Discrete‐trial teaching: A scoping review

Frank-Crawford and team read every DTT paper they could find. They kept 82 studies that taught new skills to people with disabilities.

They asked three simple questions. Does DTT teach the skill right away? Do the skills last? Do they matter to the client or family?

Yes, DTT almost always worked for first-time learning. Kids and adults mastered the targeted skill in nearly every paper.

But only a handful of studies checked if the skill lasted weeks later. Even fewer asked parents, 'Is this useful for you?'

Aherne et al. (2019) tracked staff DTT accuracy for two months. One staff kept 100 % correct moves; two lost skill and needed a short self-check sheet. The scoping review and the single-case study point to the same hole: we rarely watch maintenance.

Slater et al. (2020) ran a big RCT with toddlers. Mild-symptom kids learned more at 25 hrs/wk; severe-symptom kids learned the same at 15 hrs. The scoping review pools many dose studies like this, showing DTT works, but still flags scant follow-up data.

Linstead et al. (2017) found higher weekly hours plus longer months predict bigger language gains. Their large-N data set is one of the few the scoping review could find that links dose to lasting benefit, again highlighting how unusual long-term checks are.

DTT is a solid teaching engine, yet most trials stop at the finish line. Add two quick probes: test the skill next month and ask the parent if they care. These two minutes turn a good program into a program that lasts and matters.