2017
DOI: 10.1002/jaba.427
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A multicomponent approach to thinning reinforcer delivery during noncontingent reinforcement schedules

Abstract: 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 … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

3
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
(26 reference statements)
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…and Conine et al (2019) conducted separate generalization probes across multiple contextual variables. A terminal probe design (e.g., LeBlanc et al, 2001; Slocum et al, 2018) may permit some schedule thinning steps to be skipped, and generalization probes may be further abbreviated by combining multiple contextual variables (e.g., people, location, distance) into a single probe condition.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…and Conine et al (2019) conducted separate generalization probes across multiple contextual variables. A terminal probe design (e.g., LeBlanc et al, 2001; Slocum et al, 2018) may permit some schedule thinning steps to be skipped, and generalization probes may be further abbreviated by combining multiple contextual variables (e.g., people, location, distance) into a single probe condition.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We reviewed the method and results sections of articles for which the title mentioned a treatment for problem behavior ( N = 45) to identify the source of baseline data. Of the articles for which the source could be determined ( N = 41), we identified 15 articles that used the data from the test condition in the FA as baseline (e.g., Torres‐Viso, Strohmeier, & Zarcone, ); 12 articles that collected new baseline data by conducting additional sessions of a test condition (following completion of the FA) using contingencies identical to those in the FA (e.g., Fisher et al, ); 11 articles that conducted additional sessions (following completion of the analysis) using a modified test condition from the FA (e.g., Verriden & Roscoe, ); and three articles that used a combination of the above methods across participants (e.g., Slocum, Grauerholz‐Fisher, Peters, & Vollmer, ; list of articles available from the first author). Although this cursory review sampled only a few years of data, the outcome indicates that the source of baseline data used by researchers in treatment evaluations continues to vary.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After obtaining clear treatment effects with the FT 15-s schedule, we implemented schedule thinning to make treatment more practical. Schedule thinning was similar to that in Vollmer et al (1993), with periodic terminal probes (i.e., an FT 5-min schedule) similar to those used by Slocum, Grauerholz-Fisher, Peters, and Vollmer (2018). During probe sessions, we delivered only one edible and one instance of attention within one 10-min session.…”
Section: General Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%