Assessing and Training Comparative Relations in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Laura Gale,Ian Stewart

doi:10.5334/jeps.487

Abstract

Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) often present with developmental deficits in the area of generative verbal behaviour and the ability to accomplish arbitrary applicable relational responding (AARR). This study used Relational Frame Theory and the Training and Assessment of Relational Precursors and Abilities assessment protocol in the form of table-top tasks to assess and train comparative relations in three boys with ASD. On exposure to multiple exemplar training (MET), all three participants successfully reached mastery criterion on four separate stages of training. This provides evidence that MET can be used to teach AARR in individuals with ASD.

Highlights

Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) often present with developmental deficits in the area of generative verbal behaviour and the ability to accomplish arbitrary applicable relational responding (AARR)
It is clear that all participants performed poorly on comparative relational tasks during each baseline session, and there were no improvements in the baselines 2, 3, and 4
The present study focused on the effects of multiple-exemplar training to establish derived relational responding in accordance with comparison in children with ASD using the TARPA protocol in table-top form

Summary

Introduction

Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) often present with developmental deficits in the area of generative verbal behaviour and the ability to accomplish arbitrary applicable relational responding (AARR). This type of generalised relational responding relies on contextual cues as opposed to the physical properties of the related objects; for example, if I tell you that A is the same as B and B is the same as C, you could derive several further relations including that B is the same as A, C is the same as B, A is the same as C, and C is the same as A This relation is an example of sameness or coordination, which appears to be the foundation of framing (Moran, Stewart, McElwee, & Ming, 2014). In this example, the sequence of derived relational responding is not established on the physical properties of the letters, it is based on the contextual cue “same as”. It is argued that the complexity, diversity, and generativity of human language is founded in the variety of relational frames

Objectives

Results

Conclusion