PSYC 390 Thesis Final 05.04.2015

Running head: SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES

Sign Training Across Methods and Across Intellectual Capacities: Sign-Alone and Simultaneous

Communication, Typically Developing and Diagnosed with Autism

Mykayla Beighley

University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire

Author Note

Mykayla Beighley, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire.

The current study was conducted as a fulfillment of a project for University of Wisconsin

– Eau Claire Psychology 390: Advanced Behavior Analysis, supervised by Dr. Kevin Klatt.

Correspondence concerning this research should be addressed to Mykayla Beighley,

Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54702. Email:

[email protected]

1

SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES

Abstract

There has been a significant amount of research done on the acquisition of sign language

across all ages of people, both typically developing and with intellectual disabilities, namely

autism. Currently, there is little research that compares training methods across intellectual

capacities, or examines sign language acquisition potential across intellectual capacities. The

present study compared two methods: sign-alone training and simultaneous communication,

using an alternating treatments design with four infant participants: two typically developing and

two diagnosed with autism. The aim of the study was to fill the present gap in the research by

determining which method is most effective for both intellectual classifications, and which

group, if either, has better sign language acquisition potential. Results showed minor differences

in the methods, such that signs in the simultaneous communication condition were acquired more

quickly than signs in the sign-alone condition for all participants, and signs trained in the

simultaneous communication condition were better maintained after a four-week period of no

training. The difference was consistently more prominent for participants with autism than

typically developing participants. Additionally, typically developing participants acquired signs

in both conditions more quickly than participants with an autism diagnosis.

Keywords: autism, infants, sign-alone, sign language acquisition, simultaneous

communication, typically developing

2


Sign Training Across Methods and Across Intellectual Capacities: Sign-Alone and Simultaneous

Communication, Typically Developing and Diagnosed with Autism

Throughout the past 30 years, a great deal of research has been done on the acquisition of

sign language in people of all ages and all intellectual capacities. Two specific common focuses

have been the acquisition of sign language by infants, and by children or adolescents with

autism. Remington and Clarke (1983) state that a noticeable failure to acquire language is one of

the most common signs of autism in early childhood, and several researchers, such as Bonvillian,

Orlansky, and Novack (1983), and Goodwyn and Acredolo (1993), have shown that early

childhood and infancy are optimal times for acquiring sign language.

A large component of many sign language acquisition studies is analyzing and

controlling the function of the sign. As shown by Normand, Machado, and Hustyi (2011), the

most common function of signing for infants is manding, or requesting something. Normand et

al. (2011) used a reversal design to teach three typically developing infants manual signs. Results

of the first part of the experiment (sign training) showed that all three participants learned their

specific sign under the training condition, and that signing frequency declined during the

baseline conditions. The researchers were able to determine the function of the signs by

including functional analysis as a component of the study. Three test and control conditions were

implemented in the study to analyze the function of the sign: mand, tact, or mimetic. Signing was

most commonly observed in the mand condition, occasionally in the mimetic, and rarely in the

tact.

An additional theme found in the literature on sign language acquisition is the training

method used. Common methods include physical prompting (Thompson, McKerchar, & Dancho,

2004), sign-alone, total speech/total communication/simultaneous communication (Remington &

3


Clarke, 1983; Clarke, Remington, & Light, 1988) and prompt fading (Carr, Binkoff, Kologinsky,

& Eddy, 1978). Previous research has found little difference between methods when comparing

them (Remington & Clarke, 1983; Thompson et al. 2004) with the exception of Clarke et al.

(1988) who found participants acquired signs faster in the total communication (simultaneous

communication) condition, over the sign-alone training condition.

Clarke et al. (1988) compared sign-alone and total communication (simultaneous

communication) training, and results showed that participants acquired signs faster in the total

communication condition than the sign-alone condition. The researchers used an alternating

treatments design to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of the two methods. The study

included ten signs for each child, determined during a pretest to be previously unknown. The

training procedure involved sessions that consisted of 50 signs each, five trials for each of the ten

signs in a randomized order. The researcher presented a visual stimulus, and the child responded

by performing a sign. The procedure alternated between conditions; the only difference between

the conditions was that the word that corresponded with the stimulus was spoken in conjunction

with physical modeling in the total communication condition, and not during the sign-alone.

After each sign met criterion (the child responded correctly ten consecutive times in two

sessions) each child received four expressive signing probes, which were delivered in the same

procedure as the training method (all ten signs tested five times each in a random order). Results

showed that correct responding increased for all children in both conditions from 0% to 98%;

however, all children showed to learn faster in the total communication condition. The

researchers ran a second experiment within the study with one participant due to their specific

needs and intellectual differences. Despite having a different participant and slightly varied

4


procedure, results from the first experiment were replicated, solidifying that the total

communication method was the most efficient.

Remington and Clarke (1983) also sought to assess the differences in effectiveness of

sign-alone training and simultaneous communication using an alternating treatments design. Two

adolescents diagnosed with autism participated in the study, one with verbal imitating ability but

poor articulation, and one with no imitating ability. The training phase of the study involved

teaching the two adolescents to use expressive sign labels for items that did not show to be in

their receptive vocabulary during pretest. Each day both students had two15-minute training

sessions, separated by 45 minutes. For the sign-alone training method, the teacher modeled the

sign on the stimulus card, and reinforced appropriate signing by the child within five seconds of

the prompt. If the child failed to mimic the sign, the teacher moved the child’s hand to the

appropriate position. As the child’s signing became more reliable, the modeling and prompts

were slowly faded out. During the simultaneous communication phase, the teacher spoke the

word as they signed it; the procedure was otherwise identical. To ensure discrimination between

stimuli, new signs after the first were introduced within trials of those before it, at a ratio of two

to one. Results of the study differed from Clarke et al. (1988), such that both methods, sign-alone

training and simultaneous communication, were highly effective, but did not differ much in

terms of time it took to learn. Signs were acquired at roughly the same rate in both conditions,

differing by one or two sessions or trials for each child.

The present study, a systematic replication of Remington and Clarke (1983), focuses on

two groups of infants: typically developing and those who have been diagnosed with autism, and

two training methods: sign-alone and simultaneous communication. The aim of the study is to

extend previous research, which has determined that all groups of infants can acquire sign

5


language skills (Bonvillian et al., 1983; Remington & Clarke, 1983; Goodwyn & Acredolo,

1993; Thompson et al., 2004; Normand et al., 2011), by comparing methods across intellectual

labels in terms of acquisition speed, accuracy in testing, and maintenance. The study seeks to

discover acquisition potentials and effectiveness of methods in order to provide parents and

educators with the information necessary to effectively teach signs that children can use to mand

or request.

Method

Participants

Participants included two typically developing infants, A.B. age 3.5, and J.S. age 4, and

two infants with autism, S.M. age 4.5, and K.D. age 4. The participants were chosen from a local

daycare, and because their ages were within the range of the critical period for language

(Johnson and Newport, 1989). S.M. and K.D. were both capable of verbal imitation, but neither

could independently mand, express, or label. A.B. and J.S. were capable of appropriate language

skills for their age (independently manding, labeling, expressing, etc.) None of the four children

had ever undergone any form of sign training, or had any auditory, visual, or motor disabilities.

Design

A pretest assessed the children’s comprehension of the labels of the twenty items that

would be used for training, providing a basis for validity of the items under the assumption that

correct responses during training were not due to the child being previously familiar with the

term. Next, an alternating treatments design was implemented to compare the effects of

simultaneous communication training and sign-alone training to teach the four children

expressive sign labels for ten of the words indicated as unknown in pretest. Finally, a posttest

was conducted to assess verbal comprehension and maintenance following training.

6


Procedure

Experimental setting. All baseline, treatment, and posttest procedures were conducted

one-on-one (researcher-child) in a private room within the children’s daycare building. A second

researcher along with a daycare employee observed through a one-way mirror during arbitrarily

chosen days. The days were chosen randomly so the researcher conducting the session would not

have any indication that they were being observed.

Pretest for verbal comprehension. The intention of the pretest condition was to ensure

those words used for training were not previously in the child’s receptive vocabulary. This

determination disputed the argument that correct responses were due to previous knowledge of

the spoken word; therefore it was particularly useful for the simultaneous communication

condition.

The pretest condition was conducted based on methods used by Remington and Clarke

(1983). The first session in the pretest condition consisted only of shaping each of the

participants to attend to the researcher when the researcher said their name. To shape this

response, the researcher waited until the participant was looking away, and then called his or her

name. Reinforcement in the form of a preferred food (e.g. candy, cereal) or social praise was

delivered contingent upon the child immediately making eye contact with the researcher after

being called. The duration of the eye contact required to obtain the reinforcer was increased

gradually until the child would reliably attend to the researcher for five seconds. This technique

for getting the child’s attention was used in every trial of the experiment following the first

session to indicate the beginning of a session.

To conduct the pretest, the researcher used a matching task. To ensure the participants

had the matching skill, the researcher performed a warm-up session. In the warm-up session, the

7


researcher arranged five cards with line drawings (simple drawings with thin black lines only, no

color or shading) in front of the child, then vocally presented a word already known to the child

(e.g. ball, cookie) by saying, “Show me cookie.” The child would then point to one of the five

line drawings. Each drawing was approximately the same size, and appeared on a plain white

3x5 inch notecard. This procedure was repeated for five known words, as five was the number of

words used in each pretest block following warm-up. The warm-up session indicated that each of

the four participants was capable of the matching skill, deeming this method satisfactory for the

remainder of the pretest.

The remaining pretest sessions consisted of five-item blocks, of all words the child was

presumed to not have in their receptive vocabulary, as indicated by the lead daycare provider.

The words included household items such as vacuum and television, exotic animals, and

household equipment such as rake and lawn mower, among other things. A goal of ten total

unknown items was set for the training procedure, so researchers prepared twenty items for

pretest under the assumption that the participants would indicate some of them as known. For

each block, or trial, five line drawings were placed in front of the child in a line. The researcher

then verbally prompted the child by saying, “Show me (name of object),” and the child was to

point to the corresponding line drawing. Preferred food or social praise reinforcement was

delivered noncontingent upon correct responding after every third trial in order to maintain the

child’s motivation without teaching a discrimination for correct responses.

The block procedure was repeated so each of the 20 stimuli were tested five times. A

total of ten stimuli were presented per session, resulting in ten sessions for each participant.

Sessions were conducted twice per day starting at 9:00 am and 2:00 pm. Sessions lasted roughly

15 minutes for each child. The same researcher ran every session for all four children, and was

8


allowed a break between the completion of one session and commencement of the next. Sessions

were run in the same order each day: A.B. at 9:00 and 2:00, J.S. at 9:30 and 2:30, S.M. at 10:00

and 3:00, and K.D. at 10:30 and 3:30. The five cards used in each block were switched so the

same cards weren’t always used together. Verbal comprehension of a word was assumed if the

child pointed to the correct line drawing following the verbal stimuli more than twice for that

stimulus throughout pretesting. If verbal comprehension was assumed, that card was not used for

that child’s training condition. The probability of the child guessing correctly for one of the five

trials of that card was .20, and the probability of the child guessing correctly twice was .08.

A total of 14 unknown words were identified for A.B., and 15 for J.S., while a total of 17

unknown words were identified for S.M. and 19 for K.D. The ten used for each child were

randomly selected from those words identified as unknown for them; therefore no child’s ten

words were exactly the same as another’s.

Training and probe blocks. The training condition followed an alternating treatments

design including two training methods: sign-alone training and simultaneous communication

training. The procedures for both training methods were based on Remington and Clarke (1983).

Sessions were conducted twice per day, at the same times as pretest sessions, starting 9:00 am

and 2:00 pm. The order of sessions was kept consistent from pretest. Sessions alternated between

training procedures each day, such that if on Monday the 9:00 am session was simultaneous

communication, the 2:00 pm was sign-alone, then on Tuesday the 9:00 am was sign-alone and

the 2:00 pm was simultaneous communication. The order was counter-balanced across

participants in order to control for sequence effects. Each session contained training blocks and

probe blocks, with the constraint that a probe block was not started unless it could be completed

within the 30 minutes allowed for each session.

9


Training blocks. The following procedure was used identically in both the sign-alone and

simultaneous communication conditions, with the exception that in the simultaneous

communication condition, the researcher vocalized the word on the card as they physically

modeled the sign.

To train the first sign, the researcher waited until the child was sitting quietly, then

prompted them with their name as done during pretest. If the child attended for five seconds,

they were provided with a preferred food or social praise reinforcer. The trial began with the

researcher placing the stimulus card on the table in front of the child, and prompted the child

with their name again. The stimuli cards were identical to those used in pretest, such that line

drawings of an approximate matching size appeared on plain white 3x5 inch note cards. Next,

the researcher modeled the sign on the card (and spoke it in the simultaneous communication

condition), and delivered a reinforcer if the child imitated the sign within five seconds of the

model. If the child failed to imitate the modeled sign, or imitated incorrectly, the researcher

physically prompted the sign by manipulating the child’s hand(s) into the correct position, and

guiding them through the movement if movement was required. Independent signing was

reinforced with a preferred food, and prompted signing was reinforced with social praise,

facilitating a discrimination between the two types of responding. If a sign was performed

without prompting, it was scored as “independent,” if the sign was prompted it was scored as

“prompted,” and if the child did not comply with the prompt (e.g. attempted to escape, verbally

protested, hit, etc.) the trial was scored as “error.” Following reinforcement, the stimulus card

was removed, a five second intertrial interval was implemented (Remington and Clarke, 1983),

then the same card was presented again and the procedure was repeated.

10


The procedure for the remaining signs in each condition differed slightly, such that

presentation of the stimulus was interwoven with previously trained stimuli at a ratio of two to

one. For example, if the first word trained was “cow” and the second was “rake,” during the

training of “rake,” “bear” would be presented in one third of the trials, and “rake” in two thirds.

This procedure, described by Carr et al. (1978), facilitated the child learning the new sign and

learning a discrimination between new and previously learned signs.

As a child’s signing became more reliable, the physical prompt was gradually faded,

followed by fading of the researcher’s modeling. For signs in which physical prompting was not

necessary, modeling was faded more quickly. If at any point in the training the reliability of the

sign decreased, prompting was reinstated. A sign was considered to have reached criterion when

the child performed an independent correct response for ten consecutive trials. When a sign

reached criterion, a probe block was commenced.

Probe blocks. All probe blocks included 50 trials, and one block was run for each

condition if the sign being trained in that condition reached criterion. Probe blocks were only

conducted if the sign being trained in the present condition reached criterion, therefore the

occurrence of a probe block in the morning session did not guarantee the occurrence of a probe

block in the afternoon.

As in the training block, probe blocks were identical in both conditions, with the

exception of the verbal performance of the stimulus by the researcher in the simultaneous

communication condition. Probe trials were conducted similar to training trials, but differed in

three ways. First, the modeling and prompting present in training was absent in probe. Therefore

the sign was either scored as “independent” or “error.” Second, reinforcement was delivered

noncontingent upon correct responding on every third trial. Third, the signs were presented

11


dependent upon what sign had just been trained, and how many signs had been trained to that

point. After a sign reached criterion, five trials of each of the remaining untrained signs were

conducted, then the remaining trials of the total 50 included all five signs for that condition in a

randomized order.

Validity. Three adults who worked at the daycare and were naïve to the experiment

evaluated signs used in the training conditions for iconicity and ease to determine that the five

signs used in the simultaneous communication condition didn’t differ from the five signs used in

the sign-alone condition. Iconicity was defined as the similarity between the physical sign and

the word it referenced, and tested using a four-point scale (e.g. not at all similar, mildly similar,

mostly similar, completely similar) (Konstantareas, Oxman, and Webster, 1978). The test of

iconicity provided an idea of how much of a clue the physical sign gave to the word it

referenced, thus providing social validity. Ease of signing was defined based on physical ease

(one or two hands required to form sign), simple or complex movements (e.g. moving or

solitary), and visibility or nonvisibility of the sign to the child (Barrera, Lobato-Barrera, and

Sulzer-Azaroff, 1980). These tests were conducted to assess whether the signs used across

children were roughly equivalent and there were no effects of difficulty acting as a confound to

the results of the study.

Posttest for verbal comprehension. Following the completion of training, a posttest to

assess verbal comprehension was completed in a manner identical to the pretest. The items

shown to be unknown for each child that were previously eliminated were included in this

posttest to provide a comparison for those signs that were trained. Each sign was tested five

times. Number of sessions conducted for this posttest differed, dependent on how many signs

12


were assumed unknown during pretest. As done in pretesting, a warm-up was conducted with

known words prior to the beginning of posttesting.

Posttest for maintenance. To determine whether the expressive labels trained were

maintained by each of the participants without daily training sessions, a maintenance assessment

was conducted approximately four weeks after completion of posttesting for verbal

comprehension. One test that combined the signs in each condition was conducted in the same

manner as the probe blocks during training, such that cards were presented with no modeling.

Stimuli that were trained in the simultaneous communication condition were still paired with the

verbalization of the stimulus along with the presentation of the picture. For the maintenance

posttest, each of the ten stimuli was presented once in each session, and there was a total of five

sessions. The stimuli that were trained in each condition were presented in a random order in

each session, therefore avoiding order effects.

Reliability. One research confederate and one daycare employee collected reliability data

on five random days (days 2, 5, 7, 11, and 15) for all of that day’s sessions (including probe

trials) during training. The researcher conducting the sessions also collected data, and was

unaware of the days chosen for reliability checks until after completion of all that day’s sessions.

Reliability scores were calculated as described by Remington and Clarke (1983). The data

collection sheets from the two observers and the researcher were compared, and a reliability

score was calculated as the ratio of the number of trials on which both observers and the

researcher agreed, divided the number of trials on which they agreed plus the number of trials on

which they disagreed. This reliability assessment was conducted for one session per child for

pretest and posttest conditions as well.

Results

13


Reliability

Interobserver reliability scores were as follows for sign-alone training: A.B. 94%, J.S.

97%, S.M. 99%, and K.D. 93%; and for simultaneous communication training: A.B. 97%, J.S.

96%, S.M. 94%, and K.D. 98%. Reliability scores for pretest and posttest were as follows,

respectively: A.B. 97%, 99%; J.S. 98%, 95%; S.M. 94%, 99%; and K.D. 98%, 98%.

Trials

Overall, the sign-alone condition required a higher number of trials than the simultaneous

communication condition. However, the difference was more pronounced for S.M. and K.D., the

two participants diagnosed with autism. A.B. required 6% more trials in the sign-alone condition

than simultaneous communication, J.S. required 15% more trials in sign-alone than simultaneous

communication, S.M. required 31% more trials in sign-alone than simultaneous communication,

and K.D. required 41% more trials in sign-alone than simultaneous communication. Tables 1-4

show the number of trials required for each participant in each condition to reach criterion. The

first column indicates the total number of trials completed to reach criterion, the second shows

how many trials were used to teach the target sign, and the third shows how many trials were

used to teach the discrimination between the target sign and previously mastered signs. Columns

two and three highlight the two to one ratio used to teach the discrimination.

Sessions

The total number of sessions run under each condition did not differ within the two

groups of children (with or without autism diagnosis), but did differ between the groups, such

that there was little difference in number of sessions between conditions for A.B. and J.S., the

typically developing children, whereas S.M. and K.D., both diagnosed with autism, required

more sessions in the sign-alone condition than the simultaneous communication. A.B. required

14


17 sign alone and 16 simultaneous communication sessions, J.S. required 15 and 13. The total

numbers of trials for S.M. were 21 and 16, and 24 and 17 for K.D. This suggests that

simultaneous communication training works more quickly for children with autism than sign-

alone training, and there is no difference in speed of acquisition between the methods when used

for typically developing children.

Probe Block Responses

Figures 1-4 show the response results for each child in each condition in terms of percent

of responses indicated as “independent.” The data in the figures are representative of the probe

blocks conducted after each sign reached criterion. The two typically developing participants,

A.B. and J.S. showed little difference in averages between the two conditions: A.B. averaged

94% independent responses in the sign alone condition, and 95% in the simultaneous

communication, and J.S. averaged 93% and 95% independent responses, respectively. The two

participants with autism showed slightly more difference between the conditions: S.M. averaged

93% independent in the sign-alone condition, and 96% in the simultaneous communication

condition, and K.D. averaged 92% and 97% independent responses, respectively. Therefore, the

results suggest that the simultaneous communication method is slightly more effective in

producing independent responses than sign-alone training.

Posttests

Figures 5-8 display the results of the posttest for verbal comprehension. The results of the

verbal comprehension posttest showed that all four participants had stronger verbal

comprehension of the items used in the simultaneous communication condition than the sign-

alone condition. Again, the difference was greater for the participants with autism than for

typically developing participants. These results suggest that the simultaneous communication

15


condition facilitated greater verbal comprehension than sign-alone training, but that both training

methods increased verbal comprehension of the stimuli in comparison to those stimuli that were

not trained.

Figures 9-12 show the results of the posttest for maintenance. The results show that the

skills acquired during training were mostly not maintained after four weeks of no training or

testing; however, the stimuli from the simultaneous communication condition showed slightly

more maintenance than the stimuli in the sign-alone condition for all participants.

Discussion

In light of the results of this study, it can be concluded that both sign-alone and

simultaneous communication are effective methods of sign training for both typically developing

children and children with autism. There were consistent minor discrepancies between the two

methods, such that for each child, the signs trained under simultaneous communication training

were acquired slightly more quickly, showed greater verbal comprehension, and were better

maintained over time. The differences, however, were not notable enough to dismiss sign-alone

training as an ineffective method. Additionally, the discrepancies were more notable in the

results of the children with an autism diagnoses when compared with those of their typically

developing peers.

The difference in the two methods’ effectiveness can likely be attributed to the major

difference in presentation of the stimulus under the two conditions, such that the word was

spoken in simultaneous communication when a stimulus is presented, and there was no pairing

with the presentation of the stimulus in sign-alone. The slightly better maintenance of the stimuli

trained under simultaneous communication indicates that those words were likely better

comprehended by the children, which is supported by the data collected from the posttest for

16


verbal comprehension. The stronger comprehension is easily attributed to the vocalization of the

word along with the visual presentation, as it gave the child another stimulus to recall and

therefore fall back on in the case that they forgot the visual stimulus. This second presentation

was not available in sign-alone, making the child more independently responsible for

memorization of the stimulus and response.

The results of this study, a systematic replication of Remington and Clarke (1983), did

not replicate the results exactly, but closely followed them. This study showed a minor, but

consistent difference in speed of acquisition and maintenance between the two types of sign

training in favor of simultaneous communication. Remington and Clarke (1983), however, found

virtually no difference between the two, but when there was a discrepancy it was again, in favor

of simultaneous communication. Though the studies both followed the same procedures, the

difference in results could be accounted for in the different participant classifications used in

each study. Remington and Clarke (1983) used two adolescents with autism diagnoses ages 10

and 15, whereas this study used four participants, two labeled as typically developing and two

with autism diagnoses, ages 3.5, 4, 4, and 4.5, respectively. The children used in this study are

closer to the age range that is considered the critical period for acquiring one or more languages,

and were therefore likely more reliable representations of acquisition potential.

The results of this study replicate those of Clarke et al. (1988), who studied sign

acquisition by children labeled as mentally retarded using total communication (simultaneous

communication) and sign-alone training. Their results showed that signs were acquired notably

faster in the total communication condition than in the sign-alone condition. The four

participants in Clarke et al. (1988) were between the ages of five and nine biologically, but their

assessed mental ages ranged from two to four years. The mental ages of the participants were

17


again within the critical period for acquiring language, which could then account for the

replication of results in the present study and small discrepancy with Remington and Clarke

(1983).

Though this study extended previous research in sign training methods by examining

methods across intellectual capacities of participants, future research could extend further by

examining other methods, such as prompt fading and physical prompting. Research in this area

could also be expanded by comparing acquisition under one method among a group of

participants with similar intellectual capacities but both inside and outside the critical period for

language acquisition. Examining the latter research question could reveal whether the critical

period is in fact a notable factor in sign language acquisition, and therefore does account for the

discrepancies between the results of this study and results of previous research.

In conclusion, results of this study suggest that both sign-alone and simultaneous

communication training are effective methods for training signs in young children labeled as

both typically developing and with an autism diagnosis. However, simultaneous communication

has shown to be the more efficient method of the two, as all four children acquired signs trained

in that condition more quickly than those trained under sign-alone, and signs trained under

simultaneous communication were better maintained. Additionally, the simultaneous

communication training method showed to be notably more effective for children with autism

than sign-alone training, and for typically developing participants the discrepancy was less

prominent. Therefore, when sign acquisition is desired for a child with autism, it is likely that

simultaneous communication training will yield faster and more sustainable results than sign

alone training; however, when sign acquisition is desired for a typically developing child, it is

likely that both simultaneous communication and sign-alone training will yield results with

18


relatively similar speed, but signs trained with simultaneous communication would likely be

more sustainable after completion of training.

19


References

Barrera, R. D., Lobato-Barrera D., and Sulzer-Azaroff, B. A. (1980). A simultaneous treatment

comparison of three expressive language training programs with a mute autistic child.

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10(1), 21-37.

Bonvillian, J.D., Orlansky, M. D., & Novack, L. L. (1983). Developmental milestones: Sign

language acquisition and motor development. Child Development, 54(6), 1435-1445.

Carr, E. G., Binkoff, J. A., Kologinsky, E., and Eddy, M. (1978). Acquisition of sign language by

autistic children I: Expressive labeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 11(4), 489-

501.

Clarke, S., Remington, B., and Light, P. (1988). The role of referential speech in sign learning by

mentally retarded children: A comparison of total communication and sign-alone

training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21(4), 419-426.

Goodwyn, S. W., & Acredolo, L.P. (1993). Symbolic gesture versus word: Is there a modality

advantage for onset of symbol use? Child Development, 64(3), 688-701.

Johnson, J. S., and Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning:

The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language.

Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.

Konstantareas, M., Oxman, J., and Webster, C. Iconicity: Effects of the acquisition of sign

language by autistic an other severely dysfunctional children. In P. Siple (Ed.),

Understanding language through sign language research. New York: Academic Press,

1978.

Normand, M. P., Machado, M. A., Hustyi, K. M., Morley, A, J. (2011). Infant sign training and

functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(2), 305-314.

20


Remington, B. and Clarke, S. (1983). Acquisition of expressive signing by autistic children: An

evaluation of the relative effects of simultaneous communication and sign-alone training.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 16(3), 315-328.

Thompson, R. H., McKerchar, P. M., and Dancho, K. A. (2004). The effects of delayed physical

prompts and reinforcement of infant sign training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,

37(3), 379-383.

21


Table 1

A.B. Number of Trials Per Condition to Achieve Criterion

A.B.Sign-Alone Training Simultaneous Communication

TrainingSign Total Trials to

CriterionTrials to Criterion with New

Sign

Additional Trials on Mastered Sign(s)

Sign Total Trials to Criterion

Trials to Criterion

with New Sign


Cow 32 32 -- Wheel 45 45 --Vacuum 67 45 22 Television 71 47 24

Rake 59 39 20 Snake 56 37 19Garbage 88 58 30 iPod 97 64 33

Tiger 79 52 27 Elephant 65 43 22Total Trials

325 226 99 Total Trials

334 236 98

Note. Column one identifies the sign (stimulus) used, column two identifies the total trials across

sessions it took for that sign to reach criterion and move to probe block, and columns three and

four show the two to one ratio of the previously mastered signs being interwoven with the

training of the new sign.

22


Table 2

J.S. Number of Trials Per Condition to Achieve Criterion

J.S.Sign-Alone Training Simultaneous Communication



Sign



Trials to Criterion

with New Sign


Television 24 24 -- Rake 36 36 --Cake 60 40 20 Elephant 45 30 15Snake 71 47 24 Bucket 69 46 23Hose 59 39 20 Mouse 58 38 20Tiger 84 55 29 Lion 88 58 30Total Trials


296 208 88





23


Table 3

S.M. Number of Trials Per Condition to Achieve Criterion

S.M.Sign-Alone Training Simultaneous Communication



Sign



Trials to Criterion

with New Sign


Bucket 50 50 -- Tiger 42 42 --Bed 63 42 21 Car 64 42 22

Candle 95 63 32 Hose 85 56 29Shovel 88 58 30 Couch 75 50 25iPod 97 64 33 Elephant 96 63 22Total Trials


362 253 98





24


Table 4

K.D. Number of Trials Per Condition to Achieve Criterion

K.D.Sign-Alone Training Simultaneous Communication



Sign



Trials to Criterion

with New Sign


Elephant 52 52 -- Car 49 49 --Couch 76 50 26 Television 68 45 23Shovel 87 57 30 Mouse 93 61 32

Garbage 103 68 35 iPod 85 56 29Lion 99 65 34 Cow 79 52 27Total Trials


374 263 111





25


Figures

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150

25

50

75

100

A.B. Percent of Independent Responses in Probe Blocks

Sign-Alone

Simultaneous Communication

Days

Per

cent

Ind

epen

dent

Res

pons

es

Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the percent of A.B.’s responses identified as independently correct

from probe trials. Results showed no difference between the two training methods in terms of

speed of acquisition or accuracy.

26


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150

25

50

75

100

J.S. Percent of Independent Responses in Probe Blocks

Sign-Alone


Days

Per

cent

Ind

epen

dent

Res

pons

es

Figure 2. Figure 2 shows the percent of J.S.’s independently correct responses from probe trials.

Results showed little difference between the two conditions in terms of accuracy and speed of

acquisition, though the signs trained with simultaneous communication showed to be performed

with slightly more accuracy.

27


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210

25

50

75

100

S.M. Percent of Independent Responses in Probe Blocks

Sign-Alone


Days

Per

cent

Ind

epen

dent

Res

pons

es

Figure 3. Figure 3 shows S.M.’s percent of responses identified as independently correct from

probe trials. Results showed signs trained in the simultaneous communication condition were

acquired more quickly and performed with more consistent accuracy than those trained in the

sign-alone condition.

28


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220

25

50

75

100

K.D. Percent of Independent Responses in Probe Blocks

Sign-Alone


Days

Per

cent

Ind

epen

dent

Res

pons

es

Figure 4. Figure 4 shows K.D.’s percent of responses identified as independently correct from

probe trials. Results showed that signs trained in the simultaneous communication condition

were acquired more quickly and performed with more accuracy than signs trained in the sign-

alone condition.

29


1 2 3 4 5-1

0

1

2

3

4

5A.B. Posttest for Verbal Comprehension

Sign-Alone


Items Not Trained

Sign

Cor

rect

Res

pons

es

Figure 5. Figure 5 shows A.B.’s correct responses from the posttest for verbal comprehension of

signs taught under each condition, as well as signs indicated in pretest as unknown but not

included in training. Results showed comprehension to be higher for signs trained than signs not

trained, and signs trained in the simultaneous communication condition to be comprehended

more consistently than signs trained in the sign-alone condition.

30


1 2 3 4 5-1

0

1

2

3

4

5J.S. Posttest for Verbal Comprehension

Sign-Alone


Items Not Trained

Sign

Cor

rect

Res

pons

es

Figure 6. Figure 6 shows J.S.’s correct responses from the posttest for verbal comprehension of


included in training. Results showed perfect comprehension for signs trained under the

simultaneous communication condition. Additionally, signs trained showed to be more

consistently comprehended than signs not trained.

31


1 2 3 4 5-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

S.M. Posttest for Verbal Comprehension

Sign-Alone

Simultaneous Communicaiton

Items Not Trained

Sign

Cor

rect

Res

pons

es

Figure 7. Figure 7 shows the results of S.M.’s posttest for verbal comprehension of signs taught

under each condition, as well as signs indicated in pretest as unknown but not included in

training. Results showed that S.M. comprehended the signs trained more than the signs not

trained, and signs trained under the simultaneous communication condition were shown to be

more consistently comprehended than those trained in the sign-alone condition.

32


1 2 3 4 5-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

K.D. Posttest for Verbal Comprehension

Sign-Alone


Items Not Trained

Sign

Cor

rect

Res

pons

es

Figure 8. Figure 8 shows correct responses from K.D.’s posttest for verbal comprehension of


included in training. Results show that K.D. better comprehended signs trained compared to

those not trained, and better comprehended signs trained under the simultaneous communication

condition than the sign-alone condition.

33


1 2 3 4 5-1

0

1

2A.B. Posttest for Maintenance

Sign-Alone


Sign

Cor

rect

Res

pons

es

Figure 9. Figure 9 shows the results of the posttest for maintenance for A.B.; conducted four

weeks following completion of posttesting for verbal comprehension. Results showed signs

trained under the simultaneous communication condition were better maintained than those

trained under sign-alone, but none of the signs were maintained at a satisfactory level.

34


1 2 3 4 5-1

0

1

2

J.S. Posttest for Maintenance

Sign-Alone


Sign

Cor

rect

Res

pons

es

Figure 10. Figure 10 shows the results of the posttest for maintenance for J.S.; conducted four

weeks following completion of posttesting for verbal comprehension. Results showed stronger

maintenance for signs trained under the simultaneous communication condition than those

trained under the sign-alone condition; however none of the signs were maintained at a

satisfactory level.

35


1 2 3 4 5-1

0

1

2S.M. Posttest for Maintenance

Sign-Alone


Sign

Cor

rect

Res

pons

es

Figure 11. Figure 11 shows results of the posttest for maintenance for S.M.; conducted four

weeks following completion of posttesting for verbal comprehension. Results showed that signs

trained in the simultaneous communication condition were better maintained than those trained

in the sign-alone condition, but none of the ten signs were maintained at a consistent, satisfactory

level.

36


1 2 3 4 5-1

0

1

2

K.D. Posttest for Maintenance

Sign-Alone


Sign

Cor

rect

Res

pons

es

Figure 12. Figure 12 shows the results of the posttest for maintenance for K.D.; conducted four

weeks following completion of posttesting for verbal comprehension. Results did not show

satisfactory maintenance of the signs in either condition.

37

PSYC 390 Thesis Final 05.04.2015

Documents

Transcript of PSYC 390 Thesis Final 05.04.2015