Association for Behavior Analysis International

There are several data collection procedures available to the interventionist during discrete trial teaching (DTT). These include, but are not limited to, first trial data collection, probe data, trial-by-trial data collection, and estimation data. This symposium features two comparisons of trial-by-trial and estimation data during DTT in two different instructional formats. The first presentation compared the two data collection procedures while teaching tact relations in a one-to-one instructional format. The second presentation extends the findings of the first by comparing the two data collection procedures while teaching tact relations in a group instructional format. The symposium will close with comments on the relative strengths and limitations of presentations as well as future areas of research and practice.

Any individual providing supervision of staff providing ABA-based intervention for individuals diagnosed with autism will benefit from this symposium in addition to those providing direct intervention. Clinical or site directors in charge of making data based decisions and determining data collection systems for use agency wide will also benefit from this symposium.

There are many data collection procedures utilized during discrete trial teaching (DTT) including first trial data collection, probe data, trial-by-trial data collection, and estimation data. Continuous, or trial-by-trial, data collection consists of the interventionist collecting data on learner behavior on each trial. Estimation data consists of the interventionist estimating learner performance after a teaching session using a rating scale. The purpose of the present study was to compare trial-by-trial data collection to estimation data collection during DTT to teach children expressive labels. The data collection procedures were examined in terms of accuracy of data collection, efficiency of teaching (i.e., number of trials delivered per session), and rate of child acquisition of targets. Results of the adapted alternating treatment design replicated across three participants and multiple targets will be discussed.

Most research comparing data collection procedures has been done during one-to-one discrete trial teaching (DTT; e.g., Cummings & Carr, 2009; Taubman, Leaf, McEachin, Papovich, & Leaf, 2013). This study aimed to extend previous literature comparing continuous methods of data collection to estimation data but this time implementing the data collection procedures within group discrete trial teaching with three individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Group discrete trial teaching was completed in a classroom setting using relevant academic targets for each child. The data collection procedures were examined in terms of accuracy of data collection, efficiency of teaching (i.e., number of trials delivered per session), and rate of child acquisition of targets. Results of the adapted alternating treatment design replicated across sets and multiple targets will be discussed.