ABSTRACT
We investigated whether variations in alertness among individuals with profound multiple disabilities affected subsequent responsiveness to training programs. Three experiments were conducted involving 5 people. In Experiment 1, results indicated that alertness of 3 individuals increased with provision of skill-acquisition training programs. Results also indicated no predictive relationship between alertness levels prior to training and subsequent responsiveness to training. Experiment 2 replicated results of Experiment 1 with 2 participants from Experiment 1 and an additional participant. Results of Experiment 2 also indicated that the increased alertness levels accompanying provision of training were not a function of the participants simply being in an inactive environment prior to training. Results of Experiment 3 indicated that alertness of an additional participant increased through provision of another training intervention, involving a systematic preference assessment. Responses during the preference assessment appeared to be unrelated to previously existing alertness levels. These findings suggest the need for caution when considering the withholding of scheduled training because an individual appears to be nonalert.
Subject(s)
Arousal , Attention , Disabled Persons/psychology , Education of Intellectually Disabled/methods , Intellectual Disability/psychology , Activities of Daily Living , Adult , Behavior Therapy/methods , Behavior Therapy/standards , Education of Intellectually Disabled/standards , Female , Humans , Observer Variation , Reinforcement, Psychology , Reproducibility of Results , Social Environment , WakefulnessABSTRACT
We evaluated comprehensively a preference assessment for identifying reinforcers for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Four experiments were conducted involving 18 individuals. Results of Experiment 1 replicated previous findings in that the assessment identified student preferences for respective stimuli, and caregiver opinion of preferences did not coincide with the systematic assessment. Results of Experiment 2 indicated highly preferred stimuli were likely to function as reinforcers in training programs, whereas stimuli not highly preferred did not function as reinforcers. Results of Experiment 3 suggested the 12 stimuli used in the assessment represented a comprehensive stimulus set for identifying preferences, although the utility of the set sometimes could be enhanced by caregiver opinion. Results of Experiment 4 indicated the assessment identified preferences likely to be maintained over time. Overall, results are discussed in terms of identifying limits and alternatives to a behavioral teaching technology when applied to persons with profound multiple handicaps.