Association for Behavior Analysis International

Two components of discrete trial teaching (DTT) that have garnered attention of researchers and practitioners alike are prompting strategies and stimulus order and placement of stimuli. This attention has resulted in recommendations for best practice and comparative research. Despite the increase in research and publication of best practice recommendations, numerous questions still require empirical research. This symposium includes two papers which examine the conditions under which DTT is most effective and efficient to teach receptive and expressive language skills. The first presentation discusses the comparison of two different prompting procedures to teach expressive labels for individuals diagnosed with ASD. The second presentation explores effects of stimulus order and placement as it relates to the acquisition of receptive labels for individuals diagnosed with ASD. 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.

Multiple prompting systems are available to the practitioner to teach expressive labels. Comparative studies provide the practitioner with information about the strengths and weaknesses of different prompting systems. This information can be invaluable when selecting a system that may work the best for each learner. This study compared the relative effectiveness and efficiency of no-no prompting to flexible prompt fading (FPF) for teaching expressive labels for children diagnosed with ASD. An adapted alternating treatment design was used to compare the two procedures and a concurrent chains schedule was used to assess the participants preference for the two procedures. The results are discussed in the context of practice and future research directions.

Some have recommended counterbalancing the array of stimuli (i.e., target and non-target stimuli) and the order of targets when using discrete trial teaching to teach receptive labels (e.g., Grow & LeBlanc, 2013). Although this method of counterbalancing has been referred to as best practice (Grow & LeBlanc, 2013, p. 58), it remains unclear if counterbalancing leads to improved learning, maintenance, and/or generalization. The present study compared the acquisition of receptive labels across three teaching conditions (i.e., counterbalance, fixed, and teachers choice). The counterbalanced condition consisted of arranging the stimuli based on best practice recommendations (Grow & LeBlanc, 2013, p. 58). The fixed condition consisted of leaving the stimuli stationary throughout each teaching session. The teachers choice condition consisted of arranging the stimuli however the teacher chose. An alternating treatment design was used to evaluate the effects of each teaching condition across five children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The results are discussed in the context of practice and future research directions.