A repetition effect is said to occur in a two-choice reaction time (RT) task when the RT for a repeated signal or response is faster than the RT for a new signal or response. An alternation effect is said to occur when the RT for a new signal or response is faster than for a repeated signal or response. A change from a repetition effect to an alternation effect was found across three response-stimulus intervals ranging from 50 msec to 2,000 msec. An analysis was also carried out of the higher-order sequential effects. Differences were found between those obtained from a repetition effect and those obtained from an alternation effect, suggesting that different factors operate in producing them. Two further experiments examined the roles of subjective expectancy and an automatic facilitation in determining these effects. Results suggested that while subjective expectancy operates at all response-stimulus intervals, an automatic facilitation operates only at short intervals.

We used a prepublication version of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS), the Adaptive Behavior Scale-Residential and Community, and the Inventory for Client and Agency Planning to examine the relationship between support needs and adaptive behavior for 80 people with intellectual disabilities. Dimensionality of the SIS Support Needs Scale (Section 1) was examined in reference to the three areas of conceptual, social, and practical skills reported by the American Association on Mental Retardation as comprising the adaptive behavior construct. Factor analysis of the adaptive behavior subscales and SIS Support Need Scale offered support for measurement of a common underlying construct. When considered in terms of the three adaptive behavior skill areas, this construct related predominantly to conceptual skills.

No abstract

The serial reaction time data from an experiment producing a negative recency effect at different interstimulus intervals were subjected to an analysis which included an investigation of up to and including fifth-order sequential effects. Third-, fourth-, and fifth-order effects were found to occur, indicating that the negative recency could not be explained by considering sequences of two events only. The implications of these findings are discussed with respect to models seeking to explain sequential effects in serial reaction time tasks.Sequential effects have been found in serial reaction time experiments such that under some conditions, responses to a signal which is the same as the preceding signal are faster than if it is different (e.g., Bertelson, 1961). Under other conditions the opposite has been found, the response to a signal which is different from the preceding signal being faster than if it is the same (e.g., Williams, 1966). The former has been called a positive recency or "repetition" effect (Bertelson, 1961), and the latter a negative recency or "alternation" effect.Some experiments have reported that the repetition effect tends to decrease, and even to change to an alternation effect, with increasing interstimulus interval (e.g., Bertelson, 1961;Hale, 1967), but others have failed to find such a change (e.g., Keele, 1969;Schvaneveldt & Chase, 1969). Generally, however, with two-choice compatible S-R arrangements, repetition effects have been found with interstimulus intervals of less than 1 sec. (e.g., Bertelson, 1961;Hale, 1967), while alternation effects have been found with interstimulus intervals of greater than 1 sec. (e.g., Hale, 1967 ;Williams, 1966).Attempts to explain the repetition effect by Bertelson (1963) and the alternation effect by Williams (1966) have both assumed that they primarily are due to the 1 The author wishes to thank A. T. Welford for his valuable advice, encouragement, and criticism, and R. Willson for writing the computer programs used in this experiment.2 Requests for reprints should be sent to N.

The FQOLS-2006 provided a comprehensive measure of FQOL, which, with some additional modifications, could be used to better inform service provisions and ultimately enhance the quality of life of people with intellectual/developmental disabilities and their families.