ERIC EJ910165: A Comparison of the Effects of Providing Activity and Material Choice to Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

2010·0.24 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2010, 43, 717–721 NUMBER4 (WINTER2010)
A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF PROVIDING
ACTIVITY AND MATERIAL CHOICE TO CHILDREN WITH
AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDERS
BURCU ULKE-KURKCUOGLU AND GONUL KIRCAALI-IFTAR
ANADOLUUNIVERSITY
The present study compares the effects of providing choice between activities or between
materials for completion of activities on the on-task behavior of 4 boys with autism spectrum
disorders.Resultsshowedthattheparticipantsdisplayedhigherlevelsofon-taskbehaviorduring
thechoiceconditionsthanintheno-choicecondition.However,thetypeofchoiceopportunity
didnotseem tohave adifferential effect.
Keywords: autism spectrum disorders, choice opportunities, on-taskbehavior
_______________________________________________________________________________
Research with individuals with autism spec- two activities as well as the materials for each
trum disorders (ASDs) indicates that providing activity (e.g., a choice between having morning
choice opportunities may increase on-task teaandlisteningtoatapeplayercombinedwith
behavior (e.g., Moes, 1998; Watanabe & a choice of materials or actions associated with
Sturmey, 2003) and decrease problem behavior the chosen activity). In the materials choice
(e.g., Carter, 2001; Cole & Levinson, 2002; condition, the participant selected the materials
Dyer, Dunlap, & Winterling, 1990; Koegel, for the activity (e.g., a choice between music
Dyer, & Bell, 1987; Newman, Needelman, and a story tape) after the therapist selected the
Reinecke, & Robek, 2002). activity (e.g., listening to a tape player). Results
Although there is a growing body of showed that choice opportunities provided
literature demonstrating the effects of various between materials decreased protests and im-
choice opportunities for individuals with devel- proved task initiations. Choice between activi-
opmental disabilities, research comparing the ties and materials further reduced protests and
effects of different types of choice opportunities increased the participant’s task initiations.
islimited.DibleyandLim(1999)examinedthe The purpose of the current study was to
effectsofchoicebetweenactivitiesandmaterials replicate and extend previous research compar-
on the frequency of protests and task initiations ing the effects of choice opportunities between
of a 15-year-old girl with severe intellectual activities and materials on task engagement
disabilities. In the activity and materials choice during one-to-one teaching. In particular, we
condition,theparticipantcouldchoosebetween evaluated whether providing material choice
was as effective as providing activity choice.
ThisstudywasthedoctoraldissertationofBurcuUlke-
Kurkcuoglu, supervised by Gonul Kircaali-Iftar, who was
the Director of the Research Institute for the Handi- METHOD
capped, Anadolu University, when the study was con-
Participants, Setting, and Materials
ducted. We thank the participants and their parents for
their cooperation and patience during the conduct of the Four boys with ASD, 5 years to 8 years old,
study.WealsoextendappreciationtoNurgulAkmanoglu participated in this study. All participants made
andDeryaGencfortheirassistanceindatacollectionand
independent choices among various opportuni-
analysis.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ties, followed one- to two-step instructions,
addressed to Burcu Ulke-Kurkcuoglu, Anadolu Universi- infrequently initiated interactions with others
tesi, Engelliler Arastirma Enstitusu, Eskisehir 26470,
(only Yavuz engaged in one-word vocaliza-
Turkey(e-mail: [email protected]).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-717 tions), and had received one-to-one instruction
717
718 BURCU ULKE-KURKCUOGLU and GONUL KIRCAALI-IFTAR
at different special education centers for 2 to were calculated by dividing the number of
3 hr per week prior to the study. agreements by the number of agreements plus
All sessions were conducted in a private disagreements, and converting this ratio to a
teaching room at a university-based research percentage. The mean agreement for all partic-
institute. The room contained a small table for ipants was 92% (range, 84% to 98%).
academic instruction, a larger table for task Procedural integrity data were collected to
materials, a cupboard for toys and materials, determine whether the experimental procedures
and two chairs. The evaluation was conducted were conducted according to the planned steps.
with six different types of activities (i.e., For this purpose the steps of each phase were
matching, art, sports, fine-motor tasks, imita- identified and described on the procedural
tion, and turn taking), with two tasks per integrity forms. The researchers trained the
activity and two sets of materials per task. For procedural reliability observer regarding how to
example, art included coloring or gluing, and score each step as ‘‘performed’’ or ‘‘not
there were two sets of materials for coloring performed.’’ Next, videos of Phases A, B, C,
(e.g., crayons or colored pencils). and BC were selected randomly for each
participant,andproceduralintegrityformswere
Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement
presented to the observer. The observer inde-
The dependent variable was on-task behavior,
pendently watched the videos and filled out the
defined as (a) looking at the teacher (i.e., the
forms. Procedural integrity was analyzed for
participant’s eyes oriented towards the teacher
25% of sessions in each phase. The mean
for at least 3 s), (b) answering the question
percentageofproceduralintegritywas100%for
askedbytheteacherorsayingsomethingrelated
Utku and Alp, 99.9% (range, 99% to 100%)
to the activity (e.g., while the student was
for Selim, and 98% (range, 95% to 100%) for
coloring the picture, he said, ‘‘coloring’’), or (c)
Yavuz.
demonstrating appropriate behavior needed to
engage in the activity (e.g., after the teacher put
Procedure
her block in the bucket while saying ‘‘do this,’’
the student put his block in the bucket). The teacher used a discrete-trial format,
Activity-specific on-task behaviors were defined most-to-least prompting, and a variable-ratio
for each activity (available from the first (VR) 3 schedule of reinforcement during all
author). teaching sessions. Prior to the evaluation, an
The teacher conducted all sessions with each assessment was conducted to determine the
participantforapproximately30mineachday,3 participants’ highly preferred food items (e.g.,
days per week. Each phase in the evaluation modified multiple-stimulus without replace-
includedfoursessions,andeachsessionincluded ment; DeLeon & Iwata, 1996). The teacher
six activities. All instructional sessions were provided the three most highly preferred food
videotaped, and the videos were analyzed daily items as reinforcers during the study. The
to collect 15-s momentary time-sampling data participant selected among these three food
duringeachsession.Theobserversrecordeddata items prior to each session, and the teacher
onthedependentvariableduringa5-srecording delivered the selected item for on-task behavior
period between 15-s observation intervals. during all activities in that session. The
Interobserver agreement was assessed during reinforcement and behavior management pro-
34%ofsessions.Anagreementwasscoredwhen cedures were held constant across phases. The
twoobserverssimultaneouslybutindependently teacher guided participants back to their seats if
markedorleftblankthesameobservationboxes they stood up, prompted participants to gather
on the observation forms. Agreement scores thrown items, and withheld food reinforcers if
PROVIDING CHOICE-MAKING OPPORTUNITIES 719
the participants engaged in problem behavior that box and randomly selected one of the two
while completing the activity. sets of materials.
A reversal design was used to compare the Material choice. Procedures were similar to
effects of providing activity or material choice baseline except that the participant was permit-
to a no-choice condition (baseline) on on-task ted to choose the specific materials associated
behavior. The order of choice-making oppor- with an activity. After the teacher randomly
tunities was counterbalanced across two partic- selected an activity, the teacher placed two sets
ipants (Selim and Yavuz). of materials related to that activity in front of
Baseline. The teacher systematically selected theparticipantandaskedtheparticipanttopick
activities and materials for each of the six one. For example, the participant selected
activities(i.e.,matching,art,sports,fine-motor, between coloring with colored pencils or
imitation, and turn taking) during each session. crayons. The participant completed the activity
The teacher presented each activity and the with the materials he chose.
relevant materials once during each session in a
predetermined order. The teacher placed the
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
materials for the activity in front of the
participant and presented an instruction rele- Figure 1showsparticipants’on-taskbehavior
vant to the activity. The teacher delivered more across conditions. All participants except Yavuz
intrusive prompts initially and faded the consistently displayed higher levels of on-task
prompts within the session (e.g., faded from behaviors during choice conditions than during
physical prompts to gestural prompts) until the baseline. Furthermore, similar levels of on-task
student responded independently to the task behavior occurred during activity and material
direction. The goal of the errorless procedure choice conditions. Yavuz’s on-task behavior
was to maintain correct responses above 80%. during the last baseline condition was similar
When the student responded incorrectly, the tohison-taskbehaviorinthechoiceconditions.
teacher moved back to a more intrusive Thepresentstudyreplicatespreviousresearch
promptinglevel.Theteacherinitiallyreinforced that has shown that the provision of choice-
all correct responses. When participants en- making opportunities increases appropriate
gaged in unprompted correct responses, the behavior (e.g., Dibley & Lim, 1999; Moes,
teacher provided reinforcement on a VR 3 1998; Tasky, Rudrud, Schulze, & Rapp, 2008;
schedule. The teacher provided a 2-min break Watanabe & Sturmey, 2003). Although Dibley
between activities. When the 2-min break had andLimfoundthatprovidingbothactivityand
elapsed, the teacher delivered an instruction to material choices was more effective than
initiate the next activity. Activities during the providingmaterialchoicesonly,theparticipants
session alternated between a table and floor in the current study engaged in similar levels of
activity. on-task behavior regardless of whether they
Activity choice. Procedures were similar to could choose between activities or materials.
baseline with one exception. The teacher asked Some teachers may prefer to offer a choice
theparticipant to make aselection between two between materials so that they can ensure that
transparent boxes, each containing two sets of the students engage in particular activities.
materials related to the activity. For example, Providingchoiceopportunitiesamongmaterials
one box contained two sets of materials for rather than among activities also may be more
matching colors, and the other box contained convenient in some circumstances.
the materials for matching shapes. Once the Nonetheless, this investigation had several
participant selected a box, the teacher opened limitations. First, Yavuz began taking psychi-
720 BURCU ULKE-KURKCUOGLU and GONUL KIRCAALI-IFTAR
Figure 1. The percentage of intervals with on-task behavior during baseline, activity choice, and material
choiceconditions.
atric medication toward the end of the study, yoked across conditions. However, participants
which may have influenced levels of on-task displayed high levels of on-task behavior
behavior during the last baseline condition. regardless of the task selected by the experi-
Second, all of the participants’ on-task menter. Finally, ceiling effects might have
behavior was relatively high during baseline. prevented a meaningful comparison of the two
Therefore, these results might not generalize choice conditions because on-task behaviors
to children who typically display lower levels increased to nearly 100% for all participants
of on-task behavior during academic tasks. during the implementation of the first
Third, activity and material choices were not intervention.
PROVIDING CHOICE-MAKING OPPORTUNITIES 721
In the present investigation, on-task behavior DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a
wasmeasuredwhenchoicewasprovidedduring multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing
reinforce preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior
structured, one-on-one activities. However,
Analysis,29,519–533.
children with ASDs may be easily distracted Dibley, S., & Lim, L. (1999). Providing choice making
in other settings in which multiple students are opportunities within and between daily school
routines. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9(2),
present or the activity is less structured (e.g., an
117–132.
art project). Further studies could examine on- Dyer,K.,Dunlap,G.,&Winterling,V.(1990).Effectsof
task behavior when teachers provide choices choice making on the serious problem behaviors of
students with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied
during group instruction or less structured
Behavior Analysis,23,515–524.
activities. Similarly, it may be interesting to Koegel, R. L., Dyer, K., & Bell, L. K. (1987). The
evaluate how choices provided by siblings or influence of child-preferred activities on autistic
children’ssocialbehavior.JournalofAppliedBehavior
parents in community or home settings influ-
Analysis,20,243–252.
ence on-task or problem behavior. Finally,
Moes, D. R. (1998). Integrating choice making opportu-
future research should investigate the effects of nities within teacher-assigned academic tasks to
choice opportunities on other dependent vari- facilitate the performance of children with autism.
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
ables such as task accuracy. Although the
Handicaps, 23,319–328.
present study indicates that the participants Newman,B.,Needelman,M.,Reinecke,D.R.,&Robek,
attended more when the teacher provided A. (2002). The effect of providing choices on skill
acquisition and competing behavior of children with
choices during academic activities, increases in
autism during discrete trial instruction. Behavioral
attending may not result in concomitant Interventions, 17,31–41.
increases in accuracy. Tasky, K. K., Rudrud, E. H., Schulze, K. A., & Rapp,
J. T. (2008). Using choice to increase on-task
behavior in individuals with traumatic brain injury.
REFERENCES Journal ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 41, 261–265.
Watanabe, M., & Sturmey, P. (2003). The effect of
Carter, C. M. (2001). Using choice with game play to choice-makingopportunitiesduringactivityschedules
increase language skills and interactive behaviors in on task engagement of adults with autism. Journal
children with autism. Journal of Positive Behavior of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(1),
Interventions,3(3),131–151. 535–538.
Cole,C.L.,&Levinson,T.R.(2002).Effectsofwithin-
activity choices on the challenging behaviors of Received January 20,2009
childrenwithseveredevelopmentaldisabilities.Journal Final acceptanceJanuary 24,2010
ofPositiveBehaviorInterventions,4(1),29–37,52. Action Editor,Tiffany Kodak