DNRO Study Essay

In the Vollmer et al study, the researchers looked at noncontingent escape to mitigate self-injury in two males who experienced developmental disabilities. A functional analysis determined the SIB was maintained by escape. Following this, the researchers compared an NCE and a DNRO (Differential Negative Reinforcement of Other behavior) treatment package to ascertain whether NCE was as effective at problem behavior reduction as more complex treatments.
Two subjects were selected according to referrals tied to the levels of SIB and, according to Vollmer et al, were “screened based for inclusion… based on the results of an assessment designed to identify functional properties of their SIB” (Vollmer et al., 1995). The two subjects included Kevin, 18, who had a 16-year history of SIB an Mark, 4, who had a two-year history of SIB. According to the researchers, SIB topographies included head hitting or punching, head banging, and self-biting of the hand and/or arm. The researchers identified the SIB rate per minute as their primary dependent variable. Sessions were conducted in the subjects’ respective classrooms.
The beginning of the study was marked by a functional analysis of the problem behaviors and was based on the traditional Iwata set of conditions for a full FA. It featured a

In the DNRO condition, escape was granted on a resetting schedule. Vollmer states, “if Mark did not engage in SIB during a prespecified interval, a 20-s break was allowed at the end of the interval. The length of the interval was calculated using the same method as the interval for the NCE. Analysis of the data reveals a reduction in SIB for both subjects. Kevin’s SIB was reduced to near-zero levels immediately. However, Mark was introduced to the DNRO condition first which showed near-baseline levels of SIB until the third session. However, once the NCE was introduced, like Kevin, levels of SIB were reduced almost