DEVELOPMENT OF SPONTANEOUS MANDING IN LANGUAGE DEFICIENT CHILDREN

Six institutionalized children, aged 7–11, with little or no spontaneous vocal manding, were trained to request food items under appropriate natural conditions when snacks were presented. “I want a” was appropriate when an adult presented food in the playroom. “Out” was appropriate when the items were displayed in the hallway, across a half-door barrier from the child. A sequence of steps was trained, through increasingly naturalistic setting and cuing conditions. The two mands were trained in sequence, not concurrently. To encourage “spontaneous” productions, no vocal cuing was provided by the adult. After criterion performance in each step, several probe sessions were conducted for various cuing conditions, adults, and settings. Probes after imitation training showed no spontaneous manding. Thus, failure of manding was not due to production difficulties. In probes after training for “approximately” natural cues, most children showed little transfer to the natural cues. This implies that training for the specific appropriate cues may often be required. However, good transfer generally occurred across persons, and from training room to playroom. Probes also showed that most children did not use one of the trained mands in the stimulus conditions that were appropriate for the other mand. Thus, adding a second mand did not generally disrupt use of the first. However, significant disruption occurred for two children. Finally, at the end of training, extinction training was given for one mand in one setting. Performance of the other mand was litle affected. In sum, the appropriate form of a mand depends on specific stimulus and setting characteristics, and these characteristics must be considered in training.     

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.     

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.     

小学学习不良儿童言语交际策略理解水平及其发展特点

采用言语交际策略认知结构访谈故事情境,考察了小学3~6年级学习不良儿童言语交际策略理解水平的发展以及言语行为对其策略理解的影响。被试为两所普通小学儿童,其中学习不良117名,一般儿童124名。结果表明：学习不良儿童言语交际策略理解水平在总体发展上显著落后于一般儿童,但滞后仅存在于意图表达间接程度较高的暗示策略上。其次,在不同言语行为类别上发展趋势不同。对于礼貌请求策略,学习不良儿童不存在显著年级差异,而一般儿童则表现出随年级的增长而逐步提高的趋势;对于委婉应答策略,学习不良儿童存在显著的年级差异。     

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.     

ON THE REINFORCING EFFECTS OF THE CONTENT OF VERBAL ATTENTION

During a functional analysis, a boy with autism and oppositional defiant disorder displayed destructive behavior that was maintained by attention in the form of verbal reprimands (e.g., “Don't hit me”). In a second analysis, contingent verbal reprimands produced higher rates of the behavior than contingent statements that were unrelated to the target response (e.g., “It is sunny today”), suggesting that some forms of attention were more reinforcing than others. A treatment based on these analyses reduced the behavior to near-zero levels.     

Putting the power of behavior analysis in the hands of nonbehavioral professionals: Toward a blueprint for dissemination†

Behavior analysts have much to offer nonbehavioral professionals who work with the communities that we serve. Successful dissemination of behavior-analytic technologies to these professionals could potentially improve their practice. Although the literature contains some exemplary examples of successful dissemination, our discipline would benefit from a blueprint for conducting this important work. In this article, I share our experiences disseminating behavioral technologies to educators, law enforcement officers, and health care providers who engage with neurodiverse individuals. These experiences form the basis of a recommended blueprint for dissemination, which awaits empirical support. After describing this tentative blueprint, I provide suggestions for future research on how best to disseminate our technologies to nonbehavioral professionals, the ideal content of those dissemination activities, and the conditions under which professionals may be more likely to embed our technologies into their best practices.     

ON THE RELATION OF MANDS AND THE FUNCTION OF DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR

When standard analogue functional analysis procedures produce inconclusive results in children with conversational speech, the child's mands may help to identify the function of destructive behavior. In the current investigation, functional analyses conducted with 2 children who exhibited self-injury, aggression, and property destruction were undifferentiated across conditions. Based on informal observations and school and parental report, an analysis was conducted using mands to help determine the function of the destructive behavior. Using a multielement design, the therapist's compliance with the child's mands occurred either on a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedule or contingent on destructive behavior. Destructive behavior occurred at high and consistent levels when reinforcement of mands was contingent on destructive behavior and at near-zero levels when reinforcement of mands occurred on the FR 1 schedule. Based on these results, a second analysis was conducted in which compliance to mands occurred only when the child appropriately requested it (i.e., functional communication training plus extinction) and, for 1 child, compliance with mands was terminated contingent upon destructive behavior (i.e., functional communication training plus response cost). For both children, the rates of destructive behavior decreased markedly. The results suggest that assessing the child's mands may be useful in decreasing destructive behavior when a functional analysis is inconclusive.     

TRANSFER BETWEEN RECEPTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE LANGUAGE IN DEVELOPMENT ALLY DISABLED CHILDREN

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between receptive and productive language acquisition in developmentally disabled children. A single-subject operant methodology was employed to evaluate the effect of training in one mode on performance in the other mode. Noun labels for pictured objects were used as the unit of analysis. Six children with severe language deficits participated in the experiment. Each subject learning to identify a different set of five pictures in each of four successively administered training conditions. In the first condition, a set of pictures was trained in the productive mode. In the second condition, a different set was trained in the receptive mode. These training conditions were then repeated using two additional sets of pictures. Training was done using reinforcement for correct responses and prompting for incorrect responses. Nonreinforced probes were conducted throughout training to assess performance in the untrained mode. The pictures in each set were trained successively so that transfer across the language modes could be studied separately for each response trained. All subjects successfully met the criteria for learning each picture set in both the receptive and productive training conditions. The probe data showed that opposite-modality performance improved as a function of both types of training, although performance levels differed. After productive training, five of six subjects' performance was highly accurate on receptive probes. By contrast, receptive training resulted in limited correct productive performance. Transfer from receptive training was negatively related to subjects' use of extra-experimental labels on productive probe trials. In addition to these competing response errors, subjects frequently made articulation errors. The findings suggest that for retarded children similar to those studied here, productive training will be sufficient to establish accurate receptive performance on vocabulary tasks. However, receptive training does not appear to be either a necessary or a sufficient condition for productive performance. The results do not support the reception-then-production training sequence based on normal language development.