Behavior Analysis in Practice

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 115–125 | Cite as

A Comparison of the Effects of Two Prompt-Fading Strategies on Skill Acquisition in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders

  • Mirela CengherEmail author
  • Kimberly Shamoun
  • Patricia Moss
  • David Roll
  • Gina Feliciano
  • Daniel M. Fienup
Empirical Report


Research has demonstrated that most-to-least (MTL) and least-to-most (LTM) prompting are effective in helping children with Autism Spectrum Disorders acquire a variety of new skills. However, when directly compared to one another, the efficiency and efficacy of the prompting procedures have been variable. The inconsistencies in the literature could be due to selecting prompt topographies that do not promote correct responding. To address this, the present study began by assessing different prompt topographies and then compared most-to-least (MTL) and least-to-most (LTM) prompt-fading with only prompt topographies that were potent enough to promote correct responding. The subsequent comparison of prompt-fading procedures revealed that MTL prompting was more effective and efficient than LTM prompting for all three participants. Further implications for practice and future research are discussed.


Least-to-most Most-to-least Prompt Prompting Prompt-fading 



We thank Dr. Joseph Vedora for feedback on early revisions of this manuscript. We also thank Eliora Habshush and Ellieana Garcia for their assistance in the data collection process.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All the procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the City University of New York (CUNY).

Conflict of Interest

The first author received financial support from the Graduate Center, CUNY, to present the research data at the ABAI 41st Annual Convention in San Antonio. We believe that this funding does not create a potential conflict of interest.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from the caretakers of all the participants included in the study.


  1. Bouton, M. E., & Swartzentruber, D. (1989). Slow reacquisition following extinction: context, encoding, and retrieval mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 43.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Demchak, M. (1990). A comparison of graduated guidance and increasing assistance in teaching adults with severe handicaps leisure skills. Education & Training in Mental Retardation, 1, 45–55.Google Scholar
  4. Finkel, A. S., & Williams, R. L. (2001). A comparison of textual and echoic prompts on the acquisition of intraverbal behavior in a six-year-old boy with autism. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 18, 61–70.Google Scholar
  5. Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Glendenning, N. J., Adams, G. L., & Sternberg, L. (1983). Comparison of prompt sequences. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 321–325.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. McConville, M. L., Hantula, D. A., & Axelrod, S. (1998). Matching training procedures to outcomes: a behavioral and quantitative analysis. Behavior Modification, 22, 391–414.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps: a developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 533–544.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Seaver, J. L., & Bourret, J. C. (2014). An evaluation of response prompts for teaching behavior chains. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 777–792.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.Google Scholar
  13. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Sundberg, M. L., & Partington, J. W. (1998). Teaching language to children with autism and other developmental disabilities. Pleasant Hill, CA: Behavior Analyst.Google Scholar
  15. Walls, R. T. (1981). Prompting sequences in teaching independent living skills. Mental Retardation, 19, 242–245.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mirela Cengher
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Kimberly Shamoun
    • 2
  • Patricia Moss
    • 3
  • David Roll
    • 2
  • Gina Feliciano
    • 4
  • Daniel M. Fienup
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Queens College and the Graduate CenterCUNYFlushingUSA
  2. 2.Behavioral Intervention Psychological Services PCElmontUSA
  3. 3.ABA Psychological Services, PCNew Hyde ParkUSA
  4. 4.Quality Services for the Autism CommunityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations