Printer Friendly

Experimental comparison of brief behavioral and developmental language training for a young child with autism.

Children with autism often demonstrate a deficit in speech and language repertoires (Paul, 2008). Some children may never acquire functional speech defined as using at least five words to consistently solicit preferred items, activities, and attention from other people (Yoder & Stone, 2006). Failure to develop functional speech is associated with lifelong impairments across multiple adaptive behavior domains (Lord & Pickles, 1996; Paul) and the development of problematic behaviors to convey basic needs and wants (Carr & Durand, 1985; Halle & Meadan, 2007). Although children can be taught alternative and augmentative communication topographies (e.g., Charlop-Christy, Carpenter, Le, LeBlanc, & Kellet, 2002), children who acquire vocal verbal capacities during pre-school years demonstrate improved outcomes in receptive and expressive language abilities, academic skills, and social behaviors over their lifetime (Paul; Tager-Flusberg et al., 2009). Therefore, teaching vocal verbal capacities to young children with autism is a priority for many early intervention programs.

Teaching procedures based on the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA) such as mand training (Jennett, Harris, & Delmolino, 2008), discrete trial training (Smith, 2001), and natural environment training (LeBlanc, Esch, Sidener, & Firth, 2006) have vast empirical support for teaching vocal communication to young children with autism (National Standards Project [NSP], 2009). Despite the evidence base for behavioral language training, many early intervention programs (e.g., Early Childhood Special Education [ECSE]) do not use these procedures to teach communication to children with autism (Boulware, Schwartz, Sandall, & McBride, 2006; Hess, Morrier, Heflin, & Ivey, 2008).

One potential reason for the lack of behavioral language training in early intervention programs is the time and human resources required to implement behavioral interventions (Stahmer, 2007). For example, discrete trial training is an effective behavioral procedure for teaching language to children with autism. However, published reports call for several 10- to 15-minute training sessions implemented each day in a one-on-one teaching format (Smith, 2001). Many public ECSE programs rely upon two or three staff to serve 9 to 12 students who at-tend school for 10 to 15 hours each week (Boulware et al., 2006). Therefore, the feasibility to replicate some research-based behavioral interventions in practical educational settings is limited. As a result, educators may be forced to choose between modifying evidence-based behavioral interventions or selecting educational procedures that do not require modification yet lack empirical support.

A potential modification of behavioral interventions may be to reduce the amount of time that a teacher delivers highly intensive instructional practices. For example, instead of conducting several 10- to 15-min discrete trial language training sessions each day, educators may provide several 3- to 5-min sessions. The reduction in time may make the intervention practical to implement when teacher to student ratios do not allow for extensive one-on-one teaching sessions. However, the effectiveness of many modifications, including session length, has yet to be investigated empirically (Stahmer, 2007).

In lieu of behavioral interventions, many early intervention providers rely on child-led play activities during which adults model communication by commenting on the child's behavior or extend interactions by asking questions about objects (Paul, 2008). This approach is based on a developmental theory of language acquisition and assumes children with autism will acquire language following the same sequence as typically developing children. A positive feature of this approach for ECSE providers is that the procedures allow for less rigid adherence to scripted protocols than those sometimes described in the behavioral literature. For example, developmental interventions are often administered during brief interactive episodes that take place when a child is engaged in a daily routine (e.g., Mahoney & Perales, 2003). However, there is minimal research documenting the effects of developmental interventions on language outcomes for children with autism (Letso & Zane, 2009); more information is needed before conclusions can be drawn regarding the efficacy of these procedures (NSP, 2009).

Additional research is needed to identify language outcomes for children with autism when interventions are administered within the confines of authentic early intervention programs (Stahmer, 2007). Service providers may benefit from research that identifies outcomes of behavioral interventions that are modified for implementation in various educational contexts (Stahmer). Research is also needed to determine whether developmental interventions lead to meaningful improvements in a number of communicative skills including functional language (NSP, 2009). Therefore, the purpose of the present investigation was to compare the effects of brief behavioral and developmental language training on the acquisition of spoken language by a young child with autism in an ECSE classroom.

* METHOD

PARTICIPANT

The participant in this study was Alex, a preschooler enrolled in a public half-day ECSE classroom. Alex presented with a severe delay in receptive and expressive language as assessed by a clinically-certified speech-language pathologist (SLP) based in part on the results of standardized testing. Specifically, the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition (PLS-4) (Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 2007) was administered to Alex at the age of 3;2 (years, months). In response to the receptive portions of the PLS-4, he failed to demonstrate reliable identification of body parts, clothing, animals, foods, spatial concepts, or action pictures. His responses to expressive portions of the scale failed to include the naming of objects in photographs, the use words to communicate, or the production of questions. Alex received a Total Standard Score of 50 on the PLS-4, which ranks significantly below the standard scores of same-age norm-group peers (mean = 100, standard deviation = 15). At the age of 3;8, Alex also received a diagnosis of Autistic Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) based on an assessment conducted by a licensed school psychologist. He was referred for inclusion in this study by his teacher after she received information about the purpose of the research. Alex was 4;0 when the study began.

At the time of referral Alex occasionally, though very clearly, emitted 10 to 15 one- and two-word multisyllabic utterances that were delayed repetitions of previously-heard words with no clear occasioning stimulus or maintaining consequence identifiable in the environment. His communicative repertoire included contact gestures and non-specific vocalizations. For example, he occasionally grabbed an adult's hand and placed it on desired items to request them, and he cried to request the termination of non-preferred activities. Alex did not imitate vocalizations or motor responses on request, follow simple directions, or participate in spontaneous turn-taking activities.

SETTING

The ECSE classroom included one teacher, two paraprofessionals, and nine additional students. These students ranged in ages from 3;0 to 4;11 and presented with a variety of developmental disabilities. All experimental sessions occurred in a separate room (4 m by 3 m) adjoining the ECSE classroom. The adjoining room had a door that could be closed for privacy during the sessions. The items in the adjoining room included two tables, two chairs, and a bookshelf containing the training materials. The first author served as the coordinator of this project, and the other authors interacted with the participant during the experimental sessions.

MATERIALS

The following materials were used during the training: (a) a MotivAider[R] timer, (b) a Sony[R] ZR 400 video recorder placed on a tripod, (c) various items familiar to Alex from his classroom (e.g., books, a Mr. Potato Head[R] toy, puzzles, sorting materials), (d) new toys that Alex had not previously seen (e.g., a ball that lit up when bounced; a car that played music when pushed), and (e) several preferred items identified during a paired choice preference assessment (Fisher et al., 1992) completed prior to communication training.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

An alternating treatment design (Cooper, Herron, & Heward, 2007) was used to examine relationships between the dependent variable (vocal verbal communication) and four experimental treatment conditions. With this design, experimental control is established when a target behavior is produced at a consistent rate across repeated sessions of an experimental condition, and a functional relation is established if the target behavior is consistently and considerably improved in one or more conditions compared to a control condition.

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

The behaviors targeted in this study were vocal verbal response forms corresponding to the names of stimuli used during four conditions of interaction with an adult. The vocal verbal responses could consist of the corresponding word, word-approximation, or word-initial consonant of a conventional word for a referent (e.g., "car", /ka/, or /k/ in reference to a car). Responses were not scored if Alex emitted no vocalization when one was expected or if he emitted a vocal response that did not resemble the target word, a recognizable approximation of the word, or the word's initial consonant. For example, if Alex emitted the word "cat" or the sound /m/ during an interactive episode involving a car, this response was not scored as correct.

PROCEDURES

Selection of Stimuli: Three procedures were used to choose the stimuli for this study: direct observation of Alex during regular classroom conditions; an interview with the classroom teacher; and a paired stimulus preference assessment (Fisher et al., 1992). The results of the direct observation and of the interview were used to identify potential stimulus items, and the paired stimulus preference assessment was used to identify and order the list of preferred items and activities for use during communication training conditions. Additionally, once the stimuli were selected, the teacher was asked to indicate whether Alex's current spontaneous vocal repertoire included at least the word-initial sounds of each word corresponding to a stimulus item. Words that were judged to be too complex were eliminated from consideration. A list of the toys and corresponding words associated with each condition is provided in Table 1. A description of each condition follows Table 1.
Table 1. Toys and target words associated with each experimental
condition.

Condition Toys Words

Request Items spinning top top
 helicopter copter
 flashlight light

Request Actions Ball for throwing ball
 Cars and toy racing track go
 Hanging swing push

Label Items Mr. Potato Head & accessories hat, arm, ear
 Simple puzzle dog, cat, bird
 Blocks red, blue, green

Play Ball for throwing ball
 Toy cars car
 Spinning tops top
 Helicopter copter
 Flashlight light


Organization of Sessions. Following the preference assessment, Alex participated in 28 sessions evenly divided among four experimental conditions (defined below). The order in which the conditions were presented was determined by random drawing on each day. Each session was three minutes long and separated from the next session by 30 to 60 seconds. Two to four sessions were presented on any given day. Within this framework, The 28 sessions included a total of 84 min across 8 days.

Experimental Conditions. Four experimental conditions were presented, each characterized by a unique instructional protocol.

1. Request Items Condition. This condition was designed to evoke vocal verbal requests for preferred items under behaviorally based one-on-one teaching conditions (see Smith, 2001). Alex's most preferred tangible items were used during the sessions to increase the likelihood that he would ask for the items. To implement the procedure, Alex was instructed to sit at a table with no items present. The experimenter sat across from Alex, manipulated a toy in his line of sight, and then placed the toy in a bag or out of Alex's reach. If Alex reached for the item or bag, the experimenter moved the item further away and modeled the item's name. If, within 20 seconds of hearing the model, Alex then said the target word, an intelligible approximation, or the word's initial sound, he received access to the item for 10 seconds. If 20 seconds elapsed and Alex made no effort to reach for the item or to emit the item's name, the experimenter pulled the item out of the bag and manipulated it a second time in Alex's line of sight. If after another 20 seconds, Alex made no effort to reach for the item or to emit the item's name, the experimenter introduced a different preferred item within Alex's line of sight and followed the same protocol as with the first. This pattern continued for the duration of the Request Items Condition.

2. Request Actions Condition. This condition was designed to evoke vocal verbal requests for specific actions during interrupted play sequences similar to naturalistic behavioral interventions described by LeBlanc and colleagues (2006). Alex's most preferred activities (e.g., throwing balls, racing toy cars on a race track) were used during this condition to increase the likelihood that he would request an action related to the activity. Additionally, these activities were not accessible to Alex prior to a communication training session on that particular school day.

To begin this session, Alex was asked to be seated on the floor with his most preferred activity (as identified from the preference assessment results). Every 20 seconds, the experimenter paused or blocked Alex's actions for 5 seconds to interrupt the play sequence in an attempt to evoke a request for the action that typically came next in the sequence. For example, if Alex was playing with a toy car on a track, the experimenter held the car at the top of the track to increase the likelihood that Alex would say "go." Following the 5-second delay, the experimenter provided a vocal model (e.g., "go") and waited another 5 seconds for Alex to emit the target response. If at any time Alex emitted the target response, an intelligible approximation, or the first sound of the target word, the experimenter immediately withdrew the obstruction (e.g., allowed the car to roll down the track). If Alex did not produce the target behavior following the delay or the model, the experimenter terminated the original activity, set the materials aside, and presented Alex with another preferred activity. This process continued for the remainder of the Request Actions Condition.

3. Label Items Condition. The label items condition was designed to replicate a play context that was observed in the student's classroom and represents a modified version of procedures for teaching language and play skills within a developmentally-based framework (Mahoney & Perales, 2003). The purpose of this condition was to determine if Alex would emit vocal verbal responses when an adult joined him in playing with classroom stimuli (e.g., puzzles, blocks, or a Mr. Potato Head[R] toy). If Alex emitted the target response during this condition, the researcher delivered social attention in the form of a pat on the back, high five, or vocal praise.

This protocol was initiated by offering Alex a choice of three toys (e.g., a puzzle, a Mr. Potato Heada toy, building blocks). The selected toy was then set on the table in from of him. The experimenter then joined Alex by engaging in parallel play with the selected item. If at any time, Alex labeled relevant stimuli or approximated the name of an item by saying the first sound, the experimenter provided affirming statements such as "yes it is" or "you are right" combined with physical attention in the form of a gentle pat on the back or shoulder. If Alex did not emit a vocal verbal label after 20 seconds, the experimenter provided a prompt by pointing to the object of Alex's attention and (after a 2-second pause) asking a question (e.g., "What is that?") or making a comment (e.g., "that's a...."). If Alex did not emit the name of the item following another 2-second pause, the experimenter modeled the target response. If Alex labeled the item or any characteristic of the item following the experimenter's model the experimenter provided attention as described above. If Alex did not label the item the experimenter withheld attention. The experimenter continued to give prompts for target responses using the described sequence until the end of the label items training session.

4. Play Condition. This condition served two purposes. First, it provided a control condition to demonstrate the effects of the variables withheld and presented in other conditions. Second, it replicated events observed in Alex's classroom wherein students were allowed to select and play with toys noncontingently and frequently obtained noncontingent adult attention. This play condition could also be seen as a modification of the developmental interventions described by Paul (2008).

The Play Condition protocol was initiated by providing Alex with unlimited access to his most preferred toys. Following 15 seconds of uninterrupted play, the experimenter interacted with Alex for 10 to 15 seconds by joining in his activity and by providing physical and verbal attention, including comments about what he was doing. By delivering all potential reinforcers noncontingently, it was possible to observe the occurrence of language in the absence of any external requirements or requests for communication.

PROCEDURAL INTEGRITY

All 28 sessions were recorded on videotape. Eight (29%) of the 28 tapes were reviewed by the first author for the purpose of assessing the fidelity of procedures implemented by the adults who interacted with Alex. Included among the eight tapes were two randomly selected sessions from each training condition. A procedural checklist was developed for each condition and used to identify the steps completed correctly or incorrectly while reviewing the recordings. The mean procedural integrity across sessions was 94% (range, 91% to 100%).

DATA COLLECTION AND SUMMARIZATION

Vocal verbal responses were documented for each of the 28 sessions by members of the research team. The research team member who participated as the interactive partner in the session also documented the data for that session. In preparation for this task, each member of the team had previously received doctoral training in behavioral observation and each had participated in 30 minutes of data collection training specific to this study. This training included a brief didactic overview of procedures and practice in data collection using a video recording of children similar to Alex but not included in this investigation.

Data collection was accomplished by listing the vocal verbal responses produced by the client during a session. The responses were then counted to arrive at a total number per session. Additionally, the total number was divided by 3 (i.e., the number of minutes per session) to obtain within-session rates of the behavior for each session,

INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT

One member of the research team served as a secondary coder. This individual had demonstrated 80% coding agreement with the first author during three consecutive practice sessions from videotapes involving an individual other than the participant of this study.

The secondary coder independently coded 11 (39%) of the 28 sessions, including 3 randomly selected sessions from each condition. Agreement was calculated by comparing the primary observer's data with the secondary observer's data using a point-by-point agreement ratio (Kazdin, 1982). The number of agreements were divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100 to obtain a percentage of agreement. Mean point-by-point agreement was 95% (range, 87% to 100%) across all conditions.

SOCIAL VALIDITY

The first two authors disseminated results of the study to a school district team including the ECSE teacher, a school psychologist, a speech-language pathologist, the Autism Program Coordinator, and the Special Education Director. The authors presented suggestions for ongoing communicative interventions based on the results of this research study. Following dissemination of results, the teacher began implementing individualized communicative interventions targeting the production of requests in a variety of environments. The teacher anecdotally reported that the information shared in the dissemination meeting was very useful for designing interventions targeting vocal verbal behaviors.

* RESULTS

Visual analysis (Cooper et al., 2007) was used to compare Alex's rate of vocal verbal responding across all communication training conditions. Figure 1 shows that Alex engaged in vocal verbal behavior under three conditions. The Request Items Condition evoked and maintained the highest mean rate of target behavior at 1.7 responses per minute (range, 0.0 to 3.6). Responding during this condition started at 0.0 and increased across sessions with the highest rates of responding identified during the final two sessions (3.6 and 3.0, respectively). These results contrast with the rate of behavior during the Play Condition (m = 0.0) wherein preferred items were delivered noncontingently. This suggests a functional relation between target responding and the conditions present during request items sessions.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The mean rate of responding during the Request Actions Condition was 0.9 responses per minute (range, 0.0 to 1.6) with no responding during the first session and somewhat variable responding during the remaining sessions. Alex requested specific actions at the highest rates during the final two sessions (1.3 and 1.6, respectively). These results suggest a possible functional relation between vocal responding and the conditions present in the request actions sessions.

The Label Items Condition produced a mean rate of 1.0 (range, 0.0 to 2.6) response per minute. Vocal responding was variable during early sessions of the label items condition and no target responses occurred during the final two sessions. This suggests the consequences in place for labeling items (i.e., generic attention) were not sufficient to maintain the behavior. No target responses were recorded during the play condition.

* DISCUSSION

The current results suggest that brief behavioral language training may lead to an improvement in vocal verbal responding and that play-based procedures may not produce similar outcomes within the same time frame. The participant in this study demonstrated an increase in responding during both request training conditions and a decrease or no responding in the play-based conditions. Although the current results are limited to the participant in the present investigation, the pattern of positive outcomes obtained during a brief intervention period warrants additional empirical and practical consideration.

The present results are consistent with previous examinations of behavioral language training (e.g., Jennett et al., 2008) that identified improved rates of vocal verbal requesting following implementation of behavioral interventions. Additionally, these results are consistent with research suggesting that communicative behavior can be taught under highly structured teaching conditions (Smith, 2001) as well as more naturalistic teaching arrangements (Yoder & Stone, 2006). Finally, the results suggest that child-led developmental interventions may not be as effective as structured behavioral interventions for teaching some types of communication to children with autism (Letso & Zane, 2009), especially within a limited time frame.

This investigation extends research examining behavioral language training by demonstrating positive outcomes following multiple brief (3-minute) one-on-one instructional episodes over an 8-day period. The brevity of the training sessions may have practical utility for individuals who serve students with autism and other communication impairments. Speech-language pathologists could administer brief behavioral language training during direct service sessions or provide guidance to teachers or paraprofessionals implementing the procedure. Though brief instructional sessions may not yield equivalent outcomes when compared to intensive one-on-one language instruction, ECSE providers may find brief sessions more feasible to implement.

A second contribution of the present investigation is that it presents a model for comparing several individualized intervention procedures empirically in an efficient manner. Speech-language pathologists serving in a consultative role could utilize a similar approach when attempting to identify and recommend a language training procedure for intensive or ongoing implementation. This practice is consistent with recent advancements in the use of experimental analysis to identify individualized academic interventions likely to be effective in areas such as oral reading fluency (Jones et al., 2009) and mathematics (VanDer-Heyden & Burns, 2009).

Although the current results show that brief behavioral language training was effective for the participant in this study, a number of limitations must be addressed before these results can be generalized to others. First, the study must be replicated with other individuals who present

with a profile similar to the participant in this study. Second, given the diversity among individuals with autism, the effectiveness of brief behavioral intervention must also be studied in application to individuals with more diverse profiles of strengths and needs. Third, the researchers implementing the intervention procedures were all doctoral students and were not blind to the purpose of the study, which has important empirical and practical implications. It is possible that awareness of the goals of the investigation or the advanced training in educational interventions could have influenced the outcomes. Future research should examine differences in the procedures administered by individuals who work directly with students and who are not aware of the purpose of the research study.

A fourth limitation was that the four intervention conditions were implemented over an unusually short period of time. Although this increases some of the positive attributes of the intervention (i.e., rapid improvement), it is not known what type of outcomes could be identified when brief behavioral or developmental language training is applied over extended periods of time (e.g., several months). Fifth, expressive language targets were the only communicative skills measured in this investigation. Previous investigations suggest play-based interventions lead to improvements in other communicative targets (e.g., joint attention, orienting, and symbolic play) (Ingersoll, 2010); future research may benefit from comparisons of behavioral and developmental interventions for a wider array of communicative outcomes.

Finally, we note that the results of this study may be more suggestive of the potentially promising effects of brief behavioral interventions than of the less impressive effects found in the play-based conditions. The play-based conditions in this study were similar to some forms of developmentally-based child-centered language intervention (e.g., those described by Paul, 2008). However, they were not identical. For a more systematic comparison between brief behavioral and developmental interventions, future research must structure developmental play-based interventions in ways that more closely resemble the prototypes.

* REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.

Boulware, G., Schwartz, I. S., Sandall, S. R., & McBride, B. J. (2006). Project DATA for toddlers: an inclusive approach to very young children with autism spectrum disorder. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 26, 94-105.

Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111-126.

Charlop-Christy, M. H., Carpenter, M., Le, L., LeBlanc, L. A., & Kellet, K. (2002). Using the picture exchange communication system (PECS) with children with autism: Assessment of PECS acquisition, speech, social-communicative behavior and problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 213-231.

Cooper, J. O., Herron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied Behavior Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498.

Halle, J., & Meadan, H. (2007). A protocol for assessing early communication of young children with autism and other developmental disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27, 49-61.

Hess, K. L., Morrier, M. J., Heflin, L. J., & Ivey, M. L. (2008). Autism treatment survey: Services received by children with autism spectrum disorders in public school classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 961-971.

Ingersoll, B. R. (2010). Teaching social communication: A comparison of naturalistic behavioral and development, social pragmatic approaches for children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 33-43.

Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Delmolino, L. (2008). Discrete trial instruction vs. mand training for teaching children with autism to make requests. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 24, 69-85.

Jones, K. M., Wickstrom, K. F., Noltemeyer, A. L., Brown, S. M., Schuka, J. R., & Therrien, W. J. (2009). An experimental analysis of reading fluency. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 35-55.

Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs. New York: Oxford.

LeBlanc, L. A., Esch, J., Sidener, T. M., & Firth, A. M. (2006). Behavioral language interventions for children with autism: Comparing applied verbal behavior and naturalistic teaching approaches. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 49-60.

Letso, S, & Zane, T. (2009, January). Relationship Development Intervention [R] A review of the research. Autism Special Interest Group Newsletter. Retrieved February, 18, 2009, from http://autismsig.org/

Lord, C., & Pickles, A. (1996). Language level and nonverbal social-communication behaviors in autistic and language-delayed children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1542-1550.

Mahoney, G., & Perales, F. (2003). Using relationship-focused intervention to enhance the social-emotional functioning of young children with autism spectrum disorders. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23, 77-89.

National Autism Center. (2009). National Standard's Report. Randolph, MA: National Autism Center.

Paul, R. (2008). Interventions to improve communication in autism. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 17, 835-56.

Smith, T. (2001). Discrete trial training in the treatment of autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 86-92.

Stahmer, A. C. (2007). The basic structure of community early intervention programs for children with autism: Provider descriptions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1344-54.

Tager-Flusberg, H., Rogers, S., Cooper, J., Landa, R., Lord, C., Paul, R., et al. (2009). Defining spoken language benchmarks and selecting measures of expressive language development for young children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 643-52.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Burns, M. K (2009). Performance indicators in math: Implications for brief experimental analysis of academic performance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 71-91.

Yoder, P., & Stone, W. L. (2006). A randomized comparison of the effect of two prelinguistic communication interventions on the acquisition of spoken communication in preschoolers with ASD. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 698-711.

Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., Pond, R. E. (2007) Preschool language scale, Fourth edition (PLS-4). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

This investigation was funded by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services of the United States Department of Education (Grant number: H325D030060). We extend our appreciation to the participants and instructional staff for their collaboration and support.

* AUTHOR CONTACT INFORMATION

JOSHUA PLAVNICK, B.A.

c/o Summer Ferreri, Ph.D.

Counseling, Educational Psychology,

And Special Education

College of Education

340 Erickson

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI. 48824

734-395-6285

email: plavnick@msu.edu

SUMMER FERRERI, PH.D.

Counseling, Educational Psychology,

And Special Education

College of Education

340 Erickson

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI. 48824

517-432-2013

email: sferreri@msu.edu

TAMELA J. MANNES, M.A.

Counseling, Educational Psychology,

And Special Education

Michigan State University

616-836-1488

email: mannesta@msu.edu

ANGELA N. MAUPIN, M.A.

Counseling, Educational Psychology,

And Special Education

Michigan State University

email: maupinan@msu.edu

LATOYA S. STEWART, M.A.

Counseling, Educational Psychology,

And Special Education

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI. 48824

email: stewa364@msu.edu

ANISA N. GOFORTH, M.A.

Counseling, Educational Psychology,

And Special Education

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI. 48824

email: goforth2@msu.edu

DANIELLE PALMER, M.A.

Counseling, Educational Psychology,

And Special Education

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI. 48824

email: palmerd7@msu.edu

EMILY L. SPORTSMAN, M.A.

Counseling, Educational Psychology,

And Special Education

Michigan State University

517-974-3578

email: sportsma@msu.edu

JOHN S. CARLSON, PHD

School Psychology Program

Michigan State University

517-432-4856

email: carlsoj@msu.edu

EVELYN R OKA, PHD

Counseling, Educational Psychology,

And Special Education

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI. 48824

email: evoka@msu.edu

Joshua B. Plavnick, Summer J. Ferreri, Tamela J. Mannes, Angela N. Maupin, Latoya S. Stewart, Anisa N. Goforth, Danielle Palmer, Emily L. Sportsman, John S. Carlson, Evelyn R. Oka

Michigan State University
COPYRIGHT 2012 Behavior Analyst Online
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Plavnick, Joshua B.; Ferreri, Summer J.; Mannes, Tamela J.; Maupin, Angela N.; Stewart, Latoya S.; G
Publication:The Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis
Article Type:Report
Date:Aug 1, 2012
Words:5134
Previous Article:Auditory, visual, and auditory-visual identification of emotions by nursery school children.
Next Article:Modified stimulus presentation to teach simple discrimination within picture exchange communication system training.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters