{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026387625113739762, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0018198362147406734, 'mean_word_length': 5.432748538011696, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A comparison of two procedures for programming the differential reinforcement of other behaviors.

The relative effectiveness of two methods of programming DRO schedules of reinforcement was examined in two experiments. In these two methods, reinforcement is delivered if inappropriate responding is not occurring (a) at the end of an interval (momentary DRO), or (b) throughout the entire interval (whole-interval DRO). In Experiment 1, the effects of these schedules on disruptive responding of three retarded students were assessed in a multiple-baseline design. For two students, the momentary schedule occurred first and was ineffective, whereas the whole interval that followed was effective; for the third student, the whole-interval schedule occurred first and was effective, and reduced responding was maintained under the momentary schedule. In Experiment 2, baseline and the two DRO schedules were each presented in random order each day to one student in an alternating treatments design. The momentary DRO schedule reduced responding, but the whole-interval schedule was more effective.