JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
2014, 47, 1–6
NUMBER
4 (WINTER)
TEACHING HELPING TO ADOLESCENTS WITH AUTISM JESSICA DAY-WATKINS TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
RACHEL MURRAY COMPREHENSIVE LEARNING CENTER
AND
JAMES E CONNELL DREXEL UNIVERSITY
This study is a replication and extension of Reeve, Reeve, Townsend, and Poulson (2007) evaluating the effects of a treatment package that included multiple-exemplar training, video modeling, prompting, and reinforcement on helping of 3 adolescents with autism. Results demonstrated that all participants acquired the helping responses. Probes before and after intervention also demonstrated generalization of helping across settings and categories of helping behavior. Key words: autism, helping behavior, video modeling, adolescents, generalization
et al. by teaching individuals with autism to emit helping behaviors and to discriminate when such behaviors are appropriate. Further, this study extends Reeve et al. by including adolescents with autism as participants as well as using novel, ageappropriate helping responses.
Social skills interventions for adolescents with developmental disabilities receive less attention than those that target young children (Reichow & Volkmar, 2010), specifically in the domain of helping behavior (Harris, Handleman, & Alessandri, 1990). Helping others can condition an individual as a reinforcer (Harris et al., 1990) and improve how others view the individual’s social competence (Reeve, Reeve, Townsend, & Poulson, 2007); both outcomes are beneficial to adolescents with autism. Reeve et al. (2007) established a generalized repertoire of helping behavior in children with autism (5 to 6 years old) by implementing a treatment package of video modeling, prompting, multiple-exemplar training, and reinforcement. Participants demonstrated age-appropriate helping behavior that generalized within and across multiple categories and was maintained 2 months after the conclusion of the study. The present study replicated the findings of Reeve
METHOD Participants, Setting, and Materials Three adolescent boys who had been diagnosed with autism (Christopher, David, and Robert, 13 to 18 years old) participated. All participants attended a private school for children with autism. Per structured interviews, all participants were reported to have a generalized imitative repertoire and the prerequisite skills needed to perform the target responses. Participants had program goals that focused on requesting help from others; although no tailored interventions were in place, none of the participants demonstrated spontaneous helping. Sessions were conducted in a school office that contained typical office furniture and a closet. An 8-megapixel digital video camera recorded all
Address correspondence to Jessica Day-Watkins, Department of Applied Behavior Analysis, Caldwell College, 120 Bloomfield Ave., Caldwell, New Jersey 07006 (e-mail: [email protected]). doi: 10.1002/jaba.156
1
2
JESSICA DAY-WATKINS et al.
sessions. Data sheets, session materials for trials, and a laptop computer (to deliver video models) were present. A 5- to 10-s video model depicted the experimenter emitting the nonvocal, vocal, and affective discriminative stimuli along with an adult actor who modeled the correct motor and vocal helping responses. There was one video model for each helping exemplar, for a total of 25 models. Response Selection and Definitions Age-appropriate helping was selected based on one 4-hr observation of same-age peers in a local high school during art classes, language arts classes, physical education, and transitions. These classrooms consisted of approximately 20 regulareducation students. The frequency of helping was collected and categorized based observations of peer-to-peer and student-to-adult interactions. Five helping categories were selected for this study based on these data and input from school staff. Helping response. Correct helping required both a motor and vocal response within 5 s of the presentation of the discriminative stimuli. The vocal component must have either preceded the motor component or occurred simultaneously. A correct vocal component could have been a request (e.g., “May I help you?”) or a statement (e.g., “I’ll help”). A motor response was correct when it corresponded with the experimenter’s in vivo or video model (e.g., the experimenter puts toys on a shelf; the participant then putts toys on a shelf). Helping was scored as incorrect if (a) only the motor response occurred or only the vocal response occurred, (b) the motor component preceded the vocal component, or (c) both components did not occur within 5 s of the presentation of the discriminative stimuli. Mastery criterion was 92% (12 of 13 correct) for three consecutive sessions. Nonhelping. Any behavior, other than correct helping, was recorded as nonhelping if it occurred within 5 s of the experimenter presenting a nonhelping statement. For example, nonhelping could be a contextually appropriate comment (e.g., “cool”) in the presence of a nonhelping
discriminative stimulus (e.g., “My pen is blue.”). If the participant did not respond to the nonhelping statement, the trial was terminated after 5 s and scored incorrect as a conservative underestimation of correct nonhelping. The purpose of the nonhelping trials was to ensure that participants did not generalize helping to nonhelping contexts. The discriminative stimulus for nonhelping was any statement that did not indicate help was needed. Category Assignment The five helping categories used in this study included locating missing items, obtaining items out of reach, distributing materials, putting away materials, and operating the door for others. Each category included five exemplars. For example, the category of locating missing items included locating writing instruments, folders, glasses, a water bottle, and a hat. The treatment package was applied to three categories (i.e., instructional categories). The remaining two categories were used to assess generalization across categories in the treatment setting (fourth category) and a novel (nontreatment) setting (fifth category). In each instructional category, three of the five exemplars were randomly selected for training. The fourth exemplar in each instructional category was presented as a probe to assess within-category generalization in the treatment setting. The fifth exemplar was used for the preintervention and postintervention phases to assess within-category generalization in a novel setting. One task was presented from the fourth category as a probe during treatment to assess across-category generalization in the treatment setting. The remaining tasks from the fourth category were presented in the pre- and postgeneralization probes to assess across-category generalization in a novel setting. All tasks from the fifth category were reserved for across-category generalization assessment in the pre- and postgeneralization settings. Category assignment was counterbalanced so that no two participants received training on the same combination of categories.
HELPING Procedure and Design A multiple probe design across participants was used. Every session included 18 trials; 13 helping trials and five nonhelping trials. Of the 13 helping trials, three exemplars each of the three instructional categories were presented (nine total trials), an additional exemplar from each of the instructional categories was presented in a probe format to assess within-category generalization (three additional trials), and one exemplar from an untrained category was presented in a probe format (one additional trial). The order of the 18 trials, including those helping trials that assessed generalization, was randomized before each session. There was a 30-s intertrial interval. Trial order was counterbalanced so that a session did not begin or end with a probe trial. Probe trials were not conducted consecutively. Nonhelping trials were randomly interspersed throughout each session. Reinforcement was delivered using each participant’s preexisting point-based token system. Points could be exchanged for access to preferred activities. During baseline, points were delivered contingent on on-task behaviors during each intertrial interval to minimize the difference between conditions due to reinforcer delivery. On-task behavior was defined as sitting in the chair oriented towards the experimenter, making eye contact with the experimenter, and remaining seated. Baseline. To begin each session, the experimenter established eye contact by saying the participant’s name or asking him to “look at me.” Participant eye contact initiated the trial with simultaneous presentation of three discriminative stimuli: (a) nonvocal (e.g., searching the table for a missing item), (b) vocal (e.g., “I can’t find my pen”), and (c) affective (e.g., shrugging shoulders). If the participant responded incorrectly or did not respond within 5 s, the trial was terminated and materials were cleared without the experimenter modeling completion of the task (e.g., opening the door). The experimenter did not deliver any points for correct responding. Treatment. If the student helped within 5 s of the discriminative stimulus, vocal praise and a point
3
were delivered. If the student did not respond or responded incorrectly, the video model for that task was presented. The discriminative stimuli were then immediately re-presented to allow an independent opportunity to respond correctly in the absence of the model. If an additional error occurred, the experimenter delivered a vocal (i.e., “say, ‘can I help?”’) or manual (i.e., hand over hand) prompt without a video model. The discriminative stimuli were re-presented in the absence of any prompts. If the participant responded correctly in this subsequent re-presentation, the trial was terminated. If errors persisted, the video model and prompting procedure were alternated between each re-presentation of the discriminative stimuli until a correct response was emitted. The termination criterion for error correction was 10 min; however, none of the participants met this criterion. Manual prompts were faded using a most-to-least prompting hierarchy within the session. Similar to the Reeve et al. (2007) study, if a correct nonhelping response occurred during the nonhelping trials, general praise and a point were delivered. Unlike Reeve et al., if a helping response was emitted during the nonhelping trials, error correction was not delivered; rather, the trial was immediately terminated. Generalization. Generalization probes occurred in the students’ classrooms and were conducted to measure generalization of helping responses across settings and within and across helping categories. Generalization probes were conducted on 3 consecutive days before and after treatment. Probe trials included one presentation of the remaining exemplars that had not been presented during teaching. Trials included one exemplar each from the three instructional categories, three exemplars from the fourth category, and all five exemplars from the fifth category. The same trials were randomly presented in the preintervention and postintervention generalization probes. All probes were conducted using baseline procedures. Generalization probe trials consisted of the remaining
4
JESSICA DAY-WATKINS et al.
exemplars, including the fifth category, that had not been presented during teaching. Maintenance. One session of trials from the instructional phase was selected randomly for each student and was conducted as a maintenance probe 60 days after the conclusion of the study. Maintenance sessions were identical to baseline sessions. Procedural Fidelity and Interobserver Agreement Procedural fidelity was scored as a peropportunity measure and was summarized as a percentage of steps completed out of the total number of steps. Procedural fidelity data were collected for vocal, nonvocal, and affective discriminative stimuli in each trial, the training procedure, and reinforcer delivery. Mean procedural fidelity was 99%. Mean interobserver agreement for procedural fidelity was 95%. Trial-by-trial interobserver agreement data were collected for 33% of sessions in each phase via video recording. Agreement was calculated for the number of correct vocal and motor responses emitted by the participant after the first presentation of the discriminative stimuli per trial. Mean agreement was 97% across training and probe trials. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Helping behavior across all participants increased following the implementation of the training package. The results were maintained 60 days after the conclusion of the study for two of the participants. Christopher (Figure 1, top) engaged in helping behavior during 54% of opportunities during baseline and increased to 100% during the last three treatment sessions. Criterion performance was maintained at the 60day follow up (92% correct). David and Robert (Figure 1, middle and bottom, respectively) did not engage in helping behavior during baseline. Correct responding for training and probe trials increased across the last three treatment sessions to 100% and 95% for David and Robert,
respectively, and was maintained for David (77% correct) but not Robert (0% correct). Christopher responded correctly with an average of 51% during preintervention generalization probes and 86% during postintervention probes. Generalization occurred across settings (M ¼ 85%), within trained categories (M ¼ 84%), and within untrained categories (M ¼ 89%). Christopher demonstrated 100% correct responding in the novel category during the preintervention generalization probes, which consisted of two trials. He did not meet the criterion for mastery during preintervention probes or baseline. His overall generalization increased in the postintervention probes. David engaged in minimal correct helping behaviors during preintervention generalization trials. Helping behavior increased during postintervention generalization probes (M ¼ 73%). Generalization occurred across categories (M ¼ 25%), within trained categories (M ¼ 75%), within untrained categories (M ¼ 100%), and across settings (M ¼ 80%). During the preintervention generalization sessions, Robert did not engage in any helping behavior. During the postintervention generalization sessions, correct helping behavior increased (M ¼ 46%). Generalization occurred across settings (M ¼ 46%), within trained categories (M ¼ 11%), within untrained categories (M ¼ 33%), and to novel categories (M ¼ 33%). Overall, helping behavior was not observed during nonhelping trials. Christopher provided contextually appropriate nonhelping statements during nonhelping trials throughout treatment. Thus, he discriminated appropriate opportunities to help from inappropriate opportunities. As David and Robert acquired helping behavior during treatment, noncontextual helping behavior also emerged, suggesting that these participants did not achieve discriminated responding. During the treatment phase, Christopher was presented with eight video models and no manual or vocal prompts. Thus, the video model was sufficient to correct Christopher’s errors. David was presented with 12 video models, six vocal prompts,
HELPING
5
Figure 1. Percentage of correct helping responses during baseline, treatment, and probes before and after intervention and correct nonhelping responses.
6
JESSICA DAY-WATKINS et al.
and four manual prompts during the treatment phase. Robert was presented with 55 video models, 51 vocal prompts, and seven manual prompts during treatment. For Robert, the video model occasioned correct motor responses but not correct vocal responses. A vocal prompt was required to occasion correct vocal responding. The present study replicated and extended many of the findings of Reeve et al. (2007). First, the treatment package established helping behavior and demonstrated generalization within and across categories and across settings. Second, the current study extended the effects of the treatment package to an underresearched population (adolescents with autism). Third, the findings of Reeve et al. were extended to novel, age-appropriate helping responses. In a departure from Reeve et al. (2007), nonhelping trials were treated as probes. No error correction was implemented for this type of trial. This study demonstrated that the treatment package itself did not teach discrimination between helping and nonhelping stimuli, nor did the treatment package correct errors that emerged. Additional error-correction procedures may be necessary to teach discrimination of
helping and nonhelping stimuli. In this study, the application of the intervention was contingent on an error. Future research should evaluate this intervention as an antecedent intervention to determine if fewer errors occur and if corrective feedback is required.
REFERENCES Harris, S. L., Handleman, J. S., & Alessandri, M. (1990). Teaching youths with autism to offer assistance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 297–305. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-297 Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., Townsend, D. B., & Poulson, C. L. (2007). Establishing a generalized repertoire of helping behavior in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 123–136. doi: 10.1901/ jaba.2007.11-05 Reichow, B., & Volkmar, F. R. (2010). Social skills interventions for individuals with autism: Evaluation for evidence-based practices within a best evidence synthesis framework. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 149–166. doi: 10.1007/s10803009-0842-0
Received March 22, 2013 Final acceptance February 11, 2014 Action Editor, Alison Betz
2014, 47, 1–6
NUMBER
4 (WINTER)
TEACHING HELPING TO ADOLESCENTS WITH AUTISM JESSICA DAY-WATKINS TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
RACHEL MURRAY COMPREHENSIVE LEARNING CENTER
AND
JAMES E CONNELL DREXEL UNIVERSITY
This study is a replication and extension of Reeve, Reeve, Townsend, and Poulson (2007) evaluating the effects of a treatment package that included multiple-exemplar training, video modeling, prompting, and reinforcement on helping of 3 adolescents with autism. Results demonstrated that all participants acquired the helping responses. Probes before and after intervention also demonstrated generalization of helping across settings and categories of helping behavior. Key words: autism, helping behavior, video modeling, adolescents, generalization
et al. by teaching individuals with autism to emit helping behaviors and to discriminate when such behaviors are appropriate. Further, this study extends Reeve et al. by including adolescents with autism as participants as well as using novel, ageappropriate helping responses.
Social skills interventions for adolescents with developmental disabilities receive less attention than those that target young children (Reichow & Volkmar, 2010), specifically in the domain of helping behavior (Harris, Handleman, & Alessandri, 1990). Helping others can condition an individual as a reinforcer (Harris et al., 1990) and improve how others view the individual’s social competence (Reeve, Reeve, Townsend, & Poulson, 2007); both outcomes are beneficial to adolescents with autism. Reeve et al. (2007) established a generalized repertoire of helping behavior in children with autism (5 to 6 years old) by implementing a treatment package of video modeling, prompting, multiple-exemplar training, and reinforcement. Participants demonstrated age-appropriate helping behavior that generalized within and across multiple categories and was maintained 2 months after the conclusion of the study. The present study replicated the findings of Reeve
METHOD Participants, Setting, and Materials Three adolescent boys who had been diagnosed with autism (Christopher, David, and Robert, 13 to 18 years old) participated. All participants attended a private school for children with autism. Per structured interviews, all participants were reported to have a generalized imitative repertoire and the prerequisite skills needed to perform the target responses. Participants had program goals that focused on requesting help from others; although no tailored interventions were in place, none of the participants demonstrated spontaneous helping. Sessions were conducted in a school office that contained typical office furniture and a closet. An 8-megapixel digital video camera recorded all
Address correspondence to Jessica Day-Watkins, Department of Applied Behavior Analysis, Caldwell College, 120 Bloomfield Ave., Caldwell, New Jersey 07006 (e-mail: [email protected]). doi: 10.1002/jaba.156
1
2
JESSICA DAY-WATKINS et al.
sessions. Data sheets, session materials for trials, and a laptop computer (to deliver video models) were present. A 5- to 10-s video model depicted the experimenter emitting the nonvocal, vocal, and affective discriminative stimuli along with an adult actor who modeled the correct motor and vocal helping responses. There was one video model for each helping exemplar, for a total of 25 models. Response Selection and Definitions Age-appropriate helping was selected based on one 4-hr observation of same-age peers in a local high school during art classes, language arts classes, physical education, and transitions. These classrooms consisted of approximately 20 regulareducation students. The frequency of helping was collected and categorized based observations of peer-to-peer and student-to-adult interactions. Five helping categories were selected for this study based on these data and input from school staff. Helping response. Correct helping required both a motor and vocal response within 5 s of the presentation of the discriminative stimuli. The vocal component must have either preceded the motor component or occurred simultaneously. A correct vocal component could have been a request (e.g., “May I help you?”) or a statement (e.g., “I’ll help”). A motor response was correct when it corresponded with the experimenter’s in vivo or video model (e.g., the experimenter puts toys on a shelf; the participant then putts toys on a shelf). Helping was scored as incorrect if (a) only the motor response occurred or only the vocal response occurred, (b) the motor component preceded the vocal component, or (c) both components did not occur within 5 s of the presentation of the discriminative stimuli. Mastery criterion was 92% (12 of 13 correct) for three consecutive sessions. Nonhelping. Any behavior, other than correct helping, was recorded as nonhelping if it occurred within 5 s of the experimenter presenting a nonhelping statement. For example, nonhelping could be a contextually appropriate comment (e.g., “cool”) in the presence of a nonhelping
discriminative stimulus (e.g., “My pen is blue.”). If the participant did not respond to the nonhelping statement, the trial was terminated after 5 s and scored incorrect as a conservative underestimation of correct nonhelping. The purpose of the nonhelping trials was to ensure that participants did not generalize helping to nonhelping contexts. The discriminative stimulus for nonhelping was any statement that did not indicate help was needed. Category Assignment The five helping categories used in this study included locating missing items, obtaining items out of reach, distributing materials, putting away materials, and operating the door for others. Each category included five exemplars. For example, the category of locating missing items included locating writing instruments, folders, glasses, a water bottle, and a hat. The treatment package was applied to three categories (i.e., instructional categories). The remaining two categories were used to assess generalization across categories in the treatment setting (fourth category) and a novel (nontreatment) setting (fifth category). In each instructional category, three of the five exemplars were randomly selected for training. The fourth exemplar in each instructional category was presented as a probe to assess within-category generalization in the treatment setting. The fifth exemplar was used for the preintervention and postintervention phases to assess within-category generalization in a novel setting. One task was presented from the fourth category as a probe during treatment to assess across-category generalization in the treatment setting. The remaining tasks from the fourth category were presented in the pre- and postgeneralization probes to assess across-category generalization in a novel setting. All tasks from the fifth category were reserved for across-category generalization assessment in the pre- and postgeneralization settings. Category assignment was counterbalanced so that no two participants received training on the same combination of categories.
HELPING Procedure and Design A multiple probe design across participants was used. Every session included 18 trials; 13 helping trials and five nonhelping trials. Of the 13 helping trials, three exemplars each of the three instructional categories were presented (nine total trials), an additional exemplar from each of the instructional categories was presented in a probe format to assess within-category generalization (three additional trials), and one exemplar from an untrained category was presented in a probe format (one additional trial). The order of the 18 trials, including those helping trials that assessed generalization, was randomized before each session. There was a 30-s intertrial interval. Trial order was counterbalanced so that a session did not begin or end with a probe trial. Probe trials were not conducted consecutively. Nonhelping trials were randomly interspersed throughout each session. Reinforcement was delivered using each participant’s preexisting point-based token system. Points could be exchanged for access to preferred activities. During baseline, points were delivered contingent on on-task behaviors during each intertrial interval to minimize the difference between conditions due to reinforcer delivery. On-task behavior was defined as sitting in the chair oriented towards the experimenter, making eye contact with the experimenter, and remaining seated. Baseline. To begin each session, the experimenter established eye contact by saying the participant’s name or asking him to “look at me.” Participant eye contact initiated the trial with simultaneous presentation of three discriminative stimuli: (a) nonvocal (e.g., searching the table for a missing item), (b) vocal (e.g., “I can’t find my pen”), and (c) affective (e.g., shrugging shoulders). If the participant responded incorrectly or did not respond within 5 s, the trial was terminated and materials were cleared without the experimenter modeling completion of the task (e.g., opening the door). The experimenter did not deliver any points for correct responding. Treatment. If the student helped within 5 s of the discriminative stimulus, vocal praise and a point
3
were delivered. If the student did not respond or responded incorrectly, the video model for that task was presented. The discriminative stimuli were then immediately re-presented to allow an independent opportunity to respond correctly in the absence of the model. If an additional error occurred, the experimenter delivered a vocal (i.e., “say, ‘can I help?”’) or manual (i.e., hand over hand) prompt without a video model. The discriminative stimuli were re-presented in the absence of any prompts. If the participant responded correctly in this subsequent re-presentation, the trial was terminated. If errors persisted, the video model and prompting procedure were alternated between each re-presentation of the discriminative stimuli until a correct response was emitted. The termination criterion for error correction was 10 min; however, none of the participants met this criterion. Manual prompts were faded using a most-to-least prompting hierarchy within the session. Similar to the Reeve et al. (2007) study, if a correct nonhelping response occurred during the nonhelping trials, general praise and a point were delivered. Unlike Reeve et al., if a helping response was emitted during the nonhelping trials, error correction was not delivered; rather, the trial was immediately terminated. Generalization. Generalization probes occurred in the students’ classrooms and were conducted to measure generalization of helping responses across settings and within and across helping categories. Generalization probes were conducted on 3 consecutive days before and after treatment. Probe trials included one presentation of the remaining exemplars that had not been presented during teaching. Trials included one exemplar each from the three instructional categories, three exemplars from the fourth category, and all five exemplars from the fifth category. The same trials were randomly presented in the preintervention and postintervention generalization probes. All probes were conducted using baseline procedures. Generalization probe trials consisted of the remaining
4
JESSICA DAY-WATKINS et al.
exemplars, including the fifth category, that had not been presented during teaching. Maintenance. One session of trials from the instructional phase was selected randomly for each student and was conducted as a maintenance probe 60 days after the conclusion of the study. Maintenance sessions were identical to baseline sessions. Procedural Fidelity and Interobserver Agreement Procedural fidelity was scored as a peropportunity measure and was summarized as a percentage of steps completed out of the total number of steps. Procedural fidelity data were collected for vocal, nonvocal, and affective discriminative stimuli in each trial, the training procedure, and reinforcer delivery. Mean procedural fidelity was 99%. Mean interobserver agreement for procedural fidelity was 95%. Trial-by-trial interobserver agreement data were collected for 33% of sessions in each phase via video recording. Agreement was calculated for the number of correct vocal and motor responses emitted by the participant after the first presentation of the discriminative stimuli per trial. Mean agreement was 97% across training and probe trials. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Helping behavior across all participants increased following the implementation of the training package. The results were maintained 60 days after the conclusion of the study for two of the participants. Christopher (Figure 1, top) engaged in helping behavior during 54% of opportunities during baseline and increased to 100% during the last three treatment sessions. Criterion performance was maintained at the 60day follow up (92% correct). David and Robert (Figure 1, middle and bottom, respectively) did not engage in helping behavior during baseline. Correct responding for training and probe trials increased across the last three treatment sessions to 100% and 95% for David and Robert,
respectively, and was maintained for David (77% correct) but not Robert (0% correct). Christopher responded correctly with an average of 51% during preintervention generalization probes and 86% during postintervention probes. Generalization occurred across settings (M ¼ 85%), within trained categories (M ¼ 84%), and within untrained categories (M ¼ 89%). Christopher demonstrated 100% correct responding in the novel category during the preintervention generalization probes, which consisted of two trials. He did not meet the criterion for mastery during preintervention probes or baseline. His overall generalization increased in the postintervention probes. David engaged in minimal correct helping behaviors during preintervention generalization trials. Helping behavior increased during postintervention generalization probes (M ¼ 73%). Generalization occurred across categories (M ¼ 25%), within trained categories (M ¼ 75%), within untrained categories (M ¼ 100%), and across settings (M ¼ 80%). During the preintervention generalization sessions, Robert did not engage in any helping behavior. During the postintervention generalization sessions, correct helping behavior increased (M ¼ 46%). Generalization occurred across settings (M ¼ 46%), within trained categories (M ¼ 11%), within untrained categories (M ¼ 33%), and to novel categories (M ¼ 33%). Overall, helping behavior was not observed during nonhelping trials. Christopher provided contextually appropriate nonhelping statements during nonhelping trials throughout treatment. Thus, he discriminated appropriate opportunities to help from inappropriate opportunities. As David and Robert acquired helping behavior during treatment, noncontextual helping behavior also emerged, suggesting that these participants did not achieve discriminated responding. During the treatment phase, Christopher was presented with eight video models and no manual or vocal prompts. Thus, the video model was sufficient to correct Christopher’s errors. David was presented with 12 video models, six vocal prompts,
HELPING
5
Figure 1. Percentage of correct helping responses during baseline, treatment, and probes before and after intervention and correct nonhelping responses.
6
JESSICA DAY-WATKINS et al.
and four manual prompts during the treatment phase. Robert was presented with 55 video models, 51 vocal prompts, and seven manual prompts during treatment. For Robert, the video model occasioned correct motor responses but not correct vocal responses. A vocal prompt was required to occasion correct vocal responding. The present study replicated and extended many of the findings of Reeve et al. (2007). First, the treatment package established helping behavior and demonstrated generalization within and across categories and across settings. Second, the current study extended the effects of the treatment package to an underresearched population (adolescents with autism). Third, the findings of Reeve et al. were extended to novel, age-appropriate helping responses. In a departure from Reeve et al. (2007), nonhelping trials were treated as probes. No error correction was implemented for this type of trial. This study demonstrated that the treatment package itself did not teach discrimination between helping and nonhelping stimuli, nor did the treatment package correct errors that emerged. Additional error-correction procedures may be necessary to teach discrimination of
helping and nonhelping stimuli. In this study, the application of the intervention was contingent on an error. Future research should evaluate this intervention as an antecedent intervention to determine if fewer errors occur and if corrective feedback is required.
REFERENCES Harris, S. L., Handleman, J. S., & Alessandri, M. (1990). Teaching youths with autism to offer assistance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 297–305. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-297 Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., Townsend, D. B., & Poulson, C. L. (2007). Establishing a generalized repertoire of helping behavior in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 123–136. doi: 10.1901/ jaba.2007.11-05 Reichow, B., & Volkmar, F. R. (2010). Social skills interventions for individuals with autism: Evaluation for evidence-based practices within a best evidence synthesis framework. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 149–166. doi: 10.1007/s10803009-0842-0
Received March 22, 2013 Final acceptance February 11, 2014 Action Editor, Alison Betz
