Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO)
Study: Didden et al. (1997)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Participants were selected based on teacher and teacher assistant reports of problem behavior occurring in the classroom. All participants attended school at a physical rehabilitation center.

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

Participants engaged in inappropriate vocalizations, out-of-seat behavior, stereotypy, and other 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:

An A-B-A-B withdrawal design was used to evaluate the effects of the DRO procedure on the average problem behavior of all five students. A: Baseline B: DRO

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

Prior to each session, participants selected a reward for which three tokens could be exchanged following the session. Participants each earned a token for each interval in which they refrained from engaging in target behaviors. Each interval, the teacher set a kitchen timer for the pre-specified interval, and when it rang, an observer told her which students had earned tokens. Tokens were stickers put on individual charts on the blackboard. Intervals were initially set at 1 min. Each time all participants earned enough tokens to exchange for rewards for two consecutive sessions, interval duration was increased by 1 min beginning in the next session. Verbal corrections were sometimes delivered contingent on target behaviors occurring during sessions, and when a participant did not earn a token for an interval, they received an explanation from the teacher and observer.

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]):

No formal contingencies were in effect for either target or appropriate behaviors. Teacher and assistant were instructed to deal with behaviors in their typical manners. Verbal corrections were sometimes delivered contingent on target behaviors.

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

Replication of treatment effect was demonstrated across sequential introductions and withdrawals of the DRO intervention across all participants (proportion of intervals with problem behavior were averaged across 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).

The design contains three demonstrations of experimental control (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: