|
| Current State of SAFMEDS: Summary Data, Procedural Evaluations, Mulitiple Exemplars and Formatting Effects |
| Monday, May 25, 2015 |
| 3:00 PM–4:50 PM |
| 210AB (CC) |
| Area: EDC/TBA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Shawn Patrick Quigley (University of New Mexico Medical Group) |
| Discussant: John W. Eshleman (The Chicago School of Professional Psychology) |
| CE Instructor: Shawn Patrick Quigley, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: SAFMEDS was developed by Lindsley in the late 1970’s to enhance the typical use of flashcards (Graf & Auman, 2005). A review of SAFMEDS research indicates it has been utilized with children, college students and older adults with and without disabilities. The literature also indicates the SAFMEDS procedures used are not well documented or have multiple variations limiting practitioners’ ability to know what procedure to use and when. The purpose of this symposium is to provide data regarding the evaluation of SAFMEDS across multiple dimensions. |
| Keyword(s): Fluency, SAFMEDS, Stimulus Control |
| |
| Learning From 5 Years of SAFMEDS Data |
| CLAY M. STARLIN (Tending Loving Communities™ (TLC) Project) |
| Abstract: This presentation will summarize 5 years of SAFMEDS data (100+ charts) from a graduate special education course. Data will be shared relating to the following: variation in learning pictures based on student selected chunking decisions, impact of lower passing criteria (35 correct/ minute) but extra credit for above 35/minute and data relating to SAFMEDS retention. |
| |
| Using SAFMEDS within an Undergraduate Research Course: Student Contingencies, Instructor Training and Effects of Formatting on Fluency. |
| KIMBERLY PECK (Western Michigan University), Jessica E. Frieder (Western Michigan University), Shawn Patrick Quigley (University of New Mexico Medical Group), Anthony Kennedy-Walker (Western Michigan University) |
| Abstract: SAFMEDS is a precision teaching technique that promotes fluent responding (Bower & Orgel, 1981; Eshleman, 1985; Korinek & Wolking, 1984). Limited research has been conducted regarding SAFMEDS and stimulus control, but available research suggests irrelevant stimuli affect student responding during a SAFMEDS timing (Meindl, Ivy, Miller, & Neef, 2013). Meindl and colleagues questioned whether fluency of SAFMEDS cards could be affected by altering stimulus features on the card (i.e., location of the words on the card). Results indicated that on testing days, accuracy and fluency of responding decreased when identical terms were presented with the only difference being the location of the term on the card. This investigation replicated and expanded on the work done by Meindl and colleagues. Specifically, the word formatting was be altered to determine if it affected student accuracy and fluency when using the SAFMEDS procedure as a study technique. Additionally, information regarding the use of SAFMEDS within an undergraduate research methods course will be shared. |
| |
| A Comparison of Single and Multiple SAFMEDS Definitions on Generalization to Novel Examples for Graduate Students |
| DAVID BERGMARK (The Chicago School of Professional Psychology), John W. Eshleman (The Chicago School of Professional Psychology), Fawna Stockwell (The Chicago School of Professional Psychology) |
| Abstract: This study, an extension of Meindl, Ivy, Miller, Neef, & Williamson (2013),
examined the effects of multiple exemplar SAFMEDS on responding during a flashcard generalization probe using examples of the terms and definitions studied. The participants used massed practice over the course of one or two days to achieve the fluency aim with two training decks. Each training deck had 20 cards, 10 different terms or concepts, and two cards per term. Half of the terms included two cards with the same definition, and half of the cards displayed two terms with different but equivalent definitions. Participants then completed timings with the two probe decks, and instead of definitions on the front, the cards had an example of the term or concept on the back. Probe Deck Same had the terms from both training decks with two cards with the same definition, and Probe Deck Different had the terms from both training decks with cards with two different but equivalent definitions. Results showed the that using SAFMEDS decks with multiple definitions per term can potentially lead to better generalization for learners. |
| |
An Evaluation of Various SAFMEDS Procedures |
| SHAWN PATRICK QUIGLEY (University of New Mexico Medical Group), Stephanie M. Peterson (Western Michigan University), Jessica E. Frieder (Western Michigan University), Anthony Kennedy-Walker (Western Michigan University) |
| Abstract: Lindsley developed Say-All-Fast-Minute-Every-Day-Shuffled, or SAFMEDS, in the late 1970s to enhance the typical use of flashcards (Graf & Auman, 2005). The acronym was developed specifically to guide the learners behavior when using flashcards. A review of SAFMEDS research indicates it has been utilized with children, college students and older adults with and without disabilities. The literature also indicates the SAFMEDS procedures used are not well documented or have multiple variations limiting practitioners ability to know what procedure to use and when. Furthermore, future SAFMEDS research is hampered by variations in the independent variable (i.e., SAFMEDS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate a basic SAFMEDS procedure and four supplementary SAFMEDS procedures. Results of the study suggest the basic SAFMEDS procedure was not sufficient for developing fluent responding with Chinese characters or Russian words, but all of the supplementary procedures led to increases in the number of correct responses per 1-min timing. Further research evaluating differences in performance across the supplementary procedures is warranted. |
|
| |