Association for Behavior Analysis International

A key component of comprehensive behavioral interventions for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is the provision of reinforcement. Several methods have been designed and evaluated within the literature to identify potential reinforcing events (e.g., multiple stimulus without replacement; MSWO). Once potential reinforcers have been identified it is common for those to be used within a reinforcement system, such as a token system. The purpose of this symposium is to present three studies that evaluated the methods of reinforcement identification, assessment, and the use thereof. The first presentation evaluated the effectiveness of a magic number token system to increase the frequency of comments during snack for children diagnosed with ASD. The second presentation evaluated the use of a level system to improve synchronous engagement (SE) within two dyads of children diagnosed with ASD. The final presentation compared the rate of responding when potentially reinforcing items were identified using a MSWO preference assessment or through in-the-moment reinforcer analysis.

RBTs, BCaBAs, BCBAs

Token systems are commonly used throughout the course of treatment for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Token systems commonly involve a predetermined number of tokens required to be earned prior to their exchange for a terminal reinforcer. The effectiveness of token systems implemented in this manner have been well documented within the literature. One alternative to a static number of tokens earned, is altering that number based upon learner responding and having the number remain unknown to the learner until the moment of exchange (i.e., a magic number token system). This type of a system requires in-the-moment assessment by the interventionist. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a magic number token system to increase the frequency of comments during snack for children diagnosed with ASD. The results of a multiple baseline across children will be discussed as well as future research and clinical recommendations.

Level systems have been described as a framework which can be used to shape behavior through the systematic application of behavioral principles. Within level systems, an individual moves up and down through various levels contingent upon displaying specific behaviors. While level systems have been evaluated across a wide variety of settings using group contingences, their use on an individual level has received considerably less attention. Furthermore, to date, the authors are only aware of one study that has utilized a level system with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of a level system to improve synchronous engagement (SE) within two dyads of children diagnosed with ASD. The results of an ABAB reversal design demonstrated that the level system was effective at improving SE for both dyads. Future research and clinical recommendations will be discussed.

The provision of reinforcement to increase the frequency of desired behaviors is a crucial element of behavior analytic intervention for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Formal preference assessments, like the multiple stimulus without replacement procedure (MSWO), are often used to determine potential reinforcers for use during intervention. While these types of assessments have been widely demonstrated as effective, there is little empirical evidence to support that these rigorous methods of reinforcement identification produce higher rates of responding compared to more efficient methods (i.e., in-the-moment reinforcer analysis; IMRA). The purpose of this study was to compare the rate of responding on a sorting task when potentially reinforcing items were identified through the use of a MSWO preference assessment or through IMRA. The results of alternating treatments design will be discussed in terms of rate of responding, efficiency, reinforcer selection, and interventionist rationale. Future research and clinical recommendations will also be discussed.