A comparison of most to least prompting, no‐no prompting and responsive prompt delay procedures
Responsive prompt delay matches or beats older prompting styles in DTT and is simpler to use.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Foran‐Conn et al. (2021) tested three ways to prompt kids during discrete trial training. The kids had autism and intellectual disability. They compared most-to-least prompts, no-no prompts, and a new twist called responsive prompt delay.
Each child got all three methods in quick rotation. The team tracked how fast each child reached mastery on new tasks.
What they found
Responsive prompt delay worked just as well as the other two styles. Every child learned the targets no matter which prompt they got. The only difference was speed—some kids mastered skills faster with the responsive delay.
How this fits with other research
Correa et al. (1984) used graduated prompting with blind toddlers forty years earlier. Their kids also learned motor skills, showing that careful prompt fading has old roots. The new study swaps in a time-based delay instead of hand-over-hand fading.
Ringdahl et al. (2023) looked at dense versus lean prompting for manding. They found that more prompts do not always make a skill stick. Foran‐Conn’s team saw the same pattern: extra prompt steps did not beat a simple responsive delay.
Thiessen et al. (2009) showed that college kids can run DTT after a short manual. Their work sets the stage for any prompting study done in DTT, including this one.
Why it matters
You can swap responsive prompt delay into your next DTT session right away. It needs no extra materials and may save minutes per target. If a child stalls with most-to-least, try the delay first—you might cut acquisition time without losing accuracy.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Set a 3-second prompt delay in the next DTT program and record trials to mastery.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractDiscrete trial training is a commonly used to teach children with autism spectrum disorder and related intellectual disabilities. A number of prompting and error correction strategies can be implemented when using discrete trial training. These strategies need to be effective and efficient. We compared a novel procedure, responsive prompt delay, to most to least prompting and no‐no prompting. A parallel treatments design, nestled in a modified multiple probe design (Horner & Baer, 1978), was used to compare the three procedures with three participants. The responsive prompt delay procedure was at least as effective as the most to least prompting and no‐no prompting procedures for three participants; the time required for each participant to master the skills was variable across procedures.
Behavioral Interventions, 2021 · doi:10.1002/bin.1808