Comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate mental retardation

Journal of Behavioral Education, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1992, pp. 305-325

Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting and Constant Time Delay Procedures in Teaching Sight Words to Elementary Students with Moderate Mental Retardation

John W. Schuster, Ed.D., 1,4 Ann K. Griffen, B.S., 2 and Mark Wolery, Ph.D. 3

Accepted: February 17, 1992 Action Editor: Thomas Haring

Simultaneous prompting (a type of antecedent prompt and test procedure) and constant time delay were compared with four students with moderate mental retardation learning expressive sight words. A parallel treatments design across word sets and replicated across students was used. For acquisition, the simultaneous prompting procedures required fewer trials, sessions, and training time to criterion and resulted in fewer student errors during daily probe and training sessions. However, maintenance data indicated mixed results across the two procedures. Reliability data (both dependent and independent variables) revealed no differences between the two procedures in terms of the teacher's accuracy in recording student responses and implementing each procedure. Future research issues are discussed.

KEY WORDS: instructional methodology; mental retardation; sight words; time delay; simultaneous prompting.

Numerous effective instructional procedures have been developed for teaching both chained and discrete tasks (Wolery, Ault, & Doyle, 1992). Even with the documented successes of numerous instructional procedures

1Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

2Teacher, Fayette County Board of Education, Lexington, Kentucky. 3Senior Research Associate, Allegheny Singer Research Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. aCorrespondence should be directed to John W. Schuster, Department of Special Education, 229 Taylor Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0001.

305

1053-0819-92/0900-0305506.50/0 �9 1992 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

306 Schuster, Griffen, and Wolery

across individuals, settings, and behaviors, effectiveness should not be the only criterion used for selecting an instructional strategy when teaching students with disabilities. Procedures that are both effective and efficient need to be identified (Wolery & Gast, 1990). Efficient procedures may result in (a) learning more information in less time which may result in additional instructional time to learn more skills, (b) a higher density of reinforcement because fewer errors may occur, and (c) more independent student per- formance (Wolery & Gast, 1990). From a teacher's perspective, efficient procedures may result in more time available for instruction and more positive interactions with students due to a lower rate of student errors (Wolery & Gast, 1990).

Time delay instructional procedures have received much attention in the literature since Touchette (1971) first measured the moment of stimulus transfer when teaching a discrimination task to students with severe disabilities. Time delay procedures are near-errorless response prompting procedures that systematically transfer stimulus control on a temporal basis from a trainer's controlling prompt to a natural discriminative stimulus (Snell & Gast, 1981). Two types of time delay strategies exist: constant and progressive. Both constant and progressive time delay have been successful in teaching a wide variety of responses. Wolery et al. (in press) reviewed 35 studies appearing in the research literature which investigate the use of constant time delay procedures with discrete tasks. Time delay has been used effectively with chained tasks including many domestic, independent living, and community skills (e.g., McDonnell, 1987; McDonnell & Ferguson, 1989; Miller & Test, 1989; Schuster, Gast, Wolery, & Guiltinan, 1988; Schuster & Griffen, 1991).

Several advantages of the time delay procedure are evident. First, the procedures are "teacher friendly." They require little teacher preparation, are quick (i.e., result in short session lengths), and are easy to use (i.e., result in a high degree of procedural reliability). Second, the procedures are "student friendly," resulting in low percentages of student errors and therefore a high density of student reinforcement. Error percentages with discrete tasks are usually under 4% (Wolery, Ault, Doyle & Gast, 1986) and with chained tasks, errors generally are under 14% (Schuster & Griffen, 1990). Third, time delay procedures have been found to be more efficient than the system of least prompts with both discrete (e.g., Gast, Ault, Wolery, Doyle, & Belanger, 1988) and chained tasks (e.g., Wolery, Ault, Doyle, Gast, & Griffen, 1990) and have been found to be more efficient than one form of most to least prompting (Miller & Test, 1989). Fourth, by fading the teacher's prompt on a temporal basis, the problem of learners continuing to respond in the presence of a controlling stimulus as it is faded on some other dimension such as brightness (Touchette, 1971)

Comparison of Instructional Procedures 307

or a spatial/proximal dimension (Wolery, Gast, Kirk, & Schuster, 1988) may be avoided.

Even with the documented success of the time delay procedures across individuals, settings, and behaviors, some potential problems with the procedures are apparent. First, time delay procedures require the teacher to shift teaching behavior from zero second to subsequent and sometimes varying delay intervals. Second, time delay procedures often require the use of differential reinforcement procedures for correct student responding before and after the prompt (Wolery et al., in press). Third, when using time delay procedures, learners must exhibit a wait response which is considered a prerequisite skill for using the procedure (Snell & Gast, 1981).

In addition, when time delay instructional procedures have been used, both the authors' personal experience and the research literature have shown that stimulus control is often transferred during the zero second or simultaneous prompted trials. That is, the number of correct responses before the controlling prompt exceeds the number of correct responses after the prompt during the first session that uses a delay interval. This effect has been observed with students labeled mildly disabled (e.g., Alig- Cybriwsky & Schuster, 1990; Kinney, Stevens, & Schuster, 1988), autistic (e.g., Wolery et al., 1988), multihandicapped (e.g., Kteinert & Gast, 1982), moderately retarded (e.g., Farmer, Gast, Wolery, & Winterling, 1991), and severely disabled (e.g., Browder, Morris, & Snell, 1981). Based on these data, it appears that the moment of transfer of stimulus control for some individuals with some tasks using time delay procedures occurs before the delay trials are implemented.

In the interest of developing more efficient procedures, it seems possible that the use of simultaneous prompting alone (i.e., pairing the discriminative stimulus with a controlling prompt as it occurs during zero second delay trials when using time delay procedures) may eliminate the potential problems associated with time delay procedures. First, no shift in teacher behavior is required since all trials are conducted in an identical manner. Second, there is no need to differentially reinforce correct responses since only one type of correct response is possible. Third, the need for students to exhibit a wait response is eliminated. Since a wait response is not required and because no delay interval is used, errors also may be reduced when simultaneous prompting procedures are used. In most time delay studies, the majority of errors are nonwait errors (errors that occur during the delay interval when students make incorl~ect responses before the delivery of the prompt). Often these nonwait errors occur because students do not exhibit a "wait" response; that is, students have not learned that if they do not know the correct response they should


wait for the teacher's prompt. When simultaneous prompting is used, a wait response is not necessary. Reducing the opportunity for errors may result in a higher level of reinforcement for the student and teacher. Instructional time may be decreased further since error correction procedures should not occur.

Simultaneous prompting procedures can be viewed as one component of the time delay procedure (i.e., the initial zero second delay trials). How- ever, the procedure is more characteristic of antecedent prompt and test procedures (Wolery et al., 1992). Antecedent prompt and test procedures provide "additional information about correct responses to students by presenting a prompt or cue with the discriminative stimuli" (Wolery et al., 1986, p. 58). Antecedent prompt and test procedures meet two criteria: (a) a single cue or combination of cues is provided rather than a hierarchy of prompts, and (b) probe or test trials occur without the prompt (Wolery et al., 1986). Antecedent prompt and test procedures have been used to teach a variety of behaviors from numerous curricular domains including expressive language skills (McGee, Krantz, & McClannahan, 1984), language and academic skills (Lowe & Cuvo, 1976; Koegel, Dunlap, Richman, & Dyer, 1981), and daily living skills (Sarber, Halasz, Messmer, Bickett, & Lutzker, 1983; Smith & Meyers, 1979). Antecedent prompt and test procedures have been compared to other instructional procedures including error correction and stimulus fading (Ault, Wolery, Doyle, & Gast, 1989). Results of these investigations indicated that antecedent prompt and test procedures were generally more efficient than error correction procedures and less effective than stimulus fading procedures (Wolery et al., 1992).

Although simultaneous prompting is a type of antecedent prompt and test procedure, some differences exist between the two procedures. Simul- taneous prompting procedures use a controlling prompt during each training trial to promote errorless learning. Antecedent prompt and test procedures have not necessarily used a controlling prompt as evidenced by student error percentages during training of above 5% (Gibson, 1991). In addition, the majority of studies using antecedent prompt and test procedures assessed transfer of stimulus control on probe trials immediately following training trials using a model-lead-test strategy (Wolery et al., 1986). When simultaneous prompting is used, probe or test trials occur immediately prior to training. Wolery et al. (1992) define simultaneous prompting as a "systematic form" of the antecedent prompt and test procedure. In addition, these authors state that simultaneous prompting is a "state of the art" antecedent prompt and test procedure (p. 278).

The purpose of this compar ison study was to de te rmine if simultaneous prompting procedures would perform as well as constant time delay procedures without presenting the possible problems associated with

Comparison of Instructional Procedures 3{)9

constant time delay when teaching sight words to students with moderate mental retardation. Since the simultaneous prompting procedure does not allow a student an opportunity to respond independently during training sessions, daily probe data were used as criteria for acquisition.

METHOD

Participants and Setting

The participants were two males and two females who received instruction in an inner-city integrated public elementary school in a moderate sized metropolitan area. The students were between 10 and eleven years of age and had measured Adaptive Behavior Ratings in the moderate range of mental retardation. Student IQs as measured by the Stanford-Binet were as follows: Andrea, 36; Colin, 33; Betty, 42; and Drew, 42.

All students could name a color picture referent for each word targeted for instruction within five s of presentation over two successive trials. All students demonstrated verbal imitation skills. All students had an extensive history with time delay procedures as well as the system of least prompts and most to least prompting procedures which were routinely used in the classroom to teach both discrete and chained behaviors. None had a history with the use of systematic simultaneous prompting procedures.

The second author, a graduate student in special education, served as the teacher. The first author served as the primary reliability observer. A master's level university research associate also collected reliability data. All experimental sessions occurred in a 1:1 format at a table in the front of the classroom, Students sat across from the teacher with their backs to the rest of the classroom.

Item Selection Procedures

Words commonly found on shopping lists and in the grocery store were targeted for instruction. A pool of approximately 80 words was se- lected and individually printed on 3 x 5 in white index cards. Words were printed in black ink in upper and lower case letters measuring 3 cm. After securing a student's attention, the teacher presented each card, said "What word?," and waited for a response. Correct responses, stating the correct word within 10 s, resulted in verbal praise. Incorrect responses, any utter- ance other than the targeted word or no response within 10 s, were ignored. Participation was reinforced with praise on the average of every third trial.


When a student responded incorrectly to a word during screening sessions for two consecutive trials, the word was placed in a pool of potential training words. From this pool, a list of words that all students incorrectly identified was developed. Eighteen words were then chosen at random and targeted for instruction. The 18 words were assigned to six instructional sets: three words per set, three sets per instructional procedure. Words were assigned to sets based on difficulty (i.e., same number of syllables in each word and set) and visual similarity (i.e., no set had two words beginning with the same consonant). Words sets were counterbalanced across students and training procedures. Each student was required to learn three word sets (e.g., nine words) with each instructional procedure. The word sets and training procedures assigned to each student are listed in Table I.

Probe Sessions

Full Probe Condition

Prior to training and after word sets reached criterion, a full probe condition consisting of three sessions was conducted. All 18 targeted words were presented to each student two times each session for a total of 36 trials. Prior to each session, the teacher instructed the student to say the word when shown a card. The teacher held up each flash card and waited four sec (i.e., silently counted 1-1000, 2-1000, 3-1000, 4-1000) for the student to respond. Correct responses, (i.e., labeling the correct word within four seconds), resulted in verbal praise. Incorrect responses (i.e., saying anything other than the correct word or saying nothing within four seconds) were ignored. After consequences were delivered, the teacher waited a 1-3 s intertrial interval before presenting the next flashcard. Praise for attending to task was delivered on a VR3 schedule.

Daily Probes

Prior to daily training sessions for each procedure (constant time delay and simultaneous prompting), the three targeted words currently being trained were probed. However, no daily probe sessions occurred prior to the first training session for each word set. The three words in the training word set were presented in arbitrary order three times each for a total of nine trials. Prior to daily probes, the teacher instructed each student to say the word when shown the card. The teacher presented each word card and waited four seconds for a response. Response definitions and consequences for correct and incorrect responses were the same as during full probe


Table I. Targeted Word Sets and Training Procedures Assigned to Each Student

Tier Word Set 1 Word Set 2

A

C

popcorn donuts milk corn cheese grapes

potatoes cereal chicken Kleenex oranges apples

watermelon macaroni chips steak pickles cookies

Word Sets Assigned to Students and Training Procedures Word Set

Student A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2

Andrea TD SP SP TD TD SP Colin TD SP SP TD SP TD Betty SP TD TD SP TD SP Drew SP TD TD SP SP TD

a Constant time delay procedures. bSimultaneous prompting procedures.

conditions. Daily probe data were graphed and used to assess the attain- ment of criterion responding (100% correct for two consecutive days).

General Training Procedures

Each student received two instructional sessions per day, one session with each instructional procedure (constant time delay and simultaneous prompting) teaching three different words. One session occurred in the morning and afternoon. The sessions were counterbalanced for time of day. One word set for each instructional procedure (constant time delay and simultaneous prompting) were trained to criterion. When both word sets reached criterion levels, all words were probed again and training occurred on set two words. This process was repeated until criterion level perform- ance was established for all three sets for each instructional procedure.

Simultaneous Prompting

All simultaneous prompting sessions involved the teacher presenting each of the three words in a set five times for a total of 15 trials. The


teacher presented each word card and immediately provided the correct response. Correct responses (repeating the model within four seconds) were praised. Incorrect responses, defined as stating an incorrect answer or no response within four seconds, resulted in the teacher repeating the model. After consequences were delivered, the teacher waited a 1-3 second intertrial interval before presenting the next flashcard. These procedures occurred each day until the student reached criterion on that word set.

Constant Time Delay

During each constant time delay training session, a total of 15 trials occurred (the three words were arbitrarily presented five times each). During the initial constant time delay session for each word set, the teacher used a zero second delay procedure (i.e., the flashcard was presented and the teacher immediately provided the model of the correct response). During all subsequent sessions, the teacher used a constant four second delay interval. The teacher presented the word card and waited four seconds for a student response. If a student did not respond during the delay interval, the teacher provided the correct model.

Two types of correct responses (anticipations and waits) and three types of incorrect responses (nonwait, wait, and no response errors) were possible. Correct anticipations (reading the correct word before the prompt) and correct waits (reading the correct word within four seconds of the prompt) received verbal praise. Errors were recorded when a student read the word incorrectly before the prompt (non-wait error), read the word incorrectly within four seconds after the prompt (wait error), or made no response within four seconds of the prompt (a no response error). All incorrect responses resulted in the teacher stating the correct word. In addition, if a non-wait error occurred, the teacher reminded the student to wait for the prompt if not sure of the correct answer. After consequences were delivered, the teacher waited a 1-3 s intertrial interval before presenting the next flashcard. Training continued at the four second delay until criterion on the word set was reached.

Review Trials

If one word set with one procedure reached criterion before the other set, review trials occurred. Review trials were conducted in an identical fashion as daily probe sessions with one exception. Errors resulted in the teacher providing the correct verbal label of the targeted word. Students


were not required to repeat the correct word. Review trials continued until both word sets reached criterion levels.

Maintenance

Although maintenance assessment was ensured through the use of a parallel treatments design, additional maintenance sessions identical to probe sessions were conducted 2, 4, and 8 weeks after the final probe condition.

Experimental Design

A parallel treatments design (Gast & Wolery, 1988) was used to assess both the effectiveness and efficiency of the two training procedures (constant time delay and simultaneous prompting). This design assesses the effects of two independent variables on two or more independent behaviors where "each intervention is assigned to its own set of behaviors, which are of equal difficulty and are not members of the same response or stimulus class" (Gast & Wolery, 1988, p. 274). Prior to training, all word sets for each student were probed; following the probe condition, one word set for each instructional procedure was trained to criterion. All word sets were then probed again before beginning instruction on the second word set for each procedure. This process was repeated until cr i ter ion per formance was established for all three sets for each instructional procedure for each student.

Reliability

Both dependent (student response) and independent variable (procedural) reliability data were collected. Reliability data were collected during 19.1% of all experimental sessions (39% of the full probe sessions, 15% of the daily probe sessions, 14.5% of the training sessions, and 25% of the maintenance sessions). Student response reliability was calculated using the point-by-point method (Tawney & Gast, 1984): the number of agreements divided by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100. During probe sessions, the mean percent of agreement on student responding was 99.8%. During training and maintenance sessions, the percentage of agreement on student responding was 100% for both the constant time delay and simultaneous prompting procedures.


Procedural reliability data were calculated by dividing the number of actual teacher behaviors observed by the number of planned teacher behaviors and multiplying by 100 (Billingsley, White, & Munson, 1980). De- pending on the experimental condition, procedural reliability assessed the following teacher behaviors: (a) completing the situational information on the data sheet, (b) delivering the general attentional cue, (c) presenting the flashcard, (d) waiting four seconds for a response, (e) providing the controlling prompt, (f) delivering appropriate consequences for correct and incorrect responses, (g) praising attention and participation, when appropriate, and (h) waiting the appropriate intertriai interval.

Procedural reliability during probe sessions (both full and daily probes) resulted in an overall percentage of agreement of 99.5% (range of 97.1-100%). All behaviors were recorded as occurring with 100% accuracy except waiting four seconds (98.5%), praising correct responses (99.4%), ignoring errors (99.4%), delivering praise for attending on a VR3 schedule (97.1%), and waiting the appropriate intertrial interval (99.8%). During simultaneous prompting and constant time delay training sessions, procedural reliability was 100% for all behaviors except praising corrects (98.7% when using the constant time delay procedure). Procedural reliability data collected during maintenance sessions were 100% for all behaviors except presenting the flashcard, waiting four seconds for a response, and delivering praise for attention on a VR3 schedule. These behaviors were performed with 99.3% accuracy.

RESULTS

Effectiveness Data

Figures 1-4 show the percent of correct responses during full and daily probe sessions for each student across all word sets and instructional procedures (training data are not plotted). Andrea responded correctly on one trial for one word in Sets B1 and C2 during the full probe conditions immediately prior to training those word sets. Colin responded correctly on one trial for one targeted word in Set C2 during the full probe condition immediately prior to training those word sets. Therefore, these words along with a corresponding word in the other set (B2 and CI for Andrea and CI for Colin) were dropped from training. As can be seen from Figs. 1-4, both the simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures were generally effective in teaching the targeted words to the students. Only after training was implemented did student responding rise to criterion levels.


Efficiency Data

The efficiency data for simultaneous prompting and constant time delay are presented in Table II. As the data indicate, the difference between the two procedures was minimal. Across all students, simultaneous prompting required fewer training sessions and was associated with lower levels of errors through criterion. Simultaneous prompting required a total of 13 fewer training sessions through criterion and approximately 16 fewer minutes of instructional time than constant time delay across all students and word sets. Simultaneous prompting produced only one training error across all students (0.1%) while constant time delay resulted in 26 student training errors for an overall error percentage of 2.9%. Errors occurred at a rate of 0.41 per session when time delay training occurred and at a rate of 0.017 per session when simultaneous prompting procedures were used. When the individual data for each student are examined, the same results are evident: simultaneous prompting required fewer sessions and instructional time and resulted in fewer errors through criterion. However, the results are minimal. The difference in training sessions to criterion between the two procedures was only one session for Andrea and two sessions for Colin. When instructional time for each student is examined, minimal differences occurred for three students (a difference of 30s between the two procedures for Andrea and approximately two to three minute differences for Drew and Colin) and larger differences for one student (an almost 11 minute difference between the two procedures for Betty).

Maintenance data collected 2, 4, and 8 weeks after training indicate small differences between the two procedures. When the maintenance data for the two instructional procedures across all students are compared, simultaneous prompting resulted in higher levels of maintenance for two students (Betty and Drew) while constant time delay produced better maintenance for two students (Andrea and Colin). Across all maintenance probe sessions, Andrea maintained the words taught with simultaneous prompting with 83% accuracy while maintaining the words taught with constant time delay with 100% accuracy. Colin completed these sessions with 100% accuracy for constant time delay words and with 93% accuracy (r = 89-100%) for words taught with the simultaneous prompting procedure. Betty maintained the constant time delay words with 78% accuracy (r = 72-83%) while maintaining the words taught with simultaneous prompting with 93% accuracy (r = 89-100%). Drew's maintenance data indicate that he correctly responded to the simultaneous prompting words with 89% accuracy while maintaining the constant time delay words with 70% accuracy (r = 55-78%).

~-~

~

~-~

o~

~,.

�9 ~-~

~,

e~ _..

~,

Percent

of

Correct

Responses

Simultaneous

Time

Delay

Simultaneous

Time

Delay

Simultaneous

Time

Delay

..

..

..

..

.

~

..

..

..

..

.

~ ~

ooo

~o

oo

o

oooo

II

[l

ll

il

ll

l

li

ll

il

ll

ll

I

il

i|

ll

l*

,l

l

II

II

l|

ll

ll

l

,J

il

l,

li

t

|

t t

t t

t t

0 0

0 0

1 tL

--~

t o

o

o

o

p.

r o

p.

0

O

P

o

G =_

Comparison of Instructional Procedures 3 1 7

Probe Training Probe

90- 8o-

60 . @ 5o -

2o. �9 1 0 -

Training Probe Training Probe Maintenance

0 0 0

m m

0 O,

0

0 O

0

I00 -

90-

0

60-

4. I 50 -: .4 40-

I~ 20- iO.

i00 -

90-

iii 70.

30.

,~ 20 -

I00 - 90.

0 80- �9 70.

40. r4 30. 211 .

7O. 60-

r

"~ 20 - E4 i0-

w

0 70.

60.

4J 40- 30.

~1 20- t/}

o o o 0 0 0

H-ol 0 0 0

0---0"--~!

0 - - ' 0 0 0 C 0 / / ~ 0

0 0

C 0--0---0 0 0 0

0---0--'r ~ 0 0 0

I c ; i o o o

I Colin

0 - - - 0" - - r ) - - ' 0 - - - 0 0 0 0 i *, *, k ~ h h

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 20 21 22 23 24

Sessionl

Fig. 2. The percent of correct responses for Colin during full probe and daily probe sessions. Training data are not plotted.

~-~

~

~

|

=

:

~e ~-

~"

R~

g g

Percent

of

Correct

Responses

Simultaneous

Time

Delay

Simultaneous

Time

Delay

Simultaneous

Time

Delay

i i

a i

! i

! i

I I

I i

i i

i i

i i

i I

I I

I I

I I

i i

i i

i I

I ~

1

i i

I I,

[ i

i i

i

~o

(D

p.

o--_

....._

.

0

0 0

0

0 0 0

O

o o o

O

o o

O

:r

~o

.=

~ 0 co

~~

~.~

" R

~ g r~

e~

4 ~a

o

Percent

of

Correct

Responses

Simultaneous

Time

Delay

Simultaneous

Time

Delay

Simultaneous

Time

Delay

oo

o

o o

o o

o o

o o

o

f o

o o o

p.

o

p,

o

m

Tab

le I

I. E

ffic

ienc

y D

ata

Stu

dent

Tra

inin

g S

essi

ons

thro

ugh

Cri

teri

on

Tra

inin

g E

rror

s th

roug

h C

rite

rion

T

rain

ing

Tim

e th

roug

h C

rite

rion

Wor

d S

et

SP

T

D

SP

TD

S

P

TD

And

rea

Col

in

Bet

ty

Dre

w

Gra

nd T

otal

A

6 4

1 3

5rai

n B

5

5 0

0 2m

in

C

4 7

0 1

2min

T

otal

15

16

1

4 10

min

A

3 3

0 1

3min

B

3

5 0

0 3r

ain

C

4 4

0 0

2min

T

otal

10

12

0

1 8m

in

A

6 6

0 2

7rai

n B

7

10

0 2

7min

C

4

8 0

5 3m

in

Tot

al

17

24

0 9

18ra

in

A

3 8

0 2

3min

B

6

7 0

6 5m

in

C

7 4

0 4

9min

T

otal

16

19

0

12

18m

in

58

71

1 26

55

min

32s

3min

55s

34

s 2m

in 5

3s

14s

4min

02s

2O

s 10

min

50s

28s

4min

26s

17

s 5r

ain

03s

los

2min

06s

55

s ll

min

35s

05s

8rai

n 35

s 35

s ll

min

10s

38

s 9m

in 1

6s

18s

29ra

in O

ls

59s

10m

in 4

5s

19s

6min

54s

25

s 3r

ain

48s

43s

21m

in 2

7s

~.

16s

72m

in 5

3s

e~

o


DISCUSSION

This study compared simultaneous prompting and constant time delay in teaching intermediate-aged students with moderate mental retardation to read grocery words. Results indicate that both procedures were effective. However, across all students and word sets, minimal differences in favor of the simultaneous prompting procedure are evident. During training, simultaneous prompting resulted in fewer errors, training sessions (and trials), and required less direct instructional time through acquisition criterion than the constant time delay procedure. Procedural reliability data indicate that the teacher implemented both procedures with a high degree of accuracy.

When maintenance data are examined, mixed results are evident. The words taught using the simultaneous prompting procedures maintained at higher rates than the words taught with the constant time delay procedure for two students and at lower rates for two students. These data should be viewed cautiously since probe trials included reinforcement for correct responses. Probe sessions can then be viewed as an instructional condition (i.e., differential reinforcement). Learning or relearning could have occurred during these probe sessions (as evidenced by Betty's data from the third and fourth tiers of instruction). Therefore the final level of correct responding, at least in part, may be due to the reinforcement received during probe sessions.

Although simultaneous prompting procedures were slightly more efficient than constant time delay procedures in terms of acquisition, based on the maintenance data, the results show no general differences between the two instructional strategies. The result of no differences can be valuable when comparisons are made. If no differences are found in comparisons between a widely used procedure that contains some procedural weaknesses (i.e., constant time delay) and a "new" procedure which may eliminate some of these weaknesses while resulting in learning that is equal to the other procedure, the results may have value in extending the research literature. In this investigation, simultaneous prompting resulted in at least equal learning when compared to constant time delay. In addition, simultaneous prompting procedures may have advantages over constant time delay procedures, some of which may solve the problems inherent in those procedures:

(1) The simultaneous prompting procedure eliminates the possibility of non-wait errors that can occur with time delay procedures. Although student errors are usually under 4% (Wolery et al., 1986) when taught discrete tasks with time delay procedures, a further reduction in errors may


result in a higher level of reinforcement for the student and more positive teacher-student interactions.

(2) Snell and Gast (1981) cite a waiting response as one of three student prerequisites for using time delay procedures. Though a waiting response can be taught, a simultaneous prompting procedure eliminates the need for this prerequisite skill. Therefore, the procedure may be ap- plicable to a greater number of learners. This advantage is even more pro- nounced when error data from time delay studies are examined: the majority of errors committed by students when taught with time delay procedures are nonwait errors (errors during the delay interval before the prompt). Because no waiting response is required when using simultaneous prompting procedures, the use of these procedures with students who exhibit "impulsive" responding may be warranted.

(3) Unlike constant or progressive time delay procedures, simultaneous prompting procedures do not require a change in teacher behavior when shifting delay intervals. Thus, simultaneous prompting procedures should be less complex for a teacher to deliver.

The simultaneous prompting procedure resulted in slightly less instructional time. On the average, a session using simultaneous prompting was six seconds less than a session using constant time delay procedures. Although this amount of time is negligible and is not significant when one session is examined, across all students and word sets, the time savings was over 15 minutes; enough time for a teacher to conduct an extra group training session of some other targeted IEP skill. The little differences in the amount of time between the two procedures may have been due to the extensive history of the learners in this study.

Although it appears that simultaneous prompting procedures have numerous advantages, some disadvantages do exist. When using simultaneous prompting procedures, probes must occur in order to assess whether stimulus control has been transferred. In this study, daily probes were conducted immediately before each training session. The time involved in conducting these probes may be a disadvantage. In this study, daily probe sessions lasted an average of approximately 32 seconds. When this time is added to the total amount of training time for the simultaneous prompting procedure, it results in about 8 minutes more than the time required for all constant time delay training sessions. For the purposes of this investigation, probe sessions were conducted daily. Classroom teachers may want to avoid this disadvantage by conducting probes on a more intermittent basis. For example, probe sessions could be conducted every other day or once a week. Another option is for teachers to conduct one or two probe trials immediately prior to a training session, rotating the target stimuli through- out these probe trials over successive sessions.


The number of errors that students committed during the course of this investigation was extremely low. Across all students, only one error occurred during simultaneous prompting training sessions and 26 errors occurred during constant time delay training sessions. Based on previous investigations (cf. Wolery et al., 1988) that have used time delay procedures with students who had no history with the procedures, less instructional time, fewer sessions and trials to criterion, and a lower rate of errors often result when subsequent targeted behaviors are taught when compared to the initial behavior(s). Although "learning to learn" was not observed with the students in this investigation who had extensive experiences with time delay procedures, based on previous investigations (cf. Wolery et al., 1988), the results may be different for students without a history of learning with time delay procedures (e.g., the time delay procedure may have resulted in increased training errors, sessions, and instructional time to criterion making the simultaneous prompting procedure more efficient). Further research should replicate this study with students who do not have this history.

Compared to the constant time delay procedure, simultaneous prompting resulted in fewer student errors during training sessions. How- ever, the number of errors committed by students during daily probe sessions should be examined. During simultaneous prompting daily probe sessions, students committed a total of 114 errors (21.9%). During time delay daily probe sessions students committed 159 errors (24.9%). When considering these data it should be noted that many of the error responses recorded included no responses or students saying "I don't know." These different types of errors were not differentiated when data were recorded and therefore, the analysis of these data are limited. These error data should be viewed with caution. When using constant time delay procedures, daily probe trials are not necessary and therefore the errors associated with constant time delay during daily probes would not normally occur when using the procedure.

In this study, data indicate that the transfer of stimulus control can be accomplished without using a delay interval. Simultaneous prompting procedures were at least as efficient as constant time delay procedures in teaching students with moderate disabilities sight word reading (to acquisition criterion). Further research is needed which examines both the effectiveness and efficiency of these procedures across other learners (e.g., those without histories of time delay instruction), behaviors, types of prompts, and other trainers (e.g., those without experience with response prompting procedures). Research efforts should address the use of simultaneous prompting procedures within small group formats and with chained tasks. In addition, research comparing simultaneous prompting to


other instructional strategies (i.e., system of least prompts, progressive time delay, and most to least prompting) should occur while trying to determine which instructional strategies should be used for which type of learners and skills.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful for the assistance provided by Dr. Donald Cross, Chair, Department of Special Education; and Dr. Norman Osborne, Dr. Eve Proffitt, Mr. Bob McLaughlin, and Mrs. Katye Jenkins, Fayette County Public Schools, Lexington, Kentucky.

REFERENCES

Alig-Cybriwsky, C. A., & Schuster, J. W. (1990). Using time delay to teach multiplication facts. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 54-59.

Ault, M. J., W01ery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Gast, D. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies in the instruction of students with moderate and severe handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 345-356.

Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.

Browder, D. 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.

Farmer, J. A., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Winterling, V. (1991). Small group instruction for students with severe handicaps: A study of observational learning. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 190-201.

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.

Gibson, A. (1991). The use of simultaneous prompting for teaching expressive word recognition to preschool children. Unpublished thesis, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Kinney, P., 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(2), 61-72.

Kleinert, H. L., & Gast, D. L. (1982). Teaching a multihandicapped adult manual signs using a constant time delay procedure. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 6(4), 25-32.

Koegel, R. L., Dunlap, G., Riehman, G. S., & Dyer, K. (1981). The use of specific orienting cues for teaching discrimination tasks. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 187-198.

Lowe, M. L., & Cuvo, A. J. (1976). Teaching coin summation to the mentally retarded. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 483-489.


McDonnell, J. (1987). The effects of time delay and increasing prompt hierarchy on the acquisition of purchasing skills by students with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 227-236.

McDonnell, J., & Ferguson, B. (1989). A comparison of time delay and decreasing prompt hierarchy strategies in teaching banking skills to students with moderate handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Anal, sis, 22, 85-91.

McGee, G. G., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1984). Conversational skills for autistic adolescents: Teaching assertiveness in naturalistic game settings. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 14, 319-330.

Miller, U. C., & Test, D. W. (1989). A comparison of constant time delay and most-to-least prompting in teaching laundry to students with moderate retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 363-370.

Sarber, R. E., Halasz, M. M., Messmer, M. C., Bickett, A. D., & Lutzker, J. K. (1983). Teaching menu planning and grocery shopping skills to a mentally retarded mother. Mental Retardation, 21, 101-106.

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.

Schuster, J. W., & Griffen, A. K. (1991). Using constant time delay to teach recipe following skills. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26.

Schuster, J. W., & Griffen, A. K. (1990). Using time delay with task analyses. Teaching Exceptional Children, 22(4), 49-54.

Smith, M., & Meyers, A. (1979). Telephone-skills training for retarded adults: Group and individual demonstrations with and without verbal instruction. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 83, 581-587.

Snell, M. E., & Gast, D. L. (1981). Applying time delay procedure to the instruction of the severely handicapped. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 6(3), 3-14.

Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Sh~gle subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Touchette, P. E. (1971). Transfer of stimulus control: Measuring the moment of transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 347-354.

Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe handicaps: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M., & Gast, D. L. (1986). Comparison of instructional strategies: A literature review. (U.S. Department of Education, Grant #G008530197). University of Kentucky, Lexington.

Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M., Gast, D. L., & Griffen, A. K. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching chained tasks. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 243-257.

Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1990). Efficiency of instruction: Conceptual framework and research directions. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Kirk, K., & Schuster, J. W. (1988). Fading extra-stimulus prompts with autistic children using time delay. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 29-44.

Wolery, M., Holeombe, A., Cybriwsky, C., Doyle, P. M., Schuster, J. W., Ault, M. J., & Gast, D. L. (in press). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities.

Documents

Comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate mental retardation