Evaluating Three Methods of Stimulus Rotation when Teaching Receptive Labels

Abstract

The teaching of receptive labels (i.e., auditory-visual conditional discriminations) is common among early intervention programs for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Discrete trial teaching (DTT) is a common approach used to teach these receptive labels. Some have argued that the stimuli within the array, target and non-target, must be counterbalanced to prevent the development of undesired stimulus control. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three different approaches to stimulus rotation to teach receptive labels to five young children diagnosed with ASD. These approaches included counterbalanced, fixed, and clinician's choice. The results of an adapted alternating treatment design replicated across three stimulus sets and five participants indicated that all three methods of rotation were effective. Maintenance and generalization for targets taught in all three conditions was also assessed. The implications of the results with respect to current teaching practices in early intervention programs are discussed.

A Preliminary Evaluation of a Token System with a Flexible Earning Requirement

“…Although there are several fruitful areas for future research addressing some of the limitations of this study, this study demonstrates the effects of a potentially powerful technique with a possible wide range of utility. This study also contributes to the growing number of studies evaluating structured, yet flexible approaches to ASD intervention (e.g., Cihon et al, 2018;Leaf et al, 2017;Leaf et al, 2018). Ideally, researchers will continue to evaluate flexible procedures that may align closer to what is actually occurring clinically and yield optimistic results.…”

Evaluating three methods of the presentation of target stimuli when teaching receptive labels

“…While Leaf et al (2018) provided an evaluation of one component of counterbalancing (i.e., the rotation of the stimulus array), research has yet to evaluate the order of target presentation within a trial block or the number of F I G U R E 1 Results for Alexander across baseline (BL), intervention (INT), and maintenance (MAINT) probes for all three stimulus sets. Closed circles represent the predetermined condition, closed squares represent the constrained condition, and closed triangle represent the unconstrained condition trials a stimuli is targeted within a trial block.…”

“…Despite recommendations on the use of counterbalancing, research evaluating the effectiveness of counterbalancing is scant. Leaf et al (2018) were the first to evaluate the rotation of stimuli in the stimulus array (i.e., one element of counterbalancing) within a receptive language task for individuals diagnosed with ASD. Specifically, three methods of stimulus rotation were evaluated using an adapted alternating treatment design.…”

“…While Leaf et al (2018) provided an evaluation of one component of counterbalancing (i.e., the rotation of the stimulus array), research has yet to evaluate the order of target presentation within a trial block or the number of trials a stimuli is targeted within a trial block. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare three approaches to the order and number of the presentation of target stimuli during a receptive language task with three individuals diagnosed with ASD.…”

“…reevaluate previous recommendations regarding best practice. We hope this study, combined with the results of Leaf et al (2018), provides researchers and clinicians with a resource to inform more research and evaluate best practices to ensure learners achieve the best, socially valid outcomes.…”