GREGORY LYONS, Lynn Koegel, Robert Koegel Presentation for Recent Advances in Autism Research

1. Effects of Conversational Recasting with Imitation on the Acquisition of Linguistic Structures in Children with Autism GREGORY LYONS, Lynn Koegel, Robert Koegel Presentation for Recent Advances in Autism Research University of Wisconsin - Madison Research Conducted at: University of California, Santa Barbara

2. Introduction CHILDREN WITH AUTISM: • Are delayed in language development (Lord & Paul, 1997; Menyuk & Quill, 1985; Paul & Alforde, 1993; Swisher & Demetras, 1985) • Frequently omit morphemes (Bartolucci, Pierce, & Streiner, 1980; Howlin, 1984; Roberts, Rice & Tager-Flusberg, 2004) • May have atypical order of acquisition of morphemes (Bartolucci, Pierce, & Streiner, 1980; Menyuk & Quill, 1985; Paul & Alforde, 1993; Swisher & Demetras, 1985)

3. Introduction (cont.) • SUGGESTED INTERVENTIONS: • Analog elicited imitation • Naturalistic conversational (sentence) recasting (Fey & Proctor Williams, 2000)

4. Introduction (cont.) • ANALOG ELICITED IMITATION: • Follows the operant conditioning model (S-R-C) • Child is presented with an adult-chosen imitative stimulus  a model of the linguistic skill is presented  the child is required to imitate the model prior to reinforcement (Connell, 1987; Fey & Proctor-Williams, 2000; Lovaas, 1987 ) • Non-natural stimuli and environments • Flashcards = “imitative stimulus” • “Decontextualized” (Connell, 1987)

5. Introduction (cont.) NATURALISTIC SENTENCE RECASTING: • Is when an adult repeats the general utterance of the child, but expands upon it or corrects it (Nelson & Camarata, 1992) • Child is not required to imitate the recast (Fey & Proctor-Williams, 2000) • Is contextualized- natural environments/stimuli • Creates an optimal context grammar learning (Fey & Proctor-Williams, 2000) • Focuses child attention on specific grammatical features (cues) • Is successful in facilitating correct and generalized language use with different populations, but has not been addressed with children with autism (Nelson, Camarata, Welsh, & Butkovsky, 1996; Fey, Cleave, Long, & Hughes, 1993; Farrar, 1990)

6. Introduction (cont.) • Literature indicates sentence recasting might be effective for children with autism: • Similarities to children with SLI (Roberts, Rice, Tager-Flusberg, 2004) • Naturalistic (Delprato, 2001; Koegel, O’Dell, Koegel, 1987) • However, autism specific characteristics may limit effectiveness: • Low levels of motivation (Koegel & Koegel, 1995; Koegel & Mentis, 1985) • Attentional differences (Swettenham, et al. , 1998; Lovaas, Koegel, Schreibman, 1979) • Possible modification to sentence recasting? • Imitation (Camarata & Nelson, 1992; Fey & Proctor-Williams, 2000)

7. Introduction (cont.) AREA IN NEED OF RESEARCH: • The use of sentence recasting with children with autism • The role of imitation of the linguistic structure contained in the recast (Koegel, Carter, & Koegel, 2003; Fey & Proctor-Williams, 2000; Camarata & Nelson, 1992; Kaiser, Yoder, & Keetz, 1992; Koegel, O’Dell, & Koegel, 1987; Culatta & Horn, 1982; Hedge & Gierut, 1979; Hester & Hendrickson, 1977)

8. Research Questions • Is typical sentence recasting effective for improving target linguistic structures in children with autism? • Is incorporating an imitation component within a naturalistic recast procedure for children with autism (who exhibit difficulties with syntax) effective?

9. Child 1 3.5-years-old at the start of the study; male Brazilian-American diagnosed with autism Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale showed delay in communication Used some spontaneous language Started with an MLU of 2+ words Language samples revealed missing linguistic structures appropriate for language-age at time of intervention for that bahavior: progressive [–ing], did/do reversal, past tense during conversation Child 2 2.6-years-old at the start of the study; male European-American diagnosed with autism Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale showed delay in communication Used some spontaneous language Started with an MLU of 2+ words Language samples revealed missing linguistic structures appropriate for language-age at time of intervention for that behavior: progressive [–ing], plural [-s], possessive [-’s] Methods

10. Methods DESIGN A non-concurrent multiple baseline design across behaviors and participants, with a control for order effects, was employed (Bailey & Burch, 2002) PROCEDURE Baseline - Semi-structured language samples where the participants were provided 20 opportunities (asked questions or given leading statements) in order to evoke the target linguistic skills No Recasts Delivered

11. Methods Intervention Conditions - Recast alone – children were NOT prompted to imitate the recasted syntactic structure prior to continuing play/interaction. Example: Child says “Train go”, Adult recasts “Train’s going”, & Child is NOT prompted to imitate recast and can continue playing with trains. Recast with Imitation- children were prompted to imitate the recasted syntactic structure prior to continuing play/interaction. Example: Child says “Train go” , Adult recasts “Train’s going” & Child is prompted to imitate the recast, “Train is going” prior to continuing to play with the trains.

12. Methods PROCEDURE (cont.) Generalization Probes - Semi-structured language samples in novel setting where adults naïve to the purpose of the study and provided 20 opportunities (asked the participants questions and gave leading statements) in order to elicit the target linguistic skill Dependent Measure - Percent Correct Target Linguistics Skills Used - number of correct spontaneous target linguistic skill responses divided by the sum of correct and incorrect spontaneous target skills responses, multiplied by 100%

13. Example:Recasting Alone • Child: “What did you did?” • Adult recast: “What did you DO?” • Child: “uh huh” • And continues to not use the grammar.

14. Examples: Recasting with Imitation Child: “What did you DID?” Adult recast: “What did you DO?” Child: “What did you DO?” Adult: “I went to the movies.” …next opportunity… Adult: “I did something fun.” Child: “What did you DO?”

15. Recast with imitation Recast with Imitation Recast with Imitation Baseline

16. Recast with Imitation Recast with Imitation

17. Discussion • Recast with imitation resulted in improved acquisition and generalization in contrast to a recasting procedure that did not incorporate imitation. • The results have implications for understanding the roles of imitation and contingent reinforcement in the recast mechanism as it pertains to teaching children with autism linguistic skills • Underlying variables addressed: motivation & attention • It helped focus the child’s attention on relevant cue (i.e., the new grammar cues) * Role of imitation 2) It motivated the child to initially attend to the adult’s recast * Role of contingent reinforcement 3) It motivated the child to imitate the recast and subsequently use the target syntax * Role of contingent reinforcement

18. Mechanisms for Recast with Imitation Condition

19. Future Studies • Response generalization • Do children start generalizing the grammar rules to novel words/responses? • Need to systematically assess • Tease out treatment mechanisms • Is imitation necessary? • Limited application to children with autism who: • Have an MLU of 2+ words -Necessary? First word acquisition? 2) Use language spontaneously (have demonstrated social communicative intent) • Do children who display frequent use of echolalia improve under recast alone? (interesting control for imitation v. functional use) • What is more crucial?

20. In conclusion: • The current results suggest that stimulus control variables, specifically overselectivity (Lovaas, Koegel, & Schreibman, 1979), and other variables such as contingent reinforcement, may be important aspects of a mechanism by which children with autism effectively and efficiently acquire target linguistic structures in natural settings.