Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • REVIEW ARTICLE
  • Published:
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reports a systematic review of prompt-fading research, with a focus on experiments comparing two or more prompt-fading procedures. Forty-five articles with 46 experiments met the operationally-defined inclusion criteria. For the selected articles, data on several variables were extracted and analyzed. Research demonstrated that all prompt-fading procedures were generally effective in promoting acquisition of behavior. Stimulus prompting was more effective and efficient when compared to response-prompting procedures. Comparisons of response-prompting procedures yielded variable efficiency results. These outcomes are discussed in terms of the behavioral principles that facilitate transfer of stimulus control from the prompt to the discriminative stimulus, such as blocking and overshadowing. Basic investigations of the role of these behavioral principles might help develop prompt-fading procedures that are consistently effective across participants. Implications for research include suggestions for the development of individualized assessments of stimulus control, similar to the functional analysis methodology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. However, some forms of stimulus prompting might not require a high response effort. For example, a positioning prompt, such as placing the discriminative stimulus closer to the participant as compared to the delta stimuli, is a low response effort prompting procedure.

References

A star (*) denotes identified articles in the systematic review.

  • *Aeschleman, S. R., & Higgins, A. F. (1982). Concept learning by retarded children: A comparison of three discrimination learning procedures. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 26, 229–238.

  • *Arick, J. R., & Krug, D. A. (1978). Autistic children: A study of learning characteristics and programming needs. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 2, 200–202.

  • *Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., & Eizenstat, V. (1988a). Comparison of response prompting procedures in teaching numeral identification to autistic subjects. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 627–636.

  • *Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1988b). Comparison of progressive and constant time-delay procedures in teaching community-sign word reading. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 44–56.

  • Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Gast, D. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies in the instruction of students with moderate and severe handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 346–356.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Aykut, C. (2012). Effectiveness and efficiency of constant-time delay and most-to-least prompt procedures in teaching daily living skills to children with intellectual disabilities. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12, 366–373.

  • Beavers, G. A., Iwata, B. A., & Lerman, D. C. (2013). Thirty years of research on the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 1–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Bennett, D. L., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. (1986). Time delay and system of least prompts: A comparison in teaching manual sign production. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 117–29.

  • *Berkowitz, S. (1990). A comparison of two methods of prompting in training discrimination of communication book pictures by autistic students. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 255–262.

  • Bovi, G. M. D., Vladescu, J. C., DeBar, R. M., Carroll, R. A., & Sarokoff, R. A. (2017). Using video modeling with voice-over instruction to train public school staff to implement a preference assessment. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 10, 72–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Broomfield, L., McHugh, L., & Reed, P. (2010). Factors impacting emergence of behavioral control by underselected stimuli in humans after reduction of control by overselected stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 94, 125–133.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cengher, M., Shamoun, K., Moss, P., Roll, D., Feliciano, G., & Fienup, D. M. (2016). The effects of two prompt-fading strategies on skill acquisition in children with autism spectrum disorder. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 115–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Collier, D., & Reid, G. (1987). A comparison of two models designed to teach autistic children a motor task. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 4, 226–236.

  • Coon, J. T., & Miguel, C. F. (2012). The role of increased exposure to transfer-of-stimulus-control procedures on the acquisition of intraverbal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 657–666.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River: Pearson.

  • Deitz, S. M., & Malone, L. W. (1985). On terms: Stimulus control terminology. The Behavior Analyst, 8, 259–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Demchak, M. (1989). A comparison of graduated guidance and increasing assistance in teaching adults with severe handicaps leisure skills. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 1, 45–55.

  • Demchak, M. (1990). Response prompting and fading methods: A review. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 603–615.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dittlinger, L. H., & Lerman, D. C. (2011). Further analysis of picture interference when teaching word recognition to children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 341–349.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • *Dorry, G. W., & Zeaman, D. (1973). The use of a fading technique in paired-associate teaching of a reading vocabulary with retardates. Mental Retardation, 11, 3–6.

  • Doughty, A. H., & Hopkins, M. N. (2011). Reducing stimulus overselectivity through an increased observing-response requirement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 653–657.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • *Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., & Wiley, K. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching preschoolers with developmental delays. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 1–22.

  • *Fentress, G. M., & Lerman, D. C. (2012). A comparison of two prompting procedures for teaching basic skills to children with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1083–1090.

  • *Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Belanger, S. (1988). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching sight word reading to students with moderate retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 117–128.

  • *Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Farmer, J. A. (1991). Assessing the acquisition of incidental information by secondary-age students with mental retardation: Comparison of response prompting strategies. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 96, 63–80.

  • *Glendenning, N. J., Adams, G. L., & Sternberg, L. (1983). Comparison of prompt sequences. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 321–325.

  • *Godby, S., Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1987). A comparison of time delay and system of least prompts in teaching object identification. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 283–305.

  • *Graff, R. B., & Green, G. (2004). Two methods for teaching simple visual discriminations to learners with severe disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 295–307.

  • Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for learners with autism: Advances in stimulus control technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 72–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Head, K. D., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Ault, M. J. (2011). A comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching state capitals. Journal of Behavioral Education, 20, 182–202.

  • *Heckaman, K. A., Alber, S., Hooper, S., & Heward, W. L. (1998). A comparison of least-to-most prompts and progressive time delay on the disruptive behavior of students with autism. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 171–201.

  • *Karsh, K. G., & Repp, A. C. (1992). The task demonstration model: A concurrent model for teaching groups of students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 54–67.

  • *Karsh, K. G., Repp, A. C., & Lenz, M. W. (1990). A comparison of the task demonstration model and the standard prompting hierarchy in teaching word identification to persons with moderate retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 395–410.

  • *Kurt, O., & Tekin-Iftar, E. (2008). A comparison of constant time delay and simultaneous prompting within embedded instruction on teaching leisure skills to children with autism. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28, 53–64.

  • *Leaf, J. B., Sheldon, J. B., & Sherman, J. A. (2010). Comparison of simultaneous prompting and no-no prompting in two-choice discrimination learning with children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 215–228.

  • *Libby, M. E., Weiss, J. S., Bancroft, S., & Ahearn, W. H. (2008). A comparison of most-to-least and least-to-most prompting on the acquisition of solitary play skills. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1, 37–43.

  • *McConville, M. L., Hantula, D. A., & Axelrod, S. (1998). Matching training procedures to outcomes: A behavioral and quantitative analysis. Behavior Modification, 22, 391–414.

  • *McDonnell, J. (1987). The effects of time delay and increasing prompt hierarchy strategies on the acquisition of purchasing skills by students with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 227–236.

  • *McDonnell, J., & Ferguson, B. (1989). A comparison of time delay and decreasing prompt hierarchy strategies in teaching banking skills to students with moderate handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 85–91.

  • *McGee, G. G., & McCoy, J. F. (1981). Training procedures for acquisition and retention of reading in retarded youth. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 263–276.

  • *Miller, U. C., & Test, D. W. (1989). A comparison of constant time delay and most-to-least prompting in teaching laundry skills to students with moderate retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 363–370.

  • Olenick, D. L., & Pear, J. J. (1980). Differential reinforcement of correct responses to probes and prompts in picture-name training with severely retarded children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 77–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Scheffer, N., Didden, R., Korzilius, H., & Sturmey, P. (2011). A meta-analytic study on the effectiveness of comprehensive ABA-based early intervention programs for children with autism Spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 60–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plavnick, J. B., & Normand, M. P. (2013). Functional analysis of verbal behavior: A brief review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 349–353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ploog, B. O. (2010). Stimulus overselectivity four decades later: A review of the literature and its implications for current research in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1332–1349.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Repp, A. C., Karsh, K. G., & Lenz, M. W. (1990). Discrimination training for persons with developmental disabilities: A comparison of the task demonstration model and the standard prompting hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 43–52.

  • *Richmond, G., & Bell, J. (1983). Comparison of three methods to train a size discrimination with profoundly mentally retarded students. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 87, 574–576.

  • *Riesen, T., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Jameson, M. (2003). A comparison of constant time delay and simultaneous prompting within embedded instruction in general education classes with students with moderate to severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 241–259.

  • Schoen, S. F. (1986). Assistance procedures to facilitate the transfer of stimulus control: Review and analysis. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 62–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Schoen, S. F., & Sivil, E. O. (1989). A comparison of procedures in teaching self-help skills: Increasing assistance, time delay, and observational learning. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19, 57–72.

  • *Schreibman, L. (1975). Effects of within-stimulus and extra-stimulus prompting on discrimination learning in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 91–112.

  • *Schuster, J. W., Griffen, A. K., & Wolery, M. (1992). Comparison of simultaneous prompting and constant time delay procedures in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 305–325.

  • *Seaver, J. L., & Bourret, J. C. (2014). An evaluation of response prompts for teaching behavior chains. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 777–792.

  • *Smeets, P. M., Lancioni, G. E., & Hoogeveen, F. R. (1984). Using stimulus shaping and fading to establish stimulus control in normal and retarded children. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 28, 207–218.

  • Spooner, F., Knight, V. F., Browder, D. M., & Smith, B. R. (2011). Evidence-based practice for teaching academics to students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 374–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • *Strand, S. C., & Morris, R. C. (1986). Programmed training of visual discriminations: A comparison of techniques. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7, 165–181.

  • *Strand, S. C., & Morris, R. C. (1988). Criterion-related versus non-criterion-related prompt training with severely mentally handicapped children. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 32, 137–151.

  • *Summers, J. A., Rincover, A., & Feldman, M. A. (1993). Comparison of extra-and within-stimulus prompting to teach prepositional discriminations to preschool children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 287–298.

  • *Swain, R., Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2014). Comparison of constant time delay and simultaneous prompting procedures: Teaching functional sight words to students with intellectual disabilities and autism Spectrum disorder. Journal of Behavioral Education, 24, 210–229.

  • *Tekin, E., & Kircaali-Iftar, G. (2002). Comparison of the effectiveness and efficiency of two response prompting procedures delivered by sibling tutors. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 283–99.

  • Touchette, P. E., & Howard, J. S. (1984). Errorless learning: Reinforcement contingencies and stimulus control transfer in delayed prompting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 17, 175–188.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • *Walls, R. T., Crist, K., Sienicki, A., & Grant, L. (1981). Prompting sequences in teaching independent living skills. Mental Retardation, 19, 242–245.

  • Waugh, R. E., Alberto, P. A., & Fredrick, L. D. (2011). Simultaneous prompting: An instructional strategy for skill acquisition. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 528–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Effective and efficient procedures for the transfer of stimulus control. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 4, 52–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wolery, M., Griffen, A. K., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., & Doyle, P. M. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching chained tasks. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 243–57.

  • *Wolfe, V. F., & Cuvo, A. J. (1978). Effects of within-stimulus and extra-stimulus prompting on letter discrimination by mentally retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 297–303.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This systematic review was conducted by the first author in partial fulfillment of a Ph.D. program in Psychology at The Graduate Center, City University of New York. We thank Drs. Nancy Hemmes and Emily Jones for feedback on early revisions of this manuscript. We also thank Eliora Habshush and Ellieana Garcia for their assistance in the data analysis process.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Mirela Cengher

    Present address: John Hopkins School of Medicine, Kennedy Krieger Institute, 9730 Patuxent Woods Dr, Columbia, MD, 21046, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queens College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, Department of Psychology, 6530 Kissena Blvd, Flushing, New York, NY, 11367, USA

    Mirela Cengher, Anna Budd, Nicole Farrell & Daniel M. Fienup

  2. Columbia University, Department of Health and Behavior Studies, 525 W. 120th Street, Box 223, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Daniel M. Fienup

Authors
  1. Mirela Cengher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Budd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicole Farrell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel M. Fienup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mirela Cengher.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The authors did not receive funding for the development of this project.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest with respect to the development of this literature review.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cengher, M., Budd, A., Farrell, N. et al. A Review of Prompt-Fading Procedures: Implications for Effective and Efficient Skill Acquisition. J Dev Phys Disabil 30, 155–173 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-017-9575-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-017-9575-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation