Episode Overview

In this 12-minute bonus episode, we explore Helvey et al.’s (2023) brief report on whether combining a functional reinforcer (like escape) with a nonfunctional but preferred stimulus influences learner preference and treatment outcomes in Functional Communication Training (FCT). These show notes outline conceptual foundations, study design, key results, and my clinical takeaways.

1. Why I Chose This Article

The isolated versus synthesized functional analysis debate has dominated ABA discourse for years. Instead of fueling that binary, Helvey et al. move forward—asking whether adding nonfunctional reinforcers to FCT improves preference and social validity without sacrificing efficacy.

2. Conceptual Foundations

2.1 Isolated Functional Analysis

Introduced by Iwata et al. (1994/1995), the isolated FA tests each reinforcer separately, providing high experimental control and clear identification of functions.

2.2 Synthesized Functional Analysis (IISCA)

Hanley et al. (2014) developed IISCA to replicate natural environments where multiple establishing operations (EOs) and reinforcers often co-occur. This approach boosts ecological validity, though critics argue it risks “over-reinforcement.”

2.3 The Key Question

Does adding a nonfunctional reinforcer (e.g., a preferred toy) to a function-based reinforcer enhance preference and caregiver buy-in without undermining treatment?

3. Helvey et al. (2023) Study Overview

• Purpose: Compare two FCT options—escape only vs. escape + tangible—and assess learner preference and social validity.
• Participants: Three children (ages 3, 6, and 14) with destructive behavior maintained by escape.
• Design: Multi-element design comparing two DRC conditions followed by a concurrent-operants preference assessment.

4. Results

4.1 Problem Behavior Reduction

Both conditions (escape alone and escape + tangible) reduced destructive behavior to near zero.

4.2 Preference Assessment

• Two participants consistently chose the combined option (escape + tangible).
• One participant was indifferent.

4.3 Social Validity

Caregivers preferred the combined option for ease of implementation and ecological validity.

5. Clinical Takeaways

• Precision + Preference: It’s possible to honor both analytic rigor and client values by adding preferred nonfunctional stimuli.
• Center Caregiver Input: Incorporating family priorities improves social validity and implementation fidelity.
• Preference Enhances Engagement: Learners may acquire and maintain FCRs faster when options align with their preferences.
• Beyond Binary Thinking: Blend isolated FA precision with synthesized elements for practical, individualized interventions.

6. Practical Steps for Your Next Case

• Conduct a thorough FA with caregiver input on stimulus selection.
• Identify both functional and nonfunctional reinforcers through assessments.
• Create two FCT options: function-only and combined.
• Run a brief preference probe to see which option the learner prefers.
• Collect social validity data and monitor long-term fidelity.

7. Key References

• Helvey, M., et al. (2023). Evaluating preference for functional and nonfunctional stimuli. Behavior Analysis in Practice.
• Iwata, B. A., et al. (1994/1995). Toward a functional analysis of self-injurious behavior. JABA.
• Hanley, G. P., et al. (2014). Toward a technology of synthesized assessment and treatment. JABA.
• Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement. JABA.

8. Final Reflections

This study bridges the gap between isolated and synthesized approaches, offering a practical strategy to enhance client preference without compromising efficacy. Adding a little “extra” can make interventions more naturalistic, improve buy-in, and strengthen long-term success.