|
| An Evaluation of Prompting and Error Correction Procedures |
| Sunday, May 29, 2016 |
| 10:00 AM–11:50 AM |
| Grand Ballroom EF, Hyatt Regency, Gold East |
| Area: AUT/PRA; Domain: Translational |
| Chair: Sandra L. Harris (Rutgers University) |
| Discussant: John James McEachin (Autism Partnership) |
| CE Instructor: Joseph H. Cihon, M.S. |
| Abstract: Prompting and error correction are two essential components of teaching which can result in rapid behavior change. Despite the effectiveness of these procedures, there are numerous questions which remain to be addressed by researchers. These questions include what variables make error correction the most effective, how effective are various prompt types, and what is the most effective prompting systems. This symposium includes four different papers which examine several variables affecting the effectiveness of prompting and/or error correction. The first presentation explores parameters of error correction as it relates to learning. The second presentation discusses the comparison of two different prompting procedures to teach expressive labels to individuals diagnosed with ASD. The third presentation evaluated the effectiveness of positional prompts on increasing receptive labeling. The final presentation includes data from a randomized control trial comparing three different prompt systems for teaching expressive labels. Practical implications and future research will be discussed. The discussant will provide further considerations on how this research can be used in clinical settings and what is needed in future research. |
| Keyword(s): error correction, multiple prompts, positional prompt |
| |
| Using an Abbreviated Assessment to Compare the Effectiveness of Different Error-Correction Procedures on Skill Acquisition |
| JENNIFER OWSIANY (West Virginia University), Regina A. Carroll (West Virginia University), Jessica Cheatham (West Virginia University) |
| Abstract: Previous research supports the use of a variety of error-correction procedures to facilitate skill acquisition during discrete trial instruction. At present there is no quick and easy way for caregivers to determine which error-correction procedure is most effective for an individual learner. In the current study we used an abbreviated assessment to rapidly compare the effects of error-correction procedures on skill acquisition for three children diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. First, we conducted an abbreviated assessment exposing participants to 36 to 60 trials of each error correction procedure. Next, we conducted validation assessments and compared the effectiveness of the different error-correction procedures. Finally, we assessed participants’ preference for the different error-correction procedures using a concurrent-chains assessment. Overall these findings suggest that an abbreviated assessment consisting of 36 to 60 trials may be a useful tool for identifying the most effective error-correction procedure for individual learners diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. |
| |
| Evaluation of Multiple Alternative Prompts During Tact Training |
| ADITT ALCALAY (Autism Partnership), Joseph H. Cihon (Autism Partnership Foundation), Justin B. Leaf (Autism Partnership Foundation), Ronald Leaf (Autism Partnership Foundation), John James McEachin (Autism Partnership), Mitchell T. Taubman (Autism Partnership) |
| Abstract: Prompting is an essential component of discrete trial teaching and can be used to help promote language development. Today, there are multiple prompt types teachers can use to promote language and can include full vocal prompts, partial vocal prompts, and written prompts. This study compared two methods of fading prompts while teaching expressive labels to three children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The first method involved use of an echoic prompt and prompt fading procedure. The second method involved providing multiple alternative answers and fading by increasing the difficulty of the discrimination. The results of an adapted alternating-treatments design indicated that both procedures were effective relative to a no-intervention control condition. The use of multiple alternatives did not increase error rates or teaching time compared to using an echoic prompt. Furthermore, all of the children responded more accurately during maintenance probes for labels taught using the multiple-alternative prompt. Both clinical implications and areas for future research will be discussed during the presentation. |
| |
| An Evaluation of Various Prompting Systems: A Randomized Control Trial |
| JOSEPH H. CIHON (Autism Partnership Foundation), Justin B. Leaf (Autism Partnership Foundation), Ronald Leaf (Autism Partnership Foundation), John James McEachin (Autism Partnership), Mitchell T. Taubman (Autism Partnership) |
| Abstract: Prompting is an essential component of discrete trial teaching. Researchers have developed prompting systems which essentially act as rules for when a teacher should provide and/or fade a prompt. To date, there are multiple prompting systems which have been evaluated in empirical research and implemented within clinical practice. These prompting systems include: no-no prompting, simultaneous prompting, least to most prompting, most to least prompting, constant time delay, and flexible prompt fading. This study we compared the use of three prompting systems (i.e., most-to-least prompting, constant time delay, and flexible prompt fading) to teach expressive labels of cartoon characters for 30 individuals diagnosed with ASD. The researchers utilized a randomized control group design to evaluate the effectiveness and the efficiency of the three prompting procedures. The data will be discussed in terms of statistical significance of effectiveness and efficiency between the three prompting strategies. Additionally, single-subject data will also be presented to provide an analysis of individual performance. Both clinical implications and areas for future research will be discussed during the presentation. |
| |
The Effectiveness of Positional Prompts for Teaching Receptive Labels to Individuals Diagnosed With Autism Spectrum Disorder |
| KEVIN MILLER (Autism Partnership Foundation ), Joseph H. Cihon (Autism Partnership Foundation), Justin B. Leaf (Autism Partnership Foundation), Ronald Leaf (Autism Partnership Foundation), John James McEachin (Autism Partnership), Mitchell T. Taubman (Autism Partnership) |
| Abstract: There are multiple prompting methods with which a teacher can use to teach children diagnosed with autism to correctly label pictures. These can include, but are not limited to, full physical, partial physical, gestural, and reduction of the field prompts. Teachers can also utilize positional prompts to promote correct responding by placing the correct target closer to the learner. Positional prompts have been described by professionals in curriculum books and explored within various clinical studies. Despite the widespread use of positional prompts several professionals have recommended against their use citing the possibility of establishing faulty stimulus control. The current study evaluated the effectiveness of positional prompts to teach six children diagnosed with autism receptive labels (i.e., nine cartoon or comic book characters). The results of a multiple baseline across behaviors indicated that positional prompts were effective for some participants and ineffective for others. The potential variables responsible for the outcomes will be discussed when analyzing the data collected for each participant. Both practical implications and future areas of research will be described. |
|
| |