University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Let’s do something different: evaluation of lag schedules of reinforcement to increase flexibility and promote generalization in children with autism

(USC Thesis Other)

Let’s do something different: evaluation of lag schedules of reinforcement to increase flexibility and promote generalization in children with autism

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: INCREASING RESPONSE V ARIABILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 1
Let’s Do Something Different: Evaluation of Lag Schedules of Reinforcement to Increase
Flexibility and Promote Generalization in Children with Autism
Sora Kang
Master of Science (APPLIED BEHA VIOR ANALYSIS)
August 2019
University of Southern California

INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 2
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………3
1.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………...…………4
1.1 Lag Schedule of Reinforcement………………………………………………..…….4
Lag schedule and play skills…………………………………………………………...5
Lag schedule and communicative responses ……………………………...……..…….5
Lag schedule outside of ASD……………………………………………...………...…6
Lag x schedule of reinforcement………………………………………………………6
Lag schedule and generalization……………………………………………………….6
1.2 Function of Invariant Responding…………………………………………………..7
Automatic reinforcement……………………………………………………………...7
2.0 Method………………………………………………………………………..…...……..……9
2.1 Participants and Setting……………………………………………………………...9
2.2 Response Measurement and Interobserver Agreement……………………………9
2.3 Procedures……………………………………………………….……………...…..10
Design………………………………………………………………………………..10
Preintervention Assessment………………………………………………………….10
Informed Consent…………………………………………………………………….11
Preference Assessment……………………………………………………………….11
Selecting Target Tasks………………………………………………………………..11
Baseline………………………………………………………………………………12
Lag Schedules of Reinforcement……………………………………………………..12
Generalization………………………………………………………………………..13
Debriefing……………………………………………………………………………13
3.0 Results……………………………………………………………………………...………..13
4.0 Discussion……………………………………………………………………..…...………..16
References………………………………………………………………..………..…...………..24

INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 3
ABSTRACT:

Restricted and repetitive behavior is one of the diagnostic features of autism spectrum disorders
(ASD). Individuals with autism display a variety of inflexible behaviors such as circumscribed
interests, rigid adherence to routines or rituals, and response invariance. Low levels of flexible
and varied responding can be socially stigmatizing, as responding to peers and engaging with them
creatively and variably play an essential role in social development. Additionally, invariant
responding can limit the opportunity to reinforce and shape appropriate academic and social
behaviors emitted by individuals with autism. Previous studies have shown that lag schedules of
reinforcement can increase the diversity of behavior. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the
use of lag schedules of reinforcement to increase response variability in children with autism.
Furthermore, we evaluated the extent to which varied responding generalized to novel tasks using
a reversal design embedded within a multiple baseline design across two participants. The results
suggest that lag schedules increased variable responding and that the effects generalized. In
addition, social validity measures taken with both the participants and the caregivers suggest that
they valued the intervention.

INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 4
Let’s Do Something Different: Evaluation of Lag Schedules of Reinforcement to Increase
Flexibility and Promote Generalization in Children with Autism
1.0 Introduction
One of the diagnostic features of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is the presence of
restricted and repetitive behaviors and/or interests. Many individuals with ASD display rigid
adherence to routines or rituals, motor stereotypy, and circumscribed interests (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013). Such rote or rigid behaviors with limited response variability can
be socially stigmatizing as varied responding can play an essential role in social development
(Rodriguez & Thompson, 2015). Furthermore, limited response variability can limit the
opportunity to reinforce or shape new adaptive behaviors (Waltz & Follette, 2009). Fortunately,
response variability, per se, has been shown to be under the control of reinforcement as an adaptive
response to a changing environment (Page & Neuringer, 1985) and this implies that it may be
amenable to improvement in individuals whose behavior is invariant.
1.1 Lag Schedule of Reinforcement
One procedure that has been shown to increase response variability is a lag schedule of
reinforcement. A lag schedule involves the delivery of a reinforcer following a certain number of
responses that were different from the previous responses (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). For
example, in a lag 2 schedule of reinforcement, a reinforcer is delivered only when a response is
different from the previous two responses. A small amount of previous research has used lag
schedules of reinforcement to increase varied or flexible responding in children with autism. Lee,
McComas, & Jawor, (2002) conducted a study to increase varied responding to social questions in
children with autism by implementing a lag 1 schedule of reinforcement. In their study, a reversal
design with a multiple baseline was used to evaluate the effects of the lag schedule. In baseline, a
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 5
differential reinforcement of appropriate responding (DRA) was implemented. However, the
implementation of DRA alone produced little or no varied responding. When a lag 1 requirement
was added to the DRA, the results showed an increase in the percentage of trials with varied and
appropriate verbal responding for 2 of the 3 participants (Lee et al., 2002). The findings from their
study suggested that invariant and varied behaviors displayed by individuals with ASD may be
influenced by reinforcement contingencies (Lee et al., 2002).
Lag schedule and play skills. Relatively few studies have evaluated procedures for
increasing variability in play skills in children with intellectual disabilities. Baruni et al. (2014)
evaluated lag 1 and lag 2 reinforcement schedules to increase toy play skills in children with autism.
The study evaluated lag 1 and lag 2 schedules of reinforcement to increase novel toy play responses
and percent of time with toy engagement within each session. In other words, only novel responses
were measured; they did not collect data on every response individually if those responses were
previously observed (Baruni et al., 2014). The results of their study showed that a lag 1 schedule
increased the number of novel toy play responses, however, there were little to no novel responses
observed during the lag 2 schedule across sessions.
Lag schedule and communicative responses. Other applied studies have used lag
schedules to increase the variability of vocalizations and related communicative responses (Betz
et al., 2011; Grow et al., 2008; Koehler-Platten et al., 2013; Lee & Sturmey, 2006; Susa & Schlinger,
2012). Esch et al. (2009) evaluated the effects of a lag 1 schedule to increase vocal variability in
two nonverbal children with autism. The results from their study suggested that the lag schedule
may be a useful tool to expand and shape vocalizations in nonverbal children with severely limited
vocal skills by strengthening the variability of their vocal repertoires by differentially reinforcing
varied sounds (Esch, Esch, & Love, 2009).
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 6
Lag schedule outside of ASD. Lag schedules have shown to be useful to increase
variability in typically developing children as well. A study by Goetz and Baer (1973) included
three typically developing preschool children with an invariant repertoire of block-building skills
compared to their peers. Using a lag reinforcement schedule for building novel block structures
resulted in an increase in novel block-building for all three children.
Lag x schedule of reinforcement. Most applied studies have only evaluated up to lag 2
schedules of reinforcement to increase response variability. Contreras and Betz (2016)
implemented lag 1 and lag 3 schedules of reinforcement to increase the number of different
responses to instructional questions with one of their three participants in the study. The purpose
of their study was to evaluate lag schedules of reinforcement to produce already-established
intraverbal responses or novel responses for three children with ASD (Contreras & Betz, 2016). A
pre-experimental assessment was conducted during the study to identify existing repertoires of
responses for each participant. Percentage of trials with a varied response and number of different
responses were measured. During the lag 1 condition, one participant was only emitting a small
portion of the responses within his existing repertoire, so a lag 3 schedule was introduced. During
the lag 3 condition, the lag schedule alone did not increase the number of different responses
emitted by the participant; therefore, a variability training procedure was introduced. After the
variability training, the percentage of trials with a varied response remained high; however, only a
slight increase in the number of different responses was observed (Contreras & Betz, 2016).
Lag schedule and generalization. Lee et al. (2002) compared the effects between
differential reinforcement of appropriate responding (DRA) and lag 1+DRA schedule of
reinforcement to increase varied responding to a social question using a reversal design embedded
in a multiple baseline across participants. They also included generalization probes to evaluate the
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 7
effects of generalization across settings and people during the lag1+DRA phases. The results
demonstrated a corresponding increase and decrease in the percentage of varied and appropriate
verbal responding when the lag schedule was implemented and withdrawn in the experimental
sessions. These results are promising but much more research on the effects of lag schedules on
generalization of varied responding is needed. In order for any new skill, including varied play or
language, to be functional for the learner, they must be able to execute the skill appropriately in
untrained contexts (Heflin & Alberto, 2001).
1.2 Function of Invariant Responding.
Differential reinforcement procedures have been shown to produce and maintain response
variability by reinforcing variable responding and placing invariant responding on extinction (Page
& Neuringer, 1985). Identification of the function of a behavior is essential to ensure that
extinction for invariant responding can be arranged (Iwata, Pace, Cowdery, & Miltenberger, 1994).
Automatic reinforcement. The majority of applied studies using lag schedules have
included socially mediated reinforcers (e.g., social praise, tangible and edible items) contingent on
varied responding (Contreras &Betz, 2016; Esch, Esch, & Love, 2009; Napolitano et al., 2010;
Baruni et al., 2014). However, the automatic reinforcement properties of a stereotyped response
may override naturally occurring social contingencies for variance (Rodriguez et al., 2015). For
example, access to a preferred item functions as a reinforcer, but the automatic reinforcement
properties of engaging in activities related to circumscribed interests may override the loss or
withholding of access to the preferred item during repeated or continued engagement in
circumscribed interests. Put more simply, it might not be “worth it” to the child with autism to try
something new in order to earn the reinforcer that the behavior analyst will give, when she can
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 8
instead engage in repetitive behavior, which may result in its own stronger, more immediate
automatic reinforcement.
Invariant responding may also be a result of a restricted range of reinforcers, and only select
responses may automatically produce access to these reinforcers (Rodriguez et al., 2015).
Circumscribed interests, an extreme form of preference in which restricted and repetitive
responding is allocated toward a limited range of reinforcers, can be more reinforcing than access
to food or motor stereotypy (Charlop, Kurtz, & Casey, 1990). Previous studies suggest that
circumscribed interests can be used as powerful reinforcers to increase performance (Charlop et
al., 1990).
In summary, lag schedules have been shown to effectively increase response variability in
children with and without intellectual disabilities. However, little to no previous research has
evaluated generalization of varied responding across other settings, tasks, or people. In addition,
few or no previous studies on lag schedules have addressed the potential function of repetitive or
invariant behaviors in individuals with developmental disabilities. Therefore, more research is
needed that attempts to address the function of invariant responding before using lag schedules to
increase response variability.
The purpose of the current study was to identify a potential function for invariant, repetitive,
or inflexible responding in children with ASD, evaluate the effectiveness of lag schedules to
increase response variability, and promote generalization across tasks by implementing lag
schedules in the context of multiple exemplars of play behaviors and tasks. Furthermore, social
validity measures were collected with participants and their parents.

INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 9
2.0 Method
2.1 Participants and Setting
Two children with autism whose caregivers reported engaged in repetitive play behavior
and rote responding participated in this study. Cannon was a 7-year-old who enjoyed coloring,
however, when given the opportunity to paint or draw, he would choose only one color. Cannon
also engaged in repetitive pretend play actions and emitted one-word rote responses to questions,
e.g., "what animal has four legs?" The second participant, Thomas, was a 6-year-old with strong
imitation skills. His parents reported Thomas engaging in repetitive toy play with trains and cars
during his free time at home. Thomas also engaged in rote responding to questions such as "what
has wheels?" Additionally, Thomas depended heavily on echoic prompts to respond appropriately
to social questions in a natural setting. Parents of both participants reported their child having
difficulty adjusting to new changes in their environment.
Training sessions for all participants were conducted during their center-based ABA
sessions in their homes. A wide variety of materials, stimuli, and preferred activities were available
to use during training tasks, generalization within target tasks, and novel generalization probe tasks.
2.2 Response Measurement and Interobserver Agreement
The primary dependent variables measured in the study were the percentage of varied
responding, the number of different responses, and the number of cumulative novel responses. A
second independent observer collected data for 30% of sessions for both participants. Mean IOA
was 100% for Cannon, and 85% for Thomas across baseline and treatment sessions.
Varied responses were operationally defined as responses that differed from the previous
response. A response was reinforced only if it differed from the previous x number of responses,
depending on the lag schedule used. For example, if the participant drew a circle to the verbal
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 10
antecedent, “let’s draw a shape,” the RBT wrote “circle” on the data sheet then presented another
verbal antecedent, “let’s draw a different shape.” After each trial, the RBT scored each response
as varied or not varied according to the lag schedule implemented during the session. At the end
of each session, the percentage of trials with varied responses was calculated by dividing the
number of responses scored as varied by the total number of trials.
The number of different responses emitted by a participant was measured by counting the
total number of topographies of responses emitted within a session. For example, if a participant
drew three different shapes during a session, the number of different responses observed for that
session would be three. Cumulative novel responses were measured by tallying all responses the
participant emitted during the entire duration of the study. A novel response was defined as any
response that has not been emitted by the participant since the beginning of the study. Each session
was 10-15 minutes in duration with a minimum of five trials presented.
Social Validity was assessed through a written questionnaire evaluating the parents’
approval of the goals of intervention, the procedures used in the intervention, and the effectiveness
of the intervention. They also reported any other flexibility changes they had observed outside of
the treatment sessions. Additionally, we collected social validity measures using a qualitative
Likert scale with the participants to determine if they enjoyed trying something new or different.
2.3 Procedures
Design. A reversal design embedded in a multiple baseline design across participants was
used, consisting of the following phases: baseline, lag 1, baseline, lag 1, lag 2, and lag 3.
Pre-intervention Assessment. The study included a brief indirect functional assessment,
the Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF), to identify the potential function of the
participant’s repetitive behavior. The QABF is a functional assessment tool consisting of 25 items
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 11
used to determine the function of behaviors and it is generally completed by parents or caretakers
familiar with the individual. Each question was scored along a four-point Likert-scale with
frequency descriptors of Never, Rarely, Some, and Often. Examples of the questions include:
“Engages in the behavior to get attention”; “Engages in the behavior when there is nothing else to
do,” and “Engages in the behavior to escape work or learning situations.” The assessment did not
identify a skill deficit; however, a study conducted by Contreras and Betz (2016) suggested lack
of varied responding was a result of lack of contingencies rather than lack of skills.
Informed Consent. During the first study visit, each participant’s parent received and
signed a document with a brief description of the study as well as their and their child’s rights as
a research participant in this study.
Preference Assessment. Before each session, the RBT conducted a brief paired-stimulus
preference assessment to identify potential reinforcers during the session. Items included in the
preference assessment were selected based on parent and RBT reports.
Selecting Target Tasks. Tasks for each participant were chosen based on parent and
BCBA’s reports. Cannon’s target tasks were selecting different colors during coloring (e.g.,
crayons) and engaging in various animal pretend play scenarios (e.g., pretending to be a dog).
Generalization probes within target tasks included selecting different paint, playdoh, and
construction paper colors during arts and craft activities. Cannon’s novel generalization tasks were
responding to social questions, specifically related to various features of animals (e.g., “what
animal has four legs?”).
Thomas’ target tasks included playing variably with a train or car and a wooden block
structure (e.g., going under the block, jumping over the block). A second target task for Thomas
was identifying different features of his preferred items (e.g., Thomas train). Generalization probes
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 12
within target task for Thomas were playing with a car or a train variably with different types of
block structures and describing features of his other preferred toys. Thomas’ novel generalization
tasks were similar to that of Cannon’s (e.g., “what has wheels?”).
Baseline. During baseline, various forms of verbal antecedents were presented. For
example, the RBT presented verbal instructions “choose a color”, “choose a different color”, and
“what other color are you going to use?” during the selecting colors task for Cannon. The purpose
of presenting various forms of verbal instructions was to emulate instructions given to the
participants in the natural setting. Baseline sessions were approximately 15-minutes in duration,
and no more than ten trials were presented. Reinforcement was provided at the end of the activity,
regardless of the percentage of trials with varied responses.
Lag Schedules of Reinforcement. First, variability training for target tasks was conducted
using a lag 1 schedule. The verbal antecedent “let’s play,” or “choose a color” was delivered
concurrently as the researcher modeled different ways to engage in the target task. If the participant
responded variably with the prompt, verbal praise was provided. If the model prompt was
ineffective to produce variable responding, the RBT provided the next more intrusive prompt (e.g.,
partial physical prompt). The duration of each session was approximately 15-minutes and the
mastery criterion was 80-100% varied responding across three consecutive sessions. Once the
participant met the mastery criteria, lag 1 condition for the first target task was terminated, and the
baseline phase of the second target task began.
Lag 2 and Lag 3 Schedule of Reinforcement. Once the participant met the mastery criteria
for both target tasks in a lag 1 schedule, a lag 2 schedule was introduced, then a lag 3 schedule.
During the lag schedule conditions, responses were reinforced contingent on x number of varied
responding determined by the corresponding lag schedule. For example, the participant received
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 13
his preferred item only if the response emitted varied from the previous two responses in the lag 2
condition.
Generalization. Generalization probes were included throughout all phases of the study.
However, lag schedules were not implemented during the generalization tasks. The procedure for
generalization tasks was the same as baseline; the participants received reinforcement upon
completion of the task, regardless of response variability. A token economy was used for both
participants to maintain motivation to complete the task and gain access to the backup reinforcer.
A token was delivered as long as the participant responded appropriately to a given task. For
example, a token was delivered contingent on responding “cookie” to a social question, “tell me
something you eat”. However, if the participant responded “car” to the same question, the token
was withheld.
Debriefing. At the conclusion of all data collection the participants were debriefed on the
overall purpose and processes used throughout the study as well as the outcomes attained.
Participants were given the opportunity to ask any questions about the study and its conclusions.
3.0 Results
The percentage of trials with varied responding are displayed in Figure 1. The two
participants displayed a low percentage of varied responding during the first baseline for target
and generalization tasks. An immediate increase in the percentage of varied responding was
observed for Cannon and Thomas when the lag 1 schedule was introduced. Cannon displayed up
to 100% of varied responding for a selecting colors task, and generalization of selecting various
colors was observed at 92% across two sessions. A similar pattern of data was observed for Thomas
in the initial lag 1 phase. There was an immediate increase in level for the percentage of varied
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 14
responding during a describe task at 80%, and generalization probes within the related task
maintained high at a mean of 94% of varied responding.
During the reversal to baseline, Cannon displayed zero varied responding during his second
target task, animal pretend play; however, Thomas’ results showed evidence of generalization at
50% of varied responding during his second target task, toy play. Conversely, percent of varied
responding immediately increased with the return to lag 1 schedule for both participants. Cannon
displayed varied responding between 67% and 100% during animal pretend play. He emitted
varied responding during other related animal pretend play between 67% and 89%. Similarly,
Thomas also showed variation in toy play during the second lag 1 condition. The percentage of
trials in which responses varied increased up to 100% within a session and remained between 67%
and 100% across subsequent sessions. Thomas also displayed varied responding during his
generalization within target task sessions at 50% and 100%. One novel generalization task,
responding to a social question, was presented during Thomas’ second lag 1 condition; 89% of
trials presented were varied.
During the lag 2 phase, both participants maintained a high percentage of varied responding
80% and 100% between for Cannon and Thomas. Cannon displayed varied responding at 100%
during two generalization within target task sessions and 90% of trials were varied during a novel
generalization task in lag 2 phase. For Thomas, he emitted varied responding between 89% and
100% across two describe sessions and 100% of trials were varied during a describe generalization
session in the lag 3 condition. Furthermore, Thomas responded variably at 100% across three toy
play sessions, one of which was a generalization toy play probe.
During the lag 3 condition, percentage of trials varied for selecting colors was 67%, and
animal pretend play trials were varied at 89% for Cannon. Three generalization task session trials
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 15
were varied at 83%, 90%, and 89%. Similar results were observed for Thomas during the lag 3
condition. Thomas varied his response up to 100% of trials during the describe task session and a
mean of 76.7% was trials were varied during the toy play session. Generalization of varied
responding to novel tasks were observed at 91% and 100% of the trials.
Figure 2 shows the number of different responses displayed per session for Cannon and
Thomas. During baseline, both participants displayed no more than three different responses within
their respective target tasks. However, once lag 1 schedule was introduced, an increasing trend was
observed for Cannon and Thomas with low variability. Cannon emitted between three to six
different responses during a selecting colors task, and eight different responses during a
generalization session related to selecting different colors in the lag 1 condition. He responded
with a mean of five different responses across four pretend play sessions during the lag 1 condition.
An average of three different responses were observed across two generalization probes for animal
pretend play.
For Thomas, between four and eight different responses were observed during a describe
task in the lag 1 condition. During the reversal back to baseline, two different responses were
observed during his toy play task and related generalization task. Once lag 1 condition was
reintroduced, the number of different responses observed fluctuated between three and four during
his toy play sessions. As the study continued onto lag 2 and lag 3 conditions, Cannon varied his
responses up to ten different responses per session during his selecting colors in the lag 3 condition,
and up to eight generalized different responses were observed during a novel generalization task
session in the lag 2 condition. Thomas displayed a mean of seven different responses during a
describe task, and six different toy play responses were observed during the lag 2 condition.
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 16
Figure 3 displays a cumulative number of novel responses emitted by Cannon and Thomas.
Cannon emitted 13 novel responses for selecting colors task and 24 novel responses during an
animal pretend play task throughout the study. Thomas displayed 19 novel responses during a
describe task, and 20 novel responses for toy play task. Furthermore, Cannon produced 11 novel
responses during a novel generalization task, and Thomas displayed 10 novel responses during his
novel generalization task.
Figure 4 and figure 5 show the social validity data based off of a questionnaire provided to
both participants and their parents. In the participant social validity questionnaire, both participants
selected "yes" to a question, "was it fun to try something different?" The participants also selected
"yes" when asked if they learned new ways to play or interact with others. One participant
responded "sometimes" when asked if the rule of the lag schedule was easy to understand, and the
other selected "yes." The parents of the participants reported their child engaging in more creative
play during leisure activities. Parents of both participants strongly agreed participating in this
research has brought meaningful changes to their child's life.
4.0 Discussion
The results of this study demonstrated that lag schedules of differential reinforcement were
effective at increasing the number of varied topographies of behavior displayed by children with
autism in the context of play. Perhaps most importantly, generalization of varied responding to
novel tasks was observed. It seems likely that presentation of a variety of stimuli and response
prompts during target tasks constituted a type of multiple exemplar training, which promoted the
formation of a larger, more generalized operant of behaving variably, at least in the context of the
play tasks we evaluated.
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 17
One variable that warrants discussion is the potential function of invariant behavior and
how that may impact treatment. The results from the QABF suggested that these behaviors were
likely escape-maintained for Cannon and automatically-maintained for Thomas. Previous research
on lag schedules has reinforced variable responding and placed invariant responding on extinction
(Page & Neuringer, 1985). However, the current study did not include an automatic reinforcement
extinction procedure for repetitive play, but rather, merely reinforced the elaboration of the
participant's perseverative or invariant play. Extinction for behaviors with automatic reinforcement
functions typically involves either physically blocking the response (Rincover & Devany, 1982)
or preventing the response from producing the presumed reinforcing stimulation, i.e., sensory
extinction (Rincover, Peoples, & Packard, 1979). For example, Thomas engaged in repetitive toy
play with a specific toy car and blocks. Physically blocking him from engaging in repetitive but
appropriate toy play seemed overly intrusive and parents had expressed that they preferred to avoid
the use of physical blocking, if possible. In the current study, the lag schedule appeared to be
successful in increasing response variability, without having to extinguish engaging in highly
preferred circumscribed interests.
Social validity measures of the current study suggested the possibility that learning to play
more flexibly during play and other tasks resulted in variable responding becoming its own source
of automatic reinforcement for both participants. One parent specifically reported that her child
engaged in various toy play behaviors with a variety of items, and also observed him engaging in
more creative pretend play behaviors at home. Of course, social validity data such as these are
highly subjective and therefore should be interpreted with caution.
One potential limitation of the current study is the concern that including verbal
antecedents such as "what other animals has a tail?" or "choose a different color" may have been
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 18
responsible for the variable behavior seen, as opposed to the lag schedule. However, these verbal
antecedents were presented throughout the entire study, including during baseline. Additionally,
the results of the study showed an immediate increase in varied responding when the lag schedule
of reinforcement was introduced, and low variability during the baseline phases. Hence, it is
unlikely that the presentations of verbal antecedents, alone, were responsible for the increase in
varied responding observed. Another potential threat to the internal validity is the presence of
visual stimuli (e.g., a box of crayons), which could have served as a visual prompt for varied
responding. However, the stimuli were present throughout the entire study, including baseline.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the presence of visual stimuli increased varied responding observed
during the intervention phases.
Children with autism and other related developmental disabilities often display resistance
to change. The tendency to insist on sameness and resistance to change may be viewed as a lack
of behavioral or cognitive flexibility. Such children may exhibit challenging behaviors and
substantial difficulty when required to be flexible in their behavior and tolerate unpredictable
changes in the environment. Inability to think and engage flexibly can interfere with an individual's
family functioning as well as one's learning, leisure interests, and problem-solving. When children
lack flexible thinking skills, they tend to have difficulty with new tasks and with solving problems,
which likely negatively affects academic and social development. A child with rigid thinking can
find certain subjects, such as mathematics, frustrating because it requires the child to shift between
various strategies to look for a solution. By establishing flexibility, individuals may be better able
to solve problems, engage in positive peer interactions, and perform better in school. It may also
promote children to shift their thoughts and strategies when faced with new information and work
through changes and transitions. Put more behaviorally, flexible and varied verbal and non-verbal
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 19
repertoires are more likely to be sensitive to changes in a person’s environment and therefore more
likely to be adaptive in helping a person’s behavioral repertoire change when change is required
for success in daily life.
The results of this study suggest a lag schedule to be an effective way to increase response
variability, and that varied responding can be generalized across various activities. Future research
should look into generalization of response variability to cognitive flexibility. Additionally, future
research could evaluate even more generalization by assessing varied responding across other
adults, settings, or peers. For example, can flexibility training in the context of play programs
during ABA sessions generalize to academic and/or social settings? If not, what additional training
may be required and across how many additional settings and tasks before broader generalization
is observed? Future research might also investigate how behavioral flexibility training might
benefit other populations, such as individuals with social anxiety and/or obsessive-compulsive
disorder.

INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 20

Figure 1. Percentage of varied responding across sessions for Cannon and Thomas.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Sessions
BL Lag 1
Colors
Generalization
Selecting
Colors
Animal Pretend
Play
FPP
Generalization
Lag 2 Lag 1 BL
Novel
Generalization
Probe
Lag 3
Cannon
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
% of Varied Responding
Sessions
Describe
Toy Play
Novel
Generalization
Probe
Describe
Generalization
Toy Play
Generalization
Thomas
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 21

Figure 2. Number of different responses across sessions for Cannon and Thomas.

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Sessions
Lag 1 Lag 1 BL BL Lag 2
Colors
Generalization
Animal Pretend
Play
Novel
Generalization Probe
Lag 3
FPP
Generalization
Selecting
Colors
Cannon
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
# of Different Responses
Sessions
Describe
Toy Play
Novel
Generalization
Probe
Toy Play
Generalization
Describe
Generalization
Thomas
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 22
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Novel Responses
BL BL Lag 1 Lag 1 Lag 2
Selecting
Colors
Colors
Generalization
Animal Pretend
Play
FPP
Generalization
Novel Generalization
Probe
Lag 3
Cannon
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Cumulative
Sessions
Toy Play
Toy Play
Generalization
Describe
Generalization
Describe
Novel
Generalization
Probe
Thomas

Figure 3. Cumulative number of novel responses across sessions for Cannon and Thomas.
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 23

Figure 4. Social validity results for Cannon’ s and Thomas’ parents.

Figure 5. Social validity results for both participants, Cannon and Thomas.

Question
Participant 1
(Cannon)
Participant 2
(Thomas)
Was the rule easy to understand?
Do you think you learned new ways to play or interact with others?
Was it fun to try something different when you were playing or talking
with others?
= Yes = Sometimes = No
Question
Participant 1
(Cannon)
Participant 2
(Thomas)
I approve of the procedures used during the sessions. 5 5
My child engages in more creative play during leisure activities (e.g. block
building, toy play, arts & crafts).
5 5
I am happy with the results of my child playing in more variable way. 5 5
My child is more flexible tolerating changes to his/her routine, response,
or play.
5 5
Participating in this research has brought meaningful changes to my
child’s life.
5 5
1= Strongly Disagree 2= Disagree 3= Neutral 4= Agree 5= Strongly agree
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 24
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Baruni, R. R., Rapp, J. T., Lipe, S. L., & Novotny, M. A. (2014). Using lag schedules to increase
toy play variability for children with intellectual disabilities. Behavioral
Interventions, 29(1), 21-35.
Charlop, M. H., Kurtz, P. F., & Casey, F. G. (1990). Using aberrant behaviors as reinforcers for
autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(2), 163-181.
Contreras, B. P., & Betz, A. M. (2016). Using lag schedules to strengthen the intraverbal
repertoires of children with autism. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 49(1), 3-16.
Esch, J. W., Esch, B. E., & Love, J. R. (2009). Increasing vocal variability in children with autism
using a lag schedule of reinforcement. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 25, 73–78.
Goetz, E. M., & Baer, D. M. (1973). Social control of form diversity and the emergence of new
forms in children’s block building. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6, 209–217. doi:
10.1901/jaba.1973.6-209
Koehler-Platten, K., Grow, L. L., Schulze, K. A., & Bertone, T. (2013). Using a lag reinforcement
schedule to increase phonemic variability in children with autism spectrum disorders. The
Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 29, 71–83.
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 25
Lee, R., McComas, J. J., & Jawor, J. (2002). The effects of differential and lag reinforcement
schedules on varied verbal responding by individuals with autism. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 35, 391–402. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2002.35-391
Lee, R., & Sturmey, P. (2006). The effects of lag schedules and preferred materials on variable
responding in students with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36,
421–428.
Napolitano, D. A., Smith, T., Zarcone, J. R., Goodkin, K., & McAdam, D. B. (2010). Increasing
response diversity in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 265–
271. doi: 10.1901/jaba. 2010.43-265
Page, S., & Neuringer, A. (1985). Variability is an operant. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 429–452. doi: 10.1037/0097-7403. 11.3.429
Rincover, A., & Devany, J. (1982). The application of sensory extinction procedures to self-injury.
Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 67-81.
Rincover, A., Cook, R., Peoples, A., & Packard, D.(1979). Sensory extinction and sensory
reinforcement principles for programming multiple adaptive behavior change. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 221-233.
Rodriguez, N. M., & Thompson, R. H. (2015). Behavioral variability and autism spectrum
disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(1), 167-187.
Susa, C., & Schlinger, H. D., Jr. (2012). Using a lag schedule to increase variability of verbal
responding in an individual with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 28, 125–130.
INCREASING RESPONSE FLEXIBILITY IN CHILDREN WITH ASD 26
Waltz, T. J., & Follette, W. C. (2009). Molar functional relations and clinical behavior analysis:
Implications for assessment and treatment. The Behavior Analyst, 32, 51–68.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Restricted and repetitive behavior is one of the diagnostic features of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Individuals with autism display a variety of inflexible behaviors such as circumscribed interests, rigid adherence to routines or rituals, and response invariance. Low levels of flexible and varied responding can be socially stigmatizing, as responding to peers and engaging with them creatively and variably play an essential role in social development. Additionally, invariant responding can limit the opportunity to reinforce and shape appropriate academic and social behaviors emitted by individuals with autism. Previous studies have shown that lag schedules of reinforcement can increase the diversity of behavior. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of lag schedules of reinforcement to increase response variability in children with autism. Furthermore, we evaluated the extent to which varied responding generalized to novel tasks using a reversal design embedded within a multiple baseline design across two participants. The results suggest that lag schedules increased variable responding and that the effects generalized. In addition, social validity measures taken with both the participants and the caregivers suggest that they valued the intervention.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Training staff to implement the interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA)

PDF

Use of a clinical decision model to support the transition of services for individuals with autism spectrum disorder

PDF

Effects of preferred physical activity on stereotypical behaviors in children with autism spectrum disorder: adapting from in-person to telehealth

PDF

The effects of bilingual acceptance and commitment training (ACT) on exercise in bilingual international university students

PDF

Values and persistence

PDF

Using acceptance and commitment training to enhance the effectiveness of behavioral skills training

PDF

Behavioral coaching for athlete health behaviors

PDF

The effects of acceptance and commitment therapy-based exercises on eating behaviors in a laboratory setting

PDF

Evaluating the effectiveness of interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis for survivors of traumatic brain injury

PDF

Evaluating the effects of virtual reality and acceptance and commitment therapy on music performance anxiety

PDF

A preliminary evaluation of a telehealth approach to acceptance and commitment training (ACT) for enhancing behavioral parent training (BPT) for Chinese parents

PDF

Using Acceptance and Commitment Training and a virtual patient model for supporting families with children with autism spectrum disorder

PDF

The effect of present moment awareness and value intervention of ACT on impulsive decision-making and impulsive disinhibition

PDF

Behavior analysis in medicine: a clinical decision model to support patient care

PDF

Clinical decision analysis for effective supervision: a review of the supervisor-supervisee relationship

PDF

Using rate-building to decrease latency and increase accuracy for task completion via telehealth

PDF

What “works” and why it still isn't enough: sexual harassment training measures of effectiveness

PDF

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on therapy utilization among racially/ethnically and socio-economically diverse children with autism spectrum disorder

PDF

Young children’s demand for reciprocal engagement: evidence from typically-developing and autistic preschoolers

PDF

Neural and behavioral mechanisms of oxytocin in the regulation of food intake

Asset Metadata

Creator Kang, Sora (author)

Core Title Let’s do something different: evaluation of lag schedules of reinforcement to increase flexibility and promote generalization in children with autism

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Science

Degree Program Applied Behavior Analysis

Publication Date 07/24/2019

Defense Date 06/19/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag autism,generalization,lag schedule,OAI-PMH Harvest,response flexibility,response variability

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tarbox, Jonathan (committee chair), Cameron, Michael (committee member), Manis, Frank (committee member)

Creator Email sorakang@usc.edu,srkng10@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-190870

Unique identifier UC11663029

Identifier etd-KangSora-7608.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-190870 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KangSora-7608.pdf

Dmrecord 190870

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kang, Sora

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA