JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

TEACHING SOCIAL/VOCATIONAL SKILLS TO RETARDEDADULTS WITH A MODIFIED TABLE GAME:

AN ANALYSIS OF GENERALIZATIONR. M. Foxx, MARTIN J. MCMORROW, AND MARK MENNEMEIER

ANNA MENTAL HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER AND SOUTHEAST MISSOURI STATE UNIVERSITY

In this study, a social skills training program for institutionalized mildly or moderately retardedadults was extended to include skills relevant to vocational settings. Target behaviors involving averbal action or reaction within six skill areas were taught using a commercially available boardgame, Sorny, and a specially designed card deck. The training program featured response specificfeedback, self-monitoring, individualized reinforcers, and individualized performance criterion levels.Using a multiple baseline across two groups (n = 3 per group), the game contingencies increasedsocial/vocational skills in all targeted areas. Generalization was assessed in two settings: a simulatedworkshop in which pre and post measures were taken and in the institutional workshop where theresidents worked. The posttraining simulated workshop results revealed that the residents' newlylearned skills had generalized. However, repeated generalization measures of the residents' socialinteractions in the institutional workshop were equivocal as were measures of their productivity.DESCRIPTORS: Social skills, educational game, generalization, multiple baseline, vocational

behavior, social validation, workshop behavior

Pessimistic reports regarding the success of men-tally retarded persons in employment situations(Edgerton & Bercovici, 1976; Fulton, 1975; Stan-field, 1973) have led to attempts to identify whatconstitutes effective vocational training for thesepersons in institutional and community settings.Two primary training goals have emerged (Mi-thaug & Haring, 1977; Wehman, 1975). First,training should target the acquisition of some mar-ketable skill that can be consistently performed ina specific work setting. Second, training shouldestablish the appropriate adaptive behavior or so-cial skills necessary for acceptance of the individualby supervisors and co-workers. The vocational ha-bilitation literature has focused primarily on thefirst goal of demonstrating that mentally retardedadults can acquire specific task-related skills. Thedevelopment of what Rusch and Schutz (1981)have labeled "social survival skills" has been large-

Special thanks are due Randy Edmonds, the workshopsupervisor, and Lori Kubes for their help with this project.We also thank Reed Bechtel, Carolyn Bird, Ron Bittle, Deb-bie Braunling-McMorrow, Bev Edmonds, Carolyn Foxx,Gurit Lotan, and Leon Rendleman for their assistance.

Reprint requests should be sent to R. M. Foxx, AnnaMental Health and Developmental Center, 1000 N. MainSt., Anna, Illinois 62906.

ly ignored, despite the fact that the absence of suchskills may account for many of the failures of re-tarded persons in competitive employment situa-tions (Greenspan & Shoultz, 1981; Kelly, Wild-man, & Berler, 1980).

The study reported here is an extension of ourprevious research (Foxx, McMorrow, & Schloss,1983) that was designed to teach general socialskills (i.e., interactional skills that would be rele-vant in a variety of social settings) to mentallyretarded adults using a board game (Sorry, ParkerBrothers, Salem, Mass.) and 48 cards specially de-signed to elicit complex verbal responses. This studyis similar to that conducted by Foxx et al. (1983)in that the same modified table game, game ma-terials, rule changes, experimental design, data col-lection, and training procedures were used in thegame setting. It differs with respect to the targetbehaviors selected for training and the design andanalysis of the generalization tests.

Social skills research with the mentally retardedhas failed to demonstrate generalization convinc-ingly (Jackson, King, & Heller, 1981). Demon-strating generalization has been a formidable prob-lem because it is difficult to monitor settings inwhich the trained skills could occur naturally. In

343

19841 179, 343-352 NUMBER3 (FAu 1984)

R. M. FOXX et al.

an effort to overcome this problem, researchers havetypically constructed analogue or simulated situa-tions that approximate those in which the behaviormight occur naturally and then systematically ar-ranged the occurrence of setting events to primethe behavior. Yet, data from these generalizationtests must be interpreted cautiously because sim-ulations often indude events that artificially primeappropriate behavior (e.g., those events that con-trolled appropriate responding during training), andexciude other natural stimulus events that controlthe performance of inappropriate behavior. Fur-thermore, simulation or analogue data may notcorrespond to other measures of social behavior (cf.Matson, Esveldt-Dawson, & Kazdin, 1983).We attempted to address these issues by con-

ducting an in-depth analysis of generalization. Thiswas accomplished in two ways. First, a simulationwas conducted prior to and following training. Sec-ond, unobtrusive measures of the residents' socialinteraction behaviors and productivity in the insti-tution's workshop were taken throughout the study.

METHODResidents

The institution's workshop supervisors and thestaff of a coeducational ward for high-functioningmentally retarded adults with behavior problemswere asked to refer residents for social/vocationalskills training. Nine of the unit's residents wereindependently identified by both the workshop andward staff as being deficient in social skills. Sixresidents were chosen for training on the basis ofhaving the lowest preassessment simulation scores(described later) and being available to participatein the program. None had participated in the ear-lier study.

Individual preassessment scores were used tomatch residents into two groups. Group One con-sisted of three males whose mean age was 24;Group Two consisted of one male and two femaleswhose mean age was 34. The overall age rangewas 19 to 41. The institutional records indicatedthat the residents were diagnosed as either mildlyor moderately retarded, although all appeared to

function at a higher level than their IQ scores wouldsuggest. For example, although the respective meanIQs were 60.7 for Group One and 44.0 for GroupTwo, all residents could speak in complete sen-tences and had independent self-help skills.

Experimental DesignA multiple-baseline design across groups was

used to evaluate the effects of training in the gamesetting. Data were collected in two additional set-tings to assess generalization.

SettingsAll games were played in a large room located

in the basement of an institutional building. Theroom was equipped with a one-way vision glass sothat videotaping could be conducted from an ad-jacent room.Two other settings were used to assess general-

ization. Pre- and postsimulations were conductedin a separate basement area. This simulated work-shop induded a work area (containing tables, var-ious assembly tasks, and other props such as jan-itorial supplies and boxes) and a break area(containing a table and chairs, sofa, coffee pot, anda coke machine). Social behaviors were also re-corded at the institution's prevocational workshop(the residents' normal work setting) during theirregular work shift. The workshop contained sev-eral work tables, a variety of assembly tasks, aworkbench, and janitorial supplies. The residentswere among 8-17 individuals who attended theworkshop each morning. During this work shift,residents switched jobs after completing a task sothat they were exposed to a variety of tasks eachday. The task on which they were observed wasperformed at a table at one end of the workshop.The task was created for this study to ensure thatall residents had equal exposure to it. The work-shop supervisor scheduled the task into the workroutine.

Data CollectionTarget behaviors: The game. Foxx et al. (1983)

identified six social skill component areas: compli-ments, social interaction, politeness, criticism, so-

344

SOCIAL/VOCATIONAL SKILLS GAME

cial confrontation, and questions/answers. A re-view of the vocational literature, consultations withworkshop personnel, and videotapes made of theresidents in the workshop during the 2 weeks priorto training revealed that these areas were quiteapplicable to the types of interactions that occurin work settings. Eight game cards that depictedworkplace interactions or contained referrents tovocational behavior were developed for each of thesix component skills. Each component was furtherdifferentiated into four "actor" and "reactor" sit-uational competencies. Actor situations requiredthat a player initiate some interaction. For exam-ple, one of the criticism situations was "You areworking on a sorting task with another worker.He is not doing his job right. What should youdo?" Reactor situations required players to respondto an interaction initiated by someone else. Forexample, another criticism situation was "You areworking on an assembly task and your supervisorsays, 'You're not doing that right.' What shouldyou do?" The 48-card deck was prearranged sothat each player would be required to respond onceto each card after four games (i.e., 12 exposuresper game per player).

Correct responses for each component area weredetermined by using criteria that had been devel-oped earlier as a scoring guide (see Foxx et al.,1983). In addition, 10 mental health personnelwho either worked in or were familiar with voca-tional settings were asked to respond in writing toeach situation. Their responses were used to vali-date the criteria further and to develop the correctresponses used by the facilitator during the game.(A copy of the 48 social situations and samplecorrect responses can be obtained from R. M. Foxx.)

Probe data were also gathered on the numberof words players used to form each response. Thesemeasures were taken from verbatim transcripts oftwo randomly selected games from each condition.Responses from the simulations were also ana-lyzed. All words were counted; contractions werecounted as a single word. Number of words perresponse was considered to be a corollary measure,because it reflected the complexity of the players'responding, but was not targeted in the training.

Nontarget behaviors: The workshop. Threehundred feet of videotape (approximately 20 minof recording) were recorded as each group of threeplayers worked on a structured task. The tapeswere later evaluated by examining each 20-ft sec-tion of tape and scoring the appropriateness of theinteractions that occurred. For example, at the 80ft mark, the first verbal action by a player thatwas not a continuation of a statement from theprevious section was scored as being either appro-priate or inappropriate. Following this player's ver-bal action, the verbal reaction by another playerwas scored on the same basis. The appropriatenessof the verbalization was determined by fitting itinto one of the six social skill component areas(e.g., questions/answers, confrontation) and usingthe scoring criteria for that area. For example, oneplayer might say "It sure is a nice day," and twoplayers could respond "It sure is." In this case, theopening statement would be scored as appropriatewithin the social interaction component area. Bothreactor responses would also be scored as appro-priate within that component area. Only interac-tions between players were scored. Additional scor-ing rules induded: (a) scoring all reactions, e.g.,scoring two players individually when both re-sponded to another player's verbal action; (b) scor-ing a failure to respond as inappropriate behavior,e.g., when a player failed to respond to a questiondirected to him or her; and (c) no scoring if noverbalizations took place during the 20-ft tape sec-tion. Appropriate interactions were calculated as apercentage of the total number of interactions thatwere scored.

Each group's productivity was also assessed todetermine the relation between it and appropriateinteractions. Productivity was determined bycounting the number of pieces completed on athree-part task. The task consisted of the followingsteps: one resident selected three papers of the samedimensions from a box containing two sizes ofpaper and placed them in front of a second residentwho stapled the papers and handed them to a thirdresident who folded the papers, inserted them inan envelope, and placed the completed piece in abox. When one of the group did not attend the

345

R. M. FOXX et al.

workshop, productivity was determined by count-ing the number of pieces completed by the re-maining two group members.

ProceduresEach game was played by three residents and

the facilitator. The facilitator (Mark Mennemeier)was a male undergraduate in psychology who hadno previous interactive history with the players orexperience in training social skills. His undergrad-uate training was not behaviorally based.

Baseline. During baseline, players could movetheir game pieces on their turn regardless of wheth-er or not their responses were correct. They receivedno feedback although the facilitator always gave(modeled) a correct response on his turn.

Social/vocational skills game. During train-ing, movement of the playing pieces was contin-gent on responding correctly. The facilitator pro-vided specific positive and negative feedback.Players self-monitored their performance during thegame and graphed it afterwards. Individualizedperformance criteria were established based on eachplayer's mean baseline performance. The criteriabegan at 30% above the baseline mean, increasedto 60%, and finally to 90% correct. Following eachgame, players received a preselected reward when-ever their criterion was met.

Supervisor. After the facilitator conducted 12training games, the players' workshop supervisorserved as the trainer for a four-game training series.The facilitator was not present during this training.The supervisor condition was added to: (a) assesswhether players' performance levels would bemaintained and (b) enhance generalization of theplayers' appropriate social/interactional behaviorsto the workshop.

Generalization. Two primary tests of general-ization were conducted. The first involved work-shop simulations that were intended to replicatecommonly occurring social situations of a voca-tional workshop. The simulations were conducted1 week before the baseline and 1 week after thesupervisor condition ended. The initial simulationserved as a pretest and as the basis for group as-signment. It was later compared with the post-

training simulation as a test for generalization.Thirty of the 48 game situations were arranged ina logical sequence as they might occur in a work-shop and scripted into the simulations. (A copy ofthe simulation script can be obtained from R. M.Foxx.) The sequence and method of presentationof the situations were different than during thetraining. The simulations were acted out by threeemployee confederates who had no association withthe training program. Two acted as workshopclients and one as the workshop supervisor. Theconfederate clients' scripts induded both appro-priate and inappropriate social/vocational behav-ior. The residents were tested individually and re-ceived no feedback during the simulations.A second test of generalization involved daily

monitoring of the players' social interactional be-havior and productivity at the institution's work-shop. Each group of three players was videotapedwhile working on the structured task. To ensurethat players adapted to the presence of the record-er, camera operator, and task, tape recordings weremade each workday for 2 weeks prior to the startof baseline. Before each session, residents were in-structed on their part of the task and told that theycould talk all they wanted, but that the cameraoperator would rather they talked about work. Theywere then instructed to begin working and thevideotaping began. No feedback was given re-garding the purpose of the recording, the natureof the players' interactions, or their productivity.In fact, the camera operator avoided interactionswith the residents. The task assignments were ro-tated so that each resident received equal exposureto all three task parts. Furthermore, the players'seating arrangement was varied and the numberof times their supervisor interacted with them wascontrolled. Finally, the supervisor remained naiveregarding the targeted skills until he became thegame trainer.

Recording and reliability. Each response to agame card was scored correct/incorrect (cf. McFall,1982) by the facilitator and a trained observer.The observer was located in the videotaping room.When the supervisor conducted training, the fa-cilitator and trained observer sat apart in the video-

346

SOCIAL/VOCATIONAL SKILLS GAME

taping room and scored responses. Reliability wascalculated by dividing agreements by agreementsplus disagreements, times 100. In addition, fourmental health professionals who were unaware ofthe design and intent of the study were given ver-batim transcripts of the games to score players'responses from two randomly selected games fromeach condition (a total of six games per group).

During the baseline, training, and supervisortraining games, the mean interobserver reliabilitybetween the facilitator and observer for Group Onewas 93.2% (range, 77.8% to 100%) and 90.8%for Group Two (range, 755.0% to 100%). Com-parisons between the observer and each of the fourindependent raters across six randomly selectedgames yielded mean reliability scores of 81.5%,83.3%, 86.1%, and 84.3% for Group One, and83.7%, 77.8%, 82.9%, and 83.8% for GroupTwo. Although these scores were lower than thoseobtained between the facilitator and observer, itshould be noted that the mental health profession-als were provided no criteria by which to determinethe appropriateness of the responses. To validatethe scoring criteria further, the facilitator's re-sponses (which were partially developed from thescoring criteria) were also blindly scored, i.e., mixedwith residents' responses, by the four professionals.They scored only 16 of 576 facilitator responsesas inappropriate or a 97.2% level of agreement.

Reliability in the pre- and postsimulations wasdetermined by comparing the ratings of the trainedobserver and a separately trained rater, both ofwhom read verbatim transcripts of the tests. Meaninterrater agreement on the pretest simulation was87.7% across the six residents (range, 80.0% to96.7%) and 97.2% (range, 93.3% to 100%) onthe posttest simulation. Reliability on the numberof words players used to form each response duringthe games and simulations was determined by hav-ing two persons independently score verbatim tran-scripts. There was 100% agreement in every in-stance.

Workshop interactions were scored indepen-dently from the videotapes by the camera operatorand one of two trained observers. Reliability scoresfor each group were obtained from two randomly

selected sessions from each condition. Reliabilitywas determined by dividing the number of agree-ments in each interactional category by the totalnumber of scored interactions, times 100. The meanreliability across sessions was 91.3% for GroupOne (range, 86.4% to 96.5%) and 96.7% forGroup Two (range, 90.3% to 100%).

Reliability on the number of pieces completedper session was determined by having the piecesindependently counted by two persons. Thesecounts were made at least twice per condition andyielded 100% agreement in each comparison.

RESULTS

Training. Figure 1 shows that Group One re-sponded correctly to an average of 43.0% of thegame situations during baseline and 76.8% duringtraining. Group Two averaged 38.8% correct dur-ing baseline and 71.7% during training. At theend of the 12 training games both groups wereresponding near 90% correct.

Because each player received a predeterminedsequence of 12 different situations per game, fourgames were required before a player had been ex-posed to all four card sequences. Therefore, thefirst four training games represent each player'sfirst exposure to a particular card sequence undertraining conditions. An analysis of the individualdata revealed that players improved from baselineon 21 of 24 of their first training exposures to eachparticular card sequence and that their perfor-mance generally continued to improve as they werereexposed to the various sequences. The smallestindividual gain between baseline and training was28.6% (43.7% correct in baseline versus 72.3% intraining).

Table I shows that gains were achieved in allsix component areas. In general, these gains accel-erated throughout training. Interestingly, the leastamount of improvement occurred in the compli-ments component.

The game cards posed situations that wereequally distributed across skill areas and whetheran "action" or "reaction" was required within thoseareas. Both groups improved in both categories

347

R. M. FOXX et al.

l-LiU

0

0-

0

C)

BASELINE S/V SKILLS GAME SUPERVISOR100.

I I ~~~~~~~A

50 ,50 . %-+ |GROUP ONE

(N=3)* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

0 . . I I. . . . . . . . . . . .

100

LUJ

50

0

0

LU

0~ 5

CLa:

I I

I

I

i I- - eB---- IL -

I 0

4gE

.- - -I L- .-I I

I I

I I

II

II

I I

. .~~~GROU

* ~~~~~~(N

-u

mC)m

rm

m

A

JP TWO

1=3)IIII

IT'"rIII

:

* ~ ~~~~~~

. ~~ ~ ~o

N .

IsI

75 -0

60 C)*m

45 0

*030

rT15 Mm0 c0

l 5 10 15 20 l 2 3 4 5

SESSIONS WEEKSFigure 1. First and third panels-Training & Simulations: Mean percent correct responses during baseline, social/

vocational skills game, and simulations. Triangles indicate performance in the pre- and postsimulations. Second and fourthpanels-Workshop: Mean percent appropriate interaction data points are connected by solid lines and means for eachcondition are represented by solid horizontal lines. Mean number of pieces completed data points are connected by brokenlines and means for each condition are represented by horizontal broken lines. Open data points indicate that one of theworkers did not participate in the workshop session.

348

§ , , , T . I .

IIII

.-r

Tlf

SOCIAL/VOCATIONAL SKILLS GAME

Table 1Percentage of Component Skills Correct

Social Ques-Corn- Social con- tions/pli- inter- Polite- Citi- fron- an-

Exposure ments action ness cism tation swers

Group One (n = 3)Baseline 54 54 42 12 33 62Training:

Series 1 61 75 75 58 75 87Series 2 62 92 75 58 87 100Series 3 50 87 92 67 79 96

Supervisor 58 96 100 75 92 100

Group Two (n = 3)Baseline:

Series 1 37 54 54 21 21 29Series 2 46 58 58 17 25 46

Training:Series 1 63 79 75 38 71 75Series 2 54 88 71 42 83 88Series 3 54 83 83 58 92 96

Supervisor 58 83 92 58 75 88

and theysituations.

tended to score slightly higher in actor

Supervisor. Following the facilitator-conductedtraining (12 games), the workshop supervisorserved as the facilitator for an additional four-gameseries. Figure 1 shows that the residents not onlyused their newly learned skills in the presence oftheir supervisor, but continued to improve: GroupOne averaged 86.8% correct and Group Two75.6%6 correct.

Generalization. Figure 1 shows that GroupOne averaged 33.4% correct in the preassessment

simulation and 63.2% on the postassessment,

whereas Group Two averaged 30.5% and 62.2%correct, respectively. Individual gains from pretest

to posttest ranged from 13.3% to 52.9% in GroupOne and from 21.7% to 40.0% in Group Two.

The players' workshop behavior provided a sys-

tematic assessment of generalization because socialinteractional behaviors and productivity were mea-

sured daily throughout the program. Figures 1 and2 show that there was considerable variability inthe group (Figure 1) and individual (Figure 2)point-by-point measures. Accordingly, the group

and individual averages should be viewed very

cautiously. Group One's appropriate verbal inter-actions averaged 20.9% of the total interactionsthat occurred during baseline and 33.0% whentraining was instituted in the game setting; GroupTwo averaged 50.4% and 67.5%, respectively (seeFigure 1).

Figure 2 shows that although all residents' meanappropriate interactions increased from baseline totraining, there was considerable variability withinand between residents, and two residents (R1 andR3, Group One) showed a downward trend.Group productivity was also variable. Figure 1shows that Group One's production averaged 25.2pieces during baseline and 31.2 pieces during theirparticipation in the initial 12-game training pro-gram, and that Group Two's production averaged29.1 and 37.5 pieces, respectively.

Figure 1 shows that Group One's mean appro-priate interactions during the supervisor trainingcondition was below their mean during the facili-tator training condition, as was their productivity.Group Two continued to increase very slightly onboth measures. Figure 2 reveals that the appro-priate interactions of all Group One residents de-creased during the supervisor training condition,whereas those of Group Two showed little changefrom the previous condition.Number of words per response. Group One

used a mean of 4.3 words per response in the twobaseline games that were sampled; Group Two'smean was 4.8 words. In the initial 12-game train-ing sequence Group One's mean increased to 7.8words per response, and Group Two's increased to5.3 words per response. There was a further in-crease in the supervisor condition to 8.6 and 6.2words per response for Groups One and Two, re-spectively. Group One used a mean of 2.5 wordsper response in the preassessment simulation and4.1 words in the postassessment simulation andGroup Two used 2.7 and 4.7 words per response,respectively.

Follow-up. After all training was completed,recording in the workshop was conducted once perweek for one month. Again, there was considerablevariability in the group and individual point-by-point measures. Figure 1 shows that Group One's

349

R. M. FOXX et al.

B S L N

AA41 5 10 15

GROUP TWOF U

S I

201 4

-

100-

50o

S2

1 5 10 15 201 4

5 10 15

SESSIONS

100'

50-

S3

201 4

WEEKS

1 5 10 15 20 1 4

S2

1 5 10 15 20 1 4

a I-

i . l1 5 10 15

SE SSIONS

S3

20 4

WEEKS

Figure 2. Percentage of appropriate interactions in the workshop generalization setting for each resident across condi-tions. Mean for each condition is represented by a horizontal broken line.

performance was higher than during any other con-

dition. Group Two's average appropriate interac-tions showed virtually no change from the super-

visor training condition and the productiondropped. Figure 2 shows that four of the six res-

idents' appropriate interactions were highest dur-ing follow-up, although their responding remainedquite variable.

DISCUSSION

The results showed that the players' appropriatesocial responses to vocationally relevant situations

increased during training that was conducted firstby an undergraduate facilitator and later by theirworkshop supervisor. The players' gains occurredover a wide range of skill areas and in situationsthat required either an action or reaction. A non-

targeted behavior, number of words per response,

also increased during training and in a nontrainedsetting (i.e., the simulation), suggesting an increasein the complexity of the residents' responses.

Although these findings were encouraging, our

primary interest was to determine the extent to

which the trained skills generalized across settings.Accordingly, the residents were evaluated individ-

GROUP ONES/V GAME SUP

CL 100'0IenO 50'

Y100zOo

LLJ

H

1-°r 1000 50U

1 0

Q- 100'0

a.

H- 50'zwjUrwiaL

350

I

SOCIAL/VOCATIONAL SKILLS GAME 351

ually in the simulated workshop and as a groupin their work setting. The results from the simu-lations are dear: all residents improved from pre-test to posttest-the smallest gain, 13.3% and thelargest, 52.9%. These results further demonstratedthat the program can be used to train appropriateinteractional behaviors that generalize to an ana-logue setting (cf. Foxx et al., 1983). This appearsto be important because the simulations approxi-mated the residents' work environment by indud-ing confederates who were not associated with thetrainig.

The results from the generalization assessmentin the institutional workshop were equivocal, inseveral respects. First, there was a great deal ofwithin- and between-resident variability in appro-priate responding during the baseline. In addition,some of the residents' appropriate social interac-tions were increasing. Second, there was no consis-tent or immediate improvement in appropriate re-sponding after training had commenced becauseresponding remained highly variable. Third, someresidents showed a downward trend during theinitial 12-game phase. All these factors indicatedthat the effects of the training program did notgeneralize. Although some improvement in appro-priate social responding seemed evident during thefollow-up, there was no experimental demonstra-tion that this effect was functionally related to theresidents' participation in the training program.

Although the workshop results were disappoint-ing, they may provide some useful informationregarding the nature of group social behavior thatshould be considered in subsequent social skillstraining research. The individual data support thehypothesis that the social behavior of individualswas highly dependent on the behavior of the othergroup members. This seems especially evident forGroup One because an inspection of the trainingdata in Figure 2 for Residents 1 and 3 shows adecreasing pattern of appropriate interactions forboth until the last session. Further support for theinterdependence of this group's social behavior isprovided by the verbatim workshop transcripts thatrevealed that all three Group One members weremaking fun of each other in an escalating fashion,

although they later became more socially appro-priate in their interactions. This may also explain,in part, the lack of generalization in the workshop.Conducting the workshop generalization assess-ment in the institutional workshop provided stim-ulus events that previously controlled the perfor-mance of inappropriate social behavior, e.g., peersand other setting variables. Residents with a longhistory of inappropriate interactions probably cannot be expected to begin interacting appropriatelywhen they are placed together in a group assess-ment. It is more likely that appropriate interactionsdevelop gradually because each member's socialinteractions, whether positive or negative, are de-termined by the behavior of the other members.

These points may help explain the difficulty indemonstrating generalization of social skills in nat-ural environments (cf. Berler, Gross, & Drabman,1982), but not in simulations or role played ana-logues. Consider that a major difference betweenour natural environment assessment and simula-tion was that residents were assessed collectively inthe former and individually in the latter. Althoughwe attempted to make the simulation as naturalas possible, we may have left out a crucial factor-the presence of peers. Induding peers may makeit more difficult to design simulations and dem-onstrate generalization effects, but their indusionshould increase the predictive validity of the ana-logue data. In addition, researchers may need toconsider conducting long-term generalization as-sessments in natural environments. Creativity willbe needed to demonstrate that such gradual gen-eralization effects, if obtained, are functionally re-lated to the training program. On the other hand,this difficulty might be overcome by intensifyingthe training efforts, programming directly in thetarget environment or both (Koegel & Rincover,1977).

REFERENCES

Berler, E. S., Gross, A. M., & Drabman, A. S. (1982).Social skills training with children: Proceed with caution.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 41-53.

Edgerton, R. B., & Bercovici, S. M. (1976). The doak ofcompetence: Years later. American Journal of MentalDeficiency, 80, 485-497.

352 R. M. FOXX et al.

Foxx, R. M., McMorrow, M. J., & Schloss, C. (1983).Stacking the deck: Teaching social skills to retarded adultswith a modified table game. Journal of Applied Be-havior Analysis, 16, 157-170.

Fulton, R. W. (1975). Job retention of the mentally re-tarded. Mental Retardation, 13, 26-27.

Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally re-tarded adults lose their jobs: Social competence as afactor in work adjustment. Applied Research in MentalRetardation, 2, 23-38.

Jackson, H.J., King, N.J., & Heller, V. R. (1981). Socialskills assessment and training for mentally retarded per-sons: A review of research. Australian Journal of De-velopmental Disabilities, 7, 112-123.

Kelly, J. A., Wildman, B. G., & Berler, E. S. (1980).Small group behavioral training to improve the job in-terview skills repertoire of mildly retarded adolescents.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 461-47 1.

Koegel, R. L., & Rincover, A. (1977). Research on thedifference between generalization and maintenance in ex-tra-therapy responding. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 10, 1-12.

Matson,J. L., Esveldt-Dawson, K., & Kazdin, A. E. (1983).Validation of methods for assessing social skills in chil-

dren. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 12, 174-180.

McFall, R. M. (1982). A review and reformulation of theconcept of social skills. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 1-33.

Mithaug, D. E., & Haring, N. G. (1977). Communityvocational and workshop placement. In N. G. Haring& L. J. Brown (Eds.), Teaching the severely handi-capped, Vol. II (pp. 257-284). New York: Grune &Stratton.

Rusch, F. R., & Schutz, R. P. (1981). Vocational andsocial work behavior: An evaluative review. In J. L.Matson & J. R. McCartney (Eds.), Handbook fo behav-ior modification with the mentally retarded (pp. 247-280). New York: Plenum Press.

Stanfield, J. S. (1973). Graduation: What happens to theretarded child when he grows up? Exceptional Children,39, 548-552.

Wehman, P. H. (1975). Toward a social skills curriculumfor developmentally disabled dients in vocational set-tings. Rehabilitation Literature, 36, 342-348.

Received March 13, 1983Final acceptance April 18, 1984