Evaluating Three Methods of Stimulus Rotation when Teaching Receptive Labels.

Justin B Leaf, Joseph H Cihon, Julia L Ferguson, John McEachin, Ronald Leaf, Mitchell Taubman
Author Information
  1. Justin B Leaf: 1Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
  2. Joseph H Cihon: 1Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
  3. Julia L Ferguson: 1Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
  4. John McEachin: 1Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
  5. Ronald Leaf: 1Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.
  6. Mitchell Taubman: 1Autism Partnership Foundation, 200 Marina Drive, Seal Beach, CA 90740 USA.

Abstract

The teaching of receptive labels (i.e., auditory-visual conditional discriminations) is common among early intervention programs for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Discrete trial teaching (DTT) is a common approach used to teach these receptive labels. Some have argued that the stimuli within the array, target and non-target, must be counterbalanced to prevent the development of undesired stimulus control. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three different approaches to stimulus rotation to teach receptive labels to five young children diagnosed with ASD. These approaches included counterbalanced, fixed, and clinician's choice. The results of an adapted alternating treatment design replicated across three stimulus sets and five participants indicated that all three methods of rotation were effective. Maintenance and generalization for targets taught in all three conditions was also assessed. The implications of the results with respect to current teaching practices in early intervention programs are discussed.

Keywords

References

  1. J Appl Behav Anal. 2014 Winter;47(4):810-3 [PMID: 25345666]
  2. J Appl Behav Anal. 2014 Fall;47(3):600-5 [PMID: 24902513]
  3. J Autism Dev Disord. 2016 Feb;46(2):720-31 [PMID: 26373767]
  4. J Appl Behav Anal. 2011 Fall;44(3):475-98 [PMID: 21941380]
  5. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1987 Feb;55(1):3-9 [PMID: 3571656]
  6. Res Dev Disabil. 1992;13(3):191-210 [PMID: 1626079]
  7. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008 Feb;38(2):261-75 [PMID: 17546491]
  8. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Jul;58(1):173-82 [PMID: 1645099]
  9. J Exp Anal Behav. 1982 Jan;37(1):23-44 [PMID: 7057127]
  10. J Appl Behav Anal. 2017 Apr;50(2):304-316 [PMID: 28211940]
  11. Behav Anal Pract. 2016 Jun 13;10(1):62-66 [PMID: 28352508]
  12. Behav Anal Pract. 2008 Spring;1(1):37-43 [PMID: 22477678]
  13. J Appl Behav Anal. 2010 Mar;43(1):1-17 [PMID: 20808492]
  14. Behav Anal Pract. 2016 Sep 22;9(4):349-363 [PMID: 27920966]
  15. Behav Anal Pract. 2013 Spring;6(1):56-75 [PMID: 25729507]
  16. Res Dev Disabil. 2001 May-Jun;22(3):205-19 [PMID: 11380059]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0threeteachingreceptivelabelsstimuluscommonearlyinterventionprogramsdiagnosedASDDTTteachcounterbalancedapproachesrotationfiveresultsReceptiveieauditory-visualconditionaldiscriminationsamongindividualsautismspectrumdisorderDiscretetrialapproachusedarguedstimuliwithinarraytargetnon-targetmustpreventdevelopmentundesiredcontrolpurposepresentstudyevaluateeffectivenessdifferentyoungchildrenincludedfixedclinician'schoiceadaptedalternatingtreatmentdesignreplicatedacrosssetsparticipantsindicatedmethodseffectiveMaintenancegeneralizationtargetstaughtconditionsalsoassessedimplicationsrespectcurrentpracticesdiscussedEvaluatingThreeMethodsStimulusRotationTeachingLabelsAutismConditionaldiscriminationlabel

Similar Articles

Cited By (5)