Date post: | 10-Aug-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | mykayla-beighley |
View: | 8 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Running head: SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Sign Training Across Methods and Across Intellectual Capacities: Sign-Alone and Simultaneous
Communication, Typically Developing and Diagnosed with Autism
Mykayla Beighley
University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire
Author Note
Mykayla Beighley, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire.
The current study was conducted as a fulfillment of a project for University of Wisconsin
– Eau Claire Psychology 390: Advanced Behavior Analysis, supervised by Dr. Kevin Klatt.
Correspondence concerning this research should be addressed to Mykayla Beighley,
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54702. Email:
1
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Abstract
There has been a significant amount of research done on the acquisition of sign language
across all ages of people, both typically developing and with intellectual disabilities, namely
autism. Currently, there is little research that compares training methods across intellectual
capacities, or examines sign language acquisition potential across intellectual capacities. The
present study compared two methods: sign-alone training and simultaneous communication,
using an alternating treatments design with four infant participants: two typically developing and
two diagnosed with autism. The aim of the study was to fill the present gap in the research by
determining which method is most effective for both intellectual classifications, and which
group, if either, has better sign language acquisition potential. Results showed minor differences
in the methods, such that signs in the simultaneous communication condition were acquired more
quickly than signs in the sign-alone condition for all participants, and signs trained in the
simultaneous communication condition were better maintained after a four-week period of no
training. The difference was consistently more prominent for participants with autism than
typically developing participants. Additionally, typically developing participants acquired signs
in both conditions more quickly than participants with an autism diagnosis.
Keywords: autism, infants, sign-alone, sign language acquisition, simultaneous
communication, typically developing
2
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Sign Training Across Methods and Across Intellectual Capacities: Sign-Alone and Simultaneous
Communication, Typically Developing and Diagnosed with Autism
Throughout the past 30 years, a great deal of research has been done on the acquisition of
sign language in people of all ages and all intellectual capacities. Two specific common focuses
have been the acquisition of sign language by infants, and by children or adolescents with
autism. Remington and Clarke (1983) state that a noticeable failure to acquire language is one of
the most common signs of autism in early childhood, and several researchers, such as Bonvillian,
Orlansky, and Novack (1983), and Goodwyn and Acredolo (1993), have shown that early
childhood and infancy are optimal times for acquiring sign language.
A large component of many sign language acquisition studies is analyzing and
controlling the function of the sign. As shown by Normand, Machado, and Hustyi (2011), the
most common function of signing for infants is manding, or requesting something. Normand et
al. (2011) used a reversal design to teach three typically developing infants manual signs. Results
of the first part of the experiment (sign training) showed that all three participants learned their
specific sign under the training condition, and that signing frequency declined during the
baseline conditions. The researchers were able to determine the function of the signs by
including functional analysis as a component of the study. Three test and control conditions were
implemented in the study to analyze the function of the sign: mand, tact, or mimetic. Signing was
most commonly observed in the mand condition, occasionally in the mimetic, and rarely in the
tact.
An additional theme found in the literature on sign language acquisition is the training
method used. Common methods include physical prompting (Thompson, McKerchar, & Dancho,
2004), sign-alone, total speech/total communication/simultaneous communication (Remington &
3
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Clarke, 1983; Clarke, Remington, & Light, 1988) and prompt fading (Carr, Binkoff, Kologinsky,
& Eddy, 1978). Previous research has found little difference between methods when comparing
them (Remington & Clarke, 1983; Thompson et al. 2004) with the exception of Clarke et al.
(1988) who found participants acquired signs faster in the total communication (simultaneous
communication) condition, over the sign-alone training condition.
Clarke et al. (1988) compared sign-alone and total communication (simultaneous
communication) training, and results showed that participants acquired signs faster in the total
communication condition than the sign-alone condition. The researchers used an alternating
treatments design to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of the two methods. The study
included ten signs for each child, determined during a pretest to be previously unknown. The
training procedure involved sessions that consisted of 50 signs each, five trials for each of the ten
signs in a randomized order. The researcher presented a visual stimulus, and the child responded
by performing a sign. The procedure alternated between conditions; the only difference between
the conditions was that the word that corresponded with the stimulus was spoken in conjunction
with physical modeling in the total communication condition, and not during the sign-alone.
After each sign met criterion (the child responded correctly ten consecutive times in two
sessions) each child received four expressive signing probes, which were delivered in the same
procedure as the training method (all ten signs tested five times each in a random order). Results
showed that correct responding increased for all children in both conditions from 0% to 98%;
however, all children showed to learn faster in the total communication condition. The
researchers ran a second experiment within the study with one participant due to their specific
needs and intellectual differences. Despite having a different participant and slightly varied
4
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
procedure, results from the first experiment were replicated, solidifying that the total
communication method was the most efficient.
Remington and Clarke (1983) also sought to assess the differences in effectiveness of
sign-alone training and simultaneous communication using an alternating treatments design. Two
adolescents diagnosed with autism participated in the study, one with verbal imitating ability but
poor articulation, and one with no imitating ability. The training phase of the study involved
teaching the two adolescents to use expressive sign labels for items that did not show to be in
their receptive vocabulary during pretest. Each day both students had two15-minute training
sessions, separated by 45 minutes. For the sign-alone training method, the teacher modeled the
sign on the stimulus card, and reinforced appropriate signing by the child within five seconds of
the prompt. If the child failed to mimic the sign, the teacher moved the child’s hand to the
appropriate position. As the child’s signing became more reliable, the modeling and prompts
were slowly faded out. During the simultaneous communication phase, the teacher spoke the
word as they signed it; the procedure was otherwise identical. To ensure discrimination between
stimuli, new signs after the first were introduced within trials of those before it, at a ratio of two
to one. Results of the study differed from Clarke et al. (1988), such that both methods, sign-alone
training and simultaneous communication, were highly effective, but did not differ much in
terms of time it took to learn. Signs were acquired at roughly the same rate in both conditions,
differing by one or two sessions or trials for each child.
The present study, a systematic replication of Remington and Clarke (1983), focuses on
two groups of infants: typically developing and those who have been diagnosed with autism, and
two training methods: sign-alone and simultaneous communication. The aim of the study is to
extend previous research, which has determined that all groups of infants can acquire sign
5
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
language skills (Bonvillian et al., 1983; Remington & Clarke, 1983; Goodwyn & Acredolo,
1993; Thompson et al., 2004; Normand et al., 2011), by comparing methods across intellectual
labels in terms of acquisition speed, accuracy in testing, and maintenance. The study seeks to
discover acquisition potentials and effectiveness of methods in order to provide parents and
educators with the information necessary to effectively teach signs that children can use to mand
or request.
Method
Participants
Participants included two typically developing infants, A.B. age 3.5, and J.S. age 4, and
two infants with autism, S.M. age 4.5, and K.D. age 4. The participants were chosen from a local
daycare, and because their ages were within the range of the critical period for language
(Johnson and Newport, 1989). S.M. and K.D. were both capable of verbal imitation, but neither
could independently mand, express, or label. A.B. and J.S. were capable of appropriate language
skills for their age (independently manding, labeling, expressing, etc.) None of the four children
had ever undergone any form of sign training, or had any auditory, visual, or motor disabilities.
Design
A pretest assessed the children’s comprehension of the labels of the twenty items that
would be used for training, providing a basis for validity of the items under the assumption that
correct responses during training were not due to the child being previously familiar with the
term. Next, an alternating treatments design was implemented to compare the effects of
simultaneous communication training and sign-alone training to teach the four children
expressive sign labels for ten of the words indicated as unknown in pretest. Finally, a posttest
was conducted to assess verbal comprehension and maintenance following training.
6
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Procedure
Experimental setting. All baseline, treatment, and posttest procedures were conducted
one-on-one (researcher-child) in a private room within the children’s daycare building. A second
researcher along with a daycare employee observed through a one-way mirror during arbitrarily
chosen days. The days were chosen randomly so the researcher conducting the session would not
have any indication that they were being observed.
Pretest for verbal comprehension. The intention of the pretest condition was to ensure
those words used for training were not previously in the child’s receptive vocabulary. This
determination disputed the argument that correct responses were due to previous knowledge of
the spoken word; therefore it was particularly useful for the simultaneous communication
condition.
The pretest condition was conducted based on methods used by Remington and Clarke
(1983). The first session in the pretest condition consisted only of shaping each of the
participants to attend to the researcher when the researcher said their name. To shape this
response, the researcher waited until the participant was looking away, and then called his or her
name. Reinforcement in the form of a preferred food (e.g. candy, cereal) or social praise was
delivered contingent upon the child immediately making eye contact with the researcher after
being called. The duration of the eye contact required to obtain the reinforcer was increased
gradually until the child would reliably attend to the researcher for five seconds. This technique
for getting the child’s attention was used in every trial of the experiment following the first
session to indicate the beginning of a session.
To conduct the pretest, the researcher used a matching task. To ensure the participants
had the matching skill, the researcher performed a warm-up session. In the warm-up session, the
7
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
researcher arranged five cards with line drawings (simple drawings with thin black lines only, no
color or shading) in front of the child, then vocally presented a word already known to the child
(e.g. ball, cookie) by saying, “Show me cookie.” The child would then point to one of the five
line drawings. Each drawing was approximately the same size, and appeared on a plain white
3x5 inch notecard. This procedure was repeated for five known words, as five was the number of
words used in each pretest block following warm-up. The warm-up session indicated that each of
the four participants was capable of the matching skill, deeming this method satisfactory for the
remainder of the pretest.
The remaining pretest sessions consisted of five-item blocks, of all words the child was
presumed to not have in their receptive vocabulary, as indicated by the lead daycare provider.
The words included household items such as vacuum and television, exotic animals, and
household equipment such as rake and lawn mower, among other things. A goal of ten total
unknown items was set for the training procedure, so researchers prepared twenty items for
pretest under the assumption that the participants would indicate some of them as known. For
each block, or trial, five line drawings were placed in front of the child in a line. The researcher
then verbally prompted the child by saying, “Show me (name of object),” and the child was to
point to the corresponding line drawing. Preferred food or social praise reinforcement was
delivered noncontingent upon correct responding after every third trial in order to maintain the
child’s motivation without teaching a discrimination for correct responses.
The block procedure was repeated so each of the 20 stimuli were tested five times. A
total of ten stimuli were presented per session, resulting in ten sessions for each participant.
Sessions were conducted twice per day starting at 9:00 am and 2:00 pm. Sessions lasted roughly
15 minutes for each child. The same researcher ran every session for all four children, and was
8
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
allowed a break between the completion of one session and commencement of the next. Sessions
were run in the same order each day: A.B. at 9:00 and 2:00, J.S. at 9:30 and 2:30, S.M. at 10:00
and 3:00, and K.D. at 10:30 and 3:30. The five cards used in each block were switched so the
same cards weren’t always used together. Verbal comprehension of a word was assumed if the
child pointed to the correct line drawing following the verbal stimuli more than twice for that
stimulus throughout pretesting. If verbal comprehension was assumed, that card was not used for
that child’s training condition. The probability of the child guessing correctly for one of the five
trials of that card was .20, and the probability of the child guessing correctly twice was .08.
A total of 14 unknown words were identified for A.B., and 15 for J.S., while a total of 17
unknown words were identified for S.M. and 19 for K.D. The ten used for each child were
randomly selected from those words identified as unknown for them; therefore no child’s ten
words were exactly the same as another’s.
Training and probe blocks. The training condition followed an alternating treatments
design including two training methods: sign-alone training and simultaneous communication
training. The procedures for both training methods were based on Remington and Clarke (1983).
Sessions were conducted twice per day, at the same times as pretest sessions, starting 9:00 am
and 2:00 pm. The order of sessions was kept consistent from pretest. Sessions alternated between
training procedures each day, such that if on Monday the 9:00 am session was simultaneous
communication, the 2:00 pm was sign-alone, then on Tuesday the 9:00 am was sign-alone and
the 2:00 pm was simultaneous communication. The order was counter-balanced across
participants in order to control for sequence effects. Each session contained training blocks and
probe blocks, with the constraint that a probe block was not started unless it could be completed
within the 30 minutes allowed for each session.
9
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Training blocks. The following procedure was used identically in both the sign-alone and
simultaneous communication conditions, with the exception that in the simultaneous
communication condition, the researcher vocalized the word on the card as they physically
modeled the sign.
To train the first sign, the researcher waited until the child was sitting quietly, then
prompted them with their name as done during pretest. If the child attended for five seconds,
they were provided with a preferred food or social praise reinforcer. The trial began with the
researcher placing the stimulus card on the table in front of the child, and prompted the child
with their name again. The stimuli cards were identical to those used in pretest, such that line
drawings of an approximate matching size appeared on plain white 3x5 inch note cards. Next,
the researcher modeled the sign on the card (and spoke it in the simultaneous communication
condition), and delivered a reinforcer if the child imitated the sign within five seconds of the
model. If the child failed to imitate the modeled sign, or imitated incorrectly, the researcher
physically prompted the sign by manipulating the child’s hand(s) into the correct position, and
guiding them through the movement if movement was required. Independent signing was
reinforced with a preferred food, and prompted signing was reinforced with social praise,
facilitating a discrimination between the two types of responding. If a sign was performed
without prompting, it was scored as “independent,” if the sign was prompted it was scored as
“prompted,” and if the child did not comply with the prompt (e.g. attempted to escape, verbally
protested, hit, etc.) the trial was scored as “error.” Following reinforcement, the stimulus card
was removed, a five second intertrial interval was implemented (Remington and Clarke, 1983),
then the same card was presented again and the procedure was repeated.
10
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
The procedure for the remaining signs in each condition differed slightly, such that
presentation of the stimulus was interwoven with previously trained stimuli at a ratio of two to
one. For example, if the first word trained was “cow” and the second was “rake,” during the
training of “rake,” “bear” would be presented in one third of the trials, and “rake” in two thirds.
This procedure, described by Carr et al. (1978), facilitated the child learning the new sign and
learning a discrimination between new and previously learned signs.
As a child’s signing became more reliable, the physical prompt was gradually faded,
followed by fading of the researcher’s modeling. For signs in which physical prompting was not
necessary, modeling was faded more quickly. If at any point in the training the reliability of the
sign decreased, prompting was reinstated. A sign was considered to have reached criterion when
the child performed an independent correct response for ten consecutive trials. When a sign
reached criterion, a probe block was commenced.
Probe blocks. All probe blocks included 50 trials, and one block was run for each
condition if the sign being trained in that condition reached criterion. Probe blocks were only
conducted if the sign being trained in the present condition reached criterion, therefore the
occurrence of a probe block in the morning session did not guarantee the occurrence of a probe
block in the afternoon.
As in the training block, probe blocks were identical in both conditions, with the
exception of the verbal performance of the stimulus by the researcher in the simultaneous
communication condition. Probe trials were conducted similar to training trials, but differed in
three ways. First, the modeling and prompting present in training was absent in probe. Therefore
the sign was either scored as “independent” or “error.” Second, reinforcement was delivered
noncontingent upon correct responding on every third trial. Third, the signs were presented
11
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
dependent upon what sign had just been trained, and how many signs had been trained to that
point. After a sign reached criterion, five trials of each of the remaining untrained signs were
conducted, then the remaining trials of the total 50 included all five signs for that condition in a
randomized order.
Validity. Three adults who worked at the daycare and were naïve to the experiment
evaluated signs used in the training conditions for iconicity and ease to determine that the five
signs used in the simultaneous communication condition didn’t differ from the five signs used in
the sign-alone condition. Iconicity was defined as the similarity between the physical sign and
the word it referenced, and tested using a four-point scale (e.g. not at all similar, mildly similar,
mostly similar, completely similar) (Konstantareas, Oxman, and Webster, 1978). The test of
iconicity provided an idea of how much of a clue the physical sign gave to the word it
referenced, thus providing social validity. Ease of signing was defined based on physical ease
(one or two hands required to form sign), simple or complex movements (e.g. moving or
solitary), and visibility or nonvisibility of the sign to the child (Barrera, Lobato-Barrera, and
Sulzer-Azaroff, 1980). These tests were conducted to assess whether the signs used across
children were roughly equivalent and there were no effects of difficulty acting as a confound to
the results of the study.
Posttest for verbal comprehension. Following the completion of training, a posttest to
assess verbal comprehension was completed in a manner identical to the pretest. The items
shown to be unknown for each child that were previously eliminated were included in this
posttest to provide a comparison for those signs that were trained. Each sign was tested five
times. Number of sessions conducted for this posttest differed, dependent on how many signs
12
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
were assumed unknown during pretest. As done in pretesting, a warm-up was conducted with
known words prior to the beginning of posttesting.
Posttest for maintenance. To determine whether the expressive labels trained were
maintained by each of the participants without daily training sessions, a maintenance assessment
was conducted approximately four weeks after completion of posttesting for verbal
comprehension. One test that combined the signs in each condition was conducted in the same
manner as the probe blocks during training, such that cards were presented with no modeling.
Stimuli that were trained in the simultaneous communication condition were still paired with the
verbalization of the stimulus along with the presentation of the picture. For the maintenance
posttest, each of the ten stimuli was presented once in each session, and there was a total of five
sessions. The stimuli that were trained in each condition were presented in a random order in
each session, therefore avoiding order effects.
Reliability. One research confederate and one daycare employee collected reliability data
on five random days (days 2, 5, 7, 11, and 15) for all of that day’s sessions (including probe
trials) during training. The researcher conducting the sessions also collected data, and was
unaware of the days chosen for reliability checks until after completion of all that day’s sessions.
Reliability scores were calculated as described by Remington and Clarke (1983). The data
collection sheets from the two observers and the researcher were compared, and a reliability
score was calculated as the ratio of the number of trials on which both observers and the
researcher agreed, divided the number of trials on which they agreed plus the number of trials on
which they disagreed. This reliability assessment was conducted for one session per child for
pretest and posttest conditions as well.
Results
13
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Reliability
Interobserver reliability scores were as follows for sign-alone training: A.B. 94%, J.S.
97%, S.M. 99%, and K.D. 93%; and for simultaneous communication training: A.B. 97%, J.S.
96%, S.M. 94%, and K.D. 98%. Reliability scores for pretest and posttest were as follows,
respectively: A.B. 97%, 99%; J.S. 98%, 95%; S.M. 94%, 99%; and K.D. 98%, 98%.
Trials
Overall, the sign-alone condition required a higher number of trials than the simultaneous
communication condition. However, the difference was more pronounced for S.M. and K.D., the
two participants diagnosed with autism. A.B. required 6% more trials in the sign-alone condition
than simultaneous communication, J.S. required 15% more trials in sign-alone than simultaneous
communication, S.M. required 31% more trials in sign-alone than simultaneous communication,
and K.D. required 41% more trials in sign-alone than simultaneous communication. Tables 1-4
show the number of trials required for each participant in each condition to reach criterion. The
first column indicates the total number of trials completed to reach criterion, the second shows
how many trials were used to teach the target sign, and the third shows how many trials were
used to teach the discrimination between the target sign and previously mastered signs. Columns
two and three highlight the two to one ratio used to teach the discrimination.
Sessions
The total number of sessions run under each condition did not differ within the two
groups of children (with or without autism diagnosis), but did differ between the groups, such
that there was little difference in number of sessions between conditions for A.B. and J.S., the
typically developing children, whereas S.M. and K.D., both diagnosed with autism, required
more sessions in the sign-alone condition than the simultaneous communication. A.B. required
14
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
17 sign alone and 16 simultaneous communication sessions, J.S. required 15 and 13. The total
numbers of trials for S.M. were 21 and 16, and 24 and 17 for K.D. This suggests that
simultaneous communication training works more quickly for children with autism than sign-
alone training, and there is no difference in speed of acquisition between the methods when used
for typically developing children.
Probe Block Responses
Figures 1-4 show the response results for each child in each condition in terms of percent
of responses indicated as “independent.” The data in the figures are representative of the probe
blocks conducted after each sign reached criterion. The two typically developing participants,
A.B. and J.S. showed little difference in averages between the two conditions: A.B. averaged
94% independent responses in the sign alone condition, and 95% in the simultaneous
communication, and J.S. averaged 93% and 95% independent responses, respectively. The two
participants with autism showed slightly more difference between the conditions: S.M. averaged
93% independent in the sign-alone condition, and 96% in the simultaneous communication
condition, and K.D. averaged 92% and 97% independent responses, respectively. Therefore, the
results suggest that the simultaneous communication method is slightly more effective in
producing independent responses than sign-alone training.
Posttests
Figures 5-8 display the results of the posttest for verbal comprehension. The results of the
verbal comprehension posttest showed that all four participants had stronger verbal
comprehension of the items used in the simultaneous communication condition than the sign-
alone condition. Again, the difference was greater for the participants with autism than for
typically developing participants. These results suggest that the simultaneous communication
15
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
condition facilitated greater verbal comprehension than sign-alone training, but that both training
methods increased verbal comprehension of the stimuli in comparison to those stimuli that were
not trained.
Figures 9-12 show the results of the posttest for maintenance. The results show that the
skills acquired during training were mostly not maintained after four weeks of no training or
testing; however, the stimuli from the simultaneous communication condition showed slightly
more maintenance than the stimuli in the sign-alone condition for all participants.
Discussion
In light of the results of this study, it can be concluded that both sign-alone and
simultaneous communication are effective methods of sign training for both typically developing
children and children with autism. There were consistent minor discrepancies between the two
methods, such that for each child, the signs trained under simultaneous communication training
were acquired slightly more quickly, showed greater verbal comprehension, and were better
maintained over time. The differences, however, were not notable enough to dismiss sign-alone
training as an ineffective method. Additionally, the discrepancies were more notable in the
results of the children with an autism diagnoses when compared with those of their typically
developing peers.
The difference in the two methods’ effectiveness can likely be attributed to the major
difference in presentation of the stimulus under the two conditions, such that the word was
spoken in simultaneous communication when a stimulus is presented, and there was no pairing
with the presentation of the stimulus in sign-alone. The slightly better maintenance of the stimuli
trained under simultaneous communication indicates that those words were likely better
comprehended by the children, which is supported by the data collected from the posttest for
16
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
verbal comprehension. The stronger comprehension is easily attributed to the vocalization of the
word along with the visual presentation, as it gave the child another stimulus to recall and
therefore fall back on in the case that they forgot the visual stimulus. This second presentation
was not available in sign-alone, making the child more independently responsible for
memorization of the stimulus and response.
The results of this study, a systematic replication of Remington and Clarke (1983), did
not replicate the results exactly, but closely followed them. This study showed a minor, but
consistent difference in speed of acquisition and maintenance between the two types of sign
training in favor of simultaneous communication. Remington and Clarke (1983), however, found
virtually no difference between the two, but when there was a discrepancy it was again, in favor
of simultaneous communication. Though the studies both followed the same procedures, the
difference in results could be accounted for in the different participant classifications used in
each study. Remington and Clarke (1983) used two adolescents with autism diagnoses ages 10
and 15, whereas this study used four participants, two labeled as typically developing and two
with autism diagnoses, ages 3.5, 4, 4, and 4.5, respectively. The children used in this study are
closer to the age range that is considered the critical period for acquiring one or more languages,
and were therefore likely more reliable representations of acquisition potential.
The results of this study replicate those of Clarke et al. (1988), who studied sign
acquisition by children labeled as mentally retarded using total communication (simultaneous
communication) and sign-alone training. Their results showed that signs were acquired notably
faster in the total communication condition than in the sign-alone condition. The four
participants in Clarke et al. (1988) were between the ages of five and nine biologically, but their
assessed mental ages ranged from two to four years. The mental ages of the participants were
17
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
again within the critical period for acquiring language, which could then account for the
replication of results in the present study and small discrepancy with Remington and Clarke
(1983).
Though this study extended previous research in sign training methods by examining
methods across intellectual capacities of participants, future research could extend further by
examining other methods, such as prompt fading and physical prompting. Research in this area
could also be expanded by comparing acquisition under one method among a group of
participants with similar intellectual capacities but both inside and outside the critical period for
language acquisition. Examining the latter research question could reveal whether the critical
period is in fact a notable factor in sign language acquisition, and therefore does account for the
discrepancies between the results of this study and results of previous research.
In conclusion, results of this study suggest that both sign-alone and simultaneous
communication training are effective methods for training signs in young children labeled as
both typically developing and with an autism diagnosis. However, simultaneous communication
has shown to be the more efficient method of the two, as all four children acquired signs trained
in that condition more quickly than those trained under sign-alone, and signs trained under
simultaneous communication were better maintained. Additionally, the simultaneous
communication training method showed to be notably more effective for children with autism
than sign-alone training, and for typically developing participants the discrepancy was less
prominent. Therefore, when sign acquisition is desired for a child with autism, it is likely that
simultaneous communication training will yield faster and more sustainable results than sign
alone training; however, when sign acquisition is desired for a typically developing child, it is
likely that both simultaneous communication and sign-alone training will yield results with
18
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
relatively similar speed, but signs trained with simultaneous communication would likely be
more sustainable after completion of training.
19
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
References
Barrera, R. D., Lobato-Barrera D., and Sulzer-Azaroff, B. A. (1980). A simultaneous treatment
comparison of three expressive language training programs with a mute autistic child.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10(1), 21-37.
Bonvillian, J.D., Orlansky, M. D., & Novack, L. L. (1983). Developmental milestones: Sign
language acquisition and motor development. Child Development, 54(6), 1435-1445.
Carr, E. G., Binkoff, J. A., Kologinsky, E., and Eddy, M. (1978). Acquisition of sign language by
autistic children I: Expressive labeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 11(4), 489-
501.
Clarke, S., Remington, B., and Light, P. (1988). The role of referential speech in sign learning by
mentally retarded children: A comparison of total communication and sign-alone
training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21(4), 419-426.
Goodwyn, S. W., & Acredolo, L.P. (1993). Symbolic gesture versus word: Is there a modality
advantage for onset of symbol use? Child Development, 64(3), 688-701.
Johnson, J. S., and Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning:
The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language.
Cognitive Psychology, 21, 60-99.
Konstantareas, M., Oxman, J., and Webster, C. Iconicity: Effects of the acquisition of sign
language by autistic an other severely dysfunctional children. In P. Siple (Ed.),
Understanding language through sign language research. New York: Academic Press,
1978.
Normand, M. P., Machado, M. A., Hustyi, K. M., Morley, A, J. (2011). Infant sign training and
functional analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(2), 305-314.
20
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Remington, B. and Clarke, S. (1983). Acquisition of expressive signing by autistic children: An
evaluation of the relative effects of simultaneous communication and sign-alone training.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 16(3), 315-328.
Thompson, R. H., McKerchar, P. M., and Dancho, K. A. (2004). The effects of delayed physical
prompts and reinforcement of infant sign training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
37(3), 379-383.
21
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Table 1
A.B. Number of Trials Per Condition to Achieve Criterion
A.B.Sign-Alone Training Simultaneous Communication
TrainingSign Total Trials to
CriterionTrials to Criterion with New
Sign
Additional Trials on Mastered Sign(s)
Sign Total Trials to Criterion
Trials to Criterion
with New Sign
Additional Trials on Mastered Sign(s)
Cow 32 32 -- Wheel 45 45 --Vacuum 67 45 22 Television 71 47 24
Rake 59 39 20 Snake 56 37 19Garbage 88 58 30 iPod 97 64 33
Tiger 79 52 27 Elephant 65 43 22Total Trials
325 226 99 Total Trials
334 236 98
Note. Column one identifies the sign (stimulus) used, column two identifies the total trials across
sessions it took for that sign to reach criterion and move to probe block, and columns three and
four show the two to one ratio of the previously mastered signs being interwoven with the
training of the new sign.
22
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Table 2
J.S. Number of Trials Per Condition to Achieve Criterion
J.S.Sign-Alone Training Simultaneous Communication
TrainingSign Total Trials to
CriterionTrials to Criterion with New
Sign
Additional Trials on Mastered Sign(s)
Sign Total Trials to Criterion
Trials to Criterion
with New Sign
Additional Trials on Mastered Sign(s)
Television 24 24 -- Rake 36 36 --Cake 60 40 20 Elephant 45 30 15Snake 71 47 24 Bucket 69 46 23Hose 59 39 20 Mouse 58 38 20Tiger 84 55 29 Lion 88 58 30Total Trials
298 205 93 Total Trials
296 208 88
Note. Column one identifies the sign (stimulus) used, column two identifies the total trials across
sessions it took for that sign to reach criterion and move to probe block, and columns three and
four show the two to one ratio of the previously mastered signs being interwoven with the
training of the new sign.
23
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Table 3
S.M. Number of Trials Per Condition to Achieve Criterion
S.M.Sign-Alone Training Simultaneous Communication
TrainingSign Total Trials to
CriterionTrials to Criterion with New
Sign
Additional Trials on Mastered Sign(s)
Sign Total Trials to Criterion
Trials to Criterion
with New Sign
Additional Trials on Mastered Sign(s)
Bucket 50 50 -- Tiger 42 42 --Bed 63 42 21 Car 64 42 22
Candle 95 63 32 Hose 85 56 29Shovel 88 58 30 Couch 75 50 25iPod 97 64 33 Elephant 96 63 22Total Trials
393 277 116 Total Trials
362 253 98
Note. Column one identifies the sign (stimulus) used, column two identifies the total trials across
sessions it took for that sign to reach criterion and move to probe block, and columns three and
four show the two to one ratio of the previously mastered signs being interwoven with the
training of the new sign.
24
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Table 4
K.D. Number of Trials Per Condition to Achieve Criterion
K.D.Sign-Alone Training Simultaneous Communication
TrainingSign Total Trials to
CriterionTrials to Criterion with New
Sign
Additional Trials on Mastered Sign(s)
Sign Total Trials to Criterion
Trials to Criterion
with New Sign
Additional Trials on Mastered Sign(s)
Elephant 52 52 -- Car 49 49 --Couch 76 50 26 Television 68 45 23Shovel 87 57 30 Mouse 93 61 32
Garbage 103 68 35 iPod 85 56 29Lion 99 65 34 Cow 79 52 27Total Trials
417 292 125 Total Trials
374 263 111
Note. Column one identifies the sign (stimulus) used, column two identifies the total trials across
sessions it took for that sign to reach criterion and move to probe block, and columns three and
four show the two to one ratio of the previously mastered signs being interwoven with the
training of the new sign.
25
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
Figures
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150
25
50
75
100
A.B. Percent of Independent Responses in Probe Blocks
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Days
Per
cent
Ind
epen
dent
Res
pons
es
Figure 1. Figure 1 shows the percent of A.B.’s responses identified as independently correct
from probe trials. Results showed no difference between the two training methods in terms of
speed of acquisition or accuracy.
26
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 150
25
50
75
100
J.S. Percent of Independent Responses in Probe Blocks
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Days
Per
cent
Ind
epen
dent
Res
pons
es
Figure 2. Figure 2 shows the percent of J.S.’s independently correct responses from probe trials.
Results showed little difference between the two conditions in terms of accuracy and speed of
acquisition, though the signs trained with simultaneous communication showed to be performed
with slightly more accuracy.
27
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210
25
50
75
100
S.M. Percent of Independent Responses in Probe Blocks
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Days
Per
cent
Ind
epen
dent
Res
pons
es
Figure 3. Figure 3 shows S.M.’s percent of responses identified as independently correct from
probe trials. Results showed signs trained in the simultaneous communication condition were
acquired more quickly and performed with more consistent accuracy than those trained in the
sign-alone condition.
28
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 220
25
50
75
100
K.D. Percent of Independent Responses in Probe Blocks
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Days
Per
cent
Ind
epen
dent
Res
pons
es
Figure 4. Figure 4 shows K.D.’s percent of responses identified as independently correct from
probe trials. Results showed that signs trained in the simultaneous communication condition
were acquired more quickly and performed with more accuracy than signs trained in the sign-
alone condition.
29
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5-1
0
1
2
3
4
5A.B. Posttest for Verbal Comprehension
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Items Not Trained
Sign
Cor
rect
Res
pons
es
Figure 5. Figure 5 shows A.B.’s correct responses from the posttest for verbal comprehension of
signs taught under each condition, as well as signs indicated in pretest as unknown but not
included in training. Results showed comprehension to be higher for signs trained than signs not
trained, and signs trained in the simultaneous communication condition to be comprehended
more consistently than signs trained in the sign-alone condition.
30
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5-1
0
1
2
3
4
5J.S. Posttest for Verbal Comprehension
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Items Not Trained
Sign
Cor
rect
Res
pons
es
Figure 6. Figure 6 shows J.S.’s correct responses from the posttest for verbal comprehension of
signs taught under each condition, as well as signs indicated in pretest as unknown but not
included in training. Results showed perfect comprehension for signs trained under the
simultaneous communication condition. Additionally, signs trained showed to be more
consistently comprehended than signs not trained.
31
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
S.M. Posttest for Verbal Comprehension
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communicaiton
Items Not Trained
Sign
Cor
rect
Res
pons
es
Figure 7. Figure 7 shows the results of S.M.’s posttest for verbal comprehension of signs taught
under each condition, as well as signs indicated in pretest as unknown but not included in
training. Results showed that S.M. comprehended the signs trained more than the signs not
trained, and signs trained under the simultaneous communication condition were shown to be
more consistently comprehended than those trained in the sign-alone condition.
32
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
K.D. Posttest for Verbal Comprehension
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Items Not Trained
Sign
Cor
rect
Res
pons
es
Figure 8. Figure 8 shows correct responses from K.D.’s posttest for verbal comprehension of
signs taught under each condition, as well as signs indicated in pretest as unknown but not
included in training. Results show that K.D. better comprehended signs trained compared to
those not trained, and better comprehended signs trained under the simultaneous communication
condition than the sign-alone condition.
33
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5-1
0
1
2A.B. Posttest for Maintenance
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Sign
Cor
rect
Res
pons
es
Figure 9. Figure 9 shows the results of the posttest for maintenance for A.B.; conducted four
weeks following completion of posttesting for verbal comprehension. Results showed signs
trained under the simultaneous communication condition were better maintained than those
trained under sign-alone, but none of the signs were maintained at a satisfactory level.
34
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5-1
0
1
2
J.S. Posttest for Maintenance
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Sign
Cor
rect
Res
pons
es
Figure 10. Figure 10 shows the results of the posttest for maintenance for J.S.; conducted four
weeks following completion of posttesting for verbal comprehension. Results showed stronger
maintenance for signs trained under the simultaneous communication condition than those
trained under the sign-alone condition; however none of the signs were maintained at a
satisfactory level.
35
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5-1
0
1
2S.M. Posttest for Maintenance
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Sign
Cor
rect
Res
pons
es
Figure 11. Figure 11 shows results of the posttest for maintenance for S.M.; conducted four
weeks following completion of posttesting for verbal comprehension. Results showed that signs
trained in the simultaneous communication condition were better maintained than those trained
in the sign-alone condition, but none of the ten signs were maintained at a consistent, satisfactory
level.
36
SIGN TRAINING ACROSS METHODS AND CAPACITIES
1 2 3 4 5-1
0
1
2
K.D. Posttest for Maintenance
Sign-Alone
Simultaneous Communication
Sign
Cor
rect
Res
pons
es
Figure 12. Figure 12 shows the results of the posttest for maintenance for K.D.; conducted four
weeks following completion of posttesting for verbal comprehension. Results did not show
satisfactory maintenance of the signs in either condition.
37