Playing to Learn: START. Creative Teaching Ideas to Enhance Social Validity of ABA Therapy for Young Learners. Please go to Menti.

Transcription

1 Playing to Learn: Creative Teaching Ideas to Enhance Social Validity of ABA Therapy for Young Learners START Shannon Rocap, MA, BCBA Melany Shampo, MA, BCBA Kaisa Weathers, M. Ed, BCBA Please go to Menti.com Code:

2 ACTIVE RESPONDING Please go to Menti.com Code:

3 Contributors Andrea Newkirk MA, BCBA Christina Thomas, MA Allison Ackerman MA, RBT Lorna Fischer MA, BCBA Carrie VanHoover, BA Hannah Duvall MA, BCBA Emily Preske MA, BCBA Sara Dragoo, BS, RBT

4 Purpose The purpose of our presentation is to provide examples of activities using interactive thematic materials that may simultaneously increase the positive perception of the applied practice of behavior analysis.

5 Learning Objectives 1. State the fundamental elements of behavior change and the verbal operants as they apply to play-type tasks 2. State the specific behavior change procedures used in thematic or activity teaching models 3. Develop knowledge about creating teaching activities that correspond to specific skill areas

6

7

8

9 Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better. Maya Angelou

10 Social Validity

11 WHAT IS SOCIAL VALIDITY Social importance and acceptability of treatment goals, procedures, and outcomes.

12 ASSESSING SOCIAL VALIDITY Goals Social significance of treatment goals Procedures Appropriateness and acceptability of the treatment procedures Effects Social importance of treatment outcomes

13 EVALUATING ACCEPTABILITY OF TREATMENT PROCEDURES Normative Comparisons Compares treatment outside of established norms Subjective Evaluations Most commonly used Feedback provided by consumers

14 Traditional Discrete Trial Training vs. Naturalistic Instruction

15 Delprato, D. (2001). Comparisons of Discrete-Trial and Normalized Behavioral Language Intervention for Young Children with Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(3), 316.

16 ADVANTAGES OF DTT Structured and systematic Breaks down skills into small, or discrete components Targets are specific and can be easily identified Pre-planned instructional stimuli and curriculum provided Short inter-trial intervals maximize number of learning opportunities

17 CRITICISMS OF DTT Instructor led vs. student led May not generalize Non-specific reinforcement for desired behavior Increased requirement to sit for longer periods of time Rate of instruction may be too demanding

18 Child led vs. teacher led Play-based instruction ADVANTAGES OF NATURALISTIC INSTRUCTION Reduced need for elaborate generalization procedures Use of stimuli in the child s natural environment as target stimuli Reinforcers directly embedded in activity and stimuli

19 CRITICISMS OF NATURALISTIC INSTRUCTION Reduced number of teaching trials Difficult to conduct in certain settings Curriculum is not scripted which may result in more extensive staff training May be difficult to eliminate motivation as a source of control

20 Embedded Instruction Traditional DTT Increased teaching trials Effective teaching procedures Advantages Naturalistic Play or routine based, less rigid in presentation Social validity Embedded Instruction

21 Survey Results

22

23

24

25 SURVEY LIMITATIONS Follow up Child s preference Participant experience and familiarity with ABA Wording of statements Technical issues Time constraints

26

27

28 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Nearly all responders strongly agreed with positive statements Disagreements occurred Expected and unexpected results

29 VB-MAPP Overview

30

31 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

32 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

33 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

34 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

35 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

36 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

37 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

38 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

39 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

40 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

41 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

42 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

43 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

44 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

45 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

46 Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

47 0-18 months Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

48 18-30 months Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

49 30-48 months Copyright Mark L. Sundberg

50

51

52 Behavior Change Procedures

53 BEHAVIOR CHANGE PROCEDURES Task analysis Positive and negative reinforcement & related schedules Positive and negative punishment & related schedules Differential reinforcement Prompts and prompt fading Verbal operant training Shaping Chaining

54

55

56

57 ACTIVITY #1

58 ACTIVITY #2

59 ACTIVITY #3

60 ACTIVITY #4

61 ACTIVITY #5

62 ACTIVITY #6

63 Carl Sundberg, BCBA-D John Esch, BCBA-D Barbara Esch, BCBA-D, CCC-SLP Mark Sundberg, BCBA- D

64 REFERENCES Carr, J.E., Austin, J.L., Britton, L.N., Kellum, K.K., Bailey, J.S. (1999). An assessment of social validity trends in applied behavior analysis. Behavioral Interventions, 14, Charlop-Christy, M. H., LeBlanc, L. A., & Carpenter, M. H. (1999). Naturalistic teaching strategies (NaTS) to teach speech to children with autism: Historical perspective, development, and current practice. California School Psychologist, 4, Daugherty, S., Grisham-Brown, J., & Hemmeter, M. L. (2001). The effects of embedded skill instructions on the acquisition of target and nontarget skills in preschoolers with developmental delays. Topics in Early Chilhood Special Education, 21, Delprato, D. J. (2001). Comparisons of discrete-trial and normalized behavioral language intervention for young children with autism. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 31, Fincham, J. E. (2008). Response Rates and Responsiveness for Surveys, Standards, and the Journal. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72(2), 43. Foster, S.L., Mash, E.J. (1999). Assessing social validity in clinical treatment research issues and procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67:3, Hanley G.P. (2010). Toward effective and preferred programming: A case for the objective measurement of social validity with recipients of behaviorchange programs. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3, Geiger, K.B., Carr, J.E., LeBlanc, L.A., Hanney, N.M., Polick, A.S., & Heinicke, M.R. (2012). Teaching receptive discriminations to children with autism: A comparison of traditional and embedded discrete trial teaching. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5:2, Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied importance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1, Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, Kennedy, C.H. (1992). Trends in the measurement of social validity. The Behavior Analyst, 15, Koegel, R. L., Koegel, L. K., & Surratt, A. (1992). Language intervention and disruptive behavior in preschool children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22, Koegel, R. L., Openden, D., Fredeen, R. M., & Koegel, L. K. (2006). The basics of pivotal response treatment. In R. L. Koegel & L. K. Koegel (Eds.), Pivotal response treatments for Autism: Communication, social and academic development (pp. 3 30). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes. Sundberg, M. L. (2008). Verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program: The VB-MAPP. Concord, CA: AVB Press. Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J.W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism or other developmental disabilities. Danville, CA: Behavior Analysts, Inc. Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11,

65 FINISH! Contact: Christina Thomas