McEachin APF Research April 2018

McEachin APF Research April 2018
EVALUATING TREATMENT RESEARCH
How do we know which procedures we
should be using?
A Better Question . . .
• How do we know:
Which procedures
With which students
For teaching which skills
Measuring Advantages and Disadvantages of
Procedures
• Fewer trials to mastery
• Shorter time to mastery
• Easier to implement
• Easier to train
• Teacher preference
• Fewer errors during acquisition????
1
Procedures
• Higher occurrence of positive side effects
Learning to learn
oability to learn from trial and error
oCan use process of elimination
Procedures
• Higher occurrence of positive side effects
Visual attention, scanning entire field
Self‐directed, sustained on task behavior
Higher level of affective engagement
Procedures
• Lower occurrence of negative side effects
Reduction of off‐task and disruptive behavior
prompt dependency?
2
Procedures
• Fewer errors during acquisition may be a redundant measure
If time to mastery is not longer, then this is only an issue if there are
negative side effects
Sometimes errors are good
o can learn more from an error than correct R
o helps determine maximum acquisition curve
FLEXIBLE PROMPT FADING
• Differs from other prompting strategies: NOT prescriptive or
formula‐based
• Teacher is given a procedural framework and must make
decisions on a moment‐to‐moment basis
• It is a dynamic teaching approach that allows room for teacher
discretion and use of judgment
• Wide Variety of Prompts May be Utilized
Physical guidance
Pointing/gesture
Positional prompt
Visual (e.g. matching)
Trace prompt
3
• Wide teacher discretion about when to prompt and which prompt to use
Aim for student to average 80% correct responding over 5‐10 trials
• Factor in behavior when deciding whether to prompt
Prompt as reinforcer
Be stingy with prompts if student has made an error due to inattention or off‐task
behavior
• The Golden Rule
If I do not prompt on this trial, what is the likelihood that he will get it right on his
own?
Can you afford to miscalculate?
• Soluaga et al. 2008
• Taught 5 participants receptive language skills
using FPF and CTD
• Overall FPF slightly more efficient and effective
• First published study that isolated FPF as an
effective teaching strategy
QUEST FOR EFFICIENCY
Instructor Prompts No prompt
Student can perform target
Cannot perform
4
OVERPROMPTING
Advantage to Error correction
**
Cannot perform
OVERPROMPTING
**
UNDERPROMPTING
Cannot perform
Advantage to errorless
OVERPROMPTING
MOST EFFICIENT
**
UNDERPROMPTING
Cannot perform MOST EFFICIENT
Advantage to errorless
5
ERRORLESS
ERROR CORRECTION
Extra
Too Trials
many
errors
TARGETED SKILLS: EXPRESSIVE

LABELING
Participants Name Targets for Most‐to‐Least Targets for Flexible Prompt Fading
Notre Dame & Colts White Sox’s & Bluejays
Timberwolves & Diamondbacks Broncos & Marlins
Billy Orioles & Tennessee Volunteers Twins & Grizzlies
Alfred & Riddler Penguin & Poison Ivy
Jaba the Hut & Chewbacca Darth Maul & The Emperor
Sawyer Cyclopes & Magneto Wolverine & Storm
Marlene & King Julian Mort & Maurice
Skeeter & Brain Buford & Roger
Angelica & Grimm Waffle & Dexter
Amanda
6
Full Daily Full Daily Full Daily Full

Probe Probe Probe Probe Probe Probe Probe
100
c
rret
80
o
Most-to-Least
eC
Graph 1
60
g
ta
40
e
rcn
Flexible
e
20
P
Prompt Fading
0
100
c
rret
80
o
eC
60
g
ta
40
e e
rcn
20
P
100
c
rret
80
o
eC
60
g
ta
40
e e
rcn
20
P
Billy
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Sessions

100
c
rret
80
o
Graph 2
eC
60
Most-to-Least
g
ta
40
e e
rcn
20
P
Flexible
Prompt Fading
100
c
rret
80
o
eC
60
g
ta
40
e e
rcn
20
P
100
c
rret
80
o
eC
60
g
ta
40
e e
rcn
20
P
Sawyer
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Sessions

100
c
rret
80
o
eC
60
g
ta
40
e e
rcn
20
P
100
c
rret
80
o
eC
60
g
ta
40
e e
rcn
20 Flexible
P
Prompt Fading Most-to-Least

0
100
c
rret
80
o
eC
60
g
ta
40
e e
rcn
20
P
Amanda
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Sessions
7
Efficiency FPF vs MTL
Total Number
of Total Number
Total Number Total Number Teaching of Total Amount Total Amount
of Sessions of Sessions Trials Teaching Trials of Time of Time
Participant FPF MTL FPF MTL FPF MTL
BILLY 14 21 253 379 34 min. 57 min.
SAWYER 10 14 180 252 26 min. 37 min.
AMANDA 40 31 720 558 84 min. 73 min.
MTL EC FPF
JL n=3 1 ‐‐ 2
LD n=4 ‐‐
AA n=4 ‐‐
8
Targeted Skills: Muppet Characters

Expressive
Participants Name Targets for FPF Targets for Error Correction
Scooter & Honeydew Beaker & Janice
Jimmy Sweetums & Camilla Rizzo & Sam
Floyd & Lew Dr. Teeth & Animal
Beaker & Janice Scooter & Honeydew
Rob Lew & Sweetums Rizzo & Sam
Dr. Teeth & Zoot Camilla & Floyd
Beaker & Janice Scooter & Honeydew
Billy Rizzo & Pepe Sweetums & Camilla
Dr. Teeth & Zoot Floyd & Lew
Fozzie & Woldorf Sweetums & Camilla
Zoot & Lew Rowlf & Floyd
Kenny Dr. Teeth & Statler Rizzo & Sam
9
FPF vs EC
10
Efficiency FPF vs EC
Total Number
of Total Number
Participant FPF EC FPF EC FPF EC
JIMMY 10 14 200 280 67:16 89:51
ROB 10 10 200 200 66:19 69:22
BILLY 12 11 240 220 83:38 82:44
KENNY 11 14 220 280 93:20 130:12
MTL EC FPF
JL n=3 1 ‐‐ 2
LD n=4 ‐‐ 1 3
AA n=4 ‐‐
11
Targeted Skills
Participants Name Type of Skill Targets for Error Correction Targets for Most‐to‐Least
Mort Receptive 3 Muppet Characters 3 Muppet Characters

3 Shrek Characters 3 Shrek Characters
3 Toy Story Characters 3 Toy Story Characters
Ty Receptive 3 Actions 3 Actions

3 Locations 3 Locations
3 Community Helper 3 Community Helper
Bailey Expressive 2 Cars Characters 2 Cars Characters

2 Muppet Characters 2 Muppet Characters
2 Toy Story Characters 2 Toy Story Characters
Huck Expressive 2 Batman Characters 2 Batman Characters
2 Comic Book Characters 2 Comic Book Characters
2 Comic Book Characters 2 Comic Book Characters
Efficiency
Group Total Number Total Number Total Number Total Number Total Amount Total Amount
of Sessions of Sessions of of of Time of Time
EC MTL Teaching Teaching Trials EC MTL
Trials MTL
EC
MORT 28 25 504 450 238:29 230:00
TY 13 18 234 324 108:58 156:16
BAILEY 18 32 396 576 191:08 352:40
HUCK 13 18 234 324 77:55 130:45
12
Ty: Receptive Labels
13
Efficiency EC vs MTL
Total Number
of Total Number
Participant EC MTL EC MTL EC MTL
MORT 28 25 504 450 238:29 230:00
TY 13 18 234 324 108:58 156:16
BAILEY 18 32 396 576 191:08 352:40
HUCK 13 18 234 324 77:55 130:45
MTL EC FPF
JL n=3 1 ‐‐ 2
LD n=4 ‐‐ 1 3
AA n=4 1 3 ‐‐
2/7 4/8 5/7
29% 50% 71%
IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS
• Items and activities that are most preferred are likely to be best
reinforcers
HOW TO IDENTIFY LIKELY REINFORCERS
Provide with noncontingent access Observe to identify preferences
Compare with other students Ask (but don’t always believe)
Analyze for themes Test
14
IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS
• Paired preference Assessment
• Pre‐exposure
• Evaluate
Approach (1 item at a time)
Pairwise choices X all possible combinations
Choose items without replacement
• 45% of BCBA’s reported using PPA at least monthly
• We have observed PPA occurring daily
AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL
• Imbed Assessment within naturally occurring opportunities
Evaluate affect as well as behavioral choice
• 3 Children with ASD (moderate functioning)
• Comparison of formal preference assessment (PA) vs. Teacher
decision in the moment (ITM)
• 2 rounds of Paired preference assessment across 10 items
(45+45 pairings).
15
• Students completed a simple sorting task and if they met speed
criterion earned access to reinforcement for 1 min.
• PPA received choice of any of the top 3 items from PPA
• ITM received item that was decided by teacher, based on
ongoing judgement of reinforcer value to student
16
• Put more emphasis on reinforcer development
Model play with enthusiasm
Developing Reinforcers
ORANGE CONES
A RADICAL TEST
• 3 children with ASD (high functioning)
• Initial paired preference assessment to determine most
preferred and least preferred among 10 items
• Intervention consisted of adult modeling use of ILP item with
high positive affect and enthusiastic comments
17
CONDITIONING REINFORCERS:
SOCIAL
Video: Knock Knock
• Put more emphasis on reinforcer development
Model play with enthusiasm
• Strive for reinforcement that has therapeutic value
Otherwise you probably end up mainly using food
18
OTHER LINES OF RESEARCH
• Data collection Taubman et al. 2013
3 staff & 3 students fully counterbalanced
3 min sessions to teach producing and identifying gestures
• Accuracy: Continuous = 84%; Estimation = 72%; Time Sample =
72%
• Efficiency (Trials per 3 min. session): Continuous = 8.7;
Estimation = 12.2; Time Sample = 9.3
• Staff Preference (1‐5): Continuous = 3.7; Estimation = 3.3; Time
Sample = 4.0
• Prompting Methods
Positional Prompt (Kevin/Joe ABAI 2016)
Multiple Alternative Prompts (Aditt ABAI 2016)
RCT FPF vs. CTD vs. MTL (Kevin/Joe ABAI 2016)
• Error Correction
Allowing errors can produce more efficient learning
• Range of instructional formats
Group Social skills (Penguins CNC for Joint attention & Social Commun)
Group DTT
Observational Learning with Instructional Feedback
• Debunk non‐ and anti‐ ABA procedures
Social Thinking (Review of published literature)
o Analyzed published literature using Gina Green’s (19 ) criteria for identifying
science vs. pseudoscience vs. Anti‐Science.
o At best Social Thinking qualifies as pseudo.
o Also, evidence in their public statements that they don’t care much about
research and don’t recognize the evidence base that exists for ABA.
19
• Debunk non‐ and anti‐ ABA procedures
Social Stories (Review of published studies)
o Found 41 studies
• 21 contained no clear demonstration of efficacy;
• 17 provided only partial demonstration;
• only 3 studies showed convincing demonstration that Social Stories resulted in
change in target behavior
• all used multiple baseline design; stable baseline; correctly staggered; clear
change during intervention [75% of data points above baseline level]; objective
data; SS was only intervention used).
20
Get
• Social Stories vs TIP (Christine?)
21
22

McEachin APF Research April 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McEachin APF Research April 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

McEachin APF Research April 2018

Instructor Prompts No prompt

Student can perform target

Instructor Prompts No prompt

Instructor Prompts No prompt

Instructor Prompts No prompt

TARGETED SKILLS: EXPRESSIVE

Full Daily Full Daily Full Daily Full

Full Daily Full Daily Full Daily Full

Full Daily Full Daily Full Daily Full

Prompt Fading Most-to-Least

Efficiency FPF vs MTL

SAWYER 10 14 180 252 26 min. 37 min.

AMANDA 40 31 720 558 84 min. 73 min.

Targeted Skills: Muppet Characters

ROB 10 10 200 200 66:19 69:22

BILLY 12 11 240 220 83:38 82:44

KENNY 11 14 220 280 93:20 130:12

Mort Receptive 3 Muppet Characters 3 Muppet Characters

Ty Receptive 3 Actions 3 Actions

Bailey Expressive 2 Cars Characters 2 Cars Characters

MORT 28 25 504 450 238:29 230:00

TY 13 18 234 324 108:58 156:16

BAILEY 18 32 396 576 191:08 352:40

HUCK 13 18 234 324 77:55 130:45

Ty: Receptive Labels

TY 13 18 234 324 108:58 156:16

BAILEY 18 32 396 576 191:08 352:40

HUCK 13 18 234 324 77:55 130:45

Provide with noncontingent access Observe to identify preferences

Video: Knock Knock

You might also like