Functional considerations in the use of procedural timeout and in effective alternative.
Two single-subject experiments were conducted with students in special preschool classes. In Experiment I, the subject's disruptive, appropriate, and inappropriate play behaviors were measured as a function of three independent variables: reinforcement, a typical timeout procedure, and regularly paced teacher instructions. In an ABA reversal within a multiple baseline across two teachers, all three independent variables comprised the A conditions and procedural timeout was omitted in B. Experiment II examined a second subject's appropriate and inappropriate eating as a function of the same three variables. Two teachers conducted baseline and paced instruction-plus-reinforcement conditions in multiple baseline across teachers. Subsequently, one teacher performed a series of reversals and replications with various combinations of a typical timeout procedure and reinforcement mixed with paced instructions. The results of both experiments suggest that timeout did not produce response decrement in a punishment paradigm, but rather produced response increment in a negative reinforcement paradigm. These results prevailed, even though a reinforcer was operating in the environment before introducing timeout. Paced instructions (delivering instructions to the child at a set pace regardless of the child's behavior) appears to be an alternative when timeout is not effective and, in conjunction with reinforcement, was demonstrated to reduce inappropriate behavior to near zero.
D001321:Autistic Disorder / Q000628:therapy*; D001348:Aversive Therapy; D001521:Behavior Therapy / Q000379:methods*; D002653:Child Behavior Disorders / Q000628:therapy*; D002675:Child, Preschool; D003463:Cues; D005247:Feeding Behavior; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012653:Self Stimulation; D013239:Stereotyped Behavior; D013663:Teaching / Q000379:methods