Indexador

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Abstract Research shows that bilingual children often experience delays in language and academic development compared to their monolingual peers. To address this challenge, we evaluated the role of increased exposure in the acquisition of monolingual and bilingual tacts. Increased exposure was provided in the form of four within-subject replications across different sets of stimuli. The participants were three preschool children with autism spectrum disorder. Initially, participants demonstrated more efficient learning in the monolingual condition compared to the bilingual condition; however, these differences decreased across successive within-subject replications. Common errors included cross-language responses, with slightly more errors for Spanish than English targets, as well as generalized error patterns from previously learned repertoires to novel targets. Overall, our results highlight a learning-to-learn phenomenon and suggest that the initial challenges in bilingual tact acquisition may be temporary.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Resumo não informado pela fonte indexada.

Abstract The field of applied behavior analysis (ABA) appears to be at an inflection point where we are experiencing substantial criticism from the autistic community. We as a field can choose to defend our field from the criticism or we can choose to listen and be responsive to it. Some early forays into discussing the implications of neurodiversity for ABA have been fruitful (Veneziano & Shea, 2023; Mathur et al., 2024) and it seems clear that the time for direct dialogue between ABA scientist practitioners and some of our greatest critics has come. Suckle et al. (2025) described one side of a recent dialogue between scholars of ABA and Critical Autism Studies (CAS), in which CAS scholars posed questions to ABA scholars and ABA scholars answered them. That article was explicitly composed for a disability studies audience and accordingly published in a disability studies journal. The current article describes the other side of that dialogue, in which ABA scholars posed questions to CAS scholars, who then provided their answers. The current article is explicitly written for the ABA researcher and practitioner audience. We may not feel entirely comfortable with some of the criticisms of ABA that come from CAS scholars but we believe that willingness to experience this discomfort is a critical prerequisite for our field to evolve. This article explores how our field can engage in cross-disciplinary collaboration and concludes with potential actionable steps that ABA researchers and practitioners can put into practice today.