Analyzing alertness among people with profound multiple disabilities: implications for provision of training.
Start teaching—alertness often follows, no matter how drowsy the client looks at first.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team watched adults with profound multiple disabilities before and during skill-training sessions.
They scored how alert each person looked at the start and then tracked alertness as teaching continued.
The goal was to see if sleepy-looking clients stayed sleepy or woke up once training began.
What they found
Alertness went up for everyone once training started, no matter how drowsy they seemed at first.
Starting alertness level did not predict who would learn best; training itself created the boost.
In short, a droopy head at the start is not a red light to cancel the lesson.
How this fits with other research
Szempruch et al. (1993) showed that busy community settings already lift alertness more than quiet center rooms.
Allan et al. (1994) add that the act of teaching, not the room, is the real wake-up call.
Kennedy et al. (1993) also saw alertness climb when students used microswitches to pick activities.
Together the three papers say: give clients either lively places, control, or direct teaching—each one sparks alertness.
Why it matters
You can stop waiting for the “perfect” awake moment. Start the session, keep prompts coming, and let the interaction itself rouse the learner. This saves time, builds momentum, and respects the client’s right to learn even when they look half-asleep.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open the session as soon as you greet the client; use fast-paced trials and preferred items to pull them in.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We investigated whether variations in alertness among individuals with profound multiple disabilities affected subsequent responsiveness to training programs. Three experiments were conducted involving 5 people. In Experiment 1, results indicated that alertness of 3 individuals increased with provision of skill-acquisition training programs. Results also indicated no predictive relationship between alertness levels prior to training and subsequent responsiveness to training. Experiment 2 replicated results of Experiment 1 with 2 participants from Experiment 1 and an additional participant. Results of Experiment 2 also indicated that the increased alertness levels accompanying provision of training were not a function of the participants simply being in an inactive environment prior to training. Results of Experiment 3 indicated that alertness of an additional participant increased through provision of another training intervention, involving a systematic preference assessment. Responses during the preference assessment appeared to be unrelated to previously existing alertness levels. These findings suggest the need for caution when considering the withholding of scheduled training because an individual appears to be nonalert.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1994 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-519