The Use of a DRO Contingency with Visible Contract to Reduce Inappropriate Nose Picking Behaviours

1. The Use of a DRO Contingency with Visible Contract to Reduce Inappropriate Nose Picking Behaviours Stacey Goodman and MariannSzabo

2. Abstract This study implemented the treatment of inappropriate nose picking using Differential Reinforcement of Other behaviour (DRO) and a visible contract. The participant was a 16 year old male diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (asd). This study implemented an AB design using event recording. During treatment phase a contract was drawn up with the participant based upon a tick chart. The tick chart was set out in a way that the student received a tick contingent on not emitting behaviours; the ticks were gained in 2-minute intervals. A gain of four ticks resulted in the participant receiving a reinforcer of his choice (chosen at the beginning of the contract). The results showed that during baseline phase occurrences of picking were at a mean of 11.8 and a mean of 1.6 at treatment phase, which showed that the DRO contingency with contract was adequate at reducing occurrences of nose picking.

3. Literature review • DRO involves the delivery of reinforcement following a period of time in which target behaviour does not occur (Cooper, Heron & Heward, 2007). • DRO components are reinforcement upon scheduled intervals of compliance • Research findings suggest that self-stimulatory behaviour can be reduced significantly with the use of DRO and within a quick time frame • Wesolowski and Zawlocki (1982) investigated the effectiveness of four procedures in eliminating self-injurious behaviour (SIB) of blind twin girls. The form of self-injurious behaviour for both girls was eye-gouging behaviour. Of the four procedures, the forth, an overcorrection with DRO was most effective at reducing the behaviour, long term and SIB was no longer a problem. • DRO contingency plan would be the best tactic as the behaviour was clearly measurable and a 1:1 setting was already in place and the participants’ reinforcers were potent and well established.

4. Participant • This study involved one 17 year old pupil (participant 1) • diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder (asd). His behaviours included palalalia, which functioned as an automatic reinforcement • speaker/listener and emergent writer

5. Data collection • Baseline data were collected throughout the school day as event recording, a tally of the number of occurrences of nose picking using a black pen and paper. During treatment phase, data were collected by one teacher for all occurrences of nose picking throughout that working day. Responses were recorded as an event recording ‘+’ for correct responses on a data sheet and a tick ‘√’ was placed in the left hand column of the contract. For an incorrect response a minus ‘-‘was scored on the data sheet and a cross ‘x’ was placed into the right hand column of the contract. • A tick was given at the end of a two minute interval for contingent behaviour, a maximum of four correct responses were needed before chosen reinforcer was accessed. Each two minute interval, if correct, was also consequated with teacher praise. • If any occurrence of nose picking was seen an erroneous response was given and the timer was started again. If two erroneous responses were emitted, a response cost was implemented by wiping the contract of all its previous responses and the contract was started again. At the point of an erroneous response a vocal reminder of the rules at the top of the contract were given and a direction toward a tissue

6. Procedure • During treatment phase; at the beginning of the day the participant was read the rules of the contract by the teacher and the participant selected a reinforcer to access when compliant with the contract for four consecutive two minute intervals with the allowance of one erroneous interresponse interval. • As soon as the timer sounded and upon no occurrence of behaviour, a tick was placed into the left hand box on the contract and vocal praise was given simultaneously for following the rules. • When three more consecutive correct responses were scored the participant had immediate access to the reinforcer which was consistently an edible for this participant and vocal praise for following the rules was given. • If, during the contract, a first occasion of nose picking occurred the participant upon direction to a tissue was also given a vocal reminder of the rules and a ‘x’ presented on the contract. The timer was also reset. • This continued throughout the school day, each response was scored as a correct or incorrect response by the teacher on the data sheet.

7. Results • During baseline phase the mean number occurrences of nose picking was 11.8, with a range between 2 and 22 occurrences. During treatment phase the mean number of occurrences was 1.7 with a range of 0 and 4 occurrences. A decrease in inappropriate nose picking of 85% during DRO implementation.

8. Figure 1 Figure 1: Number of occurrences of nose picking during baseline and treatment phases.

9. References Chowdhury, M. & Benson, B.A. (2011). Use of differential reinforcement to reduce behaviorproblems in adults with intellectual disabilities: A methodological review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(2), 383-394. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).Applied Behavior Analysis.(2 ed.).Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Repp, A. C., & Deitz, S. M. (1974). Reducing aggressive and self-injurious behavior of institutionalized retarded children through reinforcement of other behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 313-325 Selinske, J., Greer, R.D. & Lodhi, S. (1991) A functional analysis of Comprehensive Application of Behavioural Analysis to Schooling. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis. 13, 645-654. Waters, M. B., Lerman, D. C., & Hovanetz, A. N. (2009). Separate and combined effects of visual schedules and extinction plus differential reinforcement on problem behavior occasioned by transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 42(2), 309-313. Wesolowski, M.D. & Zawlocki, R.J. (1982). The differential effects of procedures toeliminate an injurious self-stimulatory behavior (digito-ocular sign) in blind retarded twins. Behavior Therapy, 13(3), 334-345