Educational ResearchSingle Topic CritiqueEstablishing Discriminant Response Control Using Functional and Alternative Reinforcements During Functional Communication TrainingWayne W. Fisher, David E. Kuhn, and Rachel H. ThompsonRelevance of the research question or purpose: The purpose of this research was interesting and valuable because it focused on issues that often arise when using functional communication training (FCT). This study sought to find effective solutions as desired.” . Responses may be weakened and destructive behaviors may reappear. . .'; when communication reinforcements are delayed or withheld due to the impossibility or inconvenience of the caregiver's or instructor's ability to provide said reinforcement in a timely manner. “. . Procedures are needed to increase the effectiveness of FCT in situations in which it is impractical or impossible to administer a given reinforcer.'; Research Design and Design Rationale: This study was divided into 4 phases (the fourth phase 'completed with a single participant in a single condition due to time limitations of participants' hospital admission.' ;) Phase 1: functional analyzes and descriptive evaluations. Alternating treatment without baseline design. “In this analysis, a test condition and a control condition were compared using a multi-element design. .'; Phase 2: Communication and discrimination training Phase 3: Evaluation of FCT processing with discriminative stimuli Between sets, an alternating treatment plan (ABAB) was used to compare FCT + EXT vs. ACT + EXT in. two conditions for one participant (Amy) and one condition for one participant (Ned Phase 4: Independent effects of FCT and EXT Between series, an alternating treatment and a final treatment plan were used to compare FCT/ACT. (without EXT) compared to EXT alone, the final series being strictly FCT/ACT (without EXT). The order of presentation of Amy's discrimination trainings was ". . .periods of stimulus presence and absence [which] were alternated every 30 s for the duration of the 10-min session. For Ned, “. . .one SD at a time was presented for 1 min. The order of the first three SD presentations in a given session was randomized, without replacement; thereafter, the order remained constant. » Phase 1 was “conducted to test the hypotheses generated by the results of. . .descriptive evaluations. . .to determine if . . .destructive behavior was multiply maintained by both attention and access to tangible objects, but under specific stimulus conditions [for Amy]. . .[and if] destructive behavior was maintained by .