Functional Behavioral Treatment Protocols for SMA 2.0: Target Behaviors

Functional Behavioral Assessment, Diagnosis, and Treatment: A Complete System for Education and Mental Health Settings - Ennio Cipani PhD 2018


Functional Behavioral Treatment Protocols for SMA 2.0: Target Behaviors

In this chapter, the material presented in Chapter 4 is expanded to provide a treatment protocol for each replacement function option delineated for socially mediated access (SMA) target behaviors. The treatment protocols for direct access (DA) are the same as the SMA protocols, except for some minor variations in the procedures for dealing with the occurrence of the target behaviors. These variations are explicated in each replacement function option.

For SMA target behaviors, the following protocols are presented in this chapter:

✵Alternate DA Form

✵Differential Reinforcement of Low Rate (DRL) Group Contingencies for Peer Attention

✵Omission Training (Differential Reinforcement of Other Behaviors, or DRO)

✵Noncontingent Reinforcement (NCR) with Extinction

✵Premack Contingency Option

✵Access Mand (Request) Option

This chapter also contains a protocol for a treatment program called noncontingent reinforcement. This program was not delineated in Chapter 4 because it does not readily address the function of the target behavior or the development of the replacement function (not one specified). Rather, it works as a result of altering the motivational condition of the client in one of two ways. In the case of target behaviors maintained by positive reinforcement, the rate of the target behavior is reduced by abolishing the value of the reinforcer for the client. The specific reinforcer is presented noncontingently according to a time schedule In this case, it may also establish the conditions for extinction by disrupting the contingent pairing of the target behavior and the reinforcer.

All the protocols in this chapter, with the exception of noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), contain a functional arrangement of treatment contingencies. The target behavior’s function is disabled, while the replacement behavior’s function to the relevant reinforcer is enabled.

SMA FUNCTIONS: ALTERNATE DA FORM

Brief Description

In this replacement behavior option, the desired reinforcer is produced by the client engaging in a chain of behaviors that produces the item or event, independent of anyone else’s assistance.

To implement a DA replacement option program, you must determine what chain of behaviors can directly produce the reinforcing items or event. If the person can fluently perform the requisite chain of behaviors, a simple rearrangement of contingencies is required. Performance of the designated chain of behaviors is allowed to produce the reinforcer, whereas previously it was probably disabled. Concurrently, extinction of the target behavior (i.e., socially mediated) is programmed.

If the person does not currently possess the DA behavior, the behavior must be shaped to produce an effective response (discussed in Chapter 4). In some cases, the entire chain of behaviors may have to be taught. In other cases, a few components of the chain may be lacking.

In some cases the client can perform the chain of behaviors, but not fluently (i.e., with acceptable speed and accuracy). If that is the case, fluency training is required. Once the client has acquired fluent performance of the chain of behaviors, differential reinforcement as delineated in this program is implemented. The use of differential reinforcement disables the target behavior’s function, while enabling the function of the DA behavior.

The advantage of this replacement behavior option is that it allows the client to independently obtain reinforcing items without reliance on other people or having to use communication or social skills. The DA option develops a specific chain of behaviors that will continue to be functional for the client over time. Once these behaviors are acquired, they can be utilized in other situations through the process of shaping and generalization.

Terms

Trigger analysis: Setting up all the context conditions hypothesized to occasion the target behavior, and documenting the occurrence (or lack thereof) of the target behavior and the DA replacement behavior.

Apparatus

Data sheets—See Form 5.1, “Simple Frequency Data with Rate Formulas”

Reinforcing items or events—The specific tangible items or event that have been identified as the maintaining reinforcers. These will be made available for DA and must be readily available without assistance from other people.

Baseline Measurement

There are two different pieces of information you need to obtain. First, you need to determine how often the target behavior is occurring under relevant conditions. Additionally, the frequency of occurrence of the proposed DA replacement behavior under the same conditions is needed.

The frequency measure is best suited for both these requirements. You (or the designated staff person) simply count each time the client engages in the target behavior as well as each time the client performs the DA behavior under the same conditions (see Form 5.1). When considering this option, baseline rates for the DA replacement behavior are typically at or near zero.

Trigger Analysis (See Form 5.2)

1.Set up (contrive) or wait for (capture) a situation in which the person is very likely to want access to the desired item or event. You must ensure that the motivational conditions are as strong as possible. This can be contrived through temporary deprivation of the desired items.

2.Present a stimulus that signals that the item is now available to the person.

3.Observe the person’s behavior, and record if the target behavior or the chain of DA replacement behavior occurs.

4.Record the time taken to initiate the first response.

5.Record the time taken to complete the chain of behaviors and obtain reinforcement.

6.If the replacement behavior was attempted (or performed), record which steps were completed and any prompts required to facilitate the performance of the steps.

7.Record if the reinforcing item or event was provided by the staff or care provider.

8.Repeat steps 1—4 at least six more times.

9.Graph or display the data across all baseline sessions.

DA Procedures

If the baseline data indicates that the person is not performing the DA behavior, start by teaching the behavior using discrete trials. If the baseline data indicates that they are able to perform the behavior, then skip to incidental teaching.

Discrete Trials

1.Present a prompt for the person to perform the first step in the task.

2.Provide reinforcement contingent on completing the behavior or chain of behaviors.

3.If the person does not complete the task or engages in the target behavior, provide an additional prompt to help the person complete the next step.

4.Provide reinforcement, preferably access to the reinforcing item or event you want the person to directly access with this behavior.

5.Record data.

6.On each successive trial, shape more independent responding by reducing the level of prompt provided.

7.Once the person is performing the task without the need for additional prompts, change to incidental teaching method.

Incidental Teaching

1.Observe for conditions under which the person would usually engage in the target behavior.

2.If the person directly accesses an item or event, allow the person to do so.

3.If the person does not access the item or event, provide a prompt to engage in the DA behavior.

4.If the person does not complete the task or engages in the target behavior, do not provide access to the reinforcer (extinction); instead provide an additional prompt to help the person complete the next step.

5.On each successive trial, shape more independent responding by reducing the level of prompt provided.

6.Record data.

Ensure Access to Reinforcement!

It is critical that the desired reinforcer be available on a continuous schedule (every time) while the person is learning to perform the DA replacement behavior (or chain of behaviors).

If the rate of the DA replacement behavior becomes too high with ad lib access, you may consider setting up a Premack contingency as an additional option to reduce the rate of access.

If utilizing this behavior option for DA behaviors: Utilize the same baseline and treatment procedures as above, except that chain interruption would occur instead of extinction when the target behavior is displayed.

How It Works

When the client or child is motivated to access a particular item or event, and can do so directly, it will become functional very quickly. The DA behavior will probably produce the item or event at a higher rate and more reliably than the target behavior, which required other people to be involved. There is no reliance on ancillary skills, such as initiating a social interaction or making a request.

Hypothetical Example

I Want a Sandwich, Please

Bill is a person with developmental disabilities living in a group home, and he was referred for services due to “tantrums and yelling.” Mr. Hewlet was assigned the case and began the assessment process by reviewing the data the group home staff were keeping. He then proceeded to interview the staff of the home to understand the definitions of the targeted behaviors and gain information about the conditions under which the behavior occurred.

The data for the previous week are displayed in Example Form 5.1A.

Mr. Hewlet needed to determine if the frequency counts were a reliable measure of the referred target behavior. He asked the staff to describe what the target behavior looked like the last time it happened and if there was much variation across occurrences. The staff reported that the behavior was the same each time. Bill would walk around the house and sit at the dining room table briefly. He then would get up and walk around the house stomping his feet, briefly sit back down at the table, and then begin to yell loudly with no specific content. The staff indicated that Bill would briefly stop yelling while sitting at the table if the staff sat and talked with him. However, Bill would resume yelling after a short period of time. The staff further commented, “You know, it would not be so bad if he didn’t always have these fits when I am busy preparing meals.”

Example Form 5.1A ■ Simple Frequency Data

✵Client: Bill

Chart Started:_______________


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: Tantrums/yelling

✵Total Observation Time: min (___, ___-minute session/day)

✵Session Length: min

✵Number of Days: 7

✵Place an X on the appropriate day box each time the behavior occurs

images

Mr. Hewlet suspected that the timing of Bill’s target behaviors might have something to do with the function of the behavior. He asked if the behavior happened at any time other than right before meals. A staff person replied, “Oh yes, sometimes it happens when I am preparing the snacks.” Further questioning revealed that the behavior happened only around times when food was provided and that the yelling and tantrum behaviors stopped as soon as Bill accessed food. One of the staff did indicate that sometimes she would provide him with a little bit of food prior to meals “to take the edge off.” She could then get back to preparing the meal for everyone in the house. She indicated that she did not like to do this, but sometimes it was the only way to get him to stop long enough for her to prepare the meal. Mr. Hewlet now knew that the target behaviors at least intermittently accessed a tangible item and were more likely at times when Bill was likely to have been food deprived (hungry). He was sure that the behaviors served a SMA function. Mr. Hewlet asked if Bill ever engaged in the target behaviors when no other people were around. The staff indicated the target behaviors occurred only around the staff and only at meal and snack times. There was no difference in his target behaviors regardless of which of the staff were working, and the behavior occurred when staff were interacting with him and when they were not. This latter piece of information seemed to rule out a target behavior diagnosis of SMA 2.1: Staff Attention. There was no difference in his target behaviors if peers were present or not, which would tentatively rule out SMA 2.2: Peer Attention. With this information, Mr. Hewlet was reasonably sure that the behavioral diagnosis would be SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer, food item (see Table 5.1).

Mr. Hewlet asked the staff if they had ever seen Bill prepare his own food. The staff replied “No, we do all that for him.” Further questioning indicated that there were no house rules that prohibited clients from preparing their own food. Mr. Hewlet decided that in this case, perhaps it would be most effective to simply teach Bill to prepare his own food item when he was hungry. He found out from the staff that Bill’s favorite food was a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. However, no one knew if Bill had the skill to prepare a sandwich for himself. Mr. Hewlet set up a simple trigger analysis to find out what skill Bill had in making his own sandwich.

Mr. Hewlet placed all the needed materials for making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on the counter in the kitchen. At the same time staff were preparing a snack, Mr. Hewlet said “Bill, come over here and make yourself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.” He then gestured to the sandwich-making items. Bill stopped walking, looked at Mr. Hewlet and then at the peanut butter jar, smiled, and proceeded to the kitchen. Mr. Hewlet observed Bill’s efforts at sandwich making and was pleasantly surprised to find out that Bill not only was quite fluent in sandwich making but also cleaned up after himself! Mr. Hewlet repeated these trigger analysis trials on five more occasions with the same result (see Example Form 5.2).

TABLE 5.1 ■ YELLING OR TANTRUM DIAGNOSTIC TABLE

Diagnosis

SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer, Food Item

Target behavior(s):

Yelling/tantrums

Function:

Access food item

Target behavior likely under following contexts:

Waiting for meals and snacks

Target behavior unlikely under following contexts:

While eating and immediately after eating

Rule out:

SMA 2.1: Staff Attention

SMA 2.2: Peer Attention

SMA, socially mediated access.

If Bill had not been able to complete the task, Mr. Hewlet would have completed a Task Analysis and developed a plan to teach him the skill using a combination of Discrete Trial Training, Incidental Teaching, Chaining, and Behavioral Fluency. Mr. Hewlet now could develop a simple contingency plan that he knew would eliminate the tantrums and yelling. This plan would enable the alternative replacement behavior, while disabling the target behavior.

Based on the trigger analysis, Mr. Hewlet developed the following contingency. If Bill tantrums or yells loudly, he will not be provided food of any kind until the target behaviors have been absent for 2 minutes. If he prepares his own sandwich, he is free to eat it. He is to have free access to the sandwich-making materials 30 minutes before snacks and meals. Staff will continue taking data on tantrums and yelling and also record if he has prepared and consumed any food independent of staff (see Example Form 5.3).

The plan was implemented and was very effective, as can be seen on the completed Example Form 5.1B data sheet. The function of the target behavior of tantruming or yelling was quickly disabled, and the function of the DA behavior of making and eating a sandwich was enabled and maintained by the naturally occurring environmental contingencies.

What If?

What if the person refuses or is unable to complete the DA behavior?

This would require teaching the person the skill first. If the person was unable to acquire the skill, then some environmental set up would be needed to allow the person a way to access the reinforcer directly. If that were still not possible, an alternative might be to use NCR.

What if the DA behavior results in the person getting the reinforcer at too high a rate?

If this occurs, the simplest solution would be to implement a Premack contingency. In using a Premack contingency, the person could still directly access the reinforcer, but the complexity or duration of the behavior required prior to access could be increased. This would require more effort on the part of the client to access the reinforcer and thereby reduce the frequency of access.

Example Form 5.1B ■ Simple Frequency Data

✵Client: Bill

Chart Started: ______________


Day/Month/Year

✵Target Behavior: Tantrums/yelling

✵DA Replacement Behavior: Making and eating a sandwich

✵Number of Days: 6

✵Place an X on the appropriate day box each time the behavior occurs

images

✵Total occurrences observed: 3

images

✵Total occurrences observed: 35

Example Form 5.2 ■ Trigger Analysis Trial Data

✵Client name: Bill

✵Antecedent set up: ______________

✵Motivation for the reinforcing item will be assured by: Doing trigger analysis 30 minutes before a meal

✵Availability of the reinforcing item will be indicated by: A verbal prompt and the sandwich-making items being out on the counter

✵Type and sequence of prompts to be used: Verbal, then gestural, then graduated guidance if needed

✵Preferred response: Prepares and eats a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with no assistance and cleans up afterwards

✵Conditions regarding access to the reinforcing item:

○How much: One Sandwich

○How long: N/A

Step

Description

1

Initiates sandwich making

2

Gets bread

3

Opens peanut butter and jelly

4

Gets knife and spreads peanut butter and jelly

5

Assembles sandwich

6

Cleans area

7

Consumes sandwich

✵I = Independent P = prompted N = did not complete

images

✵Independent completion rate: Whole task (completed/possible): 0/6

✵Prompted completion rate: Whole task (completed/possible): 6/6

✵Time to complete task:

○Longest 10 min

○Shortest 2 min

○Average 5.33 min

Example Form 5.3 ■ DA: Simple Plan

✵Person served: Bill

✵Target Yelling and tantrums

✵Behavioral diagnostic category: SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer, food item.

✵DA Making own sandwich

✵Designated time period(s): Any

✵Rate of target behavior Baseline: 4.6 per day Target: 0

✵Rate of DA behavior Baseline: 0 Target: 3 per day

✵Initial form or task analysis of DA Assemble and consume a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with the items already available on the kitchen counter.

✵Reinforcing item/event to be directly accessed: Food items

✵When and how will it be made available: Initially all items to assemble a sandwich will be left out on the kitchen counter and will be made available to Bill 30 minutes before each snack and meal.

✵How to respond to the target Remove all food items until Bill has stopped engaging in the target behaviors for 2 minutes. Then prompt Bill to the kitchen area where the sandwich-making items are located. Prompt him to assemble a sandwich if he does not independently do so.

✵How to build the DA replacement Prompt Bill to the kitchen area where the sandwich-making items are located. Prompt him to assemble a sandwich if he does not independently do so.

✵Types of prompts to be used:

Visual Vocal □Written Touch □Graduated Guidance

✵When to use prompts: Visual prompt in the form of items used to prepare sandwich should be out at all times; vocal prompt to make a sandwich should be given if Bill is walking toward the table around meal times; a touch prompt should be used to direct Bill to the area of the sandwich-making materials if the verbal prompt was ineffective.

What if the person can do the DA behavior, but is too slow?

If the person is simply taking too long to complete the task, you should consider fluency training or differential reinforcement of higher rates of behavior (DRH). In fluency training, the focus is on breaking the task down into the individual movements required to complete each step of the overall task, and then increasing the speed of movement of each component rather than focusing on accurate performance of the entire task. Accuracy of the entire task develops as each component can be performed quickly, accurately, and without hesitation.

DRH focuses on differentially reinforcing the person performing the behavior faster. The faster the person does the behavior, the greater the pay off. Both methods are effective at speeding up slow performances.

Forms: DA

5.1:Simple Frequency Data with Rate Formulas

5.2DA: Trigger Analysis Trial Data Sheet

5.3DA: Simple Plan

Form 5.1 ■ Simple Frequency Data with Rate Formulas

✵Client: _________________________

Chart Started: __________________


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: ______________________________________________________

✵Total Observation Time: min (__, ___-minute session/day) Session Length: min

✵Number of Days: __

✵Place an X on the appropriate day box each time the behavior occurs

images

A.Total minutes observed: __

B.Total occurrences observed: __ Rate/minute = B/A / = ____

C.Range (low) __ to (high) __, Avg = __ Rate/hour = (B/A)60 (/)60 = ____

images

A.Total minutes observed: __

B.Total occurrences observed: __ Rate/minute = B/A / = ____

C.Range (low) __ to (high) __, Avg = __ Rate/hour = (B/A)60 (/)60 = ____

Form 5.2 ■ DA Trigger Analysis Trial Data Sheet

✵Client name:_______________________

✵Antecedent set up: _______________________

_______________________________________________________

✵Motivation for the reinforcing item will be ensured by:_______________________

_______________________________________________________

✵Availability of the reinforcing item will be indicated by:_______________________

Type and sequence of prompts to be used:_______________________

_______________________________________________________

✵Preferred response:_______________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

✵Conditions regarding access to the reinforcing item:

○How much:_______________________

○How long:_______________________

Step

Description

1


2


3


4


5


6


7


✵I = Independent P = prompted N = did not complete

images

✵Independent completion rate: Whole task (completed/possible): ___/___

✵Prompted completion rate: Whole task (completed/possible): ___/___

✵Time to complete task:

○Longest _______

○Shortest ______

○Average ______

Form 5.3 ■ DA: Simple Plan

✵Person served: _______________________

_______________________________________________________

✵Target 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Behavioral diagnostic category: _______________________

_______________________________________________________

✵DA 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 6.0pt;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Designated time period(s): _______________________

_______________________________________________________

✵Rate of target behavior

Baseline: _____________

Target: __________

✵Rate of DA behavior

Baseline: _____________

Target: __________

✵Initial form or task analysis of DA 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Reinforcing item/event to be directly accessed: _______________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

✵When and how will it be made available: _______________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

✵How to respond to the target 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Types of prompts to be used:

✵□Visual □Vocal □Written □Touch □Graduated Guidance

✵When to use prompts: _______________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Dattilo, J., & Camarata, S. (1991). Facilitating conversation through self-initiated augmentative communication treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 369—378.

Mithaug, D. K., & Mithaug, D. E. (2003). Effects of teacher-directed versus student-directed instruction on self-management of young children with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 133—136.

Thompson, R. H., & Iwata, B. A. (2000). Response acquisition under direct and indirect contingencies of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 1—11.

Vaughn, B. J., & Horner, R. H. (1997). Identifying instructional tasks that occasion problem behaviors and assessing the effects of student versus teacher choice among these tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 299—312.

SMA FUNCTIONS: DRL GROUP CONTINGENCIES FOR PEER ATTENTION

Brief Description

One cannot often successfully instruct peers to ignore the target problem behavior of a particular peer so that the targeted person will behave more appropriately. It is necessary to implement a group contingency that results in the group’s reinforcement being contingent upon the lowering of the rate of the target behavior for the group as a whole. This option involves providing a reinforcer to a group of students or clients for achieving a group criterion. The reinforcer is presented following a specified period of time during which the identified target behavior for the entire group occurs at or below a prespecified level (termed the behavioral standard).

In this SMA option, reinforcement is provided to the entire group only when the rate of a target behavior for the whole group, during a specified period of time, is lower than a prescribed limit, for example, the class cannot have more than five disruptive incidents in the morning in order to earn 10 minutes of extra recess after lunch. By using a group contingency, we establish the motivation for the peer group to ignore the person engaged in target behaviors. Once the group meets the initial behavioral standard, we systematically change the standard over time to shape the rate of target behavior to a final criteria level. This allows for more frequent contact with the reinforcing event initially and generally speeds the learning process.

To implement a group DRL program, determine what level of the target behavior is acceptable for the group as a whole (behavioral standard). Next, measure the target behavior across the entire group during a specified interval of time. The group’s frequency of occurrence of the target behavior is compared with the behavioral standard. If the group’s frequency of behavior is above the standard, reinforcement is withheld. If the group’s frequency is at or below the behavioral standard, reinforcement is provided to the group.

The advantage of using a DRL procedure is that it is relatively easy to implement, and it specifically focuses on the reduction but not total elimination of the target behavior. It is not designed to teach any new behavior but alters the rate or intensity of already existing behaviors. The disadvantage with any group contingency is that it may also result in inappropriate forms of counter control by peers toward a targeted individual.

Terms

DRL interval: The length of time during which the group must maintain the occurrence of the target behavior below the behavioral standard to earn the group reinforcer.

Behavioral standard: The level of behavior that is considered acceptable. This is set as a function of baseline data on the group’s rate of behavior.

Changing criterion: The process of systematically changing the behavioral standard to successively lower rates that approximate the final criteria.

Final criteria: The terminal behavioral standard. This is the goal. When reached, it will indicate that the DRL has been a success and no further reduction in target behaviors is warranted.

Apparatus

Timing device—This can be a kitchen timer, alarm clock, computer with alarm feature, Palm Pilot, tape recorder with beeps at designated intervals, or a calendar, depending on the length of the schedule of reinforcement. The purpose is to prompt the staff person, teacher, or parent to provide the reinforcer.

Data sheets—See Form 5.5, “Simple Frequency Data on Group and Individual Behaviors.”

Reinforcing items or events—If tangible items will be utilized, a sufficient supply must be available.

Baseline Measurement

1.Determine that the target behavior is maintained by peer reinforcement (i.e., SMA 2.2: Peer Reinforcement).

2.Operationally define or pinpoint the target behavior being observed, with specific criteria for onset and offset of behavior (if not readily evident).

3.Determine the observation period possibly by reviewing scatter plot or A-B-C data to identify periods of time when the target behavior is highly likely or at the specific time of day or event in which you would like to reduce the level of the target behavior.

4.Construct the data sheet to reflect the length of the observation period, trying to keep the length reasonably similar across multiple sessions (see Form 5.4).

5.During observation, record the occurrence of the target behavior for the whole group (if desired use special notation for specific individuals of interest).

6.Repeat step 5 until the observation period ends.

7.Sum the total number of occurrences for the entire group, and enter on the data sheet.

8.Collect this data for at least five more baseline sessions, and graph the data.

DRL Procedures

1.Determine the final criteria for the behavioral standard for the group, as well as for the individual client or student.

2.From baseline data, calculate the mean level of occurrence for the group.

3.Determine your initial behavioral standard and DRL interval. (The initial standard and interval should be equivalent to baseline levels.)

4.Set the timing device to the initial interval.

5.When the designated time period elapses, deliver the designated reinforcer to the group if the group’s behavior did not exceed the behavioral standard.

6.If the group’s frequency of the target behavior exceeds the behavioral standard, do not provide the reinforcer.

7.As occurrences decrease, gradually change the criterion of the behavioral standard until you reach the final criteria.

Changing the Criterion

The behavior analyst can change the behavioral standard in a stepwise fashion such that it is closer to the final criteria as a function of client performance. A good general rule is to change the behavioral standard by 10% at each step, when the designated criterion level of performance is met.

How It Works

The group contingency DRL removes peer reinforcement for the child or client’s target behavior. This is accomplished by tying the group’s access to tangible reinforcers to a lowered rate or intensity of target behavior. The social environment enabled the target behavior of the individual by frequently providing the desired peer attention contingent upon its occurrence. The DRL schedule disables this function by providing reinforcement to the group only if the target behavior occurs relatively infrequently (i.e., below a preset standard). Peers will be less likely to provide attention when the individual engages in the target behavior because the individual’s frequency of target behavior now partly determines reinforcement rate and magnitude for the whole group. Peer reinforcement for the target behavior is consequently removed. It is possible that such peer reinforcement might shift to other behaviors not directly targeted. This can be remedied by including the new behaviors in the DRL contingency.

Hypothetical Example

Class Clown

Billy is a junior high school special education student. He engages in frequent, verbally inappropriate behavior toward teachers. Subsequent to such behavior the class laughs, girls smile, boys nod their head, and all have a good time. He has peers wanting to hang out with him during recess and at lunch. When Billy is “disciplined” by being sent to the principal’s office, it actually increases the attention he gets from his peers.

Mrs. Jones, the principal, after constantly seeing Billy in her office for referrals, discusses the case with Billy’s teacher, Mr. Smith, who is in his first year of teaching. Mrs. Jones believes Billy does these behaviors for teacher attention. She advises him to ignore students when they do things like this or he will continue to have problems managing his classroom.

Teacher

Mr. Smith returned to his classroom. He decided to try out the principal’s advice and ignore Billy’s silly behaviors in the hopes that such behaviors would stop. Mr. Smith considered the specific examples of Billy’s behavior that were inappropriate so that he could pinpoint a definition of the behavior. He identified the following behaviors as components of the target 'margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:21.6pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-21.6pt;line-height:normal'>1.Low volume statements that were audible to the class but not the teacher

2.Facial and hand gestures not related to answering academic questions

3.Comments that resulted in other students attending to Billy rather than classroom instructions

4.Direct verbal refusals to complete academic tasks

With this definition, Mr. Smith took baseline data for 1 week. He did this by simply counting the frequency of verbally inappropriate behavior (as he had defined it). Mr. Smith also decided to keep a frequency count of the same behaviors across the rest of the class. The data he collected are presented in Table 5.2.

TABLE 5.2 ■ VERBAL INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR

images

Mr. Smith reviewed the data and considered what might be maintaining Billy’s behavior. He noticed that the behavior occurred when there were task demands as well as during free time. Mr. Smith concluded that it probably was not an escape-maintained behavior. He noticed that the behavior never resulted in Billy getting an item such as food or a book, so it was not maintained by access to a tangible item.

He decided that he would ignore Billy’s inappropriate verbal behavior and instead attend to Billy only when he was participating in class. He decided to apply this same contingency to the class as a whole for 1 week, and he obtained the data presented in Table 5.3.

Mr. Smith was pleasantly surprised at the effect his attention had on most of the class. He also noticed that his attention had no apparent effect on Billy’s behavior. He could now safely rule out a diagnosis of SMA 2.1: Adult Attention. A more fitting diagnosis for Billy’s behavior was SMA 2.2: Peer Attention (see Table 5.4).

Great! But now what? How do you change the behavior of the whole class? How can one make Billy’s peers responsible for not “feeding into” this behavior? Mr. Smith decided that he would definitely need to set up a group contingency to address this problem’s function in getting peer attention. A group contingency would tie everyone’s “lot” together. Either everyone earns the reinforcer, or no one earns it!

Mr. Smith’s class was a very social group. Given a choice of activities, they would certainly choose to have time to talk in class with each other. He decided to set up the following group contingency. The class would earn extra peer conversation time at the end of the period if the class stayed below a certain level of inappropriate verbal comments. Mr. Smith developed the following plan (see Example Form 5.4).

TABLE 5.3 ■ INAPPROPRIATE VERBAL BEHAVIOR (EXTINCTION TRIAL)

images

TABLE 5.4 ■ VERBALLY INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TOWARD TEACHERS DIAGNOSTIC TABLE

Diagnosis

SMA 2.2: Peer Attention

Target behavior(s)

Verbally inappropriate behavior toward teachers

Function

Access peer attention

Target behavior likely under following

Peers present in structured setting with teacher

Target behavior unlikely under following contexts

Individual meetings with teacher; no peers present

Rule out

SMA 2.1 Adult Attention

Socially mediated escape

SMA, socially mediated access.

Example Form 5.4 ■ Group Contingency DRL: Simple Plan

✵Group: 3rd period class

✵Individual (if any): Billy

✵Target Verbally inappropriate behavior

✵Replacement On-task verbal responses

✵Designated time period for contingency: Entire class period

✵Baseline data (sessions or days): 5 days

images

✵Initial behavioral standard: 15 or fewer events of verbally inappropriate behaviors.

✵Criteria for adjusting standard up: 5 consecutive class periods meeting the behavioral standard will result in a reduction of allowed verbally inappropriate behaviors by 1 statement per class period.

✵Criteria for adjusting standard down: 5 consecutive class periods not meeting the standard. New standard will be set at the mean level of occurrence for the whole class including Billy’s data.

✵Reinforcement to be delivered: 10 minutes of free time for conversations at the end of the class period.

Mr. Smith implemented the plan by explaining to the class that he would be counting the number of verbally inappropriate behaviors. He gave examples of such behaviors to the class. He let the class know that if they could stay below the behavioral standard, they would earn 10 minutes of free time at the end of the class period. He also let them know that he would be the only and final authority in regard to their score with respect to the standard.

Additionally, any event of bullying or threatening any of their classmates would result in the immediate loss of the 10 minutes of free time. He then led a brief discussion on how each person in the class might help to meet the behavioral standard.

Mr. Smith continued recording data as listed in Example Form 5.5.

In reviewing the data, Mr. Smith noted that initially the class reduced their verbally inappropriate behavior, but Billy’s actually increased to an average of about 12 times per day. Billy’s rate of target behavior appeared to have peaked at 16 incidents on day 4 and declined rapidly on the following 4 days. Mr. Smith attributed this increase to an extinction burst. He surmised that this occurred because the rest of the class no longer attended to Billy when he made inappropriate statements. By the 9th day of the intervention, the class had met the criterion to increase the behavioral standard, so Mr. Smith changed the standard to 14 or fewer events of verbally inappropriate behavior. The class continued to meet the standard, and Mr. Smith continued to change the standard as they progressed.

Example Form 5.5 ■ Simple Frequency Data on Group and Individual Behaviors

✵Student: Billy

Chart Started: ___________________


Day/Month/Year

✵Group: 3rd period

✵Behavior: Verbally Inappropriate behavior

✵Session Length: 90 min

✵Number of Days: 21

✵Place an X on the appropriate day box each time the behavior occurs

images

images

images

What If?

What if the behavior does not decrease (or gets worse) with the group contingency DRL?

As in the example, there may be a brief increase as the client adjusts to the new contingencies. If you have diagnosed the function correctly, it should decrease within a few sessions or days. If it persists longer than this, consider a more intensive assessment as you may have misdiagnosed the function of the behavior. Consider also that it may be a multiple function behavior and that the initial diagnosis was simply incomplete in that it diagnosed only one function.

What if the group becomes abusive to one of the group members?

This can be an issue in using group contingencies. One can set up an additional criterion as Mr. Smith did. If an abusive incident occurs even once, it results in an immediate loss of the reinforcing item or event. If you have a group that tends to be abusive to each other, you might also consider a group contingency relative to increasing socially appropriate interactions as your first step. After that is successful, consider targeting verbally inappropriate behavior.

Forms: Differential Reinforcement of Other Behaviors With Extinction

5.4Group Contingency DRL: Simple Plan

5.5Simple Frequency Data on Group and Individual Behaviors

Form 5.4 ■ Group Contingency DRL: Simple Plan

✵Group:__________________________________________________

✵Individual (if any):_________________________________________

✵Target 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Replacement 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Designated time period for contingency:_______________________

✵Baseline data (sessions or days): ____________________________

images

✵Initial behavioral standard: _______________________

_____________________________________________________

✵Criteria for adjusting standard up: _______________________

_____________________________________________________

✵Criteria for adjusting standard down: _______________________

_____________________________________________________

✵Reinforcement to be delivered: _______________________

_____________________________________________________

Form 5.5 ■ Simple Frequency Data on Group and Individual Behaviors

✵Client:_______________________

Chart Started: ________________


Day/Month/Year

✵Group: _______________________

✵Behavior:_______________________

✵Session Length: min

✵Number of Days: __

✵Place an X on the appropriate day box each time the behavior occurs

images

images

images

images

images

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Cipani, E. (2004). Classroom management for all teachers: 12 plans for evidence-based practice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Dietz, S. M., & Repp, A. C. (1973). Decreasing classroom misbehavior through the use of DRL schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 457—463.

Deitz, S. M., & Repp, A. C. (1974). Differentially reinforcing low rates of misbehavior with normal elementary school children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 622. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1974.7-622

Lennox, D. B., Miltenberger, R. G., & Donnelly, D. R. (1987). Response interruption and DRL for the reduction of rapid eating. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 279—284.

Singh, N. N., Dawson, M. J., & Manning, P. (1981). Effects of spaced responding DRL on the stereotyped behavior of profoundly retarded persons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 521—526.

Wright, C. S., & Vollmer, T. R. (2002). Evaluation of a treatment package to reduce rapid eating. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 89—93.

SMA FUNCTIONS: OMISSION TRAINING (DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF OTHER BEHAVIOR, OR DRO)

Brief Description

In differential reinforcement of other behavior, or DRO, the specific maintaining reinforcer is contingent on the absence of the target behavior in a given period of time. DRO is one of the simplest of all behavior reduction procedures. One could view a DRO as a reinforcement system that allows the person to earn specific reinforcement by engaging in a host of varying behaviors as long as the target unacceptable behavior does not occur.

To implement a DRO program, you would determine if the target behavior occurred during a specified interval of time. If it occurred, reinforcement is withheld, and the interval (called the DRO interval) is reset for the full length of time. If the target behavior did not occur during the DRO interval, specific reinforcement (i.e., the functional reinforcer) is provided at the end of the DRO interval. By structuring the contingencies in this way, engaging in any behavior other than the targeted behavior pays off better. Concurrently, the target behavior’s functional relation to reinforcement is disabled.

The advantage of using a DRO procedure is that it is easy to implement and specifically focuses on the reduction of the unwanted behavior. It is not designed to teach any new behavior or to target any specific behavior for an increase. The advantages generally outweigh the disadvantages with this procedure. It has been one of the most widely used reductive procedures for unwanted behaviors.

Terms

Interbehavior interval: The length of time that passes between the end of one targeted behavior and the beginning of the next occurrence of the targeted behavior.

DRO interval: The length of time for which the person must abstain from engaging in the target behavior in order to earn the reinforcer.

Thinning the schedule of delivery of maintaining reinforcer: The process of gradually reducing the delivery of the reinforcer so that more time elapses between each delivery.

Apparatus

Timing device—This can be a kitchen timer, alarm clock, computer with alarm feature, and so on, a tape recorder with beeps at designated intervals, or a calendar, depending on the length of the schedule of reinforcement. The purpose is to prompt the staff person, teacher, or parent to provide the reinforcer when the DRO interval elapses.

Data sheets—See Form 5.6 “Simple Frequency Data With Formulas.”

Reinforcing items or events—If tangible items or activities have been identified as the maintaining reinforcers and will be delivered on a DRO schedule, a sufficient supply must be available.

Baseline Measurement

1.Identify the target behavior to be observed and its function.

2.Operationally define or pinpoint the behavior being observed, with specific criteria for onset and offset of behavior (if not readily evident).

3.Determine the observation period, possibly by reviewing scatter plot or A-B-C data to identify periods of time when the target problem behavior is highly likely.

4.Construct the data sheet to reflect the length of the observation period, trying to keep the length reasonably similar in multiple baseline sessions.

5.During the observation period, record any occurrence of the target behavior.

6.Sum the occurrences across the session, and enter them on the data sheet.

7.Divide the session length by the total frequency of target behavior (see following examples) to arrive at the interbehavior interval for that session.

8.Continue observing client and target behavior for at least four more baseline sessions.

9.Graph or display the interbehavior interval across all baseline sessions noting the range and mean.

Calculating the Interbehavior Interval

Table 5.5 contains data on the frequency of hitting (target behavior) for a hypothetical client. All observation sessions were 120 minutes in length. The observations were conducted over 5 days.

Using the data from Table 5.5 to calculate the interbehavior interval for the entire 5 days of observation, we would simply take the total number of minutes we conducted observations and divide that number by the total number of occurrences of the target behavior. In this case:

600 total minutes ÷ 18 total occurrences of behavior = an interbehavior interval of 33.33 minutes

If we were to calculate the interbehavior interval for day 1 it would be:

120 minutes ÷ 2 occurrences of behavior = an interbehavior interval of 60 minutes

If we were to calculate the interbehavior interval for day 5 it would be:

120 minutes ÷ 6 occurrences of behavior = an interbehavior interval of 20 minutes

TABLE 5.5 ■ FREQUENCY OF HITTING AND INTERBEHAVIOR INTERVALS

images

DRO With Extinction Procedures

1.From your baseline data, calculate the interbehavior interval.

2.Determine your schedule of delivery of the maintaining reinforcer. (The initial schedule should be set so that reinforcement occurs at or more frequently than the average interbehavior interval, e.g., initial interval set at 20% below the average interbehavior interval. Mean interbehavior interval of 300 seconds would yield an initial schedule of reinforcement that occurred every 240 seconds.)

3.Obtain a supply of the tangible reinforcer to be delivered (if dealing with SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer).

4.Set the timing device to the initial delivery schedule.

5.When the timer goes off, deliver the reinforcer to the person if the person has not engaged in the target behavior for the entire time prior to the timer going off, and then reset the timer.

6.If the client engages in the target behavior during the interval, do not provide the reinforcer, but rather reset the timer for the full DRO interval (extinction).

7.Thin the schedule of reinforcement.

Thinning the Schedule of Delivery of Maintaining Reinforcer

The schedule of reinforcement is thinned when the target behavior goal is achieved. When the goal is achieved, the behavior analyst can increase the length of the DRO interval and set a new target behavior goal. The steps for thinning the schedule follow.

1.When the target behavior goal is achieved, increase the length of the interval between reinforcement by 5% to 10%. For example, if the DRO interval was 5 minutes, and the target behavior goal was met, then the new schedule for delivery might be set at 5 minutes, 30 seconds.

2.With each week of success in achieving the target behavior goal, the schedule of delivery is thinned by progressively increasing the DRO interval by 10%.

3.If the target behavior occurs at a rate higher than the goal consistently over a given week, consider returning to the previous schedule of reinforcement. (If you have made several attempts at thinning the schedule but are unable to get past a particular DRO interval, it may be best to keep the schedule at that level while incorporating another functional behavior treatment option.)

If utilizing this behavior option for DA behaviors: Utilize the same baseline and treatment procedures as above, except that chain interruption would occur instead of extinction when the target behavior is displayed.

How It Works

The DRO, or omission training, works as a result of altering the schedule of delivery of an identified maintaining reinforcer in favor of behaviors other than the target behavior (see Borrero & Vollmer, 2002, regarding Matching Law). Previously, the exhibition of the target behavior was functional. The social environment enabled the function of the target behavior by frequently providing the desired positive reinforcer contingent upon its occurrence. The DRO schedule disables this function by further postponing the delivery of the reinforcer with an occurrence of the target behavior, that is, the interval is reset. Therefore, doing anything other than the target behavior is a more efficient path to accessing the reinforcer.

Hypothetical Example

Milton the Pincher

Milton was a person diagnosed with schizophrenia who had developed the behavior of frequently pinched other clients. Mrs. Symthe, a staff member on the unit, believed that Milton pinched other clients as the result of his schizophrenia. She claimed that he has an inability to control his impulses, and therefore, behavioral intervention efforts will not prove fruitful. Mr. Delgadillo, the behavioral consultant, believed differently. He was determined to identify the maintaining reinforcer of the pinching and produce an intervention that addressed such a function.

Mr. Delgadillo started by interviewing the inpatient staff members. He asked the following questions:

1.What was he doing, or what was going on before he engaged in the pinching?

2.What did he specifically do? What did the pinching look like?

3.What happened after he pinched? What did staff do? How did they react?

Unfortunately, the answers that staff provided did not point clearly to the function of the pinching behavior. Some staff reported that Milton pinched when he was left alone, some reported that he pinched when it was noisy, and other staff reported that Milton pinched when asked to complete a task. They were all relatively consistent in reporting how the pinching behavior looked (form or topography), so Mr. Delgadillo was reasonably certain they were all observing and reporting on the same behavior. In regard to what happened after the pinching behavior, again the answers were quite varied. One staff person indicated that pinching got Milton out of doing certain tasks. Another indicated that she thought Milton pinched so that he could “be the center of attention.” Because no clear antecedent conditions and no clear function could be determined from the interviews, Mr. Delgadillo decided to set up an A-B-C chart for him and the staff to collect data during a 2-week period. Table 5.6 is a representative sample of such data.

Mr. Delgadillo examined the A-B-C descriptive data in Table 5.6 and then set about answering the question: What are the common elements in all five events involving pinching? While some of the incidents involved a demand placed on Milton, other situations did not involve any demands (see incidents 2 and 5). It did not appear that pinching was functioning to escape demands. However, to test whether escape from a task or taking a walk with staff was the function of pinching, Mr. Delgadillo set up a simple test. He took Milton for a walk, and then arranged for the doctor to evaluate Milton immediately upon their return. The evaluation by the doctor was chosen as it had been one of the demand situations during which Milton had engaged in pinching. Milton did not pinch and in fact was very cooperative with the doctor’s assessment. Mr. Delgadillo repeated this test using several different task demands. Each time he replicated this test, he obtained the same result. When Milton was given a walk a priori, he handled the subsequent task demands with no problem. Mr. Delgadillo was now fairly certain that Milton’s behavior served a SMA function. But was it attention or tangible contingencies that maintained the pinching behavior?

Mr. Delgadillo reviewed the data and found that the pinching behavior did not subside when staff were talking with Milton. Further, Milton was observed to have excellent social skills in that he was very adept at starting and maintaining conversations with both staff and peers. From this information, Mr. Delgadillo ruled out SMA 2.1: Staff Attention and SMA 2.2: Peer Attention.

Mr. Delgadillo had previously noted that in all five cases he observed, the eventual outcome was that Milton went for a walk outside of the unit with a staff person. Mr. Delgadillo determined the most likely hypothesis is that pinching is being maintained by SMA to a tangible reinforcer, in this case, going for a walk (SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer, walking outside the unit).

TABLE 5.6 ■ A-B-C OBSERVATION SUMMARY OF PINCHING BEHAVIOR

images

Why would staff engage in such a response to pinching? The staff response made sense to them at the time, in that they judged Milton to be in a state of anxiety, particularly when around other clients. They would therefore take him out for a walk to calm him down. While on the walk, Milton appeared calmer, and he stopped pinching. Facility staff thereby interpreted their use of a walk as an anxiety reductive procedure and believed this practice was clinically sound.

However, Mr. Delgadillo’s assessment led to an alternate hypothesis. Milton’s pinching (of other people) is a functional behavior when he desires a walk. The exhibition of such a behavior greatly increases the chances that staff will take him out. Unfortunately other more appropriate behaviors did not appear to be as effective in getting a walk (see Table 5.7).

Having formulated a diagnosis of pinching as SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer in the form of a walk, Mr. Delgadillo procured a summary of the unit’s reliable data on the occurrence of target behaviors, including times and dates of occurrence. Data was collected over a 4-hour session (240 minutes) each day. Unit records indicated that Milton was pinching people about three times per hour (see Example Form 5.6).

The interbehavior interval was calculated by determining the

Total Minutes Observed (1200 minutes) ÷ Total Frequency target behavior occurred (58 occurrences) = average interbehavior interval (20.7 minutes)

TABLE 5.7 ■ PINCHING STAFF DIAGNOSTIC TABLE

Diagnosis

SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer

Target behavior(s):

Pinches staff

Function:

Accesses walk with staff (walk is the driving force because he cannot go on a walk outside unless accompanied by staff)

Target behavior likely under following contexts:

When he has been without a walk for an entire day

Target behavior unlikely under following contexts:

When he is taken for a walk early in the afternoon

Rule out:

Socially mediated escape function (SME 4.1) and socially mediated access function (SMA 2.1 and 2.2)

Example Form 5.6 ■ Frequency Count Data Sheet

✵Client: _________________________

Chart Started: 6/21


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: Pinching

✵Total Observation Time: 1200 min (1,240-minute session/day)

✵Session Length: 240 min

✵Number of Days: 5

images

A.Total minutes observed: 1,200 Interbehavior interval = A/B 1,200/58 = 20.69 min Rate/hour = (B/A)60 (58/1,200)60 = 2.9/hr

With this data in hand, and an understanding of the function of the pinching behavior, Mr. Delgadillo formulated an intervention plan (see Example Form 5.7). Having determined that the pinching behavior occurred about every 20 minutes, he set the initial DRO interval to 15 minutes to ensure that Milton was very likely to obtain reinforcement in the form of outside walks more often under this plan.

Prior to implementing the program, Mr. Delgadillo informed the staff that an extinction burst would probably occur and that they should be prepared for this event. He also made sure to be on the unit during the implementation of the program so that he could help to support the staff and to assure them that the program was implemented correctly. The program was implemented, and the data was collected and is presented in Figure 5.1.

Example Form 5.7 ■ Differential Reinforcement Plan

✵Person served: Milton

✵Target Pinching

✵Behavioral diagnostic category: SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer

✵Target rate: 0 events per week

✵Designated time period(s): 8:00 a.m.to 12:00 noon

✵Baseline data across five times/sessions:

1. 7



2. 11



3. 13



4. 16



5. 11


✵Rate of target behavior

Baseline: 2.9/hour

Target: 0

✵Interbehavior interval

Baseline: 20.7 min

Target: 24 hours

✵Initial schedule of differential reinforcement:

X Fixed time schedule every 15 minutes

OR

_Variable time schedule on average every minutes/hours/days

✵Reinforcer(s) to be used:

1. Walk outside with staff


2. ____________________


3. ____________________


4. ____________________


5. ____________________

✵Reset timer: End of each interval

X End of each interval AND if target behavior occurs

__Special instructions for delivery of reinforcer(s):

__If pinching occurs, immediately reset the timer to 15 minutes and record data.

✵Criterion for increasing amount of time between reinforcers: When pinching behavior occurs in <1% of intervals observed for three consecutive days, increase time DRO interval by 10%.

✵Criterion for decreasing the amount of time between reinforcers: If pinching behavior occurs in more than 5% of observed intervals for three consecutive days, decrease DRO interval by 1 minute.

✵Criterion for withholding the scheduled reinforcer delivery: Occurrence of pinching.

As Mr. Delgadillo expected, and as can be seen in Figure 5.1, the DRO was successful in reducing the occurrence of pinching behavior. It is interesting to note that as Mr. Delgadillo predicted, on 6/26 the pinching behavior worsened. This is a familiar and expected pattern when using extinction. It is called an extinction burst. Following this burst (increase in rate from prior level) the pinching behavior steadily and quickly declined. Because Mr. Delgadillo had let the staff know what to expect, they were prepared for this and stuck with the plan. By 7/14 the behavior had met the criteria for thinning the DRO schedule, so Mr. Delgadillo increased the interbehavior interval by 10% such that reinforcement was now delivered every 17 minutes. Mr. Delgadillo continued this thinning process until the pinching behavior was no longer occurring and Milton was going on walks with a staff person once in every 24-hour period.

What If?

What if the behavior does not decrease (or gets worse) with DRO?

When using DRO with extinction, an initial worsening of the target behavior is very possible. The technical term for this is an extinction burst. As the name implies, it is a brief and often intense increase in the target behavior. Such a result is often the case when the target behavior no longer produces the maintaining reinforcer. However, one should see a dramatic decrease in the target behavior within 3 sessions or days. If the behavior continues at a high rate for longer than that, you will need to confirm that the item or event you are using is actually reinforcing for the person (i.e., is the functional reinforcer). The other possibility is that the DRO interval is simply too long for the person to contact the reinforcer at a high enough rate to enable the nonoccurrence of target behaviors as functional. In this case, shortening the DRO interval is an option you should consider. If this is still ineffective, you should consider starting with NCR.

images

FIGURE 5.1 ■ Frequency of pinching behavior.

What if I cannot ignore some of the target behaviors?

If the target behavior has life-threatening consequences and cannot be ignored, you can program a DRO without extinction. In this case, all the elements of the DRO would be the same with the exception that, when the target behavior occurs, we will continue to respond to it as we have in the past. This will make the behavior change process somewhat slower because the difference in level of reinforcement will not be as great. This can be countered to some extent by shortening the DRO interval, thus increasing the density of reinforcement for all other behaviors.

Forms: Differential Reinforcement of Other Behaviors With Extinction

5.6Simple Frequency Data With Formulas

5.7Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior With Extinction: Simple Plan

5.8Formulas for Calculating Rate of Targeted Behavior and Interbehavior Interval

5.9Formulas for Determining Increases or Decreases in Frequency of Differential Reinforcement

Form 5.6 ■ Simple Frequency Data with Formulas

✵Client:_______________________

Chart Started:_______________


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior:_______________________

✵Total Observation Time: min (_____, ____-minute session/day) Session Length: min

✵Number of Days: ____

✵Place an X on the appropriate day box each time the target behavior occurs

images

A.Total minutes observed:____ Interbehavior interval = A/B ___/___ = ____

✵Rate/hour = (B/A)60 (___/___)60 =_____

images

A.Total minutes observed: Interbehavior interval = A/B ___/___ = ____

B.Total Occurrences Observed: Rate/minute = B/A ___/___ = ____

C.Range (low) __ to (high) __, Avg = __ Rate/hour = (B/A)60 (___/___)60 =_____

Form 5.7 ■ Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior with Extinction: Simple Plan

✵Person served:_______________________

✵Target 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Behavioral diagnostic category:_______________________

✵Target rate:_______________________

✵Designated time period(s):_______________________

✵Baseline data across five times/sessions:

1. ________________



2. ________________



3. ________________



4. ________________



5. ________________


✵Rate of target behavior

Baseline:____________

Target:____________

✵Interbehavior interval

Baseline:____________

Target:____________

✵Initial schedule of differential reinforcement:

○____Fixed time schedule every ____ minutes/hours/days

OR

○____Variable time schedule on average every ____ minutes/hours/days

✵Reset timer:

○____End of each interval

○____End of each interval AND if target behavior occurs

✵Reinforcer(s) to be used:

1. ________________



2. ________________



3. ________________



4. ________________



5. ________________


○Special instructions for delivery of reinforcer(s):

 _____________________________________________________

 _____________________________________________________

 _____________________________________________________

✵Criterion for increasing amount of time between reinforcers:

_____________________________________________________

✵Criterion for decreasing amount of time between reinforcers:

_____________________________________________________

✵Criterion for withholding the scheduled reinforcer delivery:

_____________________________________________________

Form 5.8 ■ Formulas for Calculating Percentage of Intervals of Targeted Behavior and Interbehavior Interval

Interbehavior interval: This formula will help you determine on average how much time passes between the occurrence of targeted behaviors (Interbehavior interval). Use this information to help set the frequency of NCR.

Total minutes observed ÷ Total behavior occurrences observed = Average interbehavior interval

Rate: This formula will help you determine how often the behavior occurs in a given amount of time. Use this formula if you have different lengths of observation periods to allow for ongoing comparison of data.

Number of occurrences of behavior ÷ Length of observation in minutes = Rate of behavior per minute

Rate per hour = (rate per minute) 60

Rate per day = (rate per minute) 1,440

Form 5.9 ■ Formulas for Determining Increases or Decreases in Frequency of Differential Reinforcement

Formula for 10% increase in time between reinforcement.

Current reinforcement interval × 1.10 = (10% increase in time)

Formula for 5% increase in time between reinforcement.

Current reinforcement interval × 1.05 = (5% increase in time)

Formula for 10% decrease in time between reinforcement.

Current reinforcement interval × 0.90 = (10% decrease in time)

Formula for 5% decrease in time between reinforcement.

Current reinforcement interval × 0.95 = (5% decrease in time)

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Barton, L. E., Brulle, A. R., & Repp, A. C. (1986). Maintenance of therapeutic change by momentary DRO. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 277—282.

Borrero, J. C., & Vollmer, T. R. (2002). An application of the matching law to severe problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 13—27.

Carole C., Miltenberger, R., Maki, A., Barenz, R., Jurgens, M., Sailer, A., . . . Kopp, B. (2004). A comparison of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 411—415.

Cowdery, G. E., Iwata, B. A., & Pace, G. M. (1990). Effects and side effects of DRO as treatment for self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 497—506.

Goetz, E. M., Holmberg, M. C., & LeBlanc, J. M. (1975). Differential reinforcement of other behavior and noncontingent reinforcement as control procedures during the modification of a preschooler’s compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 77—82.

Haring, T. G., & Kennedy, C. H. (1990). Contextual control of problem behavior in students with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 235—243.

Harris, S. L., & Wolchik, S. A. (1979). Suppression of self-stimulation: Three alternative strategies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 185—198.

Heard, K., & Watson, T. S. (1999). Reducing wandering by persons with dementia using differential reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 381—384

Lindberg, J. S., Iwata, B. A., Kahng, S., & DeLeon, I. G. (1999). DRO contingencies: An analysis of variable-momentary schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 123—136.

Luce, S. C., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1980). Contingent exercise: A mild but powerful procedure for suppressing inappropriate verbal and aggressive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 583—594.

Marcus, B. A., & Vollmer, T. R. (1996). Combining noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement schedules as treatment for aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 43—51.

Martinez, S. S. (1977). Comparison of extinction, DRO 0-sec, and DRO 6-sec in the elimination of imitative responding under discrete-trial paradigms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 315.

Mazaleski, J. L., Iwata, B. A., Vollmer, T. R., Zarcone, J. R., & Smith, R. G. (1993). Analysis of the reinforcement and extinction components in DRO contingencies with self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 143—156.

McCord, B. E., Iwata, B. A., Galensky, T. L., Ellingson, S. A., & Thomson, R. J. (2001). Functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior evoked by noise. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 447—462.

Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hanley, G. P., Hilker, K., & Derby, K. M. (1996). A preliminary procedure for predicting the positive and negative effects of reinforcement-based procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 137—152.

Repp, A. C., Barton, L. E., & Brulle, A. R. (1983). A comparison of two procedures for programming the differential reinforcement of other behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 435—445.

Repp, A. C., & Deitz, S. M. (1974). Reducing aggressive and self-injurious behavior of institutionalized retarded children through reinforcement of other behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 313—325.

Rolider, A., & Van Houten, R. (1985). Movement suppression time-out for undesirable behavior in psychotic and severely developmentally delayed children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 275—288.

Thompson, R. H., Iwata, B. A., Hanley, G. P., Dozier, C. L., & Samaha, A. L. (2003). The effects of extinction, noncontingent reinforcement, and differential reinforcement of other behavior as control procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 221—238.

Vollmer, T. R. (1999). Noncontingent reinforcement: Some additional comments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 239—240.

Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). The role of attention in the treatment of attention-maintained self-injurious Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 9—21.

Woods, D. W., & Himle, M. B. (2004). Creating tic suppression: Comparing the effects of verbal instruction to differential reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 417—420.

SMA FUNCTIONS: NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT (NCR) WITH EXTINCTION

Brief Description

In NCR, the specific maintaining reinforcer is presented noncontingently following a given period of time. Reinforcement is provided even if the behavior has or is occur­ring. The NCR plan reduces the rate of behavior by reducing the client’s motivation to access the reinforcer. Hence, the motivation to engage in a behavior that produces such a reinforcer is also altered. This method is similar to methods termed response independent reinforcement or time-based delivery of stimuli with known reinforcing properties (Vollmer, 1999).

In NCR with extinction, the specific maintaining reinforcer is presented following a given period of time. There is one caveat to this time-based delivery. The reinforcer is withheld if the person is engaging in the target behavior at the time of the scheduled delivery. It is provided once the target behavior ceases. To implement this option for SMA problem behaviors, you need to determine how frequently to provide the reinforcer. You deliver the reinforcing item based on that time schedule, unless the target behavior is occurring at a scheduled delivery. If the target behavior is currently occurring, you would withhold the reinforcer until the target behavior had subsided for some brief period of time.

The advantage of using an NCR procedure is that it is easy to implement and quickly alters the target behavior by reducing the client’s deprived condition relative to the reinforcer. NCR procedures generally do not teach or strengthen any new replacement functions. They alter the rate of the target behavior by simply removing the motivation underlying the targeted behavior. Generally, NCR will be used in conjunction with other replacement function options that are designed to teach specific replacement functions. NCR may not be useful in situations where frequent access to the maintaining reinforcer is impractical or not feasible.

Terms

Schedule of reinforcer delivery: This refers to the interval schedule of noncontingent delivery for the maintaining reinforcer to be made available to the client or child.

Interbehavior interval: The length of time that passes between the end of one targeted behavior and the beginning of the next occurrence of the targeted behavior.

Thinning schedule of delivery of maintaining reinforcer: The process of gradually reducing the delivery of the reinforcer so that more time elapses between each delivery.

Partial interval method of recording: An interval recording strategy that involves observing whether a behavior occurs or does not occur during specified time periods. Partial interval recording requires the observer to record the occurrence of the behavior (in the respective interval) if it occurs in any part of the interval. If a behavior occurs several times within an interval, it is recorded as occurring only once within that interval. If a behavior occurs for a long period of time, it is recorded during each interval in which it occurred, even if it was for only for part of a given interval. For example, a person may bang his or her head 10 times in one interval but only once in another interval. Both intervals will be marked to indicate that the behavior occurred, despite the difference in the number of head bangs that occurred in both intervals. The illustration in Table 5.8 indicates the partial interval recording in the top row (designated by an X) with the actual frequency presented in the bottom row.

Table 5.9 is another example of a partial interval recording system with a behavior that is of long duration. Let us say a client’s target behavior is yelling. The client is observed to initiate yelling in the middle of interval 1. He or she finally stopped in the middle of interval 3. In the partial interval system, yelling behavior would be recorded as occurring in intervals 1, 2, and 3.

TABLE 5.8 ■ PARTIAL INTERVAL DATA

images

TABLE 5.9 ■ PARTIAL INTERVAL DATA LONG DURATION

images

Apparatus

Timing device—This can be a kitchen timer, alarm clock, computer with alarm feature, tape recorder with beeps at designated intervals, or a calendar, depending on the length of the schedule of NCR. Its purpose is to prompt the staff person, teacher, or parent to provide the reinforcer.

Data sheets—See Form 5.10 “Partial Interval Data, 30-Minute Intervals,” and Form 5.11 “Partial Interval Data, 2-Minute Intervals”

Reinforcing items or events—If tangible items or activities that have been identified as the maintaining reinforcers are to be delivered on a NCR with extinction schedule, a sufficient supply must be available.

Baseline Measurement

Baseline measurement consists of determining the interbehavior interval for the target behavior. To accomplish this, a partial interval method is used for recording the occurrence of the target behavior. Partial interval methods of recording are useful when dealing with behaviors that may be difficult to keep track of or when staff persons have many other duties besides collecting data.

Steps to Collect Baseline Data Using Partial Interval Recording

1.Identify the target behavior to be observed.

2.Operationally define or pinpoint the behavior being observed.

3.Determine the observation period, possibly reviewing scatter plot or A-B-C data to identify periods of time when behavior is highly likely.

4.Determine the length of the observation period and divide the observation period into equal interval blocks (keeping these the same across baseline sessions).

5.Construct the data sheet.

6.During observation, enter date and time of day on data sheet and set timing device for interval length.

7.At the end of each interval, if the target behavior occurred at all, place an X in the corresponding interval on the data sheet.

8.Repeat step 7 until the observation period ends.

9.Sum the total number of intervals in which a target behavior occurred, and enter that number on the data sheet.

10.Continue observing client and target behavior for at least four more baseline sessions.

For example, the staff person records partial interval data on the rate of occurrence of the targeted behavior on the following data sheet. Observations are made five times per day, for 10 minutes. If the behavior occurs within a given 2-minute interval, an X is placed on that respective interval. Therefore, the following data sheet for 1 day of observation reveals a grid, involving five intervals per observation across five observation sessions.

Example of Partial ■ Interval Data

✵Recording Method: Partial interval

✵Interval Length: 2 minutes

✵Client: Arthur

Chart Started: 2/1


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: XXX


✵Total Observation Time: 50 min (1, 10-minute session/day)

Session Length: 10 min

✵Number of Days: 5


✵  □ Behavior did NOT occur

Behavior DID occur

Day of the month/Start time

images

Grand total = 16 intervals with target behavior over a possible 25 intervals

Interbehavior interval = 50 min/16 intervals with behavior = 3.125 minutes

Recording Method: Partial Interval

As you can see, in the first observation period (column marked Day 1), the client engaged in the target behavior only during the second and fourth intervals during the entire 10-minute observation. During the next observation period, the client engaged in the target behavior in intervals 1, 2, 3, and 5. The totals at the bottom of each column are out of a possible 5 intervals that the behavior can be recorded. Summing across the row labeled “Total” yields 16 intervals in which the target behavior was recorded as having occurred (against a total of 25 intervals for 5 days of observation). With this ratio 16/25, one can compute the percentage of occurrence, in this case 64% of intervals.

The interbehavior interval can also be calculated by dividing the number of minutes of observation for the week (50) by the number of intervals that the target behavior occurred (16), which yields an average interbehavior interval of 3.125 minutes. In other words, the target behavior occurs about every 3 minutes. In this example, it is important to note that the rate of target behavior is relatively stable across the five observation periods. If it were more varied, one should examine what factors were different at each observation to account for the variability in rate of occurrence.

NCR With Extinction Procedures

1.From baseline data, calculate the interbehavior interval.

2.Determine your schedule of delivery of the maintaining reinforcer. (The initial schedule should be set so that reinforcement occurs at or more frequently than the shortest interbehavior interval, e.g., initial interval set at 80% of the average interbehavior interval.)

3.Obtain a supply of the reinforcer to be delivered.

4.Set the timing device to the initial delivery schedule.

5.When the timer goes off, deliver the reinforcer to the person if the person has not engaged in the target behavior for 5 to 10 seconds prior to the timer going off.

6.Reset the timer.

7.If the client has engaged in the target behavior prior to the timer going off, then withhold the reinforcing item until the target behavior stops for 10 seconds (extinction).

8.Record data on data sheet.

9.Thin the schedule of reinforcement.

Thinning the Schedule of Delivery of Maintaining Reinforcer

The schedule is thinned when the target behavior goal is achieved. When the goal is achieved, increase the length of the interbehavior interval and set a new target behavior goal. The steps for thinning the schedule follow.

1.When the target behavior goal is achieved with the program, increase the length of the interval between deliveries by 5% to 10%. For example, if the length of time between noncontingent delivery was 5 minutes and the target behavior goal was met, the new schedule for delivery might be set at 5 minutes, 30 seconds.

2.With each week of success in achieving the target behavior goal, the schedule of delivery is increased progressively by 10%.

3.If the target behavior occurs at a rate higher than the target behavior goal consistently over a given week, consider returning to the previous schedule of reinforcement.

4.If you have made several attempts at thinning the schedule but are unable to get past a particular rate of reinforcement, it may be best to keep the schedule at that level while incorporating another functional treatment program.

If utilizing this behavior option for DA behaviors: Utilize the same baseline and treatment procedures as above, except that chain interruption would occur instead of extinction when the target behavior is displayed.

How It Works

1.By eliminating the client’s motivation for a particular reinforcing item or event. When there is no motivation for the item or event, there is no reason for the person to do any of the behaviors that previously produced that reinforcer.

2.By disrupting the learned contingency between the client’s unwanted target behavior and the reinforcing event. That is, the reinforcing event happens on some time schedule and is withheld if the unwanted behavior occurs, so the person may learn that the unwanted behavior is no longer needed to get the reinforcer.

Hypothetical Example

Mr. K, a behavioral consultant, was asked to help find a way to reduce the amount of aggressive behavior exhibited on the playground by a kindergarten student named Kim. The teacher and playground supervisor felt that Kim engaged in such behavior because she was immature for her age and her parents “spoiled her at home.” Mr. K. began the consultation by operationally defining the behaviors. The target behaviors were defined as: using any body part to make physical contact with any body part of another person with sufficient force to be judged as intentional. Examples included hitting, biting, and kicking other children. What would not be counted as aggression was incidental contact from the play activity, such as bumping into someone, falling on someone during running, and so forth.

Baseline data was collected, and a functional assessment was completed by observing Kim on the playground as well as collecting A-B-C data. This data was used to perform a descriptive analysis of the various forms of Kim’s aggressive behavior. The following data from one observation period on 6/21 reflects the contextual data surrounding Kim’s aggressive behavior on the playground. Because the hypothesis was a socially mediated event, the last column is marked inconsequential (see Table 5.10).

From the A-B-C data in Table 5.10, it was determined that Kim’s aggressive behavior was maintained by SMA to staff attention (SMA 2.1: Adult Attention). In this case, one of the teacher’s volunteer aides, Ms. State, was inadvertently maintaining this behavior (see Table 5.11).

If Kim went longer than 4 to 8 minutes without “playing” with any of the other children during recess, she would hit, bite, and kick other students close to her to get Ms. State to stop playing with other children and come to the area. In some cases, she would remove Kim and spend time counseling her on how to interact with other students. The desired event appears to be the aide’s prompting of play with the other children and simultaneously playing with Kim in the process.

TABLE 5.10 ■ SUMMARY OF A-B-C OBSERVATIONS PHYSICAL AGGRESSION

images

Mr. K. needed an adequate analysis of the rate of this behavior during playground periods. He collected baseline data from the 5th through the 9th of the following month. Example Form 5.11A illustrates the recording of the behavior in 2-minute intervals with a partial interval recording system.

TABLE 5.11 ■ PHYSICAL AGGRESSION DIAGNOSTIC TABLE

Diagnosis

SMA 2.1: Adult Attention

Target behavior(s):

Physical aggression

Function:

Access adult attention

Target behavior likely under following contexts:

Anytime Kim goes longer than 8 minutes without playing with another student

Target behavior unlikely under following contexts:

While interacting with the teacher’s aide, Ms. State

Rule out:

SMA 2.2: Peer Attention

SME 4.1: Unpleasant Social Situations

SMA, socially mediated access; SME, socially mediated escape.

Example Form 5.11A ■ Partial Interval Data

✵Condition: Baseline

✵Recording Method: Partial interval

✵Interval Length: 2 minutes

✵Client: Kim

Chart Started: 7/5


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: Physical aggression

✵Total Observation Time: 100 min


Session length: 20 min


□ Behavior did NOT occur

Behavior DID occur

Day of the month

images

In graphing the data from Form 5.11, it appeared that there was an increasing trend in the occurrence of the unwanted behavior (2, 3, 4, and 5 intervals on consecutive days; see Figure 5.2).

Mr. K. could have calculated the interbehavior interval on the cumulated data, and it would have looked like this:

100 minutes ÷18 intervals with aggression = 5.56 Minutes

In order to increase the likelihood of getting a positive effect quickly, Mr. K. calculated the interbehavior interval based on the session with the most occurrences, thus ensuring that the rate of NCR was higher than the rate of reinforcement she was currently receiving for aggressive behaviors.

Mr. K. counted the total number of minutes of the observation (20) and divided it by the total number of intervals in which aggression occurred (5). This gave him an average interbehavior interval of 4 minutes.

20 minutes ÷ 5 intervals with aggression = 4 minutes

Mr. K. decided to start with an NCR schedule that required the aide to prompt and help Kim play with the other children on a set schedule, hopefully prior to her engaging in aggression (see Example Form 5.12).

Mr. K. then started the intervention on the 12th of the month. The data are presented in Example Form 5.11B.

We can present the same data in graphical format to more easily see the trends (see Figure 5.3).

Based on the data that no aggression had occurred for 3 consecutive days, Mr. K. changed the schedule to 1 minute of social interaction every 3.5 minutes.

3 minutes (current schedule) × 1.10 (10% increase) = 3.3 minutes

(Note: Because the time frames were relatively short, and Mr. K. knew that his timing device would make it difficult to track anything smaller than half a minute, he rounded up to 3.5 minutes.)

images

FIGURE 5.2 ■ Aggressive behavior.

Example Form 5.11B ■ Partial Interval Data

✵Condition: Baseline

✵Recording Method: Partial interval

✵Interval Length: 2 minutes

✵Client: Kim

Chart Started: 7/12


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: Physical aggression

✵Total Observation Time: 100 min


Session Length: 20 min


□ Behavior did NOT occur

Behavior DID occur

Day of the month

images

images

FIGURE 5.3 ■ Partial interval aggression data.

There was one event of aggression on the first day of the new schedule but no further occurrences for 3 days after that. Mr. K. continued this process until the schedule had been thinned to every 10 minutes. After consultation with the teacher and teacher’s aide as to the feasibility, Mr. K. decided to keep the NCR schedule at this level while they taught Kim some new behaviors that she could use to request the teacher’s aide to provide social interaction. Kim continued to have no events of physical aggression during the acquisition of a simple request for attention, in this case “Please play with me.”

Example Form 5.12 ■ NCR With Extinction: Simple Plan

✵Person served: Kim

✵Target Physical aggression

✵Target behavior goal: Aggression in less than 1% of observed intervals

✵Designated time period(s): Lunch playground period 25 minutes per day

✵Baseline data across five times/sessions:

1. 2



2. 3



3. 4



4. 4



5. 4


✵% of intervals in which target behavior occurred:

Baseline 40%

Target <1%

✵% of intervals in which reinforcement occurred:

Baseline ________

Target ________

✵Interbehavior interval:

Baseline 40 min

Target 15 min

✵Initial schedule of noncontingent reinforcement:

X Fixed time schedule every 3 minutes and at the outset of the playground activity.

OR

○____Variable time schedule on average every _____ minutes/hours/days

✵Reinforcer(s) to be used:

1. Prompting of play behavior with other children by Ms. State, Ms. State to interact for 1 min


2.________________


3.________________


4.________________


5.________________

○Special instructions for delivery of reinforcer(s): Ms. State is primary deliverer of prompt and social interaction. If she is not available, it may be done by another person. The other person should have some interactions with Kim prior to the playground period.

✵Criterion for increasing amount of time between reinforcers: When aggressive behavior occurs in <1% of intervals observed for 3 consecutive days, increase time between delivery of NCR by 10%.

✵Criterion for decreasing the amount of time between reinforcers: If aggressive behavior occurs in more than 5% of observed intervals for 3 consecutive days, decrease time between delivery of NCR by 1 minute.

✵Criterion for (extinction) withholding scheduled reinforcer delivery: If aggressive behavior has occurred within 5 seconds of the scheduled delivery of reinforcement or is currently occurring, do not provide the reinforcer until the aggressive behavior has stopped for 30 seconds.

It was noted that Kim could make the request quite well during training but was not using it during recess. Mr. K. surmised that the NCR that was keeping the aggression from occurring did so by eliminating the motivation to do any behavior that functioned to produce adult attention. He therefore began thinning the schedule of NCR 10% following every 3 consecutive days with less than 1% intervals having an occurrence of aggression.

Upon reducing the noncontingent delivery of reinforcement, Kim began to use the requesting behavior she had previously learned. Mr. K. continued to collect data and thin the schedule of NCR until the targeted interbehavior interval of 15 minutes.

Mr. K. then discontinued the NCR delivery but continued to take data for 1 month to ensure that the new behavior would continue to be effective in obtaining social attention.

What If?

What if the behavior does not decrease (or gets worse) with NCR?

This may happen, although it is less likely with this program than with others. When the target behavior is no longer effective in obtaining the desired reinforcer, it may occur more frequently (called an extinction burst). If it occurs during NCR, it is possible the schedule of delivery is not dense enough. Try shortening the time between reinforcer delivery. If there is still no effect, it is very likely that your functional assessment was incorrect and that there is a different reinforcer maintaining the unwanted behavior. It would be best to return to taking A-B-C data and repeat the functional assessment. You may also try making a wider variety of potentially reinforcing items available while you repeat the functional assessment.

What if I cannot ignore some of the target behaviors?

In cases where the target behavior is very serious or life threatening, it is best to start with much shorter schedules. A general guideline would be to set the initial schedule to 20% of the interbehavior interval. With very serious behaviors, you should consider starting with a continuous presentation of the reinforcer until replacement functions can be developed. Of course, it is imperative that you also have an emergency plan to ensure the safety of all the people involved in the intervention.

Forms: Noncontingent Reinforcement With Extinction

5.10Partial Interval Data, 30-Minute Intervals

5.11Partial Interval Data, 2-Minute Intervals

5.12Noncontingent Reinforcement With Extinction: Simple Plan

5.13Formulas for Calculating Percentage of Intervals of Targeted Behavior and Interbehavior Interval

5.14Formulas for Determining Increases or Decreases in Frequency of Noncontingent Reinforcement

Form 5.10 ■ Partial Interval Data, 30-Minute Intervals

✵Condition: Treatment

Recording Method: Partial interval

✵Client: _____________________

Chart Started: ______________


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: ______________________________

✵Interval Length: 30 minutes

Total Observation Time: __

Session Length: __


□ Behavior did NOT occur

Behavior DID occur

Day of the month/start time

images

Form 5.11 ■ Partial Interval Data, 2-Minute Intervals

✵Condition: Treatment

Recording Method: Partial interval

✵Client: _____________________

Chart Started: ______________


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior:

✵Interval Length: 2 minutes

Total Observation Time: __

Session Length: __


□ Behavior did NOT occur

Behavior DID occur

Day of the month/start time

images

Form 5.12 ■ NCR With Extinction: Simple Plan

✵Person served: ________________

✵Target 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Behavioral diagnostic category: ________________

✵Target rate: ________________

✵Designated time period(s): ________________

✵Baseline data across five times/sessions:

1. ___________



2. ___________



3. ___________



4. ___________



5. ___________


✵% of intervals in which target behavior occurred

Baseline: ____________

Target: _________

✵% of intervals in which reinforcement occurred

Baseline: ____________

Target: _________

✵Interbehavior interval

Baseline: ____________

Target: _________

✵Initial schedule of NCR:

○____ Fixed time schedule every ____ minutes/hours/days

OR

○____ Variable time schedule on average every ___ minutes/hours/days

✵Reinforcer(s) to be used:

1. ___________



2. ___________



3. ___________



4. ___________



5. ___________


○Special instructions for delivery of reinforcer(s):

_____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

✵Criterion for increasing the amount of time between reinforcers:

_____________________________________________________

✵Criterion for decreasing the amount of time between reinforcers:_____________________________________________________

✵Criterion for withholding the scheduled reinforcer delivery:_____________________________________________________

Form 5.13 ■ Formulas for Calculating Percentage of Intervals of Targeted Behavior and Interbehavior Interval

Percent of occurrence: This formula will help you determine how often a behavior is occurring. Use this information to assess treatment effects.

Total intervals target behavior occurred ÷ Total intervals observed × 100 = % of intervals of target behavior

Rate: This formula will help you determine on average how much time passes between the occurrence of targeted behaviors (interbehavior interval). Use this information to help set the frequency of NCR.

Total minutes observed ÷ Total intervals target behavior occurred = Rate or average interbehavior interval

Form 5.14 ■ Formulas for Determining Increases or Decreases in Frequency of NCR

Formula for 10% increase in time between reinforcement.

Current reinforcement interval × 1.10 = (10% increase in time)

Formula for 5% increase in time between reinforcement.

Current reinforcement interval × 1.05 = (5% increase in time)

Formula for 10% decrease in time between reinforcement.

Current reinforcement interval × 0.90 = (10% decrease in time)

Formula for 5% decrease in time between reinforcement.

Current reinforcement interval × 0.95 = (5% decrease in time)

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Buchanan, J. A., & Fisher, J. E. (2002). Functional assessment and non-contingent reinforcement in the treatment of disruptive vocalization in elderly dementia patients. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 99—103.

Carr, J. E., Bailey, J. S., Ecott, C. L., Lucker, K. D., & Weil, T. M. (1998). On the effects of non-contingent delivery of differing magnitudes of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 313—321.

Fischer, S. M., Iwata, B. A., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1997). Non-contingent delivery of arbitrary reinforcers as treatment for self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 239—249.

Fisher, W. W., O’Connor, J. T., Kurtz, P. F., DeLeon, I. G., & Gotjen, D. L. (2000). The effects of non-contingent delivery of high- and low-preference stimuli on attention-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 79—83.

Goh, H., Iwata, B. A., & DeLeon, I. G. (2000). Competition between non-contingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 195—205.

Goh, H., Iwata, B. A., & Kahng, S. (1999). Multicomponent assessment and treatment of cigarette pica. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 297—316.

Hagopian, L. P., Crockett, J. L., van Stone, M., DeLeon, I. G., & Bowman, L. G. (2000). Effects of non-contingent reinforcement on problem behavior and stimulus engagement: The role of satiation, extinction, and alternative reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 433—449.

Hagopian, L. P., Fisher, W. W., & Legacy, S. M. (1994). Schedule effects of non-contingent reinforcement on attention-maintained destructive behavior in identical quadruplets. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 317—325.

Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Contrucci, S. A., & Maglieri, K. A. (1997). Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatment packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 459—473.

Kahng, S., Iwata, B. A., DeLeon, I. G., & Wallace, M. D. (2000). A comparison of procedures for programming non-contingent reinforcement schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 223—231.

Kahng, S., Iwata, B. A., DeLeon, I. G., & Worsdell, A. S. (1997). Evaluation of the “control over reinforcement” component in functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 267—277.

Kahng, S., Iwata, B. A., Thompson, R. H., & Hanley, G. P. (2000). A method for identifying satiation versus extinction effects under non-contingent reinforcement schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 419—432.

Lalli, J. S., Casey, S. D., & Kates, K. (1997). Non-contingent reinforcement as treatment for severe problem Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 127—137.

Lindberg, J. S., Iwata, B. A., Roscoe, E. M., Worsdell, A. S., & Hanley, G. P. (2003). Treatment efficacy of non-contingent reinforcement during brief and extended application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 1—19.

Marcus, B. A., & Vollmer, T. R. (1996). Combining non-contingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement schedules as treatment for aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 43—51.

Poling, A., & Normand, M. (1999). Non-contingent reinforcement: An inappropriate description of time-based schedules that reduce behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 237—238.

Reed, G. K., Piazza, C. C., Patel, M. R., Layer, S. A., Bachmeyer, M. H., Bethke, S. D., Gutshall, K. A. (2004). On the relative contributions of non-contingent reinforcement and escape extinction in the treatment of food refusal. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 27—41.

Roscoe, E. M., Iwata, B. A., & Goh, H. (1998). A comparison of non-contingent reinforcement and sensory extinction as treatments for self-injurious behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 635—646.

Roscoe, E. M., Iwata, B. A., & Rand, M. S. (2003). Effects of reinforcer consumption and magnitude on response rates during non-contingent reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 525—539.

Thompson, R. H., Iwata, B. A., Hanley, G. P., Dozier, C. L., & Samaha, A. L. (2003). The effects of extinction, non-contingent reinforcement, and differential reinforcement of other behavior as control procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 221—238.

Van Camp, C. M., Lerman, D. C., Kelley, M. E., Contrucci, S. A., & Vorndran, C. M. (2000). Variable-time reinforcement schedules in the treatment of socially maintained problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 545—557.

Vollmer, T. R. (1999). Non-contingent reinforcement: Some additional comments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 239—240.

Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R., Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). The role of attention in the treatment of attention-maintained self-injurious reinforcement of other behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 9—21.

Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., Roane, H. S., & Marcus, B. A. (1997). Negative side effects of non-contingent reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 161—164.

SMA FUNCTIONS: PREMACK CONTINGENCY OPTION

Brief Description

In a Premack contingency, the desired reinforcer is produced following the client’s successful compliance with a designated regimen of tasks or demands. This has also sometimes been referred to as Grandma’s rule, that is, you don’t get your dessert until you eat your vegetables. The more technical definition of the Premack principle is making access to a high probability behavior contingent on performing a low probability behavior (Premack & Bahwell, 1959).

To implement a Premack contingency as a replacement function option, one first determines the maintaining reinforcer for the target behavior. You then determine a set of tasks that have to be performed before access to the reinforcer is delivered. The reinforcing item or activity is withheld until the client performs the specified task.

The advantage of using a Premack contingency as a replacement function option is that it uses the specific reinforcer that was previously maintaining the client’s target behavior. This contingency introduces a requirement to perform a set of tasks that will delay but not eliminate access to the reinforcing item or event. This replacement function option reduces some of the difficulties associated with extinction. It also usually reduces the overall rate of access to the preferred item or event. The Premack contingency option can be used with any SMA subcategory, with the possible exception of SMA 2.2: Peer Attention.

Apparatus

Data sheets—See Form 5.15 “Simple Frequency Data With Formulas”

Reinforcing items or events—If tangible items or activities have been identified as the maintaining reinforcers, and will be delivered on a Premack contingency, a sufficient supply must be available.

Baseline Measurement

1.Identify the target behavior’s function.

2.Operationally define or pinpoint the target behavior, with specific criteria for onset and offset of behavior (if not readily evident).

3.Determine the observation period, possibly by reviewing scatter plot or A-B-C data to identify periods of time when behavior is highly likely.

4.Construct the data sheet to reflect the length of the observation period, trying to keep the length reasonably similar during all baseline sessions.

5.During observation, record either the occurrence of the target behavior, the duration of the target behavior, or the intensity of the behavior (which measure will depend on the target behavior).

6.Repeat step 5 until the observation period ends.

7.Conduct at least five more baseline sessions.

8.Graph or display the data across all baseline sessions.

Procedures for Premack Contingency

1.Either at certain times of the day or under certain antecedent conditions that occasion the target access behavior, require the client to engage in a simple designated task, determined by an analysis of client’s level of ability.

2.When the client completes the requirement of the task, provide the reinforcer.

3.Repeat steps 1 and 2 with each request.

4.As a function of success in ameliorating the target behavior, progressively increase the duration or quantity of the task required.

5.Ensure that the target behavior does not produce the desired reinforcer (extinction).

Procedures for Premack Contingency When Used as a Supplement for an SMA Requesting (Mand) Program

1.Contingent upon a request by the client for the reinforcer, direct the client to engage in a simple designated task, determined by an analysis of client’s level of ability. (Note: initially the only task required will be the request itself.)

2.When the client completes the requirement of the task, provide reinforcer.

3.Repeat steps 1 and 2 with each request.

4.As a function of success in ameliorating the target behavior, progressively increase the duration or quantity of the task required.

5.Ensure that the target behavior does not produce the desired reinforcer (extinction).

Thinning the Schedule of Delivery of Maintaining Reinforcer

Once the target behavior is reduced, the behavior analyst can increase the response effort or time delay to obtain the desired event or item. This can be done in two ways:

1.Increase the duration or complexity of each task.

2.Increase the number of tasks required to earn the reinforcer.

Progressively altering either or both of these factors will increase the length of time the client will have to wait before getting the reinforcer following a request.

If utilizing this behavior option for DA behaviors: Utilize the same baseline and treatment procedures as above, except that chain interruption would occur instead of extinction when the target behavior is displayed.

How It Works

It is often the case that the social environment has made it too easy for the person to get certain events or reinforcers. Therefore, access to such events occurs at unreasonable levels. To want someone’s attention is not a sin! But it is tough to accommodate such a desire when it is demanded every few minutes. While this may be an acceptable state of affairs for infants, as children get older they have to be “weaned off” of such frequent and lengthy attention from their parent. Some children do not undergo such conditioning and learn to engage in disruptive and disastrous behaviors to continually access attention or preferred items or activities. The same problem can occur once the person is taught to request reinforcers. Requesting may occur too often once developed, with access to the tangible or social reinforcer provided beyond a reasonable level. Hence, this Premack contingency program also is used to supplement the requesting program described earlier.

A Premack contingency is well suited to reduce the client’s constant desire for a given reinforcer. Requiring the performance of a less preferred task as a condition for access to reinforcement is a strategy that will eventually “wean them off” of frequent access. Clinical applications of the Premack contingency typically result in the client not requesting the desired event as often, given the requirement to perform tasks to access the reinforcer. In these cases, there was also no increase in target behavior.

Hypothetical Example

Potato Chips: Bet You Can’t Have Just One

Mary, a client diagnosed with schizophrenia, was referred for behavior analysis services due to engaging in property destruction while at her day program.

The initial referral to the behavior analyst, Ms. Chance, stated that the staff needed help with Mary’s property destruction. Ms. Chance went to the day program and interviewed several staff. She then constructed Table 5.12 from the information provided.

Ms. Chance observed Mary on several occasions and noticed that there was a pattern of escalating behavior. It often started with a simple request by Mary to get more chips. When such a request was ignored, Mary engaged in behavior that resulted in her going to the break room. When Mary was sent to the break room, someone usually gave her another bag of chips. On some occasions several bags were obtained, depending on which staff person was escorting her to the break room. Given that the behavior was frequently followed by the addition of staff interaction and chips, it seemed likely that the behavior served an access function. Ms. Chance considered an escape function; however, Mary had demonstrated several behaviors that were effective in escaping and avoiding demands in the day program, so she concluded that escape was unlikely to be the function. Additionally, the target behavior rarely occurred under task demand conditions. This information seemed to rule out socially mediated escape (SME) diagnoses.

Ms. Chance observed that the target behavior happened only when other people were around and never when Mary was alone. She considered a SMA 2.1: Staff Attention diagnosis but ruled it out because she observed Mary using skills that were very effective in both initiating and maintaining conversations with staff members. She considered a SMA 2.2: Peer Attention diagnosis but ruled it out because the rate of Mary’s target behavior did not change based on the presence or absence of peers.

This left the most likely diagnosis to be SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer, food item, specifically an extra bag of chips (see Table 5.13).

Ms. Chance presented her hypothesis to the treatment team. The team expressed some concern and disagreement with Ms Chance’s analysis. They believed that the property destruction was a direct result of the client’s auditory hallucinations and should be treated with increased dosages of antipsychotic medication. The basis for their belief was that Mary reported hearing voices during these property-destructive incidents.

TABLE 5.12 ■ SUMMARY OF A-B-C OBSERVATIONS ACCESSING CHIPS

images

TABLE 5.13 ■ DIAGNOSTIC TABLE

Diagnosis

SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer, Food Item

Target behavior(s):

Property destruction

Function:

Access food item potato chips

Target behavior likely under following contexts:

Anytime Mary sees a bag of chips or is informed that chips are in the facility

Target behavior unlikely under following contexts:

After she has consumed several bags of chips

Rule out:

SMA 2.1: Staff Attention

SMA 2.2: Peer Attention

SMA, socially mediated access.

As a point of compromise, Ms. Chance offered to test her hypothesis over the next 5 days. The test was a simple one. About every 60 minutes, Mary would be given two bags of chips. If hallucinations were a driving factor for the property-destructive behavior, the addition of the chips should have no effect. However, if chips were enabling the function of the target behavior, the rate should decrease. The team agreed, and the test was implemented. During these 5 days, there were no reports of auditory hallucinations, no requests to go to the break room, and no incidents of property destruction.

This new information was presented to the team. The team would not give up their belief about Mary’s hallucinations being key to property destruction, even with the new evidence. They indicated that the change in these behaviors was probably due to a progress with Mary’s condition and that the chips being given to her were irrelevant. To test this hypothesis, they all agreed to simply withhold chips entirely for several days to see what happened. They removed all bags of chips from the day program area to ensure that none would be inadvertently provided. During the next 5 days, Mary reported auditory hallucinations each day, went to the break room one to three times per day, and engaged in property destruction on four occasions (see Example Form 5.15). The following week they returned to providing two bags of chips about every 60 minutes, and again there were no reports of auditory hallucinations, no requests to go to the break room, and no events of property destruction.

Finally, the team agreed that the unwanted behaviors seemed to be functioning to produce the desired bags of chips.

Ms. Chance could have continued providing two bags of chips every 60 minutes; however, that would pose a problem. The consumption of that amount of potato chips daily would pose a significant health risk. Simply reinforcing requesting behavior was also not a practical plan for Mary for the same reason.

Ms. Chance decided that a Premack contingency might work in this case to enable a new set of behaviors as functional in accessing chips. The Premack contingency would also allow a gradual reduction in the desire for such chips over time, as the work requirement increased.

Ms. Chance developed a list of activities based on observing things that Mary would occasionally complete. (Note: These are not functionally equivalent replacement behaviors, they are arbitrarily selected tasks.)

Ms. Chance then set up a Premack contingency (see Example Form 5.16). Any time Mary made a request for chips, the following contingencies were introduced. Mary could earn a bag of chips after she combed her hair. To earn a second bag before the next break, she would be required to brush her teeth and record her self-report of symptoms and side effects of medication. To earn a third bag, she would need to complete an assembly task, do systematic relaxation, and either set up or clean the break room. In this way, her requests could always be fulfilled but with increasing effort on her part and a concomitant time delay in accessing the chips.

Example Form 5.15 ■ Frequency Count Data Sheet

✵Client: Mary

Chart Started: _________________


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: Hallucinations and property destruction

✵Total Observation Time: 1,800 min (1, 360-minute session/day)

✵Session Length: 360 min

✵Number of Days: 5

✵Place an X on the appropriate day box each time the target behavior occurs

images

A.Total minutes observed: 1,800

B.Total occurrences observed: 11 Rate/minute = B/A 11/1,800 = .006

C.Range (low) 1 to (high) 3, Avg = 2.2 Rate/hour = (B/A)60 (11/1,800)60 = 0.37

images

A.Total minutes observed: 1,800

B.Total occurrences observed: 4 Rate/minute = B/A 4/1,800 = .002

C.Range (low) 0 to (high) 1, Avg = 0.8 Rate/hour = (B/A)60 (4/1,800)60 = 0.13

The plan was implemented, and Ms. Chance graphed property destruction as well as hair brushing (see Figure 5.4). The intervention had a clear effect on the rate of property destruction and increased the rate of hair brushing.

There was some concern that Mary was now eating chips nonstop. Ms. Chance graphed the number of bags of chips Mary was earning per day and included Mary’s report of hallucinations as there had been some concern that this intervention would be too stressful and increase her symptoms. As can be seen in Figure 5.5, the Premack contingency had an immediate effect on Mary’s report of hallucinations. This reduction continued across the intervention. Mary did increase her chip intake for a period of time, but as the Premack contingency was systematically increased, her chip intake reduced to one bag per day.

PREMACK TASK LIST


Person served: Mary

List of activities to be required prior to accessing chips


Description of activities including any idiosyncrasies, such as time of day or who delivers the reinforcer.

1

Go for a walk

2

Painting

3

Reading

4

Talking with friends

5

Working on assembly tasks

6

Setting up the break room for snacks/lunch

7

Systematic relaxation

8

Cleaning up after break/lunch

9

Self report recording of symptoms and side effects

10

Brush teeth

11

Comb hair

What If?

What if the person refuses to do the required behavior?

If your analysis is correct, the person should, after some short period of time, engage in the low probability behavior because it allows access to some preferred event. If this does not occur, assess to make sure the person can actually perform the low probability behavior, that is, he or she does not have a skills deficit. You may reduce the difficulty of the low probability behavior to make it more likely the person will contact the reinforcer.

What if I cannot prevent the person from engaging in the behavior to be used as a reinforcer?

In order to use the Premack contingency, you must have an effective chain interruption procedure if the behavior is a DA diagnosis. If you cannot do this, it is best to use one of the other intervention programs initially, such as NCR, prior to attempting a Premack contingency.

Example Form 5.16 ■ Premack Contingency: Simple Plan

✵Person served: Mary

✵Target Property destruction

✵Behavioral diagnostic category: SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer, food item, chips

✵Designated time period(s): During day program

✵Baseline data across five times/sessions:

1. 2



2. 3



3. 1



4. 3



5. 2


✵Rate of low probability behavior

Baseline: 0/day

Target: 2/day

✵Rate of high probability behavior

Baseline: 2.2/day

Target: 0

✵Initial standard for low probability Upon making a request for chips, Mary will be asked to complete the following: Combing her hair for 2 minutes.

✵Description of how high probability behavior will be provided (how much, how often, etc.): Will be given one bag of chips to consume; if she wants a second bag before the next break time, see special instructions.

✵Criterion for increasing the duration/complexity of the low probability When Mary has gone 5 consecutive days with no property destruction, increase the low probability behavior required by adding one additional task from the table prior to her having access to the bag of chips.

✵Criterion for decreasing the duration/complexity of the low probability If Mary engages in property destruction for two consecutive days, change the required response to setting up or cleaning the break room.

✵Procedure for withholding/preventing the high probability behavior if not earned: Bags of chips will be maintained in a locked cabinet and given only at break times or if Mary meets the contingency.

✵Special instructions for delivery of reinforcer(s): If Mary has already earned one bag of chips during the time period before a break/lunch and wants to earn another bag, she may do so by completing two times the number of tasks specified in the low probability behavior description.

images

FIGURE 5.4 ■ Property destruction and hair pulling.

images

FIGURE 5.5 ■ Hallucinations and chip consumption.

Forms: Premack Contingency

5.15Simple Frequency Data With Formulas

5.16Premack Contingency: Simple Plan

Form 5.15 ■ Simple Frequency Data With Formulas

✵Client: _____________________________________

Chart Started: ______________


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: _________________________________________________________

✵Total Observation Time: min (___, ___-minute session/day)

Session Length: min

✵Number of Days: __

✵Place an X on the appropriate day box each time the target behavior occurs

images

A.Total minutes observed: __

B.Total occurrences observed: __ Rate/minute = B/A ___/___ = ____

C.Range (low) __ to (high), Avg = Rate/hour = (B/A)60 (___/___)60 = ____

images

A.Total minutes observed: __

B.Total occurrences observed: __ Rate/minute = B/A ___/___ = ____

C.Range (low) __ to (high) __, Avg = __ Rate/hour = (B/A)60 (___/___)60 = ____

Form 5.16 ■ Premack Contingency: Simple Plan

✵Person served: _____________________________________________________

✵Target 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Behavioral diagnostic category: _________________________________________

✵Designated time period(s): _____________________________________________

✵Baseline data across five times/sessions:


1. ___________



2. ___________



3. ___________



4. __________



5. ___________


✵Rate of low probability behavior

Baseline: _____________

Target: __________

✵Rate of high probability behavior

Baseline: _____________

Target: __________

✵Initial standard for low probability 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Description of how high probability behavior will be provided (how much, how often, etc.): ___________________________________________________________

✵Criterion for increasing the duration/complexity of the low probability 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Criterion for decreasing the duration/complexity of the low probability 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Procedure for withholding/preventing the high probability behavior if not earned: ___

_____________________________________________________

○Special instructions for delivery of reinforcer(s):

_____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Allison, J. (1976). Contrast, induction, facilitation, suppression and conservation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 25, 185—198.

Amari, A., Grace, N. C., & Fisher, W. W. (1995). Achieving and maintaining compliance with the ketogenic diet. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 341—342.

Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., Roscoe, E. M., Thompson, R. H., & Lindberg, J. S. (2003). Response-restriction analysis: II. Alteration of activity preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 59—76.

Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., Thompson, R. H., & Lindberg, J. S. (2000). A component analysis of “stereotypy as reinforcement” for alternative behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 285—297.

Homme, L. E., de Baca, P. C., Devine, J. V., Steinhorst, R., & Rickert, E. J. (1963). Use of the Premack principle in controlling the behavior of nursery school children. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 544.

Konarski, E. A., Jr., Johnson, M. R., Crowell, C. R., & Whitman, T. L. (1980). Response deprivation and reinforcement in applied settings: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 595—609.

Mitchell, W. S., & Stoffelmayr, B. E. (1973). Application of the Premack principle to the behavioral control of extremely inactive schizophrenics. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 419—423.

Mithaug, D. E., & Mar, D. K. (1980). The relation between choosing and working prevocational tasks in two severely retarded young adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 177—182.

Premack, D. (1963). Rate differential reinforcement in monkey manipulation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 81—89.

Premack, D. (1970). A functional analysis of language. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 14, 107—125.

Premack, D., & Bahwell, R. (1959). Operant-level lever pressing by a monkey as a function of interest interval. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2, 127—131.

Premack, D., & Premack, A. J. (1963). Increased eating in rats deprived of running. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 209—212.

Premack, D., & Schaeffer, R. W. (1962). Distributional properties of operant-level locomotion in the rat. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5, 89—95.

Premack, D., & Schaeffer, R. W. (1963). Some parameters affecting the distributional properties of operant-level running in rats. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 6, 473—475.

Premack, D., Schaeffer, R. W., & Hundt, A. (1964). Reinforcement of drinking by running: Effect of fixed ratio and reinforcement time. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 91—96.

SMA FUNCTIONS: ACCESS MAND (REQUEST) OPTION

Brief Description

In this replacement behavior option, the desired reinforcer, whether it be social attention or access to tangible reinforcer, is accessed upon an appropriate request (mand) from the client. Concurrently, the target behavior no longer functions to efficiently access the desired reinforcer, that is, programmed extinction.

To implement a requesting behavior program for a target behavior that is diagnosed with an SMA function, you should first determine what specific form the request should take. Next, when the new requesting behavior occurs, it is reinforced each time with the specific items or event that was requested. If the target behavior occurs, the reinforcer is not provided until the person engages in the specified requesting behavior. By providing reinforcement in this way, we ensure that engaging in the replacement requesting behavior results in a differentially higher rate of reinforcement than the target behavior (differential reinforcement of an alternate behavior [DRA]).

The advantage of using this procedure is that it develops or teaches a specific behavior that will result in access to a specific reinforcer when the person is most motivated to obtain that particular reinforcer. This makes the acquisition of the skill relatively rapid and generally results in a robust response that can be shaped and generalized to overcome other target behaviors. A disadvantage of this option involves an initial interruption in routine due to immediately complying with the person’s request by delivering the specific item or event. This option is a bit more labor intensive than the DRO option and requires a higher level of expertise and interaction on the part of those implementing the intervention.

Terms

Mand: A verbal operant behavior under the control of a specific motivating operation that produces a socially mediated specific reinforcer. In the case of a positive reinforcer, a mand involves a request for access to a specific reinforcer. The form may be vocal, sign language, gestural, written, or any combination that has a specific desired effect on the audience of this request.

Apparatus

Data sheets—See Form 5.17 “Simple Frequency Data on Target and Replacement Behaviors”

Reinforcing items or events—If tangible items or activities have been identified as the maintaining reinforcers and will be delivered, a sufficient supply must be available.

Baseline Measurement

It is important to first determine the form of the requesting behavior that will be developed or increased prior to baseline data collection. Next, collect baseline data on both the target behavior and the replacement behavior using Form 5.17.

If the frequency of the requesting behavior is low, you might consider contriving an antecedent condition that deprives or withholds the maintaining reinforcer, and observe what behavior occurs (target or replacement behavior). See “Trigger Analysis” in Chapter 2 for greater detail on conducting this assessment. Realize that the conditions of deprivation have to be extant in order for either behavior to be realized. Try to make sure that no one provides the reinforcer prior to your assessment.

A simple frequency data sheet such as Form 5.17 should provide sufficient baseline data to decide how to proceed with your assessment and intervention.

Procedures

1.Identify the reinforcer (e.g., food, toys, drink, physical contact).

2.Identify the time and setting when the reinforcer is not readily available, and ensure that the client is slightly deprived of it (i.e., wants it). It is essential that the client be motivated to access the desired item or event. The judgment of when the client wants the item can generally be along the same conditions and times under which the SMA target behavior occurred. Using the same level of deprivation that existed as a motivating condition for the problem behavior, you now use the following procedures to develop the replacement behavior.

3.Determine the initial request response to be targeted for reinforcement (with access to specific reinforcer), for example, vocal response, manual signed response, pointing to a communication board, and so forth.

4.Present the general instruction “What do you want?” with the item, object, or activity within sight.

5.Use a prompt that is as intrusive as necessary to evoke the request.

6.Contingent upon the occurrence of the specified requesting behavior, present the reinforcer in small quantities (e.g., a piece of food) or short duration (e.g., 2 minutes of toy play), and record the occurrence of the behavior on the data sheet.

7.If the target behavior occurs, remove the reinforcer for a short period of time and start again at step 4 (extinction).

8.Repeat steps 3 to 6 for as long as the person is motivated to request the reinforcer. When the person’s enthusiasm wanes, end access to the reinforcer until motivation can be re-established.

9.As the client becomes more competent, provide less of a prompt, and time delay the prompt, allowing him or her the opportunity to respond ahead of the prompt.

10.Provide opportunities for requesting in real life by occasionally depriving the client of some reinforcer for a brief period of time, then reinforcing (and if necessary prompting) the request.

If utilizing this behavior option for DA behaviors: Utilize the same baseline and treatment procedures as above, except that chain interruption would occur instead of extinction when the target behavior is displayed.

How It Works

Teaching a requesting behavior (mand) works by establishing an alternate form of behavior that will allow the person to more effectively and efficiently access the same maintaining reinforcer as the target behavior. Once the person has a behavior in his or her repertoire that can function as a request, you enable its function by making sure that it is more effective and efficient than the target behavior in accessing reinforcement. Once the mand is functional, the fading or thinning process allows for the natural contingencies in the environment to control the requesting behavior so that it will maintain over time.

Hypothetical example

As an example, let us examine a case of a child who drops to the floor regularly. Mr. Smith, a school psychologist, was asked to assess the female student. He began by reviewing available records and interviewing the teaching staff. Mr. Smith was informed by the teaching staff that several interventions had been tried with little success. The classroom staff tried pleading with the student to get up, but to no avail. They had tried ongoing counseling as well as crisis counseling when she was lying on the floor. One of the teacher’s aides did mention that the only thing that would get her to cooperate in the classroom was looking at her favorite picture book. Given this information and the fact that the staff at this point were somewhat frustrated with the lack of success, Mr. Smith decided to perform a descriptive functional assessment (A-B-C analysis) from his direct observations. Table 5.14 summarizes his findings.

Mr. Smith noticed that falling to the floor occurred if the student was required to work on a task but that it also occurred when she had no academic demands placed on her. He concluded that the falling behavior was probably not functioning to escape an instructional task or demand. He also noticed that the interaction with the teacher and her favorite book were more likely to be given to her immediately after falling behavior occurred. He then turned to identifying if the reinforcer was directly accessed or socially mediated. He interviewed several staff and family members who indicated that she had never been known to fall on the floor if she was alone. He concluded that the falling behavior was most likely functioning to access socially mediated reinforcement (SMA category).

TABLE 5.14 ■ SUMMARY OF FALLING TO THE FLOOR A-B-C DATA

images

Mr. Smith set about determining the specific SMA diagnosis. He reviewed the available data and found that the falling on the floor behavior occurred even while the teaching staff were interacting with the student, regardless of which staff person was involved with her. This ruled out SMA 2.1: Adult Attention. He also ruled out SMA 2.2: Peer Attention because falling behavior happened when peers were present and when they were not.

Mr. Smith noticed that in each event of falling behavior the student got up off the floor only when her favorite book was offered to her. It did not seem to matter who offered the book. He was convinced that SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer (favorite picture book) was the most likely diagnosis (see Table 5.15).

Mr. Smith tested his hypothesis by making sure that the student did not have access to the picture book for several hours. He then waited for her to fall on the floor. He had instructed the staff to do nothing when the student fell to the floor. When the target behavior occurred, Mr. Smith picked up her favorite picture book, making sure that the student saw the book in his hands, placed the book on her desk, and walked away. The student immediately got up off the floor and began to look at the book. Mr. Smith was now sure of his diagnosis.

Because this student was currently not capable of significant vocal speech, a nonvocal request needed to be considered. Mr. Smith decided to develop a plan that calls for the student to use a nonvocal request, such as raising her hand, as the behavior that will be socially mediated and will result in the delivery of her favorite book. Falling on the floor will be disabled through the use of programmed extinction. This dual contingency is specified in Table 5.16.

Note that in Table 5.16, the request (raises her hand) for the teacher to bring the book to read is designated as the replacement mand behavior. Such a request will now result in an adult providing her with the book. Prior to writing the plan, Mr. Smith requested that the teacher record some data on the frequency of falling to the floor behavior and the frequency of raising one’s hand across 55-minute observation sessions over 6 days. The data was recorded on Example Form 5.17.

TABLE 5.15 ■ DIAGNOSTIC TABLE FALLING TO THE FLOOR

Diagnosis

SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer (Favorite Picture Book)

Target behavior(s):

Falling on the floor during class.

Function:

Access to favorite picture book.

Target behavior likely under following contexts:

If it has been longer than 1 hour since the student had looked at the picture book.

Target behavior unlikely under following contexts:

While looking at the picture book or immediately following looking at the book.

Rule out:

SMA 2.1: Adult Attention

DA 1.1: Immediate Sensory Stimulation

TABLE 5.16 ■ EXAMPLE OF REPLACEMENT BEHAVIOR—REQUESTING BEHAVIOR

Reinforcer

Undesired Form (Target Behavior)

Replacement Behavior

Adult reads/shows student favored book.

Falls to the floor.

Request (raises hand) for adult to bring book.

With this frequency data in hand, and an understanding of the function of the falling behavior, Mr. Smith designed an intervention plan. He determined that the falling behavior occurred about every 55 minutes. He also knew that falling occurred only if the student had been deprived of access to her picture book. Additionally, his data indicated that the student very rarely exhibited the replacement behavior of raising her hand.

While there were many replacement behavior options that could be used to stop the falling behavior, Mr. Smith decided that a requesting behavior would not only address the current problem, but would be a skill that the student would need in various situations in the future. Mr. Smith decided that the requesting behavior he would try to establish first was having the student raise her hand. This is the general behavior used in most classroom settings if you want to request something. He further decided that for the behavior to be effective, the student would have to do it while seated at her desk. Mr. Smith knew that the targeted behavior of falling to the ground was more likely around 11 A.M. each day, when the student was at her desk. He decided the best way to capture a high level of motivation for the picture book was to set up training for about 11 A.M. in the classroom at the student’s desk. Mr. Smith made sure that at all other times the picture book would be placed in the teacher’s desk so that there would be no chance of inadvertently reducing the motivation for the book by allowing free access.

Mr. Smith set the initial reinforcement schedule for every incident of hand raising to produce 1 minute of time with the picture book. In this way, Mr. Smith would ensure a high rate of reinforcement for the preferred requesting behavior of the student raising her hand. To increase the speed of this process, Mr. Smith also specified an extinction contingency. If the student engaged in falling on the floor, the picture book would be unavailable to her for 3 minutes. After 3 minutes, prompting of the replacement mand behavior would resume.

Mr. Smith specified that the following prompt sequence should be used, during times when falling to the floor was more likely. The first prompt would be delivered vocally and progress to more helpful or intrusive prompts if hand raising did not occur. The instructions to the staff were as follows:

Example Form 5.17 ■ Frequency Count Data Sheet

✵Client: Student A

Chart Started: ________________


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: Falling to floor

✵Total Observation Time: 330 min

(2, 55-minute session/day)

Session Length: 55 min

✵Number of Days: 6

✵Place an X on the appropriate day box each time the behavior occurs

images

A.Total minutes observed: 330

B.Total target behavior occurrences observed: 6

C.Total replacement behavior occurrences observed: 1

1.Provide the prompt “What do you want?”

2.If no response, provide the prompt again with the book in view.

3.If no response, provide the prompt with the addition of a gestural prompt.

4.If no response, provide the prompt with the addition of modeling the response.

5.If no response, provide the prompt with the addition of a physical prompt.

6.If no response, provide increasing physical prompt using least to most prompting.

7.Once the request occurs, provide the requested reinforcer.

8.Repeat for as long as the student is motivated to request the reinforcer. When enthusiasm wanes, end access to the book.

Mr. Smith also wanted to make sure that the student would eventually raise her hand when she wanted the picture book without anyone prompting her to do so. In order to accomplish this, he developed a plan for slowly decreasing the prompts that were provided. He determined that once the student could raise her hand with prompts for 3 consecutive days, the response was learned to a level that allowed him to reduce or fade the prompts. He decided to do this in two ways. First, Mr. Smith set up a brief delay in the delivery of the prompts. That is, when the book was taken out of the desk for a training session, rather than give the student a vocal prompt, he would wait 5 seconds to allow her to raise her hand independently. Second, he reduced the vocal prompt to simply “what?” with a plan to further stop the vocal prompt entirely. As the student continued to demonstrate hand raising as a way to request the book, Mr. Smith would occasionally delay doing the formal training procedure and wait for the student to independently raise her hand, at which time the picture book would be taken out of the desk and provided to her (see Example Form 5.18).

The plan was implemented and produced the data displayed in Figure 5.6. As Mr. Smith expected, this plan was successful in reducing the occurrence of falling behavior and increasing the rate of hand raising. By 1/14 the requesting behavior had met the criteria for fading prompts. The prompts were successfully faded, and the student was requesting her book independently. Falling behavior occurred on two occasions after hand raising was established.

Example Form 5.18 ■ Teaching Requesting Behavioral Plan

✵Person served: Student A

✵Target Falling on floor

✵Behavioral diagnostic category: SMA 2.3: Tangible Reinforcer, favorite book

✵Requesting Requesting book

A.Form of request: vocal request; manual signed request; requesting by pointing to a communication board; use augmentative device to request; Other: gesture

B.Description of initial request to be reinforced: Rising of her hand while seated

✵Reinforcer(s) to be used:

Type

Amount of time


1. Picture book

1. 1 min


2. _________________

2. _____

✵Target rate: Greater than once per hour

✵Instructions to assure motivation:

Train at time and place that target behavior is most likely, which is:

Training at 11:00 a.m. in the classroom at her desk

Assure limited access to reinforcing item at other times by: The book will be kept in the teachers desk drawer at all other times.

✵Rate of target behavior

Baseline: 1/hr

Target: 0/day

✵Rate of requesting behavior

Baseline: 1/day

Target: 1/hr

✵Initial schedule of differential reinforcement:

A.Provide contrived reinforcer after every 1 (number of) requests and with no more than a 5 sec delay

✵Targeted final schedule of differential reinforcement:

A.Assure reinforcer delivery after every 2 (number of) requests with no more than a 15 sec/min delay

✵Replacement behavior is reinforced:

○If the requesting behavior occurs independently provide reinforcer requested

○If the requesting behavior does not occur under the targeted conditions, provide the following prompts: (using Vocal)

1.Provide the prompt “What do you want?”

2.If no response, provide the prompt again with the item item/object/activity within sight.

3.If no response, provide the above prompt with the addition of a gestural prompt.

4.If no response, provide the above with the addition of modeling the response.

5.If no response, provide the above with the addition of a physical prompt.

6.If no response, provide increasing physical prompt using least to most prompting.

7.Once the request occurs, provide the requested reinforcer.

8.Repeat for as long as the child/client is motivated to request the reinforcer.

9.When the client’s “enthusiasm” wanes, you can end access to the reinforcer for that time period.

✵If target behavior occurs:

○Extinction, (no access to the requested reinforcer) for 3 minutes, then begin prompt sequence for replacement behavior listed above.

○If replacement Mand behavior occurs after this time period, provide the requested reinforcer.

○Special instructions for delivery of small amount of reinforcer(s):

_____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

✵Criterion for fading prompts: When target rate for replacement behavior is reached on 3 consecutive days, reduce the level of helpfulness of the prompt, first by waiting for 5 seconds before providing the prompt, and then by reducing the prompt from vocal to simple hand gestures, and eventually to the level of prompts that would usually be in place in the classroom.

After reviewing the two falling incidents, Mr. Smith determined that he needed to generalize the requesting behavior to items other than the picture book. Based on the success of this program, it was determined that the student could probably learn American sign language quickly, so a specific program to help her develop signed requests (mands) was developed.

images

FIGURE 5.6 ■ Falling data.

What If?

What if the behavior does not decrease (or gets worse) with DRA?

When using DRA with extinction we often see an initial worsening of the target behavior. The technical term for this is an extinction burst. Just like its name implies, it is a brief and often intense increase in the target behavior that happens when the behavior no longer produces the reinforcer. You should see a dramatic decrease in the behavior within 3 sessions or days. If the behavior continues at a high rate for longer than that, you will need to confirm that the behavior you have set up as the alternative behavior is actually producing the identified reinforcer. You should also ensure that extinction is indeed occurring for the target behavior. If the alternative behavior has never been observed to occur, consider specifically training the manding behavior in a more structured format prior to using DRA.

What if I cannot ignore some of the target behaviors?

If the target behavior has life-threatening consequences or cannot be ignored, you can program a DRA without extinction. In this case, all the elements of the DRA would be the same with the exception that when the target behavior occurs, we will continue to respond to it as we have in the past. This will make the behavior change process somewhat slower because the difference in level of reinforcement will not be as great. This can be countered to some extent by interrupting the target behavior and using positive practice of the alternative behavior.

What If the person has never been observed to have exhibited a requesting behavior?

In this case, you will have to first teach a behavior that can be used effectively to request some tangible reinforcer. This generally involves a task analysis and some specific teaching procedures to ensure that the skill is well established in the client’s repertoire. Discrete Trial Training and Precision Teaching are procedures that have been used to successfully teach these skills.

Forms: Differential Reinforcement of Other Behaviors With Extinction

5.17Simple Frequency Data on Target and Replacement Behaviors

5.18Teaching Requesting Behavior: Simple Plan

Form 5.17 ■ Simple Frequency Data on Target and Replacement Behaviors

✵Client: ____________________

Chart Started: __________________


Day/Month/Year

✵Behavior: _______________________________________________________

✵Total Observation Time: min (___, ___-minute session/day)

Session Length: min

✵Number of Days: ___

✵Place an X on the appropriate day box each time the behavior occurs

images

images

images

images

A.Total minutes observed: ___

B.Total target behavior occurrences observed: ___

C.Total replacement behavior occurrences observed: ___

Form 5.18 ■ Teaching Requesting Behavior: Simple Plan

✵Person served: ______________________________________________________

✵Target 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:21.8pt;text-indent:-16.8pt;line-height:normal'>•Behavioral diagnostic category: __________________________________________

✵Requesting 'margin-top:6.0pt;margin-right:5.0pt;margin-bottom: 0cm;margin-left:48.2pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-22.8pt;line-height:normal'>A.Form of request: vocal request; manual signed request; requesting by pointing to a communication board; use augmentative device to request; other ___________________________________________________

B.Description of initial request to be reinforced: _______________________________________________________________________________

✵Reinforcer(s) to be used:

Type

Amount


1. __________

1. __________


2. __________

2. __________


3. __________

3. __________


4. __________

4. __________


5. __________

5. __________

✵Target rate: _______________________________________________________

✵Instructions to ensure motivation:

○Train at time and place that target behavior is most likely, which is: ______________________

_____________________________________________________

○Ensure limited access to reinforcing item at other times by: ______________________

_____________________________________________________

○Designated time period(s) to implement: _______________________________

○Rate of target behavior

Baseline: ________

Target: ________

○Rate of requesting behavior

Baseline: ________

Target: ________

✵Initial schedule of differential reinforcement:

A.Provide contrived reinforcer after every _____ number of requests and with no more than a _____ sec/min delay

✵Targeted final schedule of differential reinforcement:

A.Ensure reinforcer delivery after every _____ number of requests with no more than a _____ sec/min delay

✵Replacement behavior is reinforced:

○If the requesting behavior occurs independently, provide reinforcer requested

○If the requesting behavior does not occur under the targeted conditions, provide the following prompts: (using vocal sign, gesture, visual).

1.Provide the prompt, “What do you want?”

2.If no response, provide the prompt again with the item item/object/activity within sight.

3.If no response, provide the prompt with the addition of a gestural prompt.

4.If no response, provide the prompt with the addition of modeling the response.

5.If no response, provide the prompt with the addition of a physical prompt.

6.If no response, provide increasing physical prompt using least to most prompting.

7.Once the request occurs, provide the requested reinforcer.

8.Repeat for as long as the child/client is motivated to request the reinforcer.

9.When the client’s “enthusiasm” wanes, end access to the reinforcer for that time period.

✵If target behavior occurs:

○Extinction (no access to the requested reinforcer) for ____ minutes, then begin prompt sequence for replacement behavior listed above.

○If replacement requesting behavior occurs during this time period, provide the requested reinforcer.

○Special instructions for delivery of small amount of reinforcer(s):

_____________________________________________________

✵Criterion for fading prompts:

_____________________________________________________

✵Criterion for increasing the amount of delay in the delivery of reinforcer:________

_____________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Teaching Requesting Skills

Arntzen, E., & Almås, I. K. (2002). Effects of mand-tact versus tact-only training on the acquisition of tacts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 419—422.

Bosch, S., & Fuqua, R. W. (2001). Behavioral cusps: A model for selecting target behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 123—125.

Bowman, L. G., Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., & Piazza, C. C. (1997). On the relation of mands and the function of destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 251—265.

Brown, K. A., Wacker, D. P., Derby, K. M., Peck, S. M., Richman, D. M., Sasso, G. M., . . . Harding, J. W. (2000). Evaluating the effects of functional communication training in the presence and absence of establishing operations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 53—71.

DeLeon, I. G., Fisher, W. W., Herman, K. M., & Crosland, K. C. (2000). Assessment of a response bias for aggression over functionally equivalent appropriate behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 73—77.

Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W., DeRaad, A., Ulrich, S., Asmus, J., . . . Stoner, E. A. (1997). The long-term effects of functional communication training in home settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 507—531.

Drasgow, E., Halle, J. W., & Ostrosky, M. M. (1998). Effects of differential reinforcement on the generalization of a replacement mand in three children with severe language delays. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 357—374.

Goh, H., Iwata, B. A., & DeLeon, I. G. (2000). Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 195—205.

Henry, L. M., & Horne, P. J. (2000). Partial remediation of speaker and listener behaviors in people with severe dementia. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 631—634.

Kahng, S., Hendrickson, D. J., & Vu, C. P. (2000). Comparison of single and multiple functional communication training responses for the treatment of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 321—324.

Lalli, J. S., Mauro, B. C., & Mace, F. C. (2000). Preference for unreliable reinforcement in children with mental retardation: The role of conditioned reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 533—544.

Marcus, B. A., & Vollmer, T. R. (1996). Combining noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement schedules as treatment for aberrant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 43—51.

Northup, J., Wacker, D., Sasso, G., Steege, M., Cigrand, K., Cook, J., DeRaad, A. (1991). A brief functional analysis of aggressive and alternative behavior in an outclinic setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 509—522.

Partington, J. W., Sundberg, M. L., Newhouse, L., & Spengler, S. M. (1994). Overcoming an autistic child’s failure to acquire a tact repertoire. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 733—734.

Peck, S. M., Wacker, D. P., Berg, W. K., Cooper, L. J., Brown, K. A., Richman, D., . . . Millard, T. (1996). Choice-making treatment of young children’s severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 263—290.

Rehfeldt, R. A., & Root, S. L. (2005). Establishing derived requesting skills in adults with severe developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 101—105.

Richman, D. M., Wacker, D. P., & Winborn, L. (2001). Response efficiency during functional communication training: Effects of effort on response allocation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 73—76.

Sprague, J. R., & Horner, R. H. (1992). Covariation within functional response classes: Implications for treatment of severe problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 735—745.

Tiger, J. H., & Hanley, G. P. (2004). Developing stimulus control of preschooler mands: An analysis of schedule-correlated and contingency-specifying stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 517—521.

Vollmer, T. R., Borrero, J. C., Lalli, J. S., & Daniel, D. (1999). Evaluating self-control and impulsivity in children with severe behavior disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 451—466.

Wallace, M. D., Iwata, B. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2006) Establishment of mands following tact training as a function of reinforcer strength. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 17—24.

Winborn, L., Wacker, D. P., Richman, D. M., Asmus, J., & Geier, D. (2002). Assessment of mand selection for functional communication training packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 295—298.

Yamamoto, J., & Mochizuki, A. (1988). Acquisition and functional analysis of manding with autistic students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 57—64.

Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior

Goh, H., Iwata, B. A., & DeLeon, I. G. (2000). Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 195—205.

Lee, R., McComas, J. J., & Jawor, J. (2002). The effects of differential and lag reinforcement schedules on varied verbal responding by individuals with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 391—402.

McCord, B. E., Thomson, R. J., & Iwata, B. A. (2001). Functional analysis and treatment of self-injury associated with transitions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 195—210.

Piazza, C. C., Moes, D. R., & Fisher, W. W. (1996). Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and demand fading in the treatment of escape-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 569—572.

Ringdahl, J. E., Kitsukawa, K., Andelman, M. S., Call, N., Winborn, L., Barretto, A. (2002). Differential reinforcement with and without instructional fading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 291—294.

Roane, H. S., Fisher, W. W., Sgro, G. M., Falcomata, T. S., & Pabico, R. R. (2004). An alternative method of thinning reinforcer delivery during differential reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 213—218.

Vollmer, T. R., Roane, H. S., Ringdahl, J. E., & Marcus, B. A. (1999). Evaluating treatment challenges with differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 9—23.