Şerife Yücesoy Özkan∗
Oğuz Gürsel∗∗
∗ Corresponding, author, Asst.Prof.Dr. Anadolu University, Education Faculty, Eskisehir, TURKEY.
∗∗ Asst.Prof.Dr. Anadolu University, Education Faculty, Eskisehir, TURKEY.

Abstract

Problem Statement: One of the effective instructional procedures for students with intellectual disabilities is simultaneous prompting (SP). In SP, there is high percentage of daily probe errors that occur and students are not able to respond independently during the training sessions, so probe trials are necessary to assess the transfer of stimulus control however, these probe trials require additional time. In order to decrease the error rate and the amount of the training time, probe trials may be carried out prior to every third or fourth training session rather than every session.

Purpose of Study: The purpose of the study was to compare the use of SP with the continuous probe sessions and SP with the intermittent probe sessions in terms of effectiveness, efficiency, and generalization. In addition, the acquisition of instructive feedback was examined.

Method: Three male students aged from 15 to 17 with intellectual disabilities participated in this study.. All students attended the eighth grade of a public special education school for students with intellectual disabilities. An adapted alternating treatments design was used and replicated across the three subjects. The dependent variable of study was the percentage of correct responses and the independent variables of study were the SP with the continuous probe sessions and SP with the intermittent probe sessions. The reliability data were collected for both the dependent and independent variables. Reliability data were collected for each student and each condition in at least 20% of all sessions.

Finding and Results: The results of the study showed that (a) SP with the continuous probe and SP with the intermittent probe were effective in teaching the product warning labels to students with intellectual disabilities, (b) SP with the intermittent probe was more effective than the SP with the continuous probe, (c) there was no significant difference in generalization of SP with the continuous probe and SP with the intermittent probe, and (d) the three students acquired the instructive feedback about the definition of product warning labels.

Conclusions and Recommendations: In the study, the amount of training time and the number of errors were decreased when the SP with the intermittent probe was used. In this case, since there was less training time required and the error levels were low, the SP with the intermittent probe could be the preferable and more efficient application when compared with the SP with the continuous probe.

Keywords: Safety skills, product warning label, simultaneous prompting, continuous probing schedule, intermittent probing schedule, instructive feedback