|
| PCH Sunday Poster Session: Odd-Numbered Posters |
| Sunday, May 29, 2022 |
| 1:00 PM–2:00 PM |
| Exhibit Level; Exhibit Hall A |
| Chair: Eric A. Thrailkill (University of Vermont) |
|
| 33. Toward a Better Understanding of Meaningful Differences in the Adapted Alternating Treatment Design |
| Area: PCH; Domain: Theory |
| MADISON JUDKINS (University of Nebraska-Medical Center; Munroe-Meyer Institute), Emily Ferris (University of Nebraska Medical Center; Munroe-Meyer Institute), Nicole Pantano (Caldwell University), Paige O'Neill (University of Nebraska-Medical Center; Munroe-Meyer Institute), Nicole M. Rodriguez (University of Nebraska-Medical Center; Munroe-Meyer Institute), Catalina Rey (University of Nebraska-Medical Center; Munroe-Meyer Institute) |
| Discussant: Eric A. Thrailkill (University of Vermont) |
| Abstract: The adapted alternating treatment design (AATD) is a frequently implemented small-N research design used to evaluate the efficiency and efficacy of teaching procedures. AATD rapidly alternates two or more interventions using unique sets of instructional targets assigned to each intervention. Despite a growing body of research using AATD, one basic tenet of the design remains untested: What is the natural variability in rate of acquisition of matched instructional sets when there is no difference in teaching procedures? In the current study, six children diagnosed with autism were taught to read sight words or receptively identify pictures of common items using identical teaching procedures across all targets. Targets were equated for difficulty using logical analysis procedures. The AATD design was embedded in a multiple-probe-across-sets design. Preliminary results show a notable amount of variability in the number of sessions to mastery, despite identical teaching procedures. These findings suggest that there should be a considerable, consistent difference in the number of sessions to mastery to conclude there was a difference in efficiency between treatments and underscore the importance of within-subject replication. These findings could help inform what is considered a meaningful difference between conditions for future research using AATD. |
| |
|
| 35. An Exploration of the Potential Advantages of Analyzing Religious Behavior |
| Area: PCH; Domain: Theory |
| SADIE L. LOVETT (Brock University) |
| Discussant: Eric A. Thrailkill (University of Vermont) |
| Abstract: Behavioral analyses of religious behavior have been relatively few throughout the history of our field. Skinner (1953) provided a brief analysis of religion primarily at the cultural level, a more robust analysis of individual religious behavior was provided by Schoenfeld (1993), and a few brief discussions of the topic have been provided by others (e.g., Hayes, 1984). In recent years, when behavior analysts mention religion, they tend to refer to the concept of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), which holds that science and religion are equally important but separate domains of inquiry (Gould, 1999). Avoidance of the analysis of religious behavior within our field is largely justified using the concept of NOMA. This presentation will propose the argument that it is possible to respect the main tenets of NOMA while still providing an analysis of religious behavior and that this could be beneficial for the field. Some potential advantages of providing behavioral analyses of religious behavior along with general attention to the topic will be presented including the importance of the place of religion in issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. |
| |
| |