Printer Friendly

Instruction in early childhood special education: "Seeing through a glass darkly ... knowing in part." (Special Issue: Trends and Issues in Early Intervention)

Most early intervention professionals will agree with several statements about services to preschoolers who are at risk for or who have developmental delays and disabilities. For example, intervention services (a) must be individualized for each child and family; (b) must be based on a thorough assessment of the child; (c) must include an assessment of, and attention to, family priorities, concerns, and goals; (d) should be sensitive to children's linguistic and cultural backgrounds; (e) should be designed to maximize children's development and independence; (f) should include children with and without disabilities when implemented in classrooms; and (g) must be planned, implemented, and evaluated by a team of professionals representing a variety of relevant disciplines. Other statements also would enjoy wide endorsement. The sources of this agreement include our tradition, regulatory parameters, prevailing beliefs and trends, logic, experience, and research.

Agreement on these statements may lead to two inaccurate and dangerous conclusions: (a) there are no substantive issues on which professionals in the field are divided, and (b) these professionals generally know what they need to know about how to provide early intervention. The instruction of preschoolers with disabilities is an issue on which disagreement exists and for which the empirical base is, at best, limited. This article has three purposes:

* To identify some existing knowledge deficits related to teaching preschoolers with disabilities.

* To propose reasons why those deficits exist.

* To list remedies for dealing with them.

The article focuses on preschoolers (3 to 5 years of age) served in group settings; it does not focus on instruction of infants and toddlers or home-based and parent-mediated intervention programs (see Hanson & Lynch, 1989; Jordan, Gallagher, Hutinger, & Karnes, 1988; Meisels & Shonkoff, 1990).

Consumers of human services, including families who receive early intervention services, can legitimately expect professionals to understand what is known by their professions and what is not known. Here, I attempt to identify some of what we do not know about teaching preschoolers with disabilities. This tactic is not intended to minimize what is known; much has been learned (see Bailey & Wolery, 1984, 1989; Bricker, 1989; Meisels & Shonkoff, 1990; Odom & Karnes, 1988). Focusing on accomplishments, however, may not push us toward the task of eliminating information deficits. "Known," as used here, has two defining features: It refers to conclusions from a research base that is replete with replications allowing them to be made with reliable accuracy and needed qualifications; and it refers to conclusions that are shared broadly enough to expect practice to reflect them.



At least four tasks are faced implicitly or explicitly in all educational endeavors:

* Specifying the content of the curriculum.

* Determining the match between the needs and abilities of individual learners and the specified content.

* Manipulating the environment to cause acquisition of important content.

* Ensuring that the learner uses the acquired content when and where it is needed and desirable (called "generalization") (Wolery & Gast, 1984).

Examples of what we do not know in each of these areas are as follows.

Identifying the Curriculum Content

The content, or what is taught, of the early childhood special education curriculum has several sources. These include communication, social/emotional, cognitive, self-care, and physical development (Bailey & Wolery, 1984, 1989); demands of the current environment (Bailey & Wolery, 1984); skills needed in the next most probable placement (Salisbury & Vincent, 1990); socially valued behaviors of a normative or non-target group (Strain & Kohler, 1988); the desires, views, and goals of families (Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1988); and, perhaps the content of early childhood curricula for children without disabilities (Bredekamp, 1987). A content derived from such diverse sources allows for flexibility and substantial individualization; however, it also sets the stage for lack of focus and lack of comprehensive instruction across domains. The answers to many questions about content are elusive and remain, for the most part, ill defined. The following sections address these questions.

To what extent should the curriculum content emphasize forms or functions? Forms are the observable behaviors of children; functions are effects of those forms on the environment. For example, saying "more" at snack is a form, the function is to request additional juice. Crawling, walking, and running are forms; the function is locomotion (getting from place to place). Speaking and giving a toy to a peer are forms; the function is to initiate interactions.

Most written curricula emphasize forms over functions. However, considerable benefit may exist for identifying the functions needed for adaptive performance. Functions are fulfilled by multiple forms, are longitudinal (e.g., displayed throughout the lifetime), and tend to be performed by progressively more complex and varied forms as children grow older. The questions for content development are as follows:

* What functions exist?

* Which functions are most important?

* How are functions related to one another?

* Which forms are most useful?

Which behaviors appear to be keystone skills? Keystone skills are those that allow children to learn a multitude of important behaviors (Rincover, 1981). For example, learning to imitate allows children to acquire other responses, and learning that actions cause effects sets the stage for meaningful exchanges with the physical and social environment. Some questions need to be explored:

* Which skills function as keystone responses?

* When should those skills be taught?

* What are their prerequisites?

What stimuli are equivalent? It is clear that some stimuli are equivalent; for example, the oral word "five" can be used correctly to label the numeral 5, the written word five, and any set or combination of sets that has a quantity equaling five. It is also clear that some ways of structuring the curriculum will allow the child to learn those equivalent relationships without direct instruction (Gast, Van Biervilet, & Spradlin, 1979; Sidman & Tailby, 1982). Important questions are:

* What equivalent relationships exist?

* How should the content of the curriculum be structured so that those relationships are learned without direct instruction?

What models of development are useful for identifying the content of the curriculum? Early attempts to design intervention services for children with disabilities used normal development as a source of curriculum content. Unfortunately, we most frequently adopted the maturational or developmental-milestones model that was incompatible with an interventionist perspective (see Dunst, 1981). This practice led to assessment instruments and curricula that included some skills that were not related to one another, did not describe the emergence of complex skills, did not present sequences for teaching, and in some cases were irrelevant for children with disabilities (Bailey & Wolery, 1984). However, other developmental models were more useful (see Dunst, 1981, 1982). Clearly, various perspectives have information relevant to the formation of curriculum content. However, for some domains, there is relatively little useful information about what to teach (e.g., the area of cognitive skills after the sensorimotor stage). The questions are:

* Which models are most useful?

* How do models from across domains relate to one another?

* What do these models contribute to curricular content?

What interrelationships exist across areas of the curriculum? To organize our thinking about curriculum, we divided it into various domains of development. This led to curricula in communication, in motor skills, and in social skills. However, it is clear that most functional acts are rooted in multiple developmental domains. For example, saying "Hi" when a person enters the room requires motor movements of the mouth, a social awareness of another's presence, and the communicative function of greeting. Clearly, children's behavior cannot be neatly segmented into domains of development; the domains interact with one another. This is not a new notion; some interrelationships are known, but we need to know more about those relationships and their implications for intervention (Berkeley & Ludlow, 1989).

What complex skills should be taught? Children who are reliably judged to be highly competent display a variety of skills such as problem solving, assessing

social situations quickly, persisting in the face of failure, making and keeping friendships, and many others. These skills, however, are rarely included in a systematic manner in the curriculum for preschoolers with disabilities. The questions for content generation are:

* Which of these complex skills are critical?

* What are their subcomponents?

* What are the best sequences for teaching these skills?

What skills, strategies, or processes do children need that will allow them to learn more efficiently? People with retardation tend to require more trials to identify the critical dimension of discriminations than do persons without retardation (Mercer & Snell, 1977). This problem is addressed by isolating the relevant dimension, increasing its salience, and providing prompts. However, it may be possible to teach strategies that would allow children to identify the critical dimensions more quickly (see Koegel & Schreibman, 1977; Schreibman, Charlop, & Koegel, 1982). Further, during children's schooling experiences, they may receive instruction that is ineffective, poorly organized, and inefficiently presented. Typical learners experience such teaching, yet learn a considerable amount of behaviors or information. Thus, an important question is: What skills, strategies, or processes will allow children to learn and to do so efficiently and independently in more varied and unpredictable instructional conditions?

Determining the Match Between the Learner and Curriculum Content

Once curricular content is identified, teams must determine what specific content is appropriate and needed by each learner. This match is usually accomplished by developmental and ecological assessments (Bailey & Wolery, 1989; Wachs & Sheehan, 1988). This function is critical to the instructional process and requires identification of the curricular content and of procedures for measuring children's performance of that content. We need to know how to:

* Identify skills efficiently that are needed across environments.

* Assess the events and variables in the environment that control children's performance.

* Assess children's learning patterns.

* Identify skills that will have immediate and long-term, positive impacts.

Manipulating the Environment to Cause Acquisition

Once the individualized content is identified, teams must manipulate the environment to ensure that the target skills are acquired. Variables that can be manipulated include the physical space, materials, activities, schedule of activities, and the social environment. Much of the disagreement about how instruction is provided to preschoolers with disabilities deals with the manner in which these variables are manipulated. A great deal is known about specific manipulations; however, much remains to be understood, as the following questions show.

What are the effects of independent and combined manipulations of space, materials, activities, and schedules on children's engagement and learning? Certain manipulations of space and activities (e.g., reduced space and structured play themes) influence the type and amount of children's play and social contacts (DeKlyen & Odom, 1989; Rubin & Howe, 1985); and some materials result in more social behavior than others (Odom & Strain, 1984). Variables such as staffing patterns (e.g., zone versus person-to-person assignment) (LeLaurin & Risley, 1972) and optional versus required activities (Doke & Risley, 1972) also influence engagement. However, many of these findings originate from data on children who are at risk for delays rather than children with identified disabilities. When children with disabilities are included, the manipulations appear to cause positive changes, but additional interventions are often necessary. Bailey and McWilliam (1990) present a matrix of these variables on the dimension of restrictiveness that may serve as a heuristic for studying these issues systematically. Clearly, much remains to be learned about how environments should be designed to influence children's learning and performance.

What are the effects of child- and teacher-directed activities? A major difference between regular and special early education deals with the extent to which the teacher directs learning activities. From the developmentally appropriate practice guidelines (Bredekamp, 1987, in press), teachers are to "guide," "support," "encourage," and structure the environment so children can explore, interact, and learn on their own. In early childhood special education, direct instruction is seen as a viable practice, and effective strategies exist (Wolery, Ault, & Doyle, in press; Wolery et al., 1990). Relevant questions are:

* For what types of outcomes are child- and teacher-directed instruction best suited?

* What balance, if any, should exist between the two types?

* Which children, if any, learn best from either type or given combinations of the two types?

* What phases of performance (acquisition, fluency, maintenance, generalization) are promoted by the two types?

Are naturally occurring reinforcers adequate to result in acquisition and maintenance of important skills? A considerable amount of research has demonstrated the effects of various reinforcers and reinforcement schedules (Baer, 1978; Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987). Many of the reinforcers in the literature, however, are not indigenous to the activities in which the behavior is performed; for example, edibles do not occur naturally in "circle time." In general, there is an acknowledgement of the power of tangible reinforcers, but a reluctance in the field to use them extensively and frequently. Rather, praise and the "more natural" consequences of children's behavior (e.g., task completion, manipulation of toys, etc.) are used. The important questions for instruction are:

* How can these more natural "reinforcers" be identified and used in multiple activities to ensure acquisition?

* How can these indigenous stimuli be made to have or maintain reinforcement value without the use of tangibles?

* At what point (if ever) should "naturalness" be sacrificed for effectiveness?

How should functions be taught? As noted previously, functions are the effects produced by specific behaviors. If acquisition of particular functions is important, then how are they best taught? Logically, existing forms rather than new forms should be used when teaching new functions, but relatively little research exists to support this contention (Carr, 1988). Even less research guides us in designing environments and situations that present the child with the "need" to perform specific functions.

How can multiple behaviors be taught at the same time without impeding learning? Early childhood educators for typically developing children maintain that activities should enable children to learn multiple rather than one or two skills per activity (Bredekamp, 1987). Further, preschoolers with disabilities in direct instruction appear to learn conditional discriminations more rapidly if more than one behavior is taught at a time (Doyle, Wolery, Ault, Gast, & Wiley, 1989), and they appear to learn extra information inserted in the antecedent and consequent events (Cybriwsky, Wolery, & Gast, 1990). Some questions are:

* Which behaviors are best taught together?

* How can behaviors from different domains be learned together?

* How can low-structure situations be designed so that children learn multiple behaviors?

* How can observational and incidental learning be promoted?

What skills can be taught through peer-medicated strategies? A primary rationale for integrating children with and without disabilities is that the children without disabilities can positively affect the learning of their peers. Indeed, considerable research exists demonstrating the efficacy of this approach with social interaction, other social skills (Kohler & Strain, 1990), and communication skills (Goldstein & Wickstrom, 1986). More research is needed to answer these questions:

* What are the limits of peer-medicated interventions?

* Can peer-medicated procedures be applied widely and used reliably?

* What variables increase the durability of skills taught by peers?

* What maintains peers' use of these procedures?

* What effects (if any) do these interventions have on friendship formation?

Ensuring Use of Acquired Skills

One of the most significant challenges special educators face is structuring instruction so that children use the acquired skills. Numerous strategies exist for facilitating generalizations, such as teaching responses needed in the natural environment; delaying reinforcers and making contingencies indiscriminate; using self-monitoring procedures; varying and using multiple examples of materials, instructors, and settings; using natural schedules of reinforcement; teaching children to "generalize"; and others (see Horner, Dunlap, & Koegel, 1988; Stokes & Baer, 1977). However, several questions remain:

* Which generalization procedures (or combinations) can be implemented in child-directed activities?

* Are some procedures more likely to produce particular types of generalization?

* Are some generalization-promoting strategies more effective with particular types of skills (e.g., chained versus discrete responses)?

* How is self-monitoring best taught to preschoolers with disabilities?

* What are the effects on generalization of response patterns such as persistence, high levels of engagement, and skill in problem solving?

Research Needs

As the sample questions show, we need to know several important things about the content of the curriculum, about how to identify what is important for each learner, and about how to deliver instruction to ensure skill acquisition and use. It is important to remember that (a) these questions are examples, and other gaps exist in our knowledge; (b) the knowledge gaps can be filled (research designs and measures exist for answering these questions); and (c) despite the monumental tasks these questions present, more is known now than 5 years ago, and more was known then than 10 years ago. What has caused us not to know some of these things?



Knowing, as defined earlier, requires a process of systematic inquiry that occurs over time. In coming to know, it may be useful to identify some potential barriers. However, little research has sought to identify the factors that impede the development of knowledge about teaching youngsters with disabilities; logic and experience suggest the following impediments.

The Nature of the Issue

We have knowledge gaps about what and how to teach because it is a huge task. It requires familiarity with several bodies of literature, including child development, intervention and treatment research, learning theory, and stimulus control research. Few, if any, individuals have a working knowledge of all these areas. Specialization is used to deal with extensive literatures; however, specialization begets fragmentation. As a result, the whole of the issue is rarely synthesized. The primary solution to fragmentation is collaboration by individuals with different knowledge bases. The conditions for effective collaboration are a willingness to learn, time to learn, and availability of persons with whom to collaborate; these are difficult conditions to establish.

Another impediment is that multiple philosophic bases are relevant to the answers. For example, understanding the theoretical bases of neurodevelopmental therapy, normal motor movements, and movement components may be necessary for determining the content of the "motor" part of the curriculum, but it may provide little understanding of communication. Understanding communication development requires knowledge of other theoretical perspectives. As Dunst (1981) illustrated, two or more theoretical perspectives (e.g., ecological theory and progressivism) may be compatible (i.e., capable of synthesis); however, others may be incompatible (e.g., maturational and behavioral perspectives). Until particular theories or combinations of theories emerge as dominant, confusion and lack of knowledge are likely to continue about what and how to teach. Solutions to this problem are less readily identified, beyond attempting to merge related theories, and discarding those that fail to provide sufficient explanation and are not blessed with subsequent research support.

Finally, an impediment to understanding instruction of preschoolers concerns the data bases from which we draw our information. Because the task is large and research on teaching preschoolers is relatively new, interventions are taken from two sources: regular early childhood education and instruction of older children with moderate to severe disabilities. We have been reinforced in the past (e.g., through children's performance or our colleagues' approval) for using these two sources. These sources may have information that is useful and valid; however, they share an inadequacy: Neither has articulated clearly the conditions under which their practices work well, work in part, and do not work. Thus, the external validity of those literatures is less than precise (see Birnbrauer, 1981, for a complete discussion). What is good for typical children and for older children with moderate to severe disabilities may not work for preschoolers with disabilities. It is not that such information is useless, rather it cannot be accepted without systematic inquiry into its effects and limitations with preschoolers who have disabilities.

Research Practices

Another set of barriers concerns research practices. Two practices seem to impede our understanding of instruction. First, we study instruction too infrequently. Early intervention involves identifying children in need of services, developing teaming processes, understanding the needs and priorities of families, providing services to families, building interagency interactions, preparing personnel, developing transition programs, and dealing with many other intriguing issues. These issues may have diluted our intellectual resources for investigating curricular issues. The demand to address these other issues empirically (noble and needed as it is) is seductive and has led us away from doing research that involves multiple replications and refinements of our instructional interventions. I am not advocating that we abandon these interesting areas of research; rather, I recommend that we should put instructional research on a richer schedule of reinforcement.

Second, instructional research must continually deal with the dilemma of being relevant while simultaneously generating new information. Thus, when attempting to understand what causes a particular instructional variable to work, researchers must conduct the study in the context of teaching useful skills. A simplier, less demanding, and more incremental strategy may be to first teach skills that have relatively little value but are uncontaminated by learning histories. After understanding the effects of these procedures in such contexts, researchers may decide that application to useful skills is legitimate and necessary. However, reports of such analogue research are less welcome at conferences and in periodicals publishing early intervention research. Solutions to these barriers primarily are under the control of editorial boards. Providing special issues of journals on instructional and curricular issues, accepting reports of replication and refinement research, and accepting reports of instructional research that is methodologically sound but socially invalid are simplistic means of dealing with these barriers. Other means are advocating for funding of instructional research and developing demonstration projects around such issues.

Personnel Preparation Issues

Two issues concerning how early intervention personnel are trained may impede our understanding of the pedagogy of preschoolers with disabilities. First, nearly everyone agrees that intervention programs should be designed by a team of professionals from relevant disciplines. Members of different disciplines have specific roles and unique areas of expertise (e.g., speech/language pathologists are experts in communication disorders and intervention, physical and occupational therapists are experts in motor development and therapy). As educators, what is our unique area of expertise? Given our discipline, we should be the team member who is skilled in designing, implementing, and evaluating instruction; we should be the pedagogical experts. Despite large bodies of information on instructional design, establishing and transferring stimulus control, and instructional technology, relatively few training programs have extensive course work in these areas. This must be corrected if new early childhood educators are to competently fulfill the role of the pedagogical expert on intervention teams.

Second, personnel programs in education (including special education and early childhood special education) tend to have minimal training in research design and analysis. Thus, teachers are not competent consumers of research, and more advanced educators have limited research competencies. To address these knowledge deficits, practitioners will need to be advocates for, consumers of, and participants in research activities. Models for preparing masters-level personnel in research competencies exist (Gast & Wolery, 1990; Heward, Heron, & Cooper, 1990). Implementation of these models, however, requires additional faculty, required course work in research design, and mandatory thesis completion. If many of the questions in this article are to be answered, persons providing instruction must be skilled in studying them systematically.


Considerable knowledge gaps exist related to (a) identifying the content of the early childhood special education curriculum, (b) determining what to teach particular learners, (c) designing instructional environments and procedures to cause acquisition, and (d) developing programs that will result in skill use. To fill the knowledge gaps, we must deal effectively with the nature of the problem, change some of our research practices, and evaluate how we are preparing early intervention personnel.


Baer, D.M. (1978). The behavioral analysis of trouble. In K.E. Allen, V.A. Holm, & R.L. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), Early intervention--a team approach (pp.57-93). Baltimore: University Park Press.

Bailey, D.B., & McWilliam, R.A. (1990). Normalizing early intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 33-47.

Bailey, D.B., & Wolery, M. (1984). Teaching infants and preschoolers with handicaps. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Bailey, D.B., & Wolery, M. (1989). Assessing infants and preschoolers with handicaps. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Berkeley, T.R., & Ludlow, B.L. (1989). Toward a reconceptualization of the development model. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 9(3), 51-66.

Birnbrauer, J.S. (1981). External validity and experimental investigation of individual behavior. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 117-132.

Bredekamp, S.(Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (in press). Appropriate curriculum and assessment. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bricker, D. (1989). Early intervention for at-risk and handicapped infants, toddlers, and preschool children. Palo Alto, CA: VORT.

Carr, E.G. (1988). Functional equivalence as a mechanism of response generalization. In R.H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R.L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings (pp. 221-241). BaltEmore: Paul H. Brookes.

Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Cybriwsky, C.A., Wolery, M., & Gast, D.L. (1990). Use of a constant time delay procedure in teaching preschoolers in a group format. Journal of Early intervention, 14, 99-116.

DeKlyen, M., & Odom, S.L. (1989). Activity structure and social interactions with peers in developmentally integrated play groups. Journal of Early Intervention, 13, 342-352.

Doke, L.A., & Risley, T.R. (1972). The organization of day-care environments: Required versus optional activities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 405-420.

Doyle, P.M., Wolery, M., Ault, M.J., Gast, D.L., & Wiley, K. (1989). Establishing conditional discriminations: Concurrent versus isolation-intermix instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 349-362.

Dunst, C.J. (1981). Infant learning: A cognitive-linguistic intervention strategy. Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources.

Dunst, C.J. (1982). Theoretical bases and pragmatic considerations. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Curricula for high-risk and handicapped infants. Chapel Hill, NC: TADS.

Dunst, C.J., Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (1988). Enabling and empowering families: Principles and guidelines for practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Gast, D.L., Van Biervilet, A., & Spradlin, J. (1979). Teaching number-word equivalences: A study of transfer. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 524-527.

Gast, D.L., & Wolery, M. (1990). An applied research model for teacher preparation in the education of persons with severe disabilities. In A.P. Kaiser & C.M. McWhorter (Eds.), Preparing personnel to work with persons with severe disabilities (pp. 243-269). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Goldstein, H., & Wickstrom, S. (1986). Peer intervention: effects on communicative interaction among handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 209-214.

Hanson, M.J., & Lynch, E.W. (1989). Early intervention: Implementing child and family services for infants and toddlers who are at-risk or disabled. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Heward, W,L., Heron, T.E., & Cooper, J.O. (1990). The masters thesis in applied behavior analysis: rationale, characteristics, and student advisement strategies. The Behavior Analyst, 13, 205-210.

Horner, R.H., Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R.L. (Eds.). (1988). Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Jordan, J.B., Gallagher, J.J., Hutinger, P.L., & Karnes, M.B. (Eds.). (1988). Early childhood special education: Birth to three. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.

Koegel, R.L., & Schreibman, L. (1977). Teaching autistic children to respond to simultaneous multiplecues. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 24, 299-311.

Kohler, F.W., & Strain, P.S. (1990). Peer-assisted interventions: Early promises, notable achievements, and future aspirations. Clinical Psychology Review, 10, 441-452.

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

Meisels, S.J., & Shonkoff, J.P. (Eds.). (1990). Handbook of early childhood intervention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mercer, C.D., & Snell, M.E. (1977). Learning theory research in mental retardation: Implications for teaching. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Odom, S.L., & Karnes, M.B. (Eds.). (1988). Early intervention for infants and children with handicaps: An empirical base. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Odom, S.L., & Strain, P.S. (1984). Classroom-based social skills instruction for severely handicapped preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 4(3), 97-116.

Rincover, A. (1981). Some directions for analysis and intervention in developmental disabilities: An editorial. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 109-115.

Rubin, K.H., & Howe, N. (1985). Toys and play behaviors: An overview. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 5(3), 1-9.

Salisbury, C.L., & Vincent, L.J. (1990). Criterion of the next environment and best practices: Mainstreaming and integration 10 years later. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10, 78-89.

Schreibman, L., Charlop, M. H., & Koegel, R. L. (1982). Teaching autistic children to use extra-stimulus prompts. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 475-491.

Sidman, M., & Tailby, W. (1982). Conditional discrimination vs. matching to sample: An expansion of the testing paradigm. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 5-22.

Stokes, T.F., & Baer, D.M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 347-367.

Strain, P.S., & Kohler, F.W. (1988). Social skill intervention with young children with handicaps: Some new conceptualizations and directions. In S.L. Odom & M.B. Karnes (Eds.), Early intervention for infants and children with handicaps: An empirical base (pp. 129-143). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Wachs, T.D., & Sheehan, R. (Eds.). (1988). Assessment of young developmentally disabled children. New York: Plenum.

Wolery, M., Ault, M.J., & Doyle, P.M. (in press). Teaching students with moderate and severe handicaps: Use of response prompting procedures. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Wolery, M., & Gast, D.L. (1984). Effective and efficient procedures for the transfer of stimulus control. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 4(3), 52-77.

Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Cybriwsky, C., Dolye, P. M., Schuster, J.W., Ault, M.J., & Gast, D.L. (1990). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review. Manuscript submitted for publication.
COPYRIGHT 1991 Council for Exceptional Children
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1991 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Wolery, Mark
Publication:Exceptional Children
Date:Oct 1, 1991
Previous Article:Family-oriented early intervention policies and practices: family-centered or not?
Next Article:Perspectives on the transition from preschool to kindergarten for children with disabilities and their families.

Related Articles
Formulating optimal state early childhood intervention policies.
New precedent in family policy: individualized Family Service Plan.
Perspectives on the transition from preschool to kindergarten for children with disabilities and their families.
Mainstreaming during the early childhood years.
After Preschool Inclusion: Children's Educational Pathways Over the Early School Years.
Supporting young children's peer competence in an era of inclusion. (Review of Research).
Early intervention.
Including children with disabilities in early childhood education programs: individualizing developmentally appropriate practices.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters