Response-prompting procedures are systematic strategies used to increase the probability of correct responding and opportunities for positive reinforcement for learners by providing and then systematically removing prompts. Response prompting is sometimes called errorless learning because teaching using these procedures usually results in few errors by the learner. The goal of response prompting is to transfer stimulus control from the prompt to the desired discriminative stimulus. Several response prompting procedures are commonly used in special education research: (a) system of least prompts, (b) most to least prompting, (c) progressive and constant time delay, and (d) simultaneous prompting.
System of least prompts The SLP prompting procedure uses and removes prompts by moving through a hierarchy from less to more restrictive prompts.Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992).Miltenberger, R. G. "Behavioral Modification: Principles and Procedures". Thomson/Wadsworth, 2008. p. 214.Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities. Use of response prompting strategies. New York: Longman. If the student emits the correct behavior at any point during this instructional trialhttp://www.educateautism.com/applied-behaviour-analysis/discrete-trial-training.html (with or without prompts), reinforcement is provided. The system of least prompts gives the learner the opportunity to exhibit the correct response with the least restrictive level of prompting needed. Because teachers are required to use multiple types of prompts (e.g., verbal and physical prompts), the SLP prompting procedure may be complicated for use in typical settings,Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities. Use of response prompting strategies. New York: Longman. but may be similar to non-systematic teaching procedures typically used by teachers that involve giving learners an opportunity to exhibit a behavior independently before providing a prompt.
Example: SLP trial for teaching sitting behavior Prompt Level Teacher Behavior Learner Behavior and Consequence Learner Behavior and Consequence Learner Behavior and Consequence Independent Gives direction:"Everyone sit in their desk" Unprompted Correct: Sits (provide reinforcer) No response (provide prompt 1) Unprompted Incorrect (provide prompt 1) Verbal Prompt Gives Prompt 1: "Matt, please sit in your desk" Prompted Correct: Sits (provide reinforcer) No response (provide prompt 2) Prompted Incorrect (provide prompt 2) Gesture Prompt Gives Prompt 2: "Everyone sit in their desk." Moves towards and points to desk Prompted Correct: Sits (provide reinforcer) No response (provide prompt 3) Prompted Incorrect (provide prompt 3) Physical Prompt Gives Prompt 3: Puts hands on learner's shoulders and physically guides him to sit Prompted Correct: Sits (provide reinforcer) No response (ignore). This response is unlikely: re-evaluate prompt and/or value of reinforcer No response (ignore). This response is unlikely: re-evaluate prompt and/or value of reinforcer
SLP has been widely used for a variety of learners and skills. It has been most widely used in a 1:1 format (individual instruction) for chained skills. It has recently been used in conjunction with new technology, like portable DVD players and video iPods, to each self-help skills to young adults with intellectual disabilitiesMechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Fields, E. A. (2008). Evaluation of a portable DVD player and system of least prompts to self-prompt cooking task completion by young adults with moderate intellectual disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 179–190. and to improve transition skills for elementary school students with autism spectrum disorders.Cihak, D., Fahrenkrog, C., Ayres, K. M., & Smith, C. (2010). The use of video modeling via a video iPod and a system of least prompts to improve transitional behaviors for students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 103–115.
Most to least prompting The MTL prompting procedure (Cuvo, Leaf, & Borakove, 1978) removes prompts by moving through a hierarchy from most restrictive to less restrictive.Miltenberger, R. G. "Behavioral Modification: Principles and Procedures". Thomson/Wadsworth, 2008. p. 215. The MTL prompting procedure begins with the most restrictive prompt, usually a physical prompt. After the learner has received reinforcement for completing the task with physical prompts, a less restrictive prompt is given (e.g., a partial physical prompt), and then an even less restrictive prompt (e.g., verbal prompt). Usually, a specific criterion is set for each prompt change (e.g., after three days of correct performance of the behavior with the use of a partial physical prompt, a verbal prompt will be used). If the individual fails to perform the behavior correctly with the less intrusive prompt, the instructor would return to a more intrusive prompt for a specified number of trials. Eventually, the discriminative stimulus for the behavior is the typically occurring stimulus (e.g., when lunch is finished, student independently goes to the sink to wash hands) or the direction (e.g., when teacher says "Class, it is time to sit in your desks", the student sits in his desk).
Example: MTL prompting procedure for opening lunchbox Order of Prompts Prompting Level Teacher Behavior Criterion for Moving to Less Intrusive Prompt 1 Physical Places hands over learner's hands and physically guides learner to open lunchbox 3 days at 100% correct responding with physical prompts 2 Verbal Says "Matt, open your lunchbox." 3 days at 100% correct responding with verbal prompts 3 Independent Gives learner his lunchbox N/A
MTL prompting procedures have been most often used to teach chained tasks (e.g., hand washing) to learners with intellectual disabilities,Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Effective and efficient procedures for the transfer of stimulus control. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 4, 55–77. but has been used to teach learners with mild to profound disabilities from infants to adults. Wolery and Gast suggest that MTL prompting procedures should be used with non-imitative learners who may not initially respond to less-restrictive prompts like models and may not be as efficient for imitative learners with mild or no disabilities.
Constant and progressive time delay With CTD and PTD procedures, the same prompt is used throughout, and this prompt should ensure that the learner can give the correct response: It is a "controlling" prompt. The time delay prompt procedures are different from SLP and MTL procedures because instead of removing prompts by progressing through a hierarchy, prompts are removed by delaying them in time. The progressive time delay procedure was developed first,Touchette, P. E., (1971). Transfer of stimulus control: Measuring the moment of transfer. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 347–354. and the constant time delay procedure was developed as a more parsimonious procedure for teaching students with disabilities.Snell, M. E., & Gast, D. L. (1981). Applying the time delay procedure to the instruction of the severely handicapped. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 6, 3–14. CTD and PTD are systematic procedures that use the teaching strategy of waiting on a learner's response that has likely been used haphazardly for years.
When using time delay procedures, a prompt is initially given immediately after the desired discriminative stimulus. For example, immediately after the teacher says "What is this?" while showing a picture of a dog, she gives the student the correct answer "dog". After a pre-specified number of trials (when teaching discrete tasks, usually this is a "session" comprising at least 10 trials), the prompt is delayed. In the previous example, the teacher would ask the question "What is this?" and would then wait a few seconds before giving the controlling prompt "dog". PTD delays the prompt in time gradually, so the teacher would first wait 1 second, then 2 seconds, etc. CTD delays the prompt in time only once, usually by 3–5 seconds.
Example: Trial during an initial session of PTD or CTD to teach naming Prompt Level Teacher Behavior Learner Behavior and Consequence Learner Behavior and Consequence Learner Behavior and Consequence Prompted "What is this? Dog." While showing a picture of a dog. (Waits specified time; e.g., 3 seconds) Prompted Correct: "Dog" (provide reinforcer) Prompted Incorrect: "Cat" (ignore) No Response (ignore)
During initial sessions, the learner is not given the opportunity to respond independently because the prompt is given immediately (0-second delay). However, in subsequent sessions, a learner is given an opportunity to respond independently because the prompt is delayed in time. The learner accesses reinforcement more quickly if s/he answers independently, but s/he is still reinforced for prompted responses.
Example: Trial during a subsequent session of PTD or CTD to teach naming Prompt Level Teacher Behavior Learner Behavior and Consequence Learner Behavior and Consequence Learner Behavior and Consequence Independent "What is this?" while showing a picture of a dog. (Waits specified time; e.g., 3 seconds) Unprompted Correct: "Dog" (provide reinforcer) Unprompted Incorrect: "Cat" (remind to wait for a prompt if s/he doesn't know the answer) No Response (provide prompt) Prompted "What is this? Dog." While showing a picture of a dog. (Waits specified time; e.g., 3 seconds) Prompted Correct: "Dog" (provide reinforcer) Prompted Incorrect: "Cat" (ignore) No Response (ignore)
PTD and CTD are similar except that the delay is gradual for PTD and immediate for CTD. For students who are not able to wait for a prompt when they are unable to independently perform a skill, PTD may be a better choice as a prompting strategy because it will decrease errors.
Example: Delay by session for PTD and CTD Session PTD Delay CTD Delay 1 0 sec 0 sec 2 1 sec 3 sec 3 2 sec 3 sec 4 3 sec 3 sec 5 and remaining sessions 3 sec 3 sec
CTD and PTD have been extensively used and found to be effective with a variety of students with and without disabilities, across both discrete and chained skills, in both individual and small group settings, for learners from toddlers to adults. Like SLP, CTD has been used in conjunction with new technologies like SMART boards to teach children with disabilities.Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Krupa, K. (2007). Impact of SMART board technology: An investigation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1869–1882.Campbell, M. L., & Mechling, L. C. (2009). Small group computer-assisted instruction with SMART board technology: An investigation of observational and incidental learning of nontarget information. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 47–57.
Simultaneous prompting