# Establishing Functional Communication Responses and Mands: A Scoping Review of Teaching Procedures and Implications for Future Investigation

## TL;DR

This paper reviews how to teach communication skills to replace challenging behaviors, comparing methods for teaching mands and functional communication responses.

## Contribution

The study is the first to systematically compare teaching procedures for mands and functional communication responses.

## Key findings

- Mand training often targets multiple responses, while FCT focuses on a single response to reduce problem behavior.
- Differences were found in how motivating operations are contrived and in prompting procedures.
- The findings suggest the need for integrated instructional approaches to improve communication generalization.

## Abstract

The functional communication response (FCR) shares fundamental properties with the mand, with both responses linking the relevant motivating operation and the reinforcer maintaining a response. The FCR differs from the mand in that the communication response has the expressed intention of replacing challenging behavior by providing an outlet to access the same functional reinforcer. Research describes the development of mand and FCR repertoires; however, no research to date elucidates differences and similarities in how these repertoires are established. A scoping review was selected to systematically map and compare instructional procedures across FCT and mand training studies. In this scoping review, we analyzed 98 peer-reviewed empirical studies published between 2014 and 2024 that taught FCR or mand repertoires, identified through searches of PsychINFO and ERIC using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We (a) reviewed teaching strategies for developing mand and FCR repertoires, (b) analyzed unique and shared teaching features, and (c) identified implications for future research on teaching FCRs to replace challenging behaviors. Results showed that mand training studies more often targeted multiple responses to expand communication repertoires, whereas FCT studies typically focused on teaching a single response to rapidly suppress problem behavior. Additional distinctions included strategies for contriving motivating operations, prompting procedures, and communication topographies. These findings highlight important procedural divergences and suggest the need for integrated instructional approaches that promote generalization and functional use of communication.