A Comparison of Noncontingent Plus Contingent Reinforcement to Contingent Reinforcement Alone on Students’ Academic Performance

Carlos J Panahon,Brian K Martens

doi:10.1007/s10864-012-9157-x

Abstract

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) can be described as time-based or response-independent delivery of stimuli with known reinforcing properties. Previous research has shown NCR to reduce problem behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities and to interfere with the acquisition of more desired alternative behavior. To date, however, little research has examined the effects of NCR on children’s academic performance. The present study examined the effects of NCR on the completion of math computation worksheets by 3 students in an elementary school setting. An ABCB reversal design was used to compare an NCR schedule in combination with contingent reinforcement to contingent reinforcement alone. Results showed that digits correct per session decreased to baseline levels for all 3 students during implementation of the NCR plus contingent reinforcement condition. Implications of these results for the reductive effects of NCR are discussed.

Highlights

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) can be described as time-based or response-independent delivery of stimuli with known reinforcing properties (Vollmer et al 1993)
With an NCR schedule, reinforcers are delivered based on a predetermined time schedule rather than being influenced by the person’s [end of page 37] behavior
It is possible that the initial dense NCR schedules for both children may have interfered with the acquisition of alternative behavior

Summary

Introduction

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) can be described as time-based or response-independent delivery of stimuli with known reinforcing properties (Vollmer et al 1993). With an NCR schedule, reinforcers are delivered based on a predetermined time schedule (e.g., every 20 s) rather than being influenced by the person’s [end of page 37] behavior. Marcus and Vollmer (1996) investigated the efficacy of combining NCR with an intervention that replaced challenging behaviors by teaching functionally equivalent communication responses (i.e., mands). When a differential reinforcement of alternative (DRA) behavior condition was added to an already thinned NCR schedule, NCR did not preclude the establishment and maintenance of mands. It should be noted, that manding increased only after the NCR schedules were thinned. It is possible that the initial dense NCR schedules for both children may have interfered with the acquisition of alternative behavior

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion