Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting and Constant Time Delay Procedures in Teaching State Capitals

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Behavioral Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This investigation compared the effectiveness and efficiency of constant time delay (CTD) and simultaneous prompting (SP) procedures in teaching discrete social studies facts to 4 high school students with learning and behavior disorders using an adapted alternating treatments design nested within a multiple probe design. The results indicated that both procedures were effective, with the simultaneous prompting procedure being slightly more efficient in terms of errors during instructional and maintenance phases. In addition, when interviewed about their preferences, both the instructor and participants preferred the simultaneous prompting procedure. This investigation extends current research as there are small numbers of studies comparing SP to other response prompting strategies, and to date, SP and CTD have not been compared with high school students with high-incidence disabilities. Future research issues are discussed.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Batu, S. (2008). Caregiver-delivered home-based instruction using simultaneous prompting for teaching home skills to individuals with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 541–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnbauer, J. S. (1981). External validity and experimental investigation of individual behavior. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P. J., & Baker, J. N. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browder, D. M., & Minarovic, T. J. (2000). Utilizing sight words in self-instruction training for employees with moderate mental retardation in competitive jobs. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 35, 78–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cloninger, C. J. (2004). Designing collaborative educational services. In F. P. Orelove, D. Sobsey, & R. K. Silberman (Eds.), Educating children with multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (4th ed., pp. 1–29). Baltimore: Brookes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. T., Heller, K. W., Alberto, P., & Fredrick, L. D. (2008). Using a three-step decoding strategy with constant time delay to teach word reading to students with mild and moderate mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23, 67–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, B. C., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., & Leatherby, J. G. (1991). Using constant time delay to teach self-feeding to young students with severe/profound handicaps: Evidence of limited effectiveness. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 3, 157–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Nelson, C. M. (1992). Teaching a generalized response to the lures of strangers to adults with severe handicaps. Exceptionality, 3, 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colozzi, G. A., Ward, L. W., & Crotty, K. E. (2008). Comparison of simultaneous prompting procedure in 1:1 and small group instruction to teach play skills to preschool students with pervasive developmental disorder and developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 226–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogan, O. S., & Tekin-Iftar, E. (2002). The effects of simultaneous prompting on teaching receptively identifying occupations from picture cards. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 23, 237–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Etzel, B. C., & LeBlanc, J. M. (1979). The simplest treatment alternative: Appropriate instructional control and errorless learning procedures for the difficult-to-teach child. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9, 361–382.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fickel, K. M., Schuster, J. W., & Collins, B. C. (1998). Teaching different tasks using different stimuli in a heterogeneous small group. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 219–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gast, D. L. (2010). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gast, D. L., Winterling, V., Wolery, M., & Farmer, J. A. (1992). Teaching first-aid skills to students with moderate handicaps in small group instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 15, 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, A. N., & Schuster, J. W. (1992). The use of simultaneous prompting for teaching expressive word recognition to preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 12, 247–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jameson, J. M., McDonnell, J., Polychronis, S., & Riesen, T. (2008). Embedded, constant time delay instruction by peers without disabilities in general education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 346–363.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P., Schuster, J. W., & Bell, J. K. (1996). Comparison of simultaneous prompting with and without error correction in teaching science vocabulary words to high school students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 437–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keel, M., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Small group instruction for students with learning disabilities: A study of observational and incidental learning. Exceptional Children, 58, 357–368.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maciag, K. G., Schuster, J. W., Collins, B. C., & Cooper, J. T. (2000). Training adults with moderate and severe mental retardation in a vocational skill using a simultaneous prompting procedures. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 306–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, T. E., & Schuster, J. W. (2004). Simultaneous prompting: A review of the literature. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 153–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M. A., & Schuster, J. W. (2002). Effectiveness of simultaneous prompting on the acquisition of observational and instructive feedback stimuli when teaching a heterogeneous group of high school students. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrott, K. A., Schuster, J. W., Collins, B. C., & Gassaway, L. J. (2000). Simultaneous prompting and instructive feedback when teaching chained tasks. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, S., & Mallow, L. (2009). Using simultaneous prompting procedure to promote recall of multiplication facts by middle school students with cognitive impairment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 80–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. W., Morse, T. E., Ault, M. J., Doyle, P. M., Crawford, M. R., & Wolery, M. (1998). Constant time delay with chained tasks: A review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 74–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuster, J. W., Stevens, K. B., & Doak, P. K. (1990). The use of constant time delay to teach word definitions to students with mild handicaps. Journal of Special Education, 24, 306–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment in Children, 8, 67–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, K. B., Blackhurst, A. E., & Slaton, D. B. (1991). Teaching memorized spellings with a microcomputer: Time delay and computer assisted instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 53–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 283–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tekin-Iftar, E. (2008). Parent-delivered community-based instruction with simultaneous prompting for teaching community skills to children with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Touchette, P. (1971). Transfer of stimulus control: Measuring the moment of transfer. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 347–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education (2004a). Public law print of PL 107-110 the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

  • U.S. Department of Education (2004b). Overview: Four pillars of NCLB. Retrieved March 10, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html.

  • Wechsler, D. (1991).Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

  • Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler intelligence scale for children—Revised. Columbus, OH: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992a). Teaching students with moderate to severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., Jr., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Cybriwsky, C., Doyle, P. M., Schuster, J. W., Ault, M. J., et al. (1992b). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 239–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Jean Hess for her assistance with the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Somerset Independent Schools, Somerset, KY, USA

    Kenneth David Head

  2. Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

    Belva C. Collins, John W. Schuster & Melinda Jones Ault

  3. Department of Reading Education and Special Education, Appalachian State University, ASU Box 32085, Boone, NC, 28608-2085, USA

    Melinda Jones Ault

Authors
  1. Kenneth David Head
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Belva C. Collins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John W. Schuster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Melinda Jones Ault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Melinda Jones Ault.

Additional information

This study was conducted to partially satisfy the thesis requirements for a Master of Science degree in Education in the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling, University of Kentucky.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Head, K.D., Collins, B.C., Schuster, J.W. et al. A Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting and Constant Time Delay Procedures in Teaching State Capitals. J Behav Educ 20, 182–202 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-011-9127-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-011-9127-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation