Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to submit your manuscript to SPPS

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Behavior Modification
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mcconville, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Axelrod, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mcconville, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Axelrod, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Matching Training Procedures to Outcomes

A Behavioral and Quantitative Analysis

Melissa L. Mcconville

Donald A. Hantula

Saul Axelrod

Temple University

To analyze the effects of matching the prompting procedure used in training to the specific behavior chain to be taught, 3 students with mild to moderate retardation were taught four independent tasks: making a bagged lunch, playing a matching game with a peer, ordering food at a restaurant, and participating in a social conversation. Following baseline, all 3 students were exposed to one of two types of training procedures for each task: a least-to-most prompting procedure or a most-to-least prompting procedure. The type of training procedure was counter-balanced across students and tasks, whereas performance on the tasks was evaluated within a combination of a multiple-baseline design across participants and multiple-probe design across tasks. When the method of prompting was matched to the naturally occurring discriminative stimulus (SD) of the training stimulus, it greatly affected acquisition and maintenance of the skill in terms of differences in levels and variability of performance. The most-to-least method of prompting, the matched method in these cases, was more efficient and effective for acquisition and generalization of the bagged-lunch and matching-game skills. The least-to-most method, the matched method in these cases, was more efficient and effective for social-questions and ordering-food skills.

Behavior Modification, Vol. 22, No. 3, 391-414 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/01454455980223011
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?