New version page

TSC-JBPI-3rd-AEedits-2

This preview shows page 1-2-17-18-19-35-36 out of 36 pages.

View Full Document
View Full Document

End of preview. Want to read all 36 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a GradeBuddy member to access this document.

View Full Document
Unformatted text preview:

Koenig, M. & Gerenser, J. (2006). SLP-ABA: Collaborating to support individuals with communication impairments. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 2-10.Mahoney, G. & Perales, F. (2003). Using relationship-focused intervention to enhance the social-emotional functioning of young children with ASD spectrum disorders. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23, 77-89.Teaching Social Communication 1In press in: Journal of Positive Behavior InterventionRunning Head: Comparison of Behavioral and Developmental ApproachesTeaching Social Communication: A Comparison of Naturalistic Behavioral and Development, Social PragmaticApproaches for Children with Autism Spectrum DisordersBrooke IngersollMichigan State UniversityTeaching Social Communication 2AbstractThere are a variety of effective treatments designed for increasing social communication in young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Two such treatments, naturalistic behavioral and developmental, social-pragmatic/relationship-based interventions, differ in their underlying philosophy, yet share many similarities in their implementation. They also exhibit critical differences that may impact their effectivenesswith children with ASD. This article will provide a discussion of the similarities and differences between these two approaches. Based on this comparison, it will recommend new research directions that should lead to the development of more effective social-communication interventions for young children with ASD.Teaching Social Communication 3Teaching Social Communication: A Comparison of Naturalistic Behavioral and Development, Social PragmaticApproaches for Children with Autism Spectrum DisordersIndividuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) demonstrate significant impairment in social interaction and communication, and exhibit a restricted range of interests and attention. These deficits interfere with learning and disrupt family life. There is considerable agreement in the field of ASD that intensive, early intervention leads to significant improvements in children’s functioning and long term outcomes (National Research Council, 2001). Beyond this, there is disagreement regarding the bestmethod of intervention. Clearly, interventions based on the principles of applied behavioranalysis are the best studied and empirically-validated interventions for children with ASD to date (see Schreibman & Ingersoll, 2005 for review). While behaviorally-based interventions are currently considered the most effective treatment option for children with ASD (National Research Council, 2001), there are many researchers and practitioners who advocate intervention approaches drawn from the developmental and social-pragmatic literatures. Both approaches are consistent with the field of positive behavior support in their use of positive teaching strategies to promote communication and social interactions and to increase community participation. However, there has traditionally been little interchange between the behavioral and developmental treatment communities. The mainpurpose of this paper is to compare the naturalistic behavioral1 and developmental, social-pragmatic2 (DSP) approaches as they are implemented with children with ASD. 1 Also referred to as normalized behavioral approach (Delprato, 2000).2 Also referred to as relationship-based or –focused approach (e.g., Mahoney & Perales, 2003).Teaching Social Communication 4Although the approaches differ significantly in underlying philosophy, a close examination of the intervention techniques used in the two approaches should reveal a great deal of similarity (Prizant & Wetherby, 1998). An appreciation of this similarity should foster better communication between disciplines. There are also critical differences in how the interventions are implemented which may impact their effectiveness with children with ASD. An understanding of how these approaches differ should foster research that analyzes the salient and effective features of each approach. Such research is likely to enhance the effectiveness of both approaches. Historical and Theoretical Basis of Naturalistic Behavioral ApproachesThe use of behavioral interventions in the treatment of ASD began in the early 1960’s (e.g., Ferster & DeMyer, 1961; 1962). All behavioral interventions are based on learning theory and thus share the same core assumptions. The first assumption is that operant behaviors, behaviors that are under voluntary control such as language, play, and social interaction, are learned. The second assumption is that these behaviors are developed and maintained by antecedents and consequences (observable environmental events that come before and after them). Behavioral interventions also share the same assumption that new, appropriate skills can be taught through the manipulation of antecedent variables (e.g., establishing operations, discriminative stimuli) and the systematic application of reinforcement (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987). In addition, they share the use of specific teaching tools such as prompting (presenting a cue that increases the likelihood of specific response), chaining (linking two or more complex behaviors together), and fading (gradually decreasing prompts overtime to encourage spontaneous responding (Cooper et al., 1987).Teaching Social Communication 5Early behavioral interventions were highly structured and adult-directed (e.g., Lovaas, 1977; Lovaas, Berberich, Perloff, & Schaeffer, 1966; Lovaas, Freitag, Gold, & Kassorla, 1965; Lovaas, Koegel, Simmons, & Long, 1973). As the field has progressed, behavioral interventions have undergone a number of modifications to improve instructional outcomes and generalization and maintenance of skills. One such modification has been the development of techniques that are more naturalistic and child-centered. The first naturalistic behavioral treatment was designed by Hart and Risley (1968) to teach the use of descriptive adjectives to disadvantaged preschoolers in a classroom setting. This study sought to increase generalization and spontaneous use of skills by teaching them in the context of ongoing classroom activities. Since its original conception, the naturalistic behavioral approach has undergone a variety of procedural elaborations, yielding a number of similar intervention techniques, including incidental teaching (Hart & Risley, 1968; McGee, Krantz, Mason, &


Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view TSC-JBPI-3rd-AEedits-2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view TSC-JBPI-3rd-AEedits-2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?