Noncontingent Reinforcement
Study: Jones et al. (2000)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

The participant’s mother referred him to a clinic-based summer academic program where the study was conducted.

Describe how students were identified as being at risk for academic failure (AI) or as having emotional/behavioral difficulties (BI):

The participant had been diagnosed with ADHD and reported to engage in disruptive behavior.

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• below the 30th percentile on local or national norm, or
• identified disability related to the focus of the intervention?

%

BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION: What percentage of participants were at risk, as measured by one or more of the following criteria:

• emotional disability label,
• placed in an alternative school/classroom,
• non-responsive to Tiers 1 and 2, or
• designation of severe problem behaviors on a validated scale or through observation?

%

Please describe the study design:

Brief reversal design (A-B-A) A = baseline (contingent peer attention) B = NCR (noncontingent peer attention without extinction)

Clarify and provide a detailed description of the treatment in the submitted program/intervention:

Treatment sessions included noncontingent reinforcement in the form of peer attention. The context of treatment sessions included completing easy math facts (defined as performance with 100% accuracy). During 10-min sessions, the participant and a peer confederate were allowed to play with each other for 30 seconds at 90-second intervals. The 90-s intervals were signaled by a timer bell. Adults announced when they could “play with each other for 30 seconds” and after 30 seconds, they were told to return to their desks and get back to work. Treatment sessions did not include an extinction component. That is, the peer confederate also attended to the participant contingent on disruptive behavior. *The reinforcer (peer attention) was identified based on results of a functional analysis.

Clarify what procedures occurred during the control/baseline condition (third, competing conditions are not considered; if you have a third, competing condition [e.g., multi-element single subject design with a third comparison condition], in addition to your control condition, identify what the competing condition is [data from this competing condition will not be used]):

The baseline condition consisted of a condition in the same context (easy math facts with peer confederate present) and peer attention delivered contingent on disruptive behavior. Peer responses began with statements such as “You’re not working!” but transformed into more natural responses such as talking, laughing, or imitation. This baseline condition represented one of three test conditions of a functional analysis. The other two conditions included teacher attention (i.e., teacher reprimands contingent on disruptive behavior) and escape (i.e., task removal contingent on disruptive behavior).

Please describe how replication of treatment effect was demonstrated (e.g., reversal or withdrawal of intervention, across participants, across settings)

The NCR intervention was introduced and withdrawn for one participant in one setting.

Please indicate whether (and how) the design contains at least three demonstrations of experimental control (e.g., ABAB design, multiple baseline across three or more participants).

The design only contains two demonstrations of experimental control (A-B-A design). Additionally, there is only one data point in the second A condition.

If the study is a multiple baseline, is it concurrent or non-concurrent?

N/A

How was the program delivered?

Individually
Small Group
Classroom

Study measures are classified as targeted, broader, or administrative data according to the following definitions:

• Targeted measures
  Assess outcomes, such as competencies or skills, that the program was directly targeted to improve.
  • In the academic domain, targeted measures typically are not the very items taught but rather novel items structured similarly to the content addressed in the program. For example, if a program taught word-attack skills, a targeted measure would be decoding of pseudo words. If a program taught comprehension of cause-effect passages, a targeted measure would be answering questions about cause-effect passages structured similarly to those used during intervention, but not including the very passages used for intervention.
  • In the behavioral domain, targeted measures evaluate aspects of external or internal behavior the program was directly targeted to improve and are operationally defined.
• Broader measures
  Assess outcomes that are related to the competencies or skills targeted by the program but not directly taught in the program.
  • In the academic domain, if a program taught word-level reading skill, a broader measure would be answering questions about passages the student reads. If a program taught calculation skill, a broader measure would be solving word problems that require the same kinds of calculation skill taught in the program.
  • In the behavioral domain, if a program taught a specific skill like on-task behavior in one classroom, a broader measure would be on-task behavior in another setting.
• Administrative data measures apply only to behavioral intervention tools and are measures such as office discipline referrals (ODRs) and graduation rates, which do not have psychometric properties as do other, more traditional targeted or broader measures.

If you have excluded a variable or data that are reported in the study being submitted, explain the rationale for exclusion:

No additional measures were included.