Comparing Continuous and Discontinuous Data Collection during Discrete Trial Teaching of Tacting by Children with Autism

Abstract

The present study compared continuous and discontinuous data collection systems on acquisition, generalization, and maintenance of tacts, and on-task behavior, during discrete trial teaching with three children with autism. A constant prompt-delay procedure was used to teach tacts. Performance across data collection systems was compared using continuous measurement collected daily in the presence of teaching, discontinuous measurement of the first trial only, and discontinuous measurement collected weekly in the absence of teaching (i.e., probe data). An adapted alternating treatments design was used. For two of the three participants, tacts were acquired most rapidly in the continuous measurement condition, although the differences were small. For the third participant, no systematic differences were found in skill acquisition across the three data collection systems. For all three participants, minimal to no differences were found across data collection systems with regard to generalization and maintenance of tacting, and on-task behavior. Additionally, procedural integrity was high and comparable across all data collection procedures. Overall, these results suggest the use of continuous data collection for teaching tacts to children with autism, as it provides the most sensitive measure of change in performance.

Comparing matrix sizes when teaching direction following to preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder

“…The experimenter faded the prompt using a constant prompt delay (0–5 s) similar to the procedures used by Giunta‐Fede et al. (2016; see Table 1). Specifically, during the initial trials, the experimenter used a 0‐s prompt delay.…”

Tact instruction for children with autism spectrum disorder: A review

“…Some studies compared differential reinforcement (e.g., Majdalany et al, 2016), stimuli presentation (e.g., Akande, 2000), and feedback procedures (e.g., Grow et al, 2016;Leaf et al, 2014) to understand factors that may additionally increase effectiveness of tact instructions presented through DTT. Other studies used DTT to investigate setting effects (i.e., establishing operations; Sidener et al, 2010), and system effects such as different data collection (e.g., Giunta-Fede et al, 2016) and probes (e.g., Frampton et al, 2017).…”

An evaluation of estimation data collection to trial‐by trial data collection during discrete trial teaching

“…Some issues that may impede the use of continuous data collection methods include, but are not limited to, the feasibility of implementation across a whole day, requiring a separate observer (Meany‐Daboul, Roscoe, Bourret, & Ahearn, ), high rates of behavior (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, ), multiple target behaviors, and disruption of the ongoing therapy session (Taubman, ). Due to potential challenges associated with the use of continuous data collection systems within clinical practice, other discontinuous data collection methods have been developed that estimate behavior such as momentary time sampling (e.g., Repp, Roberts, Slack, Repp, & Berkler, ), partial interval recording (e.g., Repp et al, ), first‐trial data collection (e.g., Cummings & Carr, ), first three trial data collection (e.g., Lerman, Dittlinger, Fentress, & Lanagan, ), probe session data (e.g., Giunta‐Fede, Reeve, DeBar, Vladescu, & Reeve, ), and estimation data (e.g., Taubman, Leaf, McEachin, Papovich, & Leaf, ).…”

“…Giunta‐Fede et al () also compared continuous and discontinuous data collection procedures used during DTT. The discontinuous methods used in this study were first‐trial data collection and weekly probe data.…”