Comparison of Mand Acquisition and Preference in Children with Autism Who Exhibit Problem Behavior
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparison of Mand Acquisition and Preference in Children with Autism Who Exhibit Problem Behavior |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Cynthia P. Livingston (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2025 37(3):519-534. |
| 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: | 16 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Verbal Operant Conditioning, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Children, Child Behavior, Behavior Problems, Behavior Modification, Preferences, Functional Behavioral Assessment, Communication (Thought Transfer), Reinforcement |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10882-024-09988-y |
| ISSN: | 1056-263X 1573-3580 |
| Abstract: | Functional communication training is a widely used function-based intervention to replace inappropriate and severe challenging behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). When considering which FCR topography to include in functional communication training, clinicians may consider several factors such as response effort, social significance, and preference. Prior research has investigated variables such as proficiency and preference; however, few studies have sought to examine the relationship, if any, between acquisition of and preference for mand topographies. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare responding during acquisition (i.e., sessions to mastery) to responding during a concurrent operant mand topography assessment (MTA). The results of this study indicated that all five participants acquired and demonstrated a clear preference for at least one FCR topography during the MTA. Additionally, for most participants, little to no problem behaviors were observed throughout the acquisition of FCRs and during MTA. Finally, the results showed the number of sessions and order of teaching (i.e., recency effects) do not appear to influence preference. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1472237 |
| 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_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFGzIeMnIoFupS5jf-a5BKYAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKaYmiyrQqrhS-NAbwIBEICBmwPhbb64nrVHTAwkHdYC1MQam_HyY71twtwC0usM0NVNs0vwokjPIKGvVxD-7j_Bz8n6WhIcpereoEeu7dl13WVa410XUsUg1pDtMEFNPcN4BbA15XuHTmZeHXhGopdcHrdLoxFJCok9HqJEL3SGolv6-oJmELUEtSHx2ces3ZhigLQ1CNvovO0TcflzBXh61pYJMO5lXkJpkkG9 Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0185422494;jdp01jun.25;2025May28.05:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0185422494-1">Comparison of Mand Acquisition and Preference in Children with Autism who Exhibit Problem Behavior </title> <p>Functional communication training is a widely used function-based intervention to replace inappropriate and severe challenging behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). When considering which FCR topography to include in functional communication training, clinicians may consider several factors such as response effort, social significance, and preference. Prior research has investigated variables such as proficiency and preference; however, few studies have sought to examine the relationship, if any, between acquisition of and preference for mand topographies. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare responding during acquisition (i.e., sessions to mastery) to responding during a concurrent operant mand topography assessment (MTA). The results of this study indicated that all five participants acquired and demonstrated a clear preference for at least one FCR topography during the MTA. Additionally, for most participants, little to no problem behaviors were observed throughout the acquisition of FCRs and during MTA. Finally, the results showed the number of sessions and order of teaching (i.e., recency effects) do not appear to influence preference.</p> <p>Keywords: Mand topography; Functional communication training; Choice and autonomy; Problem behavior; Psychology and Cognitive Sciences Psychology</p> <p>The original online version of this article was revised to add Dr Jessica P. Tran in the authorship.</p> <p>The field of Applied Behavior Analysis has continued to identify ways to promote choice and autonomy throughout assessment and treatment for those we serve (e.g., Rajaraman et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]; Staubitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref2">18</reflink>]). One such way to promote choice in the treatment of problem behavior is allowing the individual to choose their functional communication response (FCR) topography during functional communication training (FCT). Functional communication training is an efficacious treatment that substantially reduces a variety of socially maintained problem behaviors (e.g., aggression, self-injury, property destruction, tantrums) while also increasing appropriate alternative responses (Ghaemmaghami et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref3">5</reflink>]). Carr and Durand ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref4">3</reflink>]) introduced FCT to the literature by first identifying the cause of problem behavior via an antecedent functional analysis followed by teaching participants a FCR for problem behavior. The authors found a substantial reduction in problem behavior and increase in the FCR following communication training.</p> <p>Prior to implementing FCT, typically a functional analysis (FA; Iwata et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref5">8</reflink>]) is conducted to identify the function of problem behavior. Once the function is identified, a FCR is selected and taught. Differential reinforcement of an alternative response (DRA) is then implemented where FCRs are reinforced with the functional reinforcer for problem behavior and problem behavior no longer results in reinforcement (extinction). For example, Neely et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]) demonstrated a successful reduction in problem behavior for four toddlers at risk for an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis followed by successive delays to reinforcement. First, a functional behavior assessment was implemented to identify the variables controlling problem behavior. Next, one FCR topography (picture exchange or speech generating device) was taught via most-to-least prompting until the mastery criterion (i.e., two consecutive sessions with 100% independent FCRs and zero problem behavior) was met. Next, the authors increased the delay to reinforcement to a 5 s or 10 s delay until no problem behavior and 100% correct FCR were observed. Results of this study extend previous FCT literature by successfully decreasing problem behavior while teaching and increasing appropriate requests for the functional reinforcer for toddlers at risk for an ASD.</p> <p>Although a FA provides crucial information to develop a function-based intervention, the selection and use of a specific FCR <emph>topography</emph> may influence the effectiveness of treatment (e.g., Ringdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref7">15</reflink>]). That is, there are variables that should be taken into consideration when selecting the FCR topography, such as response effort (Horner &amp; Day, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]), available resources (Houck et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref9">7</reflink>]), proficiency (Ringdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]), and preference (Winborn-Kemmerer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref11">23</reflink>]). For example, Winborn-Kemmerer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>]) assessed the influence of participant preference for FCR topographies on responding during FCT. In their study, two FCR topographies were taught and compared across separate phases in an ABAB reversal FCT evaluation. Next, participant preference was assessed in a concurrent operant choice analysis in which rates of the two FCR topographies were compared. The results showed FCT was effective at decreasing problem behavior and increasing appropriate requests. Additionally, participants demonstrated a preference for one FCR topography when both topographies were concurrently available in the choice analysis. Nevertheless, only rate of correct responding was included during the FCT evaluation. It remains unclear if there were differences in rates of acquisition across topographies and if these rates corresponded with preference (e.g., the topography that look fewer sessions to acquire was most preferred).</p> <p>Ringdahl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref13">15</reflink>]) demonstrated proficiency of FCRs as a variable influencing the effectiveness of FCT by comparing high and low proficiency FCR topographies. Specifically, the authors conducted a pre-treatment FCR proficiency assessment in which independent and prompted responding was assessed for each FCR topography in a single 10-trial session. The FCR topography with the highest proficiency (i.e., highest percentage of independent responding) was compared to a low proficiency topography (i.e., lower percentage of independent responding) during an FCT evaluation. Results showed the high proficiency topography occurred at higher rates and resulted in a greater reduction in problem behavior than the low proficiency topography during FCT for all participants. This study provides evidence to suggest FCR topographies with a high percentage of correct independent responses lead to better treatment outcomes.</p> <p>More recently, Kunnavatana et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>]) examined child preference by conducting choice probes during the acquisition of the FCRs, followed by FCT. During acquisition sessions, least-to-most prompting was utilized to teach each of the FCR topographies (i.e., picture card, speech generating device, and sign). Choice-probe sessions were conducted following each acquisition block (i.e., one acquisition session conducted per topography). During choice probes, all FCR topographies were concurrently available and were reinforced on an FR 1 schedule of reinforcement. Once a preferred topography was identified, FCT was implemented with the most preferred FCR topography in an ABAB reversal design. The results showed at least one topography was acquired during acquisition and preferred during the choice probes. Additionally, FCT was found to be effective at decreasing problem behavior and the preferred FCR topography was utilized effectively. A critical finding of this study was that FCR topography preference emerged during the choice probes only once some proficiency (i.e., correct independent responding) was observed during acquisition sessions. For one participant (Kaleb), FCRs during the choice probes were not observed until a majority of the FCR topographies were acquired. For the other participant (Harry), responding during choice probes emerged following one teaching session for each of the topographies with proficient responding only observed for one topography (SGD). For both participants, mastery criteria were only met for some but not all topographies for both participants. These results suggest there may be a minimum level of proficiency needed to accurately assess preference. For this reason, it might be beneficial to conduct an MTA following acquisition, as opposed to during acquisition.</p> <p>As described, Ringdahl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]) demonstrated proficiency as an indicator of treatment effectiveness and the results of Kunnavatana et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref16">10</reflink>]) suggest preference does not emerge until a topography is taught to mastery or some amount of proficiency. Nonetheless, it remains unclear if responding during acquisition predicts responding during an MTA (preference) when conducted following mastery of all FCR topographies. Moreover, as the field of Applied Behavior Analysis moves towards increasing ways to incorporate autonomy in treatment (Rajaraman et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref17">13</reflink>]; Staubitz et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>]; trauma-informed care in treatment), the incorporation of client preference into FCT is likely to both promote client choice and autonomy in their treatment development and lead to more efficacious outcomes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare responding during acquisition (i.e., sessions to mastery) to responding during a concurrent operant mand topography assessment for children diagnosed with ASD who exhibit problem behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185422494-3">Participants, Setting, and Materials</hd> <p>Five individuals referred for the assessment and treatment of severe problem behavior (e.g., aggression, disruption, and self-injurious behavior or self-injurious behavior) were included in the study. Table 1 displays participant characteristics. All sessions were conducted at a university or hospital-based padded treatment room (approximately 3 m x 3 m), equipped with a one-way mirror, two-way intercom system, and a table and chair. Materials included a voice generating button press, iPad with a speech generating application, laminated communication cards, high, moderate, and low preferred items.</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;Gender&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Race&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Diagnoses&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Problem behavior&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Communication modalities prior to study&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Modalities included in MTA&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Primary Language&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;Eric&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;7&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;White&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;Aggression, disruption, SIB&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocal, one-word sentences, SGD (TD Snap), limited sign language&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocal, card touch, SGD, sign&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;David&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;12&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;White&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;ASD, SM, ADHD, OS&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Property destruction, aggression, SIB&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocal (scripting), SGD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocal, picture exchange, SGD, sign&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Brooks&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;4&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;Unknown&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;ASD, OS&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Aggression, disruption, SIB, noncompliance&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocal, short sentences&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Card touch, sign, vocal&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Min&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;5&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;Ethiopian&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;Aggression, property destruction&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Guiding adults to preferred items, gestures, SGD (TD Snap)&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Vocal, picture exchange, SGD&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Amharic&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Bridget&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;16&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Female&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Black&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;ASD, ID&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;SIB, aggression&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Gestures, guiding adults to preferred items, limited sign language&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;Button press, picture exchange, sign&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;&lt;p&gt;English&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>Autism spectrum disorder = ASD, Other Specified Disruptive, Impulse-Control, and Conduct Disorder, Intellectual Disorder = ID, ADHD = Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, SM = Stereotypic Movement Disorder with Self-injury, MTA = Mand Topography Assessment</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-4">Response Definitions, Data Collection, and Interobserver Agreement</hd> <p>For all participants, problem behavior included <emph>aggression</emph>, defined as the participant's body parts making forceful physical contact with another person's body, pushing, pinching, or scratching; <emph>property destruction</emph>, defined as forcefully hitting and throwing items, the ground, wall, or tables; and <emph>self-injurious behavior (SIB),</emph> defined as forceful hits to the face, head, or other body parts, self-choking, self-biting, or hair pulling. <emph>Independent FCRs</emph> were defined as engaging in the FCR topography without prompts. Card touch was defined as placing at least one finger or the palm of the hand on the FCR card. Card exchange was defined as picking up the FCR card and placing it in the hands of the session therapist. Button press was defined as placing at least one finger or the palm of the hand on the button with enough force that the button produced the recorded vocalization. Gesturing was individually defined for a given participants and included pointing or hand raising. Vocal responses were individual defined and ranged from full sentence vocalizations (e.g., "can I have the iPad") to one word vocalization (e.g., "iPad"). touching or exchanging a communication card, pressing an icon on an iPad screen signing, gesturing, or emitting the vocal response) without prompts or problem behavior.</p> <p>Trained observers independently collected frequency data on problem behavior and FCRs across topographies. Data on problem behavior was converted to a rate by dividing the total frequency of responding by the session duration. Data on FCRs were converted to a percent of correct trials during the acquisition phase or percentage of selection during the mand topography assessment (MTA).</p> <p>A second trained observer independently collected data on problem behavior and FCRs during the FCR acquisition phase and MTA for at least 40% and 18% of all sessions, respectively. During the FCR acquisition phase, the total number of trials for which both observers agreed on the occurrence of responses was divided by the total number of trials and multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage. During the MTA, we divided sessions into 10 s intervals to calculate interobserver agreement, except for David and Brooks due to their MTAs being a trial-based format. David and Brooks' MTA interobserver agreement was calculated based on the extent to which both observers agreed on the total number of responses multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage. 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. David's reliability was 92.63% (range = 76.6%-100%) during the MTA and 94.55% (range = 78–100%) during FCR acquisition. Brooks' reliability was 100% during the MTA. Eric's reliability was 97.61% (range = 87.49–100) during the MTA and 99.60 (range = 96.66–100%) during FCR acquisition. Min's and Bridget's reliability was 96.84% (range = 84.67–100) and 96.4% during the MTA, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-5">Pre-Assessments</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185422494-6">Preference Assessments</hd> <p>We conducted preference assessments to determine an array of high, moderate, and low preferred items to be utilized during the functional analysis, acquisition phase, and MTA. Items included in the preference assessment were determined by the caregiver's report. We conducted a paired stimulus preference assessment (Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]) for all participants except Eric. For Eric, a free operant preference assessment (Roane et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]) was conducted based on caregiver input and observation that the removal of preferred items would evoke problem behavior.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-7">Functional Analysis</hd> <p>The functional analysis (FA) was conducted as described by Iwata and colleagues (Iwata et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref21">8</reflink>]) to determine the function of severe behavior. During the <emph>attention</emph> condition, a trained therapist entered the room and provided attention in the form of vocal statements and physical touch for approximately one minute. The participant had continuous access to a low-preferred item (identified in the preference assessment). At the onset of session, the therapist removed their attention and pretended to be busy by reading a magazine. Contingent on the occurrence of a target behavior, the therapist provided attention for 30 -s. During the <emph>control</emph> condition, the participant had access to the therapist's attention, all tangible items, and no presentation of demands. During the <emph>escape</emph> condition, the therapist issued demands using three-step prompting (vocal, model, physical). Contingent on the occurrence of a target behavior, the therapist provided a 30-s break from instructions. A tangible condition (Vollmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>]) was also included for all participants. During the <emph>tangible</emph> condition, the therapist allowed approximately one minute of pre-session access to the participant's highly preferred item (identified in the preference assessment). At the onset of session, the therapist removed the item by saying, "It's my turn". Contingent on the occurrence of a target behavior, the therapist allowed access to the tangible for 30-s. All sessions were 10 min in length.</p> <p>The results of Eric, David's, Brooks', and Min's FA results indicated their problem behavior was maintained by escape from demands, access to attention, and access to tangibles. Bridget's FA results determined her problem behavior was access to tangibles and attention (see Supporting Information A, B, C, D, and E for the functional analysis outcomes). For the purpose of this study, only functional communication response acquisition and MTA data addressing the tangible function were included for all participants. The other functions were addressed following the completion of this study.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-8">Functional Communication Response Acquisition</hd> <p>The purpose of the functional communication response acquisition phase was to teach each of the FCR topographies to mastery prior to assessing preference in the MTA. Each participant was taught to emit three (Books, Min, and Bridget) or four (Eric and David) relevant mand topographies in 10-trial or 5 min (Eric only) session format. Each FCR topography was considered mastered if the participant reached 80% or above correct independent responding across two consecutive sessions or 90% or above correct independent responding for one session. The order in which the topographies were taught was randomized and each topography was taught to mastery prior to teaching the next topography, except for David due to a procedural integrity error in which the therapist moved onto teaching the next topography (sign) prior to meeting mastery criteria for vocal. The specific topographies were determined based on caregiver and therapist selection and included card touch, button press, card exchange, SGD (TDSnap application displayed on an iPad or tablet), vocal verbal response (e.g., "toys, please"), and gesture (see Table 1). Each topography was taught using a least to most prompting procedure (Tarbox et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref23">19</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-9">Mand Topography Assessment</hd> <p>The purpose of the MTA was to identify participants' preference for communication topography when all were concurrently available. Each session was 5 min in duration, except for David. David's MTA was conducted in a trial-based format that included 10 trials per session. Prior to each session, the therapist entered the session room and provided presession exposure to the relevant reinforcer (e.g., iPad). Next, the therapist provided a practice trial in which the participant was prompted to emit each mand topography followed by the receipt of the reinforcer. At the start of each session or trial (David only), 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 icon"). The session began at the onset of the relevant establishing operation (EO; e.g., removing the iPad or "It's my turn with your iPad"). Contingent on the emission of an FCR, the therapist provided 30 -s access to the specified reinforcer (e.g., iPad) on a fixed ratio 1 schedule of reinforcement. If two FCR topographies co-occurred (e.g., card exchange and vocal were emitted simultaneously), reinforcement was still provided and both topographies were scored. The therapist did not respond to problem behavior during sessions (extinction).</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-10">Results</hd> <p>Figure 1 depicts Eric's percent correct responses of functional communication responses (FCRs) for each mand topography during the FCR acquisition phase (top left panel), percent of allocation of FCRs during the MTA (top right panel), rate of problem behavior during the FCR acquisition phase (bottom left panel) and the MTA (bottom right panel). During the FCR acquisition phase (top left panel), Eric met mastery for the card touch FCR during the FCR acquisition phase in six sessions, the SGD FCR in eight sessions, the sign FCR in three sessions, and the vocal FCR in seven sessions. Additionally, little to no problem behavior occurred during the FCR acquisition sessions (M = 0.05 rpm; range, 0–0.4 rpm). During the MTA (top right panel), Eric allocated responding almost exclusively toward the SGD (M = 98.57%; range, 90–100%), with little vocal FCR responding (M = 1.42%; range, 0–10%), and no response allocation towards the card touch and sign topographies. Additionally, no problem behavior was observed during the MTA (bottom right panel).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Functional communication responses (FCRs) and problem behavior during acqusition and the mand topography assessment for Eric.The left panel depicts responding during the acqusition phase and the right panel depicts responding during the mand topography assessment. SGD = speech generating device</p> <p>Figure 2 depicts Brooks' percent correct responses of FCRs for each mand topography during the FCR acquisition phase (top left panel), percent of allocation of FCRs during the MTA (top right panel), and rate of problem behavior during the FCR acquisition phase (bottom left panel), and the MTA (bottom right panel). During the FCR acquisition phase, Brooks met mastery criteria for each FCR topography within four sessions. Additionally, no problem behavior was observed during these sessions (bottom left panel). During the MTA (top right panel), Brooks allocated responding toward the sign FCR (M = 90%; range, 70–100%), followed by card touch FCR (M = 17.5%; range, 0–30%), with no allocation towards the vocal FCR. No problem behavior was observed during the MTA (bottom right panel).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Functional communication responses (FCRs) and problem behavior during acqusition and the mand topography assessment for Brooks. The left panel depicts responding during the acqusition phase and the right panel depicts responding during the mand topography assessment. SGD = speech generating device</p> <p>Figure 3 depicts David's percent correct responses of FCRs for each mand topography during the FCR acquisition phase (top left panel), percent of allocation of FCRs during the MTA (top right panel), and percentage of trials with problem behavior during the FCR acquisition phase (bottom left panel), and the MTA (bottom right panel). During the FCR acquisition phase, David met the mastery criteria for the card touch, SGD, and sign FCRs in one session and the vocal FCR in three sessions. Additionally, problem behavior was observed consistently across the FCR acquisition sessions (bottom left panel). During the MTA, David allocated responding toward the card touch FCR (M = 62%; range, 40–80%), followed by the vocal FCR (M = 42%; range, 0–90%), sign FCR (M = 10%; range, 10%), and SGD FCR (M = 6%; range, 0–20%), respectively. Additionally, percentage of trials with problem behavior was variable across the MTA (M = 26%; range, 0%-90%).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Functional communication responses (FCRs) and problem behavior during acqusition and the mand topography assessment for David</p> <p>Figure 4 depicts Min's percent correct responses of FCRs for each mand topography during the FCR acquisition phase (top left panel), percent of allocation of FCRs during the MTA (top right panel), and percentage of trials with problem behavior during the FCR acquisition phase (bottom left panel), and the MTA (bottom right panel). During the FCR acquisition phase (top left panel), Min met mastery for the card exchange and vocal FCRs in four sessions and the SGD FCR in one session during the FCR acquisition phase. Variable problem behavior was observed during picture exchange acquisition (M = 27.5%; range 0–60%) and little to no problem behavior observed during vocal (M = 2.5%; range, 0–10%) and SGD (M = 0%) acquisition. During the MTA (top right panel), Min allocated responding toward the SGD FCR (M = 98%; range, 90–100%), followed by the card exchange FCR (M = 2%; range, 0–10%), with no allocation towards the vocal FCR. Additionally, no problem behavior was observed during the MTA (bottom right panel).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Functional communication responses (FCRs) and problem behavior during acqusition and the mand topography assessment for Min</p> <p>Figure 5 depicts Bridget's percent correct responses FCRs for each mand topography during the FCR acquisition phase (top left panel), percent of allocation of FCRs during the MTA (top right panel), and rate of problem behavior during the MTA (bottom right panel). Bridget met mastery criteria for the button press and card exchange FCRs in two sessions and the sign FCR in five sessions. During the MTA (top right panel), Bridget primarily allocated responding toward the card exchange FCR (M = 42%; range, 0–90%), followed by the button press FCR (M = 62%; range, 40–80%), with no allocation towards the sign FCR. Problem behavior was observed for one out of the eight sessions ran during the MTA (bottom right panel; M = 0.71 rpm; range, 0–5.64 rpm).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Functional communication responses (FCRs) and problem behavior during acqusition and the mand topography assessment for Bridget. The left panel depicts responding during the acqusition phase and the right panel depicts responding during the mand topography assessment</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-11">Discussion</hd> <p>The results of this study indicate all participants acquired and demonstrated a clear preference for at least one FCR topography during the MTA. Brooks demonstrated mastery of all three FCRs (card touch, sign, and vocal), and exhibited differentiated preference for sign compared to the others. Eric acquired card touch, SGD, sign, and vocal FCRs, and had a clear preference for SGD. David acquired card touch, SGD, vocal, and sign FCRs. While less apparent than the others, David did demonstrate preference for card touch FCR followed closely by the vocal FCR. Min acquired picture exchange, SGD, and vocal FCRs, and allocated primarily to SGD during the MTA. Bridget acquired picture exchange, sign, and button press FCRs. During the MTA, she allocated responding to the button press.</p> <p>For most participants, little to no problem behavior was observed throughout the acquisition of FCRs and during MTA. Specifically, Eric, Brooks, and Min exhibited zero to low levels of problem behavior during the acquisition of FCRs. Eric, Brooks, Min, and Bridget exhibited zero to low levels of problem behavior during the MTA sessions. David exhibited problem behavior in a larger percentage of trials during the acquisition of FCR. It is notable that problem behavior decreased as correct vocal FCRs increased. Nevertheless, problem behavior was also observed during the MTA, but decreased in latter sessions.</p> <p>Similar to previous research, we included an assessment to determine preference for FCRs topographies (Kunnavatana et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]; Winborn-Kemmerer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>]) and found when multiple FCR topographies were taught, preference for at least one topography emerged when assessed in a concurrent operant arrangement. We extended previous research in several respects. First, we bolstered previous work by Ringdahl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref26">15</reflink>]) by teaching all FCR topographies to acquisition, regardless of initial proficiency. Second, we systematically replicated the results of Kunnavatana et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>]) by demonstrating preference emerges following acquisition of FCR topographies. Third, we included more FCR topographies (Ringdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref28">15</reflink>]; Winborn-Kemmerer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref29">23</reflink>]), that included vocal FCRs as a topography for four of our five participants (Kunnavatana et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref30">10</reflink>]; Ringdahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref31">15</reflink>]; Winborn-Kemmerer et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>]). Finally, by teaching each FCR topography to acquisition and comparing responding during acquisition responding during the MTA, we demonstrated that acquisition of FCR topographies had a profound impact on preference for most of our participants. For one participant (David), proficiency did not appear to influence preference. David's pattern of responding was much more variable than the other participants. In David's case, it may be that response effort influenced responding, which is consistent with prior research on the effects of response effort on the independence and preference of FCRs during FCT (Torelli et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref33">21</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-12">Research implications</hd> <p>There are several future research implications to the current study. Our results suggest the order of teaching, or recency effects, may not influence preference in all cases. Specifically, the order in which topographies were taught did not appear to affect relative preference for four (Bridget, David, Brooks, and Eric) of the five participants. Additionally, the number of trials to acquisition for each topography did not appear to affect relative preference for that topography. That is, there did not appear to be any patterns of the topography requiring the most or least number of trials to acquisition correlating with the most preferred topography during the MTA. Interestingly, FCR topographies associated with stimuli (i.e., button press, SGD, and picture touch/exchange) were identified as the most preferred topography by four of the five participants. It is possible the correlated stimuli (e.g., iPad or picture card) served as an unprogrammed discriminative stimulus (SD) and ultimately influenced the results of the MTA. For example, the SGD topography required the presence of materials (iPad) that, when paired with the functional reinforcer, may have functioned as an SD. Conversely, no materials were required to emit the vocal or sign topographies. Nevertheless, for all participants who preferred FCRs with correlated stimuli, responding to other FCR topographies with correlated stimuli rarely, if ever, occurred. This suggests the specific features of the FCR topography materials (e.g., auditory feedback, color of stimuli, etc.) may affect responding. Houck et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>]) described considerations for individual factors, such as communication abilities, physical abilities, and vision. Additional individual considerations may include sensory sensitivities, and hearing differences, which may impact preference for FCR topographies. Notwithstanding, additional research assessing variables that influence FCR topography preference is warranted.</p> <p>Another implication of our study relates to the influence of FCR topography preference on responding during schedule thinning. Previous research has examined the impact of schedule thinning on resurgence of problem behavior, with results suggesting resurgence in problem behavior occurred in 40–76% of cases during schedule thinning (Briggs et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>]; Muething et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref36">11</reflink>]). While prior research has demonstrated the impact of schedule thinning on the resurgence of problem behavior, less is known about the impact of schedule thinning on FCR preference and the durability of FCR preferences through schedule thinning. Ringdahl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]) examined the influence of FCR topography preference on the persistence of FCRs and problem behavior during treatment disruptions. They found more preferred FCR topographies persisted and, for some participants, mitigated the occurrence of problem behavior when extinction was in place for all responses (treatment disruption). Nevertheless, Ringdahl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref38">15</reflink>]) did not continue to examine changes in FCR responding throughout schedule thinning. It is possible that allocation to different topographies of mands may change when all FCR topographies are exposed to extinction or an S-Delta period and how these maintain through time as a result of schedule thinning. Additionally, future studies could measure caregiver preference, and how it compares to participant preference.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-13">Practical implications</hd> <p>As previously mentioned, Houck et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>]) recommends taking the individual's everyday environment into consideration (e.g., caregiver behavior) when selecting an FCR topography and Tiger et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>]) suggests social recognition of the FCR topography should also be considered, to promote maintenance and generalization of the FCR. Given this, caregiver preference should be considered and examined to determine its relation to client preference.</p> <p>An important recommendation of this study relates to autonomy and choice-making, and how these are of paramount importance and should be established in all facets of care. Not only may supporting clients in their choice-making have collateral benefits both within an intervention package (e.g., reinforcing preferred FCRs mitigates problem behavior), and in generalized ways (e.g., improving rapport with the implementer), choice-making should be emphasized and evaluated to the extent possible in all behavioral interventions (Rajaraman et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>]). This sentiment is emphasized by Kranak and Brown ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref42">9</reflink>]) and suggests incorporating preference empowers clients to have autonomy in their treatment planning. In addition, planning for client autonomy and choice represents a core principle of ethical behavior for behavior analysts, according to the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB), who strive to promote client's self-determination (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>]).</p> <p>Houck et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref44">7</reflink>]) recently provided several recommendations for considering a response topography during FCT, including individual (e.g., the individual's physical abilities that might make one topography more effortful than another topography) and the individual's everyday environment (e.g., caregiver recognition of the response topography). They also recommend if several topographies are identified as optimal based on other factors, consider factors such as ease of prompting the topography and individual preference. The results of our study show using least-to-most prompting to teach an FCR topography resulted in acquisition in an average of 3.76 sessions and preference was identified in the MTA in an average of 5.8 sessions across all participants. These findings highlight both the efficiency and importance of planning for choice-making as a consideration when selecting a response topography during functional communication programming, to ensure that behavior analysts are incorporating autonomy and promoting self-determination to the extent possible with those with whom we work.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-14">Limitations</hd> <p>This study is not without limitations. David's acquisition phase included only one or two sessions, and it is unclear if correct FCRs would have persisted after such a short acquisition period. However, David's responding during the MTA, when least-to-most prompting was no longer in place, suggests he acquired all FCR topographies. Similarly for Bridget, correct emittance of the button press decreased to 30 percent during the last session of the button press phase during acquisition. Clinical judgment outside of sessions necessitated the continuation of FCR acquisition for the other FCRs. Bridget acquired the button press easily during the first two sessions, and the third session appeared to be an outlier. This is a limitation that the acquisition trials were not continued to better understand the impact that Bridget's acquisition had on her preference during the MTA. Another limitation is that problem behavior was not measured during Bridget's FCR acquisition phase, impacting the evaluation of the extent to which the presence of problem behavior affects acquisition of FCRs for Bridget. Finally, low interobserver agreement was obtained in the MTA (18%).</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-15">Conclusion</hd> <p>Overall, we demonstrated that proficiency and preference are positively associated. By teaching multiple FCRs and including them in an MTA, participants exhibited clear responding, facilitating the creation and implementation of a comprehensive reinforcement-based treatment. Most importantly, we assert that encouraging client decision-making should be a central part of the process of behavioral assessment, intervention, and generalization.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-16">Funding</hd> <p>The authors received no financial support for this research.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-17">Data Availability</hd> <p>Data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-18">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185422494-19">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="AN0185422494-20">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-21">Informed Consent</hd> <p>All participants provided informed consent for participation in the procedures described in this manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-22">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (PDF 6 KB)</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file2 (PDF 5 KB)</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file3 (PDF 5 KB)</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file4 (PDF 5 KB)</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file5 (PDF 5 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0185422494-23">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0185422494-24"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref43" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts. https://bacb.com/wp-content/ethics-code-for-behavior-analysts/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref35" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Briggs AM, Fisher WW, Greer BD, Kimball RT. Prevalence of resurgence of destructive behavior when thinning reinforcement schedules during functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2018; 51; 3: 620-633. 10.1002/jaba.472. 29774545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref4" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Carr EG, Durand VM. Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1985; 18; 2: 111-126. 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111. 2410400. 1307999</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref19" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Fisher WW, 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> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref3" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ghaemmaghami M, Hanley GP, Jessel J. Functional communication training: From efficacy to effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2021; 54; 1: 122-143. 10.1002/jaba.762. 32929757</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Horner RH, Day HM. The effects of response efficiency on functionally equivalent competing behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1991; 24; 4: 719-732. 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-719. 1839157. 1279630</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref9" type="bt">7</bibl> <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> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref5" type="bt">8</bibl> <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> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref42" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Kranak MP, Brown KR. Updated recommendations for reinforcement schedule thinning following functional communication training. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2023; 17; 1: 1-20. 10.1007/s40617-023-00863-4</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> Muething C, Pavlov A, Call N, Ringdahl J, Gillespie S. Prevalence of resurgence during thinning of multiple schedules of reinforcement following functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2021; 54; 2: 813-823. 10.1002/jaba.791. 33103244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neely L, Carnett A, Cantrell K, Stegemann S, Svoboda M. Functional communication training for toddlers at-risk for autism with early problem behavior. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders. 2022; 6; 4: 537-548. 10.1007/s41252-022-00306-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rajaraman A, Hanley GP, Gover HC, Staubitz JL, Staubitz JE, Simcoe KM, Metras R. Minimizing escalation by treating dangerous problem behavior within an enhanced choice model. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2022; 15; 1: 219-242. 10.1007/s40617-020-00548-2. 35340377</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rajaraman A, Austin JL, Gover HC. A practitioner's guide to emphasizing choice-making opportunities in behavioral services provided to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities. 2023; 69; 1: 101-110. 10.1080/20473869.2022.2117911. 36743319. 9897779</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, Neurnberger JE, Zabala K, 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> Roane HS, Vollmer TR, Ringdahl JE, Marcus BA. Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1998; 31; 4: 605-620. 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-605. 9891397. 1284151</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Staubitz JL, Staubitz JE, Pollack MS, Haws RA, Hopton M. Effects of an enhanced choice model of skill-based treatment for students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2022; 55; 4: 1306-1341. 10.1002/jaba.952. 36106693</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tarbox RS, Wallace MD, Penrod B, Tarbox J. Effects of three-step prompting on compliance with caregiver requests. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2007; 40; 4: 703-706. 10.1901/jaba.2007.703-706. 18189103. 2078579</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, Da Fonte MA, Denham KN, Jedrzynski TM, Houchins- Juarez NJ. Assessing acquisition of and preference for mand topographies during functional communication training. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2016; 9; 2: 165-168. 10.1007/s40617-015-0083-y. 27606246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vollmer TR, Marcus BA, Ringdahl JE, Roane HS. Progressing from brief assessments to extended experimental analyses in the evaluation of aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1995; 28; 4: 561-576. 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-561. 16795882. 1279860</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; Jessica P. Tran; Brinea M. Charles; Sara R. Jeglum; Mathew C. Luehring and Patricia F. Kurtz</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref41"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1472237 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Comparison of Mand Acquisition and Preference in Children with Autism Who Exhibit Problem Behavior – 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="%22Jessica+P%2E+Tran%22">Jessica P. Tran</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brinea+M%2E+Charles%22">Brinea M. Charles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sara+R%2E+Jeglum%22">Sara R. Jeglum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mathew+C%2E+Luehring%22">Mathew C. Luehring</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Patricia+F%2E+Kurtz%22">Patricia F. Kurtz</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):519-534. – 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: 16 – 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="%22Verbal+Operant+Conditioning%22">Verbal Operant Conditioning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism+Spectrum+Disorders%22">Autism Spectrum Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Behavior%22">Child Behavior</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Modification%22">Behavior Modification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preferences%22">Preferences</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="%22Reinforcement%22">Reinforcement</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s10882-024-09988-y – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1056-263X<br />1573-3580 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Functional communication training is a widely used function-based intervention to replace inappropriate and severe challenging behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). When considering which FCR topography to include in functional communication training, clinicians may consider several factors such as response effort, social significance, and preference. Prior research has investigated variables such as proficiency and preference; however, few studies have sought to examine the relationship, if any, between acquisition of and preference for mand topographies. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare responding during acquisition (i.e., sessions to mastery) to responding during a concurrent operant mand topography assessment (MTA). The results of this study indicated that all five participants acquired and demonstrated a clear preference for at least one FCR topography during the MTA. Additionally, for most participants, little to no problem behaviors were observed throughout the acquisition of FCRs and during MTA. Finally, the results showed the number of sessions and order of teaching (i.e., recency effects) do not appear to influence preference. – 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: EJ1472237 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1472237 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s10882-024-09988-y Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 16 StartPage: 519 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Verbal Operant Conditioning Type: general – SubjectFull: Autism Spectrum Disorders Type: general – SubjectFull: Children Type: general – SubjectFull: Child Behavior Type: general – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems Type: general – SubjectFull: Behavior Modification Type: general – SubjectFull: Preferences Type: general – SubjectFull: Functional Behavioral Assessment Type: general – SubjectFull: Communication (Thought Transfer) Type: general – SubjectFull: Reinforcement Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Comparison of Mand Acquisition and Preference in Children with Autism Who Exhibit Problem Behavior Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Cynthia P. Livingston – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jessica P. Tran – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Brinea M. Charles – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Sara R. Jeglum – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Mathew C. Luehring – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Patricia F. Kurtz 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 |
