An Evaluation of Train-to-Code to Teach Implementation of PECS^©

ABSTRACT

We evaluated the impact of a customized training program developed using an observation and behavioral coding software system (i.e., Train-to-Code) to teach implementation of Phase 3A of the Picture Exchange Communication System to four undergraduate students. The training program coached participants on all relevant steps of the procedure. To accomplish this, participants viewed multiple video exemplars of correct and incorrect implementation of each step in the sequence of behaviors, and coded these behaviors in accordance with a taxonomy developed by the experimenters. The training program provided prompts and feedback in real time based on participants’ current level of performance and required mastery of seven levels of training, each with fewer prompts and feedback, until an expert level of unprompted coding performance was demonstrated. A multiple baseline design across participants was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the training program on levels of procedural integrity during performance test probes conducted with a confederate learner before and after the completion of the training program. Results showed improved performance relative to baseline following training, and maintenance of performance at 2–4 weeks follow-up. A conceptual analysis of these findings will be discussed, along with implications for staff training in applied settings.

KEYWORDS:

• Instructional design
• staff training
• procedural integrity
• Train-to-Code
• picture exchange communication system

Acknowledgments

We thank Roger D. Ray for edits and comments on previous versions of this manuscript. We also thank Nicole Auclair, Kristine Trapani, and Helena Whitlow for their assistance with data collection.

Notes

¹ The matrix presented by Layng (2014) is a modification of a classification scheme created by Tiemann & Markle (1990). Their book is currently available through Morningside Press, Seattle, WA.

² Phase 3A introduces the learner to a conditional discrimination task whereby two icons are available on the communication binder for the first time since the start of training. One icon represents a highly preferred item for the learner, and the second represents a non-preferred or neutral item. The developers of PECS (Bondy & Frost, 2011) outline a 4-step error correction procedure that the communicative partner (i.e., the instructor) should implement when the learner exchanges the icon of the non-preferred item: 1) point to or show the icon of the preferred item to the learner to prompt an exchange, 2) when the icon is correctly exchanged, do not give access to the item but provide reinforcement in the form of praise for selecting the preferred item icon, 3) present a ‘distracter trial’ (a task the learner can readily emit without prompts), and 4) re-present the binder with two icons for another opportunity to exchange the preferred item icon.