Skip to content

Resurgence as Choice: Basic and Clinical Studies

Basic and Clinical Studies in Reinforcing Positive Behaviors in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03423940
Enrollment
17
Registered
2018-02-06
Start date
2018-06-28
Completion date
2023-08-02
Last updated
2024-09-03

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Communication, Problem Behavior, Self-injury

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

Utah State University
CollaboratorOTHER
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
3 Years to 19 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Highest Response RateThrough 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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Lowest Response RateThrough 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

ArmCount
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
Total15

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicEvaluation of Treatment DosageTotalEvaluation of Size of Decrease in Alternative Reinforcement
Age, Continuous8.75 Years10.73 Years11.45 Years
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
2 Participants4 Participants2 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
2 Participants8 Participants6 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants3 Participants3 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
2 Participants7 Participants5 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
2 Participants8 Participants6 Participants
Responses per minute of combined destructive behavior at or above 1.0 in baseline4 Participants15 Participants11 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
0 Participants2 Participants2 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
4 Participants13 Participants9 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 40 / 11
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 40 / 11
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 40 / 11

Outcome results

Primary

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.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Evaluation of Treatment DosageNumber of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Highest Response Rate1 Participants
Evaluation of Size of Decrease in Alternative ReinforcementNumber of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Highest Response Rate5 Participants
Secondary

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.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Evaluation of Treatment DosageNumber of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Lowest Response Rate2 Participants
Evaluation of Size of Decrease in Alternative ReinforcementNumber of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Lowest Response Rate6 Participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026