A Review of Prompt-Fading Procedures: Implications for Effective and Efficient Skill Acquisition

Cengher, Mirela; Farrell, Nicole; Fienup, Daniel M.

doi:10.1007/s10882-017-9575-8

Cited by 49 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, training stimuli had to be reduced from three to two for that participant before mastery was achieved. These findings chime with the inconsistencies in the literature in relation to the efficiency of outcomes of the many instructional procedures used for persons with ASD/ID, and this is perhaps related to the intrinsic heterogeneity found in this group (Ault et al 1988;Cengher et al 2018Cengher et al , 2019Cengher et al , 2016Libby et al 2008;O'Neill et al 2018;Schnell et al 2019;Seaver and Bourret 2014;Walker 2008;Wolery and Gast 1984).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

“…Rank order is based upon the number of trials to criterion a Total/average data exclude control condition with previous research that has shown prompt delay to be an effective instructional procedure in stand-alone investigations (Ault et al 1988;Doyle et al 1990;O'Neill et al 2018;Wolery et al 1993) and in reviews of the literature (Cengher et al 2018(Cengher et al , 2019Handen and Zane 1987;Walker 2008;Wolery and Gast 1984;Wolery et al 1992). When compared with other types of prompt and prompt-fading procedures, CPD and PPD have been reported as being as effective as LTM prompting, but more efficient (Bennett et al 1986;Heckaman et al 1998;Wolery et al 1990), whereas MTL prompting is reported as being as effective but more efficient than CPD (Aykut 2012).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The efficacy of prompt delay is reported in several reviews (Cengher et al 2018(Cengher et al , 2019Demchak 1990;Handen and Zane 1987;Walker 2008;Wolery et al 1992) and is supported as an evidence-based intervention in the literature related to a wide range of problems and contexts (National Autism Center 2009Wong et al 2015). However, reviews of this evidence tend to group progressive and constant prompt delay together, making broad recommendations for their use despite their procedural differences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With or without this procedural modification, results suggested progressive prompt delay was effective and most efficient in reducing learner errors during instruction. Mixed outcomes are not uncommon in comparison studies and may be due, in part, to methodological differences (Cengher et al 2018;Wolery et al 1992). Although one further study did compare constant with progressive prompt delay and reported that overall progressive prompt delay resulted in fewer errors, instructional time, and sessions to criterion, this was an unpublished master's thesis (Thomas 1989, cited in Wolery et al 1992, and there is a lack of consensus among the two published comparison studies reviewed above.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Comparison of Variations of Prompt Delay During Instruction on an Expressive Labeling Task

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variations in prompt delay procedures are used in discrete-trial training to reduce the occurrence of errors before task mastery. However, the variations are seldom compared systematically. Using an adapted alternating treatments design, the present study compared progressive prompt delay with 2-s or 5-s constant prompt delay, on the acquisition of an expressive labeling task in four participants with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability. While all three prompt delay methods led to mastery of the tasks, albeit only when the tasks were simplified for one participant, progressive prompt delay generally proved the most efficient method on several measures, including lower error rates. This is consistent with the nature of the progressive prompt delay procedure which allows less time for errors to occur early in training. It is provisionally concluded that selection of progressive prompt delay is supported as a wise first choice option for clinicians, as a history of high error rates may impair later learning.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Comparison of Variations of Prompt Delay During Instruction on an Expressive Labeling Task

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers have compared prompt-fading procedures to evaluate potential advantages of commonly used teaching methods (e.g., Cengher, Budd, Farrell, & Fienup, 2018;Cengher et al, 2015;Libby et al, 2008;Seaver & Bourret, 2014). For example, Libby et al (2008) compared MTL and LTM procedures for teaching children to build block structures.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An evaluation of parent preference for prompting procedures

Halbur

Kodak

Wood

et al. 2019

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Parent participation in intervention can enhance intervention efficacy and promote generalization of skills across settings. Thus, parents should be trained to implement behavioral interventions. The purpose of the current investigation was to evaluate parent preference for and acceptability of 3 commonly used prompting procedures. We trained parents of children with disabilities to use 3 empirically validated prompting strategies (i.e., least-to-most, most-to-least, and a progressive-prompt delay). Once the parent reached the mastery criteria with each prompting procedure, we evaluated his/her preference for each of the procedures using a concurrent-chains arrangement. We also measured treatment acceptability of all procedures throughout the study. All participants met the mastery criteria for each of the prompting procedures and showed a preference for least-to-most prompting. Results suggest parents' acceptability of procedures prior to training were different than posttraining/post-child practice. In addition, acceptability rating scores obtained at the end of the investigation corresponded to preference of intervention during the concurrent-chains arrangement. The results demonstrate the benefits of objective measures for studying preference for behavioral, skill-acquisition procedures.

show abstract

Greeting skills: A systematic review of the literature

Hickey

Reeve

et al. 2022

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals with disabilities often demonstrate difficulty in social communication skills such as greetings. Studies have shown that deficits in greetings may negatively affect social interactions and vocational opportunities. Therefore, previous research has evaluated a variety of teaching procedures to increase greetings for individuals with disabilities with varying efficacy. This review of the literature provides an overview of studies to date in which greetings were taught to individuals with intellectual disabilities. A variety of teaching procedures were identified, and implications of those procedures are discussed. Results suggest that multiple teaching procedures may be effective; however, component analyses, further replication, and modified generalization procedures are necessary. Implications for future researchers include identifying a technological definition of greetings and evaluating effective teaching procedures and generalization strategies. Implications for practitioners include teaching one greeting type at a time, limiting the number of social skills taught simultaneously, identification of effective teaching procedures and generalization considerations.

show abstract

A Review of Prompt-Fading Procedures: Implications for Effective and Efficient Skill Acquisition

Cited by 49 publications

References 48 publications

A Comparison of Variations of Prompt Delay During Instruction on an Expressive Labeling Task

A Comparison of Variations of Prompt Delay During Instruction on an Expressive Labeling Task

An evaluation of parent preference for prompting procedures

Greeting skills: A systematic review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About