Comparing resetting to non‐resetting DRO procedures to reduce stereotypy in a child with autism
Resetting and non-resetting DRO work equally well to cut stereotypy—ask the kid which one they like.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Gehrman et al. (2017) tested two kinds of DRO on one child with autism. One kind reset the timer after each stereotypy. The other let the timer run.
They used an alternating-treatments design. The child wore a timer. Stereotypy stopped the timer in the resetting DRO. It did not stop in the non-resetting DRO.
What they found
Both DRO types cut stereotypy by the same large amount. The child liked the resetting version better.
No extra gains came from resetting the timer. Choice, not procedure, made the difference.
How this fits with other research
Watkins et al. (2014) also used an alternating-treatments design with autistic kids. Their Snug Vest failed to cut stereotypy at all. The DRO variants in Gehrman et al. (2017) succeeded. The vest and DRO are different tools, so the clash is only surface-level.
McGarty et al. (2018) later added a 5-minute toy test before DRO. That extra step still gave good stereotypy drops, backing up the core DRO finding.
Rojahn et al. (2012) reviewed many stereotypy tricks but could not pick a clear winner. Gehrman et al. (2017) gives a simple rule: if two DRO forms work equally, let the child choose.
Why it matters
You now have data that two DRO schedules work the same. Ask your learner which timer style they prefer and run with it. No need to build extra resets or fancy gear. One happy kid, less stereotypy, same session time.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run both DRO types for two sessions, let the client pick, then keep the chosen timer rule all week.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We compared a resetting to a non‐resetting differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) procedure to reduce stereotypy exhibited by young boy with autism. During the resetting DRO, a reinforcer was delivered contingent upon the absence of stereotypy during the DRO interval. If stereotypy occurred, the DRO interval was immediately reset. The non‐resetting DRO procedure was identical, except that contingent upon stereotypy, the DRO interval continued until it expired; a new DRO interval then began. Results indicate that the DRO procedures were equally effective to reduce stereotypy, but the participant preferred the resetting DRO procedure.
Behavioral Interventions, 2017 · doi:10.1002/bin.1486