Effects of the System of Least Prompts on Pretend Play Skills for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Bateman, Katherine J.; Schwartz, Ilene S. (2022). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, v57 n4 p417-429. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1357609
-
examining3Students, gradePK
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2026
- Practice Guide (findings for System of Least Prompts)
- Single Case Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a SCD design where the independent variable is manipulated by the researcher, each outcome is measured systematically over time by multiple assessors with a sufficient number of assessment points and inter-assessor agreement, but there are an insufficient number of phases and/or assessments per phase to meet without 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.
Findings
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please download findings data here.
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: 33%
Male: 67% -
Race Asian 33% Black 33% White 33% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in one preschool classroom that provided intensive instruction to children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The classroom was located in an inclusive preschool center that also served students without disabilities. The authors did not report the geographic location of the preschool center.
Study sample
Participants included three students from one preschool classroom, all of whom were diagnosed with ASD and received educational services through an individualized education program. Two of the students were 4-year-old males and one was a 5-year-old female. One student was White, one was Black, and one was Asian. The study did not report other demographic information.
Intervention Group
One board certified behavior analyst at the doctoral level (BCBA-D) used the system of least prompts (SLP) to teach pretend play skills to each student during one-on-one sessions outside of the classroom. Prior to the SLP sessions, the researchers and teachers developed individualized prompts for each student based on their learning history. These prompts included providing students with a choice of toys, modeling how to play with the toys, physically prompting them to play, and providing positive feedback. During the SLP sessions, the interventionist presented the student with toys. If the student did not engage with the toys within 15 seconds, the interventionist delivered the first prompt to help the student engage with the toys. After the student engaged in the target play behavior, the interventionist immediately copied the student's behaviors and provided behavior-specific praise. Students were then given another 15-seconds to engage independently with the toys before prompting again. Sessions lasted for approximately 5 to 7 minutes. The number of intervention sessions varied by student. Mayah had three sessions, Lee had six sessions, and Gabriel had eight sessions. Immediately following the SLP training, students returned to the play area of their classroom and participated in free choice play activities while intervention data were collected.
Comparison Group
There is no comparison group in single-case designs. In the baseline phase, each student was observed for 5 to 7 minutes during free choice play activities in the designated play area of their classroom. No additional interventions or supports were implemented. The number of baseline sessions varied by student. Mayah had 11 sessions, Lee had eight sessions, and Gabriel had three sessions.
Support for implementation
One board certified behavior analyst at the doctoral level (BCBA-D) delivered the SLP intervention. This interventionist was trained by another BCBA-D, using the evidence-based practice training protocol by Parsons et al. (2012).
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).