A comparison of differential reinforcement procedures with children with autism

Abstract

The current evaluation compared the effects of 2 differential reinforcement arrangements and a nondifferential reinforcement arrangement on the acquisition of tacts for 3 children with autism. Participants learned in all reinforcement-based conditions, and we discuss areas for future research in light of these findings and potential limitations.

Comparing skill acquisition under varying onsets of differential reinforcement: A preliminary analysis

“…The asterisk represents the session differential reinforcement was initiated in the early and late onset conditions. efficiency relative to nondifferential reinforcement (e.g., Hausman et al, 2014;Karsten & Carr, 2009), but the most efficient differential reinforcement arrangement may differ across individuals (e.g., Boudreau et al, 2015) and tasks (Johnson et al, 2017). However, no research has directly evaluated when during instruction to begin differentially reinforcing unprompted and prompted correct responses.…”

“…Differential reinforcement, in relation to skill acquisition, consists of arranging higher quality, larger magnitude, or denser schedules of reinforcement for unprompted correct responses, while delivering lower quality, smaller magnitude, or leaner schedules of reinforcement for prompted correct responses (Johnson, Vladescu, Kodak, & Sidener, 2017). Although the use of differential reinforcement has been recommended by researchers (e.g., Grow & LeBlanc, 2013) and early intervention manuals (e.g., Leaf & McEachin, 1999;Lovaas, 2003), only eight studies have evaluated differential reinforcement during skill acquisition programs with individuals with autism and other developmental disabilities (Boudreau, Vladescu, Kodak, Argott, & Kisamore, 2015;Cividini-Motta & Ahearn, 2013;Fiske et al, 2014;Hausman, Ingvarsson, & Kahng, 2014;Johnson et al, 2017;Karsten & Carr, 2009;Olenick & Pear, 1980;Touchette & Howard, 1984). A subset of these studies evaluated the efficiency of one differential reinforcement arrangement (i.e., reinforcement quality or schedule) compared to nondifferential reinforcement (Hausman et al, 2014;Karsten & Carr, 2009;Olenick & Pear, 1980;Touchette & Howard, 1984).…”

“…The other subset of studies compared two or more differential reinforcement arrangements (Boudreau et al, 2015;Cividini-Motta & Ahearn, 2013;Fiske et al, 2014). Across studies, nondifferential reinforcement was most efficient for three out of ten participants.…”

Comparing procedures on the acquisition and generalization of tacts for children with autism spectrum disorder

“…The findings from the current and previous studies raise interesting questions as to how practitioners should select a teaching arrangement that most efficiently produces acquisition and generalized outcomes. Previous research has shown that the most efficient instructional arrangement is often learner‐specific (e.g., Boudreau, Vladescu, Kodak, Argott, & Kisamore, ; Koehler, Iwata, Roscoe, Rolider, & O'Steen, ). If this is the case, future research should attempt to delineate the variables that influence learner‐specific response patterns.…”

A comparison of computer‐assisted and therapist‐led instruction for children with autism spectrum disorder

“…Assessment‐based instruction provides a method for examining the efficacy of interventions prior to implementing them in practice. Assessments are used to determine which types of prompts to provide during instruction (e.g., Seaver & Bourret, ), the efficacy and efficiency of prompt‐fading strategies (e.g., Libby, Weiss, Bancroft, & Ahearn, ; Seaver & Bourret, ), efficient error‐correction strategies (e.g., Carroll, Joachim, St. Peter, & Robinson, ; McGhan & Lerman, ), and how to arrange consequences for independent and prompted correct responses (e.g., Boudreau, Vladescu, Kodak, Argott, & Kisamore, ). These assessments are needed to identify how to arrange instruction because the most efficacious and efficient instructional strategies often differ across individuals.…”