Noncontingent Reinforcement
Study: Waller & Higbee (2010)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Teachers at the school identified two students who displayed highly disruptive behavior and referred them for participation in the study.

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

Participant 1 (Brent) was classified with emotional disturbance and reported by teacher to engage in highly disruptive behavior. Participant 2 (David) was classified with a specific learning disability and reported by teacher to engage in highly disruptive behavior. Topographies of disruptive behavior included talking out without permission, inappropriate hand gestures, making noises, playing with or throwing objects, or getting out of seat without permission.

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’ withdrawal design (authors describe as reversal design) A = baseline B = FT reinforcement (NCR) B’ = FT reinforcement (NCR) with schedule thinning

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

At the beginning of each FT escape session, the paraprofessional placed two small sticky notes on the participant’s desk, which were labeled “work” (yellow note) and “break” (orange note). At the beginning of each session, the paraprofessional walked by the participant’s desk and pointed to the note labeled “work” as the prompt to begin working. At predetermined FT intervals (determined by measuring the mean latency to disruptive behavior during baseline sessions), the paraprofessional walked by the participant’s desk and pointed to the note labeled “break” to cue the participant to take an in-seat break from instruction. The paraprofessional used a silent vibrating timer to cue the delivery of escape on the appropriate reinforcement schedule and a second silent vibrating timer to measure the duration of the breaks. At the end of the break, the paraprofessional approached the participant’s desk and pointed to the note labeled “work” as a prompt to return to working on the assigned task. During the second intervention condition (B’), the FT schedule was increased when disruptive behavior remained under 10% for three consecutive sessions. The duration of the break decreased to 30 s when the FT schedule reached 240 s for both participants. If disruptive behavior occurred during more than 10% of intervals for three consecutive sessions, the FT schedule was decreased by 30 s until the disruptive behavior remained below 10% for three consecutive sessions. *The reinforcer was selected based on results of a functional analysis (highest rates of disruptive behavior during escape conditions for both participants).

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 regular classroom management system (i.e., intermittent reprimands and reminders to stay on task) was in place during all sessions. During baseline, the paraprofessional gave the participant independent math tasks and a verbal instruction to begin working. The classroom teacher behaved as usual, giving instructions, answering students’ questions, and providing intermittent reprimands and reminders to keep working.

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

Introduction and withdrawal of FT schedule of reinforcement for 2 participants

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’ design allows three demonstrations of effect per participant (only distinction between B condition and B’ condition was that the FT schedule was gradually thinned in the B’ 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 reported.