Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

An Evaluation of Constant Time Delay and Simultaneous Prompting Procedures in Skill Acquisition for Young Children with Autism.

2016; Volume: 51; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

2154-1647

Julie A. Ackerlund Brandt, Sara M. Weinkauf, Nicole M. Zeug, Kevin P. Klatt,

Family and Disability Support Research

Previous research has shown that various prompting procedures are effective in teaching skills to children and adults with developmental disabilities. Simultaneous prompting includes proving a prompt immediately following an instruction; whereas constant time-delay procedures include a set time delay (i.e., 5 s or 10 s) prior to delivering a prompt following an instruction. These prompting procedures have been previously compared with mixed results. The current study used an alternating treatments design to compare simultaneous prompting to a constant time-delay procedure to evaluate efficacy and efficiency of each procedure, in addition to the number of errors which occurred under each condition. Results from the current study are discussed as well as limitations and future directions. Time (prompt) delay procedures (i.e., constant and progressive time delay), involve initially presenting an instruction and immediately prompting the correct response. After a few trials of providing an immediate prompt, a short delay occurs between the instruction and the prompt. This delay may either remain a constant duration of time (i.e., constant time delay) or an incremental increase in duration on consecutive trials (i.e., progressive time delay). The purpose of this delay is to provide an opportunity for the child to respond independently (thereby transferring control of the response from the prompt to the instruction). The constant time delay has been used to teach a variety of discrete and chained behaviors, and has been identified as an evidenced-based procedure for teaching sight words and picture recognition (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009). Many variations of a constant time-delay procedure have been used to teach vocal/ verbal language skills (Carbone, Sweeney-Kerwin, Attanasio, & Kasper, 2010; Charlop, Schreibman, & Thibodeau, 1985; Halle, Marshall, & Spradlin, 1979; Ingenmy & Van Houten, 1991), academic (Cates et al., 2007; Coleman-Martin & Heller, 2004; Heal, Hanley, & Layer, 2009), self-help (McDonnell & Ferguson, 1989), and leisure skills (Wall & Gast, 1997). In addition to the constant time delay, simultaneous prompting has been used successfully to transfer stimulus control. This procedure involves presenting a prompt immediately following the instruction on all trials. There is no opportunity to respond independently, and therefore, probe trials are conducted each day of instruction to determine whether stimulus control has been transferred. Simultaneous prompting has been used effectively to teach a variety of academic tasks (Akamanoglu & Batu, 2004, Akamanoglu-Uludag & Batu, 2005, Leaf, Sheldon, & Sherman, 2010; Riesen, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Jameson, 2003), and self-help skills (Kurt & Tekin-Iftar, 2008; Parrott, Schuster, Collins, & Gassaway, 2000; Sewell, Collins, Hemmeter, & Schuster, 1998). Several studies have compared the constant This study was completed as the first author’s undergraduate capstone project for the Ronald E. McNair Program at the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire. The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the other undergraduate research assistants who helped in data collection for this study: Sara Czekalski, Sara Tillman, and Britta Fiksdal. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kevin P. Klatt, Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Eau Claire, WI 54702. E-mail: klattkp@uwec.edu Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2016, 51(1), 55–66 © Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Constant Time Delay and Simultaneous Prompting / 55 time delay and simultaneous prompt procedures (Head, Collins, Schuster, & Ault, 2011; Kurt and Tekin-Iftar, 2008; Riesen et al., 2003; Schuster, Griffent, & Wolery, 1992; Seward, Schuster, Ault, Collins, & Hall, 2014; Tekin and Kircaali-Iftar, 2002). Both prompting procedures have been shown to be effective for teaching a variety of skills. For example, Schuster et al. (1992) taught sight words to elementary students diagnosed with intellectual disabilities. Although both procedures were effective in teaching sight words, the simultaneous prompting procedure required fewer trials, sessions, and training time to meet the pre-established criterion. In addition, the simultaneous prompting procedure resulted in fewer errors during teaching sessions and daily probes. Additionally, Tekin and Kircaali-Iftar (2002) taught three children with intellectual disabilities to receptively identify animals, and both procedures were, again, equally effective. Kurt and Tekin-Iftar (2008) taught leisure skills to four children diagnosed with autism. The results showed that both procedures were equally effective in teaching leisure skills for three of the four children. Two of the children also had fewer errors with the constant time delay and the other two had fewer errors with the simultaneous prompting procedure. Head et al. (2011) compared the procedures in teaching state capitals to four high school students with learning and behavior disorders. The results showed both procedures were effective in teaching the state capitals. There was no clear difference across students regarding the number of errors, although individual differences showed slight advantage to one or the other procedure, depending on the participant. Although the majority of research has shown that both procedures are equally effective, there are instances where one procedure may be more effective than the other. Riesen et al. (2003) also taught academic skills (i.e., read or define vocabulary words) to four students diagnosed with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. Results showed that, although both procedures were effective in teaching academic skills, the constant time delay procedure was slightly more effective for two participants, and the simultaneous prompting procedure was more effective for the other two participants. In a more-recent study, Seward et al. (2014) taught two solitaire card games to five high school students with moderate intellectual disabilities. The results showed both procedures were effective with four students; however, the simultaneous prompting procedure was more effective for one student. Additionally, there were fewer errors during probes in the constant time delay, and less errors in teaching with the simultaneous prompting procedure. In general, it is important to note that both prompting procedures seem to be effective teaching procedures for students with intellectual disabilities; however, the efficiency of the two procedures has also been evaluated. For example, Tekin and Kircaali-Iftar (2002) also measured the amount of training time necessary across procedures. The results showed that the simultaneous prompting procedure resulted in less training time than the constant time delay prompting procedure. This is another important variable to be considered when evaluating these two prompting procedures. The results from these studies suggest at least two findings. First, both procedures seem to be effective in teaching a variety of skills, with occasional individual differences in effectiveness for one or the other procedure. Second, results from the studies suggest differences in efficiency (e.g., number of errors). Overall, fewer errors were found using the simultaneous prompting procedure in two studies (Schuster et al., 1992; Tekin & KircaaliIftar, 2002), errors were not measured in one study (Riesen et al., 2003), and mixed results were found in the most recent studies (Kurt & Tekin-Iftar, 2008; Head et al., 2011; Seward et al., 2014). The measurement of errors, however, can be further divided between those that occur in daily probes (required only in simultaneous condition) versus training sessions. That is, errors potentially can occur when the skill is probed each day, and also during training (although this is not likely with simultaneous prompting since the correct answer is immediately prompted). In the studies conducted to date, results pertaining to errors differed across studies. These differences include simultaneous prompting resulting in fewer errors during both probes and training sessions (Schuster et al.), fewer errors 56 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-March 2016 in probes for constant time delay and fewer errors in training sessions for simultaneous prompting (Seward et al.), errors were not recorded (Riesen, et al.), combined across probes and training (Kurt & Tekin-Iftar), reported only in probes because none occurred in training (Head et al.), or procedures were not clear whether errors were combined or only from training (Tekin & Kircaali-Iftar). Therefore, drawing conclusions about the differences between the two procedures regarding errors would be premature at this point. Thus far, data from previous research shows both prompting procedures effective in teaching skills and neither prompting procedure clearly more efficient. No studies to date, however, have compared these two procedures for young children diagnosed with autism under the age of six. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to compare the constant time delay and simultaneous prompting procedures with young children with autism, and to specifically investigate the differences in errors in both daily probes and teaching sessions.