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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Research on video presentation in preference assessment has been limited for persons with severe developmental disabilities, and <strong>the</strong> relationship between discrimination skills and <strong>the</strong> effectiveness of <strong>the</strong> video presentation in preference assessments has been unexplored. The potential of video presentation appears to lie in its ability to present complex activities more accurately (Ellerd et al., 2002; Stock et al., 2003). It is possible that individuals with severe developmental disabilities who have difficulties responding to pictorial and spoken stimuli in preference assessments could respond to or learn to respond to video presentations more readily. Thus, future research is much needed to examine <strong>the</strong> conditions under which video presentation will be most effective (relative to o<strong>the</strong>r modalities) and to develop effective procedures to teach individuals to indicate <strong>the</strong>ir preferences by responding to video presentations. References Clevenger, T. M., & Graff, R. B. (2005). Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments. <strong>Journal</strong> of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 543–547. Conyers, C., Doole, A., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Yu, C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting <strong>the</strong> relative efficiency of <strong>the</strong> three presentation methods for assessing performances of persons with developmental disabilities. <strong>Journal</strong> of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 49–58. de Vries, C., Yu, C. T., Sakko, G., Wirth, K. M., Walters, K. L., Marion, C., et al. (2005). Predicting <strong>the</strong> relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities. American <strong>Journal</strong> on Mental Retardation, 110, 145–154. Ellerd, D. A., Morgan, R. L., & Salzberg, C. L. (2002). Comparison of two approaches for identifying job preferences among persons with disabilities using video CD-ROM. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 300–309. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. <strong>Journal</strong> of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., White, L. K., Halford, R. C., Brittain, D. P., & Gardner, S. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. <strong>Journal</strong> of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31–43. Hughes, C., Hwang, B., Kim, J. H., Eisenman, L. T., & Killian, D. J. (1995). Quality of life in applied research: A review and analysis of empirical measures. American <strong>Journal</strong> on Mental Retardation, 99, 623–641. Kerr, N., Meyerson, L., & Flora, J. (1977). The measurement of motor, visual and auditory discrimination skills. Rehabilitation Psychology, 24, 156–170. Logan, K. R., Jacobs, H. A., Gast, D. L., Smith, P. D., Daniel, J., & Rawls, J. (2001). Preferences and reinforcers for students with profound multiple disabilities: Can we identify <strong>the</strong>m? <strong>Journal</strong> of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 13, 97–122. Martin, G. L., & Pear, J. (2007). Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Martin, G. L., & Yu, D. C. T. (2000). Overview of research on <strong>the</strong> Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities Test. <strong>Journal</strong> on Developmental Disabilities, 7, 10–36. Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. <strong>Journal</strong> of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255. Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. T. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. <strong>Journal</strong> of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 1–9. Reyer, H. S., & Sturmey, P. (2006). The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) Test predicts <strong>the</strong> relative efficacy of task preferences for persons with developmental disabilities. <strong>Journal</strong> of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 404–409. Schwartzman, L., Yu, C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2003). Choice responding as a function of choice presentation method and level of preference in persons with developmental disabilities. International <strong>Journal</strong> of Disability, Community, and Rehabilitation, 1(3), Article 3. Retrieved March 15, 2003, from http://www.ijdcr.ca/ VOL01_03_CAN/ articles/ schwartzman.shtml Stock, S. E., Davies, D. K., Secor, R. R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Self-directed career preference selection for individuals with intellectual disabilities: Using computer technology to enhance selfdetermination. <strong>Journal</strong> of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19, 95–103. Received: 15 November 2006 Initial Acceptance: 2 February 2007 Final Acceptance: 14 May 2007 396 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008
Teaching Test-taking Strategies to Improve <strong>the</strong> Academic Achievement of Students with Mild Mental Disabilities Allison G. Kretlow, Ya-yu Lo, Richard B. White, and LuAnn Jordan University of North Carolina at Charlotte Abstract: This study examined <strong>the</strong> effects of teaching a test-taking strategy to 4 fourth- and fifth-grade students with mild mental disabilities on reading and math achievement. The intervention consisted of a direct and explicit instructional method using a mnemonic strategy. The participants’ acquisition and application of <strong>the</strong> test-taking strategy on reading and math probes were evaluated using a multiple probe across participants design. All participants demonstrated <strong>the</strong> ability to apply <strong>the</strong> strategy on probes during <strong>the</strong> intervention, 2-week maintenance, and generalization conditions. Significant gains in achievement were observed for all participants. Implications of teaching test-taking strategies to students with mild to moderate mental disabilities were discussed. As achievement accountability measures continue to increase in <strong>the</strong> public education system, so do <strong>the</strong> expectations for students with disabilities. Current legislation enforces <strong>the</strong> need for students with disabilities to have access to <strong>the</strong> general education curriculum, and in turn for states to assess those students through standardized achievement measures. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 requires that all students in grades three through eight take state-wide achievement tests in reading and math (Goertz & Duffy, 2003). The NCLB Act in combination with <strong>the</strong> amendments to <strong>the</strong> Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004), which states that all students must be included in state and district assessments, present challenges of test-taking to students with disabilities (Washburn-Moses, 2003). The performance of students with disabilities on standardized achievement tests is at least, in part, responsible for states attaining what <strong>the</strong> federal government outlined in <strong>the</strong> NCLB Act as Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP). To meet AYP, schools must attain goals related to achievement for certain targeted groups of students, including students with Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Allison G. Kretlow, 11027 Heritage Green Drive, Cornelius, NC 28031. Email: awgraves@uncc.edu Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2008, 43(3), 397–408 © <strong>Division</strong> on Developmental Disabilities disabilities. As a result, performance on standardized achievement tests has high stakes for students with disabilities. Additionally, school districts may use test scores of students with disabilities to decide placement, grade level promotion, or to determine whe<strong>the</strong>r or not a student graduates (Heubert & Hauser, 1999). By <strong>the</strong> nature of <strong>the</strong>ir disabilities, many students in special education programs have difficulty demonstrating knowledge through standardized achievement tests. Specifically, students with disabilities have difficulty with cognitive and metacognitive task demands. They often need help to approach a learning activity (such as test taking), and require systematic methods of training to acquire thinking skills (Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine, 2005). Students with disabilities also often have difficulty organizing information and responding to complex questions. For example, a student with a learning disability may have content knowledge (e.g., in math or science), but have difficulty demonstrating <strong>the</strong> knowledge in a standardized format. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, students’ lack of test taking skills may appear as academic deficiencies (Scruggs & Marsing, 1988). In many states, students with learning disabilities (LD) and emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD) have long been participating in standardized achievement tests with or without modifications and accommodations. Teaching Test-taking Strategies / 397
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 and 122: papers were removed and the
Page 123: was 68% (range 42% to 83%). In <str
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?