Matrix Training of Instruction Following of Pre-Academic Skills with Preschoolers with Autism

1. Matrix Training of Instruction Following of Pre-Academic Skills with Preschoolers with Autism Judah B. Axe, Ph.D., BCBA Simmons College March 14, 2009 Contemporary Developments in Behavior Analysis Conference Simmons College

2. Co-Author • Diane M. Sainato, Ph.D. • The Ohio State University

3. Introduction • Children with autism exhibit delays • Language (Rapin, 2006) • Literacy (Mirenda, 2003) • Language interventions and programs • UCLA model (Lovaas, 1987) • Verbal behavior model (Sundberg & Partington, 1998; Sweeney-Kerwin et al., 2007) • Educational programs (Schwartz et al., 2004; Odom & Strain, 1984) • Literacy/academic interventions and programs • Emergent literacy programs (Koppenhaver & Erickson, 2003) • Writing interventions (Delano, 2007; Myles et al., 2003)

4. Power of Behavior Analysis Contingencies of Reinforcement Generative Instruction Arrange instruction systematically Teach some skills, get others “for free” Efficient

5. Select Match-To-Sample Book

6. Stimulus Equivalence 67% of learning without direct teaching Symmetry BOOK Book Transitivity Symmetry

7. Teach 4 behaviors, child learns 16 behaviors. 75% of learning was not directly taught.

8. Combinations in Previous Research • Action-object • Karlan et al. (1982); Mineo & Goldstein (1990); Nigam et al. (2006) • Object-location (e.g., ball on chair) • Ezell & Goldstein (1989); Goldstein et al. (1987); Light et al. (1990) • Object-action (e.g., dog eating) • Dauphin et al. (2004) • Expression-person (e.g., happy boy) • Remington et al. (1990) • Object-preposition-location (e.g., car under tree) • Goldstein et al. (1987); Goldstein & Brown (1989); Goldstein & Mousetis (1989) • Reading and spelling (e.g., s-at, m-op; s-op, m-at) • de Rose et al. (1996); Hanna et al. (2004); Melchiori et al. (2000); Mueller et al. (2000)

9. Advancing the Research • Evaluate with children with autism • Two previous studies with children with autism (Dauphin et al., 2004; Goldstein & Brown, 1990) • Errorless training procedures • Previous studies used least-to-most prompting (Goldstein et al., 1987; Mineo & Goldstein, 1990; Striefel et al., 1978) • Most-to-least prompting (Massey & Wheeler, 2000) • New skills • Language: picture selection • Pre-academic: writing tasks on paper • E.g., “circle the pepper,” “underline the deer”

12. Participants/Setting • Four preschoolers with autism • Matt, Rex, Trey, Nina • Ages 4-5 • Matt, Trey, and Nina had significant language delays; Rex had mild language delay • Sessions conducted in quiet room in school • Sessions were 10-30 min (probe then training)

13. Research Questions/Dependent Variables • Directly teach instruction following  • Trained instruction following • Untrained instruction following • Maintenance of trained and untrained instruction following • Untrained instruction following with new actions and previously known pictures, letters, and numbers • Social validity of goals, procedures, outcomes

14. Experimental Design • Multiple probe across behaviors design • Following BL, < 90% correct on probe  training • 90% correct on trained 3 sessions  probe untrained • 90% correct on trained and 50% correct on untrained 3 sessions  next tier • 90% correct on trained and < 50% correct on untrained 3 sessions  train new cell

15. Probe • New probe sheet • “Get ready, (action) the (picture)” • No feedback for incorrect or no response • Reinforcement for correct response • If no correct responses 4-6 trials, presented known trials (e.g., touch your head) and reinforced compliance

16. Training Pictures 1. Picture alone 2. Picture alone 3. One distracter 4. Two distracters 5. Probe sheet Prompts Model & Physical Model Gestural Instruction alone Instruction alone

17. Procedural Modifications • Rex • Stimulus fading for triangle, sun • Trey • No physical prompts, dots under pictures, prompt to select utensil • Nina • Error correction • Distracter trials • Trials in fast alternation • Separation of actions and pictures • Instruction to select utensil that matched action • Delay between action and picture in instruction • Instructions to perform actions with known picture (car)

18. MATT

19. REX

20. TREY

21. NINA

22. Percent correct on probes of trained actions with known pictures at the beginning and end of the study for Matt, Rex, and Trey

23. Percent correct on probes of trained actions with known letters and numbers at the beginning and end of the study for Matt, Rex, and Trey

24. Efficiency

25. Social Validity • Prior to the study • Teacher, SLP, principal • Found goals and procedures acceptable (6.4/7) • Concerns regarding learning difficulties • After the study • 2 teachers, SLP, principal, 2 parents, K teacher • Found procedures (5.9/7) and outcomes (6.1/7) acceptable • Frequent concern with transfer to classroom

26. Discussion • Matt and Rex • Errorless teaching procedures • Contingencies of reinforcement “underline the pepper” (2) (3) (1)

27. Limitations • Limited responding by Nina and Trey • Stimulus blocking (Fields, 1979; Partington et al., 1994) • Multiple exemplar instruction • Modifications to error correction to transfer stimulus control • Separation of components of instruction • Baseline responding with Matt, Rex, and Trey • Prior repertoires in weak strength • Learning by exclusion • Selection of trial-and-error responding

28. Future Research • Identification of training tactics to develop multi-component verbal stimulus control • Manipulate the order of words in the instruction • Reduce potential for baseline responding • Other skills • Letter, word identification; math skills, telling time • Mands, intraverbals • Adoption of matrix training in classrooms

29. Implications for Practice • Skills taught can prepare preschoolers for writing and discrimination tasks in elementary school • Efficient strategy for teaching many language and academic skills • Add to discrete trial training programs and other educational programming

30. Thank you!