2/28/2011

1

Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network

Large Scale Implementation of the Verbal Behavior Model

Florida Institute of TechnologyAutism Conference

Amiris DiPugliaadipuglia@pattan.net

717-541-4960 Ext. 3993

Early Steps in Model Development

• The PA VB Project was initiated in the 2002/2003

school year at one program (Luzerne County

Intermediate Unit 18) on a limited basis as a result of

the efforts/funding of a parent support group in Wilkes-

Barre, Pa.

• Independent of the Project, Lancaster-Lebanon IU 13

had developed early intervention (preschool) classes

using an ABA/VB model.

•A brief video summarizing our model.

Our efforts would not be possible without the

advice, support and leadership of several key

individuals. Thanks to:

• Dr. Vincent Carbone and his staff

• Dr. Mark Sundberg

• Mike Miklos

• Dr. Bill Galbraith

• Terry Jackson

Project Overview and Demographics

• 102 participating sites 2009-2010 school year

• Approximately 130 participating sites in 2010-2011

• At the start of the 2009-2010 school year, 26 sites had obtained “model status”

• At the start of the 2010-2011 school year, 40 sites had obtained “model status”

Key Components of the ABA/VB Model

• Implementation of interventions derived and guided by the concepts and research from the field of ABA

• Application of the theoretical constructs of B. F. Skinner’s model of verbal behavior (Skinner, 1957) and current verbal behavior research to design language interventions across participating sites.

• Emphasis on children developing critical skills in the communication, academic and social domains (social initiation skills and the ability to express wants and needs).

• Objective system of goal selection: behavioral language assessments as curriculum guides and skills tracking systems • Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program (VB-MAPP),

Sundberg (2007)

• Systematic staff training and competencies

• Focus on treatment fidelity (transcription record)

Site Review: Consultation and Training Process

• Overall Treatment Fidelity measured by Site Review– Site review is central to our efforts

– Guides training and consultation efforts.

• Every participating site reviewed 2x per school year

• Review completed by BCBA with Project, but not a BCBA who consults with that classroom

• “Pre” site review (Fall) used to guide consultation/training throughout school year

2/28/2011

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Pre

Post

Mean Change in Site Review Across Participating Sites

Classroom OrganizationClassroom Organization Yes No

Chart for student schedules? Must correlate with observed pattern of instruction for 2 students at 2

observational checks. Any evidence of written posted student schedule for day or significant portion

of day. Can be on clipboard, but also needs to have most information posted on wall in a central

location that is visible to all staff.” This is not the same as children’s “activity schedules.” The chart

must include schedule with intervals of not more than 30 minute duration and 75% of all intervals

must correlate with instructional targets and/or procedures (for instance, if more than 25% of the

intervals state “independent time,” score “no” since there is not an indication of what will be taught

or how; if “Intensive teaching” is on schedule, staff must also have prepared card sort or probe sheet

indicating content of the IT session.)

Chart for assignment of staff/staff schedule? Must correlate with observed pattern of instruction for

one staff at 2 observational checks. May be same chart as student schedule, but must include a

delineation of staffing patterns: who is to do what at what time. The chart must clearly indicate who

is assigned to which students and for at least 75% of the intervals on student schedule.

One or more ABA/VB cues posted? Any one or more posting of any ABA or VB cue for staff. Can

range from posted targets or procedures for particular children to general reviews of key conceptual

or procedural terms. May also include specific instructional reminders for staff.

Regular team meetings? Must have some formal process: either a regularly scheduled meeting or a

written procedure for how team works together. To be considered here team meetings must have a

focus on instructional or behavior change issues including training, procedural description, and/or

data review. Team meetings should occur no less than once every four weeks to receive credit for this

item. Teams are advised to keep record of team meetings: log of meetings is best evidence for this

item although raters can also consider evidence of content covered (i.e. agendas, etc.)

Classroom environment

Is the classroom neat and organized? This involves a general impression: basically is the room free

of clutter and are floors free of impediments to movement. Also consider the degree to which

students can move easily between activities and especially the degree to which physical

arrangement allows staff to monitor behavior of students.

Is access to reinforcers controlled by staff? Must demonstrate 3 examples: such as physical changes

to environment, use of sorted snacked trays, reinforcers in view but out of reach, carpenters pocket

vests, etc. Additionally the adult control of reinforcers must be demonstrated for all students with

mand programs in place.

Is seating appropriate for children? Chair and table size relative to most students so that students

can sit in chair with feet on the floor.

Arrangement of instructional materials and materials organization

Are the drawers or other storage areas for instructional materials labeled and organized? A majority

of cart, drawers/other storage areas need to be effectively organized and labeled to facilitate ease

of instruction but one example is sufficient (you don’t need to check every area). If the class does

not have carts, are the materials for IT or other instructional formats labeled so that it is easy for

instructors to discriminate which materials to use for specific lessons. This can include neat

labeling of shelves in locations used for IT or other instruction.

Are materials readily accessible to instructor? Teaching materials must be easily accessible to

teaching staff while they are working directly with children; do they have materials they need for

teaching when teaching? Carts are preferred, but if carts are not available, are other means of

storing instructional materials readily accessible?

Is a card sort system in place for intensive teaching? Are the materials grouped by verbal operants

or other relevant categories or by the child’s individual programs? This includes evidence of a

well-organized card sort system for IT and/or three dimensional teaching items arranged in

containers with labels. The main thing an evaluator is looking for on this item is organized

materials that can be easily identified and accessed by any instructor in the classroom during

instruction. If staff is using pictures as primary instructional stimuli for any student, card sort

system is required for scoring this item. The card sort system is not required in the rare situation in

which a student is not using picture stimuli in a classroom; however, in such situations there must

be evidence of some cues to guide delivery of instruction.

Data Systems Note: For any site reviews completed in fall, on all items involving data, the data system must be in place for at least 10 days prior to

site review to receive credit. One exception to this guideline is when site reviews are completed in the first 5-12 days of a school year; in that

circumstance, all days of school except first 3 days, need to have data in place. To receive credit for data systems in the spring site review, data systems

must be in place for at least six weeks and have current data (within three days of the site review).

Are program notebooks available? Do all of the students have a notebook with instructional programs listed? If not all students have

notebooks credit can be given if students without notebooks are newly enrolled in the class in the past two months or functioning

beyond ceiling levels of VB-MAPP or ABLLS).

Are notebooks arranged systematically? (i.e., have tabs with labels) See tabs; looking for readily identifiable organization related to

ABA, VB, VB-MAPP or ABLLS. If arranged by the student’s IEP the organization must reflect a data-driven approach.

Are language programs balanced and appropriate? (must have 2/2 below)

A. Include at least 3 verbal operants and/or advanced language programming? Tacts, mand, intraverbal, echoics but for early

learners may include manding and two programs such as imitation, match to sample and listener responding

programs?)Additionally, evidence of adequate multiple exemplar training for basic verbal operants. For intermediate and

advanced learners, programming needs to address complex verbal behavior such as complex mands, mands for information,

autoclitics, conditional discriminations, conversational skills, complex relational responding, and generative responding.

B. Programs listed are consistent with compiled data and with VB assessment levels.

Is there behavior data for all students who present significant problem behavior, which includes a definite count of a behavior targeted

for reduction? (i.e., frequency count of problem behavior preferred but can also include a consistently recorded ABC format.) For all

students who present significant problem behavior including a definite count of some behavior targeted for reduction (can include

behavior card, ABC data, scatter plot, frequency count or a sampling technique used daily). Item can be omitted if no behavior

problems are present in class and this report is consistent with reviewer observations.

Is there mand data related to mand acquisition? (cold probe) Cold probe for mands being acquired for all students including

consideration of motivational variables. For this item to be scored yes there must be some mand data for all students receiving mand

training. For classes with higher functioning students, mand data needs to be reflective of advanced manding skills such as manding

for information, manding under control of MO, manding in conversations, use of autoclitics in manding etc.

Is there mand data related to mand frequency? Some rate/frequency data for mands per minute, hourly or daily mands. Rate data can

be for either the entire school day or for specified mand lessons or activities (sampling data). For classes with higher functioning

students, mand data needs to be reflective of frequency of advanced manding such as manding for information, manding under control

of MO, manding in conversations, use of autoclitics in manding etc.

Data discriminative stimuli for instructional behavior? At least 3 examples of data being used to guide instruction for at least 75% of

students must be evidenced. This can include any evidence that teaching decisions are based on data. Examples include graphs with

phase change lines, probe data indicating that after a set number of correct responding, new items were introduced, tables indicating

change in level on any changing criterion programs, systematic altering of VR with increased instructional control, etc.

Are there 3 or more graphs for all of the students? Data must be graphed on at least a weekly basis. Daily graphing is preferred. Only

graphs currently being updated can be considered for credit on this item (evidence of historical graphing is insufficient). “Updated” is

evidenced by two data points having been recorded during the last 10 days. Credit can be given if students without graphs are newly

enrolled in the class in the past two months.

Is the entire VB-MAPP Assessment, or other appropriate assessments (such as ABLLS sections A-F,) completed for all students or are

other quantitative evidence based curricular measures completed? If any curricula, other than the VB-MAPP are used, the curricula

must relate directly to teaching processes used in the classroom and allow instructional targets to be derived for relevant skills in the

area of verbal behavior. If not all students have completed a VB-MAPP credit can be given if students without VB-MAPPs are newly

enrolled in the class in the past two months.

Is there data on any other instructional program or formative assessment tool (i.e. Language for Learning, sequenced handwriting

curriculum, etc.) Data can include unit test; record of individual student’s performance within curricula; curricula noted should be

used at least twice weekly; data should be quantitative: anecdotal data are not sufficient. This item can be omitted from calculation of

percent implemented if student functional levels suggest other curricula are not needed or appropriate.

Consultation/Training Process

Yes No

Is there a system of training of ABA/VB content (relevant to instruction, social skill training, and

addressing problem behavior) that includes a manual, set procedures or regular meetings?

Evidence of this item needs to be documented. Is there a manual or any evidence of formal

training that occurs at intervals of at least every month? Can include evidence that a particular

staff member is responsible for training. Can also include regular training sessions. Trainings

must focus on ABA/VB content. This does not include large group trainings occurring off site.

Documentation can include a training log, lists of when staff has read manuals, or other written

or graphed documents.

Has the consultant (VB Project consultant and Internal Coach) provided guided practice in the

classroom? Can be described by interview; but needs to be clear that staff practice directly with

consultant.

Is teaching behavior defined in set procedures? Does consultant (VB Project consultant and

Internal Coach) focus on the teaching behavior of the staff? Consultation focuses on what

teaching staff does with students. Of concern are the particular teaching behaviors. Some

evidence of procedural descriptions needs to be in place such as clear consultation notes and/or

written descriptions or printouts of instructional procedures for specific programming.

Concern for treatment integrity? Has the consultant (VB Project consultant and Internal Coach)

taken data on teaching procedures? Evidence that the consultant or staff under the guidance of

the consultant checks to see if staff are following procedures; must include at least some written

documentation for at least one teaching program. Examples may include transcription, mand

treatment integrity check, or written procedural treatment checklists.

Consultation and TrainingInclusive Practices

Inclusive Practices

Yes No

Are students engaged in instruction that is similar to students in the general education setting? 3/3 of the following

criteria must be met to receive credit for this item.

a. Are there verifiable supports (supplementary aids and services) to maintain or establish meaningful participation in the general

education setting? Evidence of supplementary aids and services in one or more of the following categories (must include evidence of

collaboration for all students to receive this score) Collaborative. Examples include documentation of scheduled time for co-planning

and team meetings, professional development related to collaboration, scheduled opportunities for parent collaboration, collaboration

in development and delivery of SAS. Instructional, Physical, Social-Behavioral

b. Data systems in place to monitor student participation and progress. Can include frequency data, criterion checklists, or other data

showing student engagement in activities in general education or similar to regular education if appropriate.

c. Are specific identifiable plans in place to increase participation in the general education setting for all students not fully included?

Can include any evidence of formal consideration of this issue such as team planning reports, data and/or written instructional

programs relevant to increasing participation.

Are the materials used with the students in general education setting similar to those used with other students (perhaps modified)? If students are

not in the general education setting are they being provided with experiences with the materials that will allow them to function in the general

education setting? Staff needs to have identified evidence that they have considered and /or assessed general education settings in order to

guide selection of specific instructional materials, programs or item content.

Do the students have access to non-disabled peers? If not in the general education setting, students are provided with the opportunities to learn

and practice the skills related to social activities? Evidence that staff are working to have students learn skills that will help them interact with

other students. Must include efforts to establish opportunities for students not in general education settings to access typical peers and school

activities whenever appropriate.

Practices promote self advocacy skills. This would be defined as control of environmental variables that promote communication goals in

relation to student needs. Related to mand training programs, but includes considerations that will allow students, to the maximum extent

possible, the opportunity to communicate needs and preferences within context of typical school and community settings.

Instructional content is relevant to that provided in the regular education setting. Instructional content should be appropriate and or matched to

the maximum extent possible to that which same aged students experience in the general educational environment. Can include use of similar

themes or materials used at an appropriate instructional level.

2/28/2011

3

Instruction

Instruction

Yes No

Is staff paired as conditioned reinforcers or is there evidence of staff directly conditioning adults

as reinforcers? Observe at least 5 approaches (such as moving toward or extending body part

towards staff without prompts) to at least three staff (or if less than three staff present, to all

staff). Approaches can include formal mands. Approaches can also include students remaining

near teachers during instruction with no overt escape behaviors. Written programs for teaching

approach behavior or pairing data sheets can meet the criteria of this item if evidence of

implementation is observed.

Instructional control? Observe one student for five minutes: no significant problem behavior and

frequent responses need to be observed. Frequent responding for early learners is 6-10 responses

per minute; for intermediate learners, 10-20 responses per minute; and for advanced learners

more than 20 responses per minute.)

Mand Training

Form selection procedures (vocal, selection-based, sign) Evidence that staff have made decisions

regarding communication response form based on observation and/or data: use of VB-MAPP or other

appropriate assessment is sufficient. Also acceptable is data showing lack of response to other response

forms. Score this item yes in the case wherein all students appropriately use vocal response forms. Score

no if teacher cannot explain selection of response form, based on assessment and data, functionality,

independence, etc.

Density of opportunity: Must include frequent opportunity (not just during snack): an average of at least

one mand within two five minute periods. Criteria must be met for all students with mand programs

including advanced mand programs.

MO manipulation (capturing and contriving MO )Evidence that staff is attending to student’s motivation

by checking for/capturing motivation when strong (staff ensures student demonstrates motivation such as

reaching for or looking at the item) as well as contriving motivation (when MO not present)

Shaping Evidence that staff are actively and systematically shaping new mands for most students in the

class; including, when appropriate, evidence of advanced mand training.

Mand prompt system: Evidence that staff have in place and use procedures to fade prompts used to evoke

mands; observing several instances of mand prompt fading (clear transfer trials) during instruction is

sufficient; data documenting such processes can also be used to score this item.

Staff provides mand discrimination opportunities by varying reinforcers used in mand training. For early

learners must include minimum of two active items in session. Mand target selection for students will

include multiple types of reinforcers (i.e. food, play items, physical activities, etc.).Mand sessions should

include when appropriate both maintenance trials and teaching target trials.

Intensive teaching: Observe a five minute session of intensive teaching. Transcribe the teaching on attached

form and use the data to answer the questions below.

Mixed and Varied (covering at least 3 Verbal Operants during session)

Easy Hard ratio (range between 60/40 and 85/15)

Prompting and transfer trials: Observe errorless correction procedures. Transcription is preferred method of

documenting this process. Must include regular use (more than 75% of error responses result in a prompted trial

followed by a transfer trial.)

Errorless teaching trials. Observe whether staff uses errorless teaching trials during intensive teaching. At least

75% of teaching trials should be taught with errorless procedures.

Transfer across verbal operants At least one such transfer observed, can include any use of a prompted response

with multiple operant control that is transferred on the next operant to the target operant. Includes echoic to tact

transfers, imitation to receptive transfers, tact to intraverbal transfers, etc.

Trials/min. Pacing minimum six per minute for early learner, 10 for intermediate learner, 20 for advanced

learners

Variable Ratio Schedule of Reinforcement. Observe whether staff reinforces the student on the appropriate VR

schedule. (must verify with student’s pre-determined VR) To score this item range of error of VR should be no

greater than 25%

Stimulus control observe whether the student makes significant errors related to the verbal operant that has been

manded by the instructor; this item can be scored as present if few errors are observed OR the teacher uses clear

correction procedures such as transfer trials to establish the proper stimulus control. In other words, does the

student emit tacts on tact trials, intraverbals on intraverbal trials and so forth as a result of teaching procedures?

Natural Environment Teaching

NET is guided by variables related to motivation. Use of MO manipulation strategies are part of this process

including contriving and capturing motivation. For this item to be scored staff must attend to student’s MO and

capture when strong or actively provide transitive MO opportunities.

Evidence that NET is planned and systematic. Can include NET lesson plans or other written documentation of

instruction to occur outside of precisely planned IT, DI, or group lessons. Can include generalization plans (i.e.

tacting in the natural environment.) Evidence for NET must be in place for 75% of students.

The natural environment is prepared to allow students to access learning opportunities (appropriate materials

are available, reinforcers available, environment adequately „sanitized” or „enriched” depending on purpose of

NET) This item can be scored yes if evidence is present that the staff have prepared the environment for

naturally occurring teaching opportunities to occur. Examples can include: placing mand items in sight but out

of reach; situating materials or leisure materials that are related to teaching programs so that are accessible

during NET time

NET Data: Any evidence of formal quantitative data collection for NET activities. Can include frequency count

of manding outside of formal mand sessions.

Instruction includes systematic procedures during NET Can include use of errorless/error correction

procedures; mand prompting procedures; model-lead-test methods; generalization data; etc.

Other instructional methods (observe actual instruction or data collection)

Use of appropriate vocal training processes. Differential reinforcement of vocal responding, stimulus-stimulus

pairing, Kaufman procedures, or other vocal training. Any evidence that any of these procedures are in use and used

across staff. The procedures can be guided by the support SLP but must have some component of follow- through

involving teacher and/or Para -educators. Employing the procedures in weekly SLP sessions outside of the

classroom is insufficient.

Direct instruction (Language for Learning, Reading Mastery, etc.) Any use of evidence based instruction beyond use

of the ABLLS/VB-MAPP. This item can be omitted from calculation of percent implemented if student functional

levels suggest DI or evidence based and procedural instructional protocols are not needed and/or appropriate

relative to student’s functional levels (in other words all students are early or intermediate learners based on VB-

MAPP or other appropriate assessment.)

Fluency or precision based teaching (timed trials, celeration charting) Must include rate data and some form of

visual analysis, preferably the Standard Celeration Chart but, at minimum, an equal interval graph.

Group Instruction

Group instruction “Groups” include two or more students. Can score NA (not applicable) if not

observed or if group instruction is not appropriate for the class given the functional levels of

enrolled students. If NA is scored do not include in total percent implemented calculation. Must

get 3/3 below to score yes. Be sure that a skill is being taught: ask teacher what they hoped

student would do different as a result of the group instruction: look for direct outcomes.

a. Group responses (i.e. choral responses)

b. Clear targets (instruction is derived from a skill sequence or curriculum)

c. General engagement (judgment call but can be formalized through a time sample or a

count of responses per minute)

Social Skills Training Yes No

Social Interaction Instruction (direct teaching of social skills; two of 4 of the following). Any

evidence of directly teaching children to interact with each other, including using peer to peer

mand procedures, establishing peers as conditioned reinforcers, teaching peers to play with one

another.

a. Peer to peer manding: Must be structured and implemented regularly, should also

include data

b. Peers as conditioned reinforcers: Systematic procedures used to increase approach

behavior from one student to other students.

c. Play skills or leisure skills taught. Must include specific evidence of teaching children

to play with one another at an appropriate level. Do not score this item if the instruction

is simply allowing children free time in which they are near other children. Must include a

reference to a social skill sequence or target level of quantification (e.g. children will

comment to peers X number of times).

d. Is a hierarchy of social skills established, assessed and taught? Must be able to identify

a sequence of social skills or established curriculum that is used to assess, teach and

monitor social skills.

2/28/2011

4

Behavior Interventions

NOTE: Are any students at site presenting behaviors that are targeted for reduction: Yes/ No.

If no problem behaviors reported, complete this section as a review but do not include it in final percentage of implementation calculation.

Be sure that the reported lack of need for problem behavior reduction is consistent with what is observed in the classroom. Only drop this

item from scoring if the site reviewer does not observe any problem behavior during the review process. If problem behaviors are

observed and none are reported above, note problem behaviors observed:

_______________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

Yes No

Is there an FBA on file for all students who present with significant problem behavior? This process must yield a stated

functional hypothesis? FBA can be based on descriptive data but must state a functional hypothesis. The functional hypothesis

must be stated in behavioral terms (measurability of dependent and independent variables is the key dimension.) If an FBA is

not formally written, data must be in place that allows the team to design an function based interventions on a positive

behavior support plan. If no behavior problems are present in class and this report is consistent with reviewer observations

during site review note that this item can be omitted from calculating the percentage of implementation score. To be scored as

present an FBA must be in effect and relevant (an FBA from a previous school year can be scored if it is in effect and relevant

to current problem behavior).

Problem Behavior Interventions (5 of 7 items must be scored as present)

Complete this section based on review of one student‟s behavior problem programming.

a. Target behaviors well defined Behavioral definitions

b. Functional response classes identified? Clear statement identifying function in relation to reinforcing variable: such as “behavior maintained by

socially mediated positive reinforcement.” The statement can specify the reinforcement class but should clearly suggest whether reinforcer is positive or

negative, social or automatic

c. Interventions derived from and match function? Interventions should be formulated to match functional response class identified above; do not score

this as in place if a functional response class has not been identified.

d. Clear plan? Written and include behavioral descriptions of how adults should respond to problem behavior or teach replacement behavior. In order for

this to be marked yes, the teacher (and any Para-educators implementing procedures) must be able to state or paraphrase the steps in the plan.

e. Treatment integrity? Does the plan include some method of tracking whether it is implemented consistently?

f. Systematic staff training prior to implementing plan? Any evidence of a consistent approach to making sure all relevant staff can implement plan.

g. Is intervention observed to be implemented consistently? Note whether the plan as written is followed by staff when target behavior for reduction is

emitted. If no opportunity exists to observe the plan being implemented, this item can be scored yes if there is treatment integrity data reflecting

consistent implementation.

Behavior Interventions

Data and graphing of target behavior/interventions? Are there graphs that reflect data regarding the

course frequency of behavior over time as a result of the intervention? Evidence of at least one graph

for a reductive behavior intervention is sufficient. Do not score this item if item number 57 is omitted

by criteria.

Problem Behavior Intervention Design: Interventions must have 3/3 scored as present. Do not score

this item if item number 57 is omitted by criteria.

a. EO manipulation

b. Teaching alternative behavior within response class?

c. Extinction

Scoring Rubric

Total Number of Items Scored

Total items on Site

review

Total Items 59

Items Omitted by Criteria Circle all omitted and total:

10 14 20 51 52 54 55 56 57 58 59

Total Omitted= _______

Minus Total Omitted ______

Total Number of items

scored

Subtract Total omitted from Total Items

Total Administered = ______

Total Number of items

scored as “Yes” Total scored “yes” = _______

Percent of items

implemented

Divide the total number scored yes by

the total number of items administered

and multiply by 100.

Total scored “yes” =

_______X 100=

Total Administered =

SCORE:

Staff Support and Training

– “Boot camp” for new sites: competency based group training

– Training Videos and Manuals (Intensive Teaching and Mand Training)

TRAINING VIDEO CLIP

– Resource Files• On Site Consultation: guided practice with

direct feedback: Intensive Teaching Transcription; Mand Transcription; written consultation notes

– All content available WWW.PATTAN.NET

PA Verbal Behavior Checklist

Individual Participant Competency Checklist

Task Criteria Score

1. Tacts verbal Operants

20/minute in a 1-minute timing

Pass No Pass

Check Criteria

Record Correct/ Incorrect below 1 2 3

4 5 6

7 8 9

2. States Errorless protocol Less than 3 second latency/No errors Pass No Pass

3. Demonstrates Errorless protocol Less than 4 second latency/No errors

across all 4 steps Pass No Pass

4. States Error Correction protocol Less than 3 second latency/No errors

Pass No Pass

5. Demonstrates Error correction

protocol

Less than 4 second latency/No errors

across all 5 steps Pass No Pass

Conceptual Competency Scores

Written

Pretest ______ % correct

Posttest

______ % correct

Filled in textual responses sheet

Y N

Oral (posttest only)

Posttest

______ % correct

Responded consistently with

choral/individual responses

Y N

Check all that apply:

Classroom Teacher

Internal Coach

Itinerate Teacher

Speech and Language Pathologist Occupational

Therapist

Behavior Analyst

Administrator

Guidance Counselor

Para-educator (includes SEA, PCA, etc.

Other (specify):_____________________

Participant Name: ____________________________

Training Dates: ______________________________

Job Title: ___________________________________

School/Site Location: _________________________

Employer: __________________________________

6. Sets up and Labels a card sort

piles organization and correct ratio

of presentation

Sets up and labels 4 piles

Pass

No Pass

States ratio presentation for

targets vs. easies

States teaching procedures for

each

States data system where each is

found

States dates on skills tracking for

each

7. Program/data:

Completes skill tracking sheet

based on sample of cold probe

data

Within 5 minutes with 3-4 items listed on skill

tracking sheet Pass No Pass

8. Program Data: takes cold

probe data and scores, records

and graphs appropriately across

three hypothetical days data

Accurately scores 5 cold probe examples

demonstrated by confederates, enters data correctly

on data sheet, notes mastery where appropriate and

graphs accordingly

Pass No Pass

9. Demonstrates basic mand

trial template

Delivers a mand trial sequence with pairing,

prompted trial, and prompt fade procedure Pass No Pass

10. Demonstrates Mand transfer

trials

States within trial transfer Pass No Pass

Demonstrates within trial transfer

States Second trial transfer

11. Demonstrates error

correction procedures and scroll

for mand

Presents at least 3 mand trial sequences with error

corrections and scroll reduction procedures with no

errors

Pass No Pass

12. Demonstrates 4 run-

throughs of intensive teaching

Minimum of 20 trials with one errorless trial/

maintain 80/20 mix/ pace of at least 10 trials per

minute

Pass No Pass

Oral Competency Check Out (Score + or - )

1. Reinforcement

Score /8

2. Positive Reinforcement

3. Negative Reinforcement

4. Punishment

5. Discriminative Stimulus Percentage Score for Oral Competency (8 questions)

7 = 88% 6 = 75% 5 = 63% 4 = 50% 3 = 38%

2= 25% 1= 13 %

6. Motivative Operation

7. Extinction

8. VR

2/28/2011

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Bootcamp No Bootcamp

45.4

26.3

Per cent Implemented

Initial Mean Site Review Score New Sites

Transcription Worksheet/Feedback

Run Transcription of demands/

Responses

Total

Trials

Time Feedback

Total Run Through‟ s= Total Trials=

VR= Response/Min=

Easy/Hard= % Error Correction (EPTDC)=

Total Errorless Trials= Operants:

Example of written feedback from transcriptionAmy and Student A:

Run Transcription of demands/responses Trials Analysis/Recommendations

1 R R Sr+ 2Excellent start with verifying MO for reinforcers to be used in session and presenting just a couple

easy demands and having him access reinforcement quickly.

2 T T I (Tx-P Txtt) I Tx√ Sr+

6 Nice use of mixing and varying the operants and good pace of instruction. You did present a

target item without an immediate prompt which resulted in an error. You did run the error

correction procedure and did include the prompt, transfer, distract, and check trials as well as

reinforced Student A for correctly responding on the check trial. The only error with the

correction was that you failed to end the trial and re-present your SD before providing the prompt.

3 T R T IV Sr+ 4 Nice easy run with reinforcement for cooperative responding.

4 T T T R T I T Sr+ 7

5 R T T (R- RP) Sr+ 4

Again, in this trial you presented a target item with no prompt which resulted in an error. You did

represent your SD with a prompt to correct the error but did not do the transfer, distracter, or check

trials.

6 R (R- R- RP Rtt) I R (Tnr T) (Rnr R) Sr+ 6

In this run, Student A made errors on three of the mastered items presented. Don‟t forget that

even if the item is previously mastered you want to run error correction immediately. Errors

include not responding within 2 seconds and self-correction. Avoid re-presenting the SD since

doing so might just result in another error.

7 I T R (T- TP Ttt- TPTtt) I I T√ Sr+ 7Beautiful use of error correction!!

8 IV IV (E- E- E) R E T T T Tx Sr+ 9

Nice run through with cooperative responding. My only suggestion would have been to reinforce

a bit earlier since the two previous runs were six and 7 trials long so that you maintain good

responding and not risk stretching his VR.

9 T R (Tartic unclear TP(artic shape)) T T I R T Sr+ 8

Again, careful with too many runs with the number of trials above his average. In this run there

were three exemplars of computer presented. It is great that you are exposing him to several

exemplars, but you should do this interspersed across different run throughs and even different

days. If you present them all at once he may just be saying computer because that‟s what he

previously said. It is also important that you present opportunities for generalization such as

tacting the computer at the library, in the office, or in a picture book.

10 T R Sr+ 2 Nice run with just two easy trials to balance the VR!

11 I R T I E I Tx (Tartic unclear T- TP(artic shape) Ttt) Sr+ 8 Good choice to reinforce on the transfer trial!

12 E R T√ R Tx T R Sr+ 7Great run with good responding. The only thing I would have suggested is reinforcing right after

the check trial

Total Run Through’ s= 12 Total Time: 4

minutes

Total Trials= 67

Intended VR= 5 Actual VR= 5.6 Response/Min=

13.3

Easy/Hard= 88/12

Other Notes:

We discussed Student A‟s poor articulation of some of his tacts. In today‟s observation, there were several tacts that were unintelligible to an unfamiliar listener. I

spoke with Karen about addressing the shaping of vocals for Student A.

Amy and Student B:

Run Transcription of demands/responses Trials Analysis/Recommendations

1 IV (Tnr TP Ttt) R T√ Sr+ 4

Perfect run Amy! You remembered to run all steps in the

error correction and reinforced on the check trial.

2 (IVP) IV IV√ Sr+

3 You presented the target with an errorless prompt and

reinforced on your check trial. Don‟t forget to run the

transfer trial.

3 IV (TP Ttt) R T√ IV R T (IVP IVtt) R I IV√ Sr+11 Awesome…two perfectly executed teaching trials!!!

4 R I Sr+ 2 Way to go….nice balancing your VR

5 IV T (IVPIVtt) R R IV√ Sr+ 6

Another winner!

Total Run Through’ s= 5 Total Time: 1.75 minutes Total Trials= 26

Intended VR= 6 Actual VR= 6.5 Response/Min= 15 Easy/Hard= 81/19

Other Notes:

Similar issue with articulation of tacts for Student B

Recommendations:

All targets that have not been mastered should be presented errorlessly (Prompt-transfer-

distract-check) even if the student scored yes on that day’s probe (if it has not been mastered,

it is not yet a fluent skill and we risk having the student make errors if we use a time delay)

Make sure you are using your error correction procedures: If student errors (this includes not

responding) immediately re-present the SD with “0” second delay prompts and follow with

your transfer trial, distracter trials, and check trials. Always end the error trial before

starting over from the top and re-presenting your SD. Specifically in Matthew’s case, if the

response was a sign, make sure you place his hands in neutral before re-presenting the SD with

a “0” second-delay prompt.

Go over Student A and Student B’s tacts and pull out the ones that are not intelligible (Karen

will guide you through this process). Once that is done, hold off on presenting the items he

cannot articulate clearly as tacts. You will first shape up the echoic skill (with Karen providing

guidance on the selection of word shells to use Kaufman shaping procedures) and once the

echoic is mastered, the tact can be re-introduced but taught errorless using the echoic

prompt (do not use time delay because he already has a history of saying the wrong thing

when he sees the picture, so make sure you use a “0” second-delay prompt).

Add more easy echoics to their card sort so they get a lot of practice at echoing with

accuracy.

2/28/2011

6

Some Teaching Procedures

• Mand training

• Training of verbal operants (functional

analytic approach to “language”)

• Systematic manipulation of motivating

operations

• Natural Environment Training

• Transfer of stimulus control

procedures

• Errorless procedures/reduce student

errors

• Error correction techniques

• Discrete trial instruction

• Interspersal techniques and low inter-

response intervals

• Teaching tasks to fluency

• Verbal conditional discrimination

protocols

• Augmentative communication systems

• Extinction procedures (e.g., planned ignoring)

• Punishment procedures (e.g., reprimands, time out)

• Generalization and maintenance

• Visual Discrimination training

• Task analysis

• Vocal training procedures (Sweeney-Kerwin, et al. 2006)

• Contingency contracting

• Token economies

• Behavioral momentum techniques

• Peer and social interaction training

• Parent and staff training in behavior analysis

• Functional analyses of problem behavior (Iwata, et al. 1982)

• Treatment integrity checks

Case Studies

• At ABAI 2010 National Conference in San Antonio Texas, PA VB Project presented a symposium on Project outcomes

• The following case studies are sampled from that presentation

Change in Number of Students at VB-MAPP LevelsAll Participants (N=122)

65

40

17

42

52

28

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

level 1 level 2 level 3

14.66

18.5

11.210.54

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Total EI Elem MS+HS

Mean Change VB-MAPP Score over 6-8 Month Period (n=122 for total)

Dylan

• 6 Years old• 1st year in the Project • Attends Autism support

classroom (elementary)

• Barriers for Dylan included instructional control issues, response requirement weakening MO, and impaired mand repertoire

Dylan: Programming

• Initial Programming:– Intensive mand training

– Establishing instructional control

• Imitation

• Match to sample

• Tacting common items

• Vocal Shaping

• Conditioning peers as reinforcers

2/28/2011

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

11/2

7

12/1

1

12/2

5

1/1

5

1/2

9

2/1

2

2/2

6

3/1

2

3/2

6

4/9

4/2

3

5/7

Nu

mb

er

of

Maste

red

Targ

ets

Dylan: Cumulative Mands

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

3/1

2

3/1

9

3/2

6

4/2

4/9

4/1

6

4/2

3

4/3

0

5/7

Dylan: Cumulative Tacts

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2/2

6

3/5

3/1

2

3/1

9

3/2

6

4/2

4/9

4/1

6

4/2

3

4/3

0

5/7Nu

mb

er

of

Targ

ets

Maste

red

Dylan: Cumulative Echoic Skills

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2/2

6

3/5

3/1

2

3/1

9

3/2

6

4/2

4/9

4/1

6

4/2

3

4/3

0

5/7

Dylan: Cumulative Imitation Skills

Total Cumulative Skills in 20 weeks: 68 (20 Mands)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2/2

6

3/5

3/1

2

3/1

9

3/2

6

4/2

4/9

4/1

6

4/2

3

4/3

0

5/7

Dylan: Cumulative MTS Skills

Seth

• 12 Years Old

• 1st year in the Project

• Attends an AS classroom (Intermediate )

• Started the year as a level one learner with some scattered skills in levels 2 and 3.

• A major barrier for Seth was the absence of the mandrepertoire.

Programming• Mands for items and actions

• Tact common items

• Listener Responding: Common items, body parts, and simple motor actions.

• VP/MTS: Matching non-identical items and matching items by color

• Imitation: gross motor, with objects, fine motor (for shaping signs)

• IV: Fill in fun phrases and songs (added in January

• Generalization/NET instruction

• Independent Play skills

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

9/4

9/1

8

10/2

10/1

6

10/3

0

11/1

3

11/2

7

12/1

1

12/2

5

1/1

5

1/2

9

2/1

2

2/2

6

3/1

2

3/2

6

4/9

4/2

3

Seth: Cumulative Tacts

0102030405060708090

100

Nu

mb

er

of

Targ

ets

Maste

red

Seth: Cumulative Listener Responding Skills

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1/2

92/5

2/1

22/1

92/2

63/5

3/1

23/1

93/2

64/2

4/9

4/1

64/2

34/3

05/7

Seth: Cumulative Intraverbals

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

9/2

6

10/9

10/2

3

11/6

11/2

0

12/4

12/1

8

1/8

1/2

2

2/5

2/1

9

3/5

3/1

9

4/2

4/1

6

4/3

0

Seth: Cumulative VP/MTS Skills

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

9/2

6

10/9

10/2

3

11/6

11/2

0

12/4

12/1

8

1/8

1/2

2

2/5

2/1

9

3/5

3/1

9

4/2

4/1

6

4/3

0

Seth: Cumulative Imitation Skills

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

9/1

1

9/2

5

10/9

10/2

3

11/6

11/2

0

12/4

12/1

8

1/8

1/2

2

2/5

2/1

9

3/5

3/1

9

4/2

4/1

6

Nu

mb

er

of

Maste

red

Targ

ets

Seth: Cumulative Mands

Total Cumulative Skills in 31 weeks: 261

Alexander

• 12 years old

• 5th year in the Project

• Attends an AS intermediate classroom

• Level 2 learner, with some level 3 milestones

• Self-Injurious Behaviors in the form of chin pressing, chest slapping, and kicking legs on chairs.

Programming

• Manding– Yes/No

– Peer-peer manding in non-contrived situations

• Tacting: common items, actions, multiple component, parts/features, adjectives, prepositions, class

• Listener Responding: actions, adjectives, prepositions, multiple component directions

• Echoic training

• Intraverbal FFC’s, personal information

• Reading Mastery/Headsprout

• Other early academic skills

• Generalization/NET training and small group instruction

2/28/2011

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

8/2

6

9/1

1

10/2

10/2

3

11/1

3

12/4

12/2

5

1/2

2

2/1

2

3/5

3/2

6

4/1

6

5/7

Nu

mb

er

of

Targ

ets

Maste

red

Alexander: Cumulative Tacts

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

8/2

6

9/4

9/1

8

10/2

10/1

6

10/3

0

11/1

3

11/2

7

12/1

1

12/2

5

1/1

5

1/2

9

2/1

2

2/2

6

3/1

2

Nu

mb

er

of

Targ

ets

Maste

red

Alexander: Cumulative Listener Responding

Skills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

8/2

6

9/1

1

10/2

10/2

3

11/1

3

12/4

12/2

5

1/2

2

2/1

2

3/5

3/2

6

4/1

6

5/7

Alexander: Cumulative Echoic skills

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

9/1

810/2

10/1

610/3

011/1

311/2

712/1

112/2

51/1

51/2

92/1

22/2

63/1

23/2

64/9

4/2

35/7

Alexander: Cumulative Intraverbals

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

9/1

810/2

10/1

610/3

011/1

311/2

712/1

112/2

51/1

51/2

92/1

22/2

63/1

23/2

64/9

4/2

35/7

Alexander: Cumulative Fine Motor Skills

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

9/1

8

10/2

10/1

6

10/3

0

11/1

3

11/2

7

12/1

1

12/2

5

1/1

5

1/2

9

2/1

2

2/2

6

3/1

2

3/2

6

4/9

4/2

3

5/7

Alexander: Cumulative Math Skillls

Total Cumulative Skills in 33 weeks: 698

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

AlexanderPercent Correct Yes/No Mands

Diff Sr All CorrectIncrease trials Diff Sr for No Responses

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

AlexanderPercent Correct Yes/No Mands

Diff Sr All CorrectIncrease trials Diff Sr for No Responses

0

20

40

60

80

100

1208/2

6

8/3

1

9/3

9/9

9/1

4

9/1

7

9/2

2

9/2

5

9/3

0

10/5

10/8

10/1

3

10/2

1

11/3

11/6

11/1

2

11/1

8

11/2

3

12/2

12/9

12/1

5

12/1

8

1/4

1/7

1/1

2

1/1

5

1/2

5

1/2

8

2/2

2/5

2/1

5

2/1

8

2/2

3

2/2

6

3/3

3/8

3/1

1

3/1

6

3/1

9

3/2

4

3/3

0

4/5

4/8

4/1

3

4/1

6

4/2

1

4/2

6

4/2

9

5/4

To

tal n

um

ber

of

SIB

's

Alexander: Daily Frequency SIB's

Contingent

EffortContingent Effort

Across TopographiesTime out from Sr+