Great news for ABA!

Happy Saturday!

Just received this email from ABAI:


'The Presidents of the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), the Association of Professional Behavior Analysts (APBA), and the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) met on December 11, 2011 to discuss how these organizations can best serve and advance the field of behavior analysis. The discussion covered the aims and efforts of the three organizations in approaching that overall goal, the relationships among the organizations, and the role each plays in our discipline. This constructive meeting reinforced the importance of cooperating to advance our field, and resulted in the following affirmation:
ABAI, APBA, and the BACB pledge to work together to support and advance the interests of the field of behavior analysis. We acknowledge the importance of each organization’s role, and agree to move forward in a cooperative and collegial manner.
Approved by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board, March 7, 2012
Approved by the Association of Professional Behavior Analysts Board of Directors, March 15, 2012
Approved by the Executive Council of the Association for Behavior Analysis International, May 25, 2012'

At a recent meeting of IL-ABA there was some discussion on the split between ABAI and APBA, so I am glad to hear that some reconciliation is happening.

This is really going to go a long way in ensuring that the profession stays the cohesive and cutting edge.

Radio Interview

Here is a link to a recent radio interview I gave for The Inclusive Class on practical strategies for behavior supports for inclusion rooms and the home.

Enjoy!

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the-inclusive-class/2012/06/08/supporting-behavior-in-the-inclusive-class

Technology Disintegration

     Technological disintegration is when an augmentative communication device loses its efficacy and function to assist the user with communication. Sometimes, there is an unseen barrier when providing AAC interventions where we misunderstand what appears to be a lack of communicative intent for technology disintegration. 

     When a child is throwing their PECS book, rather than using it appropriately. When the Dynavox sits on the counter for days on end without being used. Imagine if you were unable to ask for water when you were very parched, or if you did not have the opportunity to ask to do a different task than the one you were currently engaged in. This is a major contributor to technological distintegration. A breakdown in the ability to use AAC devices to mand (request). A few things happen at this stage. The worst and most crucial, is that you give up asking. In turn, this destroys the motivation to want to ask in the first place, and then the child is in a vacuum, devoid of motivation to get needs met. Secondly, you continue to mand, but you do so through negative or dangerous non-vocal behavior to get your needs and wants met. Lastly, other possible AAC interventions become increasingly difficult to implement because of a suboptimal, previous history with other AAC. 

     One of the most unfortunate, yet most avoidable, causal factors of technology disintegration, especially with electronic AAC devices, is that they don’t get charged, or PECS books get left at home! AAC is not something we only use when we are in school, or are dinner time. Making the device available, and having the child learn that it is always available, is the first step in avoiding technology disintegration. The device should be with the child about at all times, just as we can call upon our vocal speech at any time to engage in a vocal, verbal episode. 

     The other thing about AAC is that there needs to be training for all parties involved in the intervention. It is not simple enough to place a bunch of pictures in front of a child and expect them to know what to do with them. Furthermore, it is not simple enough to assume that consistency across people and contexts are implemented. Of course, we want the child to be able to use their AAC with anyone, anywhere, at any time, but in the beginning, we need to make sure that all people are implementing the intervention the with the same techniques. It is not so much that everyone in the child’s life needs to have intensive training on working with the AAC device, but it is very important that all parties are consequating the device’s use in a similar way. So if mom requires a sentence strip for PECS (e.g. icon for “I,” icon for “want,” icon for item on a sentence strip and handed to her) but dad only requires the icon for the item, then we are reinforcing two different uses of the device. Sure the function is the same, but the intensity of the training waxes and wanes. Later on, this may be OK, but in the beginning, when teaching how to appropriately use the device, it’s important for everyone to be on the same page with what constitutes an appropriate mand and therein produces delivery of the item. 

     One major note to keep in mind, is that AAC devices are a child’s words. The child’s brother should not be playing with PECS icons, or listening to music on their friend’s iPad that is for communication. There is a certain amount of respect and care that needs to go into managing AAC devices. 

     Technology disintegration can occur for many reasons. Sometimes it may be that non-vocal communication has worked for so long, that why should I bother using this “new-fangled” thing. When we see technology disintegration setting in, it is time to intensify the training and usage of the device. It is, however, a balance between making the device functional vs. aversive. 

     As I always say, as teachers and parents, we need to know our kiddos inside and out, and create meaningful interventions and curriculum to supplement their deficits and accentuate their abilities.

Published!

My piece, Dignity, Function, & Choice: Ethical and practical considerations on best practices for educating learners with developmental delays, has appeared in the April 2012 edition of the National Association of Special Education Teachers The Practical Teacher series. Read it here!

Restraint

     There is a lot of buzz recently around restraint and seclusion. With bills in and out of Congress, parents and advocacy groups are being more outspoken as a result. I thought I would weigh in on the subject of restraint specifically. I would also add that I consider myself a very A-type personality and have unfortunately been involved in more instances of physical restraint than I care to recall. Thankfully, in my new position as an ABA therapist, it virtually never arises.

     I have a few opinions on the matter. The first is that immobilizing an out of control child, regardless of if they present with any barriers, stinks. Some of my worst days, both professionally and personally, were days where I needed to help in a restraint situation. They are physically and mentally taxing, they damage rapport with students, and from a person-first perspective they make me uneasy.

     Second. Restraints should be exclusionary. They should not be done in the middle of a classroom where all other students can see. They should not be done in hallways. If you are in one of those areas, then the proper staff should be called to remove the student to a safe environment set-up for the purpose. We need to give children the dignity they deserve -- this is especially true in the times when they are in the most distress. An individual's dangerous behavior is telling us that something is wrong. We need to teach self-management and communication skills to avoid situations where students are speaking to us through their dangerous behavior

     In terms of training people in restraint, once you train them, they are probably going to use the techniques. As sad as it is to say, once you have "empowered" an individual to make the decision to restrain, in my personal experience, a restraint becomes almost self-fulfilling prophecy. In this same token be weary of people who "like restraint trainings." I once heard a colleague say "I like restraints." This is clearly a person who should NOT be trained to use restraint, and should be placed in a different setting where using restraint is minimized. To be glib, they cannot restrain themselves from using restraint on others.

     It takes a very specific type of person who should be trained in restraint systems. The type of person who recognizes the value of the embedded deescalation techniques that are to be used prior to engaging in restrain. Obviously, there are situations that warrant restrain immediately, but those are far and few between, and I cannot think of one good example from my experience. People who do not fit this mold, should not be trained in restraint, or working with students who may require restraint.

Dolch Sight Words Resource

     I have just finished creating a PowerPoint and data sheets for fluency and accuracy that contains all of the Dolch sight words by grade level and (almost) alphabetical order -- words that were similar such as "them" and "then" are separated by a word to avoid confusion and a false negative during assessment/teaching.

It is available for download here. You will need a GoogleDocs account to access the *.zip file.

Enjoy!

A Bunch of Considerations on People Centered Language - A literal stream of consciousness

(NOTE: it is quite early for me, and I really just want to get these thoughts down. This is why I have put stream of consciousness into the title, although it is somewhat ironic to the subject matter...)
  
     Since I have come into contact with individuals with exceptionalities, I have always spoken with people centered language, or people first, language. That is to say, rather than the "glasses wearing man," one ought to say the "man wearing glasses." It is interesting to think of the former statement in this way, because, in language, we would never think to say "the glasses wearing man." However, it is fairly common, and doesn't evoke the same pause in speaking, to say the disabled child.

     I won't take too long to philosophize on this point more than to make a few notes on why saying "autistic child," vs. "glasses wearing man" probably rolls off of the tongue easier for a few reasons. First, how spoken language is traditionally set up and syntax. It is inherently description/action before individual. Let's think to the pangram "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." The description of the animals comes before the animals themselves. When we think about the language, the pangram still would work, but we would need to add a few more words to make it creature centric, such as "the fox, who is quick and brown, jumps over the dog who is lazy." Honestly, the reformatted sentence makes the dog sound lazier than the original, but at least we are remembering he is a dog before he is lazy.

     Secondly, because autism is a diagnosis. We do not speak of the man wearing glasses because he may have astigmatism, may be near- or far-sighted, etc. because when we think of glasses, and simply know he has something that requires them. We do not think about, and may not even care!,as to why he has glasses.

     Lastly, up until about a decade ago, many may not have even considered labeling a child an "autistic child" or a "child with autism," they would be, to use a terribly archaic phrasing, mentally retarded.  In this instance, however, it is interesting that one would not say that "mentally retarded" child so easily as they may say "the child with mental retardation." I am sure the former has happened, but in briefly thinking on it, the latter always seems more prevalent to me.

     There are less units of language required to say "disabled child" than "child with a disability," but it is an important distinction that respects the child first. 

     Which gets me to the main point of this post. I am thinking on people centric language. That is, language that puts the person before the description. For example, again, saying the child with autism (people centric) vs. the autistic child (diagnosis centric). I behave this way all the time. I always put the individual first when speaking about individuals with exceptionalities, always. So, when I was recently tasked with writing an essay on exceptionality, I became distraught at the fact that I kept writing "non-disabled peer." I thought, why am I so sensitive to putting the child before the disability, and throw to the wayside the child without when writing comparisons of the two. Needless to say, I have thought on it, and am going to change my wording from "non-disabled child/peer/counterpart," to say "child without similar barriers." I know it's a mouthful, but I think it is important.

     Change of topic. I wonder if it is better to refer to a child with autism/Downs/Noonian, or better to have one, singular term that we usually apply, such as exceptionalities/developmental delay. Should we focus on lumping all exceptionality into one boat, or refer to the child's specific, or prominent, diagnosis? Which is more respectful and dignified? I tend to think that referring to the specific diagnosis is better, but then are we placing too much emphasis on it? But, then, if we group it all together, are we ignoring the individual difference and similarity? I'll need to think more on this...