View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effect of Observing-Response Procedures on Overselectivity in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effect of Observing-Response Procedures on Overselectivity in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Language: English
Authors: Reed, Phil, Altweck, Laura, Broomfield, Laura, Simpson, Anna, McHugh, Louise
Source: Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. Dec 2012 27(4):237-246.
Availability: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Learning Disabilities, Autism, Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Experiments, Stimuli, Experimental Groups, Control Groups, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: United Kingdom
DOI: 10.1177/1088357612457986
ISSN: 1088-3576
Abstract: Stimulus overselectivity occurs when one aspect of the environment controls behavior at the expense of other equally salient aspects. Stimulus overselectivity can be reduced for some individuals with learning disabilities, if they engage in an observing response in which they point to, touch, or name each of the stimuli prior to selecting the one requested. To see whether this would apply to another population, a total of 55 participants with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) were trained on match-to-sample (MTS), or simple discrimination tasks, to determine whether overselectivity could be eliminated by using an observing response. MTS tasks were presented in a table-top format as well as on a computer. The observing-response procedure did not eliminate overselectivity for any of the participants, regardless of age, task, or format of presentation. These results are interpreted to call to question the effectiveness of this procedure in this context for individuals with ASD. (Contains 1 table and 6 figures.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 21
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ984723
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEh5i3vqgEkse_zOr2Jp_TLAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOawoPTDtP1JX3Q3ZwIBEICBmlLnUESVEkiek3bYGnBfGKd35aUFtDTEWF-9upOPqjpPSxOqYpiHxzYr3wWX4rn-mvSlfELU69L481JEGueyGxw3_mKvWiJ7XHpE3hPPONRZq3QDC_qEns9TGmfIkA6KBrHSvLuoo0lqSqgXoOnS0WF4v6CQggrVcDd-tQSewemUNkMW8QKXbz-hFlwM8ILe5wa1KX284kUo7P8=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0083256255;fdd01dec.12;2012Nov09.13:03;v2.2.460</anid> <title id="AN0083256255-1">Effect of Observing-Response Procedures on Overselectivity in Individuals With Autism Spectrum Disorders </title> <p>FOAspfoaFocus Autism Other Dev DisablFocus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities1088-35761538-4829SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA10.1177/108835761245798610.1177_1088357612457986Effect of Observing-Response Procedures on Overselectivity in Individuals With Autism Spectrum DisordersReedPhilDPhil1AltweckLauraBSc1BroomfieldLauraPhD1SimpsonAnnaMSc1McHughLouisePhD21Swansea University, UK2University College Dublin, IrelandPhil Reed, Department of Psychology, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK Email: p.reed@swansea.ac.uk122012274237246© 2012 Hammill Institute on Disabilities2012Hammill Institute on DisabilitiesStimulus overselectivity occurs when one aspect of the environment controls behavior at the expense of other equally salient aspects. Stimulus overselectivity can be reduced for some individuals with learning disabilities, if they engage in an observing response in which they point to, touch, or name each of the stimuli prior to selecting the one requested. To see whether this would apply to another population, a total of 55 participants with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) were trained on match-to-sample (MTS), or simple discrimination tasks, to determine whether overselectivity could be eliminated by using an observing response. MTS tasks were presented in a table-top format as well as on a computer. The observing-response procedure did not eliminate overselectivity for any of the participants, regardless of age, task, or format of presentation. These results are interpreted to call to question the effectiveness of this procedure in this context for individuals with ASD.autism spectrum disordersstimulus overselectivityobserving responseStimulus overselectivity is the term used to describe the phenomenon whereby one aspect of the environment comes to control behavior at the expense of other equally salient aspects of the environment. Overselectivity has a high level of occurrence in those with autism spectrum disorders (ASD; Lovaas & Schreibman, 1971), although it is not restricted to this population (Dube & McIlvane, 1999; McHugh & Reed, 2007). In terms of the clinical implications of overselectivity, responding that is restricted to a small set of cues can severely inhibit the individual’s ability to learn about complex objects (Reynolds, Newsom, & Lovaas, 1974; Varni, Lovaas, Kogel, & Everett, 1979), can diminish the impact of teaching interventions (Broomfield, McHugh, & Reed, 2007), and can cause severe difficulties for social interaction (Birnie-Selwyn & Guerin, 1997; Cook, Anderson, & Rincover, 1982).The use of an observing-response procedure has been considered by several investigators to combat overselectivity (Broomfield et al., 2007; Constantine & Sidman, 1975; Stromer, McIlvane, Dube, & Mackay, 1993). An observing response requires the individual first to attend to each individual stimulus (by touching, pointing, and/or naming) before the instructor requests an action (e.g., give me cup). This promotes exposure to a discriminative stimulus and brings sensory receptors into contact with the environmental stimuli (Wyckoff, 1952). Ensuring that all aspects of the stimulus initially are sampled should, in principle, overcome any potential attention deficits experienced by the participants because not all aspects of the stimuli are initially perceived (Dube & McIlvane, 1999).Constantine and Sidman (1975) examined a delayed match-to-sample task (MTS) with picture stimuli as the sample and comparison stimuli, with four participants with learning disabilities. When the sample picture was available at the same time as the comparison, the participants performed accurately. However, performance was poor in the delayed condition (i.e., when the sample was removed prior to the presentation of the comparison). In contrast, when names, rather than pictures, were presented as samples, three out of the four participants matched pictures to the names, even under the delayed condition.Constantine and Sidman (1975) suggested that the use of a naming-observing procedure increased accuracy scores in MTS tasks and supported the use of observing-response procedures to aid learning in individuals with learning disabilities. Of course, not all individuals with learning disabilities have naming abilities, so the study of nonverbal observing-response procedures (e.g., pointing) may offer greater generality of the results.Dube and McIlvane (1999) compared accuracy in a delayed-MTS condition with accuracy when an observing-response procedure (without naming) was adopted. This procedure meant that the participants with learning disabilities made simultaneous identity-matching responses that required observation and discrimination of both samples. When an observing-response intervention was introduced, the accuracy scores improved relative to when the observing response was not used. However, it should be noted that accuracy scores returned to baseline when the observing response was no longer used. A similar effect was noted by Broomfield et al. (2007), who demonstrated that an observing-response procedure had only a limited usefulness in a typically developing population of adults who were exposed to a concurrent task (a procedure known to induce overselective responding in healthy adults; Reed & Gibson, 2005); the effects of an observing-response procedure in eliminating overselectivity disappeared when it was withdrawn, leaving no lasting benefit to the participants.Thus, although there is evidence that an observing-response procedure can reduce overselectivity (Constantine & Sidman, 1975; Stromer et al., 1993), this procedure may not promote long-term effects (Broomfield et al., 2007; Dube & McIlvane, 1999). Rather, the procedural benefits of an observing-response intervention appear to be confined to the period of application of the intervention. This finding is a drawback to any potential treatment based on observing-response interventions, and certainly requires further study.In the current studies, we sought to ascertain the effectiveness of the observing-response procedure for the elimination of overselectivity in a sample of individuals with ASD. Although this procedure has been used extensively as an intervention for overselectivity in populations with learning disabilities (Constantine & Sidman, 1975; Dube & McIlvane, 1999), there are no demonstrations of the use of an observing-response procedure to elevate overselectivity in a population with ASD.In tackling this issue, it should be noted that there are multiple possible procedures that could be used in terms of observing responses (e.g., pointing and/or naming) and multiple training contexts in which they could be used (e.g., MTS, simple discriminations). Given this consideration, we used a variety of different techniques: table top MTS with pointing (Experiment 1), automated MTS with pointing (Experiment 2), and simple discrimination training with pointing and naming (Experiment 3). Although this makes the individual studies somewhat different from one another, they all address the same basic issue of whether observing responses facilitate learning in children with ASD.General MethodCommon ProceduresThe recruiting and assessment procedures were the same across all three experiments. Participants for each study were recruited by asking the parents of the children to volunteer their children’s time. All of the participants were diagnosed with autistic disorder or pervasive developmental disorder–not otherwise specified and had no other diagnoses. The diagnoses were made by a specialist pediatrician, not affiliated with the research, on the basis of criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and clinical judgment. All the participants also had a statement of special educational needs from their local education authority that included autism, and they all attended a special school for students with ASD.The participants’ diagnoses were supported by the administration of the Autism Behavior Checklist (ABC; Krug, Arick, & Almond, 1980). This was completed by the parents of the children to assess the severity of the autism of each child and was returned with the consent form. The ABC is a 57-item checklist, grouped into five areas: sensory, relating, body and object use, language, and social and self-help skills. A total score of 67 or more is taken by Krug et al. (1980) to suggest probable autism. Scores between 55 and 67 suggest possible autism. Reports on reliability have been high (Volkmar et al., 1988), although the convergence among the ABC and other instruments has not been good. This possibly reflects the ABC’s somewhat broad-based symptom focus (Shaffer, Lucas, & Richters, 1999). Thus, it is important to note that the measure may not give a similar picture of the child’s autism as other instruments; however, the ABC was still considered useful in the present context because (a) no special training in administration or scoring is required, and, in the current study, it was to be completed by parents, who tend, on average, to produce higher scores than teachers (Volkmar et al., 1988) and (b) it was to be used as a research tool gauging the relative effects of autistic symptomatology across the participants, rather than to make absolute judgments regarding the impact of symptoms.Once parental consent had been obtained, along with the parent-rated ABC questionnaire, each experiment was conducted in a quiet room in the participants’ schools. The participants sat besides the experimenter, and a teaching assistant (different for each child) sat behind them. The presence of the teaching assistant was to make the child feel more comfortable/familiar with the testing situation and to act as an independent rater of the behaviors (in all cases, the scores from the experimenter and teaching assistant were identical). Initially, the participants were administered the British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS; Dunn, Dunn, Whetton, & Pintile, 1982) by the experimenter conducting the study, according to the manual, to ascertain their verbal mental age according to their receptive language capacity. The BPVS does not require any speaking, writing, or reading; the child simply points to picture cards. This means that this test is suitable for use with children with special needs. The child is asked to point to one picture that matches a spoken word out of a choice of four pictures. This test is standardized for use on children in the United Kingdom between 3 and 17 years of age. It has an internal reliability of .93 and, according to Dunn et al. (1982), correlates .59 with the Comprehension Scale of the Reynell Developmental Language Scales. The BPVS took approximately 20 min to administer. Participant characteristics for each of the three experiments are provided in Table 1.Table 1.Participant Characteristics Across StudiesAge (years)ABCBPVS (years)ExperimentnMale:FemaleMRangeSDMRangeSDMRangeSD11513:212.67.5–17.22.869.956–899.44.22.3–8.41.722219:312.67.8–17.12.969.257–898.29.24.8–14.43.331817:112.37.6–17.13.368.856–857.63.92.0–8.11.9Note: ABC = Autism Behavior Checklist (Krug, Arick, & Almond, 1980); BPVS = British Picture Vocabulary Scale (Dunn, Dunn, Whetton, & Pintile, 1982).For each experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups: an experimental group or a control group. Randomization was accomplished by tossing a coin to determine group membership.Experiment 1Experiment 1 explored the effectiveness of an observing-response procedure to reduce overselectivity in 15 participants with ASD. Broomfield et al. (2007) and Dube and McIlvane (1999) found that an observing-response procedure reduced overselectivity in individuals with learning disabilities, but it is not certain that this procedure would be effective for individuals with ASD. In addition, Broomfield et al. and Dube and McIlvane discovered that the beneficial effects did not last post-intervention. Thus, a further aim of the present experiment was to investigate whether an observing-response procedure would reduce overselectivity in participants with ASD once it was withdrawn.MethodParticipantsNineteen participants were initially tested for the first experiment. Two participants did not complete the first experimental phase of the study, and two participants could not complete the BPVS, so these four participants were excluded from the experiment. Table 1 contains information about the participants who completed the study. The mean age, ABC, and BPVS for the experimental group (n = 8) were 12.6 years, 69.8, and 4.1 years. The mean age, ABC, and BPVS for the control group (n = 7) were 12 years, 70.1, and 4.7 years. No group differences on these variables were statistically significant, all ts < 1. One female was in each group.MTS StimuliThe stimuli components used in the MTS task were symbols obtained from various fonts in Microsoft Word 2000. These fonts were Wingdings, Windings 2, and Symbol (see Figure 1 for examples).Figure 1.Examples of stimulus components symbols.There were three elements in each sample compound, and there were three samples used (i.e., ABC, DEF, GHI). In the comparison stimuli, there were three elements, one of which was previously presented in the sample stimulus and the other two elements came from the other samples (e.g., AEH). The three elements of the sample and comparison stimuli were presented on A4 sheets of paper. The specific stimuli used as ABC and so forth were different for each participant to avoid any stimulus-specific effects.ProcedureThe experiment was conducted in two phases: Phase 1, in which the experimental group of participants received MTS training with an observing-response procedure and a control group received MTS training with no observing response, and Phase 2, in which both groups received MTS training with no observing response.Phase 1All participants performed an MTS task. The participants were told, You will be shown a piece of paper with three symbols on it, please try to remember the symbols. You will then be shown another piece of paper with three symbols on. One of the symbols will be the same as on the piece of paper you saw before. Please point to the symbol you think you saw on the previous piece of paper.Nine symbols were presented in three, three-element compound stimuli (e.g., ABC, DEF, GHI) during this training phase. Participants were shown an A4 sheet displaying one of the sets of three stimuli for 5 s as the sample. Participants were then shown (as the comparison) one of the sample stimuli, along with two of the other stimuli. For example, if ABC was shown as a sample, either A, B, or C would then be shown with two other elements (one from each of the other three-element compounds, such as DG or EH) in the comparison stimulus. Each participant received all combinations of the elements as comparisons (with all comparison stimuli being presented in left-to-right order, ADG, GAD, DGA, etc.), meaning that there were 54 comparison-sample trials in total (18 for each three- element sample).Participants needed to select the symbol that was the same as the one on the previous compound. The experimenter told participants whether their choice was correct or incorrect.For the control group, these were the only contingencies in operation. For the experimental group, the participants performed the MTS task with an observing response. These participants were asked to point to all three symbols on the sample card, one by one, to ensure that they acknowledged their presence.Participants in the experimental group were told, You will be shown a piece of paper with three symbols on it. Please point to the symbol on the left . . . [once they pointed to that symbol] . . . Please point to the symbol in the middle . . . [once they pointed to that symbol] . . . Please point to the symbol on the right . . . [once they pointed to that symbol].Naming was not used as an observing response because of the limited verbal ability of some of the children. Once this was performed, the MTS trial commenced.Phase 2After a period of 20 min following the completion of Phase 1, during which the participants rested and were not in the experimental room, a new set of stimuli was presented to participants in a MTS task. The new stimuli consisted of nine stimuli from the same fonts as described for Phase 1, but different from those employed in Phase 1, and were presented in 54 trials, in the same manner and procedure as in the first phase, except that experimental group no longer had the observing-response procedure in place.Results and DiscussionFor each participant, the mean percentage times that the most, intermediate, and least chosen stimulus elements were correctly chosen were calculated. This was achieved by determining how many times each element had been correctly chosen when it was presented in the comparison (i.e., how many times out of 18), and this was converted into a percentage. The elements were then ordered into most to least chosen for each participant. The most, intermediate, and least chosen symbols were not the same for each participant, suggesting no inherent preference for particular stimuli. The percentage times that each stimulus was chosen is displayed in Figure 2.Figure 2.Mean percentage of the most, intermediate, and least chosen stimulus elements across the two groups in both phases of Experiment 1.Inspection of Figure 2 shows a clear difference among percentages of times that the most, intermediate, and least were chosen. However, there was little difference between the two groups and little difference across the two phases. A three-factor, mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with group (experimental and control) as a between-participant factor, and phase (Phases 1 and 2) and stimulus (most, intermediate, and least), was conducted on these data, and revealed only a statistically significant main effect of stimulus, F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref1">2</reflink>, 26) = 131.22, p < .001. These results suggest that the children displayed overselectivity, but that the effect of an observing response without naming was negligible.Figure 3 displays the group-mean difference in percentage times that the most and intermediate, and most and least, chosen stimuli were picked. Inspection of these data shows little impact of the observing-response procedure in Phase 1 for the experimental group relative to the control group. A mixed-model ANOVA (Group × Phase × Stimulus) was conducted on these data and revealed a statistically significant main effect of difference, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>, 13) = 314.07, p < .001, but no other main effects or interactions were statistically significant, all ps > .10.Figure 3.Difference between most and intermediately chosen, and the most and least chosen, stimuli in each phase for both groups during Experiment 1.These data are interpreted to confirm that large overselectivity effects emerge with children with ASD, but that there was no effect of an observing response on this effect in these participants. This finding stands in contrast to several other demonstrations of the effectiveness of an observing response with other populations (Broomfield et al., 2007; Constantine & Sidman, 1975; Dube & McIlvane, 1999). Phase 2 was intended to determine whether any effect of the observing response on MTS performance could be maintained and generalized, but because there was no impact of the observing-response procedure, it is not surprising that there was no difference in the groups’ performances in Phase 2. Prior to the discussion of the implications of this finding, it was thought prudent to explore this null effect in other procedures to confirm its generality.Experiment 2In Experiment 2, our aim was to extend the research by using an automated MTS, rather than “table top,” procedure, in an attempt to further explore the effectiveness of an observing-response procedure to reduce overselectivity in individuals with ASD. If similar null results were obtained using a different form of MTS procedure, then more weight could be placed on the lack of an observing-response effect on reducing overselectivity.MethodParticipantsTable 1 contains information about the participants who completed Experiment 2. The mean age, ABC, and BPVS for the experimental group (n = 11) were 12.3 years, 70.2, and 8.9 years. The mean age, ABC, and BPVS for the control group (n = 11) were 12.9 years, 67.7, and 9.1 years. No group differences on these variables were statistically significant, all ts < 1. One female was in the experimental group, and 2 females were in the control group. None of the participants in Experiment 1 were included in Experiment 2.MTS StimuliThe stimuli to be used in the automated MTS procedure were drawn from the same set as employed in Experiment 1. The experiment was conducted on a Fujitsu Siemans laptop computer with a 150 GHZ processor.ProcedureThe participants sat in front of the computer and instructions appeared on the screen, explaining that this was a MTS procedure: This is a match-to-samples task. Three symbols will appear in the middle of the screen for 5 s, please study these symbols. Four symbols will then appear in the corners of the screen. Two of the four symbols will be the same as the symbols seen on the previously shown screen. Please select one of the symbols that you believe matches the previous symbols using the mouse. There will be a practice session to begin with.The experimenter read these instructions to the participants. The instructions were then explained, “There will be three pictures, then four pictures. You must try to choose one you have seen before.”There were 10 practice trials; the first trial was demonstrated by the experimenter, so that the participants could see what they were meant to do. The stimuli A, B, and C were presented, followed by two of the target stimuli (AB, AC, or BC) and two novel stimuli (DE, EF, or DF). The four stimuli appeared in the corners of the screen. Participants had to click on one of the stimulus elements that they thought they had previously seen. The participants were given feedback of “very good” with a picture of a cartoon dog dancing, if they chose one of the correct stimulus elements (i.e., a stimulus element that appeared in the sample). They were given feedback of “oops,” with cartoon of a bear looking sad, if they chose the wrong stimulus element (i.e., a stimulus element that had not appeared in the sample). The stimuli were presented an equal number of times, so AB, BC, and AC were each presented 3 times, and each element A, B, and C was presented 6 times. The participants completed the remaining 9 practice trials by themselves. Participants completed the practice trials in an average of 3 min. Once the participants had completed the 10 practice trials, they were informed that the experiment was to begin.Phase 1The procedure was as outlined above. The participants in the observing conditions also were informed that they needed to click on each of the three stimuli that appeared on screen, and a red dot would appear underneath to indicate that they had done so. There were nine trials presenting the sample and comparison stimuli.Phase 2This was the interval before the retesting phase, and the participants were given the following instructions: “Two symbols will appear on screen. Use the mouse to select one. You will be given feedback of correct or incorrect for your choices.” Again, the experimenter explained to the children what they had to do. The side on which the “correct” novel stimulus appeared (left or right) was alternated across trials. Participants were given feedback of “very good,” when they selected the one stimulus by clicking on it with the mouse. They were given feedback of “oops” if they selected the other stimulus. This continued until the participant got 10 correct answers consecutively. Which stimulus was correct was arbitrary. This phase of the experiment provided an interval between Phases 1 and 3 of the experiment. This phase was inserted to provide a break between the initial testing (Phase 1) and the determination if any improvement due to the observing response was maintained (Phase 3), and on average took about 5 min to complete.Phase 3This phase was the same as Phase 1; however, no corrective feedback was given, and there were no practice trials. Both conditions were the same as one another, so no observing response was used for the participants in the observing condition.Results and DiscussionFrom the sample comparison selections, the percentage of times the most, intermediate, and least chosen stimulus elements were chosen was calculated for each participant. The most, intermediate, and least chosen stimuli were not the same for each participant, suggesting that there were no consistent inherent preferences for the stimuli. Figure 4 displays the mean percentage selections for the most, intermediate, and least chosen stimuli in the observing and control conditions for the test and the retest phases.Figure 4.Mean accuracy scores for the most, intermediate, and least chosen element of the compound in each of the conditions in Experiment 2.It can be seen from Figure 4 that there was only a very slight alteration in differentiation among the most, intermediate, and least chosen stimuli in the observing condition, in comparison with the control condition in Phase 1. However, it is clear from these data that the observing response did not have a particularly dramatic effect on reducing the degree of overselectivity relative to the control group. That there was little impact of the observing-response procedure when it was implemented in Phase 1 makes it unsurprising that there was little change in the performance of the groups in Phase 3. A three-factor, mixed-model ANOVA (Stimulus Type × Phase × Group) revealed that there was a statistically significant main effect of stimulus type, F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>, 40) = 94.01, p < .0001, but none of the other main effects, nor interactions, were statistically significant, ps > .05.The difference between the most and intermediate, and between the most and least, chosen stimuli was calculated for each participant. Figure 5 shows the mean differences across the participants in the observing and control conditions for the test and retest phases; the larger the difference in this score, the greater the degree of overselectivity displayed.Figure 5.Mean difference between the most accurately chosen stimulus and the stimulus chosen with intermediate accuracy, and the most accurately chosen stimulus and the least accurately chosen stimulus, in Experiment 2.Note: M-I = most–intermediate; M-L = most–least.The data in Figure 5 are interpreted to reveal an effect of the observing response somewhat more clearly than the data described above, although the effect is, again, slight. It can be seen from inspection of the data from Phase 1 that there was numerically slightly less overselectivity in the experimental condition than the control condition, but only for the most to intermediate comparison. In fact, this effect is seen to a greater extent in Phase 3 This does not necessarily suggest that the observing response is maintaining, as the change responsible for the effect in Phase 3 is the overselectivity increasing in the control group, for which there is no clear explanation.A mixed-model ANOVA (Group × Stimulus × Phase) conducted on these data showed that there was a statistically significant main effect of stimulus type, F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>, 40) = 33.71, p < .0001, there was a statistically significant main effect of group, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>, 20) = 6.43, p < .05, and a statistically significant interaction among the three factors, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref6">1</reflink>, 20) = 4.71, p < .05; none of the other main effects, nor interactions, were statistically significant, ps > .05. To further analyze these data, separate mixed-model ANOVAs (Stimulus type × Group) were performed on each phase. This analysis of Phase 1 showed stimulus type to be statistically significant, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>, 20) = 13.60, p < .001, but neither the main effect of group nor the interaction between the two factors was statistically significant, Fs < 1. The mixed-model ANOVA for Phase 3 showed that there were statistically significant main effects of stimulus type, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref8">1</reflink>, 10) = 40.02, p < .0001, and group, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>, 10) = 9.56, p < .01, but there was no statistically significant interaction between the two, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref10">1</reflink>, 10) = 3.96, p > .05. Simple effects analyses showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the groups for the most and intermediate scores in Phase 1, nor in Phase 3, ps > .05. There was no statistically significant difference between the most and least chosen scores between the groups in Phase 1, F < 1, but there was a statistically significant difference between the most and least scores in Phase 3, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref11">1</reflink>, 20) = 8.83, p < .05.From the results, it can be seen that overselectivity was observed in this population using an automated procedure. This suggests that overselectivity is observed in a population with ASD using a MTS task, and this effect can be seen in an automated procedure as well as in the table-top procedures used in Experiment 1. However, the results with respect to the effect of the observing response were not strong, replicating the lack of a clear effect reported in Experiment 1. There was more overselectivity in the control group in comparison with the experimental group. However, this was only seen in the retest phase. Scores in the observing condition did not differ between the test and retest phases. Thus, although the current experiment corroborated the existence of overselectivity in the clinical group using this procedure, it could find no evidence to support the effectiveness of the observing response as an intervention to ameliorate this effect. This may not be entirely surprising given the lack of existing literature with respect to ASD.Experiment 3Observing-response procedures have been found to reduce overselectivity in participants with learning disabilities (Constantine & Sidman, 1975; Dube & McIlvane, 1999; Stromer et al., 1993) but were not noted for the participants with ASD in Experiments 1 and 2. Given this finding, it is questionable how useful this procedure is for remediating the overselectivity problem in this population. The current experiment aimed to explore whether any reduction in overselectivity would occur in a sample with ASD when the observing response was in place in a simple learning discrimination task, which has been used a number of times to investigate this phenomena in this population (Reed, Broomfield, McHugh, McCausland, & Leader, 2008). If an observing-response procedure was successful, then children in the observing group would display less overselectivity than the children in the control group. If the intervention was not successful in reducing overselectivity with a second procedure (simple discrimination as opposed to MTS), it would add to the suggestion that, at least for overselectivity with this population, an observing-response procedure may not be the intervention of choice.MethodParticipantsTwenty children with ASD were initially recruited, but two of the children did not meet the training criteria because they failed to complete the task. Table 1 contains information about the participants who completed the study. The mean age, ABC, and BPVS for the experimental group (n = 10) were 12.4 years, 67.7, and 4.1 years. The mean age, ABC, and BPVS for the control group (n = 8) were 12.4 years, 69.6, and 4.0 years. No group differences on these variables were statistically significant, all ts < 1. One female was in the experimental group, but there were no females in the control group. None of the participants in Experiment 3 were included in Experiment 1 or 2.Discrimination stimuliStimulus cards used in this experiment, measuring 15 cm × 10 cm, were the same as those described by Reed et al. (2008). Each card displayed pictures of two items to form a compound stimulus. The elements employed in the experiment were a hand, a cup and saucer, a bed, and a butterfly. The elements that were combined to produce the compounds were different for each individual (e.g., hand and bed for one participant, hand and butterfly for another participant, bed and hand for a third participant).ProcedureThe cards depicting the compound stimuli were placed in the center of the table between the participant and the experimenter. Participants were presented with two white cards simultaneously. Each card contained two stimulus elements (e.g., they were presented with an AB+ CD− discrimination task). Participants were rewarded for pointing at, say, the “hand and teacup” (i.e., AB+) rather than the “bed and butterfly” (e.g., CD−). The combination of stimulus elements on the reinforced card was different for each participant to avoid the potential confound of some stimuli being intrinsically more salient than others. Thus, on any given trial, participants were presented with one compound stimulus (e.g., “AB”), which, if pointed at, resulted in positive feedback in the form of the experimenter saying “yes,” and another card (“CD”) that received negative feedback (i.e., the experimenter saying “no”). The positions of the cards were randomized; 50% of the time the correct card (AB) was presented on the left and 50% of the time on the right. Participants were said to have acquired the discrimination once they had responded correctly 10 times.The children in the observing condition had to name the stimuli on the cards and then point to a card, as described above. A naming-observing response was adopted in this study at the request of the school. Some of the children did not understand the instruction pointing. For these children, the experimenter held out his or her hand, and the child placed the chosen card into the experimenter’s hand. If the child chose the “wrong” card, the experimenter would close his hand and avoid eye contact. This took an average of 5 min.Children in the control group performed the discrimination training identically to that described above but without having to name the stimuli. It took an average of 6 min for the participants in the control group to achieve mastery.Results and DiscussionThe control participants on average took 28.67 (±14.45) trials during training to choose the correct card 10 times consecutively, whereas the experimental group took 21.56 (±11.53) trials to reach criterion. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of trials to mastery, t(<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>) = 1.15, p > .05.Figure 6 shows the mean percentage of times that each of the stimuli (most and least) was selected for both groups. Inspection of Figure 6 shows that there was overselectivity in both groups, which, while slightly less for the experimental group, was due to less learning about the overselected stimulus than in the control group (which would not be expected if the observing response was aiding performance). There was little difference between the levels of selection of the underselected stimulus in each group. A mixed-model ANOVA (Group × Stimulus type) revealed that there was a statistically significant main effect of stimulus type, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>, 16) = 19.05, p < .0001, but there was no statistically significant effect of group, F < 1, or interaction, F < 1.Figure 6.Mean percentage chosen for the most and least selected stimulus in each group during Experiment 3.These results are interpreted to conclude that participants in the observing condition showed significant degrees of overselectivity, even when the observing response was in place. This failure to show reduction in overselectivity in participants with ASD using a simple discrimination procedure replicates the failure noted in Experiments 1 and 2 using a MTS procedure. Of course, it is always difficult to place undue weight on null findings, but the two failures to show benefit from an observing-response procedure in a sample with ASD suggests an observing response is not ideal in this situation. It also should be noted that this lack of effect was obtained with participants with ASD who were younger than those tested in Experiments 1 and 2, thus, suggesting a generality to this finding across procedures and age groups.General DiscussionThe experiments reported here showed that participants with ASD display overselectivity in a MTS task (Experiments 1 and 2) and in a simple discrimination learning task (Experiment 3). Although the present results are interpreted as a demonstration that overselectivity was observed in participants with ASD, there was less evidence that the observing response had any effect on that overselectivity. This was true of an observing response without naming (Experiments 1 and 2) and one with naming (Experiment 3). As the initial introduction of an observing response failed to produce a reduction in overselectivity for any study, it is not surprising that the phases intended to investigate the maintenance of such benefit also failed to show a lasting benefit once the intervention had been removed.Unlike the findings reported in a sample of healthy typically developing adults who were concurrently performing a second, memory task (Broomfield et al., 2007), and those reported in a sample with learning disabilities (Dube & McIlvane, 1999), the observing response did not decrease the level of overselectivity for these participants with ASD. It is not entirely clear why this population did not benefit from the observing-response procedure. It is, of course, possible that the procedure adopted was not adequate to promote sampling of all the elements of the compound stimulus, although the participants were required to point individually to all the elements. More likely is that the procedure is not well suited to a group of individuals (i.e., with ASD) whose behavior is sometimes not easily controlled simultaneously by multiple cues (Koegel & Wilhelm, 1973; Lovaas, Schreibman, Koegel, & Rehm, 1971). Speculatively, it may be that the observing response itself might interfere with the learning of the stimulus elements; that is, there may have been overselectivity between the observing response and the stimulus elements to be learned. In such a situation where an observing response is required, that response, itself, becomes part of the stimulus array (either the sound of the word being said or the image of a pointing finger potentially could configure with the target stimuli). The addition of yet another element into the stimulus complex to be learned about gives further opportunity for overselection, and it may well be the case that this observing-response component of the stimulus array becomes the overselected element given its potential salience. However, the reasons underlying the difficulty for observing-response procedures being successful in a sample of participants with ASD will clearly require further theoretical investigation.One aspect of the current series of studies that deserves some comment is the range of procedures and samples employed across the three experiments reported here. Although all the experiments employed different procedures, with different probabilities of a response being correct, the observing response failed to affect the behaviors in any procedure. This suggests that the observing response does not work across a range of different settings. Similarly, the samples of children with ASD had somewhat different ages and mental ages (although the autistic severity of the samples used in the three studies was highly similar). These general conclusions also should be weighed against the relatively small sample sizes used in the current studies, which may have limited the power of the studies to detect effect. That such observing effects did not emerge with such sample sizes brings into question their clinical significance.The literature with respect to the impact of observing responses on overselectivity in ASD is not widely established, although there is little doubt that it can be used for other problems (Constantine & Sidman, 1975; Dube & McIlvane, 1999; Gutowski & Stromer, 2003). But it is possible that it is not useful for learners with ASD, either in a MTS task (Experiments 1 and 2) or in a simple discrimination task (Experiment 3). Given this, the results of the current studies can be used to provide some support for the suggestion that observing responses are not necessarily the best intervention for overselectivity in individuals with ASD. This conclusion also was drawn by other researchers, who found the use of an observing-response procedure to have an elevating effect on overselectivity, even though the benefit did not last post-intervention.That the observing-response procedure appears unsuited to these participants with ASD, at least with the current training procedures, will necessitate practitioners using other means to combat overselective responding in individuals with ASD. There are several alternative suggestions that may warrant further investigation in this regard. One finding is that extinction of the previously overselected element can produce an emergence of stimulus control by the previously underselected stimulus with no direct manipulation of the underselected element being necessary (Reed et al., 2008). Alternatively, the use of mindfulness procedure during initial learning has been shown to reduce levels of overselectivity in populations that otherwise show such an effect, such as older people (McHugh, Simpson, & Reed, 2010). This technique might be helpful, at least for individuals with higher functioning autism. Clearly, this is an area that requires further study for important practical purposes.In terms of the practical implications of these results, aside from speculations regarding potential alternative measures for the reduction of overselective responding, the current findings are used to suggest that teachers should use some caution in the application of observing responses for children with ASD. It may be that such procedures are ineffective, at least with particular individuals, and that, although successful with a range of other behaviors in other disabilities, observing-response procedures may not work with children with ASD.We would like to acknowledge the kind participation of the children in this research, and we thank them very much for their time and involvement. Thanks are also due to the parents of the children who kindly participated and to Lisa A. Osborne for her support.Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.FundingThe author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.ReferencesBirnie-SelwynB.GuerinB. (1997). Teaching children to spell: Decreasing consonant cluster errors by eliminating selective stimulus control. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 69–91.BroomfieldL.McHughL.ReedP. (2007). The effect of observing response procedures on the reduction of over-selectivity in match to samples tasks: Immediate but not long term benefits. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29, 217–234.ConstantineB.SidmanM. (1975). The role of naming in delayed matching to sample. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 680–689.CookR. A.AndersonN.RincoverA. (1982). Stimulus overselectivity and stimulus control problems and strategies. In KogelR. L.RincoverA.EgelA. L. (Eds.), Educating and understanding autistic children (pp. 90–105). San Diego, CA: College Hill Press.DubeW. V.McIlvaneW. J. (1999). Reduction of stimulus overselectivity with non-verbal differential observing responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 25–33.DunnL.DunnL.WhettonC.PintileD. (1982). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale. Windsor, UK: NFER Nelson.GutowskiS. J.StromerR. (2003). Delayed matching to two pictures samples by individuals with and without disabilities: An analysis of the role of naming. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 487–505.KoegelR. L.WilhelmH. (1973). Selective responding to the components of multiple visual cues by autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 15, 442–453.KrugD. A.ArickJ.AlmondP. (1980). Behavior checklist for identifying severely handicapped individuals with high levels of autistic behavior. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 21, 221–229.LovaasO. I.SchreibmanL. (1971). Stimulus overselectivity of autistic children in a two stimulus situation. Behavior, Research and Therapy, 9, 305–310.LovaasO. I.SchreibmanL.KoegelR.RehmR. (1971). Selective responding by autistic children to multiple sensory input. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 211–222.McHughL.ReedP. (2007). Age trends in stimulus over-selectivity. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 88, 369–380.McHughL.SimpsonA.ReedP. (2010). Mindfulness as a potential intervention for stimulus over-selectivity in older adults. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 178–184.ReedP.BroomfieldL.McHughL.McCauslandA.LeaderG. (2008). Extinction of over-selected stimuli causes emergence of under-selected cues in higher functioning children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 290–298.ReedP.GibsonE. (2005). The effect of concurrent task load on stimulus overselectivity. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 601–614.ReynoldsB. S.NewsomC. D.LovaasO. I. (1974). Auditory over selectivity in autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2, 253–263.ShafferD.LucasC. P.RichtersJ. E. (1999). Diagnostic assessment in child and adolescent psychopathology. New York, NY: Guilford.StromerR.McIlvaneW. J.DubeW. V.MackayH. A. (1993). Assessing control by elements of complex stimuli in delayed matching to samples. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 59, 83–102.VarniJ. W.LovaasO. I.KogelR. LEverettN. L. (1979). An analysis of observational learning in autistic and normal children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 7, 31–43.VolkmarF. R.CicchettiD. V.DykensE.SparrowS. S.LeckmanJ. F.CohenD. J. (1988). An evaluation of the Autism Behavior Checklist. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 81–97.WyckoffL. B. (1952). The role of observing responses in discriminative learning: Part 1. Psychological Review, 59, 431–442.</p> <aug> <p>By Phil Reed; Laura Altweck; Laura Broomfield; Anna Simpson and Louise McHugh</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib2" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib1" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ984723
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effect of Observing-Response Procedures on Overselectivity in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Reed%2C+Phil%22">Reed, Phil</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Altweck%2C+Laura%22">Altweck, Laura</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Broomfield%2C+Laura%22">Broomfield, Laura</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Simpson%2C+Anna%22">Simpson, Anna</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McHugh%2C+Louise%22">McHugh, Louise</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Focus+on+Autism+and+Other+Developmental+Disabilities%22"><i>Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities</i></searchLink>. Dec 2012 27(4):237-246.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications and Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: http://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism%22">Autism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pervasive+Developmental+Disorders%22">Pervasive Developmental Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experiments%22">Experiments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stimuli%22">Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Experimental+Groups%22">Experimental Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Control+Groups%22">Control Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+Kingdom%22">United Kingdom</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/1088357612457986
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1088-3576
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Stimulus overselectivity occurs when one aspect of the environment controls behavior at the expense of other equally salient aspects. Stimulus overselectivity can be reduced for some individuals with learning disabilities, if they engage in an observing response in which they point to, touch, or name each of the stimuli prior to selecting the one requested. To see whether this would apply to another population, a total of 55 participants with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) were trained on match-to-sample (MTS), or simple discrimination tasks, to determine whether overselectivity could be eliminated by using an observing response. MTS tasks were presented in a table-top format as well as on a computer. The observing-response procedure did not eliminate overselectivity for any of the participants, regardless of age, task, or format of presentation. These results are interpreted to call to question the effectiveness of this procedure in this context for individuals with ASD. (Contains 1 table and 6 figures.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 21
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ984723
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ984723
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/1088357612457986
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 237
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pervasive Developmental Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experiments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Experimental Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Control Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: United Kingdom
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effect of Observing-Response Procedures on Overselectivity in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Reed, Phil
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Altweck, Laura
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Broomfield, Laura
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Simpson, Anna
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McHugh, Louise
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1088-3576
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1