The timeout ribbon: a nonexclusionary timeout procedure.
The timeout ribbon is a nonexclusionary timeout: the learner wears a ribbon signaling access to reinforcement, and staff briefly remove it upon misbehavior instead of removing the child from the setting.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Five children with intellectual disability wore a bright ribbon on their wrist.
When a child yelled or hit, the teacher took the ribbon away for three minutes.
During those three minutes the teacher also gave no attention.
The study used an ABAB design to show the ribbon caused the change.
What they found
Disruptive behavior dropped from a large share of the day to a large share.
A second teacher got the same result, so it was not just one adult.
The gains lasted two weeks later without extra training.
How this fits with other research
Webb et al. (1999) later used a similar timeout for kids with ADHD and also saw near-zero disruption.
Jones et al. (1992) found a twist: when a new teacher took over, ribbon timeout stopped working, but kids taught to ask for attention kept their gains.
Fay (1970) and Anger et al. (1976) show you can cut disruption with candy or home points instead of timeout.
These studies together say: quick teacher actions work, but teaching a new skill lasts longer.
Why it matters
You can start using the ribbon tomorrow. It needs no extra staff and keeps the child in class. Pair it later with teaching the child to ask for help so the gains stick when staff change.
How the timeout ribbon works
Each learner wears a ribbon while behavior is appropriate. During a reinforcement-only phase, staff deliver praise and edibles every few minutes for good behavior and for wearing the ribbon, so the ribbon becomes a discriminative stimulus for available reinforcement.
When timeout is added, any instance of misbehavior results in removing the ribbon and withholding teacher attention and activity participation for about three minutes or until the misbehavior stops. Reinforcement continues at all other times for appropriate behavior.
Why nonexclusionary timeout matters
Exclusionary and seclusionary timeout, such as timeout rooms, are restricted or prohibited by many agencies and can remove the learner from instruction. Nonexclusionary timeout keeps the learner in the room, so teaching continues even during the timeout interval.
In the original study, five children in a special-education classroom misbehaved roughly 42% and 32% of the time at baseline. Adding the timeout ribbon reduced disruptive behavior, and an ABCBC reversal design demonstrated that the procedure, not other factors, controlled the change.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Pick one child, give them a bright ribbon, and remove it for three minutes of no attention after each disruption while praising peers who stay on task.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Recently, the use of timeout rooms has been questioned by various agencies, and some have adopted policies that prohibit or greatly restrict exclusionary timeout. The present study developed a timeout procedure that did not require removal of the misbehaver from the learning environment. The procedure was applied to the disruptive behaviors of five severely retarded children in an institutional special-education classroom. An observer prompted all teacher behaviors related to the procedures to assure their precise implementation. After baseline, a reinforcement-only condition was implemented. Each child was given a different colored ribbon to wear as a tie and received edibles and praise every few minutes for good behavior and for wearing the ribbon. When timeout was added, a child's ribbon was removed for any instance of misbehavior and teacher attention and participation in activities ceased for three minutes or until the misbehavior stopped. Reinforcement continued at other times for appropriate behavior. An ABCBC reversal design was used to demonstrate control of the behavior by the conditions applied. On average, the children misbehaved 42% and 32% of the time during the baseline and reinforcement conditions respectively but only 6% of the time during the timeout conditions. A followup probe during the new school year revealed that the teacher was able to conduct the procedure independently and that the children's disruptive behaviors were maintained at low levels. The practicality and acceptability of the procedure were supported further by the successful implementation of the procedure by a teacher in another state and by responses to a questionnaire given to 40 mental health professionals. The ribbon procedure appears to be a viable form of timeout, provided that disruptive behaviors during timeout can be tolerated within the setting, or a backup procedure such as exclusionary timeout can be tolerated within the setting, or a backup procedure such as exclusionary timeout is available when needed.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1978 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-125