Effects of exposure to prompts on the acquisition of intraverbals in children with autism spectrum disorder

Kay et al. (2020) asked a simple question: does the last prompt you used change how fast a child learns the next skill?

They worked with four autistic kids . Each child got intraverbal questions like “What flies?” while the team switched between two prompt types: echoic (the adult said “bird”) or tact (the adult showed a picture of a bird).

The design flipped the prompt every other day. They counted how many trials each child needed to answer without help.

The prompt used the day before won. If yesterday used echoic prompts, today the child mastered the new set faster with echoic prompts. If yesterday used tact prompts, tact prompts won today.

All four kids showed the same swing. The difference was large—up to a large share fewer trials when the prompt matched recent history.

Galtress et al. (2012) already showed echoic plus error correction beats tact-only for intraverbals. Kay’s team keeps that result but adds a twist: the “best” prompt can flip based on what the child just experienced.

Reed (2023) seems to disagree. That study found prior verbal feedback hurts autistic kids when they must shift rules. The clash disappears when you look at the task: Kay taught new answers, Phil tested switching rules. Words help acquisition but can gum up flexibility.

Hewett et al. (2024) fill another gap. When tact training alone fails to create intraverbals, adding multiple-exemplar instruction finishes the job. Kay gives you a way to speed up either path—just prime the prompt type you plan to use.

You no longer need to pick one “best” prompt forever. Rotate echoic and tact prompts across days and each stays efficient. Before a new intraverbal set, use the prompt you want to keep using—your learner will reach mastery faster and you will save sessions.