Effects of Lag Schedules and Response Blocking on Variant Food Consumption by a Girl with Autism

Abstract

Food selectivity by individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is often viewed in the behavioral literature as a problem with compliance and treated accordingly. However, when viewed as a problem with invariance, it may be appropriate to treat the problem by using procedures that increase variant food consumption. Lag schedules of reinforcement have been shown to increase variability in verbal and play behavior of children with ASD. Therefore, we attempted to evaluate the effects of a lag schedule of positive reinforcement on variant food consumption by a girl with ASD and food selectivity. Ultimately, a lack of baseline variability in consumption precluded an evaluation of the programmed lag schedule but suggested that a discovery research approach may be informative. Thus, additional treatment components were added and evaluated in a component analysis. Response blocking of invariant consumption appeared to establish a lag schedule of reinforcement that increased variability and variety in food consumption, which was maintained across changes in the value of the lag schedule. Some potential behavioral processes responsible for the effects and implications for future research are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Lag Schedules and Functional Communication Training: Persistence of Mands and Relapse of Problem Behavior

“…The results indicated that the Lag 1/DRA procedure resulted in elevated levels of variable responding relative to the DRA procedure for two of the three participants. Subsequent studies further demonstrated the positive effects of lag schedules on other verbal responses (e.g., Esch, Esch, & Love, 2009;Lee & Sturmey, 2014;Susa & Schlinger, 2012), such as tacting (e.g., Heldt & Schlinger, 2012), phonemic variability (Koehler-Platten, Grow, Schulze, & Bertone, 2013), and intraverbals (e.g., Contreras & Betz, 2016), as well as nonverbal responding such as toy play (e.g., Baruni, Rapp, Lipe, & Novotny, 2014) and feeding Silbaugh, Wingate, & Falcomata, 2017).…”

Effects of Lag Schedules of Reinforcement on Variable Manding in Preschoolers With Disabilities

“…Over time, this modification appeared to weaken the response-to-automatic reinforcement relation for both Tumas and Fawn. Silbaugh et al (2017) found similar results in which they applied response blocking to prevent access to invariable behavior (i.e., food consumption). Our outcomes build on their findings and support the utility of blocking and redirection within FCT with lag reinforcement to address repetitive behavior.…”

“…Silbaugh and colleagues continued this research with young children with ASD in a series of three studies from 2017 to 2020. Using a Lag 1 schedule, researchers reinforced variability across functionally equivalent vocal mands (Silbaugh et al, 2017(Silbaugh et al, , 2020 or signs (Silbaugh & Falcomata, 2019), rather than across various mand modalities, as in the previous studies. In addition, prompting was used to elicit mands, if necessary, during the intervention condition.…”

Interventions for Increasing Acceptance of New Foods Among Children and Adults with Developmental Disorders: A Systematic Review

“…Wilcoxon signed rank (Z = − 2.972; p < 0.003) a NSilbaugh and Falcomata (2017), USACase study, reversal designN: 1Age: 4Gender: MDiagnoses: ASDHomeLag schedule of positive reinforcement and NCR30 sessions✓✓A decreasing trend in consumption ( M = 52.5%; range 20–90%) and variety ( M = 2.5; range 2–4) was observed across sessions during lag 0. Lag 1 increased consumption relative to lag 0 but with variability ( M = 53.3%; range 20–90%); variety of foods consumed also increased ( M = 3.06; range 2–4) a NSilbaugh et al (2017), USACase study, baseline and multiple graded interventionsN: 1Age: 3Gender: FDiagnoses: ASDHomeLag schedule of positive reinforcement and Response blocking of invariant consumption, least-to-most prompting and EE36 sessions✓✓No independent consumption was observed during baseline or Lag1/toys conditions. Lag 1/toys/least-to-most prompting/response blocking increased percentage consumption ( M = 43%).…”