Comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate mental retardation

Schuster, John W.; Griffen, Ann K.; Wolery, Mark

doi:10.1007/bf00948820

Cited by 64 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…During this procedure the instructional cue and controlling prompt are presented concurrently or simultaneously with probes conducted prior to the instructional session to measure skill acquisition Schuster, Griffen, & Wolery, 1992). Simultaneous prompting consists of three components (a) baseline or full probe sessions, (b) assessment or daily probe sessions, and (c) instructional sessions.…”

Section: Simultaneous Promptingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simultaneous prompting has been employed predominately with elementary school (Akmanoglu & Batu, 2004;Batu, 2008;Birkan, 2005;Parrott, Schuster, Collins, & Gassaway, 2000;Schuster & Griffen, 1993;Schuster et al, 1992;Singleton, Schuster, & Ault, 1995;Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar, 2002;Tekin-Iftar, 2008;) but also has been implemented with students in preschool (AkmanoguUludag & Batu, 2005;Colozzi, Ward, & Crotty, 2008;Dogan & Tekin-Iftar, 2002;MacFarland-Smith, Schuster, & Stevens, 1993;Reichow & Wolery, 2009;, middle school (Alberto, Waugh, & Fredrick, in press;Fickel, Schuster, & Collins, 1992;Rao & Kane, 2009;Rao & Mallow, 2009;Tekin-Iftar, 2003;Tekin-Iftar, Acar, & Kurt, 2003), and high school students Johnson, Schuster, & Bell, 1996;Parker & Schuster, 2002;, and with adults (Maciag, Schuster, Collins, & Cooper, 2000;Palmer, Collins, & Schuster, 1999). The procedure has been employed in 19 studies with a total of 48 participants with 12 13 moderate intellectual disabilities (MoID) (Alberto et al, in press;Batu, 2008;Birkan, 2005;Dogan & Tekin-Iftar, 2002;Fickel et al, 1992;Gursel et al, 2006;Maciag et al, 2000;Parker & Schuster, 2002;Parrott et al, 2000;Rao & Mallow, 2009;…”

Section: Demographic Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The procedure has been employed in 19 studies with a total of 48 participants with 12 13 moderate intellectual disabilities (MoID) (Alberto et al, in press;Batu, 2008;Birkan, 2005;Dogan & Tekin-Iftar, 2002;Fickel et al, 1992;Gursel et al, 2006;Maciag et al, 2000;Parker & Schuster, 2002;Parrott et al, 2000;Rao & Mallow, 2009;Riesen et al, 2003;Schuster & Griffen, 1993;Schuster et al, 1992;Singleton et al, 1995;Singleton et al, 1999;Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar;Tekin-Iftar, 2008;Waugh et al, 2009). The procedure also has been employed in 12 studies with a total of 21 participants with mild intellectual disabilities (MID) (Birkan, 2005;Dogan & Tekin-Iftar, 2002;Fickel et al, 1992;Gursel et al, 2006;Johnson et al, 1996;Palmer et al,1999;Parker & Schuster, 2002;Rao & Kane, 2009;Rao & Mallow, 2009;Riesen et al, 2003;Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar, 2002;Tekin-Iftar et al, 2003), 6 studies with a total of 17 participants with autism (Akmanoglu & Batu, 2004;Akmanoglu-Uludag & Batu, 2005;Colozzi et al, 2008;Riesen et al, 2003;Tekin-Iftar, 2008), 5 studies with a total of 10 participants with typical development (Fickel et al, 1992;…”

Section: Demographic Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of studies which have employed simultaneous prompting have used individual instructional formats (Akmanoglu & Batu, 2004;Akamanoglu-Uludag & Batu, 2005;Batu, 2008;Birkan, 2005;Dogan & Tekin-Iftar, 2002;Fetko et al, 1999;Parrott et al, 2000;Rao & Kane, 2009;Rao & Mallow, 2009;Reichow et al, 2009;Riesen et al, 2003;Schuster et al, 1992;Singleton et al, 1999;Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar, 2002;Tekin & Iftar, 2003;Tekin-Iftar et al, 2003;Tekin-Iftar et al, 2008). Six studies have implemented the instructional strategy in a group format, ranging from a 2:1 format to an 11:1 format.…”

Section: Instructional Groupingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Skills taught using simultaneous prompting include literacy skills (Birkan, 2005;Johnson, et al, 1996;Parker & Schuster, 2002;Reichow & Wolery, 2009;Riesen et al, 2003;Schuster et al, 1992;Singleton et al, 1995;Singleton et al, 1999;Tekin-Iftar, 2003;Waugh et al, 2009), math skills (Akmanoglu & Batu, 2004;Birkan, 2005;Fickel et al, 1998;Gursel et al, 2006;Rao & Kane, 2009;Rao & Mallow, 2009), communication skills (Akmanoglu-Uludag & Batu, 2005;Dogan & Tekin-Iftar, 2002;Fickel et al, 1998;Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar, 2002;Tekin-Iftar et al, 2003;Tekin-Iftar, 2008;Wolery et al, 1993), daily living skills (Batu, 2008;Fetko et al, 1999;Parrott et al, 2000;Schuster & Griffen, 1993;Tekin-Iftar, 2008), leisure skills (Colozzi et al, 2008;, and vocational skills (Maciag et al, 2000).…”

Section: Targeted Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Waugh¹,

Alberto²,

Fredrick³

2011

Research in Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

in press) Teaching the reading of connected text through sight-word instruction to students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Simultaneous prompting is an errorless learning strategy designed to reduce the number of errors students make; however, research has shown a disparity in the number of errors students make during instructional versus probe trials. This study directly examined the effects of error correction versus no error correction during probe trials on the effectiveness and efficiency of simultaneous prompting on the acquisition of sight words by three middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities. A singlecase adapted alternating treatments design (Sindelar, Rosenberg, & Wilson, 1985) was employed to examine the effects of error correction during probe trials in order to reduce error rates. A functional relation was established for two of the three students for the use of error correction during probe sessions to reduce error rates. Error correction during assessment probes required fewer sessions to criterion, resulted in fewer probe errors, resulted in a higher percentage of correct responding on the next subsequent trial, and required less total probe time. For two of the three students, probes with error correction resulted in a more rapid acquisition rate requiring fewer sessions to criterion.

show abstract

Section: Simultaneous Promptingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Demographic Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Demographic Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Instructional Groupingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Targeted Skillsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Waugh¹,

Alberto²,

Fredrick³

2011

Research in Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A comparison of prompting methods to teach sight words to students with autism spectrum disorder

Klaus

Hixson

Drevon

et al. 2019

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Present AddressSophie Klaus now lives in Des Moines, IA.Time delay procedures are one of the most commonly used and effective strategies for teaching sight words to learners with disabilities. However, less is known about whether they are differentially effective and efficient with learners.This study compared the effectiveness and efficiency of progressive time delay and simultaneous prompting on sight word acquisition among three learners with autism spectrum disorder using an adapted alternating treatments design across word sets. For two participants, both procedures led to skill acquisition with no clear differences in efficiency. For the remaining participant, neither procedure was effective; therefore, the reading task was changed to a receptive one, and a stimulus fading intervention package was implemented.

show abstract

The parallel treatments design: A systematic review

Frampton

Guinness

Axe

2021

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The identification of interventions that are both effective and efficient is an ongoing need for the practice of applied behavior analysis. The parallel treatments design (PTD) has been described as powerful tool for comparing interventions in applied settings. The PTD combines elements of the multiple probe design and the adapted alternating treatments design. Execution of a PTD requires adherence to experimental tactics related to both designs, as well as adherence to specific features of the PTD outlined by the original authors (Gast & Wolery, 1988). The purpose of this systematic literature review was to evaluate (a) publication trends with the PTD, (b) applications of the PTD across behaviors and interventions, and (c) the extent to which articles that named the PTD as the design adhered to its defining features. Outcomes are discussed with respect to the utility of the PTD, limitations of the PTD, and potential refinements of the definition of the PTD.

show abstract

Comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate mental retardation

Cited by 64 publications

References 11 publications

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

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

A comparison of prompting methods to teach sight words to students with autism spectrum disorder

The parallel treatments design: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About