A review of recent studies on differential reinforcement during skill acquisition in early intervention.

Chou et al. (2010) read every differential-reinforcement paper they could find on early-intervention skill building. They did not run new kids; they simply sorted the old work and wrote a story about it. Their goal was to see which delivery style helps toddlers learn fastest.

The team spotted a hole: no paper had tested quality versus schedule versus size of reinforcer head-to-head. They called for experiments that compare those formats directly.

The review found no clear winner. Some studies liked rich candy, others liked fast praise, and a few liked big toys. Results were all over the map. Because no study used the same method, the field could not pick a best practice.

The authors ended with a plea: someone please run a clean comparison so clinicians know what to do.

Johnson et al. (2017) answered the plea. They ran a single-case test with preschoolers with autism and found quality-based DR won for every child on the first skill. Yet the win did not repeat on later skills, so the picture is still messy. The 2017 work extends the 2010 call by giving real data, not just a wish.

Gaily et al. (1998) is one of the papers the review had summarized. That study showed kids can generalize a new mand after DR, but only two of three children made big gains. The old result matches the 2010 claim that we lack consistent outcomes.

Kestner et al. (2023) swept 32 choice studies into a systematic review. They show that letting kids pick the reinforcer often helps, but they still do not say which DR format is best. Their wider lens includes the same gap C et al. flagged 13 years earlier.

You still have to guess which DR twist to use. Try a quick assessment: run one session with high-quality candy, one with fast praise, and one with a big toy. Track which session gives the most unprompted correct responses. Keep the winner for that child, but probe again when you teach a new skill. The 2010 review tells us we are not done experimenting; every case is a chance to add clarity.