The Use of a Warning Procedure to Signal a More Intrusive Timeout Contingency

Abstract

The effects of a warning procedure signaling exclusionary timeout as a consequence for inappropriate behavior during contingent observation timeout was evaluated for nine elementary students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. During baseline conditions, students exhibiting inappropriate contingent observation timeout behavior received three warnings before exclusionary timeout was implemented. During intervention conditions, exclusionary timeout was contingent upon the first occurrence of inappropriate contingent observation behavior (with no warnings given). Data were collected on the frequency of (a) contingent observation directions, (b) “calls” for appropriate contingent observation behavior (which served as warnings for the exclusionary timeout contingency), and (c) exclusionary timeouts. An ABAB design (A = warning, B = no warning) established that substantially fewer inappropriate contingent observation timeout behaviors occurred under the no-warning condition. The number of exclusionary timeouts given remained relatively stable across all conditions. The use of warnings was associated with a decrease in appropriate contingent observation timeout behaviors, though not to the point where the more intrusive contingency was implemented. These findings suggest that use of the warning procedure actually resulted in more negative interactions (calls) between the staff and the students.

Effects of a Reduced Time-Out Interval on Compliance With the Time-Out Instruction

“…However, the aversive nature of time‐out may result in noncompliance with the verbal instruction to go to the time‐out location, which may result in the necessity of physical guidance. Only two studies, to date, have evaluated procedures to increase compliance with the instruction to go to time‐out (Twyman, Johnson, Buie, & Nelson, ; Warzak & Floress, ). Although these studies did not specifically examine the mode of administration, their procedures suggest ways in which the mode of administration may be shifted from physical guidance to the verbal instruction by increasing compliance with the instruction.…”

“…Although these studies did not specifically examine the mode of administration, their procedures suggest ways in which the mode of administration may be shifted from physical guidance to the verbal instruction by increasing compliance with the instruction. Twyman et al () evaluated the effects of delivering warnings that a more severe form of time‐out (increased duration, exclusion time‐out) would be implemented if participants did not comply with the instruction to go to a 2‐min contingent observation time‐out in the instructional area of the classroom. In one condition, if the participant did not comply with the instructions related to implementation (i.e., he or she did not go to a designated contingent observation area or engaged in problem behavior during time‐out), a warning was given that he or she would have to go to a 10‐min exclusion time‐out.…”

“…The authors reported data only on the frequency of time‐out; no data were reported on the effectiveness of the procedure for compliance with the time‐out instruction. One limitation with the procedures used in Twyman et al () and Burchard and Barrera is that exclusion time‐out is not always practical or acceptable in a school or home setting (e.g., some school districts have policies against the use of exclusion time‐out; there may not be any safe places for exclusion time‐out).…”

Time-Out with Young Children: A Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) Practitioner Review

“…Children complied with directions when they were warned once that time-out would occur if misbehaviour continued [ 42 ].…”

Internet Guidance on Time Out

“…[25] However, providing more than 1 warning actually decreases the effectiveness of TO and does not reduce the number of TOs administered because TO is delivered with less immediacy. [26] With respect to who determines when the child can leave TO, evidence indicates that TO is significantly less effective when children are allowed to determine when TO ends (e.g., when they are “ready to leave”) compared to when an adult determines when TO is over. [27] Research on the criteria for leaving TO indicates that contingent release (i.e., releasing a child from TO only after a short period of quiet and calm behavior) is more effective in reducing disruptive behaviors during TO [17,28,29] and decreasing noncompliance in the natural environment[28,29] compared to noncontingent release (e.g., releasing a child after a period of time has elapsed regardless of behavior at the time of release).…”