Advertisement

Preference for and Efficacy of Accumulated and Distributed Response–Reinforcer Arrangements During Skill Acquisition

  • Michelle A. Frank-Crawford
  • John C. BorreroEmail author
  • Eli T. Newcomb
  • Ting Chen
  • Jonathan D. Schmidt
Original Paper

Abstract

We evaluated preference for and efficacy of distributed and accumulated response–reinforcer arrangements during discrete-trial teaching for unmastered tasks. During the distributed arrangement, participants received 30-s access to a reinforcer after each correct response. During accumulated arrangements, access was accrued throughout the work period and delivered in its entirety upon completion of the work requirement. Accumulated arrangements were assessed with and without the use of tokens. In Experiment 1, four of five participants preferred one of the accumulated arrangements and preference remained unchanged across mastered and unmastered tasks for all five participants. Four individuals participated in Experiment 2 and we conducted replications with new target stimuli with three of these individuals (for a total of seven analyses). Target stimuli were mastered more quickly and session durations were, on average, shorter in one of the accumulated arrangements in six of the seven analyses. Partial correspondence between preference and measures of efficacy and efficiency was obtained for two of the three individuals for whom both experiments were conducted. These results support prior research, indicating that many learners with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities prefer accumulated reinforcement and that accumulated arrangements can be as effective and as efficient as distributed arrangements in teaching new skills.

Keywords

Accumulated reinforcement Acquisition Discrete-trial teaching Distributed reinforcement Preference Tokens 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted as part of the first author’s requirements for a doctoral degree in Applied Developmental Psychology at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. We would like to thank Andrew Bonner, Anita Louie, Elizabeth Nudelman, and Rashanique Reese for their assistance with data collection and analysis.

References

  1. Bukala, M., Hu, M. Y., Lee, R., Ward-Horner, J. C., & Fienup, D. M. (2015). The effects of work-reinforcer schedules on performance and preference in students with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 215–220.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.188.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bullock, C. E., Fisher, W. W., & Hagopian, L. P. (2017). Description and validation of a computerized behavioral data program: “BDataPro”. The Behavior Analyst, 40, 275–285.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-016-0079-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll, R. A., Kodak, T., & Adolf, K. J. (2016). Effect of delayed reinforcement on skill acquisition during discrete-trial instruction: Implications for treatment-integrity errors in academic settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 176–181.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. DeLeon, I. G., Chase, J. A., Frank-Crawford, M. A., Carreau-Webster, A. B., Triggs, M., Bullock, C. E., et al. (2014). Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: Evaluations of efficacy and preference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 293–313.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.116.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Fienup, D. M., Ahlers, A. A., & Pace, G. (2011). Preference for fluent versus disfluent work schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 847–858.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-847.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Graff, R. B., & Karsten, A. M. (2012). Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities: A survey of current practices. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5, 37–48.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391822.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, L., Myerson, J., & Ostaszewski, P. (1999). Discounting of delayed rewards across the life span: Age differences in individual discounting functions. Behavioural Processes, 46, 89–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(99)00021-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Grindle, C. F., & Remington, B. (2002). Discrete-trial training for autistic children when reward is delayed: A comparison of conditioned cue value and response marking. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 187–190.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-187.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Gutierrez, A., Hale, M. N., O’Brien, H. A., Fischer, A. J., Durocher, J. S., & Alessandri, M. (2009). Evaluating the effectiveness of two commonly used discrete trial procedures for teaching receptive discrimination to young children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 630–638.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2008.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hanley, G. P. (2010). Toward effective and preferred programming: A case for the objective measurement of social validity with recipients of behavior-change programs. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3, 13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391754.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Joachim, B. T., & Carroll, R. A. (2017). A comparison of consequences for correct responses during discrete-trial instruction. Learning and Motivation.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2017.01.002.Google Scholar
  13. Kocher, C. P., Howard, M. R., & Fienup, D. M. (2015). The effects of work-reinforcer schedules on skill acquisition for children with autism. Behavior Modification, 39, 600–621.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445515583246.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lerman, D. C., Valentino, A. L., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2016). Discrete trial training. In R. Lang, T. B. Hancock, & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder (pp. 47–83). Berlin: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30925-5.Google Scholar
  15. Lerman, D. C., Vorndran, C., Addison, L., & Kuhn, S. A. C. (2004). A rapid assessment of skills in young children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 11–26.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2004.37-11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Mudford, O. C., Martin, N. T., Hui, J. K. Y., & Taylor, S. A. (2009). Assessing observer accuracy in continuous recording of rate and duration: Three algorithms compared. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 527–539.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-527.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Petursdottir, A. I., & Aguilar, G. (2016). Order of stimulus presentation influences children’s acquisition in receptive identification tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 58–68.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, T. (2001). Discrete trial training in the treatment of autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 86–92.  https://doi.org/10.1177/108835760101600204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Houten, R., Axelrod, S., Bailey, J. S., Favell, J. E., Foxx, R. M., Iwata, B. A., et al. (1988). The right to effective behavioral treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 381–384.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1988.21-381.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Ward-Horner, J. C., Cengher, M., Ross, R. K., & Fienup, D. M. (2017a). Arranging response requirements and the distribution of reinforcers: A brief review of preference and performance outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 181–185.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.350.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Ward-Horner, J. C., Muehlberger, A. O., Vedora, J., & Ross, R. K. (2017b). Effects of reinforcer magnitude and quality on preference for response-reinforcer arrangements in young children with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 10, 183–188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-017-0185-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Ward-Horner, J. C., Pittenger, A., Pace, G., & Fienup, D. M. (2014). Effects of reinforcer magnitude and distribution on preference for work schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 623–627.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Kennedy Krieger InstituteBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.The Faison CenterRichmondUSA
  4. 4.Johns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations