versus Function-Specific Communicative Responses

A critical architectural decision in FCT program design is whether to train an omnibus communicative response or a function-specific communicative response. Omnibus mands are generalized, multi-purpose requests that broadly address an entire establishing operation without specifying the granular component of the reinforcer. Examples include:

• “Break” or “Stop” to escape unwanted demands.
• “Help” to resolve task-related frustration.
• “My way” or “Check please” to access a synthesized bundle of escape, preferred items, and undivided attention.

The principal advantage of omnibus mands is the rapid acquisition and immediate relief they provide to the client. In crisis environments or during the initial days of treatment, teaching a rapid omnibus mand like “Stop” quickly installs a peaceful alternative to explosive aggression. However, omnibus mands carry structural liabilities. An individual taught an omnibus “Break” mand may emit it indiscriminately, resulting in excessive avoidance of necessary educational or medical tasks. Furthermore, omnibus mands can lead to reinforcer misallocation: if a learner uses the mand “Help” when they actually desire an item to be handed to them, but the teacher responds by providing verbal academic assistance, the mismatch can provoke an extinction burst and behavioral escalation.

Conversely, function-specific mands communicate highly precise reinforcer requirements (e.g., “I need a drink of water,” “Please move away,” “I want the blue marker”). While specific mands necessitate greater linguistic discrimination and slightly longer acquisition trajectories, they yield higher communicative precision and minimize partner misunderstanding. Modern clinical best practice often employs an evolutionary trajectory: practitioners inaugurate treatment using a low-effort omnibus mand to immediately dismantle dangerous problem behavior, and subsequently shape and differentiate that mand into nuanced, grammatically expanded, and function-specific communicative responses as the learner acquires behavioral stability.

4.3 Social Recognizability and Partner Responsiveness

The ultimate survivability of a Communicative Replacement Behavior beyond the clinical environment hinges upon its social recognizability. An intervention may achieve flawless experimental suppression within an ABA clinic, but if the CRB cannot be comprehended and reinforced by an untrained clerk at a grocery store, a bus driver, or a novel peer on a playground, the schedule of reinforcement will undergo unintended extinction, causing problem behavior to resurge violently.

Social recognizability requires that the topography of the mand be immediately legible to native, untrained listeners. Highly idiosyncratic gestural topographies—such as an individual pressing their left ear to signal a request for quiet, or tapping their knee to request an apple—fail this standard. While well-meaning caregivers who have spent years learning to read these subtleties can respond accurately, novel communication partners cannot. When the listener fails to respond within seconds, the communicative interaction collapses, driving the individual to recruit the universal, unmistakable communicative power of severe aggression or property destruction.

Standardized modalities dramatically optimize social recognizability. A laminated Picture Exchange card displaying a photograph of a bathroom, or a dedicated Speech-Generating Device (SGD) that projects a high-decibel, synthesized acoustic voice output (“I want to leave”), requires zero clinical training on the part of the listener. The vocal output of an SGD bridges the gap between the non-speaking individual and the general public, inducing immediate listener orientation and reducing the latency of communicative uptake to near-zero seconds. Clinicians must prioritize response systems that guarantee immediate social reciprocity from the broader community.

5. Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA) Mechanics in FCT

5.1 Contingency Management and Reinforcement Schedules

Procedurally, Functional Communication Training is an operational subclass of Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA). The mechanical architecture of a DRA schedule requires reinforcing a specific desirable alternative response while withholding reinforcement for the targeted problem behavior. In the inaugural acquisition phases of FCT, contingency management must be absolute and hyper-responsive.

The initial schedule of reinforcement for the newly introduced CRB must be a Fixed Ratio 1 (FR1) schedule: every single emission of the replacement response immediately produces the functional reinforcer. Furthermore, the latency to reinforcement must be reduced to near-zero seconds:

$$\text{Latency}(\text{Reinforcer Delivery}) to 0\text{ seconds}$$

If an escape-maintained client touches a “Break” icon, the task materials must be whisked out of view instantaneously. If an attention-maintained client says “Play with me,” the therapist must immediately drop all administrative tasks, pivot toward the learner, and deliver intense, positive social interaction. This hyper-dense schedule is mandated by Herrnstein’s Matching Law, which states that the relative rate of responding between two concurrent operants will match the relative rate of reinforcement obtained from those responses:

$$\frac{B_1}{B_1 + B_2} = \frac{R_1}{R_1 + R_2}$$

Where $B_1$ is the Communicative Replacement Behavior, $B_2$ is the challenging behavior, $R_1$ is the reinforcement allocated to the CRB, and $R_2$ is the reinforcement allocated to the challenging behavior. If the CRB yields immediate, rich, and effortless reinforcement on an FR1 schedule ($R_1 gg R_2$), the matching law dictates that the individual’s behavioral allocation will shift decisively toward the communication alternative. Conversely, if staff allow even a brief delay to creep into the reinforcement of the CRB, or if they accidentally deliver intermittent reinforcement to the problem behavior, the behavioral allocation will instantly fracture, undermining the intervention.

5.2 Prompting Hierarchies and Prompt Fading Paradigms

Because individuals referred for FCT often possess severely limited functional communication repertoires, clinicians cannot simply wait for the CRB to occur organically. Instead, errorless learning paradigms and systematic prompting hierarchies are deployed to instantly transfer stimulus control from trainer prompts to the learner’s internal establishing operations and natural discriminative stimuli.

The two foundational prompting paradigms utilized in FCT are:

• Most-to-Least (MTL) Prompting: Implemented primarily during early acquisition or when working with individuals with severe intellectual disabilities. MTL begins with the maximum intrusive prompt necessary to guarantee the response (e.g., full physical hand-over-hand guidance to touch a communication switch), subsequently fading to partial physical, gestural, model, and ultimately independent responding across successive successful trials.
• Least-to-Most (LTM) Prompting: Implemented when the learner already possesses prerequisite motor or vocal imitation skills. The clinician presents the natural antecedent, allows a brief latency window (e.g., 3 seconds), and if no response occurs, introduces progressively more intrusive prompts (verbal $to$ gestural $to$ model $to$ physical).

To transfer stimulus control systematically without creating prompt dependency, practitioners utilize Time Delay protocols. In a Constant Time Delay (CTD) procedure, the initial trials feature a 0-second delay between the onset of the establishing operation (e.g., presenting a difficult math worksheet) and the prompt (e.g., physically guiding the learner to hand the “Help” card). After a predetermined criterion of prompted successes, the prompt delay is shifted to a fixed interval (e.g., 3 or 5 seconds). This brief temporal delay provides the learner with an ecological window to execute the response independently before any prompt is delivered. In Progressive Time Delay (PTD), this latency is systematically titrated upward in 1-second increments across successive sessions. Prompt dependency—the clinical failure where a learner waits indefinitely for adult assistance rather than manding independently—is avoided by ensuring prompt fading protocols are data-driven, relentless, and systematically executed from day one of treatment.

5.3 Error Correction and Prompt-Free Communication Trials

During the progression of FCT, learners will inevitably emit communicative errors, experience vocal breakdowns, or hesitate during instructional transitions. The design of differential feedback sequences must be carefully balanced to correct errors without triggering emotional dysregulation or aberrant escalations.

Practitioners utilize differential reinforcement parameters to separate prompted responses from unprompted (independent) responses. When a learner requires a physical or model prompt to emit the CRB, the functional reinforcer is delivered, but its magnitude, duration, or quality is deliberately attenuated (e.g., a 15-second break instead of a 60-second break; neutral task removal rather than enthusiastic praise). Conversely, when the learner emits an unprompted, independent communicative response, the clinician delivers a maximal burst of reinforcement (e.g., a 2-minute break, immediate access to high-preference edibles, dynamic affective praise). This creates a clear value disparity: independent communication is exponentially more rewarding than waiting for a prompt.

When an outright communicative breakdown occurs—for example, the learner reaches toward task materials to throw them—the clinician executes an immediate error correction trial. The clinician interrupts the problem behavior, neutralizes the escalation using non-aversive physical blocking, resets the environment to the antecedent condition, and immediately delivers a 0-second prompt for the CRB. This re-establishes the functional bridge, demonstrating to the learner that problem behavior is completely blocked from accessing the reinforcer, while the communicative pathway remains open and effortless. Clinicians monitor prompt-free communication trials using cumulative record graphs; prompt fading velocity is dictated by the slope of independent responding, advancing only when the client demonstrates stability across multiple consecutive training blocks.

6. The Role of Extinction and Non-Contingent Consequences in FCT Protocols

6.1 Implementing Functional Extinction Across Behavioral Classes

In applied behavior analysis, extinction is defined as the discontinuation of reinforcement for a previously reinforced behavior, leading to a decrease in the future frequency of that response. Within an FCT protocol, extinction must be functionally matched to the identified operant class:

• Escape Extinction: Contingent upon aggression, self-injury, or tantrums maintained by negative reinforcement, the ongoing task demands are maintained. Clinicians utilize physical guidance, non-removal of instructional materials, or continuous redirection to ensure the individual cannot terminate or postpone the activity via problem behavior.
• Attention Extinction (Planned Ignoring): Contingent upon problem behavior maintained by positive social reinforcement, all vocal comments, eye contact, facial expressions, and soothing physical interactions are completely withheld. The clinician maintains an impassive, neutral demeanor while continuing necessary environmental monitoring.
• Tangible Extinction: Contingent upon problem behavior maintained by access to items, the preferred toy, edible, or electronic device is withheld, regardless of the intensity, duration, or affective severity of the behavioral outburst.

While conceptually straightforward, the practical execution of functional extinction involves significant ethical, physical, and ecological challenges. Extinction frequently evokes an extinction burst—an immediate, temporary increase in the frequency, duration, and intensity of the target behavior, accompanied by emotional aggression and topographically novel behavioral variations. When target behaviors encompass life-threatening self-injury (e.g., retinal detachment via head-banging) or severe physical assault toward personnel, traditional extinction can become clinically contraindicated or physically dangerous to implement in non-controlled community settings.

6.2 Efficacy of FCT Implemented With and Without Extinction

The interaction between Functional Communication Training and extinction has served as one of the most rigorously debated empirical inquiries in behavioral clinical trials. Landmark research conducted by David P. Wacker, Wayne W. Fisher, and Terry S. Shirley across the 1990s evaluated the necessity of extinction components within FCT protocols.

Fisher et al. (1993) demonstrated that when FCT is implemented without extinction—meaning the CRB produces the reinforcer, but the problem behavior simultaneously continues to access the reinforcer on an intermittent schedule—the intervention routinely experiences parameter failure. The problem behavior continues to persist at clinically unacceptable levels. Because challenging behaviors possess extensive, deeply ingrained histories of intermittent reinforcement, human operant behavior will default to established, overlearned motor patterns unless the reinforcement contingency for that problem behavior is severed or rendered decisively inefficient.

However, subsequent empirical refinements by Shirley et al. (1997) and Athens and Vollmer (2010) demonstrated that FCT can succeed without functional extinction, provided that the reinforcement parameters are engineered to heavily favor the CRB across four critical variables:

1. Immediacy: The CRB is reinforced instantaneously (0-second delay), while problem behavior is reinforced only after a substantial, programmed delay (e.g., 30–60 seconds).
2. Quality: The CRB yields a premium, highly preferred tier of the reinforcer, whereas problem behavior yields an impoverished, low-preference version.
3. Magnitude: The CRB yields extended access, whereas problem behavior yields momentary access.
4. Response Effort: The CRB requires minimal motor effort, whereas problem behavior is met with effortful physical redirection or task demands.

When these parameters are skewed radically in favor of the CRB, the matching law predicts the near-complete suppression of problem behavior even in the structural absence of an extinction component, providing a vital clinical blueprint for managing high-risk behaviors where pure extinction poses unacceptable physical danger.

6.3 Combining FCT with Competing Non-Aversive Strategies

To further suppress behavioral volatility and minimize the emergence of extinction bursts, expert clinicians combine FCT with concurrent non-aversive antecedent and consequence strategies. Rather than relying solely on the dynamic tension between the CRB and functional extinction, these hybrid technologies proactively depress the motivating operations driving problem behavior.

One prominent strategy is the incorporation of Non-Contingent Reinforcement (NCR). In an FCT-plus-NCR architecture, the maintaining reinforcer (e.g., attention or escape) is delivered on a time-based schedule (such as a Fixed-Time 2-minute schedule) independent of the client’s behavior, while FCT trials run concurrently. NCR continuously saturates the establishing operation, converting the systemic state into an Abolishing Operation (AO). Because the individual’s need for attention or rest is consistently met before deprivation accumulates, the motivation to emit problem behavior drops, allowing FCT acquisition to occur in a low-arousal, emotionally regulated state.

Another powerful antecedent synergy is the High-Probability (High-p) Instructional Sequence, or behavioral momentum, pioneered by Mace and colleagues. Prior to delivering an instructional demand with a low probability of compliance (which routinely acts as an antecedent trigger for escape-maintained SIB), the clinician presents two to three short, simple requests with an established history of high compliance (e.g., “Give me five,” “Touch your nose”). Following rapid compliance and praise across these high-p requests, the low-p demand is immediately presented. Behavioral momentum lowers task resistance and can be seamlessly blended with FCT: learners build behavioral momentum before being prompted to emit an escape or help mand, completely bypassing the affective agitation that historically characterized instructional transitions.

7. Modality Selection: Vocal, Gestural, PECS, and High-Tech AAC

7.1 Vocal and Verbal Mand Training

The selection of the communicative modality is an individualized clinical determination that dictates the long-term viability of FCT. The most naturalistic and universally understood modality is vocal speech. When an individual can verbally articulate their needs, barriers to community integration, peer socialization, and vocational success are fundamentally reduced.

However, vocal mand training requires specific behavioral and motor prerequisites. The learner must possess functional echoic repertoires, vocal imitation skills, adequate breath control, and the absence of severe developmental verbal apraxia or oral-motor structural impairments. For learners demonstrating emerging vocal skills, clinicians employ vocal shaping protocols—reinforcing successive phonetic approximations toward target mands (e.g., shaping “b” $to$ “bah” $to$ “buh” $to$ “ball”).

The clinical pitfall in modality selection occurs when practitioners persist with vocal training despite severe motor-speech barriers. Attempting to force vocal manding in a learner with profound verbal dyspraxia generates intense cognitive load and frustration. While the child struggles to coordinate the fine-motor articulation necessary to produce a vocal phoneme, the establishing operation intensifies, leading to the resurgence of physical aggression as a more efficient alternative. Clinicians must balance the ideal goal of vocal production against the functional urgency of immediate behavior reduction; if vocal speech cannot be established rapidly, alternative modalities must be deployed without delay.

7.2 Manual Signs and Gestural Topographies

Manual signing (derived from standardized systems such as American Sign Language or Makaton) represents an established motor-based communication modality. Manual signs belong to the class of selection-free / topography-based verbal behavior, meaning the individual produces distinct physical motor movements for every discrete concept (as opposed to selecting an external visual stimulus from an array).

The structural advantages of manual signing are significant:

• Zero reliance on external equipment, batteries, laminated papers, or communication books. The individual’s communication system is permanently available on their person.
• Low latency of production once motor fluency is achieved.
• Direct compatibility with physical prompting: clinicians can effortlessly physically guide a learner’s hands to form a sign during errorless training trials.

Conversely, manual signs present major systemic vulnerabilities. Foremost is the restricted community listener comprehension. The vast majority of individuals in general educational classrooms, shopping centers, medical facilities, and transit systems do not understand sign language. If a learner signs “toilet” or “pain” to an untrained community member who stares blankly, the communication fails, often triggering immediate behavioral escalation. Furthermore, manual signing requires intact fine-motor dexterity, finger isolation, and bilateral coordination. Individuals with comorbid cerebral palsy, severe fine-motor tremors, or profound motor planning deficits are structurally incapable of forming intelligible signs, making manual signs a poor candidate for these profiles.

7.3 Low-Tech Visual Exchange: Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS)

Developed by Lori Frost and Andy Bondy in 1994, the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) is an augmentative communication protocol that has been extensively integrated with FCT. Unlike traditional pointing or vocalizing, PECS is built on an overt, physical exchange mechanic that requires the learner to pick up a visual icon, navigate to a communicative partner, and deposit the icon directly into the partner’s open hand.

This physical exchange mechanic confers distinct behavioral advantages within an FCT paradigm:

• Overcomes Joint Attention Deficits: In typical pointing, the non-speaking learner must point while simultaneously referencing the listener’s gaze. Many individuals on the autism spectrum struggle with gaze shifting. In PECS, placing the card into the hand automatically breaks through the partner’s attentional threshold, eliminating listener ambiguity.
• Explicit Motor Chain: The tangible act of physically surrendering a card makes the communicative act concrete and highly discriminable for the learner.
• High Social Recognizability: Any untrained observer understands an exchange when presented with a laminated card displaying a clear line drawing (e.g., Boardmaker PCS) or photograph alongside a printed text label.

PECS follows a rigorous six-phase instructional sequence. Phase I teaches the physical exchange using two trainers (one serving as the communicative partner, the second acting as a silent physical prompter from behind). Phase II expands distance and persistence—requiring the learner to cross rooms to retrieve cards and locate partners. Phase III teaches visual discrimination between preferred and non-preferred icons, expanding into sentence structure (Phase IV), answering questions (Phase V), and responsive commenting (Phase VI). For FCT implementations, Phases I through III are typically sufficient to establish robust, functional replacement mands capable of rapidly suppressing severe challenging behavior.

7.4 High-Tech Speech-Generating Devices (SGD) and Dynamic Display AAC

The proliferation of mobile computing, dedicated tablets, and specialized applications (e.g., Proloquo2Go, TouchChat, LAMP Words for Life) has driven high-tech Speech-Generating Devices (SGDs) to the forefront of FCT modality selection. SGDs bridge low-tech physical exchange and vocal speech by pairing visual icon selection with instantaneous synthesized or digitized auditory speech output.

The behavioral reinforcement characteristics of SGDs are exceptionally robust:

• Immediate Synthetic Auditory Feedback: The moment a learner touches an icon on a dynamic display screen, the device speaks the target word aloud. This provides immediate, invariant auditory stimulation that acts as an automatic secondary reinforcer, while simultaneously modeling the vocal production for the learner.
• Universal Social Legibility: Because the device speaks the user’s intent in natural language at adjustable decibels, it commands immediate attention across home, school, and community environments, producing the lowest response latencies from natural listeners.
• Motor Planning Consistency: Modern AAC architectures (such as LAMP) fix the location of vocabulary icons on dynamic screens, allowing learners to develop automatic, fluid motor memories for word selection, akin to touch-typing on a keyboard.

However, clinicians must proactively address the specialized challenges of high-tech devices. Dynamic display navigation can impose significant visual tracking and cognitive categorization burdens; an individual in acute crisis cannot navigate three nested sub-folders to find a “Leave me alone” button. For FCT, high-priority replacement mands must be permanently anchored to the device’s “Home” screen or dedicated hardware buttons. Furthermore, practitioners must anticipate mechanical realities: dead batteries, software crashes, volume setting issues, and physical device destruction during behavioral escalations. Robust FCT implementation requires low-tech laminated backup systems paired with high-tech SGD integration to ensure the learner is never left without a voice.

8. Schedule Thinning and Delay Tolerance: Transitioning from Continuous to Intermittent Reinforcement

8.1 The Practical Necessity of Schedule Thinning

While an initial Fixed Ratio 1 (FR1) schedule of continuous reinforcement is essential for the rapid acquisition of the CRB and immediate suppression of severe problem behavior, maintaining an FR1 schedule indefinitely is ecologically impossible. In the real world, parents, educators, and employers cannot immediately drop everything to honor an escape or attention request every single time it occurs.

Furthermore, without systematic schedule thinning, learners encounter mand inflation (or high mand rates). A learner taught that touching a “Break” switch terminates academic demands will logically begin touching the switch 40 times per hour, resulting in near-total avoidance of instructional, social, or rehabilitative programming. Similarly, an attention-maintained learner may emit attention mands continuously, overwhelming caregivers. When natural environments inevitably push back by ignoring these excessive requests, the sudden, unprogrammed extinction yields severe behavioral relapse. Therefore, the scheduled thinning of reinforcement—transitioning from rich, continuous reinforcement to practical, intermittent, and delayed schedules—is a mandatory phase of clinical FCT.

8.2 Chained and Multiple Schedules of Reinforcement

To thin reinforcement schedules without triggering the resurgence of problem behavior, applied behavior analysts deploy two primary schedule designs: multiple schedules and chained schedules.

A Multiple Schedule alternates between periods where the CRB produces reinforcement (the $\text{S}^\text{D}$ condition) and periods where the CRB is placed on extinction or delay (the $\text{S}^\Delta$ condition), with each component signaled by distinct, salient environmental stimuli. In a classic visual multiple schedule (Hanley et al., 2001):

• A Green Card ($\text{S}^\text{D}$) is placed on the desk: The communicative mand is active; touching the card or speaking produces immediate reinforcer delivery.
• A Red Card ($\text{S}^\Delta$) is placed on the desk: The reinforcer is unavailable. The mand is not reinforced (or reinforced on an extremely lean schedule), and instructional demands or independent activities occur.

Clinicians establish stimulus control by starting with long $\text{S}^\text{D}$ intervals and brief $\text{S}^\Delta$ intervals (e.g., 60 seconds green, 10 seconds red). Over successive sessions, the duration of the red card interval is systematically titrated upward while the green card interval is gradually compressed. Because the visual stimulus clearly informs the learner when reinforcement is accessible, the red card suppresses mand emission peacefully, preventing extinction-induced outbursts.

A Chained Schedule links reinforcement for the CRB to the completion of a specific behavioral requirement. When the learner emits the communicative mand, the clinician does not deliver immediate escape or items; rather, the mand produces an instruction or task demand that must be completed prior to terminal reinforcement delivery (e.g., Learner: “Break please” $to$ Teacher: “Sure, do two math problems, then take your break”). The response requirements within the chained schedule are systematically increased over time (e.g., from 1 completed task to 3, 5, and 10 tasks), anchoring the communicative response to sustained academic or functional engagement.

8.3 Delay-to-Reinforcement and Denial/Tolerance Training

A critical limitation of simple time delays is that human learners do not passively absorb waiting periods; unprogrammed delays create an establishing operation that evokes behavioral agitation. To build authentic resilience against real-world frustration, Gregory P. Hanley and colleagues developed the Skill-Based Treatment (SBT) framework, which embeds systematic Delay and Denial Tolerance (DDT) directly into FCT protocols.

Within this framework, when the learner emits their functional mand, the clinician deliberately denies the request on an unpredictable, intermittent basis (e.g., in 40% of trials) by saying, “No,” “Not right now,” or “Wait.” Instead of allowing this denial to escalate into a crisis, the clinician explicitly teaches a standardized Tolerance Response. The tolerance response typically consists of an emotional regulation motor sequence: the learner stops what they are doing, lowers their hands, takes a deep breath, or looks at the clinician and says a calm social affirmation such as “Okay.”

Once the tolerance response is emitted, the clinician immediately reinforces this self-regulation act by either:

• Delivering the originally requested item immediately (rewarding the tolerance response itself during early training phases).
• Requiring the learner to engage in progressively longer, varied instructional tasks, chores, or quiet waiting periods before terminal reinforcement is accessed.

By transforming the denial from a sudden extinction event into a clear discriminative stimulus signaling that reinforcement is still attainable via calm compliance, delay and denial tolerance training systematically insulates the individual against behavioral relapse, engineering true psychological flexibility in unpredictable environments.

9. Generalization and Maintenance Across Settings, Communication Partners, and Stimuli

9.1 Stimulus Generalization Strategies

A behavioral intervention restricted to a single therapy room with a single primary clinician is a therapeutic failure. For Functional Communication Training to achieve clinical durability, the newly acquired communicative repertoire must demonstrate comprehensive stimulus generalization across environments, people, materials, and internal physiological states. Clinicians utilize the classic generalization programming frameworks formulated by Trevor Stokes and Donald Baer (1977) to ensure pervasive communicative transfer.

Key generalization programming tactics include:

• Multiple Exemplar Training: The learner is not taught to communicate with a single static therapist using a single picture icon. Training incorporates multiple diverse interventionists (parents, paraprofessionals, peers), varying communication targets (different graphic icons, switch colors, vocal phrasing), and diverse instructional stimuli. This prevents the CRB from becoming tightly bound to irrelevant contextual cues.
• Programming Common Stimuli: Physical and social features of the natural environment are systematically imported into the training setting. If the target environment is a noisy general education classroom, ambient classroom auditory recordings, typical peer movement, and authentic instructional materials are incorporated directly into early FCT acquisition trials.
• Utilizing Indiscriminable Contingencies: As schedule thinning progresses, reinforcement schedules are shifted from fixed, predictable parameters to variable, intermittent schedules. Because the learner cannot predict which specific mand or task completion trial will yield the terminal reinforcer, communicative output and low problem behavior rates remain stable across time and space.

9.2 Caregiver and Paraprofessional Behavioral Skills Training (BST)

The true arbiters of FCT success are the natural change agents—parents, siblings, classroom aides, and group home direct support professionals—who interact with the individual daily. When natural change agents fail to implement FCT with procedural integrity, interventions decay rapidly. To transfer clinical competencies to non-professional stakeholders, practitioners deploy Behavioral Skills Training (BST), an evidence-based pedagogical methodology comprising four explicit, sequential components:

1. Instruction: Providing a clear, written and verbal description of the FCT protocol, the operant function of the behavior, the exact prompting hierarchy, and the operational criteria for reinforcer delivery.
2. Modeling: The clinician demonstrates the FCT procedure live with the client or via video modeling, highlighting exact prompt fading mechanics and extinction responses.
3. Rehearsal: The caregiver or staff member role-plays the procedure, first in simulated scenarios with the clinician, and subsequently during authentic live interactions with the client.
4. Performance Feedback: The clinician delivers immediate, objective feedback, providing specific praise for correctly executed components and constructive coaching for errors (e.g., prompt delays, accidental attention delivery).

Recent advances have demonstrated that BST can be delivered with exceptional fidelity via telehealth consultation. Groundbreaking trials conducted by David Wacker and colleagues demonstrated that parents coached remotely via secure video links successfully conducted functional analyses and implemented FCT within their own homes, achieving reductions in child challenging behavior exceeding 90%. Furthermore, assessing contextual fit ensures that FCT protocols respect the cultural norms, daily schedules, and emotional bandwidth of families, transforming clinical protocols into sustainable household routines.

9.3 Longitudinal Maintenance Protocols

The permanence of FCT gains requires deliberate maintenance protocols that extend months and years beyond initial clinical discharge. Once acute behavioral stabilization is achieved, clinicians establish natural reinforcement traps. A behavioral trap is an operant architecture wherein a newly acquired response contacts natural, self-sustaining contingencies of reinforcement that are already native to the community.

For example, when an adolescent learns to use a dynamic display AAC device to mand for recreational activities, peers naturally respond with social inclusion, laughter, and joint play. These organic social reinforcers trap the communicative behavior, maintaining its high rate without requiring ongoing intervention from a behavior analyst. Supplementary maintenance safeguards include:

• Periodic Probing Routines: Scheduling monthly or quarterly objective fidelity probes to detect subtle, gradual erosion in caregiver implementation integrity.
• Booster Training Sessions: Brief, targeted BST refresher modules deployed to remediate procedural drift among educational or residential staff.
• Archival Longitudinal Data Systems: Tracking behavioral incidents, crisis calls, and physical restraint deployments across multi-year intervals to verify the enduring suppression of aberrant topographies.

10. Clinical and Educational Applications Across Diverse Populations

10.1 Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Intellectual Disabilities

The historical epicenter of FCT research and clinical application resides within populations diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and moderate-to-profound intellectual disabilities. These neurodevelopmental conditions are frequently characterized by core deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, verbal communication, and functional play skills, alongside high prevalences of stereotyped, repetitive motor behaviors.

In these populations, challenging behaviors routinely manifest as dangerous self-injurious behavior (severe head-banging, gouging, biting), intense physical assault toward caregivers, and extensive property destruction. FCT interventions tailored for autistic learners must account for specialized behavioral phenotypes:

• Idiosyncratic Reinforcers: Autistic individuals may be maintained by reinforcers outside traditional developmental frameworks, such as immediate access to stereotypic behaviors (e.g., object spinning, hand-flapping), intense non-social sensory stimuli, or ritualistic alignment of objects. FCT addresses this by establishing communicative mands that directly purchase access to stereotypy or preferred sensory events contingent upon task completion.
• Echolalia: Learners presenting with delayed or immediate echolalia can have their repetitive vocal patterns shaped into functional verbal mands through systematic vocal echoic-to-mand transfer protocols.
• Hyper-Specific Contextual Cues: Environmental modifications—such as visual schedules, noise-canceling headphones, and distinct work areas—are integrated alongside FCT to stabilize environmental predictability and lower baseline stress.

10.2 Pediatric Feeding Disorders and Escape-Maintained Food Refusal

Pediatric feeding disorders represent a high-risk clinical arena where Functional Communication Training has proven lifesaving. In young children presenting with severe food refusal, failure to thrive, or tube dependency, the presentation of a spoon or food cup routinely evokes dangerous escape-maintained topographies, including severe gagging, food expulsion, swatting, head turning, and screaming.

Standard behavioral treatments historically relied heavily on pure escape extinction—specifically, Non-Removal of the Spoon (NRS), where the spoon is held against the child’s lips until a bite is accepted. While empirically effective, NRS can induce extreme emotional distress and presents safety risks if executed improperly. Combining NRS with Functional Communication Training creates an ethical, regulated alternative:

• The child is taught a functional escape/pacing mand, such as touching a “Break” card or vocalizing “All done.”
• Crucially, the communicative mand does not allow total avoidance of the meal; rather, emitting the CRB produces a brief, predictable 30-second pause in meal presentation, a sip of water, or access to a preferred sensory toy.
• Accepting bites of target foods is reinforced with high-preference edibles or immediate escape, while the communicative mand empowers the child with agency over the pacing of the feeding session.

Any behavioral feeding intervention involving FCT must be carried out under the strict, interdisciplinary oversight of pediatric gastroenterologists, speech-language pathologists specializing in dysphagia, and registered dietitians to ensure oral-motor swallow safety, protect against aspiration, and verify nutritional adequacy.

10.3 Acquired Brain Injury, Dementia, and Neurocognitive Conditions

While FCT originated in developmental disabilities, its operant logic applies equally to adult populations experiencing acquired neurocognitive impairments, such as traumatic brain injury (TBI), post-stroke aphasia, and progressive neurodegenerative dementias (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease, frontotemporal dementia). In these clinical profiles, the individual historically possessed fully developed language systems that were subsequently disrupted by mechanical trauma or neurological decay.

Following a TBI or stroke, damage to left-hemisphere language centers often leaves the patient experiencing profound expressive aphasia. When hospital nursing staff or family members attempt to administer personal care (bathing, catheterization, repositioning), the patient’s inability to communicate pain or request a pause frequently results in combative behavior, punching, biting, and screaming. FCT rehabilitates these breakdowns by bypass-routing the damaged linguistic circuits. Clinicians install low-effort, preserved motor responses—such as pressing an oversized adaptive pneumatic switch or pointing to high-contrast communication boards with large pictograms representing “Pain,” “Cold,” “Stop,” or “Bathroom.”

In individuals with advancing dementia, executive dysfunction and rapid short-term memory loss erode conversational fluency. Aberrant behaviors often function as mands for spatial orientation, pain relief, or comfort. FCT is adapted into these settings by embedding clear environmental visual prompts into the architecture of memory care facilities (e.g., high-contrast signage, pictorial menus worn on lanyards) and training geriatric nursing personnel to rapidly recognize and reinforce emerging, subtle communicative bids before frustration escalates into combative outbursts.

10.4 Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD) in General and Inclusive Education

In general education and inclusive public school environments, students diagnosed with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders (EBD), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) frequently engage in disruptive classroom behaviors. These topographies include walking out of class, vocal profanity, throwing school supplies, and verbal hostility toward educators. Functional assessments in school environments routinely demonstrate that these disruptive behaviors are maintained by negative reinforcement: avoiding academic work that exceeds the student’s current instructional skill level or escaping peer embarrassment.

Integrated within Tier 2 and Tier 3 School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS), FCT provides a dignified, de-escalating alternative. Rather than repeatedly sending the student to the administrative office—which inadvertently delivers the exact functional escape reinforcing the disruptive behavior—the educational team explicitly teaches the student functional self-advocacy mands:

• The student is taught to place a discrete “I need help” or “Break” card on the corner of their desk when academic fatigue or confusion sets in.
• Emitting this mand immediately produces a modified assignment (e.g., reducing the workload from 20 math problems to 5) or a brief 2-minute break in a quiet sensory corner of the classroom.
• Clinicians integrate self-monitoring sheets where students track their own communicative requests, steadily linking functional communication to academic self-determination.

By empowering students with overt, socially acceptable strategies to navigate academic frustration, FCT directly reduces exclusionary disciplinary practices, lowers out-of-school suspensions, and maintains students with emotional and behavioral challenges within the least restrictive general education environment.

11. Common Clinical Challenges, Treatment Relapse, and Mitigation Strategies

11.1 Mechanisms of Treatment Relapse: Resurgence, Renewal, and Reinstatement

One of the most critical challenges confronting clinical behavior analysts is treatment relapse. An individual may achieve absolute behavioral suppression and high communicative fluency within an intensive therapy setting, yet upon returning home or encountering schedule disruptions, the challenging behavior suddenly re-emerges. Contemporary behavioral science has categorized relapse into three primary empirical phenomena: resurgence, renewal, and reinstatement.

Resurgence occurs when a newly reinforced alternative behavior (the CRB) is extinguished or encounters an unexpected reinforcement delay, causing the historically extinguished problem behavior to spontaneously recover. For example, if a child who was taught to use an AAC device to request attention enters a noisy family gathering where their parents are engaged with guests and fail to respond to the device, the extinction of the mand causes the aggressive behavior to resurge within minutes. Resurgence is directly accounted for by Behavioral Momentum Theory (BMT), formulated by John A. Nevin and Christopher Podlesnik. BMT demonstrates that the baseline rate of reinforcement delivered within an environment imparts “mass” or momentum to the entire functional response class. Because the original problem behavior possesses a vast historical reservoir of reinforcement, any disruption in the reinforcement schedule of the alternative behavior causes behavioral momentum to fall back upon the older, established member of the response class.

Renewal is a contextual relapse phenomenon. When a behavior is extinguished in one context (Context B, the clinic) while the CRB is acquired, returning the individual to the original context where the behavior was historically reinforced (Context A, the family home) results in the immediate return of the problem behavior, despite high integrity training in the clinic (ABA renewal). Similarly, transitioning the individual to an entirely novel environment (Context C) can trigger relapse (ABC renewal). Renewal demonstrates that extinction is context-specific; the extinguished response is not erased from the neurological repertoire, but merely suppressed within the original training environment.

Reinstatement occurs when the functional reinforcer is presented non-contingently (free delivery) after successful treatment. If an individual whose aggression was maintained by access to sweets has been successfully stabilized via FCT, and a well-meaning relative unexpectedly hands them a piece of candy for free, that non-contingent reinforcer delivery can immediately reinstate high-rate aggressive behaviors. Mitigating these relapse phenomena requires clinicians to systematically conduct generalization training across multiple contexts, explicitly train caregivers to navigate resurgence via delay/denial tolerance, and thin reinforcement schedules gradually to inoculate the behavior against sudden environmental extinction.

11.2 Procedural Fidelity Failures and Inconsistent Implementation

The single greatest clinical predictor of FCT failure in naturalistic environments is the degradation of procedural fidelity (also termed treatment integrity). Functional Communication Training is an exquisite behavioral balancing act: it requires the simultaneous, near-perfect execution of two opposing schedules—continuous, immediate reinforcement for the CRB, and absolute, unwavering extinction for the problem behavior.

In high-stress natural environments (e.g., a chaotic home with multiple siblings, an understaffed group home, or an overcrowded public classroom), procedural drift is common. Fatigued staff or overwhelmed parents may ignore a learner’s quiet, appropriate communicative mand due to distraction, allowing the response to contact unprogrammed extinction. Conversely, when the individual inevitably escalates to screaming or aggression, staff frequently surrender to the crisis, delivering the iPad, attention, or task removal to stop the immediate disturbance. This disastrous procedural breakdown:

• Places the desirable communicative behavior on extinction.
• Places the severe challenging behavior on an intermittent schedule of reinforcement.

Intermittent reinforcement schedules (especially Variable Ratio schedules) are the most powerful generators of behavioral persistence in all of operant psychology; they create behaviors that are exceptionally resistant to extinction. Clinicians must actively monitor implementation integrity using objective, task-analyzed fidelity checklists. Behavioral consultants must regularly shadow natural caregivers, calculate percentage-of-integrity scores, and intervene with supportive, hands-on Behavioral Skills Training whenever procedural drift is identified.

11.3 Mitigating High Mand Rates and Communicative Extinction Bursts

As learners acquire functional communication, they frequently discover the immense power of their new voice, leading to a phenomenon known as mand inflation or excessive mand rates. When an individual emits 60 mands per hour for high-preference items, snacks, or task avoidance, the natural environment cannot sustain the schedule. Inevitably, the caregiver must say “No.”

If the clinician has not proactively installed delay and tolerance protocols, denying a newly acquired mand will trigger a communicative extinction burst. The learner, having been promised that communication works, experiences profound behavioral contrast when their mand is denied. Frustration causes the individual to rapidly cycle through topographies: vocalizing louder, hitting the communication device repeatedly, and ultimately resurging into explosive aggression or self-injury. To mitigate this volatility, clinicians deploy contingency mapping and conditional mands:

• Contingency Mapping: Visual flowcharts and behavioral schematics are utilized to show the learner the exact paths to reinforcement. The map visually displays: “If I mand calmly and wait $to$ I get the item”; “If I hit or scream $to$ the item goes into the box for 5 minutes.”
• Systematic Desensitization to Denial: Clinicians systematically desensitize the client to the discriminative stimulus of denial. Beginning with micro-delays (e.g., “Wait 2 seconds”) paired with immediate massive reinforcement, the clinician gradually stretches the client’s tolerance threshold, building authentic emotional stamina for delays.
• Offering Acceptable Alternatives: When a specific mand cannot be honored (e.g., manding to go swimming during a thunderstorm), the communicative partner immediately offers functional, closely matched alternatives (e.g., “We cannot swim right now, but we can play with water toys in the sink or take a warm bubble bath”).

12. Ethical Considerations, Neurodiversity Perspectives, and Future Directions in FCT Research

12.1 Aligning FCT with the BACB Ethics Code and Human Rights Frameworks

The practice of Functional Communication Training exists at the intersection of behavioral science, professional ethics, and fundamental human rights. The Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts explicitly mandates that clinicians prioritize client assent, uphold personal autonomy, and guarantee the right to effective, humane, and least-restrictive behavioral interventions.

FCT embodies these ethical mandates when implemented with structural integrity. Unlike historical punishment paradigms that suppressed behavior through the imposition of aversive stimuli, FCT respects the functional validity of the individual’s internal motivation. It treats challenging behavior not as an offense to be punished, but as an unmet need to be translated into functional speech. However, behavior analysts must navigate critical ethical boundaries when designing FCT programs:

• Assent and Bodily Autonomy: Behavior analysts must continuously monitor client assent—the overt, ongoing willingness of the client to participate in instructional trials. If a non-speaking learner repeatedly pulls away, cries, or exhibits physiological distress during FCT trials, clinicians must not rely on coercive physical guidance. Assent must be sought continuously, and protocols must be adapted to preserve the client’s dignity.
• Protection Against Harmful Suppression: Clinicians must never utilize FCT to suppress harmless, self-regulatory, or neurodivergent behaviors under the guise of behavioral therapy. Repetitive motor movements such as non-injurious body rocking, hand-flapping, or pacing serve vital physiological and sensory self-regulation functions for autistic individuals. Suppressing harmless stimming because it appears “socially atypical” violates the ethical duty to support the individual’s genuine wellbeing. FCT is strictly reserved for behaviors that inflict physical harm, cause property damage, or fundamentally bar the individual from accessing their community and education.

12.2 Neurodiversity-Affirming Adaptations of Functional Communication

The rise of the neurodiversity movement—spearheaded by autistic self-advocates, neurodivergent scholars, and progressive clinicians—has initiated a vital, long-overdue critique of traditional applied behavior analysis. Historically, behavioral intervention was often criticized for enforcing a compliance-centric paradigm, wherein non-speaking individuals were conditioned to mimic neurotypical vocalizations, maintain forced eye contact, and comply unquestioningly with adult commands.

Neurodiversity-affirming adaptations of FCT decouple the intervention from compliance-oriented models, re-anchoring it firmly in communicative agency and empowerment. Key affirmations include:

• Validating Multi-Modal and Non-Normative Communication: Neurodiversity-affirming FCT recognizes that vocal speech is not the superior or sole legitimate form of human communication. Gestures, visual cards, dynamic AAC displays, eye-gaze selections, and situational non-speaking strategies are celebrated as equally valid communicative acts. If a client prefers to communicate via a speech-generating device even when capable of single-word vocal approximations, their autonomy is respected.
• Honoring Communicative Refusal: Traditional compliance paradigms viewed a child saying “No” to a teacher as non-compliance requiring redirection. Affirming FCT views the ability to say “No,” “Stop,” and “I don’t want to” as one of the most critical, protective self-advocacy skills a vulnerable person with disabilities can possess. When a learner emits a functional refusal mand, that refusal is respected and honored, teaching the individual that their voice possesses true legal and personal power.
• Engaging Stakeholders as Co-Designers: Autistic and neurodivergent self-advocates are increasingly engaged as collaborative partners in clinical research and individual intervention design, ensuring that the selected replacement behaviors and target outcomes reflect the priorities, dignity, and subjective quality of life of the individual receiving support.

12.3 Emerging Technologies, Machine Learning, and Future Directions in FCT Research

As Functional Communication Training moves through its fifth decade of empirical evolution, the horizon of behavioral research is being transformed by the convergence of applied behavior analysis with modern technology, machine learning, and relational cognitive science.

One of the most promising frontiers is the development of predictive behavioral analytics and wearable biosensors. Researchers are evaluating wearable devices capable of measuring real-time autonomic nervous system arousal, including galvanic skin response (electrodermal activity), heart rate variability, and peripheral skin temperature. Because physiological arousal spikes minutes before a learner reaches the acute crisis threshold, machine learning algorithms can detect these internal establishing operations before any overt aggression occurs. These systems can automatically alert clinicians or trigger automated prompts on the learner’s AAC device (e.g., displaying a prominent “I need a quiet break” button), permitting the communicative mand to be emitted and reinforced long before challenging behavior can manifest.

Concurrently, behavior analysis is refining hybrid intervention frameworks that synthesize FCT with Relational Frame Theory (RFT) and Acceptance and Commitment Training (ACT). For verbally fluent learners presenting with complex emotional disorders, trauma histories, or dual diagnoses, challenging behaviors are often maintained by cognitive fusion, experiential avoidance, and complex relational verbal networks. Blending FCT with ACT and RFT allows clinicians to teach replacement mands that articulate internal emotional states (e.g., “I am feeling overwhelmed by anxiety right now”), linking functional communication to psychological flexibility, mindfulness, and personal values.

Finally, the discipline is prioritizing large-scale Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and multi-site translational research projects to rigorously evaluate the comparative long-term efficacy of diverse schedule thinning models, remote telehealth implementations, and school-wide Tier 3 behavioral support architectures. Forty years after Edward G. Carr and V. Mark Durand demonstrated that severe challenging behaviors could be overcome through the construction of alternative communication pathways, Functional Communication Training continues to evolve—an enduring testament to the transformative power of empirical behavioral science in the service of human dignity, agency, and social liberation.

Conclusion

The introduction of Functional Communication Training by Edward G. Carr and V. Mark Durand in 1985 remains one of the most transformative milestones in the history of applied behavior analysis, special education, and clinical psychology. By dismantling the destructive paradigm of default aversive contingencies and establishing the empirical validity of functional equivalence, Carr and Durand fundamentally humanized the treatment of individuals with severe developmental disabilities and behavioral challenges. Their work transformed clinical practice from a discipline focused on mechanical suppression into an empowering pedagogical technology dedicated to communicative enrichment.

Across four decades of rigorous empirical validation, FCT has demonstrated remarkable adaptability. Grounded in the precise mechanics of operant conditioning, the three-term contingency, and pragmatic speech act theory, it provides a replicable architecture for identifying maintaining reinforcers through Functional Behavior Assessments and engineering efficient, socially recognizable replacement responses. Whether implemented via low-tech visual systems like PECS, dynamic Speech-Generating Devices, manual signs, or vocal approximations, FCT systematically replaces self-injurious, aggressive, and destructive topographies with meaningful, intentional communication.

Furthermore, the evolution of sophisticated schedule thinning paradigms, multiple schedules of reinforcement, and delay/denial tolerance training has successfully bridged the gap between rapid clinical acquisition and sustainable real-world application. As FCT continues to integrate with multi-tiered systems of support, neurodiversity-affirming frameworks, trauma-informed behavioral care, and emerging predictive technologies, the foundational philosophy articulated by Carr and Durand endures: every individual, regardless of the severity of their disability or behavioral presentation, possesses a vital, valid voice. When provided with an effective, accessible communicative vehicle, individuals no longer need to rely on challenging behavior to be heard; through Functional Communication Training, human agency is dignified, autonomy is realized, and true community inclusion is made possible.

References

• Athens, E. S., & Vollmer, T. R. (2010). An investigation of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(4), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-569
• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
• Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: The acquisition of pragmatics. Academic Press.
• Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts. Littleton, CO: Author. https://www.bacb.com/ethics-information/ethics-codes/
• Bondy, A. S., & Frost, L. A. (1994). The Picture Exchange Communication System. Focus on Autistic Behavior, 9(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/108835769400900301
• Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111
• Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. P., Sailor, W., Anderson, J. L., Albin, R. W., Koegel, L. K., & Fox, L. (2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/109830070200400102
• Durand, V. M., & Carr, E. G. (1991). Functional communication training to reduce challenging behavior: Maintenance and application in new settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-251
• Durand, V. M., & Carr, E. G. (1992). An analysis of maintenance following functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(4), 777–794. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-777
• Durand, V. M., & Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18(1), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02211821
• Fisher, 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(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-23
• Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Thompson, R. H. (2001). Alternative treatments for problem behavior: Evaluating the effects of chained schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(4), 417–438. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-417
• Hanley, G. P., Jin, C. S., Vanselow, N. R., & Hanratty, L. A. (2014). Producing meaningful improvements in problem behavior of children with autism via synthesized analyses and treatments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(1), 16–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.106
• Herrnstein, R. J. (1961). Relative and absolute strength of response as a function of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4(3), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1961.4-267
• Horner, R. H., & Day, H. M. (1991). The effects of response efficiency on functionally equivalent alternative behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(4), 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-719
• Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 197–209. (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20, 1982). https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197
• Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(3), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-407
• Mace, F. C., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West, B. J., Belfiore, P., Pinter, E., & Brown, D. K. (1988). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21(2), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1988.21-123
• Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37(1), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-149
• Nevin, J. A., & Shahan, T. A. (2012). Behavioral momentum theory: Equations and applications. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(4), 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-877
• Paclawskyj, T. R., Vollmer, T. R., Borrero, J. C., Bourret, J., & Sloman, K. N. (2000). Reliability of the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) scale: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(3), 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-349
• Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
• Shirley, T. E., Iwata, B. A., Kahng, S., Mazaleski, J. L., & Lerman, D. C. (1997). Does functional communication training compete with ongoing contingencies of reinforcement? An analysis during response acquisition and extinction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(1), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-93
• Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.
• Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Copley Publishing Group.
• Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349
• Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bruzek, J. (2008). Functional communication training: A review and practical guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391716
• Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(4), 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-343
• Wacker, D. P., Lee, J. F., Padilla Dalmau, Y. C., Kopelman, T. G., Lindgren, S. D., Kuhle, J., Pelzel, K. E., & Waldron, D. B. (2013). Conducting functional analyses of problem behavior via telehealth. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(1), 31–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.29
• Wacker, D. P., Steege, M. W., Northup, J., Sasso, G. M., Berg, W., Reimers, T., Cooper, L., Cigrand, D., & Donn, L. (1990). A component analysis of functional communication training across three topographies of severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(4), 417–429. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1990.23-417