A Comparison of Two Variations of the High-Probability Instructional Sequence with a Child with Autism

Abstract

Abstract Children who engage in low rates of compliance can be at a serious disadvantage relative to peers in important areas of learning, and also be at risk for more restrictive placements and long-term dependence on others more generally. One intervention, the high-probability (high-p) instructional sequence, has involved a variety of results. There is still much to learn about the mechanisms responsible for behavior change in high-p sequences. The present study compared two variations of the high-p sequence: maintenance and leisure high-p tasks, on the compliance of a young child with autism. Results indicated that compliance with low-p tasks was higher in the leisure high-p condition relative to the maintenance high-p condition across all three tasks. Implications for understanding the mechanisms responsible for behavior change in high-p sequences are provided. KEYWORDS: Autism, Compliance, High-Probability Instructional Sequence, Non-Compliance, Behavioral Momentum Children with autism have a variety of skill deficits that can interfere with their learning and socialization across the lifespan. A relatively common problem pertains to non-compliance, where children fail to complete tasks for which they are asked. Noncompliance may result in increased dependence on others, more restrictive educational placements, and impaired socialization and development more generally. It isn't surprising, then, that a range of interventions to improve compliance have been studied by behavioral researchers (e.g., guided compliance, high-probability instructional sequences; Wilder, 2011). These interventions often involve both antecedent and consequent manipulations; however, little is known about the mechanisms responsible for behavior change in various antecedent interventions for non-compliance. The high-probability (high-p) instructional sequence is an antecedent intervention which involves presenting 3-5 tasks for which there is a high-probability of compliance just prior to presenting a task for which there is a low-probability of compliance. Studies on the high-p sequence have focused on multiple topographies of behavior, including task transitioning (Ardoin, Martens, & Wolfe, 1999), social initiations (Davis, Brady, Hamilton, McEvoy, & Williams, 1994), food refusal (Dawson et al., 2003) and more. Importantly, the high-p sequence has not only been used to increase compliance, but also as a means to treat problem behavior more specifically (e.g., Mace & Bel-fiore, 1990). Prior research on the high-p sequence has produced varied results. For example, some researchers have found that the high-p sequence did not correspond to an increase in compliance (e.g., Rortvedt & Miltenberger, 1994). Others have highlighted the necessity of extinction in the treatment of non-compliance (Zarcone, Iwata, Hughes, & Vollmer, 1993; Zarcone, Iwata, Mazaleski, & Smith, 1994). Along these lines, Wilder, Zonneveld, Harris, Marcus, and Reagon (2007) found that the high-p sequence was only effective towards increasing compliance with 1 of the 3 children in their study, whereas extinction (repeating the instruction after 10 s and providing hand-over-hand guidance) was required for the other two children. Similarly, Dawson et al. (2003) found that the high-p sequence was not effective in the treatment of food refusal, but that bite acceptance increased when escape extinction (non-removal of the spoon and re-presenting expelled bites) was used. Still others have found that compliance to low-p requests only increased after high levels of reinforcement were added to each high-p request (Bullock & Normand, 2006; Mace, Mauro, Boya-jian, & Eckert, 1997; Zuluga & Normand, 2008). Normand, Kestner, and Jessel (2010) further evaluated factors that influence the success of the high-p sequence, and found that the presence of stimuli related to the low-p task decreased compliance with high-p instructions. …