JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
2014, 47, 645–650
NUMBER
3 (FALL)
THE USE OF LINKED ACTIVITY SCHEDULES TO TEACH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM TO PLAY HIDE-AND-SEEK MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD, THOMAS S. HIGBEE, JOY S. POLLARD, JESSICA S. AKERS, AND KRISTINA R. GERENCSER UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
Linked activity schedules were used to establish appropriate game play in children with autism during a game of hide-and-seek. All 6 participants demonstrated acquisition of appropriate play skills in the presence of the activity schedules and maintained responding during subsequent phases. When the schedules were removed, responding decreased to baseline levels, demonstrating that the schedules controlled responding. Implications for future research on the use of activity schedules to teach social behavior are discussed. Key words: activity schedules, autism, social interactions
Activity schedules, which contain visual or auditory cues that serve as discriminative stimuli to engage in a sequence of activities (McClannahan & Krantz, 1999), are often useful in promoting independent responding and on-task behavior in individuals with autism and other disabilities across a range of skills and contexts (see Koyama & Wang, 2011, for a review). Although multiple studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of activity schedules on maintaining an individual’s on-task behavior (e.g., MacDuff, Krantz, & McClannahan, 1993), researchers have only recently begun to investigate the potential for activity schedules to promote social interactions between peers. For example, Betz, Higbee, and Reagon (2008) used a joint activity schedule (i.e., one activity schedule used by two peers) to improve social interactions between children with autism during a series of board games. Each page of the joint activity schedule contained a picture of a participant, a picture of a game, and a written script to prompt a social interaction between the two children. Betz et al. taught the participant depicted in the picture to
find the corresponding game and repeat the script, “Let’s play [name of game]” to initiate the interaction with his or her peer. The joint activity schedule increased appropriate interactive peer play, and this behavior was maintained at high levels during maintenance and novel location phases for all three pairs of participants. Based on the success of Betz et al. (2008), we sought to investigate whether photographic activity schedules could be used to promote appropriate play between children with autism during an activity that was less structured (e.g., involved greater movement around the environment with fewer specific visual cues for playing the game) and required more social interaction than the games used in Betz et al. Specifically, we extended Betz et al. by using activity schedules to promote appropriate peer play during a game of hide-and-seek between pairs of preschool-aged children with autism. Because hide-and-seek requires children to play different roles (i.e., the hider and the seeker), we created individual linked activity schedules with pages sequenced so that one child played the role of the hider while the other played the role of the seeker.
We thank Kylee Lewis for her help throughout this project. Address correspondence to Thomas S. Higbee, Utah State University, 2865 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84332 (e-mail: [email protected]). doi: 10.1002/jaba.145
METHOD Participants and Setting We recruited six participants, Arlo (5 years old), Isis (5 years old), Brad (5 years old),
645
646
MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD et al.
Michelle (5 years old), Gus (3 years old), and Olivia (4 years old), all of whom had a diagnosis of autism and came from Caucasian, Englishspeaking households. Participants had received intensive behavior-analytic instruction in a university-based preschool program for 1 to 2 years and were fluent in following individual activity schedules. We considered participants to be fluent if they followed their independent activity schedules with 80% or better accuracy, without response prompts, in their preschool program for three consecutive prestudy sessions. Participants also were able to make choices between two activities and had picture–location correspondence skills (see McClannahan & Krantz, 1999, for a list of additional prerequisite skills for activity schedules). We grouped participants into three dyads (Arlo and Isis, Brad and Michelle, Gus and Olivia) and conducted one to two sessions per day with each dyad. Sessions occurred at least 30 min apart, and each session took place in the participants’ classroom (that included tables and chairs), hallways, and two offices.
ment in discrete game-play behaviors using a per-opportunity measure (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Table 1 displays a sequential list of target responses. For the baseline and noschedule probe phases, we scored only hide-andseek behaviors because the activity schedule was not available during these phases; if a participant hid or searched in any of the eight correct locations (see teaching and novel location phase descriptions), it was counted as a correct response (defined as any instance when the participant independently engaged in the specified response in the appropriate order at the appropriate time). An independent observer coded at least 30% of sessions for each condition for all participants. Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing agreements by disagreements plus agreements and converting the result to a percentage. Interobserver agreement was 96% for Arlo (range, 88% to 100%), 96% for Isis (range, 91% to 100%), 97% for Brad (range, 89% to 100%), 99% for Michelle (range, 97% to 100%), 97% for Gus (range, 86% to 100%), and 96% for Olivia (range, 91% to 100%).
Measurement During every session, we videotaped participants from at least 2 m away. After the session, the first author scored each participant’s engage-
Materials Each participant had his or her own linked activity schedule that consisted of a small threering binder that contained four laminated pages.
Table 1 Hider and Seeker Response Chain Condition
Hider
Beginning Middle
a
Open schedule Attend to hiding placea Put “oh, no!” script on wrist Arrive at hiding place Wait at hiding place Say, “oh, no!” Return to schedulea Place “oh, no!” script on schedulea
End
Turn pagea Say, “Thanks for playing!”
Note. Each participant played each role twice. Denotes schedule behavior only.
a
Seeker a
Open schedule Say, “go hide!” Look at peer Count from 1 to 20 Put “I found you!” script on wrista Grab searching cuea Search for peer Say, “I found you!” Return to schedulea Place “I found you!” script on schedulea Return searching cuesa Turn pagea Say, “Thanks for playing!”
LINKED ACTIVITY SCHEDULES
Figure 1.
647
The pages for the hider (left) and seeker (right).
Two pages contained discriminative stimuli for hider behavior, and two pages contained stimuli for seeker behavior (see Figure 1). Therefore, each participant had the opportunity to play the hider and seeker roles twice each, for a total of four independent games per session. The hider pages had a green background, and the seeker pages had a blue background. We alternated the pages in each binder so that one participant had a hider role and one participant had a seeker role each time the game was played. The first hider page contained a picture of a hiding place and the script “oh, no!” to promote a reciprocal social interaction between participants when the hider was found. The second hider page contained two pictures of possible hiding places with the word “choice” along with the script “oh, no!” Both seeker pages contained the script “go hide!” They also contained a script with the numbers 1 through 20, the script “I found you,” and a cardboard strip that contained two picture locations to cue searching behavior. The pictures and scripts were affixed to each page with Velcro.
During all sessions, participants wore small plastic watches with Velcro attached. The watches allowed them to place the “oh, no!” and “I found you!” scripts on their wrists while they engaged in hider or seeker roles, respectively. Procedure Before baseline, we taught picture–location correspondence to each participant by placing each location picture in front of the participant and saying, “go here.” The participant was physically prompted to engage in a correct response if he or she did not respond within 3 s or responded incorrectly. We established appropriate vocal responding to each script by teaching the responses “I found you!,” “oh, no!,” “go hide!,” and “thanks for playing” with a 3-s constant delay vocal prompt. We also taught each participant to touch or count out loud from 1 to 20, in order, using physical or vocal prompting, respectively. Baseline data collection began when participants responded correctly to each of these target skills with 80% accuracy or better, without
648
MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD et al.
response prompts, for three consecutive training sessions. The baseline, no-schedule probe, and schedule probe phases lasted 10 min each. All other sessions lasted 3 to 7 min (session duration decreased as participants learned to respond correctly and thus required less prompting). All sessions began with the instruction, “It is time to play hide and seek.” Instruction for the baseline and no-schedule probe conditions also included the instructions, “[Child’s name], you are the hider; [child’s name], you are the seeker. Go!” These additional instructions were necessary because the schedules were not available to determine hider and seeker roles during these conditions. We used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across dyads to assess the effects of the linked activity schedules. For teaching, resequencing, and the novel location phases, stability was defined as at least three sessions at 80% accuracy or better for both participants. For all conditions, one teacher was assigned to each participant for prompting purposes. After completion of each session, reinforcement was provided in the form of praise and a small edible item (e.g., candy, chips). Baseline. Each session began with the instruction to play the game (as described above). Linked activity schedules were not available, and experimenters ignored problem behavior (e.g., lying on the ground, throwing toys) and attempts to interact with adults. Schedule probe. Linked activity schedules were available, but no prompts were provided. Given that participants were fluent followers of independent activity schedules, the purpose of this phase was to measure whether they would follow the linked activity schedules without additional instruction. Teaching. Graduated guidance (MacDuff et al., 1993) was used to teach the appropriate sequence of behaviors and vocal prompting to occasion scripted responding. After the session started and the participants had opened their schedules, the seeker was vocally prompted to say “go hide!”
Then, the hider was physically prompted to go to his or her hiding location. Next, the seeker was vocally prompted to count from 1 to 20 (Arlo, Isis, Michelle, Gus, and Olivia) or physically prompted to touch each number (Brad). Next, the seeker was physically prompted to put the script “I found you!” on his or her watch and to take the cardboard strip with the searching cues. The seeker was physically prompted to arrive at each location on the searching cue, starting with the left picture first. If the hider was not in that location, the seeker was physically prompted to touch the next picture and arrive at that location. When the seeker located the hider, the seeker was vocally prompted to say “I found you!” and the hider was vocally prompted to say “oh, no!” (in that order). Then, both participants were physically prompted to return to their schedules, return their scripts and searching cues to the binder, and turn the page. At this point, the previous hider now had the seeker role, and the previous seeker now had the hider role. This sequence continued until each participant engaged in each role twice. The session ended when each participant turned to the final page and engaged in the vocal scripted response “Thanks for playing!” During teaching sessions, instructors faded physical prompting as participant responding improved. They also began fading the “I found you!” and “oh, no!” scripts, beginning with the last word, after a participant independently read the scripts for two consecutive sessions. A word was faded from the script after each session in which the participant independently read the script. The next phase did not begin until all scripts were faded (i.e., scripts no longer appeared in the binder). If at any time the participant responded incorrectly or out of order, prompts were provided until the correct response occurred. Resequencing. This phase was identical to the teaching phase, except that a random-number generator was used to designate hider and seeker locations. Which participant started as the hider or seeker was also alternated. If a participant
LINKED ACTIVITY SCHEDULES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Baseline
Teaching
Resequence N.S. Novel Location Assessment
Arlo
80
60
40 Isis
20 Arlo and Isis
0 1
6
11
16
21
26
21
26
21
26
31
Michelle
100
80
60 Brad
40
20 Brad and Michelle
0 1
For all participants, appropriate game play did not occur during baseline or schedule probe sessions (see Figure 2). Instead, participants engaged in off-task behaviors (e.g., crawling on the floor, taking toys from other students) that did not resemble appropriate hide-and-seek interactions. When graduated guidance and vocal prompting were introduced during the teaching phase, Arlo and Isis met the 80% stability criteria in eight sessions, Brad and Michelle in 10 sessions, and Gus and Olivia in seven sessions. During the resequencing phase, responding was maintained above 80% for all participants except Brad, whose responding dropped to 79% for the second and fourth sessions. During the noschedule probe phase, responding resembled that of baseline conditions for all participants (e.g., crawling on the floor, refusing to play with the other participant, etc.). Target responding was maintained above 80% for the novel location assessment for all participants. Our study extends the research on activity schedules by demonstrating that two independent activity schedules may be linked to promote appropriate play between children with autism during a social game. In addition, we demon-
Probe
100
Percentage of Correct Responses
engaged in an incorrect response, physical prompts were provided until the correct response occurred. The purpose of this phase was to demonstrate that the pictures had discriminative control over responding. No-schedule probe. This phase was identical to baseline. The purpose of this phase was to measure responding in the absence of the activity schedules and to act as a brief reversal within the multiple baseline design. Novel location assessment. This phase was identical to the resequencing phase, except that a random-number generator was used to designate pictures with up to four novel hider and seeker locations. No pictures from previous phases were used.
649
6
11
Olivia
16
31
100
80
60 Gus
40
20 Gus and Olivia
0 1
6
11
16
Sessions
31
Figure 2. The results for Arlo and Isis (top), Brad and Michelle (middle), and Gus and Olivia (bottom). N.S. ¼ the no-schedule probe phase.
strated that linked activity schedules can control social interactions during a less structured play activity. The fact that responding was not maintained when the schedule was removed could be problematic if the primary goal of the intervention is for participants to play the game in the absence of the schedule. On the other hand, for many individuals with autism and related disabilities, activity schedules could be considered a type of permanent support, such as a planner, that is not meant to be faded. Although no efforts
650
MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD et al.
were made to fade the activity schedules and transfer stimulus control to the natural environment in the current study, this is an obvious avenue for future research. There are some limitations of our study that are worth mentioning. First, we did not collect fidelity data on the implementation and fading of prompts, because this was a dynamic process. Because we used various instructors over the course of the study, it is possible that slight procedural variations occurred. Second, response measures during baseline might have been artificially low due to the sequenced nature of the behavior. Specifically, if the participant did not engage in the first correct response in the response chain, he or she did not have the opportunity to engage in subsequent responses in the chain, even if those skills were present in the repertoire. Third, we tested the intervention in only one setting (a classroom), so the extent to which behavior would generalize to other play settings is unknown. Anecdotally, a few participants occasionally engaged in novel social interactions (e.g., “Ready or not, here I come”), so future researchers may wish to examine how to promote novel responses when children are using activity schedules. Researchers may also wish to examine the utility of linked activity schedules to promote social interactions among more than two peers as well as whether schedules can be used to promote social interaction over more extended time periods than were examined in the current study. It also would
be useful to examine the effects of these procedures on more complex social games and activities that require back-and-forth interaction between participants. Investigation of the underlying mechanisms that account for the effectiveness of activity schedules also will be a useful line of research. Finally, future researchers may examine strategies to establish game play itself as a reinforcing activity.
REFERENCES Betz, A., Higbee, T. S., & Reagon, K. A. (2008). Using joint activity schedules to promote peer engagement in preschoolers with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 237–241. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-237 Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Koyama, T., & Wang, H. (2011). Use of activity schedule to promote independent performance of individuals with autism and other intellectual disabilities: A review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 2235–2242. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.003 MacDuff, G. S., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Teaching children with autism to use photographic activity schedules: Maintenance and generalization of complex response chains. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 89–97. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-89 McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (1999). Activity schedules for children with autism: Teaching independent behavior. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.
Received May 15, 2013 Final acceptance February 27, 2014 Action Editor, Jennifer Austin
2014, 47, 645–650
NUMBER
3 (FALL)
THE USE OF LINKED ACTIVITY SCHEDULES TO TEACH CHILDREN WITH AUTISM TO PLAY HIDE-AND-SEEK MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD, THOMAS S. HIGBEE, JOY S. POLLARD, JESSICA S. AKERS, AND KRISTINA R. GERENCSER UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
Linked activity schedules were used to establish appropriate game play in children with autism during a game of hide-and-seek. All 6 participants demonstrated acquisition of appropriate play skills in the presence of the activity schedules and maintained responding during subsequent phases. When the schedules were removed, responding decreased to baseline levels, demonstrating that the schedules controlled responding. Implications for future research on the use of activity schedules to teach social behavior are discussed. Key words: activity schedules, autism, social interactions
Activity schedules, which contain visual or auditory cues that serve as discriminative stimuli to engage in a sequence of activities (McClannahan & Krantz, 1999), are often useful in promoting independent responding and on-task behavior in individuals with autism and other disabilities across a range of skills and contexts (see Koyama & Wang, 2011, for a review). Although multiple studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of activity schedules on maintaining an individual’s on-task behavior (e.g., MacDuff, Krantz, & McClannahan, 1993), researchers have only recently begun to investigate the potential for activity schedules to promote social interactions between peers. For example, Betz, Higbee, and Reagon (2008) used a joint activity schedule (i.e., one activity schedule used by two peers) to improve social interactions between children with autism during a series of board games. Each page of the joint activity schedule contained a picture of a participant, a picture of a game, and a written script to prompt a social interaction between the two children. Betz et al. taught the participant depicted in the picture to
find the corresponding game and repeat the script, “Let’s play [name of game]” to initiate the interaction with his or her peer. The joint activity schedule increased appropriate interactive peer play, and this behavior was maintained at high levels during maintenance and novel location phases for all three pairs of participants. Based on the success of Betz et al. (2008), we sought to investigate whether photographic activity schedules could be used to promote appropriate play between children with autism during an activity that was less structured (e.g., involved greater movement around the environment with fewer specific visual cues for playing the game) and required more social interaction than the games used in Betz et al. Specifically, we extended Betz et al. by using activity schedules to promote appropriate peer play during a game of hide-and-seek between pairs of preschool-aged children with autism. Because hide-and-seek requires children to play different roles (i.e., the hider and the seeker), we created individual linked activity schedules with pages sequenced so that one child played the role of the hider while the other played the role of the seeker.
We thank Kylee Lewis for her help throughout this project. Address correspondence to Thomas S. Higbee, Utah State University, 2865 Old Main Hill, Logan, Utah 84332 (e-mail: [email protected]). doi: 10.1002/jaba.145
METHOD Participants and Setting We recruited six participants, Arlo (5 years old), Isis (5 years old), Brad (5 years old),
645
646
MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD et al.
Michelle (5 years old), Gus (3 years old), and Olivia (4 years old), all of whom had a diagnosis of autism and came from Caucasian, Englishspeaking households. Participants had received intensive behavior-analytic instruction in a university-based preschool program for 1 to 2 years and were fluent in following individual activity schedules. We considered participants to be fluent if they followed their independent activity schedules with 80% or better accuracy, without response prompts, in their preschool program for three consecutive prestudy sessions. Participants also were able to make choices between two activities and had picture–location correspondence skills (see McClannahan & Krantz, 1999, for a list of additional prerequisite skills for activity schedules). We grouped participants into three dyads (Arlo and Isis, Brad and Michelle, Gus and Olivia) and conducted one to two sessions per day with each dyad. Sessions occurred at least 30 min apart, and each session took place in the participants’ classroom (that included tables and chairs), hallways, and two offices.
ment in discrete game-play behaviors using a per-opportunity measure (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Table 1 displays a sequential list of target responses. For the baseline and noschedule probe phases, we scored only hide-andseek behaviors because the activity schedule was not available during these phases; if a participant hid or searched in any of the eight correct locations (see teaching and novel location phase descriptions), it was counted as a correct response (defined as any instance when the participant independently engaged in the specified response in the appropriate order at the appropriate time). An independent observer coded at least 30% of sessions for each condition for all participants. Interobserver agreement was calculated by dividing agreements by disagreements plus agreements and converting the result to a percentage. Interobserver agreement was 96% for Arlo (range, 88% to 100%), 96% for Isis (range, 91% to 100%), 97% for Brad (range, 89% to 100%), 99% for Michelle (range, 97% to 100%), 97% for Gus (range, 86% to 100%), and 96% for Olivia (range, 91% to 100%).
Measurement During every session, we videotaped participants from at least 2 m away. After the session, the first author scored each participant’s engage-
Materials Each participant had his or her own linked activity schedule that consisted of a small threering binder that contained four laminated pages.
Table 1 Hider and Seeker Response Chain Condition
Hider
Beginning Middle
a
Open schedule Attend to hiding placea Put “oh, no!” script on wrist Arrive at hiding place Wait at hiding place Say, “oh, no!” Return to schedulea Place “oh, no!” script on schedulea
End
Turn pagea Say, “Thanks for playing!”
Note. Each participant played each role twice. Denotes schedule behavior only.
a
Seeker a
Open schedule Say, “go hide!” Look at peer Count from 1 to 20 Put “I found you!” script on wrista Grab searching cuea Search for peer Say, “I found you!” Return to schedulea Place “I found you!” script on schedulea Return searching cuesa Turn pagea Say, “Thanks for playing!”
LINKED ACTIVITY SCHEDULES
Figure 1.
647
The pages for the hider (left) and seeker (right).
Two pages contained discriminative stimuli for hider behavior, and two pages contained stimuli for seeker behavior (see Figure 1). Therefore, each participant had the opportunity to play the hider and seeker roles twice each, for a total of four independent games per session. The hider pages had a green background, and the seeker pages had a blue background. We alternated the pages in each binder so that one participant had a hider role and one participant had a seeker role each time the game was played. The first hider page contained a picture of a hiding place and the script “oh, no!” to promote a reciprocal social interaction between participants when the hider was found. The second hider page contained two pictures of possible hiding places with the word “choice” along with the script “oh, no!” Both seeker pages contained the script “go hide!” They also contained a script with the numbers 1 through 20, the script “I found you,” and a cardboard strip that contained two picture locations to cue searching behavior. The pictures and scripts were affixed to each page with Velcro.
During all sessions, participants wore small plastic watches with Velcro attached. The watches allowed them to place the “oh, no!” and “I found you!” scripts on their wrists while they engaged in hider or seeker roles, respectively. Procedure Before baseline, we taught picture–location correspondence to each participant by placing each location picture in front of the participant and saying, “go here.” The participant was physically prompted to engage in a correct response if he or she did not respond within 3 s or responded incorrectly. We established appropriate vocal responding to each script by teaching the responses “I found you!,” “oh, no!,” “go hide!,” and “thanks for playing” with a 3-s constant delay vocal prompt. We also taught each participant to touch or count out loud from 1 to 20, in order, using physical or vocal prompting, respectively. Baseline data collection began when participants responded correctly to each of these target skills with 80% accuracy or better, without
648
MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD et al.
response prompts, for three consecutive training sessions. The baseline, no-schedule probe, and schedule probe phases lasted 10 min each. All other sessions lasted 3 to 7 min (session duration decreased as participants learned to respond correctly and thus required less prompting). All sessions began with the instruction, “It is time to play hide and seek.” Instruction for the baseline and no-schedule probe conditions also included the instructions, “[Child’s name], you are the hider; [child’s name], you are the seeker. Go!” These additional instructions were necessary because the schedules were not available to determine hider and seeker roles during these conditions. We used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across dyads to assess the effects of the linked activity schedules. For teaching, resequencing, and the novel location phases, stability was defined as at least three sessions at 80% accuracy or better for both participants. For all conditions, one teacher was assigned to each participant for prompting purposes. After completion of each session, reinforcement was provided in the form of praise and a small edible item (e.g., candy, chips). Baseline. Each session began with the instruction to play the game (as described above). Linked activity schedules were not available, and experimenters ignored problem behavior (e.g., lying on the ground, throwing toys) and attempts to interact with adults. Schedule probe. Linked activity schedules were available, but no prompts were provided. Given that participants were fluent followers of independent activity schedules, the purpose of this phase was to measure whether they would follow the linked activity schedules without additional instruction. Teaching. Graduated guidance (MacDuff et al., 1993) was used to teach the appropriate sequence of behaviors and vocal prompting to occasion scripted responding. After the session started and the participants had opened their schedules, the seeker was vocally prompted to say “go hide!”
Then, the hider was physically prompted to go to his or her hiding location. Next, the seeker was vocally prompted to count from 1 to 20 (Arlo, Isis, Michelle, Gus, and Olivia) or physically prompted to touch each number (Brad). Next, the seeker was physically prompted to put the script “I found you!” on his or her watch and to take the cardboard strip with the searching cues. The seeker was physically prompted to arrive at each location on the searching cue, starting with the left picture first. If the hider was not in that location, the seeker was physically prompted to touch the next picture and arrive at that location. When the seeker located the hider, the seeker was vocally prompted to say “I found you!” and the hider was vocally prompted to say “oh, no!” (in that order). Then, both participants were physically prompted to return to their schedules, return their scripts and searching cues to the binder, and turn the page. At this point, the previous hider now had the seeker role, and the previous seeker now had the hider role. This sequence continued until each participant engaged in each role twice. The session ended when each participant turned to the final page and engaged in the vocal scripted response “Thanks for playing!” During teaching sessions, instructors faded physical prompting as participant responding improved. They also began fading the “I found you!” and “oh, no!” scripts, beginning with the last word, after a participant independently read the scripts for two consecutive sessions. A word was faded from the script after each session in which the participant independently read the script. The next phase did not begin until all scripts were faded (i.e., scripts no longer appeared in the binder). If at any time the participant responded incorrectly or out of order, prompts were provided until the correct response occurred. Resequencing. This phase was identical to the teaching phase, except that a random-number generator was used to designate hider and seeker locations. Which participant started as the hider or seeker was also alternated. If a participant
LINKED ACTIVITY SCHEDULES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Baseline
Teaching
Resequence N.S. Novel Location Assessment
Arlo
80
60
40 Isis
20 Arlo and Isis
0 1
6
11
16
21
26
21
26
21
26
31
Michelle
100
80
60 Brad
40
20 Brad and Michelle
0 1
For all participants, appropriate game play did not occur during baseline or schedule probe sessions (see Figure 2). Instead, participants engaged in off-task behaviors (e.g., crawling on the floor, taking toys from other students) that did not resemble appropriate hide-and-seek interactions. When graduated guidance and vocal prompting were introduced during the teaching phase, Arlo and Isis met the 80% stability criteria in eight sessions, Brad and Michelle in 10 sessions, and Gus and Olivia in seven sessions. During the resequencing phase, responding was maintained above 80% for all participants except Brad, whose responding dropped to 79% for the second and fourth sessions. During the noschedule probe phase, responding resembled that of baseline conditions for all participants (e.g., crawling on the floor, refusing to play with the other participant, etc.). Target responding was maintained above 80% for the novel location assessment for all participants. Our study extends the research on activity schedules by demonstrating that two independent activity schedules may be linked to promote appropriate play between children with autism during a social game. In addition, we demon-
Probe
100
Percentage of Correct Responses
engaged in an incorrect response, physical prompts were provided until the correct response occurred. The purpose of this phase was to demonstrate that the pictures had discriminative control over responding. No-schedule probe. This phase was identical to baseline. The purpose of this phase was to measure responding in the absence of the activity schedules and to act as a brief reversal within the multiple baseline design. Novel location assessment. This phase was identical to the resequencing phase, except that a random-number generator was used to designate pictures with up to four novel hider and seeker locations. No pictures from previous phases were used.
649
6
11
Olivia
16
31
100
80
60 Gus
40
20 Gus and Olivia
0 1
6
11
16
Sessions
31
Figure 2. The results for Arlo and Isis (top), Brad and Michelle (middle), and Gus and Olivia (bottom). N.S. ¼ the no-schedule probe phase.
strated that linked activity schedules can control social interactions during a less structured play activity. The fact that responding was not maintained when the schedule was removed could be problematic if the primary goal of the intervention is for participants to play the game in the absence of the schedule. On the other hand, for many individuals with autism and related disabilities, activity schedules could be considered a type of permanent support, such as a planner, that is not meant to be faded. Although no efforts
650
MATTHEW T. BRODHEAD et al.
were made to fade the activity schedules and transfer stimulus control to the natural environment in the current study, this is an obvious avenue for future research. There are some limitations of our study that are worth mentioning. First, we did not collect fidelity data on the implementation and fading of prompts, because this was a dynamic process. Because we used various instructors over the course of the study, it is possible that slight procedural variations occurred. Second, response measures during baseline might have been artificially low due to the sequenced nature of the behavior. Specifically, if the participant did not engage in the first correct response in the response chain, he or she did not have the opportunity to engage in subsequent responses in the chain, even if those skills were present in the repertoire. Third, we tested the intervention in only one setting (a classroom), so the extent to which behavior would generalize to other play settings is unknown. Anecdotally, a few participants occasionally engaged in novel social interactions (e.g., “Ready or not, here I come”), so future researchers may wish to examine how to promote novel responses when children are using activity schedules. Researchers may also wish to examine the utility of linked activity schedules to promote social interactions among more than two peers as well as whether schedules can be used to promote social interaction over more extended time periods than were examined in the current study. It also would
be useful to examine the effects of these procedures on more complex social games and activities that require back-and-forth interaction between participants. Investigation of the underlying mechanisms that account for the effectiveness of activity schedules also will be a useful line of research. Finally, future researchers may examine strategies to establish game play itself as a reinforcing activity.
REFERENCES Betz, A., Higbee, T. S., & Reagon, K. A. (2008). Using joint activity schedules to promote peer engagement in preschoolers with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 237–241. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-237 Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Koyama, T., & Wang, H. (2011). Use of activity schedule to promote independent performance of individuals with autism and other intellectual disabilities: A review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 2235–2242. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.003 MacDuff, G. S., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Teaching children with autism to use photographic activity schedules: Maintenance and generalization of complex response chains. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 89–97. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-89 McClannahan, L. E., & Krantz, P. J. (1999). Activity schedules for children with autism: Teaching independent behavior. Bethesda, MD: Woodbine House.
Received May 15, 2013 Final acceptance February 27, 2014 Action Editor, Jennifer Austin
