Establishing derived categorical responding in children with disabilities using the PEAK‐E curriculum

Dixon, Mark R.; Belisle, Jordan; Stanley, Caleb R.; Speelman, Ryan C.; Rowsey, Kyle E.; Kime, Dena; Daar, Jacob H.

doi:10.1002/jaba.355

Cited by 31 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although simultaneous MTS is widely used when teaching auditory–visual conditional (i.e., listener behavior) relations to children with autism (Bao et al, 2017; Dixon et al, 2017; Kobari‐Wright & Miguel, 2014; McLay et al, 2013; Vedora & Barry, 2016), several prerequisite skills may be at play (Green, 2001; Green & Saunders, 1998). For instance, the participant must differentially respond to a) comparisons that are discriminative (S D ) and nondiscriminative (S‐delta) for reinforcement within a trial (i.e., simple simultaneous discrimination) and, b) each sample across trials (i.e., simple successive discriminations).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The establishment of auditory–visual equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

Zhelezoglo

Hanson

Miguel

et al. 2020

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study evaluated the effectiveness of a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure (S‐MTS) to establish auditory–visual equivalence classes with college students. A sample and a comparison were presented, one at a time, in the same location. During training, after an auditory stimulus was presented, a green box appeared in the center of the screen for participants to touch to produce the comparison. Touching the visual comparison that was related to the auditory sample (e.g., A1B1) produced points, while touching or refraining from touching an unrelated comparison (e.g., A1B2) produced no consequences. Following AB/AC training, participants were tested on untrained relations (i.e., BA/CA and BC/CB), as well as tacting and sorting. During BA/CA relations tests, after touching the visual sample, the auditory stimulus was presented along with a white box for participants to respond. During BC/CB relations tests, after touching the visual sample, a visual comparison appeared. Across 2 experiments, all participants met emergence criterion for untrained relations and for sorting. Additionally, 14 out of 24 participants tacted all visual stimuli correctly. Results suggest the auditory–visual S‐MTS procedure is an effective alternative to simultaneous MTS for establishing conditional relations and auditory‐visual equivalence classes.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The establishment of auditory–visual equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

Zhelezoglo

Hanson

Miguel

et al. 2020

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different assessments have been developed, along with treatment protocols that explicitly target clients' ability to engage in relational framing (Dixon, 2016(Dixon, , 2019. For example, Dixon et al (2017) generated derived categorical responding with three participants diagnosed with autism using a matchto-sample procedure. Belisle et al (2016) successfully improved the ability to engage in single-reversal "I-You" deictic responding with three participants with autism.…”

Section: Research Highlightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Relational Training to Improve Performance During Acceptance and Commitment Training Sessions

Gilsenan¹,

Hinman

et al. 2021

Behav Analysis Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current study investigated the effect of relational training on improving engagement during acceptance and commitment training (ACT) sessions that aimed to reduce maladaptive behavior. Three female children diagnosed with autism participated in the current research. The relational training protocol involved eight programs designed to improve participants' ability to engage in relational responding. A concurrent multiple-baseline across-participants design was used, and participants' maladaptive behavior during ACT sessions was recorded. Results indicated a decrease in maladaptive behavior for one of the three participants, with a medium to large treatment effect. A secondary measure also showed improvement in all three participants' performance during ACT sessions. The percentage of nonoverlapping data and Cohen's d suggest a small to moderate treatment effect. Implications for implementing ACT with individuals diagnosed with autism are discussed.

show abstract

“…In addition to targeting challenging behavior in school settings, school-based T3 research might use interventions to improve poor academic performance using academically relevant stimuli. Dixon et al (2017) used a teaching curriculum (PEAK-E) to establish derived categorical responding in students with disabilities who were selected for poor picture identification skills. Shillingsburg, Gayman, and Walton (2016) used textual prompts to teach children with ASD to mand for information in their classrooms.…”

Section: Tier 3: Applied Behavior Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Translating Behavior Analysis: a Spectrum Rather than a Road Map

Kyonka

Subramaniam

2018

Perspect Behav Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much has been written about the potential benefits of translational research in behavior analysis, but a lack of consensus about what constitutes "translational" creates a barrier to effective knowledge-practice innovation within the discipline and across other sciences. We propose a tiered system, adapted from a biomedical translational pathway, for classifying behavior analysis research on a basic-applied spectrum. Tier 0 is blue sky basic science in which the subjects, behaviors, stimuli, and settings are selected for convenience. Tier 1 is use-inspired basic science with a socially important end game and research subject. Tier 2 is solution-oriented research that attempts to solve a specific problem in a socially important subject, but 1 or more aspects of the research are selected for purposes of experimental control rather than social importance. Tier 3 is applied behavior analysis research that studies a problem of social significance for the subject and involves behaviors, stimuli, and settings that are socially important. Tier 4 is impact assessment in which behavioral technology is applied with a direct benefit to society. We provide examples of behavior-analytic research in each tier and evaluate the potential benefits of organizing behavior analysis in this way.

show abstract

Establishing derived categorical responding in children with disabilities using the PEAK‐E curriculum

Cited by 31 publications

References 27 publications

The establishment of auditory–visual equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

The establishment of auditory–visual equivalence classes with a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure

Using Relational Training to Improve Performance During Acceptance and Commitment Training Sessions

Translating Behavior Analysis: a Spectrum Rather than a Road Map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About