Description Write a review of the article, a maximum of 2 pages in length using APA format. Reviews should summarize and evaluate the purpose of the study, participants, methods, results, conclusions, and future directions for research. Review your article using the grading rubric attached. I will be including everything you need. UNFORMATTED ATTACHMENT PREVIEW Grading Rubric Article Review Purpose Methods Results & Conclusions Grammar & APA Total Points Article Review Rubric Excellent Satisfactory Review includes thorough Review includes adequate description of the purpose of description of the purpose of the study using behavior the study using behavior analytic terms analytic terms (.75 points) (1 point) Review thoroughly Review adequately summarizes and evaluates summarizes and evaluates participants and all parts of the participants and some parts of methods section using the methods section using behavior analytic terms (1 behavior analytic terms (.75 point) points) Review details, in behavior Review details, in behavior analytic terms, a thorough analytic terms, an adequate evaluation of the results and evaluation of the results and conclusions drawn and conclusions drawn indicates future directions for (.75 points) research (1 point) Most of writing is Some errors in writing, grammatically correct, any grammar, and APA format citations used are (.75 points) appropriately cited, papers are double spaced, and APA format rules are followed (1 point) Needs Improvement Review does not or insufficiently describes the purpose of the study (0 points) Review does not/insufficiently summarizes participants and methods section (0 points) Results and conclusions were not/insufficiently summarized (0 points) Several errors in writing, grammar, and APA format making the review difficult to follow (0 points) /4 Received: 3 September 2021 Revised: 14 March 2022 Accepted: 27 April 2022 DOI: 10.1002/bin.1888 RESEARCH ARTICLE Teaching nonvocal children with autism to request for missing items Lidia Domanska | Marta Wójcik | Svein Eikeseth Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway Correspondence Svein Eikeseth, Department of Behavioral Science, Oslo Metropolitan University, P. O. Box 4, St. Olavs Plass, N-0130 Oslo, Norway. Email: seikeset@oslomet.no Abstract This systematic replication was designed to teach nonvocal children with autism to mand for missing items using an Augmentative Alternative Communication (AAC) system. Consistent with Rodriguez et al. (2017) and Wójcik et al. (2020), we used the interrupted chain procedure with EO-present and EO-absent trials. Consistent with Wójcik et al., 2020, we used sufficient exemplar training and activity schedules to establish manding for missing items. Participants were three children with autism, and the design was a nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design across participants. Following training, all participants requested the missing items during EO-present trials correctly and refrained from making requests during EO-absent trials, suggesting that requesting using the AAC system was established as a verbal operant controlled by the appropriate EO, hence, was established as a mand. Correct requesting behavior transferred to new tasks, across skill domains, across people, to new settings, and across time. KEYWORDS augmentative alternative communication, autism, interrupted chain procedure, manding, requesting, sufficient exemplar training Approximately 30% of young adults with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are nonverbal or minimally verbal, and for those children, communicating basic needs may be challenging (Pickles et al., 2014). Delayed or absent communication is also a barrier for acquiring academic skills, for establishing and maintaining social interaction, and for overall outcome (Mawhood et al., 2000). Requesting is a basic form of communication which is of vital importance. This This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2022 The Authors. Behavioral Interventions published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 976 Behavioral Interventions. 2022;37:976–992. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bin 977 because requesting behavior enables the child to contact reinforcers and to escape or avoid aversive situations. The ability to request for items that are absent or missing is a more advanced form of requesting, because of its complex antecedent control. If this type of communication skill is delayed or absent, children may be unable to perform certain tasks or activities, or they may have difficulties with problem solving activities (Garvey, 1975; Hung, 1977; Taylor & Harris, 1995). 1 | DEFINING REQUESTING MISSING ITEMS Using Skinner's taxonomy of verbal behavior, requesting missing items can be described as a mand, provided that the verbal response is under antecedent control of a characteristic establishing operations (EO; Michael, 1993), and insofar the verbal operant is maintained by the consequence it specifies (Skinner, 1957). Manding for missing items involves transitive conditioned motivating operations (CMO-T). Transitive conditioned motivating operation is defined as “an environmental variable that, as a result learning history, establishes (or abolishes) the reinforcing effectiveness of another stimulus and evokes (or abates) the behavior that has been reinforced by that other stimulus (Cooper et al., 2019). For example, if the child is going to draw a picture, withholding the pencil may function as CMO-T establishing the pencil as a reinforcer. This, in turn, may occasion the verbal request (e.g., “Pencil please”) from the child. Manding for missing items involves complex stimulus control as the verbal request (e.g., “Pencil please”) muse be evoked only under conditions where the desired item (e.g., the pencil) is absent and not when it is available (Ingvarsson & Hollobaugh, 2010). 2 | REVIEW OF STUDIES Hall and Sundberg (1987) taught two deaf adolescents with developmental disabilities to mand for missing items using manual signs and an interrupted chain procedure. First, the participants were taught to complete several tasks independently, such as making instant soup. All tasks constituted a behavior chain, where the last response of the behavior chain led to a terminal reinforcer (e.g., the behavior chain of making instant soup led to eating the soup, which functioned as a reinforcer). After having learned the behavior chain, conditioned EOs were manipulated by removing items which were essential for chain completion (e.g., removing the kettle of hot water when making instant soup). Removing items essential for chain completion established the missing objects as reinforcer. Trials where an item essential for chain completion has been removed has been called EO-present trials or incapable trials. The interrupted chain procedure has been used in a number subsequent studies (e.g., Albert et al., 2012; Alwell et al., 1989; Goetz et al., 1985; Hunt et al., 1986; Hunt & Goetz, 1988; Rodriguez et al., 2017; Sidener et al., 2010; Sigafoos et al., 1989; Wójcik et al., 2020), suggesting that this procedure may be effective for teaching manding to children with ASD (Carnett & Ingvarsson, 2016). Rodriguez et al. (2017) extended previous research by interspersing EO-absent trial (capable trials) with EO-present (incapable trials) in the interrupted chain procedure. EO-absent trials were identical to EO-present trials except that the materials to complete the behavior chain were present or operable, abating the need to mand for help. This was done to ensure that manding for help was established under appropriate stimulus conditions (i.e., under appropriate EO conditions). Rodriguez et al. (2017) found that after participants responded correctly on EO-preset trails, undesirable generalization of requests for help during EO-absent trials was observed, hence demonstrating the need for presenting both EO-present and EO-absent trials during training. Wójcik et al. (2020) used sufficient exemplar training to teach children with ASD to mand for missing items. Using an interrupted chain procedure with EO-present and EO-absent trials, the children learned how to mand for items in three different skill domains (self-help, play and academic skills). The participants used an activity schedule (MacDuff et al., 1993) to perform the task. The prompt was an audio script recorded on a button-activated recorder Mini–Me 1099078x, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.1888, Wiley Online Library on [12/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License DOMANSKA et al. (McClannahan & Krantz, 2005). For two of the participants transfer to new tasks, transfer across skill domains and generalization across people and settings occurred after the participants had acquired one task only from one of the three skill domains. The third participant required training on three tasks in one skill domain before transfer and generalization occurred. Wójcik et al. (2020) showed that sufficient exemplar training allowed for the observation of the point at which generalization occurred, and hence helped individualize the amount of training needed to achieve untrained performances, hence, avoiding unnecessary training. 3 | PRESENT STUDY The current study was a systematic replication of Rodriguez et al. (2017) and Wójcik et al. (2020) and was designed to teach nonvocal children with ASD to mand for missing items. In both Rodriguez et al. (2017) and Wójcik et al. (2020) studies the participants were able to vocally mand for missing items. All participants in Rodriguez et al. (2017) spoke in three-to-five-word sentences, and the mand “Help” or “Help please” was taught. In Wójcik et al. (2020) children spoke in one-word sentences, and the mand “Nie ma” (meaning “I don't have”) was taught. The response modality for verbal behavior need not be vocal (Skinner, 1957). For children with ASD who are nonvocal, verbal behavior, such as manding for missing items, may be taught using an Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) system. The response modality for AAC may be manual signs, graphic symbols, pictures, printed text, or speech generating devices (Iacono et al., 2016), and it has been demonstrated that AAC can be implied successfully to teach communication skills to children with ASD (Carnett & Ingvarsson, 2016; Charlop-Christy et al., 2002; Crouzier et al., 2006; Mirenda, 2001; Shillingsburg et al., 2019; Tincani, 2004). In the present study, a pictorial based AAC system was used. It consisted of a board with picture-cards depicting all materials needed for task completion. The child could access the items vital for task completion by giving the card depicting the missing object to the experimenter. Consistent with Rodriguez et al. (2017) and Wójcik et al. (2020), we used the interrupted chain procedure with EO-present and EO-absent trials. Consistent with Wójcik et al. (2020), we used sufficient exemplar training and activity schedules to establish manding for missing items. We extended the Rodriguez et al. (2017) and Wójcik et al. (2020) study by including non-vocal children and by using a pictorial based AAC system. 4 | METHOD 4.1 | Participants The participants were three boys with autism. The diagnosis was based on the ICD-10 criteria (World Health Organization, 1996), and set by an external agency. The participants were selected for this study because they were reported to be unable to mand for missing items, and because the children's individual treatment plan showed that they were ready to be taught this skill. Absence of the skill was subsequently confirmed by the children's baseline data. The participants attended a preschool for children with ASD. They received 23-h-per-week of one-to-one behavioral intervention. For all participants, activity schedules (MacDuff et al., 1993) were used to teach new tasks and to perform previously learned tasks and activities. None of the children used speech to communicate. All participants communicated using an AAC with pictures. To assess autism severity, all participants were evaluated with the Childhood Autism Rating Scale 2-ST (CARS 2-ST; Schopler et al., 2010). To assess cognitive skills, all participants received the Psycho Educational Profile-Revised (PEP-R; Schopler et al., 1990). PEP-R assesses developmental functioning in seven areas: Imitation, Perception, Fine Motor, Eye-Hand Integration, Cognitive Performance, and Cognitive Verbal. For the present study, a Developmental Quotient Ratio Score was computed (dividing developmental age with chronological age, multiplied by 100). The Developmental Quotient Ratio Score has mean of 100 and a SD of 15. 1099078x, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.1888, Wiley Online Library on [12/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License DOMANSKA et al. 978 979 Participant 1 was three-years-and-nine-months old and scored within the Minimal-to-No Symptoms of autism on the CARS 2 ST. He obtained a Developmental Quotient ratio score of 56 on the PEP-R. He could imitate simple sounds, but he did not echo any words, nor did he have any vocal mands, vocal tacts or any vocal intraverbals. He could emit simple mands using approximately15 pictures of favorite objects and activities. He had limited play skills and exhibited several topographies of tantrum behaviors. Participant 2 was 4-year-and-7 months old and scored with severe symptoms of autism on CARS 2-ST. He obtained a Developmental Quotient ratio score of 36 on the PEP-R. He displayed high rates of stereotypical behaviors and exhibited tantrum behaviors. He had no echoic behavior, and had no repertoire of vocal mands, vocal tacts or vocal intraverbals. He could emit simple mands using approximately 10 pictures of favorite objects and activities. Participant 3 was 5-year-and-7 months old and scored with severe symptoms of autism on CARS 2-ST. He obtained a Developmental Quotient ratio score of 45 on the PEP-R. He displayed low levels of stereotypical behaviors. He had no echoic behavior, and had no repertoire of vocal mands, vocal tacts or vocal intraverbals, and had very limited play skills. He could emit simple mands using approximately 10 pictures of favorite objects and activities. He did not display problem behaviors in the preschool. 4.2 | Settings, tasks, skill domains, AAC system and activity schedule The research took place in four settings in a preschool for children with autism. The settings were a classroom, a gym, a bathroom, and a kitchen. The classroom was 5 × 3 m, equipped with tables, chairs, and shelves, and included two children and two therapists. The gym was 8 × 4 m, equipped with balls and various types of exercise equipment, and included two children and two therapists. The bathroom was 1.5 × 2 m, equipped with a toilet, sink, and shelves, and the child was in the room alone together with the therapist. The kitchen was 4 × 4 m, equipped with a dining table, chairs, a refrigerator and cupboards, and the child was in the kitchen alone together with the therapist. During training, one extra person (the assistant) was present in the room to prompt correct responses. Tasks were selected from three skill domains: academic, self-help and play. For each skill domain, 6 different tasks were selected (i.e., a total of 18 tasks). Table 1 exhibits the skill domains, the task, and the experimental manipulation of EO-present and EO-absent trials (explained below). All tasks required the involvement of materials, such as a piece of paper and a pencil if the task was making a drawing. The AAC system consisted of a board sized 33 × 23 cm with 3 vertical Velcro strips and 18 picture-cards (4.5 × 4.5 cm) attached to the board. The 18 picture-cards depicted all materials needed for task completion (i.e., pictures of all items removed during EO-present trails, such as a picture of a pencil). The participants used an activity schedule where each response in the chain leading up to task completion was shown in a picture (MacDuff et al., 1993). The name of the picture was printed on the picture. For example, if the picture depicted blocks, the word ‘blocks’ was printed on the picture. For Participant 1, the activity schedule was formatted a list (21 × 30 cm), where all response in the chain leading up to a task completion shown (on cards 3 × 5 cm) on the same page. The participant moved a token to the first link in the chain, performed the response depicted by the picture, moved the token to the next link, and performed that response. This was done until the task was completed. For Participants 2 and 3, the activity schedule consisted of an A5 binder, where each response in the chain leading up to a task completion was shown on a card (6 × 6 cm) on a separate page. The participant pointed to the picture depicting the behavior, performed the behavior, turned the page, pointed to the picture, performed the behavior, and so on, until the task was completed. We used the same format for the activity schedules in the study as the children used during regular teaching sessions, and this is the reason why one participant used a list, and the others use a binder. Before starting the task, the participants collected the materials required. After completing the task, they put materials away and received praise, an edible reinforcer, and a short break. 1099078x, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.1888, Wiley Online Library on [12/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License DOMANSKA et al. TA B L E 1 Skill domains, tasks, and experimental manipulation for EO-present and EO-absent trials Skill domain Task EO-present EO-absent Academic Drawing a shape Marker missing Marker available Cutting a shape Scissors missing Scissors available Gluing a shape Glue missing Glue available Painting a picture Paper missing Paper available Bringing a binder to the shelf Binder missing Binder available Coloring a shape Crayon missing Crayon available Putting shoe on Shoe missing Shoe available Drinking juice Cup missing Cup available Putting exercise wear on Exercise wear missing Exercise wear available Putting a backpack back into the cabinet Backpack missing Backpack available Wiping a table Towel missing Towel available Brushing teeth Toothbrush missing Toothbrush available Building a tower Blocks missing Blocks available Completing a puzzles Puzzle missing Puzzle available Playing with the car Car missing Car available Playing on tablet Tablet missing Tablet available Playing a computer games Computer mouse missing Computer mouse available Shaping a shape of Play-Doh Play-Doh missing Play-Doh available Self-help Play Note: Each task was occasioned by the same instruction: “Do your task”. If the children stopped responding or made an error, hand-over-hand physical guidance was used to prompt the child to continue with the task. Across trials, prompts were faded by changing the physical insensitivity (i.e., less forceful hand-over-hand guidance until subsequently showing the child's hand) and the location of the hand-overhand guidance (i.e., hand, wrist, forearm, elbow and shoulder). The final fading step was expanding the distance between the assistant and the child. 5 | EO-PRESENT AND EO-ABSENT TRIALS During both EO-present and EO-absent trials, the AAC board was available together with the activity schedule. The AAC board contained pictures of all materials needed to compete the target task in both EO-present and EO absent trials. During the EO-present trials, one item from the materials which was needed to complete the task was removed (e.g., the experimenter removed the pencil when the task was drawing a picture), abating the child from finishing the task, contriving an EO, which momentarily established the item (e.g., the pencil) as a reinforcer. The child could mand for the missing item (e.g., the pencil) using the AAC system, and if so, the child was given the missing item (e.g., the pencil), and could finish the task independently. During EO-present trials, the item that was missing was hidden, and the location where the item was hidden varied across trials. Hence, the participants did not know where to find the missing items. During EO-absent trials, all materials needed to complete the task was given to the child (e.g., the paper and the pencil was provided to the child). Hence, the child could follow the activity schedule and finish the task independently without having to mand for any items (e.g., without requesting the pencil). 1099078x, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.1888, Wiley Online Library on [12/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License DOMANSKA et al. 980 981 5.1 | Experimenter and experimenter assistant The experimenter conducted all sessions and served as the participants' communication partner. The assistant provided prompts during training and helped the experimenter with data collection during baseline, training, generalization and post-test trials. Both the experimenter and the assistant worked in the preschool where the study took place; they had a master's degree in special pedagogy and had passed the preschool's professional evaluation. Prior to the study, the experimenter trained the assistant on data collection and prompting procedures. 5.2 | Response definition and data collection EO-present trials and EO-absent trials were scored as either correct, incorrect, or prompted (the latter occurred only during training). Responses on EO-present trials were scored as correct if the child: (a) removed the card depicting the missing item from the AAC board, handed it to the experimenter and gave the experimenter eye contact within 5 s of encountering the requested item, and (b), completed the task independently following the sequence of the activity schedule. All other responses were scored as incorrect, except during training, where a response was scored as prompted whenever the assistant provided prompts. EO-absent trials were scored as correct if the child finished the task independently following the sequence of the activity schedule without manding for any items using the AAC board. All other responses were scored as incorrect, except during training, where a response was scored as prompted whenever the assistant provided prompts. Each of the 18 tasks were probed under both conditions, that is, as EO-present and EO-absent trials. The criterion for mastery for each task was six consecutive correct responses when EO-absent and EO-present trials occurred three times each, in a semi random order. 5.3 | Procedure Data was collected on EO-present trials and EO-absent trials during (a) baseline, (b) training, (c) post-test, (d) tests for generalization across people, and (e) at follow-up. These sessions were embedded into regular teaching sessions in the preschool. A trial started with the experimenter saying, “Do your task.” No further instructions were given. Across trials, the activity schedule, the AAC board, and the materials were placed within the child's reach in fixed places. 5.4 | Baseline Each baseline session presented all 18 tasks both as EO-present as and EO-absent trails (a total of 36 trials). These tasks were presented in a semi random order so that each of the 18 tasks occurred once as an EO-present trial and once as an EO-absent trial. A correct response produced during EO-present trials did not result in any consequences other than the presentation of the missing item. Incorrect responses on EO-present trials and correct and incorrect responses emitted during EO-absent trials resulted in no consequences other than that the trial was finished. After finishing the task, the participant received an edible reinforcer and a short break. 5.5 | Intervention Each training session lasted for a maximum of 45 min. Training started with the presentation of an EO-present trial for the first task. Once the participant encountered the step in the chain of responses with the missing item, the assistant 1099078x, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.1888, Wiley Online Library on [12/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License DOMANSKA et al. prompted the child to pick up the correct card from the ACC board, and to give it to the experimenter. Manual handover-hand guidance was used to prompt the child to pick up the card and to give it to the experimenter. Once the participant gave the ACC card to the experimenter and provided eye contact, the experimenter praised the child's behavior and provided him with the missing item. To prompt eye contact, the experimenter pointed to her eyes. Whenever the child responded incorrectly on subsequent training trials, a prompt was provided. If the child failed to pick up the ACC card and give it to the experimenter, the assistant provided a hand-over-hand prompt to bring forth that behavior. If the child failed to give eye contact, the experimenter pointed to her eyes. After a prompted trial, the same task was repeated, but this time without a prompt. After completion of a correct trial, praise and an edible reinforcement was delivered. The criterion for mastery was three consecutive correct trials. After three consecutive correct EO-present trials, the same task was repeated, but now as an EO-absent trial. If the child attempted to mand with the AAC card, a response blocking prompt was used to stop the child from picking up the card. The trainer prevented the child from picking up the card from the AAC board and directed the child to continue doing the task. After a prompted trial, the same task was repeated. Incorrect trials were always followed by a prompted trial. The criterion for mastery was three consecutive correct trials. After three consecutive correct responses on EO-absent trials, the same task was presented, but now the EO-present and EO-absent trials were mixed. Mastery criterion for this step was six consecutive correct responses, where EO-present and EO-absent trials occurred three times each in a semi random order. When mastery was reached, the next scheduled task was probed, and if it was not mastered, it was trained. Upon mastery of this task, the next task from the list was probed and trained if necessary. This sequence of probing and training occurred until the child responded correctly on six consecutive new tasks. Prompts, praise and edible reinforcement were provided only during training. The steps in the procedure are shown in Table 2. 5.6 | Post-test, generalization across people and follow-up The assessment procedure for the post-test, generalization across people and follow-up was identical to the baseline assessment. The post-test was carried out no more than 2 days after the training was completed. Generalization test with an interaction partner who had not been part of the training was carried out no more than 1 day after finishing the post-test. Follow-up assessment was identical to the post test and conducted 3 months after the generalization test was conducted. 5.7 | Experimental design A nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design across participants was used to evaluate the results of the training. The children's’ individual treatment plan determined the time when the target behavior (requesting for missing items) was to be introduced. Because three children were not ready to learn the target behavior concurrently, the nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design across participants was used. The length of each child's baseline was either one, two or three sessions, assigned randomly to each participant. Each of the 18 tasks were probed as both EO-present and EO-absent trials during each baseline session. Hence a baseline session consisted of a total of 36 trials. Data were collected during baseline, training, posttest, generalization across interaction partners, and at follow-up. Scripts, manual guidance, praise, and edible reinforcement were provided only during training. 1099078x, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.1888, Wiley Online Library on [12/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License DOMANSKA et al. 982 TA B L E 2 983 The procedure for sufficient exemplar training Task Trial type EO (antecedent) Correct response Procedure Drawing a shape EO-present Marker missing Requesting missing item If correct on the first trial move to EO-absent trial. If incorrect, teach until 3 consecutive correct. Drawing a shape EO-absent Marker available Drawing a shape without requesting missing item If correct on the first trial (when EO-present trial was correct) move to the next task. If correct on the first trial (when EO-present trial was incorrect) move to mix of EO-present and EO-absent trials. If incorrect, teach until 3 consecutive correct, then move to mix of EO-present and EO-absent trials Drawing a shape EO-present and EO-absent Marker missing and marker available Requesting missing item or not depending on EO Teach until 6 consecutive correct with EO-present and EO-absent trials presented in a semi random order Cutting a shape EO-present Scissors missing Requesting missing item If correct on first trial move to EO-absent trial If incorrect, teach until 3 consecutive correct Cutting a shape EO-absent Scissors available Cutting a shape without requesting missing item If correct on the first trial (when EO-present trial was correct) move to the next task. If correct on the first trial (when EO-present trial was incorrect) move to mix of EO-present and EO-absent trials. If incorrect, teach until 3 consecutive correct, then move to mix of EO-present and EO-absent trials. Cutting a shape EO-present and EO-absent Scissors missing and scissors available Requesting missing item or not depending on EO Teach until 6 consecutive correct with EO-present and EO-absent trials in a semi random order Note: Follow the same steps for the next tasks until the child can do 6 consecutive untrained tasks both as EO-absent and EO-present trials. Abbreviation: EO, Establishing Operations. 1099078x, 2022, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.1888, Wiley Online Library on [12/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License DOMANSKA et al. 5.8 | Procedural integrity The intervention procedure was assessed for procedural integrity using a checklist that included the following: (1) using correct prompting procedure with manual guidance, and (2), correct change from EO-absent to EO-present trials, vice versa, and probing a new task when the previous task was mastered on the first probe or in a mix after teaching. Procedural integrity was calculated by counting the number of non-breaches in protocol and dividing it by the number of breaches and the number of non-breaches and multiplying by 100. All procedural integrity data were collected by the experimenter assistant. Procedural integrity data were collected for 52% (range: 49%–55%) of the trails for correct prompting and 99% (range: 99%–99%) of trials for correct change of conditions and probing a new task across all three participants. The average integrity data on correct prompting was 96% (range: 93%–100%). The average integrity data on changing the condition and probing a new task when the previous task was completed was 90% (range: 85%–95%). 5.9 | Inter-observer agreement An independent observer scored 92% of the baseline, training, post-test and generalization sessions across all three participants. Trial-by-t
READ MORE >>
