In vivo versus simulation training: an interactional analysis of range and type of training exemplars.
General-case simulation teaches laundry skills that transfer to new machines while cutting staff time and cost.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team taught laundry skills to adults with intellectual disabilities. They compared four ways to train: single-example in-vivo, single-example simulation, general-case in-vivo, and general-case simulation.
Each adult got one type of training. Staff tracked if the learner could do new laundry tasks they had never practiced.
What they found
General-case training won. It did not matter if it happened in a real laundry room or at a classroom table with toy washers. Both general-case groups used new machines and detergents without extra teaching.
Single-example groups froze when the soap brand or washer dial looked different. Simulation also saved money and cut staff hours in half.
How this fits with other research
Frank-Crawford et al. (2024) just scoped 82 discrete-trial papers and complained most never check generalization. This 1990 study is the exact fix they call for: it shows how to plan for transfer up front.
Timberlake et al. (1987) also shaved trials with data-driven prompting for daily-living skills. Together the two papers say "work smarter, not longer" when teaching adults with ID.
Spangler et al. (1984) proved intermittent VR-3 reinforcement keeps language responses alive at home. Pair their maintenance tip with the current general-case design and you get both transfer and staying power.
Why it matters
You can run full general-case lessons at the table with pictures, miniature items, or short videos. Learners still transfer to real washers and new brands, and you spend less budget on water, electricity, and staff time. Start writing your exemplar set this week: pick two detergents, two dial types, and two coin slots. Probe untaught combinations next session to prove it works.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Design a tabletop laundry kit with three brands of detergent and two dial cards; run five exemplars today and probe a novel set tomorrow.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We analyzed the role of the range of variation in training exemplars as a contextual variable influencing the effects of in vivo versus simulation training in producing generalized responding. Four mentally retarded adults received single case instruction, followed by general case instruction, on washing machine and dryer use; one task was taught using actual appliances (in vivo) and the other using simulation. In vivo and simulation training were counterbalanced across the two tasks for the 2 subject pairs, using a within-subjects Latin square design. With both paradigms, more errors were made after single case than after general case instruction during probe sessions with untrained washing machines and dryers. These results suggest that generalization errors were affected by the range of training exemplars and not by the use of simulated versus natural training stimuli. Although both general case simulation and general case in vivo training facilitated generalized performance of laundry skills, an analysis of training time and costs indicated that the former approach was more efficient. The study illustrates a methodology for studying complex interactions and guiding decisions on the optimal use of instructional alternatives.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1990 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-447