The Use of Consequences and Self-Monitoring to Increase Time in Seat and The Number of

Transcription

1 The Use of Consequences and Self-Monitoring to Increase Time in Seat and The Number of Correct Responses to Name for a Preschooler with Developmental Delays Kirsten Aasen and T. F. McLaughlin Department of Special Education Gonzaga University and Sarah Mortenson Spokane Public Schools Author Note This research was completed in partial fulfillment of coursework for Precision Teaching (EDSE 410) in the Department of Special Education at Gonzaga University. The author would like to express her appreciation to the participant and her parents for allowing her to complete this project. The author would also like to thank Lou Moore her editorial expertise. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Kirsten Aasen, Department of Special Education, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA or via at kaasen@zagmail.gonzaga.edu Abstract The purpose of the present study was to investigate the effects of a token economy on increasing time in seat and investigate the effects visual cues, reinforcement, self-monitoring and generalization training to teaching in a preschool with developmental delays to respond to her own name. Our participant was enrolled in an integrated preschool where data collection took place. The dependent variables are time in seat and correct responses to her name. The participant increased time in seat to 90% for each session by the end of the study. She also

2 responded to five unique adults who said her name at rates between %. Both interventions were cost effective and easy to implement but took a large time investment initially. The classroom teacher also felt the research was very successful for our participant. Key Words: Reinforcer, Token Economy, Visual Cue, Preschool, Respond To Name, Preference Assessment, Generalization, Time In Seat The use of Consequences and Self Monitoring to Increase Time in Seat and The Number of Correct Responses to Name for a Preschooler with Developmental Delays 1.0 Introduction Following directions is essential to success in school and the ability to function within the world. During an average school day a child is given directions multiple times to teach curriculum, guide play and encourage building positive relationships. Outside of the classroom a child is given directions to ensure safety, provide nutrition and physical comfort, and develop family social interactions (Howard, Williams, & Lepper, 2010). Direction following is a large, complex skill that can be divided into sub-skills. For the purposes of this study following directions was divided into two sub skills: the ability to stay seated for activities and instruction and the ability to respond to hearing your name. Not only is staying in seat an important component of direction following, it is also an essential part of learning in our school system. It is expected and required that students will be able to stay in their seat during instructional periods (O Leary, 1972). When children are unable to stay in their seat it can be distracting for other students. It can also take up the time of aides and teachers because they are spending time getting a student to sit and are not teaching or working with students etc.

3 Token economies have proven to be effective to significantly increase the amount of work completed and decrease negative behaviors (Alberto & Troutman, 2012; Doll, McLaughlin, & Barretto, 2013; Klimas & McLaughlin, 2007). Token economies have also been shown effective in whole class settings (Filcheck, McNeil, Greco, & Bernard, 2004) as a way to maintain good class behavior. While token economies have proven to be very effective with students in kindergarten and older, little research has been done on their effectiveness in preschool settings (Flicheck & McNeil, 2004). However as the number of preschool children with behavior problems increase the number of token economies in preschool is likely to increase. Campbell (1990) estimated that problem behaviors in preschool students ages 2-5 have increased between 2-17% in recent years. In order for a token economy to be effective it must contain the tokens, definition of target behavior, rules for gaining/loosing tokens and other more complex components not utilized by this study due to the age of the participant (McLaughlin & Williams 1988). It is also required that the student understand how tokens are earned. Token economies can either be implemented on an individual basis as in this study or they can be utilized for an entire class. Classroom token economies have been shown to be effective in kindergarten and older children (McLaughlin & Malaby 1972, Filcheck, McNeil, Greco & Bernard, 2004, Millersmith, Weber & McLaughlin 2013, McLaughlin & Malaby, 1972). There is little research on whole class token economies in preschool classrooms. Responding to name is a skill that is often learned early life as children respond to their parents, so it is usually not taught in the manner that most skills are taught in preschool or school. Therefore there is little research on the subject of teaching children to respond to their own name. It is unknown why many children acquire the skills to respond to their name while

4 the participant in this study did not. During this study the first author verbally said the child s name and added a visual cue in order to increase the rate of response. Visual cues have been shown effective across a number of different settings to increase attention, motor movements and guide attention (Goldberg, Mostow, Vecera, Larson, Mostofsky, Mahone, & Denckla, 2008; Hollands, Pelton, Wimperis, Whitham, Jowett, Sackley, & Vliet, 2013; Schiller, Kwak & Sclocum 2012). It has been shown that pairing visual and auditory cues increases the number of responses in monkeys and humans (Schiller, Kwak, & Slocum 2012). Visual cues have also been used to help increase motor movements in patients with Parkinson s and stroke victims (Hollands, Pelton, Wimperis, Whitham, Jowett, Sackley, & Vliet, 2013). While these types of patients are different from the participant all three groups (Parkison s, stroke victim and developmentally disabled) have difficulty communicating and often struggle with requested motor movements. Visual cues have also been shown effective in directing the attention of high functioning children with autism to a particular stimulus (Goldberg, Mostow, Vecera, Larson, Mostofsky, Mahone, & Denckla, 2008). Rewards were used to increase the effectiveness of both interventions. A preference assessment was used to determine which reinforcers to use because preference assessments have been shown to be a reliable way to determine the most potent reinforcers for a student (Alberto & Troutman, 2012). This process identifies those items that will be most desirable to the participant. In this study only tangibles and edibles were used. By using the most potent reinforcers the first author can increase the interest and attention from the participant as well as improve the likelihood of success of the study. One manner to maintain as well as improve student outcomes has been adding selfmonitoring to an intervention package like a token economy. The students begin to monitor or

5 tally their own behavior and make decisions as to its frequency, duration, and severity (Alberto & Troutman, 2012). For example, McLaughlin and colleagues (McLaughlin, Burgess, & Sackville-West, 1981; McLaughlin & Truchlicka, 1983) have been able to document the efficacy of adding matching to self-monitoring. Matching is where the student has to have the same count as another person who is gathering such data at the same time. Matching is usually rewarded with additional tokens, points, free-time, etc. Failing to match closely with a second observer has resulted in the loss of points or privileges. In addition matching has been employed as a means sequentially withdraw a token economy by having the students monitor their own performance and provide themselves with consequences (Turkewitz, O Leary, & Ironsmith, 1975). Finally it has been employed to improve the generalization of skills and behaviors from a special education resource room settings to general education (Rhodes, Morgan, & Young, 1983; Rock, 2005). Generalization of treatment gains is an important goal in behavioral research (Stokes & Baer, 1977; Stokes & Baer, 2003; Stokes & Osnes, 1988). Various strategies have been suggested to achieve generalization of treatment effects. These strategies should be active rather than passive and data should be gathered on this highly important issue in behavioral classroom research (Alberto & Troutman, 2012). In the present research, we attempted to show as well as assess generalization in the following ways. First, we gathered data over time. Second, we gathered instruction following behavior across and between other adults in the preschool classroom.

6 2.0 EXPERIMENT I: Time in Seat 2.1 Participant and Setting The participant was selected by her classroom teacher due to concerns about her behavior in class and how it interfered with her ability to learn. The participant was a female who was 3- years 2 months old when data collection began. Our participant had a diagnosis of developmentally delayed. Unfortunately, previous attempts to assess the participant, due to her inability to follow directions and stay seated during assessments, have yielded very little data. When the Battelle Developmental Inventory II (BDI-II) (Newborg, 2010) was administered on April 19, Unfortunately, it provided no valid score because she was unable to complete the assessment. However, it did indicate that her Adult Interaction equivalent age as one year seven months and her Self-Concept and Social Role age equivalent as one year nine months. She attended an integrated preschool with an IEP goal to improve her ability to follow directions. The study took place in an integrated preschool. The participant attended the morning session of preschool. There were between 15 and 20 students, three Instructional Aides (IA s), two certified teachers, one student teacher, one sign language interpreter and the first author in the classroom. Speech, physical and occupational therapists came in and out of the classroom throughout the day. Two experiments were conducted with our the participant in the same setting. 2.2 Materials For Experiment I, the first author used an assortment of toys, stars, a star chart and a timer. The student earned stars on the star chart for staying in her seat. When the star chart was filled the participant would be offered a toy or a choice of toys depending on the phase. The first author also employed data sheets and a pen.

7 2.3 Dependent Variables and Measurement For Experiment I the dependent variable was time spent in seat. This behavior was defined as being in seat if her pockets were on the chair or she requested to stand but continued actively working on the task. In the case of circle time if she was called up to do something it was considered in seat as long as she walked to the teacher, completed the request and came back to her seat. The first author would start a stopwatch when the student stood up and then ask her to sit down. If she refused to sit the first author would tap her shoulder and repeat the verbal request to sit. If she continued to stand the first author would help her sit and reward her after sitting for 10 seconds. 2.4 Data Collection and Inter Observer Agreement (IOA) These data were collected by the first author. A variety of instructional aides (IA s) and the student teacher were trained to take IOA for both studies. A stopwatch was used to keep track of how long the participant was out of her seat. The stopwatch was started when she stood up and stopped when she sat down. At the end of five minutes the amount of time out of seat would be recorded. There is no IOA data for the baseline of this experiment. This is due to the class structure and the time of school year. The baseline was established in the fall shortly after school started when the IA s and teacher were busy making behavior plans for other students and managing their behaviors. This prevented them from being available for IOA. Obtaining IOA was also difficult because of classroom behaviors and structure. During the times where J was expected to stay in her seat all of the other students were also expected to sit. The IA s were busy keeping other students seated as well as running behavior plans and managing behaviors. They would often take IOA data for part of a session but were unable to

8 take it for the full session. The first author marked the time that the IA left and wrote down the time out of seat up to that point and used it to have IOA on partial sets of data. IOA was taken on 25% of sessions. The agreement was 97.6%. 2.5 Experimental Design and Conditions Previous to the start of this study a preference assessment was conducted to determine the most potent reinforcers for J. The preference assessment tested various toys and edible reinforcers. Preference assessment can be viewed in Appendix A. A single subject ABACDEF single case design (Kazdin, 2011) was used to assess the effects of our various experimental manipulations Baseline 1. During baseline the student was asked to sit for circle or handwriting. The teacher had been giving her a toy and having an IA sit directly behind her to increase her probability of sitting. Baseline data were taken with the classroom teacher s intervention (giving her a toy and having an IA sit directly behind her) was in effect. The first author stood away from the participant and provided no consequences for staying in seat Intervention 1; One Star. During intervention the participant was asked to sit during circle or handwriting. Initially she received a star for sitting and was then immediately given a choice of two preferred toys. The time she had to sit for a star was determined by assessing what behaviors she often did before standing. This was done by talking to the IA s and the teacher and by observation. The participant received a star when she showed the pre-standing behaviors. However, she was required to earn one star before receiving a toy for six sessions conducted over two days.

9 2.53 Reversal. One session of baseline was conducted with the first author. The first author provided no consequences for sitting. This was done to ensure that neither the first author nor the presence of the reinforcer bag was affecting her in seat behavior Intervention 2; Two Stars. During this phase our student was required to earn two stars to receive a choice of preferred items. As in the one star conditions, she received a star when she was exhibiting pre-standing behaviors while sitting. She was reinforced for getting each star with the opportunity to high five the first author or clap for 5-10 seconds. This intervention was conducted for two sessions over two school days Intervention 3; Three Stars. The participant transitioned to earning a toy for three stars. During this phase she requested to put the stars on the star chart and was allowed to do so. She also started clapping for herself when she put on stars as a form of self-reinforcement. This behavior was encouraged by the classroom staff. This phase was conducted for seven sessions over two days. One data point was discarded because two minutes into the session the boy sitting next to the participant starting hitting her with his toy then giving her his toy and immediately taking it back. J hit the boy back and tried to escape by moving to another seat Intervention 4; Fade Toy. During this phase an attempt was made to fade the toys. The participant was required to earn three stars, however instead of getting her attention to have her put the star on chart; the star and chart were held within her range of vision until she noticed and put the star on. When she earned three stars a toy that was not highly preferred was placed between the first author and the participant. She had the opportunity to play with the toy if she chose. During the first two sessions of this intervention the toy was shown to the participant so she knew where to look. During this phase the toy was set between the participant and the first author. This was done to provide as little tangible reinforcement as possible and allow her to stay

10 engaged in the class activity. We were attempting the make the classroom activity itself a reward. Whether or not she picked up the toy was recorded. This was conducted for nine sessions over two days. One data point from this set was lost because after receiving two stars she started crying and spent the rest of the session crying. It is very unusual for her to cry without an injury or having something taken. The first author hypothesized that her tantrum may have been related to her difficulty transitioning to circle that morning Intervention 5; Fade Toy and Generalization. The teacher wanted the intervention to be generalized to the IA s working in the classroom to allow it to occur every time. Our participant was required to sit for circle and plan your day. The first author taught an IA to do the procedure in Intervention 4 and recorded data as the IA carried out the procedure. During the first two sessions of this phase the first author and IA carried out the intervention together to ensure that the IA was comfortable with the procedure. The first author conducted two data points without the IA during this session. This was employed because the IA and first author had started the intervention and then the IA had to help manage another student s behavior. The first author continued the intervention because it had been started. 3.0 Experiment II: Responding Correctly to Name 3.1 Participant and Setting The participant and setting was the same as in Experiment I. 3.2 Materials For this study the first author used a bag containing a variety of reinforcers. Edible reinforcers, including Honey Nut Cheerios and Gold Fish, were used as well as various objects and activities in the classroom that might be reinforcing to our student. These ranged from

11 objects relating to what she was doing to preferred toys or activities. The first author also used a pen and data sheet. 3.3 Dependent Variables and Measurement. The dependent variable was whether our participant responded to her name. A response was considered correct if she looked at the individual saying her name within 3 seconds of her name being said and looked at the individual for at least 2 seconds. This guideline for a correct response was determined by saying names of typically developing children in the classroom and counting the seconds until they responded to obtain a standard. Any other behaviors were scored as an error. 3.4 Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement Data were taken in sets of five times saying her name over a ten-minute period. The first author recorded a C for correct and an E for an error response. As in Experiment I the first author was unable to obtain IOA for any baseline data points. See Experiment I Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement for a further explanation of the reasons IOA was unable to be obtained during baseline. IOA was taken for 41.7% of sessions. Agreement was 95.8%. IOA was taken by a variety of adults in the classroom. 3.5 Experimental Design and Conditions The preference assessment completed for Experiment I was also used for this study as well. A single subject ABCDE design (Kazdin, 2011) was employed in this research Baseline 1. During the collection of baseline data. the first author said our participant s name during free play or centers (structured play with learning objectives) while being within three feet of the participant. If the participant responded the first author would say Hi or ask her a question. Her responses were considered correct if she responded within three

12 seconds and looked at the first author for at least two seconds. It was considered an error if she did not respond at all, said no or what, hid or ran away Intervention 1: Visual Cue + Reward. The first author would say our participant s name while the first author s finger was directly in front of our participant s face. The first author would then quickly move her finger from being in front of the participant s face to being in front of the first author s face as a visual cue. If the participant responded she was rewarded with a Goldfish or a Honey Nut Cheerio. This procedure was employed for five sessions over two school days Intervention 2; Variable Reward. During this intervention the first author would say our participant s name. If she responded the first author gave an edible, a preferred toy, a toy relating to the participant s play environment (e. g. play food if she is in the kitchen etc.) or ask a yes or no question (ex. Do you want this? Can I play with you? etc.). Data were taken for nine sessions over four days. One data point was not plotted because of a miscommunication between the first author and the student teacher. The task the student was asked to do by the student teacher was not compatible with the intervention. This was because our participant needed to be focusing on the task Baseline 2. A second baseline was carried out to determine how often the participant responded to adults other than the first author. Data were taken on our participant s responses to her name being called by the classroom teacher, the IA s or the student teacher. Data were taken with three different people over four sessions during one school day. There are two data points with the classroom teacher labeled SM, one from the IA labeled R, one from the student teacher labeled M, one by the interpreter labeled L and a partial data point from the IA referred to as S. This IA was only able to call the participant two of five times before she had to

13 go work with another student. The first author chose to keep this point because another baseline 2 point was unable to be obtained for S before the start of the third intervention. A partial data point was also taken using a peer labeled as C. This was done to see if it she was generalizing her skills to non-adults Intervention 3: Generalization. During this intervention the first author was present as was either the classroom teacher and the IA or the student teacher. An adult would say the participant s name. If our participant responded the adult, she would provide her with reinforcement in the form of edible reinforcer, preferred toy or an item relating to her task. This was conducted for nine sessions. During generalization two sessions were completed with the first author. This was done to determine if she was maintaining her ability to respond. The points are labeled the same as in baseline 2. A generalization data point was not obtained for the interpreter L because she rarely interacted with the participant. 4.0 Results 4.1 Experiment 1: Time in Seat Overall the intervention increased the amount of time our participant stayed in her seat (Figure 1) (Teacher Interview Appendix B). During baseline the amount of time she stayed in her seat varied greatly from 53 seconds to 300 seconds (range 247 seconds). Significant improvement in staying in her seat occurred with the first intervention and this improvement was maintained. During the first intervention with one star if our participant remained in seat for 85% of each five-minute session. She was in her seat for over 90% of the session for five out of six or 83% of sessions in Intervention 1 (range 37 seconds). During the reversal she was out of her seat for 261 seconds out of 300 seconds.

14 For Intervention two with two stars, the participant remained in her seat for 85% of each session (range 20 seconds). During Intervention three there was a range of 28 seconds, and she was in her seat for 90% of each session. In the fourth intervention she remained in her seat for 90% of all sessions (range 30 seconds). During intervention five she remained in her seat for 90% of the time in 12 sessions. During the 13th session, she remained in her seat for only 271 seconds. It is hypothesized that for this session, our results were affected for two reasons. First, the IA running the intervention was dealing with another students behaviors; and it was the first day that the participant sat of the floor in the circle instead of on a bench at the back of the circle. It was also hypothesized that she may have been having some sensory issues due to other behaviors that day. In the fifth intervention there was a range of 83 seconds. 4.2 Experiment II: Responds to Name As seen in Figure 2, our overall results found an improvement in our participant s ability to respond to multiple adults when they say her name. During baseline our participant responded to her name between zero and four times when her name was said by the first author five times in a fifteen minute time period. With the use of an edible and the visual cue, she increased the number of correct responses from two to four over six sessions completed in two days. For the second phase of intervention when a variable reinforcement schedule was in place, she increased correct responses from one to four over six days. During baseline 2, our participant s ability to respond to adults other than the first author was assessed. She had from from zero to four responses. This also depended on which adult. In the generalization phase, our participant increased her skills to three, four or five times for every adult that said her name. 5.0 Discussion The use of consequences to increase the amount of time our participant stayed in her seated was effective.. This intervention is inexpensive and easy to implement.

15 However, it did require one adult at all times. This intervention was easy to fade to a more manageable intervention that allowed person to work with a few students in the classroom. Our responding to name interventions were also effective and generated positive outcomes very quickly. This intervention was also inexpensive. This intervention required one on one work and was some what time consuming intervention to implement. However, it but produced generalization and the consequences employed could be faded as she was retaining these skills. Both interventions helped improve our participant s behavior during class as seen in Appendix B teacher interview. The skills taught in this study were important for both educational as well as social reasons. Both skills increased our participant s ability to have friends. By being able to stay seated she is became similar to the other students in the classroom. One of the typically developing child in the class remarked She seems more friendly when she doesn t run me over in circle. Teaching our participant to respond to her name was socially beneficial because it can be generalized as a play skill. Responding to other children increases her opportunities to play and interact. Near the end of this study the first author started facilitating play between our participant and another preschooler with a developmental disability. However, no data were taken on this because the second student ws non-verbal and could not say her name. The results of this study support previous and recent research on the use to token rewards and visual cues (Goldberg, Mostow, Vecera, Larson, Mostofsky, Mahone, & Denckla, 2008; Hollands, Pelton, Wimperis, Whitham, Towett, Sackley, & Vliet, 2013; Klimas & McLaughlin, 2007; McLaughlin & Malaby, 1972; Schiller, Kwak & Sclocum 2012;). It also helped to provide

16 an answer the questions about the effectiveness token rewards in preschool settings (Flicheck & McNeil 2004). In this study a token economy and its consequences were effective. A major weakness of this study is the lack of IOA during the baselines of both studies. The lack of IOA is a result of the study being conducted at the beginning of the school year with the difficulties of organizing a class of students that have a wide range of behavioral needs. A second weakness of both studies is the time between meetings. Because of scheduling issues some weeks the first author was only able to work with the participant one day a week. However this seemed to have a minimal effect of the results of the study being as she increased in all behavioral goals. It was recommended to the classroom teacher that she continue the procedures to maintain the treatment gains noted with remaining seated. She has continued using stars and the occasional tangible reinforcement. Also, the use of rewards has become intermittent enough in the class, that an IA has been able to manage multiple students at the same time since our participant remains seated. To continue to have our participant respond to hearing her name, we would urged that the participant be given intermittent rewards by the various persons in the classroom. These could be in the form of edible reinforcers or preferred items that she enjoys. The role of self-monitoring is improving the participant s behavior could not be empirically determined. We did not stop self-monitoring and later allow the participant to monitor her performance. This will have to be evaluated in future research. However, the selfmonitoring procedures employed were easy to employ and implement. The generalization and fading procedures were effective with this student. As other authors have noted (Stokes & Baer, 1977, 2003), generalization needs to be an active process. In the present case report we were able to sequentially withdraw components of our procedures and

17 still maintain high rates of student performance. However, since a single preschooler was assessed, clearly more research would be needed. The classroom teacher as well as other adults and students in the classroom noted the improvement in our participant. This provides some social validity (Wolf, 1978) to our outcomes. However, a more systematic assessment of such a finding needs to take place. References Alberto, P., & Troutman, A. (2012). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson Education. Campbell, S. G. (1990). Behavior problems in preschool children: Clinical and developmental issues. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Doll, C., McLaughlin, T. F., & Barretto, A. (2013). The token economy: A recent review and evaluation. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 2(1), Retrieved from: Filcheck, H. A. (2004). Using a whole-class token economy and coaching of teacher skills in a preschool classroom to manage disruptive behavior. Psychology in Schools, 41(3), Filcheck, H., & McNeil, C. (2004). The use of token economies in preschool classrooms: Practical and philosophical concerns. Journal of Early and Intensive Behavior Intervention, 1(1), Goldberg, M., Mostow, A., Vecera, S., Larson, J., Mostofsky, S., Mahone, E. E., & Denckla, M. (2008). Evidence for impairments in using static line drawings of eye gaze cues to orient

18 visual-spatial attention in children with high functioning autism. Journal Of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 38(8), Howard, V. F., Williams, B. F., & Lepper, C. (2010). Very young children with special needs: A Foundation for educators, families, and service providers (4th. ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Pearson Education. Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2 nd ed.) New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Hollands, K., Pelton, T., Wimperis, A., Whitham, D., Jowett, S., Sackley, C., &... van Vliet, P. (2013). Visual cue training to improve walking and turning after stroke: A study protocol for a multi-centre, single blind randomized pilot trial. Trials, 14(1), Klimas, A., & McLaughlin, T. F., (2007). The effects of a token economy system to improve the social and academic behavior with a rural primary-aged child with disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 22(3), Retrieved from: Lanner, T., Nichols, B., Field, S., Hanson, J., & Zane, T. (2009). The clinical utility of two reinforcement preference assessment techniques: A comparison of duration of assessment and identification of functional reinforcers. Behavior Analyst Today, 10, McLaughlin, T. F., Burgess, N., & Sackville-West, L.. (1981). Effects of self-recording and selfrecording and matching on academic performance. Child Behavior Therapy, 3, McLaughlin, T. F., & Malaby, J. E. (1972). Intrinsic reinforcers in a classroom token economy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5,

19 McLaughlin, T. F., & Truchlicka, M. (1983). Effects on academic performance of self-recording + matching with behaviorally disordered students: A replication. Behavioral Engineering, 8, McLaughlin, T. F., & Williams, R. L. (1988). The token economy in the classroom. In J. C. Witt, S. N. Elliot, & F. M. Gresham (Eds.) Handbook of behavior therapy in education (pp ). New York, NY: Plenum. Millersmith, T., Weber, K. P., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2013). The use of token economy and a math manipulative for a child with moderate intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Basic and Applied Science, 1(3), Retrieved from: Newborg, J. (2010). Battelle Developmental Inventory, (2 nd. ed.) (BDI-2 ). Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing. O Leary, K. D. (1972). Behavior modification in the classroom: A rejoinder to Winett and Winkler. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, Rhode, G., Morgan, D. P., & Young, K. R. (1983). Generalization and maintenance of treatment gains of behaviorally handicapped students from resource rooms to regular classrooms using self-evaluation procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 16, Rock, M. L. (2005). Use of strategic self-monitoring to enhance academic engagement, productivity, and accuracy of students with and without exceptionalities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, Schiller, P., Kwak, M., & Slocum, W. (2012). Visual and auditory cue integration for the generation of saccadic eye movements in monkeys and lever pressing in humans. European Journal of Neuroscience, 36,

20 Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, Stokes, T., & Baer, D. M. (2003). Mediated generalization: An unfinished portrait. In K. S. Budd & T. Stokes (Eds.). A small matter of proof: The legacy of Donald M. Baer (pp ). Reno, NV: Context Press. Stokes, T. F., & Osnes, P. G. (1988). The developing applied technology of generalization and maintenance. In Horner, R. H. Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R. L. (Eds.) Generalization and maintenance. (pp. 5-19). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Turkewitz, H., O'Leary, K. D., & Ironsmith, M. (1975). Generalization and maintenance of appropriate behavior through self-control. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: the case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11,

21 Figure 1. The time in seat out of 300 seconds (five minutes) for our participant during the various experimental conditions.

22 Figure 2. Number of correct responses to the participant s name. In baseline 2 and generalization the points labeled SM are the classroom teacher. S and R are instructional aides. M was the student teacher and K, the first author. The C point in baseline 2 is three separate preschool children saying her name. Horizontal lines in baseline 2 show the number of times her name was said in the classroom.

23 Appendix A: Preference Assessment Data for Our participant

24 Appendix B: Teacher interview filled out by the third author. Classroom Teacher Interview Taken at the End of the Study Has the participant changed the length of time she will sit for since the start of the study? If yes how so? Yes. At the beginning of the school year Jaleesa was only able to sit appropriate for 1 to 2 seconds and need an adult to prompt her at least 15 times during circle time.. Today she can sit appropriate for 5 to 7 minutes without needing to be re-directed. Do you think the intervention for time in seat was effective? Yes. It worked well for Jaleesa. At 1 st she was reinforced by a light up ball.she was given a choice of items she would like and was given for a short period of time. The stars actually became reinforcing and that was easily faded and replaced by the earning of stars every 30 seconds. Has the participant changed in how she responds to her name? If so how has she changed? She has gone from not looking and paying attention to her name when called to turning, looking stopping what she is doing and coming to the person that is calling her name. Do you think the intervention for responds to name was effective? Yes How have the changes (if any) affected the participant s behavior throughout the day? She is much calmer and able to sit at non-preferred activities for longer. She has an easier time with the classroom routine and has gone from eloping from activities 10 times per day to only 2 to 3 times per day.