Use of the alternating treatments design as a strategy for empirically determining language training approaches with mentally retarded children.
Let a brief alternating-treatments test pick the fastest sentence-teaching modality for each child with ID.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team compared three ways to teach sentences to two children with intellectual disability. One child got oral-only drills. The other got total communication (speech plus sign). They also tried a mixed version.
An alternating-treatments design flipped the methods every day. The child’s own progress told the team which method won.
What they found
Each child had a clear winner. One learned sentences fastest with total communication. The other learned fastest with oral speech only.
The mixed version never came out on top. Quick ATD trials let the staff pick the best fit for each learner.
How this fits with other research
Kunze et al. (2019) later used the same ATD trick to pick Spanish over English on an SGD. The 1987 paper planted the idea that the learner’s own data should choose the modality.
Garcia et al. (1973) and DeVellis et al. (1979) had already shown DTT can build syntax and labels in kids with ID. Barrett et al. (1987) added the next step: don’t guess the modality—test it.
Kim et al. (2023) and Hogg et al. (1995) prove the ATD is still the go-to tool for fine-tuning any drill format, from sight words to sentences.
Why it matters
Stop assuming every child needs the same language route. Run a three-day ATD: oral, total, modified total. Graph the data and let the child’s learning rate pick the method. You save weeks of slow progress and avoid program-hopping later.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run two 10-trial mini-sessions: one oral-only, one total communication. Record correct sentences per minute and keep the winner.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The present study was conducted as a practical demonstration of the potential utility of the alternating treatments design (ATD) in determining the most efficacious language training approach with mentally retarded children. Two subjects were chosen who used single words to communicate but who did not combine words to form sentences. Two sentence triads consisting of four words each and rated as equivalent in difficulty were trained. Each triad had one sentence trained using oral speech methods, a second trained using total communication methods, and a third sentence trained using a "modified" total communication approach. Each training procedure involved chaining sentence parts, reinforcement, and prompting. Oral methods involved presenting vocal stimuli and requiring vocal responses. Total communication methods involved presenting vocal and signed stimuli and requiring vocal and signed responses. The "modified" total communication approach also involved presenting vocal and signed stimuli, but required only vocal responses. For the initial sentence triad with each child, an alternating treatments design was used to determine the relative efficacy of the three language training methods. This approach was repeated with a second sentence triad for each child using a multiprobe technique within a multiple baseline design. Results were consistent within each subject but differed across subjects, with one child benefitting most from total communication methods and the other benefitting most from oral speech methods. Results were discussed in terms of the utility of the alternating treatments design as a potentially useful aid to traditional decision-making in the selection of language training strategies commonly employed with mentally retarded children.
Research in developmental disabilities, 1987 · doi:10.1016/0891-4222(87)90022-9