1 / 29

Chapter 6

Chapter 6. Application of Withdrawal Design. A-B-A Design. The Study: Teaching Socially Valid Social Interaction Responses to Students with Severe Disabilities in an Integrated School Setting

margo
Download Presentation

Chapter 6

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 6 Application of Withdrawal Design

  2. A-B-A Design • The Study: Teaching Socially Valid Social Interaction Responses to Students with Severe Disabilities in an Integrated School Setting • Research Question: The study explored the effectiveness of constant time delay to teach children with severe disabilities appropriate social interaction skills

  3. A-B-A Design • The subjects: • 2 males • 12 and 13 years old • Autistic • Verbal (prompt-dependent and echolalic) • Displaying aggressive and self-injurious behavior

  4. A-B-A Design • Setting: • Self-contained special education classroom • 3 other student with similar disabilities

  5. A-B-A Design • Dependent Variables: • The subjects’ responses to social greetings • 4 different possibilities • Correct response given within 5 seconds of initiation • No response given within 5 seconds of initiation • Echolalic response (repetition of part or all of initiated greeting) • Prompted response (correct response to initiation after prompt)

  6. A-B-A Design • Independent Variable: • Constant Time Delay Procedure implemented by the teacher • A greeting is presented to the student • If the student responds incorrectly or fails to respond the correct response in provided • If the student responds correctly verbal praise is given

  7. A-B-A Design • The intervention: • 10 trails each consisting of 5 greetings • Student is presented with a social greeting • A correct response within 5 seconds elicited verbal praise • An incorrect or echolalic response resulted in the trainer stating “No” and proving the appropriate response. If the student then gave the correct response they were praised, otherwise the correct response was provided again

  8. A-B-A Design • Data collection • Baseline data was collected for each student for 4 days prior to the intervention • During the intervention responses were recorded as: Correct, Error, Echolalic, or Prompted Correct based on the students responses to initiated greetings • Baseline was reinstated after the intervention

  9. A-B-A Design • The Results: • For both students correct responses to social greetings increased during the intervention phase • Echolalic responses to social greetings decreased during the intervention • Student 1decreased echolalic responding from 70% to 21% • Student 2 decreased echolalic to 0%

  10. A-B-A Design • The Design: • Allowed for testing the impact of an intervention across subjects • Established functional relationship between time delay procedure and student responses to social greeting • Limitations: • The response level in the second baseline was similar to that of the intervention phase (carryover effects). This makes it difficult to establish a functional relationship. • Ethically it was inappropriate to end the study with a baseline phase

  11. A-B-A-B Design • The Study: Parent Reinforcement for Child Achievement: The Use of a Lottery to Maximize Parent Training Effects • Research Question: An evaluation of a reinforcement program in which parents received lottery tickets and prizes as their children mastered language skills in a home-based early intervention project

  12. A-B-A-B Design • Subjects: • 2 girls and 1 boy • Between 2-2 ½ years old • Developmental delays • Language delays (unable to verbalize, imitate, and follow directions) • Setting: • In subjects homes (low income areas)

  13. A-B-A-B Design • Dependent Variable: • Children’s Responses to various language based tasks • Responding to name • Waving goodbye • Clapping pointing to pictures • Receptive language tasks • Expressive language tasks (sound imitation, naming objects)

  14. A-B-A-B Design • Independent Variable: • Reinforcement through delivery of lottery tickets (exchangeable for prizes) • Reinforcement for parents was contingent upon children demonstrating improvements in language based tasks • Fixed ratio reinforcement was used beginning with FR-1 and gradually being decreased to FR-3

  15. A-B-A-B Design • The Intervention: • At each home visit 3 tasks were assigned to a child based on therapist’s evaluation • The task was to be done at home with the parent • On the following home visit the therapist would evaluate mastery of the task • Each task mastered resulted on a lottery ticket for the parent

  16. A-B-A-B Design • Data Collection: • Therapists recorded children’s mastery of language based tasks • Results: Mastery of tasks • Subject 1: A1 3 tasks, B1 9 tasks, A2 2 tasks, B2 10 tasks • Subject 2: A1 1 task, B1 9 tasks, A2 7 tasks, B2 0 tasks • Subject 3: A1 1 task, B1 5 tasks, A2 0 tasks, B2 5 tasks

  17. A-B-A-B Design • The Design: • By repeating the treatment and baseline the validity of the functional relationship between intervention and target behavior is strengthened • Ending with a treatment phase is ethically more sound • Limitations: • Ethical conflict with reinforcing behavior that should already be present (parents putting forth effort to increase their child’s language skills) • Will they maintain maximum effort when the reinforcement is removed?

  18. A-B-A-C Design • The Study: Using Guided Compliance Versus Time-out to Promote Child Compliance • Research Question: To determine if guided compliance is more effective than time-out in promoting child adherence

  19. A-B-A-C Design • Subjects: • 5 children (4 male, 1 female) • 3-6 years old • Mild developmental delays • Setting: • Treatment room with a one-way mirror

  20. A-B-A-C Design • Dependent Variable • Child compliance to adult request within 10 seconds of the request • Independent variable • Guided compliance technique (physical guidance) • Time-out technique

  21. A-B-A-C Design • The intervention: • A request was made in all sessions by calling a child’s name, establishing eye-contact, and issuing a request • Guided compliance phase: if within 10 seconds of a request the child complied verbal praise was given, If the child did not comply the child was physically guided to complete the task • Time-out phase: if within 10 seconds of a request the child complied verbal praise was given, If the child did not comply they were placed in a chair facing the corner for 30 seconds

  22. A-B-A-C Design • Data Collection: • Each trial was coded by the pbsever as correct for compliance or incorrect for non-compliance • Subjects were seen individually • Each subject was present with 10 requests • Results: Mean percentage of compliance • Baseline: below 41% for all subjects • Time-out: between 85% • Guided Compliance: 59%

  23. A-B-A-C Design • The Design: • Allowed for the comparison of two treatments • Limitations • In some instances there was no change in compliance rates between baseline and guided compliance • The researcher believe that for some children guided compliance may have only served to maintain the non-compliance

  24. A-B-A-B-A-B Design • The Study: Effects of Two-Teacher Rates on Off-Task Behavior, Answering correctly, and Participation • Research Question: The study compared the effectiveness of slow-rate presentation and fast-rate presentation on student off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation

  25. A-B-A-B-A-B Design • Subjects: • A male and Female student • First grade • Identified by teachers as being poor readers, and off task • Setting: • Classroom setting • During daily reading instruction

  26. A-B-A-B-A-B Design • Dependent Variable • Off task behavior: disruptive behavior, leaving chair, inappropriate talking • Correct answering: • Participation: responding within 1 second of the teacher’s cue • Independent Variables • The level presentation (fast or slow) of the reading program

  27. A-B-A-B-A-B Design • The Intervention • The reading program was presented in either the slow-rate (in which there was a delay between students response and presentation of next task) or the fast-rate (presentation of tasks without delay for response)

  28. A-B-A-B-A-B Design • Data Collection: • Off task behaviors, participation, and correct responses were recorded • Results • Fast-rate presentation decreased off-task behavior and increased participation and correct responses

  29. A-B-A-B-A-B Design • The Design: • Treatment phases were repeated three times in order to establish functional relationship • The presentation prior the study was not determined, this means the baseline condition is questionable • Limitations: • Using the fast-rate presentation might lead to increased incorrect responses

More Related