So what is Verbal Behavior anyway?????? (With Videos!)

One of my biggest pet peeves in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is when people say "we don't do ABA we do VB." Or when a therapists advertises herself as a "VB Therapist" There is no such thing. Verbal behavior aka VB is part of ABA. The terminology was developed by Skinner. The methods were developed by behavior analysts such as Sundberg, Partington, Carbone, Michaels and more. This blog will provide an explanation of Verbal Behavior and provide links and videos that will hopefully make the point better than I can.

First things First
The first main point to understand is that Applied Behavior Analysis is a science of understanding how people learn and acquire behavior. This applies to physical behaviors and verbal behaviors (whether vocal or nonvocal). The Verbal Behavior Approach is merely a collection of researched principles and procedures. It is one of the many tools in the behavior analysis toolbox. 

Here is another key point: not everyone claiming to do ABA will use the technologies, principles, and procedures that are outlined in the Verbal Behavior Approach. But everyone claiming to do VB is using ABA. The reason for this is that as we have talked about before not all behavior analysts are trained well enough and some have literally never even been exposed to VB. The other reason is that some people know about VB but were trained so rigidly in the approach used by their mentors that they refuse to learn about VB. This is very wrong because behavior analysts are suppose to be data driven and the data supports the use of VB techniques when designing an ABA program. 

Brief explanation of VB
The resources I will post at the end of this blog will have much more in depth discussion of VB but for the point of this article and to avoid reinventing the wheel, I am just going to give a brief explanation. Verbal Behavior refers to analyzing verbal behavior in the same way that other behavior is analyzed: BY FUNCTION. All behavior serves a purpose even verbal behavior. Verbal behavior does not have to be vocal. It can be gesturing, signing, writing, tantruming, etc anything that communicates to someone is verbal behavior. 

Skinner identified several functions of verbal behavior. The one you will hear referred to the most is MANDING. Manding simply means requesting and it is the first operant to develop and the most important operant. A large portion of inappropriate/tantrum/frustration behavior occurs because the child does not know how express what they are wanting or need. Teach the child how to appropriately request things whether it is vocal, sign, gestural, using a card, etc, and you will typically see a huge decrease in inappropriate behavior. 

Some of the other operants are (in very basic terms) Tacting = labeling items, Echoic = repeating what the other person said, Textual = reading, Intraverbal = conversation, wh questions, filling in the blank, etc. All of these represent different functions of behavior.

The purpose behind VB is to show that language has a function and develops based on these functions. Manding is typically the easiest to develop because the child is motivated to request the item he/she is wanting. Some children will have strengths in one operant and weaknesses in another operant. It is very important to understand that just because a child can say a word when he wants something, does not mean the child will be able to emit that word when shown the item and asked "what is it." Studies have shown that for some children each operant has to be taught and developed. Some children generalize from one operant to the next and some do not. Here are some examples from my own experience:

1. Mand training not generalizing to labeling - I read  a study where an adult enjoyed making coffee. While making coffee if the spoon was missing, he could request the spoon because he needed it to make coffee. However, when shown the spoon later in the day when the person did not want coffee, he could not tell you that it was a spoon. They had to do training to teach him to say spoon when shown the spoon outside of the motivation of making coffee.

2. Labeling not generalizing to mand training - I had a client who could label items very well spontaneously in her environment. She was only 2. However, she had difficulty generalizing to mand training and learning mands. I was unable to analyze this but it appears that she was sooooo motivated for the items that she would get too excited and want the item so badly that she would tantrum before requesting the item. I moved so she is no longer my client but my last recommendation to the team before moving was that they focus on teaching her to label the items in pictures and transfer to mands because her motivation was actually interfering with her ability to request the item. If she could learn the label of the item when seeing the picture, they could use that to teach her to request the item before she became frustrated and upset that she hadn't received the item yet. 

***Key point here - always look at the function of the verbal behavior and make sure that your BCBA is approaching your child's language development from a functional approach.****

Brief Explanation of the Verbal Behavior Approach (VBA)
Simply put the Verbal Behavior Approach focuses on the child's motivation and analyzing language using Skinner's Analysis of Verbal Behavior. Most people who use the Verbal Behavior Approach use the VB MAPP or ABLLS R or both to develop the child's programming. The Verbal Behavior Approach focuses on determining what motivates the child and working off of that motivation. The sessions look like play and fun but the child is learning as well. The instructors typically use natural language, errorless learning, rapid presentation of instruction, and focus heavily on mand training especially when first starting the program. 

Comparison of VBA to Typical Discrete Trial/Lovaas
It is important to understand that some of the distinctions I make below are based on people that are doing outdated Lovaas. Lovaas has updated their methodologies based on the research but some of the people originally trained using this method, have not stayed on top of the research. These distinctions are also mostly based on my experience.

 Item  Lovaas  Verbal Behavior
 Language Development Very little focus on mand training. 
Focus heavily on matching, receptive
and then expressive language		 Heavy focus on function of verbal behavior. Large focus
on mand training and developing language by function 
including matching, receptive listener, expressive/labeling
intraverbals, echoics
 Presentation of targets Targets are usually presented in 
isolation then rotated with known targets
and then rotated with even more known
targets. Targets are presented multiple
times in a row (usually 10)		Targets are interspersed with a variety of operants
 being targeted.  Targets that are performed correctly
are set aside and targets that were missed are practiced
throughout the session.
 Motivation The therapist typically chooses the 
reinforcer for the child based on items
 they have identified as preferred
 The child chooses the reinforcer by requesting items or 
by being offered choices throughout the session. 
Additionally, the therapist engages the child 
throughout the session and capitalizes on natural
occurring motivating activities. For example if the child
is enjoying bouncing on the ball, the therapist
will pause and intersperse a demand, then go back
to bouncing on the ball. 
 Data Collection            Typically record 10 trials on a data
sheet 		 Typically record 1st response only and some places 
record mands or other verbal operants
 Mastery Criteria Typically the target is done in an 
isolation phase then a random rotation
phase then an extended trial phase
in each of these phases the target
has to reach a 80 or 90% criteria 
before moving on to the next phase and
in the last phase the 80 or 90 % has
to happen 2 sessions in a row		Typically the target has to be correct 3 sessions in a row
on the first response and the on hold for 2 days and tested
for correct responding. If the item is correct, it moves to 
maintenance 

There are other things I could compare but I can't figure out how to make the table bigger. The next logical question would then be which approach is preferable? The research shows that a lot of the techniques used in the Verbal Behavior Approach result in faster skill acquisition. However, some children need more trials and stricter mastery criteria. I will write a more detailed blog on this topic in the next couple of days. Until then keep in mind that the best approach is one that
is individualized FOR THE CHILD and that any BCBA who says "I only do this" is not focusing on your child and is flawed in how they are developing the child's programming.

What Does VB/VBA look like???
Here are some videos on youtube that represent VB. These obviously are not all of the videos but are some of my favorites!





the above video is EXCELLENT for showing how the child's motivation can be used to facilitate and encourage language


What are some good VB/VBA Books/Websites?

The Verbal Behavior Approach by Mary Barbera is by far the best VB/VBA book
She also has a blog and a twitter and facebook page if you look up Verbal Behavior Approach or Mary Barbera

Educating Toward Recovery by Robert Schramm. He also has a website

The VB MAPP and/or Dr. Sundberg. His site is here.

The ABLLS-R and/or Dr. Partington. His site is here.

Dr. Carbone




And here is a list of articles/research that support the plethora of techniques used in ABA programs that use a VBA

The following publications are journal articles pertaining to various topics about ABA and common techniques used in Verbal Behavior Training. 

PAIRING

Lalli, J.S., Vollmer, T.R., Progar, P.R., Wright, C., Borrero, J., Daniel, D., Hoffner-Barthold, C., Tocco, K., & May, W. (1999).  Competition between positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape behavior.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 285-296.

DEMAND FADING

Pace, G.M., Ivancic, M.T., & Jefferson, G. (1994).  Stimulus fading as treatment for obscenity in a brain injured adult.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 301-305.

Pace, G.M., Iwata, B.A., Cowdery, G. E., Andree, P.J., McIntyre, T. (1993).  Stimulus (instructional) fading during extinction of self-injurious escape behavior.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 205-212.

Weld, E.M., & Evans, I.M. (1990).  Effects of part versus whole instructional strategies on skill acquisition and excess behavior.  American Journal of Mental Retardation, 4, 377-386.

Zarcone, J.R, Iwata, B.A., Vollmer, T.R., Jagtiani, S., Smith, R.G., & Mazaleski, J.L.  (1993).  Extinction of self-injurious escape behavior with and without instructional fading.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 353-360.

Zarcone, J.R., Iwata, B.A., Smith, R.G., Mazaleski, J.L., & Lerman, D.C. (1994). Reemergence and extinction of self-injurious escape behavior during stimulus (instructional) fading.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 307-316.

ERRORLESS LEARNING

Touchette, P.E., & Howard, J.S. (1984).  Errorless learning:  Reinforcement contingencies and stimulus control transfer in delayed prompting.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 175-181.

Weeks, M. & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1981).  Task difficulty and aberrant behavior in severely handicapped students.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 449-463.

TASK INTERSPERSAL/BEHAVIOR MOMENTUM

Davis, C.A., Brady, M. P., Williams, R.E., & Hamilton, R. (1992).  Effects of high-probability requests on the acquisition and generalization of responses to requests in young children with behavior disorders.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 905-916.

Dunlap, G. & Koegel, R. L. (1980).  Motivating autistic children through stimulus variation.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 619-627.

Horner, R.H., Day, H.M., Sprague, J.R., O’Brien, M., & Tuesday-Heathfield, T. (1991).  Interspersed requests:  A nonaversive procedure for reducing aggression and self-injury during instruction.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 265-278.

Koegel, L. & Koegel, R.L. (1986).  The effects of interspersed maintenance tasks on academic performance in a severe childhood stroke victim.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 425-430.

Zarcone, J.R., Iwata, B.A., Hughes, C.E., & Vollmer, T.R. (1993).  Momentum versusextinction effects in the treatment of self-injurious escape behavior.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 135-136.

INSTRUCTIONAL PACE

Carnine, D.W. (1976).  Effects of two teacher-presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation.  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199-206.


Posted by Megan DeLeon BCBA at 11/19/2009 9:47 PM
Categories: aBA and Autism
Tags: BCBA behavior analysis autism behavior therapy resources verbal behavior autism treatment autism services
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this entry.
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  • 11/21/2009 7:13 AM jazmin wrote:
    Excellent !!!!!!!!!! Very clear ... ... good job Megan! A big hug ! Jaz
    Reply to this
  • 11/25/2009 10:56 PM Vincent LaMarca wrote:
    A few comments:
    1) I appreciate your attempt to create a balanced comparison of VBA to Typical Discrete Trial/Lovaas, but I think your title may be misleading. You call it “Typical Discrete Trial/Lovaas” but then go on to say the distinctions are “mostly based on my experience.” Are you sure your experience provides you with an adequate sample of what “typical discrete trial/Lovaas” looks like? Perhaps you’ve only been exposed to inadequate programs that don’t really represent what “typical discrete trials” look like when implemented by a competent behavior analyst. And have you really had experience with “Lovaas”? Was treatment you’ve experienced from the Lovaas Institute or one of its replication sites or was it from someone purporting to follow “Lovaas”?
    2) In my experience as a Lovaas Institute behavior consultant for the past 10 years (and 4 years previously as an instructor), I can tell you the following is NOT typical of the procedures I have been taught or use.
    LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT – “Very little focus on mand training.” Not True. Mand training is integral to treatment, particularly for young learners. Glen Sallows even notes in his 2005 replication research of Lovaas that “Requesting was taught as early as possible.”
    PRESENTATION OF TARGETS – Targets are presented multiple times in a row (usually 10). Not true. Massed trials is an important teaching strategy but does not include a rigid number of times that a target must be presented. The number of discrete trials delivered during structured teaching time also varies.
    MASTERY CRITERIA – “…in each of these phases the target has to reach 80 or 90% criteria before moving on to the next phase.” Not True. When the 80% mastery criteria must be reached has always been individualized for each child. Standard protocol is to require 80-100% accuracy, across two sessions, for both the target item (or items) as well as acquired items. Whether or not mastery must be met at earlier levels of teaching (i.e., in isolation, random rotation, etc.) would only be considered for children or teams who demonstrate inconsistency.
    3) I will be interested to see if you do get around to writing a more detailed blog about “The research shows that a lot of the techniques used in the Verbal Behavior Approach result in faster skill acquisition.” That statement seems incomplete. As you note later, many of the decisions regarding which technique is best for skill acquisition or maintenance will revolve around a particular child and the skill you are teaching. I think you’ll find the research backs up your latter statement more than your former statement.
    Thanks for your willingness to contribute to a discussion of applied behavior analysis and it’s strategies for children with autism. I think you do an excellent job of raising important points in your blog as well as providing some practical advice.
    Reply to this
    1. 11/26/2009 10:24 AM Megan DeLeon BCBA wrote:
      Vincent,
      Thank you for the comment. In response to number 1 and 2 about saying it is based on my experience, I did clarify above the table that this was based on my experience and that most people who claim to be doing Lovaas are using outdated procedures. See quote:

      "It is important to understand that some of the distinctions I make below are based on people that are doing outdated Lovaas. Lovaas has updated their methodologies based on the research but some of the people originally trained using this method, have not stayed on top of the research."

      Additionally, I am not sure if my experience is what you would consider adequate as I have never been trained directly at Lovaas but here is a summary of my experiences with Lovaas style:
      1. One of the first places I worked as a therapist was a Lovaas replication site and the consultants were overseen by Dr. Wynn.
      2. My supervisor in              grad school  came from Reno which I think is also a replication site but if not it is heavily focused on Lovaas style 
      3. My first job out of grad school was with a provider who was trained by              Scott Cross .

      In all three of these situations, the providers were very rigid and did all of the things I said is typical of people claiming to do Lovaas. There was no individualizing based on the child and there was not the same type of focus on mand training as what I experienced with people using the ABLLS. 

      I am not criticizing Lovaas but merely pointing out that there are a lot of people claiming to do Lovaas style who do the things I said in the blog. I personally use what ever approach (discrete trial or first response) is most appropriate for the child but I almost always use the ABLLS, VB MAPP for              curriculum development . 

      In response to number 3: The items I mentioned as having more support in the literature, I listed references for at the end of the blog. Also, Dr. Jim Carr presents on research he is conducting comparing: discrete trial and first response, no no prompt and errorless, and other aspects of therapy. I also did my own research with one of my clients where I picked ten targets at random and did five using first response instruction and five using discrete trial instruction. The five in first response were mastered in two weeks and maintained in maintenance. The five in discrete trial took almost two months to master due to the criteria and were maintained the same in maintenance. I controlled for difficulty by picking ten random unknown why questions. 

      In one of Lovaas' books I  know the order of presenting skills had requesting not being focused on until almost six months to a year into therapy. Has this changed?
      I am so happy that your experience has been different. I wish there were more people with your experience. I think the main issue is the people claiming to do Lovaas style were trained by people who were trained by people who were trained by people who were trained by the institute. I think a lot of people don't stay on top of the research coming out of the institute or in general. 

      Any information that you would like to share with me: articles, changes in protocol, etc that you haven't already shared, please do and I will include it in an upcoming blog. I do my best to present information accurately and do not want people thinking that the Institute does not know what it is doing. I was trying to distinguish the Institute from Typical DTI in the blog but I guess I did not do that well enough.

      Also, if you have a chance, I would like to learn more about how the Institute does mand training: when does it start, how do you shape to vocals, how much is done/session, etc

      Reply to this
  • 12/2/2009 1:52 PM Vincent LaMarca wrote:
    Thanks for your follow up. Your responses help put things in perspective. The Lovaas blog will actually delve into behavioral treatment procedures in the coming months. Personally, there are three major issues that I think need to be addressed.
    WHAT WE CALL THINGS - Too many of the terms we are currently using to describe behavioral treatment procedures and strategies is misleading or poorly defined. You just posted a blog in which you admonish CNN for contrasting the Denver model with ABA because the Denver model is a form of ABA (ironically, I think they actually called it “traditional ABA”). However, new terms that lead to misunderstandings are happening all the time in our field. You point out in this blog that the term Verbal Behavior can be misused. As another example, traditional Discrete Trial Teaching (capital letters) is sometimes contrasted to Natural Environment Teaching. But Natural Environment Teaching includes discrete trials. That’s confusing!
    HOW WE DESCRIBE THINGS - We have to be careful not to set up unfair descriptions when we compare things. In the CNN article, the Denver model was “a very pleasing kind of therapy, kids are happy. It is play, and it can happen everywhere”. This was compared to ABA which “is delivered at a desk, with the child sitting next to the teacher or therapist.” Your reaction was probably the same as mine…That’s not fair. ABA can be a lot more than just sitting at a desk. But now let’s look at some of your comparisons again. In your comparison of Language Development, you describe Lovaas as “Very little focus on mand training…” You describe Verbal Behavior as, “Heavy focus on function of verbal behavior. Large focus on mand training…” Well, that’s not fair. Why do you throw in “heavy focus on function of verbal behavior” just for Verbal Behavior? ANY applied behavior analysis program has a heavy focus on the function of behaviors. We may not call them “mands, tacts, or intraverbals” but even Lovaas was always concerned with a child’s development of all forms of verbal behavior – whether they are labeling, requesting, or answering wh- questions. Personally, I think you do one of the best, honest assessments of different techniques associated with Lovaas and Verbal Behavior that I’ve seen out there, but it’s easy for little biases to creep in. It’s one of the reasons I like talking with you…I know I am biased from my experience with the Lovaas Institute as well.
    WHAT RESEARCH INDICATES BASED ON CHILD CHARACTERISTICS AND THE SKILL TO DEVELOP - I think as good research continues, we’ll find that, not surprisingly, rather than a “best approach” there are different approaches that work better, worse, or make no difference for different children with autism. This has started to already become manifest with research into mand vs. tact training and massed trials vs. task interspersal. I’ll be sure to let you know when those debates are posted on the Lovaas blog.
    Reply to this
    1. 12/2/2009 10:13 PM Megan DeLeon BCBA wrote:
      Vincent,
      I agree with you about the issues you pointed out about what we call things, how we describe things, and especially what research indicates as effective. People too often get caught up in marketing THEIR approach and lose sight of doing what is best for the child by looking at the research and choosing the relevant techniques. 

      With regards to my descriptions of Verbal Behavior vs DTT/Lovaas with mand training and focus on operants of verbal behavior, I am solely talking about the people that I have encountered. I apologize once again that it comes off as a description related to the Lovaas Clinic but I am really just being factual: the people  I have encountered who are claiming to do VB have focused heavily on mand training and function of verbal behavior where as the people I have encountered who are claiming to do DTT have focused less on mand training and less on functions of verbal behavior (often not targeting key areas such as intraverbals and feature, function, and class). It is VERY IMPORTANT that everyone reading my blog understand that this does not mean this is what the Lovaas Clinic does or advocates doing. It is simply what the people do who I know. I also apologize if the phrasing sounds negative but I really am just giving a quantitative account of what I have encountered with regards to those areas. 

      Reply to this
  • 12/2/2009 1:56 PM Vincent LaMarca wrote:
    You also asked about mand training at the Lovaas Institute. Let me give you one example from a recent case that I had. This boy was 3 years, 2 months old when he started treatment. He said 5-10 words, but never consistently. He was currently attending a developmental preschool and received speech therapy twice a week. One of the skills they were working on with him was requesting, but his responses were inconsistent. Sometimes he would spontaneously ask for an object, sometimes he would imitate a verbal model as a prompt, and sometimes he would just continue to reach for the object and whine if he didn’t get it or leave after failing to be given the object. His parents identified spontaneous requesting (i.e., manding) as an area of difficulty throughout the day. He was scheduled to receive 20-30 hours of behavioral treatment during the first month.

    The following programs were practiced during the initial consultation and continued for the next month. I’ve put in parenthesis the number of items mastered by the end of the month.

    LEARNING READINESS
    Reinforcer Assessment
    PLAY
    Task Completion (+4 activities)
    Early Play Activities (+4 activities)
    Beginning Toy Play (+3 actions)
    REQUESTING
    Requesting (point) (+ able to point to objects out of reach as a request)
    Requesting (verbal) (+3 verbal requests)
    IMITATION
    Nonverbal Imitation (gross and fine motor) (+8 gross, +8 fine)
    RECEPTIVE
    Touch Same (matching) (+field of 24 pictures)
    Receptive Labels (+6 objects)
    Receptive Instructions (+7 instructions)
    Receptive Room Objects (+2 objects)
    Come Here
    VERBAL IMITATION
    Verbal Imitation (baseline) (39 vowel-consonant sounds identified at baseline)
    EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE
    Expressive Labels (*)
    *This final program was started at the end of the first month. The child had started to spontaneously imitate instructors in some of the receptive language programs. We took the labels he said clearly (or made a good approximation for) and began to hold up the picture for him to expressively identify (i.e., tact). By the end of the next month, he was able to tact 4 objects.

    This is just one example. I’ve worked with some children who need a lot more time on specific skills so that we may only focus on 5 or fewer programs the first month. Requesting in some format, though not necessarily verbal, is typically part of that process. So, I do include mand training, but it’s always part of a comprehensive program. Further, Lovaas, Sallows, and Cohen all point out in their long-term outcome studies that parent involvement was an important part of the intervention. Mand training in particular is easy to incorporate into the rest of the day. I’ve heard some “verbal behavior” consultants recommend the first month of therapy be completely devoted to pairing instructors with reinforcement and mand training. I look at the progress the above child made and think, “Only focus on mand training for a month? What a waste of time when so much more can be accomplished!”
    Reply to this
    1. 12/2/2009 10:19 PM Megan DeLeon BCBA wrote:
      Vincent,
      Thank you for the description. I think it is important to keep in mind that is always best to do what is best for the child as you and I have already discussed. It looks as though the child in your example made gains in all areas which is excellent. Some of the children I have worked with might require mand training for a month because either they do not have the prerequisite skills to do the other programs, the parents are highly concerned about language development, or other reasons depending on the child. We typically start our programming with mand training and compliance training (demand fading) and increase the number of programs as the child develops a relationship with us. This sometimes can take a few sessions and sometimes can take a month. It just depends on the child. My biggest issue that I encountered with the people doing the more DTT style of approach was there was no pairing or focus on motivating the child so for the first month or longer of therapy the child literally cried the whole time we were there and very little was accomplished (this was before I went to graduate school so I didn't know any better). Regardless of whether I intend to use Discrete Trials with the child or First Response, I always start with pairing, compliance training, and mand training when first starting. Sometimes though I have to modify because the mand training is actually more frustrating for the child and the child does better with the type of programs you described in your example. So I guess my point is, I always individualize based on the child's needs. 

      Reply to this
  • 1/19/2010 7:51 AM Web developers wrote:
    That was inspiring,
    This is a great explanation of verbal behaviour,
    Thanks
    Reply to this
  • 1/22/2010 5:31 PM Regina Claypool-Frey wrote:
    I feel a little like I'm watching a tennis match (grin), and am wondering if it is more a case of what/how particular practitioners apply under a "name", than the absolute superiority of a particular set of procedures from an entire toolbox of available procedures and conceptual constructs under the science of applied behavior analysis. Not to be contentious, but as a consumer, I have seen good and not-so-good (to be charitable) implementations, regardless of the stated "flavor" of the behavior analytic model, and oftentimes the "not so good" results from adherence based on the strictures of a tightly held philosophical position rather than the results of assessment and data analysis telling one that the "child knows best" - with that data informing good data-based decisionmaking. Also, as ABA is a science, it and its applications as best practices are subject to change as more research information becomes available.

    Since some literature has been cited in the post, I would like to take the liberty of citing some more. I have found these to be helpful in aid of good instruction.

    Cummings, A.R., & Carr, J.E. (2009). Evaluating progress in behavioral programs for children with autism spectrum disorders via continuous and discontinuous measurement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(1), 57-71.
    doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-57.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-57
    We evaluated the influence of two different frequencies of data collection on skill acquisition and maintenance within behavioral treatment programs for children with autism spectrum disorders. Six children were taught multiple skills in up to four different behavioral programs. Half of the skills were measured continuously (i.e., trial by trial), and the other half were measured discontinuously (i.e., first trial only). When differences were detected, quicker acquisition was typically associated with discontinuous measurement, and stronger maintenance was typically associated with continuous measurement.

    Ferraioli, S., Hughes, C., & Smith, T. (2005). A Model for problem solving in discrete trial training for children With autism. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Interventions, 2(4), 224-246.
    http://www.jeibi.net/Issues/JEIBI-2-4.pdf#page=7

    Sundberg, M.Sundberg, M. L. (2004). A behavioral analysis of motivation and its relation to mand
    training. In L. W. Williams (ed.). Developmental disabilities: Etiology, assessment, intervention, and integration pp . Reno NV: Context Press.
    Starting at "Language Assessment",
    http://www.marksundberg.com/files/Sundberg_Mand-Larry_Williams_book_Chapter.pdf#page=13

    and
    Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1999). The need for both discrete trial and natural environment language training for children with autism. In P. M. Ghezzi, W.L. Williams & J.E. Carr (Eds.) Autism: Behavior analytic
    perspectives. Reno, NV: Context Press.
    Reply to this
    1. 1/24/2010 7:53 PM Megan DeLeon BCBA wrote:
      Regina,
      Thank you for the excellent comment. I hope my post did not come off as though I am adhering to a certain approach in the toolbox. I agree with you that the best behavior analysts or providers I have seen are the ones who base their decisions on data and the individual child rather than strictly adhering to a certain "approach." Thank you also for the great references. Dr. Carr presented his results from that paper as well as a few other studies he is doing regarding certain methodologies that people use when working with autistic children at a talk at FSU last year and I greatly enjoyed it!

      Reply to this
Leave a comment

Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.