Teaching interactive signing in a dialogue situation to mentally retarded individuals.

Two adults with intellectual disability lived in a state facility. Neither one spoke or signed. Staff wanted them to hold short back-and-forth chats using signs.

The team used extra-strong prompts and small steps. They first taught each adult to answer a question with a sign. Next they taught the adult to ask a question back. They tracked progress across three different dialogue topics.

Both adults learned to answer and ask questions with signs. The skills stayed strong for weeks. When the adults tried the same chats with peers, the talking broke down. Peer practice had not been built into the program.

Bonvillian et al. (1981) showed that staff can keep signing alive for months if they keep prompting. The new study adds dialogue structure, but keeps the same need for staff support.

Skrtic et al. (1982) placed signing targets inside everyday routines like snack time. Their youth used signs with many adults. The 1987 study aimed for partner-to-partner talk, yet saw less generalization, showing that setting the goal is not enough.

McGee et al. (1983) used the same multiple-baseline design with autistic children. They saw spontaneous requests spread across adults and rooms. The current study shows that dialogue roles can be taught, but peers must be included early or the skill stays stuck with staff.

If you want true conversation, not just requests, build partner practice into every phase. Program turns with peers from day one. Probe in the hallway, not just at the table. Budget extra sessions for the peer piece; it rarely emerges on its own.