Evaluating the Effects of a Video Prompt in a System of Least Prompts Procedure
Smith, Katie A.; Ayres, Kevin M.; Mechling, Linda C.; Alexander, Jennifer L.; Mataras, Theologia K.; Shepley, Sally B. (2015). Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, v38 n1 p39-49. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1055928
-
examining3Students
System of Least Prompts Intervention Report
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2017
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for System of Least Prompts.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see System of Least Prompts Intervention Report (236 KB)
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 67%
Male: 33%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in an office on the campus of a public high school in the United States.
Study sample
This study included three students (Daniel, Karen, and Teresa) with intellectual disability. Daniel, a 20-year-old male, had Down syndrome and moderate intellectual disability; his IQ was not provided by the study authors. Karen, an 18-year-old female, had moderate intellectual disability and an IQ of 41, according to the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Teresa, an 18-year-old female, had severe intellectual disability and an IQ of 30, according to the Leiter International Performance Scale–Revised.
Intervention
Three separate multiple probe design experiments (one for each student) were used to measure the effectiveness of SLP across three office-related tasks: organizing a binder, collating and stapling papers, and preparing a letter. To assist students to successfully complete these tasks, the SLP intervention used a series of three prompts: 1) a verbal prompt, 2) a video prompt, which involved visual modeling of the task on an iPhone, and 3) a physical prompt. The interventionist for the study was a researcher who had visited the students’ classroom several times prior to the study. The researcher gave the instruction to begin the task and waited 5 seconds. If the participant did not begin the step, completed the step incorrectly, or took more than 10 seconds to complete the step, the researcher gave a prompt. The researcher provided verbal praise after each independent correct response. Once the participant had achieved 100% correct independent responses for one session, praise was “thinned” and given on an average of every third independent correct response during each session. Then it was further thinned and only provided at the end of the task. The intervention sessions took place in the morning for 10 to 20 minutes for each student. The number of intervention sessions ranged from 5 to 11, depending on the time that the students took to reach the criteria.
Comparison
During baseline sessions, students were directed to complete each specific step required to organize a binder, collate and staple papers, or prepare a letter. If a student did not begin the step within 5 seconds, incorrectly completed a step, or did not complete the step within 10 seconds, the researcher would block the student’s view of the task with a divider and complete that step, then remove the divider and instruct the student to complete the next step. The researcher gave verbal praise for each independent correct response, but no prompts were provided during these sessions.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).