The effects of variable‐time versus contingent reinforcement delivery on problem behavior maintained by escape

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is a commonly used treatment for severe problem behavior displayed by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The current study sought to extend the literature by reporting outcomes achieved with 27 consecutive applications of NCR as the primary treatment for severe problem behavior. All applications of NCR were included regardless of treatment outcome to minimize selection bias favoring successful cases. Participants ranged in age from 5 to 33 years. We analyzed the results across behavioral function and with regard to the use of functional versus alternative reinforcers. NCR effectively treated problem behavior maintained by social reinforcement in 14 of 15 applications, using either the functional reinforcer or alternative reinforcers. When we implemented NCR to treat problem behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement, we often had to add other treatment components to produce clinically significant effects (five of nine applications). Results provide information on the effectiveness and limitations of NCR as treatment for severe problem behavior.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Noncontingent reinforcement for the treatment of severe problem behavior: An analysis of 27 consecutive applications

Phillips

Iannaccone

Rooker

et al. 2017

“…That is, the delivery of preferred edible items (but not praise) decreased the aversive properties associated with compliance to the low-p instruction. Compliance with the low-p instruction may be more likely when the demand context is less aversive (Ingvarsson, Kahng, & Hausman, 2008;Lalli et al, 1999;Lomas, Fisher, & Kelley, 2010;Lomas Mevers, Fisher, Kelley, & Fredrick, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Further evaluation of the high‐probability instructional sequence with and without programmed reinforcement

Wilder¹,

Majdalany²,

Sturkie³

et al. 2015

In 2 experiments, we examined the effects of programmed reinforcement for compliance with high-probability (high-p) instructions on compliance with low-probability (low-p) instructions. In Experiment 1, we compared the high-p sequence with and without programmed reinforcement (i.e., edible items) for compliance with high-p instructions. Results showed that the high-p sequence increased compliance with low-p instructions only when compliance with high-p instructions was followed by reinforcement. In Experiment 2, we examined the role of reinforcer quality by delivering a lower quality reinforcer (praise) for compliance with high-p instructions. Results of Experiment 2 showed that the high-p sequence with lower quality reinforcement did not improve compliance with low-p instructions; the addition of a higher quality reinforcer (i.e., edible items) contingent on compliance with high-p instructions did increase compliance with low-p instructions.

“…One unique characteristic to the treatment of behavior maintained by escape from demands is that an inherent competing alternative behavior (compliance) might covary with problem behavior (Parrish, Cataldo, Kolko, Neef, & Egel, ). Results of previous studies show that contingent delivery of positive reinforcers for compliance (Carter, ; Lalli & Casey, 1996; Lalli et al, ; Mevers, Fisher, Kelley, & Frederick, ; Piazza et al, ) and noncontingent delivery of positive reinforcers (Lomas, Fisher, & Kelley, ) can effectively decrease problem behavior and simultaneously increase levels of compliance. Lalli and Casey () found that problem behavior was likely influenced by multiple variables (e.g., the introduction of a task and the removal of appetitive activities) for a young boy with developmental delays.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

A comparison of positive and negative reinforcement for compliance to treat problem behavior maintained by escape

Slocum

Vollmer

2015

Previous research has shown that problem behavior maintained by escape can be treated using positive reinforcement. In the current study, we directly compared functional (escape) and nonfunctional (edible) reinforcers in the treatment of escape-maintained problem behavior for 5 subjects. In the first treatment, compliance produced a break from instructions. In the second treatment, compliance produced a small edible item. Neither treatment included escape extinction. Results suggested that the delivery of a positive reinforcer for compliance was effective for treating escape-maintained problem behavior for all 5 subjects, and the delivery of escape for compliance was ineffective for 3 of the 5 subjects. Implications and future directions related to the use of positive reinforcers in the treatment of escape behavior are discussed.