|
| Identifying Effective Instructional Procedures for Teaching Discrimination Skills to Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorders |
| Sunday, May 30, 2010 |
| 3:00 PM–4:20 PM |
| 202AB (CC) |
| Area: AUT/DDA; Domain: Applied Behavior Analysis |
| Chair: Tiffany Kodak (Munroe-Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center) |
| CE Instructor: Jonathan Tarbox, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: A growing body of literature supports the use of ABA-based academic interventions for individuals diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Although a number of academic interventions are described in the extant literature, there is considerable variability in the instructional methods used to teach conditional discriminations (e.g., receptive identification) to children with ASD. The collection of presentations in this symposium will describe cutting-edge research evaluating the efficacy and/or efficiency of various prompting procedures. The presentations in this symposium will describe (a) a comparison of two main approaches in early intervention programs for teaching conditional discriminations, (b instructive feedback, a procedure that can be programmed into learning trials to promote acquisition of untrained conditional discriminations, (c) the inclusion of instructive feedback within a stimulus equivalence paradigm, and (d) an assessment procedure to identify effective prompting procedures. The results of the studies will be discussed in terms of teaching practices in early intervention programs. |
| |
| A Comparison of Methods for Teaching Auditory-Visual Conditional Discrimination to Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders |
| LAURA L. GROW (Munroe-Meyer Institute), James E. Carr (Auburn University), Tiffany Kodak (Munroe-Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center), Candice M. Jostad (Munroe-Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center), April Kisamore (Western New England College) |
| Abstract: There is considerable variability in the methods used to teach auditory-visual conditional discriminations (i.e., receptive identification) to children with autism spectrum disorders. Two main approaches are used in early intervention programs: the simple/conditional and conditional only methods. No studies to date have compared simple/conditional and conditional only methods for teaching conditional discriminations. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to compare the simple/conditional and conditional only methods for teaching conditional discriminations to children with autism spectrum disorders. An adapted alternating treatments design was used to compare the teaching approaches.
Three children between the ages of 4 and 7 participated. The results indicated that the conditional only method was a more reliable teaching method. In addition, error patterns emerged during training using the simple/conditional method. The results are discussed in terms of the implications for current teaching practices in EIBI programs. |
| |
| Comparison of Progressive Time Delay With and Without Instructive Feedback for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders |
| BRIAN REICHOW (Yale University) |
| Abstract: This study examined the effectiveness and efficiency of two instructional arrangements using the progressive time delay (PTD) procedure with 4 young children with autism spectrum disorders. An adapted alternating treatment design was used to compare PTD with instructive feedback (IF) to PTD without IF. The results suggest (a) children with autism can learn when PTD is used with IF, (b) IF can be an effective method of instruction for children with autism, and (c) the combination of PTD and IF increases the efficiency of instruction. The maintenance data collected 8 to 9 weeks after instruction ended showed participants maintained mastery of 58 to 92% of the acquired behaviors. These results will be discussed within the constraints and limitations of the data and areas for future research will be recommended. |
| |
| Incorporating Instructive Feedback Into a Stimulus Equivalence Paradigm to Obtain Untrained Relations With Children Diagnosed With Autism |
| TIFFANY KODAK (Munroe-Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center), Laura L. Grow (Munroe-Meyer Institute), Amy Drayton (Eastern Michigan University), Nitasha Dickes (Munroe-Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center) |
| Abstract: Pevious research has shown that instructive feedback can be incorporated into learning trials to obtain mastery of untrained stimuli. However, few studies have evaluated instructive feedback with individuals with autism. In addition, instructive feedback has not been combined with other instructional methods to attempt to optimize learning of untrained relations. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate whether instructive feedback could be incorporated into teaching procedures that would result in untrained relations. A-B relations were directly taught through a match-to-sample procedure, and B-C relations were provided using instructive feedback. Results indicated that A-B and B-C relations emerged during training, and A-C, B-A, C-B, and C-A relations emerged without direct training. The results are discussed in terms of programming instructive feedback into instructional trials in early intervention programs to optimize student's learning. |
| |
| Evaluation of a Pre-Teaching Prompting Assessment |
| JESSICA L. SEAVER (The New England Center for Children), Jason C. Bourret (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: Acquiring new skills can be difficult for students with autism. Research is still needed to identify teaching procedures that are optimally effective for individual students. Three different teaching modalities were compared in a multi-element design vocal and gestural, model, and manual guidance. All procedures were evaluated in the context of teaching novel behavior chains to five participants. Results are discussed in terms of the reliability of the assessment and the utility of the assessment as a general method for identifying differentially effective teaching procedures. |
|
| |