TEACHING COIN DISCRIMINATION TO CHILDREN WITH VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS

Participants and Setting

We solicited nominations for participation from the staff of a state educate for children with ocular impairments. Maddie was a 6-year-old girl of typical cognitive development who had been diagnosed with oculocutaneous albinism with horizontal nystagmaus and photalgia. Chris was an 8-year-old boy with meek developmental delays ; he had been diagnosed with retinene detachment in both eyes ( specifically retinopathy of prematureness ), a dense cataract in his left eye, and no luminosity perception in his right eye. Both participants ‘ diagnoses were obtained from their school records. We conducted sessions in an empty therapy room at the school or a privy sphere in their classrooms .

Measurement and Interobserver Agreement

During trials that required a choice response, we defined correct responding as placing the target coin in the teacher ‘s hand within 5 randomness of the teacher ‘s education. During trials that required a vocal music response, we defined adjust responding as vocalizing the target coin ‘s name ( or value ) within 10 south of the teacher ‘s education. To assess interobserver agreement, a second gear observer simultaneously but independently collected data during 81 % and 85 % of Maddie ‘s and Chris ‘s sessions, respectively. We compared observers ‘ records on a trial-by-trial basis and scored each test in agreement merely if both observers ‘ records matched identically. Observers agreed on 97 % and 96 % of trials for Maddie and Chris, respectively .

Coin Relations Pretest

We conducted pretest probes to assess the children ‘s abilities to country the name of a coin ( i.e., penny, nickel, dime, and quarter ) given the coin as a sample stimulation ( coin-name relation ), to state the prize of a coin ( i, 1 cent, 5 cents, 10 cents, and 25 cents ) given the mint ( coin-value sexual intercourse ), to state the value of a coin given the name ( name-value relation ), to select a coin from an array of the four coins given its diagnose ( name-coin relation ), to select a coin given its value ( value-coin relation back ), and to submit the name of a coin given its value ( value-name relation ). We assessed each relation during an individual school term ( i.e., a sum of six pretest sessions ; one session for each relative ) ; each school term consisted of eight trials in which we presented each mint as the aim twice. We did not provide any feedback or derived function consequences based on the accuracy of responding. We initially conducted only a single session probe of each relation to ensure that children did not respond accurately .

Discrimination Skills Assessment and Training

We conducted an assessment to determine if children could discriminate larger from smaller coins ( size assessment ) and the bearing or absence of ridges ( ridges judgment ) ; these skills were prerequisite to teaching coin-name-value relations based on tactile features. This size appraisal consisted of 12 trials. During each test, the teacher presented the student with two american coins and instructed the scholar to hand her either the larger or the smaller coin. The teacher presented each mint paired with every early coin doubly per session ( once in which the teacher requested the child bridge player her the larger coin and once in which she requested the smaller mint ). The teacher did not provide any program consequences for discipline or faulty respond. Participants who responded correctly during 11 out of 12 trials were deemed to have mastered this discrimination ; those who did not demonstrate mastery received extra education prior to coin-relation coach ( described below ).

The ridges assessment consisted of eight trials in which the teacher presented two coins ( one with ridges and one without ; she presented each couple doubly ) and asked the child to hand her the coin either with or without ridges. Participants who responded correctly during seven of the eight trials were deemed to have mastered this discrimination ; those who did not demonstrate command received extra teaching prior to coin-relation educate. Maddie met criteria for ridges versus no ridges but command train in the larger versus smaller discrimination. Chris required train for both size and presence or absence of ridges. train sessions for size discrimination were alike to test sessions, except that the children were prompted ( a ) to place both coins next to each other in their hands, ( bel ) to touch the edge of the smaller coin, and ( coulomb ) to hand the larger or smaller coin to the therapist. correct responding at each step in the sequence resulted in teacher praise, and completion of the terminal step resulted in the delivery of a marble dropped in a cup to produce an audible sound. Each marble was exchangeable for 30-s access to a prefer leisure token at the end of the school term. incorrect responses or a failure to respond at any measure resulted in physical guidance from the teacher.

prepare sessions for ridges discrimination were like except that children were prompted ( a ) to pick up each mint individually, ( b ) to drag their fingernail along the side of the coin, ( hundred ) to vocally label the coin as having or not having ridges, and ( five hundred ) to hand the requested mint with or without ridges to the teacher. train sessions continued until the participant met criteria on 11 of the 12 trials during size-discrimination sessions and on seven of the eight trials during ridge-discrimination sessions. Each criterion was achieved following two sessions of direct education across skills and participants. We completed an extra posttraining probe under pretest conditions the follow day to ensure that this skill persisted in the absence of prompting and differential reinforcement ; correct responding continued in this follow-up appraisal in each case.

Coin-Relation Training

We initially conducted extra coin-relation baseline sessions using procedures identical to those described in the coin-relation pretest to establish a baseline level of accurate react in each coin relation. We then implemented relation educate in a multiple service line design across relations. We first implemented name-coin train, in which we presented the talk name of the mint as the sample stimulation and targeted handing the mint to the teacher from a comparison align consisting of all four american coins laid side by side as the terminal response. Each school term consisted of eight trials. We initiated each test with the motivate, “ find the [ name of coin ]. ” We used an errorless teaching procedure to facilitate acquisition of these relations. During the inaugural session of the name-coin relation train sessions, we presented entirely the prey coin in the comparison range ( for example, the penny ). chastise independent responding resulted in the rescue of praise and a marble. If the child did not engage in a correct autonomous response within 5 second of the trial-initiating prompt, we physically guided the child ( a ) to pick up the coin, ( b-complex vitamin ) to drag a fingernail along the extinct rim of the mint, and ( coulomb ) to hand the coin to the teacher. Correct prompted responses resulted in praise only. After one session in which the child completed these steps independently on seven of the eight trials, we introduced one extra comparison into the array that differed in the presence or absence of ridges ( for example, the dime would be presented along with the penny ). coach was alike except that we prompted the player ( a ) to stack the coins to identify size differences, ( boron ) to drag a fingernail along the out rim of each coin, and ( coulomb ) to hand the target coin to the teacher. Following one session in which the child correctly and independently identified the target mint on seven of the eight trials, we then introduced a third coin. We used the same education steps and criteria to add the fourth coin. After meeting criteria for the first mint with a full comparison array, we then introduced the following coin as the aim and repeated the former education steps ( i, only one comparison presented ) until all four coins had been selected with at least seven of eight decline trials given their names as sample distribution stimuli. After the child mastered the name-coin relation, we conducted emergent relations probes ( described below ) for each of the mint relations. Following these probes, we implemented value-coin prepare using the same errorless coach procedure described above, except that the initial motivate during this educate was “ find the [ respect of coin ]. ”

Emergent Relations Probes

Following mastery of the name-coin relation and again following domination of the value-coin relation, we conducted probes of each of the six mint relations. Each probe session targeted one coin relation and consisted of 16 trials. Eight trials were identical to those in the pretest ( i.e., responding did not result in reinforcement ), and eight trials were identical to those of the coin-relation train sessions ( i.e., correct responding resulted in support rescue ) ; we report data entirely from the unreinforced probe trials. This routine prevented elongated periods of nonreinforcement for responding and maintained the educate relation back at force during these probes .

reservoir : https://ontopwiki.com
Category : Finance

Post navigation

Leave a Comment

Trả lời

Email của bạn sẽ không được hiển thị công khai.