The class specific effects of compliance training with "do" and "don't" requests: analogue analysis and classroom application.
Reinforce both "do" and "don't" requests or compliance will stay stuck in the same class.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with children who had developmental delays in a classroom.
They taught the teacher to give two kinds of requests: "do" (touch your nose) and "don't" (don't touch the radio).
Only one type was reinforced at a time while the other was ignored.
The study used a multiple-baseline design across kids to see if gains would stay in the same class of request.
What they found
Reinforcing a single "do" request raised compliance only for other "do" requests.
Reinforcing a single "don't" request raised compliance only for other "don't" requests.
The effect did not jump across classes; you had to train both kinds for broad gains.
The teacher later ran the same plan and got the same class-specific boost.
How this fits with other research
Campanaro et al. (2023) and Mount et al. (2011) show you can now replace live coaching with a short computer module.
These later studies keep the multiple-baseline method but swap the skill (DTT or BST) and the delivery mode.
McGeown et al. (2013) adds a twist: live BST still beats computer-only for keeping high fidelity in real sessions.
So the 1983 face-to-face model remains the gold standard when you need rock-solid staff performance.
Why it matters
If you want a child to follow both "do" and "don't" instructions, reinforce examples of each class.
Don't assume teaching "sit down" will help the kid also stop when you say "don't run."
Use the same plan with teachers: train both request types and watch generalization stay neatly in its lane.
This keeps your program lean and your data clean.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick one "do" and one "don't" target, reinforce each across five trials, and chart if gains stay in their own lane.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two experiments are reported in which the relationship between compliance with "do" and "don't" requests was examined with developmentally disabled children. In Experiment 1, a multiple baseline design across subjects with counterbalanced treatment conditions was used to evaluate a compliance training program composed of four phases: (a) baseline, during which no consequences were delivered for compliance, (b) reinforcement for compliance with one targeted "do" request, (c) reinforcement for compliance with one targeted "don't" request, and (d) follow-up with reinforcement on a variable ratio schedule for compliance with any "do" or "don't" request. Results of probes conducted before and after training within each condition indicated that generalized compliance occurred only with requests of the same type as the target exemplar ("do" or "don't"). In Experiment 2, these results were replicated in a classroom setting. Following collection of baseline probe data on student compliance, a teacher training program was successfully implemented to increase reinforcement of compliance first with one "do" and subsequently with one "don't" request of a target student. Results of multiple baseline probes across "do" and "don't" requests indicated that the teacher generalized and maintained reinforcement of compliance with other requests of the same type and to other students, with a resulting increase in student compliance with the type of requests reinforced. The impact of treatment on both teacher and student behavior was socially validated via consumer ratings. Implications of these findings with respect to response class formation and compliance training programs are discussed.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1983 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1983.16-81