|
Heartland AEA 11
6500 Corporate Drive
Johnston, IA 50131
515/270-9030
800/362-2720 |
|
Research Summary
Decision-Making
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.
Few behavioral interventions have been explored
for use with preschool children with AD/HD. Components of
successful behavioral interventions include rewarding appropriate
behavior, giving effective directions, using consistent methods of
discipline, implementing a self-monitoring package, and using a
daily report card system. There has been no research to date on
response cost with preschool-aged children with AD/HD.
Four Caucasian children (2 male, 2 female) in a
general education, half-day, preschool classroom participated.
Classroom ratio was 20:1 with a classroom aide available throughout
the day. Behavioral categories and definitions were adapted from
the Early Screening Profile (ESP; Walker, Severson, & Feil,
1995). Inappropriate social behaviors included negative social
engagement, off-task behavior, disobeying established rules, and
tantrumming. Teacher praise, teacher reprimands, and frequency of
time-out also were recorded.
A single-subject reversal design was used to
compare baseline (A), a token reinforcement intervention (B), and a
response cost intervention (C). Two participants received ABACABAC,
whereas the other two participants received the opposite,
ACABABAC.
Token Reinforcement: During this intervention,
the participants earned buttons that were displayed on a chart for
following the established rules of the classroom (target behaviors)
throughout each activity. Each activity lasted approximately 10-15
minutes. At the beginning of the day, the teacher reminded the
child, using specific examples and criteria, about the classroom
rules and the opportunities to earn buttons and reinforcement.
During each activity, the teacher rewarded the child with a button
on the chart every time the teachers saw the child following the
rules ("You get a button for staying in your seat."). At the end of
each activity, the teacher and child determined if the child met
criteria (3 buttons earned) to earn the larger button on the chart.
If the child didn't earn enough small buttons, "you did not follow
the rules. Try harder next time to earn the big button." At the end
of the class, the child earns rewards for earning a predetermined
number of big buttons.
Response Cost: The response cost intervention
procedure used the same button chart as the token reinforcement
procedure. All of the buttons were present at the beginning of the
day. The chart contained 5 small buttons and one big button per
activity. At the beginning of the day, the teacher reminded the
child about the rules of the class and about losing buttons for
breaking rules. If the child broke one of the rules, the teacher
removed one of the buttons from the chart ("You lost a button for
not listening to the teacher."). At the end of each activity, the
teacher and the child determined if the child kept enough to retain
the large button on the chart. If the child did not, the large
button was removed and the child was encouraged to try harder
during the next activity. At the end of the day, the child earned
rewards for retaining the 3 large buttons.
Direct observations in the classroom and data
from teacher rating scales revealed that both the token
reinforcement and response cost interventions were associated with
reductions in the disruptive behavior of three of four
participants. Teachers found response cost procedures more
acceptable, primarily due to the high teacher-student ratio (i.e.,
it reportedly was hard to catch kids being good). Limitations were
noted (e.g., no functional analysis of behavior was
conducted).
|
|
