|
| Increasing Verbal Behavior in Children with Autism |
| Saturday, May 26, 2007 |
| 3:30 PM–4:50 PM |
| Elizabeth C |
| Area: VBC/AUT; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Tamara S. Kasper (Private Practice) |
| Discussant: Tamara S. Kasper (Private Practice) |
| CE Instructor: Kelle Wood, None |
| Abstract: These studies compare relative effectiveness of procedures to improve Verbal Behavior in children with autism. The first study compares the Effects of Mimetic-Tact versus Intraverbal-Tact training on the Acquisition of Sign Tacts in two Children with Autism. Similar to results obtained by Partington, Sundberg, Newhouse, & Spengler (1994), the subjects acquired more tacts via intraverbal-tact transfer while acquiring fewer via mimetic-tact transfer demonstrating the superiority of intraverbal-tact transfer. The second study, Increasing Vocal Behavior in a Young Adult With Autism via Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing adds to current literature on stimulus stimulus pairing procedures and assists in appropriate candidate selection for these procedures. The last study, Comparison of two errorless teaching procedures for promoting independent responding in children with autism: Transfer of stimulus control with and without a probe following a time delay compares the relative effectiveness of two nearly errorless procedures for developing independent responses. Results across twenty- five subjects are compared in regard to the literature on errorless teaching. (Touchette and Howard, 1984,, Touchette, P.E. 1968, Terrace, H. 1963) |
| |
| Increasing Vocal Behavior in a Young Adult with Autism via Stimulus-Stimulus Pairing. |
| ANGIE B. KEITH (Early Autism Project, Inc.), Tamara S. Kasper (Private Practice), Christie M. Penland (Early Autism Project, Inc.) |
| Abstract: Many children and young adults with autism do not imitate adult vocalizations, an essential skill for establishing functional vocal verbal behavior. Research suggests that procedures which utilize pairing of an instructor’s vocal model with delivery of a putative reinforcer may condition that sound or sound combination as a reinforcer when produced by the individual (Sundberg, et. al., 1996; Yoon & Bennet, 2000; Miguel, Carr, & Michael, 2002; Carbone; 2005, Lugo, et. al., 2005). Stimulus-stimulus pairing procedures have been used to increase free operant vocalizations and in some cases transfer these vocalizations to other operants (echoic, mand, tact). One study (Esch, Carr, & Michael, 2005) suggested that direct reinforcement may be necessary to establish durable vocal behavior and further recommended identification of variables that influence the effectiveness of the stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure. The current study extends previous findings by evaluating the effectiveness of a stimulus-stimulus pairing procedure on vowel, consonant-vowel and consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel combinations of a young adult with autism, previously considered non-vocal and non-verbal. Baseline, pairing, and post-pairing data were obtained. During the pre-pairing condition, the subject’s free operant vocalizations were recorded. During the pairing condition, the experimenter’s vocal model was paired with the delivery of the putative reinforcer. Results revealed an increase in target sounds/syllables for the participant as well as durable transfer to the echoic repertoire. Several vocalizations also transferred to mands. This study adds to current literature and assists in appropriate candidate selection for stimulus-stimulus pairing procedures. |
| |
| Effects of Mimetic-Tact versus Intraverbal-Tact Training on the Acquisition of Tacts in Two Individuals with Autism. |
| STEPHANIE BURCHFIELD BURGESS (Early Autism Project, Inc.), Michael Meyers (Early Autism Project, Inc.), Jenn Godwin (Early Autism Project, Inc.), Tamara S. Kasper (Private Practice) |
| Abstract: Development of verbal repertoires in children with autism and limited vocal repertoires is the focus of many intensive behavior programs. For children who are non-verbal, manual sign language has been encouraged as an effective response form (Carr, 1979; Fulwiler & Fouts, 1976, Brady & Smouse, 1992; Layton, 1988). Many have examined procedures to facilitate the tacting repertoire. Carroll & Hesse (1987) and Arntzen & Almas (2002) examined the effects of mand-tact and tact-only training procedures on the acquisition of tact performance and demonstrated that fewer trials were needed to learn tacts in the mand-tact condition. Partington, Sundberg, Newhouse, & Spengler (1994) used procedures to transfer stimulus control from verbal to nonverbal stimuli in a subject who has an established mand repertoire and the subject was able to quickly acquire a total of 18 tacts. The current study extends these findings. |
| |
| Comparison of Two “Errorless” Teaching Procedures for Promoting Independent Responding in Children with Autism: Transfer of Stimulus Control with and without a Probe following a Time Delay. |
| ANN D. ELDRIDGE (Early Autism Project, Inc.), Jenn Godwin (Early Autism Project, Inc.), Amy Watford, M.A.T. (Early Autism Project, Inc.), Jennifer Lacinak (Early Autism Project, Inc.), Abigail M. Gonzalez (Early Autism Project, Inc.), Samantha C. Apple (Early Autism Project, Inc.) |
| Abstract: One method of nearly errorless teaching has been advocated by various behavior analysts (Carbone, 2003; Sundberg, 1998; Zecchin & Wood, 2006; Godwin & Kasper, 2006). This method of instruction has also been used in several studies (Carbone et al., 2006; Keith et al., 2005) For some subjects and treatment teams, due to methodological issues and learner variability, this method of training appeared to result in errors for the subjects and may have resulted in delay in acquisition of skills. This study compared the relative effectiveness of two procedures for developing independent responses; quick transfer of stimulus control with and without a probe following a time delay. In procedure I, the subjects were taught to correctly and independently respond to a demand (tact or intraverbal) via quick transfer of stimulus control in which the subjects were presented with an Sd, immediately prompted to respond and then presented with another opportunity to respond independent of the prompt. During procedure II, the subjects were presented with an Sd, immediately prompted to respond and then presented with another opportunity to respond independent of the prompt. A time delay during which the subject was presented with two high probability motor imitation trials was instituted, followed by a probe of the target item. Results across twenty- five subjects are compared in regard to the literature on errorless teaching. (Touchette and Howard, 1984,, Touchette, P.E. 1968, Terrace, H. 1963) |
|
| |