Antecedent Analysis to Antecedent Analysis to Enhance Social Enhance Social

Interactions in Children Interactions in Children with Autism Spectrum with Autism Spectrum

DisordersDisorders    Taketo NakaoTaketo Nakao

Elizabeth L. W. McKenney Elizabeth L. W. McKenney Glenn M. Sloman Glenn M. Sloman

Maureen A. ConroyMaureen A. ConroyJennifer M. AsmusJennifer M. Asmus

University of Florida University of Florida

Supported by U.S. Department of Supported by U.S. Department of EducationEducation

Office of Special Education and Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services Rehabilitative Services

(#H324D020023)(#H324D020023)

Project GATORSSProject GATORSS

• Goals:– To develop a process for increasing the prosocial

behavior of young children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) in early childhood settings. • Development of functional and structural

analysis techniques designed to address social skill deficits

• Development of individualized social skill interventions using assessment-based behavioral intervention strategies

Objectives of Presentation

Presentation attendees will learn 3 steps to examine the effects of antecedent interventions on the social behavior of a student with autism :

1. Descriptive observation to identify naturally occurring antecedent events relevant to social interaction

2. A structural analysis to experimentally validate antecedent events identified through the descriptive observation process

3. A treatment plan generated from the results of the structural analysis

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

• Overview of the literature on antecedent interventions

• Review descriptive observation techniques

• Describe structural analysis techniques• Present a case study and video examples

to illustrate procedures

Why Study the Why Study the Social Social Behavior of Behavior of

Children Children with ASD?with ASD?

• Children with autism experience difficulty in three areas:

1) Behavioral excesses and deficits observed as restricted and repetitive behavior

2) Behavioral deficits in display of developmentally and age-appropriate communication and social behavior

3) **** Difficulty with social reciprocity is considered the central and defining feature of autism (NRC, 2001)

Why Study the Why Study the Social Social Behavior of Behavior of Children Children with ASD with ASD (cont’d)?(cont’d)?• Poor social skills and display of problem behavior

often interfere with successful inclusion in early childhood programs (Odom et al., in prep)

• Placement in inclusive settings alone will not produce positive and lasting changes in appropriate social behavior by children with ASD (McConnell, 2002)

• There is a lack of evidence-based interventions to address and remediate their social skill deficits

Antecedent Antecedent InterventionsInterventions

• An antecedent intervention entails manipulating a setting event or immediate antecedent previously found to influence social behaviors.

• Setting events and antecedents often interact with each other to increase the likelihood of social behavior.

• Antecedent interventions are often determined by the outcomes of descriptive observation.

• Examples: – changes in activity type – the length of time spent in an activity– the individual working with the student– how statements are made to the student– peer group size

Why Do We Need More Why Do We Need More Antecedent Antecedent

Interventions?Interventions? • Most antecedent intervention research has

focused on problem, transition, and academic behavior of children with ASD (Pace, Dunn, Luiselli, Cochran, & Skowron 2005; Cote, Thompson & McKerchar, 2005; Eckert, Ardoin, Daly III, Martens 2002).

• Research literature is missing systematic methods of assessment that address the underlying functions and examine the occurrence of social behavior (Stichter & Conroy, 2005).

• Next steps are to address the individual needs of children and develop functionally-linked interventions.

MethodMethod

• Descriptive Observation (DO) of Contextual Factors– Approximately 6 hours of direct, sequential

recording of behavior in a variety of natural contextual factors within classroom setting

– Observation of peer and target child social behavior in presence/absence of different contexts including: activity type, play format, and level of adult engagement

– Outcomes of social interactions

Method (cont’d)

• Experimental Analysis– Structural Analysis (SA) (Cooper et al., 1990; Peck et

al., 1997)

• Condition:– High preferred social activity and materials– Low preferred social activity and materials– Neutrally preferred social activity and materials

• Interventions– Utilization of contextual factors that increase

likelihood of appropriate social behavior– Increase appropriate social behavior within

identified contexts

Case Study: Greg

• Participant– Autism– Communicates with simple sentences– Academically precocious : Teachers report superior

reading skills– 7 years old– Caucasian

• Public Elementary School: Fully Included– 21 typically developing peers and two peers exhibiting

developmental disabilities

• Identified Concern– Social withdrawal

• Very limited interactions with peers across settings

Operational DefinitionsOperational Definitions of Social Behavior of Social Behavior

• Social initiation:– Target child or peer behavior that attempts to evoke a social

response, attention, or access to objects/activities.

• Response to social initiation:– Target child or peer behavior that acknowledges an initiation

within 3 seconds.

• No response:– Target child or peer ignores the initiation, and/or continues to

engage in the same play behavior (may not have heard/seen initiation).

• Interaction:– Sequence of 3 social behaviors between a target child and

peer (initiation-response-interaction). The interaction begins with the third behavior in the sequence.

Descriptive Descriptive ObservationObservation

1. Approximately 6 hours of videotaped, classroom-based observation

2. Across a variety of contextual factors: -activities (art, snack, computer, books, games,

dance/music) -group size (large, small, one-on-one) -level of adult participation (active, passive, or no

adult engagement) -amount of adult direction (child or adult-directed

activity).

3. Approximately 30 min. of videotaped data for

each contextual factor.

Descriptive Descriptive Observation Observation ResultsResults

• Greg rarely initiated to peers regardless of group size, adult participation, or amount of adult direction.

• Initiated the most during structured games (.10 per minute) that had clear rules and expectations, and involved a small group of peers (three).

• A similar rate of initiations was found during computer time (.08)

• Highest rates of responding to peer initiations during structured games (.43).

• Was more likely to respond during small group (.20) or one-on-one activities (.21), and if the activity was child (.27) instead of adult directed (.10).

• Was most likely to engage in social interactions (a series of initiations and responses) during structured games.

Next Steps for GregNext Steps for Greg

• Conduct an experimental assessment– Structural Analysis (SA)

• To determine additional contextual factors that affect the occurrence of social behavior

• Link experimental assessment results to intervention

SA Procedures

• Activity type appeared to affect Greg’s social behavior in the DO

• Three activities were chosen for comparison:– Books– Computer– Bingo

• Greg played 1 on 1 in each activity with a typically developing peer for 5 minutes

SA Procedures Cont’d

• The peer student did not initiate to Greg, but responded to all of Greg’s initiations

• Two variables were measured: Greg’s rate of initiation and the duration of interactions (sequence of 3 or more social behaviors)

Structural Structural Analysis Analysis ResultsResults

Positive Initiations

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

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

Session Number

Rat

e p

er M

inu

te

computer

bingo

book

Structural Structural Analysis – Analysis – Results Results

(Cont’d)(Cont’d)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Computer Bingo Book

Condition

Total Percentage of Social Interaction

Positive Interaction

SA: Interobserver SA: Interobserver AgreementAgreement

• IOA (IOA collected during 30% of experimental sessions)

– Frequency behaviors (initiations)• Mean: 90%; Range: 75-100%

– Duration behaviors (interactions)• Mean 99.8%; Range: 99-100%

Antecedent Antecedent InterventionsInterventions

• Based on the results of the DO and SA, we recommend the following interventions for Greg:– Provide small, structured play groups – Include socially-skilled peers to respond to

Greg’s initiations, and/or initiate toward him– Play structured and cooperative games– Allow Greg time in preferred activities, such

as computer or Bingo, to increase appropriate social behavior

SummarySummary

• Antecedent intervention research has not focused on appropriate social behavior

• Need instruments that provide information for experimental analysis of social behavior

• DO and SA gave information about contextual factors affecting Greg’s social behavior

• Used to link assessment information to intervention efforts

• Findings can lead to the development of more effective interventions to increase social interactions in inclusive settings for young children with ASD

For More Information

• Contact us at autism@coe.ufl.edu

• Check our project website: http://www.coe.ufl.edu/centers/Autism/gatorss