Nominally Acceptable Integrity Failures Negatively Affect Interventions Involving Intermittent Reinforcement

Autor/inn/en	Jones, Stephanie H.; St. Peter, Claire C.
Titel	Nominally Acceptable Integrity Failures Negatively Affect Interventions Involving Intermittent Reinforcement
Quelle	In: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 55 (2022) 4, S.1109-1123 (15 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Jones, Stephanie H.) ORCID (St. Peter, Claire C.)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0021-8855
DOI	10.1002/jaba.944
Schlagwörter	Reinforcement; Behavior Modification; Intervention; Program Effectiveness; Contingency Management; Reliability; Failure + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Positive Verstärkung; Behaviour modification; Verhaltensänderung; Krisenbewältigung; Reliabilität
Abstract	The finding that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is efficacious at 80% integrity when continuous reinforcement is programmed for alternative responding may have contributed to a perception that integrity at 80% or above is acceptable. However, research also suggests that other interventions (e.g., noncontingent reinforcement) may not remain effective at 80% integrity. The conditions under which 80% integrity is acceptable for common behavioral interventions remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted two human-operant studies to evaluate effects of 80% integrity for interventions with contingent or noncontingent intermittent reinforcement schedules. During Experiment 1, we compared noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and DRA when implemented with 80% integrity. During Experiment 2, we compared 2 variations of DRA, which included either a ratio or interval schedule to reinforce alternative behavior. Results replicated previous research showing that DRA with a FR-1 schedule programmed for alternative responding resulted in consistent target response suppression, even when integrity was reduced to 80%. In contrast, neither NCR nor interval-based DRA were consistently effective when implemented at 80% integrity. These results demonstrate that 80% integrity is not a uniformly acceptable minimal level of integrity. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01