Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities - Division on ...

Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance Probe Procedures
Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance probe sessions on targeted tasks
were built <strong>in</strong>to the full probe sessions that
occurred <strong>in</strong> the multiple probe design. Each
time a set of stimuli reached criterion, ma<strong>in</strong>tenance
data were collected on the previously
tra<strong>in</strong>ed sets. In addition, us<strong>in</strong>g a 1:1 format as
described for screen<strong>in</strong>g sessions, ma<strong>in</strong>tenance
probe sessions also occurred 7, 18, <strong>and</strong> 25 days
after the f<strong>in</strong>al set of stimuli for each student
reached criterion. These sessions occurred <strong>in</strong>
an identical format to screen<strong>in</strong>g sessions.
Generalization Probe Procedures
The <strong>in</strong>clusive classroom teacher conducted
generalization probe sessions prior to the <strong>in</strong>itial
full probe condition <strong>and</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g all
tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g. These sessions occurred <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>clusive
classrooms <strong>and</strong> stimulus cards <strong>and</strong> objectives
used dur<strong>in</strong>g these sessions were different
<strong>in</strong> color or size from those used dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>struction.
Moreover, the targeted behaviors
were required from students by their teachers
<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusive classrooms.
Reliability
Dependent <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>dependent variable reliability
data were collected on at least 30% of daily
<strong>and</strong> full probe sessions, <strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>structional session;
50% of ma<strong>in</strong>tenance <strong>and</strong> generalization
probe sessions by reliability observers. The
tra<strong>in</strong>er used the po<strong>in</strong>t-by-po<strong>in</strong>t method to calculate
the dependent measure reliability.
Number of agreements was divided by number
of agreements plus disagreements <strong>and</strong>
multiplied by 100 (Tawney, & Gast, 1984).
The tra<strong>in</strong>er calculated <strong>in</strong>dependent variable
reliability by divid<strong>in</strong>g number of teacher
behaviors observed by number of teacher
behaviors planned <strong>and</strong> multiply<strong>in</strong>g by 100
(Bill<strong>in</strong>gsley, White, & Munson, 1980). Independent
variable reliability measured the follow<strong>in</strong>g
teacher behaviors, when appropriate:
(a) hav<strong>in</strong>g materials ready, (b) provid<strong>in</strong>g an
attentional cue, (c) present<strong>in</strong>g the stimulus
card or object, (d) deliver<strong>in</strong>g the prompt, (e)
wait<strong>in</strong>g 4 s, (f) deliver<strong>in</strong>g correct consequences,
(g) provid<strong>in</strong>g attentional praise on
the correct schedule, <strong>and</strong> (h) wait<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>ter-trial
<strong>in</strong>terval.
Results
Reliability
Reliability data <strong>in</strong>dicated 100% agreement
dur<strong>in</strong>g full probe sessions, 90% (range 87-
100) agreement dur<strong>in</strong>g daily probe sessions,
100% agreement dur<strong>in</strong>g generalization, <strong>and</strong>
80% (range 77-100) agreement dur<strong>in</strong>g
ma<strong>in</strong>tenance probe sessions on the dependent
variable.
Independent variable reliability data collected
dur<strong>in</strong>g probe sessions <strong>in</strong>dicated that
the teacher implemented the behaviors with
an overall mean accuracy of 100%. Independent
variable reliability data collected dur<strong>in</strong>g
tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g sessions <strong>in</strong>dicated that the teacher
implemented the procedures appropriately
with an overall mean accuracy of 100%.
Effectiveness
Percentage of correct responses to targeted
stimuli dur<strong>in</strong>g probe (basel<strong>in</strong>e, full, daily, <strong>and</strong>
ma<strong>in</strong>tenance) sessions for each of the three
students are shown <strong>in</strong> Figures 1, 2, <strong>and</strong> 3,
respectively. Open circles represent percentage
of correct respond<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g full probe
<strong>and</strong> <strong>in</strong>structional sessions, ma<strong>in</strong>tenance <strong>and</strong>
generalization session. All subjects met criteria
after <strong>in</strong>troduction of simultaneous prompt<strong>in</strong>g.
These data revealed that simultaneous
prompt<strong>in</strong>g was effective <strong>in</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g different
discrete tasks to children with mental retardation
<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusive classrooms.
Instructional data for each student, number
of tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g sessions, number of tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g trials,
number <strong>and</strong> percentage of tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g errors,
amount of tra<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g time, amount of daily
probe time, <strong>and</strong> number <strong>and</strong> percentage of
probe errors are shown <strong>in</strong> Table 1.
Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance Data
Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance probe sessions were built <strong>in</strong>to
the study by us<strong>in</strong>g a multiple probe design.
This allowed monitor<strong>in</strong>g the acquired stimuli
throughout the study dur<strong>in</strong>g full probe conditions.
Ma<strong>in</strong>tenance data also were collected
7, 18, <strong>and</strong> 25 days follow<strong>in</strong>g the f<strong>in</strong>al full
probe sessions. These data are <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong>
Figures 1-3. Students responded to targeted
stimuli with a mean 100% dur<strong>in</strong>g the 7, 18,
<strong>and</strong> 25 days ma<strong>in</strong>tenance probe sessions.
Simultaneous Prompt<strong>in</strong>g for Teach<strong>in</strong>g Discrete Tasks / 73