Citation

Sigafoos J, O'Reilly M, Ma CH, Edrisinha C, Cannella H, Lancioni GE. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2006; 31(4): 196-203.

Affiliation

The University of Tasmania, Australia. Jeff.Sigafoos@utas.edu.au

Copyright

(Copyright © 2006, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/13668250600999160

PMID

17178531

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Embedded instruction and discrete-trial training are both recommended for teaching children with autism, but there is little research available comparing the two. The present study compared embedded instruction with discrete-trial training for a 12-year-old boy with autism. METHOD: An initial functional analysis indicated that the boy's self-injury was maintained by escape from task demands. Instructional sessions to teach adaptive behaviours were conducted under two conditions: (i) during embedded instruction, learning trials were inserted into ongoing activities at a rate of approximately 1.5 per minute; (ii) during discrete-trial training, instructional opportunities were incorporated into structured sessions at a rate of 4 per minute. In both conditions, the system of least prompts was used to teach relevant target responses. Effects of the two teaching formats were evaluated using an ABABA design. RESULTS: Higher rates of self-injury and fewer correct responses occurred during discrete-trial training. Mood ratings were also lower during discrete-trial training. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that self-injury, correct responding, and mood may be sensitive to the type of instructional format. Although discrete-trial training can be highly effective, it may be preferable to start with embedded instruction when the child presents with self-injurious escape behaviour.

Language: en