Oddity performance in preschool children at risk for mental retardation: transfer and maintenance.

Five preschoolers at risk for mental retardation learned an oddity task. The trainer showed three pictures: two the same and one different. The child had to point to the odd one out.

Instead of teaching the rule with words, the team changed the pictures. They added extra copies of the non-odd items. More non-odd pictures made the odd one stand out like a red sock in a white wash.

Every child learned to pick the odd picture. When the arrays changed, they still chose correctly. After the sessions stopped, the skill stuck around.

The simple trick—pile on the non-odd items—worked for all five kids.

Hansen et al. (1989) got the same task to work, but in a different way. They taught kids to whisper each sample name. Both studies show you can reach the oddity goal through separate doors.

Farmer-Dougan et al. (1999) also used prompts and fading, yet their gains vanished when prompts left. The 1987 array change kept its punch after teaching ended. The difference: one method needed adult help to stay strong, the other lived on alone.

Eisenhower et al. (2006) warn that many kids with ID focus on only part of a picture set. The 1987 trick—making the odd item visually louder—may head off that tunnel vision before it starts.

Next time you run a discrimination program, slide in extra non-odd items first. You may skip long prompt chains and still see clean transfer and maintenance. Quick setup, no extra talk, and the child sees the answer plain as day.