Differential Reinforcement of Other Behavior (DRO)
Study: Luiselli et al. (1978)

Describe how students were selected to participate in the study:

Participant selection was not described.

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

Participant had a diagnosis of moderate intellectual disability. He engaged in hand biting that was causing irritation and abrasion to his hands as well as disrupting learning. Hand biting occurred at high rates across classroom settings and was recorded with a frequency counter each time any part of his hand was in his mouth.

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:

The effects of DRO versus baseline conditions on hand-biting were evaluated using a multiple baseline across instructional settings design. A: Baseline B: Treatment (DRO)

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

DRO procedures included delivering a reward when hand biting did not occur throughout a specified interval. At the start of each interval, the teacher placed an array of preferred edibles in front of the participant, along with a mechanical timer set at a specified interval. When the interval elapsed, the teacher sounded a bell and allowed the student to choose from an array of preferred edibles provided he had not engaged in hand-biting during the interval. The teacher also delivered praise contingent on the absence of hand-biting. When hand-biting occurred during an interval, the teacher sounded the bell and moved the array of edibles away. Contingent on the student’s sitting with his hands on his lap for 5 s, the teacher returned the tray and reset the timer at the specified interval. Intervals were set at 1 min during the first treatment session in each setting. Intervals increased by 1 min each time the student refrained from hand biting during two consecutive intervals.

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]):

In baseline conditions, no consequences were programmed for hand-biting. The teacher delivered praise contingent on each correct response to an instructional prompt (FR1) and a token for every third correct response (FR3). Tokens were exchanged for participation in activities throughout the day (e.g., snack, play). All baseline conditions were reported to be present during treatment conditions, including reward systems.

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

Replications of treatment effect were demonstrated across 3 instructional settings (multiple baseline across settings).

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 (multiple baseline across three instructional contexts).

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

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:

No additional measures were reported.