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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Behavioral interventions 2020-02, Vol.35 (1), p.38-56 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
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 & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2020 John Wiley & 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 & 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 |