The training and generalization of a conversational speech form in nonverbal retardates.
Mix untrained pictures and people right into discrete-trial conversation drills to get generalization for free.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Two children with intellectual disability who had no speech learned short back-and-forth sentences.
The trainer used discrete trials: show a picture, give a prompt, praise a correct answer.
After the children could say the sentence perfectly, the team tested if they would use it with new pictures and new adults.
What they found
The kids learned the exact sentences quickly.
At first they only used the sentences with the training picture and the training adult.
When the team started mixing new pictures and new adults into every session, the children began to use the sentences with the new items too.
How this fits with other research
Lerman et al. (1995) later showed the same thing in a high-school cafeteria. Four students with ID used better conversation with new peers and places after peers gave them many practice examples.
Delprato (2001) looked at ten studies and found that natural, child-led teaching gave stronger language gains than the tight discrete-trial format used here.
Baer et al. (1984) added sign language to the spoken training and got faster sentence learning, showing that speech-only drills are not the only path.
These papers do not clash; they simply show that once basic sentences are in place, you can loosen the structure or add signs to keep progress going.
Why it matters
If you run discrete trials for conversation, drop new pictures and new people into the same table from day one. This tiny tweak gives you generalization without extra sessions. Then, once the form is stable, move to natural play or add signs to grow the skill faster and keep parents smiling.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add two new pictures and one new adult to today’s conversation drill and keep score on generalization.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Differential reinforcement and imitation were used with two retarded children to train three sequential verbal responses associated with the display of a picture and questions related to that picture. Each response consisted of a three-word chain in sentence form; combined with verbal responses from the experimenter, this trained sequence formed a short conversational unit. Three experimenters measured the use of each sentence in settings different than the one in which training took place, and with pictures different than those used during training. Two types of generalization sessions were used: (1) General sessions, during which 10 pictures never used during training were displayed to the subject with reinforcement delivered on a noncontingent basis, and (2) Intermixed sessions, during which 10 pictures never used during training were displayed to the subject, but a picture having received training was also displayed, and correct responses to this picture were reinforced on a variable schedule. Both subjects learned the sentences being trained. However, little generalization was evident from this training when all experimenters conducted General probe sessions. Generalization occurred with one experimenter only after that experimenter conducted Intermixed probe sessions. Generalization to a third experimenter was then observed (i.e., after the first two experimenters had conducted Intermixed probe sessions) without the use of Intermixed probe sessions by this third experimenter.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1974 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1974.7-137