Recent research on the high‐probability instructional sequence: A brief review

Lipschultz et al. (2017) read every high-probability sequence study from the past twenty years. They pulled out tips on how many easy requests to give, how fast to give them, and what to do when it stops working.

The paper is a narrative review, not a meta-analysis. It sums up what practitioners have tried and what still needs testing.

The review says the high-p sequence still works, but only if you tune it to the learner. Some kids need three warm-ups, others need eight. Some need a bite of cookie after each easy task, others are fine with praise.

If the child stalls, add more high-p trials or better reinforcers. If the child rushes, drop the number of warm-ups and slow your pace.

Boudreau et al. (2015) showed that praise alone is not enough; the easy requests must earn real reinforcement. That backs the review’s point about tailoring reinforcer quality.

Green et al. (2020) looked only at feeding disorders. They found high-p helps at mealtime, but the evidence is still too thin to call it evidence-based. The review covers this gap and urges more studies.

Lipschultz et al. (2017) ran their own lab study the same year and saw zero benefit from the high-p sequence. This seems like a contradiction, but the lab used free toys and no contingent payoff. The review stresses that without earned reinforcement, the sequence fails—so the two papers actually agree.

You can start Monday with three quick, easy tasks the learner already loves. Deliver a bite, sip, or token right after each one. Then give the hard request. If compliance dips, add more high-p trials or swap in a stronger reinforcer before you blame the procedure.