ABA Fundamentals

A preliminary comparison of guided compliance and high-probability instructional sequences as treatment for noncompliance in children with developmental disabilities.

Smith et al. (1999) · Research in developmental disabilities 1999
★ The Verdict

Guided compliance beats high-p sequences for quick child compliance, but high-p can catch up if each easy request earns solid reinforcement.

✓ Read this if BCBAs training parents of young children with developmental delays who want a low-verbal, low-tech compliance plan.
✗ Skip if Clinicians already using full token economies or who work where physical guidance is restricted.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Parents tried two ways to get their kids to listen. One way was guided compliance: gently help the child do the task right after the request. The other way was the high-probability sequence: ask the child to do three easy things first, then give the hard request.

The kids had developmental delays. The study flipped between the two ways every day so each child tried both. Parents learned both methods and used them at home.

02

What they found

Guided compliance won. Kids followed more requests when parents used gentle physical help right away. The high-p sequence still worked, just not as well.

Parents did both methods correctly and said they liked each one the same.

03

How this fits with other research

Lipschultz et al. (2017) later saw zero gain from high-p sequences. They did not add real reinforcement for the easy tasks, so the kids had no reason to stay with the program. McConkey et al. (1999) did not test reinforcement size, which may explain the gap.

Boudreau et al. (2015) showed high-p only helps when the easy tasks earn strong reinforcement such as edibles. Praise alone failed. Their finding tightens the R et al. picture: high-p can work, but only if you pay off the early responses.

Waldron et al. (2023) moved high-p into autism classrooms and got good initiation. They paired the sequence with teacher praise plus tokens, matching the reinforcement rule from Boudreau et al. (2015).

Bullock et al. (2006) ran a similar switch-back design and found both high-p and fixed-time free toys lifted compliance. Taken together, the story is: guided compliance is steady and does not need extra prizes, while high-p can work if you supply strong reinforcers.

04

Why it matters

If you need fast compliance and can give hands-on help, choose guided compliance. It outperforms high-p and needs no extra rewards. Save high-p for times when physical help is hard, like in public or with bigger kids, and always back the easy requests with real reinforcement such as small edibles or tokens. Teach parents both tools so they can swap as the setting changes.

FREE CEUs

Get CEUs on This Topic — Free

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.

60+ on-demand CEUs (ethics, supervision, general)
New live CEU every Wednesday
Community of 500+ BCBAs
100% free to join
Join The ABA Clubhouse — Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Try guided compliance first: give the request, wait three seconds, then calmly help the child finish the task; count how many times you need to help across ten trials.

02At a glance

Intervention
other
Design
alternating treatments
Sample size
2
Population
developmental delay
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

The efficacy of guided compliance and high-probability instructional sequences was compared with two children referred to an outpatient clinic for treatment of noncompliance. Parents were taught to implement the procedures in their homes, and parent-training outcomes for the two interventions were compared in terms of treatment effectiveness, procedural integrity, and parent satisfaction. Levels of compliance were higher under guided compliance than under high-probability instructional sequences. Nevertheless, parents rapidly learned to implement both treatments with a high degree of accuracy and reported equal satisfaction with the procedures.

Research in developmental disabilities, 1999 · doi:10.1016/s0891-4222(99)00002-5