How Not to Talk to Your Kids.

[hadespussercats]

I don't have any idea how I would apply ABA as a parent-- I just want to encourage my son not to be afraid to try things he's not immediately good at, and to be willing to work at things and improve his skills.

I worry, because that wasn't the culture of my childhood home. I guess I have to acknowledge I'll make mistakes-- but at least they should be different from the ones my parents made.

[floppit]

Hades - you have to make mistakes, it obligatory. Imagine adolescence if you CAN'T blame your parents!!! Hell on a plate!

[Mr.Samsa]

That is more an issue within cognitive psychology (which I agree makes a number of fuckups), as well as problems with popularisation of scientific findings. The original findings that you're referring to suggested that there was no evidence that children under that age demonstrated ToM, not that it was impossible for them to do so. Theories were then developed based on the information they had, which were then refined when new evidence came to light.

Theories on ToM in behavioral science rely a lot less on strict notions of 'developmental stages', so behavioral science never had this problem.

Ah, the "no true Scotsman" argument - A behavioral science publication isn't really behavioral science if it publishes anything later proved wrong, eh?

Not at all, it's more of a discussion on the important distinction between the vague term "behavioral sciences", which is often used as synonymous with "social sciences", and "behavioral science" which is the study of behavior. The two often overlap, but generally use vastly different methodology, and that used in the social sciences is often less rigorous than that used in behavioral science. It's not a case of rejecting it because it has been later proved wrong, because there are a number of areas of cognitive science which are sometimes termed "behavioral science" which I would argue is an inaccurate application of the label - despite the fact that the results found in that field are valid.

Reward schedules are complex in their own right, it's correct that a randomised schedule is the most powerful in increasing RATE of behaviour, but in schooling a child speed and quantity of response is not always (in academics, rarely) the priority. Reward schedules are chosen for much more subtle reasons, to support rigidity of behaviour, or flexibility, to enhance long term goals or target short term ones, to produce conditioned, paired, responses or encourage a more operant approach.

Randomised schedules can be useful in increasing the rate of behavior (specifically if you're using a variable-interval schedule), but not always (i.e. some randomised schedules produce a lower rate of behavior than fixed schedules). However, randomised schedules are usually used to create a stable and long-term behavioral change, that will continue beyond needing any external reinforcement to survive. Essentially, whatever behavior we train or teach our children will rely on a randomised schedule because not only is it physically impossible to reward every instance of a behavior, but it's also a poor method for teaching. So directly or indirectly, all successful training methods will utilise a randomised reinforcement schedule (at least at some point).

Then there's the limits of behaviourism. Behaviourism relies on the observable and the ability to measure and count behaviour. But there's an elephant in the room, behaviourists from both sides of the camp know it. The elephant is our internal world, the unseen stimuli.

Skinner answered this retort back in the 30s. In fact, he was one of the first people to formally raise this issue against the original behaviorists. He solved it by pointing out that behavioral methods can be applied to the internal world, and as such, his brand of behaviorism was labelled "radical" because he argued that for psychology to be a science it must study the internal world as well. He called these things "private behaviors", and this is where cognitive psychology and CBT stemmed from.

I might jump up and suddenly run out of the room, a behaviourist can note the previous or coinciding environment, they can record all that happened and when, BUT if I ran out the room because I remembered I left my gas on the stimuli is unseen and has nothing to do with the physical environment I left.

If they don't take into account fears of leaving the gas on, then they won't be able to establish a causal relationship between a stimulus and behavior. The behaviorist has a number of ingenious methods for accessing your innermost private world, and perhaps the most devilish of which is: to ask you what you were thinking. This is a verbal report and can be hugely useful for determining what causes a behavior.

The behaviourist can observe the number of times I match a word card written in chinese to the correct object, they can measure the percentage I get correct but they cannot observe the means by which it's done - is it because I'm learning to read chinese or because I have latched onto the creases in well thumbed word cards?

There are a number of methods for assessing whether you are learning Chinese. The first would be to assess what aspect of the stimulus you are responding to. What you're describing is known as "stimulus control" where in compound stimuli there can be differential control by different aspects of the stimulus. So if we train a pigeon to peck a green button with a circle on it, then we need to test whether the pigeon is responding to the colour or the shape (or both). There are various ways to test this, but I won't bother going into details unless anyone wants to be bored by me

The second method for testing whether you understand Chinese is to put you through a series of "stimulus equivalence" tests to determine whether you have accurately formed the concept associated with the symbol, or whether you are inadvertently responding to some other aspect of the stimulus. It would be impossible to pass these tests without understanding Chinese.

I sat face to face with children for 4 years using ABA, I worked with Norwegian consultants lucky enough to live in a country where it's challenges and usefulness are recognised and further research supported by the state, people who had both academic learning and experience reaching over decades - and they were STILL learning. Applying behaviourism in it's purest form is a bit like trying to guide a hippo with a dog lead! It's frigging powerful, each mistake can not only render the learning goal ineffective but can reroute learning, creating counter productive beasts that are inordinately hard to extinguish.

The behaviourism that would most help parents isn't the trial based fire water, it's an understanding that in behavioural terms, behaviour that works survives. In terms of reward schedules the most important to consider is the child's age, the younger the more immediate rewards need to be, with older children it begins to expand and token economies (basic pocket money rewards or sticker charts etc) start to work really well. The most important issue with rewarding children is variety and novelty. I specialised in ABA in my last year at uni and then went on to work in the field for real, before I went to uni I was an animal trainer - I know my shit but I would NOT EVER use ABA in it's pure form with a normally developing child because the screw up factors far outweigh benefit. If a child has learning difficulties that restrict other alternatives then I think it is justifiable and useful to use ABA, however, I still wouldn't touch it with a bargepole without support, without a fecking brilliant consultant available.

I'm confused by this bit. You are opposed to using a well-developed system of behavior, which has mountains of empirical evidence to persuade and dissuade us from using various approaches to teach a child something, because it can sometimes have negative effects when mistakes are made? What's the alternative though? A randomised ad hoc approach, with unknown effectiveness or downfalls?

Furthermore, given how successful behavioral approaches are in educational settings with "normal" children, I don't see why people shouldn't use them all the time. For example, time out methods and classroom approaches such as "the good behavior game" have been hugely successful in aiding the education of normally developing children. I think the problem is that people view behavior analysis as an "approach" to changing behavior, as if it's a specific technique or philosophy, rather than understanding that behavior analysis is simply the description of how organisms learn. That is, no matter what approach or technique we want to use, we will inevitably use reinforcement, punishment, classical conditioning, priming, modelling, etc. The advantage of using scientifically verifiable approaches to teaching children is that we know exactly what to expect and what the possible downfalls are.

In other words, to say ABA shouldn't be used with normally developing children is like saying that we should just fire random shots off into the dark and hope that the kids happen to learn what they need to learn.

[floppit]

The random shots, without ABA, is what children and their brains have evolved to use with profound efficiency, learning swathes of skills over a mindblowing range in their firat few years of life. Additionally I suggest the core elements if behaviourism are worthwhile for all.

I'm really torn over entering debate here. I read your responses and immediate answers come to mind, however, judging by what's gone before it would be a total waste of time.

To clarify, I believe ABA is a valid scientific approach, I wish it only well in terms of attracting funding for research, I think where our normal development is not working it should be used in the home (under the best guidance and to the best standard possible), it does have significant evidence as viable and suseful.

My only issue is that it is not best suited to fast tracking kids already learning at a healthy rate.

[floppit]

I'm going to add an anecdote so you have half a chance to get where I'm coming from.

I'm working as an ABA tutor under a variety of consultants, using the Lovaas approach. One of the consultants (an american I'll shortly refuse to work with) charges $100 per hour or part thereof for all telephone/email communication. The parents can't afford it for each stumbling block and anyway her solutions tend not to work.

We've been teaching a boy who was one of 2 surviving quads born prematurely. He has a high level of autism and the remaining part of an oxygen starved brain. Matt (not real name) has the first basic programme - immitation, something those random potshots teach superbly well for other kids but haven't for him.

There are 2 programmes for imitation in place, at present both with a single task as this is not yet mastered. Gross motor imitation - standing up when the tutor does; imitation with objects - putting a block in the bucket when the tutor does. I am well aware the latter will work from the SD of the block and bucket, and the former from the SD of being sat face to face, or at least that this is the most likely until we randomise a second task.

Matt's Mum rings me distressed. She tells me Matt will no longer sit in the chair and is tantrumming to the point he's been sick, that the last 2 tutors have not got further than hand of hand prompting through tantrums, practising dutifully the stupid consultants instructions on placing tantrums on extinction (I'll explain if you want why that bit was dumb - I know it doesn't appear dumb but in Matt's case, in this instance, it is). Matt now screams at the sight of his teaching room, unfortunately, due again to a naff consultants bad advice this is also his bedroom!

I ring another parent, re jig teaching sessions and go out the following day. Matt is in a worse position than when we began weeks ago, he's distressed about any instruction, aversed to his bedroom, reluctant to approach any tutor and his tantrums even outside of 'lessons' have gone up. FUCK! Make no mistake his distress is genuine, appalling to watch and truly upsetting as it damn well should be. The attempts at extinction have resulted in prolonged distress that's beginning to reach something far worse than the tantrum, defeat, learned helplessness.

His Mum tells me it had been going really well and then spiralled down in a day - I believe her but my ears close because I'm looking through 'the book'. Ignoring that last 2 tutors comments on the tantrum (useless to me) I go back where I know I'll find the answer, I'm looking for the exclamations marks next to task scores, the last whoopee do moment because I know that's my job.

I find my celebration, exclamation marks next to 100% scores, happy comments, sometimes even little happy faces drawn! Matt had learned to stand up in gross motor imitation, he'd done it for 3 days over 5 teachers, it was sustained and as per the idiot consultants advice a new gross motor task has been introduced - clapping.

And there it is, the penned out scenario of Matt crumbling. Hand over hand prompting had been used to introduce clapping, the tantrum had begun, as per idiot consultants advice the hand over hand prompting had continued, the tantrum worsened, comments about hitting and kicking were noted as were restraining Matt. You getting the picture Samsa? You get yet why it scares the fuck out of me? This was from one small mistake, one I could see because I also worked with GOOD consultants, in other programmes not run by $100 an hour folk that haven't kept up or fail to see what, if you're any kind of behaviourist, is dead obvious to you right now.

They should have randomised 2 mastered tasks that have 2 different non imitation likely SDs. In other words once Matt stood up each time the second task should NOT have been one where the EO is a tutor sat face to face without anything to distinguish the intentional SDs except imitation. They SHOULD have randomised against an imitation with objects task, put the bucket and block on the table, moved round, sat face to face and attempted to randomise by imitation block in bucket versus stand up.

Matt had not learned to imitate when asked to randomise stand up and clapping, clapping had merely replaced stand up working from the unintentional but highly likely SD of the tutor moving their chair round to sit face to face. the first person that set about randomising standing up and clapping was met with a tantrum from a boy who had NO other means to communicate 'STOP'. He had been so willing and compliant that hand over hand was rarely used, he liked that, he'd had a high rate of success and rewards, he liked that, I'm certain he'd also tasted success and loved that but in one trial he was about to lose the lot.

My solution:
I asked Matt's Mum to bring him outside to the front garden after about 10 mins for me to get ready. I placed all the rewards on the lawn, his crinkly shiny paper, the spinning top, MY bag of superb treats all laid out. Matt came out with his Mum and I set the spinner going, bounced the flashing ball, passed him the balloon stuffed with flour.

New target:
Matt to accept tutors again, all movement towards tutors rewarded, session ends at any tantrum and tutor plus rewards leaves him be.

Success determined by free interaction with tutors.

Task 2:
Matt goes with tutors into bedroom + the above.

Task 3:
Matt sits in chair.

Task 4.
ONE non imitation task resumed.

Etc, etc, etc....

But get this - the only mistake was a wrong choice of second task, after that they all faithfully followed ABA principles they'd been taught. In 3 days that one mistake traumatised a 4yr old, undid all the progress to that point, and created an extremely distressing situation for the whole family.

Eventually Matt was happy about being taught again. It was months before any imitation was randomised but I suspect that was due to the level of brain damage pre-existing rather than the cock up.

My life was full of this, I worked with 5 or 6 families using 5 or 6 teams each. Of course most problems weren't quite as fooked as the above, but each time my shift came around my role was to untangle the tangled, (with frequent consultant assistance) decide on introducing new programmes, break down tasks not being mastered into sub tasks, check for continuity across tutors - basically a combination of fire fighting and smoothing the way to success. After my first year full time I was no longer took on any new kids unless I knew the consultant or that consultant was known to and referenced by either my old uni supervisor of the trusted consultants I worked with.

Matt, did learn from the Lovaas programme but his parents ran out of money and eventually took the decision to send him to the local 'special' school. Thankfully before that happened they had dumped the american bint and were working with a consultant respectful of their position and extremely helpfully in trimming the programme so that it was in line with what would happen with Matt next.

[Mr.Samsa]

The random shots, without ABA, is what children and their brains have evolved to use with profound efficiency, learning swathes of skills over a mindblowing range in their firat few years of life. Additionally I suggest the core elements if behaviourism are worthwhile for all.

I think you're confusing two things here: 1) evolving specifically to respond to random correlations and associations in the environment to learn new skills, versus 2) learning new skills despite them being presented in the form of random correlations and associations.

I'm really torn over entering debate here. I read your responses and immediate answers come to mind, however, judging by what's gone before it would be a total waste of time.

Total waste of time in what sense? If I'm wrong then I'll change my mind.. Obviously there's no commitment to having to engage in a debate if you don't want to though.

To clarify, I believe ABA is a valid scientific approach, I wish it only well in terms of attracting funding for research, I think where our normal development is not working it should be used in the home (under the best guidance and to the best standard possible), it does have significant evidence as viable and suseful.

My only issue is that it is not best suited to fast tracking kids already learning at a healthy rate.

I'm not sure why you think it's not suited to kids learning at a healthy rate though, it's already proven itself as hugely successful in education settings across a number of measures: staying on-task, enjoyment of subject matter, grades and achievement, reduction in problem behaviors, etc.

Obviously I'm not suggesting that every single aspect of a child's life should be strictly organised in some ABA-approved structure, as that would probably be hugely impractical, but if you want to teach a kid to speak, or read, or teach him maths, or not to cross the road without looking, or how to tie his shoe laces, then undeniably the best way to do this would be to use some ABA method which has proven successful in those areas. And beyond simple tasks like that, you can use behavioral methods to shape your kid into someone you might like: shy, or outgoing, or funny or serious, etc.

At the very core though, parents do need to be aware of the basic concept of: reinforce the good behavior, ignore/punish the bad. So many times you see some idiot parent telling a kid that he's a good boy or "cute" when he's pretending to be a ninja and punching you in the arm or something, and then when they have to visit the school principal because he's broken some kid's nose, they respond with, "I don't know why he would do that, it's just out of the blue!".

I'm going to add an anecdote so you have half a chance to get where I'm coming from.

I'm working as an ABA tutor under a variety of consultants, using the Lovaas approach. One of the consultants (an american I'll shortly refuse to work with) charges $100 per hour or part thereof for all telephone/email communication. The parents can't afford it for each stumbling block and anyway her solutions tend not to work.

Yeah the amount the charge can be a bit crazy at times. Unfortunately I guess this is simple economics at work: supply and demand. It's a hugely successful treatment that has relatively few practitioners available, therefore it's costly.

It's weird that her solutions tend not to work though. Out of interest, is she qualified? A number of people present themselves as behavior analysts when they have no real qualifications at all. And, sad to say, even if she does have qualifications, she's probably only been through an applied behavior course and not an experimental one. ABA, which successful, has an uneasy relationship with the science in the area and essentially hasn't applied much of the experimental research from the last few decades. (This is basically because the experimental results are so much more detailed than is sometimes necessary for practical work, but it does mean that applied behaviorists are less aware of some pitfalls and causes of behavior).

We've been teaching a boy who was one of 2 surviving quads born prematurely. He has a high level of autism and the remaining part of an oxygen starved brain. Matt (not real name) has the first basic programme - immitation, something those random potshots teach superbly well for other kids but haven't for him.

And teaching "normal" kids how to imitate using this structure teaches them even better than random potshots. Importantly, I don't deny that 'random potshots' can teach kids what they need to know, I'm just highlighting the fact that obviously it isn't as successful as a verifiable method.

There are 2 programmes for imitation in place, at present both with a single task as this is not yet mastered. Gross motor imitation - standing up when the tutor does; imitation with objects - putting a block in the bucket when the tutor does. I am well aware the latter will work from the SD of the block and bucket, and the former from the SD of being sat face to face, or at least that this is the most likely until we randomise a second task.

Matt's Mum rings me distressed. She tells me Matt will no longer sit in the chair and is tantrumming to the point he's been sick, that the last 2 tutors have not got further than hand of hand prompting through tantrums, practising dutifully the stupid consultants instructions on placing tantrums on extinction (I'll explain if you want why that bit was dumb - I know it doesn't appear dumb but in Matt's case, in this instance, it is). Matt now screams at the sight of his teaching room, unfortunately, due again to a naff consultants bad advice this is also his bedroom!

I ring another parent, re jig teaching sessions and go out the following day. Matt is in a worse position than when we began weeks ago, he's distressed about any instruction, aversed to his bedroom, reluctant to approach any tutor and his tantrums even outside of 'lessons' have gone up. FUCK! Make no mistake his distress is genuine, appalling to watch and truly upsetting as it damn well should be. The attempts at extinction have resulted in prolonged distress that's beginning to reach something far worse than the tantrum, defeat, learned helplessness.

I take it that the consultant explained the nature of extinction bursts to the mother and all the tutors? We should absolutely expect his behavior to worsen for a period of time.

However, given your note in brackets above about why it was dumb, I assume that you're suggesting that his tantrums present a danger to himself or others, making the suggestion of extinction to be pretty moronic on her part.

His Mum tells me it had been going really well and then spiralled down in a day - I believe her but my ears close because I'm looking through 'the book'. Ignoring that last 2 tutors comments on the tantrum (useless to me) I go back where I know I'll find the answer, I'm looking for the exclamations marks next to task scores, the last whoopee do moment because I know that's my job.

I find my celebration, exclamation marks next to 100% scores, happy comments, sometimes even little happy faces drawn! Matt had learned to stand up in gross motor imitation, he'd done it for 3 days over 5 teachers, it was sustained and as per the idiot consultants advice a new gross motor task has been introduced - clapping.

And there it is, the penned out scenario of Matt crumbling. Hand over hand prompting had been used to introduce clapping, the tantrum had begun, as per idiot consultants advice the hand over hand prompting had continued, the tantrum worsened, comments about hitting and kicking were noted as were restraining Matt. You getting the picture Samsa? You get yet why it scares the fuck out of me? This was from one small mistake, one I could see because I also worked with GOOD consultants, in other programmes not run by $100 an hour folk that haven't kept up or fail to see what if you're any kind of behaviourist is dead obvious to you right now.

They should have randomised 2 mastered tasks that have 2 different non imitation likely SDs. In other words once Matt stood up each time the second task should NOT have been one where the EO is a tutor sat face to face without anything to distinguish the intentional SDs except imitation. They SHOULD have randomised against an imitation with objects task, put the bucket and block on the table, moved round, sat face to face and attempted to randomise by imitation block in bucket versus stand up.

Matt had not learned to imitate when asked to randomise stand up and clapping, clapping had merely replaced stand up working from the unintentional but highly likely SD of the tutor moving their chair round to sit face to face. the first person that set about randomising standing up and clapping was met with a tantrum from a boy who had NO other means to communicate 'STOP'. He had been so willing and compliant that hand over hand was rarely used, he liked that, he'd had a high rate of success and rewards, he liked that, I'm certain he'd also tasted success and loved that but in one trial he was about to lose the lot.

My solution:
I asked Matt's Mum to bring him outside to the front garden after about 10 mins for me to get ready. I placed all the rewards on the lawn, his crinkly shiny paper, the spinning top, MY bag of superb treats all laid out. Matt came out with his Mum and I set the sinner going, bounced the flashing ball, passed him the balloon stuffed with flour.

New target:
Matt to accept tutors again, all movement towards tutors rewarded, session ends at any tantrum and tutor plus rewards leaves him be.

Success determined by free interaction with tutors.

Task 2:
Matt goes with tutors into bedroom + the above.

Task 3:
Matt sits in chair.

Task 4.
ONE non imitation task resumed.

Etc, etc, etc....

But get this - the only mistake was a wrong choice of second task, after that they all faithfully followed ABA principles they'd been taught. In 3 days that one mistake traumatised a 4yr old, undid all the progress to that point, and created an extremely distressing situation for the whole family.

Eventually Matt was happy about being taught again. It was months before any imitation was randomised but I suspect that was due to the level of brain damage pre-existing rather than the cock up.

Interesting story, but I'm not quite sure how this supports your point. There was a human error in applying ABA principles, you identified it using an informal functional analysis, and then corrected it using ABA principles.

This demonstrates that people aren't perfect. The ABA worked perfectly, the people messed up. But even if we assume that the ABA was completely terrible, what's the alternative? He wouldn't have learnt any kind of imitation without ABA.

The only alternative would be to apply a useless or hugely ineffective method to trying to teach him imitation and, if successful, it is prone to exactly the same kind of error you've pointed out above when they go to choose a 2nd task. So the problem isn't related to ABA at all.

My life was full of this, I worked with 5 or 6 families using 5 or 6 teams each. Of course most problems weren't quite as fooked as the above, but each time my shift came around my role was to untangle the tangled, (with frequent consultant assistance) decide on introducing new programmes, break down tasks not being mastered into sub tasks, check for continuity across tutors - basically a combination of fire fighting and smoothing the way to success. After my first year full time I was no longer took on any new kids unless I knew the consultant or that consultant was known to and referenced by either my old uni supervisor of the trusted consultants I worked with.

Yeah one of the main problem with the application of ABA is what you touch on above: continuity among all involved. Especially when trying to use an extinction procedure, when any failure or slip up results in the tantrums getting worse and making extinguishing the behavior far more difficult. But of course, this isn't a problem with ABA, it's a problem with people applying it incorrectly.

Matt, did learn from the Lovaas programme but his parents ran out of money and eventually took the decision to send him to the local 'special' school. Thankfully before that happened they had dumped the american bint and were working with a consultant respectful of their position and extremely helpfully in trimming the programme so that it was in line with what would happen with Matt next.

That's sad that they ran out of money to continue with it: were they not receiving support from the government? Most countries cover a significant proportion of ABA costs, especially for autistic kids, because it appears to be the best/only treatment or cure.

[floppit]

And teaching "normal" kids how to imitate using this structure teaches them even better than random potshots. Importantly, I don't deny that 'random potshots' can teach kids what they need to know, I'm just highlighting the fact that obviously it isn't as successful as a verifiable method.

References? I ask mainly because the ethics of denying a child the random potshots of a normal upbringing in order to compare would seem prohibitive to me. No really, if you can reference this I'll continue to debate as this kind of sums up why I'm not inclined to bother.

[Mr.Samsa]

And teaching "normal" kids how to imitate using this structure teaches them even better than random potshots. Importantly, I don't deny that 'random potshots' can teach kids what they need to know, I'm just highlighting the fact that obviously it isn't as successful as a verifiable method.

References?

Do infants show generalised imitation of gestures? The effects of skills training and multiple exemplar matching training

Baseline levels ("random potshot training") improve after training.

I ask mainly because the ethics of denying a child the random potshots of a normal upbringing in order to compare would seem prohibitive to me.

Firstly, I never said that 'random potshots' should be prohibited. Unless the child is raised in a bubble, it's impossible to eliminate all forms of incidental learning. However, my argument is that we should not leave a child's learning and future to chance, when we can easily help their development along with basic teaching. In other words, it's entirely possible that sticking books in front of kids and talking to them will eventually lead to them being able to read. But, in my opinion, it's better to sit down with them and teach them what letters are, teach them the alphabet, basic sounds of consonants and vowels, and everything else required how to read. I simply apply this principle to all things a child has to learn.

Secondly, even if I was suggesting that we use only successful methods to teach kids things and not leave anything to chance, how could this be unethical? It would be unethical not to use the most successful methods available. As a comparison, the human body has evolved an immune system that creates antibodies when it is attacked by specific virii, however, I don't consider it unethical to remove the random element of their development and give them a vaccine instead.

No really, if you can reference this I'll continue to debate as this kind of sums up why I'm not inclined to bother.

I can't help but feel that there is a bit of antipathy being directed at me.. Have I said or done something to offend you? If so, I apologise and I certainly didn't mean to.

[floppit]

That study wasn't run in the home, by untrained parents, as you suggest is wise; moreover despite the success of the trials they do not recommend any such action. There is comment on the difficulty of controlling 'confounding sources of control over infants responses' (in case you haven't yet noted what happened in the anecdote), they suggest further research using the same method they used. I would suggest any parent wishing to use this method to hot house a kid go read it.

It's the whole gambit of super growing kids, using the plasticity of early infant brains to effectively rewire at will (which we both know is exactly what ABA achieves) where there is no clinical reason to take such a course that hacks me off. I guess the parents drawn to it basically give me the creeps. ABA is in no way just basic teaching although when done well it does basically teach. Please bear in mind again I have NO issue with parents using rewards, none with them using behaviourism, only with the use of trials based ABA without cause. Anyone interested to see what this involves would be well advised to nip to page 362 where there's a beautifully laid out method, then imagine it being carried out by themselves in the home in order to increase imitation.

[Mr.Samsa]

That study wasn't run in the home, by untrained parents, as you suggest is wise;

...Well of course. How would you even design an experiment that got untrained parents to use a specific model to teach their kids something?

But the "untrained" part is irrelevant. The obvious answer to this is to train the parents on how to teach their kids, not just assume that people know the best method for teaching as a result of popping a baby out.

...moreover despite the success of the trials they do not recommend any such action.

They are not social engineers and they weren't investigating whether people should employ such techniques in their home, so it's unsurprising that they make no recommendations, or arguments against, using this method in the home.

There is comment on the difficulty of controlling 'confounding sources of control over infants responses' (in case you haven't yet noted what happened in the anecdote), they suggest further research using the same method they used.

Uh, I can't find any such sentence. The only sentences I could find regarding controlling confounding sources of control was that their method was successful in minimizing/eliminating their confounding sources, and as such they could reliably identify causation (i.e. it's statistically improbable that they got their results by chance, in the same way it's statistically improbable that chemotherapy doesn't help treat cancer).

"In our present and previous experiments we have used empty-handed manual gestures as targets; these behaviors were carefully chosen to enable reliable coding of infant behavior and to avoid confounding sources of control over infants’ responses (see Erjavec & Horne, 2008; Horne & Erjavec, 2007; also see Horne, Erjavec, & Lovett, in press). Future research should determine whether our results would be replicated with other response topographies."

The "further research" comment is only referring to studies extending on their findings; that is, they've found that their approach was successful in eliminating confounding variables, so they suggest other researchers should utilise the same approach when studying other behaviors.

I would suggest any parent wishing to use this method to hot house a kid go read it.

Sorry, I couldn't parse this sentence. I'm not sure if you've used a term I don't recognise, typoed a word, or missed a word out.

It's the whole gambit of super growing kids, using the plasticity of early infant brains to effectively rewire at will (which we both know is exactly what ABA achieves) where there is no clinical reason to take such a course that hacks me off.

Well their brains are going to be rewired whether we use ABA or not, obviously. The point isn't to use a super complicated and unnecessary approach to gain minimal benefits, but simply to recognise that the only two options are: 1) use ABA, or 2) use the common-sense form of ABA that utilises all the same basic principles but simply in a haphazard manner which just essentially amounts to praying that your kid comes out alright. Again, I just see no reason to take such risks with a child's learning when it's not that difficult to do it properly.

I guess the parents drawn to it basically give me the creeps.

I've never met any of them so I don't know, but to be honest, most people in (or enthusiastic) about ABA give me the creeps.

ABA is in no way just basic teaching although when done well it does basically teach.

I'm confused by this statement. ABA is just basic teaching. Some people or problems require intensive teaching to help them, but that doesn't mean that's what ABA is.

Please bear in mind again I have NO issue with parents using rewards, none with them using behaviourism, only with the use of trials based ABA without cause.

But now I'm really confused.

It's impossible to use rewards, and especially behaviorism, without doing ABA. At the very least, you would be doing a very shit form of it by rewarding random behaviors that you seem to like, but that would still be ABA obviously.

I'm not sure what you mean by "trials based ABA"? If you have a problem with using trials to teach kids, then don't use trials. It's such a minor part of ABA, I don't see how that's a criticism of ABA at all.

Anyone interested to see what this involves would be well advised to nip to page 362 where there's a beautifully laid out method, then imagine it being carried out by themselves in the home in order to increase imitation.

That's the experimental protocol. Teaching a kid in the home wouldn't need control conditions and staggered baselines. However, if the parent did want to be super thorough about it and do it this way (to ensure they're improving, or to keep track of the changes, etc), then it's not exactly a difficult procedure - especially when we consider that these are sessions spaced over a month or so (i.e. you don't follow all those steps within one session or trial).

[floppit]

It's impossible to use rewards, and especially behaviorism, without doing ABA. At the very least, you would be doing a very shit form of it by rewarding random behaviors that you seem to like, but that would still be ABA obviously.

Actually ABA is the application of the behavioural analysis via means of multiple discrete trials. In other words it is one of many means of using behaviourism, one which utilises a single (agreed upon) sd across tutors, rewards, and a measurement of every single responses. This is usually in mini chunks of 5 or 10 discrete trials ( ie, separated and separately scored SD -> response -> consequence) and recording the score after each which provides the basis of calculating when the mastery criteria (agreed upon beforehand) has been reached. Once mastery for a single sd is reached it may be generalised (across tutors settings) or a second sd may be introduced to work towards randomisation (pending on the programme). Each task is broken down into it's component parts and each prerequisite is taught the same way. Breaks are given regularly because both tutors and children get tried quickly.

A home programme using aba requires each target behaviour to be taught using the same sd across tutors, changing tutors is important or you 'clever hans' it. Every tutor will say exactly 'Stand up' or 'Give me red'. The programmes you choose have to be tailored pretty much perfectly or kids get lost/bored. There is a HUGE amount of paperwork covering each interaction during a session.

The whole point is to apply the analysis, the analysis is trial by trial, sd by sd, target behaviour by target behaviour, every single one is counted and THAT is what you apply using mastery criteria.

[Mr.Samsa]

It's impossible to use rewards, and especially behaviorism, without doing ABA. At the very least, you would be doing a very shit form of it by rewarding random behaviors that you seem to like, but that would still be ABA obviously.

Actually ABA is the application of the behavioural analysis via means of multiple discrete trials. In other words it is one of many means of using behaviourism, one which utilises a single (agreed upon) sd across tutors, rewards, and a measurement of every single responses. This is usually in mini chunks of 5 or 10 discrete trials ( ie, separated and separately scored SD -> response -> consequence) and recording the score after each which provides the basis of calculating when the mastery criteria (agreed upon beforehand) has been reached. Once mastery for a single sd is reached it may be generalised (across tutors settings) or a second sd may be introduced to work towards randomisation (pending on the programme). Each task is broken down into it's component parts and each prerequisite is taught the same way. Breaks are given regularly because both tutors and children get tried quickly.

A home programme using aba requires each target behaviour to be taught using the same sd across tutors, changing tutors is important or you 'clever hans' it. Every tutor will say exactly 'Stand up' or 'Give me red'. The programmes you choose have to be tailored pretty much perfectly or kids get lost/bored. There is a HUGE amount of paperwork covering each interaction during a session.

The whole point is to apply the analysis, the analysis is trial by trial, sd by sd, target behaviour by target behaviour, every single one is counted and THAT is what you apply using mastery criteria.

I think this is the problem we've been having; you're referring to the DTT approach that is either done by non-ABA therapists, or very narrow focused ABA therapists. Of course, if the entire tool kit of someone using ABA was DTT, then fuck yeah that would be a terrible way to raise a kid.

However, ABA is not defined solely by DTT and I'd be a little alarmed if a registed behavior analyst believed this. The standard definition is that presented by Cooper, Heron and Heward (in "Applied Behavior Analysis", often referred to as the "Bible" of ABA because it is so comprehensive that practically all educational facilities use it as part of the training program) is as follows: "Applied behavior analysis is the science in which procedures derived from the principles of behavior are systematically applied to improve socially significant behavior to a meaningful degree and to demonstrate experimentally that the procedures employed were responsible for the improvement in behavior." Essentially, if ABA was only discrete trials training, then it would be hugely difficult to apply it in most situations - like the classroom, where it has been demonstrated to be hugely successful in controlling entire class behavior. I'd be very surprised if you could find a single textbook on ABA that defined it exclusively as using DTT (also, if you did, I'd imagine that would be an incredibly small textbook..).

A large number of behavior analysts have campaigned against people who solely use DTT calling themselves behavior analysts, or confusing the term with ABA, and it was actually that confusion between the two that lead to an initially negative report on the effectiveness of ABA for treating autism. The report analysed a number of studies which they had identified as ABA but it later turned out that they had only assessed DTT experiments. When behavior analysts submitted their own review, by specifically identifying ABA studies (which included more than just DTT), the evidence was overwhelmingly in their favour, which is why the US now provides support for autistic families to pay for early intervention from a behavior analyst.

[floppit]

We'll have to agree to differ. I read that quote very differently from you.

I'm well aware that ABA extends beyond discrete trials, but in all cases that I experienced (from some shit hot consultants BTW) behavioural analysis was used, ie using the analysis, so there needed to be the in depth recording.

We also used functional analysis in a classroom setting and regarding social interactions BUT, the analysis formed the backbone of whatever happened next, and the meticulous standard of that analysis was what largely determined the success with a single target behaviour where as the knowledge and ability to break down tasks and teach at the right level supported success in a programme as a whole.

The problem was (and is) getting a variety of people to understand and record behaviour in a uniform way. As far as I'm aware, although I stopped working in ABA in 2003, this is still the biggest stumbling block.

[Mr.Samsa]

We'll have to agree to differ. I read that quote very differently from you.

I'm not really sure we can agree to disagree, since it's not really a matter of opinion.. My 'interpretation' of that quote is necessarily correct, since it is confirmed by the discussions that take place throughout the rest of the book (i.e. they go to great lengths to ensure that people understand that ABA and DTT are not the same thing, and how dangerous it can be to confuse the two, and very little time is spent discussing discrete trials in the book).

I'm well aware that ABA extends beyond discrete trials, but in all cases that I experienced (from some shit hot consultants BTW) behavioural analysis was used, ie using the analysis, so there needed to be the in depth recording.

Of course, I agree with that. But obviously in depth recording can be done without discrete trials. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you though because you say that you're aware of ABA extending beyond discrete trials - does this mean you understand that ABA has a vast number of treatments and therapies that have absolutely nothing to do with discrete trials? And that DTT is just one minor aspect of ABA?

We also used functional analysis in a classroom setting and regarding social interactions BUT, the analysis formed the backbone of whatever happened next, and the meticulous standard of that analysis was what largely determined the success with a single target behaviour where as the knowledge and ability to break down tasks and teach at the right level supported success in a programme as a whole.

That's one approach, certainly. But other times it can be not only unnecessary to break down the tasks into smaller components, but also detrimental to their overall learning. So I'm not denying the use of DTT as a tool, but if it's the only tool in their toolkit to teach behaviors, then they're going to run into a number of obstacles.

The problem was (and is) getting a variety of people to understand and record behaviour in a uniform way. As far as I'm aware, although I stopped working in ABA in 2003, this is still the biggest stumbling block.

Hmm.. I'm not aware of it being a problem. It is something that people need to be aware of, and to ensure that their operational definitions of target behaviors are simple, yet comprehensive enough to be easily followed, and to also ensure that the people doing the recording have been trained to identify the behavior, but beyond that there aren't really any major problems with understanding and recording behavior in a uniform way. Ideally, every environment would have 3 people acting as independent observers, with a recording device set up as well, to monitor the recording of the behavior and to rule out things like observer drift, but it doesn't seem to affect the results to a significant degree when we don't have access to these things.

[floppit]

Samsa - why not look for work in the field? Get on some discussion boards where people are running programmes? Meet face to face with the academics/professionals at conferences?

I'm telling you straight - you are not 'all that' in terms of understanding the reality, you clearly have not been involved in actually applying what you're reading about.

If you're that interested get involved, sit face to face with people using it, apply it yourself with other people's kids (because hell that makes you think).

this was my uni supervisor, one of the top guys in the field, in NZ and very approachable by people wishing to learn more and practice ABA.
http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/oliver-mudford

If you're happy to volunteer at the start and have any space to actually listen rather than just debate I'm sure he'd be glad to here from you and would bear you in mind for families running programmes.