An evaluation of lag schedules and prompting methods to increase variability of naming category items in children with autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

A lag schedule of reinforcement is one way to increase response variability; however, previous research has been mixed with regard to the necessary parameters to increase variability. For some individuals, low schedule requirements (e.g., Lag 1) are sufficient to increase variability. For other individuals, higher lag schedules (e.g., Lag 3) or a lag schedule in combination with prompting is needed to increase variability. We evaluated the efficiency of different within-session progressive lag schedules to increase response variability with 2 children with autism. Results showed that increasing the lag criterion across sessions increased variability to levels similar to beginning with a high lag schedule for one participant. When lag schedules did not increase variability for the second participant, we compared a variety of prompting procedures. Results of the prompting evaluation showed that a tact-priming procedure was effective to increase varied responding.

The importance of multiple exemplar instruction in the establishment of novel verbal behavior

“…Thus, verbal behavior can be both explained and changed via analyses of behavior–environment relations. Since Skinner's original writing, much research employing behavior‐analytic principles to investigate the development and remediation of language has been published (e.g., Akers et al, ; Carr & Miguel, ; Frampton & Shillingsburg, ; Marcon‐Dawson, Vicars, & Miguel, ; Oah & Dickinson, ; Sautter & LeBlanc, ; Shafer, ; Stauch, LaLonde, Plavnik, Bak, & Gatewood, ; Wiskow, Matter, & Donaldson, ). Taken together, the results of these studies contradict the idea of language as an innate and immoveable entity.…”

Evaluation of Lag Schedules and Rules on Persistent Response Variability With Preschoolers in a Group

“…Experimenters have used lag schedules to increase the variability of socially meaningful behaviors, such as conversation topics (Lepper, Devine, & Petursdottir, 2017), answering social questions (e.g., Lee, McComas, & Jawor, 2002;Susa & Schlinger, 2012), mands (e.g., Silbaugh & Falcomata, 2019), and food consumption (Silbaugh & Falcomata, 2017). Experimenters have also used lag schedules to increase varied and novel responses in academic skills, such as naming category items (e.g., Wiskow, Matter, & Donaldson, 2018).…”

“…These results demonstrate the benefits of using a lag schedule during group intervention; however, a limitation of this study is that the Lag 1 criterion was undemanding and permitted participants to repeat their own responses and still meet the criterion. Individual lag schedules show that higher lag criteria produce higher levels of variability (e.g., Susa & Schlinger, 2012;Wiskow et al, 2018), but it is unknown whether a higher lag criterion may produce higher levels of variability in a group. Furthermore, experimenters could not isolate the influence of the lag schedule from the accurate instruction or the specific feedback because they implemented all those components simultaneously.…”

“…A few recent studies have further evaluated the effects of rules on response variability during individual instruction and found little to no effect of the rule (Radley, Dart, Helbig, & Schrieber, 2018;Wiskow et al, 2018). Radley et al (2018) compared the effects of a complete, accurate rule (i.e., contingency-specifying rule) to those of an incomplete rule (i.e., "Say something different.")…”

“…Results showed that neither rule produced significantly more variability compared to the Lag 2 schedule alone; however, the experimenters never evaluated the rules without the lag schedule. In another recent study, Wiskow et al (2018) evaluated the effects of an inaccurate rule prior to the introduction of the lag schedule. During baseline, the experimenters instructed the participants to "tell me a [category]" and reinforced all correct responses (i.e., FR 1).…”