ABSTRACT
We conducted a brief computer-based assessment involving choices of concurrently presented arithmetic problems associated with competing reinforcer dimensions to assess impulsivity (choices controlled primarily by reinforcer immediacy) as well as the relative influence of other dimensions (reinforcer rate, quality, and response effort), with 58 children. Results were compared for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) who were and were not receiving medication, and with typically developing children without ADHD. Within-subject and between-groups analyses of the ordinal influence of each of the reinforcer dimensions were conducted using both time- and response-allocation measures. In general, the choices of children with ADHD were most influenced by reinforcer immediacy and quality and least by rate and effort, suggesting impulsivity. The choices of children in the non-ADHD group were most influenced by reinforcer quality, and the influence of immediacy relative to the other dimensions was not statistically significant. Results are discussed with respect to the implications for assessment and treatment of ADHD.
Subject(s)
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/psychology , Choice Behavior , Impulsive Behavior/diagnosis , Reinforcement, Psychology , Adolescent , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/drug therapy , Case-Control Studies , Child , Female , Humans , Impulsive Behavior/psychology , Male , Reinforcement ScheduleABSTRACT
This study examined the effects of modeling versus instructions on the choices of 3 typically developing children and 3 children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) whose academic responding showed insensitivity to reinforcement schedules. During baseline, students chose between successively presented pairs of mathematics problems associated with different variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. After responding proved insensitive to the schedules, sessions were preceded by either instructions or modeling, counterbalanced across students in a multiple baseline design across subjects. During the instruction condition, students were told how to distribute responding to earn the most reinforcers. During the modeling condition, students observed the experimenter performing the task while describing her distribution of responding to obtain the most reinforcers. Once responding approximated obtained reinforcement under either condition, the schedules of reinforcement were changed, and neither instruction nor modeling was provided. Both instruction and modeling interventions quickly produced patterns of response allocation that approximated obtained rates of reinforcement, but responding established with modeling was more sensitive to subsequent changes in the reinforcement schedules than responding established with instructions. Results were similar for students with and without ADHD.
