TEACHING CHILDREN WITH AUTISM TO USE PHOTOGRAPHIC ACTIVITY SCHEDULES: MAINTENANCE AND GENERALIZATION OF COMPLEX RESPONSE CHAINS

We used a graduated guidance procedure to teach 4 boys with autism to follow photographic activity schedules to increase on-task and on-schedule behavior. The multiple baseline across participants design included baseline, teaching, maintenance, resequencing of photographs, and generalization to novel photographs phases. The results indicated that photographic activity schedules (albums depicting after-school activities) produced sustained engagement, and skills generalized to a new sequence of photographs and to new photographs. The acquisition of schedule-following skills enabled these children with severe developmental disabilities to display lengthy response chains, independently change activities, and change activities in different group home settings in the absence of immediate supervision and prompts from others.     

ESTABLISHING DISCRIMINATIVE CONTROL OF RESPONDING USING FUNCTIONAL AND ALTERNATIVE REINFORCERS DURING FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION TRAINING

Functional communication training (FCT) is a popular treatment for problem behaviors, but its effectiveness may be compromised when the client emits the target communication response and reinforcement is either delayed or denied. In the current investigation, we trained 2 individuals to emit different communication responses to request (a) the reinforcer for destructive behavior in a given situation (e.g., contingent attention in the attention condition of a functional analysis) and (b) an alternative reinforcer (e.g., toys in the attention condition of a functional analysis). Next, we taught the participants to request each reinforcer in the presence of a different discriminative stimulus (S^D). Then, we evaluated the effects of differential reinforcement of communication (DRC) using the functional and alternative reinforcers and correlated S^Ds, with and without extinction of destructive behavior. During all applications, DRC (in combination with S^Ds that signaled available reinforcers) rapidly reduced destructive behavior to low levels regardless of whether the functional reinforcer or an alternative reinforcer was available or whether reinforcement for destructive behavior was discontinued (i.e., extinction).     

PROGRAMMING PARTICIPATION IN FAMILY ACTIVITIES FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM: PARENTS' USE OF PHOTOGRAPHIC ACTIVITY SCHEDULES

The parents of 3 boys with autism were taught to help their children follow photographic activity schedules depicting a variety of home-living tasks. A multiple baseline across participants showed that the home-based intervention produced increases in children's engagement and social initiations and decreases in disruptive behavior, which were maintained for as long as 10 months.     

Promoting safety belt use among state employees: the effects of prompting and a stimulus-control intervention.

This study assessed the effects of dashboard stickers and signature sheets on safety belt use among occupants of state-owned vehicles in three Florida agencies. The stickers and signature sheets contained information regarding a regulation requiring safety belt use and a consequence of a 25% reduction in benefits for noncompliance if the driver were to become involved in an accident. Safety belt use significantly increased during the intervention phase in all three agencies and maintained variable but high levels for 5 months. In Agency 1 and Agency 2 (stickers plus signature sheets) safety belt use increased from averages of 10.8% and 9.4% during baseline to 57.4% and 47.0%, respectively, during intervention. In Agency 3 (stickers only) the rates of safety belt use averaged 9.7% during baseline and 38.0% during intervention. Some increases in private vehicle use were observed. A substantial reduction in workers'' compensation claim costs was shown for the target agencies with some reductions also shown in the nontarget agencies.     

Analysis of discriminative control by social behavioral stimuli

Visual discriminative control of the behavior of one rat by the behavior of another was studied in a two-compartment chamber. Each rat's compartment had a food cup and two response keys arranged vertically next to the clear partition that separated the two rats. Illumination of the leader's key lights signaled a “search” period when a response by the leader on the unsignaled and randomly selected correct key for that trial illuminated the follower's keys. Then, a response by the follower on the corresponding key was reinforced, or a response on the incorrect key terminated the trial without reinforcement. Accuracy of following the leader increased to 85% within 15 sessions. Blocking the view of the leader reduced accuracy but not to chance levels. Apparent control by visual behavioral stimuli was also affected by auditory stimuli and a correction procedure. When white noise eliminated auditory cues, social learning was not acquired as fast nor as completely. A reductionistic position holds that behavioral stimuli are the same as nonsocial stimuli; however, that does not mean that they do not require any separate treatment. Behavioral stimuli are usually more variable than nonsocial stimuli, and further study is required to disentangle behavioral and nonsocial contributions to the stimulus control of social interactions.     

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.     

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 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.