Nominally acceptable integrity failures negatively affect interventions involving intermittent reinforcement. Issue 4 (12th July 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jones, Stephanie H.; St. Peter, Claire C.
• Is Part Of: Journal of applied behavior analysis. Volume 55:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 1109
• Page End: 1123
• Publication Date: 2022-07-12
• Subjects: differential reinforcement of alternative behavior -- fixed‐time schedules -- noncontingent reinforcement -- treatment integrity; Psychology, Applied -- Periodicals; Social Behavior -- Periodicals; 150
• DOI: 10.1002/jaba.944
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0021-8855

Abstract

Abstract : The finding that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) is efficacious at 80% integrity when continuous reinforcement is programmed for alternative responding may have contributed to a perception that integrity at 80% or above is acceptable. However, research also suggests that other interventions (e.g., noncontingent reinforcement) may not remain effective at 80% integrity. The conditions under which 80% integrity is acceptable for common behavioral interventions remains unclear. Therefore, we conducted two human‐operant studies to evaluate effects of 80% integrity for interventions with contingent or noncontingent intermittent reinforcement schedules. During Experiment 1, we compared noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) and DRA when implemented with 80% integrity. During Experiment 2, we compared 2 variations of DRA, which included either a ratio or interval schedule to reinforce alternative behavior. Results replicated previous research showing that DRA with a FR‐1 schedule programmed for alternative responding resulted in consistent target response suppression, even when integrity was reduced to 80%. In contrast, neither NCR nor interval‐based DRA were consistently effective when implemented at 80% integrity. These results demonstrate that 80% integrity is not a uniformly acceptable minimal level of integrity.