Discrimination training for persons with developmental disabilities: a comparison of the task demonstration model and the standard prompting hierarchy.
A comparison was made between two procedures for teaching persons with severe handicaps: (a) the task demonstration model, which is based upon a fading procedure and general case programming, and (b) the standard prompting hierarchy, a least-to-most intrusive prompting procedure commonly used to teach these individuals. Five phases were used in comparing the procedures: pretesting, training, two generalization tests, and a 6-month maintenance test. Eight students learned two discrimination tasks by each procedure, with each task involving two- or three-digit numbers. Results showed that under the task demonstration model all 8 subjects had more unprompted correct responses (about 1.5 times as many) in training, all 8 subjects had fewer errors (about 0.6 times as many) in training, all 8 subjects had more correct responding in the generalization test with untrained stimuli in the training room, 6 of 8 subjects had more correct responding with untrained stimuli in another room, a 7th had equivalent amounts, and 7 of 8 subjects had more correct responding on a 6-month maintenance test. Thus, the task demonstration model proved superior to the standard prompting hierarchy in 29 of 32 tests of correct responding. Results are discussed in terms of implications for stimulus control training strategies.
Repp
A C
AC
Northern Illinois University.
Karsh
K G
KG
Lenz
M W
MW
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D002648:Child; D003463:Cues; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D004495:Education of Persons with Intellectual Disabilities / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D005795:Generalization, Stimulus; D006801:Humans; D007100:Imitative Behavior; D008297:Male; D011939:Mental Recall; D012057:Reinforcement, Verbal; D014796:Visual Perception