etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 2—(Continued) Summary of Outcome Variables Authors Design Results Maintenance Generalization Social Validity Preschool Waugh et al. (2009) Changing Criterion All 3 students met Measured during the Across materials Teacher Interview criterion through study due to Blending Set 2, one summer break; not student met criterion measured followed through Blending Set 5 mastery of all phases and one student met of instruction criterion through Blending Set 3 Middle School Alberto et al (2010) Changing Criterion All students met criterion Not measured Across materials Teacher embedded in a Questionnaire Multiple Baseline across groups Gursel et al. (2006) Multiple Probe All students met criterion 2 and 6 weeks Across people and Not reported following materials demonstration of mastery Rao & Kane (2009) Multiple Probe Both students met 10 days following Across settings, materials, Not reported criterion demonstration of and professionals mastery Rao & Mallow (2009) Multiple Probe Both students met 1 and 3 weeks Across format, setting, Not reported criterion following and personnel demonstration of mastery Riesen et al. (2003) Adapted Alternating 3 students reached Not reported Not reported Not reported Treatments criterion under both conditions, 1 student reached criterion under simultaneous prompting condition only Tekin-Iftar (2003) Multiple Probe All met criterion 1 week following Across people Not reported demonstration of mastery Tekin-Iftar, Acar, & Kurt Multiple Probe All met criterion 1, 2, and 4 weeks Not reported Not reported (2003) following demonstration of mastery Simultaneous Prompting / 533
with students in preschool (Akmanogu- Uludag & Batu, 2005; Colozzi, Ward, & Crotty, 2008; Dogan & Tekin-Iftar, 2002; Gibson & Schuster, 1992; MacFarland-Smith, Schuster, & Stevens, 1993; Reichow & Wolery, 2009; Sewell, Collins, Hemmeter, & Schuster, 1998), middle school (Alberto, Waugh, & Fredrick, 2010; Fickel, Schuster, & Collins, 1998; Gursel, Tekin-Iftar, & Bozkurt, 2006; Rao & Kane, 2009; Rao & Mallow, 2009; Riesen, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Jameson, 2003; Tekin-Iftar, 2003; Tekin-Iftar, Acar, & Kurt, 2003), and high school (Fetko, Schuster, Harley, & Collins, 1999; Johnson, Schuster, & Bell, 1996; Parker & Schuster, 2002; Singleton, Schuster, Morse, & Collins, 1999), and with adults (Maciag, Schuster, Collins, & Cooper, 2000; Palmer, Collins, & Schuster, 1999). The procedure has been employed in 19 studies with a total of 51 participants with moderate intellectual disabilities (MoID) (Alberto et al., 2010; Batu, 2008; Birkan, 2005; Dogan & Tekin-Iftar, 2002; Fickel et al., 1998; Griffen et al., 1998; Gursel et al., 2006; Maciag, et al., 2000; Parker & Schuster, 2002; Parrott, et al., 2000; Rao & Mallow, 2009; Riesen et al., 2003; Schuster & Griffen, 1993; Schuster et al., 1992; Singleton et al., 1995; Singleton et al., 1999; Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar, 2002; Tekin-Iftar, 2008; Waugh et al., 2009). The procedure also has been employed in 13 studies with a total of 23 participants with mild intellectual disabilities (MID) (Birkan, 2005; Dogan & Tekin-Iftar, 2002; Fickel et al., 1998; Gursel et al., 2006; Johnson et al., 1996; Palmer et al.,1999; Parker & Schuster, 2002; Rao & Kane, 2009; Rao & Mallow, 2009; Riesen et al., 2003; Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar, 2002; Tekin-Iftar, 2003; Tekin- Iftar et al., 2003), 7 studies with a total of 18 participants with autism (Akmanoglu & Batu, 2004; Akmanoglu-Uludag & Batu, 2005; Colozzi et al., 2008; Kurt & Tekin-Iftar, 2008; Parrott et al., 2000; Riesen et al., 2003; Tekin- Iftar, 2008), 5 studies with a total of 10 participants with typical development (Fickel et al., 1998; Gibson & Schuster, 1992; Parker & Schuster, 2002; Reichow & Wolery, 2009; Tekin-Iftar et al., 2003), 4 studies with a total of 11 participants with severe intellectual disabilities (SID) (Colozzi et al., 2008; Fetko et al.,1999; Maciag et al., 2000; Parrott et al., 2000), 4 studies with 12 participants with developmental delays (Gibson & Schuster, 1992; MacFarland-Smith et al., 1992; Sewell et al., 1998; Wolery et al., 1993), one study with a total of three participants with learning disabilities (Johnson et al., 1996), one study with a participant with spina bifida (Gibson & Schuster, 1992), one study with a participant classified as a slow learner (Tekin-Iftar, 2003), and one study which included a student with a speech-language impairment, a student who was classified as an English Language Learner, and a student identified as at-risk for school failure (Reichow & Wolery, 2009). In the same way that simultaneous prompting has been employed with a variety of participants, a variety of individuals have implemented the procedure. While this procedure predominately has been implemented by classroom teachers (Griffen et al., 1998; Gursel et al., 2008; Waugh et al., 2009), it also has been implemented by paraprofessionals (Colozzi et al., 2008; Riesen et al., 2003), parents (Tekin-Iftar, 2008), caregivers (Batu, 2008), sibling tutors (Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar, 2002), and peer tutors (Tekin-Iftar, 2003). Simultaneous prompting is executed with a high level of procedural fidelity, ranging from 84100% across all implementers. Instructional Grouping The majority of studies which have employed simultaneous prompting have used individual instructional formats (Akmanoglu & Batu, 2004; Akamanoglu-Uludag & Batu, 2005; Batu, 2008; Birkan, 2005; Dogan & Tekin- Iftar, 2002; Fetko et al., 1999; Gibson & Schuster, 1992; Griffen et al., 1998; Parrott et al., 2000; Rao & Kane, 2009; Rao & Mallow, 2009; Reichow et al., 2009; Riesen et al., 2003; Schuster et al., 1992; Singleton et al., 1999; Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar, 2002; Tekin & Iftar, 2003; Tekin- Iftar et al, 2003; Tekin-Iftar et al, 2008). Six studies have implemented the instructional strategy in a group format, ranging from a 2:1 format to an 11:1 format. Singleton et al. (1995) were the first to examine simultaneous prompting in a group format using dyads. The researchers found that simultaneous prompting could be implemented effectively in dyads to teach basic discrete identification of community signs to students with MoID. Maciag et al. (2000) further examined the use of simultaneous prompting in teaching a chained vo- 534 / 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: Education and Training in Autism an
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 55 and 56: TABLE 1 Summary of Demographic and
Page 57: TABLE 2 Summary of Outcome Variable
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 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 107 and 108: TABLE 1—(Continued) Studies Liste
Page 109 and 110:
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 121 and 122:
Education and Training in Autism an
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?