Transcript GREG PPT - uwradar

Effects of Conversational Recasting with
Imitation on the Acquisition of Linguistic
Structures in Children with Autism
GREGORY LYONS, Lynn Koegel, Robert Koegel
Presentation for Recent Advances in Autism Research
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Research Conducted at:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Introduction
CHILDREN WITH AUTISM:

Are delayed in language development
(Lord & Paul, 1997; Menyuk & Quill, 1985; Paul & Alforde, 1993; Swisher & Demetras,
1985)

Frequently omit morphemes
(Bartolucci, Pierce, & Streiner, 1980; Howlin, 1984; Roberts, Rice & Tager-Flusberg,
2004)

May have atypical order of acquisition of
morphemes
(Bartolucci, Pierce, & Streiner, 1980; Menyuk & Quill, 1985; Paul & Alforde, 1993; Swisher & Demetras,
1985)
Introduction (cont.)

SUGGESTED INTERVENTIONS:
1) Analog elicited imitation
2) Naturalistic conversational (sentence) recasting
(Fey & Proctor Williams, 2000)
Introduction (cont.)

ANALOG ELICITED IMITATION:
– Follows the operant conditioning model (S-R-C)
– Child is presented with an adult-chosen imitative stimulus
 a model of the linguistic skill is presented  the child is
required to imitate the model prior to reinforcement (Connell,
1987; Fey & Proctor-Williams, 2000; Lovaas, 1987 )
– Non-natural stimuli and environments


Flashcards = “imitative stimulus”
“Decontextualized” (Connell, 1987)
Introduction (cont.)
NATURALISTIC SENTENCE RECASTING:

Is when an adult repeats the general utterance of the child,
but expands upon it or corrects it (Nelson & Camarata, 1992)
– Child is not required to imitate the recast
(Fey & Proctor-Williams, 2000)

Is contextualized- natural environments/stimuli

Creates an optimal context grammar learning
2000)
(Fey & Proctor-Williams,
– Focuses child attention on specific grammatical features (cues)

Is successful in facilitating correct and generalized language
use with different populations, but has not been addressed
with children with autism (Nelson, Camarata, Welsh, & Butkovsky, 1996; Fey, Cleave, Long, &
Hughes, 1993; Farrar, 1990)
Introduction (cont.)

Literature indicates sentence recasting might be
effective for children with autism:
– Similarities to children with SLI (Roberts, Rice, Tager-Flusberg, 2004)
– Naturalistic (Delprato, 2001; Koegel, O’Dell, Koegel, 1987)

However, autism specific characteristics may limit
effectiveness:
– Low levels of motivation (Koegel & Koegel, 1995; Koegel & Mentis, 1985)
– Attentional differences (Swettenham, et al. , 1998; Lovaas, Koegel, Schreibman,
1979)

Possible modification to sentence recasting?
– Imitation
(Camarata & Nelson, 1992; Fey & Proctor-Williams, 2000)
Introduction (cont.)
AREA IN NEED OF RESEARCH:
 The use of sentence recasting with
children with autism

The role of imitation of the linguistic
structure contained in the recast
(Koegel, Carter, & Koegel, 2003; Fey & Proctor-Williams, 2000; Camarata & Nelson, 1992;
Kaiser, Yoder, & Keetz, 1992; Koegel, O’Dell, & Koegel, 1987; Culatta & Horn, 1982; Hedge
& Gierut, 1979; Hester & Hendrickson, 1977)
Research Questions


Is typical sentence recasting effective for
improving target linguistic structures in
children with autism?
Is incorporating an imitation component
within a naturalistic recast procedure for
children with autism (who exhibit difficulties
with syntax) effective?
Methods
Child 1

3.5-years-old at the start of the study;
male Brazilian-American diagnosed
with autism
Child 2

2.6-years-old at the start of the study;
male European-American diagnosed
with autism

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale
showed delay in communication

Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale
showed delay in communication

Used some spontaneous language

Used some spontaneous language

Started with an MLU of 2+ words

Started with an MLU of 2+ words

Language samples revealed missing
linguistic structures appropriate for
language-age at time of intervention
for that bahavior:
–
progressive [–ing], did/do reversal,
past tense during conversation

Language samples revealed missing
linguistic structures appropriate for
language-age at time of intervention
for that behavior:
–
progressive [–ing], plural [-s],
possessive [-’s]
Methods
DESIGN
A non-concurrent multiple baseline design across
behaviors and participants, with a control for order
effects, was employed (Bailey & Burch, 2002)
PROCEDURE
Baseline Semi-structured language samples where the
participants were provided 20 opportunities (asked
questions or given leading statements) in order to
evoke the target linguistic skills
No Recasts Delivered
Methods
Intervention Conditions -
Recast alone – children were NOT prompted to
imitate the recasted syntactic structure prior to
continuing play/interaction.
Example: Child says “Train go”, Adult recasts
“Train’s going”, & Child is NOT prompted to imitate
recast and can continue playing with trains.
Recast with Imitation- children were
prompted to imitate the recasted syntactic
structure prior to continuing play/interaction.
Example: Child says “Train go” , Adult recasts
“Train’s going” & Child is prompted to imitate the
recast, “Train is going” prior to continuing to play
with the trains.
Methods
PROCEDURE (cont.)
Generalization Probes Semi-structured language samples in novel setting where adults
naïve to the purpose of the study and provided 20 opportunities
(asked the participants questions and gave leading statements) in
order to elicit the target linguistic skill
Dependent Measure Percent Correct Target Linguistics Skills Used - number of
correct spontaneous target linguistic skill responses divided by the
sum of correct and incorrect spontaneous target skills responses,
multiplied by 100%
Example:
Recasting Alone

Child: “What did you did?”

Adult recast: “What did you DO?”

Child: “uh huh”

And continues to not use the grammar.
Examples:
Recasting with Imitation
Child: “What did you DID?”
Adult recast: “What did you DO?”
Child: “What did you DO?”
Adult: “I went to the movies.”
…next opportunity…
Adult: “I did something fun.”
Child: “What did you DO?”
Recast with
imitation
Recast with Imitation
Recast with Imitation
Baseline
Recast with Imitation
Recast with Imitation
Discussion



Recast with imitation resulted in improved acquisition and
generalization in contrast to a recasting procedure that did not
incorporate imitation.
The results have implications for understanding the roles of
imitation and contingent reinforcement in the recast mechanism as
it pertains to teaching children with autism linguistic skills
Underlying variables addressed: motivation & attention
1) It helped focus the child’s attention on relevant cue (i.e., the new
grammar cues)
* Role of imitation
2) It motivated the child to initially attend to the adult’s recast
* Role of contingent reinforcement
3) It motivated the child to imitate the recast and subsequently use the
target syntax
* Role of contingent reinforcement
Mechanisms for Recast with
Imitation Condition
Intervention
Variable
Contingent
Reinforcement:
Child’s
access/continuation
in play interrupted
Contingent
Reinforcement:
Only an attempt at
accurate use led to
the natural reinforcer
Related Mechanism
Motivated the child to
initially attend to the
recast.
Motivated the child to
imitate the recast and
use the correct
linguistic skill.
Related Observations
Motivation
Children typically ignored the
recast in the recast alone
condition.
1) Rarely imitated during recast
alone (ignored or said “uh huh”).
Motivation
Operant conditioning
Selective Attention
Imitation:
Child attempted to
imitate the recast
with the target
linguistic skill
Related
Characteristic of Autism
Focuses child’s attention
onto the relevant cue
(i.e., the differing
grammar)
(i.e., overselectivity; e.g.,
Koegel, Dunlap, Richman, &
Dyer, 1981; Koegel,
Shirotova, & Koegel, 2009)
2) Children began imitating and
self-correcting.
1) If the child repeated their
utterance in recast alone, typically
omitted the new linguistic skill.
2) When the children first
attempted imitating, they again
omitted the new grammar.
Future Studies

Response generalization
–
Do children start generalizing the grammar rules to novel
words/responses?


Tease out treatment mechanisms
–

Need to systematically assess
Is imitation necessary?
Limited application to children with autism who:
1) Have an MLU of 2+ words
-Necessary? First word acquisition?
2) Use language spontaneously (have demonstrated social
communicative intent)

Do children who display frequent use of echolalia improve under
recast alone? (interesting control for imitation v. functional use)
–
What is more crucial?
In conclusion:

The current results suggest that stimulus
control variables, specifically overselectivity
(Lovaas, Koegel, & Schreibman, 1979), and
other variables such as contingent
reinforcement, may be important aspects of
a mechanism by which children with autism
effectively and efficiently acquire target
linguistic structures in natural settings.