Northern Illinois University

Huskie Commons

NIU Bibliography

1-1-2022

Using a Token Economy to Treat Escape-Maintained Problem

Behavior Without Extinction
Natalie R. Andzik
Northern Illinois University

Elle Smith
The Ohio State University

Nancy Neef
The Ohio State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://huskiecommons.lib.niu.edu/niubib

Recommended Citation
Andzik, Natalie R.; Smith, Elle; and Neef, Nancy, "Using a Token Economy to Treat Escape-Maintained
Problem Behavior Without Extinction" (2022). NIU Bibliography. 66.
https://huskiecommons.lib.niu.edu/niubib/66

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Huskie Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
NIU Bibliography by an authorized administrator of Huskie Commons. For more information, please contact
[email protected].
Behavior Modification
Volume 46, Issue 1, January 2022, Pages 128-146
© The Author(s) 2020, Article Reuse Guidelines
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445520966762

Article

Using a Token Economy to Treat Escape-Maintained Problem

Behavior Without Extinction

Natalie Andzik 1, Elle Smith 2, and Nancy Neef 2

Abstract
The use of extinction procedures when treating escape-maintained problem behavior can be undesirable and
impractical for practitioners to use. To mitigate the risks associated with escape extinction, we explored the
effectiveness of a delayed reinforcement token system without the use of extinction in school and home
settings to treat escape-maintained problem behavior of students with autism spectrum disorder. In lieu of
escape extinction (e.g., blocking), the researchers implemented a 30 s break contingent on problem
behaviors and a token (to be exchanged at the end of the session) contingent on compliance. The results of a
multiple probe design indicated substantial increases in compliance and reductions in problem behavior for
all four participants. These findings suggest that extinction is not necessary to eliminate escape-maintained
problem behavior in children with autism.

Keywords
escape-maintained behavior, token economy, compliance, school settings

1 Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL, USA

2 The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

Corresponding author(s):
Natalie R. Andzik, Northern Illinois University, Gabel Hall 162L, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. Email: [email protected]

Problem behavior is often maintained by social negative reinforcement via escape from task demands or
other forms of aversive stimulation. In an epidemiological study of the behavioral function of self-injurious
behavior, for example, social negative reinforcement was found to account for the largest proportion of the
152 cases examined (Iwata et al., 1994). Treatment involving extinction of the escape behavior (e.g., by
continuing to present the task so that misbehavior is no longer reinforced by its removal) has proven
effective, and often necessary, when used alone and in conjunction with other interventions (Mason & Iwata,
1990; McCord et al., 2001; Slocum & Vollmer, 2015). However, escape extinction (EE) can have
undesirable side effects such as extinction bursts (Ducharme & Van Houten, 1994), spontaneous recovery
(Kazdin, 1994), worsening topographies of behavior (Vanderplanck, 1995), aggression (Lerman & Iwata,
1995), and negatively affecting students’ perceptions of academic tasks and their choices to engage in
learning opportunities (Austin, 2019). These potential side effects can be problematic to the individual (e.g.,
worsening of the target behavior) and program implementers (e.g., require use of dangerous physical
restraint); they may result in reluctance of practitioners to use EE (McConnachie & Carr, 1977) and
premature termination of the treatment program (Slocum & Vollmer). To address these concerns, researchers
have evaluated methods for treating escape-maintained behavior without the use of extinction (Athens &
Vollmer, 2010; Lalli et al., 1999; Ward et al., 2017).
Findings from several studies have suggested that when compliance is positively reinforced, EE is not
needed to reduce escape-maintained problem behavior (Carter, 2010; DeLeon, et al., 2001; Lalli et al., 1999;
Piazza et al., 1997; Slocum & Vollmer, 2015). Lalli et al., for example, compared the effects of positive
reinforcement (immediate edible), negative reinforcement (30 s break), and non-contingent reinforcement,
with and without extinction, and found that the rates of problem behavior were lower and compliance was
higher for all five participants during the contingent positive reinforcement without extinction condition.
Although findings from studies have continued to demonstrate success in treating escape-maintained
behaviors without the use of extinction, they have not been conducted in typical settings (Payne & Dozier,
2013). Thus, further research is needed to examine issues that may affect implementation in everyday
environments. In particular, parents or teachers may object to the exclusive use of food as positive
reinforcement (as used in Payne & Dozier, 2013; Piazza et al., 1997; and Slocum & Vollmer, 2015 studies).
In addition, immediate access to the reinforcer (e.g., Athens & Vollmer, 2010; Carter, 2010; Hoch et al.,
2002; Payne & Dozier, 2013; Slocum & Vollmer, 2015) may be either undesirable (e.g., to the extent that
reinforcer consumption or engagement disrupts task performance) or impractical in typical environments
where teachers, clinicians, and parents often have other competing responsibilities. Satiation may be a
problem (e.g., Athens & Vollmer), and the rich to lean transition resulting from removal of a preferred item
following the allotted time with the reinforcer (e.g., 10 s with a toy) may evoke misbehavior.
These limitations might be circumvented through the use of token reinforcement. With token systems,
behavior is reinforced (with tokens) according to one schedule (the token production schedule) and is
subsequently reinforced according to a second order schedule involving opportunities to trade tokens for
back-up reinforcers (the exchange-production schedule) at a particular ratio (the token-exchange schedule)
(Hackenberg, 2009).
Researchers have demonstrated that tokens, as conditioned reinforcers, can be as effective as the terminal
reinforcers for which they are exchanged (e.g., Kelleher & Gollub, 1962; Sousa & Matsuzawa, 2001). To the
extent that tokens operate as generalized reinforcers exchangeable for a variety of preferred stimuli (Skinner,
1953), they may minimize reliance on food (e.g., candy, snacks) or on specific motivational conditions. In
addition, early basic research showed that tokens serve as a means to delay the delivery of the terminal
reinforcer following the demonstration of a desired behavior (see Hackenberg, 2009), which can be
particularly advantageous when immediate access to a preferred stimulus is not possible or desirable.
Indeed, basic research findings suggest that token systems may promote greater tolerance to delays than
interventions that involve only primary reinforcers (Estle et al., 2007; Odum & Rainaud, 2003). Thus, the
use of tokens may offer an alternative to procedural variables that potentially impede the application of
research-based treatments for escape-maintained behavior. It can be easily integrated into existing systems
given the wide use of token economies in applied settings (Hackenberg, 2018). The purpose of the present
study, therefore, was to explore the effectiveness of using a token system in school or home settings to treat
escape-maintained problem behavior without the use of extinction.

Method
Participants
Participants were four children who attended private special education schools for individuals with autism
spectrum disorders (ASD). All participants engaged in problem behavior during academic tasks as
evidenced by individualized education plan (IEP) goals, teacher and parent reports, and observations. Danny
was a 4-year old white male who communicated vocally using sentences and could follow two-step
directions. Eve was a 5-year old white female who communicated with one-word utterances and could
follow single step directions. Aaron was a 5-year old black male who communicated in complete,
grammatically correct sentences and followed multistep directions. Lance was a 5-year old white male who
was also diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. He spoke in complete multi-word sentences and followed three step
directions. Danny, Eve, and Aaron were found eligible for special education services under the category of
autism spectrum disorder by their home school districts according to the Multidisciplinary Education Team
Report. Each child was given a medical diagnosis of autism by a medical professional and this was shared
with us by the teachers, but the researchers were not allowed access to these reports.

Setting
Sessions with Danny, Eve, and Aaron were conducted 1:1 in a room at their school. Generalization sessions
were conducted during regular tasks in their classrooms. Sessions with Lance were conducted in a bedroom
in his home as the research team did not have approval to work with him in school. Tasks were selected
based on IEP goals, teacher reports, classroom observations, and teacher report of instructional and
frustration levels for each student. Tasks for Danny included tracing numbers, letters, and shapes;
determining what is next in an AB sequence; and identifying the largest number from an array of four
numbers. Tasks for Eve included selecting named colors, numbers, and shapes, and completing single digit
addition problems with the use of manipulatives. Tasks for Aaron included color by number worksheets,
counting coins up to 80 cents, and alphabetizing a five-word sequence. Tasks for Lance included writing his
first and last name, cutting out shapes, and writing his phone number and address.

Dependent Variables & Measurement

Data were collected on problem behavior and compliance. Problem behavior was defined individually based
on the topography exhibited by each participant and included blocking (using hands or arms to cover the
task, preventing further prompting) for Danny, Aaron, and Lance; destruction (using hands or arms to push
away, knock over, or rip materials) for all four participants; and aggression (striking the experimenter with
hands or feet and pulling her hair or clothing) and elopement (moving more than 0.6 m away from the task)
for Eve and Lance. When Lance or Eve engaged in aggression, the experimenter attempted to block contact.
Blocked aggression was recorded as an occurrence of problem behavior. Rate was used to measure problem
behavior by dividing the number of occurrences of problem behavior by the duration of active demands
(total time during which demands were in place) in each session. Compliance was recorded when a task was
completed without the occurrence of problem behavior. Some tasks were academically challenging and
required physical prompting to help the participant complete the task.
Task demands were defined as the presentation of a task within an activity. For example, when Aaron
was asked to count coins on a worksheet, each of the seven problems was an individual demand. If a
demand was provided and the participant did not engage in the task or made an error, a least to most
prompting hierarchy (i.e., verbal, model, physical) was used to guide the participant through the task. Each
level of prompting was followed by a 10 s response interval. Although the student may have required three
prompts to complete the task, the initial demand was still in place and thus was counted as one opportunity
to demonstrate compliance. When prompting was used, the demand was scored as “compliant” if no
problem behavior occurred. Each time a demand was given, it counted as an opportunity for compliance and
was scored as compliance or non-compliance. At the end of each session, the percentage of compliance was
calculated by dividing the number of occurrences of compliance by the total number of opportunities.

Interobserver Agreement (IOA) and Procedural Fidelity

Prior to data collection, the second author used video recordings of each participant to train one data
collector (a board-certified behavior analyst). Training included scoring occurrences of problem behavior
and compliance following each demand. The scores of the primary and secondary data collectors were
compared, and disagreements during training were resolved by reviewing the video clips and the written
definition until an agreement was reached. Five training sessions were completed before the secondary
observer met the mastery criterion of at least 90% agreement across three consecutive sessions. The
secondary data collector observed and independently scored 36% of the baseline and 34% of treatment
sessions. IOA was calculated using a point-by-point comparison for compliance by dividing the total
number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements. Agreements were scored
when both observers recorded an occurrence or nonoccurrence. IOA for problem behavior was calculated
using the exact count per interval method. Each demand served as a “trial.” During each session, if no
problem behavior occured, compliance was recorded and an average percentage across tasks was noted.
When problem behavior did occur, the frequency was recorded. At the end of the task, IOA was computed
by dividing the number of agreements (i.e., occurrence of compliance or frequency of problem behavior) by
the total of agreements plus disagreements for both compliance and problem behavior per trail (i.e.,
demand). Agreements were scored when both observers recorded an occurrence or non-occurrence. IOA
during baseline ranged from 88% to 100% (M = 98%) for problem behavior and was 100% for compliance.
IOA during treatment ranged from 97% to 100% (M = 99.7%) for problem behavior and was 100% for
compliance.
The secondary data collector used video recordings and an experimenter-created checklist to assess
procedural fidelity for 36% of baseline and 34% of treatment and generalization sessions. The observer
recorded a check or minus for each step on the checklist that the experimenter did or did not follow,
respectively (presenting the demand, allowing 10 s for a response, providing least to most prompting of the
response as needed, allowing a break if problem behavior occurred, and presenting a token if the task was
completed in the absence of problem behavior during the token economy condition). Procedural fidelity was
calculated by dividing the number steps completed (plus) by the total number of opportunities. The baseline
treatment integrity ranged from 97% to 100%, (M = 99.4%) steps completed correctly. During the treatment
condition, the percentage of steps completed correctly ranged from 97% to 100% (M = 99.1%).

Pre-experimental Procedures
Preference assessment. A Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO) preference assessment was
conducted with each student to determine what backup reinforcers to use. These procedures were modified
from those of DeLeon and Iwata (1996). The researchers used MSWO to directly assess the participants’
preference for five preselected items based on observations and recommendations from parents, teachers,
and/or therapists. The participants were initially presented with all five items and were prompted to “choose
one.” After selecting an item, the participant was given 1 min to interact with it before returning it to the
experimenter. Selected items were not re-presented in the array of choices and the process was repeated until
all items were selected. The top three most highly preferred items (selected first) were given as terminal
reinforcers at the end of each treatment session. Danny’s preferences included Curious George® and Daniel
Tiger® videos from the PBS Kid’s app. Eve’s preferences included Mickey Mouse Clubhouse®, Kate and
Min-Min®, and Chocolate Town® videos on the Disney Junior app. Aaron’s preferences included,
“TouchMath 1–9” YouTube video by Jackie Fraifield, and coloring with markers. Lance’s highly preferred
items were, “The Toy Reviewer” videos on YouTube and the “Little Dentist” application.

Functional behavior assessment. A functional analysis based on the procedures described by Iwata et al.
(1994) was conducted with three participants. Sessions were 10 min and included demand, tangible, and
control conditions. During the demand condition, the experimenter continually delivered instruction
throughout the session using sequential verbal, gestural, and physical prompts. Each level of prompting was
followed by a 10 s response interval. If no response or an error occurred, then the next level of prompt was
immediately delivered. Occurrences of problem behavior resulted in a 30 s break from the demand. If
problem behavior occurred during the break, it did not produce any programmed consequences. Before the
tangible condition, the participant was given a 1-min interaction period with a preferred item. The
experimenter then removed the item from the participant to start each session. Occurrences of problem
behavior resulted in the item being returned to the participant for 30 s. Control conditions consisted of
continuous access to three preferred items, no demands, and continual attention from the experimenter.
Occurrences of problem behavior did not result in any programmed consequences.
The function, escape, was determined by comparing the data from the test condition to the control
condition for the three participants (see Figure 1). Danny and Aaron’s data indicate that both tangible and
control conditions produced low and stable data. Although Danny’s data in the demand condition trended
down during sessions three and four, the data trended back up in session five. There was no overlap in data
between the demand and control/tangible conditions leading to a conclusion that the function of Danny and
Aaron’s behavior was escape. Eve’s data were not as clear as there was a slight overlap in data between
sessions one and two of the demand condition. After this overlap, her data in the tangible condition
stabilized and then trended down during session five. Although there was not as clear of a relationship
between her data and the others, we concluded that the consistent separation between data paths from
sessions two through five indicate that the function of Eve’s behavior was escape.

Figure 1. Results of functional analysis for three participants.

When a functional analysis was attempted with Lance, he appeared to be manipulating the conditions. For
example, he made statements such as, “If I hit you, you will give me the toy back.” After he verbalized the
contingencies in each condition, the rate of problem behavior immediately increased. Visual analysis was
then impossible to conduct because the data in each condition was high and stable suggesting his behavior
was maintained by all four functions. Therefore, interviews were conducted with Lance’s parents and
teachers, followed by a descriptive analysis in which the researchers and parents recorded the events
preceding and following each occurrence of problem behavior. Analysis of those data suggested escape as
the function of Lance’s problem behavior.

Pre-Experimental Procedures
Token training. Token training was based on the procedures used by LeBlanc et al. (2000). None of the
students had experience with tokens prior to this study. The 5 min sessions were conducted immediately
before the onset of the experimental procedures. Participants were prompted to comply with demands such
as “Touch your nose” or “Clap twice.” Occurrences of compliance were immediately reinforced with a
token paired with praise. Participants were given verbal reminders that the tokens would be exchanged for a
break with a preferred item at the end of the session and that the more tokens they received, the longer their
break would be. Training continued until each participant completed three consecutive sessions without
preemptively reaching for the reinforcer before the experimenter prompted, “It’s time to trade in your
tokens” at the end of the session.

Experimental Procedures
Baseline. Baseline followed the same procedure used during the demand condition of the functional
analysis. Occurrences of problem behavior resulted in a 30 s break away from work, with no access to
preferred reinforcers, and compliance did not produce any programmed consequences. During sessions,
demands were presented for 10 min. The timer was paused during breaks for problem behavior. Sessions
were terminated after 15 total minutes (i.e., demand plus break minutes).

Token economy. The intervention followed the same procedures as baseline, with the addition of the
delivery of a token for compliance. A token was given to the student after the occurrence of compliance and
before allowing access to the terminal reinforcer after the session. Once a token was awarded, another task
was immediately introduced to prevent breaks from occurring for compliance. At the end of each session,
participants exchanged their tokens to access the terminal reinforcer and they were offered a choice from the
items deemed most highly preferred. The duration of reinforcer access was determined based on the number
of tokens collected (i.e., six tokens equated to 1 min with the selected item, or 10 s break per token). The
items (listed in the Preference Assessment section) were available only after the completion of the session
and participants had no access to them outside of the session (i.e., closed economy).

Generalization. Generalization sessions were identical to the procedures during the token economy phase.
Generalization was assessed with Danny, Aaron, and Eve in their classrooms during regularly scheduled
instruction. During pre-post probes, the classroom teacher delivered instruction and the first author delivered
the prompting hierarchy and breaks for problem behavior.

Experimental Design
A multiple-probe design across participants (Horner & Baer, 1978) was used to examine the effects of
delayed access to preferred stimuli through a token economy on treating escape-maintained problem
behaviors without the use of extinction. Concurrent baseline probes were conducted intermittently.
Intervention was introduced for one participant at a time once a stable baseline was achieved for the
previous participant. This process was repeated until all participants had been exposed to the intervention.
The last three observations for each participant were conducted 2 weeks apart.

Social Validity
Three classroom teachers were given questionnaires to complete anonymously before, during, and after the
intervention to assess the acceptability of the goals, procedures, and outcomes of the intervention. Each
questionnaire included items rated on a 1 to 5 scale, one being the lowest rating and five being the highest.
A list of questions and results can be found in Table 1. Also, the participants’ satisfaction with the
intervention was assessed as a behavior correlate by recording the percentage of time each one spent within
the original workspace (i.e., 2-feet from where the task was delivered) during baseline compared to
intervention.

Results
The square data points in Figure 2 show the percentage of compliance for the four participants (see right
side y-axis) across baseline and token economy conditions. Open data points represent generalization
sessions. For Danny, compliance increased from a mean of 47.7% during baseline (range, 11.6%–71%) to
99.3% with the implementation of the token economy (range, 91%–100%). Increases generalized to the
classroom where compliance increased from 50% during baseline to 100% with the token economy. Aaron’s
percentage of compliance increased from a mean of 74.2% during baseline (range, 63%–79%) to 100% with
the token economy, including in the classroom generalization setting. Eve’s percentage of compliance was
highly variable during baseline (range, 0%–83%; M = 42%), but became stable at a high level with the token
economy (range, 85%–100%; M = 94.5%) and she complied with 100% of demands in the classroom
generalization setting. Similar to Eve, Lance’s percentage of compliance was variable during baseline
(range, 0%–75%; M = 34.6%), but stabilized at near 100% (range, 97%–100%) with the token economy.

Figure 2. Rate of problem behavior and percentage of compliance across participants.

Note. C = compliance; Gen = generalization.

The round data points in Figure 2 (see left side y-axis) show that the intervention produced a substantial,
generalized, and sustained reduction in the occurrence of problem behavior per min for all four participants.
For Danny, problem behavior per min decreased from a mean of 1.0 during baseline (range, 0.67–1.6) to
0.02 with the implementation of the token economy (range, 0–0.3). Treatment gains generalized to the
classroom (represented by open data points); problem behavior decreased from 1.3 per min during baseline
to 0 with the token economy. Aaron’s problem behavior per min decreased from a mean of 0.56 during
baseline (range, 0.5–0.7) to 0 with the token economy, including in the classroom setting. Eve’s problem
behavior per min was variable during baseline (range, 1.9–5.0; M = 3.0) but became stable at a low level
with the token economy (range, 0–0.5; M = 0.19). In the classroom generalization setting her problem
behavior per min decreased from 3.5 during baseline to 0.1 with the token economy. As with Eve, Lance’s
problem behavior per min was high and variable during baseline (range, 0.67–6.0; M = 2.48) but stabilized
near 0 with the token economy (M = 0.01).

Social Validity
The teachers’ responses on the pre-intervention questionnaire indicated strong agreement with the
importance of the goals of reducing problem behavior and increasing compliance. Additionally, the teachers
reported having experience implementing a token exchange. One area of the treatment that could potentially
lead to pushback or rejection was the teacher belief that escape-maintained problem behavior could not be
treated without extinction. All of the teachers reported that they had previously required students engaging
in escape-maintained problem behavior to complete some or all of the work before getting a break.
Concerning the procedures, the teachers strongly agreed that a token exchange for a break at the end of
the task could be incorporated into their classrooms, and that their students would be motivated by the
intervention. The procedure associated with the lowest score on the survey was the 30 s break following
problem behavior. It is likely that this item scored the lowest because it was the opposite of the teachers’
current behavior management plans. When given the chance to take out or modify the procedures of the
treatment, none of the teachers offered any suggestions.
The teachers’ indicated that they believed there was a strong connection between the treatment and the
students’ decreased problem behavior and increased compliance. Additionally, all of the teachers strongly
agreed that they would use the intervention in their classrooms. Possibly the most interesting result from the
post-intervention questionnaire was the change in the teachers’ beliefs (ratings increased from 2 to 5) that
the problem behavior could be treated without using extinction. All but one teacher strongly agreed that they
would recommend the intervention to a colleague. The one teacher who noted only “agree” when
recommending to a colleague may have been due to the teacher not feeling confident in her ability to explain
the procedure to others.
The social validity assessment also included examining the amount of time the student spent in the work
environment as a behavior correlate of the acceptability of the treatment. This was determined by comparing
the amount of time spent in the learning environment (2-foot radius from where the task was introduced)
during baseline and intervention. During treatment, participants spent significantly more time in the learning
environment and demonstrated less problem behavior (resulting in fewer breaks), which increased the total
number of learning opportunities and tasks completed. For example, during baseline Lance was exposed to a
mean of 21.6 task demands and completed a mean 10 task demands. During treatment, he was exposed to a
mean 29 task demands and completed a mean of 28.8 task demands.

Discussion
The purpose of the present study was to explore the effectiveness of using a token system in school or home
settings to treat escape-maintained problem behavior without the use of extinction. The procedures used in
this study addressed problem behavior maintained by social negative reinforcement, in the form of
escape/avoidance, by using a token economy with preferred activities as the back-up reinforcer. All four
participants exhibited substantial decreases in problem behavior and increases in compliance when tokens
were delivered contingent on compliance. While adding to the established research base that escape
extinction is not necessary to eliminate escape-maintained problem behavior (see Payne & Dozier, 2013),
findings from this study also compliment and extend the literature in several ways.
The results indicate that immediate access to the terminal reinforcer was not necessary. Few if any
applied studies have demonstrated the effect of delayed terminal reinforcement (e.g., break with preferred
item) by using tokens without extinction. The conditioned reinforcer (token) for compliance directly
competed with problem behavior that resulted in an immediate break. Other researchers have suggested that
immediate positive reinforcement was more effective than negative reinforcement (i.e., break) because it
acted as an abolishing operation by reducing the aversive nature of the sessions (Slocum & Vollmer, 2015).
Findings from this study also indicated that positive reinforcement was effective in treating problem
behavior, but it may be that tokens acted as the abolishing operation. This type of intervention approach may
preserve engagement with learning opportunities by attenuating task aversiveness through remote
reinforcement rather than using EE (Austin, 2019). During the token economy condition, participants spent
significantly more time in their classrooms and demonstrated less problem behavior (resulting in fewer
breaks), which increased the total number of learning opportunities and tasks completed in the natural
setting. However, the uncontrolled nature of a classroom environment with respect to variables such as the
type of tasks presented and the rate at which the demands were given should be taken into account when
considering applying these strategies in a classroom setting.
By capitalizing on a token economy, findings from this study demonstrated an effective alternative to
procedures that potentially hinder the application of research-based treatments for escape-maintained
behavior in typical environments (e.g., exclusive reliance on food, immediate access to reinforcers).
Approximately 63% of all children with disabilities ages 6 to 21 spend 80% or more of their educational day
in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2019). This shift in inclusive practices
underscores the importance of exploring practical methods that can be implemented in natural settings.

Limitations and Future Directions

We probed intervention sessions from a 1:1 setting to the classroom setting for three participants during
natural instruction and activities in the participants’ classrooms. Although the results of the location change
showed sustained reductions in problem behavior at near zero levels and increases in compliance at or near
100% in comparison to baseline, more frequent evaluations (a minimum of three), with other types of tasks,
with the classroom teacher, and in other settings (e.g., music, gym, field trips) are needed. Also, only one
probe was taken in the intervention phase and without more data, conclusions about the effectiveness in the
classroom setting are limited. Future researchers should also consider measuring the efficiency of the
procedures across time, such as collecting data on the frequency of the most intrusive prompts in each
session as the intervention phase progresses. Also, Lance was a bit of an outlier given the location difference
between his intervention (i.e., home) and the other three participants (i.e., school). Although data indicate
the effects of the intervention for Lance were aligned with the other three participants, the location of his
intervention hindered testing the effects in a generalized setting. Future researchers should consider
evaluating the effects of home-based programs and interventions in the generalized classroom setting.
Implementation of evidence-based practices in everyday environments depends on buy-in of potential
users. Before the token economy condition, all of the cooperating teachers reported having students who
engaged in escape-maintained problem behavior but, consistent with their practice, none of the teachers
expressed belief that escape-maintained problem behavior could be treated without extinction. As such, the
researchers decided to implement the baseline and treatment procedures in a controlled setting, and merely
probe in the classroom setting. Following the token economy condition, all of the teachers strongly agreed
that they would continue to use it in their classrooms and agreed that problem behavior could be treated
without using extinction. Considering the need to examine issues that may affect implementation in
everyday environments, it would be helpful in future research to conduct pre- and post- observations of the
fidelity of teacher and parent use of procedures. Follow-up observations might suggest adjustments needed
to maintain usage (e.g., thinning of reinforcement schedules) given the ecology of the particular
environment.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Natalie R. Andzik https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6704-9405

References
Athens E. S., Vollmer T. R. (2010). An investigation of differential reinforcement of alternative behavior without
extinction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(4), 569–589. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-569
Austin J. L. (2019). Helping academic avoiders choose to do more work: Why escape-based interventions might not be
the answer. Association for Behavior Analysis International.
Carter S. L. (2010). A comparison of various forms of reinforcement with and without extinction as treatment for
escape-maintained problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 543–546.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-543
DeLeon I. G., Iwata B. A. (1996). Evaluation of multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer
preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519
DeLeon I. G., Neidert P. L., Anders B. M., Rodriguez-Catter V. (2001). Choices between positive and negative
reinforcement during treatment for escape-maintained behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(4), 521–
525. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-521
Ducharme J. M., Van Houten R. (1994). Operant extinction in the treatment of severe maladaptive behavior: Adapting
research to practice. Behavior Modification, 18(2), 139–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455940182001
Estle S. J., Green L., Myerson J., Holt D. D. (2007). Discounting of monetary and directly consumable rewards.
Psychological Science, 18(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01849
Hackenberg T. D. (2009). Token reinforcement: A review and analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 91(2),
257–286. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2009.91-257
Hackenberg T. D. (2018). Token reinforcement: Translational research and application. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 51(1), 393–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.439
Hoch H., McComas J. J., Thompson A. L., Paone D. (2002). Concurrent reinforcement schedules: Behavior change and
maintenance without extinction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(2), 155–169.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-155
Horner R. D., Baer D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189
Iwata B. A., Pace G. M., Dorsey M. F., Zarcone J. R., Vollmer T. R., Smith R. G., et al. (1994). The functions of self-
injurious behavior: An experimental-epidemiological analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(2), 215–
240. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1994.27-215
Kazdin A. E. (1994). Behavior is applied settings (5th ed.). Brooks/Cole.
Kelleher R. T., Gollub L. R. (1962). A review of positive conditioned reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental
Analysis of Behavior, 5(S4), 543–597. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1962.5-s543
Lalli J. S., Vollmer T. A., Progar P. R., Wright C., Borrero J., Daniel D., Barthold C. H., Tocco K., May W. (1999).
Competition between positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape behavior. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 32(3), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1999.32-285
Leblanc L. A., Hagopian L. P., Maglieri K. A. (2000). Use of a token economy to eliminate excessive inappropriate
social behavior in an adult with developmental disabilities. Behavioral Interventions, 15(2), 135–143.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-078X(200004/06)15:2<135::AID-BIN51>3.0.CO;2-3
Lerman D. C., Iwata B. A. (1995). Prevalence of the extinction burst and its attenuation during treatment. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(1), 93–94. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1995.28-93
Mason S. A., Iwata B. A. (1990). Artifactual effects of sensory integrative therapy on self-injurious behavior. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1990.23-361
McConnachie G., Carr E. G. (1977). The effects of child behavior problems on the maintenance of intervention fidelity.
Behavior Modification, 21(2), 123–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455970212001
McCord B. E., Thompson R. J., Iwata B. A. (2001). Functional analysis and treatment of self-injury associated with
transitions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(2), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-195
Odum A. L., Rainaud C. P. (2003). Discounting of delayed hypothetical money, alcohol, and food. Behavioural
Processes, 64(3), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(03)00145-1
Payne S.W., Dozier C. L. (2013). Positive reinforcement as treatment for problem behavior maintained by negative
reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(3), 699–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.54
Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Hanley G. P., Remick M. L., Contruccci S.A., Aitken T. L. (1997). The use of positive
reinforcement and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(2), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-279
Skinner B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.
Slocum S. K., Vollmer T. R. (2015). A comparison of positive and negative reinforcement for compliance to treat
problem behavior maintained by escape. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(3), 563–574.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.216
Sousa C., Matsuzawa T. (2001). The use of tokens as rewards and tools by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Animal
Cognition, 4(3–4), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710100104
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) database. (2019). https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html#bcc
Vanderplanck W. S. (1995). The control of the content of conversation: Reinforcement of statements of opinion. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51(3), 668– 676. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046514
Ward S., Parker A., Perdikaris A. (2017). Task as reinforcer: A reactive alternative to traditional forms of escape
extinction. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 10(1), 22–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0139-7

Author Biographies
Natalie Andzik is an assistant professor in the College of Education at Northern Illinois Univeristy.

Elle Smith is a BCBA working in a clinic setting with individuals with autism and other related disorders.

Nancy Neef is an academy professor in the College of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University.