Treatment integrity is the extent to which components of an intervention are implemented as intended (Gresham, 1989). Recent behavior‐analytic literature has begun to evaluate the effects of reduced‐treatment integrity on the efficacy and efficiency of skill‐acquisition interventions. This study extended the current literature on the effects of errors of omission and commission of reinforcer delivery by replicating and extending Hirst and DiGennaro Reed (2015). Using a randomized‐control group design, we compared undergraduate student participants' acquisition of conditional discriminations in a parametric analysis of different error values. A computer program erred in reinforcer delivery on 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 50% of trials. The purpose of the current study was to identify which levels of reduced integrity slowed or prevented acquisition. Our data replicated the findings of Hirst and DiGennaro Reed, and extended parametric analyses by identifying that errors in reinforcer delivery occurring on 15% or fewer trials (i.e., 85% integrity) were unlikely to prevent participants' responding from meeting the mastery criterion. These results could inform future research on how treatment‐integrity errors change behavior‐analytic procedures and the effects on skill acquisition for consumers of applied behavior analysis.

The current study taught 6 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to increase passive compliance of wearing a facemask across sequentially increasing durations of time. A changingcriterion design embedded within a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of a resetting differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) without escape extinction procedure on passive compliance. Terminal probe sessions determined DRO fading intervals. Results showed that 2 participants acquired mastery level passive compliance (30 min) without fading during the initial baseline sessions. The remaining 4 participants acquired mastery level passive compliance following fading intervals within the DRO intervention. Participants' passive compliance generalized across 2 novel settings. This study replicates previous studies and extends empirical support for the use of DRO without escape extinction interventions for increasing passive compliance with medical devices in children with ASD.

No abstract

Procedural fidelity is the extent to which an intervention is implemented as designed and is an important component of research and practice. There are multiple ways to measure procedural fidelity, and few studies have explored how procedural fidelity varies based on the method of measurement. The current study compared adherence to discrete-trial instruction protocols by behavior technicians with a child with autism when observers used different procedural-fidelity measures. We collected individual-component and individual-trial fidelity with an occurrence–nonoccurrence data sheet and compared these scores to global fidelity and all-or-nothing, 3-point Likert scale, and 5-point Likert scale measurement methods. The all-or-nothing method required all instances of a component or trial be implemented without error to be scored correct. The Likert scales used a rating system to score components and trials. At the component level, we found that the global, 3-point Likert, and 5-point Likert methods were likely to overestimate fidelity and mask component errors, and the all-or-nothing method was unlikely to mask errors. At the trial level, we found that the global and 5-point Likert methods approximated individual-trial fidelity, the 3-point Likert method overestimated fidelity, and the all-or-nothing method underestimated fidelity. The occurrence–nonoccurrence method required the most time to complete, and all-or-nothing by trial required the least. We discuss the implications of measuring procedural fidelity with different methods of measurement, including false positives and false negatives, and provide suggestions for practice and research. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43494-023-00094-w.

The current study analyzed the effects of three frames of reward magnitude—quantity, volume, and duration—on the rate at which college students discounted hypothetical, delayed monetary rewards. Hypothetical scenarios were presented using the fill‐in‐the‐blank discounting questionnaire and participants made choices between immediate and delayed hypothetical monetary rewards. Scenarios framed the monetary choices as (a) quantity of dollar bills, (b) height (inches) of a stack of dollar bills, and (c) duration of time spent in a hypothetical cash machine to collect dollar bills. For each scenario, participants' subjective values were used to calculate the area under the curve (AuC). Framing resulted in a moderate effect size: The duration frame yielded significantly smaller AuC values compared to the quantity and volume frames. Thus, the framing of reward magnitude was a significant variable in controlling discounting rates for hypothetical, delayed monetary rewards. Subsequent investigations should be aware of the independent effects of the reward magnitude frames on delay discounting rates.