An Internal and Critical Review of the PEAK Relational Training System for Children with Autism and Related Intellectual Disabilities: 2014–2017

Self Cite

Relational Frame Theory posits that complex language develops through arbitrarily applicable relational networks, with potential implications for individuals with autism. Responding relationally based on comparison occurs when participants respond to any number of comparative properties, such as “bigger” or “faster.” Experiment 1 established two 3‐member comparative networks, in which a stimulus A was conditioned as “bigger” or “faster” than a stimulus B, and the stimulus B was conditioned as “bigger” or “faster” than a stimulus C in 2 children with autism. Both participants met the mastery criterion for the trained relations and demonstrated the emergence of the untrained combinatorially entailed A–C and C–A relations. The participants could also match the arbitrary A stimuli with larger or faster objects and the C stimuli with smaller or slower objects. The results were replicated in Experiment 2 with the same participants, where a 5‐member relational network was established for the bigger/smaller relation.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 67%

“…The procedures were taken from the PEAK Relational Training System (PEAK; Dixon, ), a language development curriculum designed for use with individuals with autism. A standardized curriculum was used to aid in replication by researchers and clinicians that use the programs adapted from PEAK (Belisle, Dixon, Stanley, Munoz, & Daar, ; Dixon et al, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing arbitrary comparative relations and referential transformations of stimulus function in individuals with autism

Belisle

Stanley²,

Schmick³

et al. 2019

Self Cite

“…However, despite its widespread use, there is a paucity of evidence on the VB‐MAPP's psychometrics (see Dixon, Carman, Tyler, Whiting, Enoch et al, ; Gould et al, ) and utility in treatment. By contrast, the last few years have seen a growing body of psychometric and treatment research on the newest language assessment and curriculum tool, the Promoting the Emergence of Advanced Knowledge Relational Training System (PEAK; see also Dixon et al, , for an overview and review).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reed and Luiselli () provided a review of one of the PEAK modules: the PEAK Direct Training module (PEAK‐DTM). PEAK‐DTM is a commercially available curriculum “… designed to assess and teach language skills according to the traditional ABC design in which each response is reinforced in the presence of an appropriate discriminative stimulus” (McKeel, Dixon, Daar, Rowsey, & Szekely, , p. 232; see also Dixon, and Dixon et al, ). The PEAK‐DTM's curricular decisions are derived from scores on the criterion‐referenced PEAK‐DTM Assessment (PEAK‐DTA), which consists of “184 items targeting core learning skills” (Rowsey, Belisle, & Dixon, , p. 18).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An external review of the conclusions regarding the peak direct training module

Witts

2018

Promoting the Emergence of Advanced Knowledge-Direct Training Module (PEAK-DTM) is a commercially available assessment and curriculum for individuals whose language skills are not developmentally adequate. In their review of PEAK-DTM, Reed and Luiselli (2016) analyzed the extant literature on PEAK-DTM and concluded that it has a sound and growing body of empirical support on its efficacy, usability, and psychometric properties. Similar conclusions are mirrored in the PEAK-DTM literature and promotional material. I review these conclusions and contend that many overrate the research that backs them. Suggestions for a more rigorous research agenda on PEAK-DTM and its related modules are provided.

“…A second concern, however, is that Witts' review is already dated. At least four research studies on PEAK‐DTM were published following the completion of Witts' review (Belisle, Dixon, & Stanley, ; Dixon, Belisle, Munoz, Stanley, & Rowsey, ; Dixon, Belisle, Stanley, & Rowsey, 2018; Dixon, Wiggins, & Belisle, 2018). We mention these studies from the outset to show that in a rapidly progressive science on any topic, reviews of past work are likely to become dated quickly, as current research builds on prior limitations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rational skepticism: A scientific review of Witts' (2018) criticisms of the PEAK relational training system

Belisle

Dixon²

2019

Self Cite

Witts' (2018) review of the peer‐reviewed research on the PEAK‐Direct Training Module (Dixon, 2014) yielded a divergent conclusion from that of previous reviews (Reed & Luiselli, 2016; Dixon, Belisle, McKeel et al., 2017). Witts advocates for skepticism of this research due to methodological shortcomings, hyperclaiming of results, and inappropriate statistical testing procedures. We identified 30 criticisms in Witts' review, respond to each, and argue that all but 2 (7%) contain untrue assumptions (7, 23%), are not novel (5, 17%), are logically invalid (7, 23%), or are more appropriately framed as criticisms of applied behavior analytic research more generally (9, 30%). The two criticisms that support Witts' purpose in writing his review are minor and not fatal. We discuss all of Witts' criticisms both specifically and broadly to illustrate that most of his suggestions about applied behavior analytic research may actually serve to hinder progress in a discipline moving toward larger‐scale research.