A Comparison of Noncontingent Plus Contingent Reinforcement to Contingent Reinforcement Alone on Students’ Academic Performance

Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) can be described as time-based or response-independent delivery of stimuli with known reinforcing properties. Previous research has shown NCR to reduce problem behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities and to interfere with the acquisition of more desired alternative behavior. To date, however, little research has examined the effects of NCR on children’s academic performance. The present study examined the effects of NCR on the completion of math computation worksheets by 3 students in an elementary school setting. An ABCB reversal design was used to compare an NCR schedule in combination with contingent reinforcement to contingent reinforcement alone. Results showed that digits correct per session decreased to baseline levels for all 3 students during implementation of the NCR plus contingent reinforcement condition. Implications of these results for the reductive effects of NCR are discussed. Introduction Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) can be described as time-based or response-independent delivery of stimuli with known reinforcing properties (Vollmer et al. 1993). With an NCR schedule, reinforcers are delivered based on a predetermined time schedule (e.g., every 20 s) rather than being influenced by the person’s [end of page 37] behavior. For example, a reinforcer may be delivered every 30 s regardless of whether the individual exhibited the targeted behavior or completed the required amount of work. NCR has been shown to reduce severe problem behavior in individuals with developmental disabilities (Marcus and Vollmer 1996; Vollmer et al. 1993; Vollmer et al. 1995) and to interfere with the acquisition of an alternative behavior (Goh et al. 2000). Marcus and Vollmer (1996) investigated the efficacy of combining NCR with an intervention that replaced challenging behaviors by teaching functionally equivalent communication responses (i.e., mands). Three children with developmental disabilities participated in the study. All participants engaged in high rates of challenging behavior maintained by access to preferred tangible items. Results showed that the initial NCR schedule suppressed the children’s inappropriate behavior. When a differential reinforcement of alternative (DRA) behavior condition was added to an already thinned NCR schedule, NCR did not preclude the establishment and maintenance of mands. It should be noted, however, that manding increased only after the NCR schedules were thinned. It is possible that the initial dense NCR schedules for both children may have interfered with the acquisition of alternative behavior. Goh et al. (2000) attempted to extend the work of Marcus and Vollmer (1996) by examining the extent to which both rich and thinned NCR schedules might interfere with differential reinforcement contingencies designed to strengthen alternative behavior. Two women with developmental disabilities exhibiting self-injurious behaviors (SIB) participated in the study. Participants were exposed to baseline, NCR (dense) plus DRA, and NCR (thinning) plus DRA conditions using a multiple baseline design across participants. Results indicated that NCR (dense) plus DRA decreased SIB, but there was little or no increase in mands. After the NCR schedule was thinned, SIB remained low but mands increased. Neither of the participants showed evidence of mand acquisition while the rich NCR schedule was in effect. The results of these studies suggest that NCR may reduce the effectiveness of reinforcement-based programs. Marcus and Vollmer (1996) argued that response suppression may result from satiation to the reinforcer being delivered. Goh et al. (2000) suggested that response suppression during rich NCR schedules is likely to result from satiation, whereas lean schedules may suppress responses as a result of extinction. That is, NCR may be conceptualized as an extinction procedure because the functional relation between behavior and reinforcement is weakened or eliminated. Hagopian et al. (1994) believed that NCR might alter the reinforcing properties of stimuli by eliminating a deprivation state that leads to increased responding. The authors also viewed NCR as an extinction procedure because the contingency between the destructive behavior and the reinforcing consequence was eliminated. Although considerable attention has focused on the use of NCR to reduce challenging behavior, little research has been conducted on how NCR might affect academic performance in a classroom setting. Martens et al. (2003) conducted the first study to examine the carryover effects of a FT reinforcement history on children’s completion of math problems. Two female students diagnosed with [end of page 38] Learning Disabilities participated in an ABABA design. During Choice conditions (A), students were given a choice of completing easy problems reinforced on a lean schedule or completing difficult problems reinforced on a rich schedule. During FT reinforcement conditions (B), reinforcers were delivered on an FT 20-s schedule for eight sessions. The authors were interested in whether exposure to an FT schedule differentially influenced students’ choices of difficult or easy problems in subsequent contingent reinforcement conditions. During the FT conditions, students completed both types of problems with higher percentages of errors. Carryover effects from FT sessions were observed for both students in terms of committing more errors and differentially influencing responding to the high effort alternative. That is, the children chose to complete more easy problems on a lean schedule (i.e., the lower effort alternative) for several sessions immediately following the FT condition. In addition, both students showed evidence of response suppression during the FT conditions. This was the first applied study to demonstrate that the suppressive effects of FT reinforcement can carry over to subsequent conditions. However, these effects were very brief for the two participants. Also, individual differences were observed in the participants’ sensitivity to the changes in reinforcement schedules. The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the findings of previous research (e.g., Goh et al. 2000; Martens et al. 2003) in two ways. First, the present study examined the effects of a fixed-time schedule of reinforcement on students’ academic performance. Second, this study explored the effects of NCR with children without cognitive impairment. It was hypothesized that when reinforcement was provided contingent on work completion, increases in the amount of work completed would be observed compared to baseline. Further, it was hypothesized that students’ academic performance would decrease when an NCR schedule was presented in combination with contingent reinforcement.