Relative efficiency of response-contingent and response--Independent stimulation on child learning and concomitant behavior.

Abstract

Observations of teachers' use of noncontingent stimulation to elicit behavior from young children with multiple disabilities and profound developmental delays led us to evaluate the relative efficiency of response-contingent and response-independent stimulation to affect child behavior change. Data from three children (2 females, 1 male) with multiple disabilities and delays were analyzed to determine how many child contingency, visual attention, and social affective behavior would be produced per 100 learning opportunities under contrasting stimulus conditions (contingent vs. noncontingent). Results showed for all three child behaviors, response-contingent stimulation was overwhelmingly more efficient in affecting behavior change compared to response-independent stimulation. Implications for intervention are described. Keywords: Response-contingent stimulation, response-independent stimulation, child operant learning, concomitant child behavior, efficiency ********** More than 25 years ago, we initiated a line of research and practice investigating the value of response-contingent learning opportunities with young children with multiple disabilities and profound developmental delays (e.g., Dunst, 1981; Dunst, Cushing, & Vance, 1985; Dunst & Didoha, 1976; Laub & Dunst, 1974). This work was begun in response to experience showing that traditional early intervention and therapy was not effective in promoting the learning and development of these children. Observations of many practitioners over many years have found that the interventions they used with young children with profound developmental delays more often than not involved response-independent or noncontingent stimulation to elicit or evoke child behavior. In most cases, the more disabled and delayed the children, the greater the likelihood that practitioners would spend large amounts of time using noncontingent stimulation to attempt to affect changes in child behavior. The influences of response-contingent and response-independent stimulation on child learning and behavior has been the focus of investigation for many years (e.g., Dunst, 1984; O'Brien, 1992; Utley, Duncan, Strain, & Scanlon, 1983; Vietze, Foster, & Friedman, 1974). Response-contingent stimulation involves the provision of stimulation contingent upon a child's behavior, whereas response-independent stimulation involves the provision of stimulation that is noncontingent or nondependent upon a child's behavior. Findings from studies indicate that noncontingent stimulation at least initially elicits child attention and increased behavior responding, but that children habituate to the response-independent stimulation the longer it is available. In contrast, response-contingent stimulation elicits and maintains child behavior responding for longer periods of time and is often associated with positive social-emotional behavior following contingency detection and awareness (see e.g., Dunst, 2003). The purpose of the analyses in this brief report was to determine the relative efficiency of response-contingent and response-independent stimulation on child operant learning and two concomitant child behavior (visual attention and affective behavior). The analyses were completed on data collected as part of a study promoting teachers' use of contingency games as a form of early childhood intervention with young children with multiple disabilities and profound developmental delays (Raab, Dunst, Wilson, & Parkey, 2007). During the baseline condition of the study, teachers were observed using noncontingent stimulation to elicit child behavior. The effect appeared to be behavior suppression rather than behavior enhancement. The extent to which this observation was confirmed in a secondary analysis of the study data was the focus of this report. The conduct of the original study was guided by a conceptual and operational framework that postulated both immediate and extended benefits of contingency learning opportunities (Dunst et al. …