JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2018, 51, 61–69 NUMBER 1 (WINTER)

A MULTICOMPONENT APPROACH TO THINNING REINFORCER

DELIVERY DURING NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT
SCHEDULES
SARAH K. SLOCUM
ROLLINS COLLEGE

EMMA GRAUERHOLZ-FISHER, KERRI P. PETERS AND TIMOTHY R. VOLLMER

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

We evaluated a noncontingent reinforcement procedure that involved initially providing three

subjects with signaled, continuous access to the functional reinforcer for aggression and slowly
increasing the amount of time subjects were exposed to the signaled unavailability of the rein-
forcer. Additionally, alternative potential reinforcers were available throughout the sessions.
Results showed immediate and substantial reductions in aggression for all three subjects. The
clinical utility of this intervention is discussed, and future research directions are recommended.
Key words: multiple schedules, noncontingent reinforcement, problem behavior, reinforce-
ment thinning, social-positive reinforcement

After the reinforcer maintaining problem
behavior is identified via a functional analysis,
noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) involves
delivering that reinforcer on a time-based
schedule independent of the occurrence of
problem behavior (Vollmer, Iwata, Zarcone,
Smith, & Mazaleski, 1993). This treatment
reduces problem behavior by eliminating the
reinforcement contingency between problem
behavior and the functional consequence
(i.e., placing problem behavior on extinction)
and minimizing the motivating conditions that
establish that reinforcer (i.e., arranging an abol-
ishing operation; Kahng, Iwata, Thompson, &
Hanley, 2000).
NCR is typically initiated with a dense rein-
forcer delivery schedule that is gradually
thinned. The terminal goal of thinning is usu-
ally to approximate a schedule that could be
maintained practically in the natural
A portion of this research was conducted with support
from the Autism Speaks’ Dennis Weatherstone Predoc-
toral Fellowship, #9166, PI: Sarah Slocum.
Address correspondence to Sarah Slocum Freeman, PhD,
BCBA-D, Department of Health Professions, Rollins Col-
lege, 1000 Holt Ave. #2791, Winter Park, FL 32789.
Email: slocum@rollins.edu
doi: 10.1002/jaba.427
© 2017 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
61
environment (Carr et al., 2000). Thinning
involves gradually reintroducing deprivation
and thus can evoke problem behavior. For
example, Vollmer, Ringdahl, Roane, and Mar-
cus (1997) documented a case in which NCR
schedule thinning from continuous to intermit-
tent reinforcement resulted in a burst of prob-
lem behavior. It is possible that as the
establishing operation for problem behavior in
the environment became greater, problem
behavior was more likely to occur and was acci-
dentally reinforced. In cases of severe problem
behavior, any amount of problem behavior
would be unacceptable. Therefore, it is impor-
tant to identify effective NCR procedures that
reduce problem behavior to near-zero levels,
even when thinning the schedule of
reinforcement.
One way to increase tolerance to periods of
extinction is to use a multiple schedule to
increase discrimination between components
(Gouboth, Wilder, & Booher, 2007; Tiger &
Hanley, 2004). Previous literature on func-
tional communication training (FCT) has dem-
onstrated several ways to facilitate
discrimination between periods of reinforce-
ment and extinction (e.g., Tiger & Hanley,
62 SARAH K. SLOCUM et al.
2004; Vollmer, Borrero, Lalli, & Daniel,
1999). For example, Vollmer et al. (1999)
found subjects engaged in lower rates of aggres-
sion and higher rates of manding when delays
to reinforcement were signaled versus
unsignaled. Therefore, the use of signals might
facilitate tolerance to periods of extinction
when thinning NCR.
Additionally, previous research has shown
that allowing access to alternative items can
reduce the level of problem behavior during
extinction intervals (Austin & Tiger, 2015;
Fischer, Iwata, & Mazaleski, 1997; Fisher,
Kuhn, & Thompson, 1998; Fisher, Thomp-
son, Hagopian, Bowman, & Krug, 2000; Han-
ley, Piazza, & Fisher, 1997). To this point, we
have been discussing functional reinforcers
(i.e., the reinforcer identified in the functional
assessment to maintain problem behavior), but
there are other stimuli that might act to reduce
problem behavior. For instance, Hanley
et al. (1997) compared the rates of attention-
maintained problem behavior of two children
with intellectual disabilities when a functional
reinforcer (attention) versus an alternative rein-
forcer (a tangible item) was noncontingently
available. Both conditions resulted in a reduc-
tion in problem behavior with no difference
between the two conditions for one subject and
lower rates of problem behavior in the noncon-
tingent tangible condition (i.e., the nonfunc-
tional condition) for the second subject.
Although there have been many studies dem-
onstrating the initial effects of NCR, there have
been comparably fewer demonstrating successful
schedule thinning using a multiple schedule.
Therefore, the purpose of the current study was
to initially implement NCR using dense sched-
ules followed by thinning the schedule of rein-
forcement. Multiple features were incorporated to
minimize the likelihood of problem behavior dur-
ing reinforcement thinning including arranging
salient signals indicating when reinforcement was
and was not available (i.e., a multiple schedule;
Tiger & Hanley, 2004) and providing alternative
potential reinforcers when the functional rein-
forcer was restricted (Fisher, DeLeon, Rodriguez-
Catter, & Keeney, 2004).
METHOD
Subjects and Setting
We recruited three subjects who displayed
dangerous aggressive behavior and had a diag-
nosis of autism spectrum disorder or develop-
mental delay. Clancy, Korey, and Reginald
were 7-, 3-, and 12-year-old boys, respectively.
Clancy was nonvocal, but followed complex
instructions, and Korey and Reginald spoke in
multiple-word sentences and followed complex
instructions. All sessions were conducted in a
local clinic or a therapy room at the subject’s
school. The subject, therapist, and an individ-
ual who was video recording were present for
all sessions.
Responses and Interobserver Agreement
Aggression was targeted for all three subjects
and included a subset of these topographies:
hitting, kicking, grabbing, pulling, pinching,
and pushing. Data collectors scored the fre-
quency of aggression using handheld iOS
devices equipped with the data-collection pro-
gram Countee (Version 1.0.4; Peic Gavran &
Hernandez, 2016). A second observer simulta-
neously collected data during 47%, 42%, and
33% of Clancy, Korey, and Reginald’s sessions,
respectively. Interobserver agreement was calcu-
lated using the proportional method. That is,
we partitioned sessions into 10-s intervals. The
smaller number of observed instances by one
observer was divided by the larger number of
observed instances by the second observer
within each interval, and this quotient was con-
verted to a percentage. Intervals in which both
observers scored zero instances were considered
to be 100% agreement. Mean agreement was
then calculated across intervals yielding scores
of 98% (range, 82%-100%) for Clancy, 98%
 THINNING DURING NCR
(range, 90%-100%) for Korey, and 97%
(range, 77%-100%) for Reginald.
Procedures
Functional analysis. A functional analysis of
aggression was conducted with each subject
using procedures similar to those described by
Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, and Richman
(1982/1994) and included a no-interaction,
attention, tangible (Clancy and Reginald only),
control, and escape condition, conducted in
that fixed order. Within the attention condi-
tion, subjects were given access to a moderately
preferred tangible item based on results of a
free-operant preference assessment (FOPA;
Roane, Vollmer, Ringdahl, & Marcus, 1998);
contingent on problem behavior, a brief repri-
mand was delivered. Within the tangible condi-
tion for Reginald, he was given access to a
highly preferred tangible item (also based on
the FOPA) for 30 s prior to the start of a ses-
sion. The item was removed from the subject
to start the session, and was delivered for 30 s
contingent on problem behavior. For Clancy,
aggression did not occur in a barren environ-
ment and only occurred in his natural therapy
room. As such, for his tangible condition, we
removed the first two items Clancy touched,
and provided access to those items again con-
tingent on aggression. This was done because it
was impossible to block access to all tangible
items in his therapy room. Different tangible
items were used in attention and tangible test
conditions. The control or toy-play condition
included access to a highly preferred item (or
all items in the therapy room in Clancy’s case),
continuous attention, and no demands. Aggres-
sion did not result in any programmed conse-
quences. Finally, the escape condition involved
the delivery of academic instructions appropri-
ate for the subject (i.e., based on clinic or indi-
vidualized education plan goals) using a three-
step least-to-most prompting sequence. Aggres-
sion resulted in a 30-s break from instructions.
63
The first three subjects were included whose
functional analyses indicated aggression was
maintained by social-positive reinforcement.
Baseline. Clancy and Reginald’s tangible ses-
sions from the functional analysis were used as
their initial baseline (i.e., we did not rerun a
baseline). For Korey, we conducted a baseline
condition identical to the attention condition
of the functional analysis, except Korey was
able to select an item to be present during all
baseline and treatment sessions. In baseline ses-
sions, the experimenter withheld the functional
reinforcer (attention for Korey, Play-Doh for
Reginald, and the first two toys contacted in
the therapy room by Clancy), except following
the occurrence of aggression when the therapist
delivered access to the reinforcer for 3-5 s for
Korey (attention) or 30 s for Reginald and
Clancy (access to tangibles). For Korey and
Clancy, baseline sessions were 8-min, and for
Reginald, baseline sessions were 5 min. Follow-
ing baseline, we initiated NCR conditions in a
nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across
subjects.
NCR and schedule thinning. During 8-min
NCR sessions for all subjects, the therapist pro-
vided continuous access to toys and attention.
This included both the functional reinforcer for
aggression and an alternative source of potential
positive reinforcement (i.e., a toy was included
for Korey, whose behavior was maintained by
attention, and attention was provided for Regi-
nald and Clancy, whose behavior was maintained
by access to tangibles). The therapist placed
aggression on extinction during these sessions.
Additionally, the therapist placed an orange card
on the wall. The laminated colored card was
taped about 1.5 m off the ground and was
approximately 11 by 15 cm. Following two con-
secutive sessions with aggression at or below 0.1
responses per min (rpm), we began schedule
thinning.
The thinning procedure is illustrated in
Figure 1. We began by introducing a single,
10-s period without access to the functional
64 SARAH K. SLOCUM et al.

Figure 1. Depiction of the reinforcement schedule thinning. Shaded areas correspond to times in which both the
functional and the alternative potential reinforcer were both available. Unshaded areas correspond to times in which only
the alternative potential reinforcer was available (and the functional reinforcer was unavailable).

reinforcer at a randomly selected point in the
session. During this period, the therapist
flipped the orange card revealing a white side
and removed the functional reinforcer. Aggres-
sion was still on extinction. Attempts to gain
access to the functional reinforcer (i.e., grab
tangible items) were blocked for Reginald and
Clancy. Although the functional reinforcer was
removed, the therapist continued to provide con-
tinuous access to the alternative potential rein-
forcer of attention for both subjects. Response
blocking was not necessary for Korey as he had
access to a tangible item throughout his sessions;
rather, attention was unavailable during these
periods. Following the 10-s period, the card was
flipped back over to the orange side, and the
functional reinforcer was returned.
Following two consecutive sessions with less
than or equal to 0.1 rpm, we advanced our
thinning schedule by increasing the period
without access to the functional reinforcer from
10 s to 30 s, 60 s, and then 120 s. We then
included two periods (120 s and 60 s) and
finally three periods (120 s, 60 s, and 60 s) in
which the functional reinforcer was unavailable
within each session. These periods never
occurred consecutively; that is, there was always
1-min access to the functional reinforcer
between each period without functional rein-
forcement. The duration in which the func-
tional reinforcer was unavailable was
predetermined based on the thinning criteria,
and the point in time within the 8-min session
in which the functional reinforcer was unavail-
able differed session to session (see Figure 1).
At the final stage, each session included a
cumulative duration of 4 min of availability of
the functional reinforcer and 4 min of unavail-
ability of the functional reinforcer. If aggression
occurred at a rate above 0.1 rpm during any
thinning session, we returned to the previously
successful level before attempting further
thinning.
Terminal-schedule probes (Clancy only).
Terminal-schedule probes were conducted each
time Clancy met the advancement criterion to
determine the necessity of continued schedule
thinning. These probes were identical to NCR
sessions described above and included three
randomly distributed periods of 120 s, 60 s,
and 60 s in which the functional reinforcer was
unavailable during each 8-min session. If
aggression occurred at or below 0.1 rpm, we
continued probe sessions until aggression
remained at or below 0.1 rpm for three consec-
utive sessions (in which case we would have
considered our evaluation complete). If aggres-
sion increased above 0.1 rpm during the
probes, we continued with schedule thinning as
described above.
Procedural modifications (Clancy). At the ter-
minal stages of schedule thinning (sessions
36 and 37), we saw increasing levels of aggres-
sion that persisted even when the reinforcer-
 THINNING DURING NCR 65

10
Toy Play
8
No Interaction
Attention
6 Tangible
Modified Tangible
4 Demand

2
Clancy
0
Responses per min of Aggression

2 4 6

24

18

12

6
Korey

0
10 20

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5
Reginald
0.0
10 20
Sessions

Figure 2. Subjects’ rates of aggression (responses per min) during the functional analyses.

removal periods were decreased. We noticed
Clancy attempting to hide his toys or prevent
their removal by sitting on them or holding
them tightly. This behavior did not prevent us
from being able to remove items from Clancy’s
possession; however, it did make removal of
toys more difficult and resulted in increased
problem behavior. Therefore, we incorporated
a warning. Specifically, we presented an audi-
tory countdown to when his toys would be
removed. The therapist stated, “Ok Clancy,
3, 2, 1” and switched the card from orange to
white to signal he was entering into a period
where the functional reinforcer would be una-
vailable. This change began at session 38 and
remained in place for all thinning and
terminal-probe sessions thereafter.
RESULTS
Figure 2 shows results of the functional ana-
lyses for all three subjects. For Clancy, after
66 SARAH K. SLOCUM et al.

BL NCR and Schedule Thinning

0
12 0 + 6
60

60
0

0
0
8

0+

0+
12
10

30

60

12

12
0

12

12
6

2 Began
Countdown
Clancy
0
Responses per min of Aggression

16

12
Probes
Thinning
8

0 Korey

0 Reginald

20 40
Sessions

Figure 3. Rate of aggression for the three subjects during baseline and reinforcement schedule thinning. Breaks in
the data path correspond to changes in the thinning procedure.

conducting a standard functional analysis with
zero instances of aggression (data not shown), we
conducted a pairwise analysis comparing a modi-
fied tangible condition described above and toy-
play conditions. Responding was differentiated
and showed a tangible function for aggression.
For Korey, following an undifferentiated stan-
dard functional analysis (data not shown), pair-
wise analyses were conducted, in which we
determined his aggression was maintained by
access to attention. Finally, Reginald’s functional
analysis produced differentiated responding, with
higher levels of aggression in the tangible
condition.
Figure 3 shows the results of the treatment
evaluation. The average rate of Clancy’s prob-
lem behavior in baseline was 4.6 rpm (upper
panel of Figure 3). During the treatment evalu-
ation, his average rate of problem behavior was
0.2 across all thinning steps. Excluding the
 THINNING DURING NCR
probe sessions (until the final probe series), the
average rate of Clancy’s problem behavior was
0.1. Korey’s problem behavior in baseline aver-
aged 7.1 rpm (middle panel of Figure 3). In
treatment, however, his average rate of problem
behavior was 0.02. Finally, Reginald’s average
rate of problem behavior in baseline was 1.14,
whereas his average rate of problem behavior in
treatment was 0.01 (bottom panel of Figure 3).
Korey and Reginald only had a single instance
of problem behavior during treatment. The
results show a 99.5%, 99.7%, and 99.1%
reduction in problem behavior from baseline to
treatment for Clancy, Korey, and Reginald,
respectively. When examining sessions that
involved continuous access to the functional
reinforcer (i.e., the first two treatment sessions),
we saw a 100% reduction in problem behavior
compared to baseline for all three subjects.
DISCUSSION
NCR resulted in an immediate reduction in
aggression to zero levels with three children diag-
nosed with autism spectrum disorder or develop-
mental delay whose problem behavior was
maintained by social-positive reinforcement. In
the present study, NCR involved providing free
access to both functional and alternative non-
functional reinforcers. Following this initial
reduction, we successfully thinned the schedule
of reinforcer availability by 50%, arranging equal
periods in which the functional reinforcer was
and was not available. This thinning was associ-
ated with zero levels of problem behavior during
15 of 18 sessions for Clancy (excluding terminal
probes), 16 of 17 sessions for Korey, and 13 of
14 sessions for Reginald. All problem behavior
occurred when the functional reinforcer was una-
vailable. Thus, we were able to maintain robust
treatment effects following NCR exposure
despite the gradual reintroduction of the motivat-
ing conditions for problem behavior.
Several strategies were used to minimize the
reemergence of aggression when the functional
67
reinforcer was withheld including the provision
of alternative reinforcers and the presentation
of stimuli to signal the availability and unavail-
ability of reinforcement (and the impending
unavailability in Clancy’s case through use of a
verbal reminder). These strategies have been
successful in thinning reinforcement delivery
during other reinforcement-based strategies
(Austin & Tiger, 2015; Fisher et al., 2004;
Hanley, Iwata, & Thompson, 2001; Tiger &
Hanley, 2004; Vollmer et al., 1999) but are
novel to treatment with NCR. We did not
attempt to isolate the effects of these strategies
during NCR schedule thinning. Either of these
strategies alone might have been sufficient to
minimize the reemergence of problem behavior;
it is also possible that neither component was
necessary. Additional component analyses of
these procedures will be necessary to identify
the sufficient and necessary conditions for suc-
cessful schedule thinning.
We tested the necessity of thinning with one
subject (Clancy) by conducting periodic termi-
nal probes. Problem behavior resumed during
each exposure to probe conditions until sched-
ule thinning was completed; these data suggest
schedule thinning was necessary in Clancy’s
case, but future research might evaluate this
with more subjects. Although schedule thinning
can be a time-intensive process, it was com-
pleted fairly quickly with subjects in the current
study (2 hr and 40 min, 2 hr and 16 min, and
1 hr and 52 min for Clancy, Korey, and Regi-
nald, respectively). At our terminal-schedule
value, reinforcement was withheld for 1 or
2 min at a time, or 50% of total session time,
and near-zero levels of problem behavior main-
tained. It is not clear how practical such sched-
ules would be in natural environments,
especially given that alternative reinforcers were
continuously programmed. It also seems likely
that additional schedule thinning will need to
be adopted and maintained with integrity by
caregivers. Future research should evaluate thin-
ning to leaner and more practical levels.
68 SARAH K. SLOCUM et al.
Based on the current data, we cannot be
certain why problem behavior remained low
despite the prolonged presence of the establishing
operation at the end of reinforcement fading.
Perhaps the alternative reinforcer altered the
establishing operation for the functional rein-
forcer. It is also possible the signals functioned to
decrease the aversiveness of the intervals of
extinction (see discussion in Tiger & Hanley,
2006). In particular with Clancy’s case, we had
to increase the salience of the signal by adding a
countdown to periods of extinction to maintain
low levels of problem behavior. Finally, the alter-
native reinforcer might have been functionally
related to the problem behavior in some cases.
This might have been possible for Korey and
Reginald. For Korey, a tangible condition was
not included in his functional analysis; therefore,
we cannot be certain his aggression was not mul-
tiply maintained by both attention and access to
tangible items. For Reginald, his responding in
the attention condition of the functional analysis
was zero, and while that might indicate attention
does not act as a reinforcer for problem behavior,
it also could reflect that Reginald’s behavior never
contacted contingent attention while he engaged
in the moderately preferred toys. It is possible if
the establishing operation were more powerful
(e.g., if sessions were 15 min or longer),
attention-maintained aggression might have been
evoked. If this is the explanation for the effective-
ness of our reinforcement-fading procedure, the
alternative reinforcer is essentially functioning as
a secondary NCR intervention.
While the current procedure did not teach
subjects an alternative response, these NCR
procedures might be preferred over FCT proce-
dures in some cases. For instance, in an emer-
gency situation in which problem behavior
must be reduced quickly the time required to
teach a functional communication response
may be deemed too risky. Future research
should evaluate the addition of an FCT com-
ponent within the context of these NCR proce-
dures when problem behavior is under control
(see Fritz, Jackson, Stiefler, Wimberly, & Rich-
ardson, 2017).
We did not empirically evaluate methods to
transfer these procedures to the subjects’ natu-
ral environments or conduct the thinning pro-
cedure in the context of daily activities. The
use of a discriminative stimulus for availability/
unavailability of reinforcement was, however,
applied to Clancy’s picture-exchange book.
Korey’s teacher also transferred his discrimina-
tive stimulus to a vocal prompt where she
would simply state that he had to play alone
for a period of time (i.e., a briefly signaled as
opposed to a continuously signaled period of
extinction; Tiger, Hanley, & Larsen, 2008).
Future research should extend this study by
examining the procedures for transferring
effects, the durability of the obtained effects,
and ease of implementation of this type of
treatment.
REFERENCES
Austin, J. E., & Tiger, J. H. (2015). Providing alternative
reinforcers to facilitate tolerance to delayed reinforce-
ment following functional communication training.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 663-668.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.215
Carr, J. E., Coriaty, S., Wilder, D. A., Gaunt, B. T.,
Dozier, C. L., Britton, L. N., … Reed, C. L. (2000).
A review of “noncontingent” reinforcement as treat-
ment for the aberrant behavior of individuals with
developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 21, 377-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0891-4222(00)00050-0
Fischer, S. M., Iwata, B. A., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1997).
Noncontingent delivery of arbitrary reinforcers as
treatment for self-injurious behavior. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 239-249. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-239
Fisher, W. W., DeLeon, I. G., Rodriguez-Catter, V., &
Keeney, K. M. (2004). Enhancing the effects of
extinction of attention-maintained behavior through
noncontingent delivery of attention or stimuli identi-
fied via a competing items assessment. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 171-184. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.2004.37-171
Fisher, W. W., Kuhn, D. E., & Thompson, R. H.
(1998). Establishing discriminative control of
responding using functional and alternative rein-
forcers during functional communication training.
 THINNING DURING NCR
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 543-560.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1998.31-543
Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Hagopian, L. P.,
Bowman, L. G., & Krug, A. (2000). Facilitating
tolerance of delayed reinforcement during func-
tional communication training. Behavior Modifica-
tion, 24, 3-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455
00241001
Fritz, J. N., Jackson, L. M., Stiefler, N. A.,
Wimberly, B. S., & Richardson, A. R. (2017). Non-
contingent reinforcement without extinction plus dif-
ferential reinforcement of alternative behavior during
treatment of problem behavior. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 50, 590-599. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jaba.395
Gouboth, D., Wilder, D. A., & Booher, J. (2007). The
effects of signaling stimulus presentation during non-
contingent reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 40, 725-730. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
2007.725-730
Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Thompson, R. H. (2001).
Reinforcement schedule thinning following treatment
with functional communication training. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 17-38. https://doi.org/
10.1901/jaba.2001.34-17
Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., & Fisher, W. W. (1997).
Noncontingent presentation of attention and alterna-
tive stimuli in the treatment of attention-maintained
destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 30, 229-237. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1997.30-229
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., &
Richman, G. S. (1994). Toward a functional analysis of
self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27,
197-209. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-197
(Reprinted from Analysis and Intervention in
Developmental Disabilities, 2, 3-20, 1982).
Kahng, S., Iwata, B. A., Thompson, R. H., &
Hanley, G. P. (2000). A method for identifying satia-
tion versus extinction effects under noncontingent
reinforcement schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 33, 419-432. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
2000.33-419
69
Peic Gavran, D., & Hernandez, V. (2016). Countee
(Version 1.0.4). [Mobile application software].
Retrieved from http://itunes.apple.com
Roane, H. S., Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., &
Marcus, B. A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus
preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 31, 605-620. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1998.31-605.
Tiger, J. H., & Hanley, G. P. (2004). Developing stimu-
lus control of preschooler mands: An analysis of
schedule-correlated and contingency-specifying stim-
uli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 517-521.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2004.37-517
Tiger, J. H., & Hanley, G. P. (2006). The effectiveness
of and preschoolers’ preferences for variations of
multiple-schedule arrangements. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 39, 475-488. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.2006.48-06
Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Larsen, K. M. (2008). A
practical variation of a multiple-schedule procedure:
Brief schedule-correlated stimuli. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 41, 125-130. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.2008.41-125
Vollmer, T. R., Borrero, J. C., Lalli, J. S., & Daniel, D.
(1999). Evaluating self-control and impulsivity in
children with severe behavior disorders. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 451-466. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1999.32-451
Vollmer, T. R., Iwata, B. A., Zarcone, J. R.,
Smith, R. G., & Mazaleski, J. L. (1993). The role of
attention in the treatment of attention-maintained
self-injurious behavior: Noncontingent reinforcement
and differential reinforcement of other behavior. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 9-21. https://doi.
org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-9
Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., Roane, H. S., &
Marcus, B. A. (1997). Negative side effects of non-
contingent reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 30, 161-164. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
1997.30-161
Received February 8, 2016
Final acceptance November 15, 2017
Action Editor Jeffrey Tiger