Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting and Constant Time Delay Procedures in Teaching Children with Autism the Responses to Questions about Personal Information

Academic journal article Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri

Comparison of Simultaneous Prompting and Constant Time Delay Procedures in Teaching Children with Autism the Responses to Questions about Personal Information

Article excerpt

Despite the fact that scientific studies on the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been conducted for half a century, there are still various topics that have not yet been explained. A huge variety of researchers from diverse fields such as medicine, psychology, and education have studied ASD. As a result of these studies, individuals that are diagnosed with ASD have been provided with various services with diverse characteristics. However, many of the studies conducted in this field unfortunately lack a scientific basis (Kurt, 2012a). This has created the need to identify procedures that are proven through experimental studies in terms of their effectiveness. With the aim of determining effective procedures used in the field of ASD, experimental studies published in this field have been analyzed and the results of research compilation studies have been published (National Autism Center [NAC], 2009; Wong et al., 2013).

One of the procedures that has been proven in terms of its effectiveness through various studies, and identified to be evidence-based in research compilation study reports, is prompting (Odom, Collet-Klingenberg, Rogers, & Hatton, 2010; Wong et al., 2013). The CTD and SP are listed among the effective procedures that are frequently used in teaching various skills to the individuals with ASD and developmental disabilities with the aim of presenting them prompts in a systematic way.

The CTD is a teaching procedure that consists of two phases, which are 0-second delay trials and constant delay trials. In the first phase of this teaching procedure, there are sessions where 0-second delay trials are performed. In these sessions, a target stimulus and controlling prompt are presented simultaneously. Following the 0-second delay procedure that is performed as many times as planned, the controlling prompt is presented upon waiting for a certain period following the target stimulus. A delay period is presented in order to provide the child with the opportunity to respond to the target stimuli independently (Browder & Snell, 2000; Kurt, 2009; Tekin-Iftar, Kurt, & Çetin, 2011). There are two types of time delay teaching procedures: constant time delay (CTD) and progressive time delay (PTD). In the constant time delay procedure, a constant time period (i.e. 4 seconds) of wait is allowed for the individual to respond after the target stimulus is presented. In the progressive time delay procedure, the delay period is progressively increased. For instance, a 2 second time delay is allowed at the beginning after the target stimulus is presented, which is followed by 4 and 6 seconds of delay periods, respectively, in order to present the prompt (Kurt, 2102a; Tekin, 1999; Wolery, Bailey, & Sugai, 1988).

There are various studies that have indicated the effectiveness of the CTD procedure in teaching the individuals from various age and disability groups including individuals with autism. Learning the names of capital cities (Head, Collins, Schuster, & Ault, 2011), learning the names of animals and clothes (Tekin-Iftar et al., 2011), reading words (Gast, Ault, Wolery, Doyle, & Belanger, 1988), and recognizing informative boards (Yildirim & Tekin-Iftar, 2002) could be listed as examples for discrete skills that could be taught through the CTD procedure. Aquatic play skills (Yilmaz, Birkan, Konukman, & Erkan, 2005), preparing food and drinks (Bozkurt & Gursel, 2005), shopping skills (Dippi-Hoy & Jitendra, 2004), and free-time skills (Kurt & Tekin-Iftar, 2008) could be listed as examples for chained skills that could be taught through constant time delay procedures.

Within the SP, which comes next after CTD in the literature, the controlling prompt is presented immediately after the target stimulus. Since the controlling prompt is presented in every trial, individuals are not allowed to respond independently within the SP procedure. Therefore, whether the stimulus control transfer could shiftfrom the controlling prompt towards the discriminative stimulus could be understood through the probe sessions (Kurt, 2009; Morse & Schuster, 2004; Tekin-Iftar & Kircaali-Iftar, 2013). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.