Abstract
This study took place in a large midwestern university dining hall during the lunch and dinner periods. Supervisors and co-workers indicated that topic repetition of a mentally handicapped worker during the lunch and dinner periods was markedly higher than that of staff co-workers in that setting. Therefore, co-workers were provided preinstruction on how to use feedback when a topic was repeated. Also, the subject was informed of his co-workers’ intentions. Further, co-worker feedback was tried following a no treatment condition (Baseline) and was reintroduced after experimenter/observer feedback was tried in an ABCBD reversal design. The last phase incorporated a combination of Co-worker plus an Experimenter/Observer providing feedback. Results indicated that the Experimenter/Observer and the Co-worker plus Experimenter/Observer phases were most effective in reducing topical repeats to co-workers levels (comparative social validation measure). When the co-workers were left alone to provide feedback they, in fact, did not do so. Of particular interest was the finding that ratings by co-workers indicated they believed the handicapped worker was not reducing the number of repeats -a finding contrary to the direct measure. Explanations for this discrepancy as well as areas of future research are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
