Bx interventions 2018 article

Received: 18 October 2017 Revised: 19 July 2018 Accepted: 23 July 2018

DOI: 10.1002/bin.1641

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nlo

ad

R E S E A R CH AR T I C L E

ed

f

rom https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/bin.1641 by B

The effects of errorless compliance training on children in home and school settings

Hannah J. Cavell1 | Keith C. Radley2 | Brad A. Dufrene1 |

Daniel H. Tingstrom1 | Emily A. Ness1 | Ashley N. Murphy1

ehavior A nalyst C

ertification, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [14/1

1Department of Psychology, University of

Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi

2Department of Educational Psychology,

University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah

Correspondence

Keith C Radley, Department of Educational

Psychology, University of Utah, 1721 Campus

Center Dr. #3225, Salt Lake City, UT 84112.

Email: [email protected]

Behavioral Interventions. 2018;33:391–402. w

1/2022]. See the T erm

s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use

Errorless compliance training (ECT) is a procedure used to

lessen disruptive behavior using a gradual and noncoercive

approach. In this study, parents of three school‐aged chil-

dren who demonstrated high levels of disruptive behavior

in the home and the classroom were trained on the ECT

procedure. ECT consisted of training in effective instruction

delivery and delivery of requests in a hierarchal manner.

ECT sessions took place in the home, with parents deliver-

ing requests to participating children. Baseline data were

used to arrange requests into grouped levels, ranging from

Level 1 (requests of which individual is typically compliant)

to Level 4 (requests in which individual is typically noncom-

pliant). Using the ECT procedure, request levels were faded

over time in a gradual fashion to ensure the highest proba-

bility of compliance. Effects of ECT were hypothesized to

generalize from the home to the school setting. Implemen-

tation of ECT resulted in high levels of compliance in both

the home and school settings across all participants. Impli-

cations and limitations are discussed.

KEYWORDS

compliance, errorless compliance training, generalization, hi‐p

command sequences, single‐case design

; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

1 | INTRODUCTION

Noncompliance is a frequently targeted childhood behavior problems (e.g., Forehand & McMahon, 1981). Noncom-

pliance occurs when a child fails to complete a given instruction (Stephenson & Hanley, 2010). Teachers often cite

behaviors that arise as a result of noncompliance as a reason for poor academic performance and underdeveloped

peer relationships (Roberts, Tingstrom, Olmi, & Bellipanni, 2008), noncompliance resulting in a disruption of

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.ileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bin 391

om m

ons L icense

392 CAVELL ET AL.

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/bin.1641 by B

ehavior A nalyst C

ertification, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [14/11/2022]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

o

educational opportunities (Rhode, Jenson, & Reavis, 1992). Addressing behavioral issues in the classroom detracts

from instructional time for both the child and his or her peers (Di‐Martini‐Scully, Bray, & Kehle, 2000). Given the

potential educational and social impact of child noncompliance, researchers point to early identification and interven-

tion as an essential strategy (Gresham, Lane, & Beebe‐Frankenberger, 2005).

Compliance has been identified as a keystone behavior, meaning that improvements in compliant behaviors are

likely to have reductive effects on other problematic behaviors not directly targeted by an intervention (Barnett,

Bauer, Ehrhardt, Lentz, & Stollar, 1996). For example, being that compliance and defiance are functionally incompat-

ible (Mace & Belfiore, 1990), an increase in compliant behavior is likely to lead to decreases in oppositional behavior

and increases in communication skills and on‐task behavior (Ducharme, Atkinson, & Poulton, 2001). Due to the key-

stone nature of compliance, a variety of procedures have been implemented to address noncompliance in children.

Antecedent manipulations are frequently implemented to address child compliance (Radley & Dart, 2016).

Antecedent manipulations describe a class of intervention strategies that involve the manipulation of environ-

mental stimuli prior to the occurrence of a target behavior (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). In a recent review of

antecedent manipulations for noncompliance, Radley and Dart (2016) identified high‐probability (hi‐p) command

sequences as the most frequently researched strategy. Hi‐p command sequences describe a procedure in which a

child is presented with a series of requests (i.e., an antecedent to a behavior) that are likely to be met with compliance

prior to the delivery of a low‐probability request (Rortvedt & Miltenberger, 1994). As a child engages in hi‐p requests,

momentum is built toward compliance with the low‐probability request. With each instance of compliance, reinforce-

ment for compliance is provided (e.g., praise and preferred item), with researchers finding the delivery of reinforce-

ment to be a critical element in hi‐p command sequences (Lipschultz & Wilder, 2017). Radley and Dart (2016)

identified 14 studies in their review, with support being provided for children with a range of disabilities and no iden-

tified disability. Further, hi‐p command sequences were found to result in increased compliance in diverse settings

(e.g., home and school; Lipschultz & Wilder, 2017; Radley & Dart, 2016).

Researchers have suggested that hi‐p command sequences may be effective interventions for promoting compli-

ance with requests as they establish behavioral momentum. More specifically, reinforcement of hi‐p requests has an

influence on the general response class of compliance. Once reinforcement has been provided to hi‐p requests, suf-

ficient behavioral momentum is developed so as to result in compliance with lower‐probability requests (Mace et al.,

1998). Alternatively, hi‐p command sequences may be effective as they promote resistance to extinction. That is,

compliance with hi‐p requests results in increased reinforcement when particular discriminative stimulus is present

(i.e., person giving the request). This results in a higher probability that an individual will continue to engage in

responses that result in reinforcement in the presence of this same discriminative stimulus (Nevin & Grace, 2000).

Errorless compliance training (ECT; Ducharme & Popynick, 1993) is a compliance training procedure that is sim-

ilar to hi‐p command sequences, as commands are provided in a specified order beginning with hi‐p commands. ECT

differs from hi‐p command sequences in that hi‐p command sequences utilize a short interinstruction interval (i.e.,

requests are presented in close temporal proximity to each other), whereas this is not required in ECT. Further,

ECT differs in that potential commands are divided into four levels of compliance probability. Initially, only commands

from hi‐p levels are provided to a child. Further differences between ECT and hi‐p command sequences are also

noted in that, similar to demand fading (e.g., Piazza, Moes, & Fischer, 1996), low‐probability commands are gradually

introduced once a general repertoire of compliance has been established. This ensures that the child maintains a high

level of compliance throughout the intervention and contacts a frequent positive reinforcement for compliant behav-

ior. This establishment of a pattern of compliance in a particular context or in the presence of a particular discrimi-

native stimulus may play a critical role in ECT.

In one of the first studies of ECT, compliance to maternal requests was addressed in four children with develop-

mental disabilities (Ducharme & Popynick, 1993). After completing a probability questionnaire of child compliance,

parent participants were then video recorded delivering commands to their children. Requests were then arranged

into levels according to compliance data. Ten requests were selected for baseline data analysis, followed by four

intervention phases. Seven requests were presented for each level of ECT, with Level 1 representing requests that

m m

ons L icense

CAVELL ET AL. 393

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/bin.1641 by B

ehavior A nalyst C

ertification, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [14/11/2022]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (h

the child was most likely to comply with and Level 4 representing requests that the child was least likely to comply

with, with two sessions occurring each week. Transition sessions occurred between phase sessions for increased

gradual introduction of low‐probability requests, with transition sessions including requests from both the previous

and next level. Generalization data were collected for all four levels of ECT, using requests to which the child had

not yet been exposed. Follow‐up data were collected using requests from each of the four levels.

Whereas baseline data indicated low levels of compliance across participants, introduction of ECT resulted in

immediate increases in compliance. Further, high levels of compliance were noted as the intervention progressed

from Level 1 requests to Level 4. Follow‐up data indicated maintained improvements in compliance for up to

3 months. Additionally, participants' improvements in compliant behavior were found to generalize to novel requests

provided by parents. Although generalization was observed, the researchers noted that criterion levels of generaliza-

tion were observed only following implementation of ECT for level 4 requests.

Subsequent evaluations of ECT have demonstrated improvements in compliance in home, clinic, and school set-

tings for typically developing children and children with developmental disabilities and have replicated findings of

generalization across requests (e.g., Drain, 2012; Ducharme & DiAdamo, 2005; Ducharme & Drain, 2004; Ducharme

& Ng, 2012; Rames‐LaPointe, Hixon, Niec, & Rhymer, 2014). Generalization has also been documented across types

of requests, with generalization indicated from academic requests to general requests (Ducharme & Drain, 2004).

Despite the burgeoning support for ECT as an effective means of promoting compliance, the literature base is limited

in assessing generalization across persons and settings. Although one study has assessed changes in compliance in

both school and home settings, the study involved concurrent implementation of the intervention in both settings.

As such, it is unknown whether implementation of ECT in one setting (e.g., home) would result in concurrent

improvements in settings in which the intervention has not been utilized (e.g., school). This study seeks to address

this limitation through evaluation of the generalized effects of ECT on compliance in a nontraining setting (i.e., gen-

eralization from home to school settings). Specifically, the current study sought to determine whether implementa-

tion of ECT in the home setting resulted in increased compliance with parental requests at home, as well as

generalized improvements to teacher requests at school. Finally, the current study sought to evaluate the effect of

ECT on parent‐reported stress.

ttps://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

o

2 | METHOD

2.1 | Participants

Participants consisted of two elementary school‐aged children enrolled in general education classrooms, and one

eighth‐grade student enrolled at a specialized school for children with disabilities. Participants were recruited from

a university‐based clinic. Inclusionary criteria included both teacher and parent reports of noncompliance, with non-

compliance demonstrated in both home and school settings. Parental and teacher consent, as well as child assent,

was obtained prior to participation in the study. Permission from a university Institutional Review Board was received

prior to initiation of the study.

Taylor was a 7‐year‐old African American male attending first grade in a general education classroom. Taylor has

no psychological diagnoses and had never received academic or behavioral services prior to inclusion in this study. As

he frequently exhibited noncompliant behavior after school at a daycare facility, ECT was implemented at his daycare

rather than in his school classroom. Taylor's instructor was an African American male who worked as an after‐school

daycare program instructor. All home procedures were implemented by Taylor's mother.

Samuel was a 12‐year‐old male enrolled in a school for students with developmental disabilities. Assessment

data indicated a full‐scale IQ score of 60, as well as impairments in adaptive functioning across multiple domains.

Samuel had previously been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and an intellectual disability by a licensed psy-

chologist. Samuel's mother expressed interest in compliance training due to pervasive noncompliant behavior in

m m

ons L icense

394 CAVELL ET AL.

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.10

multiple settings (i.e., clinic and school). Samuel's teacher was a female with a Bachelor's degree in History. She was

currently in her eighth year of teaching. All home procedures were implemented by Samuel's mother.

Francis was a 6‐year‐old male attending kindergarten in a general education classroom. He received weekly

school‐based math and reading intervention services as a result of being retained. However, Francis did not receive

special education services and had no diagnoses. As frequent noncompliance impacted his academic performance, he

was referred to the university‐based clinic for compliance training. Francis' mother had received some compliance

training assistance as part of routine clinic services but had never been exposed to ECT. Francis' teacher was a

35‐year‐old female with a Master's degree in Education. She was currently in her twelfth year of teaching. All home

procedures were implemented by Francis' mother.

02/bin.1641 by B ehavior A

nalyst C ertification, W

iley O nline L

ibrary on [14/

2.2 | Settings and materials

Parent training workshops were conducted at the university clinic for both Francis and Samuel, and at a daycare

facility for Taylor. Collection of baseline, treatment, and follow‐up compliance data took place at each child's home

with a parent delivering requests to their child. Generalized effects of compliance training were assessed in each

child's school classroom. For assessments for generalization, teachers of participants delivered requests and child

compliance was recorded via direct observation in the child's classroom. iPods were used to collect ECT data in

the home. Parents used iPods to video record ETC sessions with their child by placing the iPod in an unobtrusive

location.

11/2022]. See the T erm

s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L

2.3 | Dependent variables

2.3.1 | Child compliance

The primary dependent variable of the current study was child compliance with target adult requests. Child compli-

ance was defined as initiating and completing an indicated response within 5 s of request issuance by the adult. If a

child failed to initiate and complete a response within 5 s, the child's behavior was recorded as noncompliant. To

assess child compliance, 12 requests were given by parents during each session (e.g., go to the [area of house] and

pick up your [item]), with 10 requests being given by teachers during each session. Compliant behavior in the home

setting was assessed through parents' video recorded compliance sessions. To assess generalization, compliant

behavior was assessed through direct observation of compliance with commands delivered by the child's teacher

in the classroom. Classroom commands were related to school behavior (e.g., draw a picture and cut out the shape)

and differed from requests given in the home setting. For both home and classroom settings, compliance with any

request outside those indicated was not considered. A graduate student trained in behavioral observations observed

all ECT generalization sessions in the school.

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

o

2.3.2 | Parenting Stress Index Short Form

As increases in compliance were expected to be associated with decreased parent stress, the Parenting Stress Index

Short Form (PSI‐SF; Abidin, 1995) was administered as a measure of social validity of intervention procedures. The

PSI‐SF is composed of 36 questions and addresses the following three domains: Parental Distress (e.g., general

feelings of stress), Child Difficulty (e.g., child characteristics that contribute to parent stress), and Parent–Child

Dysfunctional Interactions (e.g., beliefs regarding whether children meet expectations). Normative data indicate an

alpha of .85, suggesting acceptable internal validity. The PSI‐SF has been shown to not produce differences in

responding based on gender (Baker et al., 2003). Parent participants completed the PSI both before engaging in

ECT procedures and following the completion of the study.

m m

ons L icense

CAVELL ET AL. 395

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/

2.4 | Data analysis

The effects of ECT on child compliance were assessed through visual analysis, more specifically, changes in trend,

level, variability, immediacy of effect, overlap, and consistency across similar phases. Visual analysis of data was sup-

plemented through statistical analysis usingTau‐U (Parker, Vannest, Davis, & Sauber, 2011). Tau‐U is a nonparametric

measure of overlap across phases. Tau‐U has several advantages over other nonoverlap statistics, particularly in its

ability to control for baseline trend. Tau‐U scores were interpreted using guidelines provided by Vannest and Ninci

(2015). Specifically, a score of 0.20 or less was considered a small change, scores from 0.20 to 0.60 were considered

to be moderate changes, scores from 0.60 to 0.80 were considered large changes, and scores above 0.80 were con-

sidered large to very large changes.

bin.1641 by B ehavior A

nalyst C ertification, W

iley O nline L

ibrary on [14/11/2022]. See the T erm

s and C onditio

2.5 | Interobserver agreement, procedural integrity, and treatment integrity

Using videos recorded via iPod, trained graduate students watched videos and recorded child compliance. The num-

ber of occurrences in which both observers recorded compliance was divided by the total number of agreements and

disagreements, and then multiplied by 100. IOA data were collected for at least 30% of baseline, treatment, and gen-

eralization observations for all participants. Baseline and generalization observations yielded 100% agreement, and

treatment observations yielded an average 98% agreement.

Procedural integrity data were collected during every parent training session, with integrity calculated by dividing

the number of steps completed by the total number of steps and multiplying by 100. Procedural integrity for parent

training sessions was 100% across all trainings for all parents. IOA for procedural integrity was assessed during 100%

of training sessions, with IOA for procedural integrity being 100%. Treatment integrity was assessed by reviewing all

video recordings of baseline data collection and ECT sessions. If parent integrity fell below 85%, retraining was to be

implemented prior to the next observation. Treatment integrity of implementation of ECT procedures was 100% for

Francis' mother. Both Samuel's (M = 99%; range, 80–100%) and Taylor's (M = 98%; range, 80–100%) mothers had

two retraining sessions each, as implementation of ECT fell below the 85% criterion.

ns (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-co

2.6 | Design

A concurrent multiple baseline design across participants was used to assess the effects of ECT. Phase changes

occurred following a compliance level equal to or greater than 75% for three or more days within a phase. Phase

changes were followed by transition sessions, in which commands from the previous and subsequent phase were

both delivered. A minimum of five data points were collected for each phase (Kratochwill et al., 2010).

nditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative C o

2.7 | Procedures

ECT procedures utilized in the current study were consistent with those from prior evaluations of the intervention

(e.g., Drain, 2012). More specifically, elements of the current study included parent orientation and training meetings,

baseline, four levels of ECT that corresponded with the development of a request hierarchy, and three transition

phases.

2.7.1 | Baseline

The baseline phase consisted of multiple elements. Namely, an initial parent orientation, baseline data collection,

request hierarchy development, and training in ECT.

Initial parent orientation

Parent training began with an overview of ECT procedures and completion of the PSI‐SF. Data collection procedures

were presented didactically and modeled for parents. Instruction and modeling was also provided regarding steps for

m m

ons L icense

396 CAVELL ET AL.

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/bin.1641 by B

ehavior A nalyst C

ertification, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [14/11/2022]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are gov

recording videos via the iPod. Parents were then trained on the definition of compliant behavior and were then

required to identify researcher‐modeled instances of compliant and noncompliant behavior with 100% accuracy.

Error correction was delivered as necessary throughout the session, and modeling was repeated until all parents cor-

rectly identified compliant and noncompliant behavior across three consecutive models. Parents were then given a

baseline data collection sheet and were instructed to deliver each of the 12 commands on a daily basis.

Data collection

Parents were instructed to begin collecting baseline data immediately following the first parent‐training workshop.

During the baseline phase, parents delivered 12 requests each day using typical compliance strategies. The 12

requests were selected from the Compliance Probability Questionnaire (e.g., Drain, 2012). The 12 requests selected

from the Compliance Probability Questionnaire were selected as they could be completed in a relatively short period

of time, did not require the presence of someone else (e.g., asking someone to play), and did not require the recording

of private activities (e.g., putting on pajamas). Using the checklist, parents scored compliance with each command

with either a check for compliance or a minus sign for noncompliance. Parents were instructed to respond to com-

pliance and noncompliant behavior as usual. Parents video recorded the delivery of all requests via iPod. Video

recordings of requests were collected from participants and scored to verify accuracy. Baseline data collection was

terminated when participants demonstrated stable or decreasing levels of compliance with the 12 requests delivered

by parents.

Baseline assessment of child compliance in the school setting was completed through teacher delivery of com-

pliance probes in the child's classroom. Untrained teachers delivered 10 commands to participants to assess child

compliance rates. All data were collected via direct observation by a trained researcher.

Hierarchy development

Following collection of baseline data, the probability of compliance with each request was calculated by dividing

the number of times the child was compliant for each request by the total number of instances of the request,

and the multiplied by 100. After calculations, the commands were arranged from highest to lowest probability

(Rames‐LaPointe et al., 2014), and then divided equally into four levels. Each level contained three commands.

An individualized data sheet with each child's compliance hierarchy was then constructed for collection of

intervention data.

Training in ECT

Consistent with prior evaluations of ECT, parents were taught presented with strategies for effectively delivering

requests (e.g., Ducharme & Drain, 2004). Parents received didactic instruction on elements of effective request deliv-

ery. Specifically, training discussed the importance of making and maintaining eye contact when delivering a request,

delivering only one request at a time, and issuing requests in the imperative. Following didactic training, the facilitator

presented three models of request delivery. Parents were then provided the opportunity to role‐play effective

request delivery with the facilitator. Each parent role‐played request delivery until they demonstrated 100% of skill

steps during a role‐play scenario with the facilitator.

Following training in request delivery, parents were then taught ECT procedures. Training in ECT consisted of

reviewing the developed request hierarchies and instruction to only deliver requests that coincided with the current

phase of ECT. After reviewing the request hierarchies, the facilitator discussed strategies for avoiding requests from

subsequent levels of ECT that were discussed (e.g., breaking up tasks; Drain, 2012).

erned by the applicable C reative C

o

2.7.2 | Intervention

During intervention, participants were exposed to multiple phases. Specifically, participants experienced four levels

of requests (i.e., Phases 1 through 4) and three transition sessions (Transitions 1 through 3).

m m

ons L icense

CAVELL ET AL. 397

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/bin.1641 by B

ehavior A nalyst C

ertification, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [14/11/2022]. See the T

erm s and

Treatment, Phase 1

During Phase 1, only requests from Level 1 were delivered by parents. This consisted of the three requests identified

as resulting in the highest level of compliance during baseline, each delivered 4 times per day. Compliance with

requests was met with praise, whereas noncompliance resulted in no response from the parent. Parents were

instructed to collect data 5 days per week, and data were recorded on the intervention data sheet and recorded

via iPod.

Transition sessions (Transitions 1–3)

Transition sessions served as bridges across levels of ECT. Requests delivered during transition phases consisted of

one request from the previous phase and one from the subsequent phase. Transition sessions were initiated once a

participant had reached a compliance rate equal to or greater than 75% for three or more days for a specific phase.

Two transition sessions were conducted prior to introducing the next level of the compliance hierarchy.

Treatment, Phases 2–4

Procedures indicated for Phase 1 were used in Phases 2–4, with the exception of requests issued. Phase 2 only

included Level 2 commands. Further, Phases 3 and 4 only included commands from their respective levels. During

each of these levels, the three requests that corresponded with each level were delivered four times per day. During

Phases 2–4, parents were able to deliver requests from previous phases (e.g., parents in Phase 3 were able to deliver

requests from Level 1), but delivery and compliance with these requests was not systematically controlled or tracked.

Postintervention follow‐up

During the third parent training session, parents completed a postintervention PSI‐SF. ECT was discussed once more,

and parents were informed they could continue to utilize the intervention procedures despite the termination of the

study.

C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W

2.8 | Generalization probes

Generalization probes were conducted in each child's classroom to determine the generalized effects of ECT in the

home on compliance in the school setting. Assessment of generalized compliance was assessed twice weekly

throughout the intervention. During assessment of generalized effects, teachers of child participants delivered 10

requests. Requests delivered were adapted from ECT skills in coordination with the child's current level in ECT. If

compliance fell below 70% during intervention phases, the child's teacher was to be trained on ECT procedures, sim-

ilar to parent training (i.e., sequential modification; Stokes & Baer, 1977). Every participant exhibited compliance

behavior above 70% during intervention. As such, teacher training did not occur as part of the study.

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

3 | RESULTS

In general, rapid improvements in level of compliance were observed for each participant following the introduction

of ECT (Figure 1). Across all participants, calculation of Tau‐U indicated a very large effect (Tau‐U = 0.87).

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

o

3.1 | Taylor

Compliance with parental requests was stable during baseline (M = 38%, range = 33–42%), as were generalization

baseline (M = 56%, range 50–60%). The implementation of ECT procedures resulted in an immediate change in level

for Taylor in home (M = 99%, range = 90–100%) and generalization sessions (M = 100%). Additionally, results were

maintained during all four phases of ECT while maintaining high stability as lower probability requests were gradually

m m

ons L icense

FIGURE 1 Child compliance graph across participants across phases. Note. Open squares represent data collected in the home setting. Closed squares represent data collected in the school setting. BL = baseline; P = phase; T = transition

398 CAVELL ET AL.

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/bin.1641 by B

ehavior A nalyst C

ertification, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [14/11/2022]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s

introduced. Calculation of Tau‐U for parental requests in the home indicated a very large effect for Taylor (Tau‐

U = 1.00). Similarly, calculation of Tau‐U for generalization data indicated a very large effect (Tau‐U = 1.00).

-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use; O

A articles

3.2 | Samuel

Compliance with parental requests was variable during baseline (M = 49%, range = 8–67%) and demonstrating a

decreasing trend throughout the phase. Generalization baseline compliance data were also variable (M = 33%, range

10–80%). Introduction of ECT resulted in an increase in level, despite initial variability (M = 79%, range 33–100%).

Generalization data indicated an immediate increase in level and reduction in variability (M = 99%, range

90–100%), with high levels of compliance being maintained throughout all intervention phases. Tau‐U produced a

moderate effect (Tau‐U = 0.62). When calculating Tau‐U for generalization data, a very large intervention effect

was indicated (Tau‐U = 1.00).

are governed by the applicable C reative C

o

3.3 | Francis

Compliance with parental requests was variable during baseline (M = 46%, range = 17–67%) and demonstrated a

decreasing trend. Generalization setting baseline compliance data were also variable (M = 43%, range 10–60%). Fol-

lowing implementation of ECT, an immediate change in level and decrease in variability was apparent for in both the

m m

ons L icense

CAVELL ET AL. 399

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from

home setting (M = 100%) and generalization setting (M = 100%). These levels were maintained throughout all

intervention phases of ECT. Calculation of Tau‐U indicated a very large effect in the home and generalization setting

(Tau‐U = 1.00).

https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/doi/10.1002/bin.1641 by B ehavior A

nalyst C ertificat

3.4 | Parenting Stress Index

The PSI‐SF (Abidin, 1995) was administered to participants before engaging in ECT procedures and following the

completion of the study. Prior to intervention, Taylor's mother rated her Total Stress level at 115, a score at the

99th percentile (Table 1). Upon completion of ECT, Taylor's mother's Total Stress index was 104, at the 95th percen-

tile. A decrease in percentile was also observed for the Parental Distress and Parent–Child Dysfunctional Interaction

subscales. Prior to intervention, Samuel's mother rated her Parental Distress as 104, at the 95th percentile. At post-

intervention, Samuel's mother'sTotal Stress index increased to a score of 113, at the 99th percentile. With the excep-

tion of the percentile on the Difficult Child subscale increasing, all other scores remained stable. Prior to intervention,

Francis' mother's Total Stress score was 56, at the 20th percentile. Following ECT, Francis' mother had aTotal Stress

score of 54, falling in at 15th percentile. All subscale scores were stable from preintervention to postintervention.

ion, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [14/11/2022]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rule

4 | DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of ECT on compliance with parental requests in a home setting and

generalization to a school setting in which ECT was not in place. Following implementation of ECT procedures in the

home, all three participants exhibited increased compliance to directives given at home, as well as generalization to

the school setting in which no compliance training procedures were implemented.

Findings of increased compliance to parental requests are unsurprising given previous studies, which have eval-

uated changes in compliance in one setting following implementation of ECT in that same setting (e.g., Ducharme

et al., 2001; Ducharme & Ng, 2012). Whereas, the current study served as a replication of prior findings with primar-

ily young, typically developing, African American males. Despite the importance of this replication, future researchers

must consider evaluating the procedures described in this study with participants of other ages, races, and varying

disability status to determine generalizability of results.

An increase in compliance behavior in the training setting (i.e., home) may be attributed resistance to extinction.

The hi‐p commands that are used in the beginning of ECT resulted in frequent contact with reinforcement under a

particular set of stimuli (i.e., in the home, parental request). As lower probability requests were gradually introduced,

participants may have continued to comply as these stimuli served as discriminative stimuli for reinforcement

contingent upon compliance. Increases in compliant behavior may have also establishing a learning history, with

reinforcement for compliance serving as an abolishing operation for future noncompliant behavior (e.g., Bullock &

Normand, 2006).

Previous studies have assessed the generalization of trained to untrained requests using ECT (e.g., Ducharme &

Drain, 2004; Ducharme & Popynick, 1993), finding ECT to result in generalization across requests. Similar to these

TABLE 1 Preintervention and postintervention Parenting Stress Index Short Form percentiles

Taylor Samuel Francis

Pre Post Pre Post Pre Post

Parental Distress 95th 80th 25th 25th 10th 10th

Parent–Child Dysfunctional Interaction 99th 95th 99th 99th 35th 35th

Difficult Child 95th 95th 95th 99th 35th 35th

Total Stress 99th 95th 95th 99th 20th 15th

s of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

om m

ons L icense

400 CAVELL ET AL.

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/bin.1641 by B

ehavior A nalyst C

ertification, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [14/11/2022]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

o

studies, the current study documented generalized effects to untrained requests for all three participants. How-

ever, this study was unique in that generalization across persons (i.e., teachers), settings (i.e., school), and requests

(i.e., academic tasks) was also assessed. Results of the study indicated generalization of effects across requests,

persons, and settings for all participants. The documented generalization may be attributed to several factors.

The training of multiple exemplars likely contributed to generalization of compliance behavior. The 12 directives

used in the home setting allowed the child participants access to multiple stimuli in the training setting. This

increased the participants' likelihood of responding to unfamiliar stimuli, such as the directives used in the school

setting (Stokes & Baer, 1977). The frequency with which participants contacted reinforcement for requests in the

home setting likely contributed to generalized effects, as compliance may have become a generalized operant

behavior. Following compliance in the school setting, participants contacted a reinforcer (i.e., praise). Although

teachers were not trained to praise participants for compliance behavior, all teacher participants chose to praise

child participants.

Concerning the third research question, minor reductions in total parental stress were evidenced in two out of

three participants' parents. Samuel's mother reported an elevated level of total parenting stress, whereas the other

two mothers exhibited minor reductions in parental stress. It is possible that the variability of responding evidenced

in Samuel's data contributed to high parenting stress levels during implementation of ECT. Although Samuel's data

indicate a response to ECT, his data are substantially more variable than the other two participants. Taylor's and

Francis' mothers both reported some decrease in parental stress following ECT. The keystone nature of compliance

(Barnett et al., 1996) allows for the alteration of other variables when noncompliance is targeted in intervention, such

as parental stress. It is possible that increases in child compliance in both the home and school settings influenced

these mothers' reports of lessened parental stress.

It is important to note that in the current study, as with all previous evaluations of ECT, parents were taught gen-

eral compliance strategies as part of the ECT package (e.g. Ducharme & Drain, 2004). Although compliance increased

following introduction of the ECT package, no component analysis was conducted for the components of ECT. As

such, it is unknown if and the extent to which the training of general compliance strategies resulted in direct

increases in child compliant behavior. Prior research (Everett, Olmi, Edwards, & Tingstrom, 2005) supports the use

of eye contact and contingent praise as components that lead to increased child compliant behavior. Future research

should assess which these general compliance strategies lead to increased child compliant behavior within the con-

text of ECT.

In order to collect data from a naturalistic setting in an unobtrusive manner, all sessions were video recorded and

only parents were present at the time of the recording of data. Although this was associated with several advantages,

this made it impossible to control for anything that parents may have done in addition to ECT at times when parent–

child interactions were not being recorded. For example, a parent may have introduced an additional contingency

(e.g., additional contingency introduced for demonstrating compliance during probes). Although parents were dis-

couraged from implementing other procedures by the primary researcher, future researchers may consider methods

for collecting data on the use of other procedures by parents (e.g., survey at the conclusion of the study asking if

other procedures were used).

In the current study, increases in compliant behavior in the home generalized to the school setting for all

three participants following introduction of ECT procedures. This is notable in that this is the first study in which

generalization across settings was assessed for ECT. Due to the frequent co‐occurrence of noncompliance in

both the home and school settings, noncompliance is often an issue for both parents and educators alike. Given

the results of this study, school‐based professionals may consider working with parents to implement

compliance‐promoting procedures in the home setting. As addressing behavioral issues in the classroom may

be disruptive for both the target child and his or her peers, home‐based compliance training represents a less

disruptive option for addressing both home and school noncompliance (Di‐Martini‐Scully et al., 2000). Although

results of this study are promising, additional research is necessary to replicate these findings with other

populations.

m m

ons L icense

CAVELL ET AL. 401

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/bin.1641 by B

ehavior A nalyst C

ertification, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [14/11/2022]. See the T

erm s and C

onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com

/term s-and-conditions) on W

iley O nline L

ibrary for rules of use; O A

articles are governed by the applicable C reative C

o

COMPLIANCE WITH ETHICAL STANDARDS

All authors of the study report no conflicts of interest.

All procedures performed in the current study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution

and the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent and assent was obtained for all individual participants included in the study.

ORCID

Keith C. Radley http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6155-9666

REFERENCES

Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting Stress Index, Third Edition: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

Baker, B. L., McIntyre, L. L., Blacher, J., Crnic, K., Edlebrock, C., & Low, C. (2003). Pre‐school children with and without developmental delay: Behavior problems and parenting stress over time. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 217–230.

Barnett, D. W., Bauer, A. M., Ehrhardt, K. E., Lentz, F. E., & Stollar, S. A. (1996). Keystone targets for change: Planning for widespread positive consequences. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 95–117.

Bullock, C., & Normand, M. P. (2006). The effects of a high‐probability instruction sequence and response‐independent rein- forcer delivery on child compliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 495–499.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Di‐Martini‐Scully, D. D., Bray, M. A., & Kehle, T. J. (2000). A packaged intervention to reduce disruptive behaviors in general education students. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 149-156.

Drain, T. (2012). Errorless academic compliance training for children with autism spectrum disorders: Effects on compliance and social communicative responses. Dissertation Abstracts International, 73.

Ducharme, J. M., Atkinson, L., & Poulton, L. (2001). Errorless compliance training with physically abusive mothers: A single‐ case approach. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 855–868.

Ducharme, J. M., & DiAdamo, C. (2005). An errorless approach to management of child noncompliance in a special education setting. School Psychology Review, 34, 107–115.

Ducharme, J. M., & Drain, T. L. (2004). Errorless academic compliance training: Improving generalized cooperation with parental requests in children with autism. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 163–171.

Ducharme, J. M., & Ng, O. (2012). Errorless academic compliance training: A school‐based application for young students with autism. Behavior Modification, 36, 650–669.

Ducharme, J. M., & Popynick, M. (1993). Errorless compliance to parental requests: Treatment effects and generalization. Behavior Therapy, 24, 209–226.

Everett, G. E., Olmi, D. J., Edwards, R. P., & Tingstrom, D. H. (2005). The contributions of eye contact and contingent praise to effective instruction delivery in compliance training. Education and Treatment of Children, 28, 48–62.

Forehand, R. L., & McMahon, R. J. (1981). Helping the noncompliant child: A clinician's guide to parent training. New York: Guilford.

Gresham, F. M., Lane, K. L., & Beebe‐Frankenberger, M. (2005). Predictors of hyperactive‐impulsive‐inattention and conduct problems: A comparative follow‐back investigation. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 721–736.

Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M. & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single‐case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/ wwc_scd.pdf.

Lipschultz, J., & Wilder, D. A. (2017). Recent research on the high‐probability instructional sequence: A brief review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 424–428.

Mace, F., & Belfiore, P. J. (1990). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of escape‐motivated stereotypy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 507–514.

Mace, F. C., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West, B. J., Belfiore, P., Pinter, E., & Brown, D. K. (1998). Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 123–141.

m m

ons L icense

402 CAVELL ET AL.

1099078x, 2018, 4, D ow

nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /doi/10.1002/bin.1641 by B

ehavior A nalyst C

ertification, W iley O

nline L ibrary on [14/11/2022]. See the T

erm

Nevin, J. A., & Grace, R. C. (2000). Behavioral momentum: Empirical, theoretical, and metaphorical issues. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 117–125.

Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single‐case research: Tau‐ U. Behavior Therapy, 42, 284–299.

Piazza, C. C., Moes, D. R., & Fischer, W. W. (1996). Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and demand fading in the treatment of escape‐maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 569–572.

Radley, K. C., & Dart, E. H. (2016). Antecedent strategies to promote children's and adolescents' compliance with adult requests: A review of the literature. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 19, 39–54.

Rames‐LaPointe, J., Hixon, M. D., Niec, L. N., & Rhymer, K. N. (2014). Evaluation of errorless compliance training in a general education classroom. Behavioral Interventions, 29, 253–267.

Rhode, G., Jenson, W. R., & Reavis, H. K. (1992). The tough kid book. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Roberts, D., Tingstrom, D. H., Olmi, D., & Bellipanni, K. D. (2008). Positive antecedent and consequent components in child compliance training. Behavior Modification, 32, 21–38.

Rortvedt, A. K., & Miltenberger, R. G. (1994). Analysis of a high‐probability instructional sequence and time‐out in the treat- ment of child noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 327–330.

Stephenson, K. M., & Hanley, G. P. (2010). Preschoolers' compliance with simple instructions: A descriptive and experimental evaluation. Journal of Applied Behavior Anlaysis, 43, 229–247.

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.

Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single‐case research designs. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93, 403–411.

How to cite this article: Cavell HJ, Radley KC, Dufrene BA, Tingstrom DH, Ness EA, Murphy AN. The effects

of errorless compliance training on children in home and school settings. Behavioral Interventions.

2018;33:391–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1641

s and C onditions (https://onlinelibrary.w

iley.com /term

s-and-conditions) on W iley O

nline L ibrary for rules of use; O

A articles are governed by the applicable C

reative C om

m ons L

icense