Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO)
Study: Haring & Kennedy (1990)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Participants were referred by teachers for engaging in frequent problem behaviors that interfered with classroom and community activities. Teachers completed the Motivation Assessment Scale (Durand, 1988) and participants scored relatively high (in a pool of four students) on the subscales of self-stimulation and escape and comparatively low on the subscales of attention and tangible reward.

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

Participant 1 (Sandra) engaged in frequent problem behaviors across settings including body rocking, loud vocalizations, and spitting. Participant 2 (Raff) engaged in body rocking, hand flapping, and head bobbing across settings.

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:

Multitreatment designs were used for both participants in each of two settings (leisure and task). A: Baseline B: DRO C: Time out For Participant 1 (Sandra), an A-B-C-B-C-B design was used to evaluate the relative effects of DRO and time out on stereotypy in the task condition, while an A-C-B-C-B-C design was used in the leisure setting. For Participant 2 (Raff), an A-C-B-C-B-C-B design was used to evaluate the relative effects of DRO and time out on stereotypy in the task condition, while an A-B-C-B-C design was used in the leisure setting.

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

Both participants received the following treatments in task and leisure settings, respectively. DRO in instruction: Students had to omit stereotypy and produce a correct response to an instructional prompt during a trial to earn a token. Trials lasted 15 s each. After 10 tokens were earned, the student exchanged them for an edible reward and a break from instruction. If the student did not earn 10 tokens, sessions were ended after 10 min. DRO in leisure: Token delivery was contingent on the student omitting problem behavior for 15 s. Once the student earned 10 tokens for the omission of problem behavior, sessions ended and the student exchanged his or her tokens for an edible reward. If the student did not earn 10 tokens, sessions were ended after 10 min.

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]):

A single baseline phase was conducted until stable rates of stereotypy were observed (condition A). Subsequent to the initial baseline phase, the timeout condition served as the control/comparison condition. The same procedures were implemented for both participants in baseline and comparison (timeout) conditions, and were implemented as follows: Instruction baseline: Edible rewards were delivered contingent on correct responses that accumulated on a plate in front of the student until the end of the session, at which time the student consumed what he or she had earned. Problem behavior was ignored. Instructional sessions lasted 10 min. Timeout (task withdrawal) in instruction: As in baseline, edible rewards were accrued contingent on correct responses and available for consumption at the end of the session. Instructional tasks were removed for 15 s contingent on problem behavior. All sessions lasted 10 min. Leisure baseline: Students engaged in listening to a radio (Sandra) or looking at magazines (Raff). All problem behavior was ignored. Sessions lasted 10 min. Timeout (task withdrawal) in leisure: Leisure items were removed for 15 s contingent on problem behavior until problem behavior was omitted for 15 s. Sessions lasted 10 min.

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

Replication for both participants was demonstrated by repeated, sequential introduction and withdrawal of DRO procedures in each setting (task and leisure).

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 Sandra, there were four demonstrations of experimental control in the task setting (A-B-C-B-C-B design) and four demonstrations of experimental control in the leisure setting (A-C-B-C-B-C design). For Raff, there were three demonstrations of experimental control in the leisure setting (A-B-C-B-C design) and five demonstrations of experimental control in the task setting (A-C-B-C-B-C-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: