Re: Probe Data vs Trial by Trial

[Guest guest]

Hi Shauna, and all,

No conspiracy of silence here with me, perhaps.. The most meaningful

probe data and trial by trial (DTT?) research (available?) is what

you do for yourself in that respect of square one with " doing " ABA

which you will find, of how to do it, in any if not every book or set

of instructions on how to do ABA, is my sense of it.

Lovaas presented the definitive work on the efficacy of ABA (specific

to discrete trial training - trial by trial, perhaps) as applied to

treating autism with his Young Autism Project at UCLA, etc.. (Back in

the 80's) He (and many others of his pioneering research and results)

tended to collect data on as many trials as possible vs. the newer

(of older?) approach/es related to probing (the intermittent or

periodic collection of data, perhaps) as with VB, etc., that aren't

quite as definitively validated to efficacy as Lovaas, either, that

I'm aware, but reasonably should work, (as be upheld, of proving to

be upheld?) of extrapolation, etc. (of extending things

mathematically to reduce the tediousness of the matter?) I believe

we are dealing with feasibility as related to a scarcity of resources

(best application of resources?) with respect to " probing " vs taking

the data on every trial, but further on that later.. .

The Autism Research Institute (among other sources) has that study

availabe for public consumption (still, I do believe) as I'm sure any

organization that has anything to do with ABA and autism does or

should have that as well. If you scroll back through the messages on

this board you should be able to find more on that and other studies

(perhaps more specifically related to what you are looking for?) but

perhaps someone else would be willing to help you with that, I don't

know.

I hope that helped. One trial, one probe, thereof? .. . More

relevant to the results you seek (studies somewhat aside, thereof,

perhaps)[Compared to the results you get for yourself everything else

is relatively academic if not philosophical/theoretical to your

practical situation, of ABA, Thereof?] makes the most sense to

practical if not Individual science is my sense of it, of ABA

The research on trial by trial, especially as related to discrete

trial teaching/training is pretty well synonymous with ever program

if not every study on the subject of ABA. " Any " ABA study or program

should prove to provide you what you need in that respect is my sense

of it.

Where to start would be really up to you in that respect of what you

seek but the better studies related to taking the data would

themselves, more logically, (?) tend to take more data (do less

probing, otherwise) for what they seek, (for greater accuracy?)

thereof. I'm not aware of any study that has studied probing per se,

in that respect, of taking the data to find out if probing (of not

taking so much data?) is as effective as to significance, (to full

data) of the resources available, thereof.

The question might be, what is the relationship of the " results, " of

value, to the program to the " resources, " (otherwise) of value,

available to the programming, thereof. I don't think anyone has ever

done such a study to determine such relationship, though the problem

of comparing apples to oranges would always pose something of a

problem in that respect, I must assume. " Accuracy " would suggest

taking data with every trial. Reality, as to the resource available,

would probably if not logically compromise your results to the extent

you deviated from taking the data, (results?) of as good as ABA can

be in that respect of ABA?

Is the relationship linear or exponential or something in between I

don't really know but would suggest that taking " more " data (results)

would be better to the final results we get of doing ABA. My sense

of that, of Communication?!.

Thanks for the question.

Mike,

I ABA

ABA for Understanding

To the extent you deviate from taking the data on every trial (with

respect to probing?) you deviate from doing ABA of going with the

results (you get/could get) from following the results of trial by

trial, thereof! .. . Going with the data/results is what makes it

ABA over mere conditioning, otherwise... is my sense of It.

>

> Can anyone point me in the direction of some research on probe data

> and trial by trial?

>

> Thanks!

> Shauna

>