An Analysis of Modifications to the Three‐step Guided Compliance Procedure Necessary to Achieve Compliance Among Preschool Children

Abstract

After a 3-step guided compliance procedure (vocal prompt, vocal plus model prompt, vocal prompt plus physical guidance) did not increase compliance, we evaluated 2 modifications with 4 preschool children who exhibited noncompliance. The first modification consisted of omission of the model prompt, and the second modification consisted of omitting the model prompt and decreasing the interprompt interval from 10 s to 5 s. Each of the modifications effectively increased compliance for 1 participant. For the remaining 2 participants, neither modification was effective; differential reinforcement in the form of contingent access to a preferred edible item was necessary to increase compliance. Problem behavior varied across participants, but was generally higher during guided compliance conditions and lower during differential reinforcement conditions.

Further analysis of modifications to the three‐step guided compliance procedure to enhance compliance among children with autism

“…This modification to the guided compliance procedure, along with the two previously documented modifications (Wilder et al, 2012), might enable practitioners to customize their interventions for noncompliance. Practitioners might begin with the standard guided compliance procedure.…”

“…In other cases, modifications to the structure of the guided‐compliance sequence have resulted in increased effectiveness after the standard three‐step procedure was ineffective. Wilder et al (2012) evaluated two modifications to the procedure to enhance its effectiveness among four typically developing preschool children. First, the researchers omitted the model prompt; this modification increased compliance for one of the four participants.…”

Withdrawal Versus Reversal: A Necessary Distinction?

“…Although there are instances of the use of the term withdrawal as originally elucidated by Leitenberg, most empirical investigations using the term reversal design do not conform to the original definition. When describing and evaluating the effects of the systematic presentation and removal of an environmental condition on behavior, many researchers use the term reversal, rather than the term that would more correctly meet that procedural description, withdrawal (e.g., Borrero, Bartels‐Meints, Sy, & Francisco, ; Wilder, Myers, Fishetti, Leon, Nicholson, & Allison, ). Of the 237 studies examined in this literature review, 166 (70%) used the term reversal to describe any design characterized by the repeated interruption of steady state responding.…”

A method to establish stimulus control and compliance with instructions

“…Several interventions have been used to improve compliance, including positive reinforcement of compliance (Parrish, Cataldo, Kolko, Neef & Egel, ; Russo, Cataldo & Cushing, ); timeout (Rortvedt & Milenberger, 1994); spanking (Forehand & McMahon, ); social punishment (Doleys, Wells, Hobbs, Roberts & Cartelli, ); escape extinction (Zarcone, Iwata, Mazaleski & Smith, ); the high‐probability instructional sequence (Austin & Agar, ; Davis, Brady, Hamilton, McEvoy, & Williams, ; Mace et al ); graduated guided compliance (Wilder et al, ); a package of antecedent interventions (proximity, posture, eye contact, attention and response interruption; Stephenson & Hanley, ); and video self‐modeling (Axelrod, Bellini & Markoff, ), among others. Although these interventions have been shown to improve compliance, and none has significant limitations, some can be time consuming to implement or impractical (e.g., video self‐modeling requires multiple video clips to be made of the child that capture the child being compliant in multiple contexts and video viewing prior to evaluation of the intervention; Axelrod et al, ).…”

“…& Williams, 1994; Mace et al 1988); graduated guided compliance (Wilder et al, 2012); a package of antecedent interventions (proximity, posture, eye contact, attention and response interruption; Stephenson & Hanley, 2010); and video self-modeling (Axelrod, Bellini & Markoff, 2014), among others. Although these interventions have been shown to improve compliance, and none has significant limitations, some can be time consuming to implement or impractical (e.g., video self-modeling requires multiple video clips to be made of the child that capture the child being compliant in multiple contexts and video viewing prior to evaluation of the intervention; Axelrod et al, 2014).…”