ABA Fundamentals

Some effects of reinforcement schedules in teaching picture names to retarded children.

Stephens et al. (1975) · Journal of applied behavior analysis 1975
★ The Verdict

Replace continuous reinforcement with FR-3 to FR-5 schedules to teach picture names faster to learners with intellectual disabilities.

✓ Read this if BCBAs teaching tacts or labels to children with intellectual disabilities
✗ Skip if Practitioners working on behavior reduction rather than skill acquisition

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Whitehead et al. (1975) tested how different reinforcement schedules affect learning picture names. They worked with children who had intellectual disabilities. The kids learned to name pictures under fixed-ratio schedules and continuous reinforcement.

02

What they found

Fixed-ratio schedules worked better than giving reinforcement every time. Kids learned faster and got more answers right with FR-3 to FR-5 schedules. Medium ratios beat both low and high ratios. Interlocking schedules gave slightly better results than regular FR schedules.

03

How this fits with other research

Hastings et al. (2001) built on this work years later. They used multiple schedules to thin reinforcement after functional communication training. Their study showed you can keep problem behavior low while stretching reinforcement rates.

Sloman et al. (2022) also extended this research. They compared chained versus multiple schedules when treating vocal stereotypy. One participant did better with chained schedules, showing individual differences matter.

Landa et al. (2016) used multiple schedules in picture-based teaching too. They found S+ only schedules worked best for reducing high-rate PECS requests. This matches E et al.'s finding that schedule type makes a big difference.

04

Why it matters

Stop using continuous reinforcement for every correct response. Switch to FR-3 or FR-5 when teaching new skills to kids with ID. This simple change can double learning speed and correct responses. Test different ratios to find each child's sweet spot. The research shows medium ratios work best for most learners.

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

Count how many correct responses your learner needs before giving reinforcement, then stretch it to every 3-5 responses

02At a glance

Intervention
discrete trial training
Design
single case other
Population
intellectual disability
Finding
positive
Magnitude
medium

03Original abstract

The effects of several different schedules of primary reinforcement were compared in a picture-naming task with retarded children. In Experiment I, number of correct responses and learning rate were higher under fixed-ratio schedules than under continuous reinforcement. In Experiment II, number of correct responses and learning rate tended to be greater under in intermediate than under low or high fixed-ratio schedules. In Experiment III, number of correct responses was higher under interlocking schedules, in which the response requirement increased with time following the previous reinforcement, than under comparable fixed-ratio schedules. Learning rates were generally low and, perhaps because of this, not very different under the two types of schedules in this experiment. Accuracy (i.e., proportion of trials on which correct responses occurred) was typically high and insensitive to variations in schedule and schedule parameter throughout each experiment.

Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1975 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1975.8-435