Rapid development of multiple-schedule performances with retarded children.

W et al. (1961) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. They listed the headaches you hit when you try to teach kids with intellectual disability to follow two or more reinforcement rules that swap back and forth. No new data were shown.

The team warned that complex, rapidly alternating schedules can fall apart with this population. They urged future researchers to watch for weak stimulus control and to shape each component slowly.

Shamlian et al. (2016) and Spriggs et al. (2016) later proved the idea can work. Both taught children with ASD to mand only when the current schedule allowed it, using colored cards as cues. Their positive outcomes extend the 1961 warning into real clinical practice.

FIELPREMACK et al. (1963) showed even chimps can master a four-part multiple schedule, hinting that gradual shaping—not species—is the key variable. Long (1963) added a child-friendly tip: start chained schedules with DRL or DRO links first; FI links need extra props like a timer.

Attwood et al. (1988) sounds like bad news: longer fixed-interval schedules for adaptive behavior bumped up stereotypy in adults with ID. Yet Clarke et al. (1998) fixed the same problem by switching from variable-interval to fixed-ratio token delivery. The two studies do not truly clash; they simply show that schedule type and task context matter more than interval length alone.

If you run multiple-schedule thinning or FCT, add clear SDs such as colored cards, start with easy DRL or FR components, and check data component-by-component. These steps turn a 1961 cautionary tale into a 2016 success story you can copy on Monday.