User login
Upcoming Community Events
- Introductiecursus ACT in Blooming te Bergen (Noord Holland)(Event)(7 days)
- Introductory Acceptance & Commitment Therapy Workshop - Louisville(Event)(7 days)
- EABCT Helsinki, Finland - Steve Hayes(Event)(12 days)
- ACT Practical Skills Development Sessions with Mary Sawyer - Sydney(Event)(12 days)
- ACT Core Skills and Competencies Workshop: Utilizing Acceptance and Mindfulness in Your Practice - Portland, OR(Event)(15 days)
- Ciclo Formativo sull'ACT: Workshop introduttivo Teorico ed Esperienziale all'Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (due giornate)(Event)(20 days)
- Caring for PTSD in Primary Care(Event)(21 days)
- Openings for ACT Supervisor Consultation Group - Robyn Walser, Ph.D., September 19, 2:00 EASTERN(Event)(21 days)
- Two-day Introductory Experiential ACT Workshop with Russ Harris in Boulder, Colorado September 28, 29 2008(Event)(30 days)
- ACT Workshop, Las Vegas - Steve Hayes(Event)(34 days)
- Introductiecursus ACT in Blooming te Bergen (NH)(Event)(35 days)
- ACT 3-day workshop w/Kelly Wilson; Bath, UK(Event)(35 days)
- ACT in Italy: Kelly Wilson due giornate di Workshop a Milano(Event)(39 days)
- Kelly Wilson 3 days in France (Aix-Les-Bains)(Event)(41 days)
- ACT Core Skills and Competencies Workshop: Values-Directed Behavior Change - Portland, OR(Event)(43 days)
- Using Mindfulness & Acceptance to Create a Powerful Therapeutic Relationship - Tempe, AZ, Steve Hayes(Event)(56 days)
- Portland, Maine: Introduction to ACT by Joel Guarna & Elizabeth Kubik(Event)(56 days)
- L'émergence de la 3e vague en thérapie cognitive et comportementale:Implications théoriques et pratiques- F. Dionne PhD-Montreal(Event)(64 days)
- Acceptance & Mindfulness in Clinical Practice, Steve Hayes - Vancouver(Event)(66 days)
- ACT Core Skills and Competencies Workshop: Case Conceptualization in ACT with Application to Difficult Clients - Portland, OR(Event)(71 days)
- ABCT - Orlando(Event)(76 days)
- ACT introductiecursus Amersfoort/Utrecht - Netherlands(Event)(84 days)
- Acceptance & Mindfulness in Clinical Practice, Steve Hayes - Oregon(Event)(98 days)
- Brief Therapy Conference - San Diego(Event)(104 days)
- Vervolgcursus Acceptance and Commitment Therapy in Blooming, Bergen (NH)(Event)(154 days)
- Introductiecursus Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - Bergen, Holland(Event)(182 days)
- Introductiecursus Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - Bergen, Holland(Event)(210 days)
- ACT introductiecursus Utrecht - Netherlands(Event)(273 days)
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 36 guests online.
AARR
What are the reasons you are asking this question? I have some thoughts. But they could be verbal throw-up unless directed. What do you mean by lowest level? Is this question related to recent applied concerns you have had? What are they?
ABA and RFT
Hi Fellows
Ian Stewart and I have given a number of workshops on this topic at ABA. we will be doing this in SD. We have proposed a scope and sequence of training from Non-ARR to AARR. We would be glad to send parts or discuss program sequences. We have also developed a computer program to assess basic skills that seem to be needed to perform AARP John
Im just trying to understand
Im just trying to understand the difference in relation to programs and teaching young autistic children.
Lowest Example
OK. So may I presume that you are looking for that boundary in DDR that separates what we do versus other animals to find the "simplest" place to start training? I think doing some serious task analyses that are guided by the predicitions and statemenst of RFT will give you a better idea of how to program for your kiddos than looking for that boundary condition. That being said, and as Steve's previous replies imply, this analysis will necessarily be a logical one at first. Logically, I think a good start point is coordination/same.
I think coordination is the logical starting point for many reasons.
1) Language: It seems that frames of coordinaiton are involved in most aspects of early langauge training, as they necessarily stem from the receptive/expressive responses that are embedded I our ineractions will little tykes. I see this with my five-month old boy. He stares at my schnozzola and I say "nose" or "Daddy's nose". Then I say "grab Daddy's nose" while prompting him to grab it. Looking into the crystal ball I see this becoming an expressive task and occurring with a wide range of things in his world. All initially establishing or invoking "SAMENESS." When I (my son) look at dad's nose dad says "nose;" when I grab dad's nose dad says "nose;" when dad says "grab nose" and I grab that thing sticking out of his face he makes fart noises which makes me laugh, when dad points to his nose and says "what's this" and I say "nose" he makes another silly noise.... These ineractions, while unsystematic, occur in everyday interactions with infants and young children. The type of interacting that invokes other frames, also starts at an early age ("do you want MORE food'), but my hunch is that early natural language training is heaily loaded with coordination type interactions.
2) Words: Words are necessarily arbitrary stimuli. The only way they come to have any "meaning" is through the social environment. What is the word "nose" to a child until the social environment establishes contingencies that select ways of behaving with respect to that word. Initially, these responses are probably under straight forward discriminative control. However, they eventually come to participate in relational frames.
3) It is already built into most ABA curriculum: While I have been out of the autism world for several years now, I see that most of the curriculum that is out there for these kids tackles some of the necessary prerequisites. Most programs work on Matching (2d-2d, 3d-3d, 2d-3d....). The Matching paradigm (interspersed with expressive and receptive labeling) allows for a very nice co-mingling of non-arbitrary and arbitrary relational responding. Most MTS with these kids involve straightforward identity matching (put the red card on top of the red card). My recollection of the typical programming is that there was no connect between what was happening in the MTS training and the receptive expressive labeling training. Of course, this was sometimes strategic given all of the idiosyncratic problems in establishing simple discriminative control with this crew. But, in retrospect, I feel that a lot of this disconnect was also random.
4) training trainers: I have hunch that coordination is also the easiest to teach how to teach.
I hope this helps. Keep up the good work.
Nick B.
Youngest
You have two issues in here. AARR could be done by non-humans ... that is an empirical issue.
What RFT argues is that there are relational operants ... the "simplest" would be a frame of coordination with mutal and combinatorial entailemnt and a transformation of stimulus function provided the old defining features (not due to direct training; not due to formal properties; etc) apply. An equivalence class plus a transfer of functions would do it, but nature of the network matters and exactly how you test for it matters because it is devilishly easy to .
Schusterman's 10+ year old unreplicated finding with one of several pinipeds is the closest but not his more recent work ... in those he changes the definition of the phenomenon. And there a methodological problems with the older study as well.
Steven C. Hayes, University of Nevada