A comparison of analysis methods to estimate contingency strength.

To date, several data analysis methods have been used to estimate contingency strength, yet few studies have compared these methods directly. To compare the relative precision and sensitivity of four analysis methods (i.e., exhaustive event-based, nonexhaustive event-based, concurrent interval, concurrent+lag interval), we applied all methods to a simulated data set in which several response-dependent and response-independent schedules of reinforcement were programmed. We evaluated the degree to which contingency strength estimates produced from each method (a) corresponded with expected values for response-dependent schedules and (b) showed sensitivity to parametric manipulations of response-independent reinforcement. Results indicated both event-based methods produced contingency strength estimates that aligned with expected values for response-dependent schedules, but differed in sensitivity to response-independent reinforcement. The precision of interval-based methods varied by analysis method (concurrent vs. concurrent+lag) and schedule type (continuous vs. partial), and showed similar sensitivities to response-independent reinforcement. Recommendations and considerations for measuring contingencies are identified.

Differential Reinforcement of Low Rate Schedules Reduce Severe Problem Behavior.

Differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedules are reinforcement contingencies designed to reduce response rates. A common variation of the DRL arrangement is known as full-session DRL ( f-DRL), in which a reinforcer is presented at the end of an interval if the response rate during that interval is below a predetermined criterion. Prior human operant research involving arbitrary mouse clicks has shown that the f-DRL is likely to reduce target responding to near zero rates. Similarly, applied research has shown that the f-DRL is likely to reduce minimally disruptive classroom behavior. There are, however, relatively few successful applications of the f-DRL to severe forms of problem behavior (e.g., self-injurious behavior). Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of f-DRL on the severe problem behavior of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. For four participants, the f-DRL reduced severe problem behavior by clinically significant levels. Furthermore, results of a contingency strength analysis showed a strong negative contingency strength between target responding and reinforcer delivery for all participants.

Examining the generality of children's preference for contingent reinforcement via extension to different responses, reinforcers, and schedules.

Studies that have assessed whether children prefer contingent reinforcement (CR) or noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) have shown that they prefer CR. Preference for CR has, however, been evaluated only under continuous reinforcement (CRF) schedules. The prevalence of intermittent reinforcement (INT) warrants an evaluation of whether preference for CR persists as the schedule of reinforcement is thinned. In the current study, we evaluated 2 children's preference for contingent versus noncontingent delivery of highly preferred edible items for academic task completion under CRF and INT schedules. Children (a) preferred CR to NCR under the CRF schedule, (b) continued to prefer CR as the schedule of reinforcement became intermittent, and (c) exhibited a shift in preference from CR to NCR as the schedule became increasingly thin. These findings extend the generality of and provide one set of limits to the preference for CR. Applied implications, variables controlling preferences, and future research are discussed.

Do children prefer contingencies? An evaluation of the efficacy of and preference for contingent versus noncontingent social reinforcement during play.

Discovering whether children prefer reinforcement via a contingency or independent of their behavior is important considering the ubiquity of these programmed schedules of reinforcement. The current study evaluated the efficacy of and preference for social interaction within differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) and noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) schedules with typically developing children. Results showed that 7 of the 8 children preferred the DRA schedule; 1 child was indifferent. We also demonstrated a high degree of procedural fidelity, which suggested that preference is influenced by the presence of a contingency under which reinforcement can be obtained. These findings are discussed in terms of (a) the selection of reinforcement schedules in practice, (b) variables that influence children's preferences for contexts, and (c) the selection of experimental control procedures when evaluating the effects of reinforcement.