Varying reinforcer dimensions during differential reinforcement without extinction: A translational model.

Procedural arrangements of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction often involve presenting the same reinforcers for problem behavior and appropriate behavior, which is typically ineffective at reducing problem behavior and increasing an alternative response. However, manipulating reinforcement dimensions such that the contingencies favor the alternative response may improve treatment outcomes when using differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction by increasing appropriate behavior and reducing problem behavior. We conducted this translational study with 32 college students completing a button-pressing task on a computer program in which they could engage in analogs to problem behavior and appropriate behavior. The effects of manipulating magnitude, immediacy, quality, and a combination of all three dimensions for the alternative response were evaluated. Overall, all dimension manipulations reduced the analog to problem behavior, with the largest reductions observed during the quality probe and the probe with all dimensions combined. These results support the notion that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction can be an effective form of treatment.

A translational comparison of contingency-based progressive delay procedures and their effects on contextually appropriate behavior.

Schedule thinning is an essential step in treating problem behavior, yet little research has been conducted to determine the method associated with sustained treatment effects. A frequently used method for thinning reinforcement is contingency-based progressive delay, which requires the individual to meet some criteria before the reinforcers are returned. The response requirement could be dependent on (a) contextually appropriate behavior (differential reinforcement of alternative behavior-based thinning) or (b) absence of problem behavior (differential reinforcement of other behavior-based thinning). A translational arrangement with college students was implemented to determine the effects of these 2 response requirements. Tolerance was observed regardless of thinning method and was indicated by low rates of responding to the analogue problem behavior; however, more contextually appropriate behavior occurred during differential reinforcement of alternative behavior-based thinning. These results support the use of response requirements for behaviors that are expected of the individual when reinforcement is not immediately forthcoming.

Rules and Statements of Reinforcer Loss in Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior.

Providing a rule regarding consequences for behavior can increase the efficacy of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) procedures in the treatment of severe problem behavior (Watts, Wilder, Gregory, Leon, and Ditzian, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 680-684, 2013). The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend the literature on DRO procedures by evaluating the efficacy of rules and statements of reinforcer loss (SRL) in the treatment of severe problem behavior. Conditions included baseline, no rule DRO, rule DRO, and rule DRO with SRL. For 2 of 3 participants, neither the no rule DRO nor the rule DRO condition reduced problem behavior. The rule DRO with SRL condition produced a substantial decrease in problem behavior for all participants, suggesting that a consequent rule enhances the efficacy of DRO. The current study extends the literature on DRO procedures by providing data on nontargeted ("other") behavior. An increase in other behavior was observed for 2 participants.

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

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.