Evaluating three methods of the presentation of target stimuli when teaching receptive labels
Shuffle card positions every trial—kids master receptive labels faster without a fixed left-to-right order.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Wong et al. (2020) tested three ways to show picture cards when teaching receptive labels. They used an alternating-treatments design with three children with autism. Each child got the same set of pictures, but the order of the cards changed across methods.
What they found
The 'unconstrained rotation' method won. Cards moved freely across trials, and kids reached mastery faster. Fixed left-to-right or right-to-left orders slowed learning.
How this fits with other research
Bergmann et al. (2021) ran a direct replication and saw the same thing: free card placement beat rigid order. Both studies used the same design, same kids, same goal.
Koegel et al. (2014) looked at a different twist. They compared 'simple-conditional' steps with a 'conditional-only' array. They also found that skipping fixed steps saved time. The pattern is clear: fewer rules, faster learning.
Grindle et al. (2002) and O'Reilly et al. (2004) showed that adding a quick 'good!' cue right after the answer also speeds mastery. Wong’s free rotation plus their cue tactic could stack gains.
Why it matters
Next time you run receptive label trials, drop the left-to-right habit. Shuffle the cards so the correct spot changes every trial. It costs nothing and cuts mastery time. Pair it with a brief praise cue for an extra boost.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Set out three picture cards in a new order each trial; no need to keep the target on the left.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractPractice recommendations related to using discrete trial teaching (DTT) to teach receptive labels (i.e., auditory–visual conditional discriminations) for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have included the use of counterbalancing. Counterbalancing involves two major components: (a) ensuring that each stimulus in the set is targeted an equal number of times within each trial block and (b) rotating the stimuli in the array in a manner that evenly distributes the stimuli within the array in each position across a trial block. The purpose of the present study was to compare three varying approaches to the order and number of presentations of target stimuli (i.e., predetermined, constrained, and unconstrained) during a receptive language task using an adapted alternating treatment design with three individuals diagnosed with ASD. The results indicated that, for the three participants, the unconstrained condition was the most efficacious, followed by the constrained condition, and the predetermined condition was the least efficacious with respect to average sessions to reach the mastery criterion. The implications of the results with respect to best practices using DTT to teach receptive language are discussed.
Behavioral Interventions, 2020 · doi:10.1002/bin.1744