Effectiveness of Gestural and Physical Guidance Prompts as a Function of Type of Task

Abstract

The frequently proposed response prompt hierarchy suggests that physical guidance prompts are more effective than are modeling or gestural prompts with individuals with moderate or severe mental retardation. This hierarchy has yet to receive consistent empirical verification in the research literature. However, the possibility exists of a prompt-task interaction, with certain types of response prompts more effective with certain types of tasks. This study investigated such a possible interaction by teaching 32 employees of a sheltered workshop two types of tasks (visual discrimination and a motoric assembly) through two types of prompts (gestural and physical guidance). The results failed to support either the traditional response prompts hierarchy or the existence of a prompt-task interaction.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bennett

D. L.

, Gast

D. L.

, Wolery

, & Schuster

(1986). Time delay and system of least prompts: A comparison in teaching manual sign production. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 117–129.

Dowler

D. L.

, Walls

R. T.

, Haught

P. A.

, & Zawlocki

R. J.

(1984). Effects of preference, prompt and task on the discrimination learning of mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 428–434.

Ford

, & Mirenda

(1984). Community instruction: A natural cues and corrections decision model. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 79–87.

Hayden

A. H.

, McGinnes

G. D.

, & Dmitriev

(1976). Early and continuous intervention strategies for severely handicapped infants and very young children. In Haring

N. G.

and Brown

(Eds.), Teaching the severely handicapped (Vol. 1) (pp. 237–275). New York: Grune & Stratton.

Hourcade

J. J.

, & Parette

H. P.

(1985). Acquisition of a vocational assembly skill by severely retarded learners as a function of type of response prompt. Journal of Rehabilitation, 51, 46–48; 77.

Kauffman

J. M.

, & Snell

M. E.

(1977). Managing the behavior of severely retarded persons. In Sontag

(Ed.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 203–220). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Kirk

R. E.

(1982). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Koegel

R. L.

, & Rincover

(1976). Some detrimental effects of using extra stimuli to guide learning in normal and autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 59–71.

Schoen

S. F.

(1986). Assistance procedures to facilitate the transfer of stimulus control: Review and analysis. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 62–74.

10.

Schloss

P. J.

(1986). Sequential prompt instruction for mildly handicapped learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 18, 181–184.

11.

Snell

M. E.

(1987). Systematic instruction of persons with severe handicaps. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

12.

Snell

M. E.

, & Browder

D. M.

(1986). Community-referenced instruction: Research and issues. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 1–11.

13.

Sternberg

, & Adams

G. L.

(1982). Educating severely and profoundly handicapped students. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

14.

Walls

, Ellis

, Zane

, & Vanderpoel

(1979). Tactile, auditory, and visual prompting in teaching complex assembly tasks. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 14, 120–130.

15.

Wilcox

, & Bellamy

G. T.

(1982). Design of high school programs for severely handicapped students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

16.

Wolf

, & Cuvo

(1978). Effects of within-stimulus and extra-stimulus prompting on letter discrimination by mentally retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 297–303.