Berkowitz S
New England Center for Autism, Southboro, Massachusetts.
J Autism Dev Disord. 1990 Jun;20(2):255-62. doi: 10.1007/BF02284722.
Two methods of prompting were compared for their relative effectiveness in teaching a group of autistic students to discriminate line drawings used in picture communication books. All four students required fewer trials to meet the task criterion using a delayed-prompting technique. Further, students made significantly more errors in the fading-of-prompts design than in the delayed-prompting design. The high rate of errors in faded-prompt sessions resulted in some students displaying aberrant behaviors. The results are discussed in terms of effectiveness of the two teaching methodologies, as well as the consequences of error patterns. Suggestions are made for further research.
比较了两种提示方法在教导一组自闭症学生辨别图片交流书中使用的线条图方面的相对有效性。使用延迟提示技术时，所有四名学生达到任务标准所需的试验次数更少。此外，与延迟提示设计相比，学生在提示消退设计中犯的错误明显更多。提示消退环节中的高错误率导致一些学生表现出异常行为。从两种教学方法的有效性以及错误模式的后果方面对结果进行了讨论。并提出了进一步研究的建议。
