Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-rkzlw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T11:58:28.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prompting Strategies for those with a Severe Mental Handicap: A Comparison of Procedures Using only Response Prompts with a Procedure Combining Stimulus and Response Prompts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 June 2009

Gerard Riley
Gerard Riley
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Prompts are assessed in terms of their ability to convey an understanding of the task to those with a severe mental handicap. On this basis, it is suggested that the most effective strategy for teaching manipulative tasks to this group may be one which combines stimulus and response prompts. Two case studies compared this procedure with two procedures which used response prompts only. The combined procedure was more effective in both studies. The studies also demonstrated the applicability of stimulus prompts to teaching the motor, as well as the visual, components of manipulative tasks.

Information

Type
Clinical Section
Information
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , July 1990 , pp. 193 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ager, A. (1989). Behavioural teaching strategies for people with severe and profound mental handicaps: A re-examination. Mental Handicap, 17, 56–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burleigh, R. A. and Marholin, D. (1977). Don't shoot until you see the whites of his eyes—an analysis of the adverse side effects of verbal prompts. Behavior Modification, 1, 109–122.Google Scholar
Close, D. W., Irvin, L. K., Prehm, H. J. and Taylor, V. E. (1978). Systematic correction procedures in vocational skill training of severely retarded individuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 270–275.Google Scholar
Doll, E. A., (1965). Vineland Social Maturity Scale. Minnesota: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J. and Gast, D. L. (1988). System of least prompts: A literature review of procedural parameters. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 13, 28–40.Google Scholar
Glendenning, N. J., Adams, G. L. and Sternberg, L. (1983). Comparison of prompt sequences. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 321–325.Google Scholar
Godby, S., Gast, D. L. and Wolery, M. (1987). A comparison of time delay and system of least prompts in teaching object identification. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 8, 283–306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, M. W. (1974). Redundant cue removal in skill training for the retarded. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 9, 5–8.Google Scholar
Gold, M. W. and Barclay, C. R. (1973). The learning of difficult visual discriminations by the moderately and severely retarded. Mental Retardation, 17, 9–11.Google Scholar
Hourcade, J. J. (1988). Effectiveness of gestural and physical guidance prompts as a function of type of task. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 23, 38–42.Google Scholar
Irvin, L. K. and Bellamy, G. T. (1977). Manipulation of stimulus features in vocation-skill training of severly retarded individuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 81, 486–491.Google Scholar
McDonnell, J. (1987). The effects of time delay and increasing prompt hierarchy strategies on the acquisition of purchasing skills by students with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosk, M. D. and Bucher, B. (1984). Prompting and stimulus shaping procedures for teaching visual-motor skills to retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 23–34.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. L., Cone, J. D. and Hanson, C. R. (1975). Training correct utensil use in retarded children: Modelling versus physical guidance. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 80, 114–122.Google Scholar
Rincover, A. (1978). Variables affecting stimulus fading and discriminative responding in psychotic children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 541–553.Google Scholar
Schilmoeller, G. L., Schilmoeller, K. J., Etzel, B. C. and LeBlanc, J. M. (1979). Conditional discrimination after errorless and trial-and-error training. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 31, 405–420.Google Scholar
Schloss, P.J. (1985). Sequential prompt instruction for mildly handicapped learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 18, 181–184.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Schuster, J. W., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M. and 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.Google Scholar
Stokes, T. F. and Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.Google Scholar
Strand, S. C. and Morris, R. C. (1988). Criterion-related versus non-criterion-related prompt training with severely mentally handicapped children. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 32, 137–151.Google Scholar
Stutsman, R. (1948). Merrill-Palmer Scale of Mental Tests. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Walls, R. T., Ellis, W. D., Zane, T. and Vanderpoel, S. J. (1979). Tactile, auditory and visual prompting in teaching complex assembly tasks. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 14, 120–130.Google Scholar
Wolery, M. and Gast, D. L. (1984). Effective and efficient procedures for transfer of stimulus control. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 4, 52–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeaman, D. and House, B. J. (1979). A review of attention theory. In Handbook of Mental Deficiency. Ellis, N. R. (Ed.), New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Zigler, E. and Balla, D. (1982). Motivational and personality factors in the performance of the retarded. In Mental Retardation: The Developmental Difference Controversy, Zigler, E. and Balla, D. (Eds), New Jersey: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.