A comparison of the Task Demonstration Model and the Standard Prompting Hierarchy in teaching word identification to persons with moderate retardation.

Six persons with moderate mental retardation were taught to identify three words by each of two different procedures. One, the Task Demonstration Model, was a fading procedure which relied on presenting many examples of both the correct and incorrect words while systematically increasing their similarity. The other, the Standard Prompting Hierarchy, is one of the most common procedures for teaching persons with mental retardation, and relied on a least-to-most intrusive prompting hierarchy. Data were presented in three phases and show that the Task Demonstration Model produced fewer errors in (a) acquisition (4% to 14%), (b) generalization (9% to 14%), and (c) maintenance (8% to 14%). Results were discussed in terms of the fading procedure and how the Task Demonstration Model provides a simple means for teachers to improve their students' responding in acquisition, generalization, and maintenance.

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.

Factor structure of the Motivation Assessment Scale.

The Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) was developed to provide clinical information on four hypothesized functions that may control problem behaviour in persons with developmental disabilities. The original four-factor structure of the MAS was based on face validity, with the items being grouped in terms of each of the hypothesized functions. Validation of the scale was provided in terms of correlations between teacher ratings of eight children on the MAS and ranking of the controlling variables from functional analogue tests. In this study, staff in residential facilities rated 60 residents and teachers in schools rated 96 students on the MAS. The target behaviour rated for both samples was self-injury, with the institutional sample engaging in the behaviour more than 15 times an hour and the school sample, less than 15 times an hour. The results of factor analyses, with varimax rotation, provided a conceptually meaningful factor structure with the institutional sample, but not with the school sample. The 16 MAS items resolved into four factors that were conceptually related to four conditions that may maintain problem behaviour (i.e. sensory, escape, attention and tangible). The results suggested that the original MAS has a robust factor structure and may be clinically useful in predicting the controlling functions of problem behaviours, if the target behaviours occur at a rate no less than 15 responses per hour.