etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 1. Josiah: Percentage of trials during which he requested following a verbal model, requested independently, and used word approximations. for set 1, Josiah independently requested the items during 60% of the trials. At follow-up, Josiah independently requested items during 40% of the trials. For set 2, Josiah infrequently requested independently (mean 10%, range 0–20% of the trials) during baseline sessions. During intervention, Josiah began independently requesting the items at a higher rate (mean 73%, range 40–100% of the trials). During generalization for set 2, Josiah independently requested the items during 60% of the trials. At follow-up, Josiah independently requested items during 60% of the trials. For set 3, Josiah never independently named the items during baseline sessions. During intervention, Josiah gradually began independently requesting the items at a higher rate (mean 57%, range 0–100% of the trials). During generalization for set 3, Josiah independently requested the items during 100% of the trials. At follow-up, Josiah independently requested items during 80% of the trials. Overall IRD for Josiah’s independent (i.e., not following a verbal model) requesting was 0.73, 90% CI [0.47, 0.86], p .000. This suggests moderate to large effects for this participant and this dependent variable. Word approximations. For set 1, Josiah never used word approximations to make re- Multi-Component Communication Intervention / 601
quests during baseline sessions. During intervention, Josiah used word approximations at a low rate (mean 6%, range 0–40% of the trials). During generalization for set 1, Josiah used word approximations during 40% of the trials. At follow-up, Josiah used word approximations during 20% of the trials. For set 2, Josiah infrequently used word approximations (mean 5%, range 0–20% of the trials) during baseline sessions. During intervention, Josiah infrequently used word approximations (mean 13%, range 0–40% of the trials). During generalization for set 2, Josiah used word approximations during 40% of the trials. At follow-up, Josiah used word approximations during 20% of the trials. For set 3, Josiah never used word approximations during baseline sessions. During intervention, Josiah used word approximations during only one session (mean 3%, range 0–20% of the trials). During generalization for set 3, Josiah did not use word approximations. At follow-up, Josiah used word approximations during 20% of the trials. Visual analysis clearly demonstrates that the intervention was far more effective for independent requests for Josiah, thus, IRD was not calculated for word approximations. Ari Figure 2 presents Ari’s correct requests with a verbal model, those that were correctly requested independently, and his use of word approximations to make requests. Requested following a verbal model. There were no opportunities for Ari to request following a verbal model during baseline. For set 1, during intervention, Ari began requesting following a verbal model at a low rate (mean 11%, range 0–20% of the trials). During generalization and follow-up for set 1, Ari did not request following a verbal model during any of the trials. For set 2, during intervention, Ari correctly requested the items during only one session (mean 8%, range 0–40% of the trials). During generalization and follow-up for set 2, Ari did not request following a verbal model during any of the trials. During intervention for set 3, Ari infrequently requested following a verbal model (mean 4%, range 0–20% of the trials). During generalization and follow-up for set 3, Ari did not request following a verbal model. Requested independently. For set 1, Ari never correctly and independently named the items he was requesting during baseline sessions. During intervention, Ari correctly and independently requested the items at low rates (mean 14%, range 0–60% of the trials). During generalization and follow-up for set 1, Ari never correctly and independently requested the items. For set 2, Ari did not correctly and independently name the items he was requesting during any baseline sessions. During intervention, Ari correctly and independently requested the items during only one session (mean 8%, range 0–80% of the trials). During generalization and follow-up for set 2, Ari did not correctly and independently request the items during any of the trials. For set 3, Ari infrequently correctly and independently named the items (mean 6%, range 0–20% of the trials) during baseline sessions. During intervention, Ari correctly and independently requested the items at a low rate (mean 28%, range 0–80% of the trials). During generalization for set 3, Ari correctly and independently requested the items during 20% of the trials. At follow-up, Ari did not correctly and independently request items during any of the trials. Visual analysis clearly illustrates that the intervention had a greater impact on word approximations for Ari, thus, IRD was not calculated for independent requests. Word approximations. For set 1, Ari never used word approximations to make requests during baseline sessions. During intervention, Ari used word approximations at a high rate (mean 69%, range 20–100% of the trials). During generalization and follow-up for set 1, Ari used word approximations during 100% of the trials. For set 2, Ari never used word approximations during baseline sessions. During intervention, Ari frequently used word approximations (mean 84%, range 20–100% of the trials). During generalization and follow-up for set 2, Ari used word approximations during 100% of the trials. For set 3, Ari used some word approximations (mean 20%, range 0–60% of the trials) during baseline sessions, using more near the end of baseline data collection. During intervention, Ari used word approximations frequently (mean 72%, range 20– 100% of the trials). During generalization and 602 / 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:
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 81 and 82: Education and Training in Autism an
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 and 112: (i.e., MSW) and duration-based (i.e
Page 113 and 114: 2008), and increasing adaptive beha
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: other effect size measures and with
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?