Compassion & Science

An essential component of PCDI’s mission is dissemination. This year, PCDI participated in the 19th Annual NJABA Conference and the 50th Association for Behavior Analysis International convention. PCDI professionals presented alongside colleagues from the Alliance for Scientific Autism Intervention in a symposium entitled: Compassion and Science – How and Why They Must Coexist in Autism Education Programs.  

Within this presentation, Dr. Dawn B. Townsend discussed the importance of linking compassionate practices with data-based outcomes to ensure that science and compassion are part of autism education programs. Dr. Eric Rozenblat, Executive Director of the Institute for Educational Achievement, outlined the BCBA’s ethical responsibility to provide socially-valid and compassionate intervention.  

Dr. Sue Vener, Director of RISE NY, described staff training practices and protocols to produce well-rounded, effective, and caring clinicians.  Dr. Kevin Brothers, Executive Director of Somerset Hills Learning Institute discussed the importance of partnerships with parents, and shared social validity data from parents of children served.  

Dr. Amanda Freeman, Executive Director of the Princeton Child Development Institute presented on a program-wide measure developed to assess engagement and affect across the Education Program. 

In 1975, Dr. Lynn McClannahan and Dr. Todd Risley published a study focused on increasing participation in recreation activities in nursing-home residents (McClannahan & Risley, 1975). They measured their effectiveness by using a program-wide sweep to assess engagement of residents throughout the day. An adaptation of this measure has been in place at PCDI for decades.

This school year, it was modified to assess both engagement and affect for learners and staff.

These data suggest that staff are effective in producing learner engagement and are consistently building positive relationships with learners. Dr. Freeman emphasized the importance of providing training that results in “behavioral artists”, as defined by Callahan et al. (2019). 

“One can clearly recognize the difference between behavioral artists and behavioral technologists. Behavioral artists smile and laugh more. They pay attention and listen more carefully. They are, at the same time, more objective and more creative in the delivery of ABA because they are self-aware and driven to produce positive outcomes for their students and clients. They are perpetually optimistic.” 

Learners were scored as engaged if they were attending to materials or instructors or other learners or transitioning toward an area or activity. They were scored as off-task if they were engaging in disruptive behavior, or stereotypy that interrupted the activity at hand.

Staff were scored as engaged if they were attentive to learners by orienting towards learners, interacting with learners, or transitioning to an activity with a learner. They were scored as not attentive to learners when they were interacting with colleagues or trainers, or completing alternate tasks, such as scoring data or preparing curricula.

Favorable affect was scored if learners or instructors demonstrating a positive facial expression, such as by smiling or laughing, or a neutral facial expression. The monthly data obtained indicate that both staff and learners were consistently scored as engaged and demonstrating a favorable affect.