Noncontingent reinforcement without extinction plus differential reinforcement of alternative behavior during treatment of problem behavior

The effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) without extinction during treatment of problem behavior maintained by social positive reinforcement were evaluated for five individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. A continuous NCR schedule was gradually thinned to a fixed‐time 5‐min schedule. If problem behavior increased during NCR schedule thinning, a continuous NCR schedule was reinstated and NCR schedule thinning was repeated with differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) included. Results showed an immediate decrease in all participants’ problem behavior during continuous NCR, and problem behavior maintained at low levels during NCR schedule thinning for three participants. Problem behavior increased and maintained at higher rates during NCR schedule thinning for two other participants; however, the addition of DRA to the intervention resulted in decreased problem behavior and increased mands.     

Resurgence following differential reinforcement of alternative behavior implemented with and without extinction

In the clinic, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) often involves programming extinction for destructive behavior while reinforcing an alternative form of communication (e.g., a functional communication response); however, implementing extinction can be unsafe or impractical under some circumstances. Quantitative theories of resurgence (i.e., Behavioral Momentum Theory and Resurgence as Choice) predict differences in the efficacy of treatments that do and do not involve extinction of target responding when reinforcement conditions maintaining alternative responding worsen. We tested these predictions by examining resurgence following two DRA conditions in which we equated rates of reinforcement. In DRA without extinction, target and alternative behavior produced reinforcement. In DRA with extinction plus noncontingent reinforcement, only alternative behavior produced reinforcement. We conducted this study in a reverse-translation sequence, first with participants who engaged in destructive behavior (Experiment 1) and then in a laboratory setting with rats (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, we observed proportionally lower levels of target responding during and following the DRA condition that arranged extinction for the target response. However, levels of resurgence were similar following both arrangements.     

Manipulating parameters of reinforcement to reduce problem behavior without extinction

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) most often includes extinction as a treatment component. However, extinction is not always feasible and it can be counter‐therapeutic if implemented without optimal treatment integrity. Researchers have successfully implemented DRA without extinction by manipulating various parameters of reinforcement such that alternative behavior is favored. We extended previous research by assessing three participants' sensitivities to quality, magnitude, and immediacy using arbitrary responses and reinforcers that maintain problem behavior. The results were used to implement an intervention for problem behavior using DRA without extinction. Our findings indicate that arbitrary responses can be used to identify individual and relative sensitivity to parameters of reinforcement for reinforcers that maintain problem behavior. Treatment was effective for all participants when we manipulated parameters of reinforcement to which they were most sensitive, and, for two participants, the treatment was less effective when we manipulated parameters to which they were least sensitive.     

DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR AND DEMAND FADING IN THE TREATMENT OF ESCAPE-MAINTAINED DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR

The escape-maintained destructive behavior of a boy with autism was reduced during instructional sequences with differential reinforcement of compliance (DRA), escape extinction without physical guidance, and demand fading. The procedure decreased destructive behaviors to near-zero levels and greatly increased compliance.     

On the definition of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) has a long history as a behavioral treatment. The term has usually been defined in a manner that suggests one form of behavior (usually some appropriate alternative) is reinforced, while another form of behavior (usually problem behavior) is placed on extinction. In this paper, we will suggest that DRA should not require extinction, either procedurally or by definition. Ideally, problem behavior would be placed on extinction when possible; however, when problem behavior is not or cannot be placed on extinction, the procedure used is still DRA. Thus, we propose the following definition: Providing greater reinforcement, along at least one dimension, contingent on the occurrence of one form or type of behavior, while minimizing reinforcement for another form or type of behavior.     

Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment with functional communication training

We evaluated four methods for increasing the practicality of functional communication training (FCT) by decreasing the frequency of reinforcement for alternative behavior. Three participants whose problem behaviors were maintained by positive reinforcement were treated successfully with FCT in which reinforcement for alternative behavior was initially delivered on fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedules. One participant was then exposed to increasing delays to reinforcement under FR 1, a graduated fixed-interval (FI) schedule, and a graduated multiple-schedule arrangement in which signaled periods of reinforcement and extinction were alternated. Results showed that (a) increasing delays resulted in extinction of the alternative behavior, (b) the FI schedule produced undesirably high rates of the alternative behavior, and (c) the multiple schedule resulted in moderate and stable levels of the alternative behavior as the duration of the extinction component was increased. The other 2 participants were exposed to graduated mixed-schedule (unsignaled alternation between reinforcement and extinction components) and multiple-schedule (signaled alternation between reinforcement and extinction components) arrangements in which the durations of the reinforcement and extinction components were modified. Results obtained for these 2 participants indicated that the use of discriminative stimuli in the multiple schedule facilitated reinforcement schedule thinning. Upon completion of treatment, problem behavior remained low (or at zero), whereas alternative behavior was maintained as well as differentiated during a multiple-schedule arrangement consisting of a 4-min extinction period followed by a 1-min reinforcement period.     

A preliminary evaluation of treatment duration on the resurgence of destructive behavior

Quantitative models of resurgence (e.g., Behavioral Momentum Theory, Resurgence as Choice) suggest that resurgence is partly a function of the duration of extinction exposure, with longer histories of extinction producing less resurgence. This prediction is supported by some laboratory research and has been partially supported by clinical translations that did not isolate the effects of extinction exposure prior to testing for resurgence. The degree to which different histories of extinction impact the likelihood of treatment relapse in therapeutic applications of differential reinforcement is of great interest to the clinical community, including insurance carriers and other financial providers. In the present study, we isolated the effects of extinction history for severe destructive behavior across 6 participants referred for treatment services and examined resurgence of destructive behavior when alternative reinforcement terminated. Our within-subject evaluation showed no difference in the level of resurgence or persistence of destructive behavior following short and long exposures to differential reinforcement with extinction. We discuss our failure to replicate in relation to experimental-design considerations for investigating this and other relapse phenomena in future research with clinical populations.     

A preliminary investigation on improving functional communication training by mitigating resurgence of destructive behavior

Despite the effectiveness and widespread use of functional communication training (FCT), resurgence of destructive behavior can occur if the functional communication response (FCR) contacts a challenge, such as lapses in treatment integrity. We evaluated a method to mitigate resurgence by conducting FCT using a multiple schedule of reinforcement prior to extinction. After functional analyses of 2 boys’ destructive behavior and treatment with FCT (Study 1), we compared levels of resurgence during an extinction challenge either after a typical FCT sequence or after exposure to schedule thinning in the context of a multiple‐schedule arrangement (Study 2). Results for both participants suggested that schedule thinning using discriminative stimuli in a multiple schedule mitigated the resurgence of destructive behavior.     

Prevalence of resurgence of destructive behavior when thinning reinforcement schedules during functional communication training

Functional communication training is a well‐established treatment for socially reinforced destructive behavior that typically includes differential reinforcement of the functional communication response (FCR) in combination with extinction of destructive behavior. However, when the schedule of reinforcement for the FCR is thinned, destructive behavior may resurge (e.g., Greer, Fisher, Saini, Owen, & Jones, 2016). Currently, data are unavailable on the prevalence and characteristics of resurgence during reinforcement schedule thinning. In this study, we evaluated the prevalence of resurgence during reinforcement schedule thinning on a per‐case and per‐schedule‐step basis and also evaluated the magnitude of resurgence in relation to the functions of destructive behavior. We observed resurgence in 19 of the 25 (76%) applications of reinforcement schedule thinning. In some cases, the magnitude of resurgence exceeded the mean levels of destructive behavior observed in baseline. We discuss these results relative to prior translational and applied research on resurgence.     

An alternative method of thinning reinforcer delivery during differential reinforcement

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) may result in rates of reinforcement that are impractical for caregivers to implement; therefore, recent research has examined methods for thinning reinforcer delivery during DRA. In this study, reinforcer delivery was thinned during DRA by restricting access to the participant's alternative response materials.     

An evaluation of persistence of treatment effects during long-term treatment of destructive behavior

Eight young children who displayed destructive behavior maintained, at least in part, by negative reinforcement received long‐term functional communication training (FCT). During FCT, the children completed a portion of a task and then touched a communication card attached to a microswitch to obtain brief breaks. Prior to and intermittently throughout FCT, extinction probes were conducted within a withdrawal design in which task completion, manding, and destructive behavior were placed on extinction to evaluate the relative persistence of appropriate and destructive behavior over the course of treatment. FCT continued until appropriate behavior persisted and destructive behavior failed to recur at baseline levels during extinction probes. The completion of FCT was followed by four challenges to the persistence of treatment effects conducted within mixed‐ or multiple‐schedule designs: (a) extended extinction sessions (from 5 to 15 min), (b) introduction of a novel task, (c) removal of the microswitch and communication card, and (d) a mixed schedule of reinforcement in which both appropriate and destructive behavior produced reinforcement. The results showed that although FCT often resulted in quick reductions in destructive behavior and increases in appropriate behavior, destructive behavior often recurred during the extinction probes conducted during the initial treatment. When the effects of treatment persisted during the extinction probes, the remaining challenges to treatment effects resulted in only mild to moderate disruptions in behavior. These results are consistent with the quantitative predictions of behavioral momentum theory and may provide an alternative definition of maintenance as constituting behavioral persistence.     

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior increases resistance to extinction: clinical demonstration, animal modeling, and clinical test of one solution

Basic research with pigeons on behavioral momentum suggests that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) can increase the resistance of target behavior to change. This finding suggests that clinical applications of DRA may inadvertently increase the persistence of target behavior even as it decreases its frequency. We conducted three coordinated experiments to test whether DRA has persistence-strengthening effects on clinically significant target behavior and then tested the effectiveness of a possible solution to this problem in both a nonhuman and clinical study. Experiment 1 compared resistance to extinction following baseline rates of reinforcement versus higher DRA rates of reinforcement in a clinical study. Resistance to extinction was substantially greater following DRA. Experiment 2 tested a rat model of a possible solution to this problem. Training an alternative response in a context without reinforcement of the target response circumvented the persistence-strengthening effects of DRA. Experiment 3 translated the rat model into a novel clinical application of DRA. Training an alternative response with DRA in a separate context resulted in lower resistance to extinction than employing DRA in the context correlated with reinforcement of target behavior. The value of coordinated bidirectional translational research is discussed.     

Signaled alternative reinforcement and the persistence of operant behavior

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is a treatment designed to eliminate problem behavior by reinforcing an alternative behavior at a higher rate. Availability of alternative reinforcement may be signaled, as with Functional Communication Training, or unsignaled. Whether or not alternative reinforcement is signaled could influence both the rate and persistence of problem behavior. The present study investigated whether signaling the availability of alternative reinforcement affects the rate and persistence of a concurrently available target response with pigeons. Three components of a multiple concurrent schedule arranged equal reinforcement rates for target responding. Two of the components also arranged equal reinforcement rates for an alternative response. In one DRA component, a discrete stimulus signaled the availability of response‐contingent alternative reinforcement by changing the keylight color upon reinforcement availability. In the other DRA component, availability of alternative reinforcement was not signaled. Target responding was most persistent in the unsignaled DRA component when disrupted by satiation, free food presented between components, and extinction, relative to the signaled DRA and control components. These findings suggest the discrete stimulus functionally separated the availability of alternative reinforcement from the discriminative stimuli governing target responding. These findings provide a novel avenue to explore in translational research assessing whether signaling the availability of alternative reinforcement with DRA treatments reduces the persistence of problem behavior.     

Treatment of resistance to change in children with autism

“Resistance to change” represents a core symptom of autism that we conceptualized and assessed as resulting in part due to factors known to govern free‐operant choice. During a free‐choice baseline, participants chose between problematic, resistive responses and an appropriate alternative response. During the asymmetrical‐choice condition, we delivered their most highly preferred item if the participant chose the alternative response (i.e., differential reinforcement of alternative behavior [DRA]). During the guided‐ (Experiment 1) and singular‐ (Experiment 2) choice conditions, we prompted participants to choose the alternative response and then delivered their most highly preferred item (i.e., DRA with escape extinction). All participants learned to tolerate (Experiment 1) or choose (Experiment 2) the alternative response when we combined DRA with escape extinction. After exposure to escape extinction, two participants showed strong maintenance effects with DRA alone. We discuss these finding relative to the effects of DRA and escape extinction on resistance to change.     

Destructive behavior increases as a function of reductions in alternative reinforcement during schedule thinning: A retrospective quantitative analysis

The behavioral processes determining the magnitude of the resurgence of destructive behavior during reinforcement schedule thinning have yet to be described, despite an uptick in prevalence research on the topic. As predicted by Resurgence as Choice theory, recent animal research has found that resurgence increases with the magnitude of a downshift in alternative reinforcement. Here we reanalyze the data from 2 recent prevalence studies to determine whether the size of the decrease in alternative reinforcement availability predicts the magnitude of resurgence in the clinic. Results from this retrospective analysis suggest that resurgence of destructive behavior increases significantly with decreases in the availability of alternative reinforcement. Implications for future research and translations of theoretical analyses to the clinic are discussed.     

Enhancing the effects of extinction on attention-maintained behavior through noncontingent delivery of attention or stimuli identified via a competing stimulus assessment

Recent research has shown that the noncontingent delivery of competing stimuli can effectively reduce rates of destructive behavior maintained by social-positive reinforcement, even when the contingency for destructive behavior remains intact. It may be useful, therefore, to have a systematic means for predicting which reinforcers do and do not compete successfully with the reinforcer that is maintaining destructive behavior. In the present study, we conducted a brief competing stimulus assessment in which noncontingent access to a variety of tangible stimuli (one toy per trial) was superimposed on a fixed-ratio 1 schedule of attention for destructive behavior for individuals whose behavior was found to be reinforced by attention during a functional analysis. Tangible stimuli that resulted in the lowest rates of destructive behavior and highest percentages of engagement during the competing stimulus assessment were subsequently used in a noncontingent tangible items plus extinction treatment package and were compared to noncontingent attention plus extinction and extinction alone. Results indicated that both treatments resulted in greater reductions in the target behavior than did extinction alone and suggested that the competing stimulus assessment may be helpful in predicting stimuli that can enhance the effects of extinction when noncontingent attention is unavailable. DESCRIPTORS: Attention-maintained problem behavior, competing stimuli, extinction, functional analysis, noncontingent reinforcement     

EVALUATING TREATMENT CHALLENGES WITH DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR

In prior research, differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) has been implemented at optimal treatment values: Problem behavior is never reinforced, and alternative behavior is always reinforced. However, in application, DRA is unlikely to be conducted optimally. In this study, following a functional analysis phase and a differential reinforcement at full implementation phase, we challenged initially positive treatment effects for 3 participants by implementing DRA at less than optimal parameters. For example, some occurrences of problem behavior were reinforced, and some occurrences of alternative behavior were not reinforced. Results suggested that when exposed to DRA at full implementation, participants showed a bias toward appropriate behavior in subsequent conditions during which “mistakes” (treatment challenges) were intentionally introduced. In addition, the negative effects of treatment challenges were quickly reversible, in comparison to the positive effects of DRA, which were not quickly reversible in the face of treatment challenges.     

Further examination of the treatment of multiply controlled inappropriate mealtime behavior

We systematically replicated Bachmeyer et al. (2009) by examining extinction procedures matched to each function, individually and in combination, to treat the food or liquid refusal of 4 children diagnosed with a feeding disorder whose inappropriate mealtime behavior was maintained by multiple functions (i.e., escape and attention). Previous research suggests that adding differential reinforcement to extinction procedures may result in better treatment outcomes. Therefore, we added differential reinforcement to extinction procedures matched to each function. Differential reinforcement and extinction matched only to escape or attention resulted in low rates of inappropriate mealtime behavior and high, stable levels of acceptance for only 1 child. Consistent with Bachmeyer et al., inappropriate mealtime behavior decreased, and acceptance increased for the remaining 3 children only after we matched differential reinforcement and extinction procedures to both escape and attention.     

An evaluation of differential reinforcement with stimulus fading as an intervention for medical compliance

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often exhibit noncompliance during medical exams. One intervention used to address this concern is differential reinforcement. Although differential reinforcement includes extinction, it may not be feasible or safe to implement extinction during medical exams. In the current study, we evaluated differential reinforcement without extinction and differential reinforcement without extinction plus stimulus fading, for increasing compliance during routine medical exams exhibited by 4 individuals with ASD. An indirect assessment identified problematic medical procedures, and a functional analysis showed that participants' disruptive behavior was maintained by escape from medical tasks. Differential reinforcement without extinction was insufficient in increasing medical compliance with 3 of 4 participants. The addition of a modified stimulus fading procedure that involved gradually introducing smaller components of problematic exam steps was effective in increasing medical compliance with all exam steps.     

An investigation of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without extinction

We manipulated relative reinforcement for problem behavior and appropriate behavior using differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) without an extinction component. Seven children with developmental disabilities participated. We manipulated duration (Experiment 1), quality (Experiment 2), delay (Experiment 3), or a combination of each (Experiment 4), such that reinforcement favored appropriate behavior rather than problem behavior even though problem behavior still produced reinforcement. Results of Experiments 1 to 3 showed that behavior was often sensitive to manipulations of duration, quality, and delay in isolation, but the largest and most consistent behavior change was observed when several dimensions of reinforcement were combined to favor appropriate behavior (Experiment 4). Results suggest strategies for reducing problem behavior and increasing appropriate behavior without extinction.