The Effects of TAGteach™ Methods on

Sign Language Object-Naming Skills

in Non-vocal Children with Autism

Megan Morien, John W. Eshleman, Ed.D, BCBA-D

& Susan K. Malmquist, Ph.D, BCBA-D
Copyright © 2010 by Megan Morien
 Introduction
  Many children diagnosed with autism possess a limited verbal
repertoire, though sign language has been shown to be an
effective method for teaching many such verbal skills (Clarke,
Remington & Light, 1968; Sundberg & Partington, 1990/1998; Thompson, Tincani, 2004;
Wallace, Iwata & Hanley, 2006; Contnoir-Bichelman, McKerchar, & Dancho, 2007).

  Sundberg and Partington (1990) in particular reported that

when teaching individuals with developmental delays, sign
language training can be acquired at a faster rate and with
more accurate responding compared to other non-vocal
methods of communication (e.g., pointing to pictures).

  Given that sign language entails quick hand movements,

delivering immediate reinforcing consequences following a
response sometimes may prove difficult.

  A delay in the presentation of a positive reinforcer may

inadvertently provide reinforcement to an unintended
behavior, or attenuate the reinforcing effects of the delayed
consequence.
 Introduction
  Response-reinforcement essentially indicates that “the longer the
delay between the response and the reinforcement, the less
effective the reinforcement will be in increasing the future
frequency of the reinforced behavior” (Michael, 2004, p. 30).

  To bridge the gap between an organism emitting a target

behavior and the presentation of reinforcement, the field of animal
research has experienced much success using auditory stimuli as
conditioned reinforcers (i.e., clicker training) (Pryor, Hagg, & O’Reilly, 1969;
Ferguson & Rosales-Ruiz, 2001; Fjellanger, Andersen, & McLean, 2002; Pryor, 1999, 2005).

  Teaching by Acoustical Guidance (TAG) represents an extension of

clicker training that uses an auditory marker (e.g., click, chirp, ping,
and trill sounds) to bridge the gap between the desired response
and the presentation of reinforcement to assist in the learning of
new behaviors in humans (Ueda, 2006; Gutierrez, 2007; Maendler, Wasano, 2008;
Eshleman & Cihon, 2009; Vargas, 2009).

  TAG can provide truly immediate consequences following a given

movement.
 Method
  Participants
  A: 6 year old male with a diagnosis of autism
  B: 7 year old male with a diagnosis of autism
  C: 9 year old male with a diagnosis of autism

  Setting
  Empty classroom within the school environment

  Materials
  The Clicker+™, digital timer, antecedent cards, card easel,
adhesive stickers, data sheets, 3 colored shirts, and various
preferred items and activities

  Dependent Variables
  Independent object-naming signs emitted by participant
  Total number of prompts presented within session
 Method
  Experimental Design: Multielement Design
  TAG: The principal investigator tagged all occurrences of correct
signing behavior and presented a backup reinforcer, which includes
descriptive praise statements in addition to preferred items or activities.
  Contingent Reinforcement (CR): Descriptive praise statements paired
with preferred items or activities (i.e., back-up reinforcers) were
presented contingent upon the occurrence of correct signing behavior.
  Noncontingent Reinforcement (NCR): The principal investigator
provided access to preferred items and general praise statements on a
fixed-time schedule of 30 seconds.

  Procedure
  10 signing trials were conducted during each session.
  Simultaneously visual cues (i.e., picture cards) and vocal commands
(e.g., “Sign Fish”) were presented to the participant as antecedents for
the target behavior (i.e., sign the corresponding word).
  If the participant failed to emit the target behavior independently, the
prompt assistant provided minimal prompting (i.e., least-to-most).
 Results
  Interobserver Agreement
  Collected throughout at least 30% of all sessions
Participant NCR CR TAG
A 100% 97.5% 97.5%
B 100% 100% 98%
C 97.5% 97.5% 100%%
  Treatment Integrity
  Treatment integrity was assessed during at least 30% of the sessions and
totaled 100% across all experimental conditions to ensure that the
independent variable (i.e., CR, TAG and NCR) was introduced correctly.
  Social Validity
  Parents of all participants reported that TAG was an appropriate
intervention to use with their children.
  Teachers of all participants reported that their student’s became more
social with staff and peers through the use of appropriate signs, gestures
and vocalizations.
 Results
 Independent Object-Naming Signing Responses
Total number of independent responses emitted by participants
per treatment condition

Treatment Condition
Participant
NCR CR TAG

A 0 3 14

B 26 58 55

C 1 12 40

Total 27 73 109
Results
Results
Results
 Results
 Prompts
Total number of prompts presented to participants during each
treatment condition

Treatment Condition
Participant
NCR CR TAG

A 309 288 285

B 266 154 202

C 284 245 176

Total 859 687 663

 Results
Total number of prompts presented to participant A during each prompt hierarchy
level

Total number of prompts presented to participant B during each prompt hierarchy

level

Key: HOH-Dark Blue, PM-Red, FM-Green, D2D- Purple, PM-Light Blue, G-Orange
 Results
Total number of prompts presented to participant C during each prompt
hierarchy level

Key: HOH-Dark Blue, PM-Red, FM-Green, D2D- Purple, PM-Light Blue, G-Orange

  The most efficient reinforcement technique would show more

prompting in gesture and partial modeling and less in the prompts
that require more intrusive assistance (e.g., D2D, FM, PPA and HOH).

  Overall, the greatest amount of prompts required was in the partial

model level. Thus, students required a gesture and partial model
prompt prior to emitting the corresponding object-naming response.
 Discussion
  Results of the present study are consistent with Maendler et al. (2009),
which found TAG to be a more effective and immediate
reinforcement method than CR alone or NCR conditions.

  Participants within the current study achieved more independent

response during the TAG and CR conditions, which further supports
the importance of delivery of reinforcers.
  Limitations
  Number of sessions conducted per week
  Role of the experimenter
  Anticipation of participants emitting the correct response
  Lack of discrimination between conditions
  Future Research
  Conduct all conditions per session to create more learning
opportunities
  Prompting most-to-least vs. least-to-most
  TAGteach™ with different populations, environments or target
behaviors
  Extend to other products: The Clicker+TM, i-Click™, Box clicker, etc.
 References
Clarke, S., Remington, B., & Light, P. (1968). An evaluation of Pryor, K. W. (1999, 2005). Don’t shoot the dog: The new art of
the relationship between receptive speech skills and teaching and training (rev. ed.). New York: Bantam.
expressive signing. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
19, 231-239.
Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1998). Teaching language
to children with autism or other developmental disabilities.
Ferguson, D. L. & Rosales-Ruiz, J. (2001). Loading the problem Danville, CA: Behavior Analysts.
loader: the effects of target training and shaping on trailer
loading behavior of horses. Journal of Applied Behavior
Thompson, R. H., Contnoir-Bichelman, N. M., McKerchar, P. M.,
Analysis, 34, 409-424.
Tate, T. L., & Dancho, K. A. (2007) Enhancing early
communication through infant sign language. Journal of
Fjellanger, R., Andersen E. K., & McLean, I. G. (2002). A training Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 15-23.
program for filter-search mine detection dogs.
International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 15,
Tincani, M. (2004). Comparing the picture exchange
277-286.
communication system (PECS) and sign-language training
for children with autism. Focus on Autism and Other
Gutierrez, R. (November, 2009). Tagging imitation skills of Developmental Disabilities, 19(2), 152-163.
students diagnosed with autism. Paper presented at the
TAGteach™ Certification Seminar, St. Louis, MO.
Ueda, M. (November, 2009). TAG Research at Applied Behavior
Consultants, Inc. Paper presented at the TAGteach™
Maendler, R., Eshleman, J. & Cihon, T. (2009) Using
Certification Seminar, St. Louis, MO.
TAGteach™ Methods to Increase Eye Contact Behavior
in Children with Autism. Unpublished master’s thesis, The
Chicago School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, IL. Vargas, J. (2009). Behavior analysis for effective teaching.
Routledge: New York, NY.
Michael, J. (2004). Concepts and principles of behavior
analysis. Association for Behavior Analysis International™: Wallace, M., Iwata, B., & Hanley, G. (2006). Establishment of
Kalamazoo, MI. mands following tact training as a function of reinforcer
strength. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 17-24.
Pryor, K. W., Haag, R., & O’Reilly, J. (1969). The creative
porpoise: training for novel behavior. Journal of Wasano, L. (November, 2009). An evaluation of treatment
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12, 653-661. procedures for increasing social skills: A case study. Paper
presented at the TAGteach™ Certification Seminar, St.
Louis, MO.