Resurgence as Choice: Basic and Clinical Studies

April 9, 2024 updated by: Brian D. Greer, Ph.D., BCBA-D, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

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

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.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

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.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

17

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • New Jersey
      • Somerset, New Jersey, United States, 08840
        • Rutgers University Center for Autism Research, Education, and Services

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

3 years to 18 years (Child, Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

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:

- Exclusion criteria.

  1. children not meeting the inclusion criteria above;
  2. children currently receiving intensive (i.e., 15 or more hours per week), function-based, behavioral treatment for their problem behavior through the school or another program;
  3. DSM-V diagnosis of Rett syndrome or other degenerative conditions (e.g., inborn error of metabolism);
  4. presence of a comorbid health condition (e.g., blindness) or major mental disorder (e.g., bipolar disorder) that would interfere with participation in the study (e.g., requiring frequent hospitalizations);
  5. children with self-injurious behavior who, based on the results of the risk assessment, cannot be exposed to baseline conditions without placing them at risk of serious or permanent harm (e.g., detached retinas);
  6. children requiring changes in drug treatment (but such children will be invited to participate after they meet the above criteria for a stable drug regimen).

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: 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.
Behavioral: Functional communication training
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).
Experimental: 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.
Behavioral: Functional communication training
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).

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Highest Response Rate
Time Frame: 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.
Through study completion, an average of 4 months.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Number of Participants Showing Resurgence as Predicted by the Quantitative Model -- Lowest Response Rate
Time Frame: 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.
Through study completion, an average of 4 months.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Collaborators

Utah State University

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

June 28, 2018

Primary Completion (Actual)

May 31, 2023

Study Completion (Actual)

August 2, 2023

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

January 19, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 5, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

February 6, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

September 3, 2024

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 9, 2024

Last Verified

April 1, 2024

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • Pro2019001815

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

The investigators plan to share our outcome data using the National Database on Autism Research (NDAR). The investigators also plan to share our outcome data on the human participants in these two experiments who are not diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder to better understand how complex, comorbid disorders (e.g., self-injury) differ in individuals with and without autism spectrum disorder.

IPD Sharing Time Frame

Within one year of the primary completion date of the studies.

IPD Sharing Access Criteria

In accordance with NDAR policy

IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type

  • STUDY_PROTOCOL
  • SAP

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Problem Behavior

Clinical Trials on Functional communication training

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Japan

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe