The Effects of the High-Probability Procedure on Compliance When Paired with Precision Commands

Noncompliance to teacher directions is an issue in nearly every early childhood classroom. It is necessary for young children to comply with directions so that teachers may assess their knowledge and their progress in the curriculum. Three preschool aged children (N = 3) with developmental delays participated in this study. The high probability command procedure was used with two children and was shown to be successful at increasing compliance. The third child did not show an increase in compliance when the high probability command procedure was used, nor did compliance increase when precision commands (escape extinction) were paired with the high probability command procedure. Positive reinforcement in the form of access to a preferred item finally increased compliance for the final participant. These findings suggest that the high probability command procedure may be an effective behavioral technique for increasing compliance in some children. High-Probability Procedure 5 The Effects of the High-Probability Procedure on Compliance When Paired with Precision Commands Compliance to teacher directions is a skill that is taught to the youngest of children in the classroom setting. Failure to comply can interfere with learning opportunities (Carr, Taylor, & Robinson, 1991), and ultimately negatively affect academic achievement. For example, a child who refuses to maintain a correct pencil grip may struggle with pre-writing skills in early childhood and later on, with handwriting. As another example, a child that refuses to comply with a teacher command to verbally count blocks may then struggle to build on that skill and count silently. Children with developmental delays commonly struggle with compliance to directions in the classroom setting (Lee et al. 2004). High-Probability Procedure. The high-probability procedure (high-p procedure) is a behavioral strategy that has been found to increase compliance in a variety of settings and populations (see Lee et al., 2006; Mace et al., 1988; Mace & Belfiore, 1990 for examples). This method of behavioral intervention was first discussed in the Mace et al., (1988) landmark study, “Behavioral Momentum in the Treatment of Noncompliance”. The high-probability procedure consists of presenting the participant with tasks that have a high probability (high-p) of being completed by the participant. After complying with a series of high-p commands, the participant is given a single command with a low probability (low-p) of compliance. As a result, the likelihood that the participant will comply with the low-p High-Probability Procedure 6 command is much greater after compliance with high-p commands than if he/she is presented with the lowp command in isolation (Mace et al. 1988). Mace and Belfiore (1990), found that a sequence of high-probability commands issued before a low-probability command increased compliance with task-related commands and decreased problem behavior stereotypy in a 38 year-old woman with severe mental disabilities. The experimenter presented three high-p commands at 10 s intervals followed by a low-p command. Enthusiastic praise was given for compliance to both types of commands. As compliance to low-p commands increased the subject’s stereotypy decreased. Their study provided evidence that procedures aimed at increasing compliance can produce associated reductions in problem behavior (Mace & Belfiore, 1990). High-probability Commands in the Classroom The high-probability (high-p) procedure has also been successful in the classroom setting. Belfiore, Basile, and Lee (2008), analyzed high-p command sequences in classroom environments and found that a seven year-old participant with moderate mental retardation and Down syndrome showed an increase in compliance to low-p classroom commands when the high-p procedure was implemented. The participant was presented with three to five high-p commands (i.e. “clap your hands”) followed by a lowp command (i.e. “come here”). The data presented showed an increase in compliance to low-p commands when preceded by several high-p commands as compared to when lowp commands were presented in isolation. This study demonstrates that the high probability command procedure may be useful in classroom settings. High-Probability Procedure 7 Although the high probability procedure has been shown to be effective across settings, it is important to determine if high-probability procedures are appropriate for the situation. If the requested task is above the student’s ability level, failure to comply may be due to a skill deficit, which would be addressed using teaching, rather than increasing compliance, per se. For example, if the researcher is asking the student to point to colored blocks as their low-p command and the child does not know their colors, interspersing high-p demands is unlikely to increase compliance to the low-p command. If the compliance issue is not a skill deficit, but is, in fact, a compliance issue, the researcher can then determine which commands have a high probability and low probability for compliance. These commands can then be used in the high-p procedure to increase compliance in the student. Determining High-p and Low-p There are several ways to determine high-p and low-p commands for a student. The percentage of correct responses, and if the student responds at all to the task command can be used to determine high and low-p commands (Bullock & Normand, 2006). Amount of assistance required to complete a command and frequency of compliance to a task command can also be used to determine high versus low-p commands. Task commands that result in tantrums or other types of internalizing or externalizing behavior such as crying, withdrawing, or aggression towards self or others in the form of hitting, kicking, biting etc., could also be considered low-p commands (Belfiore et al, 2008). Protocol for Non-compliance Beyond High-p and Low-p Commands High-Probability Procedure 8 Once the high-p and low-p commands have been determined and implementation of the high-p procedure has begun it is unclear what should be done if compliance does not increase. Previous research has been limited as to what to do if the high-probability procedure is unsuccessful, that is, the student remains non-compliant. For instance, Bullock and Normand (2006), ended the trial if at any time the student failed to comply with a high-p instruction. Mace and Belfiore (1990) ignored noncompliance. However, in the classroom setting it may not be in the best interest of the student or the teacher to allow non-compliance to occur. If non-compliance is ignored or allowed to occur, the child may fail to demonstrate skill acquisition, which would then make it difficult for the teacher to determine adequate progress towards Individual Education Plan (IEP) goals or other academic skills. The student also may not comply with directions related to safety and put themselves or others in danger. Escape Extinction Another strategy that has shown to be effective in dealing with non-compliance is escape extinction (Piazza et al., 2003; Zarcone et al., 1994.). With escape extinction, procedures are implemented that prevent the child from escaping the non-preferred situation, or demands that have a low probability of compliance. For example, if a child refuses to comply with the command to wash their hands, assistance will be provided in the form of hand-over-hand guidance to prevent the child from escaping the task. When escape extinction procedures are implemented, escape is no longer reinforced through task termination. A variation on escape extinction that is often used in early childhood classrooms is precision commands (Neville & Jenson, 1984). High-Probability Procedure 9 Precision Commands Precision commands are a three-part command sequence. If the participant complies within 10 s, his or her correct response will be recorded. If the participant does not comply, the researcher gives the command again but precedes it with “Name, you need to (low-p command).” Again, 10 s are given for the participant to comply with the command. If the participant still does not comply “incorrect response” is recorded and the command is given again and ends with “(command) and I will help you”. Physical assistance is then given to the participant to complete the task. Physical assistance is the extinction component in precision commands in that the participant is not able to avoid or escape the commands by not complying. The participant is physically prompted to complete the requested task using the least restrictive form of assistance (i.e. hand-overhand guidance). Positive Reinforcement. Yet another strategy that can be effective in dealing with non-compliance is positive reinforcement (De Leon et al., 2001). Positive reinforcement is the addition of a stimulus that will increase the likelihood that a behavior will occur. For example, a participant that is given a small edible after completing a low-p command may have a higher likelihood of continuing to comply with additional low-p commands. The purpose of this study is to extend the current literature on high probability procedure by evaluating the effects of high-probability procedure on four year-olds with developmental delays in the regular education classroom setting. High-Probability Procedure 10 Research Questions Research Question 1: What were the effects on compliance when a highprobability command procedure was implemented, and when it was implemented along with precision commands? Research Question 2: Did compliance increase more when the high-p procedure was paired with precision commands than when the high-probability procedure was used alone? Research Question 3: If neither of these behavioral techniques were successful would the addition of positive reinforcement increase compliance?