Title: Effects of Restricted Interests on the Social Behaviors of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders
1Effects of Restricted Interests on the Social
Behaviors of Children with Autism Spectrum
Disorders
- Brian A. Boyd, Ph.D.
- Maureen A. Conroy, Ph.D.
- Peter J. Alter, M.Ed.
- University of Florida
- October 15, 2005
2What are Restricted Interests?
- All encompassing topics or objects individuals
with autism pursue with great intensity and
focus - Also called
- Circumscribed interests
- Obsessions
- Compulsions
- Special interests
- Narrow interests
3What are RI (contd)?
- Considered to be a higher form of motoric,
repetitive behaviors (e.g., hand-flapping)
Lower End Stereotypy
Higher End Restricted Interests, Routines
4Restricted vs. Preferred?
- How do you distinguish a highly preferred item
from a restricted item? - Share 5 characteristics
- Idiosyncratic
- Difficult to redirect child
- Child is intensely focused on interest
- Endure over a long period of time
- Accumulation of mass amounts of information
5Do RIs change over time?
- Sally Ozonoff asked a group of pre-teens and
adolescents with Aspergers and HFA about their
RI - On average, they had 3-4 RI by that point in
their lives - Sometimes they had more than one RI at the same
time - Only repetitive behavior found to increase in
severity over time
6Do all types of kids on the spectrum have RIs?
- Mmmm!!!!!!!!!
- What we strongly think?
- RIs are more prevalent for students who have HFA
and are older - RIs maybe more common for children with
Aspergers syndrome vs. HFA - Evidence is really mixed
- RIs may differentiate kids with autism from other
developmental disorders - What we know? We know more about lower forms of
repetitive behaviors - Children with more severe autism engage in more
stereotypy - Children with autism and MR engage in more
stereotypy self-injury - HFA also exhibit lower level repetitive behaviors
- To sum up
- We dont know a lot about the relationship
between functioning level and repetitive
behavior in general, and in regards to RI, in
particular
7Why do students with autism have RIs?
- Mmmmmmmmmm
- Mmmmmmmmmm.
- Lots of Theories
- Arousal theory
- Executive Dysfunction theory
- Perceptual Reinforcement hypothesis
8Do typically developing (TD) kids have RIs?
- TD kids do engage in repetitive behaviors
(ritualistic and compulsive) - Behaviors seem to peak between the ages of 2-5
(may be the same for kids with autism) - In TD kids, we see them more during fear-inducing
situations (e.g., new kid in classroom) - TD kids engage in repetitive behavior to regulate
or establish control over their environment
9What are some common RIs for students with autism?
- Most Common
- Gadgets/devices/electronics
- Power rangers/other action figures
- Dinosaurs
- Video games
- Somewhat Common
- Fantasy/science fiction
- Natural disasters
- Disney characters
- Letters/numbers
- Least Common
- Mythology
- Trains (other than Thomas)
- License plates
10Should we discourage RIs?
- Repetitive behaviors are hard to extinguish
- It is hard to identify what is maintaining the
behavior - It is hard to replace the behavior if it is
maintained by internal sensory consequences - If RI is inappropriate for school, then make sure
student knows when it is ok to talk about or
engage with their interest
11Why should we encourage RIs?
- Research studies have shown that using their RI
gradually decreases the amount of time children
engage with that item - Provide children structured and expected
opportunities to engage with their RI - Teaches kids a more functional and appropriate
way to engage with their interest
12Can RIs be used to encourage social behavior?
- Research suggests it can be used to increase the
amount of time children engage in peer-related
social interactions
13How do RIs encourage social behavior?
- Students with autism appear to be motivated to
discuss or interact with RIs, either internally
or externally - Often they are motivated to engage in 1-sided
conversations about them, - OR
- Play with the RI by themselves
14How could RIs better be used to encourage social
interactions?
- Antecedent-based uses of RI
- Consequence-based uses of RI
15Overview of RI Research Findings
- Interventions that utilized the RI of children
with autism have increased their prosocial
behaviors (e.g., on-task) - Only 2 studies have addressed the social behavior
of children with autism (Baker et al., 1998
Baker, 2000) - Majority of studies used the RI as a
consequence-based intervention - The child is given access to the RI after the
occurrence of a targeted behavior (Charlop et
al., 1990 Charlop-Christy Haymes, 1996 1998) - Studies also have used the RI as an
antecedent-based intervention - The RI is used as an antecedent to set the
occasion for the childs appropriate behavior
(Adams, 1998) - Primary problem associated with the RI literature
- Paucity of studies examining the effects of RI
- Lack of systematic identification of the RI
16Research Questions
- What is the effect of the presence of a
restricted interest item in comparison to a less
preferred item on the social behaviors of young
children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD)? - What is the generalization effect of the presence
of a restricted interest item and other tangible
stimuli on the social behaviors of young children
with ASD?
17Method
- Inclusion Criteria
- Preschool or elementary-aged children diagnosed
with an independently-obtained autism spectrum
disorder - Asperger syndrome, Autism, Pervasive
Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specificed
(PDD-NOS) - Use of at least 2-3 word utterances to express
basic wants and needs - Ability to initiate to peers social bids using
gestural or verbal communication - Display of low levels of appropriate or high
levels of inappropriate social behaviors - Display of high levels of engagement with or
discussion of a RI tangible item
18Study Participants
19Phases of Study
- Assessment Phase
- Descriptive assessment
- Preference assessment
- Structural Analysis (SA) Phase
- Concurrent operant condition
- Free operant condition
- Generalization Phase
- Across settings
- Across other tangibles
20Assessment Phase
- Descriptive Assessment
- Interview parents and teachers using Social
Skills Interview (Asmus et al., 2004) to identify
their current levels of social behavior and RI - For an item to be initially identified as the RI,
two informants must independently identify that
item - Direct observation of participant using Social
Skills Screening (Conroy et al., 2004) - Data is taken on the percentage of intervals
during a 10-min observation period the TC and
classroom peers engage in social behavior across
3-5 classroom activities - Identified activities within classroom context
where participant exhibited highest lowest of
social behavior to obtain a baseline measure
21Assessment Phase
- Multiple Stimulus Preference Assessment (adapted
from Roane et al., 1998) - Repeated presentation of 7 identified tangible
items found during descriptive assessment that
the child engaged or played with, including the
hypothesized RI tangible item - Data was taken on the number of seconds the TC
physically touched each item - For an item to be verified as the RI, the TC must
touch it for the longest duration of time for 2
out of 3 (67) experimental sessions - Identified a less preferred (LP) item by asking
the TC
22Assessment IOA
- Calculated using a point by point agreement ratio
- Descriptive Assessment IOA collected for 25-85
of sessions - JasonMean 96 (range 93-98)
- AllenMean 99 (range 96-100)
- JinMean 88 (range 75-100)
- Preference Assessment IOA collected for 33 of
sessions - Jason, Allen, JinMean 100
23Assessment Results
Descriptive Assessment
Preference Assessment
24SA PhaseExperimental Procedures
- SA phase (Concurrent Free Operant Conditions)
- All sessions were 5-minutes in length
- Each session was videotaped and coded using
Tap-IT software for Dell PDAs (Tapp, 2003) - Peer was instructed prior to each session to NOT
initiate to TC - Peer was instructed to always respond to TC
initiations - If peer failed to respond, therapist verbally
reminded him/her - All peers were typically developing classmates of
the TC
25Concurrent Operant Procedures
- Concurrentpurpose was to provide further
validation of the identified RI and to provide
preliminary evidence of its effects on the
display of participant social behavior - Procedural controlcounterbalanced the peer
holding the item the order the choices were
given to the TC by the therapist
26Concurrent Operant IOA
- Calculated using MOOSES software program (Tapp,
2002) - Each observer had to code the same behavior
within a /- 5-second window of time otherwise
it was counted as an error - IOA collected for 33 of sessions
- Percentage of intervals TC choose RI vs. LP
Jason, Allen, JinMean 100
27Concurrent Operant Results Choice of Tangible
Items
of 30-second intervals
Jason
Allen Jin
RI
LP
Sessions
28Concurrent Operant ResultsSocial Interactions
Jason
of time
RI
LP
29Free Operant Procedures
- Free operantpurpose was to provide a more
naturalistic play situation to evaluate the
effect of the RI in comparison to the LP - Procedural controlrandomly alternated the RI vs
LP sessions randomly selected 1 peer from
concurrent to participate
30Free Operant IOA
- Calculated using MOOSES software program (Tapp,
2002) - Each observer had to code the same behavior
within a /- 5-second window of time otherwise
it was counted as an error - IOA collected for 26-36 of sessions
- Duration of social interactions
- JasonMean 100 (range 100)
- AllenMean 98 (range 97-100)
- JinMean 98 (range 95-100)
- Rate of initiations
- Jason AllenMean 100
- JinMean 83 (range
67-100)
31Free Operant ConditionSocial Interactions
Jason
Allen Jin
of time
RI
LP
Sessions
32Free Operant ResultsMean Latency to First TC
Initiation
Jason
Allen Jin
Number of seconds
TC did not initiate
33Free Operant ResultsTreatment Integrity
Probability of Contingent Peer Responses
Mean Rate of Peer Initiations
indicates the range
34Indirect Comparison of Descriptive Experimental
Outcomes
35Generalization Procedures
- Generalizationpurpose was to determine the
extent to which the observed free operant effects
generalized to another SETTING other TANGIBLE
ITEMS - Procedures same as Free Operant except carried
out in participants regular classrooms - Experimenter randomly introduced two classroom
toys to target child-peer dyad - Peer from Free Operant participated
36Generalization IOA
- Calculated using MOOSES software program (Tapp,
2002) - Each observer had to code the same behavior
within a /- 5-second window of time otherwise
it was counted as an error - IOA collected for 33-50 of sessions
- Duration of social interactions
- JasonMean 99 (range 99-100)
- AllenMean 94 (range 83-100)
- JinMean 92 (range 98-100)
37Generalization ResultsSocial Interactions
Jason
Allen Jin
Therapist Prompts
Therapist Prompts
Therapist Prompts
Books
Trains
Peop l e
Dinosaurs
Bugs
Pegs
38Generalization ResultsTreatment Integrity
Probability of Contingent Peer Responses
Mean Rate of Peer Initiations
indicates the range
39Teacher Social Validity
- At the conclusion of the generalization sessions
for each participant their teacher completed a
Likert-type rating scale - 1. How comfortable were they with the study?
- M6 (R 6)
- 2. How disruptive was the study?
- M1 (R 1)
- 3. Willingness to allow another child to
participate? - M6 (R6)
- 4. How useful was the information obtained from
the study? - M5 (R 4-6)
- Overall, how would they rate the intervention?
- M5 (R 4-6)
-
Not at all (1)
Very (6)
40Expert Social Validity
- 1 expert in field of ASD, naïve to the
researchers expectations, viewed randomly
selected 5-min video clips of children in RI and
LP sessions - 1. How appropriate was childs play?
- LP M2 RI M5
- 2. How inappropriate was childs play?
- LP M5 RI M2
- 3. How often did the child play with the peer?
- LP M1 RI M5
- 4. Overall, do you think the child enjoyed
playing with the - peer?
- LP M1 RI M5
Not at all (1)
Very (6)
41Conclusions
- Children with ASD spent more time socially
interacting when play situation incorporated
their RI vs LP tangible item - RI acted as a setting event or establishing
operation - Structural analysis served as a viable tool to
examine the antecedent effects of RI on the
social behaviors of the participants - Three-step process provided an effective method
to validate the RI of participants - Teacher parent interviews
- Multiple stimulus preference assessment
- Concurrent operant conditions
- Generalization data were more variable
- Therapist prompts had to be introduced to
facilitate generalization - Expert Social Validity data reflect clear
differences in behavior of participants in RI vs
LP sessions
42Potential Explanations of Results
- Jasons Undifferentiated Concurrent Operant Data
- Stimulus Control Topography (SCT) Coherence
Theoryposits that there is not always
concordance between contingencies arranged by
experimenter the properties of a stimulus that
eventually brings the participants behavior
under stimulus control - Executive Dysfunctionposits that underlying
neurological impairments affects the ability of
individuals with ASD to inhibit prepotent
behavioral responses engage in alternative
behaviors - Variability in Generalization Data
- SCT Coherence Theorycompeting stimuli in
generalization environment signal occasion for
other available reinforcers - Use of Brief Reversal Design
- Difficulty isolating Antecedents occasioning
Consequences maintaining social behavior in
natural environment
43Limitations Future Research
- Limitations
- Generalization concerns
- All children had some social skills prior to
study - All children were verbal and on higher end of
autism spectrum - SAs were not conducted in the childs natural
environment - Small sample size
- Future Research
- Identify the function(s) RI serve for children
with ASD - Determine the specific stimulus conditions needed
for RI to serve as a setting event for social
behavior in the regular classroom - Address aforementioned generalization concerns
44Practical Implications
- Research suggests a starting to place to tap
social-motivation - Practitioners can embed RI into structured
cooperative games or tasks to promote child
interaction and/or engagement - Start sharing groups around childs RI
45Moving Beyond RI Is it Possible?
- Eventually kids may move on because of
development, they outgrow their interests - 1 strategy to help kids move on
- Start a sharing group
- Different kids share their interests, including
the child with autism - Each child has to learn about the other persons
interest - The child with autism learns that other people
have interests different than his or her own - The child learns about other peoples interests
- The child learns to share talking and listening
time around their interest
46Using RI to Encourage Social Interactions
- 6 steps
- Determine their RI
- Establish a measurable social goal
- Take into account childs play skills
- Developmental level of play
- Stage of play
- Developmental level
- Sensorimotor
- Relational
- Constructive
- Dramatic
- Games with rules
- Stage of Play
- Unoccupied
- Onlooker
- Solitary/independent
- Parallel
- Associative
- Cooperative
47Example of Direct (Preference) Assessment
48Antecedent-based uses of RI (contd)
- 3. Embed interest into cooperative games or play
activities - Take into account childs skill level and
developmental abilities - Can the child match pictures?
- Can s/he sort objects?
- Can s/he read?
- 4. Teach child how to play the game
- Depends on childs social developmental
abilities - May need to teach skill in a 11 setting and
eventually integrate peers into activity - May be able to immediately introduce activity
into a small group activity (teacher may need to
monitor)
49Example of an Embedded RI Activity
50Antecedent-based uses of RI (contd)
- Provide child structured and expected
opportunities to engage with RI game - Make sure game has a clear ending
- Set limits for when child is allowed to engage
with game - Provide choice board
- Daily picture or written schedule
- Monitor the childs progress
- Keep in mind that social relatedness is difficult
for all kids (HFA or LFA) on the autism spectrum
51Example of a Choice Board
52Example of a Daily Schedule
- Written Schedule
- Center time
- Circle time
- Game Time ?
- Small group, reading time
- Game Time ?
53Any Questions