errorless academic compliance training: a school …...errorless compliance training another...

Errorless Academic Compliance Training:

A School-based Application for Young Students with Autism

by

Olivia Ng

A thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements

for the degree of Degree Master of Arts

Graduate Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Olivia Ng 2011

ii

Errorless Academic Compliance Training:

A School-based Application for Young Students with Autism

Olivia Ng

Master of Arts

Graduate Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology

University of Toronto

2011

Errorless academic compliance training is a proactive, noncoercive approach to treating

oppositional behavior in children. Three teaching staff in a special education classroom were

trained to conduct this intervention with three male students diagnosed with autism. During

baseline, staff delivered a range of classroom requests and recorded student compliance with

these requests. A hierarchy (of 4 levels) of compliance probabilities for requests was then

calculated. Requests ranged from Level 1, those yielding high compliance, to Level 4, those

leading to oppositional responding. At the beginning of intervention, teaching staff delivered

Level 1 requests, providing praise and other reinforcement for compliance. Subsequent levels

were faded in gradually over time. By the end of intervention, students demonstrated

substantially improved compliance to requests that had yielded high levels of noncompliance

before intervention. Follow-up at 4 weeks indicated that treatment gains were maintained.

Covariant improvement in academic on-task skills was also evident.

iii

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I thank my supervisor, Dr. Joe Ducharme. It would not have been

possible for me to complete this project without his support and mentorship. Joe’s dedication to

his students and passion towards positive intervention is truly inspiring. I would also like to

thank my second reader, Dr. Joan Peskin, who provided insightful comments and feedback on

my thesis.

I thank my family for their continuous support throughout my education. Their kindness

and generosity is truly appreciated. I am also grateful for Edward’s unwavering encouragement

throughout this process. He has kept me grounded and has endured all the ups and downs

associated with research.

Finally, I would like to express my sincere gratitude towards the families, teachers, and

school involved in this project. It has been a pleasure working with them and I wish them all the

best in future.

iv

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

School Intervention 1

Compliance as a Keystone Behavior 2

Errorless Compliance Training 3

The Present Study 4

Methods 5

Participants and Setting 5

Research Design 6

Observational Measures 7

Compliance 7

On-task Behavior 7

Staff Report Measures 8

Compliance Probability Checklist 8

Reinforcer Checklist 8

Staff Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire 9

Group Training Workshop 1: Introduction to Errorless Academic Compliance Training 9

Group Training Workshop 2: Request Delivery and Data Collection 9

Baseline Sessions 10

Hierarchy Development 10

Individual Training Workshop 3: Treatment Procedures 11

Phase 1 12

Transition Sessions 12

Phase 2, 3, and 4 12

v

Follow-up Sessions 13

Results 13

Baseline 13

Treatment 15

Follow-up 15

On-task Behavior 15

On-task Behavior 15

Neutral Behavior 17

Off-task Behavior 17

Disruptive/aggressive Behavior 19

Staff Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire 20

Discussion 20

Compliance 21

On-task Behavior 22

Limitations and Future Directions 22

References 26

vi

List of Tables

Table 1. Mean levels of on-task behavior 17

Table 2. Mean levels of off-task behavior 19

Table 3. Mean levels of disruptive/aggressive behavior 19

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Percentage of compliance during baseline and treatment 14

Figure 2. Percentage of on-task behavior 16

Figure 3. Percentage of off-task behavior 18

viii

List of Appendices

Appendix A. On-task Data Sheet 33

Appendix B. Compliance Probability Checklist 34

Appendix C. Reinforcer Checklist 37

Appendix D. Staff Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire 39

Appendix E. Assessment Data Sheet 40

Appendix F. Treatment Data Sheet 43

Appendix G. Follow-up Data Sheet 54

1

Introduction

Recent epidemiological studies have estimated that autism affects approximately 60 per

10,000 individuals (Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001; Fombonne, 2003; Posserud, Lundervold,

Lie, & Gillberg, 2010). Autism is a spectrum disorder that is characterized by impairment in

communication, language, and social development and is often accompanied by restrictive and

stereotyped interests (American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Jones & Block, 2006). Students

with autism are at risk for developing oppositional and disruptive behaviors (Buschbacher &

Fox, 2003), such as tantrums, aggression, self-injury, and noncompliance (Williams, Johnson, &

Sukhodolsky, 2005). Such behaviors can interfere with the acquisition of new skills (Rosenberg,

Wilson, Maheady, & Sindelar, 2004), compromise on-task efforts (Bryan & Gast, 2000), and

render these students extremely challenging to manage in a classroom (Esperat, Moss, Roberts,

Kerr, & Green., 1999; Williams et al., 2005; Vakil, Welton, O’Conner, & Kline, 2009).

School Intervention

Over the past several decades, some of the most common strategies for managing

problem behavior in students with autism involved the delivery of reactive consequences,

including timeouts and reprimands (Harris, Handleman, Gill, & Fong, 1991; Howlin, 1998).

Although these strategies can be effective for terminating problem responses in the short term

(Durand & Carr, 1992), they do not consistently produce long term effects (Lewis, 2001) or

teach students strategies for managing challenging situations more effectively (Witt,

VanDerHeyden, & Gilbertson, 2004).

For these reasons, researchers have more recently developed positive and proactive

approaches to reduce child problem behavior that have, in many cases, eliminated the need for

punitive or constraining consequences. One such approach that has garnered substantial

empirical support is school-based Positive Behavior Support (PBS), a functional assessment-

2

based approach to supporting students with behavior problems that involves the identification

and modification of variables that contribute to disruptive student behavior (Carr et al., 2002;

Heineman, Dunlap, & Kincaid, 2005). PBS is derived from a combination of applied behavior

analysis and person centered values (Koegel, Koegel, & Dunlap, 1996). While the approach was

first developed to target behavior problems in students with developmental disabilities, it has

since been adapted to meet the needs of other populations and modified to accommodate entire

classrooms and schools (Heineman et al., 2005).

Although PBS is the current state of the art in classroom management, the approach can

be cost- and time-intensive for introduction into school systems (Bambara, Nonnemacher, &

Kern, 2009). Moreover, some researchers have suggested that due to the impracticalities with

functional analysis-based approaches, they are not widely practiced or accepted by teachers

(Gresham et al., 2004). Thus, there may be room to consider alternative approaches to classroom

behavior management (Ducharme & Shecter, 2010).

Compliance as a Keystone Behavior

As noted above, one of the most common and problematic behaviors associated with

children who have autism is noncompliance: the failure to initiate or complete requests delivered

by a parent or teacher in a timely manner (Belfiore, Basile, & Lee, 2008; Matheson & Shriver,

2005; Smith & Lerman, 1999). In the classroom, noncompliance can compromise student

engagement in everyday academic and social activities that promote student learning. Moreover,

time spent managing noncompliant behaviors reduces the teachers’ ability to address

instructional and curriculum issues (Belfiore et al., 2008).

Many intervention approaches focus specifically on child noncompliance when

intervening for child problem behavior (Handen & Gilchrist, 2006; McMahon & Forehand,

2003). A primary reason for this is the keystone nature of compliance (Barnett, Bauer, Ehrhardt,

3

Lentz., & Stollar, 1996). A keystone behavior is one that is associated with widespread

improvements in responses that were not targeted during intervention (Ducharme, Folino, &

DeRosie, 2008; Ducharme, Atkinson, & Poulton, 2000). Studies have demonstrated that

targeting compliance has led to a broad range of other behavioral improvements including the

reduction of aggressive and oppositional behavior (Ellison, 1997; Matson, LoVullo, Boisjoli, &

Gonzalez, 2008).

Errorless Compliance Training

Another approach to intervention that bears some of the proactive hallmarks of positive

behavior support is Errorless Compliance Training (Ducharme, 2007). This treatment focuses on

building child compliance without use of punishment or coercive strategies and has produced

promising results for a broad range of children in various clinical populations that demonstrate

severe problem behavior (e.g., Ducharme, Atkinson, & Poulton, 2001; Ducharme & Popynick,

1993; Ducharme, Sanjuan, & Drain, 2007). The approach is based on several operant learning

principles, in particular, stimulus fading and reinforcement. Stimulus fading involves the

gradual change of the stimulus controlling the response. After several days or weeks, the

response occurs in the presence of substantially different stimuli (Martin & Pear, 1978).

Errorless compliance training involves an initial observational assessment of teacher-

student interactions to determine the probability of student compliance to a wide range of teacher

requests. A hierarchy of compliance probability is then developed (from Level 1 – requests that

yield high levels of compliance, to Level 4 – requests that commonly lead to oppositional

responses). In the first phase of intervention, teachers issue requests from Level 1 (e.g., “give

me five”) that yield high levels of compliance. Students are rewarded for demonstrating

cooperative responses to these easily manageable requests. Over time, lower probability requests

(higher levels) are gradually introduced at a slow enough rate to allow students to continue to

4

succeed in managing these directives without oppositional behavior. By the end of the

intervention, students are able to tolerate difficult requests and classroom situations that were

initially associated with problematic behavior. A primary benefit of this approach is that

reductions in problem behavior are attained without the use of punitive consequences.

Errorless academic compliance training is a more recently developed variation of

errorless compliance training that focuses on building compliance to academic requests that are

commonly challenging for children. The approach has been demonstrated to be effective in

children with autism (Ducharme & Drain, 2004), producing substantial improvement in both

academic and general household compliance.

The Present Study

The main objective of the present study was to pilot the effectiveness of errorless

academic compliance training in a special education classroom for children with autism. One

teacher and two support staff were trained to conduct the intervention with three students with

autism who exhibited severe oppositional behavior in response to academic demands initiated by

teachers. In addition, these students had significant deficits in their ability to remain on-task

with academic activities and were often noncompliant to typical classroom routines (e.g., lining

up to leave for recess).

We were interested in determining whether errorless academic compliance training would

enhance child cooperation with classroom staff, as measured by improvements in child

compliance to teacher requests. Further, given that the keystone nature of compliance and

research suggesting that targeting compliance can lead to improvements in on-task skills (Soutor,

Houlihan, & Young, 1994), we examined whether the intervention would produce covariant

improvements in student on-task behavior. Therefore we had two research questions:

5

1. Can errorless academic compliance training produce significant increase in compliance to

classroom requests in children with autism?

2. Will errorless academic compliance training produce improvement in academic on-task

abilities?

Methods

Participants and Setting

The study was conducted in a primary autism classroom that was designed for inclusion

of students from Grades 1 to 3 who were diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

Three male students diagnosed with ASD participated in the study. None of the participant

students were receiving any other form of therapy or medication for the duration of the study.

Student 1 (S1) was a 9 year old boy in Grade 3. He was diagnosed with ASD and

Oppositional Defiant Disorder by a school psychologist, and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity

Disorder by a pediatrician. This student was verbally and physically aggressive towards teachers

and students and showed high levels of oppositionality to classroom rules and requests issued by

teachers.

Student 2 (S2) was a 7 year old boy in Grade 2. He had a diagnosis of ASD based on

classroom admission criteria (his parents refused to provide more specific diagnostic

information). The student was physically aggressive and extremely noncompliant to classroom

requests.

Student 3 (S3) was 7 years old and in Grade 2. He was diagnosed with Asperger’s

Syndrome by a child psychiatrist. The student was verbally aggressive and noncompliant to

daily requests in the classroom.

The teacher and two support staff (all female) were the primary intervention agents and

data collectors. The teacher (T1) had 3 years of teaching experience in primary classrooms.

6

Prior to teaching, T1 provided Intensive Behavioral Intervention at a clinic and had received

training in Applied Behavior Analysis. One support staff (T2) was a Special Needs Assistant

who had been assisting in special education primary classrooms for over twenty years. She had

training in nonviolent crisis prevention, behavior management, and early intervention techniques.

The other support staff (T3) was a Child and Youth Worker who had been working in primary

classrooms for over twenty years. She had experience in all primary classroom grades from

Junior Kindergarten to Grade 8. T3 had taken several college courses and attended various

workshops related to working with students diagnosed with autism.

All staff-training workshops took place either in the classroom or in another room in the

school. Staff conducted all baseline and treatment sessions in the classroom where study

materials were accessible. Each staff member was assigned to one student (i.e., T1 to S1; T2 to

S2; and T3 to S3) using an informal method based on teacher recommendations.

Research Design

The design used in the study was a multiple baseline across subjects (Barlow & Hersen,

1984) that enabled a systematic and detailed analysis of the compliance behavior of each student.

The multiple baseline design is particularly relevant for evaluation of special education practices

(Horner et al., 2005), and is ideal for developing novel treatment approaches (Morgan &

Morgan, 2001).

Throughout baseline and treatment, observational data on student compliance to teacher

and support staff requests were collected regularly. Baseline evaluation began simultaneously

for all students and treatment was introduced in a time-lagged manner, in accordance with

multiple baseline design procedures. Treatment was initiated first for S1. S2 began treatment 10

days after S1, and S3 began treatment 11 days after S2.

7

Observational Measures

Compliance. Before initiation of baseline sessions, the teacher and support staff were

trained to collect compliance data. A student was considered compliant when he started the

behavior requested by the staff member within 10 seconds of the request and completed it within

approximately 60 seconds.

To measure interobserver agreement, portions of the baseline and treatment sessions were

simultaneously observed by a second observer (a graduate student). Interobserver agreement

was collected on 20% of baseline requests, 39% of treatment requests, and 54% of follow-up

requests. Interobserver agreement scores averaged 91% during baseline (range = 71% to 100%),

95% during treatment (range = 92% to 98%), and 88% during follow-up (range = 75% to 100%).

On-task Behavior. Throughout baseline, treatment and follow-up, a research therapist

collected observational data on student on-task behavior for academic tasks. Students were

observed for 5-minute sessions during desk-top activities using a 10-second partial interval

coding procedure (see Appendix A for data sheet used). They were recorded as on-task if they

followed task instructions (i.e., writing or reading a story) for at least 50 percent of the interval.

If no observable on-task behavior occurred for more than 50 percent of the interval, the behavior

was coded as either off-task or neutral. Off-task was coded when the student’s attention was not

on the assignment (i.e., talking to a classmate). Neutral was coded if the student’s behavior was

ambiguous (i.e., looking at a worksheet without any output) or if he was waiting for teacher

instruction. If the student’s behavior disrupted others and/or involved verbal or physical

aggression at anytime during the interval, the behavior was coded as disruptive/aggressive. The

percentage of intervals coded as on-task, off-task, neutral, and disruptive/aggressive was

calculated for each session.

8

To assess inter-observer agreement, a portion of on-task behavior was simultaneously

observed and coded by a second observer (a graduate student). Interobserver agreement was

collected on 19% of baseline on-task sessions, 38% of treatment sessions, and 72% of follow-up

sessions. Interobserver agreement scores averaged 93% during baseline (range = 89% to 97%),

95% during treatment (range = 92% to 99%), and 96% during follow-up (range = 95% to 97%).

As a means of ensuring high interobserver agreement rates, the two raters frequently discussed

intervals after recording was completed to determine why coding discrepancies occurred.

Staff Report Measures

Compliance Probability Checklist. The Compliance Probability Checklist (Appendix

B) contains a selection of requests that commonly occur in the classroom. The respondent rates

each request according to the likelihood of student compliance, as either “almost always” (76-

100%), “usually” (51-75%), “occasionally” (26-50%), “rarely” (0-25%), or “skill not yet

learned”. Respondents are also asked to indicate whether a request is important to them.

Together, the teacher and support staff collaborated on the completion of one

Compliance Probability Checklist for each of the three participant students before baseline. The

checklist consisted of 35 academic requests that comprised academic, tabletop, and classroom

instructions, and 33 general classroom requests that focused on areas such as dressing, hygiene,

play, and mealtime. Examples of academic requests were “spell ____” and “read this to me”.

Examples of general classroom requests were “turn on the tap” and “pick up your ____”.

Reinforcer Checklist. To provide an indication of rewards that could potentially be used

to reinforce compliant responses, staff were asked to complete a Reinforcer Checklist (Appendix

C) for their assigned student (T1 completed the Reinforcer Checklist for S1, T2 for S2, and T3

for S3). Based on the responses to this checklist, staff used token systems in which students

earned computer or reading time (S2 and S3) and edible reinforcers, such as candy (S1).

9

Staff Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire. The Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire

used in previous studies (Ducharme & Drain, 2004; Ducharme, Atkinson, & Poulton, 2001) to

measure parent satisfaction with intervention efforts was adapted for use by teaching staff

participants (see Appendix D). The questionnaire consisted of 6 items rated on a 5-point Likert

scale and two open-ended questions.

Group Training Workshop 1: Introduction to Errorless Academic Compliance Training

Staff participants attended workshop 1 at their school prior to initiation of baseline.

During this first workshop, staff provided background information about each student and the

difficulties they experienced around classroom behavior. The trainer provided staff with an

overview of errorless academic compliance training and informed consent was obtained.

The research therapist provided staff with information and consent letters to be sent home

to parents of prospective student participants. Parents were requested to contact the trainer with

any questions regarding the study. Within one week, all three parents had contacted the trainer

and returned signed consent forms. Information letters were sent home to parents of non-

participant students in the same class (those without problem levels of noncompliance) to inform

them of the study.

Group Training Workshop 2: Request Delivery and Data Collection

Prior to workshop 2, the staff completed the Compliance Probability Checklist (Appendix

B) for each student. After completion, the research therapist selected approximately 6 requests

from each probability level (24 requests in total) for baseline evaluation. The selected requests

were printed on baseline data sheets that were individualized for each student (see Appendix E).

During the workshop, staff were trained on request delivery and compliance data

recording. Training entailed didactic instruction accompanied by modeling, role-playing, and

performance feedback techniques. Proper request delivery involved using the imperative rather

10

than interrogative form for requests, issuing the request in a firm but polite voice, using single

component requests, maintaining student attention and eye contact, and being as natural as

possible.

Baseline Sessions

During baseline, each staff member collected observational data (see Appendix E for the

baseline data sheet used) with their assigned student in the classroom to empirically determine

the probability of compliance to the selected requests. This procedure involved each staff

member delivering the 24 requests during the school day while students participated in their

regular schedule of academic and general classroom tasks. After each request, staff members

recorded the child’s response as either compliance or noncompliance.

Staff members were asked to respond to noncompliance as they typically did. If a student

became physically aggressive, he was temporarily removed from the classroom, as per classroom

policy. For multiple baseline purposes, baselines ranged from 13 to 33 sessions across the three

students.

Hierarchy Development

After baseline sessions were completed, the probability of student compliance for each

request was calculated by dividing the number of compliant responses by the total number of

compliant and noncompliant responses, and multiplying by 100. Requests were then ordered

from highest to lowest compliance probability for each student. The 24 requests were divided

into four compliance probability levels (approximately 6 requests in each level) for S1 and S2,

with Level 1 requests ranging from 76-100% compliance, Level 2 at 51-75% compliance, Level

3 at 26-50% compliance, and Level 4 at 0-25% compliance.

For S3, an initial assessment period of 15 sessions was conducted to determine

probability levels for requests. However, the student was compliant to most requests being

11

assessed and this phase yielded no requests that were highly problematic. During a subsequent

assessment period of 18 sessions conducted with additional requests for S3, there were no

requests with compliance levels between 26-50%. Consequently, only three compliance levels

were used (Level 1 - 76-100% compliance, Level 2 - 51-75% compliance, Level 3 - 0-25%

compliance). Further, assessment revealed that only two requests were highly problematic for

S3, leaving him with only two level 3 requests. (See Appendix F for specific requests used for

each student.)

For each student and each level of compliance, we developed a separate treatment data

sheet that included three repetitions of the 6 requests (see Appendix F).

Individual Training Workshop 3: Treatment Procedures

The trainer and research therapist conducted workshop 3 individually for each staff

member to ensure sequential and time-lagged training (for multiple baseline purposes). Staff

members who had not yet been trained continued baseline procedures until we determined the

appropriate time to initiate treatment (based on trends in baseline data).

At the start of the session, the trainer reviewed compliance definitions, request delivery

procedures, and addressed any staff concerns. The training session covered three categories of

procedures: reinforcing compliance, ignoring noncompliance, and avoiding requests from

subsequent levels. Reinforcing compliance included providing immediate rewards (tangibles

and praise), varying the rewards, labeling the reinforced behavior, and being enthusiastic and

consistent with praise statements. For ignoring noncompliance, staff training involved the

avoidance of facial reactions, scolding, and reprimanding. Staff were also asked to avoid

delivering requests from subsequent levels by using prompts to complete essential classroom

tasks related to those requests. To teach treatment skills, modeling, role-playing, and

performance feedback techniques were used, similar to workshop 2.

12

Phase 1

Teachers were trained to deliver only Level 1 requests during Phase 1. The procedures

for request delivery were identical to baseline. In accordance with the training they received,

staff reinforced students for compliance, ignored noncompliance, and prompted students to

complete tasks from subsequent probability levels. Given that praise was not an effective

reinforcer for any of the students, teachers used tangibles and token systems in addition to praise

for each student. Staff recorded student responses to all requests delivered on the Phase 1 data

sheets.

Transition Sessions

Phase changes occurred when the student complied with at least 80% of requests for three

consecutive sessions. To facilitate the shift between phases, staff conducted transition sessions

during which a combination of requests from the two adjoining levels were delivered. Transition

sessions continued until students complied with three consecutive requests from the next level.

For example, in the transition between Levels 1 and 2, the student had to comply with three

consecutive requests from Level 2 to complete the transition phase.

Phase 2, 3, and 4

Treatment procedures in Phases 2, 3, and 4 were conducted as in Phase 1, except that

Level 2 requests were used in Phase 2, Level 3 requests in Phase 3, and Level 4 requests in Phase

4.

During Phase 2 for S1 and S2, the school hosted a Spring Concert and staff were absent

on multiple occasions. As a result, students experienced more changes to their daily routine than

was expected. Moreover, rehearsals for the Spring Concert resulted in reduced time for

academic requests. To help S1 and S2 get back on track during this period, both students were

provided with a longer transition between Phase 2 and 3. During this transition, Level 1 requests

13

were interspersed with Levels 2 and 3 requests to increase cooperative momentum (Mace et al.,

1988). This procedure temporarily scaffolded student compliant responding and ensured that the

classroom disruption did not undermine treatment procedures. Subsequent phases and transitions

followed regular treatment procedures.

Follow-up Sessions

During follow-up sessions, the teacher and support staff issued requests from Level 4 for

S1 and S2, and Level 3 for S3, as these were the most challenging requests for each student (see

Appendix G). The timing of follow-up sessions for each student varied depending on staff

availability and the time remaining in the school year after students completed treatment.

Follow-up for S1 was conducted at 1 week, for S2 at 2 weeks, and for S3 at 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks.

Differences in follow-up measurement were due to variations across students in time remaining

(before the end of semester) when intervention was completed.

Results

Baseline

Figure 1 shows time-series observational data during baseline and treatment for all three

students. The percentage of compliance was calculated for each session by dividing the total

number of compliant responses into the total number of requests delivered and multiplying by

100. The shaded areas on the graph in each phase depict mean baseline compliance to requests

for the probability level being trained in that phase. Baseline data points in Figure 1 represent

the percentage of compliance to Level 4 requests (for S1 and S2) and Level 3 requests (for S3)

for each session. These requests were selected for baseline presentation because they yielded the

lowest levels of compliance before treatment and were therefore the primary target of

intervention. Mean compliance levels for S1 during baseline were 89% for Level 1, 60% for

Level 2, 30% for Level 3, and 10% for Level 4; for S2 were 94% for Level 1, 62% for Level 2,

14

32% for Level 3, and 12% for Level 4; and for S3 were 93% for Level 1, 73% for Level 2, and

0% for Level 3.

Figure 1. Percentage of compliance during baseline, treatment, and follow-up sessions. The shaded areas represent the mean baseline compliance levels to requests used during that phase. For S3, baseline began with 15 sessions of data collection for requests that yielded high compliance levels and where therefore subsequently not used in treatment.

15

Treatment

The mean percentage of compliance to requests delivered throughout all treatment

sessions is also depicted in Figure 1. As expected, all students demonstrated high levels of

compliance to Level 1 requests in Phase 1 (these requests yielded high compliance levels before

intervention). Mean compliance levels for this phase were 85% for S1, 100% for S2, and 96%

for S3.

For Level 2 requests in Phase 2, the mean percentage of compliance was 72% for S1,

69% for S2, and 97% for S3. These levels represent improvement of 12, 7, and 24 percentage

points over baseline levels for each of these requests for S1, S2, and S3 respectively.

For Level 3 requests in Phase 3, the mean percentage of compliance was 85% for S1, 100% for

S2, and 80% for S3, representing improvements of 55, 68, and 80 percentage points,

respectively, over baseline levels for these requests (this phase represented the final level for S3).

In Phase 4, substantial treatment gains were observed for S1 and S2. The mean

percentage of compliance for Level 4 requests was 70% for S1 and 100% for S2, representing

gains of 60 and 88 percentage points, respectively, over baseline levels of these requests.

Follow-up

As can be seen in Figure 1, improvements were maintained in follow-up sessions for

Level 4 requests. The mean percentage of compliance during follow-up was 75%, 100%, and

77% for S1, S2, and S3 respectively. These levels represent improvements of 65 and 88

percentage points over compliance to Level 4 requests delivered in baseline for S1 and S2,

respectively, and improvements of 77 percentage points to Level 3 baseline requests for S3.

On-task behavior

On-task behavior. Figure 2 depicts the percentage of on-task intervals for each session

during baseline, treatment, and follow-up for each student. As is evident from the figure, all of

the students demonstrated improvement

treatment. These gains were

Figure 2. Percentage of ondotted horizontal line represent

the students demonstrated improvement over baseline in on-task responding

maintained during follow-up sessions.

Percentage of on-task behavior during baseline, treatment, and followrepresents the mean percentage of on-task behavior during that phase.

16

task responding throughout

task behavior during baseline, treatment, and follow-up. The during that phase.

17

Table 1 illustrates the mean level of on-task behavior during baseline, treatment, and follow-up

sessions for S1, S2, and S3. The overall mean increase in on-task behavior from baseline to

treatment across the three students was 34 percentage points.

Table 1

Mean Levels of On-task Behavior

Student

Mean percentage of on-task behavior

Baseline Treatment Follow-up

Student 1 29.2% 71.9% (43) 75.8%

Student 2 41.5% 70.2% (29) 91.3%

Student 3 59.0% 87.9% (29) 91.7%

Note. The mean increase in percentage points between baseline and treatment is listed in

brackets.

Neutral behavior. The mean number of intervals coded as neutral during baseline was

12.6%, 16.1%, and 11.8% for S1, S2, and S3 respectively. During treatment, the mean number

of intervals coded as neutral was 10.2%, 14.5%, and 8.0% for S1, S2, and S3 respectively, and in

follow-up, 6.7%, 0.0%, and 5.6%. The overall mean number of intervals coded as neutral were

13.4% during baseline, 11.6% during treatment, and 5.2% during follow-up.

Off-task behavior. Figure 3 shows the percentage of off-task intervals for each session

and each student. As can be seen in the figure, the percentage of off-task behavior decreased

considerably from baseline to treatment sessions. This decrease was maintained during follow-

up sessions.

18

Figure 3. Percentage of off-task behavior during baseline, treatment, and follow-up. The dotted horizontal line represents the mean percentage of off-task behavior during that phase.

19

Table 2 shows the mean levels of off-task behavior for S1, S2, and S3 during baseline, treatment,

and follow-up sessions. The overall mean decrease of off-task behavior from baseline to

treatment across all three students was 28 percentage points.

Table 2

Mean Levels of Off-task Behavior

Student

Mean percentage of off-task behavior


Student 1 51.4% 14.3% (37) 3.3%

Student 2 40.3% 14.0% (26) 0.0%

Student 3 24.0% 3.5% (21) 1.7%

Note. The mean decrease in percentage points between baseline and treatment is listed in

brackets.

Disruptive/aggressive behavior. The mean number of intervals coded as

disruptive/aggressive during baseline, treatment, and follow-up are depicted in Table 3. As

evident from the table, the percentage of disruptive/aggressive behavior decreased from baseline

to treatment sessions. This decrease was maintained during follow-up sessions. The overall

mean number of intervals coded as disruptive/aggressive across all three students were 4.4%

during baseline, 2.0% during treatment, and 1.0% during follow-up.

Table 3

Mean Levels of Disruptive/aggressive Behavior

20

Student

Mean percentage of disruptive/aggressive behavior


Student 1 6.8% 4.0% (3) 1.7%

Student 2 1.8% 0.7% (1) 0.0%

Student 3 5.1% 0.7% (4) 1.0%

Note. The mean decrease in percentage points between baseline and treatment is listed in

brackets.

Staff Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire

Based on the results from the Staff Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire, the teacher and

support staff were satisfied with the intervention. The mean satisfaction score was 4.7 (out of 5).

When asked for areas of improvement, the staff suggested that all members participate in

the intervention for every student (rather than one staff assigned to one student). They felt that

this strategy would ensure that each staff was familiar with the requests for each student so that

they could avoid using requests from subsequent levels for students they were not assigned to.

When asked what they liked most about the training program, they indicated liking the

individually tailored, positive, and noncoercive approach.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of errorless academic

compliance training in a special education classroom for children with autism. Before

intervention, students were unable to manage academic demands initiated by teachers and were

oppositional to general classroom routines. By the end of treatment, students complied with

most academic requests that were previously associated with disruptive behaviors. Follow-up

21

sessions indicated that treatment gains were maintained for 4 weeks. In addition, substantial

covariant improvement in academic on-task skills was demonstrated.

Compliance

All three students demonstrated considerable improvement in compliance to teacher

requests after treatment. Although follow-up periods were short due to the impending end of the

school year, students maintained high levels of compliance to difficult requests up to 4 weeks

after termination of treatment. These findings are encouraging, given that students with autism

are some of the most noncompliant and oppositional to teach (Matson & Nebel-Schwalm, 2007).

Through initial presentation of high probability requests and graduated introduction of

increasingly challenging directives as the semester progressed, students appeared to build

tolerance to demanding situations and were therefore less likely to respond with problem

behaviors. Thus, the principle of stimulus fading, which involves the graduated alteration of the

stimuli controlling a response such that the response eventually occurs in the presence of

substantially different stimuli (Martin & Pear, 1978), played a key role in this intervention.

Given that compliance initially occurred only in the presence of high probability requests, we

gradually altered these requests by systematically shifting through slightly lower probability

directives until eventually, even requests that had generated low levels of compliance before

intervention yielded cooperation. Further, the reinforcement that occurred following compliant

behavior during intervention ensured that cooperative responding continued at high levels

throughout the fading process. Given that the use of stimulus fading and reinforcement greatly

reduced the probability of noncompliance, punitive consequences, as are commonly incorporated

into compliance training interventions (Fabiano et al., 2004; Ford, Olmi, Edwards, & Tingstrom,

2001; O’Reilly & Dillenburger, 2000) were rendered unnecessary. Thus, errorless academic

22

compliance training provides teachers with a non-intrusive and success-focused alternative to

traditional behavior management approaches.

On-task Behavior

The intervention also produced covariant behavioral improvements. Although

compliance was the only behavior targeted during intervention, increases in student on-task

responding and reductions in disruptive/aggressive behavior (as measured during task-related

observations) also occurred. These broad improvements confirmed the keystone characteristic of

compliance (Evans & Meyer, 1985). The keystone effect is most commonly explained through

discussion of the concept of response class. That is, behaviors that are members of the same

response class provide the individual with access to similar outcomes (Lalli, Mace, Wohn, &

Livezey, 1995). When multiple responses belong to the same response class, intervention with

one may result in untargeted change with the others (Kazdin, 1982; Wahler, 1975). For example,

in the present study, it is likely that noncompliance, off-task behavior, and other problem

responding all served similar functions for the students, such as escape from the demands of the

teacher or classroom. By teaching students to tolerate teacher requests, the classroom staff may

have reduced the need for students to access desired outcomes (e.g., escape from classroom

demands) by means of disruptive or off-task behavior. Thus, increased compliance led to

keystone improvements in other behaviors.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study was the first to investigate the effects of errorless academic compliance

training on student behavior in the classroom. The sample size was kept small to ensure enough

resources to conduct an intensive time series analysis of the intervention. This form of data

collection provided a clear picture of the process of behavior change throughout baseline and

treatment. This form of evaluation is essential in the early stages of errorless intervention

23

development to ensure that the graduated stimulus changes are affecting child behavior as

planned. However, future investigations using this intervention should incorporate a larger

sample size to evaluate the efficacy of errorless academic compliance training on a more diverse

sample of students with autism.

A limitation of the study was the length of time needed to complete baseline and the four

phases of intervention. Mean duration of baseline and treatment was 5.5 weeks and 9 weeks

respectively, for a total of 14.5 weeks (ranging from 12 weeks for Student 3 to 17 weeks for

Student 2). Given the length of school semesters and busy school schedules, these durations

represent a significant challenge for teachers charged with managing a busy classroom.

However, the intervention was designed to incorporate instructions that were commonly used by

the teachers and fit neatly into the everyday workings of the classroom with minimal disruption.

Classroom staff were simply required to deliver these requests at times appropriate to the child’s

schedule, provide reinforcement for compliance, and record the results of such interactions (i.e.,

compliance/noncompliance). Thus, the level of burden was much lower than many treatment

approaches for children with autism that require more intensive involvement of the intervention

agent. Further, the increase in compliance that occurred throughout intervention allowed

teachers to accomplish classroom objectives that are often severely compromised by oppositional

and disruptive responding.

Another limitation of the study was the short follow-up period, given that treatment

completion occurred in close proximity to the end of the school year. As a result, we were

unable to determine the extent to which intervention effects maintained beyond the one-month

period that we monitored following the end of intervention. Moreover, although studies have

examined implementation of errorless approaches either in the home (e.g., Ducharme & Drain,

2004; Ducharme, Sanjuan, & Drain, 2007), in the school (e.g., Ducharme & DiAdamo, 2005;

24

Ducharme & Harris, 2004), or in both settings (e.g., Ducharme, Di Padova, & Ashworth, 2010),

no studies have systematically evaluated generalization of treatment effects across settings when

intervention is conducted in just one. It would be useful to examine whether intervention in the

home produces cooperative improvements with teachers in the school or whether school

intervention is likely to support parent-child interactions in the home.

Another potential area of focus for future research involves intervening with students

who have diagnoses other than autism. For example, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct

disorder, and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder are all characterized by difficulties with

noncompliance and externalizing behavior. Examining the extent to which errorless academic

compliance training ameliorates the problem behaviors of children with such diagnoses would

provide important information on the generalizability of this approach.

In the current study, errorless academic compliance training was used as a stand-alone

treatment, but it may be beneficial as a precursor to other treatments in which compliance to

intervention directives is crucial (Ducharme & Drain, 2004). One of the most effective

treatments for building skills in children with autism is early Intensive Behavioral Intervention

(IBI) (Love, Carr, Almason, & Petursdottir, 2009; Sigmund et al., 2009). It is a structured,

individualized approach using discrete trials to teach target skills (Thomson, Martin, Arnal,

Fazzio, & Yu, 2009). IBI requires cooperation with instructions related to skill-building

activities for up to 40 hours per week (Tarbox, Wilke, Findel-Pyles, Bergstorm, & Granpeesheh,

2010). Given that many children with autism have not had such intensive exposure to

challenging demands previously, they may be resistant to the training efforts of intervention

agents. Errorless academic compliance training could provide a useful catalyst to the IBI process

by enhancing child cooperation with all aspects of teaching.

25

In summary, errorless academic compliance training shows promise as a management

strategy for children with autism who demonstrate oppositional and disruptive behavior in the

face of challenging classroom demands and teacher requests. This approach has the potential to

foster cooperation between the student and teacher and increase the likelihood that students

spend their time engaged in prosocial classroom activities rather than oppositionality. The

covariant changes in on-task behavior observed in this study add further to the evidence of broad

generalization effects documented in Ducharme and Drain (2004) and suggest that this approach

may address many of the challenging behavioral issues faced by both teachers and parents of

children with autism.

26

References

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders

(4th

ed.). Washington, DC, US: Author.

Bambara, L. M., Nonnemacher, S., & Kern, L. (2009). Sustaining school-based individualized

positive behavior support: Perceived barriers and enablers. Journal of Positive Behavior

Interventions, 11(3), 161-176. doi: 10.1177/1098300708330878

Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs. New York, NY, US:

Peragmon.

Barnett, D. W., Bauer, A. M., Ehrhardt, K. E., Lentz, F. E., & Stollar, S. A. (1996). Keystone

targets for change: Planning for widespread positive consequences. School Psychology

Quarterly, 11(2), 95-117.

Belfiore, P. J., Basile, S. P., & Lee, D. L. (2008). Using a high probability command sequence to

increase classroom compliance: A role of behavioral momentum. Journal of Behavioral

Education, 17, 160-171. doi: 10.1007/s10864-007-9054-x

Bryan, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2000). Teaching on-task and on-schedule behaviors to high-

functioning children with autism via picture activity schedules. Journal of Autism and

Developmental Disorders, 30(6), 2000.

Buschbacher, P. W., & Fox, L. (2003). Understanding and intervening with the challenging

behavior of young children with autism spectrum disorder. Language, Speech, and

Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 217-227.

Carr, E. G., Dunlap, G., Horner, R. H., Koegel, R. L., Turnbull, A. B., Sailor, W.,…Fox, L.

(2002). Positive behavior support: Evolution of an applied science. Journal of Positive

Behavior Interventions, 4, 4-16.

27

Chakrabarti, S., & Fombonne, E. (2001). Pervasive developmental disorders in preschool

children. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 3093-3099. doi:

10.1001/jama.285.24.3093

Ducharme, J. M. (2007). Success-based non-coercive treatment of oppositional behaviour (pp.

268-304). In C. Schaefer & J. Briesmeister (Eds.), Handbook of Parent Training (3rd

Edition). New Jersey, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Ducharme, J. M., Atkinson, L., & Poulton, L. (2001). Errorless compliance training with

physically abusive mothers: A single-case approach. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 855-

868.

Ducharme, J. M., & DiAdamo, C. (2005). An errorless approach to management of child

noncompliance in a special education setting. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 107-115.

Ducharme, J. M., Di Padova, T., & Ashworth, M (2010). Errorless compliance training to reduce

extreme conduct problems and intrusive control strategies in home and school settings.

Clinical Case Studies, 9(3), 167-180.

Ducharme, J. M., & Drain, T. L. (2004). Errorless academic compliance training: Improving

generalized cooperation with parental requests in children with autism. Journal of

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(2), 163-171.

Ducharme, J. M., Folino, A., & DeRossie, J. (2008). Errorless acquiescence training: A potential

“keystone” approach to building peer interaction skills in children with severe problem

behavior. Behavior Modification, 32(1), 39-60.

Ducharme, J. M., & Harris, K. (2005). Errorless embedding for children with on-task and

conduct difficulties: Rapport-based success-focused intervention in the classroom.

Behavior Therapy, 36, 213-222.

28

Ducharme, J. M., & Popynick, M. (1993). Errorless compliance to parental request: Treatment

effects and generalization. Behavior Therapy, 24, 209-226.

Ducharme, J. M., Sanjuan, E., & Drain, T. (2007). Errorless compliance training: Success-

focused behavioral treatment of children with Asperger Syndrome. Behavior

Modification, 31(3), 329-344. doi: 10.1177/0145445506295050

Ducharme, J. M., & Shecter, C. (2010). Keystone intervention for children with challenging

behavior: Bridging the gap between clinical and classroom intervention. Manuscript

submitted for publication.

Durand, V. M., & Carr, E. G. (1992). An analysis of maintenance following functional

communication training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 777-794.

Ellison, D. M. (1997). Compliance training decreases maladaptive behaviors in two people with

developmental disabilities: Report of five years’ treatment. Behavioral Interventions,

12(4), 183-194.

Esperat., M. C., Moss, P. J., Roberts, K. A., Kerr, L., & Green, A. E. (1999). Special needs

children in the public schools: Perceptions of school nurses and school teachers. Issues in

Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing, 22(4), 167-182.

Evans, J. E., & Meyer, L. (1985). An educative approach to behavior problems: A practical

decision model for interventions for severely handicapped learner. Baltimore, MD, US:

Brookes Publishing Co.

Fabiano, G. A., Pelham, W. E., Manos, M. J., Gnagy, E. M., Chronis, A. M., Onyango, A. N.,

…Swain, S. (2004). An evaluation of three time-out procedures for children with

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Behavior Therapy, 35, 449-469. doi:

10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80027-3

29

Fombonne, E. (2003). Modern views on autism. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(8),

503-505.

Ford, A. D., Olmi, D. J., Edwards, R. P., Tingstrom, D. J. (2001). The sequential introduction of

compliance training components with elementary-aged children in general education

classrooms. School Psychology Quarterly, 16(2), 142-157. doi:

10.1521/scpq.16.2.142.18702

Gresham, F. M., McIntyre, L. L., Olson-Tinker, H., Dolstra, L., McLaughlin, V., & Van, M.

(2004). Relevance of functional behavioral assessment research for school-based

interventions and positive behavioral support. Research in Developmental Disabilities,

25(1), 19-37. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2003.04.003

Handen, B. L., & Gilchrist, R. H. (2006). Mental Retardation. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley

(Eds.), Treatment of Childhood Disorders (pp. 411-454). New York, NY, US: Guilford

Press.

Harris, S. L., Handleman J. S., Gill, M. J., & Fong, P. L. (1991). Does punishment hurt? The

impact of aversives on the clinician. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12, 17-24.

Heineman, M., Dunlap, G., & Kincaid, D. (2005). Positive support strategies for students with

behavioral disorders in general education settings. Psychology in Schools, 42(8), 779-

794.

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of

single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education.

Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165-177.

Howlin, P. (1998). Children with autism and Asperger Syndrome: A guide for practitioners and

carers. New York, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

30

Jones, K. J., & Block, M. E. (2006). Including an autistic middle school child in general physical

education: A case study. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 19(4),

13-16.

Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Symptom substitution, generalization, and response covariation:

Implications for psychotherapy outcome. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 349-365.

Koegel, L. K., Koegel, R. L., & Dunlap, G. (1996). Positive behavioral support: Including

people with difficult behavior in the community. Baltimore, MD, US: Brookes Publishing

Co.

Lalli, J. S., Mace, F. C., Wohn, T., & Livezey, K. (1995). Identification and modification of a

response-class hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 551-559.

Lewis, R. (2001). Classroom discipline and student responsibility: The students’ view. Teaching

and Teacher Education, 17(3), 307‐319.

Love, J. R., Carr, J. E., Almason, S. E., & Petursdottir, A. I. (2009). Early and intensive

behavioral intervention for autism: A survey of clinical practices. Research in Autism

Spectrum Disorders, 3(2), 421-428.

Mace, C. F., Hock, M. L., Lalli, J. S., West. B. J., Belfiore, P., Pinter, E., …Brown, D. K. (1988).

Behavioral momentum in the treatment of noncompliance. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 21(2), 123-141.

Martin, G., & Pear, J. (1987). Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ, US: Prentice-Hall.

Matheson, A. S., & Shriver, M. D. (2005). Training teachers to give effective commands: Effects

on student compliance and academic behaviors. School Psychology Review, 34(2), 202-

219.

31

Matson, J. L., LoVullo, S. V., Boisjoli, J. A., & Gonzalas, M. L. (2008). The behavioral

treatment of an 11-year old girl with autism and aggressive behaviors. Clinical Case

Studies, 7(4), 313-326. doi: 10.1177/1534650107312243

Matson, J. L., & Nebel-Schwalm, M. (2007). Assessing challenging behaviors in children with

autism spectrum disorders: A review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28, 567-

579. doi: 101.1016/j.ridd.2006.08.001

McMahon, R. J., & Forehand, R. L. (2003). Helping the noncompliance child: Family-based

treatment for oppositional behavior (2nd

edition). New York: Guilford Press.

Morgan, D. L., & Morgan, R. K. (2001). Single-participant research design: Bringing science to

managed care. American Psychology, 56, 119-127.

O’Reilly, D., & Dillenburger, K. (2000). The development of a high-intensity parent training

program for the treatment of moderate to severe child conduct problems. Research on

Social Work Practice, 10(6), 761-788.

Posserud, M., Lundervold, A. J., Lie, S. A., & Gillberg, C. (2010). The prevalence of autism

spectrum disorders: Impact of diagnostic instrument and non-response bias. Society of

Psychiatry and Epidemiology, 45, 319-327. doi: 10.1007/s00127-009-0087-4

Rosenberg, M.S., Wilson, R.J., Maheady, L., & Sindelar, P.T. (2004). Educating students with

behavior disorders (3rd edition). Boston, MA, US: Allyn & Bacon.

Sigmund, E., Hastings, R. P., Hughes, J. C., Jahr, E., Eikeseth, S., & Cross, S. (2010). Meta-

analysis of early intensive behavioral intervention for children with autism. Journal of

Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38(3), 439-450. doi:

10.1080/15374410902851739

32

Smith, M. R., & Lerman, D. C. (1999). A preliminary comparison of guided compliance and

high-probability instructional sequences as treatment for noncompliance in children with

developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20(3), 183-195.

Souter, T. A., Houlihan, D., & Young. A. (1994). An examination of response covariation in the

behavioral treatment of identical twin boys with multiple behavioral disorders.

Behavioral Interventions, 9(3), 141-155.

Tarbox, J., Wilke, A. E., Findel-Pyles, R. S., Bergstorm, R. M., & Granpeesheh, D. (2010). A

comparison of electronic to traditional pen-and-paper data collection in discrete trial

training for children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4, 65-75.

Thomson, K., Martin, G. L., Arnal, L., Fazzio, D., & Yu, C. T. (2009). Instructing individuals to

deliver discrete-trials teaching to children with autism spectrum disorders: A review.

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 590-606. doi: 101.1016/j.rasd.2009.01.003

Vakil, S., Welton, E., O’Conner, B., & Kline, L. (2009). Inclusion means everyone! The role of

the early childhood educator when including young children with autism in the

classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 321-326. doi: 10.1007/s10643-008-

0289-5

Wahler, R. G. (1975). Some structural aspects of deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied

Behavior Analysis, 8, 27-42.

Williams, S. K., Johnson, C., & Sukhodolsky, D. G. (2005). The role of the school psychologist

in the inclusive education of school-age children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal

of School Psychology, 43, 117-136.

Witt, J. C., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Gilbertson, D. (2004). Troubleshooting behavioral

interventions: A systematic process for finding and eliminating problems. School

Psychology Review, 33(3), 363-383.

33

Appendix A

On-task Data Sheet

Participant Number: _______________ Completed by: ________________

Instructions: Partial Interval Recording: mark a plus (+) if on-task behavior occurred for more

than 5 seconds (half of the interval); mark (X) if off-task behavior occurred for more than 5

seconds; mark (N) if neutral behavior occurred for more than 5 seconds; mark (-) if the behavior

was disruptive/aggressive at any time during the interval.

Date: _________ Interval Length (sec): _10_ Begin Time: ______ End Time: ______

Request: ___________________ Task: ____________________ Group/1-1: _______





34

Appendix B

Compliance Probability Checklist

Participant Number _____________ Date __________________

Completed by _________________

Instructions: Listed below are a series of requests you may present to your student in a given

day. What is the likelihood that your student will comply with the stated requests if the request is

stated only once? Please check the appropriate box beside each command. If you think the

request is of particular importance to you, please check the last column.

Almost

Always

76-100%

Usually

51-75%

Occasionally

26-50%

Rarely

0-25%

Skill not

learned

Important

Skill

DRESSING

Get your coat

Put on your coat

Take off your coat

Hang up your coat

Get your shoes

Put on your shoes

Do up your zipper

HYGIENE

Wash your hands

Use 1 pump of soap

Flush the toilet

Turn on the tap

Turn off the tap

PLAY

Play with your toys

Throw me the ball

Catch the ball

Jump up and down

Stamp your feet

Sing _____ song

Color the picture

35

Appendix B


Almost

Always

76-100%

Usually

51-75%

Occasionally

26-50%

Rarely

0-25%

Skill not

learned

Important

Skill

Put this piece in the

puzzle

Turn on the TV

Turn up/down the

volume

SOCIAL

Give me five

Sit beside me

Give (object) to

(person)

Shake my hand

MEALTIME

Come to the table

Eat your (food

item)

Sit in your chair

Use your (utensil)

CLEAN UP

Put away your toys

Pick up your _____

Put away your

lunch bag

ACADEMIC

Print your name

Open the book

Read this to me

Turn the page

Give me the

(object)

Draw a ________

Point to the (object)

36

Appendix B


Almost

Always

76-100%

Usually

51-75%

Occasionally

26-50%

Rarely

0-25%

Skill not

learned

Important

Skill

Trace the (object)

Match the ______

Show me the

______

Spell ________

Connect the dots

Print

(number/letter)

Pick up the

pencil/crayon

Hold the pencil

Tell me what this is

(object)

Build a ________

Hold the pencil

Paste/glue (object)

Put the sticker on

the sheet

GENERAL

Follow me

Look at me

Come here

Sit down

Stand up

Stand in line

Line up for recess

Push your chair in

Do this (particular

thing)

Get your ______

Speak quietly

Listen

Open the door

Sit in your chair

Come inside

37

Appendix C

Reinforcer Checklist

Participant Number: ____________ Date: ___________________

Completed by: ________________

Instructions: Check yes if the reinforcer is motivating and no if it is not. In the extra columns,

add any reinforcers that may be motivating.

Reinforcer Yes No Reinforcer Yes No

Edibles Activities

1. Chocolate 1. Turn lights on/off

2. Chips 2. Sing songs

3. M&M's 3. Running in the gym

4. Licorice 4. Musical Instruments

5. Lollypop 5. Water play

6. Skittles 6. Sand/dirt play

7. Smarties 7. Trampoline

8. Pop 8. Dancing

9. Jelly beans 9. Piggy back rides

10. Fruit loops 10. Running outside

11. Cheerios 11. Running on ramp

12. Cheetose 11. Watch video on TV

13. 12. Computer time

14. 13. Riding bikes/trikes

Materials 14. Finger painting

1. Stopwatch 17.

2. Bubbles 18.

3. Play dough Social reinforcers

4. Squeeze toy 1. Praise

5. Silly putty 2. Belly rub

6. Hand cream 3. Hugging

7. Stickers 4. Squeezing above knees

8. Balloons 5. Shaking hands

9. Games 6. High 5 or 10

10. Coloring books 7. Patting

11. Lego 8. Back scratch

12. Flashlight 9.

13. 10.

14.

38

Appendix C

Reinforcer Checklist

Reinforcer Yes No

Other

1. Squeezing toothpaste

2. Playing with watch

3. Bringing toy from home

4. Rocking

5. Jumping

6. Being teacher's helper

7. Drawing on chalkboard

8. Take their picture

9. Being the teacher

10. Time alone to stim

11.

12.

39

Appendix D

Staff Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire

Instructions: Please circle the number that best describes your opinion.

Str

on

gly

Dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Neu

tral

Ag

ree

Str

on

gly

Ag

ree

1. I am satisfied with the quality of the classroom

management strategies I was provided with.

1

2

3

4

5

2. My classroom management needs were met by the

teacher training program.

1

2

3

4

5

3. I would recommend this teacher training program to

other teachers.

1

2

3

4

5

4. I am now able to prevent behavior problems more

effectively in the classroom.

1

2

3

4

5

5. I am now able to manage disruptive behaviors more

effectively in the classroom.

1

2

3

4

5

6. How much did the teacher training intervention help with the specific problems that led you

take part in this intervention?

Made things a

lot worse

Made things a

little worse

Made no

difference

Made things a

little better

Made things a

lot better

1 2 3 4 5

7. Tell us what you liked most about the teacher training program.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

8. Tell us what you liked least about the teacher training program.

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

40

Appendix E

Assessment Data Sheet

Participant Number: S1 Completed by: T1

Instructions: Listed below are a series of requests presented to your student. Check mark the

box if the student complied with your request and "X" the box if the student did not comply with

your request.

Requests

Dates

1. Turn on the tap

2. Hang up your coat

3. Turn on the TV

4. Give me five

5. Color the picture

6. Give (object) to (person)

7. Come to the table

8. Put away your toy

9. Shake my hand

10. Pick up your _______

11. Put away your lunch bag

12. Turn off the tap

13. Print your name

14. Print (number/letter)

15. Come here

16. Sit down

17. Stand in line

18. Read this to me

19. Sit in your chair (at meals)

20. Eat your (food item)

21. Spell _______

22. Get your ______

23. Push your chair in

24. Pick up the pencil/crayon

41

Appendix E





your request.

Requests

Dates


2. Print your name

3. Turn on the TV

4. Come here

5. Go to the computer

6. Stand in line

7. Stand up

8. Pick up your _____

9. Play with your (toy)

10. Put your lunch bag away

11. Put the sticker on the sheet

12. Sit down

13. Point to the (object)


15. Go to the TV

16. Hold the pencil

17. Look at me

18. Show me the ______



21. Sing _____ song

22. Wash your hands

23. Give me five

24. Shake my hand

42

Appendix E





your request.

Requests

Dates

1. Hang up your coat


3. Read this to me

4. Spell ________

5. Wash your hands

6. Play with your toy



9. Stamp your feet

10. Come here

11. Sit down

12. Jump up and down

13. Stamp your page

14. Stand in line


16. Shake my hand



19. Get your ______

20. Speak quietly


22. Print your name



43

Appendix F

Treatment Data Sheet




your request.

Requests Dates

Level 1

Repetition 1

1. Shake my hand

2. Turn off the tap

3. Turn on the tap


5. Give me five

6. Turn on the TV

7. Read this to me

Repetition 2

1. Shake my hand

2. Turn off the tap

3. Turn on the tap


5. Give me five

6. Turn on the TV

7. Read this to me

Repetition 3

1. Shake my hand

2. Turn off the tap

3. Turn on the tap


5. Give me five

6. Turn on the TV

7. Read this to me

44

Appendix F





your request.

Requests Dates

Level 2

Repetition 1

1. Spell _________


3. Stand in line/Line up


Repetition 2

1. Spell _________




Repetition 3

1. Spell _________




45

Appendix F





your request.

Requests Dates

Level 3

Repetition 1

1. Pick up your ______

2. Look at me


4. Print number/letter

5. Print your name

6. Sit down


Repetition 2


2. Look at me



5. Print your name

6. Sit down


Repetition 3


2. Look at me



5. Print your name

6. Sit down


46

Appendix F





your request.

Requests Dates

Level 4

Repetition 1


2. Come here

3. Get your _______

4. Look at me




8. Sit in your chair

Repetition 2


2. Come here

3. Get your _______

4. Look at me





Repetition 3


2. Come here

3. Get your _______

4. Look at me





47

Appendix F





your request.

Requests Dates

Level 1

Repetition 1

1. Print your name

2. Wash your hands





7. Give me five

Repetition 2

1. Print your name

2. Wash your hands





7. Give me five

Repetition 3

1. Print your name

2. Wash your hands





7. Give me five

48

Appendix F





your request.

Requests Dates

Level 2

Repetition 1


2. Shake my hand

3. Pick up pencil/crayon

4. Stand in line


6. Hold the pencil

Repetition 2


2. Shake my hand


4. Stand in line


6. Hold the pencil

Repetition 3


2. Shake my hand


4. Stand in line


6. Hold the pencil

49

Appendix F





your request.

Requests Dates

Level 3

Repetition 1

1. Sit down


3. Read this to me


Repetition 2

1. Sit down


3. Read this to me


Repetition 3

1. Sit down


3. Read this to me


50

Appendix F





your request.

Requests Dates

Level 4

Repetition 1

1. Look at me

2. Come here


4. Stand up


Repetition 2

1. Look at me

2. Come here


4. Stand up


Repetition 3

1. Look at me

2. Come here


4. Stand up


51

Appendix F





your request.

Requests Dates

Level 1

Repetition 1

1. Read these sentences

2. Read this book

3. Answer this question

4. Get your _________

5. Take your work to your

desk

6. Do this sheet

7. Eat your food

Repetition 2


2. Read this book


4. Get your _________


desk

6. Do this sheet

7. Eat your food

Repetition 3


2. Read this book


4. Get your _________


desk

6. Do this sheet

7. Eat your food

52

Appendix F





your request.

Requests Dates

Level 2

Repetition 1

1. Come here


3. Draw a picture

4. Write these sentences

Repetition 2

1. Come here


3. Draw a picture


Repetition 3

1. Come here


3. Draw a picture


53

Appendix F





your request.

Requests Dates

Level 3

Repetition 1

1. Look at [name of teacher]

2. Put away the book

Repetition 2



Repetition 3



54

Appendix G

Follow-up Data Sheet




your request.

Requests Dates

Follow-up Level 4

Repetition 1


2. Come here

3. Get your _______

4. Look at me





Repetition 2


2. Come here

3. Get your _______

4. Look at me





Repetition 3


2. Come here

3. Get your _______

4. Look at me





55

Appendix G





your request.

Requests Dates

Follow-up Level 4

Repetition 1

1. Look at me

2. Come here


4. Stand up


Repetition 2

1. Look at me

2. Come here


4. Stand up


Repetition 3

1. Look at me

2. Come here


4. Stand up


56

Appendix G





your request.

Requests Dates

Follow-up Level 3

Repetition 1



Repetition 2



Repetition 3



errorless academic compliance training: a school …...errorless compliance training another...

Documents