Association for Behavior Analysis International

Token economies are among the most widely used procedures in behavior analysis and research on token economies has spanned over 80 years. Some textbooks have outlined the essential components of token economies and suggested how they could be trained and implemented in practice (Cooper et al. 2020; Miltenberger, 2015). Hackenberg (2018) outlined a plethora of translational and applied research on token systems and suggested there is still much more work to be done. However, procedures evaluated in applied research can vary from how those procedures are implemented in clinical practice. It may be the case that the way in which token economies are implemented in clinical settings do not resemble the procedures described in research and behavior analytic textbooks. We surveyed certified clinicians about their commonly used practices when training and implementing token economies with individuals with autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. Results suggest that token economies in practice often bear little resemblance to how they are described in the literature. Suggestions for future research will be discussed.

We conducted a descriptive assessment of token economy structure and implementation in two ABA-based schools serving individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD). We collected data on several aspects of the token economy structure including: a) type of token, b) token characteristics, c) accumulation strategy, d) exchange strategy, e) type and cost of backup reinforcer, f) context of token use, and g) proportion of students using a token economy. We discuss the results in light of findings from the basic and applied research on token economies and provide practical considerations for clinicians arranging token economies for learners with ASD and IDD in school contexts. Finally, we provide suggestions for future researchers to examine common practice-based variations of token economies that have not yet been empirically examined in the applied or basic research base.

Tokens are among the most common consequences delivered by behavior analysts who work with individuals with developmental disabilities (Graff & Karsten, 2012). However, recommendations for establishing tokens as conditioned reinforcers vary and many questions remain about best practices. In this study, children with intellectual and developmental disabilities completed preference and reinforcer assessments, from which we identified two to three backup reinforcers. We then evaluated four procedures for establishing tokens as conditioned reinforcers, usually followed by extinction tests to determine if the token had assumed any independent value. We began with stimulus-stimulus (SS) pairing of tokens with the backup reinforcers. If SS pairing did not establish tokens as conditioned reinforcers, we evaluated response-stimulus (RS) pairing and/or noncontingent token-exchange training, in which participants exchanged noncontingently delivered tokens for backup reinforcers. If neither of these procedures established tokens as conditioned reinforcers, we assessed response-contingent token-exchange training. Results suggest that (1) exchange plays a critical role in supporting reinforcer effectiveness, and (2) the conditions under which we evaluate the effects of token training might influence our results and conclusions.