1. Psychology Student Research at the University of Auckland Examples From a Scientist Practitioner Framework Katrina Phillips Rescare Homes Trust and The University of Auckland Angela Arnold-Saritepe The University of Auckla nd

2. What is Applied Behaviour Analysis? A science which uses evidence-based practices, usually derived from the principles of behaviour, to improve socially important behaviours to a meaningful degree.

3. Our programmes mission statement – in brief To equip graduates with the knowledge, skills and abilities of applied behaviour analysis to provide responsible behaviour analytic service. That is, services that are effective and protect clients, the public, and the professions (ABA and Psychology).

4. Our programme – The content First year –Learn the theory –1-2 practical projects Teaching a new skill Assessing challenging behaviour Second year –Masters degree Third year –Practicum over two services: child and adult –Work as front line workers –Run the programmes and then hand them over to staff and/or residents

5. Who we work with Adults and Children with intellectual disabilities Adults and Children with pervasive developmental delays, e.g., autism Special schools Mainstream schools Adolescents with drug and alcohol abuse Adolescents with conduct disorder Elderly with Alzheimer's or dementia People with brain injury

6. Video Self Modeling as a Treatment for Food Selectivity Sian Noble & Angela Arnold Saritepe Feeding problems are reported to occur in one third of children diagnosed with developmental disorders. Children with autism spectrum disorders are significantly more likely to have feeding problems.

7. Feeding disorders are a serious problem for parents and children. –food selectivity and food refusal can lead to malnutrition and dehydration. –stressful fro family members concerned with inadequate intake and possible health concerns. Family members have to change own eating habits and cook around the child

8. Participants – four children aged 4 to 8 years with developmental disorders. Referred through paediatrician.

9. Procedure –Interviews with parents to ascertain what the child ate and what the parents would like them to eat –Videos of children eating the target foods were developed. –Children were shown the video prior to target meals. –Independent Variable – acceptance spoon entered mouth, food removed and chewed / swallowed –Experimental Design – multiple baseline across food for each child

14. Discussion –Video modelling was successful for three of the four children at increasing food repertoire. –More beneficial if children saw video self model daily. –Generalisation across food was observed – good from a clinical perspective, weakens the experimental design though. –Social validity questionnaires completed by families were positive.

15. Encouraging interaction with Peers Rebecca Sharp and Katrina Phillips

16. Background People with ID may not initiate interactions with peers Group activities

17. Intervention Paired based on skills and preferred activities They were given instruction on how to help each other and a model by the student Generalisation to other pairings

19. Reduction of Food Stealing in a Classroom Rebecca Sharp & Angela Arnold Saritepe

20. Background –Participant was a 13 year old male (Bob) with a diagnosis of autism. –Bob engaged in food foraging and stealing in the classroom. –This was problematic as; Bob would take food from classmates, rubbish bins, drink bottles and staff bags. Bob was on a restricted diet.

21. Procedure –Functional assessment found behaviour to be primarily automatically maintained however attention from staff was an additional motivator. –Independent Variables food stealing which was defined to include placing the food in the mouth Foraging – moving objects and coming in contact with food –Experimental Design – multiple baseline across settings (only two)

22. Intervention –Resetting DRO (differential reinforcement of other behaviours) for engagement in activities other than food stealing or foraging. That is Bob received a small portion of preferred (and permitted food) at end of specified interval –Non contingent attention on a fixed time schedule of five minutes. –Statement of the rule before each session – if you don’t take food you will get some crisps

24. Discussion –Intervention was effective however did not generalise to other settings without the presence of the intervention. –Anecdotal reports from family was positive.

25. Teaching People with Profound and Multiple disabilities to make choices GeeMay Tam, Oliver Mudford, Katrina Phillips

26. Background Often a forgotten population –“untrainables” –Lack of self advocating Limited control of their environment Complete reliance on others Difficulty to assessing –Preference –Choice making

27. Intervention Specially positioned microswitches –Pressing switch lead to activation of a “preferred” item Prompting and prompt fading Then a choice assessment

29. Our Graduates 13 Graduates from the full (3 year) programme –100% employment (1 on maternity leave) –85% in New Zealand –Working with; adults and children with intellectual disabilities adolescents with conduct disorder children and adults with autism

30. Feedback from one of the services with which we work: In a recent quality audit, the report commented on the benefits of the relationship between the service and the programme This is in direct contrast to the previous lack of emphasises within disability services for training professionals

31. Final thanks for those services that have supported our students: Rescare Homes Trust Sommerville Special School Spectrum Care Odyssey House Sunnydene Special School Cavit Rehabilitation Hohepa Homes Trust Te Roopu Taurima O Manukau Trust The Endeavour Centre Takapuna Grammar Glenbrae School, Glen Innes Stanhope Road School Mt Richmond Special School IDEA Services