Customizing Instruction to Maximize Functional Outcomes for Students With Profound Multiple Disabilities

Abstract

This article describes a process for customizing instruction for students with profound multiple disabilities that has been used to design instructional programs and maximize the attainment of functional outcomes for students. The process focuses on collaborative teamwork and problem solving to design and implement instructional programs by ensuring that the 5 components of the process are included. Team members determine (a) prepositioning handling procedures; (b) overall body positioning for instruction; (c) hand, arm, and head positioning; (d) instructional adaptations and materials; and (e) handling procedures to combine with systematic instructional strategies.Providing a quality educational program for students with profound multiple disabilities that is functional, integrated, and outcome oriented can be extremely difficult and complicated for educators and related services personnel. Students with profound multiple disabilities have impairments that are "serious and dramatic, and they may include signifi- EXCEPTIONALITY, 9(3),[135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145]

Peer Interactions among Children with Profound Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities during Group Activities

“…The body position of persons with PIMD can improve the quality and quantity of goal‐directed behaviour and increases their participation in meaningful activities (Smith et al . ). An optimal body position depends on the abilities and disabilities of every individual person.…”

Assessment of Computer-Based Preferences of Students With Profound Multiple Disabilities

“…Second, existing research has identified the need to provide novel and multiple stimuli to help prevent habituation among students with PMD . Additionally, student preferences may change over time (Smith et al, 2001), stimuli identified as preferred may not be predictive of preference later in time (Gast et al, 2000;, and it therefore is recommended that preference assessments be conducted frequently (Gast et al, 2000;Kennedy & Haring, 1993;Smith et al, 2001). The current study used only three examples of individual-created videos and commercial software programs.…”

Comparison of the Effects of Three Approaches on the Frequency of Stimulus Activations, via a Single Switch, by Students With Profound Intellectual Disabilities

“…In the current study, the number of stimulus activations, through use of a single switch, was relatively low for each student; however, results may be considered significant for a population of students who (a) demonstrate inconsistent, limited, or relatively low response to external stimuli (Wacker et al, 1985); (b) make limited progress in learning new skills (Reid, Phillips, & Green, 1991); (c) lack opportunities to explore environments (Daniels et al, 1995;Dattilo, 1987); and (d) are described as some of the most challenging for educational teams (Green, Reid, Rollyson, & Passante, 2005;Smith et al, 2001). For these students, identification of an effective reinforcer is critical as an early step toward the use of operant procedures to teach new skills (Ivancic & Bailey, 1996), yet it remains one of the most difficult tasks for teachers .…”

“…The challenge to provide novelty is further compounded when children with severe and profound disabilities exhibit little or no interest in commercially available toys and materials that readily excite children without disabilities, leaving teachers, parents, and therapists with the difficulty of identifying stimuli that hold meaning and interest for these students. Procedures for conducting reinforcer stimulus preference assessments for students with profound disabilities have been reported (Ivancic & Bailey, 1996;Leatherby, Gast, Wolery, & Collins, 1992;Wacker, Berg, Wiggins, Muldoon, & Cavanaugh, 1985), along with the impact of identification on student response and task performance (Gast et al, 2000;Smith et al, 2001), yet identification of consistent reinforcers can be extremely difficult and complicated (Gast et al, 2000). Whereas Logan et al reported a direct correlation between lack of progress in learning new skills and the lack of identification of effective reinforcers, , in their review of the literature on preference assessments, further identified a need to incorporate results of preference assessments into instruction and activities for persons with profound intellectual disabilities.…”