etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Language Coding Measures An appropriate play–related utterance was defined as an intelligible verbalization of one or more English words (or an intelligible approximation thereof) by the participants immediately before, during or immediately after an appropriate play act, and the verbalization had to be related to or in connection with the play action. Verbalizations made immediately before, during or immediately after any action or sequence by the participant which was not coded as an appropriate play action were recorded but not coded as an appropriate play– related verbalization, even if they related to and were in connection with the (non– appropriate play) action. Verbalizations that were related to an appropriate play action but made more than three seconds prior to, or three seconds after, the play action were recorded but not scored (the incidence of such verbalizations was extremely low). All verbalizations during a session were logged, regardless of whether they constituted an appropriate play–related utterance. Due to the difficulty in definitively categorizing utterances and the coder being blind to the instruction on the video models, no distinction was made between play–related utterances modeled in the video models (i.e., scripted utterances) and novel or different utterances (i.e., unscripted utterances). Average MLU was calculated for each session by dividing the total number of morphemes uttered during all appropriate play– related utterances made during the session by the total number of all appropriate play– related utterances made during the session. The total number of morphemes spoken during any particular utterance was determined in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Guide to Analysis of Language Transcripts, Second Edition, (Retherford, 1993) which represents the standard methodology employed by speech language pathologists when measuring mean length of utterance (e.g., counting the utterance of one plural noun forms as two morphemes, and counting the utterance of one verb in predicate form as two morphemes). The first author (MS, CCC-SLP) trained the undergraduate student to measure MLU. The undergraduate student transcribed and calculated MLU for all sessions. The first author checked every transcription (100%) and confirmed any discrepancies with the undergraduate. Results Intervention Outcomes Average play skills are presented graphically within video modeling intervention (instruction, baseline, and maintenance) and during generalization (no baseline or maintenance). Average MLU is presented graphically within video modeling intervention (instruction, baseline, and maintenance) and during generalization (no baseline or maintenance). Figure 1 shows Ian’s progress (play observed in instruction, play in generalized observation, MLU observed in instruction, MLU in generalized observation), Figures 2, 3, and 4 show Jeremy’s, Ryan’s, and Jonah’s progress respectively. During the intervention, all four children were able to progress through multiple levels of play (Table 2) and all generally maintained those gains in the limited maintenance phase of the investigation. Please keep in mind that the figures present ‘average’ level of play and thus, a child might have an average level lower than their mastered level (e.g., a child has the 3 higher level acts with 3 novel toys but other play acts are at other levels and thus, an average is obtained; see Jeremy’s initial instructional point). Recall that none of the four children received level 7 instruction (as it was included with the video model for level 9). Figure 1 displays Ian’s steady progression in both the instructional and generalized situations based on average level of play achieved. Prior to the intervention, his average level of play was 1.8 (range of 1–2). Ian was initially instructed at level 3/4 and progressed through each level until emergence at level 8 where the intervention ended. In the maintenance phase, the average level of play Ian displayed was 6.8 (the range of play acts through maintenance observation went as low as level 5 and as high as level 10). Further, as noted, the highest level of play observed during any play session (trial, generalization, and maintenance) was level 10. Ian had a slight drop in his average play level during the first 310 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2012
Figure 1. Ian’s Progress in Play Skills and MLU. Ian’s baseline was 3 sessions (1.5 weeks), instruction and generalization were 17 sessions (8.5 weeks), and maintenance was 3 sessions (1.5 weeks) with a total of 40 sessions (11.5 weeks). In training session #2, Ian mastered play levels 3/4. In training session #7, Ian mastered play level 5. In training session #22, Ian mastered play level 6. At training session #30, Ian was at level 8 (not mastered/left at this level). The highest level of play observed in any session was level 10. maintenance session, but advanced his play without instruction back to his average level of play during instruction. In terms of generalized play, Ian clearly generalized his skills in the classroom environment (without prompting) consistent with his play instruction. Ian’s language also significantly increased in amount during the instruction phases of the intervention. In examination of all 3 baseline sessions, he had an MLU of 0.0. Across all the intervention sessions, his average MLU was about 1.8, and then about 1.9 during the three maintenance phase observations. During generalized free play, Ian continued to use language fairly consistently even without an adult. Ian’s PLS-4 receptive scores improved to <strong>47</strong> months and expressive scores to 33 months. Figure 2 shows Jeremy’s play skills during baseline, instruction, and maintenance phases. Jeremy’s baseline sessions yielded an average level of play at 4.9 (range of 1–5). Instruction for Jeremy began at level 6 (play acts at level 5 was sufficient for ‘mastery’). He progressed to emergence in level 10 by the end of intervention. His average play level progressed across the sessions. It was noted that Jeremy’s highest level of play observed during any play session was level 13. Jeremy advanced his play slightly during baseline prior to instruction and again during the first intervention sessions with only little instruction. Clearly, however, Jeremy advanced significantly as instruction was presented. Similar to Ian, in the maintenance phase, on the first session, Jeremy’s play overall was not as complex but at the second session, his average play level returned to the intervention average (range from 2–13 in those two sessions). Figure 2 displays Jeremy’s progress in play during Video Modeling for Appropriate Play and Connected Speech / 311
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
ities. Scholars have argued that do
Page 9 and 10: discussions were held with 12 addit
Page 11 and 12: TABLE 1 A Sample of Community Funds
Page 13 and 14: et al., 2007). At the school, stude
Page 15 and 16: students opportunities to work and
Page 17 and 18: Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K.
Page 19 and 20: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 21 and 22: of words, and in the short term wer
Page 23 and 24: TABLE 3 Word Lists List No. Trainin
Page 25 and 26: TABLE 6 Pairwise Comparisons on Pos
Page 27 and 28: Word Identification or Word Attack
Page 29 and 30: erate to severe disabilities. Excep
Page 31 and 32: ess in a variety of subjects includ
Page 33 and 34: TABLE 1 Target Vocabulary Words by
Page 35 and 36: Figure 1. Example of PowerPoint Sli
Page 37 and 38: TABLE 3 Mean Percentage of Correct
Page 39 and 40: Figure 4. Jake’s percentages corr
Page 41 and 42: man-Martin et al. (2005) by demonst
Page 45 and 46: used in the study that did not foll
Page 47 and 48: lected. Stories were read in a quie
Page 49 and 50: y determining the number of interva
Page 51 and 52: with the removal of the interventio
Page 53 and 54: Accordingly, recent research has in
Page 55 and 56: Method Participants Four male child
Page 57 and 58: TABLE 2 Play Scale - Developmental
Page 59: elated utterances, which were used
Page 63 and 64: Figure 3. Ryan’s Progress in Play
Page 65 and 66: Figure 5. Social Validity: Average
Page 67 and 68: (2000). A comparison of video model
Page 71 and 72: Method Participants Four high schoo
Page 73 and 74: TABLE 1 Task Analyses for all Tasks
Page 75 and 76: Figure 1. Holly multiple baseline g
Page 77 and 78: Figure 3. Norman multiple baseline
Page 79 and 80: ing at photographs. Jake only requi
Page 81 and 82: tion, some aspects of the target be
Page 83 and 84: table video aids may lead to greate
Page 85 and 86: TABLE 2 Task Analyses Including Vid
Page 87 and 88: table.” During the session, the t
Page 89 and 90: Figure 2. Percent of steps with err
Page 91 and 92: ter the 15 th session. With table w
Page 93 and 94: our students, it may have been diff
Page 97 and 98: TABLE 2 Participants Demographic Da
Page 99 and 100: opening of the lesson, the teacher
Page 101 and 102: TABLE 4 Total Number of Items Answe
Page 103 and 104: Figure 2. Total number of procedura
Page 105 and 106: serve both cognitive (e.g., self in
Page 107 and 108: and quasi-experimental designs for
Page 111 and 112:
& Cobb, 2002). Generalization, the
Page 113 and 114:
academic activities in the classroo
Page 115 and 116:
Procedure Baseline. In this multipl
Page 117 and 118:
condition for each student. With th
Page 119 and 120:
was repeated across all participant
Page 121 and 122:
Boning, R. A. (1997). SRA Specific
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
TABLE 1 Student demographic informa
Page 127 and 128:
ping, dining out, voting) and diffe
Page 129 and 130:
TABLE 2 Content Standards, Alternat
Page 131 and 132:
Student Achievement Figures 3-6 pro
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 4. Student data across math
Page 135 and 136:
Figure 6. Student data across math
Page 137 and 138:
A second limitation of the current
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
y students with intellectual disabi
Page 143 and 144:
TABLE 1 Studies of Mathematics Inte
Page 145 and 146:
subject design to provide an interv
Page 147 and 148:
Neef and colleagues (2003) demonstr
Page 149 and 150:
abilities. Education and Training i
Page 151 and 152:
show all

etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?