This article was downloaded by: [University of Ulster Library]On: 12 November 2014, At: 03:19Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Disability,Development and EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

Self-Operated Verbal Instructionsfor People with Intellectualand Visual Disabilities: Usinginstruction clusters after taskacquisitionGiulio E. Lancioni , Mark F. O'Reilly & Doretta OlivaPublished online: 21 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Giulio E. Lancioni , Mark F. O'Reilly & Doretta Oliva (2001) Self-Operated Verbal Instructions for People with Intellectual and Visual Disabilities: Usinginstruction clusters after task acquisition, International Journal of Disability, Developmentand Education, 48:3, 303-312, DOI: 10.1080/10349120120073430

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10349120120073430

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly

forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2001

Self-Operated Verbal Instructions forPeople with Intellectual and VisualDisabilities: using instruction clustersafter task acquisitionGIULIO E. LANCIONI*Department of Psychology, University of Leiden, Wassenaarseweg 52,2333 AK Leiden, The Netherlands

MARK F. O’REILLYUniversity College Dublin, Ireland

DORETTA OLIVALega F. D’Oro Research Centre, Osimo, Italy

ABSTRACT Three adults with intellectual and visual disabilities were taught vocationallyrelevant tasks through the use of a self-operated verbal instruction system. During training,the system presented one verbal instruction per task step, individually. After training, thesystem presented instructions arranged in clusters/groups of two. Data showed that duringtraining all participants achieved percentages of correct task performance exceeding 90. Thesubsequent use of instruction clusters was effective in maintaining high levels of correctperformance for each adult, whereas a deterioration of performance occurred when instruc-tions were not available. Implications of the � ndings are discussed.

Introduction

One of the main goals of rehabilitation programs for people with intellectual andmultiple disabilities is to help them acquire and maintain constructive task engage-ment (Alberto, Sharpton, Briggs, & Stright, 1986; Anderson, Sherman, Sheldon, &McAdam, 1997; Briggs et al., 1990; Lancioni, Klaase, & Goossens, 1995; Steed &Lutzker, 1997, 1999). Task engagement is considered important for a variety ofreasons including: promoting adaptive responses and reducing withdrawal or be-havioural problems, enriching sensory/vestibular input, improving general image andsocial status, and opening new occupational or job opportunities within domestic

* Lancioni@FWS.LeidenUniv.NL

ISSN 1034-912X (print)/ISSN 1465-346X (online)/01/030303-10 Ó 2001 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/10349120120073430

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

304 G. E. Lancioni et al.

environments or normal work contexts (Beyer, Kilsby, & Willson, 1995; Brown &Chamove, 1993; Morgan, Ames, Loosli, Feng, & Taylor, 1995; Trask-Tyler,Grossi, & Heward, 1994).

Three strategies used for establishing satisfactory and independent task engage-ment with people with intellectual and multiple disabilities are the use of cards withdrawings (pictorial instructions), the use of computer-aided systems with pictorialinstructions and prompts, and the use of verbal instruction systems (conventional oradapted cassette players with recorded verbal instructions) (Lancioni et al., 1999;Lancioni, Van den Hof, Boelens, Rocha, & Seedhouse, 1998; Singh, Oswald, Ellis,& Singh, 1995; Steed & Lutzker, 1997, 1999; Taber, Alberto, & Fredrick, 1998;Wacker, Berg, Berrie, & Swatta, 1985). Cards with pictorial instructions are themost common and most economical/practical strategy; systems with verbal instruc-tions might be the best alternative to cards and computer-aided systems for peoplewith intellectual and visual disabilities who have suf� cient receptive language skills(Lancioni, O’Reilly, Oliva, & Pellegrino, 1997; Steed & Lutzker, 1999; Taber et al.,1998).

Following the work of Alberto et al. (1986) and Briggs et al. (1990), recent studieshave underlined the effectiveness of self-operated verbal instruction systems forteaching people with moderate intellectual disability, or combinations of intellectualand sensory disabilities, task performance or transitions across sequences of tasks(Lancioni et al., 1995, 1997; Steed & Lutzker, 1999; Taber et al., 1998). In allstudies, instructions for the single task steps or the single tasks of the sequence werepresented individually. Subsequent checks to verify whether the people couldperform without the instructions provided mixed results. While Alberto et al. (1986)and Steed and Lutzker (1999) showed maintenance of successful performance afterthe withdrawal of instructions, Lancioni et al. (1995, 1997) and Taber et al. (1998)reported a deterioration of performance. These � ndings suggest that people withintellectual or multiple disabilities may not necessarily become totally independentof instructions.

A compromise goal, that one might envisage as an alternative to total indepen-dence, is using instructions in small clusters/groups (e.g., whenever the personoperates the system, two instructions for two task steps are presented in succession;cf. Lancioni et al., 1999). Adopting instruction clusters leads to a reduction in thenumber of instruction occasions. This in turn would help increase the person’sautonomy and self-control (extending occupation time free of instructions), and mayenhance general behaviour and social image (Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Vander-hart, & Fishback, 1996; Rapley & Beyer, 1996; Wehmeyer, 1994).

This study was designed to assess whether instruction clusters would be suf� cientto maintain satisfactory task performance with three people with intellectual disabil-ity and visual or multiple impairments. The people were initially taught vocationallyrelevant tasks with a self-operated verbal instruction system presenting instructionsfor the single task steps, individually. Subsequently, participants were to perform thetasks with the system presenting instructions in clusters. A control condition withoutsystem and instructions was also used.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Self-Operated Verbal Instructions 305

Method

Participants

Two men aged 21 and 22 years (Participants 1 and 2) and a woman aged 19 years(Participant 3) were involved in the study. All of them lived at home with theirparents and daily attended an education and activity centre where teaching focusedon self-help skills, occupational engagement, and socialisation. Their verbal IQs(Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale; Wechsler, 1955) were reported to be about 50,65, and 50, respectively. Their age equivalents on the Vineland Adaptive BehaviorScales (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984) were about 5, 4, and 3.5 years, respect-ively, on daily living skills; and 4.5, 6, and 4.5 years on communication. Participant1 was blind in the right eye and had severely reduced sight in the left eye (estimatedvisual acuity of about 0.1; see Geruschat, 1992). Participant 2 was totally blind.Participant 3 had severe visual impairment (with visual acuity of about 0.1) andspasticity, and used a wheelchair. All participants were reported to have dif� cultiesin retaining sequences of responses for task performance.

Setting and Instruction System

The study was carried out in the centre that the participants attended. For Partici-pants 1 and 2, a kitchen and an activity room were used. Participant 3 used amultipurpose room where she sat at a table equipped with a round rotating top. Therotating top was familiar to her and allowed her to move objects that were distantcloser to her. The instruction system consisted of a compact cassette recorder thathad been supplemented with a solid state audio record/replay circuit and externalcontrol electronics. The system, which was equipped with audio cassettes containingprerecorded sequences of task instructions, had an operation key on its side and wasworn at the waist by the participants. Pushing the key caused the occurrence of aninstruction or instruction cluster (the � rst/next of the sequence). The system wouldautomatically stop after the instruction or instruction cluster (i.e., the participantswere not required to make any response to stop it; cf. Taber et al., 1998).

Tasks, Measures, and Reliability

Ten vocationally relevant tasks were available; � ve concerned food preparation (i.e.,stuffed cake, yoghurt pudding, dessert cake, appetizer, and cheese salad) and � veconcerned practical jobs (i.e., putting seeds and small plants in pots, or assemblinga lamp, a wall decoration, a table decoration, and a special container). Participant1 was taught all 10 tasks; Participants 2 and 3 were taught eight tasks (fourconcerning food preparation and four concerning practical jobs). The number ofsteps per task ranged between 32 and 46 (M 5 37). Some variations in the numberor types of steps were made for Participant 3 given her physical disability. The tasksteps had been de� ned through a series of task analyses. The instructions for thesteps were simple sentences of 3 to 6 words. Table I lists the step-by-step instruc-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

306 G. E. Lancioni et al.

TABLE I. Step instructions for “PuttingSeeds and Small Plants in Pots”

1. Take the bucket with earth2. Take the bottle with water3. Empty the bottle in the bucket4. Put away the bottle5. Take a pot6. Put earth in the pot7. Take the container with seeds8. Put seeds in the pot9. Put more earth in the pot

10. Put the pot in the crate11. Take another pot12. Put earth in the pot13. Take the container with seeds14. Put seeds in the pot15. Put away the container16. Put more earth in the pot17. Put the pot in the crate18. Call your supervisor19. Ask to take the crate20. Take a yellow box21. Take a pot from the box22. Put earth in the pot23. Put a plant in the pot24. Put the pot in the crate25. Take another pot from the box26. Put earth in the pot27. Put a plant in the pot28. Put the pot in the crate29. Take another pot from the box30. Put earth in the pot31. Put a plant in the pot32. Put the pot in the crate33. Put away the yellow box34. Take a sponge35. Clean the table with the sponge36. Put away the bucket with earth37. Put away the sponge

tions for one of the tasks. The instructions were interspersed with encouragement orpraise messages (see Briggs et al., 1990; Steed & Lutzker, 1999).

Recording concerned the number of task steps that were carried out correctlywithout intervention by the researcher. Interrater agreement was checked in 18% ofall sessions, across all participants and conditions. The percentages of agreement,computed by dividing agreements by agreements plus disagreements and multiply-ing by 100%, ranged from 79 to 100 with means exceeding 95.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Self-Operated Verbal Instructions 307

Experimental Conditions

After an initial baseline, the participants were trained on the tasks selected withinstructions presented for each task step, individually. Training was divided intocriterion training and consolidation training. Subsequently, instruction clusters wereused for maintaining the performance of the tasks previously trained. Instructionclusters were initially used for one half of the tasks (e.g., the food preparation tasks)while a noninstruction (control) condition was used for the other tasks, according toan alternating treatments design (Barlow & Hersen, 1984). Then, the tasks previ-ously exposed to the instruction clusters were exposed to the noninstruction con-dition, and vice versa, according to a cross-over procedure (Bourke, Daly, &McGilvray, 1985). Only one task was presented per session. There were two to � vesessions per day (four or � ve days a week).

Baseline. At the start of a session, the participants were asked to perform a task andwere shown the task materials. Such materials were available on the rotating tabletop and the chairs next to it (for Participant 3) or on tables and other regular placessuch as shelves and cupboards (for Participants 1 and 2). No system or instructionswere used. Each task was presented two times nonconsecutively. A task (session)was terminated when the participants failed to perform any step for 3 min. In thatcase, all the steps omitted were scored incorrect. After the sessions, the participantsreceived praise for their efforts and a token. Preset numbers of tokens led to smallback-up reinforcers.

Criterion training. This training period was introduced by six practice sessions usingthe instruction system with one or two tasks. During these sessions, the researcherprovided verbal and physical prompts, as needed, to acquaint the participants withthe use of the system and the response requirements. During the following sessions,the participants were to use the instruction system on their own. For each verbalinstruction emitted by the system, the participants were to carry out a task step.Then they pressed the system key to obtain the next task instruction. Researcherintervention occurred if the participants did not perform a step or performed a stepnot matching the instruction. At the end of the sessions, praise and a token wereprovided as in baseline. Training continued on the same task until three consecutivesessions had occurred with at least 90% of the steps performed correctly.

Consolidation training. This training period served to consolidate the participants’task performance. Participants received between 8 and 12 training sessions per task(Participant 3 had more sessions than the other participants, given her physicaldisability). General conditions were comparable with those available in the criteriontraining period.

Instruction clusters and noninstruction condition. In the instruction clusters condition,over 80% of the task instructions (the percentages varied slightly across tasks) werearranged in clusters of two. By pressing the system key, the participant would receive

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

308 G. E. Lancioni et al.

two instructions for two consecutive task steps, usually two actions on the sameobject or the same/corresponding action on more objects (e.g., “take a pot; put earthin the pot”) (cf. Abbeduto & Short, 1994). For the task of Table I, for example, theinstruction clusters concerned steps 2 and 3; 5 and 6; 7 and 8; 9 and 10; 11 and 12;13 and 14; 16 and 17; 18 and 19; 21 and 22; 23 and 24; 25 and 26; 27 and 28; 29and 30; 31 and 32; 34 and 35; and 36 and 37. In the noninstruction condition, theparticipants were to perform the tasks without system and instructions. In both(instruction clusters and noninstruction) conditions, the researcher would interveneto correct errors and ensure task completion. Praise, tokens, and back-up reinforcerscontinued to be used as before.

Initially, there were two or four practice sessions with both conditions. Then, theinstruction clusters were used with one group of tasks (e.g., the food preparationtasks), and the noninstruction condition with the other tasks (the practical jobs).There were � ve nonconsecutive sessions on each of the tasks (see Lancioni et al.,1999). At the end of this period, instruction clusters were used with the taskspreviously exposed to the noninstruction condition, and vice versa. The entire phaseincluded 50 sessions with instruction clusters and 50 sessions with the noninstruc-tion condition (Participant 1) or 40 sessions with each of the two conditions(Participants 2 and 3).

Results

The mean percentages of task steps performed correctly by the three participantsduring baseline, criterion training, consolidation training, and the use of the instruc-tion clusters and noninstruction condition are presented in Figure 1. Duringbaseline, which included 16 to 20 sessions (see numerals above the data bars inFigure 1), the mean percentages did not exceed 6. The criterion training phase,which included between 63 and 77 sessions, showed mean percentages of correctsteps of 80 to 85. The consolidation training phase, which included 70 to 93sessions, led to mean percentages of correct steps of 94 to 98. The use of instructionclusters resulted in mean percentages of correct steps of 93 to 98. The noninstruc-tion condition resulted in mean percentages of correct steps of 41 to 72. The highestpercentages with the instruction clusters and noninstruction condition were shownby Participant 1; the lowest percentages by Participant 3.

Discussion

The use of the system with individual instructions led to high levels of correct taskperformance during training. Although simple AB designs (rather than a multiplebaseline; see Barlow & Hersen, 1984) were used for the participants, one couldhardly have expected their near-zero baseline levels to show such a drastic increasethrough task exposure only (see also the outcome of the noninstruction condition).The data obtained with the instruction clusters indicate that they were effective inmaintaining high levels of correct responding, whereas the noninstruction condition

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Self-Operated Verbal Instructions 309

FIG. 1. The three panels summarise the data of the three participants during baseline, criteriontraining, consolidation training, and the use of the instruction clusters and noninstruction condition.Each bar represents the mean percentage of task steps performed correctly over a block of sessions.

The number of sessions included in the block is indicated by the numeral above the bar.

led to a deterioration of responding (cf. Alberto et al., 1986; Steed & Lutzker,1999).

The effectiveness of clusters underlines the possibility of reducing instructionoccasions after task acquisition. People may become capable of following sentencesconveying information for two (or more) successive task steps and perform suchsteps appropriately, with bene� ts in terms of independence and, possibly, alsoself-con� dence and social image (cf. Bihm, Sigelman, & Westbrook, 1997; Etzel &LeBlanc, 1979; Merrill & Mar, 1987; Nietupski et al., 1996; Wehmeyer, 1994).These data on the clustering of verbal instructions fully support previous research� ndings concerning the clustering of pictorial instructions (see Lancioni et al.,1999). In that research, combinations of two pictorial instructions were found to behighly effective for maintaining task performance whereas a noninstruction con-dition led to a performance decline.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

310 G. E. Lancioni et al.

Clustering instructions automatically results in longer utterances (sentences).Long sentences might be very dif� cult to analyse and respond to at the beginning ofa program, when people have not yet identi� ed key words on which to focus andhave no familiarity with task steps and contextual cues (Etzel & LeBlanc, 1979;Soraci, Deckner, Baumeister, & Carlin, 1990; Taber et al., 1998). Long sentencesmay prove much less demanding, however, after extended training with shortersentences has made people familiar with key words as well as task steps andenvironmental conditions (as in the present study) (Brown & Xiang, 1998; Fletcher& Bray, 1995; Merrill & Mar, 1987; Nailos, Whitman, & Maxwell, 1994).

In conclusion, several points could be made. First, self-operated verbal instructionsystems may be highly useful self-management tools for people with intellectual andvisual disabilities who have suf� cient receptive language skills (Briggs et al., 1990;Lancioni et al., 1995, 1997; Trask-Tyler et al., 1994). Second, although nogeneralisation checks were carried out in this study, one may easily assume thatsmall, self-operated instruction systems could be used across settings and could helppeople generalise their task performance (Briggs et al., 1990; Steed & Lutzker, 1999;Taber et al., 1998). Third, the use of such systems may be adjusted over time (i.e.,with the rearrangement/clustering of the instructions) to allow people more exten-sive levels of independence without serious risks of failure (Lancioni et al., 1997,1998; Martin & Rusch, 1987). Fourth, new research should (a) extend the evalu-ation of the present clustering approach with people with intellectual and multipledisabilities, (b) determine the possible links between individual levels of functioningor familiarity with task steps and materials and ability to cope with various instruc-tion complexities, and (c) provide guidelines for instruction lengths and structures(Barlow & Hersen, 1984; Etzel & LeBlanc, 1979; Mechling & Gast, 1997; Nailoset al., 1994; Taber et al., 1998; Trask-Tyler et al., 1994).

References

ABBEDUTO, L. & SHORT, K. (1994). Relation between language comprehension and cognitivefunctioning in persons with mental retardation. Journal of Developmental and PhysicalDisabilities, 6, 347–369.

ALBERTO, P., SHARPTON, W., BRIGGS, A. & STRIGHT, M. (1986). Facilitating task acquisitionthrough the use of a self-operated auditory prompting system. Journal of the Association forPersons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 85–91.

ANDERSON, M.D., SHERMAN, J.A., SHELDON, J.B. & MCADAM, D. (1997). Picture activity sched-ules and engagement of adults with mental retardation in a group home. Research inDevelopmental Disabilities, 18, 231–250.

BARLOW, D.H. & HERSEN, M. (1984). Single-case experimental designs (2nd ed.). New York:Pergamon.

BEYER, S., KILSBY, M. & WILLSON, C. (1995). Interaction and engagement of workers in supportedemployment: A British comparison between workers with and without learning disabilities.Mental Handicap Research, 8, 137–155.

BIHM, E.M., SIGELMAN, C.K. & WESTBROOK, J.P. (1997). Social implications of behavioral inter-ventions for persons with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101,567–578.

BOURKE, G.J., DALY, L.E. & MCGILVRAY, J. (1985). Interpretation and uses of medical statistics (3rded.). London: Blackwell.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Self-Operated Verbal Instructions 311

BRIGGS, A., ALBERTO, P., SHARPTON, W., BERLIN, K., MCKINLEY, C. & RITTS, C. (1990).Generalized use of a self-operated audio prompt system. Education and Training in MentalRetardation, 25, 381–389.

BROWN, J.I. & CHAMOVE, A.S. (1993). Mental and physical activity bene� ts in adults with mentalhandicap. Mental Handicap Research, 6, 155–164.

BROWN, M.W. & XIANG, J.Z. (1998). Recognition memory: Neuronal substrates of the judgementof prior occurrence. Progress in Neurobiology, 55, 149–189.

ETZEL, B.C. & LEBLANC, J.M. (1979). The simplest treatment alternative: The law of parsimonyapplied to choosing appropriate instructional control and errorless-learning procedures forthe dif� cult-to-teach child. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9, 361–382.

FLETCHER, K.L. & BRAY, N.W. (1995). External and verbal strategies in children with and withoutmild mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 363–375.

GERUSCHAT, D.R. (1992). Using the acuity card procedure to assess visual acuity in children withsevere and multiple impairments. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 86, 25–27.

LANCIONI, G.E., KLAASE, M. & GOOSSENS, A. (1995). Pictorial vs. auditory prompt systems forpromoting independent task performance in adolescents with multiple disabilities.Behavioral Interventions, 10, 237–244.

LANCIONI, G.E., O’REILLY, M.F., OLIVA, D. & PELLEGRINO, A. (1997). Persons with multipledisabilities acquiring independent task performance through a self-operated verbalinstruction system. Irish Journal of Psychology, 18, 419–429.

LANCIONI, G.E., O’REILLY, M.F., VAN DEN HOF, E., FURNISS, F., SEEDHOUSE, P. & ROCHA, N.(1999). Task instructions for persons with severe intellectual disability: Reducing thenumber of instruction occasions after the acquisition phase. Behavioral Interventions, 14,199–211.

LANCIONI, G.E., VAN DEN HOF, E., BOELENS, H., ROCHA, N. & SEEDHOUSE, P. (1998). Acomputer-based system providing pictorial instructions and prompts to promote taskperformance in persons with severe developmental disabilities. Behavioral Interventions, 13,111–122.

MARTIN, J.E. & RUSCH, F.R. (1987). Use of the partial-sequential withdrawal design to assessmaintenance of mentally retarded adults’ acquired meal preparation skills. Research inDevelopmental Disabilities, 8, 389–399.

MECHLING, L.C. & GAST, D.L. (1997). Combination audio/visual self-prompting system forteaching chained tasks to students with intellectual disabilities. Education and Training inMental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32, 138–153.

MERRILL, E.C. & MAR, H.H. (1987). Differences between mentally retarded and nonretardedpersons’ ef� ciency of auditory sentence processing. American Journal of Mental De� ciency,91, 406–414.

MORGAN, R.L., AMES, H.N., LOOSLI, T.S., FENG, J. & TAYLOR, M.J. (1995). Training for sup-ported employment specialists and their supervisors: Identifying important training topics.Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 299–307.

NAILOS, M.A., WHITMAN, T.L. & MAXWELL, S.E. (1994). Verbal and visual instruction withmental retardation: The role of subject characteristics and task factors. Journal of BehavioralEducation, 4, 201–216.

NIETUPSKI, J., HAMRE-NIETUPSKI, S., VANDERHART, N.S. & FISHBACK, K. (1996). Employer per-ceptions of the bene� ts and concerns of supported employment. Education and Training inMental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, 310–323.

RAPLEY, M. & BEYER, S. (1996). Daily activity, community participation and quality of life in anordinary housing network. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 9, 31–39.

SINGH, N.N., OSWALD, D.P., ELLIS, C.R. & SINGH, S.D. (1995). Community-based instruction forindependent meal preparation by adults with profound mental retardation. Journal ofBehavioral Education, 5, 77–91.

SORACI, S.A., DECKNER, C.W., BAUMEISTER, A.A. & CARLIN, M.T. (1990). Attentional functioningand relational learning. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 95, 304–315.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14

312 G. E. Lancioni et al.

SPARROW, S.S., BALLA, D.A. & CICCHETTI, D.V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. CirclePines, MN: American Guidance Services.

STEED, S.E. & LUTZKER, J.R. (1997). Using picture prompts to teach an adult with developmentaldisabilities to independently complete vocational tasks. Journal of Developmental and PhysicalDisabilities, 9, 117–133.

STEED, S.E. & LUTZKER, J.R. (1999). Recorded audio prompts: A strategy to increase independentprevocational task completion in individuals with dual diagnosis. Behavior Modi� cation, 23,152–168.

TABER, T.A., ALBERTO, P.A. & FREDRICK, L.D. (1998). Use of self-operated auditory prompts byworkers with moderate mental retardation to transition independently through vocationaltasks. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 19, 327–345.

TRASK-TYLER, S.A., GROSSI, T.A., & HEWARD, W.L. (1994). Teaching young adults with develop-mental disabilities and visual impairments to use tape-recorded recipes: Acquisition, gener-alization, and maintenance of cooking skills. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 283–311.

WACKER, D.P., BERG, W.K., BERRIE, P. & SWATTA, P. (1985). Generalization and maintenance ofcomplex skills by severely handicapped adolescents following picture prompt training.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 329–336.

WECHSLER, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. San Antonio, TX: ThePsychological Corporation.

WEHMEYER, M.L. (1994). Perceptions of self-determination and psychological empowerment ofadolescents with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation andDevelopmental Disabilities, 29, 9–21.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f U

lste

r L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:19

12

Nov

embe

r 20

14