The effects of work-reinforcer schedules on skill acquisition for children with autism.
Deliver the reinforcer after every response first; you can thin later once the skill takes off.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Kocher et al. (2015) asked a simple question. Does it matter if kids get a tiny break after every answer or after five answers?
They worked with three children with autism. Each child tried both ways in the same day. The team counted how fast skills were mastered and how long sessions ran.
What they found
Two kids mastered the task under both schedules. One child only mastered when the break came after every single answer.
Sessions with the one-answer break were shorter and used fewer snacks or toys.
How this fits with other research
Bukala et al. (2015) ran almost the same study in the same year. They also saw shorter sessions when breaks came after every answer. Both teams agree: tighter schedules save time.
Llinas et al. (2022) tested continuous versus intermittent reinforcement, but for stereotypy, not skill acquisition. They also found that steady, fast delivery worked best. The pattern holds across goals.
Giunta‐Fede et al. (2016) looked at continuous versus discontinuous data collection. Again, the continuous method caught learning a bit sooner. The theme is clear: steady input speeds things up.
Why it matters
If a child is stuck, try giving the reinforcer right after each response before you stretch the ratio. You may see mastery sooner and finish sessions faster, saving both time and edible reinforcers.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run the next teaching trial with a 1:1 work-to-reinforcer schedule and time the session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study evaluated the effects of continuous and discontinuous work-reinforcer schedule arrangements on skill acquisition for three students with autism. Participants were initially exposed to both schedules in an alternating schedules condition where they were taught different but equivalent skills for each schedule. In the discontinuous schedule condition, participants completed work in small increments to gain access to a reinforcer for short periods of time. In the continuous schedule condition, participants completed larger increments of work to gain longer access to a reinforcer. Results showed that two participants mastered the target responses with both schedules and the third participant only met mastery criterion with the continuous schedule. Preference for schedules varied across participants. Session duration was consistently shorter during the continuous work-reinforcer schedule, suggesting that continuous work-reinforcer schedules are more efficient. Participants engaged with the reinforcer less when provided longer access, suggesting that reinforcer access might be reduced with continuous schedules for further efficiency gains.
Behavior modification, 2015 · doi:10.1177/0145445515583246