Evaluating Efficacy and Preference for Prompt Type During Discrete-Trial Teaching.

Markham et al. (2020) compared three prompt types during receptive ID lessons for three boys with autism. They used an alternating-treatments design so each boy got gesture, model, and physical prompts across the same targets.

The team measured how fast each boy mastered new pictures and then asked which prompt he liked best.

Physical prompts won. Two boys mastered the pictures fastest with hand-over-hand help. The third boy learned equally fast with all prompts.

When the boys could pick, all three chose physical prompts. Gesture and modeling were never the favorite.

Frank-Crawford et al. (2024) scoping review shows DTT works, but most studies skip prompt details. Victoria adds the missing piece: prompt type changes speed and the learner cares.

Timberlake et al. (1987) also compared prompts with students with ID and found data-driven sequences saved trials. Victoria echoes that idea: pick the prompt that works fastest, not the one that feels nicest to staff.

Xue et al. (2024) and the 2016 delay papers (A et al., Majdalany et al.) warn that even small timing slips hurt learning. Victoria keeps timing equal and shows prompt form still matters.

If a child stalls during receptive ID, try a quick physical prompt first. It may cut sessions and the child probably likes it better anyway. Keep the prompt brief, fade fast, and watch for independence. One small change can save you and the learner time tomorrow.