Training deictic relations to a child with autism spectrum
disorder
A dissertation
submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree
of
Master of Applied Psychology
at
The University of Waikato
by
ANA ROMERO
2018
ii
Abstract
The ability to take the perspective of another is a critical skill that is required for
successful social functioning. Decades of empirical research in the cognitive field
of psychology indicate that individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder are often
severely deficient in this skill. Recently, research based on relational frame theory
has suggested that deictic relational responding (such as I vs. You and Here vs.
There) are involved in perspective taking behaviour and interventions have been
developed to train deictic relational responding in populations with Autism
Spectrum Disorder. The purpose of this research was to determine the
effectiveness of a naturalistic behavioural intervention that incorporated
reinforcement and story reading to teach simple, reversed and double reversed
deictic relations to a six-year-old participant with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Results from the multiple probe design indicated that the intervention improved
accuracy on deictic relations across all levels of complexity. However, the
participant did not meet mastery criteria for any deictic relation type or
complexity. Novel behaviour involving perspective taking was observed in the
participant post training. Overall, the results of the study suggest that utilizing
token reinforcement and story reading is effective to improve accuracy in deictic
responding in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder and it may improve
perspective taking behaviour in every day social interactions.
iii
Acknowledgements
I wish to acknowledge my friends, family and pet cat for their ongoing support
and encouragement during the completion of my research.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables.......................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ....................................................................................................... vii
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
Autism Spectrum Disorder and Theory of Mind ................................................. 1
Cognitive Interventions ....................................................................................... 3
Applied Behaviour Analysis Treatment for ASD ............................................... 5
Relational Frame Theory ..................................................................................... 7
Method .................................................................................................................. 12
Participant .......................................................................................................... 12
Setting and Materials ......................................................................................... 12
Research Design ................................................................................................ 14
Dependent Variable ........................................................................................... 14
Procedures ......................................................................................................... 15
Eligibility tests ............................................................................................... 15
Preference Assessment .................................................................................. 15
Baseline .......................................................................................................... 16
Training .......................................................................................................... 16
Results ................................................................................................................... 19
v
Discussion ............................................................................................................. 22
References ............................................................................................................. 29
Appendix A ........................................................................................................... 35
Appendix B ........................................................................................................... 49
Appendix C ........................................................................................................... 58
Appendix D ........................................................................................................... 59
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Deictic framing accuracy by relation complexity .................................. 19
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Percentage correct according to relation type across probe sessions
.............................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 2.. Percentage correct according to relation type across test probe
administrations and training sessions ................................................................... 22
1
Introduction
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a developmental disorder characterised by
social and communicative impairments as well as the presence of restricted and
repetitive behaviours (Dawson, 2008). The social impairments exhibited by the
population of individuals of ASD are lifelong and result in difficulties forming
and maintaining appropriate social relationships (Klin, Schultz, & Cohen, 2000).
Furthermore, these social deficits are implicated in the development of comorbid
psychological disorders including anxiety and depression (Johnston & Iarocci,
2017). Individuals with ASD demonstrate difficulties on a range of critical social
behaviours including social reciprocity, empathy, deception, imaginative play and
communication (Charlop-Christy & Daneshvar, 2003; Rehfeldt, Dillen, Ziomek &
Kowalchuk, 2007).
Autism Spectrum Disorder and Theory of Mind
Cognitive researchers argue that perspective taking is a critical skill which
underlies successful social functioning (Baron-Cohen, Leslie & Frith 1985;
Baron-Cohen, 1989). Cognitive researchers have extensively investigated
perspective taking behaviour in ASD and have attributed impairments in
perspective taking behaviour to a deficit in a cognitive construct called a Theory
of Mind (TOM) (Baron-Cohen, 1989). A TOM is a cognitive construct describing
the ability to infer the desires, beliefs, and emotions of another and predict their
behaviour (Baron-Cohen et al, 1985; Frith, 1986). Evidence suggests there is a
relationship between TOM abilities and social functioning (Astington, 2003). For
example, Watson, Nixon, Wilson & Capage (1999) found that children with
advanced TOM skills were rated as possessing better social skills by their
2
teachers. A TOM plays an integral role in several critical social behaviours
including empathy, reciprocal conversation, co-operative play, sharing, giving
advice and identifying the emotional states of others (Charlop-Christy &
Daneshvar, 2003; Davlin, Rehfeldt & Lovett, 2011; Rehfeldt, Dillen, Ziomek &
Kowalchuk, 2007).
According to Howlin, Baron-Cohen & Hadwin (1999) TOM emerges as
part of a typical developmental trajectory and develops according to five distinct
stages with biological maturation implicated as the leading cause (Wimmer &
Perner, 1983). Simple visual perspective taking is the first stage of development
and refers to the ability to identify that people can see different things (BarnesHolmes, Mchugh, & Barnes-Holmes, 2004). Complex visual perspective taking is
the second stage and refers to the ability to identify that people can see the same
thing in different ways. The third stage involves the understanding of the principle
of seeing leads to knowing. The fourth stage refers to the ability to predict
another’s actions based on their informational stage. The final stage concerns the
ability to predict another’s actions based on their beliefs that may be false. An
individual is believed to possess a TOM once they have progressed through the
five stages of development and research suggests that the fifth stage of
development emerges at approximately age 4 in typically developing children
(Wimmer & Perner, 1983).
Baron-Cohen et al. (1985) first identified a TOM deficit in ASD in a
paramount study which compared the TOM capabilities between a sample of
children with high functioning ASD, children with Down Syndrome and typically
developing children. Baron-Cohen et al. (1985) employed a false belief task to
assess the participants’ ability to identify the mental state of another and predict
3
their behaviour. Called the “Sally-Anne task” the participants observed a scene
where a puppet called Sally put a marble into a basket and left the scene. Next,
another puppet called Anne retrieves the marble from the basket and places it in a
box. The participants were then asked to predict where Sally will think the marble
is. If the participant pointed or gestured to the basket, they passed the task and if
the child gestured or pointed to the box, they failed the false belief test. Results of
the study showed that 20 % of children with ASD passed the false belief task
compared to 85% of the children with Down Syndrome and 85% of the
participants in the typically developing group. Baron-Cohen et al. (1985)
concluded that the failure of the children with ASD on the false belief task
indicates that they lack a TOM. Subsequent research replicated these findings and
found that individuals with ASD consistently performed with low accuracy on a
variety tests that assessed TOM abilities and concluded that the low accuracy is
evidence of a deficit in a TOM. (Baron-Cohen & Frith, 1986; Baron-Cohen, 1989;
Bowler, 1992; Happe, 1994).
Cognitive Interventions
Interventions in the cognitive field of psychology have attempted remediate the
TOM deficit of individuals with ASD by designing interventions aimed to
improve performance on TOM tasks (Hadwin, Baron-Cohen, Howlin, & Hill,
1996; Ozonoff & Miller, 1995; Swettenham, 1996). Ozonoff and Miller (1995)
implemented a group-based social skills intervention to improve, social,
conversational, and perspective taking skills in children with ASD. The
intervention utilised roleplay, modelling, feedback, and reinforcement procedures
to teach several critical social skills including perspective taking behaviour. The
intervention improved participants performance on TOM tasks, however measures
4
of social behaviour did not substantially increase post intervention. Hadwin et al.
(1996) investigated the effectiveness of a naturalistic intervention which targeted
perspective taking skills in children with ASD. Hadwin et al. (1996) aimed to
produce generalised improvement in perspective taking behaviour by including
instruction on mental state concepts to enable children to apply these principles
across a range of environments. The intervention improved the participants
performance on TOM tasks which assessed belief and emotional understanding
and interventions effects generalised to structurally similar tasks which employed
novel materials. However, intervention effects did not generalise to novel tasks
that assessed complex TOM abilities. Swettenham (1996) taught a sample of
children with ASD to pass the Sally Anne task using a computer instruction
program. Performance on close and distant transfer false belief tasks was
examined to determine if participants with ASD were employing TOM abilities to
pass or alternative strategies. The results of the study showed that the participants
with ASD could be taught pass the close transfer false belief tasks. However,
there was no evidence of generalisation because the participants performed with
low accuracy on the distant transfer tasks which tested accuracy on novel
perspective taking scenarios. Overall, the large body of research in the cognitive
field investigating TOM and ASD has identified a perspective taking deficit.
Cognitive researchers have developed interventions which have been effective at
improving performance on false belief tasks. However, the results of these studies
showed limited generalisation and have failed to improve the social behaviour of
individuals with ASD in the natural settings. Furthermore, recent research has
critiqued the validity of false belief task performance as an indicator of
perspective taking behaviour in natural settings with evidence suggesting that
5
false belief performance is not related to perspective taking behaviour in social
interactions (Newton, Reddy & Bull, 2000). The lack of effective interventions
and the social significance of perspective taking behaviour has stimulated
empirical research in the behaviour analytic domain of psychology.
Applied Behaviour Analysis Treatment for ASD
A substantial body of research demonstrates early intensive behavioural
intervention (EIBI) is an effective treatment option for children with ASD
(Makrygianni, & Reed, 2010; Nienke, Didden, Korzilius & Sturmey2011; Rogers,
1998). EIBI is an intensive and structured method of teaching based on the
principles of Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA). EIBI teaches socially
significant behaviours by breaking down complex skills into component skills and
utilizing discrete trial, prompting and positive reinforcement procedures to
improving the language, cognitive, communication and social abilities of children
with ASD (Makrygianni, & Reed, 2010; Nienke et al, 2011; Rogers, 1998). The
effectiveness of ABA and EIBI presents a promising approach to teaching
perspective taking skills to children with ASD. Recently, behaviour analysis has
extended research into the field of perspective taking by offering a behaviour
analytical account of perspective taking and evaluating the effectiveness of
behaviour analytic interventions to teach perspective taking skills. A behaviour
analytic account contends that perspective taking is operant behaviour and is a
product of an individual’s specific learning history (Gould, Tarbox, O’Hora,
Noone & Bergstorm, 2011). Behaviour analytic researchers argue that a promising
avenue for effective perspective taking interventions requires identification of the
environment/behaviour relations involved in a perspective taking repertoire and
operationally defining each component skill (Gould et al. 2011). Empirically
6
supported behavioural procedures could then be used to teach each component
skill involved in a perspective taking repertoire (Gould et al. 2011). Initially,
behaviour analytic research into perspective taking and ASD evaluated the
effectiveness of behaviour analytic procedures to improve performance on
traditional false belief tasks (Chalop-Christy & Daneshvar, 2003; Le Blanc et al.
2003). Le Blanc et al (2003) offered a behaviour analytical account of accurate
performance on the traditional false belief tasks. Le Blanc et al (2003) defined
each skill required to pass the false belief task in terms of observable behaviour
and used reinforcement and video modelling to teach a sample of children with
ASD each component skill. Results of the study found that video modelling and
reinforcement were a fast and effective method to improve performance on
perspective taking tasks. Post training data indicated that all participants passed
the perspective taking tasks and novel variants of the tasks. However, probe data
suggested limited generalization as only two of the three participants passed the
novel tasks. These results led to a replication that incorporated multiple exemplar
instruction to remedy the generalization issues of the previous study (CharlopChristy & Daneshvar, 2003). Results of the study showed that the intervention
improved performance on false belief tasks and probe data from untrained
perspective taking tasks showed stimulus and response generalization. The results
suggest that multiple exemplar instruction is an effective instructional method for
promoting generalization. The preliminary behaviour analytic research into
perspective taking suggests that behaviour analytic interventions are an effective
method to teach perspective taking skills. Furthermore, the results suggest that
using behavioural procedures to teach perspective taking skills produces faster
skill acquisition compared to procedures used in cognitive interventions.
7
Generalization data suggests that behavioural interventions have the potential to
address the generalization problems encountered by interventions based in the
cognitive field of psychology. However, no conclusions on the external validity of
increasing accuracy on false belief tasks can be determined as the studies did not
include measures of perspective taking behaviour in naturalistic settings. Overall,
the promising results of these studies lend support to the use of behaviour analytic
procedures to teach a perspective taking repertoire.
Relational Frame Theory
Relational Frame Theory (RFT) is a functional behaviour analytic account of
human language and cognition (Hughes & Barnes-Holmes, 2015). Relational
Frame Theory contends that derived relational responding is the foundation of
complex human behaviour (Davlin, Rehfeldt & Lovett, 2011). According to RFT,
perspective taking behaviour is generalized operant responding and requires the
development of three fundamental deictic relational frames (Barnes-Holmes &
Mchugh, 2004). These deictic frames include identity (I and YOU), spatial
(HERE and THERE) and temporal (NOW and THEN). Deictic relational frames
specify a stimulus relationship from the perspective of the speaker and are learnt
through a history of multiple exemplar instruction where the individual has
received direct reinforcement for responding relationally to questions which
involve changing perspectives between people, place and time (For example,
“What did you do yesterday?” or “What are you doing over there?”) (Mchugh,
Barnes-Holmes & Barnes-Holmes, 2004; Rehfeldt et al. 2007).
According to RFT, interventions which expose populations with a
perspective taking deficit to a history of reinforcement to establish deictic
relational responding have the potential to improve perspective taking behaviour.
8
Mchugh et al. (2004) developed a behavioural protocol that tested relational
learning deficits across three deictic frames (I-YOU, HERE-THERE and NOWTHEN) at three levels of relational complexity. McHugh et al. (2004) examined
performance in simple, reversed and double reversed deictic relations in five
different age groups including early, middle, late childhood, adolescence, and
adulthood. The results showed that errors were a function of age with adults
producing the lowest amount of errors and the early childhood group producing
the highest amount of errors. The results of this research have produced a
developmental profile that is consistent with TOM performance (Mchugh et al.
2004). These findings lend support to an RFT analysis of perspective taking and
led to subsequent research which identified deictic relational deficits in
individuals with ASD (Rehfeldt et al. 2007). Rehfeldt et al. (2007) found that
individuals with ASD exhibited more errors on the reversed and double reversed
deictic relations compared to an aged matched sample of typically developing
individuals. Subsequent research into ASD and perspective taking has
demonstrated that discrete trial, prompting procedures and reinforcement
contingencies can improve accuracy on tasks testing deictic relational responding
(Belisle et al 2016; Gilroy, Lorah, Dodge, & Fiorello, 2015; Jackson, Mendoza &
Adams, 2014; Lovett & Rehfeldt, 2014). However, continued research into the
benefit of establishing a deictic relational repertoire and the remediation of
perspective taking deficit in natural settings is warranted before conclusions can
be drawn on the real-world benefit.
Davlin et al. (2011) developed a naturalistic intervention which taught
deictic relational responding to a sample of typically developing children. The
participants were read stories where questions testing deictic relations were
9
interspersed. Simple, reversed and double reversed deictic relations were taught
using multiple exemplar instruction, error correct procedures and social praise.
The results of the multiple probe design showed that the intervention was
effective at improving accuracy on novel questions testing deictic relational
responding. Gilroy et al. (2015) replicated Davlin et al. (2011) study to determine
the effectiveness of a story reading intervention at establishing a deictic relational
repertoire in a sample of children with ASD. Gilroy et al (2015) incorporated
reinforcement and error correction procedures to teach simple, reversed and
double reversed deictic relational responding. Results of the multiple probe design
showed that the intervention improved accuracy in deictic relational responding
and intervention effects were maintained in the presence of a novel adult
suggesting generalisation.
Perspective taking is a critical skill that contributes to an individual’s
social success (Baron-Cohen et al. 1985). However, according to the National
Autism Centres report, interventions that are currently being used in the treatment
of TOM or perspective taking in the field of ASD lack sufficient evidence to be
considered evidence-based interventions (National Autism Centre, 2009). The
cognitive field of psychology has conducted substantial research into developing
interventions to teach TOM abilities but have failed to identify an effective
intervention that remediates perspective taking deficits in everyday social
interactions. Research in the field of ABA has demonstrated that empirically
supported behavioural procedures are effective at teaching perspective taking
behaviour to children with ASD (Chalop-Christy & Daneshvar, 2003; Le Blanc et
al. 2003). The results from these studies suggest that using behavioural procedures
results in faster skill acquisition and a wider range of generalisation compared to
10
interventions based in the cognitive field. However, ABA research into
perspective taking and ASD has been limited to improving performance on
traditional false belief tasks and could potentially be improved further. Relational
Frame Theory offers a behaviour analytical analysis of perspective taking
behaviour and the small body of research into teaching deictic relational
responding to ASD supports continuing research in the field. Systematic
replication of the research on interventions targeting deictic relational responding
is needed to determine the external validity of the current research findings and
aid the identification of effective interventions (Horner et al. 2005).
A common obstacle of early intensive behavioural intervention for
children with ASD is the decreased motivation to respond to intervention
programs (Lei & Ventola, 2017). Research suggests that including preferred
materials that are intrinsically reinforcing can improve children with ASD
motivation to participate in the intervention programs (Koegel, Egel & Eron,
1979). Utilising a story reading format to teach deictic relational responding may
address the motivational problem in early intervention programs as the subject
and comprehension level of the stories can be individualised to suit a child
interests and intellectual functioning. The purpose of this research is to evaluate
the effectiveness of a story reading intervention to teach deictic relational
responding to a participant with ASD using a single subject multiple probe design.
The story reading intervention is based on the procedures in Gilroy et al. (2015).
The replication of Gilroy et al. (2015) aims to provide evidence regarding the
generalization of the findings and extend on the current research on teaching
deictic relational responding. The procedures utilised in the present study differed
to Gilroy et al. (2015) by incorporating a token economy system. Token
11
reinforcement systems are an effective tool which are widely used in behavioural
intervention programs (Fiske et al. 2015). Token economies function as
conditioned reinforcers through their association with primary or back up
reinforcers (Charlop-Christy & Haymes, 1998). When a token economy is in
effect the individual is provided with access to a backup reinforcer contingent on
acquiring a pre-determined number of tokens (Charlop-Christy & Haymes, 1998).
Gilroy et al (2015) implemented a delayed reinforcement system where access to
a preferred item was provided at the end of a 30-45-minute training session. The
participants were allowed access to a highly preferred item if they scored with
equal or greater accuracy then the previous training session. However, evidence
suggests that reinforcement is more effective when delivered immediately after
the correct response during operant conditioning procedures (Cooper, Heron &
Heward, 2007). Results from experimental studies suggest that a delay can
impede skill acquisition by weakening the response reinforcer relation as nontarget behaviours emitted during the delay may become reinforced (Lattal, 2010).
A token economy was selected for use in this research to allow for immediate
presentation of a conditioned reinforcer after the correct response. A secondary
objective of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of a token
reinforcement system to teach deictic relational responding
12
Method
Participant
Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the
University of Waikato (HREC (Health) #2018-04). Participation for the study was
advertised on a social media page for ABA information and services in
Melbourne, Australia. Inclusion criteria for the study was a previous diagnosis of
Autism Spectrum Disorder, the ability to accurately respond to what, who, where
and when questions, and low accuracy on a deictic testing probe. One child
diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder participated in the study. The
participant had a chronological age of 6 years and two months and attended
school in a general education setting. The participant had a history of intervention
services including ABA, speech and occupational therapy. The participant was no
longer receiving therapy or behavioural intervention at the time of the research.
The participant was verbal and frequently initiated conversation about their
preferred topics with the experimenter.
Setting and Materials
All sessions were conducted at the participant’s home. Testing and training was
conducted at a table with the experimenter sitting adjacent to the participant and
25% of the sessions were videotaped for data collection purposes.
The stories selected for the research were based on popular children’s
stories and movies. The researcher interspersed probe trials testing deictic
relational responding throughout each story. The testing protocol contained 7
books with 56 probe trials in total with 21 probe trials testing simple relations, 21
probe trials testing reversed relations and 14 probe trials testing double-reversed
13
deictic relations (see Appendix A). The training protocol contained 6 books with
38 probe trials in total with 17 probe trials testing simple relations, 11 probe trials
testing reversed relations and 10 probe trials double reversed deictic relations (see
Appendix B). A token economy containing ten tokens was used during the
training phase. Each token had a picture of a yellow star and was placed on a
token board by the researcher. The participant was given access to a preferred
item once he had received all ten tokens. Terminal reinforcers included chocolate
and Australian Football League cards.
Deictic relational responding was trained according to I-character, herethere and now-then relational frames. I-Character relations required the participant
to change perspective between themselves and the characters in the stories (Davlin
et al. 2011). For example, “You are waiting for a break; Arthur is pulling the
sword from the stone”. “What are you doing?” (Waiting for a break). “What is
Arthur doing? “(Pulling the sword from the stone). The Now-Then relations
required the participant to change perspective between the present and the time in
the story (Davlin et al. 2011). For example, “Last night you were sleeping at
home; Today Merlin is in the forest”. “Where were you then?” (Sleeping).
“Where is Merlin now?” (In the forest). Here-There relations required the
participant to change perspective between their location and the location of the
character in the story (Davlin et al. 2011). For example, “You are here at home;
The fairy is there in the workshop”. “Where are you?” (Home). “Where is the
fairy?” (The workshop).
14
Research Design
A single subject multiple probe design was implemented to evaluate the
effectiveness of the deictic training intervention. A multiple probe design was
selected as per the Gilroy et al. (2015) study. A multiple probe design was
selected to avoid extended baseline phases where the participant may experience
frustration or display escape behaviour due to difficulty of the reversed and
double reversed testing questions (Gilroy et al, 2015). During training, novel test
probes on all relation types at all levels of complexity were conducted after every
third training session. Twelve sessions were conducted in total with three sessions
per week for four weeks. Testing and training sessions ran for approximately 3045 minutes. Each test probe contained 8 questions testing I-YOU, HERE-THERE
and NOW-THEN frames at all levels of relational complexity. Test probes were
conducted after every third training session.
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable was the percentage of correct responses on simple,
reversed and double reversed probe trials. A correct response was recorded if the
participant correctly responded to both questions of the probe trial. A percentage
was calculated by dividing the number of correct trials over the total number of
trials and multiplying the value by 100. Inter observer agreement (IOA) data was
collected for 28% of the test probes. IOA was calculated by dividing the number
of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements and
multiplying the value by 100. The overall agreement across the test probes was
98%. Procedural reliability was conducted 25% of the training sessions and 28%
of the test probes sessions. Procedural reliability was assessed by specific
checklist created by the experimenter and was calculated by dividing total number
15
of correct responses by the total number of responses on the checklist (see
Appendix C and D). The percentage of correct responses was 100% on both the
test and training procedural reliability check lists.
Procedures
Eligibility tests
The participant was required to complete two eligibility tests to determine if they
were qualified for participation in the research. The first eligibility test tested the
participants ability to accurately respond to who, what, where and when questions
by reading the participant a short story and asking eight questions. The participant
qualified for inclusion in the research if they scored a minimum of 70%. The
second eligibility test was a deictic relational frame probe which contained 8
probe trials testing accuracy on simple, reversed, and double-reversed deictic
frames (I-CHARACTER, NOW-THEN & HERE-THERE). The experimenter
administered the test probe by reading the participant the story and administering
deictic probe trials (for example, “Snow White is eating an apple, and you are
reading.”” What are you doing”? “What is Snow White doing”?). No feedback
was given to the participant on their performance during testing. The participant
was eligible to participate in the study if they scored 60% or less on a test probe.
Preference Assessment
A preference assessment was conducted to identify highly preferred items to
function as reinforcement during the training phase of the experiment. Initially,
the experimenter conducted a brief interview with the parents to identify preferred
items which were included in the preference assessment. The experimenter
conducted a multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment by
presenting the participant with a small array of items and allowing them to choose
16
the most desired item from the array and setting it aside. The participant was then
asked to choose from the remaining possible alternatives, without replacing prior
selections, until all items had been selected. The item that the participant selected
first was used in the research as reinforcement during the training session. A brief
preference assessment was conducted prior to the beginning of each training
session to identify highly preferred items to be used during each training session.
Baseline
The experimenter administered probe trials from the testing protocol to the
participant to determine their initial performance (See Appendix A). The
participant was instructed to listen to the story and answer the questions to the
best of their ability. The experimenter read the participant a story and interspersed
eight probe trials testing simple, reversed and double reversed deictic relations (ICHARACTER, HERE-THEN and NOW-THEN) (for example, “Merlin is there,
at Camelot and you are here at home; Where are you? Where is Merlin?”). The
probe trial was scored as correct if the participant answered both questions
correctly.
No prompting, reinforcement or error correction procedures were in place
during the baseline phase. Novel books and deictic framing questions were
utilized in each test probe to avoid a practice effect. The baseline phase continued
until responding was stable for three consecutive test administrations based on a
visual analysis of the data.
Training
The training phase of the research commenced once the participant had achieved
stable responding for three consecutive test probe administrations. The training
17
phase continued until the participant achieved 80-100% for three consecutive
probe administrations or after twelve sessions. During the experiment, the
participant was given a break of at least three minutes following each level of
relational complexity (following simple frames, reversed frames and double
reversed frames). During the break the experimenter ceased all demands and
allowed the participant to engage in activity of their choice.
A token economy system was implemented to reinforce independent
correct responses during the training phase. The token system included ten tokens
that were awarded each time the participant correctly answered both questions of
the learning trial. The participant was given access to the highly preferred item
(identified by the preference assessment) for two minutes after they had been
awarded all ten tokens. Tokens which the participant had earnt during the
previous session were continued into the next training session. The contingency
was verbalised to the participant prior to the commencement of each training
session.
Conditions in the training phase were identical to the baseline phase but
trained deictic relations using the training protocol. A prompting and error
correction procedure were implemented as in Gilroy et al (2015). In response to
an error or no response, the experimenter replied “no, say (answer)” and re-read
the question. Social praise was awarded to the participant for prompted and
independent correct responses. The error correction procedure was repeated if the
participant responded with an error. During the training phase, the experimenter
embedded 38 deictic probe trials whilst reading the participant the stories. During
the training phase, simple deictic relations were targeted first. There was a total of
11 deictic probe trials testing simple relations. Simple frames did not require a
18
change in perspective to respond accurately. Reversed relations were trained after
completion of training on simple frames. Reversed relations required the
participant to reverse their perspective according to the I-Character, Here-There,
or Now-then frames to respond correctly. Finally, double reversed relations were
targeted. Double reversed relations required the participant to reverse perspective
according to two deictic frames; the I-Character frame and either now-then or
here-there frames. For example, “Earlier you were outside and now you are at
home reading; Now Snow White is getting married, earlier she was sleeping”. “If
you were Snow White and then was now what are you doing now?” (Getting
married). “If Snow White was you and now was then what was she doing, then?”
(Reading).
19
Results
As shown in Table 1, the participant scored 0% for all relations on the test probes
during the baseline phase of the research. The participant’s mean percentage of
correct responses in the baseline phase was 0%. Probe accuracy in the baseline
phase at all levels of complexity was below mastery criteria, indicating that the
participant required instruction on all relation types.
Table 1
Deictic framing accuracy by relation complexity
Baseline
Probe
Probe 2 Probe 3 Probe 4 Probe 5 Probe 6 Probe
1
7
Simple
0
0
0
33
33
66
66
Reversed
0
0
0
0
33
33
66
Double
0
0
0
0
50
0
50
Reversed
Figure 1 depicts the participant’s test probe performance according
relational complexity. The participant’s mean percentage of correct responses was
49% for simple relations, 33% for reversed relations, and 25% for double reversed
relations. Figure 1 depicts an upward trend in accuracy of correct responses for all
relation types following the introduction of the training protocol. However, the
20
participant did not meet mastery criteria for simple, reversed or double reversed
relations. Overall, the results from the test probes indicate that the intervention
improved accuracy of deictic relational responding for all levels of complexity.
Simple
100
Percentage Accuracy
Reversed
Training
Baseline
90
Double
Reversed
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Probe Session
Figure 1. Percentage correct according to relation type across probe sessions
Figure 2 depicts the participant’s performance on the training trials during
the training phase of the study. The participant’s mean percentage of correct
responses during the training phase was 55.8% for simple relations, 44.6 % for
reversed relations and 15.9 % for double reversed relations. Figure 3 depicts an
upward trend of correct responses on the training protocol for all relation types.
Correct responses were training trials where the participant responded correctly
without the researcher performing the error correction procedure. Performance on
simple relations follows a consistent and upward trend with the most substantial
7
21
improvements in correct responding observed by the end of the training phase
(range: 0%-94%). Accuracy with reversed relations (range: 0%-82%) and double
reversed relations (range:0%-40%) trended upward across the training sessions,
indicating the participants accuracy of deictic relational responding increased
throughout the training phase.
Figure 2. Percentage correct according to relation type across test probe
administrations and training sessions.
22
Discussion
The objective of the current research was to replicate the procedures utilized in
Gilroy et al. (2015) to provide further evidence on the generality of the research
findings. The results reported by Gilroy et al. (2015) suggest that a story reading
intervention was effective for teaching deictic relational responding to a sample of
children with ASD. The present study implemented a multiple-probe design with
a single subject to determine the effectiveness of a story reading protocol and a
token reinforcement system to teach deictic relational responding to a child with
ASD. Simple, reversed and double-reversed deictic probe trials were interspersed
throughout the story reading protocol and skill acquisition was measured on
performance during novel test probe sessions. The results of the multiple probe
design in the present study suggest that the story reading intervention supported
by a token reinforcement system is an effective instructional method for teaching
deictic relational responding to a child with ASD. Results from the novel deictic
probe trials showed that the accuracy of deictic relational responding at all levels
of complexity increased following the introduction of the training protocol.
Furthermore, accuracy on novel deictic probe trials continued to increase as the
training sessions progressed. However, the participant’s performance on the novel
deictic test probes did not meet the mastery criterion of 80-100% for three
consecutive probe sessions, for any level of relational complexity. Accuracy of
deictic relational responding on the training protocol showed steady increases
across all levels of relational complexity as the training sessions progressed.
Greater improvements in accuracy were observed in the training protocol
compared to the novel testing probes.
23
Results of the participants performance during training show the greatest
increase of accuracy on simple deictic relations. Previous research targeting
deictic relational responding has found that participants exhibited the least amount
of errors on simple relations and simple relations were the first to be acquired
(Gilroy et al. 2015; Lovett & Rehfeldt. 2014). These findings are consistent with
an RFT account of perspective taking which asserts that simple deictic relations
are the first to emerge (McHugh et al. 2004). The participant exhibited the most
errors on double reversed relations, which are believed to require more complex
forms of derivation (Mchugh et al. 2004). Previous studies teaching deictic
relational responding found that participants required more training sessions to
acquire reversed and double reversed relations (Gilroy et al. 2015 Lovett &
Rehfeldt. 2014). The participants accuracy according to relation complexity is
consistent with the developmental protocol developed by McHugh et al. (2004)
which found that the youngest participants exhibited the most errors on reversed
and double reversed deictic relations.
The results of the current study differ from the findings in Gilroy et al.
(2015). The participants in Gilroy et al. (2015) attained mastery criteria for all
levels of relational complexity whilst the participant in the current study did not
meet mastery criteria. The difference in findings may be attributed to the three key
differences between the present study and Gilroy et al. (2015). Firstly, participants
in Gilroy et al. (2015) scored with higher accuracy on initial baseline probes. The
participants in Gilroy et al (2015) mean overall accuracy was 18.3% (range: 10% 24%) in the baseline phase. Whilst the participants mean overall accuracy during
baseline was 0% in the present study. The average number of training sessions
required to meet mastery criteria in Gilroy et al. (2015) was 7 (range: 5-8) and the
24
participant in the present study did not attain mastery criteria after receiving all
twelve training sessions. Therefore, the difference between the participant’s
performance in the present study and Gilroy et al. (2015) cannot be attributed to
the participants in Gilroy et al. (2015) receiving more training sessions.
A second key difference between the present study and Gilroy et al. (2015)
was the use of novel test probes. Novel test probes were used in the present study
whilst Gilroy et al. (2015) do not mention if the stimuli used to probe accuracy
were novel. Novel test probes were used to measure the intervention’s
effectiveness at establishing deictic relational responding as generalised operant
responding. As stated previously, RFT asserts that deictic relational responding
underlies a perspective taking repertoire (Davlin et al. 2011). Interventions based
on RFT aim to remediate perspective taking deficits by providing a history of
multiple exemplar instruction and reinforcement to establish deictic relational
responding as generalised operant responding, where the individual engages in
deictic relational responding in the presence of novel stimuli (Davlin et al. 2011).
Measuring accuracy of deictic relational responding with novel test probes
provides evidence on the intervention’s effectiveness to establish deictic relational
responding as generalised operant responding. If the test probes in Gilroy et al.
(2015) do not use novel stimuli in each administration, then interpretation of the
results is problematic and conclusions on the intervention’s effectiveness for
establishing deictic relational responding as generalised operant responding
cannot be drawn. Lastly, the use of novel stimuli in each test probe session
controlled for a practice effect confounding the results of the present study. As
stated previously, Gilroy et al (2015) do not mention if the testing materials were
novel and therefore repeated exposure to the same materials during test probe
25
administrations may have contributed to the higher performance of the
participants in the study.
A secondary object of the research was to evaluate the effectiveness of a
token reinforcement system to teach deictic relational responding to a child with
ASD. The results of the study suggest that token reinforcement system is an
effective tool to teach deictic relational responding to a child with ASD. The
majority of previous studies on teaching deictic relational responding to
individuals with ASD have used delayed tangible reinforcement or have used
implemented reinforcement contingencies without conducting preference
assessments (Belisle et al 2016; Gilroy et al 2011; Lovett & Rehfeldt, 2014).
However, effective reinforcers play an integral role in intervention programs for
individuals with ASD and conducting frequent preference assessments aids the
identification of reliable and effective reinforcers (Cooper et al. 2007).
RFT asserts that a history of multiple exemplar instruction and
reinforcement are necessary to establish a deictic relational repertoire.
Incorporating a token reinforcement system enabled the researcher to provide
reinforcement when teaching deictic relational responding. One of the key
principles of behaviour analysis is that incorporating reinforcement facilitates
learning, therefore it is likely that incorporating the token economy played an
integral role in the participant’s acquisition of deictic relational responding
(Cooper et al. 2007).
Anecdotal observation of the participant’s verbal behaviour during
interactions with the researcher suggested that the story reading intervention may
have real-world benefits. Following the eighth training session, the participant
26
emitted novel verbal behaviour involving perspective taking. During interactions
with the researcher, the participant’s verbal behaviour suggested that they were
taking the perspective of the researcher. For example, the participant said, “If I
were you, I would kick the football like this.” Furthermore, during preference
assessments the participant asked the researcher “If you were me, which card
would you choose?” Interviews with the parents of the participant confirmed that
the comments made by the participant were novel.
Limitations
Although the results of the present study support continued research into teaching
deictic relational responding to individuals with ASD, there are a number of
limitations that should be considered. Due to time constraints of the present
research, there was a limited amount of training sessions. Previous research on
teaching deictic relational responding were allocated longer amounts of time to
enable participants to have enough training sessions to meet mastery criteria
(Gilroy et al, 2015). The participant’s performance on novel deictic test probes did
not meet mastery criteria which suggests that the limited amount of training
sessions was not sufficient to provide a history of reinforcement to establish a
deictic relational responding as generalised operant behaviour. The upward trend
of the participants performance on novel test probes (Figure 1) suggests that the
participant may have achieved mastery criteria with further training sessions.
Another limitation of the present study was the lack of an additional dependent
variable to measure improvements of perspective-taking skills in natural settings.
Anecdotal observation of the participant’s verbal behaviour during training
suggests that there may have been an improvement in the participant’s real-world
27
perspective taking skills. The addition of a valid measurement system would yield
data to help determine if teaching deictic relational responding generalised to
perspective taking skills in real world settings. Previous studies incorporating
standardised assessments of perspective taking behaviour have not found
meaningful improvement in scores after training deictic relational responding.
(Lovett & Rehfeldt, 2014). However, the measurement systems currently
available have been critiqued on their ability to measure perspective taking
behaviour in natural settings (Byom & Mutlu, 2013; Newton et al. 2000). The
unavailability of valid measurement systems may be indicative of the lack of
understanding of the fundamental mechanisms involved in perspective taking
behaviour. Perhaps, a meaningful additional dependent variable would involve the
measurement of some behaviour of importance to society that is considered by the
verbal community to be “perspective taking”. The field of behavioural science
would benefit from additional research to develop valid measurement systems.
Lastly, the deictic training protocol used in this and previous studies has
questionable face validity. It is possible that improvements in the accuracy of
deictic relational responding may be attributed to the participant learning a
strategy where they can respond correctly from attending to the reversal and
double reversal cues without reference to the relevant cues in the specific story.
This type of classification behaviour does not appear, on the face, to be what is
generally considered to be “perspective-taking.” However, a counter-argument for
this criticism may be that perspective-taking behaviour is, at its core, a matter of
developing strategies using any relevant cues to determine how to respond
appropriately in a social situation. Further research on the fundamental
mechanisms responsible for perspective-taking behaviour is required. An RFT
28
analysis of perspective taking behaviour has the potential to provide the
theoretical foundation required to identify the fundamental mechanisms involved
in a perspective taking repertoire.
Future Research
Overall, the results of the current research indicate that the story reading
intervention is an effective method to teach deictic relational responding to a child
with ASD. These findings are consistent with previous research which supports
the effectiveness of behavioural procedures to teach deictic relational responding
to individuals with ASD (Belisle et al. 2016; Gilroy et al. 2011; Jackson et al.
2014; Lovett & Rehfeldt, 2014). Continued research is needed to determine if
deictic relational responding generalises to “real world” contexts. Additional
research in the field would benefit from incorporating frequent preference
assessment to ensure that the items used to train deictic relational responding
function as effective reinforcers. Lastly, the participant’s change in verbal
behaviour was encouraging but because it is only anecdotal, further research is
needed to link the effects of this type of intervention with meaningful changes in
behaviour
29
References
Astington, J. W. (2003). Sometimes necessary, never sufficient: False-belief
understanding and social competence. In B. Repacholi & V. Slaughter
(Eds.), Individual differences in theory of mind (pp. 13-38). New York:
Psychology Press.
Barnes-Holmes, Yvonne, Mchugh, Louise, & Barnes-Holmes, Dermot. (2004).
Perspective-Taking and Theory of Mind. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5(1),
15-25. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/10.1037/h0100133
Baron‐Cohen, S., Leslie, A., & Frith, U. (1986). Mechanical, behavioural and
Intentional understanding of picture stories in autistic children. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(2), 113-125. Retrieved from
www.ebscohost.com, The University of Waikato Library.
Baron-Cohen, Leslie, & Frith. (1985). Does the autistic child have a "theory of
mind”? Cognition, 21(1), 37-46. Retrieved from www.sciencedirect.com,
The University of Waikato Library.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1989), The Autistic Child's Theory of Mind: a Case of Specific
Developmental Delay. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30:
285–297. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1989.tb00241.x
Belisle, J., Dixon, M. R., Stanley, C. R., Munoz, B., & Daar, J. H. (2016).
Teaching foundational perspective‐taking skills to children with autism
using the PEAK‐T curriculum: single‐reversal “I–You” deictic
frames. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 49(4), 965-969.
30
Bowler, D. (1992). “Theory of Mind” in Asperger's Syndrome. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 33(5), 877-893. Retrieved from Wiley Online
Library, The University of Waikato.
Byom, L. J., & Mutlu, B. (2013). Theory of mind: mechanisms, methods, and new
directions. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, 413.
http://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00413
Cooper J.O., Heron T.E., Heward W.L. (2007) Applied behavior analysis (2nd
ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Charlop-Christy, M., & Daneshvar, S. (2003). Using video modelling to teach
perspective taking to children with autism. Journal of Positive Behaviour
Interventions, 5(1), 12. Retrieved from www.ebscohost.com, The
University of Waikato Library.
Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Haymes, L. K. (1998). Using objects of obsession as
token reinforcers for children with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 28, 189-198. doi: 10.1023/A:1026061220171
Davlin, N., Anne Rehfeldt, R., & Lovett, S. (2011). A Relational Frame Theory
Approach to Understanding Perspective-Taking Using Children’s Stories in
Typically Developing Children. European Journal of Behaviour Analysis,
12(2), 403-430. doi: 10.1080/15021149.2011.11434392
Dawson, G. (2008). Early behavioural intervention, brain plasticity, and the
prevention of autism spectrum disorder. Development and Psychopathology,
20(3), 775-803. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000370
Fiske, K. E., Isenhower, R. W., Bamond, M. J., Delmolino, L., Sloman, K. N., &
LaRue, R. H. (2015). Assessing the value of token reinforcement system for
31
individuals with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(2), 448453. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/10.1002/jaba.207
Gilroy, S.P., Lorah, E.R., Dodge, J., & Fiorello, C. (2015). Establishing deictic
repertoires in autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 19, 82-92.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2015.04.004
Gould, E., Tarbox, J., O'Hora, D., Noone, S., & Bergstrom, R. (2011). Teaching
children with autism a basic component skill of perspective-taking.
Behavioral Interventions, 26(1), 50-66. Retrieved from www.ebscohost.com
Hadwin, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Howlin, P., & Hill, K. (1996). Can we teach
children with autism to understand emotions, belief, or pretence?
Development and Psychopathology, 8(02), 345-365.
doi:10.1017/S0954579400007136
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005).
The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in
special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165-179. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/docview/201222049?accountid=17287
Howlin, P., Baron-Cohen, S., & Hadwin, J. (1999). Teaching children with autism
to mind-read: A practical guide. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Hughes, S., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2015). Relational Frame Theory: The Basic
Account. In The Wiley Handbook of Contextual Behavioral Science (pp.
129-178). Wiley Blackwell.
Jackson, M. L., Mendoza, D. R., & Adams, A. N. (2014). Teaching a deictic
relational repertoire to children with autism. The Psychological Record, 64,
791–802. doi: 10.1007/s40732-014-0078-z
32
Johnston, K.H.S., & Iarocci, G. (2017). Are Generalized Anxiety and Depression
Symptoms Associated with Social Competence in Children with and
without Autism Spectrum Disorder? Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 47(12), 3778-3788. https://doiorg.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/10.1007/s10803-017-3056-x
Klin, A., Schultz, R., & Cohen, D. (2000). Theory of mind in action:
Developmental perspectives on social neuroscience. In S. Baron-Cohen, H.
Tager-Flusberg, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other minds:
Perspectives from developmental cognitive neuroscience (2nd ed., pp. 357–
390). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Koegel, R., Egel, A., & Eron, L. (1979). Motivating autistic children. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 88(4), 418-426.
Lattal, K. A. (2010). Delayed reinforcement of operant behaviour. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93(1), 129–139.
http://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2010.93-129
LeBlanc, L., Coates, A., Daneshvar, S., Charlop‐Christy, M., Morris, C., &
Lancaster, B. (2003). Using Video Modeling and Reinforcment to Teach
Perspective‐Taking Skills to Children with Autism. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 36(2), 253-257. doi:10.1901/jaba.2003.36-253
Lei, J., & Ventola, P. (2017). Pivotal response treatment for autism spectrum
disorder: current perspectives. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 13,
1613–1626. http://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S120710
Lovett, S., & Rehfeldt, R. A. (2014). An evaluation of multiple exemplar
instruction to teach perspective-taking skills to adolescents with Asperger
Syndrome. Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19(2), 22.
33
Makrygianni, M.K., & Reed, P. (2010) A meta-analytic review of the
effectiveness of behavioural early intervention programs for children with
Autistic Spectrum Disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 4(4)
577-593,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.01.014
Mchugh, L., Barnes-Holmes, Y., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). PerspectiveTaking as Relational Responding: A Developmental Profile. Psychological
Record,54(1), 11. Retrieved from www.ebscohost.com, The University of
Waikato Library
National Autism Centre. (2009). National Standards Report, The National
Standards Project addressing the need for evidence-based practice
guidelines for autism spectrum disorders. Randolph: National Autism
Centre.
Newton, P., Reddy, V., & Bull, R. (2000), Children's everyday deception and
performance on false‐belief tasks. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 18: 297-317. doi:10.1348/026151000165706
Nienke, P, Didden, R, Korzilius, H & Sturmey, P. (2011). A meta-analytic study
on the effectiveness of comprehensive ABA-based early intervention
programs for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Research in Autism
Spectrum Disorders 5 (1), 60-69.
Ozonoff, S., & Miller, J. (1995). Teaching theory of mind: A new approach to
social skills training for individuals with autism. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 25(4), 415-433. Retrieved from
www.ebscohost.com, The University of Waikato Library. ISSN 1750-9467,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.03.011.
34
Rehfeldt, R.A., Dillen, J. E., Ziomek, M. M., & Kowalchuk, R. K. (2007).
Assessing Relational Learning Deficits in Perspective-Taking in Children
with High-Functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder. Psychological
Record, 57(1), 23. Retrieved from www.ebscohost.com, The University of
Waikato Library
Rogers, S. J. (1998) Empirically supported comprehensive treatments for young
children with autism, Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27:2, 168-179,
DOI: 10.1207/ s15374424jccp2702_4
Swettenham, J. (1996), Can Children with Autism be Taught to Understand False
Belief Using Computers?. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37:
157-165. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01387.x
Watson, A. C., Nixon, C. L., Wilson, A., & Capage, L. (1999). Social interaction
skills and theory of mind in young children. Developmental Psychology,
35(2), 386-391. Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.ezproxy.waikato.ac.nz/docview/224544211?accountid=17287
Wimmer, H & Perner, J. (1983) Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and
constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of
deception, Cognition, 13 (1)103-128, https://doi.org/10.1016/00100277(83)90004-5.
35
Appendix A
Test probe 1
Snow White and The Seven Dwarves
Simple relations.
Here-There.
1) You are here in the pool house. Snow White is there at the castle
Where are you? (The Pool House)
Where is Snow White? (The Castle)
Now-Then.
2) Yesterday you were sleeping. Today, Snow White is hiding from the Queen.
What were you doing then? (Sleeping)
What is Snow White doing now? (Hiding from the Queen)
I-Character.
3) You are listening to a story. Snow White is playing with the dwarves.
What are you doing? (Listening to a story)
What is Snow White doing? (Playing)
Reversed Relations
Now-Then.
36
4) Earlier the Snow White was eating; Now, you are at home sitting. If now was
then and then was now.
What were you doing then? (Reading)
What is Snow White doing now? (Eating)
I-Character.
5) You are reading. Snow white is sleeping. If you were Snow White and Snow
White were you.
What are you doing? (Sleeping)
What is Snow White doing? (Reading)
Here-There.
6) You are here in the pool house. Snow White is there in the forest. If here was
there and there was here
Where are you? (The forest)
Where is Snow White? (The Pool House)
Double Reversed Relations
I-Character/Now-Then.
7) Earlier you were outside, now you are at home reading; Now Snow White is
getting married, earlier she was sleeping.
If you were Snow White and then was now what are you doing now? (Getting
married)
37
If Snow White was you and now was then what was she doing, then? (Reading)
I-Character/Here-There.
8) You are here reading books with me, you were there playing; Snow White is
here getting married, she was there cooking at the seven dwarves house.
If Snow White was you and here was there what is Snow White doing there?
(Playing)
If you were Snow White and there was here what are you doing here? (Getting
married)
Test probe 2
Cinderella
Simple Relations.
I-Character.
9) You are listening to a story and Cinderella is doing chores.
What are you doing? (Listening to a story)
What is Cinderella doing? (Chores)
Now-Then.
10) Last night you were eating dinner. Today Cinderella is putting a dress on.
What were you doing then? (Eating dinner)
What is Cinderella doing today? (Putting a dress on)
38
Here-There.
11) You are here at home with me; Cinderella is at the ball.
Where are you? (At home)
Where is Cinderella? (The ball)
Reversed Relations.
I-Character.
12) Cinderella is crying and you are sitting.
If you were Cinderella and Cinderella were you
What are you doing? (Crying)
What is Cinderella doing? (Sitting)
Now-Then.
13) Cinderella is at the palace, earlier you were outside. If now was then and then
was now.
Where are you? (Outside)
Where is Cinderella? (Palace)
Here-There.
14) You are here in the pool house and Cinderella is there at home.
If here was there and there was here
Where are you? (Home)
39
Where is Cinderella? (The pool house)
Double Reversed Relations.
I-Character/Now-Then.
15) is getting married, earlier, she was dancing. Earlier you were at home
sleeping, now you are reading;
If you were Cinderella and now was then what were you doing then? (Dancing)
If Cinderella were you and then was now what is Cinderella doing now? (At home
reading)
I-Character/Here-There.
16) You are here sitting at the table, you were there playing outside; Cinderella is
here at the palace, she was there trying on a slipper at home.
If Cinderella was you and here was there what was Cinderella doing, there?
(playing outside)
If you were Cinderella and there was here what are you doing, there? (Trying on
the glass slipper)
Test Probe 3
The Little Mermaid
Simple Relations.
I-Character.
17) You are listening to a story and Ariel is swimming
40
What are you doing? (Listening to a story)
What is Ariel doing? (Swimming)
Here-There.
18) You are here at home; Ariel is there, at the beach.
Where are you? (At home)
Where is Ariel? (The beach)
Now-Then.
19) Earlier you were eating; Now Ariel is rescuing the prince.
What were you doing then? (Eating)
What is Ariel doing now? (Rescuing the prince)
Reversed Relations.
I-Character.
20) You are sitting, and Ariel is swimming;
If you were Ariel and Ariel were you.
What are you doing? (Swimming)
What is Ariel doing? (Sitting)
Now-Then.
21) Ariel is dancing at the ball, earlier you were playing. If now was then and then
was now.
41
What was Ariel doing then? (Dancing at the ball)
What are you doing now? (Playing)
Here-There.
22) You are here at home; Ariel is there at the palace.
If here was there and there was here.
Where are you? (The palace)
Where is Ariel? (Home)
Double Reversed Relations.
I-Character/Now-Then.
23) Now Ariel is swimming, earlier she was dancing; You are reading with me,
earlier you were eating.
If you were Ariel and now was then what were you doing, then? (Dancing)
If Ariel were you and then was now what is Ariel doing now? (Reading)
I-Character/Here-There.
24) You are here listening to a story, you were there playing. Ariel is here in the
ocean, she was there dancing at the ball
If Ariel was you and here was there what was Ariel doing, there? (Playing)
If you were Ariel and there was here what are you doing, there? (Dancing)
Test Probe 4
42
Aladdin
Simple Relations.
I-Character.
25) You are sitting; Aladdin is selling fruit.
What are you doing? (Sitting)
What is Aladdin doing? (Selling fruit)
Now-Then
26) Yesterday you were at home sleeping. Today Aladdin is working at the
market.
What were you doing then? (Sleeping)
What is Aladdin doing today? (Working at the market)
Here-There
27) You are here reading at home with me. Aladdin is there at the market.
Where are you? (Home)
Where is Aladdin? (At the market)
Reversed Relations.
I-Character.
28) You are reading, and Aladdin is looking for the lamp.
If you were Aladdin and Aladdin were you
43
What are you doing? (Looking for the lamp)
What is Aladdin doing? (Reading)
Now-Then.
29) Aladdin is in the desert, earlier you were at home. If now was then and then
was now.
Where are you now? (Home)
Where was Aladdin then? (At home)
Here-There.
30) You are here at home, Aladdin is there at the palace.
If here was there and there was here
Where are you? (The desert)
Where is Aladdin (Home)
Double Reversed Relations.
I-Character/Now-Then.
31) Earlier you were at home sleeping, now you are at home reading. Aladdin is
saying good bye to the genie, earlier he was talking to Jasmine.
If you were Aladdin and now was then what were you doing, then? (Talking to
Jasmine)
If Aladdin were you and then was now what is Aladdin doing now? (At home
reading)
44
I-Character/Here-There.
32) You are here reading with me, you were there sitting at your table writing.
Aladdin is saying goodbye to the Genie, he was there at the market.
If Aladdin was you and here was there what is Aladdin doing there? (Sitting at
table writing)
If you were Aladdin and there was here what are you be doing there? (Saying
good bye to the genie)
Test Probe 5
The Jungle Book
Simple Relations.
I-Character.
33) You are reading, and Mowgli is playing.
What are you doing? (Reading)
What is Mowgli doing? (Playing)
Now-Then.
34) Yesterday you were at home sleeping. Today Mowgli is climbing trees.
What were you doing then? (Sleeping)
What is Mowgli doing today? (Climbing trees)
Here-There.
45
35) You are here reading at home with me. Mowgli is there in the Jungle.
Where are you? (Reading at home)
Where is Mowgli? (The jungle)
Reversed Relations.
I-Character.
36) You are sitting; Mowgli is hiding from Bagheera.
If you were Mowgli and Mowgli were you
What are you doing? (Hiding from Bagheera)
What is Mowgli doing? (Reading)
Now-Then.
37) Mowgli is swimming in the river, earlier you were at home. If now was then
and then was now.
Where are you? (Home)
Where was Mowgli? (The River)
Here-There.
38) You are here are at home; Mowgli is there in the jungle.
If here was there and there was here
Where are you? (The Jungle)
Where is Mowgli? (Home)
46
Double Reversed Relations.
I-Character/Now-Then.
39) Now Mowgli is fighting Sher Khan. Earlier, he was playing with Baloo.
Earlier you were at home eating, now you are reading;
If you were Mowgli and now was then what were you doing, then? (Playing with
Baloo)
If Mowgli were you and then was now what is Mowgli doing now? (At home
reading)
I-Character/Here-There.
40) You are here reading with me, you were there watching TV. Mowgli is going
to the village, he was there in the jungle.
If Mowgli was you and here was there what is Mowgli doing there? (Watching
TV)
If you were Mowgli and there was here what are you doing there? (Going to the
village)
Test Probe 6
Peter Pan
Simple Relations.
I-Character.
41) You are sitting and Peter Pan is flying.
47
What are you doing? (Sitting)
What is Peter Pan doing? (Flying)
Now-Then.
42) Last night you were sleeping; Today Tinkerbell is doing magic.
What were you doing then? (Sleeping)
What is Tinkerbell doing today? (Magic)
Here-There.
43) You are here at home; Wendy is there, at Never Land.
Where are you? (At home)
Where is Wendy? (Neverland)
Reversed Relations.
I-Character.
44) Captain Hook is swimming; You are sitting.
If you were Captain Hook and Captain Hook were you.
What are you doing? (Swimming)
What is Captain Hook doing? (Sitting)
Now-Then.
45) Wendy is going home, earlier you were playing. If now was then and then was
now.
48
What was Wendy doing then? (Going home)
What are you doing now? (Playing)
Here-There.
46) Wendy is here on the Pirate ship; You are there on the chair.
If here was there and there was here.
Where are you? (Pirate Ship)
Where is Wendy? (On the chair)
Double Reversed Relations.
I-Character/Now-Then.
47) Now Wendy is talking to her parents, earlier she was flying; You are reading
with me, earlier you were playing.
If you were Wendy and now was then what were you doing then? (Flying)
If Wendy were you and then was now what is Wendy doing now? (Reading)
I-Character/Here-There.
48) Wendy is here talking to her parents, she was there flying. You are here
sitting, you were there playing.
If Wendy was you and here was there what was Wendy doing there? (Playing)
If you were Wendy and there was here what are you doing there? (Flying)
49
Appendix B
Training Protocol
The Sword in the Stone
Simple Relations.
Here-There.
1) You are here at home, Arthur is there in the courtyard.
Where are you? (Home)
Where is Arthur? (Courtyard)
Now-Then.
2) Yesterday you were at home; Today Arthur is in the forest.
Where were you then? (Home)
Where is Arthur now? (The forest)
Here-There.
3) You are here at home; Merlin is there at Camelot.
Where are you? (Home)
Where is Merlin? (Camelot)
I-Character.
4) You are reading books with me; Merlin is making a sword.
What are you doing? (Reading books)
What is Merlin doing? (Making a sword)
I-Character.
5) You are waiting for a break; Arthur is pulling the sword from the stone.
50
What are you doing? (Waiting for a break)
What is Arthur doing? (Pulling the sword from the stone)
Here-There.
6) You are here at home, Arthur is there at Camelot.
Where are you? (Home)
Where is Arthur? (Camelot)
Now-Then.
7) Last night you were sleeping at home; Today Merlin is in the forest.
Where were you then? (Sleeping)
Where is Merlin now? (In the forest)
Pinocchio
Here-There.
8) You are here at home; The fairy is there in the workshop.
Where are you? (Home)
Where is the fairy? (The workshop)
Now-Then.
9) Last night you were sleeping in bed; Today Geppetto is in his workshop.
Where were you then? (Sleeping in bed)
Where is Geppetto now? (The workshop)
I-Character.
10) You are waiting for a snack; Pinocchio is dancing.
What are you doing? (Waiting for a snack)
What is Pinocchio doing? (Dancing)
51
Now-Then.
11) Yesterday you were playing; Today Pinocchio is going to the circus.
What were you doing then? (Playing)
What is Pinocchio doing now? (Going to the circus)
I-Character.
12) You are at home reading; Geppetto is waiting for Pinocchio to come home.
What are you doing? (Reading)
What is Geppetto doing? (Waiting for Pinocchio to come home)
Now-Then.
13) Earlier Geppetto was working in his workshop; Now you are waiting to play.
What was Geppetto doing then? (Working)
What are you doing now? (Waiting to play)
I-Character.
14) Pinocchio is sailing, and you are waiting for a break.
What is Pinocchio doing? (Sailing)
What are you doing? (Waiting for a break)
Here-There.
15) Pinocchio is there in the whale; You here reading with me at home.
Where is Pinocchio? (In the whale)
Where are you? (At home)
Now-Then.
16) Earlier you were sitting at your table eating; Now Pinocchio is putting on
clothes.
52
What is Pinocchio doing now? (Putting on clothes)
What were you doing then? (Eating)
Beauty and The Beast
Now-Then.
17) Earlier you were at home sleeping; Now the Maurice is having dinner at the
castle.
What is Maurice doing now? (Having dinner)
What were you doing then? (sleeping)
Reversed Relations.
I-Character.
18) You are reading books; Maurice is picking roses. If you were Maurice and
Maurice were you.
What are you doing? (Picking roses)
What is Maurice doing? (Reading books)
I-Character.
19) You are waiting for a break; Belle is going to the castle. If you were Belle and
Belle were you.
What are you doing? (Going to the castle)
What is Belle doing? (Waiting for a break)
Here-There.
20) You are here at home; Belle is there at Maurice’s house. If here was there and
there was here.
Where are you? (At Maurice’s house)
Where is Belle? (At home)
53
Now-Then.
21) Earlier the Beast was sleeping; Now you are at home reading. If now was then
and then
was now.
What were you doing then? (Reading)
What is the Beast doing now? (Sleeping)
Now-Then.
22) Yesterday Belle was riding a horse in the woods; Today you are at home
reading books. If now was then and then was now.
What were you doing then? (At home reading books)
What is Belle doing now? (Riding a horse)
Here-There.
23) You are here at home; The Beast is at the castle. If here was there and there
was here.
Where are you? (At the castle)
Where is Maurice? (At home)
Here-There.
24) Belle is here at the castle; You are there on the chair. If here was there and
there was here.
Where is Belle? (On the chair)
Where are you? (At the castle)
The Tortoise and The Hare
Here-There.
54
25) You are here on the chair; The hare is there in the woods. If here was there
and there was here.
Where is the hare? (On the chair)
Where are you? (In the woods)
Now-Then.
26) Earlier you were at home sleeping, now the tortoise is walking. If now was
then and then was now.
What was the tortoise doing then? (Walking)
What are you doing now? (Sleeping)
Here-There.
27) You are here at home working, the hare is there, sleeping under a tree. If here
was there
and there was here.
Where were you then? (At home)
Where was the hare then? (Under a tree)
Now-Then.
28) Earlier the tortoise was there winning the race; now you are here, reading
books with me. If now was then and then was now.
What is the tortoise doing now? (Winning the race)
What were you doing then? (Reading books)
Double Reversed Relations
Jack and The Beanstalk
I-Character/Now-Then.
55
29) Earlier you were outside and now you are at home reading; Now Jack is at the
market shopping and earlier he was at home.
If you were Jack and then was now what are you doing now? (Shopping)
If Jack was you and now was then what was Jack doing, then? (At home)
I-Character/Now-Then.
30) This morning you were sleeping and now you are at home working; Jack is
climbing now; earlier he was sleeping.
If Jack were you and now was then what was Jack doing, then (Sleeping)
If you were Jack and then was now what are you doing now? (Climbing)
I-Character/Now-Then.
31) Earlier you were sleeping and now you are waiting for a break; The giant is
chasing Jack and earlier he was sleeping.
If you were the giant and then was now what are you doing now? (Chasing Jack)
If the giant were you and now was then what was the giant doing? (Sleeping)
Rumpelstiltskin
I-Character/Now-Then.
32) You are at home reading now, earlier you were at home sleeping; Earlier
Mary was cooking, now she is at the Castle.
If you were Mary and now was then what are you doing now? (Cooking)
If Mary were you and then was now what is Mary doing now? (Reading)
I-Character/Now-Then.
33) Mary is talking to Rumpelstiltskin and earlier she was eating dinner; Earlier
you were sleeping; now you are reading with me.
If you were Mary and now was then what were you doing, then? (Eating dinner)
56
If Mary were you and then was now what is Mary doing now? (Sleeping)
I-Character/Here-There.
34) You are here reading books with me; you were there playing. Mary is here
getting married; she was there talking to the elf
If Mary was you and here was there what is Mary doing there? (Playing)
If you were Mary and there was here what are you doing here? (Getting married)
I-Character/Now-Then.
35) Earlier Rumpelstiltskin was singing, now he is going to the palace. You are
waiting for a break; earlier you were at home sleeping.
If you were Rumpelstiltskin and now was then what were you doing, then ?
(Singing)
If Rumpelstiltskin were you and then was now what is Rumpelstiltskin doing
now? (Waiting for a break)
I-Character/Here-There.
36) Hansel is here at the home eating dinner, he was there in the woods; You are
here reading books with me, you were there playing.
If Hansel was you and here was there what was Hansel doing, there? (Playing)
If you were Hansel and there was here what are you doing here? (Eating dinner)
I-Character/Now-Then.
37) Earlier you were eating breakfast, now you are reading books with me; Gretel
is going for a walk, earlier she was playing with Hansel.
If you were Gretel and now was then what were you doing, then? (Playing with
Hansel)
If Gretel were you and then was now what are you doing now? (Eating breakfast)
I-Character/Here-There.
57
(38) Hansel is here, eating the chocolate house, he was there walking in the
woods; You are here reading books with me, you were there sitting at the table
eating.
If Hansel was you and here was there what is Hansel doing, there? (Sitting at the
table eating)
If you were Hansel and there was here what are you doing here? (Eating the
chocolate house)
58
Appendix C
Procedural Reliability- Test Probes
1
Experimenter reads the participant
a section of a story from the testing
protocol.
Experimenter asks the participant a
perspective taking question as
specified in the testing protocol.
Experimenter allows the participant
5 seconds to respond to the
perspective taking question before
moving to the next question
Experimenter does not provide
informational feedback on the
participants answers to the testing
questions
Experimenter does not provide
praise for correct answers to the
test questions
Experimenter does not implement
the error correction procedure for
incorrect responses to the test
questions.
Experimenter does not implement
token reinforcement system during
testing
TOTAL
2
3
59
Appendix D
Procedural Reliability Checklist -Training
1
Experimenter reads the participant a section
of the story from the training protocol
Experimenter asks the participant a
perspective taking question from the
training protocol
Experimenter allows the participant to
respond with no verbal prompting on the
first trial of each question
Experimenter gives praise for each
independent correct response
Experimenter awards a token when the
participant correctly responds to both
questions of the learning trial without
prompting.
The experimenter applies the error
correction procedure (Feedback and a
verbal prompt of the correct response)
when the participant responds incorrectly
or does not respond within 5 seconds.
Experimenter repeats the trial and applies
the error correction procedure until the
participant responds correctly to both
questions of the learning trial.
Experimenter does not award a token for
prompted responses
TOTAL
2