Variables that affect preference for and efficacy of response-reinforcer arrangements
Loading...
Links to Files
Permanent Link
Author/Creator
Author/Creator ORCID
Date
2020-01-20
Type of Work
Department
Psychology
Program
Psychology
Citation of Original Publication
Rights
Distribution Rights granted to UMBC by the author.
This item may be protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. It is made available by UMBC for non-commercial research and education. For permission to publish or reproduce, please see http://aok.lib.umbc.edu/specoll/repro.php or contact Special Collections at speccoll(at)umbc.edu
This item may be protected under Title 17 of the U.S. Copyright Law. It is made available by UMBC for non-commercial research and education. For permission to publish or reproduce, please see http://aok.lib.umbc.edu/specoll/repro.php or contact Special Collections at speccoll(at)umbc.edu
Abstract
Although instructional strategies and interventions for problem behavior frequently arrange distributed reinforcement where a relatively brief amount of reinforcement follows a small response requirement, recent research suggests that many individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities (IDD) may prefer accumulated reinforcement where learners bank access to the reinforcer and then receive continuous, uninterrupted access to it following completion of the work. The current set of three studies extends research on response-reinforcer arrangements by exploring how these arrangements have historically been used during instruction and variables that may impact preference for and efficacy of these arrangements for individuals with IDD. In Paper 1, preference for and efficacy of these arrangements was evaluated during skill acquisition for individuals with IDD. Four of five learners preferred accumulated reinforcement and it was as or more effective than distributed reinforcement in teaching new skills in six of seven analyses. In Paper 2, preference for and efficacy of accumulated and distributed food and break was evaluated for individuals with escape-maintained problem behavior. Results indicated that for 4 of 5 participants, allowing for accumulation enhanced the value of break. However, in no case was accumulated break more effective than distributed break or either food condition in treating problem behavior. Finally, Paper 3 included a systematic review of discrete-trial teaching (DTT) to determine how response-reinforcer arrangements are typically programmed during instruction, how effective they are in teaching new skills, and what arrangements are most preferred. Results indicated that although distributed reinforcement was most commonly arranged, both arrangements were generally effective in promoting skill acquisition and most learners preferred accumulated arrangements. Findings support results of prior research; many individuals prefer accumulated reinforcement, when tasks are unmastered, and when problem behavior is maintained by escape. Accumulated reinforcement also may promote more efficient and accurate responding when learners are acquiring new skills. However, less consistent findings were obtained with regard to treating problem behavior. As this line of research progresses, clinicians may rely on this literature to formulate evidence-based practices for the promotion of skill acquisition and treatment of problem behavior that closely align with the preferences of individuals with IDD.