ERIC EJ941693: A Comparison of Procedural Variations in Teaching Behavior Chains: Manual Guidance, Trainer Completion, and No Completion of Untrained Steps

2011·0.59 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2011, 44, 559–569 NUMBER3 (FALL2011)
A COMPARISON OF PROCEDURAL VARIATIONS IN TEACHING
BEHAVIOR CHAINS: MANUAL GUIDANCE, TRAINER COMPLETION,
AND NO COMPLETION OF UNTRAINED STEPS
STACIE L. BANCROFT
NEWENGLANDCENTERFORCHILDREN
ANDNORTHEASTERNUNIVERSITY
JULIE S. WEISS
NEWENGLANDCENTERFORCHILDREN
AND
MYRNA E. LIBBY AND WILLIAM H. AHEARN
NEWENGLANDCENTERFORCHILDREN
ANDNORTHEASTERNUNIVERSITY
Wecomparedvariationsforteachingasequenceofresponsesthroughforwardchaining.Seven
children who had been diagnosed with autism participated in a comparison of teacher
completion (TC) of steps beyond the training step and manually guiding the student (SC) to
complete steps beyond the training step. A no-completion (NC) condition, in which the steps
beyond the training step were not completed, was added to the comparison with 4 of the
participants.Resultsshowedthatlearningoccurredwithallprocedures,although5participants
acquiredthechainsmostefficientlyintheSCconditionandtheother2learnedmostefficiently
in the TC condition. Of the participants for whom an NC condition was included, the tasks
were acquired with the shortest average session length and total training time. Despite the
potential benefits of TC and SC procedures, NC is a viable option and may be preferable for
some students.
Keywords: behavior chains, autism,playskills
_______________________________________________________________________________
Many socially important skills taught to Fleming, 2004),vocational tasks (Duran, 1985;
children with autism and developmental dis- Maciag, Schuster, Collins, & Cooper, 2000),
abilities consist of a series of sequenced following picture activity schedules (MacDuff,
responses. A common method for teaching Krantz,&McClannahan,1993),andplayskills
these skills includes conducting a task analysis (Libby, Weiss, Bancroft, & Ahearn, 2008).
to break the chain of responses into a series of These chains can be taught using forward,
manageable steps that can be taught one at a backward, or total-task chaining procedures. In
time (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). forward chaining, steps are taught in a forward
Breaking down a complex behavior and teach- sequence starting with trainingon the first step.
ing its component parts as a chain have been After the student has demonstrated indepen-
successful in teaching self-care skills (Horner & dence on this step, the second step becomes the
Keilitz, 1975; Matson, Taras, Sevin, Love, & training step. The student then independently
Fridley, 1990; Stokes, Cameron, Dorsey, & completes the first step and receives training on
the second step within each trial. This progres-
Address correspondence to Stacie L. Bancroft, New sion continues until the student independently
England Center for Children,33Turnpike Road, South- performs each step in the chain. In backward
borough, Massachusetts 01772 (e-mail: sbancroft@
chaining, the final step is trained first. After the
necc.org).
doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-559 student has demonstrated mastery on the final
559
560 STACIE L. BANCROFT et al.
step,trainingisconductedonthesecond-to-last research in this area, practical options for
step and the student independently completes completion of the untrained steps may include
the final step. This progression continues until the teacher manually guiding the student to
all steps in the chain are performed indepen- complete the chain or completing the chain in
dently. In total-task chaining, training is the presence of the student.
provided on each step until all steps are A teacher-completion strategy may have the
completed independently. advantage of allowing learning through obser-
Responsepromptsdeliveredontrainingsteps vation of the untrained steps. Griffen, Wolery,
may include vocal instruction, modeling, or and Schuster (1992), for example, taught a
physical guidance (e.g., Cuvo, Leaf, & Bor- food-preparation chain to one student while
akove, 1978; Glendenning, Adams, & Stern- other students observed the steps. When the
berg, 1983). Response prompts can be faded observingstudentswerepresentedwiththetask,
until the student is independently performing they were able to complete most it. When the
the training step. Libby et al. (2008) compared untrained steps become training steps, the
the effectiveness and efficiency of least-to-most student may master them more quickly if the
(LTM) prompt fading, most-to-least (MTL) steps have been modeled across many previous
promptfading,andMTLwithadelay(MTLD) trials. Manually guiding the student to com-
while teaching play skills via forward chaining. plete the chain may also have an advantage for
MTLD provided an opportunity for the child similar reasons. When the student completes
to initiate responding independently and the steps, he or she can learn through self-
showed a possible advantage over MTL observation to complete the steps or through
prompting. Both MTLD and LTM were found manually completing the steps. Either of these
tobe most efficient,with fewererrorsoccurring methods may be helpful in capitalizing on
with MTLD. learning opportunities when conducting a
With forward chaining, it is unclear how to forward or backward chain. In other words, it
best proceed with the steps that follow the may be beneficial for teachers to focus on a
training step in each trial. The same problem is training step and in the same trial familiarize
found with the steps that precede the training thestudentwithstepsnotyettrained.However,
step in backward chains. For either type of both procedures add additional time to train-
chaining, a clinician will have to decide how to ing. If the procedures do not dramatically
complete the steps that are not yet the target of increase the speed of acquisition, it may not be
training. In an eight-step forward chain, for worthwhile to complete the untrained steps.
instance, the student may perform Steps 1 Not completing the untrained steps in a chain
through3independentlywhilebeingtrainedon may permit more training trials in a given
Step 4. After the student completes Step 4 with learning opportunity, require less hands-on
thenecessarypromptingonagiventrial,Steps5 prompting, and may be preferred by some
through 8 are still left in the chain. One students.
procedural option is to terminate the trial In thepresentstudy,wecomparedtheeffects
following completion of the training steps, of procedural variations for completing the
leaving the remaining steps uncompleted (e.g., untrained steps in forward chains. We com-
Hur & Osborne, 1993). However, the learner pared the effectiveness and efficiency of student
may benefit from exposure to the remaining completion(SC)withmanualguidance,teacher
steps.Inaddition,somebehaviorchains,suchas completion (TC) of untrained steps, and no
washing hair or brushing teeth, may necessitate completion (NC) of untrained steps on the
completion of the chain. Despite the lack of acquisition of behavior chains of similar
PROCEDURAL VARIATIONS 561
difficulty. The method was similar to that used and were red, yellow, or green. Different base
by Libby et al. (2008). colors were assigned across conditions for each
participant and were counterbalanced across
participants. For each structure, the individual
METHOD
building pieces varied in color and shape, but
Participants and Settings
onlyonewasusedforeachstepinthechain(see
Three8-year-oldgirls(Tina,Pam,andKelly) Libby et al., 2008, for an image of constructs
and four 10- to 16-year-old boys (Paul, Mario, used in this study). The four structures were
Lance, and Ray) participated in the current evaluated by six independent raters (teachers
study. All participants had been diagnosed with and administrators) and judged to be of
autismandwereenrolledinaprivateresidential equivalent difficulty. The raters considered the
treatmentprogramforchildrenwithautismand difficulty of discriminating between pieces, the
other developmental disabilities. Tina and Pam relative difficulty of attaching pieces to each
both communicated vocally, and they were other, and the relative symmetry of each
noted to request some items and engage in structure.
simple conversation with others. Kelly, Paul, Prior to the study, a paired-stimulus prefer-
Mario, and Ray used a combination of vocal ence assessment (Fisher et al., 1992) was
utterances and augmentative communication in conducted with each of the participants to
the form of picture exchange communication determine highly preferred food items to be
systems (PECS) or voice-output devices. Lance used as reinforcers during training trials.
used PECS alone. All participants showed
severe delays across all areas of skill acquisition. Response Measurement and Interobserver
They had a history of exposure to complex Agreement
behavior chains, such as showering or playing a Data were collected on the number of
game, using chaining procedures. Each partic- consecutive steps with correct independent
ipant demonstrated mastery in probes of responses on each trial. Correct order and
generalized imitation as a prerequisite skill for placement of the Lego piece were required to
inclusion in the study. score a step as being correctly completed. For
Sessions were conducted in either the Paul, Mario, Lance, and Ray, data also were
student’s classroom or in a work area in the collected on training duration. Reliability and
student’s residence. Each participant completed procedural integrity were assessed by having
training sessions in the same location. Materials eithertwoobserversviewavideotapeofsessions
in the training sessions included a table and or having a secondary observer independently
chairs, reinforcers, data sheets, a video camera record data during a session. Two trained
when a secondary observer was not available, observers collected data and scored interobserv-
and the materials needed for the task. eragreementandproceduralintegrityinatleast
33%ofsessions (range, 35%to 48%).Foreach
Materials session in which reliability was calculated,
Legoconstructionwasselectedasthetraining agreements and disagreements were determined
task with the purpose of teaching the partici- for each step of each trial within the session.
pants an appropriate leisure activity. In addi- Reliability was calculated by dividing the total
tion, construction served as an analogue to number of agreements by the total number of
other behavior chains that are typically taught. agreements plus disagreements and multiplying
Each structure consisted of a base on which by 100%. Agreement scores averaged 98%
seven other pieces were placed. The bases for across all participants (range, 94% to 100%).
thefourstructureswerethesameshapeandsize, For procedural integrity, one observer assessed
562 STACIE L. BANCROFT et al.
step-by step accuracy of the trainer’s delivery of The trainer used forward chaining in all
reinforcement, delivery of prompts, and setting conditions. The trainer placed the pieces in
thetraining step and prompt foreach trial.The front of the participant in a quasirandom
mean accuracy score for procedural integrity arrangement and said, ‘‘let’s play.’’ Reinforce-
across trainers and prompting techniques was ment was delivered immediately after correct
98% (range, 92% to 100%). completionofthetrainingstepandconsistedof
the trainer saying ‘‘good job’’ and delivering a
Procedure
preferred food item. Following the training
An eight-step task analysis was developed for
step, the remaining steps of the chain were
each structure that determined the order of
completed according to the completion condi-
placement of the Lego pieces. At the beginning
tion, as described below.
of a trial, the pieces were separated and
Any errors made on the training step were
presented in a random array in front of the
immediately corrected with hand-over-hand
participant. The first step of the task analysis
guidance. Two consecutive errors led to an
was for the participant to pull the base out of
increaseintheintrusivenessofthepromptused.
the group of pieces. The second, and all
Errors on previously acquired steps of the chain
following,stepsinvolvedpickingupandplacing
were immediately corrected with hand-over-
one block in the order determined by the task
hand guidance. Two consecutive errors on a
analysis. At the beginning of each training
previously acquired step resulted in retraining
session, the participant chose between two
on that and all subsequent steps.
highly preferred food items. The chosen item
Each play structure was considered mastered
was used as a reinforcer for that session. Each
following two consecutive trials of independent
session consisted of one presession probe trial
and accurate performance on each step. This
followed by 10 training trials.
could be achieved in two ways. Training could
During the probe trial, the trainer placed the
continue through the last step, ending with two
piecesofthestructureinfrontoftheparticipant
trials of independent performance on the final
in a random array and said, ‘‘let’s play.’’ The
training step. Alternatively, independent and
probetrialcontinueduntiltheparticipantmade
accurateperformancecouldbedemonstratedon
an error or went 15 s without responding. No
a presession probe. As mentioned previously, if
consequences were delivered for correct or
performancewasindependentandaccurateona
incorrect responses. The purpose of the preses-
second probe, the play structure was considered
sion probe was to determine intermittently
mastered. Therefore, a structure could be
whetheror notindependentperformance ofthe
complete chain had emerged. If the participant mastered at the start of a session, as indicated
did not complete the structure correctly, the 10 by performance during the additional probe, or
training trials began. If the participant com- mastery could be achieved during the training
pleted the structure correctly during the preses- trials.Followingmastery,ageneralizationprobe
sion probe, an additional probe was conducted. wasconductedinadifferentsettingwithanovel
The structure was considered mastered if the therapist.
participant completed it correctly during the Sessions were conducted one to three times
second probe. Performance on the probe trials per day, 2 to 5 days per week. Multiple sessions
was not used to prescribe training steps. The on1daywereseparatedbyaminimumof10min
training step for a given session was based on of unrelated activities. The same teacher worked
theperformanceinthepriorsession.Probedata with each participant throughout training.
from the first presession probe served as Teacher completion. In each trial, the partic-
baseline. ipanthadtheopportunitytocompletepreviously
PROCEDURAL VARIATIONS 563
mastered steps in the chain. After reaching the pendent steps completed at the end of each 10-
training step, the teacher delivered prompts trial session for each of the three participants in
accordingtoamost-to-leastpromptinghierarchy theTCandSCcomparison.If,forexample,the
(see Libby et al., 2008, for a description of the participant was training on Step 5 in the final
prompt hierarchy). Errorless completion of the trial of a session and had mastered Steps 1
training step, given the prescribed prompt, through4,afourwasrecordedasthenumberof
resulted in reinforcement. As each step was steps with independent performance for that
mastered,thenextstepbecamethetrainingstep. session. Sessions in which the participant
Aftertheparticipantcompletedthetrainingstep, demonstrated independent performance during
the teacher blocked the participant from further the initial probe and again during the repeated
manipulating the blocks and completed the probe are marked with asterisks. Tina acquired
remaining steps of the structure in front of the the chain in the TC condition in six training
participant. The participant was free to observe sessions and then showed independent perfor-
or not to observe the remaining steps. mance in the following presession probes. She
Student completion. The SC condition was completed the SC condition in seven training
identical to the TC condition, with the sessions. Kelly acquired the chain in the TC
exception of the completion of the untrained
condition in eight training sessions and in the
steps. After student completion of the training
SC condition in six training sessions. Pam
step and delivery of a reinforcer given no errors
required several sessions to complete the third
on the training step, the teacher manually
stepofthechainintheTCcondition,taking12
guided the student to complete the remaining
sessions (Sessions 3 through 14) to master this
steps in the chain.
step. After mastering Step 3 and Step 4, Pam
No completion. The procedure in the NC
then demonstrated mastery of the eight-step
condition was identical to the TC and SC
chain in presession probes of Session 15.
conditions,exceptthatthetrialendedfollowing
Although Steps 5 through 8 had never been
the training step.
trained using the prompt hierarchy, Pam
apparently learned to complete them through
Design
observing the therapist complete the chain. In
An adapted alternating treatments design was
the SC condition, she made steady progress,
used to assess the completion conditions. Each
mastering one step per session and completing
participant was taught to put together two or
the chain in nine sessions. All participants
three eight-piece structures. Each structure was
demonstrated generalization and maintenance
assigned to a particular condition, and the
by successfully building the structures in
structures were counterbalanced across partici-
alternate settings with different teachers. In
pants. A comparison of TC and SC was
summary, all three participants mastered the
conducted with Tina, Pam, and Kelly. Paul,
chain in both the TC and SC conditions. Tina
Mario,Lance,andRayparticipatedinacompar-
mastered the chain in the TC condition more
isonofTC,SC,andNC.Sessionswerealternated
quickly than in the SC condition, although the
such that no more than two of any completion
differences were negligible. Kelly and Pam
conditionwereconductedconsecutively.
mastered the chain in the SC condition in
fewer sessions than in the TC session.
RESULTS
The results for the comparisons of SC, TC,
None of the participants independently and NC are shown in Figure 2. Paul acquired
completedanysteps beyondthefirstinbaseline thechainintheTCconditionin11sessions,in
probes. Figure 1 shows the number of inde- the SC condition in six sessions, and in the NC
564 STACIE L. BANCROFT et al.
Figure 1. The number of steps of the task analysis performed independently during training with the student-
completion(SC)andteacher-completion(TC)strategiesforthreeparticipants.Asterisksdenotetrialsinwhichmastery
was demonstrated in a presession probe. The open symbols represent performance on a generalization probe for
eachcondition.
PROCEDURAL VARIATIONS 565
Figure 2. The number of steps of the task analysis performed independently during training with the student-
completion (SC), teacher-completion (TC), and no-completion (NC) strategies for four participants. Asterisks denote
trials in which mastery was demonstrated in a presession probe. The open symbols represent performance on a
generalizationprobe for eachcondition.
566 STACIE L. BANCROFT et al.
condition in nine sessions. Mario acquired the DISCUSSION
chainintheTCconditionin14sessions,inthe
The majority of the participants acquired the
SC condition in eight sessions, and in the NC
chaininthefewestnumberoftrialswiththeSC
condition in 13 sessions. As with Paul and
procedure, with the remaining two participants
Mario, it took Lance the greatest number of
acquiring the chain in the fewest number of
sessions (31) to complete the structure in the
trainingtrialsintheTCcondition.Forthefour
TCconditionandthefewestnumberofsessions
participants included in the three-condition
(23) to complete the structure in the SC
comparison, the reduced session duration in
condition. Lance completed the structure in
NC produced the briefest overall training
the NC condition in 26 sessions. Ray’s results
durations. These data may be useful in clinical
were contrary to the other participants. It took
settings when deciding which completion
Ray the greatest number of sessions (21) to
procedure to use for a particular individual.
complete the structure in the SC condition and
The SC condition may be the best default
the fewest number of sessions (12) to complete
strategy to use with learners who tolerate
the structure in the TC condition. He com-
physical prompting. When problem behavior
pleted the structure in the NC condition in 16
is associated with physical prompting, some
sessions.
version of the TC condition may produce
AllsessionsintheNCcomparisonweretimed,
learning while minimizing the likelihood of
andaveragesessiondurationineachconditionis
problem behavior. In addition, if an individual
shown across participants in Figure 3. For each
is noted to be on task for only brief periods of
participant, the NC sessions were the briefest,
time,anNCproceduremaybeoptimalbecause
withaveragesessiondurationrangingfrom3.4to
session length is the briefest and more trials can
5.7 min. This was expected, because only the
be completed in a given session.
stepsthroughthetrainingstepwerecompletedin
Another variable that may be considered
this condition. The TC conditions were length-
when choosing a completion procedure for
ier, with average session duration ranging from teachingabehaviorchainisthetotalamountof
6.6 to 11.2 min across participants. The SC training time. Although three of the four
sessions were the lengthiest, with average dura- participants in the second comparison com-
tion ranging from 8.3to14.2min. pleted the structure in the SC condition in the
Table 1 shows the number of sessions to fewest number of sessions, these sessions took
mastery, number of trials to mastery, and longer to complete than those in the NC
number of errors per training session for each conditions. Structures built with the NC
participant across all conditions. Generalization procedure were mastered in the shortest
trials were included in the number of trials to amount of time for all participants, ranging
mastery. All participants, with the exception of from 31 to 130 min. For Paul, Mario, and
Ray,completedthetaskinfewertrialsintheSC Lance, mastery of the structures in the SC
condition than in the TC condition. All condition took the next longest duration
participants in the NC comparison completed (range, 85 to 194 min), and mastery of
thetaskintheNCconditioninanintermediate structures in the TC condition took the longest
number of sessions. Errors were consistent with duration (range, 123 to 204 min). For Ray,
thispattern,withtotalerrorscorrelatedwiththe however,thetotaldurationoftheSCcondition
frequency of trials across all participants. Errors (174 min), was almost twice that of the TC
per session were therefore relatively evenly condition (89 min). These data suggest that the
distributedacrossconditions,withnocondition additional time spent on demonstrating or
producing consistently higher rates of errors. manually guiding the participant through the
PROCEDURAL VARIATIONS 567
Figure 3. Average duration of sessions (top panel) and total duration of skill acquisition (bottom panel) for the
student-completion, teacher-completion, andno-completion conditions for fourparticipants.
untrained steps of the task may not lead to behavior. Given that several participants did
more efficient skill acquisition. not require training on some of the final steps,
It is possible that participants did not always it is likely that these participants did attend to
attend to the completion steps in the TC and the steps (see Nevin, Davison, Odum, &
SC conditions, limiting how much they could Shahan, 2007).
benefit from these approaches. A measure of Another limitation includes the lack of
overt attending was not included, because testing to determine the functioning level of
attending includes both overt and covert theparticipants.Higherfunctioningindividuals
568 STACIE L. BANCROFT et al.
Table 1
NumberofTraining Sessions, Training Trials, andErrors PerSession
Sessions Trials Errors
Participant TC SC NC TC SC NC TC SC NC
Tina 8 7 74 64 1.5 1.12
Pam 14 9 137 88 1.6 2.0
Kelly 9 7 87 64 0.91 0.62
Paul 12 7 10 114 64 94 1.41 0.43 1.2
Mario 15 8 13 144 77 124 0.8 1.5 0.69
Lance 32 24 27 314 234 264 0.36 0.27 0.38
Ray 13 22 17 124 214 164 0.45 0.22 1.12
Note.TC 5teacher completion, SC 5student completion, andNC5 nocompletion.
may be more likely to benefit from the behavior chains of various complexities may
modeling or practice of untrained steps in the be an important extension to examine in future
TC and SC conditions, respectively. More research.
specifically, identification of necessary prereq-
uisite skills for benefiting from TC or SC
REFERENCES
procedures requires further investigation. For
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).
instance,itispossiblethatanindividualwithan
Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
advanced imitative repertoire may benefit from River,NJ:Prentice Hall.
the TC condition. However, given the consis- Cuvo, A. J., Leaf, R. B., & Borakove, L. S. (1978).
Teaching janitorial skills to the mentally retarded:
tently greater overall training duration for TC
Acquisition,generalization,andmaintenance.Journal
and SC conditions across all participants, the ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 11,345–355.
benefits of TC and SC procedures for individ- Duran, E. (1985). Teaching janitorial skills to autistic
adolescents. Adolescence,20(7), 225–232.
uals with advanced imitative repertoires may be
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L.
limited. A final limitation of the study was the P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison
method for determining equivalent difficulty of of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for
personswithsevereandprofounddisabilities.Journal
Lego structures. Although raters were given
ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 25,491–498.
general features of task difficulty to consider, a Glendenning, N.,Adams,G.L.,&Sternberg,L.(1983).
more stringent method for ensuring task Comparison of prompt sequences. American Journal
ofMentalDeficiency,88, 321–325.
difficulty may have been beneficial.
Griffen, A. K., Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. W. (1992).
The opportunity to learn through observing Triadic instruction of chained food preparation
others perform actions may be beneficial in responses: Acquisition and observational learning.
JournalofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 25,193–204.
some situations that were not examined in the
Horner, R. D., & Keilitz, I. (1975). Training mentally
current research. For example, although all
retarded adolescents to brush their teeth. Journal of
participants demonstrated skill mastery in AppliedBehaviorAnalysis,8,301–309.
Hur,J.,&Osborne,S.(1993).Acomparisonofforward
another context and with another teacher,
and backward chaining methods used in teaching
long-termmaintenanceofskillswasnotassessed
corsage making skills to mentally retarded adults.
across conditions. The SC and TC procedures British Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 39,
may produce better long-term maintenance of 108–117.
Libby,M.E.,Weiss,J.S.,Bancroft,S.L.,&Ahearn,W.
skills than the NC condition does because the
H. (2008). A comparison of most-to-least and least-
participant typically has more exposure to each to-most prompting on the acquisition of play skills.
of the steps in the chain than he or she does in BehaviorAnalysis inPractice,1, 37–43.
MacDuff, G. S., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E.
an NC condition. Assessments of effectiveness
(1993). Teaching children with autism to use
and efficiency of these procedures across photographic activity schedules: Maintenance and