Association for Behavior Analysis International

The content and quality of verbal programmed consequences during discrete trial instruction has been shown to influence skill acquisition. This symposium describes recent research examining a) the effects of differential qualities of praise (i.e., enthusiastic, neutral) b) specificity of praise (i.e., behavior-specific, general), and c) content and schedule of instructive feedback on acquisition of skills during discrete trial instruction. Results collectively demonstrate the impact of these varying dimensions of praise and instructive feedback both on the rate of skill acquisition of target responses and the emergence of novel, untrained responses. Results will be discussed in terms of implications for producing effective and efficient teaching procedures for individuals receiving discrete trial instruction.

Master's level practitioners, clinical directors, applied researchers

Praise is a social stimulus typically provided contingent on socially appropriate responses or as a treatment component to increase appropriate behavior in behavioral interventions. However, the effects of different variables (e.g., quality, tone, magnitude, content) that may influence the effectiveness and efficiency of praise have not received much attention in the literature. An exception is Weyman and Sy (2018)’s evaluation of enthusiastic praise, neutral praise, and no praise on skill acquisition targets in individuals with developmental disabilities. Their results suggest that all individuals learned in all conditions. However, enthusiactic praise resulted in faster acquisition of the targets. Thus, the purpose of the current study is to systematically replicate Weyman and Sy (2018) on the effects of neutral, enthusiactic, and no praise on skill acquisition. Thus far, two children with autism spectrum disorder have participated in this study. Our preliminary results for both participants replicate previous research by Weyman and Sy (2018).

It’s recommended that behavior-specific praise be provided as consequence for correct responding (Anderson, Taras, & Cannon, 1996), however, research supporting this claim is scarce. Previous research comparing behavior-specific and general praise has found idiosyncratic results (Fueyo, Saundaragas, and Bushell, 1975; Stevens, Sidener, Reeve, and Sidener, 2011; Polick, Carr, and Hanney, 2012). The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effects of instructive feedback combined with behavior-specific praise (e.g., “Nice work, touching the typewriter and the color is jade”) and general praise (e.g., “Nice work and the color is slate”) on skill acquisition of unprompted receptive identification and untrained skills. Additionally, this study extended previous research by including a reinforcer assessment for both types of praise, omitting the use of prompting, error correction, and other reinforcers. Participants were children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. Results suggest that behavior-specific praise may be more effective, and that instructive feedback may increase instructional efficiency.

Instructive feedback (IF) is a modification to discrete trial instruction during which secondary targets are incorporated into learning trials and that may increase instructional efficiency for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Several variations of IF have recently been evaluated in the literature; however, few studies have assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of presenting secondary targets on continuous versus intermittent presentation schedules. The current study evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of various presentation schedules of secondary targets during discrete trial instruction. Specifically, we replicated and extended Griffen, Schuster, and Morse (1998) by comparing a condition in which secondary targets were presented during each trial of a session, a condition in which secondary targets were presented every other trial, and a condition in which secondary targets were presented about every four trials. Within-subject replications were included for both participants. Results indicated that one of the intermittent presentation schedules was associated with the most optimal outcomes in all four comparisons.