Obtaining assistance when lost in the community using cell phones.
Taber, T. A., Alberto, P. A., Seltzer, A., & Hughes, M. (2003). Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(3), 105–116.
-
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% -
Rural, Suburban
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in a rural secondary school and a suburban secondary school in the United States, within students’ classrooms and other parts of their schools.
Study sample
This study included three students (Natalie, Jennifer, and Doug), described as Group A in the original study, with intellectual disability. Natalie was a 14-year-old girl with an IQ of 44 measured with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Revised (WISC-R). She was able to interact with peers and adults, read sight words, and perform daily living skills. Jennifer was a 16-year-old girl with an IQ of 45 on the WISC-R. She was “very vocal” and took part in general education science and physical education classes. Doug was a 15-year-old boy with an IQ of 41 on the WISC-R. He was able to have conversations with others, read sight words, and follow directions, including verbal and visual prompts and recipes. The study also included a single-case design experiment for another group of students, described as Group B, but their experiment did not meet WWC pilot single-case design standards because the measure of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the SLP intervention.
Intervention
The intervention involved teaching students to answer a ringing phone, pretend they were lost, and use the phone to report their location. This task involved 10 specific steps, such as turning on the phone and describing one’s location and surroundings. The interventionists for the study included a university faculty member and a graduate student who were familiar with the classroom teachers and students. In order to help students move through the steps, the interventionists used an SLP intervention, referred to as “least to most prompting” by study authors, which consisted of five levels of prompting (independent, verbal, verbal plus gesture, verbal plus model, and verbal plus physical guidance). For each student, the intervention continued until he or she completed at least 80% of the tasks correctly for three sessions in a row.
Comparison
Prior to the baseline phase, students were taught how to identify that they were lost. During the baseline sessions, students were asked to answer a ringing phone, pretend they were lost, and use the phone to report their location. No teacher prompting was provided.
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).