Use of a Timeout Ribbon with and without Consequences as Procedures to Improve a Child's Compliance

Abstract

The purpose of the present case study was to evaluate use of a timeout ribbon with and without student-selected consequences on the compliance of a preschool student with disabilities. An ABACBC single-subject replication design was used. Compliance was low during the first baseline condition. When the timeout ribbon procedure was implemented in the classroom, compliance increased, but a return to baseline produced low compliance. When consequences were added to the timeout ribbon procedure, the child's compliance improved further. Additional replications of timeout ribbon and the timeout ribbon plus consequences generated less and less compliance. Possible reasons for the lack of robust findings were discussed.

The Effects of the Time-In Procedure on Decreasing Aberrant Behavior

“…Since TIR has been implemented, Ty has been able to learn at quicker rates (because he is not engaging in aberrant behaviors during work periods), appears to enjoy being out in the community, and is engaging more socially and more appropriately with his peers. These results are consistent to the results found in previous research studies (e.g., Foxx & Shapiro, 1978; Yeager & McLaughlin, 1994, 1995).…”

“…Several follow-up studies have examined the effects of the TIR on decreasing aberrant behaviors for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (e.g., Alberto et al, 2002; Fee, Matson, & Manikam, 1990; Yeager & McLaughlin, 1994, 1995). Fee and colleagues (1990) evaluated the effects of TIR for 59 typically developing children between the ages of 4 and 5 years.…”

“…First, we wanted to select only procedures that have been empirically shown to be effective in peer reviewed journals. There are several studies that have demonstrated that TIR can be an effective procedure for decreasing various aberrant behaviors (e.g., Alberto et al, 2002; Foxx & Shapiro, 1978; Yeager & McLaughlin, 1994, 1995). Hence, we felt that the procedure had the proper empirical support needed to implement it clinically.…”

A review of timeout ribbons.

“…When the aim was to improve appropriate behaviors, the outcomes suggested less effective results. Yeager and McLaughlin (1994) showed an increase from a mean of 4.5% intervals of compliance in baseline to a mean of 27% intervals of compliance during treatments. Yeager and McLaughlin (1995) also demonstrated a greater increase of compliance intervals (2.2% in baseline to 54.2% during timeout ribbon phase to 74.6% during timeout ribbon/precision request phase).…”

Parental Use of Time Out Revisited: A Useful or Harmful Parenting Strategy?

“…Parenting programs which focus on strategies to encourage appropriate behaviour, without providing tools for managing difficult behaviour generally show limited effects on children's behaviour (Cedar and Levant 1990), and the use of positive attention alone in the absence of back-up consequences is less effective (Jones et al 1992;Olson and Roberts 1987;Roberts et al 1981;Yeager and McLaughlin 1994).…”