Both simultaneous prompting and antecedent prompt and test procedures were effective in teaching 4 adolescents with moderate mental retardation to read grocery sight words. An adapted alternating treatments design compared the instructional procedures. Data indicate that the antecedent prompt and test procedure was more efficient on measures of acquisition (i.e., required less training time, fewer sessions, and fewer errors to criterion). However, simultaneous prompting was more efficient on measures of maintenance and generalization. Students maintained target behaviors for up to 16 weeks after training, and generalized their ability to read the grocery sight words across materials, people, and settings. Discussion focuses on the differing acquisition, maintenance, and generalization data, teacher fidelity to both instructional procedures, and students' near-errorless learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. N. (1990). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. (3rd ed.). New York: Merrill.
2.
Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.
3.
Birnbauer, J. S. (1981). External validity and experimental investigation of individual behavior. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 117–132.
4.
Carnine, D. W. (1976). Effects of two teacher-presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199–206.
5.
Crist, K., Walls, R. T., & Haught, P. A. (1984). Degrees of specificity in task analysis. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 89, 67–74.
6.
DeHaven, E. (1981). Teaching three severely retarded children to follow instructions. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 16, 36–48.
7.
Fink, W. T., & Brice-Gray, K. J. (1979). The effects of the teaching strategies in the acquisition and re-call of an academic task by moderately and se-verely retarded preschool children. Mental Retardation, 17, 8–12.
8.
Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., & Iverson, V. S. (1993). Choosing options and accommodations for children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
9.
Gibson, A., & Schuster, J. W. (1992). The use of simultaneous prompting for teaching word recog-nition to preschool children. Topics in Early Child-hood Special Education, 12, 247–267.
10.
Griffen, A., & Schuster, J. W. (in press). The acqui-sition of non-target information: A comparison of continuous versus intermittent presentation schedules. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities.
11.
Johnson, P., Schuster, J. W., & Bell, J. K. (1996). Comparison of simultaneous prompting with and without error correction in teaching science vo-cabulary words to high school students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 437–458.
12.
MacFarland-Smith, J., Schuster, J. W., & Stevens, K. B. (1993). Using simultaneous prompting pro-cedures to teach expressive object identification to preschoolers to developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 1–10.
13.
Rowan, V. V., & Pear, J. J. (1985). A comparison of the effects of interpersonal and concurrent training sequels on the acquisition, retention, and generalization of picture names. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 6, 127–145.
14.
Schuster, J. W., & Griffen, A. K. (1993). Using a simultaneous prompting strategy to teach a chained task to elementary students with moder-ate mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 299–316.
15.
Schuster, J. W., Griffen, A. K., & Wolery, M. (1992). Comparison of the simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedure in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate men-tal retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 305–325.
16.
Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
17.
Singleton, K. C., Schuster, J. W., & Ault, M. J. (1995). Simultaneous prompting in a small group instructional arrangement. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 218–230.
18.
Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland adaptive behavior scale. Circle Pines, MI: American Guidance Service, Inc.
19.
Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler adult intelligence scale-revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Cor-poration.
20.
Wechsler, D. (1993). Wechsler intelligence scale of chil-dren-III. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Cor-poration.
21.
Welch, J., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1985). Teaching public transportation problem-solving skills to young adults with moderate hand-icaps. Education and Training of the Mentally Re-tarded, 20, 287–295.
22.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman.
23.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M., & Gast, D. L. (1986). Comparison of instructional strategies: A liter-ature review. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
24.
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Werts, M. G., & Cipol-lone, R. (1993). Effects of simultaneous prompting and instructive feedback. Early Education and Development, 4, 20–31.
