Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 12-2017 Teaching Students who have Difficulty Mastering lmitation Jennifer Mrljak Western Michigan University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the Applied Behavior Analysis Commons, and the Educational Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Mrljak, Jennifer, "Teaching Students who have Difficulty Mastering lmitation" (2017). Dissertations. 3191. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3191 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TEACHING STUDENTS WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY MASTERING IMITATION by Jennifer Mrljak A dissertation submitted to the Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology Western Michigan University December 2017 Doctoral Committee: Richard W. Malott, Ph. D., Chair Stephanie Peterson, Ph.D. Ron Van Houten, Ph.D. Carmen Jonaitis, Ed. D. Steven Ragotzy, Ph.D. TEACHING STUDENTS WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY MASTERING IMITATION Jennifer Mrljak, Ph.D. Western Michigan University, 2017 Some children with autism are unable to acquire imitation despite receiving early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) meant to teach that and other important skills. Many EIBI programs use physical-prompting hierarchies either as a component of the discriminative stimulus or the correction procedure following an error (Lovaas, 1981; Maurice, Green, & Luce, 1996). But even after lengthy exposure to these teaching techniques, some children still do not acquire imitative repertoires. In the present study, working with students who were not acquiring imitative repertoires, we started with shaping the initial imitative responses as a method to gain stimulus control and then introduced physical prompting to establish the other imitative motor responses. The primary differences from common EIBI teaching methods were the initial use of shaping, and also starting with a longer duration of the model’s actions and reducing that over time. Then, antecedent physical prompting was introduced, with considerations for the position of the prompts and response-effort requirements. As a result, all three students acquired a variety of imitative responses and some showed some generalized imitation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. Richard Malott. Your commitment to saving the world is one of the greatest gifts to the field of behavior analysis. I am thankful for your mentorship and guidance throughout my academic journey. Thank you for encouraging me to chase my dreams. Second, I would like to thank my committee members, who have greatly contributed to my schooling, my professional repertoire, and to my research. Dr. Stephanie Peterson, Dr. Ron Van Houten, Dr. Carmen Jonaitis, and Dr. Steve Ragotzy each have provided valuable guidance and thoughtful feedback along the way. Third, I would like to express my gratitude to all of my peers in the Behavior Analysis Training System here at Western Michigan University. Many of you have assisted with support, laughter, and intellectually stimulating discussions over the years. I would like to especially thank my research partners, Joe Shane and Nicole Pantano. And, to the BATS PhD students I worked closely with, Sarah Lichtenberger-Sutkowi, Jenn Freeman, Blaire Michelin, Amelia Fonger, Justin Daigle, Kohei Togashi, Dr. Kelly Kohler, and especially Katie Mahaffy, thank you for your endless support. I also express many thanks to my BCBA small group members. Finally, I would like to extend my thanks to my family and friends. My parents, Karen Hayes and Branimir Mrljak, my brother Daniel Mrljak, and my grandmother Nada Mrljak have provided so much love and encouragement through this process. Thank you for the values you taught me. Most importantly, thank you to Paul Bentley, for being my ii Acknowledgements—Continued biggest supporter. You keep me inspired with your unwavering support and love through this crazy journey called life. Jennifer Mrljak iii Copyright by Jennifer Mrljak 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................... viii STUDENTS WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY MASTERING IMITATION .................. 1 Teaching Imitation ......................................................................................................... 2 Historical Classroom Data ............................................................................................. 4 Method (General) ........................................................................................................... 7 General Student Demographics ........................................................................ 7 Setting ................................................................................................................. 8 Independent and Dependent Variables ............................................................. 8 Research Design ................................................................................................ 9 Interobserver Agreement .................................................................................. 9 General Procedures ........................................................................................................ 9 Standard Classroom Imitation Procedure ......................................................... 9 Baseline .............................................................................................................. 10 Shaping ............................................................................................................... 10 Error Protocol..................................................................................................... 13 Antecedent Physical Prompting ........................................................................ 14 Generalization Tests .......................................................................................... 17 iv Table of Contents—Continued Case Study #1: Elton ...................................................................................................... 18 History ................................................................................................................ 18 Reason for Inclusion ...................................................................................................... 19 Method............................................................................................................................. 20 Baseline and Assessment .................................................................................. 20 Shaping Procedure ............................................................................................. 20 Physical-Prompting Procedure.......................................................................... 21 Scrolling Data .................................................................................................... 22 Generalization Tests .......................................................................................... 23 Results and Discussion for Elton ...................................................................... 23 Case Study #2: Easton ................................................................................................... 25 History ................................................................................................................ 25 Reason for Inclusion ..................................................................................................... 26 Method............................................................................................................................. 26 Baseline and Assessment .................................................................................. 26 Shaping Procedure ............................................................................................. 26 Physical-Prompting Procedure.......................................................................... 28 Scrolling Data .................................................................................................... 28 Generalization Tests .......................................................................................... 29 Results and Discussion for Easton .................................................................... 29 Case Study #3: Leah ...................................................................................................... 30 History ................................................................................................................ 30 v Table of Contents—Continued Reason for Inclusion ...................................................................................................... 31 Method............................................................................................................................ 32 Baseline and Assessment .................................................................................. 32 Shaping Procedure ............................................................................................