See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/220028264

Instructing University Students to Conduct Discrete-Trials Teaching with

Confederates Simulating Children with Autism

Article · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

24 107

6 authors, including:

Daniela Fazzio Garry Martin

Simmons College University of Manitoba
14 PUBLICATIONS   239 CITATIONS    210 PUBLICATIONS   2,780 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Discrete-Trials Teaching Evaluation Form View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniela Fazzio on 24 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2, pp. 131-147

Instructing university students to conduct discrete-trials

teaching with confederates simulating children with
Autism

Lindsay Arnal, Daniela Fazzio, Garry L. Martin, C. T. Yu,

Lukas Keilback, and Mandy Starke
University of Manitoba and St. Amant Research Centre

An essential component of applied behavior analysis programs for

teaching children with autism is discrete trials teaching. Experiment 1
investigated the effectiveness of a self-instructional manual for teaching
university students to correctly apply discrete-trials teaching to teach
three tasks to confederates role-playing children with autism.
Experiment 2 investigated a training package consisting of the self-
instructional manual combined with accurate scoring of a videotape of
an experienced tutor conducting discrete-trials teaching with a
confederate role-playing a child with autism. The results suggest that
self-instructional strategies have considerable potential for instructing
participants to conduct discrete-trials teaching.

As a result of extensive research since the 1960s, applied behavior

analysis (ABA) was recognized by the Surgeon General of the United
States as the treatment of choice for children with autism (Department of
Health, 1999). Intensive early ABA intervention (approximately 35 hours
per week for at least two years) can lead to substantial improvements in
young children with autism, with significant numbers of children
receiving such treatment going on to become indistinguishable from
their peers in regular educational settings (Lovaas, 1987, Lovaas, Smith,
& McEachin, 1989; Rosenwasser & Axelrod, 2001; Sallows & Pamlynn,
2005; Smith, Groen, & Wynn, 2000; Smith, Eikeseth & Klevestrand, 1997).
In such programs, the most common instructional strategy is discrete-
trials teaching. With this approach, the teacher presents an antecedent,
waits for the child to respond, and then provides an immediate
consequence, and repeats these steps many times in fairly rapid
succession during a teaching session. However, very few studies have
examined methods for instructing tutors and parents how to implement
132 Lindsay Arnal et al

discrete-trials teaching. This research investigated two strategies for

instructing university students to conduct discrete-trials teaching
sessions with confederates role-playing children with autism.

In previous research on this topic, Koegel, Russo, and Rincover (1977)

assessed the performance of 11 teachers, during baseline and post-
training, on their use of discrete-trials, presenting discriminative stimuli,
presenting appropriate prompts, shaping, and managing consequences.
Training was delivered via a written manual describing correct and
incorrect teaching responses, a videotape for the purpose of modeling
correct and incorrect applications of procedures, feedback, and practice
sessions. The experimenters reported that participants completed their
training within 25 hours and were able to achieve mastery of the skills.

Sarokoff and Sturmey (2004), evaluated a behavioral skills treatment

package based on its application to three special education teachers, all
of whom had received previous training in discrete-trials teaching. Using
a multiple-baseline design across subjects, the study indicated that the
treatment package, consisting of instructions, feedback, rehearsal, and
modeling, produced a significant improvement in all three teachers
implementations of discrete-trials teaching. Correct teaching responses
for the teachers increased from baseline proportions of 43%, 49%, and
43% to 97%, 98%, and 99% respectively.

Ryan and Hemmes (2005) trained three special education teachers

specializing in autism, none of whom had been previously trained in
discrete-trials training, using vocal, written, and video instruction,
modeling, in vivo practice, and performance feedback. Results of the
study indicated that training procedures were useful in training
instructors and other paraprofessionals to demonstrate and maintain
discrete-trials teaching skills.

Gilligan (2007) taught three female educational staff members to use

discrete-trials teaching with children with developmental disabilities in a
multiple-baseline design across participants. The intervention consisted
of written skill objectives, observation, feedback based on observations,
positive reinforcement, error correction, and practice time. Performance

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

 Discrete-trials teaching: instructing students 133

was measured during instructional sessions and analyzed into five

components of discrete-trials teaching. All participants demonstrated
significant improvement throughout the intervention, achieving nearly
100% accuracy by the end of the study.

Despite the strengths of the studies listed above, they have several
limitations. First, although inter-observer reliability checks on the
dependent measure were conducted in all studies, none included
procedural integrity checks to ensure that the training procedures were
carried out as described. Second, training and feedback procedures were
described only briefly, making systematic replications difficult. Third,
the amount of training was considerable, such as 25 hours in the Koegel
et al. (1977) study, and an estimated 30 hours in Ryan and Hemmes
(2005). Given the large number of instructors (parents, educators, and
tutors) needed to provide intensive ABA early intervention for children
with autism, it is important to investigate efficient alternatives for
training them. One possibility is the use of self-instructional training
methods.

In Experiment 1, we investigated the effectiveness of mastery of a self-

instructional manual by itself for teaching university students to
accurately apply discrete-trials teaching to confederates role-playing
children with autism. In Experiment 2, we investigated a training
package that included mastery of the self-instructional manual combined
with scoring of a video demonstration of discrete-trials teaching plus
feedback  on  the  participants’  scoring  accuracy.  

Method

Experiment 1

Participants and Setting

Participants were 4 students (1 male and 3 females) recruited from a

psychology course taught at the University of Manitoba. The research
was conducted in a testing room at St Amant, a community and
residential treatment center for persons with developmental disabilities.

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

134 Lindsay Arnal et al

Materials

During baseline assessments, participants were provided with 3 one-

page summaries (described later) of steps for teaching three tasks to a
child with autism, and data sheets to record the confederates responses
for each of the tasks. Items to be used as reinforcers and flash cards to be
used as teaching targets were provided on a table beside the participants.
A table and two chairs were also used to conduct role-playing sessions.
During treatment, a 21 page self-instructional manual (Fazzio & Martin,
2006) describing the discrete-trials teaching method was provided to the
participants. A data sheet (described later) was used for data collection
of   the   participant’s   performance.   Paper   and   pencils   were   used   by   the  
participants.

Target Behaviors, Data Collection, and Interobserver Agreement (IOA)

During experimental phases (described later), participants were asked to

attempt to teach a confederate, who role-played a child with autism, to
perform three tasks commonly taught to children with autism: pointing
to named pictures, matching pictures, and motor imitation, one task per
session. The dependent variable in this study was the accuracy with
which the participants carried out discrete-trials teaching. All simulated
teaching  sessions  were  videotaped.  From  the  videotapes  the  participants’  
behaviors were scored using the 19-point checklist shown in Table 1.
Each checklist item was recorded as either correct (+), incorrect (-), or not
applicable (/) for the task being taught. For example, blocking an error
was not applicable when a correct response had been given by the
confederate. During a session, data was collected for 12 consecutive
teaching trials for one of the 3 teaching tasks. A score of 90% accuracy on
the 19 point checklist was considered mastery level performance.

Before assessing IOA, an observer and the experimenter (the first author)
practiced scoring a videotaped session of an experienced tutor, who
volunteered to apply discrete-trials teaching to a confederate who role-
played a child with autism, until at least a 90% agreement for one 12-trial
practice session was achieved. The experimenter then scored all of the

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

 Discrete-trials teaching: instructing students 135

Table 1.
Checklist for Scoring Discrete-trials Teaching
Trials
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Before Starting Teaching Trials
1. Determine current targets

2. Gather materials

3. Select effective reinforcers

Provide SDs
4.  Secure  the  child’s  attention

5. Present the stimulus(i)

6. Present instruction

Provide Necessary Prompts

7. Use graduated guidance

8. Use correct prompt delay step

Provide Consequence for Correct Response

9. Praise and deliver reinforcer
immediately

10. Record data

immediately/accurately

Provide Consequence for Incorrect Response

11. Block gently (or at least attempt)

12. Remove eye contact and

stimulus(i) for 2-sec

13. Record the error immediately +

accurately

14. Re-present stimuli

15. Re-present instruction

16. Prompt immediately to guarantee

correct response

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

136 Lindsay Arnal et al

Table 1  cont’d
17. Praise non-enthusiastically

18. Record error correction

immediately + accurately

19. Record correct prompt delay step?

videotaped sessions, and at least 25% of the videotaped sessions were

scored independently by the observer. An agreement was defined as
both the observer and the experimenter scoring a component on the
checklist identically. A disagreement was defined as the observer and
the experimenter scoring a component on the checklist differently. An
IOA score for a session was calculated by dividing the number of
agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and
multiplying by 100% (Martin & Pear, 2007).

IOA   scores   were   also   obtained   for   the   confederate’s   script-following

behavior on at least 25% of the videotaped sessions. Following a session,
an   observer   and   the   experimenter   would   score   the   confederate’s  
behavior on the videotape to determine the accuracy with which she
followed the script on each trial. An IOA score was calculated using the
method described previously.

For all four participants, mean IOR scores were 92% (range = 60-100),
96% (range = 60-100), 91% (range = 80-100), and 96% (range = 80-100),
respectively.   IOR   scores   for   the   confederate’s   script-following behavior
averaged 93% (range = 84-100).

Experimental Design and Phases

A within-subject AB design with replication across four participants was

used to evaluate the effectiveness of the self-instructional manual for
training students to implement discrete-trials teaching.

Phase 1: Baseline. A participant was asked to study a 1-page summary of

guidelines for teaching a child with autism to point to named pictures

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

 Discrete-trials teaching: instructing students 137

(see Table 2). The participant was then asked to attempt to apply
discrete-trials teaching to the best of his/her ability to teach a confederate
role-playing a child with autism (as described previously), based on the
summary that they had just read, and to record the results on a data
sheet  (see  Table  3).  The  confederates’  behaviors  were  guided by a script
and standardized across participants. This procedure was then repeated
for two other tasks, motor imitation and matching identical pictures,
with a one-page summary of guidelines and a data sheet provided for
each task (similar to the guidelines and data sheet in Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2.
Baseline Instructions for Teaching Pointing to Pictures When Named

 For this task you will role-play a tutor who is attempting to teach a child with
autism who has minimal language skills. Do your best at providing what you think
would be appropriate instructions, prompts or cues, and consequences while
attempting  to  teach  the  “child”,  based  on  the  guidelines  listed  below.
 Here are three pictures. Your task is to teach this person (who will be role-
playing a child with autism) to point to the correct picture after you place the three
pictures  on  the  table  and  name  one  of  them.  Across  trials,  try  to  teach  the  “child”  to  
point to all 3 pictures when they are named.
 After   each   response   by   the   “child”,   record   on the attached Data Sheet if the
“child”   responded   correctly   independently,   responded   correctly   with   prompts   or  
cues, or made an error. Place a checkmark like this  in the appropriate column.
Summary of Steps
1. Arrange necessary materials.
2. Decide what you will use as consequences for correct and incorrect responses
3. On each trial:
a. Secure  the  child’s  attention.
b. Present the correct materials
c. Present the correct instruction.
d. Provide whatever extra help (i.e., prompts or cues) you think are
necessary for the child to respond correctly.
e. Once   the   “child”   responds,   provide   what   you   consider   to   be   an  
appropriate feedback or reward for a correct response, or provide an
appropriate reaction for an error
f. Across trials gradually provide less and less prompts or cues (i.e., fade
out the extra prompts)
i. By prompting less
ii. By delaying your prompts
g. Record the results on the data sheet.

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

138 Lindsay Arnal et al

Table 3.
Data Sheet for Teaching Pointing to Named Pictures

Date: ___________________
Teacher: ________________
Targets: Banana
Dog
Balloons

Record  in the appropriate column for each trial

Prompt Correct
Correct Correct
Trials Delay Error On
Independent Prompted
Step Error Correction
1. Banana
2. Balloons
3. Banana
4. Dog
5. Balloons
6. Dog
7. Banana
8. Balloons
9. Balloons
10. Dog
11. Banana
12. Dog

Phase 2: Treatment. The participants were asked to read and study a 21-
page self instructional manual on discrete-trials teaching (Fazzio &
Martin, 2006), and to master the answers to the study questions provided
in the manual. Mastery of the study questions was determined by a test
comprised of 40% of the total number of study questions, randomly
selected from a bag. Participants were asked to study the questions until
performance on the mastery test was 100%.

Following mastery of the study questions, participants were again asked

to attempt to teach a confederate the three tasks, as in Baseline.
However, instead of reading a one-page summary of the teaching
procedures such as those for matching pictures shown in Figure 1,
participants were allowed to use the one-page summary of discrete trials
teaching outlined in Chapter 7 of the self-instructional manual, which
contained the 19 items listed in Table 1.

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

 Discrete-trials teaching: instructing students 139

P1 P2

Baseline Post-Treatment Baseline Post-Treatment

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70
Percent correct

Percent correct
60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sessions Sessions

P3 P4

Baseline Post-Treatment Baseline Post-

100 100
Treatment
90 90

80 80

70 70
Percent correct

Percent correct

60 60

50 50

40 40

30 30
20 20
10 10
0
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
Sessions Sessions

Figure 1.
Mean percent correct performance per session of Participants 1, 2, 3 and 4 while
conducting discrete-trials  teaching  to  teach  three  tasks:  pointing  to  named  pictures  (  ●  ),  
matching ( ■ ), and motor imitation (▲). P stands for participant.

Procedural Integrity (PI)

For the purpose of PI, checklists specific to each phase were prepared
describing the steps to be followed by the experimenter. For some of the
sessions,   an   observer   was   assigned   to   monitor   the   experimenter’s  
behavior using the checklist. The percentage of steps recorded by the
observer as accurately followed by the experimenter for a session yielded
a PI score for that session. PI scores were obtained for at least 25% of the
sessions across all participants, and PI was always 100%.

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

140 Lindsay Arnal et al

Social Validity

To assess the social validity of the study, the participants were given a
questionnaire to answer and complete anonymously. The questionnaire
evaluated  the  participant’s  view  of  the  extent  to  which  the  training  and  
goals of the research were important, the procedures used were
acceptable, and the training procedures used were effective.

Results

The session-by-session data for each participant is presented in Figure 1.

Mean performance of the four participants across the three baseline
sessions was 52 %, 48 %, 50 %, and 27 % respectively, with an overall
mean of 44%. Following baseline, the participants required an average of
2 hours and 14 minutes (range of 1 hour and 50 minutes to 2 hours and
57 minutes) to achieve mastery on the self-instructional manual. As can
be seen in Figure 1, following mastery of the manual, three of the four
participants showed clear improvement in discrete-trials teaching
performance. However, of the three who showed clear improvement
following the manual, only one participant achieved the mastery level of
90%, and that was only on one of the three tasks. Following mastery of
the manual, the participants discrete-trials teaching performance
averaged 75 %, 71%, 74% and 49% respectively, for an overall average of
67%.

Experiment 2

The results of Experiment 1 indicated that mastery of the self-

instructional manual alone did not produce mastery when carrying out
discrete-trials teaching. In Experiment 2, we investigated a training
package that included mastery of the self-instructional manual combined
with scoring of a video demonstration of discrete-trials teaching plus
feedback  on  the  participant’s  accuracy  when  scoring.  

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

 Discrete-trials teaching: instructing students 141

Participants and Setting

Participants were 3 female students recruited as described in Experiment

1. The research was conducted at St Amant, as described for Experiment
1.

Materials

Participants were provided with the same materials as described for

Experiment 1. In addition, a videotape was prepared that showed an
experienced tutor applying discrete-trials teaching to teach a confederate
(role-playing a child with autism) to point to named pictures (Task 1 in
Experiment 1). Only the teaching of that task was demonstrated on the
videotape. The behavior of the confederate was scripted so that the
confederate would respond correctly on some trials, and incorrectly on
some trials. Also, the behavior of the tutor was scripted so that her
performance was 90% accurate when using the Checklist for Scoring
Discrete-Trials Teaching, shown in Table 1. The errors made by the tutor
on the videotape were scripted so that they were typical of the errors
made by the participants in Experiment 1.

Target Behaviors, Data Collection and Interobserver Agreement (IOA)

Target behaviors, data collection, and IOA assessments were identical to

those described for Experiment 1. Mean IOA scores of the performance
of the three participants were 93% (range = 82-100), 93% (range = 82-100),
and 99% (range = 94-100), respectively. IOA scores for confederate script
following averaged 93% (range = 84-100).

Experimental Design and Phases

A multiple-baseline design across 3 participants (Martin & Pear, 2007)

was used to evaluate the effects of the training package on discrete-trials
teaching performance.

Phase 1: Baseline. Baseline sessions were similar to those carried out in

Experiment 1. During a session, a participant was asked to study a 1-

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

142 Lindsay Arnal et al

page summary of guidelines for teaching pointing to named pictures to a

child with autism. The participant was then asked to attempt to apply
discrete-trials teaching to the best of his/her ability to a confederate role-
playing a child with autism, based on the summary that he/she had just
read. This procedure was then repeated for two additional sessions, one
session for teaching matching identical pictures, and one session for
teaching motor imitation. Each session consisted of twelve teaching trials
as in Experiment 1. On another day, these three sessions were repeated,
for a total of six baseline sessions.

Phase 2: Treatment. As described for Experiment 1, the participants were

asked to read and master the study questions in the 21-page self-
instructional manual on discrete-trials teaching. The procedure for
determining mastery of the study questions was identical to that
described for Experiment 1.

Following mastery of the manual, a participant was given the Checklist

for Assessing Discrete-Trials Teaching (see Table 1). The components in
the checklist had been described in the self-instructional manual that had
just been mastered. With the checklist in hand, the participant watched
the video, described previously, of a skilled tutor conducting discrete-
trials teaching to a confederate role-playing a child with autism. Based
on the knowledge that he/she accumulated from the manual and mastery
of the study questions, the participant was asked to use the 19-point
checklist to score the first trial on the videotape.

In   order   to   evaluate   the   participant’s   accuracy   when   scoring   the  

videotape, the experimenter scored the videotape ahead of time using
the 19-point checklist. Once the participant had scored the first trial, the
experimenter compared her checklist to that of the participant. The
participant was praised if there was agreement on the scoring of that
trial. If there was a disagreement in the scoring of that trial, the
experimenter explained to the participant why she scored the trial the
way that she did. The participant then proceeded to score the next trial.
This process continued for 12 trials.

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

 Discrete-trials teaching: instructing students 143

Following the treatment phase, that included scoring of the video of the
tutor teaching the pointing-to-named-pictures task to the confederate,
each participant once again attempted to apply discrete trials teaching to
the three tasks to a confederate who role-played a child with autism, as
described for the Baseline phase. However, instead of reading a one-
page summary of the teaching procedures such as that shown in Table 2,
participants were allowed to use the one-page summary of discrete trials
teaching outlined in Chapter 7 of the self-instructional manual, which
contained the 19 items in Table 1.

Procedural Integrity (PI)

This was as described for Experiment 1. PI was always 100%.

Social Validity

This was as described for Experiment 1

Results

The session-by-session data for each participant is presented in Figure 2.

As can be seen in Figure 2, baseline performance was relatively stable
across the last four baseline sessions for Participant 5, the last three
sessions for Participant 6, and all six sessions for Participant 7. Mean
baseline performance across the three participants was 42% for
Participant 5, 38% for Participant 6, and 28% for Participant 7.

Following baseline assessment, the participants required an average of 2

hours and 49 minutes (range 2 hours to 4 hours) to achieve mastery on
the self-instructional manual. They required an average of an additional
55 minutes (range 45 minutes to 1 hour) to observe the video
demonstration of discrete-trials teaching combined with feedback on
their scoring of the video. The participants scored the video
demonstration of an experienced tutor, teaching the confederate to point
to named pictures, with an accuracy of 94%, 90% and 89% respectively.

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

144 Lindsay Arnal et al

Following treatment, as can be seen in Figure 2, all three participants

showed a dramatic improvement in the accuracy with which they used
discrete-trials teaching following implementation of the training
package. Following treatment, Participant 5 achieved 100% accuracy
while teaching the pointing-to-named-pictures task, 98% while teaching

P5

P6

P
7

Figure 2.
Mean percent correct performance per session of Participants 5, 6, and 7 while
conducting discrete-trials  teaching  to  teach  three  tasks:  pointing  to  named  pictures  (  ●  ),  
matching ( ■ ), and motor imitation (▲). P stands for participant.

the matching task, and 92% while teaching motor imitation. Participants
6 and 7 both showed clear improvement in comparison to their Baseline
performance (see Figure 2). However, unlike Participant 5, they did not
achieve mastery level performance for any of the tasks following
implementation of the training package. Following treatment, while
teaching the pointing-to-named-pictures task, the matching task, and the
motor imitation task, Participant 6 averaged 85%, 70% and 80%
respectively, and Participant 7 averaged 76%, 70% and 70% respectively.

Discussion

Following each experiment, participants were asked to rate, on a five-

point scale, the effectiveness of the self-instructional manual. Six of the

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

 Discrete-trials teaching: instructing students 145

seven participants returned their social validity questionnaires, and they

rated the self-instructional manual as 4 out of 5. All three participants in
Experiment 2 rated the effectiveness of scoring a videotape of an
experienced tutor as 5 out of 5.

Following mastery of the self-instructional manual in Experiment 1, one

participant achieved mastery (greater than 90%) of discrete-trials
teaching while teaching one of the three tasks. Following the treatment
package in Experiment 2, one of the three participants achieved mastery
while teaching all three tasks. While results of these exploratory
experiments are promising, more research is needed to compare these
and alternative training packages for teaching individuals to correctly
implement discrete-trials teaching.

Several weaknesses of this research should be noted. A weakness of

Experiment 1 was the use of an AB design, which has limited internal
validity. Both experiments had a small number of participants, and need
to be replicated. Experiment 2 provided a video demonstration of one of
the three tasks. Video demonstration of more than one task may be
beneficial. Neither experiment attempted to examine generalization of
discrete-trials teaching with children with autism. Future research
should assess whether participants who master discrete-trials teaching
while teaching confederates role-playing children with autism, are able
to generalize to children with autism.

In summary, across the two experiments, six out of seven participants

showed considerable improvement in discrete-trials teaching after less
than four hours of exposure to a self-instructional manual or a self-
instructional manual plus an observational and feedback intervention,
and two of the seven participants demonstrated mastery-level
performance. Considering the large turnover of tutors in training
programs for children with autism, and the large demand for tutors and
parents to learn discrete-trials teaching procedures, future research
should examine rapid training components that might be added to the
instructional strategies examined in these experiments.

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

146 Lindsay Arnal et al

References

Department of Health (1999). Clinical practice guideline: The guideline

technical report – autism/pervasive developmental disorders, assessment
and intervention. Albany: Early Intervention Program, New York
State Department of Health.
Fazzio, D., & Martin, G. (2006). Using discrete-trials teaching to teach
children with autism: An introduction, Unpublished Manuscript.
Gilligan, K. T., Luiselli, J.K., & Pace, G. M. (2007). Training
paraprofessional staff to implement discrete-trial instruction:
Evaluation of a practical performance feedback intervention. The
Behavior Therapist, 30, 63-66.
Koegel, R. L., Russo, D. C., & Rincover, A. (1977). Assessing and training
teachers in the generalized use of behavior modification with autistic
children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 197-205.
Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and
intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3-9.
Lovaas, O. I., Smith, T., & McEachin, J. J. (1989). Clarifying comments on
the young autism study: Reply to Schopler, Short, and Mesibov.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 165-167.
Martin, G., & Pear, J. (2007). Behavior modification: What it is and how to do
it (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rosenwasser, B., & Axelrod, S. (2001). The contributions of applied behavior
analysis to the education of people with autism. Behavior modification,
671-677.
Ryan, C. S., & Hemmes, N. S. (2005). Post-discrete-trial teaching
performance by instructors of young children with autism in early
intensive behavioral intervention. The Behavior Analyst Today, 6, 1, 1-
12.
Sallows, G. O., & Tamlynn, G. D. (2005). Intensive behavioral treatment
for children with autism: Four-year outcome and predictors.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110, 417-438.
Sarakoff, R. A., & Sturmey, P. (2004). The effects of behavioral skills
training on staff implementation of discrete-trial teaching. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 535-538.

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

 Discrete-trials teaching: instructing students 147

Smith, T., Eikeseth, S., Klevstrand, M., & Lovaas, O. I. (1997). Intensive
behavior treatment for preschoolers with severe mental retardation
and pervasive developmental disorder. American Journal on Mental
Retardation, 102, 238-249.
Smith, T., Groen, A. D., & Wynn, J. W. (2000). Randomized trial of
intensive early intervention for children with pervasive
developmental disorder. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105,
269-285.

Author Note

This research was supported by the St. Amant Research Program and the
Psychology Department of the University of Manitoba. This manuscript
was submitted by the first author in partial fulfillment for the
requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts Honors in Psychology.
For further information regarding this study, write to Garry L. Martin,
University   of   Manitoba,   129   St.   Paul’s   College,   430   Dysart   Road,  
Winnipeg, MB, Canada, R3T 2M6, gmartin@cc.umanitoba.ca or D. Yu, St
Amant Centre, 440 River Road, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, R2M 3Z9,
yu@stamant.mb.ca.

Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 2007, Vol. 35, No. 1 & 2

View publication stats