An Empirical Investigation of Time-Out With and Without Escape Extinction to Treat Escape-Maintained Noncompliance

Abstract

The present study evaluates the effectiveness of two time-out (TO) procedures in reducing escape-maintained noncompliance of 4 children. Noncompliant behavioral function was established via a functional assessment (FA), including indirect and direct descriptive procedures and brief confirmatory experimental analyses. Following FA, parents were taught to consequate noncompliance with two different TO procedures, one without and one with escape extinction following TO release. Although results indicate TO without escape extinction is effective in increasing compliance above baseline levels, more optimal levels of compliance were obtained for all 4 children when escape extinction was added to the TO procedures already in place. Results indicate efficacy of TO with escape extinction when applied to escape-maintained noncompliance and are discussed as an initial example of the successful application of TO to behaviors maintained by negative reinforcement.

Informatie op het internet over timeout als opvoedstrategie. Een analyse met inhoudelijke en formele criteria

“…Echter, steeds wordt benadrukt dat deze maatregel dan wel correct moet worden uitgevoerd (Fabiano et al, 2004;Kremer, Smith, & Lawrence, 2010) om te leiden tot meer coöperatief en minder agressief gedrag bij kinderen -en hier is ook empirisch bewijs voor (bijv. Donaldson, Vollmer, Yakich, & Van Camp, 2013;Everett et al, 2007). Een niet correcte uitvoering van de time-out zou kunnen leiden tot woedeuitbarstingen bij het kind, aangezien het zich onheus bejegend, ongeliefd of machteloos kan voelen.…”

“…Een niet correcte uitvoering van de time-out zou kunnen leiden tot woedeuitbarstingen bij het kind, aangezien het zich onheus bejegend, ongeliefd of machteloos kan voelen. Ook zou het kind door een time-out kunnen leren dat conflicten vermeden moeten worden en dat ieder ze voor zich moet oplossen (Everett et al, 2007;Owen, Slep, & Heyman, 2012). De opvoedtechniek is dan ook niet onomstreden en dit is in de loop der jaren nauwelijks veranderd (zie Hobbs & Forehand, 1977;Morawska & Sanders, 2011).…”

Parental Use of Time Out Revisited: A Useful or Harmful Parenting Strategy?

“…It is not defined by sending children to a specific place (e.g., chair, another room) although it may involve both or neither. It is defined by the contrast between what is referred to as ''time in'' and time out environments (Everett et al 2007). When used properly its use is self limiting, which means that children's behaviour changes in response to time out, and hence the strategy needs to be in place for only short periods of time (Eyberg 1988;Sanders et al 2001;Webster-Stratton 1981).…”

“…Time out is always used in combination with other strategies, in the context of a positive parent-child relationship. It is not recommended to use time out in isolation, as a stand alone strategy (Anderson and King 1974), with evidence suggesting that it is less effective alone than when used in combination (Everett et al 2007;Ford et al 2001;Lucas 2000;Olmi et al 1997;Willoughby 1969Willoughby , 1970. The more positive the ''time in'' environment, the less uninteresting the time out environment has to be to for time out to be effective (Hobbs and Forehand 1977;Solnick et al 1977).…”

Task Engagement and Escape Maintained Challenging Behavior: Differential Effects of General and Explicit Cues When Implementing a Signaled Delay in the Delivery of Reinforcement

“…Challenging behaviors that are socially mediated by escape from task engagement represent a particular challenge to educators (Kern et al 1997;Kemp and Carr 1995;Moore et al 2005;Reese et al 2005). A number of intervention strategies have been successfully validated that address escape functioned challenging behavior, including: (1) delivering extinction alone or as a supplement to other interventions (Carr et al 1980;Everett et al 2007;Lalli et al 1995a;Pace et al 1993;Patel et al 2002;Vollmer et al 1999b), (2) providing escape contingent on desired communicative or non-communicative behavior (Carr et al 1980;Kodak et al 2007;Lalli et al 1995b;Mildon et al 2004;Wacker et al 1990), (3) introducing delayed reinforcement (DeLeon et al 2001;Dunlap et al 1987;Fisher et al 2000;Fowler and Baer 1981), and (4) demand fading (Gouboth et al 2007;Hagopian et al 2005;Lalli et al 1995a, b). To teach appropriate alternative behaviors that successfully compete with existing challenging behaviors, strategies that rely on implementing antecedent based positive behavioral support (PBS) strategies (those implemented prior to challenging behavior in situations that have been associated with challenging behavior) may increase learning opportunities that can be initiated by the interventionist rather than on the occurrence of problem behavior.…”