Gunby, K. v., Carr, J. E., & LeBlanc, L. a. (2010). Teaching Abduction-prevention Skills to Children With Autism

8/10/2019 Gunby, K. v., Carr, J. E., & LeBlanc, L. a. (2010). Teaching Abduction-prevention Skills to Children With Autism

1/6


2/6

METHOD

Participants and Setting

Three boys who had been diagnosed withautism served as participants. All of them

received intensive behavioral intervention ser-vices at the same center-based program (ap-proximately 27 hr per week) and were preparingto transition to a general education classroomwithin the year. Sammy (8 years old), Michael(7 years old), and Charles (6 years old) each hadextensive imitative, mand, tact, intraverbal, andinstruction-following repertoires. At the time ofthe study, Sammy, Michael, and Charles had

met 96%, 93%, and 91%, respectively, of theverbal and social milestones in the criterion-referenced Verbal Behavior Milestones Assess-ment and Placement Program (Sundberg,2008). Despite these relatively substantialrepertoires, their parents reported deficits insafety and community skills and requestedinstruction in those areas.

The center-based program was housed in aprivate day-care center. The facilities includedseveral classrooms, a gymnasium, a kitchen,bathrooms, an outdoor playground, and a frontlawn. Structured BST training sessions occurredupstairs in a classroom, and abduction probeswere conducted throughout the building (e.g.,indoor gymnasium, downstairs bathroom) andoutdoor areas (e.g., the lawn in front of thecenter). Specific locations were used only onceexcept for the front lawn, which was used for

multiple abduction probes. Michaels naturalenvironment probe was conducted in hisneighborhood.

Dependent Variables and Data Collection

Target behaviors. We taught participants thefollowing abduction-prevention responses: (a)saying no when presented with an abductionlure by a stranger, (b) immediately leaving and

running to a safe area (e.g., inside the day-carebuilding), and (c) immediately reporting theevent to a familiar adult. Performance duringeach probe was recorded as follows: 0 5 agreed

to leave with the abductor; 1 5 did not agree toleave but failed to say no; 2 5 said no butdid not leave or report the incident; 3 5 saidno and left the area but did not report the

incident; and 45

said no, left the area, andimmediately reported the incident. One or twoobservers who were in unobtrusive positions(e.g., behind a nearby vehicle) collected data onthe childs responses using the numericalscoring system. Observers unobtrusively fol-lowed participants to determine whether theabduction attempt was reported to an adult. Areport was scored if the observer heard theparticipant describe the incident or heard anadult praising the participant for the report.

Abduction probes. Multiple probes wereconducted before and after training to assessthe effects of BST and in situ feedback. Duringa probe, an unknown adult (a confederate)approached the child when he was left alone at apredetermined time and place. The confederatethen attempted to abduct the child using oneof four lure types (described below) that were

randomly distributed across phases. Seven to 10confederates were used with each participantduring the study. One confederate was usedtwice for Charles and Sammy, and twoconfederates were used twice for Michael. Mostof the confederates were women who wererecruited from other treatment programs in theagency. If the child agreed to leave with theconfederate, he or she terminated the abduction

(e.g., Im sorry, I forgot that I need to dosomething else right now.). If the child left thearea and reported the incident to a familiaradult, that adult thanked the child for hisreport.

Interobserver agreement.The first author (thecenters senior therapist) and another trainedobserver scored participant performance during50%, 47%, and 31% of probes for Sammy,

Michael, and Charles, respectively. For eachprobe, the two scores were compared, and anexact match on the scores constituted anagreement. Point-by-point interobserver agree-

108 KRISTIN V. GUNBY et al.


3/6

ment was 100%, 75%, and 100%, for Sammy,Michael, and Charles, respectively. Michaelslow score is a result of observers reportingdifferent scores in six of the eight probes

assessed. In these instances, the scores differedby one point.

Procedure

Experimental design. A nonconcurrent multi-ple baseline design across participants was usedto evaluate the effects of BST and in situfeedback.

Baseline.Two to seven abduction probes wereconducted with participants during baseline.

No feedback was provided to participants fortheir performance in this condition other thanwhat was described above.

BST. Abduction-prevention skills weretaught individually using verbal instructions,video modeling, live modeling, rehearsal withfamiliar adults and strangers (i.e., employeesfrom other programs in the agency), and praiseand corrective feedback for rehearsal perfor-

mance. Children were taught to respond to fourcommon types of lures: simple (e.g., Comewith me), incentive (e.g., Come see the Xboxin my car), authority (e.g., Your mom askedme to come get you), and assistance request(e.g., Come help me find a band-aid for mycut). Each BST session involved a briefdiscussion or review of all four potential lures.

After the child could state the appropriate safetyskills (i.e., say no, run, tell), video samples of

naturalistic models of each lure were shown,followed by live enactments of each lure by theexperimenter and a stranger. The videosdepicted novel adults and typically developingchildren along with a familiar adult (the firstauthor) serving as the teacher to whom theabduction was reported. Next, the childrehearsed the safety skills with the strangerand the experimenter, during which praise and

corrective feedback were provided for hisperformance. The skills were practiced inresponse to one lure type in each session untilcompletely accurate performance (a score of 4)

occurred without prompts once per lure type.Each participant met the mastery criterionduring abduction-prevention training, withSammy, Michael, and Charles requiring eight,

six, and five training sessions, respectively. BSTsessions generally lasted 5 to 10 min and wereconducted over a 3- to 9-week period.

Posttraining, follow-up, and generalization.After a participant completed the BST portionof the study, multiple abduction probes wereconducted as described previously. If nonopti-mal performance (i.e., a score of less than 4)occurred in a probe, the observer who had beenhiding to collect data entered the situation andprovided instructions and corrective feedbackuntil the child was able to complete the entiresafety sequence. After a participant met theperformance criterion (i.e., a score of 4 for eachlure type), two to three follow-up probes wereconducted 3 to 7 weeks later. One additionalabduction probe was conducted with Michaelon his neighborhood street approximately 3weeks after the previous follow-up probe.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 1 depicts each participants perfor-mance during abduction probes across all of thestudys conditions. During baseline, no partici-pant received a score greater than 2 (i.e., did notleave the area or report the incident to an adult)on the 4-point scale, and Michael consistentlyreceived scores of 0 (i.e., agreed to leave with the

abductor). After training, Sammy received scoresof 4 during probes of every type of lure, and hisperformance was maintained during a follow-upassessment that included three different lures.Michaels posttraining performance was consid-erably variable, ranging from scores of 0 (Session8) to 4 (Sessions 6, 9, 13, and 14). In situfeedback was provided immediately following sixdifferent probe sessions in which he scored less

than 4. Michaels performance eventually im-proved and was maintained at a follow-upassessment that included two lures. Furthermore,he received a score of 4 during a generalization

ABDUCTION PREVENTION IN AUTISM 109


4/6

Figure 1. Safety ratings during abduction probes across baseline, posttraining, and follow-up conditions for Sammy(top), Michael (middle), and Charles (bottom).



5/6

probe that was conducted in a communitysetting (i.e., on a street in his neighborhood).Charles performed well after training andexperienced in situ feedback only after the first

posttraining probe, during which he scored a 3.His performance was maintained during afollow-up assessment that included three differ-ent lures.

The present findings are consistent withprevious research that has shown that BST iseffective in teaching abduction-prevention skillsto children (Miltenberger & Olsen, 1996) andthat in situ feedback is useful in enhancing skill

maintenance (Gast et al., 1993; Johnson et al.,2006). Nevertheless, the results should beinterpreted in light of at least four limitations.First, the majority of the confederates werefemale; however, 95% of perpetrators ofnonfamily abductions are male (Finkelhor etal., 2002). This discrepancy might potentiallyconstitute an external validity threat and shouldbe addressed in future investigations on thistopic. Second, as with most studies of BST, the

intervention consisted of multiple components,many of which might have been responsible forthe observed improvements in safety behavior.

Additional research might be able to partiallydismantle the existing intervention package todetermine whether a more efficient option isviable. Third, participants reports of abductionattempts were occasionally inferred from anadult praising the report rather than being

directly observed. Finally, stimulus generaliza-tion was assessed for only 1 of 3 participants.

The present study is part of a growing bodyof research on the development of safetyinterventions for children with autism andother developmental disabilities. Investigatorshave taught children with developmental dis-abilities how to avoid stranger abduction (Gastet al., 1993), escape a fire (Bigelow, Huynen, &

Lutzker, 1993), and seek assistance when lost(Taylor, Hughes, Richard, Hoch, & Coello,2004). Perhaps these studies, along with thecurrent investigation, represent a trend toward

the development of a broad and effectivetechnology for teaching children with develop-mental disabilities to display safety skills.

REFERENCES

Bigelow, K. M., Huynen, K. B., & Lutzker, J. R. (1993).Using a changing criterion design to teach fire escapeto a child with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 5, 121128.

Dalley, M. (2004). National missing children services2004reference report. RetrievedJuly 23,2008, from http://www.ourmissingchildren.gc.ca/omc/publications/reports_e.htm

Dancho, K. A., Thompson, R. H., & Rhoades, M. M.(2008). Teaching preschool children to avoid poison

hazards. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41,267271.Davern, L. (1999). Parents perspectives on personnel

attitudes and characteristics in inclusive schoolsettings: Implications for teacher preparation pro-grams. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22,165179.

Finkelhor, D., Hammer, H., & Sedlak, A. J. (2002).Nonfamily abducted children: National estimates andcharacteristics.NISMART: National incidence studies onmissing, abducted, runaway, and thrownaway children.Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://missingkids.com/

en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdfGast, D., Collins, B., Wolery, M., & Jones, R. (1993).Teaching preschool children with disabilities torespond to the lures of strangers.Exceptional Children,59, 301311.

Himle, M. B., Miltenberger, R. G., Flessner, C., &Gatheridge, B. (2004). Teaching safety skills tochildren to prevent gun play. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 37, 19.

Ivey, J. K. (2004). What do parents expect? A study oflikelihood and importance issues for children withautism spectrum disorders.Focus on Autism and Other

Developmental Disabilities, 19, 2733.Johnson, B. M., Miltenberger, R. G., Egemo-Helm, K.,Jostad, C. M., Flessner, C., & Gatheridge, B. (2005).Evaluation of behavioral skills training for teachingabduction-prevention skills to young children.Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 6778.

Johnson, B. M., Miltenberger, R. G., Knudson, P.,Egemo-Helm, K., Kelso, P., Jostad, C., et al. (2006).A preliminary evaluation of two behavioral skillstraining procedures for teaching abduction-preven-tion skills to schoolchildren. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 39, 2534.

Lumley, V. A., Miltenberger, R. G., Long, E. S., Rapp, J.T., & Roberts, J. A. (1998). Evaluation of a sexualabuse prevention program for adults with mentalretardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31,91101.

ABDUCTION PREVENTION IN AUTISM 111


6/6

Miltenberger, R. G. (2008). Behavior modification:Principles and procedures (4th ed.). Pacific Grove,CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Miltenberger, R. G., & Olsen, L. A. (1996). Abductionprevention training: A review of findings and issuesfor future research. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 6982.

Sundberg, M. L. (2008). Verbal behavior milestonesassessment and placement program. Concord, CA:AVB Press.

Taylor, B. A., Hughes, C. E., Richard, E., Hoch, H., &Coello, A. R. (2004). Teaching teenagers with autismto seek assistance when lost. Journal of AppliedBehavior Analysis, 37, 7982.

Received August 27, 2008Final acceptance June 1, 2009Action Editor, Henry Roane


Documents

Gunby, K. v., Carr, J. E., & LeBlanc, L. a. (2010). Teaching Abduction-prevention Skills to Children With Autism