Comparison of Fixed-Ratio and Fixed-Interval Schedules of Reinforcement within the Treatment of Escape-Reinforced Problem Behavior
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparison of Fixed-Ratio and Fixed-Interval Schedules of Reinforcement within the Treatment of Escape-Reinforced Problem Behavior |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Patrick W. Romani (ORCID |
| Source: | Journal of Behavioral Education. 2025 34(3):634-653. |
| Availability: | Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 20 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Behavior Problems, Outcomes of Treatment, Negative Reinforcement, Intervals, Behavior Modification, Intervention |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10864-023-09540-6 |
| ISSN: | 1053-0819 1573-3513 |
| Abstract: | The behavior-analytic approach to the assessment and treatment of problem behavior begins with a functional behavior assessment and concludes with function-based treatment implementation. Extinction bursts and the resurgence of problem behavior represent common barriers to successfully implementing these treatments. Recent research documents a common prevalence of these phenomena following contingency changes, including when transitioning from assessment to treatment. Researchers mitigate the disruptive impact of extinction bursts by controlling for the duration of exposure to the establishing operation (EO). Indeed, controlling for EO exposure when initiating treatment decreases the occurrence of problem behavior. While this effect has been documented, it is not clear if certain schedules of reinforcement are more appropriate for initial treatment arrangements than others. The purpose of the current study was to compare fixed-ratio (FR) and fixed-interval (FI) schedules of reinforcement implementation after controlling for the duration of EO exposure for participants who engaged in negatively reinforced problem behavior. Results generally showed both FR and FI treatment arrangements produced reductions in problem behavior and improvements in task completion. Despite these reductions, problem behavior seemed more likely to occur during the FI treatment arrangement. We will discuss these data in terms of identifying effective initial behavioral treatment arrangements for individuals engaging in escape-reinforced problem behavior. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1489751 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGklCjbT2EPqr-1sTlVUwdBAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKz-UOOhDJe4fLsr3AIBEICBm0OzK6YwktDK5-iEFnQ3O1KnmUkbYe0BlGXtRNSJz4xOMN3F97nHTwxrVVO_SLlE0IzUMd7ZvL1RsbYH71pIdQaTPDvePNCdPm6DobNxmOM_w8ig1Pty_dAka-EQnTkSwlDCFNt3tomoxpA2ET_lnQ9MeHjhUMCMuYcJcyh5uv50w3DTJEeHqUTTSOE6p5MAnTZSRUxKBQhdbBPu Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0188353655;41z01sep.25;2025Oct03.04:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188353655-1">Comparison of Fixed-Ratio and Fixed-Interval Schedules of Reinforcement within the Treatment of Escape-Reinforced Problem Behavior </title> <p>The behavior-analytic approach to the assessment and treatment of problem behavior begins with a functional behavior assessment and concludes with function-based treatment implementation. Extinction bursts and the resurgence of problem behavior represent common barriers to successfully implementing these treatments. Recent research documents a common prevalence of these phenomena following contingency changes, including when transitioning from assessment to treatment. Researchers mitigate the disruptive impact of extinction bursts by controlling for the duration of exposure to the establishing operation (EO). Indeed, controlling for EO exposure when initiating treatment decreases the occurrence of problem behavior. While this effect has been documented, it is not clear if certain schedules of reinforcement are more appropriate for initial treatment arrangements than others. The purpose of the current study was to compare fixed-ratio (FR) and fixed-interval (FI) schedules of reinforcement implementation after controlling for the duration of EO exposure for participants who engaged in negatively reinforced problem behavior. Results generally showed both FR and FI treatment arrangements produced reductions in problem behavior and improvements in task completion. Despite these reductions, problem behavior seemed more likely to occur during the FI treatment arrangement. We will discuss these data in terms of identifying effective initial behavioral treatment arrangements for individuals engaging in escape-reinforced problem behavior.</p> <p>Keywords: Fixed ratio; Fixed interval; Negative reinforcement; Resurgence</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Research shows youth diagnosed with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD) which are more likely to engage in problem behavior compared to their typically developing peers (Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref1">28</reflink>]). These problem behaviors include physical aggression (e.g., hitting), property destruction (e.g., throwing items), and self-injury (e.g., head banging). Such problem behaviors limit the home, school, and community opportunities for individuals diagnosed with IDD (Kurtz et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref2">15</reflink>]). Additionally, these behaviors can cause significant stress and anxiety for caregivers (Woodman et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref3">30</reflink>]). Therefore, there is a pressing need to identify effective treatment approaches for individuals diagnosed with IDD who exhibit problem behavior.</p> <p>Treatment grounded in the principles of applied behavior analysis represents an evidence-based approach for addressing these problem behaviors (Roane et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]). The behavior-analytic approach for assessing and treating problem behaviors typically involves a functional behavior assessment (FBA) followed by implementation of a function-based treatment (Ingram et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref5">14</reflink>]). The FBA consists of indirect, descriptive, and experimental assessments that lead to identification of behavioral function, or the reasons why problem behaviors occur (Tarbox et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref6">25</reflink>]). Among these FBA procedures, the experimental assessments (e.g., functional analysis of problem behavior) represent the gold standard for evaluating the function of problem behavior (Melanson &amp; Fahmie, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref7">19</reflink>]). Functional analyses generally reveal whether problem behaviors occur to access attention or preferred items (i.e., positive reinforcement), to escape from aversive stimuli (i.e., negative reinforcement), or are maintained by their own consequences (i.e., automatic reinforcement). Functional analysis results showing positively and negatively reinforced problem behavior lead to a function-based treatment, wherein alternative responses that serve the same function as problem behavior result in reinforcement, while problem behaviors result in extinction or less desirable outcomes (Vollmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref8">27</reflink>]). For instance, problem behavior reinforced by escape from task demands might lead to a treatment program in which compliance with a small task results in reinforcement. Results of a randomized control trial of this type of treatment showed statistically significant decreases in problem behavior compared to a waitlist control (Lindgren et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref9">18</reflink>]). Thus, there is an evidence-based assessment and treatment protocol for behavior analysts to follow when intervening on problem behaviors.</p> <p>One challenge associated with implementing these highly researched treatments is the occurrence of extinction bursts (Goh &amp; Iwata, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>]; Lerman &amp; Iwata, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref11">16</reflink>]; Piazza et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]). Extinction bursts refer to situations in which responding during any of the first three treatment sessions exceeds the average rate of problem behavior documented during the past five sessions of baseline (Lerman &amp; Iwata, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref13">16</reflink>]). These bursts often produce temporary increases in frequency and intensity of problem behavior, along with negative emotional behavior (Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>]). Lerman and Iwata ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]) documented the occurrence of extinction bursts in approximately 24% of the treatments they evaluated. These researchers observed fewer extinction bursts when extinction was paired with a differential reinforcement of alternative (DRA) behavior program. Lerman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]) showed similar results following analysis of 41 datasets for individuals receiving function-based treatment. More research is needed to understand how to facilitate a more successful transition from assessment to treatment involving DRA and extinction.</p> <p>Researchers have investigated ways to mitigate the likelihood of observing extinction bursts when initiating treatment. DeRosa et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref18">4</reflink>]) compared functional communication training (FCT) interventions in two conditions: one targeting a card exchange as the communicative response and the other targeting a vocal response. The card exchange response could be physically prompted, while the vocal response could not. The results showed that the card exchange response led to decreased rates of problem behavior and increased usage of the communicative response compared to the vocal response. The authors hypothesized that the therapist controlled the establishing operation (EO) during the card exchange condition, which led to decreased rates of problem behavior. That is, once the researchers introduced the EO (e.g., removal of a toy), they could physically prompt the card exchange response to then be able to deliver reinforcement. Fisher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]) extended this work by directly comparing FCT using a card exchange response when the response was immediately prompted following introduction of the EO and when the card exchange response was prompted according to a 5-s prompt delay. Indeed, these researchers showed less problem behavior in the immediate card exchange prompt condition because the therapist controlled the EO. Thus, it seems that one effective way to mitigate extinction bursts when initiating treatment involves employing strategies to assist the behavior analyst with controlling for EO exposure.</p> <p>In addition to the prompting strategies designed to control for EO exposure described by DeRosa et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref21">4</reflink>]) and Fisher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>]), researchers have explored other methods for identifying the optimal EO exposure before initiating treatment. Fisher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref25">8</reflink>]) used a progressive interval assessment to measure time from EO onset to the first occurrence of problem behavior. This practice helps determine the level of EO exposure a participant can tolerate before problem behavior occurs. Once the appropriate EO period is identified, the behavior analyst needs to determine which simple schedule of reinforcement to use. The majority of treatment arrangements for escape-reinforced problem behavior use a fixed-ratio (FR) schedule of reinforcement (Cipani &amp; Spooner, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref26">2</reflink>]). That is, the individual would need to complete a predetermined number of tasks before reinforcement delivery. This may be a preferable arrangement for clients as they control the rate of reinforcement (Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref27">9</reflink>]). An alternative approach, that may be appealing for applied settings, such as schools, is using interval schedules of reinforcement (Hulac et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref28">13</reflink>]). One example of this is the fixed-interval (FI) schedule of reinforcement in which reinforcement is delivered contingent on the first task completed after a time interval expires.</p> <p>Much research has compared responding on ratio and interval schedules of reinforcement (Baum, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref29">1</reflink>]). A key difference between FR and FI arrangements is that the ratio schedule will maintain a higher response rate if the rate of reinforcement between the schedules is equivalent (Ferster &amp; Skinner, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]). As Baum ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]) discussed, ratio schedules exhibit a direct proportionality between rate of reinforcement and response rate, whereas interval schedules do not as clearly. Applied to the current discussion, controlling for the duration of EO exposure should reduce the likelihood of problem behavior occurrence early in treatment. If applied to two treatment conditions, it should also establish a similar rate of reinforcement. Thus, controlling for EO exposure, regardless of the simple schedule of reinforcement in effect, should suppress problem behavior and encourage higher rate of alternative responses, with more alternative responses likely occurring during the FR condition. Demonstrating this effect would extend the line of research by DeRosa et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]) and Fisher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref33">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref34">8</reflink>]) as well as provide essential guidance for practitioners when identifying simple schedules of reinforcement to use early in treatment.</p> <p>In summary, behavior analysts follow a two-step assessment and treatment procedure to reduce problem behaviors in individuals with IDD. The challenge of managing extinction bursts during treatment initiation has received significant attention, and strategies like controlling EO exposure can be effective in mitigating their occurrence. However, when addressing negatively reinforced problem behaviors, it remains uncertain whether the type of reinforcement schedule (FR or FI) might influence treatment outcomes while controlling for EO exposure. The current study aims to compare rates of task completion and problem behavior when participants engaging in negatively reinforced problem behavior engage in treatment using FR and FI schedules of reinforcement after controlling for EO exposure.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188353655-4">Participants and Setting</hd> <p>Five patients referred to a specialized partial hospitalization program (PHP) for youth with neurodevelopmental disorders participated in this study. Any'a was a 10-year-old girl who engaged in aggression and negative comments. She presented with previous diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. She was vocally fluent and spoke in full sentences. Her caregiver identified double-by-single digit addition as the task demand to target in treatment. Alessia was an 8-year-old girl who engaged in self-injury and negative comments. She presented with previous diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder, mild intellectual disability, and unspecified sisruptive, impulse-control, and conduct disorder. She used phrased speech. Her caregiver identified single-by-single digit addition as the task to target in treatment. Teddy was an 11-year-old boy who admitted to the PHP with concerns for negative comments and physical aggression. He presented with previous diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and disruptive mood dysregulation disorder. He was vocally fluent and spoke in full sentences. His caregiver identified single-by-single digit multiplication as the task to target in treatment. Josey was a 16-year-old girl diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, moderate intellectual disability, and unspecified anxiety disorder. She presented with problem behaviors including self-injury and negative comments. She engaged in phrased speech. Her caregiver identified single-by-single digit addition as the task demand to target in treatment. Finally, Willum was a 6-year-old boy diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and unspecified anxiety disorder. He presented with aggressive behaviors and negative comments. He was vocally fluent and spoke in full sentences. His caregiver identified object counting as the task demand to target in treatment.</p> <p>Throughout the treatment of these five participants, no aggressive or self-injurious behaviors occurred. Thus, intervention targeted negative comments for all participants. The study procedures occurred in therapy rooms that measured 3.0 m × 3.1 m. Therapy rooms contained a table, two chairs, and leisure items. A data collector observed from behind a one-way mirror to collect data on task completion and problem behavior occurrence during sessions. We conducted an average of nine, 5-min sessions per day of this evaluation during the patient's admission to the PHP. We received retrospective approval to disseminate these data from the author's institutional review board. Thus, informed consent, outside of the consent participant's guardians signed to receive treatment in the hospital-based program, was not obtained.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-5">Response Definitions and Measurement</hd> <p>Behavior technicians, using iPad tablets equipped with the data collection application "Countee," collected data on the frequency of task completion and frequency of problem behavior. All participants completed math tasks that their caregivers or school teams identified as being associated with problem behavior during their treatment evaluations. Each discrete math item completed on a worksheet (printed on a standard 8-x-11-in sheet of paper) was recorded as an instance of task completion. For example, one instance of task completion would be answering "2 + 5 = 7." The type of math task presented to each participant remained consistent throughout the evaluation. The frequency of task completion was divided by 5 (the length of sessions) to produce a rate measure. The target problem behavior for all participants was negative comments. Negative comments included participants making inappropriate statements directed toward themselves (e.g., "I'm so stupid"), others (e.g., "I hate them"), or an activity (e.g., "I hate math"). We also counted this behavior when participants engaged in cursing or engaged in vocalizations above a conversational level. We divided the frequency of negative comments by 5 to produce a rate measure.</p> <p>Interobserver agreement (IOA) was assessed by having a second observer collect data at the same time as, but independent of, the primary observer. We calculated IOA by dividing the 5-min session into 10-s intervals. We then conducted an interval-by-interval comparison of the frequency of task completion and negative comments. An agreement was defined as both observers counting the same number of tasks completed or problem behaviors in a particular interval. A disagreement was defined as one observer counting a different number of tasks completed or problem behaviors in an interval. We divided the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied this by 100 to produce an IOA percentage.</p> <p>We collected IOA on 24% of all of Any'a's sessions across the functional analysis and treatment evaluation. Her combined IOA for task completion and problem behavior averaged 92% (range, 85–100%). The research team collected IOA on 33% of all sessions for Alessia and Josey. IOA for task completion and problem behavior during Alessia's evaluation averaged 95% (range, 90–100%), and IOA on task completion and problem behavior for Josey's evaluation averaged 91% (range, 87–100%). IOA was collected on 43% of all sessions for Teddy. IOA for task completion and problem behavior Teddy's evaluation averaged 89% (range, 80–100%). Finally, IOA was collected on an average of 39% of Willum's treatment evaluation. IOA for task completion and problem behavior during Willum's evaluation averaged 97% (range, 95–100%).</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-6">Experimental Design</hd> <p>We conducted the current study within two phases. We completed a functional analysis with each participant during Phase 1. We evaluated functional analysis results within a multielement design to identify the reinforcers maintaining the occurrence of problem behavior for each participant. Phase 2 was the treatment evaluation in which we compared the two different schedules of reinforcement. For Any'a, Alessia, and Teddy, we conducted their treatment evaluation within both a reversal, to show experimental control over the treatment program and negative comments, and alternating treatments design, to show experimental control over the occurrence of task completion and negative comments depending on the application of either FR or FI schedules of reinforcement. Due to the potential for sequence effects with this arrangement, we conducted Josey and Willum's analyses within an ABCACB and ACBABC reversal design, respectively.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-7">Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188353655-8">Phase 1: Functional Analysis of Problem Behavior</hd> <p>After conducting a paired stimulus preference assessment (to identify high- and low-preferred items), we conducted a functional analysis of problem behavior for each participant enrolled in this study (Fig. 1). Behavior technicians completed attention, free play, escape, and tangible conditions. Sessions of each condition lasted 5 min. Prior to the attention condition, a technician interacted with the participant for 1 min. The technician then gave the participant a low-preferred item and told them to play by themselves while they completed other tasks. Appropriate responses, such as communication, resulted in extinction. Contingent on the occurrence of problem behavior, the technician delivered 30 s of attention in the form of reprimands and redirection. The attention condition evaluated if problem behaviors occurred to gain access to attention. During escape, a technician directed the participant to complete a math worksheet. Task completion resulted in brief praise. Following the occurrence of problem behavior, the technician removed the demand and did not interact with the participant for 30 s. The participant did not have access to toys during this break. After the 30-s reinforcement period, the technician represented the demands. Escape sessions were conducted to evaluate if problem behaviors occurred to escape from demands. Prior to the tangible condition, a technician allowed the participant to interact with a high-preferred item for 1 min. After this time, the technician restricted access to the item. Appropriate requests resulted in extinction. However, the occurrence of problem behavior resulted in access to the high-preferred item for 30 s. The tangible condition evaluated if problem behaviors occurred to gain access to preferred items. During free play, a technician interacted with the participant and their high-preferred items. The technician delivered attention at least once every 30 s and avoided placing demands on the participant. Problem behavior resulted in extinction. Free play functioned as a control condition to compare against the other test conditions.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Functional analysis of negative comments results for all five participants</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-9">Calculating EO Exposure</hd> <p>To calculate each participant's EO exposure during the treatment evaluation, we analyzed the raw data from each escape session conducted during the functional analysis. The output document from Countee contained a list of the behaviors coded by the technicians and the time each coded behavior occurred. For all participants, we identified FI arrangements, by averaging the latency from demand presentation to the first negative comment across all baseline conditions. For example, if a therapist conducted three sessions of the escape condition for a participant and that participant first engaged in problem behavior 30 s after demand presentation, then 20 s, and finally 45 s, the FI arrangement for that participant would be the average of those values (i.e., FI 31 s). For Any'a, Alessia, and Teddy, FR sessions always followed FI sessions. To calculate the FR requirement, we yoked the average number of tasks completed during each work period within the preceding FI session to produce the FR requirement. We rounded up if the resulting number ended in 0.5 or above (e.g., 4.7 was rounded up to 5) and rounded down with the number ended in 0.4 and below (e.g., 4.2 was rounded down to 4). For Josey and Willum, we identified the FR arrangement by averaging the number of tasks completed prior to the occurrence of a negative comment within the escape baseline sessions. For example, if a therapist conducted three sessions of the escape condition, and the participant completed two tasks independently before problem behavior during the first session, then four tasks, and finally one task, the FR requirement would be the average of those values (i.e., FR-3). As above, the same rounding rules applied.</p> <p>After completing each participant's treatment evaluation, we compared the seconds of the session in which the EO was in place during FR and FI conditions (Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref35">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref36">8</reflink>]). We did this by summing the durations of reinforcer deliveries and subtracting this by the total session time. This produced the seconds of participant EO exposure. This was important to assure that the only difference between the FR and FI conditions was the schedule of reinforcement.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-10">Phase 2: Schedule of Reinforcement Comparison Analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188353655-11">Escape Baseline</hd> <p>The baseline sessions were exactly the same as sessions of the escape condition described in the functional analysis. Sessions of each baseline condition lasted 5 min.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-12">Fixed Ratio</hd> <p>The technician directed the participant to a table in the therapy room. The participant was told that they first needed to work and then they could play. The participant was then directed to start working. As the participant completed tasks, the technician provided brief praise. The technician also provided help upon request from the participant. If problem behavior occurred, the technician minimized attention to the behavior and reminded the participant to complete tasks in order to play every 30 s. Meeting the predetermined FR requirement led to a 1-min break to play with toys and the technician. A timer signaled the beginning and end of the break. When the break ended, the technician represented the task demands and repeated this procedure. The specific FR requirement varied depending on data collected during the previous sessions. The FR arrangement is specified on each participant's graph (see Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Sessions of each FR condition lasted 5 min.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Any'a's treatment evaluation comparing FR and FI schedules of reinforcement</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Alessia's treatment evaluation comparing FR and FI schedules of reinforcement</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Teddy's treatment evaluation comparing FR and FI schedules of reinforcement</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5 Josey's treatment evaluation comparing FR and FI schedules of reinforcement</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 6 Willum's treatment evaluation comparing FR and FI schedules of reinforcement</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-13">Fixed Interval</hd> <p>The technician directed the participant to a table in the therapy room. The participant was told that they first needed to work and then they could play. The technician covertly started a timer to track when the interval expired. As the participant completed tasks, the technician provided brief praise. The technician also provided help upon request from the participant. If problem behavior occurred, the technician minimized attention to the behavior and reminded the participant to complete tasks in order to play every 30 s. When the participant completed one task after the interval expired, the technician delivered reinforcement. The reinforcement interval lasted 1 min and was similarly signaled by the sound of a timer. When the timer sounded, indicating the end of the reinforcement interval, the technician repeated these procedures. The FI arrangement is specified on each participant's graph (see Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6). Sessions of each FI condition lasted 5 min.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-14">Concurrent Chains Assessment</hd> <p>After comparing rates of problem behavior and task completion, we assessed participant preference for the FR and FI schedules of reinforcement. At the beginning of these sessions, a therapist directed the participant to stand in front of a table in the therapy room. The therapist placed one chair on the right side of the table and another chair on the left side of the table. The therapist first exposed the participant to the contingency (FR or FI) on the right side of the table and then exposed the participant to the contingency on the left side of the table. Next, the therapist directed the participant to the middle of the table. The therapist instructed the participant to select whether they wanted to work under the FR or FI contingency (right or left sides of the table, respectively). When participants made their selection, they completed demands according to the most recent FR and FI schedules of reinforcement, depending on their choice. When they met the contingency requirements, the participants accessed reinforcement for 1 min. The therapist presented this same choice after the reinforcement period ended. The concurrent chains assessment continued until the participant selected the same choice (FR or FI) on three consecutive choice opportunities.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-15">Results</hd> <p>Figure 1 represents functional analysis results for all five participants. Figures 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 represent the treatment evaluations for all five participants. For each figure, the top panel represents problem behavior, and the bottom panel represents task completion. Any'a's functional analysis of negative comments showed maintenance by social negative reinforcement, in the form of escape from task demands. Negative comments during sessions of the escape condition averaged 0.87 responses per minute (rpm). Lower rates of negative comments occurred during the free play (0 rpm), tangible (0.13 rpm), and attention (0.07 rpm) conditions. Limited task completion occurred during the sessions of the escape condition (<emph>M</emph> = 0.2 rpm). We used the results from Any'a's escape sessions as baseline for this evaluation. The average latency to the first instance of problem behavior lasted 50 s. Thus, we selected an FI 50-s schedule of reinforcement for the first implementation of treatment. The ratio requirement varied depending on rates of task completion during each FI session (see above for a description of this calculation). Please see Fig. 2 for Any'a's treatment evaluation. During the first implementation of the FI condition, negative comments averaged 0.1 rpm and only occurred during one session. Task completion remained stable throughout (<emph>M</emph> = 1.0 rpm). No problem behaviors occurred during the first implementation of the FR condition, and task completion similarly remained stable (<emph>M</emph> = 1.0 rpm). The EO duration averaged 55.4 s during the FI condition and averaged 51.3 s during the FR condition. When Any'a returned to baseline, we observed increased rates of negative comments (<emph>M</emph> = 0.47 rpm) and decreased rates of task completion (<emph>M</emph> = 0.33 rpm). Using the same procedure described above for selecting the FI schedule of reinforcement, we determined that it would be FI 60-s schedule of reinforcement. During the return to the treatment evaluation, negative comments occurred at an average rate of 0.13 rpm with task completion averaging 0.6 rpm within the FI condition. No negative comments occurred during the return to the FR condition, and task completion occurred at an average of 0.33 rpm. The average EO exposure during this return to the treatment evaluation averaged 63.1 s during the FI condition and averaged 64.3 s during the FR condition. Any'a chose to work under the FR contingency for all three choices given to her during the concurrent chains assessment.</p> <p>Alessia's functional analysis of negative comments showed consistent rates of negative comments during the tangible (<emph>M</emph> = 1.6 rpm) and escape (<emph>M</emph> = 0.87 rpm) conditions of the functional analysis. As above, we found that the average latency to negative comments during the escape sessions was 60 s. Thus, we used an FI 1-min schedule of reinforcement during the first portion of the treatment evaluation. Please see Fig. 3 for Alessia's treatment evaluation. During the first implementation of the FI condition, negative comments occurred at an average of 0.15 rpm, and task completion occurred at an average of 1.4 rpm. No problem behavior occurred during the initial FR condition, with task completion occurring at an average of 1.6 rpm. The average duration of EO exposure during the FI condition averaged 60.3 s, and this averaged 58.4 s during the FR condition. The return to baseline produced increased occurrence of negative comments (<emph>M</emph> = 1.2 rpm) with a decreasing trend in rates of task completion (<emph>M</emph> = 1.95 rpm). The average latency to problem behavior during the return to baseline was 30 s. Thus, the FI schedule of reinforcement was FI 30 s. During the return to the FI condition, problem behavior occurred at mostly low rates (<emph>M</emph> = 0.57 rpm), and task completion occurred consistently (<emph>M</emph> = 1.5 rpm). The return to the FR condition produced low rates to no problem behavior (<emph>M</emph> = 0.04). Task completion occurred at stable rates (<emph>M</emph> = 1.36 rpm). During this return to the treatment evaluation, the average duration of EO exposure was 31.2 s during the FI condition and the average duration of EO exposure during the FR condition as 29.4 s. Alessia chose to complete work according to the FR schedule of reinforcement for three consecutive choices.</p> <p>Teddy's functional analysis of negative comments showed maintenance by social negative reinforcement in the form of escape from task demands (<emph>M</emph> = 2.5 rpm). The average latency to problem behavior was 90 s. Please see Fig. 4 for Teddy's treatment evaluation. During the FI 90-s condition, negative comments occurred at an average of 0.1 rpm with task completion occurring at a rate of 2.5 rpm. The initial FR condition implementation showed an average rate of negative comments of 0.15 rpm. Task completion occurred at an average of 2.0 rpm. The average duration of EO exposure during the FI condition averaged 92.4 s and averaged 90.2 s during the FR condition. The return to the escape baseline produced increased problem behavior (<emph>M</emph> = 0.6 rpm) with decreased occurrence of task completion over time (<emph>M</emph> = 2.1 rpm). The FI schedule of reinforcement was again calculated to be 90 s during the return to the treatment evaluation. No negative comments occurred during the FR and FI conditions. Task completion under the FI condition averaged 1.9 rpm and averaged 1.8 rpm under the FR condition. Again, similar time was spent in the EO between the two conditions (FI <emph>M</emph> = 95.6 s; FR <emph>M</emph> = 93.4 s) during the second half of the treatment evaluation. Teddy selected to work under the FI contingency during the first choice and then selected to work under the FR contingency for three consecutive choices.</p> <p>Josey's functional analysis of negative comments showed maintenance by escape from task demands (<emph>M</emph> = 1.1 rpm) and tangible (<emph>M</emph> = 0.4 rpm). The average latency to problem behavior was 9 s. Thus, the initial FI condition was FI 9 s. Please see Fig. 5 for Josey's treatment evaluation. Problem behavior variably occurred during the first implementation of the FI condition (<emph>M</emph> = 0.35 rpm) with task completion occurring at an average of 1.0 rpm. No task completion occurred during the escape sessions of the functional analysis. As a result, we calculated the average number of tasks completed prior to reinforcement being delivered during the preceding FI arrangement and set the initial schedule of reinforcement at FR-3. No problem behavior occurred, and task completion occurred at an average of 1.1 rpm. The average duration of EO exposure during the FI and FR conditions lasted 13.1 s and 10 s, respectively. Upon returning to the escape baseline, negative comments increased to an average of 2.4 rpm, and task completion decreased (<emph>M</emph> = 0.2 rpm). Again, we selected an FR-1 arrangement during the return to the treatment evaluation. No problem behaviors occurred, and task completion occurred at an average rate of 0.5 rpm. The average latency to negative comments during the escape baseline was 20 s. Thus, the schedule of reinforcement was set at FI 20 s. No problem behaviors occurred during the return to the FI schedule of reinforcement with task completion occurring at an average of 1.1 rpm. The average duration of EO exposure during the FI condition averaged 22 s and averaged 21 s during the FR condition. Josey selected to work according to the FR schedule of reinforcement on three consecutive presentations of the choice.</p> <p>Willum's functional analysis of negative comments showed maintenance by attention (<emph>M</emph> = 1.6 rpm), tangible (<emph>M</emph> = 1.4 rpm), and escape (<emph>M</emph> = 0.83 rpm). The average number of tasks completed prior to negative comments was one. Please see Fig. 6 for Willum's treatment evaluation. During the FR-1 schedule of reinforcement, problem behavior occurred during one session (<emph>M</emph> = 0.1 rpm) with task completion occurring at an average of 0.98 rpm. The average latency to negative comments during the escape baseline was 20 s. During the initial FI 20-s schedule of reinforcement, problem behavior occurred at low rates (0.13 rpm) with task completion occurring at an average of 2.6 rpm. Average duration of EO exposure during the FR condition was 24.4 s and averaged 26.2 s during the FI condition. The return to the escape baseline led to an increase in negative comments (<emph>M</emph> = 1.2 rpm) and low rates of task completion (<emph>M</emph> = 0.27 rpm). The average latency to the first instance of negative comments was 50 s. Problem behavior occurred during the first session of the FI condition and then decreased to zero (<emph>M</emph> = 0.6 rpm). Task completion occurred at an average of 0.8 rpm. The average number of tasks completed prior to the first instance of problem behavior was three during the escape baseline. During the FR-3 condition, no problem behaviors occurred, and task completion averaged 1.1 rpm. Average duration of EO exposure during the FR condition lasted 51.5 s and averaged 52.3 s during the FI condition. Willum selected to work under the FR contingency for three consecutive choices.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-16">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study compared treatments for negatively reinforced problem behavior when (a) the duration of EO exposure was matched to the average number of tasks completed prior to problem behavior or latency to problem behavior during the escape sessions of the functional analysis, and (b) task completion led to reinforcement according to a FR or FI schedule of reinforcement. We showed that each schedule of reinforcement was effective for decreasing problem behavior and increasing task completion. However, when problem behaviors occurred, they most commonly happened during the FI schedule of reinforcement condition for four out of five participants (Teddy being the exception). The average rate of problem behavior across all five participants during the FI condition was 0.2 rpm and was 0.06 rpm for the FR condition. Task completion occurred slightly more frequently during the FI condition relative to the FR condition. The average rate of task completion within the FI schedule averaged 1.4 rpm and averaged 1.2 rpm within the FR schedule. All five participants showed a preference for the FR schedule of reinforcement when assessed via a concurrent chains preference assessment.</p> <p>These data replicate and extend previous investigations by DeRosa et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>]) and Fisher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]). We controlled for EO exposure to evaluate FR and FI schedules of reinforcement. Being sensitive to this likely produced the decreased rates of problem behavior observed under both conditions. Despite controlling for EO exposure, three of the participants (Any'a, Alessia, and Willum) demonstrated an extinction burst, and extinction bursts only occurred during the FI schedule of reinforcement condition. For Willum and Any'a, the extinction burst occurred during the transition from the escape baseline sessions to the FI condition. Alessia demonstrated the burst of problem behavior during the third session of the FI condition. In addition to an increased likelihood of extinction bursts in this study, the FI condition produced small but consistent differences in the overall rate of problem behavior compared to the FR schedule of reinforcement. Such a finding may be problematic, even though both the FR and FI conditions produced positive outcomes. The potential for problem behavior to contact reinforcement during the FI condition could potentially lead to treatment relapse (Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref40">7</reflink>]; St. Peter Pipkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>]). Thus, it may be prudent to start with an FR arrangement early in treatment because of the very low rates of problem behavior that occurred for all five participants in this study.</p> <p>It seems that the majority of research on treatments for negatively reinforced problem behavior begin with an FR schedule of reinforcement for task completion and gradually transition to interval-based schedules of reinforcement during schedule thinning (Torelli &amp; Pickren, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref42">26</reflink>]). With respect to the current study, slightly more task completion occurred under the FI condition relative to the FR condition during this study. This seems contrary to the previous research (Baum, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>]). If the rate of reinforcement remains similar between two conditions, a higher rate of task completion should have occurred during the FR condition. One likely reason for these data relates to the fact that we did not calculate rate of task completion based only on EO exposure (DeLeon et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref44">3</reflink>]; Stoddard et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>]). This type of calculation has been important for similar studies. One way to retrospectively conduct this calculation would be to divide the average rate of task completion during each implementation of the FR and FI conditions by the average duration of EO exposure. To do this, we could divide the average seconds spent in EO during each FR and FI condition by 60 to produce a measure in minutes (e.g., 61 s/60 s = 1.01 min). Then, we could divide the average rate of task completion during each implementation of the FR and FI conditions by that value in minutes to produce a rate measure that only includes the EO exposure period. When aggregating all five participant's data, this calculation shows task completion occurred at an average rate of 2.4 rpm during the FI condition and an average rate of 2.0 rpm during the FR condition. While we acknowledge that other studies have required participants to spend 5 min (or more) in EO to make these calculations, we believe that our data are still valid as the duration of EO exposure, though a limited amount of time in some cases was equivalent between the conditions. Nonetheless, future research might require sessions to be 5 min of time only spent in EO. That may help magnify differences in task completion between the two conditions.</p> <p>We evaluated preference for schedule of reinforcement within a concurrent chains preference assessment. Each participant preferred to engage in work according to the FR schedule of reinforcement. This may not be surprising since four of five participants exhibited less problem behavior under this condition. Hanley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref46">12</reflink>]) showed preference for treatment arrangements that led to decreased rates of problem behavior even when those treatments included punishment. However, it is not always the case that participants prefer effective or more beneficial treatment arrangements. Winborn et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref47">29</reflink>]) evaluated preference for existing versus novel communicative modalities during FCT. Both participants preferred to use the existing communicative modalities, even though sessions including these modalities led to more problem behavior. Preference may have also been affected by the control over EO exposure associated with the FR schedule of reinforcement. Hanley et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref48">11</reflink>]) showed that two participants selected a treatment arrangement delivering reinforcement according to an FR-1 schedule of reinforcement compared to a fixed-time schedule of reinforcement, which delivered reinforcement after the passage of time. However, Schaeffer ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref49">22</reflink>]) showed that pigeons preferred the FI over FR schedules of reinforcement even when the schedule of reinforcement under both was approximately equal. These documented differences in preference for treatment arrangements based on success of treatment and control over rate of reinforcement may further reinforce the importance of evaluating client preference for treatment arrangement.</p> <p>The current study is not without its limitations. First, the combined alternating treatment and reversal design used for Any'a, Alessia, and Teddy may be susceptible to sequence effects. That is, systematically alternating between the FI to FR or FR to FI schedules of reinforcement may have produced findings related to the occurrence of one schedule of reinforcement prior to the other. To evaluate this potential, we conducted Josey and Willum's analyses within a reversal design. Josey and Willum's data replicated the results observed in the first three participants who completed the study with the combined experimental design. While we believe that this helps address concerns for sequence effects, future researchers should consider replicating this analysis with different experimental designs in place. Secondly, three of the five participants engaged in problem behavior reinforced by multiple consequences. For example, Alessia's problem behavior occurred to both escape from task demands and to gain access to preferred activities. Given this, it is possible that different EOs may have affected responding. For example, the removal of a preferred item to transition back to work may have evoked problem behavior for those participants whose problem behavior was reinforced by access to tangible items. Future research should attempt to recruit participants with problem behavior only reinforced by negative reinforcement to evaluate this possibility. Thirdly, the purpose of this study was to compare FR and FI conditions upon starting treatment. We did not engage in schedule thinning as a result. Future researchers should collect schedule thinning data to evaluate if these results are consistent under those conditions. Despite these limitations, we believe that the current study provides additional evidence for controlling for EO exposure at the beginning of treatment. Additionally, use of FR schedules of reinforcement may be desirable earlier in treatment.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-17">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>The authors would like to thank Alison Betz for her assistance with this project.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-18">Funding</hd> <p>No funding was received for conducting this study.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-19">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188353655-20">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0188353655-21">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0188353655-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref29" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Baum WM. Performances on ratio and interval schedules of reinforcement: Data and theory. Journal of the ExpeRimental Analysis of Behavior. 1993; 59; 2: 245-264. 10.1901/jeab.1993.59-245. 16812686. 1322041</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref26" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Cipani E, Spooner F. Treating problem behaviors maintained by negative reinforcement. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 1997; 18; 5: 329-342. 10.1016/S0891-4222(97)00014-0. 9292928</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref44" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> DeLeon IG, Chase JA, Frank-Crawford MA, Carreau-Webster AB, Triggs MM, Bullock CE, Jennett HK. Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: Evaluations of efficacy and preference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2014; 47; 2: 293-313. 10.1002/jaba.116. 24782203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref18" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> DeRosa NM, Fisher WW, Steege MW. An evaluation of time in establishing operation on the effectiveness of functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2015; 48; 1: 115-130. 10.1002/jaba.180. 25420612</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref30" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Ferster CB, Skinner BF. Schedules of Reinforcement. 1957; Appleton-Century-Crofts. 10.1037/10627-000</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Fisher WW, Greer BD, Fuhrman AM, Saini V, Simmons CA. Minimizing resurgence of destructive behavior using behavioral momentum theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2018; 51; 4: 831-853. 10.1002/jaba.499. 30252145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref40" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Fisher WW, Greer BD, Mitteer DR, Fuhrman AM. Translating quantitative theories of behavior into improved clinical treatments for problem behavior. Behavioural Processes. 2022; 198: 104639. 10.1016/j.beproc.2022.104639. 35405305. 10088503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref15" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Fisher WW, Greer BD, Mitteer DR, Fuhrman AM, Romani PW, Zangrillo AN. Further evaluation of differential exposure to establishing operations during functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2018; 51; 2: 360-373. 10.1002/jaba.451. 29512153</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref27" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Fisher WW, Piazza CC, Cataldo MF, Harrell R, Jefferson G, Conner R. Functional communication training with and without extinction and punishment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1993; 26: 23-36. 10.1002/jaba.254. 8473256. 1297717</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goh H-L, Iwat BA. Behavioral persistence and variability during extinction of self-injury maintained by escape. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1994; 27; 1: 173-174. 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-173. 8188558. 1297787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanley GP, Piazza CC, Fisher WW, Contrucci SA, Maglieri KA. Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatment packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1997; 30; 3: 459-473. 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-459. 9316259. 1284062</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanley GP, Piazza CC, Fisher WW, Maglieri KA. On the effectiveness of and preference for punishment and extinction components of function-based interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2005; 38; 1: 51-65. 10.1901/jaba.2005.6-04. 15898474. 1224409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulac D, Benson N, Nesmith MC, Shervey SW. Using variable interval reinforcement schedules to support students in the classroom: An introduction with illustrative examples. Journal of Educational Research and Practice. 2016; 6; 1: 90-96. 10.5590/JERAP.2016.06.1.06</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingram K, Lewis-Palmer T, Sugai G. Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA function-based and non-function-based intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 2005; 7; 4: 224-236. 10.1177/10983007050070040401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kurtz PF, Leoni M, Hagopian LP. Behavioral approaches to assessment and early intervention for severe problem behavior in intellectual and developmental disabilities. Pediatric Clinics of North America. 2020; 67; 3: 499-511. 10.1016/j.pcl.2020.02.005. 32443989. 8018516</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerman DC, Iwata BA. Prevalence of the extinction burst and its attenuation during treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1995; 28; 1: 93-94. 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-93. 16795857. 1279794</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lerman DC, Iwata BA, Wallace MD. Side effects of extinction: Prevalence of bursting and aggression during the treatment of self-injurious behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1999; 32; 1: 1-8. 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-1. 10201100. 1284537</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lindgren S, Wacker D, Schieltz K, Suess A, Pelzel K, Kopelman T, Lee J, Romani P, O'Brien M. A randomized controlled trial of functional communication training via telehealth for young children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2020; 50; 12: 4449-4462. 10.1007/s10803-020-04451-1. 32300910. 7572463</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Melanson IJ, Fahmie TA. Functional analysis of problem behavior: A 40-year review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2023; 56; 2: 262-281. 10.1002/jaba.983. 36892835</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Piazza CC, Patel MR, Gulotta CS, Sevin BM, Layer SA. On the relative contributions of positive reinforcement and escape extinction in the treatment of food refusal. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2003; 36; 3: 309-324. 10.1901/jaba.2003.36-309. 14596572. 1284445</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roane HS, Fisher WW, Carr JE. Applied behavior analysis as treatment for autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Pediatrics. 2016; 175: 27-32. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.04.023. 27179552</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schaeffer RW. Pigeons' preference for fixed-interval over fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 1979; 14; 3: 173-176. 10.3758/BF03329436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> St. Peter Pipkin C, Vollmer TR, Sloman KN. Effects of treatment integrity failures during differential reinforcement of alternative behavior: A translational model. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2010; 43; 1: 47-70. 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-47. 20808495</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoddard LT, Sidman M, Brady JV. Fixed-interval and fixed-ratio reinforcement schedules with human subjects. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior. 1988; 6: 33-44. 10.1007/BF03392827. 22477562. 2748487</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tarbox J, Wilke AE, Najdowski AC, Findel-Pyles RS, Balasanyan S, Caveney AC, Chilingaryan V, King DM, Niehoff SM, Slease K, Tia B. Comparing indirect, descriptive, and experimental functional assessments of challenging behavior in children with Autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2009; 21: 493-514. 10.1007/s10882-009-9154-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torelli JN, Pickren SE. Using chained or tandem schedules with functional communication training: A systematic review. Behavior Modification. 2023; 47; 1: 185-218. 10.1177/01454455221077420. 35164521</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vollmer TR, Peters KP, Kronfli FR, Lloveras LA, Ibanez VF. On the definition of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2020; 53; 3: 1299-1303. 10.1002/jaba.701. 32196670</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams DL, Siegel M, Mazefsky CAThe Autism and Developmental Disorders Inpatient Research Collaborative (ADDIRC). Problem behaviors in autism spectrum disorder: Association with verbal ability and adapting/coping skills. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2018; 48; 11: 3668-3677. 10.1007/s10803-017-3179-0. 28597186. 5924584</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winborn L, Wacker DP, Richman DM, Asmus J, Geier D. Assessment of mand selection for functional communication training packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2002; 35; 3: 295-298. 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-295. 12365744. 1284389</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodman AC, Mawdsley HP, Hauser-Cram P. Parenting stress and child behavior problems within families of children with developmental disabilities: Transactional relations across 15 years. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2015; 36: 264-276. 10.1016/j.ridd.2014.10.011</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Patrick W. Romani and Angelique M. Koerner</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref49"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1489751 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Comparison of Fixed-Ratio and Fixed-Interval Schedules of Reinforcement within the Treatment of Escape-Reinforced Problem Behavior – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Patrick+W%2E+Romani%22">Patrick W. Romani</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7722-4227">0000-0002-7722-4227</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Angelique+M%2E+Koerner%22">Angelique M. Koerner</searchLink> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Behavioral+Education%22"><i>Journal of Behavioral Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 34(3):634-653. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/ – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 20 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Problems%22">Behavior Problems</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Outcomes+of+Treatment%22">Outcomes of Treatment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Negative+Reinforcement%22">Negative Reinforcement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervals%22">Intervals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Modification%22">Behavior Modification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1007/s10864-023-09540-6 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 1053-0819<br />1573-3513 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: The behavior-analytic approach to the assessment and treatment of problem behavior begins with a functional behavior assessment and concludes with function-based treatment implementation. Extinction bursts and the resurgence of problem behavior represent common barriers to successfully implementing these treatments. Recent research documents a common prevalence of these phenomena following contingency changes, including when transitioning from assessment to treatment. Researchers mitigate the disruptive impact of extinction bursts by controlling for the duration of exposure to the establishing operation (EO). Indeed, controlling for EO exposure when initiating treatment decreases the occurrence of problem behavior. While this effect has been documented, it is not clear if certain schedules of reinforcement are more appropriate for initial treatment arrangements than others. The purpose of the current study was to compare fixed-ratio (FR) and fixed-interval (FI) schedules of reinforcement implementation after controlling for the duration of EO exposure for participants who engaged in negatively reinforced problem behavior. Results generally showed both FR and FI treatment arrangements produced reductions in problem behavior and improvements in task completion. Despite these reductions, problem behavior seemed more likely to occur during the FI treatment arrangement. We will discuss these data in terms of identifying effective initial behavioral treatment arrangements for individuals engaging in escape-reinforced problem behavior. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1489751 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1489751 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1007/s10864-023-09540-6 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 20 StartPage: 634 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Behavior Problems Type: general – SubjectFull: Outcomes of Treatment Type: general – SubjectFull: Negative Reinforcement Type: general – SubjectFull: Intervals Type: general – SubjectFull: Behavior Modification Type: general – SubjectFull: Intervention Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Comparison of Fixed-Ratio and Fixed-Interval Schedules of Reinforcement within the Treatment of Escape-Reinforced Problem Behavior Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Patrick W. Romani – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Angelique M. Koerner IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 1053-0819 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1573-3513 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 34 – Type: issue Value: 3 Titles: – TitleFull: Journal of Behavioral Education Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
