Comparing structured mix and random rotation procedures to teach receptive labeling to children with autism

ABSTRACT We compared two procedures using an alternating treatments design to teach receptive labeling to children with autism. The structured mix procedure followed seven steps entailing mass trials, intermixing, and random rotation. In the random rotation procedure, we trained all stimuli from the...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Behavioral interventions 2020-02, Vol.35 (1), p.38-56
Hauptverfasser: DiSanti, Brittany M., Eikeseth, Svein, Eldevik, Sigmund, Conrad, Jenna M., Cotter‐Fisher, Kortnie L.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 56
container_issue 1
container_start_page 38
container_title Behavioral interventions
container_volume 35
creator DiSanti, Brittany M.
Eikeseth, Svein
Eldevik, Sigmund
Conrad, Jenna M.
Cotter‐Fisher, Kortnie L.
description ABSTRACT We compared two procedures using an alternating treatments design to teach receptive labeling to children with autism. The structured mix procedure followed seven steps entailing mass trials, intermixing, and random rotation. In the random rotation procedure, we trained all stimuli from the start. Study 1 included four children with a repertoire of four to 50 receptive labels and who primarily communicated with an alternative communication device. Results showed that the two conditions were comparable for one participant, structured mix was effective and random rotation was not effective for one participant, and that both conditions were ineffective for two participants. Study 2 included five children with over 200 receptive labels in their repertoire and with vocal speech as the primary form of communication. Four participants acquired the labels in both procedures, but random rotation was more effective. Results indicate that structured mix may be more effective for participants with a limited language repertoire and random rotation is more effective for participants with a larger language repertoire.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/bin.1694
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2350244441</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2350244441</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2884-9b326a7ecb7432db8b5457bbe05c62b371cd1f78fc2237b39024dc72642023213</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10MtOxCAUBmBiNHEcTXwEEjduOnJraZc68TKJ0Y0m7ghQ6jC2pQJ1nLeXOm5lcSDhyzknPwDnGC0wQuRK2X6Bi4odgBlGVZUhXr4dTm9OMlQyfgxOQtgghKqC0Bn4WLpukN727zBEP-o4elPDzn5D2dfQp-I66F2U0boeDt5pUycSYHQwGqnX0Btthmi_DGylMu3UKf3ptW1rb3q4tXEN5Rht6E7BUSPbYM7-7jl4vbt9WT5kj8_3q-X1Y6ZJWbKsUpQUkhutOKOkVqXKWc6VMijXBVGUY13jhpeNJoRyRStEWK05KRhBhBJM5-Bi3zet-zmaEMXGjb5PIwWhedLpTOpyr7R3IXjTiMHbTvqdwEhMUYoUpZiiTDTb061tze5fJ25WT7_-B5krdds</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2350244441</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing structured mix and random rotation procedures to teach receptive labeling to children with autism</title><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>DiSanti, Brittany M. ; Eikeseth, Svein ; Eldevik, Sigmund ; Conrad, Jenna M. ; Cotter‐Fisher, Kortnie L.</creator><creatorcontrib>DiSanti, Brittany M. ; Eikeseth, Svein ; Eldevik, Sigmund ; Conrad, Jenna M. ; Cotter‐Fisher, Kortnie L.</creatorcontrib><description>ABSTRACT We compared two procedures using an alternating treatments design to teach receptive labeling to children with autism. The structured mix procedure followed seven steps entailing mass trials, intermixing, and random rotation. In the random rotation procedure, we trained all stimuli from the start. Study 1 included four children with a repertoire of four to 50 receptive labels and who primarily communicated with an alternative communication device. Results showed that the two conditions were comparable for one participant, structured mix was effective and random rotation was not effective for one participant, and that both conditions were ineffective for two participants. Study 2 included five children with over 200 receptive labels in their repertoire and with vocal speech as the primary form of communication. Four participants acquired the labels in both procedures, but random rotation was more effective. Results indicate that structured mix may be more effective for participants with a limited language repertoire and random rotation is more effective for participants with a larger language repertoire.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1072-0847</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-078X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/bin.1694</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Augmentative and alternative communication ; Autism ; Autistic children ; Behavior modification ; Children ; conditional discrimination training ; Language ; receptive labeling ; stimulus control</subject><ispartof>Behavioral interventions, 2020-02, Vol.35 (1), p.38-56</ispartof><rights>2019 The Authors. Behavioral Interventions published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2020 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2884-9b326a7ecb7432db8b5457bbe05c62b371cd1f78fc2237b39024dc72642023213</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8333-3294</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fbin.1694$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fbin.1694$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1416,27923,27924,45573,45574</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>DiSanti, Brittany M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eikeseth, Svein</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eldevik, Sigmund</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conrad, Jenna M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cotter‐Fisher, Kortnie L.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing structured mix and random rotation procedures to teach receptive labeling to children with autism</title><title>Behavioral interventions</title><description>ABSTRACT We compared two procedures using an alternating treatments design to teach receptive labeling to children with autism. The structured mix procedure followed seven steps entailing mass trials, intermixing, and random rotation. In the random rotation procedure, we trained all stimuli from the start. Study 1 included four children with a repertoire of four to 50 receptive labels and who primarily communicated with an alternative communication device. Results showed that the two conditions were comparable for one participant, structured mix was effective and random rotation was not effective for one participant, and that both conditions were ineffective for two participants. Study 2 included five children with over 200 receptive labels in their repertoire and with vocal speech as the primary form of communication. Four participants acquired the labels in both procedures, but random rotation was more effective. Results indicate that structured mix may be more effective for participants with a limited language repertoire and random rotation is more effective for participants with a larger language repertoire.</description><subject>Augmentative and alternative communication</subject><subject>Autism</subject><subject>Autistic children</subject><subject>Behavior modification</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>conditional discrimination training</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>receptive labeling</subject><subject>stimulus control</subject><issn>1072-0847</issn><issn>1099-078X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp10MtOxCAUBmBiNHEcTXwEEjduOnJraZc68TKJ0Y0m7ghQ6jC2pQJ1nLeXOm5lcSDhyzknPwDnGC0wQuRK2X6Bi4odgBlGVZUhXr4dTm9OMlQyfgxOQtgghKqC0Bn4WLpukN727zBEP-o4elPDzn5D2dfQp-I66F2U0boeDt5pUycSYHQwGqnX0Btthmi_DGylMu3UKf3ptW1rb3q4tXEN5Rht6E7BUSPbYM7-7jl4vbt9WT5kj8_3q-X1Y6ZJWbKsUpQUkhutOKOkVqXKWc6VMijXBVGUY13jhpeNJoRyRStEWK05KRhBhBJM5-Bi3zet-zmaEMXGjb5PIwWhedLpTOpyr7R3IXjTiMHbTvqdwEhMUYoUpZiiTDTb061tze5fJ25WT7_-B5krdds</recordid><startdate>202002</startdate><enddate>202002</enddate><creator>DiSanti, Brittany M.</creator><creator>Eikeseth, Svein</creator><creator>Eldevik, Sigmund</creator><creator>Conrad, Jenna M.</creator><creator>Cotter‐Fisher, Kortnie L.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8333-3294</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202002</creationdate><title>Comparing structured mix and random rotation procedures to teach receptive labeling to children with autism</title><author>DiSanti, Brittany M. ; Eikeseth, Svein ; Eldevik, Sigmund ; Conrad, Jenna M. ; Cotter‐Fisher, Kortnie L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2884-9b326a7ecb7432db8b5457bbe05c62b371cd1f78fc2237b39024dc72642023213</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Augmentative and alternative communication</topic><topic>Autism</topic><topic>Autistic children</topic><topic>Behavior modification</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>conditional discrimination training</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>receptive labeling</topic><topic>stimulus control</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>DiSanti, Brittany M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eikeseth, Svein</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eldevik, Sigmund</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Conrad, Jenna M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cotter‐Fisher, Kortnie L.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley-Blackwell Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Behavioral interventions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>DiSanti, Brittany M.</au><au>Eikeseth, Svein</au><au>Eldevik, Sigmund</au><au>Conrad, Jenna M.</au><au>Cotter‐Fisher, Kortnie L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing structured mix and random rotation procedures to teach receptive labeling to children with autism</atitle><jtitle>Behavioral interventions</jtitle><date>2020-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>35</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>38</spage><epage>56</epage><pages>38-56</pages><issn>1072-0847</issn><eissn>1099-078X</eissn><abstract>ABSTRACT We compared two procedures using an alternating treatments design to teach receptive labeling to children with autism. The structured mix procedure followed seven steps entailing mass trials, intermixing, and random rotation. In the random rotation procedure, we trained all stimuli from the start. Study 1 included four children with a repertoire of four to 50 receptive labels and who primarily communicated with an alternative communication device. Results showed that the two conditions were comparable for one participant, structured mix was effective and random rotation was not effective for one participant, and that both conditions were ineffective for two participants. Study 2 included five children with over 200 receptive labels in their repertoire and with vocal speech as the primary form of communication. Four participants acquired the labels in both procedures, but random rotation was more effective. Results indicate that structured mix may be more effective for participants with a limited language repertoire and random rotation is more effective for participants with a larger language repertoire.</abstract><cop>Chichester</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/bin.1694</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8333-3294</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1072-0847
ispartof Behavioral interventions, 2020-02, Vol.35 (1), p.38-56
issn 1072-0847
1099-078X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2350244441
source Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Augmentative and alternative communication
Autism
Autistic children
Behavior modification
Children
conditional discrimination training
Language
receptive labeling
stimulus control
title Comparing structured mix and random rotation procedures to teach receptive labeling to children with autism
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T08%3A53%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20structured%20mix%20and%20random%20rotation%20procedures%20to%20teach%20receptive%20labeling%20to%20children%20with%20autism&rft.jtitle=Behavioral%20interventions&rft.au=DiSanti,%20Brittany%20M.&rft.date=2020-02&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=38&rft.epage=56&rft.pages=38-56&rft.issn=1072-0847&rft.eissn=1099-078X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/bin.1694&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2350244441%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2350244441&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true