Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Completed
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT05918393 |
Other study ID # |
941605-12 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Completed |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
April 22, 2019 |
Est. completion date |
December 7, 2021 |
Study information
Verified date |
June 2023 |
Source |
State University of New York - Upstate Medical University |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
This project examines mechanisms to address two significant challenges present in
communication-based behavioral interventions for individuals with autism and comorbid severe
destructive behavior (SDB): (a) inflexible communication responding and (b) reemergence of
severe destructive behavior when challenges to treatment integrity occur. Achieving the
proposed aims will advance clinical practice related to the treatment of SDB and
generalization of treatment effects to mitigate against the resurgence of SDB
Description:
Approximately 25% of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are affected by
co-morbid severe destructive behavior (SDB). Although there is an extensive body of
literature supporting the use of behavioral interventions for decreasing the occurrence of
SDB, challenges in the clinical application of these interventions still exist. The current
research proposes to evaluate mechanisms for mitigating two potentially significant treatment
challenges: (a) invariant responding and (b) resurgence of problem behavior. Functional
Communication Training (FCT) is a common reinforcement-based treatment for SBD that involves
reinforcement of a target communication response to replace SDB such that communication
produces the desired behavior outcome and SDB does not. However, in typical practice only a
single communication response is taught thus limiting an individual's ability to communicate
if that response is not observed (e.g., touching a card) or if the device used for
communication fails (e.g., iPad battery dies). Furthermore, a core deficit of ASD is
engagement in restrictive patterns of behavior; thus, individuals with ASD might show a
preference for only emitting one communication response among concurrently available
alternatives. As noted above, if the preferred communication modality is unavailable, an
individual may revert back to engaging in SDB rather than using another, more appropriate
communication response - a condition generally referred to as treatment relapse. Evidence for
such outcomes can be found in studies in which a FCT response is placed on extinction (i.e.,
the response no longer produces reinforcement) and SDB immediately increases. One potential
way to mitigate against such issues is to teach multiple FCT responses. That is, teaching
multiple communication responses may inoculate the individual against invariant communication
responding thus reducing SDB.
Related to this, a preferred clinical practice in treating SDB with FCT is to teach the
individual to tolerate delays to reinforcement following communication (e.g., waiting until
the caregiver is available to interact with the child). When communication is not immediately
reinforced, there exists an additional possibility of treatment relapse. Resurgence is one
type of treatment relapse in which a previously reduced response re-emerges as a result of a
procedural change. For example, relapse of SDB is a clinical concern often observed when
delays to reinforcement are introduced. That is, when immediate reinforcement is no longer
provided contingent on the target communication response, the individual might revert to
engaging in SDB. Given that only one communication response is typically taught during FCT,
the effects of teaching multiple communication responses on the mitigation of resurgence
remains unknown.
Mitigating invariant responding and resurgence has the potential to greatly impact the lives
of individuals with ASD affected by SDB by helping to ensure that positive treatment outcomes
maintain across time even in the presence of challenges to treatment such as procedural
integrity errors and delays to obtaining reinforcement for appropriate behavior. Thus, the
proposed research seeks to strengthen the current literature base and advance current
clinical practice through completion of the following aims:
Aim 1. Identify multiple functionally equivalent communication responses and assess levels of
variant responding under rich schedule requirements.
Aim 2. Evaluate the effects of a behavioral economic analysis on changes in variant
communication responding across multiple communication responses across progressively leaner
schedule requirements.
Aim 3. This aim is exploratory in nature as we will assess the extent to which we observe
resurgence of SDB following the introduction of multiple communication responses and
manipulation of reinforcement schedules for the various responses.