Abstract
Prompting procedures are effective for teaching skills, but limited comparative data exist to guide practitioners to select the best procedures for individuals. This study compared efficiency of two prompting procedures—constant time delay (CTD) and system of least prompts (SLP)—to teach expressive identification of 32 targets to 10 preschoolers with and without disabilities. To assess efficiency differences between conditions and analyze changes in learning over time, we used adapted alternating treatments designs in the measurement context of cumulative records. CTD was more efficient for five children, SLP was more efficient for three children, and results were inconclusive for two children. We measured children’s choices between procedures via simultaneous treatments designs, to assess child preference and whether preferences and efficiency aligned. Preference outcomes were mixed and did not consistently align with efficiency. We used exploratory analyses to assess whether child characteristics moderated outcomes. Children for whom CTD was more efficient had significantly fewer sessions to mastery, non-significantly fewer errors, and non-significantly higher developmental assessment scores, compared to children for whom SLP was more efficient.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., Doyle, P. M., & Eizenstat, V. (1988). Comparison of response prompting procedures in teaching numeral identification to autistic subjects. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 627–636.
Bennett, D. L., Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. (1986). Time delay and system of least prompts: A comparison in teaching manual sign production. Education & Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21, 117–129.
Cengher, M., Budd, A., Farrell, N., & Fienup, D. (2018). A review of prompt-fading procedures: Implications for effective and efficient skill acquisition. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 30, 155–173.
DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.
Doyle, P. M., Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Ault, M. J. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching preschoolers with developmental delays. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 11, 1–22.
Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Belanger, S. (1988). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching sight word reading to students with moderate retardation. Education & Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 117–128.
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2018). Research approaches in applied settings. In J. R. Ledford & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 1–26). New York, NY: Routledge.
Godby, S., Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1987). A comparison of time delay and system of least prompts in teaching object identification. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 283–305.
Ledford, J. R., Chazin, K. T., Gagnon, K. L., Lord, A. K., Turner, V. R., & Zimmerman, K. N. (2019a). A systematic review of instructional comparisons in single case research. Remedial and Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519855059.
Ledford, J. R., Chazin, K. T., Harbin, E. R., & Ward, S. E. (2017). Massed trials versus trials embedded into game play: Child outcomes and preference. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 37, 107–120.
Ledford, J. R., Lane, J. D., & Barton, E. E. (2019b). Methods for teaching in early education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ledford, J. R., Lane, J. D., & Severini, K. E. (2018). Systematic use of visual analysis for assessing outcomes in single case design studies. Brain Impairment, 19, 4–17.
Ledford, J. R., Lane, J. D., Zimmerman, K. N., Chazin, K. T., & Ayres, K. A. (2016). Single case analysis and review framework (SCARF). Retrieved from https://ebip.vkcsites.org/scarf/.
Ledford, J. R., & Wolery, M. (2013). Peer modeling of academic and social behaviors during small group instruction. Exceptional Children, 79, 439–458.
Lord, A. K., Ledford, J. R., & Shin, P. (2019). The effects of a progressive time delay procedure in increasing varied responding for preschool-aged children. Poster session presented at the Women in Behavior Analysis 3rd Annual Conference.
Shepley, C., Ault, M. J., Ortiz, K., Vogler, J. C., & Mcgee, M. (2019a). An exploratory analysis of quality indicators in adapted alternating treatments designs. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education.
Shepley, C., Lane, J. D., & Ault, M. J. (2019b). A review and critical examination of the system of least prompts. Remedial and Special Education, 40, 313–327.
Walker, G. (2008). Constant and progressive time delay procedures for teaching children with autism: A literature review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 261–275.
Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2018). Comparison designs. In J. R. Ledford & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 283–334). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wolery, M., Griffen, A. K., Ault, M. J., Gast, D. L., & Doyle, P. M. (1990). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching chained tasks. Education & Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 243–257.
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Cybriwsky, C., Doyle, P. M., Schuster, J. W., Ault, M. J., et al. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 239–266.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Priscilla Shin, Catherine C. Simpson, Megan Harden, Maeve E. Hasselman, Anne K. Lord, Virginia R. Turner, Kari L. Gagnon, Anne M. Riedlinger, and Georgia E. Pace for their contributions to implementation and data collection. We would like to thank Erin E. Barton for her feedback on a draft of this manuscript.
Funding
We have received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights
All procedures performed in studies involving human children were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chazin, K.T., Ledford, J.R. Constant Time Delay and System of Least Prompts: Efficiency and Child Preference. J Behav Educ 30, 684–707 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09396-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-020-09396-0