A Comparison of Constant Time Delay and Simultaneous Prompting Within Embedded Instruction on Teaching Leisure Skills to Children With Autism

Abstract

An adapted alternating-treatments design was used to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of constant time delay and simultaneous prompting procedures within an embedded instruction format on the acquisition of various leisure skills by four preschool students with autism. The results showed that both procedures were effective in promoting the acquisition of the skills and maintaining them over time by three students. Although the impacts of the procedures were evident for these three students, the results were not replicated with the fourth student. Furthermore, mixed results were obtained regarding the efficiency measures. However, the social validity findings of the study were positive overall. On the basis of an evaluation of the findings, implications and future research needs are discussed.

Effects of error correction during assessment probes on the acquisition of sight words for students with moderate intellectual disabilities

“…Colozzi et al (2008) and Kurt and Tekin-Iftar (2008) examined the effects of simultaneous prompting in teaching leisure/play skills to students with autism.…”

“…Efficiency data were inconclusive with CTD more efficient in the number of sessions and number of trials to criterion and simultaneous prompting more efficient in the number of errors and total training time to criterion. Kurt and Tekin-Iftar (2008) compared the effects of simultaneous prompting and CTD in teaching the leisure skills of turning on a CD player and taking a digital picture to four boys with autism. Both procedures were equally effective in the acquisition and maintenance of the targeted skills.…”

Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting and Constant Time Delay Procedures in Teaching Children with Autism the Responses to Questions about Personal Information

“…Learning the names of capital cities (Head, Collins, Schuster, & Ault, 2011), learning the names of animals and clothes (Tekin-İftar et al, 2011), reading words (Gast, Ault, Wolery, Doyle, & Belanger, 1988), and recognizing informative boards (Yıldırım & Tekin-İftar, 2002) could be listed as examples for discrete skills that could be taught through the CTD procedure. Aquatic play skills (Yılmaz, Birkan, Konukman, & Erkan, 2005), preparing food and drinks (Bozkurt & Gursel, 2005), shopping skills (Dippi-Hoy & Jitendra, 2004), and free-time skills (Kurt & Tekin-İftar, 2008) could be listed as examples for chained skills that could be taught through constant time delay procedures.…”

“…SP has been observed to be effective in teaching discrete skills such as pointing the numerals (Akmanoglu & Batu, 2004), learning the names of the relatives (Akmanoğlu-Uludağ & Batu, 2005), and reading words (Gibson & Schuster, 1992), as well as chained skills such as preparing fruit juice from fruit concentrates (Schuster & Griffen, 1993), locking and unlocking closets (Fetko, Schuster, Harley, & Collins, 1999), leisure skills (Kurt & Tekin-İftar, 2008), and hand washing (Parrot, Schuster, Collins, & Gassaway, 2000).…”

“…CTD was more effective in two of the four subjects, while SP was more effective in the other two subjects. In another study, where the two procedures were compared in terms of effectiveness and efficiency (Kurt & Tekin-İftar, 2008), four children with autism, who were aged between 6 and 8, were taught how to turn on a CD player and take photos using a digital camera. Both teaching procedures were effective.…”