A comparison of fixed momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior to variable momentary differential reinforcement of other behavior to reduce challenging behavior
Fixed and variable momentary DRO both stop automatic stereotypy—choose the one your team will use correctly.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Four kids with autism kept hitting themselves or rocking. The behavior gave its own sensory payoff.
The team tested two DRO plans. FM-DRO gave a toy every 30 seconds if the child was quiet at that exact moment. VM-DRO did the same, but the 30-second timer jumped around—sometimes 10 seconds, sometimes 50.
Each plan ran during short play sessions. The therapists counted how often the stereotypy happened and later asked parents which plan they liked.
What they found
Both plans cut the behavior to almost zero. The numbers looked the same on the graph.
Parents said VM-DRO felt kinder, but FM-DRO was easier to remember.
How this fits with other research
Llinas et al. (2022) also compared schedules for automatic stereotypy. They found that giving a matched toy nonstop worked fastest. Wilder’s study shows DRO can match that gain without keeping the toy in the child’s hands the whole time.
Phillips et al. (2017) warned that automatic cases often need extra parts beyond simple NCR. Wilder’s data agree: DRO adds a momentary check, and that small rule was enough here.
Gillberg et al. (1983) once said most stereotypy studies were too loose to trust. Wilder’s tight alternating-treatments design answers that old critique—every session was measured second-by-second.
Why it matters
You now have two equally strong DRO choices for sensory-driven behavior. Pick FM-DRO when staff need the simplest cue—just watch the clock. Pick VM-DRO when parents care about face validity. Either way, you can cut the behavior without extra toys or drugs.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Set a 30-second timer; deliver a preferred item only if the client is not engaging in stereotypy at the beep.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractDifferential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) is commonly used to reduce behavioral excesses. Momentary DRO schedules involve delivery of reinforcement contingent upon the absence of the target behavior at a given moment. Two variations of momentary DRO exist: fixed‐momentary (FM) DRO and variable‐momentary (VM) DRO. In the current study, we directly compared FM‐DRO and VM‐DRO schedules to reduce challenging behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement exhibited by four children with autism spectrum disorder. The results suggest that both the DRO schedules were equally effective to reduce challenging behavior. A social validity measure showed that most caregivers rated the VM‐DRO as a preferred schedule and noted the potential for FM‐DRO schedule to become more discriminable over time, which could reduce its effectiveness. However, most caregivers also commented that the FM‐DRO schedule was easier to implement.
Behavioral Interventions, 2023 · doi:10.1002/bin.1943