A multiple probe across subjects design evaluated the effectiveness of a simultaneous prompting procedure in training 10 adults with moderate and severe mental retardation to construct shipping boxes within a community vocational center. The trainer used a dyadic instructional format in which each member of the dyad received instruction on one half of the task analysis on an alternating basis. Two instructional sessions occurred daily, so each member of the dyad received instruction on the entire task analysis. Four of the five dyads learned to construct shipping boxes. Instructional data are presented and implications for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BillingsleyF. F., WhiteO. R., & MunsonR. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
2.
BlackhurstA. E., SchusterJ. W., AultM. J., & DoyleP. M. (1996). Single subject research advisor [Computer software]. Lexington, Kentucky: University of Kentucky.
3.
ChandlerW., SchusterJ. W., & StevensK. (1993). Teaching employment skill to adolescents with mild and moderate disabilities using a constant time delay procedure. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 18, 155–168.
4.
FetkoK., SchusterJ., HarleyD., & CollinsB. (1999). Using simultaneous prompting to teach a chained vocational task to young adults with severe intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 318–329.
5.
FickelK. M., SchusterJ. W., & CollinsB. (1998). Teaching different tasks using different stimuli in a heterogeneous small group. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 219–244.
6.
GibsonA. N., & SchusterJ. W. (1992). The use of simultaneous prompting for teaching expressive word recognition to preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 247–267.
7.
HallM. G., SchusterJ. W., WoleryM., GastD. L., & DoyleP. M. (1992). Teaching chained skills in a non-school setting using a divided half instructional format. Journal of Behavior Education, 2, 257–279.
8.
JohnsonP., SchusterJ. W., & BellJ. (1996). Comparison of simultaneous prompting with and without error correction in teaching science vocabulary words to high school students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 437–458.
9.
MacFarland-SmithJ., SchusterJ. W., & StevensK. B. (1993). Using simultaneous prompting to teach expressive object identification to preschoolers with developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 50–60.
10.
McDonnellJ., & FergusonB. (1989). A comparison of time delay and decreasing prompt hierarchy strategies in teaching banking skills to students with moderate handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 85–91.
11.
PalmerT., CollinsB., & SchusterJ. W. (1999). The use of a simultaneous prompting procedure to teach receptive manual sign identification to adults with disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 11, 179–191.
12.
ReidD. H., & FavellJ. E. (1984). Group instruction with persons who have severe disabilities: A critical review. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 167–177.
13.
SchoenS. F., & SivilE. O. (1989). A comparison of procedures in teaching self-help skills: Increasing assistance, times delay, and observational learning. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 19, 57–72.
14.
SchusterJ. W., & GriffenA. K. (1993). Teaching a chained task with a simultaneous prompting procedure. Journal of Behavior Education, 3, 299–315.
15.
SchusterJ. W., GriffenA. K., & WoleryM. (1992). Comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate mental retardation. Journal of Behavior Education, 2, 305–325.
16.
SingletonK. M., SchusterJ. W., & AultM. J. (1995). Simultaneous prompting in a small group instructional arrangement. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 218–230.
17.
TawneyJ. W., & GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus OH: Merrill.
18.
TermanL. M., & MerrillM. A. (1973). Stanford-Binet intelligence scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
19.
WrightC. W., & SchusterJ. W. (1994). Accepting specific versus functional responses when training chained tasks. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 43–56.
20.
WoleryM., AultM. J., & DoyleP. M. (1992). Use of response prompting strategies: Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities. New York: Longman.
21.
WoleryM., AultM. J., GastD. L., DoyleP. M., & GriffenA. K. (1991). Teaching chained tasks in dyads: Acquisition of target and observational behaviors. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 198–220.
22.
WoleryM., HolcombeA., WertsM., & CipolloniR. M. (1993). Effects of simultaneous prompting and instructive feedback. Early Education and Development, 4, 20–31.
