Emergent Responding in Verbal Behavior - TxABA · Emergent Responding in Verbal Behavior Sarah A....

72
Emergent Responding in Verbal Behavior Sarah A. Lechago University of Houston – Clear Lake

Transcript of Emergent Responding in Verbal Behavior - TxABA · Emergent Responding in Verbal Behavior Sarah A....

Emergent Responding in Verbal Behavior

Sarah A. Lechago University of Houston – Clear Lake

Emergent Verbal Behavior �  The emission verbal behavior not directly taught

�  Example

�  Teach an infant to point to a ball when asked “Where is the ball?”.

� When presented with ball and asked “What is it?”, the infant can say “ball” without direct teaching.

Promoting Emergent Verbal Behavior �  Advancements - Conceptual & Applied

�  1. Sequencing of teaching programs �  2. Multiple Exemplar Instruction (MEI) �  3. Stimulus equivalence

Autism Treatment

Facts About Autism ¨  1 in 68 children ¨  5 times more common in boys (1 in 42)

¨  $17,000 ($21,000 severely impaired children) ¤  Therapy ¤  Healthcare ¤  Education ¤  Family-coordinated services ¤  Caregiver time

CDC, 2014

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) ¨  Primary treatment ¨  $40,000-$60,000 per year ¨  Cost effective tx

The Effects of Sequencing

�  Reviewed recommendations for receptive & expressive �  EIBI programs teach receptive before expressive (Leaf &

McEachin, 1999)

�  Typical development �  Easier to prompt receptive

Petursdottir & Carr (2011) �  Verbal Behavior Model

�  Based on Skinner’s analysis �  (Barbera, 2007; Greer &Ross, 2008; Sundberg & Partington, 1998)

�  Large-scale study (UCLA model), rec.not research-based �  Receptive before expressive

�  Review of literature

Research Results �  Cuvo & Riva (1980)

�  Exp. fewer trials �  Rec. facilitated expressive �  Exp. rendered rec. unnecessary

�  Wynn & Smith (2003) �  Variable across participants �  Greater accuracy on rec. after exp. than on

exp. following rec.

Conclusions �  No support for receptive before expressive

�  Support for expressive before receptive

�  Conclusions are tentative

�  Additional research - autism

Sequencing

The Sequencing of Receptive-Expressive Language for Teaching Feature, Function, Class Shimin Bao, Taylor Sweatt, Sarah Antal, & Sarah Lechago

Purpose

Examine the efficacy of 3 training sequences for teaching feature, function, and class of objects

Dependent Variable �  Primary: # trials to mastery for ex. & and rec. �  Secondary: Emergence of untrained response

Participants & Setting �  3-year old boy – Marcus �  8-year old girl – Melissa �  7-year old girl – Lizzy �  Autism diagnosis

�  Classroom - Marcus and Melissa �  Home - Lizzy

Pre-Experimental Training �  MSWO �  Tact training - names of pics

Receptive Training � Class – “Show me the one that is furniture”

Expressive Training � Class – “What group does a lion belong

to?”

“Animal”

Baseline �  60 pictures

�  Tested exp. & rec. feature, function, or class

�  5s to respond

�  Expressively & receptively 3 times

Expressive-Receptive Training Sequence �  Teach expressive

�  Probe for receptive responses

�  Train receptive

�  Mastery – 13, 15-trial block, 3 consecutive trail blocks

Receptive-Expressive Training Sequence

�  Teach receptive

�  Probe for expressive responses

�  Train expressive

�  Mastery – 13, 15-trial block, 3 consecutive trail blocks

Mixed Training Sequence �  Alternated exp. & rec. tr. by 15-trial blocks �  Mastery – 13, 15-trial block, 3 consecutive trial blocks

Marcus

Melissa

Lizzy

Results �  All 3 participants - expressive first - fewest trials to

mastery

�  More efficient �  Mixed condition – fewer trials on sets with exp. first

Naming Theory �  Learned to respond as speaker & listener to pics (Horne &

Lowe, 1996)

�  Expressive training trial � Orient to picture (rec. response) + expressive � Orienting & exp. response reinforced � Rec. trial – emit rec. b/c history of reinforcement

for responding rec.

�  Receptive training trial � Only receptively – pointing to picture � Exp. trial – no history of reinforcement for exp.

responding

Discussion �  Train expressive first

�  Future research

�  Mixed training � Alternating trials and not trial blocks

�  Collateral-response training

Multiple Exemplar Instruction (MEI)

Multiple Exemplar Instruction (MEI) �  Definition:

�  presenting multiple examples �  subset of targets �  emergent responding �  new targets

�  E.g., Teaching motor imitation

�  Effective in producing emergent responding �  (Fiorile, & Greer, 2007; Greer, Yuan, & Gautreaux, 2005; Nuzzolo-

Gomez & Greer, 2004)

Rule-Governed Behavior �  Rule-governed behavior: bx that occurs from contact

with the rules that describe the contingency, rather than prior contact with the contingency itself (Skinner, 1969)

�  Learn contingency without direct experience �  Efficient learning �  Avoid danger �  Maintain cultural practices �  Social, professional, and academic success

Rule-Governed Behavior �  Dearth of research on rule-following in children with

autism

�  Tarbox et al. (2011) � Used MEI to teach rule-following repertoire with

6 young boys with autism

�  No published behavior analytic research on teaching children with autism to derive rules

Teaching Children With Autism To Derive Rules Melissa Nissen & Sarah Lechago

Purpose

To teach children with autism to derive and follow rules utilizing antecedent and behavior specifying contingencies in the form of “if/then rules”

Dependent Variable �  Primary: Rule derivation

�  State antecedent & behavior of the rule �  5s of instruction

�  “Tell me why you did that” �  “Tell me why she did that” (dyad gen. probes)

�  Secondary: Rule following

�  Completing the motor response specified in the rule

�  5s of instruction �  “Show me what to do”

Participants & Setting �  2 boys with autism – Wayne and Alfredo �  Home �  Local library – dyad probes

Pre-Experimental Conditions �  Imitation of motor

�  Exp. & rec. ID of pics

�  Exp. ID of motor

�  Following simple instructions (e.g., “clap hands”)

�  Rule-Following Behavior �  6 “if/then” rules (e.g., “If apple, then close eyes”) �  ½ trials - corresponding stimulus (e.g., apple) �  ½ trials - non-corresponding stimulus

Baseline � 10-trial blocks - 5 rules, 2 times each

Video (“if orange, then clap”)

Presentation of antecedent stimulus + Instruction “Show me what to do?”

Correct response Incorrect response

Praise Model prompt + Praise

“Tell my why you did that?”

“Oh, Ok”

Baseline (Dyads)

Participants sat across from on another

Present video to P1

“Tell me why she did that?”

Video removed and P2 told to “Listen to P1’s name”

P2 told follows rule provided by P1

P1 instructed to “Tell P2’s name why he did that”

General responses for incorrect and correct answer

Multiple Exemplar Instruction (MEI)

Show video (“If dog, then touch nose”)

Present antecedent stimulus (dog) + “Show me what to do”

Correct response Incorrect response

Praise Model Pr. + praise

“Tell me why you did that?”

Correct response Incorrect response

Praise + edible/toy Model Pt. – 3 x

Mastery criterion: 9/10 ind responses 3 consecutive sessions

Generalization Probes �  Identical to baseline �  Different videos �  No mastery

�  BL probes Set 2 rules �  Tr. MEI B

�  Re-probe Sets 1 & 2 �  No generalization - MEI C

Intraverbal Rule Reversal

Show video - gen. set 1 (e.g., “If orange, then clap”) + “Show me what to do”

“Tell me why you did that? Clap hands if ______”

Correct & incorrect – general statements, “Oh, OK”

Mastery criterion: 8/10 independent correct responses

Correspondence Check (Dyads) �  Identical to baseline (dyad)

�  2 bx of interest �  Derive rules �  Rules they derive influence peer responding?

�  Mastery criterion: 8/10 ind. Responses �  Speaker (stating correct rule) �  Listener (correct motor response)

�  If no mastery, training as described MEI conditions

Results �  MEI procedure was effective for teaching rule

derivation to both participants

�  Emergence observed to untrained sets of rules

�  Dyad probes �  Only 1 participant derived rules

Discussion �  No generalization to dyad (Wayne):

�  Instruction (SD) different �  “Tell me why you did that?” vs. “Tell me why she did that?”

�  Another child in the room �  Conducted in different environment �  Attending to the video was a concern

Discussion �  Limitations

�  Rule-following not assessed during MEI �  Failure of rule-following in dyad

� Rules derived did not control peer’s behavior (Alfredo to Wayne)

Discussion �  Future Research

�  Identify sources of faulty stimulus control - resulting in lack of generalization to a peer

�  More complex rules (3-term contingency) �  Role of RGB in imaginary play, safety skills, and

social skills

Stimulus Equivalence

Successful Applications �  Manual signs and children with intellectual

disabilities (Elias et al., 2008)

�  Mands and adults with DD (Rosales et al., 2007)

�  Antonyms and children with PDD (Perez-Gonzalez et al., 2007)

�  Rudimentary reading and low-SES children (Matos, et al., 2006)

�  Monetary value and children with autism (Yamazaki, 1996)

�  Name-face matching in adults with brain injury (Cowley, Green, & Braunling-McMorrow,1992)

Aging & Behavioral Gerontology

Aging �  Elders = 65+ years

�  2030 – nearly 20% of American population will be over 65+ �  72.1 million older persons �  More than twice the number in 2,000

�  Dementia - general term for decline in mental functioning severe enough to interfere with daily life (Alzheimer’s Association, 2012)

Behavioral Gerontology �  Definition: The application of behavior analysis to

aging and age-related issues �  Age-related problems (dementia, loss of loved

ones, loss of autonomy) can lead to behavioral problems �  Behavior analytic research indicated

Research in Behavioral Gerontology �  Research is scarce

�  Since 1968, 2,000+ l articles published in JABA �  Roughly 34 address age-related issues (Trahan, Kahng, Fisher,

& Hausman, 2011)

�  Individuals with dementia benefit from behavior analytic interventions (Bougeios, 1993; Brenske, Rudrud, Schulze, & Rapp, 2008)

Using Stimulus Equivalence to Teach Face and Relationship Recognition to Older Adults with Dementia Jelisa Scott, Sarah Lechago, Taylor Sweatt, & Tarah Bowzer

Purpose

To assess whether using a stimulus equivalence preparation with older adults with dementia would result in their recognizing faces and remembering relationships

Dependent Variables �  Recognizing faces:

� Point to picture when instructed, “Show me the picture of person’s name”

� State name when asked, “What’s this person’s name?”+ picture of person

�  Remembering Relationships:

�  State relationship to individual in picture �  Point to picture given relationship (“Show me the

picture of your daughter”)

Participant & Setting �  82-year old male, Arthur �  Quiet room in day facility/program for elders with

dementia

Pre-Experimental Procedures �  Mini Mental Status Exam(MMSE)

�  Pleasant Event Scale - Preference assessment

�  Pre-training �  Taught rec. responding �  SD: “ Point to ___ without saying anything.” �  Mastery: 100% responding for 3 consecutive

trials

Stimuli �  Dictated names (A)

�  Experimenter says, “Theresa” �  Young images (B)

�  Pictures of Arthur’s daughter as a child �  Dictated relationship (C)

�  Experimenter says, “Theresa is your daughter” �  Recent images (D)

�  Recent pictures of Arthur’s daughter as an adult

Pre-Testing �  Expressive identification:

�  When presented picture �  State name of target person (e.g., Theresa) �  State name of relationship (daughter)

�  Young and recent pictures

�  Receptive identification: �  When presented picture and instruction (“Show me

Theresa/your daughter”) �  Point to correct image

�  Matching to Sample (MTS): �  Match younger to recent pic �  Match recent to youngpic

�  Array of similar pic

Phase Task Skill/relation Trials Verbal instruction

******** Pre-training

Teach the expected response 100% for 3 consecutive trials

Point to X without saying anything

1 Training State name in presence of young image (B-A)

Trial blocks of 5 “What is this person’s name”

2 Pre- and post-test!

State name in presence of recent image (D-A)

Trial blocks of 5 “What is this person’s name”

3 Pre- and post-test!

State relationship in presence of young image

(B-C)

Trial blocks of 5 “How do you know this person”

4 Pre- and post-test!

State relationship in presence of recent image

(D-C)

Trial blocks of 5 “ How do you know this person”

5 Pre- and post-test!

Dictated name to recent image (A-D)

Trial blocks of 5 “ Show me the picture of (target person’s name”

6 Pre- and post-test!

Dictated relationship to recent image (C-D)

Trial blocks of 5 Show me the picture of your (target person’s relationship)”

7 Pre- and post-test!

Dictated name to stated relationship (A-C)

Trial blocks of 5 “How do you know (target

person’s) name” 8 Pre- and

post-test!Dictated relationship to stated name

(C-A) Trial blocks of 5 “ What is your

(target person’s relationship)

name” 9 Training! Dictated name to young image

(A-B) Trial blocks of 5 “ Show me the

picture of (name of target’s)

picture” 10 Pre- and

post-test!Dictated relationship to young

image (C-B)

Trial blocks of 5 “Show me your (relationship of the

target person’s) picture”

11 Pre- and post-test!

Young image to recent image (B-D)

Trial blocks of 5 Match this picture to the pic of her as

an adult” 12 Pre- and

post-test!Recent image to young image

(D-B) Trial blocks of 5 Match this picture

to him/her as a child”

!

Training �  2 relations directly taught (mastery - 80%)

�  A-B - Dictated name to young image � SD: “Show me the picture of Theresa”

�  B-A - State name in presence of young image � SD: “What is this person’s name?”

�  Most-to-least prompting with prompt delay

�  10 s to respond

Post-Testing �  Before each post-test, trained relations probed

�  Retrained to mastery if below 80%

�  All relations probed until mastery

�  If decrease/no change - for 2 consec post-testing probes, �  New relation trained

Results �  Pre-tests

�  Receptive �  Significant deficits with expressive

�  Emergence of untrained relations to mastery except for A-C relation didn’t maintain

�  Had only to train one additional expressive relation, D-C

�  2.5 week break, maintained mastery with trained relations

Discussion

�  Repeated relationship/name + the correct response �  SD: “What’s your oldest daughter’s name?” �  Response: “Oldest daughter? Well, that’s Theresa!”

�  Receptive probes – Covert/overt echoic responses (“Theresa, oldest daughter”) & pointing to picture �  Responding as a speaker & listener to stimuli (Horne

& Lowe, 1996)

�  Bidirectional relationship with stimuli �  Relevant echoic & intraverbal behavior

Discussion �  Preparation effective in re-establishing facial

recognition and recalling relationships

�  Treatment procedure is portable and inexpensive

�  Easy to implement

�  Future Research �  Different targets - like locations �  New relationships and people

Thank you!