Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 1. Percentage of trials that <strong>the</strong> most preferred leisure activity was chosen during object (O), pictorial (P), video (V), and spoken (S) presentation phases for each participant. Participants at Level 3 passed only <strong>the</strong> visual discrimination, participants at Level 4 passed both visual and visual matchingto-sample discriminations, and participants at Level 6 passed visual, visual matching-to-sample, and auditory-visual discriminations. Results of Participants 4 and 5, who passed both visual and visual matching-to-sample discrimination assessments, but failed <strong>the</strong> auditory-visual discrimination assessment on <strong>the</strong> ABLA Test, are shown in <strong>the</strong> second row of 394 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008 Figure 1. During object presentation phases, <strong>the</strong> two participants selected <strong>the</strong>ir most preferred leisure activity on an average of 80% across phases (range 75% to 100%). During <strong>the</strong> pictorial presentation phases, <strong>the</strong> average
was 68% (range 42% to 83%). In <strong>the</strong> video presentation phases, <strong>the</strong> average was 62% (range 33% to 83%). Lastly, in <strong>the</strong> spoken phases, <strong>the</strong> average was 50% (range 42% to 58%). Participants 6 and 7 passed <strong>the</strong> visual, visual matching-to-sample, and auditory-visual discrimination assessments on <strong>the</strong> ABLA Test. They selected <strong>the</strong>ir preferred activity on all trials (100%) during object, pictorial, and video phases, and on an average of 85% of <strong>the</strong> spoken phase trials (range 83% to 92%). Discussion Concerning <strong>the</strong> object, pictorial, and spoken modalities, <strong>the</strong> results replicate <strong>the</strong> findings of previous research except for <strong>the</strong> pictorial modality with Participant 5. First, we anticipated that Level 3 participants would select <strong>the</strong>ir preferred activity more frequently during object phases, but at approximately chance level during pictorial and spoken phases. This was confirmed. Second, we anticipated that Level 4 participants would select <strong>the</strong>ir preferred activity more frequently during object and pictorial phases, but at approximately chance level during spoken phases. This was confirmed except for <strong>the</strong> pictorial modality with Participant 5. His preference toward <strong>the</strong> preferred leisure activity was inconsistent during pictorial phases. He selected his preferred activity on an average of 63% across phases. Participant 5 did not select his preferred activity during object phases as frequently as o<strong>the</strong>r participants (i.e., on an average of 75% across phases vs. on an average of 96% across phases for o<strong>the</strong>r participants). This suggests that <strong>the</strong> activity was not as strongly preferred and this may have contributed to <strong>the</strong> mixed results. Overall, Participant 4 selected her preferred leisure activity during pictorial phases more frequently even though her preference toward <strong>the</strong> preferred activity was inconsistent across phases and <strong>the</strong> effect is small (i.e., on an average of 75% across phases). Third, we anticipated that <strong>the</strong> Level 6 participants would select <strong>the</strong>ir preferred activity more frequently during all three stimulus modalities. This was confirmed in all modalities. Except for Participant 5’s performance in <strong>the</strong> pictorial modality, <strong>the</strong>se results are consistent with previous findings (e.g., Conyers et al., 2002; de Vries et al., 2005). The present study extends previous research by examining <strong>the</strong> use of video presentations in preference assessments with persons with severe and profound developmental disabilities. During video presentations, all participants at Level 3 did not show a preference for <strong>the</strong>ir preferred over <strong>the</strong> less preferred activities, while both participants at Level 6 chose <strong>the</strong>ir preferred activities consistently. The two participants at Level 4 showed mixed results, with Participant 4 choosing her preferred activity more frequently than <strong>the</strong> less preferred activity even though her performance was inconsistent across phases, whereas Participant 5 did not. Given <strong>the</strong> small number of participants, <strong>the</strong>se results should be interpreted cautiously. Fur<strong>the</strong>r research with additional participants, especially at Level 4, is needed. However, if <strong>the</strong> present results are generalizable, it suggests that quasi-identity matching performance involving 3-dimensional objects (<strong>the</strong> ABLA Level 4 discrimination) may not predict a person’s ability to consistently select his/her preferred activity using video presentation. Research is needed to examine <strong>the</strong> relative importance of <strong>the</strong> visual and auditory components of video presentations. In this study, <strong>the</strong> video clips were presented without sound because we speculated that sounds associated with <strong>the</strong> two videos presented concurrently might have been confusing to <strong>the</strong> participants, especially those who had not passed <strong>the</strong> auditory-visual discrimination (Level 6) on <strong>the</strong> ABLA Test. However, sounds and visual stimuli associated with different activities usually occur as a compound stimulus in <strong>the</strong> natural environment and one is often exposed to multiple stimuli simultaneously. For <strong>the</strong> Level 4 participants, who had failed to perform <strong>the</strong> ABLA Level 6 auditory-visual discrimination, it is quite possible that <strong>the</strong>y may be able to discriminate some non-speech sounds. Therefore, distinctive sounds accompanying different activities might facilitate video discriminations even for participants who have not demonstrated <strong>the</strong> ABLA Level 6 discrimination. Alternatives to concurrent presentations of videos with sound, such as successive presentations, may help to reduce potential interference. Discrimination Skills / 395
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Developme
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Self-Determination in Relation to H
Page 9 and 10:
ticipants (a) believed the<
Page 11 and 12:
Field notes were used to document <
Page 13 and 14:
ling information, medical history a
Page 15 and 16:
Home. Jack lived with his mo<strong
Page 17 and 18:
we felt strongly that we needed inf
Page 19 and 20:
literature, mostly to do with <stro
Page 21 and 22:
tion? The national consumer survey.
Page 23 and 24:
Figure 1. Proposed intersection of
Page 25 and 26:
teaching in each program for five y
Page 27 and 28:
also used to support and challenge
Page 29 and 30:
Despite Paula’s description of an
Page 31 and 32:
The paraprofessionals at Harborvill
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 2. Resultant intersection of
Page 35 and 36:
learning opportunities relevant to
Page 37 and 38:
Bouck, E. C. (2005). Service delive
Page 39 and 40:
Thirty Year Review of Safety Skill
Page 41 and 42:
TABLE 1 Safety Skill Studies Refere
Page 43 and 44:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Reference Par
Page 45 and 46:
found differences only in efficienc
Page 47 and 48:
skill for integrating persons with
Page 49 and 50:
treatment of a burn) may take sever
Page 51 and 52:
created video programs to teach stu
Page 53 and 54:
and on-schedule behavior and decrea
Page 55 and 56:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Author(s) Mor
Page 57 and 58:
trums, aggression) in a four-year-o
Page 59 and 60:
(Quill, 1995). Furthe</stro
Page 61 and 62:
following picture prompt training.
Page 63 and 64:
medication, for example anticonvuls
Page 65 and 66:
TABLE 1 Number of Facilities That U
Page 67 and 68:
Snoezelen on a variety of behaviors
Page 69 and 70:
Kapell, D., Nightingale, B., Rodrig
Page 71 and 72: ity being on the c
Page 73 and 74: communication turns (i.e., initiati
Page 75 and 76: Definitions of Target Behaviors and
Page 77 and 78: student gave the p
Page 79 and 80: Figure 2. Bob’s performance data.
Page 81 and 82: contact increased 41% from baseline
Page 83 and 84: Figure 5. Eric’s performance data
Page 85 and 86: Figure 6. Jen’s performance data.
Page 87 and 88: to students with severe disabilitie
Page 89 and 90: The use of arm splints has been suc
Page 91 and 92: Figure 1. Intervention results for
Page 93 and 94: sions, he engaged in hand mouthing
Page 95 and 96: Effects of a Reciprocal Questioning
Page 97 and 98: 4-45). Because the
Page 99 and 100: TABLE 2 Codes of Student Question G
Page 101 and 102: TABLE 3 Examples of Elements of a S
Page 103 and 104: Figure 2. Self-monitoring checklist
Page 105 and 106: TABLE 4 Example Question Words, Thi
Page 107 and 108: Figure 4. Frequency of prompted and
Page 109 and 110: Figure 5. Frequency of unprompted s
Page 111 and 112: their children to
Page 113 and 114: and lack of random selection makes
Page 115 and 116: prehension-monitoring activities. C
Page 117 and 118: all three participants who passed b
Page 119 and 120: TABLE 2 Leisure Activities Used in
Page 121: papers were removed and the
Page 125 and 126: Teaching Test-taking Strategies to
Page 127 and 128: ing experiences beginning at <stron
Page 129 and 130: short essay question. Items were ei
Page 131 and 132: plication of the t
Page 133 and 134: Figure 2. Percent correct on <stron
Page 135 and 136: aseline probes, data were highly va
show all

Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?