Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T03:33:35.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of Preferred Items in a Word-Learning Task: Effects on On-Task Behaviour and Learning Outcomes of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2014

Deb Keen  and
Donna Pennell
Deb Keen*
Affiliation:
Autism Centre of Excellence, School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Australia
Donna Pennell
Affiliation:
School of Education and Professional Studies, Griffith University, Australia
*
Correspondence: Deb Keen, Autism Centre of Excellence, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt Campus, Qld 4122, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Identifying and using preferred items and activities to increase motivation and participation of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been an important and frequently used intervention strategy. Preferred objects, typically identified through a preference assessment, are most frequently used during instruction as reinforcers. These objects may be offered contingent upon a correct response or following a set period of work or may be made available continuously by incorporating them into the learning task. This alternating treatment design study examined the effects of offering preferred items during a word-learning task on learning and on-task behaviour under 2 conditions: following the completion of a set of learning trials (sequential) or continuously during a set of learning trials (embedded). Participants were 3 children with ASD aged 3–5 years. Results showed that children were more on task when preferred items were embedded, but the sequential condition led to superior learning of target behaviours for 2 of the children. Implications of using preferred items to enhance learning and on-task behaviour are discussed.

Keywords

autism spectrum disorderchild preferenceson-task behaviourearly interventionlearning
Type
Original Articles
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , July 2015 , pp. 56 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bruckner, C. T., & Yoder, P. (2007). Restricted object use in young children with autism: Definition and construct validity. Autism, 11, 161–171. doi:10.1177/1362361307075709CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruininks, R.H., Woodcock, R.W., Weatherman, R.F., & Hill, B.K. (1996). Scales of Independent Behavior – Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.Google Scholar
DeLeon, I.G., Fisher, W.W., Rodriguez-Catter, V., Maglieri, K., Herman, K., & Marhefka, J.-M. (2001). Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 463–473. doi:10.1901/jaba.2001.34-463CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Didden, R., Prinsen, H., & Sigafoos, J. (2000). The blocking effect of pictorial prompts on sight-word reading. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 317–320. doi:10.1901/jaba.2000.33-317CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dittlinger, L.H., & Lerman, D.C. (2011). Further analysis of picture interference when teaching word recognition to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 341–349. doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-341CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunlap, G., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Wright, S., White, R., & Gomez, A. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505–518. doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-505CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagopian, L.P., Long, E.S., & Rush, K.S. (2004). Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification, 28, 668–677. doi:10.1177/0145445503259836CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heal, N.A., & Hanley, G.P. (2007). Evaluating preschool children's preferences for motivational systems during instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 249–261. doi:10.1901/jaba.2007.59-05CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keen, D. (2009). Engagement of children with autism in learning. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 33, 130–140. doi:10.1375/ajse.33.2.130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keen, D., & Pennell, D. (2010). Evaluating an engagement-based preference assessment for children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 645–652. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2009.12.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, C.H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Kern, L., & Marder, T.J. (1996). A comparison of simultaneous and delayed reinforcement as treatments for food selectivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 243–246. doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-243CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, R., & Sturmey, P. (2006). The effects of lag schedules and preferred materials on variable responding in students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 421–428. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0080-7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovaas, O.I., Schreibman, L., Koegel, R., & Rehm, R. (1971). Selective responding by autistic children to multiple sensory input. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 211–222. doi:10.1037/h0031015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Piazza, C.C., Patel, M.R., Santana, C.M., Goh, H.-L., Delia, M.D., & Lancaster, B.M. (2002). An evaluation of simultaneous and sequential presentation of preferred and nonpreferred food to treat food selectivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 259–270. doi:10.1901/jaba.2002.35-259CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ploog, B.O. (2010). Stimulus overselectivity four decades later: A review of the literature and its implications for current research in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1332–1349. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0990-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, S.R., Stahmer, A.C., Suhrheinrick, J., & Schreibman, L. (2013). Stimulus overselectivity in typical development: Implications for teaching children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1249–1257. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1658-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutter, M., Bailey, A., & Lord, C. (2007). Social Communication Questionnaire. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Sautter, R.A., LeBlanc, L.A., & Gillett, J.N. (2008). Using free operant preference assessments to select toys for free play between children with autism and siblings. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2, 17–27. doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2007.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, N.N., & Solomon, R.T. (1990). A stimulus control analysis of the picture-word problem in children who are mentally retarded: The blocking effect. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 525–532. doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-525CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed