Using microswitches to teach toy use

  • Mildred Rivera Crawford
  • John W. Schuster
Article

Abstract

The effects of using a five-second constant time delay procedure to teach young students with multiple disabilities to activate battery-operated toys through microswitches were studied. The constant time delay procedure using a full physical prompt as the controlling prompt was effective in transferring stimulus control for each student with at least one switch. A multiple probe design using intermittent probe sessions across behaviors and subjects demonstrated experimental control. Advantages and disadvantages of using microswitches are discussed. Future research issues are addressed.

Key Words

multiple disabilities toy use microswitches 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ault, M., Gast, D., and Wolery, M. (1988). Comparison of progressive and constant time-delay procedures in teaching community sign-word reading.Am. J. Ment. Retard. 93: 44–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Billingsley, F., White, O. R., and Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example.Behav. Assess. 2: 229–241.Google Scholar
  3. Burkhart, L. (1980).Homemade battery-powered toys and educational devices for severely handicapped children, 8315 Potomac Avenue, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  4. Collins, B. C., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., and Leatherby, J. G. (1991). Using constant time delay to teach students self-feeding to young students with severe/profound handicaps: Evidence of limited effectiveness.J. Devel. Phys. Dis. 3: 157–179.Google Scholar
  5. Hanline, M., Hanson, M., Veltman, M., and Spaeth D. (1985). Electromechanical teaching toys for infants and toddlers with disabilities.Teach. Except. Child. 18: 20–29.Google Scholar
  6. Hanson, M., and Hanline, M. (1985). An analysis of response-contingent learning experiences for young children with severe handicaps.J. Assoc. Pers. Sev. Hand. 10: 31–40.Google Scholar
  7. Hughes, M. W., Schuster, J. W., and Nelson, C. M. (1993). The acquisition of independent dressing skills by students with multiple disabilities.J. Devel. Phys. Dis. 5: 233–252.Google Scholar
  8. Kanor, S. (1987).Toys for Special Children, 8 Main Street, Hastings-On-Hudson, NY.Google Scholar
  9. Macurik, K. (1979). An operant device to reinforce correct head position.J. Behav. Ther. Exp. Psychiatry 10: 237–239.Google Scholar
  10. May, D. (1986). The use of an electromechanic switch to increase independent head control in a severely handicapped student.Teach. Except. Child. 19: 15–19.Google Scholar
  11. Newborg, J., Stock, J. R., Wnek, L., Guidubaldi, J.l, and Svinicki, J. (1984).Battelle Devel. Invent. Teaching Resource, Allen, TX.Google Scholar
  12. Parrett, H., Strother, P., and Hourcade, J. (1986). Microswitches and adaptive equipment for serverely impaired students.Teach. Except. Ctud. 19: 15–20.Google Scholar
  13. Realon, R., Favell, J., and Dayvault, K. (1988). Evaluating the use of adapted leisure materials on the engagement of persons who are profoundly multiply handicapped.Ed. Train. Ment. Retard. 23: 228–237.Google Scholar
  14. Schuster, J., Gast, D., Wolery, M., and Guiltinan, S. (1988). The effectiveness of a constant time-delay procedure to teach chained responses to adolescents with mental retardation.J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 21: 169–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Seligman, M. (1975).Helpless: On Depression, Development, and Death, Wiult Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  16. Smeets, P. M., and Striefel, S. (1976). Acquisition and cross-model generalization of receptive and expressive signing skills in a retarded deaf girl.J. Ment. Def. Res. 20: 251–260.Google Scholar
  17. Snell, M. E. (1982). Teaching bed-making to severely retarded adults through time delay.Anal. Intervent. Devel. Dis. 2: 139–155.Google Scholar
  18. Snell, M. E. (1983).Systematic Insturction of the Moderately and Severely Handicapped (second edition), Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  19. Tawney, J., and Gast, D. (1984).Single Subject Research in Special Education Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  20. Torner, R. (1986). A switch for education: Utilizing simplified microswitch technology.J. Sp. Ed. Technol. 7: 25–31.Google Scholar
  21. Wacker, D., Berg, K., Wigging, B., Muldoon, M., and Cavanaugh, J. (1985). Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students.J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 18: 173–178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M., and Gast, D. L. (1986).Comparison of Instructional Strategies: A Literature Review, Unpublished manuscript, University of Kentucky, Lexington.Google Scholar
  23. Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Cybriwsky, C., Doyle, P. M., Schuster, J. W., and Ault, M. J. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters.Res. Intervent. Develop. Dis. 13: 239–266.Google Scholar
  24. York, J., Nietupski, J., and Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1985). A decision-making process for using microswitches.J. Assoc. Pers. Sev. Hand., 10: 31–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mildred Rivera Crawford
    • 1
  • John W. Schuster
    • 2
  1. 1.Jefferson County Public SchoolsLouisville
  2. 2.Department of Special EducationUniversity of KentuckyLexington

Personalised recommendations