The term “noncontingent reinforcement (NCR)” has long been used in both research and clinical practice. However, several authors have recognized it as a conceptually flawed term in the scholarly literature (e.g., Poling & Normand, 1999). Nonetheless, behavior analysts have continued to use this term, and there are several concerns surrounding its usage in addition to the conceptual reasons previously reported. At present, “NCR” is serving as an umbrella term for several response-independent (e.g., time-based schedules, continuous access), response-dependent (e.g., change in dependency), and other procedures with preexisting labels (e.g., mand training, pairing). With “NCR” being used to describe a wide array of distinct procedures, it can lead to confusion and imprecise communication. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide a brief history of “NCR,” describe procedures commonly labelled as “NCR,” explore some of the attendant terminological issues in relation to the mechanisms of action, and summarize arguments from the literature for keeping or removing “NCR” from our lexicon. We will then propose an umbrella term (i.e., response-independent schedules) for these common procedures and suggest a series of actions to resolve this ongoing problem in our terminology.
