|The Use of Prompting and Fading in Intensive Treatment Programs for Children with Autism
|Monday, May 30, 2005
|1:30 PM–2:50 PM
|Continental A (1st floor)
|Area: AUT; Domain: Service Delivery
|Chair: John James McEachin (Autism Partnership)
|Discussant: Mitchell T. Taubman (Autism Partnership)
|CE Instructor: John James McEachin, Ph.D.
|A Comparison of Constant Time Delay Versus a Lovaas-Ttype Flexible Prompt Fading Procedure
|DORIS SOLUAGA (Autism Partnership), Justin B. Leaf (Autism Partnership), Mitchell T. Taubman (Autism Partnership), John James McEachin (Autism Partnership)
|Abstract: Constant time delay (CTD) is a highly prescriptive prompting procedure that has been studied widely, demonstrated as effective and has been used in several comparative studies. A prompting procedure that is more flexible has been described by Lovaas and although it was an integral part of the landmark studies on early intensive treatment, there has been very little attempt to conduct comparative studies of Flexible Prompt Fading (FPF). In this study, CTD was compared with FPF for teaching five students with autism a variety of receptive labels. A parallel treatments design demonstrated that overall the FPF procedure resulted in a higher number of receptive targets acquired, and fewer trials to criterion. However there were important differences across students and the implications for selecting instructional strategies for students with autism will be discussed.
|Prompting, Shaping, Science and Practice: Toward a Better Understanding of the “No-No-Prompt”
Error Correction Procedure
|STEIN LUND (Perspectives Corporation), Robert F. Kidd (Perspectives Corporation), Kristy C. Hallam (Perspectives Corporation)
|Abstract: One version of Discrete trial instruction (DTI) that is widely used and widely misunderstood is referred to colloquially as the “No-No-Prompt” (NNP) procedure. This procedure should be viewed as a complex system of teaching that includes a segment where learners are given explicit opportunities to “switch” based on feedback following an error as well as opportunities to respond independently after a prompted trial. The “No-No-prompt” sequence should be seen as a latter stage component of a more inclusive instructional system and should therefore not be understood in essential isolation. It will be be further argued that NNP, as well as other procedures aimed at shaping behavior should be understood as a process that involves art as well as science and a clinician should master many procedures and be able to shift flexibly between them as the situation demands.
|Looking Beyond Controlling Prompts: The Quest For Teaching Procedures That Actually Teach
|JOHN JAMES MCEACHIN (Autism Partnership)
|Abstract: The research literature is replete with studies that demonstrate the efficacy of a variety of prompting procedures. Many of these studies have aimed simply to find prompts that result in a very high probability (e.g., 90%) of the student making the correct response. These are called controlling prompts. However, for children with severe learning difficulties, merely identifying a controlling prompt is no guarantee that it can be readily faded. It will be argued that we should not be seeking prompts that merely produce the correct answer, but should be looking for sequences of learning experiences that lead a student to actually understand the concept we are trying to teach. Several examples will be provided from a curriculum for children with autism.