1 / 28

Introduction

Just Tell Me What You Really Want: Teaching Children with Autism to Infer What People Want When they Don’t Say it Adel Najdowski, Ryan Bergstrom, Jonathan Tarbox, and Megan St. Clair. Introduction. Children with ASD present with deficits in understanding nonliteral language

deo
Download Presentation

Introduction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Just Tell Me What You Really Want: Teaching Children with Autism to Infer What People Want When they Don’t Say itAdel Najdowski, Ryan Bergstrom, Jonathan Tarbox, and Megan St. Clair

  2. Introduction • Children with ASD present with deficits in understanding nonliteral language • Humor (Emerich, Creaghead, Grether, Murray, & Grasha, 2003) • Sarcasm (Pexman et al., 2011) • Deception (Happe, 1995) • Indirect requests (Paul & Cohen, 1985)

  3. Introduction • ABA effective in teaching basic language (National Autism Center, 2009) • RFT approach can be used teach children with ASD to identify and respond to nonliteral language • RFT – a generalized operant ability to make relations among untrained stimuli is trainable via multiple exemplar training

  4. Introduction • Metaphors (Persicke, Tarbox, Ranick, & St. Clair, 2012) • Sarcasm (Persicke, Tarbox, Ranick, & St. Clair, 2013) • Deception (Ranick, Persicke, Tarbox, & Kornack, 2014)

  5. Introduction • Indirect requests -- AKA disguised mands (Skinner, 1957) • Hint that someone wants something without directly asking for it

  6. Introduction • Successful communication requires understanding of indirect requests (MacKay & Shaw, 2004) • Responding to indirect requests • Requires inference about the relation between one’s overt behavior (what one says) and covert behavior (what one thinks)

  7. Introduction • Theory of Mind (ToM) research • ASD – difficulties understanding and interpreting others’ covert behavior (emotions, belies, intentions, desires; Baron-Cohen, 1993) • Typical child development • 12-13 mos: respond to palm-up request (Ma sur, 1983) • 18 mos: identify desires based on facial expression (Repacholi & Gopnik, 1997) • 4 yrs and up: respond appropriately to indirect requests (Dewart & Summers, 1995)

  8. Introduction • RFT perspective - Listener relates the speaker’s indirect request to what the speaker actually means • Relation of distinction (“mmm, those cookies look good” is not what he really meant) • Relation of coordination (“mmm, those cookies look good” is a hint that he might want to try one)

  9. Purpose • Can RFT approach be used to teach children with ASD to respond to indirect requests? • Multiple exemplar training package • Rules • Role-play • Feedback

  10. Participants • 3 boys with ASD: Nick (10), Musa (12), & Drew (9) • Nick and Drew were receiving behavioral intervention which addressed all major skill deficits 11-28 hours per week • Musa was receiving 2 hours a week of follow- up services

  11. Participants cont. • All failed to respond to indirect requests • Prerequisites • Vocal • Well-developed language skills • Repertoire of following rules and multi-step instructions • History of learning via role-play • No significant compliance issues

  12. Setting • 45-60 min sessions conducted one time per day 1-2 days per week • In home during regularly scheduled therapy hours • For Musa only, one baseline and post-training at an amusement park

  13. Data Collection • Percentage correct • Correct response to an indirect request: • Asking the speaker a question related to the request (optional) • Engaging in a behavior to give the person what they were requesting • Interobserver Agreement (IOA) • Trial-by-trial • 55%-70% sessions; 98%-100% agreement

  14. Experimental Design • Nonconcurrent multiple baseline across participants • Phases • Baseline • Training • Post-Training

  15. Baseline • 5 indirect requests semi-randomly selected from a list of 20 • The same indirect request could not be repeated until all 20 had been presented once • Examples: “I’m thirsty”, “I’m bored”, “I’ve always wanted to try that” • Indirect requests issued approximately every 5-10 minutes • 3-5 different people issued indirect requests

  16. Training • Various locations at the child’s house • 3 Phases • Phase 1: Explanation, rules, example, role-play • Sometimes people use hints • You need to respond • Pillow example • Role-play test • Mastery Criteria • Respond within 3 s during role-play test twice consecutively

  17. Training cont. • Phase 2: Rule reminder and feedback • At the beginning of the session: “During the rest of the time we are together today, people are going to be making hints about things they want and you will have to ask if they want it and get it for them.” • 10 trials using different but functionally similar indirect requests used in baseline • 2-4 different people issued indirect requests

  18. Training cont. • Praise delivered for correct responses and feedback given on incorrect responses • “Hey, did you hear what Sara said? What do you think she was really saying? So what should you do?” • 2 incorrects in a row: priming statement repeated • Mastery Criterion • 80%-100% across 2 consecutive sessions

  19. Training cont. • Phase 3: Feedback only • No more rules • 3-second prompt delay • Mastery Criterion • 80%-100% on training targets and 100% generalization to first trial probes with novel targets across 3 consecutive sessions • 80%-100% on test for generalization to a novel person • Trainer not present during this test

  20. Training cont. • Targets presented during phases 2 and 3: • Targets randomly rotated across 10 trials • Started with only 2 targets in the rotation • Once at or above 70%, 2 more targets added to the rotation. Repeat. • Each time 2 new targets were added to the rotation, as well as being calculated into the total percentage, the first time they were presented was graphed as a “first trial probe”

  21. Post-Training • Identical to baseline • Same targets (all absent during training) • Same people (2-3 absent during training)

  22. Summary of Results • Data support the use of rules, role-play, and feedback to teach children with ASD to respond appropriately to indirect requests • Generalization was observed across people and indirect requests • Generalization to one community location was observed for one participant (Musa) • Relatively efficient procedure • Less than 10 hours of training • Easily incorporated into regular therapy session

  23. Discussion • RFT approach that uses rules to teach participants to make relations amongst stimuli across multiple exemplars was used • Participants taught via rules to attend to relations between what is said and actually meant in terms of distinction (he said X, but meant Y) and coordination (he said X, which is the same as Y) • Multiple exemplar training resulted in a generalized operant ability to respond to novel indirect requests and people

  24. Limitations • Limited test for generalization across environments • Did not test w/ peers • No tests for maintenance • Treatment package • Lack of social validity measures • Lack of training in when it’s okay to ignore and not respond to indirect requests

  25. Thank you • Angela Persicke • Sara Sharaf • Shanee Aziz • Stephanie Neri

More Related