Using Peer Modeling and Differential Reinforcement in the Treatment of Food Selectivity

Sira, Bipon K.; Fryling, Mitch J.

doi:10.1353/etc.2012.0003

Cited by 19 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These skills included receptive labels (Charlop et al 1983;Rehfeldt et al 2003), expressive labels (Coleman and Stedman 1974;Leaf et al 2013), voice volume (Coleman and Stedman 1974), play (Colozzi et al 2008;Tyron and Keane 1986), various discriminations (Egel et al 1981;Varni et al 1979), imitation (Ganz et al 2008), general knowledge skills (Ihrig and Wolchik 1988), conditioning preferences/ reinforcers (Leaf et al 2012;Singer-Dudek and Oblak 2013), job functions (Leaf et al 2013), inferences (Leaf et al 2013), sight words (Ledford et al 2008), monitoring response (Pereira-Delgado and Greer 2009; , reading (Rehfeldt et al 2003), picture to word/word to picture matching (Rehfeldt et al 2003), eating (Sira and Fryling 2012), food and drink prep (Tekin-Iftar and Birkan 2010), sign language (Venn et al 1996), spelling (Werts et al 1996), playing an audiotape (Werts et al 1996), using a calculator (Werts et al 1996), and social communication (Wilson 2013).…”

Section: Skill(s) Measuredmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seventeen targeted observational learning indirectly (Charlop et al 1983;Coleman and Stedman 1974;Colozzi et al 2008;Egel et al 1981;Ihrig and Wolchik 1988;Leaf et al 2012Leaf et al , 2013Ledford et al 2008;Rehfeldt et al 2003;Singer-Dudek and Oblak 2013;Sira and Fryling 2012;Tekin-Iftar and Birkan 2010;Tyron and Keane 1986;Varni et al 1979); of those 17, only one specifically sought to compare learning through observation of individuals with autism compared to peers who are typically developing (Varni et al 1979). Across the three studies that used direct instruction, each study utilized a different procedure to teach skills to increase the likelihood that observational learning would occur.…”

Section: How Observational Learning Targets Were Taughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A majority of the studies, 16 (80 %), utilized peer models (Charlop et al 1983;Coleman and Stedman 1974;Colozzi et al 2008;Egel et al 1981;Ganz et al 2008;Leaf et al 2013;Ledford et al 2008;Pereira-Delgado and Greer 2009;Rehfeldt et al 2003;Singer-Dudek and Oblak 2013;Sira and Fryling 2012;Tekin-Iftar and Birkan 2010;Tyron and Keane 1986;Venn et al 1996;Werts et al 1996), while 3 studies utilized adult models (Leaf et al 2012;Varni et al 1979;Wilson 2013). One study utilized both adult and peer models in an effort to compare the effectiveness of the two different types of models (Ihrig and Wolchik 1988).…”

Section: Model and Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study utilized both adult and peer models in an effort to compare the effectiveness of the two different types of models (Ihrig and Wolchik 1988). In addition, 14 of the 20 studies set up opportunities to learn through observation in a one-to-one teaching format (Charlop et al 1983;Coleman and Stedman 1974;Egel et al 1981;Ganz et al 2008;Ihrig and Wolchik 1988;Leaf et al 2012;Ledford et al 2008;Pereira-Delgado and Greer 2009;Rehfeldt et al 2003;Singer-Dudek and Oblak 2013;Sira and Fryling 2012;Tyron and Keane 1986;Varni et al 1979;Wilson 2013) versus six studies that instead used a group-teaching format (Colozzi et al 2008;Leaf et al 2013;Tekin-Iftar and Birkan 2010;Venn et al 1996;Werts et al 1996).…”

Section: Model and Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies determined progress utilizing only pre and post probes (Leaf et al 2013;Rehfeldt et al 2003;Sira and Fryling 2012;TekinIftar and Birkan 2010;Varni et al 1979;Venn et al 1996). In one study, while pretests were included in the text of the article, the researchers only reported data for post probe responding (Charlop et al 1983).…”

Section: How Observational Learning Targets Were Probedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Observational Learning for Students Diagnosed with Autism: A Review Paper

Townley-Cochran

Leaf

Taubman

et al. 2015

Rev J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review evaluated a total of 22 research papers on observational learning as it applies to individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. The researchers divided the papers into three domains. The first domain was comparing the observational learning behavior of individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders to typically developing and non-typically developing individuals. The second domain was how observational learning was taught to individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. The third domain was the reported levels of observational learning as an ancillary measure. The results of this review have both implications for clinicians as well as future areas of research which should be investigated.Keywords Autism . Generalized imitation . Imitation . Observational learningResearch has indicated that humans are capable of learning simply by observing others come into contact with responsestimulus contingencies (Catania, 2007). According to Catania (2007), one must demonstrate a variety of prerequisite behaviors in order to successfully acquire skills through observation. These behaviors include, but are not limited to, generalized imitation, self-awareness, verbal behavior, and the ability to discriminate behavior (Catania, 2007). However, individuals with autism demonstrate delays across these prerequisite skill sets (Lovaas 2003), which could explain why individuals with autism may not learn through observation as readily as peers that are typically developing.The significance of observational learning for children who are typically developing has been widely investigated. In a seminal study on observational learning, Bandura et al. (1961) found that children who are typically developing imitated an adult model after observing the adult engage in a discrimination task. The children not only imitated the model's correct response, but the "extra" responses the model made while engaging in the correct response. For example, if the adult knocked over a doll in order to complete the task, the child knocked over the doll. If the adult set the doll on the ground in order to complete the task, the child set the doll on the ground. In a later study, Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) further evaluated observational learning by evaluating the behavior toward a bobo doll of children who are typically developing following an observational period of a peer's interaction with the same doll. In this study, the typically developing peer aggressed toward the doll; half of the children observed the model receive treats following the aggressive behavior toward the doll and the other half observed the model receive harassment from another peer following their aggressive behavior toward the doll. The results indicated that the children who observed the rewarding consequences were more likely to engage in aggressive behaviors than the children who observed the punitive consequences following the aggression. In a similar investigation, Bandura (1965) demonstrated that children not only had to observe th...

show abstract

Section: Skill(s) Measuredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Observational Learning Targets Were Taughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model and Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model and Formatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Observational Learning Targets Were Probedmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Observational Learning for Students Diagnosed with Autism: A Review Paper

Townley-Cochran

Leaf

Taubman

et al. 2015

Rev J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Treatment of food selectivity: An evaluation of video modeling of contingencies

O'Connor

2019

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many children with disabilities have feeding problems including, but not limited to, food selectivity and/or food refusal. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of video modeling of contingencies alone and combined with direct exposure to the contingencies in the treatment of food selectivity. Treatment procedures included sequentially introducing videos in which models consumed nonpreferred foods or were exposed to differential reinforcement or differential reinforcement plus escape extinction. In addition, during feeding sessions, participants were exposed to differential reinforcement. Results indicated that video modeling of differential reinforcement plus direct exposure to differential reinforcement may be effective at increasing consumption of some nonpreferred foods, but the results were not replicated across all foods. For one participant, consumption of one food increased with video modeling alone. K E Y W O R D Sdifferential reinforcement, direct contingencies, escape extinction, food selectivity, video modeling

show abstract

A systematic literature review of antecedent and reinforcement‐based behavioral feeding interventions without the implementation of escape extinction

Tereshko

Leaf

Weiss

et al. 2021

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restrictive and avoidant patterns of eating behavior can be seen in children with and without a diagnosed disability, and these patterns may then lead to avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. The three main categories of feeding problems often observed in children are food refusal, refusal to self‐feed, and food selectivity. This literature review includes 21 articles that implemented feeding interventions, without the use of escape extinction or other intrusive interventions, to increase food acceptance. Each article was analyzed across several dimensions (participants, setting, assessments conducted, experimental design, intervention implemented, and outcome and generalization). From this analysis, information regarding the use of antecedent and reinforcement‐based practices for feeding intervention is discussed, as well as limitations in the current literature and suggestions for future research.

show abstract

Using Peer Modeling and Differential Reinforcement in the Treatment of Food Selectivity

Cited by 19 publications

References 15 publications

Observational Learning for Students Diagnosed with Autism: A Review Paper

Observational Learning for Students Diagnosed with Autism: A Review Paper

Treatment of food selectivity: An evaluation of video modeling of contingencies

A systematic literature review of antecedent and reinforcement‐based behavioral feeding interventions without the implementation of escape extinction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About