The Sequential Introduction of Positive Antecedent and Consequent Components in a Compliance Training Package With Elementary Students

Abstract

We evaluated the separate and combined effects of the antecedent manipulations of effective instruction delivery and time-in, as well as the effects of the addition of the consequent manipulation of contingent praise in a compliance training package for four elementary students displaying low levels of compliance. Four teachers were trained to introduce these components sequentially in multiple baseline across-participants designs for each of two pairs of students. All students increased compliance from below 40% during baseline to between 84% and 96% in the final treatment phase. Support was demonstrated for the separate and independent effects of the positive antecedent components of effective instruction delivery and time-in, when used alone and in combination. The addition of contingent praise either increased compliance slightly or maintained it at already high levels. Treatment integrity and implications for practitioners and school personnel are discussed, including the effectiveness and simplicity of these procedures, while also offering positive, non-coercive approaches to increasing student compliance.

Keywords

child compliance training positive components in child compliance training classroom compliance teacher-implemented compliance training

Child noncompliance is a serious concern and one of the most frequently reported problems by parents and teachers (Bernal, Klinnert, & Schultz, 1980; Charlop, Parrish, Fenton, & Cataldo, 1987; Forehand & McMahon, 1981). Rhode, Jenson, and Reavis (1993) defined noncompliance as “not following a direction within a reasonable amount of time” (p. 7). Forehand (1977) reported that even among nonclinic populations compliance levels varied between 60% and 80%. Noncompliance during early childhood has been posited as a potential precursor to more serious disruptive and delinquent behaviors later in adolescence (Forehand & Wierson, 1991; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989). Persistent noncompliance can also create considerable difficulties at home and in school settings for parents and teachers. According to Rhode et al. (1993), children’s noncompliance becomes particularly problematic when compliance levels are below 40%. Parents and teachers may be able to prevent the escalation of more deviant behaviors by tackling noncompliance early in a child’s life Forehand & Wierson, 1991; Olmi, Sevier, & Nastasi, 1997). Considering the prevalence and potential impact of compliance difficulties in referred and nonreferred children, evidence-based procedures to assist parents, caregivers, and teachers to increase children’s compliance and decrease noncompliance are critical. It is also necessary to attend to which components are most critical in increasing compliance, while using the least aversive procedures possible for the child that are effective (Alberto & Troutman, 2003).

A variety of child management procedures, in isolation and in various combinations, have been investigated and found effective in increasing children’s compliance. These procedures have included both antecedent manipulations prior to compliance (i.e., features of effective instruction delivery [EID] and the time-in environment), as well as consequent manipulations following compliance (i.e., contingent praise for compliance) and noncompliance (i.e., time-out for noncompliance). Because the present investigation uses solely positive management procedures, the following discussion will focus primarily on the more positively oriented antecedent (EID and time-in) and consequent (contingent praise) procedural manipulations. Readers interested in research related to time-out procedures are directed to the following literature on the topic (Brantner & Doherty, 1983; Forehand, 1985; Harris, 1985; Nelson & Rutherford, 1983; Solnick, Rincover, & Peterson, 1977; Sterling-Turner & Watson, 1999; Wilson & Lyman, 1982). Components of the compliance training package used in the present study are based, in part, on procedures described by Forehand and McMahon (1981), Christophersen (1988), and Rhode et al. (1993).

EID refers to a variety of procedures adapted from Rhode et al. (1993) and Ford, Olmi, Edwards, and Tingstrom (2001) related to the characteristics of instructions and the instruction delivery process. The features of instructions or instruction delivery are important with regard to compliance in that the manner in which a command is delivered may influence the likelihood that the command will be followed. As used in the present study, EID components consist of delivering instructions (a) with demanded eye contact, (b) as directives rather than questions, (c) in close proximity to the child, (d) in a quiet-toned voice, (e) and allowing a 5-s wait period following the command for response initiation.

With regard to specific components of EID, for example, Everett, Olmi, Edwards, and Tingstrom (2005) conducted a partial analysis of the contributions of demanded eye contact combined with other EID components and contingent praise by the caregivers of four children 4 to 9 years of age in a clinic setting. Demanded eye contact increased compliance for all children to higher levels than when eye contact was not demanded, irrespective of the types of instructions used (i.e., direct or indirect). Hamlet, Axelrod, and Kuerschner (1984) also found increases in compliance with demanded eye contact from baseline levels as low as 20% to levels as high as 87% with participants between the ages of 2 and 21 years in school, home, and hospital environments. With regard to closer proximity, in classroom settings, closer proximity by a teacher or paraprofessional has been found to result in fewer disruptive behaviors (Etscheidt, Stainback, & Stainback, 1984), more effective reprimands (Van Houten, Nau, MacKenzie-Keating, Sameoto, & Colavecchia, 1982), and increased compliance when combined with contingent praise (Goetz, Holmberg, & LeBlanc, 1975).

Numerous other studies have investigated the characteristics of instructions and instruction delivery and have generally found that greater compliance is obtained with instructions that are clear and direct (referred to as alpha commands; for example, “Michael, put your shoes in the closet now”) than with those that are unclear and vague (referred to as beta commands; for example, “Ginger, how many times have I told you to be good?” Forehand & McMahon, 1981; Houlihan, Vincent, Ellison, & Jones, 1994; Peed, Roberts, & Forehand, 1977). Greater compliance is also more likely when reinforcement follows “do” and “don’t” requests (Houlihan & Jones, 1990; Neef, Shafer, Egel, Cataldo, & Parrish, 1983), and when instructions or commands are delivered in the form of a statement (i.e., directive) rather than as a question (Ducharme, 1996; Forehand & McMahon, 1981).

The use of EID antecedent procedures alone and in combination with other strategies (e.g., contingent praise, time-in, and time-out) has resulted in increased child compliance above baseline levels across a number of studies in clinic (Benoit, Edwards, Olmi, Wilczynski, & Mandal, 2001; Mandal, Olmi, Edwards, Tingstrom, & Benoit, 2000; Roberts, Tingstrom, Olmi, & Bellipanni, 2008), home (Benoit et al., 2001), and school settings (Ford et al., 2001; Stephenson & Hanley, 2010). Mandal et al. (2000), for example, trained caregivers of two preschool boys with language deficits/delays in EID procedures combined with contingent praise for compliance. Compliance increased from 40% and 21% during baseline, to 79% and 70% for both boys, respectively. Stephenson and Hanley (2010) found increases in compliance for two of four preschoolers with the sequential introduction of each of six antecedent instructional variables. Likewise, Ford et al. (2001) trained teachers of four 5- and 6-year-old general education students in EID procedures combined with contingent praise for compliance. Compliance increased from between 21% and 44% from baseline to the EID phase for the four students. Roberts et al. (2008) investigated the effects of EID alone, independent of contingent praise, following a baseline phase for four children in a clinic setting. EID alone increased compliance by 50%, 36%, 54%, and 46% above baseline levels for the four participants, respectively.

Another positive antecedent procedure designed to increase compliance is time-in. Solnick et al. (1977) first introduced time-in as an antecedent procedure that emphasizes brief periods of contingent physical touch and praise based on appropriate behavior. Time-in is essentially the social reinforcement (e.g., smiles, verbal praise, and appropriate physical contact) the child receives contingent on generally appropriate behavior (Christophersen, 1988). In the present study, time-in is separate from contingent praise for compliance and precedes instruction delivery and compliance. Thus, time-in functions as an antecedent procedure to compliance as used here, whereas contingent praise is a consequent manipulation following compliance. Time-in has been found effective in enhancing compliance alone and in combination with contingent praise in regular education classrooms (Ford et al., 2001), in day-care centers (Marlow, 1996), in home (Benoit et al., 2001) and clinic settings (Benoit et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2000; Olmi et al., 1997; Roberts et al., 2008), and with children with developmental delays (Benoit et al., 2001; Marlow, Tingstrom, Olmi, & Edwards, 1997; Olmi et al., 1997). For example, Marlow et al. (1997) used a multiple baseline design across participants to implement time-in procedures combined with contingent praise for compliance through the teachers of three students at a university speech/language center. Compliance increased for the students from baseline levels of 21%, 27%, and 37%, to 66%, 60%, and 66%, respectively, in the time-in phase that also included contingent praise for compliance. In addition, Mandal et al. (2000) demonstrated substantial increases in compliance for two participants with time-in alone following baseline, independent of contingent praise.

Finally, in addition to the antecedent components of EID and time-in, researchers have also examined the importance of the positive consequent manipulation of contingent praise following compliance. Most of these studies have included contingent praise with other components and have amply demonstrated increases in compliance in classroom and clinical settings (Benoit et al., 2001; Connell & Carta, 1993; Ford et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2000; Marlow et al., 1997; Olmi et al., 1997; Schutte & Hopkins, 1970; Wahler & Meginnis, 1997). However, Everett et al. (2005) and Roberts et al. (2008) provided initial evidence for additional increases in compliance when contingent praise was added to EID in a subsequent experimental phase with parents or caregivers in a clinic setting.

The studies reviewed show that behavioral techniques, such as EID, time-in, and contingent praise are effective in increasing compliance. These studies add to the growing body of research that suggests that adequate levels of compliance can be attained without using aversive techniques (e.g., time-out). It is important to identify efficient, evidence-based interventions for parents and teachers to use to increase compliance. Also, more positively oriented procedures should be used before using more aversive ones (Alberto & Troutman, 2003). If compliance can be increased to acceptable levels through the use of solely positive procedures such as EID, time-in, and contingent praise, aversive components such as time-out may not be needed. In addition, these evidence-based, positive procedures could fit well into a school’s Positive Behavior Support (PBS) system (Safran & Oswald, 2003). The reviewed research has been conducted in a variety of environments, indicating that these techniques are not limited to the clinic setting, but are relevant and generalizable to home and classroom settings. In addition, although some studies (e.g., Mandal et al., 2000) have attempted to control for the effects of EID and time-in independent of contingent praise, few have been successful in isolating the antecedent effects of EID and/or time-in from those of the consequent effects of contingent praise. Everett et al. (2005) and Roberts et al. (2008) are exceptions, but unlike the present study, these studies were conducted with parents in a clinic rather than with teachers in classrooms. Thus, to extend these findings to teachers and their students in classroom settings, the purposes of the present study were: (a) to evaluate the independent, separate, and combined sequential effects on compliance of a teacher-implemented compliance training package in elementary classrooms consisting of the antecedent manipulations of EID and time-in independent of any effects of the consequent manipulation of contingent praise, and (b) to evaluate the effects of the addition of the consequent manipulation of contingent praise to the antecedent manipulations of EID and time-in.

Method

Participants

Teachers of lower elementary students in rural school districts in the southeastern U.S. were asked to refer children in their classrooms with compliance problems for consultation services provided by an advanced-level doctoral student (first author) in a school psychology program. All procedures in this study were approved by the school district and the university’s Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Initial screening observations were conducted to assess whether the students’ compliance levels were below 40% (Rhode et al., 1993). Noncompliance was defined as failure to initiate compliance with first time teacher requests within a 5-s wait period (Ford et al., 2001). Children with compliance levels that fell below 40% were included in the study. The first four children screened met this criterion and were included in the study.

Participants consisted of four children between 5 and 9 years of age and their teachers. Two participants were assigned randomly to each of two pairs of students. Pair 1 consisted of Amanda and Sylvia. Amanda and Sylvia were African American females in the second grade who received special education services. Amanda was diagnosed with Mild Intellectual Disability and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Sylvia with a Specific Learning Disability. Both of their teachers had 5 or more years of teaching experience in special education. Pair 2, consisted of Bill and John. Bill was a Caucasian male in a general education Kindergarten classroom who also received speech and language services. His teacher had over 15 years of experience teaching Kindergarten. John was a Caucasian male in the second grade diagnosed with a Specific Learning Disability and received special education services. His teacher had more than 6 years of teaching experience in special education.

Procedure

Measures

The primary dependent measure was initiation compliance, which was defined as initiating compliance within 5 s of command delivery. Compliance levels were derived by dividing the number of instructions each child complied with, by the total number of commands delivered, and multiplying by 100%. EID was evaluated by adding the total number of components the teacher used across all commands (close proximity, demanded eye contact, a quiet-toned voice, as a directive, with 5-s wait for compliance); this number was divided by the total number of possible components across all commands and multiplied by 100%. Time-in was coded if the teacher delivered praise or appropriate physical contact for appropriate behavior but not contingent on compliance to requests. Time-in was assessed by dividing the number of time-in occurrences by 12, which was the minimum number of instances of time-in that was to occur in a 30-min period, and multiplying by 100%. Contingent praise for compliance was coded if the teacher delivered praise and/or reinforcement following student compliance with a request. Percentage of contingent praise was calculated by dividing the total number of times the teacher provided contingent praise for child compliance to commands/instructions by the total number of instances of child compliance, and multiplying by 100%.

Teacher screening

Prior to baseline, an initial screening process was conducted to assess how often the teachers used EID, time-in, and contingent praise in their classrooms. A coding sheet consisting of the essential features of EID, time-in, and contingent praise was used to code the screening and subsequent sessions. Only teachers with less than 50% of instructions delivered effectively (all 5 components present) were included in the study. Only teachers who used time-in less than 12 times during a 30-min session (Ford et al., 2001) were included in the study. And finally, only teachers with contingent praise less than 50% were included in the study. All teachers who agreed to participate qualified and none were excluded based on these criteria.

Baseline

A trained observer attended each period of observation. To prevent reactivity, observers began entering the classrooms several days prior to actual data collection. Following initial classroom visits, observers entered the classroom at a time specified by the teacher, for approximately 30-min sessions. Teachers were instructed to give a minimum of 10 instructions in their typical manner throughout the sessions. If commands were not given at an appropriate rate or in the amount of time allotted, the observer prompted the teacher (with gestures) to give instructions. Child compliance, as well as teacher usage of EID, time-in, and contingent praise were recorded during baseline and all subsequent sessions.

Teacher training

Teacher training procedures were based on those used by Ford et al. (2001). Prior to the start of each phase, the experimenter trained each teacher on only those procedures that were to be implemented during that phase. Methods used in teacher training included verbal and written instructions, guided instructions, modeling by the experimenter, videotapes, intermittent monitoring, and corrective feedback.

During teacher training, integrity was monitored with the same coding sheet used during observation sessions. This sheet was used to evaluate teacher mastery of compliance training procedures during initial training; teachers were required to have at least 80% accuracy of items in two role-playing situations (Ford et al., 2001). Teacher training was conducted before school and/or during planning periods for all of the teachers. Retraining occurred if/when teachers’ integrity fell below 80%.

Effective instruction delivery

The EID phase consisted of teachers giving commands (at least 10 during a 30-min period) which included all of the following components: (a) delivering instructions with demanded eye contact, (b) delivering instructions within 3 ft of the child (i.e., close proximity), (c) stating instructions as directives, (d) delivering instructions with a quiet-toned voice, and (e) allowing a 5-s wait period for responses to occur. Teachers were instructed to handle noncompliance in their usual manner and to give a minimum of 10 instructions containing all five of the EID components during these sessions. In addition, they were prompted to give instructions by the observer if commands were not given at an appropriate rate or in the amount of time allotted. Teachers administering EID immediately following baseline were instructed to withhold contingent praise for compliance. Observers recorded all instances of EID, time-in, and contingent praise, as well as child compliance.

Time-in

During this phase, teachers were instructed to provide verbal praise and appropriate physical contact when the child behaved appropriately. Teachers were instructed to provide at least 12 instances of time-in during a 30-min session (Ford et al., 2001). Teachers were instructed to handle noncompliance in their usual manner and to give a minimum of 10 instructions in their typical manner during these sessions. In addition, they were prompted to give instructions by the observer if commands were not given at an appropriate rate or in the amount of time allotted. Teachers administering time-in immediately following baseline were instructed to withhold contingent praise for compliance. Observers recorded all instances of time-in, EID, contingent praise, and child compliance in this phase in the same manner as in baseline and during the EID phase.

Time-in/EID (Pair 1) or EID/time-in (Pair 2)

During this treatment phase, teachers were instructed to give a minimum of 10 commands using all five components (described earlier) of EID. Teachers were also required to provide time-in a minimum of 12 times during a 30-min observation period. As in previous phases, the observer prompted the teacher to give instructions if necessary. Teachers were also instructed to withhold contingent praise for compliance and to handle noncompliance in their usual manner. Observers recorded all instances of EID, time-in, and contingent praise, as well as child compliance.

EID/time-in/contingent praise

During this experimental phase teachers continued to use EID and time-in in the same manner as in previous phases. However, teachers were also told to provide contingent praise consisting of positive verbal praise and appropriate physical contact when a child initiated compliance with a specific command within 5 s. Contingent praise was only given for compliance with specific requests given by the teacher. A minimum of 10 commands were also given during sessions in this phase. Contingent praise was calculated in the same manner as in baseline and other phases. As above, teachers were instructed to handle noncompliance in their usual manner. Observers recorded all instances of EID, time-in, and contingent praise, as well as child compliance.

Follow-up

Follow-up observations were conducted for each child approximately 1 month after the last observation period of the final EID/time-in/contingent praise phase. Follow-up data were used to assess maintenance of compliance and continued implementation of experimental procedures. Teachers were to provide 10 instructions during sessions in the follow-up phase as well. All measures (child compliance, percentages of EID, time-in, and contingent praise) were recorded as during other phases.

Recording procedures

Compliance and noncompliance levels were based on the same method used by Ford et al. (2001). Levels were recorded using event recording in 30-s intervals. Observations were conducted in 30-min sessions or until 10 commands were given. If sessions ran long and/or instructions were not given at an appropriate rate, the observer cued the teacher to give commands. All observations were conducted at about the same time of day for each student.

Design

Multiple baseline across-participants designs were used to assess treatment effects for each pair of children across phases (Hayes, Barlow, & Nelson-Gray, 1999). Baseline data were collected simultaneously for each pair of students, and phase changes were staggered within pairs and across participants. The contingent praise component was always added to the EID and time-in components because we were interested in the effects of the addition of contingent praise to these components. The order of the EID and time-in phases was counterbalanced across pairs to control for possible order effects of these components. The sequence of phases for two of the participants (Amanda and Sylvia) was baseline; time-in excluding contingent praise; time-in/EID excluding contingent praise; time-in/EID/contingent praise; and follow-up. The sequence of phases for the remaining two participants (Bill and John) was baseline; EID excluding contingent praise; EID/time-in excluding contingent praise; EID/time-in/contingent praise; and follow-up. Each participant was assigned randomly to one of the sequence pairs.

Interobserver agreement and treatment integrity

Interobserver agreement (IOA) was assessed separately for compliance, EID, time-in, and contingent praise. IOA was evaluated twice during each treatment phase for all participants. Observer agreement was assessed for compliance by dividing the total number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. Agreement was assessed for EID by dividing the total number of components (absent or present) agreed on by both observers across all commands, by the total number of agreements plus disagreements (for components of EID) across all commands and multiplying by 100%. Agreement for time-in and contingent praise was assessed by dividing the total number of agreements (instances of time-in and instances of contingent praise, respectively) by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. Agreement was deemed acceptable if it was over 80%.

Coding sheets used during observations were also used to evaluate treatment integrity. Observers recorded whether or not teachers performed each procedure according to guidelines presented by the experimenter. During an observation period, teacher’s had to use the correct components of EID at least 80% of the time to be considered successful in implementation of the procedure. Also, time-in had to be given 10 to 12 times during a 30-min observation to be deemed acceptable, and contingent praise had to be provided at least 80% of the time for compliance to specific commands. Corrective feedback was provided following observation periods if necessary.

Across all sessions and phases, mean IOA for EID was 95% (range = 90%-99%); 96% (range = 80%-100%) for the occurrence of time-in; 98% (range = 90%-100%) for contingent praise; and 98% (range = 87%-100%) for compliance.

Treatment acceptability

Teachers were asked to complete an adapted version of the Intervention Rating Profile (IRP-15; Martens, Witt, Elliott, & Darveaux, 1985) prior to and after each of the phases to assess the teachers’ acceptability of the treatment used during the given phase. The IRP-15 is a one-factor, reliable, 15-item questionnaire that uses a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Scores above 52.5 are considered acceptable (Von Brock & Elliott, 1987). As a measure of internal consistency, Martens et al. (1985) have reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .98.

Results

Percent compliance for each pair of students across phases is illustrated in Figure 1. During the time-in phase for Pair 1 (Amanda and Sylvia), mean baseline compliance increased from 24% to 60% for Amanda, and from 33% to 85% for Sylvia. During the EID phase for Pair 2 (Bill and John), baseline compliance rose from 37% to 89% for Bill, and from 25% to 65% for John. Once EID and time-in were combined, compliance increased for Amanda (84%), Bill (91%), and John, (67%), and decreased for Sylvia (82%). Mean level of compliance increased when contingent praise was added to the combined time-in/EID phase for Pair 1 from 84% to 96% for Amanda and from 82% to 84% for Sylvia. When contingent praise was added to the EID/time-in phase for Pair 2, compliance increased from 91% to 92% for Bill, and from 67% to 89% for John. Within the first pair, Amanda’s mean compliance decreased to 76% during follow-up, whereas Sylvia’s follow-up mean compliance increased to 95%. Bill and John’s mean compliance decreased during follow-up to 91% and 50%, respectively.

Figure 1.

Percentage compliance for all participants across phases.

Treatment Integrity

Treatment integrity data for each student’s teacher across phases are presented in Table 1. All of the teachers used either no time-in and contingent praise or low levels of each during baseline. In addition, the majority of EID components were not present in teacher commands during baseline. All teachers’ use of time-in, EID, and contingent praise increased considerably above baseline levels in treatment phases in which those components were to be implemented. The use of all intervention components (EID, time-in, and contingent praise) decreased somewhat for all teachers during follow-up, although levels remained considerably above those seen in baseline, with the exception of Sylvia’s teacher’s use of contingent praise.

Table 1.

Mean Percentages (and Ranges) of Teacher Treatment Integrity for all Components Across Phases.

Components	Phase
	Baseline	TI	TI/EID	TI/EID/CP	Follow-up
Amanda’s teacher
EID	48 (44-56)	59 (46-70)	94 (92-95)	97 (92-100)	76 (72-78)
TI	08 (0-17)	90 (80-100)	81 (60-100)	90 (75-100)	76 (67-80)
CP	14 (0-33)	0 (0-0)	0 (0-0)	86 (70-100)	51 (17-80)
Sylvia’s teacher
EID	47 (40-56)	60 (52-68)	93 (82-100)	91 (74-100)	75 (74-76)
TI	13 (0-33)	88 (40-100)	82 (70-92)	84 (58-100)	61 (42-80)
CP	05 (0-8)	02 (0-10)	0 (0-0)	80 (42-100)	0 (0-0)
	Baseline	EID	EID/TI	EID/TI/CP	Follow-up
Bill’s teacher
EID	46 (41-52)	87 (69-93)	96 (96-96)	96 (96-97)	83 (75-96)
TI	08 (0-24)	0 (0-0)	87 (82-100)	97 (90-100)	56 (17-100)
CP	22 (16-25)	13 (9-18)	03 (0-9)	92 (75-100)	74 (56-100)
John’s teacher
EID	39 (25-46)	96 (89-98)	94 (80-100)	95 (90-100)	80 (76-83)
TI	08 (0-17)	09 (0-17)	93 (67-100)	90 (83-92)	81 (42-100)
CP	03 (0-17)	03 (0-11)	08 (0-25)	80 (72-92)	61 (33-100)

Note: TI = time-in; EID = effective instruction delivery; CP = contingent praise.

Treatment Acceptability

Each teacher was asked to complete pre- and post-acceptability measures at the beginning and end of each phase of treatment using the IRP-15 (Martens et al., 1985). Although forms were given to all teachers, only two complete sets of forms were returned from Bill’s and John’s teachers. For Bill’s teacher, pre-acceptability and post-acceptability scores for EID were 70 and 68, respectively; 56 and 60 for time-in; and 68 and 60 for contingent praise. All of Bill’s teacher’s pre- and post-responses were in the “acceptable” range for each intervention. John’s teacher’s scores indicated pre-and post-acceptability scores of 45 and 40, respectively, for EID; 68 and 70, for time-in; and 64 and 60 for contingent praise. John’s teacher’s scores indicated time-in and contingent praise as acceptable components, although her scores for EID suggested she considered it unacceptable. John’s teacher perceived EID as being inappropriate for the student, and overall ineffective for John’s behaviors, despite objective, actual increases in compliance ultimately to 90% in the final session of EID.

Discussion

Investigations using positive compliance training procedures such as time-in, EID, and contingent praise have demonstrated substantial increases in compliance in the absence of or prior to the use of aversive procedures (i.e., time-out) across clinic, home, and classroom settings (Benoit et al., 2001; Everett et al., 2005; Ford et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2000; Marlow et al., 1997; Olmi et al., 1997; Roberts et al., 2008). Results from the present study demonstrated support for the separate and independent effects of the antecedent components of time-in and EID on increasing compliance levels to teacher instructions when presented the first time to elementary school students in a classroom setting. Although we were unable to prevent the usage of some components of EID during the time-in only phase, compliance for Amanda and Sylvia (Pair 1) increased substantially above baseline levels with the use of high levels of time-in and, likewise, for Bill and John (Pair 2) solely with the use of EID. These findings highlight the effectiveness of each antecedent procedure when used alone, independent of their combination or when used with the consequent manipulation of contingent praise. These results are similar to those of Mandal et al. (2000) with parents with regard to EID and time-in, with Benoit et al. (2001) and Roberts et al. (2008) with regard to EID with parents, and with Ford et al. (2001) with regard to EID with teachers. Furthermore, the present study provides additional support for the effectiveness of the use of each of the antecedent components of EID and time-in when used alone because, unlike many of the above-referenced studies, the present study was more successful in keeping the consequent manipulation of contingent praise out of phases containing these antecedent components. This was most likely accomplished due to instructions to teachers to specifically withhold contingent praise in these phases and because of the close monitoring of treatment integrity.

When time-in and EID were combined for each pair of students, levels of compliance either increased further or were at least generally maintained at similar levels to those already achieved in the previous phase with the other respective component. Amanda’s compliance increased further with the addition of EID to time-in. Although her teacher’s integrity with time-in seemed to decrease during certain sessions, Amanda’s compliance remained high. It should be noted that Amanda’s teacher’s time-in levels were quite low during baseline. When EID was combined with time-in for Sylvia, her compliance dropped initially during the first session, but then rose back to similar levels as during the previous time-in only phase. Sylvia’s teacher required retraining following several initial sessions during this phase. Of note, however, is that Sylvia’s compliance increased during those sessions in which her teacher implemented the compliance training components with high integrity. During this combined phase when time-in was added to EID, Bill’s compliance maintained at similarly high levels from those achieved near the end of the previous phase of EID alone. John’s compliance decreased during the initial session of this combined phase despite adequate treatment integrity, although his compliance then returned to levels previously achieved following this initial decline. These results for the combination of the antecedents of EID and time-in are similar to those of previous studies (Benoit et al., 2001; Ford et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2000; Roberts et al., 2008). That is, when time-in and EID are eventually combined after the implementation of either component in isolation, compliance generally either remains at moderate-to-high levels or increases even slightly further. These results support the use of these positive antecedents as logical, relatively unobtrusive, and initial steps in compliance training procedures; from a purely empirical perspective with regard to the effects on compliance, both components are generally equally effective. From a practice perspective, it may be best to allow teacher preferences to help guide the decision as to which component to initiate first.

With regard to the use of contingent praise as a key component in compliance training procedures, although there were no substantial increases in compliance when contingent praise was added to EID and time-in, results from the present study indicate considerable increases in compliance from baseline levels to final treatment phases that included all three components. These results support previous research suggesting that compliance training using only positive procedures can increase compliance to substantial and meaningful levels (Benoit et al., 2001; Everett et al., 2005; Mandal et al., 2000; Roberts et al., 2008). As with the addition of EID and time-in, when contingent praise was finally added to the previous components, compliance was either maintained at already high levels or increased slightly. Most previous studies have typically included contingent praise in phases also containing EID, time-in, or both (Benoit et al., 2001; Ford et al., 2001; Mandal et al., 2000; Marlow et al., 1997; Olmi et al., 1997). Thus, until recently, it has not been possible to evaluate neither the independent contributions of the antecedent properties of EID and time-in, nor the consequent effects of contingent praise. However, with negligible exceptions, the present study, as well as Everett et al. (2005) and Roberts et al. (2008) specifically and successfully withheld contingent praise during phases containing these antecedent procedures (EID and time-in). These studies found similar effects on compliance—either maintenance of already high levels or further slight increases. By the final phase, additional increases in compliance with the addition of contingent praise were difficult to demonstrate. Fairly high levels of compliance had already been achieved for the majority of the students during the previous EID/time-in phase. Thus, ceiling effects probably prevented additional substantial increases in compliance when contingent praise was added to the components of EID and time-in, although one student (Amanda) reached compliance levels of 100% during this phase. Future studies may wish to implement contingent praise alone in a phase following baseline to evaluate its consequent effects independent of and prior to introducing antecedent procedures (i.e., EID and time-in).

Finally, the present study demonstrated mixed success with regard to maintenance of compliance during follow-up. Amanda’s compliance dropped slightly during follow-up, whereas John’s decreased more substantively. Although all teachers’ treatment integrity decreased during follow-up, it remained well above baseline levels, except for Sylvia’s teacher’s use of contingent praise. Decreases in treatment integrity, however, cannot fully explain Amanda’s slight decrease in compliance nor John’s greater decrease, as their teachers’ treatment integrity levels were either not substantially worse, or in the case of John’s teacher, even a bit better than Sylvia’s teacher’s and comparable to Bill’s teacher’s integrity during follow-up. Despite lower treatment integrity, students’ mean compliance did not return to baseline levels. Except for John’s more substantial decrease in compliance during follow-up, these results are generally consistent with those of past studies (Ford et al., 2001; Marlow et al., 1997) that have found compliance levels fairly well maintained at follow-up. However, the level of integrity necessary to achieve meaningful levels of compliance remains unknown.

Treatment integrity was assessed throughout all of the compliance training sessions. We also examined pre-training levels of EID, time-in, and contingent praise. As the data indicate, the majority of the teachers used little or no effective commands during baseline sessions. Most teachers used few if any commands encompassing all five components of EID during baseline. However, following training and including corrective feedback sessions, the majority of teachers were able to give the majority of their commands using all of the components. Follow-up showed a slight decline in EID integrity for all teachers from the last intervention phase. Again, however, these levels of integrity for EID were still considerably higher than those during baseline.

It is interesting to note that those teachers who completed the acceptability forms rated the majority of the intervention components as at least minimally acceptable. However, despite these ratings, treatment integrity was not high at times for some of the teachers. Although teachers were retrained when their integrity fell below 80%, some teachers (e.g., Sylvia’s) still had some difficulties throughout the study and during follow-up. Some teachers reported that giving commands, time-in, and contingent praise were difficult and exhausting during sessions, whereas, others reported liking the procedures, but simply forgetting to give “lots” of time-in. However, almost all teachers reported seeing some improvement with their students when they used EID, time-in, and contingent praise. Slight decreases in the acceptance of contingent praise from pre to post assessment for Bill and John’s teachers may have been because this component was the third and final intervention component added to the package, rather than any reservations about praise per se. Teachers may have felt overwhelmed by the number of intervention components by this point. Also, ceiling effects may have prevented teachers from seeing much benefit in this third and final component.

Also, time-in and contingent praise were rarely used during baseline sessions for any of the participants. Use of time-in increased substantially during its respective treatment sessions, oftentimes surpassing the required amount (12 instances per session). Teachers used verbal as well as physical time-in during treatment phases. More research is needed to conclude which, if either, is more effective.

Limitations

Despite the promising results for managing compliance in classrooms, several limitations should be noted. One limitation is that all participants were receiving some form of special education services. However, considering that the participants had been receiving these services for some period of time prior to the present study, yet still had problems with compliance, it is more likely that the present treatment accounted for the observed increases in compliance rather than some effects of these other services. Another limitation was that observations were conducted during instruction time in 30-min periods. Multiple observations were occasionally conducted in a single day. Teachers often elicited more than 10 commands during the 30-min sessions, making the demands even greater for the students. This might have been too demanding for children with behavior problems and may explain relatively low compliance (e.g., John) during specific, isolated sessions.

Following each observation session, teachers were simply told by observers what they had not done correctly in the previous session. The primary researcher (first author) then gave corrective feedback and retrained teachers based on information provided by the observer during that session. There were several sessions for most of the participants that were longer than expected, possibly because the primary researcher did not give corrective feedback immediately after previous sessions with low integrity. Some of those sessions most likely would have been shorter had the researcher been able to immediately retrain the teacher following treatment sessions with lower integrity, thus resulting in greater increases in student compliance more quickly.

Follow-up data were limited for some participants due to the pending end of the school year. Some follow-up sessions were conducted during the final weeks of the school year and may have partly contributed to the variability in teacher integrity and participant compliance.

Considering teachers’ treatment integrity of intervention components in Table 1, despite our efforts, we were unable to always keep components completely separate and independent. For example, during the time-in only phase when EID should not have been present, Amanda and Sylvia’s teachers used some components of EID (59% and 60%, respectively). It is unknown if, and to what extent, this influenced compliance, although these levels of EID were not nearly as high as during the relevant phases in which EID was to be included.

Finally, all of the students in the present study had been reported to have compliance problems in other classrooms, as well as in their targeted class. Anecdotal teacher reports indicated improvements in student compliance across these other settings during the study. However, there are no data to support or discount that these improvements across settings can be attributed to the present treatment procedures. Also, on several occasions teachers reported an increase in behavior problems when observers were not present. However, it is unknown if teachers were using the procedures or using them with integrity during times when observations did not occur.

Implications for Practice

The results of the present study provide practical implications for school psychologists, practitioners, behavioral consultants, and clinicians for use in the school setting. Time-in, EID, and contingent praise are cost-efficient, simple, and effective treatments that are practical for teachers and school personnel to use in daily school activities. Treatment integrity data suggest teachers were able to learn the methods quickly and competently with modest performance feedback provided. School psychologists could conceivably train teachers in brief sessions and provide follow-up feedback intermittently to maintain integrity over extended periods of time. Present trends in education, such as PBS systems emphasize the need for evidence-based, prosocial approaches in lieu of more intrusive and punishment-based interventions (Safran & Oswald, 2003). Techniques such as time-in, EID, and contingent praise can be easily taught and administered schoolwide, as well as assessed for integrity through simple data monitoring. In addition, the techniques are also beneficial for educational settings because they are affordable and easily accessible by any staff once appropriately trained in the procedures. Although acceptability of the interventions varied slightly among participating teachers in the present study, treatment data demonstrated success, which offers additional validation of the use of such procedures by educational personnel. In summary, techniques such as time-in, EID, and contingent praise provide school staff with a strong foundation in basic compliance training strategies while being positive in nature, rather than punitive or coercive, and maintain a time-efficient and hands-off approach to increasing compliance in the classroom setting.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Kimberly D. Bellipanni, PhD is currently the clinical director of Will’s Way, LLC, a private pediatric psychology practice in Hattiesburg, MS. She also serves as the school psychologist for The Children’s Center at the University of Southern Mississippi. Her applied work is focused on using behavioral analysis techniques to develop interventions for children with Autism and other Developmental Disabilities.

Daniel H. Tingstrom, PhD, is professor of psychology and the Interim Director of Training of the School Psychology Program in the Department of Psychology at the University of Southern Mississippi. His research interests include applied behavior analysis, and the implementation and evaluation of behavioral and academic interventions.

D. Joe Olmi, PhD, is currently professor and chair in the Department of Psychology and a faculty member in the School Psychology Program at the University of Southern Mississippi. He consults with school districts on issues pertaining to positive behavioral intervention and support (PBIS), disruptive behavior, classroom management, ADHD, and service delivery issues.

Dannell S. Roberts, PhD, is a licensed psychologist at Will’s Way, LLC, a pediatric psychology practice in Hattiesburg MS and at The Children’s Center at the University of Southern Mississippi. Dr. Roberts consults with families and schools on developmental disabilities, noncompliance, and the implementation of behavioral intervention strategies.

References

Alberto

P. A.

Troutman

A. C.

(2003). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Benoit

D. H.

Edwards

R. P.

Olmi

D. J.

Wilczynski

S. M.

Mandal

R. L.

(2001). Generalization of a positive treatment package for child noncompliance. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 23(2), 19-32.

Bernal

M. E.

Klinnert

M. D.

Schultz

L. A.

(1980). Outcome evaluation of behavioral parent training and client-centered parent counseling for children with conduct problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 677-691.

Brantner

J. P.

Doherty

M. A.

(1983). A review of timeout: A conceptual and methodological analysis. In Axelrod

Apsche

(Eds.), The effects of punishment on human behavior (pp. 87-132). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Charlop

M. H.

Parrish

J. M.

Fenton

L. R.

Cataldo

M. F.

(1987). Evaluation of hospital-based outpatient pediatric psychology services. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 12, 485-504.

Christophersen

E. R.

(1988). Little people: A common sense guide to child rearing (3rd ed.). Kansas City, MO: Westport Publishers.

Connell

Carta

(1993). Building independence during in-class transitions: Teaching in-class transition skills to preschoolers with developmental delays through choral-response-based self-assessment and contingent praise. Education & Treatment of Children, 16, 160-174.

Ducharme

(1996). Errorless compliance training. Behavior Modification, 20, 259-272.

Etscheidt

Stainback

(1984). The effectiveness of teacher proximity as an initial technique of helping pupils control their behavior. Pointer, 28(4), 33-35.

10.

Everett

G. E.

Olmi

D. J.

Edwards

R. P.

Tingstrom

D. H.

(2005). The contributions of eye contact and contingent praise to effective instruction delivery in compliance training. Education & Treatment of Children, 28, 48-62.

11.

Ford

A. D.

Olmi

D. J.

Edwards

R. P.

Tingstrom

D. H.

(2001). The sequential introduction of compliance-training components with elementary-aged children in general education classroom settings. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 142-157.

12.

Forehand

(1985). Time-out. In Bellack

A. S.

Hersen

(Eds.), Dictionary of behavior therapy techniques (pp. 222-223). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.

13.

Forehand

R. L.

(1977). Child compliance to parental requests: Behavioral analysis and treatment. In Hersen

Eisler

R. M.

Miller

P. M.

(Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 5, pp. 111-147). New York, NY: Academic Press.

14.

Forehand

R. L.

McMahon

R. J.

(1981). Helping the noncompliant child: A clinician’s guide to parent training. New York, NY: Guilford.

15.

Forehand

Wierson

(1991). The role of developmental factors in planning behavioral interventions for children: Disruptive behavior as an example. Behavior Therapy, 24, 117-141.

16.

Goetz

E. M.

Holmberg

M. C.

LeBlanc

J. M.

(1975). Differential reinforcement of other behavior and noncontingent reinforcement as control procedures during the modification of a preschooler’s compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 77-82.

17.

Hamlet

C. C.

Axelrod

Kuerschner

(1984). Eye contact as an antecedent to compliant behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 553-557.

18.

Harris

K. R.

(1985). Definitional, parametric, and procedural considerations in timeout interventions research. Exceptional Children, 51, 279-288.

19.

Hayes

S. C.

Barlow

D. H.

Nelson-Gray

R. O.

(1999). The scientist practitioner: Research and accountability in clinical and educational settings. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

20.

Houlihan

Jones

R. N.

(1990). Exploring the reinforcement of compliance with do and don’t requests and the side effects: A partial replication and extension. Psychological Reports, 67, 439-448.

21.

Houlihan

Vincent

Ellison

P. J.

Jones

R. N.

(1994). Assessing childhood noncompliance: Subtle differences in one-step commands and their effects on response topography. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 16(3), 9-20.

22.

Mandal

Olmi

D. J.

Edwards

R. P.

Tingstrom

Benoit

(2000). Effective instruction delivery and time-in: Positive procedures for achieving child compliance. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 22(4), 1-12.

23.

Marlow

A. G.

(1996). An evaluation of the contributions of time-in and time-out to a compliance training package for children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(10), 6551.

24.

Marlow

A. G.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Olmi

D. J.

Edwards

R. P.

(1997). The effects of classroom-based time in/time out on compliance rates in children with speech language disabilities. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 19(2), 1-15.

25.

Martens

B. K.

Witt

J. C.

Elliott

S. N.

Darveaux

(1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16, 191-198.

26.

Neef

N. A.

Shafer

M. S.

Egel

A. L.

Cataldo

M. F.

Parrish

J. M.

(1983). The class specific effects of compliance training with “do” and “don’t” requests: Analogue analysis and classroom application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, 81-99.

27.

Nelson

D. M.

Rutherford

R. B.

(1983). Timeout revisited: Guidelines for its use in special education. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 3, 56-67.

28.

Olmi

D. J.

Sevier

R. C.

Nastasi

D. F.

(1997). Time-in/time-out as a response to noncompliance and inappropriate behavior in children with developmental disabilities: Two case studies. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 31-39.

29.

Patterson

G. R.

DeBaryshe

B. D.

Ramsey

(1989). A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.

30.

Peed

Roberts

Forehand

(1977). Evaluation of the effectiveness of a standardized parent training program in altering the interaction of mothers and noncompliant children. Behavior Modification, 1, 323-350.

31.

Rhode

Jenson

W. R.

Reavis

H. K.

(1993). The tough kid book. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

32.

Roberts

D. S.

Tingstrom

D. H.

Olmi

D. J.

Bellipanni

K. D.

(2008). Positive antecedent and consequent components in child compliance training. Behavior Modification, 32, 21-38.

33.

Safran

S. P.

Oswald

(2003). Positive behavior supports: Can schools reshape disciplinary practices? Exceptional Children, 69, 361-373.

34.

Schutte

R. C.

Hopkins

B. L.

(1970). The effects of teacher attention on following instructions in a kindergarten class. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3, 117-122.

35.

Solnick

J. V.

Rincover

Peterson

C. R.

(1977). Some determinants of the reinforcing and punishing effects of timeout. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 415-424.

36.

Stephenson

K. M.

Hanley

G. P.

(2010). Preschoolers’ compliance with simple instructions: A descriptive and experimental evaluation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 229-247.

37.

Sterling-Turner

Watson

T. S.

(1999). Consultant’s guide for the use of time-out in the preschool and elementary school classroom. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 135-148.

38.

Van Houten

Nau

P. A.

MacKenzie-Keating

S. E.

Sameoto

Colavecchia

(1982). An analysis of some variables influencing the effectiveness of reprimands. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 65-83.

39.

Von Brock

M. B.

Elliott

S. N.

(1987). The influence of treatment effectiveness information on the acceptability of classroom interventions. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 131-144.

40.

Wahler

R. G.

Meginnis

K. L.

(1997). Strengthening child compliance through positive parenting practices: What works? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 433-440.

41.

Wilson

D. R.

Lyman

R. D.

(1982). Time-out in the treatment of childhood behavior problems: Implementation and research issues. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 4(1), 5-20.