Cynthia P. Livingston, Jordan E. DeBrine, Isaac J. Melanson, Daniel Kwak, Brittany Tomasi
{"title":"在功能性交流训练中比较照顾者和儿童对 Mand 地形图的偏好","authors":"Cynthia P. Livingston, Jordan E. DeBrine, Isaac J. Melanson, Daniel Kwak, Brittany Tomasi","doi":"10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Functional communication training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is frequently utilized as a treatment for socially maintained problem behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). Although FCT is a viable treatment option for the reduction of problem behavior, researchers have identified several variables related to the selection of the functional communication response (FCR) topography that may influence treatment outcomes, including individual and caregiver preference. However, there may be times in which the target individual and caregiver preference do not match. Given this, there is a need for procedures to identify and compare both child and caregiver preferences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify a preferred FCR topography via mand topography assessment and compare results of the mand topography assessment with a formal assessment of caregiver preference. We found that both child and caregiver participants demonstrated a preference for at least one FCR topography. Although we identified a preference for both the child and caregiver participants, child and caregiver preference did not match, except for a partial match for one caregiver-child dyad. Clinical implications and recommendations for navigating next steps when client and caregiver preferences do not align are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47565,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Caregivers’ and Children’s Preference for Mand Topography During Functional Communication Training\",\"authors\":\"Cynthia P. Livingston, Jordan E. DeBrine, Isaac J. Melanson, Daniel Kwak, Brittany Tomasi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Functional communication training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is frequently utilized as a treatment for socially maintained problem behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). Although FCT is a viable treatment option for the reduction of problem behavior, researchers have identified several variables related to the selection of the functional communication response (FCR) topography that may influence treatment outcomes, including individual and caregiver preference. However, there may be times in which the target individual and caregiver preference do not match. Given this, there is a need for procedures to identify and compare both child and caregiver preferences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify a preferred FCR topography via mand topography assessment and compare results of the mand topography assessment with a formal assessment of caregiver preference. We found that both child and caregiver participants demonstrated a preference for at least one FCR topography. Although we identified a preference for both the child and caregiver participants, child and caregiver preference did not match, except for a partial match for one caregiver-child dyad. Clinical implications and recommendations for navigating next steps when client and caregiver preferences do not align are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-024-09959-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of Caregivers’ and Children’s Preference for Mand Topography During Functional Communication Training
Functional communication training (FCT; Carr & Durand, 1985) is frequently utilized as a treatment for socially maintained problem behavior (Tiger et al., 2008). Although FCT is a viable treatment option for the reduction of problem behavior, researchers have identified several variables related to the selection of the functional communication response (FCR) topography that may influence treatment outcomes, including individual and caregiver preference. However, there may be times in which the target individual and caregiver preference do not match. Given this, there is a need for procedures to identify and compare both child and caregiver preferences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify a preferred FCR topography via mand topography assessment and compare results of the mand topography assessment with a formal assessment of caregiver preference. We found that both child and caregiver participants demonstrated a preference for at least one FCR topography. Although we identified a preference for both the child and caregiver participants, child and caregiver preference did not match, except for a partial match for one caregiver-child dyad. Clinical implications and recommendations for navigating next steps when client and caregiver preferences do not align are discussed.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of original research and clinical reports from a variety of fields serving persons with developmental and physical disabilities. Submissions from researchers, clinicians, and related professionals in the fields of psychology, rehabilitation, special education, kinesiology, counseling, social work, psychiatry, nursing, and rehabilitation medicine are considered. Investigations utilizing group comparisons as well as single-case experimental designs are of primary interest. In addition, case studies that are of particular clinical relevance or that describe innovative evaluation and intervention techniques are welcome. All research and clinical reports should contain sufficient procedural detail so that readers can clearly understand what was done, how it was done, and why the strategy was selected. Rigorously conducted replication studies utilizing group and single-case designs are welcome irrespective of results obtained. In addition, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and theoretical discussions that contribute substantially to understanding the problems and strengths of persons with developmental and physical disabilities are considered for publication. Authors are encouraged to preregister empirical studies, replications, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in a relevant public database and to include such information with their submission to the journal. Authors are also encouraged, where possible and applicable, to deposit data that support the findings of their research in a public repository (see detailed “Research Data Policy” module in the journal’s Instructions for Authors). In response to the need for increased clinical and research endeavors with persons with developmental and physical disabilities, the journal is cross-categorical and unbiased methodologically.