Reducing inappropriate behavior in special classrooms by reinforcing average interresponse times: Interval DRL

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

“…Moreover, the current study targeted a behavior that teachers are likely to view as appropriate for a DRL intervention. Categories of behavior such as “talking out” or “inappropriate behavior” that have been targeted in previous classroom studies (Deitz, 1977; Deitz & Repp, 1973; Deitz et al, 1978) have included topographies such as calling other children names, hitting or shoving them, and destroying classroom materials. Based on our classroom experience, these are behaviors that teachers generally do not want to occur at any level.…”

“…Some studies have provided an explanation of the contingency but have not provided ongoing feedback on how many responses the participant had emitted (Deitz, 1973; Deitz & Repp, 1974). Other studies, like ours, provided verbal or visual feedback after every response so that the participants could more easily monitor their standing relative to the limits on responding imposed by the DRL (Alderman & Knight, 1997; Deitz et al, 1978; Handen et al, 1984; Knight, Rutterford, Alderman, & Swan, 2002). Kostinas, Scandlen, and Luiselli (2001) assessed the effectiveness of full‐session DRL with and without response cost on the perseverative, inappropriate verbalizations of a man with developmental disabilities and obsessive compulsive disorder.…”

“…Like spaced‐responding DRL, the interval duration may be increased to further reduce behavior. Deitz (1977; Deitz et al, 1978) showed that interval DRL reduced a range of problem behaviors, from failing to raise one's hand before speaking to engaging in physical aggression and property destruction. In each of the studies, teachers told children with special needs the maximum number of responses that they could make within each interval (usually 2 to 5 min) and provided rewards contingent on meeting the criterion for a particular number of intervals.…”

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

“…Previous studies using DRL schedules in applied settings (e.g., Deitz, 1977;Deitz et al, 1978) provided their subjects with explicit instructions about the schedules and verbal feedback on their behavior during the treatment periods. This procedure, however, adds an additional variable that obscures an analysis of the data by making it difficult to determine whether the behavior being studied is under instructional or schedule control.…”

The Use of Differential Reinforcement to Decrease the Inappropriate Verbalizations of a Nine-Year-Old Girl with Autism

“…The major advantage of using a DRL procedure is that one can reduce unwanted behavior(s) through the use of reinforcement. Also, many educators view these procedures has highly acceptable for use in the classroom (Deitz & Repp, 1984;Deitz, Slack, Schwarzmueller, Wilander, Weatherby, & Hilliard, 1978;Elliott, Witt, Galvin, & Peterson, 1984;Martens, Witt, Elliott, & Darveaux, 1985;Witt & Martens, 1983. A possible problem with using these procedures is the dilemma of what to do when the child or class fails to meet the criterion early in the session.…”