Abstract
One common best practice recommendation for teaching receptive labels to individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder is for the stimulus array to be arranged outside of the view of the learner. Another strategy that may have benefits would be to arrange the stimuli in view of the learner. The purpose of this study was to compare the relative effectiveness and efficiency of arranging the stimulus array in view versus out of view of the learner when teaching receptive labels to three children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The results of an adapted alternating-treatments design demonstrated that both conditions were effective, and all participants reached the mastery criterion on all training sets. However, the in-view condition was more, or equally, efficient with respect to sessions to mastery when compared to the out-of-view condition. The results are discussed with respect to clinical and research implications for best practice recommendations related to teaching receptive language.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cihon, J. H., Ferguson, J. L., Leaf, J. B., Milne, C. M., Leaf, R., & McEachin, J. (2020). A randomized clinical trial of three prompting systems to teach tact relations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(2), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.617.
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., & Wiley, K. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching preschoolers with developmental delays. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-422(90)90002-P.
Dunn, D. M. (2019). PPVT-5: Peabody picture vocabulary test. Pearson Assessments.
Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for learners with autism: Advances in stimulus control technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disorders, 16(2), 72–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/108835760101600203.
Grow, L. L., & LeBlanc, L. (2013). Teaching receptive language skills: recommendations for instructors. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 6(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391791.
LaMarca, V., & LaMarca, J. (2018). Designing receptive language programs: Pushing the boundaries of research and practice. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(4), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-0208-1.
Leaf, J. B., Cihon, J. H., Ferguson, J. L., McEachin, J., Leaf, R., & Taubman, M. (2018). Evaluating three methods of stimulus rotation when teaching receptive labels. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(4), 334–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-0249-5.
Leaf, J. B., Cihon, J. H., Ferguson, J. L., Milne, C. M., Leaf, R., & McEachin, J. (2020). Comparing error correction to errorless learning: A randomized clinical trial. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 36(8), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-019-00124-y.
Leaf, J. B., Cihon, J. H., Leaf, R., McEachin, J., & Taubman, M. (2016). A progressive approach to discrete trial teaching: Some current guidelines. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9(2), 361–372.
Martin, N. A., & Brownell, R. (2011). Expressive one-word picture vocabulary test-4 (EOWPVT-4). Academic Therapy Publications.
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8(1), 67–76.
Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. C., & Saulnier, C. A. (2016). Vineland adaptive behavior scales, (Vineland-3). Antonio: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2012). Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence-fourth edition. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Effective and efficient procedures for the transfer of stimulus control. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 4(3), 52–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112148400400305.
Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2018). Comparison designs. In J. R. Ledford & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 283–334). Routledge.
Wong, E., Ferguson, J. L., Milne, C. M., Cihon, J. H., Leaf, J. B., McEachin, J., Leaf, R., Schulze, K., & Rudrud, E. (2020). Evaluating three methods of the presentation of target stimuli when teaching receptive labels. Behavioral Interventions, 35(4), 542-559. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1744.
Funding
No funding was received for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki decoration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from the parents of all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garvey, C.C., Ferguson, J.L., Milne, C. et al. Comparing In-View to Out-of-View Stimulus Arrangements When Teaching Receptive Labels for Children Diagnosed With Autism Spectrum Disorder. Behav Analysis Practice 15, 475–484 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00596-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00596-2