|
Joint Attention and Symbolic Play: Active Ingredients of Effective Early Behavioral Intensive Intervention |
Sunday, May 27, 2007 |
9:00 AM–9:50 AM |
Douglas C |
Area: AUT; Domain: Service Delivery |
Chair: William H. Ahearn (New England Center for Children) |
CONNIE KASARI (University of California, Los Angeles) |
Dr. Connie Kasari, Ph.D. is Professor in the Division of Psychological Studies in Education in the UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Sciences. Dr. Kasari’s research has focused on social-emotional and cognitive development in typical and atypical children. She has a particular interest in affective development and caregiver-child interactions with a focus on mental retardation and developmental psychopathology. Prior to her appointment in education, she was a postdoctoral fellow with Dr. Marian Sigman, collaborating on a number of research studies on autism and Down syndrome. Dr. Kasari continues this collaboration with an intervention project in Dr. Sigman’s original Collaborative Programs of Excellence in Autism (CPEA) Center grant at UCLA and now its continuation. Dr. Karsari also is Principal Investigator on an innovative treatments project funded by National Institute of Mental Health. Her most recent work has centered on treatment studies of social and communication behavior in children with autism, and she continues this line of inquiry in her current CART project on peer interactions. Dr. Kasari received her doctorate in education from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1985. She completed a postdoctoral fellowship in child development at UCLA prior to joining the UCLA faculty in 1990. |
Abstract: Significant progress has been made toward identifying effective interventions for preschool-age children with autism (National Research Council, 2001). However, because interventions are lengthy, complex, time consuming, and expensive, pinpointing active ingredients that contribute to outcome (e.g., method, dose, timing, content) is essential in order to streamline and increase efficacy. This talk will consider curriculum content on core deficits in autism as one important active ingredient of early intervention. Data from a recent RCT for preschool children with autism will be described in which children participating in early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) were randomized to receive brief targeted interventions in joint attention, symbolic play or EIBI only. Results of these targeted interventions yielded significant effects on initiating joint attention, and diversity and level of symbolic play. Children were also tested six and 12 months post-intervention. Compared to the control children, both targeted interventions had significant effects on childrens expressive language one year later. Several important moderators of treatment response were also found, including pre-treatment language and nonverbal communication abilities. Thus, these data provide information on potential intervention targets for improving language outcome in young children with autism, as well as information on who benefits most from the specific treatments. |
|
|
|
|
Couple Therapy: The most important change may be acceptance. |
Sunday, May 27, 2007 |
10:00 AM–10:50 AM |
Douglas C |
Area: CBM; Domain: Applied Research |
Chair: Kelly G. Wilson (University of Mississippi) |
ANDREW CHRISTENSEN (University of California, Los Angeles) |
Dr. Andrew Christensen is Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon and did his internship at Rutgers University Medical School. He studies couple conflict and couple therapy and has published over 100 professional articles, primarily on these topics. He is co-author of the influential scholarly book, Close Relationships (Freeman, 1983, reprinted in 2002). For therapists, he authored Acceptance and Change in Couple Therapy: A Therapist's Guide for Transforming Relationships (1998, Norton) with Neil S. Jacobson. He also completed a trade book for couples, Reconcilable Differences (2000, Guilford) with Jacobson. With support from the National Institute of Mental Health, he is conducting a long-term evaluation of the impact of couple therapy in general and his form of couple therapy in particular. Currently he is in the five-year follow-up phase of that investigation. His therapy approach and research have been cited in the New York Times, Newsweek, Time Magazine, U.S. News and World Report, USA Today, and other magazines and newspapers. |
Abstract: Behavioral Couple Therapy (BCT) is the most widely researched treatment for couples. Developed by Patterson, Stuart, and Weiss, it emphasizes positive behavior change. BCT therapists assist couples in defining their global complaints into specific, actionable behaviors, learning communication and problem solving skills for discussing problem behaviors, and then negotiating for changes in relevant behaviors. Although BCT has clearly demonstrated its effectiveness in comparison to control conditions, many couples do not respond to treatment and of those who do, many relapse. Developed by Christensen and Jacobson, Integrative Behavioral Couple Therapy (IBCT), part of what Hayes has called the third wave of behavior therapy, was designed to be truer to behavioral analytic principles and to improve on the outcome of BCT. Specifically, IBCT relies on a functional analysis of couple behavior, includes both private and public behavior, focuses on contingency-shaped versus rule-governed change, and balances an emphasis on acceptance as well as change. In this talk, I will describe the theoretical principles and therapeutic practices involved in the evolution from BCT to IBCT. I will also describe some of the emerging data on IBCT. |
|
|
|
|
Tutorial: Parallels in Processes of Avian and Human Vocal Learning |
Sunday, May 27, 2007 |
10:00 AM–11:20 AM |
Madeleine AB |
Area: DEV; Domain: Basic Research |
Chair: Jacob L. Gewirtz (Florida International University) |
MICHAEL H. GOLDSTEIN (Cornell University) |
Dr. Michael H. Goldstein is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Cornell University. He received his Ph.D in developmental psychology and animal behavior from Indiana University. His research focuses on the developmental processes by which knowledge is acquired from the social environment. He uses a comparative approach, studying vocal learning and development in young songbirds and humans. To investigate the processes by which infant development is constructed from interactions with caregivers, Goldstein takes a micro-analytic approach to social learning. He observes and manipulates parent-offspring interactions at small time scales to understand mechanisms of developmental change. His primary research goal is to identify parameters of social interaction that are crucial for infant learning to better understand causal forces of development. This general goal has given rise to two research programs. The first program investigates the development of babbling, specifying the relative contributions of infant and caregiver behavior in the generation of new vocal forms, including speech, phonology, and words. The second program examines the role of experience in adults’ responses to prelinguistic vocalizations. By studying social interaction and learning as it occurs in moment-to-moment interactions, Goldstein intends to connect our knowledge of social influences on developmental outcomes with specific processes of learning. |
Abstract: The early vocalizations of songbirds and human infants, though immature in form, are similar in function. Producing these early sounds is crucial for the later development of speech and song. The process of vocal development has a strong social component: the responses of conspecifics create social feedback for early sounds that guides the young towards mature vocalizations. I will present experiments demonstrating how immature sounds of young birds and babies regulate and are regulated by interactions with conspecifics. These studies view the infant as taking an active role in its own development and introduce new paradigms for understanding the origins of communicative skills. In cowbirds, Molothrus ater, immature vocalizations of young males elicit reactions from adult females (who do not sing), and this feedback facilitates the development of more advanced forms of song. In humans, playback experiments show that mothers use prelinguistic vocal cues to guide their responses to infants. Vocal learning studies reveal that prelinguistic infants use social feedback from caregivers to build more developmentally advanced forms of vocalizations. Feedback from conspecifics thus provides reliable cues about the consequences of vocalizing. These cues serve to facilitate infants acquisition of the basic building blocks of speech and song. |
|
|
|
|
Tutorial: Domestication of the Silver Fox and its Research Findings |
Sunday, May 27, 2007 |
11:00 AM–11:50 AM |
Douglas B |
Domain: Applied Research |
Chair: William D. Timberlake (Indiana University) |
ANNA KUKEKOVA (Baker Institute/College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University), Lyudmila N. Trut (Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences) |
Dr. Anna Kukekova, Ph.D. a Research Associate at the Baker Institute for Animal Health, Cornell University, is studying genetics of simple and complex traits in canids. Her main research interests include canine genetics and evolutionary genetics of behavior.
Kukekova graduated from St. Petersburg State University, Russia in 1993 and received a Ph.D. from the Institute of Cytology of the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1999. She came to Cornell University in 1999 as a postdoctoral fellow to work with Drs. Acland and Aguirre on the genetics of eye disorders in dogs. In 2001, she became involved in the study of domestication in silver foxes. Kukekova, et al., have demonstrated that canine microsatellites can be used for genetic studies in foxes and developed the first meiotic linkage map of the fox genome using such markers. Together with collaborators at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics and at Cornell University, Kukekova implemented a new quantitative method for assignment of fox behavioral phenotypes. Analysis of these behavioral phenotypes in relation to genotypes in the powerful sets of fox experimental pedigrees have allowed the mapping of genetic loci implicated in fox behavior. |
Abstract: The farm-bred silver fox (Vulpes vulpes) has been subjected to strong selective breeding for docility for about 45 years at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is believed that during early domestication, all animals were challenged by the same evolutionary situation that is produced by selection pressure on the specific behavioral traits that facilitate adaptation to humans. This event is considered as a key mechanism of morphological transformation of domestic animals. As a result of the selection for the capacity to be tame, a strain of foxes with behavioral responses to humans analogous to those of the domestic dog has been produced. It is remarkable that the morphological characters of domestication have been acquired along with doglike behavioral patterns. Developmental shifts and neurohormonal changes in the domesticated foxes have been demonstrated. The strong heritability of tame behavior has been confirmed in experimental pedigrees among foxes. A rigorous system for measuring behavior as a truly continuous variable has been implemented. The availability of mapping tools developed for the canine genome has enabled the development of a fox meiotic linkage map and thus the mapping of loci influencing these behavioral phenotypes in the fox genome. |
|
|
|
|
Meta-Analysis of Single Subject Research |
Sunday, May 27, 2007 |
1:30 PM–2:20 PM |
Douglas B |
Area: EDC; Domain: Applied Research |
Chair: Timothy A. Slocum (Utah State University) |
WILLIAM R. SHADISH (University of California, Merced) |
Dr. William R. Shadish is Professor and Founding Faculty at the University of California, Merced. He received his bachelor’s degree in sociology from Santa Clara University in 1972, and his M.S. (1975) and Ph.D. (1978) degrees from Purdue University in clinical psychology. He completed a postdoctoral fellowship in methodology and program evaluation at Northwestern University from 1978 to 1981. His current research interests include experimental and quasi-experimental design, the empirical study of methodological issues, the methodology and practice of meta-analysis, and evaluation theory. He is author (with T. D. Cook & D .T. Campbell, 2002) of Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference and ES: A Computer Program and Manual for Effect Size Calculation, co-editor of five other volumes, and the author of over 100 articles and chapters. He was 1997 President of the American Evaluation Association, winner of the 1994 Paul F. Lazarsfeld Award for Evaluation Theory from the American Evaluation Association and the 2000 Robert Ingle Award for service to the American Evaluation Association. He is a Fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychological Society, and a past editor of New Directions for Program Evaluation. |
Abstract: Meta-analysis has become an essential tool for summarizing large bodies of primary research literature in the social sciences. Among the many applications of meta-analysis is the determination of whether a given educational or clinical practice can be termed evidence- or research-based. With a few exceptions, however, evidence from single subject research has not been included in meta-analyses. The reason for this is primarily technological rather than ideological, that there is little agreement on optimal statistical methods for doing meta-analysis of single subject research, and that the methods for doing this kind of meta-analysis have not received the advanced statistical attention necessary to identify sampling distributions for pertinent effect size estimators, appropriate weights, homogeneity tests, and all the ancillary statistical methods such as fixed versus random effects models. This address will review the existing methodological literature on doing meta-analysis of single subject research, identify some of the key strengths and weaknesses of some of these methods, and discuss statistical developments that may improve those methods. |
|
|