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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

decreased to 15%. In <strong>the</strong> generalization condition, Eric asked appropriate partner-focused questions at a mean rate of 44% of opportunities. This represented a mean increase of 4% from <strong>the</strong> baseline condition through <strong>the</strong> generalization condition. Eric’s Performance Data Related to Eye Contact and Tone of Voice Eric demonstrated a total mean increase of 17% occurred from baseline condition (A) to generalization condition (A') for mean use of appropriate eye contact with opportunities for taking obligatory turns. With opportunities for taking nonobligatory turns, Eric’s use of appropriate eye contact increased a total mean 11% across <strong>the</strong> three study conditions. As seen in Figure 5, a total 24% mean increase in Eric’s use of appropriate eye contact occurred from Condition A through Condition A' with opportunities for asking partner-focused questions. Figure 5 also shows a total mean 17% increase in Eric’s use of appropriate tone of voice with opportunities for taking obligatory turns from <strong>the</strong> baseline condition through <strong>the</strong> generalization condition. Eric increased his use of appropriate tone of voice by 12% across <strong>the</strong> three study conditions with opportunities for taking nonobligatory turns. A total mean increase of 20% for Eric’s use of appropriate tone of voice was noted with opportunities for asking partner-focused questions from baseline through generalization conditions. Jen’s Performance Data Related to Primary Target Behavior As indicated in Figure 6, Jen took appropriate obligatory turns at a mean appropriately 64% during <strong>the</strong> baseline condition (A). During <strong>the</strong> intervention condition (B), her mean rate of obligatory turn-taking increased to 80%. During generalization probes, Jen appropriately took obligatory turns during 99% of opportunities provided. Results indicate an accelerating trend in Jen’s appropriate responses when given opportunities for taking obligatory turns. Baseline data for Jen’s nonobligatory turntaking revealed a mean usage of 76%. During <strong>the</strong> intervention condition, her mean appropriate use of nonobligatory turns was measured at 95% of opportunities. Generalization data showed a slight decrease in nonobligatory turn usage, with a mean of 93% appropriate responding during <strong>the</strong> A' condition. Baseline data for Jen’s use of partner-focused questions revealed a mean of 34% of opportunities. A mean of 30% was recorded during <strong>the</strong> intervention condition for her use of partner-focused questions. Evaluation of generalization of use of partner-focused questions found a decrease in Jen’s use of appropriate partner-focused questions. A mean appropriate use of 12% was recorded in <strong>the</strong> generalization condition. Jen’s Performance Data Related to Eye Contact and Tone of Voice Jen demonstrated a mean 54% increase from baseline (A) to generalization (A') for use of appropriate eye contact during opportunities for taking obligatory turns. A 35% mean increase of appropriate eye contact occurred across all conditions during opportunities for making nonobligatory turns. With opportunities for asking partner-focused questions, Jen increased appropriate eye contact by 48% from baseline through generalization conditions. Jen increased her use of appropriate tone of voice by a mean 30% from baseline through generalization conditions with opportunities for taking obligatory turns. She showed a 25% mean increase in her use of appropriate tone of voice across all conditions with opportunities for taking nonobligatory turns. Data also revealed a mean 21% increase in Jen’s use of appropriate tone of voice from baseline through generalization conditions. Reliability Data 356 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008 Performance reliability data were collected during approximately 20% of all sessions across all conditions. Trained graduate students who were not involved in <strong>the</strong> investigation previously collected interrater data. Overall interobserver agreement for participant performance data ranged from 94-100% (M 95.1). Performance reliability data for Eric were collected during five out of 22 (22.7%) ses-
Figure 6. Jen’s performance data. Social-Pragmatic Language Skills Instruction / 357
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: Figure 5. Eric’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 and 124: was 68% (range 42% to 83%). In <str
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?