24
Stimulus Control Multiple Peer Use of Pivotal Response Training to Increase Social Behaviors of Classmates with Autism: Results from Trained and Untrained Peers By Karen Pierce and Laura Schreibman Jodi Anne Tofel Caldwell College PS 620

Stimulus Control Multiple Peer Use of Pivotal Response Training to Increase Social Behaviors of Classmates with Autism: Results from Trained and Untrained

  • View
    216

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Stimulus ControlMultiple Peer Use of Pivotal Response Training to Increase Social Behaviors of

Classmates with Autism: Results from Trained and Untrained PeersBy Karen Pierce and Laura Schreibman

Stimulus ControlMultiple Peer Use of Pivotal Response Training to Increase Social Behaviors of

Classmates with Autism: Results from Trained and Untrained PeersBy Karen Pierce and Laura Schreibman

Jodi Anne TofelCaldwell College

PS 620

Jodi Anne TofelCaldwell College

PS 620

DefinitionsDefinitions Pivotal Response Training- procedures

made to help “increase motivation, and promote generalization” using naturalistic and loose training techniques

Establishing operations- taking stimuli and increase the reinforcing value of that stimuli

Didactic Instruction- instruction between 2 individuals

Pivotal Response Training- procedures made to help “increase motivation, and promote generalization” using naturalistic and loose training techniques

Establishing operations- taking stimuli and increase the reinforcing value of that stimuli

Didactic Instruction- instruction between 2 individuals

IntroductionIntroduction Social skills is a main concern with

persons with autism. Extended inclusion increases

opportunity but does not show an increase in interactions

Programs teach social skills but skills are hard to generalize and maintain

Social skills is a main concern with persons with autism.

Extended inclusion increases opportunity but does not show an increase in interactions

Programs teach social skills but skills are hard to generalize and maintain

MethodsParticipantsMethodsParticipants

2 boys with autism Derek age 7 Non verbal IQ = 76 Stan age 8

Non verbal IQ = 50 Language for both

boys was typically used for requesting

2 boys with autism Derek age 7 Non verbal IQ = 76 Stan age 8

Non verbal IQ = 50 Language for both

boys was typically used for requesting

8 typical peers Trained

3 for DerekD P1-33 for StanS P1-3

Untrained1 for Derek (D P4)1 for Stan (S P4)

8 typical peers Trained

3 for DerekD P1-33 for StanS P1-3

Untrained1 for Derek (D P4)1 for Stan (S P4)

MethodsSetting

MethodsSetting

During recess Trained setting

Derek in a classroomStan in a recreation room

Generalization settingAnother classroom with most of the students out

Trained toys20 toys

Generalization toys20 toys

During recess Trained setting

Derek in a classroomStan in a recreation room

Generalization settingAnother classroom with most of the students out

Trained toys20 toys

Generalization toys20 toys

Dependent VariableDependent Variable

Measured during 10 minute play sessions during the baseline, training, post treatment, and in follow up

Scores were taken on a continuous 10s interval

Measured during 10 minute play sessions during the baseline, training, post treatment, and in follow up

Scores were taken on a continuous 10s interval

Dependent VariableContinued

Dependent VariableContinued

Behaviors Maintain interactions- verbal and non verbal as

a response to the peer Initiate conversation- this is not a direct

response to a question of the peer or it occurs 5 secs after a preceding verbalization

Initiates play- verbal or non verbal initiation of a novel game or situation with a toy

Generalized behavior Same scoring with, novel stimuli, untrained

peer, and new setting

Behaviors Maintain interactions- verbal and non verbal as

a response to the peer Initiate conversation- this is not a direct

response to a question of the peer or it occurs 5 secs after a preceding verbalization

Initiates play- verbal or non verbal initiation of a novel game or situation with a toy

Generalized behavior Same scoring with, novel stimuli, untrained

peer, and new setting

IOAIOA

33 % of all sessions Maintain interactions

Occurrence 96%Nonoccurrences 98%

Initiates (play and conversation)Occurrences 86%Nonoccurences 97%

33 % of all sessions Maintain interactions

Occurrence 96%Nonoccurrences 98%

Initiates (play and conversation)Occurrences 86%Nonoccurences 97%

DesignDesign

Multiple baseline across peers Baseline Training in PRT Post treatment Follow-up

Multiple baseline across peers Baseline Training in PRT Post treatment Follow-up

What did the researchers do?What did the researchers do?

What did the researcher do? Mentioned PRT, didactic

instruction, modeling, role play, and feedback in the abstract

This article didn’t go into detail

What did the researcher do? Mentioned PRT, didactic

instruction, modeling, role play, and feedback in the abstract

This article didn’t go into detail

What did the researchers do in 1995?

What did the researchers do in 1995?

Baseline- the dyad were placed in a room with toys in the middle and the 2 children were told to “play together”

Peer PRT training- peers were given a manual of strategies to help the participants

Baseline- the dyad were placed in a room with toys in the middle and the 2 children were told to “play together”

Peer PRT training- peers were given a manual of strategies to help the participants

StrategiesStrategies Pay attention- making sure the “friend” is

paying attention before helping or talking to them

Child’ choice- change up play to keep up motivation

Vary toys- look for “friend’s” preferences Model appropriate social behavior- include

statements in play as well as actions Reinforce attempts- verbally tell the “friend”

they are trying or doing something well

Pay attention- making sure the “friend” is paying attention before helping or talking to them

Child’ choice- change up play to keep up motivation

Vary toys- look for “friend’s” preferences Model appropriate social behavior- include

statements in play as well as actions Reinforce attempts- verbally tell the “friend”

they are trying or doing something well

Strategiescontinued

Strategiescontinued

Encourage conversation- hold back objects or actions until the “friend” emits a response

Extend conversation- ask questions Turn taking- turn taking to promote sharing,

model play, and add motivation Narrate play- talk about play actions Teach responsivity to multiple cues- talk

about and require talk about properties of play objects

Encourage conversation- hold back objects or actions until the “friend” emits a response

Extend conversation- ask questions Turn taking- turn taking to promote sharing,

model play, and add motivation Narrate play- talk about play actions Teach responsivity to multiple cues- talk

about and require talk about properties of play objects

What did the researchers do in 1995?continued

What did the researchers do in 1995?continued

Strategies were modeled and explained Trained peers were asked to talk about

strategies and role play them Trained peers were paired with a participant,

and received feedback during play (PRT training)

PRT sessions with no feedback (post treatment)

Generalization probes during baseline, posttreatmet, and follow ups

Strategies were modeled and explained Trained peers were asked to talk about

strategies and role play them Trained peers were paired with a participant,

and received feedback during play (PRT training)

PRT sessions with no feedback (post treatment)

Generalization probes during baseline, posttreatmet, and follow ups

What did the researchers find?

What did the researchers find?

Increase in maintaining interactionsVariable in baseline to reaching 100%

Increase in initiations (play and conversation)

Both participants showed generalization to 1 peer (Stan) or 2 peers (Derek)DerekBaseline 7% to Posttreatment 19%Stan Baseline 4% to Posttreatment 16%

Increase in maintaining interactionsVariable in baseline to reaching 100%

Increase in initiations (play and conversation)

Both participants showed generalization to 1 peer (Stan) or 2 peers (Derek)DerekBaseline 7% to Posttreatment 19%Stan Baseline 4% to Posttreatment 16%

Stokes & Osnes1998

Stokes & Osnes1998

3 Categories of Generalization Exploit current functional contingencies

No artificial manipulation, instead natural contingencies

Train diverselyLess rigid training

“focused training frequently has focused effects.” and vice versa

Incorporate functional mediatorsSomething that helps trained occurences become generalized

3 Categories of Generalization Exploit current functional contingencies

No artificial manipulation, instead natural contingencies

Train diverselyLess rigid training

“focused training frequently has focused effects.” and vice versa

Incorporate functional mediatorsSomething that helps trained occurences become generalized

Does Pierce and Schreibmando this?

Does Pierce and Schreibmando this?

In 1995 there were limitation because they used only 1 peer trainer

In 1995 there were limitation because they used only 1 peer trainer

Does Pierce and Schreibmando this?

Does Pierce and Schreibmando this?

In 1997 did they “exploit current functional contiengencies?” Used desired and familiar toys Used peers (approximately the same age) But where do children play the majority of

recesses in a school setting? What types of toys/equipment are used in

these places?

In 1997 did they “exploit current functional contiengencies?” Used desired and familiar toys Used peers (approximately the same age) But where do children play the majority of

recesses in a school setting? What types of toys/equipment are used in

these places?

Does Pierce and Schreibmando this?

Does Pierce and Schreibmando this?

In 1997 did they “train diversely?” They had 3 trained peers and another peer

for generalization The design limited their ability to change up

peers They had 40 toys available for training and

generalization There were no specific discriminative stimuli

or responses being taught

In 1997 did they “train diversely?” They had 3 trained peers and another peer

for generalization The design limited their ability to change up

peers They had 40 toys available for training and

generalization There were no specific discriminative stimuli

or responses being taught

Does Pierce and Schreibmando this?

Does Pierce and Schreibmando this?

In 1997 did they “incorporate functional mediators?” They used toys familiar to participants and peers They used peers of about the same age, and

size as who may be available during a recess time

But again how often is indoor play for a 7 and 8 year old?

Did the toys include outdoor type toys? Did they help with self thinking of the

participants?

In 1997 did they “incorporate functional mediators?” They used toys familiar to participants and peers They used peers of about the same age, and

size as who may be available during a recess time

But again how often is indoor play for a 7 and 8 year old?

Did the toys include outdoor type toys? Did they help with self thinking of the

participants?

OverallOverall

This type of naturalistic teaching helps with generalization

I find that teachers teaching social skills to younger children sometimes tends to not sound much like children at play.

What do you think?

This type of naturalistic teaching helps with generalization

I find that teachers teaching social skills to younger children sometimes tends to not sound much like children at play.

What do you think?

ReferencesReferences

Pierce, K., & Schreibman, L. (1995). Increasing complex play in children with autism via peer-implemented pivotal response training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 285-295.

Pierce, K., & Schreibman, L. (1997). Multiple peer use of pivotal response training to increase social behaviors of classmates with autism: Results from trained and untrained peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 157-160.

Stokes, T. F., & Osnes, P. G. (1989). An operant pursuit of generalization. Behavior Therapy, 20, 337-355.

Pierce, K., & Schreibman, L. (1995). Increasing complex play in children with autism via peer-implemented pivotal response training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 285-295.

Pierce, K., & Schreibman, L. (1997). Multiple peer use of pivotal response training to increase social behaviors of classmates with autism: Results from trained and untrained peers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 157-160.

Stokes, T. F., & Osnes, P. G. (1989). An operant pursuit of generalization. Behavior Therapy, 20, 337-355.