Kathryn G. Karsh

In vivo functional assessment and multi-element interventions for problem behaviors of students with disabilities in classroom settings

Persons with developmental disabilities often do not follow instructions or complete tasks in educational settings, thus further disadvantaging themselves as they try to lead more normalized lives. The purpose of this paper was to address the problems of three persons referred for not following instructions and for engaging in associated behavior problems (e.g., crying, hitting, throwing materials) when given instructions. A functional assessment was conducted in the natural school setting without any prescribed conditions as in analogue functional assessments. Results of the assessments showed that problem behaviors for two subjects occurred much more in demand conditions requiring active responses than in demand conditions requiring passive responses. The results for a third subject showed problem behaviors were associated with toileting demands, less so with other demand conditions, but not with conditions in which there were an absence of demands. Individualized multi-element interventions were based on the negative reinforcement hypothesis and were intended to make tasks less aversive and to make instructions easier to understand. Results of the interventions showed increases in task engagement and decreases in problem behaviors during the active tasks and toileting tasks for which interventions were programmed, as well as for the passive tasks and other demand conditions for which no interventions were programmed. Results were discussed in terms of the value of functional assessments in directing therapists to base interventions on hypotheses of the function of the presenting problem.

Discrimination training: a comparison of two procedures for presenting multiple examples within a fading and non-fading paradigm.

When teaching discriminations, many researchers and practitioners recommend presenting multiple examples of both the correct and incorrect stimuli. To test this suggestion, we compared two procedures for presenting multiple examples. In one, multiple examples across trials (ME, Across), one correct (S+) and one incorrect (S-) stimulus were presented each trial; examples then changed across trials. In another procedure, multiple examples within trials (ME, Within), three stimuli (either 2 S+s and 1 S-, or 1 S+ and 2 S-s) were presented each trial; examples again changed across trials. Two experiments were conducted to test these procedures. The first procedure used a non-fading program to teach discrimination; the second used a fading procedure. In the first experiment, we taught 10 persons to identify words under these two procedures. The former procedure was superior in acquisition; the latter procedure, however, was better under generalization for most participants. In the second experiment, we presented the two procedures within a fading paradigm. The results replicated those in Experiment 1: ME, Across was better for acquisition, but ME, Within was better for generalization. Results were discussed and follow-up studies suggested.

The Task Demonstration Model: A Concurrent Model for Teaching Groups of Students with Severe Disabilities

This study investigated the use of the Task Demonstration Model (TDM) of group instruction for students with severe or moderate retardation. This model and the Standard Prompting Hierarchy (SPH) were tested against each other (and baseline) across three teachers and groups of students. Results on teacher variables showed that demands and praise were roughly equivalent for both procedures, but prompts were 12 times higher in SPH than in TDM. Data on student variables showed task engagement to be the same for SPH and TDM, percent correct to be 10% higher in TDM, but rate correct to be twice as much in TDM as in SPH.

Computer-Assisted Instruction: Potential and Reality

Students with learning disabilities are identified primarily on the basis of a discrepancy between their ability and achievement (Hammill, 1990; Mercer, King-Sears, & Mercer, 1990). There are many theories regarding the etiology of this discrepancy; however, the fact remains that these students have difficulty achieving at a level commensurate with their ability in one or more subject areas (Berk, 1983). Research continues to seek to identify the presumed neurological bases for the achievement discrepancies of learning disabled students (cf. Bonnet, 1989). However, researchers and practitioners alike recognize that currently the best approach to remediate these achievement discrepancies is to provide systematic instruction tailored to the assessed needs of learning disabled students (Lessen, Dudzinski, Karsh, & Van Acker, 1989).

A comparison of multiple versus single examples of the correct stimulus on task acquisition and generalization by persons with developmental disabilities

In teaching discriminations to persons with retardation, we often presume we will improve acquisition and generalization if we use multiple examples of boththe correct and incorrect stimuli. Two experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis. In the first experiment, 7 persons with moderate retardation learned to discriminate between functional words under two conditions. In one condition, Multiple Example of S- Only,1 example of the correct stimulus (S+) and 10 examples of the incorrect stimulus (S-) were used during acquisition. In the other condition, Multiple Examples of S+ and S-,10 examples of the S+ and 10 examples of the S- were used. Results showed that the condition which presented only a single example of S+ was superior 16 times and inferior 4 times during acquisition, generalization, and maintenance. A second experiment was conducted to (a) replicate the methodology and procedures in Experiment 1 with different participants, (b) determine whether the results were replicable, and (c) obtain efficiency data. Results replicated the findings of the first experiment. The condition which presented only a single example of S+ was superior on measures of (a) trials to criterion, (b) percent correct during acquisition, and (c) minutes to criterion. On measures of generalization, the two conditions were relatively equal. Thus, the condition which presented only a single example of the correct stimulus was more efficient and was just as effective in generalization as the condition which presented multiple examples of both the S+ and S-. These surprising results were discussed in terms of stimulus control, why students performed just as well during generalization when only one example of the S+ was used, why acquisition was also poorer for this condition, and how future studies might address these points.

A comparison of static and dynamic presentation procedures on discrimination learning of individuals with severe or moderate mental retardation.

A dynamic presentation of stimulus materials may be more effective than a static presentation. To test this hypothesis, we taught 16 individuals with moderate or severe mental retardation to identify two comparative discriminations (more, longer) by each of two different procedures. In the static, or traditional, presentation procedure the stimuli were positioned before a trial began and not manipulated by the experimenter during the trial. In the dynamic presentation procedure the individual watched the experimenter manipulate the relevant dimension of the stimuli during a series of trials. Both procedures were used in combination with a procedure that relied on fading and on many examples of both the correct and incorrect stimuli across trials. Data were presented in four phases: training, generalization, 1-week maintenance, and 1-month maintenance. No differences in percentage of unprompted correct responses were found between the two procedures in training, generalization, or any of the four maintenance tests. Discussion included possible reasons these results differed from those of prior studies as well as the need for further investigation of the dynamic presentation procedure used with more traditional teaching procedures that rely on extrastimulus prompts.