On the definition of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 1299-1303
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Vollmer ◽  
Kerri P. Peters ◽  
Faris R. Kronfli ◽  
Lindsay A. Lloveras ◽  
Vivian F. Ibañez
Keyword(s):  
Differential Reinforcement ◽  
Alternative Behavior ◽  
Definition Of

Resurgence following traditional and interdependent differential reinforcement of alternative behavior.

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-42
Author(s):  
Ashley M. Fuhrman ◽  
Wayne W. Fisher ◽  
Brian D. Greer ◽  
Timothy A. Shahan ◽  
Andrew R. Craig
Keyword(s):  
Differential Reinforcement ◽  
Alternative Behavior

scholarly journals Resurgence following differential reinforcement of alternative behavior implemented with and without extinction

2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-467
Author(s):  
Katherine R. Brown ◽  
Brian D. Greer ◽  
Andrew R. Craig ◽  
William E. Sullivan ◽  
Wayne W. Fisher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Differential Reinforcement ◽  
Alternative Behavior

A review of empirical support for differential reinforcement of alternative behavior

2009 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin S. Petscher ◽  
Catalina Rey ◽  
Jon S. Bailey
Keyword(s):  
Differential Reinforcement ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Alternative Behavior

scholarly journals EFFECTS OF TREATMENT INTEGRITY FAILURES DURING DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR: A TRANSLATIONAL MODEL

2010 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire St. Peter Pipkin ◽  
Timothy R. Vollmer ◽  
Kimberly N. Sloman
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Integrity ◽  
Differential Reinforcement ◽  
Translational Model ◽  
Alternative Behavior

Further Analysis of the Predictive Effects of a Free-Operant Competing Stimulus Assessment on Stereotypy

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 543-583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristen M. Brogan ◽  
John T. Rapp ◽  
Lisa A. Sennott ◽  
Jennifer L. Cook ◽  
Erin Swinkels
Keyword(s):  
Differential Reinforcement ◽  
Repetitive Behavior ◽  
Social Consequences ◽  
Discrete Trial Training ◽  
Alternative Behavior ◽  
Vocal Stereotypy ◽  
Free Operant ◽  
High Preference ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Academic Responding

We conducted five experiments to evaluate the predictive validity of a free-operant competing stimulus assessment (FOCSA). In Experiment 1, we showed that each participant’s repetitive behavior persisted without social consequences. In Experiment 2, we used the FOCSA to identify high-preference, low-stereotypy (HP-LS) items for 11 participants and high-preference, high-stereotypy (HP-HS) items for nine participants. To validate the results of the FOCSAs (Experiment 3), we used a three-component multiple schedule to evaluate the immediate and subsequent effects of an HP-LS stimulus, an HP-HS stimulus, or both (in separate test sequences) on each participant’s stereotypy. Results of Experiment 3 showed that the FOCSA correctly predicted the immediate effect of the HP-LS stimulus for 10 of 11 participants; however, the FOCSA predictions were less accurate for the HP-HS stimulus. Results of Experiment 4 showed that a differential reinforcement of other behavior procedure in which participants earned access to the HP-LS for omitting vocal stereotypy increased all five participants’ latency to engaging in stereotypy; however, clinically significant omission durations were only achieved for one participant. Experiment 5 showed that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior in which participants earned access to the HP-LS stimulus contingent upon correct responses during discrete-trial training reduced targeted and nontargeted stereotypy and increased correct academic responding for all four participants. The potential utility of the FOCSA is discussed.

Assessment of Parental Acceptability and Preference for Behavioral Interventions for Feeding Problems

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Vazquez ◽  
Mitch J. Fryling ◽  
Anthony Hernández
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Interventions ◽  
Differential Reinforcement ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Food Selectivity ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Food Refusal ◽  
Feeding Problems ◽  
Alternative Behavior ◽  
Parental Acceptability ◽  
The Impact

The present study evaluates the treatment acceptability and preference for behavioral interventions for feeding problems with parents of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and other developmental disabilities. The impact of behavioral severity on acceptability and preference was also evaluated by comparing results of parents who responded with respect to a vignette of a child with food refusal with those who responded to a vignette of a child with food selectivity. Overall, parents rated differential reinforcement of alternative behavior as the most preferred and most acceptable strategy across both food selectivity and food refusal groups. Escape extinction was the least acceptable and least preferred across both groups, and the severity of the behavior had no impact on acceptability or preference scores. Implications for future research on the social validity of feeding interventions are provided.

scholarly journals EVALUATING TREATMENT CHALLENGES WITH DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE BEHAVIOR

1999 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy R. Vollmer ◽  
Henry S. Roane ◽  
Joel E. Ringdahl ◽  
Bethany A. Marcus
Keyword(s):  
Differential Reinforcement ◽  
Alternative Behavior
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document