Use of constant time delay and attentional responses with adolescents.
* Effective instructional strategies for teaching students with disabilities include constant and progressive time delay (Handen & Zane, 1987), the system of least prompts (Doyle, Wolery, Ault, & Gast, 1988), most-to-least prompting (Billingsley & Romer, 1983), and integrated prompting procedures and stimulus shaping and fading (Ault, Wolery, Doyle, & Gast, 1989; Schoen, 1986). When selecting procedures, teachers should choose the least intrusive, least restrictive, most parsimonious, most effective, and most efficient strategy. Although intrusiveness, restrictiveness, and parsimony are assessed through logical analyses, effectiveness and efficiency are evaluated through research. Effectiveness is judged by whether students learn, and efficiency relates to the relative speed of learning. Traditionally, efficiency is measured by calculating the number of sessions, trials, errors, and minutes of direct instruction to criterion. A procedure is considered more efficient than another if it produces fewer sessions, trials, errors, or minutes of instructional time to teach an equal number of behaviors. Efficiency also can be measured by whether multiple behaviors are learned with the same amount of instruction. If two strategies produce the same number of trials to criterion, but one strategy results in students' also learning additional behaviors, then the second strategy would be considered more efficient.
Group instruction, rather than individualized instruction, is recommended to increase the efficiency of instruction, in terms of both teacher time and the opportunity to learn additional behaviors through observation (Westling, Ferrell, & Swenson, 1982). Although group arrangements are used frequently, additional research is needed to identify factors that will increase observational learning. One such variable is students' attention to stimuli taught to other group members. Ideally, students should attend to the critical features of stimuli presented to others (Bandura, 1971). Thus, the cues teachers use to secure and maintain students' attention and the responses students use to indicate that they are attending may be critical variables to manipulate in increasing observational learning (LeBlanc & Ruggles, 1982).
Another variable that may increase the probability of learning multiple behaviors is the events that follow student responding. Teachers frequently are encouraged to use descriptive rather than general praise statements (Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988). Although extensive research exists on the effects of contingent praise and social attention, little exists on the effects of descriptive as compared with general praise. One study was found that compared labeled (descriptive) and unlabeled (general) praise; labeled praise included naming the behavior being praised in the praise statement, and unlabeled included statements such as "good" or "way to go" but did not name the behavior (Bernhardt & Forehand, 1975). Labeled praise was more effective in changing behaviors. No studies were found that determined whether facts other than those being praised could be taught by including them in feedback or descriptive praise statements.
Constant time delay is a parsimonious and minimally intrusive and restrictive procedure. During initial trials, it involves simultaneous presentation of the target stimuli and a controlling prompt; all subsequent trials include presentation of the target stimulus, a response interval of fixed duration, and presentation of the controlling prompt if the student does not respond. Constant time delay has been used to teach food preparation skills (Schuster, Gast, Wolery, & Guiltinan, 1988), manual sign production (Browder, Morris, & Snell, 1981), and sight word reading (Koury & Browder, 1986) to students with moderate and severe retardation. Also it has been used successfully to teach sight word reading (Precious, 1985) and spelling (Kinney, Stevens, & Schuster, 1988; Stevens & Schuster, 1987) to students with learning disabilities. It is more efficient in terms of trials, errors, and instructional time than the system of least prompts (Gast, Ault, Wolery, Doyle, & Belanger, 1988) and is at least as efficient as progressive time delay (Ault, Gast, & Wolery, 1988). Recently, it has been used effectively in a group arrangement with preschoolers (Cybriwsky, Wolery, & Gast, 1990) and with students with moderate disabilities (Gast, Wolery, Morris, Doyle, & Meyer, 1990).
This study addressed three research questions:
1. Would constant time delay be effective in teaching adolescents with learning or behavior disorders?
2. Would a specific attentional response (repeating the teacher's question) affect students' acquisition of (a) target facts, (b) other group members' target facts (observational learning), and (c) additional related information inserted in feedback statements for correct responses?
3. Would providing feedback containing additional information result in students (a) acquiring that additional information and (b) learning similar information provided in other students' feedback?
In this study, the target task was teaching students to recite facts about federal governmental offices, local offices or agencies, over-the-counter medications, and vitamins and minerals. The related nontarget information (presented in the feedback statements) provided additional information about the target fact being learned. For example, if the target task were for the student to describe the functions of the State Department, the related nontarget information presented in the praise statement was naming the Secretary of State. The specific question related to the feedback statement was: Would students learn this related information for their target facts as well as for other students' target facts when no specific contingencies were in effect for learning this information? If students did acquire this supplemental information, it would confirm the importance of using feedback statements to increase the efficiency of instruction.
Five students, 2 males and 3 females, participated in this study. At the onset, 4 subjects were involved, but 1 (Paula) moved from the school district and another subject (Mary) was added. All were placed in a special education resource room.
Ann, aged 14 years, 11 months, was from an upper middle-income family and was placed part time in the resource room for language arts and support skills. She was diagnosed as being learning disabled and had received special services in the public schools for 7 years. Her performance on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R)(Wechsler, 1974) indicated a full-scale score of 91. Her strengths were in passage comprehension, copying symbols, general vocabulary, and syntactic similarities. Weaknesses were in short-term auditory memory skills, paragraph reading, writing in complete and complex sentences, and spelling. The Test of Reading Comprehension (TORC)(Brown, Hammill, & Wiederholt, 1978) indicated that she was below average in paragraph reading; results for the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (Woodcock, 1973) indicated that her total reading ability was deficient approximately four grades.
Tom, aged 14 years, 8 months, was from a middle-income family and was categorized as being behaviorally disordered. He was placed in the vocational education program for the first half of the school day and in the resource room for the latter portion of the day. He had received instruction in language arts, reading, social studies, and math in special services for 7 years. His strengths were in mathematical reasoning and performing math operations. Although he demonstrated improvement in sight word recognition, weaknesses were noted in reading comprehension, word attack skills, and both written and oral expression language skills. Although test scores were not available, Tom's placement in the resource room was based on his average intellectual functioning with social skill deficits as well as deficient task-related behaviors that resulted in substantially lower academic performance. He was described as being highly manipulative and continually seeking approval from the staff.
Mary, aged 15 years, 2 months, was from a lower income family and was classified as being learning disabled. Mary was placed in the resource room for math, language arts, reading, science, and social studies. She had received special services, including speech therapy, for 8 years. Her intellectual functioning was considered "low-average" based on her full-scale performance of 89 on the WISC-R. She was functioning approximately two to three grade levels below average. Her strengths were in the areas of addition, division, multiplication, numerical reasoning, money skills, reading recognition, and general information. Her weaknesses were in the areas of time measurement, solving word problems, subtraction, spelling vowels, and mental computation. Language processing difficulties resulted in deficits in reading comprehension and written expression. She was described as being a hard worker and highly motivated to perform well.
Charlie, aged 15 years, 11 months, was from a low-income family and had received special services for 8 years; he was mainstreamed only for typing. His initial placement was based on the classification of educable mentally handicapped; his primary handicapping condition was changed to behaviorally disordered 6 years later (2 years before the onset of this study). His performance on the WISC-R indicated a full-scale score of 66; he was functioning 3-4 years below grade level in all areas. His strengths were in the areas of mathematical reasoning, discriminating essential visual cues, sequencing socially relevant stimuli, spelling word beginnings and one-syllable words, sight-word reading, basic math operations, and money concepts. His weaknesses were in word attack skills, word and passage comprehension, mental computation, spelling word endings and vowels, abstract reasoning, general knowledge, expressive vocabulary, and verbalizing conventional social judgments.
All sessions were conducted by the resource room teacher at a table (2.5 x 6 feet, or 0.8 x 1.8 meters [m]) located in the back of the classroom (24x 26.25 feet, or 7.3 x 8 m). The teacher and 4 students were seated so that all stimulus cards and corresponding responses were visible and audible to all group members. During the sessions, three other students were engaged in independent seatwork. A research associate assisted during the teacher's absences and assessed related nontarget learning throughout the study.
Materials and Tasks
A total of 64 facts, relevant to the subjects' educational curriculum and individualized educational program, were presented. Each fact was printed in black ink, with upper and lower-case letters, on large cards (8.5 x 11 inches, or 21.6 x 27.9 centimeters); the questions asked of the fact were printed on the front of the cards, and the back of the cards contained the correct response, related nontarget information (if provided for that stimulus item), and a prompt to indicate the required attentional response. Candy bars and soft drinks were delivered every other day as reinforcers. Each student also had a daily self-monitoring performance chart which was used during the instructional conditions.
The 64 facts were divided into four instructional sets of 16 facts. By sets, the following information was taught: the functions of federal offices, the services provided by local offices and agencies, over-the-counter medications, and the effects of specific vitamins and minerals on the body. Information presented in the feedback statements by sets included the names of the people who headed federal offices, additional services the local agencies offered, and brand names or foods that contained the drugs or vitamins and minerals, respectively.
General Procedures. One instructional session was conducted daily if at least 2 of the group members were present. For each instructional set, each student had four targeted facts. Two of these were presented with a general attentional cue and two with a specific attentional cue. With the general attentional response, the teacher held up the card, instructed the students to look at the stimulus, waited for the students to look, and then said the targeted subject's name and read the fact question (e.g., "Tom. Where do you get your driver's license?"). With the specific attentional response, the teacher held up the card; instructed the students to look and waited for them to look; and then said the student's name, read the task question, and asked the student to repeat it (e.g., "Mary. What can be used to relieve indigestion? Repeat what I said.") If the targeted subject did not display the requested attentional response, he or she was verbally prompted to do so.
Half of the facts for each student were followed with general praise and half with praise plus feedback with additional information. The general praise included statements such as "Good" and "That's right"; the feedback with related information included an additional fact about the target fact. For example, in the question about where to get a driver's license, the correct response was "County Clerk's Office," and the additional related information was, "You can get a boat license there also."
Since each student learned four facts in each set, each student had one fact with each combination of attentional responses and feedback statements. One fact was taught with the specific attentional response and feedback with additional information, another with specific attentional response and general praise, another with the general attentional response and additional information, and the final fact with general attentional response and general praise. This allowed an analysis of the effects of the two types of attentional responses and the two types of feedback. All facts were presented once, before repeating any others. Also, no student received more than two consecutive turns and no fact was presented on successive trials.
Response Definitions and Data Collection
Data were collected continuously on the subjects' statement of target facts. In addition, attending behaviors for all group members were recorded on 10 randomly selected trials during instructional sessions and all trials during probe sessions. Attending responses were recorded as either "attending" or "nonattending." When a general attentional response was used, attending was defined as looking at the card containing the question about the fact. When a specific attentional response was used, attending was defined as looking at the card while the targeted subject orally repeated the question.
During probe conditions, three student responses were scored: Correct, incorrect, or no response. These responses are defined as follows:
* Correct--correctly stating the answer within the 4-second(s) response interval.
* Incorrect--incorrectly stating the answer within the 4-s response interval.
* No response--saying nothing within the 4-s response interval.
Six possible student responses were recorded during instruction. These responses are defined as follows:
* Unprompted correct--correctly stating the answer within the 4-s response interval. When a general attentional response was used, the response interval began after the teacher held up the card, instructed the group to look at the card, and read the task question from the card. When a specific attentional response was used, the response interval began after the targeted subject had repeated the task question from the card following the teacher's reading of the question.
* Prompted correct--correctly repeating the answer within 4 s after the teacher's model.
* Nonwait error--incorrectly stating the answer before the delivery of the teacher's prompt.
* Wait error--incorrectly repeating the answer within 4 s after the prompt delivery.
* No response--saying nothing within 4 s of the prompt delivery.
* Interference--another student gave a correct or incorrect answer before the target student answered.
Probe Procedures. Probe sessions were conducted immediately before instruction on a set and after all sets had been taught. All probe sessions were conducted individually, rather than in the group, because of our interest in evaluating observational learning. Each probe condition had a minimum of four probe sessions (32 trials each), which assessed a student's acquisition of target facts. The first two probe sessions assessed a student's targeted facts (4 trials for each of the 8 facts) and the latter two sessions assessed a students's acquisition of all facts presented in the study (i.e., 8 targeted facts and 24 facts assigned to the other students). These latter two sessions assessed observational learning. In the first (Probe I) and last (Probe V) probe conditions, students were assessed on all students' facts and the nontarget related information associated with each fact. These two conditions provided a pretest and posttest evaluation of observational learning of all other students' targeted facts and observational learning of all related information. In Probes II, III, and IV, students were assessed only on those facts just taught (i.e., all students' target facts in the just-completed instructional condition) and their own nontargeted related information. The reason for this abbreviated probe was to obtain more measures on facts just taught and those to be taught while maintaining a constant session length, both in terms of trials and time, across probe conditions.
During probe sessions, all facts were presented with both attentional responses. The attentional responses were alternated across probe sessions. For the probe trials with the general attentional response, the teacher held up the card, said "Look," and then said the student's name and asked the target question, provided a response interval, and provided the appropriate consequent event. For correct responses, praise was provided; for error and no responses, the teacher removed the card and initiated a 3-s intertrial interval. For the probe trials with the specific attentional response, the teacher engaged in the preceding behaviors and also asked the student to repeat the target question before answering.
Constant Time Delay. The first session in each instructional condition included 32 trials and used a 0-s delay interval. All subsequent sessions for that set consisted of 64 trials and a 4-s delay interval. Each trial began with the attentional cue. The response interval (0- or 4-s) began after the target subject engaged in the appropriate attentional response and the discriminative stimulus was read from the card. If the subject had not responded within the allocated response time, the prompt was delivered by the teacher. The prompt involved both visual and auditory cues: The teacher showed the back of the card with the answer printed on it and said the correct answer.
Unprompted and prompted correct responses resulted in verbal praise. Half of the facts presented in the study also received additional information presented in the feedback statement. Students were expected to have at least 94% (15/16 trials) correct responses, and at least 80% appropriate attending behaviors to be eligible for backup reinforcer at the end of each session. Praise was delivered on a Continuous Reinforcement (CRF) schedule until the entire group met the criteria of 100% unprompted correct responses, and then was thinned to a variable-ratio three (VR-3) schedule until a minimum of two consecutive sessions with 100% unprompted correct responses occurred for all group members.
Errors and no responses were ignored. Differential reinforcement was provided if a student's percentage of correct anticipations did not increase after three consecutive sessions. Verbal praise was delivered, but the back-up reinforcer was contingent on a higher percentage of correct unprompted responses.
Review Trials. Review trials of previously taught facts were conducted before each instructional session, beginning with Instruction II. Each student received one review trial per day using a general attentional response; praise was delivered for correct responding. Errors or no responses resulted in the teacher's saying "No," then providing the correct response.
The experimental design was a modification of the parallel-treatments design (Gast & Wolery, 1988), which can be conceptualized as concurrently implemented, multiple-probe designs (Tawney & Gast, 1984). This design allows multiple instructional procedures to be compared by teaching equally difficult but independent responses with each procedure. It allows for replication of effects across behaviors within subjects and across subjects. History and maturational threats are controlled by the time-lagged application of the procedures to different behaviors.
In this study, the constant time delay procedure was used in four separate conditions that were simultaneously implemented, using all possible combinations of two attentional responses (general and specific) and two feedback statements (general praise and praise plus additional information). The sequence and description of the experimental conditions are shown in Figure 1.
Interobserver agreement assessments on subject responding and procedural implementation (Billingsley, White, & Munson, 1980) were conducted by a trained observer. Interobserver agreement was calculated using a point-by-point method (Tawney & Gast, 1984): The number of agreements was divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100. The percent of procedural fidelity was calculated for each methodological variable by dividing the number of observed teacher behaviors by the number of planned behaviors and multiplying by 100. The following behaviors were assessed: presenting the stimulus, requesting the group to attend, securing the appropriate attentional response from the targeted subject, presenting the discriminative stimuli, waiting the specified response interval, delivering the controlling prompts and consequences correctly, and implementing the 3- to 5-s intertrial interval.
Interobserver agreement checks were collected during 29 of the 82 (35.4%) probe sessions and during 21 of the 52 (40.4%) instructional sessions. The mean percent of observer agreement on student responding during probe conditions was 99.3% (98.3% to 100%) and during instructional conditions was 99.8% (99.4% to 100%). During probe conditions, procedural fidelity for presenting the stimuli and delivering the instructional cue was 100%. Requesting the correct attentional response was 99.2% (96.9% to 100%); ensuring the targeted subject complied with the correct attentional response was 96.4% (94.9% to 98.8%); waiting the correct response interval was 99.0% (95.8% to 100%); consequating student responses correctly was 98.8% (97.5% to 99.6%); and waiting the intertrial interval was 99.9% (99.6% to 100%). During instructional conditions, a mean of 100% agreement was evident for presenting the stimulus, delivering the instructional cue, and waiting the correct intertrial interval. Agreement percentages for requesting and ensuring the correct attentional responses were 99.5% (99.1% to 100%) and 97.7% (96.9% to 100%), respectively; waiting the correct response interval was 99.1% (98.0% to 100%); and consequating correctly was 98.9% (96.9% to 99.3%).
The percentage of correct responses for the group is shown in Figure 2. The percentage of correct responses for each probe condition by type of attentional responses, for each student, is shown in Table 1. At the onset of the study (Probe I), correct responding for all targeted facts was 0% across all subjects. This level maintained on each instructional set before training, with the exception of Probe II for Tom, who responded correctly to one of his targeted facts for the second instructional set. Implementation of the constant time delay procedure resulted in criterion-level responding on all target facts for all students. The only modification required to establish criterion-level responding was the use of differential reinforcement for correct unprompted responses only. This change was used for Ann on Set I and Set IV and for Tom on Set I. High levels of correct responding were maintained on all facts taught throughout the study, even as reinforcement schedules were thinned. As shown in Table 1, Mary did not receive instruction during the first instructional condition because she joined the group at the beginning of Probe II when another student moved away. Similarly, because of a prolonged absence, Charlie did not receive intervention on behaviors targeted for Set IV.
The number of trials and percent of errors to criterion for each subject by each of the four attentional response/feedback conditions were calculated. For the number of trials to criterion by attentional response, nearly equal totals occurred (528 trials for specific and 532 for general); similarly, the percent of errors were nearly equal (2.7% for specific and 2.3% for general). The totals for the two feedback conditions also produced similar results. For trials to criterion, a total of 536 trails occurred when additional information was added to the feedback statement; and 524 occurred when no additional information was added. For the percent of errors, 3.2% occurred when information was added; and 1.7% occurred without additional information. Thus, it appears that the type of attentional response and type of feedback did not differentially influence the number of trials or percent of errors to criterion.
Each student learned some behaviors targeted for other group members (observational learning). Observational learning on each set was assessed four times during the study: before instruction, when students first reached 100% correct unprompted responses during training, in the probe condition following instruction, and at the conclusion of the study. As shown in Table 2, students learned some but not all of their group members' targeted responses. Much of that learning occurred before they displayed 100% correct unprompted responses on their own targeted responses. However, in most cases, students increased their observational learning performance slightly in the probe condition following instruction. Table 2 indicates that observational learning was essentially equal for the two types of attentional responses (a) when it was assessed at the first session and (b) when each student individually met the 100% criterion. On the final probe, however, all 4 subjects displayed more maintenance of observational learning for facts taught with a specific attending cue.
Additional Facts Presented in Feedback
Additional information was included in the feedback statements following correct responses for half of the facts for each student; general praise was presented for the other half of the facts. Initially, all students had 0% correct responses on information presented in the feedback statements. They continued at this level on facts that did not receive incidental information with the exception of one fact presented in the second instructional condition. For this fact, a guest speaker provided the information. After training on all sets, the group obtained a mean of 82.1% (23/28 trials) correct responses on information presented in the feedback statements and 3.1% (1/32 trials) on information not presented. Thus, students learned the information presented in the feedback statements, without purposeful training or contingencies.
The effect of the two attentional responses on the learning of the additional information presented in the feedback statements is shown in Table 3. Students were more likely to learn the additional information if the related facts were taught with the specific attentional responses (92.9%, 13/14 trials) than the general attending response (71.4%, 10/14 trials). Interestingly, students also learned some of the additional information that was presented to their group members. Students learned 37.2% (29/78 trials) of the additional information presented to other students and 2.6% (2/78 trials) of the information that was not presented. However, for the facts taught with the specific attentional response, they performed at 51.3% (20/39 trials); and for the general attentional response they performed at 23.1% (9/39 trials).
The purposes of this study were to (a) evaluate the effects of constant time delay in a group format with adolescents who displayed learning and behavioral disabilities; (b) identify the role of attentional responses on acquisition of target facts, observational learning, and incidental learning; and (c) investigate the acquisition of related information presented in feedback statements. Based on the findings of this study, four statements can be made.
First, the constant time delay procedure was implemented reliably in the group context. Most of the research with this and other errorless learning procedures has been conducted in individualized rather than group arrangements. This study indicates that the procedure can be used by an experienced teacher with few procedural errors in small-group settings. Whether such implementation would occur when group size increased, content was varied, and the teacher was inexperienced is open to study. The constant time delay in this study, however, was more complex than usual because it included two attentional responses and different feedback for half of the correct responses.
Second, data presented in Figure 2 and Table 1 indicate that the constant time delay procedure was effective. In all cases, criterion-level performance was established that replicates earlier work with the procedure in individualized sessions (Ault et al., 1988; Gast et al., 1988) and small-group arrangements (Cybriwsky et al., 1990). It also extends earlier work with students with learning and behavior disorders; previously, spelling (Kinney et al., 1988; Stevens & Schuster, 1987) and sight words (Precious, 1985) were taught. Social studies and health content were taught in the present study. The low error percentages and the small number of trials to criterion in this study are similar to those found in previous investigations. The reliable implementation and effectiveness of the procedure suggests that the constant time delay procedure may be a viable instructional strategy for students with learning and behavior disabilities. Although the procedure originated from the literature on the severely handicapped, it appears to have applications to students with mild disabilities. Studies comparing it to common instructional procedures with this population are needed, however.
Third, the effects of the attentional responses were quite consistent. The general and specific attentional responses did not appear to differentially affect students' acquisition of their target facts. However, the type of attentional response affected observational and incidental learning. Students maintained more of their observational learning when the behavior was taught with a specific attentional response. This result is consistent with that of a similar study with preschool children and preacademic content (Cybriwsky et al., 1990). Students also learned more of the related information presented in feedback statements when the target facts were taught with the specific attentional response. Further, students learned more of other group members' additional information when a specific attentional response was used. These findings are surprising because the specific attention response was simply having students repeat the task direction (stimulus question). Further research is needed to investigate other types of attentional responses and to identify the effects of fixed or variable attentional responses.
Fourth, students learned information that was presented in praise statements. This study documents that when information other than the fact being taught is placed in the praise statement, students may learn it incidentally. This study also suggests that when the target stimulus is presented with a specific attentional response, the probability of learning the additional information is increased. Further research on this issue is needed. For example, could instruction be made more efficient if the content to be taught in the near future was presented in the descriptive praise statement? Will students learn information in the descriptive praise statement if a variety of information is presented rather than the same information on each trial? Can students learn rules (e.g., phonetic rules) when they are incidentally inserted in feedback statements? What other variables can increase the amount of learning from feedback statements? The answers to these and similar questions should have immediate impact on teaching practices.
In terms of practical implications from this study, it is clear that the constant time delay procedure is an effective strategy in small-group instruction with students who have learning and behavior disabilities. However, comparisons with more usual teaching practices are needed. It also appears that the attentional response used in direct instruction may be a critical variable in the amount of observational and additional learning that occurs and maintains. Until the relationships between attentional responses and such learning is more clearly identified, it is reasonable to use the specific attentional response employed in this study.
Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1988). Comparison of progressive and constant time delay procedures in teaching community-sign word reading. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 44-56.
Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Gast, D. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies in instruction of students with moderate and severe handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 346-356.
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bernhardt, A. J., & Forehand, R. (1975). The effects of labeled and unlabeled praise upon lower and middle class children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 19, 536-543.
Billingsley, F. F., & Romer, L. T. (1983). Response prompting and the transfer of stimulus control: Methods, research, and a conceptual framework. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 531-556.
Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.
Browder, P. M., Morris, W. W., & Snell, M. E. (1981). Using time delay to teach manual signs to a severely retarded student. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 16, 252-258.
Brown, V., Hammill, D., & Wiederholt, J. (1978). Test of Reading Comprehension. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Cybriwsky, C., Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1990). Use of a constant time delay procedure in teaching pre-schoolers in a group format. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 99-116.
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Gast, D. L. (1988). System of least prompts: A review of procedural parameters. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 28-40.
Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Belanger, S. (1988). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching sight word reading to students with moderate retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 117-128.
Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1988). Parallel treatments design: A nested single subject design for comparing instructional procedures. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 270-285.
Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Morris, L. L., Doyle, P. M., & Meyer, S. (1990). Teaching sight word reading in a group instructional arrangement using constant time delay. Exceptionality, 1, 81-96.
Handen, B. L., & Zane, T. (1987). Delayed prompting: A review of procedural variations and results. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 307-330.
Kinney, P. G., Stevens, K. B., & Schuster, J. W. (1988). The effects of CAI and time delay: A systematic program for teaching spelling. Journal of Special Education Technology, 9, 61-72.
Kowry, M., & Browder, D. M. (1986). The use of delay to teach sight words by peer tutors classified as moderately mentally retarded. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 252-258.
LeBlanc, J. M., & Ruggles, T. R. (1982). Instructional strategies for individual and group teaching. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 129-137.
Precious, C. (1985). Efficiency study of two procedures: Constant and progressive time delay in teaching oral sight word reading. Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Special Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington.
Schoen, S. F. (1986). Assistance procedures to facilitate the transfer of stimulus control: Review and analysis. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 62-74.
Schuster, J. W., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Guiltinan, S. (1988). The effectiveness of a constant time-delay procedure to teach chained responses to adolescents with mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 169-178.
Stevens, K. B., & Schuster, J. W. (1987). Effects of a constant time delay procedure on teaching written spelling to a learning disabled student. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 9-16.
Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.
Westling, D. L., Ferrell, K., & Swenson, K. (1982). Intraclassroom comparison of two arrangements for teaching profoundly mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 6, 601-608.
Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Woodcock, R. W. (1973). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
MARK WOLERY is a Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Psychiatry at Allegheny-Singer Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA. CATHERINE A. CYBRIWSKY is in Paintsville, Kentucky. DAVID L. GAST (CEC Chapter #180) is a Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Georgia, Athens. KATHY BOYLE-GAST is a Resource Room Teacher in Clarke County Public Schools, Athens, GA. This study occurred when Wolery, Cybriwsky, and Gast were in the Department of Special Education at the University of Kentucky, and Boyle-Gast was with Fayette County Public Schools, Kentucky.
Preparation of this article was supported by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, field-initiated grant (Grant #G008730215). The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
The authors are grateful for the assistance provided by Dr. Donald Cross, Chairperson, Department of Special Education; Dr. Norman Osborne, Fayette County Public Schools; Melinda Ault and Patricia Doyle, Group Errorless Teaching Strategies Project, and Lowry Morris, Comparison of Instructional Strategies Project, Department of Special Education, University of Kentucky.
Address all correspondence to Mark Wolery, Early Childhood Intervention Program, Allegheny-Singer Research Institute, Department of Psychiatry, 320 E. North Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15212.
Manuscript received September 1988; revision accepted October 1989.
Exceptional Children, Vol. 57, No. 5, pp. 462-474.
[C] 1991 The Council for Exceptional Children.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Wolery, Mark; Cybriwsky, Catherine A.; Gast, David L.; Boyle-Gast, Kathy|
|Date:||Mar 1, 1991|
|Previous Article:||Peer collaboration: accommodating students with mild learning and behavior problems.|
|Next Article:||Rich and Ross: a mixed message.|