The relative effectiveness of two methods of programming DRO schedules of reinforcement was examined in two experiments. In these two methods, reinforcement is delivered if inappropriate responding is not occurring (a) at the end of an interval (momentary DRO), or (b) throughout the entire interval (whole-interval DRO). In Experiment 1, the effects of these schedules on disruptive responding of three retarded students were assessed in a multiple-baseline design. For two students, the momentary schedule occurred first and was ineffective, whereas the whole interval that followed was effective; for the third student, the whole-interval schedule occurred first and was effective, and reduced responding was maintained under the momentary schedule. In Experiment 2, baseline and the two DRO schedules were each presented in random order each day to one student in an alternating treatments design. The momentary DRO schedule reduced responding, but the whole-interval schedule was more effective.

No abstract

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) involves delivery of reinforcement at the end of an interval during which the target behavior has not occurred. Momentary DRO, however, is a procedure in which reinforcement is delivered if a response did not occur at the end of an interval.We examined the extent to which momentary DRO maintained suppression, following initial treatment with whole-interval DRO, of nine retarded students' maladaptive behavior could be effective in maintaining response rates after their initial suppression by whole-interval DRO. This purpose was met in three ways: (a) by following whole-interval DRO with momentary DRO for three students and seeing whether the MDRO retained response suppression; (b) by comparing the MDRO data of these three students with the data of three other students who remained on the WIDRO and did not experience the MDRO condition; and (c) by examining the data of three other students who were presented with the WID-RO condition followed by a return to baseline condition to determine if response suppression was maintained after WIDRO withdrawal. METHOD Subjects and SettingNine (five male, four female) severely multihandicapped elementary school aged students (IQ scores of 40 and below) served as the subjects of this study. The students were nonverbal, ambulatory, and had secondary handicaps of vision or hearing impairment varying from mild after correction (e.g., hearing aids or glasses) to severe. Three of the students were dassified as having profound mental retardation with the remainder dassified as having severe mental retardation. These students exhibited a variety of maladaptive behaviors (e.g., stereotypic behaviors, noncompliance) at widely varying rates. The students were enrolled in a program for individuals who displayed maladaptive 277 1986,19t277-282 NUMBER 3 (FALL 1986)

One popular mode of treatment for the reduction of maladaptive responding has been the use of timeout procedures. Historically, these procedures have generally been administered on a continuous schedule. In this study, the effects of using a differential schedule of timeout and allowing one maladaptive response per interval before timeout procedures were implemented were studied. The subjects were three school-aged children who had been identified as mentally retarded. The study used a multiple-baseline design, and demonstrated that a differential schedule of timeout was effective in reducing the target maladaptive behaviors. In addition, by permitting one behavior to occur within an interval which occasioned only a warning, the students were allowed to develop self-control within a structured setting. Suggestions for teacher implementation are provided.

No abstract