Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO)

Study: Didden, de Moor, & Bruyns (1997)

Study Type: Single-Subject Design

Participants: Partially Convincing Evidence

Risk Status: Participants engaged in inappropriate vocalizations, out-of-seat behavior, stereotypy, and other disruptive behavior.

Demographics:

 

Age/ Grade

Gender

Race-ethnicity

Socioeconomic status

Disability Status

ELL status

Other Relevant Descriptive Characteristics

Case 1: Laura

5 years and 8 months old

Female

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Laura had serious physical handicaps, frequently uttered inappropriate vocalizations, and showed out-of-seat behavior (Didden et al., 1997).

Case 2: Joost

5 years and 8 months old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Joost had a diagnosis of ADHD and often engaged in high-rate stereotypic behaviors such as mouthing, body rocking, and hand flapping (Didden et al., 1997).

Case 3: Chris

5 years and 6 months old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Chris had a diagnosis of hemiparesis (weakness of one side of the body) and engaged in out-of-seat behavior and “frequently disturbed other children” (Didden et al., 1997).

Case 4: Teun

5 years and 7 months old

Male

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Teun had major impairments of fine motor skills and engaged in high rates of out-of-seat behavior (Didden et al., 1997).

Case 5: Sandra

6 years and 9 months old

Female

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Not reported

Sandra had juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. She engaged in high rates of stereotypic mouthing (Didden et al., 1997).

Training of Instructors: Interventionist background was not reported.

Design: Convincing Evidence

Does the study include three data points or sufficient number to document a stable performance within that phase? Yes

Is there opportunity for at least three demonstrations of experimental control? Yes

If the study is an alternating treatment design, are there five repetitions of the alternating sequence? Not applicable

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent? Not applicable

Implemented with Fidelity: Unconvincing Evidence

Description of when and how fidelity of treatment information was obtained: Fidelity of treatment data were not reported.

Results on the fidelity of treatment implementation measure: Fidelity of treatment data were not reported.

Measures Targeted: Convincing Evidence

Targeted Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

Mean percentage intervals with disruptive behaviors

Interobserver agreement was calculated in 25% of the sessions across experimental conditions. Point-by-point agreement was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying the quotient by 100. Mean interobserver agreement was 97.3% (range, 95.6% to 98%) for inappropriate use of chair, 97% (range, 93.8% to 95.8%) for mouthing, and 97.9% (range, 95.8% to 99%) for inappropriate interaction.

Topographies of problem behaviors measured included those identified by the teacher as most disruptive to instruction: inappropriate use of the chair (including out-of-seat behavior), stereotypic mouthing, and inappropriate interactions with others. These topographies are considered relevant to the program’s focus.

N/A

 

Broader Measure

Reliability statistics

Relevance to program focus

Exposure to related support among control group

N/A

 

 

 

 

Mean ES Targeted Outcomes: N/A

Mean ES Administrative Outcomes: N/A

Effect Size:

Visual Analysis (Single-Subject Designs): Convincing Evidence

Description of the method of analyses used to determine whether the intervention condition improved relative to baseline phase (e.g. visual analysis, computation of change score, mean difference): Visual inspection.

Results in terms of within and between phase patterns: Data were collapsed into one representation of mean levels of disruptive behavior across participants. During the first baseline phase of the A-B-A-B design, mean levels of disruptive behavior were moderately high and variable. When the DRO intervention was introduced, mean disruptive behavior dropped to near-zero levels with little variability. These levels were consistent throughout the phase until the DRO intervention was withdrawn. At that point, mean levels increased immediately, although not to previous baseline levels. Mean levels were higher than during DRO and were variable. When DRO was introduced a second time, mean percentage intervals of problem behavior immediately returned to previous levels. After a single data point in which mean problem behavior occurred for approximately 10% of intervals, levels remained stable and close to zero (three demonstrations of effect).

Disaggregated Outcome Data Available for Demographic Subgroups: No

Target Behavior(s): Externalizing

Delivery: Individual, Small groups (n<6)

Fidelity of Implementation Check List Available: No

Minimum Interventionist Requirements: Paraprofessional, No training required

Intervention Reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse: No

What Works Clearinghouse Review

This program was not reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse.

Other Research: Potentially Eligible for NCII Review: 6 studies

Call, N. A., Pabico, R. S., Findley, A. J., & Valentino, A. L. (2011). Differential Reinforcement with and without Blocking as Treatment for Elopement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 903-907.

Conyers, C., Miltenberger, R. G., Maki, A., Barenz, R., Jurgens, M., Sailer, A., & Kopp, B. (2004). A Comparison of Response Cost and Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior to Reduce Disruptive Behavior in a Preschool Classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 411-415.

Foxx, R. M., McMorrow, M. J., Fenlon, S., & Bittle, R. G. (1986). The Reductive Effects of Reinforcement Procedures on the Genital Stimulation and Stereotypy of a Mentally Retarded Adolescent Male. Analysis & Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 6, 239-248.

Grauvogel-MacAaleese, A., & Wallace, M. D. (2010). Use of Peer-Mediated Intervention in Children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 547-551.

Himle, M. B., Woods, D. W., & Bunaciu, L. (2008). Evaluating the Role of Contingency in Differentially Reinforced Tic Suppression. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 285-289.

Luiselli, J. K., Helfen, C. S., Colozzi, G., Donellon, S., & Pemberton, B. (1978). Controlling Self-Inflicted Biting of a Retarded Child by the Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior. Psychological Reports, 42, 435-438.