Discrete trial training


Discrete trial training is a technique used by practitioners of applied behavior analysis that was developed by Ivar Lovaas at the University of California, Los Angeles. DTT is a method that uses direct instruction in which specific reinforcers are used for their effectiveness to create clear contingencies and shape new skills. Often employed as an early intensive behavioral intervention for up to 6–7 hours per day for children with autism, the technique relies on the use of prompts, modeling, and positive reinforcement strategies to facilitate the child's learning. It is also noted for its previous use of aversives to punish unwanted behaviors.
The American Academy of Pediatrics and U.S. National Research Council identified EIBI, in conjunction with incidental teaching; pivotal response treatment —the naturalistic, play-based form of ABA; and the early start denver model —consisting of developmental, play therapy infused with PRT—as the only evidence-based clinical interventions for autism.

Implementation

Discrete trial training, which derived from errorless learning and was initially introduced by psychologist Charles Ferster, is a highly structured teaching program carried out in a 1 to 1 therapist to student ratio at the table. Intervention can start when a child is as young as 2 years old and can last from two to six years. Progression through goals of the program are determined on an individual basis and are not determined by which year the client has been in the program. The first year seeks to reduce self-stimulating behavior, teaches listener responding, eye contact, and fine and gross motor imitation, establishes playing with toys in their intended manner, and integration of the family into the treatment protocol. The second year teaches early expressive language and abstract linguistic skills, and the third year strives to include the individual's community in the treatment to optimize mainstreaming by focusing on peer interaction, basic socializing skills, emotional expression and variation, in addition to observational learning and pre-academic skills, such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Rarely is the technique implemented for the first time with adults.
DTT is ideally performed five to seven days a week with each session lasting from five to seven hours, totaling an average of 35–40 hours per week. Each session is divided into trials with intermittent breaks. The trials do not have a specified time limit to allow for a natural conclusion when the communicator feels the child is losing focus. Each trial is composed of a series of prompts that are issued by the "communicator" who is positioned directly across the table from the individual receiving treatment.
These verbal prompts can range from "do this", "look at me", "put in"," put on"," show me"," give to me" and so on, in reference to an object, color, simple imitative gesture, etc. The concept is centered on shaping the child to correctly respond to the prompts, increasing the attentive ability of the individual, and mainstreaming the child for academic success. Should the child fail to respond to a prompt, a "prompter," seated behind the child, uses either a partial-, a simple nudge or touch on the hand or arm or a full-, hand over hand assistance until the prompt has been completed, physical guide to correct the individual's mistake or non-compliance. Each correct response is reinforced with verbal praise, an edible, time with a preferred toy, or any combination thereof. DTT is often used in conjunction with the Picture Exchange Communication System as it primes the child for an easy transition between treatment types. The PECS program serves as another common intervention technique used to mainstream individuals with autism. As many as 25% of individuals with autism have no functional speech, the remainder typically display pronounced phonological and grammatical deficits in addition to a limited vocabulary. The program teaches spontaneous social communication through symbols and/or pictures by relying on ABA techniques. PECS operates on a similar premise to DTT in that it uses systematic chaining to teach the individual to pair the concept of expressive speech with an object. It is structured in a similar fashion to DTT, in that each session begins with a preferred reinforcer survey to ascertain what would most motivate the child and effectively facilitate learning.

Effectiveness

Although dozens of single-subject design studies and a few randomized control trials have been conducted, which demonstrate that EIBI is effective in enhancing communication and adaptive skills, as well as increasing IQ scores for children with autism, these studies are of low quality research design and there is need for larger sample sizes.

Aversives

While the therapy has always relied principally on positive reinforcement of preferred behavior, Lovaas's original technique also included more extensive use of aversives such as striking, shouting, or using electrical shocks. These procedures have been widely abandoned for over a decade. A review of literature by autistic activist Michelle Dawson asserts that the method has become less effective since these stimuli were abandoned. Only one institution, the Judge Rotenberg Center, still employs electric shocks as aversives—a practice that continues to cause them considerable legal and political controversy.

Cost of care

A concern that parents have brought up regarding Lovaas is the cost, which in April 2002 amounted to about US$4,200 per month. In addition, the 20–40 hours per week intensity of the program, often conducted at home, may place additional stress on already challenged families.
Another study estimated the expenses of a three-year period of DTT to total a conservative cost of $20,000 and the extreme cost of $60,000, with a yearly average of $40,000. These costs were based on a sliding scale model that would be adjusted accordingly to socio-economic status and parental involvement. Yearly expenditures were predicted to drop to an average of $22,500 a year when parents and family became involved in the process. Additional family involvement would subsequently alleviate case manager and paraprofessional hours by assuming their roles in the process. The upfront costs of DTT for the state of Texas would initially amount to $67,500 for three years compared to the currently state budgeted $33,000 for Special Education. The difference is predicted to be recovered within five years of the initial implementation of the program. Texas would experience a 72% reduction in expenses in the 15 year offset following the conclusion of DTT, amounting to a total savings of $84,300 per child.
However, in the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires school districts to provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education to all children over the age of three. Many administrative rulings and court decisions have found 35–40 hours per week of EIBI to be FAPE. Parents may wish to consider hiring an attorney or advocate if their school district denies EIBT.
Thomas et al. conducted a survey study that involved 383 families with children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder from North Carolina. Three quarters of these families reported using a major treatment plan. Of these, college or graduate degree holding parents were two to four times more likely to use a neurologist and/or PECS. Annual incomes of $50,000 or more had higher rates of using developmental pediatricians and speech/language therapists. Racial and ethnic minorities were half as likely to see a case manager. These families also had a quarter of the odds of seeing a psychologist, developmental pediatrician, or implementing sensory integration. This supports several other national studies that concluded racial and ethnic families, parents with a low degree of education, and those not residing in a metropolitan area were more likely to receive limited care, utilize a less diverse range of services and less likely to follow a major treatment plan. Both the national studies and the North Carolinian study yielded a correlation between high stress levels and amount of services sought.
Families that did not identify with a major treatment approach had one fifth to one half the odds of using support of friends and family in providing care. Therapeutic support services were also one fifth to one half as likely to be used compared to families identifying with major treatment plans.
Insurance coverage is another major determinant in the amount of support services received. Recipients of Medicaid or other forms of public health insurance have 2-11 times the odds of using services that are considered medically necessary. Utilization of respite, PECS, case managers, speech or language therapists also increases markedly in this bracket compared to families with private insurance.
Rising costs in education and the provision of adequate care for developmentally disabled individuals have been a continuing concern for state policy makers and tax payers alike. A study was conducted on cost comparison of 18 years of traditional Special Education on Early Intensive Behavioral Intervention for children with autism. The Texas state budget for the year 2002 allotted $11,000 per child for Special Education. The study suggested the state would save an average of $208,500 per child over an 18-year period by implementing DTT in early childhood, effectively curbing or eliminating future special needs costs by preparing the child academically for mainstreaming. This amounted to a potential total savings of $2.9 billion over an 18-year period for a cohort consisting of 10,000 children with autism.

Criticisms

Gresham and MacMillar specifically cite a lack of a true experimental design in Lovaas' experiment on early intervention. They charge that he instead implemented a quasi-experimental design of matched pairs regarding the distribution of subjects within the experimental and control groups. Gresham and MacMillar also state a lack of a true representation of autism in that the subjects were neither randomly sampled from the population of individuals with autism nor were they randomly assigned to treatment groups. The internal validity of the study was also called into question due to the possibility of skewed data resulting from three influential threats. Instrumentation, changes or variations in measurement of procedures over time, was argued to have been altered in both the pre-test and post-test conditions which were confounded by a differentiation in ascertaining cognitive abilities and intelligence of the subjects. The pre-test utilized four measures of cognitive ability and mental development. Five of the subjects' intelligence was determined through a parent-reported measure of adaptive behavior. All of the subjects were post-tested three years later using five other measures of intelligence and cognitive ability. Long-term follow-up was assessed with three measurements of intelligence, nonverbal reasoning, and receptive language. The original three measurements during the testing phase were determined by IQ score, class placement, and promotion/retention. External validity was called into question concerning sample characteristics. Lovaas' criteria for acceptance into the program required a psychological mental age greater than 11 months and a chronological age less than 46 months in the case of echolalic children. Schopler et al. purport that if both the intellectual and echolalia criteria were rigidly adhered to at the North Carolina institute, approximately 57% of the referrals would have been excluded from the program.
Other criticisms include a failure to operationally define the use of the term 'reinforcement' for compliance, the use of a Pro-rated Mental Age, and the statistical regression of the child's IQ over time. Boyd addressed the potential impact of a disproportionate sex ratio of females to males on the control group's mean IQ score. One study showed females with autism displayed slightly lower levels of functioning in comparison to their male counterparts.
In a rejoinder to Boyd's article that cited an unequal sex ratio as a source of error, Lovaas listed three reasons as to why the disproportionate ratio's influence on the data was negligible. The autistic population at the time had a ratio of 4:1. Lovaas argued that the ratios for the experimental group, control group 1, and control group 2 of 16:3, 11:8, and 16:5, respectively, were in fact near the expected ratio scale of the general population with the exception of control group 1. The second argument lay in the studies Boyd referenced in regards to low intellectual performance in females diagnosed with autism. One of the studies admitted to having a female subject with Rett disorder, a condition that showed little responsiveness to intensive early behavioral intervention. Lovaas concluded by proposing that males may more readily meet diagnostic criteria for autism because of certain salient characteristics inherent in the sex while the subtleties in their female counterparts may be overlooked.