Teaching children with autism spectrum disorder to tact auditory stimuli: A replication

Abstract

It is important that tacts are controlled by stimuli across all senses but teaching tacts to children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is often limited to visual stimuli. This study replicated and extended a study on the effects of antecedent‐stimulus presentations on the acquisition of auditory tacts. We used a concurrent multiple probe across sets design and an embedded adapted alternating treatments design to evaluate acquisition of auditory tacts when auditory stimuli were presented alone (i.e., isolated) or with corresponding pictures (i.e., compound‐with‐known and compound‐with‐unknown) with two school‐aged boys with ASD. Both participants' responding met the mastery criterion no matter the stimulus presentation with at least one set, but one participant failed to acquire one set of stimuli in the isolated condition. The isolated condition was rarely the most efficient. We conducted post‐training stimulus‐control probes, and we observed disrupted stimulus control in the isolated condition for one participant. Implications for arranging auditory tacts instruction are discussed.

A review of the concurrent‐chains arrangement to assess intervention choice: 2018–2023

“…In four of these studies, a preference could not be established for at least one participant due to responses being allocated across multiple initial links. That is, there was no consistent selection of the same stimulus (Bergmann et al, 2023; Galizio et al, 2020; Lozy et al, 2020; Mandel et al, 2022). Two of these studies indicated a lack of a control condition as a limitation (i.e., Bergmann et al, 2023; Galizio et al, 2020).…”

“…That is, there was no consistent selection of the same stimulus (Bergmann et al, 2023; Galizio et al, 2020; Lozy et al, 2020; Mandel et al, 2022). Two of these studies indicated a lack of a control condition as a limitation (i.e., Bergmann et al, 2023; Galizio et al, 2020). Therefore, it may be useful to include a control from the outset of the assessment.…”

“…Nine of the 44 articles (20%) included a discrimination test. Three of the nine articles that included a discrimination test failed to identify a preference for at least one participant (i.e., Bergmann et al, 2023; Galizio et al, 2020; Owen et al, 2021). However, Bergmann et al (2023) also did not include a control.…”

“…Three of the nine articles that included a discrimination test failed to identify a preference for at least one participant (i.e., Bergmann et al, 2023; Galizio et al, 2020; Owen et al, 2021). However, Bergmann et al (2023) also did not include a control. In Galizio et al (2020), discrimination training consisted of a match‐to‐sample procedure rather than requiring participants to identify the contingencies.…”