Premium
Clinical effects of correspondence training in the management of hyperactive children
Author(s) -
Paniagua Freddy A.,
Pumariega Andrés J.,
Black Sandra A.
Publication year - 1988
Publication title -
behavioral interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.605
H-Index - 34
eISSN - 1099-078X
pISSN - 1072-0847
DOI - 10.1002/bin.2360030103
Subject(s) - reinforcement , psychology , subject (documents) , set (abstract data type) , multiple baseline design , developmental psychology , clinical psychology , social psychology , audiology , psychiatry , intervention (counseling) , medicine , computer science , library science , programming language
Overactivity, inattention, and noise in three hyperactive children were intervened with correspondence training procedures. One subject was intervened with the “reinforcement of corresponding reports” procedure: true reports about the inhibition of hyperactivity were reinforced. Another subject's hyperactive behaviors were managed with the “reinforcement of fulfillment of promises” procedure: the reinforcer was delivered contingent upon the presence of both promising to inhibit hyperactivity and fulfillment of the promise. The third subject received the “reinforcement of corresponding reports” and the “reinforcement set up on promises” procedures: the reinforcer was set up or displayed contingent upon the subject's promises and delivered contingent upon fulfillment of the promise (actual inhibition of hyperactivity). These procedures were programmed in a multiple baseline design across two settings (a treatment room and a classroom). A changing‐criterion design was employed with all subjects: the nonoccurrence of hyperactivity had to be observed across a pre‐established criterion level for the actual delivery of the reinforcer. In general, consistently higher levels of correspondence were noted during each procedure, relative to baseline. However, with the third subject the overall clinical effects of the reinforcement set up on promises phase were more dramatic than the overall effects of the reinforcement of corresponding reports condition. The results for Subject 2 and Subject 3 demonstrated the maintenance of treatment effects in a follow‐up phase.