Teaching Children With Autism ToUse Photographic Activity Schedules:Maintenance And Generalization OfComplex Response ChainsMacDuff, Krantz, and McClannahan (1993) Presented By: Hannah Kaplan Caldwell College
Purpose • To teach photographic activity schedules with graduated guidance • To examine its effects on acquisition, maintenance and generalization of: • complex response chains • on-task/on-schedule behavior • transitions to different settings… WITHOUT PROMPTS
Importance • It is a common goal to increase functional skills and engagement in individuals with autism. • Often taught with verbal, gestural, and model prompts. • Why do you think verbal prompts do not occasion spontaneous behaviors? Why might they be harder to fade? “Because these prompts are often associated with reinforcement during teaching, they may acquire stimulus control over target responses, with the result that learners may not display target skills in the absence of teachers and prompting procedures. (p. 89)”
Importance • Complex response chains often do not generalize or maintain over time. • Lengthy response chains are not acquired. • Individual components responsible for past research results have not been determined.
Participants • 4 participants with a diagnosis of autism: Mike: 9, Walter: 9, Steve: 11, Roy:14 • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: 2.1-3.9 mean:3.2 http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/group.asp?nGroupInfoID=a30700 (Steve was unable to attain a basal score) • Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale: Mike: 5.5, Walter: 5.5, Roy: 5.3, Steve: 3.3 http://ags.pearsonassessments.com/Group.asp?nGroupInfoID=a3000
Participants • All participants had long histories of disruptive behavior (i.e., aggression, tantrums, running away) • All had high rates of stereotypy when not in structured programming. • All had severe language deficits: echolalia, vocal noise, noncontextual speech, and lack of spontaneous language • All were dependent on ongoing supervision and VERBAL PROMPTS
Participants On a positive note… • All had picture-object correspondence before study began • Had some limited experience with picture schedules (washing, packing lunch), but… • They had not been exposed to using picture schedules for • Leisure activities • A sequence of multiple whole activities
Setting • Teaching Family Model group home • Participants had been residing 1.1-4.2 years • Family style • Consumer evaluated Note: PCDI’s professional guidelines are partially based on Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen, and Wolfe (1979) Teaching Family Handbook http://www.teaching-family.org/ • Sessions: living room, family room, bedrooms
Dependent Variables On-task behavior: • Visually attending to materials • Looking at photographic activity schedules • Manipulating materials appropriately • In transition from one activity to another
Dependent Variables Off-task behavior was scored if… • Used materials inappropriately • Not visually attending to materials • Engaging in inappropriate behavior • Not engaging in the activity or manipulating materials
Dependent Variables On-schedule: • Engaging in the activity that is depicted on the opened page Ex: If a participant was building with legos, the open page would have a picture of legos Off-schedule • Scored if on-task not met
IndependentVariables Gestures and gestural prompts: • Nonspecific: all pointing, motioning, or nodding toward children or materials • Specific: pointing to specific toys, materials, or photographs that indicated what the next task should be
Independent Variables Manual prompts: • Orienting a youth's head toward materials, handover-hand prompts, and light touches (fading) Verbal contacts: • Verbal instructions, questions, or praise statements
Measurement/Design All sessions : • 60 s momentary time sampling for on-task/on-schedule (independent observers) • 60 s partial interval for verbal/gestural/manual prompts (additional observers) Design: • Multiple Baseline across participants Phases: • Baseline, teaching, maintenance, resequencing, generalization across novel stimuli
Materials • 3 ring binder with… • 6 pictures (7cm x 11.5 cm) with plain background and no distracters, each on… • Single white paper (21.5 cm x 28 cm) in… • Plastic page protector… • What do you think would happen if any of these details changed?
Materials • The first three pictures consisted of depictions of activities such as tinkertoys, colorforms, and legos • The last three pictures for all boys were snack, puzzle, and TV • Why do you think those were the last three activities? • Some of the activities were located above the participants desks on shelves, some were located on dressers, and others were located in the family room • Did not specify whether the material had specific locations that did not vary.
Procedure: Baseline • “Everyone, look at me. Please find something to do.” • No additional manual, gestural, or verbal prompts • Inappropriate behavior ignored • Teacher not present • Why not?
Procedure: Teaching • Participants sat on a bench • Teacher stood next to the bench • Primary observer: “Everyone look at me. Find something to do” • If participant did not stand up within 10 s, or he stood up, but did not move toward photo activity schedule • Teacher placed hand on shoulder and guide to photo activity schedule • Graduated guidance from behind • What is the SD? What do you think about it? • Is there a conditional stimulus?
Procedure: Teaching • Manually prompted to.. • pick up his notebook, • carry it to his bedroom, • open it, • point to the first picture, • gather the necessary materials, • complete the activity, • put materials away, • and turn the page to the next activity. • Prompted to put materials away and move on to the next activity when used all materials or completed worksheet
Procedure: Teaching • Note: If schedule was completed within 60 minutes, the last activity (TV) was continued until time was up. Fading: • Graduated guidance initially available for all tasks • Moved as quickly as possible to spatial fading • Then to shadowing • If participant paused or engaged in inappropriate behavior, more intrusive prompting was reinstated
Procedure: Criteria • Teaching condition ended for each participant: • On task/on-schedule • 80% of samples Enough? What criterion do you use? • 5 consecutive sessions • After teacher’s physical proximity faded
Procedure: Maintenance • Teacher present to prompt the youth entering the teaching condition • But no prompts were provided • 30-70 sessions
Procedure: Resequencing Purpose: to assess whether participants were using schedules or following a familiar routine. Is the schedule an SD or is it irrelevant feature? • All activities except for snack and TV were randomly put in new positions in schedule • Not enough time for Steve to participate • No prompts were delivered • Teacher was absent • Sounds like train and hope What w0uld be a potentially more proactive strategy?
Procedure: Generalization • Teacher not present • 2 out of 6 of the original activities replaced with 2 similar but novel activities for each participant • None of the novel activities had ever been directly taught or used in photographic activity schedule • Train and hope or multiple exemplars? • What other types of generalization could be assessed?
IOA • Obtained for at least 30% of sessions across all conditions • Occurrence of on-task: mean of 96% (0%-100%) • Nonoccurrence of on-task: mean 95% (0%-100%) • On-schedule occurrence and nonoccurrence: mean of 99% (98%-100%)
Treatment Integrity • Obtained for at least 30% of sessions across all conditions • Nonoccurrence of verbal prompts: 100% • Occurrence of manual prompts: mean of 99% (50%-100%) • Nonoccurrence of manual prompts: 99% (99%-100%).
Results: On-Task Baseline: • Most participants’ behavior was variable. • Steve was almost never on task Intervention: • On-task immediately increased for all • Mike, Walt, Roy: means of 99% Steve: mean of 97% Maintenance, resequencing, generalization: • All had high, stable performances • Maintenance means: Mike & Walt: 99%, Roy: 97%, Steve: 91% • Resequencing: Mike & Walt: 99%, Roy: 96, Steve: N/A • Generalization: Mike & Walt: 99%, Roy: 97%, Steve: 96%
Results: On-Schcedule • Baseline: never scored (0%) • Teaching condition means: Mike: 99%, Walter: 99%, Roy: 99%, Steve: 96% • Maintenance means: Mike: 98%, Walter: 99%, Roy: 97%, Steve: 91% • Resequencing means: Mike:97%, Walter: 99%, Roy: 95% • Generalization: Mike: 99% for Walter: 99%, Roy: 97%, Steve: 96%
Results: IVs • Baseline: 0 recorded for all types of prompts • Manual prompt means for sessions 1-5: Mike: 4% (3%-8%), Walt: 8% (0%-22%), Roy: 23% (20%-40%), Steve: 19% (8%-37%) • Manual prompt means for sessions 6-10: 0% for all types of prompts • Maintenance, resequencing, generalization: 0% for all • From session 90 on, teacher was no longer present
In Sum… • Before treatment the participants did not engage in sustained on-task behavior • After 13-27 sessions, participants learned to remain on-task and on-schedule with a photographic cues through the implementation of graduated guidance. • Participants successfully maintained behaviors, responded without prompts to a new sequence of pictures, and generalized their repertoire to novel activities. • Resequencing and generalization occurred without teacher prompts or presence. • “The photographic schedules enabled the boys to display lengthy and complex chains of previously mastered, functional behavior.”
Stimulus Control Concepts 1. Resequencing of pictures: • Generalizing order • Ensuring photographs as discriminitive stimuli • Do we necessarily want photographs as eventual Sds (grocery shopping vs. washing dishes) 2. Introducing novel stimuli: • Generalization of activities • Ensureing photographs as discriminative stimuli
Stimulus Control Concepts 3. Graduated guidance vs. verbal prompts: • Allows for successful fading of prompts • Helps to establish photographs as SDs • Establishes photographic activity schedule as Sdelta for inappropriate behavior 4. Material guidelines: • Prevents overshadowing, stimulus overselectivity • Limits generalization to novel materials
Stimulus Control Concepts 5. Sequence of behaviors as a chain: • Each behavior is an SD for the next • Each behavior is an SR+ for the previous one 6. Initial verbal direction: • SD is teacher dependent • Could vary verbal SD • Could establish environmental conditions as SD (e.g., absence of teacher directions, time of day, alarm)
Stimulus Control Concepts 7. Sitting on bench: • Becomes conditional stimulus for beginning activity • May be more beneficial to teach multiple exemplars of settings in which to respond to initial SD 8 . Teacher’s absence/presence: • Teacher could become controlling stimulus • Baseline, resequencing, and generalization phase, controlled for this by not having teacher present
In Reference to Stokes and Baer (1977) • Train and hope: Yes • Sequential modification: No, but maybe if the participants had not succeeded to generalize • Introduce to naturally maintaining contingencies: Potentially • Train sufficient exemplars: ? • Train loosely: No
In Reference to Stokes and Baer (1977) • Use indiscriminable contingencies: TV was final reinforcement for all students and all activities. Schedule of reinforcement was the same for all as well. No other reinforcement contingencies were mentioned • Program common stimuli: Training situation was the actual environment • Mediate generalization: There was no mention of the participants’ verbal behavior • Train to generalize: No
Future Research • Comparing manual prompting with verbal prompting • Verbally prompting from behind compared with person in site • With other sources of reinforcement • Multiple initial SDs (verbal and nonverbal) • Eliminating conditional stimuli • Resequencing pictures from the start • Multiple exemplars of stimuli from the start • Using participants who do not have picture/object correspondence • Using in community (social validity?)
References MacDuff, G., Krantz, P.J., and McClannahan, L.E. (1993). teaching children with autism touse photographic activity schedules: Maintenance and generalization of complex response chains. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 89-97. Phillips, E.L., Fixsen, D.L., Phillips, E.A., & Wolf, M.M. (1979). The Teaching-Family Model: A comprehensive approach to residential treatment of youth. In D. Cullinan, & M.H. Epstein (Eds.), Special Education for Adolescents: Issues and Perspectives (pp. 203-233). New York: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co. Stokes, T.F., & Baer, D.M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.