Open Collections

A comparison of different reinforcement contingencies during skill acquisition programs for children with autism spectrum disorder

University of British Columbia

Interventions based on the principles of learning are effective for teaching new skills to children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD; e.g., Cohen, Amerine-Dickens, & Smith, 2006; Eldevik, Eikeseth, Jahr, & Smith, 2006; Howard, Sparkman, & Cohen, 2005; Lovaas, 1987; National Autism Center, 2009, 2015). Researchers and clinicians increasingly recognize the importance of evaluating individuals’ preferences for behavioural interventions. The most direct way to assess a participant’s intervention preference may be to expose the participant’s behaviour to the available interventions and provide an opportunity for the participant to choose amongst the interventions (Fisher & Mazur, 1997; Hanley, 2010; Schwartz & Baer, 1991). Though reinforcement is the primary process involved in teaching new skills, no study has evaluated learner preference for reinforcement contingencies during skill acquisition. The purpose of the study was twofold: (1) to evaluate preference for differential reinforcement, nondifferential reinforcement, and extinction during skill acquisition programs for children with ASD, and (2) to evaluate the relative effectiveness and efficiency of the reinforcement contingencies during skill acquisition programs for children with ASD. In the present study, the experimenter used a concurrent-chains arrangement to evaluate participants’ preferences for different reinforcement contingencies when teaching language skills to children with ASD. The experimenter used an adapted alternating treatments design (AATD) embedded within a concurrent multiple-probe design to evaluate the relative effectiveness and efficiency of the reinforcement contingencies. Two males diagnosed with ASD participated in the study. Both participants demonstrated a clear preference for one reinforcement contingency over the others across instruction for at least two skills. In three of the four completed evaluations, differential reinforcement was the most effective and/or efficient reinforcement contingency. Finally, in three of the four evaluations completed across participants, the most effective and efficient intervention was also the most preferred intervention.

Text

2018-10-18

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

http://hdl.handle.net/2429/67605

Special Education

University of British Columbia

UBCV

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/