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

2. 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)?

3. 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)

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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?”

10. 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

11. 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

12. Results

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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)

16. 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

18. 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.

19. 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.