Comparison of Caregivers' and Children's Preference for Mand Topography during Functional Communication Training
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparison of Caregivers' and Children's Preference for Mand Topography during Functional Communication Training |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Cynthia P. Livingston (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2025 37(3):429-447. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 19 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Comparative Analysis, Caregiver Attitudes, Childrens Attitudes, Preferences, Verbal Operant Conditioning, Topography, Functional Behavioral Assessment, Communication (Thought Transfer), Training, Caregiver Child Relationship |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3 |
| ISSN: | 1056-263X 1573-3580 |
| Abstract: | Functional communication training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is frequently utilized as a treatment for socially maintained problem behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). Although FCT is a viable treatment option for the reduction of problem behavior, researchers have identified several variables related to the selection of the functional communication response (FCR) topography that may influence treatment outcomes, including individual and caregiver preference. However, there may be times in which the target individual and caregiver preference do not match. Given this, there is a need for procedures to identify and compare both child and caregiver preferences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify a preferred FCR topography via mand topography assessment and compare results of the mand topography assessment with a formal assessment of caregiver preference. We found that both child and caregiver participants demonstrated a preference for at least one FCR topography. Although we identified a preference for both the child and caregiver participants, child and caregiver preference did not match, except for a partial match for one caregiver-child dyad. Clinical implications and recommendations for navigating next steps when client and caregiver preferences do not align are discussed. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1472211 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGOKe2glkN5tUfrOGYl50QzAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDJmotB7VscLzUyS69wIBEICBmxw2-swLCf1dPx63uLiTaaoXxc6AXKvukWLj1aePNijLZlgTE_M8wgrUmCnrQhGcgTgbCjacGqJFB_lfvriEgcu22cY3O7t9DMseubpeQDNAv41ZMRe1KEZ9bnxwWYQvu5hHqY5QwweJoOKdQ6-2yww4Hov3otv5ZTiN8vB880-8VgpNP-h9tU0kwWqlYl-zX7h88ZjQsT2YLNdK Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0185422489;jdp01jun.25;2025May28.05:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0185422489-1">Comparison of Caregivers' and Children's Preference for Mand Topography During Functional Communication Training </title> <p>Functional communication training (FCT; Carr &amp; Durand, 1985) is frequently utilized as a treatment for socially maintained problem behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). Although FCT is a viable treatment option for the reduction of problem behavior, researchers have identified several variables related to the selection of the functional communication response (FCR) topography that may influence treatment outcomes, including individual and caregiver preference. However, there may be times in which the target individual and caregiver preference do not match. Given this, there is a need for procedures to identify and compare both child and caregiver preferences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify a preferred FCR topography via mand topography assessment and compare results of the mand topography assessment with a formal assessment of caregiver preference. We found that both child and caregiver participants demonstrated a preference for at least one FCR topography. Although we identified a preference for both the child and caregiver participants, child and caregiver preference did not match, except for a partial match for one caregiver-child dyad. Clinical implications and recommendations for navigating next steps when client and caregiver preferences do not align are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: mand topography; Functional communication training; Choice and autonomy; Problem behavior; Caregiver preference; Child preference</p> <p>The original online version of this article was revised update the affiliation of Dr Kwak and to update the location of Endicott College.</p> <p>Functional communication training (FCT; Carr &amp; Durand, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]) is frequently utilized as a treatment for socially maintained problem behavior (Tiger et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref2">26</reflink>]). During FCT, the target individual is taught a functional communicative response (FCR) that produces access to the functional reinforcer identified during a functional analysis (e.g., Iwata et al., 1982/1994) and problem behavior is placed on extinction. Since the introduction of FCT, a variety of FCR topographies have been successfully included in FCT packages, including vocalizations (Carr &amp; Durand, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]; Marcus &amp; Vollmer, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]), picture cards (Livingston et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref5">18</reflink>]), gestures or manual signs (Tsami &amp; Lerman, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]; Volkert et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref7">29</reflink>]), micro switches (Hanley et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>]; Ringdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>]; Wacker et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]; Winborn-Kemmerer et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref11">31</reflink>]) and speech-generating devices (SGD; Bethune &amp; Boyle, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref12">4</reflink>]; Kunnavatana et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>]). Although FCT is a viable treatment option for the reduction of problem behavior, researchers have identified several variables related to the selection of the FCR topography that have been shown to influence treatment outcomes. These variables include reinforcement history (Ringdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref14">23</reflink>]), response effort (Bailey et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]), proficiency (Ringdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>]), and preference for the FCR topography (Kunnavatana et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]; Winborn-Kemmerer et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref18">31</reflink>]; Ringdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref19">22</reflink>]). Given this, clinicians should be intentional and consider these variables when selecting an FCR topography to optimize the generality of effects and resistance to treatment challenges (Ringdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>Recently, Houck et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref21">13</reflink>]) published a practitioner's guide for the selection of functional communication response topographies. The guide provided considerations and recommendations for the selection and teaching of FCR topographies, including starting with teaching multiple FCR topographies for the same functional reinforcer. One benefit of teaching multiple FCR topographies includes further decreases in problem behavior and resistance to treatment challenges compared to when only one FCR topography is taught. For example, Diaz-Salvat et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref22">8</reflink>]) compared single and serial training in a three-experiment translational study. In experiment 1, they compared target responding when one (single training) or multiple (serial training) response options were available. In experiment 1, researchers observed more resurgence when only one alternative response was available than when multiple alternative responses were available. In experiment 2, the alternative responses included in serial response training were also available during single training but were not reinforced. The results of experiment 2 showed no difference in resurgence of the target response following single and serial training. Finally, in experiment 3, single training with alternative responses that were not reinforced during training was compared to single training without alternative responses. The results showed more resurgence occurred following the single training <emph>without</emph> multiple alternative responses than following single training <emph>with</emph> multiple alternative responses, despite the other alternative responses never being reinforced during training. The findings of Diaz-Salvat et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]) suggest the inclusion of more than one alternative response can mitigate resurgence of the target response (e.g., problem behavior).</p> <p>Although teaching multiple FCR topographies has been shown to be beneficial for the treatment of problem behavior, Houck et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]) also recommend considering client preference, especially when there are multiple optimal topographies to choose from. For example, Winborn-Kemmerer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]) demonstrated the utility of a concurrent-operant FCR preference assessment to establish a hierarchy of FCR topography preference across two FCR topographies (i.e., picture exchange and pressing a micro switch). Following the acquisition of the selected FCRs, the authors conducted an FCT evaluation comparison between the two topographies. Results of the FCT evaluation demonstrated that both participants engaged in high rates of FCRs across topographies while engaging in minimal rates of problem behavior. Following the FCT evaluation, a mand topography assessment was conducted to determine preference when the two topographies were concurrently available. Results of the mand topography assessment indicated a preference for one FCR topography over the other for both participants.</p> <p>More recently, Ringdahl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref26">22</reflink>]) extended Winborn-Kemmerer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref27">31</reflink>]) by evaluating the relation between preference and persistence of FCRs during treatment challenges outside of (experiment 1) and within (experiment 2) the context of treatment for problem behavior. Overall, highly preferred FCRs were more persistent than less preferred FCRs. The findings of both Winborn-Kemmerer et al. and Ringdahl et al. suggest the incorporation of preference for FCR topographies can influence the effectiveness of FCT.</p> <p>The growing evidence suggests that empirically deriving the FCR based on client preference may lead to better clinical outcomes and increased client autonomy. Notwithstanding client preference, clinicians may also consider the impact of including caregiver preference when selecting an FCR topography. Maintaining the effectiveness of FCT depends largely on maintaining the integrity of the intervention. Thus, caregiver non-adherence and acceptability of treatment procedures may produce less than desirable outcomes (Allen &amp; Warzak, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref28">1</reflink>]; Gabor et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref29">11</reflink>]). Therefore, incorporating caregiver preference into behavior analytic service can build relationships (Rohrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref30">24</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref31">25</reflink>]), increase adherence to and acceptability of treatment (Gabor et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref32">11</reflink>]; Kazdin, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref33">16</reflink>]), and improve clinical outcomes (Gabor et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>]; Owen et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref35">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Torelli et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref36">27</reflink>]) assessed acquisition and preference for different mand topographies across relevant establishing operations for one participant. Following the acquisition and preference assessment of the different mand topographies, the experimenters presented the participant's mother with the results and asked her to indicate the communication topography to use in the subsequent assessment. The participant's mother selected the mand topography preferred by the participant. These results suggest caregiver and child communication topography preferences may align; however, it is possible the caregiver's exposure to the results of the acquisition and preference assessment may have influenced their preference. Additionally, a ranking of the caregiver's preference for the other topographies was not obtained, so it is unclear if there was a preference hierarchy similar to the child participant.</p> <p>Given the limitations of Torelli et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref37">27</reflink>]), and the importance of promoting choice into treatment for problem behavior for both the target individual and their caregivers, the purpose of this study was twofold. The first purpose was to identify the target individual's preferred FCR topography via a mand topography assessment. The second purpose was to compare the results of the mand topography assessment with a formal assessment of caregiver preference of available FCR topographies.</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185422489-3">Participants, Setting, and Materials</hd> <p>Five children referred to an outpatient clinic for the assessment and treatment of problem behavior and their caregivers were included in this study. Table 1 depicts each participant's characteristics (i.e., age, gender, diagnosis, and FCR topographies taught). All sessions occurred in a padded session room that measured approximately 3.7 m by 3 m. The rooms included padded walls and floors with a one-way mirror for unobtrusive observation by data collectors as well as tables, chairs, and other relevant materials (e.g., snacks, academic materials, preferred tangible items) for each session. Materials included a voice generating button, iPad, laminated communication cards, and high, moderate, and low preferred items identified via paired-stimulus preference assessment prior to the functional analysis (Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1 Participant characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Participant&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Age&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sex&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Diagnosis&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Communication topographies&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tangible item&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Matthew&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;8&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Male&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;ASD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Card Touch, SGD, BP and Card Exchange&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Edibles&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Damien&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;8&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Male&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;ASD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocal, Sign, SGD, and Card Exchange&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tablet&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Dante&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;14&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Male&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;ASD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocal, Sign, SGD, and Card Exchange&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tablet&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ray&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;10&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Male&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;ASD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocal, Sign, SGD, and Card Exchange&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tablet&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bruce&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;15&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Male&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;ASD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Sign, Card Exchange, and SGD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tablet&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note</emph> SGD = speech generating device; BP = button press</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-4">Response Definitions, Data Collection, and Interobserver Agreement (IOA)</hd> <p>Independent functional communication responses (FCR) were defined as independently touching a communication card, touching an application icon on an iPad screen (SGD), signing, gestures, or emitting a vocal response without engaging in any targeted problem behavior in the presence of the relative establishing operation (i.e., removal of preferred item). Frequency data were collected on FCRs, converted to a percentage of selections, and ranked from most to least preferred to identify a child preference hierarchy. Data on caregiver preference were collected via a Microsoft Forms survey that included a question for caregivers to rank each of the mand topographies from most preferred to least preferred (see Table 2).</p> <p>Table 2 Caregiver preference assessment survey question</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table frame="hsides" rules="groups"&gt;&lt;thead&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Modality&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left" colspan="4"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Modality ranking&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gestures (e.g., point)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Picture exchange&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Speech generating device (e.g., tablet)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Spoken words (i.e., verbal speech)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;1&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;2&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;3&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>A secondary measure included frequency of child problem behavior, defined as the participant's body parts making forceful physical contact with another person's body, pushing, pinching, or scratching; property destruction, defined as forcefully hitting and throwing items, the ground, wall, or tables; and self-injury, defined as forceful hits to the face, head, or other body parts, self-choking, self-biting, or hair pulling. Data on problem behavior were converted to a rate for all participants except Dante. For Dante, data were collected on the frequency of problem behavior during each trial and were converted to a percentage of trials with problem behavior.</p> <p>A second trained observer independently collected data on FCRs (all participants) and problem behavior (all participants except for Matthew) during the mand topography assessment for at least 66.7% of all sessions. To calculate IOA, we divided sessions into 10-second intervals. Next, the total number of intervals for which both observers agreed on the frequency of responses was divided by the total number of intervals and multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage. For Matthew, IOA was calculated for 90% of all sessions. Overall agreement was 98.3% (range = 66.7 – 100%) across FCRs. For Damien, IOA was calculated for 100% of all sessions. Overall agreement was 93.9% (range = 80 – 100%) across FCRs and 99.9% (range 96.7 – 100%) across problem behavior. For Dante, IOA was calculated for 100% of all sessions. Overall agreement was 90% (range = 50 – 100%) across FCRs and 88.3% (range 0 – 100%) across problem behavior. For Ray, IOA was calculated for 66.7% of all sessions. Overall agreement was 100% across FCRs and problem behavior. For Bruce, total IOA was calculated for 100% of all sessions. Overall agreement was 100% across FCRs and problem behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-5">Functional Analysis</hd> <p>The functional analysis (FA) was conducted as described by Iwata and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref39">15</reflink>]) to determine the function of problem behavior. The functional analyses included attention, control, escape, and tangible conditions.</p> <p>The functional analysis results indicated problem behavior was maintained by escape from demands, access to attention, and access to tangibles for Dante, Damien, and Ray, escape from demands and access to tangibles for Bruce, and automatically maintained for Matthew. For Matthew, the functional analysis indicated suppression of problem behavior during the control condition. Therefore, teaching mands for items included in the control condition was deemed clinically appropriate. Functional analysis results are available upon request from the first author. For the purpose of this study, only mand topography assessment data for the tangible function are included. The other functions were addressed following the completion of the study procedures.</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-6">Mand Topography Assessment (Child Preference)</hd> <p>The purpose of the mand topography assessment mand topography assessment was to identify participant preference across FCR topographies. Prior to the mand topography assessment, each of the FCR topographies for the tangible reinforcer was taught to mastery (i.e., 80% or above correct independent responding across two consecutive sessions or 90% or above correct independent responding for one session). If the SGD was included as a topography and the tangible reinforcer was a tablet, two tablets were included in the sessions (i.e., one was used as the SGD and the other was used as the tangible reinforcer). Following teaching each topography to mastery, the mand topography assessment was implemented. Each mand topography assessment session was 5 min in duration, except for David. David's mand topography assessment was conducted in a trial-based format with 10 trials per session. Prior to each session, the therapist provided pre-session exposure by presenting the establishing operation (i.e., "it's my turn" plus removal of the preferred item) while simultaneously prompting the participant to emit each mand topography followed by the receipt of the reinforcer (i.e., 30-s access to the preferred item). The order by which topographies were prompted during pre-session exposure was randomized but rotated each session such that the last prompted mand topography differed each session. At the start of each session, the therapist provided a rule statement (e.g., "If you want to play with your iPad, you can show me the sign "play", touch your card, tell me, "Play", or touch your SGD device button"). The session began at the onset of the relevant establishing operation (i.e., "it's my turn" plus removal of the preferred item). Contingent on the emission of an FCR topography, the therapist provided 30-s access to the specified tangible reinforcer (e.g., iPad). The location of the SGD and Card touch (if included) were rotated following each delivery of the reinforcer in an attempt to detect potential side bias. There did not appear to be a side bias for any participants in this study. If two topographies co-occurred (e.g., card exchange and vocal occurred simultaneously), each occurrence was scored and 30-s access to the functional reinforcer was provided. This was only observed for one participant (Dante) who emitted the vocal FCR simultaneously with the SGD or Card Exchange. The therapist did not respond to problem behavior during the session (extinction).</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-7">Caregiver Preference Assessment</hd> <p>Caregivers' preference for their child's FCR topography was obtained via a Microsoft Forms survey that was emailed to the caregiver(s) prior to the mand topography assessment, except for Dante. Dante was the first participant included in this study and his caregiver completed the survey following the completion of the mand topography assessment but prior to reviewing Dante's preference data. Additionally, an error in the Microsoft Forms survey allowed Dante's mom to indicate multiple topographies for one ranking, which allowed her to rank multiple topographies as her top preferred (see Fig. 3). This was corrected for all subsequent caregiver participants.</p> <p>The survey included 21 questions related to the child's communication. Questions were intended to identify caregiver report of the child's previous and current communication, child communication deficits (e.g., caregiver resources for communication; access to an AAC device), and caregiver preference for FCR topographies. Table 2 depicts the caregiver preference question included in the survey. The preference question was identical across caregivers, except the FCR topographies listed differed. Specifically, the topographies included were the same topographies included in that caregiver's child's mand topography assessment. The topographies included for each caregiver were determined through caregiver interview (i.e., the caregiver reported their child has used a specific modality in the past or indicated they wanted to try using a specific modality), consulting with a speech and language pathologist or both. Additionally, prior to administering the survey, the first author met with the caregiver to review each topography included in the preference survey question to ensure the caregiver was familiar with how each would be utilized during FCT. The full 21-question survey is available from the first author upon request.</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-8">Results</hd> <p>Figure 1 depicts Matthew's rate of FCRs during the mand topography assessment (top panel), rate of problem behavior during (middle panel), Matthew's caregiver preference ranking (bottom left panel), and the average rate of FCRs (bottom right panel). Matthew allocated nearly all responses to the button press FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 1.96, range = 0.0–4.0) and rarely allocated responses to the SGD FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 0.06, range = 0.0–0.2), card touch FCR (M = 0.04, range = 0.0–0.2), or card exchange FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 0.02, range = 0.0–0.2). Problem behavior was variable throughout the mand topography assessment (<emph>M</emph> = 0.64, range = 0.0–2.6). Matthew's caregiver ranked the SGD as the most preferred topography, followed by card touch, button press, and card exchange. Collectively, Matthew's caregiver preference for the SGD FCR did not match Matthew's preference for the button press FCR in the mand topography assessment (i.e., the caregiver's highest ranked topography differed from Matthew's highest ranked topography).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Results for Matthew's MTA and caregiver preference ranking. Note The top panel depicts Matthew's rate of FCRs during the MTA, the middle panel depicts Matthew's rate of problem behavior during the MTA, the bottom left panel depicts Matthew's caregiver preference ranking, and the bottom right panel depicts Matthew's average rate of FCRs during the MTA</p> <p>Figure 2 depicts Damien's rate of FCRs during the mand topography assessment (top panel), rate of problem behavior (middle panel), Damien's caregiver preference ranking (bottom left panel), and average rate of FCRs (bottom right panel). Damien allocated most responses to the SGD FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 2.6, range = 0.0–3.6), some responses to the vocal FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 0.7, range = 0.0–1.6), few responses to the card exchange FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 0.4, range = 0.0–1.6), and no responses to the sign FCR. Problem behavior was initially low but increased towards the end of the mand topography assessment (<emph>M</emph> = 0.93, range = 0.0–3.8). Damien's caregiver ranked the vocal FCR as the most preferred topography, followed by card exchange, SGD, and sign. Collectively, Damien's caregiver preference for the vocal FCR did not match Damien's preference for the SGD FCR in the mand topography assessment (i.e., the caregiver's highest ranked topography differed from Damien's highest ranked topography).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Results for Damien's MTA and caregiver preference ranking. Note The top panel depicts Damien's rate of FCRs during the MTA, the middle panel depicts Damien's rate of problem behavior during the MTA, the bottom left panel depicts Damien's caregiver preference ranking, and the bottom right panel depicts Damien's average rate of FCRs during the MTA</p> <p>Figure 3 depicts Dante's percent of allocation of FCRs during the mand topography assessment (top panel), precent of trials with problem behavior (middle panel), Dante's caregiver preference ranking (bottom left panel), and average percent of allocation of FCRs (bottom right panel). Dante allocated most responses to either the card exchange FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 62%, range = 40 – 80%) or the vocal FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 52%, range = 20 – 90%) and rarely allocated responses to the sign FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 8%, range = 0 – 10%) or the SGD FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 6%, range = 0 – 20%). Problem behavior was variable throughout the mand topography assessment (<emph>M</emph> = 28%, range = 0 – 90%). Dante's caregiver ranked SGD, card exchange, and vocal as the most preferred topography and sign as the least preferred topography. Collectively, Dante's caregiver preference for the card exchange FCR partially matched Dante's preference in the mand topography assessment (i.e., the caregiver ranked three topographies as the most preferred and one of these topographies was the same as Dante's top preferred topography).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Results for Dante's MTA and caregiver preference ranking. Note The top panel depicts Dante's rate of FCRs during the MTA, the middle panel depicts Dante's rate of problem behavior during the MTA, the bottom left panel depicts Dante's caregiver preference ranking, and the bottom right panel depicts Dante's average rate of FCRs during the MTA</p> <p>Figure 4 depicts Ray's rate of FCRs during the mand topography assessment (top panel), rate of problem behavior (middle panel), caregiver preference rankings (bottom left panel) for both Ray's mother and father, and average rate of FCRs (bottom right panel). Ray allocated nearly all responses to the SGD FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 1.7, range = 1.6–1.8), rarely allocated responses to the vocal FCR (<emph>M</emph> = 0.1, range = 0.0–0.2), and did not allocate responses to the sign or card exchange FCRs. Problem behavior did not occur during the mand topography assessment. Ray's mother ranked the vocal FCR as the most preferred topography, followed by SGD, card exchange, and sign. Ray's father ranked sign as the most preferred topography, followed by vocal, card exchange, and SGD. Collectively, Ray's mother's preference for the vocal FCR and father's preference for the sign FCR did not match each other's or Ray's preference for the SGD FCR in the mand topography assessment (i.e., both caregivers' highest ranked topographies differed from Ray's highest ranked topography).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Results for Ray's MTA and caregiver preference ranking. Note The top panel depicts Ray's rate of FCRs during the MTA, the middle panel depicts Ray's rate of problem behavior during the MTA, the bottom left panel depicts Ray's caregiver preference ranking. Ray's mother's rankings are the left bars for each topography. Ray's mother's rankings are the right bars for each topography. The bottom right panel depicts Ray's average rate of FCRs during the MTA</p> <p>Figure 5 depicts Bruce's rate of FCRs during the mand topography assessment (top panel), rate of problem behavior (middle panel), Bruce's caregiver preference ranking (bottom left panel), and average rate of FCRs (bottom right panel). Bruce allocated all responses to the SGD FCR (1.8 RPM across all three sessions) and did not allocate any responses to the card exchange FCR or sign FCR. Problem behavior did not occur during the mand topography assessment. Bruce's caregiver ranked sign as the most preferred topography, followed by card exchange, and SGD. Collectively, Bruce's caregiver preference for the sign FCR did not match Bruce's preference for the SGD FCR in the mand topography assessment (i.e., the caregiver's highest ranked topography differed from Bruce's highest ranked topography).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Results for Bruce's MTA and caregiver preference ranking. Note The top panel depicts Bruce's rate of FCRs during the MTA, the middle panel depicts Bruce's rate of problem behavior during the MTA, the bottom left panel depicts Bruce's caregiver preference ranking, and the bottom right panel depicts Bruce's average rate of FCRs during the MTA</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-9">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study identified the participant's preferred FCR topography using a mand topography assessment and compared the results with the caregiver's preferred FCR topography. To evaluate the results of the mand topography assessment, the FCR topography with the highest average rate was deemed the most preferred FCR topography. To determine caregiver's preference, we administered a survey via Microsoft Forms and asked them to rank the FCR topographies included in their child's mand topography assessment. The preferred FCR topography was identified for all child and caregiver participants. However, child and caregiver preferences did not match, except for one partial match (Dante).</p> <p>Our study replicates the results of previous research that used pre-treatment mand topography assessments (Ringdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref40">22</reflink>]; Winborn and Kemmerer, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref41">31</reflink>]) by demonstrating the utility of conducting an mand topography assessment to identify a client's preference for a distinct FCR topography to enhance the ecological validity and effectiveness of FCT. In addition, our study extends previous research by formally assessing caregiver preference for their child's use of FCR topography and comparing the results of child and caregiver preferences because it is also essential for clinicians to consider how caregiver preferences influence the effectiveness of treatment outcomes (Owen et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref42">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although our study replicated and extended previous research, some procedural variations are worth noting. First, Winborn and Kemmerer ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref43">31</reflink>]) conducted a mand-choice analysis using a concurrent schedule design to identify a child's preference for a distinct topography across two participants. The participants were taught two novel mand topographies for the same functional reinforcer (i.e., tangible) based on the results of a functional analysis. The mand-choice analysis conducted by Winborn and Kemmerer (2009) and Ringdahl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref44">22</reflink>]) is procedurally identical to the mand topography assessment procedures utilized in this study. However, our study extended the use of an mand topography assessment to include a wider variety of FCR topographies, including a vocal FCR for some participants.</p> <p>Another difference between previous research and our study is that participants were taught each of the mand topographies to mastery prior to the mand topography assessment. Specifically, Ringdahl and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref45">22</reflink>]) assessed a participants' proficiency (i.e., correct independent responding within one 10-trial session) across mand topographies and only included high proficiency topographies in subsequent phases; however, no additional training was provided to increase correct independent responses for the low-proficiency topographies. Conversely, we taught all topographies to mastery, regardless of initial proficiency, prior to the mand topography assessment. This minimized the probability that skill deficits were not the cause of the non-emission of an FCR topography during the mand topography assessment.</p> <p>Finally, our study differs from previous research by assessing caregiver preferences prior to the caregiver knowing their child's preference. Our study found when caregivers indicated their preferences prior to knowing their child's preference, caregiver and child preferences did not match. Conversely, Torelli et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref46">27</reflink>]) assessed caregiver preference after reviewing the child's preference data with the caregiver and found caregiver and child preferences matched. Collectively, these findings suggest reviewing the child's preference data with the caregiver may influence caregiver preference. Based on this, the assessment of caregiver preference should be an ongoing process to account for shifts in preferences indicative of environmental contingencies and stimulus arrangements that may acquire control over responding specifically related to the assessment or training conditions.</p> <p>Our study has clinical implications that are worth noting. First, our study provides procedures that can be used to promote choice for both the target individual and their caregiver(s). Specifically, the mand topography assessment was used to determine child preference and subsequently promoted choice in their treatment. The inclusion of procedures to promote choice has been shown to improve the individual's participation in treatment and mitigate the occurrence of problem behavior (Bannerman et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>]; Dyer et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref48">9</reflink>]). Aside from the benefits choice and autonomy produce for the target individual, there are also several benefits of incorporating procedures to promote caregiver's choice in their child's treatment. By encouraging caregiver's choice in the selection of treatment procedures, clinicians produce more opportunities for collaboration with caregivers (Contreras et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref49">7</reflink>]; Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref50">25</reflink>]), and the collaborative effort may increase treatment acceptability, adherence, and integrity (Gabor et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref51">11</reflink>]; Kazdin, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref52">16</reflink>]; Owen et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another implication of our study is that caregiver and child preferences might not always align, as was the case with the participants in this study. As noted, incorporating the target individual's preference into the selection of an FCR topography promotes autonomy and can lead to more efficacious outcomes. However, it may be equally imperative to consider caregiver preference to facilitate generalized treatment outcomes in non-training settings and to promote the durability of FCT over time. For instance, a decrease in treatment integrity may be observed if FCT only includes the child's most preferred topography and not the caregiver's most preferred topography. Additionally, a decrease in the effectiveness of FCT may be observed if the caregiver's preferred topography is included without consideration for the child's most preferred topography. In both cases, the effectiveness and generality of treatment may be compromised, which can impact the client's right to effective treatment, hinder the client's autonomy, and restrict opportunities for the client to achieve socially significant outcomes. Given this, more research on how clinicians and researchers should navigate the difference between target individual and caregiver preference for the FCR topography is warranted.</p> <p>Since previous research found preference correspondence for mand topography between the child and the caregiver, clinicians should account for the contextual variables that may influence preference when they do not correspond. The clinician should consider the effectiveness of treatment, which includes rates of adaptive behavior and reduction in the child's target behavior, which may influence caregiver preference. Second, preferences may shift depending on the caregiver's experience implementing the treatment. More specifically, observed differentiation of preferences for mand topography may change depending on the setting in which the caregiver is implementing treatment. In addition, the feasibility and practicality of a particular mand topography in various settings may yield differences in caregiver preference. As aforementioned, assessing caregiver preference should be a frequent and ongoing process. Moreover, variables potentially influencing preference (e.g., observing sessions, conducting session, setting) should be identified and assessed to better understand any shifts in caregiver preferences. A final implication of our study is the pattern of preferences seen across participants. Specifically, three of the five participants preferred the SGD, one preferred card exchange, and one preferred the button press. These patterns seen across participants provide support for the use of an augmented and alternative communication of some type. Interestingly, FCR topography preference was more varied across caregivers than across child participants. Specifically, two caregivers preferred sign, one preferred vocal, one preferred the SGD, and one equally preferred the SGD, vocal, and card exchange topographies. The differences in preferences across caregivers provide evidence to support the use of a caregiver preference assessment for FCR topographies like the one employed in this study.</p> <p>This study is not without limitations. First, the number of trials to mastery differed across topographies. Given this, it is possible participants were given a longer history of reinforcement with one topography (i.e., a topography that required more trials to meet the mastery criteria) versus another (i.e., a topography that required fewer trials to meet mastery criteria). Future researchers should aim to equalize reinforcement history across topographies prior to the implementation of the mand topography assessment.</p> <p>A second limitation of our study is the inclusion of correlated stimuli for some of the FCR topographies and not others. Specifically, the button, SGD, and picture exchange FCR topographies had unprogrammed correlated stimuli. Conversely, the vocal and gesture topography had no correlated stimuli. It is possible that the presence of correlated stimuli may have served as SD for a response and, therefore, may have increased the likelihood and frequency of the child allocating towards the button press, SGD, or picture exchange topographies over the vocal or gesture topographies. To address this limitation, future research should include correlated stimuli for all FCR topographies included in the mand topography assessment.</p> <p>A final limitation of our study is the omission of procedural fidelity data for all participants and wide range in IOA for one participant (Dante). The former represents a significant methodological threat to the validity of our results as it is unclear the extent to which procedural implementation matched the prescribed research protocol. As such, we recommend that readers interpret our results cautiously and encourage those interested in extending this line of research to include procedural fidelity data in future studies. The latter, observed primarily with Dante's IOA for problem behavior, appears to be a function of disagreement between a single instance of aggression between the primary and secondary data collectors. Despite the large range in IOA for Dante's problem behavior, overall agreement was 88.3%.</p> <p>In addition to addressing these limitations, there are several avenues for future research. First, as previously discussed, future researchers may compare differences in caregiver integrity when the caregiver and child's preferred FCR topographies are included in FCT. Similarly, future research should compare the rate of FCRs and problem behavior during FCT when the caregiver and child's most preferred topography are included. Notwithstanding the influence caregiver and client preferences may have on treatment integrity and treatment integrity, there is limited research and guidance on clinical decision-making processes when preferences do not align, as shown in our study. Currently, in practice, when preferences differ, a clinician must utilize clinical judgment; however, the development of an ethical, effective, and empirically supported decision-making model for determining what is "clinically appropriate" or "clinically relevant" when caregiver and child preferences differ is warranted.</p> <p>A second area for future research includes identifying and assessing variables that affect child and caregiver preference. Possible variables that can influence preference include response effort, setting, and reinforcement history. Once these variables are identified, researchers and clinicians can better develop procedures to alter preference in the cases where caregiver and child preference for FCR topographies do not align.</p> <p>Finally, future research could assess mand topography preference over the course of FCT and schedule thinning implementation. Although this study and previous research provides procedures and preliminary results for mand topography preference at the start of FCT, it is unknown whether or not preference shifts over the course of treatment. More specifically, future researchers should include all FCR topographies during FCT and schedule thinning to assess shifts in FCR topography preferences over the course of treatment. Similarly, future researchers should assess caregiver preference at different points throughout treatment (e.g., before mand topography assessment, after the caregiver is aware of the child's preference, and at the end of treatment, etc.) to identify caregivers shifts in preferences for their child's FCR topography. Such data would allow for a better understanding regarding if and when preferences shift for both the child and caregiver and how changes in preference may impact the effects of treatment.</p> <p>This study adds to the general understanding that treatment for problem behavior must continue to be both efficacious and preferred by the individual receiving treatment and the relevant caregivers responsible for the long-term implementation of such prescribed behavior interventions. Overall, the results of the study contribute to a growing area of the literature that emphasizes promoting choice and autonomy for individuals who engage in problem behavior and enhancing collaboration with stakeholders to achieve socially significant treatment outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-10">Funding</hd> <p>The authors received no financial support for this research.</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-11">Data Availability</hd> <p>Data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Please address correspondence concerning this article to the corresponding author.</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-12">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185422489-13">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-14">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-15">Informed Consent</hd> <p>This research involved human participants. All participants provided informed consent for participation.</p> <hd id="AN0185422489-16">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0185422489-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref28" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, K. D, &amp; Warzak, W. J. (2000). The problem of parental nonadherence in clinical behavior analysis: Effective treatment is not enough. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-373.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref15" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey J, McComas JJ, Benavides C, Lovascz C. Functional assessment in a residential setting: Identifying an effective communicative replacement response for aggressive behavior. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2002; 14: 353-369. 10.1023/A:1020382819146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref47" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bannerman DJ, Sheldon JB, Sherman JA, Harchik AE. Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1990; 23; 1: 79-89. 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-79. 2186017. 1286212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref12" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bethune KS, Boyle J. Comparing response modes during functional communication training: Efficacy of acquisition and preference for students with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. 2023; 38; 2: 101-112. 10.1177/10883576221121276</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carr, E. G, &amp; Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Communication training Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 111–126.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref49" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Contreras BP, Hoffmann AN, Slocum TA. Ethical behavior analysis: Evidence-based practice as a Framework for ethical decision making. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2021; 15; 2: 619-634. 10.1007/s40617-021-00658-5. 35692530. 9120282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref22" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Diaz-Salvat CC, St. Peter CC, Shuler NJ. Increased number of responses may account for reduced resurgence following serial training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2020; 53; 3: 1542-1558. 10.1002/jaba.686. 32030747</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref48" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dyer K, Dunlap G, Winterling V. Effects of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of students with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1990; 23; 4: 515-524. 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-515. 2074240. 1286267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher W, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Hagopian LP, Owens JC, Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1992; 25: 491-498. 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491. 1634435. 1279726</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gabor AM, Fritz JN, Roath CT, Rothe BR, Gourley DA. Caregiver preference for reinforcement-based interventions for problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2016; 49; 2: 215-227. 10.1002/jaba.286. 26792408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanley GP, Iwata BA, Thompson RH. Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment with functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2001; 34; 1: 17-38. 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-17. 11317985. 1284294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houck EJ, Dracobly JD, Baak SA. A practitioner's guide for selecting functional communication responses. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2023; 16; 1: 65-75. 10.1007/s40617-022-00705-9. 37006421</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iwata BA, Dorsey MF, Slifer KJ, Bauman KE, Richman GS. Towards a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1994; 27; 2: 197-209. 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197. 8063622. 1297798</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazdin AE. Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1980; 13; 2: 259-273. 10.1901/jaba.1980.13-259. 7380752. 1308130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kunnavatana SS, Wolfe K, Aguilar AN. Assessing mand topography preference when developing a functional communication training intervention. Behavior Modification. 2018; 42; 3: 364-381. 10.1177/0145445517751437. 29353486</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Livingston CP, Melanson IJ, Martinez S, Anderson H. Evaluation of a break-to‐choice chained‐schedule intervention for multiply maintained problem behavior. Behavioral Interventions. 2023; 38: 836-848. 10.1002/bin.1941</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcus BA, Vollmer TR. Effects of differential negative reinforcement on disruption and compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1995; 28; 2: 229-230. 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-229. 16795864. 1279814</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Owen TM, Luczynski KC, Rodriguez NM, Fisher WW. Assessment of children's and caregivers' preferences for treatments for escape-maintained problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2021; 54; 3: 946-965. 10.1002/jaba.817. 33772782</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringdahl JE, Falcomata TS, Christensen TJ, Bass-Ringdahl SM, Lentz A, Dutt A, Schuh-Claus J. Evaluation of a pre-treatment assessment to select mand topographies for functional communication training. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2009; 30; 2: 330-341. 10.1016/j.ridd.2008.06.002. 18672344</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringdahl JE, Berg WK, Wacker DP, Crook K, Molony MA, Vargo KK, Taylor CJ. Effects of response preference on resistance to change. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2018; 109; 1: 265-280. 10.1002/jeab.308. 29319190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ringdahl JE, Crook K, Berg WK, Wacker DP, Molony M, Romani P, Ryan S, Ryan A, Zabala K. Further evaluation of prompt density, rate of reinforcement, and the persistence of manding. Behavioral Interventions. 2023. 10.1002/bin.1944</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohrer, J. L, Marshall, K. B, Suzio, C, &amp; Weiss, M. J. (2021). Soft skills: The case for compassionate approaches or how behavior analysis keeps finding its heart. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00563-x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor BA, LeBlanc LA, Nosik MR. Compassionate care in behavior analytic treatment: Can outcomes be enhanced by attending to relationships with caregivers?. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019; 12; 3: 654-666. 10.1007/s40617-018-00289-3. 31976276</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tiger JH, Hanley GP, Bruzek J. Functional communication training: A review and practical guide. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2008; 1; 1: 16-23. 10.1007/BF03391716. 22477675. 2846575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torelli JN, Lambert JM, Fonte D, Denham MA, Jedrzynski KN, Houchins- Juarez NJ. Assessing acquisition of and preference for mand topographies during functional communication training. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2015; 9; 2: 165-168. 10.1007/s40617-015-0083-y. 27606246. 4893029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsami L, Lerman DC. Transfer of treatment effects from combined to isolated conditions during functional communication training for multiply controlled problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2020; 53; 2: 649-664. 10.1002/jaba.629. 31441043</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volkert VM, Lerman DC, Call NA, Trosclair-Lasserre N. An evaluation of resurgence during treatment with function communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2009; 42; 1: 145-160. 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-145. 19721735. 2649835</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wacker DP, Berg WK, Harding JW, Derby MK, Asmus JM, Healy A. Evaluation and long-term treatment of aberrant behavior displayed by young children with disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 1998; 19: 260-265. 10.1097/00004703-199808000-00004. 9717135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winborn-Kemmerer L, Ringdahl JE, Wacker DP, Kitsukawa K. A demonstration of individual preference for novel mands during functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2009; 42; 1: 185-189. 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-185. 19721740. 2649840</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Cynthia P. Livingston; Jordan E. DeBrine; Isaac J. Melanson; Daniel Kwak and Brittany Tomasi</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref39"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1472211 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Comparison of Caregivers' and Children's Preference for Mand Topography during Functional Communication Training – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cynthia+P%2E+Livingston%22">Cynthia P. Livingston</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0955-4635">0000-0003-0955-4635</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jordan+E%2E+DeBrine%22">Jordan E. DeBrine</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Isaac+J%2E+Melanson%22">Isaac J. Melanson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4560-3414">0000-0003-4560-3414</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Daniel+Kwak%22">Daniel Kwak</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brittany+Tomasi%22">Brittany Tomasi</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Developmental+and+Physical+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2025 37(3):429-447. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 19 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Caregiver+Attitudes%22">Caregiver Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Childrens+Attitudes%22">Childrens Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preferences%22">Preferences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Verbal+Operant+Conditioning%22">Verbal Operant Conditioning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Topography%22">Topography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Functional+Behavioral+Assessment%22">Functional Behavioral Assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Communication+%28Thought+Transfer%29%22">Communication (Thought Transfer)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training%22">Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Caregiver+Child+Relationship%22">Caregiver Child Relationship</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1056-263X<br />1573-3580 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Functional communication training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is frequently utilized as a treatment for socially maintained problem behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). Although FCT is a viable treatment option for the reduction of problem behavior, researchers have identified several variables related to the selection of the functional communication response (FCR) topography that may influence treatment outcomes, including individual and caregiver preference. However, there may be times in which the target individual and caregiver preference do not match. Given this, there is a need for procedures to identify and compare both child and caregiver preferences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify a preferred FCR topography via mand topography assessment and compare results of the mand topography assessment with a formal assessment of caregiver preference. We found that both child and caregiver participants demonstrated a preference for at least one FCR topography. Although we identified a preference for both the child and caregiver participants, child and caregiver preference did not match, except for a partial match for one caregiver-child dyad. Clinical implications and recommendations for navigating next steps when client and caregiver preferences do not align are discussed. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1472211 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1472211 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 19 StartPage: 429 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Caregiver Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Childrens Attitudes Type: general – SubjectFull: Preferences Type: general – SubjectFull: Verbal Operant Conditioning Type: general – SubjectFull: Topography Type: general – SubjectFull: Functional Behavioral Assessment Type: general – SubjectFull: Communication (Thought Transfer) Type: general – SubjectFull: Training Type: general – SubjectFull: Caregiver Child Relationship Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Comparison of Caregivers' and Children's Preference for Mand Topography during Functional Communication Training Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Cynthia P. Livingston – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jordan E. DeBrine – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Isaac J. Melanson – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Daniel Kwak – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Brittany Tomasi IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 06 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1056-263X – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-3580 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 37 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
