A Preliminary Evaluation of a Token System with a Flexible Earning Requirement

Abstract

Token systems often involve a predetermined number of tokens required prior to exchange for a terminal reinforcer. The effectiveness of token systems implemented in this manner has been well documented within the literature; however, some have discussed the possibility of a fixed earning requirement creating a context in which the learner no longer emits the desired behavior once the terminal number is achieved. A possible alternative to a fixed earning requirement is selecting the earning requirement based upon learner responding and leaving the requirement unknown to the learner until the moment of exchange. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a token system with a flexible earning requirement to increase the frequency of comments during snack for 3 children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The results of a nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design demonstrated the flexible token system was effective at increasing the rate of comments in addition to the cumulative number of novel comments. Keywords token system. flexible. shaping. commenting. autism A token economy is a contingency system in which tokens are earned for engaging in desired behavior that can be exchanged for presumably reinforcing items or activities. Token economies are commonly used in behavioral intervention to improve desired behavior and decrease the probability of undesired behavior (Hackenberg, 2018; Kazdin, 1977; Matson & Boisjoli, 2009). Ayllon and Azrin (1965) first described the use of a token economy with residents in a state hospital; however, they had been developing and modifying the procedures since 1961 (Ayllon & Azrin, 1968). Ayllon and Azrin (1965) provided tokens to residents contingent upon the resident displaying a predetermined behavior (e.g., selfgrooming, doing laundry). The tokens earned by each resident could then be exchanged for a variety of activities (e.g., walking around the hospital grounds). The results demonstrated

A randomized clinical trial of three prompting systems to teach tact relations

“…Although the three prompting systems were equally effective, it may be the case that the maintenance of skills taught with one system is better than the others and/or the participants and/or interventionists preferred one prompting method over the others. Finally, and similar to other studies utilizing clinical judgment (e.g., Cihon et al, ; Cihon et al, ; J. B.…”

Observational Effects on the Food Preferences of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…That is, it may be unlikely that this intervention would be effective with previously avoided food. Second, the intervention required clinical judgment (e.g., Cihon, Ferguson, Leaf, et al, 2019; Cihon, Ferguson, Milne, et al, 2019), which is an approach that requires changes in therapist behavior that is responsive to moment-to-moment changes in participant behavior and identification of functional reinforcers for participants. This may create replicability challenges for future researchers.…”

Evaluating three methods of the presentation of target stimuli when teaching receptive labels

“…Finally, two of the conditions (i.e., unconstrained and constrained) included the use of clinical judgment that involved in‐the‐moment assessment of learner responding to inform changes in the interventionists' behavior. These methods have been cited as potentially creating replicability problems even though they may closer align with actual practice (Cihon et al, 2019; Cihon et al, 2019). This study extends previous literature using clinical judgment by having the interventionists select variables that contributed to their decision‐making.…”

“…For example, the most common response, “child's attending behavior during teaching sessions,” could mean the interventionist was sticking with a particular target because attending to it was relatively good or poor, or the interventionist was rapidly switching between targets because attending was relatively poor. Nonetheless, it is essential for future researchers to continue to incorporate methods to evaluate the conditions under which changes are made and what those changes involve (e.g., Cihon et al, 2019). Doing so will help to increase the replicability of research involving in‐the‐moment assessment and potentially inform training others in the methods employed within the research.…”

“…That is, unlike the two aforementioned conditions, there were no predetermined restrictions for what stimulus to target and when to target a particular stimulus. However, similar to previous studies evaluating the effectiveness of in‐the‐moment assessment (e.g., Cihon et al, 2019), the interventionists were provided with some guidelines. First, if the participant responded correctly during daily probes or teaching trials on a particular target, it may be beneficial to prioritize targeting the other stimuli.…”