Comparison of Progressive Time Delay and Transition-Based Teaching with Preschoolers Who Have Developmental Delays

Abstract

A progressive time delay procedure in one-to-one instructional sessions using massed-trial presentation was compared to transition-based teaching that involved distributed trials presented during transitions from one activity to another. Four preschool children with developmental delays were taught to read words and name letters/numerals and to produce manual signs for photographs. The classroom teacher conducted one daily massed-trial session with each student using progressive time delay for a set of behaviors, and provided an equal number of distributed trials at transition times to each student with a transition-based teaching procedure for another set of behaviors. The procedures were compared on the number of children meeting criterion (effectiveness) and on the number of trials and errors to criterion and the percentage of errors to criterion (efficiency). The parallel treatments design was used to evaluate the two instructional strategies. The results indicated that (a) both procedures were implemented reliably, (b) both procedures were effective in establishing criterion level performance, and (c) no substantial differences existed on the efficiency measures, although the number and percentage of errors were slightly higher for 3 of the 4 children with the transition-based teaching procedure. Implications for practice and future research are described.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ault, M.J. , Gast, D.L. , & Wolery, M. (1988). Comparison of progressive and constant time delay procedures in teaching community-sign word reading. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 44–56.

Bailey, D.B. , & Wolery, M. (1992). Teaching infants and preschoolers with disabilities (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Macmillan.

Bennett, D. , Gast, D.L. , Wolery, M. , & Schuster, J. (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.

Billingsley, F.F. , White, O.R. , & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.

Bricker, D. , & Cripe, J. (1992). An activity-based approach to early intervention. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Bzoch, K. , & League, R. (1971). Receptive and Expressive Emergent Language Scales. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Demchak, M.A. (1990). Response prompting and fading methods: A review. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 603–615.

Gast, D.L. , & Wolery, M. (1988). Parallel treatments design: A nested single subject design for comparing instructional procedures. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 270–285.

Godby, S. , Gast, D.L. , & Wolery, M. (1987). A comparison of time delay and system of least prompts in teaching object identification. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 283–306.

10.

Goetz, E.M. , Ayala, J.M. , Hatfield, V.L. , Marshall, A.M. , & Etzel, B.C. (1983). Training independence in preschoolers with an auditory stimulus management technique. Education and Treatment of Children, 6, 251–261.

11.

Halle, J.W. , Baer, D.M. , & Spradlin, J.E. (1981). Teachers' generalized use of delay as a stimulus control procedure to increase language use in handicapped children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 389–409.

12.

Halle, J.W. , Marshall, A.M. , & Spradlin, J.E. (1979). Time delay: A technique to increase language use and facilitate generalization in retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 431–439.

13.

Handen, B.L. , & Zane, T. (1987). Delayed prompting: A review of procedural variations and results. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 307–330.

14.

Jacobson, J.M. , Bushell, D. , & Risley, T.R. (1969). Switching requirements in a Head Start classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 43–47.

15.

Johnson-Martin, N.M. , Jens, K.G. , & Attermeier, S.A. (1986). The Carolina curriculum for handicapped infants and infants at risk. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

16.

LeLaurin, K. , & Risley, T.R. (1972). The organization of daycare environments: “Zone” versus “man-to-man” staff assignments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 225–232.

17.

LeMay, D.W. , Griffin, P.J. , & Sanford, A.R. (1977). Learning Accomplishment Profile—Diagnostic Edition. Chapel Hill, NC: Chapel Hill Training and Outreach Project

18.

Musselwhite, C. T. , & St. Louis, K.W. (1982). Communication programming for the severely handicapped: Vocal and non-vocal strategies. San Diego: College-Hill Press.

19.

Premack, D. (1959). Toward empirical behavior laws: I. Positive reinforcement. Psychological Review, 66, 219–233.

20.

Sainato, D.M. , Strain, P.S. , Lefebvre, D. , & Rapp, N. (1987). Facilitating transition times with handicapped preschool children: A comparison between peer-mediated and antecedent prompt procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 285–291.

21.

Snell, M.E. (1982). Analysis of time delay procedures in teaching daily living skills to retarded adults. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 139–156.

22.

Stinson, D.M. , Gast, D.L. , Wolery, M. , & Collins, B.C. (1991). Acquisition of nontarget information during small-group instruction. Exceptionality, 2, 65–80.

23.

Tawney, J. , & Gast, D.L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

24.

Wolery, M. , Ault, M.J. , & Doyle, P.M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman.

25.

Wurtele, S.K. , & Drabman, R.S. (1984). “Beat the buzzer” for classroom dawdling: A one-year trial. Behavior Therapy, 15, 403–409.

26.

Zimmerman, I.L. , Steiner, V.G. , & Evatt, R.L. (1969). Preschool Language Scale. Columbus, OH: Merrill.