|
Applications of Procedures to Increase Skill Acquisition |
Sunday, May 24, 2015 |
11:00 AM–11:50 AM |
217D (CC) |
Area: AUT; Domain: Applied Research |
Chair: Victoria Smith (University of Nebraska Medical Center Munroe-Meyer Institute) |
Discussant: Sarah A. Lechago (University of Houston-Clear Lake) |
CE Instructor: Victoria Smith, M.A. |
Abstract: This symposium covers procedures to increase skill acquisition in children diagnosed with Autism. Niemeier, Fisher, and Paden compared an errorless teaching procedure to an error correction teaching procedure using a receptive identification task. Results indicated that the errorless procedure was more efficient for two participants and error correction was more efficient for one. The errorless procedure was more effective for two participants, while the error correction procedure was more effective for one. Neither procedure was effective nor efficient for a final participant. Gunby and Rapp examined the effects of behavioral skills training with in-situ feedback on safe responding by children with autism to abduction lures that were presented following a high-probability (high-p) request sequence. This sequence was intended to simulate a grooming or recruitment process. Results show that all three participants ultimately acquired the safety response to abduction lures presented following a high-p sequence and maintained the safety response at 1-month follow up. Dr. Sarah Lechago, a leading researcher in the study of verbal behavior and editor of The Analysis of Verbal Behavior will serve as the discussant. |
Keyword(s): abduction lures, errolesss teaching, error correction, in-situ feedback |
|
A Comparison of the Effects of Errorless vs. Error Correction Procedures on Skill Acquisition |
JESSICA NIEMEIER (UNMC Munroe- Meyer Institute), Wayne W. Fisher (Munroe-Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center), Amber R. Paden (Munroe-Meyer Institute, University of Nebraska Medical Center) |
Abstract: Children with autism often make frequent errors and have considerable difficulty when acquiring new skills. Terrace (1963, 1974) suggested that procedures that allow errors to occur frequently (e.g., error correction) produce negative emotional behaviors, which can in turn interfere with skill acquisition. However, teaching procedures that prevent errors (e.g., Touchette & Howard, 1984) have not been directly compared with those that permit and then correct errors (e.g., Grow et al, 2011) in children with autism. The current study compared an errorless teaching procedure similar to the one developed by Touchette and Howard (1984) with a commonly cited error-correction procedure in four children with autism spectrum disorder. In the errorless condition, the prompt delay was moved in 1 s increments contingent on the participant’s responding. In the error-correction condition, trials were repeated until the participant responded independently and correctly. Results indicated that the errorless procedure was more efficient for two participants and error correction was more efficient for one. The errorless procedure was more effective for two participants, while the error correction procedure was more effective for one. Neither procedure was effective nor efficient for a final participant. |
|
The Use of Behavioral Skills Training and In-situ Feedback to Protect Children with Autism from Abduction Lures |
KRISTIN V. GUNBY (St Cloud State University), John T. Rapp (St. Cloud State University) |
Abstract: We examined the effects of behavioral skills training with in-situ feedback on safe responding by children with autism to abduction lures that were presented following a high-probability (high-p) request sequence. This high-p sequence was intended to simulate a grooming or recruitment process (e.g., “give me a high five”, “what’s your name?”, “how old are you?”, “I have candy in my car, come with me.”). Each participant’s performance was measured during baseline (with high-p sequences), behavioral skills training (without high-p sequences), post training (with the high-p sequence and a probe without the high-p sequence), and 1-month follow up (with high-p sequences). Results show that all three participants ultimately acquired the safety response to abduction lures presented following a high-p sequence and maintained the safety response at 1-month follow up. The only exception was one participant who maintained the topography of the safety response but did not properly discriminate the lure. Instead she responded following a high-p request. |
|
|