Time-Out: Negative Punishment Procedure

• Time-out is a negative punishment procedure used by parents and teachers to reduce problem behavior.
• Specific time-out parameters have not been adequately evaluated.
• The mode of time-out administration (verbal or physical) has received relatively little attention in the research.
• A study evaluated a procedure to reduce problem behavior and increase compliance with the verbal instruction to go to time-out by reducing the time-out interval when the participant complied with the time-out instruction.
• 6 preschool-aged boys participated in the study.
• Time-out effectively reduced the problem behavior of all 6 participants.
• The procedure to increase compliance with the time-out instruction was effective for 4 of 6 participants.
• Time-out involves removing access to a reinforcing environment contingent on a response to reduce problem behavior.
• Research surveys show teachers and parents use time-out in the classroom and home.
• A survey of 730 teachers of students with behavior disorders found that 88% of preschool teachers and 78% of elementary school teachers reported using time-out in their classrooms.
• A survey of 2,130 parents of children between 2 and 11 years old found that 42% reported using time-out.
• Time-out was the most commonly reported disciplinary procedure, suggesting a need to evaluate methods to make it safer, easier to implement, and more effective.
• Parameters of time-out procedures include location, duration, release, and mode of administration (verbal or physical).
• Some of these parameters may influence the effectiveness and feasibility of time-out.
• Exclusion time-out and contingent observation time-out have been demonstrated to be effective.
• Several studies have compared the effects of various time-out durations on rates of problem behavior.
• A 4-min time-out was selected as the standard duration because it was the shortest effective duration and was used effectively in prior applications.
• The release parameter has been examined in studies with a fixed-duration time-out compared to a time-out with a release contingency.
• Contingent observation refers to implementing time-out in the same room (similar to nonexclusion time-out) and general area as the time-in environment.
• The mode of administration has not been investigated previously but is likely an important parameter because it influences the effort involved in implementing time-out.
• The aversive nature of time-out may result in noncompliance with the verbal instruction to go to the time-out location, resulting in the necessity of physical guidance.
• Only two studies have evaluated procedures to increase compliance with the instruction to go to time-out.

Previous Studies Examining Compliance

• Warnings that a more severe form of time-out (increased duration, exclusion time-out) would be implemented if participants did not comply with the instruction to go to a 2-min contingent observation time-out.
• Participants were more likely to comply with the contingent observation time-out instruction when no warnings were given, because a more severe form of time-out contingent on noncompliance with the time-out instruction was effective.
• Participants were fined points in an ongoing token system and sent to time-out for 30 min in an isolation room contingent on noncompliance with the time-out instruction or disruption during time-out.
• One limitation with these procedures is that exclusion time-out is not always practical or acceptable in a school or home setting.
• Deferred time-out refusal to give participants attention or tangible items until they served time-out.
• Limitations of the study make conclusions about the effectiveness of deferred time-out tentative, including weak experimental control.
• The current study evaluated reducing the time-out interval contingent on compliance with the time-out instruction.
• To address some limitations of previous studies, data were collected both on the latency to comply with the time-out instruction and on the rate of time-out-producing problem behavior.
• The time-out procedure evaluated in this study was a contingent observation time-out that could be used in settings where children can access reinforcers freely.

Method

• Six children referred for participation by their preschool or kindergarten teachers because they exhibited problem behavior during free-play times were tested.
• Participants ranged in age from 3 to 5 years.
• Sessions consisted of 10 min of time-in; however, total session duration varied depending on time-out frequency and duration.
• Sessions were conducted on the playground or in the home during free-play time.
• Playground settings were large enclosed areas with equipment.
• The time-out location on the playground was a chair on the perimeter.
• Home sessions took place in the bedrooms, where they had free access to many toys and games.
• The time-out location was a carpeted corner in the bedroom in which toys and other objects were out of reach.
• The dependent variables were the rate of problem behavior outside time-out, percentage of opportunities in which the participant complied with the time-out demand, and average time-out duration for each condition.
• Compliance with the time-out instruction was defined as being in the time-out area within 10 s of the time-out instruction.
• Data were collected using handheld computers with a behavioral recording program that allows frequency and duration data to be collected for multiple responses in real-time.
• Breaking playground rules was the target behavior on the playground
• Breaking house rules was the target behavior in the home
• A second observer collected data during at least 20% of sessions across participants.
• Proportional interobserver agreement was calculated for the occurrence of the target problem behavior by dividing each session into consecutive 10-s intervals.

Procedure

• The effects of time-out were demonstrated using an ABAB reversal design.
• The two time-out procedures were compared using a multielement design during the B phases.
• Sessions were conducted one to three times per day, 3 to 5 days per week.
• Prior to the start of the first session in the first time-out phase, the participants were given the playground or house rules and asked if they had any questions about the rules.
• During the time-out phases, the time-out conditions alternated, with the additional rule that the first session of the day alternated between the two time-out conditions.
• During baseline, no programmed consequences were provided for problem behavior.
• Time-out conditions began immediately after baseline, each participant was reminded of the playground or house rules.

Experimental Conditions

• 4-min time-out meant participants were told that breaking any of the rules meant they would be sent to time-out for 4 min, no matter how quickly they get there.
• During this phase, participants were sent to time-out contingent on every instance of breaking playground or house rules.
• The experimenter waited 10 s after issuing the time-out instruction prior to escorting the participant to time-out using the least intrusive prompt.
• 1- or 4-min time-out Before the start of the session, an experimenter told the participant that breaking any of the rules meant you will be sent to time-out for 4 min, but if you go to time-out right away or make it to time-out in 10 s or less, then you will only have to stay for 1 min. This condition was identical to the 4-min time-out condition except that if the participant reached the time-out area in 10 s or less from the verbal instruction to go to time-out, he was only required to stay in time-out for 1 min.

Results

• Problem behavior during baseline was high and decreased during time-out phases for all participants.
• Problem behavior decreased in both the 4-min time-out and 1- or 4-min time-out conditions to approximately equal levels.
• Austin's final time-out phase was very brief because the school year ended, so sessions could no longer be conducted on the playground.
• Compliance with the time-out instruction across conditions.
• Gary, Stevie, Brandon, and Austin complied with the time-out instruction considerably more in the 1- or 4-min condition than in the 4-min condition.
• Ricky and Adam remained noncompliant with the instruction in both conditions.
• On average, participants spent less time in time-out during the 1- or 4-min condition than in the 4-min condition.

Discussion

• Results showed that time-out was effective in reducing the problem behavior of all six participants.
• Both the 4-min time-out and the 1- or 4-min time-out procedures decreased problem behavior to zero or near-zero levels.
• Various types of playground equipment or toys and games reduced the likelihood of satiation from any particular reinforcer and probably increased the aversiveness of time-out.
• In addition, any establishing operation for escape-maintained behavior should have been low or absent, because very few or no demands were presented during sessions.
• The 1- or 4-min time-out increased compliance with the time-out instruction for four of six participants, because the mode of time-out administration shifted from physical guidance to verbal instruction.
• In addition, noncompliance with the instruction in the 1- or 4-min condition resulted in a 4-min time-out, making the conditions indistinguishable when compliance did not occur.
• A participant could play right next to a time-out area or on the opposite side of the playground or room.
• On a few occasions, Ricky walked independently to time-out but did not meet the 10-s criterion.
• Procedures in which children can spend less time in time-out and more time in time-in are beneficial, which should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
• Despite having no effect on the compliance of two participants, the 1- or 4-min procedure is recommended for children who refuse to go to time-out.
• The procedure was no more difficult to implement than the 4-min time-out and greatly reduced implementation effort when compliance with the time-out instruction increased by changing the mode of administration.