,Qesponse Rate ftleesurement tn c Nediated Transfer Para-

dtgm: Teaching Institutionalized Retardates to R.ead

Irlediated transfer of tratntng hos been a:tapic ofreseorce h f or some t ime (e. g. , Atherton & hlashburn, 1912) .

,4ssociatiue letning reseorchers haoe inuestigated a number

of diff erent paradigms! -,' uhich produce mediated trans-

fer ef fects. flortan e;Kjaldergaard (1961) studied eight

dtfferent proeedures and g*earLg :ebtablished the presence

of generalizatton f n aLL but arl€c The bosic f inding f s

that when two eLements Ore-eaeh indepercdent.ly ossoc iated

with a eommon third term, tlte twa then become essociated

wit?z one another. ;"Tl1f e 'rrrorft ,fi,c6'r'spcraneid maruU theoret tcaL

discussfons about the nature of mediated transfer (e.g,,tlull, 1939; Stdmant 7974), and about the definf tions ofstimult and responses in such ossoeiatiue proeesses (Sid.man,

1978) .

As wtth most uerbal Learning research, sfudfes of med-

iated. transfer haue hqd Little'lmpact on educattcnal pro-

cedures . Discusis f oa sict doa.6 in .r:epohts of ''medt ated. transf er

research cio not generaLLy deal with practtcaL implf.cationslexcept in the most phiLosophieal manne?. Bot,ber, they gen-

7no -

eralLA relote ,to uo.riaus forms of hypothesf s*f estf ng and

theory construction.Sidmants (1971t 1973, 1974) sfudies haue been exceptions

to thts general rule. ilorking with seuereLy retard.ed sub-

iects, he hos used medtated transfer cs a model" for readirtg

comprelzension. froreouer, he has contirtualLy emphasized the

praettial inplteaf*oaS-of instracttanal proced*fes destgned

to riLa.i:imize nediated transfer. If it is posstbte for stu-dents to Learn one thtng for "free" on the basis of hauing

Zearned two others, then educafors wtll be able to desfgn

ma"e effciertt f.nstruetiortal programs by taktng thts effectinto account. Sueh an iacrease tn efftctency might be

espec ial Ly iaryortant f or spec f a I ed.ueat ors worktng with

seuerely retarded stuCents.

Sf dman's lirst pub Iished stud.y arl the toptc (Sidman,

1971) inooloed o single retorded subject tn a serfes ofma.tchtng-to-somple procedures. At the outset of the exper-

iment, the boy rros able to ue:rbcllg name a sef of ptctures

of uorious enimaZs and. objects. He &rss cZso able to ptck

out the app"opriate ptetu?e, giuen fts spoken ftame, Sidman

taught the boA to pick out o ortnted word, gfuen fts spoften

equiualent. And becouse these u.rords eorresponded to tlze

pf ctures aith uhich the boy uras alroady faniliar, the boy

then demonstrated the abtltty to verbalLy read the prtnted

arordso,.:;rff€ r gZso '.des f hen* oble": f o ,efioose ther gor€et printed.

word,, gd.uea'.e p{e*are, a.nd to c/zoose o. ptcture, gtuen the

printed word. Stdmon defined these Latter two performcnees

- 170 -

6s e.rempu'es of recdfng comp?ehensf oR. #e ssfd , 'trf we

sFro&, e chtld the printed arcrd, !gH, and lze fs t'hen able

to select e pfetr:re of ,a boy ouf of seuerol ather ptctures,

ure ssg thet he understeads the uord. "

Sddmen (197il desdgrned c second study fo examlne thtsperedfgn la aore d,etatl, espeetelly fh; eLements o/ cross-

modal transfer fran lderndd aadttorg*pfsuel sfmdlus egufu-

elencce to the uf sueL-vtsuel eguduelenees ustzlch he eguetes

wtth read,ing eomprehilnsion. Two seuereZy retard,ed Downte

sgadrome edolescent boys ftrst. [rerned . fe mefeh printed

&.rords ta f denf ieal prlnted r.rords . T1en, they leerned to

cfuoose the corecf, pfoture, g{uen e spolten uord. At th{s

Bolnf , tests reuealed, thet they uere tneepeble af tlre ,

comprehensfon tesJt, metch{ng prtnt,ed rr,rords to pfeturee. Thts

ie the expected reeult, tdsofer'ee the boga lred nof yet

learned. to choose the correc t prtnted word., giuen o spo&eR

word,. There u.res not Uct a med.tum for medtatetd. transfer.Thcn the bog.s learned to choose the correct printed u.rord,

gtuen a spo.ken ward.. l$fe"f,roards they r.rere able ta read

fhe uords orally, and. to match prtnted uords wtth ptetures.

.fE a:t&ird, studgj Sddmea (lg?il taught two seuerely

reterded boys fo chooee e prinfed word, gfuen a pt&"lre.They alsa leerhned lo ehooae a pfeture, g{uen e spoJten uord.

?esfs reueelcd {hetr abf.tity fo t,hen ehooee prfnted uords,

giuen the spo&en uorde. fn, f,lre df seussf on sec tion, Sldnan

emphaetzed the fact that fhese results dfd not at eng po{nt

regufre the boye to meke uerbel responses, and that the

L11

processes f nuolued were theref ore strf ctLy 'trecepttue," He

roised some questions concerning the cotegories of Ztimuluscnd lg5€ggg, and menttoned" the practical impliea.t ions Of

teallztltg non-uerbal sduereLy retarded. students to read withcomprehens f on.

?hese studfes : haue sfgntficant implCcctdons /orinstruet fonal design, tn'resdtng ss welL ae tn other skillGT€dso, for example, there a?e a Large number of equruoiences

among printed priees'and..eur?eftey ucluee. 15d ts equal toone dtme anC one ntekel. It ds also equa.l to one dime and

5 pennl,es, o? two ntckel,s and fiue pennies, or one nt,ekel and

ten penntes, or ftfteen pennfes. Tlris fs beeouse of the

equiualences among dtmes, niekels and penndes. Accordingly,

the making of change to matc?1 price tcgs eould tnuolue acomplex matrlx of mediated transfer effects, based on a rel-attuely small set of pr-tmary equtualenees, fn fact, McDonagh

(Note ) hos desfgned'pro<bed.ures to malte use of these ef fectsin teaching seuerely retarded sfudenfs a uartety of money-

related. s&ilIs. Thus, med.tated. transfer may be operattue inc varlety of sftiIIs, tn additton to readtng comprehenston.

Houeuer, tftus far applted sfudies of nediated transferhaue placed limtts on s.kf I L deuelopment, by using procedures

whtch eonstratn proficiency, and bg fmpostng a mdasurement-

def iied eeiling of lOO%r'eor€cf . ?hey haue been "applted',prtmariLy in the sense of tnuoluing sub;eets whe, coutd

deriue prsctical benefit from thetr effeefs. But beyond'

that, they haue beert essenttalLy l.aborctory sf udf es

subJec ts

112 -

destgned tn accardance utth tke major features of tradittonaluerbal learning etpdrtments. Stdnan, arud others wha haue

eonducted related research (Dixon & Dtxont i Dt.xon &

Spradltn, 1976; Sprad.ltn, Cotter & Baxley, 1973; Spradlin

& Dtxon, 1976), haue used trfcls procedures whtch dmpose

rather low rates of respodntng, and haue measured aeeuraey

onZy. The learntng whieh toftes place in sueh expe"iments

can hardty be ealled funettonal skitl acgufs itton, For

example, ,S[dmcnts (1971) opparatus presented trials witha 7,5 seeond tnter-trlat interuel. Thus, euen tf responses

oecurred instantaneously, the proceCure imposed. a cettingof 40 responses per mtnute. And. it neuer allowed sub;eefs

to make more than one response at a ttme. Thus, as with

nost uerbal learning research, there LrGs no opporJuntty farfo engegel tn'the freety emttted cssoe tatiuE sk t tls comrhortLy

fdsreauer, these patred,-assoe iete learning paradigms

restrict med,iq.ted. transfer ef feets to what Skinner (1957)

has called 3gglg, H@ d.ef tnes a tact "cs a uerbol operant

in whieh a response of gi.aen f orm is euolted (or at Least

strengthened) by e particular obTect or euent or property

of an object or euent" (pp. S1-52). Sidrzonts subTeefs

exhlbtted comprehensdon by matchtng prtnted u.rords wtth

ptctu?es, and in thfs sense they were exhtbtting a non-

uerbal for of tact. But reading comprehension ,?€y:aIso

inuoZve fnstruet{on-/ollowing, what Skinner (195D called

@. A marud f s "e. uerbal operant in whtch the response

113

is retnforeed by o choroctertstf c consequene.e and ds there-

fore under the functtons.L controt of releuant cond.f trons

af deprfuation or suersfue stimulatton" (pp. 35-36). A

spoken or written instructfon.fs thus a mand, and a large

part of reading inuolues tlze followlng of sueh tnstructf ons

to produce the specifted effeet, For purposes af analysfs,

os welL as f or practicaL reosons, itediated transfer'reSecireh

shauld incLude studies of'.the -eomp?ehensf oa of wrtttpn ;

instrucfions. ?hts ls espeetatly true for studfes irutoluing

the retarded, sfnce tt is ttkely that one ol the:. most use-

ful appl icet fons of readtng for them wauld inualue slmple

wrttt,en instructfons on paekaged food, appliances, and the

L ike.The, follawtryg experiment fauotued proftctency-buildtng

proeedures whleh allowed. subjeets to read at thetr own paee,

and requtred them to apply their reading skiIIs to stmple

wrltten instructfons.

l{ethod

Sub;rec ts

Subjects were 5 residents of the Waltei E. Fernatd State

School, ages 1-7 to 22. They^ uere four Aoung men and one

woman, and. thetr most recent f,? o? ^SQ scores we?e 37, 37,

42t and 47, with one subject urhose records dld not tnelude

a psych.ometrtc eualuation. Theee erhibi ted' the charoeter f st f cs

of Downts Sgnd,rpme, oa.e'drCIsi hld?oeephalie', aftd ane SubXeef

had. no spec,if ie med.ical dfagnosfs. i

114 _

Procedure

{rtord ae ufsftfon. In the inttial phase of the study,

subyecfs Learned ts name 24 wordst in groups of thee arords

at a time. On each dag'of tratntngt 7-mtnute ossessment

probeS both'preeeeded and foLLowed a 7-mtnute teachtng

proeed.ure. During the probes, the teacher presented. the

three ward,s on flashcard.s, in random order, for 5 seeonds

eaeh, repeatedly for the 7-mfnute duratfon. Sub;ecfs etthercorreetly read, tncorreetly readt of dtd not respond to each

aord. Thus, the a.cquisif ton proeedure tmposed a ceiling of

about 72 word.s per minute on the performanee. ,Subjects

worked. on a gtuen set of word.s to a crtterton of 3 deys fn

@ rou of no error.e and no skdpg, on the probe preceedtng the

teaching proeedure.

The 7-mtnute teaching proeed.ure t ahtcl.t occurred between

the tuo probes, was a standard trfcls procedure' in whieh the

teacher faced the sdbirect oeross q small table {Buchman, ) o

InittaZly, the teaeher plaeed the 3 uords in front of the

subject, one at, a ttme, left'to rtght (from subjeetts utew),

whtle namtng eaeh word. ?he teacher then instrueted the

subjeet ta "shoru ne Ite urld used an {ncreos ingly de-

Layed potnttng eue €s e means ol reductng errors (Touchette,

) " The teecher prefsed the subjeets tar eorrect

responses. After hautng ehosen the correct word, the subject

rros asfted to name lt, the teacher proutdtng a uerbo| model

tf neeesssry. Euentually, the teaeher completely faded out

the pointing cu?e

trxl0,,

0,

Io

3

.Ad

ToIL,\r/t

Ju

I

115 -

ds the subTect lea.rned to name the u.rords, the teacher

encouraged htm or her to name them os they aere placed on

the ts.ble. ,4s subjects Leqrned new sets of words, they

sZso rcceiued opportuntties to reuiew preuiauslg Learned

ir:ords. Howeuer, the cssessment probes tneluded only the, -.

moSt recently tntroduced set of ilords. The teeehtng pro-

cedure, Like the mea"surement probes, tmposed c ceiling on

the rate at whieh sublrects could read, Teachers did ttot

co|Lect data d.urtng the 7-minute teaching sessicns. The!

presented prompts,'reOtewdd oZd. ward.s, and. praised subjecf s

tn a eoppsraffueLA fLextble manner, within thg deseribed

The 24 arords ineluded nourcs, preposf/fons, uerbs and

adjecffues whtch could combine ta form simple tnstructtons

for maniputating obJects oR o table topl TheA llere a.rords

for wtzich the swbjecfs already had audttory recepttve eomp-

rehension, That Cs, they eould folLow spoAen f,nstructions

composdd of lhe wordS; t,heg eould name obTecfs by speo/tfng

the uords; they eould pdiat to objeefs, giuen the spoken

uords. ThcA could not, howeuo?, name the wri.tten words or

folloil written fnstructions composed of the uords.

Eoseline sssgssmenf ot' self-paced reo-df.ng, Aft,er subJeets

?zad met aeautsttton ertterla on all rlrords, the teacher osses-

sed theitr rotEs 6f readtng uords f rom r.,,rorftsheets ott which

ttte uords alL appeared repeatedl:y, 'i.n random sequence " In

Later stoges of the acqutsition procedure, teachers had a-lLowed

ttze students to zead /Zosheards arranged tn Left-to-rf.ght,

-J

v)rrl\o,

-orUd

-tr,J

5

af-)U

6

sL|.

;3TVIt+

-d3o

el a)a)

0/?l5ar-.1U

t-

vtotlJ.%d-s{r/l

)-lrorr.t I *,+d i :

vrJ-l

U?q,=6COtt(

116 -

top-to-bottom a?"a.ys on the table. So the addition og

scanning in the textual format was not entirely new to

the subjects. Iloweuer, during acquisttton the teachers

had always poced the subJects, thus eonstratning theirrates betow the specifted ceiLtng. Durtng the second

pha.se of the study, the teachers eneouraged the subTects

ta rea.d urords from the u.ror/tsheets cs qutckly os poss ibte

for 1 minute on eaeh of fiue days.

Abjeel-ngmtng and receotive lang,uage pre-tests. Fo?

fiue days the teac?ter cssessed the rate and aecura.cA at

whtch sub,rects could name obiects, and follou 4-worA Spg$.g3

instructions (e.g., "put batl in eup.'t). The t,eacher ' ,r

requfred the students to name objects placed in rand.om

sequence in a Left-to-rtgttt, top-to-bottom array on the

table for I mlnute, The tdqcher then "equired them to

carry out simp|e fnstruetions, whteh the teaeher read from

tndex cords, wtt,h the seme obJeets. We dtd not expect per-

formanee on etther of these tosfts to ch,ange os a result of

the subseguent efforts to increase studentst oraL readtng

ret es.

Resd{ng eomn-ehension olg-tesfs. The teacher essessed

three reading cornprehenston tasfts, prior ta the rate-butLd.tng

procedure, SubTects had receiued no prtor tratning on these

tas&s. Howpu€r, the expectation o! medtated. transfer as cresult of tratrttng in oral readtng suggested that students

would be oble to perform them, F{rst, the teacher presented

an a"ray o/ objeets, and gaue the studenfs o sfocJt of eards,

_117_

eoeh eard tmprtruted with a single rlattn. ^!ub;tects aere

csfted to place the appraprtate cords near ss many obTects

o.s possible in one mf.ruute, on eaelz of f iue days. T6en,

t?ze sub jeeta tooft e :s€ecnd,-f esf , ident ieal to the f irst,exeept that tlze cords each had two uords on themr'a*notJn

and an ad.jeetiue (e.g,, t'blue balZr" 'tLittle cup"). FtnalLy,

students took an insf ruction-folLowtng test tn whieh they

reeeiued a stoc,k of cards imprinted wtth the 4-word ,

tnstruetions used ln the recepttue Languege ossessmerf. They

read the cords, and oerformed os many tnstruct ions os pos-

sible wit?t obyects arrayeC on the table tn t,wo minutes, on

each of the f tue days of pre-testf.ng,

P_r_o-f i_c,Le n c_y b u i L d i ng . ?rachers used a uariety of oro-

cedures designed to tncrease the rates at whieh subyects

could reaci oralLy from &.rorksheefs. ?he bosic proeedure,

houeuer, uos cs follous. Each dayr studeafs practiced orol

reading on the sheets for 3 one-minute timings. Teabhers

recorded correet responses, errors, and skfps. They charted

ttte median perfarmanee of the three each day. At the startof each of the l.-minute periods, the teacher set c uisibledarkroom ttmer, plaeed two penntes tn sighf of the student,

and c'trcLed a uard an ane of the plastf e-couered worksheets.

The circleC word represented an increase in reading rate

fron the studentts peruious besf performaftee. The teaeher

remtnded the student that the pennies aere conttngent upon

reaehtng that::word (wtthout skipping cnA Lines), and then

storted the t tmer. The teaeher f oLLowed t,he student t s

lJlJ -

performanee on o doto-sheet which was a repltea of the

student ts sheet. ,She made ruo attempt to deeelerate errors,but oceosdoneLly oroutded encouragements potnting cues to

aid ln scanning, or a demonstratton of the approprtate

readtng rate before starting the ttmer. hl1en e's,f adeat'soleorreet rate.:: reachedncetLtng' iflat trenas) tn spite of uarious

ehcnges ln proeed,urc, tBe proffe$iney+butlding phase ended.

Pest-tests. After proSiefeney butldtrug, students re-peated the f iue sets o/ cssessments gtuen be 'pre-tests,

for ftoe dcys.

Resu I ts and Di lcr,r5tiorr

leguislfio_n

Figure 6 shorr.rs rates of correct respond ing f or each

sub;reel durtng the a.cqutsf tion phase of the study, These

data represent probes giuen before each teachtng sessfono

The reoson /or using pre-sessfon probe data for crtteriondecisfons is thet post-sessfon pertormonces we?e often

L00% correct uhen pre-sessfon probes on the folLowing day

feLL substsnttaLLy below 1OO% eorreet. d eriterion bosed

on at leest one day's retention seemed. mo?e reltable than

orle bosed on perfoimonee tmmediateLy after the instructionalsession. blhen e:'pre-ss.6sion probe indicated that a subJect

had met criterion on a giuen set of words, the subltect

i,mmed.iately receiued o second probe on a new set of words.

Cou

ut*

? Q

r

*6

I { i

c<E ? G

4

I a i I

pu tt

,r<

s+

4t6

16o

41aa

hnS

t o \7

,,

(tt o e o

{e9

x'r+

t"#o

:.fr'E

ln 5 /"

6,bc

x

G (} r v P 1 * I \n

P.r

tr€

do4

I t { I t

ra|

.1r,

Lui+

tlr ?o

pI I I I I t i

/ I {tb

'3I;

ft t Q

tuh;l e

Pan

.;U J

€ /la

(Uqn

der

ar ,l

tuor

ds01

s {

ti.h1

1

l:,L-

-0lx

-^L

.i,q-

}(t

-c

5\ee

-{s

t I I I I { I I I I

Cau

tt{ ?

ar r

l^tv

t

trgT o p R14

Pe C

o n; ({I

C

I \ e /qe

I+

s q (+ los

l4tb 6

6o*

? I

J

G r) 6- L P 1,+

P,r

*re

do1

Lzu;*t P

erh

Pq 6q,

,

,o {, t+: Illr

t te { eP

Q4

I

L I(}

.,

qIt

dete

rro*

C

Ft

J"/'-

Y".

.,"-

"re€

f

la o ()

AJ B

I I I I

Co,

rrt {

pe r

tz

".l v

t,n

trO

b *ti:"

etg

4lX

;+

Et3 oq

t'

P ,9 o s b P 1 0- I

aPe,

, 'rC

"*P

/ose

I

Ye{

lo,o

8v^

/

6x

'zr;

'"i

t bl,

e PoP

u"

fit4

hi1

,*,

e,i

l,

I14 b q

t.l

{.d

l 'F+

,ql

ts1

1a{ ee

*s

1\ -' t

C--

0 !j

I I I ,.,

q,

t I I I I ! I i I i

+ 3, t;

t

I r

r r

lrliil

I

I f

lr-

--

' I

tC

otrn

t P

ef

$'t't

14

- U

I 5

B

Pttt

.t*e

qR

es-{

c o o , b 9 1 0- P

$ S-

G ro I F- r o : C

I o* p , (L

- tr P-

7 o o L + o D o T G f

D \A o 0- o n- o &

16ol

rts

uon"

no.

. {,

,

€x i+

oPe

4, c

C.S

y1t

,or€

r1 I I I I I t I

{.(

Po-

Q,

€

|}-

P.t*

.re

d)

dn tuiit

^pa

pe'

rbq

il

B ^s ? I I ,t +" ED

b-q

'3,

/;+r

qh;le

J,-

O

€rc

i

teir U4

I I 6t;.,

der

()

all

o4s

Aee

ts

\) F

P

: I I , I I I I I I I I

I I I

{t'-

s*aaf ssP

'o- 4s)rv

JAP

h)1rn

Ilte F

,

nI

cnl;

(

'-Jvg4a1

,rI.,,.Y

t'u.q-.tad pd

Y P

..'l

-,.---",. I'I

,. - - ',.-,..:.-l

Vo

l>;

{>, d

*rqJ,"l q

,

V 8>

ao

-l

t-Il-ies.

Fsa,rba+Ir ndg

grotr r-.r,U

t f aJ-1-lt-nAD

ItIlIIItI

VI

h2al)aJ??

I.l

Stn

!r i

I r.rrlrl

I

I

71Q -

Thus, rigure b only shou.rs two d.ays in a rou) of critertonperformarlee at the end of the reeord for each set o/ u,rords.

Note the count per minute ordinate, RecaLL that the

s.cquisit lon procedures trnposed a 72 per minute cetltng on

responding. 72 correet responses per mtnute thvs indicates

a zero-count for €rrors and. s/tfps, a? a 1OO% eorreet per-

formance, Plotting these dota with e response rete ordinate

aecentuates the reLat donshtp between the eetLing imposed by

o 1OO% scale and'the'procedure-tmposed cetL fngs whtch gen-

erally aeconpany pe"centage measurement.

SubTeefs requtred a median of 47 tnstructional sessfons

to rneet the aequfsitfan crtterion of 3 days in o roa wtth no

errors or skips, atth a range of 34 to 69 sessions. By exper-- (cs)imenter e?ror, one subiectndtd not meet criterion on the Last

two sets of words, but uas allowed. to moue on to subsequent

phoses on the basis of lOO% correct performonces for only two

dags in a ?ou)o

Sub ject P.lV. required onLA 34 sessf ons to complete the

aequerlee. Inspeetiott o/ hf s reeord reuecls thot he apparentLy

knew seueral of the word.s prior to f nst ruction, although

init,ial screenlng had tndieqted that none of the sub;eets

aere faniltar with any of the arords. The probe data oisohauC

suggest that seueral of the otlzer subjects night alsonknown

one or two words each, prtor to instruction. This ftndingttighZi$ttts the tmportance of repeateo <lssessment, espeeiaLLy

with retarded subjects. The fact that, subTects ntght, already

120 *

haue known seu€rcl of the a.rords does not pose o problem

for iruterpreting the major results of the study,since word

cequisitfon uras orimariLg a preDaration for the proficiency-butldtng , proeedures. t

G.E. requtred 69 sessfons to ccmplete the sequ€nce, and

that fs without hautng fully net criterion aft two sets of

a;ords. G.e.'s uerbal repertotre is iess deoeLoped that the

others', It generally oecurs in one or two-uord utterances,

and f s of ten unreLated to G.R. 's tm-nedtate enuironment. l{uch

of the difficulty in teaclzing G.&. to read was ddte to hts

unpredictabLer "psyehotie"-like uerbal outbursts and Zopses

of attention to tos&. An the otlzer hand, G.R. is one of the

more skillpd of the subjects utth regard ta nan-uerbal and

receptiue Language tosks,

rrqe-8e€pq&4i!g

The last portton of each record. tn Ftgure (o reoresents

rates of correct, and dncorrect respandtng durtng the baseline

ossessment o/ seLf-paced reading, Note that three out of

f tue sub,rects read at rof es substanttally oboue the 12 per

mtnute ceiling preuicusly tmposed by the acquisition pro-

eedure, on the flrst daA o/ assessment,- BA tlze end of the

fiue days, one subjeet (P.f{.).had. more than trtpled. hts'

rater'uhile two others {tr.1r1., & G..t.) lzad more than d.oubled.

their rates of eor?eet respondtng. Only one subject (P.A.)

f ai|.ed to sirour o. substanttal increase when aLLowed to read

fram a'warksheet at hfs own pace. These data illustratethe difference betueen c patred cssoctate learntng paradtgm

121

and arz 6ssoe f et f ue ek f I I eeguds it lon pered fgm. Eemoue I 'o/the proeedure-Jptposcd ce{I{ng alloar.s subJects to eng€ge

{n e freetg cmftt,ed , serfeZ assoctef fue sklll et theiroun retes. E*:aouel of , *Ec ee{ I ing alss makes {t possllble

fo {nspect the contrfbuttsn af thc motor eomponents of the

ski I I, es r*ri I I become ma?e obu ious tn a leter secf f on.

Far all subJecfs there trr@s also aa increese ln erorsdurfng'the tnt*tet ses.ef ons o/ se t,f-paced read.tng. This

/ac*'enrplreri.faes the {,nadequacy of percentege eorrect crtterialn paced procedures insofer €s they €re tnt,eoded. to refleetthe Grreurecy af a functtonat skllt. Euen threc sessions f.n

€ ror{r of rcA% respondtng during the trtala pracedure d{,d not

tnsure perfectZy aecurefe setf-paeed. readlng.

Proftcteneg-bui ldtng

Ttze studenfs pr6cticed readtng front the worksheetsr/or

three 7-mfnute'pr?ectfee sessf ons, each day an whtch they at-tcnd.ed schooLlfor approxlmate'Ly I areefts during a sumtrrer

c lessioom program, Eecause they too& ua.r:ylng numbers afaclti€uC

sessfons tanacquisffton crtterian, and beeeuse sepercL of

.the s*udents uere often tlt or ofhcrufse absent from school,

t,hey spenf uq.rging perfode of time tn prof'{.etency-building.

The.nt"su,ber of mtnutea spenf a,,ere r pi;;g. (22il1 ',{*C. {156),G.,q. {UZ); p;A,..'{165};, €Rd fr.!,!. {Ljs}. HiH. I'eft f hc,, j .

.lnstttuttonel elessrooin far e progr€nt dn the community, and

thue. f ermf nef lan of prof tetency-buf tdf ag for her u.res prob-

abZy premature. The otfters, howeuer, hed reeched apparent

111 -

ceilfngs in thetr reading rotes when they took the post-

tests.During the same pertod of times aLL students spent

seuerol mtnutes each eZoss daA eegairing and. practtcing a

number of other s.kf Z Is. At lees t f tue'of :these other ski I lsuere relq.t,ed to reading, and t,o eaeh otlzer, by certain

eotnmon components. Tlte. fiue sftdlls aere:

1) naming red, 'b|ue, and green dots from aorksheets,

inuolutng both the scanntng and uoccL eomponents

of readingi

2) reading randomly arranged, d{gits (O - 9) from a

worksheet, inuoLutng seanntng and uoeel componenfs

as we.ll os aLphanumeric discr tminat ionsl

3) rofe counting (O - 9), inuoLutng seriatton e,nd

uoedL articulation;

D putttng dots tn cCrclee arrayed on worksheets in

ro&rs snd columns (with feLt-ttp pen), inaolutng

a. sconnlng component I

5) morktng wtth a. slash one af ftue numerals to match

the count in a box at the teft of each row of nwn-

erals, tnuotulng seonn ingt counting, use of penciL,

and readlng numb€rso

Teachers seleeted these tosks beeeuse they sre tmportant

early academtc sftf I Is, and os a besf s for dtagnostic analysis

of skill deftef ts.

As Barrett (Note L ) showed., retard.ed. behauf,or fs mosf

often charactertzed by lou rotes of performence. One af the

123 -

ms.jor ressons for low-rate performe,nce ol efrills {s that

important eomponent sJrf IIs a" pre"egufsttes of more complex

sitt I Is are themse lues dUstluent, Componerzt sftt I I delteitsfmpose flueney eeiltngs oa egmpoefte sftiIL deuelopment.A dlagnostic anelys{s of .sftilt deftetfs should examtne

dtfferenees befueen ind{ufduels arld ?e lattons €rmong skillstn order fo dSseoudr spec{/te deftafts, By essesslng matrfees

of sftills wlth cammon eomponcnts, f,t, ttzey be possdble to iso-

Late the d,eftctts fn need af remediatlon. It would then be

possibler @t Ieest tn prtnatple, to remoue deficft-imposed

eeflings. The alternatiue {s to proutdc @.pproprtete behaufor

prosthesfs.

The subjeets ln thfs study exhtbtt €,'r:enge of s.kdll

deftcffs. Eeeeuse fhey ere all older edolescenfs, ne€r the

end of thetr pub|ta educef ion, if ftiay not be possfble ta

return to the qpp"oprtat,e eamponent skt.Lls far remediat.ton ,

et Zeest trt thcir regul,ar school progrems. .Sone of the def-

fcits m@y be trremedfable. fn any eese, tt became obufous

in ttrf s study tlzat sltf ll deff eits were tmposfnE seuere .

eellfngs on the deueloprnent of resdtng flueney, By exami.n-

ining the relat ioaships befu.reen the htgheef reedirug ref es

whtch theg we?e sble to atta.in, end the lrfghest ref es at

whieh they we?e eble fo perform thc ofhcr fiue skClle, ttmight be poss ible to discouer the erff teal defieffs.

Ftgure l iZfuefretes som€ relat tonships among t,he sixsJtills, and 6m?ong the fiue students. T71e f ioe cu"ues oru

fhe teft "ep"esenf h{ghest, rates /or eeeh o/ the six slttlls

124 -

plotted f ar eactt st udent . T71ey are tttus tndiu iduc L sktllprof ic f enegl prof t le s. Note the general simtlarttU among

the f tue curues, For exq.mple, aL L students can rote count

faster than they can perform anA of the other skills, To

the degree that these curu€s are stmtlar, euen with sub-

sfantial rate differences between students, the students

haue proporttonal orofictencies and deftcits. Ouen thougbt

A.A., for example, perform"s aLL skills et Lower rates than

does P.14., the relqt iue rates arrtong the sktLLs are approx-

tmately the sane for the two stucients.

Curues on the right ?zalf of the figure each represent

o giuen skill, wtth ane aotnt -for each student, TheA are

q-@ qutte slmilar in shape fo orle another. To the degree

that he eurues ceross sub;ects are sini.Lar for two skills,t?zose two s.ki i ls maA share components or prereguis ites, IfsubTects differ in prof tciency f.n the same oroportions fora pair of skills, those skllls may be constratned by the

scm€ ceil ings or f acil ttated by the so.me component ski.Ll

fLuencies,ftgure $ presents data, analogous to those in FtgureT ,

f or f iue professf.onal aCults perf orming the same tasks. Nqte

thatr GS in Figure ] , both the indtotd.ual prof iciency pro-

ftLes, and the curues for different sltills are qutte stmiLarLy

shcped. ft1aeuer, their can"mon sh.opes differ from those ofFtgure 7, as'do thetr leuels of performance. Some compa"-

fsons between the tuo dots-sefs naA be helpful

in a diagnosttc analysfs. fn pcrticular, sueh o eomaprfson

betweefl the performonees of rets.rded subyecfs and non-

retarded adults makes it posstble to detern'i,ne not ortty

relattue deftcits among the retarded, but also obsoLute

def ieits cs compared to a norm. !,ttthout this eomparison,

espeoialLa gtuen the reLatiue homageneity of the retarded.

group, tt would. be lmposs ible to deteet a number of deficitstn relattoe Gs well cs sbsoLute profteieney Ie6els.

TabZes 1 and 3 are matrf ces of correlatf,on coef ficf ents

whtch correspono to Figure J . Tsbles 3 and. 4 are similarmatricesr eo rrespond,ing to Figure 1 . Tylese tables a|Lo.o

for a more finely detailed descripttue onolysis of the data

in Ftgures 7 and g, ca|Ltng ou? attentton to aspdcfs whtch

might elud.e s strf ctly uisuol analysf s. Tables L and 3 cor-

respond to the Left halues of Figures 7 and 8 , respecttuely,

whereas Tables 2 and * correspond to the rtght-hand portions

of the same ftgures. On the top o! each table fs a matrix ofeorre tatibns between'sets o/ response rates. ?h,e bottom ttalues

contain Spea?man rs.nk-order corre lat toJ'lsrb u, gr,\

f+bt"5 I ana 7 eontatn correlattons(J, e op mo r ces n

between each patr of subjects in their respecttue groups,

computed aeross s&{ I ls. TheA thus ref leet prgportigna! sira-

tLarity between pofrs of profictency profiLes, independ.cnt

of rate. Tlzts rat{o property of th& cdrrelation coefftcientmakes tt approprtate to plot the d.ata tn semi-.logcrtthnic

spoce, llottee, for exemple, that in Table 1, P.[ol. and A".A.

cre most simtLar in thetr relatiue proftcetncies, whereas

f{,N, and. P,tY. haue the lecs t s{milcr prof tctency prof iles,

c o$el iong

126 _

7Thdse rela.ttonshtps are apperent in Ftgure : .

?he bottom matrices of these tables eontafn Speor-

man ra.nk-order correlatians for the same data.. Tlese coef-

f ictenf s represerLt the degree f c whtch patrs of sab jeets

are stmilar in the waA tn whieh tzey rank s/tf lZs tn terms

o/ response rate, iliost strtking fs the fact that tn Table

3, all -coef tcients are 7,OO. Tlat ds, aLt f f.ue ad.ults

rote eount faster than they read u.rords, read uords fasterthan they ncme eolors, neme colors faster than they read

numbers, and so forth. The auerage rank-order correLatiort

for tke retard.ed subTeets ts .98O, sttll quttd htgh. The

same difference between the two groups oppea"s tn the

respoase rate eorrelation matrfces at the top of each

table. ,976 fs the €uercge co?relatton between patrs ofthe rlarl-retard.ed subjecf s, whereas .959 f s the ouerage forthe retarded subjeets. ftrese dtlfereizees refLect the ex{s-

tenee of dtfferential dnficf ts emong the retarded. That fs,the retqrded haue sp€etfic def icttsrwhich depress profic-teneies for some sftilZs and not others,lrft eh differ among

indiufduaZs. In general, this is not true among non-retarded

adults, at, Zeast f or thts group of sftd i ls.C{ ter

L+ o'?ables,27

s.nd 3t o3socdated utith the righthal.ues of Figures and g ', the top matrices contatn cop-',

relat ioas whieh ref leet the d.egree to whtclt poirs of eurues

fn the figures are stmilar, For example, the htghesf cor-relatton tn the matrix far retsded subTecf s is between

read.ing nwnbers and. namtng eo lors. These sre both sfti I ts

2

T >t 1t'-i--

(h)b8b'

(slt'rE

(ort7sb'(glLo)b'

(l: (r>bs b' b,b'(h) ( h)b8b' b8b'

(r,rtt b'(o, )9Sb,

( g)Lol lo'

(8)19b'

WWtuollD) ar)a?

(r)slb'(e>€gu'(ulhzb'

(s)Lqb'

(h)bE b'

(h)b9b'

(r)o O'l

(h)LLb.

(2)hsu'(q)E? b'

(s)L",b'

(t'lbs b'

'w'w

v'd

'u'9(nrb Bb'

v'd u-

-^aP tQ ->l ,U> vr\?Yr tvad g

(')oo','\'v

'w i,

(ot)ruE''w w(s>5Lb''v'd(s)z2b'ts'9(r7

E5b''v'v(ot)I bE'

(h)Lrb'

(q)b7b'(s)zgb'

(r)88 b'

( r->5?b'

(r>LLb.

(z)h 8b'

(-c)5Lb'

(r)(eb'

w'w 'Y'd 'U ? 'V'Y w d

stratelJjl ar? ve,_tl "t,tov

w'd

-T ,l g lr-1-

CS'L>* nb'

@>JI,b'

(s'L)lreb'

("))9l,b'

' (a)€Lz'

( r,r)ss&'

(b)Lzb'(s11

z8 L'

(ot)L€ b.

(e)5h b'

(s'l )z8 b'

(s'r)z8b'

(ulL"b'(u)L'Lb'

(u:L7b'

q s'rDLqb'

(e)ghb'

(st)z8L'(s'r)bq b"

94uo/Ylff ua)

lVno?5t .trY{,

sal?r!?5 +oa

E+\^n9?)*oz

tJaqr.trttvsPDa)

5 r e'lO?5?t^lfY

,? ) o(ttPva Y

;vno? (l rlaw

SE?rl?slod

9t\4rao ?>+ o7

51ad[wtt'tttsPbeu

5l olo )gawbf{

9?)efig?a3"2

( s'tl)bou'

(er)eL8'

(r,t)ts 8'

(q)5Lb'(s't )z'8 b.

(J. rl)boa'

(J't)z Bb'

(ot>5Ib'

(ol)L€b-

(er)L7b'

(h)ogb'

G>sLb'

s-tl->ztaI LoA

(u)Lzb'

(u)LZ b'

(r.t r )beb'

(3'L,heb'

+un)rvt?rbw *+QA atoz SPraU (ar+r1y

Jo?

')4 o I ;b1 a; ,oD -lt aPr o - >l vtbd

(er) (g)LL| h sb'

$t)LL L"

( tr)I Lb.

(t)LSb'.

J

(h)o 8b-

(t,11

I 08'

(r)h bb'

{€,zgb'

4^o

(zt)br u'

(5)sLb'(tr)LQb.

(ztt bb'(e.>

zbb'

9

(i>Lq b'

qrr)t€b'

(er+,5b'

{zt )br b'

-LV!'lo?5r7Vw

(u)nhb'

(b),t hb'

(rr) (r)I og' L bb'

(6rt (z)Lob' lbb'

tlvlhsr, r^aql^.iffrt o? s?Eax

(L)L Sb'

6"rrr!N tt=aZ

S1r,t"f:r)0. ? oDv o !;nl?'troa

t- "lq."_Lo9', eo', aa'l oo','s.'

oo'f @'t ao'lg'o oa-,

o o'l oo.l

oq'l oo'l oo'l

oo'l oo'l oo', oo'l

's'D 'E'9

-iaPro->1ve)

og't oa'l'u'6

oo.l'v'1

s'x

's'.c.

'l he'+q al )aa'1'1 -1.'x

v or$ rnad5

(s't7Lb b'(b)

obb'

(t)fi bb'

qs'E)Lbb'

<e't)5 bb'

$'t) lbb'(z)8bb'

(u)obb'

qs.5)5b b'

(ot).' 08'

rr)l, bb'

<s'qLbb.

(or),oE'

(s)E bb'

(z)gbb'

(r)bbb'

(e'9)J bb'

.S'.8

'g'?

'd's

'71

(B)€ bb'

0)bbb'

G*l 9tb'

's s 'qJ'? 'u3 'zf iu5lrra'3tH

" o? rro'-tPl?l)n

'su

" tqc-L(t.')htb'

!:r...

( r')ht b'(z)

o) g,b'

(s't 7bo8'

. (rl)I bL'.

(z)otrb'

(,J'r)6oE'

(s'r)Lo8'(ol;

o0 L'(e)

€rB'

1, r)lbL'(z r)

LLL.

(r't)ole.

L'(s'e)bo b'

6s'r)bo8'

(st)8r t'(q)

t? b'

(et)5st'

wnfr?|az'(w

SanXrlSJgQ

(LNYt06.

3r,r,

Bvrn/Y

5GY3'

51oro?<guYt'f

sq,ofigcvgu

t^ n0?Sxrvw

5?1?! I ?Stoo

gjfin o)i

"J 0?

6}rn/.150Y3'

t70?o,sarr tN

50?omssvr2l

(J'I)bog'qer)

oo L'1zl)LL L.

(rt )EIL'

(stEA8'

(l r) o), L'

(r)Lzb'

(r)?g b'

U.LTbe$'

LNno<raV W

(J.L )EA E'

(')z8 b'

9)1tAt2 g$ns?

'Lo Q 3Jo7

Nzl e?a?uortl*att?-l (awvft 5dY3u

(s't)[U u'( z,)

fiL.b

(s)3[b'( ol)

0bb'

(zt;I'LB'(?)

J6H

(t,t;E,EE'

(r', )Ir u'

(5"1;sIb'

(zDIt-e'(zr)f.t_g'

(r)?bb.

(r)8bb'(s'r)b bb'(rt;

zlg.(r.h)Lbb'

qs.8 )I bb'

(oD0bb'

(s'8)lbb'(rr)I'48'(s'h)t bb'

(e)J Ib'

(r)zb b.

tt t)

'AE' (Jt:zt6-

(r'l?)Lu u'

(r'8)lbb'

(s'8 )I bb'

. (zr ) (s'h)I'18', lbb'

t)<.d o-1 o?53Y{ Yrr

?sr?VlT lLoQ 3Je? {oY€-l<d\tA\j

+-,

( rtls 5L'

127 _

which inuolve speeeh and seanntng, and they s.?e bstLt rel-atiuely wetL-practiced skiIZs /or these sub;ects. For

both retarded and non-reterded subjects, reodtng numbers

ts more htgly eorrelated wtth readtng words than is any

other s,ki Z l. Both skf Z Zs tnuolue speech, scanning, and

alphanumeric disertminatfonsr' ft is clear from these

tobles, and f rom the f igures, that cLL of the s,kills are

comparatiueLy higtlly correLated, wtth an a.uerage aalue of

.954 for the non-retarded subTec/s and ,934 for the retorded

subjects. A compa."ison between the twa groups also shoa.rs

the muc?z greater rarLge of between-subject uoriability in

the retarded group, a popuLation made heterogeneous by

behauioral deftcffs, But the fact that tlte retarded subTects

ar€ uerg stmtlar to one anotheri.n terms of proprt ianal

skf.ll prof icieneies riakes tt possible for t,hem to partic-tpote tn the same cZossroom prog"o.m tnuoLuing a. uariety of

eomnon q.etluif ies.?he bottom matrices tn Tables 2 and 3 contain rank-

order eorreLations whiclt reflect the degree to whteh poirs

of sfrt i ls are simtlar tn the woy that they order subjects

on the profictency scaZe. It is fnteresting thet whereas

the auerage rank-order eorrelatton among skills /or the

retarded subTecfs is ,922, it is only ,823 for the rlon-

retarded subjects. Thts nay refLect the conparattueLy

wtde range of proftciency leuels in the retarded group.

,lith such Large ouerall dtfferences in rates of performanee,

rank-orders of students tend to rematn the same, independent

128 -

of the parttcular s.kf lL inuolued, And, when they da not

remain the same scross sftflls for s, pair of students, a@

should Look mare earefulLy far dEfferential skiLL cieficits.

On the other hand, differenees tn prof ic'i.ency Leuel are

eompa"atiueLy smcl I among tlze rlarl-retarded subiects.

SmaLL differences tn performence rates can account for ctzanges

tn rank-ordertng of sub jeets withtn ski I Is. T?tus, eorretati.ons

aeross ski I Is a?e not likely to be so ErQat os when Larger

differenees in rate are required to reuerse rank-ord€rsr

Correlat tons between rizatr f ees. {,le may use cor?elction

coeffteienis to further deseribe the reLatfonships in these

d.ota by compar'rrrg aifferent matr{ces of eorreLattonso It fs

possi6lri to ossign rsrrJts to coe{ffcieruts tn each matrtx tn

two dtfferent ways. ?he rsnk for'a'gtoen coe$ftctent oB

eompared to all others in the tabTe oppecrs tn parentheses

beneath the coe,{f tef ents. These ranks quanttfy degrees of

correlattan between studentsr or s,tf I Ls, tn each matrtx, f rom

greate|t to Least. In addttton, it fs poss ibte to ossign

ronks to each eoefftctent in terms of the matrtx row in

whieh tt appea?a. Thts ranking ensuers questions about

uhat sabjectsror sktLlsrord most or Zeast higllly co?related.

with spec if tc other subiects ror slti Z Is. This inf ormatton

is especially tnteresttng tn cor"e lctCons among skflis,although it may also be useful when carnparing and contrasttng

retarded subjects.

It fs possible.to eompute rank-order eorreLations

/or-psfrs of tobles, using either ktnd of ranking within

124

" the tables. For example, the corretation between

the ouerdtl ronftf ,:g of coeff ictents in the task prof teieney

matrfces for retard.ed arid no;z-.retard.ed subTects fs .866.Thus, the two gr"oups of subjects cgree reasonably welt inthe uag that they rank correlations between poirs of skills.The correlations between t,he aame matr iees /or rankings per

roa is euen htgher, wtth n ualue of ,933. ft fs cleatr,

despf f e the dtfferenttal def teits'of the retard.ed',group,

that the reLatfonships anong the sktLLe d(cugry"'Strong", tIn

f aet, f h(i$,e ,rele,tionshipe prduld.e' :a bosds for dicario$.tie

analysis of the d.eftcfts. it is the degree to wlttch they

share comiionent sk,ills, and also dtffer, which forms the

bssfs for dtagnostlc ossessmertt,

The correlation between the oueralL ranking of eoef-

f tcients in tho Prof ieiencv'matrtx for' tesrrs as compared

to the @ for tosks Lras .84.1 far retarded

subjects (top us. bottom of Table 2), and ,837 for the

ftorL-?€tarded g"aup (top us. bottom of Table 4). Thus, os

suggest,ed earlter, each group exhtb i ts i.ndiutdual dif f ereruces,

in the aay that tos&s'rank-order.subjectslahtch create

dfsport.l ies between proficiency eorreLations and rank-order

eerrelattons. And t.here f s sLigttly more of a dispartty

for the ftoft*?€tarded group, where small differences in pro-

fictencA ean account for reuerscrZs in rank-order.

Ddfteit'tatios. Table 5 eontoins a. matrtx of deftcitrattos /or the retarded subjects" For each skill, the

nedizn non-retarded performance rate dtuided by the retord.ed,

Thbte 5

De4 ic, tP.l'\ ,

R".{io>A.h.

4o.G.R.

(.a-lor Ae.d S.^'o i ec4s

P. A. l^. l'{ .

Reordstrbrds

l.latte:@lorrBec.denrrnbal

AotgCoun{1

OD+eC\tdp*>

l,\achseourttS

I.gz (o.z* 4.tz 3.zt 6.1.{

l.*{o j.b8 t.3q ,.5o a.arf

2lt 9.9o A.S; J.o.t 3,27

e.b, tl.o ? 17) ,.q t ,.q o

1.3{ C.zz l.zto t.7 * 7.1t

3.zg z.Gz t .q1 3.zo 1,.tT

L30 -

subject ts ra.te equals the def tett rct do. Thus, the .largerttze ratf.o, the greate,r the def iett. A tabte of sueh rattosmay reveal dtf-ferential def icdts in terms o.f eompcrisoa to

a. qtartdard., the norm@.t edutt proftcteney. ?he dtfferenees

between. t he appfoximate eammon:shoprgs'o/ the ;)rof ieiency

profiIes /or reterded os compared to non-retard,ed. sub;eets

make tt clear thet t?te retarded subjects are not equally

defieientr os compared to non-"etarded adults, oeross allslti Z ls. Def ieit rat f os quanttf y this obseruat ton.

Note that near\aLL retard.ed. subyects are Ieas t def tctenton etther naming coZors or dot,ttng cf rcles. These ore the

two Zeast eomalex sktlls, fnuoLutng the smallest number ofeomponents. t{.il: f s eomparottuely more def icient on d.otttng

circles whieh may be due to her hautng Left the clsssroom

prematurely, before reachlng peak proftciency. Rote counting

and. nq.mtng numbers are f.n the ntdd.te of the deficit rang€, on

the G.uera.ge, These sftf I ls were compzrat tueLy welL-proctt ced,

although oie migttt expect rote counting to be eomparatioely

less defteient since it fs o rather simple skiLL. Actu.alLy,

for two o! t?tc sub;ects (G.R", end ll.Pi.) it fs. of a compar-

attuely Low def teit,. But for the others, these deftcf ts inrofe counting simoly refLect the paor arttculation sftiIIs ofinstttutionalized retarded people, FinalLy, reading rr.rords

ond marking counts ere the most defictent stiiLs for allbut C.n" These c-re the most caruolex sktlls. It is anper-

ent from these data that indtudduals exhibtt differenttaldef icf f s. But t t f s clso apparent t.hat an tlze au€"oge,

131

the more complex sktlls show greoter reLattue defte than da the others. Thts suggests a roug?t notiort (, add-

ttiue.rteff cf f in which eomporlent sktlL def tcits sufi toproduce comparattueLy greater deftcits than they, tn iso-Latton, exhibit,

2iegnost f c obseruat f ong , From tlze f igures, corre Lations,

and deficit "orro" tt shoutd be poss ibte to suggest a number

of tndiufdueL differenttal defieits. These data may merely

indtcate the need to conduct further ossessrilenfs of relateds.kiZIs. And it is certatn that teachers are ultkely to cc.rrA

out rnost of lhese quantiatioe analUses.r with the possible

exceptton of charting s,k.i Z L prof iLes and comouttng def tcttrcf ios. Nonef hIess, ftte sens ttiuity of rate measurement

does allow us t,o examine i.ndtutdual dtfferenees tn an extremely

prec ise me.nner.

Perhaps the most obu f ous d,if f erence between ttze retarded.

sub;rects and non-retsrded su,b;eets. es l:ev@aled tn Ftgures

1 and'$ , ,. f s that 'tton;retarded adults read. numbers ond,

words faster than they name colors, Aet the ratarded subTects

ere comparatiuely mare profictent at color-namlng" Read,tng

numbers e.nd words are both cotftpo"atiuely complex skf Zls, and

are extremeLV highly correLated among both groups of subj€ets.

They tnvolue the seanntng and speech conponents o/ eoLor-

naming, tn oddi tton to a mo?e eomplex assoc iatiue component.

Doehring (ryf5) reported. that eLementary schooL ehiLdren d.o

not read numbers or uords faster than they name colors untilsome time during the seeond gradet oft the aue?a.ge. The data

112 -

in thfs study, then, a?e consfstEnt wtttt d.a.ta from young

non-retarded ehildren, Perhaps wtth cont inued. pra.ct tce,the retard.ed, subTects would" oZso surpass thetr coLor-namtng

rotes in ttze reading ski i Zs.

,Some of the reLat ionshdps betueen the eorre lationmotrices point to deficfts choraeteristic af the retarded.

subjects. For example, tn the profictency correLatton

mat,riees for skiZIs, the cor?elattart between dottingcircles and marklng counts is .999 for the retarded. group,

but onlg .777 far the non-retarded subTects. For the retarded

subTec ts, reLat iueLy ?,ow leue ls of seanning prof ictency prob-

ably exert, o common influenee on these two sftC Z Zs. For the

non-?etarded subjects, howeuer, read.f,ng cnd cssociatiue eom-

ponents probably haue for greater irtfluenee on marktng counts

than the reLetiueLy oroftcient scanntng component.

For the retarded group, rote eounttng has a relatiueLy

Low eorrelatian w'i.th reading words in the rank-order matrtx

(.7SZS, uhereas t?ze equtualent correLatlon for non-retarded.

sub;rects is reLatiueLy htgh (.927). dssoctatioe and scanning

coriponentS probobly exert a. reLattueLy greater infLuence on

rea.ding rate for th.e retarded subTects than for the non-

rets.rded subTects, uhose major constratnt on readtng f s theirspeech rate.'

i"*r-" e ler?tzenreLat ianship between color-narning and dotting circLes

for the two groups rls diff erent, For ttze retarded group, the

reLatiueLy htgh eor"elatton of .982 once agoin suggesfs c

commarL seanntng def ic{t, whereas f or t?ze non-retarded group

133 _

the mueh lowcr ee?relatton ef ,777 suggests less af @

conraonaltty.

The d.at,s also suggest some spec tf ic d,ef tetts for ind.t-

tsid,uals, The figures Ere partteularly useful tn thts regard..hil.t 'E;t' t8' ,?eaidfng :r&f erggg Be surpressedIt appeovs, $or erq,n^?lr.l t the't."EiE, !s''r€

bgt his speecft reter @s fnd{caf ed by hte eonrp@rettuely lero

rete of ro*e eounf fngl. An the oflrer haad., d.,4. rs speech

rate dppe@rs to be hf glr enough to allow htw:ta read.;i/ester

. fhee 50 ta 40 r€sponses per mlnute, yet hte number-reedfng,

ward-readtng end eolor-nemfng refes &re aLl et approxtmateLy

that Zeuel. H,tr:, uho ,:eede arords. et,a petee comperebl,e to

*o,{o'se n@mes colors and reede nurnbers nearlg trrl:ce es fest.a'fac*, r{.lo ts retes at fhese tesft.s €re atl seuerely Lintted,

by head.-cantral ead-seennfng def ieits whteh preoent hlm framef/eettng the smoofh'. ege-r,Eouemenfe n€cesserg for proftcf ent

readtng. ?hese defe ere re|e,tcd, to the fact that lre een reed

sfngle u.rsrds €s pres ented on flesheerde ta front, of htn at

nwrly twtce hf s rate on urorftsheets.

/Sofe thet p.g, dbf s etrcles more quickty t,han tzc reeds

numbers, whereas lor P.A. the reZetionshtp ds 3uef the oppe-

s{fe. ,Suelr differeaees fn ardinal re}"at Cons @marlg skJils€r€ ref tectcd. in t.he d,tfferences b.etwcen the profteienay

eorelef i on natrices and ttte ranh-ard.er natrf ces . ?hey may

refleet differentdel deftcits. For example, it ls cleartlzat P.N: speaks relatiuety sloa|g, whereas P.A, may haue

a seenning deffcif whteh would dffferentialty affeet, the

fict e-d.otting teslt. T?zts suggest ton wauld regu tre further

lj| _

os.sessments on reLcted tasks.

lE.N-.rs rates of namtng colors , naming numbers, and.

rote counting are higher than A.A.ts. Yet her rates afreadtng a,rords, dotttng circles and marking counts &re Lower.

Particularly giuen t?ze htgh eorrelatton between reading num-

bers and reodtng words, we mtght expect her readtng rs.te tobe higher, These three skf,Lls may be at a def ictt becouse

they we?e reLatiuely nea to her when she left the clossrroom

prematureLy. fn a. uerA rough fashion, these graphic and

cor"elattorual anal1ses maA alLow for a certatn d.egrce of )d

pred.ict t ueness /ron one set of s,kf i Is to another, trt thts XJeb.sb predtettng Urg;'* euentua?, read.fng rate from the other 1)e/\\

Apperent ceilings. The p"eeeed.ing anelyses sre by na

means exhausttue. Hqw€ue", they shouLci st Zeast proutd,e

an indtcatton of the sensitiuit! w?tteh response rate meosures

ean bring to d,iagnostic skf"ll analysis. They may also help

to explatn the uerA dtfferent effects of proftctency-butLdtng

proeedures ccross the ftve retarded subyects. It fs clear

that a yartety of deff eits fmpose ee'i.Lfngs on the abitity of

reinforced prsctice to fncreose performdnce rafes. And these

data potnt torrrerd the &f initf ons o/ those def tcf ts.

f,ledi at ed Transfe r ElJec t_s_

The majcr purpose of tltis study Lrcs to examtne the ef fectsof proftciencg-buiLding on medtated transfer eomprehenston

tcsks. Comparison of performonces orL the ftue-sessdon sets

of pre-f ests wf.th perf armanees on identtcal post-f ests ltoutded

e' basis for the analgsts,

t4

{i{\

I

v'2;e-Y

l, <-b6lo-o0/-e,

4ni+i8,$

-S \n

ts6(y

-s f7+1,oOol

I -rt6oUOarta,r

li9 _

ffoenfg (Wote | ) edufsed that hunan response rofe

da,ta be Sogartt.hmtcallg transforned, for pdremQtric tesf,s.

Hc ee&e to thts coneZue{orz after exormtnttzg seocral thousand

sefs sf defe and f trtdfng thet the'trogerit,hnie transformatton

maxf,mfzed homogeneita and normaLtta s! uartenee ecrless leuels

of perfo?manee. fn the preseaf studgr.hoareuerrftes*s e6nPafin\

pre-fest and post-test uerdance dld not Justtfy sueh e

trens/ormatton. ?hue, elthough the deta wttt appear greph-

deally ln semf-Iogerlthnte spece in ordcr to accentuate

proporfionel ehenges, the t-fesfs were made wtth reur date.

Figure 1 shous renges e/ eoreef reeponse rates foreeelr o/ the ftuc subJeefe, be/ore end after proffcteney-

tratningt af, four teelsf flof e ttret tn thfs ftgurer, ea

well ds tn subsequent onea, dete frdm fare:o! the,.pre- end

post-tesfs do not @.ppee.r. The tao feeta,:ryere!:nemfRg objeefst

end /ollow{ng Jour-uord fnrifrue*fons read by the feeclrer.

It u.res Rot thought thet fnqproued reedtng proficfency would

affect t,hese *es&e. And., ln /act, onlg on€ of the studcnf e {P,i{.)dtd facreese eorect rete or €eeureey on ffteee feeJts tn the

pest-tests ee eampared, wtth the pre-teefe. ,Stgntfieenee

probebftfftes for the l-teited. t-tesfe @ppeer R€@r eaeh of

fhe pefrs of perfa?m@ruee ?anges. The smell errous protrudtng

fram eec& ber orx f he graph €r€ rae€ns. -fhet*eStaY€.

Ftgure l0 preeents erer rate renges fn the aea€ format.I-tiit"lEeceuse ref es of eoreef s end erors m@y u@."u independenty hefe '

tn free respondfng sttuettons, theA @re analyzed sepere*ely.

ffEur"e tl presenfs r€ng€s o/ pereentage correet ueilues

fo-

IO

Iloo -l.I50 1

ET

P4.oot

+ -\er'

r:

Po?I

EF* i

(e.tJ tL+SotA5

trl-

?L-Ool

1- r^,ro rAyrna+e h

?'vsardrraaic \

PL.O z{

Fa lto u,'spr ritt e nin# r u ctiort)

rge.@f

Al,

?A

?M

('R

l-r--

g <.aof r rp.<.oz€

<-

a(--lL-

{r

,^,!+

F.I'{

a(',

(-i

oI

:

I

I

tI

L

L

I

r, z.ool

tI-?L.

ool

-.L?1.6\

trl-

7z..oot

l-,{

tr-

I60

fof pa.aol

t *

[-r,j a

tr

t]-?z-oo I

/oo

fo3

I11)

I

:..,1

lI

i)):

fl-pl.ool

lo Ir,

[-

il- 7' .oz1

Ns

rNS

r

r

I

I

ll".^Ievsotd$ l- uro"d )'t^tor l

vu.ctt h -t vt 5't ru

P4,.oo I k

F ?t .ol

yY1a14cLr{ottow 54'r^tordfo

lo,

r D-ga.ol EF MrA

f..,o \EF

tr

t-, q -r-o be-1

re. Jqce Jft-lobelled

Q o r-t b',n ed

<*ipr-{:.d ,l}.ho{C tfoS> - lr

I

P?l dd'-Ys

,iluqu; - a/

P"" 'qv'r€)P-, P ,-,L_l

aolo,)- o)

wd4NgN

1{ Tilzo'>4

5N

x{(p,lorn51va)

s

s)o))no,1:nr15rl l-

p,ro rn -fuYry'o,ll.too>f,

Y rybv.,'

l,toot"l

I

5'ol

+J

\Y

AAAeolsu-lor'd>

8, - uto{f,. (- -*.I.,+t-l^ '#i:l.-,^rorJ

yrna-tc[n-

dh

to

fvlrJ0- ul

F

k;3{

qJ r.-f - cr; - ETF

€'r (6( >

F,1 l0

I

cat!-a9'\-t

.a6,i\->

2

*t,-5

oz(nI

n?ai\{r

-Yq

!.#JUdt

<tt;-s?'di1

2-t{doar)s()

*=

\^b

o

yrulr4r )eC)

t vno?"t

? h

Re-^lsLr;avds

l- u-,rorAylao. lrrt^' -utav d

,a#ructiout' s)'r,o' lrrrno-tch

rNe

qIt

OrY'J,+r<(jS0

CJ

o

I rf N5

N3 NS

e. {,( D{ ; X\e; [,t (o

k

\0.r^

aecrAs l- uot It Jords ["t.t". )'.uurf,

rrfrtc"tCh

El-trN9

t-l-,^.rord

16g{ructiolo^E-

rt:L

I

tt:Lt

r/\

MAI

t NtAIS

?..o9

|,A rI\

f,1-(O errov-s

rk

1*.)o)tLb)fo

k FNI'

(..^J:(ror A>

p1.6of

N,S

tsOr(J

vI

NIS

1--o, d

iu'rS-truc{ion S

P /v\ f,3 l\

'f o be'.

t-LrOr JI\ )- tt:" f ql

AA.cr+c hlA4.rho

reJoc e d

Cd ,n*bi"eJ( <- [c. beLle d

,+^'pP teJ

loo -

,1

I

:I

rl

I

I

$o

N9

R. e".J1LU.r rJ)

?'.o.;

- L^rord/v\cttc h

N9

)-,-rord1r4^{-c h

AA

q -*ond-1r,4

5*r.{.+io^-5i

0

[tt l\

{'

A's

!'J),.'x (,_/'

...*c^

L,+.J

n2f14e{X"flJ+Sul '' P'o q-hY'q,Pw

y toa -(

5N

y q nr,n/

prorn-l

sr\l

5P;o1^4(F*7

5N

-o

'Ni

-1

UonoF+noro

)-

-os

. oQl

J-I

c)0/L

o\) {o:r

YCIU\-q/

A"

l@

N'

K.oJ:L1orJ I

p<.az€

o

N5

J-,,.rOVd q

r/toLt"h i 6 5+,,uCtio n 5

PA

-t)J

?z-.o I

ord| - ..Por d

,6.14c-h

et(or9\

tt rl

d") ^f, t\

I-l

OeoA>t,,-JofdS

l-t^,,o.J l--orl .,-LDrrd'rrr..o{"t. -,^^ot"h il^S+ractiolt}lN

+c)u

:iou*t-

s0/Uqi

o-

Ne

fl-

N5 P..o I

' IAM

o

f\/5

r. 1 t\

136 -

obteined ln pre- ond posf-tests /or each subyect ort the

four tasks. ?heie.rdata .. gr"e:' tn the some format as a(Lthe rate date., except that they appear tn Ltnear space.

, Eeadtng u,rords. RecalI that reading rr.rords fs the oruLy

sftd I I whteh ?cce iued prof teteney tralntng. The onlg; pf;6e*..:

f ,f eee that thesp subjeets euer receiued on the ottter three

tcsfts occurred during the tests themselues. Thus, the,5u$ecl,s

practiced a total of ten mtnutes on each af the tcsfts

before profietency tratntng, and ten mtnutes dwring the

post;tests. ?he stbl=<tec ,lecetued, no retnforcement foreo"peef,'re_snoRdtng on fhese tosks, and no correetions /orerror.so l{o?eoue?, at leost stx ueeks separated the pre-

tesfs from the post-tests, and es many as 20 rr.reeks for one

sub ject (P:.N.). T1us, tt is untikeLy that practice durtng

the pre-tests had. any o.pp?eciabLe effect on post-test per-

fornanc e,

Note that aLL students sf gnif f.cantLy increased theirrates of readfnEl uords eorreetly os a result of proficiency

training. On the other hand, there were rLo stgntf tcant,

chenges in erro? rotes, And, exeept for one sub;eet,(P.A,)t

the sublreets dtd not sfgntf tcantly ehange tn their percen;

tage eor?ecf seores. ?7yese data are parttcularly releuant

to the suggestton thst speed of performanee maA aeeur only

at the expense of aecu?aclt ,Sueh c trade-off dtd not occur

tn this instaftee, perhaps beecuse subTeets Der@ not fgreea

to go faster by ouersiue caruttngeneles or pactng. Rather,

theg sfmpLy oraet{ced unttL they were able to go /estero

_137_

In the simpledf medtated transfer comprehenston tcs&,

subjecta plq,ced., tndex eords, imprinted wtth one word each,

nea.? the appropria.te objeets in an a.rray. Thts rdas Sidmanrs

( LqTl ) basf c med.tated transfer task, Prtor to prof lcieney

tratntng, all subjects performed. thfs tssk utth at Zeest

75% aecuroey. 37ree subJeets (A,A., P.Fl,, G.R,) extztbited

1OA% accurercy at least onee 6n thts ,f se.&,':d*ning f&e; pre-

tesfs. These results represent a repLteq"tion of ,Sidmonrs

f ind.ings, trd ed.dttion, aZL subjeets increased. their rates

of correet responding ln thts tesft es a result of proficieney

training. Two sub"reets (M,M., P.f,I.) red,uced tlzetr errorrof es. And three subTeets (A;,A i r'i.P;A; ,,P,tol:) signtf tcantLy

increased thetr pereentage eorrect seores. Ouerall, these

findings constttute a substanttal extenslon of Sidmants

besfc paradigm beyand stmple aequisftion effects,{ al dght ly more complex medtated transfer camprehensfon

tesk uos identical to the ftret, except that tine-word

adJeettve-noun poirs appeared on the cards. Fbd.r, oat''o;f ',

ffi se + 6fs f treritsE Jiefar:daef eaatid.:..' t Qlf *. : e or r e a t .rd t es on t h I s

tosft, whtLe nome decreased their error rotes signtfteantly.Ane subject (lY.14.) fnereesed her pereentage eorrect on thistask, and one (G".R:) d.eereosed his percentage eoreet, but

wtthout stot ist ica i sfgn tfteanee.

FtnalLy, the students ree.d,,and performed 4-word fnstruc-

tdons. FouE out of fiue of the suuTects increased theircorrec t rates, and one (P.A:) stgnif tcantLg tncree'sed hic's

pefcentagfe-.correct seor€. T6ere were no stgntficant changes

-138-

tn error rotes. Thls tcsk represents a eategorteoZQ cot.^

extension of the mediated transfer effecta facfs tamand.g (SXtnnert 7957). fn ord.er to follow the wrttteninstructfons, both befare and after profieetneg tratntng,subTects responded to written uerbs and preposdtfons, as

weLL ss to ruouns, fn d.otng sor they resportded to the

wrtttQn form'of uerbal'behai tor which i6'retnforeeci by

its ef fect rather than stnply by q.greetnent in the uerbal

cammurlity. Fotlowing wrtt t en instruct f ons represents not

only an extenston of the mediated transfer e,ffect, but also

an extremeLy useful skiZt for retarded persons.

Ftgure 7X- presenf s eorect and error rotes together,

tn the form af changes f.n accu"aeA pctrs. Each Jraf r ofcorreet and error rates represents the sfrugle essessment''

wtttch fted the medto.n ge-qurqev laLlo,"of t,herffue"essessrr?ent.s

e]ftfih'constttuted fhe"pi"e=tesf or po.$*-te$t "for a gfuen ?

sktlx. Thts ftgure proutdes the best ouerall Fletare of

the effects of proflctency't?einlng for eqeh subject. Itoliee accentuates fndtutdual dtfferQnees. Noie that {wo"'of the . subjecf s (P.A., G.R.) oetl,ld ttv peif ormqid, u)orse,.on, '

the medtan post-test than on the median p"e-test for the

lost two, more eomplex s.ki I Is. Tlese two students t LanguageTheq

skills are Zess deueloped thoru the others'rnseL'd.on spee.k'i

tn more than two- or three-word utteranc€se Thts faet may

aeeount for t,hetlr di.ffieulty utttt the mo?e complex tcsfts.

Just es tn the def ieit enolyses presented f,n the

preuioas sect ion, a.A. and, P'.1,!. oppu*" more stmtlar to one

AeoJerd5 1- 1r"' of J

nn at" [a'3-rrt"rl

,r4a*chC{-.rrord

ingtr,a c-t i s11

fb

o

5

I

a./+:rs

tl.0rn

F,sJo

e.)

,/{

u)6tod

,{

5 \-5-

AAe-J,o^ p r" -

6:'.^d pos-t^ te>tsitt fervrng o{d[c-c*facl sq{io}'

V tt {t p,\^

-{ o lp" re d^t"dCowtbined

darLe'ned

I

'f"ryI[ Y ,'v'-Y?V{

'VV c),:l i,

_g:x-

wrpnrl6vr l.

?'o- "k:

9:L-

y a1vrvl

| )en- 0

\,

{

trDEF+tD1T5

-f a

5

I0

o9

.n{

,A{

,F (

gPtofl<T*?

oql yayovtl

P-\arn - I

,

i ---/- -

/

x

"/

\

A (

/

f

_1

7x

d, cltl

5-csoFF+

,15

Fst-trc

5

o

a5

ol

-rb{

Vq;err,r15ul-

pr grn - l"Y "t"'vt4l"to^l-- f,

\r1vtd?Jorn-l

1y,

So(tl

r\c?n

T,\ql-

JVd

/

#5,

as

ogl

so

oos5+-

'0o

IEs;-rb

.^/

f/

6f ,r o611 hsr-},)nr+5\^ l-

p,l orn-[y"1vrtlI torn'fl

r{r1wttl

f ,locn -I 5T.?'

I

f,.rrn:-ep )

. AAL YOJ

qvu,raY rzl-

-a)d VEr

WW

I

f;s;l--tacd P''3 t A\AA

tI qrj

JL#tT

LL

J(raorpnrySvtt

|'rorn - f-r

\

,{

/d

(

x----x

f"qFF-fto

I,EF-f-rn

50

?-OqS

ool\

,\

!4 rlvvl\ ran'V'

Y',tb'\'ly.rern -l

69,roff)6fl"?

\

139 _

a.rLather than to cnu af the ather subjeets. It fs tnt,er-

esting that A.A: did cs weLL o? better than P.M: on eoch

of the medtated transf er tosfts. NsrL€ of the three f asfts

tnuolue significant scannCng components, and are thereforinot suj:pressed by tfie seuEre sconning def iett whtch constrsf ns

a:ef textual read.tng rotes.In the more camplex med.i.ated. transfer tasltsr, M.!4:

e agitivoexhibtted. ojc"oss-ouer of correct and errar rates. Tttis

fact, eombined wtth ',' dfcgnosfle obseruetfons made tn the

preD ioas secf ior-r,, further suggestgthat she ntght haue con-

tlnued to improve with mare prccttce.

General DiscussioR

It is clear from these data that added pra.ctice on the

components sf a medio.ted transfer f asft cen prodlzce tmproued

performance an the trcinsfer taslt. And tn thfs cose, the

added p"s.cttee did not tnuolue proeedurcs designed to deeet-

erate errors. The 6nty eonsistent feedback uhteh subjeet,s

receiued was utth regard to thetr rates of perfo?manee, at

the end of eaeh one-miiute pracf ice; The fact th.at such a

procedure tmproued the performance of the practtced task,

cs aell cs the trans/er fosks, fs conststent wtth ftndingstn both the motor sktlls scquisdtiart field and tn uerbal

Learntng studies that p"a.ctf ce wtthout feedback, beyond the

achieoement of ccqusition eriteria, continues to improue per-

formance (e.9., Leonard & Conrad, 1963).

These ftndfngs, howeuer, are only apparent when the

med.iof ed trons/er paradtgm ts tro^slo-te-J from uerbal

1+o -

Learntng into e.ssocfatiu e""skit,t'dcqriisf t ieini . The"ueual

mea.surement-fnposed cet L lng' 9!'::IOO#'!eor.z&6t,,whicE does

not'take tnta"s.ccount lmprooements along the time dimensian,

preuents f hese ef fects from betng obserued. ReealL t,hat

ouerall, there we?e no sf gntf f.cant changes in aecuracy os

a result of proflcieney traintng. It uas possible toobserue the effects of proficteney tratntng only bA'aLlowing

sub jec f s to respopd freeLy, dxhtbtttng essoctatiue s.kf llswith non-triufel motor eomponents os weLl os ossoclattue

companents. It kr@s necessa.ry, in other arords, to remoue

procedure-imposed ceiZfngs on perform€rlee tn 6rder'f,e .

obserue lmprooements beyonQ. the usuol measurement-lmposed

ee tl ing.

In sueh en essoeiatlue skfIL paradtgm, tt also became

elecr that component sktll defteffs impose eetldngs on the

deuelopment of more complex ski I ls. The effeets of pro-

/ici ency tratnlng on readlng rate were obuf ously tlnttedby defieits tn sconnfng, speeeh rate, and Language skills.Htgh ddgrees af correLatton.befhreen s.kf lLs ahteh sftere these

components ctartfy the nature of the defteits, end Lead. to

diagnosttc s/cf Z L analyses. ,i.nd the medtated. transfer eff eets

tlzemselues lLLustrate another LeueL of comporlent-eompostte

skf Zl relqtions, ;.. . In that case the eorutribut f ons were

heauiL! wetghed toward the ossoctatiae compnentsl€s tndtcated

ba A.l. rs campa.rotiuely large mediated transfer effect in

eontrost to hfs constrained reading ref,es. It ciZse'eeemS '

Likety that p.X. ts s.nd, G.,?. tg Lq.ek of Language slti i Is may

- 141

have preu ented lmproued reading fron effeettng sfgnf/-icant improuements in the more complex mediatEd transferperf orma.rrCBSr

One mtght csk uhether ft uos necessary foc the pro-

fictency traintng proeedures to aLtow students to perform

at their oun pace. Perhaps added" practtee tn the forn of

mare frtaZs praeedures wouLd haue produced the same effects,Wtthout o cantroi corrdttton it f s fmpossibte fo respand

dtrectLy to this quest ton, Howeuer, a rtumber of cons td,er-

otdons suggest that the free-respondfng proeedures maA be

bet,ter in anA cos€r

First, read.ing ts, In rnost eases, a f reeLy emtttted.

form o/ responding. Tttzts, the proeedures alLowed, subTects

to read in an approprlate, functtonally appltcable mzftner.

Second, ccsuol obseruafions suggest that retarded sub;ects

perform self-paced sft.fIZs with less distractton and loss

of attention ta task than t,hey oerform tn trials proeedur€so

'fAqL' is no. necessily for them to fiLL anA ttbehauioral

uacuum!' during e. seLf-paced practdce, whereas le.rge segments

of tria|s procedures a?e deuoted to waf.ting. Third, it would

not be possible to measure fmprouement beyond acqufsdtfon

tf extra p"octiee occureed i.n the form of trf als proceCures.

These subTects met strtngent accuracA critterta in the

aequisit ton phase of training, and would Ltkely Lzaue con-

ttnued. to perform *.t rcO% earrect tn subseq4ent trials pro-

cedures. Wit?tout ttze seLf-paeed procedures i, would haue

been f mposs ible to obserue the Erors which oecur in that

-144-

more epplicable skdlL performanee. It also would not haue

been possibLe to make data-based. d.ecf sons sbout chenges

in practice procedures, nor fo gdue subTects feedback on

tmprouement tn perfo?manee. In'addittonr. there would haue

been fewer opportunlt fes to read a giuen word tn a trtalsprocedure whtch eonsfreins performanee to littLe rnore than

L0 r€sponses per mtnute. tuen the lesst profieient reoders

tn this group read more than twtee that mafty worde per

mtnute oi practice. FinaLLg, it appears that at ieost

fu;e of the eubJects {A,A., P,P|.) a?e now able to acquire

nea oocabulary a.rords ln a seLf-paced procedure. ?hey haue

been Learning to read near u.rords by reading along, tn G

textual format, uith a teacher who proufdes uerbeL mad.ets

when rleeessary. It se€ms unlikely tttat t,ltey uould haue

been able to learn readtng sftf IIs tn tlits ma?e norna|tzed

/ashion tf thea had not reeetued practice in seLf-paced

textual read'i.ng,

tddftfdneI Referenees

Atherton, N ,V ., & hroshburn, {qt.F. f{ediate ossoc iat f ons

studted by the method. of intttbtttng essoctations.' An

ineteaee-af the effect af "Aufgabe

of Psyehology, L972, 4, 10L-109.

Dtxon, Michael H.,Tsacht'ng, eonc eptuaL cLcsses with receptiue

LqbeL training.a'

Dixon, FIichaeL, & Soradl in, Joseph. Esta.bltshing st imu|us

equtuelenees among retarded adoleseents. Journal of

llult, e.F. The probZem af sf fraulue equlaalenee fn beizeuior

theory. Fs che I teaL 1939, #., 9-3O.U

,Sidmst, ilr*ray. Reedfng and euditorg-u{eueI equfueZenees.

Journal of Soeech end Hoarfng Peseereh, 1 971, !k, 5-13.

Sidman, ffurray, & Cresson, Osborne, Jr. Readtng and cross-

modal transfer of sttmulus equiualences in seuere retar-datton. Amettcan Jaurnal of f{ental Def tctengy 1973,

77(5), 515-523.

Stdman, l{urray, Cressort, Osborne, Jr, , 8c i,liLLson-lolorris,

f,fartha. Acquf sf tion of matching to sample uto. mediated

transfer. Jauraal af the txaertmenfel Anelys{s oJ

Behautort 1974, #-, 254-273.

. " Amer deon Journa't

J"rb le 7r, + t' d t

\-t

I I rlL-O r Dct" :-r36fl 50 t l<.cL-['(- - UU-T rqrrytO

II

I,l'. -l { l\, g( e tf Aivtc cL t:L

Cot r -l-ra I UDS

Il,c^ €- Clr 'fCct rrS* ) ri es

-l- .4q bz' 5 .3qzb o

D Nq /vgI

T\ I Cr Ir {OtLTrCC \ erJs

-I tt

-crt€ ( 'or f QL) :( ( o(S It rJ Ilo l'-otf er

+ .a t) q ( E) 9.q a ?-qt(

o <.ol <.c <.oI

?n,a k,Aestt€ l.onl^ ,tl ct4\ ( . z8oz '. -otl( 3) ( ;,.1Yi,? 1bz\ a fc.({rt

-cRi, 'i a ?Ha caoP

r 'Tf,

+

)

Tat>le q

I

i f, I I

\ D O,r' so!/t> l\cLT( i ld tttct

ltl't) t^f lrf 8f ( laf ni^q Lt I oLtsI

a1 l. I(_C) r\ t )(o (lD S

I

.{-l_ra r E rf, )r5 +: LiDS

+ lL+ o7 12

Al . <t1 .rr(I T

I

I

I

I I

l- ( o.c' I ( tte{crte ( I ofre rt 6 rs +: CiD S -orfec

-.zLl I I t-7 I.q l t.21 5 =

N< NS NqI

I

FADM IA

+-L

I(hA a- L) Lt

*o t

4 = 2.

f)

c-:r f

-l'

r)

iOC= =.1: ':i niCO:

l

l

lPnlat+ vrt

?o)l l' '8boo')vrd?:ruvr

t

SNlo'7o

h 5Lrb)?h,'l1+

ra)le),/Sd' I(I :. S,toJ>t\')1. +.ra.l ro-. )L9I

I

q,t'orJ.\oV r t4,lp alan( l II

Ionlatr r_

d:lf,a?, YvoT

tSN9'\SN(,

Satz:5'lh ohlE bUII

143;lo-) e/I o11C rSJ(+.)a) I<y

O\4 I)I,l II

\ArItmJod, PrQ.aS8 e$pJ-

IN

e)") z. I -

<ALI''

_ 2a rc}

I

i

i

T;b t"e- b F-,rst ?aral ig^I

l

I

u"tC - Dut I 1t hQ

F crnr '".4S <i P5 a-7/6 1 of .€-a

-J

+ . z oo-t .QLoc -Y7qR

D NS N9 NST

e\n *cr,ro I

l

I a Ier teo. rn lnA I f l,alsarrrr f( F, rarg + S hi os, (

--

.-? N L1 I _Lq (, (J. 'g(

D <^ot <. otI S

a1 ^ -q7 ;7{9 (-a zo P- ^? 7z* )

AI , I I I

fa I ea -TO.' le-d . u5t AO

, lr I I

DAO I tta.i c T fa- \S+d( 'n^-d T inun q.

I I I,AKS E fa' n\ A

I

tr:EM !: TI= CCC?

I I

-f+P

Jtl

^r +P

'rO s)-l 5 Clv

r-e s I