Katie A. Smith

The independent use of self-instructions for the acquisition of untrained multi-step tasks for individuals with an intellectual disability: A review of the literature

Systematic instruction on multi-step tasks (e.g., cooking, vocational skills, personal hygiene) is common for individuals with an intellectual disability. Unfortunately, when individuals with disabilities turn 22-years-old, they no longer receive services in the public school system in most states and systematic instruction often ends (Bouck, 2012). Rather than focusing instructional time on teacher-delivered training on the acquisition of specific multi-step tasks, teaching individuals with disabilities a pivotal skill, such as using self-instructional strategies, may be a more meaningful use of time. By learning self-instruction strategies that focus on generalization, individuals with disabilities can continue acquiring novel multi-step tasks in post-secondary settings and remediate skills that are lost over time. This review synthesizes the past 30 years of research related to generalized self-instruction to learn multi-step tasks, provides information about the types of self-instructional materials used, the ways in which participants received training to use them, and concludes with implications for practitioners and recommendations for future research.

Training Teachers in Evidence-Based Practice for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Review of the Literature.

In this review, the authors include 23 studies where researchers experimentally evaluated training for teachers of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Authors summarized qualitative information on study and participant characteristics. Next, variables related to teacher practice and student learning targets were categorized based on Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, and Hatton’s list of evidence-based practices (EBPs) for individuals with ASD. Training components were also categorized based on instructional format (i.e., self-instruction, individual, group). Finally, application of standards (What Works Clearinghouse [WWC]) facilitated the evaluation of each study’s rigor. Findings suggest that research has most frequently focused on individually training teachers in the use of behavioral interventions to improve students’ communication. From the evaluation of design quality, only 2 of the 23 studies met WWC quality indicators for single-case or group-design standards. A discussion of the findings, limitations to the review, and recommendations for practitioners and future research on teacher training conclude the study results.

Evaluating the Effects of a Video Prompt in a System of Least Prompts Procedure

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a system of least prompts procedure with a video prompt serving as the model in teaching office tasks to three high school students with moderate intellectual disability. A multiple probe across behaviors design replicated across participants was used to evaluate the intervention. The dependent variable was percentage of steps completed independently on collating and stapling papers, organizing a binder, and preparing a letter. Generalization was assessed across materials for each participant in a pre-/post-test format. Results indicated the three participants learned all three skills after the introduction of intervention and generalized the majority of steps to novel materials.

A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature to Evaluate Potential Threats to Internal Validity in Probe Procedures for Chained Tasks:

The two most frequently used methods for assessing performance on chained tasks are single opportunity probes (SOPs) and multiple opportunity probes (MOPs). Of the two, SOPs may be easier and less time-consuming but can suppress actual performance. In comparison, MOPs can provide more information but present the risk of participants acquiring steps from probing alone. The authors reviewed and summarized 20 years of single-case design literature that evaluated methods of teaching chained tasks to individuals with disabilities. The authors identified a total of 33 studies. Individual tiers of multiple baseline and probe design graphs were analyzed to evaluate possible differences in participant responding within and between baseline and intervention conditions. Differences were evident, but none considered statistical when comparing data from SOPs and MOPs. The authors discuss possible publication bias as a reason for these findings and offer future research ideas to extend the literature on probe procedures.