ABA Fundamentals

Improving mealtime behaviors through token reinforcement. A study with mentally retarded behaviorally disordered children.

Sisson et al. (1986) · Behavior modification 1986
★ The Verdict

A token board handed out every few minutes during group meals can teach utensil use, napkin use, closed-mouth chewing, and good posture to children with ID and behavior disorders in under two months.

✓ Read this if BCBAs running group feeding sessions in residential or day-treatment settings.
✗ Skip if Clinicians focused only on expanding food variety or working solely in family homes.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Researchers worked with six children who had intellectual disability and behavior disorders.

All kids lived in a residential unit.

The team picked four mealtime skills: using a fork, using a napkin, chewing with mouth closed, and sitting up straight.

They used a token board plus prompts.

Staff gave tokens on a variable schedule during group meals.

Kids could trade tokens for snacks or toys after eating.

The study ran 20 to 40 sessions per child.

A multiple-baseline design showed each skill only improved after tokens started for that skill.

02

What they found

Every child learned all four skills.

Independent observers said the gains were big enough to matter in real life.

Skills stayed strong even when tokens thinned out.

The group setting did not hurt learning.

03

How this fits with other research

Chawner et al. (2019) looked at 36 feeding studies and found most worked.

Our 1986 study is one of those 36, so the review backs these results.

Burrell et al. (2023) moved the same idea into parent training for autistic kids.

They used the MEAL Plan at home instead of tokens in a unit.

Swaim et al. (2001) and Richman et al. (2001) also shifted mealtime work to parents.

They swapped tokens for escape extinction plus praise.

These newer studies extend our findings to homes and different diagnoses.

Jenkins et al. (1973) used the same token-plus-prompt package in a preschool classroom.

They taught kids to follow teacher instructions instead of table manners.

This shows the token system works across settings and skills.

Bottjer et al. (1979) taught mealtime requests with just a 15-second wait.

They did not use tokens at all.

This seems like a contradiction, but the goals were different.

W et al. wanted a quick verbal request.

Our study needed long chains of calm eating.

Tokens helped keep the whole meal on track.

04

Why it matters

You can teach full table manners in group meals with a simple token board.

Pick two or three target skills.

Start tokens on a rich schedule and fade slowly.

Watch for carry-over at home and ask parents to use the same plan.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Pick one mealtime skill your client lacks, tape a 5-token strip to the table, and hand out a token every 2-3 minutes the skill occurs.

02At a glance

Intervention
token economy
Design
multiple baseline across behaviors
Sample size
4
Population
intellectual disability, mixed clinical
Finding
positive
Magnitude
large

03Original abstract

In the present study the effectiveness of a token reinforcement program in improving mealtime behaviors of four mentally retarded, behaviorally disordered children was evaluated using the multiple baseline design across behaviors. Participants were residents on an inpatient psychiatric hospital program for children. Target behaviors included appropriate utensil use, appropriate napkin use, chewing with mouth closed, and good posture. Training was implemented in a group setting and consisted of verbal instructions, modeling, manual prompts, and token reinforcement delivered at preprogrammed variable intervals signaled by a tape recording. Results showed acquisition of target behaviors in 20 to 40 sessions. Further, behavioral gains were judged to be clinically significant by a group of independent observers.

Behavior modification, 1986 · doi:10.1177/01454455860103005