in those two classes. Instead of the courses used in the lessons, minimal generalization (MG) role play assessments (conducted on the same schedule as the direct tests) required students to advocate with the trainers for accommodations in two different courses, a physical science and communications class.
In extended generalization (EG) role plays, the students advocated for accommodations in a subject not previously used in training or evaluation (a social science class). A student service staff member, unknown to the students, played the role of a classroom instructor. Thus, EG tests more closely approximated the actual advocacy situation than did direct or minimal generalization tests. To simulate a classroom situation, faculty members, again unknown to the students, assisted with the pre and post tests. These faculty members played the role of a U.S. history instructor, and no student had the same faculty member for the pre and posttests. Participants completed the pre and posttest in faculty offices under conditions similar to those they would experience in requesting accommodations with other instructors.
Before receiving an orientation to the self-advocacy training program, students completed the baseline pretest, direct test, and minimal generalization test. At the second meeting, prior to the beginning of the first skill lesson, additional baseline data were obtained from a direct test, a minimal generalization test, and an extended generalization test. Each subsequent session involved training in only one advocacy lesson. Following each lesson, students participated in a direct and a minimal generalization test. Extended generalization tests were conducted after lessons 2, 4, and 6. Upon completion of the training, skill maintenance was evaluated after 7 to 10 days using direct and minimal generalizations test. Ina second follow-up 14 to 20 days after completion of training, skill maintenance and generalization were assessed using direct test, a minimal generalization test, an extended generalization test, and a posttest.
The lack of any in-vivo assessments of self-advocacy skill use by the 3 participants is a limitation of the current research. At the same time, assessments did extend to two types of situations very much like the ones the students would encounter in their college education, namely the extended generalization test with an unfamiliar adult and the pretest/posttest with an actual faculty member playing the role of a U.S. history professor.
Following a model provided by Kelly (1982), researchers developed a rating form for assessing the participants' performance of the target behaviors. Listing the lessons and their component target behaviors, the rating form called for rate determination of the presence or absence of specific target behaviors (e.g., did the student refer to the class by title, day of week, and time). After training, two graduate students in rehabilitation rated the transcripts of the role plays in random order.
Two of the investigators developed training for the raters that included an orientation to self-advocacy, the accommodation request process, and important target behaviors to be evaluated. The same investigators provided the training. The raters then listened to several practice tapes and identified the presence or absence of target behaviors