Advertisement

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

  • Mirela Cengher
  • Anna Budd
  • Nicole Farrell
  • Daniel M. Fienup
REVIEW ARTICLE

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.

Keywords

Prompt Prompt fading Response Stimulus Transfer of stimulus control 

Notes

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.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

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.

References

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

  1. *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.Google Scholar
  2. *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.Google Scholar
  3. *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.Google Scholar
  4. *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.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. *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.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. *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.Google Scholar
  9. *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.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. *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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.), Upper Saddle River: Pearson.Google Scholar
  16. Deitz, S. M., & Malone, L. W. (1985). On terms: Stimulus control terminology. The Behavior Analyst, 8, 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. *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.Google Scholar
  18. Demchak, M. (1990). Response prompting and fading methods: A review. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 603–615.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. *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.Google Scholar
  21. Doughty, A. H., & Hopkins, M. N. (2011). Reducing stimulus overselectivity through an increased observing-response requirement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 653–657.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. *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.Google Scholar
  23. *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.Google Scholar
  24. *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.Google Scholar
  25. *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.Google Scholar
  26. *Glendenning, N. J., Adams, G. L., & Sternberg, L. (1983). Comparison of prompt sequences. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 321–325.Google Scholar
  27. *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.Google Scholar
  28. *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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. *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.Google Scholar
  31. *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.Google Scholar
  32. *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.Google Scholar
  33. *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.Google Scholar
  34. *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.Google Scholar
  35. *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.Google Scholar
  36. *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.Google Scholar
  37. *McConville, M. L., Hantula, D. A., & Axelrod, S. (1998). Matching training procedures to outcomes: A behavioral and quantitative analysis. Behavior Modification, 22, 391–414.Google Scholar
  38. *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.Google Scholar
  39. *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.Google Scholar
  40. *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.Google Scholar
  41. *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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Plavnick, J. B., & Normand, M. P. (2013). Functional analysis of verbal behavior: A brief review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 349–353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. *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.Google Scholar
  47. *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.Google Scholar
  48. *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.Google Scholar
  49. 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
  50. *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.Google Scholar
  51. *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.Google Scholar
  52. *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.Google Scholar
  53. *Seaver, J. L., & Bourret, J. C. (2014). An evaluation of response prompts for teaching behavior chains. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 777–792.Google Scholar
  54. *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.Google Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. *Strand, S. C., & Morris, R. C. (1986). Programmed training of visual discriminations: A comparison of techniques. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7, 165–181.Google Scholar
  58. *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.Google Scholar
  59. *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.Google Scholar
  60. *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.Google Scholar
  61. *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.Google Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. *Walls, R. T., Crist, K., Sienicki, A., & Grant, L. (1981). Prompting sequences in teaching independent living skills. Mental Retardation, 19, 242–245.Google Scholar
  64. 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
  65. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. *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.Google Scholar
  67. *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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queens College and the Graduate CenterCity University of New York, Department of PsychologyNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.John Hopkins School of MedicineKennedy Krieger InstituteColumbiaUSA
  3. 3.Columbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations