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.     

Noncontingent reinforcement competes with response performance

Noncontingent reinforcement is a commonly used procedure to decrease levels of problem behavior. Goals of this intervention are to decrease motivation, responding, and the functional relation between behavior and consequences, but it could also possibly compete with performance of alternative desirable responses. In the current study, we assessed the effects of noncontingent reinforcement arranged from 0% to 100% of sessions on performance of alternative responding across two experiments. Experiment 1 assessed manding (i.e., requests) maintained by attention and tangibles with a child with developmental disabilities and Experiment 2 assessed keypecking maintained by food with six pigeons. We extended previous research by (a) showing that noncontingent reinforcement competes with both the acquisition and maintenance (performance) of an alternative response, (b) extending the generality of the findings across nonhuman and human participants, and (c) eliminating influence of sequence effects through random manipulations of noncontingent value in pigeons. Overall, greater amounts of noncontingent reinforcement competed with both acquisition and maintenance of alternative responding.     

On the relative contributions of noncontingent reinforcement and escape extinction in the treatment of food refusal

In the current investigation, we evaluated the relative effects of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), escape extinction, and a combination of NCR and escape extinction as treatment for the feeding problems exhibited by 4 children. For each participant, consumption increased only when escape extinction was implemented, independent of whether NCR was present or absent. These results were consistent with prior research suggesting that positive reinforcement alone is insufficient for increasing consumption, and that escape extinction often is necessary to increase and maintain food acceptance. However, NCR appeared to decrease inappropriate behavior for some participants.     

Noncontingent reinforcement, alternative reinforcement, and the matching law: a laboratory demonstration

Basic researchers, but not most applied researchers, have assumed that the behavior-decelerating effects of noncontingent reinforcement result at least partly from adventitious reinforcement of competing behaviors. The literature contains only sketchy evidence of these effects because few noncontingent reinforcement studies measure alternative behaviors. A laboratory model is presented in which concurrent schedules of contingent reinforcement were used to establish a "target" and an "alternative" behavior. Imposing noncontingent reinforcement decreased target behavior rates and increased alternative behavior rates, outcomes that were well described by the standard quantitative account of alternative reinforcement, the generalized matching law. These results suggest that adventitious reinforcement of alternative behaviors can occur during noncontingent reinforcement interventions, although the range of conditions under which this occurs remains to be determined in future studies. As an adjunct to applied studies, laboratory models permit easy measurement of alternative behaviors and parametric manipulations needed to answer many research questions.     

Escape as reinforcement and escape extinction in the treatment of feeding problems

Given the effectiveness of putative escape extinction as treatment for feeding problems, it is surprising that little is known about the effects of escape as reinforcement for appropriate eating during treatment. In the current investigation, we examined the effectiveness of escape as reinforcement for mouth clean (a product measure of swallowing), escape as reinforcement for mouth clean plus escape extinction (EE), and EE alone as treatment for the food refusal of 5 children. Results were similar to those of previous studies, in that reinforcement alone did not result in increases in mouth clean or decreases in inappropriate behavior (e.g., Piazza, Patel, Gulotta, Sevin, & Layer, 2003). Increases in mouth clean and decreases in inappropriate behavior occurred when the therapist implemented EE independent of the presence or absence of reinforcement. Results are discussed in terms of the role of negative reinforcement in the etiology and treatment of feeding problems.     

An evaluation of two differential reinforcement procedures with escape extinction to treat food refusal

Consumption of solids and liquids occurs as a chain of behaviors that may include accepting, swallowing, and retaining the food or drink. In the current investigation, we evaluated the relative effectiveness of differential reinforcement of the first behavior in the chain (acceptance) versus differential reinforcement for the terminal behavior in the chain (mouth clean). Three children who had been diagnosed with a feeding disorder participated. Acceptance remained at zero when differential reinforcement contingencies were implemented for acceptance or mouth clean. Acceptance and mouth clean increased for all 3 participants once escape extinction was added to the differential reinforcement procedures, independent of whether reinforcement was provided for acceptance or for mouth clean. Maintenance was observed in 2 children when escape extinction was removed from the treatment package. The mechanism by which consumption increased is discussed in relation to positive and negative reinforcement contingencies.     

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.     

The effects of extinction,noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior as control procedures

Several techniques have been used in applied research as controls for the introduction of a reinforcement contingency, including extinction, noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO). Little research, however, has examined the relative strengths and limitations of these "reversal" controls. We compared the effects of extinction with those of NCR and DRO in both multi-element and reversal designs, with respect to (a) rate and amount of response decrement, (b) rate of response recovery following reintroduction of reinforcement, and (c) any positive or negative side effects associated with transitions. Results indicated that extinction generally produced the most consistent and rapid reversal effects, with few observed negative side effects.     

The effects of noncontingent reinforcement on task disengagement following failure of differential reinforcement treatment

Following the failure of applications of differential reinforcement (DR), the effects of reinforcement delivered noncontingently (NCR) on task disengagement and task completion were evaluated within reversal designs for three children with autism spectrum disorder. In Experiment 1, we compared DR and NCR schedules that combined positive and negative reinforcement. In Experiment 2, we replicated the results of Experiment 1 and then evaluated NCR schedules composed solely of negative reinforcement and NCR schedules that combined negative reinforcement with high-or low-preferred stimuli. In Experiment 3, we further analyzed NCR schedules that included different types and qualities of positive reinforcement, but without the inclusion of negative reinforcement. The results showed that NCR schedules using positive reinforcers can be effective as a treatment for task disengagement, but the type and preference of the reinforcer can alter effectiveness. These results are interpreted in terms of the motivating operations associated with task disengagement.     

The role of adventitious reinforcement during differential reinforcement of other behavior: A systematic replication

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to decrease problem behavior by presenting reinforcers contingent upon the absence of a target response. Although it is well demonstrated that DROs decrease response rates, the processes producing these decreases are not well understood. The present study systematically replicated previous research assessing whether adventitious reinforcement of alternative behavior contributes to the effectiveness of DRO. We presented university students with two options on a computer and reinforced target responding on a variable-ratio schedule. Next, we compared decreases in target-response rates and any increases in alternative responding during DRO schedules versus yoked variable-time schedules or extinction probes. DRO schedules resulted in the lowest target-response rate and highest alternative-response rate. These findings generally provide some support for the adventitious reinforcement of “other” behavior.     

The effects of differential negative reinforcement of other behavior and noncontingent escape on compliance

The present study evaluated the effects of noncontingent escape and differential negative reinforcement of other behavior in reducing problem behaviors and increasing compliance in 2 children with disabilities. Results showed that both methods reduced problem behavior and increased compliance for both children.     

On the relative contributions of positive reinforcement and escape extinction in the treatment of food refusal

We compared the effects of positive reinforcement alone, escape extinction alone, and positive reinforcement with escape extinction in the treatment of the food and fluid refusal of 4 children who had been diagnosed with a pediatric feeding disorder. Consumption did not increase when positive reinforcement was implemented alone. By contrast, consumption increased for all participants when escape extinction was implemented, independent of the presence or absence of positive reinforcement. However, the addition of positive reinforcement to escape extinction was associated with beneficial effects (e.g., greater decreases in negative vocalizations and inappropriate behavior) for some participants.     

Evaluation of two physical guidance procedures in the treatment of pediatric feeding disorder

Children with pediatric feeding disorder may refuse to consume an adequate variety and/or volume of food to maintain expected growth. They can consume food but may actively or passively refuse, resulting in escape or avoidance of eating. Behavioral interventions like positive reinforcement with escape extinction can increase consumption. However, sometimes these interventions are insufficient, especially in treating passive refusal. In these cases, physical guidance may be used to prompt an open mouth to deposit food. Research indicates open-mouth prompts are effective and rated as acceptable. This study replicated an existing physical guidance procedure, the finger prompt, and compared its efficacy and acceptability with that of a spoon prompt. This study extended research by defining and measuring passive refusal as a dependent variable and assessing social validity among different stakeholders and times. Both prompts were effective in treating food refusal, and caregivers rated the finger prompt as more preferred.     

Effectiveness of Noncontingent Attention to Decrease Attention-Maintained Disruptive Behaviors in the General Education Classroom

This study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of noncontingent attention (NCA) on disruptive talking-out behavior in a student diagnosed with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder in the general education classroom. Functional analysis indicated that the talking-out behavior was maintained by teacher attention. We used an ABAB design in which the teacher implemented NCA. Results indicated that the strategy decreased the participant's talking-out behavior. Furthermore, social validity data indicated that the participant was able to spend more time on-task. Results and implications for research and practice are discussed.     

Functional assessment and noncontingent reinforcement in the treatment of disruptive vocalization in elderly dementia patients

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) was used as an intervention with 2 elderly dementia patients who engaged in disruptive vocalization. Several assessment procedures, including functional analysis, were conducted to identify reinforcing stimuli for use in the NCR intervention. Functional analyses and the NCR intervention were implemented in each participant's natural environment. NCR was effective in reducing disruptive vocalizations.     

Chin prompt plus re-presentation as treatment for expulsion in children with feeding disorders

Expulsion (spitting out food) is a problem behavior observed in many children with feeding disorders. In the current investigation, we identified 4 children diagnosed with a feeding disorder who exhibited high rates of expulsion. Treatment with re-presentation (placing expelled liquids or solids back into the child's mouth) was not effective in reducing expulsion. Therefore, we added a chin-prompt procedure (the feeder applied gentle upward pressure to the child's chin and lower lip) for the initial presentation and the re-presentation. Chin prompt plus re-presentation resulted in low rates of expulsion for all 4 children. The results are discussed in terms of the potential underlying mechanisms behind the effectiveness of the chin-prompt procedure.     

A comparison of fixed momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior to variable momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce challenging behavior

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to reduce behavioral excesses. Momentary DRO schedules involve delivery of reinforcement contingent upon the absence of the target behavior at a given moment. Two variations of momentary DRO exist: fixed-momentary (FM) DRO and variable-momentary (VM) DRO. In the current study, we directly compared FM-DRO and VM-DRO schedules to reduce challenging behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement exhibited by four children with autism spectrum disorder. The results suggest that both the DRO schedules were equally effective to reduce challenging behavior. A social validity measure showed that most caregivers rated the VM-DRO as a preferred schedule and noted the potential for FM-DRO schedule to become more discriminable over time, which could reduce its effectiveness. However, most caregivers also commented that the FM-DRO schedule was easier to implement.     

An assessment of differential reinforcement procedures for learners with autism spectrum disorder

Differential reinforcement procedures may promote unprompted correct responding, resulting in a quicker transfer of stimulus control than nondifferential reinforcement. Recent studies that have compared reinforcement arrangements have found that the most effective arrangement may differ across participants. The current study conducted an assessment of differential reinforcement arrangements (i.e., quality, schedule, and magnitude) and nondifferential reinforcement to identify the most effective arrangement for each participant. The assessment phase showed that the quality arrangement was the most efficient for all participants during auditory‐visual matching. Next, a validation phase was conducted to evaluate whether the assessment would predict the most effective arrangement across multiple skills. The results from the assessment phase were validated for all participants for the same skill. However, the results were only validated for one participant during the other skills (i.e., tact and intraverbal). The results are discussed in light of previous research and future areas of research.