A comparison of methods for teaching receptive language to toddlers with autism

Vedora, Joseph; Grandelski, Katrina

doi:10.1002/jaba.167

Cited by 12 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Collectively, these results suggest that establishing simple discriminations may not be a prerequisite for teaching conditional discriminations to some learners with autism, or that conditional discrimination preparations can efficiently teach this simple discrimination in the context of teaching more complex conditional discriminations, relative to teaching each skill in isolation. However, these findings have been reported with a relatively small (N = 8 participants across Grow et al, ; Grow et al, ; Gutierrez et al, ; Leaf et al, ; Vedora & Grandelski, ) and homogenous participant population (all studies were based in the United States with conditional sample stimuli presented in English). The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend the research comparing simple‐to‐conditional relative to conditional‐only training methods.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Comparison of two discrimination methods in teaching Chinese children with autism

Lin

Jing

2019

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In teaching conditional discriminations to children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), practitioners may progress from simple to conditional discriminations or may teach conditional discriminations from the onset of instruction. Some research indicates that teaching simple discriminations first may be unnecessary and that teaching may more efficiently focus on conditional discriminations exclusively. This study replicated comparisons of simple‐to‐conditional and conditional‐only discrimination training methods in teaching audio‐visual conditional discriminations to Chinese preschoolers with ASD. Results indicated the conditional‐only training method appeared to be more efficient in teaching these skills.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Comparison of two discrimination methods in teaching Chinese children with autism

Lin

Jing

2019

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Os resultados do presente estudo se somam aos achados recentes (Grow et al, 2011;Grow et al, 2014;Gutierrez et al, 2009;Vedora & Grandelski, 2015) que indicam 1) que os procedimento de treino DSC e DC são eficazes para ensinar linguagem receptiva para crianças com autismo (ou seja, ambos os procedimentos levam à aquisição do repertório); mas 2) que um treino DC pode ser mais eficiente que um treino DSC no estabelecimento de linguagem receptiva em crianças com autismo (ou seja, o treino DC produz a aquisição do repertório em menos sessões e com menos exposição ao erro).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Tomados conjuntamente, os resultados dos treinos e dos pós-treinos apontam que no ensino de linguagem receptiva para crianças com autismo o treino de discriminações simples não é um requisito necessário (ver também Grow et al, 2011;Grow et al, 2014;Gutierrez et al, 2009;Vedora & Grandelski, 2015), mas que um treino DSC baseado no formato com uso de blocos de tentativas e mais de dois estímulos discriminativos desde o início do treino (e.g. Saunders & Spradlin, 1990) pode favorecer a manutenção do repertório aprendido.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…Os resultados desse estudo combinados com aqueles da literatura (e.g. Grow et al, 2011;Grow et al, 2014;Vedora & Grandelski, 2015), indicam que o ensino da linguagem receptiva pode efetivamente ser realizado diretamente com um procedimento DC e, mais importante, indicam que o uso de procedimento DSC, se necessário, não deve ser baseado nos procedimentos descritos nos manuais, mas deve ser adaptado de forma a evitar erros derivados de controle inadequado de estímulos (por exemplo, controle por posição ou persistência comportamental).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ensino de linguagem receptiva para crianças com autismo : comparando dois procedimentos.

Costa

Souza

2015

Acta. Colomb. Psicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Este trabalho comparou a eficiência de um treino de Discriminação Simples-Condicional (DSC), que empregou blocos de tentativas e três estímulos desde o seu início, com a do treino de Discriminação Condicional (DC), no ensino de linguagem receptiva para três crianças com autismo. Com cada criança foram treinadas nove relações palavra falada-figura em cada tipo de treino. O treino DSC consistiu na redução gradual de tentativas por bloco (de seis blocos de três tentativas, na Fase 1 para nove blocos de duas tentativas, na Fase 2), até sua randomização total, na Fase 3. O treino DC foi idêntico à Fase 3 de DSC, porém com outros estímulos. O treino DC se mostrou mais eficiente para o estabelecimento da linguagem receptiva, mas o treino DSC foi mais efetivo para a manutenção do repertório. Discutem-se as implicações desses resultados para a área aplicada e direções para novos estudos. Palavras-chave: autismo, linguagem receptiva, discriminação simples, discriminação condicional. LA ENSEÑANZA DEL LENGUAJE RECEPTIVO PARA NIÑOS CON AUTISMO: COMPARACIÓN DE DOS PROCEDIMIENTOS ResumenEste estudio comparó la eficiencia de un procedimiento de Discriminación Simple-Condicional (DSC) que empleó bloques de ensayos y tres estímulos desde su inicio, con la de uno de Discriminación Condicional (DC) en la enseñanza del lenguaje receptivo para tres niños con autismo. Cada niño fue entrenado en nueve relaciones palabra hablada-figura en cada tipo de procedimiento. El procedimiento DSC consistió en seis bloques de tres ensayos en la Fase 1, en nueve bloques de dos ensayos en la Fase 2, y en ensayos aleatorizados en la Fase 3. El procedimiento DC fue idéntico a la Fase 3 del DSC, pero con otros estímulos. El procedimiento DC fue más eficiente para el establecimiento de lenguaje receptivo, pero el DSC fue más eficaz para el mantenimiento del repertorio. Se discuten las implicaciones de estos resultados para el área aplicada y direcciones para futuras investigaciones. Palabras clave: autismo, lenguaje receptivo, discriminación simple, discriminación condicional. COMPARING TWO PROCEDURES FOR TEACHING RECEPTIVE LANGUAGE TO CHILDREN WITH AUTISM AbstractThis study compared the efficiency of a Simple-Conditional Discrimination (SCD) procedure that from the start used trial blocks and three stimuli, with another procedure of Conditional Discrimination (CD) in teaching receptive language to three autistic children. Each child was trained in nine spoken-word/figure relations contained in each type of procedure. The SCD

show abstract

“…Participants in the Grow et al () study were three children with ASD, and results showed that the RR procedure was more effective for seven of the eight training sets, across participants. These findings were later replicated, and although both procedures were effective in the establishment of receptive labels, the RR required fewer trials to mastery (Grow, Kodak, & Carr, ; Vedora & Grandelski, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Comparing structured mix and random rotation procedures to teach receptive labeling to children with autism

DiSanti

Eikeseth

Eldevik

et al. 2019

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compared two procedures using an alternating treatments design to teach receptive labeling to children with autism. The structured mix procedure followed seven steps entailing mass trials, intermixing, and random rotation. In the random rotation procedure, we trained all stimuli from the start. Study 1 included four children with a repertoire of four to 50 receptive labels and who primarily communicated with an alternative communication device. Results showed that the two conditions were comparable for one participant, structured mix was effective and random rotation was not effective for one participant, and that both conditions were ineffective for two participants. Study 2 included five children with over 200 receptive labels in their repertoire and with vocal speech as the primary form of communication. Four participants acquired the labels in both procedures, but random rotation was more effective. Results indicate that structured mix may be more effective for participants with a limited language repertoire and random rotation is more effective for participants with a larger language repertoire. K E Y W O R D Sautism, conditional discrimination training, language, receptive labeling, stimulus control

show abstract

A comparison of methods for teaching receptive language to toddlers with autism

Cited by 12 publications

References 7 publications

Comparison of two discrimination methods in teaching Chinese children with autism

Comparison of two discrimination methods in teaching Chinese children with autism

Ensino de linguagem receptiva para crianças com autismo : comparando dois procedimentos.

Comparing structured mix and random rotation procedures to teach receptive labeling to children with autism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About