Communication, Problem Behavior, Self-injury
Conditions
Brief summary
Background: Functional communication training (FCT) is a commonly used intervention for teaching appropriate communication skills to children with intellectual disabilities who exhibit severe destructive behavior. Resurgence as Choice (RaC) Theory, a quantitative model of behavior, may help to explain why treatment relapse often occurs after FCT. This project will use the predictions of RaC to improve FCT treatments. Objective: To test the predictions made by RaC with human participants who exhibit severe destructive behavior. Eligibility: Children between the ages of 3 and 19 who display destructive behavior that is maintained by social consequences, who have IQ and adaptive behavior scores between 35 and 70, who are on a stable psychoactive drug regimen (or drug free) for at least 10 half-lives of each medication with no anticipated changes, and who have a stable educational plan and placement will be be eligible to enroll.
Detailed description
Children with intellectual disabilities often display severe destructive behaviors that pose significant risk to self or others and represent barriers to community integration. These destructive behaviors are often treated with behavioral interventions derived from a functional analysis (FA), which is used to identify the environmental antecedents and consequences that occasion and reinforce (i.e., reward) the target response. One such treatment is called differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), which involves extinction (i.e., removal of rewards) of destructive behavior and reinforcement of an alternative communication response with the consequence that previously reinforced destructive behavior. Results from review studies indicate that interventions based on an FA, like DRA, typically reduce problem behavior by 90% or more. One commonly used DRA intervention is functional communication training (FCT). During FCT, clinicians withhold reinforcement for destructive behavior and teach the individual a functional communication response to access reinforcement. For instance, a clinician may teach the child to exchange communication cards to express their wants and needs. However, DRA interventions reported in the literature have typically been evaluated by experts in controlled research settings, and treatment relapse often occurs in the natural environment when a caregiver is unable reinforce the DRA response every time that the response occurs due to competing responsibilities. Accordingly, a recent investigation of 25 applications of DRA found that relapse of problem behavior occurred in 76% of cases. Resurgence as Choice Theory helps to explain why treatment relapse occurs under these circumstances and also provides mathematical equations that can be used to predict the variables that increase and decrease the likelihood that treatment relapse will occur. In this project, the investigators have used these equations to identify refinements to DRA that are likely to decrease the probability that treatment relapse will occur when the DRA response is not reinforced. In some cases, these refinements are at odds with what is recommended in the clinical literature on DRA. Therefore, it is important to evaluate these refinements that are derived from Resurgence as Choice Theory in order to determine the best way to implement DRA, so that treatment remains effective when it is implemented with less than perfect precision by caregivers in the natural environment. The two predictions that are most relevant to our project are (a) resurgence of destructive behavior will decrease with increased DRA treatment duration, and (b) resurgence of destructive behavior will decrease with smaller, rather than larger, decreases in the availability of alternative reinforcement during the process of reinforcement schedule thinning. Accordingly, our project will examine the effects of different durations of DRA on resurgence and evaluate the effects of differently sized decreases in the availability of reinforcement to avoid resurgence. Findings from this project could have vast clinical implications for the treatment of severe destructive behavior.
Interventions
During functional communication training (FCT), the social consequence (e.g., attention, toys, breaks from instructions) that heretofore reinforced destructive behavior (i.e., as determined through a functional analysis) is delivered contingent on an appropriate communication response, while destructive behavior is on extinction (i.e., reinforcers are no longer provided). For example, if a functional analysis shows that aggression is reinforced by escape from demands, FCT would typically involve (a) teaching the child to access breaks from demands via a functional communication response (FCR; e.g., saying, Break, please) and (b) placing destructive behavior on extinction (i.e., continuing with scheduled demands independent of destructive behavior).
Sponsors
Study design
Eligibility
Inclusion criteria
1. males and females between the ages of 3 and 19; 2. problem behavior (e.g., aggression, property destruction, self-injurious behavior) that has been the focus of outpatient behavioral and pharmacological treatment but continues to occur, on average, more than once per hour; 3. problem behavior reinforced by social consequences (i.e., significantly higher and stable rates of the behavior in one or more social test conditions of a functional analysis \[e.g., attention, escape\] relative to the control condition \[play\] and the test condition for automatic reinforcement \[alone or ignore\]); 4. IQ and adaptive behavior scores between 35 and 70 (i.e., mild to moderate intellectual disability); 5. on a stable psychoactive drug regimen (or drug free) for at least 10 half-lives of each medication with no anticipated changes; 6. stable educational plan and placement, with no anticipated changes during the study.
Exclusion criteria
\-
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Highest Response Rate | Through study completion, an average of 4 months. | Mean responses per minute of destructive during the resurgence test conditions are compared within-participant to determine whether response rates are highest in the test condition predicted by the model to produce the highest rate of responding. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Lowest Response Rate | Through study completion, an average of 4 months. | Mean responses per minute of destructive during the resurgence test conditions are compared within-participant to determine whether response rates are lowest in the test condition predicted by the model to produce the lowest rate of responding. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Evaluation of Treatment Dosage In Arm 1, we will examine the optimal duration of treatment with functional communication training (FCT). Investigators will treat each participant's behavior using FCT in three distinct contexts which will be associated with either short, moderate, or extended treatment durations. The investigators will counterbalance the order of treatment durations (short, moderate, and extended) across participants, but each individual will receive treatment at each duration. Resurgence will be tested following each treatment duration. | 4 |
| Evaluation of Size of Decrease in Alternative Reinforcement In Arm 2, we will evaluate whether smaller, rather than larger, decreases in the availability of alternative reinforcement decreases the magnitude of resurgence. Investigators will counterbalance the order of differently sized decreases in alternative reinforcement with half of the participants in Arm 2 to determine whether the order of such decreases also affects resurgence magnitude. | 11 |
| Total | 15 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Evaluation of Treatment Dosage | Total | Evaluation of Size of Decrease in Alternative Reinforcement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 8.75 Years | 10.73 Years | 11.45 Years |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 2 Participants | 4 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 2 Participants | 8 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants | 3 Participants | 3 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 2 Participants | 7 Participants | 5 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 2 Participants | 8 Participants | 6 Participants |
| Responses per minute of combined destructive behavior at or above 1.0 in baseline | 4 Participants | 15 Participants | 11 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 0 Participants | 2 Participants | 2 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 4 Participants | 13 Participants | 9 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 4 | 0 / 11 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 4 | 0 / 11 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 4 | 0 / 11 |
Outcome results
Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Highest Response Rate
Mean responses per minute of destructive during the resurgence test conditions are compared within-participant to determine whether response rates are highest in the test condition predicted by the model to produce the highest rate of responding.
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 4 months.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of Treatment Dosage | Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Highest Response Rate | 1 Participants |
| Evaluation of Size of Decrease in Alternative Reinforcement | Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Highest Response Rate | 5 Participants |
Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Lowest Response Rate
Mean responses per minute of destructive during the resurgence test conditions are compared within-participant to determine whether response rates are lowest in the test condition predicted by the model to produce the lowest rate of responding.
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 4 months.
| Arm | Measure | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of Treatment Dosage | Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Lowest Response Rate | 2 Participants |
| Evaluation of Size of Decrease in Alternative Reinforcement | Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Lowest Response Rate | 6 Participants |