Language Training for the Severely Retarded: Five Years of Behavior Analysis Research

Abstract

Twenty-three behavior analysis studies which have appeared since 1968 are reviewed and analyzed in terms of (a) target behaviors investigated, (b) research methodologies employed, and (c) implications for classroom or clinical practice and for future research. A majority of the studies cited were found to deal exclusively with expressive language, and many of these investigated the generative property of the language under study. All of the studies involved the use of tangible reinforcers, and most used institutionalized subjects more than 8 years old. Implications are drawn which suggest the need for (a) an increased emphasis on antecedent conditions, (b) consideration of a broad range of reinforcement contingencies, (c) specific attention to variables which effect maintenance and generalization, and (d) investigation of younger subjects in noninstitutional settings.

Evaluating a Supervision Program for Developing and Maintaining Therapeutic Staff‐resident Interactions During Institutional Care Routines

“…These staff behaviors were targeted because of their previously indicated value in teaching language to other populations (Friedlander, 1970;Horton, 1978;Hursh & Sherman, 1973;Lovaas, 1968;Snyder, Lovitt, & Smith, 1975).…”

Involving parents in extending the language development of their young mentally handicapped children

“…(ESNS). These include the operant approach with an emphasis on primary reinforcers (reviewed by Synder, Levitt and Smith, 1975), a psycholinguistic training approach based on the ITPA model and emphasising language subskills, such as auditory sequential memory (reviewed by Hamill and Larson, 1974) and what has been termed the behavioural-linguistic approach (Mahoney, 1975) which attempts to integrate behavioural techniques with information obtained from theories of normal language acquisition. Each approach is still used, although it is probably fair to say that none has lived up to initial expectations.…”

Generalization of Naming Responses to Objects in the Natural Environment as a Function of Training Stimulus Modality With Retarded Children

“…More recently, however, the recognition that generalization is not necessarily an outcome of language training has become an issue of considerable concern. Undoubtedly, the effectiveness of language training procedures will ultimately be assessed according to their ability to promote generalization (e.g., Garcia & DeHaven, 1974;Sailor, Guess, & Baer, 1973;Snyder, Lovitt, & Smith, 1975).…”