A comparison of differential reinforcement procedures with children with autism.

The team compared three ways to teach new words to three children with autism.

Each child rotated through different reinforcement plans in the same day.

The goal was to see if fancy differential schedules mattered for simple tact learning.

All three kids learned the new words under every plan.

No schedule came out as the clear winner.

Plain reinforcement worked just as well as the tricky versions.

Butler et al. (2021) later showed a basic DRO cut stereotypy in an adult across grocery stores and buses.

Together the papers stretch DR from preschool tacts to adult community settings.

Callahan et al. (2023) added response interruption to DR and slammed stereotypy even harder.

That trio picture looks mixed: DR alone teaches tacts fine, but cutting repetitive behavior needs extra moves.

Fleck et al. (2023) pitted single versus concurrent DRA schedules and found concurrent beats resurgence.

Their focus on schedule shape clashes with Boudreau et al. (2015) who saw no shape effect, yet the two studies asked different questions—acquisition versus relapse—so both can be true.

If you are running tact programs, pick the simplest reinforcement plan you can carry out with fidelity.

Save your planning time for prompting and error correction instead of hunting the perfect schedule.

When stereotypy or resurgence shows up later, layer on extra tools like response interruption or concurrent schedules.