Effects of Spaced Responding DRL on the Stereotyped Behavior of Profoundly Retarded Persons

Abstract

Stereotypic responding and social behaviors of three profoundly retarded children were measured before and during application of a DRL contingency for stereotypic responding. A variant of the standard DRL procedure, spaced responding DRL, was used, in which reinforcement is delivered following a response if that response has been separated from the previous response by at least a fixed minimum time interval. Three children were treated by using a reversal design. Results showed that: (a) during baseline sessions, the children engaged in high rates of stereotypic responding and very low rates of appropriate social behavior; and (b) during DRL sessions, appropriate behavior increased markedly as stereotypic responding was reduced. The data suggest that spaced responding DRL may be effective in increasing appropriate social behavior as well as in reducing stereotypic responding.DESCRIPTORS: stereotypic responding, spaced responding DRL, social behavior, retarded children Stereotypic responding is a pervasive problem in mentally retarded populations. It can be defined as "any repetitious, topographically invariant motor behavior or action sequence in which reinforcement is not specified or is noncontingent and the performance of which is regarded as pathological" (Baumeister & Forehand, 1973). Examples of stereotypic responding include body rocking, head rolling, complex hand movements, digit sucking, and the various forms of self-injurious behaviors.

Using Differential Reinforcement of Low Rates to Reduce Children's Requests for Teacher Attention

“…It is possible (and probable) that rules speed up the effectiveness of the intervention, but the extent to which they do so is presently unclear. It also is interesting to note that the majority of studies with severely disabled participants have employed spaced‐responding DRL procedures (Lennox et al, 1987; Singh et al, 1981; Wright & Vollmer, 2002). Thus, further research is needed on the effectiveness of interval and full‐session DRL with severely disabled individuals.…”

“…This type of schedule, often referred to as spaced‐responding DRL in applied settings (Deitz, 1977), has been used to reduce rates of behavior across several response topographies and populations. For example, it has reduced rapid eating (Lennox, Miltenberger, & Donnelly, 1987; Wright & Vollmer, 2002) and stereotypy (Singh, Dawson, & Manning, 1981) in participants with profound developmental disabilities and inappropriate question asking in primary school children with behavioral disorders (Deitz, 1977).…”

Handbook of Neuropsychology and Aging

“…Differential reinforcement involves providing reinforcement for one behavior while at the same time extinguishing another behavior or set ofbehaviors (Dietz, Repp, & Dietz, 1976;Singh, Dawson, & Manning, 1981). There are multiple types of differential reinforcement schedules.…”

Reduction of Stereotypic Behaviours Using Differential Reinforcement Procedures and Momentary Restraint

“…However, when differential reinforcement was included in a treatment programme including another treatment technique, the combined procedures were found to be effective (Barkley & Zupnick, 1976;Barrett et al, 1981;Cavalier & Ferretti, 1980;Dehaven et al, 1980;Harris & Ersner-Hershfield, 1978;Johnson et al, 1982;Repp, Deitz & Spier, 1974;Singh, Dawson & Manning, 1981a). Contingent restraint had also been found to be effective both when used alone and in combination with other procedures (Azrin & Wesolowski, 1980;Barkley & Zupnick, 1976;Bitgood et al, 1980;Bitgood et al, 1982;Reid, Tombaugh & Heuvel, 1981;Luiselii, 1981;Shapiro et al, 1980;Singh, Dawson & Manning, 1981b). In addition, one study (Barkley & Zupnick, 1976) had successfully employed both procedures to reduce stereotypic responding in a mentally retarded girl.…”