Comparison of the Effects of Three Approaches on the Frequency of Stimulus Activations,via a Single Switch,by Students With Profound Intellectual Disabilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2006
Comparison of the Effects of Three Approaches on the Frequency of Stimulus Activations,via a Single Switch,by Students With Profound Intellectual Disabilities
The effects of three classes of reinforcing stimuli were compared across three students with profound intellectual disabilities. A multielement design with no baseline and final “best treatments” phase was used to measure the frequency of single-switch activations by each student across treatments. The three interventions were Treatment A, adapted toys and devices; Treatment B, cause-and-effect commercial software; and Treatment C, instructor-created video programs. Stimulus activations using a single switch were consistently greater when using individualized computer-based video programs. Implications for identifying stimuli for students who may not respond to traditional methods for teaching means—end contingencies (cause and effect) are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (1999). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
2.
Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley scales of infant development (BSID). New York: Psychological Corp.
3.
Billingsley, F.F., White, O.R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example . Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229—241.
4.
Branham, R.S., Collins, B.C., Schuster, J.W., & Kleinert, H. (1999). Teaching community skills to students with moderate disabilities: Comparing combined techniques of classroom simulation, videotape modeling, and community-based instruction. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 170—181.
5.
Brett, A. (1995). Technology in inclusive early childhood settings . Day Care and Early Intervention, 22, 8—11.
6.
Charlop-Christy, M.H., Le, L., & Freeman, K.A. (2000). A comparison of video modeling with in vivo modeling for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 537—552.
7.
Cook, A.M., & Hussey, S.M. (2002). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice (2nd ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Daniels, L.E., Sparling, J.W., Reilly, M., & Humphry, R. (1995). Use of assistive technology with young children with severe and profound disabilities. Infant—Toddler Intervention, 5, 91—111.
11.
D'Ateno, P., Mangiapanello, K., & Taylor, B.A. (2003). Using video modeling to teach complex play sequences to a preschooler with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 5—12.
12.
Dattilo, J. (1987). Computerized assessment of leisure preferences: A replication. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded , 22, 128— 133.
13.
Dyches, T.T. (1999). Effects of switch training on the communication of children with autism and severe disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 151—162.
14.
Embregts, P.J.C.M. (2003). Using self-management, video feedback, and graphic feedback to improve social behavior of youth with mild mental retardation . Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 283—295.
15.
Flanagan, K. (1982). Computer needs of severely mentally retarded persons . Journal of Special Education Technology, 4, 47—50.
16.
Gast, D.L., Jacobs, H.A., Logan, K.R., Murray, A.S., Holloway, A., & Long, L. (2000). Pre-session assessment of preferences for students with profound multiple disabilities. Education and Training in Mental and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 393—405.
17.
Goossens', C., & Crain, S.S. (1992). Utilizing switch interfaces with children who are severely physically challenged. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
18.
Graves, T.B., Collins, B.C., Schuster, J.W., & Kleinert, H. (2005). Using video prompting to teach cooking skills to secondary students with moderate disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 34-46.
19.
Green, C.W., Reid, D.H., Rollyson, J.H., & Passante, S.C. (2005). An enriched teaching program for reducing resistance and indices of unhappiness among individuals with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 221—233.
20.
Hagiwara, T., & Myles, B.S. (1999). A multimedia social story intervention: Teaching skills to children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 14, 82—95.
Ivancic, M.T., & Bailey, J.S. (1996). Current limits to reinforcer identification for some persons with profound multiple disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17, 77—92.
23.
Johnston, S.S. (2003). Making the most of single switch technology: A primer. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18, 47—50.
24.
Kennedy, C. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
25.
Lancioni, G.E., O'Reilly, M.F., & Basili, G. (2001). Use of microswitches and speech output systems with people with severe/profound intellectual or multiple disabilities: A literature review. Research in Developmental Disabilities , 22, 21—40.
26.
Lancioni, G.E., O'Reilly, M.F., Singh, N.N., Oliva, D., Piazzolla, G., Pi-rani, P., et al. (2002). Evaluating the use of multiple microswitches and responses for children with multiple disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46, 346—351.
27.
Lane, S.J., & Mistrett, S.G. (1996). Play and assistive technology issues for infants and young children with disabilities: A preliminary examination . Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 96—104.
28.
Langley, M.B. (1990). A developmental approach to the use of toys for facilitation of environmental control. Physical &Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 10, 69—91.
29.
Leatherby, J.G., Gast, D.L., Wolery, M., & Collins, B.C. (1992). Assessment of reinforcer preference in multi-handicapped students. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities , 4, 15—36.
30.
Logan, K.R., & Gast, D.L. (2001). Conducting preference assessments and reinforcer testing for individuals with profound multiple disabilities: Issues and procedures . Exceptionality, 9, 123—134.
31.
Logan, K.R., Jacobs, H.A., Gast, D.L., Smith, P.D., Daniel, J., & Rawls, J. (2001). Preferences and reinforcers for students with profound multiple disabilities: Can we identify them?Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 13, 97—121.
32.
Mechling, L.C. (2005). Effects of personally created instructional video programs on teaching students with disabilities: A review of the literature . Journal of Special Education Technology, 20, 25—36.
33.
Mechling, L.C., Gast, D.L., & Cronin, B.A. (2006). The effects of presenting high preference items, paired with choice, via computer-based video programming on task completion of students with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21, 7-13.
34.
Mechling, L.C., Pridgen, L., & Cronin, B.A. (2005). Computer-based video instruction to teach students with intellectual disabilities to verbally respond to questions and make purchases in fast food restaurants. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 47—59.
35.
Meehan, D.M., Mineo, B.A., & Lyon, S.R. (1985). Use of systematic prompting and prompt withdrawal to establish and maintain switch activation in a severely handicapped student . Journal of Special Education Technology, 1, 5—11.
36.
Murphy, E.S., McSweeney, F.K., Smith, R.G., & McComas, J.J. (2003). Dynamic changes in reinforcer effectiveness: Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications for applied research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 421—438.
37.
Norman, J.M., Collins, B.C., & Schuster, J.W. (2001). Using an instructional package including video technology to teach self-help skills to elementary students with mental disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16, 5—18.
38.
Reid, D.H., Phillips, J.F., & Green, C.W. (1991). Teaching persons with profound multiple handicaps: A review of the effects of behavioral research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 319—336.
39.
Smith, P.D., Gast, D.L., Logan, K.R., & Jacobs, H.A. (2001). Customizing instruction to maximize functional outcomes for students with profound multiple disabilities. Exceptionality, 9, 135—145.
40.
SoftTouch, Inc. (1998). Teach me to talk: Animals. Omaha, NE: Author.
41.
Sullivan, M.W., & Lewis, M. (1993). Contingency, means—end skills, and the use of technology in infant intervention. Infants and Young Children , 5, 58—77.
42.
Taylor, B.A., Levin, L., & Jasper, S. (1999). Increasing play-related statements in children with autism toward their siblings: Effects of video modeling. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11, 253—264.
43.
Vort Corporation. (1997—2006). Hawaii early learning profile [H.E.L.P.]. Palo Alto, CA: Vort Corporation.
44.
Wacker, D.P., Berg, W.K., Wiggins, B., Muldoon, M., & Cavanaugh, J. (1985). Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 18, 173—178.
45.
Wacker, D.P., Wiggins, B., Fowler, M., & Berg, W.K. (1988). Training students with profound or multiple handicaps to make requests via microswitches. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 331—343.
46.
York, J., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1985). A decision-making process for using microswitches. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 10, 214—223.
