Behavior-setting interactions of autistic children: A behavioral mapping approach to assessing classroom behaviors

Analysisand Intervention in DevelopmentalDisabilities,Vol. 3, pp. 359-373, 1983 Printed in the USA. All fightsreserved.

0270-4684/83 $3.00 + .00 Copyright© 1983PergamonPressLtd.

Behavior-Setting Interactions of Autistic Children" A Behavioral Mapping Approach to Assessing Classroom Behaviors Marjorie H. Charlop Laura Schreibman Jeanne Mason Wade Vesey The George Washington University

This investigation was designed to: 1) systematically observe the behaviors of autistic children as they vi~ry in different settings in the classroom, 2) develop a methodology for such observation, and 3) assess which environments were associated with the occurrence of certain behaviors. A behavioral mapping observation procedure was employed in three classrooms. Eight behaviors were observed in five typical classroom settings. The results indicated that within a classroom environment, particular settings were associated with or "wedded to" high rates of particular behaviors and low rates of others. The utility of behavioral mapping procedures as well as implications for classroom design are discussed.

Ecological psychologists have stressed the important role the environment plays in the behavior of individuals (e.g. Barker, 1963; Ittelson, Rivlin, & Proshansky, 1976; Kelley, 1969; Vineberg & Willems, 1971; Willems, 1976). They suggest that behavior is wedded to particular settings, and in order to study behavior, one must study it as an interaction between person and environment (Barker, 1963; Ittelson et al., 1976). This research was supported by USPHS Research Grants MH 28231 and MH 28210 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The authors would like to thank Mark Runco for his help in the statistical analysis. Reprints may be obtained by writing Marjorie H. Charlop, Psychology Department, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C., 20052.

359

360

M. Charlop, L. Schreibman, J. Mason, and W. Vesey

The significant effect the environment has on the behavior of autistic children has been implicitly suggested in research, specifically in the literature on stimulus control. One problem of inappropriate stimulus control, i.e., inadequate generalization, arises when behaviors acquired in specific environments such as clinics or classrooms fail to transfer to other environments (e.g., Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968; Birnbrauer, 1968; Kazdin & Bootzin, 1972; Koegel & Rincover, 1977; Lovaas, Koegel, Simmons, & Long, 1973; Rincover & Koegel, 1975; Stokes & Baer, 1977; Wahler, 1969; Walker & Buckley, 1972). For example, appropriate play or conversational speech may occur frequently during therapy sessions, but fail to occur in extra-therapy settings (e.g., home, park) (Egel, Koegel, & Schreibman, in press; Schreibman, Koegel, Charlop, & Egel, 1982; Schreibman, Charlop, & Britten, 1983). Conversely, inappropriate behaviors (e.g., echolalia) that are reduced to a low frequency in the therapy setting, may occur at high rates in other environments (Charlop, Note 1; Resnick, Note 2). It has been suggested that these problems may be due to restricted stimulus control within specific settings (Rincover & Koegel, I975; Schreibman et al., 1982). That is, certain stimuli that control the behavior may be present in one environment (e.g., therapy setting) and not in other environments (extra-therapy settings). When this occurs, the behavior typically does not generalize. This problem of inadequate generalization demonstrates the impact of the environment on autistic children's behavior, as seen in the changes in behavior with corresponding changes in the environment. Studying the behavior of autistic children as wedded to different settings has important implications for classroom design. For example, if appropriate verbal behavior occurs most frequently in a particular setting in the classroom (e.g., a side-by-side seating arrangement), then the teacher could maximize the occurrence of appropriate verbal behavior by: (a) utilizing that setting as an area to teach appropriate verbal behavior, or (b) increasing that type of setting in the classroom to promote a generally higher rate of appropriate verbal responding. Conversely, settings associated with high rates of inappropriate behavior (e.g., self-stimulation) could be removed or changed. Thus, by controlling the environment, one could enhance appropriate behavior and decrease inappropriate behavior. Teachers, parents, and therapists are often asked to report which environments they feel are associated with appropriate and inappropriate behaviors for a particular child or group of children. However, a behavior need only occur once in a particular setting for that setting to be associated with the behavior (Whalen, Henker, Collins, Finck, & Dotemoto, 1979). For example, an autistic child may tantrum and violently throw toys only once in the freeplay area for the teacher to rate the child high on disruption and perhaps forbid the child to play in that area. A trained observer, however, observing a 15-minute session during 1 or 2 school days, would most likely miss such an isolated occurrence. Thus, a

Behavior-Setting Interactions of Autistic Children

361

methodology is needed for systematic and repeated observations of autistic children's behavior in a variety of settings. The ecological perspective provides a methodology for such endeavors. Behavioral mapping, a naturalistic observation technique, was designed to enable researchers to observe behaviors as they occur (or fail to occur) in various settings (Ittelson et al., 1976). The term "behavioral map" originated from the use of an architectural floor plan as a prototype for designing behavioral maps. Such a floor plan would include a scaled down diagram of the physical surroundings under observation (e.g., classroom), as well as labels indicating the expected location of a behavior. However, Ittelson and his colleagues (1976) proposed another method for developing a behavioral mao which involved the construction of a data sheet comprised of rows and columns. The rows would designate a physical space under observation and the columns would represent a precategorized set of particular behaviors. To indicate the occurrence of a behavior in a setting, a mark would be placed at the intersection of the corresponding row and column. The usefulness of behavioral mapping and other observation procedures which require a precategorized set of behaviors has been empirically demonstrated. Such observation techniques have been applied for the assessment of behaviors in a pediatric intensive care unit (Cataldo, Bessman, Parker, Pearson, & Rogers, 1979), geriatric care units (McClanahan & Risley, 1975), institutions for the mentally ill (Allevizos, DeRisi, Liberman, Eckman, & Callahan, 1978; Ittelson et al., 1976), and rehabilitation institutions (Willems, 1976). Of particular interest is a study utilizing behavioral mapping to systematically study classroom behaviors of atypical children. Whalen et al. (1979) examined the effects of medication on hyperactive boys in various classroom environments. Hyperactivie boys, given Ritalin or a placebo, and a control group were observed in classroom-type settings. Quiet versus noisy conditions, and conditions where the children paced their own activities (self-paced) versus conditions where the experimenters paced the children on tasks (other-paced) were established. The results indicated that behavior changed as a function of setting. Self-paced, as opposed to other-paced activities, resulted in increases in verbalizations, social initiation and episodes of high energy acts. Noisy conditions reduced task attention and increased verbalizations, physical contacts, high-energy acts, and gross motor movements, whereas quiet conditions did not produce these effects. Whalen et al. (1979) note that a medication-by-situation interaction existed in the different classroom conditions. Hyperactive boys taking the placebo were easily distinguished from their peers under some classroom conditions, while indistinguishable from their peers under other conditions. The study by Whalen et al. (1979) provides important suggestions for the types of environments within which hyperactive boys can function more successfully. Because it is feasible that autistic children, like hyperactive children, function

362

M. Charlop, L. Schreibman, J. Mason, and W. Vesey

more successfully in certain settings, the present study was designed to: (a) devise a behavioral mapping methodology to study behaviors of autistic children in the classroom, and (b) systematically observe the behaviors of autistic children as they vary in different settings and determine which environments are associated with the occurrence of certain behaviors.

METHOD Subjects

Nineteen autistic children (14 boys and 5 girls) participated in this study. The ages of the children ranged from 6 years to 14 years with a mean age of 9.5 years. Mental age, as derived from standardized tests (Leiter and Merrill-Palmer Scales), ranged from untestable to 5.9 years with a mean age of 4.4 years. All children were diagnosed as autistic by two independent agencies. The children displayed self-stimulatory behaviors such as repetitive hand flapping, foot movements, and vocalizations. Seven of the children were mute, but did have limited receptive language skills and would respond to simple commands such as "touch your nose" or "give me the green block." The remaining 12 children had a limited vocabulary and, on occasion, would speak spontaneously.

Settings Three special education classrooms in public schools were observed in this investigation. Six children attended two of the classes, and seven attended the third. The teachers all had experience teaching exceptional children (range of 6 to 17 years experience, mean = 11.7 years). Each teacher had two classroom aides who had between 2 and 11 years of experience (mean = 7.2 years). The classrooms maintained five discrete settings throughout the day: Group Work, Individual Work with Teacher, Independent Work at Child's Desk, Free Play, and Time-Out. Generally, these settings covered the range of activities in the three classrooms and often occurred simultaneously. Thus, a typical classroom scenario could include one child working individually with the teacher, two children working independently at their desks, one or two children in the freeplay area, one child temporarily in Time-Out, and one child working individually with the teacher's aide. Group work sessions typically occurred twice every morning and afternoon. The specific criteria established to define each setting are presented in Table 1. The settings in each classroom were previously established and used by the teachers.

Behavior-Setting Interactions of Autistic Children

363

TABLE 1 The Descriptions of the Five Settings Observed in Each Classroom Setting

Description

Group

Generally, all the children in the class are seated around a large table in the center of the room with the teacher and her aides. At least two children are simultaneously working on separate tasks with the other children remaining at the table. Sometimes the teacher or aide hetp the children with their tasks while at other times they are merely looking on. No specific protocol is followed and the presentation of praise and feedback may or may not occur.

Individual Work with Teacher

A one-on-one, highly structured situation when the teacher or aide is working with only one child in a specified comer of the classroom. The teacher and the child are generally seated faceto-face working on a task with a small table between them. Reinforcement contingencies are set by the teacher.

Independent

The child is seated at his/her desk and is engaging in an assigned task without assistance from a teacher or aide. The teacher is not attending to the child except at times when the child leaves the desk and goes into another area of the classroom. At that time, the teacher generally would request the child to go back to his/ her desk.

Free Play

Recess from classroom activities with free access to toys and equipment. This occurs in a specified area of the classroom where a toy chest is provided or shelves where toys are kept. Mats or rugs are also available for the children to play on.

Time Out

Removal from a setting after an occurrence of misbehavior. In one classroom, this setting consisted of a chair behind a partition screen, in another classroom, Time-Out was a chair facing the comer, and in the third classroom, Time-Out consisted of a chair in the back of the classroom.

Behaviors A c o d i n g s y s t e m w a s d e v e l o p e d to c a t e g o r i z e d i s c r e t e b e h a v i o r s . T o m a i n t a i n a r e l a t i v e l y l o w i n f e r e n c e l e v e l d u r i n g t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s , specific d e f i n i t i o n s w e r e a s s i g n e d to t h e e i g h t b e h a v i o r categories: o u t - o f - s e a t , s e l f - s t i m u l a t i o n , t a n t r u m , e c h o l a l i a , social, w o r k , a p p r o p r i a t e v e r b a l , a n d play. T h e s e p r e d e t e r m i n e d beh a v i o r s w e r e c h o s e n as t h e y e n c a p s u l a t e d the m a j o r i t y o f t h e b e h a v i o r s e x h i b i t e d b y the c h i l d r e n . T h e b e h a v i o r c a t e g o r i e s a n d c o r r e s p o n d i n g d e f i n t i i o n s are pres e n t e d in T a b l e 2. T h e d e f i n i t i o n s w e r e b a s e d o n t h e w o r k o f S c h r i e b m a n a n d K o e g e l ( N o t e 3), W h a l e n et al. (1979), a n d the a u t h o r s ' o w n j u d g m e n t s . A l t h o u g h c e r t a i n b e h a v i o r s w e r e n o t likely to o c c u r in c e r t a i n settings, all b e h a v i o r s w e r e o b s e r v e d a n d r e c o r d e d in e a c h setting. T h u s , a l t h o u g h it w a s n o t likely t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e v e r b a l , w o r k , p l a y , o r social b e h a v i o r w o u l d o c c u r in T i m e - O u t , t h e s e b e h a v i o r s c o u l d p o s s i b l y o c c u r f r o m t i m e to t i m e w h e n toys w o u l d b e left in t h e T i m e - O u t S e t t i n g ( i . e . , p l a y c o u l d o c c u r ) , w h e n the c h i l d w o u l d yell " h e l p

M. Charlop, L. Schreibman, J. Mason, and W. Vesey

364

TABLE 2 The Definitions of the Eight Behaviors Observed in the Classroom Settings Behavior

Definition

Out-of-seat

Child is not supporting his/her weight with a chair.

Self-stimulation

Generally, a stereotyped, repetitive behavior occurring for at least three seconds and appearing to serve no other purpose than to provide sensory input. For the purpose of this study, only gross motor behaviors and repetitive verbal behaviors were recorded. Examples include hand flapping, head rolling, body rocking, and flapping toys. Instances where a behavior appeared to be self-stimulatory in that it occurred many times throughout an observation session, appeared to serve no other purpose than to provide sensory input, but did not occur for a three second duration were also recorded.

Echolalia

Using words in an unmeaningful or inappropriate manner. The speech is inappropriate to the context. The speech can be a delayed echo or an immediate echo. Delayed Echo: The child says things that resemble commands or statements he/she once heard but which have nothing to do with the present activity (i.e. "Bowling for Dollars," "Sit down and be a good boy"). Immediate Echo: The child repeats verbatim what was just said. For example, an adult says "How are you, John? and the child responds with "How are you, John"?

Tantrum

Excessive agitation or emotionality (i.e. screaming, kicking, throwing toys, crying).

Appropriate Verbal

Intelligible, non-repetitive communicative speech which is appropriate to the situation. This may consist of complete sentences, brief phrases or utterances of only one word.

Work

Work on an assigned task regardless of success.

Play

Using a toy or object for the purpose it was intended. The child must interact with the toy or object and cannot simply hold it in his/her hand, or merely look at or touch the object.

Social

Initiation of a verbal interaction (scored only in the fhst interval of a conversation) or physical interaction with another person (scored in as many intervals as it occurs) where the object of the interaction is gaining attention from the person.

m e " ( a p p r o p r i a t e v e r b a l ) , w h e n t h e c h i l d w o u l d h u g the t e a c h e r w h i l e b e i n g p l a c e d in T i m e - O u t (social), or w h e n the c h i l d w o u l d b e p l a c e d in T i m e - O u t w i t h a t a s k a n d c o n t i n u e to w o r k ( w o r k ) . A d d i t i o n a l l y , if t a s k s t i m u l i w e r e left in t h e F r e e P l a y setting ( e . g . , a c o u n t i n g a p p a r a t u s o r c o l o r m a t c h i n g g a m e ) , work could be recorded.

Procedure Observer Training. P r i o r to the actual d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , t r a i n i n g w a s p e r f o r m e d to t e a c h t h e o b s e r v e r s to r e c o r d o c c u r r e n c e s o f t h e p r e d e t e r m i n e d e i g h t b e h a v i o r s

Behavior-Setting Interactions of Autistic Children

365

and to establish reliability between the observers. The observers were two college students who, up to the time of this study, had very little contact with autistic children and presumably did not hold any preconceived expectations regarding the effects of various settings on behavior. During the training, the observers were provided with the behavior definitions (see Table 2) and several examples of each. Videotaped sessions, 10 minutes in length, of autistic children playing, working, and/or interacting with an adult were viewed. Initially, the first author and the two observers watched several videotapes while the first author identified each of the eight behaviors as they occurred. Then, the first author and the two observers separately scored the tapes for the occurrence of the eight behaviors by using a 10-second, partial interval scoring procedure. The observers' data sheets were compared and discussion to clarify any problems in observing and recording behaviors followed every practice session. Interobserver reliability was calculated by dividing the total number of agreements of the observers (for both occurrence and nonoccurrence of the behaviors recorded in each interval) by the total number of agreements plus the total number of disagreements and then multiplying by 100. When the observers' scores of the tapes reached 80% agreement, the two observers then practiced recording the behaviors in the natural classroom environment for a period of two weeks. At that time, interobserver reliability for the two observers was 87%. The observers then started the behavioral mapping procedure in the classroom. Behavioral Mapping Observations. Each of the five classroom settings was observed for approximately 24 minutes on five occasions. Observations were made in the manner suggested by Ittelson et al. (1976) during the morning and afternoon to eliminate the possibility of time-related variables affecting the data. The order in which settings were observed on a given school visit was randomly chosen. In each setting, one child was randomly selected and observed for four minutes of the 24-minute setting observation session, and the occurrence of the eight behaviors was recorded. After 4 minutes, a new child was observed (the child seated to the right of the initial child) for 4 minutes. If six children were not in a particular setting, thus precluding observations of all children within the 24minute period, the children initially observed in that setting were repeated until the 24-minute observation period was completed. A different child was selected to be observed first for each of the five observations in that particular setting. For example, during a 24-minute observation of the Group Work setting, child A was observed for 4 minutes and scored for each of the eight behaviors, child B was next, and so on. When the next observation session of the Group Work setting occurred (perhaps the next day), child C would be fu'st observed for 4 minutes, then child D. This manner of observing children within each setting was in effect for all settings except Individual Work with Teacher, where usually only two children were observed for 12 minutes during each 24-minute observation session. On the occasion in which a setting was not occupied for the

366

M. Charlop, L. Schreibman, J. Mason, and W. Vesey TABLE 3 Interobserver Reliability for Each Behavior Behavior

Average Percent Agreement

Out-of-Seat Self-Stimulation Echolalia Tantrum Appropriate Verbal Work Play Social

88% 81% 77% 77% 88% 88% 90% 90% 85% overall average

entire 24 minutes (e.g. Time-Out), observations were made as often as possible so the total amount of time the setting was observed was equivalent to the total amount of time that each of the settings was observed. Note that all of the children were observed in each of the settings approximately the same amount of time with the exception of Time-Out, where some children occupied this setting more often than other children. The reader must take this into consideration when interpreting the results of the Time-Out setting. A partial interval scoring procedure was utilized. The 4-minute segment in the 24-minute observation session consisted of eight 15-second observations intervals alternated with eight 15-second recording intervals. Only the initial occurrence of a behavior was recorded with one slash mark in each interval. One observer was assigned the task of keeping track of the time using a stopwatch to pace the observers and signal the beginning and end of each 15-second interval.

Reliability. Interobserver reliability was assessed for the two observers in the manner previously described for all settings during 60% of all sessions and average 85%. Interobserver reliability for each behavior can be seen in Table 3.

Social validation--teacher'sperceptions. The teachers and their classroom aides were asked to rate, using a Likert Scale format, the occurrence of each behavior in the five settings. For each behavior, they were asked to order the settings in which they thought the particular behavior generally occurred most (1), second most (2), third most (3), fourth most (4), and least (5). These scores were later compared with the observers' scores. RESULTS Percentages of occurrence of behaviors were calculated by dividing the number of intervals in which the behavior occurred by the total number of intervals

Behavior-Setting Interactions of Autistic Children

367

100

90

80

70

60

50 45 40

28

5 7 0

FIGURE 1: The overall mean percent of occurrence for each of the eight behaviors.

observed during each observation. Mean percents were calculated by averaging percents across the five observations. The mean percent of occurrence for each of the eight behaviors is shown in Figure 1. As expected, behaviors such as outof-seat behavior and self-stimulatory behavior occurred relatively often with a mean percent occurrence of 28% and 45%, respectively. However, the inappropriate behaviors of echolalia and tantrum occurred at lower rates. Echolalia occurred 9% of the time while tantrums seldom occurred ($ = .7%). Behaviors considered appropriate, such as work (:~ -- 40%), appropriate verbal behavior (.~ -- 20%), and play (:~ = 15%) occurred quite often. However, social behavior seldom occurred ($ = 5%). Thus, although there were high rates of inappropriate behaviors, there were also high rates of appropriate classroom behaviors (i.e., work). There were no significant differences between the three classes or between the morning and afternoon observation sessions.

Behavior Differences Within Settings Independent Work. Figure 2 shows the mean percent of occurrence of each behavior in the five settings. As can be seen in Figure 2 (top, left graph), the Independent Work setting was characterized by a high mean percent, as compared

368

M. Charlop, L. Schreibman, J. Mason, and W. Vesey

to the other behaviors, of work (.~ = 66%), although self-stimulatory behavior was also high (~ = 42%). Excluding self-stimulatory behavior, there were low levels of inappropriate behavior (out-of-seat, ~ = 15%; echolalia, ~ = 6%; and tantrum, ~ = .2%). MEAN PERCENT O C C U R R E N C E Play Work Verbal Social Tantrum Echolalia Self~Stimulation Play

O u t - of - Seat

Work

g

Verbal Social Tantrum Echolalia

Play Work

Self- Stimulation

Verbal

O u t - of - Seat i

Social

]

i

F

I

I

O

Tantrum

_oI

Echolalia Self- Stimulation Play Out - of - Seat

,

,

,

,

I

'

'

'

o

'

Work Verbal

:I

Social Tantrum

Play Work

Echolalia

~ I

Verbal

;~

Social

Self- Stimulation Out-of-

Seat

lllJlffll O

Tantrum

z_

Self- Stimulation Out - of - Seat

F I G U R E 2: For each setting, the mean percent of occurrence of each of the eight categories of behaviors.

Behavior-Setting Interactions of Autistic Children

369

Work with Teacher. This setting was associated with the highest amount of work (~ = 77%) and appropriate verbal behavior (~ = 42%) of all the settings. Although low mean percents of other behaviors were observed, a high mean percent of self-stimulatory behavior (i = 42%) was recorded. Free Play. As expected, the most play (~ = 55%) occurred in this setting. Additionally, a high mean percent of self-stimulatory behavior, as in the other settings, occurred (£ = 42%). Although the occurrence of out-of-seat behavior was expectedly high (.~ = 59%), there were generally low mean percents of the other behaviors. Thus, during Free Play, the children did play (~ = 55%), but also self-stimulated (~ = 42%). Time-Out. During Time-Out, there were generally lowmean percents of appropriate behaviors. Surprisingly, there was an absence of tantrum behavior (~ = .9%). In addition, this setting was associated with the highest amount of self-stimulatory behavior (£ = 56%) and echolalia (£ = 28%). Group Work. Although typically viewed as a more structured setting than Independent Work settings, Group Work was associated with a lower mean percent of work (:f = 42%) and a lower mean percent of appropriate verbal behavior (:f = 17%) than the Independent Work setting (work, ~ = 66%; appropriate verbal behavior, £ = 20%), while maintaining the same amount of self-stimulatory behavior as in the Independent Work setting (:~ -- 42%). Social Validation--Teacher's Perceptions As indicated, the teachers and their classroom aides were asked to rate, using a Likert Scale format, the occurrence of each behavior across the five settings. The teacher's perceptions were correlated with the ratings derived from the observations of the classrooms. In general, the teachers' perceptions agreed with the observers' recordings (r -- .30, p < .05). The teachers' and their aides' perceptions correlated with the observed recordings in the Work with Teacher setting (r = .37, p < .009), Free Play setting (r = .39, p < .006), and TimeOut setting (r -- .39, p < .006). The teachers, however, did not significantly agree with the actual observations for the Independent Work setting and Group Work setting. DISCUSSION This investigation was designed to systematically observe the behaviors of autistic children as they vary in different settings in the classroom, design a methodology for such observation, and determine which environments are associated with the occurrence of certain behaviors in three classrooms. A behavioral mapping observational procedure was employed. Eight behaviors of nineteen

370

M. Charlop, L. Schreibman, J. Mason, and W. Vesey

autistic children were observed in five classroom settings. The results indicated that within a classroom environment, particular settings were associated with high rates of particular behaviors and low rates of others. These results suggest implications for classroom design. Generally, within the classroom environment, the children displayed high mean percents of self-stimulatory behavior (45%), and lower mean percents of social behavior (5%), appropriate verbal behavior (20%), and play (15%). This has been reported as typical of autistic children (e.g. Kanner, 1943; Rimland, 1964; Rutter, 1978; Schreibman et al., 1982; L. Wing, 1976). Of particular interest were the high mean percents of self-stimulatory behavior (56%) and echolalia (28%) in the Time-Out setting. These behaviors occurred most often in this setting. Thus, the Time-Out setting seemed to provide the child with the opportunity to engage in behaviors which may have self-reinforcing properties. Teachers could perhaps utilize a modified behavioral mapping procedure to determine if the Time-Out Setting in their classroom was indeed serving as an opportunity for the children to engage in high rates of these behaviors and thus less effective as a consequence. Teachers could take frequency counts of self-stimulation, echolalia and tantrums when the child was put into Time-Out, in addition to determining whether there was an associated decrease in the "punished" behavior. With this information, teachers could choose other settings that might be more appropriate for Time-Out. The observations of the Free Play setting are also of interest. Although there was a high mean percent of self-stimulatory behavior (:f = 42%), there was a higher mean percent of play (.~ = 55%). This is unusual in that the failure to engage in play has often been suggested as a major characteristic of autistic children (e.g., Kanner, 1943; Schreibman & Koegel, 1981; Rimland, 1964; Schreibman et al., 1983; J. K. Wing, 1966; L. Wing, 1976). This was not the case, however, in the present study. This may have been due to prior training of play behavior since the teachers had reported that the children were shown on a number of occasions to play with certain toys. Indeed, research has indicated that when toys are provided and children are taught to play, self-stimulatory behavior decreases and appropriate play increases (Berkson and Mason, 1963a, b; Koegel, Firestone, Kramme, & Dunlap, 1974). Finally, a comparison of the Independent Work, Work with Teacher, and Group Work settings holds implications for classroom design. As indicated by this study, the most superior work environment was the Work with Teacher setting. In this setting, the highest rates of work (37 = 77%) and appropriate verbal behavior (.f = 42%) were observed. This finding was not unexpected. Independent Work, however, provided some surprising findings. First, there was only slightly more out-of-seat behavior in the Independent Work setting (~ = 15%) than in the Work with Teacher (:f = 8%) and Group Work (:f = 11%) settings. This suggests that the children would sit at their desks when unsupervised. When comparing the Independent Work setting with the Group Work setting (Figure

Behavior-Setting Interactions of Autistic Children

371

2), it can be seen that more work occurred in the Independent Work setting (~ = 66%) than in the Group Work setting ($ = 42%). Slightly more appropriate verbal behavior ($ = 20% as opposed to ~ = 17%) and social.behavior (~ = 6% as opposed to :f = 4%) occurred in the Independent Work Setting than in Group Work. Additionally, self-stimulatory behavior did not occur more often in the Independent Work setting (:~ = 42% in both settings). Thus, an Independent Work setting may be as good, if not better, than a Group Work setting. However, it was anecdotally observed that the Group Work setting was employed as a teaching mode more often than either the Work with Teacher or Independent Work settings. The teachers had reported that they did not want their students to spend too much time unsupervised at their desks while they worked individually with a particular child. The teachers reported that they were afraid that the children would not work nor stay seated. This concern was also reflected in the social validation aspect of this investigation. Teachers' perceptions agreed with the experimenters' observations for all settings except the Group Work and Independent Work settings. Close inspection of the social validation data revealed that the teachers believed that more work and appropriate verbal behavior occurred in the Group Work Setting than in the Independent Work Setting. The observations, however, suggest that this was not so. Perhaps Independent Work settings should be employed more often than Group Work settings as they may yield greater amounts of work behavior and do not take up as much of the teacher's time. Teachers could spend more time individually working with children while the remainder of the class would be working independently at their desks. Learning may then be maximized by a concentration of the two most productive learning environments: Work with Teacher and Independent Work. In summary, this study demonstrated that utility of behavioral mapping as an observation technique of autistic children in the classroom. It is also conceivable that such methodology could be employed in other environments as well. For example, behavioral mapping may be useful in the home. Since autistic children often have a severe impact on family functioning and individual family members, it seems likely that altering settings within the home to increase setting-associated appropriate behaviors and decrease setting-associated inappropriate behaviors may have a beneficial effect upon the family. Further research addressing the utility of the behavioral mapping methodology for other environments (e.g., home, playground, day care center) seems warranted. This study also empirically demonstrated how autistic childrens' behavior may be wedded to particular settings in the classroom. This was seen in the changes in behavior as a function of setting. The authors encourage the use of the ecological perspective in studying behaviors in the classroom and other environments rather than viewing behavior as a product of the children themselves. Finally, this study provided suggestions for classroom design. For example, how one might identify problems such as high levels of self-stimulation in the

372

M. Charlop, L. Schreibman, J. Mason, and W. Vesey

Time-Out setting and re-engineer it to reduce those behaviors. Additionally, the Independent Work setting proved to be a viable learning setting although teachers are often leary of utilizing such a setting. One must be cautious in generalizing from these data. The specific findings reported here may be a function of these children's prior history and training. Behavioral mapping with other autistic children may yield different specific results. Thus, the authors do not necessarily encourage direct incorporation of such settings into all classrooms. Rather, we encourage the consideration of employing such settings and the utilization of behavioral mapping techniques to suggest certain settings within the classroom in which autistic children may function more successfully. REFERENCE NOTES 1. Charlop, M. H. The occurrence of echolalia in novel settings. Paper presented at the EightyNinth Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, August, 1981. 2. Resnick, S. M. A review of the literature and an experimental analysis of echolalia. Unpublished thesis, University of California at Los Angeles, 1973. 3. Schreibman, L. and Koegel, R. L. Definitions for structured lab observation. Unpublished manuscript, 1979.

REFERENCES Alevizos, P., DeRisi, W., Liberman, R., Eckman, T., and Callahan, E. The behavior observation instrument: A method of direct observation for program evaluation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, 11,243-257. Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., and Risley, T. Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 91-97. Barker, R. G. On the nature of the environment. The Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 19, 17-38. Birnbrauer, J. S. Generalization of punishment effects: A case study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 201-211. Cataldo, M. F., Bessman, C. A., Parker, L. H., Pearson, J. E. R., and Rogers, M. C. Behavioral Assessment for pediatric intensive care units. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1979, 12, 83 -97. Egel, A. L., Koegel, R. L., & Schreibman, L. A review of educational treatment procedures for autistic children. In L. Mann & D. Sabatino (Eds.), Fourth review of special education. New York: Grune & Stratton, in press. Ittelson, W. H., Rivlin, L. G., and Proshansky, H. M. The use of behavioral maps in environment psychology. In H. M. Proshansky, W. H. Ittelson, and L. G. Rivlin (Eds.) Environmental psychology: People and their physical settings. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1976. Kanner, L., Autistic disturbances of affective contact. The Nervous Child, 1943, 3, 217-250. Kazdin, A. E., and Bootzin, R. R. The token economy: An evaluative review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5, 343-372. Kelly, J. G. Naturalistic observations in contrasting social environments. In E. P. Willems & H. L. Raush (Eds.), Naturalistic viewpoints in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Koegel, R. L., & Rincover, A. Research on the difference between generalization and maintenance in extra-therapy responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 1- 12.

Behavior-Setting Interactions of Autistic Children

373

Koegel, R. L., Firestone, P. B., Kramme, K. W., & Dunlap, G. Increasing spontaneous play by suppressing self-stimululation in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 521-528. Lovaas, O. I. The austistic child: Language development through behavior modification. New York: Irvington Publishers, 1977. Lovaas, O. I., Koegel, R. L., Simmons, J. Q., & Long, J. S. Some generalization and follow-up measures on antstic children in behavior therapy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 131-166. McClanahan, L. E. and Risley, T. R. Design of living environments for nursing home residents: Increasing participation in recreation activities. Journal of applied Behavior Analysis, 1975, 8, 261 - 268. Rimland, B. Infantile autism. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1964. Rincover, A., & Koegel, R. L. Setting generality and stimulus control in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1975, 8, 235-246. Rutter, M. Diagnosis and definition of childhood autism. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 1978, 8, 139-161. Schreibman, L., & Koegel, R. A guideline for planning behavior modification programs for autistic children. In S. Turner, K. Calhoun, & H. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of clinical behavior therapy. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980. Schreibman, L., Charlop, M. H. and Britten, K. R. Childhood Autism: Specifics of behavioral intervention. In R. J. Morris and T. R. Kratochwill (Eds.). Practice of therapy with children: A text of methods. New York: Pergamon Press, in press. Schreibman, L., Koegel, R. L., Charlop, M. H., & Egel, A. L. Autism. In A. S. Bellack, M. Hersen and A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), International handbook of behavior modification and therapy. New York: Plenum Publishing Corporation, in press. Stokes, T. F., and Baer, D. M. An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 349-368. Vineberg, S. E. and Willems, E. P. Observation and analysis of patient behavior in the rehabilitation hospital. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 1971, 52, 8-14. Wahler, R. G. Setting generality: Some specific and general effects of child behavior therapy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 239-246. Walker, H. M., and Buckley, N. K. Programming generalization and maintenance of treatment effects across time and across settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1972, 5, 209224. Whalen, C. K., Henker, J., Collins, B. E., Finck, D., and Dotemoto, S. A social ecology of hyperative boys: Medication effects in structured classroom environments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1979, 12, 65-81. Willems, E. Behavioral ecology, health status, and health care: applications to the rehabilitation setting. In L. Altman and J. R. Wohlwell (Eds.), Human behavior and environment advances in theory and research. New York: Plenum, 1976. Wing, J. K. Diagnosis, epidemiology, aetiology. In J. K. Wing (Ed.), Early childhood autism. London: Pergamon Press, 1966. Wing, L. Diagnosis, clinical descripting, and prognosis. In L. Wing (Ed.), Early childhood autism. London: Pergamon Press, 1976.