Advertisement

Behavior Analysis in Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 423–429 | Cite as

Sample First versus Comparison First Stimulus Presentations: Preliminary Findings for Two Individuals with Autism

  • Joseph VedoraEmail author
  • Tiffany Barry
  • John C. Ward-Horner
Brief Practice
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

The current study was a replication of Petursdottir and Aguilar (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 58–68, 2016). Two different stimulus presentations were evaluated during auditory-visual discrimination training. A sample-first procedure, in which the sample stimulus was presented before the comparison stimuli, was compared to a comparison-first procedure, in which the sample presentation was presented after the comparison stimuli. The results indicated that both participants learned more quickly in the comparison-first condition, a finding that differed from Petursdottir and Aguilar (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 58–68, 2016).

Keywords

Matching to sample Receptive language Stimulus control 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Joseph Vedora declares that he has no conflict of interest. Tiffany Barry declares that she has no conflict of interest. John C. Ward-Horner declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Coon, J. T., & Miguel, C. F. (2012). The role of increased exposure to transfer-of-stimulus control procedures on the acquisition of intraverbal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 657–666.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-657.Google Scholar
  2. Doughty, A. H., & Saunders, K. J. (2009). Decreasing errors in reading-related matching to sample using a delayed-sample procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 717–721.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for learners with autism: Advances in stimulus control technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Leaf, R., & McEachin, J. (Eds.). (1999). A work in progress: Behavior management strategies and a curriculum for intensive behavioral treatment of autism. New York, NY: DRL Books.Google Scholar
  5. Lovaas, O. I. (2003). Teaching individuals with developmental delays: Basic intervention techniques. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  6. Martin, N., & Brownell, R. (2011). Receptive one-word picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Novato, CA: Academy Therapy Publications.Google Scholar
  7. McIlvane, W. J., Kledaras, J. B., Stoddard, L. T., & Dube, W. V. (1990). Delayed sample presentation in MTS: Some possible advantages for teaching individuals with developmental limitations. Human Behavior Bulletin, 8, 31–33.Google Scholar
  8. Miguel, C. F., Frampton, S. E., Lantaya, C. A., LaFrance, D. L., Quah, K., Meyer, C. S., et al. (2015). The effects of tact training on the development of analogical reasoning. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 104, 96–118.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Petursdottir, A. I., & Aguilar, G. (2016). Order of stimulus presentation influences children’s acquisition in receptive identification tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 58–68.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Schneider, K. A., Devine, B., Aguilar, G., & Petursdottir, A. I. (2018). Stimulus presentation order in receptive identification tasks: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 634–646.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Vedora, J., Barry, T., & Ward-Horner, J. C. (2017). An evaluation of differential observing responses during receptive label training. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 10, 290–295.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-017-0188-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Vedora
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tiffany Barry
    • 1
  • John C. Ward-Horner
    • 1
  1. 1.Evergreen CenterMilfordUSA

Personalised recommendations