Re: Errorless vs No No Prompt

[Guest guest]

> Of course, our story is much more complex than this brief

description, but I

> had to post re: this one. If you have the luxury of considering

both styles

> at or near the beginning of your ABA journey (or even if you are

down the

> road), I strongly encourage you to stick to errorless learning. It

has made

> a big difference for us.

>

> My best to you,

> Liz J in Wisconsin

Since this has been a point of confusion I wanted to point out that

the techniques you described are part of the training protocol of an

agency; not a feature of ABA, or some " type " of ABA. The same is

true for VB. VB is not a type of ABA, and it is not a type of ABA

characterized by using errorless teaching strategies. Some

curriculum manuals (developed from behavior analytic work) may

prescribe certain procedures and target certain skills, but they are

practices that are specific to the agencies from where they were

developed. The ABA piece of all these different " programs " is the

scientific process of validating the procedures for each learner.

[Guest guest]

Just when I think I understand it, I realize that I don't. We are doing

Lovaas (no, no), but am interested in learning about VB. I don't

understand what all the differences and what is and isn't ABA. I guess

I'll have to read more so I have a handle on this. Did some one post a web

site that explains all the differences, etc.?

Lainie

At 05:21 PM 8/18/2003, briancrc wrote:

> > Of course, our story is much more complex than this brief

>description, but I

> > had to post re: this one. If you have the luxury of considering

>both styles

> > at or near the beginning of your ABA journey (or even if you are

>down the

> > road), I strongly encourage you to stick to errorless learning. It

>has made

> > a big difference for us.

> >

> > My best to you,

> > Liz J in Wisconsin

>

>

>Since this has been a point of confusion I wanted to point out that

>the techniques you described are part of the training protocol of an

>agency; not a feature of ABA, or some " type " of ABA. The same is

>true for VB. VB is not a type of ABA, and it is not a type of ABA

>characterized by using errorless teaching strategies. Some

>curriculum manuals (developed from behavior analytic work) may

>prescribe certain procedures and target certain skills, but they are

>practices that are specific to the agencies from where they were

>developed. The ABA piece of all these different " programs " is the

>scientific process of validating the procedures for each learner.

>

>

>

>

>List moderators: Jenn - ABAqueen1@...

> Steph - Stephhulshof@...

>

>Post message:

>Subscribe: -subscribe

>Unsubscribe: -unsubscribe

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It's not easy to understand. When we see programs that arrange a

teacher and student sitting at a table or elsewhere, some number of

materials that are placed in front of the student, instructions that

sound a particular way, and specific kinds of feedback given; and

when all those components are presented under the heading of an ABA

program, it is completely reasonable that people conclude that those

things we are seeing are what makes an ABA program an ABA program.

However, ABA is the scientific framework that underlies the things we

do.

What makes it ABA is if we selected an important skill for the

learner, we identified something that the learner says or does and

quantified it and graphed it, we developed teaching procedures that

were described explicitly, and we used a single case research design

to show that our teaching strategy was responsible for the learner

learning to do the right things at the right times. This is the

general framework of ABA.

The ways that we present things to students have to do with what

we've read or seen other people do with students and what has worked

for them. Some of these things have been organized into curricula

with objectives labeled " receptive I.D., " " statement-statement, " and

so on, depending on the curriculum used. And we can follow many of

these different curricula and do pretty well with many different

students. However, any one curriculum will not address the needs of

every student. The ABA process will inform us, however, and we can

do something different when the intervention tried is not working for

the student. That something different comes from our personal

experiences, the things we have read in the literature, and our

conversations with others who have dealt with similar issues. A

curriculum may be scripted; ABA is not.

What has been happening when running into some problems with a

student is that people may try a different set of techniques that

have been presented in a different program, those techniques may

work, and then the people that tried them sometimes believe they have

discovered a new science or new ABA approach that is superior to

an " old ABA " approach, and then recommend that approach to others.

This seems to have happened with VB now. The focus on the techniques

and the way the teaching arrangements look is a " distraction "

(probably a better way to describe this) from the science.

Some of the following examples may make it easier to understand what

ABA is or is not. ABA has been used to develop better methods of

conducting breast examinations. Simulation techniques with specially

constructed devices have been used to teach doctors how to accurately

identify lumps in early stages. ABA was used to demonstrate that the

simulation techniques were responsible for improvements in lump

detection by doctors. People have used ABA in pilot training

courses. Other topics addressed have been smoking cessation, child

rearing, weight loss, combating phobias, organizational behavior

management, etc… Knowing that ABA is used in all these different

areas, and with the range of people for whom these issues are

important, should at least help one to understand what ABA is not;

namely, sitting at a table and providing m & m's for correct answers.

Verbal Behavior was a theoretical analysis, and subsequently, a

behavioral analysis, of language. From the theoretical analysis came

experiments designed to demonstrate that language is functionally

related to the environment in different ways. Programs that

emphasize verbal behavior are usually addressing language while

referencing the terms outlined by Skinner. Other programs may

address some of the very same behaviors, but use different language

to describe it. For example, instead of using the title " statement-

statement, " one might call the skill " echoic training. " Instead of

using the title " question-statement " the term " intraverbal " might be

used. It's the same behavior; just a different descriptor. The

techniques may be different from one organization to the next, but

the science that informed those techniques is the same. There are

lots of different paths to get to the same point, but when one knows

the science, they have a better tool for navigating those paths for

when they run into dead ends and for avoiding them.

Hope this explanation is helpful.

> > > Of course, our story is much more complex than this brief

> >description, but I

> > > had to post re: this one. If you have the luxury of considering

> >both styles

> > > at or near the beginning of your ABA journey (or even if you are

> >down the

> > > road), I strongly encourage you to stick to errorless

learning. It

> >has made

> > > a big difference for us.

> > >

> > > My best to you,

> > > Liz J in Wisconsin

> >

> >

> >Since this has been a point of confusion I wanted to point out that

> >the techniques you described are part of the training protocol of

an

> >agency; not a feature of ABA, or some " type " of ABA. The same is

> >true for VB. VB is not a type of ABA, and it is not a type of ABA

> >characterized by using errorless teaching strategies. Some

> >curriculum manuals (developed from behavior analytic work) may

> >prescribe certain procedures and target certain skills, but they

are

> >practices that are specific to the agencies from where they were

> >developed. The ABA piece of all these different " programs " is the

> >scientific process of validating the procedures for each learner.

[Guest guest]

wrote:

" The techniques may be different from one organization to the next, but

the science that informed those techniques is the same. "

I suppose I should have used the term " techniques " instead of " style " to

refer to the

difference in teaching strategies between practitioners who generally follow

the Lovaas curriculum and the techniques typically assoiciated with that

curriculum (including, among other things, NNP) and practitioners who

generally follow the ABLLS curriculum/VB and the techniques typically

associated with that curriculum (including, among other things, errorless

learning).

The bottom line is that different teaching strategies DO make a difference.

Parents should know that there are options available within the science of

ABA. In fact, they should know that the whole point of the " applied "

element of ABA is to have, and try, different options. Otherwise, there's

no science to it.

I think what happened is that the widespread use of ABA in the treatment of

autism mushroomed so fast to meet demand that " cookie cutter " training was

used to train as many therapists as possible--quickly--to try to serve as

many children as possible--quickly. For my family, this was a good thing

because the alternative would have been (and was) massive waiting lists to

find qualified therapists from quality training facilities. The workshop

model using recent college graduates with degrees from any area (like

accounting, music, English Lit, etc.) who were well trained in the specific

Lovaas curriculum actually saved us from the alternative. We didn't have

the time to wait for a consultant who understood the specific science at the

root of ABA.

That was then.

Today, I do not allow a " cookie cutter " approach in my son's therapy. I

insist upon, and am happy to pay for, a Certified Associate Behavior Analyst

to guide our way. She is highly skilled and well-versed in the application

of many curricula, including Lovaas, Skinner's analysis of VB, Greenspan's

Floortime, and many approaches practiced by SLPs. She understands the

importance of tailoring the complete therapy program to the needs of the

child--including the motivational needs. We do not follow a flow chart, but

we both (she and I) know the Lovaas flow chart very well, so we naturally

think of it as part of our brainstorming process. We use the ABLLS to track

my son's progress because it is very easy to use, but we often vary from it

to address specific deficits as we discover them.

When it comes to HOW to deliver, present, teach, or whatever, I have come to

the conclusion that NNP is counter-productive to my goal of having my son

use language normally. It is also counter-productive to my goal of having

my son continue to learn more and more information and social skills. The

reason it is counter-productive is (this is my best guess after watching my

son closely for 5 years now) that NNP both slows down his sessions--A

LOT!--and sets him up for failure--A LOT. He began to HATE therapy after

less than a year and had reached what Bryna Siegal calls classic IBI

burnout. Great. My son proved her theory. Now what? My formerly cuddly

(but clueless re: language) child had become a burned-out, angry, reclusive

four-and-a-half year old. I was at my wits' end.

Fortunately, my consultant at the time, a girl with a degree in Secondary

Education who, luckily, cared more for my son than she did for her ego and

was willing to admit that she didn't know what to do outside the Lovaas flow

chart, went to a workshop conducted by Dr. Vince Carbone. There, she

learned that there are other teaching strategies within the field of

ABA--strategies that place more emphasis upon the child's motivation to do

things--strategies that teach the teachers how to increase the motivation

effectively--strategies that eliminate many of the drawbacks that have, I

suspect, frustrated practitioners over the years, anyway (like boring

downtime, etc.). These strategies didn't change the science of ABA, they

employed it.

We changed our course and it worked (he was much happier), but we didn't

know enough about the many teaching strategies typically associated with VB

and could not seem to get enough training to overcome OUR deficits. So, we

plodded along, occasionally catching glimpses of good VB programs (at

conferences, etc.) and adjusting where we could. The problem was that we

(me, my former consultant, and all of the members of our team) were all so

married to a very discrete style of teaching, we didn't understand the many

differences between a VB session using errorless learning and fluency

techniques and what we were doing. I don't even know how to describe what

we were doing. (This is a first--a lawyer at a loss for words!) We were

" doing " all the things listed in the ABLLS, like RFFC, etc., and we were

generally teaching them as described in the manuals and what we saw at

conferences, but we would teach one thing, put it on the " mastered " list,

then move on. We were using errorless learning and emphasizing manipulating

his EO, so his motivation to learn shot up, but his language was still

choppy because we didn't know about another technique typically associated

with a VB program: fluency. Once I and my team became trained in the

fluency style of presentation/teaching, Clayton's language took off. Sadly,

that didn't happen until this past year--when he was 7. But it happened.

Before I close, I want to emphasize two things. First, these techniques

(errorless learning, fluency, etc.) are NOT exclusive to VB; however, in MY

experience, they are more frequently--and more effectively--employed by

practitioners who are well trained in VB. Second, I am NOT attempting to

" bash " Dr. Lovaas or those who use the Lovaas curriculum. The depth of my

gratitude toward that man is immeasurable. For that matter, my gratitude

toward, and respect for, all psychologists dedicated to the

recovery/rehabilitation of children with autism is enormous. Dr. Lovaas

stuck his neck out and did the unthinkable: he published data showing that a

significant number of autistic children could achieve normal functioning

using proven methods of ABA. For that, he has been villified by envious

colleagues (a certain someone in North Carolina comes to mind), criticized

by ignorant contemporaries (practitioners of other sciences), and,

sometimes, blamed by heartbroken parents whose children did not reach " best

outcome " status. But he cares so deeply for children like my son that he

takes it again and again, knowing that his research--and now, his name--have

helped many families like mine find hope. Here in Wisconsin, some parents

have been indulging in thoughtless/irresponsible online " bashing " of the

director of the Lovaas replication site based in our state capital. This

offends me deeply, even though he and I often disagree about the merits of

VB. Although I understand the frustration of parenting a child with autism,

I do not condone, and will not passively allow, anyone to " bash " any of the

many dedicated professionals who have wrought such significant changes in

the lives of so many children and their families.

I understand so little of this science of ABA, but I cherish the changes in

my son. As I was typing this message, I heard my son tell his big brother a

joke that HE JUST MADE UP! I cannot believe it! What a glorious day! My

thanks to all of you.

God bless,

Liz

[Guest guest]

--- In , " " <ejones5@n...>

wrote:

> The bottom line is that different teaching strategies DO make a

difference.

***I do not want to belabor the issue, but I suspect that I was not

very clear on some points in my earlier post. The point that

different strategies do make a difference is exactly right, and one I

was trying to make as well. What I was also stating is that ABA is

not aligned to any particular teaching strategies. Perhaps some

curricula are, but the curricula are not different types of ABA; they

are an agency's or school's protocol. Even the behavior analysts

whose names are attached to various curricula from time to time have

to do things differently from what was originally prescribed.

***Unfortunately, many parents are being told not to use ABA by

people that have confused the curricula as the science. There also

has been confusion of the techniques themselves. The following was

forwarded to me from a person on a list where the message was posted

(It has been excerpted for brevity):

Have any of you taken the time to actually watch the films of Lovaas

studies. I have seen them, and if you call striking the children,

yelling at

them or loudly screaming NO as you hit the table beside them with the

flat

palm of your hand....I guess one might call it creating a good

relationship.

I would expect that it has far more to do with the relationships that

all

abused children develop with their abusers.

What would we do with this kind of research if we applied it to normal

children? Why do we think so little of those autism?

Sadly far too many

of our little ones continue to spend their days in pain because of

ABA.

***The person that wrote the above piece is completely convinced that

ABA means Lovaas and that Lovaas means " striking the

children " " yelling at them or loudly screaming no as you hit the

table beside them… " etc. And because of this, she tells as many

people as she can, as often as she can, to not use ABA. The entire

science is condemned due to these misunderstandings.

***Many school systems believe that ABA is a therapy for young

children with autism, exclusively, and will deny these services for

high school students, students with learning disabilities, traumatic

brain injured students, gifted students, etc...

***In addition to the techniques/methodology issue is the issue of

who is providing the services in the name of behavior analysis. I

was just told a story tonight by another BCBA who knows of a woman

working in a school as the school's behaviorist. She was trained as

a chiropractor; no degree in psychology, no degree in special

education, and no behavioral training, yet she is printing out

business cards that say " Behavior Analyst. " The same thing is

occurring with " Verbal Behavior Consultant; " a title that is

practically meaningless.

***When people believe that certain techniques are what defines the

science, then they will try to fit the student to the techniques.

When it doesn't work, then all that one will conclude is that ABA is

not appropriate for the person, rather than the techniques needing to

be changed.