Comparing two variations of the high‐probability instructional sequence to improve food consumption with a child with autism

Abstract

The present study evaluates the effects of two variations of the high-probability (Hi P) instructional sequence with a child with autism spectrum disorder. In one variation, the Hi P task was topographically similar to the low-probability task of food consumption, whereas the second variation involved Hi P tasks that were not topographically similar to the low-probability task. Results show that both variations of the Hi P sequence were effective at improving consumption and reducing inappropriate mealtime behavior. The participant's mother chose a preferred variation of the Hi P intervention to pursue systematic fading with, the topographically similar Hi P sequence. Consumption remained high and inappropriate mealtime behavior remained low throughout the fading process. Implications for continued research and practice in the area of feeding intervention are provided. KEYWORDS autism spectrum disorder, dietary variety, feeding problems, food selectivity, high-probability instructional sequence

Effects of the High-Probability Instructional Sequence in Children With Feeding Disorders: A Synthesis

“…Researchers published their studies in the Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities ( n = 1; McComas et al, 2000), the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis ( n = 3; Dawson et al, 2003; Meier, Fryling, & Wallace, 2012; Penrod, Gardella, & Fernand, 2012), Research in Developmental Disabilities ( n = 1; Patel et al, 2006), Behavioral Interventions ( n = 2; Patel et al, 2007; Trejo & Fryling, 2018),), Behavior Analysis in Practice ( n = 1; Ewry & Fryling, 2016), and Behavior Modification ( n = 1; Silbaugh & Swinnea, 2018).…”

“…During low-p baseline conditions, one study (11%; McComas et al, 2000) delivered contingent praise and water, seven studies (78%) delivered contingent praise, and one study (11%; Silbaugh & Swinnea, 2018) delivered contingent high-preferred food for low-p responses. During high-p conditions, two studies (22%; Dawson et al, 2003; Trejo & Fryling, 2018) did not specify the programmed reinforcer, six studies (67%) delivered contingent praise, and one study (11%; Silbaugh & Swinnea, 2018) delivered contingent high-preferred food for high-p responses. During low-p treatment conditions, the consequences for compliance with low-p mealtime demands were not specified for one study (11%; Trejo & Fryling, 2018), and low-p responses produced contingent praise in five studies (56%), praise and high-preferred food in one study (11%; Penrod et al, 2012), and high-preferred food in one study (11%; Silbaugh & Swinnea, 2018).…”

“…During high-p conditions, two studies (22%; Dawson et al, 2003; Trejo & Fryling, 2018) did not specify the programmed reinforcer, six studies (67%) delivered contingent praise, and one study (11%; Silbaugh & Swinnea, 2018) delivered contingent high-preferred food for high-p responses. During low-p treatment conditions, the consequences for compliance with low-p mealtime demands were not specified for one study (11%; Trejo & Fryling, 2018), and low-p responses produced contingent praise in five studies (56%), praise and high-preferred food in one study (11%; Penrod et al, 2012), and high-preferred food in one study (11%; Silbaugh & Swinnea, 2018). Reinforcers delivered contingent on compliance were the same for low-p responses during baseline and treatment for eight studies (89%) and different for one study (11%; Penrod et al, 2012).…”

“…Reinforcers delivered contingent on compliance were the same for low-p responses during baseline and treatment for eight studies (89%) and different for one study (11%; Penrod et al, 2012). Reinforcers delivered contingent on compliance with high-p and low-p mealtime demands during treatment conditions were the same for three studies (33%; Ewry & Fryling, 2016; Meier et al, 2012; Silbaugh & Swinnea, 2018), different for four studies (44%; McComas et al, 2000; Patel et al, 2006; Patel et al, 2007; Penrod et al, 2012), and undetermined for two studies (22%; Dawson et al, 2003; Trejo & Fryling, 2018).…”

“…In total, seven studies met inclusion criteria. Shortly after this search and screening procedure was completed, we incidentally identified one study recently published (Trejo & Fryling, 2018), and the first author published a study. Both studies met inclusion criteria, resulting in a final total of nine studies included in the synthesis.…”