Delivering alternative reinforcement in a distinct context reduces its counter‐therapeutic effects on relapse

Delivery of alternative reinforcers in the presence of stimuli previously associated with reinforcement for target behavior increases the susceptibility of target behavior to relapse. To explore contingencies that might mitigate this counter‐therapeutic effect, we trained pigeons on a procedure that entailed extinction of previously reinforced target‐key pecking, access to a distinct stimulus context contingently on refraining from target behavior (differential‐reinforcement‐of‐other‐behavior; DRO), and reinforcement of alternative‐key pecks (differential‐reinforcement of alternative behavior; DRA) in that context. This DRO‐DRA treatment was compared with standard DRA in successive conditions, counterbalanced across pigeons. Target behavior extinguished more rapidly in the Standard‐DRA condition. When alternative reinforcement was discontinued, however, there was less resurgence after DRO‐DRA than after Standard DRA. In a third condition, the DRO contingency was suspended so that the former DRA stimuli were not presented (DRO‐NAC), and resurgence was greater than in the Standard‐DRA and DRO‐DRA conditions. Reinstatement produced by response‐independent reinforcers was small and similar across conditions. Subsequent reacquisition of target‐key pecking under baseline reinforcement conditions was faster following DRO‐NAC than Standard‐DRA or DRO‐DRA. These findings suggest that DRO‐DRA might serve as a useful method in clinical settings for reducing problem behavior while minimizing the threat of posttreatment relapse.     

A comparison of differential reinforcement procedures for treating automatically reinforced behavior

Children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often exhibit stereotypy, which can be socially stigmatizing, interfere with daily living skills, and affect skill acquisition. We compared differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) when neither procedure included response blocking or interruption for (a) reducing stereotypy, (b) increasing task engagement, and (c) increasing task completion. DRA contingencies yielded superior outcomes across each measure when evaluated with 3 individuals with autism spectrum disorder.     

A comparison of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom

This study investigated the effectiveness of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) in reducing the disruptive behaviors of 25 children in a preschool classroom. Using an alternating treatments design, disruptive behavior was reduced when the participants earned tokens for the absence of disruptive behavior (DRO) or lost tokens for the occurrence of disruptive behavior (response cost). Initially, DRO was more successful in reducing the number of disruptive behaviors; however, over time, response cost proved to be more effective.     

Effectiveness of DRO tokens in decreasing disruptive behavior in the classroom with five multiply handicapped children

In this study the effectiveness of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) with tokens was assessed in the treatment of various topographies of disruptive behavior in the classroom with five children who were multiply handicapped. Prior to implementation of the treatment, reinforcer assessment was conducted to identify items to be used as back-up reinforcers. Data were analyzed using time-series analysis. Results show that DRO tokens were highly effective in decreasing disruptive behavior of all participants. ©1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An Evaluation of the Relative Effectiveness of Function-Based Consequent and Antecedent Interventions in a Preschool Setting

Although there is substantial functional behavioral assessment (FBA) literature suggesting that function-based interventions are effective for improving problem behavior, only a limited number of studies have examined the effectiveness of function-based antecedent versus consequent interventions. Additionally, although there has been a recent increase in the number of studies conducted in the K–12 school setting, only a limited number of studies have included children in the preschool setting. The present study extends existing literature by examining the effectiveness of function-based antecedent versus consequent interventions for reducing problem behavior and increasing appropriately engaged behavior for preschool children without cognitive disabilities. Following an FBA of 4 children, the effectiveness of a function-based antecedent (i.e., noncontingent reinforcement [NCR]) was compared with a function-based consequent (i.e., differential reinforcement of alternative behavior [DRA]) intervention using an alternating treatments design. Results indicated that both function-based NCR and DRA were effective for decreasing problem behavior and increasing appropriately engaged behavior, with function-based NCR being more effective than DRA for 2 of 4 participants.     

Caregiver preference for reinforcement‐based interventions for problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement

Social validity of behavioral interventions typically is assessed with indirect methods or by determining preferences of the individuals who receive treatment, and direct observation of caregiver preference rarely is described. In this study, preferences of 5 caregivers were determined via a concurrent‐chains procedure. Caregivers were neurotypical, and children had been diagnosed with developmental disabilities and engaged in problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement. Caregivers were taught to implement noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), and the caregivers selected interventions to implement during sessions with the child after they had demonstrated proficiency in implementing the interventions. Three caregivers preferred DRA, 1 caregiver preferred differential reinforcement procedures, and 1 caregiver did not exhibit a preference. Direct observation of implementation in concurrent‐chains procedures may allow the identification of interventions that are implemented with sufficient integrity and preferred by caregivers.     

A comparison of differential reinforcement and noncontingent reinforcement for the treatment of a child's multiply controlled problem behavior

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) with escape as the reinforcer were evaluated after an initial functional analysis indicated the problem behaviors exhibited by a 7 year old child were maintained by escape. When NCR and DRO did not decrease the problem behaviors, a second functional analysis was conducted and showed that the behaviors were maintained by attention and escape. DRO with attention and escape as reinforcers was compared to NCR with attention and escape as reinforcers for the treatment of the child's multiply controlled behavior problems. Results showed that DRO and NCR were both effective at reducing the problem behavior to low levels and increasing compliance. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior in Center-Based Classrooms: Evaluation of Pre-teaching the Alternative Behavior

This study investigated the effectiveness of a differential reinforcement of alternative behavior procedure in decreasing disruptive behavior while simultaneously increasing the appropriate behavior of four children of typical development between the ages of 4 and 6 in center-based classrooms. We began with brief functional analyses for each child. Then, differential reinforcement procedures, with and without pre-teaching the alternative behavior, were compared using an alternating treatments design. Results indicated that the differential reinforcement procedure with pre-teaching resulted in lower levels of problem behavior and greater levels of the alternative behavior compared to differential reinforcement alone. Results are discussed in terms of implications for applied practice and functional assessment and intervention research.     

ANALYSIS OF THE REINFORCEMENT AND EXTINCTION COMPONENTS IN DRO CONTINGENCIES WITH SELF-INJURY

Previous research has shown that self-injurious behavior (SIB) maintained by positive reinforcement may be reduced under differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) contingencies. In this study, we conducted an analysis of the reinforcement and extinction components of DRO while treating the self-injury of 3 women with developmental disabilities. A functional analysis revealed that each subject's SIB was maintained by positive reinforcement in the form of attention. Subsequent reinforcer assessments identified preferred and nonpreferred stimuli for later use in conjunction with DRO. Results showed high rates of SIB for all 3 subjects during baseline, which persisted when DRO was implemented without the relevant extinction component (withholding of attention for SIB) for 2 of the subjects. Low rates of SIB were observed for all subjects when DRO plus extinction was implemented or when extinction was implemented alone, suggesting that extinction may be a critical component of DRO schedules.     

Evaluation of fixed momentary dro schedules under signaled and unsignaled arrangements

Fixed momentary schedules of differential reinforcement of other behavior (FM DRO) generally have been ineffective as treatment for problem behavior. Because most early research on FM DRO included presentation of a signal at the end of the DRO interval, it is unclear whether the limited effects of FM DRO were due to (a) the momentary response requirement of the schedule per se or (b) discrimination of the contingency made more salient by the signal. To separate these two potential influences, we compared the effects of signaled versus unsignaled FM DRO with 4 individuals with developmental disabilities whose problem behavior was maintained by social-positive reinforcement. During signaled FM DRO, the experimenter presented a visual stimulus 3 s prior to the end of the DRO interval and delivered reinforcement contingent on the absence of problem behavior at the second the interval elapsed. Unsignaled DRO was identical except that interval termination was not signaled. Results indicated that signaled FM DRO was effective in decreasing 2 subjects' problem behavior, whereas an unsignaled schedule was required for the remaining 2 subjects. These results suggest that the response requirement per se of FM DRO may not be problematic if it is not easily discriminated.     

Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition

We examined the extent to which noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), when used as treatment to reduce problem behavior, might interfere with differential reinforcement contingencies designed to strengthen alternative behavior. After conducting a functional analysis to identify the reinforcers maintaining 2 participants' self-injurious behavior (SIB), we delivered those reinforcers under dense NCR schedules. We delivered the same reinforcers concurrently under differential-reinforcement-of-alternative-behavior (DRA) contingencies in an attempt to strengthen replacement behaviors (mands). Results showed that the NCR plus DRA intervention was associated with a decrease in SIB but little or no increase in appropriate mands. In a subsequent phase, when the NCR schedule was thinned while the DRA schedule remained unchanged, SIB remained low and mands increased. These results suggest that dense NCR schedules may alter establishing operations that result in not only suppression of problem behavior but also interference with the acquisition of appropriate behavior. Thus, the strengthening of socially appropriate behaviors as replacements for problem behavior during NCR interventions might best be achieved if the NCR schedule is first thinned.     

THE ROLE OF ATTENTION IN THE TREATMENT OF ATTENTION-MAINTAINED SELF-INJURIOUS BEHAVIOR: NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AND DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF OTHER BEHAVIOR

Because there are potentially serious limitations to differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) (which is probably the most widely used treatment procedure for behavior problems), we examined an alternative procedure—noncontingent reinforcement (NCR). Three females with developmental disabilities, all of whom engaged in severe self-injurious behavior, participated. During a pretreatment functional analysis, each subject's self-injury was shown to be differentially sensitive to social attention as a maintaining consequence. Next, each subject was exposed to a DRO treatment and an NCR treatment. During DRO, attention was delivered contingent on the absence of self-injury for prespecified intervals. During NCR, attention was delivered on a fixed-time schedule that was not influenced by the subject's behavior. Results showed that both procedures were highly effective in reducing self-injury, probably because the functional reinforcer for self-injury was used during treatment. Furthermore, there was evidence that NCR attenuated several of the limitations of DRO. These results are particularly interesting in light of the long experimental history of NCR as a control rather than as a therapeutic procedure.     

The Effects of Using a Conditioned Stimulus to Cue DRO Schedules

A reversal design was used to examine the effects of a differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) procedure and the presence of a stimulus (i.e., a bracelet), conditioned via discrimination training, on reducing socially maintained non‐contextual vocalizations in an adolescent girl with autism. Initially, a functional analysis determined that non‐contextual vocalizations were maintained by social attention. Then, discrimination training was used to establish the presence of the bracelet as a discriminative stimulus for the absence of vocalizations. Specifically, when the bracelet was on, non‐contextual vocalizations were interrupted, and edible reinforcement was provided for the absence of vocalizations. When the bracelet was off, vocalizations were not interrupted and the teacher provided social attention to the participant (i.e., reciprocated conversation with the participant about the topic). During intervention, a DRO procedure was used. The participant was presented with the bracelet, a timer set for a specified interval, and the instruction to work quietly. If vocalizations did not occur for the entire duration of the interval, the bracelet was removed and the learner was given the opportunity to engage in vocalizations. The DRO interval was systematically increased throughout the intervention. Results are discussed in terms of discrimination training as an effective addition to differential reinforcement procedure. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Relative Efficacy of Behavioral Interventions in Preschool Children Attending Head Start

This study tested the relative efficacy of two interventions for children referred for consultation services due to problem behavior in the classroom. Teachers nominated children for participation due to frequent disruptive behaviors, such as inappropriate vocalizations and off-task behavior. Four Black males from 3 to 4 years old who attended Head Start centers served as the participants. Each child received a functional assessment that included a teacher-completed functional assessment rating scale and a brief functional analysis. Following functional assessments, an alternating treatments design was used to test the relative efficacy of an intervention matched to function and the Mystery Motivator intervention, not matched to function. Results indicate that both the intervention matched to function and the Mystery Motivator intervention were superior to a no-intervention control condition, but the function-matched intervention was more effective than the Mystery Motivator intervention for reducing problem behaviors and increasing appropriate engagement for all four children. Results are discussed in terms of learning principles potentially responsible for differential efficacy, as well as implications for applied practice.     

Stimulus Fading and Response Elaboration in Differential Reinforcement for Alternative Behavior

A hallmark of applied behavior analysis is the development of function‐based interventions for problem behavior. A widely recommended function‐based intervention is differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), in which reinforcement is contingent upon socially acceptable alternatives to problem behavior (e.g., teaching communication skills). Typically, DRA is introduced under rich schedules of reinforcement. Although effective for initiating behavior change, rich schedules are often impractical in the natural setting. In this study, we evaluated the extent to which a stimulus fading program could be employed to elaborate alternative behavior (mands) in two individuals diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. For both participants, problem behavior was reduced substantially upon implementation of the DRA procedure. Further, problem behavior rates remained low and mand rates decreased to more practical levels as the DRA behavioral requirements increased during the fading program. The fading approach demonstrated in this paper may be a useful component of intervention packages for clinicians. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Multiple reinforcement contingencies to reduce aggression,self-injury and dysfunctional verbal behaviors in an adult who is sensory impaired

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) and differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL) have been effective techniques in reducing maladaptive behaviors in therapeutic settings. Reported studies of these reinforcement-based procedures indicate that they are usually implemented in isolation, targeting only a single behavior or class of behaviors. In this study, multiple DRO and DRL contingencies were utilized concurrently in reducing two distinct classes of behaviors with a 26 year-old blind man with moderate retardation. One class of behaviors included socially inappropriate verbalizations, while the other included aggressive, self-injurious and environmentally destructive behaviors. Distinct contingencies were established according to the functions of the targeted behaviors and their severity and separate schedules of reinforcement were derived from baseline frequencies. Over a period of 20 months, the differential reinforcement interventions resulted in rapid reduction of behaviors in both classes to near-zero rates and frequencies were maintained at this low level while contingency schedules were systematically lengthened. Collateral effects are discussed including performance in functional academics and participation in community integration activities.     

Functional analysis and treatment of self-injury associated with transitions.

We applied functional analysis methodology to the assessment and treatment of 2 individuals' self‐injurious behavior (SIB), which was reported to be occasioned by transitions from one activity or location to another. A structural (task) analysis of activity transitions identified at least three separate components that might influence behavior either alone or in combination: (a) termination of a prechange activity, (b) initiation of a postchange activity, and (c) movement from one location to another. Results of preference and avoidance assessments were used to identify activities to which participants were exposed in varying arrangements during transitions in a functional analysis. Results of 1 participant's functional analysis indicated that his SIB was maintained by avoidance of having to change locations, regardless of the activity terminated prior to the change or the activity initiated following it. The 2nd participant's analysis revealed the same function but also an additional one: avoidance of certain task initiations. This information was used to identify transition contexts during intervention and to design treatment procedures appropriate for a given context and behavioral function. A procedure involving advance notice of an upcoming transition had no effect on SIB, and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) had limited effects in the absence of extinction. Sustained decreases in SIB were observed when DRA was combined with extinction and response blocking. Further extensions of functional analysis methodology to the assessment of problem behavior in situations characterized by multiple or protracted stimulus changes are discussed.     

Self-management of a DRO procedure by three students with autism

Three students with autism were taught to self-manage a DRO program to reduce their disruptive behavior. During baseline conditions, all students showed high rates of disruptive behavior (either out-of-seat or nail-flicking). Students were taught to self-manage a DRO program during external reinforcement and prompted self-management conditions. Student gains were maintained during unprompted self-management and follow-up conditions. ©1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.