Correction

This article refers to:

Choosing a response topography for individuals with autism during functional communication training: A critically appraised topic

Article title: “Choosing a response topography for individuals with autism during functional communication training: A critically appraised topic”

Authors: Carnett, A., Neely, L., Hong, E., & Escobar, J.

Journal: Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention

DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2019.1602298

When the above article was first published online, there were inconsistencies in the formatting of Table 4. The correct format for Table 4 is as follows:

Table 4. Summary of the included studies

Kunnavatana, Wolfe, & Aguilar, 2018
Participants	2 adult males, ages 39 and 26 yrs. old
	both with a diagnosis of ASD
	lacked functional communication repertoires
	engaged in problem behavior (screaming and self-injury)
Study Design	Multi-element Design (Functional Analysis and mand topography assessment)
	ABAB-reversal design (FCT)
Study Aim	To evaluate if the preference for an effective mand topography could be identified during mand training for multiple responses.
Setting	Day program facility for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Assessment	A paired choice preference assessment (Fisher et al., 1992) was conducted to identify preferred items used in the FA and subsequent sessions.
	Functional analysis – sessions were 5 min for one participant and 10 min for the second participant. The following conditions were assessed: ignore, attention, escape, play, and tangible.
	Mand topography preference assessment – two types of sessions were used, training and choice in a series of training blocks (3 training sessions, one session for each mand topography).
	Sessions consisted of a 10-min break with preferred activities and was followed by a choice probe session.
	Problem behavior was placed on extinction and preference was assessed until differentiated responding was consistently observed (i.e., minimum of three data points).
Method/ Intervention	Functional communication training – sessions consisted of training for one of the three mand topographies (one session for each). Session orders were randomized. After each training block, the participant was given 10 min access to a preferred item before the choice-probe session was conducted.
	During training sessions, continuous demands were provided to set the occasion for the targeted mand topography (e.g., break picture card, iPad® based SGD, sign). Least-to-most prompting (partial physical, model, and gesture prompts) with a systematic prompt delay (i.e., 0 s, 5 s, 10 s, 20 s) was used to teach independent mands.
	Reinforcement consisted of a 30 s break and was immediately delivered following the targeted mand by the therapist.
	Choice-probe sessions were conducted after each training block to evaluate the participants’ preference of mand topography. During these sessions, all the materials for each mand topography were simultaneously available. A therapist provided prompts if needed following initiation of a mand response.
Outcomes	Positive outcomes:
	Both participants engaged in independent responses for all mand topographies.
	Preference for mand topography was identified after 3 training series for the first participant and after 6 for the second participant.
	Both participants showed preference for using and SGD to respond.
	Decrease in problem behavior were seen, as increases in SGD use was also observed for both participants.
Key Findings	Results suggest it is possible to individual preference of mand topography and such results can be applied to an FCT intervention.
	Preference emerged as proficiency with the different mand topographies increased.
Study Limitations	Signing was on a multiple schedule because it could be accessed without contacting reinforcement.
	There were salient stimuli for picture exchange and the SGD, but not sign.
	Comparison of the most preferred and least preferred mand topography was not made.
	Only three mand topographies were assessed due to availability.
Authors Conclusions	The authors conclude that assessing individual mand topography preference early on may increase treatment effectiveness and promote self-determination in the development of interventions.
Ringdahal et al., 2018
Participants	Experiment 1
	2 males, ages 4 and 68; 1 female age 49 yrs. old diagnosed with ASD and/or ID, and had communication delay or deficit (all nonvocal)
	Experiment 2
	4 males, ages 2, 3, 4, and 8 yrs. old
	all diagnosed with ASD and/or ID or DD and speech delay
Study Design	Multiple Schedule Design (FCT) for Experiment 1 & 2.
Study Aim	Experiment 1
	The aim of this experiment was to evaluate the impact of response preference on the persistence of mands for individuals without clinically significant problem behavior before determining if this variable should be explored within that context.
	Experiment 2
	The aim of this experiment was to replicate the findings of Experiment 1 in the context of the treatment of problem behavior.
Setting	Sessions were conducted in a clinical evaluation room (3 m by 4 m) The room contained preferred toys and/or activities, a mat, and a one-way mirror.
Assessment	A paired choice preference assessment (Fisher et al., 1992) was conducted using 6 items or activities identified by the care provider. Mand proficiency analysis was conducted to determine the participant’s ability to use the various communicative responses (i.e., communication card, microswitch, manual sign, or vocal approximation) to request a preferred item or activity. During these sessions, both modalities were concurrently available and conducted in a similar manner as described in the initial multiple schedule FCT. Placement of the communication topographies were alternated session-by-session. Contingent on the participant emitting either of the communication modalities, the therapist delivered the reinforcer. At the end of the reinforcement interval, the therapist removed the preferred item while making the previously described vocal prompt, and returned the communication devices. If a mand did not occurred for 30 s, a vocal prompt was given. This phase continued until a participant exhibited differentiated responding across the communication topographies for five consecutive sessions.
	Functional Analysis of problem behavior (Experiment 2) sessions were 5 min and consisted of the following conditions: control (play), attention, tangible, escape, and alone (no-interaction).
Method/ Intervention	FCT consisted of four phases (initial multiple schedule FCT, mand preference assessment, multiple schedule FCT with control of reinforcement rate, multiple schedule extinction.
	Initial multiple schedule FCT phase – FCT was conducted with the two identified mand topographies that were identified during the mand proficiency analysis. Each mand for a preferred item resulted in the therapist delivering the item (FR1 schedule). Sessions began with 1 to 2 minutes of access to the preferred item, followed by the therapist restricting access to the item and directing the participant to attend to the targeted mand topography available for the training session. The participant was then prompted to emit the targeted mand, which resulted in 30 s of access to the preferred item. Sessions were 5 minutes in length. Multiple schedule FCT with control of reinforcer rate phase – similar to the previous schedule, reinforcers were delivered on an FR1 schedule (5 trials per session) to control for the number of responses that were reinforced.
	Multiple schedule extinction phase – This phase was similar to the initial multiple schedule FCT phase, but the mand contingency was discontinued (the mand was not reinforced with the corresponding reinforcing item).
	Experiment 2 – (initial multiple schedule FCT training, mand preference assessment, and multiple schedule FCT control of reinforcement) problem behavior was placed on extinction and if the problem behavior occurred during a reinforcement interval, then the item was removed and a new opportunity to mand was presented.
Outcomes	Positive outcomes:
	Experiment 1
	Each participant learned both mand topographies during the initial FCT sessions.
	During the mand preference assessment differential responding was observed for one participants and exclusive responding with one topography was observed for the other two participants.
	During the multiple schedule FCT with control of reinforcement rate, each participant was observed omitting both mand topographies (baseline). During the extinction phase, responding was higher for preferred mand topography sessions for each participant.
	Experiment 2
	All participants emitted both mand topographies (picture exchange and microswitch) during the initial FCT training and showed a decrease in problem behavior.
	During the mand preference assessment phase, each participant showed preference for the microswitch.
	During the FCT baseline each participant emitted both mand topographies.
	During the extinction phase differentiation occurred across the mand topographies and problem behavior resurged for one participant.
Key Findings	Experiment 1
	Results showed that the preferred mand topography was resistant to a extinction compared to the lower preferred topography.
	Experiment 2
	Results replicated the findings from Experiment 1 and extended these findings to the context of FCT treatment for problem behavior.
Study Limitations	Limited assessment of only three different topographies during the mand proficiency analysis.
	The findings are limited to the maintenance of treatment effects relative to problem behavior.
	Limitations associated to generalization (across people and environments).
Authors Conclusions	Findings suggest that a response variable and preference impact the persistence of the response (mand) and impacts the maintenance of the response (resistance to extinction).
	These variables should be considered when developing FCT interventions.
Torelli et al., 2016
Participants	1 male, 4 yrs. old diagnosed with ASD
Study Design	Mulitielement Design for the Functional Analysis & Reversal Design for FCT
Study Aim	To identify a method for evaluating the independent mands, problem behavior, and mand topography preference in the context of FCT. Using outcome data from this evaluation to inform the caregiver.
Setting	University based outpatient behavior clinic for aggressive behavior.
Assessment	Functional Analysis of problem behavior - sessions were 5 min and consisted of the following conditions: attention, escape, play, and tangible.
Method/Intervention	Device acquisition phase – was used to train the participant to emit independent mands when occasioned by the EO for problem behavior. This phase consisted of three FCT with extinction conditions randomly alternated without replacement (PE, iPad®, GoTalk®). This assessment was conducted across tangible and escape conditions (six sessions for tangible and five sessions for escape) to evaluate the use of each mand topography. FCT with extinction phase – similar to the conditions in the FA (escape and tangible). During training aggression was placed on extinction and the targeted mand was taught using prompting and a progressive time delay. Mand preference assessment – the purpose of this assessment was to determine preference across the three mand topographies in the context of the relevant EOs, and to determine if the hierarchy of preference changed across functional classes. In the first phase, all three topographies were present and the relevant EO was presented by the therapist. The participant was given 10 s to independently emit a mand before a verbal prompt to pick one was given. If the participant independently emitted a mand, it resulted in 30 s of access to the functional reinforcer. Following reinforcement of the mand, the mand modalities were replaced on the table in different positions and the EO was represented. These procedures were conducted until a clear preference emerged. During the second phase the highest-preferred mand modality was removed in order to determine a secondary preference. Sessions were similar to the first condition, except the highest preferred mand topography was not present. The mand topography preference assessment was conducted twice for each function of aggression. Return to baseline – for both conditions (tangible and escape) a brief withdrawal of treatment with the same procedures as the FA condition. The final treatment phase was a parent choice phase – this phase consisted of the use of the iPad® mand topography in the context of FCT.
Outcomes	Positive Outcomes:
	Results showed that preference of mand topography (iPad®) corresponded with higher rates of independent mands and lower rates of problem behavior.
	Results also showed that FCT across each modality was effective to some degree for decreasing problem behavior.
Key Findings	This study outlines a method for evaluating preference of mand topography and proficiency in the context of FCT. These results indicate the effectiveness of utilizing individual preference of topography for higher rates of acquisition, which corresponded with
	lower rates of problem behavior in the context of FCT.
Study Limitations	Limited ability to quantify the participant’s previous experience across the mand topographies, thus the authors could not account for prior learning history.
	The authors were uncertain if in baseline the participant would have emitted mands with some of the mand topographies.
	This study evaluated only one participant, which may limit the generalizability of these findings.
Authors Conclusions	This study extends the findings of Ringdahl et al. (2009) by evaluating and assessing mand topography preference and proficiency in the context of FCT.
	This study also extends finding from Winborn-Kemmerer et al. (2009) and suggest response effort may influence acquisition of mands, preference of topography, and rates of problem behavior, and thus warrants evaluation.

This article is available online and it has been corrected.