Although conditioned reinforcers are used in many behavioral intervention programs for individuals with developmental disabilities, little research has been conducted to determine optimal methods for establishing conditioned reinforcers. An early method that has received relatively little research attention is to condition a neutral stimulus as a discriminative stimulus and then use the stimulus as a programed consequence during skill acquisition. The current study evaluated the effects of a discrimination training procedure on establishing conditioned reinforcers for three children with autism. For all participants, previously neutral stimuli reinforced behaviors after acquiring discriminative properties during discrimination training.

Research on tact acquisition by children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has often focused on teaching participants to tact visual stimuli. It is important to evaluate procedures for teaching tacts of nonvisual stimuli (e.g., olfactory, tactile). The purpose of the current study was to extend the literature on secondary target instruction and tact training by evaluating the effects of a discrete-trial instruction procedure involving (a) echoic prompts, a constant prompt delay, and error correction for primary targets; (b) inclusion of secondary target stimuli in the consequent portion of learning trials; and (c) multiple exemplar training on the acquisition of item tacts of olfactory stimuli, emergence of category tacts of olfactory stimuli, generalization of category tacts, and emergence of category matching, with three children diagnosed with ASD. Results showed that all participants learned the item and category tacts following teaching, participants demonstrated generalization across category tacts, and category matching emerged for all participants.

The current experiment is a systematic replication of previous studies that evaluated the efficiency of echoic and tact prompts on the acquisition of intraverbals (i.e., French-to-English translations) following exposure to each prompt type. We extended these studies by (a) evaluating participants' language skills on standardized assessments, (b) incorporating descriptive praise for correct responding, (c) presenting trials via voice recording, and (d) evaluating teacher preference for each prompt type as a social validity measure. All participants learned at least one set of intraverbals faster with the procedure that was most recently used during teaching. These findings suggest that results from previous prompt comparison studies might be a function of previous exposure to prompt types and that it might be possible to manipulate learning histories such that a particular prompt type becomes more efficient.

No abstract