Effects of Wait‐time and Intertrial Interval Durations on Learning by Children With Multiple Handicaps

Abstract

We investigated the influence of teacher wait-time and intertrial interval durations on the performance of 4 multiply handicapped students during instruction in 10 skills. Four experimental conditions were evaluated: long wait-time and long intertrial interval, long wait-time and short intertrial interval, short wait-time and long intertrial interval, and short wait-time and short intertrial interval. Instructors attempted to keep short intervals as close as possible to 1 s and long intervals as close as possible to 10 s for both variables. Results showed that student performance was superior under the long wait-time conditions irrespective of the length of the intertrial interval.

Designing Receptive Language Programs: Pushing the Boundaries of Research and Practice

“…Lamela and Tincani (2012) extended the research in wait times by comparing a brief wait time (approximately 1 s) with a longer wait time (approximately 4 s) in two children with autism who demonstrated off-task behavior during one-onone therapy. Their results indicated that the brief wait time led to more correct responding, which is comparable to the findings of one study (Tincani & Crozier, 2008) and contrary to the findings of other studies, two of which focused on receptive language development (Dyer et al, 1982;Valcante, Roberson, Reid, & Wolking, 1989). It appears that the appropriate wait time is a balance between allowing enough time for a child to stop engaging in other off-task behaviors and attend to the relevant cues and being short enough to keep the child attending to the task without engaging in other inappropriate behaviors.…”

Discrimination Acquisition in Children With Developmental Disabilities Under Immediate and Delayed Reinforcement

“…Second, delays to reinforcement naturally produced longer ITIs (and corresponding lower rates of reinforcement). Findings on the effects of ITI duration are mixed, with some research finding that longer ITIs increase the probability of acquisition relative to short ITIs (e.g., Holt & Shafer, 1973), some research finding that short ITIs increase the probability of acquisition relative to long ITIs (e.g., Koegel, Dunlap, & Dyer, 1980), and other research finding no effect of ITI length (e.g., Valcante, Roberson, Reid, & Wolking, 1989).…”

The Effect of Varying Teacher Presentation Rates on Responding During Discrete Trial Training for Two Children With Autism

“…The results of two studies conducted by Valcante, Roberson, Reid, and Wolking (1989) and C. H. Skinner, Smith, and McLean (1994) found no difference between fast and slow teacher presentation rates on student performance.…”

“…Tincani et al (2005) suggested that learners with higher rates of problem behavior during instructional sessions may derive greater benefit from faster paced instruction. Irrespective of these findings, Valcante et al (1989) pointed out that fast-paced instruction provided nearly twice the number of learning trials per session when compared with the slower paced instruction. The authors concluded that because the additional number of trials occurred without reducing rates of correct responding, the results of the study suggested greater efficiency of faster rates of teacher presentation of instructional demands.…”