Noncontingent Reinforcement
Study: Van Camp et al. (2000)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Participants had been referred by teachers and parents for the assessment and treatment of severe behavior problems (aggression and/or self-injury).

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

Participants had been diagnosed with moderate to severe intellectual disability and were referred by teachers and parents for the assessment and treatment of severe behavior problems (aggression and/or self-injury). Aggression was defined as hitting, pinching, kicking, or pushing the therapist. Self-injury was defined as forceful contact between one or both hands and any part of the head.

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:

For Participant 1 (Roger), the relative effects of fixed time and variable time schedules of noncontingent reinforcement were evaluated via a multi-element (alternating treatments) design with an initial baseline condition For Participant 2 (Rachel), a A-B-A-B’ reversal design was used, in which the B condition represented the variable time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement and the B’ condition represented the fixed time schedule of noncontingent reinforcement. (Authors describe design as A-B-A-C.)

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

Participant 1 (Roger): During the treatment analysis, fixed time (FT) and variable time (VT) sessions were conducted each day, and the order of conditions alternated across days. During both FT and VT sessions, the reinforcer (i.e., dish scrubber) was delivered for 20 s, and aggression no longer produced access to the reinforcer (i.e., extinction). Initial schedules were determined by calculating the mean latency to the first target behavior that followed each reinforcer removal during baseline sessions, and these mean latencies were averaged across the last three baseline sessions. Roger’s initial FT and VT schedules were set at 14 s and 22 s, respectively. Subsequent schedules for each treatment session were determined by calculating the mean latency of responding during the three preceding sessions. The FT and VT schedules were adjusted individually based on responding that occurred under the corresponding treatment condition. If no aggression occurred between reinforcer deliveries, the latency for that interval was set at twice the length of the interval. Thus, occurrences of aggression between scheduled reinforcer deliveries served to decrease the schedule for the following sessions, whereas nonresponding between scheduled reinforcer deliveries increased (thinned) the schedule. Participant 2 (Rachel): Rachel’s FT and VT schedules were predetermined and were not dependent on responding in baseline. The VT schedule was implemented during the first treatment phase, with the initial schedule at 100% reinforcement (Rachel had access to her toys for the entire session). The schedule was then thinned from 100% to VT 1 min by systematically decreasing the amount of time the reinforcer was available within each minute from 100% to 33.3% (VT 10 s, VT 20 s, VT 30 s, VT 40 s, VT 1 min). The schedule was then increased by 30-s increments, and the reinforcement access time remained at 20 s until the terminal schedule of 5 min was reached. The criterion for increasing the schedule was two consecutive sessions with responding below 0.7 responses per minute (representing an 80% decrease below mean baseline levels). The criterion for decreasing the schedule was three consecutive sessions with responding at or above mean baseline levels (3.5 responses per minute), but this never occurred. The VT phase terminated when three consecutive sessions with responding at or below 0.7 responses per minute were observed under VT 5 min. The initial schedule and schedule thinning procedures for the FT condition were identical to those used for the VT condition; however, the reinforcer was delivered at regular intervals. *Reinforcers were identified based on results of previous functional analyses for each participant (i.e., highest rates of problem behavior occurred during tangible condition) and results of paired choice preference assessments.

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]):

Participant 1 (Roger): Baseline sessions were identical to the tangible condition of Roger’s functional analysis and were 15 minutes in duration. Specifically, 20 s of access to leisure materials was delivered contingent on aggression. Participant 2 (Rachel): Baseline sessions were identical to the tangible condition of Rachel’s functional analysis and were 10 minutes in duration. Specifically, 20 s of access to leisure materials was delivered contingent on aggression or self-injury. All sessions (baseline and NCR conditions) were conducted in unused rooms at the participants’ schools.

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

For Participant 1 (Roger), an expected treatment effect was to be demonstrated via rapid alternation of FT and VT conditions. However, because there was no consistent differentiation between these conditions, the design only allows one demonstration of effect from the initial baseline to comparison phase. For Participant 2 (Rachel), replication of treatment effect is demonstrated via introduction and withdrawal of noncontingent reinforcement (VT and FT schedules).

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).

For Participant 1 (Roger), there is only one demonstration of experimental control (initial baseline to treatment comparison condition). For Participant 2 (Rachel), three demonstrations of experimental control are identified via A-B-A-B’ design.

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 reported.