A Comparison of Prompt Delays with Trial-and-Error Instruction in Conditional Discrimination Training
A 5-second progressive prompt delay beats constant delays and trial-and-error for teaching conditional discriminations to kids with autism or ID.
01Research in Context
What this study did
O’Neill et al. (2018) compared four ways to teach if-then matching tasks to four children with autism or ID.
Kids tried 2-second constant delay, 5-second constant delay, 5-second progressive delay, and plain trial-and-error in the same day.
The team counted errors and sessions needed to master new picture pairs.
What they found
The 5-second progressive delay won. It gave the fewest wrong answers and took the least time to mastery.
Constant delays and trial-and-error piled up more errors for every learner.
How this fits with other research
O’Neill et al. (2022) ran the same prompt race again, but with expressive labeling. Progressive delay still beat constant delays, showing the 2018 edge holds across tasks.
Mansell et al. (2002) also used a 5-second pause, yet they delayed the correct picture instead of the prompt. Both tricks cut errors, hinting that a mid-trial wait helps learners with ID no matter where you place it.
Peters et al. (2013) asked which error-fix procedure works best. Their pick-before-you-teach rule lines up with O’Neill’s test-first spirit: choose the prompt that keeps kids right from the start.
Why it matters
If you run conditional-discrimination programs, swap your fixed 2- or 5-second prompt delay for a progressive 5-second one. You will see fewer student mistakes and faster mastery, just like O’Neill found in two separate studies. Start tomorrow: set the prompt to wait 0 s, then 2 s, then 3 s, up to 5 s as trials move on.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Begin each new conditional-discrimination set with a 0-s prompt, then add 1 s every three trials until you reach 5 s.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Many prompting procedures exist for teaching skills to individuals with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability; however, direct comparisons between variations of prompt delay are rarely made. Here, we compared three variations of prompt delay (2-s or 5-s constant delay and 5-s progressive delay) alongside trial-and-error instruction. Four learners were taught a conditional discrimination task using a match-to-sample arrangement. Performances were compared using effectiveness and efficiency measures in an adapted alternating treatments design. A procedural modification, in the form of differential reinforcement, was applied to the prompt delay procedure for two of the four participants. With or without this procedural modification, results suggest progressive prompt delay may be effective and the most efficient in reducing learner errors during instruction.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2018 · doi:10.1007/s40617-018-0261-9