Decreasing Destructive BehaviorNCT05790668
Motivational Refinements for Facilitating Reinforcement Schedule Thinning
A study testing Traditional Schedule Thinning, PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning and PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning with Competing Stimuli in people with Decreasing Destructive Behavior and Increasing Functional Communicative Behavior, run by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey at 2 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Destructive behavior represents a comorbid condition of developmental disability for which risk increases with intellectual disability severity, communication deficits, and co-occurring autism spectrum disorder. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 3 to 17 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Decreasing Destructive Behavior, Increasing Functional Communicative Behavior
- What is being tested?
- Traditional Schedule Thinning, PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning and PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning with Competing Stimuli
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 24 Oct 2023to 31 Aug 2028
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 3 to 17 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child
Who may be able to join
- boys and girls from ages 3 to 17
- destructive behavior that occurs at least 10 times a day, despite previous treatment
- destructive behavior reinforced by social consequences
- stable protective supports for self-injurious behavior (e.g., helmet) with no anticipated changes during enrollment
- on a stable psychoactive drug regimen for at least 10 half-lives per drug or drug free
- stable educational plan and placement with no anticipated changes during the child's treatment
Who cannot join
- patients who do not meet the inclusion criteria
- patients currently receiving 15 or more hours per week of treatment for their destructive behavior
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 diagnosis of Rett syndrome or other degenerative conditions (e.g., inborn error of metabolism)
- a comorbid health condition or major mental disorder that would interfere with study participation
- occurrence of self-injury during study assessments that presents a risk of serious or permanent harm (e.g., detached retinas) based on routine clinical-risk assessment
- patients requiring changes to protective supports for self-injury or drug treatment, but investigators will invite these patients to participate when protective supports and drug regimen are stable
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
United States2 sites, 2 recruiting
- Recruiting
Douglass Developmental Disabilities Center
New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08901
Robert LaRue, Ph.D., 8489324500, larue@rutgers.edu
Robert LaRue, Ph.D.
- Recruiting
Rutgers University Center for Autism Research, Education, and Services
Somerset, New Jersey, 08873
Brian D Greer, Ph.D., 8488008505, brian.greer@rutgers.edu
Daniel R Mitteer, Ph.D., 8488008506, daniel.mitteer@rutgers.edu
About this study
Destructive behavior represents a comorbid condition of developmental disability for which risk increases with intellectual disability severity, communication deficits, and co-occurring autism spectrum disorder. Destructive behavior, such as self-injurious behavior and aggression, causes harm to the child and others and increases the risk for institutionalization, social isolation, physical restraint, medication overuse, and abuse. Clinicians have used functional analyses to identify the variables that reinforce destructive behavior and to develop effective, function-based treatments. Functional communication training (FCT) is an empirically supported, function-based treatment that decreases destructive behavior. Using FCT, the clinician teaches the child to use a functional communication response (FCR) to request the reinforcer maintaining destructive behavior, while placing destructive behavior on extinction. For example, if functional analysis results showed that attention reinforced destructive behavior, the clinician would provide attention when the child used the FCR ("Play with me, please") and would not provide attention for destructive behavior. Two limitations of FCT are that (a) schedules of reinforcement maintaining the FCR must often be thinned gradually to levels that are practical for caregivers to implement consistently in the home and in the community, and (b) this necessary process of reinforcement schedule thinning regularly causes destructive behavior to increase following initially effective treatment, a form of treatment relapse called resurgence. The current project aims to improve these limitations of FCT by (a) hastening the process of reinforcement schedule thinning by removing unnecessary schedule-thinning steps using the results of a progressive interval assessment and (b) mitigating the resurgence of destructive behavior by providing stimuli that highly compete with the reinforcer maintaining destructive behavior. The investigators will conduct a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the extent to which these two promising refinements to FCT improve the process of reinforcement schedule thinning, and an exploratory experiment will examine the interactive effects of these two approaches. This novel project has the potential to substantially improve standards of care guiding the treatment of severe destructive behavior and to improve the long-term outcomes for children and families afflicted by these debilitating behavior disorders.
Read the detailed description
The severe destructive behavior (e.g., self-injury, aggression) of children with intellectual developmental disorder is prevalent, often dangerous, and negatively impacts social integration and quality of life (Borthwick-Duffy, 1994; Crocker et al., 2006). Function-based interventions that rely on differential reinforcement of alternative behavior reduce such problematic behavior effectively (Greer et al., 2016; Hagopian et al., 1998; Rooker et al., 2013), but the clinical utility of this approach is hampered in two critically important ways. First, schedules of reinforcement maintaining alternative behavior must be thinned to levels that are practical for caregivers to implement consistently in the home and in the community (Greer et al., 2016; Hagopian et al., 2011). This necessary process of schedule thinning often requires substantial time and resources to complete and typically comprises the most expensive portion of routine, clinical service delivery for this referral concern. Second, and exacerbating the first, is the consistent finding that schedule thinning often produces a form of treatment relapse called resurgence (Briggs et al., 2018; Mitteer et al., 2022; Muething et al., 2020; Shahan et al., 2020). The experimenters propose two clinically indicated, and theoretically grounded, methods of accelerating the process of schedule thinning while mitigating the resurgence of severe destructive behavior.
Recent research from the investigators has shown that the quantitative theory of resurgence called Resurgence as Choice (RaC) (Greer \& Shahan, 2019; Shahan et al., 2019; Shahan \& Craig, 2017) accurately describes how decrements in the availability of reinforcement predict the amount of resurgence of destructive behavior during the process of schedule thinning (Shahan \& Craig, 2017), a finding recently verified in a nonhuman animal study (Shahan et al., 2020). Importantly, clinical and laboratory research alike has shown, as RaC predicts, that simply thinning reinforcement in small, gradual steps, the approach most commonly used by clinicians, does not prevent resurgence-relapse inevitably occurs once the schedule reaches a break point (Briggs et al., 2018; Shahan et al., 2020; Shahan \& Craig, 2017; Shahan \& Greer, 2021). RaC theory states that motivation for the functional reinforcer maintaining destructive behavior (parameter a in RaC equations) plays an important role in determining whether and to what extent destructive behavior will resurge during schedule thinning (Greer et al., 2019; Shahan et al., 2019; Shahan \& Craig, 2017), a prediction well-supported by recent pilot work from the investigators on (a) individualizing the starting point for schedule thinning using a progressive interval assessment (PIA) (Miller et al., 2021) and (b) providing competing stimuli to hasten schedule thinning (Fuhrman et al, 2018; Miller et al., 2021). According to RaC theory, these two clinically indicated manipulations facilitate schedule thinning by respectively (a) tailoring the initial schedule of reinforcement to each patient's unique level of motivation for the functional reinforcer and (b) dampening motivation for the functional reinforcer by delivering an alternative and competing source of reinforcement. Additionally, theoretical and empirical work in the area of behavioral economics provides independent support for these two manipulations. This project will further the clinical and theoretical understanding of how motivational variables affect resurgence as it occurs in practice, and the project has the potential to substantially improve standards of care guiding the treatment of severe destructive behavior.
The experimenters will conduct a study to identify whether quantitatively informed refinements can improve efficiency and efficacy of reinforcement schedule thinning when treating severe destructive behavior. The project has three specific aims:
Specific Aim 1: The experimenters will extend pilot work on the utility of individualizing the starting point for reinforcement schedule thinning based on the results of a PIA. The experimenters will accomplish this by conducting reinforcement schedule thinning in two distinct stimulus contexts, one informed by the results of a PIA and another not so informed.
Specific Aim 2: Basing the starting point on a PIA, the experimenters will assess the extent to which providing competing stimuli from a competing stimulus assessment quickens the process of schedule thinning when competing stimuli are available in one, but not another, unique stimulus context.
Specific Aim 3: The experimenters will examine the potential interaction effects between these two approaches by conducting PIAs with no, low, moderate, and high competing stimuli to determine the schedule duration at which schedule thinning should commence with each competing stimulus.
- Being tested
- Traditional Schedule Thinning, PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning, PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning with Competing Stimuli
- Keywords
- functional communication training, reinforcement schedule thinning, resurgence, treatment relapse
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Traditional Schedule ThinningBehavioural
During traditional schedule thinning during functional communication training with discriminative stimuli (e.g., multiple schedules, chained schedules), practitioners correlate a unique stimulus with reinforcement (e.g., a green card) and another for extinction (e.g., a red card). When the reinforcement and extinction stimuli are presented, the child's communication responses are honored or not honored, respectively. Behavior analysts begin with a brief period of extinction (e.g., 2 s) and gradually increase that duration as the child displays low levels of destructive behavior and high levels of discriminated communication responses (i.e., communication requests during reinforcement components only) until the child reaches a terminal schedule informed by caregiver/child preference (e.g., 2.5-min reinforcement, 10-min extinction). Typically, the starting extinction period is brief and arbitrarily selected and there are no competing stimuli programmed.
PIA-Informed Schedule ThinningBehavioural
This intervention involves the same general components as Traditional Schedule Thinning. However, rather than starting with an arbitrary duration of the extinction component (e.g., 2 s), the behavior analyst empirically derives the starting point based on a progressive-interval assessment (PIA). The PIA involves rapidly increasing the duration of the extinction component within a single session to determine the leanest schedule of reinforcement that does not produce untoward effects. Behavior analysts will progress through the following extinction durations within a single session: 3 s, 11 s , 21 s, 34 s, 50 s, 70 s, 95 s, 126 s, 164 s, 213 s, and 270 s. For example, if the participant displays destructive behavior at 164 s consistently, but not at 126 s, the experimenters will start schedule thinning with a 126-s extinction component. There will be no competing stimuli programmed in this intervention.
PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning with Competing StimuliBehavioural
This intervention is identical to PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning except that behavior analysts will program competing activities (e.g., alternative activities like toys or therapist attention) during extinction components. The competing stimuli will be derived from a competing stimulus assessment in which destructive behavior is analyzed across various conditions in which only the activity is manipulated during the extinction period (e.g., a session with action figures during extinction, a session with tablet during extinction). The items that produce the highest levels of child engagement and lowest levels of destructive behavior are known as highly competing items.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning | Experimental | The goal of Arm 1 will be to will extend pilot work on the utility of individualizing the starting point for reinforcement schedule thinning based on the results of a progressive-interval assessement (PIA). The investigators will do so by conducting reinforcement schedule thinning using a multielement design in two separate contexts, one informed by the results of a PIA and another not so informed. The criteria for schedule thinning will be identical across both conditions but will be applied to each condition independently. Investigators will determine the efficiency of schedule thinning, reductions of destructive behavior, and durability of functional communication responses across the two conditions. Receives: Behavioral: Traditional Schedule Thinning; Behavioral: PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning |
| Evaluation of Competing Items | Experimental | The goal of Arm 2 will be to evaluate the utility of competing items (e.g., alternative reinforcement or activities) during schedule thinning. Both conditions will be informed by the PIA, similar to the experimental condition in Arm 1. PIA-informed schedule thinning with competing stimuli will be identical to that of PIA-informed schedule thinning, except (a) the therapist will provide continuous access to the highly competing stimulus identified by that participant's competing stimulus assessment (e.g., providing attention while an iPad is unavailable, playing music while working), and (b) it will occur in the other context (e.g., the yellow context). Investigators will determine the efficiency of schedule thinning, reductions of destructive behavior, the durability of functional communication responses across the two conditions, and resurgence of destructive behavior during prolonged periods of extinction. Receives: Behavioral: PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning; Behavioral: PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning with Competing Stimuli |
| Effects of Competing Items on PIA Outcomes | Experimental | The goal of Arm 3 will be to examine potential interaction effects between the above two experimental arms by conducting PIAs with no, low, moderate, and high competing stimuli to determine the schedule duration at which schedule thinning should commence with each competing stimulus. All participants will complete this arm prior to enrollment in Arms 1 or 2. The investigators will randomize the sequence of each of the four PIAs (PIA with no competing stimuli, PIA with low competing stimuli, PIA with moderately competing stimuli, PIA with highly competing stimuli) across participants. Receives: Behavioral: PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning with Competing Stimuli |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Destructive behavior (responses per minute)
The primary outcome measure is responses per minute of destructive behavior. The investigators will calculate this outcome by dividing the total number of destructive responses per session by the total number of minutes spent in session.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 4 weeks.
Discriminated functional communication responses (percentage)
The investigators will calculate this outcome by dividing the number of child requests when reinforcement is signaled as available by the total number of child requests during reinforcement and extinction, then multiplying the quotient by 100 to convert it to a percentage. This indicates the level of accuracy with communication requests, with 80-100% being optimal.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 4 weeks.
Efficiency of schedule thinning
In addition to the above metrics, it is expect that informing schedule thinning with the PIA or competing items may result in reaching the terminal schedule (e.g., 270-s extinction) more rapidly than conditions not so informed. Thus, investigators will analyze the number of treatment sessions required for an intervention to produce destructive behavior below an 85% reduction from baseline and discriminated functional communication responses above 80% at the terminal-schedule value.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 4 weeks.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted30 Mar 2023
- Study start24 Oct 2023
- Primary completion31 May 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Aug 2028 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (16)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Decreasing Destructive BehaviorStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Brian D. Greer, Ph.D., BCBA-D, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
- Investigators
- Brian D Greer, Ph.D., Principal investigator, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05790668
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Pro2021002237
- Status last verified
- Aug 2026
- First submitted
- 17 Mar 2023
- Last updated
- 12 Aug 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: The investigators plan to share outcome data using the National Database on Autism Research (NDAR). The investigators will also share 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.
Publications
Borthwick-Duffy SA. Epidemiology and prevalence of psychopathology in people with mental retardation. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994 Feb;62(1):17-27. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.62.1.17.
PubMed 8034819Briggs AM, Fisher WW, Greer BD, Kimball RT. Prevalence of resurgence of destructive behavior when thinning reinforcement schedules during functional communication training. J Appl Behav Anal. 2018 Jul;51(3):620-633. doi: 10.1002/jaba.472. Epub 2018 May 17.
PubMed 29774545Crocker AG, Mercier C, Lachapelle Y, Brunet A, Morin D, Roy ME. Prevalence and types of aggressive behaviour among adults with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2006 Sep;50(Pt 9):652-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00815.x.
PubMed 16901292Fuhrman AM, Greer BD, Zangrillo AN, Fisher WW. Evaluating competing activities to enhance functional communication training during reinforcement schedule thinning. J Appl Behav Anal. 2018 Oct;51(4):931-942. doi: 10.1002/jaba.486. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
PubMed 29959773Greer BD, Fisher WW, Saini V, Owen TM, Jones JK. Functional communication training during reinforcement schedule thinning: An analysis of 25 applications. J Appl Behav Anal. 2016 Mar;49(1):105-21. doi: 10.1002/jaba.265. Epub 2015 Oct 20.
PubMed 26482103Greer BD, Shahan TA. Resurgence as Choice: Implications for promoting durable behavior change. J Appl Behav Anal. 2019 Jul;52(3):816-846. doi: 10.1002/jaba.573. Epub 2019 May 3.
PubMed 31049954Hagopian LP, Boelter EW, Jarmolowicz DP. Reinforcement schedule thinning following functional communication training: review and recommendations. Behav Anal Pract. 2011 Summer;4(1):4-16. doi: 10.1007/BF03391770.
PubMed 22532899Hagopian LP, Fisher WW, Sullivan MT, Acquisto J, LeBlanc LA. Effectiveness of functional communication training with and without extinction and punishment: a summary of 21 inpatient cases. J Appl Behav Anal. 1998 Summer;31(2):211-35. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-211.
PubMed 9652101Miller SA, Fisher WW, Greer BD, Saini V, Keevy MD. Procedures for determining and then modifying the extinction component of multiple schedules for destructive behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2022 Mar;55(2):463-480. doi: 10.1002/jaba.896. Epub 2021 Dec 12.
PubMed 34897677Mitteer DR, Greer BD, Randall KR, Haney SD. On the scope and characteristics of relapse when treating severe destructive behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2022 Jun;55(3):688-703. doi: 10.1002/jaba.912. Epub 2022 Mar 15.
PubMed 35290666Muething C, Pavlov A, Call N, Ringdahl J, Gillespie S. Prevalence of resurgence during thinning of multiple schedules of reinforcement following functional communication training. J Appl Behav Anal. 2021 Apr;54(2):813-823. doi: 10.1002/jaba.791. Epub 2020 Oct 25.
PubMed 33103244Rooker GW, Jessel J, Kurtz PF, Hagopian LP. Functional communication training with and without alternative reinforcement and punishment: an analysis of 58 applications. J Appl Behav Anal. 2013 Dec;46(4):708-22. doi: 10.1002/jaba.76. Epub 2013 Aug 22.
PubMed 24114463Shahan TA, Browning KO, Nall RW. Resurgence as Choice in Context: Treatment duration and on/off alternative reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav. 2020 Jan;113(1):57-76. doi: 10.1002/jeab.563. Epub 2019 Nov 27.
PubMed 31777091Shahan TA, Browning KO, Nist AN, Sutton GM. Resurgence and downshifts in alternative reinforcement rate. J Exp Anal Behav. 2020 Sep;114(2):163-178. doi: 10.1002/jeab.625. Epub 2020 Aug 27.
PubMed 32856313Shahan TA, Craig AR. Resurgence as Choice. Behav Processes. 2017 Aug;141(Pt 1):100-127. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2016.10.006. Epub 2016 Oct 26.
PubMed 27794452
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Aug 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Motivational Refinements for Facilitating Reinforcement Schedule Thinning
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05790668
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Pro2021002237
- Keywords
- functional communication training, reinforcement schedule thinning, resurgence, treatment relapse
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Rutgers, The State University of New JerseyUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 24 Oct 2023 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 May 2028 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Aug 2028 (estimated)
- First posted
- 30 Mar 2023 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Destructive behavior represents a comorbid condition of developmental disability for which risk increases with intellectual disability severity, communication deficits, and co-occurring autism spectrum disorder. Destructive behavior, such as self-injurious behavior and aggression, causes harm to the child and others and increases the risk for institutionalization, social isolation, physical restraint, medication overuse, and abuse. Clinicians have used functional analyses to identify the variables that reinforce destructive behavior and to develop effective, function-based treatments. Functional communication training (FCT) is an empirically supported, function-based treatment that decreases destructive behavior. Using FCT, the clinician teaches the child to use a functional communication response (FCR) to request the reinforcer maintaining destructive behavior, while placing destructive behavior on extinction. For example, if functional analysis results showed that attention reinforced destructive behavior, the clinician would provide attention when the child used the FCR ("Play with me, please") and would not provide attention for destructive behavior. Two limitations of FCT are that (a) schedules of reinforcement maintaining the FCR must often be thinned gradually to levels that are practical for caregivers to implement consistently in the home and in the community, and (b) this necessary process of reinforcement schedule thinning regularly causes destructive behavior to increase following initially effective treatment, a form of treatment relapse called resurgence. The current project aims to improve these limitations of FCT by (a) hastening the process of reinforcement schedule thinning by removing unnecessary schedule-thinning steps using the results of a progressive interval assessment and (b) mitigating the resurgence of destructive behavior by providing stimuli that highly compete with the reinforcer maintaining destructive behavior. The investigators will conduct a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the extent to which these two promising refinements to FCT improve the process of reinforcement schedule thinning, and an exploratory experiment will examine the interactive effects of these two approaches. This novel project has the potential to substantially improve standards of care guiding the treatment of severe destructive behavior and to improve the long-term outcomes for children and families afflicted by these debilitating behavior disorders.
Detailed description
The severe destructive behavior (e.g., self-injury, aggression) of children with intellectual developmental disorder is prevalent, often dangerous, and negatively impacts social integration and quality of life (Borthwick-Duffy, 1994; Crocker et al., 2006). Function-based interventions that rely on differential reinforcement of alternative behavior reduce such problematic behavior effectively (Greer et al., 2016; Hagopian et al., 1998; Rooker et al., 2013), but the clinical utility of this approach is hampered in two critically important ways. First, schedules of reinforcement maintaining alternative behavior must be thinned to levels that are practical for caregivers to implement consistently in the home and in the community (Greer et al., 2016; Hagopian et al., 2011). This necessary process of schedule thinning often requires substantial time and resources to complete and typically comprises the most expensive portion of routine, clinical service delivery for this referral concern. Second, and exacerbating the first, is the consistent finding that schedule thinning often produces a form of treatment relapse called resurgence (Briggs et al., 2018; Mitteer et al., 2022; Muething et al., 2020; Shahan et al., 2020). The experimenters propose two clinically indicated, and theoretically grounded, methods of accelerating the process of schedule thinning while mitigating the resurgence of severe destructive behavior.
Recent research from the investigators has shown that the quantitative theory of resurgence called Resurgence as Choice (RaC) (Greer \& Shahan, 2019; Shahan et al., 2019; Shahan \& Craig, 2017) accurately describes how decrements in the availability of reinforcement predict the amount of resurgence of destructive behavior during the process of schedule thinning (Shahan \& Craig, 2017), a finding recently verified in a nonhuman animal study (Shahan et al., 2020). Importantly, clinical and laboratory research alike has shown, as RaC predicts, that simply thinning reinforcement in small, gradual steps, the approach most commonly used by clinicians, does not prevent resurgence-relapse inevitably occurs once the schedule reaches a break point (Briggs et al., 2018; Shahan et al., 2020; Shahan \& Craig, 2017; Shahan \& Greer, 2021). RaC theory states that motivation for the functional reinforcer maintaining destructive behavior (parameter a in RaC equations) plays an important role in determining whether and to what extent destructive behavior will resurge during schedule thinning (Greer et al., 2019; Shahan et al., 2019; Shahan \& Craig, 2017), a prediction well-supported by recent pilot work from the investigators on (a) individualizing the starting point for schedule thinning using a progressive interval assessment (PIA) (Miller et al., 2021) and (b) providing competing stimuli to hasten schedule thinning (Fuhrman et al, 2018; Miller et al., 2021). According to RaC theory, these two clinically indicated manipulations facilitate schedule thinning by respectively (a) tailoring the initial schedule of reinforcement to each patient's unique level of motivation for the functional reinforcer and (b) dampening motivation for the functional reinforcer by delivering an alternative and competing source of reinforcement. Additionally, theoretical and empirical work in the area of behavioral economics provides independent support for these two manipulations. This project will further the clinical and theoretical understanding of how motivational variables affect resurgence as it occurs in practice, and the project has the potential to substantially improve standards of care guiding the treatment of severe destructive behavior.
The experimenters will conduct a study to identify whether quantitatively informed refinements can improve efficiency and efficacy of reinforcement schedule thinning when treating severe destructive behavior. The project has three specific aims:
Specific Aim 1: The experimenters will extend pilot work on the utility of individualizing the starting point for reinforcement schedule thinning based on the results of a PIA. The experimenters will accomplish this by conducting reinforcement schedule thinning in two distinct stimulus contexts, one informed by the results of a PIA and another not so informed.
Specific Aim 2: Basing the starting point on a PIA, the experimenters will assess the extent to which providing competing stimuli from a competing stimulus assessment quickens the process of schedule thinning when competing stimuli are available in one, but not another, unique stimulus context.
Specific Aim 3: The experimenters will examine the potential interaction effects between these two approaches by conducting PIAs with no, low, moderate, and high competing stimuli to determine the schedule duration at which schedule thinning should commence with each competing stimulus.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation of PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning | Experimental | Behavioral: Traditional Schedule Thinning, Behavioral: PIA-Informed Schedule ThinningThe goal of Arm 1 will be to will extend pilot work on the utility of individualizing the starting point for reinforcement schedule thinning based on the results of a progressive-interval assessement (PIA). The investigators will do so by conducting reinforcement schedule thinning using a multielement design in two separate contexts, one informed by the results of a PIA and another not so informed. The criteria for schedule thinning will be identical across both conditions but will be applied to each condition independently. Investigators will determine the efficiency of schedule thinning, reductions of destructive behavior, and durability of functional communication responses across the two conditions. |
| Evaluation of Competing Items | Experimental | Behavioral: PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning, Behavioral: PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning with Competing StimuliThe goal of Arm 2 will be to evaluate the utility of competing items (e.g., alternative reinforcement or activities) during schedule thinning. Both conditions will be informed by the PIA, similar to the experimental condition in Arm 1. PIA-informed schedule thinning with competing stimuli will be identical to that of PIA-informed schedule thinning, except (a) the therapist will provide continuous access to the highly competing stimulus identified by that participant's competing stimulus assessment (e.g., providing attention while an iPad is unavailable, playing music while working), and (b) it will occur in the other context (e.g., the yellow context). Investigators will determine the efficiency of schedule thinning, reductions of destructive behavior, the durability of functional communication responses across the two conditions, and resurgence of destructive behavior during prolonged periods of extinction. |
| Effects of Competing Items on PIA Outcomes | Experimental | Behavioral: PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning with Competing StimuliThe goal of Arm 3 will be to examine potential interaction effects between the above two experimental arms by conducting PIAs with no, low, moderate, and high competing stimuli to determine the schedule duration at which schedule thinning should commence with each competing stimulus. All participants will complete this arm prior to enrollment in Arms 1 or 2. The investigators will randomize the sequence of each of the four PIAs (PIA with no competing stimuli, PIA with low competing stimuli, PIA with moderately competing stimuli, PIA with highly competing stimuli) across participants. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 3 to 17 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- boys and girls from ages 3 to 17
- destructive behavior that occurs at least 10 times a day, despite previous treatment
- destructive behavior reinforced by social consequences
- stable protective supports for self-injurious behavior (e.g., helmet) with no anticipated changes during enrollment
- on a stable psychoactive drug regimen for at least 10 half-lives per drug or drug free
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- patients who do not meet the inclusion criteria
- patients currently receiving 15 or more hours per week of treatment for their destructive behavior
- Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-5 diagnosis of Rett syndrome or other degenerative conditions (e.g., inborn error of metabolism)
- a comorbid health condition or major mental disorder that would interfere with study participation
- occurrence of self-injury during study assessments that presents a risk of serious or permanent harm (e.g., detached retinas) based on routine clinical-risk assessment
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional Schedule ThinningDuring traditional schedule thinning during functional communication training with discriminative stimuli (e.g., multiple schedules, chained schedules), practitioners correlate a unique stimulus with reinforcement (e.g., a green card) and another for extinction (e.g., a red card). When the reinforcement and extinction stimuli are presented, the child's communication responses are honored or not honored, respectively. Behavior analysts begin with a brief period of extinction (e.g., 2 s) and gradually increase that duration as the child displays low levels of destructive behavior and high levels of discriminated communication responses (i.e., communication requests during reinforcement components only) until the child reaches a terminal schedule informed by caregiver/child preference (e.g., 2.5-min reinforcement, 10-min extinction). Typically, the starting extinction period is brief and arbitrarily selected and there are no competing stimuli programmed. | Behavioural | Evaluation of PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning |
| PIA-Informed Schedule ThinningThis intervention involves the same general components as Traditional Schedule Thinning. However, rather than starting with an arbitrary duration of the extinction component (e.g., 2 s), the behavior analyst empirically derives the starting point based on a progressive-interval assessment (PIA). The PIA involves rapidly increasing the duration of the extinction component within a single session to determine the leanest schedule of reinforcement that does not produce untoward effects. Behavior analysts will progress through the following extinction durations within a single session: 3 s, 11 s , 21 s, 34 s, 50 s, 70 s, 95 s, 126 s, 164 s, 213 s, and 270 s. For example, if the participant displays destructive behavior at 164 s consistently, but not at 126 s, the experimenters will start schedule thinning with a 126-s extinction component. There will be no competing stimuli programmed in this intervention. | Behavioural | Evaluation of Competing Items, Evaluation of PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning |
| PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning with Competing StimuliThis intervention is identical to PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning except that behavior analysts will program competing activities (e.g., alternative activities like toys or therapist attention) during extinction components. The competing stimuli will be derived from a competing stimulus assessment in which destructive behavior is analyzed across various conditions in which only the activity is manipulated during the extinction period (e.g., a session with action figures during extinction, a session with tablet during extinction). The items that produce the highest levels of child engagement and lowest levels of destructive behavior are known as highly competing items. | Behavioural | Effects of Competing Items on PIA Outcomes, Evaluation of Competing Items |
Primary outcome
Destructive behavior (responses per minute)
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 4 weeks.
The primary outcome measure is responses per minute of destructive behavior. The investigators will calculate this outcome by dividing the total number of destructive responses per session by the total number of minutes spent in session.
Discriminated functional communication responses (percentage)
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 4 weeks.
The investigators will calculate this outcome by dividing the number of child requests when reinforcement is signaled as available by the total number of child requests during reinforcement and extinction, then multiplying the quotient by 100 to convert it to a percentage. This indicates the level of accuracy with communication requests, with 80-100% being optimal.
Efficiency of schedule thinning
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 4 weeks.
In addition to the above metrics, it is expect that informing schedule thinning with the PIA or competing items may result in reaching the terminal schedule (e.g., 270-s extinction) more rapidly than conditions not so informed. Thus, investigators will analyze the number of treatment sessions required for an intervention to produce destructive behavior below an 85% reduction from baseline and discriminated functional communication responses above 80% at the terminal-schedule value.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Aug 2026.
- Background: PubMed 8034819Borthwick-Duffy SA. Epidemiology and prevalence of psychopathology in people with mental retardation. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1994 Feb;62(1):17-27. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.62.1.17.
- Background: PubMed 29774545Briggs AM, Fisher WW, Greer BD, Kimball RT. Prevalence of resurgence of destructive behavior when thinning reinforcement schedules during functional communication training. J Appl Behav Anal. 2018 Jul;51(3):620-633. doi: 10.1002/jaba.472. Epub 2018 May 17.
- Background: PubMed 16901292Crocker AG, Mercier C, Lachapelle Y, Brunet A, Morin D, Roy ME. Prevalence and types of aggressive behaviour among adults with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2006 Sep;50(Pt 9):652-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00815.x.
- Background: PubMed 29959773Fuhrman AM, Greer BD, Zangrillo AN, Fisher WW. Evaluating competing activities to enhance functional communication training during reinforcement schedule thinning. J Appl Behav Anal. 2018 Oct;51(4):931-942. doi: 10.1002/jaba.486. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
- Background: PubMed 26482103Greer BD, Fisher WW, Saini V, Owen TM, Jones JK. Functional communication training during reinforcement schedule thinning: An analysis of 25 applications. J Appl Behav Anal. 2016 Mar;49(1):105-21. doi: 10.1002/jaba.265. Epub 2015 Oct 20.
- Background: PubMed 31049954Greer BD, Shahan TA. Resurgence as Choice: Implications for promoting durable behavior change. J Appl Behav Anal. 2019 Jul;52(3):816-846. doi: 10.1002/jaba.573. Epub 2019 May 3.
- Background: PubMed 22532899Hagopian LP, Boelter EW, Jarmolowicz DP. Reinforcement schedule thinning following functional communication training: review and recommendations. Behav Anal Pract. 2011 Summer;4(1):4-16. doi: 10.1007/BF03391770.
- Background: PubMed 9652101Hagopian LP, Fisher WW, Sullivan MT, Acquisto J, LeBlanc LA. Effectiveness of functional communication training with and without extinction and punishment: a summary of 21 inpatient cases. J Appl Behav Anal. 1998 Summer;31(2):211-35. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-211.
- Background: PubMed 34897677Miller SA, Fisher WW, Greer BD, Saini V, Keevy MD. Procedures for determining and then modifying the extinction component of multiple schedules for destructive behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2022 Mar;55(2):463-480. doi: 10.1002/jaba.896. Epub 2021 Dec 12.
- Background: PubMed 35290666Mitteer DR, Greer BD, Randall KR, Haney SD. On the scope and characteristics of relapse when treating severe destructive behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 2022 Jun;55(3):688-703. doi: 10.1002/jaba.912. Epub 2022 Mar 15.
- Background: PubMed 33103244Muething C, Pavlov A, Call N, Ringdahl J, Gillespie S. Prevalence of resurgence during thinning of multiple schedules of reinforcement following functional communication training. J Appl Behav Anal. 2021 Apr;54(2):813-823. doi: 10.1002/jaba.791. Epub 2020 Oct 25.
- Background: PubMed 24114463Rooker GW, Jessel J, Kurtz PF, Hagopian LP. Functional communication training with and without alternative reinforcement and punishment: an analysis of 58 applications. J Appl Behav Anal. 2013 Dec;46(4):708-22. doi: 10.1002/jaba.76. Epub 2013 Aug 22.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. The investigators plan to share outcome data using the National Database on Autism Research (NDAR). The investigators will also share 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.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Brian D Greer, Ph.D. principal investigator
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Traditional Schedule Thinning, PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning and PIA-Informed Schedule Thinning with Competing Stimuli in people with Decreasing Destructive Behavior and Increasing Functional Communicative Behavior, run by Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey at 2 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Aug 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Brian D Greer, Ph.D. (8488008505, brian.greer@rutgers.edu), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Destructive behavior (responses per minute) (time frame: Through study completion, an average of 4 weeks.). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05790668, which also lists 16 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Aug 2026.