etadd_47(3) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 3 Number of sessions needed to reach criterion (i.e., three sessions with 100% correct responding) and the percent of steps completed correctly in the final session for each phase. Student Task Matt Criterion met (Number of Sessions) Percent Correct in Last Session Ann Criterion met (Number of Sessions) Percent Correct in Last Session Mark Criterion met (Number of Sessions) Percent Correct in Last Session Sweeping Without Error Correction washing steadily decreased. In session 91, performance of table washing (using video prompting with error correction) continued to increase, but performance of the sweeping task (using video prompting without error correction) plateaued. When comparing video prompting without error correction to video prompting with error correction, Matt performed an average of 41.5% (range 13– 56%) of the sweeping steps correctly with video prompting alone and 41.4% (range 0–69%) of the table washing steps correctly with video prompting plus error correction. When error correction was added to the sweeping task, his performance decreased slightly, completing an average of 34% (range 19–44%) steps correctly, and the number of error correction prompts needed for the table washing task also increased with this changed condition. When both the table washing and sweeping tasks were moved to in vivo instruction, his performance on both tasks increased; he completed an average of 55.6% (range 38–75%) of the sweeping steps correctly and an average of 65.9% (range 56–75%) of the table-washing steps correctly. Matt did not meet mastery for either task prior to the termination of this study, as noted in Table 3. Sweeping With Error Correction (additional sessions) Ann Table Washing With Error Correction In Vivo (additional sessions, task) Not met (46) Not met (17) Not met (61) Not met (28, Sweeping) Not met (28, Washing) 44% 38% 69% Sweeping: 75% Not met (20) Not met (24) Met (33) Table Washing: 63% n/a 56% 75% 100% n/a Not met (15) Not met (30) Met (32) Met (21, Sweeping) 25% 69% 100% 100% Percent correct data for Ann are presented in the second panel of Figure 1 and the percent of steps with error correction in the second panel of Figure 2. During baseline, of the steps initiated, Ann completed 25% correctly for sweeping and an average of 16% (range 6–19%) correctly for table washing. When video prompting was implemented (either with or without error correction), both tasks showed a stable increase, but table washing (using video prompting with error correction) was completed more successfully than sweeping (using video prompting without error correction) beginning in session 15. Additionally, the percentage of steps requiring error correction for table washing steadily decreased over the course of the intervention. When video prompting was used without error correction for the sweeping task, Ann performed an average of 51.8% (range 31–63%) of the steps correctly. When error correction was added to sweeping, she performed an average of 66.2% (range 50–81%) of the steps correctly and demonstrated a stable decrease in the percentage of steps requiring error correction in the first 15 sessions, though this stabilized af- 340 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2012
ter the 15 th session. With table washing (which always used error correction), she performed an average of 81.7% (range 31–100%) of steps correctly, with the final five sessions maintained at 100% correct responding. The number of sessions Ann needed to reach mastery is presented in Table 3. Ann did not meet criterion with the sweeping task (though ended her last session completing 75% of the steps correctly) and met mastery with table washing in 33 sessions. Mark Overall percent correct data for Mark are presented in the bottom panel of Figure 1 and the percent of steps with error correction in the bottom panel of Figure 2. During baseline, of the steps he initiated, Mark completed an average of 0.6% (range 0–6) correctly for sweeping and an average of 1.4% (range 0–13%) correctly for table washing. When the intervention was introduced, there was a clear differentiation between video prompting with and without error correction, with video prompting with error correction showing a steeper increase. When video prompting with error correction was introduced with table washing, Mark completed an average of 66.1% (range 6–100%) of the steps correctly, and completed the final three sessions with 100% accuracy. He also had a stable decrease in the percentage of steps requiring error correction. Conversely, when video prompting without error correction was introduced with sweeping, Mark completed an average of 17.6% (range 6–25%) of the steps correctly. When error correction was added, his performance improved, but plateaued between 69 and 75% (M 57.8%, range 25–75%). The decrease in the percentage of steps requiring error correction also decreased at a fairly slow rate. Finally, when in vivo instruction was implemented with sweeping, he reached mastery and ended this phase with three sessions at 100% correct responding (M 87.8%, range 75–100%). The number of sessions Mark needed to reach mastery is presented in Table 3. Mark did not meet criterion with the sweeping task using video prompting with or without error correction across 45 sessions (ending the video prompting with error correction condition completing 69% of sweeping steps correctly), but did master the skill with in vivo instruction after an additional 21 sessions. He met mastery with table washing in 32 sessions. Discussion In this study, an iPod Touch was used to compare the effects of video prompting with and without error correction across two tasks and three individuals with moderate to profound intellectual disability. All students improved their performance over baseline levels, but only Ann and Mark met mastery using video prompting with error correction for table washing. Additionally, skill acquisition was slightly more efficient when error correction was included with the video prompts from the outset of intervention for two of the three students. For Matt, the inclusion of error correction with video prompting had a minimal effect, and in vivo instruction was used to increase his correct responding with both skills. All three participants attended to the iPod Touch and did not appear to have any trouble viewing the video prompts on the small screen. One possible reason that video prompting without error correction was less effective for all three participants was the lack of feedback on the accuracy of their performance. For example, both Matt and Ann consistently made the same error for certain steps in the sweeping task, yet during the video prompting without error correction phase, neither received any corrective feedback and continuously practiced this error. It is possible that the use of the error correction procedures would have remedied this problem, by providing opportunities for students to emit the correct response following the viewing of the video clip, thus enhancing the stimulus control the video prompt has on correct responding (Wordsell et al., 2005). Video prompting (with and without error correction) was the least effective for Matt. Anecdotally, it was noted that several of the steps in each task were physically challenging for him to complete. For example, he consistently struggled with washing and drying the entire table, squeezing the cloth, sweeping the carpet until it was clean, turning the sweeper over, shaking the dirt out of the sweeper, and Video Prompting and Error Correction / 341
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:
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 43 and 44: Education and Training in Autism an
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 and 62: Figure 1. Ian’s Progress in Play
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: Figure 2. Percent of steps with err
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 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 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?