The system of least prompts response prompting procedure has a rich history in special education research and practice. Recently, two independent systematic reviews were conducted to determine if the system of least prompts met criteria to be classified as an evidence-based practice. Both reviews used single-case design standards developed by What Works Clearinghouse to evaluate the rigor and effects of studies; however, findings and implications varied significantly across reviews. We examined the data supporting each review and discuss how two reviews on the same topic area using the same standards for evaluating studies could arrive at different conclusions. Results indicate that varying search parameters, visual analysis protocols, and the flexibility allotted by the design standards may have contributed to differences. We discuss the importance of multiple literature reviews on the same topic area with regard to replication research in special education. In addition, we highlight the necessity of open data in such reviews. Finally, we recommend how practitioners and researchers should collectively interpret the differing findings and conclusions from the reviews examining the system of least prompts.

中文翻译：

---

使用 What Works Clearinghouse 单案例设计标准分析两个独立系统审查之间的差异

最少提示响应提示程序系统在特殊教育研究和实践中有着丰富的历史。最近，进行了两项独立的系统审查，以确定最少提示系统是否符合被归类为循证实践的标准。两项审查均使用 What Works Clearinghouse 开发的单案例设计标准来评估研究的严谨性和效果；然而，审查结果和影响差异很大。我们检查了支持每条评论的数据，并讨论了使用相同标准评估研究的同一主题领域的两篇评论如何得出不同的结论。结果表明，不同的搜索参数、视觉分析协议和设计标准分配的灵活性可能导致了差异。我们讨论了关于特殊教育复制研究的同一主题领域的多篇文献综述的重要性。此外，我们强调在此类审查中开放数据的必要性。最后，我们建议从业者和研究人员应如何共同解释审查最少提示系统的评论中的不同发现和结论。