Journal of Early Intervention, 2007 Vol. 30, No.

1, 19-35 Copyright 2007 by the Division for Early Childhood, Council for Exceptional Children

REGULAR ARTICLE

Antecedent Classroom Factors and Disruptive Behaviors of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders
MA UREEN A. CONROY
Virginia Commonwealth University

JENNIFER M. ASMUS
University of Wisconsin-Madison

BRIAN A. BOYD
University ofNorth Carolina-Chapel Hill

CRYSTAL N LADWIG
University of Florida

JENNIFER A. SELLERS
AdvoServ This study examined relationships between antecedent classroom factors and the disruptive behaviors of five elementary-aged students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). A descriptive analysis was conducted to determine the influence of four types of molar antecedent classroom factors (i.e., instructional setting, instructional activity, availability of materials, and adult proximity) occurring within the general education classroom on target children's disruptive behavior. Sequential analyses were conducted to identify possible influences of these factors on the relationship between adult directives and subsequent target child disruptive behavior. Results showed different antecedent classroom factors influenced the occurrence of and the strength and direction of the sequential relationships between teacher directives and child disruptive behavior across participants. Although idiosyncratic findings occurred, for the majority of participants, specific antecedent factors decreased the rate of disruptive behavior including: a group setting, academic adult-directed activities, no materials present, and no adult proximity. Implications for practitioners and future research are discussed. Over the past decade, dramatic increases in the number of children identified with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have been reported. Recent prevalence reports suggest ASD occurs in 1 out of every 150 children (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, . 2007). Although a variety of explanations have been offered to account for the growth of individuals diagnosed with ASD (e.g., use of the umbrella term autism spectrum disorders; Rutter, 2005); recent data clearly support the assertion that this disorder

Conroy, Asmus, Boyd, Ladwig, & Sellers

19

affects a large number of children in our society. With the increased emphasis on the provision of educational services in least restrictive settings for all children with disabilities (IDEA, 2004), more children with ASD are being served in general education classrooms (Mesibov & Shea, 1996). Unfortunately, a number of these children engage in problem behaviors that might interfere with their own learning and can be disruptive to the general education classroom teacher and their peers (Macintosh & Dissanayake, 2006; Ochs, Kremer-Sadlik, Solomon, & Sirota, 2001). One promising strategy for addressing problem behaviors in children with ASD is the use of antecedent interventions. Antecedent interventions are primarily guided by one of two prominent conceptual models from the field of applied behavior analysis that describe how antecedent stimuli (often deemed ihe fourth term) affect the behavioral operant [i.e., stimulus (S) -^ response (R) consequence (C)]. Kantor (1970) described the fourth term in relation to its effect on the S-R relationship of the operant model, and proposed that this setting factor affects the probability of that interaction (Kantor, 1970; Wahler & Fox, 1981). Michael (1982) referred to establishing operations (EO) or abolishing operations to describe the fourth term, and differentiates the terms by their effects on the maintaining consequence. The EO is purported to increase the value of the reinforcer while the abolishing operation decreases its value. More recently, Laraway, Snycerski, Michael, and Poling (2003) used the phrase motivational operations to encompass both functions. Irrespective of the conceptual underpinning, antecedent intervention strategies involve the manipulation of antecedent stimuli in the child's environment either to increase the probability of a desired behavior or decrease the likelihood of problem behavior (Miltenberger, 2004). There are entire books (e.g., Luiselli & Cameron, 1998) and journal articles (e.g.. Smith & Iwata, 1997) devoted to the influence of antecedent variables on

behavior. A comprehensive review of that literature base is beyond the scope of this paper. The use of antecedent-based interventions to address the problem behaviors of children with autism, however, is relevant. These studies can be characterized in a number of ways, including the conceptual model that guided the development of the intervention, the antecedent variable manipulated (e.g., complexity of academic tasks), topography of behavior targeted (e.g., self-stimulatory), or the context in which the intervention was conducted. We have chosen to focus on context. Carr, Carlson, Langdon, Magito-McLaughUn, and Yarbrough (1998) offered a useful paradigmatic approach to examining antecedent interventions in relation to context. As described by Carr and colleagues, a molecular approach to antecedent interventions often occurs in highly controlled contexts, such as laboratory or clinical settings, designed to emulate conditions that typically occur in the child's environment. A molar approach to antecedent interventions occurs in the child's natural environment and includes a particular emphasis on broadly defined antecedent variables, such as social (e.g., peer-to-peer interaction patterns) or physical (e.g., arrangement ofthe furniture in a classroom) aspects of the environment. Historically, antecedent research has been conducted from the molecular perspective (for further discussion on antecedent control, see Luiselli & Cameron, 1998). The increase in the number of children with disabilities served in inclusive settings, however, has led more researchers to investigate a broader range of antecedent stimuli using a molar approach (Shores et al., 1993; Van Acker, Grant, & Henry, 1996). Researchers that have used a molecular approach to examine the effect of antecedent variables have found that, for children with autism, seemingly idiosyncratic or stimulusspecific aspects of the classroom environment (e.g. the presence of puzzles; Carr, Yarbrough, & Langdon, 1997) or academic tasks (McComas, Hoch, Paone, & El-Roy, 2000), including task difficulty (Taylor, Ekdahl, Romanczyk, & Miller, 1994) can evoke

20

JEI, 2007, 30:1

problem behavior. Yet, antecedent interventions such as varying the sequence of tasks or introducing more preferred tasks (Dunlap & Koegel, 1980; Kennedy, 1994; Winterling, Dunlap, & O'Neill, 1987) or having a brief period of physical exercise precede academic tasks can reduce the occurrence of problem behavior (Celiberti, Bobo, Kelly, Harris, & Handleman, 1997). Molar studies also suggest there can be a high degree of variability in the types of antecedent factors (e.g., classroom activities, presence of certain people) that reliably occasion problem behaviors in the homes (Horner, Day, & Day, 1997; Koegel, Stiebel, & Koegel, 1998), classrooms (Conroy, Asmus, Ladwig, Sellers, & Valcante, 2004; Nordquist, Twardosz, & McEvoy), and communities (Carr & Carlson, 1993; Haring & Kennedy, 1990) of individuals with autism (for a review, see Davis & Fox, 1999). Often multi-component interventions that include a manipulation of antecedent stimuli and appropriate schedules of reinforcement are needed to decrease problem behavior (Carr & Carlson, 1993; Koegel et al., 1998). Context influences the predictability of behavior (Bijou & Baer, 1961; Wahler & Fox, 1981; Wolery, 2000). Findings from the present body of research evidence have made substantial contributions toward our understanding of antecedent stimuli that specifically occasion the problem behavior of children with ASD. Current research also suggests there can be a high degree of variability in the types of contexts that reliably occasion the challenging behavior of these children. Many of the existing antecedent intervention studies conducted with children with ASD; however, have occurred in clinical (Dunlap & Koegel, 1980; Koegel, Dyer, & Bell, 1987) or selfcontained classroom settings (McComas et al., 2000) as opposed to general education classrooms where many of these children receive their educational services. Further characterizing the relationship between antecedent factors that naturally occur in the general education classroom and their influence on behavior in these settings is an Conroy, Asmus, Boyd, Ladwig, & Sellers

important extension to this body of research. The investigation of naturally occurring antecedent factors that increase or decrease the probability of problem behaviors displayed by children with ASD is particularly applicable to students and teachers in general education settings. Identification of naturally occurring antecedent factors in classrooms might provide teachers an additional tool in developing an appropriate, individualized intervention. For instance, if a child with ASD engages in higher rates of problem behavior during group activities, but lower rates of problem behavior when an adult is in proximity, the teacher might proactively arrange for the'teacher's assistant to remain in proximity to the target child during group activities. Given the increasing numbers of children with ASD served in general education classrooms and the number of studies conducted from a molar versus molecular perspective, a need exists to conduct further studies on general education classroom factors that influence the occurrence of challenging behavior. The purpose of the current study was to describe the association between identified antecedent classroom factors and a particular challenging behavior displayed by young children with ASD served in general education settings. This study addressed the following research questions: (1) What is the association between targeted antecedent classroom factors (i.e., instructional setting, instructional activity, availability of materials, and adult proximity) and the occurrence of disruptive behaviors within and across participants? and (2) What is the infiuence of these antecedent classroom factors on sequential relationships between adult directives and subsequent child disruptive behaviors? METHOD Participants, Settings, and Materials Five children, ages 5 through 10 years, participated in this study. Specific criteria for participation in the study included: (a) diagnosis of ASD based on school reports, (b) participation in a general education

21

classroom at least 50% of the school day, and (c) display of disruptive behavior that interfered with participation in the general education classroom. Individual child participant and setting characteristics are shown in Table 1. Four males and 1 female identified as having ASD by the school district participated in the study. Scores of participants on intelligence measures ranged from 78 to 131 and all used speech (simple to complex sentence structure) to communicate. Participants attended typical general education classrooms in elementary schools for the majority of the school day {M = 89%, range = 79%-97%) and had been attending the classroom for at least 1 month. Three of the participants were enrolled in kindergarten, 1 attended first grade, and 1 attended second grade. All participants were identified initially by their classroom teachers as capable of engaging in classroom activities, but were displaying disruptive behaviors that interfered with their participation in these activities. Classroom teachers indicated that no specific interventions were in place to address these behaviors. To confirm the existence of disruptive behavior that interfered with their classroom participation, research assistants met with each classroom teacher, identified and defined disruptive behaviors for target children, and conducted several informal observations in their general education classrooms. The study was conducted in five general education classrooms across five public elementary schools in a suburban school district in the southeast United States. In addition to the child participants, 5 teachers and 5 teacher assistants served as participants in the study. All teachers in the study held a general education certification in early childhood, kindergarten, or elementary education. Classrooms had both a classroom teacher and an assistant (one classroom had a part-time assistant). Classroom size ranged from 18 to 23 students. Teachers and assistants in each classroom were provided with a general explanation of the study's observational procedures. They agreed to participate and to allow access to

their classroom. Specifically, they were told that the purpose of the research study was to gain information about the type of activities and instructional settings that might contribute to target children's disruptive behaviors. They were instructed to continue their typical routine and teaching practices. The teachers and assistants were not aware of the specific dependent measures observed in the study (including teacher directives). Both the classroom teacher and assistants were present during the observations. Procedure Because this was a descriptive study conducted in general education classrooms during naturally occurring contexts, the activities and materials present during daily observations varied for each participant depending on the classroom curriculum and the activities in which children participated. Observation days and times were selected based on the teacher's schedule of activities and when each participant was included in the general education classroom. Typically, several activities per day were observed {M = 2, range = 1 to 6) and each observation lasted 10 to 30 min (M = 20 min) depending on the length of the activity observed. Observations occurred over approximately 4 to 7 days per participant (M = 6). Observations began when the activity and time identified by the teacher started and lasted until the activity was completed or 30 min, whichever came first. With the exception of one participant (William; 43% academic vs. 57% nonacademic), the majority of activities observed across participants were academic activities consisting of math, science, spelling, writing, reading, and computer lab (M = 78%, range = 43% to 95%) compared to nonacademic activities consisting of art, story time and free play (M = 22%, range = 5% to 57%). The total amount of observed time varied across participants and ranged from 5 to 9 hours (M = 6 hours), depending on the availability of the participant and the classroom teacher. Charles, Mickey, and Rachael were observed a total of 5 hours

22

JEI, 2007, 30:1

00

seti

B ca oo
CA

o
B
CA

B o o o a
u 3
UOI]

r^"^
[..,

u C

ca B

u B

c CN

s .s

u, a XI u 3 CJ T3 ca B u
(N

e m

^_, B
CA CA

B u

CA

ca
crt

" i2
B
1

c a ca

ca B

por

o a

T3 .B 3 O ca <N

o
o B u

B
B O
ca

5^

_o

g " S

ca JS o

-a

ll
O

o o

JS u
CS

ca

ca

1.2
g

inde

u T3 B

I
ca

I t
Conroy, Asmus, Boyd, Ladwig, & Sellers

ca
ca

23

each. Josh was observed 6 hours and William was observed 9 hours. Observation sessions were videotaped during the targeted classroom activities as they naturally occurred. Prior to the start of the study, a brief desensitization period equal to 2 to 3 observations periods occurred where researchers observed and videotaped the target child and adults in the classroom. This period was intended to address potential effects of reactivity and provide videotape footage for use in training observers. Care was taken to situate the video camera in a section of the classroom that allowed for the observer to capture both the target child and the adults in the classroom. If either the target child or adults left the view of the camera, this situation was noted and coded during the observation using a stop code. Following all observation sessions, observers viewed and coded the videotapes using the Multiple Option Observation System for Experimental Studies (MOOSES; Tapp, 2002) and HP Jornada 820 palmtop computers. The observation coding system for this study was developed to record the occurrence of child behavior, adult behavior, and antecedent classroom factors (a copy of the coding manual is available upon request from the first author). The observation coding system was designed so that child behavior and adult behavior were mutually exclusive. These participant behaviors were coded continuously and sequentially as they occurred during each observation. While coding child and adult behaviors, observers simultaneously coded the relevant antecedent classroom factors occurring. General antecedent classroom factors (i.e., instructional setting, instructional activity, materials and proximity) and specific antecedent classroom factors (e.g., group setting, individual setting, academic adult, and so forth) associated with the general categories were coded. During the observation session, an observer recorded the child participant's behaviors, the adult's behaviors directed toward the child, and the presence of the specific antecedent classroom factors. For example, while recording child

and adult behaviors, the observer also recorded which of the antecedent factors were present (e.g., a group setting during an academic adult activity with materials present and an adult in proximity). Antecedent factors were not mutually exclusive and therefore were coded simultaneously. Measures. The frequency of disruptive behaviors that occurred during the observation was recorded for each child participant. Operational definitions of disruption were developed and are shown in Table 2. Although more generic definitions were developed for coding purposes, each child's disruptive behavior was defined individually depending on the topography of the behavior. In addition to the children's disruptive behavior, the frequency of directives of classroom adults were measured and were defined as an adult verbally or physically directing the target child to perform a specific behavior. Finally, the duration of four categories of antecedent classroom factors were recorded: (a) instructional setting (i.e., group setting, independent seatwork); (b) instructional activity (i.e., academic adult, academic child); (c) materials (materials present or no materials present); and (d) proximity (adult proximal or not proximal to the target child). These antecedent classroom factors were selected for observation because they naturally occur in general education classrooms and previous research has investigated their potential relationship to the occurrence of child behavior (Brown, Odom, Holcombe, & Younguist, 1994; Carta, Atwater, Schwartz, & Miller, 1990; Davis & Fox, 1999; Greenwood, Carta, Kamps, & Arreaga-Mayer, 1990). Operational definitions are shown in Table 2. Interobserver agreement. Prior to data collection, interobserver agreement (IOA) between two observers was established on all measures (i.e., disruptive behavior, adult directives, and antecedent classroom factors). The criterion for establishing acceptable IOA was both observers obtaining a minimum of 80% agreement across three consecutive sessions on each of the measures. The MOOSES software program, which uses

24

JEI, 2007, 30:1

Table 2 Measurement Codes and Definitions

Codes Disruption Definition Defined as one or more of the following behaviors: verbal talk or inappropriate vocalizations which was out of context or loud without permission, throwing objects or work materials, destroying objects or work materials, eloping, failure to complete a teacher instruction (i.e., noncompliance) Defmed as an adult verbally br physically directing the target child to perform a specific behavior. This included any verbal communication or gestural prompting as a means of prompting the target child to complete a task Defined as target child working with more than one person Defined as target child working alone in a particular setting (e.g., at a desk) and has been instructed to engage in a specific activity Defmed as target child instructed by an adult to engage in an academic task (e.g., math, reading, computer) with an adult present and directing the activity Defined as target child provided the choice of engaging in an academic task without an adult present and directing the activity Defined as the target child involved in an academic task or play activity that includes access to materials Defined as the target child involved in an academic task or play activity that includes no access to materials Defined as an adult within an arms length of the target child for at least 3 sec Defined as no adult within an arms length of the target child for at least 3 sec

Adult Directive

Instructional Setting Group setting Independent seatwork Instructional Activity Academic Adult Academic Child Materials Materials No Materials Proximity Proximity No Proximity

a time-based system, was used to calculate IOA for frequency and duration measures. To be considered reliable, both observers must record the same behavior or event within the specified window of time. A 5sec time-based window was used for calculating IOA for both frequency (e.g., target child disruption and adult directives) and duration (i.e., antecedent classroom factors) measures. IOA was calculated differently, however, depending on the unit of measure (i.e., frequency or duration). Using the MOOSES program, IOA for frequency measures is calculated on occurrence only using the following IOA formula: Agreement/Agreements + Disagreements X 100. For duration codes, the MOOSES program Conroy, Asmus, Boyd, Ladwig, & Sellers

examines IOA on a second-by-second basis and provides an occurrence agreement percentage (OARatio), a non-occurrence percentage (NARatio), and a combined agreement (A/A+D). In this study, IOA for duration measures was calculated using the combined agreement formula (A/A+D) X 100. During IOA observations, both observers were present and simultaneously viewed the videotapes. A cue (i.e., 1, 2, 3, begin) was provided on the videotape indicating the time for both observers to begin their observations. IOA was calculated on a range of 32% to 40% of the sessions depending on the participant {M = 34%). IOA on child disruptive behavior and teacher directives ranged from 67% to 100% (M = 89%) across participants. For the

25

antecedent classroom factors, IOA ranged from 83% to 100% (M = 98%) across all antecedent classroom factors.

Table 3 2X2 Matrix of Teacher Directive Followed by Disruption with Adult Proximity Disruption Disruption (Yes) (No) Teacher Directive (Yes) Teaeher Directive (No) A C B D

Data Analysis
To examine the influence of antecedent classroom factors on the disruptive behaviors of children and the relationship between teacher directives and disruptive behavior, two types of analyses were conducted. First, rate calculations were conducted for each participant in relation to the targeted antecedent classroom factors. Next, event-based, lag sequential analyses were conducted for each participant, examining the relationship between teacher directives and subsequent child disruption within targeted antecedent classroom factors. Rate calculations. Rates of disruptive behavior for each participant in relation to antecedent classroom factors were examined. Rates were calculated by taking the frequency of each participant's disruptive behavior during each antecedent classroom factor observed and dividing it by the total number of minutes observed in that antecedent classroom factor. Lag sequential analyses. To examine the relationship between teacher directives and participant disruption within each targeted antecedent classroom factor, we conducted one-step, event-based lag sequential analyses using the MOOSES software program while examining the occurrence of each antecedent classroom factor. To illustrate, once a teacher directive was coded, observers then coded the next child behavior that occurred in the sequence (i.e., disruption or other). Following, the sequential coding of all teacher and child behaviors, probability tables were developed to examine the relationships between the occurrence of teacher directives and child disruption. The MOOSES program creates 2 (adult directives: yes or no) X 2 (child disruption: yes or no) tables to examine the relationships between sequences of behavior occurring within each antecedent context. See Table 3 for an example of a 2 X 2 table.

Note. A = YesA'es. B = Yes/No. C = NoA'es. D = No/ No. The first cell of the matrix, A (top left) contained the number of times disruptive behavior occurred as the next event (Lag 1) following a teacher directive when an adult was in proximity. The second cell, B (top right) contained the number of times disruptive behavior was not the next event following a teacher directive when an adult was in proximity. The third cell, C (bottom left) contained the number of times disruptive behavior occurred following another event other than a teacher directive when an adult was in proximity. The final cell, D (bottom right) contained the number of times two events sequentially occurred other than teacher directives and child disruptive behavior when an adult was in proximity. For an additional description of this procedure, see Symons et al. (2001). To help address low and unequal rates of behavior across target child participants, we established a minimum criterion of 7 times when disruption occurred prior to examining sequential relationships. We arrived at the selection of a minimum of 7 because we were aware of stability issues regarding observed or expected values in the YY ceir (Table 3, cell A, top left; Yoder & Feurer, 2000). Although Bakeman and Gottman (1997) have suggested a minimum of 5 instances of antecedent and target behavior, we chose a minimum of 7 observed 2-event sequences as an inclusion criteria for further analyses based on empirical data (i.e., scores less than 7 produced unstable patterns). Using the MOOSES software program. Yule's Q indexes (Bakeman, McArthur, & Quera, 1996) were calculated, which allowed us to examine the strength and direction of the relationship between the occurrence of

26

JEI 2007, 30:1

Tabte 4 Comparison of Participant's Disruptive Behavior across Instructional Settings

Group Setting Participant Josh Mickey Rachael Charles William Rate 0.82 0.33 0.29 0.07 0.09 Yule's Q -0.58 0.88 0.46 0.87 0.65 Independent Seatwork Rate 0.21 0.49 0.44 0.36 0.14 Yule's Q 0.42 0.36 -0.95 0.58 0.73

adult directives and subsequent target child disruption in the presence of targeted antecedent classroom factors. Yule's Q was calculated as an index of sequential dependency for target child disruption occurring as the next event following a teacher directive within each of the antecedent classroom factors. Similar to Pearson correlations. Yule's Q values range from 1.0 to -1.0, where 0 indicates that there is no systematic relationship between the two events of interest (e.g., teacher directive and target child disruption; Bakeman et al., 1996). In this study, a positive Yule's Q indicated that target child disruption was more likely to occur following a teacher directive than was estimated by chance. For example, a positive value between a teacher directive and target child disruption of .8 would suggest a recurring pattern of the occurrence of disruption following a teacher directive. A negative Yule's Q indicated that the participant's target behavior was inversely related to the occurrence of a teacher directive. For example, as adult directives increased, the likelihood of the child's disruptive behavior decreased. To assist in the interpretation of Yule's Q, we used the following guidelines: 0.0 to .3 indicated a mild relationship, .3 to .6 indicated a moderate relationship, .6 to 1.0 indicated a strong relationship (Quera & Bakeman, 2000; Yoder & Feurer, 2000). We chose to use a Yule's Q index to evaluate sequential relationships rather than transitional probability analyses that are more commonly used because the Yule's Q Conroy, Asmus, Boyd, Ladwig, & Sellers

examines not only the simple probability of the relationship between the antecedent and the target behavior, but also quantifies the sequential association while controlling for chance (Yoder & Fuerer, 2000); therefore, the Yule's Q provides a more conservative measure of sequential relationships.

RESULTS
Relative to the first research question, the results of this investigation suggest that various antecedent classroom factors infiuenced the rate of child disruptive behavior. Additionally, in response to the second research question, the strength and direction of the sequential relationships between teacher directives and target child disruption was influenced by antecedent classroom factors. Data are summarized by research question below (i.e., rate of target child behaviors and sequential relationships between adult directives and target child disruption). Data for each participant are shown in Tables 4 through 7. Occurrence of Child Disruptive Behavior Rates of disruptive child behaviors were examined across two instructional settings (group vs. independent seat work); two instructional activities (academic adult vs. academic child); availability of materials (materials vs. no materials) and adult proximity (proximity vs. no proximity). Instructional settings. Children's rate of disruptive behavior was evaluated across two instructional settings: (a) group setting and

27

Table 5 Comparison of Participant's Disruptive Behavior across Instructional Activities Academic Child Yule's Q Rate 0.14 0.49 0.54 0.07 0 -0.39 0.28 -0.27 0.56 NA Academic Adult Rate 0.04 0.33 0.26 0.08 0.15 Yule's Q -0.58 0.84 0.04 0.63 0.65

Participant Josh Mickey Rachael Charles William

(b) independent seatwork (see Table 4). Four of 5 participants engaged in higher rates of disruptive behavior during independent seatwork (range = 0.14 to 0.49/min) in comparison to a group setting (range = 0.07 to 0.33/ min), with Josh's rate of disruptive behavior in a group setting being the only exception (0.82 in group vs. 0.2l/min in independent seatwork). For 2 of 4 participants (Mickey and Rachael), rate of disruptive behavior in independent seatwork was only slightly higher in comparison to their rate of disruptive behavior in a group setting. For Charles and William, however, their rates of disruptive behavior were substantially higher in independent seatwork in comparison to a group setting. Overall, all participants engaged in low to moderate rates of disruptive behavior across both instructional settings (range = 0.07 to 0.49/min) with the exception of Josh (0.82/min). Instructional activities. Contexts in which the activities were identified as academic child directed were compared to academic adult directed activities (see Table 5). Three of 5 participants (Josh, Mickey, and Rachael) displayed higher rates of disruptive behavior during academic child activities (range = 0.14 to 0.54/min) in comparison to academic adult (range = 0.04 to 0.33/min) activities. Charles (0.08 in child directed vs. 0.07/min in adult directed) and William (0 in child directed vs. 0.15/min in adult directed) were exceptions. Availability of materials. Target children's disruption was examined when they had access to materials and when there were

no materials available. Four participants (Mickey, Rachael, Charles, and William) exhibited higher rates of disruptive behavior when materials were available (range = 0.13 to 0.66/min) in comparison to no materials available (range = 0.02 to 0.35/min; see Table 6). Josh exhibited higher rates of disruption when materials were not available (0.70 in no materials vs. 0.32/min in materials present). Overall, 3 of 5 participants engaged in low to moderate rates of disruptive behavior across both materials contexts (range = 0.02 to 0.40/min). Josh (0.70/min in the no materials condition) and Rachel (0.66/min when materials were present) were the exceptions with overall higher rates of disruption. Adult proximity. Children's rate of disruption was compared when adults were in proximity and when adults were not in proximity. Three participants (Mickey, Rachael, and William) exhibited higher rates of disruptive behavior during contexts when an adult was in proximity (range = 0.14 to 0.93/ min) in comparison to when adults were not in proximity (range = 0.04 to 0.37/min; see Table 7). Josh and Charles, however, exhibited higher rates of disruption during contexts when there was no adult in proximity (range = 0.08 to 0.24/min in proximity vs. 0.26 to 0.48/min in no proximity). For 1 of the 3 participants (Mickey) who engaged in higher rates of disruption when an adult was in proximity, the difference was minimal in comparison to the other 2 participants (Rachael and William) who demonstrated greater differences in rate between the two

28

JEI, 2007, 30:1

Table 6 Comparison of Participant's Disruptive Behavior across Availability of Materials Materials Participant Josh Mickey Rachael Charles William Rate 0.32 0.40 0.66 0.34 0.13 Yule's Q -0.45 0.67 -0.81 0.61 0.66 Rate 0.70 0.35 0.07 0.07 0.02 No Materials Yule's Q -0.32 0.88 -0.15 0.87 0.69

conditions. Four participants engaged in low to moderate rates of disruptive behavior across both proximity contexts (range = 0.04 to 0.48/min), with only Rachel (0.93/ min in adult proximity) as the exception. Summary. Although some similarities were evident across participants, the antecedent classroom factors investigated generally produced idiosyncratic findings on participants' rates of disruption. For the majority of participants, however, specific antecedent factors were related to decreases in rates of disruption (i.e., group setting, academic adult activities, no materials, and no adult proximity). Sequential Relationships For the same 5 target children, sequential relationships between the occurrence of a teacher directive and target child disruption within the antecedent classroom factors (i.e., instructional setting, instructional availability, materials, and proximity) was investigated. Yule's Q indexes were calculated and are shown in Tables 4 to 7.

Instructional setting. In general. Yule's Q values showed moderate to strong relationships between teacher directives and the participants' disruptive behavior across instructional settings. For Mickey, Charles, and William, a positive Yule's Q was found across both conditions, a stronger relationship in group setting for Mickey and Charles and a slightly stronger relationship in independent seatwork for William. In addition, analyses for Josh and Rachel revealed moderate to strong negative relationships for disruptive behavior in one of the two instructional settings and positive moderate relationships in the other instructional setting. In the case of Josh, a moderate negative relationship was found in the group setting; whereas, for Rachael, a strong negative relationship was found in the independent seatwork setting. Instructional activities. Since William did not engage in disruption during academic child instructional activities. Yule's Q values are reported for the other 4 participants. Overall, Yule's Q values for these participants indicated mild to strong relationships'

Table 7 Comparison of Participant's Disruptive Behavior across Contexts with Adult Proximity
Proximity Participant Josh Mickey Rachael Charles William Rate 0.24 0.40 0.93 0.08 0.14 Yule's Q -0.07 0.80 -0.23 0.73 0.64 Rate 0.48 0.37 0.21 0.26 0.04 No Proximity Yule's Q -0.43 0.82 -0.21 0.64 0.67

Conroy, Asmus, Boyd, Ladwig, & Sellers

29

between teacher directives and participants' display of disruptive behaviors. Two of 4 participants (Mickey and Charles) demonstrated strong positive Yule's Q relationships in academic adult activities in comparison to academic child activities. The relationship between teacher directives and disruption for Josh indicated a negative relationship in both academic child and academic adult settings, with the latter being in the moderate range. Where as, for Rachael, a negative mild relationship occurred in the academic child setting and a positive mild relationship was indicated in the academic adult setting. Availability of materials. Positive and negative relationships were found when materials were present and when they were not present. The Yule's Q values in both conditions varied from negative moderate to strong and positive strong relationships when materials were available to negative mild to moderate relationships and positive strong when there were no materials. For Josh and Rachael, negative relationships were found across both conditions; however, for Josh there was only a slight difference in the strength of the relationship across the conditions. For Rachael, the relationship was much stronger in the condition when materials were present in comparison to when materials were not present. For William, there was relatively no difference in the strength of the relationship between the two conditions. However, for both Mickey and Charles, the strength of the relationship was greater when materials were not present. Adult proximity. With the exception of Josh, there were few differences in the strength of Yule's Q values when adults were in proximity in comparison to when they were not in proximity. For Mickey, Charles, and William a positive strong relationship existed between teacher directives and disruption. However, for Josh and Rachael, the relationship between teacher directives and disruption was negative with values in the mild to moderate range. For Josh, the strength of the relationship when adults were not in proximity was stronger in comparison to the condition when adults were in

proximity. However, for Rachael the strength of the relationship was similar across both conditions. Summary. For 3 of the 5 participants (Mickey, Charles, and William), positive relationships between teacher directives and disruptive behavior was observed consistently across a number of the antecedent classroom factors investigated, although the strength of the relationship varied depending on the context. For the remaining 2 participants (Josh and Rachel), with a few exceptions, disruptive behavior was less likely to follow a teacher directive with differences in the strength of that relationship depending on the context. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICA TIONS This descriptive study examined the infiuence of antecedent classroom factors on the behaviors of elementary-aged students with ASD served in general education classrooms. In general, participants demonstrated relatively low to moderate rates of disruption across all antecedent classroom factors investigated. Although idiosyncratic differences were found, particular antecedent classroom factors did appear to infiuence the rate of disruption across participants. Specifically, fewer disruptive behaviors occurred during group settings in comparison to independent seatwork for the majority of the participants; academic child activities produced higher rates of disruption in comparison to adultdirected activities; the availability of materials produced higher rates of disruption and no materials available produced lower rates; and there was an increased rate of disruption when an adult was in proximity; The sequential relationships between teacher directives and disruption were more variable, depending on the participant and the antecedent factor examined. In general, there was a relatively moderate to strong relationship between a teacher directive and target child disruption for study participants. However, the strength and direction of this relationship was changed by instructional setting context for several participants. The JEI, 2007, 30:1

30

relationship between teacher directives and child disruption was positive in both academic child and academic adult activities; the availability of materials did appear to infiuence the strength of the relationship between teacher directives and child disruption for the majority of participants, but did not influence the direction of the relationship. Finally, for 3 of 5 participants, adult proximity context did not appear to infiuence the strength or direction of the relationship between teacher directives and disruption. Given the descriptive nature of the study, several limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. First, this study did not employ an experimental design, instead descriptive analyses were used. Descriptive analyses have a number of methodological weaknesses, the most important being that functional or causal relationships cannot be established; therefore, the relationships between the classroom antecedent factors and behaviors reported are preliminary. Future research that uses such experimental methods as structural analyses (e.g., Sasso, Peck, & Garrison-Harrell, 1998) should be conducted to draw functional relationships between the presence of antecedent stimuli and the occurrence of disruptive behavior. Second, although our data collection system attempted to characterize a number of antecedent classroom factors and complex relationships between these factors and child behavior, there remain a considerable number of sources of variability that were not accounted for in the observation system. These sources of variability might have infiuenced our findings. For example, we did not control for the specific type of materials (e.g., paper/ pencil) available, the specific instructional activity (e.g., reading) present during observations, or the times of day we observed. Third, the coding of antecedent classroom factors was not mutually exclusive; therefore, the findings do not indicate the relative infiuence of these factors in isolation or in various combinations. Further, because of the structure of the dataset, it was not possible to report reliably the number of observations that

did not contain at least 7, 2-event sequences that were not included in the analyses. Fourth, using an IOA formula that incorporates both occurrence and nonoccurrence calculations on events that occur for a long duration might infiate the IOA results, even though our IOA was well within the acceptable range. A final limitation is the number of participants and the information provided about participant characteristics. This study included a small number of participants who were all within the high functioning range for children with ASD and overall rates of disruptive behaviors were low to moderate. Generality of the findings and application to other children with ASD should be made with caution. Additionally, information on the teacher participants was limited regarding their experiences with students with ASD and availability of classroom supports for students witb ASD. Nevertheless, findings of the present study are important for several reasons. They support findings from previous research that suggests different classroom factors infiuence the rate of children's disruptive behavior (Conroy et al., 2004; Haring & Kennedy, 1990). Additionally, these findings add to the literature and support findings from previous research in the field of behavioral disorders that suggest a relationship between teacher directives and subsequent problem behaviors (Shores et al., 1993; VanAcker et al., 1996). Given the paucity of research in this area and the increasing number of children with ASD served in general education settings, identification of naturally occurring antecedent classroom factors that increase or decrease the probability of problem behavior is an important topic of research. Although further investigation is warranted, this study has several practical implications for general education teachers serving children with ASD. Primarily, the practical implications include the identification of different antecedent classroom factors that might infiuence the occurrence and nonoccurrence of these children's problem behaviors. In general, our findings suggest that no universal antecedent classroom fac-

Conroy, Asmus, Boyd, Ladwig, & Sellers

31

tors exist that infiuence all children's disruptive behaviors in general education classrooms. Not surprisingly, the infiuence of antecedent classroom factors in this study was idiosyncratic. As teachers examine the potential infiuence of antecedent classroom factors on children's problem behaviors, they should conduct an individualized functional assessment or analysis of the relationship between a child's problem behavior and these factors. Once antecedent classroom factors are identified that infiuence an individual child's behavior through a functional assessment, these data could be used in an objective manner as the first step in examining the 3 (or 4) term contingency to hypothesize about functional relationships. Once classroom factors are verified, teachers might be better able to implement intervention strategies that either directly change the antecedent factors themselves or mediate the infiuence of these factors on the problem behavior (Horner, Vaughn, Day, & Ard, 1996). For example, if the presence of materials during group activities increased the probability that a child engaged in disruption and materials during independent seatwork decreased the probability of disruption, the teacher may choose to wait to provide the child materials for completing the task until independent seatwork time. Likewise, if academic adult activities increased the likelihood of problem behavior, the teacher may want to modify the activity by presenting the child with a preferred activity during this time; thus, moderating the infiuence of the academic adult activity on problem behavior. Additionally, teachers will want to consider the infiuence of these factors in relation to children's learning history and the reinforcing properties of consequences. For example, for an individual child, antecedent classroom factors might be associated with particular behavioral sequences and thus, based on the child's learning history, increase (or decrease) the likelihood of problem behaviors. When implementing interventions to address problem behaviors of students with ASD in general education classrooms, teachers should consider the behavioral history of

a child and include the systematic manipulation of antecedent factors to examine this relationship. Another consideration is the infiuence of antecedent classroom factors on the reinforcing properties of consequences. Depending on exposure to an antecedent event,' the antecedent might increase (or decrease) the reinforcing value of a consequence. For example, if an adult has been in proximity to a child for a long period of time, this might increase the likelihood that the child engages in disruption in order to escape close proximity with the adult. In summary, the current study examined the infiuence of antecedent classroom factors on the rate of disruptive behaviors demonstrated by children with ASD served in general education settings. The infiuence of these antecedent classroom factors on the sequential relationships between teacher directives and subsequent disruption also was examined. The results suggest that antecedent classroom factors do infiuence the rate of children's disruption and relationships between teacher directives and disruption. As more children with ASD are included in general education settings, teachers may want to consider these findings to assist them in identifying and designing antecedent interventions that might increase the appropriate behaviors of children with ASD in their classrooms. This information might be useful to teachers as they make curricular modifications to decrease children's problem behaviors. In addition, this information might be useful to guide future research efforts in this area. As suggested by Brown (2005), there continues to be a need to determine specific programmatic factors that interact with child characteristics, ultimately infiuencing the effectiveness of intervention outcomes. Future research conducting experimental analyses that examine the infiuence of specific antecedent classroom factors on children's behavioral interactions (i.e., stimulus, response, consequence relationships) would help to clarify the results of the existing study. As suggested by Wolery (2000), the context in which behavioral interactions occur is a source of variability

32

JEI, 2007, 30:1

in the behaviors of individuals with ASD; therefore, teachers and researchers should consider the environment in which behaviors occur as they work to successfully include these children in their classrooms.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14 Sites, United States, 2002]. Surveillance Summaries, [2007]. MMWR 2007;56(No. SS-1). Conroy, M. A., Asmus, J. A., Ladwig, C. N., Sellers, J. A., & Valcante, G. (2004). The effects of proximity on the behaviors of students with autism in general education classroom settings. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 119-129. Davis, C. A., & Fox, J. J. (1999). Environmental arrangement, setting events, and applied research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 9, 77-96. Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R. L. (1980). Motivating autistic children through stimulus variation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 619-627. Greenwood, C. R., Carta, J. J., Kamps, D., & Arreaga-Mayer, C. (1990). Ecobehavioral analysis of classroom instruction. In S. Schroeder (Ed.), Ecobehavioral analysis and developmental disabilities (pp. 33-63). Baltimore: Brookes, Haring, T. G., & Kennedy, C. H. (1990). Contextual control of problem behavior in students with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 235-243. Horner, R. H., Day, H. M., & Day, J. R. (1997). Using neutralizing routines to reduce problem behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 601-614. Horner, R. H., Vaughn, B. J., Day, H. M., & Ard, W. R. (1996). The relationship between setting events and problem behavior: Expanding our understanding of behavioral support. In L. K. Koegel, R. L. Koegel & G. Dunlap (Eds.), Positive behavior support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community. Baltimore: Brookes. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Amendments of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, U.S.C. 20, 1400 et seq. Kantor, J. R. (1970). An analysis of the experimental analysis of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 101-108. Kennedy, C. H. (1994). Manipulating antecedent conditions to alter the stimulus control of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 161-170. Koegel, R. L., Dyer, K., & Bell, L. K. (1987). The influence of child-preferred activities on autistic children's social behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 243-252.

REFERENCES
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bakeman, R., McArthur, D., & Quera, V. (1996). Detecting group differences in the sequential association using sampled permutations: Log odds, kappa, and phi compared. Behavior Research: Measurement, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 446457. Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1961). Child development: Vol.1. A systematic and empirical theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Brown, W. H. (2005). Sometimes the null hypothesis is useful information. Journal of Early Intervention, 27, 87-91. Brown, W. H., Odom, S. L., Holcombe, A., & Younguist, G. (1994). Code for active student participation and engagement revised (CASPER II). Unpublished manuscript, Vanderbilt University.Carr, E.G., & Carlson, J. (1993). Reducation of severe behavior problems in the community using a mudicomponent treatment approach. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 157-172. Carr, E. G., Carlson, J. I., Langdon, N. A., Magito-McLaughlin, D., & Yarbrough, S. C. (1998). Two perspectives on antecedent control: Molecular and molar. In J. K. Luiselli & M. J. Cameron (Eds.), Antecedent control: Innovative approaches to behavioral support (pp. 3-28). Baltimore: Brookes, Carr, E. G., Yarbrough, S. C , & Langdon, N. A. (1997). Effects of idiosyncratic stimulus variables on functional analysis outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 673-686. Carta, J. J., Atwater, J. B., Schwartz, I. S., & Miller, P. A. (1990). Applications of ecobehavioral "analysis to the study of transitions across early childhood settings. Education and Treatment of Children, 13, 298-315. Celiberti, D. A., Bobo, H. E., Kelly, K. S., Harris, S. L., & Handleman, J. S. (1997). The differential and temporal effects of antecedent exercise on the self-stimulatory behavior of a child with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 18, 139-150.

Conroy, Asmus, Boyd, Ladwig, & Sellers

33

Koegel, L. K., Stiebel, D., & Koegel, R. L. (1998). Interventions to facilitate communication in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 383-391. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test: Second Edition. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe them: Some further refinements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 407-416. Luiselli, J. K. & Cameron, M. J. (Eds.). (1998). Antecedent control: Innovative approaches to behavioral support. Baltimore: Brookes. Macintosh, K., & Dissanayake, C. (2006). Social skills and problem behaviors in school aged children with high-functioning autism and Asperger's disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 1065-1076. Mesibov, G., & Shea, V. (1996). Full inclusion and students with autism.' Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26, 337-346. McComas, J., Hoch, H., Paone, D., & El-Roy, D. (2000). Escape behavior during academic tasks: A preliminary analysis of idiosyncratic establishing conditions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 479-493. Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivating functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149-155. Miltenberger, R. G. (2004). Behavior modification: Principles and procedures (3'^'' ed.). Belmont: Wadworth/Thompson. Nordquist, V. M., Twardosz, S., & McEvoy, M. A. (1991). Effects of environmental reorganization in classrooms for children with autism. Journal of Early Intervention, 15, 135-152. Ochs, E., Kremer-Sadlik, T., Solomon, O., & Sirota, K. G. (2001). Inclusion as social practice: Views of children with autism. Social Development, 10, 399^19. Quera, V., & Bakeman, R. (2000). Quantification strategies in behavioral observation research. In T. Thompson, D. Felce & E. J. Symons (Eds.), Behavioral observation: Technology and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 297-316). Baltimore: Brookes, Rutter, M. (2005). Incidence of autism spectrum disorder: Changes over time and their meaning. Acta Paediatrica, 49, 2-16.

Sasso, G. M., Peck, J., & Garrison-Harrell, L. ' (1998). Social interaction setting events: Experimental analysis of contextual variables. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 34-43. Shores, R. E., Jack, S. L., Gunter, P. L., Ellis, D. N., DeBriere, T. J., & Wehby, J. H. (1993). Classroom interactions of children with behavior disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 27-39. Smith, R. G., & Iwata, B. (1997). Antecedent influences on behavior disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 343-375. Symons, E. J., Tapp, J., Wulfsberg, A., Sutton, K. A., Heeth, W. L., & Bodfish, J. W. (2001). Sequential analysis of the effects of naltrexone on the environmental medication of selfinjurious behavior. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 9, 269-276. Tapp, J. (2002). The MOOSES Lodge: Introduction [Computer software and manual]. Retrieved June 19, 2002, from the Vanderbilt University Web site: http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/ -jont/mooses.html Taylor, J. C , Ekdahl, M. M., Romanczyk, R. G., & Miller, M. L. (1994). Escape behavior in task situations: Task versus social antecedents. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 331-344. Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Eourth Edition. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing. Van Acker, R., Grant, S. H., & Henry, D. (1996). Teacher and student behavior as a function of risk for aggression. Education & Treatment of Children, 19, 316-334. Wahler, R. G., & Fox, J. J. (1981). Setting events in applied behavior analysis: Toward a conceptual and methodological expansion. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 327-338. Wechsler, D. (1991). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Winterling, V., Dunlap, G., & O'Neill, R. E. (1987). The influence of task variation on the aberrant behaviors of autistic students. Education and Treatment of Children, 10, 105-119. Wolery, M. (2000). Commentary: The environment as a source of variability: Implications for research with individuals who have autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 379-381. Yoder, P. J., & Feurer, I. D. (2000). Quantifying the magnitude of sequential association between events or behaviors. In T. Thompson, D. Eelce & F. Symons (Eds.), Behavioral

34

JEI, 2007, 30:1

observation: Technology and applications in developmental disabilities (pp. 317-333). Baltimore: Brookes,

Development of this paper was supported with funding from ihe U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (No. H32D990024). The opinions expressed by the authors are not necessarily reflective of the position of or endorsed by the U.S. Department of Education. We want to thank the children and teachers who participated in this

project. In addition, we want to thank Dr. Joseph Wehby and Dr. Frank Symons for their guidance in data analysis. Finally, we want to thank Dr. Pat Snyder, Editor of JEI, and four anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Correspondence regarding this manuscript should be addressed to Maureen A Conroy, Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Special Education and Policy Development, 1015 West Main Street, Box 842020, Richmond, VA 23284. E-mail: maconroy@vcu.edu

Conroy, Asmus, Boyd, Ladwig, & Sellers

35