Objective: To examine latency to criterion for reduction of challenging behaviour with and without stating a contingency statement immediately prior to a DRO procedure.
Method: An ABAC design in which A was baseline, B was used to evaluate the efficacy of a DRO procedure, and C was used to evaluate the efficacy of a DRO procedure with a contingency statement.
Results: The DRO with the contingency statement intervention was associated with a shorter latency to behaviour change than the DRO procedure without the contingency statement.
Discussion: These preliminary findings from this case study highlight the importance of examining the efficiency of behaviour change procedures. Directions for future research are provided.
Keywords: Autism; DRO; challenging behaviour; contingency statements; repetitive speech.