Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T14:15:08.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence‐Based Practice in the Classroom: Evaluating a Procedure for Reducing Perseverative Requesting in an Adolescent with Autism and Severe Intellectual Disability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Jeff Sigafoos ,
Jennifer Ganz ,
Mark O’Reilly  and
Giulio Lancioni
Jeff Sigafoos*
Affiliation:
Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand
Jennifer Ganz
Affiliation:
University of Texas, San Antonio, USA
Mark O’Reilly
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin
Giulio Lancioni
Affiliation:
University of Bari, Italy
*
*Corresponding author. College of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 17–310, Karoi, Wellington, New Zealand E-mail: jeff.sigafoos@vuw.ac.nz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Management of inappropriate behaviour is a major priority in special education. Evidence‐based practice dictates that interventions to reduce inappropriate behaviour should be evaluated at the individual level to demonstrate their efficacy in the classroom. This study illustrates the evaluation of an evidence‐based procedure (response interruption) for reducing perseverative requesting in an adolescent boy with autism and severe intellectual disability. The boy used a speech‐generating device to request snacks during baseline and response interruption conditions. During both conditions, the boy had to wait 30 seconds while the snack was being prepared. Requests that occurred during this wait interval were defined as perseverative. Intervention involved blocking perseverative requests and prompting the child to wait. An ABAB design was used to evaluate the effects of the response interruption procedure. The results demonstrated that response interruption effectively reduced perseverative requesting, while maintaining appropriate requesting at other times. The study illustrates how special educators might evaluate evidence‐based practice in the classroom.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 32 , Issue 1: A Scientific Approach to Special Education , April 2008 , pp. 55 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. (1957). Schedules of reinforcement. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Lennox, D. B., Miltenberger, R. G., & Donnelly, D. R. (1987). Response interruption and DLR for the reduction of rapid eating. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 279–284.Google Scholar
Linscheid, T. R. (1999). Commentary: Response to empirically supported treatments for feeding problems. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 24, 215–216.Google Scholar
Luckasson, R. A., Schalock, R. L., Spitalnik, D. M., Spreat, S., Tasse, M., & Snell, M. E. et al. (2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of support. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). Is the glass half full or half empty? Challenges encountered by first-year special education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 35, 66–74.Google Scholar
McEntee, J. E., Parker, E. H., Brown, M. D., & Poulson, R. L. (1996). The effects of response interruption, DRO, and positive reinforcement on the reduction of hand-mouthing behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 11, 163–170.Google Scholar
Reichle, J., & Johnston, S. S. (1999). Teaching the conditional use of communicative requests to two school-aged children with severe developmental disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 324–334.Google Scholar
Reichle, J., & McComas, J. (2004). Conditional use of a request for assistance. Disability & Rehabilitation, 26, 1255–1262.Google Scholar
Schepis, M. M., Reid, D. H., & Behrman, M. M. (1996). Acquisition and functional use of voice output communication by persons with profound multiple disabilities. Behavior Modification, 20, 451–468.Google Scholar
Schlosser, R. W., & Bilschak, D. M. (2001). Is there a role for speech output in interventions for persons with autism? A review. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 170–178.Google Scholar
Schlopler, E., Reichler, R. J., & Renner, B. R. (1988). The Childhood Autism Rating Scale. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Sigafoos, J. (1998). Assessing conditional use of graphic mode requesting in a young boy with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 10, 133–151.Google Scholar
Sigafoos, J., Didden, R., & O’Reilly, M. (2003). Effects of speech output on maintenance of requesting and frequency of vocalizations in three children with developmental disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sigafoos, J., & Drasgow, E. (2001). Conditional use of aided and unaided AAC: A review and clinical case demonstration. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 152–161.Google Scholar
Sigafoos, J., Drasgow, E., & Schlosser, R. W. (2003). Strategies for beginning communicators. In Schlosser, R. W. (Ed.), The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication: Toward evidence-based practice (pp. 323–346). Boston: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., Seely-York, S., & Edrisinha, C. (2004). Teaching students with developmental disabilities to locate their AAC device. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 371–383.Google Scholar
Slifer, K. J., Iwata, B. A., & Dorsey, M. F. (1984). Reduction of eye gouging using a response interruption procedure. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 15, 369–375.Google Scholar
Smith, A. (2003). Scientifically based research and evidence-based education: A Federal policy context. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 126–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, T., McAdam, D., & Napolitano, D. (2007). Autism and applied behavior analysis. In Sturmey, P., & Fitzer, A. (Eds.), Autism spectrum disorders: Applied behavior analysis, evidence, and practice (pp. 1–29). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Interview Edition Survey Form. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Wheldall, K., & Carter, M. (1996). Reconstructing behaviour analysis in education: A revised behavioural interactionist perspective for special education. Educational Psychology, 16, 121–140.Google Scholar