etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 2. Jeremy’s Progress in Play Skills and MLU. Jeremy’s baseline was 7 sessions (3.5 weeks), instruction and generalization were 13 sessions (6.5 weeks), and maintenance was two sessions (1 week) with a total of 35 sessions (11 weeks). In training session #4, Jeremy mastered play level 5. In training session #7, Jeremy mastered play level 6. In training session #12, Jeremy mastered play level 8. At training session #13, Jeremy was at level 10 (not mastered/left at this level). The highest level of play observed in any session was level 13. the generalization sessions as well. Although his play skills in generalized sessions were not as developmentally high as in the instruction sessions, he clearly showed progress in his play skills. In terms of MLU, Jeremy was primarily non-verbal (MLU 0) throughout baseline and for the first 5 weeks of the intervention, after which his average MLU increased from week 6 and through the end of the intervention. Jeremy’s average MLU was 1.7 (session range of 0–2.7) during intervention, and his average MLU in the maintenance phase was 1.6. In generalized sessions, Jeremy began to use some language even before he showed that language in the instructional sessions. This was positive and continued in the generalized sessions fairly consistently. Jeremy’s PLS-4 receptive scores improved to 39 months and expressive scores improved to 41 months. Ryan showed a progression during the intervention phase which was notably maintained in the generalization sessions based on average level of play achieved (Figure 3). It is to be noted that during Ryan’s baseline, he exhibited single acts at level 7/9, but his average level of play was 4.9 (range 2–7/9). Thus, we began instruction at level 6. He immediately showed mastery of this level in generalized situations after one training session, so we moved to instruction at level 7/9 and he progressed through emergence at level 10. In the maintenance phase, the highest level of play exhibited by Ryan was level 14, and his average level of play was 9.8 (range of 2–14). Ryan was primarily non-verbal (MLU 0) throughout baseline, but made rapid initial gains in his MLU during the intervention phase (MLU 1.7, with session range of 0–3.0) and in the generalized sessions. Those gains which were maintained in the maintenance phase (MLU 2.9) with variation in his MLU from session to session. His PLS-4 scores improved 312 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2012
Figure 3. Ryan’s Progress in Play Skills and MLU. Ryan’s baseline was 10 sessions (5 weeks), instruction was 10 sessions (5 weeks), generalization was nine sessions (absent one), and maintenance was two sessions (1 week) with a total of 31 sessions (11 weeks). In training session #1, Ryan mastered play level 6. In training session #8, Ryan mastered play level 8. At training session #10, Ryan was at level 10 (not mastered/left at this level). The highest level of play observed in any session was level 14. to 50 months receptively and 37 months expressively. Figure 4 shows that Jonah had the most advanced play skills of the participants prior to intervention. His baseline play skills were mastered at level 8 and his average level of play was 6.7. Thus, we started instruction at level 10. Again, note that although instruction targeted level 10, Jonah’s average level of play in any session may have been lower. Over the course of the intervention, Jonah made gains in his average level of play, and he carried those gains over into his maintenance phase and generalized sessions. During the intervention, Jonah progressed from level 8 through mastery of level 13 on his last session and thus, emergence at level 14. At the highest point (during maintenance phase), he exhibited play at level 15/16. His average level of play on the last maintenance observation was 13.5. Jonah’s MLU prior to intervention was 1.0; he made rapid gains during the intervention phase (MLU 2.5, with session range of 1.5– 2.9), maintained MLU usage in the generalized sessions, and maintained gains in the maintenance phase (MLU 2.2). Both his receptive and expressive PLS-4 scores improved to 44 months. Social Validity The purpose of a social validity assessment is to determine if the intervention was socially relevant. Social relevance includes whether an outcome is significant, appropriate, and important (Wolf, 1973). We did not formally assess the social significance of the goals, as play and language skills are unequivocally fundamental to the development of children. We also did not formally assess the social appropriateness of the procedures used in this investigation as all of the participant’s families Video Modeling for Appropriate Play and Connected Speech / 313
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 and 60: elated utterances, which were used
Page 61: Figure 1. Ian’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?