Training Class Inclusion in Individuals with Autism Teresa Mulhern Patrycja Zagrabska Siri ming Dr Ian Stewart National University of Ireland, Galway

Class Inclusion Can a child respond to a stimulus as simultaneously belonging both to a class (e.g., dogs), as well as to a superordinate class that contains that class (e.g., animals)?

Why is Class Inclusion Important? Primary school math curriculum Correlated with language and cognitive abilities (Mulhern, Stewart & McElwee, under review) E.g., verbal IQ scores predict categorization performance in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (Alderson-Day & McGonigle-Chalmers, 2011) Fundamental to cognition and concept learning (Lakoff, 1987)

Classification and ASD Children with ASD often show fixation with parts of objects, which affects classificaiton abilities (Fiebelkorn et al., 2013) Atypical perceptual processing (Dakin & Frith, 2005) Atypical categorization generalization (Church et al., 2010, 2015) Fixation with parts of objects can result in significant consequences for classification abilities – particularly when faced with classifying stimuli which vary in physical features but share common global stimulus properties Individuals with ASD show evidence of atypical perceptual processing (Dakin & Frith, 2005).

Classification and Relational Frame Theory Classification = relational responding E.g., containment relations (X is in Y, and Y contains X) Relations can be Non-arbitrary (based on physical properties) Arbitrary (abstract, based on social convention) Non-arbitrary relational responding = a simpler version of categorization than arbitrary hierarchical relational responding.

Classification and Relational Frame Theory Class inclusion – both non-arbitrary & arbitrary i.e., non-arbitrary more-less relations - child can see the different numbers of objects in front of them i.e., arbitrary containment - child has to understand that class members (e.g., dog) are contained within the overarching class (e.g., animal) Non-arbitrary relational responding = a simpler version of categorization than arbitrary hierarchical relational responding.

Class Inclusion and ASD (In Press) Non-concurrent MBD Across Participants 3 individuals with ASD aged 8 years 1 month – 19 years 1 month PPVT Age equivalence 6 years 5 months – 7 years 11 months Participants were first screened for: Tacting (all included stimuli; category names; quantity of items) Non-arbitrary “more” and “less” relations

Class Inclusion Training Non-Arbitrary Containment Relational Training Experimental stimuli included: Category stimulus sets 1 Large box (category box) 2 smaller boxes to be placed within the larger box

Baseline Tested on 4 categories: 1) Fruit, 2) Vehicles, 3) Animals, 4) Clothing Questions were balanced into 8 trial types: “Are there [more/less] category or [more/less] bigger subclass?” “Are there [more/less] category or [more/less] smaller subclass?” “Are there [more/less] bigger subclass or [more/less] category?” “Are there [more/less] smaller subclass or [more/less] category?”

Training Phase 1 Outline the relationship between the boxes Student then sorts the stimuli into their respective boxes Ask the student to identify the boxes Present the class inclusion question Consequences: Correct responses: Token, social praise & specific feedback Incorrect responses: Repeat requirements to identify the boxes Repeat class inclusion question Reinforcement Repeat trial type with new stimuli

Training Phase 2 Student sorts the stimuli into the respective boxes Present the Class Inclusion Question Consequences: Correct responses: Reinforce with token, praise & specific feedback Incorrect responses: Ask the student to identify the respective boxes and provide specific feedback Repeat class inclusion question Positive reinforcement Repeat trial type with new stimuli

Results

Current Study Replicate & extend the previous work using some modifications 4 Participants with a diagnosis of ASD (12 years 2 months – 16 years) Participant 1 Mild general learning disability PPVT age equivalence = 9 years, 5 months Participant 2 Mild intellectual disability PPVT age equivalence = 7 years, 1 month Participant 3 Mild general learning difficulty and gelastic epilepsy PPVT age equivalence = 10 years, 2 months Participant 4 PPVT age equivalence = 8 years, 1 month

Modifications to the Previous Research Participants were not assigned to baseline lengths as before – i.e., Participants were introduced to training if: (a) baseline responding was stable, and/or (b) the previous participant had completed that phase of training Only one phase of training was employed – i.e., Phase 2 of Ming et al., (in press) Mastery criterion – 100% across 2 consecutive sessions Generalisation assessment changed

Current Study Still in early stages Concurrent MBD Across Participants Participants were first screened for: Tacting (all included stimuli; category names; quantity of items) Non-arbitrary “more” and “less” relations PPVT age equivalence Non-Arbitrary Containment Relational Training Experimental Stimuli employed as in Ming et al., (in press)

Procedure Student sorts the stimuli into the respective boxes Present the Class Inclusion Question Consequences: Correct responses: Reinforce with token, praise & specific feedback E.g., “That’s Right! There are more horses than animals!” Incorrect responses: Ask the student to identify the respective boxes and provide specific feedback E.g., “They all belong to the animal category. But only these are horses, so there are more animals than there are horses.” Repeat class inclusion question Positive reinforcement Repeat trial type with new stimuli

Current Study The study is still in progress One participant has finished training and demonstrated generalisation to the trained category, and untrained categories. One further participant has begun training. The remaining participants (n = 2) are currently in baseline conditions.

Discussion Data collection and study still on-going. However, data indicates a positive trend for the acquisition & generalisation of class inclusion responding. Following the completion of this research, participants will also be assessed for: Generalisation, and Maintenance of responding.