Table Of ContentJOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2008, 41, 279–283 NUMBER2 (SUMMER2008)
FIXED-TIME TEACHER ATTENTION TO DECREASE OFF-TASK
BEHAVIORS OF TYPICALLY DEVELOPING THIRD GRADERS
JENNIFER L. AUSTIN AND JENNIFER M. SOEDA
CALIFORNIASTATEUNIVERSITY,FRESNO
Evidence to validate the use of fixed-time (FT) reinforcer delivery (i.e., noncontingent
reinforcement) with typically developing populations has been relatively rare in the behavioral
literature.Inthosestudiesthathaveprovidedvalidation,reinforcerdeliveryschedulesappeared
tobeprohibitivelydenseforsustainedimplementationofprocedures.Thisstudydemonstrated
theefficacyofusingFTreinforcerdeliverytoreduceoff-taskbehaviorof2typicallydeveloping
third graders using a teacher-selected schedule (FT 4 min). Immediate reductions in off-task
behaviorwereobservedforbothchildren.Challengesinidentifyingtheoperativemechanismof
FTschedules innaturalsettings arediscussed.
DESCRIPTORS: fixed-time reinforcement schedules, general education, noncontingent
reinforcement, typically developing children
_______________________________________________________________________________
Despite the documented efficacy of time- studies employed relatively dense schedules of
based reinforcer delivery (i.e., noncontingent reinforcement delivery (10- to 60-s fixed-time
reinforcement or NCR) in the treatment of [FT] schedules), which may be prohibitive for
aberrant behavior in persons with developmen- teachers in regular classrooms. Therefore, the
tal disabilities (Carr et al., 2000), studies purpose of the present study was to assess the
validating this procedure with nondisabled effectiveness of teacher-selected FT schedules.
populations have been relatively rare. Two
notable exceptions are O’Callaghan, Allen,
METHOD
Powell, and Salama (2006) and Jones, Drew,
Participants and Setting
and Weber (2000), who used NCR as an
Andrew and David were third-grade boys (9
intervention to reduce off-task behavior of
and 8 years old, respectively) who had been
typically developing children. O’Callaghan et
identifiedbytheirteacherasdisplayingfrequent
al.demonstratedthatnoncontingent escapewas
off-task behavior, including calling out, getting
an effective strategy for increasing tolerance of
outoftheirseats,anddisturbingotherstudents.
restorative dental procedures in 4- to 7-year-
Datawerecollectedduringlanguagearts,which
olds. Further, they showed that the procedure
includedbothindividualandgroupreadingand
could be implemented by the dentist with very
writingactivities.Andrewhadbeenidentifiedas
little training. Jones et al. implemented non-
havingaspecificlearningdisabilityandreceived
contingent peer attention to reduce the off-task
140 min of resource specialist program services
behavior of an 8-year-old boy with attention
weekly for reading. David was classified as a
deficit hyperactivity disorder. However, both
generaleducationstudentandwasnotreceiving
We thank Erica Cordero, Hanna Wolde, Diana Fry, any special education services.
andTaylorHarrisfortheirassistancewithdatacollection
and Katy Poole for her assistance with identifying Response Measurement and
participants for thestudy.
Interobserver Agreement
Correspondenceshouldbeaddressedtothefirstauthor,
who is now at the University of Houston Clear Lake, Off-taskbehaviorwasdefinedascallingoutor
School of Human Sciences and Humanities, Division of engaging in one of the following behaviors for
Psychology, 2700 Bay Area Blvd., Campus Box 2,
more than 3 s: coloring or drawing not
Houston,Texas 77058(e-mail: [email protected]).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-279 appropriate to the assigned task, talking with
279
280 JENNIFER L. AUSTIN and JENNIFER M. SOEDA
peers, taking one’s eyes off the teacher or task, attention conditions were higher than in the
or getting out of one’s seat. Direct observation escape condition.
of off-task behavior was conducted by trained Baseline. During this phase, the teacher was
undergraduate students using a 10-s partial- asked to respond to the students in her usual
interval recording procedure. Each observation manner, which typically included brief repri-
session lasted 40 min. Observers rotated obser- mands or redirections for inappropriate behav-
vations between children minute by minute so ior.
that each child was observed for a total of NCR.Priortotreatmentimplementation,the
20 min. A second observer simultaneously but first author briefly explained the rationale and
independently observed 21% of the sessions procedures for NCR. The teacher then was
spaced across all phases of the study. Interob- asked to provide an indication of how often she
server agreement was calculated by dividing believedshecouldprovideattentiontotheboys
agreementsbythetotalnumberofintervalsand without causing a disruption to her teaching
multiplying by 100%. Mean agreement was schedule or ongoing classroom activities. The
97%(range,93%to100%).Toprovideamore
teacher decided that a 4-min FT schedule
stringent measure of interobserver agreement,
would be reasonable for her to implement. A
calculationsforoccurrencesandnonoccurrences
Motivaider device identical to that described by
of off-task behavior also were made. Mean
O’Callaghanetal.(2006)wasusedtoprovidea
occurrence agreement was 82%; mean nonoc-
vibratory cue to the teacher every 4 min. Upon
currence agreement was 96%.
receiving the cue, the teacher provided individ-
ual brief attention to each boy appropriate to
Experimental Design
the child’s behavior (i.e., praise for on-task
An ABAB design was used with both
behavior and redirection for inappropriate
participants. During baseline (A), the teacher
behavior). The teacher was asked to alternate
interacted with the boys in her usual manner.
between the 2 boys with regard to which one
During NCR (B), the teacher provided atten-
received attention first and to ignore appropri-
tion to the boys on an FT schedule.
ateandinappropriatebehaviorsthatoccurredin
Procedure the interim between scheduled attention deliv-
ery. No explanation of the change in contin-
Functional assessment and brief analysis. Prior
gencies was provided to the children.
to baseline, interviews with the teacher and
David was observed in the same classroom,
direct observations by the second author were
but with a different peer group and academic
conducted to form hypotheses regarding poten-
tial functions of the students’ behaviors. These subject (mathematics) toward the end of the
data were reviewed by both authors, who second NCR phase. Andrew was observed in a
hypothesized that the boys’ behaviors were different classroom with a different teacher,
maintained by teacher attention. Next, a series who also was trained in the NCR procedure.
of naturalistic functional analysis conditions Treatment integrity. Trained observers col-
were implemented to test the hypothesis. In the lected data to monitor the delivery of teacher
contingent attention condition, the teacher was attention (minimum duration of 5 s) concur-
asked to attend to the boys when they were off rently with student data, using the same 10-s
task by providing a brief redirection. In the partial-interval recording procedure during
contingent escape condition, the boys were told 100% of the observations. For each session,
that they could take a 20-s break from work teacher implementation was 100% (i.e., teacher
each time they were off task. For both boys, attention was delivered at least every 4 min).
percentage of intervals scored during the Errors of commission (the teacher providing
NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT 281
Figure1. Percentageofintervalsinwhichoff-taskbehaviorswereobservedacrossconditionsforAndrew(top)and
David(bottom). Changes inacademic subject andsetting areindicated witharrows.
attention to off-task behavior during the 47%). Levels of off-task behavior were variable
interim of scheduled reinforcer delivery) oc- duringthereturntobaseline(M537%;range,
curred during 2% and 1% of the intervals for 25% to 49%), but once again showed an
the first NCR phase for David and Andrew, immediate and sustained reduction with the
respectively, and 0% during the second NCR second implementation of the NCR schedule
phase for both children. Interobserver agree- (M 5 8%; range, 5% to 11%), which was
ment for integrity was assessed for 30% of the maintained across the observations conducted
sessions and was 100%. during mathematics (M 5 1%; range, 1% to
2%).
For David, the percentage of intervals with
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
off-task behavior decreased during the NCR
Figure 1 displays the results for Andrew and schedule (M 5 16%; range, 11% to 23%)
David. Immediate and sustained reductions in relative to baseline (M 5 33%; range, 25% to
the percentage of intervals with off-task behav- 40%). During the return to baseline, off-task
ior were observed for Andrew during the NCR behavior substantially increased (M 5 48%;
schedule (M 5 16%; range, 3% to 26%) range, 33% to 62%), but immediately de-
relative to baseline (M 5 39%; range, 23% to creased with the reintroduction of the NCR
282 JENNIFER L. AUSTIN and JENNIFER M. SOEDA
schedule(M59%;range,7%to10%).Results that she liked the intervention and found it
were maintained when the procedure was easy to implement. She also noted seeing an
implemented in a different classroom by a almost immediate improvement in both boys’
different teacher (M 5 4%; range, 0% to 7%). behaviors, which may have contributed to the
These findings indicate that NCR was an high level of integrity with which she imple-
effective strategy for reducing the off-task mented the intervention. Although not direct-
behaviors of both boys, thus bolstering support ly assessed in the current study, allowing
for the use of this procedure with typically teachers’ input in deciding reinforcer delivery
developing children. This study expands on the schedules could potentially contribute to
previous literature by demonstrating effective- greater treatment maintenance. However, one
ness with a different behavioral function (i.e., would need to be careful that intervention
adult attention vs. peer attention or escape), as effectiveness was not compromised to main-
well as by demonstrating its applicability in a tain teacher preferences.
general education classroom. More important, The robust and immediate effects of the FT
however, this study shows that the schedule of reinforcement schedule used in this study pose
reinforcer delivery need not be prohibitively several interesting questions regarding the
dense for treatment effects to be evident. As mechanism responsible for the change in both
indicated byJones et al. (2000),the schedule of children’s behaviors. Perhaps the most parsi-
reinforcer delivery prescribed by their proce- monious explanation is that extinction was the
dures (i.e., 30 s of peer attention every 90 s) operative mechanism, given that problematic
‘‘would be too frequent for teachers to provide behaviors were ignored consistently during the
… in a regular classroom’’ (p. 345). O’Call- treatment phases and scheduled attention was
aghan et al. (2006) did not specifically assess deliveredalmostexclusivelyforon-taskbehavior
satisfaction with their treatment procedures, so (with the exception of two occasions).
itisunclearwhethertheschedulewasacceptable Although extinction via NCR is a viable
to the treatment provider. explanation for the change in both boys’
In the present study, we allowed the behaviors, other considerations warrant men-
treatment provider (i.e., the teacher) to select tion. First, the nature of the procedures
a schedule of reinforcement delivery that was inevitably raises questions regarding potential
reasonable to her given her other classroom differential reinforcement effects. Specifically,
obligations. This strategy could be viewed because behavior resulted in a different atten-
simultaneously as a weakness and strength of tion response (i.e., praise for on task and
the current study. With regard to the former, redirection for off task), it is unclear what
we did not base the FT schedule on analyses of effects these differences produced on the
baseline response rates, as is generally recom- children’s behavior. It is possible that changes
mendedwithNCRschedules(Tucker,Sigafoos, in behavior were a result of strengthening the
&Bushell,1998).However,thisdidnotappear association between on-task behavior and the
toaffect theintervention’seffectivenessadverse- deliveryofpraise.Further,onemightarguethat
ly. Therefore, we are more inclined to view because praise was used for both boys simulta-
incorporating teacher preferences into interven- neously, the children had greater opportunities
tion design as a particular strength of the to see a peer’s behavior reinforced, and this
current study. Specifically, we might have could have evoked on-task responding.
increased the likelihood that the teacher would Although the results of this study are
find the NCR schedule acceptable. It is encouraging, further analyses are needed to
important to note that the teacher reported confirm the efficacy of teacher-selected sched-
NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT 283
ulesofreinforcement.IfNCRproceduresareto the aberrant behavior of individuals with develop-
mentaldisabilities.ResearchinDevelopmentalDisabil-
be disseminated widely and used in applied
ities, 21,377–391.
settings by existing treatment providers, such
Jones, K. M., Drew, H. A., & Weber, N. L. (2000).
analyses are imperative. NCR provides an Noncontingent peer attention as treatment for off-
attractive alternative to procedures such as task classroom behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis,33,343–346.
differential reinforcement because it does not
O’Callaghan, P. M., Allen, K. D., Powell, S., & Salama,
require constant observation of behavior and F. (2006). The efficacy of noncontingent escape for
maythereforebeeasiertoimplement.However, decreasing children’s off-task behavior during restor-
ative dental treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior
reinforcer delivery schedules that are too taxing
Analysis,39,161–171.
on the treatment provider will likely render
Tucker, M., Sigafoos, J., & Bushell, H. (1998). Use of
NCR too resource intensive to be practical. noncontingent reinforcement in the treatment of
challenging behavior: A review and clinical guide.
Behavior Modification,22,529–547.
REFERENCES
Carr, J. E., Coriaty, S., Wilder, D. A., Gaunt, B. T., Received August26, 2006
Dozier,C.L., Britton,L.N.,etal.(2000).Areview Final acceptanceJanuary 12, 2007
of ‘‘noncontingent’’ reinforcement as treatment for Action Editor,TimothyVollmer
