Skip to main content
Log in

DTkid: Interactive Simulation Software for Training Tutors of Children with Autism

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Discrete-trial training (DTT) relies critically on implementation by trained tutors. We report three experiments carried out in the development of “DTkid”—interactive computer simulation software that presents “SIMon”, a realistic virtual child with whom novice tutors can learn and practise DTT techniques. Experiments 1 and 2 exposed groups of participants either to DTkid training or to a control task. Participants in the former groups demonstrated significantly greater procedural and declarative knowledge of DTT. Experiment 3 confirmed this finding, further demonstrating that observation of DTkid training trials alone was sufficient to enhance participants’ declarative and procedural knowledge of DTT. Results indicate that DTkid offers the potential for an effective means of teaching DTT skills to novice tutors of children with autism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Prior to testing, video clips were assessed by an independent ABA supervisor who was asked to rate each clip either as correct, or to indicate what error had been made by the tutor on that trial. 96.3 % agreement was achieved between these ratings and the classifications of clips presented in Appendix B.

  2. Owing to the unequal numbers of trials completed by participants, data are presented binned into 1 min intervals across the duration of the experiment.

  3. Marking of participants’ video observation task judgements used for analysis was confirmed by an independent rater with 98.6% agreement across Experiments 1, 2, and 3.

References

  • Alloway, T., Wilson, G., Graham, J., & Krames, L. (1996). Sniffy the virtual rat (version 4.5) [computer software]. Wadsworth.

  • Gallagher, A. G., & Cates, C. U. (2004). Virtual reality training for the operating room and cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Lancet, 364, 1538–1540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green, G. (1996). Evaluating claims about treatments for autism. In C. Maurice, G. Green, S. C. Luce (eds) Behavioral intervention for young children with autism. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huppert, J., Lomask, S. M., & Lazarowitz, R. (2002). Computer simulations in the high school: Students’ cognitive stages, science process skills and academic achievement in microbiology. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 803–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Z., & Potter, W. D. (1994). A computer microworld to introduce students to probability. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 13, 197–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koegel, R. L., Russo, D. C., & Rincover, A. (1977). Assessing and training teachers in the generalized use of behavior modification with autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 197–205.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lovaas, I. O. (1987). Behavioral Treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 2–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEachin, J. J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, I. O. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early intensive behavioral interventions. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 359–372.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Millerd, F. W., & Robertson, A. R. (1987). Computer simulations as an integral part of intermediate macroeconomics. Journal of Economic Education, 18, 269–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorthy, K., Munz, Y., Jiwanji, M., Bann, S., Chang, A., Darzi, A. (2004). Validity and reliability of a virtual reality upper gastrointestinal simulator and cross validation using structured assessment of individual performance with video playback. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, 18, 328–333.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, R. D. (2001). CyberRat (version 2.0) [computer software]. AI2 Inc.

  • Remington, B., Hastings, R., Hall, M., Bizo, L., & Brown, T. (2000). A computer simulation paradigm for self-injurious behaviour. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 44, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodenas J., Zarza, I., Burgos, M. C., Felipe A., & Sanchez-Mayoral, M. L. (2004). Developing a virtual reality application for training nuclear power plant operators: Setting up a database containing dose rates in the refuelling plant. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 111, 173–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T. (2001). Discrete trial training in the treatment of autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 86–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, T., & Lovaas, I. O. (1998). Intensive and early behavioral intervention: The UCLA Young Autism Project. Infants and Young Children, 10, 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by award (RES-000-22-0142 from the Economic and Social Research Council. The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable contributions made by Francesca degli Espinosa and Matteo Piombino to the completion of the present research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bob Remington.

Appendices

Appendix A

All error classifications and consequent onscreen feedback messages (in quotes) employed during Experiments 1, 2, and 3.

Object matching and receptive speech trials:

  1. 1

    Attempting to place two items in one area of table—“You have already placed an object in this area of the table”.

  2. 2

    Attempting to remove objects from table before presenting feedback—“Make sure you complete every trial before moving to the next”.

  3. 3

    Attempting to place two identical objects on table—“Remember to place three different objects on the table”.

  4. 4

    Attempting to give feedback prior to SIMon’s response—“make sure you don’t give feedback before SIMon has responded”.

  5. 5

    Attempting any initial action other than placing first object on table—“You have not placed any objects on the table”.

  6. 6

    Attempting to deliver a verbal cue when SIMon is not attending—“Don’t deliver a cue while SIMon is not attending”.

  7. 7

    Attempting to place any object too near to or far from SIMon—“Place all the objects the same distance away from SIMon”.

  8. 8

    Delivering more than one verbal cue during a trial—“Remember to start a new trial by removing all the objects before trying to cue SIMon again”.

  9. 9

    Presenting identical verbal cues on more than two consecutive trials—“Remember to vary the cue from trial to trial”.

  10. 10

    Presenting identical positive feedback on more than two consecutive trials—“Remember to vary the feedback from trial to trial”.

  11. 11

    Presenting more than three pieces of positive or negative feedback during a trial—“Don’t give SIMon too much feedback on one trial”.

  12. 12

    Attempting to place fourth object on table—“Do not place more than three objects on the table”.

  13. 13

    Delivering negative feedback when SIMon has responded correctly—“Make sure you deliver positive feedback when SIMon has responded correctly”.

  14. 14

    Delivering positive feedback when SIMon has responded incorrectly—“Remember to tell SIMon you are going to start a new trial when he makes a mistake, and then remove all the objects”.

  15. 15

    Attempting to remove objects from table before cue or feedback has been given—“Make sure you give feedback to SIMon immediately he has responded”.

  16. 16

    Failing to remove objects from table within 3-s subsequent to providing feedback—“Remember to remove the objects immediately after you have given feedback to SIMon”.

  17. 17

    Allowing more than 3 s between placement of second or third comparison objects—“Make sure you put all the objects on the table within a short space of time”.

  18. 18

    Failing to provide feedback within 3 s of SIMon’s response—“Make sure you give feedback to SIMon immediately he has responded”.

  19. 19

    Failing to place first comparison object on table within 3 s of starting a trial—“Remember to place three different objects on the table at the beginning of each trial”.

  20. 20

    Failing to remove objects within 3 s of delivering negative feedback—“You have already told SIMon that you are going to start a new trial!”.

  21. 21

    Exceeding 3 s inter-trial interval—“Remember to make the inter-trial interval as brief as possible”.

  22. 22

    Failing to deliver negative feedback within 3 s of SIMon selecting incorrect comparison—“Remember to tell SIMon that you are going to start again when he has responded incorrectly”.

  23. 23

    Failing to remove objects within 3 s of delivering negative feedback—“Remember to remove all the objects after you have told SIMon he has responded incorrectly”.

Object matching trials only:

  1. 24

    Attempting to provide more than one sample object—“You have already given SIMon a target to match”.

  2. 25

    Attempting to provide sample object different from all objects on table—“The target you have given SIMon does not match any of the objects on the table”.

  3. 26

    Attempting to deliver verbal cue prior to presenting sample—“You have not given SIMon a target to match”.

  4. 27

    Failing to place sample object accurately in SIMon’s hand—“Make sure you put the target in SIMon’s right hand”.

  5. 28

    Attempting to present sample object prior to placing three objects on table—“Remember to place three different objects on the table before giving the target to SIMon”.

  6. 29

    Failing to deliver verbal cue within 3 s of providing sample—“Remember to deliver a cue immediately after giving the object to SIMon”.

  7. 30

    Allowing more than 3 s between placement of third object and presentation of sample—“Give SIMon a target from the object tray within a short time of placing the other objects”.

Receptive speech trials only:

  1. 31

    Attempting to place sample object in SIMon’s hand—“Don’t give objects to SIMon, you are teaching him to identify objects!”.

  2. 32

    Attempting to deliver verbal cue relating to object that hasn’t been placed on table—“Cue SIMon to identify an object that is on the table”.

  3. 33

    Failing to deliver verbal cue within 3 s of placing third comparison—“Make sure you deliver a cue to SIMon immediately you’ve put three objects on the table”.

  4. 34

    Delivering first part of verbal cue without specifying target—“Click on the object in the object tray that you’d like SIMon to identify before starting to cue him again”.

  5. 35

    Attempting to repeat first part of verbal cue—“Click on the object in the object tray that you’d like SIMon to identify, before starting to cue him again”.

  6. 36

    Attempting to present verbal cue prior to placing three objects on table—“Remember to place three different objects on the table before cueing SIMon”.

Appendix B

Video observation task trial types and order of presentation during Experiment 1.

Practice

  1. 1

    Correct

  2. 2

    Cue repeated by tutor

  3. 3

    No consequence given by tutor

Test

  1. 1

    No consequence given by tutor

  2. 2

    Correct

  3. 3

    Verbal cue given while child non-attending

  4. 4

    Correct

  5. 5

    Positional prompt given by tutor

  6. 6

    Confusing verbal cue by tutor

  7. 7

    Correct

  8. 8

    Verbal cue repeated by tutor

  9. 9

    Correct

  10. 10

    Gestural prompt by tutor

  11. 11

    Consequence delayed by tutor

  12. 12

    Correct

  13. 13

    Two identical objects presented by tutor

  14. 14

    Verbal cue given while child non-attending

  15. 15

    Confusing verbal cue given by tutor

  16. 16

    Correct

  17. 17

    Consequence delayed by tutor

  18. 18

    Gestural prompt by tutor

  19. 19

    Correct

  20. 20

    Verbal cue repeated by tutor

  21. 21

    Two identical objects presented by tutor

  22. 22

    No consequence given by tutor

  23. 23

    Correct

  24. 24

    Positional prompt given by tutor

Appendix C

Video observation task trial types and order of presentation during Experiments 2 and 3.

Practice

  1. 1

    No consequence given by tutor

  2. 2

    Correct

  3. 3

    Gestural prompt by tutor

Test

  1. 1

    Verbal cue given while child non-attending

  2. 2

    Positional prompt given by tutor

  3. 3

    Confusing verbal cue by tutor

  4. 4

    Consequence delayed by tutor

  5. 5

    Correct

  6. 6

    Two identical objects presented by tutor

  7. 7

    Verbal cue given while child non-attending

  8. 8

    Confusing verbal cue given by tutor

  9. 9

    Correct

  10. 10

    Two identical objects presented by tutor

  11. 11

    Consequence delayed by tutor

  12. 12

    Positional prompt given by tutor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Randell, T., Hall, M., Bizo, L. et al. DTkid: Interactive Simulation Software for Training Tutors of Children with Autism. J Autism Dev Disord 37, 637–647 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0193-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0193-z

Keywords

Navigation