Non Contingent Reinforcement (NCR)

Baseline:

- Paraprofessional gave participants the math tasks and verbal instructions.

- Classroom teacher behaved normally.

-Mean latency for target behavior was 23 seconds for Brent and 106 seconds for David.

Intervention:

- During escape sessions, paraprofessional would put two sticky notes on the participant's desks. 1. Work 2. Break

Returned to baseline (same as first)

Intervetion:

FT schedule was increased when the disruptive behavior was under 10% for three consecutive sessions.

The break decreased to 30 seconds when the FT schedule reached 240 seconds.

- Participants:

Mike- 34

Bonnie- 44

-Both diagnosed with profound mental retardation and referred for treatment for their SIB.

- Procedure

-Phase 1: Functional Analysis

- Attention condition

- Demand condition

-Alone condition

-Play condition

-Tangible condition

SIB occurred more during the attention condition for Bonnie and the tangible condition for Mike.

-Phase 2: Reinforcer Assessment

-Food items were high preference for both Mike and Bonnie.

Non Contingent Reinforcement (NCR)

Combining Noncontingent Escape and Functional Communication Training as a Treatment for Negatively Reinfoced Disruptive Behavior

Increasing On- Task Behavior Using Teacher Attention

Participant- "R" a 4year old boy diagnosed with autism

-history of extremely aggressive (head banging, hitting) and disruptive (screaming, throwing objects) behaviors

-limited nonfunctional verbal repetoire

Functional Analysis- Results indicate aggressive behavior is maintained by negative reinfocement (escape)

What is NCR??

Participants: 2 elementary school children- Sally and Joey both 7 years old

Typically developing

Display off task behavior that is disruptive to group instruction

Experimental Design

Results

A-B-C-A-D design used

Baseline- Same as demand condition during FBA

Noncontingent Escape

NCE and FCT

Baseline

NCE and FCT with changing Criterion

Results

An antecedent intervention in which stimuli with known reinforcing properties are delivered on a fixed- time or variable- time schedule independent of the learner's behavior

Mildon, R., Moore, D., and Dixon, R., (2004)

Increased rates of on task behavior and decreased rates of off task behavior for both students

Increased use of praise by teacher

Unintended effect of increased attention for all students as the teacher did not want to make the target students stand out

NCR can be used without the use of extinction

Limitation- Short study, only 16 days

Experimental Design

Using NCR effectively

Disadvantages

An initial functional behavior assessment without direct observations was conducted- determined target behavior is maintained by positive social reinforcement (attention)

Intervention- Fixed- time schedule of noncontingent teacher attention

Teacher would give attention in form of redirection of off- task behavior, or praise for positive behavior every 5 minutes

Teacher responded to students as normal between the 5 minutes- no extinction used

Advantages

• Does not teach a replacement behavior
• Free access to reinforcement can diminish motivations to engage in adaptive behavior
• Often need dense schedules of reinforcement
• Can inadvertantly reinforce maladaptive behaviors
• Non contingent Escape can be disruptive in a classroom setting

• Enhance Effectiveness by understanding:

-Amount and quality of reinfocer influence effectiveness

-Most treatments include extinction

-Reinforcer preferences may change over time

• Functional Behavior Assessment is helpful in understanding maintaining reinforcer
• Time based schedules of reinfocement ( Fixed-time schedule and Variable-time schedule)
• Thinning time based schedules
• Set terminal criteria

Riley, J., McKevitt, B, Shriver, M.and Allen, K., (2011)

• Easier to apply than other positive reductive techniques.
• Creates a positive learning environment
• Prevents extinction bursts
• Prevents deprivation of reinfocer that may

come if contingencies are not met when using differential reinforcement

Applied Behavior Analysis, Second Edition (2007). Cooper, J., Heron, T and Heward, W. ISBN- 0-13-142113-1

Discussion:

-Brent's treatment rapidly decreased his disruption and the mean percentage of approproate academic behavior was at 67%

- David's disruption also decreased and appropriate acadmic behavior increased to nearly 100% of intervals during the treatment phases.

-During the return to baseline, disruption increased and appropriate behavior decreased.

Limitations:

Schedule of reinforcement

Hard to replicate (impliment) without additional staff assistance inside the classroom.

Appropriate academic behavior was measured using partial-interval recording which may have overestimated the level of appropriate behavior.

The Effects of Fixed-Time Escape on Inappropriate and Appropriate Classroom Behavior

Rachael D. Walker and Thomas S. Higbee

Results

Conclusion

Non-Contingent Delivery of Arbitrary Reinforcers as Treatment for Self-Injurious Behaivor

~NCR is still a relatively new intervention

~Research continues to support it's use with individuals with developmental disabilities as well as typically developing students

~NCR seems to be relatively flexible in its use- extinction is not always necessary, arbitrary reinforcers may be used, and it can be combined with other interventions in an effort to teach alternative behaviors

* Participants: Brent (13) and David (14)

Brent classified with emotional disturbance.

David classified with a specific learning disability.

* Definitions

- Disruption: Defined as talking without permission, inappropriate hand gestures, making noises (ie: singing, humming, tapping) playing with or throwing objects, or getting out of the seat without permission.

- Appropriate academic behavior: Defined as writing on the worksheet, operating the calculator, and rasing the hand and asking questions related to the assignment.

* Procedure:

-Functional analysis concluded that the escape condition was associated with the highest level of problem behaviors for both participants.

-Reversal Design was used to test the effects of a FT schedule on the problem and appropriate beahviors inside the classroom.

Phase 3: NCR Assessment

- Both participants were put through a series of conditions in which both sets of reinforcers (arbitrary and maintaining) were either delivered or withheld.

-Multiple baseline across settings was used for Mike.

- Reversal design was used for Bonnie.

Baseline:

Baseline was done using a FR 1 (maintaining reinforcer) and was identical to the functinal analysis condition.

Highest rates of SIB occured when access to the maintaining reinfocer occured (attention for Bonnie and shoes-object for Mike)

Intervention (condition 1)

Included Arbitrary reinforcer plus FR 1 (maintaining reinforcer).

-Arbitrary reinforcer was delivered on a FT 10s schedule. SIB still produced access to the maintaining reinforcer.

Intervention (condition 2)

- Arbitrary reinforcer (FT 10s) plus extinction of the maintaining reinforcer.

-SIB was ignored

Sonya M. Fischer, Brian. A. Iwata and Jodi L. Mazaleski