A Review and Critical Examination of the System of Least Prompts

Abstract

We systematically reviewed more than 25 years of applied research examining the system of least prompts response prompting procedure with individuals with disabilities. We identified 123 peer-reviewed studies including 413 participants receiving instruction with the system of least prompts. A total of 252 experimental designs were evaluated, with 51 designs indicating a functional relation and the presence of 154 demonstrations of effect across 91 individuals. Our data indicate that the system of least prompts is an evidenced-based practice for teaching chained responses related to community, self-care, and vocational skills to individuals with moderate intellectual disability who are 13 years of age or older. In addition, we present and discuss a method for analyzing and aggregating data from single-case studies to account for noneffects and publication bias when identifying if an intervention meets standards as an evidence-based practice.

Least-to-Most Prompting in Teaching Social Interaction and Communication Skills to Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review

“…Nearly a half of the studies (n = 16) was conducted in school (e.g., Barton, 2015;Charlop & Greenberg, 2009;Hansen et al, 2019), five at home (e.g., Armendariz & Hahs, 2019), two in both home and class (Cannella-Malone et al, 2010;Van Der Meer et al, 2013). Similarly, Shepley et al (2019) found that most of 123 studies were conducted in school settings. Fewer number of studies was conducted in community or home setting.…”

“…Future meta-analysis studies can be conducted to calculate and compare the effect sizes of the intervention. In literature, LTM is commonly used and suggested as an effective method to teach various skills to the individuals with ASD at different ages and genders although the number of errors and incorrect responses may be higher compared to the other errorless teaching methods (e.g., Barton & Wolery, 2008;Shepley et al, 2019). Thus, teachers or implementers who work with the individuals with ASD can employ LTM considering such parameters as student characteristics to teach various skills.…”

“…To our knowledge, there are only three review studies that include studies on LTM (Ault et al, 1989;Doyle et al, 1988;Shepley, Lane & Ault, 2019). Doyle et al (1988) evaluated studies that employed LTM in teaching procedure while Ault et al (1989) analyzed studies that compared different interventions for individuals with moderate and severe disabilities and that included LTM.…”

“…Doyle et al (1988) evaluated studies that employed LTM in teaching procedure while Ault et al (1989) analyzed studies that compared different interventions for individuals with moderate and severe disabilities and that included LTM. In this sense, only Shepley et al (2019) focused on 123 peer-reviewed studies published between 1988-2016 on LTM which were identified through a database search on PsycInfo, ERIC and Medline by using relevant keywords. They examined the studies by participant characteristics, setting, LTM usage, effectiveness, efficacy and evidence-based criteria.…”

Manipulating Algebra: Comparing Concrete and Virtual Algebra Tiles for Students with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

“…Researchers used the SLP during the intervention phase when participants completed a step incorrectly or failed to initiate a step of the task analysis within 10 seconds of the previous step. Researchers used a hierarchy of prompts which included gesture prompt, indirect verbal prompt, direct verbal prompt, and model prompt (Shepley et al, 2019). A gesture prompt included pointing or motioning toward the problem or the part of the problem where the participant made an error (Shepley et al, 2019).…”