Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Social reinforcement and self-instruction : a comparison of treatment effects in modifying the conceptual… Stevens, Allen O. 1986

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1986_A2 S75.pdf [ 25.37MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097352.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097352-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097352-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097352-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097352-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097352-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097352-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097352-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097352.ris

Full Text

c. ( SOCIAL REINFORCEMENT AND SELF-INSTRUCTION: A COMPARISON OF TREATMENT EFFECTS IN MODIFYING THE CONCEPTUAL TEMPO OF SEVEN AND TEN YEAR-OLD MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN by ALLEN 0. STEVENS M.A. , C a l i f o r n i a State U n i v e r s i t y , Los Angeles A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology And S p e c i a l Education We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o jt-he r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February 1986 © A l l e n 0. Stevens, 1986 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree that p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s or her r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology And S p e c i a l Education The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Pl a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i i A b s t r a c t The purpose of t h i s study was to compare the e f f e c t s of s o c i a l reinforcement and s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n i n modifying the conceptual tempo of mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n , to assess the r e l a t i v e d u r a b i l i t y of the changes i n conceptual tempo produced by the two i n t e r v e n t i o n s , and to eva l u a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l and b e h a v i o r a l procedures f o r promoting g e n e r a l i z a t i o n a c r o s s t a s k s . C o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t s have claimed that s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n can be used to the advantage of c h i l d r e n with a broad range of handicapping c o n d i t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g mental r e t a r d a t i o n . However, L u r i a has s p e c u l a t e d that v e r b a l l y - m e d i a t e d procedures such as s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n l o s e t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s when they are used to change the behavior of mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n with mental ages of l e s s than f i v e y e a r s . In c o n t r a s t , no such developmental t h r e s h o l d s should a f f e c t performance when s o c i a l reinforcement i s used to change the behavior of mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n because the procedure r e l i e s on environmental manipulation r a t h e r than v e r b a l mediation. To i n v e s t i g a t e developmental f a c t o r s which might y i e l d d i f f e r e n t i a l treatment e f f e c t s as a f u n c t i o n of age, two groups of mentally r e t a r d e d school c h i l d r e n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study: 22 seven y e a r - o l d s and 22 ten y e a r - o l d s . The s u b j e c t s completed a s e r i e s of e x p e r i m e n t a l l y - g e n e r a t e d match-to-sample and maze t e s t s and t r a i n i n g items over an e i g h t week p e r i o d , f o l l o w e d by a one month p e r i o d d u r i n g which no t r a i n i n g or t e s t i n g o c c u r r e d . A one week follow-up was then conducted. Four v a r i a b l e s (three r e f l e c t i n g accuracy and one r e f l e c t i n g speed) were d e r i v e d f o r each of the two t e s t s . Data were analyzed through the process of v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n and by two s t a t i s t i c a l procedures. The f i r s t of these was the C method t i m e - s e r i e s a n a l y s i s f o r the match-to-sample and maze v a r i a b l e s . In a second l e v e l of a n a l y s i s , each^ s u b j e c t ' s scores f o r the t i m e - s e r i e s analyses were t r e a t e d i n an ANOVA. The r e s u l t s of the ANOVA showed s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r age f o r two (33.33%) v a r i a b l e s r e f l e c t i n g accuracy, i n d i c a t i n g that the raw scores f o r these v a r i a b l e s changed more fo r ten y e a r - o l d s than f o r seven y e a r - o l d s . S i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r treatment were found f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s r e f l e c t i n g accuracy, i n d i c a t i n g that the raw scores f o r these v a r i a b l e s changed more f o r s o c i a l reinforcement than f o r s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n . T h i s was i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g that s o c i a l reinforcement produced g r e a t e r gains i n accuracy than d i d s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r treatment were found f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s r e f l e c t i n g speed, i n d i c a t i n g t h at the raw scores f o r these v a r i a b l e s changed more f o r s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n than f o r the s o c i a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t . T h i s was i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g t h at s u b j e c t s a s s i g n e d to the s o c i a l reinforcement treatment responded more r a p i d l y than d i d s u b j e c t s a s s i g n e d to the s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n treatment. S i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s f o r phase were found f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s r e f l e c t i n g accuracy and speed, i n d i c a t i n g t h at the change i n trends f o r these v a r i a b l e s was g r e a t e r d u r i n g the treatment phase than d u r i n g the b a s e l i n e phase. T h i s was i v i n t e r p r e t e d as i n d i c a t i n g that the treatments a c c e l e r a t e d trends from the b a s e l i n e to the treatment phase. N o n s i g n i f i c a n t age x treatment i n t e r a c t i o n s ( i n an i d e n t i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n ) were found f o r f i v e ( 1 0 0 % ) of the v a r i a b l e s r e f l e c t i n g accuracy. The c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n of the i n t e r a c t i o n was seen as suggesting a d i f f e r e n t i a l treatment e f f e c t which v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n of age. V i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n showed that s o c i a l reinforcement produced more a c c u r a t e performance than s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s r e f l e c t i n g accuracy, and more r a p i d responding f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s r e f l e c t i n g speed. Changes i n performance were more durable f o r s u b j e c t s a s s i g n e d to the s o c i a l reinforcement treatment than f o r those a s s i g n e d to the s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n treatment. The study concludes with a summary of the r e s u l t s , a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the l i g h t of the hypotheses and the work of p r e v i o u s i n v e s t i g a t o r s , and i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . V Table of Contents A b s t r a c t i i L i s t of Tables x L i s t of F i g u r e s . . ., x v i i i Acknowledgement '. xx Chapter I INTRODUCTION . * . . 1 . Chapter II LITERATURE REVIEW 6 1. ORGANIZATION 6 2. BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION AND COGNITIVE-BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION 6 2.1 Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n 6 2.2 C o g n i t i v e - B e h a v i o r M o d i f i c a t i o n 9 2.3 Comparison Of Treatment E f f e c t s 11 2.4 Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n And G e n e r a l i z a t i o n 13 2.5 C o g n i t i v e - B e h a v i o r M o d i f i c a t i o n And G e n e r a l i z a t i o n 18 3. MENTAL RETARDATION 23 4. CONCEPTUAL TEMPO 27 4.1 The Measurement Of R e f l e c t i o n - I m p u l s i v i t y 29 4.1.1 E d u c a t i o n a l S i g n i f i c a n c e 34 5. CONCEPTUAL TEMPO AND MENTAL RETARDATION 36 6. COGNITIVE-BEHAVIORISM AND CONCEPTUAL TEMPO 40 7. THE MODIFICATION OF CONCEPTUAL TEMPO 53 7.1 S e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n 53 7.2 P o s i t i v e Reinforcement 59 8. SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH 69 9. UNADDRESSED ISSUES IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH 73 Chapter III THE PROBLEM 76 1 . HYPOTHESES 76 Chapter IV METHOD 81 1 . SUBJECTS 81 1.1 Subject S e l e c t i o n C r i t e r i a 82 1.1.1 Subject S e l e c t i o n C r i t e r i a : R a t i o n a l e 83 v i 1.2 Subject S e l e c t i o n Procedures 85 2. INSTRUMENTS ' 86 2.1 Match-to-Sample And Maze T e s t s 86 2.2 T r a i n i n g Items 88 2.3 Maze Exemplars 88 3. FUNDAMENTAL DEPENDENT VARIABLES 90 3.1 Match-to-Sample T e s t s 90 3.1.1 Percentage Of Items Completed 91 3.1.2 Excess-to-Completed R a t i o .92 3.1.3 Weighted Excess-to-Completed R a t i o .. ^  93 3.1.4 Percentage Of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y 94 4.3.2 Redundant Choices — 9 5 3.2.1 Latency To The F i r s t Response 96 3.3 Maze T e s t s 97 4. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES 99 5. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 99 6. PROCEDURE 103 6.1 Research A s s i s t a n t s 103 6.1.1 T r a i n i n g 104 6.2 Data C o l l e c t i o n 105 6.2.1 B a s e l i n e Phase 105 6.2.2 I n t e r v e n t i o n Phase 105 6.2.3 Follow-up Phase 106 6.2.4 Assignment Of Subjec t s To Treatment Subgroups ..106 6.2.5 Assignment Of Subjec t s To B a s e l i n e P e r i o d s 106 6.2.6 T r a i n i n g S e s s i o n s 107 6.2.7 T r a i n i n g And T e s t i n g L o c a t i o n s 107 6.3 Equipment 108 6.4 A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 108 6.4.1 I n t e r v e n t i o n Phase T r a i n i n g Sessions 111 6.4.2 T r a i n i n g C o n d i t i o n s : Contingent S o c i a l Reinforcement 111 6.4.3 T r a i n i n g S e s s i o n s : S o c i a l Reinforcement Subgroup 112 6.4.4 T r a i n i n g C o n d i t i o n s : S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n Subgroup .115 6.4.5 T r a i n i n g S e s s i o n s : S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n Subgroup ...116 7. INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT 119 7.1 Dependent V a r i a b l e s 119 7.2 Independent V a r i a b l e s 121 8. DATA POINTS 1 25 8.1 M i s s i n g Data 126 9. DATA ORGANIZATION 126 9.1 I n d i v i d u a l Subject Data 126 9.2 Treatment Subgroups By Age 126 10. DATA ANALYSIS 127 v i i 10.1 V i s u a l I n s p e c t i o n 127 10.2 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s 128 10.2.1 The C S t a t i s t i c 128 10.2.2 A p p l i c a t i o n s Of The C S t a t i s t i c 134 10.2.3 Trends In The B a s e l i n e Phase: A R a t i o n a l e For The Use Of ANOVA 134 10.2.4 The Appropriateness Of C Scores In ANOVA 136 10.3 E v a l u a t i n g Trends In The B a s e l i n e Phase 138 Chapter V RESULTS . . 139 1 . OVERVIEW 139 2 . INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT 1 4 1 2.1 Dependent V a r i a b l e s 141 2.1.1 Match-to-Sample T e s t s 141 2.1.2 Maze T e s t s 1 43 2.2 Independent V a r i a b l e s 145 3. CONSIDERATIONS IN THE EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS 146 3.1 V i s u a l I n s p e c t i o n 146 3.2 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s 147 4. MATCH-TO-SAMPLE TESTS 151 4.1 Percentage Of Items Completed 151 4.2 Excess-to-Completed R a t i o • 175 4.3 Weighted Excess-to-Completed R a t i o 198 4.4 Percentage Of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y 222 4.5 Percentage Of Redundant Choices 249 4.6 Mean Latency To The F i r s t Response 274 5. MAZE TESTS 299 5.1 Percentage Of Items Completed 299 5.2 E r r o r R a t i o 323 5.3 Weighted E r r o r R a t i o 348 5.4 Percentage Of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y 371 5.5 Mean Response Du r a t i o n 395 Chapter VI SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION 424 1. SUMMARY 424 1 . 1 Overview 424 1.2 ANOVA On The C Scores 425 1.3 Main E f f e c t s For Age 426 1.3.1 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Accuracy 426 1.3.2 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Speed 426 1.4 Main E f f e c t s For Treatment 426 1.4.1 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Accuracy 426 1.4.2 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Speed 427 1.5 Main E f f e c t s For Phase 428 1.5.1 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Accuracy 428 1.5.2 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Speed 428 v i i i 1.6 Phase By Age I n t e r a c t i o n s 429 1.6.1 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Accuracy 429 1.6.2 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Speed 430 1.7 Phase By Treatment I n t e r a c t i o n s 431 1.7.1 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Accuracy 431 1.7.2 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Speed 433 1.8 Age By Treatment I n t e r a c t i o n s .433 1.8.1 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Accuracy 433 1.8.2 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Speed 434 1.9 Phase By Age By Treatment I n t e r a c t i o n s ...435 1.9.1 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Accuracy 435 1.9.2 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Speed .....435 1.10 V i s u a l I n s p e c t i o n '.. 437 1.11 Treatment E f f e c t s .437 1.11.1 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Accuracy 437 1.11.2 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Speed 439 1.12 D u r a b i l i t y Of Treatment E f f e c t s 439 1.12.1 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Accuracy 439 1.12.2 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Speed 441 1.13 Magnitude Of D i f f e r e n c e s In Trends 442 1.13.1 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Accuracy 442 1.13.2 V a r i a b l e s R e f l e c t i n g Response Speed 443 2. DISCUSSION 443 2.1 Hypothesis 1.1 444 2.2 Hypothesis 1.2 446 2.3 Hypothesis 2.1 449 2.4 Hypothesis 2.2 451 2.5 Hypothesis 3.1 454 2.6 Hypothesis 3.2 459 2.7 Hypothesis 4.1 462 2.8 Hypothesis 4.2 464 2.9 Hypothesis 4.3 467 2.10 Hypothesis 4.4 469 3. GENERAL DISCUSSION 472 4. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 474 5. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 482 APPENDIX A - THE DEVELOPMENT OF MATCH-TO-SAMPLE AND MAZE ITEM POOLS 487 1 . OVERVIEW 487 2. SUBJECTS 487 3. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MATCH-TO-SAMPLE TESTS 488 3.1 P i l o t T e s t i n g : The I n i t i a l Phase 489 3.2 P i l o t T e s t i n g : The Second Phase 489 3.3 Formulation Of The Match-to-Sample Item Pool 490 3.3.1 Randomization Of The V a r i a n t s 491 3.3.2 T r a i n i n g Items 491 ix 4. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MAZE TESTS 492 4.1 P i l o t T e s t i n g : The I n i t i a l Phase 493 4.2 P i l o t T e s t i n g : The Second Phase 493 4.3 Formation Of The Maze Item Pool 493 4.3.1 Maze Exemplar Items 494 REFERENCES 495 X L i s t of Tables 1. Examples of Concrete and Conceptual Self-Statements ..21 2. D i s t r i b u t i o n of Subjec t s by School D i s t r i c t , Age, and Gender 82 3. T e s t s , Instruments, and Exemplars 90 4. C r i t i c a l Values f o r T e s t i n g the Z S t a t i s t i c at the .01 Le v e l of S i g n i f i c a n c e 132 5. Mean In t e r o b s e r v e r Agreement f o r Choices on Match-to-Sample Te s t s 142 6. Mean In t e r o b s e r v e r Agreement f o r Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-To-Sample Te s t s 143 7. Mean In t e r o b s e r v e r Agreement f o r E r r o r s on Maze Tests 1 44 8. Mean I n t e r o b s e r v e r Agreement f o r Response Duration on Maze T e s t s 145 9. Mean I n t e r o b s e r v e r Agreement f o r S o c i a l Reinforcement and S e l f - I n s t r u c t i o n 146 10. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Match-to-Sample Tests 155 11. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 1 57 12. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Match-to-Sample Te s t s 159 .13. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Match-to-Sample Te s t s 1 64 14. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 1 66 15. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 168 x i 16. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e Plus Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases: Percentage of Match-to-Sample Items Completed' 173 17. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s ..179 18. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample Tes t s .181 19. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 183 20. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s ..188 21. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample Tests 190 22. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 192 23. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e P l u s Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases: Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 196 24. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: Weighted Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample Tes t s 203 25. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Weighted Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 205 26. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Weighted Excess-to-Completed x i i R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 207 27. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: Weighted Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample Te s t s 212 28. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Weighted Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 214 29. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Weighted Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 216 30. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e P l u s Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment and Follow-Up Phases: Weighted Excess-To-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 220 31. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of I n c o r r e c t l y Completed Items on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 227 32. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of I n c o r r e c t l y Completed Items on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 229 33. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of I n c o r r e c t l y Completed Items on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 231 34. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of I n c o r r e c t l y Completed Items on Match-to-Sample T e s t s ....237 35. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of I n c o r r e c t l y Completed Items on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 239 36. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of I n c o r r e c t l y Completed Items on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 241 x i i i 37. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores' f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e Plus Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment and Follow-Up Phases: Percentage of I n c o r r e c t l y Completed Items on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 247 38. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Redundant Choices on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 254 39. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Redundant Choices on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 256 40. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-'Olds: Percentage of Redundant Choices on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 258 41. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Redundant Choices on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 263 42. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Redundant Choices on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 265 43. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Redundant Choices on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 267 44. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e P l u s Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment and Follow-Up Phases: Percentage of Redundant Choices on Match-to-Sample T e s t s ' 272 45. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: Mean Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 279 46. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Mean Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 281 x i v 47. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Mean Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 283 48. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: Mean Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 288 49. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Mean Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 290 50. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Mean Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 292 51. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e Plus Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment and Follow-Up Phases: Mean Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 297 52. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Maze T e s t s 303 53. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Maze T e s t s 305 54. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Maze T e s t s 307 55. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Maze T e s t s 312 56. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Maze Test 314 57. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed on Maze T e s t s 316 X V 58. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e Plus Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases: Percentage of Items Completed on Maze T e s t s 321 59. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s 327 60. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s 329 61. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: E r r o r R a t i o f o r Maze T e s t s 331 62. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: E r r o r R a t i o on Maze Tests 337 63. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s 339 64. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: E r r o r R a t i o on Maze Tes t s .341 65. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e Plus Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment and Follow-Up Phases: E r r o r R a t i o on Maze Test s 346 66. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: Weighted E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s 352 67. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Weighted E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s 354 68. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Weighted E r r o r R a t i o on Maze Te s t s 356 69. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: Weighted E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s 361 70. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten x v i Year-Olds: Weighted E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s 363 71. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Weighted E r r o r R a t i o on Maze Te s t s 365 72. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e Plus Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment and Follow-Up Phases: Weighted E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s 369 73. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y on Maze T e s t s 375 74. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y on Maze T e s t s 377 75. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y on Maze T e s t s 379 76. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of I n c o r r e c t l y Completed Items on Maze T e s t s 385 77. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y on Maze T e s t s 387 78. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Percentage of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y on Maze T e s t s 389 79. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e Plus Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases: Percentage of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y on Maze T e s t s 393 80. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Seven Year-Olds: Mean Response Du r a t i o n on Maze T e s t s 400 x v i i 81. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Mean Response Du r a t i o n on Maze T e s t s 402 82. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Seven Year-Olds: Mean Response Duration on Maze T e s t s 404 83. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e Phase f o r Ten Year-Olds: Mean Response Du r a t i o n on Maze T e s t s 410 84. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e and Treatment Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Mean Response Duration 412 85. C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , Treatment, and Follow-Up Phases f o r Ten Year-Olds: Mean Response D u r a t i o n on Maze Te s t s 414 86. Means and Standard D e v i a t i o n s of C Scores f o r the B a s e l i n e , B a s e l i n e Plus Treatment, and B a s e l i n e , Treatment and Follow-Up Phases: Mean Response Du r a t i o n on Maze T e s t s 422 XVI 1 1 L i s t of F i g u r e s 1. Mean Percentage of Match-to-Sample Items Completed by Seven Year-Olds 151 2. Mean Percentage of Match-to-Sample Items Completed by Ten Year-Olds .... .160 3. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: Percentage of Match-to-Sample Items Completed ....174 4. Mean Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample Te s t s f o r Seven Year-Olds 175 5. Mean Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample Te s t s f o r Ten Year-Olds 184 6. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 197 7. Mean Weighted Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample Te s t s f o r Seven Year-Olds 199 8. Mean Weighted Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample Te s t s f o r Ten Year-Olds 208 9. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: Weighted Excess-to-Completed R a t i o on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 221 10. Mean Percentage of I n c o r r e c t l y Completed Items on Match-to-Sample T e s t s f o r Seven Year-Olds 222 11. Mean Percentage of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y on Match-to-Sample T e s t s f o r Ten Year-Olds 233 12. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: Percentage of Match-to-Sample Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y 248 13. Mean Percentage of Redundant Choices on Match-to-Sample Tes t s f o r Seven Year-Olds 249 14. Mean Percentage of Redundant Choices on Match-to-Sample T e s t s f o r Ten Year-Olds 259 15. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: Percentage of Redundant Choices on Match-to-Sample T e s t s 273 16. Mean Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-to-Sample T e s t s f o r Seven Year-Olds 274 17. Mean Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-to-Sample x ix T e s t s f o r Ten Year-Olds 284 18. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: Mean Latency to the F i r s t Response on Match-to-Sample Te s t s 298 19. Mean Percentage of Items Completed on Maze T e s t s f o r Seven Year-Olds 299 20. Mean Percentage of Items Completed on Maze T e s t s f o r Ten Year-Olds 308 21. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: Percentage of Items _ Completed on Maze T e s t s .....322 22. Mean E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s f o r Seven Year-Olds ..324 23. Mean E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s f o r Ten Year-Olds ....333 24. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: E r r o r R a t i o on Maze T e s t s 347 25. Mean Weighted E r r o r R a t i o on Maze Tes t s f o r Seven Year-Olds 348 26. Mean Weighted E r r o r R a t i o on Maze Tes t s f o r Ten Year-Olds 357 27. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: Weighted E r r o r R a t i o on Maze Test s 370 28. Mean Percentage of Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y on Maze Test s f o r Seven Year-Olds 372 29. Mean Percentage of I n c o r r e c t l y Completed Items on Maze Test s f o r Ten Year-Olds 381 30. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: Percentage of Maze Items Completed I n c o r r e c t l y 394 31. Mean Response Duration on Maze Tes t s f o r Seven Year-Olds .396 32. Mean Response Duration on Maze Tes t s f o r Ten Year-Olds 406 33. P l o t of C Score C e l l Means: Mean Response D u r a t i o n on Maze T e s t s 423 X X Acknowledgement I g r e a t f u l l y acknowledge the a s s i s t a n c e of the many people who helped make t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n p o s s i b l e . I extend my deepest a p p r e c i a t i o n to the members of my d i s s e r t a t i o n committee f o r t h e i r i n v a l u a b l e support: Dr. Walter B o l d t , Dr. Marg Csapo (Research S u p e r v i s o r ) , Dr. Ronald Jarrnan ( A c t i n g S u p e r v i s o r ) , and Dr. Barry Munro. Furthermore, I wish to thank my Department Chairpe r s o n , Dr. Bryan C l a r k e , f o r h i s u n r e l e n t i n g advocacy on my b e h a l f . I am a l s o indebted to the o r g a n i z a t i o n s whose f i n a n c i a l support enabled me to complete my work: the S o c i a l S ciences and Humanities Research C o u n c i l , the N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e on Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , and the S p e c i a l Education A s s o c i a t i o n of B r i t i s h Columbia. No l e s s important were the e f f o r t s of those who a s s i s t e d with the t e c h n i c a l p r e p a r a t i o n of the d i s s e r t a t i o n : the s t a f f of the Education Research S e r v i c e s and Computing, Nu s r i Hassan, V i c t o r i a Lyon-Lamb, Angela Runnels, and Eve and Yom Shamash. F i n a l l y , I o f f e r my g r a t i t u d e to the people whose l i v e s and work p r o v i d e d me with the i n s p i r a t i o n and sustenance I r e q u i r e d to complete the r e s e a r c h : M. A l l i s o n , A. Blakey, C. Brown, P. Chambers, D. Gordon, T. Monk, R. Johnson, B. King, L. Walter, M. Waters, H. Wolf, V. Serge, and B. Traven. 1 I. INTRODUCTION Educators seeking to change the behavior of e x c e p t i o n a l c h i l d r e n are co n f r o n t e d with a v a r i e t y of treatment approaches. In recent years, n e u r o l o g i c a l p a t t e r n i n g , s p e c i a l d i e t s , megavitamin therapy, medication, behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n , and c o g n i t i v e t r a i n i n g , among other approaches, have been proposed as treatments f o r v a r i o u s groups of e x c e p t i o n a l c h i l d r e n . Although each technique has proponents who argue i n i t s b e h a l f , i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the comparative e f f e c t s of v a r i o u s treatment approaches has been ambiguous and at times c o n t r a d i c t o r y . Researchers have noted s e v e r a l f a c t o r s to account f o r t h i s s i t u a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g the h e t e r o g e n e i t y of the p o p u l a t i o n s s e l e c t e d f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the broad d e f i n i t i o n s of treatment procedures, the tendency of v a r i o u s subgroups of c h i l d r e n to respond d i f f e r e n t l y to a p a r t i c u l a r treatment, the d i s s i m i l a r i t y of outcomes i n l a b o r a t o r y and f i e l d s i t u a t i o n s , and the g e n e r a l i t y with which outcomes have been r e p o r t e d (Csapo, 1981; H a l l , 1980; Keough & Glo v e r , 1980; Meichenbaum, 1977) . Because of these c o n d i t i o n s , important q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the range, d u r a b i l i t y , temporal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c i t y of v a r i o u s i n t e r v e n t i o n s designed to change the behavior of e x c e p t i o n a l c h i l d r e n have remained unanswered (Keough & Glo v e r , 1980), and c o n s i d e r a b l e disagreement e x i s t s r e g a r d i n g the s e l e c t i o n of b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n i n p u b l i c s c h o o l s (O'Leary, 1972; Mayer & McGookin, 1977; S u l z e r - A z a r o f f & Mayer, 1977; Winnett & Winkler, 1972). 2 Two approaches to b e h a v i o r a l change have r e c e i v e d e x t e n s i v e a t t e n t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e over the past decade: behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n (Ledwidge, 1978). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n t r a c e s i t s o r i g i n s to i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g infrahuman s u b j e c t s , and b e h a v i o r a l procedures focus on the manipulation of environmental s t i m u l i and events to achieve b e h a v i o r a l change (Baer, Wolf, & R i s l e y , 1968; Sundel & Sundel, 1975). In c o n t r a s t , c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o r i g i n a t e d i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of the use of language to mediate human behavior (Meichenbaum, 1977; Meichenbaum & Burland, 1979), and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l procedures focus on the manipulation of both environmental v a r i a b l e s and c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s to change behavior (Kendall & H o l l o n , 1979). Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n d i f f e r both i n theory and i n the s t r u c t u r e of the procedures each employs to e f f e c t b e h a v i o r a l change (Jaremko, 1979). From a t h e o r e t i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , b e h a v i o r i s t s have i n v e s t e d t h e i r e f f o r t s and i n t e r e s t i n the product of l e a r n i n g ( i . e . the b e h a v i o r a l outcome) r a t h e r than i n the processes i n v o l v e d i n l e a r n i n g ( i . e . the c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s ) , and from a p r o c e d u r a l p o i n t of view, the v e r b a l behavior of c l i e n t s i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n programs i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s i g n e d l i t t l e importance, unless v e r b a l behavior i t s e l f i s a t a r g e t f o r b e h a v i o r a l change (Blackwood, 1970; Landry & Robichaud, 1980). C o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t s have shown i n t e r e s t i n both the products of l e a r n i n g and i n the processes of l e a r n i n g , and c l i e n t v e r b a l i z a t i o n s are a s s i g n e d a major r o l e when c o g n i t i v e -3 b e h a v i o r a l procedures change behavior (Blackwood, 1970; K e n d a l l & H o l l o n , 1979; Ledwidge, 1978; Mahoney & Nezworski, 1985). Further d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g behaviorism and c o g n i t i v e -behaviorism are the d i s s i m i l a r p e r s p e c t i v e s from which p r a c t i t i o n e r s and t h e o r e t i c i a n s of the two o r i e n t a t i o n s view the iss u e of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . B e h a v i o r i s t s have come to see the promotion of g e n e r a l i z e d responding as separate from the goal of producing b e h a v i o r a l change, and have developed a s p e c i f i c technology by which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n can be promoted (Stokes & Baer, 1977). In c o n t r a s t , some c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t s a s s e r t that the use of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l procedures w i l l spontaneously produce g e n e r a l i z e d responding (Loper and Hallahan, 1982), while others have observed that when c o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r a l procedures are used to modify behavior, g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s not always observed (Meichenbaum & Asarnow, 1979). The importance of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , the need f o r s p e c i a l programming to promote i t , and the methods by which i t can be encouraged remain c o n t e n t i o u s i s s u e s w i t h i n the area of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s m and between b e h a v i o r i s t s and c o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r i s t s ( F r i e d l i n g & O'Leary, 1979; Kneedler, 1980). Furthermore, b e h a v i o r i s t s , c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t s , and res e a r c h e r s not f o r m a l l y a l i g n e d with e i t h e r school agree that the r o l e t h at s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e s p l a y i n treatment outcomes has been i n s u f f i c i e n t l y i n v e s t i g a t e d i n recent r e s e a r c h . O'Leary and Carr (1982) "...suggest (1) that behavior m o d i f i e r s should pay more a t t e n t i o n to i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s among c h i l d r e n ; and (2) that the outcome of b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n may be h i g h l y 4 dependent on subgroup,, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i r r e s p e c t i v e ovf d i a g n o s t i c l a b e l " (p. 455). Meichenbaum (1979, 1981a) argues that f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n i s needed to determine c l i e n t - b y -treatment i n t e r a c t i o n s , and c a l l s f o r broad i n v e s t i g a t i o n s to determine the e f f e c t s of v a r i o u s i n t e r v e n t i o n s with s p e c i f i c p o p u l a t i o n s . Bugental, Whalen, and Henker , (1977), Keough and Glover (1980), and Holmes (1981) d e s c r i b e the need f o r f u r t h e r comparative s t u d i e s and d e l i n e a t e the impact that i n d i v i d u a l and subgroup d i f f e r e n c e s among s u b j e c t s may have on treatment outcomes. In l i g h t of the f o r e g o i n g , the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n addresses i t s e l f to some of the lon g s t a n d i n g u n r e s o l v e d d i s p u t e s between proponents of the b e h a v i o r a l and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l s c h o o l s . F i r s t , the study compared the magnitude of the e f f e c t s of a b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n (which i n t h i s study w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as s o c i a l reinforcement) and a c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n (which i n t h i s study w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as s e l f -i n s t r u c t i o n ) i n modifying speed and accuracy on two p e r c e p t u a l -motor t a s k s . Second, because some i n v e s t i g a t o r s have s p e c u l a t e d that c o g n i t i v e l y - b a s e d i n t e r v e n t i o n s may b e n e f i t c e r t a i n groups of c h i l d r e n more than o t h e r s , and that there may be a developmental t h r e s h o l d below which c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s may l o s e t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s , two groups of mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n (seven and ten y e a r - o l d s ) p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n as s u b j e c t s . In a d d i t i o n to p e r m i t t i n g the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of the two treatments to be s t u d i e d , the use of two groups of c h i l d r e n a l s o allowed 5 r e p l i c a t i o n s to be made. T h i r d , the study e x p l o r e d the r e l a t i v e a b i l i t y of a combination of two b e h a v i o r a l s t r a t e g i e s ( t r a i n i n g s u f f i c i e n t exemplars and t r a i n i n g to g e n e r a l i z e ) and a c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l s t r a t e g y (the use of conceptual statements) to produce g e n e r a l i z e d responding a c r o s s tasks and over time. To address the q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n , the performance of the s u b j e c t s on 21 e x p e r i m e n t a l l y - g e n e r a t e d match-to-sample and maze t e s t s was compared i n a s y s t e m a t i c a l l y r e p l i c a t e d s i n g l e case d e s i g n . The r e s u l t s were analyzed s u b j e c t i v e l y (through the process of v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n ) and s t a t i s t i c a l l y (through the processes of the C Score method of t i m e - s e r i e s a n a l y s i s and ANOVA). 6 I I . LITERATURE REVIEW 1. ORGANIZATION The l i t e r a t u r e review i s organized i n f i v e s e c t i o n s . In , the f i r s t s e c t i o n , behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n are surveyed, comparisons of treatment e f f e c t s are r e p o r t e d , and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and the t e c h n o l o g i e s by which i t can be promoted are s t u d i e d from the b e h a v i o r a l and c o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r a l p e r s p e c t i v e s . The second s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s an overview of mental r e t a r d a t i o n , with p a r t i c u l a r emphasis p l a c e d on the l e a r n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EMR c h i l d r e n . In the t h i r d s e c t i o n , r e s e a r c h i n the area of c o n c e p t u a l tempo i s presented, with s p e c i f i c a t t e n t i o n d i r e c t e d toward the measurement of r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y and the i m p l i c a t i o n s of r e f l e c t i o n -i m p u l s i v i t y i n the education of EMR c h i l d r e n . The f o u r t h s e c t i o n t r a c e s the development and e a r l y a p p l i c a t i o n s of the s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n procedure. F i n a l l y , i n the f i f t h s e c t i o n , s t u d i e s are reviewed i n which s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n or p o s i t i v e reinforcement were used to modify c o n c e p t u a l tempo. 2. BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION AND COGNITIVE-BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION 2.1 Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n Behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n has g e n e r a l l y been d e f i n e d as the process by which techniques d e r i v e d from l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s of c o n d i t i o n i n g and l e a r n i n g are s c i e n t i f i c a l l y a p p l i e d to change human behavior (Davidson, 1979; Sundel & Sundel, 1975). M i l l e n s o n and L e s l i e (1979) e x p l i c a t e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l environment, b e h a v i o r a l p r o c e s s e s , and l a b o r a t o r y 7 res e a r c h in the development of the f i e l d of behavior modi f i c a t i o n : We t h e r e f o r e have two a l t e r n a t i v e s . E i t h e r we allow events to take t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l course and make no attempt to use the p r i n c i p l e s of b e h a v i o r a l a n a l y s i s that we have d e r i v e d from l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s , or we apply b e h a v i o r a l p r i n c i p l e s to the s i t u a t i o n s and behavior we observe i n the world around us attempting to i n f l u e n c e people's a c t i o n s i n accord with our own va l u e s . The l a t t e r a p p l i c a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l e s to i n f l u e n c e o t hers i s c a l l e d , a p p r o p r i a t e l y , the technology of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n . The technology of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n seeks to apply techniques d e r i v e d from l a b o r a t o r y s t u d i e s of behavior to the a n a l y s i s , understanding, and c o n t r o l of human behavior i n everyday s i t u a t i o n s , (pp. 435-436) C e n t r a l to the t h e o r e t i c a l foundation of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i s the assumption that the c o n t r o l of human behavior i s environmental i n nature, i . e . that events e x t e r n a l to people o c c a s i o n and maintain t h e i r behavior (Baer, Wolf, & R i s l e y , 1968). The r o l e t h at c o g n i t i o n p l a y s i n changing behavior i s seen as minimal, with c o g n i t i o n i t s e l f viewed simply as a behavior, and not as the cause of other behaviors (Jaremko, 1979). According to B a i l e y and Bostow (1979): No i n t e r n a l s t a t e s or processes p l a y important r o l e s i n the e x p l a n a t i o n s of b e h a v i o r a l e f f e c t s . The o b j e c t i o n t o i n t e r n a l or unobservable processes i s not that they do not e x i s t , but th a t they are not r e l e v a n t (or necessary) i n a thoroughgoing f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . . . . O v e r t behavior i s taken as a datum i n i t s own r i g h t . I t i s not a r a t h e r "noisy r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of something e l s e . " (pps. 21-22) B e h a v i o r i s t i c procedures are seen as i n v o l v i n g the manipulation of environmental v a r i a b l e s e x c l u s i v e l y ; treatment 8 t a r g e t s are b e h a v i o r a l excesses or d e f i c i t s , and treatment e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s evaluated i n terms of observed changes i n behavior ( K e n d a l l & H o l l o n , 1979). The procedures which have been commonly used to t r e a t c l i e n t s i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n programs i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s have i n c l u d e d p o s i t i v e and negative reinforcement, e x t i n c t i o n , shaping, f a d i n g , c h a i n i n g , modeling, punishment, response-cost, timeout, o v e r c o r r e c t i o n , or combinations thereof (Martin & Pear, 1983; S u l z e r - A z a r o f f & Mayer, 1977). Over the past two decades behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n has come to be viewed as an e f f e c t i v e method by which c h i l d r e n ' s academic and s o c i a l behaviors can be managed in s c h o o l s (Kazdin & B o o t z i n , 1972; O'Leary & C a r r , 1982; O'Leary & Drabman, 1971; Polsgrove, 1979;) and i n the home (P a t t e r s o n , 1973). Moreover, b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s have been found to have been p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e i n t r e a t i n g one group of people: mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s . Landry and Robichaud (1980) have d e s c r i b e d the c a p a b i l i t y of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h i s regard: "In f a c t , i t c o u l d be argued that the r e p u t a t i o n of behaviorism as an e f f e c t i v e l e a r n i n g theory has been e s t a b l i s h e d l a r g e l y through the achievements that were r e a l i z e d by b e h a v i o r a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s and educators i n the f i e l d of mental r e t a r d a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y with s e v e r e l y and p r o f o u n d l y mentally r e t a r d e d i n d i v i d u a l s . . . " (p. 53). 9 2.2 C o g n i t i v e - B e h a v i o r M o d i f i c a t i o n C o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n has been d e f i n e d as the process by which behaviors and c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s are changed as a r e s u l t of an i n t e r v e n t i o n which i n c l u d e s elements of s e l f -management ( s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t , s e l f - g u i d a n c e , e t c . ) , v e r b a l mediation, s t r a t e g y t r a i n i n g , c o g n i t i v e modeling, and response d e l a y d u r i n g which the e v a l u a t i o n of v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s occurs ( L l o y d , 1980). C o g n i t i o n i s viewed as an i n t e g r a l component i n the process of behavior change, with c l i e n t v e r b a l i z a t i o n s a l s o a s s i g n e d a major r o l e (Blackwood, 1970; Ledwidge, 1978). C o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c treatment procedures are seen as .;• i n v o l v i n g the m a n i p u l a t i o n of both environmental and c o g n i t i v e v a r i a b l e s ; treatment t a r g e t s are b e h a v i o r a l or c o g n i t i v e excesses or d e f i c i t s ; and treatment e f f e c t i v e n e s s i s e v a l u a t e d i n terms of Observed changes i n behavior and c o g n i t i o n (Kendall & H o l l o n , 1979; Mahoney & Kazdin, 1979). The procedures used in the process of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o r i g i n a t e d from two d i s t i n c t sources. One group of procedures evolved out of the treatment of a d u l t s , while another type of procedure developed as an outgrowth of work with c h i l d r e n (Meichenbaum, 1977). In the treatment of a d u l t s , c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c procedures evolved as a d e l i b e r a t e attempt by c o g n i t i v e l y o r i e n t e d b e h a v i o r a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s to improve the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t r a d i t i o n a l b e h a v i o r a l techniques by c o n c a t e n a t i n g to them procedures d e r i v e d from the f i e l d of c o g n i t i v e psycholgy. T h i s was done as a " . . . p u r p o s e f u l attempt 10 to preserve the demonstrated e f f i c i e n c i e s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n w i t h i n a l e s s d o c t r i n a i r e context and to i n c o r p o r a t e the a c t i v i t i e s of the c l i e n t i n the e f f o r t s to produce t h e r a p e u t i c change" (Kendall & H o l l o n , 1979, p. 1). As c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n with a d u l t s evolved, a number of l o o s e l y r e l a t e d procedures were subsumed under i t s r u b r i c . These i n c l u d e d c o g n i t i v e therapy, coping s k i l l s t r a i n i n g , s t r e s s - i n o c u l a t i o n t r a i n i n g , a n x i e t y management t r a i n i n g , problem s o l v i n g , m e t a c o g n i t i v e t r a i n i n g , and r a t i o n a l -emotive therapy (Meichenbaum & Burland, 1979). In c o n t r a s t to the development of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s m with a d u l t s , c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s with c h i l d r e n developed out of attempts to apply the developmental and c o g n i t i v e t h e o r i e s of S o v i e t p s y c h o l o g i s t s to the problem of the m o d i f i c a t i o n of the c o n c e p t u a l tempo of c h i l d r e n (Meichenbaum & Burland, 1979). From these beginnings developed the most f a m i l i a r c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n used with c h i l d r e n : the s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n procedure (Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971), a l s o o c c a s i o n a l l y r e f e r r e d to as the c o g n i t i v e s e l f -i n s t r u c t i o n procedure or v e r b a l s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n . Although c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n i s a more recent c h r o n o l o g i c a l development than behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n , i t has come to be viewed as a p o t e n t i a l l y promising treatment f o r some c h i l d h o o d behavior d i s o r d e r s and has i n c r e a s i n g l y been used in v a r i e d s e t t i n g s and a c r o s s d i v e r s e p o p u l a t i o n s . However, most r e s e a r c h e r s agree that f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s r e q u i r e d before c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n ' s value i n t r e a t i n g c h i l d h o o d 11 d i s o r d e r s can be assessed (Locke, 1979; O'Leary & Carr, 1982; Mahoney, 1979; Meichenbaum, 1979, 1980; Meichenbaum & Cameron, 1982). 2.3 Comparison Of Treatment E f f e c t s S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s have noted the d i v e r g e n t o r i g i n s , t h e o r e t i c a l foundations, and procedures from which the p r a c t i c e s of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n a r i s e . Ledwidge (1978), Greenspoon & Lamal (1978), and Jaremko (1979) observed that behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n and c o g n i t i v e -behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n were t h e o r e t i c a l l y incompatible approaches to b e h a v i o r a l change, and a s s e r t e d that the two types of i n t e r v e n t i o n s c o u l d and should be t e s t e d a g a i n s t one another. Attempts to compare the outcomes of b e h a v i o r i s t i c and c o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s have generated a number of t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s but few e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . For the most p a r t , the t h e o r e t i c a l d i s c u s s i o n s have c o n s i s t e d of a s e r i e s of polemics in which the supporters of behaviorism d i s p u t e d the p h i l o s o p h i c a l underpinnings of c o g n i t i v e -behaviorism ( E l l i s , 1972; Greenspoon & Lamal, 1978; Jaremko, 1979; Ledwidge, 1979a, 1979b; M o r r i s , H i g g i n s , & B i c k e l , 1982; Waters & McCallum, 1973) or the proponents of the c o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r i s t s c h o o l argued in favor of i t s p o s t u l a t e s (Kazdin & Hersen, 1980; Locke, 1979; Mahoney & Kazdin, 1979; Meichenbaum, 1979, 1980; Meichenbaum and Cameron, 1982). In g e n e r a l , e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s comparing the outcomes 12 of b e h a v i o r i s t i c and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s have y i e l d e d e q u i v o c a l r e s u l t s (Montgomery, 1971; Meichenbaum, G i l l m o r e & F e d o r a v i c i u s , 1971; Lawson & May, 1970). In a review of 38 i n v e s t i g a t i o n s which purported to compare c o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s with t r a d i t i o n a l b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s , Ledwidge (1978) noted that the m a j o r i t y of the s t u d i e s d i d not permit d i r e c t comparison because they f a i l e d to p r o v i d e c o n t r o l groups, d i d not use i n t e r v e n t i o n s which c o u l d c l e a r l y be i d e n t i f i e d as c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c , or d e a l t only with behavior a n a l y s i s r a t h e r than with a comparison of treatment e f f e c t s . Of the remaining s t u d i e s , none used as s u b j e c t s persons with s e v e r e l y d i s a b l i n g behavior d i s o r d e r s . Ledwidge concluded that n e i t h e r technique c o u l d c l e a r l y be i d e n t i f i e d as s u p e r i o r , although he noted that i n c o n t r a s t to b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s , c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s had been s u c c e s s f u l l y used only to t r e a t persons with m i l d l y handicapping c o n d i t i o n s . B e h a v i o r i s t s , c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t s , and r e s e a r c h e r s not f o r m a l l y a l i g n e d with e i t h e r s c h o o l have seen the r o l e that s u b j e c t v a r i a b l e s p l a y i n treatment outcomes as having been i n s u f f i c i e n t l y i n v e s t i g a t e d i n recent r e s e a r c h . O'Leary and Carr (1982) have suggested "...(1) that behavior m o d i f i e r s should pay more a t t e n t i o n to i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s among c h i l d r e n ; and (2) that the outcome of b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n may be h i g h l y dependent on subgroup c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i r r e s p e c t i v e of d i a g n o s t i c l a b e l " (p. 455). Meichenbaum (1979; 1981a) has argued t h a t f u r t h e r e x p l o r a t i o n i s needed to 13 determine c l i e n t - b y - t r e a t m e n t i n t e r a c t i o n s , and c a l l e d f o r broad i n v e s t i g a t i o n s to determine the e f f e c t s of v a r i o u s i n t e r v e n t i o n s with s p e c i f i c p o p u l a t i o n s . Bugental, Whalen, and Henker (1977), Keough and Glover (1980), and Holmes (1981) have d e s c r i b e d the need for f u r t h e r comparative s t u d i e s and d e l i n e a t e d the impact that i n d i v i d u a l and subgroup d i f f e r e n c e s among s u b j e c t s may have on treatment outcomes. 2.4 Behavior M o d i f i c a t i o n And G e n e r a l i z a t i o n A major concern in c o n s i d e r i n g the d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of behavior-changing i n t e r v e n t i o n s has been the extent to which the i n t e r v e n t i o n s maintain t h e i r e f f e c t s over the passage of time or i n s i t u a t i o n s which d i f f e r from t r a i n i n g c o n d i t i o n s . G e n e r a l i z a t i o n (the process by which behaviors le a r n e d i n one s i t u a t i o n are e x h i b i t e d i n another) has been of p a r t i c u l a r concern to educators because i n t e r v e n t i o n s which produce behavior change only i n s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s or f o r short p e r i o d s are of l i m i t e d u s e f u l n e s s i n school s i t u a t i o n s (Baer & Roberts, 1981; Keough & Glover, 1980; Loper, 1980, Stokes & Baer, 1977). G e n e r a l i z a t i o n has been seen as an e s p e c i a l l y c r i t i c a l i s s u e i n the education of mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n (Haring, L i b e r t y , B i l l i n g s l e y , B u t t e r f i e l d , & White, 1983), because the f a i l u r e of the e f f e c t s of behavior-changing i n t e r v e n t i o n s to g e n e r a l i z e a c r o s s s i t u a t i o n s and over time l i m i t s t h e i r e f f e c t i v e n e s s and i s o f t e n a c o n t r i b u t i n g f a c t o r i n the placement of mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n i n r e s t r i c t i v e s c h o o l environments (Landry & 1 4 Robichaud, 1980). From a b e h a v i o r i s t i c p e r s p e c t i v e , g e n e r a l i z a t i o n was t r a d i t i o n a l l y seen as a p a s s i v e phenomenon, something t h a t o c c u r r e d of i t s own accord as a r e s u l t of the use of b e h a v i o r i s t i c procedures. Because of' t h i s outlook, the technology by which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n c o u l d be promoted through the use of b e h a v i o r i s t i c procedures remained i n a r e l a t i v e l y p r i m i t i v e s t a t e of t e c h n o l o g i c a l development compared to other areas i n behaviorism, and r e s e a r c h i n the area of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n was c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the absence of a systematic approach to the problem (O'Leary & C a r r , 1982; Stokes & Baer, 1977). However, in a seminal a r t i c l e on the subject of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , Stokes and Baer (1977) d e s c r i b e d from a b e h a v i o r i s t i c p o i n t of view the technology by which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n c o u l d be promoted. Nine methods f o r programming g e n e r a l i z a t i o n were i d e n t i f i e d : (1) T r a i n and Hope (not d e l i b e r a t e l y d e s i g n i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n t o a behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n program, but hoping n e v e r t h e l e s s that i t would o c c u r ) ; (2) S e q u e n t i a l M o d i f i c a t i o n (implementing a b e h a v i o r -change program i n every s i t u a t i o n i n which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n was d e s i r e d ) ; (3) I n t r o d u c i n g N a t u r a l M a i n t a i n i n g C o n t i n g e n c i e s ( i n t r o d u c i n g b e h a v i o r a l changes which were l i k e l y to be r e i n f o r c e d i n the c l i e n t ' s n a t u r a l environment); (4) T r a i n i n g S u f f i c i e n t Exemplars (promoting g e n e r a l i z a t i o n by u s i n g exemplars of u n t r a i n e d s t i m u l i or responses) (5) T r a i n i n g L o o s e l y (using broad d e f i n i t i o n s of s t i m u l u s or response c r i t e r i a d u r i n g t r a i n i n g ) ; (6) Using I n d i s c r i m i n a b l e 15 C o n t i n g e n c i e s ( c r e a t i n g s i t u a t i o n s i n which the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of reinforcement or punishment was u n p r e d i c t a b l e and the c l i e n t c o u l d not d i s c r i m i n a t e between oc c a s i o n s of reinforcement and nonreinforcement or punishment and nonpunishment); (7) Programming Common S t i m u l i ( s t i m u l i found in the s e t t i n g s i n which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n was d e s i r e d were i n c l u d e d d u r i n g t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s ) ; (8) Mediated G e n e r a l i z a t i o n ( t r a i n i n g responses that were l i k e l y to be u s e f u l i n new s i t u a t i o n s , sometimes through the process of v e r b a l m e d i a t i o n ) ; (9) T r a i n i n g To G e n e r a l i z e ( r e i n f o r c i n g g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i t s e l f as though i t were a d i s c r e t e b e h a v i o r ) . Of these nine methods of promoting g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , two appeared to be e s p e c i a l l y notable f o r the advantages they o f f e r e d i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of b e h a v i o r a l changes i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s : t r a i n i n g s u f f i c i e n t exemplars and t r a i n i n g to g e n e r a l i z e . The use of s u f f i c i e n t exemplars to promote g e n e r a l i z e d responding was seen as o f f e r i n g the p o t e n t i a l advantage of speed. Because r e l a t i v e l y few exemplars might be needed to promote g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , educators c o u l d p o t e n t i a l l y devote more time to other t a s k s (Baer & Roberts, 1981; Cummings, 1980). For example, Stokes and Baer (1977) a s s e r t e d that i n some i n s t a n c e s only a few exemplars would be needed to s u c c e s s f u l l y promote g e n e r a l i z e d responding: " . . . i t i s o p t i m i s t i c to note how f r e q u e n t l y a s u f f i c i e n t number of exemplars i s a small number of exemplars. F r e q u e n t l y i t i s no more than two" (p. 356). A second f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t i n g to the speed with which the 16 t r a i n i n g of s u f f i c i e n t exemplars might occur i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s was the n e c e s s i t y of te a c h i n g c h i l d r e n only exemplar items which represented a s u b c l a s s of the d e s i r e d g e n e r a l i z e d responses. Rather than t e a c h i n g every behavior that c h a r a c t e r i z e d a type of g e n e r a l i z e d responding, educators needed to teach c h i l d r e n only the behaviors r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the t a r g e t g e n e r a l i z e d responses. Stokes and Baer (1977) d e s c r i b e d how t h i s process might occur: If the r e s u l t of t e a c h i n g one exemplar of a g e n e r a l i z a b l e l e s s o n i s merely the mastery of the exemplar taught, with no g e n e r a l i z a t i o n beyond i t , then the obvious route to g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s to teach another exemplar of the same g e n e r a l i z a t i o n l e s s o n , and then another, and then another, and so on u n t i l the i n d u c t i o n i s formed ( i . e . , u n t i l g e n e r a l i z a t i o n occurs s u f f i c i e n t l y to s a t i s f y the problem posed).... In the t r a i n i n g of s u f f i c i e n t exemplars, g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to u n t r a i n e d stimulus c o n d i t i o n s and to un t r a i n e d responses i s programmed by the t r a i n i n g of s u f f i c i e n t exemplars ( r a t h e r than a l l ) of these stimulus c o n d i t i o n s or responses . (p. 355) S i m i l a r l y , t r a i n i n g to g e n e r a l i z e was seen as the s i n g l e most economical method by which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n c o u l d be promoted (Stokes & Baer, 1977). I t s p e r c e i v e d advantage i n e d u c a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s was i t s e f f i c i e n c y ( i . e . the p o s s i b i l i t y that g e n e r a l i z a t i o n c o u l d be produced with l i t t l e time or e f f o r t r e q u i r e d on the part of change a g e n t s ) . Researchers s p e c u l a t e d that i n many i n s t a n c e s , t r a i n i n g "to g e n e r a l i z e " c o u l d be accomplished simply by change agents r e q u e s t i n g c h i l d r e n to emit a p a r t i c u l a r g e n e r a l i z e d response, and then r e i n f o r c i n g i t ; the c o m p a t i b i l i t y of t h i s s t r a t e g y with e x i s t i n g p r a c t i c e s i n sch o o l s was c i t e d as an a d d i t i o n a l advantage (Broughton, 1974; 17 Idol-Maestas, 1983; Mayer & McGookin, 1977). Whaley and Malott (1974) endorsed the use of such v e r b a l r e q u e s t s : ...many people working i n the area of behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n , using reinforcement p r i n c i p l e s , go out of t h e i r .way to a v o i d the use of i n s t r u c t i o n s with v e r b a l s u b j e c t s . They act as i f v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s n e c e s s a r i l y contaminate the procedure....Rather than give i n s t r u c t i o n s , they w i l l attempt to use reinforcement procedures to g r a d u a l l y shape behavior which they d e s i r e . T h i s i s a time consuming procedure which can be g r e a t l y shortened through the use of v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s (pp. 247-248). Stokes and Baer (1977) r e i n f o r c e d t h i s p o i n t of view: Meanwhile i t i s worth h y p o t h e s i z i n g that to g e n e r a l i z e may be t r e a t e d as i f i t were an operant response, and r e i n f o r c e d as such, simply to see what u s e f u l r e s u l t s occur. Consequently, one other technique deserves d i s c u s s i o n : the systematic use of i n s t r u c t i o n s to f a c i l i t a t e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . . Thus, i f a behavior i s taught and g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s not d i s p l a y e d , the l e a s t expensive of a l l techniques i s to t e l l the subject about the p o s s i b i l i t y of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and then ask fo r i t . I f that g e n e r a l i z a t i o n occurs, i t may w e l l be r e f e r r e d t o as " i n s t r u c t e d g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . " (p. 363) The technology that b e h a v i o r i s t s developed to promote the t r a n s f e r of t r a i n i n g produced g e n e r a l i z e d changes i n behavior i n many cases (Baer & Roberts, 1981; Jacobson & Tennov, 1975; Stokes & Baer, 1977). Baer and Roberts assessed the problems and outcomes a s s o c i a t e d with producing g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n programs: It i s not that a p p l i e d behavior s c i e n t i s t s know a l l the c o n d i t i o n s and i n g r e d i e n t s that make a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n r e c i p e work...the problem i s that none of us knows a l l the i n g r e d i e n t s and c o n d i t i o n s necessary and s u f f i c i e n t to the success of these r e c i p e s . The inf o r m a t i o n that we can pass on i s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the procedures and c o n d i t i o n s under which these r e c i p e s have o f t e n worked, and i n some 18 cases have almost always worked. (p. 4) 2.5 C o g n i t i v e - B e h a v i o r M o d i f i c a t i o n And G e n e r a l i z a t i o n From the p e r s p e c t i v e of c o g n i t i v e l y o r i e n t e d r e s e a r c h e r s , c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n has been seen as having a s i n g u l a r appeal i n s o f a r as the i s s u e of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n was concerned (Rooney & H a l l a h a n , 1985). In theory, the use of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s brought about changes in the c h i l d ( i . e . c o g n i t i v e changes independent of environmental i n f l u e n c e ) which were thought to be e s p e c i a l l y conducive to the promotion of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n because they r e l i e d on cues from i n t e r n a l r a t h e r than e x t e r n a l sources (Bandura, 1969; Cohen, S u l l i v a n , Minde, Novak, & Helwig, 1981; Douglas, 1979; F i n c h & S p i r i t o , 1980; Henker, Whalen, & Hinshaw, 1980; Holmes, 1981; Keough & G l o v e r , 1980; Loper, 1980; Meichenbaum & Goodman, 1971). Loper and Hallahan (1982) d e s c r i b e d the r o l e of c o g n i t i v e behavior m o d i f i c a t i o n i n promoting the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of t r a i n i n g : Our t h i n k i n g was, and s t i l l i s , that i f c h i l d r e n were taught systems or s t r a t e g i e s f o r o r g a n i z i n g and m o n i t o r i n g t h e i r own performance, treatment e f f e c t s would be measurably more durable than treatment that r e l i e d on e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l . . . . 1 1 i s reasonable that c h i l d r e n who are taught s t r a t e g i e s f o r l e a r n i n g and who become more aware of t h e i r own r o l e i n the l e a r n i n g process are more able to apply s t r a t e g i e s and r u l e s l e a r n e d i n one s i t u a t i o n to another s i t u a t i o n , (p. 63) C o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t s have advocated three approaches to the problem of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . One approach suggested that the 19 use of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l procedures ( e s p e c i a l l y s e l f -i n s t r u c t i o n ) would spontaneously produce g e n e r a l i z a t i o n (Whalen, Henker, & Hinshaw, 1985). According to Holmes (1981): "The component f e a t u r e s of s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n , which r e q u i r e a c h i l d to r e g u l a t e ( i . e . d i r e c t , monitor, and evaluate) and then r e i n f o r c e h i s / h e r behavior, should f a c i l i t a t e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n to new tasks and maintenance of treatment over time..." (p. 195). A second approach suggested that the use of c o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r a l methodology would not spontaneously guarantee g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , and recommended an assortment of environmental and c o g n i t i v e m a n i p u l a t i o n s , which c o u l d be used i n d i v i d u a l l y or i n combinations to promote g e n e r a l i z e d responding. For example, Meichenbaum (1980, 1981b) recommended that i n order to promote g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t s should (1) conduct t r a i n i n g i n the environments i n which g e n e r a l i z e d behaviors are d e s i r e d to occur; (2) s e l e c t t r a i n i n g m a t e r i a l s which would promote g e n e r a l i z a t i o n ; (3) i n d i v i d u a l i z e ( r a t h e r than use predetermined) s e l f - s t a t e m e n t s d u r i n g the t r a i n i n g p r o c e s s ; (4) teach m e t a c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s . Loper and Hallahan (1982) added that i n c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n s programs " F a i l u r e s to g e n e r a l i z e can be t r a c e d to f a i l u r e s i n i n s t r u c t i o n of the o r i g i n a l s k i l l , f a i l u r e s i n i n s t r u c t i o n of how to use a c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g y , or f a i l u r e s i n i n s t r u c t i o n of. the u t i l i t y of an approach" (p. 64). Advocates of the t h i r d approach have suggested the use of c o n c e p t u a l statements to promote g e n e r a l i z a t i o n ( K e n d a l l , 1977; K e n d a l l & F i n c h , 1979; K e n d a l l & Wilcox, 1980). In theory, the 20 use of con c e p t u a l statements ( i . e . the r e c i t a t i o n of general r u l e s that apply to more than one s i t u a t i o n ) as opposed to concrete statements ( i . e . statements that are s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c ) promotes g e n e r a l i z e d responding when c o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r a l procedures are used with c h i l d r e n . Proponents of t h i s approach have a s s e r t e d that the q u a l i t y of the statements that c h i l d r e n make when they use words to mediate t h e i r behavior can i n f l u e n c e the degree t o which g e n e r a l i z a t i o n w i l l occur; the more g e n e r a l the statements, the g r e a t e r the l i k e l i h o o d that g e n e r a l i z e d responding w i l l be observed. K e n d a l l and F i n c h (1979) d e s c r i b e d the t h e o r e t i c a l foundations f o r the use of conceptual s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n a l statements: A l s o among s p e c u l a t i o n s . . . r e g a r d i n g the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n of the v a r i o u s aspects of the c o g n i t i v e -b e h a v i o r a l treatment to treatment e f f i c i e n c y was the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the q u a l i t y of s e l f - i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t the c h i l d r e n are taught and p o t e n t i a l treatment g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . That i s , there may be d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s produced by t r a i n i n g procedures that focus upon the s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g t asks (concrete l a b e l i n g ) as compared to t r a i n i n g t h at a p p l i e s to the s p e c i f i c i n s t a n c e of the t r a i n i n g task at hand and i s a l s o a p p r o p r i a t e f o r other tasks and i n other s i t u a t i o n s ( conceptual l a b e l i n g ) . Corresponding to notio n s of metac o g n i t i v e development... the conceptual l a b e l i n g -t r a i n i n g procedures are thought to be more l i k e l y to produce g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of the treatment e f f e c t s . . . . T h u s , the use of conceptual l a b e l i n g w i t h i n c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l treatment was found to f a c i l i t a t e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . (pp. 68-70) Table 1, adapted from K e n d a l l and F i n c h (1979), i l l u s t r a t e s the conceptual and concre t e forms of statements that can be i n c o r p o r a t e d when c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s are used. 21 Table 1. Examples of Concrete and Conceptual S e l f -Statements CONCRETE SEI JF-INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING Problem D e f i n i t i o n : I'm going to f i n d a p i c t u r e that doesn't match. Problem Approach: T h i s one's a c l o c k , t h i s one's a c l o c k . Focusing of A t t e n t i o n : Look at the p i c t u r e s . S e l f - R e i n f o r c e m e n t : The cup and saucer i s d i f f e r e n t . . . I got i t r i g h t . Good job! CONCEPTUAL SI :LF-INSTRUCTIONAL TRAINING Problem D e f i n i t i o n : My f i r s t step i s to make sure I know what I'm supposed to do. Problem Approach: W e l l , I should look at a l l the p o s s i b i l i t i e s . F ocusing of A t t e n t i o n : I should t h i n k about only what I'm doing now. Self - R e i n f o r c e m e n t : Hey, good job. I'm doing very w e l l . In s p i t e of t e c h n o l o g i c a l developments w i t h i n the f i e l d of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s m , the use of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n has not c o n s i s t e n t l y l e d to observable g e n e r a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t s , even when programming to produce g e n e r a l i z a t i o n has been i n c l u d e d as a p a r t of the i n t e r v e n t i o n ( F r i e d l i n g & O'Leary, 1979; Robin, Armel, & O'Leary, 1975). Meichenbaum and Asarnow (1979) have examined the e f f i c a c y of 22 c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n promoting g e n e r a l i z a t i o n : In summary, as one surveys the c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e , the evidence f o r treatment e f f i c a c y f o r c h i l d r e n who have s e l f - c o n t r o l problems i s p r o m i s i n g . Evidence f o r treatment g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , however, e s p e c i a l l y a c r o s s response modes and s e t t i n g s , i s l e s s c o n v i n c i n g and o f t e n e q u i v o c a l . (p. 15) The absence of a widely accepted, s p e c i f i c technology to promote g e n e r a l i z e d responding has l e d some c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t s to re-examine g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and a s s i g n to i t a l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n behavior-change programs. Loper and Hallahan (1982) e x p l a i n e d the reasoning f o r de-emphasizing the importance of g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i n c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r m o d i f i c a t i o n programs: ...we emphasize that i f c o g n i t i v e t r a i n i n g i s not accompanied by g e n e r a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t s a c r o s s s e t t i n g s and t a s k s , i t may s t i l l be q u i t e v a l u a b l e to develop a tea c h i n g technology based on CBM.... We are alarmed at what we p e r c e i v e to be a t a c i t premise t h a t " i f i n s t r u c t i o n r e s u l t s i n g e n e r a l i z a b l e r e s u l t s , then, and only then, was i n s t r u c t i o n adequate... G e n e r a l i z a t i o n has thus become an i m p l i c i t good, unimpeachable i n i t s own r i g h t , yet assumed to be the hallmark t h a t determines good i n s t r u c t i o n . I t i s our view t h a t no such concept should be so revered. (pp. 63-64) Furthermore, the a b i l i t y of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s to promote g e n e r a l i z a t i o n has been d i s p u t e d by members of the b e h a v i o r i s t s c h o o l , who have a s s e r t e d that c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t s are o v e r l y o p t i m i s t i c i n t h e i r assessment of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s m ' s c a p a b i l i t i e s i n t h i s regard (Hobbs, Mouguin, T y r o l e r , & Lahey, 1980; Ledwidge, 1978). In p a r t i c u l a r , they have p o i n t e d out that i n many i n v e s t i g a t i o n s 23 which r e p o r t e d the use of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s , g e n e r a l i z a t i o n was not assessed, or i f i t was report e d , appeared to be the r e s u l t of a " t r a i n and hope" s t r a t e g y . From the b e h a v i o r a l p e r s p e c t i v e , the extent to which the use of c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s promotes g e n e r a l i z a t i o n has remained a c o n t e n t i o u s i s s u e , with f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n seen as being r e q u i r e d to r e s o l v e the q u e s t i o n (Kneedler, 1980). Moreover, although the use of both b e h a v i o r a l and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r a l procedures produced changes which have g e n e r a l i z e d , no one type of procedure has c o n s i s t e n t l y been shown to produce g e n e r a l i z a t i o n a c r o s s s i t u a t i o n s , over time, and f o r a wide range of p o p u l a t i o n s (Wahler, Berland, & Coe, 1979). 3. MENTAL RETARDATION The most widely accepted d e f i n i t i o n of mental r e t a r d a t i o n in North America has been p r o v i d e d by Grossman (1977): "Mental r e t a r d a t i o n r e f e r s to s i g n i f i c a n t l y subaverage i n t e l l e c t u a l f u n c t i o n i n g e x i s t i n g c o n c u r r e n t l y with d e f i c i t s i n ad a p t i v e behavior, and manifested d u r i n g the developmental p e r i o d " (p. 5). Other d e f i n i t i o n s have s t r e s s e d the b e h a v i o r a l a s p e c t s of mental r e t a r d a t i o n , n o t i n g the l i m i t e d r e p e r t o i r e of behaviors a v a i l a b l e to mentally r e t a r d e d persons compared to t h e i r non-mentally r e t a r d e d peers ( B i j o u , 1966) or the s o c i o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s i n v o l v e d i n the act of s e l e c t i n g i t s d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : 24 The s o c i o l o g i s t d e f i n e s mental r e t a r d a t i o n as an a c q u i r e d s o c i a l s t a t u s to which i n d i v i d u a l s are assigned by s o c i a l systems such as the p u b l i c s c h o o l , d i a g n o s t i c c l i n i c s , and welfare agencies....To understand the nature of mental r e t a r d a t i o n i n the community, one must a l s o comprehend the s o c i a l processes which s e l e c t out c e r t a i n persons f o r l a b e l i n g while p a s s i n g over others who may be e q u a l l y e l i g i b l e . (Mercer, 1971, p. 24) Although mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n c o n s t i t u t e one of the l a r g e s t groups of students served i n s p e c i a l education programs (Dunham & Dunham, 1978), the exact number of mentally r e t a r d e d school c h i l d r e n i n Canada i s not known (M. A. Perucces, p e r s o n a l communication, J u l y 27, 1983). Estimates of the prevalence of mental r e t a r d a t i o n among c h i l d r e n range from one percent (Mercer, 1973) to three percent ( P r e s i d e n t ' s Committee on Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , 1975). The most widely c i t e d estimate of the prevalence of mental r e t a r d a t i o n among c h i l d r e n i n North America from b i r t h to age 19 i s 2.3 percent (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1982; Heward & Orlansky, 1980). By a p p l y i n g t h i s f i g u r e to the estimated 5,032,000 students e n r o l e d i n elementary and secondary schools i n Canada ( M i n i s t e r of Supply and S e r v i c e s , 1983), the approximate number of mentally r e t a r d e d Canadian students can be o b t a i n e d . By t h i s crude reckoning, roughly 115,700 mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n r e c e i v e t h e i r education i n Canada's p u b l i c s c h o o l s . Although the e f f e c t s of mental r e t a r d a t i o n vary from case to case, the m a j o r i t y of these c h i l d r e n are m i l d l y mentally r e t a r d e d , and have i n t e l l i g e n c e q u o t i e n t s which range from 50-75. When they reach adulthood they w i l l have a mental age of 25 approximately 12 years ( C l e l a n d & Swartz, 1982). Designated as educable mentally r e t a r d e d (EMR) f o r the p e r i o d of t h e i r l i v e s d u r i n g which they attend s c h o o l , many of these m i l d l y mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n w i l l r e c e i v e t h e i r education i n s e l f - c o n t a i n e d s p e c i a l education classrooms (Brown, 1976; Hallahan & Kauffman, 1982) . In B r i t i s h Columbia, 3,884 c h i l d r e n designated as EMR were funded by the p r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r y of Education to r e c e i v e e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s i n s e l f - c o n t a i n e d s p e c i a l education c l a s s e s , l e a r n i n g a s s i s t a n c e c e n t e r s , or v i a the a c t i v i t i e s of an i t i n e r a n t s p e c i a l i s t i n the education of EMR c h i l d r e n d u r i n g the 1982-83 school year. These e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s c o s t the p r o v i n c e an estimated $5,744 per student, $1,809 more than the average cost per student a t t e n d i n g r e g u l a r c l a s s e s d u r i n g the same p e r i o d ( J . Lee, p e r s o n a l communication, J u l y 29, 1983). The l e a r n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of EMR c h i l d r e n , and the e d u c a t i o n a l problems which r e s u l t from them, have been i l l u s t r a t e d by r e s e a r c h e r s . EMR students show i n f e r i o r performance i n a l l areas of s c h o o l achievement when compared to t h e i r non-mentally handicapped peers (Hallahan & Kaufman, 1982; T u r n b u l l & S c h u l t z , 1979). They are d e s c r i b e d as having short a t t e n t i o n spans (Hagen & Huntsman, 1971) which s e r i o u s l y i n t e r f e r e with t h e i r a b i l i t y to l e a r n (Zeaman & House, 1963). T h e i r short-term memory i s viewed as d e f i c i e n t ( E l l i s , 1970). They have been shown to have higher a n x i e t y l e v e l s (Robinson & Robinson, 1976) and lower s e l f - c o n c e p t s ( C l e l a n d & Swartz, 1982) than peers of normal i n t e l l i g e n c e . Furthermore, EMR c h i l d r e n 26 o f t e n show d e f i c i t s i n b a s i c s o c i a l , s e l f - c a r e , and r e c r e a t i o n a l s k i l l s (Lovaas, 1981). The d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the e f f e c t s of v a r i o u s behavior-changing i n t e r v e n t i o n s upon mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n has consequently been seen as an issue of great importance w i t h i n the f i e l d of s p e c i a l education (Anderson, Greer, & Z i a , 1978; Berdine & Cegelka, 1980; C r o w e l l , 1980; Paul, T u r n b u l l , & Cruickshank, 1977; Repp & L l o y d , 1980). In a d d i t i o n to these d e f i c i e n c i e s , the m o t i v a t i o n a l problems of EMR students have r e c e i v e d p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n from r e s e a r c h e r s (Payne et a l . .1981). M o t i v a t i o n a l problems are c o n s i d e r e d to be p e r v a s i v e among m i l d l y mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n ( Z i g l e r , 1973), and as a r e s u l t , EMR students are viewed as r e q u i r i n g r e i n f o r c e r s which are both more e x t r i n s i c and more powerful than t h e i r non-mentally r e t a r d e d peers (MacMillan, 1971). Furthermore, m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n are p e r c e i v e d by some i n v e s t i g a t o r s as r e l y i n g on e x t e r n a l ( i . e . environmental) r a t h e r than i n t e r n a l ( i . e . c o g n i t i v e ) sources f o r both reinforcement and d i r e c t i o n i n p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s i t u a t i o n s (Achenbach & Z i g l e r , 1968; Turnure & Z i g l e r , 1964). MacMillan (1971) has commented on the dependency of EMR c h i l d r e n upon environmental sources: The r e t a r d e d c h i l d has a p p a r e n t l y l e a r n e d that r e l y i n g on cues i n the environment r a t h e r than h i s own c o g n i t i v e resources i n c r e a s e s the p r o b a b i l i t y of success....Hence i t appears that o u t e r - d i r e c t e d n e s s i s more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the problem s o l v i n g approach of n o n i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n than i t i s of normal or i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d c h i l d r e n . (p. 581) 27 4. CONCEPTUAL TEMPO Although b e h a v i o r i s t i c and c o g n i t i v e - b e h a v i o r i s t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s have s u c c e s s f u l l y been employed to change a wide v a r i e t y of behaviors ac r o s s d i v e r s e p o p u l a t i o n s , few s t u d i e s have been r e p o r t e d i n which they have been used comparatively to modify the r e f l e c t i v e - i m p u l s i v e c o g n i t i v e s t y l e (Kagan, Rosman, Day, A l b e r t & P h i l l i p s , 1964) of mentally r e t a r d e d c h i l d r e n . . Kogan (1971) d e f i n e d c o g n i t i v e s t y l e as f o l l o w s : C o g n i t i v e s t y l e s can be most d i r e c t l y d e f i n e d as i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n i n modes of p e r c e i v i n g , remembering, and t h i n k i n g , or as d i s t i n c t i v e ways of apprehending, s t o r i n g , t r a n s f o r m i n g , and u t i l i z i n g i n f o r m a t i o n . I t may be noted that a b i l i t i e s a l s o i n v o l v e the f o r e g o i n g p r o p e r t i e s , but a d i f f e r e n c e i n emphasis should be noted: A b i l i t i e s concern l e v e l of s k i l l - the more or l e s s of performance - whereas c o g n i t i v e s t y l e s g i v e g r e a t e r weight to the manner and form of c o g n i t i o n . (p. 244) Although the concept of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e o r i g i n a t e d i n developmental psychology, r e s e a r c h e r s from v a r i o u s t h e o r e t i c a l backgrounds have e l e c t e d to work i n the area over the past two decades, and have i n t r o d u c e d d i f f e r e n t l a b e l s to i d e n t i f y the phenomenon. These d i f f e r e n t l a b e l s appear to r e f l e c t the t h e o r e t i c a l background of t h e i r users more than a c t u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n what they d e s c r i b e . Frequent d e s c r i p t o r s f o r c o g n i t i v e s t y l e have i n c l u d e d c o g n i t i v e c o n t r o l s , c o g n i t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g modes, a l l of which have been used i n the l i t e r a t u r e more or l e s s synonymously (Santostefano, 1978). C o g n i t i v e s t y l e i s seen as a c o n s t r u c t having m u l t i p l e 28 dimensions. Messick (1970) i d e n t i f i e d nine d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e s t y l e s ( r e f l e c t i v e n e s s vs. i m p u l s i v i t y , f i e l d independence vs. dependence, c o g n i t i v e complexity vs. s i m p l i c i t y , l e v e l i n g v s . sharpening, scanning, breadth of c a t e g o r i z i n g , c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g s t y l e s , t o l e r a n c e f o r incongrous or u n r e a l i s t i c e x p e r iences, and c o n s t r i c t e d vs. f l e x i b l e c o n t r o l ) , to which Rogan (1971) added a t e n t h ( r i s k - t a k i n g vs. c a u t i o u s n e s s ) . Of these ten c o g n i t i v e s t y l e s , r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y ( a l s o known as conc e p t u a l tempo or c o g n i t i v e tempo) has been the most e x t e n s i v e l y researched and has been seen as having the g r e a t e s t importance to educators (Egeland, 1974; F i n c h & S p i r i t o , 1980; Kogan, 1971; McKinney & Banerjee, 1975; Santostefano, 1978). R e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y d e l i n e a t e s the c o g n i t i v e s t y l e d i f f e r e n c e s which d e s c r i b e the tendency of c h i l d r e n to eva l u a t e p o s s i b l e responses i n s i t u a t i o n s where a high degree of response u n c e r t a i n t y e x i s t s (Kagan, 1965a). I t i s the l i k e l i h o o d that c h i l d r e n w i l l pause to c o n s i d e r the v a l i d i t y of t h e i r c h o i c e i n s i t u a t i o n s where more than one response i s p l a u s i b l e but only one response i s c o r r e c t . Kagan, Rosman, Day, A l b e r t , and P h i l l i p s (1964) o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y i n terms of a c h i l d ' s speed and accuracy of ch o i c e i n high response u n c e r t a i n t y s i t u a t i o n s . C h i l d r e n who responded q u i c k l y and made frequent e r r o r s i n ta s k s i n v o l v i n g a hig h degree of response u n c e r t a i n t y were d e s c r i b e d as having an impulsive c o g n i t i v e s t y l e ; c h i l d r e n who responded l e s s q u i c k l y and made fewer e r r o r s were d e s c r i b e d as having a r e f l e c t i v e c o g n i t i v e s t y l e . Kagan (1965b) d e s c r i b e d 29 the process as f o l l o w s : One such d i s p o s i t i o n d e s c r i b e d the c h i l d ' s tendency to r e f l e c t upon the q u a l i t y of a c o g n i t i v e product, i n c o n t r a s t to an impulsive and unconsidered response. The c h i l d who i s prone to respond i m p u l s i v e l y i n d i f f i c u l t problem s i t u a t i o n s ( i . e . , to i n i t i a t e a reasoning sequence suggested by the f i r s t h y p o t h e s i s that occurs to him and/or to r e p o r t an answer without s u f f i c i e n t r e f l e c t i o n to i t s p o s s i b l e v a l i d i t y ) i s more l i k e l y to produce an i n c o r r e c t response than the c h i l d whose n a t u r a l i n c l i n a t i o n s prompt him to r e f l e c t over the d i f f e r e n t i a l adequacy of s e v e r a l s o l u t i o n hypotheses and to c o n s i d e r the q u a l i t y of an "about-t o - b e - r e p o r t e d answer" (p. 134). 4.1 The Measurement Of R e f l e c t i o n - I m p u l s i v i t y R e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been measured by p r e s e n t i n g c h i l d r e n with tasks i n which a number of responses were p l a u s i b l e but only one was c o r r e c t ( K e n d a l l & F i n c h , 1981). To date, the instrument most f r e q u e n t l y employed to measure r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y has been the Matching F a m i l i a r F i g u r e s Test (MFFT) developed by Kagan et a l . (1964). The MFFT was designed f o r use with male and female c h i l d r e n aged f i v e through twelve. When i t i s a d m i n i s t e r e d to c h i l d r e n , they are presented with a s e r i e s of 12 t e s t items. Each item c o n s i s t s of seven drawings of f a m i l i a r o b j e c t s : a standard and s i x f a c s i m i l e s , only one of which e x a c t l y matches the standard. These items are t y p i c a l l y d i s p l a y e d i n a b o o k l e t , with the standard on one page and the s i x v a r i a n t s on the f a c i n g page. C h i l d r e n s e l e c t the f i g u r e which i s i d e n t i c a l t o the standard and t h e i r response l a t e n c y (to the f i r s t response) and t o t a l number of e r r o r s a c r o s s a l l the items i s recorded. C h i l d r e n are u s u a l l y 30 p e r m i t t e d t o make no more than f i v e e r r o r s pgr i t e m . When t h i s c r i t e r i o n i s reached, the next item i s p r e s e n t e d , even i f the c o r r e c t v a r i a n t - t o - s t a n d a r d match has not been i d e n t i f i e d . In any g i v e n sample of c h i l d r e n , those who s c o r e below the median i n response time and above the median i n number of e r r o r s a r e i d e n t i f i e d as i m p u l s i v e ; those who s c o r e above the median i n response time and below the median i n number of e r r o r s a r e i d e n t i f i e d as r e f l e c t i v e . T y p i c a l l y , t h e s e s u b j e c t s c o mprise a p p r o x i m a t l e y t w o - t h i r d s of any sample (Messer, 1976). The r e m a i n i n g s u b j e c t s a r e i d e n t i f i e d as s l o w - i n a c c u r a t e or f a s t - a c c u r a t e , a l t h o u g h t h e s e groups have been s t u d i e d l e s s e x t e n s i v e l y than i m p u l s i v e or r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n . A l t h o u g h w i d e l y used i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y , the MFFT has been c r i t i c i z e d f o r some of i t s p s y c h o m e t r i c q u a l i t i e s ( A u l t , M i t c h e l l , & Hartmann, c i t e d i n Messer, 1976; B l o c k , B l o c k & H a r r i n g t o n , 1974, 1975; E g e l a n d & Weinberg, 1976). One such c r i t i c i s m , which has r e c e i v e d much a t t e n t i o n , has been made by Messer (1976) who p o i n t e d out t h a t the median s p l i t p r o c e d u r e d i c h o t o m i z e s the v a r i a b l e s on the MFFT, causes a l o s s of s t a t i s t i c a l power, and encourages r e s e a r c h e r s t o c o n s i d e r i m p u l s i v e , r e f l e c t i v e , s l o w - i n a c c u r a t e , and f a s t -a c c u r a t e c h i l d r e n as s e p a r a t e e n t i t i e s r a t h e r than as s u b j e c t s a r r a y e d on a continuum of r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i t y . The tendency of r e s e a r c h e r s t o c l a s s i f y s u b j e c t s i n t h i s manner was d e s c r i b e d by Messer as w a s t e f u l of p o t e n t i a l l y v a l u a b l e d a t a , and he sugg e s t e d t h a t i n some i n v e s t i g a t i o n s the i n c l u s i o n of the s c o r e s of f a s t - a c c u r a t e and s l o w - i n a c c u r a t e s u b j e c t s would add 31 c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n c e p t u a l c l a r i t y . Although the MFFT i s the instrument most o f t e n used to measure, r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y , t h i s dimension of c o g n i t i v e s t y l e has been shown by some r e s e a r c h e r s to be p e r v a s i v e a c r o s s v a r i e d task s i t u a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g h i g h response u n c e r t a i n t y ( C u l l i n a n , E p s t e i n , & S i l v e r , 1977; Haskins & McKinney, 1976; Kagan, 1965, 1966; Kagan, Moss, & S i g e l , 1965; Kagan Pearson, & Welch, 1966a,b; Kagan et a l . 1964; Katz, 1971; Nagle & Thwaite, 1979; Yando & Kagan, 1970). T h i s g e n e r a l i t y ( i . e . the d i s p o s i t i o n of c h i l d r e n to respond c o n s i s t e n t l y as r e f l e c t i v e , i mpulsive, s l o w - i n a c c u r a t e , or f a s t - a c c u r a t e a c r o s s high response u n c e r t a i n t y s i t u a t i o n s ) has enabled i n v e s t i g a t o r s to use d i v e r s e instruments as measures of r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y , although the u t i l i t y of t h i s p r a c t i c e has been d i s p u t e d (Smith & Singer, 1977). Kagan et a l . (1964) designed s e v e r a l measures which d i f f e r s l i g h t l y i n format from the MFFT. The Design R e c a l l Test (DRT) was s i m i l a r to MFFT, except that geometric designs r a t h e r than f a m i l i a r o b j e c t s were used as standards and f a c s i m i l e s . In the H a p t i c V i s u a l Matching Test (HVMT) the c h i l d f e l t but d i d not see a t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l wooden shape. The s u b j e c t then s e l e c t e d an i d e n t i c a l shape from a v i s u a l a r r a y c o n t a i n i n g f i v e s i m i l a r shapes, one of which e x a c t l y matched the standard. In a l a t e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n (Yando & Kagan, 1970) ten d i f f e r e n t forms of the MFFT were developed, each form c o n t a i n i n g one standard but a d i f f e r e n t number of f a c s i m i l e s . Rather than being d i s p l a y e d i n the usual manner ( i . e . the standard on one 32 page of an examination booklet with the v a r i a n t s on "the f a c i n g page), the standard and v a r i a n t s were d i s p l a y e d as a c i r c u l a r form, with the standard i n the center of the c i r c l e and the v a r i a n t s a r r a y e d around i t . The number of v a r i a n t s f o r the ten v e r s i o n s of the t e s t ranged from 2 to 12. F o l l o w i n g the MFFT i n p o p u l a r i t y as . a measure of r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y i s the Porteus Maze Test (PMT) (Porteus, 1942, 1950, 1965), which has been widely used as a dependent measure i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y . Although i t was o r i g i n a l l y developed to assess the c o g n i t i v e c a p a b i l i t i e s of c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n the b o r d e r l i n e range of c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n i n g , the PMT i n f a c t has a longer h i s t o r y of use i n measuring general impulsiveness than does the MFFT (Porteus, 1942), and i t i s seen by some r e s e a r c h e r s as being p a r t i c u l a r l y v a l u a b l e f o r t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n when i t i s used with developmentally d i s a b l e d s u b j e c t s (Porteus, 1950). Three v e r s i o n s of the PMT have been developed. Each i n c l u d e s a s e r i e s of p r o g r e s s i v e l y more complex penci1-and-paper mazes. The V i n e l a n d R e v i s i o n i s composed of 12 mazes (years 3-12, 14, and a d u l t ) , the Extension S e r i e s comprises 8 mazes (years 7-12, 14, and a d u l t ) , and the Porteus Maze Supplement c o n s i s t s of 8 mazes (years 7-12, 14, and a d u l t ) . The Exte n s i o n S e r i e s and Supplement are intended as r e t e s t measures o n l y . Subjects complete the mazes by drawing t h e i r way through them, and the number and type of e r r o r s made i n t h i s process i s c a l c u l a t e d . Although not used as o f t e n as the MFFT or the PMT, a number 33 of other psychometric t e s t s or s e l e c t e d p o r t i o n s of psychometric t e s t s have been used as measures of r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y . These are claime d by t h e i r users to present to s u b j e c t s the high response u n c e r t a i n t y s i t u a t i o n s r e q u i r e d to measure r e f l e c t i o n -i m p u l s i v i t y . Nelson (1969) used the p i c t u r e arrangement subtest of the WISC i n an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the m o d i f i a b i 1 i t y of conceptual tempo; i n a l a t e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n P e t e r s and Davies (1981) used Raven's Coloured P r o g r e s s i v e M a t r i c e s , the p i c t u r e -matching s u b t e s t of the Primary Mental A b i l i t i e s T e s t , and the L e i t e r I n t e r n a t i o n a l -Performance S c a l e to i n v e s t i g a t e the e f f e c t s of a t r a i n i n g program to modify c o g n i t i v e i m p u l s i v i t y . The Test of R e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y i n S o c i a l Context (TRISC) ( S i n g e r , 1975) i s an e x p e r i m e n t a l l y - g e n e r a t e d instrument designed- t o measure conceptual tempo i n s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . Subjects are presented with a p i c t u r e which d e p i c t s a problem o c c u r r i n g i n a s o c i a l c o n t e x t . A short v e r b a l d e s c r i p t i o n of the problem i s simultaneously presented. The sub j e c t i s then shown four p i c t u r e s d e p i c t i n g p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s to the problem, and p o i n t s to the best one. Response time and t o t a l number of e r r o r s are recorded. S e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s have used the v e r b a l behavior of c h i l d r e n as a measure of conc e p t u a l tempo. Kagan, Pearson, & Welch (1966b) used a Twenty Questions game format f o r t h i s purpose, and Schwebel (1966) and Heider (1971) used sentence-completion t a s k s to measure the e f f e c t s of procedures to modify an i m p u l s i v e c o n c e p t u a l tempo. A number of r a t i n g s c a l e s f o r conc e p t u a l tempo have a l s o 34 been developed. T y p i c a l l y these are completed by the c h i l d ' s teacher or parent. They i n c l u d e the I m p u l s i v i t y Scale (Sutton-Smith & Rosenberg, 1959), the Kansas R e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y Scale f o r P r e s c h o o l e r s (Wright, 1971), the Developmental Survey of R i s k - T a k i n g Behavior (Hollender, 1974), the Classroom R e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y Rating S c a l e (Singer, 1975), the Impulsive Classroom Behavior S c a l e (Weinreich, 1975), and the Teachers' R a t i n g S c a l e (Gow and Ward, 1982). 4.1.1 E d u c a t i o n a l S i g n i f i c a n c e Researchers have observed that the importance of r e f l e c t i o n - i m p u l s i v i t y l i e s i n i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c h i l d r e n ' s b e h a v i o r a l and academic performance in s c h o o l . I n v e s t i g a t o r s have i d e n t i f i e d the r e f l e c t i v e c o n c e p t u a l tempo as advantageous in e d u c a t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n s , and the impulsive conceptual tempo as maladaptive (Egeland, 1974; Messer, 1976; P a r r i s h & E r i c k s o n , 1981; Readence & Bean, 1978). Impulsive c h i l d r e n ( i . e . c h i l d r e n who had high scores on measures of i m p u l s i v i t y ) have been c h a r a c t e r i z e d as e a s i l y d i s t r a c t e d , prone to r i s k - t a k i n g , r e s t l e s s , h y p e r a c t i v e , and e m o t i o n a l l y u n s t a b l e . R e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n , i n c o n t r a s t , have been viewed as being d e l i b e r a t e i n t h e i r p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g a c t i v i t i e s , p e r s i s t e n t , and as having g r e a t e r a b i l i t y t o c o n c e n t r a t e (Kagan, 1965a, 1966a; Kagan et a l . 1964). C o n s i s t e n t with these d e s c r i p t i o n s , i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s u s i n g non-exceptional p o p u l a t i o n s as s u b j e c t s , r e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n have shown b e t t e r performance than impulsive c h i l d r e n on tasks such as r e a d i n g , i n d u c t i v e reasoning, s e r i a l r e c a l l , and v i s u a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n (Kagan, 1965b; Kagan, Pearson, 35 & Welch, 1966b). R e f l e c t i v e c h i l d r e n are p e r c e i v e d more f a v o r a b l y by t h e i r peers than are impulsive c h i l d r e n , and are r a t e d by t h e i r teachers as having fewer l e a r n i n g problems (Glenwick, Barocas, & Burka, 1976; Glenwick & Burka, 1975). E x c e p t i o n a l c h i l d r e n have been shown to be s i m i l a r l y handicapped by an impulsive conceptual tempo i n school s i t u a t i o n s , and i m p u l s i v i t y has been r e l a t e d to e d u c a t i o n a l problems such as a t t e n t i o n a l d e f i c i t s , l e a r n i n g problems, b r a i n damage, and h y p e r a c t i v i t y ( O l l e n d i c k & F i n c h , 1973; Meichenbaum, 1977; Messer, 1976). When they have been compared with normal c o n t r o l s , b r a i n damaged, e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d , e p i l e p t i c , h y p e r a c t i v e , and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n have a l l shown gr e a t e r i m p u l s i v i t y (Brown & Quay, 1977; Campbell, 1973; Campbell, Douglas, & Morgenstern, 1971; Lowry & Campbell, 1977; O l l e n d i c k & F i n c h , 1973; Weintraub, 1973). Furthermore, r e s e a r c h e r s have r e l a t e d i m p u l s i v i t y to performance d e f i c i t s i n academic, a c a d e m i c - r e l a t e d , and s o c i a l s k i l l s i n h e a r i n g - i m p a i r e d c h i l d r e n ( D i l l o n , 1979, 1980), deaf c h i l d r e n (Bender, 1980; Regan, 1981), e m o t i o n a l l y d i s t u r b e d c h i l d r e n ( F i n c h , Nelson, Montgomery, & S t e i n , 1974; F i n c h , S p i r i t o , & Brophy, 1982; Montgomery & F i n c h , 1975; Zern, Kenney, Kvaraceus, 1975), and c h i l d r e n of low academic achievement (Hallahan, Kauffman, & B a l l , 1973). C u l l i n a n , E p s t e i n , L l o y d , & Noel (1980), Lerner, (1981), and S i e g e l & Gold (1982) have seen i m p u l s i v i t y as one of the c r i t i c a l d e f e c t s that c h a r a c t e r i z e l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n , who are among the l a r g e s t groups of c h i l d r e n r e c e i v i n g s p e c i a l education s e r v i c e s i n North America. 3 6 Hallahan and Kauffman (1982) d e s c r i b e d the s i t u a t i o n of impulsive school c h i l d r e n with m i l d l e a r n i n g problems: It i s easy to see why i m p u l s i v i t y can be a problem f o r l e a r n i n g . Rather than r e f l e c t i n g before responding, impulsive c h i l d r e n seem d r i v e n to answer q u i c k l y without c o n s i d e r i n g the v a r i o u s a l t e r n a t i v e s . The frequency with which s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s r e q u i r e a student to s e l e c t from competing c h o i c e s makes i t evident that an impulsive p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g s t y l e i s not h e l p f u l . (p. 114) 5. CONCEPTUAL TEMPO AND MENTAL RETARDATION The r e l a t i o n s h i p between mental r e t a r d a t i o n , conceptual tempo, and s c h o o l - r e l a t e d problems has been i l l u s t r a t e d by s e v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s . In i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n which normal s u b j e c t s were used, experimenters have c o n s i s t e n t l y found that the performance of impulsive s u b j e c t s on high response u n c e r t a i n t y tasks was e q u i v a l e n t to the performance of c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y younger r e f l e c t i v e s u b j e c t s , i n d i c a t i n g a r e l a t i o n s h i p between conceptual tempo and developmental d i f f e r e n c e s ( A u l t , 1973; McKinney, 1973; Nussel, 1972). Messer (1976), R o t a t o r i , C u l l i n a n , E p s t e i n , & L l o y d (1978), and Weithorn and Kag