Observational Learning and Autism Spectrum Disorder

• Observational Learning (OL) is vital for acquiring social skills and learning in educational environments.
• Research indicates that OL may be limited in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), even though it typically occurs in early childhood.
• A study was conducted to assess OL in various tasks and teach it by training specific skills.
• Six participants with ASD who had OL deficits were selected.
• A multiple-probe design across tasks showed that training led to skill acquisition across multiple examples.
• After training, 5 out of 6 participants demonstrated generalization of OL across multiple tasks and variations.
• One participant's performance generalized within task variations but not across tasks.

Learning Through Observation

• Learning by observing others is a key way individuals learn about their environment
• Suggesting that children with ASD might not learn well through observation.
• Specific skills are believed to be necessary for OL to occur.
• Children with ASD likely have deficits in some skills necessary for OL.
• Skills include attending, imitation, consequence discrimination, and delayed imitation.
• Observational learning is critical for social and academic development.
• Limited behavior-analytic research exists on teaching this skill.

Observational Learning vs. Generalized Imitation

• Observational learning is different from generalized imitation.
• Generalized imitation occurs when imitative responses follow a model without prior history for that response.
• An observer clapping hands at the end of a song after seeing a model do so exemplifies generalized imitation.
• The behavior is due to reinforcement history for similar behavior.
• OL also involves discriminating contingencies for the model's responding.
• Observational learning is defined as differential responding based on the observed response and its consequence.
• The observer attends to social aspects, including the model, and discriminative stimuli.
• The behavior must be within the individual's repertoire to replicate the modeled act.
• The observer attends to consequences and responds differentially based on the action and consequence.
• An OL example is a student who initially cannot point to the correct written word associated with a picture.
• That student observes another student receiving instruction and feedback then the student correctly points to it themselves

Factors Affecting Observational Learning

• Children with ASD have deficits in many responses required for OL
• Teaching sustained attention to peer models, generalized imitation, and consequence discrimination can facilitate OL in natural environments.
• No method to assess OL and required skills exists, though some studies have examined teaching OL.
• Researchers have used peer-yoked contingencies, peer monitoring, and teaching observing responses to teach OL, focusing on attending to stimuli and consequences.
• A previous study (Taylor, DeQuinzio, and Stine (2012)) assessed the effects of teaching a monitoring response on differentially responding to words.
• Participants were taught to imitate a peer reading and match the vocal response to the written word.
• Participants only observed a peer reading during the exposure condition.
• Testing occurred after each condition to assess word identification.
• Participants acquired expressive identification of words with and without monitoring
• There was no opportunity to observe differential consequences with a subsequent opportunity to respond.
• There was no assessment of OL before training or generalization of the established repertoire
• Rothstein and Gautreaux (2007) aimed to teach academic OL to students with emotional and behavioral disorders using peer-yoked contingency.
• Participants learned to respond correctly to a set of stimuli before observing another student learn different stimuli
• Higher levels of correct responding occurred after training, but this wasn't demonstrated with novel stimuli
• Observation of differential consequences wasnt included
• Pereira Delgado and Greer (2009) investigated if OL emerged after monitoring of correct/incorrect peer responses under conditions that included observation of consequences.
• Students observed peers vocally respond to a written word and indicated if correct/incorrect by choosing a colored block.
• The experimenter reinforced correct block choice and provided feedback for incorrect monitoring.
• Results did not strongly demonstrate that acquisition of OL was solely a result of the peer-monitoring procedure, though responding increased.
• Multiple-probe sessions were after the monitoring procedure, so repeated practice may have produced correct responding.
• Probes of novel OL tasks would have clarified whether OL was established.

Current Study

• The goal was to assess OL across a variety of academic and leisure tasks.
• When OL was deficient, specific skills were taught to produce that performance
• Generalization of OL was assessed on variations/different tasks following training
• The ultimate goal was generalized OL performance using multiple exemplars.
• Six participants aged 8-21 receiving services at a school for children with ASD were in the study.
• All participants engaged in a point response but did not reliably imitate actions with objects.
• There were 6 participants in total.
• Each participant had slightly different characteristics that affect their ability to communicate properly.

Methods

• Sessions took place for 20-30 minutes per day, 3-5 times per week, in the participant's academic area.
• Materials included a table, chairs, video camera, and items needed for each condition.
• Materials included PPVT assessment booklet, reinforcers, and materials for 5 OL tasks
• Within the five tasks were materials for three variations of those tasks.
• Task variations included altering item colors, position, etc
• A preference assessment was done to ensure reinforcers and preferred activities for the study.
• The assessment of OL took place across a variety of leisure and academic tasks.
• Previous research assessed OL across one task with no variations.
• The tasks were selected from articles related to imitation and modelling and were then modified

The Five Tasks

• Hidden item task: similar to Miller and Dollard's (1941), hiding an object in one of three places
• Computer task: This task was similar to procedures described by MacDonald, Dickson, Martineau, and Ahearn (2015), which assessed learning following observation of an experimenter playing a computer game.
• Academic task: This task was similar to procedures described by Schoen and Ogden (1995) and Orelove (1982), which assessed OL in the context of an academic task.
• Construction toy: This task assessed OL in the context of a play response similar to those included in Varni, Lovaas, Koegel, and Everett (1979).
• Building toys: This task was similar to procedures described by Werts, Caldwell, and Wolery (1996), which assessed OL in the context of building a character toy when a toy with all of the pieces and a toy with missing pieces were all available.
• Variations included finding the item in green/blue boxes or plastic cups.
• In the computer game, the correct button could be right, left, or top.
• In the academic task, nonsense pictures and words were used.
• Construction toy variations included dump truck, front loader, backhoe.
• Building toy variations included Elmo, Cookie Monster, Lego, Thomas

Task Procedure

• The observer would watch the experimenter
• The experimenter would perform the action using the toy
• They would then comment on what had happened
• The child was then offered the toy to play with or action to make
• Each task was counterbalanced.

Experimental Design and Analysis

• A multiple-probe design was used to demonstrate functional control of training over responding
• A multiple probe within participants was used to gauge control of training and assess generalization.
• Only one task was assessed/trained per day with probes conducted the following day.
• Probes occurred before training and when all skills meet criterion (100% accurate and independent responding).
• The dependent variable in pre/postassessment phases was the percentage of correct, independent performances for each task variation across OL tasks.
• The preassessment phase was a baseline, and postassessment was a control measure for generalization.
• In the training phase, the dependent variable was the percentage of correct independent responding across a nine-trial block.
• The independent variable was the use of the least-to-most physical prompting to teach each skill; when imitation was mastered, delayed imitation was taught.
• Data was collected on the percentage of correct independent performance during pre/postassessments.
• Mastery meant choosing correct task materials and completing the task independently/accurately.
• One OL task was assessed (across three variations) per day.
• In the training phase, data was collected on the percentage of correct independent responding on each skill.
• Skill mastery needed 100% accuracy and independent responding across nine consecutive trials in one session.

Observers

• A second observer watched the session on videotape
• Exact agreement was the first and second observer choosing the same correct toy and imitated action)
• Interobserver agreement was calculated on a trial-by-trial basis by dividing number of agreements/number of agreements plus disagreements.
• Agreement was during 99% of assessment sessions across all participants and was at or above 98% (range, 98% to 100%).
• An independent observer reviewed the data sheet and a checklist

General Procedure Outline

• Choosing novel tasks to assess OL.
• Three phases: preassessment, training, and postassessment
• Preassessment allowed the participant to observe task completion under reinforcing and neutral consequences.
• After preassessment, one OL task was arbitrarily selected to be taught.
• Training included teaching attending to a model, imitation, delayed imitation, and consequence discrimination using task materials.
• A postassessment phase assessed skill acquisition and generalization

Procedure Detail

• In the Preassessment phase the experimenter said "watch me” and engaged with items required for that session.
• After the experimenter waited 2 min before allowing the participant the opportunity to engage in the task.
• This was to ensure there was a delay
• Assessing participant performance on all OL tasks/variations during this phase.
• We selected one OL task variation for initial exposure to training
• Training phase involved nine-trial data blocks with multiple blocks done in one day
• Skills were taught using least-to-most physical prompting to facilitate correct responding,
• Verbal praise with an edible item/activity (based on preference assessment) followed all correct independent and prompted responding.
• Incorrect responses were ignored for the experiment
• Mastery required 100% accurate and independent responding across nine consecutive trials
• Next, imitation training ensured participants engaged correctly with the item, with only reinforcement-related materials being present

Skills Detail

• Attending was independent if the participant faced the experimenter and made brief eye contact after "watch me" statement.
• Materials were present but not for interaction; prompting used full physical guidance.
• A hand shield blocked the participant's gaze, and preferred edible items were next to the experimenter's eyes.
• Imitation involved repeating the experimenter's actions; imitation training ensured correct item engagement.
• Then the experimenter said, "It's your turn," and put the task materials in front of the participant"
• Next was delayed imitation.
• Finally, the skill of discriminating consequence was taught

Outcomes

• We taught tasks until all where acquired or generalized
• None of the participants performed all OL tasks independently.
• After watching, George got hidden items and computer tasks correct.
• Fred and Teddy could not do any tasks after been shown.
• Emma and Sally correctly performed the academic task.
• The amount of training needed for each participant to ranged from little to a lot
• All acquired the all OL skills

Findings.

• Some generalization to untrained tasks occurred
• More training was needed for mastery of imitation.
• Some individuals generalized easier than others.
• Postassessment was on the day after the training phase
• Procedures were identical to preassessment

Discussion

• This study showed that OL can be taught to kids with ASD across a variety of activities.
• This study is the first to assess a variety of tasks.
• This provided effect identifying of the participants could engage in OL or not.
• The results found training was effective
• A lot of these findings maybe because it had had previous reinforcement with very similar tasks.
• Also, with the instruction the skills can be translated to small groups
• All this can be used to find the best way to reach.
• After the preassessment the a specific task was used to train
• Teaching skills related to each might produce behaviour
• Some behaviours must be present to occur
• Some did not do initially engage in OL
• One of the limitations was that the toys where not engaged at that time