The current study evaluated a toilet-training treatment package described by Greer et al. (2016) with children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Most of the current research on toilet-training interventions for children with ASD are replications and modifications of Azrin and Foxx (1971) or (more recently) LeBlanc et al. (2005). However, these procedures are composed of components that are not included in studies with typically developing (TD) children. For example, Greer et al. evaluated the effectiveness of three typical components within a toilettraining package, mostly with TD participants: a 30-min sit schedule, placing participants in underwear, and differential reinforcement. The primary purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend the treatment package described by Greer et al. to children with ASD. A secondary purpose was to evaluate modifications necessary for individualized toilet training when the commonly used components were ineffective. The results of Greer et al. were replicated for 11 participants with ASD in the current study, suggesting that intensive toileting interventions (e.g., interventions requiring overcorrection, reprimands, and dense sit schedules) may only be necessary for a subset of individuals with ASD.

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) has a long history as a behavioral treatment. The term has usually been defined in a manner that suggests one form of behavior (usually some appropriate alternative) is reinforced, while another form of behavior (usually problem behavior) is placed on extinction. In this paper, we will suggest that DRA should not require extinction, either procedurally or by definition. Ideally, problem behavior would be placed on extinction when possible; however, when problem behavior is not or cannot be placed on extinction, the procedure used is still DRA. Thus, we propose the following definition: Providing greater reinforcement, along at least one dimension, contingent on the occurrence of one form or type of behavior, while minimizing reinforcement for another form or type of behavior.

We evaluated a noncontingent reinforcement procedure that involved initially providing three subjects with signaled, continuous access to the functional reinforcer for aggression and slowly increasing the amount of time subjects were exposed to the signaled unavailability of the reinforcer. Additionally, alternative potential reinforcers were available throughout the sessions. Results showed immediate and substantial reductions in aggression for all three subjects. The clinical utility of this intervention is discussed, and future research directions are recommended.

Previous research on the treatment of pica (i.e., the ingestion of inedible objects) is limited compared to research on the treatment of other types of severe problem behavior. This study involved the use of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior, with a discard response as the alternative behavior, to treat pica presented by a 13-year-old girl with an autism spectrum disorder. We extended previous research by thinning the schedule of reinforcement for the alternative response. Substantial reductions in pica were obtained. Limitations and future directions in the treatment of pica are discussed.

Momentary time sampling has been used to evaluate quality of care in several settings, including residential facilities and nursing homes. Given the growing number of behavior analysts providing center-based applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy to children with autism spectrum disorders, ABA centers are a new area in which assessing environmental indicators that might be correlated with the quality of care could be very important. Therefore, we extended these procedures to an ABA center, where we used momentary time sampling to assess staff behavior, client behavior, client condition, and environmental condition. The results demonstrated that this descriptive assessment can be a useful tool to obtain direct measures of variables that might affect quality of care. The general utility of this assessment, intervention plans for targets identified by this assessment, limitations of the assessment, and directions for future research in this area are discussed. K E Y W O R D S assessment, autism, quality of care, staff behavior, time sampling