Reducing stereotyped behaviour: A comparison of two methods of programming differential reinforcement¹

Abstract

Differential Reinforcement of Other behaviours (DRO) has proven to be successful in reducing challenging behaviour, although the need for staff vigilance can limit its applicability in applied settings. The present study compared the effectiveness of whole-interval DRO with momentary DRO, a less intensive schedule. In a multiple-baseline design, two participants who exhibited high-rate stereotyped behaviours were presented with the two schedules. Momentary DRO was more effective than whole-interval DRO in reducing the targeted stereotypies of one participant, and as effective with the second. Momentary DRO was also more effective in reducing a second (non-consequated) stereotyped behaviour.

Differential reinforcement of other behavior increases untargeted behavior

“…In the case of Leitenberg, Burchard, Burchard, Fuller, and Lysaght (1977), the appropriate interaction with siblings could produce its own form of socially mediated reinforcement without resetting the delivery of praise and pennies scheduled to be delivered after the DRO interval had elapsed. This collection of studies therefore differed with respect to the reinforcers included in the DRO procedure (function based or arbitrary) and the subsequent outcomes, with the results ranging from mixed (Miller & Jones, 1997) to substantial increases (Thompson et al, 2003) in other behavior.…”

Attentional dysfunction, impulsivity, and resistance to change in a mouse model of fragile X syndrome.

“…The reversal learning task was videotaped to provide richer information on putative genotypic differences in the regulation of arousal than provided by the automated performance measures alone. In a prior study of a mouse model of Down syndrome and Alzheimer's Disease (the Ts65Dn mouse), videotape coding revealed that committing an error frequently led to stereotypic jumping in these trisomic mice , one of the few demonstrations of naturally-occurring stereotypic behavior in a mouse model of a mental retardation (MR) syndrome, despite the fact that such behaviors are a hallmark of many human MR syndromes (Branford et al, 1998;Miller & Jones, 1997). This finding demonstrates the importance of videotape coding as an adjunct to the collection of automated performance measures.…”

A 10 year follow-up of stereotypic behavior with eight participants

“…Secondly, subsequent research on stereotyped behavior using the same observational methodologies (but not the same observers or participants) also produced modal levels of agreement above 95% (Derwas & Jones, 1993;Jones & Carter, 1991;Miller & Jones, 1997;Pope & Jones, 1996). When clear and unambiguous operational de®nitions are used, stereotypy is not dicult to recognize and code and although issues such as procedural drift cannot be ruled out, there is at least a 10 year history of reliability checks being carried out on observations similar to those used in the present study.…”