Differential reinforcement‐of‐low‐rate procedures: A systematic replication with students with autism spectrum disorder

Piper et al. (2020) tested a way to slow down repetitive behavior in students with autism.

They used signaled DRL schedules. DRL means the child has to wait before responding again.

Two types were tried: full-session and spaced-responding. A green card told kids when the schedule was on.

Both DRL types kept the behavior low but not zero.

The signals helped the students know when waiting mattered.

Results matched earlier lab work, now shown in a classroom.

Kimball et al. (2023) also played with reinforcement timing. They saw relapse even when rewards were scarce. Piper’s work shows DRL can hold gains inside one context, so pair the two ideas: use signaled DRL first, then plan for renewal later.

Cohen et al. (1990) and Martin et al. (1997) added extra parts like time-out or DRA to make differential reinforcement work. Piper kept it simple—just signals and DRL—proving the basic schedule can be enough for mild stereotypy.

Schertz et al. (2016) and Mirenda et al. (2010) gave us good rulers (the RBS-R) to count repetitive acts. Use those rulers to decide if a Piper-style DRL is worth trying.

You now have a low-effort tool that cuts stereotypy without erasing it. Put a green card on the desk, set a fair wait-time rule, and deliver praise when the child stays under the limit. Start with spaced-responding DRL if the behavior bursts in clusters; switch to full-session if you need an overall cap. Track data with an RBS-R item to be sure the change holds.