Queen's University, United Kingdom.
ABA Clinic, United Kingdom.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2021 Sep;54(4):1468-1487. doi: 10.1002/jaba.869. Epub 2021 Jul 21.
Previous research has investigated generalized intraverbal-tacting by teaching children with autism to respond using autoclitic frames. The present study compared the effectiveness and efficiency of a Frame and a No Frame procedure across counterbalanced stimulus sets with 4 children with autism. In the Frame condition, children were taught to respond using autoclitic frames (e.g., "Shape square," "Number two," "Color green," "It's mummy," "S/he is drinking") corresponding to the verbal antecedent ("What shape?", "What number?", "What color?", "Who is it?", "What is s/he doing?"). In the No Frame condition, intraverbal-tacting was established without the autoclitic frame. Irrespective of stimuli employed, 2 children acquired intraverbal-tacting only in the Frame condition. The other 2 children acquired intraverbal-tacting in both conditions, with the Frame procedure requiring fewer teaching trials for 1 child and producing greater generalization for the other. Implications for clinical practice and the role of additive intraverbal stimulus control of autoclitic frames are discussed.
先前的研究通过教自闭症儿童使用粘连框架来回应,从而调查了一般的内言语行为。本研究在 4 名自闭症儿童的平衡刺激集上比较了框架和无框架程序的有效性和效率。在框架条件下,教孩子们使用粘连框架(例如,“形状正方形”、“数字二”、“颜色绿色”、“是妈妈”、“他/她在喝”)来对应言语前项(“什么形状?”、“什么数字?”、“什么颜色?”、“是谁?”、“他/她在做什么?”)。在无框架条件下,在没有粘连框架的情况下建立了内言语行为。无论使用何种刺激,只有 2 名儿童在框架条件下获得了内言语行为。其他 2 名儿童在两种条件下都获得了内言语行为,对于 1 名儿童来说,框架程序需要的教学次数较少,而对另一名儿童来说,产生了更大的泛化。讨论了对临床实践和粘连框架的附加内言语刺激控制的作用的影响。