Two elementary school students worked in a programmed math text under three conditions: baseline, response cost, and bonus points. Data in the form of percent of time attending did not reflect changes in performance across conditions although the amount of work produced did vary considerably. To obtain greater precision, operant-to-operant intervals were obtained by having the subjects press a footswitch each time they completed a frame. The footswitch operated an event recorder. The results indicated operant-to-operant interval data were more sensitive than percent attending data and provided useful information not available through the attending data or the data based on total amount of work produced per session.
References
1.
BrodenM.HallJ.DunlapA.ClarkR.Effects of teacher attention and a token reinforcement system in a junior high school special education class. Exceptional Children, 1970, 36, 341–349.
2.
BushellD.Jr.WrobelP.MichaelisM.Applying “group” contingencies to the classroom study of preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 55–81.
3.
FerritorD.BucholdD.HamblinR.SmithL.The noneffects of contingent reinforcement for attending behavior on work accomplished. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5, 7–17.
4.
GagneR.DickW.Learning measures in a self-instructional program in solving equations. Psychological Reports, 1962, 10, 131–146.
5.
KramerT.RillingM.Effects of time-out on spaced responding in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1969, 12, 283–288.
6.
LovittT.CurtissK.Academic response rate as a function of teacher and self-imposed contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 49–53.
7.
ReynoldsG.McLeodA.On the theory of inter-response time reinforcement. In BowerH. G. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 86–107.
8.
StaatsA.MinkeK.GoodwinW.LandeenJ.Cognitive behavior modification: “motivated learning” reading treatment with subprofessional therapy technicians. Behavior Research and Therapy, 1967, 5, 283–299.
9.
SullivanM.Programmed math series. Palo Alto, CA: Sullivan Assoc., 1968.
10.
WalkerH.BuckleyN.The use of positive reinforcement in conditioning attending behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 245–250.
11.
WhiteO.A glossary of behavioral terminology. Champaign, Ill.: Research Press, 1971.
12.
WillisJ.Contingent token reinforcement in a remedial education program for emotionally disturbed children. In RickardH.DinoffM. (Eds.), Behavior modification in children. Tuscaloosa: Univer. of Alabama Press, 1974. Pp. 157–170.
