Comparison of progressive prompt delay with and without instructive feedback

Vanderbilt University, USA.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (Impact Factor: 1.19). 06/2011; 44(2):327-40. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-327
Source: PubMed


We examined the effectiveness and efficiency of 2 instructional arrangements using progressive prompt delay (PPD) with 3 young children with autism and 1 child with developmental delays. Specifically, we compared PPD with instructive feedback (IF) to PPD without IF in an adapted alternating treatment design. The results suggested that (a) children with autism and developmental delays can learn when PPD is used with IF, (b) IF can be an effective method of instruction for young children with autism and developmental delays, and (c) the combination of PPD and IF can increase the efficiency of instruction. Data collected 8 to 9 weeks after instruction ended showed that participants maintained mastery of 58% to 92% of the acquired behaviors. We discuss these results within the constraints and limitations of the data and recommend areas for future research.

10 Reads
  • Source
    • "Finally, demand characteristics may also affect the acquisition of secondary targets (Vladescu & Kodak, 2013; Wolery, Werts, et al., 1993). For example, both primary and secondary targets were presented to participants while in a similar location in a classroom (Reichow & Wolery, 2011) or while seated near the experimenter at a table (Vladescu & Kodak, 2013). A history of reinforcement for attending and responding to stimuli presented by an instructor in a learning environment may play a role in the acquisition of secondary targets presented during learning trials. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recently, researchers have investigated the effectiveness and efficiency of presenting secondary targets during learning trials for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This instructional method may be more efficient than typical methods used with learners with ASD, because learners may acquire secondary targets without additional instruction. This review will discuss the recent literature on providing secondary targets during teaching trials for individuals with ASD, identify common aspects and results among these studies, and identify areas for future research.
    Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 11/2014; 48(1). DOI:10.1002/jaba.179 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "If probes indicate the participant has mastered the secondary targets before the primary targets, it may be possible to introduce novel secondary targets; however determining the frequency of these probes to maximize teaching efficiency remains an important area for future research. We, as well as previous researchers (Reichow & Wolery, 2011), hypothesize that a generalizedimitation repertoire may be important in the acquisition of secondary targets. All participants echoed the secondary targets consistently, but the acquisition of secondary targets was variable. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The current study examined the effectiveness and efficiency of presenting secondary targets within learning trials for 4 children with an autism spectrum disorder. Specifically, we compared 4 instructional conditions using a progressive prompt delay. In 3 conditions, we presented secondary targets in the antecedent or consequence portion of learning trials, or in the absence of prompts and reinforcement. In the fourth condition (control), we did not include secondary targets in learning trials. Results replicate and extend previous research by demonstrating that the majority of participants acquired secondary targets presented in the antecedent and consequent events of learning trials.
    Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 12/2013; 46(4). DOI:10.1002/jaba.70 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this article, the authors focus on issues of instruction in classrooms. Initially, a brief definitional and historic section is presented. This is followed by a discussion of four assumptions about the current state of affairs: (a) evidence-based practices should be identified and used, (b) children’s phase of performance should dictate practice selection, (c) naturalistic procedures should be used, and (d) play is a defensible curricular domain. Three challenges (instructional, experimental, and resources) are noted.
    Journal of Early Intervention 01/2011; 33(4):371-380. DOI:10.1177/1053815111429119 · 0.78 Impact Factor
Show more


10 Reads
Available from