Advertisement

The Analysis of Verbal Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 113–133 | Cite as

The Effect of a Mediation-Blocking Task on the Acquisition of Instructive Feedback Targets

  • Amelia Dressel
  • Katie NicholsonEmail author
  • Kristin M. Albert
  • Victoria M. Ryan
Research Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

The inclusion of instructive feedback in discrete-trial training has been shown to increase the efficiency of learning. However, the behavioral mechanism underlying the effectiveness of this procedure has not yet been determined. Researchers have suggested that learners covertly self-echo the feedback, which mediates later responding. The present study sought to understand the role of self-echoics in the acquisition of untaught targets. Participants were directly taught to tact pictures, then given instructive feedback after the praise statement. The 3 experimental conditions were (a) a typical instructive feedback procedure; (b) a vocal mediation-blocking procedure, in which the participants were asked to engage in a competing vocal response immediately after the instructive feedback; and (c) a motor-distraction procedure, in which the participants were asked to engage in a motor response immediately after the instructive feedback. The inclusion of the vocal mediation-blocking task had little effect on the participants’ ability to learn the instructive feedback targets for all 3 participants.

Keywords

instructive feedback mediation mediation blocking generalized imitative repertoire behavioral mechanism self-echoic 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This paper has not been previously published and has not been and will not be submitted elsewhere during the review process.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this research were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Florida Institute of Technology and were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Albarran, S. A., & Sandbank, M. P. (2019). Teaching non-target information to children with disabilities: An examination of the instructive feedback literature. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28, 107–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baer, D. M., & Sherman, J. A. (1964). Reinforcement control of generalized imitation in young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 6, 111–133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(64)90005-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, W. M. (2005). Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, evolution (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, R. A., & Kodak, T. (2015). Using instructive feedback to increase response variability during intraverbal training for children with autism spectrum disorder. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 31, 183–199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-015-0039-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Clough, C. W., Meyer, C. S., & Miguel, C. F. (2016). The effects of blocking and joint control training on sequencing visual stimuli. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32, 242–264.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-016-0067-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Ault, M. J. (1990). Use of constant time delay in small group instruction: A study of observational and incidental learning. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 369–385.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699002300403 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fields, L., Arntzen, E., Nartey, R. K., & Eilifsen, C. (2012). Effects of a meaningful, a discriminative, and a meaningless stimulus on equivalence class formation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 97, 163–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gutierrez, R. D. (2006). The role of rehearsal in joint control. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 183–190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393038 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Harvey, M. T., May, M. E., & Kennedy, C. H. (2004). Nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs and the evaluation of educational systems. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayes, S. C., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Relational operants: Processes and implications: A response to Palmer’s review of Relational frame theory. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 82, 213–224.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2004.82-213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holth, P., & Arntzen, E. (1998). Stimulus familiarity and the delayed emergence of stimulus equivalence or consistent nonequivalence. The Psychological Record, 48, 81–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horne, P. J., & Lowe, C. F. (1996). On the origins of naming and other symbolic behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 65, 185–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11189 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Keller, T. A., Cowan, N., & Saults, J. S. (1995). Can auditory memory for tone pitch be rehearsed? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21, 635–645.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.635 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Loughrey, T. O., Betz, A. M., Majdalany, L. M., & Nicholson, K. (2014). Using instructive feedback to teach category names to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 425–430.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.123 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lowenkron, B. (1991). Joint control and the generalization of selection-based verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 9, 121-126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael, J., Palmer, D. C., & Sundberg, M. L. (2011). The multiple control of verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27, 3–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03393089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miguel, C. F. (2016). Common and intraverbal bidirectional naming. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nottingham, C. L., Vladescu, J. C., Kodak, T., & Kisamore, A. N. (2017). Incorporating multiple secondary targets into learning trials for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 653–661.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.396 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Palmer, D. C. (2006). Joint control: A discussion of recent research. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 22, 202–215.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03393040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Palmer, D. C. (2009). Response strength and the concept of the repertoire. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10, 49–60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2009.11434308 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parsons, J. A., Taylor, D. C., & Joyce, T. M. (1981). Precurrent self-prompting operants in children: “Remembering”. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 36, 253–266.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1981.36-253 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Paulesu, E., Frith, C. D., & Frackowiak, R. S. J. (1993). The neural correlates of the verbal component of working memory. Nature, 362, 342–344.  https://doi.org/10.1038/362342a0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Reichow, B., & Wolery, M. (2011). Comparison of progressive prompt delay with and without instructive feedback. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 327–340.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schlinger, H. D. (1995). A behavior analytic view of child development. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schlinger, H. D. (2008). Listening is behaving verbally. The Behavior Analyst, 31, 145–161.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0339 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42898888 Google Scholar
  29. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sundberg, M. L. (2008). VB-MAPP: Verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program. Concord, CA: AVB Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
  32. Vladescu, J. C., & Kodak, T. M. (2013). Increasing instructional efficiency by presenting additional stimuli in learning trials for children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 805–816.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.70 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Werts, M. G., Caldwell, N. K., & Wolery, M. (2003). Instructive feedback: Effects of a presentation variable. The Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 124-133.  https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669030370020601 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolery, M., Ault, M., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  35. Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., Meyer, S., & Stinson, D. (1991). Effects of presenting incidental information in consequent events on future learning. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 79–104.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00956755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wolery, M., Werts, M. G., Holcombe, A., Billings, S. S., & Vassilaros, M. A. (1993). Instructive feedback: A comparison of simultaneous and alternating presentation of non-target stimuli. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 187–204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00947035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Behavior AnalysisFlorida Institute of Technology and the Scott Center for Autism TreatmentMelbourneUSA

Personalised recommendations