Advertisement

Behavior Analysis in Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 387–395 | Cite as

A Brief Evaluation of a Pictorially Enhanced Self-Instruction Packet on Participant Fidelity across Multiple ABA Procedures

  • Thouraya Al-NasserEmail author
  • W. Larry Williams
  • Brian Feeney
Research Article
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

Enhanced self-instructions have been previously shown to lead to high levels of training protocol fidelity by lower level staff applying applied behavior analysis (ABA) protocols. An A-B replication series design across participants was used to gather preliminary evidence on the breadth of benefit of this approach to staff training, considered across common training tasks. Participants (N = 14) with no previous background in ABA learned how to conduct either two preference assessments (paired stimulus and multiple stimulus without replacement) or two acquisition discrete trial programs (match to sample and motor imitation) under two different self-instruction conditions. Procedures were trained using textual information only (i.e., standard packet) or textual information enhanced with visual cues (i.e., enhanced packet). Eight of the participants received a standard packet followed by an enhanced packet; six received them in reverse order. Each sequence was replicated within participants across the two tasks. No follow-up feedback or training was provided during either condition so as not to contaminate assessment of the effects of these self-instructions on procedural fidelity. Results showed that participants achieved near-mastery levels of performance under the enhanced packet condition. Seven of the eight participants who received the standard packet first improved in fidelity after receiving the enhanced packet. Where there was some evidence of maintenance of gains in some participants of new tasks trained again with the standard packet, reintroduction of the enhanced packet led to high fidelity in all cases. It appears that previous experimental findings showing the benefit of enhanced self-instructional training on the procedural fidelity of lower level training staff apply across a wide range of common ABA tasks.

Keywords

Staff training Enhanced packet Discrete trial training Accuracy Autism Developmental delay 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Dr. Steven C. Hayes for his insightful analysis and contribution to the preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

Thouraya Al-Nasser has not received any research grants from any company or organization to sponsor this study. W. Larry Williams has not received any research grants from any company or organization to sponsor this study. Brian Feeney has not received any research grants from any company or organization to sponsor this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Thouraya Al-Nasser declares that she has no conflict of interest. W. Larry Williams declares that he has no conflict of interest. Brian Feeney declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cooper, J. O., Heward, W. L., & Heron, T. E. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dibs, N., & Sturmey, P. (2007). Reducing student stereotypy by improving teachers’ implementation of discrete-trial teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40(2), 339–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Graff, B. R., & Karsten, A. M. (2012). Evaluation of a self-instruction package for conducting stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(1), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Higbee, T. S., Aporta, A. P., Resnede, A., Nogueria, M., Goyos, C., & Pollard, J. S. (2016). Interactive computer training to teach discrete-trial instruction to undergraduates and special educators in Brazil: A replication and extension. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(4), 780–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Larson, S. A., & Hewitt, A. S. (Eds.). (2005). Staff recruitment, retention and training strategies for community human services organizations. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. LeBlanc, L. A., Gravina, N., & Carr, J. E. (2009). Training issues unique to autism spectrum disorders. In J. Matson (Ed.), Applied behavior analysis for children with autism spectrum disorders (pp. 225–235). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Macurik, K. M., O’Kane, N. P., Malanga, P., & Reid, D. H. (2008). Video training of support staff in intervention plans for challenging behavior: Comparison with live training. Behavioral Interventions, 23, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nigro-Bruzzi, D., & Sturmey, P. (2010). The effects of behavioral skills training on mand training by staff and unprompted vocal mands by children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 757–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nosik, M. R., & Williams, W. L. (2011). Component evaluation of a computer based format for teaching discrete trial and backward chaining. Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 32, 1694–1702.Google Scholar
  12. Pollard, J. S., Higbee, T. S., Akers, J. S., & Brodhead, M. T. (2014). An evaluation of interactive computer training to teach instructors to implement discrete trials with children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(4), 765–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Roscoe, E. M., Fisher, W. W., Glover, A. C., & Volkert, V. M. (2006). Evaluating the relative effects of feedback and contingent money for staff training of stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Salem, S., Fazzio, D., Arnal, L., Fregeau, P., Thomson, K., Martin, G. L., & Yu, C. T. (2009). A self-instructional package for teaching university students to conduct discrete-trials teaching with children with autism. Journal on Intellectual Disabilities, 15(1), 21–29.Google Scholar
  15. Sarokoff, R. A., & Sturmey, P. (2004). The effects of behavioral skills training on staff implementation of discrete-trial teaching. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 535–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sarokoff, R. A., & Sturmey, P. (2008). The effects of instructions, rehearsal, modeling, and feedback on acquisition and generalization of staff use of discrete trial teaching and student correct response. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thiessen, C., Fazzio, D., Arnal, L., Martin, G. L., & Keilback, L. (2009). Evaluating a self-instructional strategy plus monetary contingency to train instructors to conduct discrete-trials teaching with children with autism. Behaviour Modification, 33, 360–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thomson, K. M., Martin, G. L., Fazzio, D., Salem, S., Young, K., & Yu, C. T. (2012). Evaluation of a self-instructional package for teaching tutors to conduct discrete trials teaching with children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1073–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vladescu, J. C., Caroll, R., Paden, A., & Kodak, T. M. (2012). The effects of video modeling with voiceover instruction on accurate implementation of discrete-trial instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(2), 419–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations