THE EFFECTS OF THE QUESTION “WHAT DO YOU WANT?” ON MAND TRAINING OUTCOMES OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

Mands sometimes are taught using the question “What do you want?” as a supplement to the required features of the mand relation: an establishing operation and a related consequence. Although verbal prompts have been used during mand training, they also may result in undesirable stimulus control. However, no direct empirical evidence exists to support this concern. The purpose of the present study was to compare mand training with and without supplemental questions on acquisition rate and maintenance when those questions were no longer presented. The 2 training conditions did not differ substantially in their outcomes for 2 children with autism.     

OVERCOMING AN AUTISTIC CHILD'S FAILURE TO ACQUIRE A TACT REPERTOIRE

A 6-year-old nonvocal autistic girl who had acquired over 30 signs as mands (requests), simple intraverbals (English-sign translations), and imitative responses repeatedly failed to acquire a tact (labeling) repertoire. It was speculated that the verbal stimulus “What is that?” blocked the establishment of stimulus control by nonverbal stimuli. When procedures to transfer stimulus control from verbal to nonverbal stimuli were implemented, the subject quickly learned to tact all 18 target stimuli.     

THE EFFECTS OF THE QUESTION “WHAT IS THIS?” ON TACT-TRAINING OUTCOMES OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

Tact training is a common element of many habilitative programs for individuals with developmental disabilities. A commonly recommended practice is to include a supplemental question (e.g., “What is this?”) during training trials for tacts of objects. However, the supplemental question is not a defining feature of the tact relation, and prior research suggests that its inclusion might sometimes impede tact acquisition. The present study compared tact training with and without the supplemental question in terms of acquisition and maintenance. Two of 4 children with autism acquired tacts more efficiently in the object-only condition; the remaining 2 children acquired tacts more efficiently in the object + question condition. During maintenance tests in the absence of the supplemental question, all participants emitted tacts at end-of-training levels across conditions with no differential effect observed between training conditions.Key words: autism, language training, stimulus control, tacts, verbal behaviorSkinner (1957) defined the tact as a response “evoked by a particular object or event or property of an object or event” (p. 82) and considered it to be one of the most important verbal operants. Tacts are maintained by generalized social reinforcement and, thus, they are central to many social interactions. For example, the tact “That cloud looks like a horse” (under the control of a visual stimulus) could evoke a short verbal interaction about the sky or horses. The tact “My tummy hurts” (under the control of an interoceptive stimulus) could evoke soothing statements from a parent. A child who tacts “doggie” in the presence of a cat likely would evoke a correction statement from an adult, further refining two stimulus classes (i.e., dog and cat). These examples illustrate that, despite their topographical differences, the tact relations share antecedent control by a nonverbal discriminative stimulus (S^D) and are maintained by generalized social reinforcement.In habilitative programs for individuals with language impairments, autism, and intellectual disabilities, tacts often are taught for objects (e.g., ball), object features (e.g., color, size, shape), activities (e.g., jumping), prepositions (e.g., between), and emotions (e.g., sad) among others. Although conceptualized differently among therapeutic approaches, the tact relation occupies a central position in many early-intervention curricula. For example, Lovaas (2003) and Leaf and McEachin (1999) describe these relations as expressive labels and recommend that they be taught early in language training using three-dimensional objects accompanied by the supplemental questions “What is it?” or “What''s this?” Alternatively, Sundberg and Partington (1998) explicitly refer to the relation as a tact and recommend beginning instruction by including the question “What is it?” before eventually fading the question. In addition to these clinical manuals, the use of supplemental questions during tact training has appeared in some empirical studies on tact or expressive-label training (e.g., Braam & Sundberg, 1991; Coleman & Stedman, 1974), but not others (e.g., Williams & Greer, 1993). Regardless of whether tact training initially includes supplemental questions prior to response opportunities, tacts ultimately should be emitted readily under the sole control of the nonverbal S^D as well as when it happens to be accompanied by a question.Conceptually, at least four potential problems could arise from introducing supplemental questions early and consistently in tact training. First, the acquired responses might not be emitted unless the question is posed (i.e., prompt dependence). This problem would lead to few spontaneous tacts occurring outside the explicit stimulus control of the training environment. Williams and Greer (1993) compared comprehensive language training conducted under the stimulus control specified in Skinner''s (1957) taxonomy of verbal behavior to a more traditional psycholinguistic perspective with supplemental questions and instructions embedded within trials. For all three adolescents with developmental disabilities, the targets taught from the verbal behavior perspective were maintained better in natural contexts than those taught from the psycholinguistic perspective. However, because data were not reported for each individual verbal operant, it is unclear what specific impact their tact-training procedures had on the outcomes.The second potential problem is that the supplemental question might acquire intraverbal control over early responses and interfere with the acquisition of subsequent tact targets. For example, Partington, Sundberg, Newhouse, and Spengler (1994) showed that the tact repertoire of a child with autism had been hindered by prior instruction during which she was asked “What is this?” while being shown an object. The supplemental question subsequently evoked previously acquired responses and blocked the ability of new nonverbal S^Ds (i.e., objects) to evoke new responses. Partington et al. then showed that new tacts were acquired by eliminating the supplemental question from instructional trials.The third potential problem is that learners might imitate part of or the entire supplemental question prior to emitting the target response (e.g., “What is it” → “What is it … ball.”). For example, Coleman and Stedman (1974) demonstrated that a 10-year-old girl with autism imitated the question “What is this?” while being taught to label stimuli depicted in color photographs. Such an outcome results in a socially awkward tact repertoire and requires additional intervention to remedy the problem.Finally, including supplemental questions during tact training might impede skill acquisition, perhaps via a combination of the problems described earlier. Sundberg, Endicott, and Eigenheer (2000) taught sign tacts to two young children with autism who had prior difficulty acquiring tacts. In one condition, the experimenter held up an object and asked, “What is that?” In the comparison condition, the experimenter intraverbally prompted the participant to “sign [object name]” in the presence of the object. Sundberg et al. demonstrated substantially more efficient tact acquisition under the sign-prompt condition than when the question “What is that?” was included in trials; the latter condition sometimes failed to produce mastery-level responding.Teaching an entire tact repertoire while including supplemental questions (e.g., “What is it?”) during training trials could produce a learner who is able to talk about his or her environment only when asked to do so with similar questions. To the extent that this is not a therapist''s clinical goal, teaching the tact under its proper controlling variables may eliminate such problems. Of course, inclusion of supplemental questions during the early phases of language training could be faded over time such that the target tact relation is left intact prior to the end of training (Sundberg & Partington, 1998). However, the aforementioned studies have documented problems with using supplemental questions during tact training. Given the ubiquity of tact training in habilitation programs, the numerous problems that may arise when supplemental questions are included in training trials, and the limited research on the topic, further investigation is warranted. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to compare directly the rate of acquisition and subsequent maintenance of tacts taught using only a nonverbal S^D (i.e., object only) with tacts taught using a question (“What is this?”) in conjunction with the nonverbal S^D (i.e., object + question). The present study extends earlier research by examining both acquisition and maintenance and by including individuals with no prior history of formal tact training.     

Teaching children with autism to ask questions about hidden objects

We taught 2 4‐year‐old children with autism to ask questions of an adult who held a closed box with a toy inside. The treatment package (modeling, prompting, and reinforcement) was evaluated with a multiple baseline design across the three question forms during training, generalization, and follow‐up evaluations. The first question form (“What's that?”) produced the name of the hidden item. The second form (“Can I see it?”) produced sight of it, and the third form (“Can I have it?”) produced the item itself. Both children learned to ask questions about hidden objects.     

AN EVALUATION OF TWO METHODS FOR INCREASING SELF-INITIATED VERBALIZATIONS IN AUTISTIC CHILDREN

Three children with autism and mental retardation were treated for deficits in self-initiated speech. A novel treatment package employing visual cue fading was compared with a graduated time-delay procedure previously shown to be effective for increasing self-initiated language. Both treatments included training multiple self-initiated verbalizations using multiple therapists and settings. Both treatments were efffective, with no differences in measures of acquisition of target phrases, maintenance of behavioral gains, acquisition with additional therapists and settings, and social validity.     

TEACHING CHILDREN WITH AUTISM TO SEEK INFORMATION-ACQUISITION OF NOVEL INFORMATION AND GENERALIZATION OF RESPONDING

A time delay procedure was used to teach 3 children with autism to ask the question “What's that?” when novel stimuli were presented during an instructional task. Once the ability to ask the question was acquired, the children's ability to learn novel information by asking the question was assessed. The children were then taught to ask the question within a less structured context. All three studies used a multiple baseline across participants. Generalization was assessed in a different room, to a new person, and to novel stimuli. All of the children learned to ask the question within the instructional context, while on a walk in the school building, and to request information about three-dimensional objects. The acquisition of novel information was consistent for receptive and expressive tests for 2 of the children, with varied results for the 3rd. These studies indicate that children with autism can be taught to ask questions that lead to the acquisition of new information.     

Equivalence class formation in language-able and language-disabled children

Stimulus equivalence seems to have relevance to the study of semantics and of language more generally. If so, there may be a relation between language use and the demonstration of stimulus equivalence. This was examined in three groups of children ranging in chronological age and matched on a conventional measure of mental age: normally developing preschoolers, retarded children who used speech or signs spontaneously and appropriately, and retarded children who did not. All children were taught a series of four related discriminations and were then tested to determine if classes of equivalent stimuli had formed. All of the language-able children (retarded and normal) formed equivalence classes, whereas none of the language-disabled children did so. Although the exact nature of the relation between stimulus equivalence and language remains to be clarified, these results support the view that stimulus equivalence is a phenomenon with relevance to language.     

TIME DELAY: A TECHNIQUE TO INCREASE LANGUAGE USE AND FACILITATE GENERALIZATION IN RETARDED CHILDREN

Institutional breakfast-serving procedures were manipulated to assess what effect changes in that aspect of the environment would have on requests for food. During baseline, six severely retarded children were required to pick up their food trays and return to their seats. The first manipulation, delaying the giving of the food tray for 15 seconds, served as a cue to evoke meal requests by three of the six children. Two of the remaining three required a model of an appropriate meal request (i.e., “Tray, please.”) at the end of the 15-second delay before they began requesting their meals. To evoke meal requests from the sixth child, an intensive training procedure, consisting of massed trials of delay and modeling, was required. Three different probes were administered to assess generalization across the people serving the meals, across mealtimes, and across both people and mealtimes. Typically, generalized responding in these new situations could be prompted by use of the 15-second delay procedure. Functional aspects of the delay procedure and its potential usefulness for evoking speech and facilitating generalization are discussed.     

TEACHERS' GENERALIZED USE OF DELAY AS A STIMULUS CONTROL PROCEDURE TO INCREASE LANGUAGE USE IN HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

In Experiment 1, classroom teachers were taught to delay their offers of help in naturally occurring situations, and thereby to provide additional opportunities for language use by six moderately retarded language-delayed children. The teachers introduced this delay technique in a multiple-baseline design across the six children. As delays were used, child verbal initiations increased. Follow-up assessment showed that teachers were maintaining greater than baseline levels of the delay technique after 10 weeks. Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1, and included a more thorough maintenance assessment, while focusing on teachers' generalization of the delay technique. Teachers were found to generalize their use of delay to 56% of their monitored untaught opportunities. The two experiments show that (a) the delay technique is quick to teach and simple to implement, (b) delays do provide opportunities for children to initiate, (c) teachers can generalize their use of delay to novel self-selected situations, and (d) teachers can maintain their use of delays over time.