Using Fixed‐time Schedules to Maintain Behavior: A Preliminary Investigation

Dozier, Claudia L.; Carr, James E.; Enloe, Kimberley A.; Landaburu, Heidi J.; Eastridge, Dixie; Kellum, Karen Kate

doi:10.1901/jaba.2001.34-337

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Across all levels of evaluation, RFC + NCR after the GBG was effective for maintaining low levels of disruptive behavior. These results replicate the outcomes from research on the maintenance of behavior when response‐independent schedules follow response‐dependent schedules (e.g., Dozier et al, ; Ringdahl, Vollmer, Borrero, & Connell, ). However, without further analysis it is unclear why this procedure resulted in maintained treatment effects.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Comparison of components of the Good Behavior Game in a preschool classroom

Foley

Dozier

Lessor

2018

J of App Behav Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is an effective intervention package for decreasing disruptive behavior in various populations and environments. There is, however, limited research evaluating the GBG with preschoolers. Furthermore, few studies have evaluated the effects of components of the GBG, and of those that have, most have done so only after exposure to the GBG package. We evaluated the effects (a) of the GBG on disruptive behavior of preschoolers during group instruction and (b) the major components of the GBG before and after implementation of the GBG package (c) at both the group and individual level. Results suggest that the GBG package was necessary for decreasing disruptive behavior. However, after exposure to the GBG, a response‐independent contingency was effective for maintaining low levels of disruptive behavior at both the group and individual level.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Comparison of components of the Good Behavior Game in a preschool classroom

Foley

Dozier

Lessor

2018

J of App Behav Analysis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under these conditions, consideration needs to be given as to how desired behavior would be maintained during the thinning phase. There has been relatively little research on the maintenance of behavior following FT schedule thinning (see Dozier et al 2001), which is one focus of the current report. Failure to overcome these difficulties (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Fixed-Time Reinforcement Delivered by Teachers for Reducing Problem Behavior in Special Education Classrooms

Tomlin

Reed

2012

J Behav Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of fixed-time (FT) reinforcement schedules on the disruptive behavior of 4 students in special education classrooms were studied. Attention provided on FT schedules in the context of a multiple-baseline design across participants substantially decreased all students' challenging behavior. Disruptive behavior was maintained at levels lower than baseline throughout reinforcement thinning and follow-up phases. The results extend existing literature on the use of FT schedules of reinforcement and provide evidence that FT schedules of reinforcement can be practical to implement in special educational classroom settings.

show abstract

“…Applied studies on FT reinforcement schedules have focused primarily on the treatment of problem behavior (e.g., Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, & Mazaleski, 1993). However, research findings also have suggested some conditions under which FT schedules might support response maintenance (e.g., Dozier et al, 2001; Ringdahl, Vollmer, Borrero, & Connell, 2001). Although time‐based schedules have been a topic of considerable study, their effects on performance when combined with other schedules have received relatively little empirical attention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fixed‐time Schedule Effects in Combination With Response‐dependent Schedules

Borrero¹,

Bartels-Meints²,

et al. 2011

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the effects of fixed-interval (FI), fixed-time (FT), and conjoint (combined) FI FT reinforcement schedules on the responding of 3 adults who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Responding on vocational tasks decreased for 2 of 3 participants under FT alone relative to FI alone. Responding under FI FT resulted in response persistence for 2 of 3 participants. Results have implications for the maintenance of desirable behavior, as well as for situations in which FT treatment has been implemented for problem behavior and problem behavior is nevertheless reinforced by caregivers.Key words: conjoint schedules, noncontingent reinforcement, time-based schedules, schizophrenia, vocational skillsFixed-time (FT) schedules involve the delivery of a stimulus independent of behavior after a set period of time has elapsed (Catania, 1998). Applied studies on FT reinforcement schedules have focused primarily on the treatment of problem behavior (e.g., Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone, Smith, & Mazaleski, 1993). However, research findings also have suggested some conditions under which FT schedules might support response maintenance (e.g., Dozier et al., 2001;Ringdahl, Vollmer, Borrero, & Connell, 2001). Although timebased schedules have been a topic of considerable study, their effects on performance when combined with other schedules have received relatively little empirical attention. In the natural environment, it is unlikely that any simple schedule occurs in isolation. Rather, schedules that operate in the natural environment are likely to be a blend of simple and complex schedules (Nevin, 1998).In one of the first studies of combined response-dependent and response-independent schedules, Lattal and Bryan (1976) exposed the key pecking of three pigeons to a fixed-interval (FI) reinforcement schedule, in which the first response that occurred after a specified period of time had elapsed produced a reinforcer. Next, the previously evaluated FI schedule was accompanied by an FT schedule that was denser than the FI schedule. The behavior of some subjects decreased when both FI FT schedules were in place, whereas the behavior of others increased relative to when the FI schedule was implemented alone. Both outcomes are relevant to at least two clinical scenarios. First, the response increases observed by Lattal and Bryan suggest that combining FI and FT schedules might be a useful clinical strategy to maintain appropriate behavior. Alternatively, the response decreases suggest that treatments involving FT schedules, designed to decrease behavior, might remain effective even if behavior is intermittently reinforced. Given the relevance of conjoint FI FT outcomes and the inconsistent outcomes reported by Lattal and Bryan, the present study was designed to further evaluate them with a clinically relevant human population.

show abstract

Using Fixed‐time Schedules to Maintain Behavior: A Preliminary Investigation

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

Comparison of components of the Good Behavior Game in a preschool classroom

Comparison of components of the Good Behavior Game in a preschool classroom

Effects of Fixed-Time Reinforcement Delivered by Teachers for Reducing Problem Behavior in Special Education Classrooms

Fixed‐time Schedule Effects in Combination With Response‐dependent Schedules

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About