etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

After training, feedback was provided to the job coaches on their performance in relation to baseline. Results indicated that increased choice provision occurred and was maintained above baseline for one-year for both job coaches. The supported workers responded to 94% of all choices. In the study by Clevenger and Graff (2005), prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments were assessed for six participants between the ages of 9 and 16 with autism and other developmental disabilities. In the first phase, picture to object and object to picture matching tests were conducted and three participants demonstrated matching skills with both tests. The remaining three participants engaged in some matching behavior, but not at a level of mastery. Paired choice preference assessments were then conducted with both the tangible item and a pictorial representation of the item. After preference hierarchies were identified, reinforcer assessments were conducted. For the three participants with matching skills, items identified with both the tangible item and pictorial preference assessments functioned as reinforcers. Only the tangible item preference assessment was successful in identifying reinforcers for the participants without matching skills, suggesting that matching (object to picture or picture to object) may be a prerequisite skill for using pictures to assess preferences. Discussion Comments on the Overall Effectiveness of Choice Interventions and Preference Assessment Methodologies As shown in Table 1, 14 of the 18 studies investigating various preference assessment methodologies and 10 of the 13 studies investigating the effects of choice on behavior reported positive results for the entire experiment. Overall, five studies reported mixed results and one reported clearly negative results. Four studies reported mixed or negative results for one experiment within the investigation. As in Cannella et al. (2005) a large number of studies reported positive results. The continued replication and extension of previous research on choice and preference assessments with positive outcomes has strengthened the literature base. The studies reviewed support the use of preference assessment methodologies as an effective means of identifying preferred stimuli for individuals with severe to profound disabilities and using preferred stimuli as a component in effective interventions. Positive outcomes for the choice interventions reviewed in the current paper—in combination with studies reviewed by Lancioni et al. (1996) and Cannella et al. (2005)—support the conclusion that choice interventions may be viewed as an evidence-based practice for individuals with severe to profound disabilities (Horner et al., 2005). Horner et al. outlined five standards that could be used to determine if an intervention or practice was evidence based: (a) the practice is described so that replication is possible, (b) outcomes and context associated with practice are defined, (c) a functional relation is demonstrated, (d) experimental control was demonstrated across a sufficient number of authors, settings, and participants, and (e) procedural integrity was documented and reported. First, the practice is described so that others may replicate the procedures. The continued expansion of literature on choice interventions in the past 14 years (cf., Cannella et al., 2005; Lancioni et al., 1996; Table 1) supports the conclusion that procedures are clearly defined. For example Cannella-Malone et al. (2009) and Son et al. (2006) replicated the investigation of preference for augmentative and alternative communication devices by Sigafoos et al. (2005). Second, context and outcomes associated with practice are defined. Although it is impossible to define all potential contexts and outcomes, the present literature base contains a number of examples that may guide future research, such as participant age and the context where treatment occurs. The participant ages for the choice interventions included in the current review ranged from 2 to 40 years of age. Training contexts included home (e.g., Harding et al., 2009), play (e.g., Hoch et al., 2002), and community settings (e.g., Carlson et al., 2008). Similarly, diverse outcomes were present in the studies in the current review, including reducing challenging behavior (e.g., Carlson et al.; Humenik et al., 2008), increasing on-task behavior (e.g., Tasky et al., Review of Choice and Preference Assessment / 587
2008), and increasing adaptive behavior (e.g., Cannella-Malone et al., 2009; Harding et al.). Third, a functional relation is demonstrated between the treatment and resulting change in the target behavior. Thirteen studies on the effects of choice interventions on behavior are present across the current review (Cannella et al., 2005; Lancioni et al., 1996) with positive results. Positive in all three reviews indicated that the provision of choice led to a change in behavior indicating a functional relation. In the current review, 12 out of 13 studies implemented a single subject experimental design that demonstrated a functional relation. Three studies implemented a multiple baseline design (Cannella-Malone et al., 2009; Carlson et al., 2008; Sigafoos et al., 2005) where experimental control is demonstrated when and only when the intervention is implemented. Four studies implemented a reversal design (Harding et al., 2005; Harding et al., 2009; Humenik et al., 2008; Tasky et al., 2008) in which experimental control is demonstrated when a behavior change is observed when and only when the intervention is implemented, and when the intervention is withdrawn, the target behavior returns to previously observed levels without treatment. Two studies implemented an alternating treatments design (Son et al., 2006; Spevack et al., 2005) and one implemented a multielement design (Reed et al., 2009). In these designs, experimental control is demonstrated when one data path increases or decreases to a greater degree than the other independent variables tested. Finally, two used multiple experimental designs (Hoch et al., 2002; Sigafoos et al., 2009) to demonstrate experimental control. Fourth, experimental control was demonstrated across a sufficient range of studies, researchers, and participants. In the current review, nine of the thirteen studies focusing on choice interventions did not have overlapping first authors. That is, the first author of a study did not appear again in the literature search as first author on another study. Of these nine studies, results were positive for eight and negative for one. The eight studies with positive results included a total of 16 individuals with various severe to profound disabilities, including traumatic brain injury (Tasky et al., 2008), autism (Carlson et al., 2008), and developmental disabilities (Sigafoos et al., 2009). Lastly, practices were not implemented with documented fidelity. Studies included in the current review did not include data on treatment integrity, limiting support for choice interventions to be considered an evidencebased practice. Although a functional relation was demonstrated in the majority of studies— indicating the treatment was responsible for the behavior change—the extent to which the treatment was implemented as it was outlined should be viewed with some caution. Horner et al. (2005) suggested a criterion of five single-subject studies with acceptable experimental control, across at least three different researchers, and at least 20 participants across the five studies. Although treatment integrity data is lacking, the four other criteria have clearly been met, suggesting that choice interventions can be considered an evidencebased practice for individuals with severe to profound disabilities as defined by Horner et al. In addition to the support for choice interventions to be considered an evidence-based practice, the findings on preference assessments also have practical implications for the assessment of preferred stimuli and the guidance of interventions to encourage more independence and involve the individual in treatment implementation. For example, Hanley et al. (2005) assessed preference for treatment components in a functional communication training (FCT) package using a concurrent chains procedure. Participants demonstrated a clear preference for the treatment package that included FCT and punishment over the package that consisted of FCT and extinction. These data indicated that treatment selection may be guided empirically while still taking the individual’s treatment preference into account. One of the most significant areas where preference assessments and choice interventions may be useful is in implementing quality services for individuals with severe to profound disabilities. Cannella et al. (2005) suggested the use of preference assessments and choice interventions as an aid to guide the IEP process and enhance person-centered planning. Current research, though still applicable to a younger student population, may also 588 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2011
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 3 and 4:
March 2012 Manuscripts Accepted for
Page 5 and 6:
new line of research, the review ho
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Overview of H
Page 9 and 10:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Overview of H
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 1. MP3 Player (Model: SM-320
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 3. Sony-Ericsson K800. Retri
Page 15 and 16:
computer with three middle school s
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 6. Video iPod. Apple, Inc. h
Page 19 and 20:
example, in contrast to previous st
Page 21 and 22:
using public transportation. Device
Page 23 and 24:
accessible software to increase ind
Page 25 and 26:
(14.3%), a unique curriculum (13.8%
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 1 Student Characteristics Stu
Page 29 and 30:
eos” was highlighted. Students th
Page 31 and 32:
ment was 100% for baseline and main
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 3. Percentage of independent
Page 35 and 36:
how to program and operate the equi
Page 37 and 38:
Individuals with Disabilities Educa
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
TABLE 1 Video Prompting Studies Con
Page 43 and 44:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Video Prompti
Page 45 and 46:
Length of video clips. Researchers
Page 47 and 48:
to learn three cooking tasks. Resul
Page 49 and 50:
Van Laarhoven and Van Laarhoven-Mye
Page 51 and 52:
Dogoe, M., & Banda, D. R. (2009). R
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
TABLE 1 Summary of Demographic and
Page 57 and 58:
TABLE 2 Summary of Outcome Variable
Page 59 and 60:
with students in preschool (Akmanog
Page 61 and 62: with MoID acquiring some of their p
Page 63 and 64: Vocational task. To date one study
Page 65 and 66: ed; thereby adding to the amount of
Page 67 and 68: Retardation and Developmental Disab
Page 69 and 70: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 71 and 72: TABLE 1 Student Demographic Informa
Page 73 and 74: Figure 1. Example of the mini-poste
Page 75 and 76: Experimental Design This study empl
Page 77 and 78: intervention sessions was 75.55% de
Page 79 and 80: help continue maximum skill profici
Page 83 and 84: at the same time, or did not respon
Page 85 and 86: Figure 1. Correct responses for Joe
Page 87 and 88: sponses for each skill. No trends w
Page 89 and 90: then be used as a template for quic
Page 91 and 92: 2007). Choice making initiates the
Page 93 and 94: making choices is clearly not in th
Page 95 and 96: epeated until stable choice pattern
Page 97 and 98: transportation, commitment) to prov
Page 99 and 100: can be made. Last, because consumer
Page 103 and 104: TABLE 1 Studies Listed According to
Page 105 and 106: TABLE 1—(Continued) Studies Liste
Page 111: (i.e., MSW) and duration-based (i.e
Page 115 and 116: port difficulty implementing the in
Page 117 and 118: of a preferred item while continuin
Page 119 and 120: Kreiner, J., & Flexer, R. (2009). A
Page 123 and 124: autism on the CARS. Regarding socia
Page 125 and 126: other effect size measures and with
Page 127 and 128: quests during baseline sessions. Du
Page 129 and 130: ulation was generally clear and he
Page 131 and 132: communication training as a treatme
Page 133 and 134: encing allergy symptoms (one partic
Page 135 and 136: Assessments Preference assessment.
Page 137 and 138: Interobserver agreement. A second o
Page 139 and 140: challenging behavior in the presess
Page 141 and 142: tion of the preferred item signaled
Page 143 and 144: ior: An analysis of the literature.
Page 145 and 146: moderate intellectual disabilities
Page 147 and 148: Effects of the STAR intervention pr
Page 149 and 150: Copeland, S. R. (2002). See citatio
Page 151 and 152: 126. Ezell, D., & Klein, C. (2003).
Page 153 and 154: computer-based instruction program.
Page 155 and 156: sight words to students with mental
Page 157 and 158: Mastropieri, M. A. (2009). See cita
Page 159 and 160: 262. Noyes, D. A., & Sax, C. L. (20
Page 161 and 162: Rispoli, M. (2009). See citation #1
Page 163 and 164:
Sparks, S. (2010). See citation #87
Page 165 and 166:
Vlaskamp, C. (2008). See citation #
Page 167 and 168:
INDEX—VOLUME 46,
Page 169 and 170:
Runes, Sandra. See Hausmann-Stabile
Page 171 and 172:
Review of video prompting studies w
Page 173 and 174:
Look! I'm in College! DVD Look, I
Page 175 and 176:
13th International Conference on Au
show all

etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?