A comparative analysis of general case simulation instruction and naturalistic instruction.

Four adults with intellectual disability learned housekeeping and janitorial tasks. The team compared two ways to teach: real-life practice in the actual work room versus paper-and-tabletop simulations.

Each adult got both methods in a multiple-baseline design. Teachers measured how many steps each person got right on the real job.

Naturalistic instruction shot accuracy up to 90-a large share for every participant. Simulation practice barely moved the scores; most steps were still wrong.

When the adults switched from simulation to real practice, scores jumped right away. Generalization to new tools or rooms stayed low for both groups.

Hoch et al. (2007) also taught a domestic skill—table setting—to adults with developmental disabilities. They showed that if video prompting fails, adding one replay plus trainer help fixes the last step. Both studies say the same thing: add real performance, not more drills.

Kiyak et al. (2022) used a multiple-baseline design like this paper, but trained teachers instead of students. Prompting plus self-monitoring worked for middle-school kids; naturalistic prompting worked for adults. Same design, same strong gains—just different learners.

O’Neill et al. (2022) looks opposite at first glance. They found progressive prompt delay beats fixed delays in expressive labeling. The 1992 study says ‘skip the fake setup,’ while O’Neill still uses table-top trials. The gap is the skill type: expressive labels can start in drills, but vocational tasks need the real environment.

If you teach job or home skills, run the lesson in the actual setting. Simulations, pictures, or role-play saved no time here—real brooms, real counters, real mess. Start with prompting in the natural place and save yourself weeks of extra training.