1. Using a combined blocking procedure to teach color discrimination to a child with autism Gladys Williams, Luis Antonio Perez-Gonzalez, & Anna Beatriz Muller Queiroz Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2005 Presented by, Lauren Strauss

2. Introduction The purpose of this study was to extend the findings of other studies that demonstrated combined blocking procedures can be used to teach conditional discriminations (Spradlin, 1989, 1990, 1993; Smeets & Striefel, 1994), and object discrimination (Perez-Gonzalez & Williams, 2002), as well as determine if a combined blocking procedure could be used to teach color discrimination. The authors wanted to determine if color discrimination could be taught to children with autism. Previous studies have taught conditional discrimination to individuals with severe learning disabilities (Spradlin, 1989, 1990, 1993), small children (Smeets & Striefel, 1994), and children with autism (Perez-Gonzalez & Williams, 2002). This study specifically replicated that of Williams (2002) in which a combined blocking procedure was used. Both sample stimuli and the location of the comparison stimuli were held constant.

3. Introduction continued… Whether or not a combined blocking procedure can be used to teach color discrimination to children with autism is an important questions to answer because naming colors or selecting color when requested to do so is often a difficult skill for children with autism. This study aims to prove that when teaching color, other methods than trial and error procedures should be used. This study demonstrated the above by using a combined blocking procedure.

4. Method Participant A 14-year old boy with autism named Sam Skills include: short statements, name minimal actions, requests items, labels and can give about 50 items when requested. Scored a cognitive level of 2.2 years on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Exam Instructors have been trying to teach Sam color discrimination since he was 3 years old, and have been unsuccessful with thousands of trials using teaching methods- trial and error, exclusion, and delayed prompt procedures.

5. Method Setting Sessions were conducted only in one setting the entire study- which was in the child’s home in a therapy room. The experimenter sat across from the child at a table.

6. Method Dependent Variable Once at the table, the child was presented with a black card and a white card on the table. The experimenter told the child to, “show me _(color)_” and waited 5s for the child to touch the correct color. A correct response was defined as touching the correct card within 5 s of the experimenter telling the child.

7. Method Independent Variable If the response was correct, praise and a small edible was provided. If the response was incorrect, the child’s hand was guided to the correct color for 3s. If 10 consecutive incorrect responses were emitted, the experimenter prompted 3 trials and reinforced. Daily the child received 132 trials, 6 days a week for 2 weeks.

8. Method A combined blocking procedure was used to teach color in this study. Choosing the correct color was a conditional discrimination because both color cards were presented on the table at the same time, eventually changing from one trial to the next. The learner needed to select the correct sample stimulus according to the S D given. A 5 step teaching method was used: 1. A black card and a white card were placed on the table, always in the same position for each trial. The child touches the same color card until 10 consecutive correct responses were produced (block of 10).

9. Method Once criterion was met, step 2 was initiated: 2. The procedure is the same as in step one, but this time the child touches the same color card until 5 consecutive correct responses were produced (block of 5). Once the child produced 30 consecutive correct responses, step 3 began. 3. Identical to steps 1 and 2, but now the child touches the correct color in blocks of 2 or 3, with the colors changing randomly.

10. Method Once the child makes 30 consecutive correct responses, step 4 is initiated: 4. The procedure is the same as in step 3 except the location of the cards is fixed, and the child needs to touch colors distributed quasirandomly. Each request to touch a color was made 5 times during each block of 10 trials. Once the child makes 20 consecutive correct responses, the last step is initiated: 5. The child now touches the correct color card when presented quasirandomly and with quasirandom location of cards. The cards are alternated 5 times on the left and 5 times on the right every 10 trials. Criterion for successful completion is 20 consecutive correct responses.

11. Design??? This article was more of a case study than an experiment The graph was a cumulative record of correct responses made by Sam No baseline data was taken- the only evidence that Sam did not know the skill was that it was noted that he has been unsuccessfully taught colors since he was 3.

12. Design Because this study did not collect baseline data, nor was the graph an AB design or multiple baseline, a functional relationship between the dependent and independent variables was not clearly established. Many other factors (maturation, practice effects, learning history) may have played a role in Sam correctly identifying colors. It is hard to tell without a single subject study. Perhaps an alternating treatment design could have been done. Even if the experimenters did not want to take baseline data being that Sam has never been able to identify colors before, this design could have been used. However, according to Neuman (1995), whenever possible, baseline data should still be collected. No follow up phase or generalization probe was completed after the treatment phases were implemented.

13. IOA 50% of sessions were videotaped for IOA purposes. A second observer watched the tapes and all records were looked at side by side for every trial. Agreement between the two observers was 100%. This study replicated the Perez-Gonzalez and Williams (2002) study, where they taught object discriminations. Social validity was not discussed.

14. Generalization? (Stokes & Baer, 1977) Teaching did not involve use of multiple exemplars, the same two color cards were used for black and white throughout the 795 trials. Sessions occurred in the same room in the child’s home and with the same instructor throughout the entire study. Afterwards, Sam was able to generalize black and white cards and transfer the control to black and white objects. He also learned to discriminate red, blue, and other colors (not mentioned). Were these colors only in the form of the card or were they objects as well? Which objects black and white were generalized to, how many, and whether or not discrimination occurred among novel objects was not mentioned. Was the learner trained loosely? The black and white cards were always positioned in the same spots on the table for every trial. Positioning was not rotated or changed on the table, except for being presented quasirandomly. The instructor did not program for generalization, it seems as if it was “hoped” for at the end of the study. Were indiscriminable contingencies used? If the child touched the correct card within 5 s, he received brief phrase and a piece of edible. If not, his hand was guided to the correct card on the table for a duration of 3 s. This same type of reinforcer and time of delivery was repeated throughout the study.

15. Maintenance The only maintenance data discussed in the study was the fact that the child continued to acquire additional color discriminations with combined blocking procedures. How long after and how many times data was collected was not mentioned.

16. Results and Discussion With a combined blocking procedure, a child with autism can discriminate between colors Before the intervention, the child was incapable of discriminating colors. After the intervention, the child was able to discriminate black and white cards and generalize those colors to objects. He was able to provide correct responses when samples were presented randomly and at random positions. After the study, Sam was able to also discriminate red, blue, and other colors.

17. Further Research Future studies should be conducted to test if… 1. the use of a combined blocking procedure can be used to teach color discrimination using multiple exemplars. 2. colors learned can generalize across stimuli, settings, and with other people teaching the skill. 3. the necessity of each step and so many trials are needed to teach color discrimination. 4. other stimuli can be taught using this type of combined blocking procedure.

18. References Newman, S. (1995). Alternating treatments designs. In S. Newman & S. McCormick (Eds.), Single Subject Experimental Research: Applications for Literacy (pp. 64-83). Newark, DE: International Pe´rez-Gonza´lez, L. A., & Williams, G. (2002). Multicomponent procedure to teach conditional discriminations to children with autism. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 293–301. Saunders, K. J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1989). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: The effect of training the component simple discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 52, 1–12. Saunders, K. J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1990). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: The development of generalized skills. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 54, 239–250. Saunders, K. J., & Spradlin, J. E. (1993). Conditional discrimination in mentally retarded adults: Programming acquisition and learning set. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 60, 571–585. Smeets, P. M., & Striefel, S. (1994). A revised blocked trial procedure for establishing arbitrary matching in children. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47B, 241–261. Richards, S.B., Taylor, R.L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R.Y. (1999). Single Subject Research: Applications in Educational and Clinical Settings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.