Adapted Leisure Materials vs. Standard Leisure Materials: Evaluating Several Aspects of Programming for Persons who are Profoundly Handicapped

Abstract

Developing activities and procedures that encourage persons who are profoundly handicapped to independently occupy their free time is a problem which is frequently addressed by many disciplines. In institutional settings, the problem appears even more serious due to limited staff, limited leisure materials, and an array of other problems ranging from client-related behavior problems which monopolize available resources, to bureaucratic problems such as necessary paperwork. The research reported in this paper compared adapted leisure materials to standard leisure materials typically available and evaluated their effects on client engagement, aberrant behaviors, staff interactions with clients, and client smiles. The results showed individual differences in client interaction with both sets of leisure materials, no clear relationship between engagement and aberrant behaviors, higher staff interactions when standard leisure materials were used, and an overall positive acceptance of the use of adapted leisure materials by staff. Issues related to the use of adapted leisure materials and future research with persons who are profoundly handicapped are also discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bailey

(1981). Wanted: A rational search for the limiting conditions of habilitation in the re-tarded. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 45–52.

Bailey

, & Meyerson

(1969). Vibration as a reinforcer with a profoundly retarded child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 135–137.

Bailey

, & Meyerson

(1970). Effect of vibra-tory stimulation on a retardate's self-injurious behavior. Psychological Aspects of Disability, 17(3), 133–137.

Barlow

D. H.

, & Hayes

S. C.

(1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199–210.

Dattilo

(1986). Computerized assessment of preference for severely handicapped individ-uals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19(4), 445–448.

Dattilo

, & Rusch

(1985). Effects of choice on leisure participation for persons with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 194–199.

Ellis

(1981). On training the mentally retarded. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabili-ties, 1, 99–108.

Favell

Judith E.

, Favell

James E.

, Riddle

J. I.

, & Risley

T. R.

(1984). Promoting change in men-tal retardation facilities: Getting services from the paper to the people. In Christian

, Hannah

, & Glahn

(Eds.), Programming effective human services (pp. 15–38). New York: Plenum Press.

Fehr

M. J.

, Wacker

, Trezise

, Lennon

, & Meyerson

(1979). Visual, auditory, and vi-bratory stimulation as reinforcers for pro-foundly retarded children. Rehabilitation Psychol-ogy, 26, 201–209.

10.

Friedlander

(1974). Applications of research in learning and conditioning. Rehabilitation Psychol-ogy, 21, 142–149.

11.

Grove

D. N.

, Dalke

B. A.

, Fredericks

H. D.

, & Crowley

R. F.

(1975). Establishing appropriate head positioning with mentally and physically handicapped children. Behavioral Engineering, 3, 53–59.

12.

Gutierrez-Griep

(1984). Student preference of sensory reinforcers. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 108–113.

13.

Herbert-Jackson

, O'Brian

, Porterfield

, & Risley

T. R.

(1977). The infant center: A com-plete guide to organizing and managing infant day care. Baltimore: University Park Press.

14.

Hill

J. W.

(1980). Use of an automated recre-ational device to facilitate independent leisure and motor behavior in a profoundly retarded male. In Wehman

, & Hill

(Eds.), Instruc-tional programming for severely handicapped youth (pp. 101–113). Richmond: Virginia Common-wealth University.

15.

Jones

M. L.

, Favell

James E.

, Lattimore

, & Risley

T. R.

(1984). Improving independent engagement of nonambulatory multihandi-capped persons through the systematic analysis of leisure materials. Analysis and Intervention in Development Disabilities, 4(4), 313–332.

16.

Macurik

(1979). An operant device to rein-force correct head position. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 10, 237–239.

17.

McClure

, Moss

, McPeters

, & Kirkpatrick

(1986). Reduction of hand mouthing by a boy with profound mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 24(4), 219–222.

18.

Meehan

D. M.

, Mineo

B. A.

, & Lyon

S. R.

(1985). Use of systematic prompting and prompt withdrawal to establish and maintain switch acti-vation in a severely handicapped student. Jour-nal of Special Education Technology, 7(1), 5–10.

19.

Murphy

R. J.

, & Doughty

N. R.

(1977). Estab-lishment of controlled arm movements in pro-foundly retarded students using response con-tingent vibratory stimulation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 82, 212–216.

20.

Murphy

R. J.

, Doughty

N. R.

, & Nunes

(1979). Multielement designs: An alternative to reversal and multiple baseline evaluation strate-gies. Mental Retardation, 17(1), 23–27.

21.

Realon

R. E.

, Favell

James E.

, & Dayvault

(in press). Evaluating the use of adapted leisure ma-terials on the engagement of profoundly re-tarded, multiply handicapped clients. Education and Training in Mental Retardation.

22.

Wacker

, Berg

, Wiggins

, Muldoon

, & Cavanaugh

(1985). Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped stu-dents. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(2), 173–178.

23.

Wehman

(1977). Helping the mentally retarded acquire play skills. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

24.

Wright

, & Nomura

(1985). From toys to com-puters: Access for the physically disabled child. (Available from P.O. Box 700242, San Jose, CA 95170.).

25.

Zuromski

E. S.

(1978, February). Adapting technol-ogy for education and rehabilitation. (Available from Educational Technology Center, Inc., Box 64, Foster, RI 02825.).