A third exploratory question examined generalization to game-based interactions: (3) Does the intervention result in the production of agent-action combinations in naturalistic language samples. Her mother reported that she produced one agent-action combination (infant sleep), but did not produce any agent-action combination during LS. The purpose of this assessment was to assess each participant's ability to produce agent-action combinations in a game context.
Baseline trials of untrained agent-action combinations in Level 2 (submatrix B) and Level 3 (submatrix C) were conducted on average after every third session. Baseline probes assessed correct production of untrained agent-action combinations in the two remaining untrained submatrices (Level 2, Submatrix B; Level 3, Submatrix C). Correct production of agent-action combinations (spoken, SGD, or combination of spoken and SGD responses) are the only data shown for each participant in the multiple probe graphs.
Probes for agent-action combinations performed during baseline were identical to probes performed during intervention;. Trained word combinations were defined as agent-action combinations learned to criterion during training sessions (correctly produced and discriminated in isolation and correctly produced when mixed with another agent-action combination). Submatrix A included nine agent-action combinations (3 agents x 3 actions) rather than 16 agent-action combinations (4 agents x 4 action matrix; Figure 6 below displays the modified language matrix).
Third, additional discrimination training was conducted for Participant 2 after she had only mastered the nine agent-action combinations in Level 1 (Session 14). There was a clear functional relationship between the introduction of intervention and increases in the production of trained agent-action combinations across the three levels of. She mastered a total of four agent-action combinations during training sessions in Level 1 before reaching the criterion for trained combinations.
After the intervention began, a total of 27 instruction sessions were completed before Participant 4 met the criterion for the first three agent-action combinations in Level 1. After the intervention began, a total of 12 instruction sessions were completed before Participant 4 met the criterion for the first three agent-action combinations in Level 2. After the intervention began, a total of 10 instructional sessions were completed before Participant 4 mastered the first three agent-action combinations in Level 3.
There was a clear functional relationship between the introduction of intervention and changes in the production of trained agent-action combinations for Participant 4. PF for trials involving production of trained and untrained agent-action combinations during baseline and intervention was 100% for all participants. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of language matrix training on the production of trained agent-action combinations and generalization to untrained agent-action combinations for young children with DS.
Third, additional discrimination training was provided in which the first three agent-action combinations were mastered after Participant 2 mastered these combinations in the instruction sessions but still did not reach criterion for the production of a trained combination in Level 1.
It is essential that the teacher pay attention to the child's behavior to set developmentally appropriate behavioral expectations for each session and to structure access to reinforcers to be maintained. Using strategies based on antecedents and consequences, teaching the child the session format and providing pre-teaching with less challenging expressive skills can result in more efficient and rapid learning of agent-action combinations using an approach language matrix training. If the child has an existing AAC mode of communication, it is essential to teach the production of more advanced early syntactic skills through modeling and feedback using the child's mode.
A language test avoids language-rich verbs and labels that may not occur in the child's natural environment, but provides a fun, responsive and engaging environment. The therapist should make a statement to the child before the session to set the expectation and model once per session. toy set. Set up play sets so they are all in the child's field of vision, but contained to maintain room organization and environmental control.
Note: transcribers use imitations of raters to verify what the child says, so repeat only what you hear. If the child continues to talk, let the child talk – do not interrupt the child halfway through. Let the child choose which toy set he/she wants to play with, go through all the toy sets and play with each toy set for 3-4 minutes.
High priority/preferred toys can be cleared out and returned to the Language Sample Bag/Box so the child can move on to another toy set. B.!. If the child quickly loses interest in the toy sets, some toy sets may need to be reintroduced to get through the 20-minute session. If the child does not want to use all the toy sets, model additional play actions with the toys the child will use.
Correct SGD Agent: The child activates the correct agent icon in the SGD when stimuli are in front of the child OR after the adult says, “What did you see?”. SGD correct action: The child activates the SGD correct action icon when the stimuli are in front of the child OR after the adult says, “What did you see?”. Spoken Correct Agent: The child verbally says the correct agent when the stimuli are in front of the child OR after the adult says, "What did you see?".
Correct spoken action: Child verbally says correct action when stimuli are in front of the child OR after the adult says: "What did you see?". If the child does not respond, the adult should present the probe hearing again at that time or later in the session.
