Advertisement

Comparing Stimuli Delivered via Tablet Versus Flashcards on Receptive Labeling in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

  • Azure J. PellegrinoEmail author
  • Thomas S. Higbee
  • Lorraine A. Becerra
  • Kristina R. Gerencser
Original Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

We compared the acquisition of receptive labeling using stimuli delivered via tablet and via flashcards during discrete trial instruction in three preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Using an adapted alternating treatments design, we compared the number of sessions required to meet a mastery criterion for receptively identifying stimuli presented on flashcards and stimuli presented on a tablet with all other teaching procedures held constant. We observed that two participants required more sessions to meet the mastery criterion within the tablet condition, while one participant met the criterion after approximately the same number of sessions. We then assessed delivery preference using a concurrent-chains procedure and found preferences to be unrelated to overall performances during skill acquisition. Considerations for future research on tablet use in discrete trial instruction as well as implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords

Autism Discrete trial instruction Receptive labeling Tablet Technology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Amanda Hughes and Brad Richardson for their development of the tablet application used in this study.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Autism Speaks Inc. (2016). Autism apps. Retrieved from http://www.autismspeaks.org/autism-apps.
  3. Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 353–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, S. A., & Bernard-Opitz, V. (1993). Comparison of personal and computer-assisted instruction for children with autism. Mental Retardation, 31(6), 368–376.Google Scholar
  5. Cuvo, A. J., & Klatt, K. P. (1992). Effects of community-based, videotape, and flash card instruction of community-referenced sigh words on students with mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, D. K., Stock, S. E., Holloway, S., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2010). Evaluating a GPS-based transportation device to support independent bus travel by people with intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmenal Disabilities, 48(6), 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. El Zein, F., Gevarter, C., Bryant, B., Son, S., Bryant, D., Kim, M. (2016). A comparison between iPad-assisted and teacher-directed reading instruction for students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 28, 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flores, M., Musgrove, K., Renner, S., Hinton, V., Strozier, S., & Franklin, S., et al. (2012). A comparison of communication using the apple iPad and a picture-based system. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 28, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ganz, J. B., Boles, M. B., Goodwyn, F. D., & Flores, M. M. (2014). Efficacy of handheld electronic visual supports to enhance vocabulary in children with ASD. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 29, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kagohara, D. M., Meer, L. V., Achmadi, D., Green, V. A., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2012). Teaching picture naming to two adolescents with autism spectrum disorders using systematic instruction and speech-generating devices. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6(3), 1224–1233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kerr, N., Meyerson, L., Flora, J., Tharinger, D., Schallert, D., Casey, L. (1977). The measurement of motor, visual and auditory discrimination skills in mentally retarded children and adults and in young normal children. Rehabilitation Psychology, 24(3), 91–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., Cuvo, A. J., Singh, N. N., Sigafoos, J., & Didden, R. (2007). PECS and VOCAS to enable students with developmental disabilities to make requests: An overview of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28(5), 468–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lorah, E. R., & Karnes, A. (2016). Evaluating the Language Builder™ application in the acquisition of listener responding in young children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 28(2), 255–265.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-015-9464-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lorah, E. R., & Parnell, A. (2017). Acquisition of tacting using a speech-generating device in group learning environments for preschoolers with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 29, 597–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lorah, E. R., Parnell, A., & Speight, D. R. (2014). Acquisition of sentence frame discrimination using the iPad™ as a speech generating device in young children with developmental disabilities. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8(12), 1734–1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Luczynski, K. C., & Hanley, G. P. (2010). Examining the generality of children’s preference for contingent reinforcement via extension to different responses, reinforcers, and schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(3), 397–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Payne, D., Cannella-Malone, H. I., Tullis, C. A., & Sabielny, L. M. (2012). The effects of self-directed video prompting with two students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 24(6), 617–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pelios, L. V., & Sucharzewski, A. (2004). Teaching receptive language to children with autism: A selective overview. The Behavior Analyst Today, 4(4), 378–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Petursdottir, A. I., & Aguilar, G. (2016). Order of stimulus presentation influences children's acquisition in receptive identification tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 58–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.Google Scholar
  21. Stephenson, J., & Limbrick, L. (2015). A review of the use of touch-screen mobile devices by people with developmental disabilities. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 3777–3791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sundberg, M. L. (2008). VB-MAPP verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program: A language and social skills assessment program for children with autism or other developmental disabilities: Guide. Concord, CA: AVB Press.Google Scholar
  23. van der Meer, L., Achmadi, D., Cooijmans, M., Didden, R., Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F. (2015). An iPad-based intervention for teaching picture and word matching to a student with ASD and severe communication impairment. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 27, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van der Meer, L., Didden, R., Sutherland, D., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., & Sigafoos, J. (2012). Comparing three augmentative and alternative communication modes for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 24(5), 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Special Education and RehabilitationUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Department of Applied Behavioral ScienceUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA
  3. 3.Marcus Autism CenterEmory UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations