A Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting and Flexible Prompt Fading in Teaching Autistic Children to Label Stimulus Sets

IF 0.9 4区心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL

Behavioral Interventions Pub Date : 2026-07-06 DOI:10.1002/bin.70126

Angela Fuhrmann-Knowles, Julia Ferguson, Justin B. Leaf, Joseph H. Cihon

{"title":"A Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting and Flexible Prompt Fading in Teaching Autistic Children to Label Stimulus Sets","authors":"Angela Fuhrmann-Knowles, Julia Ferguson, Justin B. Leaf, Joseph H. Cihon","doi":"10.1002/bin.70126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The purpose of this study was to compare simultaneous prompting (SP) to flexible prompt fading (FPF) for teaching three autistic children to label various stimuli. Utilizing a parallel treatments design, three participants were taught to label stimuli (i.e., superheroes, pop stars) selected by their case supervisors. A total of 12 stimuli were taught to participants; six stimuli were assigned to be taught using SP and six stimuli were assigned to be taught using FPF. Effectiveness, efficiency, and maintenance were assessed across both prompting methods. The results indicated that FPF was more effective in terms of total sets mastered across participants. SP was more efficient regarding the total number of sessions and trials to mastery, although results were mixed regarding instructional time per session and total instructional time across stimulus sets. The average maintenance scores for FPF were greater than SP, although results were also found to be idiosyncratic across participants.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47138,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Interventions","volume":"41 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.70126","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare simultaneous prompting (SP) to flexible prompt fading (FPF) for teaching three autistic children to label various stimuli. Utilizing a parallel treatments design, three participants were taught to label stimuli (i.e., superheroes, pop stars) selected by their case supervisors. A total of 12 stimuli were taught to participants; six stimuli were assigned to be taught using SP and six stimuli were assigned to be taught using FPF. Effectiveness, efficiency, and maintenance were assessed across both prompting methods. The results indicated that FPF was more effective in terms of total sets mastered across participants. SP was more efficient regarding the total number of sessions and trials to mastery, although results were mixed regarding instructional time per session and total instructional time across stimulus sets. The average maintenance scores for FPF were greater than SP, although results were also found to be idiosyncratic across participants.

查看原文本刊更多论文

同时提示与灵活提示消退在自闭症儿童标记刺激集教学中的比较

摘要本研究的目的是比较同步提示（SP）和灵活提示褪色（FPF）对三名自闭症儿童标记各种刺激的效果。利用平行治疗设计，三个参与者被教导标记由他们的案例主管选择的刺激（例如，超级英雄，流行明星）。受试者共学习了12种刺激；6个刺激被指定使用SP进行教学，6个刺激被指定使用FPF进行教学。评估了两种提示方法的有效性、效率和维护性。结果表明，FPF在所有参与者掌握的总集合方面更有效。SP在总会话次数和试验次数方面效率更高，尽管在每次会话的教学时间和跨刺激集的总教学时间方面结果好坏参半。FPF的平均维持得分高于SP，尽管结果也被发现在参与者之间是特殊的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Behavioral Interventions PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

20.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Behavioral Interventions aims to report research and practice involving the utilization of behavioral techniques in the treatment, education, assessment and training of students, clients or patients, as well as training techniques used with staff. Behavioral Interventions publishes: (1) research articles, (2) brief reports (a short report of an innovative technique or intervention that may be less rigorous than a research report), (3) topical literature reviews and discussion articles, (4) book reviews.