Obtained Versus Programmed Reinforcement: Practical Considerations in the Treatment of Escape‐reinforced Aggression

Abstract

This investigation provides a preliminary examination of the difference between programmed and obtained reinforcement rates and its potential influence during treatment of aggression in a natural setting. Following a functional analysis that suggested that the aggression of a boy with autism was negatively reinforced, intervention was implemented by the boy's mother. Concurrent fixed-ratio (FR) 1 FR 1 schedules of escape were arranged for manding and aggression. When mands failed to compete effectively with aggression, obtained reinforcement ratios were calculated; these indicated that obtained reinforcement varied from the programmed schedule for aggression but not for mands. Increasing the rate of prompts for mands resulted in an increase in mands and a decrease in aggression to near-zero levels.

A Systematic Review of Parent-Implemented Functional Communication Training for Children With ASD

“…In one of those seven studies (Suess et al, 2014), two parents implemented FCT at or above 80% implementation fidelity and one parent implemented FCT with lower than 80% implementation fidelity on average. The remaining two studies did not provide sufficient information to assess whether or not parents implemented the intervention accurately (Johnson, McComas, Thompson, & Symons, 2004; Wacker, Harding, & Berg, 2008). Three studies included sessions in which the parent implemented FCT independently (i.e., without coaching; Mancil et al, 2009; Olive, Lang, & Davis, 2008; Suess et al, 2014).…”

Concurrent Reinforcement Schedules for Problem Behavior and Appropriate Behavior: Experimental Applications of the Matching Law

“…In these cases, reinforcement is provided following both problem behavior and appropriate behavior on competing schedules (i.e., a concurrent schedule arrangement), preferably with the denser schedule in place for appropriate behavior. Failure to implement treatment contingencies correctly in the natural environment will likely result in a concurrent schedule arrangement similar to choice arrangements evaluated in laboratory settings (e.g., Johnson, McComas, Thompson, & Symons, 2004; St. Peter Pipkin, Vollmer, & Sloman, 2009; Wilder, Atwell & Wine, 2006).…”

Empirical Application of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior to Interventions for Children with Autism: A Review

“…These studies evaluated the effects of different FCR topographies on levels of destructive behavior (Danov, Hartman, McComas, & Symons, 2010;Derosa, Fisher, & Steege, 2015), preference for different FCR topographies (Torelli et al, 2016), and variability of FCR topographies (Adami, Falcomata, Muething, & Hoffman, 2017;Grow, Kelley, Roane, & Shillingsburg, 2008). Other topics in this section of the literature included generalization of FCRs across functional contexts (Falcomata, White, Muething, & Fragale, 2012), negatively reinforced FCRs (Yi et al, 2006), effects of response effort on response rates for mands and destructive behavior (Buckley & Newchok, 2005), and differences in obtained reinforcement and programmed reinforcement during FCT (Johnson, McComas, Thompson, & Symons, 2004). Three of these studies looked at fading the schedule of reinforcement for the FCR to be more practical (Falcomata, Muething, Gainey, Hoffman, & Fragale, 2013a;Falcomata, Wacker, Ringdahl, Vinquist, & Dutt, 2013b;Schlichenmeyer, Dube, & Vargas-Irwin, 2015).…”