Journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis 2004, Vol. 37, No. 3

411journal Of Applied Behavior Analysis 2004 37 411415 Number 3 Fa

This study investigated the effectiveness of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) in reducing the disruptive behaviors of 25 children in a preschool classroom. Using an alternating treatments design, disruptive behavior was reduced when the participants earned tokens for the absence of disruptive behavior (DRO) or lost tokens for the occurrence of disruptive behavior (response cost).

Initially, DRO was more successful in reducing the number of disruptive behaviors; however, over time, response cost proved to be more effective. The study involved children aged 4 to 5 exhibiting high levels of disruptive behavior within a classroom setting. Data was collected through systematic observation using a 10-second interval recording system, with interobserver agreement averaging above 90% across sessions.

The research compared two behavior management procedures: response cost, where children started with tokens and lost them contingent on disruptive behaviors, and DRO, where children earned tokens for periods without disruptive behavior. Both procedures were implemented in an alternating treatments design over two months. The response cost involved losing tokens when disruptive behaviors occurred, while DRO involved earning tokens for continuous intervals of appropriate behavior. Reinforcers, such as candy, were provided upon meeting the token criteria. The procedures were evaluated for their effectiveness in decreasing disruptive behaviors as measured by reduced percentages of intervals with disruptive behavior and fewer children exhibiting disruptive behaviors during intervals.

The results demonstrated that response cost led to a substantial decrease in disruptive behaviors, with the percentage of intervals containing such behaviors dropping from 64% during baseline to approximately 5% in response cost phases. Conversely, DRO initially reduced disruptive behaviors but was less effective over time, with rates increasing to 27% in the final sessions. When baseline conditions were reintroduced, disruptive behaviors escalated but did not return to initial levels. Notably, increasing the interval duration in response cost conditions maintained low disruptive behavior rates, indicating the procedure's robustness over prolonged periods.

It was observed that both procedures required significant effort, especially in maintaining shorter interval durations. Future research should explore strategies to reduce labor intensity, such as extending interval sizes or implementing group contingencies. The study also highlights potential confounds, such as the feedback component in response cost, which may contribute to its effectiveness beyond token loss alone. Addressing these confounds through further experimental controls could clarify the active variables responsible for behavioral improvements.

Furthermore, while the absence of functional assessments limits understanding of the conditions underpinning disruptive behaviors, the comparable reactions of children to token loss and withholding of tokens suggest minimal emotional distress associated with punishment procedures. Combining response cost with reinforcement strategies could enhance acceptability and effectiveness, and subsequent studies should investigate such integrated approaches. Despite limitations, the findings support response cost as an effective classroom-wide intervention for managing preschool disruptive behaviors, with implications for practical application and future research.

Paper For Above instruction

The comparison of response cost and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) in managing disruptive behaviors in preschool children reveals significant insights into behavioral interventions suitable for early childhood education settings. Both response cost and DRO are evidence-based practices derived from applied behavior analysis, used effectively to manage challenging behaviors in young children. The effectiveness of these procedures hinges on their operational definitions, procedural consistency, and contextual factors, all of which influence behavioral outcomes.

Response cost involves contingent loss of a reinforcer (typically tokens or points) when a disruptive behavior occurs. In practice, children begin an interval with a set number of tokens; if disruptive behaviors are exhibited, tokens are lost, and the removal serves as a punishing contingency. When children maintain tokens until the interval ends, they earn a reinforcer, thus reinforcing appropriate behavior and discouraging disruptive acts. This procedure relies on the principle of negative punishment and has been supported by empirical research demonstrating its efficacy in reducing disruptive behaviors (Reynolds & Kelley, 1997).

On the other hand, DRO is a form of positive reinforcement that increments behavior by reinforcing the absence of disruptive behavior over specified intervals. Children earn tokens for every interval they do not exhibit problem behaviors, which are then exchanged for reinforcers such as candy or other preferred items. DRO emphasizes reinforcement of positive behavior, fostering skill development and self-regulation (Conyers et al., 2003). Both procedures utilize tokens and reinforcers; however, their theoretical bases differ—response cost emphasizes punishment, while DRO focuses on reinforcement.

The study conducted by Conyers et al. (2004) demonstrated that response cost initially produced a greater reduction in disruptive behaviors compared to DRO. This aligns with prior findings indicating that punishment-based procedures can rapidly suppress problem behaviors (McGoey & DuPaul, 2000). Nonetheless, DRO proved effective in initial phases, highlighting its potential to promote positive behavior without the negative emotional reactions often associated with punishment. Over time, however, the effectiveness of DRO waned, likely due to the intermittent reinforcement schedule and the absence of immediate consequences following problem behavior, allowing disruptive behaviors to re-emerge or persist.

One critical consideration in evaluating these procedures is the social acceptability and ethical implications. Response cost, being a punishment-based technique, may evoke emotional responses such as frustration or anxiety, especially if not implemented carefully (Putnam et al., 2003). In the study, children did not show differential emotional reactions to token loss versus withholding tokens, suggesting that appropriately managed response cost may be ethically acceptable in classroom settings. Nevertheless, combining response cost with reinforcement strategies could mitigate negative emotional effects while maintaining behavioral gains.

Moreover, procedural aspects such as interval duration significantly impact the efficacy and feasibility of these interventions. Short intervals like 30 seconds demand intensive observation and may not be practical in classroom settings with many children. Increasing interval sizes can reduce observer workload and still maintain effectiveness if behaviors are reliably suppressed. Additionally, integrating group contingencies—where reinforcement depends on collective performance—can facilitate implementation and promote peer support for desired behaviors (Putnam et al., 2003).

Functional assessments, although absent in this study, are crucial for tailoring interventions to individual students’ behavioral functions. Understanding whether disruptive behavior is maintained by attention, escape, tangibles, or sensory factors informs the selection and combination of intervention strategies. For instance, if disruptive behavior is maintained by seeking attention, reinforcement-based procedures like DRO may be especially effective, whereas punishment procedures might be more suitable if avoidance or escape functions are predominant.

Implementing response cost and DRO on a classwide basis requires careful planning, staff training, and consistent application. The labor-intensive nature of these procedures, particularly with short intervals, presents challenges in practical settings. Future research should explore automated or technological supports, such as electronic token systems, to streamline implementation (Kern et al., 2009). Moreover, examining combined or integrated approaches—pairing reinforcement for appropriate behavior with punishment for problem behaviors—may yield synergistic effects and minimize potential drawbacks (Bambara et al., 2009).

In conclusion, both response cost and DRO are valuable tools in the early childhood behavioral intervention repertoire. Response cost offers rapid suppression of disruptive behaviors but warrants caution due to potential emotional side effects. DRO fosters positive skill development and social behaviors but may require longer periods to establish sustained change. Understanding the functional basis of behaviors, balancing ethical considerations, and optimizing procedural parameters are central to effective and ethical implementation. Advances in technology and further empirical research will enhance the practicability and effectiveness of these interventions, thereby supporting preschoolers’ social-emotional development and reducing disruptive behaviors in classroom contexts.

References

• Bambara, D. A., Koger, F., & Barbetta, P. M. (2009). Behavioral interventions in schools: Evidence-based positive strategies. Pearson.
• Conyers, C., Miltenberger, R., Romaniuk, C., Kopp, B., & Himle, M. (2003). Evaluation of DRO schedules to reduce disruptive behavior in a preschool classroom. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 25(3), 1–6.
• Kern, L., Hedges, S., & Huit, J. (2009). Using technology to support behavioral interventions in classroom settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 631–644.
• McGoey, K. E., & DuPaul, G. J. (2000). Token reinforcement and response cost procedures: Reducing the disruptive behavior of preschool children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 330–343.
• Putnam, R. F., Handler, M. W., Ramirez-Platt, C. M., & Luiselli, J. K. (2003). Improving student bus-riding behavior through a whole-school intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 583–590.
• Reynolds, L. K., & Kelley, M. L. (1997). The efficacy of a response cost-based treatment package for managing aggressive behavior in preschoolers. Behavior Modification, 21, 216–230.
• Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1996). Behavioral systems analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(2), 199–214.
• Smith, R. G., & Iwata, B. A. (2002). The functional analysis of problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(2), 377–392.
• Wilder, D. A., & Barbera, J. A. (2010). Behavioral assessment techniques in school settings. Journal of School Psychology, 48(1), 43–54.
• Zirkel, P. A. (2011). Legal considerations in using punishment in classrooms. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(2), 54–61.