grand valley state university · web viewthese positive reductive techniques emphasize the use of...

Differential Reinforcement

OverviewThere are many things that can be done to reduce or eliminate problem or interfering behaviors. However, ethical concerns may be raised when using some of the techniques that help stop these behaviors (i.e., extinction, punishment). These concerns have led researchers to examine alternative procedures for addressing problematic behaviors in an ethical and humane manner (e.g., Kazdin, 1980; Singh & Katz, 1985). These positive reductive techniques emphasize the use of reinforcement to increase occurrence of more adaptive or desirable behaviors, and, at the same time, using extinction or elimination of triggers that help to decrease or eliminate disruptive behaviors. This technique is in place of reducing opportunities for additional reinforcement, removing already acquired reinforcers, or applying punishment in response to unwanted behavior. Four procedures that incorporate reinforcement to address and treat disruptive behaviors are differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), and differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL). Each differential reinforcement procedure is a special way to apply reinforcement designed to reduce the occurrence of interfering behaviors (e.g., tantrums, aggression, self-injury, perhaps stereotypic behavior), while increasing the use of more adaptive, communicative, or acceptable behaviors, resulting in a positive and humane teaching environment to facilitate learning. Thus, the goal of differential reinforcement programs is to reinforce target behaviors that are more adaptive than the interfering behavior. This encourages the child to use of the more appropriate alternative behavior while reducing, or altogether eliminating, the disruptive or interfering behavior.

Pre-AssessmentPre-AssessmentDifferential reinforcement uses positive reductive procedures to increase appropriate behaviors, thereby reducing or eliminating interfering behavior (e.g., tantrums, aggression, self-injury, stereotypies).

Select an answer for question 542

Differential reinforcement procedures differ from other reductive techniques (e.g., extinction, punishment, physical restraints) in that behavior is altered with reinforcement using:


Which is NOT a differential reinforcement procedure?


Which below best defines differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI)?


Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is similar to DRI in that the target behavior selected to reinforce can also not be emitted at the same time as the interfering behavior?


Which below best defines differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO)?


Which of the following best describes the use of DRO procedures?


Differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) consistently produces low rates of responding.


What is the first step in applying a differential reinforcement procedure?


Which of the following features need to be incorporated when designing a differential reinforcement intervention program?


What is Differential ReinforcementThere are four procedures for the effective use of differential reinforcement procedures that will decrease inappropriate behavior. All have proven to effectively decrease unwanted behavior, including:

o stereotypy and off-task behavior (Newman, Tuntigian, Ryan, & Reinecke, 1997; Taylor, Hoch, & Weissman, 2005);

o phobias (Shabani & Fisher, 2006), compliance (Piazza, Moes, & Fisher, 1996);o aggressive and destructive behavior (Adelinis, Piazza, & Goh, 2001), ando unresponsivity to social stimuli (Lee, McComas, & Jawor, 2002; Shabani et al.,

2002; Williams, Donley, & Keller, 2000).

Differential Reinforcement of Incompatible Behavior (DRI)...The first, differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI), delivers reinforcement upon the occurrence of a behavior that is physically incompatible with or cannot be exhibited at the same time as the inappropriate behavior (Deitz & Repp, 1983). For example, if the interfering behavior is inability to pay attention, then an incompatible behavior would be the ability to pay attention. Another example, if it is desired to stop the child from running around out of a seat, then in-seat behavior is targeted and reinforced. The idea is that the target or replacement behavior cannot be performed at the same time as the problematic behavior.

Differential Reinforcement of Alternative Behavior (DRA)...Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is similar to DRI in that both reinforce the occurrence of a behavior that is an alternative to the behavior selected for reduction (Deitz & Repp, 1983). However, the target behavior selected in DRA is not necessarily incompatible with the unwanted behavior. For example, a student who frequently engages in outbursts while in the classroom can be taught to raise his hand to gain the teacher's attention. In this procedure, hand-raising and outbursts can be done at the same time. However, it is likely that the student will make fewer outbursts and instead engage in a more appropriate attention-seeking behavior (e.g., raise hand)

if the target behavior is strengthened. In both DRI and DRA procedures, it is important to select an incompatible or alternative behavior that already exists or is present in the learner's repertoire of responses (a behavior or skill that the learner exhibits regularly) that will facilitate additional skill-building opportunities, and that will be supported in the learner's natural environment after the intervention program has ended. When behaviors are selected that are meaningful, relevant, and useful to the learner, these behaviors typically continue to be strengthened in everyday interactions and settings and with multiple social partners.

Also to consider is that whenever possible, the type of stimuli chosen to function as reinforcers should be the same reinforcer that currently supports the unwanted behavior (as determined in the functional assessment). If an external reinforcer is needed, then ideally it is a good idea to include the learner in the selection. This will increase the learner's motivation and cooperation with the intervention program. Equally important is that the reinforcement needs to be presented only when the target behavior is performed, consistently, and immediately following the behavior and be as strong, or stronger, than the positive consequences (reinforcers) maintaining the interfering behavior; otherwise the intervention program is likely to be ineffective in changing the learner's behavior. To adequately address this component, a functional assessment of the behavior should be administered prior to conducting the differential reinforcement program to determine the function of the interferring behavior and identify the stimuli that reinforces it (please see the functional assessment module for additional information).

The next guideline for effectively implementing a DRI/DRA procedure is to establish a schedule of reinforcement that specifies how often to deliver the reinforcement. Initially, it may be necessary to deliver a continuous schedule of reinforcement in which every occurrence of the specified behavior is reinforced. Once the incompatible or alternative behavior is strengthened and occurring regularly, an intermittent schedule of reinforcement may be gradually introduced, in which reinforcement is not delivered during every time the target behavior occurs, but in a regular pattern, such as after every three occurrences. The final consideration is to combine DRI/DRA with other reductive procedures (Stokes & Kennedy, 1980; Luiselli, 1980), such as extinction, functional communication training, or self-management to assist with learning.

Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO)...A third procedure, differential reinforcement of other behavior, DRO, delivers reinforcement for any appropriate behavior whenever an undesirable behavior is not emitted during a specific period of time. A broad range of appropriate behaviors may be reinforced, as long as the behavior selected for reduction does not occur. To apply the DRO procedure, an interval of time is selected and any appropriate behavior exhibited at the end of that interval is reinforced, as long as the unwanted behavior did not occur. If not, the reinforcer is not delivered and the interval is reset to try and bring out an appropriate behavior in a new interval of time. Most applications of DRO involve a fixed DRO schedule of reinforcement in which the interval of time remains the same across trials. For example, a fixed DRO of 1 minute means that reinforcement is delivered every 1 minute and contingently upon the absence of the unwanted behavior. Alternatively, a variable DRO schedule of reinforcement may be used, in which the interval of time is set to vary across trials. For example, a variable DRO schedule might consist of 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 seconds, arranged to occur in a random order.

There are several important guidelines to consider when implementing DRO procedures:

o select an initial DRO time interval that is short enough to yield frequent reinforcement for other, appropriate behaviors. For example, if baseline data indicate that the individual typically remains on task for 5 minutes before exhibiting disruptive behavior, then the time interval would be programmed at 4 minutes while additional intervention techniques (e.g., prompting, self-management) are applied to promote learning.

o Secondly, the time interval between reinforcement should gradually increase as the learner's on-task behavior improves. If behavior appears to worsen when larger DRO intervals are used, then the size of the interval should be reduced until the behavior is again under control.

o reinforcement needs to be provided at the end of the DRO interval only if the undesirable behavior has not occurred and a more appropriate behavior has occurred. For example, if the behavior selected for reduction is yelling, the goal is for the individual to engage in a more acceptable behavior during the time interval, such as engaging in an incompatible behavior (talking to a peer), an alternative behavior (e.g., playing with playdough, holding a book to read), or another behavior (e.g., reading, watching TV).

o DRO should be used in conjunction with other reductive procedures to increase its effectiveness, such as self-management, overcorrection, prompting, or extinction.

Differential Reinforcement of Low Rates of Responding (DRL)...Lastly, differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL) aims to decrease but not eliminate the problem behavior. The rationale for using this approach is that the behavior, itself, is not a problem, rather its frequency (i.e., how often it occurs) and/or duration (i.e., how long it lasts) is difficult to tolerate. The most common way to use this approach is to establish a criterion limit for what is considered an acceptable rate or duration for the problem behavior. The learner is reinforced for not exceeding the limit. For example, if the learner engages in 8 acts of talking out loud during a 20-minute interval in which the criterion is set at no more than 5 times, then the individual does not receive reinforcement.

Who Can Implement Differential Reinforcement?Differential reinforcement procedures can be developed and used by a variety of adults including parents, teachers, special educators, therapists, and paraprofessionals.

Who Would Benefit Most from Differential Reinforcement?Learners with ASD range from preschool ages through high school and into adulthood. These learners exhibit challenging or other inappropriate behaviors can benefit from differential reinforcement procedures. Examples of specific skills that have been the focus of differential reinforcement interventions in evidence-based studies include:

o phobias (Jones & Friman, 1999; Shabani & Fisher, 2006);o stereotypies, repetitive behavior (Patel, Carr, & Kim, 2000; Taylor et al., 2005);o disruptive, aggressive behavior (Adelinis et al., 2001; Newman et al., 1997; Piazza

et al., 1996);o compliance (Lalli et al., 1999);o verbal responding (Lee et al., 2002; Schwartz, 1982; Shabani et al., 2002; Williams

et al., 2000); ando play skills (Miller & Neuringer, 2000).

Step-by-Step Instructions for ImplementationThe following steps for implementation provide an in-depth description of each step needed to implement a differential reinforcement program effectively.

Step 1. Identifying the Interfering BehaviorTeachers/practitioners define the target behavior.

The first step in using a DR procedure is to identify the interfering behavior. Interfering behaviors are disruptive behaviors such as screaming, aggression, or repetitive/stereotypic behaviors (e.g., lining up toys or blocks, spinning objects, etc.) that interfere with learning.

In addition to identifying the specific behavior that is interfering with learning, gathering information from team members regarding the following aspects of the interfering behavior will be helpful.

Teachers/practitioners gather information from team members regarding the following aspects of the interfering behavior:

o topography, or what the interfering looks like: (e.g., banging arms against the table);o frequency, or how often the behavior happens: (e.g., from once or twice per day to

a dozen or more times per day);o intensity, or how severe the behavior is: (e.g., if the behavior is biting, how hard

does the learner bite and does he cause tissue damage);o location, or where the behavior is occurring: (e.g., in gym class, on the playground,

during math class); ando duration, or how long the behavior lasts: (e.g., a tantrum that lasts a few minutes or

that can last for an hour).

This information can be summarized to aid in the assessment of the possible functions of the interfering behavior. For example, knowing that Joey loudly shouts profanities between three-four times for 30 seconds or more when in the lunchroom provides

specific information about the interfering behavior that can be of value in planning intervention.

Step 2. Determining the Function of the Interfering BehaviorTeachers/practitioners use functional behavior assessment to identify the function of the

interfering behavior.

An important part of determining the function of the interfering behavior will be interviewing team members about the nature of the problem behavior. To do so, you will need to complete a functional behavior assessment that will allow you to identify the current antecedents and consequences.

Step 3. Identifying Data Collection Measures and Collecting Baseline Data

Teachers/practitioners identify data collection measures to be used to assess the interfering behavior before implementing the intervention.

When collecting data for DR, it is important to focus on the frequency, topography, and intensity/severity of the behavior. To the right and below are some examples of data sheets that may be particularly helpful in describing the interfering behavior.

http://www.autisminternetmodules.org/up_img/Step3_example1lg.jpg

Teachers/practitioners gather baseline data on the interfering behavior.

The data collection measures identified above are used, along with the information gathered in Steps 1 and 2, to determine the nature of the interfering behavior prior to the intervention.

During the baseline phase, it is important to collect data for a long enough period of time to see if there is some consistency in the behavior. Teachers/practitioners should decide how long data will be collected (e.g., one week, two weeks), and what will happen if there are not enough data to inform intervention (e.g., redesign the data collection method, observe at a different time). Baseline data collection allows teachers/practitioners to assess the impact of the intervention on the interfering behavior over time. Typically the behavior should be observed for three or more days in different settings (e.g., science class, music).

Teachers/practitioners decide who will collect the initial data.

For example, it might be easiest for a paraprofessional to collect data across the day. The team also may decide that it would be easier to have an objective observer collect data rather than the classroom teacher who is in the middle of a lesson.

Step 4. Selecting a Differential Reinforcement ProcedureThere are many types of differential reinforcement procedures included in the designation of DR. They include:

o differential reinforcement of other behaviors (DRO; e.g., reinforcing singing to replace screaming);

o differential reinforcement of alternative behaviors (DRA; e.g., reinforcing shaking hands to replace slapping);

http://www.autisminternetmodules.org/up_img/Step3_Example2lg.jpg

o differential reinforcement of incompatible behaviors (DRI; e.g., reinforcing appropriate language to replace swearing); and

o differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL; e.g., reinforcing reduced levels of calling out).

When deciding which procedure to use, teachers/practitioners:

o identify functionally similar behaviors (behaviors that serve the same functions--such as saying, "Help please" instead of grunting) that learners already have in their repertoire;

o determine the type and amount of functional skills (skills the learner currently has that are functional alternatives to the interfering behavior-e.g., he can tap teacher on the arm to secure her attention instead of screaming);

o determine how frequently these desired behaviors occur;o consider the topography (what the behavior looks like), the frequency of the

interfering behavior, how severe the behavior is, how the behavior is affecting the environment, and where the behavior is most likely to occur; and

o consider their own professional judgment and comfort level with the proposed procedure.

o Step 5. Creating an Intervention Plano When creating a DR intervention plan, teachers/practitioners need to address

several features.o Teachers/practitioners define other procedures that will be incorporated

(e.g., extinction, functional communication training) with the differential reinforcement procedure. For example, a teacher/practitioner who decides to

http://www.autisminternetmodules.org/up_img/step4large.jpg

use DR for biting may also need to use functional communication training to teach the learner how to make requests.

o Teachers/practitioners administer a reinforcer assessment to identify learner-preferred objects and activities that can be used as rewards for demonstrating the replacement behavior. The goal is to motivate the learner with tangible rewards for demonstrating a more positive, acceptable behavior that serves the same function as the problem behavior. The reinforcer assessment can be as informal as displaying a variety of objects or pictures of objects/activities related to the learner's interest and observing what the learner consistently chooses. In addition, asking the learner (if possible) and parents/family members about preferred reinforcers should be considered. Keep in mind that the learner's interest in reinforcers may decrease or change over time. For example, the learner's initial desire to "work" for time on the computer after completing assignments may no longer be a preferred reinforcer. When learner preferences change, other favorite objects/activities can be offered for selection.

o Teachers/practitioners determine a schedule of reinforcement (how frequently the reinforcer is delivered). For example, decide on whether the learner gets a reward every time he engages in the replacement behavior or a reward for going 10 minutes without engaging in the interfering behavior.

o Teachers/practitioners establish criteria for changing the schedule of reinforcement. For example, after three sessions in which the learner is reinforced every 5 minutes, he/she will be reinforced every 10 minutes for the following three sessions.

o Teachers/practitioners specify the timeline for data collection. For example, the team decides that data should be reviewed after one week of implementation to identify the following week's schedule of data collection (to monitor student progress).

o Teacher/practitioners clearly write-out the intervention plan and make it available to other team members.

o

o The matrix to the right provides samples of four possible intervention plans based on common functions of interfering behavior. Each of the hypothesized functions is paired with DR procedures, examples of how the procedure might be implemented, and other behavior procedures that might be used in conjunction with DR.

Step 6. Implementing the InterventionThe next step in using a DR procedure is to implement the intervention plan. During implementation of a DR procedure, two components should be addressed.

Before the interfering behavior occurs, teachers/practitioners should:

o choose which behavior to reinforce based on the intervention plan;o explicitly teach the replacement or alternative skills

This may be done by using functional communication training, task analysis, graduated guidance, or other kinds of direct teaching procedures such as discrete trial training.

For example, if the replacement behavior is requesting a break, teachers/practitioners may need to teach the learner how to request a break using pictures or scripts.

o continuously reinforce the other/low rate/alternative/incompatible behaviors.

To continuously reinforce, rapidly reinforce every instance of the replacement behavior. For example, if you are reinforcing a learner for remaining seated, provide reinforcement the entire time the learner is in his/her seat.

http://www.autisminternetmodules.org/up_img/step5large.jpg

o match the reinforcement to the function of the behavior.

Because the function of a learner's interfering behavior can change, it is important to confirm that your intervention always matches the hypothesized function of the interfering behavior. For example, the function of calling out behavior may initially be for attention and may later shift to escape. The DR procedure must change as well to reinforce the function of the replacement behavior (i.e., not calling out).

If or when the interfering behavior occurs, teachers/practitioners prompt and immediately respond

to the alternative behavior by:

o prompting frequently to assure that there are enough instances of the desired behavior to reinforce; and

o being consistent.

If the desired behavior does not occur, prompt and immediately reinforce the prompted desired behavior. For example, if the learner is calling out to get attention, prompt him to raise his hand often so that he can be reinforced. Prompting the desired behavior immediately after it occurs will increase the likelihood of the learner displaying the desired behavior. For more information about this procedure, please see Least-to-Most Prompting: Steps for Implementation (National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2008).

After the plan has been in place for a certain number of days as documented in theintervention

plan (see step 5.3), teachers/practitioners can alter the schedule ofreinforcement.

For example, if a learner is being reinforced every hour and meets the criteria for change according to the intervention plan, the learner may then be reinforced only twice per day.

Step 7. Collecting Outcome DataTo determine the effectiveness of the DR procedure and whether modifications are necessary (e.g., a new interfering behavior is presenting), teachers/practitioners must regularly collect outcome data by:

o continuously assessing (e.g., A-B-C, frequency, and intensity data) the interfering behavior; and

o consulting the original assessment and baseline data to ensure that they are using the same measures.

For example, if the frequency of the original behavior was assessed during baseline, assess the frequency of the desired behavior to monitor progress.

Step 8. Reviewing and Modifying the Intervention PlanTeachers/practitioners review the outcome data and discuss the results with team members.

Teachers/practitioners summarize the results making sure to include both baseline and outcome

measures.

Teachers/practitioners identify any new interfering behaviors that may have emerged and assess

them for function.

It is possible that new interfering behaviors have the same function of the extinguished behavior. If this is the case, it may be that a similar intervention will work.

Teachers/practitioners modify the intervention plan depending on the baseline and outcome data.

For example, if the data show that a learner's hitting behavior has improved minimally, teachers/ practitioners may need to modify the plan to reinforce the desired behavior more frequently.

Teachers/practitioners conduct on-going checks of intervention effectiveness.

Interventions will most likely need to be reviewed and modified several times before the interfering behavior is extinguished

Case Study ExamplesThe authors have provided two case examples for this module.

Steve is a sixteen-year-old sophomore with high functioning autism who attends high school with typically developing peers. Steve is able to fully participate in his classes without paraprofessional support and enjoys going to school. However, Mr. Allen, Steve's math teacher, has reported problems with having Steve in his class.

Christopher is an 11-year-old boy with autism and intellectual disability in a special education classroom. Christopher speaks in three to five word sentences, though his language usually consists of delayed echolalia from preferred animation movies. His teacher considers Christopher one of the more disruptive children in her classroom because of his tendency to repeat movie lines at a high volume.

SteveCase Study: SteveSteve is a sixteen-year-old sophomore with high functioning autism who attends high school with typically developing peers. Steve is able to fully participate in his classes without paraprofessional support and enjoys going to school. However, Mr. Allen, Steve's math teacher, has reported problems with having Steve in his class. Although Steve is competent in completing the work, he regularly argues with his classmates when they make mistakes or fail to solve problems during group activities. Given Steve's strong academic skills in math, Mr. Allen is optimistic that this strength might facilitate opportunities for interaction with his peers (perhaps even building the groundwork for friendship development); however Steve must learn how to cope with his frustration and interact with his peers using more appropriate social behaviors.

After conducting a functional behavior assessment (FBA) over several math classes, Mr. Allen confirmed that Steve's frustration with his peers ability correctly solve math problems in group setting is the antecedent that triggers his yelling, name calling, and occasional profanity. Mr. Allen also noted that Steve's anxiety might be heightened in group settings because whatever work is not finished during this time is then assigned as homework. Mr. Allen met with the rest of the team to determine which differential reinforcement procedure would be a suitable choice to implement. It was decided that introducing alternative behaviors to the problem behavior (i.e., arguing) might be most appropriate to improve Steve's repertoire of skills. In this case, the team thought that teaching Steve to cooperate and work together with other students on group problems would result in less time spent arguing. Thus, the target behavior was to increase Steve's use of cooperative behaviors, including listening, waiting for others to finish the problem, asking if someone needs help after a certain amount of time, and asking for a break when becoming frustrated. In generating the intervention plan, the team identified the various teaching strategies and modifications to facilitate learning. First, the number of assignments assigned to Steve's group was decreased to a reasonable amount that could be done within the given period of time. The goal was to alleviate Steve's anxiety

around having homework at night in order to focus his attention on learning the cooperative behaviors.

Second, the behavior analyst met individually with Steve to explain the concept of cooperation and to role-play the different target behaviors intended to replace the argumentative behaviors. It was decided to introduce self-management as an additional intervention strategy to support Steve's acquisition and performance with the replacement behaviors. For each behavior, Steve identified when he engaged in appropriate occurrence (e.g., listening to the adult solve the problem; allowing each student 5 minutes to initially work at the problem independently before offering assistance; or asking for a break when frustrated by a refusal to accept his help) versus inappropriate occurrence (e.g., interrupting the student to insult him/her; shouting out the answer before the time was up; throwing his pencil and notebook on the ground out of frustration) and how to record correct occurrences. Steve also selected items and activities to use as reinforcement for correct usage of the replacement behaviors, such as earning increments of time to work on Sudoku puzzles at the end of class. The next step involved implementing the intervention program to the classroom. Frequency data were collected on the number of unwanted behaviors within each math class to monitor Steve's performance and evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention program. As Steve's frustration decreased and use of the cooperative behaviors improved (determined by the data), Mr. Allen gradually increased the number of math problems assigned to the group.

Mr. Allen also introduced other group projects to assist with generalizing Steve's behaviors across other activities, such as having students compete in teams to solve problems and work together to explain math concepts. Since Steve was one of the stronger students, he was able to assume an "expert" role and was sought out by his classmates to be a part of the group. As a result, Steve received positive reinforcement from his peers through praise, admiration, and respect. These opportunities for interaction also resulted in time for Steve to get to know his peers and vice-versa and with additional support and instruction from the team, Steve learned other critical pragmatic skills to improve the quality of his interactions with peers, such as introducing age-appropriate topics and asking relevant questions within the conversation, learning when to switch to a different topic, and sharing information in a socially acceptable way. The time in math class ended up not only improving Steve's academic performance, but also enhancing his social development and increasing his self-esteem and confidence

when interacting with his peers. Mr. Allen reported being pleased to have Steve in class, given his math strengths.

ChristopherCase Study: ChristopherChristopher is an 11-year-old boy with autism and intellectual disability in a special education classroom. Christopher speaks in three to five word sentences, though his language usually consists of delayed echolalia from preferred animation movies. His teacher considers Christopher one of the more disruptive children in her classroom because of his tendency to repeat movie lines at a high volume. During five days of collecting baseline data, Christopher averaged 10 occurrences of talking out loud during each 45 minute instructional activity. A functional behavior assessment (FBA) determined that higher rates were more likely to occur to escape less preferred teaching activities that involve writing. For example, during an activity where the students were asked to write about their weekend plans, Christopher began to repeat movie lines until the teacher approached him. The teacher initially tried to redirect Christopher back to the activity by offering to write his responses in the journal. Christopher ignored his teacher, continued to engage in echolalia, and only stopped after the teacher offered the choice of a free time activity to do at his desk.

After further observation of Christopher escaping writing activities and several meetings with the team and parents, it was decided to use a full-session approach involving differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) to produce lower rates of the undesired behavior. The aim was to program the delivery of reinforcement when Christopher emitted fewer episodes of talking out loud than the established criterion. Classroom observation, as well as speaking with Christopher's parents, enabled the team to identify suitable and appealing reinforcers to deliver each time Christopher stayed below the criterion level. Also needed were modifications to the environment in order to ensure that Christopher did not exceed the criterion level. Using the information from the FBA, the team decided that Christopher needed to use another modality besides handwriting to help him participate in writing activities. Because it was difficult for Christopher to stabilize his hand in order to write (as evaluated by his occupational therapist), the behavior analyst on the team suggested using a computer program that could type responses based on audio input. This allowed Christopher to record information by saying his responses out loud. The behavior analyst worked one-on-one with Christopher to teach him the computer program, initially having him answer questions in

response to preferred interests (e.g., movies). As Christopher's motivation to respond improved, teaching activities were interspersed with preferred topics to transition Christopher back into the classroom setting.

During the next two weeks of the intervention, Christopher was given 10 minutes of video time (because of his love of movies) at the end of each period when he talked out seven or less times during each 45 minute activity. Once Christopher met this goal across five consistent school days, the criterion level was gradually lowered to talking out five or fewer times per teaching activity. Christopher's teacher continued to gradually lower the criterion until Christopher rarely engaged in the behavior. The schedule of reinforcement was also gradually reduced so that Christopher was not excluded from important teaching activities (e.g., reducing free time from 10 to 5 minutes of play); however, the team and Christopher's parents also deliberated to identify incentives and rewards that could be incorporated within the on-going instructional activities. Activities such as art and music were deemed to be more reinforcing to Christopher, so the team brainstormed strategies to embed these interests within the curriculum. For example, Christopher practiced addition and subtraction by drawing and erasing shapes and practiced spelling words related to preferred songs that he then listened to while wearing headphones. The differential criterion rate was still followed and adjusted to lower levels but it was also important to embed direct reinforcement throughout the day in order to increase Christopher's enthusiasm to participate with the class and sustain low occurrences of the problem behavior.

Summaryo Differential reinforcement are positive reductive procedures aimed to decrease or

eliminate behavior through the use of reinforcement rather than the removal or loss of reinforcement or use of punishment.

o Four procedures that use reinforcement to decrease or eliminate inappropriate behavior are differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), and differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL).

o DRI is a schedule of reinforcement in which the occurrence of the target behavior topographically dissimilar with the problem behavior is followed by reinforcement.

o DRA provides reinforcement for the occurrence of a target behavior that is an alternative to the problem behavior.

o Target behaviors that are incompatible or alternative to the problem behavior should be within the learner's repertoire of responses, that can be emitted regularly, should enable the learner to acquire more skills, and should be supported within the learner's natural environment.

o A schedule of reinforcement should be planned to deliver reinforcement on a continuous schedule to initially strengthen the new behavior, followed by a gradual thinning intermittent schedule of reinforcement.

o Reinforcement should be selected from stimuli that relates to the function of the new target behavior and is presented contingently, consistently, and immediately following the target behavior.

o DRO provides reinforcement whenever the problem behavior is not emitted during a specific period or interval of time.

o The initial DRO time interval should reflect the data recorded during the baseline period and enable the learner to receive continuous reinforcement.

o Procedures should be embedded to increase the length of the DRO interval.o A DRL schedule yields low, consistent rates of responding.o A full-session DRL schedule delivers reinforcement when the rate of the problem

behavior is equal to or below a criterion limit.o An interval DRL schedule delivers reinforcement after each interval in which the

rate of the problem behavior is equal to or below a criterion limit.o A spaced-responding DRL delivers reinforcement after an amount of time has

passed from the last onset of the problem behavior.o Baseline data should determine the initial DRL criterion limit, followed by a gradual

reduction in the rate.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)Q. How do I ensure that an incompatible/alternative behavior will occur outside of the reinforcement schedule?

A. The question of generalizability is an important consideration because the ultimate goal is to have the learner independently emit the appropriate, target behavior instead of the problem behavior. There are several factors to remember when deciding what target behavior will be most suitable to teach and most likely to sustain.

o First, the target behavior should be within the learner's repertoire of behaviors, also known as a "maintenance" skill.

o Second, teaching a "maintenance" skill will allow the learner to emit the target behavior more regularly, which will produce more reinforcement to the learner.

o The target behavior should also hold relevance and meaning to the learner's daily life and interactions. Teaching a skill that cannot be supported by the learner's natural environment is setting up for a failed plan and frustrated learner.

Q. What is the difference between DRI and DRA?

A. Differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) delivers reinforcement for a behavior that is topographically dissimilar to the problem behavior. In this way, the replacement behavior and the problem behavior cannot be displayed at the same time. Examples might include reinforcing in-seat behavior instead of out-of-seat behavior or working on homework instead of sleeping at desk. Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) reinforces the occurrence of a target behavior that is different from the problem behavior but not necessarily topographically incompatible. For example, teaching a child to ask for items instead of hitting another child would not prevent both behaviors from occurring at the same time but strengthening the former helps to minimize the latter from occurring. Although both are commonly used to teach a variety of behaviors, some factors can influence effective use. As mentioned above, think about what target behavior is within the learner's repertoire, that the learner uses with consistency, that facilitates more skill development, and be supported in the learner's natural environment.

Q. The DRO schedule has not produced a reduction in the problem behavior. What might be the reason(s) for this?

A. There are several reasons that a DRO schedule may not be effective. Some suggestions to consider are:

o Make sure that the selected DRO time interval is consistent with the learner's performance during the baseline condition. This means that the time interval cannot differ from whatever was recorded during the baseline condition. If the learner tolerated 5 minutes of staying seated before getting up to run around the room, then the initial time interval to refrain from engaging in the problem behavior is established at 5 minutes or less. If the learner can refrain from body rocking for

one-minute, setting the time interval at one-minute or even 45 seconds will be the place to start

o Keep data on the learner's response to the program to determine the size of change that can be tolerated without disrupting teaching. If behavior continues to worsen, perhaps this change is in response to the larger DRO interval and the size of the interval should be decreased until the behavior is again under control. The DRO interval can then be lengthened in smaller, more gradual steps to maintain control.

o Examine the reinforcement that is delivered at the end of the DRO interval. Reinforcement should only be delivered when the problem behavior did not occur during the interval, as well as no other inappropriate behavior. It is important that the learner not receive reinforcement from another source, otherwise there is less reason for the learner to cooperate with the intervention program.

o Evaluate how rewarding or motivating the reinforcer is to the learner. If the reward is not important or worthwhile to the learner, he/she will be less likely to work for it.

o Combine DRO with other reductive procedures or intervention strategies to increase its practical value. Observe whether there are other inappropriate behaviors that might need to be extinguished or addressed, additional teaching systems such as self-management that might assist, or consequences that might need to be added to successfully eliminate problem behaviors.

Q. When is it appropriate to use DRL?

A. Differential reinforcement of low rates of responding (DRL) is an appropriate procedure to use when the goal is not to eliminate a behavior but to reduce its occurrence to a more acceptable level. There are many behaviors that when used in excess might be irritating or annoying and DRL offers effective strategies to reduce these behaviors to tolerable rates. Examples may include incessant question-asking, talking out loud, rapid eating, or frequent hair brushing. Keep in mind that this procedure requires constant observation and timing and frequent reinforcement, which might be hard to implement in a room full of learners. It may require additional personnel, especially in the initial stages.

Q. Is there one differential reinforcement procedure that is better than the others?

A. The short answer is that each comes with advantages and disadvantages. DRI/DRA and DRO aim to strengthen behaviors to replace an inappropriate or problematic behavior, whereas DRL attempts to reduce but not eliminate a behavior. DRO does not

specify which behaviors to reinforce, but DRO does allow a wider number of behaviors to be reinforced. It is possible then for DRO to develop and strengthen collateral, or non-targeted behaviors, that are important for the learner to sustain progress. The major difference is that with DRI/DRA the adult measures the development of the incompatible/alternative behavior and target behavior, whereas with DRO the learner's behavior (other than the behavior selected for reduction) determines which alternate behavior will be targeted and measured. Overall, the decision of which differential reinforcement to use should be made by observing and collecting data of the problem behavior across relevant people, environments, and contexts and also determined by the type of replacement behavior (if appropriate) to introduce in lieu of the problem behavior. Finally, the parents and learner (if appropriate) should also be interviewed to determine which procedure will enable the most significant positive change to occur and lead to an enhanced quality of life for the entire family.

Discussion Questions[ Export PDF with Answers | Export PDF without Answers ]

1. What are the benefits of using differential reinforcement?

A correct answer should include a statement such as:

o Differential reinforcement is an effective and humane procedure for decreasing or eliminating maladaptive behaviors.

o There are no ethical or legal issues in using differential reinforcement procedures compared to other reductive techniques (e.g., extinction, punishment, aversive stimulation, restraints).

o Reinforcement occurs regardless of which procedure is used, thus encouraging and strengthening the use of other, positive behaviors.

2. What steps should occur in preparation for implementing differential reinforcement?


o Data should be taken by all team members that are familiar with the learner to determine the function of the problem behavior and to select the appropriate differential reinforcement procedure to implement the behavior change.

o A description of the problem behavior and replacement (or target) behavior should be adapted into a form that the learner (if appropriate) can comprehend. Examples of adapted descriptions include simple written descriptions and pictorial depictions, if needed to convey the meaning to the learner.

o Steps of how to conduct and enforce the differential reinforcement procedure, including the stimuli and schedule of reinforcement, the setting(s) in which it will occur, and the person(s) responsible for implementing and monitoring data, and whether other intervention procedures will be embedded should be decided beforehand.

o Discussion on whether other intervention procedures will be embedded should the learner not respond to the selected differential reinforcement procedure should be considered among team members.

3. What can be done to increase the likelihood that the problem behavior will respond to differential reinforcement?


o Take detailed data to identify all functions for the problem behavior (e.g., when does it occur, with whom, under what situations, what does the behavior look like)

o Make sure that all persons (both adults and peers) who come into regular contact with the learner consistently withhold reinforcement of the problem behavior, as well as deliver reinforcement according to the established schedule or occurrence of the target, replacement behavior.

o Select functional and meaningful replacement behaviors to teach the learner that will take the place of the problem behavior.

o Select replacement behaviors that are within the learner's repertoire or skill set (and therefore can be taught to the learner within a short period of time) and that will be reinforced by others on a consistent basis.

o Aim to be preventive so that the learner has no reason to exhibit the problem behavior (e.g., remove antecedents or triggers from the environment; select powerful, motivating reinforcers to encourage the use of the desirable behaviors; or remove or mask the consequence to the problem behavior).

4. Describe a learner that you think would benefit from differential reinforcement. What skills need to be targeted for intervention? Which differential reinforcement procedure is most suitable to implement (based on the learner's needs, the teaching environment and other available resources) and which procedure is less beneficial?

Answers to this question will vary. Each answer should be supported by content derived from the module, but should vary based on the individual learner being described.

5. Continuing your answer to Question 4, think of a learner with ASD that you feel would benefit from differential reinforcement. How would you respond if the learner's behavior became worse or did not respond to the procedure? Justify your answer based on the learner's individual characteristics.

Answers to this question will vary. Each answer should be supported by content derived from the module, but specific answers do not have to come directly from the module as long as they are justified based on the individual characteristics of the learner. When it comes to individualizing an intervention, creativity should be encouraged as long as the proposed ideas seem feasible, humane, and ethical.

Post-AssessmentPost-AssessmentDifferential reinforcement uses positive reductive procedures to increase appropriate behaviors, thereby reducing or eliminating interfering behavior (e.g., tantrums, aggression, self-injury, stereotypies).


Differential reinforcement procedures differ from other reductive techniques (e.g., extinction, punishment, physical restraints) in that behavior is altered with reinforcement rather than:


Which is NOT a differential reinforcement procedure?


Which below best defines differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI)?


Which of the following best describes the use of DRO procedures?


Differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) consistently produces low rates of responding.


What is the first step in applying a differential reinforcement procedure?


Which of the following features need to be incorporated when designing a differential reinforcement intervention program?


Citation and ReferencesVismara, L., Bogin, J., Sullivan, L. (2010). Differential reinforcement: Online training module. (Sacramento, CA: National Professional Development Center on Autism Spectrum Disorders, M.I.N.D.Institute, University of California Davis). In Ohio Center for Autism and Low Incidence (OCALI), Autism Internet Modules, www.autisminternetmodules.org. Columbus, OH: OCALI.

ReferencesAdelinis, J.D., Piazza, C.C., & Goh, H.L. (2001). Treatment of multiply controlled destructive behavior with food reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 97-100.

Deitz, D.E.D., & Repp, A.C. (1983). Reducing behavior through reinforcement. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3, 34-46.

Jones, K.M., & Friman, P.C. (1999). A case study of behavioral assessment and treatment of insect phobia. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 95-98.

Kazdin, A.E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259-273.

Lalli, J.S., Vollmer, T.R., Progar, P.R., Wright, C., Borrero, J., Daniel, D., Barthold, C.H., Tocco, K., & May, W. (1999). Competition between positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 285-296.

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.

Luiselli, J.K. (1980). Controlling disruptive behaviors of an autistic child: Parent-mediated contingency management in the home setting. Education and Treatment of Children, 3, 195-203.

Miller, N., & Neuringer, A. (2000). Reinforcing variability in adolescents with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 151-165.

Newman, B., Tuntigina, L., Ryan, C.S., & Reinecke, D.R. (1997). Self-management of a DRO procedure by three students with autism. Behavioral Intervention, 12, 149-156.

Patel, M.R., Carr, J.E., & Kim, C. (2000). Functional analysis of aberrant behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement: Assessments of specific sensory reinforcers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21, 393-407.

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

Schwartz, B. (1982). Reinforcement-induced behavioral stereotypy: How not to teach people to discover rules. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 111, 23-59.

Shabani, D.B., & Fisher, W.W. (2006). Stimulus fading and differential reinforcement for the treatment of needle phobia in a youth with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 449-452.

Shabani, D.B., Katz, R.C., Wilder, D.A., Beauchamp, K., Taylor, C.R., & Fischer, K.J. (2002). Increasing social initiations in children with autism: Effects of a tactile prompt. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 79-83.

Singh, N.N., & Katz, R.C. (1985). On the modification of acceptability ratings for alternative child treatments. Behavior Modification, 9, 375-386.

Stokes, T.F., & Kennedy, S.H. (1980). Reducing child uncooperative behavior during dental treatment through modeling and reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 41-49.

Taylor, B.A., Hoch, H., & Weissman, M. (2005). The analysis and treatment of vocal stereotypy in a child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 239-253.

Williams, G., Donley, C.R., & Keller, J.W. (2000). Teaching children with autism to ask questions about hidden objects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 627-630.

grand valley state university · web viewthese positive reductive techniques emphasize the use of...

Documents