A comparison of procedures for programming noncontingent reinforcement schedules.
Fixed or adjusting NCR thinning both keep self-injury down, yet newer probe methods can make thinning faster and safer.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Donahoe et al. (2000) tested two ways to thin noncontingent reinforcement for adults with intellectual disability. One group got fixed-increment steps. The other got an adjusting schedule that waited for long quiet spells.
They used an alternating-treatments design. Each adult experienced both thinning paths while the team tracked self-injury.
What they found
Both paths cut self-injury and kept it low as the schedule stretched. Fixed steps worked. The adjusting method worked just as well.
No big rebound happened in either path. The adults stayed safe while reinforcement grew leaner.
How this fits with other research
Fritz et al. (2017) later added DRA when NCR thinning stalled in kids with autism. Their tweak shows you can keep thinning without returning to dense NCR.
Strohmeier et al. (2024) now supersede the old fixed steps. Their terminal-probe method sets tougher but safer end points and cuts resurgence.
Davis et al. (2023) and Torelli et al. (2023) review FCT thinning, not NCR, yet they confirm one truth: gradual is not the only way. Lean multiple schedules can follow strong early treatment.
Shearn et al. (1997) ran early sensory NCR for SIB. Donahoe et al. (2000) moved the field from simple delivery to systematic thinning.
Why it matters
You now have choices when thinning NCR. Fixed steps still work, but you can switch to adjusting-IRT if you want fewer spikes. Better yet, borrow the 2024 probe idea: test the final lean schedule early, then jump to it if behavior stays flat. Either way, keep an eye on resurgence and add DRA if self-injury creeps back.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a five-minute probe of your target lean schedule; if self-injury stays low, skip the next fixed step and jump to that leaner rate.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We compared two methods for programming and thinning noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) schedules during the treatment of self-injurious behavior (SIB). The participants were 3 individuals who had been diagnosed with mental retardation. Results of functional analyses indicated that all participants' SIB was maintained by positive reinforcement (i.e., access to attention or food). Following baseline, the effects of two NCR schedule-thinning procedures were compared in multielement designs. One schedule (fixed increment) was initially set at fixed-time 10-s reinforcer deliveries and was also thinned according to fixed-time intervals. The other schedule (adjusting IRT) was initially determined by participants' baseline interresponse times (IRTs) for SIB and was thinned based on IRTs observed during subsequent treatment sessions. Results indicated that both schedules were effective in initially reducing SIB and in maintaining response suppression as the schedules were thinned.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2000 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-223