Neef N A, Lensbower J, Hockersmith I, DePalma V, Gray K
Devereux Institute of Clinical Training and Research, Devon, Pennsylvania 19333-0400.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1990 Winter;23(4):447-58. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-447.
We analyzed the role of the range of variation in training exemplars as a contextual variable influencing the effects of in vivo versus simulation training in producing generalized responding. Four mentally retarded adults received single case instruction, followed by general case instruction, on washing machine and dryer use; one task was taught using actual appliances (in vivo) and the other using simulation. In vivo and simulation training were counterbalanced across the two tasks for the 2 subject pairs, using a within-subjects Latin square design. With both paradigms, more errors were made after single case than after general case instruction during probe sessions with untrained washing machines and dryers. These results suggest that generalization errors were affected by the range of training exemplars and not by the use of simulated versus natural training stimuli. Although both general case simulation and general case in vivo training facilitated generalized performance of laundry skills, an analysis of training time and costs indicated that the former approach was more efficient. The study illustrates a methodology for studying complex interactions and guiding decisions on the optimal use of instructional alternatives.
我们分析了训练范例变化范围作为一个情境变量在影响实际操作训练与模拟训练产生泛化反应效果方面所起的作用。四名智力发育迟缓的成年人接受了关于使用洗衣机和烘干机的单例教学，随后是通例教学；一项任务使用实际电器（实际操作）进行教学，另一项任务使用模拟进行教学。对于两组受试者，采用被试内拉丁方设计，将实际操作训练和模拟训练在两项任务中进行平衡处理。在使用未经训练的洗衣机和烘干机进行探测测试时，两种范式下，单例教学后出现的错误都比通例教学后更多。这些结果表明，泛化错误受训练范例范围的影响，而非受模拟训练刺激与自然训练刺激的使用影响。虽然通例模拟训练和通例实际操作训练都促进了洗衣技能的泛化表现，但对训练时间和成本的分析表明，前一种方法更有效。该研究阐述了一种研究复杂相互作用并指导关于教学方法最佳使用决策的方法。
