An evaluation and comparison of time-out procedures with and without release contingencies.
Fixed-length time-out works just as well as wait-for-calm versions—save staff time and use the simpler one.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team compared two time-out styles with preschoolers. One style ended after a set number of minutes. The other kept the child seated until he or she was calm for a short period.
A multielement design flipped the styles across days. Observers tracked problem behavior during class and while the child sat in time-out.
What they found
Both styles cut problem behavior outside the time-out chair. The extra release rule did not make behavior drop any faster.
Fixed-duration time-out was simpler for staff to run and still worked.
How this fits with other research
Lord et al. (1986) asked the same question 25 years earlier and got the same answer: release contingencies add no punch. The 2011 study replicates that null result with new preschoolers and a cleaner design.
Capio et al. (2013) seems to disagree at first glance. They showed that letting kids earn an earlier exit by sitting quietly raised compliance. The key difference is the goal: Capio et al. (2013) measured how well kids followed the time-out rule itself, not whether outside behavior improved. Both papers can be true—release rules help kids stay in the chair but do not strengthen the overall reduction effect.
Leander et al. (1972) tested much longer durations and still saw no gain past 15 minutes. Together the studies tell a simple story: keep time-out short, skip extra gates, and move on.
Why it matters
You can drop the calm-down checklist and still get good behavior change. Pick a fixed minutes rule—two to four is common—and teach staff to restart class the moment the timer ends. Less paperwork, fewer tears, same result.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Switch any release-contingency time-outs to a 3-minute fixed timer and track problem behavior for one week.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A common recommendation for implementing time-out procedures is to include a release contingency such that the individual is not allowed to leave time-out until no problem behavior has occurred for a specific amount of time (e.g, 30 s). We compared a fixed-duration time-out procedure to a release contingency time-out procedure with 4 young children (3- and 4-year-olds) using a reversal and multielement design. Results demonstrated that both time-out procedures were effective at reducing problem behavior outside time-out, problem behavior occurred in time-out during both procedures, and problem behavior in time-out was not predictive of problem behavior outside time-out.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2011 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-693