Literature Review of Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior Jaba

• Periodical List
• J Appl Behav Anal
• v.43(4); Winter 2010
• PMC2998250

J Appl Behav Anal. 2010 Wintertime; 43(4): 569–589.

AN INVESTIGATION OF DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF Culling Beliefs WITHOUT EXTINCTION

Rachel Thompson, Activity Editor

Received 2008 Dec 30; Accustomed 2009 Nov 18.

Abstruse

We manipulated relative reinforcement for problem beliefs and appropriate beliefs using differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) without an extinction component. Seven children with developmental disabilities participated. We manipulated duration (Experiment 1), quality (Experiment 2), delay (Experiment iii), or a combination of each (Experiment 4), such that reinforcement favored appropriate behavior rather than problem behavior even though problem behavior nevertheless produced reinforcement. Results of Experiments i to three showed that behavior was often sensitive to manipulations of elapsing, quality, and filibuster in isolation, but the largest and most consistent beliefs alter was observed when several dimensions of reinforcement were combined to favor advisable beliefs (Experiment four). Results suggest strategies for reducing problem behavior and increasing appropriate behavior without extinction.

Keywords: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism, concurrent schedules, differential reinforcement, extinction, problem beliefs

Differential reinforcement is a fundamental principle of beliefs analysis that has led to the development of a gear up of procedures used as treatment for problem behavior (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). One of the well-nigh frequently used of these procedures is the differential reinforcement of alternative beliefs (DRA). DRA typically involves withholding reinforcers post-obit trouble behavior (extinction) and providing reinforcers following appropriate behavior (Deitz & Repp, 1983). Pretreatment identification of the reinforcers that maintain problem beliefs (i.eastward., functional analysis) permits the development of extinction procedures, which, past definition, must match the function of problem behavior (Iwata, Stride, Cowdery, & Miltenberger, 1994). In improver, the reinforcer maintaining problem beliefs can be delivered contingent on the occurrence of an alternative, more than appropriate response. Under these conditions, DRA has been successful at reducing problem behavior (Dwyer-Moore & Dixon, 2007; Vollmer & Iwata, 1992).

Although extinction is an important and powerful component of DRA, it is, unfortunately, non always possible to implement it (Fisher et al., 1993; Hagopian, Fisher, Sullivan, Acquisto, & LeBlanc, 1998). For case, a caregiver may be physically unable to prevent escape with a big or combative individual, leading to compromises in integrity of escape extinction. Information technology would also be hard to withhold reinforcement for behavior maintained by attention in the form of physical contact if physical blocking is required to protect the individual or others. For example, if an individual'due south attending-maintained center gouging is a threat to his or her eyesight, intervention is necessary to protect vision.

Several studies have found that DRA is less effective at decreasing problem behavior when implemented without extinction (Volkert, Lerman, Call, & Trosclair-Lasserre, 2009). For case, Fisher et al. (1993) evaluated functional communication training (FCT; a specific type of DRA procedure) without extinction, with extinction, and with penalisation contingent on problem behavior. Results showed that when FCT was introduced without an extinction or penalisation component for trouble behavior, the predetermined goal of lxx% reduction in trouble behavior was met with but one of three participants. FCT was more effective at reducing trouble beliefs when extinction was included, and the largest and almost consequent reduction was observed when penalisation was included.

Hagopian et al. (1998) conducted a replication of the Fisher et al. (1993) study and found that a predetermined goal of xc% reduction in trouble beliefs was not achieved with whatever of 11 participants exposed to FCT without extinction. When FCT was implemented with extinction, there was a 90% reduction in problem beliefs for 11 of 25 applications, with a mean percentage reduction in problem behavior of 69% across all applications.

McCord, Thomson, and Iwata (2001) found that DRA without extinction had limited effects on the cocky-injurious behavior of two individuals, one whose behavior was reinforced past avoidance of transition and another whose behavior was reinforced by abstention of transition and avoidance of task initiation. In both cases, DRA with extinction and response blocking produced sustained decreases in self-injury. These examinations of research on DRA without extinction have shown a bias in responding toward trouble behavior when the rate and immediacy of reinforcement of problem and advisable behavior are equivalent.

When considering variables that contribute to the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of DRA without extinction as a treatment for trouble behavior, it is helpful to conceptualize differential reinforcement procedures in terms of a concurrent-operants arrangement (eastward.g., Fisher et al., 1993; Mace & Roberts, 1993). Concurrent schedules are two or more schedules in effect simultaneously. Each schedule independently arranges reinforcement for a different response (Ferster & Skinner, 1957). The matching police force provides a quantitative clarification of responding on concurrent schedules of reinforcement (Baum, 1974; Herrnstein, 1961). In general, the matching law states that the relative charge per unit of responding on one alternative will approximate the relative charge per unit of reinforcement provided on that alternative. Consistent with the predictions of the matching law, some studies have reported reductions in trouble behavior without extinction when differential reinforcement favors advisable behavior rather than problem behavior (Piazza et al., 1997; Worsdell, Iwata, Hanley, Thompson, & Kahng, 2000).

For example, Worsdell et al. (2000) examined the effect of reinforcement rate on response resource allotment. Five individuals whose problem behavior was reinforced by social positive reinforcement were commencement exposed to an FCT condition in which both trouble and appropriate behavior were reinforced on stock-still-ratio (FR) i schedules. During subsequent FCT conditions, reinforcement for problem beliefs was made more intermittent (east.g., FR two, FR iii, FR 5), while appropriate behavior continued to be reinforced on an FR 1 schedule. 4 of the participants showed shifts in response allocation to appropriate behavior as the schedule of reinforcement for problem beliefs became more intermittent. There were several limitations to this research. For example, reinforcement rate was thinned in the same guild for each participant such that reductions in problem behavior may have been due in part to sequence furnishings. In improver, the reinforcement schedule was thinned to FR 20 for ii individuals. For these two participants, problem behavior rarely contacted reinforcement. The schedule in these cases may have been functionally equivalent to extinction rather than intermittent reinforcement. Nevertheless, these results propose that extinction may non exist a necessary treatment component when the charge per unit of reinforcement favors appropriate beliefs rather than trouble behavior.

In another case of DRA without extinction, Piazza et al. (1997) examined the furnishings of increasing the quality of reinforcement for compliance relative to reinforcement associated with problem behavior. 3 individuals whose trouble behavior was sensitive to negative reinforcement (break from tasks) and positive reinforcement (admission to tangible items, attention, or both) participated. Piazza et al. systematically evaluated the effects of reinforcing appropriate behavior with one, 2, or three of the reinforcing consequences (a break, tangible items, attention), both when trouble beliefs produced a break and when information technology did non (escape extinction). For two of the iii participants, appropriate behavior increased and problem behavior decreased when advisable beliefs produced a 30-south interruption with admission to tangible items and problem behavior produced a 30-due south break. The authors suggested that one potential explanation for these findings is that the relative rates of appropriate behavior and problem beliefs were a function of the relative value of the reinforcement produced past escape. It is unclear, even so, whether the intervention would be constructive with individuals whose problem behavior was sensitive to merely one blazon of reinforcement.

Together these and other studies have shown that beliefs will covary based on rate, quality, magnitude, and delay of reinforcement. Responding will favor the alternative associated with a higher reinforcement rate (Conger & Killeen, 1974; Lalli & Casey, 1996; Mace, McCurdy, & Quigley, 1990; Neef, Mace, Shea, & Shade, 1992; Vollmer, Roane, Ringdahl, & Marcus, 1999; Worsdell et al., 2000), greater quality of reinforcement (Hoch, McComas, Johnson, Faranda, & Guenther, 2002; Lalli et al., 1999; Neef et al.; Piazza et al., 1997), greater magnitude of reinforcement (Catania, 1963; Hoch et al., 2002; Lerman, Kelley, Vorndran, Kuhn, & LaRue, 2002), or more than immediate commitment of reinforcement (Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1994; Neef, Mace, & Shade, 1993; Neef, Shade, & Miller, 1994).

Although previous enquiry suggests that extinction may not e'er exist a necessary component of differential reinforcement treatment packages, every bit described above at that place were sure limitations inherent in previous investigations. In add-on, there has non been a comprehensive assay of several different reinforcement dimensions both singly and in combination. The current study sought to extend this existing enquiry by examining the influence of multiple dimensions of reinforcement and by incorporating variable-interval (6) reinforcement schedules.

Interval schedules are less likely than ratio schedules to push response allotment exclusively toward one response over another. Under ratio schedules, reinforcer delivery is maximized when responding favors ane alternative (Herrnstein & Loveland, 1975). Under interval schedules, reinforcer delivery is maximized by varying response allocation beyond alternatives (MacDonall, 2005). If responding favors one response culling over another under an interval schedule, this would indicate a bias in responding that is contained of the schedule of reinforcement. This bias would not be as hands appreciable during ratio schedules of reinforcement. In the electric current awarding, an interval schedule allowed us to identify potential biases in responding that were independent of the reinforcement schedule. In addition, the application of a 6 schedule mimics, to a degree, the integrity failures that could occur in the natural surroundings.

In the natural environment, caregivers may not ever implement extinction procedures accurately. They also may fail to implement reinforcement procedures accurately (Shores et al., 1993). Therefore, it may be of import to identify a therapeutic differential reinforcement process that is effective despite intermittent reinforcement of both appropriate and problem behavior. The use of concurrent VI schedules in the current experiments allowed the examination of the furnishings of failure to withhold reinforcement following every problem behavior and failure to reinforce every appropriate behavior in a highly controlled counterpart setting.

We evaluated several manipulations that could be considered in the event that extinction either cannot or will not be implemented. In Experiments 1 to 3, we manipulated a single dimension of reinforcement such that reinforcement favored advisable behavior forth the lines of duration (Experiment ane), quality (Experiment 2), or delay (Experiment 3). In Experiment 4, we combined each of these dimensions of reinforcement such that reinforcement favored appropriate behavior.

Full general METHOD

Participants and Setting

Seven individuals with developmental disorders who engaged in severe problem behavior participated. These were the first vii individuals who engaged in problem behavior sensitive to socially mediated reinforcement (as identified via functional analysis) and were admitted to an outpatient dispensary (Justin, Henry, Corey, Kenneth, Lana) or referred for behavioral consultation services at local simple schools (George, Clark). (Encounter Table one for each participant's historic period, diagnosis, trouble behavior, and appropriate behavior.) We selected the targeted appropriate behavior for each participant based on the office of problem behavior. For example, if an private engaged in problem behavior to access attention, we selected a mand for attention as the advisable behavior. Targeted response forms were in the participants' repertoires, although the behavior typically occurred at depression rates.

Table ane

Participants' Characteristics

Session rooms in the outpatient clinic (3 m by 3 thousand) were equipped with a one-way observation window and sound monitoring. We conducted sessions for George and Clark in a classroom at their uncomplicated schools. The rooms for all participants contained materials necessary for a session (e.thousand., toys, task materials), and the elementary school classrooms contained materials such as posters and tables (George and Clark only). With the exception of the last experimental condition assessing generality, no other children were in the room during the analyses with George and Clark.

Trained clinicians served equally therapists and conducted sessions 4 to 16 times per twenty-four hours, 5 days per week. Sessions were 10 min in duration, and there was a minimum v-min break between each session. We used a multielement design during the functional analysis and a reversal pattern during all subsequent analyses.

Response Measurement and Interobserver Agreement

Observers were clinicians who had received preparation in behavioral observation and had previously demonstrated high interobserver agreement scores (>90%) with trained observers. Observers in the outpatient clinic sat backside a one-way observation window. Observers in the school sat out of the direct line of sight of the child. All observers nerveless data on desktop or laptop computers that provided real-time information and scored events as either frequency (eastward.thousand., aggression, disruption, self-injury, and screaming) or duration (eastward.g., delivery of attention, escape from instructions; see Table 1 for operational definitions of behavior). Observations were divided into 10-s bins, and observers scored the number (or duration) of observed responses for each bin. The smaller number (or elapsing) of observed responses within each bin was divided by the larger number and converted to agreement percentages for frequency measures (Bostow & Bailey, 1969). Understanding on the nonoccurrence of behavior within whatsoever given bin was scored as 100% agreement. The agreement scores for bins were so averaged beyond the session.

Two independent observers scored the target responses simultaneously just independently during a mean of 37% of functional analysis sessions (range, 27% to 49%) and 29% of experimental analysis sessions (range, 25% to 32%). We assessed interobserver agreement for trouble behavior (aggression, disruption, inappropriate sexual behavior) and appropriate behavior (compliance and mands) of all participants and for the therapist's beliefs, which included therapist attention, delivery of tangible items, and escape from demands.

For Justin, mean agreement was 98% for aggression (range, 87% to 100%), 96% for disruption (range, 85% to 100%), 100% for inappropriate sexual behavior, and 98% for compliance (range, 86% to 100%). For Henry, mean agreement was 100% for aggression, 99.nine% for disruption (range, 99.vii% to 100%), and 97% for mands (range, 95% to 99%). For Corey, hateful understanding was 100% for aggression and disruption and 97% for mands (range, 95% to 100%). For Kenneth, mean agreement was 98% for assailment (range, 94% to 100%), 99% for disruption (range, 97% to 100%), and 99% for mands (range, 95% to 100%). For Lana, mean agreement was 99% for aggression (range, 99% to 100%) and 100% for mands. For George, mean agreement was 99% (range, 98% to 100%) for aggression, 99% for disruption (range, 98% to 100%), and 93% for mands (range, 88% to 99%). Mean interobserver agreement scores for 39% of all sessions was 100% for therapist attending, 99.ix% for access to tangible items (range, 99% to 100%), and 100% for escape from instructions.

Stimulus Preference Assessment

We conducted a paired-stimulus preference assessment for each participant to identify a hierarchy of preferred items for employ in the functional analysis (Fisher et al., 1992). In add-on, for those participants whose problem behavior was reinforced by tangible items (Corey, Lana, and Clark), a multiple-stimulus-without-replacement (MSWO) preference cess (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996) was conducted immediately prior to each session of the treatment analyses. We used breezy caregiver interviews to select items used in the preference assessments, and a minimum of six items were included in the assessments.

Functional Analysis

We conducted functional analyses prior to the treatment evaluation. Procedures were similar to those described by Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman (1982/1994) with one exception to the procedures for George. His assailment was severe and primarily directed toward therapists' heads; therefore, a blocking procedure was in place throughout the functional assay for the condom of the therapist. Blocking consisted of a therapist holding up his arm to forbid a hitting from straight contacting his caput. During the functional analysis, four examination conditions (attention, tangible, escape, and ignore) were compared to a control condition (play) using a multielement design.

Figure 1 shows response rates of problem behavior during the functional analyses for Justin, Corey, Kenneth, and Henry. We nerveless data for aggression and disruption separately and obtained like results for each topography for all participants; therefore, both topographies were combined in these data presentations. We obtained similar results for inappropriate sexual behavior for Justin, which nosotros combined with aggression and disruption.

Response rates during the functional analysis for Justin, Corey, Kenneth, and Henry.

Justin engaged in the highest rates of problem behavior in the escape status. Although the overall trend in the escape status is downwardly, inspection of the data showed that he was becoming more efficient in escape behavior by responding simply when the therapist presented demands. Corey engaged in the highest rates of problem behavior during the tangible condition. Kenneth engaged in the highest rates of aggression and disruption during the attention and escape conditions. Henry displayed the highest rates of aggression and disruption in the escape status.

Figure 2 shows the results of the functional analyses for Lana, Clark, and George. Lana and Clark displayed the highest rates of aggression during the tangible status. George engaged in the highest rates of aggression and disruption during the attention condition.

Response rates during the functional analysis for Lana, Clark, and George.

Baseline

During baseline and all subsequent conditions of Experiments 1 to four, equal concurrent VI schedules of reinforcement (Vi 20 s Vi 20 south) were in place for both problem and appropriate beliefs. A random number generator selected intervals between 1 s and 39 s, with a mean interval length of xx s, and the programmed intervals for each session were bachelor on a computer printout. A trained observer timed intervals using two timers set according to the programmed intervals. The get-go instance of beliefs post-obit availability of a reinforcer resulted in commitment of the reinforcer for thirty south (for an exception, run into Experiment 1 involving manipulations of reinforcer duration). When reinforcement was available for a response (i.e., the interval elapsed) and the beliefs occurred, the observer discreetly tapped on the one-way window from the observation room (clinic) or briefly nodded his head (classroom) to prompt the therapist to reinforce a response. Afterwards 30 s of reinforcer access (or the pertinent elapsing value in Experiment 1), the therapist removed the reinforcer and reset the timer for that response. The Six clock for one response (eastward.g., appropriate beliefs) stopped while the participant consumed the reinforcer for the other response (e.g., trouble behavior). The therapist reinforced responses regardless of the interval of time since the last changeover from the other response alternative. The reinforcer identified for trouble beliefs in the functional analysis served equally the reinforcer for both responses during baseline. In Experiments two and 4, which involved manipulations of quality, participants received the same high-quality toy contingent on appropriate or trouble behavior during baseline.

Nosotros conducted each baseline in the experiment as described but labeled them differently in order to highlight the dimensions of reinforcement that varied across experiments. For example, in Experiment 1 nosotros manipulated duration of reinforcement, and baseline is labeled 30-s/30-s dur to indicate that reinforcement was provided for 30 s (duration) following trouble and appropriate behavior. In Experiment 2, we manipulated quality of reinforcement, and baseline is labeled 1 HQ/1 HQ to indicate that a high-quality reinforcer was delivered post-obit appropriate and problem behavior. In Experiment iii, we manipulated delay to reinforcement, and baseline is labeled 0-s/0-s delay. In Experiment 4 we manipulated duration, quality, and delay in combination, and baseline is labeled 30-s dur 1 HQ 0-s filibuster/thirty-south dur 1 HQ 0-s delay.

EXPERIMENT i: Elapsing

Method

The purpose of Experiment ane was to examine whether nosotros could obtain clinically adequate changes in beliefs by providing a longer duration of access to the reinforcer post-obit appropriate behavior and shorter elapsing of admission to the reinforcer following trouble behavior.

thirty-s/10-s dur

Justin and Lana participated in the thirty-s/10-s dur status. For Justin, appropriate behavior produced a xxx-s pause from instructions. Problem behavior produced a ten-s intermission from instructions. For Lana, appropriate behavior produced access to the most preferred toy for 30 s, and problem beliefs produced access to the same toy for 10 southward.

45-s/5-s dur

Justin participated in the 45-southward/v-southward dur condition during which the duration of reinforcement was more discrepant across response alternatives. Appropriate behavior produced a 45-southward intermission from instructions, and trouble beliefs produced a 5-s break from instructions.

Results and Discussion

Figure 3 shows the results for Justin and Lana. For Justin, during the thirty-s/30-due south dur baseline condition, problem behavior occurred at college rates than appropriate behavior. In the 30-due south/10-south dur condition, there was a slight subtract in the rate of problem beliefs, and some appropriate beliefs occurred. Because problem beliefs nevertheless occurred at a higher rate than appropriate behavior, we conducted the 45-due south/five-s dur status. In the last five sessions of this status, problem beliefs decreased to low rates, and appropriate behavior increased. In a reversal to the 30-s/30-s dur baseline, problem behavior returned to levels higher than advisable beliefs. In the subsequent return to the 45-s/5-s dur condition, the favorable effects were replicated. Responding stabilized in the concluding v sessions of this condition, with problem beliefs remaining low and advisable behavior remaining loftier. In a reversal to the 30-s/thirty-s dur baseline, nonetheless, at that place was a failure to replicate previous baseline levels of responding. Instead, low rates of problem behavior and high rates of appropriate beliefs occurred.

Justin'southward and Lana's response rates during the duration analysis for problem behavior and appropriate behavior.

During the 30-s/30-due south dur baseline, Lana's problem behavior occurred at higher rates than appropriate behavior. During the 30-s/10-s dur condition, appropriate behavior occurred at higher rates, and trouble behavior decreased to zero. The effects of the xxx-southward/30-s dur baseline and the 30-due south/10-s dur status were replicated in the last two atmospheric condition.

In summary, the duration analysis indicated that for both participants, the relative rates of problem beliefs and appropriate beliefs were sensitive to the reinforcement duration available for each alternative in four of the 5 applications in which elapsing of reinforcement was diff. This finding replicates the findings of previous investigations on the effects of reinforcement elapsing on option responding (Catania, 1963; Lerman et al., 2002; Ten Eyck, 1970).

There were several limitations to this experiment. For case, the participants did not show sensitivity to the concurrent 6 schedules when both the rate and elapsing of reinforcement were equal. Nether this arrangement, the participants would have collected all of the available reinforcers had they distributed their responding roughly equally betwixt the ii response options. The failure to distribute responding across responses indicates a bias toward problem beliefs. Additional enquiry into this failure to show sensitivity to the concurrent Six schedules is warranted only was outside the telescopic of this experiment.

With Justin, we were unable to recapture baseline rates of trouble and appropriate beliefs in our concluding reversal to the 30-southward/30-due south dur baseline. This failure to replicate previous rates of responding may be a event of his recent history with a condition in which reinforcement favored advisable behavior (i.e., the 5 due south/45-s dur condition). Even so, this lack of replication weakens the demonstration of experimental command with this participant. With both participants, there was a gradual alter in responding in the condition that ultimately produced a change favoring the alternative behavior, which is non surprising given that extinction was not in place. Responding nether intermittent schedules of reinforcement tin can be more resistant to modify (Ferster & Skinner, 1957).

EXPERIMENT 2: QUALITY

The purpose of Experiment ii was to examine whether we could obtain clinically acceptable changes in behavior past providing a college quality reinforcer following advisable beliefs and lower quality reinforcer following trouble behavior.

Method

Reinforcer assessment

We conducted a reinforcer cess using procedures described by Piazza et al. (1999) before conducting the quality analysis with Kenneth. The cess identified the relative efficacy of two reinforcers (i.east., praise and reprimands) in a concurrent-operants system. During baseline, the therapist stood in the middle of a room that was divided by painter's tape and provided no social interaction; toy contact (e.yard., playing with green or orangish blocks on either side of the divided room) and trouble behavior resulted in no arranged consequences. Presession prompting occurred prior to the beginning of the initial contingent attention phase and the reversal (described below). During presession prompting, the experimenter prompted Kenneth to make contact with the green and orange toys. Prompted contact with green toys resulted in praise (e.chiliad., "Good chore, Kenneth," delivered in a loftier-pitched, loud voice with an excited tone). Prompted contact with the orange toys resulted in reprimands (e.g., "Don't play with that," delivered in a deeper pitched, loud vocalism with a harsh tone). Following presession prompting, we implemented the contingent attention phase. The therapist stood in the centre of a room divided by painter's tape and delivered the consequences to which Kenneth had been exposed in presession prompting. The therapist delivered continuous reprimands or praise for the duration of toy contact and blocked attempts to play with two different-colored toys simultaneously.

During the second contingent attention stage, we reversed the consequences associated with each color of toys such that light-green toys were associated with reprimands and orange toys with praise. The different-colored toys were always associated with a specific side of the room, and the therapist ensured that they remained on that side. Kenneth selected the colored toy associated with praise on a mean of 98% of all contingent attention sessions.

1 HQ/ane LQ

For Justin, problem behavior produced 30 due south of escape with access to one depression-quality tangible item identified in a presession MSWO. Appropriate beliefs produced 30 s of escape with access to one high-quality tangible item identified in a presession MSWO. Although the variable that maintained his problem beliefs was escape, we used disparate quality toys as a manner of creating a qualitative deviation between the escape contingencies for advisable and problem behavior.

For Kenneth, problem behavior produced reprimands (e.g., "Don't do that, I actually do non like information technology, and you could end upwardly hurting someone"), which the reinforcer cess identified as a less constructive form of reinforcement than social praise. Appropriate behavior produced praise (e.g., "Good job handing me the carte; I really like it when you hand it to me so nicely."), which was identified equally a more than effective form of reinforcement in the reinforcer assessment.

3 HQ/i LQ

For Justin and Kenneth, problem beliefs did not subtract to therapeutic levels in the 1 HQ/1 LQ condition. For Justin, within-session assay showed that as sessions progressed during the 1 LQ/1 HQ condition, he stopped playing with the toy and showed decreases in compliance, possibly due to reinforcer satiation. Unfortunately, we did not have access to potentially higher quality toys that Justin had requested (eastward.g., video game systems). Given this express access, we increased the number of preferred toys provided contingent on appropriate behavior as a style of addressing potential satiation with the toys. Nosotros provided three toys selected nearly frequently in presession MSWO assessments. Therefore, for Justin, in the iii HQ/i LQ condition, advisable behavior produced thirty s of escape with access to three high-quality toys. Trouble behavior produced thirty s of escape with access to one depression-quality tangible particular.

For Kenneth, anecdotal observations betwixt sessions showed that he oft requested physical attention in the forms of hugs and tickles by guiding the therapist's easily around him or to his stomach. Based on this observation, nosotros added physical attending to the social praise bachelor following advisable behavior. Therefore, during the 3 HQ/1 LQ condition, appropriate behavior produced praise and the add-on of concrete attending (due east.1000., "Practiced task handing me the card," hugs and tickles). Problem behavior produced reprimands.

Results and Discussion

During the 1 HQ/1 HQ baseline condition, Justin (Effigy iv, elevation) engaged in higher rates of trouble behavior than appropriate beliefs. In the 1 HQ/1 LQ condition, rates of problem behavior decreased, and appropriate behavior increased. However, toward the end of the phase, problem behavior increased, and appropriate behavior decreased. Lower rates of trouble behavior than appropriate behavior were obtained in the 3 HQ/1 LQ condition. During the subsequent 1 HQ/1 HQ baseline reversal, there was a failure to recapture previous rates of problem and appropriate beliefs. Instead, problem behavior occurred at a lower rate than appropriate behavior. Despite this, problem behavior increased relative to what was observed in the immediately preceding iii HQ/1 LQ condition. Problem behavior decreased, and advisable behavior increased to high levels during the return to the 3 HQ/i LQ condition.

Response rates for Justin and Kenneth during the quality analysis for problem behavior and advisable behavior.

Kenneth (Effigy 4, lesser) engaged in higher rates of trouble behavior than appropriate behavior in the 1 HQ/1 HQ baseline. In the 1 HQ/1 LQ condition, rates of problem behavior decreased, and appropriate beliefs increased. During the final v sessions, responding shifted across response alternatives across sessions. During a replication of 1 HQ/ane HQ baseline, we observed high rates of problem behavior and relatively lower rates of appropriate behavior. During a subsequent replication of the 1 HQ/one LQ condition, slightly higher rates of problem behavior than appropriate behavior were obtained, with responding again shifting across response alternatives across sessions. In a replication of i HQ/1 HQ baseline, high rates of problem beliefs and lower rates of appropriate beliefs were obtained. Following this replication, nosotros conducted the iii HQ/1 LQ condition, and problem behavior decreased to rates lower than observed in previous atmospheric condition and appropriate beliefs increased to loftier rates. The effects of the 1 HQ/1 HQ baseline and the 3 HQ/1 LQ status were replicated in the final 2 conditions.

In summary, results of the quality analyses indicated that for both participants, the relative rates of both trouble behavior and appropriate behavior were sensitive to the quality of reinforcement bachelor for each alternative. These results replicate the findings of previous investigations on the relative effects of quality of reinforcement on choice responding (Conger & Killeen, 1974; Hoch et al., 2002; Martens & Houk, 1989; Neef et al., 1992; Piazza et al., 1997).

One drawback to this study was the manipulation of both magnitude and quality of reinforcement with Justin. Given the circumstances described above, a greater number of higher quality toys were provided contingent on advisable behavior relative to trouble beliefs prior to obtaining a consequent shift in response allocation.

As in Experiment one, the failure to replicate prior rates of advisable beliefs in our final reversal to the 1 HQ/1 HQ baseline weakened experimental control with Justin. Once more, baseline levels of behavior were not recaptured after an intervening history in which the reinforcement quality and magnitude favored appropriate beliefs.

EXPERIMENT 3: Delay

Method

The purpose of Experiment iii was to examine whether nosotros could produce clinically acceptable changes in beliefs by providing immediate reinforcement following appropriate behavior and delayed reinforcement post-obit trouble behavior.

0-s/30-southward delay

Corey and Henry participated in the 0-s/30-s delay condition. For Corey, advisable behavior produced 30-southward immediate access to a high-quality toy (selected from a presession MSWO). Trouble behavior produced thirty-s access to the same high-quality toy after a 30-s unsignaled delay. For Henry, appropriate behavior produced an immediate thirty-due south interruption from instructions. Trouble behavior produced a 30-due south break from instructions later a xxx-due south unsignaled delay. With both participants, in one case a delay interval started, additional instances of problem behavior did not reset the interval. When problem behavior occurred, the information collector started a timer and signaled the therapist to provide reinforcement when the timer elapsed by a discreet tap on the one-way window. If a participant engaged in appropriate behavior during the delay interval for problem behavior, the therapist immediately delivered the reinforcer for advisable behavior (as programmed), and the delay clock for problem behavior temporarily stopped and and so resumed after the reinforcement interval for appropriate behavior ended.

0-s/sixty-s delay

When the initial delay interval did not result in therapeutic decreases in problem beliefs for Corey, we altered the delay interval such that trouble behavior produced 30-s access to a high-quality toy (selected from a presession MSWO) later a 60-s unsignaled delay. Advisable behavior connected to produce 30-s immediate access to the same high-quality toy. For Henry, trouble behavior produced a 30-s interruption from instructions later a lx-due south unsignaled delay, and advisable behavior connected to produce an immediate xxx-s break.

Results and Discussion

During the 0-s/0-s filibuster baseline, Corey (Figure 5, top) engaged in higher rates of problem behavior than advisable behavior. In the 0-s/xxx-southward delay status, problem behavior connected to occur at a college rate than advisable behavior. Given this, the 0-s/threescore-s filibuster status was implemented, and a gradual decrease in problem behavior and increase in advisable behavior was obtained. During a reversal to the 0-s/0-s delay baseline, there was an increase in problem behavior and a subtract in appropriate behavior. In the final reversal to the 0-s/60-s delay status, Corey became ill with strep pharynx. His caregiver continued to bring him to the clinic and did not inform us until later he began treatment. (Nosotros have indicated this menses on the graph.) Following his affliction, trouble behavior ceased, and appropriate behavior increased to high, steady rates.

Corey's and Henry'due south response rates during the delay analysis for problem beliefs and appropriate behavior.

During the 0-due south/0-s delay baseline, Henry (Figure 5, bottom) engaged in college rates of trouble beliefs than appropriate behavior. In the 0-s/30-s delay status, Henry connected to engage in a higher rate of problem behavior than advisable behavior. In a reversal to 0-due south/0-due south delay baseline, at that place was a slight increase in problem behavior from the previous condition and a decrease in appropriate behavior. During the 0-s/60-s delay condition, at that place was a decrease in problem behavior to zip rates and an increase in appropriate behavior to steady rates of 2 per minute (perfectly efficient responding given 30-s admission). These results were replicated in the reversals to 0-southward/0-s filibuster baseline and 0-south/lx-s delay condition.

In summary, results of the delay analysis betoken that the relative rates of problem beliefs and advisable behavior were sensitive to the delay to reinforcement following each alternative. These results replicate the findings of previous investigations on the furnishings of unsignaled delay to reinforcement (Sizemore & Lattal, 1978; Vollmer, Borrero, Lalli, & Daniel, 1999; Williams, 1976). For case, Vollmer et al. showed that aggression occurred when it produced immediate merely small reinforcers even though mands produced larger reinforcers subsequently an unsignaled delay. In their written report, participants displayed self-control when therapists signaled the delay to reinforcement.

It is of import to notation that the programmed delays were not necessarily those experienced by the participant. The occurrence of problem behavior started a timer that, when elapsed, resulted in delivery of reinforcement. Additional problem behavior during the filibuster did not add to the delay in order to preclude extinction-similar conditions. It was therefore possible that problem behavior occurred within the delay interval and resulted in shorter delays to reinforcement. This rarely occurred with Henry. Past contrast, Corey's problem behavior sometimes occurred in bursts or at loftier rates. In these cases, problem behavior was reinforced subsequently delays shorter than the programmed xxx s or 60 s. Nevertheless, the differential delays to reinforcement post-obit inappropriate and appropriate behavior somewhen shifted allocation toward advisable responding. 1 way to address this potential limitation would exist to add a differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) component with a resetting reinforcement interval. The resetting feature would outcome in the occurrence of problem behavior during the interval resetting the interval and therefore delaying reinforcement. With high-rate trouble behavior, this DRO contingency would initially result in very low rates of reinforcement, making the condition similar to extinction. We did not add together a DRO component in the current experiment because our aim was to evaluate treatments without extinction.

Another potential limitation to the current experiment was the possibility of adventitious reinforcement of chains of problem and advisable behavior. For example, when appropriate behavior occurred during the filibuster interval for problem behavior and the 6 schedule indicated reinforcement was bachelor for that response, there was immediate reinforcement of appropriate beliefs. This reinforcement could take strengthened a chain of trouble and appropriate behavior. Although this did not seem to be a business concern in the current experiment, i manner to command for this limitation would be to add a changeover delay (COD). A COD allows a response to be reinforced only if a certain interval has passed since the last changeover from the other response culling. The COD could forestall adventitious reinforcement of problem and advisable behavior and result in longer periods of responding on a given alternative and thus greater command by the relative reinforcement bachelor for those alternatives (Catania, 1966).

EXPERIMENT 4: DURATION, QUALITY, AND DELAY

The purpose of Experiment iv was to evaluate the effects of delivering immediate, longer elapsing access to loftier-quality reinforcement following appropriate beliefs and delayed, shorter duration access to low-quality reinforcement following problem behavior. We observed gradual treatment effects in the previous experiments. This was to be expected, because both types of responding were reinforced, simply is non an ideal clinical outcome. In addition, experimental command was not articulate in several of the cases, and none of the experiments clearly demonstrated how reinforcement that favored appropriate behavior could be used in a practical mode every bit a treatment for problem beliefs. The focus of Experiment iv, therefore, was to combine all the variables and examine whether clinically acceptable changes in behavior could be produced by making reinforcement for advisable beliefs greater along several dimensions. Nosotros also assessed the maintenance and generality of treatment effects. George and Clark participated in Experiment 4.

Method

Reinforcer assessment

Before conducting the experimental analyses with George, we conducted a reinforcer assessment using procedures similar to those described in Experiment 2. We compared the reinforcing efficacy of praise (e.one thousand., "Good job, George") and physical contact (e.g., high fives, pats on the back) with reprimands (e.g., "Don't do that") and concrete contact (due east.thou., therapist using his hands to block aggression from George for safety reasons). George allocated a mean of 96% of his responses to the colored toys that resulted in praise and physical contact.

xxx-southward dur HQ 0-s delay/5-s dur LQ 10-s filibuster

Equally in previous experiments, equal concurrent VI schedules of reinforcement (VI 20 s VI 20 s) were in place for both problem and advisable behavior throughout the experiment. For George, advisable behavior immediately produced 30 s of loftier-quality attention in the form of social praise and physical attention (e.g., high fives, pats on the back). Problem behavior produced 5 s of low-quality attention in the form of social disapproval and cursory blocking of assailment subsequently a x-s unsignaled delay. For Clark, appropriate behavior produced 30 s of immediate access to a high-preference toy. Problem behavior produced 5 s of access to a low-preference toy after a 10-s unsignaled delay. The therapist timed delays to reinforcement in the aforementioned manner as described in Experiment three. We assessed maintenance of treatment effects and extended treatment across therapists with both participants. George's participation concluded with a i-month follow-up to evaluate the maintenance of treatment furnishings. His teacher conducted the final 3 sessions of this status. Clark's participation concluded with a 2-calendar month follow-upwardly during which his teacher conducted sessions. Teachers received written descriptions of the protocol, one-on-1 training with modeling of the procedures, and feedback afterward each session regarding the accurateness of their implementation of the procedures.

Results and Word

During the 30-s dur 1 HQ 0-s delay/30-s dur 1 HQ 0-s delay baseline, George (Figure half-dozen, pinnacle) engaged in higher rates of problem behavior than appropriate behavior. In the 30-s dur HQ 0-s delay/v-s dur LQ 10-s filibuster condition, at that place was a decrease in problem behavior and an increase in appropriate behavior. In a reversal to baseline, in that location was an increase in problem behavior and a decrease in advisable beliefs. In the final reversal to the 30-southward dur HQ 0-s delay/five-s dur LQ 10-s filibuster condition, there was a further decrease in problem beliefs and an increase in advisable behavior. At the i-month follow-up, no trouble behavior occurred, and appropriate beliefs remained high.

George'due south and Clark'southward response rates for problem behavior and appropriate behavior.

During the 30-southward dur 1 HQ 0-s delay/thirty-s dur 1 HQ 0-s delay baseline, Clark (Figure half dozen, bottom) engaged in higher rates of problem beliefs than appropriate beliefs. In the initial 30-s dur HQ 0-s delay/v-s dur LQ 10-s filibuster status, there was a decrease in problem behavior and an increase in appropriate behavior. In a reversal to baseline, in that location was an increment in trouble behavior and a decrease in appropriate behavior. In a reversal to the 30-s dur HQ 0-s delay/5-s dur LQ x-southward delay condition, in that location was a further decrease in problem behavior and an increase in advisable behavior. At the ii-month follow-upwards, no problem behavior occurred, and appropriate behavior remained high.

In summary, results of the combined analyses betoken that for these participants the relative rates of problem behavior and appropriate behavior were sensitive to a combination of the quality, delay, and duration of reinforcement following each alternative. Compared to the beginning iii experiments, Experiment 4 resulted in clear experimental control; there were rapid changes in response allocation across atmospheric condition and consequent replications of responding under previous conditions, despite the fact that we did not include an extinction component.

At that place were several limitations to this experiment. We did not conduct within-bailiwick comparisons of manipulating single versus multiple dimensions of reinforcement. In add-on, the response blocking included in George's example limits conclusions regarding efficacy of treatments that do non include extinction because response blocking may office as either extinction or punishment (Lerman & Iwata, 1996). Unfortunately, George'south aggression tended to cause substantial damage to others and warranted the employ of the briefest sufficient block to foreclose damage. The blocking used during treatment was the same as that used in the functional assay. The blocking response did not serve to suppress assailment in the functional analysis, and information technology is doubtful that it exerted any such suppressive effects during the intervention. We did attempt to control for the addition of physical contact required post-obit problem behavior by adding physical contact contingent on appropriate beliefs.

A potential strength of this investigation was that we assessed both maintenance and generality of the procedures in a 1-calendar month follow-upward, with George's and Clark'southward teachers serving as therapists in several of the sessions. George's teacher reported that he had a history of attacking peers, making his behavior as well severe to ignore. His teacher also indicated that the presence of four other children in the room express the amount of attention she could deliver following appropriate behavior. Clark'southward behavior was so severe that prior to this investigation, he had been moved to a classroom in which he was the only pupil; he returned to a modest-size (four peers) classroom following this investigation. The current procedure identified an effective treatment in which teachers delivered a relatively long duration of high-quality reinforcement immediately following some appropriate behavior and brief, low-quality reinforcement after a short delay post-obit some trouble behavior. Our specific recommendation to both teachers was to follow the procedures in Experiment 4 to the all-time of their abilities, with the caveat that each should immediately intervene for aggression that was directed toward peers or was probable to cause severe impairment.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The current experiments attempted to identify differential reinforcement procedures that were constructive without extinction by manipulating several dimensions of reinforcement. We sought to extend prior research that focused solely on multiply maintained problem behavior (Piazza et al., 1997) and examined only single manipulations of reinforcement (Lalli & Casey, 1996; Piazza et al.). The nowadays studies showed the effectiveness of DRA that provided some combination of more than immediate, longer duration, or higher quality of reinforcement for appropriate behavior relative to reinforcement for problem behavior. In cases in which extinction is not feasible, the current studies offer a method of decreasing problem behavior and increasing advisable behavior without the utilise of extinction. For example, if problem behavior is and then severe (e.g., severe aggression, caput banging on hard surfaces) that it is not possible to withhold or fifty-fifty delay reinforcement, it may be possible to manipulate other parameters of reinforcement such as duration and quality to favor appropriate behavior. If attention maintains problem behavior in the form of severe self-injury, for example, problem behavior could result in brief social attention and appropriate behavior could result in a longer duration of attention in the class of praise, smiles, conversation, laughter, and physical attention such as hugs and tickling.

One potential contribution of the current experiments was procedural. The use of intermittent schedules of reinforcement in the treatment of problem behavior had several benefits. For example, these schedules likely mimic to a caste the schedules of reinforcement in the natural environment. It is unlikely that at home or schoolhouse, for instance, each example of behavior produces reinforcement. It is likely, however, that variable amounts of appropriate and problem behavior are reinforced or that varying amounts of time pass between reinforced episodes. Further, concurrent VI arrangements allow comparisons to and translations from experimental work on the matching police.

1 limitation of these experiments is the brevity and varying length of the conditions. In a laboratory, it may be possible to acquit conditions until meeting a stability criterion (e.g., a difference of less than 5% between information points); however, in a clinical setting, it is not e'er possible to bring each condition to stability before exposing behavior to another condition (i.due east., Corey and Kenneth).

A second potential limitation to the electric current experiment is the divergence in obtained versus programmed schedules of reinforcement. VI schedules of reinforcement involve delivery of a reinforcer for the kickoff response after an boilerplate length of time has passed since the last reinforcer. Participants did not always respond immediately after the required length of time elapsed, resulting at times in a less dense reinforcement schedule than programmed. The differences in obtained versus programmed reinforcement schedules were neither large nor consistent, yet.

Our written report suggests several areas for future inquiry. These experiments included concurrent schedules of Six 20-due south reinforcement for problem and appropriate behavior. Future research may involve similar analyses using concurrent-schedules arrangements based on naturalistic observations. The extent to which relative response allocation is like under descriptive and experimental arrangements may advise values of reinforcement parameters that may increment both the acceptability and integrity of handling implementation by caregivers. For example, researchers could conduct descriptive analyses (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968) with caregivers and analyze the results using reinforcers identified in a functional analysis with procedures similar to those described by Borrero, Vollmer, Borrero, and Bourret (2005). If descriptive analysis data show that problem behavior is reinforced on average every fifteen south and appropriate behavior is reinforced on average every thirty s, treatment might involve reinforcing appropriate behavior every 15 s and trouble beliefs every 30 southward.

Investigations similar to the electric current experiments could further explore the dimensions of quality, duration, and delay with more participants and with additional values of these dimensions. In improver, future researchers could investigate the event of concurrent manipulations of the dimensions of reinforcement every bit treatment for trouble behavior. For example, when information technology is not possible to withhold reinforcement for problem behavior, information technology may be that the rate of reinforcement tin can proceed to favor problem behavior if several dimensions of reinforcement, such as magnitude, quality, and duration, favor appropriate behavior. This area of inquiry may result in the development of more applied and widely adopted interventions for problem beliefs.

Acknowledgments

We thank Brian Iwata, Lise Abrams, and Stephen Smith for their comments on an before draft of this manuscript. Portions of this manuscript were included as part of the dissertation of the first writer at the University of Florida.

REFERENCES

• Baum W.M. Choice in costless-ranging wild pigeons. Science. 1974;185:78–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bijou S.W, Peterson R.F, Ault M.H. A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Practical Beliefs Assay. 1968;1:175–191. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Borrero C.S.W, Vollmer T.R, Borrero J.C, Bourret J. A method for evaluating the dimensions of reinforcement in parent-child interactions. Inquiry in Developmental Disabilities. 2005;26:577–592. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Bostow D.East, Bailey J.B. Modification of astringent confusing and ambitious beliefs using brief timeout and reinforcement procedures. Periodical of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1969;two:31–37. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Catania A.C. Concurrent performances: A baseline for the written report of reinforcement magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Beliefs. 1963;6:299–300. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Catania A.C. Concurrent operants. In: Honig W.M, editor. Operant behavior: Areas of research and application. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1966. pp. 213–270. (Ed.) [Google Scholar]
• Conger R, Killeen P. Apply of concurrent operants in pocket-sized group research. Pacific Sociological Review. 1974;17:399–416. [Google Scholar]
• Cooper J.O, Heron T.East, Heward Due west.L. Applied behavior analysis (second ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2007. [Google Scholar]
• Deitz D.E.D, Repp A.C. Reducing behavior through reinforcement. Exceptional Education Quarterly. 1983;three:34–46. [Google Scholar]
• DeLeon I.K, Iwata B.A. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1996;29:519–532. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dwyer-Moore K.J, Dixon M.R. Functional analysis and handling of problem behavior of elderly adults in long-term intendance. Journal of Applied Behavior Assay. 2007;40:679–683. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ferster C.B, Skinner B.F. Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1957. [Google Scholar]
• Fisher West, Piazza C.C, Bowman L.G, Hagopian L.P, Owens J.C, Slevin I. A comparison of 2 approaches for identifying reinforcers for person with severe and profound disabilities. Periodical of Applied Beliefs Analysis. 1992;25:491–498. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fisher W, Piazza C.C, Cataldo K.F, Harrell R, Jefferson Thou, Conner R. Functional communication training with and without extinction and penalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1993;26:23–36. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hagopian L.P, Fisher W.W, Sullivan M.T, Acquisto J, LeBlanc L.A. Effectiveness of functional communication training with and without extinction and penalization: A summary of 21 inpatient cases. Journal of Applied Behavior Assay. 1998;31:211–235. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Herrnstein R.J. Relative and accented force of response every bit a office of frequency of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1961;iv:267–272. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Herrnstein R.J, Loveland D.H. Maximizing and matching on concurrent ratio schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1975;24:107–116. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hoch H, McComas J.J, Johnson L, Faranda Due north, Guenther S.L. The effects of magnitude and quality of reinforcement on choice responding during play activities. Journal of Practical Behavior Assay. 2002;35:171–181. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Iwata B.A, Dorsey M.F, Slifer K.J, Bauman K.East, Richman Thousand.S. Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Practical Behavior Analysis. 1994;27:197–209. (Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3–20, 1982) [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Iwata B.A, Step G.M, Cowdery G.East, Miltenberger R.K. What makes extinction work: An analysis of procedural form and function. Journal of Applied Beliefs Assay. 1994;27:131–144. [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lalli J.S, Casey South.D. Treatment of multiply controlled trouble behavior. Periodical of Applied Beliefs Analysis. 1996;29:391–395. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lalli J.S, Vollmer T.R, Progar P.R, Wright C, Borrero J, Daniel D, et al. Contest between positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1999;32:285–296. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lerman D.C, Iwata B.A. A methodology for distinguishing between extinction and penalization effects of response blocking. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1996;29:231–233. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Lerman D.C, Kelley M.Due east, Vorndran C.M, Kuhn Due south.A.C, LaRue R.H.J. Reinforcement magnitude and responding during treatment with differential reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Assay. 2002;35:29–48. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• MacDonall J.S. Earning and obtaining reinforcers under concurrent interval scheduling. Journal of the Experimental Assay of Behavior. 2005;84:167–183. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mace F.C, McCurdy B, Quigley E.A. A collateral effect of advantage predicted by matching theory. Journal of Applied Beliefs Analysis. 1990;23:197–205. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Mace F.C, Neef Due north.A, Shade D, Mauro B.C. Limited matching on concurrent-schedule reinforcement of academic behavior. Journal of Practical Behavior Analysis. 1994;24:719–732. [Google Scholar]
• Mace F.C, Roberts M.Fifty. Factors affecting choice of behavioral interventions. In: Reichle J, Wacker D.P, editors. Communicative alternatives to challenging behavior: Integrating functional assessment and intervention strategies. Baltimore: Brookes; 1993. pp. 113–134. (Eds.) [Google Scholar]
• Martens B.K, Houk J.50. The awarding of Herrnstein's law of effect to confusing and on-job behavior of a retarded adolescent daughter. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1989;51:17–27. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• McCord B.Due east, Thomson R.J, Iwata B.A. Functional analysis and handling of cocky-injury associated with transitions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2001;34:195–210. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Neef N.A, Mace F.C, Shade D. Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: The interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay, and quality. Periodical of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1993;26:37–52. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Neef N.A, Mace F.C, Shea M.C, Shade D. Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Assay. 1992;25:691–699. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Neef N.A, Shade D, Miller Thousand.S. Assessing influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance. Journal of Applied Behavior Assay. 1994;27:575–583. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Piazza C.C, Bowman L.G, Contrucci South.A, Delia M.D, Adelinis J.D, Goh H. An evaluation of the properties of attention as reinforcement for subversive and advisable behavior. Journal of Applied Beliefs Assay. 1999;32:437–449. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Piazza C.C, Fisher W.W, Hanley G.P, Remick M.L, Contrucci South.A, Aitken T.L. The use of positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape-maintained subversive behavior. Journal of Practical Behavior Assay. 1997;30:279–298. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Shores R.E, Jack S.Fifty, Gunter P.50, Ellis D.Northward, DeBriere T.J, Wehby J.H. Classroom interactions of children with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 1993;1:27–39. [Google Scholar]
• Sizemore O.J, Lattal Yard.A. Unsignalled filibuster of reinforcement in variable-interval schedules. Periodical of the Experimental Analysis of Beliefs. 1978;30:169–175. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• 10 Eyck R.Fifty., Jr Furnishings of rate of reinforcement-time upon concurrent operant performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1970;fourteen:269–274. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Volkert V.M, Lerman D.C, Call N.A, Trosclair-Lasserre N. An evaluation of resurgence during treatment with functional advice training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2009;42:145–160. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Vollmer T.R, Borrero J.C, Lalli J.South, Daniel D. Evaluating cocky-control and impulsivity in children with astringent behavior disorders. Journal of Practical Behavior Analysis. 1999;32:451–466. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Vollmer T.R, Iwata B.A. Differential reinforcement equally treatment for behavior disorders: Procedural and functional variations. Enquiry in Developmental Disabilities. 1992;thirteen:393–417. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Vollmer T.R, Roane H.S, Ringdahl J.E, Marcus B.A. Evaluating treatment challenges with differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1999;32:9–23. [Google Scholar]
• Williams B.A. The effects of unsignalled delayed reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Assay of Beliefs. 1976;26:441–449. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Worsdell A.South, Iwata B.A, Hanley G.P, Thompson R.T, Kahng S.Due west. Effects of continuous and intermittent reinforcement for problem behavior during functional advice grooming. Journal of Applied Beliefs Analysis. 2000;33:167–179. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

---

Articles from Journal of Applied Beliefs Analysis are provided here courtesy of Gild for the Experimental Assay of Behavior

---

lampungmeiuaromme1969.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2998250/

Share :