Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO)
Study: Vance et al. (2012)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Teachers referred students in first through fifth grade who engaged in high-frequency problem behaviors in the general education classroom. Participants were not receiving special education services nor had a high incidence disability (e.g., specific learning disability, speech/language impairment).

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

Teachers initially referred students who engaged in verbal disruptions, arguments, walking around the room without permission, tantrums, and aggression. After teacher referral, experimenters conducted problem identification interviews with teachers as well as preliminary classroom observations to confirm severity and frequency of problem 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:

A-B-A-B designs were embedded within a nonconcurrent multiple baseline across three subjects design. An additional alternating treatments design was embedded within B phases for each participant to compare DRO to another intervention (self monitoring). The additional comparison is excluded from this review.

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

All sessions were conducted during independent seatwork or classroom instruction. The interventionist provided social attention contingent on the nonoccurrence of off-task behaviors for 2 min. At the end of every 2-min interval in which no off-task behaviors occurred, verbal praise was delivered. When the student engaged in off-task behaviors, the 2-min interval was reset.

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]):

Baseline sessions were also conducted during independent seatwork or classroom instruction. Teachers engaged in typical instructional behavior.

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

Replication of effect was demonstrated via sequential introduction and withdrawal of DRO procedures within participants. Replication was also demonstrated across participants within the multiple baseline design, although baselines were nonconcurrent, precluding vertical visual analysis.

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).

A-B-A-B designs were embedded for each participant within the multiple baseline across three participants design. Thus three demonstrations were possible within each participant. Three demonstrations may be considered possible across participants, however, baselines were not concurrent.

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

Non-concurrent

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: