An Abbreviated Evaluation of the Efficiency of Listener and Tact Instruction for Children with Autism

Abstract

We assessed the efficiency of tact and listener training for eight participants with autism spectrum disorder. Tact and listener probes were conducted in baseline for all target sets, and then tact training was initiated with one and listener training with another. Following mastery of one set, tact and listener probes were conducted with only the sets assigned to the same modality of training (i.e., sets 1, 3, and 5 for tact; sets 2, 4, and 6 for listener). Training and probes were repeated for all sets. The measures of efficiency included the number of skills mastered through direct training, the number of skills that emerged without training, the number of trials-to-criterion, and maintenance of skills. Clinical programming based on each participant's results is discussed. For six participants, tact training was more efficient than listener training across multiple measures. For the remaining two participants, tact training and listener training were considered equivalent.

Promoting the development of verbal responses using instructive feedback

“…Following the selection response and possible covert tact, the instructor provided reinforcement in the form of a token, which would only further strengthen the future emission of both responses. This simultaneous reinforcement for both tact and listener responding has been thoroughly outlined by Horne and Lowe () and Miguel (; ), with many experimental studies supporting the viability of this conceptualization (e.g., Delfs et al, ; Frampton, Robinson, Conine, & Delfs, ; Kobari‐Wright & Miguel, ; Sprinkle & Miguel, ).…”

Recent research on the relative efficiency of speaker and listener instruction for children with autism spectrum disorder

“…All five studies compared speaker training to listener training, and one also compared a mixed training format to the other two (Bao, Sweatt, Lechago, & Antal, ). Three studies compared the relative efficiency of tact training to listener training (Delfs, Conine, Frampton, Shillingsburg, & Robinson, ; Frampton, Robinson, Conine, & Delfs, ; Sprinkle & Miguel, ). In all three studies, tact training involved showing the participant a visual discriminative stimulus (S D ) along with a vocal S D (e.g., “What is it?”).…”

“…Each study measured the emergence of targets in one operant class following training in the other operant class (e.g., measuring listener responding after speaker training). Thus, we will discuss the results of each study in terms of the targets that emerged following training (see Frampton et al, for a discussion of using multiple DVs to evaluate relative efficiency). Speaker training was more efficient than listener training for 16 of 21 participants (i.e., more listener responses emerged following speaker training than speaker responses emerged following listener training).…”

“…It is difficult to draw conclusions based on the results of this review, as each of the studies presented varying amounts of detail within the participant descriptions (see Supporting Information, Table 1). For example, all studies reported information on the participants' tacting repertoires, but only three reported on listener skills (Delfs et al, ; Frampton et al, ; Kodak & Paden, ). The level of detail provided per repertoire also varied across studies, with some studies reporting the total number of acquired targets per repertoire (Kodak & Paden, ) and others reporting qualitative descriptions (Sprinkle & Miguel, ).…”

A comparison of methods to teach foreign‐language targets to young children

“…For example, a study conducted by Delfs, Conine, Frampton, Shillingsburg, and Robinson () showed that teaching young children with autism spectrum disorder to tact pictures of objects, states, and people (e.g., pilot) more reliably resulted in emergent listener responding than vice versa for most participants. This finding has been demonstrated across different populations, stimuli, and slightly different training methods (e.g., Frampton, Robinson, Conine, & Delfs, ; Horne, Lowe, & Randle, ; Kobari‐Wright & Miguel, ; Lee, Miguel, Darcey, & Jennings, ; Lowe, Horne, Harris, & Randle, ; Miguel & Kobari‐Wright, ; Sprinkle & Miguel, ; Wynn & Smith, ). Researchers also have demonstrated that acquisition of the naming relation (Horne & Lowe, ) may result in emergent listener responding, tact responding, and stimulus class formation (categorization skills) for some young children (e.g., Miguel & Kobari‐Wright, ; Miguel, Petursdottir, Carr, & Michael, ).…”