Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the participants when they demonstrated accurate use of the strategy. Corrective feedback was provided when a particular step was not completed correctly <strong>and</strong> the tra<strong>in</strong>er demonstrated a correct response. Dur<strong>in</strong>g tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g, the observer collected data on the students’ use of self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>and</strong> frequency of follow<strong>in</strong>g directions <strong>in</strong> the general education class. <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>ued until the student demonstrated mastery of the target by ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g at least 80% correct responses of the target behavior. Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance. After each participant demonstrated an 80% mastery criterion of selfmonitor<strong>in</strong>g direction follow<strong>in</strong>g for three consecutive sessions, direct <strong>in</strong>tervention was withdrawn. No further praise or feedback was delivered but the tra<strong>in</strong>er cont<strong>in</strong>ued to give students a self-monitor<strong>in</strong>g card at the beg<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g of each class period if they had not brought the forms to class. Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance data were collected two times per week by the observer for one to three months follow<strong>in</strong>g withdrawal of tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g. Time <strong>in</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>tenance depended upon the order <strong>in</strong> which students went through the <strong>in</strong>tervention. Results Interobserver Agreement Two agreement measures were calculated. First, a procedural reliability of 100% was calculated for the teach<strong>in</strong>g procedure. The tra<strong>in</strong>er followed all steps of the teach<strong>in</strong>g procedure <strong>in</strong> all 25 sessions observed. Second, <strong>in</strong>terobserver agreement scores were obta<strong>in</strong>ed for approximately 25% of the sessions across all of the experimental conditions. A po<strong>in</strong>t-bypo<strong>in</strong>t agreement ratio rang<strong>in</strong>g 90 to 100%, with a mean of 95% was reported. Student Performance Figure 1 displays performance data across all conditions for students <strong>in</strong> Group 1. Performance data for students <strong>in</strong> Group 2 are displayed <strong>in</strong> Figure 2. Group 1 Basel<strong>in</strong>e. JB responded consistently at a low level of performance. JB performed between 7% <strong>and</strong> 11% of the steps, with a mean of 9%. Dur<strong>in</strong>g n<strong>in</strong>e basel<strong>in</strong>e sessions, JT correctly completed between 10% <strong>and</strong> 20% of the steps for follow<strong>in</strong>g directions, with a mean of 13% correctly completed steps. Last, WH correctly completed between 13% <strong>and</strong> 25% for 12 basel<strong>in</strong>e sessions, with a mean of 23% correctly completed steps. Intervention. Dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tervention, JB correctly completed between 33% <strong>and</strong> 100% of the steps of the task analysis for follow<strong>in</strong>g directions, with a mean of 71% correctly completed steps. JB reached the criterion level of 80% after the fourth <strong>in</strong>tervention session <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed that level for three consecutive sessions. JT correctly completed between 28% <strong>and</strong> 84% of the sessions. JT performed at a mean level of 63%. JT reached the criterion level after the fifth <strong>in</strong>tervention session <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed that level for three consecutive sessions. Last, WH correctly completed between 60% <strong>and</strong> 92%, with mean of 77% correctly completed steps. WH reached the criterion level of 80% after the fourth <strong>in</strong>tervention session <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed that level for three consecutive sessions. Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance. Dur<strong>in</strong>g ma<strong>in</strong>tenance, JB correctly completed between 96% <strong>and</strong> 100% of the steps, with a mean of 99%. Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance data were collected for two <strong>and</strong> one-half months. JT correctly completed between 72% <strong>and</strong> 96% of the steps of the task analysis, with a mean of 84%. JT was <strong>in</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>tenance for n<strong>in</strong>e ma<strong>in</strong>tenance sessions over one <strong>and</strong> onehalf months. Last, WH correctly completed between 88% <strong>and</strong> 100% of the steps directions for the five ma<strong>in</strong>tenance sessions, over one month. WH had a mean of 93% correctly completed steps. Group 2 8 / <strong>Education</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>-March 2005 Basel<strong>in</strong>e. CS consistently performed the target behavior at a low level of frequency. CS correctly completed between 7% <strong>and</strong> 14% of follow<strong>in</strong>g directions responses, with a mean of 11% correctly completed steps. GS correctly completed between 11% <strong>and</strong> 20% of the steps, with a mean of 14%. Last, AH correctly completed between 4% <strong>and</strong> 40% of the steps with a mean of 15%. Intervention. Dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>tervention, CS correctly completed between 20% <strong>and</strong> 86% of the steps, with a mean of 55%. CS reached the
Figure 1. Percentage of correct responses of JB, JT, <strong>and</strong> WH (Group 1). criterion level of 80% after the fourth <strong>in</strong>tervention sessions <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed that level for three consecutive sessions. GS correctly completed between 66% <strong>and</strong> 100% of the steps for the five <strong>in</strong>tervention sessions, with a mean of 86% correctly completed steps. GS reached the criterion level of 80% after the third <strong>in</strong>tervention session <strong>and</strong> ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed that level for three consecutive days. Last, AH correctly completed between 40% <strong>and</strong> 86% of the steps, with a mean of 60% correctly completed steps. AH reached the criterion level of 80% Self-Monitor<strong>in</strong>g / 9
Page 1 and 2: Education
Page 7 and 8: Using Self-Monitor
Page 9 and 10: monitor their frequency of follow<s
Page 11: instructional task
Page 15 and 16: Social Validity Informal feedback f
Page 17 and 18: itoring procedure.
Page 19 and 20: ple characteristics of communicatio
Page 21 and 22: TABLE 1 Demographic Information, St
Page 23 and 24: TABLE 2 Levels of Social Preference
Page 25 and 26: esponses given by students
Page 27 and 28: (1997). The effects of peer network
Page 29 and 30: his or her monitorin</stron
Page 31 and 32: the five minute pe
Page 33 and 34: the token system (see Figures 1 <st
Page 35 and 36: ing, number of tok
Page 37 and 38: self-monitoring to
Page 39 and 40: potatoes) in a mic
Page 41 and 42: .”), and the tea
Page 43 and 44: While hearing the
Page 45 and 46: Figure 2. Graphic data for Alley. O
Page 47 and 48: Joe met criterion of 100% correct r
Page 49 and 50: trials. Ninth, det
Page 51 and 52: Computer-Based Video Instruction to
Page 53 and 54: ing materials. He
Page 55 and 56: Generalization Probe Procedures Pri
Page 57 and 58: Figure 1. Hyperstudio “card” wi
Page 59 and 60: to emit the behaviors, multiplied b
Page 61 and 62: curred after the prompt. Dur<strong
Page 63 and 64:
ulation train<stro
Page 65 and 66:
enhance the indepe
Page 67 and 68:
een a part of the expected rout<str
Page 69 and 70:
Figure 4. Kent’s performance on c
Page 71 and 72:
Mirenda, P., Wilk, D., & Carson, P.
Page 73 and 74:
search indicates t
Page 75 and 76:
sions were conducted week days afte
Page 77 and 78:
Maintenance Probe
Page 79 and 80:
Figure 2. Number of correct respons
Page 81 and 82:
TABLE 1 Instructional Data for Each
Page 83 and 84:
Fetko, K. S., Schuster, J. W., Harl
Page 85 and 86:
lar challenge for school personnel
Page 87 and 88:
TABLE 1 Participant Demographic Cha
Page 89 and 90:
vidually identified feedin<
Page 91 and 92:
(i.e., before the in</stron
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 2. Graphic display of Nate
Page 95 and 96:
TABLE 2 Individual and</str
Page 97 and 98:
tion, this rate in
Page 99 and 100:
A functional relationship was estab
Page 101:
Search the entire archives of <stro
show all

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?