Repp A C, Barton L E, Brulle A R
J Appl Behav Anal. 1983 Winter;16(4):435-45. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1983.16-435.
The relative effectiveness of two methods of programming DRO schedules of reinforcement was examined in two experiments. In these two methods, reinforcement is delivered if inappropriate responding is not occurring (a) at the end of an interval (momentary DRO), or (b) throughout the entire interval (whole-interval DRO). In Experiment 1, the effects of these schedules on disruptive responding of three retarded students were assessed in a multiple-baseline design. For two students, the momentary schedule occurred first and was ineffective, whereas the whole interval that followed was effective; for the third student, the whole-interval schedule occurred first and was effective, and reduced responding was maintained under the momentary schedule. In Experiment 2, baseline and the two DRO schedules were each presented in random order each day to one student in an alternating treatments design. The momentary DRO schedule reduced responding, but the whole-interval schedule was more effective.
在两项实验中检验了两种强化程序安排的相对有效性，这两种程序安排用于消退性差别强化（DRO）。在这两种方法中，如果在（a）一个时段结束时（瞬间DRO），或者（b）整个时段内（全时段DRO）没有出现不适当的反应，就给予强化。在实验1中，采用多基线设计评估了这些程序安排对三名智障学生的破坏性行为反应的影响。对于两名学生，先采用瞬间程序安排，没有效果，而随后的全时段程序安排则有效；对于第三名学生，先采用全时段程序安排，有效果，并且在随后的瞬间程序安排下，反应减少的情况得以维持。在实验2中，采用交替治疗设计，每天将基线和两种DRO程序安排以随机顺序呈现给一名学生。瞬间DRO程序安排减少了反应，但全时段程序安排更有效。
