Download Verbal Behavior

Verbal Behavior and
Autism Intervention
Mark L. Sundberg, Ph.D., BCBA
[email protected]
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What constitutes a “behavioral approach” to treatment of children with autism?
Consumers must be confused. There are many models out there, often quite
different from each other, but all claiming to be a “behavioral approach”
DTT
Lovaas model
CARD model
ABA
Pivotal response training
VB approach
CABAS
Competent learner model
Natural language paradigm
Milieu language training
Incidental teaching
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In addition, there are many
other approaches and treatments
such as...
Floortime
RDI
Son-Rise
Holding therapy
TEACCH
Secretion
Auditory training
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sensory integration
Weighted jackets
Deep pressure
Special diets
Vitamins
Medications
Swimming with dolphins
Decompression chambers
Chelation
Facilitated communication
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The basic teaching procedures consist of the standard
methodology found in applied behavior analysis (e.g., Cooper,
Heron, & Heward, 1987)
Prompting
Fading
Pairing
Modeling
Shaping
Chaining
Differential reinforcement procedures (e.g., DRO, DRI, DRL)
Intermittent reinforcement procedures (e.g., FR, VR, FI, VI)
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Extinction procedures (e.g., planned ignoring)
Punishment procedures (e.g., reprimands)
Generalization
Discrimination training
Errorless learning
Transfer of stimulus control
Task analysis
Fluency procedures
Contingency contracting
Token economies
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Additional procedural elements include, for example....
Individualized assessment and intervention program
Frequent opportunities to respond
Use of discrete trial teaching procedures
Incidental & natural environment teaching procedures
Data collection
Interspersel techniques
Behavioral momentum techniques
Peer and social interaction
Functional analyses
On-going analyses of performance by formally trained behavior analysts
What Constitutes a Verbal Behavior
Approach to Autism Treatment?
•
•
•
•
The major difference between the verbal behavior programs and the
majority of discrete trial (DTT) and ABA programs available in the
literature is the conceptual analysis of language that underlies the
assessment and curriculum used in each program
How is language measured, classified, and assessed? What is the unit
of analysis? What causes the emission of words and sentences? How
is language acquired? What causes language errors and deficits?
Most DTT/ABA programs are based on the traditional linguistic
classification system of expressive and receptive language, and the
associated vernacular, concepts, and theoretical constructs related to
language, which has its roots in cognitive psychology
The verbal behavior approach employs Skinner’s (1957) functional
analysis of language, which has its roots in radical behaviorism
Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
Language is learned behavior under the functional control of
environmental contingencies
“What happens when a man speaks or responds to speech is clearly
a question about human behavior and hence a question to be
answered with the concepts and techniques of psychology as an
experimental science of behavior” (Skinner, 1957, p. 5)
The analysis of verbal behavior involves the same behavioral
principles and concepts that make up the analysis of nonverbal
behavior. No new principles of behavior are required
Chapter 1 of Verbal Behavior is titled “A Functional Analysis of
Verbal Behavior”
In Chapter 2 Skinner identifies the dependent and independent
variables for a functional analysis of verbal behavior
A Functional Analysis of Verbal Behavior:
The Basic Principles of Operant Behavior
Stimulus Control (SD)
Motivating Operation (MO/EO)
Response
Reinforcement
Punishment
Extinction
Conditioned reinforcement
Conditioned punishment
Intermittent reinforcement
Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
The traditional linguistic classification of words, sentences, and
phrases as expressive and receptive language blends important
functional distinctions between types of operant behavior, and
appeals to cognitive explanations for the causes of language
behavior (Skinner, 1957, Chapter 1)
Thus, in Chapter 1 of VB Skinner recommends against what has
become the linguistic foundation of most DTT and ABA programs
While there are many conceptual and practical distinctions between
a cognitive and behavior analysis of language, this presentation
will focus on:
Research on the distinction between the mand, tact, and intraverbal
A functional analysis of verbal assessment and intervention
Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
At the core of Skinner’s analysis of language is the distinction
between the mand, tact, and intraverbal (traditionally all classified as
“expressive language”)
Is there conceptual and empirical support for this distinction?
Skinner identified three separate sources of antecedent control for
these verbal operants
EO/MO control------->Mand
Nonverbal SD--------->Tact
Verbal SD-------------->Intraverbal
In cognitive analyses of language these three sources are commonly
grouped together under the rubric of “referent or meaning”
Skinner’s Analysis of
Verbal Behavior
•
•
The empirical question is: Are these three antecedent
variables functionally separate, or is there no value in
making this distinction?
From a clinical standpoint, the two most common
language problems demonstrated by children with autism
that I have encountered over the past 32 years is a
defective mand repertoire and/or a defective
intraverbal repertoire, despite often having strong tact
and listener discrimination repertoires
The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact
•
•
•
•
Based on the distinction between the establishing operation
(EO/MO) and stimulus control (SD) as separate sources of control
Skinnerian psychology (“radical behaviorism,” see Skinner, 1974)
has always maintained that motivational control is different from
stimulus control
In Behavior of Organisms (Skinner, 1938) Skinner devoted two
chapters to the treatment of motivation; Chapter 9 titled “Drive”
and Chapter 10 titled “Drive and Conditioning: The Interaction of
Two Variables”
Skinner also made it clear in the section titled “Drive (is) Not a
Stimulus” (pp. 374-376) that motivation is not the same as
discriminative, unconditioned, or conditioned stimuli
The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact
•
•
Keller and Schoenfeld (1950) titled Chapter 9 “Motivation” and
further developed Skinner’s point, “A drive is not a stimulus” (p.
276), and suggested “a new descriptive term... ‘establishing
operation’” (p. 271)
In Verbal Behavior (1957) Skinner had a full chapter on motivation
and language (The Mand), and throughout the book provided many
elaborations on motivational control -- as an antecedent variable
The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact
•
•
•
Holland and Skinner’s (1961) book contained four chapters on
motivation; Chapters 7: “Deprivation,” 8: “Emotion I,” 9:
“Avoidance and Escape Behavior,” and 10: “Emotion II”
Millenson (1968) contained four chapters on motivation and
presented an excellent summary of the relevant empirical research
(p. 364-384); Chapters 15: “Motivation I,” 16: “Motivation II,”17:
“Aversive Contingencies,” and 18: “Emotional Behavior”
However, the topic of motivation was for the most part dropped
from the first generation of Applied Behavior Analysis/Behavior
Modification textbooks that followed Millenson’s book (e.g.,
Fantino & Logan, 1979; Kazden, 1975; Martin & Pear, 1978;
Powers & Osborne, 1976; Whaley & Malott, 1971)
The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact
•
•
•
•
In explaining what happen to the analysis of motivation in behavior analysis,
Michael (1993) pointed out, “In applied behavior analysis or behavior
modification, the concept of reinforcement seems to have taken over much of the
subject matter that was once considered a part of the topic of motivation” (p. 191)
There was a shift from the analysis of motivation as an antecedent variable to
motivation as a consequence
In addition, motivation as a topic of research was absent from the behavioral
journals. For example, The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis contained no
entries for “establishing operations” or “motivation” in the cumulative index
(1978) covering the first 10 years of publication
During the next 10 years (1979-1988) there were still no entries for “establishing
operation.” However, there were 5 entries for “motivation,” but they all involved
the use of motivation as a consequence, rather than as an antecedent variable
The Distinction Between the
Mand and the Tact
•
•
•
Motivation as an antecedent variable has returned to behavior
analysis textbooks and now is a common topic in JABA thanks to
Jack Michael, Brian Iwata, Wayne Fisher, and others
The JABA index for the years 1999-2005 contains 29 entries for
the EO, and 2 for the MO (motivating operations)
The 2nd Edition of the Cooper, Heron, & Heward book Applied
Behavior Analysis contains a full chapter on motivation as well as
a full chapter on Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior
Clinical Value of EO and the Mand to
Children with autism
•
Many children with autism have absent or defective mand
repertoires
•
Manding is a critical part of a typical child’s language development
•
Tact training does not typically produce manding in early learners
•
A functional analysis of the child’s verbal behavior often reveals
that the response called a mand or a request is not under EO
control, but rather SD control, thus not, by definition a mand
Defective Mand - Ally
EO
Does not evoke a mand
______________________________________________________
EO
Does not evoke a mand
Object
______________________________________________________
Intraverbal prompt
(e.g. “Sign cookie”)
Evokes a response
Imitative prompt
(not a mand)
(ASL sign)
____________________________________________________________________
Verbal Stimulus Control and Verbal
Conditional Discriminations in ABA
•
•
•
•
Research on verbal stimulus control, conditional discriminations,
and especially verbal conditional discriminations is absent from the
applied journals
A review of the JABA indexes from 1968 to 2005 shows only 5
entries for conditional discriminations, and none for verbal
conditional discriminations
Thus, like the EO and the mand, the antecedent variables that
evoke intraverbal behavior have not been a focus of behavioral
research
However, there is no argument that much of our verbal behavior is
controlled by verbal SDs (e.g., answering questions)
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
There is a rapidly growing body of empirical research supporting
various aspects of Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior
There are no contradictory lines of research on the distinction between
the mand, tact, and intraverbal
The VB approach is just behavior analysis
The “VB approach” shares the same procedures and methods as the
other behavioral approaches, but is based on a functional rather than
structural analysis of language
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Should we continue to disseminate verbal behavior procedures?
Sundberg & Michael (2001) suggested five major contributions that
Skinner’s analysis of verbal behavior could make to the existing
DTT/ABA programs for children with autism:
Mand training
Motivation (EO) as an independent variable in language training
Intraverbal training
Automatic reinforcement
A functional analysis of verbal responses, verbal errors, language
assessment, and curriculum development
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is there enough empirical support for the dissemination of these
suggestions?
Mand training
Yes
Motivation (EO) as an independent variable
Yes
Intraverbal training
Yes
Automatic reinforcement
No (but, see Tim Vollmer’s presentation at 11am this morning)
A functional analysis of verbal responses, verbal errors, language
assessment, and curriculum development
Yes
Conclusion
•
“The ‘VB approach’ is simply normative applied behavior
analysis with a few refinements. That is, it incorporates all of
the standard methodology of applied behavior analysis, but it
explicitly adopts Skinner's interpretive framework for analyzing
verbal contingencies.