This investigation examined the acquisition of target and nontarget stimuli by 4 students with moderate mental retardation. Students were taught to name photographs of foods (target stimuli) using a progressive time delay procedure. In addition, the grocery departments where foods could be found in a local supermarket (nontarget stimuli) were presented as part of the discriminative stimulus. A multiple probe design across photographs and replicated across students was used to assess experimental control of both target and nontarget stimuli. The results indicated that (a) progressive time delay was effective in teaching 12 target photographs to 3 students and 6 photographs to 1 student, (b) presentation of the nontarget grocery department as part of the discriminative stimulus was effective in increasing the percentages of correct responding to these stimuli across all students, and (c) some generalization in the percentage of correct responding to the target and nontarget stimuli occurred in the natural supermarket setting.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alig-Cybriwsky, C., Wolery, M. & Gast, D. L. (1990). Use of a constant time delay procedure in teaching preschoolers in a group format. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 96–116.
2.
Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
3.
Dolch, E. W. (1936). A basic sight vocabulary. Elementary School Journal, 36, 456–460.
4.
Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Meyer, S. A. (1992). Teaching discrete skills to students with moderate mental retardation in small group instructional arrangements. Exceptionality, 3, 233–254.
5.
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Gast, D. L. (1988). System of least prompts: A literature review of procedural parameters. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 13, 28–40.
6.
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., & Wiley, K. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching preschoolers with developmental delays. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 1–22.
7.
Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M.J., & Baklarz, J. L. (1991). Acquisition of incidental information during small group instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 1–18.
8.
Gast, D. L., Skouge, J. R., & Tawney, J. W. (1984). Variations of the multiple baseline design: Multiple probe and changing criterion designs. In J. W. Tawney & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single subject research in special education (pp. 269–299). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
9.
Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Morris, L. L., Doyle, P.M., & Meyer, S.A. (1990). Teaching sight word reading in a group instructional arrangement using constant time delay. Exceptionality, 1, 81–96.
10.
Griffen, A. K., & Schuster, J. W. (1994). The acquisition of non-target information: A comparison of continuous versus intermittent presentation schedules. Manuscript submitted for publication.
11.
Keel, M.C., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Small-group instruction for students with learning disabilities: Observational and incidental learning. Exceptional Children, 58, 357–368.
12.
Schuster, J. W., Griffen, A. K., & Wolery, M. (1992). A comparison of constant time delay and simultaneous prompting in teaching sight words to students with moderate mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 305–326.
13.
Shelton, B. S., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M. & Winterling, V. (1991). The role of small group instruction in facilitating observational and incidental learning. Language, Speech, Hearing Services in the Schools, 22, 123–133.
14.
Snell, M. E., & Zirpoli, T.J. (1987). Intervention strategies. In M. E. Snell (Ed.), Systematic instruction of persons with severe handicaps (3rd ed., pp. 110–149). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
15.
Stinson, D. M., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Collins, B.C. (1991). Acquisition of nontargeted information during small-group instruction. Exceptionality, 1, 65–80.
16.
Werts, M. G., Wolery, M. & Holcombe, A. (1991). Instructive feedback: Increasing opportunities for learning through the addition of incidental information.Pittsburgh: Alleghany-Singer Research Institute, Early Childhood Intervention Project.
17.
Winterling, V. (1990). The effects of constant time delay, practice in writing or spelling, and reinforcement on sight word recognition in a small group. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 101–116.
18.
Wolery, M., Ault, M.J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe handicaps: Use of response prompting strategies.White Plains, NY: Longman.
19.
Wolery, M., Ault, M.J., Gast, D. L., Dovle, P. M., & Mills, B. M. (1990). Use of choral and individual attentional responses with constant time delay when teaching sight word reading. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 47–58.
20.
Wolery, M., Cybriwsky, C. A., Gast, D. L., & Boyle-Gast, K. (1991). Use of constant time delay and attentional responses with adolescents. Exceptional Children, 57, 462–474.
21.
Wolery, M., Doyle, P.M., Ault, M.J., Gast, D. L., Meyer, S. & Stinson, D. (1991). Effects of presenting incidental information in consequent events on future learning. Journal of Behavioral Education, 1, 79–104.
22.
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Cybriwsky, C. A., Doyle, P.M., Schuster, J. W., Ault, M.J., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 239–266.
23.
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Werts, M. G., & Cipolloni, R. (1993). Effects of simultaneous prompting with instructive feedback. Early Education and Development, 4, 20–31.
