Skibo, Holly; Mims, Pamela; Spooner, Fred (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, v46 n1 p124-133. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ915099
Reviewed: December 2017
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.
To view more detailed information about the study findings from this review, please see System of Least Prompts Intervention Report (236 KB)
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in two classrooms for students with severe disabilities in an urban public school in the southeastern United States. Allison and Vicki were in one classroom together, and Josh was in another classroom.
This study included three students (Allison, Josh, and Vicki) with severe disabilities. Allison was a 10-year-old girl with severe intellectual disability and an IQ of less than 20. Josh was a 7-year-old boy described as having “multiple disabilities” and an IQ of 44. Vicki was an 8-year-old girl described as having “multiple disabilities” and an IQ of less than 20.
The interventionists in the study included two classroom teachers. Within each classroom, the teacher asked students in a small group to identify numbers between one and five. The target student (within the group) was given 5 seconds to make an attempt to answer the question by raising the correct card with the number the teacher requested. When a student answered the question correctly, the teacher would praise the student. Each session consisted of 15 trials offering numerals 1–5 three times each to the targeted student. In the intervention sessions, the teacher used SLP, which was called “the least to most prompting system” by study authors, to help the students when they did not provide a correct independent response. If the student started to lift an incorrect response card, the teacher would block the student’s response and redirect the student to the correct answer. If the student offered no response within 5 seconds, the teacher would move to a verbal prompt of “find the number that matches mine” and again wait another 5 seconds. If there was still no answer, the teacher would ask the question again, point to the correct answer, and wait 5 seconds for the student to respond. If there was still no correct answer, the teacher would point again to the correct number, tell the student that the number matched the teacher’s number, and provide a descriptive response about the correct answer, such as “My card has two balloons, one, two, and this card that you have has the number two, so this is the correct answer.” The intervention condition included 22, 11, and 10 sessions for Allison, Josh, and Vicki, respectively. The intervention continued until the students provided 11 out of 15 correct responses for four consecutive sessions.
During baseline sessions, the teacher asked students in a small group to identify numbers between one and five. The target student was given 5 seconds to answer the question by raising the correct card without any assistance. Praise was offered after 5 seconds for any effort made. Baseline sessions continued for all students until the first student in the experiment had stable data for three consecutive 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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube