|
| Designing Assessment Procedures for Children with Autism |
| Saturday, May 29, 2004 |
| 4:00 PM–5:20 PM |
| Back Bay C |
| Area: AUT; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Marjorie H. Charlop (Claremont McKenna College) |
| Discussant: Linda A. LeBlanc (Western Michigan University) |
| Abstract: Learning Objectives
The participant will be able to evaluate the effectiveness of experimental functional analyses in terms of their conceptual models (A-B-C versus A-B);
The participant will be able to assess affective perspective taking and learn how to teach appropriate emotional perspective taking to children with autism;
The participant will be able to evaluate the advantage of having a tangible condition unconfounded by attention in an A-B-C experimental functional analysis. |
| |
| Identifying the Function of Aberrant Behavior: Comparing Variations of the Experimental Functional Analysis |
| KATHRYN M. POTOCZAK (Claremont McKenna College), James E. Carr (Western Michigan University), John L. Michael (Western Michigan University) |
| Abstract: The original A-B-C method of functional analysis utilizes attention, demand, alone, and play conditions in a multielement design. Its effectiveness in determining the function of aberrant behavior using both antecedents and corresponding contingencies of reinforcement is well established, and is the most prevalent method of functional assessment used today.
However, an alternative to the A-B-C method exists. This is the A-B model of experimental functional analysis, in which the experimental conditions are designed to generate aberrant behavior by utilizing varying levels of attention and demand as establishing operations (EOs). No consequences are provided for any aberrant behavior in this method, making it conceptually different from the A-B-C method, and necessitating a comparison in terms of the effectiveness in identifying the function of aberrant behavior.
The findings of this study indicate that the A-B-C method is significantly more effective in identifying behavioral function that the A-B method (100% differentiation versus 20%, respectively). Inerobserver agreement percentages for occurrence and nonoccurrence of aberrant behavior for all participants averaged 95.4% and 93.7%, respectively. |
| |
| Affective Perspective-Taking: Assessment and Training for Children with Autism |
| DEBRA BERRY MALMBERG (Claremont Graduate University), Marjorie H. Charlop (Claremont McKenna College) |
| Abstract: Research shows that children with autism have difficulty responding to other peple, to emotional situations, and taking the perspective of another person (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985; Yirmiya et al., 1992). Due to the language difficulties in children with autism, this study used methods that have minimal language requirements and have been successful in teaching children with autism a variety of skills (Astington, 1999; Charlop-Christy & Daneshvar, 2003). A nonverbal matching task was designed to assess children’s ability to take another person’s perspective in an emotional situation. Children were then taught affective perspective-taking skills using a multiple exemplar training for each emotion (happy, sad, fear). A correct response involved selecting the picture with the congruent contextual and facial expression information.
Results found that children with autism can be taught to take the perspective of another individual in an emotional situation. These results have implications for assessment, training, and generalization of affective understanding in children with autism. Interobserver agreement and procedural integrity measures were within acceptable ranges (80-100% and 90-100%, respectively). |
| |
| Reworking the Functional Analysis: Extracting Attention from a Tangible Condition |
| SUZANNAH J. FERRAIOLI (Claremont McKenna College), Kathryn M. Potoczak (Claremont McKenna College) |
| Abstract: The experimental functional analysis (Iwata et al., 1982/1994) is based upon Carr’s (1977) proposal of five motivators for aberrant behavior. It includes four conditions: social consequence (attention), academic demand (escape), alone (self-stimulation) and play (control). Because it is experimental in nature, the functional analysis can lead therapists to implement treatment programs that are specific to the individual.
A fourth possible motivator of inappropriate behavior has been suggested: the tangible. Despite the apparent face validity of this condition, critics have asserted that the tangible category is confounded by an attention component – introduced by therapist proximity and eye contact (Moore, Mueller, Dubard, Roberts, & Sterling-Turner, 2002).
The current study removed the attention component from a tangible condition through a noninteractive method of preferred item presentation. The results suggest that this presentation method is effective in creating a refined tangible condition that is free from a concurrent attention component. |
|
| |