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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

During 0-s sessions, <strong>the</strong> prompter gave an attentional cue, stated a task request (e.g., “Make ______”), immediately provided <strong>the</strong> controlling prompt (i.e., a verbal/model prompt of <strong>the</strong> step to be completed), and waited 5 s for a student response. If a student initiated a response, <strong>the</strong> prompter allowed <strong>the</strong> student 20 s to complete <strong>the</strong> step. After <strong>the</strong> prompter provided consequences for each step <strong>the</strong> tutor waited 5 s for <strong>the</strong> student to initiate <strong>the</strong> next step in <strong>the</strong> task analysis. During 5-s sessions, <strong>the</strong> prompter gave an attentional cue, stated a task request (e.g., “Make <strong>the</strong> ______”), and waited 5 s for a student response. If no response occurred after 5 s, <strong>the</strong> prompter provided <strong>the</strong> controlling prompt and waited 5 s for <strong>the</strong> student to imitate <strong>the</strong> prompt. If <strong>the</strong> student initiated a response within 5 s, <strong>the</strong> prompter allowed <strong>the</strong> student 20 s to complete <strong>the</strong> response. After <strong>the</strong> prompter provided <strong>the</strong> consequences, <strong>the</strong> tutor waited 5 s for <strong>the</strong> student to initiate <strong>the</strong> next step in <strong>the</strong> task analysis. The data collector recorded five possible responses during training sessions. The data collector recorded a correct response before <strong>the</strong> prompt (i.e., correct anticipation) when a student initiated a response before <strong>the</strong> controlling prompt and completed <strong>the</strong> step within 20 s. All correct anticipations resulted in specific verbal praise. The data collector recorded an incorrect response before <strong>the</strong> prompt (i.e., non-wait error) when a student initiated a response before <strong>the</strong> prompt but completed <strong>the</strong> step (a) out of sequence (sequence error), (b) incorrectly (topographical error), or (c) with too long of a duration (duration error). These errors resulted in <strong>the</strong> prompter interrupting <strong>the</strong> student, reminding <strong>the</strong> student to wait, and delivering <strong>the</strong> controlling prompt. When a student initiated a response within 5 s after <strong>the</strong> delivery of <strong>the</strong> controlling prompt and completed <strong>the</strong> step within 20 s, <strong>the</strong> data collector recorded a correct after <strong>the</strong> prompt (i.e., correct wait). These responses resulted in <strong>the</strong> trainer delivering verbal praise. The data collector recorded an incorrect after <strong>the</strong> prompt (i.e., wait error) when a student initiated a response within 5sof<strong>the</strong>prompter delivering <strong>the</strong> controlling prompt and completed <strong>the</strong> step (a) out of sequence (sequence error), (b) incorrectly (topographical error), or (c) with too long of a duration (duration error). When <strong>the</strong>se errors occurred, <strong>the</strong> prompter redelivered <strong>the</strong> controlling prompt and waited for a student response. If <strong>the</strong> student still did not complete a correct response, <strong>the</strong> prompter notified <strong>the</strong> teacher. When a student did not initiate a response within5sof<strong>the</strong>controlling prompt <strong>the</strong> data collector recorded a no response, and <strong>the</strong> prompter delivered an additional attentional cue and prompt while completing <strong>the</strong> step for <strong>the</strong> student. At <strong>the</strong> end of each session, <strong>the</strong> student ate <strong>the</strong> prepared food. Training sessions continued until each student reached three sessions at 100% correct anticipations. Maintenance After criterion was reached on each task, <strong>the</strong> teacher conducted maintenance sessions at least once every 15 sessions until all students reached criterion on all cooking tasks. The trainer conducted <strong>the</strong>se sessions like 5-s delay sessions. Experimental Design We used a multiple probe across subjects and behaviors design to demonstrate experimental control. Experimental control was demonstrated when a change occurred in <strong>the</strong> dependent variable when, and only when, <strong>the</strong> independent variable was applied and this change occurred across tiers in a time-lagged manner. Reliability 116 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2008 Peer tutor training. A general education teacher collected procedural reliability data on <strong>the</strong> teacher’s implementation of <strong>the</strong> peer tutor training procedure during 100% of <strong>the</strong> training sessions. The teacher calculated <strong>the</strong>se data by dividing <strong>the</strong> number of trainer behaviors observed by <strong>the</strong> number of trainer behavior planned and multiplying by 100 (Billingsley, White, & Munson, 1980). Some of <strong>the</strong> trainer behaviors measured included providing definitions and examples of key terms, passing out materials, demonstrating <strong>the</strong> constant time delay procedure, having students role play, providing written examinations, and providing feedback.
Skill training. The teacher and one peer tutor collected both dependent and independent variable reliability data. They collected <strong>the</strong>se data during 25% of all baseline sessions and 26% of all intervention sessions. The point-by-point method was used to calculate dependent variable reliability data (i.e., dividing <strong>the</strong> number of agreements by <strong>the</strong> number of agreements and disagreements and multiplying by 100). Procedural reliability data (i.e., independent variable reliability data) were calculated according to formula cited by Billingsley et al., 1980. Some of <strong>the</strong> behaviors measured, when appropriate, included delivering <strong>the</strong> attentional cue, stating <strong>the</strong> task request, waiting <strong>the</strong> appropriate delay interval, providing <strong>the</strong> controlling prompt, waiting <strong>the</strong> response interval, and providing correct consequences. Results Reliability Data Reliability data of <strong>the</strong> instructor training, modeling and triadic role-play procedure for training <strong>the</strong> peers tutors indicated 100% accuracy during both peer tutoring training sessions. During baseline sessions, student response reliability data (i.e., dependent variable) resulted in a 100% agreement. During intervention sessions when student data collectors recorded student responses, student response reliability resulted in a mean agreement of 98% (range 94-100%). During baseline sessions conducted by <strong>the</strong> teacher, procedural reliability data resulted in an overall mean accuracy of 99.5% (range 98-100%) in following <strong>the</strong> required intervention behaviors. Procedural reliability data during intervention sessions indicated that <strong>the</strong> prompters followed <strong>the</strong> planned behaviors with an overall mean accuracy of 93.1% (range 84-99%). Student Acquisition Data Student acquisition data are displayed in Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2. Data are graphed using separate symbols to represent total task steps (<strong>the</strong> steps of turning <strong>the</strong> page between each picture card are included) with open TABLE 1 Number of Sessions Through Criterion Student Skill squares and critical steps (turning page steps omitted) by open triangles. All students achieved criterion on all tasks. Overall, students required a total of 69 instructional sessions to reach criterion on all tasks. Individual students required between 6 and 12 sessions per task to reach criterion (an average of 8.6 sessions). Across all tasks, students committed a total of 40 errors through criterion. Individually, students committed between 3 and 11 errors per task for an overall error percentage of 1.04%. Error percentage was calculated by dividing <strong>the</strong> number of errors committed by <strong>the</strong> product of <strong>the</strong> total number of intervention sessions per skill by <strong>the</strong> total number of steps in each task analysis each student performed (Schuster et al., 1988). Of <strong>the</strong> 40 total errors, 39 (97.5%) were non-wait errors (i.e., errors before <strong>the</strong> prompt). The remaining error was a wait error (i.e., an error after <strong>the</strong> prompt) committed by Jake when acquiring <strong>the</strong> grilled cheese task. Student Maintenance Data Number of Sessions Through Criterion Jake Milkshake 9 Grilled Cheese 7 Louis Milkshake 12 Grilled Cheese 9 Charlie Waffle 10 Juice 6 Jonah Waffle 9 Juice 7 Total 69 Maintenance data indicate that Jake and Charlie maintained all tasks with 100% accuracy throughout <strong>the</strong> length of <strong>the</strong> study. Louis’ performance decreased to 94% of total task steps and 96% of critical steps during <strong>the</strong> second maintenance probe session but returned to 100% accuracy during <strong>the</strong> final maintenance probe session. The teacher did not collect maintenance data on Jonah due to <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> school year. Peer-Implemented Time Delay / 117
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Developme
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Guardianship: Its Role in t
Page 9 and 10:
guardians who are knowledgeable abo
Page 11 and 12:
in budgeting and spending; (b) a sp
Page 13 and 14:
and effective are essential to self
Page 15 and 16:
involved in the gu
Page 17 and 18:
sonal rights removed through guardi
Page 19 and 20:
who are not trustworthy, and when o
Page 21 and 22:
Discussion and Recommendations Lake
Page 23 and 24:
DC: OSERS. (ERIC Document Reproduct
Page 25 and 26:
people who do not have disabilities
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 1 School Demographics Demogra
Page 29 and 30:
TABLE 2 Methods for Including Stude
Page 31 and 32:
participate in service learning pro
Page 33 and 34:
who are “more experienced” in s
Page 35 and 36:
cern that they wer
Page 37 and 38:
service learning activity for stude
Page 39 and 40:
supports school personnel need to h
Page 41 and 42:
Using Pivotal Response Training wit
Page 43 and 44:
the trained peers
Page 45 and 46:
Group B between one and two times p
Page 47 and 48:
ing play sessions with Group B, Col
Page 49 and 50:
learned to interact with ot
Page 51 and 52:
Affirmative sentences emphasize a v
Page 53 and 54:
identifying several important behav
Page 55 and 56:
Kenji. For Kenji, all observation s
Page 57 and 58:
Figure 2. Percentage of 10-s interv
Page 59 and 60:
gaging in complicated verbal commun
Page 61 and 62:
Results The results of the<
Page 63 and 64:
when the person wa
Page 65 and 66:
Effectiveness of the</stron
Page 67 and 68:
is still encountering only one symb
Page 69 and 70: TABLE 1 Characteristic of Participa
Page 71 and 72: TABLE 2 Characteristics of
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 3 Major Findings Study Commun
Page 75 and 76: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 77 and 78: TABLE 3—(Continued) Study Communi
Page 79 and 80: nosed as having ASD. Therefore, PEC
Page 81 and 82: Preschool Teacher Perceptions of As
Page 83 and 84: TABLE 1 Teacher Demographics 1 Teac
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 3 Assistive Technology Self-A
Page 87 and 88: Integration or supplemental perspec
Page 89 and 90: I don’t know if the</stro
Page 91 and 92: sessions, and the
Page 93 and 94: that would be difficult to develop
Page 95 and 96: Riemer-Reiss, M. L., & Wacker, R. R
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 1 Characteristics of Campers
Page 99 and 100: appropriate answers were provided.
Page 101 and 102: Figure 2. Effects of STAR intervent
Page 103 and 104: garding how to effectively interact
Page 105 and 106: Shafer K. (1992). Peer-mediating in
Page 107 and 108: proach, features are built into <st
Page 109 and 110: independent transitions were totale
Page 111 and 112: Figure 1. Number of independent tas
Page 113 and 114: type of skills (e.g., domestic, lei
Page 115 and 116: Peer-Implemented Time Delay Procedu
Page 117 and 118: show that peer tutors can reliably
Page 119: General Procedures The dependent va
Page 123 and 124: Figure 2. Percent of correct respon
Page 125 and 126: heterogeneous group of students is
Page 127 and 128: States’ Eligibility Guidelines fo
Page 129 and 130: Method Procedure The first author d
Page 131 and 132: TABLE 1—(Continued) IQ part score
Page 133 and 134: eligibility to exhibit an IQ two or
Page 135: ility guidelines for MR from state
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?