A comparison of static and dynamic presentation procedures on discrimination learning of individuals with severe or moderate mental retardation.
Once you are fading prompts, moving the cards during the trial does not help discrimination learning.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team asked: Does moving the pictures during a trial help adults with intellectual disability learn faster?
They compared two ways to teach picture matching. One way held the cards still. The other way slid the cards across the table. Both ways used fading to shrink the differences between pictures.
Each adult got both styles in an alternating-treatments design. The teachers counted how many trials it took to master the match.
What they found
Moving the cards added zero benefit. Acquisition, generalization, and maintenance scores landed in the same spot for both styles.
In plain words: once fading is in place, fancy motion does not speed things up.
How this fits with other research
Leon et al. (2021) extends this question to kids with autism. They found a big plus: play the auditory sample first, then show the pictures. Their positive result does not clash with Evans et al. (1994); they tested order, not motion.
Johnson et al. (1994) used the same population and year. They showed that asking learners to repeat the sample word aloud can rescue a failing delayed-cue program. That verbal add-on is a different lever than sliding cards.
Martínez et al. (2012) got faster learning by giving unique prizes for each correct choice. Again, the gain came from reinforcement, not from how the cards moved.
Why it matters
If your program already uses prompt fading, do not burn time sliding stimuli around. Keep your hands free for quicker trial turns and stronger reinforcement. Save the motion for cases where fading alone fails, or where the learner needs an extra cue that motion provides.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Keep your stimuli still and spend the saved seconds on faster trial delivery and richer praise.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
A dynamic presentation of stimulus materials may be more effective than a static presentation. To test this hypothesis, we taught 16 individuals with moderate or severe mental retardation to identify two comparative discriminations (more, longer) by each of two different procedures. In the static, or traditional, presentation procedure the stimuli were positioned before a trial began and not manipulated by the experimenter during the trial. In the dynamic presentation procedure the individual watched the experimenter manipulate the relevant dimension of the stimuli during a series of trials. Both procedures were used in combination with a procedure that relied on fading and on many examples of both the correct and incorrect stimuli across trials. Data were presented in four phases: training, generalization, 1-week maintenance, and 1-month maintenance. No differences in percentage of unprompted correct responses were found between the two procedures in training, generalization, or any of the four maintenance tests. Discussion included possible reasons these results differed from those of prior studies as well as the need for further investigation of the dynamic presentation procedure used with more traditional teaching procedures that rely on extrastimulus prompts.
Research in developmental disabilities, 1994 · doi:10.1016/0891-4222(94)90010-8