Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2020, 9999, 1–14 NUMBER 9999 ()

DRA contingencies promote improved tolerance to delayed

reinforcement during FCT Compared to DRO and fixed-time
schedules
Melissa A. Drifke
May Institute

Jeffrey H. Tiger
Marquette University

Madelynn A. Lillie
The Pier Center for Autism

Following Functional Communication Training (FCT), clinicians often gradually expose newly
taught communicative responses to delayed reinforcement contingencies to prepare clients for
the normative environment in which requests are frequently reinforced after a delay. The intro-
duction of delays may result in the resurgence and maintenance of problem behavior and the
weakening of the newly trained communicative response. The current study compared delay tol-
erance with three individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities when
reinforcement for the functional communication response (FCR) was delivered following (a) the
passage of time, (b) the omission of problem behavior, or (c) the occurrence of an alternative
behavior. We measured delay tolerance in terms of minimizing problem behavior and
maintaining efficient FCRs. Outcomes support requiring alternative responding during delays to
attain optimal treatment results.
Key words: aggression, autism spectrum disorder, delayed reinforcement, delay tolerance,
functional communication training, problem behavior

Functional Communication Training (FCT) access the same source of reinforcement. In a

is the most thoroughly researched behavioral
intervention for individuals with developmental
disabilities who display problem behavior
(Tiger et al., 2008). Ideally informed by a func-
tional analysis (e.g., Iwata et al., 1982/1994),
FCT involves (a) arranging operant extinction
for problem behavior and (b) teaching a com-
municative alternative (referred to as a func-
tional communication response, or FCR) to
This research was supported in part by a grant from
John and Lynn Schiek; we thank them for their generous
support.
[Correction added on 17 April 2020, after first online
publication: the affiliation of Jeffrey H. Tiger has been
corrected to ‘Marquette University’.]
Address correspondence to: Jeffrey H. Tiger, Ph.D.,
525 N 6th St. Milwaukee, WI 53203. Email: jeffrey.
tiger@marquette.edu
doi: 10.1002/jaba.704
© 2020 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
1
seminal demonstration, Carr and Durand
(1985) identified individuals for whom prob-
lem behavior was likely maintained by access to
attention and assistance with challenging
demands. They taught the requests, “Am I
doing good work?” and “I don’t understand” as
functionally equivalent alternatives to problem
behavior. This intervention resulted in near-
zero levels of problem behavior across cases and
has been replicated with efficacious outcomes
in more than 90 studies (Tiger et al., 2008).
At the onset of FCT, implementers arrange
reinforcement for the FCR to occur on a con-
tinuous schedule. That is, each instance of the
FCR results in immediate reinforcement.
Ensuring such temporal contiguity and a strong
contingency promotes the acquisition of the
novel response (Vollmer & Hackenberg, 2001)
2 Melissa A. Drifke et al.
and likely enhances the efficacy of extinction in
reducing problem behavior. However, such
dense and immediate reinforcement schedules
cannot be maintained in normative environ-
ments when parents or teachers implement
interventions. Even when caregivers can
respond to each instance of an FCR, reinforce-
ment delivery is likely delayed (e.g., when a
parent must end a phone call before delivering
attention following an FCR). The introduction
of delays between the FCR and the delivery of
reinforcement can result in multiple deleterious
effects, including the resurgence and mainte-
nance of problem behavior and the weakening
of the FCR (e.g., Fisher et al., 2000; Hagopian
et al., 1998; Hanley et al., 2001).
Because delays are unavoidable, researchers
have focused on exposing client behavior to
delayed-reinforcement contingencies as part of
the therapeutic process. Specifically, researchers
have attempted to create reinforcement histo-
ries during therapy that promote treatment
maintenance in the normative environment.
The predominant approach to developing this
“delay tolerance” has been a progressive, time-
based, delay-fading model in which a therapist
introduces an initially brief, fixed-time delay
initiated by the occurrence of the FCR and ter-
minated with the delivery of the functional
reinforcer, while problem behavior results in no
programmed consequence. Researchers then grad-
ually extend the duration of this delay. For
instance, Fisher et al. (2000) progressively
increased the delay to reinforcement for an FCR
from 0 s to 30 s. Although there have been a few
successful demonstrations of this model, several
studies have shown that problem behavior is
likely to re-emerge and the FCR is more likely
to decrease as delay durations increase (e.g.,
Hagopian et al., 1998; Hanley et al., 2001).
An analysis of the programmed contingency
during time-based delay fading may elucidate
why treatment effects are fleeting. First, the
introduction of a delay disrupts the continuity
between the FCR and the delivery of the
reinforcer, weakening the association between
the behavior and its consequence. Second,
decreasing the density of reinforcement for the
FCR by programming delays may result in the
resurgence of problem behavior (Fuhrman
et al., 2016; Volkert et al., 2009). Third, given
a chain of events in which (a) an FCR occurs,
(b) a delay is initiated followed by problem
behavior, and (c) reinforcement is delivered,
the occurrence of problem behavior is closer in
time to the delivery of reinforcement than the
FCR that initiated the delay. Thus, there is a
possibility of problem behavior being adventi-
tiously reinforced and therefore maintaining.
Finally, the absence of reinforcement following
an initial FCR may result in a burst of
responding (i.e., repeated instances of the FCR).
If these FCRs persist, the arranged contingency
may inadvertently strengthen repeated requesting
(Hanley et al., 2001). Some caregivers may con-
sider this repeated requesting as a form of nag-
ging (also an undesirable outcome).
In response to these challenges associated
with time-based, progressive-delay fading,
Ghaemmaghami et al. (2016) evaluated an
alternative fading process, which they termed a
contingency-based progressive delay. This pro-
cess was individualized for each participant, but
involved (a) implementing reinforcement delays
following only a subset of FCRs, (b) requiring
participants to engage in a tolerance response
following the FCR, which also resulted in
immediate reinforcement on a subset of trials,
and (c) prolonging reinforcement delays follow-
ing the occurrence of problem behavior, such
that reinforcement was only delivered following
the omission of problem behavior. This differ-
ential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO)
contingency would likely suppress problem
behavior that resurges during delays by ensur-
ing it did not result in adventitious reinforce-
ment. For some participants, the researchers
also arranged differential reinforcement of alter-
native behavior (DRA) contingencies in which
they delivered reinforcement when participants
 Delay-Fading Comparison
engaged with an alternative task during delay
periods. This DRA contingency would likely
also suppress problem behavior by strengthen-
ing an appropriate competing response, thereby
decreasing the likelihood of adventitiously rein-
forcing other inappropriate behavior
(e.g., repeated occurrences of the FCR) at the
end of a delay period. Across participants,
contingency-based, progressive delays were
associated with lower levels of problem behav-
ior and more efficient levels of FCRs relative to
time-based, progressive delays. That is, arrang-
ing DRO contingencies for problem behavior
and DRA contingencies for engagement
resulted in greater delay tolerance.
Although the combination of these contingen-
cies improved delay tolerance for these partici-
pants, it was not clear from Ghaemmaghami
et al. (2016) if arranging both contingencies was
necessary to achieve therapeutic outcomes. That
is, arranging DRO contingencies may have been
sufficient to eliminate problem behavior by
reducing the likelihood of adventitious reinforce-
ment. If this were the case, arranging DRA con-
tingencies would require caregivers to maintain
access to materials and to prompt engagement
superfluously after the client is discharged. Alter-
natively, prompting and reinforcing engagement
with materials (i.e., DRA) may have competed
with problem behavior during delays, rendering
the timing of DRO intervals unnecessary. DRO
contingencies may be particularly cumbersome
in that they require continuous monitoring of
the client to ensure integral implementation
(Vollmer et al., 1993).
It was also unclear if delay fading would be
necessary given the arranged contingencies in
Ghaemmaghami et al. (2016). Progressive delay
fading is a lengthy process, and providing access
to alternative activities and arranging DRO or
DRA contingencies may have been sufficient to
promote tolerance at the terminal delay sans
progressive fading. For example, Sumter et al.
(in press) showed instances in which providing
access to alternative reinforcers sustained low
3
levels of problem behavior when reinforcers for
problem behavior were delayed up to 10 min
without prior exposure to delay fading.
The current study (a) compared independent
DRO and DRA contingencies during reinforce-
ment delays relative to time-based delays based
upon reductions in problem behavior, mainte-
nance of the FCR prior to delays, and minimiza-
tion of the FCR during delays, and (b) assessed
the necessity of delay fading in conjunction with
these contingencies. The latter goal was achieved
by conducting terminal-delay probes prior to fad-
ing when no alternative materials were available.
Method
Participants and Setting
Three children with intellectual and develop-
mental disabilities, referred for the assessment
and treatment of problem behavior, partici-
pated in this study. Logan was an 11-year-old
boy diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder
(ASD) and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disor-
der (ADHD). His target behaviors included
aggression and property destruction. Andy was
a 14-year-old boy diagnosed with ASD,
ADHD, and schizencephaly whose target
behavior was property destruction. He also
engaged in pica, which was treated separately
from this study. Tanner was a 9-year-old boy
diagnosed with moderate intellectual disability.
His target behavior included aggression and
property destruction. Each participant experi-
enced a functional analysis using a model simi-
lar to Iwata et al. (1982/1994). Parents
identified relevant topographies of attention,
relevant leisure items, and challenging academic
tasks to include in test conditions via an inter-
view. This assessment tested the effects of indi-
vidual reinforcement contingencies and
identified sensitivity to social positive reinforce-
ment in the form of tangible items
(Logan &Tanner) or attention (Andy) as an
inclusionary criterion for this study. Therapists
conducted all experimental sessions in the
4 Melissa A. Drifke et al.
child’s bedroom (Logan), or in an otherwise
unoccupied living area of the home (Andy and
Tanner).
Measurement and Interobserver
Agreement
Observers scored the occurrence of problem
behavior following each instance of aggressive
(i.e., hits, kicks, bites, or hair pulls) or destruc-
tive (i.e., toward materials, furniture, or walls)
behavior. FCRs were scored following each
unprompted instance of the utterance, “May I
have the iPad, please?” for Logan, “Can you
play with me, please?” for Andy, and each
instance of a modified version of the manual
sign for “more” (i.e., bringing both hands
together near the midline) for Tanner.
Observers scored delay periods using duration
measures by recording their onset after the
therapist acknowledged an FCR (stating, “In a
minute”) and their offset when a reinforcer was
delivered. For the purpose of data analysis, the
occurrence of problem behavior during each
session was converted into a rate (responses per
minute). The occurrences of FCRs were distin-
guished as those occurring prior to the onset of
a delay, or during a delay period (FCR during
delays).
Experimenters assessed interobserver agree-
ment (IOA) by having a second observer simul-
taneously but independently collect data on
21%, 54%, and 18% of sessions for Logan,
Andy, and Tanner, respectively. IOA was calcu-
lated using a proportional agreement method
by comparing observers’ records within 10-s
intervals. Intervals scored identically were given
a score of 1 and intervals scored nonidentically
were given a proportional agreement score by
dividing the smaller number of responses
(or durations) by the larger number of
responses (or durations). Scores were then
summed across intervals, divided by the total
number of intervals, and converted into a per-
centage. IOA averaged 98.3%, 97.2%, and
99.1% for problem behavior; 98.6%, 97.3%,
and 94.5% for initial FCRs; 99.8%, 99.5%,
and 99.1% for FCRs during delays; and
96.2%, 92.5%, and 84% for delay durations
for Logan, Andy, and Tanner, respectively.
Procedures
FCT Evaluation
Following a functional analysis indicating
that problem behavior was maintained by social
positive reinforcement, therapists initiated the
treatment evaluation. Prior to each 10-min ses-
sion, the therapist provided noncontingent
access to the target reinforcer for approximately
60 s. Baseline sessions began with the therapist
disrupting access to this reinforcer. Following
each problem behavior, the therapist delivered
30 s of access to the iPad for Logan and Tan-
ner, and 3 to 5 s of mild reprimands for Andy.
The FCT sessions were similar to baseline
except that 5 s after disruption of the rein-
forcer, the therapist vocally prompted partici-
pants to emit an FCR, which resulted in 30 s
of access to the iPad for Logan and Tanner,
and 30 s of conversational attention for Andy.
Problem behavior no longer resulted in rein-
forcement during FCT sessions. Baseline and
FCT sessions were compared in a non-
concurrent multiple baseline design across par-
ticipants with reversals for Logan and Tanner.
Delay-Tolerance Evaluation
Based upon consultation with each partici-
pant’s family, therapists set goal delay durations
(i.e., 5 min for Logan and Andy, and 2 min for
Tanner) and identified target tasks to include
during DRA periods (i.e., writing words for
Logan, matching playing cards for Andy, and
pointing to letters and numbers for Tanner).
Therapists then conducted a brief, informal
pilot exposure by asking each child to complete
the task to determine the mean duration of
item completion. The target duration
(e.g., 300 s) was then divided by the mean
 Delay-Fading Comparison
duration of item completion (e.g., 30 s) to
arrive at a target number of tasks (e.g., 10) to
the complete equal to the target duration.
No Delay (ND). Therapists conducted ND
sessions identically to FCT sessions. That is,
each 10-min session began by removing the
identified reinforcer, which was returned
immediately following the occurrence of an
FCR. Problem behavior resulted in no
programmed consequence. These sessions
served to ensure that the FCR had a recent
history of reinforcement prior to exposure to
each delay condition.
Terminal Probes. Therapists then conducted
probes of responding at terminal delays to deter-
mine levels of the FCR and problem behavior.
These sessions were similar to ND sessions except
that following an FCR, the therapist initiated a
delay period by stating, “In a minute.” During
Time-delay probes, the therapist set a timer for
300 s (Logan and Andy) or 125 s (Tanner),
ignored all instances of behavior until the timer
sounded, and delivered reinforcement for 30 s after
the timer sounded. This timer remained in the
therapist’s possession; the digital display was not
visible to participants. During DRO probes, the
therapist set a timer for 300 s (Logan and Andy)
and ignored all behavior, except to restart the timer
following an instance of problem behavior. When
the timer sounded, the therapist delivered rein-
forcement for 30 s. Similar to Time-delay probes,
the display was not visible to the participant. Dur-
ing DRA probes, the therapist presented task
materials and prompted completion of the task
using a three-step prompting procedure until the
participant wrote 17 words (Logan). During
Andy’s DRA probes, the therapist presented
10 cards to match but did not provide any follow-
up prompts to engage with the items. Andy’s
problem behavior was maintained by attention, so
therapists did not implement additional prompting
following noncompliance and problem behavior to
avoid adventitiously reinforcing these behaviors.
Following task completion, the therapist delivered
reinforcement for 30 s.
5
Time-, DRO-, and DRA-delay probes were
introduced sequentially for Logan and Andy to
determine if the addition of contingencies dur-
ing delays would enhance delay tolerance with-
out delay fading. Between each terminal probe
phase, therapists conducted additional ND ses-
sions to re-strengthen the relevant FCR before
exposing it to the subsequent delay probe. Tan-
ner was exposed to Time-delay probes only as
the addition of contingencies did not result in
additional delay tolerance for Logan or Andy.
Delay-Fading Comparison. Due to elevated
levels of problem behavior across all terminal
probes (Logan and Andy) and decreased levels of
FCRs (all participants), therapists decreased delay
durations across all three delay-contingency con-
ditions and gradually extended (faded) delays as
participants demonstrated delay tolerance. The
initial delay value in the Time-based and DRO-
based delay conditions was set as equivalent to
the estimated duration of completing one task in
the DRA-based delay condition (i.e., equated
across conditions). Sessions of each of three delay
procedures were alternated in a multielement
design in which delay durations increased inde-
pendently across each condition following three
consecutive exposures to that contingency with
problem behavior occurring at less than 10% of
its baseline level.
Time-Based Delay Fading. Following an
FCR, the therapist indicated a delay
(e.g., saying, “In a minute”), set a timer (ini-
tially 15 s for Logan, 27 s for Andy, and 5 s for
Tanner), and at the expiration of the timer,
delivered access to reinforcement for 30 s. The
therapist did not otherwise interact with partic-
ipants during delays and problem behavior did
not affect the duration of the delay. For Logan,
delays progressed from 15 s, to 30 s, 45 s, 60 s,
75 s, 141 s, 177 s, 210 s, 264 s, and 300 s.1
The estimated duration for Logan was 17.5 s,
1
The estimated duration for Logan was 17.5 s, which
was rounded to the nearest 15-s increment for the initial
five fading steps.
6 Melissa A. Drifke et al.
which was rounded to the nearest 15-s incre-
ment for the initial five fading steps. For Andy,
delays progressed from 27 s, to 55 s, 82 s,
109 s, 136 s, 163 s, 190 s, 218 s, 245 s, 273 s,
and 300 s. For Tanner, delays progressed from
5 s, to 25 s, 50 s, 75 s, 100 s, and 125 s.
DRO-Based Delay Fading. These sessions
were the same as the Time-based delay fading
sessions except that every instance of problem
behavior resulted in a resetting of the delay.
For Logan, delays progressed from 15 s, to
30 s, 45 s, 60 s, 75 s, 141 s, 177 s, 210 s,
264 s, and 300 s. For Andy, delays progressed
from 27 s, to 55 s, 82 s, 109 s, 136 s, 163 s,
190 s, 218 s, 245 s, 273 s, and 300 s. For Tan-
ner, delays progressed from 5 s, to 25 s, 50 s,
75 s, 100 s, and 125 s. These values were iden-
tical to the time-based delay conditions such
that any improvement or worsening of problem
behavior under these conditions relative to the
Time-based delay could be ascribed to the pres-
ence of the DRO contingency.
DRA-Based Delay Fading. Following an
FCR, the therapist indicated a delay
(e.g., saying, “In a minute”) and presented
materials as described during the DRA terminal
probe. For Logan and Tanner, compliance with
an instruction following a vocal or model
prompt resulted in reinforcement; for Andy,
task completion resulted in reinforcement.
Problem behavior resulted in continued
prompting for Logan and Tanner and resulted
in no programmed consequence for Andy. Ini-
tially, one compliant response or task com-
pleted produced a 30-s reinforcement period;
this work requirement was then gradually
increased across sessions. For Logan, the work
requirement to produce reinforcement prog-
ressed from 1, to 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, and
17 tasks. For Andy, the work requirement
progressed from 1, to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and
10 tasks. Once Andy reached the terminal goal
of 10 tasks, his response efficiency increased
considerably such that the duration required to
complete 10 tasks was consistently less than the
goal of 5 min. Thus, therapists added addi-
tional fading steps of 14, 18, 23, 27, 32, 36,
and 41 tasks. For Tanner, the work require-
ment progressed from 1, to 5, 10, 15, 20, and
25 tasks.
Experimental Design
The present study compared the three delay
procedures in a multielement experimental
design. After determining the most efficacious
condition for attaining delay tolerance, we ter-
minated the multielement comparison and con-
ducted additional sessions of that condition to
assess maintenance without potential carry-over
effects (i.e., what Barlow & Hayes, 1979,
referred to as independent verification).
Results
Figure 1 shows the results of the FCT evalu-
ation for Logan, Andy, and Tanner. Logan (top
panel of Figure 1) engaged in a mean rate of
1.8 instances of problem behavior per minute
during baseline, which reduced to zero levels
during FCT, returned to a mean rate of 1.7
during a reversal to baseline, and reduced again
to zero levels during a return to FCT. Andy
engaged in a mean rate of 14.9 instances of
problem behavior per minute during baseline,
which reduced to 1.1 per minute during FCT.
Tanner engaged in a mean rate of 2.0 instances
of problem behavior per minute during baseline
which reduced to near-zero levels during FCT,
returned to a mean rate of 2.3 during a reversal
to baseline, and decreased again to near-zero
levels during a return to FCT. Thus, the initial
exposure to FCT resulted in reductions of
problem behavior by 96%, 93%, and 99% of
initial baseline levels for Logan, Andy, and
Tanner, respectively.
The results of Logan’s delay-tolerance evalua-
tion are shown in Figure 2. When therapists
delivered reinforcement immediately following
Logan’s FCR (first, third, fifth, and seventh
phases labeled as ND), problem behavior
 Delay-Fading Comparison
Figure 1
Results of the FCT Evaluation for Logan, Andy, and Tanner.
Note. The rate of problem behavior (PB) is shown by
open squares and the rate of the FCR is shown by the
filled squares
7
maintained at zero levels (top panel of
Figure 2) and the FCR occurred at optimal
levels (second panel of Figure 2). When
exposed to terminal-delay probes, Logan
engaged in bursts of problem behavior and
ceased to engage in the FCR during Time-
based, DRO-based, and DRA-based delay con-
ditions (second, fourth, and sixth phases,
respectively). These data indicated delay fading
would be necessary to maintain lower levels of
problem behavior and higher levels of the FCR.
The fading comparison appears in the eighth
phase of the evaluation. Problem behavior
maintained at near-zero levels across each of the
delay fading conditions, except for two DRA-
based delay sessions. FCRs also maintained
across each of the delay-fading conditions. In
addition to the overall rates of FCRs, we also
examined FCRs that occurred during delay
periods, which were elevated during Time-
based and DRO-based delay conditions but
remained at near-zero levels in the DRA-based
delay condition (third panel of Figure 2). After
delay fading, terminal duration criteria were
achieved with Time-based, DRO-based, and
DRA-based delay conditions.
The programmed work requirements in the
DRA condition were selected in an attempt to
yoke the duration of the delay values
programmed for the equivalent fading steps of
the Time-based and DRO-based delay condi-
tions. To determine whether these values were
equal, obtained delay intervals were calculated
from each session and compared to the
programmed durations of each step. Twenty-
two of 47 sessions met or exceeded the
programmed delay values (47%). The mean
difference between the programmed and the
obtained delay values across steps was 9.5 s.
Dividing the difference between obtained and
programmed delays by the duration of the
programmed delay yielded a mean deviation of
obtained delays at 4% above the programmed
value (range, 25% underestimation to 100%
overestimation). These data indicate that DRA
8 Melissa A. Drifke et al.

Figure 2
Results of the Delay-Fading Evaluation for Logan.
ND TP ND TP ND TP ND Fading Comparison
Problem Behavior per Min
25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time
Fading
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DRO
DRA Step
20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

15
10
5
0
16
FCR (per min)

12

0
FCRs during Delay (per min)

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
50 100 150
Sessions
Note. Problem behavior (top panel), FCRs (middle panel), and FCRs during delays (bottom panel) across No Delay
(ND), Terminal Probe (TP) and Fading Comparison conditions. The fading progression (i.e., steps) during the fading
comparison are indicated via timelines above the top panel.

conditions were not associated with briefer behavior (first, third, fifth, and seventh phases).
delays and this should not be considered a con- When exposed to terminal delays (300 s), Andy
found for Logan’s evaluation. Given the differ- engaged in bursts of problem behavior regard-
ential efficacy of DRA contingencies at less of whether those delays ended based upon
maintaining low levels of problem behavior and time, DRO, or DRA contingencies. Therefore,
FCRs during delays, therapists conducted an Andy’s behavior was exposed to the delay-
additional 23 sessions with DRA-based delays fading comparison. Exposure to the Time-
yielding near-zero levels of problem behavior based and DRO-based delays resulted in imme-
with delays averaging near 5 min. diate bursts of problem behavior, whereas
Figure 3 shows the results of Andy’s delay- DRA-based delays were associated with an
tolerance evaluation. When therapists delivered immediate reduction to zero levels. The differ-
reinforcement immediately following an FCR, ences between these conditions were most pro-
Andy exhibited near-zero levels of problem nounced during the first 10 exposures to each
 Delay-Fading Comparison 9

Figure 3
Results of the Delay-Fading Evaluation For Andy.
Terminal
Probe
Problem Behavior per Min ND Fading Comparison
10 1 2 3 4 5 Time
Fading
DRO
1 2 3 4 5
DRA Step
8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

6
4
2
0

2.0
FCR (per min)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
FCRs during Delay (per min)

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
30 60 90 120 150 180 210
Sessions
Note. Problem behavior (top panel), FCRs (middle panel), and FCRs during delays (bottom panel) across No Delay
(ND), Terminal Probe (TP) and Fading Comparison conditions. The fading progression (i.e., steps) during the fading
comparison are indicated via timelines above the top panel.

condition. Following this initial burst, problem DRA-delay value met or exceeded the
behavior persisted at low, variable rates across programmed value in only one of 32 sessions
conditions for the remainder of the evaluation. (3% of sessions). The mean difference between
Overall, the FCR occurred at similar rates the programmed and obtained values was a
across conditions with low levels during delays. 98-s underestimation or 63% under the
Andy met the completion criterion for the programmed value. At the terminal goal of
DRA condition at session 192 and had not yet 10 tasks, Andy required only about 3 min on
met criteria in the Time-based delay (at step average (programmed goal of 5 min). There-
5, a delay of 109 s) or DRO-based delay fore, therapists continued to increase the num-
(at step 6, a delay of 163 s) conditions. ber of tasks required to terminate delays under
Through the first 10 fading steps, the obtained DRA-based delay conditions. Delay durations
10 Melissa A. Drifke et al.

continued to increase until they met the 300-s The results of Tanner’s delay-tolerance com-
goal. Problem behavior continued at similar parison are depicted in Figure 4. When thera-
low, but variable levels. Although there was a pists delivered reinforcement immediately
slight upward trend in problem behavior at the following an FCR, Tanner exhibited near-zero
end of this evaluation, Andy’s disruptive behav- levels of problem behavior (first and third
ior was still reduced by greater than 90% of his phases) and high levels of FCR. When exposed
initial baseline (M = 14.9 rpm). His parents to terminal delays (125 s), Tanner did not
were satisfied with this reduction and requested resume problem behavior, but the FCR
that therapists focus their efforts on addressing decreased to zero levels under delayed-
his pica. reinforcement conditions. When exposed to the

Figure 4
Results of the Delay-Fading Evaluation for Tanner.
Terminal
Probe
ND ND Fading Comparison
Problem Behavior per Min

5.0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Time
Fading
DRO
1 2 3 4 5 6 Step
4.0 1 2 3 4
DRA

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

2.0
FCR (per min)

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
FCRs during Delay (per min)

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
10 30 50 70
Sessions
Note. Problem behavior (top panel), FCRs (middle panel), and FCRs during delays (bottom panel) across No Delay
(ND), Terminal Probe (TP) and Fading Comparison conditions. The fading progression (i.e., steps) during the fading
comparison are indicated via timelines above the top panel.
 Delay-Fading Comparison
delay-fading comparison, Tanner’s problem
behavior was low across delay conditions (one
DRA session occasioned problem behavior
commensurate with prefading, terminal-probe
levels). FCRs maintained across each of the
delay conditions, but DRA-based delays were
associated with fewer FCRs during delay
periods than were DRO-based delays or Time-
based delays. Tanner first met his terminal
delay of 125 s in the Time-based delay condi-
tion. At that time, fading progressed to Step
5 (100-s delay) in the DRO-based delay condi-
tion and Step 3 (10 tasks) in the DRA-based
delay condition. Due to the slightly elevated
levels of problem behavior during DRA-based
delays, therapists conducted an additional
12 Time-based delay sessions. Problem behav-
ior and the FCR during delays reduced to near
zero levels.
Discussion
One of the primary concerns raised by
arranging delayed reinforcement for communi-
cative responses following FCT is that tempo-
rally separating the delivery of reinforcement
from the FCR may generate conditions that
weaken the FCR and create a resurgence of
problem behavior. This pattern of increased
problem behavior, despite programmed extinc-
tion for these responses, was apparent for both
Logan and Andy during their initial exposure
to delayed contingencies during terminal pro-
bes; increased problem behavior was not
observed during Tanner’s terminal probe
despite a weakening of the FCR. Although
resurgence is a transient phenomenon (Briggs
et al., 2018), the delivery of reinforcement at
the end of a fixed-time delay interval may pro-
duce adventitious reinforcement of problem
behavior, and thus, maintenance. The current
study evaluated the effects of arranging isolated
DRO and DRA contingencies during progres-
sive delay fading in sustaining the FCR and
11
minimizing the occurrence of problem behavior
relative to progressive time delays.
Unlike during terminal probes, FCRs
maintained at similar levels as in no-delay condi-
tions across participants and across conditions
during the initial stages of the fading comparison.
The overall rates of the FCRs declined as delays
increased, but these response rates never
approached zero, as was the case during terminal
probes. Perhaps this maintenance of the FCR
was sufficient to minimize resurgence of problem
behavior across conditions, notably for Logan
and Tanner who exhibited very low levels of
problem behavior across the fading evaluation
with or without the introduction of DRO and
DRA contingencies.
For Andy, there was more variability in the
occurrence of the FCR during his initial exposure
to progressive Time-delay conditions in the fad-
ing comparison (e.g., he did not engage in a sin-
gle FCR in his first two Time-delay sessions).
Thus, it is not surprising that he engaged in rela-
tively higher levels of problem behavior during
these initial sessions. Of the three participants,
his data set may provide the best insight into the
impact of DRO and DRA contingencies on
problem behavior during these delays. If Andy’s
problem behavior was contacting adventitious
reinforcement at the conclusion of the delay
intervals, then the inclusion of DRO contingen-
cies would presumably disrupt the contiguity
between problem behavior and the onset of the
reinforcement period, and thus reduce problem
behavior. However, the DRO contingency did
not appear to have any reductive benefits for
Andy relative to progressive time-delays. Both
time-delay and DRO conditions evoked similar
levels of problem behavior early in the compari-
son and problem behavior progressively decreased
to similar, lower levels.
There are at least two possible explanations
for the similarities in responding between the
Time-delay and DRO-delay conditions. First,
and perhaps most simply, it may be that
despite the potential for temporal contiguity,
12 Melissa A. Drifke et al.
problem behavior was evoked, but not adventi-
tiously reinforced under time-delay arrange-
ments. The progressive decrease in problem
behavior during both Time-delay and DRO-
delay conditions suggests that the process of
extinction was taking place. Second, it is possi-
ble that despite programmed discriminative
stimuli (therapists wore unique colored shirts
in each condition), the programmed contin-
gencies across conditions were not sufficiently
salient to promote discriminated responding.
Thus, different behavioral responses to
programmed contingencies may have been
obscured due to carry over effects in which
problem behavior extinguished across condi-
tions. We did not attempt to separate these
effects, in part due to the clear reductions in
problem behavior when DRA contingencies
were arranged.
The presumed logic supporting DRA-based
delay contingencies is that following the FCR,
DRA contingencies reinforce a chain of appropri-
ate behavior that is incompatible with problematic
behavior. For Andy, the card-matching response
was strengthened to the exclusion of aggressive
and destructive behavior and continued to com-
pete with problem behavior as the delay duration
increased. During all delay conditions, a partici-
pant does not simply stop behaving during delay
intervals. Even in cases in which the individual
does not engage in overt problem behavior during
delays, he or she will engage in some behavior that
may be reinforced by the end of the delay interval.
Time-based and DRO-based delays do not specify
what behavior must occur during this delay; thus,
these contingencies may select that which occurs
due to happenstance (i.e., that which is evoked
during delays; see Sidman, 1960, pp. 341-392 for
a discussion of adventitious reinforcement during
delayed-reinforcement contingencies). It may be
the case that some individuals engage in desirable
mediating behaviors when faced with a delay
(e.g., an adult reads a magazine while waiting at a
doctor’s office), but it may be that some individ-
uals fill the gap with less desirable behaviors, even
if those replacements were not the initial “problem
behavior.”
One such form of problem behavior
observed in the current study was the occur-
rence of repeated requesting via the FCR dur-
ing delays. Across participants, these requests
were elevated during both time-based and
DRO-based delay conditions, relative to DRA
conditions. Although such repeated requesting
is not as severe a problem as aggression and
property destruction, these response patterns
have been noted (Ghaemmaghami et al., 2016;
Hanley et al., 2001; Landa & Hanley, 2016) as
sources of concern for clinicians and families
and should be accounted for in intervention
planning. To the extent that one intervention
may reduce problem behavior, but produce a
novel alternative problem behavior, the social
validity of that intervention is likely limited.
Despite the value of including DRA contin-
gencies in delays, this approach may raise some
concerns as well. For example, Tanner engaged
in slightly higher levels of problem behavior
during DRA-based delays, relative to DRO or
time-based delays. It is reasonable to assume
that presenting nonpreferred tasks may evoke
problem behavior during delays for some indi-
viduals. We did not attempt to identify partici-
pants’ preferences for the tasks included in the
DRA condition and instead relied on parental
requests. Problem behavior may be further
minimized and engagement enhanced by
including high-preference mediating tasks (Call
et al., 2009). However, many naturally occur-
ring delays may also require participants to
engage with nonpreferred activities
(e.g., putting away one’s iPad to complete a
nighttime routine). The role of task preference
and caregiver acceptability of alternative tasks
in promoting delay tolerance will be an impor-
tant avenue for future research.
Ghaemmaghami et al. (2016) also intro-
duced DRO and DRA contingencies during
delays to reinforcement following FCT, but did
not attempt to separate the impact of DRO
 Delay-Fading Comparison
and DRA contingencies. The results of the cur-
rent study suggest that progressive delay fading
is sufficient to maintain FCRs when delays are
introduced, and DRA contingencies promote
greater engagement in appropriate behavior
while competing with target and nontarget
forms of problem behavior relative to time-
based and DRO-based delays. We did not
include combined DRO and DRA conditions
similar to Ghaemmaghami et al. Although the
results do not demonstrate behavioral improve-
ments when examining DRO in isolation, it is
possible that DRO contingencies may enhance
the delay tolerance produced by DRA. This
remains an important area for future research.
The current procedures also differed from
Ghaemmaghami et al. (2016) in that the alter-
native task was available only during DRA con-
ditions of the current study, but remained
available throughout both Time-Based and
Contingency-Based progressive delay conditions
of Ghaemmaghami et al. It is possible that pro-
viding an alternative activity during delays
alone may be sufficient to promote delay toler-
ance (Austin & Tiger, 2015). Thus, benefits of
DRA-based delays observed in the current
study resulted from the availability of this com-
peting activity rather than the contingencies
arranged to promote engagement.
Ghaemmaghami et al. did not see treatment
effects associated with providing material access
without supporting contingencies with their
participants, but such results are particularly
likely if high-preference activities are identified
for delivery during delays. Future researchers
should include material access during delay
probes prior to arranging contingencies.
At its onset, FCT involves arranging dense
schedules of reinforcement to support a novel
communicative response. However, the success-
ful transition outside of a clinic environment
will require thinning the schedule of reinforce-
ment for that communicative response while
maintaining low levels of problem behavior. In
addition to progressive time delays, researchers
13
have described other schedule thinning proce-
dures, such as arranging a multiple schedule
(e.g., Greer et al., 2016; Hagopian et al., 2011;
Saini et al., 2016). If the clinical goal of inter-
vention is solely to thin the schedule of rein-
forcement for an FCR, then the two
procedures may be viewed similarly. However,
if the goal is to prepare clients and their care-
givers to maintain low levels of problem behav-
ior, multiple schedule and delay tolerance
procedures address two very distinct challenges
to behavioral interventions.
Multiple schedule procedures have most com-
monly addressed challenges in which a reinforcer
either is or is not available. For instance, Hanley
et al. (2001) arranged a multiple schedule that
alternated between conditions in which an FCR
would result in immediate reinforcement or would
result in extinction. Each of these conditions was
correlated with a salient signal (e.g., a colored card
on the table). The intervention was considered
effective when (a) problem behavior remained low
across both conditions, (b) appropriate FCRs
occurred when the positive signal was presented,
and (c) FCRs did not occur when the negative
signal was presented. However, when the positive
signal was presented, caregivers were required to
provide immediate reinforcement following each
FCR. In practical application, caregivers may still
inadvertently impose delays to reinforcement
delivery during periods in which a positive signal
is presented. It is not clear how likely integrity
with such contingencies can be maintained out-
side of a structured clinical evaluation or how
integrity failures may impact the clinical outcomes
of multiple schedule interventions. Although a
larger quantity of research has shown that multiple
schedules can produce discriminated response pat-
terns, this does not obviate the need to include
delay tolerance training.
REFERENCES
Austin, J. E., & Tiger, J. H. (2015). Providing alternative
reinforcers to facilitate tolerance to delayed
14 Melissa A. Drifke et al.
reinforcement following functional communication
training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48,
663–668. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.215
Barlow, D. H., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternating treat-
ments design: One strategy for comparing the effects
of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199-210. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1979.12-199
Briggs, A. M., Fisher, W. W., Greer, B. D., &
Kimball, R. T. (2018). Prevalence of resurgence of
destructive behavior when thinning reinforcement
schedules during functional communication training.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 620–633.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.472
Call, N. A., Pabico, R. S., & Lomas, J. E. (2009). Use of
latency to problem behavior to evaluate demands for
inclusion in functional analyses. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 42, 723–728. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.2009.42.723
Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior
problems through functional communication train-
ing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18,
111–126. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-111
Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Hagopian, L. P.,
Bowman, L. G., & Krug, A. (2000). Facilitating tol-
erance of delayed reinforcement during functional
communication training. Behavior Modification, 24,
3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/145445500241001
Fuhrman, A. M., Fisher, W. W., & Greer, B. D. (2016).
A preliminary investigation on improving functional
communication training by mitigating resurgence of
destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 49, 884–899. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.338
Ghaemmaghami, M., Hanley, G. P., & Jessel, J. (2016).
Contingencies promote delay tolerance. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 548–575. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.333
Greer, B. D., Fisher, W. W., Saini, V., Owen, T. M., &
Jones, J. K. (2016). Functional communication train-
ing during reinforcement schedule thinning: An anal-
ysis of 25 applications. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 49, 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.265
Hagopian, L. P., Boelter, E. W., & Jarmolowicz, D. P.
(2011). Reinforcement schedule thinning following
functional communication training: Review and rec-
ommendations. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 4, 4-16.
doi/10.1007/BF03391770
Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., Sullivan, M. T.,
Acquisto, J., & LeBlanc, L. A. (1998). Effectiveness
of functional communication training with and with-
out extinction and punishment: A summary of
21 inpatient cases. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 31, 211-235. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1998.31-211
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Thompson, R. H. (2001).
Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment
with functional communication training. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 17-38. https://doi.org/
10.1901/jaba.2001.34-17
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J.,
Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a
functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 27, 197-209. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1994.27-197
Landa, R., & Hanley, G. P. (2016). An evaluation of
multiple-schedule variations to reduce high-rate
requests in the picture exchange communication sys-
tem. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49,
388–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.285
Saini, V., Miller, S. A., & Fisher, W. W. (2016). Multiple
schedules in practical application: Research trends
and implications for future investigation. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 421–444. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.300
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. Authors
Cooperative Inc.
Sumter, M. E., Gifford, M. R., Tiger, J. H.,
Effertz, H. M., & Fulton, C. J. (in press). Providing
noncontingent, alternative, functional reinforcers dur-
ing delays following functional communication train-
ing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Bruzek, J. (2008). Func-
tional communication training: A review and practi-
cal guide. Behavior Analysis and Practice, 1, 16-23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391716
Volkert, V. M., Lerman, D. C., Call, N. A., & Trosclair-
Lasserre, N. (2009). An evaluation of resurgence dur-
ing treatment with functional communication train-
ing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42,
145–160. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-145
Vollmer, T. R., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2001). Reinforce-
ment contingencies and social reinforcement: Some
reciprocal relations between basic and applied
research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34,
241–253. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.4001.34-241
Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R.,
Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). The role of
attention in the treatment of attention-maintained
self-injurious behavior: Noncontingent reinforcement
and differential reinforcement of other behavior. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 9-21. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-9
Received March 14, 2018
Final acceptance January 11, 2020
Action Editor, John Borrero