The effects of the Individualized Curriculum Sequencing (ICS) model on the acquisition and generalization of skills by two preschoolers with severe handicaps were evaluated using a within-subject multiple probe design across different target responses. Target skills were taught across three classroom activities and routines that occurred during the school day. Daily training trials were distributed across and within activities using the skill cluster approach. In addition, concurrent stimulus variation was programmed across multiple stimulus dimensions (i.e., trainers, activities, and materials). The results preliminarily support the efficacy of the ICS model. Criterion performance and generalization across novel classroom activities and materials were evident for four of five skills trained. The study was discontinued before training of a second skill for one subject could be completed. Prior to terminating the study, performance on the second skill was highly variable and the effect of training was negligible. Research implications are addressed.
AndersonR. R.SpradlinJ. E. (1980). The generalized effects of productive label training involving common object classes. Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 143–157.
2.
BrownL.NietupskiJ.Hamre-NietupskiS. (1976). The criterion of ultimate functioning. In ThomasM. A. (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me (pp. 2–15). Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
3.
CampbellC. R.Stremel-CampbellK. (1982). Programming “loose training” as a strategy to facilitate language generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 295–301.
4.
DunlapG. (1984). The influence of task variation and maintenance tasks on the learning and affect of autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 41–64.
5.
DunlapG.KoegelR. L. (1980). Motivating autistic children through stimulus variation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 619–627.
6.
GuessD.HelmstetterE. (1986). Skill cluster instruction and the individualized curriculum sequencing model. In HornerR. H.MeyerL. H.FredricksH. D. (Eds.), Education of learners with severe handicaps (pp. 221–248). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
7.
GuessD.HornerR. D.UtleyB.HolvoetJ.MaxonD.TuckerD.WarrenS. (1978). A functional curriculum sequencing model for teaching the severely handicapped. AAESPH Review, 3, 202–215.
8.
HalleJ. W. (1987). Teaching language in the natural environment: An analysis of spontaneity. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12(1), 28–37.
9.
HandlemanJ. S.HarrisS. (1980). Generalization from school to home with autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10, 323–333.
10.
HolvoetJ.GuessD.MulliganM.BrownF. (1980). The individualized curriculum sequencing model (II): A training strategy for severely handicapped students. Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 337–351.
11.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe techniques: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 189–196.
12.
HornerR. H.BellamyG. T.ColvinG. T. (1984). Responding in the presence of nontrained stimuli: Implications of generalization error patterns. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9(4), 287–295.
13.
HornerR. H.McDonaldR. S. (1982). Comparison of single instance and general case instruction in teaching a generalized vocational skill. Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7(3), 7–20.
14.
HuntP.GoetzL.AlwellM.SailorW. (1986). Using an interrupted behavior chain strategy to teach generalized communication responses. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11(3), 196–204.
15.
KayserJ. E.BillingsleyF. F.NeelR. S. (1986). A comparison of in-context and traditional approaches: Total task, single trial versus backward chaining, multiple trials. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11(1), 28–38.
16.
MulliganM.GuessD.HolvoetJ.BrownF. (1980). The individualized curriculum sequencing model (1): Implications from research on massed, distributed, or spaced trial training. Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 299–323.
17.
MulliganM.LacyL.GuessD. (1982). Effects of massed, distributed and spaced trial sequencing on severely handicapped students' performance. The Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7(2), 48–61.
18.
NeelR. S.BillingsleyF. F.LambertC. (1983). IMPACT: A functional curriculum for educating autistic youth in natural environments. In RutherfordR. F.Jr. (Ed.), Monograph in behavioral disorders: Severe behavior problems of children and youth (Series No. 6, pp. 40–52). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
19.
NietupskiJ.Hamre-NietupskiS.ClancyP.VeerhausenK. (1986). Guidelines for making simulation an effective adjunct to in vivo community instruction. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11(1), 12–18.
20.
SnellM. E.BrowderD. M. (1986). Community-referenced instruction: Research and issues. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11(1), 1–11.
21.
SnellM. E.ZirpoliT. J. (1987). Intervention strategies. In SnellM. E. (Ed.), Systematic instruction for persons with severe handicaps (3rd ed.) (pp. 110–149). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
22.
WelchS. J.PearJ. S. (1980). Generalization of naming responses to objects in the natural environment as a function of training stimulus modality with retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 629–643.
23.
WhiteO. R. (1980). Adaptive performance objectives: Form vs. function. In SailorW.WilcoxB.BrownL. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students (pp. 47–69). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
24.
WilliamsW.GottsE. A. (1977). Selected considerations on developing curriculum for severely handicapped students. In SontagE.SmithJ.CertoN. (Eds.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 221–236). Reston, VA: The Division of Mental Retardation, Council for Exceptional Children.
