Teaching the Function of Auditory Stimuli Using Secondary Target Instruction.

Elisa Alban, Lauren K Schnell-Peskin, April N Kisamore, Casey L Nottingham, Zoe Sideras
Author Information
  1. Elisa Alban: Department of Special Education, Hunter College, The City of New York, 695 Park Avenue 10025, New York, NY USA.
  2. Lauren K Schnell-Peskin: Department of Special Education, Hunter College, The City of New York, 695 Park Avenue 10025, New York, NY USA. ORCID
  3. April N Kisamore: Department of Special Education, Hunter College, The City of New York, 695 Park Avenue 10025, New York, NY USA.
  4. Casey L Nottingham: ABA Collective, Mahwah, NJ USA.
  5. Zoe Sideras: Department of Special Education, Hunter College, The City of New York, 695 Park Avenue 10025, New York, NY USA.

Abstract

It is important for children to learn to identify safety stimuli in their environment; however, there has been limited research in the field of behavior analysis related to effective and efficient strategies for teaching these skills to children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Although previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of using secondary targets to teach tacts of visual stimuli, little research has evaluated procedures to teach children with ASD to tact auditory stimuli. The purpose of this study was to teach individuals with ASD the function of auditory safety stimuli using secondary target instruction across two different instructional arrangements (Condition 1-Single Presentation and Condition 2-Re-presentation). Sessions to mastery and total training time were used to evaluate the efficiency of procedures. The results showed that participants learned all primary targets that were directly taught and that the secondary targets emerged in the absence of direct teaching in both conditions. Results also suggested that Condition 1-Single Presentation, resulted in more efficient learning across target sets for both participants, with one exception.

Keywords

References

  1. J Appl Behav Anal. 2017 Jul;50(3):653-661 [PMID: 28513841]
  2. Am J Public Health. 2017 May;107(5):791-793 [PMID: 28323463]
  3. Anal Verbal Behav. 2015 Oct 16;31(2):183-99 [PMID: 27606211]
  4. Behav Anal Pract. 2020 Aug 11;13(4):862-871 [PMID: 33269196]
  5. Anal Verbal Behav. 2016 Dec 8;33(1):64-79 [PMID: 30854287]
  6. Anal Verbal Behav. 2016 Oct 25;32(2):125-138 [PMID: 30800621]
  7. Anal Verbal Behav. 1999;16:45-8 [PMID: 22477157]
  8. J Appl Behav Anal. 2018 Jul;51(3):538-552 [PMID: 29808475]
  9. Anal Verbal Behav. 2022 Jul 5;38(2):95-120 [PMID: 35811687]
  10. J Appl Behav Anal. 2014 Summer;47(2):425-30 [PMID: 24740544]
  11. J Appl Behav Anal. 2020 Apr;53(2):1029-1041 [PMID: 31691297]
  12. J Appl Behav Anal. 2011 Summer;44(2):327-40 [PMID: 21709788]
  13. J Appl Behav Anal. 2014 Summer;47(2):431-6 [PMID: 24740431]
  14. J Appl Behav Anal. 2013 Dec;46(4):805-16 [PMID: 24114346]
  15. J Exp Anal Behav. 1996 Jan;65(1):185-241 [PMID: 16812780]
  16. J Appl Behav Anal. 2019 Jul;52(3):733-738 [PMID: 31294844]
  17. Anal Verbal Behav. 2008;24:159-74 [PMID: 22477411]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0stimulichildrenresearchASDsecondarytargetsteachtargetConditionsafetybehaviorefficientteachingusingproceduresauditoryinstructionacross1-SinglePresentationparticipantsAuditorySecondaryimportantlearnidentifyenvironmenthoweverlimitedfieldanalysisrelatedeffectivestrategiesskillsautismspectrumdisorderAlthoughpreviousdemonstratedeffectivenesstactsvisuallittleevaluatedtactpurposestudyindividualsfunctiontwodifferentinstructionalarrangements2-Re-presentationSessionsmasterytotaltrainingtimeusedevaluateefficiency TheresultsshowedlearnedprimarydirectlytaughtemergedabsencedirectconditionsResultsalsosuggestedresultedlearningsetsoneexceptionTeachingFunctionStimuliUsingTargetInstructionInstructivefeedbackSafetysoundsVerbal

Similar Articles

Cited By